Q: Your Excellency, the ongoing crisis in Ukraine seems to have taken its toll on the relationship between the European Union and Russia. How would you assess the current stage and the future of relations?
A: Russia and the EU are long-standing partners inextricably bound together by numerous ties, including those of mutual economic dependency. Trade is flourishing. Over the past two decades we managed to expand trade volumes tenfold, trading goods at the level of about 1 bln. euros a day. In 2013 the EU remained Russia’s prime trading partner, accounting for 49,4% of our country’s foreign trade. Conversely, in terms of the EU’s foreign trade partners Russia ranks third after the US and China. This economic “safety cushion” provides jobs and growth across the European continent and helps to insulate our countries from political tensions. It needs to be preserved and reinforced.
Moreover, Russia-EU relationship by far transcends a purely pragmatic exchange of goods and services. Our countries are fused together through common historical heritage, rooted in a collective matrix of culture, language and tradition. Our responsibility for the future of Europe is a shared one. Thus, in my opinion, there is no alternative to resuming our work on constructing a durable long-term partnership based on the premises of equality and mutual benefit.
Throughout the recent decade Russia put forward multiple initiatives aimed at strengthening bonds of cooperation across the European continent, such as signing a Treaty on European Security, reforming the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe as well as creating a pan-European economic and humanitarian space. Hopefully, the current setback in our relations may eventually prove to have served as a “moment of truth” in revitalizing the concept of a Europe whole and free from dividing lines.
However, first Russia and the EU need to jointly deal with the crisis unfolding in our “common neighbourhood”. Our overall objective should be to facilitate a lasting comprehensive peaceful solution for Ukraine through inclusive dialogue of all the credible political forces in the country, representing its various regions and populations. The Roadmap devised by the Swiss OSCE Chairmanship-in-Office points in the right direction. It is now up to the authorities in Kiev to live up to this initiative by ensuring the disarmament of illegal armed factions, such as the “Right Sector”, ceasing indiscriminate punitive operations against civilian population in the South-East as well as embarking upon the path of earnest dialogue and embracive constitutional reform.
Q: Ambassador, at the recent International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg President Vladimir Putin spoke about the importance of swiftly concluding a New basic agreement between Russia and the EU. How likely is it that negotiations on this topic will resume in the near future?
A: The ball is squarely in the court of the EU. As you may remember, the 1994 Russia-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), currently celebrating its 20th anniversary, remains the main legal instrument for our cooperation. In July 2008 Russia and the EU, recognizing that the PCA had fallen behind times, set out to negotiate a New Basic Agreement (NBA). The aim was to bring our legal basis in line with the dynamically evolving Russia-EU relationship, pinpoint areas of strategic interest and generally take cooperation to a higher level. Twelve rounds of negotiations have been held so far, resulting in a high degree of agreement on many chapters of the draft document.
Nevertheless, if we are to achieve a breakthrough on the pivotal trade and investment chapter of the NBA, Russia and the EU will have to confront a number of important realities.
Firstly, Russia’s recent entry to the WTO will involve a protracted process of approximation of our economy to the norms and standards of the Organization. Consequently, a durable balance between further trade liberalization and protection of jobs and social cohesion needs to be sought.
Secondly, the unfolding Eurasian integration processes have resulted in a score of important national trade powers being transferred to supranational bodies. The Eurasian Economic Commission is becoming an active stakeholder in shaping the Russia-EU trade regime and has to be recognized as such. The conclusion of the Agreement on the Eurasian Economic Union in Astana on 29 May is yet another big step in this direction. Our preference, obviously, is to establish direct lines of communication between the European and the Eurasian commissions, ultimately leading up to a convergence of integration efforts across the continent.
It is up to the EU member states to make up their mind – whether a climate of legal certainty and economic predictability in the space between Lisbon and Vladivostok can genuinely be achieved in the absence of an up-to-date Russia-EU legal framework. As far as my country is concerned, we stand ready to resume these important discussions. After all we are as interested in developing our relationship as our European partners, no more and no less.
Q: The EU has embarked upon the policy of minimizing its energy dependency on Russia. What is your opinion on this?
A: Over the past decades Russia has maintained its status of prime supplier of oil and gas to EU countries. My country accounts for more than a third of total EU gas imports and around a third of EU oil imports. In the European energy business community Russia and its oil and gas companies enjoy a well-deserved reputation of reliable partners in meeting Europe’s growing energy needs. And there is strong mutual interest in developing a more substantive and mutually beneficial energy partnership – by enhancing energy security, promoting fair rules for energy markets and reinforcing their predictability.
Indeed, stable energy supplies at economically viable prices constitute one of the most powerful engines of EU economic growth. This is even more important now that the EU seems to be emerging from the prolonged sovereign debt crisis. In turn, Russia is keen to contribute to the EU’s goal of diversifying energy supply routes by building first the “North Stream” (already functional) and currently the “South Stream” gas pipelines to Europe.
Let us be honest - in terms of energy security the main risks are currently emanating not from Russia, but from Ukraine, which, unfortunately, continues to abuse its position as a transit country for Russian gas bound for European consumers. This is why it remains important for us to maintain and strengthen channels of dialogue on sensitive energy issues, like the current Russia-EU-Ukraine trilateral format as well as the Russia-EU Early Warning Mechanism established in 2009.
Q: Until very recently the EU and Russia were engaged in negotiations aimed at attaining a visa-free travel regime. How would you describe the state of play in this issue and do you expect this work to be resumed?
A: Abolishing visa requirements for short-term entry for Russian citizens to the EU and vice versa is long overdue. In reality Russian and EU citizens are already crossing borders in their millions, setting records year after year. In 2013 Russia topped the list of countries in terms of numbers of Schengen visas issued – near 7 Mln. As for Russian tourists, they are consolidating EU economic recovery by spending up to 18 bln. euros annually in the region.
Thus, ensuring basic freedom of movement across Europe would not only conform to the objectives of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. It would become a powerful instrument of exchange of culture, knowledge and best practices between Russians and other Europeans. There is simply no better way to empower millions of people and facilitate the proliferation of human contacts between our societies. And, frankly, it is not such a difficult thing to do. In 2003 the then President of the EU Commission Romano Prodi stated that a Russia-EU visa waiver could realistically be achieved within five years – that is, by the year 2008…
It is therefore regrettable that even before the Ukrainian crisis the EU had been stalling on several issues related to the implementation of the 2011 Common steps towards a visa-free regime as well as the modernization of the 2006 Visa facilitation agreement. The subsequent decision to suspend those discussions hardly came as a surprise for us. Evidently, some EU countries, while arguing in favour of open borders and mobility across Europe, are still not ready to translate words into deeds. Hopefully, this attitude will change.
Q: Apart from being important economic partners the EU and Russia actively participate in ensuring international and regional stability. Is this cooperation set to continue in the wake of the Ukraine crisis?
A: As key global players and close neighbours Russia and the EU bear considerable responsibility for ensuring stability in adjacent regions as well as across the globe. The 2005 Russia-EU Roadmap on a Common Space of External Security provides for a number of priority areas for Russia-EU cooperation in this regard, including through combatting terrorism, bolstering WMD non-proliferation regimes, jointly managing crises and conflicts as well as coordinating efforts in the realm of civil protection. Moreover, Russia and the EU are active in a number of prominent negotiating formats like the “E3+3” (a.k.a. “P5+1”) talks on the Iranian nuclear programme, the “5+2” format on the Transdniestrian settlement, the Middle East “Quartet” and the Geneva discussions on South Caucasus, just to name a few. Russia and the EU have been largely successful in their crisis management efforts, in particular by operating coordinated anti-piracy maritime patrols off the coast of Somalia. Nevertheless, the potential for interaction remains largely underexploited.
In our view, dialogue in the area of external security could be further advanced through establishing institutionalized forward-oriented bilateral mechanisms. In particular, a proper legal framework for Russia-EU cooperation in crisis management needs to be created with a view to ensuring a swift synchronized response to emerging crises. Furthermore, we regret the inability of the EU to implement its own “Meseberg initiative” on creating a Russia-EU Committee on Foreign Policy and Security at Ministerial level. Had these tools existed prior to the Ukrainian crisis, both Russia and the EU would have been far better prepared to resolve it in a coordinated and timely fashion.
