Russia-EU dialogue on human rights
Distinguished members of the Federal Assembly,
Distinguished representatives of the diplomatic corps,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
First of all I would like to thank the State Duma Committee on International Affairs for having invited me to participate in this hearing. The idea of holding this hearing is quite useful in itself and is in line with the logic of our relations with the European Union. Human rights do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of States. They are a matter of legitimate concern to all countries. This principle is enshrined in the documents of the OSCE of which all EU Member States and Russia are participants. (By the way, this principle was adopted at an CSCE conference in Moscow in 1991.)
In my statement I would like to focus on our dialogue with the EU in the field of human rights and to outline a number of problems arising in it.
We positively evaluate the general evolution of the dialogue as a whole. We pursue this dialogue basing on commitments developed in the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. Russia and 27 EU Member States are members of these organisations and thus are part of the common human rights space formed by commitments adopted in them.
Let me now briefly touch upon formats of our cooperation with the EU.
The main format are expert consultations in the framework of the political dialogue. They are held twice a year – in spring and in autumn in Brussels. This format was approved by the Russia-EU summit in The Hague in 2004. The purpose of the consultations is exchanging views between equal partners on issues of mutual interest and harmonising approaches on achieving most crucial goals of international cooperation in the field of human rights. Prior to every such meeting, Russia presents to the EU in advance a detailed list of concrete facts raising our concerns. We consider such meetings an optimum practice.
Another format that has recently been emerging is the Russia-EU Civil Society Forum. So far, it held two meetings – on 28-29 March 2011 in Prague and on 1-2 December 2011 in Warsaw. They addressed issues related to execution of European Court of Human Rights judgments, enhanced accountability of public bodies, and visa facilitation between Russia and the EU.
Moreover, we discuss human rights issues with EU Member States in multilateral fora. The most important among them are the UN Council on Human Rights, the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
The European Parliament and other EU institutions discuss the situation with human rights in Russia on a regular basis. Our Permanent Mission in Brussels always participates in such meetings. I hope that similar events on human rights situation in EU Member States will become regular in Russia as well.
Now let me turn to problems. I would like to focus on four of them that I consider most important.
First of all, it can not but cause concerns that the European Union, despite its enthusiastic and optimistic declarations and after successful outcome of months of exhausting negotiations, has not yet acceded to the major legal instrument of the Council of Europe – the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We want it to happen as soon as possible. The EU's accession will be an important step on the way towards a genuinely all-European legal space and a common system of human rights protection based on the abovementioned Convention and activities of the European Court of Human Rights.
Another problem is selective approach to commitments. We adhere to the principle of equality of all human rights, as well as their interdependence and complementarity. Equal attention needs to be paid to all categories of human rights norms and standards. Their separation into primary and secondary ones runs contrary to the common sense.
It is difficult to explain to a "non-citizen", deprived of fundamental political and social rights, or to a person having suffered and continuously suffering from manifestations of aggressive nationalism, that their interests are less "urgent" than, say, the rights of journalists or representatives of sexual minorities. It is unclear why the freedom of movement, including commitments to work towards abolition of visas, should be addressed with less attention than the freedom of expression, assembly and belief.
In the time of the economic crisis more attention needs to be paid to social and economic aspects of human rights. It is also necessary to preserve traditional values underlying our civilisation.
The third problem, in my view, is related to week engagement of the civil society of EU Member States. While representatives of Russian NGOs and opposition are actively involved in the dialogue and regularly visit Brussels, on the part of the EU there is no reciprocal activity.
And, finally, my fourth point. Our dialogue with the EU on humanitarian issues, both bilateral and in the framework of multilateral organisations, unfortunately can not be described as fully based on mutual respect. Apparently, the temptation is too big to accuse and to mentor; therefore discussions often pass into exchange of mutual complaints. It should not be the case.
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
Our dialogue with the EU on human rights that has been in place for many years shows that everyone has problems in this field. No country can boast a spotless record. Many problems are common for all of us. For example, the rise of xenophobia and nationalism. They need to be identified and eliminated jointly.
Besides, Russia and the EU can learn from each other. Over centuries, our multinational and multiconfessional state has developed unique traditions of good-neighborly co-existence of representatives of different cultures and religions based on tolerance, both on social and political and personal level. We are ready to share our experience with our partners.
Most importantly, we should not politicise our dialogue. We should pursue it as partners in the spirit of mutual respect. We should learn to listen to each other and to hear each other, not try to re-educate and to pin labels. We should respect national, historical and cultural specificities.
Moreover, we should more actively, in deeds and not in words, expand contacts between people living in Russia and in the EU. Therefore, we need to eliminate barriers that hinder them, first of all visa restrictions. Russia stands for soonest abolition of visas for short-term travel of Russian and EU citizens. The 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi could be a natural time reference.
I believe that we need to improve the mechanism of expert consultations on human rights in Brussels. However, it should be done not through changing their format and modalities, as proposed by our partners, but through improving their content. Not personal cases of human rights violations should be in focus, but rather large issues, including those on which Russia and the EU will be able to bring closer their positions in international fora.
At the same time, nothing prevents us from searching new ways of interaction. Developing parliamentarian track is one of them. In particular, we could think of establishing a parallel thematic dialogue on human rights between the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the European Parliament. For example, in form of a thematic working group of the Russia-EU Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. It would also be useful to hold State Duma hearings on human rights in EU Member States on a regular basis. I am confident that these steps will contribute to higher efficiency of the Russia-EU dialogue in the area of ensuring and protecting human rights.
Thank you for your attention.
