The EU-Russia summit next Wednesday will seek to clarify certain aspects of a difficult but unavoidable relationship. Whatever the misunderstandings and differences, cooperation is indispensable for Russia, even more than it is for Europe. In the programme published in EUROPE the day before yesterday (10016), it transpires that the prospects for spectacular results now appear more modest:
Security of gas and oil supplies transited through Ukraine. The EU is calling for a guarantee that supplies are not cut off in the future, whatever is happening in relations between Russia and Ukraine. In Moscow, however, it is believed that if Ukraine does not respect its financial commitments, there is still a risk of cuts in supply in the future. This is a complex affair because it involves financial, technological, trade and political aspects all at the same time. The EU is participating in the international financial efforts to support Ukraine and will do the same with regard to the modernisation of Ukrainian installations but wants guarantees of supply in order to reassure Eastern member states. Russia, however, is gradually getting rid of the special oil and gas prices it has been granting the Ukraine and it considers that its involvement in the regeneration of structural installations is essential. The summit will discuss the matter but definitive solutions are very unlikely. All hopes rest upon putting the early warning mechanism into practice, which has been in the process of development for a long time.
Energy Charter. No developments can be predicted in this area because rejection of this text by Moscow (which had previously negotiated and signed it) appears permanent. Russia is now calling for an international agreement that is less binding on competition and access to national energy sources.
Trade. The EU is criticising Russia for some of its unilateral protectionist measures. The benefits of hindsight teach us that Moscow never refuses to negotiate in these domains and that it sometimes make concessions, in an effort to appear conciliatory and avoid reprisals.
Russian accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We are aware that Moscow's new strategy is no longer by way of individual accession but as a customs union between Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan. The operation has significant political ramifications: Moscow reproaches the EU for gradually encroaching in Russia's “zone of influence” (even if these terms were abandoned, the principles endure) and it intends to reaffirm its presence in neighbouring countries that are in agreement. Economic considerations, however, also play a part, because Russia's accession to the WTO will be significantly delayed, as will the subsequent EU-Russia negotiations on free trade as a factor in the new partnership agreement, which is still only in a project stage for the time being. Is this additional delay sought after or just a coincidence?
Rhetoric is ineffective. The part of the summit on “human rights and the rule of law” will provide an occasion for fine speeches and mutual accusations that will have a lot of resonance but little effect. This also applies to the same extent with visa waivers; deep dialogue is all we can envisage for the moment. These aspects must be raised and it is necessary that the abuses committed be denounced by human rights defence bodies because pressure is crucial. These denunciations help to give us clearer consciences and, fortunately, can prove efficient on behalf of the victims, but calls to suspend Euro-Russian cooperation on each occasion is rhetoric and even populist. This cooperation is indispensable and must be deepened as much as possible. With how many third countries would we need to suspend or freeze relations if European criteria were applied to the letter?
How can the “time” factor be ignored? Carrying out cooperation projects with Russia requires years, even decades of work. Initiatives like NordStream (in the planning stages for years) or the different aspects involved in the SouthStream project could not be launched if there were prospects for abandoning or suspending them every time an infringement was identified. Apart from conflicts of unimaginable scale, which would make cooperation impossible, it is unrealistic to periodically call for relations to be suspended. Even the crisis and the war with Georgia were overcome without abandoning multi-annual cooperation projects. Maintaining them is even more crucial for Russia than for Europe, and Moscow will always make the concessions necessary for preventing a breakdown in relations.
Conclusion: cooperation is difficult and negotiations are hard, but dialogue must be pursued, without unreasonable concessions and with determination. (F.R./transl;rh)