“Long term” objectives. Anything that brings the European Union and Russia closer is positive, because of their role in the world and because of what many people consider as cultural and sentimental reasons. In this context, Jean-Claude Juncker declared last week in Strasbourg that it was not necessary “to be smitten, although I am, with a great love of deepest and eternal Russia”, to be delighted about it. It is logical to welcome the agreement on the “road maps”, in the direction of the four EU/Russia “common spaces”. But satisfaction should not transform into ingenuity: the road ahead is long and steep. For the moment we have a long and detailed list of points of arrival, with modest and often controversial indications of the route. It is understandable that after the Moscow agreement of principle (EUROPE 8944), the public declarations did not ignore the inevitable dose of emphasis in such circumstances, which Vladimir Putin described as a “great Europe, a united Europe without lines of division” and that Jean-Claude Juncker affirmed, “this is true love”. These sentences and others of a similar nature, did not claim to describe the decisions taken, but rather the “long term” objectives, as indicated in the official communiqué.
“Common spaces”? In fact, compared to the obligatory high-flown language used, the protagonists gave the impression, at least from the European side, that the road ahead would be difficult. The president of the Commission José Manuel Barroso summarised it with the following words, “We now have a very good understanding of our respective positions”, which is an elegant way of saying that common positions do not yet exist and all of them still need negotiating; and Mr Juncker observed with his usual edge of irony that, “it isn't easy to negotiate with Mr Putin”. The latter believes that the primary objective is free movement of persons, without visas or controls, whereas the EU sees this as linked to Moscow's commitment to readmit all illegal immigrants, Russian or from other countries, if they crossed Russian territory into the Union. The common area of freedom, security, and justice appears to be very ambitious but it is sufficient to look at the difficulties that it has encountered within the Union itself to understand that with Russia, it won't be something for tomorrow. The four “common spaces” are summarised in our bulletin 8944, already mentioned; it is a very long and heart-warming list and the results will no doubt be positive on external security (where cooperation is possible and the advantages obvious, if the political will is there) and also in research, education and culture; why not? But in these areas, the terms of the common spaces are not to be taken by the letter, it is above all a matter of cooperating and taking initiatives together.
“Free trade” is no longer mentioned. In the fourth space, in reality the first - the common economic area, the positive element is that the words “free trade” are not there. This is a concept that has done Europe a lot of harm in its relations with the rest of the world and consequently should only be used with extreme care. Genuine free trade can only exist with countries that agree on the same environmental, health or trade rules of the Union, as well as on the same rules of competition and State Aid. I am only aware of Norway figuring in this category and it has even created a kind of national Court of Justice that monitors respect for EU standards. The “road map” for the common EU/Russia economic space consists of 18 pages of objectives carefully described: standardisations, harmonisation of regulation on cars, textiles, pharmaceuticals and chemical products, public procurement, intellectual property, competition rules etc. It took the EU half a century to make progress in these areas and it is still not finished. How much time will be needed with Russia, whose objective for the moment is “directed capitalism”? Very wisely, Mr Juncker has not spoken about free trade but of “a safe and transparent legal structure that allows investors to invest in complete security, which is necessary”, this is a reasonable objective, whose effects could be positive in the domain of energy and the overall development of trade.
This is why adding the economic aspects to political and cultural cooperation, and the resulting pressure in support of reforms there, (freedom, human rights, democracy etc), the results of the Moscow Summit will be very positive, even if for the moment they consist of more announcements than accomplishments. (F.R.)