What could European citizens take from the European meetings, firstly of heads of state and government and then with Vladimir Putin, in Lahti at the end of last week? Not a lot, I fear. On the first day, large sections of the press focussed attention on a few picturesque comments by Mr Putin on the personal misadventures of the President of Israel (which had nothing to do with the meetings in question). Then there was no agreement at all on what to lead with, emphasis was placed, for example, on the scathing remarks by the self same Mr Putin with regard to EU leaders who were giving him “lessons on democracy and transparency, when some of their regions were controlled by the Mafia”. As may be seen, it was the personality of the Russian President that was highlighted, much more than the outcome of his talks with the EU.
Principles of the Energy Charter, without the Charter. It's true that one significant point from the EU-Russia, meeting was highlighted by a section of the press: Mr Putin's refusal to ratify the Energy Charter and to respect its principles. Fortunately, however, this totally negative interpretation does not correspond with reality. Mr Putin, always very skilful with his spin, and blowing hot and cold, was very moderate in his after-dinner press conference and even showed optimism over the possibility of an agreement with the EU on the principles of the Energy Charter. I would invite you to read the report by our Deputy Editor in Chief Helmut Brüls on this press conference on the following pages; there we find what we did not read elsewhere and which in part alters the impression of failure. On 20 July, I wrote in this column (bulletin 9236) that, in my opinion, “the Charter will not be ratified, despite the hopes of Brussels, because Moscow will not accept a general opening rule, free legal access to the 'holy of holies' of the Russian economy” that is, energy resources, but “we will have negotiations and specific agreements”. On Friday evening, Mr Putin said that he did not reject the principles of the Charter, but that another document should be drawn up taking on board these principles while amending certain arrangements; and that will be the objective to the EU-Russia strategic partnership agreement to be negotiated.
In its communication of 12 October to the European Council (summarised in our bulletin no. 9285, and the full version of which will be published in our EUROPE/Documents series), the European Commission emphasised ratification of the Charter, but it above all clarified the principles, in an overview of EU external energy relations, with particular regard not only to Russia, but also to Turkey.
Three internal issues. If I may return for a moment to the informal European Council: the report published in our bulletin no. 9291 is exhaustive and balanced. Helmut Brüls, Albin Birger and Emmanuel Hagry report the exchanges of views on the three issues other than relations with Russia: climate change, relaunch of the EU's efforts in innovation and immigration policy. No conclusion was expected on these issues, the Lahti objective being to prepare the way for the debate that will take place at December's European Council. The document by Tony Blair and Jan Peter Balkenende on climate change is wonderfully clear and firm: it states that the technology for energy with low CO² production is already available and within our grasp, and that Europe could show real leadership in this area. As for innovation, the boost was given by Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Council President Matti Vanhanen; the Commission has already taken initiatives which our bulletin has reported, and Mr Vanhanen summarised what has to be done. The impression is that, this time, the words will be followed by something concrete, although many difficulties remain. The speeches on immigration policy were lively and convincing, both from Mr Barroso and from Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero and French President Jacques Chirac, but the way from words to action seems uncertain still: there are still strong reservations over a European policy (European Parliament President Mr Borrell was able to say that he could not see any real interest for Member States to move towards a common policy in this area) and institutional obstacles, which block any decision, are far from being overcome. Will the December Summit allow effective progress to be made? It is all still to play for, despite the worsening of the situation and the need to act.
For an overall view of relations with Russia. And so we come to the meeting on Friday evening between EU officials and Vladimir Putin. On EU/Russia relations in general, we must resist the temptation to make subjective interpretations. It is to be expected that defenders of human rights think that the few sentences devoted to the Moscow murder of a heroic journalist and the Russian attitude to Georgia are insufficient; that oil companies are disappointed by Mr Putin's persistent refusal to ratify the Energy Charter and that the industrial world wants to see more steadfastness in promoting free trade. And the President of the European Parliament Josep Borrell has probably played a part by affirming that the EU cannot trade human rights against energy.
I am still, however, of the opinion (expressed in this column of 14 September (bulletin 9264)) that “every actor involved in EU-Russian relations sees only the aspect which concerns them”, each considers “their” subject to be the priority and assesses the situation in the light of the results which concern them. This is very human, in some cases even noble, but it is not realistic, nor does it help make progress. There is a mutual need for the EU and Russia to get along. It is theoretically possible to break off relations with Mr Putin on the grounds of the flagrant shortcomings in terms of liberty and democracy, on the condition that we would be prepared to accept a possible end to Russian gas provisions to the EU (which make up more than a quarter of the EU's overall supply). Otherwise, we risk descending into demagogy. Those who believe that an enhanced partnership agreement between the EU and Russia would be a desirable, or even necessary, development (and I am one of them) must accept negotiations in order to conclude such an agreement, at the same time of course demanding that it cover political areas and human rights as broadly as possible but also keeping in mind the limits to what the EU can realistically impose. Josep Borrell was right to underline the fact that “for several months, the European Parliament has been concerned to note a weakening of democracy in Russia, an increase in media controls and growing difficulties for the political opposition”. We must fight for improvement to the situation, but without preaching breaking off relations if we are not in a position to follow such a position to its logical conclusion. European representatives do not lack vigour in their dialogue with Mr Putin in these areas; I would refer readers to the pages which follow, which give a full account without hiding any of the asperity in the dialogue. But would it be reasonable to go further than this?
In light of these considerations - which will not please everyone - the results of the Lahti meeting correspond broadly to what we might have expected. More or less hypocritically, Vladimir Putin listened to the observations and protestations of the EU on his deviations with regard to human rights and freedom of expression, as well as the abusive restrictions which limit or snuff out the activities of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) in Russia, and he made some sharp responses. It is easy to be ironic about the purely verbal nature of his commitments for the future, but I believe that, even with their limits, the European remonstrances and pressure will not be ineffective. Before the meeting at the Summit, Mr Putin had in any case been obliged, after several days of disdainful silence, to state that the killing of journalists is not acceptable and that in the case of Anna Politkovskaya there would be investigations until the guilty party was uncovered and punished. Words? Of course, but the person who uttered them would do well to take note of them, because he will continue to be pestered on the subject. And I believe that any rigorous position which is taken by the EU represents encouragement for those on the ground in Russia (and there are many of them) who are courageously fighting for liberty and need support.
From Georgia to the energy issue. I believe in a similar effectiveness of EU pressure with regard to the Russian attitude to former-USSR countries which Moscow logically wants to keep in its orbit, or reel back in (this is not, as we know, only a matter of Georgia). Mr Putin cannot entirely ignore the warnings of a vigilant Europe, particularly if the exchanges of view at the meeting last Friday, which were necessarily superficial, should become something in the nature of official discussion at the next formal Summit and subsequently in the negotiations for the partnership agreement.
In spite of everything, the matter of energy will be at the centre of the upcoming negotiations, not because it is more important than everything else but because it is the area where the EU has real negotiating power, on the condition that it can establish uniform positions and speak with a single voice. It is currently far from this point. It is true that there is no joint energy policy and none is planned in current texts (one of the gifts of the blocking of the Constitution). But this is no reason to strengthen Mr Putin's position by allowing him to play on the divergences between the countries in the Union. I will return to this subject tomorrow.
(F.R.)