Energy, a long-term concern. It will not be possible for relations between the EU and Russia to be clarified and restored to normal until a distinction has been made between short-term and long-term issues. Energy cooperation is a long-term concern. It takes several years to build a gas pipeline, supply contracts are sealed for 25-30 years, and the exploitation of new gas fields sometimes takes even longer. Commitments are taken for the future and cannot be brought into question every time one party decides it does not like the attitude adopted by the other.
I quite understand that some political and other forces could find such a comment objectionable, if it is taken to mean that all form of pressure on Russian behaviour must stop. Should there be no EU reaction to Russian policy in Chechnya, or to Russian violation of freedom and democracy? Of course the EU must react, just as Moscow will continue to react if an EU nation sets up US missiles near its borders. But we must not lose sight of reality. EU-Russia cooperation is indispensable. The EU needs Russian oil and gas and Russia needs to sell these resources to the EU in exchange for investment and technological cooperation. Two-way commitments must be set down in writing and respected, even if there is friction from time to time. Friction is and always will be inevitable. Rhetoric and outrage will not change anything, unless energy supplies are cut off and energy supply contracts broken - that is, unless there is permanent uncertainty that would be catastrophic for all concerned.
Interdependence and divergence - two undeniable realities. Fifty-seven percent of exports from Russia end up in the EU, and 76% of foreign investment in Russia comes from the EU. The Euro-Russian partnership is therefore already a reality. The objectives of the new agreement envisaged aim to consolidate this partnership, to improve and develop it, and to add political provisions and guarantees to it where possible, as well as to create platforms and instruments for thrashing out any differences that might arise. The request to cancel last week's summit was made purely to court popularity, as interdependence is a fact that cannot be denied.
There are currently a number of sizeable differences, which make dialogue all the more essential. A long list of disagreements relate to: a) international policy issues covering areas ranging from Kosovo to Iran, the Middle East to Sudan; and b) economic matters such as Russia's membership of the WTO (the EU is calling for discrimination with regard to wood and goods transport to be abolished, for intellectual property rights to be respected and for customs and investment procedures to be standardised), the highly topical oil and gas pipeline dossier, and the direct sale of part of Gazprom gas to end-users in the EU. To these must be added questions specific to individual states (Poland, Estonia, Latvia) and EU demands regarding human rights and freedom, not to mention the US missile shield programme (for which the EU has refused to state its arguments, pointing out that it is a matter to be discussed between Russia and NATO).
No progress. So what is to be done? Should we sulk and not say anything? The results of the high-level meeting last week are revealing: - participants drew up a list of objectives covering all areas (resumption of talks on Polish farm products, “rapid” Russian WTO membership, dialogue on investment, studies on an early warning system in the event of fossil fuel supply problems) - but not one decision was taken and no progress was made.
There will always be differences. Russia is developing an independent global strategy (you would need to be as politically inexperienced and superficial as Mr Berlusconi to imagine that Vladimir Putin had taken an offer of EU membership seriously), and it has rejected the offer of taking part in the EU's Neighbourhood Policy (as confirmed by Eneko Landaburu - see our bulletin No 9428). A firm attitude on the part of the EU can have an influence on Russian behaviour in bilateral disputes and in questions relating to democracy and human rights, but only slowly and within limits. Russia will continue with its independent international policy, using its energy resources as a weapon. If it wants to cooperate, the EU must accept this situation, and above all speak with a single voice. It must be just as determined as its interlocutor and believe in the strength of its convictions. Strong-arm posturing may look good, but it is not very effective.
(F.R.)