Obligatory cooperation. There is occasionally something quite naïve in reactions to Russia. All Vladimir Putin needs to do is to open up slightly for everyone to talk about the relationship thawing and new prospects for collaboration; if he seems a bit distant, pessimism comes rushing back. No less respected a body than the Cambridge Energy Research Associates has spoken out about the risks of “gradual degradation of economic relations” and “disagreements and incomprehension eroding mutual trust”. Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that EU-Russia relations are destined to develop, because they are just as vital to one side as they are to the other, and that at the same time, they will inevitably be difficult, because each side must defend its own interests? There will always be agreements and differences of opinion, areas in which they see eye to eye and misunderstandings. Whatever his institutional role, Mr Putin will be around for a long time, because most Russians trust him, and they will doubtless confirm this in the forthcoming electoral consultations. Mr Putin knows it, and there are two significant initiatives on his part:
a) he has agreed that the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) may send observers to both the forthcoming legislative elections (2 December) and to the presidential elections of March 2008. After this, if the forecasts are confirmed, Mr Putin will no longer be president but prime minister, in the expectation of becoming president once again after the necessary constitutional conditions are in place. These institutional tricks prove that efforts are being made to observe the constitution;
b) he gave his permission for the Green Group of the European Parliament to hold a three-day conference in Moscow, featuring a public debate with the Russian opposition forces. This event took place at the very end of October, and was closed by a press conference given by Daniel Cohn-Bendit (who voiced his regrets that the government authorities had not also agreed to take part in the debate …).
Liberty and democracy are not forgotten. Over the same days, at the most recent EU-Russia summit in Portugal, Vladimir Putin proposed that an EU-/Russia Institute for the promotion of human rights be created, with its headquarters in Brussels, and the EU responded positively. Mr Cohn-Bendit observed that the reciprocity called for by Russia in general must also apply in this case; the “human rights” institute must have two headquarters, one in Brussels on the other in Moscow, to assess the same major subjects: minority rights, press freedom, prison inspections and so on.
Clearly, it is a positive thing that in Europe, political forces and organisations are continuing to decry infringements on human rights and liberty, and that the pressure continues to be brought to bear on Russia. However, the reinforcement of ties and the extension of the fields of political, economic and cultural cooperation, represent the most promising and effective way of making democratic progress, too.
Progress towards two priority objectives. It seems clear to me that developments in the EU-Russia relationship are by and large favourable. Considerable progress has been made towards two highly important objectives: the conclusion of negotiations on conditions for Russia's accession to the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and the opening-up of negotiations on the new bilateral partnership agreement. Commentators tend to stress the problems which persist, and we can see why they do it, but the obstacles in both of these major dossiers are relatively minor: export regime for Russian wood, regulations on certain flights over Russian territory, the question of imports of Polish meat by Russia and all sanitary checks relating to this, and so on. These are just details, compared to the scope of the objectives. Each detail has its own importance, but if the political goodwill is there, compromises can be reached. At the Mafra summit, Vladimir Putin expressed the hope not only of opening negotiations on a partnership agreement very soon (the middle of next year, at the next bilateral summit, has been put forward as a possibility), but also to conclude them “in the very near future”. The President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, pointed out that Russia is now the Union's third-largest trade partner.
Energy remains the central subject. Over and above these general considerations, the real major subject of negotiation, and of the differences of opinion, remains the same: energy. Here, the scale of what is at stake, the weight of the interests at play, the significance, not only economic, but also strategic and political, of the orientations and decisions are such that it will never be over and done with. And the differences of opinion are proportionate to what's at stake. Recent developments deserve a commentary all of their own. That will be for tomorrow.
(F.R.)