Opinions diverge when it comes to the situation and prospects for relations between the EU and Russia, summarised in this column yesterday. The range of different positions is huge, going from complete misgivings - caution and distrust with a modest degree of cooperation on specific dossiers of common interest - to the most open: a real partnership based on permanent and institutionalised lines.
Indispensable for Russia. I believe that the second formula should be the one attempted, with all the appropriate precautions, indispensable phasing-in and goals outlined from the outset. This partnership is indispensable to Russia and it knows it. Russian territory, according to the experts, corresponds to an eighth of all land-mass in the world. The population of 145 million is tiny compared to the surface area and it is continuing to fall. The demographic crisis is seriously worrying the authorities. Asian population pressure on some of its borders is very strong and improved regional balance is needed. Next Thursday in Paris, IFRI is organising a debate on the challenges involved in Russia's demographic crisis. Anatoli Vichnevski and Emmanuel Todd will be speaking and their conclusions will be interesting.
Russia is also vulnerable to the monetary crisis and the rouble has been significantly devalued. Revenue in euro deriving from energy exports to the European market is crucial to the country, as well as European investment and Western technology.
Incomparable cultural exchanges. The level of cultural exchange has, for several centuries, been quite phenomenal. I am not referring to the imposed exchanges bureaucratically and strictly controlled during the Communist period but to all those before and which have been relaunched since. It is almost off the top of my head that I can quote some of the most spectacular aspects, such as the construction of Saint Petersburg by architects who were mainly Italian, the adoption of classical ballet in Moscow (and at what a level!) in a period when it was declining in the West, the remarkable arrival in Paris of Igor Stravinski and Russian ballet; striking events but almost superficial when compared to the permanent reciprocal exchanges in music and literature, without even mentioning the Russian exiles who became great writers in English and French. All this in a climate of substantial religious tolerance (apart from during the Communist regime) and permanent dialogue, even if it was interrupted for a time, between the churches: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. I mention this aspect because history and also, unfortunately, the current period, teach us that religious fanaticism is the source of the worst crimes and worse abuses to our lives. Genuine civilisations can change the place of worship from one religion to another, which happened at Saint Sophia in Istanbul, at the Pantheon in Rome and the mosques in Spain, whilst respecting the past; but it was just a bunch of thugs who blew up the statues of Buddha sculpted out of rock hundreds of years ago.
A reasonable goal and one still growing. The future partnership's goal will not be able to include or even envisage Russia joining the EU, participating in other Community institutions or belonging to the common currency. Each side must keep its autonomy and specificities. The gradual achievement, however, of a high degree of cooperation in all areas would be a reasonable goal. The areas of current cooperation are manifold and can still increase further. We only have to think of the new stakes at play in the Arctic, where Europe and Russia could take common action to create - together with the other countries concerned, the US, Canada and local populations - a place for world cooperation where environmental protection prevails over economic exploitation. The EU must obviously maintain its essential demands on respect for human rights and the freedom of expression; even in these areas, progress is easier when we agree on economic objectives and cooperation policies (where protecting agriculture should also have a place).
I am aware of the difficulties involved in such an enterprise. Yesterday, this column listed the divergences and obstacles: economic, political, psychological and historical. Nonetheless, I believe that an ambitious card should be played because it would represent a historic turning point for member states from the Eastern part of the EU, a turning point for them that would be just as significant as that represented in the transformation of their relations with Germany, as members of the Union. Of course, Russia also has its share of this path to cover too. Why should we not dream, for example, that one day it returns to the EU the town where Emmanuel Kant was born, which now constitutes a Russian enclave within Community territory, or that it at least agrees to make it into an autonomous territory? (F.R./transl.rh)