Une parole franche

Balance of Power in Play: the EU-Russia Summit, Stockholm

 

by Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D.

 

 

This week the global alignment of international relations was audibly in motion. From either side of Eurasia we heard a clanging of gears and rudders heaving to a side for the execution of 180 degree turns as ships of state changed direction.

 

The first sounds of a power balance in transition came from China, where U.S. President Barack Obama marked a new approach to the country by calling upon the Chinese to share the burden of world leadership. The swagger, the hectoring, the meddling tutelage which characterized America’s behavior towards the PRC from the days of Bill Clinton through George W. Bush, when human rights issues were brought to the fore in an unbridled indulgence of America’s ideological propensities have given way to respectful attention to America’s largest creditor and key trading partner.

 

The early signs of what was to come appeared already in the weeks leading up to the trip, when the American President, breaking with the tradition of his predecessors, declined to meet with the Dalai Lama to avoid offending the Chinese. During his stay in the PRC, he refrained from contact with human rights defenders and he refused to be drawn into disputes over internet and media freedoms. Instead, at the very start of his visit, in Shanghai, Mr Obama recited the credo: unflinching American support for the One China policy, recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. In a word, longstanding Chinese insistence on Realism, i.e., mutual respect for fundamental national interests, has won out over Idealism and the Wilsonian school of American foreign policy. Finally the economic crisis has begun to have a tangible impact on America’s worldwide conduct of foreign affairs.

 

These changes were duly remarked by America’s leading newspaper of record, The New York Times, which in its November 18^th edition gave substantial coverage both to what it called the skirting of Chinese political sensitivities and to the new power balance in East Asia.

 

Meanwhile a change of nearly equal moment took place in Europe on Wednesday at the EU-Russia Summit in Stockholm. The event had been flagged in advance by its host, chief of the EU’s rotating presidency Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, as an opportunity for Europe to press the ‘reset button’ in its relations with Russia. In fact, television coverage revealed unmistakably that Russia emerged at the summit into a status of much greater equality and attention from its European partners than we have seen for many years, while all the leading actors said it was the most successful summit in memory.

 

Here in Europe the newspapers of record have completely ignored the epochal changes underway as I have found upon inspecting yesterday’s online editions of Le Monde, La Libre Belgique, Le Soir, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Die Welt, Spiegel, The Times of London, The Guardian, and the Financial Times.

 

To be sure, the Russian media gave the EU Summit considerable reportage. Indeed, the state-controlled news channel Vesti offered its viewers full coverage of the press conference at the end of the summit. A complete printed transcript of that press conference on 9 pages was posted without delay on President Medvedev’s website www.kremlin.ru.

 

In presenting uncut transmissions of major government events such as this, one might say that Vesti is behaving like a Russian C-SPAN. It is regrettable that there is no equivalent service available to allow the citizenry in Western Europe to draw its own conclusions on what its officials are up to. Only the obligatory 15-second photo opportunity made it onto the Euronews bulletin that evening.

 

Ah, one might object, but there were no breakthroughs at the EU-Russia Summit, no announcements of major agreements to make the event newsworthy in Western Europe. Of course, much the same could be said about President Obama’s visit to China which was treated as a grand event by world media. In both cases atmospherics, body language is everything and they tell an unmistakable story of tectonic shift in international relations.

 

The Press Conference of the EU-Russia Summit began with prepared statements delivered by the host, Swedish PM Reinfeldt, followed by President Medvedev, EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso and EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Xavier Solana. Then came a session of questions for the speakers from the assembled media representatives.

 

The opening remarks of Prime Minister Reinfeldt were noteworthy for his characterization of Russia as a ‘key strategic partner.’ The word ‘key’ represents a significant promotion from the characterization as just ‘strategic partner’ which the office of EU Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner has used for some time when speaking of Russia to contrast the EU’s view of its large neighbor to the East with that held by the United States, which holds a still lower rating of ties, that of ad hoc rather than strategic partnership.

 

Otherwise Reinfeldt focused on the politically correct and least controversial elements in the summit agenda – particularly the discussion of climate change, which is especially topical in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit on the environment due to take place shortly. The other point he stressed was the general agreement on Russia’s joining the WTO as soon as possible, something which, he explained, was especially important in the context of the worldwide economic crisis and the threat of spreading protectionism.

 

As could be expected, Reinfeldt voiced the EU’s abiding concern over rule of law and human rights in Russia. And he said the EU calls upon Russia to respect its commitments made at the end of the war with Georgia. What we have here is a delicately administered, diplomatically phrased tap on the wrist intended to appease the EU’s domestic Russophobes while not offending their guest.

 

The opening remarks of José Barroso were written in the same spirit of mostly positive sounding generalities. He highlighted climate change and the commitments which Russia had made at the summit to reduce emissions by 35% by 2020. He then accented the newly ratified agreements on early warning of situations threatening gas supplies from Russia. These provisions were among the few positive results to come out of the Russian-Ukrainian gas war of January 2009 and they were put into motion a week ago when Russian Prime Minister Putin notified the Commission about the current status of payments from Ukraine and the possibility of renewed conflict if arrears developed.

 

As I have pointed out on these blog pages recently, Barroso and the Commission appear to have executed a U-turn in their approach to Russia over gas transit via Ukraine. More broadly, enhancing the energy security of Europe through diversification is being taken to mean diversification of supply routes from Russia as opposed to diversification away from Russian supplies.

 

It would seem from Barroso’s statement yesterday that this U-turn may also extend to the question of the Energy Charter dating from the 1990s which over the past two years has been a major stumbling block to renewal of the Russian Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. In referring to the energy interdependence of Europe as consumer and Russia as producer, Barroso now spoke of an energy chapter in the future Partnership Agreement only in terms of allowing companies from both Russia and the EU to invest in each other’s markets. However, the issue of contention, the breaking of Gazprom’s monopoly control of gas pipelines traversing the Russian Federation, was notably absent.

 

Like the Swedish Prime Minister, Barroso stressed the importance of Russia joining the WTO as soon as possible, saying this would make it possible to solve a whole range of essential issues. Indeed, in the question time the Commissioner said the EU “insisted” on speedy entry and he dramatized the issue in a moment of hyperbolic eloquence, saying:

 

“Russia must be in the WTO; that is obvious. Russia is a very large economy in the world. It is a country which is an inalienable part of the global economy and it should participate in this multifaceted economic organization which without Russia is simply unthinkable.”

 

One must recall that for the past 16 years Russia’s membership application has been held hostage to every passing displeasure with its leadership on the part of Europe and the U.S. During all that time, Russia’s absence from the WTO was precisely ‘thinkable.’ It is hard to say what exactly is afoot within the EU Commission to explain this change of heart.

 

Finally, Barroso seized upon President Medvedev’s recent State of the Nation address on modernization of the country, saying Europe was ready to participate and he called upon the sides to expand economic relations, bring their legislation and regulations into closer harmony and improve the exchange of students and scholars.

 

Within the guidelines of Euroland newspeak, Barroso’s words were upbeat and constructive. They were in sharp contrast with his body language. He had a brooding expression throughout, looking as if he were sucking on a lemon. Of course, that is understandable: this is the same José Manuel Barroso who expressed naïve shock over the Russian-Georgian war of August 2008, who went into panic over the two-week cut-off of Russian gas to Central Europe during the January 2009 test of strength with the Ukraine, and who exulted in the late spring when he believed he had cut the Russians down to size by negotiating the renewal of the Ukrainian gas grid directly with Kiev without the participation of Russia and over its objections. The script he read yesterday was obviously not to his liking. However, acting as he is in what is essentially a public relations post, Mr Barroso would be better advised to smile more.

 

The shortest remarks, amounting to a farewell, came from Xavier Solana, for whom the event marked the end of a ten year term at the helm of the EU’s foreign policy apparatus. The coming into effect of the Lisbon Treaty on December 1^st replaces Mr Solana with a new face to head European diplomacy, Catherine Ashton.

 

 

For his part, Dmitry Medvedev issued the lengthiest opening statement of all. The content of his speech and the manner of its delivery both demonstrated full command of the issues and considerable self-confidence. Indeed, the Russian President was smiling and relaxed throughout his delivery.

 

Medvedev used the forum to deliver a programmatic statement much in the way that his mentor Vladimir Putin has done so often. It contained an important logical connection that bears drawing out..

 

Medvedev began by reminding the audience that the summit took place in the wake of the celebration of the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which put an end to the division of Germany and, more generally, of Europe. Without elaborating, a minute later he plunged directly into the question of visa regimes which to this day effectively cut Russia off from the rest of the Continent in the same spirit of Cold War confrontation as the Berlin Wall did once upon a time. Medvedev stated that the issue of visas had been discussed in the summit and that it was generally acknowledged the existing system frustrates normal exchanges of business representatives and of ordinary people. He called for further work on both tourist visas and long term visas for employment.

 

In the Q&A period, Medvedev made his thinking still more explicit and laid bare who is calling for change in the visa issue and who is dragging his feet: he identified the issue of visas as one of the key remaining unsettled points in the future EU-Russia Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation and he made it clear that Russia wants the elimination of visas for travel to and from the EU. In return he offered to greatly simplify the conditions of business accreditation and employment of foreigners in Russia, which is today very complicated and uncertain.

 

Indeed, if I may be granted a brief aside to editorialize, in an age when the European Economic Community has itself moved on from being a structure to facilitate commercial exchange between states to become the European Union, a structure facilitating the free movement of people and ideas and, more generally, serving firstly the interests of the people living on the Old Continent in the issues affecting their daily lives, it is shameful for Europe to perpetuate the wall of exclusionary visa procedures aimed at keeping Russians out and making them psychologically defensive in some perceived pariah status, as if their country were a Zimbabwe or the Apartheid vintage Union of South Africa.

 

The forces behind continuation of this exclusion are coming, to be sure, from new Member States of the European Union, in particular the Baltics. It is understandable though unacceptable in today’s globalized world that folks in Riga, for example, are none too keen to play host to tourists from a country they so recently won their freedom from or to see the Russian owners of flats and villas at the nearby seaside resorts have easy access to their properties. But it has to be said that there is no shortage of Russophobes, unforgiving Cold Warriors even in the core EU member states, including our very own Kingdom of Belgium. These officials and influential elites hide behind the bogey man of Russian mafia or try to suggest that half of the Russian Federation will empty out into Euroland if given the opportunity to travel freely. Both of these specters are totally invented and must be defeated in the open forum of ideas.

 

I have said elsewhere that Russia has not had such an affable, radiant personality as head of state for more than a century. Yet, despite all his nice guy manners, Medvedev was more direct in speaking to the points of contention between the EU and Russia than his EU interlocutors. He did not hesitate to blame Georgian “aggression” for causing the upset in cooperative relations with the EU, and he reminded his audience of what could be achieved in other parts of the same region by acting in a collaborative spirit: the continuing work of the EU and Russia to restart the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the separatist province of Nagorno-Karabakh.

 

In speaking of energy matters, Dmitry Medvedev allowed himself the liberty of mentioning the significant recent progress in gathering approvals, including most critically that of Sweden, Denmark and Finland, for Russia’s major pending gas pipeline projects directed at its European markets, Nord and South Stream. We see here Russia’s newfound optimism in the eventual implementation of its plans to consolidate its position as leading energy supplier in the face of strong, geopolitically motivated opposition from the United States and certain new Member States in Central Europe

 

It was also clear from his words that the section on energy of the future Cooperation Agreement is wide open for negotiation. This means that EU hardliners seeking to force Russian acceptance of commercial terms negotiated in the 1990s at the nadir of Russian central authority have now had to back down.

 

The question period of the press conference shed important additional light on the personality, mindsets and relative strength of negotiating positions of those on the dais. None was more piquant than the very first question from the Radio Sweden representative asking President Medvedev to comment on the status of bilateral relations with Stockholm in light of remarks by Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt in August 2008 likening Russian actions to Nazi Germany during World War II.

 

The Russian President’s response was a masterful combination of formal diplomatic tact and human sincerity. He said that Bildt had evidently “gotten worked up” at the time, and he conceded that “everyone has his emotions.” As regards relations at present, Medvedev reminded the audience that: “between our nations there is a long history of relations and there was a bit of everything in them - there was great friendship and wars..” In this year of the 300^th anniversary of the battle of Poltava, in which Peter the Great’s armies defeated the combined forces of Charles XII of Sweden and rebel Ukrainians under Hetman Mazeppa, the gentle irony in Medvedev’s words cannot have been lost on his Swedish listeners. Medvedev concluded his answer by saying that the past day’s bilateral talks with Prime Minister Reinfeldt had proven that there were no problems between them.

 

In closing I would call attention to one other question that reflected a longstanding debating point raised by Russia’s detractors in the West, the allegation that it plays off Member States against one another for its own advantage and frustrates the policies of consensus. The question was re-packaged in the context of the impending coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and the questioner asked whether Russia would build relations with the new consolidated voice of the EU versus dealing with the countries separately.

 

Medvedev adroitly turned the question around, insisting that there was no contradiction between paying attention to the EU’s new leaders and the Member States. Taking a page from the Euroskeptic notebook and speaking as a lawyer, he reminded the questioner that the European Union is not a sovereign state which has swallowed up the other states entering into it. Rather it is a union of states which retain their own sovereign rights. Therefore Russia would pursue good relations with Europe at both levels.

 

As readers of this blog are surely aware, I normally find high added value of reporting on major events such as the EU-Russia Summit in the pages of the Moscow daily Kommersant. In this particular case, their journalist seems to have gotten distracted by the question of speedy WTO membership for Russia. to the exclusion of a broader understanding of the dynamics of the event. However, reporter Vladimir Soloviev came up with one noteworthy find. He followed up the question of visas with one of the responsible RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials present in the hall of the press conference, Vladimir Voronkov, head of the Department of European Cooperation, who gave the following appraisal of what took place:

 

“We felt the readiness of Europe to move on to practical steps to ease the visa regime. For the moment there is no readiness to speak about its complete elimination, but there is already a desire to simplify everything. I think that at the next RF-EU Summit which will take place in Rostov in May or in the beginning of June next year this problem will be one of the key ones.”

 

Let us hope that this positive momentum carries forward and Russia proceeds to a closer integration into the common European home.

 

© Gilbert Doctorow 2009