Toespraak Eurocommissaris Rehn over de relatie van de EU en Rusland (en)

SPEECH/08/236

Olli Rehn

EU Commissioner for Enlargement

EU-Russia relations: the way forward?

EU-Russia Seminar of the Swedish People's Party in Finland

Helsinki, 8 May 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to be with you today to discuss the future of EU–Russia relations. I want to thank the Swedish People's Party for organising and the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) for supporting this timely and important event.

The relations between the European Union and Russia are characterised by a certain degree of dualism. On the one hand, while the EU is based on the core values of democracy, rule of law and fundamental freedoms, Russia does not share these values – or at least prioritise and apply them in practice. On the other hand, we share many common interests and we are bound together by growing economic interdependence.

Acknowledgement of this dualism is a first step towards a better EU–Russia relationship after so many mutual disappointments.

Russia is a country of great-power ambitions, and these ambitions are easier to pursue in a period of record highs in oil prices. Russia's foreign policy line has hardened under the Putin regime. I saw this clearly in my own portfolio, in the negotiations to decide Kosovo’s future status.

Russia is also trying to build a modern nation-state which relies on hard power. By contrast, the EU is a post-modern entity which wields a vast soft power of attractiveness, but which lacks strong sanctioning mechanisms. No wonder it is often hard to find common language.

I don't believe we could achieve our goals with a new policy of containment, as some have suggested. Neither is there room for any policy of appeasement stemming from wishful thinking.

Instead, we should pursue realistic and pragmatic engagement, despite the fact that today’s Russia does not share our values of liberty and democracy. What does this mean in practice? Let me elaborate.

* * *

In a broader European perspective, today's Russia is a case in point of the tension between the forces of liberal democracy, which I would call the European way of life, and the forces of nationalist autocracy, which comes in different variants in the South-eastern and Eastern arc of Europe and its neighbourhood.

In today's Russia, social order is leaning towards authoritarian capitalism, under the pseudonym “sovereign democracy”. While Russia has become more prosperous and stable, civil liberties in the country have become more restricted. Developments with regard to the freedom of media, expression and assembly, functioning of civil society or the rights of minorities have given particular reason for concern.

The rise of the middle class and entrepreneurs in Russia should eventually mean growing demands for property rights and, by extension, legal certainty. This internal dynamic may lead Russia to reform its legal system and make its political system more accountable – but this is certainly not an automatic process by any means.

Obviously, we continue to promote the rule of law through our dialogue and agreements with Russia. This may help in the long run to make Russia a more reliable partner and to reinforce similar trends present within Russia.

President Dimitri Medvedev has promised continuity with his predecessor. However, he has also emphasized freedom, the rule of law and economic modernisation. He has indicated such ambitions by saying that "Russia is a country of legal nihilism. No other European state has a similar level of disregard for the law."

We welcome this approach, but are keen to see what it means in practice. The first opportunity to assess whether words match deeds will be in the next EU–Russia Summit in Khanty-Mansiysk at the end of June.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

While we have witnessed setbacks in democratic development and fundamental freedoms in Russia, we have also seen growing economic interdependence in EU-Russia relations. Economic integration between EU and Russia has advanced remarkably over recent years. Impressive growth in trade and investment is the most obvious evidence of this: over half of Russia's foreign trade is with the enlarged EU.

Energy continues to dominate the economic aspects of our relationship.

The EU will long remain dependent on Russian energy. Although we are working to increase our self-sufficiency and creating new import routes through South-East Europe, nearly 40 % of our current gas imports depend on one sole monopoly: Gazprom. In other words, on "Russia Inc."

Conversely, Russia is dependent on the EU's import of energy. More than 60 % of Russian oil and gas exports are destined to the EU. The energy sector represents a quarter of the Russian national economy. Moreover, without EU business and technology Russia cannot reform its economy.

This interdependence between the EU and Russia has benefited both sides for decades, as my compatriots can testify in the case of Finland. However, it needs to be a relationship based on reciprocal market access, with a genuinely level playing-field for Russian and EU companies in one another’s energy sectors. Then our energy interdependence can create a basis for mutually beneficial cooperation also in the future.

* * *

I recall representing the Commission in a debate on EU–Russia relations in the European Parliament some time ago. The main message of the MEPs was that "we must not trade human rights for energy”. I fully agree. We want and need both of them. Moreover, we need clear principles, realistic analysis and pragmatic engagement to achieve that.

The forthcoming negotiations for a New EU–Russia Agreement – which is intended to replace the current Partnership and Cooperation agreement (PCA) adopted in 1994 – should offer us an opportunity for pragmatic engagement across a wide spectrum of issues. My colleague Mrs Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who is responsible for relations with Russia within the Commission, is working actively to pursue this objective.

In order to succeed in these negotiations, the EU must achieve greater unity first. Russia is a master of "divide and rule", so it is up to the EU to get its act together. Our messages need to be clear and coherent. The Member States need to speak with a common voice. Each of them is stronger when negotiating as part of the Union of 500 million citizens than on its own. Bilateral relations should support action at the EU level, not undermine it.

Overall, the EU has been most successful in its relations with Russia in policy areas which fall under Community competence. When we have achieved coherence, we have also been able to achieve relatively good results. Our biggest shortcomings have been in areas where the EU common policies are not so strong, such as energy security.

The Lisbon Treaty will give us a chance to enhance our performance, by improving the EU decision-making and strengthening our external action.

Russia has expressed its will to join the WTO, even though it has not shown the same commitment to meet the necessary conditions for accession. I am referring especially to export duties on round timber, which are against the 2004 standstill agreement between EU and Russia. Solving this problem is a top priority for the EU. While the solution depends on Russia, Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has the EU's full support in his efforts to solve the matter and keep it top of the agenda.

Let me finally turn to the Northern Dimension, which was launched in 1997 on the initiative of Finland's then PM Paavo Lipponen. It is an evident but often unrecognised success story. Covering not only EU and Russia, but also Norway and Iceland, it has led to concrete results in many areas, not least in environmental protection, and health and social well-being.

Now, the Commission is preparing, at the request of the European Council, a specific strategy to improve practical cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. To give you but one example, practical efforts are needed to protect and improve the Baltic Sea environment. It is often difficult for the citizens of the region to understand how – despite decades of financial support and the creation of various cooperative arrangements – the eutrophication still continues and the ecological state of the Baltic Sea keeps deteriorating.

We need to be creative and promote the best parts of the Northern Dimension and of Baltic Sea cooperation in order to produce a coherent and well-functioning policy here in Northern Europe. I trust that the Swedish EU Presidency in the second half of 2009 will bring this goal closer.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To conclude, I would like to recall the fundamentals of our relationship with Russia. The best way to bring Russia further in our direction is through a pragmatic engagement that builds upon mutual interests, while recognising where Russia departs from the values that we hold dear in Europe.

Yes, we can do business with Russia and we need to do business, especially when it comes to energy. But we should keep our eyes open to the real trends in Russia today, and not pretend that the country is the same as we are when it comes to respect for democratic values.

At the same time, we know many Russians see their future being linked to Europe. Russia wants many things from the EU, and we have many legitimate expectations for them. It is time to compare our expectations, and think boldly and creatively what could be possible and what not.

In fact, the EU has long been prepared for closer partnership with Russia. We are ready, once Russia is ready to seriously engage on these expectations. This is no time for confrontation, but rather for strategic thinking and patience on how to advance a mutual agenda.