Russia and the EU: Friendship or Strategic Partnership?
20 December 2006
Political context
Democracy in Russia is more and more under threat. President Putin tightens his grip on democratic institutions, neutralises political opposition, and actively supports centralising tendencies in the country. Recent developments that raised criticism are the controversial legislation on nongovernmental organisations, the murder on journalist Anna Politkovskaya – three weeks before the conference – and the deportation of Georgians from Russia. Other sensitive topics are the human rights violations in Chechnya and the Russian army, and the ambitions of Russia in its neighborhood.
The EU has a great strategic and economic interest in Russia, which has been strengthened since the enlargement of the EU brought Russia closer. The EU is Russia’s main trading partner and the energy supplies are of key-importance to the EU. Since 1997 cooperation has been arranged through the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which will expire in November 2007. The coming months will be of great importance as negotiations about future cooperation will take place.
The timing of the conference was particularly interesting because of developments in the political party landscape: Rodina, Party of Life and the Pensioners Party united into the Just Russia party during this very weekend.
Moscow, 27 October 2006
The first day, which was organised in cooperation with the Moscow office of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, focused on the political developments and state of democracy in Russia and the relations between Russia and the EU. For this purpose leading politicians, academics, government officials, and representatives from the NGO sector were invited.
Chairmen: Ruslan Kokurev and Matthes Buhbe, Friedrich Ebert Stifung
Alexey Zakharov of the Republican Party started with a presentation on his party, which had failed to reregister. He asserted that Russia is sliding down to totalitarianism. President Putin is still very popular, mainly because his approach to oligarchs. Zakharov described the new party that is formed by the Party of Life, Rodina and the Pensioners Party as a creation of the Kremlin. Leonid Gozman of the Union of Right Forces agreed with this and described his own party as the party of Russian capitalism. Unlike many people in Russia he praised former President Yeltsin for his liberalism and emphasized the importance of private property, individual freedom and democracy.
Larissa Nikovskaya who represented the Party of Life explained that people in Russia are not really concerned about democracy, but instead face real social problems. Therefore, the new party, which unites Party of Life, Rodina, and the Pensioners Party will focus on social justice and protection of national interests.
Andrey Zhukov of the “Rodina” party confirmed this and told that the slogan of the new, leftist centrist party will be “Social Justice” and that the party will focus on healthcare and environmental problems. After questions from the participants, Zhukov and Nikovskaya explained that Rodina is used as the basis for unification as this is the only party that is represented in the State Duma, while the Party of Life took the initiative to bring the parties together. Zhukov stressed the importance of personalities and Nikovskaya added that one must not forget that Party of Life and Pensioners Party have considerable support in the regions. Nikovskaya described President Putin as the father of the nation, who should not be criticised (“like the British queen”) and praised him for bringing law and order to Russia.
Dimitri Nobikov of the Communist Party criticized the government for the housing reforms and the violations of freedom, for example the decision to deny the referendum on social issues proposed by the Communist Party. Nobikov said that the mass media are only a tool of the ruling Unity party. According to Nobikov both Unity and the new party formed by Rodina, Party of Life and Pensioners Party are creations of the Kremlin, which means they are privileged in many respects. The presentation of Nobikov raised many questions and the discussion focused on ideological matters. Sergey Kaliakin of the Belarusian Party of Communists questioned why the Russian Communist Party supports the dictatorial regime of President Lukashenka. In response Nobikov answered that the economic system in Belarus is far better than in Russia, where oligarchs rule the economy. Nobikov made clear that his party is in favour of nationalisation of companies and full integration of Soviet states. Nobikov described the communist party as the only real opposition party in Russia.
In the afternoon, the discussion focused on the topic of “Partnership with Russia in Europe”. Hannes Swoboda of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament said that the relations between the EU and Russia are in a very critical stage and that criticism should not have an anti-Russian attitude as its source but a serious and strong will to help Russia to find its place in an international community of democratic states. Swoboda pledged for interdependence with mutual benefits and described three problems that may hinder improving relations with Russia: the problem of human rights and political freedoms, the common neighborhood, and the energy question. Swoboda said that the negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement under the German presidency can be a new start.
Fyodor Lukyanov of the magazine “Russia in Global Affairs” from Moscow stated that the new EU-Russia relations must be based on equality of both partners. He stressed that the time of focusing on human rights is over, because energy is crucial to the relationship. He said that Russia is feeling strong and realizes that many countries are dependent on the energy supply. Lukyanov’s address was followed by many questions and the discussion focused on the role of Russia in the neighboring countries. Lukyanov stressed that Russia wishes to have influence in the region, though is not playing the imperial card.
The debate on EU-Russia relations continued with a panel discussion. Olga
Potyomkina of the Europe-Institute in Moscow confirmed the confidence of Russia as described by Fyodor Lukyanov. Also she stated that Russia wants to be involved in a partnership with the EU on an equal basis. She noted a contradiction because the EU still sticks to its conditionality, while Russia resists and insists on pragmatic cooperation. Sabine Fischer of the Stiftung fur Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin noted that the EU policy of conditionality has failed. Main fields of conflict according to Fischer are the energy question, internal developments, and the common neighborhood. She stressed that the EU has to accept that in Russia authoritarian and democratic elements are mixed and that stability exists. Fischer expects that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will be prolonged. Negotiations on a new agreement would need much more time.
Also Sergey Kortunov of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow does not expect a breakthrough very soon and he argued in favour of a construction comparable to the NATO-Russia relations. The main problem lays in the EU, because it first has to digest the new members and develop a more united foreign policy, according to Kortunov. Also he mentioned the double standards of the EU in respect to the Russian population in the Baltics and the problem of Kaliningrad. Kortunov argued that relations could be developed in some spheres, such as high tech and pledged for more involvement of business and civil society. Kerry McCarthy, who is an MP for the British Labour Party highlighted EU-Russia relations from a British perspective. She said that it is timely to discuss cooperation in economic terms and to stabilise the relationship to secure energy supplies. Also an important issue for the British is cooperation on terrorism. However, she also argued that social democrats do see that human values are central to the construction of the EU and said that the political always goes hand in hand with economy.
The panel discussion ended with many questions and debate in the room, which showed the different perceptions, though everybody agreed that the policy of conditionality failed. While Hannes Swoboda argued that the sudden deportation of Georgians is political, Potyomkina stated that this was only done to fight illegal immigration and to prevent outbursts like happened in Paris. Kortunov said that Russia is fully respecting the territorial integrity of neighbouring countries. He also said that Russia will seek strong relationships with Berlin and Paris, not with Brussels. Hannes Swoboda replied that Russia will be faced with a strong and unified EU foreign policy. Sabine Fischer added that the focus should be on sectoral cooperation and then just hope for socialising effects. Andre Gerrits questioned on what grounds this new assertiveness of the Russians is based, because like three years ago the economy is still middle sized. In response Kortunev said that this mentality is inherent to the government and that the views he presented are those of the elites.
Russia and the EU from a social democratic perspective
Moscow, 28 October 2006
The second day was organised in cooperation with the Social Democratic Party of Russia (SDPR). In the morning we discussed the left in Russia in the run up to the 2007 parliamentary elections and social policy in Russia. In the afternoon the discussion focused again on relations between the EU and Russia with special attention for the position of neighbouring countries.
An important development was the 26th October decision of the Federal Registration Service (FRS) to deny registration to the SDPR. According to the FRS the party has 52,303 members and 37 branches of no less than 500 members. The party therefore does not comply with the federal law because it has branches in less than half of Russian regions even though the total number of its members is 52,000. In case the SDPR’s appeal will not be granted, the party will not be allowed to take part in the 2007 parliamentary elections. The party will also be obliged to either turn into a NGO – a movement – or dissolve.
Chairman: André Gerrits, Alfred Mozer Stichting/ University of Amsterdam
Vladimir Kishenin, the party leader of the SDPR, opened the morning session. He addressed the problem of denial of registration of the party and objected to the numbers of the FRS saying that the door-to-door member count was executed in the summer, when only few people were at home to actually be counted. According to the party’s figures there are 61 regional branches and 70,000 members. The party will therefore appeal the decision. Kishenin fears that the Social Democrats will not be heard once it is forced to turn into a movement and will do everything to keep the party in the political arena.
In addition, Kishenin argued for diversification of the Russian economy and set out the main issues for the party, which are healthcare, education, and agriculture. He is in favour of partnership relations with the EU, but is against WTO membership, because this will increase inflation. Kishenin mentioned several times the importance of the international contacts of the party. Kishenin values the decisions of President Putin, but sees some problems with the implementation. About the new party formed by Rodina, Party of Life and Pensioners Party he said that it remains to be seen how it will develop and he is open for strengthening links with this party.
In response to a series of questions from the room, Kishenin argued for keeping the party together, despite the recent problems and mentioned the status of the Socialist International as one of the reasons. He also expressed his thought that the new party will have no future, because they do not have a charismatic leader. He clarified his view on President Putin’s policy by saying that the main problem is that implementation of social programs is blocked in the regions. Therefore it is good that regional governors are appointed now. He is glad that Putin does not take any orders from the United States. Kishenin thinks more attention should be paid to small businesses.
Boris Guseletov, the international secretary continued with a presentation on the political party system in Russia and mentioned that the authorities are trying to control the process by high thresholds (for the Moscow city duma it is 10%), selection of members of electoral commissions and hard conditions regarding signatures and deposits. Unification of the left is the only way to stand a chance, Guseletov said. In addition, Russians need pragmatic politics. The newly created bloc will be supporting President Putin, but it is not clear yet what programme they are going to have. The SDPR decided to stay out and tries to unite with other leftist parties: there is already an agreement with the People’s Party, while negotiations with Party of Social Justice failed.
Ilya Konstantinov of the Party of Social Justice praised the President for not only being the head of state, but also being the symbol of state unity and territorial integrity of Russia. He said that Putin is not understood in the West and that his policies are positive, because it recovered Russia from the chaotic Yeltsin years. Also he argued that it is not realistic to have a social democratic power in the Duma without approval of the Kremlin. The unification of Rodina, the Party of Life, and the Pensioners Party he considers a positive development. Vladimir Kishenin intervened by saying that the party is not social democratic because members of the party signed the same laws as were approved by United Russia.
Gennady Gudkov of the People Party and member of the State Duma held a pessimistic address saying that parties have little power and people have no influence. A difficulty is that all parties act in the social sphere, which makes it difficult for social democrats to stand out. He argued in favour of the creation of three branches of power. He called the newly created party a compromise to democracy. Social democrats should distinguish themselves by being democratic.
In response to questions it became once more clear that criticism of President Putin is not done. Guseletov made a comparison with the queen in Great Britain and said it is also not done to insult her. Gudkov stressed that we should criticize the system, not the person.
Natalya Rimashevskaya, Academician and former Director of the Institute of Social and Economical problems of Russian Academy of Science, brought the discussion back to everyday realities of Russian society by addressing social policy. She criticised the government for ignoring social polarisation and failing social programmes. Vulnerable people are families with workers with low wages, single households and households with many children and specific groups such as disabled, pensioners, unemployed. According to her, the flat income tax is reinforcing this situation and minimal wages should increase by 5 times.
Judith Shapiro of the London School of Economics addressed the population loss and showed with figures from demoscope that every 13 seconds a Russian dies, but only every 22 seconds a person is born. Women should be enabled to combine a career with motherhood. She expressed her concern that social problems will get worse, because in the next generation the memory of good childcare during Soviet times will be lost. Shapiro said that social democrats cannot be successful without addressing the gender issue.
In response to questions from the room the pro-natal policy of the government was critised for only having short term effects and only focusing on the numbers, not paying attention to the qualities of people. Shapiro also called for a more humane approach of women with HIV/Aids who bear children, and argued for giving them medicine to prevent infection of the baby.
In the afternoon the focus was on EU-Russia relations. Kimmo Kiljunen, a member of parliament for the Finnish Social Democratic Party, highlighted the merits of the Finish presidency of the EU. According to him it is a challenge to close the income gap between Russia and the EU, and he thinks Finland can be instrumental. Kiljunen also said that besides the traditional left/right division there is a new dimension of globalistion and openness versus local focus and closeness. He sees that there is still space for a democratic, globalist, open, leftist party in Russia.
Thijs Berman, Member of European Parliament for the Socialist Group, focused on the question of human rights. According to Berman the Chechen war should be mentioned by every politician and said that the exclusiveness of the Russians is a myth: “you have to understand that Tolstoy can be read in the Netherlands as well”. He said that it is not healthy for a state to build self-esteem on natural resources or war and argued that respect also means being open to criticism. In addition, he identified a wide range of issues that can be addressed by social democrats in Russia, ranging from equality of man and women, to protest against deportation of Georgians, and argue against the denigrated statements of President Putin on the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. Though Berman sees the importance of EU-Russia relations, in his view conditions are part of the deal.
Dan Mihalache, MP and Observer to the European Parliament, PSD Romania, argued for a longstanding partnership between Russia and the EU to strengthen Europe’s geopolitical position in the world. In his view, the frozen conflicts show that Russia and the EU are part of the same problem. He identified the strengthening of Russophobia in the EU since the enlargement, and said it is the task of social democrats to change that and keep being engaged in the dialogue with Russia.
In the discussion afterwards Gerard Fuchs argued that nationalism and globalisation are two sides of the same coin, and said that it is in our common interest to fight nationalism. Guseletov said that if you criticize Russia you have to remember that there are also Russians who have another view. Fischer noted a contradiction in the European institutions, as there is a highly critical European Parliament, but at the same time relations are developed. Berman replied that indeed there is a contradiction, but that this does not prevent him as a politician from raising issues. Like Hannes Swoboda the previous day, he said that the EU will speak more and more with one voice.
The last round of presentations focused on the neighbouring countries of Russia. André Gerrits of the University of Amsterdam made introductory remarks outlining the relevant topics for the region: the volatility of the region, the lack of institutionalisation in the region and the idea that Russia has hegemonic ambitions in the region.
Yuri Navoyan and Giro Manoyan from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation explained the complexities in the relations between Russia and Armenia. Unlike other Caucasian countries Armenia has a good relationship with Russia, which shows in the presence of Russian bases in the country. In the same time Armenia’s relationship with NATO and the EU are advanced. The conflict between Russia and Georgia hurt Armenia as much as Georgia. Crucial are the parliamentary elections, which are expected in April.
Rena Javadova of the Social Democratic Party of Azerbaijan and Rafig Ismayilov of the Social Democratic Youth Organisation highlighted the relationship between Russia and Azerbaijan. Javadova said that Russia has lost its position in the former Soviet space, but also relations with the EU are not strong. Azerbaijan mainly has interest in good relations with Turkey, Iran and Russia and the United States. Also Ismayilov noticed that President Aliyev is more focused on the transatlantic relation than on Europe, and this has to do also with interests in oil and gas reserves.
From Belarus Siarhei Kaliakin (Party of Communists in Belarus), Pavel Kudyukin (Belarusian Social Democratic Party Narodnaya Hramada), Anatol Liaukovich (Belarusian Social Democratic Party Hramada) and Anatol Astapenka (Belarusian Social Democratic Hramada) described the isolation of Belarus in the international scene. Kaliakin said that President Lukashenka even managed to destroy the relations with Russia, while Kudyukin blamed President Putin for supporting the regime in Belarus. Liaukovich and Astapenka underlined the importance of having good relations with both the EU and Russia.
Dumitru Diacov of the Democratic Party of Moldova explained that relations between Russia and Moldova reached an all-time low. Russia should not be involved in solving problems in neighboring countries such as the Transnistria conflict, according to Diacov. Instead the EU and PES should be active.
Vitaliy Shybko of the Socialist Party of Ukraine had to leave earlier, explained on paper the controversial decision of the Socialist Party to form a governing coalition with the Party of the Regions. The party wants to prevent further polarisation and instability and Shybko reassured that it remains committed to consolidation of (social) democracy and European integration. Alex Antonov of the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine described the governing coalition with the Socialist Party as a coalition of oligarchs and accused the socialists of betrayal. According to Antonov Yulia Tymoshenko is now the centre of opposition. Ukraine needs close relations with Russia, because of historical and cultural bonds.
Conclusions and recommendations for the future
The future negotiations between Russia and the EU on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will be a test for mutual relations. Both the EU and Russia will benefit from a mutual agreement. Main obstacles for a smooth process are:
1. Different perceptions on democracy and human rights.
While the European Union places these concepts central to the relationship, Russia is fed up with the paternalism and argues it is time to argue on a basis of equality.
2. Conflicting interests in common neighbouring countries
Both Russia and the EU have an interest in influencing the development in these countries. While the EU offers incentives in the political and economic field, Russia uses more often pressure, sanctions, and boycotts. A special problem is the support of Russia for separatist movements in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria
3. Different approaches in the field of energy
While the EU is partly dependent on Russia for its energy supply, Russia is dependent on the demand from the EU. Conflicting developments include the rising political influence and domination of the energy sector in Russia versus the rising liberalisation of energy markets in the EU. Also the rising Russian influence in the EU and the shared neighbourhood and more and more difficulties for EU investors are a problem.
Both the EU and Russia will have to seek a way to reach agreement. During the conference the idea of a sectoral approach was mentioned to be the ideal format for future EU-Russia cooperation. In the coming months, when the negotiations for the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement are being prepared, it is necessary to find a balance between the pragmatism of economic co-operation and the idealism of respect for democracy and human rights. The conference made clear that while the EU will be confronted with a self-confident Russia, Russia will be faced with a stronger EU that aspires to speak with one voice.
Kirsten Meijer
Project Manager European Forum
30 November 2006
