Policy Brief About EU-Russia Relations

Policy Brief about EU-Russia Relations The issue of the Russian Federation, in terms of the relations the EU has so far established, is part of the discussion. Still, the EU-Russia relations represent an important issue to be taken into account due to the influential role Russia plays in the immediate vicinity of the EU and as a global player.

Under these conditions, for the EU to have a strong and positive foreign policy to the extent it envisaged throughout the policy initiatives it encouraged inside the Union, good sound relations with Russia are essential. The present policy brief aims to place in balance the possible solutions that are at the disposal of the European and Russian diplomacy, taking into account the latest developments between the two parties.

However, in order to have a comprehensive view of the possible scenarios, it is important to underline the background of the EU-Russia dialogue, as well as the major issues that marked the years of continuous negotiations especially after the signing of the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. In this sense, the analysis will focus on major policy levels under discussion between the two sides which represent the most important aspects of the ongoing negotiations for an extension of the 1997 Agreement.

Also, in the policy recommendation section, each of this level will be analyzed and possible solutions will be issued. The main focus of the policy analysis is to try to consider the eventual background that led to the current state of affairs between the European Union and Russia. The general overview on the matter did not consider the evolution of the contacts as being neither good, nor bad, but ones that stringently require a positive move forward.

In this sense, the 2007 renegotiation of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1997 is crucial for the continuing relations between the European Union and Russia. The importance of the event resides in the possible future benefits for both parts, taking into consideration that in the 1997 Agreement the results and actions had to be considered only from the perspective of a mutual gain. Thus, cooperation and dialogue must be strengthened, as well as the direct and indirect channels of collaboration on the various levels of discussion.

Still, even in attaining this degree of improvement, there are different roads to take. Thus, it is important to submit them to an analysis and to proper consideration. Introduction The European continent has undergone a serious of significant changes throughout the years. From the two world wars it experienced to the Cold War that marked the division between the West and the East, the 20th century represented a time of great challenge.

However, the European Union is now successfully engaged in attaining its initial role of uniting Europe under a single set of values, norms, and beliefs. Nonetheless, the finality of the project is still a matter of constant debate. Background The history of the EU-Russia relations is of rather recent date, taking into account the previous evolutions between the two partners for discussion. However, one of the most important arrangements between the two parties is the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement which set the official basis for discussions.

The stated official foundation of the Agreement underlines precisely the areas in which negotiations and dialogue paths would be opened from 1997. In this sense, the Agreement is "founded on shared principles and objectives namely the promotion of international peace and security, support for democratic norms as well as for political and economic freedoms" (the European Union, 2006).

Therefore, according to the official document the general guidelines of the UE-Russia relations are destined to create a strong political dialogue framework, improvements in the areas of trade and the market economy, but more importantly to offer an environment in which the Russian strive for democracy can be eventually achieved (European Commission, 1997). The defining document for the relations between the two parties also considered the creation of certain dialogue mechanisms that would enable them to act in a consistent and periodic manner towards achieving the aim submitted in the Agreement.

In this sense, at the level of the head of states, there are regular meetings in order to encourage high level talks. Also, the Permanent Partnership Council allows ministers from different areas of activity to interact and discuss various issues on the agenda. The meetings with the European Troika are also essential in building up the political dialogue between decision making officials. Furthermore, there is also a framework for parliamentarian contact through the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee.

Therefore, it can be said that the framework for discussions is established through the Agreement, yet today there are serious doubts on whether these channels were used at their maximum capacity. Definition of the issue The relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation is at some points considered to be uneven, and more importantly opened to too little concessions and ideas for cooperation.

However, in order to argue this point-of-view, it is essential to take into account the most important areas of cooperation that have been tackled in the EU-Russia dialogue. One of the main areas of dialogue has been the European Foreign and Security Policy. In order to achieve a stronger connection between the EU and Russia "The Common Strategy on Russia" was adopted in 1999.

However, it did not take into account a coherent and unitary approach of the Russian relations because inside the European Union there are divergent opinions in connection to the possible advancements towards the Russian Federation. Still, the relation with Russia is considered to be extremely important for the consistency of the European Security and Defense Policy due to the fact that "Russia is in this context in a unique position vis-a- vis the EU, as the only major global actor which is also a direct neighbor" (Vahl, 2006, 6).

The European Union has worked intensively to create a broader framework for dialogue at the Lisbon European Council in 1992 when Russia was designated as one of the main priorities for the European Union (the Bulletin of the European Communities, 1992). However, the attempts made at the time were limited in their scope and were presented as an adjacent issue. Even after the signing of the Agreement of 1997, the EU-Russia relations were perceived as a complementary, yet unessential element of the European Foreign Policy.

This was obvious even in the financial aid it received along the years from the European Union, which was comparable to the former CSI countries. Thus, by comparison, "In the 1995-2002 periods, EU aid commitments to the countries of the Balkans were on average 246 Euros/capita, to the Mediterranean partners 23 euro on average.

7 euro/capita was allocated to Russia, slightly below the CIS average of 8 euro/capita" (Vahl, 2006, 10) Still, the fact that the Russian Federation struggled hard in order to achieve WTO member status is relevant to point out the fact that its importance for the European forum was somewhat limited. The 1997 Agreement changed to a certain degree the relations between the two sides. More precisely, it pointed out the willingness of both Russia and the EU to collaborate further and strengthen their relations in the most important policy areas.

Therefore, unlike the other countries part of the CSI system, Russia benefits from a political context in which it can conduct periodical discussions thus a certain permanent connection can be maintained. This would have seemed unimaginable during the Cold War period, from this point-of-view the Agreement being a step forward. In terms of the security guarantees both sides could offer to each other, there were certain points that took their toll in agreeing to cooperate.

One of the most important was the continuous challenges the world is facing, from two perspectives; on the one hand, during the 1990s, the new international framework that was emerging following the end of the Cold War was uncertain and in disarray. Neither the Europeans, nor the Russians were able to establish the direction in which the equilibrium of forces would go. On the other hand, there was the matter of the growing threat of terrorism, both internal and external. This threat increased following the 2001 attacks on the United States.

At the time, a deeper cooperation in security matters was considered essential. The second dimension of the issue that brought together the idea of a cooperation model was the obvious weakness of the Russian Federation in terms of defense and military. Studies have concluded that "at the start of the new century Russia faces indeed a multilevel social, economic, demographic, and political crisis, all of which exacerbate Russia's vulnerability to destabilizing international trends.

Putin's main conclusion is that these circumstances dictate a policy of deep engagement of Russia in the international community" (Lynch, 2003). In terms of success and failure, it can be considered that the military and defense cooperation has known both ups and downs. The institutionalized relation appears to have achieved its aim of bringing together the two sides in consultations during the Balkan crisis and even in the issue of the war in Iraq.

The negative aspect of the matter however, is the limited breakthroughs made at the practical level, as most discussions end in declarative aims, yet no timeline for an actual implementation of them. On the one hand, the European Union did not present itself as very willing to offer economic incentives and aid to the ailing Russian Federation, and on the other hand, Russian opposition forces who argue against a westernization of the country encourage a limited enthusiasm towards an increased cooperation partnership.

In this way, both parties, although are engaged in a partnership, act in such a manner as to discourage any advancements of talks. The stalemate that has continuously characterized the Partnership was obvious in many instances. One moment that was of great importance for the European Union and to which the Russian Federation more or less opposed was the 2004 enlargement process.

In that context, "Russia has transmitted an unpublished but much publicized list of 14 technical complaints in relation to EU enlargement, while Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov published an implicit reply to the Commission at a more strategic level" (Emerson and Kobrinskaya, 2004). On its part, the European Union is constantly reminding the Russian side of the latter's increasingly worrisome policy towards neighboring areas such as Moldova, Belarus, or the Ukraine. In this context, it is highly unlikely that the partnership as outlined in the 1997 Agreement could move forward.

There are other particular areas covered by the Partnership where cooperation has been more easily achieved. The economic aspect is traditionally seen as representing an area of easier cooperation due to the financial prospects both sides have in an economy that is globalised. In this sense, there are bilateral trade agreements concerning steel and textiles which are under constant observation. Moreover, at the Moscow Summit in 2005, leaders agreed on a full package of measures intended to complement the Agreement.

The official statement agreed that "The overall objective of the CES is the creation of an open and integrated market between the EU and Russia. The aim is to put in place conditions which will increase opportunities for economic operators, promote trade and investment, facilitate the establishment and operation of companies on a reciprocal basis, strengthen cooperation in the field of energy, transport, agriculture and environment, reinforce economic cooperation and reforms and enhance the competitiveness of the EU and Russian economies" (the European Commission, 2005).

From this perspective, the scope of the agreement was broadened and a new inceptive was given to a strengthened cooperation attitude. The Common Economic Space includes actions meat at eventually integrate the Russian economic space, through the elimination of barriers, encouragement of non-discriminatory practices, free competition, transparency, and good governance.

An area that has brought along aseries of important results in terms of cooperation and international collaboration is the Common Space on Research, Education, Culture which aimed at creating a framework of joint actions meant to increase cooperation in scientific programs, educational programs, and other cultural matters. There are also areas that have failed to achieve the desired results due to the fact that cooperation is harder to achieve in matters concerning security issues and foreign policy aspects.

The Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice took into account precisely the issue of visa requirements where progress was achieved, unlike other areas where discussions are ongoing such as the Russian Judicial Reform where the EU is constantly arguing an inefficient system. The Common Space on External Security also represents a sensitive issue in the bilateral relations.

This is due to the fact that although the EU promotes a peaceful policy toward the conflicts adjacent to the Russian Federation such as Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia fails to take consistent actions in this sense, even more, through indirect activities, it encourages the violent nature of these conflicts.

Taking all these matters into consideration, it is rather obvious that the main issues under discussion, the ones on which agreement is harder, if not impossible to achieve, are related to the traditional aspects concerning foreign policy, defense, and in the end, political. These segments of policy are strictly interconnected and from the perspective of both sides, they are relevant both for their historical past and experience, as well as for the direction in which the current policies are conducted.

Possible scenarios There are various possibilities in regard to the future developments of the EU-Russia relations. Indeed, neither of the two actors can chose to ignore each other taking into account the previous enlargements that have brought Europe increasingly closer to the Russian Federation. Moreover, the issue of energy has become a stringent matter, for the European Union as a consumer and for the Russian Federation as a provider.

Also, in the matter of the security threats that are an issue more and more stringent for both parties, there needs to be a special attention paid. Despite these argument however, there are certain frictions that tend to slow down the process of cooperation that was so vividly announced in 1997.

Even so, these prerequisites taken into account, the direction of the relations between the two sides can be two folded: it can either consider a limitation of the cooperation scope, or, on the contrary to include a more energetic approach and work to resolve the issues under debate. Either way, a regress from the current state of affairs would not be benefic for either side. The first option would imply a reconsideration of policy by both sides.

More precisely, it would mean that both sides agreed to see the negative aspects of their cooperation and the shortcomings of their efforts so far. Thus, to stop the process of cooperation at this point in time would partly annul the progress made in areas such as education, culture, and border cooperation. There have been made serious breakthroughs in these areas which represent perspectives that during the Cold War were not even a long-term idea.

Still, as stated before, these areas of cooperation do not represent the main points of dialogue between the two sides and it is a matter of sensitive issues such as democracy, human rights, and security that pose difficulty in the bilateral dialogue. A possible solution for eventual future reconsideration of the Partnership would be to release the tension from the Agreement in the sense of leaving aside issues that would ultimately address the core values of both sides.

Thus, from the European point-of-view, it is rather clear that aspects such as a free market economy or the transparency of the competitive process has no direct correspondent in the Russian framework. This is largely due to the different historical experience of the two sides. The European Union has a long standing tradition in adopting and implementing liberal principles, whereas the Russian Federation represented the core of the communist and state planned economy. Moreover, corruption and state intervention have always been defining elements for the Russian business environment.

Therefore, it can be said that from this point-of-view, there are limited points on which the two sides can agree. These different views, especially from the Russian side, are obvious to most policy makers engaged in the Partnership process. They have been constantly identified in the different perceptions each of the two sides has on the other.

Thus, it has been argued that Russia perceives itself in its relation with the European Union as constantly in inferiority due to the fact that it views the European ally as an essential advocate of its World Trade Organization membership (Baranovsky, 2000). Thus, its negotiation status, from the Russian perspective, is less favorable and from the point-of-view of the historical tradition of Russian politics this perception tends to stiff the dialogue channels and make the Russians less eager to cooperate.

On the other hand, from the point-of-view of the European partner, the need for energy and security assurances for the member countries closest to the Russian border, the eagerness to move forward negotiations determines them to have high expectations and demands Russia cannot fulfill. In this sense, while Russia is reluctant to engage full speed in any democratization process the EU expects, the European Union is eager to achieve immediate results and fuels a rather strong negotiating attitude.

The fact that the EU demands a restructuring of the Russian industry but fails to ensure strong financial assistance is relevant to the point (Baranovsky, 2000). The current situation between Russia and the EU are far from moving forward. In this sense, the Trades Commissioner acknowledged in the spring of 2007 the fact that "since the Cold War we've had obviously very different, much better relations.. nonetheless I think they're going through a very difficult period" (BBC, 2007). Moreover, he added that "Relations between the EU and Russia..

contain a level of misunderstanding or even mistrust we have not seen since the end of the Cold War" (BBC, 2007). Therefore, aside from different sensitive issues, there is also a matter of political perception that cannot foster a partnership agreement. While the issues concerning the differences in terms of compatibility between the two economic systems with their characteristic elements can be reconsidered after a pause in the discussions on these matters, or a longer period of time between negotiations, the issue of political perception must be tackled without any delay.

It is common belief the fact that the personality of the Russian leadership has often been complex and demanded special attention. In the circumstances in which the Partnership is primarily based on political dialogue it is important that the issue of the lack of confidence be addressed. There are various means to achieve this, however, in today's world the financial instrument represents one of the most efficient confidence building instrument. Still, the European Union, from the perspective of its electorate cannot endorse a corrupted system or a bankrupt economy.

Nonetheless, in order to create a more relaxed environment, standards could be lowered or terms for achieving certain goals could be set on a wider period of time. This would enable the political environment in Moscow to change both mentalities and perceptions. The more aggressive.