Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 298)
THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER 2007
Mr Eneko Landaburu, Mr Gunnar Wiegand, Mr Paul Vandoren,
Mr Frédéric
Q280 Chairman:
I hope that as far as encouraging studies, although obviously
there are places where there are concentrations of universities
and research institutes, such as Moscow, you will think very seriously
about widening it throughout the whole of the Russian space.
Mr Wiegand: That is our intention.
Q281 Chairman:
I think that is very important. Mr Wiegand, you were not present
at the very beginning when I said that although we are taking
a note of this, there are some parts of the conversation which
we may want to have off the record and I just wanted to repeat
that. If that is the case, we will stop taking a note, as happened
during the closing remarks, as you know, of Mr Landaburu's remarks.
I want to move into an area where this may be the situation. Mr
Landaburu, in his remarks, made some comments on the range of
attitudes which occur among different Member States and the possible
complications which this diversity of opinion may make for those
who are attempting to conduct a policy. I wonder whether you would
like to say anything further about that or whether you feel that
is something one should more appropriately address to Member States
rather than the institutions of the Community.
Mr Wiegand: On this issue, I would like to continue
with my remarks on the record. It is a normal and integral part
of our business, in trying to find the common interests, in trying
to formulate EU interests and project them externally, to deal
with different approaches Member States have to different relationships.
Having dealt with transatlantic relations before, this challenge
is not completely unknown to me. We see this with regard to many
relationships, in fact, because of the great diversity of history,
cultures and political developments in different Member States.
However, I would recognise, as the Director General did before,
that our most recent rounds of enlargement have placed a considerable
challenge on the institutions in Brussels in trying to correctly
identify our common approaches and remaining effective in achieving
results. However, I think we can say with some pride that throughout
the development of EU external relations and successive rounds
of enlargement, each round of enlargement gave an additional dimension
and impetus to the development of relations of the EU as a whole
with different parts of the world and I do not think this will
be different this time.
Q282 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
Can I follow on that because, at the end of the day, as we do
enlarge Europe we get nearer and nearer to Russia and we keep
on saying, "Europe goes on and on until we reach Russia,
but there is no question of them being members of the European
Union". Well, they have got a population of 140 million and
dropping, Turkey has got a population of 70 million and rising,
and the British Government thinks the Turks ought to be in the
EU. The GDP of Russia is that of Belgium and Holland put together.
This is not a gigantic country. Perhaps this ought to be off the
record. (There followed a short discussion off the record)
Mr Wiegand: (There followed a short discussion
off the record)
Q283 Chairman:
This has already been touched upon in the introductory intervention,
but I wonder if you would like to come back to this question as
to on which areas of policy does the European Union most need
to present a united front in its relations with Russia. Linked
to it, what does the European Union have to offer Russia in the
context of negotiations? What are the most important chips that
we may have available? How can we best influence Russian thinking
on policy?
Mr Wiegand: I will answer the first part of
your question, but to answer the second part in a public recording
is perhaps not the most appropriate thing to do. On the first
one, I think there is a common understanding that the most important
part of our future negotiations will be to clarify rules for trade
and investment in general and there is a very important component
which requires specific rules and that is energy. I would clearly
like to underline that there are strong interests on both sides
in this, that we have, both overall in our economic development
but also with regard to energy in particular, a situation of mutual
interdependence and there is huge potential for modernisation
and diversification with engagement of European industry in Russia.
The current President has in his important speeches repeatedly
pointed to how much Russia lags behind in terms of having competitive
industries, how much Russian infrastructure has to be modernised
to be competitive and says so also at our summit meetings regularly.
Our industry is interested in not being only traders and exporters
but also being present and being present with clear rules which
can be tested where dispute settlement exists. We have to achieve
the situation both via WTO accession and via a bilateral agreement.
I would not like to single out exclusively, as some people do,
the energy area. I think it is a general challenge for both sides
to have clear rules for trade and investment, but there is a particular
interest on both sides to have this also in energy, spelt out
in more detail because there are no general rules available for
the energy side beyond the Energy Charter Treaty, which is a different
chapter.
Q284 Chairman:
I do not know whether you want to go off the record to attempt
any of the others, but if you do not, we can continue with our
next question.
Mr Wiegand: (There followed a short discussion
off the record)
Chairman: Moving on now to energy, if
we may. Lord Truscott?
Q285 Lord Truscott:
Could you outline what you see as the obstacles to the EU having
a common energy policy? You mentioned the Energy Charter and we
mentioned the PCA in terms of energy, but I know there are moves
afoot to have a new energy directive in terms of access to European
markets, for example for Russian energy companies. Can that be
seen as protectionist? How do you deal with the balance of encouraging
constructive engagement with Russia, yet, in developing this energy
directive, avoiding an element of protectionism?
Mr Wiegand: Will you also be seeing colleagues
from the energy side of the Commission?
Q286 Chairman:
No, we are not seeing anybody from the Directorate General on
this agenda.
Mr Wiegand: As President Barroso has said, the
proposal which the Commission made in the Third Energy Liberalisation
Package is not a proposal for protectionism, this is a proposal
to liberalise the internal market, essentially with an unbundling
approach between companies which have a production supply function
and companies which have a distribution function. The proposals
are limited in the whole energy chain from production to retail
distribution to wholesale distribution or, as we call them, the
transmission networks. There are no restrictions proposed for
any other part of the energy chain. That is the first misconception
which some have. For transmission networks, the proposal is to
simply apply the same rules to external investors as to domestic
investors. We want to ensure that third country investors have
to obey by the same rules as our own companies to have a level
playing field assured. How can this be done? First, they would
have to respect the same principle that a company which would
be involved in supply or production activities could not acquire
more than a minority share, the same thing for European Union
companies, but, secondly, in order to have this made possible
for third country investors, there would have to be an agreement
which spells out the rules in energy between the country from
which these companies would come and us. We think that is an invitation
for negotiation but not a protectionist measure.
Q287 Lord Truscott:
By minority share, are we talking about less than 50% or are we
talking about a blocking share? Obviously with countries like
Russia and also some Middle Eastern states where they have heavily
state controlled sectors, there is no way they are going to be
able to meet the unbundling requirements which we may develop
here in the EU, so by its very nature they could say that will
impact unfairly upon them.
Mr Wiegand: On the first question, I am not
specialised enough to answer that question, so I will have to
ask my colleague Frédéric Maduraud whether he can.
On the second question, I guess this will be a company decision
to be taken by the companies of the type you describe on how they
would like to organise themselves if they really want to invest
in transmission networks, but it is not possible that we would
let the internal market related decisions in the EU be governed
by considerations of how companies from third countries are structured.
We should not forget that the main purpose of unbundling is to
have better and cheaper energy prices in Europe, to have a wider
choice for consumers and not to regulate a situation for third
country investors.
Q288 Lord Truscott:
That is fair enough, providing we do achieve unbundling in the
EU, but that is not going to work if we do not achieve it, is
it?
Mr Wiegand: That is correct, therefore this
will not be the only proposal in this area.
Mr Maduraud: My name is Frédéric
Maduraud. I am responsible for the co-ordination of trade and
economic co-operations, and I am working with Mr Gunnar Wiegand.
I think the proposal does address the issue of control, which
could be below the threshold.
Q289 Lord Truscott:
Below 50%?
Mr Maduraud: Yes.
Q290 Lord Truscott:
We will move on to a completely different subject. To what extent
do EU interests and Russian interests coincide in terms of their
relationship with countries in the former Soviet Union? I am thinking
particularly of countries in the Caucasus and Moldova. How can
the EU and Russia collaborate to diffuse some of the tensions
in what Moscow used to regard as its backyard?
Mr Wiegand: We will give you our vision and
then you will hear the vision of our colleagues on the other side
of Rue de la Loi, but we tend to share the same vision. We see
huge potential here. We do not use the same term as some of our
Russian colleagues do who still like to use the term "post-Soviet
space", we use the term "common neighbourhood"
and it means a lot to us. We have included the countries you referred
to, Moldova, Ukraine and the three countries of the Southern Caucasus,
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, in the European Neighbourhood
Policy. It is worth reading the ENP Action Plans which we have
agreed with each of these countries. These are very precise plans
with very precise benchmarks where the EU supports politically
and with financial means the Reform Agenda of these countries
in different policy spheres. This is not an imposition of EU policies,
this is support for the domestic reform agenda and it is something
which is undertaken upon these countries' own initiative. It is
an offer which we have made. This is not in order to get these
countries away from their traditional links, sometimes they are
more intensive than in other cases with Russia, but it is to fully
take into account the fact that these are sovereign states which
take their own decisions about their own policies and the European
Union is one of the players in these regions. In fact, there are
many beyond even Russia and the EU. We are convinced that we could
work very closely with Russia in finding solutions to the problems
of the so-called "frozen conflicts", which unfortunately
are not always completely frozen. We would like to work more strongly
with the Russian Federation on this. We have, perhaps, the most
constructive dialogue with Russia on the situation in Transnistria
and the least detailed discussion in terms of finding solutions
for the situation in Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh is somewhere
in between.
Q291 Chairman:
Thank you very much. You will be pleased to know that the European
Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans do come before our Committee,
so we look at them when they are going through. You were saying
earlier that we do not necessarily know what is being done, and
we have certainly learned a lot this afternoon, but in that particular
area, because there is a document which comes before our Committee,
we at least are aware.
Mr Wiegand: That is fantastic. We are not used
to such close attention to the ENP Action Plans!
Q292 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
These subjects I am about to refer to, I suppose, are a bit more
the other side of the road than your side, but in theory one can
see lots that the EU and Russia could do on foreign and security
policy, co-operation on non-proliferation, nuclear safety, multilateral
disarmament, crisis management and peace-keeping. The theory is
clearly quite positive, the practice at the moment seems to fall
some way short of that promise because the Russians themselves
do not seem to be terribly interested, other than in paying lip
service to these. I wonder if you could comment on how it looks.
There are a number of areas in which the Russians are basically
frustrating what the European Union is trying to do, whether it
is over Iran's nuclear ambitions or many other areas, in particular
in Kosovo, where I do not know whether you have managed to identify
a Russian national interest which they are defending there but,
I am afraid to say, I have not, and where they seem to be pursuing
something much closer to a pre-First World War balance of interest
policy than one based on the sort of values we all pursue now.
Mr Wiegand: (There followed a short discussion
off the record) I would say most of the answers to this question
will indeed have to be given by our colleagues at the Council
Secretariat, however we are in charge of the Community instruments
in some of these areas. In particular in this unit we are dealing
also with the programming of our nuclear safety operations where
we have spent all the funds since the early 1990s so far on the
former Soviet Union with the lion's share going to Russia and
Ukraine, linked to Chernobyl. We have just made a shift for the
first 10 years of Soviet assistance, which consisted of a lot
of upgrading nuclear power stations to higher safety standards,
with delivery not only of technical assistance but also of hardware,
to a situation where we basically work much more now on regulatory
assistance, supervisory assistance and training assistance. We
have a new instrument for this purpose, which is called the Instrument
for Nuclear Safety. This provides us with a substantial sum over
seven years of €572 million where we will also be able to
go to different countries in the future. The lion's share remains
with Russia and Ukraine for the time being. Russia is quite a
good partner in working with us on nuclear safety improvement.
We are also working with other instruments and there is now the
new Stability Instrument which provides for funding also on non-proliferation,
living up to the commitments which the EU made at the G7 Summit
in Canada a number of years ago. President Prodi made the pledge
of delivering €1 billion of funds from the Community budget
for non-proliferation related actions. Our nuclear safety is part
of the answer, but we also work in a number of other areas. There
is Community support here. You are right, these are important
challenges going well beyond Russia obviously, particularly on
non-proliferation. I guess on the work with Russia with regard
to the case of Iran, you will hear many interesting details tomorrow.
Q293 Lord Truscott:
It seems to me that one of the issues of with dealing with Russia,
especially the EU dealing with Russia, is this question of Russian
identity. To a certain extent, it seems like an academic point,
but I am not sure it is because it has been said several times
during this meeting that Russia is a European country or a European
nation or at least has a European attitude. Is it not more a Eurasian
country than a European one? If you go to the reindeer herders
of the Chuckchi nation in the far north and say, "Well, you
are European", they hardly feel Russian, let alone European.
Is it perhaps this identity crisis that Russians have had since
the 19th century which in a way makes it difficult for them to
deal with us as part of the European family of nations?
Mr Wiegand: Do all nation states not have an
identity crisis at some point?
Q294 Lord Truscott:
It has been rather a long one with Russia, has it not?
Mr Wiegand: I think we have to be respectful
of the incredible size of the country, the incredible diversity
of different groups of population in Russia and of the different
traditions which this reflects. For the European Commission dealing
essentially with very concrete issues, notably of economic relevance,
we know that 80% of the Russian population lives geographically
in the European part of the country, we know that more than 80%
of the industrial capacity is in that part of the country and
we have seen repeatedly, the latest in May when the EU turned
50, a strong expression of the European-ness of Russia by its
leadership. We have no doubts to express as to the European choice
of Russia and we welcome this. However, it is clear to us that
Russia has very important interests in Asia, it is also an Asian
power and has Asian neighbours as well as European neighbours.
Mr Vandoren: There are perhaps two aspects to
what has been said. I think from our point of view, Russia is
certainly a difficult partner to do business with, but the Russians
see the EU also as a difficult animal or mixture of institutions
to do business with.
Mr Wiegand: Not to speak of the Member States!
Mr Vandoren: I am talking about the EU as a
whole. I think we have to acknowledge that as well. This is why,
if I may say in front of this distinguished audience, that, at
least in my view and, I think on the Commission's side in the
view of many, it is very important that the Reform Treaty is put
into place so that we will be a stronger partner to negotiate
with any third country, in particular with regard to Russia. It
is also true that if you look at what happens sometimes, or what
has happened sometimes at summit meetings, there is not always
the necessary trust to do business with each other for a number
of reasons, which could lead us very far, but this should not
be insurmountable. What is important is that we look ahead at
the new elections as another new phase to start next year.
Q295 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
All I would say to Lord Truscott is that I do feel Russia looks
a lot more European than Turkey! You commented about the four
spaces and the one which seems to be working least well is the
political situation, democracy and the rule of law and so forth.
Has any progress been made in improving it, it does not look like
it on the face of it, in terms of the EU's influence on Russia
in terms of democracy and all those areas?
Mr Wiegand: What we can observe is that the
Russian leadership and the civil servants working with the Russian
leadership have become much more assertive in establishing and
defending their interpretation of our common commitments under
the Council of Europe or the OSCE instruments, not to speak about
the UN. While the Russian Federation fully recognises that there
exist these commitments, it is interesting to observe, and I think
it should be noted, that in the Russian legal system the rulings
of the European Court on Human Rights are being increasingly observed
and used as case law, which was not the case before. It is not
only about that Strasbourg Court having an impact on actual rulings
in individual cases as a last instance, it is that its rulings
are being used by judges in Russia. That is real progress. What
certainly is not real progress is that Protocol 14 of the Council
of Europe Human Rights Convention is not yet ratified as the only
country of the Council of Europe, and certainly the Director-General
already referred to our continued human rights concerns in a number
of areas, notably violations in the Northern Caucasus. We are
worried also about the question of media freedom, for example.
While people can express their opinion, it appears that self-censorship
is something which is widely spread and certainly the ownership
of most of the mass media is also a point which is questioned.
What can we do about it? We think each state obviously has to
be first and foremost its own judge under its own procedures and
participatory processes. What we can do in all this is remain
engaged and continue to express how we interpret the common commitments
we all have entered into. This is done at the political level
on different occasions. It is also done in biannual human rights
consultations where I can assure you there are no taboos, all
issues are discussed in extenso and we appreciate that
openness of the Russian side. We only deplore that the participants
of these events are the human rights experts of the Foreign Ministry
and do not include colleagues from the competent Interior and
Justice Ministries. We would also appreciate if we could have
these dialogues in Moscow at times as well and not only in Europe
and that the outreach session, which we have with NGOs before
this, would be attended also by our Russian counterparts and not
only by us. In addition to these consultations and the political
dialogue at high level, we have also a number of projects under
the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights instrument,
EIDHR, which decides centrally about all projects in third countries.
There are many projects in terms of the promotion of civil society
and support for human rights organisations in Russia. Finally,
I would like to underline that obviously the Russian side has
every right to defend its own interpretation and does so in an
increasingly vocal fashion. You may have seen at the Mafra Summit
recently that Russia proposed the creation of an Institute for
Freedom and Democracy in the EU and the reaction of Prime Minister
So«crates and President Barroso was, "There is no problem,
you are free to establish any institute anywhere in the EU. You
are welcome to do so".
Q296 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
We have heard concerns about the independence of the judiciary
as well. Do you share that? A lot of the judges look over their
shoulders and wonder what Putin might think.
Mr Wiegand: There are many observers who say
that the creation of a full state of law requires, indeed, additional
efforts. By the way, that is something you do not only hear from
human rights organisations but also a lot from business.
Mr Wigemark: My name is Lars-Gunnar Wigemark.
I also work together with Mr Wiegand. On this point specifically
on what the EU could be doing more of, of course we speak often
first and foremost that the very basis for our relationship on
strategic partnership dealings with Russia is common values and
I think we, within the European Union, know what those common
values are, and specifically we are often thinking of the Copenhagen
criteria as the basis for membership of the European Union. When
we convey this concept or mantra of common values to the Russians,
I do not think it is always clear what we are talking about. We
could perhaps be more specific about which commitments Russia
has already undertaken. Under international law, Russia is a member
of the Council of Europe and it is a member of the European Convention
on Human Rights. Mr Wiegand already mentioned the European Court
of Human Rights. There are a number of decisions which have been
handed down specifically on Russian cases. Where we have seen
implementation on the Russian side, even in terms of payments
of damages and so on, in other cases there has not been proper
follow-up. One piece of advice would be to be more specific in
very concrete terms what we mean by common values, otherwise it
will turn into a discussion of cultural values, which I think
we are seeing coming more and more from the Russian side.
Q297 Chairman:
My own experience going back a long way was when one had specific
cases which one was able to point out where there were the problems
and one often, even in earlier times, was able to make more progress
than by trying to get agreement on generalities. May I just say,
we have come to the end of the questions which we wanted to address
on the subject of Russia, but something you said earlier made
me wonder if I could ask you a further question, which is on the
other study we are undertaking at this time and which we are also
seeing some other people in Brussels about. We were not intending
to ask you questions, but we are doing a study as well on the
European Reform Treaty and its implications in these areas. It
was when you made a remark about hearing your view and then going
to hear what the view was on the other side of the Rue de la Loi.
It made me wonder whether when we have a European External Action
Service, and both of you are working within that framework, do
you think it will mean you will all be singing from the same hymn
sheet.
Mr Wiegand: The answer is very simple. We are
already now singing from the same hymn sheet with different voices
perhaps and in the future we will do it with one voice! We have
just one boss and we will be part of one integrated service, so
that will make things much easier for everybody. I would like
to add one sentence on the previous issue. When we talk about
democracy, freedom, human rights and common values, what is important
in the new way of interacting with Russia is that we do not discuss
these things, as the Director-General said before, with us being
the lecturers. We should not forget that the majority of our Member
States—and this I can say as a German—are countries
which have come out of authoritarianism themselves, be it from
left or right, and many are very young democracies. Many of our
countries have undergone similar processes as in Russia and have
known similar challenges and there are different ways and means
to achieve the same standards in the end. What is important in
this process is that we accept also when Russia raises critical
points with us. Not everything is perfect in EU Member States,
and there is one regular item which always comes up and this is
minority rights. I can tell you that we are in close contact with
a number of Member States to clarify exactly what is happening
in this area. We have to be careful there that it is not a one-way
dialogue but a two-way street. Finally, on your last question,
you can be sure that over the last few years we have learned to
interact ever closer together, to put together the Community instruments
and policies in external relations with the emerging now much
more operational CFSP and ESDP. We are convinced that if we manage
to put all these instruments and policies together, not only our
citizens would not wonder anymore who speaks for Europe, but also
third countries would not wonder anymore, and we would be able
to be even more effective than we are currently. We hope that
the Reform Treaty will be ratified soon.
Q298 Chairman:
Mr Wiegand, on behalf of my colleagues, can I say that we are
very grateful to you and all of your colleagues for giving up
so much time. I am not quite sure whether it was you or the Director
General who said at the beginning that you were not sure that
people were aware about how much was being done in this area and
perhaps the responsibility took place in various places. We have
learned a great deal, and I think our report will be a great deal
richer because of what we have been able to hear from you this
afternoon of the sort of work which is going on in practice. Therefore,
we hope when we do come to report, it will at least make sure
there is a little bit of wider knowledge in some areas of some
of the very important things we have heard about this afternoon.
As I say, we are extremely grateful to you all for coming and
we have learned a great deal. We look forward to receiving these
dossiers. I do not know whether we are going to formally take
them as written evidence, it may be that if we wish to we might
be able to incorporate some part of it into our report, but they
are available for that if we so wish.
Mr Wiegand: On behalf of my colleagues, I would
like to thank you very much for the interest you have in the work
we do. We are used to interest, but we are not used to such extremely
well prepared expressions of interest. I do not know whether you
have learned more because you knew a lot of it already, but perhaps
you have heard what it means in actual implementation in everyday
work. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
|
