Examination of Witnesses (Questions 392
- 399)
WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY 2008
Mr Jim Murphy, Mr Nick Latta and Mr Martin Shearman
Q392 Chairman: Minister,
thank you very much for coming to give evidence to us again. As
you know, we have been undertaking an inquiry on the European
Union's relations with Russia. We have taken evidence from quite
a number of people already. We have visited Moscow, where we had
a great deal of help from the Ambassador and saw a number of interesting
people, including the Deputy Foreign Minister. You are our last
but one visitor. The Committee decided last week that it would
invite the Russian Ambassador to come and give evidence to us,
and he has agreed to come and do so on 7 February. As you know,
we will be taking a note of this and you will be sent a transcript.
Can I begin by saying that the European's formal strategy document,
the Country Strategy Paper for 2007-2013, is still based
on the proposition that Russia shares "European" values
and that these should form the bedrock of the EU-Russian relationship.
Your division seems to have come.
Mr Murphy: Which will give me eight minutes
to think of an answer!
The Committee suspended from 3.37 pm to 3.43
pm for a division in the House of Commons
Q393 Chairman:
Minister, welcome back. I was referring to the Commission's document,
the Country Strategy Paper for 2007-2013, which is based
on the proposition that Russia shares "European" values
and that these should form the bedrock for the EU-Russian relationship.
Do you feel that that represents current realities, and if it
does not, does the European Union need to devise a new hard-headed
strategy towards Russia which omits the requirements of sharing
value but provides a timely approach to and perhaps a long-term
framework for cooperation?
Mr Murphy: First of all, My Lord Chairman, thank
you for the comments you made, in particular about our Ambassador
in Moscow, and I will make sure that the appreciation of your
Lordships is brought to his attention, because certainly the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office think that Mr Brenton is doing a spectacularly
good job in often very difficult circumstances, him and his team,
so that is very much appreciated. Perhaps I could also introduce
my two co-witnesses, Mr Latta, Head of Russia Section, and Mr
Shearman, Head of CFSP Group. In terms of the specific question,
I think the previous agreement reflected a reality as was, a shared
aspiration and a shared belief that this is the way in which the
European Union and Russia's relations would evolve post-Soviet
era. It reflected the wish of Russia at the time, the Russian
leadership and the Russian people, and a desire by the European
Union to have a sense that together we were part of a collection
of nations which shared modern European values. I am sure part
of our conversation today will be about whether that is still
a valid assessment of the nature of Russia's aspirations. I think
a more beneficial approach is not to have a quasi-European values-type
conversation but to embed our strategy on seeking Russia's continued
approval and adherence to multilateral agreements it has willingly
entered into. I think that is probably a more constructive framing
of our approach rather than a sense of, "We would expect
you to sign up to exclusively European values." It is about
getting Russia to adhere to its already voluntarily agreed to
commitments in the multilateral environment. I think that would
be a more productive outcome. In truth, it also reflects the changing
nature of Russian politics and Russian leadership.
Q394 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Minister, your paper in principle takes us through to 2013. Much
has changed in the face of Russia. Is there, in your view, a case
for a re-writing of the paper, or in any event presumably under
the normal processes there will be revisions from time to time?
Mr Murphy: It has to stay relevant to the changes
in the nature of the European Union, but also Russian politics
and Russian governance. I think you are right in reflecting the
change that there has been over recent years in terms of Russia's
posture on the international stage and a re-emergence of diplomatic
confidence and international confidence, based partially on the
buoyancy of natural resources and partly because of the changing
nature of the leadership at the top of the Russian Government.
In fact, we have all rightly expressed opinion, observation, and
criticism when appropriate, about the fact that the democratic
space in Russia continues to contract. So it is important that
as part of any successor agreements the obligations Russia has
entered into internationally are reflected, and reflected in such
a way that when Russian behaviour conflicts with those international
agreements we are very clear about that.
Q395 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
The objective of this Committee is to actually suggest that the
long-term membership of Russia in the EU should not be ruled out,
which does not mean that you make it a candidate tomorrow. If
Yeltsin had turned out to be competent and un-corrupt, I suspect
we might well be talking in terms of it being a candidate now.
Are we not slightly looking short-termist at Putin? This could
all change in ten or twenty years time if Russia regards itself
as a European nation. Should we rule it out indefinitely as a
potential member of the EU?
Mr Murphy: In the short and medium term it is
of fundamental national and international importance that the
EU has a detailed agreed bilateral relationship, absolutely, in
terms of trade and so many other issues. As to Russia and formal
membership of the European Union, I suspect I will answer this
in a similar way to how I have answered the question, "When
will you invite Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth?" A country
has to apply and my sense is that any objective reading of President
Putin's intentions, in the short time he has left formally in
power in Russia, is that is not his intention and there is no
indication that his appointed/anointed successor has any inclination
in that direction. It is not something we should rule out, but
it is something that Russia herself would have to motivate. If
that were to be the case, then we would be back into a conversation
about European norms of behaviour. That is absolutely certain.
Q396 Lord Chidgey:
Minister, in your description of Russia's position in regard to
the European values which we share amongst the European Union,
it has been said on a number of occasions in evidence we have
taken that Russia's view on its relations with the EU is to try,
whenever it can, to deal bilaterally with European key countries
and to deal with the EU in its entirety when it has to. I wonder
if you would reflect upon that in terms of Government policy,
but could I just ask you a question about the existing partnership
and cooperation agreement? It has in reality reached its term,
but of course remains in force. Again, the views we have had expressed
to us from the Russian perspective is that they are in no hurry
to see him negotiate his replacement because it is not particularly
popular with them in the sense that it is so restrictive. Russia
has this view, understandable, that it wishes to be treated as
an equal and it therefore becomes more difficult to re-negotiate
or to modify, extend if you wish, an agreement which they do not
see as treating them in the way they would wish to be treated
by the EU. I wonder whether you might like to comment on that?
Mr Murphy: On the wider point about bilateralism
versus multilateralism, first of all we do value, as the UK Government,
very dearly our bilateral relationship with Russia in all sorts
of ways—culturally in the art exhibition which has opened
this week from Russia, which I have not had a chance to see myself,
cultural ties, economic ties of phenomenal importance to the United
Kingdom, and of course to Russia and the international environment
those bilateral relationships are very important. I think Russia's
approach to these matters, Russia's preferred position, is a series
of bilateral relationships with 27 individual sovereign Member
States. Of course, in instances that is inevitable, perhaps even
desirable in some instances, but generally the United Kingdom
and the majority of European partners do prefer to have a multilateral
approach. Examples of that in recent cases, as your Lordships
are acutely aware of, are the Litvinenko case and the case of
the British Council. We were successfully put in a multilateral
environment ostensibly by a bilateral dispute. Other Member States
of the European Union can see the potential read-across to their
own relationships with Russia, and I think that is the most effective
way. The way one can explain it in the Commons in its relative
shape, but nevertheless true, is that 27 voices with all sorts
of different accents and different languages are much more effective
than one when it comes to talking to Moscow. When it comes to
the new PCA, the existing PCA stays in place, of course, it is
rolled over until a successor is agreed, but I think it is important
and the Government believes it is important that there is a successor
to it because again it is a creature of its time. It does not
properly reflect the nature of the threat of terrorism. From my
recollection, I do not think terrorism is mentioned. The word
"terrorism" I do not believe is mentioned in the existing
PCA. There is one passing reference to climate change. There is
not enough on some of the other issues which have emerged since
then, migration and other matters. So there is a need to update
it to reflect the challenges which have emerged since, and those
are some examples that we are working pretty hard to make sure
are reflected in the new PCA.
Q397 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Minister, you said 27 voices, but surely the point is that actually
it is one voice on behalf of 27. I just wondered whether 27 voices
(i.e. everybody behaving like a nation state) might not in fact
be more effective, 27 ambassadors going and demanding a call,
27 prime ministers ringing up and saying, "I demand to make
this point," would be in some ways arguably more impressive
than one voice saying, "I am speaking on behalf of 27,"
and the Russians being able to say, "Well, you know, that's
all because they have to act by consensus and the Brits have persuaded
them." I just wondered whether that last point you made was
really quite as compelling as you made it sound.
Mr Murphy: I think 27 voices with one message
would be compelling, but one voice with one message speaking on
behalf of 27 offers the consistency and the clarity, which I think
is important in our dealings with Russia, because 27 individual
voices offers the opportunity for finesse and nuances of messages.
I think it is important that there is one clear public message.
I think your Lordships and I certainly would celebrate not discussing
the Reform Treaty in any great detail, so it gives us another
opportunity of welcome respite temporarily from that, but one
of the important reforms in the Reform Treaty is the fact that
we end this rotating presidency. On our relationship with Russia
over the past two to three months, before Christmas we sought
and achieved very strong support from our European colleagues.
Under the Portuguese presidency we had to go through this chain
of accountability and management of the process was through Lisbon.
I have no complaint about that. The Portuguese were very helpful.
But within three to four weeks we rightly saw another European
statement. The chain of influence and coordination went through
Ljubljana. It does complicate it, and I do not wish to draw your
Lordships into a discussion, that is an opportunity which your
Lordships will have another time, but potentially this change
can be really effective in terms of a coordinated quicker response
when it is necessary in respect of Russia, because sometimes Russia
will judge not just the content of the response but the time it
takes to get the response as a matter of how significant Member
States take the issue. I think that is an important perspective
on this rotating presidency issue.
Q398 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
Minister, you suggested that rather than use a sort of vague phrase
like "shared European values" we should hold the Russians
more to account on the commitment they have entered into internationally,
by which I take it you mean the commitments under the Council
of Europe's founding documents and the OSCE's Paris Charter. Do
you think the conduct of the Russian parliamentary elections in
December was consistent with their commitments under those two
documents, and do you think the conduct of the presidential election,
which kicked off yesterday against a background of one of the
main potential candidates for the presidency being threatened
with some rather obscure legal action, is consistent with those
commitments?
Mr Murphy: If your Lordships would not find
it disrespectful, there is a very straightforward answer to that,
and the answer is, no. If your Lordships wish me to expand, I
am happy to do so, but it is a very clear no. For example, the
clear one in terms of the Duma election was the situation with
the election observers, a very public and very clear international
commitment that Russia herself entered into willingly now reneged
on, and they then sought to share the blame with OSCE and ODIHR.
The responsibility for that lies with Russia and Russia's leadership.
In terms of the presidential election there is still an opportunity,
despite the incident which has been referred to, for Russia to
make good her commitment in terms of international unfettered
long-term election observers, not tourists who pop in on the day
of the election, wander around chaperoned to selected ballot boxes
to declare how peaceful and open the process was, long-term and
post-election observers unfettered who have the opportunity to
observe the process. The electoral registers, the media coverage,
the harassment of opponents, all of those sorts of issues are
of fundamental significance when it comes to free elections and
the observation of them, which Russia herself signed up to and
is not adhering to.
Q399 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Just a quick question on that. There was equally a number of commitments
which Russia entered into at the OSCE in 2000 in respect of other
matters which they now claim are not relevant because their then
president was drunk and incapable and that they are seeking to
resile from those agreements as a result on that excuse. Do we
go some way towards accepting this?
Mr Murphy: President Yeltsin entered into agreements
on behalf of his country, not on behalf of himself, and Russia
should honour them.
|
