Supplementary memorandum by Jim Murphy
MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
I wanted to take this opportunity to make a
few observations on the evidence session that the Committee held
on 7 February with His Excellency Yuri Fedotov, the Russian Federation's
Ambassador to the UK.
EU-RUSSIA RELATIONS
There are many areas on which I agree with the
Ambassador. He characterises the relationship between the EU and
Russia as one of interdependency. That is exactly how we see it.
This is not an arcane point: that interdependency lies behind
our wish for a strong, comprehensive partnership between Russia
and the EU. I welcome the Ambassador's continued commitment to
a replacement to the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
We want that too.
I welcome his view that the new agreement will
be legally binding. That is extremely important. And I welcome
his saying that he wants the EU and Russia to cooperate on counter-terrorism,
though I cannot but point out that Russia has suspended counter-terrorism
co-operation with the UK. (It is not true, as he claims, that
the UK has suspended co-operation. We co-operate with a range
of Russian agencies in international fora such as the G8 Roma-Lyon
Group. Moreover, were we to become aware of a likely terrorist
attack on Russia or Russians, we would inform the Russian government.
I hope Russia would do the same).
LITVINENKO
Overall I am pleased that the Ambassador sees
partnership as a necessary dimension of a successful Russian foreign
policy. Equally, a partnership with Russia is of crucial importance
to the EU. But partnerships rely on trust and mutual confidence.
And it is on this point that my views diverge from those of the
Ambassador. He says that issues such as the Litvinenko case are
bilateral problems and not matters for the EU. But there were
very sound reasons why the EU saw the situation very differently.
Russia's failure to co-operate constructively on the case raised
wider concerns among EU member states about Russia's approach
to judicial co-operation and the rule of law. The case, you will
remember, was immensely serious: a British citizen murdered in
an EU capital, with hundreds of citizens from 18 EU countries
put at risk of radiation poisoning. It is no wonder the EU reacted
so firmly.
BRITISH COUNCIL
Similarly serious concerns underlay the EU's
public criticism of Russia over its treatment of the British Council.
The Ambassador confirms explicitly that Russia's assault was related
to the Litvinenko case. I welcome his candour. But I am sure your
Committee shared my astonishment that Russia was linking unrelated
areas of business, thereby damaging cultural and educational partnerships
built up over many years and compounding one failure to uphold
the rule of law with another. Mr Fedotov says that the British
Council's activities lacked a firm legal foundation and that the
1994 agreement only mentioned the possibility of opening cultural
centres, and that these needed a special additional agreement.
That is wrong. The 1994 agreement commits each party to encouraging
the establishment, in its territory of cultural, education and
information centres of the other party. The agreement does say
that the activities of such centres may be the subject of a separate
intergovernmental agreement. But this is not a requirement. That
is why Russia's attacks on the British Council are illegal.
Difficulties in developing cultural relations
with Russia are not confined to the British Council. On 8 February,
the Russian authorities forced the European University in St Petersburg
to suspend its operations, citing fire regulations. This followed
a visit by tax inspectors to one of the university's European
Commission-funded projects. The project in question had been providing
courses, training and publications on election monitoring.
I should point out that the Ambassador observed
that Russia does not have cultural centres in the UK. But this
is not for any impediment on our part. We would welcome the establishment
of Russian cultural centres in the UK, as provided for by the
terms of the 1994 Agreement.
VISAS
The Ambassador is simply wrong when he says
that our visa regime is impeding people-to-people contacts. More
Russians than ever are receiving visas to the UK. The visa measures
announced by the Foreign Secretary in July 2007 in response to
Russia's failure to co-operate on the Litvinenko case only affect
Russian Government officials. No further visa restrictions have
been imposed since those measures were introduced.
Indeed, we are going out of our way to improve
our visa service to Russian citizens. Business travellers enjoy
an express visa service. And an online application service will
start operating later this month to speed up the visa application
process.
But even if this were not so, we could not accept
the Russian proposal that we resume talks with Russia on visa
facilitation in return for resuming negotiations on a Cultural
Centres Agreement that might let the British Council reopen in
St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. I am sure your Committee would
be astonished if we accepted the Russian linkage between the two
issues.
KOSOVO
Ambassador Fedotov also discussed Kosovo in
some depth. In what will be an important week for Kosovo's future,
I should not let this opportunity pass to make some remarks on
the Ambassador's points. He suggests that Russia is not opposed
to Kosovo's independence per se, but to the fact that it will
be imposed on Serbia against its will. He also says that the negotiations
under the Troika showed signs that an agreement between Belgrade
and Pristina might be within reach. This is at odds with our assessment,
which tallies with the clear view of Ambassador Ischinger, the
EU representative in the Troika. Ambassador Ischinger believes
that the parties would not be capable of reaching agreement on
this issue if negotiations continued, whether in the Troika format,
or in some other form. Prime Minister Kostunica made it very clear
to the Troika more than once that Belgrade would not entertain
any proposal that did not close the door reliably on independence.
The UK's firm view is that in the absence of agreement between
the parties, the UN Special Envoy's Comprehensive Proposal for
a Kosovo Status Settlement, providing for supervised independence,
is the most viable way forward.
Ambassador Fedotov also says that Kosovo's independence
will set a precedent. Our position remains that, as a matter of
principle, there is no universal blueprint that can be applied
to every separatist or post-conflict scenario. Each is unique,
and individual criteria should be applied. In the case of Kosovo,
there are particularly strong grounds for seeing it as unique:
— Its substantial autonomy under the
1974 SFRY constitution was brushed aside by Milosevic in 1989.
— Sustained oppression followed, including
violent oppression by the Yugoslav army in 1998-9.
— NATO intervened in 1999 to avert
a humanitarian catastrophe.
— UNSCR 1244 was adopted in 1999 as
the authority for the UN to govern Kosovo.
— Competence and authority have gradually
been transferred to the Kosovo provisional institutions, including
the establishment of new ministries.
— UNSCR 1244 provides for a political
process to determine Kosovo's final status.
— We are at the culmination of that
process after 14 months of intensive negotiations under [Mr Martti]
Ahtisaari, including 15 separate rounds of talks and 26 visits
to the region, and an additional four months under the EU/Russia/US
Troika.
— This is a sui generis framework without
which we might have had to address the status issue earlier in
more violent circumstances.
Notwithstanding Russia's current position, Contact
Group Foreign Ministers agreed in January 2006 that `the character
of the Kosovo problem, shaped by the disintegration of Yugoslavia
and consequent conflicts, ethnic cleansing and the events of 1999,
and the extended period of international administration under
UNSCR 1244, must be fully taken into account in settling Kosovo's
status'.
On the legality of the EU mission, our view
is clear: UNSCR 1244 provides for the deployment of international
police officers as part of a civil administration to help the
local authorities to keep law and order. The ESDP Police and Rule
of Law mission will draw its authority from the resolution.
Finally, the Ambassador was right to highlight
Russia's support for international peace support operations. The
UK is grateful for Russia's contributions to date, in particular
with capabilities in short supply such as helicopters, and would
very much welcome continued and increased Russian support for
EU, NATO, UN and other international operations, including through
the contribution of helicopters, ground forces and other capabilities.
I am glad that Ambassador Fedotov had the opportunity to make
this, and his other points, to the Committee. Whatever our views
of his arguments, his contributions add to the serious discussions
at hand.
18 February 2008
| 
