Examination of Witnesses (Questions 412
- 419)
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2008
His Excellency Mr Yury Viktorovich Fedotov and Mr
Andrey Pritsepov
Q412 Chairman:
Good morning. Ambassador, as I think you know, this Sub-Committee
is carrying out an quiry, and has for some months been carrying
out an inquiry on relations between the European Union and the
ussian Federation. We very much welcomed our opportunities in
Moscow in December to meet some of your colleagues in the Foreign
Ministry and elsewhere and in the Federation Council. We had very
useful discussions but we felt that, before we completed our inquiry,
we would very much like to put some final questions to you. We
are very grateful to you for having agreed to come to see us this
morning. We are taking a note of this and the proceedings are
being televised but you will be sent a transcript of what has
been said in this morning's session and you will obviously have
an opportunity to make any corrections to it. I do not know whether
you have an opening statement you would like to make or whether
you would like me to ask the first question.
Mr Fedotov: Thank you very much, Lord Roper,
my Lords. It is an honour for me to be invited to share with you
some of my thoughts about the Russia-EU relations. When you were
in Moscow you met with my colleagues and you have heard much more
professional estimates of the prospects of our relations. Nevertheless,
I am prepared to answer any of your questions. To start with,
let me just say a few words to provide the right framework for
our conversation. First of all, there are two obvious facts. Russia
is Europe, from any possible point of view, be it geography, history,
culture, economy, politics, ideologies—by the way, socialism
and communism are not Russian inventions—philosophy, human
values, relationships, family ties, et cetera. Secondly,
Europe without Russia is not Europe in its all-inclusiveness,
so any dream of creating a pan-European co-operation without Russia
is a myth. This interdependency between Russia and Europe creates
a favourable background for relations between Russia and the European
Union. As you know, we have always been keen and eager to enhance
our interaction with the European Union because we take it from
a very pragmatic perspective. It helps Russia to meet new threats
and challenges in a globalised world. We believe it helps Europe
to do the same. I am prepared to have a discussion with you and
to answer your questions and I do not mind if you continue this
in an open, televised manner.
Q413 Chairman:
Thank you very much indeed. You have to some extent addressed
the first question I was going to ask but I will pose it because
you might want to develop it. What do you see as the overall policy
objectives of the Government of the Russian Federation towards
the European Union?
Mr Fedotov: I think the overall framework of
our policies towards the EU, at this stage at least, could be
defined by quite a simple formula: anything but institutions.
This means that Russia is prepared to establish as close co-operation
with the EU as possible but without being its formal member. We
have made our fundamental choice in our foreign policy in favour
of forging a strategic partnership with the EU, and it stays,
beyond any doubt, one of the priorities of the Russian Government.
Partnership with the EU and leading European nations has always
been and continues to be a sine qua non, a necessary prerequisite
for a successful foreign policy of Russia. The objective of this
approach, as I said, is very pragmatic. It is no secret that we
seek closer relations with the EU as the best means of ensuring
Russia's interests in a global world. I think these ties are equally
vital for both sides. Only by combining our efforts can we withstand
global threats and challenges, and we are determined to continue
this course of action.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Before going to the second question, I should apologise to Mr
Pritsepov that I did not also welcome him to our meeting this
morning. Obviously, if at some stage he wishes to add to something,
we would be very glad to hear from him as well and I apologise
to him for not welcoming him.
Q414 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Ambassador, welcome. It is probably fair to say that Russian relations
with the European Union are going through a fairly chilly period
at the moment, not only the individual matters, Estonia, Polish
meat, the Litvinenko affair, but also where the European neighbourhood
policy coincides with Russian views of its own neighbours, such
as Ukraine. How do you see the current situation in relations
between the Union and Russia?
Mr Fedotov: Frankly speaking, I would not place
all these matters you have enumerated in one box as they are so
different one from another. There are strategic relations between
Russia and the European Union and there are basic foundations
of these relations. One of the most important cornerstones of
our partnership is trade and economic relations. The trade balance
between Russia and the EU between 2000 and 2007 has enjoyed a
fivefold growth. To date, 50% of Russian foreign trade is generated
from co-operation with the European Union. Last year it amounted
to £140 billion sterling. European countries account for
70% of all foreign accumulated investments in Russia. So it is
important for us to keep this co-operation. My country is among
the top three exporting countries to the EU and among the top
four countries importing European goods and services. As to energy
supplies, it is a well known fact that Russia is the number one
supplier of natural gas to Europe and the second biggest oil supplier.
As for problems with individual EU members, we are trying to resolve
them one by one. We are very close now to signing two protocols
with Poland on the export of meat and also on other agricultural
production. Today the new Prime Minister of Poland commences his
visit to Russia. This is an important visit and a wide range of
issues will be discussed, bilateral issues, including some sensitive
legacies of the past, but also the future of our relations and
outstanding international problems, including the controversial
plans to deploy an anti-missile system in Poland. We expect it
to be a successful visit. As far as Mr Litvinenko's case, once
again, I can say what I say repeatedly to my British colleagues,
that that is a bilateral issue which needs to be discussed between
the Government of Russia and the UK Government. We do not think
that is a matter for the EU.
Q415 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Colleagues will be coming to the bilateral matters. These are
issues where the European Union has shown solidarity in respect
of Russia. The question I would like to ask now basically is how
do you see relations between the Union and Russia developing over,
say, the next five years? As you have said, trade relations are
pretty sound. There have been a number of political problems.
Where do you see the major problems arising and, perhaps more
important, where do you see the most positive areas for co-operation
between the Union as such and Russia?
Mr Fedotov: Recently there have been some new
developments, not only in trade and economic relations. We have
passed an important agreement with the EU on visa facilitation
and readmission and this agreement is already in force. It helps
people from Russia to travel to the EU, it helps Europeans to
travel to Russia. Even more, we have started discussing the possibility
of a visa-free regime between Russia and the European Union. Another
idea is a free trade zone, which is also under discussion and
we can come back to this matter. We have set up a special committee
on energy policy, as you know, and we believe that this committee
should work more actively. So there are many areas where we can
successfully co-operate and enhance our relations with the EU
as such and with individual members of the European Union.
Q416 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Ambassador, your answers to Lord Anderson's questions seem to
me to imply that you are very happy dealing with the European
Union, with the Commission, with the Council Secretariat on issues
of trade but when it comes to other issues, you prefer to deal
bilaterally. You spoke particularly about Poland and you spoke
about Poland a moment or two ago. Have I misinterpreted or over-read
your remarks? What is your view about the relative importance
of dealing with the EU through the Commission and the Secretariat
rather than dealing with the countries of the European Union bilaterally?
You seem to put a lot of emphasis on, I think you said, resolving
the issues one by one.
Mr Fedotov: That is a very good question, Lady
Symons, and I will try to answer this question. Yes, indeed, it
is very important for Russia to maintain a great deal of contacts
with the European Commission and even with the Council Secretariat
but I would not oppose this to the bilateral context. Even in
trade and economic relations, the results we have achieved are
mainly due to our bilateral relations with individual EU members,
including with the UK. Some matters are being dealt with with
the Secretariat but there is always a combination of our interaction
with the European Commission and member-states. That is true not
only for trade and economic relations; it is also a quite applicable
procedure for our political relations. We have special settings
to discuss outstanding political issues, be it Middle East, Iran,
Former Yugoslavia, human rights, in Brussels with appropriate
groups of the EU, but we are also discussing these matters individually
with EU members. So I think we are doing both. It is equally important
to engage with both respective players, be it multilateral institutions
or individual Member States.
Q417 Lord Crickhowell:
Can I follow up on that particular question, because this Committee
is looking at the way that Europe should operate and develop its
policies. Perhaps one of the criticisms that we might make is
that in the past Europe has not been very good at getting its
act together, so we have not always presented a European point
of view to Russia. Could I put it to you quite straight: do you
not find that there is an advantage in that situation? You find
it quite useful in negotiating with Europe to be able to pick
off the individual countries on individual issues. The fact that
Europe is not united or has not in the past been united has proved
a tactical advantage. We will come on to energy later but it is
an obvious area. Do you find it uncomfortable really dealing with
Europe on some issues and do you as a country really prefer to
deal with the individual countries because it is easier to come
to agreements or perhaps to divide Europe by dealing in that way?
Mr Fedotov: Yes, I think it is of major importance
to avoid situations when co-operation between Russia and the EU
is held to ransom because of bureaucratic discrepancies or inconsistencies
of multilateral institutions or political problems among individual
EU members. It is for this reason we would prefer to deal with
a strong and united European Union rather than with a weak and
divided alliance, with several competing groups of countries,
which are sometimes unpredictable and non-transparent. We hope
that the EU will soon accomplish its long-awaited cycle of institutional
reforms, and this fact will boost its political performance and
will help us to engage directly with the European Union. When
this day will come we will have to see.
Q418 Lord Crickhowell:
That takes us quite neatly to the fourth major question in dealing
with Europe, the actual structures that Europe has in place. When
some of us were in Moscow before Christmas we visited the EU Commission
office in Moscow but much of the relationship will be conducted
in Brussels with the Commission. Do you find that arrangement
difficult or are there changes that would make it easier for Russia
to do business with Europe if the arrangements were different?
Mr Fedotov: I think the Russian representation
in Brussels is one of the largest Russian diplomatic missions
abroad, comprising 150 diplomats, not only professional diplomats
but also experts on specific matters such as agriculture, customs,
internal affairs, everything, and that is a very active diplomatic
mission. However, it does not mean that, because we have such
an active diplomatic mission in Brussels, we are going to close
our embassies in the capitals, including in London. The same is
true with the office of representation of the EU in Moscow. Of
course, I think that my colleagues, the heads of the diplomatic
missions, the EU diplomatic mission in Moscow and Ambassador Chizhov,
who is in charge of our relations in Brussels, would have given
a more detailed and professional account of the situation, but
I think we are happy with how this system operates. Of course,
there is always room for improvement but it depends also on the
level of progress in the institutional reforms in the European
Union.
Q419 Lord Chidgey:
Ambassador, I want to ask you, if I may, a few questions about
the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between Russia and
the EU. In your opening remarks you made it very clear that Russia's
view and policy was that it is almost a given, as we would say,
that Russia has very strong partnership links with the EU; it
is the point of reference for Russia and Europe but, as we know,
of course, at the moment the renewal of the Partnership and Co-operation
Agreement is, I suppose we could say, stalled. I wonder what the
view of the Russian Government is of the prospects for that being
renewed. What are the weaknesses, as far as Russia is concerned,
within the existing agreement and how useful has the co-operation
been? Does it still reflect a continuing commitment to the four
Common Spaces concept? What alternatives do you see?
Mr Fedotov: Thank you for your question. We
are not over-dramatising the situation. We are not over-dramatising
the fact that now we are witnessing a pause in the consultations
on the future of our basic agreement. Moreover, we think this
period of reflection has given us an important and necessary opportunity
to understand better whether our relations are progressing towards
a strategic partnership or not yet. At the previous Russia EU
summit in Sochi in 2006 our leaders agreed that the existing PCA
will remain in force until it is replaced by the new agreement.
From the legal standpoint there is no vacuum and we still have
a legal basis which can be renewed as long as it is possible.
So I do not think that the existing PCA has many weaknesses, as
you say; maybe only one. It was signed over 11 years ago with
a different European Union. We would prefer to have a new document
but there is nothing wrong with the current PCA. We are not in
a hurry. We want to work out a solid document, a new agreement,
which already has the tentative name of Russia EU Treaty on Strategic
Partnership, which should become legally binding, a politically
heavyweight, forward-looking framework document, aimed at facilitating
a balanced development of the system of sector agreements. It
means that this agreement should be complemented by other agreements,
whether it be non-proliferation, co-operation in fighting organised
crime, counter-terrorism, immigration, asylum, et cetera.
To sum up, we are reasonably satisfied with the current agreement
but we are looking forward to getting a new one.
|
