Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420
- 438)
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2008
His Excellency Mr Yury Viktorovich Fedotov and Mr
Andrey Pritsepov
Q420 Lord Chidgey:
Could I just ask, as a supplementary, two particular points. Could
you tell us what is the Russian Government's view on the fact
that the existing agreement I do not think mentions terrorism
at all? You mentioned counter-terrorism in your final comment
there but there is hardly any reference to climate change. These
two issues are obviously very important to the European Union
and the West, and I wonder whether you felt that the Government
of Russia feels that the need, in our view, for greater emphasis
is something that you could accept and respond to.
Mr Fedotov: Precisely, and I absolutely agree
with you. That is another illustration of why we should update
the legal basis of our partnership with the EU. We have co-operation
in countering terrorism with the European Union, we have important
contacts on climate change and I am sure that this co-operation
will continue to develop. That is why the new agreement, should
include new areas of co-operation between Russia and the European
Union that have emerged since this PCA was signed 11 years ago.
Q421 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Ambassador, the Fourth Space refers to research and education,
and the cultural relations, Russian civilisation, Russian language
studies within the Union is clearly very important indeed in terms
of people to people, as was discussed at the recent EU Russia
summit at Mafra. Can you indicate to the Committee how you see
this key area of research, education, and culture developing?
Mr Fedotov: I think we can only enjoy how this
co-operation develops between Russia and the EU. Yet again, sometimes
it is hard to make a dividing line when we have this on the basis
of our bilateral relations with individual Member States and when
it is a result of a co-ordinated policy of the European Commission.
Russian and European cultural space and cultural heritage are
indivisible. At the moment I think you are able to visit the exhibition
at the Royal Academy of Arts, which is a very good illustration
of this indivisibility of Russian culture and European culture,
the mutual influences. We believe that the opening of the European
Institute in Moscow is another important step in this direction.
An impressive number of other joint projects are under way. I
am optimistic about this.
Q422 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
You are absolutely right, Ambassador, to point to the exhibition
as a very good example of that co-operation but it would be remiss
of us not to mention the British Council in this context. I think
it is fair to say that most people in this country are puzzled
and saddened by the relationship of the Council, whose aim is
to build bridges of understanding between this country and Russia,
yet political motives seem to have supervened, frankly, to the
cost of those Russian citizens who want to learn English, and
those who want to come to this country to study. How do you read
this and what is the objection to a cultural agreement which would
find a place for the British Council to do its very valuable work
within Russia?
Mr Fedotov: Russia does not have concerns about
what the British Council is doing in Russia. We believe it is
doing well in terms of cultural exchange and education but, unfortunately,
the activities of the British Council in Russia lacked legal grounds.
As a matter of fact, the 1994 agreement which provides for the
development of cultural relations between Russia and the UK mentioned
only a possibility of opening cultural centres and also indicated
the need to have a special agreement on that. This agreement has
not yet been signed although we were quite close to finalising
it last year. Then, unfortunately, because the Lugovoi/Litvinenko
case was over-politicised by the British side, all tracks of negotiations
between Russia and the UK on bilateral issues were suspended,
including the discussion of the agreement on cultural centres.
So, the British Council so far does not have any legal ground
for its activities in Russia. Although all the legal problems
which are applicable to the British Council offices, for instance,
in Saint Petersburg and the Yekaterinburg are also applicable
to the British Council in Moscow, as a gesture of good will, the
Russian Government is not insisting on the suspension of the British
Council office in Moscow. We hope that the situation will improve
and we will be able to resume the discussion of the bilateral
agreement on cultural centres and that will allow the British
Council to have a solid legal foundation for its future activities
in Russia.
Q423 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Are those negotiations likely to begin soon?
Mr Fedotov: We are prepared to resume these
negotiations as soon as the British side accept that the other
tracks should also be resumed, including the visa agreement. I
mentioned our progress with the European Union but unfortunately
we are lagging far behind the European Union with our bilateral
visa problems with the UK. Unfortunately, the visa problem now
creates an impediment to contacts between the people of Russia
and England and that is very unfortunate. There are other matters,
like the suspension of co-operation in counter-terrorism. That
was another step taken by the British Government against Russia.
What we are basically suggesting is a kind of zero option, coming
back to the situation before July last year, which will allow
us to resume the negotiations on the agreement for cultural centres.
As I said, we were very close to the finalisation of this agreement.
That of course will help to establish the legal foundation for
the British Council in Russia.
Q424 Lord Crickhowell:
Ambassador, this is an issue which the European Community has
expressed complete support for the British position on. It is
a European issue as well as a British issue. What I find difficult
to understand and I found difficult to understand as I listened
to you was that you started by saying that there were no concerns
about what the British Council was doing in Russia. You pointed
to some legal disagreements which you thought could be resolved
anyway but you made it very clear, as has your Foreign Ministry
in Russia, that what has brought this about, are political differences
between the British Government on certain political issues. What
I think we all find very difficult to understand is on a cultural
issue, an educational issue, an issue on which you say there are
no concerns, which relate to your opening statement about Europe
and Russia and Russia and Europe, is how political differences
on other issues, visas or anything else, can be allowed to create
a situation in which these educational and cultural exchanges
can be broken off, interrupted and interfered with. We simply
do not comprehend how these kinds of political differences can
involve something like the British Council.
Mr Fedotov: First of all, I do not think the
suspension of the activities of two regional offices of the British
Council, small regional offices, would be a real impediment ---
co-operation between Russia and the UK in culture and education.
As a matter of fact, this co-operation continues. Even when the
British Council was more active in Russia than now, there have
always been other direct channels for contacts in matters of culture,
education. To take another side of the coin, we have such European
institutions as the Goethe Institute, Cervantes, Alliance Française.
They continue to operate in Russia because they have a very firm
legal foundation and there have been no problems with them. The
British Council was established in Russia in 1992 without any
agreement. They just came and started to work and only two years
later a framework agreement was signed which had a special provision
for further consultations in order to get legal status for the
offices of the British Council. It would also help us to have
the same legal foundation to open a Russian cultural centre. We
do not have cultural centres in Russia. Unfortunately, the discussion
of this matter has been influenced by the political choice of
the British Government to take another legal matter, that of the
extradition of Mr Lugovoi, at the highest political level, to
make out of it a matter of policy, and that is why other areas
of bilateral relations were affected.
Q425 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Ambassador, I think we do need to be clear. You have made some
very categorical statements, and your last statement, I think,
is at least helpful in so far as it does clarify the issue for
us—maybe in a stark way but nonetheless such that one could
not misunderstand what you are saying. Can I just be clear about
this point though? Are you saying that we can resume the discussions
about trying to put the British Council, all the British Council
offices, on a legal footing in those negotiations at such time
as we resume a discussion about the visa issues, or at such time
as we have concluded on the visa issues? You have mentioned very
specifically a discussion about terrorism issues and you have
also raised quite specifically the extradition issues. That is
quite a substantial menu on the side of those (a) agreements and
(b) a quite specific issue about extradition. Is that the full
menu, if I can put it that way, the full list of the issues that
you want resolved before we can begin these discussions, or are
you saying that if we all do get together to be able to look at
these together, that will be the point at which discussions might
be resumed?
Mr Fedotov: The Russian Government has offered
the British side an option. A few months ago we suggested that
if the British Government is prepared to go back to the situation
before July 2007—of course, diplomats were expelled and
it is hard to ask to let them back but at least the negotiations
on the visa issue must resume, our bilateral contacts on counter-terrorism
must resume, and also, in this case, we are prepared to resume
consultations on the agreement on cultural centres. That does
not mean that the progress in all of these tracks must be inter-related,
so to say. The most important thing is to start them. We realise
that for the visa issue we need more time because we are only
at the beginning stage but on the cultural centres, we were quite
close to the finalisation of this agreement. So it is a matter
of good will from both sides. Unfortunately, this option which
was offered by the Russian Government was rejected by the British
side as an ultimatum and that brought us to square one again.
Q426 Lord Truscott:
Good morning Mr Ambassador. I am very glad you are here today.
Could I just move on to energy matters now, Ambassador. What are,
in your view and in the view of the Russian Government, the prospects
for the ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty and the Transit
Protocol? What are the weaknesses of the existing texts and what
do you think might be an alternative way forward? Finally, if
I can ask you, Ambassador, Mr Chizhov was quoted today in the
Financial Times as saying "We do not mix energy and
economic problems with political problems." Would you agree
with that statement?
Mr Fedotov: I think he is right. Why do we have
to mix everything in one box? I would say that the Energy Charter
Treaty and related documents that serve as a legal framework for
the long-term co-operation in the field of energy were the product
of a compromise and mutual concessions. When the ECT was signed
Russia expressed some concerns that were set forth in the statement
of the chairman of the European Energy Charter conference. While
expecting that these concerns would be dealt with as soon as possible,
Russia started the process of ratification of the ECT as early
as 1996. However, the problems mentioned have not yet been resolved,
nor is the ratification process complete. For this reason, the
treaty is being implemented but on a temporary basis. For Russia
this matter had a crucial importance, as the ECT covers the whole
fuel and energy sector, not only oil and gas. Furthermore, ECT
ratification will require significant changes in Russian legislative
and administrative acts. That is a complex and time-consuming
process. Among the unresolved problems is the issue of international
transit of energy resources. The State Duma of the Russian Federation
has decided that the ECT could be ratified only when the Russian
proposals to the Transit Protocol and the Energy Charter are taken
into account. There are also other unresolved disputes related
to nuclear and energy materials trade and investment regimes,
environmental aspects and energy efficiency matters that are also
under discussion. So for the time being the Russian position remains
unchanged. During the EU summit that took place in Helsinki in
2006 President Putin confirmed that Russia will not ratify the
Energy Charter Treaty in its present form because we need to have
clarification of these unresolved issues. Our latest contacts
with the European Commission have shown that the Russian and EU
positions on the key ECT issues still have significant differences.
We propose to modernise the treaty by reviewing several of its
provisions and supplementing it with additional protocols, focusing
on different areas of co-operation like transit, investments,
electrical power industry, et cetera. In particular, the
following transit issues that have not yet been settled during
further consultations are of special significance for us. Number
one is the traditional supplier's priority right to conclude a
new transit contract, right of first refusal; and tariffs on long-term
contracts, cost plus a reasonable income formula; and transit
protocol's scope of obligation. The fact is that 95% of Russian
gas and 40% of oil are supplied to trade markets by means of transit
through other countries. It is important. Moreover, 83% of oil
exports from Kazakhstan and 20% of oil exports from Azerbaijan
transit through the territory of Russia. Under such circumstances,
it is quite obvious that Russia is interested in a lasting instrument
that would effectively regulate transit. Such is the position
of Russia as of today and we hope that we will continue meaningful
consultations with the European Union on this matter.
Q427 Lord Truscott:
Do you think that the EU-Russia energy partnership and the principles
around it could be enshrined in the new Partnership and Co-operation
Agreement?
Mr Fedotov: That is a possibility. It could
be enshrined in it, or it could be the subject of a separate document.
It does not matter but certainly we need to have a mutually acceptable
solution to these unresolved issues.
Q428 Lord Crickhowell:
Can I ask a related question, Ambassador? What is the Russian
Government's view of the European Commission's proposals put forward
in September 2007 about a strengthened European energy policy?
Mr Fedotov: As I understand, so far these ideas
are not yet in final form, so the official position of the Russian
Government on the European Commission proposals to strengthen
the European energy policy is under consideration. I think it
would be a little hasty to formulate a view on something that
has not yet taken its final form. Generally speaking, of course,
it is quite obvious that this issue has a paramount importance
for Russia, as the leading energy supplier to the EU. I think
it would be fair to say that we expect the EU would not make its
final endorsement of its energy strategy without consulting Russia
or taking into account in some other way Russian concerns. We
cannot be away from this process while we continue to be one of
the important energy supplies to Europe. By the way, we have an
appropriate channel for such discussions, which is the Energy
Dialogue, and we hope that this panel will continue to work and
will work even more actively.
Q429 Lord Crickhowell:
Ambassador, you spoke right at the beginning of this meeting about
the interdependence of Russia and Europe. There is no greater
example of this interdependence than this issue. Perhaps European
policy has not been well thought out and co-ordinated in the past.
You have spoken about the vital importance for Russia. What you
have said equally makes it clear that it is of absolutely fundamental
importance for Europe, our dependence on gas and so on, particularly.
Therefore it seems likely that the European position will have
to be developed and strengthened and that the European vital interests
will also have to be protected and worked out on a mutually supports
basis in the coming years. Would you not agree that we are at
the start of a really fundamental re-examination of these energy
issues? If there are rights and so on that Russia can understandably
demand, equally, Europe must be in a position to have balancing
and equally effective defence of its own position.
Mr Fedotov: I think interdependence is a key
word. You may say that in some ways Europe may be considered as
dependent on oil and gas supplies from Russia, but Russia also
depends on markets in Europe. There is a mutual interest to have
a common policy and to do it in a fair way, without politicising
this matter, but doing it for the benefit of the interests of
the European Union and Russia and, what is even more important,
for the interests of end users of energy products.
Q430 Lord Swinfen:
Your Excellency, I want to talk about the World Trade Organisation.
What is the Russian view of the EU's role in the run-up to Russia's
membership of the WTO? How satisfied is your Government with the
arrangements for market access for your goods into Europe? What
are the main problems connected with imports into Russia from
Europe?
Mr Fedotov: I think we do not have major problems
with the EU position on Russia's accession to the WTO. In May
2004 the bilateral negotiations on trade and services with the
EU, which account for more than half of our trade, were completed,
and so that was good news. Bilateral talks with all interested
WTO members are almost complete. Multilateral negotiations aimed
at co-ordinating the report of the working group on Russia's accession
to the WTO, as well as on agriculture, which are by no means less
complex, are quite intensive and currently under way. So we hope
that the EU will continue to provide us with constructive support
and assistance during these talks. Of course, the accession to
the WTO is a matter of priority for the Russian Government but
the quality of accession to the WTO is more important than the
timing of the accession. We realise that Russia's accession to
the WTO will affect some Russian industries which have not so
far been able to reform enough. It will certainly have an impact
on the economic and social situation in Russia. That is why it
is taking more time than it took with other countries. We now
realise that it is wiser to take our time in the process of negotiation
and to have a good quality of accession to the WTO rather than
a hasty approach, as has happened in the past with the accession
of some countries, who were accepted as members of the WTO but
then later on started to renegotiate some of the conditions of
their accession. We want to avoid that, and we want to be crystal
clear at the very beginning. Of course, we cannot be outside the
WTO, and the European factor is important. I quoted earlier figures
for our trade with the European Union. The European Union continues
to be one of our most important partners in terms of foreign trade,
and, this trade will grow after Russia's accession to the WTO.
I hope it will be the same for Russian exports to Europe.
Q431 Lord Selkirk of Douglas:
Ambassador, may I ask you what is the Russian Government's view
of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy? In
what areas does the Russian Government see the most scope for
co-operation with the European Union on foreign policy and security
matters? Which do you see as the most difficult areas?
Mr Fedotov: Both the EU and Russia are in favour
of collective efforts to cope with international crises and are
eager to promote a multilateral dialogue, to reinforce multilateral
institutions such as the UN, to counter the proliferation of WMD
and their means of delivery, and to develop effective international
institutions to meet the global challenges. As I said earlier,
we have a permanent dialogue with the EU. Of course, we have dialogue
with Member States but we are discussing with the Commission outstanding
international issues like the Middle East, Iran, the European
agenda. One of the illustrations of how we can work together on
the European Common Foreign Security Policy and the Russian foreign
policy is that we are discussing a possible Russian assistance
in terms of providing transport helicopters to the EU peace-keeping
mission in Chad. There are regular contacts and we may have different
views on some matters. No doubt we have different positions on
Kosovo, and that is an outstanding issue, but the most important
thing is to keep all channels of communication open. We may differ
but we must always have the means to convey our positions to each
other.
Q432 Lord Selkirk of Douglas:
Can I just mention to the Ambassador that the action of the Russian
Consul General in Edinburgh was very much appreciated in the Scottish
Parliament when he honoured the veterans of the Arctic convoys
who worked in the Second World War to bring supplies to Russia.
That was very warmly welcomed by the Presiding Officer, the families
and the representatives of the different political parties. I
thought I should mention that.
Mr Fedotov: Thank you. I take note of it.
Q433 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Ambassador, I was very pleased that you mentioned discussions
about the possible use of Russian helicopters in Chad. Is that
totally new? When we met Lord Malloch-Brown, the Minister responsible,
he mentioned the dearth of helicopters to assist in these areas
of great crisis in Africa. Do you see this developing, where Russia
has a substantial number of helicopters, of reaching protocols
with the Union in having regular co-operation in such areas in
the developing world?
Mr Fedotov: As I understand, we are now discussing
this matter, the modalities of using Russian helicopters for this
particular peace-keeping mission to Chad. Russia has a lot of
experience in providing transport helicopters to the peace-keeping
operations in Africa. We have done it in many cases: Sierra Leone,
Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and some other places, and
so there is good experience and we are prepared to share this
asset with those who are willing to organise further peace-keeping
operations, whether it be the UN or the European Union.
Q434 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Do these include heavy lift of equipment which is relevant for
peace-keeping and also the transport?
Mr Fedotov: Yes, it does. I myself once visited
and inspected the UN peace-keeping operation in Sierra Leone,
and at that time Russia provided the biggest helicopters, Mi-24,
which can transport shipments to remote areas and jungles, then
smaller helicopters that can be used to transport them to outposts
on a lesser scale and also to transport passengers and to carry
other cargo. That has been done and the Russian companies which
are contracted by UN to do that have a lot of experience. They
have experienced pilots and they have equipment.
Q435 Lord Chidgey:
Ambassador, you mentioned a few minutes ago in passing that there
are disagreements between Russia and the EU on the Common Foreign
and Security Policy. You mentioned Kosovo in passing. I wonder
if you could elaborate a little because it seems to me that there
is a rather confused situation in Serbia, with the Prime Minister,
Mr Kostunica, being somewhat opposed to closer co-operation with
the EU, whereas the newly elected President Mr Tadic seems to
be in favour, and of course co-operation with Europe is, as we
know, generally speaking a good thing. We seem to have a bit of
stalemate and I wonder whether, from the Russian point of view,
this is in fact detrimental to the long-term relations within
Serbia with Russia, with the EU, but the differences between the
two figures within Serbia have a much wider influence on relations
between Serbia, Russia and the EU. It seems to me that this is,
in a way, important figures in their own area having a far greater
impact because of their differences on much wider and far-reaching
issues between Russia, in this instance, and the EU. Should we
not be trying to find a solution to this?
Mr Fedotov: Just two or three points in this
respect. First of all, what is important for Russia is a national
consensus in Serbia on the matter of Kosovo. We are prepared to
support any solution on the status of Kosovo which is acceptable
to Belgrade. If it does not happen and Kosovo proclaims its independence
unilaterally, it will mean that for the first time since the Second
World War the borders of a European state will be changed without
its consent. Borders have been changed: there has been the Dayton
Agreement, the divorce of Czechoslovakia, the collapse of the
Soviet Union, but in each case an agreement was signed with the
consent of the parties. For the first time it is clear that Kosovo
is going to proclaim its independence unilaterally, without the
consent of Serbia. It is a pity because the last round of talks
last year showed some glimpses of hope, some signals, including
from Belgrade, that they were prepared to discuss a compromise
solution, some very loose status of Kosovo, a Hong Kong-type association
or whatever, but all this was rejected because the Kosovan Albanians
were assured, notwithstanding the outcome of the discussion, that
the Americans and others would support their move towards unilateral
independence. So what will happen now? If the independence of
Kosovo is proclaimed unilaterally, Russia will not accept it,
and we are going to keep this position. I do not think we need
to make an outstanding problem of it in our relations, including
in our contacts with the European Union. There have in the past
been similar situations. You remember the GDR and the Hallstein
doctrine of the Federal Republic of Germany. Some countries had
diplomatic relations with the GDR, some with the Federal Republic
of Germany but that was not a huge problem that prevented these
countries having good relations between themselves. Take the example
of Northern Cyprus. The only country that recognises Northern
Cyprus is Turkey but Greece and Turkey have—sometimes bumpy—relations
but they are partners in NATO, they may be partners in the European
Union and they have normal good relations. So that happens sometimes,
but we cannot accept unilateral independence of Kosovo, not only
because of our special concern with the situation in the Balkans,
which was always traditionally an area of special interest for
Russia, but also because it could create a very dangerous precedent
for other people who might wish to unilaterally proclaim their
independence following the Kosovo precedent. Of course, one might
even adopt a UN resolution saying that this situation is unique,
and does not set any precedent but we know that the more we adopt
such resolutions, the more precedents are set, so it is better
to avoid it. That is why we are very cautious about the unilateral
independence of Kosovo and we believe that it might lead to unpredictable
consequences for European security.
Q436 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Ambassador, the reality is that within a short period of time
Kosovo will declare independence, and the international organisations,
certainly the European Union, have already geared to provide substantial
civil assistance. Will Russia block any form of assistance from
the United Nations to an independent Kosovo?
Mr Fedotov: There is UN Security Council Resolution
1244, and how it will be dealt with is the great issue, and how
the Security Council, which is ultimately the highest authority
in terms of international peace and security, will tackle this
matter. There is this matter of assistance to Kosovo but there
are other matters. What is going to happen to the UN mission there
anyway? There is a need to close this mission and how and under
what circumstances decisions are to be taken. So I am afraid that
a unilateral proclamation of Kosovo's independence would create
a situation of a legal vacuum, so any further decisions of international
institutions, including the EU, on Kosovo would lack sufficient
legal foundation.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. Baroness
Symons would like to go back to something that you said at the
very beginning of your remarks and ask one final question.
Q437 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Ambassador, at the beginning you gave us a very impressive list
of the reasons why Russia is part of Europe, and I think you said
Europe without Russia is not Europe. You talked about geography,
history, culture, literature, music, art, human rights, values,
and family ties. The logic of all of that seems to point towards
ever closer relationships, and yet you very specifically drew
the line at institutional relationships in the future. I just
ask you for a moment to step back from immediate politics, from
all our differences that we have about everything. Do you really
see it as being impossible that in 20 or 30 years' time, when
we are all old and grey and retired from the political arena,
that the logic of the position you articulated about the closeness
of Russia—indeed, not the closeness but the integral part
that Russia is in terms of its European identity—do you
really think that Russia will never have the institutional relationship
with the EU and step towards membership of the EU?
Mr Fedotov: If you remember, when I mentioned
this principle of anything but institutions, I said, and I quote
myself, "The overall framework of our policies towards the
EU at this stage could be defined," but the EU is
an evolving institution and the EU of 12 was different to the
EU of 27. Who knows what will happen with the EU of 50? No-one
can predict how it will develop, what the form and shape of this
institution will be and how it will allow Russia to take part
in its evolution. Of course, one cannot exclude anything but so
far it is hard to see in the future, in 30 years or 40 years,
how our children and our grandchildren will see it. We hope they
will see the positive development of relations between Russia
and the European Union and the development of these Common Spaces
in terms of visits, in terms of culture, in terms of education,
trade, investment, business and everything. Then the new generation
of political leaders will decide what to do.
Q438 Chairman:
Ambassador, could I on behalf of the Committee say how very much
we have appreciated your coming and answering our questions so
fully this morning. Our colleague Lord Hannay, who unfortunately
cannot be here because he is out of the country today, told us
that you would be able to help us a great deal. He remembers working
with you in the United Nations some time ago. What you have been
able to tell us will be very helpful for us in clarifying our
understanding of the positions of the Russian Government and in
completing our report. We really are extremely grateful to you
and your colleague for coming and having spent some time with
us this morning. Thank you again.
Mr Fedotov: Thank you. Thank you for your attention,
thank you for your questions. Unfortunately, Mr Pritsepov did
not have the opportunity to say anything. Certainly he contributed
to this presentation, you may be sure. For the sake of clarity,
if you need it, we may leave you these notes for your report as
well. We are looking forward and we hope that your recommendations
will be of help for the further development of relationships between
Russia and the EU. Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you again.
|
