| The top-level meetings held in St. Petersburg last weekend produced
positive results for Russia, Europe and the entire world. Common Russian and
European interests were spelled out, and some progress was made toward the
creation of a greater Europe. Russian cooperation with the European Union
took a step forward, and Russian-U.S. relations, strained by the crisis in
Iraq, were mended. While their meetings had a certain theatrical flair,
President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders demonstrated a sound
understanding of military and geopolitical developments around the globe.
The 300th anniversary of Russia's northern capital provided a fitting
backdrop for the talks, as the participants came to realize that the
standoff over Iraq had gone too far, and that the way forward involved
restoring relations without losing face. The celebrations gave the leaders a
reason to put on a smile and adopt a positive outlook, to offer words of
praise rather than criticism. The bonhomie in St. Petersburg undoubtedly
eased tensions and paved the way for more productive talks at the G-8 summit
in Evian earlier this week.
The meetings in St. Petersburg were more than pomp and circumstance.
During the tricentennial of Russia's "window to Europe," Putin used the
occasion to point out major obstacles in the way of Russian integration into
Europe. One of the biggest is the "new Schengen wall" which divides Europe
today as the Berlin Wall did in the Soviet era. Putin's forceful call for
visa-free travel between Russia and Europe, removing the visa barrier that
most Russians cannot overcome, was almost unprecedented in talks at this
After the Russia-EU summit in St. Petersburg, the removal of the visa
barrier can no longer be left on the back burner. It is a pressing problem
that must be tackled immediately, first by creating a working group, and
then by drafting concrete proposals for the next Russia-EU summit meeting in
Rome this November.
It would have been more productive, and more logical, to discuss the
nuts and bolts of visa-free travel during the meetings at the Konstantin
Palace west of St. Petersburg. More progress could have been made if the
issue had been raised a year or so ago, during the negotiations on
Kaliningrad. It was not raised, however, and for obvious reasons. Russian
and European officials simply don't take the issue seriously because at
bottom they don't believe that Russia can become part of Europe not only in
the cultural, historical and political sense, but also in practical terms.
In St. Petersburg, the eurocrats responded to Putin's call with
resounding silence. Then again, discussion of Chechnya at the Russia-EU
summit was restricted to the war on terrorism. From the European point of
view, the lack of criticism of human rights violations in Chechnya could be
seen as compensation for the EU's unwillingness even to consider opening its
borders to Russians.
So long as Russia runs roughshod over human rights in Chechnya and
authoritarianism continues to raise its ugly head in domestic politics, the
Europeans will feel justified in maintaining a defensive wall and refusing
to talk about a "greater Europe." It is much easier for European officials
to punish all Russian citizens for the actions of the Kremlin (while making
nice with the Kremlin at every opportunity) than it would be to roll up
their sleeves and help settle the conflict in Chechnya, or to sweat the
details of a visa-free regime with Russia. At this point all the Europeans
have to do is to admit the possibility of open borders and to present a list
of their conditions. This is precisely what they won't do, and their refusal
has turned this into an increasingly political issue -- hence the analogy
with the Berlin Wall.
Much will depend on the future political and economic evolution of the
EU as well. A number of fundamental transformations in the EU are still
needed, but its member states have been unable to establish common
priorities. The role of the euro in the world economy, as well as in
Russia's economy, remains an open question.
And yet there can be no question that the overwhelming majority of
obstacles to visa-free travel lie on the Russian side of the border. We must
begin today to demand action from the Interior Ministry, law enforcement
agencies and lawmakers to tackle the problems of illegal migration and the
drug trade, as well as passage of a law on readmission.
The meetings in St. Petersburg last weekend have also freed us of
illusions about triangular alliances, or alliances of any other
configuration, pitting Russia and Europe against the United States. All of
the erstwhile Frondeurs demonstrated their desire to patch up relations with
the U.S. in advance of the G-8 summit in Evian. U.S. President George W.
Bush came to France graciously to accept their surrender, which they had
previously declared by backing a UN resolution establishing the postwar
order in Iraq as dictated from Washington.
The most important result of Putin's meeting with Bush was the return
to the principles of the Declaration on Strategic Partnership, signed one
year ago during the summit in Moscow. Politicians and journalists paid scant
attention to the declaration at the time, focusing instead on the treaty on
reducing strategic nuclear arsenals, a topic more in line with stereotypical
political thinking. Today it is clear, however, that the Declaration on
Strategic Partnership is the founding document in U.S.-Russian relations,
the "road map" of future development, and the only legal basis now in place
for such development.
Another key issue of both the Russian-EU summit and Putin's meeting
with Bush was the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As Putin
remarked, Russia and the U.S. are closer than they seem even on the thorny
issue of Iran's nuclear program. Another important result was the joint
Russian-American declaration on the North Korean nuclear program, which once
again assigns Russia an active role in defusing the situation after it was
sidelined for its opposition to U.S. intervention in Iraq.
It was very heartening to see world leaders in St. Petersburg
recognize that bickering over approaches to our common problems, such as the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, gets us nowhere. Concerted
action is what is needed.
The reaction of the Russian public to the meetings in St. Petersburg
is another issue. I think it was positive on the whole. But we must
understand that public opinion is fractured, and focuses more on who's
talking than what they're talking about. When Putin talks about strategic
partnership with the United States and intergration with Europe, the public
supports him. Yet his anti-American statements and his appeals to rely on no
one but ourselves garner just as much support.
There was a sense in St. Petersburg that Russia's leaders were taking
care of their business while the people were taking care of theirs. That the
only way politics affects everyday life is by blocking off the streets and
creating other assorted inconveniences. My point here is not about security
measures, but about the lack of a feedback mechanism between the rulers and
the ruled. There is no point talking about stable development in one
direction or another in a country where the rulers set the agenda for
society, rather than the other way around. This point should be factored
into the assessment of any top-level meeting involving Russian politicians.
Grigory Yavlinsky is leader of the Yabloko party. He contributed this
comment to The Moscow Times.
the original at
Russia - EU Relations
Russia - US Relations
Situation Around Iraq