Russia’s relationship with the EU isn’t even: Europe often reproaches Moscow for the matters concerning human rights; the parties have disagreements as far as the Near Eastern affairs are concerned, etc., but at the same time the cooperation in the area of energy trade develops at an optimistic pace. Recently Russia and the EU started working on a long-term energy cooperation plan till 2050. The parties also hope to extend their cooperation in the frames of the WTO. Russia experts expressed their points of view on these issues.
Viktor Grishin, Rector of the Plekhanov Russian Economic University
I believe that what we've been working on essentially all the years of perestroika and beyond perestroika, years of transition from one formation to another, is accession to the WTO, of course was not an easy process. Naturally, this process, in terms of its impact on various economic sectors of the Russian Federation will have different consequences: that is it will be a positive process for some, for the others - not so much, and for others - generally speaking, not at all. Naturally, we understand that the competition in terms of sectors will not be beneficial to us. But we must understand that we are talking now about the village, the sales market of grain. Our stock breeding industry as we understand is not highly developed at the moment, and we are well aware that last year we had harvest. At one time we banned the export of grain, because the year before there was no harvest. Now this year, if we get a good harvest, the question arises of how to transport the grain. Yes, today, probably, in terms of prices on grain, we can be competitive. But competitive based on what? Based on the fact that we have very low wages in the village. If we are to increase them to, say, European level, of course, the competitiveness will be hindered. But I recall a conversation that took place in the early 2000s. I was a member of the Duma delegation to the People's Republic of China, we met with Jiang Zemin, back then they had just entered the WTO, and we asked a question: "Do you think you are competitive with American agriculture?" Of course, I realize that, perhaps, to date, they are not competitive. In terms of equipment, the agriculture of America is maybe two or three heads taller, etc. But there was the following answer: "I understand that in the world there is a permanent war. It is economic in nature or something else. But if we or my people are not be able to provide a sufficiently serious competition and will not be in this fight to win, then, ultimately, for the people it will be very bad." So I understand that, in fact, and I repeat it, for the part of the Russian economy it will be a difficult period. Nevertheless, for some industries, for example, complex analytics, and so on, it will be good. As for the European market, we also understand that they have their own problems. We see how these issues are now intensifying. We can see that they are not solving problems easily today. And we are also well aware that the European market for us, ultimately, will be reduced because the BRIC countries and other developing countries are now more active. But Europe, too, must draw appropriate conclusions. What are these conclusions, which problems we are going to create and how we are going to try to solve these problems with them will largely depend on how we are going to cooperate in the framework of WTO, an organization that is probably controlled largely by the United States in my opnion. Of course, we should be open, we are forced to open. I agree with Sergei Alexandrovich, that we must be able to compete, but competition needs today high costs and a necessary economic situation in the country. Perhaps we have to be able to create these conditions, as well as crate defense mechanisms. Even in terms of education, I would say, no matter how we criticize our present education. For example, tomorrow other universities will be founded. And they are already some. How will we compete? It is difficult to say because now the competition in the educational environment is dependent primarily on salaries of employees, right? What is education, for example, in economics? Some kind of infrastructure, relatively speaking, computers, software, something else, but above all people, teachers. I understand that today a foreign university has much more opportunities from the material point of view to choose a teacher which, say, I do not have. We, and I repeat it once again, should understand for ourselves where we are and what we are and learn in these conditions, even if we are lacking something, for example, if we have lower wages, how to defend ourselves. If we do not learn how to protect our opportunities in terms of developing and production in the framework of WTO, as well as of agriculture, I think it would be very bad for the country. On the other hand, the WTO, and I would not want to criticize the EU, but we can see what it did for the East European countries. In fact, many sectors of economy in these countries ceased to exist, and Greece today is in decline not because people are not working, but because many industries in Greece in general, after the entry of Greece into the EU stopped working. The same applies to the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, etc. Therefore, we must understand that, if on the one hand, we do not actually prioritize something else apart from perhaps the development of high-tech industries, for us, it can also turn into a disaster . To date, negotiators assure us that we had bargained ourselves some issues. Is it true? Perhaps in the near future we will see. There was a crisis and, probably, the mechanisms in use nowadays in the countries of Western Europe and in Russia need some improvement. Sure, every crisis occurs due to the fact that some mechanisms that are in use in the economic system stop working. Usually crises led a situation when people within this system find other mechanisms that we capable of developing the system no worse than, say, before 1990 in Russia. So what? There is a crisis, a crisis of economic theory, we all understand this very well and we are all looking for something and researching means to fix it.
Sergei Markov, vice president for relations with the government and NGOs at the Plekhanov REU
For Russia, the EU is one of the key political and economic partners. Germany at this point is the key country in the EU as a whole and objectively according to its socio-economic potential. It is also one of the closest to Russia among the other EU members due to political potential problems. The leaderships of Russia and Germany have traditionally formed a very trustful political dialogue, which allows to avoid certain problems. I will note that tGermany was one of those countries that were at some point against the hasty acession of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and thus prevented the development of a cristical situation in the region. I believe that in this regard Germany has played a positive role in maintaining peace and security in Europe today. The EU is a strategic partner and we aim at maximizing the improvement of relations with the EU. To answer the specific question about risks, it seems to me that among such risks might be a war with Iran, aggravation of situation in Syria according to the Libyan scenario, since we have seen how the war in Libya had led to some political tensions. In addition, the development of the political situation in Ukraine can as well create some problems. We see that the situation is alarming. At the time, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine created a serious tension between Russia and the EU. If the situation in Ukraine and Belarus will develop according to the conflict scenario, then Russia and the EU might, but need not to, occupy different positions, and this might lead to some kind of alienation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that today relations between Russia and the EU are so fundamental, so institutionalized that we almost cannot appear in the state of significant conflict today even on the subject of other countries because the strength of our bond is much stronger than any small problems. In this case it seems to me that the Russian position and policy towards the EU is clearly defined: we are aiming for strategic partnership, especially in the economic sphere. We have been in fact talking about creating a "Greater Europe", under which a free economic zone with free trade would be provided. At the same time we would like, perhaps, not only Russia, but also other countries, economic allies of Russia, united in the Customs Union to participate in the free economic zone. Today it is Belarus and Kazakhstan, but we assume that in the future the Customs Union will be joined by Ukraine and possibly by some other countries. Hence, the free economic zone is our first direction. As part of the free economic zone there must be a synchronized energy policy and that is the second point. The EU has a great demand for Russian energy resources, Russia has a need for European energy market. And although there is always some controversy over the prices, which are common between sellers and buyers, at the same time, there is a great strategic need. This is the second point - a common energy policy. We have also been talking about it: one of the key issues in the negotiations is the current European Energy Charter. The Russian side has repeatedly stated that the current Energy Charter expresses the interests of energy consumers, and probably does not take into sufficient account the interests of energy producers, so we are aiming at concluding a new energy agreement, which will provide equal rights of energy consumers, energy producers and energy transit countries so that their interests would be taken into account in advance and so that they do not become conflict zones in this kind of energy relations. In addition, we strive to create a unified civic space that would include, of course, visa-free travel. It seems that the creation of a single visa-free space has been too much prolonged. There is no reason to fear that tens of millions of Russian citizens will flood the EU at least for the simple reason that Russia now has a visa-free communication with many countries, but almost 90% of Russian citizens do not even have a travel passport and therefore have no formal reason to travel. We have, as you know, the unemployment rate which is significantly lower than in the EU. Although the level of wages is lower too, but the unemployment rate is still much lower, so there is no reason to assume that there will be a big influx. Work towards the visa-free regime through the process of facilitating the visa regime is a priority of Russian policy towards the EU. The important point is the creation of a common educational space, with the Bologna system as its system. Now there is much debate in the Russian educational system, and in the German one as well. There are questions to the Bologna system, it should be improved, but in itself the idea of creating a single European educational space, in which both students and teachers could have an opportunity to move for a semester or two semesters to any other university in some other country is very productive and, of course, we are seeking it. To say a few words about the current economic crisis, we are looking at the crisis of the euro zone of course not with malice, but with great sympathy, because as partners we are so greatly interdependent that the crisis in the euro zone affects also Russia's interests. Of course, we are interested in the euro zone returning to the path of sustained economic development, and even Russia is ready to provide little help to the euro zone. There are concrete talks about how Russia could assist the euro zone in overcoming its economic problems. These are all the main issues I wanted to touch upon.
