Nowadays it seems that relations between the European Union and Russia are swiftly deteriorating. However, to a great extent this is the result of the ever strengthening arms race between the United States and Russia. Thus, the European Union should focus on how to proceed without neglecting its own security interests, in particular since the treaty on partnership and cooperation between the Union and Russia ran out, and also because Russia has announced its intention to conclude another, greatly altered treaty. In relations with the European Union this treaty should no longer be limited to commercial ties on the basis of Russian concessions and western credits, but also include cooperation in the areas of internal and external security, as well as culture.
With clouds already accumulating over this first partnership, another area of contention is energy relations. This affects Europe’s energy security and future relations between producers – above all of crude oil and gas – transit countries, and consumer nations. No firm agreements have been reached between the EU and Russia in this area either. Many member countries are trying to circumvent Russia, to purchase the commodities in question from other producers and to transport these materials through third countries.
Russia, on the other hand, has agreed with Germany to circumvent Poland.
However, behind all these disagreements over security and energy, there are deeper political differences between the EU and Russia, differences seldom discussed or thought about.
In considering these differences, priority must be given to reassessing the era of President Yeltsin. He certainly did a great deal for the initial development of Russian democracy, but he also laid the groundwork for many phenomena in Russia that are today criticised by the West.
Above all, he created the constitution of the Russian Federation, which gave rise to a centralised presidential system. From the very beginning, this system has been characterised by an effort to restrict and control legislative power and to prevent the creation of a truly independent judiciary.
Thus, President Putin is merely making adroit use of the opportunities given to him by the Russian constitution, and he rightly speaks of Russian democracy as a “controlled democracy”. It is very difficult to compare a presidential system established in this way with liberal democracies, above all those in the western countries of the European Union. In passing, I would point out that when this constitution was created and allowed President Yeltsin to shell the Russian Parliament, theWest still saw himas a hope for Russian democracy.
This was a case of criminal naïveté, which has since been replaced by an often overly critical stance vis-à-vis present-day Russia.
Nor can we turn a blind eye to the fact that the furious period of privatisation under President Yeltsin opened the doors even wider to large-scale corruption and new forms of crime, which clearly cannot be eliminated without the aid of the new laws and constant strengthening of the repressive elements of the state.
It is thus clear that this method of introducing a market economy does not lead to a strengthening of democracy, but on the contrary to its restriction, and that in this case the stabilisation of the state is detrimental to civil and political freedom.
On the other hand, this approach is supported by a majority in Russian society, which also approves re-nationalisation of raw materials and establishment of what is sometimes called “sovereign democracy” (Vladislav Surkov from Presidential Administration), that is, a democracy standing on renewed national foundations, on a renewed Russian identity. What can the European Union do in this situation? It could start with cultural cooperation, by emphasising that Russia’s identity should be renewed and developed in its own specific way, but as part of the European democratic identity.
It is an incontestable fact that Russia has unilaterally developed as a nation that depends more and more on export of its raw-material wealth and on its advanced military industry. Although this gradually increases the wealth of the state, it is to be feared that this wealth will not be used to increase the prosperity of society as a whole, but rather to defend the geopolitical and security interests of the country. At the same time, this evolution does not favour the development of democracy; On the contrary, it favours strongly regulated political and social structures. Although Russia has undertaken to establish democracy and a legally consistent a state of law, to protect human dignity and human and civil rights, it must base these efforts on certain social foundations, on a functioning civil society, on development of the middle classes and independent media, and above all on certain morals and habits that cannot, of course, be “introduced” from above. These are the products of a longer-term historical development over many generations. We are referring here to a natural pluralism that is not perceived as a threat by society, to rejection of various forms of discrimination, to functioning tolerance, to a justice that is not established only in the courts, to a natural solidarity between rich and poor, young and old, healthy and sick.
These are the roots of true democracy, which must not be identified solely with the introduction of majority decisionmaking in politics. In supporting these foundations for democracy in Russia, Europe should not stand on the sidelines and wait for the current president to change or another one to come along.
Russia must have a strong president as the head of state because this is an exceptionally complicated federation, created historically in a predominantly violent manner, as was the case earlier with the Soviet Union, and like the latter with the potential threat of breakdown due to ethnic, religious or other causes. This would not be in the interests of anyone - even of the European Union.
At the same time, the question of values is truly fundamental in terms of mutual relations, even if today commercial and security matters are in the forefront.
Today Russia is increasingly linking questions of trade in raw materials with questions of security. This is no surprise, but it does point out one important characteristic of the current situation. It is true that the Cold War has ended, but many of its attitudes and habits remain. I am referring to the feelings of permanent mutual threat by the superpowers and repeated attempts to somehow overturn the current balance of mutual deterrence.
The West should abandon these attempts and urge Russia to do the same, because in the world of today there are new and different threats that affect both the West and Russia to the same extent.
There is, for example, the growing influence of extreme religious fundamentalists and powers, who want to seize control in many countries with the aid of terror and violence and to introduce theocratic regimes. Also, China and India are emerging as the two most populous economic superpowers in the world. Both theWest and Russia must, in their own interest, do business and cooperate commercially with China and India, but not delude themselves that they are in any way influencing their internal development.
In Europe’s relationship to Russia, things are different: here there is an opportunity for the EU to support the development of democracy and a state of law in this large, neighbouring nation.
Russia has no democratic tradition and is only now looking for its own brand of democracy. At present this is “controlled or sovereign democracy”. It corresponds to Russia’s current political and economic condition. However, tomorrow this could become another, higher level of democracy.
We cannot make specific predictions about this because, as history and recent events have shown, and as we know only too well, democracy is not a model that can be easily copied or transferred from one country to the other. Democracy stands on a set of complicated premises of varying nature, and must be treated with care. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, we know that optimism with regard to unstoppable global democratisation is not appropriate. We should recognise that countries which see their future in democracy and in the protection of human dignity should mutually help each other, even if some are currently following another path to ensure their interests.
The European Union was created after World War II on the basis of a gradual interlinking of a free market economy and political unification. Nobody should make the mistake of thinking that this was merely the creation of a sort of free-trade zone and an improved association of sovereign states to which more and more countries would easily gain access. The European Union was created as, and still is, an association that rests on a common concept of rights, on the defence of freedoms and rights for its citizens, and on this basis has also established its prosperity.
European quality of life is a concept that attracts millions of people from all over the world, and Europe’s message today is that the European Union is an open community prepared for peaceful cooperation with all countries. At the same time, the world should know that Europe is prepared to defend its values even in military terms. In brief, the threatening of Europe by Russia should become a thing of the past, and Europe should avoid aggravating traditional Russian fears. If disputes arise, they must be resolved in the interest of a common future and not by a return to confrontation, which has been historically overcome.
In the 1920s the great European thinker Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi created his vision of Pan-Europe without Russia because he feared traditional Russian imperialism. At that time he was right, because not long after, German and Soviet imperialism clashed in a devastating war, eliminating Europe from global politics, which were subsequently dominated by the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. A different pan- European perspective is emerging today – the possibility of cooperation between the European Union and Russia on the basis of common values. Although still very distant, it is a prospect that we must begin to envisage now
