Karl Bildt: Europe asks questions

European anxiety about the Russian policy, questions about changing the course in connection with the presidential election, as well as the problems of expanding the European Union are reflected in the article by Karl Bildt, the basis for which was his performance at the conference in Moscow regarding the first anniversary of the foundation of the journal Russia in Global Policy. Today, Polit.ru publishes this article in the heading of the life of ideas.

This year, no doubt, will be decisive for the further development of “wide Europe” - space connected by geography, history and culture. To understand what our common future will become, you need to answer two main questions. First, how will European integration develop? Secondly, in what way will Russia go?

I’ll start with the second, since the tonality of discussing Russian events in the western capitals is now noticeably different from the one that was only a couple of months ago. Moscow should not be seduced by diplomatic formulations that sound in the official statements of the governments of Western countries. The scale of real concern to the future of Russia is very large. All of us in Europe are committed to the idea of ​​further development, strengthening and deepening relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union. But today this important task seems to us much more difficult than it seemed until recently.

The day after the December elections to the State Duma, the chairman of the OSCE parliamentary Assembly Bruce George said: "The main impression of the entire election campaign is that the process of democratization in Russia turned back." Similar estimates sound after several months of continuous discussions that the arrest of the head of Yukos Mikhail Khodorkovsky caused around the world. The question arises: did not change the course in Russia, and if it occurred, what consequences can this have for relations with the outside world?

The current year will be the year of transition to the new quality of European policy. On May 1, ten new members will join the European Union; in June, all 25 participating states will choose a new European parliament. According to the results of these elections, a new composition of the European commission will be formed, which will lead Europe until the end of the decade. The European Commission will be a huge responsibility. She will have to bring to the end the difficult process of concluding a constitutional agreement, which failed at the EU summit last December. Negotiations will begin on the new long -term budget of the European Union. And closer to the end of 2004, the European Council will make an extremely important decision about whether it is advisable to start negotiations with Turkey about its EU membership.

At the same time, negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria will be evaluated, as well as the already received application from Croatia and the application, which by that time, will probably submit Macedonia. I suppose that in this saturated year the political energy of the European Union will be aimed mainly to internal changes and transformations. But special attention will also be preserved, paid to relations with the so -called “wide Europe”, as well as with Russia. After a large-scale expansion, the current situation must be evaluated in a new way.

The current year will become transitional from other points of view. Only after the March presidential elections in Russia can we get a more accurate idea of ​​what Moscow policy will be in the coming years. On the other side of the Atlantic, an almost continuous election campaign is underway: from the first primaries in January to the presidential election in November.

Some signals coming from Russia are alarming. Some, obviously, are not averse to starting a dangerous game that will jeopardize the basis of our relationship-an agreement on partnership and cooperation between Russia and the European Union. The events of the end of 2003 demonstrated: in unstable regions bordering Russia and the European Union, there is a threat of crisis and political confrontation. Efforts should be focused on avoiding the occurrence of these problems and at the same time achieve a structural improvement of relationships, and this is possible even during the period of transformation and uncertainty. During this period - not too much, as we hope, a long -term - the EU and the Russian Federation should give more clear and intelligible answers to some fundamental questions.

Is the European Union ready to really play a strategic and key role in expanded Europe, in the Middle East, Africa and other regions located in the field of its interests? Does Russia intend to continue the reform policy that will turn into reality the idea of ​​integration and cooperation with the rest of Europe? Will it approve the power of the law and build a more democratic political system? Will it strive to create a more open and competitive economy?

If the EU and Russia give affirmative answers to these questions, we will join the new era of great joint opportunities. If the answers are negative, then the prospects for cooperation will be quite non -sufficient. Perhaps then in different parts of expanded Europe we cannot avoid confrontation, threatening to result in an open conflict.

The general strategy of European security, adopted at the European Union summit in December 2003, is outlined to pursue a more active and consistent policy in solving security problems. We are talking about threats associated with terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, as well as with the problems of fragile, weakening or collapsing state formations.

The European Union created and seeks to expand the zone of stability, the power of the law, reasonable management and democracy in Europe and around it. Efforts are concentrated primarily on the integration of countries - members of the European Union itself (as the EU expands, the task is complicated). But we will pay more attention to the issues of reasonable management, stability and power of the law in the “Wide Europe”, that is, outside the immediate boundaries of the EU.

Obviously, in the interests of the European Union to develop partnership with the Russian Federation, and also strive to ensure that the United States play an active role where it benefits. Such a partnership is effective only if there is a sufficient community of interests and values. And with mutual recognition that stable decisions can only come by joint actions.

In this sense, both sides failed to avoid mistakes. In early 1999, it seemed to Western countries that they would be able to solve the Kosovo problem without the full participation of Russia. The attempt was unsuccessful: we got war and since then we have not achieved a peaceful decision.

During the recent crisis around Moldova, Moscow repeated the same mistake, considering that Russia alone, without the involvement of other key international players, can achieve a political settlement of the conflict. Her diplomacy has suffered a fiasco, and an unresolved crisis in Moldova can become a serious burden for both the region and the relations of Russia and Europe.

Events in Georgia also cause concerns. There are forces that seek support to the USA and Europe, but there are those who are no less persistently looking for help from Russia. If a constructive dialogue is not established between the key players in the international arena, the result will be the dismemberment of Georgia with long -term deplorable consequences for everyone.

The European Union and Russia are equally interested in the stability of their common "neighboring abroad." In our joint interests, to beware of the wrong steps like mentioned earlier and develop a closer partnership. However, the situation can develop in a different direction. When discussing the situation in Moldova and Georgia at a meeting of the OSCE ministers in Maastricht (December 2003), Russia was in full isolation. This is an alarming signal. It is important to eliminate misunderstandings in a constructive spirit as soon as possible.

General interests apply to other areas. Afghanistan torn by conflicts is a source of almost all of the heroin entering Moscow; From there, more than three quarters of the total volume of this drug consumed in other European cities come. If we do not be able to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan, this will hit not only in the vulnerable states of Central Asia, but also in our countries.

Both Russia and the European Union are bordering the region, which is often called the Great Middle East. If in the past they said that the Balkans begin on the outskirts of Vienna, then today's Middle East begins in the suburbs of Paris, London and Moscow, where there are significant Muslim communities.

A visual confirmation of our joint interest in solving this problem is the fact that the EU and Russia constructively interact within the framework of the Middle Eastern Quartet. We strive to ensure that the Iraq postposaddamovsky becomes a state that respects the principles of territorial integrity, the power of the law and democracy, and not the source of rivalry, the focus of tension or the seedling of terrorism. In this, our interests coincide with the American. The possibilities of strategic partnership will increase if the European Union will show greater activity, sequence and legal capacity in the international arena.

Get rid of oil dependence

At the beginning of the last century, Russia was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The industrial revolution began to transform the country. St. Petersburg and Moscow turned into noisy European capitals. Artists and entrepreneurs, for example, from my native Sweden were in a hurry to east to east, in a violently developing Russian state.

If this trend continued, Russia today would stand on a par with the leaders of world economic development. Instead, she remains one of the poorest among those countries where an industrial revolution took place a hundred years ago.

Until Russia, in the full sense of the word, is part of Europe and the world, it will not get out of the abyss of poverty and despair, in which after seven tragic decades of communist tyranny and isolation. And if Russia does not overcome this terrible heritage, our common efforts aimed at achieving stability will be significantly difficult. Therefore, the goal of Europe is a strong and stable Russia, confident in its future.

At a recent EU summit, Russia in Rome made an attempt to designate four common spaces for long -term political interaction.

Firstly, the concept of the general European economic space, which has been discussed without much success for about two years. Secondly, the general space of freedom, security and justice, where much has to be done. (The same section includes an important question about visas.) Thirdly, the total space of external security. Finally, the total space of research, education and culture, in which, especially in the field of space research, has reached noticeable progress, although the potential of cooperation is much wider. To this list I would add a fifth, no less necessary space - democracy, the power of the law and human rights.

From a European point of view, it is somewhat strange that China is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), but Russia is not. If Russia does not join the WTO, the restrictions on economic integration between the EU and Russia are inevitable. At the same time, the Russian economy will be forced to submit to the law of the jungle in world markets.

The priority goal is to complete negotiations between Russia and the WTO until the end of 2004. Russia must discard the protectionist interests that impede its integration into the world economy. It is necessary to find a formula for conformity of natural gas prices in foreign and domestic markets. By the way, recent events in Russian domestic policy will make it difficult for Moscow to search for allies on the gas issue in the US Congress.

It is possible that the concept of “general economic space” will not be filled with practical content and will remain only on paper. The main reason should be sought in political confusion, which has been holding Russia outside the WTO for so long. Without membership in this organization, it is extremely difficult and illogical to discuss the creation of a zone of truly free trade and other steps in this direction.

Part of the confusing political situation that restrains progress is the situation of uncertainty, which has developed around the economic relations between the CIS states. One by one, ambitious plans are declared, but structural shifts are imperceptibly. The final result of the implementation of various interaction schemes under the auspices of the CIS is a slowdown in the process of joining the WTO and the restriction of the possibilities of creating a common economic space with the European Union.

Although over the past decade, Russia has slightly reduced its excessive dependence on oil and gas exports, its economy is still oriented towards the export of raw materials. Progress was mainly the result of the successful activities of the new Russian oil companies that managed to straighten the situation in the old, decayed Soviet oil industry and achieve production growth, as well as a result of high oil prices.

However, the upcoming stage will present higher requirements - not least, this concerns the influx of capital. The need for huge investments will increase to finance geological exploration and the operation of new highly reliable, but remote deposits.

The gas industry, which is much more important in the long run, is clearly behind development. Some reforms have been carried out, but the old structure, in fact, is never dismantled. Here, giant investments will also be required in new deposits and in the creation of infrastructure for gas export to the “hungry” markets of Western Europe, China and Japan.

In recent months in Russia, votes sound louder, calling for the preservation or reconstruction of one or another type of state and national control and even to the nationalization of natural assets. Such a model of development has the right to exist. But we must be aware that it will entail a restriction of the possibilities of capital and technology from other countries, and the necessary development of mining industries will slow down significantly.

The main question for Russia is whether it will be able to overcome oil dependence and whether it will turn into a truly competitive modern economy with a wide base. If Russia goes this way, great potential for integration and cooperation throughout European space will open. Otherwise, its development will more and more depend on the export of colossal natural resources, mainly oil and gas (the benefit of the demand for them in Europe will most likely grow). At the same time, she will not have the opportunity to attract enough internal and foreign investments for real modernization and expansion of her economic base.

Participants in the "round table" of the EU industrialists-Russia, which took place in Moscow in December 2003, drew a gloomy, but, it seems to me, the right picture of the state of affairs. “Despite the obvious successes of economic growth and some institutional reforms, the systemic risks of investing in the Russian economy are high. The main structural, legal and institutional reforms are not completed or are carried out inefficiently ... Despite the increase in the sovereign rating that occurred due to high income from oil and gas, Russia still occupies the lower lines of international investment ratings and the total volume of direct foreign investments in comparison with the scale of the Russian economy and its potential. ”

It was further noted that “over the past decades, the country, in fact, has not replenished its main production funds and is currently undergoing a structural crisis and technological disasters in many areas. The modernization of Russian industry and the reconstruction of its giant infrastructure will require tremendous investments, which cannot be completely financed by internal sources. The investment climate and related issues of institutional and structural reforms remain the key to achieving high and steady rates of long -term economic growth in Russia. ”

Only by carrying out these reforms, Russia will gradually achieve liberation from oil dependence and will be able to turn into a modern economy, become a full -fledged participant in integration and cooperation in Europe, which is so necessary for Russians and Europeans.

The foundation for democracy

The economic and political systems are interconnected. And if the oil economy, of course, is combined with a semi -authoritarian political system, then a modern, based on a wide industry base and a competitive economy with it is hardly compatible. Есть множество примеров того, как авторитарные и полуавторитарные режимы в разных странах мира развиваются до определенного уровня, но после этого потребность в эффективной власти закона, прозрачной и открытой политической системе и здоровом гражданском обществе, функционирующем помимо государства и господствующих экономических структур, диктует необходимость полноценной демократической системы.

Если Россия выберет современную экономику с широкой базой вместо малоперспективной нефтяной экономики, это будет выбор в пользу долгосрочного экономического развития, интеграции и сотрудничества с остальной Европой, а со временем – и в пользу соответствующего политического режима.

Я принадлежу к поколению, которое формировалось в эпоху холодной войны, возведения Берлинской стены и вооруженной экспансии советской коммунистической системы к самому сердцу Европы. Но я принадлежу и к поколению, которому посчастливилось увидеть чудо мирного распада империи, основанной на оккупации, освобождения самой России и окончания былой конфронтации…

Задача нашего поколения — построить новую систему безопасности, сотрудничества и демократии, охватывающую как можно большую часть нашего континента. Постепенно мы продвигаемся к созданию федерации национальных государств, которая будет включать в себя всю Европу к западу от России и Украины, простираясь от Северного Ледовитого океана до Средиземного моря. Этот процесс, разумеется, дается не легко, он не проходит гладко и бесконфликтно. Ничего подобного история не знает, и мы уже прошли половину пути к достижению целей, которые история возложила на нас после великих перемен 1989 и 1991 годов.

Превращение России из государства, охватывающего 11 часовых поясов, но обреченного на упадок, в современную европейскую демократию, граничащую с Китаем и Большим Ближним Востоком, очевидно, потребует времени. Но этот процесс столь же важен для построения новой Европы, сколь и поддержание и укрепление отношений с Соединенными Штатами.

Захочет ли Россия в один прекрасный день стать членом нашей федерации национальных государств — это открытый вопрос, ответ на который должна найти она сама. Я убежден, что такой масштабной стране, как Россия, будет трудно отказаться от суверенитета в решении широкого спектра вопросов, а ведь у себя в ЕС мы пытаемся делать именно это. Но свою судьбу должны определить именно сами россияне.

Внешний мир до сих пор не вполне понимает, в каком направлении движется Россия. Многим в России, как, впрочем, и в других странах, трудно понять непростую структуру Европейского союза и идущие в нем преобразования. И мы все стоим перед очередными вызовами и угрозами, которые нашли отражение в новой Стратегии европейской безопасности.

Какое-то время главная задача будет состоять в том, чтобы не допустить обострения напряженности в наших отношениях, признаки которой мы наблюдаем сегодня. Впоследствии нам всем следует потрудиться над обновлением и укреплением этих отношений. Если Россия проявит готовность, Евросоюз, я уверен, не замедлит с ответом. Но для того чтобы это стало возможным, обе стороны должны сделать свой выбор.