---

EU: Russia (EUC Report)

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in the gap, especially as I did not give notice beforehand that I would speak. On the day that Georgia was invaded, I wondered whether the developments would have the effect of invalidating the original report on the European Union and Russia. If I may say so, the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Hannay, made tremendous contributions to the excellence of that report. All parliamentary colleagues worked hard on it, but those noble Lords in particular went the extra mile right up until the end of December. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for taking the helm thereafter. The follow-up report seems to have a different emphasis in urging that we should be more hard-headed. However, the policy of constructive engagement, which has been called for by the Foreign Secretary, remains every bit as valid today as it was at the time of the original report. Paragraph 325 starts by stating: ""Despite the difficulties, Russia cannot avoid dealing with the European Union on trade, on competition, on customs and frontier controls, and on a variety of other issues involving the EU’s common standards and regulatory procedures"." The report goes to say that, ""they are bound by an inescapable common interest"." Perhaps even more important, paragraph 326 stresses that, ""both Russia and the EU have an interest in co-operating on long-term global issues such as the environment and climate change"." All this is as true today as when it was written. But I should like to make three brief points arising from the follow-up report. The first is in relation to Ukraine’s application to join NATO. It is in the public interest that the EU and NATO speak with great clarity. We are all aware that Russia has a dread of potential military encirclement which it would regard as a provocation. I note that on 23 June 2008 in RIA Novosti, a news agency in Moscow, Ilya Kramnik wrote, ""what consequences will Russia face if Ukraine joins NATO? … Tensions on Russia’s western borders will rapidly go up. At present, NATO’s tactical aircraft can reach Moscow in about an hour. Their flying time would be reduced to 20-25 minutes … Tensions between Russian and the West would escalate; and the political climate, which already leaves much to be desired, would finally slide to the worst times of the Cold War"." I have to say on the other hand that the Government of the Ukraine have taken an entirely different view and have applied to join NATO, with the support of our present Government. It is entirely possible—indeed, likely—that a future Government would adopt a similar policy. The Foreign Minister, Caroline Flint referred to legitimate aspirations. Incidentally, I thought that the wording of the follow-up report was absolutely appropriate. In Paragraph 58 it states: ""It is clear from the NATO ministerial meeting in December that there is no prospect of early NATO membership for either Georgia or the Ukraine. Without drawing back from the commitment by NATO to the two countries’ eventual membership, the focus should remain in the immediate future on practical cooperation"." I draw to the Minister's attention the need for clarity and realism in decision-making and timescales, because Russia needs to know what we mean by legitimate aspirations, and we need to be aware of Russia’s concerns about what it believes to be military encirclement likely to increase tension. History shows that where clarity is absent, there is a risk of miscalculation, misinterpretation or misunderstanding, which can lead to trouble that we want to avoid; so I call for clarity and realism. Secondly, we should take the trouble in the EU in maintaining a dialogue. Paragraph 313 states: ""We believe the EU should consult in depth with the Russians over all aspects of the European Neighbourhood Policy with regard to countries which were formerly part of the territory of the USSR, but should not give them a right of veto over EU policy"." Paragraph 314 states that, ""the EU should take account of Russia's interests and concerns in the formulation of its policies towards the Central Asian countries"." As a matter of principle, we are obviously anxious to seek good relations with Russia, but it is every bit as important that we have good relations with her neighbouring countries, referred to as her near abroad. My third point is that the attacks on the British Council, which have not been mentioned so far today, were extremely high-handed. They are seen in Britain as being totally unnecessary and a serious setback for British-Russian relationships. Perhaps the Minister could say a word about the up-to-date position of the British Council. Surely finding a solution should not be beyond the wit of humankind. Our report was emphatic in stating at paragraph 299 that the attacks on the British Council were seen as, ""a part of a wider political strategy to pressurise the UK and the EU into giving ground on other, unrelated issues"." That is very unsatisfactory. I also have to report that there have been some encouraging signs. I note that Mr Rogozin, who is Russia's envoy to NATO, has said that Moscow is ready to go ahead with restoring ties to the NATO alliance, which had been frozen. General Mattis, the Supreme Allied Commander—