---

EU: Russia (EUC Report)

Although the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, uncharacteristically forgot the rule of the gap, I am sure that the Grand Committee was grateful for his remarks. He put a very interesting emphasis on the delicate and subtle balances that are needed in this relationship between the EU and Russia. The complexities are enormous and it is very difficult to reach tangible conclusions in a very fluid situation. Therefore, we await with interest the Minister’s response because of his great experience of these matters, the UN relationship with the then Soviet Union and, later, the new Russia and all that that meant for international peace in the future. I am also glad that my noble friend Lord Teverson was able to take over as chairman of this report. I thank him and his colleagues on the sub-committee for an excellent job and a nuanced but balanced set of conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and my noble friend Lord Teverson reminded me of that very important aphorism—I suppose that is the right word—from Voltaire who said that superstition could put the world into flames, but only wisdom could put out the fire. We have heard some very wise suggestions from both of them and other contributors to this debate. I, too, share the concern that has been expressed today about how the West reacted in the early days of the new Russia emerging. The naturally free and energetic press in the West denounced many things in Russia—from bandit capitalism to the oligarchal fiddling of the privatisation programme, terrible attacks on journalists, the murder of journalists and so on. It rightly referred to those matters and presented President Putin in a somewhat bad light, often referring to his KGB background. While understandable, these things can be viewed differently in Russia. It is never a weakness for us to consider what those in another country feel. Even members of the Russian population who were not slavish adherents of the majority Nationalist Party or particularly keen on President Putin and his successor—although his successor has a somewhat more popular rating—were put off at the initial stages of that change in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 by the condescension of the West towards Russia. The country was viewed as sort of a problem child which needed severe attention of the wrong kind rather than a friendly, helpful and positive relationship. I hope and believe that, fortunately, bad moment has passed and is long since gone. Now there is a much more realistic appraisal of the matters that we need to keep in purview, but there is particular anxiety, which I understand fully, in this report, in the West and elsewhere in the world, about the near abroad area of Russia, which several speakers have mentioned. I was very struck, for example, with the suggestion made by Roderic Lyne in giving evidence. In paragraph 60, page 20, he mercifully says that: ""Russia did not represent a direct threat to the West, nor did he think that Russia would now annex a Member State of the EU"." That is a fairly dramatic assertion, but I was glad to read that in the report. He continued: ""The greatest threat was Russia’s potential self-isolation but he insisted that Russia and the West were no longer on opposite sides"." Page 21, paragraph 64 states: ""Roderic Lyne also thought that the EU needed an agreement with Russia but ‘a different sort of agreement and maybe several agreements rather than one’ … He warned that Russia had started to make clear four or five years previously that it did not want a partnership; the EU had not adjusted its course in response"." That therefore aided and abetted the process of vociferous differences in the member states of the EU in their individual approaches to Russia and the scramble for energy supplies, particularly led by Germany after it had already asked the European Commission to formulate a common European energy policy, which was a glaring example of that. In the conclusions, paragraph 96 on page 26 states: ""The ongoing disputes between Russia and the West over missile defence and NATO enlargement risk further complicating EU-Russia relations"." That must be handled with great care by the Americans. There is every sign now that Obama is just the right person for this role as the new president in making sure that the Americans do not overstate their own case and their objectives. Paragraph 97 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"." Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, rightly emphasised the difficulty that Russia would face if the Ukraine became a member of NATO. While we would welcome it, the future role of NATO itself needs to be clearly enunciated and constructed because it seems to me and to many people in the West that NATO’s role has been one of "keeping going, jobs for the boys and let’s find an artificial role in Afghanistan". I am saddened that I have to say that. I hope that the role in Afghanistan works out now, but it clearly was something that the Russians were very worried about and thought was extremely provocative at the time. I emphasise, as does the report—I think that we are all of one mind on these matters in today’s debate—that the EU has to act with one combined foreign policy stance on Russia-EU links. I assume that the Minister will confirm yet again that Lisbon would help that process. It is not essential but it would make it much easier. I think that Lisbon is more important for other, non-foreign policy matters, but that, too, would be a positive step. I echo what my noble friend Lord Chidgey said about the huge anxiety about the situation in Georgia. The UN stance is tellingly pro-West in this sense and therefore we have to accept that Russia must heed those words of warning. Yesterday, Putin referred to the future and perhaps switching again. Members of Parliament in the other place talk about switching house ownership in terms of primary residence, but in Russia they talk about switching the president and the prime minister. His references were fairly disturbing as he sounded determined to resume his role as the president. In that case, I do not know whether President Medvedev would become prime minister. I warmly endorse the report’s sensible conclusions. I feel that there is a positive future if we can only keep the balance. There are still serious problems, including others that have not been mentioned today. The Middle East peace process is not addressed in the report but Russia should surely be playing a much bigger part in that with other quartet segments. It does not seem inclined to do so, but is now hosting meetings more often; that may be a good sign. It really needs to get involved in that. Moldova is a tiny country with huge problems and is situated next to Romania, with the anxiety that Moldovans feel about that. They are desperately keen to get into the EU but that will take a long time in view of their severe poverty and all the problems associated with that. Russia is its near neighbour and is watching the situation very closely. I believe that there is a positive future if this country follows a common EU line on these matters. The sooner we achieve that, the better. I hope that the Minister will endorse that concept when he winds up.