Visit to Moscow by the EU “Ministerial Troika”

On July 9, Sergey Lavrov, Head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, received in Moscow the so-called “EU Troika”. In fact, there were four guests: Jack Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary (his country holding current Presidency in the EU), Ursula Plassnik, Head of the Austrian Foreign Ministry (Austria is to assume EU Presidency in the first half of 2006), Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner on External Relations and Neighbourhood Policy and EU High Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana.

In the course of negotiations, the parties “managed to reach agreement on some key international issues of which the most debate was stirred by the proposal to transfer the Iran’s nuclear case to the UN Security Council” (“Rossiyskaya gazeta” newspaper, 10.11.2005). “The US insists that the issue of Iran’s nuclear case be promptly turned over to the UN Security Council. Russia has on many occasions stressed that it considers the transfer of the “nuclear case” to the UN Security Council not feasible. In the opinion of Moscow, that problem should be resolved on the basis of the IAEA legal framework through political methods” (“Izvestia” newspaper, 9.11.2005). In essence, the EU has expressed its agreement with Russia’s stance. In particular, Javier Solana stated that “the European Union is fully supportive of the international community opinion. There is a very clear IAEA resolution reflecting its standpoint and determining the conditions for the possible transfer of the case to the UN SC. The international community is unanimous in its opinion that the military nuclear programmes do not promote stabilisation and peace in this complex region. The solution of this issue will be based on the behaviour of Iran and international situation. At the moment, the international community, including the IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei, is engaged in an intensive dialogue with Iran. This is a very subtle situation. We hope that the negotiations are resumed and the solution is found” (“Vremya Novostei” newspaper, 10.11.2005).

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, expressed the opinion along the same lines. “On behalf of the European Union and the EU Troika I would like to state the following: we do not want the Iran nuclear case to be transferred to UN SC,” said Straw. That said, he emphasised that there are no contradictions between the positions of the European Troika and Russia on the Iran nuclear case. The same was also confirmed by Sergei Lavrov. “There are no contradictions here,” said the Russian minister (“Izvestia” newspaper, 9.11.2005).

The Union and Moscow also found common grounds on the Syrian issue. Both parties stated that they “expect from Damascus full cooperation with the UN on the investigation of the assassination of the former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri in February this year. The Commission headed by the German prosecution officer Detlev Mehlis suspects the Syrian ruling circles in being involved with that crime and blames it for the reluctance to disclose in full the necessary information to the investigation. Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia expects from Syria to translate the promises to cooperate with the Mehlis Commission “into the language of practical measures.” In adverse case, Damascus, like Tehran, may run into the UN sanctions” (“Vremya Novostey” newspaper, 10.11.2005). While commenting on the investigation of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Javier Solana stated that “in this case the investigation is initiated by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. There exists a UN Security Council resolution requiring everyone, and in this case, Syria, to cooperate with the investigation. The guilty are to be punished” (Ibid).

In the course of negotiations, Moscow and Brussels also noted the “progress in the implementation of the existing agreements between them on the implementation of the programme of Four Common Spaces”… “The agreements, both concerning the implementation of the “road maps” and the execution of the agreements connected with the EU enlargement, are being carried out,” stated Sergey Lavrov, “cooperation mechanisms are established on all directions, which provides for the enforcement of the already taken decisions” (“Rosiyskaya Gazeta” newspaper, 10.11.2005).

While in Moscow, Ursula Plassnik, head of the Austrian Foreign Ministry, spoke on the EU-Russia dialogue and prospects for the Austrian EU Presidency. “ Russia is the key partner of the Union. I consider relations with Russia one of the priorities of my work in the course of Austrian Presidency in the Union. Adoption of the road maps on the four common spaces (economics; internal security; external security; research and culture) has laid an important foundation for the cooperation between the EU and Russia. During our presidency we will focus on their implementation. … Special attention during the Austrian presidency will be paid to the issues of internal security and environment including global warming” (“Vremya Novostey newspaper”, 9.11.2005).

EU Summit

The final EU Summit of 2005 took place in Belgium on December 15-16. “The main purpose of the meeting in Brussels attended by leaders of the 25 EU countries and the acceding Bulgaria and Romania was to find a way out of the dead end with the agreement on the Union budget for the years 2007- 2013”(“Vremya Novostey” newspaper, 16.12.2005).

“Two concepts for further building of the EU clashed at the Summit. One is represented by the advocates of EU’s common stock, in the first place, France and Germany, while the other one, defended by the Untied Kingdom, stands for its reduction. The British leadership wants to see the EU as a big free trade area, an economic community with a minimum supranational build-up. Premier Tony Blair pictures himself as a saviour of the European project after the belief in it has, as he thinks, been shaken because of the obsession with political integration. … The UK agrees to increase its contribution to the EU by 1 billion Euros annually, while other European leaders consider such sacrifice insufficient, since London enjoys benefits on paying its share to the EU budget. … The European leaders demand that London would increase the total volume of the EU budget and at the same time increase the amount of its own national contribution. European Commission, France, Poland and Hungary spoke explicitly against the present project. Madrid has called upon London to agree on further concession, while Rome expressed “dissatisfaction.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that “at no cost she would agree with the UK proposal”. … European Commission Chairman Jose Manuel Barroso called the British proposal “unacceptable”, “a budget for mini-Europe”. In his opinion, it would not only be insufficient for the expenditures to cover the costs of the EU enlargement, but also for the programmes of increasing the European economic competitiveness in the globalised world. He has warned that the failure of the budget talks “would send a very bad signal to the European citizens” by showing that the “integrated Europe has come to a blind alley and cannot move forward” (“Vremya Novostey” newspaper, 16.12.2005).

Nevertheless, Europe did move forward: the leaders of 25 Member States managed to adopt the budget and save the alliance from serious crisis. The achieved agreement did not stir anyone’s special excitement. “The new seven-year budget of the European Union for the years 2007-2013 will make 862.3 billion Euros. This is almost 130 billions less than the European Commission requested for the enlarged Union. In other words, that still makes a seriously cut budget that will not be enough for everyone, anyway. London agreed to increase its contribution to the European exchequer by 1.5 billion Euros through subtracting from its “check” (a part of the UK contribution to the EU budget refunded to the British). Administrative expenditures of the European bureaucrats remained on the same level, even though Blair was going to seriously reduce them. Yet, the share of expenditures on subsidies to the “New Europeans” had been slightly increased. Though initially the British were planning to cut the spending on their support by 10 percents, in the new budget they will be less by 6-7 percent. Because of that, for example, Poland will receive 4 billion more than Blair was going to disburse in the course of seven years. In any case, however, that is by far not the money Eastern Europe was counting on. Thus, Estonia will get 360 million Euros per year, even though it was hoping to get 500. Lithuania will not get additional financial aid in the category of subsidies for emerging regions. Instead, Vilnius will be allocated a little more money to shut down the Ignalin nuclear power station. Taking into account the EU budget contributions of the “New Europeans” themselves, such subsidies look even more modest” (“Rossiyskaya gazeta” newspaper, 19.12.2005).

In spite of the fact that most of the experts view the Brussels compromise as Tony Blair’s “capitulation”, one cannot help noticing some gains of the British Premier. Thus, “Blair has made his partners agree on the “global revision” of the EU budget distribution in 2008-2009. The British in the first place hope that the Common Agricultural Policy allowing the French farmers to get the largest subsidies will be made subject to revision. London insists that the budget money should be spent not on the breeding of cows, but on the development of science, education and advanced technologies” (“Izvestia” newspaper, 19.12.2005).

The comments by the politicians taking part in the EU Summit were positive yet fairly reserved. “The EU crisis has not been overcome at this Summit,” said Guenter Verheugen, European Commissioner for Industry. According to him, in the first half of 2006 “we will be faced with difficult questions to answer, first and foremost, about the possible number of new members. … “It could be said that we have taken a pause for reflection. We are observing a pause, but no reflection,” said Guenter Verheugen” (“Izvestia”newspaper, 19.12.2005).

“The talks have been exceptionally hard, but we did reach a deal for the benefit of the United Europe,” Tony Blair concluded with his usual smile. In turn, French President Jacques Chirac called the budget “a successful deal for Europe that will enable the EU “to finance its ambitions, enlargement process and Europe-wide programmes” (“Rossiyskaya gazeta” newspaper, 19.12.2005). German Chancellor Angela Merkel confined herself to calling it “a good agreement for the future of Europe” (“Izvestia” newspaper, 19.12.2005). The most extensive and optimistic comments have been voiced by the European Commission Chairman Jose Manuel Barroso. “The negotiations were very tough. As a result, we all spoke in favour of the greater European Union that will develop and move forward as an integer whole without dividing itself into new and old countries,” said J. Barroso. By the achieving the compromise, “ Europe has avoided a standstill.” … “Adoption of the budget is an important political sign for the entire Europe,” J. Barroso concluded (Prime-TASS Economic Information Agency).