Throughout the many centuries of Russia’s existence, there has never been a full consensus of opinion in terms of which direction the country should develop. A symptomatic result of this dilemma is reflected by the establishment of the Russia in the United Europe committee. This reflects the ongoing rivalry between the two competing concepts for Russia’s development, which can be formulated in the following way: “Russia and Europe,” or “Russia in Europe.”

Whatever the case may be, heated discussions about Russia’s “uniqueness,” for example, how many heads the eagle on the Russian coat of arms should have, continue to this day. At the same time, while Russia has been arguing about the most advantageous ways for its development, the rest of Europe has been discussing, with increasing suspicion, the “enigmatic Russian soul” and the “inherent aggressiveness of the Russian bear.” I will not dwell now on the various dimensions which mutual mistrust and apprehensiveness assumed in the Cold War years. I can only say, with sincere regret, that the Russians – at least, an overwhelming majority of them – have rid themselves of the Cold War stereotypes much faster than their Western neighbors.

The former fear of the Europeans that massive Soviet tank columns may one day reach the English Channel has given way to a new fear: that a similar maneuver will be carried out by crowds of illegal migrants fleeing from Russia. This unfounded fear goes against obvious facts, against statistics which demonstrate that the main flow of illegal migrants to Europe arrive not from the eastern regions, but from the south. In any case, they are certainly not arriving from Kaliningrad.

Those who insist that it is much easier to change laws than the mentality of the people seem to be correct. Life in these modern times is changing very fast, much faster than the inertial mentality of the European man-on-the-street, and even many European politicians, can appreciate; one may only surmise that it is even more so with the bureaucrats. One thing is certain: the world is becoming more and more interdependent, and this is the essence of what is called globalization.

The developments now taking place on the European continent, which we are witnessing and in which we are taking part, have no historical precedents in many respects. The European Union has for the first time in European history actually united states on an intricate (some would even say eclectic) foundation of common democratic values and economic standards. The countries and peoples of Europe have reached a consensus on the principles for maintaining and strengthening their security, stability and prosperity, as well as for building a common socio-economic, legal, cultural and ecological zone which is free of crises and upheavals. It would be logical to assume that these markedly new relations, initiated through a rapprochement between the different parts of Europe, must bring about essentially new people-to-people relations.

That thesis belongs to political philosophy. As regards the everyday realities and real Russian interests, there arise intricate issues of practical interaction with the expanding European Union. These are fundamental issues concerning trade, investment, financial cooperation, science, technology, and mutual responses to new challenges. The steadily progressing partnership is accompanied by a growing level of competition, which is natural when the interests of countries clash in the day-to-day market economy environment.

At the same time, Russia is not only concerned with representing business interests and large corporations which are pursuing their specific economic agendas; and the Russian public’s interest toward Europe is not confined to tariffs and non-tariff restrictions alone. Obviously, the enlargement of the Schengen zone due to the inclusion of new EU members, and the toughening of visa restrictions on its external borders, create additional barriers to free travel and people-to-people contacts on the European continent. This is a matter not so much of business, or even tourism, as it is a simple respect for human rights. Many people in Russia believe that the Schengen agreement is in direct conflict with one of their most basic freedoms – the freedom of travel. This was one of the most important achievements of the democratic reforms in Russia.

There are many grounds for such a negative attitude toward the Schengen zone. Over the last decade, Russia has been witness to a peculiar, dual process occurring throughout Europe. On the one hand, EU member countries have been removing all barriers which may impede the freedom of their citizens to travel inside of the European Union. On the other hand, they have been constructing a veritable “Schengen Wall,” which is becoming higher and more insurmountable over time. It will not be very long before it produces uncomfortable memories of the Berlin Wall.

Western politicians may argue that a Schengen visa is a benefit, enabling its holder to travel freely about a majority of the EU countries. This argument may be correct with regard to a businessman who needs to visit several European countries at once. But for tourists (who comprise a majority of Russian citizens now traveling to the West) the main priority is to be able to freely visit and spend their vacations in one specific country in Europe.

Nevertheless, the European countries continue to toughen their visa rules for Russian citizens. Every day, officials of the various EU embassies in Moscow watch from their office windows as large crowds of people congregate to acquire a visa; many of these people must visit the consular departments two, or even three times, before they finally complete the tedious process. The humiliating interrogations at consular departments of Schengen zone countries in Russia have already become too well known, not to mention the piles of documents that Russians must submit as proof of their law-abidingness and their wish to go on a pre-paid tour. Can anyone provide an intelligible explanation as to why a Russian citizen, who has fully paid for his tour (i.e. a round-trip ticket, as well as proof of board and lodging and medical insurance), has to submit yet another document concerning the size of his or her income? And what motivates the foreign embassies, for example the Belgium embassy, to establish “income thresholds” of 10,000 rubles for Russian tourists?

The visa barriers erected by the EU not only make Russian citizens perplexed and indignant but they fuel corrupt and illegal activities by some travel agencies which promise to provide a Schengen visa, a residence permit, or even EU citizenship, for Russian citizens without any humiliating interviews, unjustified delays and all of the other problems. Here again, Russian tourists end up being the main victims: if they submit all of their required documents to some questionable travel firm, only to have the EU consuls accuse this firm of engaging in unlawful activities, then all of its clients are placed on a Schengen blacklist and denied entry to the EU.

Another factor impeding the free travel of Russian citizens was initiated through the introduction of visa barriers where they did not formerly exist. In the last few years, the “Schengen Wall” has arisen between Russians and their friends and colleagues in Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. This new barrier is a result of the European Union’s continuing enlargement which has not even been fully carried out to date. The EU officials argue that the enlargement is intended to boost Russia’s relations with the EU and its members and will eventually be of benefit to everyone. But the reaction of Russian tourists to these moves is understandable and easily predictable: they prefer to visit countries that do not require entry visas, thus saving their time and money. The statistics which compute the travel plans of Russian citizens only confirm this conclusion: in the last few years, the number of Russian tourists visiting Turkey and Egypt has increased, while fewer Russians now visit countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

In the last decade, Russian citizens became accustomed to freely visiting Central and Eastern Europe, and feeling like equal members of the larger European family. So try and explain it to a Russian citizen, who used to freely visit Karlovy Vary or Varna, for example, why he or she must now apply for a visa to these destinations. How will the 200,000-plus Russians, who traditionally visit Cyprus, react if they are told they must now apply for a visa, even if it costs as little as U.S. $20?

We have been raising the issue of easing travel rules in our negotiations with individual EU member countries, and with the EU as a whole. We proposed back in 2000 for Russia and the EU to begin work on a visa agreement. Our proposal, frankly speaking, did not arouse much enthusiasm, although such an agreement would be of tremendous benefit to both Russians and Europeans, on whose behalf EU officials and politicians speak. Statistics gathered by the Russian consular departments in the EU member states, as well as in countries wishing to join the EU, demonstrate a growing tendency for Europeans traveling to Russia. The number of Europeans visiting Russia actually exceeds the number of Russians visiting Europe.

It was only after the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, personally addressed the heads of state and government of the EU countries in August 2002 with a proposal to introduce visa-free travel between Russia and the EU that some headway has been made on this issue.

No EU member has publicly opposed this idea, yet, at the same time, none has displayed any special interest in the proposal. We believe this reaction results from simple inertia, together with the reluctance to revise particular stereotypes that have been established over the previous decades.

President Putin, together with the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, at their meeting on February 18, 2003, agreed to set up a working group to study the prospects and measures necessary to achieve this goal. This was a major step in the right direction. We are ready to work intensively so that by the next Russia-EU summit, to be held in St. Petersburg, Russia in May, we could present a mutually agreed plan of action – a “road map” to a visa-free regime between our countries. I sincerely hope that this time we will not witness another “loose interpretation” of this summit-level agreement by those who are responsible for translating this proposal into life. Actually, there have already emerged grounds for such fears. It is now up to the European Union to prove that its statements about a “new quality” in its relations with Russia were not mere words.

There is no denying that transition to a visa-free travel regime between Russia and the European Union is a difficult problem which will take much financing, as well as the settlement of numerous legal and organizational issues. We do realize how much effort a visa-free environment will cost Russia in order to tighten control along its borders. This effort may cost Russia billions of rubles, but to pay this money, we must first understand the rewards which will be gained in the end, as well as how much time the realization of this goal will actually require.

Russia and the EU are already working intensively on a bilateral readmission agreement (the second round of consultations was held in Brussels on February 27-28). Law enforcement bodies of the two parties are heightening their cooperation in combating international crime.

I believe that, apart from mutually agreed landmarks on the way toward a visa-free regime, the two parties should also make small, yet significant steps toward this goal. Why not, for example, preserve the present visa-free environment for Russians who travel to Cyprus as a pilot project for broader coordination efforts? As far as we understand, the Cypriots are interested in maintaining the current visa-free regime. Cyprus is an island that does not have a land border with other EU countries, and it is not even planned to be included in the “Schengen space” in the near future. The same regime could be applied to Malta.

Moscow’s proposal to introduce visa-free travel between Russia and the EU can provide an additional impetus for further cooperation in various other fields. Preparations for the move will require a practical solution of problems pertaining to the regulation of migration flows, improvement of border control, and combating certain illegal transborder activities (drug-trafficking, human-trafficking and various kinds of economic crimes). Now that the world is going global, it is becoming ever more obvious that these kinds of problems cannot be settled by simply reinforcing the “Schengen Wall” solution. The working group could promote the solution of practical issues through an interaction between Russian and EU migration, passport, customs, law enforcement agencies and other affiliated services.

The multilateral projects in this field could be financed from part of the funds now allocated by the EU for technical assistance under the TACIS and PHARE programs. Finally, the EU will have to address the above issues as it is now working on the concepts of “new neighbors” and “Greater Europe.” In the long run, a transition toward visa-free contacts will help establish shared democratic and humanitarian values, build mutual confidence and strengthen stability throughout Europe.

Progress in addressing these issues will graphically demonstrate to the citizens of Russia and the European Union that a United Europe – without new divisive boundaries – is not a political slogan nor a diplomatic phrase, but a truly achievable reality. I am confident that, given the political will and courage, we can move toward a visa-free regime on a basis of mutual advantage with due regard for all of the strategic prospects.