In June 2004, the Russian Federation and the European Union (EU) will acknowledge the ten-year anniversary since the signing of a fundamental document known as the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). This is a good opportunity for critically assessing this document, as well as charting a course for the development of a regulatory framework of cooperation between Russia and the EU.

It has become obvious that the PCA must be further expanded and specified with regard to past experience. The fundamental changes underway both in Russia and the EU demand that their joint activities be amended. A new level of cooperation could be achieved through formulating a Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Declaration. However, we do not need another general political document that we have had in abundance in the last decade. The declaration designed to strengthen the international peace, security, law and order should provide a long-term and, at the same time, detailed vision of our joint objectives. 

In drawing up new plans and modes of integration, Russia and the EU rely on the world’s experiences available to them. As an illustration, both sides carefully analyzed the principles underlying the EU’s trade and economic relations with the member states of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland), as well as the cooperative methods within the frameworks of the Latin American associations, such as MERCOSUR (the Southern Common Market) and the Andes Community while developing a concept for the Common European Economic Space. This approach testifies to the openness of the Russia-EU partnership, and its close ties with other agents of world politics and economy.

The dialog between Russia and the EU has not always been smooth, and recently the partners have been facing some troublesome issues. Among the factors complicating Russian-EU relations is the extremely tough stance taken by the EU delegation concerning Russia’s accession to the WTO, the EU’s anti-dumping measures which were enforced against Russian exporters (as many as 11 antidumping regulations have been imposed on Russian goods by the EU), and some differences in particular political assessments, specifically concerning the situation in the Chechen Republic. Many regulatory documents which directly involve Russia’s interests are prepared without its participation, as was the case when a list was drawn specifying the conditions of Russia’s participation in the Balkan operation, under the auspices of the EU. On another occasion, Moscow suggested that a negotiating group be established to settle the transit issue between Kaliningrad and the Russian mainland – Brussels responded with an adamant refusal. Later, however, Brussels conceded to the proposal and both sides successfully agreed to a solution that respected the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, Lithuania and the Schengen rules. This example shows that cooperation between Russia and the EU can be effective only when it is governed by international law rather than the whims or rules of one of the negotiating sides.

An analysis of the successes and failures of the joint activities between Russia and the EU highlights some of the specific measures that should be taken in the future in order to strengthen this partnership. First and foremost, Russia and the EU must improve its legal basis which now lacks several important provisions, such as the methods and conditions of cooperation in countering international terrorism.

Russia and the EU must better consider their mutual interests and needs while monitoring their law enforcement capabilities; this would significantly facilitate new lawmaking initiatives, as well as future cooperation in the realm of international legal codes. Such monitoring should embrace all of the spheres that are presently under the supervision of nine subcommittees – trade and industry; energy, environment, science and technology; human resources; transport, telecommunications and space; mining industry; intellectual property rights; customs and cross-border cooperation; agriculture and consumer protection; financing.

This process should involve the Russian regions and individual EU member states, as well as members of the European Parliament and the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (RF). It is time the parties draft such important documents as the Agreement on Promoting Economic, Technical and Cultural Cooperation between the Russian Federation Regions and the EU, the Agreement on Russia-EU Cross-Border Cooperation, and the Agreement on Cooperation between the RF Federal Assembly and the European Parliament.

The two sides should give more attention to the important process of regionalization that is currently underway across Europe. To make the most of the opportunities provided by this process, closer ties should be encouraged between the Russian parliament and the EU Committee of the Regions. Furthermore, the partners should fully use the potential of the Council of the Heads of the Russian Federal Entities, as well as that of the seven Russian federal districts governed by the President’s plenipotentiary representatives. In the long term, Russia and the EU should work to set up a Council of Russian and EU Regions, prepare joint initiatives within the framework of the European regional policy and submit them to the Council of Europe, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and the Assembly of European Regions. The regional policy is the second largest budget item in the EU long-term program (2007-13) that is currently being discussed by the European Commission. So, Russia can receive tangible benefits from its participation in regional cooperation, as well as through joint regional projects.

Expanded cooperation between Russia and the EU requires that the institutional framework of the partnership be reinforced and the structures of political interaction optimized. In May 2003, this process was launched at the Russia-EU summit held in St. Petersburg. The participants decided to transform the Cooperation Council into the Permanent Partnership Council. In the near future both sides should agree upon its status and a schedule of dialog between the foreign ministers of the Russian Federation and the EU member states. Other structures should be disintegrated. For example, cooperation in the field of law enforcement has grown so significantly that it obviously requires the establishment of a separate structure.

The coordination between various participants in the Russia-EU dialog – such as the different governmental agencies, regions and economic agents – would be facilitated if a commission for European integration matters is established under the Russian president, which would first function as a public organization and then as a state agency.

Finally, we must not ignore the role that St. Petersburg has traditionally played in European politics and culture. The political dialog would undoubtedly benefit if the Neva-based city hosted a center of parliamentarism to bring together law-makers from Russia and the EU member states. This concept could be put into practice on the model of the Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS member nations already in operation.

Diplomacy is another field where it is necessary to take important steps toward strengthening the partnership between Russia and the European Union. It is true that Russia’s foreign offices in Europe, such as its embassies, consulates, and permanent missions to the international organizations, have not been used to their fullest potential, while the RF permanent mission to the European Communities in Brussels, which is a sort of a Russian outpost in the heart of united Europe, needs to be substantially reinforced in terms of its personnel and logistics.

Business circles can play a significant role in invigorating the Russia-EU dialog. By way of illustration, the roundtable meetings of industrialists of Russia and the EU have already started discussing cooperation in the energy, transport, information technologies and investment fields. In the future, it would be expedient to conduct roundtable meetings in Russia’s regions in order to discuss vital economic problems there.

Based on the standard regulatory framework and the practice of lobbying interests in various EU structures, Russia should work out a system of effective representation of its businesses in Brussels. With this aim in view, the partners should organize, within the framework of the TACIS program, a series of workshops in Brussels and Moscow that would involve experts from the European Commission, the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and some other associations of industrialists.

The relations between Russia and the EU are at a stage which requires highly proficient specialists with cutting-edge knowledge in those fields which pertain to European integration. Thus, the primary task facing Russia is the improvement of the interregional departments of higher educational institutions that deal with European law, economics of the European Union, etc. An invaluable contribution can be made by Moscow State University; Moscow State Institute of International Relations; St. Petersburg, Kazan and Rostov universities; the Diplomatic Academy of the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It would be useful to set up, via the TACIS program, an All-Russian Center that would specialize in EU documentation. In order to achieve these goals, it would be beneficial to draw the support of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (specifically, the Secretariat of the RF Governmental Commission for Cooperation with the European Union), the Ministry of Economic Development (the Department of Trade Policy and Multilateral Negotiations), the EU Documentation Center of Moscow State University, and the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Work on strengthening Russia-EU cooperation should be carried out on a regular basis. This will help make the Russian-European partnership – based on a profound analysis of emerging problems, together with the shared principles of responsibility and the observance of international legal norms – an efficient and influential institution within the international system.