Natalya Davydova
The European Way for Russia: an Illusion or a Natural Choice international conference took place on June 25 in Moscow, in The Metropol hotel. The event was organized by Russian People’s Democratic Union (RPDU) together with European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR), whose member RPDU is.
European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party was established as a transnational organization in 1993. It is more of a confederation by structure that unites 56 national political parties, mostly liberal or centrist. On the national level member parties of ELDR are in the governments of 9 countries out of 27 EU member states.
ELDR is politically represented in the European Parliament by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe deputy group, which has been formed together with the centrist European Democratic Party.
RPDU – Russian People’s Democratic Union – is Russian political movement of centrist democratic orientation (established in 2006), which leader is Mikhail Kasyanov. In August 2008 RPDU joined the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party.
The conference started with a video presented by Levada Center that depicted the views of common Russians on the future of Russia. According to the data around 30% of Russians consider Russia to be a European country and prefer the European way of development for the country. Most of respondents think that because of its “unique” geographic position (between Europe and Asia) and history Russia should have its “special” path of development.
In his greeting speech Mikhail Kasyanov said: “The key question of Russian politics – both two hundred years ago and now – has remained the same: Is Russia a European country? For years the dividing lines between different groups in Russia went along this question. It is obvious that it’s not about geography: for many in Russia the European idea has been firmly associated with freedom, democracy, and the priority of human rights over the state. And on the contrary: when one hears the phrase “Russian specifics”, it becomes evident that we are talking here about the cult of the state, everlasting desire for order and “iron fist”, about enemies around us and unpreparedness of Russian people for democracy.”
The leader of RPDU also stated that the question put in the headline of the conference is a rhetorical one for him and he, as a leader of a liberal movement, is entirely for the European way of development.
Mikhail Kasyanov pointed at several unsolved problems and unfulfilled obligations in Russia.
Then the floor was taken by the President of ELDR Ms. Annemie Neyts. She said that “Russia is by all means a part of Europe. The basic values should be common.” According to Ms. Neyts, the situation around democratic practices is “not what we want it to be”. The President of ELDR stated that for the sake of mutual agreement and common interests of EU and Russia it is important that there are more interactions between common people in the EU member states and Russia, be they business, social, scientific, or touristic ones.
The very first session of the conference – Misunderstanding or a Value Gap? – open a lively discussion. Among the participants were Lev Gudkov, leader of the Levada Center, Michael Aastrup Jensen, Danish MP from Liberal Party, Nikita Sokolov, a historian, Liliya Shevtsova, the leading researcher of Carnegie Center, Igor Jurgens, CEO of the Modern Development Institute, and Evgenii Yasin, head of research at Russian Higher School of Economics. The debate was moderated by Natella Boltyanskaya from The Echo of Moscow radio station.
According to the sociologist Lev Gudkov, there is a value gap and it can be overcome; however, several generations of Russians will change before that happens. “Moreover, taking into account that the generation that grew up during Putin’s rule was affected by anti-European propaganda, this process will take much more time”, he added.
Liliya Shvtsova agreed that there is a value gap and added that European elites have many tools of influencing Russian elites. Ms. Shevtsova proposed to cancel the visa regime for common Russians, arguing that Russian high-ranked officials already have the opportunity to go to the EU. It could be seen by faces of European guests that they were baffled by the statement.
Michael Jensen replied that Europeans do everything to foster their relations with Russia; however, it is not that easy. “There are skeptic attitudes growing towards Russia among European elites. But we are working and open for any ideas”, said Jensen.
The historian Nikita Sokolov thinks that Russia is by all means a European country and nothing can prevent it from getting closer to Europe, not event the 150-years history of propaganda.
Among the participants of the second session were the main analyst of MK Analytics Oleg Buklemishev, president of Energy and Finance Institute Leonid Grigoryev, president of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council Sergei Karaganov, deputy director of EU representative office in Russia Michael Webb. The main topic of the discussion was the common European economic space.
Sergey Karaganov proposed his own idea for getting closer with Europe: “I propose the idea of the Union of Europe. We need four spaces here: common human (the visa regime), common economic and energy space, and coordination in the area of foreign policy”.
Michael Webb didn’t agree with Mr. Karaganov’s apocalyptic view on the situation inside the EU. “In the end we are the largest trade block in the world, and it is impossible to solve any serious international politics problem without the EU”, he noted. However, Mr. Webb does consider that “Russia is a European country and it should follow the European way”.
The third session was devoted to issues of security. It was attended by EMP (The Reform Party of Estonia) Kristina Ojuland, leading research fellow of the Institute of Systems Analysis at Russian Academy of Science Andrey Piontkovskii, head of Political and Military Analysis Institute Alexander Sharavin, member of the British Royal Institute of International Relations Konstantin Eggert. The discussion was moderated by Evgeniya Albats, editor-in-chief of The New Times magazine.
According to Andrey Piontkovskii and Alexander Sharavin, there two key national security threats for today’s Russia: expanding China and radical Islam.
Kristina Ojuland changed the matter of the discussion by devoting her speech to the soft security. She explained that by noting that more attention should be devoted to economic problems, personal security, ecological security, and illegal migration issues. Ms. Ojulan also stated that “what happened two years ago in Georgia had raised serious questions in the field of mutual cooperation in the field of security. And we haven’t answered those questions yet.”
The discussion that took place during the third session was quite passionate, in part because of the moderator, Ms. Albats, who said disapprovingly about Estonia’s attitude toward fascism and added that the United States have no moral right to teach democracy to Russia as they have prisons around Europe.
After the conference asked Annemie Neyts and Kristina Ojuland several questions. The first question was about cancelling visa regime with Russia. President Neyts answered: “This is a matter of lengthy negotiations”. Among the issues complicating the matter she named Russia’s visa-free space with certain countries.
Tough and very sincere discussion evoked interest and hope in foreign guests. Kristina Ojuland said that had been one of the most interesting events she had recently visited. Annemi Neyts was also pleased with the debates.
Talking about visa-free regime between Russia and the EU Ms. Neyts said that Members of European Parliament are in favor of it; however, the issue of security of Russia’s southern borders is to be solved, she said.
Human rights issues in Russia are also of key importance. Today Russia is among five countries with the worst human rights record. “We can’t ignore this problem”, ELDR leader stated.
Here’s my impression of the conference: the discussions were passionate, arguments were smart, and self-criticism was severe; however, all of that was needed only to be able to find somebody to blame for the dictatorship and poor living conditions in 100 years. Liberal intelligentsia is a concept that includes, in Russian popular view, a global conspiracy against Russia, drinking vodka in the kitchen, saying “they screwed up our country”, lice, and, most importantly, something absolutely passive, weak, and, maybe, importunate. There are two solutions to this situation. The first one is to declare ourselves intellectuals (just as in the West) and abandon any responsibility for politics, social and legal sphere. The second solution is to stop looking for answers to questions “Who is to blame?” and “Who will help us?” in the everlasting self-beating, and try to add a little bit of constructive things into our dialogue.
