Cross Continental Dialogue: An Interview with Knut Fleckenstein MEP on EU-Russia Relations

Knut Fleckenstein, MEP and Chairman of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee in the European Parliament, recently spoke with the Parliamentarians Network about positive developments and challenges for the EU-Russia relationship.

PN: As the Chair of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee in the European Parliament, could you tell us a little bit about the committee’s agenda and activities?

KF: The Parliamentary Cooperation Committee now works a bit differently than it did before: now we have one big annual meeting and three working groups which are able to have deeper discussions on specific points, such as the role of civil society and the environment. I really feel that in the last two years our discussions have gotten better and better – we now have substantial discussions where we don’t just read something that we, or somebody else, has written down for us on the paper. There is an atmosphere and a willingness to substantially discuss issues, which is really a good step forward.

PN: At the first session of the Parliamentarians Network Working Group on Euro-Atlantic Security in Moscow in October 2010, there was a clear demand from the Russian side to have a frank and open discussion about President Medvedev's proposal on Euro-Russian security, and to have a common security zone between Vladivostok and Vancouver. Is this a hot topic in the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee as well?

KF: Yes, we discussed this with the Head of Mission to NATO for the Russian Federation, Dmitry Rogozin, and also with the Deputy Assistant Secretary General of NATO, Ambassador Robert Simmons. There was a common understanding in our group that we don’t have until now the common structures and organizations we need. The discussions we had in NATO, with the Albright Commission for example, are a good first step but not the solution.

We need to build up more confidence and to build up the decision making process where all partners are equal, rather than when one party is a bit aside. I believe this has gotten better, but we have to do everything to convince each other that we really can trust each other. In theory, we know perfectly: we must work together not only for security reasons, but also for economic benefits for both sides and so on. But still we have to overcome a lack of confidence which may may be smaller than twenty years ago, but there is still work to be done.

PN: What do you think of the proposal that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) should invite Russia to participate as a full partner, not just a guest? Would this be a good step to overcome this lack of confidence?

KF: I think first of all the answer is yes. If we really think that security questions or a problem can only be solved together, then we should be equal partners and not a couple of partners and one guest.

The European Parliament periodically passes resolutions that are critical of Russian policy. What effect do such resolutions have on trust and confidence between the two parties?

The European Parliament has made it quite clear where our problems lie with our Russian partners. Now we must work on them, rather than finding the wording for the next resolution.

It is fine that the European Parliament identifies certain problems; however, the wording of these resolutions is sometimes not helpful and the frequency should not be more frequent than a monthly basis. I think we should increase our efforts to speak with each other and have common projects. Public blaming has never in the past helped to engage in constructive dialogue.

PN: Would it be possible for the European Parliament to act as a bridge between Europe, Russia, and America? Would it make sense to build up a trialogue of these three parties to identify common priorities?

KF:Yes, this is necessary for different reasons. The first, of course, is that worldwide security demands it. The second thing is that some of our colleagues from the Eastern part of the EU would be more trusting if they knew better the politics of the Obama administration. I am very happy that Michael McFaul will most likely become Ambassador of the USA in Moscow. This will be a step to more understanding and this is the outcome of these reset politics we really need.

There are some trialogues going on, but these tend to be on very special issues and we need these engagements in a broader way. We can begin to build-up the circumstances we need to have for this trialogue, but we have to be realistic in that it will be possible to really engage only after the elections in Russia and the U.S., and even then it will depend on whether the U.S. really wants it, and Washington has more to realize that there is a European Parliament.

There is also a need to jointly define the issues we need to discuss, so the Russians don’t have the feeling that we will just teach them. The main thing is that we don’t get a situation when two of the three wants to teach the third.

PN: There seems to be a breakdown in communication between EU member state parliaments, and what happens at the European Parliament. Do you have any sort of suggestions for how to facilitate communication and improve these relationships?

KF: The only chance we have is to have more discussions between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. This is the reason why we decided to have the next meeting of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee not in Brussels, but in Warsaw. There is a chance to have discussions with our Polish colleagues from the national parliament, because we know that the relations between Poland and Russia are important and have a lot of influence on what we can do here in the European Parliament.