Wednesday, July 8, 2009

RUSSIA-EU RELATIONS: PRACTICAL WAY FORWARD

While President Obama reaches out to Russia and helps reset the relationship between the U.S. and Russia the EU should take practical steps to further co-operation. In a way Russians and Americans live in a similar system of ideas. America, too, is a country that is oriented primarily towards power and strength – in the broader and not just in the military sense. Russians don’t understand European subtleties and details . Russians act like Americans and are only interested in agreements that are of interest to them. Europeans pay most attention to Russia’s relationship with the US, as does Russia but it is Russia’s relationship with the EU that matters most for the future. While Russian-US relations naturally matter because of security, Russian- EU relations go wider. The two areas are increasingly connected through trade, migration, communications, the environment, culture, energy and technology. Each side knows that the other is an essential partner.

Russia and the EU countries have much in common, including facing the economic problems caused by an ageing population and shrinking workforce. Their trade interdependence is significant, but the fact that the EU is the less dependent partner is perhaps the first source of irritation in the relationship. The EU takes more than half of Russia’s exports (mainly of oil, gas and raw materials), but Russia only accounts for less than 10% of EU exports – it is the EU’s third most important market, but a long way behind the US and China.

Russia’s relationship with the EU goes far beyond economics: the cultural ties between the two areas are stronger than often perceived. Russians feel more at home, culturally, in Europe than anywhere else in the world.

The way forward lies in practical cooperation. Energy is one obvious area; global warming and climate change is another, food security, financial instability, terrorism, cooperating on such dossiers as human trafficking, child pornography, cybercrime and the exchange of counterterrorism information, cross-border security, such as terrorism, the arms trade, financial crime, illegal migration and environmental crime. There are common demographic problems to address, and EU expertise in dealing with AIDS and epidemics might be helpful. Specific programs on economic and regional development would smooth out the wrinkles in relations between the European Union and Russia. Contacts between people in general and between professionals in particular (peer to peer) can make a positive contribution to better understanding between the European Union and Russia and also establish the trust necessary to undertake more demanding projects. Cooperation can be sought in areas where each
party can learn from the other. In the field of research, for example, multiyear programmes could be set up in areas of common interest. The target groups could be knowledge institutions or schools and universities. The EU and Russia could develop a programme for cooperation in higher education, with funds to finance student grants, teacher exchange programmes and joint education and research programmes (courses, bachelor and master’s programmes, summer courses and the like). In tandem, the member states could take measures to strengthen cooperation with Russian higher education institutions. Universities, for example, could waive registration fees or provide funds for grants. In the field of culture, investments could be made in language programmes and courses in each other’s history and culture. Exchange programmes for primary and secondary schools and youth organisations would also be beneficial. Exchange programmes could be set up for music, theatre, opera and ballet companies and museum collections as well. Finance could be sought where necessary from sponsors in relevant industries. Last but not least, initiatives could be taken to encourage tourism to and from Russia. Such practical co-operation would certainly be most helpful to reset the relationship between both sides.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

RUSSIA'S IMAGE AND WHY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL COORDINATING BODY IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

In late May Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported that the Kremlin had set up a special coordinating body led by the Presidential Chief of Staff Sergey Naryshkin in order to improve Russia’s image abroad. The new body, also includes Aleksey Gromov, the deputy head of the Presidential administration, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Sergey Prikhodko, the assistant to the President for international affairs.The mission of this new coordination body is to play a more proactive role in policy coordination than its predecessor the Foreign Ministry commission.

Instead of applauding the move the pundits mostly Americans and/or Europeans started to question the validity of the efforts undertaken. For example, Mr. Ethan S. Burger, Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center writes that ‘Russia does not need to establish a commission to determine how best to enhance its international image… it merely needs to change its behaviour.” or take the comments of Mr. Edward Lozansky, President of the American University in Moscow who writes that “the West will always look at Russia with suspicion…. and no PR efforts will dramatically help its standing in the West” and then comes the comments of Professor Stephen Blank, U.S. Army War College, in Pennsylvania who says that he doubts that “the decision to establish such a coordination body will markedly improve the presentation of the Kremlin’s image in foreign lands because the problem is the policies and the system, not their presentation.” and he goes on to declare that” indeed for Russia to have a better image abroad… Russia needs to change its policies and its tone which is increasingly aggressive and mendacious” and last but not least Sergei Roy, Editor of the Guardian in Moscow who asks if “the new commission is intended to be a discussion club, another talking shop for airing the views of various dignitaries, a sort of board of directors with powers to issue binding directives”.

With “friends” like that Russia can do without. I happen to think differently. The coordination body that has been put in place will be in the best position to scrutinize the activities taking place within the overall reputation remit and make the necessary adjustments. The point is to ensure that the efforts undertaken are harmonious to guarantee a joint national vision.

It is indeed a very good approach to have established a liaison system to encourage supportive action from appropriate organisations. It is important to modulate and articulate messages for all relevant channels. Therefore coordination is essential because the development of a national brand must be done in a coordinated way that adheres to a long term strategy. I view this commission as a move on the part of Russia to proactively attend to its image in the world market, to communicate to the world how things have progressed and how they are different.

This new commission is like a steward who is invested with the authority to direct and to implement. There simply needs to be an authority in place that has the power to act. Beside the private sector, there are many ministries whose efforts need to be aligned e.g. Foreign Affairs, Defence, Economy, Finance, Interior, Education and Science, Culture, Transport, Justice, Agriculture, Duma and Federal Council.

All countries communicate all the time. They send out millions of messages every day. Collectively, all these millions of messages represent an idea of what the nation as a whole is up to, what it feels, what it wants, what it believes in. Indeed it is the task of government to set the tone for these messages in a credible, coherent and realistic manner. This is the reason why this new commission should be endorsed by the external world instead of being challenged right from its creation.