Beim Baltischen Forum

In Lettland findet alljährlich eine Tagung des „Baltischen Forums“ statt. Es beschäftigt sich meistens mit Fragen der Region, insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit aktuellen Entwicklungen der EU und Russlands. Es konnte heuer kein aktuelleres Thema geben als das im Zusammenhang mit der Ukraine gestellte Thema: Chancen und Kosten der Östlichen Partnerschaft.

Spannend an diesen Tagungen, die diesmal in Jürmala stattfand, ist, dass auch russische offizielle und inoffizielle VertreterInnen teilnehmen. Neben Verteidigern der offiziellen Linie gab es auch durchaus kritische Stimmen, die vor einer (Selbst-) Isolierung Russlands warnten. Auch die neuerlich verstärkte Beziehung Russlands zu China kam zur Sprache, unter anderem auch durch chinesische Teilnehmer.

Der jüngst geschlossene Gasvertrag zwischen diesen beiden Ländern ist Zeuge davon. Und in der Tat planen beide, aber insbesondere China, eine Reihe von überregionalen Tarnsportprojekten, die die wirtschaftliche Verflechtung zwischen Russland und China verstärken würden. Ein anderer Gesprächspartner wieder meinte, in nicht allzu ferner Zukunft werde Russland ohnehin nur eine Provinz Chinas sein und die EU sollte alle anderen Länder „westlich“ von Russland aufnehmen und eine große und starke Union bilden.

Im Grundsatz entspricht eine solche erweiterte Union auch meinen Vorstellungen für die langfristige Entwicklung. Aber nicht nur, dass wir zuerst unsere BürgerInnen davon überzeugen müssen, müssen wir auch die EU reorganisieren und fit dafür machen. Meine auch an anderer Stelle dargestellt Idee, neben einer – für alle offen stehenden – EU-Kernzone einen weiteren Ring von nicht so eng verbundenen Mitgliedsländern zu schaffen, würde dem entgegen kommen. Aber da bedarf es noch vieler Überlegungen, um das so zu gestalten, dass wir nicht zu neuen Spaltungen und unklaren Entscheidungsverhältnissen kommen.

Jedenfalls müssen wir unsere BürgerInnen, darunter viele PolitikerInnen, davon überzeugen, dass sich neue globale Bündnisse auftun werden und wir ernsthaft daran gehen müssen, unsere Interessen zu vertreten. Und dazu müssen wir sie bündeln und gemeinsam vertreten. Das ist der Sinn der EU, und das ist auch der Grund, warum ich sowohl für eine Stärkung Europas eintrete, aber auch für eine gut vorbereitete Erweiterung in einer neuen und effizienten EU. Und das wird auch nie eine Super- oder Einheitsstaat sein.

Gerade meine verschiedenen offiziellen Reisen quer durch Europa führen mir die Faszination der verschiedenen Länder und Regionen, der unterschiedlichen Kulturen und Sprachen vor Augen. Ein Sonnenuntergang am Strand von Jürmala ist etwas anders als der Blick auf die Kvarner Bucht nahe Opatja. Und die politische Erfahrung der Balten ist eine andere als die der Kroaten. Hier ist die Okkupation durch die Sowjetunion noch immer ein Thema, in Kroatien versucht man schrittweise, sich auf ein gutes Verhältnis zu Serbien einzurichten. Das sind nur Beispiele aus den beiden Mitgliedsländern, die ich diese Woche besuchte. Dennoch brauchen eine gemeinsame Vorbereitung auf eine gemeinsame Zukunft.

Aber zurück zum Baltischen Forum. Da ging’s um die Östliche Partnerschaft. Und da argumentierte ich wie aus dem folgenden – englischen – Text ersichtlich, für eine klare Unterstützung unserer Nachbarn, aber auch für einen neuen Dialog mit Russland:

The Eastern Partnership policy of the EU is a special form of our neighborhood policy, which should create a ring of friends around Europe. It should open up the possibility to prepare these countries for future membership in the EU without explicitly defining the European perspective.

De facto it became a policy of bringing the countries concerned closer to the EU and strengthen the political and economic ties without all the accession processes. Insofar it created a competition between the two big neighbors the EU and Russia, not thinking about possible cooperation between the two. The deterioration in the EU-Russia relationship or at least the slow progress in it adde to the tension between the two.

Different principle are embedded in the Eastern partnership on the one side and in Putin’s ideas of regaining Russia’s strength and defending all Russians in the near abroad on the other side.

The EU is built on the principle of multiethnic, multicultural societies. But we have to confess not always and everywhere this principle is respected and implemented. Especially in the Baltic states including Latvia I still see some deficiencies. But we cannot accept, that Russia takes responsibility for all Russians and Russian speaking people and Hungary does it for the Hungarians and Serbia for the Serbs etc. If there are complaints about treatment of brothers and sisters, these have to be brought before international fora and are no basis for military intervention or annexation.

Secondly we adhere to the principle of each country – outside the EU – can chose their political and finally military allies. But we should be realistic and confess, that we cannot and must not overlook the global and regional consequences.

I come from Austria and of course before the states treaty of 1955 has been agreed and then signed there existed an understanding, that Austria will not join NATO and declare itself neutral. The day after the last troops of the occupation powers left – and these were the Russian troops – the Austrian parliament passed the law on permanent neutrality. And from the beginning Austria made it clear to the Sovietunion and then to Russia that there does not exist a neutrality concerning values and political convictions. And so we could join the EU.

Times changed and I do not want to express an advice here, but my argument concerns the respect for geopolitical and regional realities and constraints. The EU and NATO expanded in the last years and came very close to Russia. Both are organizations which have demonstrated their non-aggressive policies and their commitment to peace. But of course they curtailed the influence of Russia. And that even taking into account Russia’s unwillingness to have an intensive dialogue about common strategies for the common neighborhood and beyond.

The only exception was the proposal of the then president Medvejdev of a political, economic and especially security partnership between EU and Russia. It was a mistake not to have taken this proposal more seriously and put the Russian leadership to a test. And that even when it seemed clear that Russia always wanted to separate the EU from a too close alliance with the USA.

The present situation and conflict concerning the Eastern Partnership is definitely affecting negatively both EU and Russia. The EU has to find a common strategy how to advance with their Eastern partnership strategy. It has to confront Russia, a country with which their exist strong economic ties including the energy supply.

Russia can find a strong partnership with China especially in selling gas to this country. But all that money coming from selling energy does not help to modernize the economy and make it more sustainable. For this Russia would need strong economic ties with the EU including investments from the EU into modern technologies and services.

For the moment we are in a lose – lose situation. And it needs vision and courage from both sides to change it into a win- win situation. It would need strong EU leadership in overcoming too much reference to the past of Soviet occupation and domination in some member countries. But of course Russia’s politicians could help by speaking openly about the soviet occupation and the bad consequences for many citizens and the countries as a whole. And it would need a Russian president who would refrain from referring to the EU as decadent and governed by homosexuality and immorality. And Europe should help by building bridges knowing that reforms in Russia will need long time and many setbacks.

And it would need Eastern Partnership countries who would think about their own contribution to balanced political and economic relations with both sides. And of course this has to be done on the basis of a clear value orientation as described in the Charter of the fundamental rights of the EU.

The world is not like we in the EU would like it and that is certainly true for Russia’s world. But power politics came not to an end . It is still existing. Even if we in Europe have developed a more sophisticated form of influencing our neighborhood, not everybody is sharing our strategies. Now we must find a way convincing Russia that a competition of offers is much more helpful for everybody than pressures and threats.

Therefore an honest dialogue must be developed, knowing that that dialogue needs time and a lot of creativity. Support for the unity and territorial integrity of our Eastern partners does not contradict the willingness and development of such a dialogue. In the contrary the countries concerned should of course participate in that dialogue.

In any way our Eastern Partnership policies have to be revised and adapted in order to reduce conflicts and strengthen our neighbors. But Russia must recognize, that helping our neighbors to reform themselves and strengthening the economic and political ties with them, the EU will never give up.

Russia should think about the ways how this can be combined with benefits for Russia itself and the EU should support this process with ideas of its own. Both sides could and must come from a lose- lose situation into a win – win situation. It is possible and necessary. And the US can participate in this exercise, but it is the EU and Russia which have the main burden and the main advantage.