Joint Defense of Vital Interests

On November 24th a French-Russian roundtable discussion entitled ‘Thoughts on Europe’s Geopolitics’, with the participation of Michel Foucher, Director of the Centre for Analysis and Forecasting, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, took place at the HSE.

The discussion was opened by Irina Maltseva. She is Director of the HSE Centre for Cooperation with France, Canada and Francophone Countries of Europe, which organized the meeting together with the HSE Centre for Comprehensive European and International Research and the French Embassy in Russia. Michel Foucher is known not only as a diplomat, former French ambassador in Latvia and advisor to ex-minister for foreign affairs, Hubert Védrine, but also as a geographer and professor of the Parisian École Normale Supérieure. Timofey Bordatchev, Director of the HSE Centre for Analysis and Forecasting, was the third participant in the discussion.

Michel Foucher, speaking from the position of a geographer (which he particularly emphasized), encouraged the audience to reject the traditional geopolitical view when analyzing processes taking place in Europe and its role in international affairs. Geopolitics as a result of interaction between separate politicians and whole political and territorial formations is often subject to ‘the influence of false ideas and concepts', which leads only to increased misunderstandings and confusion in international relations. This can be seen even by the example of the concept of ‘Europe', which is confused by many people with the European Union.

Meanwhile, according to Michel Foucher, Europe is not only a geographic territory, a set of political and economic institutions and organizations, but also a cultural environment. When speaking of Europe, we should first speak about Europeanisation - a specific cultural and historical process. And for analysis of the political and economic problems Michel Foucher suggests changing the scale, and as in photography, use a special geopolitical ‘zoom'function.

He reminded the audience that the founders of the EU planned it as a legal institutional community, assuming that institutions live longer than people. And although some experts predicted that as soon as Berlin wall fell the necessity of such a European institution would disappear, the EU successfully outlived the fall of socialism and indeed has expanded.

The term ‘enlargement'was introduced to European political language by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, then French President and later author of an (unsuccessful) European constitution. Since 1957 the process of EU enlargement has gone through several stages and turned into, according to Michel Foucher, a ‘starting lever for democratic and market reforms'in countries who want to join the EU. Former communist countries are financially interested in EU membership:in only the past year Poland was subsidized to the tune of 12 billion Euros, and, for example, Romania will receive 32 billion Euros of help over the next six years. How they will spend these sums is quite a different matter, but Michel Foucher believes there is an impulse for reform in these countries.

EU enlargement will continue:among the candidates for membership are Croatia and Iceland, as well as Turkey, which still needs to implement two thirds of a 35 point plan developed for this country by Brussels. But enlargement has its limits. Switzerland, which joined the Schengen Region, will most probably never join the European Union. Serious problems persist in the Balkans, where many local politicians are more interested in ethnic conflicts. Michel Foucher gave the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina where the leading energy company split into three parts because of ethnic differences. ‘And you could meet many such absurdities in the Balkans"- the French diplomat said.

Another problem, and one which is also affecting European-Russian relations, is Ukraine's accession to the EU. The skeptic voice in this issue is Germany, and Michel Foucher suggests finding some neutral form of associated membership in order to smoothen the geopolitical disturbances.

Michel Foucher

There is one more power that influences the European Union and has its own individual view of a united Europe. This is the USA. Michel Foucher admitted that many decisions on EU expansion have been made in Washington. All the recent American leaders, however different their political views, had one point of view on the future of the EU, with Turkey, which has been NATO member since 1952, being a part of it. In general, for a long time it has been common practice to consider EU and NATO as two sides of the same coin, and accession to NATO was for many, specifically East European, countries a step towards accession to EU. But today's European leaders are not ready to unconditionally follow this approach.

According to Michel Foucher's, after Angela Merkel's and Nicolas Sarkozy's rise to power, an alternative point of view has arisen, namely the search for a ‘European identity', whose main characteristics are humanity, Christianity and culture. There is no place for Turkey in such a European scheme. From Brussels's perspective, the European Union needs to pause and regroup:they should stop their movement eastwards, work more closely with Russia and start resolving regional conflicts, the Balkan one among them. And to ‘separate'the EU from NATO, the ‘old Europe'politicians may use the the fact that Barack Obama's administration is currently distracted from European affairs and is busy trying to solve many other problems at the moment.

Another important geopolitical aspect deserving of inspection is the EU's relation with its neighbours in the Mediterranean region. Currently 80% of Maghreb countries'trade is with European Union members, and Israel is becoming more and more involved in economic cooperation with Europe. But the Israel-Palestine conflict is an obstacle to the development of the Mediterranean Union, which was initially encouraged by France as a counterbalance to Germany's domination in Central Europe.

Passing from the regional to the global dimension in European politics, Michel Foucher expressed his confidence in the fact that European Union has the resources for global leadership. ‘The European Union is the world's largest market in terms of purchasing power, which allows us to make our own conditions in trade with countries such as China. The EU accounts for 18% of the world economy;The EU is the world leading exporter. These advantages should be pressed home on the world stage'the French diplomat believes.

Moreover, The European Union has accumulated some experience in the area of conflict resolution, the EU plays a key role in combating climate change and is the leader in assistance to the poorest countries. Furthermore, according to Michel Foucher, Europe has to swim between two waters. On one hand, The European Union would not like to become a united nation with an aggressive foreign policy like the US. At the same time, however, the EU ‘is showing a lack of judgment on a diplomatic level and is as yet unable to formulate common European policy'.

Michel Foucher particularly mentioned the issue of European-Russian relations. He reminded us that sales turnover between Russia and EU reached 230 billion Euros before the crisis, where the EU accounted for 52% of Russian imports, and Europe has become very dependent on Russian gas. There are 25 European cultural centres operating in Russia. This is why, despite serious differences of opinions on separate questions, Russia and the European Union should define some programmes, each of which should be realized, regardless of success or lack of success in other areas of cooperation. If Russia and EU do not agree ‘on Georgia', this doesn't mean that we should stop our collaboration on the UN Security Council reform, the Middle Eastern conflict or the Iran nuclear programme, Michel Foucher believes.

Timofey Bordatchev built his speech on comparing Russia to the European Union, which are, according to his view, facing similar challenges, but have different approaches for their solution. He based his position on five theses:Russia and Europe are two international players whose borders have often been unstable and open to interpretation;this influences their tactics and strategies in the world arena;this also leads to concealed and occasionally open confrontation between Russia and the rest of Europe;in the contemporary context Russia and Europe should look for a response to challenges not of a geopolitical but of a structural nature;and finally, the response to these challenges can form the basis of bringing Russia and Europe closer and creating a more stable structure in Euro-Asia.

A long time ago, open spaces in the East and West of Russia were at risk of invasion, which led to Russian enlargement and the creation of certain ‘buffer areas'between Russia and the rest of the world. According to Timofey Bordatchev, Russia has continued to instinctively follow this policy. Being in a similar situation, Europe has chosen a system of compromises. The director of the HSE Centre for Analysis and Forecasting quoted the prominent French philosopher and sociologist Raymond Aron who wrote almost thirty years ago:‘Western Europe depends on many powers which are not under its control. That's why it is forced - in order not to lose self-confidence - to make too many bets. But it is always dangerous to make too many bets'.

Europe had to maintain economic cooperation with the USSR, since it needed energy resources and raw material, and at the same time was afraid of the USSR's military potential and relied on the support of overseas allies.

Timofey Bordatchev

In recent years Europe has tried to position itself as a separate independent player. The USA, which has been Europe's ally, is looking for alternative partners (India and China being possible options), and Washington's constructive role in maintaining European security is declining. Europe is trying take advantage of the weakening of US positions and tension between the US and Russia;‘A very light Cold War', in Timofey Bordatchev's words, would help to keep Europe as a key player on the world stage, without creating a real threat to the EU. Europe is trying to demonstrate its strength on a diplomatic level, with Nicolas Sarkozy being particularly active in this area. These actions show that Europe has a chance to ‘avoid strategic insignificance'. At the same time, the ‘comical reaction to the Georgian war'shows that, just as in the mid-19^th century, Russian empowerment is seen by Europe as a threat.

Timofey Bordatchev described the rejection of a messianic ideology and a turn towards pragmatism as the most important achievement in Russian foreign policy following the fall of the Soviet Union. But over the last 4 or 5 years ‘a return to the traditional Russian imperial foreign policy, but on a different scale has started. On regulatory and legal levels we are moving closer to the EU, while competing more in other areas.

Despite all these problems, Russia, although formally, has stayed an integral body on the world arena, and this ‘body'can easily be directed at cooperation and as well as at confrontation with other countries. And the European Union remains a ‘subsystem of international relations'whose members are not ready to share power with each other. According to Bordatchev, this lack of cohesion and sense of common purpose in the EU was confirmed by the recent appointments of two really weak figures for key positions of the European Council President and the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy. And for EU citizens, according to many polls, national interests remain the priority, not the interests of a united Europe.

Russia and Europe have been playing a ‘zero sum'game for a long time, where the gains of one side have automatically meant equivalent losses for the other. ‘Continuing this game is becoming more and more dangerous today - Timofey Bordatchev warned - There is a threat that Russia will withdraw into its shell, and Europe will turn into a nice but provincial country, and nobody in the world will remember them in 30 - 40 years'. So, this problem is literally ‘existential'. And the foundation for possible new Russian-European cooperation is ‘mutual defense of their vital interests'.

Upon finishing their presentations, Michel Foucher and Timofey Bordatchev answered some questions from the participants of the roundtable. The first of them was addressed to the French guest and was about French policies towards immigrants from Arabic countries, as well as political motives regarding the accession of new member states to the EU.

Michel Foucher flatly rejected the opinion that the Fifth Republic will be changed by the Sixth one, Islamic this time. He reminded us that Arabs have long been coming to France not only for social reasons, but to work:the first Algerian immigrants came to the Renault plant as early as 1912. Now France annually grants citizenship to 100 000 people, and there is definitely a problem of social and cultural adaptation. But as the native population is aging and as serious problems with the social insurance system arise it would be irresponsible to pretend that France is not in need of a new labour force. In terms of the political motives of EU enlargement, Michel Foucher stated that the Union's aim has always been the political unification of countries, the development of democracy and the resolving of conflicts in Europe, and economics has only been a tool to achieve this goal.

Answering a question about possible creation of pan-European military forces, Michel Foucher said that European defense means not the defense of Europe, but joint peacekeeping operations of European countries under a mandate of the EU, NATO or UN in different world regions. For example, they are currently taking place in Bosnia, Kosovo and Lebanon. But there cannot be a united European army. ‘Each head of state makes the decision on whether to risk the lives of his or her soldiers - said Michel Foucher - and this function cannot be delegated to any Brussels institution'.

Timofey Bordatchev agreed that the statement of the Italian Foreign Affair Minister Franco Frattini who introduced this idea, is more of a call for discussion than a practical initiative. Russian participation in joint missions with the EU could be useful, but often impossible due to institutional differences and the ‘paranoid attitude of some countries to Russia'. Timofey Bordatchev also considers it unlikely that Ukraine can become a ‘bridge'between Europe and Russia. ‘Bridges between us should not be geographical, but instead institutional'- he emphasized.

Fedor Shelov-Kovedyaev, professor of the HSE Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs summarized the discussion:‘We should clear our minds of mutual chimeras - he said - We shall only be able to maintain security if we become real strategic partners'.

Oleg Seregin, HSE News Service

Photos by Elena Novikova