View source for Do non EU countries prefer to deal with EU or to deal directly with individual members

Back on June 30, 2009, the UK House of Commons Defence Committee issued a report entitled “Russia: A new confrontation.” What a title to make friends and influence people? Looking at EU-Russia relations, the report points out that Russia has a preference for dealing with EU member states bilaterally rather than multilaterally. The report quotes Russia’s 2008 foreign policy which says that “Russia will seek due respect for its interests including in the sphere of bilateral relations with individual EU member countries.” Where is the problem? The report goes on to say that a bilateral approach enables Russia to secure itself the best deals and play one country off against another and this approach is adopted in the dealings of Russia with the EU. Should Russia be blamed for that? All European nations have done this when the opportunity arose. It should be recognised that there are profound differences between member states on the EU’s relationship with Russia. The reality is that some EU countries (especially the larger ones) prefer to address some of the main issues on a bilateral basis, in particular in the energy area. Some member states prefer to deal directly with Moscow on economic and energy matters and leave the most difficult issues –such as democracy and human rights, trade barriers and reciprocal access to investments in some sensitive sectors– to the EU.
In any case, Russia isn’t the only country that takes advantage of the European Union’s divisions. The United States regularly takes advantage of its relationship with the United Kingdom, Holland and Poland. The United States continues to use bilateral relations even with non-preferred partners when it suits its purposes. The open skies agreement for example with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden did allow US airlines to improve their position in the European market. The unwillingness of the European member states to allow the Union to negotiate for them did provide an opportunity for the US and given the upper hand the US has used the bilateral negotiations strategically and skilfully. In areas of crucial importance to the US, the EU is not a unified actor. The US continues therefore to rely primarily on bilateral relations with national capitals. Or consider the case of Japan. In the 80s Japan sought to have an increased role and a stronger voice in international affairs. But the Commission’s role and powers were a source of some confusion or even frustration for Japanese officials as it claimed to speak for Europe, except on matters which they were no agreement between the member states and was therefore constrained in it ability to conclude any agreement it would have wished. Remember at that time the Commission President Jacques Delors was particularly vocal about the need to prevent Japanese domination of certain industry sectors. Or consider the case of China and the frustration that develops about the EU as a foreign policy actor when the EU cannot speak with one voice. It has been difficult for the EU to reach a single common policy towards China. Each member state has its own history –from extremely rich to almost inexistent– with Asia and especially China and some have competing economic interests. Values and their understanding and interpretation can be a factor of divergence; on human rights there are different sensitivities amongst European countries. Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands put the issue at the top of the agenda since their public opinions and parliaments pay great attention to the problem. At the other end of the spectrum, the Latin countries seem relatively less concerned. Germany, the UK and France fall in the middle. Varying European economic interests are also a source of divergence within the EU over China. The 27 member states have different interests. Neither do member states agree on the interpretation and consequences of China’s strategic rise.
So Russia is not the only country that takes advantage of the European Union’s divisions. In fact every country probably spends a great deal of time thinking about how it can use tactics against the EU. How can the EU solve the problems of the world if it cannot solve its own problem of disunity. By its incoherent action the EU remains an under-achiever in its relations with Russia and that’s not Russia’s fault. There is no Russian “divide and conquer” strategy.
Russia does not play the “divide and conquer“ game attributed to its EU policy. On the contrary, Russia wants the EU to conduct a coherent common policy on all matters, as was pointed out in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept, approved by President Dmitry Medvedev “The Russian Federation is interested in the strengthening of the European Union, in the enhancement of its ability to present agreed positions in the areas of trade and economy, humanitarian issues, foreign policy and security.” Russia’s pragmatic protection of its national interest is defined in clear, non-ideological terms in common-sense language. What is clear is that there is an absence of unity on the part of the EU.
The European Union, which is now at a highly critical moment in its history, must articulate more options with respect to Russia than seeing it simply as a threat that uses so-called geopolitical tactics. By interacting, both sides can have an extremely positive influence on each other but the European Union needs to put first its house in order. Let us remember that Europe needs Russia, while the EU is the partner that Russia needs to develop an economic base which is not almost wholly dependent on the sale of crude oil, gas and certain other mineral and metal products.
Christian D. de Fouloy is President of the Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the European Parliament and a political scientist. He’s a frequent writer and public speaker on international issues.
Source:http://www.neurope.eu/articles/95524.php,Christian D. de Fouloy,26 July 2009