European Union

He survived, on Tuesday last week, a no-confidence vote in parliament, but then two junior parties left his government coalition, leaving it hanging in the limbos of incertitude.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk once said that taking the job of Ukrainian prime minister was an act of “political suicide” and on Tuesday he was almost proven right. Facing charges that he has been unable to deliver on a pledge to tackle corruption and fix the economy, the bespectacled pro-Western premier was asked to step down by the president, Petro Poroshenko, “in order to restore trust in the government”.

When he was made premier, Yatsenyuk was one of Europe’s youngest government chiefs, a post made more powerful since parliament voted to return to a 2004 constitution that handed a raft of powers from the president to lawmakers. He was born on May 22, 1974, into a family of professors. After having studied law and economics, he worked in a Kiev bank, went to Ukraine’s central bank, and in 2001 he became minister of economy for Crimea, which enjoyed limited autonomy as part of Ukraine. The then president Yushchenko had him in the government as economy minister (2005-2006), then made him briefly foreign minister in 2007. He was chief negotiator for Ukraine’s entry into the World Trade Organisation.  Following the so-called Orange Revolution in 2004, Yatsenyuk began pushing a more pro-Western agenda and became a close ally of Yuliya Tymoshenko, the prime minister from 2007 to 2010 who was jailed under Yanukovych for abuse of power. Being the protege of Tymoshenko, Yatsenyuk rose to prominence as one of the main protest leaders on Kiev’s Independence Square, shedding his intellectual image with stormy speeches from the podium. For all his talking tough to the crowds, he is also a skilled behind-the-scenes political operator who had held top posts under previous governments. A former speaker of parliament, he came fourth in the 2010 presidential election won by pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych, winning just 7 % of the vote.

Yatsenyuk served as foreign minister under another president, Viktor Yushchenko, in 2007 and became a compromise figure when a personal conflict between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko began to spiral out of control. Yatsenyuk was always good at preparing his coups quietly and manoeuvring by surprise. He entered Yuliya Tymoshenko’s party Batkivshchyna on time, and he left it on time. He ran against Tymoshenko in the 2010 presidential elections, then accepted to lead her party while she was in jail. In last year’s elections he had his own platform, on which he narrowly beat out Poroshenko’s Bloc.

Only two weeks after he took the oath, Russia annexed Crimea and a bloody pro-Moscow insurgency soon raged in the industrial east.

The war-torn country was also in dire economic straits and Yatsenyuk openly admitted that dragging the former Communist republic from the brink of collapse would mean pushing through wrenching austerity measures. Yatsenyuk’s considerable economic experience proved a boon as he took on the task of negotiating a massive multi-billion-dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund, European Union, World Bank and allied countries to keep Ukraine afloat.

Although he did not have an image as a tough politician, he became known for his vitriolic condemnations of Moscow and he won plaudits for standing up to Russia as it cut off vital gas supplies to Ukraine over a bitter price dispute. But that image has faded in recent months, with two top reformist officials resigning in protest against alleged state graft, and Yatsenyuk’s closest allies becoming embroiled in corruption charges.

He had come to power pledging to root out Ukraine’s endemic corruption but ended up facing allegations that he was backing the interests of the very billionaires he had vowed to sideline.

After the parliament failed to garner the votes required to oust Yatsenyuk’s team, this left Ukraine in the peculiar position of its two top leaders at seeming odds over how to proceed further.

The post Arseniy Yatsenyuk: the eternal survivor appeared first on New Europe.

When the euro – the common currency in 19 out of the 28 European Union countries – was created, there was a sense that we had already taken a big step toward economic and ultimately political integration.

After all, European economies had to continue a rapprochement and the gap between the rich and the not-so-rich countries was being diminished.

But today, we can conclude that we were wrong. The reality is a completely different situation and it is one that has been tormenting the European Union during these last couple of months.

Unfortunately, there are many places inside the Union where no one cares about integration. But that’s not all. There is also growing hostility toward the European idea and the European Union itself. It is growing dramatically.

On the economic level, when the euro was introduced, every national government continued to act as though the common currency were a national currency. No institution controlling financial policies was active in reality. As a result, some of the countries in the euro zone – and not just the bloc’s southern members – fell deep in economic crisis.

The reaction of the richest countries was not the creation of a controlling mechanism, but a campaign against the “lazy and corrupt” members. It should not come as a surprise now to see a considerable proportion of Europeans asking for the financially weak countries to be placed under irrational rescue programmes. It is no surprise either that there is a growing tendency among some member states to want severe punishment against the weaker members like Greece today.

But, as we can see, every country, according to its power, can impose conditions on the Union, as we are experiencing now with the United Kingdom. Can we talk today about economic integration to the citizens of Europe? Probably not.

On the political level, the situation seems to be a lot worse.

After the latest EU enlargements during which countries that had experienced a long period of communist totalitarianism joined our European home, we thought that political integration was on the right track. It meant the creation of a huge union – one based on democratic and liberal values in which every citizen would live equally with his or her religious, cultural, national or sexual particularities.

Again, we were wrong.  From the onset of the economic crisis, Europe was divided. Some EU members verbally attacked other members. This resulted in a breeding ground for populist politics.

Mainstream newspapers discovered lucrative merchandise in nationalist and populist news by rousing the lowest level of sentiments among their readers. Attacking the poorest countries and especially the European idea became a top-selling daily headline. 

As a result, a considerable portion of EU citizens in many member countries tend to think that less Europe is the best medicine for any ailment.

There’s more. Every state, guided by public opinion polls, presented its own planning and schedule – not taking in consideration what the European Union, as a body, had decided.

One example is how some EU countries reacted when Brussels imposed sanctions against Russia after the annexation of Crimea.

The constitution in some countries also became the target of ultraconservative leaders. The freedom of the media came under threat. Some citizens, especially the Roma minority, were condemned to a life in the margins of society. But it was the massive waves of refugees and migrants starting to arrive to Europe in 2014 (first through Italy and then through Greece) that proved just how deep the divisions are in Europe.

Xenophobia, nationalism, Islamophobia and racism, as well as Europhobia and homophobia, violently entered our daily life, despite the fact that all of these are alien to our post-war European culture.

So can we talk about integration today? Should we remain hopeful we will reach the goal in the end? Many of the actions taken, such as that of the summit of the Visegrad Group, have left us wondering. Still, let’s hope the EU will know what to do and manage to isolate these negative examples before they spread.

The post Should we just forget about integration? appeared first on New Europe.

The post “112 fights against the tide” – New Europe Print Edition Issue 1153 appeared first on New Europe.

We have two open issues with the Directorate General for Research and Innovation (RTD) of the European Commission. A cancelled audit which resulted to € 5,5 mo. loss for the Community budget and the reduction of a recovery from € 70 mo. by € 61 mo.

Politically, RTD comes under Commissioner Carlos Moedas, a young yet dynamic and sharp Portuguese politician. Director General is Robert-Jan Smits. The two cases above, were powered during the previous Barroso II Commission and were both staged by Director General Robert-Jan Smits. Commissioner Carlos Moedas at the time was in Portugal and had nothing to do with the wheeling-dealings. Therefore we presume that Carlos Moedas will not attempt to cover-up any possible investigations on the matter as will take personally, and will certainly affect the present Commission, “sins” of his predecessors.

The cancellation of the audits to a European scientific foundation was illegitimate. Full stop. There was not College or other decision for that and was direct responsibility of the Director General. The why, in known only to the God and to the Director General. It would be most interesting to share this information with us but we doubt. Certainly he will have to explain that to OLAF which to the best of our knowledge received a fully substantiated complaint for the case.

The case of the reduction of the €70 mo. recovery from the French Research organization CNRS by € 61 mo. is the second problem. The reduction was made on the grounds of a Commission Decision of December 17, 2012 which authorized RTD to come to a deal with CNRS. How, the good Director General managed within the same day to conclude the deal and get CNRS to sign the “protocole transactionnel” while he signed the next day, shows efficiency! The fact that CNRS announced the deal two months before, specifically on October 26, 2012, goes besides the efficiency of the good Director General and enters the field of  sphere metaphysics.

However, in good faith we accept also metaphysics. What we cannot “digest” is that the protocole transactionnel signed by the Commission includes a confidentiality clause which does not allow other organizations, possibly in the same situation of CNRS versus the Commission, to have knowledge of the deal and on the basis of that, receive equal treatment. This is unfair and serious misconduct on the part of the European Commission. For this reason, we release in our website (http://neurope.eu/protocole-transactionnel-cnrs-ce/)

the entire confidential “protocole transactionnel” as signed by CNRS and the Commission. In reality, we are doing what the Commission should have done in the first instance.

We are waiting to see what Carlos Moedas and the Juncker Commission will do for those two cases as they are far from being over, as yet. We have noticed with interest that the Deputy Director General W Burtscher in Charge of Budget and Legal Maters (the most crucial of the three verticals of RTD) was moved to the vertical Science and Innovation. It is most interesting that W Burtscher was temporarily replaced by the Director in this department  F. Biscontin. But this seems to be a temporary arrangement. It remains to be seen who will replace F. Biscontin as he cannot stay there forever. If will be somebody of the entourage of RJ Smits, it will mean that for sometime the problems will be hidden under the rug and the present Commission will become responsible for the “sins” of its predecessors. Otherwise, if the new Deputy Director General is appointed by the Cabinet of  Juncker, it will imply that for as long as R-J Smits remains at the post of Director General, he will be under probation.

The post Who will manipulate the manipulators? appeared first on New Europe.

Georgina Chapman and Keren Craig, of high-end evening wear brand, Marchesa, presented a sumptuous collection inspired by American painter John Singer Sargent, who was famous for his portraits of society ladies in the 1880’s. Gold and silver embroidery embellished long pastel-toned ethereal gowns in satin, tulle and organza, while the flower theme and Belle Epoque-inspired costume jewellery, gave the romantic models an infinitely regal allure.

Carly Cushnie and Michelle Ochs, the designers behind upcoming label Cushnie et Ochs, presented a minimal sexy collection in classic black, white, red, champagne and silver tones.

The ensembles with ruffles and monochromatic evening dresses with flattering cutouts had an understated elegance that would suit women of all ages and body types.

For his eponymous collection, Ralph Lauren presented preppy Bostonian outfits, woollen chequered suits borrowed from the male wardrobe, trenches, ample midi skirts, coats, men-inspired shirts and ties in earthly tones and the brand’s signature camel, all of which seemed to wink at Diane Keaton’s look in Annie Hall. The latter part of the collection was devoted to evening wear, with dandy-like outfits made up of white shirts with jabot collars, slim black pants, and long coats with embroidered detailing and military uniform touches.

Among the closing looks were several long velvet gowns in precious tones, as well as a couple of outfits in an impressive metallic silk fabric that seemed to be ‘dripping gold’.

At Ohne Titel, designers Flora Gill and Alexa Adams’ fall collection had goth influences, as purple lipstick and 90’s inspired choker collars complemented the sporty chic woollen and leather outfits with sophisticated knitted detailing. The recurring metallic satin trend also made its way across several evening outfits like a cherry satin number with a bustier top, for classy rebels on a night out.

Michael Kors’ collection was quite eclectic: the designer’s typical preppy style was combined with Liberty prints and British chequered wool, as well as fur and feather detailing in anise green, sky blue, lilac, beige and grey.

Formal dresses and ensembles were in glittering gold and silvery tones that owned a distinct 60’s Courrèges and 70’s Paco Rabanne glamour.

Last but not least, Tommy Hilfiger presented a retro nautical collection: dresses with 40’s cuts, romantic baby blue tops with Peter Pan collars, sailor jackets and pants with stripes, denim navy suits and silk dresses with nautical motifs, all worn with ruffled socks and tiaras: all so very Mary Jane, indeed.

The post Sprinkle & Sparkle appeared first on New Europe.

Brussels Airport, which is Belgium’s largest and one of the world’s leading airports, features Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox and Protestant “places of worship,” as well as a “Humanist meditation room.” But airport officials reportedly rejected a request for a designated Hindu prayer room.

In response to Hindu statesman Rajan Zed’s email on January 24, Cindy Wullems, Customer Feedback Officer Operations of Brussels Airport Company (BAC), said that the Brussels Airport only foresees a place of worship for the regions recognised in the country.

Rajan Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, said it is “very sad” considering that Hinduism is a major world religion.

Rajan Zed further said that prayer/worship to God was highly important in Hinduism, and it would be great to have “Hindu Prayer Room” at Brussels Airport so that Hindu passengers did not miss their daily worship rituals/rites while travelling through it; which might include recitation of texts, repetition of mantras and dhayan (meditation).

The post Brussels Airport rejects ‘Hindu Prayer Room’ idea appeared first on New Europe.

We notice with interest progress in the EU Delegation in Serbia, as a second tender was awarded once again to …the British Council, in a week time. The amount was € 3,7 mo. to build judicial efficiency. That the Head of the Delegation, Michael Davenport, was previously the UK Ambassador in Belgrade, we presume it is coincidental. The explanation is simple. All in a sudden the British Council got involved in the tender process in Serbia as after the Brexit Referendum might not be able to participate in similar tenders.

In the meanwhile, our correspondent in Belgrade is working on the «correction» letter published last week as it was sent by the Delegation and is collecting relevant information which will present shortly. The matter was concerning another tender which was cancelled once and was repeated recently. The matter is quite important as it shows the sensitivities of the Delegation, as they result from the letter published last week but also involves the sensitivities of the Head Offices (DG NEAR) which after the cancellation, reported the case directly to the anti-fraud service of the Commission.

The post Last gifts to the Britts? appeared first on New Europe.

The European Commission’s  Directorate-General  Communication has systematically blocked initiatives which aim to make the European emergency number 112 more known in the EU’s member-states.

112 is the European emergency number in all 28 EU member states, as well as other countries of the European continent. People in distress can call 112 to reach the fire brigade, medical assistance and the police 24/7 totally free of charge.

Speaking to New Europe, Gary Machado, the Executive Director of the European Emergency Number Association (EENA), recounted the bizarre events surrounding an EENA initiative that was blocked from functionaries of DG Communication in Brussels.

In order to fulfill its goal of having more Europeans know about 112 so that they may use it if ever there is an emergency, EENA reached out to the Commission Representations in several member states, asking them to help promote 112 in any way they can. The response was overwhelming.

New Europe has seen emails from the European Commission Representations in Italy, Sweden, Spain, Poland and Greece, expressing the desire to include 112 in their social media campaigns, and to help the dissemination of this unquestionably European facility in several different ways. It should be noted that EENA requested no financial element. “The representation … wholeheartedly supports every action aiming at informing the European public about the existence and use of 112 …”,  read one of the letters.  Excited about the response, Machado contacted DG Communication, looking to see if there could be a more centralized approach and hoping to get Brussels to tell the Representation about using 112’s publicity materials on occasion.

DG Communication granted a meeting with a Head of Unit, but when Machado and an intern showed up, excited to discuss the possibilities, they were greeted by seven people. This included three Heads of Unit from DG Communication and three policy officers from DG Connect. “When we entered the room, we knew something was wrong,” Machado recounted.

Their excitement was soon crushed. Without reason, one of the Heads of Unit, told Machado and his colleague, “not to contact the Commission’s Representations,” and that they “will not promote 112”. Machado’s colleague told New Europe that she felt that “for [the European Commission], 112 was clearly not a priority”.

In a patronizing manner, which is often the case with individuals who hold ad hoc discretionary power in the European Commission, the EENA representatives were told that they “should be creative” and try to find a way to influence European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, Andrus Ansip.

EENA followed orders and never again contacted the Commission Representations. Disappointed at the reality that they had been turned down for a dissemination that would have zero cost, they unwittingly took the advice and veered to other, more creative avenues. This month, 112 announced a mega-cooperation with hospitality giant, AIRBNB, to have all guests using the service informed of the 112 number through guest emergency information cards.

Despite the unusual turn of events, Machado hopes that the European Commission will come around. “I hope that the European Commission will proactively take all necessary steps to promote 112. EENA is always available to work with the European Commission for improving awareness of the common European emergency number.”

The post 112 fights against the tide appeared first on New Europe.

The post #New Europe Shooting Gallery Issue 1153 appeared first on New Europe.

Donald Trump won the South Carolina primary with a double-digit and convincing lead.

Trump led with 32.5%, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz tied on 22.5% and 22.3% respectively. Bush trailed in fourth at 7.9%

He is clearing the Republican field. Jeb Bush dropped out of the race and Trump now faces Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Bush pitched himself as the “thinking” candidate speaking about policy in a race dominated by politics. He had different views on immigration and education than most of his running candidates, but this was not “an issue” campaign.

It is all about culture and persona. Focusing more on policy details than outbidding his opponents in faith and might, Bush appeared too much “establishment” in a campaign where ideology plays a predominant role. He came a single-digit forth in South Carolina. His was the most well-consulted and well-funded campaign. That did not prove enough.

Being the third Bush to claim the Republican nomination was both a privilege and a liability. The balance tilted towards liability. He was made an apologist for his brother’s legacy, especially Iraq.

Marco Rubio is hoping to benefit as the favorite candidate of the Republican establishment. He will gain both voters and funding, which could push him from third place to Trump’s main challenger.

But second in South Carolina and first in Iowa was the deeply conservative and ideologically militant Ted Cruz. The Conservative vote is still fragmented as Carlson remains in the race.

Next stop is Super Tuesday with a dozen southern states voting on March 1st.  Mr. Trump will no doubt feel the heat against both Rubio and Ted Cruz, but if he were to come out a winner in this battle, he may secure the nomination.

(BBC, NBC, CNBC, CNN, Washington Post)

The post Jeb Bush quits the race, Trump leads convicingly appeared first on New Europe.

Boris Johnson is the face of the “Leave Campaign” in Britain.

This is a man born in New York and educated in the European School of Brussels  Ashdown House School, but also Eton College. With wide eyes open he decided to back the “Out” campaign.

While David Cameron will be the face of the “Remain” campaign, warning Britons that leaving is a “leap in the dark,” the Mayor of London took a long awaited and hardly surprising position of leading Britain’s “leave campaign.”

On Sunday afternoon, Johnson said that “after a huge amount of heartache” he will campaign for Britain to leave the EU. Ladbrokes suggest that this moves means that now Boris Johnson is Cameron’s most likely successor in the leadership of the Conservative Party and that the “Out” campaign has more chances of winning, according to the Ladbrokes betting agency.

David Cameron got to know of Johnson’s decision via a text message, BBC reports. But, Boris Johnson has made clear for quite some time he believes that the EU is in “real danger of getting out of proper democratic control” and is responsible for eroding British sovereignty.

The iconic Mayor of London is one of the most popular politicians in Britain. His “Out” position is a tremendous blow to the Prime Minister and the “remain” campaign. Johnson published an article in The Telegraph on February 8 commenting that Cameron has done a job “better than many expected.” He added a “fantastically good job” superlative on Sunday evening. But, that was a matter of courtesy.

In reality, the Mayor of London has been making demands that were not on the negotiating table, blasting on the “wasteful, expensive and occasionally corrupt” Common Agricultural Policy, the resistance to a services union, the dangers to regulating the City, and the red tape stemming from Brussels.

Boris Johnson believes Britain can have a new relationship to the EU, more focus on trade and cooperation, that in his view will cost less to British tax payers. The Mayor of London denied that this decision was linked to his ambition to lead the Conservative Party, against Mr. Osborne. Many of his critics are less than convinced.

Mr. Johnson will not be alone among the Tories. He will be joined by the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Justice Secretary Michael Gove. Zac Goldsmith, the candidate running for Mayor of London this May will also support the “Out” Campaign.

(BBC, The Telegraph, The Times)

The post Boris Johnson is the face of Britain’s “Out” campaign appeared first on New Europe.

• The new InFacts website, putting right incorrect ‘facts’ about the European Union

Facts, stats and data are flying about all over the place from all sides, and it’s not surprising that many people are confused.

This morning, for example, over a communal hotel breakfast, friends and colleagues claimed, “The EU isn’t democratic!” and “The EU accounts have never been signed-off!” and “EU migrants only come here for the benefits!”

All these statements are untrue, but when trying to challenge them, the incredulous reply is often, “I don’t believe you!”

Well, of course, as an independent journalist I have been trying my best to post factual articles to counter the mistruths about Britain’s membership of the EU. But with few resources and working on my own, there is a limit to what I can achieve.

Now, however, a new website has launched that I can highly recommend. It’s called InFacts.org and it’s doing a sterling service in combating some of the blatantly incorrect information being published and broadcast about the European Union.

It has, for example, a section called ‘Sin Bin’ where every day it takes to task statements proclaimed by newspapers and politicians that are provably wrong.

Hopefully this will be helpful to all those who, like me, support Britain’s continued membership of the EU, and need ready-facts at the breakfast or dinner table when discussing with friends and family whether Britain should stay in the EU.

And it seems that, in the lead-up to the EU referendum, such meal-time, pub-time and work-time discussions are going to become more and more prevalent and likely quite heated too.

• In the latest edition of Infact’s ‘Sin Bin’, The Independent is taken to task for falsely reporting that, since 2010, one-third of new jobs were taken by foreigners. 
• Tory MEP and ardent Eurosceptic, Daniel Hannan, is challenged for wrongly stating that the EU only has trade-deals with two Commonwealth countries. 
• Vote.Leave boss, Matthew Elliot, is pulled up for erroneously claiming that the UK sends almost £20 billion a year to the EU. 
• And Margaret Thatcher’s former Press Secretary, Bernard Ingham, is ‘sin binned’ for wrongly claiming that the EU accounts haven’t been signed off for ‘nigh on 20 years.’

For these and other ready-facts and challenges on why ‘Britain should stay in the EU’, take a look at the new ‘In Facts’ website at www.infacts.org

Does the fact that I am promoting ‘In Facts’ make me biased as a journalist? Yes, it does.

I am openly pro-EU and happy to declare that as ‘an interest’. However, that doesn’t mean I don’t also have a healthy respect for the truth. As I have often written, I accept the truth, and don’t argue with it, whether I like it or not.

After all, my reputation as a journalist of many years standing is based on being a truthful and honest reporter of facts.

So, if the Leave campaign do come up with better information and verifiable evidence that Britain should end its membership of the EU, then yes, my mind is open to change. So far, however, they haven’t managed to persuade me.

Sure, there is a lot wrong with the EU. However, my view is that the EU isn’t bad enough, and the alternatives aren’t good enough, for Britain to leave. So, consequently, I intend to vote for Britain to ‘Remain’ in the EU.

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

• A reminder: What has the EU done for us?
• EU migrants are NOT ‘bleeding dry the NHS’
• What Nigel Farage told British expats in Spain
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read: ‘Debate, don’t hate’

• Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook and Twitter:

#Truth is 1st first casualty of #EUReferendum Good we have @InFactsOrg Read my intro: https://t.co/QQaxdVjtRc pic.twitter.com/gKQeQlZZc7

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 20, 2016

The post Facing facts about the EU referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Let me start by quoting the EU Trade and Investment Strategy approved by the EU Council on 27 November 2015: “The EU’s strategic interest remains to achieve closer economic ties with Russia. The prospects for this will, however, be determined primarily by the course of Russia’s domestic and foreign policy, which so far gives no signs of necessary changes. The developments within the Eurasian Economic Union also have to be reflected upon”. This is all that the European Commission can say at the moment regarding its trade strategy towards Russia. One can draw a logical conclusion: Russia is absent from the official economic strategy of the EU. In the meantime, though, the European Union seems to have its own view of what Russia’s domestic and foreign policy should be and how it should change – presumably, in EU’s own interests.

Meanwhile the Russia-EU trade is worth over 200, and more recently over 300 billion euros per year. One cannot ignore such an impressive figure, even for political reasons. I am absolutely sure that in spite of brevity of language of the above-mentioned Strategy, in reality the European Commission gives considerable thought to the future of our economic relations.

So, how do our trade links look at the moment? According to Eurostat data, the mutual turnover was at its maximum in 2012 – 338,5 billion euros. It started to contract in 2013 and fell to 284,6 billion euros in 2014. During 11 months of 2015 it fell additionally by more than 70 billion euros, or approximately by a third. As a result, today the trade volume has recoiled to its level of 6 to 7 years ago.

It is no secret that a significant part of our trade is accounted for by energy materials – mostly natural gas and oil. That is why the abrupt fall of world prices for oil and – as consequence – for gas produced a considerable impact. The lion’s share of the contraction of trade volumes – almost 35 billion euros last year, for example – belonged to energy trade.

But at the same time we witnessed a drastic downturn of EU exports to Russia which does not depend on oil prices. It fell during 2012-2014 by 20 billion euros in annual terms and again by almost a third last year. One can only conclude that the oil prices are only part of the story.

One should also take into consideration the fact that exports of non-fuel commodities from Russia to the EU suffered a much smaller contraction and in some cases even increased in 2015. I can assure you that our producers stay keen to continue trading with the EU.

No doubt, the fall of EU exports to considerable degree was caused by external factors, namely world economic recession and lower demand in Russia. But let’s face it: this was not the only reason, and perhaps not a decisive one. The situation visibly deteriorated after the EU introduced in 2014 unilateral economic restrictions against Russia. Russia responded by declaring a ban on a major part of agricultural imports. As a result EU agricultural exports to Russia during 10 months of last year fell by 40%. Russia embarked on a policy of import substitution and sought suppliers from third countries. According to the Commission’s estimates, as you well know, the initial damage for EU agriculture reached approximately 5 billion euros and continues to rise. Moreover, it is well known that the agricultural market is rather volatile: once you leave it, it becomes complicated to come back, and your niche rapidly gets filled by others.

The exports of technical goods from the EU have also gone down. During the same 10 months of last year they fell from 40,4 to 26,8 billion euros. It is really hard to attribute this only to weaker demand of Russian importers. There is evidence that EU companies have started feeling insecure about political and economic perspectives of trade with Russia, fearing to violate, possibly involuntarily, certain intricate aspects of the so-called sanctions, perhaps even not the EU ones but those imposed by the US. Mostly renowned, experienced partners have stayed, whose economic stakes in Russia were too high.

Summing up: deterioration of political climate has led to contraction of economic turnover at least as much as the world recession and the oil prices.

Let us now take a look at what happened in trade policy sphere.

Even before the EU introduced what we might call “material” sanctions it unilaterally froze all bilateral economic dialogues which had been established to facilitate progress towards a Common Russia-EU Economic Space – in accordance with the bilateral “Roadmap” adopted in 2005.

The only dialogues to be continued were on customs cooperation and in the science and technology field where the EU has the highest interest to interact with Russia. Now we can see a modest revival of interest on the part of the EU in the trade sphere in form of expert meetings on trade issues, the first of which took place last summer and the next one is planned in Moscow in March. The only thing is that we know pretty well that meetings of this kind are devoted to discussing mutual complaints rather than working out a positive agenda leading to an increase in trade and investments.

The EU has decided to freeze negotiations on a New Basic Agreement with Russia. It happened at the moment when the EU put forward a package of proposals containing measures to liberalise mutual market access and a number of trade mechanisms. As a consequence we missed an opportunity to ameliorate terms of trade. Who benefited? Our competitors, of course. There are many of them, in case you haven’t noticed.

In 2012 Russia acceded to the WTO. At present we already have within the WTO Dispute Settlement Body four cases against Russia put forward by the EU and three initiated by Russia. As representatives of the Commission recently admitted – one who lives in a house of glass should not throw stones. The idea is not new, but very relevant. Let me remind that it is happening against the background of the turnover of trade going down, so the spats, including at the WTO, are gradually losing sense.

During the last several years Russian producers have been increasingly complaining against EU antidumping practices. Those have become more ruthless and, they believe, less substantiated. The antidumping duties ranging from 12% to 70% are obviously many times higher than import tariffs of 3,5% to 4,0%. The Commission widely uses so-called “energy adjustments” which lead to a surge of the dumping margin and can hardly be justified from the point of view of WTO rules. The interim reviews, in our opinion, sometimes lead to unfair conclusions. One might perfectly well guess which EU industries are in crisis by simply looking at the goods subjected to antidumping investigations. The situation makes us also wonder whether there are political reasons for this.

There are no more bilateral Summits. They used to take place twice a year and often resulted in important joint undertakings. Thus we have seen no effort to implement EU’s own initiative, supported by Russia, to create a Common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok or – in Russian terms – from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Please do not think that we are complaining. Russia has embarked instead on expanding cooperation with other partners – with China on the “Economic Belt of the Silk Road”, with other members of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The Eurasian Economic Union has signed a free trade agreement with Vietnam and is engaged in similar talks with other countries. The US meanwhile has signed the Transpacific Partnership agreement with 11 countries, but not with the EU.

The bilateral “Parnership for Modernisation” initiative born in 2009 was stopped in mid-air. It is simply not being mentioned any more.

Huge energy projects between Russia and the EU are getting cancelled, including “South Stream”. Barriers are put up in advance for “Nord Stream 2”. Meanwhile last year the share of Russian gas in the EU market increased again. Instead, the EU Directorate General on Competition is targeting “Gazprom” and nobody knows how tough its decision will be and how the Russian energy giant will react.

One cannot avoid being concerned with how energy cooperation would be affected by the European Commission plans to take control over intergovernmental agreements and even business contracts between Russian and EU companies in the gas sphere. Could they not lead to destruction of the status quo with unknown, but potentially severe consequences?

A few words on trilateral negotiations between Russia, EU and Ukraine. Frankly, we haven’t remained satisfied with the Commission’s role in last year’s consultations on possible risks for Russia related to implementation of the trade and economic part of the Association agreement between the EU and Ukraine. I took part in the consultations, and I believe that the EU had a chance to prevent the unsuccessful ending which has led to a new spiral of restrictions in Russia-Ukraine trade.

Behind the haze of its “sanctions policy” the EU has still not noticed the opportunities presented by the developing Eurasian integration project. We do not yet have a clear understanding of the EU position regarding the establishment of relations with the Eurasian Economic Union, though relevant proposals have already been made by the Eurasian Economic Commission.

Finally it would be logical to raise a question: how long can this deterioration of mutual economic relations go on?

Let me not get into political details, as this is not the subject of this article. I would just repeat: this deterioration is only partly due to external reasons – the fall of oil prices and global recession. To a bigger extent it is due to man-made decisions which have caused an abrupt disruption of sustainable growth of economic turnover which we had been witnessing up to 2014. It means that amelioration also depends on decisions taken by people.

I presume everybody understands that Russia will not beg the EU to abandon sanctions. Besides, it would not even make sense as the EU is acting in unison with another well-known non-European state. Abrogation of sanctions is up to those who have devised and implemented them.

But let us try to imagine if amelioration happens later rather than sooner?

Firstly, the longer the present “sanctions” period lasts the more Russia will develop its import substitution (already quite visible, for example, in agriculture). The more it will strengthen relations with other sources of food imports – like Latin America, China and – finally – Iran that happens to be our close geographical neighbour fresh from a sanctions-lifting exercise. I would also like to remind that at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Nairobi the EU took an obligation to cancel all types of agricultural export subsidies. It means that certain advantages of EU companies on the Russian market might potentially subside.

We shall need to restore an atmosphere of confidence in mutual business relations which will also imply reestablishing frozen forms of economic dialogue and giving a new spin to the whole mechanism of intergovernmental economic and trade policy contacts to transmit to the business community again a signal of stability and sustainability for the future.

Finally, we would have to return one day to the issue of a new framework agreement – this time not in a bilateral format, but involving the Eurasian Economic Commission, whose terms of reference cover more and more spheres of relations.

To sum up – the situation remains complicated. The challenges are considerable. What we need most of all is to exercise moderation, be prudent and try not to lose a clear vision of the future. In particular, we should not forget – behind transitory and time-serving reasons – the positive experience accumulated over the decades and bear in mind how difficult it can be to restore something once lost.

The post The complicated Russia-EU trade relationship appeared first on New Europe.