THE COMMON ECONOMIC SPACE RUSSIA-EU: REVEALING OF DISADVANTAGES AND THE WAY OF THEIR OVERCOMING.
Olga Paleeva, Nizhny Novgorod linguistic University
The Main result of the summit Russia-EU, which took place on May, the 10th, 2005 in Moscow, was signing a package of plans of joint actions, or “road maps” with the purpose of creation of four general spaces - the European economic space; space of freedom, safety and justice (in it’s brief - internal security); space of external safety; space of scientific researches, education, including cultural aspects. At the first sight such result could be definitely estimate as extraordinary positive, especially considering the fact, that some weeks before a meeting of leaders of EU and Russia the destiny of a package was not so certain. In this context acceptance of the political document, numbering of some tens of pages, looks like doubtless success. Such estimation of the summit was given by Russian president Vladimir Putin and chairman of European commission Zhoze Manuel Barrozu.
Comments of official Russian establishment are reduced, as a whole, to a general idea that building of four general spaces is the extraordinary welfare for the Russian economy. Officialdom and experts from both parts argue with delight that "spaces" is a symbol of the beginning of association of Russia and the European Union and that Moscow has finally followed a way of integration to EU. Nevertheless, comments in mass media contain a sensible share of skepticism. It is simple to find it by observing the comments in the Russian newspapers: the summit “does not promise bode well” (“Rossijskaya gazeta”), “declarations of intentions with “obscure” prospects (“Vedomosty”), “we have a maps, but is not clear, where are we going”(“Nezavisimaya Gazeta”) and so on. The general tonality of estimations in the European mass media is similar.
The purpose of this article – try to give a critical judgement of results of the summit and try to estimate, how the building of the general spaces is connected with objective interests of Russia. Considering that fact, that scientific interests of the author lay in the field of economy, research will be provide of an example of the common economic space.
According to the plan, in intermediate term economic cooperation of EU and Russia will develop mainly in three directions: improvement of conditions for trade and investments, and also the expansion of opportunities of activity of economic operators; development of sectoral cooperation, first of all in energy sector, and also in a number of leading industries and in an agriculture; development of trans-European networks – in the way of transport and information, and inclusion of Russia in the European spaces - research and educational. The problem of approach of the legislation is especially allocated: in the field of regulation of trade, in the field of investments, in the field of cooperation, harmonization of standards, procedures of certification and an estimation of conformity of manufactures.
Despite of a pragmatism and concreteness of the considering plan of joint actions, it is really hard to approve, that it will be guaranteed. As it was already marked, its development is not finished: almost each item of the plan needs in a preparation of concrete projects with the instruction of ways and terms of their realization, financial resources and the responsible organizations, in many cases - their legal maintenance. The main task for today – find and create the real maintenance "road map" of the common economic space.
It is necessary to create a number of joint working mechanisms (expert groups, commissions, etc.) which will be engaged in this process. And here again the general strategy will be defined by a measure of efficiency of bureaucratic structures of Russia and EU. But a determinative factor of a dynamical development of the economic cooperation on the basis of the “road map” of the common economic space will be a situation in Russia, mostly defined by a direction of internal policy of the federal authority.
The “road map” of the common economic space really declares a building in the long term of an “open integrated market” on the basis of four freedom: freedom of movement of the goods, people, services and the capital. It declares unilateral transferring to Russia of parts of the European legislation, standards and specifications (how and where it is necessary for EU) without investment to Moscow the right of decision-making power in management of this legislation. That is the way how the Commission of the European Union receives the powerful tool of influence on the government of the Russian Federation on reduction of the Russian legislation and standards the coordinated areas in conformity with the European analogues.
Actually “road map” of the common economic space is already called “an economic trap”. Also the tendency of influence of “third actors” on the Russian economy by pressure upon legislative base is again traced. Basically, now repeats the situation the middle 90-s when the Russian laws were written under the pressure and dictation of IMF so now they will be written under dictation the Commission of the European Union.
In fact in “road map” of the common economic space it is practically in each paragraph, in each sector of economy, including telecommunications, transport, car industry, aircraft production, pharmaceutics, energy sector and protection of an environment, it is written down: “approximation of the legislation and approach of standards, including technical specifications”.
Thus it is easy to imagine, that will be, for example, with the Russian car industry, aircraft production or even with pharmaceutics if they will be will put in hard frameworks of an European standard, including ecological aspects. They just will loose their competitiveness. Certainly, on each stage of realization of such positions will be new fights between Russia and EU, attempts of Moscow to avoid of notorious approximation under that or other pretext.
Is such approach of Russian legislations, standards and specifications to European by refusal from of some branches of economy positive, or it is bad, is quit long and complicated question for he other discussion. An experience of the Central and the East Europe almost completely adapted under the European samples, is inconsistent. Their economy, undoubtedly, became more effective, and the population has got an opportunity to consume high-qualifier goods. However the rate of Poland’s unemployment is above 18 %.
In any case, accepting standards and the legislation of EU, each of the countries of the Central and the East Europe has knew, that at the case of an introduction it will receive a status of a member of European Commission, a place in Council of Europe and at the group of deputies of European Parliament. The other words - the right of decision-making power, which could be used including for change in a direction of those areas of the legislation which is favorable, already to and standards which should be adopted earlier. Russia doesn’t receive the similar right and if the present model will be chosen as a basic we won’t receive such right in future.
An acceptance of certain general rules and standards and reception instead of the right of participation in management of these rules and standards is an integration. An acceptance of these rules and standards without reception of any rights, but with creation of the mechanism of the external control of the Commission of the European union how this acceptance is carried out, is a disputable moment both with economic, and from the legal point of view.
Moreover, all approximation will be conducted at a level of the ministries, without the control over the public and, not leaving on a level of the summits Russia-EU. With approval of “road maps” the importance of the last decreases: at the May meeting the actors did not begin to accept any particular documents, having declared only, that “road maps" is approved and the responsible for their realization lays now on profile ministries. Now real work will be there. First of all, it lowers public attention to the maintenance of the Russian-European attitudes, and secondly, it complicates using of the summits as means of prevention of acceptance of the unprofitable decisions for Russian Federations.
In parallel with approximation of the legislation the “road map” of the common economic space contains the list of economic claims and requirements of EU to Russia, which are absolutely not relevant to integration. For example, regulations about revision of system of WTO of compensatory payments corresponding requirements for the transsiberian flights. We could see again the influence of a “third actor”, whose conditions and offers can cause an essential loss for economy of Russia. The report signed by Russia and EU, on end of negotiations devote the introduction of Russia into WTO, contains a number of concessions, which Russia has to follow, menacing not only to separate Russian corporations but also the Russian economy as a whole.
Thus completely there is no an expert support, capable to prompt how the Russian economic agents should prepare for impact on their competitiveness, which will put by changing of standards in a connection with creation of the common economic space and in connection with the future introduction of Russia into WTO. It turns out, that the Russian business is compelled to stay in a certain condition of the debugged shock - it is influenced by two powerful actors: the Commission of the European Union and WTO.
A question on overcoming the set forth above lacks, it will be obvious in the near future one of most complicated. Just to refuse to realize for whatever reasons the most unpleasant for the Russian Federation parts of “road maps” – such idea has no chance to survive. As experience of last year shows, the European bureaucratic machine, which is non-comparable mightier, skilled and effective, than Russian, will quickly destroy such resistance. It is impossible to refuse directly from "spaces" in general, because such step will lock the Russian-EU relations in a corner.
The problem is not that Russian side has accepted “by inexperience” unprofitable positions of “road maps”, that just definitely could not chose another way in conditions of present model of the Russian-European relations. The root of a problem consists in absence at the Russian policy of the final strategic purpose on the European direction. In Russian political and even expert circles there is no understanding, what finally Russia needs from EU, what arrangement concerning the European Union is most favorable for Russia in view of evolution for the both sides.
As a result Moscow initially appears in loss, reacting and agreeing on the summons created in Brussels, and essentially reducing own participation in its formation.
The basic problem of "spaces" that they do not solve for a long time the ripened fundamental problems of positioning of the Russian Federation in the European context.
There are only two possible purposes of policy of Russia concerning EU. It could be an integration, finally leading to the introduction into the European Union, or this intensive cooperation without formal integration (approach of the legislation). As practical experience shows, any intermediate variants representing versions of model “to the integration without membership”, turn around high dependence of the external partner on EU at its lawlessness.
As Russia has already set on the path of integration to EU (that is the model of cooperation without elements of formal integration for it is unacceptable), it is necessary to begin already now seriously to discuss an opportunity of the introduction of Russia in the European Union in long-term prospect, and also to build with it such model which would not exclude this opportunity.
Though, follows at once will make a remark, that from positions of today such prospect is unreal for quite obvious reasons. However it is necessary to remember, that the European Union and Russia do not stay at a similar place, and are in process of constant evolution.
It is not excluded (problems with the Constitution, integration of the market of services and consequences of expansion confirm it), that EU will refuse from "Maastricht" (“overnational”) script of integration and goes back to the model “general market plus”. In this case a role of the commission will be not so strong and the most part of the sovereignty will return to the countries - to members of EU, in particular in political area. The probability of this model will raise in process of expansions of EU.
Besides, according to general opinion, in conditions of globalization and in view of potential of Russia there is much better to correspond international, instead of to the European standards. The question is only which standards are European and which standards are international. Most of standards, which is known as European have come from the USA and Japan. Probably, membership in WTO will help Russia to build such model of attitudes with the European Union, which will exclude the fatal script for Russia “integration without membership” and will be under construction by a principle of attitudes of EU with Japan, the USA, China.
© INTAS
Project
2006
(Up) Íàâåðõ
