Libor Rouček: European Neighborhood Policy Does Not Pose a Threat to Russia

Libor Rouček, Member of the European Parliament (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) talks about Russia-EU relations, the Eastern Partnership project, and the future of the welfare state in Europe. This interview was conducted on the sidelines of the international conference: “Russia and the European Union: Partnership and Potential” organized by RIAC.

Mr. Rouček, how do you assess current Russia-EU relations? What are, in your opinion, the most and the least developed dimensions of our relations at the moment?

I think our trade and business relations have been developing well in spite of some problems and hiccups; the trade statistics support this statement. However, it is of course not only in the business sphere where we should look for more opportunities to increase both the volume and the quality of our relations.

Being a member of the European Parliament, I can say that what we are missing are more contacts with our counterparts from the Russian State Duma. We also lack contacts with Russian civil society because in democratic states, the institution of the Parliament represents all sorts of interests, sometimes even conflicting ones – and not only business interests, but also those of trade unions and other interest groups. Some of my colleagues in the European Parliament say that they do not have counterparts in the Duma, and sometimes they find these counterparts in the non-parliamentary opposition.

In my opinion, we should look at our relations from a broader perspective. Human and civil rights are very important, as they are the core on which European resolutions are built. However, we should also look beyond that and pay more attention to trade, political and strategic relations because the world is global. At the moment, there are 7 billion people and there will be much more in the future. Therefore, we need to solve current world problems together and try to build a strategic partnership between the EU and Russia. It is important to both of us for security and economic reasons if we do not want to fall behind in global economic competition.

In the Russian media, the Eastern Partnership program is often described as one of the biggest obstacles for enhancing cooperation between Russia and the EU. Do you think this program, or some revised version of it, can become the opposite, i.e. a “bridge” between Russia and the EU, as well as other Eastern European countries?

I wish the EU and Russian visions of the Eastern Partnership were not contradictory, because such an approach is counterproductive if we want to develop a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, or if we are discussing a common energy sphere. We cannot bypass Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova. The same applies if we want to establish visa-free travel. I do not think the European Neighborhood Policy should be a reason for cooling down relations between Russia and the EU. In my opinion, it is in our mutual interest that the countries that are between us are affluent, well-functioning democracies where people are well-off in economic and social terms. This is vital not only for the nations between Russia and the EU, but for our mutual relations as well.

Due to the current economic crisis and increased demographic pressure, the model of the welfare state in some European countries has currently come under question. Do you think Europe will be able to maintain the welfare state in the long-term or will it have to completely reconsider it?

Here we speak about Europe and its social model, which is unique because it does not exist in the United States or Japan, not to mention China, South America and Africa. If we look at the statistics, in Europe we see not only high levels of living standards and opportunities for people, but also a high level of competitiveness of Europeans on a global scale. We also see that the top countries are mainly Scandinavian, i.e. Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway, with the latter not being part of the EU, but still closely linked to it. It shows that you can combine economic competitiveness with social guarantees. I have lived in many countries in Europe, America and Australia and if I have to compare economic and social systems, I think those in Northern and Western Europe are still the best.

I will give you one example - free education. It is true that in America, they have Ivy League universities but a very small section of population goes to these universities because they cost a lot of money – tens of thousands of dollars a year, which means that not everyone can afford it. And even if they can, they do not have spare money to travel the world. If you travel to Asia or Australia, you see that these countries are full not of Americans but of Swedish, Finnish, German, and Dutch students. And through this traveling, these people prepare themselves for the globalized world. So, such nations as the Finns, the Swedes, the Germans, the Dutch or the Danish are more prepared for globalization than the Americans. Financial constraints prevent American students from travelling outside their country, hence they have less opportunity to learn other languages and cultures, and it is more difficult for them to compete in all aspects, including developing industrial products with, for example, the Swedes or Finns. Of course, we need to constantly adapt this welfare system to current global economic and financial conditions, but we also should still guarantee – and I am not saying it as a social democrat – basic services, such as healthcare, education, and housing for people even in cases when they lose jobs and might end up on the street. The state has to help to reeducate and readjust them, so they can find a new job.

Interviewer: Nikolay Markotkin, RIAC Program Coordinator