Read more | Digg story
Interview by Interfax
Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Russia Marc Franco spoke with Interfax after the Russia-EU summit in Samara
The question arises “as to whether the pre-Caspian pipeline will make the Transcaspian pipeline redundant”
Mr. Franco, could you comment on the results of the Russia-EU summit in Samara? Where, do you think, are Russia and the European Union in their relations now?
I would characterize the Samara summit as useful because we came together on some important conclusions and we worked together. Both sides stressed that there is important potential for further development and both sides stressed that the task of the politicians, and, of course, the diplomats, the technicians, and the officials is to make sure that this potential for further development is realized. We identified a number of outstanding issues and unfortunately we were unable to solve these issues because they are of a technical nature and rather complex. The Summit concluded that work at the technical level, be it on exports of meat from Poland or other issues, needs to be tackled at the technical level. Therefore officials on both sides have received an impulse to step up their work and to make sure that technical problems don’t drive us apart.
What can you say about statements by some Russian analysts that the old Europe is dancing to the tune of newly admitted EU member-states?
I don’t think this is a very fair representation of the situation. There are outstanding problems with the newer Member States. But there are also some outstanding problems with the older Member States, I am thinking of such issues as export duties. I think that unfortunately we have a wide range of technical and sometimes political issues that affect a very wide selection of members of the European Union.
The Russian President’s Special Representative for Relations with the EU Sergei Yastrzhembsky recently said that since Moscow and Brussels had failed to begin talks on a new framework treaty, the existing agreement on partnership and cooperation would be prolonged until December 2008? What do you think about that?
The end of this year is the time by when the existing agreement has to be extended in order to ensure legal continuity in the relationship. It was clear already some time ago that the new agreement would not be ready by December this year. Even if we had started these negotiations in November last year, it is unlikely that before 2008 or even say 2009 we would have a new ratified agreement because there is a minimum three year gap between the moment you start negotiating and the moment the agreement comes into force. But this has been known from the beginning and is not dramatic.
What are the prospects for solving the problem of Polish meat?
There is an ongoing consultation process at the technical level and the summit basically gave an additional impetus to this consultation process and from both sides the negotiators, the technicians have been asked by the Presidents to speed up the process. President Putin made a statement to this effect on May 21.
How would you comment on a Caspian gas pipeline deal agreed by the Presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan? Do you agree with the U.S. Energy Secretary that this project will not diversify gas supply routes to the EU?
I think there are two aspects to the issue. First of all there is the aspect of overall supply of gas. In terms of overall gas supply to the European Union this is good news because there is room for capacity of supply from some Asian countries. So this is a positive step. Secondly, if we are talking in terms of diversification of supply routes, this raises the question as to whether the pre-Caspian pipeline will make the Transcaspian pipeline redundant. As far as I have read some comments in the press this is not the case because Turkmenistan has indicated that there is enough gas to supply two pipelines, so one does not seem to exclude the other.
As I just said it is a mixed signal. On the one hand, in terms of regular supplies it is a positive signal, on the other hand, it is a mixed signal in terms of potential pipelines.
How would you comment the Marches of Dissent and rallies in front of your Moscow office during the Samara summit?
As President Barroso and Chancellor Merkel said and stressed during the summit, freedom of expression, the freedom to demonstrate, is a very fundamental principle of democracy, and therefore we have shared with President Putin our apprehensions about obstacles placed in the way of political demonstrations. As far as the demonstration in Samara is concerned, one gets the impression that this issue has been taken seriously. Unfortunately, some of the leaders of the opposition who wanted to be present in Samara were prevented from going and this, of course, is regrettable.
As far as the demonstration outside the Delegation is concerned, we absolutely accept this demonstration as an expression of the opinion of the demonstrators. We will listen to what they have to say. On May 21 we received a petition. The Deputy Head of Delegation met them and listened to their arguments. We will certainly transmit the arguments expressed by the demonstrators to our Headquarters and to the embassies of the relevant countries.
Is the European Commission ready to assist in the release of Russian citizen Mark Siryk, who was arrested in Tallinn?
The issue is outside the competence of the European Commission, and would therefore need to be addressed to the Estonian authorities. The European Commission cannot comment on ongoing legal cases.
The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that the deployment of U.S. anti-missile defense components in Europe is a boundary that puts an end to the principle of solidarity in the EU. Can this be regarded as double standards, considering Brussels’ support of the Estonian authorities during a conflict with Russia over the removal of a monument to the Soviet Soldier-Liberator?
I'm not sure that it is a case of double standards. It's worth underlining that European security and defense policy is a work in progress. At this stage I would say there is no monolithic European security and defense policy. The common European security and defense policy is something that we are constructing. On some issues we have a common policy, on some others it is still very much the responsibility of the national governments, but this is how we function, and this is something we have to accept.
