Mr. Putin had just congratulated Viktor Yanukovich on his victory that was officially declared by Ukraine's Central Election Commission. The EU, however, issued a strongly worded statement refusing to recognize that the election results reflected the Ukrainian nation's will and sent an envoy to Ukraine to meet the rival political leaders.
This led even the most zealous optimists to believe that the summit would end in failure. This would have been regrettable as every high-level meeting further improved the principles of strategic partnership between Russia and a single Europe and helped implement them. Fortunately, the summit was not a failure. On the contrary, The Hague summit was extremely important, as it showed that those principles stood the test of the Ukrainian political crisis. The EU and Russia continued their dialogue despite differences over this acute political issue. Moreover, the participants' adherence to the idea of partnership helped them reach a sensible compromise. Mr. Balkenende and President Putin called on the political leaders in Ukraine to find a peaceful solution to the current conflict.
Interestingly, the political crisis in Ukraine did not dominate the summit agenda. The participants rather focused on what is known as the four "common spaces" between Russia and the EU, a concept that originated at the St Petersburg summit in May. These spaces are education, science and culture (the one that evokes the least heated debate), economics and external security and freedoms, justice and internal affairs. The latter was the most complicated of all.
Contrary to skeptical forecasts that the participants would talk but not reach any agreement, the dialogue was genuine and effective. Those attending the meeting made the most considerable progress with respect to the common spaces of culture and economic cooperation. They also came to terms on the other two spaces, i.e. external security and justice. Fifty-five per cent of Russia's exports go to Europe, while the EU is heavily dependent on Russia's energy resources. The EU backed Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and is eager to help Russia meet the relevant requirements. The parties also reaffirmed their willingness to make further moves in the transport and environmental spheres. This summit reaffirmed the sound nature of economic cooperation between Russia and Europe. Mr. Balkenende and President Putin welcomed the idea of establishing a Russian-European commission to address issues related to the socio-economic development of the Kaliningrad region, a Russian exclave on the Baltic. Everyone agreed that they all stood to gain from cooperation with a prosperous and open Kaliningrad region. Moscow believes the new body will urge the European Commission and Lithuania to reach a special agreement on a system for freight transit to Kaliningrad. The possibility that the current transit conditions may deteriorate is a cause of great concern for Russia.
The Hague meeting also yielded an important agreement to establish an institution of permanent Russia-EU dialogue on problems facing ethnic minorities, including the status of the Russian-speaking population in some European countries.
This, above all, concerns Latvia and Estonia. Democratically committed Europe should hang its head in shame: an apartheid-style ghetto is under its nose, in its very heart. More than 700,000 people living in Latvia and Estonia have passports of a different color and the humiliating status of non-citizens. Human rights champions have discovered 62 differences in the rights of citizens and Russian-speaking outcasts in Latvia and 46 in Estonia.
Interestingly, this is not circumstantial but deliberate discrimination on the part of Riga and Tallinn, now EU capitals. Moreover, after Latvia joined the EU, its parliament demonstrably refused to ratify the Council of Europe convention on the rights of ethnic minorities.
Until recently, Brussels preferred to ignore this mass injustice. The European Commission seemed to be too shy about causing any discomfort to its newcomers. However, the Hague agreement to establish a permanent dialogue on ethnic minority issues indicates that Brussels is beginning to understand that Riga and Tallinn have gone too far. In the past, Brussels had a very selective knowledge of statistics: it proclaimed the 800,000 Ukrainians who clinched the vote for Viktor Yanukovich did not exist, and does not seem to notice violation of human rights of another 700,000 non-citizens in Latvia and Estonia. Are these not too many Europeans to ignore?
Interesting practical results of the summit in The Hague also include a decision to open a special school in Moscow for training experts in European economics and law. According to Mr. Putin, graduates of the Russian European College will "be directly employed by public institutions and business structures."
The Russian president who has recently come under fire for his excessively tough attitude to the West, seems to be content with the dialogue established in The Hague.
"Today's efforts evoke optimism," he told reporters. "I did not even expect that we would establishsuch a productive dialogue with people who have just started working in their current capacities." According to Mr. Putin, the summit was not designed to settle all the differences, but it did make substantial progress on some issues. The Russian leader predicted that the next Russia-EU meeting in Moscow next May would lead to some agreements on the so-called road maps, or documents determining the practical content of the four single spaces. However, the formation of these spaces, Mr. Putin said, is certainly a time consuming process, and "Russia does not expect it will be completed within weeks or even months."
Mr. Putin is right, and the differences remaining in the external security sphere graphically testify to this. They are, above all, related to conflict resolution in the former Soviet republics. In May, the EU admitted ten new members, most of who were former Communist countries. Historical offences are making newcomers push Old Europe into interfering in bordering states such as Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan.
Post-communist capitals would like to establish order there but in their own Russo-phobic understanding.
Meanwhile, Russia believes that the EU should refrain from becoming involved in CIS problems. EU representatives, in turn, claim they are only extending a helping hand to young democracies. Both sides are urging each other to assume a more constructive position, but each of them has their own approach.
Differences remain at the level of interior and justice ministries, particularly, over visa restrictions. Moscow wants Brussels to identify the timeframe for opening its borders to Russian citizens. The EU has been avoiding promises and demanding that Russia sign an agreement on readmission - the obligation to let in illegal migrants, not only Russians but also people from third countries who arrived in Europe via the Russian border.
The Hague summit has shown that these differences are surmountable. The EU's strategic partnership with Russia can withstand even the most serious tests.
