Ana Palacio was Spanish Foreign Minister in the Conservative government of José Maria Aznar from 2002 to 2004. Prior to that, she served as a Member of the European Parliament for eight years; after 2006, she worked as senior vice president of the World Bank. She is one of the most prominent female figures on the Spanish political scene. As a member of the board of the Prague European Summit, she participates in the preparation of this annual prestigious meeting organized by the Prague think-tank Europeum. This year, summit will take place in Prague from 12 to 24 July.
The EU-Russia relations have not been worse since the and of the cold war. Why is that? Has the EU contributed to this tension, for instance by concluding associatipon agreements with countries considered by Russia as its sphere of influence?
I think that anti western sentiments have always been and are tools for legitimation of the Russian leaders in order to keep a grip on power. The use of this argument by the Moscow power elite is historical. There has always been a tale of humiliation since Catherine the Great, since the Great Patriotic War. Telling Russians Europe does understand us and Europe betrays us. President Putin is a master in using this type of argumentation. Let us not forget that he painted the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a part of the Western agenda. Russia may not have many assets, but they use well what they have. They are masters in manupulating the public opinion.
I am not sure that the Association agreements have played a crucial role. They are rather technical documents, and concentrate on trade – and the EU has strong competencies in trade. Speaking of the western threat for Russia, let us not forget that it was Europe, not the Americans, who stopped NATO from enlarging to the East. Now we have to find a solid basis for dealing with Russia within the EU, where the perception has alwyes been very varied – people do not see the Russian threat in the same way from Tallinn or from Rome.
The relations have become even more tense since the visit of the High Representative, your compatriot Josep Borrell in Moscow in February. The Russiand seem to have chosen the aggresive path. How to restore the dialogue?
First, again, I think that you need to have a dialogue even with countries with whom you do not share anything. The relations can be be difficult and tense, but you need to keep the dialogue open. This has been my personal conviction all along in several governments, even in moments, when Amerca was opting for isolation. In this respect, I agree with the High Representative Borrell that you have to keep dialogue with Russia. Now how his visit was approached – of course there were mistakes. But going beyond that – it was a good example of how Russia nowadays understands the power dialogue. The EU can try to speak to them about human rights, or about trade, but for Russia the power dialogue is to be had with Germany or France, not with Brussels. There is not much you can do about it. If you want to play chess but your counterpart just wants to play something different, it does not make sense to insist on playing chess. You will find yourself in a dead end. I think that´s what happened. And we have to pay the price.
Now president Biden is meeting Putin in Geneva tomorrow. Do you expect the new American administration to be trying hard to improve the relations with Russia?
We all remember US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presenting a„reset button“ to Foreign Minister Lavrov, who, by the way, is still there. I don´t think that this time there is any ambition to reset in the sense that it was done by Clinton and Lavrov. There is no willingness for that. President Biden knows Putin very well and he will not be ovewhelmigly forthcoming. The American message will be: We are standing with our allies. We are multilateral with our allies. We do not want to see you meddling in our elections, conducting cyber attacts, behaving like a disturbance. If some common ground can be found, Biden might be willing to smooth things over on issues like Nordstream 2 or the hijacking of the Rynair flight by Belarus.
This meeting is of course also very important for Putin. It shows that he has managed to get back to the highest level of interlocution with the US. It is artificial, but Russia is back to speaking one to one to the United States. Putin understands very well that he has to do it, because in other areas like the economy, health and so on the situation is not that good in Russia.
Do you think that the US might be softer on Russia because of its obsession with China? Trying to prevent the creation of a Moscow-Beijing axis?
I am sure this is something that worries Washington, as it for sure worries Prague or Madrid. It is complicated to grasp the perception of this unholy getting together between China and Russia. The reasons are the vision of unity against the „declining West“, unity against the United States, and the message is: Do not interfere in our way of being and doing things. Of course the US will negotiate with Russia about arms, as they have always done, even during the Cold war. But that is a different issue. Right now Biden´s message is that America is back and we will work together towards preserving our open society, not perceived as declining or unduly influenced by the Chinese approach.
Of course the Americans need that we trust them, that we overcome what we have seen recently and that in three years time we do not go back to Trump or Trumpism, which means isolation. We should not forget how relieved we were when Biden got elected; there was a sigh of relief across Europe. Now we have three years to make it happen, together with the US, through a common vision and mutual engagement. We have to work and deliver. From this point of view, I consider the timing of the signing of the EU-China investment agreement as a mistake – Biden was asking us to wait until he is in the office, but the response was no, let us sign now, because we cannot trust the US.
The deal has now been put on ice. And in the meantime wa have had the sanctions skirmish with China and the Chinese disproportionate reaction. Does it mean that China does not wish to deal with the EU any more, prefering blateral relations with its members?
If they want to deal on trade, they have to negotiate with the EU. There is no other way. We need to take into account that the EU got this agreement because precisely the Chinese side preempted the possibility that with the Biden administration there might not be a critical mass to negotiate with China. They gave in on certain opportunities which were attractive for Europeans.
The sanctions row shows the agressiveness that is typical for China today. For a long time they were pretending to be a modest developing country that could not take on commitments, a mere spectator. The mistake was – our mistake, and of the US – to open the door to the WTO for China, which was not ready for that. The idea was that the Chinese would become more constructive and take on their responsibilities in the multilateral arena. But they have not done that. Now we know. They have since forgotten how they behaved in those years at the beginning of the century. Now they are extra aggressive. All this has to be understood in its context – for instance they keep reminding us of the „100 years of humiliation“, all the time. This is not something you would hear 20 years ago.
We are an open society. The EU is a construction built on liberties, on freedoms. We need the partnership with the US and we need the American leadership, also because we need to bring in Japan and others. Not against anyone, but to negotiate in areas where there are either global public goods or common interests. We have to be able to mobilise the critical mass and stand by our principles. We have taken them for granted since the end of the Second World War, because they have inspired the existing architecture. Today we cannot take them for granted any more. We have to fight for them and fight square foot by square foot. Because it is not given; even in our societies. The comeback of the US also means the revival of this open society. And we have to counter our own, domestic demons. Because the first danger is our own society, becoming inward looking and excluding. Nationalism is not a problem, but when it becomes aggressive and exclusive, we have to start worrying. That is what we are facing today.
How do you combine and concile the necessary partnership with the US, which is more than obvious, and the new European notion of „strategic autonomy“?
We have to have the strategic autonomy, or strategic independence. For me this means taking our security seriously. Not relying on the US umbrella to come and solve our issues, like in the Balkans in the nineties. The US is withdrawing from the frontline position in our region, in particular the Mediterranean. This is our task and our mission and we have to be better in understanding that. Not just talk the talk but walk the walk. We have to take autonomous decisions.
If we want it or not, we are approching a bipolar world again. Paraphrasing the Secretary General of the UN in his address to the General Assembly in 2019 – there are two blocs being created in the world, one led by the US and the other led by China. António Guterres said it in a gloomy tone. I think that it is now in fact happening and its not gloom and doom, it is reality. So we have to have a dialogue.
We Europeans cannot be under the Chinese umbrella; hopefully we are not that foolish. We will remain with the US but it will no longer be the same protection we were used to. The Americans need allies and they understand that leadership in the 21st century must be a convening leadership. The US is the only one that can bring in Japan and Australia, holding the global dialogue – and we get a critical mass with them, include countries in Latin America and Africa; there is also a discussion to include India in the G7.
To sum up, the world will continue mutating. We Europeans must be in charge of our neighborhood, reinfocing our security. The US would also have to change andnot take their allies for granted, but rather take care of them and treat them like real allies, which was not always the case. If the world develops along these lines, I think there are reasons for hope.
