12 June 2004 13:52
Latvian minister wrong to try to handle pan-EU dispute with Russia - newspaper
Latvia's agriculture minister was wrong in trying to engage in bilateral negotiations with Russia after Russia
instituted a ban against products of animal origin from the entire European Union, a Latvian newspaper has written. The
paper pointed out that the EU has not done badly in those cases when Russia has produced unjustified demands and argued
that the European Commission should be allowed to engage in the negotiations. The following is the text of the article
by Peteris Strautins, entitled "A position" and published in the Latvian newspaper Diena on 12 June;
subheadings inserted editorially:
Agriculture Minister Martins Roze has been bragging about the fact that he plans to submit a bill to the European
Commission for losses which occurred among Latvian companies at the beginning of the month when Russia banned the import
of products of animal origin. At best this is pure populism, at worst it confirms fears that Latvia is becoming a wedge
in the European Union on the basis of the pro-Moscow instincts of the [Indulis] Emsis government.
Russia and Russia alone is responsible for any losses that may have been caused to Latvian companies. It is clear
that the ban was in no way related to any increased threat to the health of Russia's residents. In the case of
Latvian companies, at least, one has never heard of any widespread cases of poisoning or infection in Russia. It would
be silly to assume that since the accession of Latvia and other new member states to the European Union, these threats
have become more serious. The European Commission, moreover, has made it clear that Russia has never cast official doubt
upon the quality of animal-origin products that are imported from the EU. The Agriculture Ministry says that it would
support Russia's desire to engage in individual and extra inspections of those companies which export the relevant
products to Russia. That would mean bowing before unjustified demands, it would mean recognizing that these supposed
threats really do exist.
Criticism of Roze
Roze has been criticized by foreign relations specialists for his attempts to settle the import issue directly with
our neighbouring country. As European Commissioner Sandra Kalniete has reminded us, bilateral talks of this kind make
sense only if the overall European position is brought up in them. What is more, this is a job for the Foreign Ministry,
not the Agriculture Ministry.
The European Commission has criticized Russia for violating the political agreement that was reached by the two
parties - to refrain from any limitations as long as negotiations on the matter are continuing. It is likely that by
engaging in this behaviour, Russia is trying to get the EU to yield on some other issue, one that has nothing to do with
agriculture. That is a favourite trick of Russian diplomacy. Russia's failure to admit that every EU member state
guarantees that products are in line with the veterinary standards of the common market, as well as Moscow's talk
about some mystical unified certificate, represent interference in the EU's internal affairs. For that reason, the
agriculture minister was completely wrong in arguing that the European Commission has not done its job. It is not a
function of the EU to bow before blackmail. The principle that each EU member state provides an individual guarantee of
product safety has been supported by all of the member states of the World Trade Organization. Russia's behaviour,
therefore, was particularly unacceptable - it set out limitations just a few days after the EU gave the green light to
its accession to the WTO.
Will the EU succeed?
There is no reason for serious fears that the EU might fail to ensure that Russia will yield on this matter. The
European Commission has already hinted that it might withdraw its support for Russia's accession to the EU [as
published; presumably error for WTO]. The Latvian news media have provided the view that Russia is gaining from the ban,
because it exports much fewer products of this kind to the EU than it imports from it. This assumption is based on the
common but false idea that in international trade, countries benefit only when they export, and that import is at best a
necessary evil. If Russia has imported so much food from the EU until now, then obviously it has been the most
advantageous source of such products. Russia itself cannot produce sufficient stocks of such foodstuffs. If unjustified
sanctions are put into place in the future, the economic cooperation between Russia and the EU will suffer as a whole,
and that would never be advantageous for Russia.
A representative of the European Commission has said that Russia's extremely unfriendly behaviour has surpassed
the bounds of fantasy. Everyone must remember that Russia has previously tried to stick its nose into the EU's
affairs, differentiating between "real" and "false" member states and suggesting that the mutual
cooperation agreement should not be applied to the latter category. As we all know, Russia was forced to yield on that
issue, too, and it gained absolutely nothing in return.
[Diena] |
RUSSIA IN FACTS
