| Authors: | Stephen Dewar [1] |
From a news report: “The beginning of July almost saw one of those epochal events that define the future of European-Russian relationships. Tony Blair was there, in his capacity as President of the European Council. José Manuel Barroso was there as President of the European Commission. The presidents of the Baltic States and of Poland were also there, flanking Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Together, they celebrated the 750th anniversary of Kaliningrad (prior to 1945 Koenigsberg in East Prussia) and cracked open the champagne as Kaliningrad State University was formally renamed after Immanuel Kant, Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg’s most famous son and one of the most important intellectual forerunners to the European peace project, otherwise known as the European Union. President Putin hinted that, in due course, the name of this Russian region might also be changed to something incorporating Kant’s name as a sign of growing EU-Russian integration.
“At a joint press conference, the leaders spoke about how Kaliningrad has become in practice, and not just on paper, a pilot region for future cooperation between Russia and the EU. Recognising that Kaliningrad had been, for over ten years, the source of the most serious soft security concerns in the Baltic region, President Putin announced that agreement had been reached to set up joint high-level task forces to tackle the worst of them – in cross-border crime, environmental management and communicable diseases. Several important initiatives were unveiled – a free trade agreement between the EU and Kaliningrad, mutual visa-free arrangements between the Schengen area and Kaliningrad, and a development fund of some €250 million over several years, financed by Germany, the Scandinavian countries and the EU, to help offset the disadvantage that Kaliningrad has suffered compared with its neighbours who have had, per head of population, funding from Brussels of this size since 2000, as part of the EU accession process. The presidents of Lithuania and Poland, as representatives of Kaliningrad’s two most important foreign trade partners and the biggest sources of FDI into the region, announced major new investments in Kaliningrad and the Governor of Kaliningrad talked about how the new special economic zone regime would be irresistibly attractive to any investors wishing to enter the Russian market. All parties pledged that, from now onwards, Kaliningrad was too important for EU-Russian relations to be used as a bargaining counter or pawn in other bilateral disputes”.
Except that, of course, virtually none of these highly desirable and important developments took place. Kaliningrad did celebrate its 750th anniversary, marking the foundation of Koenigsberg by the Teutonic Knights in 1255. Putin was there and Kaliningrad State University will indeed be renamed after Kant. Russia’s “Medium-term strategy towards the EU”, formally announced by then-Prime Minister Putin at a Russian-EU summit in October 1999, calls for Kaliningrad to be a “pilot region” in future Russia-EU cooperation. But that was it. Blair and Barroso were not there. None of the heads of state or government of Poland and the Baltic States were invited. The only newsworthy events for the western media were the jocular witticisms of President Jacques Chirac, rubbishing Britain’s contribution to European agriculture as being mad cow disease, and writing off English cuisine as being the worst in Europe, apart from Finland’s. The East European and Russian media concentrated on the diplomatic row over the Kremlin’s snubbing of Poland and Lithuania, by not inviting their presidents and prime ministers.
The Kremlin, in an echo of Cold War “newspeak”, explained that (a) it had not invited Poland’s and Lithuania’s most important citizens because the 750th anniversary was a completely “internal Russian affair” (which suggests that it should have been the 60th anniversary, since the previous 690 years – barring a short interlude of Russian occupation during the Napoleonic era – were decidedly not an integral part of Russian history); however (b) some 100 or so dignitaries from these countries were invited anyway, just to show it was not that internal after all; (c) Chancellor Schroeder and President Chirac came along, but that was a coincidence, since these troika meetings are fairly regular and this one just happened to take place during the party.
This most unfortunate non-event amply illustrates the worrying state of confusion, short-term opportunism and downright stupidity that characterizes what passes for foreign policy thinking in the Kremlin, the EU and the lame duck chancelleries of “Old Europe”.
One can understand Putin’s personal sense of hurt and fury at the perceived affronts the Baltic States and Poland dished out when they argued in May that the 60th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s triumph over Nazi Germany was not a liberating experience for them. But his foreign ministry advisers should have persuaded him that showing personal pique was hardly statesmanlike, nor likely to win him any kudos. Unfortunately, however, the Russian Foreign Ministry is not renowned for its intellectual depth and ability to engage effectively with the realities of the contemporary world.
Equally worrying, however, is the contempt that Messrs Chirac and Schroeder displayed towards the rest of the EU, especially the Baltic States and Poland. Whatever feeble excuse was concocted to explain their presence at the 750th anniversary celebrations as a coincidence (and, granted, they were hosted at the Baltic Sea resort of Svetlogorsk rather than the regional capital of Kaliningrad itself some 30 or so miles away), they should have publicly acknowledged Kaliningrad’s pilot region status, called for substantive new initiatives to help develop the region and refused to attend the anniversary in the first place, unless their fellow EU heads of state and government from Poland and Lithuania, especially, were also there. However, Mr Chirac has in the past made it clear what he thinks of New Europe, so his behaviour is hardly surprising. Chancellor Schroeder, by contrast, may have thought that turning up for this photo-op would help his slim re-election chances, given that Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad is a sensitive issue for many former East Prussians and their descendants as well as various German revanchists, though one would hardly think the latter was a constituency that a responsible German politician would court.
But even if one discards as irrelevant the posturings of two of Europe’s least democratically representative leaders, one can still wonder why Messrs Blair and Barroso did not see the possibility of using this opportunity to advance the EU-Russian agenda, nor why Putin could not see beyond the Baltic/Polish row to the bigger picture. This occasion, after all, was after the French and Dutch referendums, when Europe was calling out for new leadership initiatives and before the London bombings. There was a narrow window of opportunity to improve the stalled and increasingly acrimonious state of EU-Russia relations. It was missed. What a pity. Poor Kaliningrad.
Stephen Dewar is an economic consultant who lived and worked in Kaliningrad between 1996 and 1999. He is the author of numerous publications on Kaliningrad and is a founding member of the Association of International Experts on the Development of the Kaliningrad Region. The views expressed here are his own.