European Union: Lithuanian MP and a former Lithuanian foreign minister

The question - whether the EU is mature enough to have a common foreign policy - needs to be asked in the light of recent comments by Gernot Erler and, indeed, Sergei Lavrov.

Erler, who is a member of the Social Democratic Party in Germany and a senior advisor on Russia relations to Chancellor Angela Merkel, said in January that the EU should review its Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy for the sake of better relations with Moscow.

"We have to ensure there is no tension between the Eastern Partnership and the Russian Customs Union,” he noted.

The idea was repeated by Russian foreign minister Lavrov at a press conference on Tuesday (18 February), in a little while before an eruption of violence in Kiev, which saw police kill several people and storm the protesters’ “Maidan” camp next a two month siege.

“We urge a frank discussion of the Eastern Partnership and energy dialogue, the cornerstone of Russia’s relations with the EU,” Lavrov said.

This kind of talk masks the gravity of events in Ukraine and the pressure which Russia is exerting not just here, but as well in several other EaP states - Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova.

Coming from Erler, a man of no little influence in Berlin, it as well speaks volumes on why the EU is still failing to shape an effective foreign policy.

The element which unites the 28 member nations is shared values: human rights, policy of law, a free economy.

The kind of pragmatism which Erler advocates is an element of discord: each of the 28 nations in the Union has its own interests. If they all pursue realpolitik, there is no luck of a united front.

Pragmatism undermines the mutual trust between EU nations and the very foundations of the European Union.

If the EU follows Erler’s advice to postpone, or to sacrifice, its support for the democratisation of the EaP region, it is not only the EaP nations that will pay the price, but as well our own unity.

Meanwhile, it must be understood that at the same time as Georgia and Moldova initialed EU association and free trade pacts last November, they were not making pragmatic or economic decisions, but civilizational ones.

The real issue at stake is not trade, but people’s right to self-determination.

These nations, and the opposition movement in Ukraine, want to get closer to the EU because they want to live in democratic and law-abiding societies - European societies.

The EU has no right to put their fate on its negotiating table with Russia.

Realpolitik aside, the prospect of an effective EU foreign policy is as well endangered by other factors.

European politics is governed by a short-term electoral cycle, which creates a temptation for leaders to react to events in an ahistoric way.

At the same time as a new government is elected, we often hear calls to turn over a new leaf, or to reset relations, in this or that domain. But in reality, no significant political project can be undertaken without due regard for its historical roots or completed in a single term in office.

International relations, and particularly European relations with Russia, require a lot of patience. All change is incremental.

People, like Erler, who say we should start afresh with Russia in light of the Ukraine crisis, merely show their feeble memory, or deliberate forgetfulness, and risk repeating the mistakes of the completed.

I choose my words carefully at the same time as I say that his proposition to review the EaP is irresponsible.

It is a discourse which dates back to the Europe of 1938 and 1939. The EaP has problems not because it is badly designed or because people in EaP nations do not want it. It has problems because Russia is creating them and appeasement will only make matters worse.

The additional difficulties that Russia makes, the additional significant it is for us to maintain our principled stance.

What we need vis-a-vis Russia is not fine talk, but adequate instruments to counter its aggressive behaviour.

And if we want to strengthen our foreign policy in the region, again, ironically, Lavrov’s remark shows us the way to go.

“We urge a frank discussion on the … energy dialogue,” he said.

The EU in 2009 put into law its “third energy package,” which forces EU companies and foreign firms active in the EU to separate energy production and distribution assets. It has a clear goal - to stop monopolitsic price gouging, not least by Russia’s energy champion, Gazprom.

It has caused friction at the highest levels in EU and Russia contacts.

But the EU has not backed down. If anything, it has gone further - in 2012 EU officials raided Gazprom offices in several European capitals and launched a legal case which could end in fines.

We should consider EU energy law as a model for EU-Russia relations additional broadly.

The EU needs a foreign policy with a clear goal and with the legal instruments to implement it. But above all, it needs the political will to see it through, instead of making u-turns or concessions at the same time as Russia complains.

The writer is a Lithuanian MP and a former Lithuanian foreign minister