The EU and its Strategic Partners

1. The EU and its Strategic Partners Dr Fraser Cameron Director, EU Russia Centre, Brussels

2. Who are They? • The 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) designated five strategic partners: • Russia, China, Japan, India, Canada • US not listed but obvious to everyone • No definition of ‘strategic’ or ‘partner’ • Never discussed at highest or lowest levels • Little in common – except size (population and territory). Quid Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico?

3. EU Priorities and Interests • ‘Effective multilateralism’ – but never defined • Restoring close ties with US under Obama – but strategy never discussed, too sensitive • Neighbourhood – This is where EU spends most time/money - Turkey, Western Balkans, Russia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Middle East and North Africa (plus Switzerland, Norway) • Only then China, Japan, India, (Canada)

4. EU-Russia • 1997-2007 PCA – extended annually until new agreement. Negotiations difficult due to lack of clarity on Russia’s WTO accession. Different views of EU member states (some still view Russia as a threat) and different energy dependencies - but move to greater EU cohesion. • Problems of common neighbourhood – Ukraine and Georgia – NATO enlargement - • NB Russia only 8% of EU’s GDP. Gazprom gets 70% of its profits from EU, and Russia needs EU to modernise economy. But can Russia modernise under present Putin/Medvedev system?

5. EU-China • EU is China’s largest market. Relationship trade driven. EU disappointed that China not living up to WTO commitments, eg IPR • 2003 China praised EU as important counter to US hegemony. But disappointment over arms embargo, market economy status, anti-dumping, Tibet, human rights. Cancellation of Dec 2008 summit a shock. Last summit (October 2010) bad atmosphere. • Negotiations on new PCA proving difficult (esp trade) but China needs EU market. And another pole in multipolar world concept.

6. EU/Japan • Rather neglected strategic partner. Close economic and trade relations. But no action in action plan • On paper, many shared interests and goals eg multilateral approach, soft power - but Japan disappointed (like India) at lack of EU support for UNSC seat. EU critical of Japan for lack of support on human rights

7. EU/India • Little reason to call India strategic partner • Although apparently much in common - two multi-state, multi-ethnic and major democratic actors – little real cooperation. • Disputes over UNSC and Doha. While EU pushes democracy/HR agenda India does not. • Growing economic partners but problems over an FTA – and also nuclear deal • Little knowledge of EU cf China

8. EU-Canada • Ottawa suffers from ‘me tooism’ • Rather dull and boring relationship • Canada sides with EU on most major issues, including strengthening global governance • Minor disputes eg seal hunting

9. EU-US • The only real strategic partnership (although not at military level – NATO). • Great welcome for Obama after Bush years. But Europe not high on Obama’s agenda – Prague summit a waste of time. Madrid summit cancelled. Lisbon summit in margins of NATO. Obama knows little about EU (although his team does) and seems not to care much. Strong institutional structures but what can EU deliver? • Main issues are Afghanistan (EU reluctant to do more), Iraq (EU not a player), Iran (EU now deferring to US), Middle East (differences), climate change (big differences) and rising protectionism

10. EU-US (2) • No debate on what EU wants from US. Too many competing (and illusory) bilateral relations • NATO also complicates EU-US relations (where was EU on missile defence?) • Differences with US on Russia (energy), China (trade) and India (nuclear deal) • Terrorism – how much has changed?

11. Global strategic changes • US remains dominant global power but steadily losing influence due to extent of financial crisis. Afghanistan. • Asia rising, especially China. Strategic partner or rival? Growing economic interdependence – recognised by both sides. Japan also adjusting to rise of China • Much talk of a G2 but not credible in short /medium term • Russia, India, Brazil, Indonesia unlikely to match EU/US/China power capabilities. • Implications for EU? Still basing policy on 2003 ESS. European Council in October 2010 tried to discuss strategic partners but summit hijacked by Roma issue

12. Conclusion • Not all strategic partners are equal in EU eyes • More visits to China than India, Canada and Japan combined. More summits with Russia than anyone else. Canada the poor child • EU-US most important relationship but still many areas of disagreement • EU needs a real debate on its role and capabilities. Cathy Ashton and External Action Service may provide impetus.

13. Conclusion (2) • Priority task for new High Rep should be strategic review – followed by EU defence White Paper. Not much sense in continuing national reviews. • Important to involve MS, national and EP. Six monthly report and debate on CFSP/ESDP across the EU. National posturing a problem • Need to develop culture of strategic thinking • European diplomatic academy a must

14. Final Thoughts on Strategy • Strategy usually has military connotation – but not in EU terms. Much overused term – hence diminished importance . • Do shared values matter? • How to define? Comprehensive, sharing vital interests , joint actions • But first EU has to define its own vital strategic interests