/nginx/o/2015/04/13/3960871t1h518a.jpg)
Decision of President Vladimir Putin to send Estonia-Russia border treaties to be ratified by State Duma came on the heels Minsk-2 agreements – not a coincidence as assured Postimees in interview by Alexander Shokhin, the influential leader of Russian union of industrialists and entrepreneurs, for years working towards ratification of border treaties in Moscow.
Why, as head of Russia’s most influential employers organisation, the industrialist and entrepreneur union RSPP, do you need to deal with a topic like Estonia-Russia border treaties?
We decided, on behalf of two business associations, RSPP and Estonian Employers Confederation, to apply pressure on politicians, among other things inspired by the excellent example of your neighbours. Namely of Latvia, where the signing of border treaty (which entered into force in 2007) served as a trigger, as after that two other important agreements were signed and ratified between Russia and Latvia: the double taxation avoidance treaty and investments protection treaty.
And, considering that such agreements as taxation avoidance treaty and investments protection treaty are important for enterprises in both countries, in order to do business on each other’s territory, and that the treaties are linked to political decisions – first and foremost to border treaty – we began to tackle the issue.
We decided to try and affect relevant political structures in Russia and Estonia, especially the foreign ministries and foreign affairs committees of the parliaments, to return to the border treaty issue. Thankfully, foreign ministers in both countries understood our approach – that entering into border treaty may open the way for important economic agreements. As a result of this process, they did sign the treaty last year and ratification begun, which did not go too fast though.
Why hasn’t the process been fast?
The assumption was that the elections in Estonia might start to interfere. We were of the opinion that ratification could have been concluded in last year already, so it would not become an object of election campaigns. But time run out. I can’t say what the definite reasons were. I think Ukraine was a hindrance, figuratively speaking no-one had any business with it (the border treaty – edit) any longer. The fact is, right now we can take the process to the finishing straight.
We need to consider that while in Estonia passing a law requires several readings, in Russia treaties can be ratified at one reading, in a day.
To avoid a repeat of what happened ten years ago – when the Estonian side added preamble to the agreement – we would need to find a technical model of how to arrive at ratification of the border treaties at the same time, considering the varying laws in the countries regarding ratification of international treaties.
As I understand it, representatives of parliaments want to be sure that neither will let the other down and that the treaties will be ratified exactly in the format as they were signed.
In the current political situation, how long do you think do we have to ratify the border treaties?
This year the topic needs to be concluded, to advance with the more complicated political issues – in my opinion – and with economic treaties. The thing being, lots of other issues will come up in the agenda, which in my opinion should speed up the ratification.
Such as?
I have not been to Estonia for a long while, but recently I paid a visit to Latvia where I suddenly realised that it is no longer just a topic in the media that hey Russia may occupy the Baltics, but our totally serious economic partners are asking us such questions.
You mean the treaties should be ratified faster, as long as …
I say «faster» in the sense that to put a stop to such stupid interpretations. To show that Russia respects and adheres to the inviolability of Estonian borders and territorial integrity, and that Estonia has no territorial claims.
We could show that, unlike ordinary citizens, politicians are of sound mind and do realise how to introduce elements of normalisation of relations. If only to that end, it would make sense to speed up the ratification.
Though, let’s admit it, reasons do abound for escalating the tensions, as the Baltics are the most zealous supporters of maintaining and even strengthening the (anti-Russia) sanctions. They are, as is said, more pope than the Pope in Rome – counting Germany, France and even the USA to be Pope. (Laughs.)
That’s what I wanted to arrive at: why now, while EU and Russia relations are so bad they almost can’t get any worse soon, would Mr Putin suddenly take such a step as to send border treaties with Estonia to be ratified in State Duma?
If relations are so bad, there actually is only one option – that the relations will improve. In relations with the European Union and especially with the Baltics, we are at such bottom that the only way is up. The most important thing is not get stuck in the bottom.
It is important to be able to somehow swim to the surface, because if we do get entangled at the bottom, it will afterwards be very hard to come up to the surface. Regarding that, let me say that when RSPP bureau (RSPP’s governing body) had a closed meeting with Mr Putin (in mid-March – edit), we established that Mr Putin intends to take steps to improve relations first and foremost with the EU; in that regard, it is a bit more complex with the Americans.
And that he has planned to decisively realise the Minsk-2 agreements. It’s another thing that Ukraine, Germany and France see the content of the agreement differently. Anyway, this was Mr Putin’s sincere desire and we had no reason to doubt that as the meeting featured no TV cameras, it was an outspoken open meeting.
I think it was no coincidence that the decision to send border treaties into State Duma came after Minsk-2 agreement happened. A certain window of opportunity has opened. At the moment, things are somewhat on pause and, among other things, such signals help normalise relations between Russia and the European Union. Yesterday it was too early yet, but today it looks like the right time perhaps. It’s important that tomorrow it would not be too late already. Next year, Russia will have Duma elections which, by the way, is one reason to ratify border treaties within this year.
So the decision to ratify Estonia-Russia border treaties in Duma was taken in February, after signing Minsk-2 agreements?
Formally, it was the government that decided to send the treaties to be ratified by the Duma, but obviously Kremlin had to be behind such a decision. I think that yes, it was decided in the Kremlin, in February.
Together with then chairman of Estonian Employers Confederation Enn Veskimägi, at the end of 2010 you decided to begin to spur the border treaties on. Would you please describe how one does lobby work, in Russia, with a treaty like this?
The fact that we begun five years ago already will, in itself, not show we have been too effective in this lobbying. (Half-smiles.) We were constantly checking the process, constantly putting foreign ministry in remembrance, including then vice foreign minister Vladimir Titov overseeing the topic, and Duma foreign affairs committee head Alexei Pushkov. We organised meetings. The initial goal was that foreign ministers need to resign the treaties. Any potential international meeting arenas were utilised to informally discuss the topic. Such «outdoor diplomacy» was the best tactic perhaps because having formal talks, foreign ministers would have had to constantly report to foreign affairs committees.
Obviously, you needed to get green light from the Kremlin?
Of course they were current. Of course, The Kremlin does not always mean the presidential level. And, of course, we will need to understand that for Russia, putting it softly, border treaty with Estonia is not the most important foreign policy problem.
Sure, but – politically speaking – why would Russia need the border treaty with Estonia at all?
Why do we need a border treaty between Russia and Japan? In a way, absence of treaties reveals inability of countries to come to an agreement, close the chapters of the past, put an end to conflicts of the past etc. In 1956, Japan had a chance to sign peace treaty with the Soviet Union and also get back two Kuril islands. Under pressure by Americans they never used the option, the latter announcing that should the Japanese sign the peace treaty, they will never get Okinawa back. I’d rather not have such unregulated disputed between former Soviet Republics. In Ukraine’s case, we do see what such non-regulation may lead to. Regarding Crimea, there are all kinds of legal disputes: was it legally that in 1954 Crimea went from Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, were the law back them infringed or not?
But, to return to the Estonia-Russia border treaties, why are these useful for Russia?
Ratification of Estonia-Russia border treaties would show that at least in this issue we closed a page of an historical dispute. Also, this would show the hot heads in Estonia and even in other Baltics that nobody wants to occupy them. In that regard, the border treaties are of greater importance for Estonia of course, but they are important for Russia as well, to demonstrate right now that we want to follow international law.
Could Mr Putin’s decision to send border treaties to be ratified be read, in a way, as a sign of good will towards Estonia?
You may put it that way of you want to! (Laughs.)
What will happen if Estonia’s Riigikogu will again add something to the ratification decision like in 2005?
At discussions of the treaties in Riigikogu, Estonian politicians may say whatever in order to be liked by electorate, that’s normal. But should something again happen which will hinder the ratification process from being concluded at both sides, and the texts will differ from what was signed by foreign ministers, then this will indeed be the end. There will be no third attempt, like in weight lifting. Then it will need to be admitted that the weight is too much. Then we will conclude that this is serious and long-term and that Estonia is indeed filing territorial claims towards Russia. (Laughs.) But actually there is a danger here, as many are pointing out to us. This is the rather significant accumulation if military technology on Estonian territory. God forbid that as somebody strays into our Pechory District, as somebody may read that s an attempt to realise territorial claims towards Russia.
If all goes normal and the border treaties are ratified in their present form, will the next step then be the signing and entry into force of these abovementioned economic treaties?
I think so.
How long would that take?
That will depend on the governments. I see no obstacles why these could not be entered speedily. These treaties would actually be the framework confirming that Estonian businessmen may do business in Russia and Russian businessmen in Estonia in conditions not inferior to businessmen from the countries which already have such treaties between them. These treaties are the basis; it does not mean that immediately business will boom between the two countries and investments get underway.
What was and is the role of Enn Veskimägi in the signing of border treaties?
We have this proverb in Russia, that victory has lots of parents, and a defeat has none. Now, the border treaty topic nearing the finishing straight, it is natural for many politicians to showcase their role in reaching thus stage: it was only thanks to them that things developed this far etc. Having pushed the issue with Enn for years, I may confirm that Enn helped get ambassadors to come here, took us to Tallinn together with officials from Russian foreign ministry, and organised for them meetings in Riigikogu. His role was large as he worded the idea that we cannot sign economic treaties before we fist solve the political issues. Even to me he explained this logic and thereafter, from the two ends, we begun to propagate it. Going by the principle that, drop by drop, a hole is dented into rock.
FOUR POINTS