CIAO DATE: 06/02

International Affairs:
A Russian Journal

No. 7, 2001

 

Great Britain: Summit in Chequers

E. Ananieva _*

The informal meeting between Russian President V.V. Putin and British Prime Minister T. Blair, in London, on December 21-22, 2001, could, in its importance and ramifications, outweigh some official negotiations at the heads of state level. This above all results from the talks that the sides had at the British Prime Minister's country residence in Chequers. Vladimir Putin and Tony Blair discussed a broad range of problems that had taken center stage in world politics, including international terrorism, the situation in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, outlook for Russia-NATO relationship, and strategic stability. They also had a frank review of the most essential aspects of bilateral relations, primarily in the economic sphere. Furthermore, economic subjects were discussed in the course of a meeting between the Russian head of state and CEOs of some major British companies, including Shell and British Petroleum.

The high level of mutual understanding between the two leaders came as a result of the marked changes that have occurred in the world recently. The groundwork for dialogue at Chequers was laid in the course of eight meetings between V. Putin and T. Blair as well as the numerous telephone conversations between them over the past two years. Speaking at a joint press conference on December 21, the British prime minister stressed that a very close relationship had evolved between Great Britain and Russia in the recent period. For his part, the Russian president pointed out that "the discussion of the whole spectrum of matters fully corresponds to the spirit of relations that have developed between Great Britain and Russia as well as between the leaders of the two countries."

Aware of the danger posed by international terrorism, V. Putin and T. Blair devoted considerable time and attention to joint antiterrorism efforts. They had a comprehensive discussion of the present situation in Afghanistan and the country's future. Based on a UN resolution, an multinational force, including a British contingent, is introduced in Afghanistan. These forces are designed to neutralize a source of international terrorism in a strategically important part of the Asian continent. Russia took an active part in preparing the UN resolution.

During a joint press conference with T. Blair, V. Putin stressed that "Russia's interest consists in having, on its southern borders, a friendly neutral power - Afghanistan - which will never again allow its territory to be used as a base for training terrorists to be sent on to our North Caucasus region. In this respect, the presence of a multinational force to maintain law and order and provide assistance to the legal government of Afghanistan fully corresponds to our interests."

In connection with the issue of terrorism, Chechnya was also discussed at Chequers. T. Blair drew a parallel between a series of bomb attacks in Moscow two years ago, which killed 300 people, and the terror acts in the United States, saying that the whole world had united to combat this evil. That comment, The New York Times wrote, came clearly in support of Putin's assertions - rejected by a number of Western states - to the effect that the war that his government has been waging in Chechnya is part of the same antiterrorism effort as the antiterrorism campaign against al-Qaida. Russia-NATO relations were discussed in a constructive spirit. As is known, well before the London meeting, the British prime minister came up with an initiative to expand the NATO-Russia partnership. The idea met with understanding and support from the Russian president, who stressed that Russia does not aspire to full-fledged NATO membership, but is ready to enlarge areas of cooperation. "There can be, basically, two approaches here. One is to identify areas of NATO activities in which Russia will not participate, developing cooperation in spheres other than these. It is a revolutionary approach," V.V. Putin said. "The other approach is to identify two to four particular areas of cooperation, which will not go beyond them." This approach, according to the president, is "also quite acceptable." Nuclear terrorism and proliferation control should be at the top of the list of spheres of Russia-NATO cooperation within the "20" format. Tony Blair described these proposals, concerning a new relationship between Russia and NATO, as a major stride forward.

The British head of government spoke in favor of further rapprochement between Russia and the EU, which is a priority partner for this country, especially in the trade and economic sphere.

Both leaders gave close attention to problems of strategic stability. V.V. Putin once again presented Russia's approach to the ABM Treaty and its assessment of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the treaty, saying: "We are not inclined to dramatize the situation, and we hope that the dialogue will continue, including with our American partners." At Chequers, the parties also discussed some regional issues, including the situation in the Middle East. The exchange of opinions showed that the character of cooperation in world affairs and their perception on either side fully correspond with the spirit of cooperation between Great Britain and Russia.

Discussion of bilateral relations mainly focused on the trade and economic sphere, which is, without a doubt, a priority from a practical point of view. British companies are implementing business projects in Russia worth billions of dollars. Britain is among Russia's top five leading trading and investment partners. Such giants as Shell and British Petroleum participate in joint energy projects in Russia, intending to expand their participation.

V.V. Putin welcomed the British government's decision to resume provision of guarantees for British export credits and investment insurance in Russia. He also said the year 2002 would see a number of high-profile events in the economic cooperation sphere, culminating in a Russian economic forum, to be held in London, in April. "It was not by accident that we chose the British capital," the president said, "as a platform for presentation of the Russian Federation, the Russian economy, bearing in mind, among other things, the high level of relations that has evolved between Russia and Great Britain recently."

Prospects for development and deepening of bilateral Russian-British relations in the political, trade, economic, and other spheres, resulting from negotiations between the two leaders, add to the interest in Great Britain, necessitating an in-depth analysis of the political and economic situation in a country that is emerging as Russia's good and reliable partner. It is essential to take a closer look at our British partner, the lineup of political forces in the country, and the general principles and long-term trends of the internal and foreign policy course pursued by the Labour government, led by T. Blair. This analysis is all the more important given that Great Britain by right enjoys a reputation in the world as a state with the longest parliamentary and democratic traditions both on the national and regional level. Labour gained the upper hand over Conservatives, who had long been running the country under the "iron" leadership of M. Thatcher. What was the reason for that? This is a highly relevant question.

In June 2001, when Labour scored a historic victory in a general election, for the first time ever winning a second successive term in office and translating into reality H. Wilson's dream about becoming a natural ruling party. Labour's signal success was partly due to the will of the electorate, who objectively assessed the rival parties, and partly to the specifics of the first-past-the-post election system.

Under the system, the outcome of elections in Britain is contingent on the vote of approximately 5 percent of the "floating" electorate in marginal constituencies (a quarter of constituencies where no party has an assured majority). In the 1997 election, however, the electoral shift toward Labour was approximately 10 percent - that is to say, the 1997 election, in a very rare development, reflected the change in public opinion that had occurred back when Conservatives were still in office. The advent of Labour in 1997 was a symptom of a new emerging consensus. Labour to a very large extent precipitated erosion of "class-based" voting patterns, drawing support from the "middle class" and stabilizing that support. In so doing, they lost a part of their traditional working-class electorate - in other words, emerging as a centrist party "for all."

Conservatives consciously targeted a part of the electorate from among skilled workers, eventually winning their votes, but the Tory was too unpopular among its traditional middle-class electorate.

The situation within the Conservative Party is also an essential factor in Labour consolidation. After parliamentary elections, Iain Duncan Smith, an obscure political figure with no cabinet experience and an intransigent euro-skeptic, was elected a new Tory leader. The results of the vote by the party rank-and-file show that Conservatives failed to elect a truly national leader, expressing the mood of the electorate. Moreover, there is a visible division between the party elite and its rank-and-file members.

All the indications are that, far from achieving conciliation and unity, Conservatives are going to see party infighting exacerbate further. Whereas there is a consensus within the party over the need to review its socio-economic policy, confrontation over the euro can only end after a nationwide referendum on the issue. There are also serious disagreements within the Conservative faction in the European parliament.

In theory, Conservatives could overcome internal divisions over transition to the euro some two years before the next election. As for the Tory's socio-economic program, it requires drastic review. When assuming the post of party leader, Iain Duncan Smith stressed the need to focus on issues of major concern to the electorate (e.g., the education and public health system). Nonetheless, Conservatives will hardly be in a position to put forward a viable alternative political program any time soon. Thus far they do not have a coherent national development concept that could appeal to the electorate, the Tory effectively copying the program of the Labour Party that moved into their ideological turf in the mid-1990s.

The Conservative Party is faced with serious problems. Just how successful it will be in resolving them will be contingent not only on the situation within the party but also on the assessment of the Labour government's performance by the electorate and political elites given that T. Blair's personal popularity has grown considerably since September 11.

While during their first term in office Labour kept looking over their shoulder at their past mistakes and at the Tory, promising that they would not ruin the economy with excessive social spending, now T. Blair's task is to deliver on his promises to improve the situation in the education and public health sphere.

T. Blair is offering his vision of a "third way" - transition from a welfare state to a social investment state, designed to not re-distribute revenues, but to give everyone an opportunity to improve their status on the labor market, including through education. The state treasury has enough money to meet the needs of the Health and Education Ministry. The problem, however, is the character of reform. Herein lies the essence of the dispute between the government and the trade unions. The government promises "radical, far-reaching reforms," implying the conclusion of contracts with private companies, say, for maintenance of school buildings, the printing of textbooks, or the building of hospitals, as well as introduction of private-sector management technologies. Putting social-sector employees on a contract basis, the use of statistical methods to assess their performance, and so forth, as well as question marks over social security guarantees cause union discontent. After the elections, public sector employee unions stated in no uncertain terms that they would resist introduction of private enterprise into the public health and education sphere.

According to Blair, an appropriate place for Great Britain in Europe is at the center, and there is nothing more destructive for Britain's national interests than the anti-European isolationism of the Conservative Party. On the issue of joining the euro zone, the government could get support from trade unions, which are concerned by the loss of jobs in the export-oriented sectors of industry owing to the pound's inflated exchange rate. The problem faced by Blair, who favors joining the euro zone, which, in his opinion, will strengthen Britain's influence in Europe, lies, first, in London's ingrained "euro-skepticism" and second, in the economic ramifications of introducing the euro.

Thus, approximately 60 percent are against the euro. Nonetheless, transition to a new currency is not a burning issue for the electorate, who preferred T. Blair as a leader best suited to represent the country's interests in Europe. As for the second, economic, aspect of joining the euro zone, Edward George, the governor of the Bank of England, which is independent from the government, warned against early accession, seeing the exchange rate as a major impediment: The euro is too weak compared to the pound. At the same time there are indications that a certain part of the industrial sector favors joining the euro zone regardless of the currency rate. Thus far, however, there is no consensus within the business community.

After September 11, Blair, in arguing in favor of the euro, cites the need for closer rapprochement with the allies, and it seems that Britons are beginning to listen to him. Aware of the difficulties involved, the prime minister, cautiously but consistently, is preparing a referendum since ensuring a meaningful role for Britain in Europe and strengthening a "special relationship" with the United States are, to him, two fundamental and interdependent foreign policy principles After a short period of "ethical" foreign policy, Prime Minister Blair, in April 1999, put forward what is known as an international community doctrine which he and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw give a very high priority in the international situation that has evolved in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks in the United States.

By far the most unexpected development among the numerous cabinet changes after the election was the dismissal of Foreign Secretary R. Cook, representative of the party's left wing, and the appointment of Jack Straw. The replacement of Cook, not simply a europhile but a euro-fanatic, with a euro-skeptic goes to show that Blair intends to hold a euro referendum in the middle of his term.

The United States remains Britain's sole most important and close partner while U.S.-British strategic partnership in NATO is the bedrock foundation of their national security: The stronger we are in Europe, the better our voice is heard in the United States, just as our influence within the EU is strengthened by our close relationship with the United States. Speaking at the Royal Institute of International Relations, in July 2001, the secretary described himself as a pragmatic European, rejecting the Euro-skeptics' charges to the effect that European leaders aspire to create the United States of Europe and a "super-state," infringing national sovereignty. Recognizing the need for institutional reform of the EU, he said that it should come in the form of permanent evolution, not revolution. According to him, the EU's negative perception by many Europeans, including Britons is, a result of the EU's estrangement from ordinary citizens, who are also under-informed. Hence the need for a wide-ranging public awareness campaign to convince Britons that their country can derive maximum benefit as a European power, especially given that 3 million jobs are contingent on trade with EU countries.

Japan, China, Russia, Canada, and Brazil remain Britain's key partners. The main areas of its foreign policy are Southeastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the Balkans, Britain will give complete support to the government of national unity in Macedonia; in the Middle East, Palestinians must do their utmost to stop extremism and violence while Israel can achieve security by following a "peace for territory" policy.

Britain's "special relationship" with the United States received fresh confirmation. Prime Minister T. Blair told a news conference the same day that Britain would stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the hour of tragedy (the number of casualties among British nationals was put at 200 to 300), regarding mass terrorism as a new evil that mankind had been confronted with. In an interview with CNN on September 16, 2001, T. Blair stressed that the war against international terrorism does not at all mean a war by one part of the world against another since many Muslims also fell victim to terrorism: It is a war of the civilized world and fanaticism. According to the British prime minister, the task is to create a broad international coalition, punish the culprits, and wage a long-term, systematic war against the terror machine.

In the war against terrorism, moralists and pragmatists become partners, not antagonists, while the UN is an agency implementing the "international community" doctrine. September 11 buried the myth that the United Kingdom has to choose between the United States and Europe while Afghanistan showed convincingly how Britain's relationship with the United States, on one hand, and with Europe, on the other, complement and strengthen each other. Having joined the military operation in Afghanistan from the very outset, Britain believes, however, that the military operation per se cannot eliminate the threat of terrorism, and that it is critical to deploy diplomatic, political, and humanitarian efforts. Seeing the ongoing international crisis as the most serious since the Caribbean crisis, Jack Straw stressed that only a stable state in Afghanistan can ensure peace in the country.

Great Britain shares the general view by members of the antiterrorism coalition that a new Afghan government should be based on broad representation of the Afghan people with a leading role played by the UN and long-term economic assistance from the antiterrorist coalition while the rebuilding of Afghanistan will require considerable outlays (rebuilding of Bosnia, with a population four times as small as in Afghanistan, required $5 billion) and will take five to 10 years.

Their joint participation in the antiterrorist coalition gave a fresh impetus to Russian-British relations, which are currently on the up. T. Blair highly appraised support provided by Russia, which itself suffered from terrorism: Following an emergency parliamentary session, devoted to the start of the military operation in Afghanistan, he made a visit to Moscow, on October 4, 2001, to discuss its final details with the Russian president. In mid-October, the scheduled visits to Russia by Defense Secretary Geoffrey Hoon and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott went ahead, taking on a new dimension, the latter saying that they testified to the high priority that London was giving in the present situation to its relations with Moscow - a "key partner and ally." In late October, Jack Straw visited Moscow. British analysts saw his speech before State Duma deputies, political scholars, and experts as a new word in relations between the two countries, which, according to the secretary, should be built not on a balance of forces, but on a balance of trust. Today the countries' security hinges not on competition, but on cooperation; not on rivalry, but on partnership; not on fear, but on trust: We are now all in the same boat, he said. In an indicative sign, Jack Straw admitted that the West oftentimes underestimates the scope of tasks facing Russia, diminishing the progress it has made.

The secretary highlighted the need to remove the last vestiges of the Cold War and make the best of joint membership in the UN Security Council and G-8, promoting a closer, equal-to-equal relationship between NATO and Russia. In his speech on October 12, 2001, Blair said that Russia, the United States, and the EU could benefit greatly from mutual partnership while a new Russia-NATO relationship should become a key element of this partnership. T. Blair sent a letter to NATO member states and President V. Putin, proposing that the consultative Joint Permanent Council, formed in 1997, be replaced by a Russia-NATO council where member states could discuss security matters on an equal basis (nuclear nonproliferation, peacekeeping operations, etc.). On November 23, 2001, NATO Secretary General George Robertson arrived in Moscow to work out a joint decision-making mechanism. Discussion of the subject continued at the meeting of Russian and British leaders in Chequers.

Britain actively supports Russia's admission to the WTO and seeks to develop economic cooperation with Russia. The fact is that Britain is one of Russia's most important trading partners, accounting for 3.5 percent of Russia's aggregate foreign trade, which has stabilized since 1996 at a level of $4.3 billion to $4.5 billion a year with a favorable balance (in the 1996-2000 period, approximately $11 billion). Russia imports from Britain machinery, equipment, chemical products, and consumer goods and exports raw materials (oil, ferrous and non-ferrous metals exceed 80 percent of all export). Great Britain is one of the largest investors in the Russian economy (approximately 7 percent of total foreign investment). The aggregate accumulated volume of British investment in Russia is more than $2.7 billion, including $0.8 billion in direct investment.

In the wake of V.V. Putin's meeting with British business leaders, in the course of his visit to Chequers, Digby Jones, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said that British business firmly supports Russia's admission to the World Trade Organization.

It is important to reiterate that at their meeting with V.V. Putin, British industrialists expressed interest to invest in the industrial sector of the Russian economy. As well as oil, gas and telecoms, the food industry was mentioned among potentially promising spheres of British investment. Andrew Wood, adviser to the British prime minister on investment in Russia, said that while investing in Russia is economically viable and has good potential, the British side is equally interested in Russian investment.

British experts attach particular importance to an agreement whereby guarantees for British export credits and investment insurance will be provided by Russian commercial banks, not the federal government.

"New Labour," oftentimes described as a "cosmetic exercise" that would not work and be short-lived, was widely predicted to fail. The media was more hostile toward it than even the right or the left in parliament. Clearly, T. Blair defeated those expectations. His party took a place at the center of the political spectrum, which makes its positions fairly strong.

This author will venture to suggest that the New Labor victory reflects deep structural and social shifts in a country where 75 percent of the workforce is employed in the services sector. It is something more than a swinging of the pendulum of a bipartisan system. New Labour transformed Britain's political culture and political geography; it is already predicted to win not only a third but also a fourth term in office. In this respect, the "Iron Lady" legacy has been overcome. The Thatcher era ended on June 7, 2001 while Blair received an opportunity to have his name associated with a new era in British history.

The meeting between the Russian president and the British prime minister in Chequers opens a new page in the Russian-British interaction. The centuries-long history of relations between the two countries in various spheres, especially in politics, shows that they have seen ups and downs with more downside periods, marked by mistrust and disagreements. At the present, post-confrontation, stage, when the Cold War is over and we are faced with new challenges and threats to international security that can only be met through joint efforts, there is a good chance that Russian-British relations will advance further, becoming more fruitful, constructive.

 

Endnotes

Note *:Elena Ananieva is Candidate of Sciences (Philosophy).Back