Though the Eurasian Union promoted by Russia appears as a rival of the European Union, both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov admitted that the final goal of this union is to create a free trade area with the EU, Igor Botan, executive director of the Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT), said in the October 16, 2014 public debate “Political culture in the context of polarization of political options in Moldova. Pro-European option: change as a chance and remedies against fear of change”, staged by IPN Agency in partnership with Radio Moldova.
“In 2011, on October 5, the Russian head of state entered the campaign for the third term in office and published a large article in the newspaper “Izvestia” (“News”), saying he wants to gain the third term in order to create a Eurasian Union whose final goal will be to create a free trade area with the European Union,” said the project’s permanent expert.
“When Moldova entered the Eastern Partnership, during the tenure of President Voronin, we knew what we had to do. We had a roadmap: a visa-free regime with the EU, the DCFTA and the Association Agreement. These things were clearly stipulated then. Our question was: if the goal of the Eurasian Union was to create a free trade area with the European Union, and we were already engaged, why couldn’t we follow our path and then meet with our friends from the Eastern area? I want to note that Mister Lavrov several days ago returned to the idea of creating a free trade area between Russia and the European Union. So, these things are not inventions uttered now by Mister Lavrov. They form the basis of a strategy that was launched on October 5, 2011,” explained Igor Botan.
He said that this project of Russia was related to another geopolitical view of Vladimir Putin – of a multipolar world where Russia would be a conservative pole near more ‘liberal’ poles such as the EU and the U.S. “The problem that appeared afterwards I think derived from the fact that Russia wanted this pole of the multipolar world to gather together all the former Soviet republics to establish this Eurasian Union that would later create a free trade area with the EU. We and Ukraine were already engaged and said that we cannot do this because we must be responsible partners. We will follow this road and will anyway meet in the same free trade area,” stated the expert.
According to him, another difference in visions between the Eurasian Union and the European Union was that Russia saw the CIS as an exclusively Russian area of interest, while the Europeans proposed that this area should be transformed into a common responsibility area. The EU invited Russia to take part in the Eastern Partnership launched in 2009, offering it even a privileged status for ensuring regional cooperation and avoiding conflicts similar to that in Georgia. Russia rejected the invitation only because of its geopolitical ambitions.
Igor Botan said commercial statistics show that Russia’s acts in relation to Moldova are based on political, not economic reasons. “The trade between Moldova and Russia, from Russia’s perspective, represents 0.2%. So, the statements that the signing by Moldova of the Free Trade Area with the EU would threaten the economic security of Russia are simply amusing,” he stated.
The October 16 debate also involved the Head of the EU Delegation to Moldova Pirkka Tapiola and Anatol Taranu, director of the Institute for Political Analysis and Consultancy “Politicon”. This is the 34th of the series of debates “Development of political culture in public debates”. IPN Agency stages these debates the third consecutive year with the support of the Hanns Seidel Foundation and in cooperation with Radio Moldova.
