3
Corrected transcript of evidence taken before
The Select Committee on the European Union
Sub-Committee C (External Affairs)
Inquiry on
Evidence Session No. 11 Heard in Public. Questions 165 - 169
Witness: Mr Pedro Serrano
Baroness Billingham
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
________________________
Mr Pedro Serrano, Adviser on External Affairs, Cabinet of the President of the European Council
Q165 The Chairman: Mr Serrano, thank you very much for coming. I am afraid that we are going to have to cut the meeting a bit short. We must make sure that we get to the station in time to catch our train. We will not go through too long a list of questions. To start with a very general one, we are going to have a new Commission and President of the Council. We have a new Parliament. Do you anticipate any significant changes in emphasis as a result of the change of personnel?
Mr Pedro Serrano: You mean in general in EU policy?
The Chairman: Towards Russia. I am so sorry, I should have made that clear.
Mr Pedro Serrano: The European Union has a very clear position towards Russia and very clear interests: ensuring that Russia helps in solving the crisis that we are having in Ukraine, so I do not foresee any changes there. It is a very well established policy that has been agreed at the highest level, at the European Council. I believe that this policy will be pushed forward and maintained without hesitation.
The Chairman: We saw the Russian ambassador to the EU earlier today, and he was at pains to suggest that the recent speech by Mr Putin was an invitation to dialogue. It is open to other interpretations. What would be your interpretation?
Mr Pedro Serrano: I think everyone would agree that dialogue is the only way forward. That is the agenda that the European Union has been putting on the table from the outset. The only way in which we are going to sort out the crisis in Ukraine, and the only choice in our relations with Russia, is dialogue and co-operation. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed in the last months has not been dialogue and co-operation but unilateral actions that have led Ukraine deeply into a crisis, that has led to the violation of its territorial integrity with the annexation of Crimea, and to major disturbances and conflict in eastern Ukraine.
The Chairman: You did not feel that President Putin’s speech marked the beginning of a change, as the ambassador indicated?
Mr Pedro Serrano: There have been many words that those who follow international relations want to be taken as an indication in one direction or another. I have also read interpretations of this speech that would match what the Russian ambassador has said. It is good that the Russian ambassador portrays it in this sense. I think whatever willingness on President Putin’s side to advance through the path of dialogue and co-operation and to renounce the path of conflict would be welcomed on the European side. That is what we want; we want to ensure that the aggression stops in eastern Ukraine, that Ukrainian law is respected in eastern Ukraine, and that a political process is launched in eastern Ukraine that will allow the country to heal from its wounds and to start moving into normalcy. That is what everybody wants, but obviously we need not only Russian words but concrete action to ensure that its border with Ukraine is not used to transfer arms and fighters into Ukraine, and that the ceasefire is respected. Russia is a key player in ensuring that this happens.
Q166 Baroness Billingham: Why do you think Russia was emboldened and changed tack, and has taken on a much more aggressive stance? What has changed outside Russia, within the EU, outside the EU and within the USA that makes Russia confident that it can take the stance it is taking and say, “What are you going to do about it?”.
Mr Pedro Serrano: I think the general understanding is that none of this was carefully planned in advance.
Baroness Billingham: By whom?
Mr Pedro Serrano: By the Russians.
Baroness Billingham: Okay. I just wanted to be clear. I do not think that we were very clear, either.
Mr Pedro Serrano: The summit that the Presidents had with Russia in June 2013 was totally normal. No one was talking about DCFTAs, and they were talking even less about Ukraine. This was not discussed. Everything else was discussed at that summit—all the elements of our bilateral relationship—but this question was not dealt with. The first inklings we had of trouble were when both Presidents met President Yanukovych in September in New York. He started indicating that it would be difficult for him to sign the DCFTA.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: He was meeting with whom?
Mr Pedro Serrano: With President Barroso and President Van Rompuy.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: When you said “both Presidents”, I was not sure who you meant.
Mr Pedro Serrano: There he was suggesting trilateral meetings with Russia in order to clarify the consequences of DCFTA. All this led to President Yanukovych’s statement ahead of the Vilnius summit that he would not be in a position to sign the DCFTA on that occasion. Then there was real upheaval in Ukraine. No one foresaw this. I do not think that Yanukovych foresaw it, I do not think that the European Union foresaw it, and I do not think that Russia foresaw it. Things evolved with a degree—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: You do not think Russia foresaw it. Surely Yanukovych was doing it because of Russian objections and spelling out of the implications.
Mr Pedro Serrano: Maybe some in their wisdom foresaw everything, but my feeling is that no-one expected such a popular reaction among the Ukrainian population to the non-signature. This was not foreseen by Russia. Then there were ups and downs in this mobilisation, and one of these also led to President Putin offering a very advantageous gas deal to Ukraine, towards the end of November or early December. This, again, could have led in a different direction. If the popular mobilisation had calmed down at that point, we would not be where we are. Did this happen because there are forces over which no one has sufficient control and that move and lead to these kinds of developments or not? Was it intended? My personal feeling is that it was not intended. It happened, and then you obviously had reactions from the different players which, at the end, led things in one direction or another. But in the latter part of 2013 I do not think anyone was thinking that this was going to evolve as it finally did. Of course, one could speculate, but I do not think that things were clear at all.
The Chairman: When you say that about the reaction of the Ukrainian crowd, it is an issue that we have not heard about from other people we have spoken to. Do you think it was entirely spontaneous, or was there an element of organisation about it? If so, what was the purpose of that?
Mr Pedro Serrano: I have no knowledge, nor have I seen any information that would allow me to say that this has been promoted.
The Chairman: One of the things that I find surprising about almost every aspect of this is that, in relation to both Russia and Ukraine, the western capitals seem to have been so much taken by surprise. We the British and the French and Germans, and I am sure the Spanish, have huge embassies in Moscow. The European Union has its own experts in Moscow. There were embassies in Ukraine. It is astonishing that the things that happened in Ukraine and Russia seem to have taken people so much by surprise when we had embassies, missions and all the rest of it there.
Mr Pedro Serrano: I agree with you, but this would not be first or the last time that such things have happened. Everybody was surprised by the Arab spring as well. There was another summit with President Putin in January 2014, which was a very good summit. There was a frank discussion between Presidents Putin, Barroso and Van Rompuy. Nothing at that point would have allowed us to think that we would find ourselves three months later with the annexation of Crimea. You are right: things moved and developed in a way that no one foresaw. That is unfortunately the reality—or maybe fortunately because if people had foreseen this, it would mean that someone had maybe intended to move in that direction, which I think was not the case.
Q167 The Chairman: Given that there are so many links between Russia and Ukraine—I mean personal links, many of which are difficult for us to follow—would you expect, since we had the elections in Ukraine, President Poroshenko to deal with President Putin behind the scenes and without us knowing what is going on?
Mr Pedro Serrano: It is very normal for Presidents Putin and Poroshenko to have an active dialogue, and this would be part of the solution. Obviously we are supporting the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Therefore, we expect to work in a very open and transparent manner with President Poroshenko.
Q168 [Unallocated]
Q169 [Unallocated]
The sitting continued in private.