О членстве России в Евросоюзе:
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: The objective of this Committee is to actually suggest that the long-term membership of Russia in the EU should not be ruled out, which does not mean that you make it a candidate tomorrow. If Yeltsin had turned out to be competent and uncorrupt, I suspect we might well be talking in terms of it being a candidate now. Are we not slightly looking short-termist at Putin? This could all change in ten or twenty years time if Russia regards itself as a European nation. Should we rule it out indefinitely as a potential member of the EU?
Mr Murphy: In the short and medium term it is of fundamental national and international importance that the EU has a detailed agreed bilateral relationship, absolutely, in terms of trade and so many other issues. As to Russia and formal membership of the European Union, I suspect I will answer this in a similar way to how I have answered the question, “When will you invite Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth?” A country has to apply and my sense is that any objective reading of President Putin’s intentions, in the short time he has left formally in power in Russia, is that is not his intention and there is no indication that his appointed/anointed successor has any inclination in that direction. It is not something we should rule out, but it is something that Russia herself would have to motivate. If that were to be the case, then we would be back into a conversation about European norms of behaviour. That is absolutely certain.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Minister, you suggested that rather than use a sort of vague phrase like “shared European values” we should hold the Russians more to account on the commitment they have entered into internationally, by which I take it you mean the commitments under the Council of Europe’s founding documents and the OSCE’s Paris Charter. Do you think the conduct of the Russian parliamentary elections in December was consistent with their commitments under those two documents, and do you think the conduct of the presidential election, which kicked off yesterday against a background of one of the main potential candidates for the presidency being threatened with some rather obscure legal action, is consistent with those commitments?
Mr Murphy: If your Lordships would not find it disrespectful, there is a very straightforward answer to that, and the answer is, no. If your Lordships wish me to expand, I am happy to do so, but it is a very clear no. For example, the clear one in terms of the Duma election was the situation with the election observers, a very public and very clear international commitment that Russia herself entered into willingly now reneged on, and they then sought to share the blame with OSCE and ODIHR. The responsibility for that lies with Russia and Russia’s leadership. In terms of the presidential election there is still an opportunity, despite the incident which has been referred to, for Russia to make good her commitment in terms of international unfettered long-term election observers, not tourists who pop in on the day of the election, wander around chaperoned to selected ballot boxes to declare how peaceful and open the process was, long-term and post-election observers unfettered who have the opportunity to observe the process. The electoral registers, the media coverage, the harassment of opponents, all of those sorts of issues are of fundamental significance when it comes to free elections and the observation of them, which Russia herself signed up to and is not adhering to.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: Just a quick question on that. There was equally a number of commitments which Russia entered into at the OSCE in 2000 in respect of other matters which they now claim are not relevant because their then president was drunk and incapable and that they are seeking to resile from those agreements as a result on that excuse. Do we go some way towards accepting this?
Mr Murphy: President Yeltsin entered into agreements on behalf of his country, not on behalf of himself, and Russia should honour them.
Mr Murphy: <...> Mr Medvedev, we know from his cv that he does not come from a similar background to many of the other prominent individuals and leaders in Russia, so there are some reasons to be optimistic; not naïvely so, but there are some reasons to be optimistic in terms of his background.
Mr Murphy: <...> Our worry is not that there will be a wholesale turning off of the tap in future, our actual bigger worry, which I think I perhaps shared with your Lordship’s Committee in the recent past, is that our assessment is within five years with the level of current investment Russia will not be able to meet her domestic demand and heinternational obligations. That is the bigger concern which we have, very clearly, since I appeared before your Lordships before and that is not a concern which has disappeared at all. It still remains live in terms of the pattern of investment in the Russian energy infrastructure.
О дерегулировании газовой отрасли:
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My question follows on from that. Some of the evidence we have been given indicated that it is in no way in Russia’s interests under any circumstances whatsoever to unbundle either their monopoly of gas supplies or their control of the pipelines, so are we not rather wasting our time believing that is going to happen? The greatest beneficiary of unbundling might well be the European consumer if we had a European grid system which actually extended over the Continent of Europe. Would we not be better off concentrating really on our own home areas rather than trying to bash away at the Russians, who are not going to move on this anyway? It is a complete waste of everybody’s time.
Mr Murphy: We do think it is still worthwhile to continue to press the Russians on it for the reasons we have already spoken about, and we are making progress.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: Minister, over the past six months Russia has hardened its position on Kosovo. It is very likely that after the second round of the presidential elections in Serbia independence will be declared unilaterally and that the Russians will probably prevent any recognition within the United Nations Security Council. Do you see any hopeful prospects at all of Russia’s position in respect of Kosovo moving positively?
Mr Murphy: Not at the moment. Forgive me if that was rather frank, but not at the moment. We have been through a process with the United Nations. We have had a period of discussions through the Troika process. I think we have exhausted that process. The solution now is a coordinated (rather than unilateral) declaration of independence based on the Ahtisaari plans. We remain absolutely convinced of the merits of the Ahtisaari proposals and that the international community has a responsibility entered into in 1999 that we need to fulfil. In terms of the UN process, individual Member States will recognise an independent Kosovo and I think the European Union has a responsibility to create a reality on the ground by a prompt, coordinated response and recognition of Kosovo’s independence to influence the situation on the ground and influence the diplomatic response throughout the rest of the world, not just within the European Union.