Why does the visa regime still exist between these two entities? and What are the obstacles preventing visa freedom?
On the European side, five countries were chosen, namely Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy and Poland, because these states provide a representative selection for the study. The counterpart is just one geographical entity – Russia – so numerical imbalance is unavoidable. Interviews were conducted in all the case-study countries at the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the Ministries of the Interior, the Border Guard where necessary, the embassies in Moscow, the Russian Embassy in Finland and the European Commission in Brussels and its delegation in Moscow. One of the notable conclusions of the study is the fact that, on the European side, a set of assumptions seems to strongly influence the decisions on visa questions. These assumptions relate for the most part to security and political issues. In particular, the likelihood of visa freedom is regarded as being equivalent to opening the external border of the EU to illegal immigration and labour markets. Although there is very little empirical data to back up such assumptions as yet, it is not unknown for states to define their visa policy leaning towards these assumptions. Contextual changes have taken place in the societies in question and this has been reflected in a certain liberalisation of existing visa regimes. Allegedly, millions of Russians and Russian speakers are residing in the EU territory and are consequently able to invite their Russian friends for visits, contributing to the increase in travel. In addition to these groups, regular Russian travellers are important for the European tourism industry. As a result, individual Russians are no longer perceived as a threat to European security. These societal changes require corresponding changes in the legal frameworks that regulate visa issues between Russia and the EU. As early as 2005, visa-free travel was designated a long-term goal and inscribed in the roadmaps of Russia and the EU.
The goal, however, has thus far remained long-term, with not even a preliminary timetable being set for further liberalisation. Therefore, from the practical point of view, it is hardly surprising that both Russia and the Schengen states are dissatisfied with the current regime. This report provides details of issues that do not function with regard to Russia-EU visa relations. There is ostensible distrust on both sides, which has been to the detriment of the image of strategic partnership. The Russian side strongly feels that the European consular departments do not apply the regulations in a uniform manner, making the application procedure extremely complex and putting individuals on an unequal footing. The complaints on the European side relate mainly to the persistent question of the registration requirements demanded by Russian officials, as well as to document security in Russia, which is exacerbated by the rampant corruption in the country. In addition, the anticipated cross-border cooperation for those living adjacent to the border has not produced tangible results. Yet, despite all the shortcomings in the Russia-EU visa relations, the report finds that the system is still workable, if not completely adequate. Millions of Russians and Europeans cross the border each year and the border cooperation between the respective agencies runs smoothly, attesting to the fact that the system works. A visa facilitation agreement implemented in July 2007 has ensured better travel conditions by listing numerous categories that can obtain a visa with fewer documents, freezing the cost of a visa, and providing a timetable for processing of the same. Furthermore, at the political level, the dialogue is aimed at solving problematic issues in visa relations between Russia and the EU. Nevertheless, when it comes to the introduction of visa freedom, even in the long run, the list of concerns immediately grows much longer. The concerns which reportedly pose an obstacle to visa freedom can be divided into three different categories: political, security-related and technical. At the political level, problems stem from the meagre support for visa freedom in the EU at the domestic level, the belief that Russia would gain more than Europe in the event of visa freedom, and the alleged spread of Russian passports in Northern Caucasus. When it comes to security, all the states have expressed concern about losing control over migration, labour migration issues and the projected increase in the number of asylum seekers. In addition, technical concerns abound, including the state of readiness of the border, document security, corruption and the lack of a Russian population registry. Most of these technical matters are awaiting a political solution; the allocation of financial resources could start the ball rolling in terms of the technical preparations for visa freedom. The Russian position regarding visa freedom is very positive and has been declared one of the main goals in the country’s relations with the European Union. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess the sincerity of the Russian statements as they may be merely rhetorical in nature.
Visa freedom ought to be in Russia’s interests in order to ease travel for its citizens, yet the tight registration processes on the Russian side, when the agreement should be based on reciprocity, give grounds for speculation about the country’s willingness for visafree travel. In a similar vein, the European position is not prohibitively negative, yet some European countries only see visa-free travel becoming a reality in the very long term, and only then if all the concerns are addressed. As far as the case-study countries are concerned, the positions adopted by the agencies varied and no logical pattern can be discerned. Generally, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs were slightly more positive, while the Ministries of the Interior were more hesitant in supporting the visa-free regime, citing the national right to control migration, although this is not a rule without exceptions. There seems to be no correlation between the visa relations and political relations. Yet, the concept of reciprocity is the sine qua non of EU-Russia visa relations. In this respect, the unanimity among both the Russian and European officials was striking. The current relations that are regulated mainly by the visa facilitation agreement depart from the very reciprocity principle which appears to be crucial for the counterparts. Three hypothetical scenarios for the future are presented in the report. First is the visa-free regime, which has been promoted lately by high-level ministers on both the Russian and the EU side. This would be desirable, but in the current situation it is not feasible due to the numerous concerns listed above. The second scenario implies building up “fortresses” between Russia and the EU by exploiting the visa regimes. This scenario is neither desirable nor feasible in this age of globalisation. The last scenario advocates step-by-step liberalisation of EU-Russia visa relations, ultimately leading to visa freedom. This process would be both desirable and possible. Special attention in furthering the liberalisation process should be paid to the two categories which, thus far, have not benefitted from this process under the current agreements: bona fide travellers and tourists.
"Practice what you preach. The prospects for visa freedom in Russia-EU relations" (PDF, 59 pages, 502 kB).
