 | To Our Readers |
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? |
Today, there are more obstacles to the movement of people between the EU and Russia than there were a few years ago. In Russia, visa administration has been transferred from the Foreign Ministry to the Interior Ministry -- effectively to the police. A new law on entry and exit has increased the number of visa categories, demands more documentation and provides additional grounds for denying entry. On the other side, Russians are finding it increasingly difficult to get visas to the EU countries, even though there has been no official change of policy.
The current stiffening in the visa regime is the direct result of heightened concerns about security. As soon as "security" rears its head, every visa bureaucrat in the world feels happier, as the hour of his redundancy is postponed. To this is added a malign structural feature of all entry and exit regimes: the principle of reciprocity. Any lowering of barriers has to be simultaneously enacted (and therefore agreed upon) by both sides; conversely, any tightening of control by one side is automatically matched by the other. So countries are locked into a perpetual game of "tit for tat." At a recent conference in Helsinki on EU-Russia relations, a European official said the idea of a visa-free zone in the foreseeable future was "crazy."
The only way to spring this trap is to scrap the principle of reciprocity. Russia should commit itself to unilateral visa disarmament. Why should it act on its own? Because it stands to gain more from letting EU citizens come freely to Russia than the EU does by opening its borders to Russian citizens.
The benefits to Russia would be enormous. First of all, visa disarmament would help to make Russia a mass tourist market, reducing the adverse impact on tourism worldwide of SARS, terrorism and a poorly performing world economy. A service sector would grow around the expanded tourist trade, helping to break the economy's dependence on energy and raw materials, and spreading wealth throughout the country.
International tourism is one of the world's top export categories, with receipts in 2001 of more than $460 billion. The current visa regime makes it almost impossible for Russia to exploit this market. Recently a travel company diverted its Baltic sea cruises from St. Petersburg to Riga because of the hassle in obtaining visas for its passengers. This, not the dream of a visa-free system, is what is crazy.
Western Europe alone supplies more than 400 million (approximately 60 percent) of the world's tourists each year, who spend in excess of $200 billion. But last year Russia attracted only 23 million tourists in total (France attracted 77 million and Spain 52 million), who spent approximately $15 billion, which represents 3 percent of total global tourist spending.
Given its location, its natural and cultural richness and its vast spaces, Russia could become a major destination for European tourists, pioneering new forms of tourism. According to the World Tourist Organization, the most promising areas for tourist development are environmental, cultural and educational, specialized tourism and cruises. Russia's Altai region, for example, offers spectacular spots untouched by progress that remain virtually unexplored by foreign tourists. At the moment, European eco-tourists tend to travel as far afield as Guatemala to find something comparable.
Second, visa disarmament would be good for Russia's wider economic development. Ever since Peter the Great, Russia has sought to prosper by attracting foreign capital and skills -- a tradition disastrously broken during Soviet times. Today, Russia not only needs to stop educated Russians from leaving the country, but also to import European entrepreneurs and skilled workers. Too many government officials seem not to realize that Russia is competing for talent in a global market, and that barriers to entry make talent go elsewhere.
The obvious counterargument is that visas are necessary for security. Like other countries, Russia is vulnerable to terrorism and organized crime. But the EU poses a minimal threat in this respect. It is its southern not its western borders that Russia needs to take most trouble to secure. As far as EU citizens are concerned, an efficient passport control system should be sufficient to address the residual security issues. Undesirable EU citizens can probably get visas anyway -- and visa versa. One just needs to look at how many members of Russian organized crime groups take their holidays on the French Riviera, easily passing through French visa controls.
The visa regime increases the revenues and self-importance of visa officials: It does little or nothing to improve European security. Ideally, Russia should unilaterally sweep away the whole mass of visa controls it now operates. This is not as radical as it might appear. In the 1970s, Spain made a similar move and subsequently became the second largest EU tourist destination, receiving over $30 billion in revenues from tourism per year. South Africa has experienced a 40 percent growth in foreign tourism since it started to issue visas on arrival.
Short of the ideal, Russia might adopt a stepped approach to visa elimination. It should boldly proclaim the goal of visa-free travel in the "common economic space" and start the process off with a large unilateral concession, which invites (or shames) the EU into offering something in return. If no answering gesture occurs, the process can stop at that point, or, if the Russian authorities are persuaded that it is in Russia's interest, they can carry it further to put more pressure on the EU. A start would be to reduce the number of visa categories and prune the supporting documentation needed. Russia could make all visas granted to EU citizens one-year multiple-entry. Or it could start issuing tourist visas on entry for EU nationals -- as the United States does. The precise nature of the concession is less important than the need to start the ball rolling.
In a broader perspective, visa relations could be a testing ground for an asymmetric approach to other areas, notably in the matter of trade barriers.
Russian officials have been obsessed with finding ways to insert Russia into Europe. But the problem is not to get Russia into Europe -- it is to get Europe into Russia.
Robert Skidelsky is chairman of the Center for Global Studies, professor at the University of Warwick and non-executive director of Janus Capital. Pavel Erochkine is a research officer at the Centre for Global Studies. They contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.