An interesting and instructive visit to Riga for this year’s Riga Conference. Thoughts.

First, Riga itself. Latvia took an enormous (and partly self-imposed) hit as the Euro zone crisis began, opting for radical austerity measures. Views now differ. Yes, the economy is growing once again at a pretty good rate. But did they heavily overdo it? Today’s growth is from a notably lower and weaker base.

The main problem is emigration. Latvia is a small country with some two million people and cannot afford to see people drifting away for better opportunities elsewhere in Europe. Even the heart of Riga seems oddly un-busy, with neither people nor cars bustling around. Riga is now a superb place to buy a smart Art Deco apartment at prices that are derisory by UK standards. But do you want to live/invest in a country that may be evaporating?

The Riga Conference series started in 2006 when Latvia hosted a NATO Summit. It aspires to be a significant European forum for discussing strategic economic and security issues. It faces competition from Estonia’s annual Lennart Meri conferences. Seasoned European conference-goers seem to find the Estonian events rather sassier/sharper (eg the conference wifi there works 100%).

But this year’s Riga event mainly did the business. It started with two sessions on the Eurozone and its various problems. The first was opened by the Latvian and Lithuanian Prime Ministers and Estonia’s feisty President Ilves, complete with sardonic American accent (he was brought up in the USA) and snazzy bow tie. They argued in unambiguously positive terms that the euro was a strong currency backed by strong resolve: recent ECB decisions and the Dutch election results showed a new technical and popular awareness to take the responsible decisions needed going forward. The three Baltic states needed to be within the Eurozone, as outside it they were much more vulnerable to economic shocks.

The conference organisers had had the good idea to set up a live #RigaConf Twitter feed showing on screens in the conference hall. Alas the wifi arrangements were not up to the challenge for much of the time. However, as I managed to get a connection during this first session I thought that I would join the fun and tweeted a terse “Eurozone crisis? What Eurozone crisis?” say Baltic leaders observation, a witty and not unreasonable contribution promptly retweeted by various Twitter folk. This made President Ilves crossly complain that people needed to be accurate in reflecting what the speakers had said. Apologies, Mr President, but it’s not what you say — it’s what they hear! 

The Baltic leaders’ generally rosy views were countered by Prof Leszek Balzerowicz, author of Poland’s legendary Balzerowicz Plan that helped define central Europe’s successful transition from communism. He argued with simple if not brutal logic that it was dangerous to keep piling on Eurozone bailout after bailout: the only tried and proven way forward lay in stepping up competition and getting rid of "19th century university practices". 

The next session looked at Europe in the context of the global economy. For me the best contribution came from Croatia’s foreign minister Vesna Pusic, who warned that the European Union Croatia was joining had changed markedly in recent years as it grappled with its internal problems: the EU’s "normative dimension" had declined and "talk of democracy is even embarrassing". It was striking to hear such a radical (and accurate) insight expressed so publicly. Another speaker suggested that the best long-term result for Europe was to accept a lesser role in a world dominated by Asian demographics and become Greater Switzerland: a well-run and sophisticated but unthreatening phenomenon with no wide ambitions for influence or control. I feel an article coming on …

My own modest role at Riga 2012 was to join a panel on Protracted Conflicts (usually seen as those in the former Soviet Union – Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia/Abkhazia and Transdnistria – as opposed to Cyprus or Serbia/Kosovo/Macedonia/Bosnia or even UK/Argentina).

Moldova‘s Foreign Minister Iurie Leanca came to the panel armed with a hopeless speech prepared by his team that he wisely abandoned in favour of some sensible extempore remarks. He, Matthew Bryza (experienced former US envoy) and Dr Martin Sieg (foreign policy adviser in the Bundestag) variously argued the case for Europe engaging actively with recalcitrant territories: isolation got nowhere and if anything made things worse. True.

I brought to the discussion some observations on the application of Negotiation Theory to these issues. What if some sort of new "federalised" Europe did emerge from the Eurozone crisis? Would that lead to reduced senior European attention on these problems (and therefore an easier hand for Russia to play)? Or might new options form for an outer ring of European integration, in a way which might be less zero-sum from Moscow’s point of view and so offer some creative ideas for resolving these conflicts?

Day Two focused on the security dimension and the role of NATO. There is something dispiriting about conference sessions on NATO and the ritual expression of hopes that by spending less and less on defence European countries somehow  maintain military credibility. Julia Smith (adviser to Vice-President Biden) nonetheless gave an interesting account of just how much Washington continues to coordinate policies with Europe. Perhaps all is not quite yet lost?

The less said about the rambling lunchtime discussion on Afghanistan, the better.

The conference concluded with a lively session on Russia/Putin. Something about the tone of this session struck me as not quite right, with Moscow foreign policy expert Artem Malgin (MGIMO) isolated in fending off harsh criticism of Russia’s leadership and policies from other panel members. Yes, there is plenty to complain about in Russia under current management. But you need to be smart about it. Arguing that Russia looks like "Nigeria with oil and missiles" is insulting/patronizing/annoying to both Nigeria and Russia.

Estonia’s President Ilves reappeared in the audience and did not enhance his reputation for statesmanship by asking a pointed polemical question about the way Russia used bribery to get its way. Lilia Shevtsova (Moscow Carnegie Endowment) sparkled in attacking anti-democratic trends in Russia, but suggested that Western leaders who took Russian money after they left office themselves might, ahem, be part of the problem.

Bobo Lo (leading Australian analyst and writer on Russia/China) had most of the best lines. He made the telling and convincing point that Russia’s current approach to foreign and economic policy was incoherent even in its own terms. Thus Russia’s envy for the Chinese economic model completely missed the point that much of it was bottom-up, market-based growth. Likewise Russia time and again failed to use its undoubted diplomatic muscle to get sensible outcomes in places like Syria and thereby build a different, more flexible and modern form of global influence.

Conclusion?

Good event, scope for improvement in intellectual and organizational focus. Fine seasonal Latvian mushroom soup. My thanks to the organizers for inviting me and to the Radisson Blu Elizabete hotel team for quickly locating my spectacles as left in my room when I checked out.