The required deadlines for implementing European foreign policy instruments obviously include a number of difficulties. Part of the media and some political forces are acting as if this policy was already in place given that Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton have taken up their jobs and that the creation of a European diplomatic service had been decided. Mr Van Rompuy has, however, warned that “if our starting point is the principle of a common foreign policy, we will lose everything. We have to implement policies and find compromises on a case by case basis, with one theme after the other”. This column has done its best to explain the situation, including the annual Jean Monnet Chairs Conference (EUROPE 10148). Nonetheless, a misunderstanding of the situation has been apparent on two occasions: the EU-Russia summit and the positions taken by member states following the events in Gaza.
On Gaza. On this subject, eight EU countries, which are currently part of the United Nations human rights body, have expressed different opinions with regard to whether an international enquiry should be organised: some voted in favour of this, others abstained and two voted against. This rather less than brilliant result confirms that common external policy is something that will only be achieved gradually. It also demonstrates to what extent the rapid putting into place of the European diplomatic service would be appropriate. Mr Van Rompuy's intention to organise a European Council meeting every month (or nearly every month) is expected to be put into practice, so that heads of state and government can discuss all important issues at this level on a permanent basis.
An approach requiring modification. Relations with Russia provide a very important learning curve. A far-reaching partnership would be advantageous to both parties. Moscow accepted, without being totally convinced, that the Rostov summit respect the new institutional structure of the EU - the results were modest (see this column yesterday). Member states need to modify their approach: heads of state or government must coordinate their positions, inform each other of their respective approaches and discuss them within the Community framework. They are not being asked to abandon bilateral meetings with Mr Medvedev or Mr Putin, which are useful and in some cases crucial. Neither are they being asked to give up their bilateral meetings with the president of the US or with other third countries. Nevertheless, Community institutions must be informed about these meetings and debate them, although at the moment it happens that the Commission or the president of the European Council currently learn about certain approaches being taken or visits being made through the press, and that national orientations in the energy arena include orientations and commitments that are sometimes contradictory or even rival each other.
The time is right. The time is right for changing the dimension in mutual relations.
Russia previously felt that it was in danger of losing its influence in the new countries springing forth from the splitting up of the USSR and suspected the EU of attempting to replace it in this sphere. Informed observers consider that Russia's action in Georgia was mainly about regaining some punching power and prestige, and went beyond territorial or military motives. The same concern was expressed with regard to the agreement with Ukraine on the Crimea and the base in Sebastopol. In this strategy, the energy sector has an essential role to play, as borne out by the efforts to develop direct channels for supplying the EU with gas and oil, bypassing other countries, and by Gazprom's offer to purchase the Ukrainian energy conglomerate. The relaunch in good relations with Poland goes in the same direction.
The EU must provide cohesion and coherency to its relationship with Russia. Currently, as indicated above, it is sometimes by way of the press that the European Commission learns that certain heads of government from the EU have met with Mr Putin, that a national energy agreement has been concluded with Moscow or that certain member states are not convinced with the viability of the Nabucco project if it is not amended. At the end of March, this column summed up the situation and the possible developments that might follow (EUROPE 10109). Since then, some political progress has been observed. Poland has been partly reassured and is less distrustful of Euro-Russian cooperation.
Cooperation is indispensable to Russia, for reasons that are at the same time political, strategic (guaranteed outlets for its gas and oil), financial and technological (for getting colossal projects using energy resources up and running). It is crucial for Europe too, which must look forward from the vantage point of Jacques Delors' vision for the Energy Community project. (F.R./transl.fl)