Each protects his own interests. The attitudes of the world powers in the face of the ongoing international crisis currently seem more moderate. The EU's dialogue with Russia is progressing. Europe must, of course, remain faithful to its principles and state its interests firmly, but a conflict in an area which is vital for Russia is obviously to be avoided or appeased.
Yet let's avoid deluding ourselves and let's be aware that behind the positions of principle and rhetoric, each is defending his own interests. The British prime minister, Cameron, has openly admitted this, quoting several examples: the role that Russian-origin investments play in the City of London, in European attitudes; the importance for France of selling sophisticated weapons; and the importance for the EU, as a whole, of ensuring access to energy sources.
And what about the own responsibility of one or other country in difficulty? The foreign affairs ministers from the three Benelux countries made a trip to Kiev together. During their final press conference, Didier Reynders from Belgium stated: “Some NGOs tell us that in Ukraine half the state revenues disappear because of corruption - the country's number one scourge”. Questioned about Ukraine's prospects for EU accession, the three ministers replied: “This issue is not on the table for this visit”. As for the demand for Russia to negotiate a political compromise with official Ukraine, the Benelux ministers observed that people separated by their language no longer seem ready to reconcile. Could a federal Ukraine be a solution?
Public opinion is unaware. In this context, the possibilities for existing bodies to take action should not be ignored. In general, public opinion is unaware that these bodies exist. The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which has its headquarters in Vienna, has sent 54 international observers to Crimea - but they are blocked at the entrance to the peninsula by we are not really sure which of the armed forces present on the ground. The secretary general of the OSCE, Lamberto Zannier, gave an interview (published in Italy) which is most interesting and can be summed up in two points: (1) the referendum on Crimea, which has been decided upon by Russia, has been organised in two weeks - without an electoral campaign and without controls. Its result could not be recognised by the international community; (2) Ukraine dismantled the nuclear weapons on its territory at the time of the USSR, in exchange for the guarantee of its territorial integrity - which was underwritten by Russia and the USA. However, in Zannier's opinion, if the borders of Ukraine are not respected, the commitment on nuclear weapons would no longer be binding.
Just as unrecognised but significant, the 1993 arrangements between the USA and Russia are no longer secret because Washington has divulged them. In the chapter on American policy towards Central and Eastern Europe there is a commitment, underwritten by Russia and the Americans after the break up of the USSR, indicating that no state has the right to protect its ethnic minority in a neighbouring state. The result of this should be that Russia does not have the right to act in favour of citizens from Ukraine who speak Russian and are of Russian origin.
An American initiative. However, the most significant and surprising initiative comes from the USA - Republican congressmen propose that the USA supply Europe with American gas! Europe would therefore no longer be dependent on Russia for its supply! American gas production has overtaken that of Russia but it is not exported (or not much). In principle, its export is forbidden. Those promoting the new initiative have calculated that six EU countries receive from Russia the total amount of gas they use, and seven others depend on it for 50%. American gas would totally replace Russian gas, with the result that the main source of Russia's budget would be removed!
Careful analyses show that such a project would require a great deal of time, would be harmful to American industry (especially the chemical sector) and would compromise the rule of US energy autonomy. For Europe, the result would be to depend drastically on the US for its energy supply and to make almost half the total network that currently exists in Europe useless or unsuitable.
(FR)