Positions that diverge. The European Union and the United States often give the impression of behaving towards Russia in a way that changes according to the subject. Europeans are politically strong, but open to arrangements and compromises when economic aspects are at stake - like in France with the production of warships for Moscow, or in Germany for keeping up trade. The Americans, who are authoritarian and rigid as regards their economic relations with Russia (which, in any event, are non-existent) carefully safeguard their cooperation with Moscow on space. This exists, but no one talks about it.
Could Ukraine be a member state? An effort ought to be made to understand the different positions and interests at stake - and all the more so as Europe's interests are not always uniform or obvious. Ukraine is the most obvious issue in the differences between the EU and Russia. The legitimacy of the newly elected Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, is not challenged - but this does not imply that the EU must approve all his positions and requests. The Ukrainian ambassador to the EU, Kostiantyn Yelisiev, said during a conference in Brussels (see EUROPE 11093) that his country must have the prospect of becoming an EU member state, and the sooner the better. “We need an outlook for accession, new light at the end of the tunnel”, he said - an assertion that roused a response from the head of the EU delegation in Kiev, Jan Tombinksi, who believes that EU membership is “not on the agenda. Very often there are discussions on wrong issues at the wrong times”. Tombinski stated that, “if Ukraine is not able to implement what is in the association agreement, the other issues will not even be raised because it would be absurd”.
This of course means that Kiev must first prove that it fulfils the conditions of the links with Brussels that are already planned - before going further. The main concern of the EU is Ukraine's budgetary recovery (for which, moreover, significant financing is planned), as well as clarity on the wealth accumulated by Ukrainian business people, who are sometimes accused of becoming rich by dubious means and abuse. Mr Poroshenko has already asked for Crimea to be returned to his country - although some European political leaders believe that Russia's annexation of Crimea is already done and dusted.
With regard to the presidency of the European Commission. An issue which raises bafflement and uncertainty is that of the appointment by the European Council (the heads of state and government of the 28 EU member states) of the future president of the European Commission - a nomination that must be put to the European Parliament for confirmation.
This is a huge innovation. For the first time ever, the president of the European Commission depends on a vote of the people. However, this exercise, which was introduced to strengthen the Commission's democratic nature (the Commission is often defined as being the executive power of the EU) has become a dispute founded on national concerns - with considerable implications. If Mr Juncker became president of the Commission, the United Kingdom would lose the option of waiting several years before making its decision on its future participation in the EU as it would have to decide immediately. The US president has said that he wants the UK to remain in the EU, stating: “it's hard for me to imagine that [European] project going well in the absence of Great Britain. And I think it's also hard for me to imagine that it would be advantageous for Great Britain to be excluded from political decisions that have an enormous impact on its economic and political life.” Clearly, this is something that should be put to Cameron.
EUROPE's readers are already familiar with the current positions and the suggestions that have been put forward. One of these suggestions - the appointment of IMF chief Christine Lagarde as president to the European Commission - is a bizarre idea. She herself has firmly refuted it. France then suggested Pierre Moscovici, former French finance minister. The list of names could go on.
The only way out. Everything is blocked for the moment. The UK remains firmly opposed to Mr Juncker's appointment and in this is supported by the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary. According to the next six-monthly president of the EU Council of Ministers, Matteo Renzi from Italy, the future Commission president should begin by presenting his programme in detail. This would not be difficult for Mr Juncker. He can be trusted - but it would be a waste of time.
In conclusion, I can only repeat that the only solution is to regroup the nominations by appointing the president of the Commission, the president of the Council and the high representative for foreign policy at the same time - taking account of the gender balance. It's not simple - but it's the only way out. (FR)