The dialogue that unfolded on Tuesday between Eneko Landaburu, Director General for External Relations at the European Commission, and the MEPs responsible for the same sector brings to mind several other considerations that are over and beyond those relating to the situation in Kosovo (see this column yesterday). Although some questions did hint at only an approximate knowledge of the EU's positions (which is not surprising coming from freshly elected MEPs), the general attitude pointed to the EP's resolve to play a growing role in the definition and conduct of Union relations with third countries.
Military intervention in Sudan? No-one will be surprised to learn that the situation in Sudan was evoked by several MEPs, sometimes in a dramatic tone that anticipated Thursday's in-depth debate with the Sudanese ambassador (see our bulletin yesterday, pp.4/5). What is happening in Sudan is unacceptable, and Mr Landaburu was clear about this, as reported in our bulletin of 29 July, p.3. What struck me most was the determination shown by some MEPs. Swedish national Cecilia Malmström used the term genocide and called for EU military intervention in the country. Mr Landaburu considers the latest Council stance showed an "awareness" of the gravity and the unacceptable nature of the situation, and added that, if the Khartoum authorities do not keep their commitments, then the Union must take other measures and act - not ruling out military intervention. He nonetheless stressed that this does not depend on the Commission as this is an intergovernmental area. He seemed to regret the fact. If he does regret it then I cannot say I feel the same as I consider that decisions on war and peace should be taken by the national governments and parliaments. It is unthinkable to go beyond what is set out in the Constitution, that is, the concept of an EU Foreign Minister, who will be Commission Vice-President and at the same time linked to the Council. It all depends on the United Nations' vote as the EU must respect the principle of multilateralism, which is the pillar of European doctrine (CFSP). I do not believe the Khartoum declarations, stating that any military intervention would be considered as an aggression, must discourage a firm stance on the part of the EU on condition that it is quite clear the aim is not, as was the case in Iraq, to impose a change of regime, but rather to protect the black population.
Ukraine is heading in the right direction. On the subject of Ukraine, I found it strange that some MEPs considered the remarks by Mr Kuchma, announcing that his country is renouncing accession to the EU and NATO, denotes failure of the Union's neighbour policy. The contrary is true, as this policy precisely aims at establishing close partnership relations with the countries with which accession would not be a reasonable objective. The new direction taken by Ukraine is therefore the right direction and it seems to me a positive thing that this country plans to move toward restoring a strengthened friendship and greater cooperation with its large neighbour, Russia.
Putin places private investors in awkward position. Answering questions on Mr Putin's policy and the Yukos affair, Mr Landaburu recognised that potential private investors are wondering and hesitating before investing in Russia. The Commission's approach to Moscow calling for Prime Minister Fradkov to state whether the market economy orientation is confirmed (see above-mentioned bulletin) aims to obtain assurance allowing the doubts of European investors to be overcome. Still on the subject of relations with Russia, Mr Landaburu confirmed that Moscow has still not ratified agreements with the Baltic States on the subject of borders. The Commission evokes this point in all its meetings with Moscow. Furthermore, on the matter of Kaliningrad, discussions are ongoing and are "lengthy and sometimes arduous".
Other subjects. On the subject of Union funding to the Palestinian Authority, Mr Landaburu acknowledged that there was a flow of money without one knowing exactly "where it would end" and that fraud has been denounced by part of the media. He believes, however, that an effective control system has now been set in place.
Mr Landaburu also pointed out that: a) the possible creation of a Commission delegation in Baghdad will be decided in October. Some Member States are putting on the pressure but security problems must be carefully examined; b) the aim of negotiations with Mercosur remains that of a free trade area. If this affirmation represents a compulsory sign of formal respect for WTO rules, then I accept it. If it means confirmation of a real objective, then I confirm all my reservation; d) the situation in Belarus is worrying as "freedom and democracy are dying". Clear messages have been sent from Brussels to the authorities of this country.
(F.R.)