EU presence. Community activity has been resumed at its multifaceted rate, but current political events make it necessary to look at the Georgian affair once more. On Monday, the president of the European Council will again be in Moscow. Emphasis should first of all be placed on the fact that Nicolas Sarkozy will be accompanied by Commission President José Manuel Barroso and by High Representative Javier Solana. The EU as such will hold discussions with Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev, which reinforces the opinion held by some commentators that, for the very first time, the EU itself is managing a major crisis by taking initiatives and shouldering its responsibilities.
Significance of debate. My second comment concerns the debate at the European Parliament, which for the first time has allowed opinions to be exchanged publicly on events in Georgia within a Community institution. Georgia's responsibilities were denounced just as fervently as the Russian initiative to recognise independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Such was the case for the Liberal Group (Graham Watson), the Greens (Daniel Cohn-Bendit) and for the United Left (Francis Wurtz). The president of the EPP Group, Joseph Daul, and the spokesman for the Socialists, Hannes Swoboda, mainly criticised Russia, which is only understandable as the content of the final resolution depended on these two groups and it was appropriate that the Parliament should take a stance that was essentially along the lines of the European Council conclusions. The resolution holds no surprises, given that the wish expressed by Martin Schulz, President of the Socialist Group, for explicit criticism of Georgia's initial behaviour was not taken on board.
The Parliament added to the summit's conclusions a reference to the role of Georgia in the EU's energy supply, citing the Nabucco project. The other institutions had made some additional comments. Thus, Bernard Kouchner, President of the External Relations Council, had acknowledged that, at the outset, some member states were adamant about sanctions against Russia, and European Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner had pointed out that the material damage done by the conflict in Georgia is considerably less than that initially announced by local authorities.
Energy: Lisbon Treaty is necessary. My third consideration refers to the calls made for a European energy policy, and I would point out that the Lisbon Treaty explicitly introduces this policy among the shared competences of the Union and member states. It creates the legal base that will allow the Council to deliberate by majority (except for the tax aspect, where the rule of unanimity is still valid), on a Commission proposal and with Parliament participation. The objectives stated include not only the correct operation of the internal market and development of renewable energies but also the aim of ensuring supply security. Furthermore, the Treaty comprises a solidarity clause (requested at the time by Poland and the Baltic States) in the event of supply flow being interrupted. All such reasons point to it being desirable to have rapid implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.
Limits of immediate goals. It is worth remembering, moreover, that the condition set by the European Council to resume negotiation of the new partnership agreement with Russia depends on full compliance with the six-point agreement that had brought about a cessation of hostilities. Moscow gave its agreement, with the assurance that the additional Russian forces had already pulled out of Georgia. It remains to be seen whether the EU and Russia interpret the notion of additional forces in the same way, and above all the meaning of the term Georgia. For the EU, it refers to the official borders, while, for Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are two independent states. This is where the main difference lies. It cannot be overcome for now from the political and legal point of view but it could be overcome at practical level, by admitting the presence of limited Russian forces on the ground according to the interpretation of some aspects of the six-point agreement and of earlier OSCE and UN decisions which entrusted to Russia the task of surveying certain areas - pending further comprehensive international negotiations.
Monday's meeting in Moscow cannot therefore come to definitive conclusions but it should be able to smooth out a few differences on the ground, to allow talks to be resumed immediately on the partnership agreement and allow the preparation, in favourable conditions, of the November EU-Russia summit, to be held in Nice, where the future of all aspects of bilateral relations will be discussed. For the time-being, a comparison of declarations made by Sarkozy and Putin show that positions are still far apart.
And, in the meantime, the European Commission has confirmed it considers Russia's entry into the WTO as desirable. One small detail that confirms the will to cooperate. (F.R.)