For mutual understanding. The EU's role in seeking balanced solutions concerning Russia and the Caucasus crisis is indispensable and irreplaceable. Moscow's attitude in its conflictual relations with Georgia and Ukraine (and it is well known that potential similar conflicts exist, both between Russia and neighbouring countries and within the Russian Federation itself) is, at first glance, partially contradictory: the Russian authorities give the impression that they are basing their policy sometimes on the intangible nature of states' official borders, sometimes on historical, geographical and ethnic aspects and peoples' rights to self-determination. But in terms of principle Russia has no choice: it can only uphold respect for officially recognised borders. We know how difficult and delicate this issue is for all concerned, and what kind of problems were created, for example, by the EU's choices in the case of Kosovo (some member states still do not recognise the new independent state). Efforts need therefore to be made to understand the difficulties on the other side. Historians and analysts have told us how many different ethnic groups coexist in the vast territory of the Russian Federation. This situation explains Vladimir Putin's caution even when the ethnic and historical considerations appear to favour his country, such as in the Crimea and Sebastopol, the city founded by Catherine the Great (see this column of yesterday).
Understandable mistrust. The role already played by the EU in recent events is recognised. It has taken autonomous initiatives and the USA has gradually rallied behind these (without fully sharing them). Several American commentators have been roundly critical of EU mediation efforts on the ground and its attempts to find political compromise. In Europe itself over-excited commentators advocated open conflict with Russia; happily this view, although well documented, did not find much favour. I am referring to those self-righteous souls who are always ready to anathematise under the pretext of representing humanity's conscience. The understandable mistrust of the EU member states which have direct experience of the force of Stalinist arrogance and whose citizens have heard with their own ears the sound of Soviet tanks in their towns is another matter. These countries should gradually understand that belonging to the EU protects them and that their active and direct participation in EU deliberations ensures that their concerns and interests are take into consideration.
Russia has weaknesses. We must move on to the next phase. Moscow is aware of the need to get along with Europe. We often hear that Russia needs to sell its gas and oil to the EU as much as the EU needs to buy it; this is just one aspect. There are many more reasons to work together, and Russia is well aware of its weaknesses: demographic decline, technological lag, shortcomings in numerous key industrial sectors, a less than mediocre healthcare system, corruption and crime. Financial resources are available thanks to energy exports (a billion dollars a day, it is said), but their continuation is linked to Western cooperation in modernising the exploitation of oil and gas reserves, which is in decline. Reciprocity and common interests justify the search for fair solutions to the difficulties, in spite of certain blustering opinions and verbal blunders (the word “sanctions” used by Bernard Kouchner!).
NATO should reflect. Negotiations of the EU-Russia partnership agreement will resume soon. It is certainly a difficult negotiation which will only make progress if the tensions surrounding Georgia and Ukraine are overcome. Everyone knows tat the EU-Russia-Georgia arrangement is incomplete as the withdrawal of Russian troops does not cover South Ossetia or Abkhazia, and the EU mission does not have access to those areas. Mr Kouchner has explained that a peace agreement hashed out in difficult conditions to stop a massacre will, by definition, be imperfect, but he reaffirmed that the principle of Georgian sovereignty over these two territories has been maintained (see bulletin 9740). Under these conditions, it was not really necessary for the secretary general of NATO to criticise the EU on this matter. And NATO should reflect carefully before starting the accession procedure for Ukraine, and should not forget in how many areas it already works with Russia: combating terrorism and drug-trafficking, nuclear non-proliferation, arms control, actions in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Chad.
And in the background is the energy aspect. That will be our subject for tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)