The (deliberate?) mistakes of both presidents. It is likely, or one might even say certain, that Dmitri Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy went a bit too far in their positions on the politico-strategic plank of the EU-Russia summit last Friday: the Russian president, in his announcement before the summit that missiles were being set in place in the Kaliningrad area and in his reference in an interview to a suggestion to "freeze" this initiative and, at the same time, that of the American anti-missile shield near the Russian borders: the president of the European Council, in echoing this suggestion without having discussed it in advance with either the member states in question or the United States. But these two mistakes may have been deliberate …
Kaliningrad, an anomaly. Mr Medvedev's threat/announcement was, in my view, somewhat inappropriate, because Russia should never forget what Kaliningrad actually is. It is the German city of Königsberg, birthplace of Immanuel Kant, therefore one of the premier addresses of German culture. Today, it is a Russian enclave in the territory of the EU, a geographical anomaly which, I believe, should one day disappear. Putting the Russian missiles slap bang in the middle of Community territory is neither amicable nor reasonable. It is most likely that Mr Medvedev himself doesn't think it is. In his interview with a French newspaper in his official residence of Gorky Park on the eve of the summit with the EU, he said (our translation): "We are prepared to abandon this decision to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad if, once it has assessed whether it is a genuinely useful way to respond to rebel states, the new American administration decides to abandon its anti-missile system. The initial reaction of the United States shows that the new administration is thinking about it".
Against the "shield". Mr Sarkozy took up the idea of freezing these initiatives until such time as the OSCE summit has laid down the foundations for a new security pact in Europe. This would therefore not be a bilateral agreement between the EU and Russia, as initially envisaged by Moscow, as the United States is part of the OSCE. American involvement, moreover, will be vital if the anti-missile shield is to be included as a topic for discussion. The president did not hesitate to opine that this shield adds nothing to common security, that he would be inclined to withdraw it (although he went on to qualify this statement somewhat). The president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, spoke along the same lines, stating that the future of EU/Russia relations does not lie in missiles, but in cooperation and dialogue. A head of government who is generally considered to be close to all American stances, Mr Berlusconi, said that the anti-missile shield and the process of Georgia's and Ukraine's accession to NATO were seen by Russia as "provocations" and that the escalation of tensions this was leading to could end with "the destruction of the world".
So, in what way did Mr Sarkozy go too far? By taking position against the anti-missile shield without having discussed it previously with the three countries directly involved: Poland, the Czech Republic and the United States. Mr Sarkozy has every right to an opinion on this subject, and to express it, if he so wishes, on behalf of the country of which he is the president. But he should not have spoken out in his capacity as President of the European Council, a body which has not deliberated on the subject. It is true that this aspect of Mr Sarkozy's statements essentially constituted a message to the president elect (see this section yesterday); but he should not have neglected the fact that another president of the United States is still in office and he most certainly should not have forgotten that the field in question does not come under Community rules; the member states remain in charge of their own decisions. Furthermore, Mr Sarkozy himself would be the very last person to tolerate European procedures interfering with his own national decisions in such areas.
A two-way duty of prior discussion. These few comments have become superfluous, because Mr Sarkozy himself has done a U-turn, stating (our translation): "our Czech friends, our Polish friends, are sovereign in their own countries (...). This is a decision which belongs to them and one which we will, naturally, respect" (see our bulletin yesterday). If, however, I have returned to them, it is to quote Lech Walesa, who, when asked about this business, also said that Mr Sarkozy had committed a technical error, because declarations such as the one on the anti-missile shield should first of all "be discussed and defined together, between all of the member states". But he added that his country's decision on its involvement in this shield should also have been the subject of prior European coordination: "We Poles are now part of the system, and we must hold discussions with the others in advance on all decisions concerning security". It appears that the former Polish president has more of an idea of his Community duty than Mr Sarkozy. (F.R./transl.fl)