After President Nicolas Sarkozy came to power in France, he announced ambitious plans concerning the development of the European Union and increasing France’s role in the world. What difficulties does France face at the moment? Is Sarkozy successful in realizing his plans? Which tasks will Paris put before the Eurocommunity during the French presidency in the second half of 2008? These and other questions are raised in The Day’s exclusive interview with Thomas GOMART, the head of the Russia/Newly Independent States Center at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).
FRENCH AMMUNITION
“I think that Sarkozy was rather successful in promoting the new EU agreement in July this year and at the recent EU summit in Lisbon. The idea is that we have to advance within the EU and find an appropriate resolution in order not to remain in a dead end. Since a new team and a new generation have come to power in France, it is time to offer new initiatives.
“Iran was one of the main subjects of the French policy that Sarkozy encountered. Here one can clearly see the change of policy compared to Jacques Chirac’s presidency. The idea is to say: it is time to stop talking. We have to be more severe with the Iranian authorities. Of course, it is important to continue negotiations in order to avoid both the emergence of the nuclear bomb in Iran and the bombing of Iran. I think that these priorities are important to underline the severity of France’s policy concerning Iran.
“Another problem lies in the relations between France and Germany. Relations between Paris and Berlin have traditionally been the core of the European Union. But now we feel that they have become more complicated for numerous reasons. And Sarkozy’s new idea is to be more attentive to the new states in comparison to the position of Chirac, who did not welcome their accession. He also made excessively harsh statements concerning US actions in Iraq in 2003. These were huge mistakes. From this point of view, the goal of French diplomacy, along with cooperation with Germany, our main EU partner, is to be more attentive to the new countries of the Eurocommunity. We also should take into consideration the fact that the EU comprises 27 members at the moment, so it is important to find a group of friends within the EU. In my opinion, President Sarkozy’s orientation is very important.”
Eoes Sarkozy have enough ammunition to realize his ambitions?
“This is a good question. The following things have to be taken into consideration. First, it is necessary to put into operation a French friends vacuum. France is one of the EU founders, it is in the EU, and one cannot build Europe without it. Second, one has to take into consideration that passionate debates are continuing among French politicians about relations within the EU. Let’s keep in mind that more and more people feel discomfort because France is working in the EU. At the same time I feel that the understanding that France’s future is impossible to imagine without the EU’s future is widespread among the French elite and population. The general opinion is that there is no future for France beyond the EU.
“As for ammunition, I must admit that the economic situation in France is not that wonderful. The growth rate is not very high, and rather deep reforms also have to be implemented.
“Simultaneously, I must note that France wields powerful economic influence, especially within the EU. France’s conduct and its participation in informal negotiations will probably change. These days France is more open than it used to be. Many young French people are studying abroad, student exchanges are taking place, and the maturity of the young generation, which is growing more European in its essence, is showing through.”
How do you assess the results of the recent informal EU summit in Lisbon? Will it really lead to stability within the EU?
“One has to pay attention to the fact that there can be no improvement in the EU until the European institutions are institutionally improved. Lisbon has approved the decisions that are leading to better management and a more strict political system within the EU, which is very important for understanding foreign policy. Second, we also have to find effective methods of managing the Eurocommunity within the EU now that the organization has enlarged to 27 members. I think it is important to understand that the European project is a kind of prototype, which is tenuous and at the same time has a unique European experience. Of course, the member countries of the European community want to live together and jointly build their future. I feel that these are not general words. It is important to remind ourselves that the main goal of the European Union is, in my opinion, to overcome the deep crisis of recent years. I don’t think that this crisis have been fully resolved. But it is important to underline the fact that the EU is a project at which one should work constantly, convincing people of its successfulness and making corresponding efforts. And a lot of time is needed for this.”
REAL GOALS AND THE UKRAINIAN PERSPECTIVE
Taking into consideration the fact that France will take over the EU presidency in a year, which tasks will it put before the European community?
“This is a very important question. At the moment many people in Paris are working at France’s using its presidency with the greatest return. I think that the idea lies in establishing real goals. We have learned a lesson from Germany’s presidency, in particular apropos the relations between the EU and Russia. The main goal is Europe’s development of its own energy policy. Another goal lies in developing the European neighborhood policy. Discussions on whether we should go south or east continue in France. Of course, one can imagine a France that is more eastward-oriented. But recent events prove that we should advance in the direction of better governance and implementation of institutional reforms within the EU. The success or failure of the French presidency depends on the way the relations between France and the EU’s key countries develop. For example, Germany was making enormous efforts during its presidency in order to start negotiations with Russia concerning a new partnership and cooperation agreement. But these negotiations were blocked by Poland. In the existing presidency system, there is always a probability of one country blocking many efforts that are being undertaken by the EU Presidency country. Therefore, I think that France should take the German experience into account and work both on the EU and national levels in order to have good contacts with all the countries and prepare them for approving the planned decisions.”
Can France at the present stage say how it sees the EU’s future and when Ukraine will be able to join the European community? It is well known that Sarkozy considers Ukraine a European state.
“First and foremost, I must admit that enlargement fatigue now reigns in the EU. The essential enlargement of 2004 was very complicated, and I think that it has not been fully completed yet. Second, Turkey is the biggest problem for the EU. As you know, Sarkozy has declared against Turkey’s entry into the EU. French public opinion is against this too. At the same time the EU has given many signals to Turkey. In addition, this country has great expectations for joining the EU, since the accession process started long ago. Turkey is a member of NATO and wants to join the EU. It is a very important country in the sense of energy carrier transit. But it will be difficult for Turkey to continue the process of integration into the EU because of the difficulties between Iraq and the Kurds, who live on its territory.
“As for Ukraine, it very clear to me that the Orange Revolution was a turning point for perceptions of Ukraine not only in France but in the EU as well. The first point is that it must be said that the good population wants to put an end to the bad governance which existed in Kuchma’s time. The second point is that there is a sort of political maturity and desire to find better methods of management organization in the country. And the third point is that Ukraine wants to have its own way of development concerning Russia, Turkey, and Georgia. It wants to join the EU, but not obligatorily through entry to NATO. And I think that this position is well known in Europe, particularly in Paris. Apparently, the understanding that Ukraine is a European country is widespread in Europe. At the same time, I find it important to admit that the image of the Orange Revolution has been seriously damaged by two main factors. First of all, it is difficult for us to understand your domestic policy. This is something that is very muddled. The impression is that this is a very weak and unstable political regime. In view of this, any variants of the development of events are possible. Second, the energy crisis between Russia and Ukraine of 2006, although the Russian side was mainly blamed for this crisis, has also damaged your country’s image in the sense of transit transparency. In fact, Ukraine is eager to join the EU, but simultaneously it is very hard to see transparency in its domestic affairs.”
It is known that Sarkozy is very friendly towards Tymoshenko, who is eager to become the prime minister after the formation of the democratic coalition. He has met her several times and sent warm letters to her. Does this mean that France is ready to support Kyiv’s insistence on the inclusion of the EU membership prospect in the New Enhanced Agreement between the EU and Ukraine, which is planned to be signed this year or the next?
“Frankly speaking, it is too early to give a response to this question. As I have already said, the EU has not assimilated the latest enlargement wave. Therefore, it is too early to speak about the new enlargement. I think that much depends on Turkey’s integration. I think it is very important for Ukraine to work on the interaction between its candidacy and Turkey’s.
“Sarkozy attaches great importance to Ukraine, taking into account the fact that Russia is not as important for him as it used to be during Chirac’s presidency. I think Sarkozy understands that the Ukrainian people want democracy; therefore we have to give much more official support to Ukraine. At the same time we understand the reality. For even taking into consideration the Ukrainian people’s desire to develop democracy in Ukraine, it is sometimes difficult to understand what is taking place here. As for relations between the heads of states, President Viktor Yushchenko has visited France. His visit, including a trip to the Institute of International Relations, was a success. Yulia Tymoshenko is also well known in France and she is frequently mentioned in the mass media. I think that the personal contacts between the leaders of our states are very important. It is also important to strengthen relationships among our citizens. We can do many things in general in order to improve relations between our two countries.”
THE NATO DILEMMA
Sarkozy has stated that France may return to NATO military structures. What can this mean for the future of the Alliance, considering that the French president has called on the Europeans to develop their own vision of NATO’s future and introduce it to the new American president?
“In fact, Sarkozy’s idea is to renew transatlantic relations. The US war in Iraq was a mistake, and now we have to cooperate closely in order to resolve this problem. The French army has taken an active part in NATO missions, and in general we are making a great contribution to NATO’s activity, providing it with armed forces or resources. At the same time we are still beyond the mechanisms or processes of issuing decisions. According to Sarkozy’s plan, we have to use the possible return to NATO not with a view to stopping the European security and defense policy. I think this is a very risky question. After all, a large part of France’s diplomatic influence is linked to the movement of countries that have not joined. And France’s joining the militaristic structure of NATO will not necessarily be positive for the French image in the world. Second, it is very hard to say now whether the French bureaucracy will be working to return to NATO or to strengthen the European security and defense policy. Neither can we say that the bureaucracy is now eager to improve transatlantic relations and eliminate various anti- American moods to the extent that it is possible. At the same time, it is not so much willingness in France as a lack of understanding of why we need to join a militaristic structure, in view of NATO’s evolution and the fact that Paris is against the evolution of the Alliance as a global organization.”
So this means that France will be against the further enlargement of NATO?
“The farther NATO expands the less effective it becomes. Therefore, the more countries become members of NATO, the more political the organization becomes because countries that are able to give their armed forces or resources are seldom admitted to NATO. In fact, a better practice is to admit new members that are able to make a contribution to this organization.”
NEUTRALITY AND PARALLELS
I would like to hear your opinion about neutrality status in the contemporary world, because Ukraine is now between NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (ODKB). How can Ukraine secure neutrality in this situation?
“One can draw quite interesting parallels here. At the beginning of the previous decade, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Poland wanted to be a sort of bridge between the West and the post- Soviet space. Ultimately, Poland rejected this idea and very soon became eager to become a member of NATO and the EU. It seems to me that Ukraine is in a similar situation because relations between Ukraine and Russia are very deep owing to deep ties both on the people and official levels. Therefore, it seems to me that Ukraine can now become a connection between Russia and the EU. It can play a positive role together with Turkey in the Black Sea area. I think that Ukraine has an opportunity to become a regional leader. I am an optimist, and I think that Ukraine has to use its situation and defend its independence. It is clear that the independence of countries has to be respected, although I know that some countries try to meddle in the domestic affairs of others. Ukraine’s geographical situation gives additional opportunities to you. And the thing is not only that Ukraine is situated between the South and the North. The position of your country in the Black Sea area with respect to Turkey is a good opportunity to play an important regional role.”
So you think, after all, that Ukraine has to remain a bridge and not join any defense bloc?
“I may be mistaken. But I think that it is nonsense to consider that Ukraine can follow Poland’s example and become anti-Russian the same way because your country’s interest lies in the opposite way.”
But some experts note that joining the NATO Action Plan is useful for Ukraine because this will foster the implementation of transparency in governing and democratic control in power structures.
“I know about these arguments. I think that Ukraine’s goal is clear: you want to join the EU and keep the door open in order to preserve the stimulus for implementing reforms and transforming the country. As for NATO, there is no such clarity because public opinion is against integration with the Alliance. And, of course, this can also make the relations of your country with Russia more complicated at a time when the EU and the US are busy with many problems. I think that Ukraine’s position in this question should be more careful in comparison to Georgia. Your country has to do everything possible step by step in order to go along the path of integration, not hurry and press at the same time.”
IRAN CANNOT SUSTAIN LENGTHY ISOLATION
The US recently announced sanctions against Iran, trying to make this country stop the development of a nuclear bomb. What, should the EU, and particularly France, do so that this country will suspend its nuclear program? Which method will be more effective: dialogue or sanctions?
“The problem is that Iran is not adhering to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. And this is hard to accept. Of course, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear materials is dangerous for all of us. Taking into consideration that there is a risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, everyone has to follow the common nuclear ‘grammar.’ The Iranian authorities often call for the destruction of Israel and [want to] become the leading regional country. At the same time, taking into consideration the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, one has to do everything possible so that Iran does not overstep the limits of the civilian nuclear program. Teheran, of course, has this right. But it is absolutely clear to me that it is impossible to stabilize the situation in Iraq without solving the problem with Iran. In the view of the EU, the diplomatic isolation of Iran will not be helpful here.
“Simultaneously, changes are taking place in Iranian society. Therefore, I think that there is still a place for negotiations. Along with that, the difficulty is that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable to us because this will mean the end of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. So, taking into consideration the nature of the region and their political ambitions, all the countries of this region will try to acquire nuclear weapons. I think that negotiations with Iran are possible. In my opinion, the Iranian establishment is not crazy, and it understands that the regime will not be able to sustain a lengthy isolation. Of course, there are certain cautions. But it is important for the Iranian authorities to understand that there is strong resistance to their military and nuclear program in the world.”
RUSSIA’S “MIDDLE” POSITION
Will Russia play a constructive role in the “Iranian dossier?”
“That’s a good question. I think that Russia proceeds from tactical considerations in its approach to the Iranian nuclear problem. Vladimir Putin is trying to find a position somewhere between Iran and the US. This can be explained by Russian participation in the nuclear power plant construction project in Busher. Russia understands that Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear bomb will become a catastrophe for regional stability. Russia is not thrilled by the emergence of a new nuclear neighbor. I think that the Russian position is ambivalent, and at the same time Moscow is trying to maximize its benefits from such a ‘middle’ position. In my opinion, Russia remains between two poles and continues to use its position to the maximum.”
What can you say about Russia’s recent promise to Israel not to supply nuclear fuel to Iran? Can this be called a positive step?
“It is too early to say anything about this promise at the present stage. But it is clear that Russia was disappointed with Iran’s refusal to enrich nuclear fuel on its territory for its needs. For at the time this was considered as a solution of the Iran nuclear crisis and a possibility for Russia to play a very positive role. On the other hand, I must admit that relations between Russia and Israel are very close because Russian immigrants comprise a significant part of the Israeli population. The Russian language is now one of the languages most frequently used in Israel. At the same time, relations between Russia and Iran are very complicated and paradoxical. Along with close relations a high level of trust is being preserved.”
THE ENERGY LEVERS OF RUSSIA AND THE EU
Condoleezza Rice recently criticized Russia for using energy levers in its relations with the post-Soviet countries. How can and should the EU react to this?
“The problem is that the EU is aiming at the diversification of energy supply routes. We have to increase the number of routes to reduce one-country dependence. At the same time, I must admit, this kind of project is difficult to start and to implement. It is also important to understand that probably there is a misunderstanding between the EU and Russia. The thing is that the EU has landed in a trap after proclaiming the need for the rapid liberalization of the gas market to promote competition among gas suppliers. There is no competition among gas suppliers because demand outstrips supply. Instead, gas consumers are competing within the EU. To a certain extent Russia and the US can combine commercial and geopolitical approaches to the energy problem. And, in my opinion, the EU is lagging behind in this respect because Brussels was not ready for this new way of political thinking in the sphere of energy supply. But everything has to change. The gas dispute between Ukraine and Russia was a turning point in the European perception. Therefore, I expect a single approach on the part of the EU in solving energy problems and conducting a dialogue with Gazprom.”
