Suzanne Nies, the director of the Paris-based Institute for International and Strategic Relations (IRIS) is a long-time researcher of the European Union, transatlantic relations, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Baltic countries.
What does the future world look like from Paris: bipolar or unipolar? What do the French think of Russia’s attempts to become the second pole and restore its influence on the territory of the CIS, including Ukraine? Does France see a future for Ukraine within the EU? What should Kyiv do to bring this future closer? The French expert answers these and other questions in her interview with The Day .
What do you think about the possibility of a re-emerging bipolar world? Can Russia become the second pole because of its energy resources?
No, I don’t think so. History is not going in circles, and we have to be conscious of the evolution and transitions that have taken place since 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the creation of the CIS. Russia is definitely “back,” in the sense that the period of power erosion, especially the Yeltsin II mandate, is finished, that power is recentralized in Moscow (maybe later in St. Petersburg?), and many people are speculating about Russia as a new energy (super) power that is basing its power and influence on its resources. If you consider the global role of different powers, Russia does not have the impact of the US, and if anybody emerges, it would be rather China than Russia. This also explains certain relative neglect of Washington towards Moscow, and its obsession with China. The latter represents a rather atypical and new model of influence: soft influence via migration, violating human rights in many senses, but being successful economically. Russia is a medium power today, and the US is preoccupied with preserving its role. It is quite troubling that Russia under Putin, but also the US under Bush, have strayed far from the concept of “soft power,” a term coined by Joseph S. Nye Jr. This concept means that contemporary or modern power is based on the capacity of “seduction,” impressing with a societal model, less on military power or threat. The EU, in many senses, possesses soft power today.
Can the EU one day become the second pole or it will it be more inclined to the American pole? In view of Chirac’s statement about the multipolar world, what role would France play and what policy would it pursue?
In answer to your first question, definitely. But this will take time. The EU is multilateral, and multilateralism takes more time than unilateralism, but it is more sustainable. We need some three more years to get out of the institutional crisis, somewhere around 2009. The renewal of the commission and also the elections to the EU parliament are the deadline to be considered. The role of the EU is not necessarily predefined by the US’s. It seems to be quite normal that, in the first phase, many Middle and Eastern European countries (MEE), after the Soviet dictatorship, preferred the US and neglected the EU. This is now changing. As far as France is concerned, we are on standby here in Paris, awaiting the results of the election. France is quite far from multilateralism in the moment; it is more nationalist than anything else. Supporters of a “Giscard” or “Delors” strategy are unfortunately lacking.
Could France change its opinion about the new Constitution and the possibility of Turkey’s joining the EU?
No, there must be a compromise on the constitutional treaty. We could imagine a “mini treaty,” as suggested by Sarkozy, or a “Nice plus.” Other positions seem to be rather unrealistic. France and Germany, at least public opinion, are not in favor of Turkey joining the EU. This is primarily for cultural reasons, not for precise reasons of the acquis communautaire, the body of EU law, which serves mostly as a “pretext.” It is absolutely necessary to have an honest dialogue on Turkey in the interests of both Turkey and the EU.
Recently, during the first meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council chaired by Federal Foreign Minister Steinmeier, it was decided not to include any prospects for Ukraine’s joining the EU in the future agreement between the EU and Ukraine. Do you consider that decision just and fair?
Ukraine is a European country, and one day Ukraine will be a member of the EU. But the EU will be different from what it is now. It will comprise some 34 member states, with the South Balkans joining in the next decade. Most probably there will be a more differentiated mode of participation, “privileged partnership,” “reinforced cooperation,” etc. Ukraine should do everything to get ready for membership by getting some parts of the acquis communautaire adopted. If Kiev succeeds, there is no way for Brussels not to accept Ukraine one day.
Why is the EU afraid of even mentioning any prospects for Ukraine’s membership in the EU? It seems that nobody eliminated Article 49 of the Amsterdam Agreement, which does not prohibit any European country from joining the EU after fulfilling all the criteria. What is Paris’s position on this? Does France view Ukraine through Russia’s eyes?
No, Paris does not look at Ukraine through Russia’s eyes, and nobody does exclusively. Paris, and Berlin, is preoccupied with very negative public opinion concerning enlargement, and it has to deal with that. Give them some time to re-Europeanize somehow, wait for changes in the mainstream. Market your country, get ready with the preconditions for integration, but also organize the space, together with others, in between East and West, which is a fascinating and promising, but unfortunately often overlooked, opportunity for a European Ukraine.
Paris supported Poland’s membership in the EU and recently Romania’s. Why is there no such support from Paris for Ukraine’s membership? Ukraine has a larger territory than France and greater population than Poland.
The above answer also applies here. The margin is very slim, people are very afraid of unemployment. Unlike Germans, the French have few experiences with Eastern Europe.
Can you say that the French elites truly understand the role of Ukraine in Europe and especially on security and energy matters?
No, unfortunately. Many politicians and observers are used to well known schemes, like the Cold War. You need to commit yourself to some “development assistance.”
How may official Paris react to the scenario where Ukraine is coming increasingly more under Russia’s sphere of influence?
Negatively. People remember Tymoshenko and the Orange Revolution. But insiders consider that Yanukovych has changed and that he does not represent the Russian option. Thus — and I would agree completely — things are less black and white, politicians are less good and bad than the media reporting on the Orange Revolution would have us believe. The geopolitical situation of Ukraine is very complicated. You have to find a program adapted to that. The first issue — which Ukraine unfortunately refused to deal with in a constructive manner — is an energy program for the country. Look up the EU energy policy program from last year. Instead of using the transit capacity, becoming a hostage of Russia, develop renewable resources and economize energy. That is the key to getting out of today’s dead-end, especially with Russia, but also in a positive sense integrating with Europe, the EU.
Which of the French presidential candidates (Royal or Sarkozy) would be more biased (or positively inclined) towards Ukraine and would not view it through Russia’s eyes?
That’s difficult to say at the moment. Royal’s foreign policy program is rather blurred, and Sarkozy is a French neoconservative. There is no precise position on Ukraine yet.
What should Ukraine do to get French support for its integration into the EU and NATO?
Not insist on it at the moment, but cooperate on concrete issues, like energy, to demonstrate that Kiev is a reliable and also modern country; increase cultural exchanges; promote Ukraine in the French understanding.
What do you think about the current fight for power between the president and the prime minister? How does this influence Ukraine’s image? Is there any danger that Ukraine will return to some kind of dictatorship?
Yes, you have to get out of the constitutional crisis via constitutional reform. It does not make sense to disgust the people with a blocked situation. I hope that Ukraine will not go back to authoritarianism, but unfortunately, this option is less excluded than civil war in your country. You have to focus on constructive arguments, on reality, on economic reform, on good and unspectacular neighbourly relations. Why not establish a “Ukrainian neighbourhood policy”? Invent modern tools, demonstrate that you are more European than the French are.
