Campaign posers for Sunday's independance referendum in Simferopol's Lenin square
Monday’s meeting of EU foreign ministers is shaping up as one for the history books. Just as Crimean officials are scheduled to be finishing their count of the region’s independence referendum, ministers will gather in Brussels to finalise a list of Crimean and Russian officials to be targeted with travel bans and asset freezes, the most significant step yet taken by any of the western allies against the Russian incursion.
But first, diplomats must decide who exactly is on that list.
The process started in EU embassies in Moscow, who pulled together a master list that was forwarded to diplomats in Brussels. According to one diplomat involved in the discussions, the list is to be narrowed to a “small but politically significant” group of people who are “infringing Ukraine’s territorial integrity”. The diplomat put the final number “in the tens or scores”. So perhaps 20 to 40 names.
Sweden's Carl Bildt, Poland's Radoslaw Sikorski and EU's Catherine Ashton consult on Ukraine
As is frequently the case with high-level EU documents, the draft communiqué distributed to national capitals ahead of today’s emergency meeting of foreign ministers is more interesting for what has not been agreed going into the session than what is already set in stone.
And according to a draft obtained by the Brussels Blog, quite a bit is left to be decided, including just how aggressive the ministers will be in threatening sanctions – or “targeted measures” in Eurospeak – against Russia. Our main story on the leaked communiqué gives the outline of the dispute, but as is our practice at the Blog, we decided to post a bit more information here.
As European leaders gather in Brussels for a summit meeting nominally dedicated – for the first time – to energy policy, one uninvited guest is looking on with some dismay: Russia.
High on the agenda is energy security. Which is a polite way of saying that European leaders are discussing how the bloc can break its dependency on Russian gas. In some parts of the EU – notably among the new member states of central and eastern Europe – that policy goal has become an obsession.
“We are totally dependent,” said one Lithuanian diplomat. “Whatever Gazprom says, we pay.”
It was buried amid the excitement of the European Union’s summit in Brussels, but I’d like to draw your attention to a revealing report published on Thursday on the subject of European access to strategic raw materials. Prepared under the supervision of the European Commission, the report names 14 critical materials that Europe risks not having enough of in the future – with potentially far-reaching implications for Europe’s economic development, not to mention its defence and security.
If the Greek debt crisis is teaching the European Union some harsh lessons about the design of its monetary union, no less serious is the message coming from Ukraine about the effectiveness of EU foreign policy. Viktor Yanukovich, Ukraine’s newly elected president, agreed a deal with President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia last week that gave Moscow a 25-year extension of the right to station its Black Sea fleet in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. In return, Ukraine secured a 30 per cent cut in the price of Russian gas deliveries.
You know that the European Union is in trouble when Russia offers more intelligent advice on the eurozone’s debt crisis than Spain, the country that holds the EU’s rotating presidency. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, disclosed the other day that he had recommended to George Papandreou, Greece’s prime minister, that the Greek government should request assistance from the International Monetary Fund to sort out its problems.
This is exactly the course of action advocated by several non-eurozone EU countries as well as a host of distinguished economists and, dare I say it, the editorial writers of the Financial Times. As it happens, I don’t agree – if by IMF assistance we mean financial help. The IMF will be involved, along with the European Central Bank, the European Commission and eurozone finance ministers, in monitoring Greece’s public finances and providing technical aid as required.
Yulia Tymoshenko’s refusal to acknowledge Viktor Yanukovich as the legitimate winner of Ukraine’s presidential election is starting to embarrass her friends in the European Union. The White House, Nato and the EU have all congratulated Yanukovich on his victory. The longer Tymoshenko maintains her defiant stance, the more it will cost her in terms of prestige and contacts in Europe.
Only last December I saw the red carpet rolled out for Tymoshenko at a congress in Bonn of the centre-right European People’s Party, the biggest party in the European Parliament. Everyone was there – German chancellor Angela Merkel, EU president Herman Van Rompuy, French premier François Fillon, Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi, etc. Tymoshenko was one of the star attractions from the “new” eastern Europe.
The European Union should be pleased with the outcome of the first round of Ukraine’s presidential election. Not because the politician who received the most votes was former premier Viktor Yanukovich, the most pro-Russian of the main candidates. Rather, because the election for the most part met the very high standards of democracy, legality and fairness that the EU had demanded of Ukraine to sustain the process of bringing the country closer to the 27-nation bloc.
It was a genuine contest among a variety of distinctive candidates, and the second, knock-out round on February 7 between Yanukovich and Yulia Tymoshenko, the incumbent prime minister, will be a genuine contest, too. Compare this with the tainted presidential election of November 2004, which precipitated the Orange Revolution that propelled Viktor Yushchenko to power. In terms of democracy and the political maturity of society, Ukraine has progressed a long way over the past five years.
What does 2010 hold in store for the European Union? With people in Brussels only just drifting back to work after a couple of weeks of snow, sub-zero temperatures and seasonally adjusted flu, it seems too brutal to plunge straight into topics such as the “2020 Strategy“, the “Reflection Group“ and other elusively named EU initiatives of which we are certain to hear more as the year moves on.
What one can say is that the EU ended 2009 feeling rather more pleased with itself than perhaps it had expected 12 months previously. Despite suffering the most severe economic contraction in its history, the EU avoided a meltdown of its financial sector, stuck fairly well to its rules on fair competition and free trade, and even witnessed a return to growth in certain countries.