The capital of sympathy

France will hold presidency in the European Union until the end of 2008. It is too early to analyze its results, but even now we can say that probably the most important achievement of the French president was stopping the armed conflict between Russia and Georgia that flared up in August.

In connection with the events in South Caucasus experts started to indicate that the concept of Realpolitik is returning to the international arena. What does Paris think about this issue, NATO’s future role, and Dmitri Medvedev’s security proposals? Does a system of security that is purely European have any future? In what way can the experience of mending relations between Germany and France be helpful to Ukraine? What does “ambitious partnership” proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy mean? These and other questions are raised in The Day‘s interview with Jacques FAURE, Ambassador of France to Ukraine.

REMAINING WITHIN THE USUAL FRAMEWORK

The world’s mass media are discussing the August conversation between President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. In your opinion, is the world indeed moving towards cynical politics rather than Realpolitik?

“Regretfully or not, what you call Realpolitik remains the most distinct feature of modern international relations. General Charles de Gaulle often said and wrote in his memoirs that states have no friends — they have interests. Perhaps, it needs to be emphasized we remain within the usual framework that is typical for international relations. It has not changed much.

“Returning to the talks in August and early September, when Sarkozy acted as the head of the EU Council and carried out negotiations with the Russian president and prime minister, let’s leave them on the conscience of those who were not present there. Meanwhile, I would like to emphasize several points. First, these very talks made it possible to stop the armed conflict that was unfolding between Russia and Tbilisi. Let me emphasize that Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, also took part in these talks as the French president had insisted.

“The talks that took place in early September confirmed that the South-Caucasian conflict could only be resolved if the six-point plan, which had approved in mid-August in Moscow, was fulfilled. At the moment the fulfilment of each point is the focus of discussion among all the sides involved. Third, I would like to stress that the French president and the leaders of the EU countries expressed their support for renewing negotiations on further development of relations between the EU and the Russian Federation. This took place at the recent EU-Russia summit in Nice.

“So these are the real facts. They may be interpreted in different ways — whether this was good or bad. All these approaches are not new. I, too, leave this question open. I support the idea that [the sides] should talk and engage in dialogue, especially if there are misunderstandings or discrepancies in [their] positions.”

But shouldn’t the goals and values be shared for this dialogue to be productive?

“This point of view has the right to exist. But if we applied this approach to a whole range of countries in the world, it would be impossible to have any dialogue at all without first agreeing with them on this unified system of values you have mentioned. Negotiations with these countries do not in any way imply that we will abandon our shared system of common values in which we trust.”

Mr. Faure, what is the atittude of your country to Medvedev’s recent proposals to create a new system of collective security stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok?

“This proposal has been formulated fairly recently. It includes certain elements that have been the subject of discussions within the EU in the past several years. The initiatives voiced by the Russian president are being studied today by security experts. But the problem is that these initiatives are too general and need additional information. I think that they will be subject of further negotiations.

“Speaking about President Sarkozy’s reaction, he said that it is absolutely possible to discuss this idea, as well as many others that relate to the problems of European security — for example, within the framework of the OSCE, as it has been scheduled for 2009.

But all this needs more specifics and additional elements. In my opinion, some aspects on Medvedev’s proposal are somewhat reminiscent of Mikhail Gorbachev’s concept of the common European home, which has not been made a reality.”

NATO’S ROLE IN EUROPE WILL BE THE SAME

After speaking with certain French experts, I realized that they do not understand the meaning of NATO’s role-at the time when your country is returning to the Alliance after the nearly 40-year-long absence. What is your understanding of NATO’s future role, considering that there is no European system of collective security?

“From its inception NATO has been a military alliance called to guarantee its members’ security. It is worth mentioning certain things that tend to be forgotten. Despite NATO’s transatlantic nature, its top-priority tasks include guaranteeing European security in the face of the potential threat posed by the Soviet Union. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that France was one of the founders of the Alliance. Historically, France is the longest-standing ally of the United States since the war for independence. I always use the opportunity to say that the French are grateful to American soldiers who, at the cost of their lives, came to our land twice during the 20th century in order to help us defend our independence. It is clear that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe and NATO have been rethinking the Alliance’s future role; it is now active on various continents. This process is not finished yet.”

What about the prospects of the European security system? The answer to this question is important because those who are opposed to Ukraine’s entry to NATO are speaking about the European system of collective security.

“Thank you for the question; it allows me to extend and complete the answer to the previous question. When President Sarkozy decided to increase France’s role in NATO, he simultaneously conveyed it to the American president-and this opinion was accepted — that France and its partners want to develop the European component of the North Atlantic Alliance, securing the development of the European security system. This process is not by any means about antagonistic relations or substitution of NATO’s current role in Europe. Far from it. It is about the concurrent strengthening of Europe’s security potential within the framework of the existing Alliance. We are speaking about the relations of complementation rather than opposition.”

So, you are not speaking about a separate security system?

“We are speaking about a process through which Europe will be gradually, but continually, securing means for ensuring its own security, as well as means for military deployment on the international arena. This is because Europe is more and more frequently asked to carry out peacekeeping missions in conflict areas in various regions of the world.”

NATO COUNTRIES ARE DIVIDED ON UKRAINE’S ADMISSION DATE

Ukraine wants to join the NATO Membership Action Plan in order to joing NATO’s system of collective security and thus guarantee its own security. It cannot enter the European security system, which does not exist now and nobody knows when it will appear.

“Nevertheless, Ukraine has a choice. One of the possible alternatives is taking a more active part in numerous operations to establish and maintain peace that are carried out under the aegis of the EU and are not limited only to the participation of the EU or NATO member countries. Such examples of Ukrainian participation are known, in particular, in the Balkan States and in Kosovo. We are thankful to Ukrainians for this. Furthermore, the European mission EUFOR is operating on the African continent in Chad. We can only welcome the fact that Ukraine takes advantage of these opportunities to increase its presence in these kinds of operations. The Ukrainian government makes promises and keeps them.”

However, our country wants to receive from the EU something like Article 5 of the Washington agreement. Moreover, in one interview French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner acknowledged that Ukraine may become Russia’s next target after Georgia.

“You are referring to the interview he gave to the Russian magazine Kommersant, producing certain reverberations. Without doubt, any democratic state has the right to choose the system of collective security it wants to belong to. As is known, Ukraine has expressed its desire to draw closer to NATO. The rules of entry to this organization are well-known. First, they are defined by the member countries, which should have a unanimous position on the candidate country. At the moment, the NATO countries are split on Ukraine’s admission date.

“Another important moment of accession is the country’s readiness and implementation of the necessary domestic reforms. After all, the member countries cannot accept the situation when certain third countries, which are not involved in the process, are defining any country’s right of entry. The Ukrainian dossier was under scrutiny at the Bucharest summit. Soon the ministers of the NATO member countries will get together in Brussels to consider it again.”

France’s Minister for European Affairs Jean-Pierre Jouyet has already said that Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO membership is not currently relevant and is not in Europe’s interests. What is this position based on? Is it the fact that Germany had previously opposed giving the MAP to Ukraine, or is it some other factor?

“Mr. Jouyet expressed his opinion in Strasbourg addressing the European Parliament, noting that this was his own position. At the same time, France’s stand was defined and expressed in the statement resulting from the Bucharest summit in April 2008. Our minister of foreign affairs will voice France’s position again at the [forthcoming] meeting of NATO foreign affairs ministers. At the moment this is all I can say concerning this issue.”

CLOSER RELATIONS BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY FOSTERED STRONG POLITICAL IDENTITY IN THESE COUNTRIES

Is it true that Germany used to follow France’s lead but they have switched roles? Berlin is now the first one to voice the position that Kyiv is not ready to get the MAP, and then the same statements come Paris.

“If you are eager to view the situation in this way, I cannot forbid you to do this. I can only say that in the past the French and Germans had to overcome many historical confrontations and antagonisms that didn’t serve the interests of the two states or the European continent in a broad sense. Some may disagree with my point of view, but it seems to me that what has been very important for Europe’s progress is the maximum possible proximity of the positions adopted by France and Germany in the analysis of certain problems and challenges. I could provide plenty of examples, either recent or historically remote, which would prove this thesis. All of them may be summed up in the following way: of all countries, France and Germany have been very often accused of a lack of a common European position on some question. Their discrepancies have often been caused by their inability to come to agreement and work out a common standpoint. However, in situations when France and Germany did have a common position, the same voices that had blamed us immediately started to reproach us for imposing of our will on the rest of the EU members. This happens now and then even now.”

Mr. Faure, perhaps, it would be appropriate for you at this juncture to offer your interpretation of what Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said in an interview to a German newspaper: Ukraine-Russia relations today remind her of France-Germany relations in 1952.

“It is difficult for me to comment on this. But I can say the following. In France-Germany relations there are certain aspects that could provide other countries with useful experience. In a broad sense I am speaking about the huge amount work that has been done in analyzing and rethinking our common history. Perhaps, we should have told Ukrainians and Russians more frequently about this experience when the historians of our countries worked together on sensitive and conflict questions and eventually produced a common textbook on contemporary history.

“If your prime minister’s commentary referred to these aspects, I can only support it and encourage you to develop the situation precisely in this sense. Let me also remind you that closer relations between France and Germany fostered strong political identity in these countries. In spite of the difficult historical experience in their relations, they have shown that they possess bold political imagination that has become their guide in common advancement toward ambitious goals.”

ON FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE PROSPECTS OF EU ENLARGEMENT

What regards the current financial crisis, is there a threat that the EU will split into the countries inside and countries outside the euro zone? There are reports that France will rule in the euro zone and the Czech Republic, which will assume EU presidency on January 1, will govern the rest of the EU countries?

“Any crisis is dangerous and can cause all kinds of reactions. There is nothing extraordinary in the fact that the countries that made up the euro zone want to counteract the world crisis with the greatest possible coordination. The existence of common currency causes this kind of reaction. I am speaking about the ‘euro group’ within the EU headed by Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg. One of the defining features of Europe’s reaction to the financial crisis is unity in both statements and concrete counteraction measures. One of the most successful manifestations of this position was at the November 15 meeting of G-20 in Washington — in a much broader format than just the European one. In the future analysts and historians will probably point out that this was the distinguishing feature of the current crisis and reactions to it as compared with the previous crises and resolutions passed back then. What has been lacking in similar situations until now was a unity of positions.

“What regards the Czech Republic, it is eager to meet the criteria for joining the euro zone, whereas its neighbor Slovakia will enter it at the beginning of 2009.”

The Czech Republic has not yet ratified the Lisbon Treaty. In your opinion, are there any chances that during its EU presidency this country will finalize the process of ratification?

“The answer to this question should come from Ireland and the Czech Republic. French leaders can only express their hope — and nothing beyond this — that these countries will ratify the Lisbon Treaty.”

In the Czech Republic the parliament may pass this resolution, whereas Ireland indeed needs a referendum. If it does not hold it by the end of the year, how will the European Union develop without a constitution, and what impact will this have on its enlargement?

“The institutions of the European Union are like fabric that stretches as the number of its members grows. But one should keep in mind that these institutions in their current form were created for a much smaller number of countries. Today it is obvious for everyone that institutions that were useful and practical for six or 12 countries are not so for 27 countries. The Lisbon Treaty meets the need to give the EU such institutions that would work in a more harmonious and efficient way for the Union consisting of 27 and more members.”

So, there will be no EU enlargement until it has a new constitution?

“I don’t know whether it should be formulated exactlyin this way. Apparently, the countries that eager to enter the European Union want to join an efficiently operating structure: reforming the European institutions reflects this aspiration.”

OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER UKRAINE-EU RELATIONS ARE TO REMAIN OPEN

Mr. Faure, Ukrainians know about the Sarkozy’s favorable attitude to Ukraine. He was here twice before being elected president. In Warsaw he called Kyiv a European capital and thanks to him a lot has been achieved at the Ukraine-EU summit in Paris. It would be interesting to hear from you about the meaning of “ambitious partnership” that he has offered to Ukraine: does this imply being a neighbor of the EU or, perhaps, its member?

“It seems to me that this is precisely so. This was indicated at the September 9 summit. In fact, based on our joint work, a decision was passed that the future new agreement between Ukraine and the EU will be an association agreement. This was written down and declared. So, this agreement leaves open all the opportunities for further development of existing format of Ukraine-EU relations. However, I believe that achieving this goal is in Ukrainians’ hands. I am speaking primarily about the necessity to continue the reforms which are now being implemented here. These reforms are not being carried out to please the EU countries, governments, or nations. On the contrary, they are for the benefit of, above all, Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. These reforms include bridging the gap between Ukraine’s and Europe’s legislation, which is a very positive element. It should be continued and successfully completed, but then it also needs to be implemented in real life. Here, as you know, a lot remains to be done. This is the basis for my belief that EU membership is in Ukrainians’ hands now.”

In your opinion, is the [Ukrainian] government actively working to approximate Ukraine’s legislation and, in general, integrate Ukraine into the EU?

“Working jointly with our Ukrainian colleagues is the jurisdiction of the European Commission rather than every EU member country. The Commission evaluates this joint work with the Ukrainian government on an annual basis. From the French point of view, I can note that we see the efforts being made and we are eager to provide expert assistance in order to facilitate Ukraine’s more rapid advancement along this path. In particular, the creation of the Coordination Bureau for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration is, in our opinion, a very appropriate step in this direction.”

THE CRISIS HAS HAD NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FRENCH-UKRAINIAN POLITICAL RELATIONS

Mr. Faure, are the bilateral French-Ukrainian relations influenced by the world financial crisis and Ukraine’s political crisis?

“As of now we have not seen any [negative] consequences of the crisis as regards the good state of political relations between our countries. French leaders regularly say to their Ukrainian colleagues (and this was reiterated at the September summit in Paris): there may be political contradictions within the country, but you should always try to find a common position that would allow us to help you. Whenever I have opportunity, I always remind [our Ukrainian colleagues] of such aspects as the need for securing the independence of the judiciary and more efficient activity of the Verkhovna Rada.

“I would be insincere if I assured you that the events and physical confrontation we have observed in Ukrainian parliament do not have any negative consequences for Ukraine’s image on the international arena. Similarly, what regards the financial-economic crisis, it is very strange to see that the government’s counter-crisis measures are hindered by other government agencies. It is difficult to understand this indeed. The current crisis is very serious for all the countries it is affecting. It requires united efforts of different branches of power, rather than attempts to use this context to slug it out in domestic politics.”

THE FRENCH PRESS HAS A POTENTIAL OF SYMPATHY FOR UKRAINE

You are in Ukraine already, so it must be easy for you to assess whether the French mass media are writing about Ukraine in an objective way. How does France see our country?

“For a long time now the French press has had a potential of sympathy for Ukraine and the processes of economic and political transformation that are taking place here. This may be explained by the fact that Ukrainians and the French deeply understand the importance of national idependence. With due caution — let me remind you that I have been working in Ukraine for only a short while and I have travelled very little through its regions — I can say that the French and Ukrainians are very close, in particular in their lifestyle. It seems to me that in life the French and Ukrainians behave in very similar ways: both nations are friendly, sincere, cheerful, and curious about the surrounding world. This is another factor that brings our nations closer and creates the capital of sympathy, which indeed exists in the French public opinion regarding Ukrainians.

“However, this does not mean that the French press regularly and consistently publishes only positive articles about Ukraine. Of course, I have read some publications that surprised me in an unpleasant way. But I am not inclined to assume that these articles were written somewhere abroad in order to make a negative impression. One of such publications led to a response from Ukraine’s first ambassador to France Yurii Kochubei, which was also carried by the French press. Different views on things are expressed in this way as well.

“At the same time, I would not want to see in the French press any systemic publications that would express disappointment at [Ukraine’s] failure to reach the goals declared by Ukrainian population so many times in terms of economic and social development, building a democratic society, and getting nearer to the EU. One should pay great attention to this. If the political crisis persists for an indefinite period, it may cause Europeans to ask, Are Ukrainians, in fact, drifting away from the goals and values that they once so loudly proclaimed and in which they, and we together with them, so strongly believed?”