EUROPEAN DIARY:Sentiment in Brussels is moving towards the need for a full-time president of the Council
IT WAS bitterly cold in Prague last week as Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek announced his country’s priorities for its six-month presidency of the EU. But the political atmosphere almost reached boiling point as Czech frustration grew with Russia and Ukraine’s unpredictable behaviour in the gas crisis.
Topolanek and the European Commission initially insisted that the crisis was a “commercial rather than a political dispute” and refused to mediate. But as gas supplies to several EU states began on Thursday to dwindle to a trickle, Topolanek – who used to work in the energy sector himself – began a round of shuttle diplomacy that now finally looks like persuading Gazprom to turn on the gas taps today.
“Russia has no reason to delay any further an immediate resumption of gas supply to the EU through Ukraine,” said the Czech presidency yesterday following a gruelling three days of talks with Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. But after the erratic “deal/no deal” nature of the negotiations, most diplomats will breathe a sigh of relief only when all EU citizens’ central heating is working again.
The scale of the crisis, which saw disruption to 17 European states’ gas supplies, has sparked calls for the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, in particular the creation of a full-time president of the European Council. The Financial Times noted yesterday that Tony Blair was emerging again as the favourite for the position because Europe needed a “prominent international figure in the job”.
“Sarkozy made us think: when the going gets rough, you’ve got to have the big person,” one EU diplomat told the paper.
Ever since the Georgia crisis this August sentiment in Brussels has been moving towards the need to install a full-time EU president as quickly as possible. Some EU diplomats see the Czech presidency as a “train wreck” waiting to happen due to the Czech government’s ambivalent attitude to the union, its thorny relationship with Russia and the inexperience of its politicians and diplomats.
“There are always question marks placed over small member states’ presidencies before they start, principally about whether they will have the capacity to cope with a crisis,” says Hugo Brady, an analyst with the Centre for European Reform in London.
“There is also a suspicion among western EU states that new member states will not be able to deal with Russia in a balanced way . . . but this ignores the fact there have been plenty of bad big country EU presidencies. Small countries also tend to be more consultative in a crisis.”
French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s tenure at the helm of the EU presidency demonstrated the advantage of having the diplomatic resources to deal with several concurrent crises. Yet despite all the hype about his success in negotiating a ceasefire deal in Georgia, it must be remembered that Russian troops still remain in parts of the country which Tiblisi and EU diplomats consider sovereign Georgian territory. Despite this fact Sarkozy ordered the restart of the stalled EU-Russia partnership talks a few months later, arguing that EU-Russia relations needed to improve. This move, opposed by Lithuania, raises the question of whether the softer line towards Russia was motivated by French interests or European ones.
“The Czechs are doing a fair job and are clearly engaged in the gas issue,” says one EU diplomat, who stressed the close relationship the Czechs had built up with the commission over the past week.
“I think the same problem with Russia/Ukraine would have occurred if the Germans or French held the presidency.”
Ironically, the crisis may help the Czechs to deliver on one of their three key presidency priorities, energy security. Many EU states have balked at opening their energy markets to full competition, while others have signed sweetheart gas deals with Russia, undermining the EU’s proposed Nabucco project – a pipeline bringing gas from the central Caucasus to the EU, enabling it to diversify supplies.
Admittedly, the Czech record on the Middle East crisis is weak. An initial statement noting the “defensive nature” of the Israeli action was quickly withdrawn and there have been few diplomatic initiatives since from Prague in the face of a growing humanitarian crisis.
Yet the failure of the Franco-Egyptian peace plan demonstrates that even an energetic statesman from a big EU state such as Sarkozy cannot always succeed.
Perhaps there is a lesson here for those who believe Lisbon will prove a panacea for all Europe’s problems. A powerful European Council president would provide more continuity in EU foreign policy, but his success would ultimately depend on the willingness of states to agree a single policy and other global powers to listen.