By the first day of the New Year, a new leaf was turned over for the European Union. The Czech Republic which assumed the EU’s six-month Presidency from France on January 1 will be presiding over the meetings of the EU-27 between January and June 2009. It will be the first time for the Czechs to undertake such a critical post at the EU level since they became a full member of the Union in December 2004. Prague is expected to face with an arduous EU agenda especially in terms of global financial crisis, energy security and foreign affairs which have gained great importance in the recent period. Hence, the Presidency introduced its priorities as “3 E’s” as Economy, Energy and External relations.  However, allegations relating to the Czech President Vaclav Klaus’ skeptical approach towards the European integration pose some concerns among the political and academic circles of whether this small country with only limited European experience can shoulder this responsibility.

Taking into account the events occurred especially in the second half of 2008, it is not an easy task to summarize the France’s six-month Presidency of the EU. During the whirlwind semester, Paris encountered several challenges such as the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Russia-Georgia conflict in the Caucasus and the bankruptcy of the well known investment company Lehman Brothers in the US and the ensuing global financial crisis which made their marks on the year left behind. To make an overall assessment of the French Presidency, it is important to handle each challenge and the actual results obtained under the EU leadership of France.

I.

The first challenge that France confronted with just after taking over the EU helm was the Rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum conducted in Ireland in June, 2008. The referendum which took place at the end of the term of Slovenian Presidency, created a great shock within the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty which was proposing several institutional reforms for the Union of 27 member states was voted against by 53.4% of the Irish voters. The results, moreover, engendered negative implications over the other member states. Especially in Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, hard discussions took place within the political circles. Today, besides Ireland, the Czech Republic ironically constitutes the second member state which has not ratified the Treaty yet. Nicholas Sarkozy who took the reigns of the EU in such conditions immediately established diplomatic channels to remove the political obstacle before the Reform Treaty. Even tough some of his initiatives and statements were perceived by some segments as exerting pressure over the will of the Irish people, in the European Summit held in December 12^th, Ireland was convinced to conduct a second referendum at the latest in November 2009 as a result of several granted concessions. On this account, France can be regarded as successful since he paved the way for further integration within the Union by creating balance between the interests of the Union and the member states.  

II.

The second challenge that the French Presidency was faced with was the eruption of Russia-Georgia War in Caucasus in August 2008 which turned eyes of the World to that region. To refresh the memories, the war broke up after Georgia launched air and land based military attacks on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia on August 7^th against the separatist government backed by Russia. Russia in response bolstered South Ossetia by sending troops and launched bombing raids into Georgia which were followed by land invasion. After 5 days of fighting, Georgian forces were forced to leave the territory of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. During the conflict, the EU played a crucial role in the negotiations between parties. Following mediation by Nicholas Sarkozy, a preliminary ceasefire agreement was reached between Russia and Georgia on August 12^th. However, Russia’s recognition the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on August 26^th led to a cleavage within the European Union. Although, the EU leaders as a unity expressed their grave concern about the conflict and the disproportionate reaction of Russia against Georgia and criticized the Russia’s decision to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, their tones of criticism differentiated due to their dependency on Russia, especially in terms of energy. For instance, while Britain, Sweden, Eastern European and Baltic States impeached Kremlin for its aggressive behaviors and called for harsh measures to adopt a common position against “Russia’s imperialist foreign policy”, other member states such as France, Germany and Italy chose to maintain a deliberative attitude against Russia. This friction among attitudes once more supported the argument that the EU was not ready to form a single voice in international platforms. However, the EU can not be assessed as completely unsuccessful in the management of the crisis.[1] For as much as in the European Summit convened on September 1^st, 2008 leaders of the Union could adopt a common position towards Russia and agreed to postpone talks on a new EU-Russia partnership until Russian troops withdraw from Georgia. As can be concluded, the EU under the leadership of France once more could tackle an international crisis within the limits of its capacities. 

III.

Then, the Global Financial Crisis appeared on the scene. Following the bankruptcy of big financial firms in the US, the crisis reverberated not only in the EU but throughout the whole world. The EU, for the first time in its history, confronted with such a critical economic situation. Extension of the crisis from financial sphere to the real economy and the anxiety of recession in each country led the member state governments to act independently in terms of precautionary measures. Additionally, there occurred widening cracks in the inter-EU ties, especially between the core actors of the integration, France and Germany. Strained relations after France’s Mediterranean Union initiative apart from the EU were once more tightened with holding different interpretations of the financial crisis. While France was concerned to experience an economic turmoil like that of 1929, Germany was much more fearful of hyper-inflations of the 1920s.[2] During the negotiations to overcome the negative effects of the crisis, while Germany mostly emphasized the independence of the European Central Bank, France made reference to a close cooperation between the ECB and the member states and the urgent need to back more government spending to combat the economic slowdown. On the other hand, the financial crisis was somewhat conducive to show that in today’s world the global problems necessitate collective actions. As seen in this example, member states’ individual attempts couldn’t be sufficient to deal with the global effects of the crisis. At this point, Sarkozy, as the current leader of the Union called for common reaction involving world’s all big economies and convened the G20 leaders to discuss the possible solutions. In this regard, China and India were invited to make contribution to the process. Moreover, the EU in itself formed a high platform to approach the subject. Firstly, Europe’s four largest countries France, Britain, Germany and Italy, with the Commission and the Central Bank were gathered to form unity and later on for the first time since 2000, a Eurogroup was convened at head of state and government level to evaluate the situation. In consequence, Europe had the chance to stand in the forefront to reshape the international financial architecture. Moreover, the European Commission put a 200 billion euro amounted “economic recovery plan” and ECB cut off the interest rates at historical amounts.

Abovementioned three challenges coinciding with the Presidency term of France were actually aroused in the context of the world conjuncture. They were not envisaged before and the EU had to give reaction towards them spontaneously. However, Sarkozy had identified three main priorities to be accomplished within his term of Presidency. In order to assess this six-month period, in addition to previously explained unforeseen challenges, we must lay out the correlation between the objectives and the actual results obtained.

One of the prominent objectives of the French Presidency was the adoption of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. Sarkozy was attaching great importance to the immigration issue since he had benefited much from the arguments against immigration during his presidential campaign. The French Presidency mainly aimed to forestall granting large amnesties to illegal immigrants within the EU. Especially Italy and Spain occurred as the most affected states since they had used this method in the past. Sarkozy, to persuade his counterparts, made emphasis on the requirements of the Schengen area which abandons the internal borders among the member states and paved the way for the unrestricted circulation of individuals. The second aim was to adopt a common asylum law to discourage the simultaneous applications of the asylum seekers in a number of states. The Pact was finally signed in the European Council meeting dated on October 15^th, 2008. It provides tighter controls over the illegal immigration, encouragement of the legal immigration through the adoption of the “Blue Card” which will attract the qualified workers from non-EU states and at last adoption of a common asylum policy. However, since the document does not specify standardization for uniform asylum regulations, it is open to criticism especially in terms practical effects. Therefore, even tough the Pact can be assessed as a political success of the Union; its long-term effects remain to be seen.

The second objective taking place in the Sarkozy’s agenda was the Climate-Energy Package. One of the controversial issues of the recent times is the escalation of harmful consequences of the global warming. Sarkozy who asserted that they were the last generation to prevent the destructive effects of the global warming undertook a task to accomplish this objective. Actually, the first concrete steps had been taken during the Germany’s Presidency of the EU Council. 20-20-20 objectives which refer to 20% reduction in emissions, 20% renewable energies and 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020 were firstly presented by Germany. It was followed by “Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package” which was presented by the European Commission in January, 2008. The Package gave rise to harsh debates among the member states since especially the Eastern EU states were concerned with the prohibitive costs of the plan. After an arduous negotiation process, an agreement was signed on December 12^th, 2008. The adoption of the Climate-Energy Package can be considered as one of the main achievements of the French Presidency since it signifies the member states’ will to move on in the direction towards a political union and besides it has a moral aspect.

Another ambitious objective in the French agenda was to enliven the European Security and Defence Policy. From the beginning, France has always been an advocate of a strong European Defence and Security Policy. For her, to create a political Europe, defence policy is one of the keystones. In recent years, the EU has conducted several civil and military operations throughout the world. These operations showed that they are much more complementary to NATO operations. There are mainly two reasons of this fact. Firstly, there is a close link between NATO and the EU. The EU is reluctant to sound off an independent European Defence Policy apart form NATO since it doesn’t want to annoy the US which for decades has undertaken the military defence of Europe by means of NATO. For this reason EU leaders have always been sensitive in their statements relating to the relationship between the NATO and the EU. Secondly, today we can not mention about a self sustaining European assets to cope with present and future crisis. In Europe, defence budgets are very limited and this leads to an insufficiency in several military capabilities. Sarkozy, during his term aimed to underpin the military and civil capabilities for the ESDP, however it couldn’t receive the expected support from his counterparts. The President, in his speech to the European Parliament on December 16^th, 2008 only stated that “the European security and defence policy complements NATO and there are no grounds for creating opposition between them.”[3]

To make an overall assessment of the French Presidency between 1 July 2008 and 31 December 2008, the EU experienced one of the most proactive Presidencies of its history. It appears that the Presidency has been rather successful. Nicholas Sarkozy endeavored to bring the political character of the Union in the foreground, played a mediator role in the international politics and displayed a rather good management of the financial crisis. Not only the unforeseen events were successfully handled but also most of the priorities laid down in the agenda were somewhat achieved. However, also within this period, the EU’s loyalty to its founding values started to be questioned intensively. While making reference to human rights violations in some disputes such as Mynmar, Sarkozy did not hesitate to interact with leaders like Kaddafi, whose human rights record is extremely poor. Moreover, Sarkozy’s appearance on the scene as a single man and his insistence to convince his counterparts on some critical issues led to some comments that he ran against the philosophy of the Union.     

Now, the Czech Republic is on the scene. An arduous EU agenda involving escalating financial crisis, energy dispute with Russia and the war erupted between Israel and Palestine waits for the recently admitted state. Some opposition groups emphasize the state’s lack of EU experience. Especially the President Klaus’ abstention to ratify the Lisbon Treaty and his denial to fly the Union’s flag over the Prague Castle led to concerns about the state’s loyalty towards the Union. On the other hand supporters claim that as a small country, the Czech Republic will know how to settle a compromise among the member states.[4] However, the recent developments seem to support the arguments pointing out the lack of EU experience. As is known, with each passing day, violence in the Middle East has been growing. War broke out between Israel and HAMAS on December 27^th, 2008 and up to now led to deaths of more than 500 Palestinians. The other day, Israel launched land attacks into Gaza strip. In this fragile situation, the Czech Presidency made an incomprehensible mistake which evoked self-justification statements from the Israelite officials. On January 3^rd, Jiri Potuznik, the Czech EU Presidency spokesman said that “At the moment, from the perspective of the last days, we understand this step a defensive, not offensive action.” This statement was confronted with adverse reactions from the other EU capitals without delay. France and Britain declared that the Czech’s comments do not bind them and these kinds of statements serve to damage the attempts at conciliation. A subsequent written statement was released by the Czech Presidency on January 4^th and stated that their words were misunderstood. Performing as the Presidency of the EU, the Czechs should learn how to choose the correct words in a sensitive world politics. They will be the main representative of the Union in the forthcoming six month. Thereby, they should act in the knowledge of their responsibilities.

Ceren Mutus (JTW)

cerenmutus@gmail.com



January 5, 2009