The EU weighs up how to respond as Putin wins yet another term at the head of the Russian state. Meanwhile, the idea of an EU defence force creeps back up the agenda and the UN meets for its annual jamboree in New York.
The Russian parliamentary elections, which took place from 17 to 19 September, have made headlines across the network this week.
Putin triumph marred by fraud accusations
Incumbent president Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party has claimed a parliamentary majority, with nearly 50 per cent of the vote, following a somewhat shady election campaign.
Vladimir Putin’s biggest critics were barred from running, and there have been reports of ballot stuffing and forced voting, says Estonia’s Kuku Radio. And Bulgarian National Radio shares comments from EU foreign affairs spokesperson Peter Stano.
Peter Stano, European External Action Service Spokesperson (in English):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“All this with the aim of silencing any critical opposition and removing real competition. This resulted in the limitation of the choice which the Russian people had and it limited their ability to get full and accurate information about candidates and make an informed choice during these elections.”
Yet MEP Sven Mikser, who was formerly Estonia’s minister of foreign affairs, told Kuku Radio that Putin does still enjoy a certain level of support in Russia.
Sven Mikser, Member of the European Parliament – S&D, Estonia (in Estonian):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“The press mainly reports on such fraud on election day. But this influence has been going on in society for a long time. One of the leading opposition candidates was in prison for quite some time before being assassinated. Such mental and physical pressure is placed on the opposition long before the elections until no one can run at all. However, it has its limits. An authoritarian power also needs legitimacy so that at least a certain section of society believes that the victory was a fair one. Nor is the popularity of Putin and his party non-existent in Russia. The question is whether he would be able to achieve an absolute parliamentary majority through fair elections.”
Latvijas Radio spoke to MEP Andrius Kubilius last week in Strasbourg, shortly before the election took place, about the EU’s new strategy to promote democracy in Russia and push back against Russian interference in Europe.
Kubilius, the author of a report on what future EU policy towards Moscow should look like, which was adopted by a majority of MEPs on 16 September, urged the bloc to take a firm line on Russia and consider not recognising the outcome of this election.
Andrius Kubilius, Member of the European Parliament – EPP, Lithuania (in English):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“At the member states’ level, we may sometimes still have naive attitudes. There is no possibility to have a dialogue with the Kremlin authorities or to try to achieve something from my point of view. Really, we should not be naive that dialogue will change the Kremlin’s behaviour and that, because of the dialogue, suddenly Putin will become a democrat or a liberal. That’s for sure. And of course I think that Nord Stream 2 was a geopolitical mistake.”
With Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov suggesting last week that perhaps Europe might now stop opposing Nord Stream 2 with the price of gas skyrocketing and winter approaching, Kubilius is convinced that Gazprom is holding Europe to ransom.
EU and whose army?
While the idea of a common European defence force is not new – European leaders have been discussing it since WWII – recent geopolitical tensions have led to a growing debate on the pros and cons of setting up an EU army.
In her speech on the state of the EU last week, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen again put the issue on the agenda, calling on member states to show political will and determination.
However loud these discussions get, though, an EU defence union is not on the horizon, Darius Antanaitis, a senior member of Lithuania’s armed forces, told Žinių radijas. According to Antanaitis, there are political and financial reasons for this.
Darius Antanaitis, Reserve Major, Lithuanian Army (in Lithuanian):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“Not only is there a lack of political will, but we should also consider another important factor: resources. No country and no army have unlimited resources – this is closely related to countries’ budgets and GDP. States dedicate armed units to NATO and to UN missions, and then they would also need to provide units for the EU armed forces. This would lead to chaos, great expense and, most importantly, a waste of resources. Right now, an EU army has nothing going for it – various aspects, including resources, money and political will, are in question. It is a headache.”
EPP MEP Andrey Kovatchev agrees that NATO is the best place to focus the EU’s defence efforts, as he told BNR.
Andrey Kovatchev, Member of the European Parliament – EPP, Bulgaria (in Bulgarian):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“The current global challenges show that we, the EU, must integrate in this area as well. Not outside NATO, of course – Ursula von der Leyen also said that we must seek closer EU-NATO cooperation – but inside the alliance. We also need to find more opportunities to integrate our defence industries, which is why the abolition of VAT on defence equipment produced in the EU is on the agenda, as is the creation of a joint situational awareness centre. A summit on this very topic will be held next year during the French Presidency, which, together with President Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, will discuss the EU’s options for such closer cooperation. Articles 43 and 44 of the EU Treaties provide such an opportunity, but so far they have never been used.”
On a related note, Luxembourg’s 100.7 covers EU reactions to the AUKUS alliance.
2030 Agenda at UNGA
During this year’s UN General Assembly, Ursula von der Leyen on Monday (20 September) urged the world to speed up its efforts for climate action.
By loading the tweet, you agree to Twitter’s privacy policy.
Learn more
Referring to the UN’s ‘2030 Agenda’, German chancellor Angela Merkel acknowledged how the coronavirus pandemic had disrupted efforts to take effective action against climate change, as AMS reports.
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany (in German):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“It is all the more important that we take consistent action now. This global crisis also provides an opportunity to make our lives and economies more sustainable. We want to use the recovery from the pandemic to transform towards real sustainability. It is clearer than ever: we must implement the 2030 Agenda more quickly. What we fail to do now cannot be made up for in a few years. Sustainability encompasses all areas of our lives and work. It is a task for society as a whole. We need to safeguard the future of our planet and the younger generations. This should be a top priority for all of us.”
On 18 September, also at the climate conference, the EU and US said that they would both support a ‘global methane pledge’ to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030.
The European Parliament’s agriculture committee recently issued an opinion on the EU’s methane strategy. This formed the basis of a Radio România interview with committee member Carmen Avram, who feels that farmers are coming under attack.
Carmen Avram, Member of the European Parliament – S&D, Romania (in Romanian):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“What seems to me most unfair is the fact that animal husbandry is being attacked from several angles. There is a campaign calling for a change in European diets, which means reducing meat and replacing it, as much as possible, with high-protein vegetables. There is also a committee that is due to complete its work at the end of the year, and there will be a vote by MEPs in Parliament’s plenary session calling for a ban on the transport of live animals. This will clearly mean a reduction in the number of animals if methane emissions have to fall, without taking into account the fact that there are various ways to reduce these emissions. There are studies that show that only seven per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions come from animal husbandry. There are changes that can be made to animal feed to reduce methane emissions. There are measures that can be applied in animal husbandry to avoid us taking the drastic step of reducing the number of animals and destroying a sector that is so efficient.”
Also on the subject of the climate, MEPs debated the European Commission’s ‘Fit for 55’ package for the first time in last Tuesday’s plenary session (14 September). While most welcomed the initiative, questions remain over the fairest way of distributing the cost of the proposed measures.
Philippe Lamberts, co-chair of the Green/EFA group in the European Parliament, told RTBF that he is not in favour of extending the EU’s emissions trading scheme to transport and buildings, as per the Commission’s proposal, as it will likely lead to higher prices for consumers rather than producers.
Philippe Lamberts, Member of the European Parliament – Greens/EFA, Belgium (in French):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“We know that the price of carbon is going to have to go up, but we don’t think that extending the ETS to heating and transport is a good idea. Our preference is for sectoral standards, building standards, transport standards, which in fact require not consumers but suppliers – producers – to drastically reduce the energy consumption of the goods they produce. This means, for car manufacturers or truck manufacturers, standards that require drastic emissions reductions. And for buildings, well, you need to impose energy performance standards on the owners of the buildings. When you put pressure on the producer, they are not always able to pass on the full investment that they have made to the consumer. In other words, they are going to have to cut their margins. I think that is where we have to look.”
Turów: to pay or not to pay?
On Monday 20 September, the European Court of Justice rejected Polish arguments that a temporary cessation of lignite mining activities in the Turów mine, near the Czech border, would disrupt energy and drinking water supplies to some of its territories.
It has therefore ordered Poland to pay Brussels a daily penalty of €500,000 until the country complies with the order to suspend operations, while it considers the case brought by the Czech Republic back in February.
The ECJ’s decision has sparked intense debate in Poland. Some politicians, including Małgorzata Tracz, co-chair of the Polish Greens, would prefer to see Warsaw make a payment to the Czech Republic instead, to improve “neighbourly relations”.
But Poland’s deputy justice minister Michał Woś believes the penalty is actually unlawful.
Michał Woś, Deputy Justice Minister of Poland (in Polish):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“This proceeding is a precautionary one; it is not a final judgement. Only during the case did the judge decide to impose precautionary measures. I would like to remind you that the dispute over Turów is not a completed proceeding; there has simply been a security order issued telling us to close the mine. In such interim proceedings, there is no legal basis in the treaties for the imposition of financial penalties.”
Indeed, far-right MP Robert Winnicki, from the Confederation party, insists that Warsaw should simply ignore this ruling from the EU’s top court.
Robert Winnicki, Member of the Polish Sejm (in Polish):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“70 million Polish złoty a month is a huge amount over a year. Indeed, looked at in years it is horrendous – even given the scale of the Polish budget. The only rational decision, therefore, is to ignore the judgement of the European Court. Many countries have ignored EU judgements before, so we should not attach too much importance to it.”
Greenpeace prosecutes over Mar Menor
Greenpeace is taking part in a private case against 80 agricultural companies, politicians and officials for their roles in the destruction of the Mar Menor, a coastal saltwater lagoon in southern Spain.
Julio Barea, head of the NGO’s campaign, condemns the delays in turning around the terrible conditions in the lagoon, which have been evident for the last five years. He is speaking to esRadio Castilla y León
Julio Barea, Greenpeace spokesperson (in Spanish):
Click on the button to load the content from Soundcloud.
“If the situation does not change – and without delay – even though the water environment is very resistant, we must stop attacking it or we could end up with a dead lagoon, with polluted water, sewage and no oxygen… and even without the possibility of bathing. Just imagine: we could lose an ecosystem that is unique in Spain and in Europe.”
- Author: Joanna Neville, Euranet Plus News Agency
