French press review 25 February 2014

Ukraine, Italy's new PM, growing tension between France's coalition government partners and GM foods are all on the menu today ...

"Russia warns Europe on Ukraine" is the main headline in Le Figaro.

In the wake of the weekend departure of President Viktor Yanoukovych, Moscow has refused to recognise the new authorities in Kiev. The Kremlin has criticised the protestors whose efforts led to the change at the helm as "terrorists", and Moscow has had harsh words for the attitude of the European community.

Russian prime minister Dmitri Medvedev has spoken of a situation which threathens Russian interests. Moscow has frozen its aid programme to Kiev, and the European Union has decided to wait until after the presidential election now due in May, before signing a bi-lateral agreement. Kiev needs at least 30 billion euros to stave off bankruptcy. So it looks as if the Ukrainians are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Le Figaro's editorial calls on the European Union to use this crisis as an opportunity finally to grow up in diplomatic terms and start acting like a major political power.

Europe has to accept some responsibility for the Ukrainian unrest, since the protests against the Janoukovitch regime were, at least initially, an expression of pro-European enthusiasm by Ukrainians who feel that the old alignment with Moscow is not in the interests of their former Soviet state.

There are two immediate problems: replacing the 12 billion euros promised by Vladimir Putin, now frozen. And then there's the geopolitical problem of somehow sharing Ukraine between Russia and Europe.

Moscow has legitimate concerns which have to be recognised; Europe has to be honest about the fact that Ukrainian entry into the 28-nation trading bloc is still on a very distant horizon. If the two sides get this conflict wrong, warns Le Figaro, European credibility will be further damaged and Ukraine will be turned into an unstable buffer zone distrustful of both its big neighbours. That won't serve the interests of anyone.

Business daily Les Echos gives the front page treatment to the new man at the helm in Italy. Thirty-nine-year-old Matteo Renzi looks like he should be part of a boy band. Instead, he's got the task of sorting out the third largest national economy in the European Union. He has promised to reduce charges and reform the labour market, and he wants to get things moving before the end of June, when Italy takes over the European Union presidency for six months.  

The ongoing row between the ruling socialists and their Green Party partners gets the front page honours in Libération. The current problem is a dispute over the building of a new airport near the western French city of Nantes. The prime minister is resolutely in favour of the project; the Greens are against. Notably, the Housing Minister, Cécile Duflot, who is a long-term opponent of the airport but can't very well quit the government at the very moment when the details of the so-called "energy transition" . . . basically a lessening of French dependence on nuclear power . . . are being hammered out. 

But that's only the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg, since the supposed allies don't see eye-to-eye on nuclear power stations, on shale gas, on the treatment of illegal immigrants, on taxation, or the increasing closeness between the Socialist president and the bosses.

Libération joins other commentators in suggesting that the days of the Greens as government partners are definitely numbered, suggesting that the debate on the future of the energy sector could lead to divorce proceedings. 

Catholic La Croix digs up an old chestnut to ask if our fears about the dangers posed by genetically modified foods are justified.

The problem is that, following an initial period in which we were all traumatised by the spectre of man-eating tomatoes, genetically modified grub has become increasingly common. There are strong economic arguments in favour of such engineered products . . . higher yields, fewer chemicals, better resisitance to pests . . . but the emotion against them remains high. Is this reasonable?

The Catholic daily points out that millions of people have been fed  genetically modified fruit, vegetables and meat in the United States since 1996, without any observable side-effects.

But the deeper question concerns the sort of agriculture we want to see evolve: more genetically modified crops will imply an increasing grip on the industry by the big producers at the expense of small farmers. This may not be a good thing.