Every man for himself. The US diplomatic cables are making the European energy summit planned for the beginning of February even more crucial and politically sensitive. It is obviously after thorough reflection and after having consulted the heads of state and government that Herman Van Rompuy decided to arrange this European Council. It is indispensable because one essential aspect of energy policy involves relations with third countries, but this totally outside the remit of the EU. There is more rivalry between member states than cooperation, with each one acting in its own individual interests.
The European Commission has achieved a few results within the internal dimension of energy policy: the gradual creation of the common market, competition and enhancing intra-European infrastructure. With relations with supply countries, however, member states that are able to, develop their own national policies, sometimes with a certain inter-governmental cooperation but still outside the remit of the institutions and Community rules. Sometimes, the Commission learns about these national initiatives through the press, something this column has already highlighted. Recent Commission documents focusing on the sector (particularly on the EU's infrastructure requirements, EUROPE 10258) have created quite a stir at the European Parliament. After all this, the US embassy cables are now creating quite a polemic and raising a number of questions.
Evaluations diverge. Let's be clear about it, these documents do not represent the US position. In my opinion, it is not right to present the content of these cables as “this is what Washington thinks” about such and such a country, this or that figure or such and such a position. It is at most the opinion of an ambassador or another diplomat. These texts, however, sometimes raise fundamental questions and this is exactly the case with regard to energy. Without getting involved in the polemic resulting from the views of a given country with regard to a specific figure, the US cables confirm that EU countries pursue national policies with regard to energy supply and are unconcerned about cooperation in this area. Agreements, particularly those with Russia, are to a greater or lesser extent coordinated between a small number of member states. In the case of the Poland-Russia agreement on gas, the European Commission intervened a posteriori and called for certain amendments to be made (EUROPE 10251). In the majority of cases, however, Community rules and solidarity are regarded by the national authorities as being the least of their concerns.
The case of personal links between Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi (who apparently discussed and defined energy relations between Russia and Italy) has been the most talked about because in the US diplomatic cables, it was the most spectacular. The situation, however, is much more complex and far-reaching. Everything would suggest that: a) member states or their oil companies do not share the same assessment of pipelines and gas pipelines guaranteeing the long-term supply of gas and oil to the EU; b) conditions on Russian supplies are too rigid and should be revised.
South Stream, Nabucco, Baltic Sea: each project is being contested. The Nabucco project has for a long time had an official European complexion: there are agreements with Turkey and other agreements have been signed with potential supplier countries, and any backtracking is pointless. Nonetheless, those with links to the oil industry in certain member states continue to believe that Nabucco will never be put into practice, mainly because of the absence of firm commitments by potential suppliers.
The interests expressing their doubts are obviously those promoting the rival South Stream project, as well as the Russian authorities, given the fact that the priority objective of Nabucco was to bypass Russia (and the Ukraine at the same time). Other EU countries, however, are opposed to South Stream, which in their opinion has become pointless given that the Ukraine offers or appears to offer complete guarantees and appropriate infrastructure for transiting this Russian product. At the same time, Poland is opposed to the gas pipeline project under the Baltic Sea, which according to the prime minister is dictated by “political and not economic criteria and a land route through Poland would be safer, simple and less expensive”. The recent agreement between Russia and Poland strengthens this position, even though the Commission has made a number of comments about the matter (which provoked a sharp response from Mr Putin).
This column does not intend to take a position or decide who is wrong or who is right: everyone has their own point of view. The objective of this succinct and undoubtedly incomplete summary is to underline to what extent it is indispensable that these issues are discussed at the highest European level. The EU has a month and a half to prepare for the summit at the beginning of February. This column will discuss this subject tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)