At the most senior level. It would be illusory to expect any immediate results in a domain as complex as EU relations with non-EU gas and oil supplier countries. The ad hoc summit, however, organised by Mr Van Rompuy at the beginning of February, is a first significant step (see this column yesterday). Following the polemic surrounding the publication of the US embassy cables, the Italian minister for foreign affairs, Franco Frattini, has declared that with regard to energy supply, “our route is one of differentiation: Russia, Libya, Algeria, the Gulf countries. It is Italy that decides”. One has to hope that this “national” response to the US is not closing the door on European cooperation. For the time being, coordination and solidarity between member states is not on the horizon. Each of the major projects for supplying Europe that go through Turkey, the Black Sea, Ukraine, Poland or the Baltic Sea, is being supported by some quarters, while to a greater or lesser extent, it is being opposed by others. These projects do partly rival each other and are very expensive and slow to carry out. They should be discussed within the Community framework at the most senior level and the positions should be compared in an effort to provide some kind of clarification.
A difficult balancing act between efficiency and principles. The limits on positions of principle and extremely delicate relations between efficiency and a certain demagogy should, at the same time, be taken into consideration. If, after thorough reflection, a project is retained, it cannot then be immediately suspended or withdrawn due to certain shortcomings or deficiencies regarding human rights or respect for freedom of the press identified in a supplier or transit country. This should be subject to consideration beforehand. Obviously, shortcomings in these areas should be denounced and the EU is right to demand in advance as many guarantees as possible, and to maintain pressure in an effort to ensure that certain principles are respected. Nonetheless, the projects aimed at ensuring regular future energy supplies for Europe and the infrastructure (requiring decades of work and astronomical investment) cannot be suspended unless the circumstances are completely exceptional. An example? Everyone is aware that Iran could one day become one of the main providers to Nabucco but this is not being said out loud. The situation is always changing.
A very complex situation. We also need to be aware that all of Europe's interlocutors are basically concerned with their own individual interests. Even the US position cannot be considered as totally disinterested and devoid of underlying considerations. The US was an importer of gas but it has become a major producer and exporter, thanks to the development of shale gas. It is now one of Russia's main competitors and at a considerably lower price than that obtained by Gazprom from its European customers. Other producer countries such as Algeria, Qatar and Nigeria have lost their US outlet and are searching for others, especially in Europe.
In order to guarantee its supplies, Italy had previously concluded agreements with Gazprom, based on the principle that agreed quantities would be invoiced, even if not all the supplies were used. The prices the Russian company had previously agreed with Ruhrgas and Wingas (Germany), ENI (Italy), GDF Suez (France) and Botas (Turkey) were also considerably higher than current market prices. At the beginning of the year, Gazprom agreed to lower prices a little, which cost it dearly but which did not cover the difference, to the extent that the Edison company took the case of Russian gas prices in long-term contracts to the Court of Arbitration in Stockholm. Is it necessary to point out that the European Commission had opposed these long-term contracts from the outset because it considered that they were incompatible with competition rules? At the same time, Gazprom obtained partial and direct access to the Italian market. It goes without saying that the situation is complex.
Complications relating to African production can also be added to the equation. At first glance, the situation appears one of total chaos, with conflicts that sometimes tragically involve the local inhabitants.
Whilst waiting for the Delors project to come to fruition. Everything still needs to be discussed and negotiated. The objective of these reminders is simply to reaffirm the necessity of the EU holding discussions at the most senior level in order to re-establish a minimum of cohesion and solidarity between member states and to allow for Europe's voice to be heard on the world stage, in the interest of all. The February European Council is only the first step. Let's not forget that the way ahead has once again been indicated by Jacques Delors: a new specific European treaty for energy. As is the case for economic governance, a number of years will be required for this idea to make any progress. Let's hope that the first step, thinking together, is accomplished. (F.R./transl.fl)