A certain scepticism. What are the real problems of the Community energy policy that the European Council on 4 February failed to even mention? They were left out and subsequently rendered the text that was adopted on the subject meaningless (see this column yesterday). I will underline these problems, but doubt that they will be discussed at this level in any detail in the near future. In my opinion, a summit that focuses specifically on the issue of energy will not be taking place any time soon.
Chaotic relations with third country suppliers. The real problems mainly involve the EU's energy supply and therefore relations with third country suppliers. This is a vital aspect because no matter how efficiently the internal market operates, massive imports of oil, gas and plutonium etc, remain crucial. In this domain, despite one or two sporadic cases of partial coordination between a few governments, each member state takes action on its own behalf.
At the beginning of last December (EUROPE 10271 and 10272), this column had already denounced the situation, in the naïve hope that the energy summit arranged by Mr Van Rompuy would have helped, but perhaps not defined, a common external policy. It had been hoped that it would have at least debated this issue and moved in this direction to define a number of principles or rules and organise a procedure that includes the European Commission. At the present time, there is no cooperation at all between member states but rather a kind of silent rivalry. Often member states not involved in a given project, as well as the Commission, learn about national initiatives through government declarations or read about them in the newspapers.
The example of bilateral meetings between Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi is the most spectacular example of this and the most frequently referred to (it is even mentioned in the famous US diplomatic confidential cables that have been published) but it is not the only one - far from it. The huge power wielded by the multinational oil companies should not be forgotten (or in a few cases, the power exerted by a number of national oil companies). They are entirely free to act as they so wish or cajole support from respective national authorities to obtain political backing for the action they are planning or preparing.
Every major supply project is in fact controversial: if it is supported by one government, it is contested by others, even if it has formally acquired a European appearance like Nabucco. Some member states support South Stream as an alternative to Nabucco, whilst others oppose South Stream and consider that the Russian-Ukrainian route has now become safe, and so on and so forth.
Democracy and human rights. The second aspect that should be discussed at a European level is linked to the first aspect but is even more politically sensitive. I am referring to the behaviour to be adopted towards supply or transit countries which are overtly antidemocratic regimes. This is not purely theoretical because a case involving this question is currently being discussed - Uzbekistan - a transit country and major gas producer. Following the shocking internal repression there, the EU imposed harsh sanctions against this country. They were then suspended and the Uzbek president, Islam Karimov, was invited to Brussels by Mr Barroso, with whom he signed a memorandum of understanding on energy. Obviously, the president of the Commission provided assurances that he had vigorously expressed his concerns about human rights and fundamental freedoms. He subsequently pointed out that EU foreign affairs ministers had previously agreed to strengthen their relations with this country. Naturally, this did not prevent human rights NGOs from protesting vociferously.
How can infrastructure construction and operations be suspended or partially blocked when they have involved decades of work, enormous investment and when the EU's energy supply depends upon them? Let's be clear about it, I don't claim to have any answer to this thorny problem - far from it. I would simply like to point out that the problem exists and that heads of government should discuss the matter.
Putting vague wishes into practice. The third aspect includes a genuine energy summit involving the practical application of internal market measures. In last week's text they were only mentioned as a kind of wish list or blatantly ignored when they appeared to be controversial, such as the management of shale gas on European territory and other aspects requiring clarification.
The radical solution. It is quite clear - the problems are so complex and the chances of a genuine debate at the highest level are, for the time being, so slim that the only radical solution will perhaps be the creation of a new specific “Energy” Treaty and an ad hoc Community, as proposed by Jacques Delors. This may be put into practice one day, but who knows when? (F.R./transl.fl)