Each for himself. I will affirm it once again: in energy affairs, the European Council is non-existent. At the beginning of February it approved a lengthy catalogue of general principles and good intentions and requested that the Energy Council (ministers) and the Commission put them into practice. This column subsequently attempted (EUROPE 10317) to indicate the essential subjects that the heads of state and government had carefully avoided. The Energy Council carried out its work by approving the 10 yearly strategy that is supposed to regulate the internal market by very broadly following the orientations proposed by the Commission. Nonetheless, with regard to the most controversial policy, namely the external strategy, it had nothing to say but a few banalities and alluded to possibilities for coordinating messages to be addressed to non-EU supply or transit countries, and to continuing with the diversification of different supply sources and routes. Why? Because these are exactly the subjects that the European Council is not even attempting to tackle.
Each member state has its own policy and bilateral liaisons (some of them secret) with the supplier countries. Except for a few sporadic and partial cases, relations between these countries involve rivalry and display no effort to cooperate at all. In the majority of cases, the Commission is informed of national initiatives afterwards, by way of announcements made by member state leaders or through the press.
Absurd and very costly competition. Secrecy and the absence of coordination is provoking an absurd and very costly form of competition between member states' different orientations and projects. The oil companies are at the same time their conspirators and victims. Agreements with Russia are very often based on purchasing obligations, insofar as the quantities agreed on must be paid in full, even for the part that is not actually used. In periods of shortage, this formula would perhaps be beneficial but it is very expensive when demand is falling because it leads to difficult renegotiations, costly adjustments and often court proceedings. It is obvious that coordination of the member states' positions at the highest level would be invaluable in this respect. It would be just as essential when having to face speculative manoeuvring on the part of the oil companies, which introduce price hikes whenever an alert is sounded. It was proved at great length that the temporary cut in supplies from Libya did not lead to any danger of shortages and, on the contrary, helped to rebalance the market. The speculators, however, once again succeeded in their action. Fatih Birol, head economist at the International Energy Agency, declared that this organisation could easily put 2 million barrels per day on the market over a period of two years. The main exporter countries immediately stepped up their deliveries, aware that if prices rose, importer countries would reduce their purchases.
Political dangers. The political mess resulting from the absence of EU coordination at the most senior level is also equally disastrous. The famous US Embassy cables that were published speak for themselves: ambassadors and energy specialists from the US denounced, at great length, the bilateral policies practised by several EU countries with Russia and underlined the dangers that could result from them.
Two successive US ambassadors in Rome underlined the significance of Italian support for Russia's goal of controlling all access routes for energy products to Europe. Energy resources represent the pedestal of power, which enables Vladimir Putin to lay down the conditions for European policy. Other diplomatic documents indicated that former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, accepted Moscow's offer of presiding over the Nord Stream consortium (the monopoly instrument of Russian supplies to a large part of the EU, explicitly criticised by the president of Poland, the country that will be presiding over the Council in the second half of this year). The Russians had made a similar offer to Romano Prodi (which he refused) to preside over the South Stream project, a rival to Nabucco, the sole European project recognised and supported by the EU and very much less expensive.
Obviously, the opinions of US ambassadors should not be taken as gospel and their comments are not incumbent on the authorities in Washington. But the twofold observation is valid: (a) the EU has no single position on the most sensitive and charged aspects of its energy policy; (b) heads of state and government have no intention of discussing this matter together and a cacophony remains the general rule.
It is Mr Barroso who replied to Mr Putin… In these conditions, it's rather the European Commission that gets Europe's voice heard. During a recent meeting with an extensive Russian delegation led by Mr Putin, Mr Barroso vigorously defended the EU's position on one of the delicate aspects of energy relations. Did Mr Van Rompuy even notice?
(F.R./transl.fl)