The member states: every man for himself. As I write this, the world of energy is particularly turbulent. Every day brings its own ration of differences of opinion, commotion and complications; even things that appeared to have been agreed are found back on the table. Against this overexcited global backdrop, the EU is a very long way from presenting itself as a compact grouping. Partial European rules exist; however, despite the efforts of the Community institutions to ensure that these are observed and applied, each member state makes the vital decisions on its own behalf (for example, yes or no to nuclear power) and each one acts individually in its relations with third-country suppliers, so that decisions are made at government level or by the giants in the sector. Germany has declared that it will phase out nuclear and Chancellor Angela Merkel has “taken energy policy in hand”; in France, the nuclear issue was one of the main points of disagreement between the two presidential candidates; Italy continues to extend its work with Russia in its bilateral negotiations with Moscow; the United Kingdom certainly does not seek the opinion of Brussels on its energy policy. And so on. In addition, the Nabucco project, the only major initiative of a European nature, may, according to certain observers, be abandoned.
It is not my intention to run through all of the general comments and consequences of the absence of a European energy policy, on which this section took position at the end of February and in March, reaching the conclusion that the energy sector is, in practice, excluded from the foreign policy of the EU. It is true that the single energy market is more or less regulated and that the European Commission makes sure that the rules are adhered to and builds upon these; but as regards external relations, the few common decisions (which are discussed and decided upon at what is essentially an intergovernmental level) concern certain imports and the interruption of these for politico/military reasons; but energy supply, extraction projects and research are all areas in which each member state holds onto its own autonomy. Sometimes, they may happen to sing from the same hymn sheet; if alliances are formed, these are negotiated by the companies in question or, at the very best, between the national authorities.
The example of EU-China relations. An eloquent, and almost ironic, example of the limited level of current Community competence was recently provided by the exercise of energy cooperation between China (in the person of Li Keqiang, likely successor to the current prime minister) and the presidents of the European Council and the Commission, Van Rompuy and Barroso. Two joint declarations were made on this occasion regarding the Euro-Chinese partnership in the field of energy, one of them referring to a simple exchange of expertise on the management of the electricity market (rules for setting prices, market access, technical standards, etc), the other regarding energy security. Mr Barroso described these declarations as “a first step”, to be followed by “a situation of competition, including open and non-discriminatory access to the respective markets”, stressing the importance of an agreement which would ensure reciprocal access to public procurement contracts, a well-known European demand which is an awfully long way from being agreed to by China.
In the meantime, operational initiatives and discussions remain national; every country of the EU acts on its own behalf, sometimes in competition with a neighbouring member state, sometimes in cooperation with that same neighbour.
Analogies with the world of finance? Over and above the “external relations” aspect, in the current phase, the very foundations of energy activity have been called into question, whilst debates and decisions are broadly national and, in some cases, contradictory. Orientations seemed to have been agreed upon, or largely shared, and suddenly that is no longer the case: the sources of energy and production methods are now controversial.
The example of nuclear energy is symptomatic of this; in Germany, it will have been phased out by 2022; in France, the attitude of the current president is different by a long chalk from that of the outgoing president; in Italy, the “no” has been confirmed, but energy purchased from France is of nuclear origin and produced very close to the Italian border. Another case of diverging attitudes concerns the use of shale gas: in a country such as Poland, energy supply would be radically transformed. At the same time, the support regimes for wind energy have to some extent been challenged, or revised.
And how are we supposed to react to the finer details of the management and setting of oil prices? We could find a few negative similarities between the world of energy and the world of finance: a similar lack of transparency in price fluctuations; impossibility of knowing who is responsible for the price fluctuations, the frequency of which is likely to lead to breathtaking profits; uncontrollable speculation. The oil kings grow as rich as, if not more than, the kings of finance; they buy castles and palaces in the West, works of art, football teams; but it is mainly Europe that is appealed to for aid for the least-favoured Arab populations or oil-producing African states, which are so often the theatre of devastating conflicts over control of the oil-producing areas.
The resemblances we might note between the financial markets and the market for oil products should, in my opinion, lead to a similar disciplinary effort; to this end, Europe as a whole could be effective, without having to resign ourselves to the words attributed to Nicolas Sarkozy: “We can do nothing against the forces of the oil market”.
Admittedly, the radical solution lies within the intuition of Jacques Delors: creating a European Energy Community, in parallel to the current European Union. But as we know, Mr Delors is usually some 20 years ahead of the curve; and this, therefore, will not happen any time soon.
Human rights and foreign policy. Whilst we wait for this new Energy Community, the EU should also be taking account of other delicate yet essential aspects. The links between the energy policy and the requirement for the supplier countries to respect human rights and liberties are often brought up by the European Parliament, or at least by some of its members. Hannes Swoboda, leader of the Socialist Group, has stressed the need for the EU's relations with Russia in the field of energy (and, for that matter, all other areas) to be quite clear: “we need to be vigilant, to have a pragmatic yet critical approach, whenever there are human rights violations” (see EUROPE 10611).
The energy policy as a whole is, moreover, closely linked to foreign policy; in certain cases, it is part of it and it is impossible to separate the two. Do we really need to quote a few examples where the link is clear? Several observers believe that the Kurdish part of Iraq is preparing for self-governance; this is demonstrated by its attitude in matters related to oil: its authorities have concluded, or are preparing, sales contracts with major international oil companies such as ExxonMobil; its controversies with the Arab part of Iraq over the ownership of certain oil-producing areas (Misul, Kiruk) speak volumes. Ankara has definitively agreed to allow South Stream to pass below its territorial waters of the Black Sea, which will allow Russian gas to reach the EU without transiting via Nabucco, the Community initiative which will go via Turkey. South Stream is a project featuring, alongside Gazprom, ENI (Italy), EDF (France) and BASF (Germany). Turkey has obtained an exchange of guarantees from Gazprom on increasing supplies of Russian gas. But the Community institutions have been excluded from these negotiations and arrangements, as the European energy commissioner has explicitly complained.
Supplies of gas and oil are some of the most important elements of the foreign policy of the EU, but it is out of the hands of the European bodies responsible for this policy. Can this be an acceptable situation? (FR/transl.fl)