Motives other than energy. According to certain observers, what set off the dramatic events in Georgia was, once again, the issue of energy, which has sparked so many conflicts elsewhere. This time, however, there was no reason in any way related to energy for the Georgian President to begin hostilities, since, from the energy point of view, his country was sitting nicely: the only route for gas and oil from the Caspian Sea region to the EU, without going through Russia (until such time as the problematic and disputed Nabucco project is completed) is through the Georgian Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan gas pipeline - an ideal situation for a country which does not have any oil reserves of its own and for which the transit of oil products towards the Mediterranean, through Turkey, represents not inconsiderable guaranteed revenue. Triggering armed conflict with Russia for reasons of energy just does not make sense. That is why I believe that there were other motives behind Mikhail Saakashvili's rash adventure, motives that have more to do with the perennial problem of borders and the desire to regain control of the two regions where the people have, with Russian support, been calling for autonomy. Matters, then, of sovereignty, borders and nationality are once again behind a conflict, just as we have seen how many times before throughout history, and again recently in Europe with the break-up of Yugoslavia (and it is not yet over), and, indeed, in Europe as a whole until the European Community was created. Saakashvili, confident of US support, believed that he could move.
For the EU, the energy problem remains. Energy has an important role, but more in the way it influences future developments than as the trigger for this conflict. Several journalists dispatched by Western media noted the, not always friendly, attention paid by Russian troops to the Georgian gas pipeline, without really stopping it operating. This month's events are a further warning to the EU and should encourage it to define and apply a joint energy policy, moving beyond purely national, and often contradictory, strategies. This is one of the key challenges facing the EU, and also one of the most complex and difficult; this column has often discussed it. Progress has been minimal; the impression is that most member states are acting in an increasingly autonomous fashion, each concerned with its own national interests. Perfectly understandably, Russia (at the highest political level or acting through Gazprom and other massive companies which control the country's oil resources) encourages this trend, it being in Russia's interest to have to deal with individual counties rather than a single whole. Energy is the major issue in the new EU-Russia Partnership Agreement, negotiation on which has officially begun. How can it be avoided that events in Georgia do not have a negative impact on this agreement?
Things now start to get more complicated. Russia's accession to the WTO, essential for improved and normal trade relations, would seem to have been compromised. Will partnership agreement talks suffer a general slow-down? Will the EU be able to maintain, and if necessary increase, its autonomy in relation to the United States? In NATO, Europe brought balance and a calming influence (see this column in yesterday's edition). In other areas, and first and foremost in energy, what Europe needs is real freedom of movement in relation to the Americans. It is by no means certain that the countries of the EU are as one on this point.
Shared excesses. I will now add a few lines on the most unpleasant aspect: responsibility for acts of cruelty during the conflict. The Russians have accused the Georgians of genocide, and have said they will take this matter to the international organisations. The Georgians have levelled more or less similar accusations against the Russians, in particular the South Ossetian irregulars following the Russian forces. The evidence of Western special envoys in the field depended on the areas they visited: all saw cruelty by one side or the other, depending on where they were. This is the sad story of all conflicts in which local populations are caught up; we saw it in the former Yugoslavia, and before that in Vietnam, Algeria and elsewhere. Accusation and counter accusation don't change anything, the desire for revenge always prevails. From this point of view, united Europe has shown the way, even though too often Europeans themselves forget.
Tomorrow I will discuss the repercussions of these events on how the EU works. (F.R./transl.rt)