Stressing the global importance of the forthcoming resumption of negotiations between the EU and Russia sounds almost banal. The weight of the two parties to the negotiations is such that the new partnership to be defined will logically have political, economic and cultural fallout internationally, plus a major influence on the world's energy balance, and thus on the climate and safeguarding nature.
The Member States which understand. The priority condition is for the Member States and Community institutions all to sing from the same hymn sheet on the subject of energy (see this section yesterday). However, the situation is getting better from this point of view. The countries of the EU which are geographically close to Russia understand more and more that their specific interests can be validly defended only in the European framework. A few excessive and ineffectual stances being taken by Poland and some of the Baltic states- that is all in the past. Last week, the prime ministers of Poland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania agreed with the President of the European Commission to establish an energy interconnection plan between the countries neighbouring the Baltic Sea, covering the essential infrastructure: Supply networks and the diversification thereof, electricity production capacity, electricity networks. The details will be negotiated next year and the whole plan will be operational in 2010 (see our bulletin 9763). For Poland and the Baltic States, the priority concern is not to depend solely on Russia for their energy supply; according to the Lithuanian Prime Minister, thanks to the plan cited the EU is now responsible for the objectives of the Baltic plan. The following day, energy solidarity between the Member States in general was affirmed in the conclusions of the European Council, and concretised by the creation of a crisis mechanism to face up to any potential breaks in supply (main sources of concern in Warsaw and elsewhere). The Baltic Sea countries know that their energy security is linked to the EU; alone against Russia, their weight would be negligible and they would lay themselves wide open to all manner of blackmail.
The first obstacle to unified action on the part of the EU appears to have been thus overcome. If some or other of the "large" Member States should still feel an urge to go it alone, the existence of the nascent single energy market should convince them that this is impossible.
Autonomy from the Americans. The second major- and sensitive- political aspect is that of the autonomy of the EU from the United States. In this column of 29 August, I wrote that when it comes to energy, "what Europe needs is full liberty of movement" (with apologies for quoting myself). Europe was subsequently right in both its initiative to put an end to the armed conflict in Georgia and in its emergency response to the financial crisis (intervention method of the States, requirement for another Bretton Woods); why would it have been wrong about energy cooperation with Russia? It should be less inclined to countenance the humours of an American administration in its final weeks of existence.
Reciprocity and transparency. Yesterday, I referred to the most controversial and "politicised" aspect of Euro-Russia energy relations: the activities of Gazprom within the European market. Back in September 2007, José Manuel Barroso explained why the Commission was proposing that third-country energy companies active in the EU be subjected to the same rules and conditions as European companies regarding the separation of production activities from distribution activities. The Russian Energy Minister and Mr Putin himself spoke out against this European attitude. But just a few months later, on 2 April this year, the Russian Parliament adopted its restrictive law on foreign investment in 42 sectors considered to be strategic, providing for an authorisation mechanism and thresholds for stakeholdings. The EU may look at borrowing a few of the same principles for its partnership with Russia; this is a field in which reciprocity and transparency are required.
A small geographical detail to conclude: the European Council has included Africa among the major future energy providers to the EU. For the time being, the political and technical conditions vital for proper cooperation of this kind are far from being in place; but politically, the objective has been retained. This is understandable, because diversification is vital; cooperating broadly and in full clarity with Russia is positive; becoming totally beholden to Russia would be less good.
(F.R./trans.fl)