Weakening Russian Influence Requires European Energy Union (SueddeutscheZeitung, Germany)
"Today, there is almost no other area of European politics more
dominated by nationalism and disunity than energy policy. ... we might also ask
ourselves in the case of energy policy, if a coalition of the willing shouldn’t
take the first step, without waiting for the stallers
and obstructionists. This, too, would help reduce dependence on Russia."
One of seven observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe that has been taken hostage by pro-Russian seperatists in Slaviansk, east Ukraine, April 27.
Sometimes
there are advantages to a crisis. Sometimes it sets positive developments in
motion that would not otherwise have occurred. The financial crisis, with all
the harm it has done, was just such a crisis: politicians in Europe took the opportunity
to regulate the banks more closely and create a banking union,
i.e., a set of regulations that will minimize future crises of this type as
much as possible. Although aspects of the regulations are flawed, it's an
improvement over what existed before. It is not without justification that some
politicians refer to this as the biggest step toward integration that Europe
has taken since the Treaty
of Lisbon.
Now
the next crisis is holding Europe in its grip, and again, it could be an
opportunity for the 28 countries of the European Union to create better
regulations. The trigger is the battle for Ukraine. Since Vladimir Putin
annexed Crimea, more so since he has begun to reach for East Ukraine, there is
growing fear in West Europe that he might do more than use masked henchmen in
his pursuit of power, and turn off the gas taps for E.U. member states (those
in the East, in particular).
Therefore,
Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland proposed last Tuesday that the E.U. engage
in long-term planning for just such an eventuality by creating an energy union analogous
to the banking union. He writes
in the Financial Times:
“Excessive dependence on Russia's energy makes Europe weak.”
Plans for the
impending bottleneck
The
idea of an energy union isn't bad in principle. Because it’s ludicrous that the
European integration process of 1951 was largely driven by common energy policy
interests, and that the first thing to be created was the European
Coal and Steel Community, the so-called union of mining industries, yet
today, more than six decades later, there is almost no other area of European
politics more dominated by nationalism and disunity than energy policy.
For
instance, Europeans have long since created a common internal market for goods
and services - but not for energy. For travelers and workers, the barriers have
fallen and there is more flexibility, but energy, especially electricity,
cannot readily cross borders, because member nations continue to shield their
energy markets against intruders. It’s true that Brussels is attempting to move
things in a common direction with its energy policy guidelines, but ultimately,
there is no coordinated, E.U.-wide strategy for energy security and supply.
One
also has to say that Donald Tusk’s proposal will only partially change this,
because he doesn't go far enough. His primary objective is for E.U. countries to
stop negotiating with Gazprom for their supply of
natural gas individually, country by country, but together. This would give
Europe more purchasing power. In the event of a bottleneck similar to the one
in 2009, when Russia turned off the gas tap, Tusk urges that E.U. countries support
each other with their own natural gas reserves. Furthermore, the network of
pipelines in Europe should be expanded so that gas can also be pumped from West
to East, not just East to West, especially in the ten countries which remain
100 percent dependent on Russian natural gas.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
All
this makes sense and should be tackled by Europeans, but a common energy policy
must accomplish much more. It must ensure that E.U. countries fully open their domestic
energy markets to competition, that the move away from nuclear power and coal
is genuinely understood as a common task, and that renewable energy is in fact expanded
consistently everywhere (though not as precipitously as in Germany).However, as stipulated by Tusk, an energy
union cannot be used to support individual countries in their continued
dependence on a single energy source, as Poland does with coal, or Great
Britain with nuclear power.
Ultimately,
what Tusk is calling for is a common external energy policy. A common internal
energy market, on the other hand, requires more - probably more than some countries
are willing to give. In the end, we might also ask ourselves in the case of
energy policy, if a coalition of the willing shouldn’t take the first step, as
was the case with monetary union or the Schengen
Area, without waiting for the stallers and obstructionists.
This, too, would help reduce dependence on Russia.
