The Wall Street Journal has a good column today on one of our favorite topics – Russia’s energy disaggregation of Europe.
Accelerating EU plans to build a single market for energy would have multiple benefits. It would encourage much more competition between energy providers, bringing down prices for consumers in the process, and fuel investments in intra-European power grids. It would also help to cushion the effect on mostly East European countries when key energy exporters to Europe fiddle with pipelines — a practice, alas, not exclusive to the Kremlin. Europe would be better able to compensate energy or electricity shortages in countries such as Bulgaria or Hungary the next time Ukraine or Russia reduces gas supplies to the region. Moreover, it would give Europe greater market power to fight anti-competitive behavior by Russian energy companies like Gazprom.
This is a classic EU-style bottom-up strategy: When it opens up andliberalizes internally, it grows stronger externally and can leverageits market power to get other countries to open up and respect rules aswell. Europe’s efforts to make Russia play by international rules bygetting it into the WTO, though, are unlikely to succeed. But it’s notentirely clear that Russia really wants to join this trade organization.
A better strategy would be to use Russia’s existing commitments as asignatory to the Energy Charter Treaty to make it respect internationalrules. Unsurprisingly, Russia does not like the ECT because it is oneof the few international treaties that actually could constrainRussia’s energy power games. Moscow claims, correctly, that it hassigned but not ratified the ECT. It also claims, wrongly, that it istherefore not bound by this treaty. When signing the ECT, Russia agreedto apply its rules even before ratification.
Subscribe by Email
6 Comments
James, Please pass the bong…. I would really love to smoke a little and then look at the world through such wonderful rose colored glasses.You are toooo much.I really love this quote of yours, “Moscow claims, correctly, that it has signed but not ratified the ECT. It also claims, wrongly, that it is therefore not bound by this treaty. When signing the ECT, Russia agreed to apply its rules even before ratification….”Brutha, you really gotta lay-off the skunk weed, it’s screwing with your brain.
I think I will leave the drugs to you and the rest who think that all is well in the way Russia handles energy relations.You pretend as though I wrote this article in the Wall Street Journal. If you disagree that about Russia’s obligations under the ECT then make an argument, not disparage people who hold other opinions. It’s not very convincing.
not just because an article appeared in some media website giving suggestions as to what Europe should do with their energy policy means that its going to be considered and implemented right away. This will not happen because individual interests of member EU states will always prevail in the end. Besides, the only EU members who would support this are mainly those east european countries with hostile intentions towards Russia. Unfortuantely for them, it is still the Big EU players i.e. Germany, France and Italy who makes the final decisions.
Junichiro, the only countries who support bilateral energy relations with Russia – and thereby engender the division which splits apart any hope for common bargaining – are those with enormous financial interests and/or high ranking employees of the Russian government. Or perhaps Gerhard Schroder is paid 390,000 euros a year because he knows what’s best for Germany.
Germany and Italy were the two countries that didn’t support the Reagan embargo on technologies for the Novi -Urengoï-Europe pipe .Since 25 yers they haven’t been disapointed with Soviet and then Russian gas .Now France , with Total ( Shtokman ) and GDF ( Nord-Stream ) sees it’s time to have the same benefits as Germany and Italy .Why should they take an agressive policy against Russia or Gazprom .Because Uncle Sam says we must ” take care of the big bad bear ” ?
Ps :” Moscow claims, correctly, that it has signed but not ratified the ECT. It also claims, wrongly, that it is therefore not bound by this treaty. When signing the ECT, Russia agreed to apply its rules even before ratification.”Makes :”" Washington claims, correctly, that it has signed but not ratified the UNCLOS ( United Nation Convention on the Law Ofthe Seas ) . It also claims, wrongly, that it is therefore not bound by this treaty. When signing the UNCLOS , United Staes agreed to apply its rules even before ratification.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCLOS#United_States_non-ratification