Category Archives: Euroepen Union

A Comment on: “A Trans-Atlantic Manifesto in Times of Trump – A German Perspective,” by foreign policy experts

Posted on October 12, 2017 | 1 comment

I sent this today to European and American contacts – apologies for duplications.

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

I read with interest the declaration: “In spite of it all, America: A Trans-Atlantic Manifesto in Times of Donald Trump – A German Perspective,” signed by a number of leading German foreign policy experts today in Die Zeit and translated in the NYTimes.
Point 10 is of particular interest and much welcomed as – at long last – a frank characterization in Germany of the Nord Stream 2 project for what it plainly is: “a geopolitical project:”  Quoting:
10. Energy security policy — giving up Nord Stream 2 is in Germany’s interest
There is one more policy area in which the German government should reconsider its position to open the door for productive cooperation: energy security policy. The United States has identified Nord Stream 2, the planned pipeline running through the Baltic Sea to Russia, as a geostrategic project. They are correct. More important: This pipeline project is not in the joint European interest. Nord Stream 2 contradicts a policy of greater energy independence and undermines the envisaged European Energy Union. We should try to identify a joint approach with our European partners and the United States. (emphasis added – T.O’D.)

Further along in the spirit of Trans-Atlanticism, which this manifesto embodies, I should point out that the recent US sanctions bill (enacted by Congress in retaliation for Russian interference in US elections, and to codify into law Obama’s presidential sanctions orders stemming from Russia’s East Ukraine and Crimean interventions, so that Donald Trump cannot easily reverse these) … involved Congress meeting with EU and German diplomats and re-drafting the initial bill so as to take into explicit consideration European concerns.

These concerns were that US sanctions should not unfairly disadvantage European firms over US firms, and should not be imposed on EU firms in a “unilateral” manner, without close consultations with European allies as were carried out by the Obama administration.
In fact, the final version of this bill explicitly requires the Trump Administration to decide to impose any new sanctions on participants in European pipelines or energy projects such as Nord Stream 2 only in “coordination” with the European Union.
The fact that the final drafting of this bill – which Trump was constrained to sign because it was ‘veto proof’ – involved US-EU active cooperation “without and against” President Trump is a significant step in defense of Trans-Atlanticism and in defiance of Trump’s anti-European “America First” policy and of his vision of US “energy independence” as jingoistic “US energy dominance.”
Today’s manifesto by influential German foreign affairs figures advocating further engagement with the USA in spite of (and de facto against) Trump, is a further positive step in this direction.
I should note that the Trump administration has missed the new sanctions bill’s mandated deadline to report to Congress on these issues.  Meanwhile, I am told (some two weeks ago) by reliable sources that “all work has been frozen” by Gazprom’s European-partner firms involved in the NS2 project, awaiting clarity from the White House on what any new sanctions will be and then to understand the longterm impact on their participations.
My recent Berlin Policy Journal article on this, Neue Neue Ostpolitik, and some earlier ones there may be of interest.
Sincerely,
Dr. Thomas W. O’Donnell  ||  Energy & International Affairs
——————————————————————————————————————
 – Freie Universität-Berlin …………………………Syllabus: Energizing Europ
Advertisements

1 Comment

Posted in Energy and Geopolitics, Energy and Geostrategy, EU gas, Euroepen Union, Gazprom, geopolitics, Germany, international relations, Nord Stream, Poland, Putin, Russia, Sanctions, The USA, Uncategorized, US Foreign Policy

“Neue Neue Ostpolitik” My BPJ piece on German fury at Senate NS2 sanctions

Posted on July 3, 2017 | Leave a comment

putin_gabriel_schroeder_dinner with an old acquaintance-der_spiegel_07jun17_U637TtLQ

The US Senate’s decision to expand sanctions against Russia triggered indignation in Berlin, throwing Germany’s geopolitical ambitions over the Nord Stream 2 project into sharp relief.  Read below or get the App.   My other articles at Berlin Policy Journal  

“Neue Neue Ostpolitik”  

Berlin – July 21, 2017    By: Thomas O’Donnell —  On June 15, the US Senate approved an act to sharply expand sanctions imposed on Russia in retaliation for its intervention in eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. The broadly bi-partisan move that enshrined Barack Obama’s earlier executive orders – intended as a response to Moscow’s alleged cyber interference in US elections – was a stunning rebuke to US President Donald Trump’s Russia policy, essentially taking a broad swath of foreign policy out of his hands. Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Energy and Geopolitics, Energy and Geostrategy, EU gas, Euroepen Union, Gazprom, geopolitics, Germany, international relations, LNG, Nord Stream, Resource conflicts, Russia, Sanctions, The USA, Trump, Ukraine, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Pipe Dream? Polish ruling complicates Nord Stream 2 pipeline for Gazprom & EU partners [My Berlin Policy Journal piece]

Posted on September 26, 2016 | Leave a comment
bpj_online_odonnell_nordstream2_cutHere’s my latest analysis in Berlin Policy Journal (German Council on Foreign Relations -DGAP).Pipe Dream? The Nord Stream 2 pipeline project is in danger of being derailed.
THOMAS W. O’DONNELL , SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

A pipeline project to double Gazprom’s export capacity to Europe has always been controversial. A recent ruling by Poland’s competition authority could seriously undercut the support it has accrued, leaving its European backers at odds.

The proposed Nord Stream 2 pipeline project has bitterly pitted European states that back the project, including Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and France, against project opponents, including Ukraine, Poland, and other former Soviet-bloc states. The project aims to double the capacity of the existing huge, 55-billion-cubic-meter-per-year Nord Stream 1 pipeline, running in parallel to it under the Baltic Sea from near St. Petersburg in Russia directly to Greifswald in Germany.

This dispute has exposed two very different views of Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned gas-export monopoly, and of Vladimir Putin’s Russia itself – one side sees it as a “necessary” and “reliable” energy supplier, the other a dangerous and manipulative adversary. This dispute is but one more collision inflicting lasting harm on the European Project.

Polish competition authority rejects project

The latest row involves a ruling in late July by the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (Urzed Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentow, or UOKiK) rejecting an application by five private western European energy firms proposing to partner with Gazprom to build and operate Nord Stream 2. The firms are Germany’s E.ON (soon to be Uniper) and Wintershall, Austria’s OMV, Anglo-Dutch Shell, and France’s Engie.

Shortly before the Polish announcement, the five companies agreed to withdraw their association proposal to avoid UOKiK initiating a legal process against them. The commission’s president, Marek Niechcial, declared categorically on August 12 that the Polish rejection was definitive, asserting “This will stop the [Nord Stream 2] deal.” The five firms have nevertheless made it clear they are seeking a strategy to work around the decision, and expect to proceed as planned. Gazprom has said the same.

So why go through this proceeding in the first place? To understand these events better, I spoke with several experts and diplomats working on these matters in Moscow, Berlin, Washington, Paris, and Warsaw.

Commercial Arguments

An often-heard line of argument is that at least some of the five companies might actually have little commercial interest in the project, but need to preserve their relationships in Russia where they have large investments in energy projects. After all, the Kremlin has a track record of taking over projects from foreign partners with whom it has fallen out. A further theme in this vein is that Nord Stream 2 is not really needed in northwestern Europe, even though the Groningen field in the Netherlands and Norway’s reserves in the North Sea are declining, because future demand in northwestern Europe is overestimated and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) will be available from the United States. This view led to press speculation that the five firms likely welcomed the Polish decision, allowing them a graceful exit.

However, virtually all the experts I spoke with had no doubt Nord Stream 2 would be a lucrative commercial enterprise over the long run, and that the five firms seem genuinely enthusiastic. Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Energy and Geopolitics, Energy and Geostrategy, EU gas, Euroepen Union, France, Gazprom, Germany, Institutions and rule of law, international relations, Nord Stream, Poland, Resource conflicts, Russia, Trade and Commerce, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

“The Road to Paris: COP21 …” Berlin HEEN Conference

Posted on November 26, 2015 | Leave a comment

heen_logoCOP21 begins soon in Paris.  A very interesting discussion of the issues, with diplomats from EU states and China, takes place tomorrow, Friday evening, at Hertie School of Governance in Berlin to open the Hertie Energy & Environmental Network’s (HEEN) conference. I’ll be moderating the session. The session is open to those interested. Read on:

Opening remarks by German Undersecretary of State, ret. Rolf-Dieter Schnelle, fellows & friends of the Hertie Foundation

Panelists:
• Philippe Etienne, Ambassador of France to Germany
• Friis Arne Petersen, Ambassador of Denmark to Germany
• Wang Tianling, Counsellor, Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Berlin
• Iwona Jakuszko-Dudka, First Secretary to the Embassy of Poland to Germany
• Dr. Jan Minx, Professor for Science Policy and Sustainable Development, Hertie School of Governance, Head of Working Group on Applied Sustainability Science, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change

• Moderation by Dr. Thomas O’Donnell, Hertie School of Governance

Please register until 25 November 2015 via the following link https://docs.google.com/f

Background

In December 2015, the COP 21 climate conference in Paris will bring together world leaders, scientists, pressure groups and United Nations agencies, with the task to craft an agreement at the highest political level to tackle global warming. The representatives from 196 countries must reach an agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol. The COP 15 summit in Copenhagen (2009) is remembered more for the difficulty of reaching a global consensus than for tangible progress.

What will the legacy of COP 21 in Paris be?

  •  Is putting a price on carbon worldwide politically feasible?
  •  Is the gap between the cost of energy produced from fossil fuels and energy produced from renewable energy sources narrowing as much as to be a game-changer?
  •  How would policy proposals that raise the cost of energy go down with national leaders from the developing world, under pressure to deliver standard-of-living improvements?
  •  How will Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) impact the negotiations?
  •  How will China’s early pledge to peak emissions ahead of 2030, and the USA’s commitment to deep reductions by 2025 shape what is globally possible?
  •  Will the European Commission get a critical mass of support for the Paris Protocol?
  •  Will all parties arrive at an robust enough agreement?
  •  What is the future of the Green Climate Fund?
  •  How will the financing volume necessary to keep global warming below 2 degrees be secured?

Speakers will provide their take on the above, and engage in a lively and dynamic discussion with the audience about the major challenges which will be tackled at the COP 21 in Paris in December 2015.

The Hertie Energy and Environment Network (HEEN) is an established platform bringing together fellows of the Gemeinnützige Hertie-Stiftung with professional experience in the field of Energy and Environment (E&E) in the public, private, academic or civil society sector. HEEN’s purpose is to facilitate dialogue, knowledge-sharing and learning, to provide a trust-based environment for career path reflection, and to facilitate the development of lasting professional connections among outstanding individuals of diverse backgrounds who share a common interest and motivation for further professional development in the E&E field.

cop21_logo

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative energy, China, Energiewende, Energy and Environment, Energy and Geopolitics, Energy and Geostrategy, Environment, Euroepen Union, Germany, Uncategorized

Bypass Operation: Nord Stream 2, Russia-to-Germany pipeline deal, raises questions

Posted on October 20, 2015 | Leave a comment

BPJ_online_ODonnell_NordStream2_cut

Here’s my latest at Berlin Policy Journal (DGAP):  With Nord Stream 2, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is nearing his goal of cutting Ukraine out of the gas supply picture.  October 20, 2015

On 18 June, during the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, an agreement was signed to build a controversial new “Nord Stream 2” pipeline under the Baltic Sea that would go directly from Russia to northern Germany, with a capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm). The project, which consists of two segments that would run along the same route as the existing two segments of the 55 bcm Nord Stream line, completed in 2011, has met with strong opposition from energy officials in Brussels, as well as leaders in Ukraine and some other EU states.

Indeed, the agreement between Russia’s Gazprom and a consortium of German, Austrian, French,, and Anglo-Dutch companies came as a surprise. After all, in January 2015 Gazprom announced it had abandoned the project, blaming both the falling price of gas over the previous year and anti-monopoly restrictions in the EU’s Third Energy Package, which prohibit suppliers of gas from also owning pipelines delivering it. This provision has prevented Gazprom from ever filling the original North Stream more than half way.[1] In retrospect, the sudden signing of a Nord Stream 2 agreement only six months after the project was supposedly abandoned, plus the fact that the consortium foresees a quick start reveals the prior cancellation to have been a political ruse. Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Energy and Geopolitics, Energy and Geostrategy, Euroepen Union, France, Germany, international relations, LNG, Putin, Resource conflicts, Russia, Sanctions, shale gas, The USA, Trade and Commerce, Ukraine

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Containing Gazprom: Putin may be overplaying his hand on gas – but no thanks to Berlin and Paris

Posted on August 10, 2015 | Leave a comment
Russia’s President has used Europe’s dependence on Russian gas as a powerful geopolitical lever. But energy geopolitics is a risky game, especially with the world awash in cheap gas – and Brussels now poised to take advantage of opportunities to permanently slash Gazprom’s market share in Europe.

Russia’s president has used Europe’s dependence on Russian gas as a powerful geopolitical lever. But energy geopolitics is a risky game, especially with the world awash in cheap gas – and Brussels now poised to seize opportunities to permanently slash Gazprom’s market share in Europe.

Here is my article in today’s Berlin Policy Journal. Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Algeria, Energy and Geopolitics, Energy and Geostrategy, Euroepen Union, France, Gas globalization, Germany, Greece, LNG, Russia, Spain, The USA, Ukraine

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Strange “No!” Alignment: Greeks, IMF and Washington v. Berlin and Brussels

Posted on July 6, 2015 | Leave a comment

What a strange rebellion against the international financial order.  On Sunday 5 July, Greece voted “No!” by a resounding 61% to the bailout conditions insisted upon by Berlin, Brussels and “the creditors.”  But, what is truly unique here is the alignment of international forces for renegotiation of Greek debt.

Throughout the post-War era, whenever it came down to imposing “discipline” on other small, debt-defaulting states, the most intrepid champions of the norms of the international financial order have consistently been Washington and the IMF (just ask Argentina’s Mrs. Kirchner, she’ll tell you).

Yet, look who agrees with the Greeks that their debts–in their present magnitude and structure–are impossible and potentially disastrous for the country: Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Chavez, Debt crisis, Economic Crisis, Euroepen Union, Germany, Greece, international relations, Putin, Russia

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,