The EU’s Geopolitical Vision of a European Energy Space: When ‘Gulliver’ meets ‘White Elephants’ and Verdi’s Babylonian King

Abstract

The article examines the EU's and specifically the European Commission's proposals for an external energy policy. The analysis departs from the assumption that the geographical scope of the Commission's proposals is not the result of ‘geopolitical facts’ but rather of a discursive policy process of geopolitical writing in which geopolitical images and ideas are constantly being created and re-created. I first examine how the Commission is constructing its vision of an integrated European energy space in theory and how it uses ‘spectacular’ images to justify the linkages between energy security and geography. I then distinguish between Walters's notions of ‘networked’ and ‘colonial’ type of relations between the EU and third states to examine the wider political purpose behind the Commission's vision of the European energy space. I then analyse the extent to which the Commission's geopolitical vision has been or can be implemented in practice in four concrete empirical case studies: EU energy relations with Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean/Middle East, the Caucasus and the Russian Federation.

Notes

1. European Security Strategy, Commission of the European Communities (Brussels 2003) pp. 2, 7.

2. B. Ferrero-Waldner, quoted in Commission of the European Communities, ‘Securing Your Energy Future: Commission Presents Energy Security, Solidarity and Efficiency Proposals’, Press Release (Brussels 2008), IP/08/1696, p. 1.

3. See, e.g., S. Lavenex, ‘EU External Governance in ‘Wider Europe’’, Journal of European Public Policy 11/4 (2004) pp. 680–700; O. Geden, C. Marcelis, and A. Maurer, ‘Perspectives for the European Union's External Energy Policy: Discourse, Ideas and Interests in Germany, the UK, Poland and France’, Working Paper FG-1 Research Unit EU Integration, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (2006); K. Sodupe and E. Benito, ‘Pan-European Energy Co-operation: Opportunities, Limitations and Security of Supply to the EU’, Journal of Common Market Studies 39/1 (2001) pp. 165–177.

4. V. Mamadouh, ‘Divided We Stand: Plural Geopolitical Visions of the West’, paper presented at Towards a Post-Western West? The changing heritage of ‘Europe’ and the ‘West’, seminar organised by TAPRI, Tampere, Finland (2–3 Feb. 2006) p. 5.

5. G. O'Tuathail, ‘Just Out Looking for a Fight: American Affect and the Invasion of Iraq’, Antipode 35/5 (2003) pp. 856–870.

6. J. L. Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005) p. 466; see also P. J. Taylor, Political Geography: World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality (Harlow: Longman 1993); G. Dijink, National Identity and Geopolitical visions: Maps of Pride and Pain (London: Routledge 1996).

7. Dijink (note 6) p. 10.

8. O'Tuathail (note 5) p. 860.

9. W. Walters, ‘The Frontiers of the European Union: A Geostrategic Perspective’, Geopolitics 9/3 (2004) pp. 674–698.

10. Ibid., p. 680.

11. Ibid., p. 688.

12. J. O'Loughlin and P. Talbot, ‘Where in the World is Russia? Geopolitical Perceptions and Preferences of Ordinary Russians’, Eurasian Geography and Economics 46 (2005) p. 27.

13. P. Aalto, ‘A European Geopolitical Subject in the Making? EU, Russia and the Kaliningrad Question, Geopolitics 7/3 (2002) p. 152.

14. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply’, Green Paper (Brussels 2001) p. 3.

15. Ibid., pp. 22, 23.

16. Ibid., p. 13.

17. Ibid., p. 74.

18. Ibid., p. 12.

19. Ibid., p. 46.

20. Ibid., p. 25.

21. Ibid., p. 28.

22. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’, Communication (11 March 2003) COM 2003 104 final, p. 7.

23. Ibid., p. 10.

24. Ibid., p. 13.

25. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy – Strategy Paper’, Communication (12 May 2004) COM 2004 373 final, p. 17.

26. H. Haukkala, ‘Why the EU Must Enlarge, Engage and Consolidate’, European Voice (8 Nov. 2007); J. Kelly, ‘New Wine in Old Wineskins: Policy Adaptation in the European Neighbourhood Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44/1 (2006) pp. 29–55.

27. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ (note 25) p. 11.

28. Commission of the European Communities, ‘An Energy Policy for Europe’, Communication (10 Jan. 2007) COM 2007 1 final, p. 19.

29. Ibid., p. 24.

30. Ibid., p. 7.

31. Council of the European Union, ‘Presidency Conclusions’, European Council 8/9 March 2007 (Brussels 2 May 2007) 7224/07, p. 19.

32. Commission of the European Communities, ‘On the Development of Energy Policy for the Enlarged European Union, its Neighbours and Partner Countries’, Communication (26 May 2003) COM 2003 262 final, p. 12.

33. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Towards a Secure, Sustainable and Competitive European Energy Network’, Green Paper (13 Nov. 2008) COM 2008 782 final, p. 4.

34. Ibid., pp. 13–14.

35. S. Nies, Oil and gas delivery to Europe (Paris, Brussels: French Institute for International Relations 2008) p. 55.

36. Ibid.

37. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Secure, Sustainable’ (note 33) p. 6.

38. E.g., T. Gustafson, Negotiating Strategy: The East-West Gas Pipeline Deal (Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation 1985).

39. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ (note 25) pp. 3, 17.

40. Commission of the European Communities, 2003 (note 22) pp. 10, 13.

41. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ (note 25) p. 17.

42. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy’, Communication (4 Dec. 2006) COM 2006 726 final, p. 7.

43. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ (note 25) p. 11.

44. ENP Progress Report Ukraine (2008) pp. 14, 15; ENP Sectoral Progress Report (2008) pp. 8, 9.

45. Author's interview with Commission Official (Brussels Feb. 2008).

46. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ (note 25) p. 17.

47. L. Deitz, L. Stirton, and K. Wright, ‘The Energy Community of South East Europe: Challenges of, and Obstacles to, Europeanisation, CCP Working Paper 08-4, Norwich (Nov. 2007) pp. 16–17.

48. Ibid., p. 16.

49. G. Bosse and E. Korosteleva, ‘Changing Belarus? The Limits of EU Governance in Eastern Europe and the Promise of Partnership’, Cooperation and Conflict 44/2 (2009), pp. 143–165.

50. Author's interview with Commission Official (Brussels Feb. 2008).

51. Bosse and Korosteleva (note 49).

52. ‘Eastern Europe: Who is Afraid of Gasprom? Controlling Gas Pipelines’, RadioFreeEurope, 12 Jan. 2006, p. 2.

53. ‘Ukraine: Odessa-Brody Pipeline Potential Still Unused’, RadioFreeEurope, 12 Jan. 2007, p. 2.

54. Ibid., p. 4.

55. A. Serafimovich, ‘Ukraine Reserves Odessa-Brody Pipeline Flow’, Oil&Gas Eurasia (Sep. 2008) p. 2.

56. Ibid., p. 5.

57. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Eastern Partnership’, Communication (3 Dec. 2008) COM 2008 823 final, pp. 7–8.

58. K. Savin, ‘Charkiw-Verträge: Doppelschlag gegen die Souveränität der Ukraine’, Dossier, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Kiev 27 April 2010).

59. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ (note 25) pp. 4, 17.

60. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Strengthening’ (note 42) p. 7.

61. Commission ENP Progress Reports Jordan, Israel and Egypt (Brussels 2008).

62. Commission ENP Sectoral Progress Report (Brussels 2008) pp. 8, 9.

63. A. G. Kagiannas, D. Askounis, K. Anagnostopoulos, and J. Psarras, ‘Energy Policy Assessment of the Euro-Mediterranean Cooperation’, Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) p. 2680; in this context it is also important to mention the Mediterranean Solar Plan, an EU initiative (now flagship under the Union for the Mediterranean, UfM) to achieve energy security by supporting cooperation in the Mediterranean on renewable energies (2008–2020). For additional information, see <http://ec.europa.eu/energy/international/euromed_en.htm>.

64. ‘Pan-Arab Gas to Supply Nabucco: Just a Pipe Dream?’, The European Weekly New Europe, 3 March 2008, p. 1.

65. M. Green, ‘Total to Back Trans-Sahara Gas Pipeline’, Financial Times, 25 Feb. 2009.

66. Nies (note 35) p. 84.

67. ‘Gazprom Eyes Saharan Pipe Plans’, Upstreamonline, 15 Jan. 2008.

68. Nies (note 35) p. 83.

69. Ibid.

70. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean’, Communication (20 May 2008) COM 2008 319 final.

71. See, e.g., Crisis Group Europe Report, ‘Conflict Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU's Role’, Report No 17 (20 March 2006); C. Graubner, ‘The EU Strategy on Central Asia: Realpolitik Afterall’, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, 4 May 2008.

72. Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ (note 25) p. 11.

73. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Strengthening’ (note 42) p. 2.

74. Commission Progress Reports for Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia (Brussels 2008).

75. Commission ENP Sectoral Progress Reports (Brussels 2008) pp. 8, 9.

76. Nies (note 35) p. 40.

77. US military special forces trained over 2000 Georgian soldiers in anti-terrorism techniques aimed at protecting the pipeline; S. Cagaptay and N. Gencsoy, ‘Startup of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Turkey's Energy Role’, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 27 May 2005, p. 2.

78. After the first meeting the Nabucco Consortium in Vienna – at that time consisting of OMV, MOL, Transgaz, Bulgargaz and Botas – went to Vienna State Opera to watch Nabucco from Giuseppe Verdi. The Consortium then went to dinner and when talks came to a potential name for the pipeline, it was agreed that it should be Nabucco. See the official website of the Consortium: <http://www.nabucco-pipeline.com>.

79. F. Tassinari, ‘A Synergy for Black Sea Regional Cooperation: Guidelines for an EU Initiative’, Policy Brief, Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels June 2006) pp. 8–9.

80. ‘Pipeline Politics? Russia and the EU's Battle for Energy’, EurActiv, 23 Jan. 2009, p. 6.

81. ‘EU Rules Out Funding Nabucco Gas Pipeline’, EurActiv, 28 Jan. 2009, p. 1.

82. ‘Pipeline Politics?’ (note 80) p. 7.

83. Piebalgs quoted in ‘EU Rules Out’ (note 81) p. 2.

84. See, e.g., J. M. Barroso, ‘New Silk Road’, speech delivered at The Southern Corridor Summit, 8 May 2009.

85. R. Goetz, ‘Europa und das Erdgas des kaspischen Raumes’, Working Paper, SWP (Berlin 2007) p. 24.

86. Commission of the European Communities, ‘Road Map for the Common Economic Space – Building Blocks for Sustained Economic Growth (Brussels 2005) pp. 15–16.

87. Ibid., p. 16.

88. Council of the European Union, ‘EU-Russia Common Spaces – 2007 Progress Report’ (Brussels 7 April 2008) p. 2.

89. EU-Russia Energy Dialogue Progress Report (Paris Oct. 2008) p. 4.

90. Nies (note 35) p. 67.

91. Ibid., p. 76.

92. ‘Pipeline Politics? Russia and the EU's Battle for Energy’, EurActiv, 20 Aug. 2009, p. 1.

93. D. Mevedev, ‘Conceptual Approach to the New Legal Framework for Energy Cooperation: Goals and Principles’ (21 April 2009), available at President of Russia Official Web Portal, accessed 4 May 2010.