|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Russia
& the former USSR
Russian oil pipeline interruption intensifies struggle for
raw materials
By Peter Schwarz
10 January 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The interruption of oil supplies through the most important
pipeline between Russia and Europe has unleashed a vigorous debate
over the future supply of power to Europe.
Overnight Sunday (January 7) the Russian pipeline monopoly
Transneft cut off the Druschba pipelinethe most important
pipeline between the oilfields of Western Siberia and the refineries
of Europe. Germany relies on this pipeline, with its daily capacity
of 2 million barrels (318 million liters), for a fifth of its
requirements. Poland also relies heavily on the pipeline for its
energy needs.
Behind the break in supplies is a conflict between Russia and
Belarus, which transports the oil over its territory.
At the start of the year the Kremlin-controlled Gazprom company
increased the price of its gas to Belarus from US$46 to US$100
per 1,000 cubic meter. Russia also introduced a tariff of US$180
per ton of oil exported to Belarus. Gazprom argued that the price
increase was aimed at preventing Belarus from reselling cheaply
imported Russian oil at the world price.
The regime in Minsk took revenge by imposing a transit fee
of US$45 per ton for oil delivered from Russia to Europe. According
to Russian sources, after Transneft refused to pay this fee Belarus
responded by trying to extract oil from the pipeline. Transneft
then responded by shutting off its taps.
At the moment an end to the conflict is not in sight. Nevertheless
it is estimated that Europe will not experience a direct energy
bottleneck. On the one hand, most European countries have reserve
oil supplies sufficient for two to three months. On the other
hand they could also import oil through other pipelines or via
sea routes.
However estimates of the long-term consequences stress the
seriousness of the situation. The European Union imports 82 percent
of its oil and 57 percent of its gas from third party states.
In 25 years this percentage will rise to 93 percent of its oil
and 84 percent of its gas.
In particular, the former German Social Democratic Party-Green
coalition government led by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had
set its sights on a long-term energy partnership with Russia,
which had been a dependable supplier in former Soviet times. Schröder
himself enjoys a close personal relation with the Russian president,
Vladimir Putin, and currently chairs the supervisory board of
the Baltic Sea gas pipeline consortium, with his salary paid by
Gazprom.
A year ago a similar conflict between Russia and Ukraine had
led to the short-term interruption of Russian gas supplies to
Europe. Following the latest disruption, importing Russian energy
is now being seen as an increasingly risky business.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union),
remarked that the Russian-Belarus energy conflict demonstrated
that Germany could not make itself overly dependent on a particular
energy supplier. She declared energy security to be a central
theme to be dealt with under the German presidency of the European
Union, which began on 1 January.
Ernst Uhrlau, the head of the German foreign secret service
(BND), also declared his interest in the matter. The interruption
of German supply demonstrates that the issue of energy security
was a theme of central significance for Germany and its security
services, he said.
The Federal Association of Energy Consumers (VEA) also warned
against increasing German dependence on Russian gas and oil. In
Hanover the VEA chairman Manfred Panitz declared What Russia
is now doing to the former Soviet states could also happen to
us . . . Dependence on Russia is damaging, I regard it with concern.
Declining oil supplies from the North Sea should not be met
by increased imports from Russia Panitz, he added. Otherwise the
Russian percentage of German energy supplies could quickly rise
from 30 to 50 percent.
The search for alternative energy sources has broad political
consequences and brings Europe into conflict with other Great
Powersi.e. the US, Japan and the energy-hungry expanding
consumers China and India, which are all intent on chasing increasingly
scarce energy reserves. In addition, European governments, intent
on securing their own individual requirements, are wildly at odds
when it comes to developing a common energy policy.
A central aim of the US wars against Afghanistan and the Iraq
was to bring the large reserves of oil and gas in central Asia
and the Gulf region under US control. This was also behind the
refusal by the German, French and other European governments to
participate in launching the Iraq war. They saw their own imperialist
interests endangered and sought instead to develop their cooperation
with Russia.
The self-confident actions of Russia, which is deliberately
using oil and gas as a means to pursue its foreign policy objectives,
are now driving European countries back into the arms of the US.
Chancellor Merkels first trip after taking over the presidency
of the European Union was to Washington, where she demonstratively
sought to strengthen the position of the politically weakened
American president. During her visit she refrained from uttering
a word of criticism at Bushs plans to increase the number
of US troops in Iraq or the hasty execution of Saddam Hussein.
French President Jacques Chirac is also currently cooperating
with the US in Lebanon against Syria.
Any closing of ranks with Bush, however, cannot wipe out the
differences between Europe and the US. While Merkel offers her
support to Bush, she is also determined to emphasize the importance
of German and European interests.
The German government has planned an ambitious program for
its six-month presidency of the European Union. It is intent on
submitting a plan of action for energy at the summit planned for
the spring of this year. The aim of the plan is to secure the
supply of energy and raw materials to Europe. At the same time,
the German government is seeking to advance the Lisbon-Process,
which aims to make the European Union more competitive internationally
by increasing labor flexibility.
In June it plans to present a plan for the revival of the introduction
of a constitution aimed at giving the European Union a united
voice on foreign policy issues, under conditions where larger
partnerssuch as Germanywill play a leading role in
determining policy.
These efforts are closely bound up with military rearmament.
The European Union cannot proceed to take on the US as a serious
rival without drastically increasing its military capacities.
German or European Union troops are already active in important
crisis centers in the Middle East (in Lebanon), Afghanistan, and
the horn of Africa. Against this background, the struggle over
energy security, i.e. access to oil and gas reserves,
becomes a driving force for increasing militarism.
In an interview appearing on Tuesday in the Times of
London, the German chancellor declared, For us energy is
what coal and steel used to be. Merkel was referring to
the origins of the European Union, which emerged from the European
Coal and Steel Community, but it is more relevant to the period
leading up to the two world wars of the last century, when the
coal reserves of Lorraine and then in the German Ruhr area played
a major role in the move towards hostilities.
The current conflicts surrounding Russian energy supplies and
the corresponding international reactions underscore the impossibility
of any rational and peaceful use of world resources under a social
system controlled by powerful companies and dominated by the drive
for profit.
See Also:
Growing energy conflicts across Eurasia:
Gazprom wrests control of Sakhalin-2 gas project from Shell
[9 January 2007]
German chancellor Merkel snuggles up
to Bush
[8 January 2007]
G8 summit: Geopolitical
trial of strength in St. Petersburg
[13 July 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |