Tweet
EU SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT ON ENERGY
Hurriyet
Feb 14 2010
Turkey
In almost any area of political or social endeavor, the topic of
energy is becoming increasingly fundamental. Energy policy and
politics drive so much that, at first glance, they might not seem
specifically relevant.
Energy is at the root of virtually all of Turkey's environmental
debates and disputes. Decisions on which dam to build or which strategy
to embrace for protecting the Bosphorus against shipping disasters
are inherently matters about energy.
Engage any agricultural expert in a discussion on the woes of the
farming industry, and he or she will say commodity prices are down
and input prices are up. What this conversation too is really about
is energy.
Little needs to be said, of course, about the role of energy in the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile the specter of climate change
threatens our very existence and an accord to do anything about it
remains elusive. An election in Ukraine, a set of protocols before
Armenia's parliament, a regional referendum on the status of the
northern Iraqi city of Mosul... in the final analysis, these are all
energy discussions.
The element of energy in Turkey's ongoing accession talks with the
European Union is almost the perfect metaphor to capture the state of
the entire negotiation. We have long argued that these negotiations
proceed amid an asymmetrical perspective. In most European capitals,
EU membership for Turkey is seen as sort of a good deed, a gesture
of magnanimity. If there is a benefit for the rest of Europe, it
is limited to the domestication of a country that otherwise risks
getting out of hand in terms of its population, religion or migration.
That Turkey's membership is inherently a good - if not a better -
deal for the existing EU societies is an argument that falls flat. It
falls flat even in Italy, a country that will actually cease to exist
in about 120 years if population trends continue at their current rate.
That this poverty of vision defines so much thinking in Brussels or
Strasbourg is, of course, frustrating. That European leaders have by
and large failed to define, let along articulate, their own strategic
self-interest vis-a-vis Turkey is a sad statement on the age. But one
would think one element of reason to be extracted from this irrational
morass would be the energy relationship between Turkey and the EU.
>From the prospective Nabucco or South Stream gas pipelines to the
existing Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, to ongoing petroleum explorations
by Norway's Statoil on the Black Sea to the tanker traffic flowing
through Europe's largest city... it's all about energy.
And yet, as our reporter Döndu SarıÅ~_ık wrote in our weekend
edition, the "energy chapter," the most important pillar in the
negotiation architecture, is closed at the behest of Greek Cyprus
and is likely to remain so.
Such shortsightedness is hardly a threat to Turkey's energy security.
It is, however, one to that of the EU.
Hurriyet
Feb 14 2010
Turkey
In almost any area of political or social endeavor, the topic of
energy is becoming increasingly fundamental. Energy policy and
politics drive so much that, at first glance, they might not seem
specifically relevant.
Energy is at the root of virtually all of Turkey's environmental
debates and disputes. Decisions on which dam to build or which strategy
to embrace for protecting the Bosphorus against shipping disasters
are inherently matters about energy.
Engage any agricultural expert in a discussion on the woes of the
farming industry, and he or she will say commodity prices are down
and input prices are up. What this conversation too is really about
is energy.
Little needs to be said, of course, about the role of energy in the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile the specter of climate change
threatens our very existence and an accord to do anything about it
remains elusive. An election in Ukraine, a set of protocols before
Armenia's parliament, a regional referendum on the status of the
northern Iraqi city of Mosul... in the final analysis, these are all
energy discussions.
The element of energy in Turkey's ongoing accession talks with the
European Union is almost the perfect metaphor to capture the state of
the entire negotiation. We have long argued that these negotiations
proceed amid an asymmetrical perspective. In most European capitals,
EU membership for Turkey is seen as sort of a good deed, a gesture
of magnanimity. If there is a benefit for the rest of Europe, it
is limited to the domestication of a country that otherwise risks
getting out of hand in terms of its population, religion or migration.
That Turkey's membership is inherently a good - if not a better -
deal for the existing EU societies is an argument that falls flat. It
falls flat even in Italy, a country that will actually cease to exist
in about 120 years if population trends continue at their current rate.
That this poverty of vision defines so much thinking in Brussels or
Strasbourg is, of course, frustrating. That European leaders have by
and large failed to define, let along articulate, their own strategic
self-interest vis-a-vis Turkey is a sad statement on the age. But one
would think one element of reason to be extracted from this irrational
morass would be the energy relationship between Turkey and the EU.
>From the prospective Nabucco or South Stream gas pipelines to the
existing Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, to ongoing petroleum explorations
by Norway's Statoil on the Black Sea to the tanker traffic flowing
through Europe's largest city... it's all about energy.
And yet, as our reporter Döndu SarıÅ~_ık wrote in our weekend
edition, the "energy chapter," the most important pillar in the
negotiation architecture, is closed at the behest of Greek Cyprus
and is likely to remain so.
Such shortsightedness is hardly a threat to Turkey's energy security.
It is, however, one to that of the EU.