Visit to Germany by Russian President. Construction of North European Gas Pipeline
On September 8, Vladimir Putin went to Berlin for only several hours. The brief visit began with a meeting with Gerhard Schroeder at the Office of Federal Chancellor. However, “the main objective of the meeting between Putin and Schroeder was the ceremony of signing the contract on the “project of the century” – joint construction of the North European Gas Pipeline (NEGP), that will after 2010 transfer Russian gas from Siberia directly to Germany and then to other European countries bypassing the transit countries” (“Vremya Novostey” newspaper, 9.09.2005).
“In order to build the pipeline, Gazprom, BASF and E.ON will establish a joint venture called North European Gas Pipeline Company, where 51% will belong to the Russian company, while the German ones will get 24.5% each. The pipe will be laid on the bottom of the Baltic Sea from Vyborg to Greifswald in Northern Germany . By 2010, the first run of piping will be laid with a flow rate of about 27.5 billion cubic meters of gas per year. After building the second run, the capacity will increase up to 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year” (“Vedomosti” newspaper, 9.09.2005).
The European Commission has approved the Russian-German agreement on the pipeline construction: “We welcome any infrastructure helping to supply gas to EU countries,” the Commission spokesman Rupert Krietmeyer stated at the press-conference in Brussels (“Nezavisimaya gazeta” newspaper, 12.09.2005).
The leaders of Russia and Germany also quite cheerfully commented on the signed agreement. “The main parameters of the project are impressive. Apart from the main pipeline, there will be outlets to Sweden , Finland and Kaliningrad Oblast,” stressed Vladimir Putin” (“Vedomosti” newspaper, 9.09.2005). Gerhard Schroeder stressed the unique type of relations established between Russia and Germany on various levels: “We are witnessing a really breathtaking economic growth in Russia . That also serves as pledge of our enduring cooperation. By the way, cooperation with Russia to a large extent facilitates the creation of new jobs in Germany . It is known that this is the issue of fundamental importance for us today” (“Vremya Novostey” newspaper, 9.09.2005). A positive assessment of the NEGP contract was also given by Klaus Mangold, Chairman of the Eastern Committee of German Economy: “Today is a big and significant day for the economic cooperation between our two countries. Each year, the partnership strategy between Russia and Germany is gaining momentum. Not only does it strengthen the cooperation around energy supply, but also continues beyond the energy framework. It seems to me that the NEGP contract will enable the real qualitative leap in the Russia-German cooperation for many years ahead” (Ibid).
Both Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroeder paid special attention to the fact that NEGP project was not targeted against any third countries. “Schroeder has stressed that the new pipeline project was not aiming against anyone and was open for the any third parties. Besides, it will not reduce the significance of the other already existing pipelines while serving only the purpose of “energy alliance between EU and Russia , which is a part of the common European industrial space” (“Nezavisimaya gazeta” newspaper, 9.09.2005). The Russian President supported German Chancellor: “I would like to emphasise that we do not force anyone out of our energy business in Europe. We are very respectful of the economic interests and geopolitical situation of the transit countries. We consider that they should play a worthy political role in Europe . However, we do reserve the right to protect our interests” (“Vremya Novostey” newspaper, 9.09.2005).
Nevertheless, negative assessments by the “third countries” did not take long to wait. Immediately following the conclusions of the Russian-German agreement, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski referred to the act signed between Putin and Schroeder as “bad from the environmental and poor from the economic and political points of view” (“Kommersant” newspaper, 16.09.2005). Aigars Kalvitis, Prime-Minister of Latvia, was also critical of the signed agreement. According to him, “the construction of NEGP on the bottom of the Baltic Sea planned by Russia and Germany may jeopardise the security of the region. It does not fit with the EU single energy policy, which is why Latvia intends to give it a negative evaluation” (Ibid). Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President of Latvia, in turn, has “voiced an idea that since Russia and Germany have preferred a more expensive, in her opinion, kind of a gas pipeline, there are political reasons behind that” (“Nezavisimaya gazeta”, 28.09.2005). An exhaustive answer to such conjecture has been given by Sergei Kupriyanov, press-secretary of the Gazprom Board: “It would be a mistake to say that we have chosen a more expensive kind of gas pipeline. In one’s calculations, not only cost of the construction should be taken into account, but also the cost of further operation. When building a pipeline on the seabed, we would only incur costs for the construction and further operational maintenance. Furthermore, such an important cost item as payment for the transit would be missing. We do not see sufficient reasons for the concerns voiced by the Baltic countries. The practice of building underwater gas pipelines is quite common: for example, on yet another part of the European seabed such pipeline has been in operation for over 30 years, but no problems arose during that time” (Ibid).
Elections in Germany
On September 18, the elections to the Bundestag took place in Germany . By the morning of the next day, the federal election committee has published the following results: “Social Democratic Party (SDPG) received 34.3% of the votes, while Christian Democratic Party (CDU) jointly with the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), got 35.2%. They are followed by Free Democratic Party (FDP, a.k.a. “liberals”) with 9.8%. The left party (LP) was fourth with its 8.7% of total votes. The listing of parties that made it to the new Bundestag is concluded with the Greens who won 8.1% of the votes. … The seats in the sixteenth convention of Bundestag are distributed tentatively as follows: CDU/CSU – 225, SDPG – 222, FDP – 61, LP – 54, Greens – 51” (“Nezavisimaya gazeta”, 20.09.2005).
One thing became clear after the promulgation of the results: “The elections in Germany did not add clarity to the arrangement of political forces. … Further to that, Schroeder was able to some extent to consider himself a winner. During the latest period he managed to drag his party out of the rating pit. The lag between SDPG and CDU/CSU of only one percent, i.e. three mandates, is a remarkable result. It is even more obvious that the preferences of voters were in favour of Schroeder personally, as opposed to his rival candidate” (“Nezavisimaya gazeta” newspaper, 20.09.2005).
“It is impossible to restore Europe without a dynamically developing Germany ”. Such was the feedback on the Bundestag elections, leading to no single party to win enough support to be able to form the new government, by Jose Manuel Barroso, Chairman of the European Commission (“Polit.ru”, 20.09.2005).
Russian press wrote much about the importance of German elections for the entire European Union and results of the vote being upsetting for Europe : “Even if some coalition emerges, its policy will be based upon an endless chain of compromise settlements making it impossible to pass any serious reforms. In turn, the situation in the entire Europe depends on the ability of Germany to overcome its economic crisis. An unexpected outcome of the German vote is another strike on the European perspectives, which are already called into question by the events in spring and summer. The downward-looking economic growth indicators that have long ago buried the objective of turning the EU into the world’s most competitive economy by 2010. Failure of the European Constitution at the referenda in France and Netherlands . Sharp and still unsettled conflict between the leading powers around the principles for the distribution of agricultural subsidies. Political fever in Paris , where the struggle for the inheritance of Jacques Chirac began as early as two years before the elections… All of that fits within the same logical chain. The European Union is experiencing a deep crisis. A dead end in terms of ideas (deepening got in contradiction with enlargement) is combined with the lack of will for the necessary change and the problem of leadership. Contemporary Europe that has achieved unbelievable progress during the past decade is clearly missing bright and strong leaders“ (“Vremya Novostey” newspaper, 20.09.2005).
The impact of the elections in Bundestag on the internal and external policy of Germany, and in particular, on the Russian-German relations, judging by the comments of the Russian press, is minimal: “Everything that usually ensues from such situation lies ahead: hard negotiations between the parties, backstage bargaining, desperate struggle for allies, influence and positions. The question, when it is over, remains open. One thing is clear: whatever the coalition combinations (which will inevitably represent “a system of mutual counter-balances”) one should not anticipate cardinal changes in either internal or external policy of Germany . Meanwhile, Moscow may relax, because all the parties represented in the Bundestag are advocates of continuing the partnership and friendly relations with Russia ” (“Nezavisimaya gazeta” newswpaper, 20.09.2005).
