Greece stresses its role as EU’s energy hub

Πηγή: EurActiv
Jan 13 2014

Greece, holding the rotating presidency of the EU until June, said it would promote the enhancement of energy security in the 28-country bloc and fully support the European Commission’s approach to Russian energy giant Gazprom.

Speaking to the press in Athens last week, the Greek minister for energy, Yiannis Maniatis, said the first pillar for European energy security was the support of initiatives to diversify gas supply, including gas from the Caspian Sea and the gradual implementation of the Southern Corridor.

According to the minister, “interconnectors” for big pipelines were key contributor to Europe's energy security.

The Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG (TAP) and the Interconnector Greece-Bulgaria (ICGB) recently signed an agreement laying the foundations for linking the two projects and thus bringing gas from Azerbaijan to Bulgaria, a country which depends on Russia for almost 100% of its gas imports.

The two sides will work together on realising a possible interconnection point in the vicinity of Komotini, Greece. “These interconnectors are choices that objectively enforce the energy security of Europe,” Maniatis said.

The second pillar for European energy security, Maniatis said, was the recent developments in oil exploration in the eastern Mediterranean.

“I would like to highlight that the perfect cooperation between Greece, Cyprus and Israel, shapes new policies of energy supply in Europe and sends a quite hopeful message,” he noted.

The "Projects of Common Interest” (PCI) constitutes the third pillar and will be implemented with the participation of Greece, the minister said.

“This issue is a priority and is being shaped through Greece’s ambition to become an energy hub of the greater region ... we hope that the Informal Meeting of Energy Ministers will note that a new source of energy supply for Europe is being shaped,” Maniatis added.

Doubts about the future of South Stream

The European Commission said last month (4 December) that the bilateral agreements for the construction of the Gazprom-favoured South Stream gas pipeline – concluded between Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia and Austria – are all in breach of EU law and need to be renegotiated from scratch.

“We agree with the strategic plans of the European Commission, which we have supported for all these years, as it was the case with the Southern Corridor”, said the Greek deputy minister of environment, energy and climate change, Makis Papageorgiou.

But he conceded that there were conflicting signs from Gazprom’s side on the South Stream pipeline.

“As a plan, it has been around since 2007. The company has made many moves, and as you already know, Greece has signed an agreement with the Russian company. After that, Gazprom abolished the southern branch and made new agreements focusing on the northern branch.”

“It is still unclear what exactly will happen with South Stream,” he noted.

“The position of the European Commission on the issue is pretty clear: Gazprom has to make its plans clear, under what conditions it will operate in the EU,” he added.

Privatisations in energy sector

Even though debt-ridden Greece is on the recovery path, the country may need to accelerate privatisation, especially in the energy sector, namely the Hellenic Gas Transmission System Operator (DESFA) and the public Natural Gas Supply Corporation of Greece (DEPA).

The privatisation of the Hellenic Gas Transmission System Operator (DESFA) is in the process of final approval by Brussels.

“By the summer, this process will be finalised and Azeri company SOCAR will acquire 66% shares of the company while 34% will remain in the Greek state”, said Papageorgiou.

As for DEPA, the international bid was inconclusive since Gazprom pulled out, despite its initial interest.

According to the Greek deputy minister, Gazprom finally backed off as a result of EU conditions.

“Evidently, the reason for this, as stated by Russian PM Alexander Medvedev, is that the EU conditions at some point should change. As long as the conditions of the EU don’t change and Greece is a member of the EU and abides by its rules in the energy market, no more moves can be made”, the deputy minister noted.

He added that the privatisation of DEPA will happen later, as currently Greece holds discussions with the Commission about gas market reform.

BACKGROUND:

Crisis-hit Greece took over the reins of the EU Council of Ministers on Wednesday (1 January) with a record low budget of €50 million set aside as the “absolute maximum” to run the presidency during the next six months.

While analysts have predicted Greece will require more aid, albeit on a smaller scale than previous bailouts totalling about €240 billion, the troubled country has vowed to spend considerably less than other countries'
presidencies.

Greece takes the helm of the EU at a critical time, just months before the end of the current European Parliament. This means that Greece will have less than four months to deliver on complicated dossiers, rather than the full six months.

The main presidency priorities are the European Banking Union, growth and jobs, migration and a European maritime policy.

Editor's Note: At the same time Greece didn't reach an agreement with Gazprom over the natural gas price.

See (in Greek) : Δεν συμφώνησαν ΔΕΠΑ - Gazprom για το φυσικό αέριο

 

Allies guided rebel ‘pincer’ assault on Tripoli

Πηγή: The Washington Post
By Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller,
August 22 2011

NATO and its allies helped Libya’s rebels mount an aggressive “pincer” strategy in recent weeks, providing intelligence, advice and stepped-up airstrikes that helped push Moammar Gaddafi’s forces toward collapse in Tripoli, NATO and U.S. officials said Monday.

The strategy included coordinated rebel advances in recent days from three directions: Misurata and Brega to the east, the refinery city of Zawiyah to the west, and the strategic southern approach to Tripoli at Gharyan. Retreating government troops allowed the rebel advance and provided clear targets for NATO airstrikes, the officials said.




As Gaddafi’s forces took up positions to defend the capital, “the targeting shifted toward Tripoli over the last four or five days. . . and the target set [in the capital] became larger,” said a senior NATO official, one of several alliance and U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military and intelligence matters.

NATO said airstrikes had hit 22 targets in and around Tripoli on Saturday, with additional strikes Sunday. Most were carried out by NATO and allied aircraft, aided by six armed U.S. Predator drones and satellite imagery on the location and capabilities of government forces.

“We have a good operational picture of where forces are arrayed on the battlefield,” Marine Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

Once the rebels began arriving in force, government troops in much of the capital melted away. The rebels have reached “a clear tipping point in Tripoli, rather than a prolonged stalemate,” a senior European diplomat said.

“We are finishing quicker than I think many people were beginning to fear” we would, said the diplomat, referring to rising unease in NATO capitals this summer as the conflict began to drag into its sixth month.

Even as rebels seized control of large swaths of Tripoli, U.S. officials said it was unclear how long the fighting in the capital would continue and they expressed concern that loyalists could employ terror tactics in a final urban battle.

“There is still some fighting in the capital, but for the most part, the Libyan regime forces seem to have just not engaged,” a U.S. intelligence official said. “The challenge now is that you’ve got a city of 2 million, and we’re into urban warfare.”

The remaining questions, officials said, were Gaddafi’s location and the extent to which he retains the ability to control or communicate with his troops.

British, French and Qatari Special Forces have been operating on the ground in Libya for some time and helped the rebels develop and coordinate the pincer strategy, officials said. At the same time, CIA operatives inside the country — along with intercepted communications between Libyan government officials — provided a deeper understanding of how badly Gaddafi’s command structure had crumbled, according to U.S. officials.

The collapse could be traced to “two things,” a high-ranking U.S. military official said. “One was the knowledge that we had on the disintegration of the command structure of the Gaddafi forces.”

The rebels were emboldened by that information, officials said, gaining confidence that the war was turning in their direction.

“The second thing, in the lead-up into Tripoli, we really provided a lot of imagery on the locations of the Gaddafi forces,” the official said. “So as the rebels were getting into their positions when they came around the south and up into the west side of Tripoli, we had a good sense of where [Gaddafi’s] forces were at.”

That intelligence flow had been obstructed for most of the early months of the conflict, officials said, in part because of restrictions on the amount of information that could be given to NATO allies.

But the administration reached a decision about six weeks ago that enabled the sharing of more sensitive materials with NATO, including imagery and signals intercepts that could be provided to British and French Special Operations troops on the ground in addition to pilots in the air.

Although U.S. military officials were not in direct contact with rebel forces, the NATO allies and “particularly the Qataris” on the ground worked closely with the rebels’ military and political command “to help them think this one through and also provide them with the capabilities,” the NATO official said.

NATO, whose United Nations mandate is limited to the protection of Libyan civilians, has been anxious not to be seen acting as the rebel air force in a coordinated strategy. But the NATO official acknowledged that “the effect of what we were doing was not dissimilar. What we saw was sort of the collapse of the regime and its capability to direct its forces.”

The United States and its allies have also been keeping “a close eye on Libya’s chemical weapons stockpiles” since the conflict began, another U.S. official said. “Especially during this tumultuous time, maintaining vigilance on this issue is a priority.” The official noted that Gaddafi had previously destroyed many of his most dangerous weapons, and “much of what remains is outdated or difficult to make operational.”

But “we’re obviously now getting to the point of the ‘day after,’ ” the European diplomat said. While the collapse of order in Iraq after the U.S. invasion there “is in the back of everybody’s mind,” considerable stabilization planning has been done, he said.

A previously scheduled meeting Monday and Tuesday in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, among representatives of Libya’s opposition Transitional National Council and the allies has turned its attention to post-conflict security, including how to maintain a “viable police presence” and turn “some of the more ragtag” elements of the rebels into a proper security force, the diplomat said.

France has called for a meeting of the international contact group for Libya, consisting of a larger group of interested nations, to be held next week. Originally scheduled for mid-September, it “was going to be a run-of-the-mill meeting” until the events of last weekend, the European diplomat said.

Staff writer Craig Whitlock contributed to this report.

Time to end Nato's war in Libya

Nurse at the hosptial in Misrata in Libya looks at a boy injured in the fighting, July 2011. Photograph: Irina Kalashnikova

Πηγή: The Guardian

By Dennis Kucinich

Sunday 21 August 2011

Whether Gaddafi goes or not, this costly intervention has thwarted peace talks and betrayed its 'humanitarian' mission

In March of this year, the US, France, Britain and their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies launched military operations in Libya under the guise of a "humanitarian intervention". US diplomats and world leaders carelessly voiced unsubstantiated claims of an impending massacre in Benghazi. You hear no such appeals to humanity while Nato, in the name of the rebels (whoever they are), prepares to lay siege to Tripoli, a city of nearly 2 million people.

Libyan rebels are now advancing on the capital city of Tripoli with the aid of Nato strikes; this is sure to result in a real bloodbath, as opposed to the one that was conjured in Benghazi this past winter. Nato is assisting rebels who are blocking food, water and medical supplies from coming into the capital city, and is stopping those who need advanced medical care from travelling to Tunisia to access it. Nato is bombing power stations, creating blackouts, and using Apache helicopters to attack Libyan police checkpoints to clear roads for rebels to advance.

Regardless of whether Muammar Gaddafi is ousted in coming days, the war against Libya has seen countless violations of United Nations security council resolutions (UNSCRs) by Nato and UN member states. The funnelling of weapons (now being air-dropped) to Libyan rebels was, from the beginning of the conflict, in clear violation of UNSCR 1970. The use of military force on behalf of the rebels, in an attempt to impose regime change, has undermined international law and damaged the credibility of the United Nations. Countless innocent civilians have been killed, and Nato air strikes continue to place many at great risk.

So much for the humanitarian-inspired UNSCR 1973 as a means to protect civilians. The people of Libya cannot take another month of such humanitarian intervention.

The leading donor nations of Nato – the US, France and Great Britain – have been free to prosecute war under the cloak of this faceless, bureaucratic, alphabet security agency, now multinational war machine, which can violate UN resolutions and kill innocent civilians with impunity. War crimes trials are only for losers. The prospective conquerors, the western powers and their rebel proxies, will then expect to be able to assert control over Libya's vast oil and natural gas reserves.

The US share of the war against Libya has probably exceeded the $1bn mark. This extraordinary amount of money for an intervention that Americans were told would last "days not weeks" could only be explained by looking at the war as an investment, and at control over Libya's wealth as an opportunity to make a return on that investment. Cynical? Then tell me why else we are at war in Libya.

Viable peace proposals, such as the one put forward by the African Union (AU), have been quickly and summarily rejected. If there is going to be a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the US must work with and empower the AU to ensure regional security. The AU has proposed a peace plan that would facilitate an immediate ceasefire, the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, a dialogue between the Transitional National Council and the Gaddafi government, and the suspension of Nato strikes.

The use of force and ultimatums has not worked. As the war enters its sixth month, it is time for the US president and secretary of state to clean up the mess they've created with this needless military intervention, and to work to seriously to bring about a negotiated end to this war.

In June, I proposed a peace plan (pdf) derived in part from the efforts of the AU. This plan calls for an immediate ceasefire and lays out the principles necessary to create a framework to achieve reconciliation and national unity in Libya by a meaningful process. In its June report on Libya, the International Crisis Group stated:

"A political breakthrough is by far the best way out of the costly situation created by the military impasse. This will require a ceasefire between the regime and the Transitional National Council, the deployment of a peacekeeping force to monitor and guarantee this under a UN mandate, and the immediate opening of serious negotiations between regime and opposition representatives to secure agreement on a peaceful transition to a new, more legitimate political order. Nato and those states supporting its military action should facilitate this development, not hinder it."

I have recently received several reports indicating that a settlement was close, only to be scuttled by state department officials. Given that the department of state seems to have taken a singular role in launching the US into this war, it is more than disconcerting to hear that the same agency has played a role in frustrating a resolution to this conflict. There are viable solutions to peacefully end the conflict, if there is a desire to do so.

Continued military action promotes a cycle of violence that will persist whether Colonel Gaddafi is ousted or not. On 19 March 2003, the United States pursued regime change in Iraq. Eight years later, we're still wondering why the people of Iraq are not sufficiently grateful for our intervention, which has resulted in the death of over 1 million of their fellow countrymen and women.

How can we expect this grim manifesto of interventionism to ever result in anything but tragedy? It's time to end the war against Libya.