by Simon Tilford

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali produced as much as it was ever likely to do. There was no breakthrough, contrary to the claims of some that attended the conference. Nobody should read too much into reports that the US administration fears its negotiators gave too much away. This is just news management, an attempt to create the impression that the US moved further than it did. The US gave nothing away. The aim of the US negotiating team in Bali was to prevent any international agreement that might demand the US cut its emissions, despite the fact the country could do this at relatively moderate cost according to its own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This opposition stems partly from the personal intransigence of President Bush, but also reflects a deep-seated reluctance to allow the country’s freedom of action to be constrained by international agreements. It is another big blow to US soft power in the world.

Of course, on current trends the proposed target of a 25-40 percent cut in developed country emissions by 2020 is nonsense. There is no chance whatsoever of such targets being met unless EU governments get very serious, very quickly about curbing emissions. The construction of new coal-fired power stations would not be compatible with meeting such a target for example, so governments in Germany and the UK would have to scrap plans for a new generation of such plants. Germany would also have to overcome its squeamishness about nuclear power. Energy efficiency standards, for everything from cars to buildings would have to be ratcheted-up very aggressively. Crucially, the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) would need very tight emissions caps. Only then will businesses be confident that the price of carbon will rise steadily, providing sufficiently strong incentives to invest in low-carbon technologies.

However, notwithstanding question marks over the realism of the 25-40 per cent target, the US position – that targets are meaningless without policies can be put in place at the outset to met those targets – is hugely cynical. It is impossible to agree policies to reduce emissions until governments know which targets their economies have to meet. Similarly, the US knows as well as everyone else that the commitments to curb emissions it wants to see from developing countries will only happen if the developed countries take the lead. It is simply not plausible for the US to turn to China and India and demand they commit to mandatory cuts before it does. Per capita US emissions are at least 4 times Chinese levels and more than 10 times Indian ones. Research from the EPA calculates that the US could cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050 at a cost of just 3.2 per cent of GDP. To put that in perspective, US GDP will rise by nearly 200 per cent over this period (assuming annual real GDP growth of 2.5 per cent.) For the world’s only superpower to rule out such action almost looks like a calculated snub to the rest of the world and will prove a big blow to its moral authority.

However, it is still early days – the timetable for agreeing a replacement for Kyoto stretches into 2009, and hence beyond President Bush’s time in office. Whoever replaces him will have to be more open-minded about international action to challenge climate change, even if only for questions of political expediency. With only 18 months left in office Bush can afford to dismiss the damage being done to the US’s international standing and influence. The next president will not have such a luxury and, regardless of how seriously he/she takes the threat of climate change, will calculate that the costs of refusing to join the EU in its attempt to orchestrate international action to address climate change will outweigh the perceived costs of signing-up.

The EU can do much to ensure that the costs of US inaction are steep. The best way to put pressure on the next administration is for the EU to persevere and impose big unilateral cuts in its own emissions. This will not impair the competitiveness of the EU or cost it export markets. Indeed, the opposite is much more likely. The US is unwilling to take action, but neither does it want to see the EU building on its lead in energy efficient technologies. In an age of mounting energy scarcity, geo-political tension and ever more environmentally conscious consumers and businesses, aggressive emissions targets by the EU will be positive for Europe’s authority in the world and for its long-term economic prospects. The Chinese and Indians might not be ready to sign up to mandatory caps on their emissions, but they are only too aware of the need to make their development more environmentally sustainable. The EU is well placed to supply the technology. The more successful it is at doing this, the quicker the US will come to its senses.

Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.

by Katinka Barysch

The CER organised a conference on EU-Russia relations in Brussels on October 30th, together with ‘Russia Profile’ magazine. I have been to dozens of these EU-Russia meetings in the last couple of years. More often than not, they turn nasty, with the Russians making angry accusations and the Europeans going into a sulk. At our seminar, the atmosphere was strangely subdued.

No doubt, this was partly due to the professionalism of the panellists. People like Vladimir Chizhov, Konstantin Kosachev, Helga Schmid and Christian Cleutinx make a living addressing big problems without sounding alarming (details of the event can be found here http://www.cer.org.uk/russia_new/events_russia_new.html).


But diplomatic protocol was not the only reason for the lull. A sense of resignation has descended over EU-Russia relations. We have quietly discarded our lofty ambition to build a “strategic partnership based on common values”. Today we just want to get along, somehow.

The same lack of expectations turned last week’s EU-Russia summit in Mafra into a success of sorts. The Portuguese presidency of the EU did not even try to unblock talks on a new EU-Russia treaty. The change of government in Poland has increased the chances that the dispute over meat exports will be resolved and that Warsaw will lift its veto. But neither Russia nor the EU has much enthusiasm for a new treaty. What for? Instead of a shared vision, there is uncertainty: in Russia over its future leadership and direction, and in the EU over whether it can forge a common position among 27 member-states.

Both sides are groping for a path through this period of uncertainty. “Realism” is the term most widely used to describe today’s bilateral relationship. One participant at our seminar called for a “partnership of patience”, another referred to a “carefully crafted holding pattern”.

This total collapse of ambition was probably inevitable. Once Russia started to turn away from pluralist democracy, the EU’s constant talk about ‘common values’ simply antagonised Moscow. The EU ended up frustrated and disappointed. Bitterness grew on both sides. The political rhetoric became so shrill that it started to endanger practical co-operation in energy, investment or security.

Now both sides are trying to reassure each other that things are not that bad after all. Look, trade is growing by 30 per cent a year. EU companies are doing good business in Russia. Russians are coming to the EU in record numbers. The Union is allowed to observe mediation attempts in Transdniestria. Micro-successes are still possible: we now have an ‘early warning mechanism’ in case of disruptions to energy supplies, and a new cultural dialogue. Process matters.

But can the EU and Russia really afford to put their relationship on ice and wait for better days? World politics intrudes in the current lull. Russia has blocked EU-backed plans for Kosovo independence. It is against tougher sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Russia behaves as if it didn’t need friends. But when it looks around the world – at a rising China, a disillusioned US, an unstable Middle East – it must conclude that the European countries are still its easiest and most reliable partners.

Vis-à-vis Russia, the EU looks divided, confused and often weaker than it is. That is partly because Russia forces the EU to clarify its own objectives. Can the EU become a more powerful international player while at the same time upholding its founding principles of democracy and human rights? Since different member countries have different answers, the EU tries to avoid the question.

Russia also puts the EU’s energy plans to the test. While paying lip service to a common energy policy, EU member-states are rushing to strike bilateral deals with Gazprom. Energy was supposed to be an area where the EU and Russia have clear common interests. But now the Russians complain about a ‘Gazprom clause’ in the Commission’s latest liberalisation package: state-owned foreign companies would not be allowed to buy gas pipelines in the EU, unless their governments agreed to also give European companies better access to their home markets.

Russia is not well placed to lecture the Europeans on energy market liberalisation. But Moscow has a point when asking the EU what it means by reciprocity. If the concept degenerates from a means for mutual openness to a new protectionist tool, it will do nothing to alleviate EU concerns about Russian underinvestment in its gas fields.

The energy debate shows that the shift from ‘values’ to ‘interests’ in EU-Russia relations can only go so far. Values – or more plainly, the way we see things – determine everything we do. When people and politicians in the EU and Russia talk about energy security, they mean different things. The same holds true for democracy, and other terms that allegedly describe the core objectives of our relationship.

I was an early advocate of the EU focusing less on ‘common values’ and more on mutual interests, on areas where practical co-operation is feasible and desirable (see http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/p564_russia_strat_squabb.pdf).
But I am also the first one to admit that we have come full circle. Ultimately, the EU and Russia need to agree what they want to get out of their interaction.

Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.

by Katinka Barysch

Angela Merkel can be content with the outcome of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm which she chaired with her by now characteristic mix of modesty, determination and pragmatism. Many people had predicted that the meeting would end in acrimony because of US-European disagreements on climate change and because of mounting tensions between Russia and the West. Instead, Merkel brokered a couple of impressive-looking headline agreements. Moreover, the meeting has proved those people wrong who say that the G8 is an irrelevant talking shop. Heiligendamm showed it is an important tool for global governance.

This meeting will be mainly be remembered for the US U-turn on climate change. In the run-up to the summit, the US officials had said that there was no chance that the Bush administration would sign up to ambitious numerical targets, such as those endorsed by the EU summit in March 2007 (also headed by Merkel). But at Heiligendamm, George W Bush backed, at least in principle, the objective of cutting greenhouse gas emission by 50 per cent by 2050. The US still insists that binding targets will need to involve China, India and other emerging powers. But it is nevertheless significant that he agreed to the start negotiations on a post-Kyoto regime in the framework of the United Nations.

The G8 countries also reconfirmed their aid commitments made at the Gleneagles summit in 2005, namely to write off multilateral debt worth $60 billion, to raise annual overseas development assistance to $50 billion (of which half should go to African countries) and to provide universal access to HIV treatment by 2010. But NGOs said this ‘recommitment’ did not amount to much, given that the G8 countries are already falling behind on their objectives and still oppose annual spending targets. Similarly, although the G8 leaders promised to spend $60 billion over coming years on fighting HIV, malaria and other diseases in developing countries, they did not add a timetable.

The summit agreements are big steps towards longer-term goals, but they leave the most controversial questions to be resolved at a later point in time. Neither was there much progress on other issues on the G8 agenda, such as the Doha trade round, Kosovo, Iran and the regulation of hedge funds.

What the summit did do, however, is provide a very useful snapshot of global politics at a time of leadership changes in many of the key countries.

Well done Angela!
Merkel has cemented her role as Europe’s leading political figure, and she has now added a global dimension. Previous achievements had already earned her a reputation as a skilled mediator and negotiator. Her tireless pre-summit diplomacy on climate change appears to have paid off. Her strategy was also smart. Knowing that failure to reach a climate deal would be blamed on the US (and not damage her popularity at home), she was in a strong position. She had played down expectations of a deal ahead of the summit while still leaning heavily on President Bush. Although the G8 agreements owe much to Merkel’s political skills and convictions, they are also evidence of a longer-term trend towards a more self-confident Germany which is not afraid to shoulder global responsibilities.

The new George W
Bush’s apparent U-turn on CO2 targets was partly motivated by the fear to antagonise or embarrass Merkel – a sign that she has successfully mended US-German relations after the falling-out over Iraq. Bush also wants good ties with Merkel as part of his broader efforts to strengthen US-EU relations. Some observers spotted a belated turn towards multilateralism. Having long been dismissive of multilateral organisations, Bush has now agreed that the UN should be the framework for post-Kyoto negotiations. On other issues too, Heiligendamm saw a more co-operative and conciliatory US president. He was friendly to Vladimir Putin, despite the latter’s aggressive hectoring ahead of the summit. He also promised that the US would cough up half of the $60 billion committed to healthcare initiatives in Africa.

Russia is back
Putin’s belligerence in the run-up to the G8 had fuelled fears that Heiligendamm would be the chilliest East-West encounter since Russia officially joined the G8 in 1998. Putin had threatened to re-direct Russian nuclear missiles towards Europe if the US went ahead with stationing parts of its missile defence system in the Czech Republic and Poland. Having failed to drive a wedge between the US and the Europeans, Putin then suggested that the US should station missile defences at Gabalan, a Russian-operated base in Azerbaijan. Security experts say that the proposal, first muted in 2004, is unattractive to the US not only because it implies shared control over a key US military installation, but also because Gabala is too close to Iran to intercept a potential attack from there. If Putin knew that the US answer would be No, his prime aim must have been to set the agenda – to first raise tensions and subsequently defuse them. Such behaviour is becoming typical of a resurgent Russia. Putin’s shrewd mixture of harsh statements followed by statesman-like conciliation is also meant for home consumption, ahead of the parliamentary election in December and the presidential changeover in early 2008.

Bye bye Blair
Heiligendamm was Blair’s last international summit but one (he will still attend the European Council on June 21st and 22nd). It should have been a grand finale for him, given that it made progress on climate change and poverty alleviation, his two top foreign policy priorities. But any sense of triumph Blair may have felt must have been dampened by the absence of public recognition. Blair has always argued that his decisions to send troops to Iraq and not criticise Bush in public were paying off in terms of the private influence in Washington. Diplomats say that Blair worked hard to mediate between Merkel and Bush before and during Heiligendamm. But in the end it was Merkel who received the credit for having persuaded Bush. At least Blair’s imminent departure from the political scene allowed him to talk openly about differences with Putin.

Welcome Sarkozy
For Nicolas Sarkozy the G8 meeting was the first opportunity to mingle with the leaders of the world’s biggest countries as French president. With parliamentary elections imminent, Heiligendamm was the perfect opportunity for Sarkozy to show his skills as statesman. He did so by putting forward a compromise proposal for the final status of Kosovo (rejected by Putin) and by calling for more international attention to Darfur (vaguely accepted). Sarkozy’s conciliatory language after a long private meeting with Putin raised concerns that he would follow Jacques Chirac’s uncritical stance on Russia. But Sarkozy made big efforts to distance himself from his polished predecessor by talking very openly, by not trying to steal Merkel’s show and by being nice to Bush.

A bigger club
The other G8 members – Italy, Canada and Japan – played a more marginal role, whereas some non-G8 countries got a lot of attention. Leaders from emerging Asia, Africa and South America have long taken part as observers in G8 meetings. It is now clear that the eight current members cannot fix any global priorities – whether climate change, Doha, global imbalances, terrorism or poverty – without the co-operation of other emerging powers. China’s economy is already much bigger than those of Italy and Canada, and China is also on course to overtake the US as the world’s number-one emitter of greenhouse gases. Both China and India have more than twice as many people as the US or all the European G8 members together. And the legitimacy of many G8 initiatives will depend on African or Latin American countries having a say.

Nevertheless, the Heiligendamm meeting decided against broadening the club’s membership. Instead, a new ‘Heiligendamm process’ will regularly bring together ministers from the G8 and the five ‘outreach countries’ (China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South-Africa), to discuss issues ranging from energy to intellectual property rights.

Some say that taking in China would destroy the democratic credentials of the G8 (although that argument is a lot less potent given Russia’s slide towards authoritarianism). Others fear for the club’s effectiveness. Merkel said, for example, that if the poorer nations had already been part of the G8, a compromise on climate change would have been impossible. But neither are the newcomers in a hurry to become full members. India and China – while keen to make their voices heard – insist that their status as developing countries does not allow them to shoulder the same global responsibilities as the current G8 countries.

Heiligendamm showed that the G8 is not just a talking shop as some of its critics have alleged. There was real drama as the sherpas haggled over the final communiqué until the last minute. And the results are important milestones in long-term fights against climate change and poverty. But the meeting also showed clearly that to remain relevant in the future, the G8 will eventually have to include China, India and other emerging powers.

Katinka Barysch is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.