The European Union in Crisis. The Geopolitics of Russia-EU Pipeline Corridors
Global Research, July 14, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-european-union-in-crisis-the-geopolitics-of-eu-russia-pipeline-corridors/5391139
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-european-union-in-crisis-the-geopolitics-of-eu-russia-pipeline-corridors/5391139
When the special interests who created and direct the agenda of the
European Union disagree with member states, the true nature of this
supranational enterprise becomes painfully apparent one of dictatorial special
interests pursing regional policy that benefits none of its individual member
states. No example of this can be clearer than the dispute that has emerged over
the construction of Russias South Stream natural gas pipeline set to run
through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, and Italy.
The pipeline produces a large number of benefits for each of the nations it
passes through, as well as for energy markets on either end of the pipeline. For
the people and governments of these nations set to benefit most from the
pipeline, the deal is an attractive, long-term investment. For the special
interests that have created and currently direct the EU on the other hand it
poses as a direct threat to their designs of continued expansion and
corporate-financier hegemony beyond the collective borders of todays EU.
For the hegemon, coexistence and
collaboration are not options thus the benefits of the South Stream pipeline
escape them. Instead, these hegemonic special interests seek to control their
own pipeline and energy markets on either side of it, and this can be seen
developing along several fronts including the Southern Corridor Project, beginning in Azerbaijan along the Caspian
Sea.
Energy and foreign policy expert Sinan
Ulgen of the US government and corporate-financier funded
Carnegie Europe think-tank complained about the disparity between the EU
Commissions stance, and that of individual EU member states in an Anadolu
Agency (AA) article titled, Russian South Stream gas pipeline divides EU,
stating:
...the EUs main concern about South Stream is that the project would increase its dependence on Russian gas. Last year a third of its consumed gas was supplied by Russia.
Additionally the AA article would state:
While the European Commission opposes Russias South Stream gas pipeline project, certain EU countries like Austria and Italy continue to openly support the worlds most expensive pipeline project, which aims to transport Russian gas by bypassing Ukraine.
For the last two years, Russia has signed bilateral agreements with Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia, Austria and Croatia for the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline, which is estimated to cost nearly US$40 billion according to the Moscow Times. Gazprom recently announced however that it was abandoning construction of the Italian portion of the pipeline.
These agreements were deemed a breach of EU anti-trust law by the European Commission in December. And, in April, following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia, the European Parliament voted for the South Stream project to be stopped.
AA would also cite another
corporate-financier funded think tank, Chatham House also complaining about EU
members pursuing their own interests in contradiction to the EU Commissions
dictates. The unelected EU Commission appears to be pursing its own
extraterritorial geopolitical pursuits ahead of those of the individual member
states and their respective populations. That corporate-financier funded think
tanks are focused on this divide and championing the EU Commissions agenda
over that of the individual EU members it allegedly represents fully exposes the
EU for what it truly is, a dysfunctional supranational dictatorship.
And what is done in the name of the EU by its institutions like the EU
Commission, which admittedly does not represent the best interests or desires of
those it claims to represent, unfortunately and perhaps unfairly reflects on the
EU as a whole. For example, and as part of the energy debate, the current EU
support of the regime occupying Kiev, Ukraine, taints all of Europe, even as
many EU member states attempt to move cautiously or even in opposition to the
greater agenda the EU Commission and others are pursuing.
While the EU promotes itself as a bastion
of freedom, stability, and prosperity, it appears increasingly more like a
hegemonic bloc, dictating to, rather than acting as a representative of, the
European people. The slogan Toward a Europe Whole and Free rings hollow when
the EU Commission begins dictating policy to individual states, and curtailing
progress that benefits both individual nations and their people.
The EU, in this light, appears more of an autocratic oligarchical
consolidation of regional power and resources, not a democratic collaboration
between nations. A slogan like Toward a Europe Whole and Free appears then to
represent Europe, but only from the perspective of special interests seeking to
loot the region collectively, rather than nation-by-nation. The dysfunction and
dictatorial nature of the EU Commission and other apparatuses within the
supranational bloc serve as a cautionary example for other nations seeking to
construct their own alliances from Asias ASEAN-AEC (Asian Economic
Community), to regional alliances between Russia, China and with nations along
their peripheries.
Alliances that include obligations that
usurp national sovereignty are not alliances at all, they are hegemonic
infiltration by special interests who would rather see a village place their
valuables in a single safe for them to crack and loot, rather than take the time
and trouble to rob each individual home. Europe must decide whether it will
continue along a path of internal conflict with its alleged EU representatives
tainting their collective populations, cultures, and histories, or reform the EU
into an institution that allows collaboration and national sovereignty to exist
in tandem.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher
and writer, especially for the online magazine New
Eastern Outlook.
No comments:
Post a Comment