PM: Europe began to unite on the basis of coal and steel. Now were to be divided by oil and gas

I believe it is more than symbolic that, as President of the European Council, I am attending this conference a few days after we have succeeded (for the time being) in defusing the gas crisis. I would stress the fact, at any time and, without wishing to alarm anyone, next time it could be even worse.

That is why, in a bid to avert such crises in the future, we have singled out energy, and energy security in particular as a priority of the Czech Presidency. That is why, together with the European Commission, we call for the creation of a common European energy policy and for the solidarity of all twenty-seven EU Member States. The go-it-alone approach adopted by some governments in this field undermines the very foundations of European cooperation. Let’s act together and demonstrate the power of European thinking!

Yes, this is a test of European integration. We must prove our solidarity with action, not just words. Europe began to unite on the basis of coal and steel, which after the war were strategic raw materials. It would be regrettable if, now, Europe were to be divided by the new strategic energy sources – oil and gas. Can we be sure that everyone in the EU realizes this? That the real strength of European integration lies not in the paper of the Lisbon Treaty but in our desire for concerted action?

The crisis has clearly confirmed the legitimacy of these considerations. It has also emphasized the crucial importance of the Nabucco project as an independent route for the transit of gas from Central Asia to Europe. I doubt that, in the wake of the events from the beginning of the year, we would be able to find anyone in the European Union

arguing otherwise.

Without the security of safe, stable and diversified supplies of energy, the freedom and independence of any community is a mere

illusion. When it comes to issues of energy security, the European Union must therefore act concertedly, decisively and quickly. This also applies wholly to the Nabucco project.

What is preventing us from implementing it? Are there political, technical and economic problems obstructing the flow of gas purchased directly from source countries in Central Asia into the European Union in the foreseeable future? If there are, let’s do everything we can to remove those barriers!

The Nabucco gas pipeline is not a matter involving just a few companies or a handful of countries. It is a strategic project crucial for the economic prosperity and political independence of the whole of Europe. I can

claim without hesitation that Nabucco is a project of paramount importance for the FREEDOM of the continent!

The gas crisis lasted only three weeks. Nevertheless, it had a drastic impact on the economy of numerous European countries and severely affected their inhabitants. Losses running into billions and millions of people suffering from cold – that is the very high price we pay for our energy dependency. And those are only the immediate effects. There are other possible consequences representing a threat to the European Union’s global status, with all that that implies for the economy and the citizens of European countries:

In the short term, Ukraine has distanced further from Europe and its bond with Russia has become tighter. As a result, the emancipation process in this strategically important country is under threat.

In the medium term, the crisis has brought arguments

in favour of the construction of the Nord Stream and South Stream gas pipelines. These routes bypass Ukraine (as well as Central Europe) while maintaining the EU's high energy dependency on Russia. This is a direct threat to the Nabucco project and as such a potential means of realistically diversifying Europe’s gas sources could be lost.

In the longer term, the course taken by the crisis and Europe’s apparent vulnerability serve as a warning regarding the global competition for gas and other energies among the countries of Southeast Asia, India, China, Japan and Europe. In the future, Europe must speak with one voice and maintain a clear vision of its energy policy. My primary objective as President of the European Council is to lay the foundations of such a common policy and such a common vision.

Our goal is to provide citizens with the cheap, safe and stable energy supplies they need. It is obvious that the primary consequence

of any crisis is a hike in the price of energy. And here I mean not only the gas crisis, but also the crisis in Gaza.

But prices are not the only factor. As I have already mentioned, our freedom and independence are at stake. The more we are predominantly dependent on one source, the less freedom of choice we have - the more vulnerable we are, the more susceptible we are to blackmail and the narrower our political options become. And, in the final analysis, that is what the increase in raw material prices is about. Do we want to prolong this period of weakness any further? I am sure we don’t!

We must therefore ask ourselves what course of action we want to follow. It would be no exaggeration to say that the future destiny of Europe depends on our answers to these questions.

We have to ask ourselves whether we really want the outcome of the crisis to be a green light for the long touted Nord Stream and South Stream gas pipelines (the importance of which I do not question) and the red light for the Nabucco project?

Are we really not alarmed by the fact that the control of transit pipelines in Ukraine by major European corporations will ultimately strengthen the position of Gazprom, a monopoly controlled by the Russian government, and threaten the free market? Incidentally, the emphasis here is on the words ‘government’ and ‘monopoly’, not on ‘Russian’.

Are we prepared to effectively promote the freedom, independence and stability of both producing and transit countries on the route of the planned Nabucco pipeline? We need effective cooperation with the countries of the Caspian and Black Sea region; we need their real independence. Otherwise one cannot really say that this project will bring a real diversification of supply and increase our energy security.

Are we ready to draw the clear consequences from the blatant fact that the European orientation of countries such as Georgia, Ukraine and Turkey is tied to the issue of energy security?

We should also ask ourselves whether we are capable of reaching an agreement with Iran on gas supplies for Nabucco, ensuring its economic efficiency and providing Europe with an adequate supply of raw materials.

Finally, have we learned enough from the crisis in the sense that we need to strengthen European solidarity? That, unlike other

hurriedly unified areas, when it comes to vital energy policy, we need to speak with one voice? That we must conceive of the European market of half a billion citizens as a single body? Not only in terms of our outward behaviour, but also in terms of the internal connection of pipelines so that we are in a position to help countries in difficulty whenever the need arises?

We have yet to come up with the answers to these questions, which, in part, is one of the reasons for the deplorable lack of progress in the implementation of the Nabucco project. I believe that this summit will help us move forward. If it is necessary to say loudly and clearly, YES, let’s give this project the green light to get the ball rolling, then here, on behalf of the European Union, I say YES, let’s do it! Will our voice be strong enough?

It will not be easy. Intensive negotiations with both producer and transit countries await us. But primarily we must seriously begin to act. We must speak up with the words: ‘The European Union has an eminent interest in the Nabucco gas pipeline! This is a project with the EU’s full political backing!’ This is the starting gun that needs to be fired to launch the bona fide implementation of the project. This is something the summit should confirm. It is something we should confirm!

I know, on the one hand, that there are concerns that until investors secure enough funding there is no point in producer countries’ starting to seriously consider the prospect of gas supplies. And, on the other hand, that investors are afraid that until a political decision is taken securing enough gas for Nabucco, construction cannot begin.

However, there is not much point in arguing what came first, the chicken or the egg. These concerns must give way to steady, positive steps which will open up a path to the final realization of the Nabucco project. I would call it a switch from the Nabucco ‘project’ to the Nabucco ‘process’, which, on the basis of minute, everyday work, will lead us to our goal: to open up a new distribution channel and alternative source for new gas supplies to Europe.

I reiterate that, if nothing else, the recent crisis must have convinced us of the need for common action across the EU. Of the need to support projects such as Nabucco. This is a project that enhances our freedom because, alongside Russian and Norwegian gas, European countries will be able to draw on a third large independent source.

I use the words ‘alongside Russian and Norwegian’ intentionally, as I want to demonstrate that Nabucco project is not an anti-Russian project, as some in Europe fear and, hence, distance themselves. There really is no antagonism here. We don’t want Nabucco “against” somebody; we want it “for” us. It is good to have two options to choose from. But it is even better to have three – if one of them, for whatever reason, fails, two remain.

Moreover, Russia itself is realistic about this project. I had the opportunity to speak with the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for five and a half hours on 10 January at a meeting where we

jointly sought solutions to the gas crisis. Of course, we also touched on the subject of alternative transit routes to Europe. Vladimir Putin clearly said that the Russian Federation is not opposed to the Nabucco project. He was just as open at our joint press conference. So let’s stop seeing barriers where there are none; let’s look for a way forward together!

The success of the Nabucco project gives us the opportunity for further political, economic and security cooperation with countries in the Caspian and Black Sea region. This would be a strong signal that such cooperation is not only possible, but vital for all those involved. This Budapest summit could therefore become an important

milestone in the EU's relations with these countries. Let us erect that milestone then!

The diversification of energy supply is one of the most important challenges faced by the EU, and the Czech Presidency and is fully aware of this. Therefore, we are planning an EU–Southern Corridor Summit under the aegis of the EU Council. We are keen to invite the heads of major producers of raw energy materials – Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, and key transit countries – Georgia and Turkey. This idea was supported by Member States in the conclusions of the European Council held on 16 October 2008.

Naturally, neither the Nabucco Summit nor our Southern Corridor Summit should be viewed as competing with other efforts to diversify energy sources for the countries of the European Union. On the contrary, in our opinion all these events are mutually complementary. Whether they are related to gas, coal, nuclear energy, renewables, new technologies or substitutes. Each new energy alternative means we are reinforcing our freedom and strengthening the security of our citizens. So let’s seek out those alternatives!

And Nabucco is an alternative that is more than symbolic. It is to end in Austria, counted among the ‘old’ countries. It passes through countries admitted to the Union in the last five years, and then through the candidate country of Turkey, until it reaches the source Central Asian States, with which we want to develop the Eastern Partnership. The planned pipeline route thus provides a link between the EU’s past, present, and possible future.

The discussion and dispute on whether the EU has geographic, religious, security and economic borders or – more broadly – value-based boundaries, can be resolved here and now. Europe's borders constitute a guarantee of freedom, boundaries encompassing an area where independence is maintained and the basic needs of the population are met. These are boundaries demarcated by Nabucco too!

To close, I would like to add that the successful implementation of the Nabucco project, in addition to all the economic and geopolitical implications, has one other significant dimension. That is the cultural dimension. The proposed pipeline route cuts through the ‘Triangle of Civilizations’, where the Orthodox Russia converges with Islam and Western Christianity. A triangle of past, present and possible future wars. A triangle of oil, gas, pipelines, and geopolitical interests and tensions. But also, I hope, a triangle of hope, coexistence, and the future.

If we can put the Nabucco pipeline into service, this will also show that the greatest antagonism in the world today can be overcome. That in the area of a painful civilization faultline, cooperation, that is beneficial for us all, can exist. Trade interdependence and benefits for all parties involved in a functioning market limits the threat of conflict, because everyone would have something to lose. Those, who deal in resources, do not usually wage war over such resources. Let us

launch, then, this project of freedom, this project of independence, this project of prosperity, this project of peace. Let’s launch the Nabucco project!