Connect with us

Energy

Syria, Turkey and Israeli gas – cui prodest?

Published

on

Turkey was among the first world nations to recognize the State of Israel, and for a long time Ankara and Tel Aviv maintained a close economic and military partnership. However, since Recep Tayyip Erdogan became prime minister in 2003 and cast himself as the sole guardian of Palestinian statehood, relations between the two countries have been going downhill.

Important milestones along this downward path were Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza (late 2008 – early 2009); Erdogan’s demonstrative squabble with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos (2009); Israeli Navy’s seizure of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was attempting to break through the Israeli blockade of Gaza to bring aid to the Palestinian enclave (2010); the US embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which resulted in a clampdown on Palestinian protests (2018) and, finally, the so-called “deal of the century” unveiled by President Donald Trump in January, and its planned implementation by Israel in the near future.

Erdogan even accused Israel of state terrorism: “We are dealing with terrorists, but terrorists are not your problem, because you are a terrorist state yourselves. History is recording what you as a terrorist state have done in Gaza and Jerusalem.”

Last year, Turkey accused Israel (and France, but for some reason not the US!) of trying to create a Kurdish state in Syria built upon the “People’s Defense Units” and the Kurdistan Workers Party.

Israel lashes back with equally harsh rhetoric, coupled with appropriate foreign policy moves. This has already led to a rapprochement with Greece and Cyprus (the IDF even conducts joint exercises with the Cypriot military), and mending fences with Turkey’s other regional rivals: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In an October 2019 tweet condemning a new Turkish military operation in Syria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that “Israel is prepared to extend humanitarian assistance to the gallant Kurdish people.”  In January 2020, the Israeli Ministry of Defense put Turkey on its list of threats to the Jewish State. “A rapprochement with Hamas, vocal insults against Egypt and the Gulf kingdoms (Turkey recently accused them of betrayal for their failure to condemn Trump’s Middle East peace plan) lead to an even greater isolation of Ankara. Today, Turkey has just a handful of friends in the Middle East: Qatar, Iran and Hamas,” the newspaper Haaretz wrote with satisfaction.

Turkey has designated Israel as an adversary in a bid to ramp up its prestige in the region. It looks like this geopolitical game has backfired though, as Israel has been normalizing relations with the pro-US regimes of several Arab countries, which Tel Aviv now values more than having good relations with Turkey, which, unlike the Gulf monarchies, is for various reasons unable to create any problems for the Jewish state. And yet…

The coronavirus pandemic has already added some changes to this picture though. Last April, Turkey “for humanitarian reasons” sent Israel, albeit on a commercial basis, a large batch of facemasks, protective overalls and disposable gloves. A month later, Israel returned the favor by dispatching to Istanbul an El Al cargo plane (the first El Al flight to Turkey in a decade), loaded with medical supplies and equipment.

A warming of relations between countries may not be limited to such moves, and natural gas will be of great help in establishing long-term cooperation between them (!!!). Industrial-scale reserves of natural gas were discovered in Israel’s exclusive economic zone between 2009 and 2013, and in March 2017, it started exporting gas to Jordan. President Erdogan has long been trying to turn his country into an energy hub for Europe. Turkey has no hydrocarbon reserves of its own, then why not take control of such reserves elsewhere? So Turkey decided to build a pipeline to pipe Russian, Azeri, Iranian, Turkmen, and Kazakh gas to the West. And also to Israel.

Only recently, the London-based online news outlet, Middle East Eye (MEE), reported that Israel intended to fully restore diplomatic relations with Ankara due to shared interests, which, according to MEE, included the situation in Syria and natural gas transportation. Moreover, according to some Israeli and Turkish media outlets, the two countries are negotiating the demarcation of zones of their economic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the construction of a gas pipeline. TRT World, a Turkish state international TV news channel,emphasized that Israel refused to sign up to a declaration condemning Turkey’s actions in Libya, already signed by Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates and France. And the newspaper Turkish Daily News openly recognized Ankara’s interest in the new gas pipeline.

This issue is not new. Back in July 2017, Israel and Turkey agreed to build a pipeline connecting the two countries. Simultaneously, Israel was holding similar talks with Cyprus, Greece and Italy. Israel eventually opted for the second route. Notably, many experts in Israel itself view this agreement as a PR stunt. They argue that the project is unreasonably expensive, technically very complex, and also that Italy has not yet officially confirmed its participation in it. 

In addition, Turkey is doing and will obviously continue doing everything in its power to make sure that this pipeline is never built. Erdogan has already said that “no project in the Mediterranean can survive either economically, legally, or diplomatically without Turkey.”

This is not just an empty threat: Turkish warships are already cruising off the coast of Cyprus and forcing other countries’ research and geological exploration vessels out of the area.  The Turkish president made a significant reservation here saying that Ankara is interested in negotiations with any country except Cyprus, which means also with Israel.

Idealistic as their political rhetoric may be, in their foreign policy Israel and Turkey are guided by the principles of Realpolitik, since the Jews are just as pragmatic as the Turks. This is proved by the fact that Israel is now getting most of its oil imports from Azerbaijan via Turkish territory. Besides, Turkey happens to be quite chummy with Iraqi Kurdistan, even though it portrays itself as the center of the Kurdish movement in the entire region. Under the circumstances, the sheer fact that Erbil is at loggerheads with the Kurdistan Workers Party, active in Turkey, and its allies in Syria is enough reason for Ankara to maintain good relations with the leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Also noteworthy is Israel’s restrained position, more restrained that even that of Ankara’s NATO allies, regarding such highly sensitive issues as the  Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus and recognition of the genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

Getting back to the subject of Jewish and Turkish pragmatism, laying a hypothetical gas pipeline along the coast of Syria or in its territorial waters will be much cheaper than the deep-water route and will be easier both technically and politically. Unreal? Well, the East is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, and highly unpredictable to boot. The choice of such a route promises considerable economic benefits to all project participants. Even more importantly, if implemented, it will lead to a dramatic change inside the Ankara-Damascus-Jerusalem triangle and in the geopolitical configuration of the better part of the Middle East.

True, the Syrian leadership considers Israel and Turkey as hostile states, but it should have in mind the fact that such a project would bring Syria back into the system of international relations and help attract investments vital for the country’s economic reconstruction. Even Iran will have to accept such a prospect as a given, if it really wants to see the revival of Syria.

According to President Bashar Assad, the Syrian crisis was inspired from the outside in order to prevent the construction an Iranian oil pipeline running across Syrian territory. The construction of a new gas pipeline could be a giant step towards resolving the situation.

By the way, this should also suit the United States in many ways: on the one hand, Israel remains America’s main strategic ally in the Middle East. On the other, the Americans are interested in normalizing relations with Turkey, which has turned into a leading regional power. As recently as this past March, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo emphasized that improving relations with Israel is beneficial to all countries in the region and is even the main factor of their prosperity. Undoubtedly, Ankara was among the countries this message was addressed to.

Russia should become the moderator of negotiations between Ankara, Damascus and Jerusalem and, therefore, reap the political dividends, considering the level and nature of its relations with all participants of what may presently look like a hypothetical project. There is simply no one else out there fit for the job. 

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

The African oil markets of China and the continuous daily needs for crude oil

Published

on

In an attempt to position themselves as international players in the global oil and gas market, China’s national oil companies are investing heavily in the exploration and production of oil and gas supplies in Africa. Africa is the second largest region in supplying oil and gas to China, after the Middle East, with over 25% of its total imported oil and gas.

There are three key players committing an almost equal share of the planned 15 billion US dollar spending to the development and production of the African oil sector: China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (SINOPEC) and China National Offshore Oil (CNOOC).

The joint investment is expected to be the fourth largest one in the 2019-2023 period, after BP Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and ENI SpA. This investment in African oil and gas is larger than the 10 billion dollars that the People’s Republic of China is investing in South America and is more than double the estimated investment in North America. Coa Chai, an expert at GlobalData, said: “About two thirds of spending is in Nigeria, Angola, Uganda and Mozambique. SINOPEC and CNOOC are well-established in Nigeria and Angola, while CNPC has a stake in the Rovuma LNG project in Mozambique”. He also added: “The increase in domestic energy demand has led China to diversify its imports of natural resources and China’s presence has increased significantly in almost 20 African countries”. One of China’s largest trading partners is the largest African oil producer, namely Nigeria. Nigeria currently pumps two million oil barrels a day and aims at producing three million barrels a day by the end of 2023. As China’s domestic oil production keeps on declining, experts predict that up to 80% of crude oil will be imported over the next 15 years.

There have been several remarkable investments by CNOOC, including the acquisition of a majority shareholding in an oil and gas exploration project by the Australian company FAR Ltd. The latter is drilling oil off the coast of Guinea-Bissau (West Africa). A FAR Ltd. spokesman said that CNOOC would obtain a 55.6% stake in the Sinapa and Esperança licenses of Swedish Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB. The Chinese oil producer may choose to become the operator of the joint venture after the completion of an upcoming offshore drilling campaign. CNOOC’s interest will be converted into a 50% share in case of successful discoveries. In Nigeria, CNOOC’s investment and involvement dates back to 2005 and the company is now the largest Chinese investment entity in Nigeria.

In 2006, CNOOC spent 2.3 billion dollars to acquire a 45% stake in the deepwater license of the Nigerian company OML 130, which is located in one of the most prolific oil and gas fields on the planet and contains the deposits of Akpo (discovered in 2000) and Aegina (discovered in 2003).

The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) has made public its support for Chinese investment in Nigeria, despite the fact that the region has had considerable problems with the populations involved. These problems include sporadic outbreaks of violence: some young people have taken actions, including theft, as a way to demand access to the country’s oil wealth. There has also been a questionable lack of transparency by NNPC, which apparently has not been able to demonstrate its billion dollar revenues in recent years.

While trying to meet the growing domestic demand for fuel, Aliko Dangote (No. 1957) – the richest African and Nigerian business tycoon – is building what will be Africa’s largest oil refinery in the former capital Lagos. The nine billion dollar megaproject is supposed to be completed by the end of 2020, thus doubling Nigeria’s refining capacity and potentially turning the country into an exporter of refined products.

As China’s largest oil and gas producer in terms of efficiency and power developed, CNPC has recently signed a contract with the government of Benin (West Africa) to build and operate a crude oil pipeline in the region. It will extend for 1,980 kilometres from the Agadem oil field in Niger to the Seme Terminal port in Benin. It is the largest investment in a transnational pipeline that CNPC has ever made in Africa and aims at further allowing the transport of crude oil from Niger to international markets, as well as promoting social and economic development in Benin. Besides these large companies that invest heavily in the oil and gas industry, China is also contributing to the growth of African infrastructure as a way to have great economic and social impact. A noteworthy entrepreneur is Wilson Wu, an electrical engineer, who now manages the free trade zone of the Ogun State, Nigeria: a public-private project in which the local government provides the land and Chinese companies the capital. Wu is said to be one of about one million Chinese citizens who have ventured into Africa over the last twenty years to seek their fortune.

The daily need for black gold

It should be noted that the People’s Republic of China has increased its oil share by 20% so as to take advantage of low oil prices. Indeed, according to an announcement by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, in a situation of declining demand and signs of increasing supply, the world’s largest oil buyer has increased the share for the use of crude oil abroad by non-State entities for 2021 by over 20% compared to 2020.

The increase in the import quota is equal to about 823,000 barrels per day, which is slightly lower than the amount pumped by Algeria that is an OPEC member. The companies that will use oil include privately-owned refineries, known as “teapots”, which in recent years have become increasingly important in the global oil market. These companies have been operating their facilities at a higher utilization rate than in 2019 for many months now, while their counterparts in the United States and Europe are lagging behind.

The increase shows that China’s oil purchases will be even larger at a time when global demand is facing new headwinds coming from further restrictions and blockages, while Covid-19 infections are spreading again in Europe and the United States.

Deteriorating demand prospects, together with a new supply in Libya, have weighed on reference prices, thus bringing West Texas Intermediate down to 6% on October 26, 2020. At 7:29 a.m. New York local time, the crude oil price was 2.4% lower, at $34.93 per barrel.

Behind the import push there is the ambitious expansion of China’s capacity. The country’s brand new mega-refinery, Zhejiang Petrochemical, started up one of its new 200,000 barrel/day crude oil distillation units on November 1. Another independent Chinese refinery, the Shenghong Petrochemical Group, is working on the construction of the country’s largest crude oil unit, which is expected to start up by the end of 2021.

Oil traders have been buying cargoes since the beginning of October 2020 and sending them to China, hoping to capitalize on an expected increase in demand at the end of the year when the independent refineries obtain the import licenses for 2021.

According to the Ministry statement, China has set the import quotas of crude oil for non-State companies at 243 million tons. According to the data collected by Bloomberg, this is equivalent to 4.9 million barrels per day. China has kept its annual quota unchanged at 202 million tons for this year, after an extraordinary increase of over one million oil barrels per day for 2019 compared to the previous year.

Continue Reading

Energy

Nord Stream 2: Who Benefits From the Navalny Affair?

Published

on

On October 7, the French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart Heiko Maas issued a joint statement condemning the “Russian involvement and responsibility” in the Novichok poisoning of Alexey Navalny. In retaliation for the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, France and Germany will share several proposals for sanctions with their European partners.

This statement occurs in the complex and unstable context of the Russian-European project, Nord Stream 2. Undermined by threats of U.S. sanctions, this infrastructure venture, surely the most ambitious in Europe, is currently at a standstill.

In Germany, various political figures are voicing their willingness to abandon the project, such as Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag and presidential candidate of the CDU. Another candidate, Friederich Merz, offered to immediately suspend the work for two years in reaction to Navalny’s poisoning. Despite these pressures, Angela Merkel can still rely on other supporters, such as the former chancellor, and chairman of the supervisory board of Nord Stream, Gerhard Schröder, or Nils Schmid, the vice-chairman of the SPD group in the Bundestag. As the German Chancellor begins her final year in office, the future of the project has never been so uncertain.

What is Nord Stream 2?

Nord Stream is a setup of gas pipelines that would allow Germany to be supplied with Russian natural gas via the Baltic Sea. The first two pipelines were inaugurated in 2011 and are known under the name “Nord Stream 1.”

The Nord Stream 2 project for the construction of two other pipelines was launched in 2018 to double the quantity supplied by Nord Stream 1.

While benefitting from the unmitigated support of Moscow, Nord Stream 2 is a truly European project, driven by 4 countries: Russia (through Gazprom — 51% shares), Germany, (through Wintershall and PEG Infrastruktur — 15.5% each), and France and the Netherlands (9% each, via Engie and Gasunie). In addition, more than 100 companies from 12 European countries are involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2.

The pipeline is a response to Germany’s increasing demand for natural gas. The German energetic transition policy aims to reduce coal-burning and close nuclear reactors by 2022. Natural gas is necessary to achieve this transition and could become, according to an article from Reuters, the second pillar of the power supply after renewables.

Nord Stream 2 would allow Russia to transport gas in unmatched quantities to Europe. This competitive advantage, along with the low price of Russian gas, resulted in the United States’ strict opposition to the project. Indeed, since the advent of technical innovations allowing the extraction of shale gas and its export as liquefied natural gas (LNG), the USA has become one of the leading gas suppliers in the world. However, the cost of producing American gas is much higher than that of Russian gas. It is therefore easy to understand the American hostility towards the project. On December 21 2019, while Nord Stream 2 was 94% complete, the threat of an American antitrust law to sanction companies involved in the construction of the pipeline led Allseas, a Swiss company, to halt its work. In order to resume work, the consortium has to find another contractor, but other firms fear finding themselves under U.S. sanctions.

American pressure is greatly felt in Europe. Last August, a group of U.S. Republican senators vowed to impose “crushing legal and economic sanctions” on the Port of Sassnitz in Germany. The USA also slowed down the project by putting pressure on the countries concerned by the route, such as Denmark, which was the last one to issue authorization for the pipeline to cross its territorial waters. As one of the major U.S. allies in Europe, Poland’s antitrust watchdog slapped a record $7.6 billion fine on Gazprom, which represents 10% of the Russian company’s revenue. Mateusz Morawiecki, the Polish Prime Minister, also called on Germany to halt the Nord Stream 2 project, depicting it as a threat to the stability of Europe.

It is certain that the creation of the pipeline, by stimulating competition, would allow a more reasonable price on the European gas market. Critics of the project fear a dependence of European countries on Russian gas. This argument can easily be questioned. Indeed, Nord Stream 2 in no way prevents other suppliers such as Algeria, Norway, the USA or the Netherlands from supplying gas to European countries to diversify their supply. The central issue is that of a lower price, which, as in all markets, worries suppliers.

Opposition to Nord Stream 2 is not motivated by market share concerns only, as global energy supply flows have an inherent geopolitical dimension. The position of Ukraine epitomizes this intertwining of economic, energy security, and geopolitical aspects. Indeed, Nord Stream 2 would also allow Russia to bypass Ukraine, located on the main current route for European imports of Russian gas—and to deprive it of 2 billion dollars annually, roughly 3% of the country’s GDP. Because of its key strategic position, in the long term, it is in the interest of all countries to maintain a cordial relationship with the latter. This is why the question of its loss of income must be addressed, respected and treated seriously, both by Russia and by its Western partners.

Navalny Poisoning: a Tool in Information Warfare

The objective of this article is not to lift the veil on the unfortunate poisoning of Alexey Navalny but to understand how this affair is treated by the mass media and what impact it has on the Nord Stream 2 project.

On August 20, Alexei Navalny fell ill on a flight between Siberia and Moscow and was placed in a coma for two weeks. Initially hospitalized in Omsk, he was transferred to Germany on August 22, where, following blood work, the Novichok nerve agent was found in his system.

Although the outcome of the Navalny case remains unknown, it is already fueling pro-Western and pro-Russian arguments. First of all, by the communication of Mr Navalny himself, who, via social networks like Twitter or Instagram, accuses the Kremlin of his poisoning.

In the overwhelming majority of Western media who use him as a figure to denounce the Russian system, Alexey Navalny is presented as the primary opponent of Vladimir Putin. The first analysis of the case published by Le Monde (one of the most popular French newspapers) states, “there is a simple truth: political violence is inherent to the Putin system.”

This thesis, depicting Russian power assassinating its opponents, comes from an old narrative framework and reminds us of a collective subconscious very present in Western minds. There are many examples, for example the Skripal Affair recently, but also in Russian history, such as the elimination of Paul I by Catherine II, the sponsored assassination of Trotsky, Alexander I, etc. It is essential to take into account this common bias moulded by the Cold War when analyzing Western media criticism of Russian power.

In the context described previously, the choice of Navalny’s relatives to transport him outside of Russia, to Germany, on purpose or not, necessarily gives a geopolitical and international dimension to his poisoning.

The outcome of this assassination attempt is, at present, murky and difficult to anticipate. Nevertheless, the criticism, analysis and denunciation of the presumed role of the Russian government in the poisoning have made it possible to question the place of Russia in the system of international relations.

The American newspaper Politico clearly highlights the dynamics in Western mass media. In an article dated September 16, Polish Minister of European Affairs Konrad Szymański took a stance on Nord Stream 2. The article headlined, “Navalny poisoning shows why Putin’s pipeline must be stopped.” As the article goes on, he denounces the Russian-European project, criticizes German energy consumption and defines the poisoning of Navalny as a “rude awakening” of the danger that Europe runs when dealing with Russia.

Several major European newspapers have used similar arguments, such as The Guardian, Le Figaro, Corriere della Sera or Deutsche Welle. Alexei Navalny is, well beyond his control, a communication tool in the information warfare. His case is instrumentalized and allows different stakeholders to assert their interests.

Nord Stream 2: Revealing Interests and Influences

In this geopolitical chessboard based on communication, some countries have obvious interests. This is the case for the United States, Poland, the Baltic States and Ukraine. On the other hand, Austria’s President Alexander Van der Bellen supports the project. After talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, he declared, “In this particular case, we are talking about diversifying gas supplies. This is a commercial issue.”

Most of the other stakeholders have more ambivalent positions. France, which contributes to the project through the company Engie (whose state has 23.6% of the shares) has a clear economic interest in the realization of the project. However, the country—in a declared approach of rapprochement with Russia since the election of President Macron—is also subject to American influence through its bilateral relations and structures such as NATO.

The American influence is even more visible on Denmark, despite the denial of the Danish government on the interference of foreign powers. The country first authorized the construction of the gas pipeline in its territorial waters on October 30, 2019, a few months after the election of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. More recently, in an interview with Danish agency Ritzau, the latter declared, “I’ve been against Nord Stream 2 from the start” and “I don’t think we should make ourselves dependent on Russian gas.”

We can also remember that in July 2020, Mike Pompeo, American Secretary of State, visited Denmark. During this visit, he publicly praised the country’s energy policy.

What About the Future?

Angela Merkel has on several occasions insisted on the absence of a link between the poisoning of Navalny and the construction of Nord Stream 2. While the project has stalled since last year, this speech shows the vital interest of Germany for privileged access to Russian gas. Germany’s energy transition depends on it. However, as we have seen, Europe is fundamentally divided on this project. As a true driving force of the European Union, Germany must condemn the poisoning of Navalny, treated in a German hospital, in order to consolidate its leadership.

France, the other great leader of the European Union, is following it in this process. This is why the joint statement of the two foreign ministers, Mr Le Drian and Mr Maas, presented in the introduction underlined the following concerning sanctions: “Proposals will target individuals deemed responsible for this crime and breach of international norms, based on their official function, as well as an entity involved in the Novichok program.” The absence of any mention of the Nord Stream project, while it is at the very centre of current geopolitical tensions, shows the strong will of the two countries to carry out the project.

Completion of the pipeline, which has already cost Russian and European partners more than 9.5 billion Euros, will greatly depend on the treatment of information in key countries, with Germany at the forefront. Time is playing for the United States while Angela Merkel, still faithful to the project, will be replaced within a few months. If the project is not completed or abandoned before the next German election, we can be sure that Nord Stream 2 will occupy a prominent place in the debates.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Energy

Energy Research Platform Takes Central Stage under Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship

Published

on

After the Ufa declaration in 2015, BRICS, an association of five major emerging economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, has made energy cooperation one of its priorities besides attaining an admirable significant influence on regional affairs and very active on the global stage.

That 7th summit held in July in the Russian provincial city of Ufa in Bashkortostan, under Russia’s initiative the BRICS adopted the key guideline for expanding among many other spheres, development of energy cooperation, bridging the scientific and technological gap, as well as finding solutions to the challenges in the energy sector among the members.

The Ufa Declaration (point 69) states “Recognizing the importance of monitoring global trends in the energy sector, including making forecasts regarding energy consumption, providing recommendations for the development of energy markets in order to ensure energy security and economic development, we call on our relevant agencies to consider the possibilities of energy cooperation within BRICS.”

“Taking into consideration the role of the energy sector in ensuring the sustainable economic development of the BRICS countries, we welcome balancing the interests of consumers, producers and transit countries of energy resources, creating the conditions for sustainable and predictable development of the energy markets,” it further stated.

Worth to remind here that it was Russia’s proposal to hold the first meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Energy during the fourth quarter of 2015. While reaffirming the importance and necessity of advancing international cooperation in the field of energy saving, energy efficiency and developing energy efficient technologies, the BRICS look forward to developing intra-BRICS cooperation in this area, as well as the establishment of the relevant platform.

In 2020, Russia holds the rotating chair of BRICS. BRICS has neither a secretariat nor a charter. The country that chairs BRICS organizes the group’s summit and coordinates its current activities. Russia has been holding series of conferences focusing on different directions. In mid-October, the BRICS Energy Ministers held their meeting and approved a roadmap for cooperation in energy sphere that runs until 2025.  Due to coronavirus pandemic, it was video conference chaired by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak.

The influence of BRICS nations on the international arena is increasing due to the increasing economic power of the participating states, and it is imperative for them to coordinate their positions in energy cooperation, Minister Novak said during the meeting.

“Today, the BRICS nations represent nearly one fourth of global GDP and over a third of global consumption and production of energy. In this regard, it is very important to coordinate the positions of our nations where we have common interests and speak from a unified position in global platforms which concern themselves with matters of international energy cooperation,” he said.

“We have already begun to implement this idea in practice. Our nations have launched informal consultations on the sidelines of the G20 and on the sidelines of the World Energy Council. Beginning our work this year, we have collectively determined three key vectors of the energy dialogue. These are the support for the development of the national energy systems of BRICS nations, technological cooperation and facilitation of improved terms for investment in energy, contributing to the stability of energy markets and increasing the role of BRICS in the global energy dialogue,” Novak emphasized.

The roadmap adopted at the end of the meeting is the first comprehensive document that sets out agreed plans for the development of the energy dialogue between the five countries. The meeting also issued a communique confirming the intention to strengthen their strategic partnership in the energy sector and the area of energy security, and noting the important role of all types of energy, including fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The ministers affirmed that energy transition should correspond to national conditions and each country should determine the optimal policy without being compelled to adopt models that do not fit BRICS countries, according to the Russian ministry statement.

On October 15, Moscow hosted the first Annual Meeting of the BRICS Energy Research Platform, where analytical reports by the BRICS countries presented. That was followed by the largest youth energy event in BRICS. This year, delegations from all five countries comprised of representatives of Line Agencies responsible for the implementation of energy and youth policies as well as over 150 young scientists and experts from 40 leading universities and industrial organizations took part in the summit.

According to surveys conducted by the VTsIOM, Russian public opinion research centre, the number of families that have been taught to save energy has doubled over the past five years. That the BRICS countries are taking part in the #TogetherBrighter International Energy Saving Festival, as part of the BRICS Energy Week (October 16 – 20) was a landmark event of Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship.

Notably, the Energy Research Platform designed to encourage the research community’s involvement in the practical activities on drawing up energy resource plans. Two major events took place as part of the Energy Research Platform. The results submitted for consideration by the heads of state for effective industrial interaction and practical cooperation in developing and implementing new joint energy.

Based on national statistics and forecasts, leading BRICS experts have prepared the “BRICS Energy Report” – a review of the energy sectors in the five countries, and the “BRICS Energy Technology Report” – focuses on the priorities of technological development of the fuel and energy sectors in BRICS. The reports came from leading experts, representatives of major research institutes and energy companies from the BRICS countries as well as international energy organizations, such as OPEC, GECF, the World Energy Forum, the Clean Energy Ministerial and the World Energy Council.

In September, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held an online meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers Council in Moscow. That was second of such meetings this year under Russia’s chairmanship. The first one was dedicated exclusively to mobilizing efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus infection.

Within an updated Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership to 2025, Russia has drawn proposals on developing a new mechanism for the five member’s interaction in securing sustainable economic development in the post-pandemic age.

The theme of the Meeting of the Leaders of BRICS countries is “BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Shared Security and Innovative Growth” which is planned for November 17 via videoconference, to be coordinated and moderated in Moscow. This year the five countries have continued close strategic partnership on all the three major pillars: peace and security, economy and finance, cultural and people-to-people exchanges. 

“Despite the current global situation due to the spread of the coronavirus infection, the activities under the Russian BRICS Chairmanship in 2020 are carried out in a consistent manner. Since January 2020, more than 60 events have been organized, including via videoconferencing. The BRICS Summit will provide impetus for further strengthening cooperation together with our partners and ensure well-being of BRICS countries,” – noted Anton Kobyakov, Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation, Executive Secretary of the Organizing Committee to Prepare and Support Russia’s SCO Presidency in 2019 – 2020 and BRICS Chairmanship in 2020.

Since 2009, the BRICS nations have met annually at formal summits, with Brazil having hosted the most recent 11th BRICS Summit in November 2019. Russia is pushing forward significant issues of five-sided cooperation in the bloc’s three areas of strategic partnership: policy and security, economy and finance, and cultural and educational cooperation. The five BRICS countries together represent over 3.1 billion people, or about 41 percent of the world population.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Central Asia41 mins ago

COVID-19 Prompts Urgency of Bridging Digital Divide in Central Asia

Almost half of the population in Central Asia is not digitally connected, missing out on employment opportunities, falling behind in learning and not receiving adequate...

Development3 hours ago

Building science, technology and innovation capacity in developing countries

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) is contributing to a series of online training courses and workshops to build...

East Asia5 hours ago

Europe 1914- East Asia 2020: Similarities and Differences

Many scholars argue that what is happening between the major powers in East Asia at the present time is what...

East Asia7 hours ago

Beijing pushes Hong Kong towards a drastic fait accompli

Hong Kong’s liberal democracy faces an existential threat, more visible than any time in the past 23 years, as exemplified...

Tech News9 hours ago

Fintechs See Increased Growth as Firms Adapt to COVID-19

The World Economic Forum has today released results of a study on how the fintech industry has been impacted by...

Europe11 hours ago

Digital COVID-19 vaccine passports have arrived- why they are a bad idea

With the arrival of the first batches ofCOVID-19 vaccines at various countries, there have been a number of statements by...

International Law13 hours ago

The Third Way for De-Binarization of Foreign Policy Conduct

As the present world order weakens, the mega confrontations have appeared more likely: On its post-Soviet revival quest, Russia becomes...

Trending