Running on empty in Ukraine
(From The Japan Times Jan. 16 issue)

ウクライナへの天然ガス供給問題

    The dispute between Russia — more accurately, Gazprom, the state gas company — and Ukraine was brewing. Under an agreement signed in 2004, Ukraine received gas at prices considerably lower than those paid by wealthier European nations. Adding insult to injury, Ukraine is accused of stealing gas that passes through the country (in pipelines) on its way to other European countries, a charge Ukraine denies.

    The dispute peaked Jan. 1, when Gazprom cut off supplies and demanded a quadrupling of prices. The shutoff lasted one day, but it focused the attention of the Ukrainian government, which agreed to a five-year deal with Russia that would double prices for the first half of 2006, with subsequent increases to be determined by Russia. At the same time, Ukraine would get a fixed fee for gas that transits the country, regardless of how the price moved. Since prices are most likely to climb, Ukraine is disadvantaged by this provision.

    The terms of the deal outraged the Ukraine Parliament, which passed a note of no confidence in the government. This situation takes Ukraine into uncharted territory. The new constitution does not allow the president to pick a new Cabinet, so with elections scheduled for March, the government is likely to continue in a caretaker capacity.

    Mr. Yushchenko is the first loser in this situation. The government's handling of the crisis and the feared impact of the rise in gas prices — translated as a 5 percent drop in GNP and inflation of up to 30 percent — could prod voters in March to elect a Parliament that, under the terms of the new constitution, could pick a Cabinet that is hostile to the president. That would not trouble Russia: Mr. Yushchenko's pro-Western leanings have long irritated Moscow. Still, with the Ukrainian opposition divided and some of Mr. Yushchenko's former allies in the government having backed the no-confidence vote, the outcome of the election is by no means assured.

    Ukraine is not the only customer with which Gazprom has complaints. It wants to triple the price of gas it sells to Bulgaria, Moldova and Turkey. Distinguishing its tactics from those used with Ukraine, though, Gazprom said it would settle differences with Bulgaria "in a civilized manner." Moldova, on the other hand, has endured a gas shutoff.

    Russia may have won a battle with Ukraine but might have lost a war. Europe imports about 40 percent of its natural gas. Some 70 percent to 80 percent of the total comes from Russia and 90 percent of that transits Ukraine. Eastern and Central European countries get almost all of their gas from Russia. The one-day shutoff to Ukraine hit Europe hard, coming as it did during especially cold days. Dependence on Russia is scheduled to increase when additional pipelines go into service around 2010.

    Thus Gazprom's heavy-handed tactics alerted Europe to its energy vulnerability and the readiness of Moscow to play hardball in a dispute. Japan should be equally concerned given its efforts to secure an oil pipeline from Russia and to tap energy supplies in the Russian Far East.

    Ever sensitive to diplomatic niceties, European leaders have been guarded in assessing the contretemps involving Kiev, but energy analysts have drawn the obvious conclusions and EU members are convening emergency talks to discuss energy security. The topic tops the agenda at this year's Group of Eight summit, hosted by — Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Europe has a number of options. First and foremost is that leaders rethink the role of nuclear energy in Europe's future. In the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, Europe turned away from nuclear power, but concerns about greenhouse gases and this vulnerability may prod it to reconsider the nuclear option. Second, and more immediately, Europe — and other countries like Japan — must rethink the role that energy plays in foreign and security policy.

    International energy markets are being transformed, and countries must develop a comprehensive strategy that — besides incorporating policies on foreign relations, more efficient economies, trade and investment — puts energy concerns at the core.

The Japan Times Weekly
Jan. 21, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    ロシア政府系企業のガスプロムとの契約で、ウクライナは欧州各国よりも低価格でロシアから天然ガス供給を受けていた。ウクライナはまた、同国を経由する欧州向けパイプラインから天然ガスを抜き取っていたと非難されたが、疑惑を否定している。

    ガスプロムはウクライナ向け天然ガス供給を停止すると同時に、契約価格の4倍増を要求した。供給は翌日再開されたが、交渉の結果、06年の前半については倍額、その後の契約価格についてもロシアが決定する5年契約が結ばれた。また、ガス価格の変動に関係なく、ウクライナは定額のパイプライン通過料の支払いを受ける。ガス価格は上昇すると予想されるので、ウクライナは不利になる。

    ウクライナ議会は、新契約に対する不満を爆発させ、ユーシェンコ政権に対する不信任案を可決した。一方で、ロシアの信頼も著しく傷ついた。

    欧州諸国は天然ガス必要量の40%を輸入し、輸入量の70〜80%をロシアからの供給に依存、その90%はウクライナを通過する。

    ロシアから石油パイプラインの導入と、極東ロシアのエネルギー開発を見込む日本も同国のエネルギー戦略に注意すべきである。

    欧州各国はエネルギー安保について緊急会談を予定している。また、問題は今年にG8首脳会議（議長国はロシア）で最重要議題となる。

    欧州各国はまず、原子力エネルギーの役割を考え直す必要がある。また欧州、日本などは、エネルギーが外交、安保政策に果たす役割を再考すべきだ。関係各国は、外交、経済、貿易、投資政策などを組み込んだ総合的エネルギー戦略を構築せねばならない。