Finnish government to give go-ahead for Baltic Sea gas pipeline

Experts see no security policy implications in project

print this

The Finnish government is expected to give its endorsement to the proposed undersea natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, which would pass through the Finnish economic zone in the Gulf of Finland.
      A final decision on Finnish approval for the pipeline project is to come by early next year from the Western Finland Environmental Permit Authority.
      The government has come under criticism for seeing the pipeline, which is to run from Vyborg in Russia to Greifswald in Germany, as purely an environmental question, and not as a military, or national security question, or as a factor that would lead to excessive dependence on Russia.
     
Experts who were interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat emphasised the environmental benefits of the pipeline, and the fact that dependence applies to both ends of the pipe; Western Europe needs the gas, and Russia needs export revenue.
      One environmental benefit is that the gas is likely to slow down the increase in ship transport of oil through the ecologically vulnerable Baltic Sea.
      The real significance of the pipeline might not be known for another 20 years, says Professor Esko Antola, director of the Centrum Balticum think tank.
      “Will it be a uniting or dividing factor? Will it be possible to get Russia to commit to cooperation in the Baltic region?”
     
The divisive effect would come from the fact that the pipeline is the project of two large countries, and the Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, have felt that they have been pushed aside in matters related to the Baltic Sea.
      Raimo Väyrynen, director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs takes a similar view. He notes that Russia did not want to have the pipe run overland, lest the countries along the route get the chance to affect the passage of the gas, or to benefit from it.
      “A more expensive, and technically more difficult solution was chosen for political reasons.”
     
Some critics have even seen parallels with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, where Germany and Russia divided Europe into spheres of influence.
      Markku Kangaspuro, head of research at the Aleksanteri Institute, sees quite a different point of comparison - the European Coal and Steel union, which linked the signatories together, and which later developed into the European Union.
      He says that the strategic importance of the Baltic Sea grew already when Russia stopped transporting oil by land, and started moving it in ships.
      “On the other hand, energy is always a political question. When a pipeline is built, gas has a supplier and a buyer, and the trade is based on a long-term strategic agreement.”
     
“In Russia’s maritime doctrine, the Baltic Sea is defined as a transport route, and the security of the route is the responsibility of Russia’s Baltic Sea Fleet”, notes Alpo Juntunen of the Department of Strategy of the Finnish National Defence University.
      “I would not want to deny that the pipeline would be a security aspect in some situation”, Raimo Väyrynen says.
      “However, it is not an overwhelming dimension, if conditions remain stable.
     
Antola laments that the mtter is examined only in terms of an increase in Russian influence.
      “Germany is at the other end of the pipeline! If Russia wants to increase its military presence at sea, it doesn’t need the pipeline for it.”
      Väyrynen, for his part, feels that Finland is right in seeing the pipeline as primarily an environmental question, as Finland will not get any gas from it.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Parliament debates problems of gas pipeline (9.10.2009)
  Nord Stream given permission to destroy sunken war materiel along Baltic gas pipeline route (2.10.2009)
  Putin meets Vanhanen, urges Finland to speed up pipeline process (2.9.2009)
  Licencing authority calls schedule for gas pipeline licence process “challenging” (1.9.2009)

Helsingin Sanomat