Energy Crisis Cooperation and Disagreement in the EU
EU informal summit ended on October 7, leaving behind many unsolved problems, including how leaders deal with high energy prices. Countries have serious differences on how to effectively reduce energy costs, and the most controversial issue is how the EU determines the price ceiling for natural gas. How to deal with the differences in the energy crisis has become a huge challenge for European leaders.
According to the "Politico" report, Charles Michel, chairman of the European Council who chaired the meeting, believes that informal summits can help leaders figure out "what different opinions do they have and what different sensitive issues they face." Some countries want to compensate for natural gas costs that exceed a certain price, while others want to directly limit the price of natural gas purchases, and some countries want to combine these two approaches. The summit also held a heated discussion on “whether to increase EU joint debt to cover people’s soaring energy costs”. But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz rejected the idea at a press conference on October 7, insisting that previous EU epidemic recovery funds could still be redistributed. Some countries are disappointed by Berlin's decision to announce a 200 billion euro fund to subsidize growing energy expenditures. Some countries complained that the move was almost unveiled government aid, undermining the stability of the EU's single market and leaving poorer countries in silence. The rotating president of the European Union, Petr Fiala, issued a warning without directly mentioning Germany: "We need to comply with national aid regulations, we cannot only provide a national solution. We need a solution for Europe." As a German politician, , president of the European Commission, , von der Leyen, also said: "We must maintain unity of a single market and avoid division." In response, Schultz repeatedly emphasized that the 200 billion euro aid will last for two years, and he believes that the amount is no larger than the aid of other countries such as France.
Local time on August 15, 2022, Germany, Germany's Minister of Economy and Climate Protection Robert Habeck issued a statement. According to the natural gas prices announced on the same day, after the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, German households faced energy surcharges of up to hundreds of euros, prompting the government to promise mitigation measures.
In addition, Germany and France have escalated differences on the MidCat pipeline. Spain and Germany hope to establish a "Midcat" natural gas pipeline entering Europe from Iberian Peninsula to solve the European gas crisis. But France opposed the project, believing that the plan could not quickly resolve the current crisis and would only lead to Europe's continued reliance on fossil fuels. Germany believes the project will help alleviate the energy crisis in Europe. At the press conference, French President Emmanuel Macron ( Emmanuel Macron ) said that it is France's duty to unite countries with opposing views when the situation is tense, suggesting criticism of Germany's 200 billion euro subsidy fund. Macron also said, "About MidCat, it is a pipeline between France and Spain, passing through the Pyrenees." Macron described whether to support the project as an environmental issue, "not a disagreement between France and Germany."
Considering the various differences among EU countries, the EU Leaders' Summit started on October 20 is particularly eye-catching. However, after a long discussion, although EU countries "reach an agreement" on multiple countermeasures for energy issues, key differences such as price limits for imported natural gas still exist. Charles Michel, President of the European Council, said: "As Europeans, we have a strong and unanimous determination to take joint action to achieve three goals: lower prices, ensure supply security, and continue to work hard to reduce demand."
According to the " Guardian ", France, Italy, Spain, Poland and other countries have expressed their hope to limit prices on natural gas.Under pressure, the European Commission proposed a mechanism to prevent “extreme volatility and excessive prices” by blocking natural gas trading beyond a certain level. But the EU Executive Committee said that this "revision mechanism" is only a last resort "when necessary" and does not meet the price ceiling that 15 member states have been demanding. However, this plan was opposed by Germany, the Netherlands, , Denmark and other countries. According to the report of " France 24 News Channel ", EU diplomats said that before approving these proposals, experts must evaluate the impact of these proposals in advance; leaders of various countries insist that any agreement needs to take into account different energy combinations of countries. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said the price cap would let suppliers go, "Setting the price cap of natural gas is like going to a bartender to bartender you want to buy beer at half price. This certainly won't work." As publics in countries such as France and Belgium are increasingly dissatisfied with the high cost of living, at least 15 EU countries want to limit gas prices. But the EU's largest economy, Germany, rejected the call and believed that setting a cap could exclude Europe from the gas market. This idea was also supported by the Netherlands, who feared that if the price cap was set too tightly, the gas would be shipped directly to other places. Prime Minister Mark Rutte said: "Everyone wants natural gas prices to fall, but we also want to ensure that natural gas imports continue to increase." In addition to limiting natural gas prices, the European Commission has also proposed emergency measures such as joint purchase of natural gas and coordination of energy supply in EU member states. Energy ministers from various countries welcomed the measures, but also expressed concerns about setting a price ceiling. At present, countries are still looking for measures to satisfy all member states. Diplomats acknowledge that technical complexity and the 27-country energy structures have made the development of a common policy complex political challenges.
On the other hand, regarding the differences between Germany and France on the MidCat pipeline project, the leaders of France, Spain and Portugal issued a joint statement on the 20th, agreeing to build a "green energy corridor" connecting the Iberian Peninsula and France to transport renewable energy such as hydrogen and natural gas. This subsea pipeline that passes through the Mediterranean , connecting Barcelona, Spain and Marseille, France, is mainly used to transport renewable energy such as hydrogen, and can also be temporarily used to transport "limited quantity" of natural gas to alleviate the current energy crisis in Europe. Leaders of the three countries believe that the project reflects solidarity among European countries and agreed to meet in Alicante, Spain in early December to discuss details of the construction period and funding of the pipeline project. It is not clear about Germany's attitude towards the project, but Germany and France seem to be difficult to reach an agreement on how to alleviate and resolve the current energy crisis. Although differences are difficult to eliminate in the short term, leaders of the two countries still emphasize the importance of solidarity. German Chancellor Scholz said at the summit: "It is obvious that the prices of natural gas, oil and coal must be lowered, and electricity prices must also be lowered. This requires the joint efforts of all Europeans." Perhaps, as Michel emphasized, "divergence is already a luxury that the EU cannot afford."
The first South Asian prime minister was born in the UK, which has reversed the colonial order?
Last week, the change of British Prime Ministers triggered a round of discussions on colonial historical heritage.
Previously, Conservative Prime Minister Liz Tras, who had been in power for only more than a month, triggered financial and money market volatility due to the controversial "mini budget" tax cut plan. Finally, many cabinet members withdrew from the government and the conservative party announced their resignation in the dilemma of opposition within the Conservative Party, setting a record for the shortest reign of the Prime Minister in British history. In the subsequent Conservative Party elections, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of Johnson's government, Rich Sunak, successfully took over the position of Conservative Party leader on the premise that his competitor withdrew from the election, becoming the new prime minister of the UK and the first Prime Minister of color in British history.
Sunak was born in a South Asian immigrant family who believed in Hinduism . Their ancestral home is in today's Pakistan.His family immigrated to Kenya, a British colony, from the generation of grandparents. His grandparents were Indians who settled in British Tanganyika (in today's Tanzania ). In the 1960s, the two families moved to the UK one after another, and his parents met. In 1980, Rich Sunak was born in England.
The first South Asian Prime Minister and the first Prime Minister of Color. Does this series of titles mean that Britain's colonial history has received a new "baptism"? Does the former colonial descendants become the owner of , No. 10 Downing Street, , which means that it can be said that Britain has become a multi-ethnic society?
On October 25, 2022, London, England, the new British Prime Minister Rich Sunak returned from Buckingham Palace and arrived at Prime Minister ’s official residence in Downing Street .
Some people do hold this view, or at least believe that Sunak's election means that Britain is working in this direction. On October 29, the Financial Times, which stands on the side of the financial elite and is more inclined to the Conservative Party, published an article on commentary by Sunny Hundal, a writer from Sikh . The article believes that the UK is debating on multiracial, multifaith and multigender gender, but Sunak's election means that the UK is heading in this direction.
As a representative of progressives and environmentalists in the UK, Hundal believes that Sunak's election is not only of significance in the UK, but also an important step in maintaining "multi-ethnic democracy". In the article, he repeats the common progressives’ judgment on the contemporary world situation: countries are becoming intolerant—not tolerant of different ethnic groups, and increasingly away from democratic institutions. Therefore, he elevated Sunak as prime minister to a certain benchmark position, believing that this could encourage the integration of multinational groups and democratic institutions in a challenging global situation.
However, the undercurrent of British racism reflected before and after Sunak came to power is more worthy of attention. In a comment to the public discussion platform Dialogue, Parveen Akhtar, a scholar studying immigration at the University of Aston, UK, also believes that the significance of Sunak becoming prime minister should be seen, but more importantly, the UK's still strong racism behind this.
Akhtar believes that Sunak's educational background and family environment are undoubtedly more elite and privileged than the vast majority of British Indian immigrants: he attended Winchester School, one of the most expensive and best boarding schools in the UK, and then entered Oxford like most children from the upper-class British families, and then worked in banking. And this is even more true for his personal family: he married the daughter of Indian billionaire Narayan’s Murthy. The couple's joint property after marriage exceeded £730 million. Based on this, the author Akhtar believes that although the Conservative Party elected a Hindus leader and a prime minister of color in the UK is something to celebrate, Sunak's success is still only the success of the elite among Indian immigrants, not the changes in the lives of most ordinary people.
Akhtar mentioned that when Sunak first came out to run for the party leader, the senior officials in the Conservative Party did not appreciate him. One possible explanation, she believes, is that people still don’t want to see a prime minister of color deep down. And although people may not say this mentality explicitly, it is hidden in many corners of British society. For example, in a recent recording of a white British audience calling to the radio station that was fermented on the Internet, the audience said that he did not think Sunak was a British person.
In a commentary article in The New Politician, magazine editor Pravina Rudra refuted the argument that Sunak is regarded as "British Obama ". She believes that the context of the two is completely different, and Obama was introduced as a symbol of "change" at least when he first came to power. The reason why Sunak was able to take over Downing Street was because his predecessor, Tras, was doing too badly, and people needed a politician who could at least pass the exam. Sunak was selected not because he could bring about changes, but because he had enough harvest.Moreover, the big difference between Sunak and Obama is that Obama once lived in the poor minority neighborhood of Chicago , and Sunak received the most elite education since he was born. He even once said that he had "no working-class friends."
Indian intellectuals have more critical views. After Sunak was elected, many netizens and media people in India were very happy. They believed that Sunak's election reflects the rise of Indians around the world. In response, Pankaji Mishra, an Indian writer living in the UK, wrote an article in the Guardian to refute it.
In Akhtar's article for Dialogue, she regards Indian immigration as an indispensable part of building the British Empire. She pointed out that in the 19th century, Indian immigration actually helped the British Empire establish a trade network surrounding Indian Ocean , which is why so many Indians immigrated to East Africa . But in the second half of the twentieth century, most East African countries no longer welcomed Indian immigration, so many such people, such as Sunak's family, immigrated to the UK.
, while Mishra criticized that compared with other immigrant groups, Indians played an important role around the world in supporting colonial sovereign states. Some Indian families in East and South Africa still control important parts of the local economy. On the other hand, Sunak's Indian father-in-law's business empire and Indian elites like Sunak's power around the world actually show that a global network representing wealth and power - Sunak's victory certainly has nothing to do with his skin color, but a direct manifestation of his possession of this global network.
As an Indian writer who opposes the Modi government, Mishra has no taboo to satirize identity politics and "global elites". It is a big irony that the Conservatives play the role of ethnic pluralism, while at the same time, the front-end MPs of Labour are almost all white. He believes that Sunak's coming to power is nothing more than an "opportunistic political correctness" and does not help any substantial social changes in the UK. As the title of his article says, rather than saying that Sunak's coming to power was an advancement of ethnic diversity in the British Conservative Party, his administration had a better chance of turning the concept of ethnic diversity into a performance on the surface.
