This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

101742Z Mar 06

UNCLAS PARIS 001556 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EUR/WE, EUR/ERA, AND EB/ESC 
USDOC FOR 4212/MAC/EUR/OEURA 
DOE FOR ROBERT PRICE PI-32 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ENRG EIND EINV PREL PGOV FR EU
SUBJECT: GOF Reacts to EU Energy Green Paper 
 
Ref: Paris 762 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  In meeting with EB Energy Office Director 
Gallogly and EconOff, the GOF expressed "satisfaction" with 
the EU Energy Green paper even though they judged it to be 
"too cautious on some issues."  The January 2006 episode 
involving gas transits through Ukraine woke up many EU 
member states to the need for integration of EU energy 
policy and for a united voice outside Europe.  Taking ideas 
from the French January memo (reftel), the EU energy paper 
is acceptable to the GOF as a framework.  Overall, the GOF 
feels it is a useful step forward.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) French government officials gave their reaction to 
the EU Energy Green Paper to us on March 10.  Overall, the 
framework of the paper is acceptable and it is a good basis 
for further work, according to MFA DAS for energy issues, 
Nicole Taillefer, who added that it is a big step for Europe 
that the European Council will focus on energy next week. 
Previously, European institutions had limited their 
involvement in energy issues, which were considered 
primarily the authority of sovereign national governments. 
However, following the January 2006 crisis with Russia and 
Ukraine over gas, member states (including France) welcomed 
Commission action to speak with a common external voice, 
said Sophie Galey-Leruste of the Industry Ministry's Energy 
Directorate.  Taillefer said that Ukraine was a wake up call 
for many European governments and gave impetus to Brussels' 
role, since so much of the energy equation involves 
countries outside of the EU. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Taillefer pointed to the GOF's January memo to the 
EU (reftel) on EU energy policy, noting that many of its 
ideas were incorporated into the EU Green Paper on Energy. 
The French proposal supported more integration of energy 
policy within the EU, although Taillefer noted that many but 
not all EU member states were reviewing their own energy 
policies.  She expressed confidence that "We'll make a step 
forward."  However, she noted that France did not have the 
same level of dependence on Russian gas, so may have 
different short-term interests.  Still, long-term interests 
are the same, since no EU country can be fully energy self- 
sufficient.  EU competence (meaning authority or 
responsibility) in energy will grow, but only gradually, 
according to Taillefer, since countries will maintain their 
own decision-making sovereignty over their energy mix.  It 
is more a matter of convergence (of common policy goals) and 
coordination, she said. 
 
¶4. (SBU) In a separate meeting, Galey-Leruste also saw the 
Ukraine-Russia dispute in early January as a catalyst for EU 
action, as many countries came to the sudden realization of 
their dependence on Russian gas.  The EU Energy Green Paper 
was in this sense a consequence of this realization.  Galey- 
Leruste emphasized the positive role, which the Commission 
can play as an external voice on these issues.  Generally, 
our GOF contacts welcomed the EU Green Paper on Energy, but 
noted that it was "too cautious on some issues."  Since 
France's reputation on energy is often tied to nuclear, we 
suspect that nuclear was the key issue on which the GOF 
judged the EU as too cautious, but necessarily so. 
Taillefer noted that the UK is reviewing its energy policy, 
Germany is in flux, and others are internally questioning 
their energy policies.  "We'll likely have more details at 
the end of the year" said Taillefer, once countries have had 
a chance to move further along in their internal reviews and 
absorb the EU paper.  At that point, Europe will be able to 
solidify its options. 
 
¶5. (SBU) GOF officials said that EU countries would make a 
strong push for Russia to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty 
(ECT) at next week's G8 Energy Ministerial and at the St. 
Petersburg summit in July.  Our interlocutors said that the 
GOF and EU would welcome USG support of ratification of the 
ECT.  Gallogly noted that while the USG has no intention 
itself of joining the ECT, the U.S. still supports the 
underlying principles of the ECT, especially with regard to 
removing barriers to energy investment and trade.  He 
indicated the U.S. would view Russian ratification of the 
ECT as a positive step toward Russian acceptance of 
international principles governing energy trade, and added 
the expectation that the EU and its members would continue 
to take the lead with Russia on this issue. 
 
Stapleton