Energy independence become a key buzzword in the US presidential debates. The European Union has now launched a new initiative to reduce its member states’ dependence on Russian oil - a controversial move published just at the conclusion of the EU-Russia Summit, which concludes on Friday.

The Financial Times is reporting new EU plans to build additional pipelines from the Caspian Sea, decreasing European ties to Russian pipeline infrastructure. Union officials are looking to build a network of pipelines that would carry gas from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan into the EU. In addition, plans are being hatched to possibly create of European consortium to purchase gas from the region.

At the same time, the Council and Commission now seem to be weakening their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the Union by 20% by 2020. The European Parliament announced immediate protest. It has vowed to hold the other parts of the EU administration to its commitments, outlined here.

The full EU proposals toward increasing long-term energy security can be found here.

Expectedly, reactions to the election of Sen. Barack Obama as the 44th US President were overwhelmingly positive across Europe. But in between the congratulatory lines dictated by diplomatic protocol shown the expectations European leaders have of this new President. Quentin Peel, International Affairs editor of the Financial Times believes these expectations might mean Obama is “doomed to disappoint the world”. Europe is waiting for a “listener” who will renew the trans-Atlantic partnership to make real progress on restoring the global financial system to order, bring stability to the Middle East, find functional solutions to the difficult situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and commit to global initiatives on climate change and international justice. (Read letters from European lawmakers, authors, artists and intellectuals here.)

Le Monde offers an overview of what Europeans expect, while EU Communications Head, Margot Wallstroem, has put her thoughts down in a open letter published by the English version of Der Spiegel. Naturally, the French conservative daily believes that its country's President and current EU leader (as the rotationary principle of EU leadership dictates), Nicolas Sarkozy, will be able to convince the US of the necessity of creating a global financial regulatory system as early as November 15, when the G-20 heads gather in Washington. European still largely believe that the cradle of the current crisis was the lack of Wall Street oversight.

Overall, Europeans are optimistic that Barack Obama will be more successful than a McCain administration in negotiating with Russia, Europe's largest neighbor. Volker Perthes, Head of the Institute for International and Security Affairs, notes that “Obama, after all, has not proposed kicking Russia out of the G-8 or forming a league of democracies aligned against it.”

The degree to which President-Elect Obama will be able to utilize support from Europe will depend on how much weight he places on the trans-Atlantic relationship. The Bush administration drove a stake down Europe's heart with the creation of “Old Europe-New Europe” dichotomy. It reduced annual EU-US Summit meetings from two to one. Leading US universities, including Harvard, no longer teach courses on the political evolution and significance of the European Union and Europeans are beginning to feel as if they are being pushed out of a global power play. Obama will have to reengage Europe to distribute some of the challenges he faces or risk the failure, which some are already projecting. Europe, on the other hand, will have to shoulder more responsibility - in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in the Middle East. Sen. Obama can motivate the masses. He demonstrated that all too clearly on Tuesday. Now he must rally his partners across the globe. Because irrespective of America's size and stature, faced with the challenges ahead, it cannot go it alone.

French President and current EU figurehead, Nicolas Sarkozy claimed an early boost to his country's presidency of the Union yesterday, with the conclusion of the much anticipated ‘European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.’ Of course, it was a watered down version of the document that French immigration minister, Brice Hortefeux, was peddling to Member State governments earlier in the year - and rightfully so. Spain threw a wrench in the French Presidency's plans a few days ago, when it refused to agree to an addendum on integration and a Europe-wide ban on regularisations. 

According to those who have actually seen it, (it is not public information - at least not yet) it is built around five guiding principles:

So, at the end of the day, nothing in this pact is really new. 

For the most part, the Commission has already proposed legislation (EU Blue Card) and frameworks (Hague Programme) or, in fact, legislation has already been concluded as is the case for the Returns Directive.

However: Because Mr. Sarkozy has done what few others have done before him in recent EU politics (bar Angela Merkel on the environment) -  namely claim ownership and assume leadership - the media is keeping a close eye not only on him as EU President, but on the commitments made by all 27 Heads of State and Government as part of this pact. In the absence of a clear legal base for Justice and Home Affairs policy (which is linked to the adoption of the Lisbon Reform Treaty), and in light of demographic and economic need, the EU needs momentum in this crucial policy area. 

For ten years, since the initial EU Summit on immigration policy in Tampere, plans were made, legislation was written but major problems remained unadressed. Member states failed to realize the benefit of common approaches to a policy area, which by nature of the Union's open borders, could no longer be controlled unitlaterally.

We have a new window of opportunity: Europe needs migrants economically, and Europeans are beginning to understand the benefit of controlled migration. Europeans, by and large, want the Union - not their individual national governments - to develop functional policy in this area. Now is the time to turn the end the closed-door decision-making that started in Tampere. The European Parliament, NGOs and migrant organizations have to use this new window of opportunity in their favor, to ensure that the European Union gives itself the robust, humantiarian, just, equal and functional immigration and asylum policy it needs for the 21st century and beyond. 

Though not all votes are counted and official results are not expected until later this afternoon, Ireland's Europe Minister is already conceding defeat in his country's referendum on the EU Reform Treaty. Though the margin is narrow, it seems that the ‘No’ victory (at 52% vs. a predicted 48% ‘Yes’ vote) is clear.

It is a true Friday the 13th for the new Irish Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, who assured all those fretful in Brussels that he had done “everything possible” to get his countrymen and women to see the benefit of the treaty.

Full coverage, including a roundup of results will follow in the coming hours, but the Irish Times has a constantly updated website here. Already, however, masterminds in the French capital are scrambling for ideas for a modus operandi. France takes over the rotating EU Presidency on July 1 and the government has already vowed to taking the remaining ratification procedures in other EU member states further. Much like the dark days three years ago, following the resounding ‘NON’ and ‘NEE’ votes in France and the Netherlands, the summer EU Summit in just a week's time will focus on how to react to what could be perceived as yet another fundamental crisis of legitimacy for the European Union.

There is a nervous anticipation in the air in Brussels. Today is the day that might undo the fragile compromise negotiated by Angela Merkel during Germany's Presidency of the European Union.

Eyes grew wider with anguish when the Irish Times reported earlier in the week that the ‘No’ camp had overtaken the pro-Lisbon Treaty faction in the polls. What is clear is that it will be an extremely close vote.

But who are these nay-sayers that may be poised to undo an incomplete, though “best-possible-given-the-circumstances” compromise to reform and streamline the unwieldy 27 member ship that is the Union? The Guardian says it best:

“..ultra-rightwing Catholics, traditional nationalists, pro-American free marketeers and the far left. Add in a pop star and a turkey puppet called Dustin and you have a force which threatens to sink a reform project designed to transform how nearly 500 million Europeans are governed.”

As is always the case with contested votes, the undecided electorate and the overall turnout will play a disproportionate role in the final decision. Despite government efforts led by new Taoiseach Brian Cowen and supporters, 60% of the public still felt they were ill informed about the impact the Treaty would have on their lives and the status of Ireland within the Union. Unsurprisingly, then, that the eclectic ’No’ camp has preyed on these fears: Some argue that the Lisbon Treaty will allow abortion to sneak in through the back door, others are concerned about how it might affect Ireland's corporate tax base, still others - including the only male member of pop act The Corrs - argue that signing on to the reform treaty is akin to remilitarizing one of the few remaining neutral countries in the European Union.

In a last minute publicity stunt, free-market advocating businessman Declan Ganley, who heads Libertas, the ‘No’ group that wants to see Ireland's politicians negotiate a “better deal” for the country, bought one way tickets to Brussels for the country's leadership, arguing they shouldn't return unless they came back with a Commissioner and significantly more influence for the green isle (the Lisbon Reform Treaty creates a more streamlined EU executive, with rotating Commissioners, eradicating the traditional “one Commissioner per country” practice).

But honestly: What's the worst that could happen if Ireland says no? Will it truly be the unravelling of the Union? My former colleague, EU expert and Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre, Antonio Missiroli predicts that practicality might prevail: The first option might be to organize a second referendum (this would be highly dependent on the margin of the ‘No’ camp win), the second might include a renegotiation of additional Irish opt-outs from the Treaty to satisfy skeptics and/or in the worst case (and given the amount of subsidies that Ireland still receives, no one could possibly want this solution), Ireland would pull-out of the European Union altogether.

Whether or not any of these options will have to be considered is only a matter of hours. We will feature a roundup of results and commentary in tomorrow's blog.

Just as a woman bows out of the race for the most powerful political office in the world, calls for a female leadership role in the European Union are swelling. Launched by Danish Socialist MEP, Christel Schaldemose, the ‘Females in Front’ initiative is looking to fill one of the key posts in the 27-member Union with a well-known woman. In 2009, the Heads of State and Government will be looking to nominate candidates for the leadership positions in the Union: President of the EU Council of Ministers, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Until now, only one of these posts has ever been held by a woman: Simone Weil and Nicole Fontaine served as Presidents of the European Parliament, one in the late seventies and the other in the late nineties.

Schaldemose is looking for 1 million signatories to her petition for it to have enough clout to influence nominations. Naturally, German chancellor Angela Merkel seems to be the obvious choice for one of these top posts, though in light of the weakness of her ruling coalition partner, the Social Democrats, Ms. Merkel would be a fool to drop out of national policy making in 2009 to take over a leadership role in Europe when so much remains to be accomplished at home.

In a recent article in the Financial Times, EU Commissioner Margot Wallstroem has put forth a number of female candidates aside from Ms. Merkel: Tarja Halonen, president of Finland, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, president of Latvia 1999-2007, Mary Robinson, president of Ireland 1990-97, Dora Bakoyannis, foreign minister of Greece, Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of Austria, Margaret Beckett, former British foreign secretary, Emma Bonino, former Italian minister for trade and European Commissioner.

Arguably, though none of the posts in question are truly democratically representative offices, nominating at least one woman would serve as a better reflection of the Union's actual population (more than half of it are female) - the Spanish cabinet, which includes more women than men is a case in point.

Women - not least Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher - have proven they can be just as tenacious and ambitious as their male counterparts, providing it is the job they want. So perhaps Europe has to ask itself a different question altogether - and in part it is already doing it through the Lisbon Treaty: How can we make Europe's top jobs just as attractive as an American Presidency or a prime ministerial post. The answer: Add some real power to the mix, and you’ll have top candidates of both genders vying for the opportunity.

On May 29th the French Assemblée Nationale took a vote that might have profound impact on whether Turkey joins the European Union in a few years, or not. Making good on what his predecessor Jacques Chirac had promised all along, President Sarkozy and his ruling UMP party introduced a constitutional amendment, which would put future enlargements to include more populous countries - notably, of course, the extension of the Union to Turkey - to a popular vote in France. The Turkish government has been quick to criticize the move as discriminatory, as the amendment only demands a referendum for country's that in size would represent 5% of the EU total population. Thus, such a vote would only be needed for Turkey and Ukraine, the most contested of the current candidates. The move is surely to put a hostile spin on the membership negotiations, which will be led by France once that country takes over the rotating Presidency of the European Council on July 1. Already, tensions have been rising between the two sides, with plenty of finger-pointing as to which side is responsible for the slow pace of negotiations on the so-called chapters, which define the necessary reform steps toward accession.

A referendum in France against the accession could force the hand of the government (handing the responsibility over to the people might allow the then-government to save face toward their Head-of-State counterparts, while playing the popular democratic card) to vote ‘No’ in the Council. As the enlargement of the Union requires unanimity in the Council, and depending on the pro and con campaigns once Turkey's membership comes up for the vote, this could mean the end of the country's hopes toward becoming one of the largest and most populous in the Union.

It's June 1st and that leaves only a short twelve days for pro and con EU Treaty campaigners in Ireland. They have their work cut out for them, according to recent polls. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that “NO” campaigners are gaining ground, particularly among the conservative and the country's large farming population who see approval of the Lisbon Reform Treaty as relinquishing too much sovereignty to Brussels. According to the Times, the gap is narrowing (with Yes voters at 41 per cent and the No voters at 33 per cent), but primarily due to the fact that the Treaty as such is hardly a rallying ground on which to base an inspiring campaign. “Soporific” is apparently the adjective that comes to mind, according to the Times, when voters are asked to describe how they feel about the changes enshrined in the document. True, it is a far cry from the ‘People's Pamphlet’ the original Constitution set out to be, but the provisions for greater democratic participation of both European and national parliaments remain in place. But the ‘Yes’ campaign certainly has its work cut out for itself, while European policy makers are offering their assistance toward turning the vote in their favor. As all 27 Member States have to approve the Treaty - though most, given the debacle in France and the Netherlands three years ago, are resorting to parliamentary majorities - Ireland's vote has a particular significance because it could unhinge a project that was so precariously put back together after the last two referenda in 2003 sent the entire project back to the drawing board. This is the second time, after the Nice referendum that Ireland holds such sway over the fate of the Union as a whole. We will follow the last days of campaigning closely in the pages of this blog.

 The English language version of German weekly, DER SPIEGEL also rounds up the campaigners efforts in Ireland.

“Don't let yourself be fooled,” is EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's message to American voters. In an interview for BBC's Hardtalk, which was excerpted to the Financial Times, Mandelson argues that promising disengagement from certain parts of the global trading system in order to win votes is dangerous. Implicitly critiquing views expressed by Democratic Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he said “It is irresponsible to be pretending to people you can erect new protection, new tariff barriers around your economy in this 21st century global age and still succeed in sustaining living standards and jobs. It is a mirage and they know it.”

Mrs. Clinton made headlines earlier in the year saying that she would renegotiate the North American Free Trade agreement, once signed by her husband in an effort to protect American jobs. Both Senator Obama and Clinton have said they would “punish” China by supporting a bill that would introduce trade tarriffs on the country, to compensate for an undervalued Yuan Renmibi.

To this Mandelson says: “”It is very irresponsible in my view to pretend to people that we can disengage from international trade, we can create barriers around our economy and then be surprised when people retaliate by doing the same,” he said. “It is going to lead us into a vicious spiral of beggar-thy-neighbour policies which will take us decades back in terms of trade growth.”

The EU Trade Commissioner is undoubtedly worried about whether or not he can count on Democrate assurances that upon the election of a President from its ranks the difficult (and thus far unsuccessful) Doha Trade Round negotiations would not be threatened.

Wolfgang Ischinger, the designated head of the Munich Security Conference, former German Ambassador to the US currently serving as his country's top diplomat in the UK, has published an article in the Financial Times arguing that now - not after the US elections - is the time to forge stronger transatlantic ties. A rare opportunity is emerging to set the agenda on future EU-US relations due to the confluence of two key events in 2009: the inauguration of a new US President and the entry into force of the Lisbon Reform Treaty. Each of these events will give both sides new figureheads, as the new EU Treaty foresees the creation of a permanent presidency (for a two-and-a-half year term) of the 27-member bloc (see my earlier entry on this issue). The hope is, of course, that a high-profile figure will at least superficially solve the age-old question attributed to Henry Kissinger: “Who do I call when I want to talk to Europe?”

Ties between the allies have been tenuous at best throughout the two-term Bush Presidency. The Iraq war drove a stake through the heart of the Union, with Spain and the UK deploying troops and Germany and France fronting the anti-invasion coalition. During the first Bush administration the two regular semi-annual US-EU Summits were cut to one, further reducing necessary ‘face time’ between diplomats on both sides.

Thus, while the second term of the Bush administration has been about ironing out diplomatic creases between the US and European allies, the relationship could surely be more productive in light of the global challenges: instability in Iraq and Afghanistan, a volatile situation throughout the Middle East, natural catastrophes caused by global warming, instability on the world financial markets.

Aside from the future EU President who won't take office before 2009, it will be up to Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the country most critical of US military plans for Iraq (the decision which prompted the American side to begin consuming “Freedom Fries” and dismissing the French as “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys”) to forge closer ties as the issues the EU should begin to tackle now - not later- to prove to the US that the bloc is serious about reaffirming its commitment to transatantic relations.

In the piece, Ischinger argues that Europe must enhance its military engagement around the world, by building the kind of military capacity necessary in a world of modern conflict. Implicitly, he is criticizing the work of the European Defence Agency, designed precisely for the purpose of finding more functional solutions toward crisis prevention while coordinating the actual military capabilities (i.e. the coordination of weapons development and procurement) of the EU Member States. Granted, the EDF, which has been around a mere three years has a difficult and challenging role, particularly since it is not designed to produce short-term effects, but rather create a coordination mechanism, which will facilitate and accelerate a European response to certain situations. This will take time, but it is a major improvement to the intergovernmental mess that was European Security and Defence Policy after the Amsterdam Treaty. To not mention it, is to ignore its important contribution to long-term improved relations with both the US and with NATO.

Which brings us to Ischinger's second point: The EU and US must resolve questions on the future of NATO. Just how difficult this will be is evidenced by the NATO Summit in Bucharest earlier this month. How Europe is to offer a solution to that situation in a matter of months is still somewhat a mystery to me, given the tight-rope walk that was the last summit. Certainly, however, the US has got to stop offering membership to countries that counteract certain priorities of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Closer coordination between the EU members of NATO and the US is thus undoubtedly needed.

Ischinger also wants to see the EU pull the US over to its side with respect to robust plans toward reducing the harmful effects of global warming and reaffirming the “western” values, which dismiss torture and advocate dialogue in addressing the issue of radical Islam and terrorism. Here Ischinger is undoubtedly right - the EU is one of the leading players in the actual reduction of green-house gases and has businesses which have clearly seen the light with respect to their competitive advantage. Going green is becoming a huge future business sector for Europe, and that is an angle, which could be played in discussions in which the US has continually pointed to the negative business effects of increased environmental legislation.

Europe and the US could profit immensely from a closer exchange of experience not solely on intelligence and security information with respect to the global spread of terrorism (this is already onoing), but means of reaching out to communities most likely to become subjected to radical Islam and its negative consequences. Transatlantic dialogue on this issue must be stepped up on all levels - government and non-government.

For more on Ischinger's views on the future of the EU-US relationship and Russia's role in the world, you can watch an interview with the Financial Times’ foreign affairs editor Quentin Peel here.