Nord Stream: Not Just a Pipeline

2 Bendik Solum Whist
threaten their energy security, the debate in Sweden was at first mostly
concerned with the prospect of increased Russian military presence in the
Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone. The potential environmental impact
of the pipeline has been, and continues to be, an overarching concern
shared by all the Baltic littoral states. Proponents of Nord Stream, most
notably Germany, Russia and the Nord Stream consortium, have largely
dismissed the concerns as unwarranted and argue that the pipeline is a
common European project that all EU-members should embrace, as it
will provide much-needed gas to an increasingly energy-thirsty union.
There are indeed multiple interpretations of Nord Stream, some of which
resonate in all the littoral states, whereas others are more state-specific,
and this report seeks to explain why this is the case.
All the littoral states of the Baltic Sea will be mentioned in the analysis,
but particular attention will be given to Sweden, Finland and Estonia, as
these three have had (or have) the ability to play a decisive role in the
course of events. Sweden and Finland have since the start had certain
legal powers since their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) have been
chosen for the pipeline route, and Estonia was quite suddenly given a
voice when the pipeline consortium submitted an application for a survey
of the Estonian seabed, which the Estonian government rejected. A
significant focus will also be on Russia and Germany; the former in terms
of its reliability as an energy supplier, and the latter as the chief recipient
of the gas supplied through Nord Stream. Poland, Lithuania and Latvia
have not had (and do not have) any legal rights to directly influence the
project, but their concerns regarding energy security will nevertheless be
briefly discussed.
An important finding of the analysis is that history plays a decisive part in
shaping the divergent views on Nord Stream in the littoral states. Their
very different debates and official reactions to Nord Stream reflect the
fact that they have different histories, but perhaps more importantly, that
they have different historical experiences with Russia (and the former
Soviet Union) and Germany. Certainly, contemporary aspects such as
energy import dependence and environmental concerns are important
explanatory factors, but the history of the Baltic region appears to be a
recurrent underlying component without which the debates would probably
have looked substantially different.
1.1 The Structure of the Report
Following the introduction is a brief chapter (2.0) outlining the Nord
Stream project; that is, when the planning started, who is involved, which
legal frameworks are relevant, and the current state of affairs. The
elements included here are those considered necessary for the subsequent
analysis, which has been structured by singling out four different
interpretations of the Nord Stream project (chapters 3-6). Such a thematic
(rather than a country-based) subdivision has been chosen because it
enables good coverage of the breadth of arguments that have surged in
the multifaceted Nord Stream debate, and it also makes it easier to
contrast where, how, and by whom the different arguments have been
employed.