The Eastern Mediterranean Changing

Image courtesy of Aris Messinis / AFP

Earlier this month, the United States surprised Greece and its two primary partners in the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum, Israel and Cyprus, by withdrawing its backing for a natural gas pipeline that would have connected them to Europe. 

The American change of heart was ostensibly justified by the need to focus on clean energy sources and that this project did not align with Europe’s green energy plan.

Instead, Washington urged the countries to consider two alternative electricity transmission projects; the EuroAfrica interconnector intended to deliver electricity from Egypt through Cyprus and then onwards to Greece and Europe via Crete, and its sister EuroAsia project that starts in Israel and connects to Europe through Cyprus. 

Both projects integrate these countries’ electricity grids with Europe’s.  The EastMed gas pipeline idea emerged after significant findings of gas deposits in the territorial waters of Cyprus, Egypt, and Israel. 

The pipeline, which would have cost an estimated $6-7 billion, was seen by many as an unrealistic project given the potential changes in the European energy consumption patterns, its sheer complexity and cost and the financing needs. Chances were that it would not get off the ground much less be completed by 2025 as projected.

The US State Department withdrew support for the project through the delivery of a non-paper – an informal manner of expressing a government’s preferences or requirement without direct attribution. Presumably the content could have been delivered orally except that Washington may have tried to avoid a situation where its message was diluted.

Even if the US may have thought it had a responsibility as part of the 3+1 mechanism of meetings with Cyprus, Greece and Israel designed to encourage regional cooperation, the fact remains that the decision to build a pipeline rests with those three countries and the Europeans and not Washington.  READ MORE...