The
Destructive Rush for Caspian Oil
By JONATHAN
POWER
Feb 10th, 1999
LONDON- The nineteenth century's "Great Game" was the
rivalry between Russia and Britain over access to the riches
of India. But even then it was fueled in part by the
competition for Caspian Oil. The Caucasus and Central Asia
were not only the route to India but a prize worth fighting
for itself.
Today a new Great Game is being played in the very same
region, between Russia and America. One century on, the
pawns in the middle are the new post- Soviet states of
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan,
all of whom are desperate to use the energy potential of the
Caspian basin to strengthen their independence.
Some idea of the high rolling stakes being bet can be
gained from the statement earlier this month by the chief
foreign affairs adviser to the president of Azerbaijan, Vafa
Guluzade. He told a number of newspapers that Azerbaijan
wants a U.S. military base. This is an amazing declaration,
provocative beyond measure to Moscow. Washington, while not
embracing it, has not rebuffed it, allowing lower level
American officials to suggest, if not a base, a military
presence could be considered. If this did lead to anything
tangible it would be unparalleled in the annals of post
Second World War geo-politics and could only be compared for
effect with Mexico or Canada asking for a Russian military
presence on their soil.
When does American hubris stop? Is Washington's aim, once
it has expanded NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, to ring
Russia round its southern flank with American forces? This
is containment of an order that not even the most audacious
Cold War warriors in America would have dared contemplate,
even in their dreams.
At every turn the U.S. seems out to stymie any attempt by
Russia to hang on to its long time stake in the Caspian
region. But, to Caspian-watchers' surprise, in late January
Russia finally scored a point, not without accompanying
growls from Washington. Gazprom, the Russian oil and gas
company, announced it was going to build with Eni of Italy
the world's deepest underwater pipeline to ship natural gas
under the Black Sea to Turkey. Washington's worry is that
this will undermine Turkey's commitment to a competing
Western pipeline venture bringing oil, and perhaps gas, out
of the Caspian sea.
Such a Western pipeline would be the main conduit
westwards for future Azerbaijani oil. It would not touch
Russian territory, transiting Georgia before it crossed the
Black Sea to Turkey. This would be a radical departure from
the old Soviet pipeline routes that go north through Georgia
to Russia or up through Chechnya.
Ironically, Washington's attempt to encourage U.S. and
British oil companies to lay down such a pipeline faces
growing opposition from the oil giants themselves.
As the oil companies, led by British Petroleum, see it,
there would not be enough new oil to make such a big new
pipeline worth it. Although one day there will be a great
amount of oil being pumped from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan
on the eastern side of the Caspian, it may be ten years
before there would be enough oil to top up such a pipeline
to capacity. And in ten years time America's relationship
with Iran may have well healed, permitting the use of a
quicker route south through Iran.
Until now Turkey has joined Washington in criticising the
oil companies' conservatism. To some extent this new deal
with Gazprom is Ankara's revenge.
The western oil companies, indeed, seem the only ones to
be keeping their heads. While former U.S. Secretaries of
State Al Haig and James Baker and former National Security
Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski have earned large fees
consulting for oil companies working in the region, the old
Cold War warriors seem unable, temperamentally, to hold back
from trying to push their paymasters into neo-Cold War
policies. The companies are no doubt pleased by the entree
these men facilitate into the political leadership of the
old Soviet Union's Asian republics, but so far the
businessmen have not hitched their wagons to the
politicians' horses. While the politicos see it as a great
game the companies obviously see it as a great gamble.
For the moment that's where matters stand--which gives
time for everyone to reflect a little more on what they are
trying to do. Why should Washington want to antagonise
Moscow in this way? Isn't post-Cold War Russia meant to be a
strategic partner to America, no longer a mortal enemy to be
pressured at every available point? Cannot Washington easily
understand that Moscow is bound to want to maximize its
advantage in a part of the world it has long operated? And
isn't the price of raising up oil once again on its god-like
pinnacle merely reprising the mistakes of the Middle East
oil rush--consorting, wooing and, in the end, politically,
even militarily, supporting undesirable despots who care too
little for democracy and human rights?
And why should Moscow, now it has voluntarily given
political freedom to these Asian members of the Soviet
Union, expect them always to accept Moscow's offer when they
may get a better one from the West? An oil pipeline should
be judged on its economic merits, not its political
direction.
What the Caspian region needs most is coherent
development and comprehensive democracy. Any effort by
Washington to chip the Caspian states off the Russian bloc
while closing its eyes to autocratic rule is bound to
backfire. Nor is it necessary. The West will get the oil and
gas it wants wherever the pipelines go. The last thing the
region needs is another Great Game. Last time there was a
winner. This time everyone will lose.
Copyright © 1999 By JONATHAN POWER
I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172 and e-mail:
JonatPower@aol.com
|