Global Policy Memo
Commentary and Counterpoint on World Affairs
Posted by Jeff on April 12, 2009 at 9:54 am
filed under Caucasus, Natural resources, Russia, Southern Europe/Balkans
A few days ago, Jeff wrote:
I’m starting to think about the relationship between this situation in the Caucasus and the recent moves the U.S. has made to encourage a reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey… anyone have any thoughts?
I think there’s a pretty clear connection between the U.S. fostering relations between Turkey and Armenia and the larger picture in the Caucasus and Central Asia. As I see it, Europe is in trouble. Central Asia is Russia’s backyard and as mentioned, Russia controls the gas and oil pipelines to Europe. The power to turn on and off the tap to wrangle concessions is huge and Russia is going to do all it can to hold on to that power.
The U.S. for a while has been pushing the development of alternative sources for oil and gas for Europe (pushing quietly in my mind; I don’t think we’ve made a huge deal of it, but it’s there.)
Take a look at comments by former Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell when he visited Turkey for the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline (I was the one who transcribed the press conference, so I recall when it took place). Or, more recently (2007), comments by former Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman here, here, and here.
The name of the game is energy security and diversity of pipelines, and if Europe and the U.S. want energy that doesn’t run through Russia, it has to go through Turkey. It’s for that very reason why the U.S. is doing its best to foster a relationship between Turkey and Armenia. The BTC pipeline, when you look at it on the map, was built around Armenia, when the easiest route would have been through it. It was longer and more expensive as a result. Fostering reconciliation between the two is not only meant to improve relations between the two countries, but also to foster regional cooperation on issues like oil pipelines and energy.
My view? I doubt we gave up Georgia in return for concessions on Central Asia and non-interference in oil pipelines. We gave up Georgia because Saakashvili gambled and started a war with Russia that he couldn’t win and we didn’t end up joining him. Although Saakashvili may declare that Russia started it, reports indicate that he seized on false pretext to invade South Ossetia. I don’t view Russia with a friendly eye, but I think that we’ve given up on Georgia because he took a risky gamble without telling us and it simply was not worth going to war. Nor is it worth it to slug it out publicly with Russia over it. So, we’ve given up Georgia without that much of a whimper, for better or for worse.
Essentially, I see little reason for there to be a quid pro quo between the U.S. and Russia on Georgia and Central Asian energy sources. Just look at the recent decision by Kyrgyzstan to close down a vital U.S. air base. Russia’s greased hand was all over that decision.
Russia sees Central Asia as its sphere of influence and the oil and gas it carries through its pipelines to Europe are a major source of power and influence in Europe, especially when dealing with Eastern European countries who try to stray too far from Russia’s orbit (like Ukraine, Estonia).
Russia is not going to loosen its grip on that power; if anything, as shown by Kyrgyzstan, it’s going to fight tooth and nail to keep the U.S. out of the region. Azerbaijan seems to be looking for greater strategic cooperation with the U.S., which is a positive sign.
But, overall, don’t look for Russia to give any concessions on pipelines and Central Asia. If the U.S. wants to help Europe and weaken Russia’s stranglehold on energy, it’ll have to the play the Great Game in a showdown with Russia. Fostering rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia is undoubtedly part of that larger picture.
Sphere: Related Content
RSS /
Comments are closed.
Jeffrey Kessler
Thank you for this fascinating and penetrating commentary, Bryce. I have a question: why do you think that the US initially came to Georgia’s defense, and why did we eventually change our mind? I ask because my theory of a US-Russia bargain, in which Georgia is a bargaining chip, can explain that. I’m not sure how yours does. (Perhaps it has to do with some new information? The new president?)
Josh Goodman
Excellent post. A lot to think about after reading this. Thanks, Bryce. Here’s a question — Turkey sits at the juncture of three regions — Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. Do you see the U.S. supporting an increased role for Turkey in the Middle East as another element of the U.S. approach you are exploring in your post? Turkey has been mediating between Syria and Israel, and some people expected a Turkish role in mediating with Hamas during the Gaza War in January — although ultimately it seems that continued to fall to Egypt, while Erdogan played the populist card of outrage at Israel. Do you see Turkey’s role in the Middle East as related to the Caucasus?
Chris Kenny
Kessler & Co:
Have you all seen this column: http://www.slate.com/id/2216518/
Thoughts?
Jeffrey Kessler
My thoughts are that it is a shrill and ideologically motivated piece, and one which doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. Religious Muslims have put a lot of pressure on government policy in Turkey over the last few years, and I think Turkey deserves credit for how well it has balanced that pressure with other pressing interests. Allowing Turkey’s EU bid to fall apart would humiliate Turkey’s secularists and strengthen the religious elements, which Hitchens probably wouldn’t like. I think he’s arguing against himself.