CC BY
11
Alim Temirbulatov,
Ph. D. (Econ.), Russian State Pedagogical University GEOPOLITICAL FACTORS OF INFLUENCE OF THE CASPIAN REGION IN ASSESSMENTS OF U.S. EXPERTS
An analysis of the contradictory range of views and examinations of American scholars and analysts on the geopolitical significance of the Caspian region and an assessment of its influence on the political and geo-economic interests of the leading world powers make it possible to reveal a whole complex of factors. Many investigations of Russian and American geopolitical interests are viewed in the light of the relations between the countries of the Caspian region and the entire world.
The Resource Factor
In 1995 the American Oil Institute published data according to which the states of the Caspian region possess two-thirds of all known world oil resources (about 659 billion barrels). This assessment was an obvious exaggeration. On April 30, 1997 The Wall Street Journal published data about the supposed reserves of oil in the Caspian region, which were tentatively estimated at 178 billion barrels. It also gave a characteristic of the complex relief of the Caspian Sea bottom, distances from the place of extraction to the shore, production costs, content of admixtures, etc., and pointed out that expenses on the development and extraction of these oil resources would be very high.
According to many sources, including official ones, the resource potential of the Caspian Sea is estimated at 200 billion barrels. Some analysts cite much lower figures, such as 30 to 40 billion barrels, others give the figure of 60 billion barrels (including gas). J. Camp estimates oil and gas reserves of the Caspian basin at 200 billion barrels of oil
and 279 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Such estimates, regardless of their accuracy, mislead many scientists and researchers, which does not contribute to regional stability and growth of regional welfare.
Some scientists, for example Van der Leeuw, note that evaluation of the resources of the Caspian region depends a great deal on the quality of oil, and methods of its extraction, refining and transportation. According to American experts, the cost of oil extraction in Canadian regions is about $30 per barrel, on the Arabian Peninsula -$1 per barrel. The cost of the extraction of one barrel of Caspian oil will be between $1 and $7.
Position and Jurisdiction of the Caspian Basin
The legal status of the Caspian Sea continues to be one of the most debatable problems in both Russian and American sources.
Turkmenistan, as one of the countries extracting and transporting gas, pursues a cautious policy: it supplies gas to northern Iran and from there imports oil in comparable volumes, which contributes to lowering transportation expenses of each side.
Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan continue heated political discussions on the problem of their common border along the Caspian Sea. Iran and Azerbaijan are in dispute concerning the right to prospect for oil and assess to the reserves of the sea. It is clear that without a legal regime it will be impossible to manage the exploitation of the resources.
In the view of certain researchers in the United States, Russia retains the right to prospect for the resources of the Caspian Sea unilaterally, although this contradicts the tendencies accepted in the world. Such situation will continue until the problem of the legal status of the Caspian Sea is resolved.
The proposals evolved by the Russian Federation on the legal regulation of the status of the Caspian Sea shelf, as well as the political and legal decisions concerning the common zone of the use of the Caspian Sea shelf have been characterized by the U.S. Department of State as contrary to the interests of the United States in the region. The U.S.A. considers it necessary to evolve a mechanism of blocking any one-sided development and take into account the interests of competing states.
According to the view of L. Johnson, the agreement signed by Russia and Kazakhstan in 1998, under which the sea bottom should be divided into national sectors, can now promote the development of resources in the national zones. Turkmenistan was against the Kazakh-Russian agreement on the grounds that it was not reached through multilateral negotiations of all interested parties. And in the view of Julia Nanay, director of the Petroleum Finance Company Ltd., the principle suggested by the agreement placed each country in the position of a hostage. That is, the problem of the legal status of these zones should be solved without delay, although it will not be the final solution of the disputed problems of the legal status of the Caspian Sea.
Market Factors
Among crucial problems are international accessibility of competing energy resources, the expected increase of energy consumption, and the projected value of energy resources. All this is of prime geopolitical importance for the development of countries.
One factor, which should be regarded indisputable, is the growing demand for energy. The International Energy Agency in Paris forecasts the growth of the world demand for oil within two percent during the next twenty years. According to the estimates of the U.S. Department of Energy, consumption of energy resources will double by
2030, and increase fourfold by the end of the 21st century. Uncertainty with regard to the reserves of oil and gas and the price level contributes to the diversification of threats and risks in the context of the strategic analysis of geopolitical and geo-economic stability of the Caspian Basin countries.
Transport Factor
In the view of American analysts, the transportation cost of oil and gas is a risky variable hidden among complex geopolitical realities. The option of risk is maintained by the difficult character of state's participation in the structure of property, the financing of projects, material corporative incentives, tax holdings, and law enforcement and security. The three new states on the Caspian shore, in contrast to the leading countries-exporters of oil and gas, which have no access to the sea, can export their oil only by transit through neighboring countries.
The existing pipelines of the Soviet epoch do not answer the market conditions of the newly-independent states. As it has been noted, Russia uses its pipelines in order to control its neighbors by closing or restricting oil and gas flows when it thinks fit. Widely applying the mechanisms of customs duties and tariffs, Russia is using access to pipelines as a lever for receiving its share of benefits in joint projects.
Many pipelines become obsolete and create problems of environmental protection, and new pipelines become more costly for new states due to Russian monopoly.
American analysts note that the Russian side actively uses the instruments of tariff policy and access to the existing pipelines by monopoly control for reducing, retarding and changing (through restrictions) the export of oil and gas from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Materials of the "France Press" news agency cite an
example of the conflict situation with Azerbaijan in which the Russian side had to compete with the alternative pipeline project along with a high cost of oil transportation. Thus, oil transportation from the Caspian port of Baku (Azerbaijan) to the Black Sea port of Supsa (Georgia) costs $0.43 per barrel, whereas the cost of oil transportation from Baku to the Russian port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea via the Baku -Novorossiysk pipeline costs $2.15 per barrel.
The United States advocates sanctions against the growing export of oil from Iran and has an extra proposal from the Main Export Pipeline Company for oil transportation from the port of Baku to the port of Ceyhan in Turkey. The U.S administration is against the Iranian route from considerations of political security, and therefore it supports the Baku - Supsa route as an alternative. This variant is not so much an economic project, but rather a political one and is in line with the U.S. position on the question of ensuring political risks and ecological security.
U.S. official bodies regard the Baku - Ceyhan pipeline as the main export oil pipeline proceeding from political considerations, including the security factor. They note that the United States is not against the existing pipelines from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan to the Russian ports on the Black Sea, but is against Russia's monopoly in this sphere. At present the pipeline from Azerbaijan to Novorossiisk competes with two pipelines to Supsa (Georgia): the existing one Baku - Supsa is under repairs, and another, parallel, can be extended to Ceyhan (Turkey) and, consequently, become part of an important export pipeline.
The United States comes out against the Iranian route which is actively supported by Turkmenistan, and instead it supports the project of the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Baku, which seems to be a rather doubtful project in the conditions of the elaboration
of the "Blue Flow" pipeline from Russia to Turkey on the Black Sea bottom.
Numerous pipeline projects with due account of geopolitical realities and national interests of all interested parties are widely represented on the site of the energy department of the European parliament.
Ecological Problems
Ecological problems in oil and gas transportation are quite important, and are widely discussed during the elaboration of various projects with due account of different groups of interests. They contribute to an increase of risks connected with infrastructural projects and possible routes. U.S. analysts cite an example of Turkey which expresses concern over the ecological consequences of the transportation of Caspian oil via the Bosporus. The Russian authorities have officially voiced their position on the need to observe the right of free passage in accordance with the Montreux agreement of 1936 (the share of Russia in transit trade through the Turkish straits amounts to 25 percent), and accused Turkey of political bias on account of the environmental problem.
According to the estimates of the American administration, which supports arguments of the Turkish side, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium will add four supertankers to the daily traffic through the Bosporus, whose length is 19 miles and width - 672 meters in the narrowest stretch. The Bosporus cuts the city of Istanbul with a population of 12 million, who are quite familiar with the terrible consequences of serious mishaps.
The Russian government and American oil companies nevertheless express concern over the ecological situation in Turkey,
particularly concerning the Bosporus, inasmuch as the growing volume of oil export will lead to the growing pressure on the Bosporus Strait.
Such factors as religion, traditional economics and consumption level, and ethnic self-identification are also important components, in the view of American experts, exerting influence on the geopolitics of the Caspian Basin countries. These factors retain their timeliness for both Russia and Turkey where secular statehood have come across the problem of radical Islamism and nationalism, and also for Iran where the supporters of M. Khatami challenge the 20-year-long domination of the ayatollas.
The above-mentioned factors are also significant to the new countries of the Caspian region where growing state and national construction has confronted the factors of the Soviet past, and the problems of religion and ethnic origin, which play significant roles in the identity of each country of the Caspian region.
Judging by official statements, U.S. policy is aimed at the all-round development of the pipeline network for transporting the oil of the Caspian Basin, which, in the view of American experts, will help the region reach a more independent position (freeing it from Russia's monopoly control), guarantee free supply of the Caspian oil resources to world markets (by the rapid development of the East-West transport corridor), and ensure energy security to the United States and its allies.
The aims pursued by the United States include the creation of a pipeline which would be independent from competition markets of the Central Asian countries (Russia and Iran) and contribute to the prosperity and sovereignty of the CIS countries in the Caucasian region and Central Asia, affirmation of their political stability (and ultimately, democracy), thereby increasing the commercial effectiveness of the U.S. projects in the region preserving the environment (the Bosporus is not an acceptable export route for the planned volume of oil export
from the Caspian region), resolving regional conflicts and creating effective regulation of interstate relations, along with rendering economic and humanitarian aid.
"Vlast", Moscow, 2013, No 1, pp. 170-173.
Georgi Rudov, D. Sc. (Political sciences) CENTRAL ASIA IN STRATEGIC CONCEPTS OF RUSSIA
Central Asia is a region rich in natural resources, occupying an advantageous geostrategic position in the center of Eurasia and facing a complex tangle of economic, social, ethnoconfessional and political problems. At present it founds itself in the center of the struggle for global leadership between the leading world powers.
The position of Russia fixed in its basic foreign-policy documents lies in the "development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the CIS countries." Russia is ready to build friendly relations with each state of Central Asia on the basis of equality, mutual benefit, respect and due consideration of each other's interests, as well as develop relations of strategic partnership with countries expressing readiness for it.
Our country wishes not only to expand cooperation with Central Asian states in the economic and humanitarian spheres, but also to improve the system of ensuring mutual security, including joint opposition to common challenges and threats, above all, international terrorism, religious extremism, drug trafficking, transnational criminal activity, and illegal migration. In connection with a dangerous situation which has emerged in the region, the primary task facing it is to prevent destabilization of the situation and neutralize the threat of terror and
