Energy: what was once a largely single-resource/two-state controlled industry has given way to other resources of significance. In turn, this has also given rise to other states as major players in the arena. Given the increased need for energy among states, there has been greater collaboration and cooperation among states with regards to energy resources.
This is well exemplified by the US’ early and continued energy relationship with Saudi Arabia following World War II. Saudi Arabia may have drastically different security and human rights priorities than the US, and yet they both have been longtime energy partners that rely on one another heavily. Relationships of this nature have grown in frequency since then and as a result the Caspian region has emerged as a major player in energy security geopolitics.
By and large oil has been, and for the most part still is, associated with energy security. So long as a nation has access to an amount of oil commensurate with its needs, it is energy secure. However, a new player in the energy resource arena has begun to emerge: natural gas. Though natural gas has been around forever, it has taken on a position of importance in the struggle for energy security only recently. Natural gas can be used for everything from heating, cooking, and electricity generation. In fact it has many of the same applications as oil. The Caspian region is starting to exploit this resource. The region is one of the oldest oil-producing areas in the world and, though it continues to play a significant role in oil production, the control of energy in the region has begun to shift largely as a result of natural gas. Oil production and export from the region has primarily gone through Russia (or the USSR) throughout history. Caspian states, however, have discovered that they are home to some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world and now are looking to bypass Russia entirely to export it to the European Union (EU). This is significant for two reasons: first, it would shrink Russia’s impact as a controller of energy resources worldwide, especially in the EU. Second, it would drastically raise Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan’s profiles over energy resources and security.
Russia’s historical dominance over the Caspian region gave it significant control over the global energy market. It is estimated that 17 percent of the world’s oil comes from the Caspian (primarily Iran and Russia) and it is largely responsible for providing the EU with energy security. The shift away from Russia by other Caspian states, however, erodes Russia’s stranglehold on energy resources in the region and gives way to exciting new players and geopolitics. Caspian states have already begun to break away from Russia in their bid to export natural gas to the EU. The process has been underway since the dissolution of the USSR, with concrete realization in the late 1990’s. But ultimately it was always hindered due to strong opposition, largely from Russia and Iran, which vehemently opposed the any independent Caspian projects from the other littorals. In the mid-2000s, once the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute began in earnest, the project began to gain more traction. There was a shift in allegiance between the littoral nations and renewed interest in the project sprang back to life. Since then, massive headway has continued to be made, largely to the dismay of Russia and Iran.
The Russia-Ukraine dispute can truly be seen as the point when the lesser Caspian littorals decided to separate themselves from Russia as far as energy resource export is concerned. This is not to say they have separated themselves completely, as there is still collaboration on energy resources in the area. However, the dispute has led to Russia and Iran being excluded from the southern gas corridor project, which is expected to become fully operational by 2020 and supply much of the EU with natural gas. This is a boon financially for the nations involved, but perhaps more importantly, it creates a major geopolitical shift for those lesser littorals in the Caspian. States such as Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, who have historically had decidedly smaller stakes in the energy sector, stand to gain significant traction by building and remaining in control of this corridor without major Iranian or Russian influence/interference. This can only serve to strengthen their diplomatic ties with the EU while simultaneously weakening Russia’s and elevating their status as legitimate players in energy geopolitics. Russia and Iran have opposed the pipeline repeatedly, with Russia playing a far more active and vocal role in the opposition than Iran. Throughout the last decade and a half, Russia has thrown virtually every piece of oppositional ammunition at the construction of the pipeline. Its two primary tactics have been to oppose it environmentally and by way of old treaties.
The treaty option has been the strongest oppositional tool used. Specifically, Russia has been using the treaties signed by Iran and the Soviet Union in 1921 and 1940 to threaten the other Caspian states. They have pointed out that the treaties are still in effect and that without support for the pipeline from all littoral states, any construction in the Caspian Sea would be illegal. There is some disagreement over whether these treaties still hold any legal bearing today. Next, Russia leveraged the environment in an attempt to oppose the project. According to Russia’s Natural Resources Ministry, pipelines along the Caspian Sea floor would be environmentally unacceptable. Aside from the fact that anytime a pipeline is placed in a body of water it has some environmental risk, this was clearly an attempt by Russia to try and generate international opposition to the pipeline. This is of course somewhat ironic given Russia uses similar environmentally-concerning pipeline routes. Evidently none of these attempts have had much of an impact on the project overall as it is still well underway. There is no doubt that Russia and Iran spent such a considerable amount of time opposing the pipeline due to the fact they knew its construction set a bad precedent for their continued dominance in the local energy sector. If former Soviet states can break away from Russia economically, then perhaps they can break away in yet other ways in the future. The more these lesser littoral Caspian states strengthen diplomatic bonds with Western-leaning nations, the less reliant they are on Russia. The further Russia is from controlling larger amounts of energy, the weaker its position in terms of geopolitics, something it considers anathema to its international security profile and agenda.
Moving forward, the lesser Caspians will gain significant respect and authority in their development and control over future energy. This alters the geopolitical arena enough that other states around the globe need to take notice, though this awareness so far has been slow. It allows the Caspian, minus Russia and Iran, to be yet another option when it comes to building diplomatic ties and securing access to energy now and in the future. Despite the fact that the amount of natural gas they plan on moving may not radically alter the geopolitical arena overnight, there is opportunity to move enough in the future that could make a major impact. More importantly, this gives the EU a second option for energy procurement, which increases its energy security and also gives it the option to slowly cut ties with other ‘problematic’ providers like Russia. Perhaps the most interesting point of this entire development is Russia’s complete lack of desire to do anything but threaten verbally and act diplomatically. To date the nation has not taken any physical action to impede the pipeline and it has also continued to maintain trade and economic ties with the lesser Caspian nations it is protesting against. Despite having divergent views on the pipeline and actively attempting to impede it diplomatically, Russia seems unwilling to militarize the situation, something that deserves at least begrudging respect and acknowledgement. Perhaps this is a potential sign of building diplomacy over military solutions, which would be a global plus for the entire international community. If Iran and Russia realize they must recognize challenges to their energy dominance with only a need to work with other Caspian nations, even though they do not completely agree with them, then a critical future region of the globe has a chance to remain stable and at peace. In this case, maybe the entrance of new players into the arena doesn’t have to signal the start of a new bloodbath or new geopolitical tension.
Greater Eurasia: New Great Game formulate abundant possibilities for Central Asia
The title “New Great Game” became the most conversed topic in the contemporary realm of global politics. The heart of the Eurasian continent, the Central Asian region, already witnessed a colonial battle between Russian and Britain. The position of Geopolitical status more fueled up the conflict. The Great Game furnished an unpleasant impact on the entire Central Asian region; it grasps by the Russian empire. Russia’s century-long predominance over the Central Asia region concluded with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, it nevertheless has a massive impact over the countries of Central Asian states Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Following centuries, they were preceding reappeared different New Grete Game, where the foremost global power countries have engaged. The internal scenario of central Asian states is struggling over hegemonic power. Subsequently, the central Asian nations are well equipped with natural resources like oil, gas like Kazakhstan’s largest uranium producer, that attracts all major countries to penetrate in Central Asia.
The New Great Game impacted both as constraint and opportunity in Central Asia. The central Asian states are adopted the multi-vector approach to the foreign policy due to landlocked country. So, the developed countries are offered various development schemes in the region. Currently, three major powers are Russia, US and China compete with each other to become a prominent player in Central Asia. Every nation is looking for their interest through the region. Nowadays, Washington mostly engaged in the New Great Game, after the US entered in Afghanistan, and it required Central Asian states cooperation to expand the authority of NATO in Eurasian land. Although, following the attack on 9/11, the US mostly keep eyes on terrorism activities and central Asian states are becoming significant for security purpose. Moscow always indeed to the presence in Central Asian internal politics and seems to maintain its status quo. Russia always considered the Central Asian states as his campaign, with the significant military, economic and political influence. Moscow consistently rated Central Asian nations as “soft underbelly”. Russian culture, music, food highly incorporated with Central Asian states, but Moscow seems fallen the economic competition with Beijing. China is somewhat successful in pushing Russian influence in Central Asia.
China expands its control over in the pecuniary sector, Dragon becoming larger trade partner and investor in that region. China’s visionary project ‘Belt and Road initiative’ and China’s strategy to influence and grow its economic power over the Eurasian continent required Central Asian states linear involvement. China shared more than 3000 k.m of the direct border with CA, this is an opportunity for China to enhance its strength and became more dominant rather than other countries. Central Asia is a crucial component in the Geopolitical puzzle. The abundant of natural resource in CA is the primary purpose behind for more intense of New Great Game. The Caspian Sea contains a large amount of natural resource. The superpower countries followed up the pathway of the dependency model, and they create opportunity with precisely inside their acquisition. The new Great Game change the notion of Geopolitics on a broader level. China is steadily expanding its influence over the Eurasian mainland with hegemonic expansion over the south china sea. There is an appearance of another cold war (economic domain) between China and the US; both countries headed for intense competition for global supremacy. That’s why central Asia states played an essential function to determine immense superiority over the Eurasian landmass. All these countries participated in New Great Game implemented the soft power and made an effort to pull Central Asian nations through proffering opportunities. The central Asian States compensated relishes the possibility, although faced reluctance from significant players. The potential development of the Central Asian Region endures the growth of the Eurasian continent.
Territorial Disputes in Central Asia: Myths and Reality
One of the focal points of any state foreign policy is the issue of territorial disputes, irrespective of its geographical size, economic opportunities or geopolitical ambitions. At the same time, in the modern world, the scenario of the use of force as a possible option for China to resolve territorial disputes in Central Asia is hardly probable. None of the parties, including neighboring countries, are interested in intensifying territorial claims and initiating a real conflict. Despite the apparent advantages, a guaranteed response from the international community jeopardizes all benefits for the potential aggressor (for example, Beijing) from possible territorial acquisitions. In addition, the system of control and monitoring has been formed in the region with the direct participation of Russia. The guarantors of the system are, in particular, the SCO and the CSTO; the latter one has a sufficiently deterrent effect on the capacity of regional players to demonstrate invasive intentions.
Meanwhile, the international community developed a civilized way to resolve territorial disputes through diplomatic means such as long-term leasing of land, the creation of joint jurisdictions, etc. China has experience of transferring territories, for example, the 99-year lease of Hong Kong by the United Kingdom or the recognition of Macao as “Chinese territory under Portuguese administration” followed by the signing of the joint Declaration on the question of Macao. Since China became a successful economic power, Beijing has preferred to resolve territorial disputes through diplomatic instruments, rather than from a position of strength.
It should be pointed out that implementing its Belt and Road Initiative, China has never presented it as a charity project. Moreover, the initial goal was the development of the Central and Western regions of China. All foreign countries participating in the initiative expressed their desire to join it on the terms of mutually beneficial development. By accepting China’s offers and agreeing to its loans and investment projects, any of the countries had the opportunity to assess the risks and not participate in them, or to make a choice and develop their own economy on the terms of other financial institutions, such as Western ones. In this case, China acts in the Central Asian region like most major powers interested in strengthening their positions and promoting their political, economic and humanitarian agenda.
Possible allegations of Beijing concluding economic contracts on bonded terms should also be addressed to officials of the “affected” countries who agreed to these proposals from the Chinese side. At the same time, if it appears that one of the parties has not acted in its national interests, this is more a problem of the internal state structure of a particular country and its attitude to the work of its own officials, and to a much lesser extent – a claim to the development of bilateral relations with China.
It is also necessary to distinguish the official position of the state from the statements of individuals who often act in their own interests. For example, an article with the title “Why Kazakhstan seeks to return to China,” which is given as an example in the publication “Land leases and territorial claims of China in Central Asia and the South Caucasus,” was written by an anonymous blogger with just over 80 thousand subscribers (insignificant number according to the Chinese standards). An analysis of how the news was spread geographically by international media, as well as the contents of official statements, confirms the opinion of experts-sinologists that it was an attempt to gain popularity and “collect likes,” and has nothing in common with the official position of Beijing.
Another example of using the foreign policy agenda in the internal political struggle is the statement of the leader of the opposition party of Tajikistan, R. Zoirov, who accused China of moving the borderline 20 kilometers deeper into the territory of Tajikistan.
On the eve of the presidential elections in 2013, Tajikistan’s opposition once again tried to “accuse authorities of surrendering land to China” in the framework of the 2002 border demarcation agreement. China claimed 28 thousand square kilometers of Tajikistan’s territory, but as a result of the negotiations, it received just over 1 thousand square kilometers of high-altitude land unsuitable for life, without proven volumes of large deposits. The results of negotiations can be evaluated in different ways, but each country has the right to seek convenient forms of dispute resolution and debt repayment. In addition, this agreement was ratified by the government of Tajikistan only in 2011. The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan described the statement of the opposition as a provocation, due to the fact that the author acts in his own interest. Later, it was revealed that Zoirov’s statement refers to 2011 and was “made two years ago and published just now.” According to R. Zoirov, he determined the distance to the border based on the statements of local residents. The official authorities of Tajikistan, China, Russia and other regional powers ignored information about China’s occupation of Tajikistan’s territory as unreliable.
Recognizing the high public sensitivity of transferring land from one state to repay credit obligations to another, it is necessary to proceed from the analysis of the contents of specific international agreements, the motives for signing them by current authorities, and the national interests of the parties involved. Otherwise, one is likely to discover a distorted interpretation of key events in line with the populist rhetoric of an unknown blogger or to be the recipient of information propaganda carried out by major powers competing for regional influence.
From our partner RIAC
From Central Asia to the Black Sea
In early June, China unveiled a new transportation corridor when a rail cargo of 230 tons of electrical appliances worth some $2,6 million arrived in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent. Though distant from the South Caucasus, the development nevertheless has a direct impact on the geopolitics of the South Caucasus energy and transport corridor.
For centuries, Central Asia has been notorious for the lack of connectivity. Highways, railroads and pipelines were solely directed northwards towards Russian heartland. Geography also constrained the development of alternatives, but the problem is that other routes were also purposefully neglected during the Soviet times. Therefore, nowadays breaking these geographical boundaries equals to decreasing Russian influence in Central Asia.
Indeed, over the past 30 years, crucial changes have taken place where newly developed east-west transport links (from China to Central Asia, then South Caucasus) allow the region to be more integrated with the outside world. The primary motivator for this is China. The country strives to involve itself into the region’s economics and politics and, specifically, build ties with arguably the region’s most important geopolitical player – Uzbekistan. Beijing has already taken several important steps. For instance, China has become Uzbekistan’s top economic partner through growing trade and direct investment. Take the most recent example, Beijing-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will lend $100 million to Uzbekistan to help deal with the coronavirus pandemic and future public health disasters.
The new China-Uzbekistan corridor is some 295 km shorter and cuts five days off the standard 15 days-corridor which goes through Kazakhstan and Russia to reach Europe. As different forecasts indicate, the Kazakhstan-Russia corridor could lose some 10-15% of Chinese freight per year to the new China-Uzbekistan route – a significant number considering the massive amount of goods that move between between Europe and China.
What is crucial here is that the only viable route to ship freight to Europe from Uzbekistan is across the Caspian to Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Black Sea. Another possibility would be sending goods via the Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, then Iran and Turkey. However general insecurity along this route makes the Caspian option more promising.
These infrastructure changes in distant Central Asia as well as steady growth of shipments from China will further boost the fragile South Caucasus transport and energy corridor, which struggles to compete with enormous trade routes which go through Russia and elsewhere.
What makes the Caspian routes more interesting is the progress made in port development in Azerbaijan and Georgia. The ports of Baku and a small city of Alat have notably improved their infrastructure over the past several years. Located to the south of Baku, Alat is particularly promising as an estimated transshipment of the new port complex is potentially up to 25 million tons of cargo and 1 million TEU per year.
Similar trends of improving infrastructure take place along the rest of the South Caucasus corridor. In March, the Georgian government granted the APM Terminals a permit to start the expansion of Potin port. Essentially the project, which will add more than 1000 local jobs, involves the construction of a separate new deep-water multifunctional port (officially still a part of Poti port).
The project consists of two major phases: first stage of $250 million will take nearly 2-2,5 years to complete and will involve the development of a 1 700-meter-long breakwater and a quay with a depth of 13.5 meters. A 400-meter-long multifunctional quay for processing dry bulk cargo and further 150 000 TEUs will be added; the second stage envisages a 300-meter-long container quay. If all goes as planned, 1 million TEU yearly container capacity could be expected. What is more important for the infrastructure of the eastern Black Sea region and the geopolitics of transcontinental transshipment, the expanded Poti port would have the capacity to receive Panamax vessels.
Expansion of Poti will have regional implications. The port already enjoys the role of the largest gateway in the country and a major outlet for Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s trade with Europe. For instance, liquids, passenger ferries, dry bulk and container traffic go through Poti. Moreover, Poti port also serves as an alternative route for exporting wheat from Central Asia to the Black Sea and elsewhere.
As the work on the Poti expansion speeds up similar developments are taking place in Batumi. In 2019 Wondernet Express, Trammo and the government of Georgia announced plans to build a new terminal with total investment cap of 17,5 million euros. More importantly, the new facility will store up to 60 000 tons of mineral fertilizers coming from Central Asia through Azerbaijan.
From a wider geopolitical perspective, both port expansions enjoy US government support as American business interests are deeply intertwined. PACE terminals, a company which operates in the port of Poti for almost 30 years, is partially owned by a US-based company. This connection raises a possible longer-term vision of Poti’s and Batumi’s development as gateways not only for Georgia, but generally for the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
Overall, these connectivity trends will reinvigorate Trans-Caspian shipping. Moreover, though considered by many as unrealistic, the dormant Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP), could gain traction. There is more to the story. I have mentioned the US support for the Georgian ports. Europe and Turkey share an identical position. All parties are interested in breaking Russia’s grip on gas export routes from Central Asia. Support for the east-west corridor across the South Caucasus has been present since the break-up of the Soviet Union, but rarely there have been such promising trends as there are now: steadily increasing China-Europe shipping; Chinese Belt and Road Initiative’s expansion into Central Asia; gradually improving rail-road and ports infrastructure in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
On a negative side, much still remains to be done. For instance, in Kyrgyzstan, through which the new China-Uzbekistan route goes, Chinese cargo has to be shipped by road which complicates shipment operations. Nearly the entire 400 km of the Kyrgyz section of the railway still needs to be built. So far, no solution is in sight as difficult mountainous landscape and Russian opposition complicate the issue. But the overall picture, nevertheless, is clear. Central Asia is gradually opening up, shipment across the Caspian increases and the expansion of the Georgian ports takes place creating a line of connectivity.
Author’s note: first published in Caucasuswatch
Advancing the EU social market economy: adequate minimum wages for workers
The Commission today proposes an EU Directive to ensure that the workers in the Union are protected by adequate minimum...
International Tourism Down 70% as Travel Restrictions Impact All Regions
Restrictions on travel introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic continue to hit global tourism hard, with the latest data...
Somalia Scales up Social Protection Measures as COVID-19 Constrains Economic Growth
Somalia’s economic growth is forecast to contract significantly due to the negative impacts of COVID-19 (coronavirus), the locust infestation and...
Crisis and Future of the Regime Stability in Southeast Asian Countries
The world has encountered a crisis several times. In facing a crisis, every nation’s leader will need to strive to...
Commission proposes new ‘Single Window’ to modernise and streamline customs controls
The European Commission has today proposed a new initiative that will make it easier for different authorities involved in goods...
Quad, Quad Plus, and the Indo-Pacific: The Core and Periphery
Indo-Pacific has been seen as one construct which identifies US strategy and brings in subscribers to the concept; thereby adding...
Digital transformation in Brazil could reinforce economic recovery from COVID-19 crisis
Brazil has made significant progress in improving Internet access, digital security and regulation, yet more needs to be done to...
Science & Technology2 days ago
Rachel Lyons: Shaping the future of humanity in space
Reports3 days ago
Smart Manufacturing Ecosystems: A Catalyst for Digital Transformation?
Economy2 days ago
Financial Bubbles in the Coronavirus Era
Americas3 days ago
Prospects for U.S.-China Relations in the Biden Era
Development3 days ago
World Bank, BRAC Join Hands to Improve Road Safety in Bangladesh
Energy2 days ago
Nord Stream 2: Who Benefits From the Navalny Affair?
Finance3 days ago
Socially Responsible, Low-Carbon Capitalism Can Ensure ‘Job-Full’ Recovery From COVID-19
Reports2 days ago
Recession and Automation Changes Our Future of Work, But There are Jobs Coming