 |  |  |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
| | |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
The focus of Moscow's tense relationship with the west these days is on Russia's military offensive in Chechnya. Much less noticed but a potentially more durable source of tension are two controversial American-sponsored pipeline projects that will take significant steps forward today.
On the fringes of the summit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the governments of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia are due to sign an agreement that will include terms for seeking commercial investment in the development of an oil pipeline from Baku, the Azeri capital, to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
Turkey has agreed to underwrite cost overruns on its part of the $2.4bn pipeline.
Those three governments and Turkmenistan are also expected to sign a less advanced so-called framework agreement on a $2.5bn-$3bn pipeline to deliver gas across the Caspian Sea from Turkmenistan and into Turkey.
The Trans-Caspian line's commercial backers are a joint venture involving GE Capital, Bechtel of the US and Shell.
Both of these pipelines are far from coming to fruition. But the proposed gas pipeline is in direct competition with Blue Stream, a Russo-Italian scheme to pipe more Russian gas exports to Turkey under the Black Sea. According to Rem Vyakhirev, chairman of Gazprom, Russia's gas monopoly, in this race the one who starts first will win.
The US sponsorship of the two pipelines has an overt geostrategic objective: to pull the countries of the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea into the western orbit and the world economy.
It also has the benefit, from Washington's perspective, of isolating Iran and diversifying the west's energy sources away from the Middle East.
From the point of view of an increasingly assertive government in Moscow, however, both projects are being viewed as the US meddling in Russia's "backyard". It is exactly the fear that
Russia may once again seek to assert its assumed rights in the region that have encouraged the governments in Azerbaijan and Georgia to sign the accords.
The US plan also has its critics in the west.
Wayne Merry, a former senior US diplomat now with the Atlantic Council in Washington, argues that the projects are unnecessarily provocative to the other regional powers: Russia and Iran.
Moreover, he argues that the underlying US commitment to the region is too weak for Washington to follow its words with concrete action if Russia chooses a confrontation over the issue.
But the controversy is not limited to politics. There are also significant question marks about the economics of the projects.
BP-Amoco, leader of the Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium and long a sceptic about the commercial viability of Baku-Ceyhan, has more recently shifted its public position and issued a statement backing it.
However, that was widely read as reflecting heavy pressure from Washington, and doubts still persist about its commercial attractiveness.
Oil companies question first whether there will be enough oil available to make the project economic.
A figure of close to 1m barrels a day is said to be the commercial threshold and that would not be possible without oil from sources other than Azerbaijan - for example, Kazakhstan.
Second, once the oil arrives to the sea it is in the wrong place: the Mediterranean.
The oil companies would find a pipeline to the big Iranian oil terminal of Kharg Island much more attractive, but Washington strongly opposes this.
The US-sponsored projects have, however, an enthusiastic supporter in Turkey, which sees its own strategic importance growing if they go ahead.
The Turkish government also argues that the Baku-Ceyhan line would avoid increased risk of catastrophic shipping accident in Bosporus from additional oil tanker traffic if Azeri oil has to be shipped through the narrow straits.
But some influential figures in Turkey believe Russia should not be isolated. One Turkish business leader with extensive interests in Russia and in the Turkish energy sector, said Istanbul faced a greater threat from oil tankers than from earthquakes.
But he also argued that the Baku-Ceyhan project should be altered to involve Russia.