Foreign Policy in Focus - A Think Tank Without Walls
Foreign Policy In Focus

FPIF Column

Blood and Oil in Central Asia

Conn Hallinan | July 15, 2009

Editor: John Feffer

Email this page to a friend

Comment on this article

Foreign Policy In Focus

hallinanIn the past month, two seemingly unrelated events have turned Central Asia into a potential flashpoint: an aggressively expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and a nascent strategic alliance between Russia and China.

At stake is nothing less than who holds the future high ground in the competition for the world's energy resources.

Increasing Competition

Early this summer, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted a sharp drop in world oil reserves. According to energy expert Michael Klare, the "era of cheap and plentiful oil is drawing to a close," and is likely to result in "a new era of cutthroat energy competition."

In early July, after a full-court press by Washington and an agreement to increase its yearly rent, Kyrgyzstan reversed a decision to close the U.S. base at Manas, thus giving the United States a powerful toehold in the countries bordering the oil- and gas-rich Caspian Basin.

While Manas is portrayed as a critical base in the ongoing campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the war in Central Asia is less over "terrorism" than it is over energy. "Never reading the words 'Afghanistan" and 'oil' in the same sentence is still a source of endless amusement," says the Asia Times' Pepe Escobar.

Escobar, who has coined the term "Pipelineistan" to describe the vast network of oil and gas pipelines that "crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet," sees Afghanistan "at the core of Pipelineistan," strategically placed between the Middle East, Central and South Asia."

As Escobar points out, "It's no coincidence that the map of terror in the Middle East and Central Asia is practically interchangeable with the map of oil."

The Role of NATO 

For most Americans and Europeans, Afghanistan appeared on their radar screens shortly after the 9/11 assaults on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. But according to Escobar, three months before the 2001 attack U.S., Iranian, German, and Italian officials met in Geneva to discuss toppling the Taliban because it was "the proverbial fly in the ointment" in a scheme to run a $2 billion, 800-mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via southern Afghanistan.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO moved aggressively to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the Warsaw Pact, quickly recruiting former Soviet allies and provinces.

According to Escobar, one of NATO's first forays in the energy war was the Balkans, which NATO represented as a fight to liberate the Albanians in Kosovo. Moscow and Beijing, however, viewed it as an opportunity for the Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO) to build a $1.1 billion pipeline to bring Caspian Basin oil to the West, thus bypassing Iran and Russia. The AMBO pipeline — due to open in 2011 — will transport Caspian Basin oil via Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Albania.

"How could Russia, China, and Iran not interpret the war in Kosovo, then the invasion of Afghanistan (where Washington had previously tried to pair with the Taliban and encourage the building of another of those avoid-Iran, avoid-Russia pipelines), and finally Georgia (that critical energy transportation junction) as straightforward wars for Pipelineistan?" Escobar asks.

For every action, however, there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Competition Increasing 

In 2001, Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan founded the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which now has observer status from Iran, Pakistan, and India.

Unlike NATO, the SCO is a regional organization, not a military alliance. Counting observers, it embraces the bulk of humanity, much of the world's energy resources, and a growing section of its GNP.

However, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), made up of all of the SCO members, plus Belarus and Armenia, is a military alliance. Last February, CSTO created a collective rapid reaction force which, according to Russian expert Ilya Kramnik, "will give CSTO a quick tool, leaving no time for third parties to intervene."

The only "third party" capable of intervening in Central Asia is NATO.

Chinese Linchpin 

In many ways, Beijing is the linchpin in this 21st-century "great game," because China is weathering the current worldwide depression better than most countries. While its exports have taken a beating, the Chinese have successfully fallen back on their enormous internal market to take up some of the slack. As a result, China recently opened the aid spigots to nations in the region.

In June, China loaned Turkmenistan $3 billion, which will give it a stake in the Turkmen's enormous Yolotan Osman gas field, rumored to be the world's largest. The Turkmenistan loan also benefits Moscow by underwriting the Russian oil company Roseneft, and the pipeline builder, Transneft. Kazakhstan got a $15 billion loan, giving China a 22% share in Kazakh oil production.

According to former Indian diplomat and current Asia Times commentator M.K. Bhadrakumar, after years of tension between Moscow and Beijing, the two countries are burying that past and "steering their relationship" in the direction of a "strategic partnership in the overall international situation," rather than competing over energy resources.

This past April, Russia and China signed a $25 billion oil agreement that will supply Beijing with 4% of its needs through 2034. The two countries are currently negotiating a natural gas deal.

Beijing is planning an almost 4,000 mile, $26 billion Turkmen-Kazakh-China pipeline to run from the Caspian Basin to Guangdong Province in China. Included in the deal is a proviso to keep "third parties" — NATO bases — out of Turkmenistan.

In the meantime, Russia is paying premium prices to lock up Kazakh, Uzbek, and Turkman gas. It's also negotiating to buy more Azerbaijani oil which, if successful, could end up bankrupting the western-controlled BTC pipeline that runs through Georgia.

Writing in BusinessWeek, S. Adam Cardais, former editor of the Prague Post, says that Russia is "doing its damnedest to keep Europe out of Central Asia," and that Russia and China "may have already outmaneuvered Europe."

U.S. Still in Game

But Washington is hardly throwing in the towel. The Manas coup is a case in point, and the Obama administration is increasing aid to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

In short, the Central Asian chessboard is enormous, the pieces are numerous, and the stakes are high.

Pipelineistan isn't limited to the Middle East and Central Asia. It exists wherever gas and oil flow, from the steamy depths of Venezuela's Oronoco Basin to the depths of the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil.

"Oil and gas by themselves are not the U.S.'s ultimate aim," argues Escobar, "It's all about control." And if "the U.S. controls the sources of energy of its rivals — Europe, Japan, China, and other nations aspiring to be more independent — they win."

The U.S. has enormous military power. But as Iraq, and now Afghanistan, makes clear, the old days of cornering a market by engineering a coup or sending in the Marines are fast receding. The old imperial nations are fading, and the up-and-comers are more likely to be speaking Portuguese, Chinese, and Hindi than English. The trick over the next several decades will be how to keep the competition for energy from sparking off brush fire wars or a catastrophic clash of the great powers.

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.

 

Subscribe to
World Beat

FPIF's weekly ezine


Support FPIF


Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.

Recommended citation:
Conn Hallinan, "Blood and Oil in Central Asia," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, July 15, 2009).

Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/6266

Production Information:
Author(s): Conn Hallinan
Editor(s): John Feffer
Production: Jen Doak

Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.
 
Name burton Date: Jul 16, 2009
Present World Crisis-Swindle :

" In fact, while many silly people, including many people in very high places, speak ignorantly of the U.S.A. as having replaced a former imperial role of the Anglo-Dutch-Liberal monetarist system, the fact is that the only reigning imperial system of this planet now is the London-centered, imperial system of monetarism known as the dogma and practice of "free trade."

There are only two choices of systems. One a system of respectively, perfectly sovereign nation-states. The other, the enemy of the sovereign nation-state, is known as monetarism, or free trade. The imperial power which must be destroyed, if any nation is to become sovereign again, is the elimination of monetarism in any form.

Monetarism means the existence of a system of money-values which is independent of national sovereignty, and is therefore the imperial power to which all nations accepting monetarism are subject as imperialism's mere colonies.

The case of the present world crisis-swindle has been based entirely, absolutely, on the affirmation of the superior authority of monetarist claims over national economies, to which a treasonous gang controlling high-ranking positions in the U.S. government and Federal Reserve System have, in fact, acted as accomplices of an alien, monetarist financier power, a power to loot and ruin many nations which should have been sovereign, including our own United States as the looted victim of treasonous complicity even from among our own influential parties and elements of government.

In that respect, and on that account, the current policies of the United States, under present circumstances, are treasonous in their effect, if not the conscious intention of the damnable fools who have permitted this situation to develop. "

RECIPE FOR RECOVERY :

LaRouche Diplomats Meeting
Get Rid Of The Monetary System & Restore U.S. Credit System
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10895

Webcast Excerpt: Question, Monetary System V. Credit System
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10839

IMF for the First Time in History Issues Bonds
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10921

Pass The H B P A as constitutionally outlined.
http://www.larouchepac.com/hbpa . . .

Review Hamilton's Constitution :
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10192

Wed, 07/01/2009 - 4:00pm, Webcast Transcript: June 27, 2009
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10881
http://www.larouchepac.com/webcasts/20090627.html

Name rocky Date: Jul 24, 2009
The Great Game is indeed back on. However, your analysis of motivations and alliances seems very questionable.

First off, Mr. Escobar's assertion that the map of oil and the map of terror in the Middle East and Central Asia is practically interchangeable is clearly false. Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and all of the nations surrounding the oil rich Caspian Sea save for Iran are countries with vast oil wealth that are not on the U.S. terror list. At the same time, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan lack a large supply of oil and yet we still pursue terrorists in those nations.

The claim that our foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia is solely about oil is not factually supported.

Escobar even goes so far as to say that the NATO intervention into Kosovo was really motivated by oil interests. The only evidence he provides is that a pipeline is now being planned there. Using Escobar's reasoning, we can expect to see America go to war in Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, and Nigeria in the near future because they all possess huge oil resources.

Basically, the theory that wars are only fought over oil and natural gas is easily disproved. Personally, I think that oil was one of several motivators for the Iraq War, but to jump to the conclusion that our oil interests are responsible for the vast majority of the battles we fight is not warranted.

In addition, the news coming out of Central Asia seems to point more to the conclusion that Russia and China are not cooperating for resources but are competing. As you point out, China is working on a contract with Turkmenistan that would prohibit anyone else from dealing with the country. Russia, as you also stated, is trying to increase its business ventures in Turkmenistan.

I could go on further but I've typed enough for now.

Don't believe everything you're told, whether it's coming from the establishment or some other source.

 
You may add a new comment here. It will not appear on this page until it has been approved by the moderator.
Your Name:
Comment:
 
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.
 

Support FPIF

You Might Also Like:
 

Related Coverage of Military Issues

Fort Hood: The War at Home
Nov 20, 2009

The Conventional Arms Control Challenge
Nov 18, 2009

Poem, 'When I was Torn by War'
Oct 6, 2009