America's
Push on the Caspian Pipeline is Not Good Sense for the Oil
Companies
By JONATHAN
POWER
Dec 2, 1999
LONDON- Rarely, if at all in the post Cold War world, has
there been such a stark case of high politics and doubtful
economics. The oil company's director of international
affairs has been openly blunt about it: "The only way this
is going to work is to make the pipeline as affordable as
possible for shippers to put their oil down it. We are
asking the U.S. government to attract as much oil as
possible and to attract as much financing as
possible".
Thus BP Amoco, the world's third largest oil company,
opens its begging bowl for a taxpayers' handout with the
fulsome backing of the U.S. government. All in the cause of
giving Russia, now supposedly no longer our enemy, a black
eye. Left to itself and the dictates of the competitive
market, BP Amoco would not build a new pipeline to carry
Caspian Sea oil across Turkey, avoiding the old routes
through Russia. But if the U.S. government makes it worth
its while, well that is another story.
Not for nothing have the oil companies signed up high
paid consultants the likes of former U.S. Secretaries of
State Al Haig and James Baker and former National Security
Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Insecure when it comes to
political decisions whose stakes are this high the oil
companies have bought the best advice money can buy. The
truth is they've bought re-cycled Cold War warriors whose
primary loyalty is not to their current paymasters but to
their long-held convictions that the U.S. should first win
the Cold War and then make sure that Russia can never again
mount a credible challenge to the West. To integrate Russia
with the West would be a mistake, they believe. Rather
Russia should be reduced in power and then isolated. This is
the Treaty of Versailles by another name and another method.
Not reparations. Instead, no opportunities. And political
encirclement - an expanded Nato on its western flank and a
line of pro-western oil-rich client states- Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Turkmenistan and Kazahstan - on its southern Asian
flank. And, of course, if possible, a Western orientated
China on its east.
At the moment oil from the Caspian Sea goes from
Azerbaijan across Georgia to Russia or up through Chechnya.
The Russians, naturally, would want to see these routes,
which are both the cheapest and the most direct, used to
capacity. And, if they become overused, build an additional
pipeline for oil and gas underwater to Turkey's Black Sea
Coast.
The oil companies themselves have pushed for a new
pipeline south via Iran with an outlet on the Persian Gulf.
But the U.S., despite some tentative moves towards
rapprochement with Iran, is not yet in the mood to consider
ending its long standing embargo. It remains convinced that
Iran is still intent on manufacturing nuclear weapons and
targeting them on Israel.
The deal long in the making for the new Caspian pipeline
across Georgia and then Turkey was announced two weeks ago
by President Bill Clinton in Istanbul and immediately
denounced in Moscow as one more piece of evidence that,
although Washington talks a lot of peace, its clear long
term purpose is hard real politik, a fundamental change in
the whole strategic relationship between Russia and the
West.
For now the Yeltsin Administration has its own reasons
for keeping the Russian reaction in check. Yeltsin himself
started the ball rolling by working to dismember the Soviet
Union as part of his own bid to displace from power Mikhail
Gorbachev - he needed to make his own position as the
elected Russian premier the one that counted. But once
Yeltsin ends his term of office next year a new man in the
Kremlin - likely on the present line up to be more of a
nationalist - will draw on the widespread anti-American
antipathy that exists not just among those that follow such
matters, but among a general populace that was startled by
the expansion of Nato and is distinctly uneasy about
America's wish to re-write the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. The oil pipeline confirms the worst suspicions of
the Russian man and woman in the street who feel more by the
day that America is trying to do their country down.
Clinton Administration apologists have their arguments.
Mr Clinton himself has described the pipeline as "an
insurance policy for the entire world because it would route
energy supplies through multiple routes and not a single
choke point".
The language of choke points dates back to Cold War days
and the greatly overdrawn fears that the Soviet armies would
march across Afghanistan and Pakistan and head down to the
Persian Gulf and close it off for exiting oil tankers by
seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz. Wildly exaggerated
as a scenario then, it received its coup de grace when, as a
consequence of the Gulf War, Iraq was stopped from shipping
its oil out and the West, somewhat to its surprise, found it
could live without it. Besides, the last thing Russia wants
to do is to hoard its hard-currency-earning oil.
Another senior administration official told the New York
Times last week that the Russians "clearly see this as
threatening. They see this as the next phase of U.S.-Russian
competition. They don't seem to understand that they would
be better off with a stable southern flank".
"Stable southern flank?" Is that how Washington would
look at it if the Russians were engaged in a similar
endeavour in Mexico and Guatemala? There can be no stable
southern flank if there is East/West competition. We already
have had a poisonous taste of that with the helping hand
from Washington that put the Taliban power in Afghanistan in
an effort to keep pro Russian elements at bay. A few years
later the Taliban are succouring extreme Islamic militants
far and wide including the notorious Osama bin Laden. And,
earlier this year, the chief foreign affairs advisor to the
president of Azerbaijan was reported as saying that
Azerbaijan wants a U.S. military base there, a viewpoint
that Washington has not sought to firmly rebuff. How
"stable" can such provocation be?
BP Amoco has said that it won't make a final decision on
going ahead with the new pipeline until next October when it
will be clear just how much financing the U.S. has been able
to raise. The oil companies should use the time to start
thinking for themselves. The British, American and Norwegian
companies involved already have contracts to prospect for
and extract the oil and gas. The free market has already
made them winners whichever route is decided for. Isn't that
enough? Do they really need government aid to prosper? Do
they really want to end up as the lackeys of new-born Cold
War warriors in Washington? If they pause to ponder these
questions they might be pleasantly surprised what answers
they get.
Copyright © 1999 By JONATHAN POWER
I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172 and e-mail:
JonatPower@aol.com
|