Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Is it Georgia or more?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Is it Georgia or more?

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    Aug 24 2008

    Is it Georgia or more?

    by DOGU ERGIL

    After trying to mediate between contending sides regarding the
    conflicts in the surrounding regions, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep
    Tayyip Erdo?Ä?an flew to Moscow to have talks with Russian
    authorities -- President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir
    Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov -- and then to Tbilisi to
    speak with President Mikhail Saakashvili about a proposition for a
    possible Caucasus Alliance deal. My expectation is that Russia will
    say yes and proceed with an agenda of establishing its authority in
    the region and over Georgia, while Georgians will grope for any
    possible way out of the quagmire they have fallen into. Mr. Putin has
    always been very disturbed by Mr. Saakashvili's passion for potential
    NATO membership for his country. The Russian leadership sees potential
    NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine as a serious block on its
    influence in the Caucasus and Black Sea regions. On the other hand,
    most European countries were never keen on Georgia's membership in the
    alliance, at least under the existing circumstances. Outside Poland
    and the Baltic states that have experienced Soviet (read this as
    Russian) domination, the United States is the only country that has
    enthusiastically supported Georgia's NATO membership.

    This overall reluctance was confirmed during Russia's punishment of
    Georgia. Following an early statement condemning Russia's aggression,
    the North Atlantic Council met and called on Russia to respect
    Georgia's territorial integrity. But there was little support beyond
    words, demonstrating the members' reluctance to deepening ties with
    Georgia for the time being. Given the current circumstances,
    Mr. Saakashvili will not receive substantial help from his Western
    friends either in holding onto his presidential seat or in NATO
    membership for his country. The invasion and devastation of his
    country as well as loss of control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia
    will soon be billed to his leadership. It is dubious that he will be
    able to pay the price. When the anxiety and awe of Russian occupation
    dissipates, the Georgians -- who seem united now -- will begin asking
    how and why they were driven into such a mess. The foresight of their
    leader will be seriously questioned.

    Alternative energy routes?

    For a long time Western and especially American policymakers hoped
    that diverting oil around Russia would help them assert control over
    Central Asia and its enormous oil and gas wealth and would provide a
    safer alternative to Moscow's control over export routes. This would
    also help prevent Russia's resurgence as a post-Soviet empire based on
    its control of energy sources and lines. Isn't this what the so-called
    "Great Game" was about, anyway? It was a game of establishing
    dominance over the enormous natural resources of Central Asia and the
    Caucasus. After the Cold War, the matter turned into an economic and
    diplomatic tug-of-war, occasionally backed by military might. Chechnya
    has been crushed and Georgia has been subdued. So now that the two
    regional states that challenged post-Soviet Russian power and
    dominance have been checked, multinational energy conglomerates and
    Central Asian and Caucasian/Caspian governments will be forced to
    build new lines through this unstable corridor. They may even
    reconsider transporting existing volumes of oil and gas, given the
    reliability of existing conditions and degree of safety in this
    corridor. One thing is certain: Russia, encouraged by its military
    clout and empowered in recent years by petro dollars, will be much
    more assertive in shaping the region's energy future.

    Much has changed since before the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC)
    was built. The Western powers tried their best to find routes that
    would avoid potential trouble spots. They failed because there was no
    "safe and stable spot" in the Caucasus. One thing was obvious, though:
    The United States did not want energy lines to pass through
    Iran. Turkey suffered much from this insistence, but it had limited
    options other than trying to convince its foremost ally of its dire
    need for energy.

    In the final analysis the US government and other private investors,
    together with British Petroleum - which operates the BTC pipeline --
    decided on the present route that passes through Georgia, the ardent
    pro-Western country of the Caucasus. However, the BTC is far from
    being a safe route. Turkey is still struggling with separatist Kurdish
    elements. These elements recently delivered a blow to the pipeline,
    just before the Russian invasion of Georgia, driving the point home
    that the line is not safe enough for the West and for Turkey. It will
    not be safe as long as there are forces in the region that do not want
    it to be safe.

    Georgia was also struggling with its separatist forces that ignited
    the recent war. Azerbaijan is always in a state of alert for a
    possible showdown over its territories occupied by Armenia. Hence,
    even before the outbreak of hostilities between Russia and Georgia,
    the BTC pipeline was pretty precarious to be called the "safest energy
    route" connecting the East and the West.

    Is there an alternative? Not in sight yet!

    24.08.2008
Working...
X