Tweet
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 23 2011
The US prestigious `Foreign Policy' journal published an article on
Azerbaijan's energy policy.
Azerbaijan's energy policy conducted among poles like West, Russia and
Iran from 1980s to present was analyzed in the article named `High
Stakes in the Caspian Energy Game'.
The article's authors Daniel Wagner and Luca Costa, who noted that the
`Nabucco' project was important, came to such conclusion that
realization of this project depended on Azerbaijan and the other rich
countries of the Caspian region.
`It is clear that Nabucco's destiny will ultimately depend on where
the project gets its gas and who is willing to fund it. There is not
much either the U.S. or Europe can do about that. Moreover, bilateral
relations between Baku and Washington are not at their best at the
present time. Baku has invested a lot of political capital to
demonstrate that it is a reliable partner to the U.S., but the region
is clearly not on top of the Obama administration's list of foreign
policy priorities. Baku also does not approve of America's
pro-Armenian stance on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, which undermines
Baku's position. Far from being a matter of secondary importance to
Baku policy makers, this issue is deeply rooted in Azeri society and
it is a question of national pride for the country. This has proven to
be a serious impediment to enhancing relations between the two
countries and threatens to impact their larger strategic relationship.
The outcome of the Caspian energy game has the potential to become
pivotal in the larger geostrategic contest between Moscow and
Washington. For Moscow, what is at stake is its ability to
successfully project its power in its own backyard, and by extension,
beyond. Should the South Stream project become a reality - at the
expense of Nabucco, since there is no need for both - Moscow will gain
significant additional leverage over Europe. Given the variety of
Washington's preoccupations, fiscal limitations, and waning influence
in the region, Moscow seems likely to prevail. If so, the long-term
political and strategic cost to Washington, and the region, will be
significant'.
July 23 2011
The US prestigious `Foreign Policy' journal published an article on
Azerbaijan's energy policy.
Azerbaijan's energy policy conducted among poles like West, Russia and
Iran from 1980s to present was analyzed in the article named `High
Stakes in the Caspian Energy Game'.
The article's authors Daniel Wagner and Luca Costa, who noted that the
`Nabucco' project was important, came to such conclusion that
realization of this project depended on Azerbaijan and the other rich
countries of the Caspian region.
`It is clear that Nabucco's destiny will ultimately depend on where
the project gets its gas and who is willing to fund it. There is not
much either the U.S. or Europe can do about that. Moreover, bilateral
relations between Baku and Washington are not at their best at the
present time. Baku has invested a lot of political capital to
demonstrate that it is a reliable partner to the U.S., but the region
is clearly not on top of the Obama administration's list of foreign
policy priorities. Baku also does not approve of America's
pro-Armenian stance on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, which undermines
Baku's position. Far from being a matter of secondary importance to
Baku policy makers, this issue is deeply rooted in Azeri society and
it is a question of national pride for the country. This has proven to
be a serious impediment to enhancing relations between the two
countries and threatens to impact their larger strategic relationship.
The outcome of the Caspian energy game has the potential to become
pivotal in the larger geostrategic contest between Moscow and
Washington. For Moscow, what is at stake is its ability to
successfully project its power in its own backyard, and by extension,
beyond. Should the South Stream project become a reality - at the
expense of Nabucco, since there is no need for both - Moscow will gain
significant additional leverage over Europe. Given the variety of
Washington's preoccupations, fiscal limitations, and waning influence
in the region, Moscow seems likely to prevail. If so, the long-term
political and strategic cost to Washington, and the region, will be
significant'.