Blood and Oil in Central Asia

In 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.

Comments

[outnow]

The Carter Doctrine was that the oil must go through. Like the old Pony Express, it is "in our interest" to have oil and to have it go through. We are addicted to oil and money so, like a heroin addict we will break and enter under whatever pretext to get our fix. Meanwhile, the energy companies cannot help but lobby for more of the same even if wars and climate change kill us all.

The behavior of the formerly communist countries is altered by their now expressly capitalistic behavior. If capitalism brought peace, the history of Europe would have to be completely re-written.

We will all go down fighting over resources since their is no fair way to share the world's resources. Hitler went for the Caspian Sea oil just as Japan went for the Dutch East Indies with the oil in that region.

It isn't so much about "bad" countries but human nature. Man will either be undone by his own efforts or by mother nature. Either way, we are just temporary as a species.

[JerryLevy]

This is exactly why we should be exploring for oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico and why we should be building Nuclear Power Plants and building alternative energy programs. But no, even though we are sitting on mounds of oil for some reason we cannot explore for it.

[outnow]

"Some reason?" Or some reasons.

"Drill, baby, drill," is a slogan not a solution. Each energy source has serious problems. Just choosing to overlook these problems is not a solution.

[GrahamInCanada]

Where to start?

The map of terror in the Middle East and Central Asia is not interchangeable with the map of oil.

The Kosovo war was not fought to build the AMBO pipeline.

The US did not attack Afghanistan in a deal with Iran to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.

It is unlikely China and Russia think that Afghanistan was attacked to give western advantage in an oil war, as they voted in favor on the Security Council.

China is not a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) military alliance with Russia.

Pepe Escobar's speculations on world politics archly named Pipelineistan cited here were made in 2002. Pepe Escobar is a Brazilian reporter who was forced to admit this year that the natural gas pipeline he entertained as causing the Afghanistan war will not be built, instead, the Iran-Pakistan pipeline will be built.

Since China is not the CSTO military alliance with Russia, Russia does not have a free hand militarily in the Central Asian region, where other powers besides Russia and China are also involved.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, like saying a pipeline was proposed, a war was fought, the pipeline was built, and concluding the war was fought to build the pipeline.

If we have reached peak oil, and face increased competition for energy resources in the world, it does not help matters to assume that such competition is, was, or should be a military competition.

[TJCole]

Our relationship with Russia has been terribly mismanaged by Bush, Cheney and especially Condi Rice they wanted to throw American power around arrogantly and messed around in internal Russian affairs as well as the ABM Treaty revocation and this insane needless NATO expansion and the missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic...a real provocation...

The Russians play chess always, so for everyone of our actions they always always act in a reciprocal manner if not turning it up a notch as well...

Looks like war to me...big war....that's the human race for ya...

[Pye Ian - Huffpost Blogger]

A very informative -- and necessary - article. It is hardly astonishing why mainstream press won't help the public connect the dots over the hows and whys of our wars abroad; leave it to well informed analysts and citizen journalists to fill in the demand.

FYI, the recently signed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline has triggered interest from Russia's Gazprom for building it, and from China for extending it into their northwest energy-vital Xinjiang province (the sight, not ironically, of the recently concocted Uighurs riots, courtesy of our NED).

Washington's best 'chess move' is thus to strip Iran's loyalties away from Russia and China, and it is up to the Obama administration to do so with shrewd diplomacy.

I blog about how to do so on HPost.

[zaz33]

Pye - In chess there's usually a winner and a loser.

It seems like you want China to be vulnerable with Western competitors being able to control their energy imports.

Why can't we all get along?

[Pye Ian - Huffpost Blogger]

Why *can't* we?!? Dunno, try human nature? The Hobbesian state of man?

Don't think the Sino-Russian alliance isn't seeking the same thing we are. Look at Africa and Central Asia and you'll see: This is indeed a game for control.

[Kenny2k]

Going to war over energy is crazy, but wait until the world looses it's mind over water. We are at the end of our rope so the best thing to do is to start eliminating users of oil and water. War does this very well. The world as we know it is comming to and end. Best of luck everyone.

[Eggsackley]

If you look at it that negatively, you should root for the Yellowstone Volcano to blow. Five years of near total crop failure because of ash blocking the sun would wipe out most of us, and stop global warming too.

[TJCole]

Exactly when we can grow Hemp 4 Fuel...!

http://hemp4fuel.com/

Grow Here Grow Now Baby...!

See the Why Hemp Section....

[TryToBeFlexible]

If we develop green renewable energy, we won't need the oil. We won't need to fight a war for it. We will be able to peacefully live our lives.

[SimonNZ]

Quite true. Unfortunately, it's also highly unlikely.

Even if the US and Europe were to actually develop green energy rather than just continuing to pay lip service to it, I have no doubt that China, India and Russia will continue to use oil as their primary energy source until it's all gone. This would of course make any debate about halting climate change a moot point.

I hate to be a pessimist but the prognosis for the future of the planet is not good.

[zaz33]

Russia and China want to do business in a world at peace while the US insists on spending resources (including the lives of our children) on the never ending pursuit of empire.

This disastrous policy is passed on from administration to administration.

[lightningbolt]

Russia and China are not peaceful nations, and neither is the U.S. They all have imperial ambitions.

[CanHandleTheTruth]

Russia and China do not retain individualistic imperial ambitions.

They wish for a multi-polar alternative to Anglo-American/NATO economic, political and military hegemony. Plenty of other nations share their goal - Brazil, India, Iran, many South American and African nations, etc.

Russia and China are not peaceful nations only to the extent that said NATO-linked hegemonic pact drives up its nonpeaceful measures for energy capture.

Of that you can be certain.

[eciaccio]

Ah yes, the "Great Game" on the "Grand Chessboard". No matter how many lives are destroyed, the goal is to "win", morality be damned.

Why spend all those irreplaceable lives and precious funds on war instead of developing alternative, domestic forms of energy (wind, geothermal, solar, electric vehicles) and retrofitting structures for energy efficiency, which would also provide jobs and a rebirth of manufacturing in the U.S, as a way out of our economic depression? Why not a new Manhattan Project for domestic sources of energy leading to true energy independence (see The Apollo Alliance: http://apolloalliance.org/)?

Because war is such a lucrative racket, especially for sociopaths who call themselves "national leaders". As long as we are their cannon and missile fodder, this insanity and criminality will continue.

[CanHandleTheTruth]

eciaccio, NO OTHER resource on earth can match petroleum for the wide scope of industrial necessities that a nation must rely on. None. We can max out our wind, geothermal, solar, electric vehicles, algae fuels, etc., but will still need petrochemicals for plastics, pesticides, agriculture, transporation, etc.

[Eggsackley]

Why do we need plastics, pesticides, petrochemical fertilizers, etc? Because we have been led down a garden path by the green revolution and industrial agriculture. It is not sustainable. There are alternatives. There is enough geothermal energy available to power our country for untold centuries. Did you know that our government owns it all and can lease it to producers? A great alternative revenue source that might cut into the deficit. We can produce more food over the long haul by small local farm networks and markets and not waste oil trucking lettuce and tomatoes all over the country. The big thing is that we need to show other countries how to become energy independent by example, instead of getting down and dirty in the fight for oil and gas. I am a great believer in having a strong national defense. I hope we will never fight another war of aggression like in Iraq. It has hurt this country in too many ways.

[eciaccio]

So we can get these needed petrochemicals by TRADE with Canada, Nigeria, Ghana, Mexico, and Venezuela, not by war and occupation in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Are plastics really more important than human lives?