Opinion: A Trans-Caspian Pipeline may connect Central Asia with the South Caucasus

The signing of a new convention between the Caspian Sea littoral countries appears to be imminent. But Emil Avdaliani in this op-ed says that contentious issues remain, and Russia and other countries are strengthening their military presence in the region.

The Caspian basin, beyond the fact that it possesses large amounts of unexplored oil and gas, is important for the South Caucasus as the region itself adjoins the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan.  For geopolitical reasons, cooperation on maritime problems in the Caspian basin could potentially enable the construction of the Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP), which would go from Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan and then to Georgia. However, judging from media reports though the final agreement is imminent, it would not automatically mean that Russia and Iran will easily agree to Turkmenistan freely transport its gas to Europe.

On December 5th, following a meeting of foreign ministers from the Caspian Sea littoral states (Kazakhstan, Russia, Iran, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan), the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov unexpectedly said that after more than 20 years of talks, an agreement on the legal status of the Caspian was "practically ready" for signing. Lavrov's statement was the last in a series of statements from high ranking officials from Russia, Azerbaijan and elsewhere, over a period of year or so, that an agreement on the Caspian Sea was imminent.

The main bone of contention between the five Caspian states has been the issue whether the Caspian is a sea or a lake. The designation matters since, if the Caspian is designated as lake, the so called "condominium" approach would divide the Caspian wealth equally (20% each) among the five littoral states.

However, such a designation and division of the Caspian waters is detrimental to Kazakhstan. The country currently has the largest sector of the Caspian Sea and so far the largest amount of oil and natural gas.

Iran, which has the smallest section on the Caspian, would reap largest benefits from a "condominium" division of the Caspian Sea. The country has just about 13% of the Caspian and so far it seems that Iran's section has the least amount of oil and gas. The "Iranian section" also has the highest salt content in the water. This creates additional problems as the extrication of oil and gas requires more expensive technology.

If the Caspian is designated a sea, all the littoral countries will be free to exploit the resources in their maritime sectors as they wish. This is what some have already started doing anyway. A good example of this is Kazakhstan which already started work on the Kashaghan oil and gas field. Yet this "free to exploit" approach could also cause problems as there are numerous oil and gas sites which lay in disputed areas, and which can cause disagreements between the Caspian states.

A Bit of Geopolitics

The contentious nature of the Caspian problem is also rooted in the regional geopolitics. Russia, and perhaps even Iran, have been against allowing large amounts of oil and gas from Turkmenistan to be shipped to Europe. Moscow considers Europe its own near-monopoly market, while Iran aspires to get a share of it. Therefore, the Turkmen gas/oil through the Caspian Sea and the South Caucasus would quite naturally arouse their fears.

Beyond that, there has also been an issue between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli oil field, like other disputed assets such as Kapaz/Sardar, located midway between the two countries and claimed by both, have been have hindered any kind of breakthrough on the division of the Caspian Sea.

Thus, Lavrov's statement that the countries reached an agreement quite naturally raises many question as to how so many geopolitical differences were solved in a short period. The details are yet unclear, but if there is really an agreement, then, as media reports suggest, Ashgabat  would have dropped its claim to the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli oil field. 

The reported agreement on the Caspian basin will remove the ability of Moscow or Tehran to block the development of a pipeline to transport Turkmen gas across the Caspian to Azerbaijan, and possibly on to Europe. However, that might be a simplistic understanding, since   blocking the transport of Turkmen gas to Europe is one of Russia's geopolitical imperatives. In fact, Russia might have already secured Turkmenistan's agreement to something else instead of trying to ship its gas to Europe via the Caspian Sea and the South Caucasus. Indeed, there were some hints that Russia and Turkmenistan began working on gas exploration, cemented by the two countries' seeming rapprochement in relations after Putin's visit to Ashgabat this summer.

Moscow could have offered alternative routes to Ashgabat, such as Russian pipelines for transporting gas/oil to Europe. In fact, Turkmenistan could think that, in light of the economic problems it has been experiencing, it would be much more beneficial to use an already existent pipeline network rather than wait years for the TCP to be built.

Apart from that, Russia has recently increased its military capabilities in the Caspian region. One should remember that Russia bombed Syria from its ships located in the Caspian Sea, and the Caspian Flotilla could yet be a tool Russia can use to forestall any infrastructure projects disadvantageous to itself. In addition, other Caspian states too work to develop their respective military navies. Other Caspian littoral countries may not want to see a Russian predominance and may be preparing to develop their own military infrastructure.

source: Emil Avdaliani contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu

photo: Ships of the Russian Caspian Sea Flotilla (archive picture)

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)