
There has been fanfare leading into
Tuesday's meeting of the leaders of the Caspian nations, and their discussion again of the vexing question of whether they are neighbors of a sea or a lake. Let's hope the tea and meals are tasty in Tehran, because there will be no breakthrough.
The main reason: None of the main antagonists are going to capitulate.
Lots of people rightly find humor in the sea-or-lake issue, which ostensibly determines how a body of water is treated in terms of the littoral nations' rights. Apart from its amusement value, however, it's pointless to debate on the merits of the various sides, because each produces its chosen group of long-ago treaties, laws and precedents to make points that are instantly dismissed by the other interested parties.
Instead, it's easiest to look at interests:
Iran and Russia generally fall into the same camp, but for different reasons (Iran wants title to more sea than it would deserve by a purely quantitative count of its coastline; Russia would like to control all activities on the sea, but will settle for halting any cross-sea pipeline that would further weaken its stranglehold on oil and natural gas exports from the region).
It's principally the idea of that trans-Caspian pipeline that will scuttle any deal. Azerbaijan in my opinion will never agree to a prohibition on a pipeline in the sea, and Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan won't either if they are smart. Yet Russia won't agree to any pact that doesn't preclude a pipeline.
So the meeting is hopeless in terms of a certain settlement -- Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Russia will continue to develop their oilfields at will. Washington will persist in trying to get Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to build a cross-sea pipeline. And Russia will push the states not to build one.
On the other hand, the weather will be lovely (84 degrees fahrenheit; 29 celsius).
Labels: Azerbaijan, Caspian, iran, Kazakhstan, oil pipelines, Russia, trans-caspian pipeline, Turkmenistan
1 Comments:
That means all the talk about the uncertain legal status of the Caspian blocking progress on the undersea pipeline is groundless. In other words, Russia and Iran's opposition to the Trans-Caspian pipeline has no legal basis. This is in contrast to the situation in the Baltic Sea: Estonia opposed Russian-German pipeline going through its waters; Russia had to respect that.
On a more general level, how can Russia really make a case against a seabed pipeline in the Caspian if she's already building exactly the same kind of pipelines in the Baltic and Black Seas?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home