War on Pipes: Transport corridors as core of US-Russia confrontation
New Russia hints the dawn of Cold War II
US-Russia Missile Crisis: Battleground Europe
US Election outcome may not impact confrontation build up with Iran
Democratic Pakistan could walk out from US War on terror
Should US stop its war on drugs in Latin America?
GUUAM
When speaking about interests of West I would like to make a difference between US – or Anglo-American interests and EU interests. After “Cold War” US has all the while expanded its influence post-Soviet territory with aim to guide those region’s natural resources under US companies. GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Group was founded 1999 with help of US to foster favorable conditions conducive to economic growth through development of an Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor.
As pointed out by Michel Chossudovsky in his book America’s ‘War on Terrorism,’ (presentation of Anglo-American war policy from the 1990s Balkans to the present), GUUAM has been “dominated by Anglo-American oil interests, ultimately purports to exclude Russia from oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area, as well as isolating Moscow politically.”
More specifically, the US-led military invasion - in close liaison with Britain - responds to the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants, in alliance with weapons producers, private security organizations and service providers (like Halliburton). One could say that the “Anglo-American axis” in defense, foreign policy and especially corporate capital is the driving force behind the military operations in Balkans, Central Asia and Middle East.
SRS
Just five days before the bombing of Yugoslavia (19 March 1999), the US Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America’s business empire through development of an Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor.
The stakes involved with the current conflict are identical to those of the previous war: control over the oil of the Caspian Sea/Black Sea/Caucasus basin, and the control of multiple key oil pipelines criss-crossing the region.
The most critical pipeline, the infamous Baku-Ceyhan pipeline supported by the US government and a consortium of US-allied transnational oil interests (including Royal Dutch Shell, Unocal, and BP) takes oil from the Caspian Sea across Azerbaijan (another US-supported regime), whereby it crosses Georgia (bypassing Iran and Russia), then on to the Black Sea, where the oil is carried to Western Europe, and the rest of the world.
The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline has been viewed by the Bush/Cheney administration as one of its brightest geo-strategic successes. All of the Anglo-American empire’s pipelines and oil facilities, including Baku-Ceyhan, are threatened, if the conflict escalates. Same time the successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent “militarization” of the Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as “protecting” the pipeline routes on behalf of the Anglo-American oil companies.
Power play and EU
The effect of NATO enlargement is to swing the Iron Curtain to the east. Russia''s opposition to NATO expansion has only increased in recent years. On economical field Russia’s “South Stream” looks more successful so far than Nabucco while the leverage of the United States government over Russian foreign policy has decreased dramatically during last years. US policy is turning into a zero-sum competition with Russia for influence in the post-Soviet regions.
For EU the situation brings few questions such as
• Is there a difference between EU and Anglo-American interests related to SRS?
• How to balance aims of energy and security (military) strategies?
• Is there a difference between EU’s energy policy and interests of corporate capital?
I am not sure if EU would like to answer to these questions, however my point is that this background may have some influence – more than official concern about human rights, rule & law etc. - to EU policy in Balkans and Caucasus.
After Cold War US has all the while expanded its influence post-Soviet territory. The US-led invasion - in close liaison with Britain-responds to the interests of the Anglo - American oil giants, in alliance with weapons producers, private security organizations and service providers (like Halliburton). One could say that the “Anglo-American axis” in defense, foreign policy and especially corporate capital is the driving force behind the military operations in Balkans, Central Asia and Middle East with aim to exclude Russia from oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area, as well as isolating Moscow politically.
The effect of NATO's enlargement is to swing the Iron Curtain to the east. Russia''s opposition to NATO expansion has only increased in recent years. On economical field Russia’s “South Stream” looks more successful than Nabucco while the leverage of the US government over Russian foreign policy has decreased dramatically during last years. US policy is turning into a zero-sum competition with Russia for influence in the post-Soviet regions.
More about Balkans and Caucasus conflicts from my BalkanBlog
