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”.
APA| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
