The Caspian Project .07

www.moderndiplomacy.eu

CONTENTS

07

BRINGING A KNIFE TO A GUNFIGHT AMERICA VS. RUSSIA IRAN’S COMPETING FUTURES GLOBAL ECONOMIC PARTICIPANT OR REGIONAL RELIGIOUS HEGEMON? CASPIAN SEA STATES PREPARE SECURITY PLAN AZERBAIJAN AND THE NEW ENERGY GEOPOLITICS OF SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE WALKING A DELICATE GEOSTRATEGIC LINE AZERBAIJAN’S ROLE TO THE U.S. AND RUSSIA THE CASPIAN KINGMAKER? TURKISH DIPLOMATIC MANEUVERS AND MOTIVATIONS CRISIS BRIEFING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

THE CASPIAN PROJECT A WEEKLY EDITION FROM THE MODERN DIPLOMACY

www.moderndiplomacy.eu Caspian@moderndiplomacy.eu

PROJECT TEAM DiMiTRis GiAnnAkOPOulOs DR. MATThEw CROssTOn PETRA POsEGA TEJA PAlkO luísA MOnTEiRO ninA lAvREnTEvA GAbRiElA PAsChOlATi DO AMARAl RAkEsh kRishnAn siMhA bRiAn huGhEs TAylOR MORsE JEAnETTE JJ hARPER DiAnnE A. vAlDEz

AmericA vs. russiA

BriNgiNg A KNife TO A guNfigHT In soMe ways the United States has played a very strange selfinjurious game since 1991 when it comes to Russia. On the one hand, it expects that the former rival accepts a new stage after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in which there are no more fundamental ideological battles and that DEMOCRACY in big capital letters is the clear and undisputed victor.

Dr. Matthew Crosston Senior Editor Matthew Crosston is Professor of Political Science, Director of the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program, and the Miller Chair at Bellevue University

As the greatest champion of democracy this of course infers that such acceptance also automatically declares the US the world’s only superpower, the hegemon with no rivals. On the other hand, despite this expected acquiescence, America still tends to see Russia as scheming to relive Soviet glory days and interacts with Russia only on its own terms and in that distrustful light. Given this general backdrop, it is a bit disingenuous for those of us feted as ‘Russian experts’ to question why Russian-American relations have been such disjointed bipolar affairs for the past generation.

What remains fascinating and frustrating, however, is a continued ‘Cold War residue’ that refuses to leave the stage when it comes to how the United States and Russian Federation deal with each other. Too often the instinctive academic and diplomatic positions in the West place responsibility for poor relations exclusively on the Russian side.

While Russia undoubtedly plays a major role (it does indeed take two to tango), there is an inexplicable absence of focus on the culpability of the United States in fostering this negative interaction. Foreign policy is difficult enough, let alone when sides refuse to recognize geopolitical reality.

This situation only worsens when you get to the specifics.

Since 1991 there have been three major situations with direct Russian military involvement that gained intensive scrutiny from the United States: Chechnya, South Ossetia, and Crimea/ Eastern Ukraine.

In Chechnya, Russia was often privately outraged that many in the US characterized that conflict as a ‘battle for independence’ by an oppressed minority rather than it being about a war against radical religious extremists engaging in terrorism.

WWW.mODerNDiPLOmAcY.eu THe cAsPiAN PrOJecT

russiA is NOT ANTi-AmericAN russiA is simPLY firsT AND fOremOsT PrO-russiA, JusT As iT exPecTs AND Assumes AmericA TO Be firsT AND fOremOsT PrO-AmericA In South Ossetia, Russia was outraged once more when it was accused of ‘invading’ another country when it felt it was justifiably responding strongly to unrest and instability threatening its own North Ossetia (which resulted in Russian peacekeepers being killed according to the UN) and sending an appropriate force message to Georgia to stop exacerbating the situation between North and South. In Crimea/Eastern Ukraine, Russia is bluntly pursuing its own foreign policy interests during a time of political turmoil in a region that was once its own (Crimea was given to Ukraine in the 1950s with an air of diplomatic indifference as the expected eternal nature of the Soviet Union made the ‘gift’ irrelevant – ie, Moscow would always control it from afar), while listening to the West say it is trying to ultimately occupy all of Ukraine and possibly beyond.

In each case, when you look back over numerous media, academic, and diplomatic sources, the word ‘imperialism’ factors prominently: Russia’s motivations in each case were not based on national security interests, but were instead founded on its inevitable need to regain an old Soviet ‘imperialistic’ nature.

This Cold War residue even made the categorization and scope of the conflicts themselves a source of political discord: in the West, Chechnya often became ‘Southern Russia,’ South Ossetia became ‘Georgia,’ and Crimea has now become ‘Ukraine.’ In other words, time and again Russia preferred keeping situations more case-specific and minimalized, while the United States (in Russia’s opinion at least) effectively re-characterized the situations so that they seemed more farreaching and tyrannical in terms of danger and concern.

No doubt even more galling to Russia has been the need to answer such criticism while the United States has pursued decidedly more aggressive maneuvers on a global scale without interference and relatively minor criticism. Russia did not interfere when campaigns were launched in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia did not interfere with maneuvers in Libya and Yemen. What Russia bristles at is when America characterizes its own maneuvers as somehow being something ‘above’ basic foreign policy priorities and national security objectives while everything the Russian Federation does in much the same light is declared ‘neo-imperialist’ or breaking international law.

Make note: this is not any lame or manic antiAmerican diatribe. Russia is not anti-American. Russia is simply first and foremost pro-Russia, just as it expects and assumes America to be first and foremost pro-America. And here is the tricky part: on this issue, in the eyes of most of the world when speaking privately, Russia is right. America is the only country that indefatigably explains its positions as being about something more than just purely American interests. But the U.S. needs to understand that this sermon is being delivered from a pulpit more and more often to an EMPTY congregation: no one except America believes this diplomatic propaganda.

Surveying allies and adversaries alike reveals nothing but dismissive smirks about the idea that American global maneuvers are based on higher moral principles rather than on what best positions American national interests. Again, remember the subtlety: such dismissiveness is not anger about America trying to leverage its power for maximum output. It is rather irritation at how often America tries to judge and prevent other states from doing the exact same thing on the regional and/or global stage. Other countries might not like how Russia expresses its power but they accept those maneuvers, for better or worse, as the way the geopolitical game still works on the modern global stage of dierentiated power capacity.

WWW.mODerNDiPLOmAcY.eu THe cAsPiAN PrOJecT

As long as the United States continues to delude itself on this basic fundamental aspect of global affairs - envisioning itself as the great preserver of international principles while never supposedly acting opportunistically or self-servingly - then it will continue to blow a mighty wind on situations like Crimea while accomplishing nothing.

Indeed, Russians have complained about the essence of this American diplomatic grandstanding for decades, in earnest since 9/11 when they believed America would be joining them in the global fight against radical Islamic extremism only to be inexplicably (to them) rebuffed. America has long held pride in the fact that it can and does project its global power independently when it wants to. It has never, however, responded positively whenever any other nation tries to do the same, whether it is Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Russia.

And for those who think it is alright to ‘constrain’ such nations, keep in mind that France, Germany, Israel, and India have all complained at times of the same thing.

There is nothing wrong with trying to ‘manage your power brand’ so that it comes across as something more noble and more righteous than pure nationalist desire. When the United States seems to actually come across as complaining about other countries not buying in and wanting the same right to enact its political will just like America, then it underserves its own true global power by seeming a bit petulant and unsubtle.

And doing that, unfortunately, is why Russia has been so successful in maintaining geopolitical sympathizers outside of Western Europe when it comes to American posturing. It makes the U.S. look like it is trying to bring a knife to a foreign policy gunfight.

The 10 mosT impoRTanT Things you need To know on Caspian sea Region

the caspian daily newsletter Receive your daily roundup of Caspian Region news and analysis from sources around the globe

#CaspianDaily

iran’s comPEtinG FuturEs Global Economic ParticiPant or rEGional rEliGious HEGEmon?

as tHe official deadline for the nuclear deal approaches, many are expressing their apprehension over the consequences that may emerge should a deal be reached and sanctions on the Islamic Republic are lifted.

The anxiety mostly has to do with concerns over regional and global stability that may be threatened if Shia Iran plans to export more than oil, gas, and pistachios. Like its Islamic Revolution ideology, for example.

Jeanette "JJ" Harper Jeanette "JJ" Harper is a graduate student in the International Security and Intelligence Studies program at Bellevue University in Omaha, NE, USA.

While there is no doubt that Iran – a country that is often accused of aspiring to be a hegemonic power driven by aspirations to dominate the Middle East by spreading its religious ideology – would have a greater influence on Sunni Azerbaijan and the five majority Sunni Central Asian states, there is no evidence that suggests their influence would extend past a purely economic one.

In fact, the governments of these former Soviet Republics have high-ranking members that were once affiliated with the Communist Party during the Soviet era.

Members who are still deeply suspicious of theocratic rule.

For these states, who have been independent for almost 25 years, there are clear opportunities that may arise from new trade developments in the region.

As talks of recreating the ancient Silk Road – the name for the ancient trade route between the Mediterranean Sea and China – continue, the possibility that Iran will no longer be off-limits is being eagerly anticipated. Because the Caspian Sea offers little trade potential at the moment due to its contested legal status, this situation may offer opportunities for Central Asia that will allow it to cut back its reliance on countries like Russia to the north and China to the east. A southern route through Iran would effectively change the dynamics of trade, giving the five central Asian countries more leverage at the bargaining table with their superpower neighbors.

A passage through Iran also offers a shorter non-Russian route for shipping Central Asian oil and gas to Europe. The European Union is also looking to decrease its dependence on Russian supplies so it is actively looking to diversify its gas suppliers.

WWW.moDErnDiPlomacY.Eu tHE casPian ProJEct

Receiving gas from the Caspian Region – known as the Southern Gas Corridor Project – via this route would be enormously advantageous for them. However, this would take a minimum of five years and maybe even closer to a decade before any of these projects would be functional.

In general, coming to a nuclear agreement is welcome among ordinary Iranians who have suffered a great deal from the international sanctions slapped on them by the United States and other nations. These sanctions have imposed restrictions on trade and international banking which have seriously hurt Iran’s economy. To the Iranian people, a deal means more jobs which would lead to a higher standard of living. While many would argue that the Iranian people have gotten a raw deal, it is important to remember that Iran’s Guardian Council regime has often tried to deliberately provoke the United States. When presented with evidence to support it was enriching uranium in the early 2000s, Iran’s regime admitted it had hidden a uranium enrichment program from the world for almost two decades. Iran continued to enrich uranium openly in defiance to the United Nations. Things got worse when Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a very controversial leader, insisted that Iran would not stop enriching uranium and that the West had no business interfering in their affairs. He publicly announced that it was Iran’s intention to destroy the nation of Israel and eventually defeat the United States – the “Great Satan.”

This certainly hurt the side effort by calmer voices in Iran that tried to emphasize nuclear energy alone.

The United States – despite Iran’s insistence that it was pursuing a uranium enrichment program only to build nuclear power plants – was convinced Iran was building a nuclear weapon and saw Iran’s actions as deliberately violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Under its provisions, the nations with nuclear weapons at the time agreed not to give nuclear weapons – or the knowledge on how to build them – to any other nation. The United States and its allies – especially Israel and Saudi Arabia – are worried that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, it would throw the Middle East into turmoil. They believed other countries would want to build their own nuclear weapons and a regional nuclear arms race would ensue that would be tinged with religious extremism.

To be fair, Iran has made real progress in recent years. With the election of Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani, the country has taken a different stance toward the nuclear issue. President Rouhani criticized the nuclear stand-off with the West and brought much attention to the state of Iran’s economy that was being smothered by the sanctions. The sanctions isolated Iran from the rest of the world and President Rouhani started negotiations with the P5+1 countries which led to an interim treaty in 2013 that stated Iran would seriously limit their uranium enrichment program in exchange for temporary relief from the sanctions.

However, as many are aware, Iran’s president is the elected head of government but largely fills a ceremonial position. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, is the one who calls the political shots.

He has the power to veto any legislation passed by the executive branch per Iran’s unique “Islamic government” constitution.

Not surprisingly, there are deep rifts in the country’s government caught in what some might consider a nasty power struggle. On one side are the reformists led by President Rouhani and on the other conservatives led

by Ayatollah Khamenei. The reformists want Iran to become more democratic while the conservatives want to keep the country in line with the fundamentalist Islamic social codes introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

Even though Ayatollah Khamenei has been behind President Rouhani on the nuclear issue, these rifts could prevent Iran from improving its global image and from making further progress socially, economically and politically. Unfortunately, the country already has a reputation to some for thuggish behavior as both a violator of human rights and as one of the largest exporters and contributors of terrorism.

Even though an argument can be made that the rights and opportunities of women have improved in recent years, the country has lost too many of their best and brightest citizens to relocate to the West and other countries that are more modern and democratic.

If sanctions are lifted and it is truly their desire to get involved with projects like the Southern Gas Corridor Project, Iran will need to take some serious steps toward addressing its internal problems, worrying more about being a major participant in the global economy and less about aspirations to be a regional religious hegemon.

Right now it seems like most of the country favors the former objective overwhelmingly.

But the Guardian Council undoubtedly still dreams of the latter.

Checking that desire, or enacting some type of reform on the Guardians, could be the most interesting immediate future for Iran when it comes to economic plans in the greater Caspian region.

WWW.moDErnDiPlomacY.Eu tHE casPian ProJEct

CASPIAN SEA STATES PREPARE SECURITY PLAN Security of the Caspian Sea can only be ensured by the five littoral states The Navy commanders of the Caspian Sea littoral states in a meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Monday prepared a security plan for the world's largest enclosed body of water on earth as a result of an initiative by Iran.

"During this meeting the draft agreement for cooperation in different areas among the Caspian Sea littoral states was prepared according to which the security of the Caspian Sea will be protected by the five littoral states and without presence of foreign forces," Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told reporters in St. Petersburg.

Also at the meeting which was held on Iran's initiative, Rear Admiral Sayyari briefed his counterparts on Iran's stances concerning the Caspian Sea security. On Saturday, Rear Admiral Sayyari and his Russian counterpart Admiral Viktor Chirkov in a meeting in St. Petersburg voiced strong opposition to the deployment of foreign forces in the Caspian Sea as a serious threat to regional security.

During the meeting, the two commanders underlined that security of the Caspian Sea can only be ensured by the five littoral states of Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, the Republic of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and said the presence of any foreign force in the Caspian Sea poses a serious threat to the regional security. They also discussed the important security issues in the Caspian Sea. In relevant remarks in September, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called on the Caspian Sea littoral states to prevent the presence and deployment of trans-regional states' military forces in the Caspian Sea to maintain peace and stability in the lake.

"We shouldn’t allow the security of the Sea and its coasts depend on variables other than the collective and common

interests of the littoral states and the welfare, health and tranquility of its people be affected by these variables; therefore, I propose cooperation in this regard and calling the Sea as the Sea of peace and development," Rouhani said, addressing a summit of five Caspian Sea littoral states in Astarakhan, Russia.

He underlined that guaranteed peace, stability and security of the Caspian Sea depends on fundamental principles, including avoidance of arms race and using armed forces, monopoly of navigation for the vessels which sail under the flags of the littoral states, banning the presence of foreign military forces, freedom of sailing, behavior on the basis of equal footings and finally adopting coordinated policies.

WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT

azeRbaijan and the new eneRgy geopolitics of southeasteRn euRope Margarita assenova and Zaur shiriyev the JaMestown Foundation

Margarita assenova and Zaur shiriyev, The Jamestown Foundation announces the release of the new book Azerbaijan and the New Energy Geopolitics of Southeastern Europe, published in cooperation with the Center for Strategic Studies in Baku.

The book, edited by Margarita Assenova and Zaur Shiriyev, enhances our understanding of Southeastern Europe’s energy security and the potential impact of the Southern Gas Corridor.

Structured as an edited volume of ten essays, this book comes at a critical time when European concerns about Russian gas supplies are growing in the midst of the RussiaUkraine war. The Southern Gas Corridor, which will deliver Caspian gas from Azerbaijan to Europe, will challenge for the first time Russia’s gas monopoly in Southeastern Europe, thus changing the region’s geopolitical landscape.

“The Southern Gas Corridor will bring more than natural gas to Southeastern Europe—it will also bring energy security and enhance the overall security of the region,”

said Jamestown Foundation’s President Glen Howard.

The book focuses attention on Azerbaijan’s aspiring role as an energy supplier and contributor to energy security in Southeastern Europe, its evolving relations with countries in the region—from Greece to Croatia—and consequently Baku’s expanding relations with the European Union and the United States. As Greece’s financial troubles threaten to impose new challenges to the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, which is a part of the Southern Gas Corridor, we can expect further developments pertaining to energy security in the region.

www.modeRndiplomacy.eu the caspian pRoject

WAlking A deliCAte geostrAtegiC line

AzerbAijAn’s role to the U.s. And rUssiA

alThough The Cold War is long over there has still been a large degree of geopolitical competition between the West and Russia. This geopolitical battle is now being waged on the coast of the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan.

Taylor Morse

Taylor Morse is currently a graduate student in the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program at Bellevue University in Omaha, NE, USA.

Azerbaijan is in a unique position in that the West and Russia are both vying to gain influence in it. The desire for this influence goes far beyond the potential for access to natural gas. The West is seeking to deny Russia any allies in the area while Russia is trying to retain its traditional sphere of influence. Through Azerbaijan the West will also significantly reduce its energy dependence upon Russia. Through an analysis of recent Azeri relations with the West and Russia, the West has an opportunity to gain this new geostrategic ally.

After the end of the Cold War, Western states immediately began expanding their influence eastward into traditional Russianallied states and former Soviet Republics.

This was meant to provide two geostrategic benefits to both Western states and their new allies in the east.The ‘West’ benefited by gaining access to these new economies and by shortening the list of Russian allies.

The ‘East’ benefited by being able to integrate economically with the West and begin gaining security guarantees, particularly Eastern states trying to join NATO, not dependent on Russia.

Over 20 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union this has been the standard Western policy position. Therefore it is logical that this policy would be aimed into the Caspian Sea region with Azerbaijan.

Despite the policy of geopolitically isolating Russia, European countries have become somewhat dependent on Russian natural resources. This is in reference to large-scale Russian gas exports to Europe which represent around a third of its natural gas needs. This economic interdependence with Russia has made responding to Russian initiatives such as the Ukraine crisis very difficult. With new resources ripe for extraction in the Azeri Caspian, Azerbaijan is a prime target for courting by the West to reduce energy dependence with Russia and continue the policy of denying Russia regional influence.

The West already has its foot in the door in regards to building a security relationship with Azerbaijan.

WWW.ModerndiPloMACY.eU the CAsPiAn ProjeCt

As with many other former East European Soviet states which joined NATO, this could be the beginning step of Azeri entry into NATO as well as closer economic relationships with the EU, both of which Russia naturally opposes. Azerbaijan has participated in various NATO military operations with troop deployments in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Azerbaijan has also hosted NATO military exercises despite not being an official member. The US in particular has begun aiding the Azeri military with new supplies from small arms all the way to upgrading its navy.

Perhaps the most substantial future extension of the West’s military foot in the Azeri door comes from Turkey’s relationship with the country. Turkey has its own ambitions in the Caucasus region, trying to expand its influence into Azerbaijan. This is in alignment with overarching Western policy, which seeks to deny Russian influence and expand economically. Turkey would greatly benefit from access to Azeri natural resources in the Caspian Sea. Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan recently joined in a military alliance with one another which includes joint exercises. Being that Turkey is vying for influence in this region, its clear targets are the other two major regional powers, Russia and Iran. With Turkey being a member of NATO and now militarilylinked with Azerbaijan, the West has a new foot in the door, gaining access perhaps to Azeri natural resources in return for lessening its dependence on Russian ‘security.’

The West is also trying to bring Azerbaijan closer to its economic orbit and away from Russian monetary/trade influence. Many Western companies are already in the Azeri Caspian region extracting natural gas.

The major energy player, BP, just expanded its scope and length of stay in Azeri Caspian waters. Although there are already numerous and diverse Western companies involved in Azerbaijan, the main economic goal is the creation of a pipeline from Azerbaijan to the West, with the West willing to foot the bill for it. However, despite this shared benefit and interest, there is much resistance from Azerbaijan’s former benefactor as it seeks to keep it away from Western influence. Azerbaijan is of high importance to Russia due to the economic benefits it provides. Keeping Azerbaijan in its orbit will result in these Caspian Sea resources going towards the Russian economy and will prevent them from benefitting the West, thereby keeping Europe mostly dependent upon Russian natural gas. However, disputes over the legality of and boundaries within the Caspian Sea, plus the attractiveness of the West overall, makes Russia’s attempt to retain exclusive influence in Azerbaijan quite difficult.

The 2008 Georgia War, with its ongoing disputes, and the Ukraine crisis presently highlights the dangers when leaving Russia’s orbit to move towards the West. However, Russia’s relationship with the former Soviet Republic Armenia is of particular concern to Azerbaijan. Armenia was supported militarily

by Russia during a brutal war with Azerbaijan from the late 1980s until the mid 1990s. Russia continues to maintain a large military presence in Armenia, even as tensions and skirmishes persist to this day. Russia’s support of Azerbaijan’s old problem (and the concern it may one day again be a ‘new’ problem) will undoubtedly be taken into consideration as it decides how much to align with the West or not and how much to keep Russia within its interests and objectives.

Post-Cold War Western policy has and continues to seek to deny Russia its traditional allies militarily and economically, which in turn benefits the West by militarily softening Russian coercion and economically steering these Caspian economies away. Azerbaijan is in the West’s sights exactly for this reason. It will also hurt the Russian economy through loss of access to Azeri resources and the loss of Western business.

The West has much to offer Azerbaijan, which it has thus far readily accepted with military ties, equipment, and even a security guarantee from NATO-member Turkey. Russia on the other hand is somewhat feeling backed into a corner with little to offer Azerbaijan other than not taking military action.

The one foreseeable problem with this trend, however, could be what happened in Ukraine:

not the idea of military aggression or civil unrest, but the under-emphasized aspect of EU promises to Ukraine being far more longterm and unrealized when compared to Russian proposals that were more immediately lucrative and short-term. Russia may not have as many diverse resources for negotiation with Azerbaijan compared to the West, but it likely does have a higher motivation level to make those negotiations more favorable in the present-day to Azeris. This could prove quite impactful, as Azerbaijan tries to steer a very delicate middle balance between the two: wanting to be more part of the West economically while still in Russia’s good favor geostrategically. This might end up being the REAL Azeri foreign policy, one that neither Russia nor the West is ready to fully engage but will likely have to before long.

WWW.ModerndiPloMACY.eU the CAsPiAn ProjeCt

The caspian kingmaker?

Turkish DiplomaTic maneuvers anD moTivaTions

Recent geopolitical actiVities have mostly painted Turkey as a diplomatic hero in mediating a role between two rival Caspian countries: Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. Past interactions between the two have demonstrated a less-than-friendly atmosphere.

But recent political agreements concerning plans for exchanges in energy capabilities have shown Turkey’s mediating efforts between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to have additional self-interested motives.

Below the surface of this trilateral union, captained by Turkey’s leadership, demonstrates more of a political dependency on Turkey so as to ensure the mutual alliance between the two feuding countries continues.

Turkey’s agenda highlights more than just regional stability but also economic, diploDianne a. ValDez matic, and political advancement for Turkey as a regional power. Turkey’s specific interDianne Valdez just completed her ests with these two countries indicate its Master’s degree in the own individual objectives, both economiInternational Security cally and in terms of its national security inand Intelligence terests.

Studies Program at Within the last two years Turkmenistan and Bellevue University in Azerbaijan have cited very few things in Omaha, NE, USA and common except for one thing: the need for continues her interests in the energy expansion. Turkey seems to have geopolitics of this aided both countries in identifying their important region, mutual interests beyond this simple edict, along with political which includes tapping into their natural strife in Africa. gas and oil resources not just for individual

gain but in support of global energy distribution. “Both Caspian countries, which are known for their big oil and gas fields, pay special attention to development of this sphere… and are going to continue developing traditional cooperation on the principles of equality and mutual benefit.”

(Hasanov). Coincidentally, both countries are somewhat suffering currently in this area: Turkmenistan equates its drop in exports due to Russian economic decline as well as Russia being a bit disturbed by Turkmenistan’s closer relations with Turkey.

While Azerbaijan feels some strain from Russia by the deep Azeri interest in expanding oil pipelines through Turkey in an effort to supply the EU, which naturally will decrease some natural resource leverage in Moscow.

WWW.moDernDiplomacY.eu The caspian proJecT

TurkeY seems To have Taken an opporTunisTic sTraTegY for iTs DiplomaTic relaTions, recognizing flaWs anD shorTcomings in oThers in orDer To builD on neW opporTuniTies anD connecTions Because of this Turkey is climbing the geopolitical ladder at a much faster rate than its Caspian neighbors and in a way has become the economic powerhouse of the region.

“Given its rising economy and territorial bridge between Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Greece, Turkey has a hand in several of today’s most pressing issues: burgeoning democracies in the wake of the Arab Spring, oil trade and refinery, and policies governing the G20 economies,” (Mckelvy). Naturally, global perspectives have assessed Turkey’s diplomatic volunteer work as yet another political badge for its reputational sleeve. Turkey has perpetuated an image of political stability and financial security. However, further inspection shows Turkey is also being diplomatically proactive and trying to prepare for its own energy troubles in the not so far off future. “Turkey’s demand for natural gas has grown more than three-fold in the last decade.

Scant rainfall in recent years has forced power stations to rely more on gas rather than hydropower, of which Turkey usually has plenty.” (Barysch) As Turkey addresses its own future energy concerns, it is trying to position itself as the EU’s energy hub, transporting gas from both Turkmen and Azeri gas fields.

Turkey’s “heroic” role in aiding the EU through its energy concerns will do more than grant them entry and favor with the EU. Turkey will undoubtedly gain geopolitical and economic leverage with many of the countries to its east and west. To lead such an endeavor will have unimaginable local benefits that could sharply decrease dependencies on Russian energy. Though concrete plans to execute Turkey’s energy ambitions have yet to begin, it is clear that its energy endeavors are very much feasible and have gained consistent popularity amongst its allies and the local populace.

Russia, of course, will always remain the wild card.

As Turkey gains influential ties through its energy bargains, its plans have also gained significant support from America, with recent media reports suggesting a kind of mentorship developing for effective energy resources and distribution strategies. “This week, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency awarded a grant to Turcas BM Kuyucak Jeotermal Elektrik Üretim A. Ş. (TBK), a Turkish joint venture owned primarily by BM Holding and Turcas Energy Holding.

Rather, Turkey seems to have taken an opportunistic strategy for its diplomatic relations, recognizing flaws and shortcomings in others in order to build on new opportunities and connections. Turkey’s actions are commendable at least for demonstrating a keen intuition for understanding the nuances of international relations and the complexity for developing strategic partnerships.

However, these aspirations for Caspian political stardom have the possibility to fail should Turkey not maintain diplomatic equilibrium amongst all of the Caspian players.

Considering this is still a somewhat unstable region and the massive partner/rival sitting to the north of the Caspian Sea, it is going to As Turkey lines all its ducks in a row, it is nei- be no small diplomatic achievement should ther savior of the great energy dilemma nor Turkey succeed in pulling all of these deft maneuvers off. conspirator against Russia.

The grant funds a feasibility study that will evaluate the technical and financial specifications for a geothermal energy project designed to supply 13.2 Megawatts (MW) of renewable energy to the Turkish electrical grid.” (Humphrey) With the support of U.S. public and private sector initiatives, Turkey is actively elevating its overall efficiency and technology and bringing to life the aforementioned energy ambitions. Effectively building rapport with America can potentially provide the energy investments needed to initiate real-time construction over various large-scale projects across the Caspian region.

WWW.moDernDiplomacY.eu The caspian proJecT

WEAPONS Of MASS DESTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The Middle easT is the only region where all three kinds of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been used and developed. Accusations, allegations, but unfortunately blur information and data, with very limited open-source information about the possession and quantity of WMD in countries in this region represents further instability factor and creates uncertainty and tensions between rival countries.

Teja Palko Defense Editor Teja Palko is a Slovenian writer.

She finished studies on Master’s Degree programme in Defense Science at the Faculty of Social Science at University in Ljubljana.

There are 17 countries in the region: Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Sometimes the political term also includes countries from South Caucasus – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and there exists various definitions which countries belong to the Middle East and which do not. In this report focus is on states which possess WMD. WMD on territory can be found in 6 countries, in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Syria. For the rest of the countries in the Middle East is not known to possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programs. Globally accepted definition of WMD does not exist, but all include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Even though all types of WMD are inhumane in its possibilities and consequences of usage, nuclear weapons are the one getting most of the attention. Today in the world more than 30 countries want nuclear power.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) Report for 2013-2014 says that making fuel for nuclear power plants involves the same technology as making materials for nuclear weapons. Actions to reduce proliferation and security risks must be taken to prevent the dangerous spread of uranium enrichment or plutonium technology. The report pointed out that nuclear exchange is less likely, but many scenarios could lead to a catastrophic explosion. Another topic regarding nuclear weapons needs to be taken care of. The fact that today about 2.000 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear materials remain spread across hundreds of sites around the globe with poor security creates concerns.

Many international arms control agreement have been reached since the existence of nuclear, biological and chemical WMD. With the threat posed by terrorism United Nations Security Resolution 1540/04 was accepted which affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery constitute a threat to international peace and security.

WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT

ISRAEL IS OPPOSED TO EvERY COUNTRY IN THE NEIgHbORHOOD THAT HAS NUCLEAR AMbITIONS States are obliged to refrain from supporting by any means non-state actors from developing, acquiring, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, transferring or using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems. On nuclear area steps have been made toward non-proliferation with the Partial Test Ban Treaty and prohibition of nuclear testing and the Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT that places restrictions. Important role playsInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with its 164 Member States which promotes safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the NPT has a role of the international safeguard inspectorate. The use of nuclear weapons violates many international laws such as UN charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention and many others. In this segment among many others, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which prohibits all testing of nuclear weapons is important.

Elimination of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction has shown as a hard task to accomplish. States usually do not publicly announce their stockpiles. Usually information comes from rival countries, public state representatives in speeches or reports and tasks.

Verification has been hardly ever available.

History has shown that possession of chemical or biological weapons is verified when country has used prohibited means in fighting, usually by international organizations.

Most of the time there are speculations. In the field of the biological weapon reduction Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons (BTWC) as a global solution plays an important role. The Treaty prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, or acquisition of biological and toxin weapons, and mandates the elimination of existing weapons, weapons production material and delivery means.

For the third WMD, chemical weapons, Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) – Convention on the prohibition of the development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical weapons and on their Destruction is the important agreement watch over by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Both biological and chemical weapons have been used in the recent past and both arsenals are speculating if even known for most of the countries. Even though they have been used more as nuclear weapons, which were used in in the fighting only in the Second World War, they do not get so much public attention.

Next table shows countries in the Middle East, possession of WMD and international obligations and commitments.

Egypt is one of the four countries that has neither signed nor acceded CWC and Israel is one of the two countries that have yet to ratify it.

Country

Nuclear weapon

Biological weapon

Chemical weapon

Signatory NPT

Signatory CTBT

Signatory CWC

Signatory BTWC

egyPT

No, only civil use – two nuclear research reactors

Yes based on public opinion but no based on verification

Suspected for maintaining capabilities

Yes

No ratification

No

No ratification

Turkey

Host of 60 to No 70 U.S. tactical possession nuclear weapons under NATO

No possession

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

iraN

Ambitions to require some

Possibility of dual use activities

In the past

Yes

No ratification

Yes

Yes

iraq

No

In the past / possibility of remains

In the past / possibility of remains

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

israel

Yes

Possibly

Possibly

No

No ratification

No No ratification

syria

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

signatory NPT: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons signatory CTBT: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signatory CWC: Chemical Weapons Convention signatory BTWC: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons

The NTI country report says that country’s civil nuclear program is relatively sophisticated compared to other countries in the Middle East, but still in development stages.

Country signed the BTWC in 1972 but since no ratification has been made speculations about covert possession of biological weapon is presumed. Many western and Israelis report has been made on developing biological weapon, but no concrete evidence has been given so far. They are based on speeches of formal representatives of state without real background. Egypt oďŹƒcial stance of not ratifying is concerns of Israelis nuclear weapon arsenal and that country do not possess nor seeks biological weapons.

Blur is also an Egyptian chemical weapon arsenal and both poses and no poses are possible.

The country had in history used chemical weapons during the 1960s conflict in North Yemen. Allegation of collaborating with Iraq and Syria to boost their chemical weapons has been made in the past.

It stays unclear whether the country is still active and has an arsenal of both chemical and biological weapons on their ground.

On the other hand Turkey is also a party to the NPT, BTWC and CWC and is not known to own nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or programs. It peruses civilian nuclear technology. Country is part of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) umbrella and host from 60 to 70 tactical nuclear weapons on its strategically important territory.

Iran has an advanced nuclear program that in Iranian world is peaceful in nature. Even as a member of the NPT it failed to report everything to the IAEA and the possibility of developing all aspects of nuclear fuel cycle has caused international concern and even sanction imposed on the country.Countries stockpile is about 10.000 kg of low enriched uranium. Very little public information to determine whether biological weapons exist is available. Iran ratified the BTWC Convention.

It is assumed that it has the capacity to produce biological warfare agents.

In a war with Iraq, Iran suffered severe losses because of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.

Iran ratified the CWC and has publicly acknowledged the existence of a chemical weapons program, but activities were terminated by the year 1997.

Much has been said about the Iraqi supposedly nuclear program and weapons. The nuclear weapons program was in Iraq dismantled by the IAEA from 1991 to 1997.

U.S. and coalition forces began military actions against the country in 2003 based on a possession of nuclear weapons that was never found till this day. The country has extensively used chemical weapons against Iran and its Kurdish population in the past.

The program was dismantled, but still last year there were reports that ISIS fighters had taken control over a former chemical weapons facility with sarin. It has also pursued offensive biological weapon capabilities until 1990s.

The only country in the Middle East that has not signed the NPT, which is the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states, is Israel. The Treaty has 190 States parties, including five nuclear-weapon States.

Unfortunately, conference on the 22 of May this year ended without a consensus and without a new action plan, among other things also because of discussions around the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East and its disagreement.

ACTIONS TO REDUCE PROLIfERATION AND SECURITY RISkS MUST bE TAkEN TO PREvENT THE DANgEROUS SPREAD Of URANIUM ENRICHMENT OR PLUTONIUM TECHNOLOgY Based on the NTI country report it is widely believed that Israel have produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for 100 to 200 nuclear warheads. It has a nuclear arsenal, but the capacity remains unclear. The country has not made a lot of international bounding commitments in the WMD area since it is not a state party to the CTBT, CWC or BTWC. Israel also remains reluctant to so called Middle East Weapon of Mass Destruction Free Zone. Israel is opposed to every country in the neighborhood that has nuclear ambitions. It believes Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons and in this order they have carried out a covered operation to stall Iran’s nuclear program with disruption of equipment supply, computer viruses such as Stuxnet and Flame and even the accusation of assassination of Iranian scientists have been made.

WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT

In the past air strikes against Iraq's Osiraq Reactor in 1981 and Syria's suspected reactor near Al-Kibar in 2007 were carried out in order to protect itself in the Arab world. It exists also the possibility that country poses chemical and biological weapons, based on official reports about military training, defensive biological weapon research and education of employees in the military, with advance chemical industry.

A non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT and CWC suspected of nuclear weapons ambitions, now caught in civil war possibly has and did possess WMD. No nuclear or biological weapons in the country seem to exist but chemical does.

Syria had in the past refused to renounce its chemical weapons program until Israel abandons its nuclear. The country has an arsenal of chemical weapons, although was dependent on foreign suppliers at the beginning also from Egypt and then with international isolation had development gone further.

Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war.

Allegations of chemical weapons used in Homs, Damascus and Aleppo caught wider public attention. The chemical weapon program was counter balanced to Israelis conventional warfare and in recent events to fight citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic with agent Sarin. The events lead to international control and commitment of Syria to join the CWC. According to OPCW’s findings the Syrian arsenal includes 1.000 metric tons of Category I chemical weapons, 290 tons of category II chemicals and 1.230 of category III delivery systems. Some speculation still exists about hidden chemical weapons in the country.

Before humanity and society difficult challenges of abolishment, prohibition and controlling of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons lies and waits for the right solution.

Is the world going to be better without WMD, can it even be abolished and if not, what can and should we do about it? When the world has a common answer to those questions victims of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare will become a distant past. Until then the danger and uncertainty posed by WMD still lingers.

The 10 mosT impoRTanT Things you need To know on Caspian sea Region

the caspian daily newsletter Receive your daily roundup of Caspian Region news and analysis from sources around the globe

#CaspianDaily