“It is too early to play a requiem for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline”

Since the end of the war in Iraq, analysts most often refer to the question as “To what extent will the US attitude toward our countries and regions change?” In the following excerpts from an interview with a leading political scientist from Georgia, Ivlian Khaindrava, Director of the Center for Development and Cooperation, issues related to US interests in the South Caucasian region are discussed.

 

- The Iraq war and in general this whole crisis is being interpreted from various points of view. Some maintain that the US has been guided by a desire to achieve very serious and radical geopolitical changes; others find that the objective and the reason for all the actions has been oil and oil alone. Which approach is closer to the truth?

- We live in exceptional time in many respects. And one of the manifestations of this exceptionality is that mankind has never lived under such a mighty power as the United States. Neither the age Alexander the Great, nor that of Genghis Khan, nor even the British Empire of the late 19th century can be compared to the present day. For until today it has never happened that one state has been able to exert a direct influence upon literally every spot on the globe. And when on September 11, 2001, a cruel challenge was thrown down against that power (a challenge which, in my opinion, it didn’t deserve) it began to respond. First the US acted in Afghanistan. But neither the world nor the Americans themselves perceived that as an adequate step vis-?-vis the September 11th challenge. For that reason, the action expanded and Iraq became the next target.

- So, you believe that Iraq is a continuation of the war against terrorism?

- In the case of Iraq there is a whole complex of issues. First of all, this was a demonstration of the strength and the potential of the US. A demonstration to the whole world without exceptions. And also, an emphasis of the intolerance toward dictatorial regimes. The Hussein regime was a repressive one, wasn’t it? We know that about 4 or 5 million Iraqis were forced to emigrate from the country, that a great number of citizens are in prison, that chemical weapons were used against the Kurds, and so on. There also is an objective in this story to protect Israel and thus to create a solid grounds for a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And, finally, the Americans, and perhaps to some extent the British, will take leadership in Iraq, and in this sense the French and the Germans have evidently passed all this by.

Nevertheless, before the Iraq operation, pipes for the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline had begun to be brought into Azerbaijan and Georgia. I don’t think anyone wants to waste money - after all, those Americans are very pragmatic people. It is possible that after the reappearance of Iraqi oil on the world market, the significance of Caspian oil will diminish. But I have always considered the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline to be first a political, and only then an economic, project. When the pipeline reaches its estimated capacity, Georgia’s profit will amount to $55 million a year. For Georgia’s ridiculously small budget, this is a decisive figure. This amount will not make life better immediately and Georgia as a state will not collapse without that $55 million. But I am confident that the Americans, as in the past, are interested in the political significance of this project. I am convinced that the Georgian and Azerbaijani leaders have received assurances from the US that this project will be realized irrespective of the affairs in Iraq.

- Assurances that were given just before the war in Iraq?

- It’s obvious that at the moment when the question of the military operation in Iraq was being decided, when the leaders of Azerbaijan and Georgia were discussing their attitude toward this war, at that moment the assurances about the pipeline were made. For Azerbaijan and Turkey, the pipeline is not only a political but also an economic project. It may also have a significance because the Americans are interested in taking energy resources onto the world market from as many sources as possible, are interested in secondary oil projects that are operative no matter what. Besides, we live in unstable times, there are no permanent realities; the unprecedented predominance of the US will not last forever, either. The situation related to Kazakhstani oil is frozen. If anything changes in Russia-Kazakhstan relations, it can’t be ruled out that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline will receive an additional impetus. In the future, from the point of view of oil refining, it may become expedient to integrate Kazakhstani oil into the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Thus, evidently it is too early to play a requiem for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

- Why is the US spending so much money on the Caspian pipeline, if, as the events in Iraq show, political problems can be solved by non-political means? What sense do such political exercises make?

- Of course, it’s not on the US agenda to organize a crusade to establish democracy all over the world. However, the US has an interest in having strongholds in various parts of the world, including the South Caucasus. Especially so, when the interest in this issue is mutual. In addition to the ideological side, purely pragmatic objectives are evident. Sometimes this pragmatic interest in the South Caucasus angers many people to a certain degree, myself included, for there are moments when pragmatism outweighs certain values. For example, the Shevardnadze regime doesn’t deserve such cordiality from the Americans. However, the Shevardnadze regime can’t be considered repressive - it is not repressive, but it’s a weak regime, a bad administration, bad execution of power, a discrepancy between words and deeds. But it must be admitted that the Shevardnadze regime doesn’t pose a threat either to its neighbors or to its own people. The Aliyev regime is harsher, more Asiatic. But when pragmatism and ideological interests are thrown into the balance, pragmatism always wins. But in general, it seems to me that world order the American way is better than world chaos.

Interview by Laura Baghdasaryan