Terror war and oil expand US
sphere of influence
Scott Peterson
As the Roman Empire spread two millenniums ago, maps had to be redrawn
to reflect new realities. In similar fashion, the expansion of the British Empire kept
cartographers at their drawing boards, reshaping territories from Southern Africa to India
to Hong Kong.
Now, as the United States wages its war on terrorism in Afghanistan
and deploys troops for the first time in the energy-rich regions of Central Asia and the
Caucasus the borders of a new American empire appear to be forming. (See
map.)
Firmly in the Russian and later Soviet sphere of influence since
Napoleon's day, these strategic regions, along with their Middle Eastern ramparts to the
south, are now home to 60,000 American troops.
Some of these soldiers are building what appear to be long-term bases
at remote Central Asian outposts, raising critical questions about America's future role.
One aim is the containment of Islamic extremism, a goal shared by
Russia on its vulnerable southern flank. Looking to challenge OPEC leader Saudi Arabia in
the oil markets, Russia is also worried about protecting its growing economic interests in
Central Asia and the Caucasus, which are crisscrossed by oil and gas pipelines and
potentially lucrative new routes.
But the new nearness of America is triggering heated debate in Moscow,
where President Vladimir Putin, by permitting US deployments, is being widely blamed for
"losing" Central Asia and succumbing to a new American imperialism.
Others say that Mr. Putin recognizing that 70 percent of Russia's
state budget comes from oil and natural gas exports has simply traded in cold-war
baggage for a new, clear-eyed pragmatism amid Russia's harsh economic realities.
Already 3,000 Americans are based in Uzbekistan, and are believed to
run both overt and covert operations in Afghanistan from there. Commanders are setting up
new facilities in Kyrgyzstan for a combat air wing and humanitarian missions, with 3,000
more troops.
A deal has been struck with Tajikistan where Russia has 10,000 of
its own troops guarding the Afghan border. Americans have held secret military meetings
with Armenia a key Russian ally and talks with Kazakhstan. Up to 200 American
advisers will soon be helping Georgia control its unruly Pankisi Gorge, where terrorists
are suspected to be hiding.
While the US may have grand imperial designs some experts even go
so far as to speak of US troops "guarding" Caspian energy resources in case
Iraqi oil supplies are disrupted by any American attempt to change the regime in Baghdad
others emphasize common US-Russian economic interests.
"Don't think like a 'cold warrior,' " says Pat Davis
Szymczak, the American publisher of the bi-monthly, Moscow-based magazine Oil and Gas
Eurasia, who points out that the bulk of Central Asian energy resources reach the
market through Russian pipelines.
"Are we going to send a bunch of Marines to stand around an oil
well with guns? So they've protected that oil big deal. Are they going to take it away
in armored vehicles?" Ms. Szymczak asks. "The only way to get it from Uzbekistan
to cars in New York is by being friends with the Russians."
While the presence of American forces and the overthrow of the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan are causing fresh thinking about how to tap Caspian riches, the
context of cold war rivalries played up by regional leaders often eager to wiggle free
of Russia's influence still dominates discourse.
During a recent tour of the region, state Duma speaker Gennady
Seleznyov, warned that "Russia will not endorse the emergence of permanent US
military bases in Central Asia."
"The Russians have every reason to be worried" about US
intentions in their "soft underbelly," says Thomas Stauffer, an energy
strategist and former Harvard professor in Washington. "The only geopolitical logic I
can see [to long-term US moves]," Stauffer adds, "is that we want to get a
certain amount of space on the checkerboard, with which we can negotiate with the
Russians."
Such considerations haven't escaped notice in Washington, where US
Secretary of State Colin Powell last December said that Kazakhstan's oil was becoming of
"critical importance."
And "Caspian reserves could be critical to future global energy
supply," notes an analysis earlier this month by the respected, London-based Jane's
Foreign Report. "This is in line with the doctrine of 'full-spectrum dominance'
that now seems to govern American foreign policy and is manifesting itself in the Caucasus
and Central Asia," the report said.
Escaping the template of Cold War rivalry is proving difficult, even
though US-Russian economic interests often coincide. "The Russian security
establishment still contains a high proportion of dinosaurs," says Anatol Lieven, a
regional analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Many in the US see Russia through old prisms, despite Moscow's
demonstrated commitment to helping the US wage war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. "You
have people who are still saying Russian policy in the 'near abroad' [the former Soviet
states] is a key threat to American interests," Lieven says.
That some in Washington want to keep US troops in Central Asia beyond
the Afghanistan campaign "accentuates the fact that the war on terrorism is horribly
complicated, and risks being lost by being overloaded with other agendas," Lieven
adds. "One problem is that some in the Pentagon are gung-ho for world domination. And
then you have [others] who say: 'Hang on a second, we are not prepared for that.' "
Moscow's former domains stretch from Uzbekistan to Ukraine, and have
often bristled under Russia's strong-arm tactics to re-exert control. The US arrival may
be forcing changes.
"The fact that Russia has acquiesced to US troops in Central Asia
and indeed Georgia, shows that Russia itself is prepared to play a much more open and
even-handed role in the region," says Julian Lee, a senior analyst at the Center for
Global Energy Studies in London. "But we're seeing Russian interest in business
channels, rather than political and military ones. It's the sensible way forward."
Some observers say that Putin's KGB background makes him as wary as
anyone of American moves but also realistic about the imperative of a pro-West future.
"We are living in the age of a new Rome," notes Andrei
Piontkovsky, head of the Center for Strategic Research in Moscow, in an analysis published
over the weekend. Dismissing Russia's "boot-licking elite," which he says is
"choked with hostility toward the US," Mr. Piontkovsky says that energy reserves
and influence at the start of the new century will allow Russia and the US to be
"useful partners ... if Russia proves able to overcome its cold war-defeat complex
and the United States learns not to trumpet its victories."
Pipelines can be another point of cooperation. The US has long pushed
for an oil line from Azerbaijan to Turkey, which deliberately bypasses Russia and Iran.
But Russia has a key stake in the year-old, Chevron-led CPC pipeline, which carries Kazakh
oil to a Russian Black Sea port.
And though laughed at when first proposed during Taliban rule, plans to
build two pipelines, oil and gas, across Afghanistan are now being dusted off. Cutting
Russia into any such deal to provide gas to South Asia could make sense, analysts say.
That could help satisfy Russia's bottom line maximum market share.
Russian gas reserves are the largest in the world, but a European Union decision this
weekend will break Russia's decades-long monopoly there.
"Putin's a realist, and economics are everything," says
Szymczak, of "Oil and Gas Eurasia." The result is a tricky balancing act for
Putin, as American influence spreads to Russia's borders. "The reality is that a lot
of the money to run this country comes from gas sales," Szymczak says. "Putin
needs markets to the east or the whole thing unravels, and he's got a bigger problem
than just a few people thinking: 'Oh goodness, we've got Americans in Uzbekistan!"
The Christian Science Monitor, March19, 2002
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/p01s04-wosc.html |