What questions are not answered the Caspian Convention?
July 03, 2018 | 08:34 |2151
I think it would not be a bit of an exaggeration to say that the Caspian region lives in expectation of signing a Convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea. According to official reports, the five Caspian littoral states have agreed the draft text of a new convention, and the date and place of the Summit of the Heads of State of the Caspian littoral countries, where the convention will be adopted, has been tentatively scheduled. So far, it is known that, the historical event will be held on August 12 this year in the city of Aktau on the Caspian coast of Kazakhstan. Now that the result of 16 years efforts of politicians, diplomats, scientists, experts will be logically ended up with the convention signing ceremony, several questions of journalists and political scientists remain unanswered. Analysts believe the most sensitive part of the document is Article 14 that implies the possibility for the participating countries to build subwater pipelines. According to Article 14 of the Draft Convention, the parties may lay underwater cables and pipelines along the bottom of the Caspian Sea, subject only to the agreement of those states whose seabed sectors the subwater pipelines or cables will pass through. In this regard, at InoSmi website, experts of very respectable organizations ask many questions on this issue, and they respond themselves. However, answers are somehow unconvincing. We will not answer all the questions. Readers will simply stop believing if we find answers to all the questions. Nevertheless, we will try to answer two questions from InoSmi. The first question is why Russia needs it. Russia is unlikely to welcome competition in the form of gas from Turkmenistan, which could potentially drive prices down and take Gazprom's European market share. Well, firstly, Russia being a great state, cannot allow only itself to build subwater pipelines and forbid others to do the same. Because greatness means not only taking care of your own profit, but also respect the legitimate interests of other countries. In Ancient Rome, there was such a political formula, revealing reasons for greatness of the state. “The greatness of Rome is not in what it takes, but in what it gives,” said the Romans. We, of course, know that in practice in Roman history, everything was quite different, but we do not discuss this issue now. In our case, we are talking about the principle, and Russia, having expressed its readiness to sign the convention in its present form, showed that the norms of international law are above all, even if their observance involves some financial losses. Moscow understands that reputation is more valuable than money, and it does credit to Russia. There is a second question from InoSmi, similar to the previous one. It also remains unclear why Azerbaijan, itself a gas producer with ambitions to become a major supplier to Europe, would agree to allow a competitor nation – Turkmenistan – to construct pipelines across the Caspian and transit gas through its territory to compete with its own gas. I believe that Azerbaijani and Turkmen gas will never compete at European energy market, since there is very little gas in Azerbaijan. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. Still, there is a lot of oil in Azerbaijan. As nature divided: there are a lot of oil in Azerbaijan and a lot of gas in Turkmenistan... Now in the world media, from time to time, there are reports that Azerbaijan buys natural gas from Russian Gazprom for domestic consumption. The country cannot be a reliable gas supplier on a long-term basis, while experiencing own domestic gas shortage. I believe that it is well understood not only in Baku, but also in Brussels, Ankara and Tbilisi. Therefore, a priori, the Southern Gas Corridor project was developed with respect to serious, confirmed gas reserves of Turkmenistan. At the same time, Azerbaijan will be the gainer in any case, because, at least, it benefits from gas transit. It could not be better - you receive money for the transit of natural gas via pipeline that passes your territory. None could wish for more! If you please. According to media, Ukraine receives up to $ 3 billion annually for the transit of Russian gas to Europe. I would say, as is customary in the East, may God give all men as good. Last, but not least. ORIENT already wrote that in case of construction of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, Azerbaijan, along with European companies, could participate in purchase and sale of Turkmen gas. Can you imagine what prospects are opening up for transit countries, only from the fact that the pipeline with Turkmen gas will pass their territory? I think, and then the most desperate skeptics will be silent.Nury AMANOV
