Energy Geopolitics and Pipeline Diplomacy in Central Asia: India’s Interests and Policy Options

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-246
Author(s):  
Ramakrushna Pradhan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Geological Survey ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Peak Oil ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Great Game

The global energy scenario is undergoing a tectonic shift in recent times. While energy security has been emerging as one of the cornerstones of the foreign policy of major countries, a new geological survey has the promise of new discoveries and reserves untapped. One such epic new frontier of the world geological survey has been the post-Soviet Central Asia consisting of five “Stans” of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, along with the Caspian Sea region. Sitting on huge untapped hydrocarbon potentials, the Central Asian geographical entity in recent years has offered enormous opportunity and appeal for countries adjacent to the region and far beyond. That is perhaps the reason that even after the disintegration of the USSR, the geopolitical importance of Central Asia has never waned down, instead it emerged as a grand chessboard for regional and extra-regional players for the immense opportunities it offered for the energy-crunch countries as potentially new and non-OPEC source of oil and natural gas. In the quest for energy security and diversity of supply sources by energy consumers, the heartland has witnessed a new great game in the scramble for resources. This accentuated struggle for oil and energy in the region has further led to aggressive foreign policy formulations and strategic calculation by countries such as the United States, China, the European Union, Japan, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, and India, to which many now call “the New Great Game” for not just controlling but administering energy resources of the region. The bottom line of the New Great Game, unlike the previous version, is essentially played out around petropolitics and pipeline diplomacy. To support the scramble for energy in Central Asia and the aggressive petropolitics and pipeline diplomacy by major powers, the study adopts the peak oil theory of Club of Rome thesis to understand the global tectonic shift of energy frontiers. Further, this article attempts to examine the position of India in Central Asia and its policy initiatives in the epic quest for oil and energy in the traditional bastion of Russia and the new grand chessboard of China and the United States.

Petropolitics and Pipeline Diplomacy in Central Asia: Can India Afford to Wait in the Wings?

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-489
Author(s):  
Ramakrushna Pradhan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Resources ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Energy Factor ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Oil And Natural Gas ◽  
Great Game

The fight for hegemony in Central Asia has existed for ages. Strategically placed between two nuclear powers—Russia and China—and geopolitically located at the heart of Eurasia, Central Asia has always remained in global limelight. Even after the disintegration of the USSR, the geopolitical importance of Central Asia never waned down, instead emerged as a grand chessboard for regional and extra-regional player for the immense opportunities it has offered in the form of widely untapped natural resources and geostrategic leverages. Importantly, it has emerged as the latest geological landscape for the energy crunch countries as potentially new and non-OPEC source of oil and natural gas. In the quest for energy security and diversity of supply sources by the energy consumers, the heartland region has witnessed a new great game in the scramble for resources. This accentuated struggle for oil and energy in the region has further led to aggressive foreign policy formulations and strategic calculation by countries like the United States, China, European Union, Japan, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and India, to which many now call as the New Great Game for not just controlling but administering the energy resources of the region. The bottom line of the New Great Game unlike the previous version is essentially played out around petropolitics and pipeline diplomacy. It is in this context this research article makes a modest attempt to examine the energy factor in the geopolitics of Central Asia and tries to figure out the position of India in the epic quest for oil in the traditional bastion of Russia and the new grand chessboard of China and the United States.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
French Foreign Policy

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article

scholarly journals ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE PERIOD THE PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP (2017-2020)

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-39
Author(s):  
Andrei Martynov ◽  
Sergey Asaturov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Area

The European Union has met Donald Trump's presidency in a crisis, caused by Britain's exit, quarrels over migration policy and prospects for European integration. Trump has abandoned a project to create a transatlantic free trade area. He demanded a one-sided trade advantage for the United States. The rejection of the liberal project of multilateral foreign policy contributed to the deepening of contradictions between the EU and the US in the field of trade, environment, the regime of international disarmament treaties, the algorithm for resolving regional conflicts. The Trump era in US foreign policy was a time of abandoning liberal globalism. But it is impossible to realize this task in one cadence. The question is whether it is possible for Democrats to fully restore liberal globalism in equal cooperation with the European Union.Trump has abandoned the project of a transatlantic free trade area between the United States and the European Union. This shocked the European elites. Differences in approaches to world trade contributed to the coolness. The European Union is promoting a liberal approach. Trump insisted on the priority of the patronage of American interests. As a result, the tradition of relationships has suffered. Until 2017, the United States bought European goods and paid the most to the NATO budget. Trump demanded trade parity and more European funding for NATO. European elites perceived Trump's approach to migration issues as unacceptable. Trump's policy on international conflicts has become another reason for mutual misunderstanding. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. This has become a challenge for the European Union's Middle East policy.

scholarly journals Features of the US Foreign Policy Towards the Central Asian States

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
E. V. Kryzhko ◽  
P. I. Pashkovsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Mineral Resources ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Us

The article examines the features of the US foreign policy towards the Central Asian states in the post-bipolar period. The imperatives and constants, as well as the transformation of Washington’s Central Asian policy, have been characterized. It is shown that five Central Asian states have been in the focus of American foreign policy over the past thirty years. In the process of shaping the US foreign policy in Central Asia, the presence of significant reserves of energy and mineral resources in the region was of great importance. Therefore, rivalry for Caspian energy resources and their transportation routes came to the fore. In addition to diversifying transport and logistics flows and supporting American companies, the US energy policy in Central Asia was aimed at preventing the restoration of Russia’s economic and political influence, as well as countering the penetration of China, which is interested in economic cooperation with the countries of the region. During the period under review, the following transformation of mechanisms and means of Washington’s policy in the Central Asian direction was observed: the policy of “exporting democracy”; attempts to “nurture” the pro-American elite; striving to divide states into separate groups with permanent “appointment” of leaders; involvement in a unified military system to combat terrorism; impact on the consciousness of the population in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals; building cooperation on a pragmatic basis due to internal difficulties and external constraints. Central Asian states sympathized with the American course because of their interest in technology and investment. At the same time, these states in every possible way distanced themselves from the impulses of “democratization” from Washington. Kazakhstan was a permanent regional ally of the United States, to which Uzbekistan was striving to join. The second echelon in relations with the American side was occupied by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. A feature of the positions of the Central Asian countries is the maximum benefit from cooperation with Washington while building good-neighborly relations with Russia and China, which is in dissonance with the regional imperatives of the United States. In the future, the American strategy in Central Asia will presumably proceed from the expediency of attracting regional allies and stimulating contradictions in order to contain geopolitical rivals in the region.

U.S.-Uzbek Partnership and Democratic Reforms

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahram Akbarzadeh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Positive Impression ◽  
Former Soviet Republics

In March 2002 the United States and Uzbekistan signed a Declaration of Strategic Partnership. This document marked a qualitative break in the international relations of Uzbekistan and, to some degree, the United States' relations with Central Asia. Uzbekistan had sought closer relations with the United States since its independence in September 1991. But the course of U.S.-Uzbek relations was not smooth. Various obstacles hindered Tashkent's progress in making a positive impression on successive U.S. administrations in the last decade of the twentieth century. Tashkent's abysmal human rights record and the snail's pace of democratic reforms made the notion of closer ties with Uzbekistan unsavoury for U.S. policy makers. At the same time, Washington was more concerned with developments in Russia. Other former Soviet republics, especially the five Central Asian states, were relegated to the periphery of the U.S. strategic outlook. But the dramatic events of September 11 and the subsequent U.S.-led “war on terror” changed the geopolitical landscape of Central Asia. The consequent development of ties between Tashkent and Washington was beyond the wildest dreams of Uzbek foreign policy makers. Virtually overnight, Uzbek leaders found themselves in a position to pursue an ambitious foreign policy without being slowed by domestic considerations.

scholarly journals IRAN’S GLOBAL POWER FORM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IRAN AND TURKEY ALONG WITH THE GEOPOLITICAL AXIS OF ARABIC SPRING

2020 ◽  
pp. 7-21
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Value ◽  
The West ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Global Power

After the 1990, it is very important that in the immediate vicinity of the geopolitical changes that have occurred in Turkey. The first changes is Iran and Iraq on the edge. Especially the Turkey-Iran and Iraq, all kinds of geopolitical developments occurring in the triple border, to a critical value. Because the triple border Iran and Iraq by Turkey as a safety check. For this reason, has become the center of all kinds of illegal developments. Iran, conducts a policy of asymmetric after 1990, in the Caucasus, and the Middle East and Central Asia geography. This policy from time to time an anti-U.S. hostility toward the West and exacerbate. The attitude of the West and the United States due to the foreign policy of Turkey's neighbor Iran rather problematic periods. Because the entire Middle East and Central Asia, Turkey's policies on Iran, which is a pretty effective. For this reason, Iran, Turkey is a country that needs to be analyzed by far the best.

scholarly journals EU Policy in Central Asia

Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4(73)) ◽  
pp. 29-52
Author(s):  
Kamen Velichkov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Centripetal Forces ◽  
The Eu

Geography and a preference for regional approaches have an impact on EU foreign policy. From the EU perspective, the countries of Central Asia are classified as “neighbors of EU neighbors.” The EU’s policies assume the existence of strong centripetal forces in the Eurasian heartland, whereas in fact the regionalization is still in the initial stages there. Consequently, EU foreign policy in Central Asia pursues both structural and relational objectives. The specific goals and performance of EU member states add a two-tier dimension to this process. In parallel with other external actors such as Japan, the United States, South Korea, and India, the European Union conducts its dialogue and cooperation with the Central Asian states in a 5+1 format. Compared to the policies of China, Turkey, or Russia, the EU has much more limited influence. It primarily aims to support the independent development of the Central Asian countries, for which some degree of regionalization appears to be a prerequisite.

US aims to check Russia in Central Asia 'Great Game'

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Great Game ◽  
Public Criticism

Subject US relations with Central Asia. Significance US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Central Asia in early November, in an effort to boost Washington's influence in a region that is increasingly dominated by Russia and also China. Central Asian states worry that the region has declined in importance for the United States, owing to Washington's overall drawdown of forces in Afghanistan. Impacts Over-reliance on remittances will pose major risk to Central Asian economies. Central Asian states will continue to try and extract concessions from United States, Russia and China. Washington will diminish its public criticism of human rights abuses in Central Asia but maintain pressure in private.

Trans-Atlantic Relations in Germany's Foreign Policy

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The West ◽  
German Government ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document