Can Europe Convince Aliyev to Come on Board?

By March, Azerbaijan must officially choose which of the four gas pipelines comprising the Southern energy corridor (NABUCCO, TAP(Turkey-Albania-Italy), White Stream (Georgia, Ukraine, Poland), ITGI (Turkey-Greece-Italy) will be used to transport gas from the Shah-Deniz Phase 2 mine when it begins production in 2017

 But everyone knows if European energy security is based on the model “maximum energy-minimal Russia”, then it is NABUCCO that must be understood when we use the term southern corridor. In Azerbaijan, instead of the self-determined Southern Sudan issue, what is primary is the attitude of the Europeans and Russians regarding the issue. The question, “who to give the gas to” isn’t just a commercial one. It is directly linked to the Karabakh and various other internal problems. In addition, if they are asking Russia to exit one sector, rest assured that Moscow will make its presence felt elsewhere.

This is axiomatic and well known in the southern Caucasus. Recently, Jose Manuel   Barroso, President of the European Commission, travelled to Baku and Ashkhabad with the aim of diversifying the current energy supply structure to Europe. Here, diversification not only means decreasing European energy dependence on Russia but also a radical reestablishment of its geo-political and other competitive positions; namely, the creation of a state of affairs when, in the name of the preservation of energy security for Europeans, it will no longer be necessary to be subject to the will of Russia in other sectors.

40% of the fuel consumed in Europe comes from Russia. In the document signed by Barroso and Aliyev, the parties agreed to politically assist in the achievement of a huge gas project in the Southern corridor. Barroso was quick to call the agreement a breakthrough and probably had in mind that Azerbaijan would opt for NABUCCO.

The head of every state in the European Union knows that when the specter of being deprived of gas looms on the horizon, even just for a certain period, the conception of overall European geo-political interests becomes unintelligible and muddled for citizens used to living a comfortable life. Thus, the only path to see that such a prospect no longer looms is NABUCCO; without Russia.

Does Azerbaijan possess a substantive reason to go against Russia and, in the political and commercial sense, violate the gas transportation agreement signed two years ago with Moscow? 

Following recent discussions in Azerbaijan, it is safe to say that Azerbaijani political circles just do not understand why Azerbaijan must take care of European energy security when Europe has done nothing to restore Azerbaijan’s security and territorial integrity.

Barros’s recent declaration that the EU supported the settlement of the Karabakh issue within the context of Azerbaijani territorial integrity, didn’t elicit the   excitement in Baku it once did. From the viewpoint of various analysts, European officials have made many such statements but nothing has yet been put into practice.

The position of Ilham Shabani, Director of Azerbaijan’s Petroleum Exploration Center, is quite meaningful on the subject – in order for European energy security to become relevant for Azerbaijan, then a more attractive financial compensation package must be offered than that offered by the others (Russia, Iran get Azerbaijani gas for $240 per 1,000 cubic meters), or else Europe must guarantee Azerbaijan’s security by restoring its territorial integrity. It is known that at the height of operation in 2010, the Shah-Deniz 2 mine will be exporting 16 billion cubic meters of gas per year.

However, according to last year’s agreement signed with Ankara, 6 billion c.m. will have to go to Turkey; to satisfy the gas needs of it brotherly neighbor.

Everyone knows that Baku will not turn its back on Turkey just for the sake of the security of untrustworthy Europeans. This is especially the case since, by using Turkey as a route to Europe, Baku will have already solved the issue of selling off most of its current and future reserves. Greece, starting in 2012, intends to receive 1 billion cubic meters of Azerbaijani gas via Turkey. In 2012 the Bulgaria’s gas pipeline will join up with that of Greece.

Thus, this Black Sea nation will also be getting Azerbaijani gas. This year the Turkey-Syria-Jordan gas pipeline will also start to operate. Turkey will have further strengthened its importance in the Azerbaijani gas distribution network and will serve as a bridge for the expected 2 billion cubic meters of Azerbaijani gas that will flow to Syria and Jordan by 2015.

When President Obama bypassed Congress during the recent flap over appointing a U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan, officials in Baku viewed the move as normal. After all, a powerful nation like the U.S. must have its official representative in a country   whose vast hydrocarbon reserves are supplied in various directions. But if Matthew Bryza is interested in restoring his standing in the U.S. Congress he must do what’s possibe and impossible to achieve energy security by implementing the Euro-American model. To do this Bryza has exactly one year.

The matter of immediately appointing ambassadors to both Turkey and Azerbaijan, from the start of this year, was correctly decided and in terms of the right people. The extent to which Azerbaijan’s energy importance increases for European structure, so too does the frustration on the part of Azerbaijani liberals grow.

Barroso’s statement that the preservation of the stability of Azerbaijan was very important for Europe was regarded as another guarantee towards the further strengthening of the positions of the authoritarian regime and, in a way, an enticing proposal – Chose NABUCCO and we’ll close our eyes to human right violations. The fact that Aliyev has no need of such promises is another matter. Azerbaijani dissidents and political opposition activists have long since been neglected and overlooked, both in and outside Azerbaijan.

Perhaps the following tidbit of information revealed by WikiLeaks is in fact true. During a meeting with U.S. representatives, Lala Shovket, leader of Azerbaijani’s Liberal Party, is alleged to have commented that the country’s energy wealth is also its biggest misfortune.