xii
Q6: What is the biggest mistake that the US has made in Caspian energy diplomacy
and in development/transportation of the energy riches of the region? How could
it better have been handled?
Q7: What is the US foreign policy toward the Southern Gas Corridor, Trans Caspian
Pipeline Projects?
Q8: Is there any common ground between the US, with its New Silk Road initiative,
and China with its One Belt, One Road policy?
Q9: Is any continuity in Bush, Obama, and Trump energy diplomacy in general and
especially toward the Caspian Sea region?
Main Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this study posits that despite the fact that energy will undoubtedly
maintain a key role in US foreign policy, all three administrations lost interest in
Central Asia and the Caspian Sea regions due to the scaling down of the War in
Afghanistan. In the final analysis, it is concluded that political motivations began to
override economic factors in determining US diplomacy in Phase II of Caspian
Basin diplomacy, with any remaining US promotion of oil and natural gas pipelines
aiming to shore up political and security relations in the region and in order to
enhance the position of allies.
Limitations and Challenges Posed by the Field Research
Method
Some major challenges were encountered as regards the field research method
adopted during this research project. The first and foremost challenge was attaining
access to US former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense which served
during the Bush and Obama administrations. Their comments about US foreign
policy in the region would have been very constructive and useful for improving the
dissertation. Similarly, comments from the energy advisors to either administration
or current or former members of the “US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources” would have been greatly received; however many of my e-mails were
left unanswered, although others regretfully informed me that their schedules would
not allow for a meeting. A second challenge has been the lack of willingness on the
part of a number of former diplomats who have served in the region to have their
positions or names included in the present project, in which interviews with them
were conducted face-to-face, or over phone, via Skype call or e-mail. The majority
of these interviews were recorded via a digital voice recorder. Prior to each interview, their permission was sought to keep the recordings for use on any future projects, with all agreeing, and a number simply asking to see a copy of the text before
Introduction
Q6: What is the biggest mistake that the US has made in Caspian energy diplomacy
and in development/transportation of the energy riches of the region? How could
it better have been handled?
Q7: What is the US foreign policy toward the Southern Gas Corridor, Trans Caspian
Pipeline Projects?
Q8: Is there any common ground between the US, with its New Silk Road initiative,
and China with its One Belt, One Road policy?
Q9: Is any continuity in Bush, Obama, and Trump energy diplomacy in general and
especially toward the Caspian Sea region?
Main Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this study posits that despite the fact that energy will undoubtedly
maintain a key role in US foreign policy, all three administrations lost interest in
Central Asia and the Caspian Sea regions due to the scaling down of the War in
Afghanistan. In the final analysis, it is concluded that political motivations began to
override economic factors in determining US diplomacy in Phase II of Caspian
Basin diplomacy, with any remaining US promotion of oil and natural gas pipelines
aiming to shore up political and security relations in the region and in order to
enhance the position of allies.
Limitations and Challenges Posed by the Field Research
Method
Some major challenges were encountered as regards the field research method
adopted during this research project. The first and foremost challenge was attaining
access to US former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense which served
during the Bush and Obama administrations. Their comments about US foreign
policy in the region would have been very constructive and useful for improving the
dissertation. Similarly, comments from the energy advisors to either administration
or current or former members of the “US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources” would have been greatly received; however many of my e-mails were
left unanswered, although others regretfully informed me that their schedules would
not allow for a meeting. A second challenge has been the lack of willingness on the
part of a number of former diplomats who have served in the region to have their
positions or names included in the present project, in which interviews with them
were conducted face-to-face, or over phone, via Skype call or e-mail. The majority
of these interviews were recorded via a digital voice recorder. Prior to each interview, their permission was sought to keep the recordings for use on any future projects, with all agreeing, and a number simply asking to see a copy of the text before
Introduction