164
The former ambassador also mentions a change in effectiveness brought about
by a change in the international climate;
One difference was that under the Bush administration we—well, really I—had the job of
first developing the vision of the Southern Corridor. We developed the vision—we came up
with the name ‘the Southern Corridor’—it wasn’t the EU. So we had to do that. And then
we spent—I spent—two years going around Brussels and other EU capitals trying to
explain why this made sense. And it got to a point where President Bush actually asked
‘why are we—why are you—working so hard to convince the Europeans of something we
think they need to do but they don’t want to do?’ So the Germans resisted the push to diversify, the Italians resisted, the Brits resisted a bit. And it was only after a time, when the
Russians cut off gas to Ukraine in 2006, that the EU finally woke up. But for a couple of
years it was us and a couple of others going around EU capitals saying ‘don’t you think you
need to diversify your supplies? Because the Russians want to manipulate you’. So that was
the focus under Bush. (Author’s interview with Ambassador Matthew Bryza 2017)
Continuity Between Bush and Obama
The Obama administration thus carried the baton from the Bush Administration in
terms of pushing for diversification however it benefitted greatly from the fact that,
in light of renewed geopolitical concerns, its EU allies themselves were now on
board with this endeavor, allowing the State Department and White House to play a
supporting role in their efforts. Thus, whereas Bush had devoted much effort to trying to convince the EU of the wisdom of its agenda, Obama could play an active
supporting role.
However, as Bryza posits, the Obama administration initially diminished the US’
presence in the South Caucuses not only due to its focus on shoring up European
diplomatic efforts and its own domestic energy industry but also in line with
Obama’s “Russia Reset” policy, which had been conceived on the notion that the
Bush administration had been too aggressive (in particular, regarding the Georgian
crisis). Thus, in the former ambassador’s view (Author’s interview with Ambassador
Matthew Bryza 2017);
They were quieter in the beginning, but eventually they came around—as we knew they
would—and realized that what Bush and Clinton were doing made the most sense in terms
of Caspian energy.
As with many countries, final decisions regarding energy policy often represent
a synthesis of approaches and actors coming together. The power and weight of oil
giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Unocal, and Conoco are one such undeniable
factor. US Ambassador to the region responsible for overseeing energy investment
Richard Morningstar aimed to encourage these firms to invest in the Baku-Ceylan
pipeline as an energy alternative given the Iranian blockade. However, it was these
US giants who were most unresponsive to Washington’s match-making efforts, with
only BP representing the high stakeholder in the Azerbaijan International
Consortium, and thus finally supporting the lower-cost western pipeline.
5 US Energy Diplomacy Under the Obama Administration
The former ambassador also mentions a change in effectiveness brought about
by a change in the international climate;
One difference was that under the Bush administration we—well, really I—had the job of
first developing the vision of the Southern Corridor. We developed the vision—we came up
with the name ‘the Southern Corridor’—it wasn’t the EU. So we had to do that. And then
we spent—I spent—two years going around Brussels and other EU capitals trying to
explain why this made sense. And it got to a point where President Bush actually asked
‘why are we—why are you—working so hard to convince the Europeans of something we
think they need to do but they don’t want to do?’ So the Germans resisted the push to diversify, the Italians resisted, the Brits resisted a bit. And it was only after a time, when the
Russians cut off gas to Ukraine in 2006, that the EU finally woke up. But for a couple of
years it was us and a couple of others going around EU capitals saying ‘don’t you think you
need to diversify your supplies? Because the Russians want to manipulate you’. So that was
the focus under Bush. (Author’s interview with Ambassador Matthew Bryza 2017)
Continuity Between Bush and Obama
The Obama administration thus carried the baton from the Bush Administration in
terms of pushing for diversification however it benefitted greatly from the fact that,
in light of renewed geopolitical concerns, its EU allies themselves were now on
board with this endeavor, allowing the State Department and White House to play a
supporting role in their efforts. Thus, whereas Bush had devoted much effort to trying to convince the EU of the wisdom of its agenda, Obama could play an active
supporting role.
However, as Bryza posits, the Obama administration initially diminished the US’
presence in the South Caucuses not only due to its focus on shoring up European
diplomatic efforts and its own domestic energy industry but also in line with
Obama’s “Russia Reset” policy, which had been conceived on the notion that the
Bush administration had been too aggressive (in particular, regarding the Georgian
crisis). Thus, in the former ambassador’s view (Author’s interview with Ambassador
Matthew Bryza 2017);
They were quieter in the beginning, but eventually they came around—as we knew they
would—and realized that what Bush and Clinton were doing made the most sense in terms
of Caspian energy.
As with many countries, final decisions regarding energy policy often represent
a synthesis of approaches and actors coming together. The power and weight of oil
giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Unocal, and Conoco are one such undeniable
factor. US Ambassador to the region responsible for overseeing energy investment
Richard Morningstar aimed to encourage these firms to invest in the Baku-Ceylan
pipeline as an energy alternative given the Iranian blockade. However, it was these
US giants who were most unresponsive to Washington’s match-making efforts, with
only BP representing the high stakeholder in the Azerbaijan International
Consortium, and thus finally supporting the lower-cost western pipeline.
5 US Energy Diplomacy Under the Obama Administration