4
In other words, today energy has become an instrument of efficiency in diplomacy
that can bring regional peace and stability through bilateral and multilateral cooperation and strengthen the political role of countries in regional power equations
(Sovacool 2009:43).
It should be noted that the work of energy diplomacy depends heavily on the
foreign policy agenda of a country. The focus on soft power, participation, engagement, sharing of interests and threats, maintaining its position, control and influence
in the international system are among the necessary requirements for the impact of
energy diplomacy in the foreign policy environment (Adeli 2010:2).
With their vast resources and consequent economic potential, the Central Asian
and Caspian regions are of valuable importance due to their geostrategic position as
a corridor between Eurasia’s most developed region and the continent’s most
energy-rich area. In the years subsequent to the Cold War, it is energy and fuel
which lie behind many of the geopolitical maneuvers and political machinations
which take place in the region. The construction of pipelines aimed at transiting
such resources from the south and eastern points of the region paved the way for
inevitable geopolitical and geostrategic consequences. How much EU nations and
the US, whose consumption of energy resources far outweigh their domestic availability, invest in Central Asia represent a factor in this regard. As a result, the significance placed on future energy producers/consumers is tied to at least the security
concerns of developed nations (Klare 2002:8).
Michael Klare argues that security interests and economic profits are “inextricably linked” (Klare 2002:8). Over the course of both the Clinton and Bush eras, the
US was unable to rely on a single energy source in order to expand its economy and
ensure competitiveness on global markets (Klare 2002:8). Writing at the beginning
of the century, for Klare, the continuous flow of energy was clearly of particular
importance on grounds that the United States, which ranked at the top of the list of
the world’s consumers of oil and gas, had to preserve its access to overseas supplies
in order to prevent its economy from collapsing. Formerly, this perspective could be
inferred in a statement from the White House with President Clinton claiming in
1999 that being prosperous as a nation relies on the stability in regions that are
traded with or from which important commodities, such as oil and natural gas are
imported (Klare 2002:8).
For an extended period of time, with the formation of international relations and
the domination of the traditional approaches of this field, especially the realism
approach, analysis of security issues was only discussed in the framework of these
approaches. However, after World War II ended and new developments in the international system emerged, particularly the economic development of the population,
more energy and new resources were needed, and the need to provide a new definition of security issues and threats has been necessary. The critique of the realists’
traditional agenda regarding the security category, which is considered merely
military- security-based, saw the collapse of the bipolar system and the former
Soviet Union due to rivalry of arms and the lack of attention to the economy from
this region of power. Therefore, the developments in the international system necessitated a new redefinition of security and its dimensions, as well as the need for a
1 Theoretical Framework
In other words, today energy has become an instrument of efficiency in diplomacy
that can bring regional peace and stability through bilateral and multilateral cooperation and strengthen the political role of countries in regional power equations
(Sovacool 2009:43).
It should be noted that the work of energy diplomacy depends heavily on the
foreign policy agenda of a country. The focus on soft power, participation, engagement, sharing of interests and threats, maintaining its position, control and influence
in the international system are among the necessary requirements for the impact of
energy diplomacy in the foreign policy environment (Adeli 2010:2).
With their vast resources and consequent economic potential, the Central Asian
and Caspian regions are of valuable importance due to their geostrategic position as
a corridor between Eurasia’s most developed region and the continent’s most
energy-rich area. In the years subsequent to the Cold War, it is energy and fuel
which lie behind many of the geopolitical maneuvers and political machinations
which take place in the region. The construction of pipelines aimed at transiting
such resources from the south and eastern points of the region paved the way for
inevitable geopolitical and geostrategic consequences. How much EU nations and
the US, whose consumption of energy resources far outweigh their domestic availability, invest in Central Asia represent a factor in this regard. As a result, the significance placed on future energy producers/consumers is tied to at least the security
concerns of developed nations (Klare 2002:8).
Michael Klare argues that security interests and economic profits are “inextricably linked” (Klare 2002:8). Over the course of both the Clinton and Bush eras, the
US was unable to rely on a single energy source in order to expand its economy and
ensure competitiveness on global markets (Klare 2002:8). Writing at the beginning
of the century, for Klare, the continuous flow of energy was clearly of particular
importance on grounds that the United States, which ranked at the top of the list of
the world’s consumers of oil and gas, had to preserve its access to overseas supplies
in order to prevent its economy from collapsing. Formerly, this perspective could be
inferred in a statement from the White House with President Clinton claiming in
1999 that being prosperous as a nation relies on the stability in regions that are
traded with or from which important commodities, such as oil and natural gas are
imported (Klare 2002:8).
For an extended period of time, with the formation of international relations and
the domination of the traditional approaches of this field, especially the realism
approach, analysis of security issues was only discussed in the framework of these
approaches. However, after World War II ended and new developments in the international system emerged, particularly the economic development of the population,
more energy and new resources were needed, and the need to provide a new definition of security issues and threats has been necessary. The critique of the realists’
traditional agenda regarding the security category, which is considered merely
military- security-based, saw the collapse of the bipolar system and the former
Soviet Union due to rivalry of arms and the lack of attention to the economy from
this region of power. Therefore, the developments in the international system necessitated a new redefinition of security and its dimensions, as well as the need for a
1 Theoretical Framework