xi
Touching on the Eurasian border, Central Asia, Caucasia, and Iran, it is easy to
see how this largest of lakes holds pivotal geopolitical and geostrategic importance,
not least for the players directly involved. Its richness in natural resources has
become a source of legal contention between Caspian states, who have not succeeded in agreeing upon their maritime borders. The security of energy resources
and transportation routes in and around the area is one of the most sensitive issues
and today’s most important issues in the geopolitical arena. The Caspian Sea is
second in the world in terms of energy resources after the Persian Gulf. With the
stakes so high, procurement and transit of these resources has become the subject of
various disputes and stalled hope between Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,
Iran, and Russia at all levels (www.eia.gov 2017).
Subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union, the Caspian Sea became the focus of
attention for all western states, especially the US. The United States was inevitably
quick to fill the void left by the Soviets, if only through the power of its private sector forces alone. But with political crises, conflicts, and wars dogging the region’s
early post-Soviet history, a political eye is needed to analyze US involvement as a
matter of course (www.eia.gov 2017). However, there has been an interesting
change in the role of energy in the US in the last couple of years, which has been
brought on by its greater exploitation of domestic supplies, with dramatic knock-on
effects in terms of policy and robustness in international affairs (author’s interview
with Dr. Thomas Johnson, March 31, 2017).
Main Research Questions
This study considers the changes in the role that energy plays in the foreign policy
behavior of the US toward the world energy market in general and specially in the
Caspian Sea region. More specifically, it asks how one can define the contrasts
between the foreign policy and energy diplomacy of the George Bush, Barack
Obama, and the Donald Trump administration toward the Central Asia and the
Caspian Sea. The following research questions have been formulated to lead this
research and analysis:
Q1: What role does energy play in explaining the US foreign policy toward the
global energy market, and particularly toward the Caspian Basin?
Q2: What factors were significantly influential in the first and second phases of the
Caspian energy diplomacy?
Q3: What is the distinction between Bush and Obama’s foreign policy stance on
Russia, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Caspian Basin?
Q4: What role does shale gas play in US Energy Policy and its effect on US Energy
Diplomacy in the Caspian Basin?
Q5: How does US energy diplomacy in the Caspian basin interact with that of the
EU, China, and Russia?
Introduction
Touching on the Eurasian border, Central Asia, Caucasia, and Iran, it is easy to
see how this largest of lakes holds pivotal geopolitical and geostrategic importance,
not least for the players directly involved. Its richness in natural resources has
become a source of legal contention between Caspian states, who have not succeeded in agreeing upon their maritime borders. The security of energy resources
and transportation routes in and around the area is one of the most sensitive issues
and today’s most important issues in the geopolitical arena. The Caspian Sea is
second in the world in terms of energy resources after the Persian Gulf. With the
stakes so high, procurement and transit of these resources has become the subject of
various disputes and stalled hope between Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,
Iran, and Russia at all levels (www.eia.gov 2017).
Subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union, the Caspian Sea became the focus of
attention for all western states, especially the US. The United States was inevitably
quick to fill the void left by the Soviets, if only through the power of its private sector forces alone. But with political crises, conflicts, and wars dogging the region’s
early post-Soviet history, a political eye is needed to analyze US involvement as a
matter of course (www.eia.gov 2017). However, there has been an interesting
change in the role of energy in the US in the last couple of years, which has been
brought on by its greater exploitation of domestic supplies, with dramatic knock-on
effects in terms of policy and robustness in international affairs (author’s interview
with Dr. Thomas Johnson, March 31, 2017).
Main Research Questions
This study considers the changes in the role that energy plays in the foreign policy
behavior of the US toward the world energy market in general and specially in the
Caspian Sea region. More specifically, it asks how one can define the contrasts
between the foreign policy and energy diplomacy of the George Bush, Barack
Obama, and the Donald Trump administration toward the Central Asia and the
Caspian Sea. The following research questions have been formulated to lead this
research and analysis:
Q1: What role does energy play in explaining the US foreign policy toward the
global energy market, and particularly toward the Caspian Basin?
Q2: What factors were significantly influential in the first and second phases of the
Caspian energy diplomacy?
Q3: What is the distinction between Bush and Obama’s foreign policy stance on
Russia, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Caspian Basin?
Q4: What role does shale gas play in US Energy Policy and its effect on US Energy
Diplomacy in the Caspian Basin?
Q5: How does US energy diplomacy in the Caspian basin interact with that of the
EU, China, and Russia?
Introduction