|
Written by berridge
|
|
Saturday, 20 September 2008 |
|
Up until a month ago it seemed that the Turkish political strategy in the South-Caucuses had made vital progress. As on the 24th July the presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey officially inaugurated the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad, which on completion will provide the first rail link between the three countries. Construction of the of a $422 million railway line linking Turkey to Georgia and Azerbaijan will replace a line that previously connected Azerbaijan and Turkey via Armenia. Construction of the line from Tbilisi to the Turkish border began in November 2007 and is scheduled for completion in 2010. “Our joint projects prove that regional cooperation will continue. This will connect people, increase prosperity and promote peace in the region” Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said during the ceremony. The Georgian President was certainly not thinking of the Armenians as he spoke these words. The rail connection from Kars over Tiflis to Baku is extremely important especially for Aserbaidschan and Turkey. Through the creation of this rail connection not only will economic activity be encouraged between the two countries but it will also ease the military supply logistics for Aserbaidschan´s military machine which has over the years been spending vast amounts of oil revenues on weaponry. In the case of war with Armenia the supply of arms from Turkey would be quicker and easier and therefore the military importance of the Kars-Tiflis-Baku railway should not be underestimated. To isolate Armenia in the region even further and to prevent any economic development Turkey, Aserbaidschan and Georgia have been carrying out a common strategy for years. The construction of the oil pipeline from Baku over Tiflis to the oil terminal on the Turkish Mediterranean coast was the first step on this isolation course against Armenian. The importance of the pipeline to Turkey and Aserbaidschan can be seen by the following facts.The $4 billion BTC pipeline can pump up to a million barrels per day from fields in the Azeri sector of the Caspian Sea to the Ceyhan port on the Turkish Mediterranean coast, this is equivalent to more than 1 percent of world supply. The first oil was pumped into the 1,100 mile (1,770 kilometer) pipeline, operated by the British oil giant BP, in Baku on May 10, 2005, reaching Ceyhan on May 28, 2006. A 249km (154mile) stretch of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline runs through Georgia and parts of the pipeline lie just 55km from South Ossetia. In 2007 BTC fees generated $25.4 million in transit revenues and Saakashvili’s government estimated transit payments for 2008 at about $45 million whereas Turkey has received $2.6 billion in income since the opening of the line.Following the path of the oil pipeline one can see that a shorter route would have been through Armenia. It is also not just coincidence that the pipeline avoids the eastern parts of Turkey which have a Kurdish majority population. Nevertheless, the Kurdish workers party PKK is still in the position to carry out armed attacks in all of the Eastern Turkish regions. Just a few weeks ago on 5th August, there was an explosion and subsequent fire on a section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline running through eastern Turkey, resulting in the disruption of oil flows. On 7th August the People’s Defence Force (HPG), the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), claimed responsibility for the explosion carried out by one of its units. The closure of BTC is costing Turkey $300,000 a day in lost transit revenue. After the construction of the BTC Pipeline the next major project began. Namely, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad and work started on the line from Tbilisi to the Turkish border in November 2007. The isolation policy against Armenia has been perfectly implemented and the negative effects on the economy can be clearly seen. Any hope of the re-opening of the railway line from Russia over Abkhazia and Georgia to Armenia have been dashed and as long as there is no lasting solution to the conflict between Abkhazia and Georgia the chances of the line ever being opened again are minimal. This means that for the immediate future Armenia will have to rely on the Georgian harbours, resulting in not just extremely higher transport costs due to inflated transit fees but also an ever increasing political dependence on Georgia. One thing is clear, Turkey has no interest in a solution to the Abkhazian conflict “a la Georgia” for two reasons. After the Russian-Turkish war in the 19th century, the Caucasus came under Russian control and influence. A part of the Muslim population moved to the Ottoman territory as they did not want to live under the Christian-Russian rule. Many descendants of these Caucasian refugees still live in Turkey and play in part a significant political role. Their sympathy lies with the Abkhazians who are campaigning for their independence. For the Turkish government it is important that the Georgian regime remains dependent on Turkey. The economic, political and also military dependence of Georgian on Turkey will enable Turkey to continue its Isolation policy of Armenia. This automatically means the support for Azerbaijan and its own anti-Armenian policy. This situation also offers Georgia an economic advantage as most of the goods sent to Armenia have to go through a Georgian harbour and then by road to Armenia. Turkey has also been expanding its trading ties and consequent influence with Georgia over the last decade. Over the last five years, annual bilateral trade between the two countries has grown from $240 million to around $800 million. Today Turkey is Georgia's largest trade partner, followed by Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Military support for Georgia has also been forthcoming. In 2006 Turkey pledged to provide Georgia with $1.8 million in military aid. As part of the agreement, Georgian officers also began travelling to Turkey to receive military training. The decision of the Georgian regime to take military action against East Ossetia will not have been taken without informing their ally the USA as it was very likely that Russia would use their military might to counter any military attack. It can only be assumed that the USA raised no objections to the offensive and may even have encouraged Tifilis’s military adventure. Was Turkey informed of the risky impending offensive? Did Turkey know of the Georgian-American war plans? Much has been written concerning the aims and consequences of the war in South Ossetien and Georgian over the last days and weeks. Most highlight the West’s interest in retaining influence over the region where an important oil and gas pipeline lies. The motives of the Russian and Georginan governments have also been speculated about and countless theories have been put to paper. However, hardly any time has been spent on analysing the effects of the war on Turkish policy in the region. It seems that Turkey was surprised by the Georgian military offensive and have indeed little interest in any escalation in South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Turkey’s interest lies in a stabile pro-western Georgia, but at the same time is making great efforts to improve its relationship with Moscow. Over the last few years the two countries have expanded their trade with each other significantly. In the first half of 2008, trade between Russia and Turkey amounted to $20 billion, making Russia Turkey’s biggest trading partner. Much of this trade is concentrated in the energy sphere and Turkey currently imports approximately 70 percent of the natural gas they consume from the Russia. Therefore a military confrontation between Russia and Georgian is not in Turkeys interest as it has important and growing economic relations with both countries. The Erdogan Government and its allied press view the Georgian actions as endangering Turkeys South-Caucasus policy. The reaction of the Islamic orientated Turkish press shows the Georgians being made responsible for the outbreak of the war and its aftermath. The Georgian regime under Saakashvilie was labelled “facist” and their Policy against South Osstia as “chauvinistic”. „This is the end of the road for Saakashvili, whose ambitions go well beyond his political and military capabilities” prophesied a columnist in the well respected newspaper „Zaman“. Turkey’s cautious balancing act, between the American ally Georgian and Americas old cold war antagonist Russia to the North, is a sign of their clever foreign policy tactic. The well-known Jewish-Turkish businessman Sami Kohen described Ankara´s political position in the region with the following words: „The impact of the crisis in Georgia is being seen in the conduct of Turkish foreign policy. The first signs lay bare the fact that Turkey has every intention to follow its own foreign policy, prioritizing international balances and looking out for its own national interests in the face of the latest developments. Although this policy seeks to find a solution, together with the West, to the Georgian crisis, it also anticipates that Turkish diplomacy should implement its own initiatives and act differently and independently from the United States or the West, when necessary.“It will not please the American Government to find that Turkey is following its own Russian and South Caucasus foreign policy and highlights the clash of interests between Turkey and America in the region.It is clear that Turkey is one of the politcal and economic losers of the Russian-Georgian conflict.Everything that has beeen gained by the Turkish Caucus foreign policy over the last decade is now in danger of being lost. Ankara has to recognise that Russia is not prepared to give up any more influence in the region to Turkey nor America. Azerbaijan has also followed the conflict with despair as their connections to Turkey and the Georgian harbours on the Black Sea have been disrupted. Both countries now recognise how instable Georgia is and this instability and uncertain future for Georgia puts Turkey’s and Azerbaijans long term plans at risk. But one thing is certain, the Governments in Ankara and Baku will now have to re-consider how they are going to continue imposing their anti-Armenian policies.
|
