| | От | Пуденко Сергей |  |
| К | Кудинoв Игорь |  |
| Дата | 20.07.2007 13:00:10 |  |
| Рубрики | В стране и мире; |  |
веселенькая энерго-империалистическая аналитика
давненько я искал материалы, откликающиеся на вдвинутый Лугаром призыв и вообще подоплеку нового "энергетического империализма". Матиериалы были тогда на форуме но без учета реакции Китая и Индии. А тут вот оно как обстоит
New World Disorder 2.0
Разумеется, это выкопанные вглуби ссылочки. Поверху все "друзья" и все наперебой разглагольствуют о мире. Парад мироносцев. Последней подключилась намедни "великая Астана"(про нее уже целая сага накопилась, на форум.мск). Но маленьких мироносцев проще вывести на чистую воду.
Как говорится, Если все говорят о мире -значит дело идет к войне (с). Конечно, не конвенциональной, как ВВ2 и даже не такой, как ВВ3 (разгром ссср в ХВ). Новой. Зря вояки и гэбисты готовятся к прошлой войне и не слушают новых "шлыковых". Будет схватка кмгистов
М.б. дело склоняется в стратег.перспективе к отказу от прямой конфронтации и подобию энергетического эквивалента "пакта молотова-риббентропа", только в условиях 2010х и других стратег.игроков - Еитая и США. Дальше стоит вспомнить предсказания Зиновьева, в крупных мазках - о незавидной роли рф как "предполья" в кит-амер переделе мира. Ого-го.
картинка тоже навевает...
http://www.philip-sen.com/othermeans/oil-bears-thumb.gif
September 23, 2006
Axis of Oil
"We are used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between nations, but energy is becoming a weapon of choice for those who possess it." Such is the assesment of Senator Richard Lugar, and it is not a bad one at all.
There's a long piece about energy security in Asia Times, coming from an unusual angle. Should the US ally with the big four Asian economies - China, Japan, South Korea and India - rather than Europe?
Here's the most interesting paragraphs, paraphrased from an expert from China's Institute of Contemporary International Relations, Su Jingxiang:
...if only Washington were savvy enough to "revalue the tremendous market potential" in China and "abate unnecessary doubts toward China", closer cooperation between Beijing and Washington on international energy issues could be realized...
.. если бы только Вашингтон обладал здравым смыслом достаточно, чтобы "повторно оценить огромный потенциал рынка" в Китае, и "уменьшить ненужные сомнения к Китаю", то более близкое сотрудничество между Пекином и Вашингтоном по международным проблемам энергии могло бы быть релизовано..
He pointed out that gunboat diplomacy was no longer workable either in the Middle East or Latin America as it produced only terrorism and resistance. At the same time, Su acknowledged that growing dependence of energy imports "weakened the competitiveness and injured the economic security of the US"...
Su advised that the US should "steer away to more cooperation" with other major oil consumers (such as China and India). "The new type of strategic partnership will consolidate the negotiating capacity of oil consumers in their talks with the oil producers, thus helping boost the economic boom and national security of the US," he wrote.
It's not a bad idea, but it does overlook that essential strategic reality - China and the US are competing for the same limited supply. That, after all, is why Russia and the the Middle East have them over a barrel.
But the author does note that the recent visit to China by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has resulted in some concessions by either side (another minor Yuan devaluation, and increased voting power for the PRC in the IMF) that must improve the relationship.
In a sense, then, China has jumped at the chance to manoeuvre the US, weakened as it is by Iraq, into a bargaining position.
Meanwhile, Putin is taking the opportunity to buy back some control over the former Eastern Bloc via gas pipelines. You need to read the article to get the full details, but basically Russia is playing a clever political hand in its negotiations over routes for Kazakh oil. Unencumbered with concerns about democracy and human rights, it's also sorted out its difficulties with Turkmenistan too.
The wheeler-dealings have implications for both Asia and Europe:
Curiously, Gazprom struck the deal with Turkmenistan soon after the US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, Steven Mann, visited Ashgabat to lobby for progress on the moribund Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAP) gas-pipeline project, which was supposed to be an integral part of the new grand US strategy of creating a "Greater Central Asia" with a unified energy structure for the countries of Central and South Asia. It was hoped to draw Central Asia into the US sphere of influence and pit Indian interests against Russian influence in the region.
But the TAP and the United States' "Greater Central Asia" strategy are not the only casualties of Gazprom's Turkmen deal. The ramifications of the deal run in far-flung directions deep into the European continent. The deal arguably frustrates the US attempt to reduce the European Union's dependence on Russian energy supplies.
Since Russia looks like it has clinched the stranglehold over Europe's gas supply, a remaining factor is Iran. Europe has to get access to Iranian gas somehow, in order to give itself an alternative to Russian gas:
And this is undoubtedly a critical factor of divergence in the respective approaches of Russia, the EU and the US toward the Iran nuclear issue. Though Russia is certainly interested in a solution to the Iran crisis, Moscow will have reason to worry about an EU-Iran agreement that may lead to an improved energy dialogue between the two protagonists, as that would make Iran a rival to Russia on the European gas market. As for Tehran, it, too, perfectly well understands that its preference should be to settle with Western Europe rather than with Russia. That is why Tehran has opted for independence in its gas policy and has scrupulously kept Gazprom out of its Southern Pars gas fields.
Yet there is another chance - China. China is a key competitor for Central Asian gas and has bought up large holdings of it.
In summary:
Russia is in control of Central Asian gas routes to the EU
The EU's only alternative is Iran
The US is constraining Iran over the nuclear issue, so that's off the agenda for the time being, which suits Russia fine
Only China can compete with Russia for control of Central Asian energy
Can the US really broker a deal with China and India, or will national interests win through?
Fascinating stuff. Full article below.
Continue reading "Axis of Oil"»
http://www.philip-sen.com/othermeans/2006/09/axis_of_oil.html#more
http://www.philip-sen.com/othermeans/the_former_ussr/
Pipeline Politics in Central Asia
A New Alliance or Another Sino-Russian Split?
Every period of history has its ‘stories of the day’. For us, in the post-Cold War era, these are now obvious: the threat of Islamic extremism and the consequent ‘War on Terror’; the rapid economic growth of what is already dubbed the ‘Asian Century’; and the increasing strain on the environment by the over-exploitation of resources and the under-management of the consequences.
The continued ‘rise of China’ in particular depends upon a number of external factors – most notably, energy supply. In order to keep its restless millions in check, the governing Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has to fuel the breakneck economic growth of the last decade, or at the very least prevent collapse.
Yet China’s oil and gas reserves are inadequate for its future needs, whereas neighbouring Russia and Central Asia are major providers of energy. So upon them and their pipelines it must rely – although the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a nation that disdains reliance on others and prefers to go it alone.
The answer is to build its political and economic influence over Central Asia. Russia, however, also has hegemonic ambitions in the region. The scene is thus set for a confrontation within what some authors describe as the ‘New Great Game’. At present, relations remain benign, but how long can this continue? Could we soon be facing another Sino-Russian Split reminiscent of the 1960s row between Mao and Khrushchev? Or will Russia be pulled into China’s orbit in an uneasy partnership of mutual interdependence?
Сцена таким образом установлена для конфронтации в пределах того, что некоторые авторы описывают как 'Новая Большая Игра'. В настоящее время, отношения остаются мягкими, но как долго это может продолжиться? Могли мы скоро стоять перед другим китайским-российским Расколом, напоминающим о рве 1960-ых между Mao and Khrushchev?
http://www.philip-sen.com/othermeans/2006/05/pipeline_politics_in_central_asia.html#more
New World Disorder 2.0
http://www.philip-sen.com/othermeans/frontpicture_fullsize-thumb.jpg