Pe 28 iunie a fost anunțat oficial beneficiarul proiectului care va transporta gazele exploatate în zăcământul Shah Deniz II din Azerbaidjan: câștigătorul este gazoductul TAP (Trans-Adriatic Pipeline) ce va transporta gazele azere via TANAP pe ruta cea mai scurtă prin Turcia, Grecia, Albania și Italia. După cum era de așteptat proiectul Nabucco promovat agresiv de România și de care erau legate anumite interese politice și economice a sucombat.
Cine a câștigat?
Turcia care își consolidează poziția de nod energetic regional.
Uniunea Europeană care își consolidează independența energetică prin diversificarea surselor de aprovizionare și evita întărirea depedenței de Rusia.
Statele care vor fi tranzitate de conducta TAP: Grecia, Albania, Italia.
Azerbaidjanul care își vede gazul adus pe piețele europene la cel mai scăzut cost.
Cine a pierdut:
Statele care au mizat pe Nabucco, printre care și România.
Rusia deoarece nici South Stream nu a fost selectat, iar Europa își diversifică sursele de aprovizionare. More…
On December 28th, 2012, Arielle Thedrel published in the French newspaper Le Figaro an article entitled Une Guerre de l’Eau Menace l’Asie Centrale, alluding to the uneasy situation of water-management in Central Asia, at the several occasions of (past and future) confrontation and at the political acrimony among the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. For the purpose of clarity, by Central Asia here is meant as formed by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. There is indeed a lot of talk about “water wars” in Central Asia, about a possible collapse of the region, about the likely unravelling of the stability of the area due to clashes over hydro resources.
To me, what we observe in Central Asia is more a confrontation than a war in perspective, a confrontation kept as such by diplomatic efforts made by the state leaders, by the role of international organisations, by the systemic and prospective danger of Afghanistan spilling over and by the presence of Russia, albeit weaker than in the past. There is acrimony, there is conflict, but there are also attempts to scale down risky behaviours, sharp statements and disruptive actions. While weak and perhaps superficial, these attempts should be considered in a thorough analysis of water problems in Central Asia from a political-diplomatic perspective. What I am suggesting, therefore, is not foolish or naïve optimism, but a more thorough and less emotional assessment of the overall regional balance of interests in the region. A proof of this is that a water war in Central Asia has been claimed for at least ten years if not more, and still these states not only have avoided it, but have been able to reach a legal agreement as that of 2008, then abandoned. The hope for the future, therefore, is not that war will be avoided, but rather that these diplomatic and political stalemates will develop in concrete action to make water management in the region better in the interest of all parts concerned. More…
The States of Central Asia
The recent resurgence of the geopolitical and geostrategic importance of Central Asia (hereafter CA) has led to the re-adoption of the Great Game discourse, recalling the strategic rivalry which opposed the British Empire and the Russian Empire in the XIX century.
At the beginning of this month, two very troubling reports on the state of democracy in the world have been released almost simultaneously, and both are concerned with the highest locus of legitimacy and authority when dealing with democracy and human rights, the UN and, most specifically, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the successor of the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) since 2006. The first research is Freedom House’s annual report on the activity of UNHRC and the second was released by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). This article will present the conclusions of these two reports, briefly corroborating their results with the most recent Freedom House’s Freedom in the World Report (2008) scores on political rights and civil liberties (a scale from 1 to 7, 1 for the highest degree of freedom, and 7 for the lowest level). More…