US oil strategy in the Caspian Basin: Hegemony through interdependence

Abstract

President Obama has continued to emphasise the strategic importance of stable energy supplies to US national security interests, with the oil-rich Central Asian region a key part of global energy markets. This region has seen significant economic and strategic inroads by the United States over the last decade in a broad attempt to integrate it within the US-led liberal order. This article examines these policy developments and draws upon theoretical debates on US grand strategy to argue that, rather than necessarily signalling increasing geopolitical rivalry with other powers such as China and Russia, US policy is designed primarily to incorporate the region through deepening market interdependence. As such, while there is a complex mix of geopolitical rivalry and economic interdependence developing in the Caspian, even in the face of purported US decline and increase of its domestic supplies through fracking, Washington remains committed to acting as a hegemonic stabiliser in the Caspian.

Human rights in the US foreign policy case of Kazakhstan

“…There was a relatively short period after 9/11, when Central Asia gained its momentum, but as much as before the events as after, the USA had to weight its normative policy towards better human rights and greater democratization in Kazakhstan against a relatively constant set of other priorities. These priorities are: firstly, military security (initially denuclearization, later counter-terrorism); secondly, political counter-balance of Russia and China; thirdly energy security (this is not about being present in Kazakhstan's energy sector because its oil is crucially important for the US supply, but because it means less influence for Russia and China in the industry) (Raphael and Stokes, 2014).…”

Outcomes and strategies in the ‘New Great Game’: China and the Caspian states emerge as winners

“…by groups with divergent interests. The US government fears that civil crises in the region would create power vacuums that could be filled by extremist Islamic groups and thus provides support to the region's authoritarian regimes ( _ Ipek, 2007b; see also Raphael & Stokes, 2014). Some voices within the US, however, assert that the US has been too focused on security relations at the expense of pushing for human rights reforms ( _ Ipek, 2007b;Nichol, 2014).…”

“…The US government has, at times, pressed for political reform and democratization e for example, in Turkmenistan and in Kazakhstan e to the extent that it has reportedly unnerved regional elites: 'Washington has come to be viewed as the greater threat to the region's nondemocratic ruling elites, who fear that they are targets for ouster' (Olcott, 2005: 331; see also Hu & Cheng, 2008). In other words, the US is torn between pushing for liberalization and other democratic reforms while simultaneously supplying the very same regimes with security assistance to help stabilize them as well as help them protect their energy assets from disruptions, such as terrorist attacks (for more on US security assistance, see Raphael & Stokes, 2014).…”