Energy Is at the Heart of Many Recent Conflicts By Michael Shank Richmond Times-Dispatch[WEBSITE VERSION] September 16, 2008
The raison d'etre of the row between Russia and Georgia now seems obvious enough to the trained eye. Wading through a geopolitical swamp of post-Cold-War balkanization, this latest conflict was the result of a potent mixture of Russian nationalism, Ossetian-Abkhazian quest for identity and autonomy, and a Georgian (by proxy) exertion of American power. Buried below the laundry list of laudable explanations lies a more salient truth: This violence was chiefly, if not solely, spurred by the desire for mastery over natural resources.
The Russia-Georgia war, as well as those before it -- Iraq stands glaringly familiar -- flares tensions between resource-hungry states and the resource-rich. These wars of choice are blamed, usually, on some important political purpose -- the removal of a rogue regime, for example. Meanwhile, the oil- and gas-related reasons, fueling the fire, stand formidably present yet largely ignored -- a tack which ultimately obfuscates any chance for sustainable peace.
Enter Georgia, nestled unpropitiously in the narrow neck of land twixt the Caspian and Black Seas and serving as an important conduit for oil and gas pipelines. The European Union and the United States were particularly fond of this petrol path since it seemingly escaped the reaches of adversaries Russia and Iran who essentially, with the exception of weaker Armenia and Azerbaijan, border this Caucasus region. The planned Nabucco gas pipeline, a project backed by the EU and the U.S., was an example of this careful jockeying. Once constructed, the line would transfer gas from the Caspian first through Azerbaijan, then Georgia, then Turkey, on its way to the final destination: Europe. Tediously and harrowingly routed, the gas, in theory, would be free from the fetters of EU-U.S. foes.
Now that a finely tuned and conflict-free route no longer seems feasible, what are the EU and U.S. to do? Start first with the fact that the EU is Russia's largest market for gas exports. Finland and Slovakia, for example, depend on Russia for 100 percent of their gas supply. Austria and Hungary's reliance is equally unstable at roughly 70 percent. And nearly half of Germany's gas demand is sated by Russia. This is hardly smart or sustainable. Investment brokers counsel a diversification of retirement funds; so too should the EU diversify its energy supply.
The EU knows this, of course, yet dithers on how to best approach the problem. Despite the fact that the EU is the global standard-bearer on greenhouse gas emissions reductions and renewable energy requirements, it remains remarkably recalcitrant when it comes to remedies for diversifying supply.
Enter the U.S., and a lesson learned post-9/11. America's fear makes fertile ground for rhetoric on energy independence and energy security. While the former concept of independence is, for the most part, infeasible any time soon, the latter concept of security makes much political sense. Irrespective of practicality, both concepts now spur presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain to outline, however vague, their respective policies vis-a-vis the pursuit of energy independence and security. It is compelling rhetoric. Who would not want to be free from the throes of petrol-politics?
Barack Obama's latest attempt to articulate a foe-free energy agenda is hardly surprising or innovative. Siphoning off $150 billion in American funds over the next 10 years for clean-energy research and development is but a penny in the vast cookie jar of potential spending. In other words, Obama is pledging $10 billion a year, the rough equivalent of what the U.S. currently spends in Iraq each month.
John McCain has promised similar expenditures and will likely soon put a price tag on what he too would pursue, matching the bar set by Obama. These investments and other half-hearted, and in many cases short-term, pursuits for energy independence and security (offshore oil drilling, for example), while meritorious, will not nudge America much closer to its desired goal.
Slow weaning off finite fossil fuels will not work. Unless we want more Iraq wars and Russia-Georgia conflicts, serious courage and bold action is required. This is where the EU has the upper hand over America. In the U.S., the obstacle to a substantive shift off finite fossil fuels is attributable to oil, gas, and coal lobbies, but perhaps even endurably and intractably to the culture of consumption. In the EU, where green politics is mainstreamed (unlike in the U.S. where it remains marginalized), the publics are more committed in a general sense to a culture of conservation. That culture is what allowed the EU to move quickly on capping greenhouse gas emissions and requiring quotas on renewable energy. This same fertile ground should now enable leaders to move fast on robust policies that afford the desired freedom from foreign foes.
Failing this, one can expect more politically framed, but energy-motivated, invasions by powerful and populous states intent on securing supply, and U.S.-Iraq and Russia-Georgia conflicts will become commonplace. The ethical option seems obvious. Now, for some ethical leadership...
Michael Shank, communications director at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, can be reached at mshank@gmu.edu or (703) 993-3655.