Modern Maginot - Central Asian Oil Pipelines May be Obsolete Before They Pay Off Time, Cost of Construction.

article originally posted on CA-NEWS.org

Central Asia is quickly emerging as a global center of hydrocarbon production, but the ambitious transnational pipelines built to access this oil and natural gas wealth may become obsolete sooner than anticipated.

Since at least the 17th century, the Caspian basin supplied hydrocarbons of one form or another to markets in Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. Naphtha, kerosene, mazout, petroleum, and now natural gas have all brought international interest and wealth to the otherwise economically underdeveloped region. Local entrepreneurs and foreign investors have made - and lost - fortunes as political, economic and technological changes either emanated from, or swept over, the region.

Today, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan produce substantial amounts of oil and natural gas, and stand to become major hydrocarbon exporters to a global market of increasing demand. This is true for both emerging economies like China and India, as well as energy-intensive developed countries in Europe. The challenge facing modern multi-national corporations and national petrol companies is the same - how to dispose of the region's resource wealth profitably. The best answer to date is to transport these gaseous and liquefied goods to the markets of greatest demand, China and Europe, via long-distance transnational pipelines.

Read more »

Panel Suggests Media, Representation, Corruption all Obstacles to Peace & Democracy in Kyrgyzstan

by Ryan Weber

On the evening of December 6, the Elliott School at George Washington University in Washington, DC hosted a panel discussion titled, "Post-election Developments in Kyrgyzstan: The Tension Between Democracy Promotion and Conflict Mitigation."

The event was moderated by Dr. Sean Roberts, director of the International Development Studies Program at George Washington University, and author of the Roberts Report on Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Panelists included Alisha Khamidov, lecturer at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University; Jeff Goldstein, senior policy analyst of Eurasia at the Open Society Institute; and Sam Patten, senior program manager of Eurasia at Freedom House.

The event drew a respectable crowd of students and DC-based Eurasia analysts, and focused on the relationship between democracy promotion and (ethnic) conflict resolution in post-Bakiev Kyrgyzstan. Especially at issue was the tension between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks in the country's Southern regions and how certain political factions used nationalist rhetoric to exploit and encourage this tension for their own gain leading up to the October 10 parliamentary election.

Each offered their perspective on the nature of the widespread June violence that shook Osh and lead to the death of hundreds and the flight of tens of thousands of ethnic Uzbeks to the nearby border with Uzbekistan. Each speaker had been to Kyrgyzstan within the past 6 months, during the Osh violence, October elections, or both.

Read more »

A Hard Look in the Mirror: Central Asia Scores Poorly on Perception of Corruption

by Ryan Weber

Transparency International Released its 2010 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), and as the regional map shows (above), Central Asia is left looking rather red in the face. On a scale of 0 to 10, in which lower numbers were judged more corrupt by respondents, the regional regimes scored between 2.9 (Kazakhstan) and 1.6 (Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan). Georgia, China and Russia provide some context, with the first two - by no means poster children for anti-corruption - scoring higher than any Central Asian states at 3.8 and 3.5 respectively, while Russia, the dominant political force in the region, held steady with the pack at an embarrassingly low score of 2.1.

The Index, which is compiled from a series of surveys filled out by citizens of each country then averaged and adjusted according to the survey biases, is just one measure, and an admittedly imperfect one, to evaluate the level of corruption active in the everyday, as well as institutional levels of government. Corruption is a difficult concept to define, ranging from police traffic bribes to no-bid government contracting, and even more complicated to track accurately. The index provides a "rough barometer" of public perceptions, captured at the moment they take a survey, and not held against a baseline experience. As such, as the Transparency International website warns,

"The CPI is not a tool that is suitable for trend analysis or for monitoring changes in the perceived levels of corruption over time... Year-to-year changes in a country’s score can result from a change in the perceptions of a country’s performance, or changes in the methodology resulting from TI’s efforts to improve the index." (link)

Well and good, but trend analysis may in fact provide some interesting results when considered in light of the events affecting the various countries, or as a measure of the similar or dissimilar year-by-year corruption perception of citizens from different countries within a shared region. It must still be stressed, what such analysis will show is not the level of corruption in any country, but the perception of corruption among its citizens.

Read more »