The New Great Game in the Caspian Sea Region received moderate attention from scholars following the collapse of the Soviet Union because it resembled the continuation of rivalry between Washington and Moscow. For the eight Caspian republics, the discovery of vast oil and gas deposits was the key to securing the newly independent states’ sovereignty away from Moscow’s control toward integration with Europe and the United States.
This thesis analyses the US’ treatment of the Caspian Sea Region between 1991 and 2001, in order to measure whether its policies were crafted according to Realist tenets in formulating policy designed to advance its security. The historical record seen through Offensive Realism presents evidence that US foreign policy was governed by principles not balance of power considerations, led by the false notion that democratic Russia would act in accordance with US goals. Intent on fostering democracy in Russia the United States denied the competitive nature of international politics, refusing to criticize abuses by Moscow in the region and failing to intervene when US interests were marginalised. The US failed to prevent Russia from refashioning conditions conducive to the reabsorption of the Caucasus and Central Asia as a sphere of influence; nor did it account for China’s expanded role and trajectory as a challenge to US power. This analysis shows, for example, that Russia’s proximity and willingness to use force exceeded the capabilities of the US’ use of its global predominance to shape regional events.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. OFFENSIVE REALISM
2.1 Bedrock Assumptions
2.2 States’ Operational Goals
2.3 Behavioral Models for States Under Anarchic Conditions
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
4. TIMELINE: 1991-1994
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Phantom Superpower
4.3 Russia’s Southern Belt
4.4 The Democracy Project
4.5 Putting Russia First
4.6 The New Great (Energy) Game
4.7 Pipeline Politics
4.8 US Military Command and the Caspian Sea Region
4.9 Appeasement, Blackmail and Democracy
4.10 Nagorno-Karabakh
4.11 The Tajik Civil War
5. TIMELINE: 1995-2001
5.1 Introduction
5.2 NATO and the Security Dilemma
5.3 Toward an Eurasian Corridor
5.4 The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: A Strategic Imperative
5.5 Kazakhstan
5.6 Reshuffling the Caspian Team
5.7 Evidence of Balancing
5.8 Enter China
6. CONCLUSION
Research Objective and Thematic Focus
This thesis examines the United States' foreign policy toward the Caspian Sea Region between 1991 and 2001 to determine if these policies were aligned with Offensive Realist principles designed to advance national security. The study investigates whether US engagement was governed by a focus on liberal principles and democratic expansion, or by strategic balance-of-power considerations in a region emerging from the Soviet collapse.
- Application of Offensive Realism to assess US foreign policy and its regional impact.
- Evaluation of the "Russia First" strategy and its compatibility with security objectives.
- Analysis of the "New Great Game" in the context of energy resources and pipelines.
- Investigation of the effectiveness of US support for democratization and human rights in the region.
- Assessment of the geopolitical challenges posed by Russia's reasserted influence and China's entry into the region.
Excerpt from the Book
The Democracy Project
According to democratic peace theory, relationships between democracies are more transparent and tend to be interdependent in economic affairs. Liberal elites in democratic states will work together to avoid costly conflict. This win-win scenario punctuates the liberal peace platform that successive American administrations extolled in the 1990s as part of the peace dividend. Secretary of State, James Baker (1989-1992), said:
The Cold War has ended, and we now have a chance to forge a democratic peace, an enduring peace built on shared values—democracy and political and economic freedom. The strength of these values in Russia and the other new independent states will be the surest foundation for peace—and the strongest guarantee of our national security—for decades to come.
The implications for Realism of the liberal peace argument is that anarchy will no longer drive states to first and foremost reinforce their survival through empowerment. Along with a new structure of international politics, the idea is that once states democratize, they will not “backslide” into dictatorships. Realists warn against incorporating democratization into foreign policy, and even predict that democratizing states are more likely to go to war. Realism therefore does not countenance spreading democracy, because it does not yield any security related dividends. If there is a link between democracy and increased security, Realism is wrong.
After establishing independence from the Soviet Union in the 1990s, all Caspian states held elections. They entered a period of democratization, but it did not translate into increased security for the states, nor improved regional stability. The US treated security and democracy as symbiotic, the greater the democratic reform the more likely security would follow.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the theoretical scope and identifies the historical struggle of defining the US role in international politics, specifically regarding the Caspian region.
2. OFFENSIVE REALISM: Details the theoretical framework, emphasizing the role of anarchy, power maximization, and regional hegemony in defining state behavior.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW: Surveys existing academic perspectives on the Caspian region, positioning this thesis within the discourse of great power competition.
4. TIMELINE: 1991-1994: Analyzes the immediate post-Soviet era, focusing on the "Russia First" policy and the resulting strategic passivity of the US toward the Caspian.
5. TIMELINE: 1995-2001: Explores the shift toward more active engagement, driven by energy interests, and the emergence of competing security frameworks like the SCO and GUAM.
6. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the evidence to demonstrate how the denial of Realist logic and the pursuit of idealistic objectives hindered US strategic security interests.
Keywords
Offensive Realism, Caspian Sea Region, US Foreign Policy, Great Power Competition, Russia, New Great Game, Energy Security, Pipeline Politics, Democracy Promotion, National Security Strategy, Balance of Power, Geopolitics, Central Asia, Caucasus, Hegemony.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this thesis?
This work evaluates US foreign policy toward the Caspian Sea region between 1991 and 2001, applying the theoretical lens of Offensive Realism to understand whether US decisions prioritized national security or ideological goals.
What are the primary themes explored in the study?
Key themes include the impact of US "Russia First" policies, the competition for regional control over oil and gas, the strategic relevance of pipeline infrastructure, and the challenges to regional stability following the Soviet collapse.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if US policies in the Caspian were effective in securing national interests or if they inadvertently allowed for the re-emergence of rivals and the destabilization of the regional balance of power.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs John J. Mearsheimer’s theory of Offensive Realism, treating international politics as an anarchic system where states strive for regional hegemony to ensure survival.
What aspects of the regional geopolitical environment are covered?
The book covers the transition of the former Soviet republics, Russia's efforts to maintain its sphere of influence, the entry of China into regional affairs, and the impact of domestic US legislation like the FREEDOM Support Act.
Which concepts are used to define the study's characterization?
Central concepts include the "New Great Game," "offshore balancing," "potential hegemon," "security dilemma," and "buck-passing."
How does the author analyze the role of Turkey in the region?
The author examines Turkey’s attempts to export a secular democratic model to the Caspian and its role as a potential partner for US interests, constrained by economic fragility and US political limitations.
What conclusion does the author draw regarding US strategy in the 1990s?
The author concludes that the US failure to acknowledge Realist power dynamics and its reliance on idealistic notions of "win-win" politics enabled Russia to reassert dominance and marginalized Western influence.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Bradley Axmith (Autor:in), 2009, Wither Power Politics?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/206231
