Karabakh lock and oil key

When the "Contract of the Century" was signed, the Azerbaijani society had certain expectations from that agreement. About a quarter of a century is over. In 2017, the next mega-project, conventionally known as the "Contract of the Century - 2", came into force. During the 26-year project, BP and other Western companies, which have been the contract operator, created a buffer zone that could maximize their interests. This zone has been a wonderful place for them to move freely and maximize their interests.

Companies are private sector entities. They represent only one side of the state-company-civil society triangle. They are only interested in corporate interests. But unlike small and medium-sized businesses, transnational corporations are not just companies. They often become a "state" within a state. The fact that they do large-scale business in any country does not mean that they are limited to that limited interest. It would be an amateurish approach to think so. Transnational companies are also considered to be carriers of the interests of the states in which they benefit (where they established businesses) for their governments. They have an indirect influence on government decisions. With their extensive connections, they can have a serious impact on government officials. Figuratively speaking, they can ripple the "groundwater" of the great seas. In this sense, there are many expectations from them.

AGT as a hotbed of military conflict

Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey jointly participate in several projects. BP is the operator of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) gas pipeline. The energy routes starting from Azerbaijan and passing through Georgia as a transit country and ending in Turkey (AGT) can be considered a risk-creating circle in a sense.

Energy routes through all three countries are considered threat zones. All three countries suffer from different conflicts. The PKK in Turkey, Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Azerbaijan have made the pipelines very sensitive.

Georgia's conflict zone against South Ossetia, which began in 1990-1992, was within 55 km of the pipeline. North Ossetia's conflict with Ingushetia had also begun. This conflict zone was within 220 km of the pipeline. When Georgia revolted against Abkhazia in the early years of independence (1992-93), it was about 130 km from the AGT. The terrorist operation against Turkey started by the PKK in 1984 is still going on. Among the conflict zones in all three countries, the most sensitive region closest to energy routes is Nagorno-Karabakh. The Nagorno-Karabakh  separates the pipeline from the conflict zones by only 15 km. This shows how sensitive the energy route is to the point of the sensitivity of Karabakh. No country has a near-conflict zone that threatens so many energy routes. During the operations to clear our lands around Karabakh for eleven days, Armenian militants launched strikes targeting the BTC oil pipeline. Due to the preventive measures of our army, the strikes were neutralized.

Azerbaijan is the owner of oil and gas, not a transit country. The spectatorship or passive support of close allies in an attempt to seize the lands of a resource-rich state by force is not only injustice but also an alien attitude to the nature of the political alliance.

The question is that if the problem is ours, why should companies from other countries be interested in this issue? The question is not rhetorical. In a sense, it is a question that requires a reasonable answer. Let me share my thoughts;

First, companies must not forget that in order to receive long-term investments, the state must have full borders as a guarantor of the country's development and sustainable political stability. Which country can develop in a "wounded" way after being capitulated? Of course, it is not possible. The country's frequent exposure to external threats and the threat of ethnic separatism in the country are factors that undermine the investment climate. In this regard, it would be good if the companies participating in the Production Sharing Agreement would have an obligation to invest a certain amount in the border areas. And this would be very good if it was provided for in oil contracts. This could ensure the mobilization of resistance forces in the border areas, which would bring the positions of friendly states and forces closer to us in solving the problem.

Second, with the help of the connections in companies in oil contracts, Lobbying activities on Nagorno-Karabakh could be established. In this regard, our foreign policy department should have coordinated activities with oil companies.

Third, there have been cases in the world where transnational corporations have shown the courage to support the rightful positions of countries dragged into an unjust war. In these situations, such companies did not hesitate to risk some of their financial resources. There are many examples.

In 1995, the Colombian government required oil companies operating in the country to pay a "war tax" of $ 1 per barrel to protect the pipeline and build a defense system. The government demanded that these positions be made to provide financial assistance to the army and police guarding the oil rigs. According to the journalist's research, in 1995, BP signed a three-year cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Defense of Colombia worth $ 11.6 million and paid an additional $ 2.2 million in "war tax". According to the terms of the contract concluded for this purpose at that time, BP provided the brigade with information and communication equipment, administrative materials, engineering equipment, helicopters, and ground vehicles.

It is not a question of that BP or other oil companies should openly support the Azerbaijani army and try to sweep the other side out of the conflict zone. BP is a company, not a military organization. The point is that in terms of the application of existing practices and practical solution of the Karabakh problem, the oil benefits (beneficiaries) can give the oil owner an advantage in its deserving cause.

There is a big contradiction between the maximum provision of the interests of Western companies and the existing problems of our country. The contradiction is that companies in the world do not consider their work over only by pursuing deep-rooted business interests. In modern civilized business practice, there is a concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and according to that concept, companies must comply with the Code of Corporate Social Responsibility before the society in which they operate. The main elements of this Code of Corporate Social Responsibility are crisis management, the security of the production process, the impact of business on the lives of local people, ethnic attitude to the culture and history of the people, environmental ethics, transparency, and social responsibility.

The practice of the protection of pipelines exists all over the world. After the start of exploration work to protect the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey pipelines, such operative measures had begun to be taken. Five years before the BTC pipeline was put into operation, military exercises were launched to protect it. Back then (May 1, 2001), the first group containing a US military contingent of 26 people arrived in Georgia. It was part of the staff of 150 people that came to coordinate the military exercises of the Georgian army. Later, these relations expanded even more. Because the parties knew that the protection of the pipelines is a very important step for each country, as important as the exploration and extraction of natural resources.

If there is any force majeure situation related to the energy route, if it is exploded, and if it harms the parties, it will be out of the context of a local legal dispute. If there are any serious errors (except for technical errors) related to the pipeline during the conflict, it has the right to be resolved by an international tribunal. Local courts do not have the authority to dispute these conflicts. Therefore, the companies do not strictly allow military operations in the territories of the pipelines and nearby areas. In this sense, transnational companies have an important role to play in ensuring security. Therefore, just as states ensure their political security through the coalitions they form, states also often prefer to address their security through the participation of transnational corporations in the process.

In general, as long as the martial law remains, the expenditure side of the budget spends heavily on militaristic areas, and as a result, other sectors of the economy (social, infrastructure) lag behind. Therefore, no matter how much the economy develops during the conservation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan's model of sustainable development will still not be formed. So, the formation of our sustainable development depends on the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. A living organism whose body is filled with shrapnels cannot be considered a healthy and developing organism.

Karabakh is like a closed lock. Its key is the oil factor. The return of Karabakh will also condition our large-scale development. The growth of our wealth without Karabakh means incomplete development. Our full development is directly related to the return of Karabakh.

Mohammed Talibli