BUSINESS & ECONOMICS
7/17/09
Print this article
Email this article
Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have wrapped up a negotiating session on how the energy-rich Caspian Sea could be divided among littoral states.
Officially, the "exchange of views" in Baku on July 16-17 dealt with "shipping and fishing." But the two countries reportedly discussed energy-related issues, including the possible construction of an undersea pipeline.
According to some local media reports, Azerbaijani officials proposed a joint operating agreement for a disputed gas field, which Baku dubs Kapaz, and Ashgabat calls Serdar. There was no initial word on how Turkmen officials responded to the proposal.
"If our Turkmen friends agree, then we will simplify much more the issue of the Caspian [Seas] legal status," Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was quoted as saying by the abc.az news website.
There was no immediate indication if the two states made any headway on the sea-boundary issue. After talks in Baku finished on July 17, deputy foreign ministers of the two countries exchanged pleasantries, but offered no specifics of where the negotiations are headed. Azerbaijani media reports suggested that a recent deal on the proposed Nabucco gas pipeline is motivating the two countries to tackle existing differences in order to proceed with a trans-Caspian pipeline project. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
"Turkmenistan stands for reaching an agreement on the [division of the] Caspian Sea on the basis of international law and principles," the Turkmen state news agency quoted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as saying on July 16.
Posted July 17, 2009 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org
|
The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website,
meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed
debate about the social, political and economic
developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia.
It is a program of the Open Society
Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New
York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation
that promotes the development of open societies around
the world by supporting educational, social, and legal
reform, and by encouraging alternative
approaches to complex and controversial issues.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily
represent the position of the Open Society Institute and
are the sole responsibility of the author or
authors.
|
|