CIS IS OUR PRIORITY

We present to you our exclusive interview with V. I. Kalyuzhniy, deputy foreign minister of the Russian Federation and special envoy of the President of the RF for the problems of Caspian Legal Status.

Q: Viktor Ivanovich, how would you assess the current dynamism and tendencies in the process of settling the problem of Caspian Legal Status?

The dynamism of settling the problems of Caspian Status are not unequivocal, there have been some achievements and some "skidding "as well. Though, in general, the positive tendencies seem to dominate. The first Caspian summit that took place in April 2002 was a central political event. Real break - through took place in regulating the international law in the sphere of earth bowels use. After the Russian-Kazakh Protocol was signed in May 2002 in Moscow determining the bed delimitation line of the two countries in the north of the Caspian, an Agreement was signed between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan on September 23, 2002 in Moscow about delimitation the border areas of the Caspian bed. Notable that both of the documents were signed at the top level. If to take into consideration the fact that a similar agreement with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan was signed in November 2001, we can conclude that interrelations of the said three countries in mastering the mineral resources of the northern and central Caspian bed acquire a firm international legal bases.

The recent events around the Frame Convention for the protection of the Caspian environment can be regarded as regretful failure, as its signing was scheduled to late last January. But at the last moment Iran as a receiving country cancelled the meeting and the signing was not realized.

Q: What are the basic aspects of the contemporary Caspian strategy of Russia? In your opinion what are its advantages and vulnerable parts?

The kernel of our position comes to the settlement of the Caspian status on the grounds of the formula "delimit the bed for the sake of the earth bowel use but leave the water column in common use". It means the delimitation of the Caspian bed among the adjoining and opposite countries on modified medium or other acceptable line so as to realize their sovereign rights in earth bowel use under reservation of the water column for common use, in provision the navigation freedom, agreed quota of fishing and protection of the ecology. Taking into account the difference in views of the Caspian littoral countries on future Caspian Status, which makes impossible simultaneous adoption of the Legal Status Convention on the bases of consensus, we recommend to move further in working out the Status stage-b-stage, regulating first and foremost the problems of the earth bowel use, fishery and navigation. We favor the work on the agreements about the terms of the activity in the spheres above mentioned were carried out at the same time, and each of these agreements were carried into effect as soon as they were ready irrespective how the negotiations proceed on other documents. Various "links" like "at first the Convention, then all the rest" (Turkmenistan) or "all the agreements carrying into effect ought to be simultaneous" in a single package (Iran) as we believe are counter-productive. "Either everything or nothing" approach will mean, utterly necessary agreements for the Caspian will fail to be realized because no accord has been reached on the others. We assume the Russian approach provides the maximum possible harmonization of the interests of all countries, no better consensus has ever been suggested.

Q: Could you tell us what kind of ecological program could Russia recommend to preserve the valuable bio-resources of the Caspian basin?

We consider the problem of Caspian environment protection to be one of the most topical. Pollution of the Caspian causes serious concern, and the situation with the Caspian sturgeon is close to critical. Hence the energetic efforts of Russia directed to conclusion of the agreements on bio-resources and ecology protection, which would enable to formulate the international legal bases for littoral countries urgent collective measures to improve the situation. Russia also suggests to establish a permanent intergovernmental Caspian Ecological Center on the pentapartite bases, which would be engaged in monitoring the Caspian environment and which would make appropriate recommendations. We are insisting in toughening the actions of ecological security in the Caspian, in particular, in introduction of the "zero blow-out" technology in drilling the wells. But we should not make the oil recovery entirely responsible for the ecological problems. Other problems, too, jeopardize the valuable bio-resources of the Caspian, for instance the recently settled biological sample, i.e. the jellyfish-type fungi, and poaching, which is genuine calamity for the sturgeon population. Despite lots of difficulties certain progress has been made in the negotiations on the agreements about the industrial branches. Foreign Ministry of Russia watches closely the situation, and renders the Russian organizations all-round assistance. Elaboration of the Agreement on Preserving the biological resources of the Caspian Sea and its management is underway. The project has been chiefly agreed. We make active use of the possibilities of existing Commission on Caspian bio-resources, formed by all five littoral countries. We offer to bring it from ministerial to intergovernmental level. We are conducting talks with Kazakhstan to reach an agreement on preservation of the Caspian bio-resources.

Q: Lately Russia is actively involved in solving the problem of the Caspian Sea, and the result was the conclusion of the agreements with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. What steps are the Russian diplomats going to undertake further?

In order to overcome the legislative vaccuum in the sphere of mastering the mineral riches, the adjoining Caspian countries settle the problem on bilateral basis, reaching an agreement about delimitation of the bordering parts of the Caspian bottom aiming at using the earth bowels. So far three such agreements have been concluded: between Russia and Kazakhstan (1998) with the Protocol dated May 13, 2002, between Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan (2001), between Russia and Azerbaijan (September 23). I'd like to stress that all these agreements touch upon only one of the spheres, i.e. the use of earth bowels, but we prefer to settle the Caspian problem in all areas, that is ecology and hydrometereology, protection of the environment and fishery and navigation.

Q: As the result of recent agreements the Caspian has been conventionally divided into North (Kazakhstan, Russia and Azerbaijan) and South (Iran and Turkmenistan). What common grounds can be found between these parties? The practice of bilateral agreements, as experts think, has justified itself, what countries can, in your opinion, sign the next agreements?

I agree, that the practice of bilateral agreements justifies itself. We would prefer to sign pentapartite agreements, but the time is short, and the processes of mastering the Caspian resources is a reality we have got to take into consideration. It should be specified that we divide not the Caspian, but only its bottom so that we can make use of the earth bowels. We proceed from the fact that the problems mentioned have got to be decided by the neighboring and opposite countries and they have got to decide the methodology. I think, the delimitation of the bottom should proceed on mutually acceptable line. We have already worked out definite experience in delimitation. It can be realized on modified medium line both between Russia and Kazakhstan and between Russia and Azerbaijan as well. We do not at all impose our experience and will agree to the agreements the countries of the Southern Caspian reach. They can even not to divide the bed, but proceed on the way limiting or joint mastering of various fields. At present negotiations are underway between Azerbaijan and Iran. Regrettably, the negotiations between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are at a standstill. Bur we favor their continuation.

Q: How does the failure to regulate the Caspian Status tell over drawing in the investment for the North Caspian shelf development? What progress could you point out especially in this regard? How would you assess the rate of accomplishment of Russia's economic program in the Caspian?

In the north Caspian the problems have been regulated, agreements reached, the way for investments is open. We believe, such a notion as "continental shelf: fails to suit the Caspian, which is in the UN Convention on Marine Law. Caspian is a unique intercontinental water basin which needs specific status. At present, the notion "earth bowel use zone" would be more correct from the point of the jurisdiction applied to the problems related to Caspian Sea delimitation.

Q: What is your opinion in regard of constructing the Trans-Caspian gas-line for the export of Kazakh and Turkmen gas, as the existing capacities seem insufficient to deal with the future gas reserves in the said countries?

We are against laying the Trans-Caspian pipelines in principle. In this we are guided by ecological considerations. The Caspian Sea is a zone of heightened seismic danger. If to take into consideration the direction of the currents, all technogenic events, including the oil blow-outs will exert damage to all littoral countries. And in this case, responsibility for possible ecological damage should be envisaged.

Q: Would you mind to tell us what the economic prospect Russia has in Central Asian countries?

The CIS countries are our priority. We focus specific attention to the integration of our economies. Fuel and Energy Complex is an important sphere of our cooperation and we intend to develop interaction with all countries of the Central Asia. In accordance with the joint communique of the Presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan made on March 2002 work is underway to establish a Gas Alliance, development of the strategic cooperation in the sphere of gas output and transportation. Joint KazRosGaz company has been established for the transportation of the Central Asian gas via the territory of Kazakhstan and Russia . We are for the continuation of our integration in the sphere of FEC.

Q: Is Russian companies joining the Central Asian gas-line via Afganistan and Pakistan towards the Arabic Sea possible?

The problem seems to be rather untimely. No such a gas-line yet exists, only the idea of its construction. The problem is being considered by three countries, i.e. Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afganistan. It faces lots of economical and political problems, and the stability in Afganistan still preserved. It is out of time yet for Russian companies to take a decision about it.