Martha Brill Olcott
{
"authors": [
"Martha Brill Olcott"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Central Asia",
"Kazakhstan",
"Kyrgyz Republic",
"Tajikistan",
"Turkmenistan",
"Uzbekistan",
"Caucasus",
"Russia",
"Georgia",
"Eastern Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Economy",
"Climate Change",
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
A New Direction for U.S. Policy in the Caspian Region
The Obama administration needs a new approach to the Caspian region that provides opportunities for local leaders to engage with the United States in economic and political development.
Focusing U.S. policy in the Caspian on containing Russian and Chinese influence has done little to advance U.S. security interests, and reduced its standing in the region to its lowest level in decades. The Obama administration needs a new approach that provides opportunities for local leaders to engage with the United States in economic and political development, concludes a new policy brief by Martha Brill Olcott.
Olcott recommends five building blocks for a new U.S. policy for the Caspian region:
- Focus on military reform and capacity rather than military alliances. U.S. operations in Afghanistan depend on cooperation with the Caspian states, but the recent Russia–Georgia crisis underscores that NATO membership should only be offered to states who control their internationally recognized borders.
- Support fair market pricing for energy producers and consumers to promote energy independence for the Caspian region. The United States has wasted fifteen years pressing for unrealistic oil and gas pipelines that bypass Russia.
- Provide technical assistance for projects that capitalize on the region’s vast renewable energy resources—biofuels, solar, and wind power. Renewable energy projects would create major economic opportunities and minimize potential conflicts between neighboring states.
- While the United States should continue to press hard on human rights issues, sanctions will only block U.S. assistance on critical development projects. Providing education and democracy assistance at the grassroots level is the best way to promote political development in the region.
- Appoint a presidential envoy for the region. Europe, Russia, and China all have senior level officials assigned to the region.
Olcott concludes:
“This new approach to the Caspian states would enhance U.S. national security. It would also help improve the lives of the people of these countries and make them more likely to embrace the political and economic values that prompt the United States to international engagement.”
About the Author
Former Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program and, Co-director, al-Farabi Carnegie Program on Central Asia
Olcott is professor emerita at Colgate University, having taught political science there from 1974 to 2002. Prior to her work at the endowment, Olcott served as a special consultant to former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger.
- After Crimea: Will Kazakhstan be Next in Putin’s Reintegration Project?In The Media
- China’s Unmatched Influence in Central AsiaArticle
Martha Brill Olcott
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Iran Rewrites Its War StrategyCommentary
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
- Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.Commentary
The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.
Nathan J. Brown
- What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?Commentary
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh
- Tehran’s Easy TargetsCommentary
In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.
Michael Young
- The Gulf Conflict and the South CaucasusCommentary
In an interview, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s careful balancing act among the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Armenak Tokmajyan