Syria: Is it all About Gas?

Conventional gas is green, cheap, abundant and economically viable. With regards to the Middle East, are supplies still secure? Gas is an explosive material, in all respects - is the Middle East blowing up because of natural gas? If Iraq was about oil, is Syria about gas?

With its divided Islamic factions fighting for power, the upheaval in Syria does not seem to be made for democracy. Lacking democratic ideals, these factions also cannot agree amongst themselves, which is a problem for the western countries willing to provide them support. It is interesting that French Ambassador Eric Chevalier told a member of the rebel coalition they “don’t deserve the effort that we made”.[1]  What were the efforts for? Why provide divided Islamic factions with arms and support, knowing if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad falls, the factions may fight amongst themselves, resulting in even more bloodshed. Why increase the risk of instability in the region and possible terrorist attacks in Europe? Could these ‘efforts’ against the Assad regime (Shia), and by extension Iranian Shiites, be about hydrocarbons once again?

I reckon it is worth taking a look at the countries that have experienced troubles since 2011. Mass media focused on Libya, Egypt, and now Syria and again Egypt (keep in mind that what happens to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is very much linked to what happens in Syria), but it turns out that all the Arabic countries around the Mediterranean Sea have experienced troubles. A quick look at newspapers from various countries would have easily helped a newsreader in 2011 see that ‘troubles’ were experienced almost simultaneously in the afrementioned countries. The difference was how it developed and it continues to develop.  The question here is whether there could be a link with the current situation in Syria and Europe’s natural gas supplies. 

Reduction of Russian gas is a redundant topic. However, insofar as it is actually to be put into a wider strategy of rolling Russia back within its boundaries, it is not irrational to look at the situation from a natural gas angle.  Let’s have a look at Syria’s role in the ‘Med Gas Ring’.

Below is how the Ring looked on paper when the European Commission received the third issuance of a study by the firm Mott Mac Donald on Sept 29^th, 2011. It is worth looking at it. Please note that infrastructures that are not in dark green and red are those that do not exist, yet… 

What is interesting here is this blue line running from Syria to Turkey. According to the Mott MacDonald study, Syria does not possess enough gas to be a net exporter. It actually barely possesses enough gas to satisfy its own needs:

"Based on our supply/demand analysis we conclude that Syria will unlikely to have any surplus natural gas to export starting some time between 2010 and 2015 in the Minimum gas availability case and starting some time between 2015 and 2020 in the Maximum gas availability case. The clear implication is that Syria will have to import increasing volumes of gas at some point in the near future if gas supplied are not ramped up to meet the consumption expansion, presumably from Egypt via the Arab Gas Pipeline and possibly also from Iraq. If so, there will be less or even none Arab Gas Pipeline gas available for export to Turkey and the EU."[2]

It is also noted that "new discoveries have been made in Saudi Arabia in the north of the country, very close to the existing Arab Gas Pipeline and Syrian border potentially will produce 10-20bcm for export. Saudi Arabia also has associated gas which could potentially be exported." And here is where the link may start to appear (literally speaking…) between the Arab Spring, the 'rebels' in Syria and our topic: natural gas. Of course, to make the situation even more complicated we have in the backdrop an unstable region divided between Shia and Sunni Muslims. As a result, Syria finds itself in the middle of an on-going chess game between the United Stated and Russia - a complex situation involving Sunni Gulf Monarchies, Iran, and even China.

So if Brussels and its ‘American brain’ are trying to get rid of Russian gas and avoid Russian-controlled routes, it poses a problem to have a Shiite ‘Russian friendly’ clan (al-Assad) heading a crucial transit country. It would give Syria a strategic position and grant it not only leverage over Turkey and the European Union, but also more power in a region where other Arabic countries are Sunni (including oil-rich Saudi Arabia). Furthermore, the Assad regime belongs to the Shia minority in Syria and has relations with majority Shia Iran. So, in admitting that Syria would not take the gas it needs from the extended pipeline, being a transit country for gas from Egypt, or even from northern Saudi Arabia, would end in substantially modifying the regional balance of power - currently detrimental to Iran.  A possible side effect would be that insofar as Russia is supportive of Iran, then the former might have been able to gain some influence in a region dominated by the west. China, who is ignoring US sanctions and importing Iranian oil, could also benefit from this loss of Sunni influence in this region. This of course would not please the US or the Sunni Gulf Monarchies.

Moreover, Syria, whose gas production is not enough to satisfy its own needs, would have been a competitor to the European Union for natural gas imports, hence putting at risk the diversification of gas supplies. Or, put more crudely: it would have put the ‘’all-but-Russian-gas’’ and ‘’all-but-Russian-controlled-route’’ plans at risk.

When I was working in Brussels, someone working on energy issues in an EU Member State Representation and well-aware of political realities, told me that the European Commission was an open door for American interests. Well, this could be the case indeed. The United States is pursuing their strategy to limit Russia’s rise both by trying to oust it from its zone of influence, and by trying to make a hole in its budget (please see US lobby for LNG and spot-prices), hence generating a political and social crisis that would finally enable Uncle Sam to achieve what it wants with Russia. Namely, to cut the country into different independent little states that would spend their time fighting amongst each other (Russia’s numerous ethnic groups would be very helpful to the US for this) and as a consequence US companies would be able to tap into Russia’s huge natural reserves. It could look like a new Middle East, but colder.

There is no genuine will to support simple and normal people in America’s foreign policy: it is pure pragmatism only looking for economic interest and business. Indeed, as the record shows, the US provided support to overthrow regimes for economic consideration, not for the well-being of population. Could it be that our American friends misread Gene Sharp[3] who notes that "It should be remembered that against a dictatorship the objective of the grand strategy is not simply to bring down the dictators but to install a democratic system and make the rise of a new dictatorship impossible." Or maybe they just decided to skip that paragraph. For example, in 1954 in Guatemala, the United States through the CIA overthrew the president Jacobo Arbenz because his policy was against the interest of an American company. An even better example of how the US really supports democracy is Chile. In 1973, via the CIA, it overthrew the legitimate president Salvador Allende. In this particular case, the strategy was to ‘’make the [Chilean] economy shout’’ (President Reagan) and to work with opposition groups. It ended with a coup d’état of general Pinochet, who was supported by a massive propaganda campaign orchestrated by the CIA in spite knowledge of gross violations of human rights and assassination of political opponents.

But let’s go back to the initial question: is it all about gas?  The Syrian conflict does indeed imply gas transit. But it is also about religious rivalries and balance of power in the region. This is a fairly explosive cocktail that could turn even worse after western intervention. Instability actually prevents pipelines from being built as it makes the zone insecure. So why does the US pay little attention to the risks of regional conflagration? Do they need war that badly to keep existing as a power? Is it worth the bloodshed? The EU has thus far a rather functioning win-win partnership with Russia that is also depending on the European market for its gas sales. So why does the former keep playing the American game without wondering where its interest actually lies? Why doesn’t it build for itself a real independent foreign policy? The opening of a NATO office in Vilnius in charge of energy security shows that for the US, the ‘Russian case’ is not over and that using energy exports as a way to make the Russian economy shout is still on.[4] Beyond the fact that it also shows NATO as trying to keep existing what the Cold War had ended (at least officially) by stretching the reading of its article five and its mandate for action, it sadly shows that the EU has no maturity and still cannot emancipate itself from Uncle Sam’s influence.

Yasmina Sahraoui is based in Moscow and comments on natural gas developments. The views expressed are those of the author.