2.  Diplomacy serving Energy - 1990s  Energy serving Diplomacy – 2000s

3.  Energy as a tool of diplomacy  Energy as the tool of diplomacy  Energy as the context of diplomacy

4.  Not in par with agricultural, demographic or healthcare policies  The framework determining the foreign policy identity of the country  Energy policy has not been the purpose though  The main and the most important aspect of the oil/gas factor: consolidation of sovereignty

5.  Two major issues vis-à-vis this goal in 1990s:  1. Nagorno Karabakh  2. Oil and Gas

6.  Prosperous and Stable Azerbaijan  Consolidated Sovereignty  Now, it is time to settle the dispute

7.  Georgia, Turkey: Blessing  Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: Support  EU and the US: Security  Russia and Iran: Concern  Price paid by Azerbaijan: Nagorno Karabakh

8.  Imitating the successes of oil policy while applying the lessons learned in the process  Maintain the overall position achieved already: the energy situation is good enough

9.  Repeat the success of oil in gas deals  Bear in mind that the current situation is beneficial enough  Keep Russia and Iran satisfied  Cement the relationship with progressive countries  Keep alternatives open: as long as cost effective  Managing relations with Turkey: too many eggs, but also the most reliable  Keeping healthy relations with Georgia

10.  esoltanov@ada.edu.az

12.  Rate of extraction vs. Rate of new findings  Peak oil and gas?  This could intensify exploration in new fields – a potential for conflict in the Caspian

13.  Turkey: doing well and relaxed  a. already feeling like an energy transit country  Lucrative and politically strategic deals with Russia  Knows it is the best option

14.  Azerbaijan: doing well and relaxed  a. earning more than $10 billion a year; in some ways more than its economy could absorb  $30 billion in the oil fund  Less sure knows Turkey well enough