‘A SHARED FUTURE IS THE WAY FORWARD’
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 3 2005
By Foreign News Desk
zaman.com
As the last stage in Turkey’s adventure towards the EU has started,
the European media pointed out the importance of Turkey’s membership
for Europe and the world.
The British newspaper, The Observer, in the column published with
the title “We need Turkey,” wrote that there are strong reasons to
start negotiations with Turkey.
The editorial that writes, “A shared future is the way forward,”
noted, objections in the public opinion will not be enough to prevent
Turkey’s candidature.
The newspaper cited the following as the points in which Europe needs
Turkey: “Europe needs Turkey as a custodian of prosperity and democracy
and as an exemplar and anchor for all the countries that surround
it. It needs Turkish labor and the Turkish guarantee of oil and gas
from central Asia. Above all, it needs to send a positive message to
the 12 million or so Muslims, who already live within Europe.”
The Independent, on Sunday said those who think Turkey’s membership is
necessary to protect the West’s relationships with the Muslim world
are making a mistake, “The reason why Turkey’s application should be
supported is because it is right for Europe, for Turkey and for the
advancement of universal human rights.”
The newspaper’s editor wrote Austria’s attitude towards Turkey goes
beyond xenophobia, as he said, “He is sure that the fact that the
Turks had been routed at the gates of Vienna in the past lies beneath
this unease.”
In an article written by Daniel Hannan, among the Conservative Group
members of the European Parliament and was published in the Daily
Telegraph, it is noted that politicians from around Europe make
speeches about how much the EU will gain from Turkey’s membership
and vice versa, but few of them believe what they are saying.
Hannan also criticized the conditions put before Turkey such as,
acknowledging its role in the so-called Armenian genocide and
recognizing the Greek Cypriot administration, and pointed out that
no other country has had such conditions attached to its membership.
The US newspaper, Washington Times, wrote that after a 40-year struggle
against European reluctance, Turkey is standing on the precarious
threshold of the European Union (EU).
The newspaper wrote that it is a major step for Turkey in its bid to
join a lukewarm Europe, while some populist politicians still speak of
“the scourge of Christendom.” The newspaper also stated that Turkey’s
reproach that “Europe should accept a Muslim country to the Union and
show that it is not a Christian club” has appeased Europeans somewhat
and has made Europe give a green light to Turkey.

‘IT WOULD BE A SHAME IF TURKEY’S EU PROCESS DIDN’T COMPLETE ITSELF’
By Ali H. Aslan
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 3 2005
zaman.com
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs Matthew J. Bryza shared Washington’s views with Zaman prior
to Turkey’s critical European Union (EU) negotiations.
Underlining that the beginning of the negotiations has great importance
with regard to the continuation of the reform process that dated back
to the administrative reforms of 1839 (Tanzimat Edict), Bryza said,
“It would be a shame if that process didn’t complete itself. But I
think it will.”
Bryza also discussed recent high-level diplomatic traffic between
Washington and Ankara: ‘We have decided that we want to do everything
to restore sense of partnership in US-Turkey relations’ He explained
why Turkey’s integration with the EU mattered for the US, “Why that
matters to us, frankly is that, we believe that the prospect of
membership in the EU encourages TR to take very difficult decisions
that make TR a stronger and more reliable partner for us both in
terms of diplomacy and economics as well as in a broader sense, in a
broader social-cultural sense as an inspiration for others who search
for same sorts of freedoms Turks enjoy.”
Reminding that the process of modernizing reforms in Turkey had a
history that dated back to the Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid period of the
1840s, then continued with the Ataturk reforms and the foundation of
the Republic of Turkey in 1923 and gained momentum during President
of the Republic Turgut Ozal’s period, Bryza indicated that the reform
process has really increased recently as Turkey strives to attain EU
membership. He said, “So, if you look at that historical progression,
Turkey’s full incorporation to the European family is an ongoing
process and we need to complete it together.”
Bryza defended that “privileged partnership,” which Austria wants
inserted into the negotiation framework document, is not strong enough
to make Turkey take decisions which are “politically difficult”
and emphasized, “We have long thought that it is the prospect of
absolutely full inclusion in Europe that provides the best incentive
for Turkey to stick with that process.”
This is appropriate for the long run, Bryza said. “What we care about
is that Turkey feels sufficient motivation to undertake very difficult
reforms that are groundbreaking and truly historical in nature. So the
point is make sure we all provide Turkey with the sufficient incentives
to take decisions that are politically difficult but ultimately in
the long run interest of Turkey as well as other European friends.”
“So, the important thing is everybody focuses primarily on strategic
gains rather than tactical maneuvering,” he continued.
When asked, “What is your view of the EU counter-declaration on
Turkey? Do you find it a fair and balanced document?” Bryza replied,
“It’s up to TR to decide whether it’s fair and balanced. But I can
just say that I am convinced that our friends in the EU especially
under the current leadership of the UK presidency completely understand
how important it is to continue that process of Turkey’s anchoring in
Europe. I think all of the parties understand that. The Greeks,. GR
Cypriots, the Brits, the Austrians, the Germans, the French, everybody
understands the strategic importance of that process continuing.”
‘Our friends in the EU completely understand how important it is to
continue that process of Turkey’s anchoring in Europe’
Bryza noted that everybody including the Austrians, Greeks, Cypriot
Greeks, the British, Germans, and the French realizes the strategic
importance of continuing the “process of Turkey anchoring in Europe”.
However, he commented: “What is not clear how much any one state
would like for technical reasons to try to squeeze a little bit more
out of the negotiation process.”
Recently, Greek Cyprus, which wants to receive certain concessions
from Turkey, is leading EU countries. Bryza did not want to become
involved in the polemics on whether or not the counter declaration,
which established the recognition of Greek Cyprus as a condition to
Turkey, was a “fair and balanced” document.
In response to Zaman’s question asking what else the US could do in
order to convince Greek Cyprus on a solution for the island, as they
already regularly send messages relating to their official position.
Bryza noted that they perceived the UN Secretary-General Annan’s
plan as “the most hopeful proposal ever put out there for a just and
lasting settlement” and they would maintain their “absolute undying
support”. He said: “So it seems only logical therefore that our friends
on the Greek Cypriot side of the island and Rep of Cyprus would specify
what they don’t like about the plan and allow the negotiations to
continue. That’s what Secretary General has said this is requirement
for his reengagement. So we stand fully supportive of him and hope
that that is the next step. And once that happens, yes, of course the
US will be fully supportive of and as engaged as we ever have had,
which is pretty engaged.” Indicating that the US will maintain its
efforts to soften isolations on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(TRNC), Bryza informed that they could pump economic assistance into
small and medium size enterprises and launch initiatives to facilitate
the direct sale of TRNC products. As for direct flights by US planes
to the Turkish Cypriot side, he said that such arrangements should
be commercially available and this seemed more possible for Europeans
rather than US air transporters.
Bryza commented on the European Parliament’s (EP) call for Turkey
to recognize the so-called Armenian genocide. “I would suggest that
our friends in Turkey don’t worry so much about those statements of
political opinion but instead also remain focused on the historical
significance of the beginning the accession talks.”
The US State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary pointed out that
such decisions were meaningful as long as they were internalized
by the European Commission and the Council of Europe, but this has
not happened.
Conveying the US perspective on the issue, Bryza urged: “Our position
is that, the characterization events of 1915, the horrible killings
and forced relocation and exile that occurred in 1915, which is
an issue to be more properly decided by deep introspection that’s
not political. So it’s not politicians alone that should grabble
with these facts. And a political decision should not determine
how we characterize those events. It’s deeply thoughtful people,
common people, and academics and all sorts of intellectuals, writers,
screenwriters, and philosophers need to think these things through. A
political decision shouldn’t determine what happened in 1915.”
The US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State expressed his opinions on
the decisions of the European Union (EU) and its relative political
organs regarding Turkey, with particular effort to avoid giving the
image of interfering in the internal affairs of European countries.
The decisions are taken in the EU and Turkey needs to meet the
requirements set out by the EU in order to become a part of the EU
club, emphasized Bryza while making frequent expressions of admiration
for EU term president Britain.
“I don’t know,” he replied in response to our question, “Do you think
Turkey can really play a role in preventing clash of civilizations?”
emphasizing the US tendency to have different opinions regarding such
matters. “I think Turkey can play an important in inspiring people
within societies in the immediate region where Turkey finds itself.
Those regions are both Europe and Middle East. Not just the Middle
East, not just Europe, but both. That’s what so unique about Turkey.
Turkey is simultaneously a European country, a Middle Eastern country,
a Balkans country, a Caucasus country, all these things at the same
time. So Turkey matters in its ability to inspire people in all those
regions who seek to find a way to advance democratic reform often
with predominantly Muslim populations, but not exclusively. So I am
not talking about a clash between civilizations, I am talking about
movements within all sorts of civilizations,” he commented.

NEGOTIATIONS WILL START; HOWEVER, WE ENTER A STONY, MINED ROAD
By Turhan Bozkurt
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 3 2005
zaman.com
Koc Holding Honorary Chairman Rahmi Koc talked in a hopeful way
about Turkey’s European Union (EU) membership bid. Koc said that
Austria’s attitude should be taken into consideration as he explained,
“The biggest threat within the EU comes from the Austrians. They are
insistent on starting membership negotiations for Croatia. I think
the EU will start negotiations with Turkey anyway; however, we will
enter a stony, mined road, which is full of barricades.” Stressing
that Turkey will continue its own way no matter what the answer is
from Brussels, Koc showed the positive views Turkey receives from
foreign capital as a ground for this.
“Even if the bonds are cut, they may say ‘stop for a while’. The
investments are shaped in three or four year’s time.” According
to Koc, the foreign investors will take the long term profits into
consideration and look for ways to become permanent in Turkey instead
of thinking of short term profits.
Criticizing the EU’s attitude towards Turkey, “I was afraid the
Cyprus issue would come to the agenda and they brought it. They
brought the Armenian issue to the agenda as well. The acts of these
Europeans cannot be predicted. They may bring the Kurdish issue to the
agenda, too,” Koc admitted. Indicating that Turkey should find sincere
partners for itself within the EU to get the support of Europeans, Koc
continued, “When we are purchasing a bank, we make partnership with the
expert of that business just like this, Turkey should find partners for
itself even in the dynamics of the European community. Our diplomats
are very skilled, they fulfill their responsibilities; however,
we need to get the support of very experienced Europeans. Spain and
Portugal worked with these kinds of people.”

OPINION : WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THE EFFORT WASTED TO PERSUADE AUSTRIA?
Baris Sanli , JTW Columnist
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Oct 3 2005
After long hours of meetings and news, now I am heading back to my
home. The two days and the stress caused by Austria to my psychology
has been destructive on me. I do not expect an official apology from
Austria, but they literally wasted my time with their five star,
gold medalist stubbornness. Now everyone is happy, as usual except me.
But how about the time, diplomacy and the effort given to persuade
Austria? It could have been used for more important causes. Now
what is different, for two days they just tested the nerves of
European Foreign Ministers and most importantly me. For what? Just
to turn a historic chance to a political circus. Some may say this
is how diplomacy works, but I will call it “this is how diplomacy is
wasted”. After all, the situation is no different than 1st October.
So I decided to write a list of things to be done with the resources
wasted to persuade Austria. Here is my list as a product of my ruined
psychology, enjoy it:
– I could have written annoying articles to annoy Armenians.
– My Armenian readers could have written more annoying emails to me
to annoy me.
– I could have been treated from my mental problems.
– Even North Korea can start the accession talks with EU with this
much of effort – I would like to add Antarctica to previous article.
– and Zimbabwe – Bush could be teached to find the Iraq on the
world map.
– Blair could be persuaded to leave his place to Gordon Brown.
– Sarkozy can be sent to space.(For peaceful purposes like the first
French president to be to enjoy space) – Austrians can be informed
about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
– Greek Cyprus could be persuaded to UN talks.
– Karen Hughes can win the hearts of Turkish women. (I have never
ever achieved such a thing) – Washington Times could be converted
into democratic and open minded newspaper.
– Usame Bin Laden could be persuaded that killing innocents is not
a way to deal with problems.
– Serbians could be teached that Bosnian Muslims are not bad –
Poverty problem could have been solved.
– Third world could have been transformed into a bunch of Silicon
valleys.
– The whole world could be informed that Turkey is not a desert and
is not a place where people use camels for transportation and Turks
are not barbarians, it was Conan the Barbarian.
– And I could have been persuaded not to write any more articles in
this aggressive tone.

REINSTITUTION OF TURKISH – ARMENIAN FRIENDSHIP
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 3 2005
SAHIN ALPAY
The crux of my speech at the panel on “The Armenian Problem and Turkish
Democracy” in the “Ottoman Armenians” conference was the following:
I am not a historian. As a political scientist and public commentator,
my interest is focused on the current issues and problems of Turkish
politics.
I believe that the resolution of the “Armenian problem” is
indispensable for consolidation of liberal and pluralist democracy, and
for peace culture to prevail in Turkey. Consequently, I am interested
more in the future than in the past. My problem is: What can be done to
reinstitute Turkish – Armenian friendship? There certainly are people,
among both Turks and Armenians, who want to reach conciliation and
resolve the problem. These today constitute a minority, but they may
well become the majority in the future. To this end, those who favor
a solution need to reach a consensus on some basic points.
Regarding history: What was experienced at the end of the19th and the
beginning of the 20th centuries is the story of the dissolution of
the multi-religious and multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire as a result of
conflicting religious and ethnic nationalisms backed by imperialist
European powers. It is the story of millions of people who were
subjected to ethnic cleansing, deportation and massacres. Almost all
of the ethnic and religious which made up the Ottoman Empire had their
share of this tragedy. The Union and Progress Party government decided
to put Anatolia fully under its control, and to cleanse this region
of ethnic and religious elements whose loyalty it did not trust. When
in 1915 – 16 the Unionists in order to punish Armenian separatists
who sought to establish an independent Armenia by cooperating with
the Russians deported Armenians living in all parts of the country
to Syria (Zor province), Armenians became the religious and ethnic
group which suffered most during the course of the dissolution of
the empire. Not only those living in the war zone but all Armenians,
except those living in Istanbul and Izmir were subjected to the
forced deportations. In the process hundreds of thousands of them
were killed or died as a result of famine or illness. Some escaped
deportation by converting to Islam, others managed to survive by
converting to Islam after being rescued by Muslims. Some of those who
managed to reach Syria alive settled there, while many emigrated to
France and the US. Turkish people know very little about the tragedy
of the Ottoman Armenians, and a solution to the “Armenian problem”
is not possible until they are sufficiently informed about it.
Neither is it possible to reach a consensus on the claim that Armenians
were subjected to genocide. Some will continue to insist on this claim,
while others will never accept it. It is, however, clear that this
claim hinders Turkey from discussing freely what really happened in
history. Holding all Turks then and now accountable for the crimes
committed by the Ottoman Unionist government, and using the genocide
allegation to fan racist hatred and enmity against all Turks, is surely
unacceptable. If a broad consensus on the above facts is achieved,
it is possible to move forward towards a solution.
Our tasks as those in Turkey who favor of reconciliation are obvious:
We must first of all exert our utmost efforts to ensure that our
Armenian citizens enjoy equal citizenship rights and that their
minority rights are secured. Historians should, with courage and
determination, work to shed light on what really happened and on those
who were responsible. We should try to win over the public opinion in
favor of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Turkey and
Armenia, and opening of the borders between the two countries. Ankara
can thereby even contribute to peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We
should also try to enhance the links and dialogue between the Turkish
and Armenian civil societies. If we can do all these, it will one day
be possible to erect a monument in Anatolia in memory of the great
suffering Ottoman Armenians lived through.

ONE MORE PUSH!
Selcuk Gultasli
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 3 2005
The rule that “every draft the EU prepares about Turkey does not get
its final form without getting toughened” did not change. Where did the
Cyprus declaration begin, and where did it end? The EU virtually said
to the Greek Cypriots “Write it down, we will put a signature on it.”
The declaration for which the Greek Cypriots, with the support of
the French, took EU as hostage turned out to be a legally binding
paper despite the British rhetoric that “it is not a legally binding
document and will be forgotten within six months, why give a damn?”
Moreover, even if the EU does ever forget something, it will be
decisions for the benefit of Turkey. The commitment given by Greece
back in 1981 that she would not interfere in Turkey-EU relations,
the declaration from France, Germany, Netherlands and Italy in 1998
declaring that “the Greek Cypriots will not become a member of the
EU before a solution is reached in Cyprus”, the Council’s decisions
that will bring an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots in
2004 were all too easily forgotten.
The framework document is also becoming more stringent. It has not
yet been approved, and it probably won’t be until the last days and
many elements -excluding the privileged partnership that Turkey cannot
accept- will be introduced into this document.
The situation is as follows: Those who had been promised for 46 years
will announce their engagement on October 3. The EU part does all it
can to ensure that the engagement will not end up with a marriage. It
will sit at the table of engagement, just because it promised once,
but it prepares many pretexts in order to toss the ring away just after
the engagement. Turkey, too, is not happy as it sits at the table,
she is convinced that the EU is unwillingly sitting at the table. In
this case, almost everybody foresees that the negotiations will fail
to continue even if they do start on October 3 and that this will halt,
anyway, in 2006 when the additional protocol is revised.
The EU made the negotiations “unsustainable” with the declaration of
Cyprus, and allowed the UN ground for a possible solution to erode
and most importantly confirmed that it now sees the issue from a Greek
Cypriot view. From now on, in the Cyprus issue the EU cannot go beyond
the parameters cited in the declaration. The Greek Cypriots will get
what they want unless the political atmosphere in Europe goes through
a radical change-which is impossible in the short term.
The next crisis pending between the EU and Turkey is the additional
protocol waiting to be approved in the Assembly. As the screening
process will start on October 3, negotiations will most probably
start at the end of the term presidency of the UK, namely in December.
And in the worst case scenario, the start of negotiations will take
place following the scanning process and this will happen in the
term presidency of Austria. There is no need to offer any detailed
explanation of how Austria, which has the hysteria that the Turks
besieged Vienna for the third time, will approach the negotiations.
As the Greek Cypriots will ask the additional protocol to be approved
and implemented immediately after October 3, Turkey will face a
serious dilemma before it can even start the real negotiations.
As the opponents in Europe have plenty of supporters in Turkey,
sabotaging the negotiations will become easier. The guardians of the
established system whose entire comfort will be overwhelmed with the
start of negotiations will clearly show their European allies that
“Turkey has not changed” with a few provocations just as happened
at the Armenian conference. And in the words of Fuat Pasha that are
even more relevant today, “They from the outside, we from the inside,
together” will obstruct the start of negotiations! Come on guys!

CROATIA EU ENTRY TALKS START
Written by Brussels journalist David Ferguson
Euro-reporters.com, Belgium
Monday, 03 October 2005
“This is not the case of Croatia versus Carla del Ponte or Carla del
Ponte versus Croatia. This is Croatia and Carla del Ponte working
together. This is the case of General Gotovina being in The Hague,”
said Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader.
Speaking in Luxembourg, after meeting EU Foreign Ministers,
Sanader received good marks from Carla del Ponte, Prosecutor of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). “I
would like to have the same cooperation from Serbia Montenegro as the
one I have from Croatia,” said del Ponte, speaking alongside Sanader.
Negotiations on Croatian EU entry were originally scheduled for
March. Zagreb, however, had to prove that it was fully cooperating with
the ICTY. This included making ‘more convincing efforts’ to bring war
crimes indictee former general Ante Gotovina to the UN tribunal. UK
Foreign Affairs Minister Jack Straw has repeatedly stressed that EU
negotiations can begin as soon as possible once full cooperation has
been established.
At a joint press conference with Sanader, Del Ponte refuted suggestions
that she had given in to pressure from certain EU member states to
give a positive report on Croatia: “I did not have any pressure. After
six years work everybody knows that I am not moved by pressures.”
Austria, which opposes EU negotiations with Turkey, had argued that
negotiations with Zagreb could start, especially in the light of
continuing human rights problems in Turkey and Ankara’s non-recognition
of Cyprus or the Armenian genocide.
In Luxembourg, Del Ponte also reiterated her desire for the Vatican
to cooperate fully in the Gotovina case: “We had certain information
about the possibility of General Gotovina hiding in a monastery. My
request was to help us identify the monastery, if he was actually
hiding in a monastery.”
;task=view&id=200&Itemid=1

AREVA’S COGEMA PICKED BY ARMENIA TO BUILD 10 MLN EUR NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITY
Forbes
Oct 3 2005
YEREVAN, Armemia (AFX) – The Armenian energy ministry said the Cogema
Logistics unit of French engineering group Areva has been chosen
to build a new 10 mln eur nuclear waste facility for the country’s
controversial Metsamor reactor.
Cogema Logistics will build a second waste disposal facility in
three phases between 2007 and 2018, said ministry spokesperson Lucin
Arutyunian.
The EU has asked Armenia to close the Metsamor reactor because of
safety concerns, but the power station, built in 1977, accounts for
about 40 pct of electricity production in the country.

TURKEY AND EUROPE AGREE TO TALKS ON JOINING
By Craig S. Smith
New York Times
Oct 3 2005
LUXEMBOURG, Oct. 3 – Turkey and the European Union agreed late today to
formally begin talks on Turkey’s historic bid to join the organization,
setting into motion a process that will likely take a decade or more
but could end with the union extending its borders eastward into Asia
to embrace the predominantly Muslim country.
Turkey has worked for more than four decades to join the evolving
union, restructuring its legal system and economy to meet European
standards even as Europe added demands and refused to start formal
negotiations. The agreement to open the talks was a victory for the
country’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has staked his
political credibility on getting the talks under way.
“We reached an agreement and, God’s willing, we are heading to
Luxembourg,” said Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as he headed to the
airport in Ankara.
But the talks come at a difficult time for Europe, which is mired in
an identity crisis and whose consensus-based, decision-making process
is already bogged down by last year’s addition of 10 new members.
Many Europeans oppose Turkey’s membership, arguing that while the
country has a toehold in Europe, it is not European at its core. They
worry that because Turkey would be the largest country in the union by
the time it joined, it would skew the already complex European agenda.
The ceremony opening the membership negotiations was delayed until
late this evening as European member states haggled over an Austrian
demand that the talks include an alternative to full membership that
would ultimately give the union a diplomatically palatable option to
inviting Turkey to join.
The last-minute diplomacy kept the Turkish foreign minister, Abdullah
Gul, waiting in Ankara and frayed nerves on both sides. “Either it
will show political maturity and become a global power or it will end
up a Christian club,” Mr. Erdogan said of the European Union on Sunday.
In fact, it is just that question that is haunting Europe. The European
project, begun as a means to ensure peace among historic enemies,
has faltered since the end of the Cold War, which helped define
it. In the 15 years since German reunification, the union has grown
but weakened as it absorbed much of formerly Communist central Europe.
The deep differences within the union, particularly between incoming
and traditional members, broke into the open over the American-led
invasion of Iraq, which many of the new members supported but the
older members did not. The debate over Iraq was about a philosophic
view of the use of power as much as it was about Iraq. Many of the
older European Union member states, harkening back to their World
War II wounds, are wary of using military force to settle disputes.
“Building a consensus is difficult if you don’t have common values,”
said Constanze Stelzenmulle, of the German Marshall Fund in Berlin.
“There has been a loss of focus, a loss of the sense of commonality,
a loss of common interests in Europe.”
Many people worry that adding a country with such a vastly different
cultural and economic heritage such as Turkey to the mix will only
soften that focus further.
Meanwhile, economic malaise in much of Europe has made people wary
of the heralded “ever closer union” that for many simply means lost
jobs. Those fears helped defeat referendums on a proposed European
constitution in France and the Netherlands earlier this year,
stalling the union’s momentum and leading many opinion-makers to
openly question what it was that Europe wanted to become. Turkey’s
membership naturally became a focus of that debate.
Part of the problem is that the generation of leaders that had an
emotional attachment to the European project as a unifying ideal is
now mostly gone, replaced by politicians who regard the union more as
a practical arrangement to promote national interests. European-wide
restructuring of postwar welfare systems and questions about the role
that Europe should play in the world have taken a backseat to more
local issues of political survival and short-term economic goals.
The union hasn’t even be able to agree on a budget for the 2007 to
2013 period, which should have been set months ago.
“At the moment the solution to that crisis isn’t even on the horizon,”
said Marco Incerti, a research fellow at the Center for European
Policy Studies in Brussels.
The crisis has been made worse by faltering leadership in Germany
and France, the traditional engines of the European Union, which
are now consumed by domestic politics. Germany is distracted by
efforts to forge a coalition government there, while France has
lost steam since the May defeat of the constitutional referendum,
leaving President Jacques Chirac largely sidelined while his would-be
successors dominate the political stage.
“For the longest time you could rely on a couple of countries who were
more strongly invested than others getting together and laying out
a solution and getting the others on board,” Ms. Stelzenmuller said.
The lack of leadership has allowed smaller countries like Austria to
dominate the agenda, political analysts say, and has led even Turkey
to question the union’s viability in its current form.
“Everyone is aware of the identity crisis within the E.U.,” said Eser
Karakas, a political scientist at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul.
“The frustration caused by Austria in these past few days proves that
it is time to reform the European Union structure.”
He argued that Turkey should start focusing on what role it can play
in reshaping the union.
Turkey became an associate member of what was then the European
Economic Community in 1963 and formally applied for full membership
on April 1987. It was only officially recognized as a candidate in
December 1999, and it wasn’t until last December that the union agreed
to set a date for membership negotiations to begin.
As part of its campaign to meet European standards, Turkey has
abolished the death penalty, improved its human rights record and
allowed broader use of the Kurdish language among its large Kurdish
minority. But the country is still criticized for refusing to explore
the killing of Armenians in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire
and has refused to recognize the Greek-dominated Republic of Cyprus,
which became a European Union. member last year.
Supporters of Turkey’s membership argue that extending the union’s
single market to include Turkey’s vast Asian hinterland beyond the
Bosphorus Strait will help more than hurt the rest of Europe. They
also argue that bringing Turkey into the European club will help
spread democracy into the Middle East and increase regional security.
Critics, though, question whether that is true, pointing out that
Turkey, which has close ties to Israel, is still remembered in much
of the Arab world as a former colonizer under the Ottoman Empire.
They say that the union would have difficulty absorbing such a large,
poor country and complain that Turkey’s membership will open the
doors for a potentially huge wave of Muslim immigrants.
By the time it could be expected to join, the country’s current
population of 70 million people would likely have grown to outnumber
that of Germany, now the largest European state. Under current rules,
its population would also give it the most seats in the European
Parliament.

SPOILS OF WAR
by Lutz Kleveman
New Statesman
October 3, 2005
Spoils of war: Years of work in battle zones have convinced Lutz
Kleveman that the role energy resources play in causing conflicts is
the big story behind the headlines
About three years ago, I visited the American airbase of Bagram in
Afghanistan. A US army public affairs officer gave me a tour of the
sprawling camp, set up after the ouster of the Taliban in December
2001. As we walked past the endless rows of tents and men in desert
camouflage uniforms, I spotted two makeshift wooden street signs.
They read “Exxon Street” and “Petro Boulevard”. Slightly embarrassed,
the officer explained: “This is the fuel handlers’ workplace. The
signs are a joke, a sort of irony.”
As I am sure they were. It just seemed an uncanny sight given that
I was researching potential links between the “war on terror” and
American oil interests in Central Asia. Years of work in war zones
have convinced me that the role energy resources play in causing armed
conflicts is the big story behind the headlines. Dwindling supplies and
the ever-surging global consumption of oil, especially in China and
India, have caused its price to soar to new heights. As doubts grow
about the true size of Saudi reserves, global production is expected
to peak soon, making oil unaffordable to many people and countries,
and raising the prospect of a “last man standing” oil endgame.
The deepening rivalry over fossil reserves, especially between the
US and China, makes energy wars increasingly likely. No Iraqi I know
believes America would send soldiers to the Gulf region if there
were only strawberry fields to protect. My research in places such as
Nigeria, Azerbaijan and Iraq has shown that oil wealth is more of a
curse than a blessing. In all oil-producing countries (except Britain
and Norway), it has led to environmental degradation, economic decline,
corruption, political instability, coup d’etats or even civil wars.
Central Asia offers a perfect case study of what is the trouble
with oil. The warlords, diplomats, politicians, generals and
oil bosses I have interviewed in the region are all players in a
geostrategic struggle that has become increasingly intertwined with
the anti-terrorist campaigns: the “New Great Game”. The main spoils
in this rerun of the 19th-century “Great Game” are the Caspian oil
and gas reserves, the world’s biggest untapped fossil fuel resources.
While estimates range widely, the US Energy Department believes that
Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan alone could sit on more than 130 billion
barrels of crude. Oil giants such as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and
BP have already invested more than $40bn in new production facilities.
In May 2001 Dick Cheney, the US vice-president and ex-CEO of
Halliburton (a provider of products and services to the oil and
gas industries), recommended in the seminal national energy policy
report that “the president make energy security a priority of our
trade and foreign policy”, singling out the Caspian Basin as a
“rapidly growing new area of supply”. Since 11 September, the Bush
administration has accordingly used the “war on terror” to further
American energy interests in Central Asia, deploying thousands of
US troops not only in Afghanistan, but also in the newly independent
republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia.
By 2010, the US will have to import more than two-thirds of its
energy needs, and the Caspian region has become vital to its policy
of “diversifying energy supply”, designed to wean America off its
dependence on the volatile Middle East. Yet Central Asia is no less
volatile than the Middle East, and oil politics are making matters
worse. Disputes persist over pipeline routes from the Caspian
region to high-sea ports. While Russia promotes crude transport
across its territory, China wants to build eastbound pipelines from
Kazakhstan, and Iran is offering its pipeline network for exports via
the Persian Gulf. Washington, on the other hand, has championed the
$3.8bn Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline through the South Caucasus, which was
recently inaugurated amid much pomp. Controversial for environmental
and social reasons, the project has also perpetuated instability in
the South Caucasus.
With thousands of Russian troops still stationed in Georgia and
Armenia, Moscow has for years sought to deter western pipeline
investors by fomenting bloody ethnic conflicts near the pipeline
route, in the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and in the
Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Ajaria. In
return, the US has despatched 500 elite troops to Georgia. Moscow
and Beijing resent the growing US influence in their energy-rich
strategic backyard, and have repeatedly demanded that the Americans
pull out. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has signed new security
pacts with the Central Asian rulers and, in 2003, personally opened
a new Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan, only 50km away from a US
airbase. China, in turn, has conducted major military exercises with
Central Asian states. In August, China’s biggest state-owned oil
company bought a major oil producer in Kazakhstan for $4,2bn. The
purchase fits in with China’s efforts to quench its enormous thirst
for oil by intensifying ties to major energy-producing countries and
buying a wide array of foreign petrol assets.
Besides raising the spectre of interstate conflict, energy imperialism
also exacerbates the terrorist problem. Many Muslims hate America
because for decades successive US governments, in a Faustian pact,
were indifferent towards how badly the Middle Eastern regimes treated
their people – as long as they kept the oil flowing. In Central Asia,
the Bush administration repeats the mistakes that gave rise to Bin
Ladenism in the 1980s and 1990s. Oil-motivated American support
for Central Asian autocrats – such as Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev,
Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov –
causes more and more of their disgusted subjects to embrace militant
Islam and anti-Americanism. The Caspian region may be the next big
gas station but, as in the Middle East, there are already a lot of
men running around throwing matches.
Ultimately, no matter how many troops are deployed to protect oilfields
and pipelines, the oil infrastructure might prove too vulnerable
to terrorist attacks such as in Iraq to guarantee a stable supply
anyway. In Iraq, chaos and violence have so far prevented any major
oil companies from investing a huge amount in the country’s old petrol
industry. Efforts by Halliburton and the US army corps of engineers
to rehabilitate the oilfields near Kirkuk and Basra have been largely
undermined by insurgent attacks on pipelines. To make matters worse,
conflicts have broken out between Iraq’s Kurds and Arabs over who
should control the Kirkuk oilfields.
With so much oil-related trouble looming, old-style policies of
yet more fossil fuel production and waste continue in the wrong
direction. The only wise strategy is a sustainable alternative
energy policy that will steer us into the post-oil era. Reducing
our dependence on oil will go a long way towards “defuelling”
terror-breeding regimes and lessening international tension. This
policy will require saving energy through more efficient technologies,
increasing the role of other energy carriers (including gas but not
nuclear power) and introducing next-generation transport fuels on a
huge scale.
A new energy policy is badly needed anyway to slow the greenhouse
effect and global climate change, which might turn out to be the
worst energy-related source of conflict. Hurricane Katrina – with
violence, anarchy and refugees in its wake – gave merely a foretaste
of the suffering that global warming could cause. That was nature,
some say with a shrug, but in fact it was nature on drugs – and we
need a detox soon.
Lutz Kleveman ([email protected]) is the author of The New Great Game:
blood and oil in Central Asia (Atlantic Books, ),
and the host of an authors’ conference on climate change. For more
information visit
Natural gas is by some distance the least fascinating of all energy
sources – at least, it is to most British citizens and their media.
In the “debate” on energy and carbon policy, which largely amounts to
special pleading for government funding or regulatory protection for
(in particular) clean coal and nuclear power, there is virtually no
interest in gas. The subject surfaces mainly in the context of claims
made by supporters of other forms of generating capacity that, in 15 to
25 years from now, the power sector will be overwhelmingly dependent
on imported gas from “unstable” countries, and that this will expose
the British public to unacceptable security risks. A BBC2 docudrama –
set in the future – showed Chechen terrorists blowing up a gas pipeline
running from Russia’s Baltic coast to Britain, plunging London into
darkness an hour later. The debate that followed was largely about the
future of nuclear power, rather than the unreality of such a scenario.
This lack of public interest in, or information about, gas is slightly
strange given that it is the country’s most important source of energy,
accounting for 41 per cent of primary energy last year (compared
with oil at 34 per cent), and 40 per cent of electricity generation
(compared with 33 per cent from coal and 19 per cent from nuclear
power). This was never intended to happen. But the post-privatisation
“dash for gas” in power generation – partly a dash away from the
problems of the coal and nuclear power industries – was followed by
a realisation that the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation
had made a big contribution towards meeting CO2 reduction targets.
In 2000, North Sea gas production peaked and began to decline at
a faster rate than had been anticipated. Over the past few years,
there has been a growing tightness of supply in the winter months,
when gas usage peaks. This has been accompanied by much higher
levels of prices, with substantial volatility and price spikes. These
developments have caused regulatory and parliamentary investigations
into the functioning of gas markets and improper corporate behaviour,
which have failed to substantiate any allegations of wrong-doing. At
the same time, an unprecedented amount of new import infrastructure
is under construction, with two new pipelines, the expansion of an
existing line, and three new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.
This sudden interest in supply, demand and prices is a far cry from
the focus of the past two decades, which has been on developing
competition in utility markets. Since the mid-1980s, politicians,
regulators and consultants have marched around the world lecturing
the less fortunate on the wonders of “British experiment”. The answer
to all problems was to “privatise and leave it to the market”, which
would produce “the most efficient outcome”. This proved to be the
case for much of the 1990s and early 2000s, when British businesses
and citizens enjoyed substantially cheaper gas prices than their
counterparts in Continental Europe, where governments have been
reluctant to liberalise their markets.
Gas production was allowed to proceed at the fastest possible rate –
abandoning the careful “depletion policy” of the nationalised industry
era, which was designed to eke out UK resources with the judicious use
of imports. Government was also responsible for starting the process
that resulted in a pipeline between Britain and Belgium exporting
surplus UK gas, with the aim of accelerating European competition. With
the peaking of domestic production, that pipeline is increasingly being
used to import, and 2004 marked the end of the country’s relatively
short-lived spell as a net gas exporter, giving rise to dire warnings
of impending disaster arising from dependence on foreign supplies.
Large-scale imports, when they begin in 2007-08, will initially return
the UK to the position 20 years ago, when more than 20 per cent
of gas demand was imported from Norway. Subsequently, and assuming
higher prices do not stimulate the discovery and production of new
gas, import dependence on piped and liquefied gas will increase
from a variety of sources: Norway, Netherlands, Russia, Algeria,
Egypt, Qatar and others. The diversity of sources and supply routes
provides protection against problems with any individual supplier or
facility. Gas imports, far from being the main problem, are going to
be a large part of the solution to supply problems.
“Unreliable and nasty foreigner” theories of security ignore the
most important current problem – the reliability of ageing North Sea
infrastructure and concern about how these may perform in severe
weather conditions. The impact of severe weather on offshore and
coastal oil and gas infrastructure – as demonstrated by Hurricane
Katrina – is a major potential problem.
Both Transco and Ofgem have given assurances that, even if it is
very cold, there will be sufficient gas and delivery capacity to get
through next winter. But experience of the past year suggests that
any significant supply problem or severe weather causing increases
in demand, even of short duration, will at the very least lead to
short-term price spikes. After this winter, imported supplies start
to flood in and new gas storage (which was not needed when supply
was overwhelmingly from domestic sources) will open up, making the
position much more comfortable. In fact, so much new supply will be
available that, through the early 2010s, exports may continue for a
significant part of the year.
The future of UK energy supplies may be renewables, clean coal, some
form of nuclear power and, more distantly, hydrogen. For the next 20
years, and probably for a great many more, natural gas will dominate
the UK energy balance outside the transport sector. This is a closely
guarded secret revealed only in discussions about supply security.
But there is no specific reason to think that security of gas supplies
will be a major problem – once we get through this winter.
Jonathan Stern is director of gas research at the Oxford Institute
for Energy Studies and honorary professor at the Centre for Energy,
Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee