EURASIA CRITIC

Turkish Energy - Industry Report

2010-04-06T16:46:00.000+03:00

Executive Summary

The Turkish energy sector is widely seen as the most promising and attractive investment area in the Turkish economy. The market is experiencing a transition towards a competitive market structure in order to attract private sector investment. The energy market is witnessing rapid growth and a liberalization process with the recent privatizations, licence tenders and strategic partnerships. The sector has been remarkably active recently and offers major opportunities to investors. Turkish energy consumption is low compared to Western European countries. However, the large, young and increasingly urban population in Turkey represents a growth potential. Currently, Turkey is a major energy importer, as its energy consumption growth has outpaced domestic production. Substantial investment in the energy sector will be required in the near future in order to meet the increasing demand in Turkey. The energy consumption in Turkey reached a level of 102 tonnes of oil equivalent, or 1,415 kg of oil equivalent per head in 2008 (which is still below Western levels) with an increasing trend between 2004 and
2008. Given the slowdown in the economy since mid-2008, energy consumption growth slowed from 5.3% y-o-y in 2007 to 1.4% in 2008. The decline is expected to continue in 2009 with a 5.5% decrease; however a recovery of 2.5% annually is expected between 2010 and 2013 . The Turkish electricity market was one of the fastest growing in the world. Installed capacity has continued to rise regularly in the last decade from 23,354 MW to 41,817 MW with a CAGR of 7.8%. As a result of the increase in the share of natural gas fired power plants, natural gas constitutes the highest share of primary energy resources with 39% of the total followed by lignite (30%), hard coal (7%) and fuel oil (6%) in 2008. Turkey’s domestic oil and gas production meets less than 3% of its energy requirement leaving Turkey a
major importer of oil and gas. 90% of Turkey’s crude oil is imported, mainly from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Russia. 70% of domestically produced oil is obtained from the state-run Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) with the remainder produced mainly by Royal Dutch/Shell. As for natural gas, Turkey is dependent on imports from Russia which corresponded to 63% of the total in 2007. Other suppliers include Iran which accounted for 17% and Azerbaijan for 4% of the total. A competitive gas market in Turkey is shaped by the Natural Gas Market Law which was issued in 2001. Accordingly a gas release program was initiated and the transfer of the rights under 4.75 bcm of BOTAŞ’s contracts (14% of actual gas imports) was completed. These rights were acquired by four private sector companies which won the public tender and which have now started gas imports. The State-owned pipeline operator and gas supplier BOTAŞ previously handled all oil and gas import and owns the distribution infrastructure, though its dominant share of the market is planned to be further reduced in coming years in line with the Natural Gas Market law. The share of the private sector in gas import and wholesale activities should thus rise as the share of the State (BOTAŞ) falls. Coal is mainly used for power generation in Turkey. 30% of total primary energy consumption in Turkey is derived from coal. Only one-half of the coal used is produced domestically in Turkey which makes Turkey's coal market dependent on imports. The coal market is considered as largely a monopoly operated by the Turkish Hard Coal Enterprises (TTK) although minor parts of production, processing and distribution
activities are contracted to the private sector. On-going transformation and liberalization of the energy markets has led to increased private investment, from both domestic and foreign investors. There are a great deal of investment opportunities in the Turkish energy sector. State-owned generation and distribution assets are to be privatised, new power plants are to
be built by the private sector, tenders for licences in natural gas distribution are held and certain natural gas import agreements of the state are (as described above) transferred to the private sector. In the past five years, Turkey has accommodated a lively investment environment as many foreign investors have made greenfield investments, entered into partnerships with local players and acquired state-owned and private companies. Turkey has also a significant potential for renewable energy. Due to substantial renewable energy resources and recent developments in renewables legislation and liberalization in the electricity market, there is a suitable environment for renewable investments. The renewable energy sector is further analyzed in ISPAT’s “Environmental Technologies & Renewable Energy Industry Report”.

Sector Overview

Global Sector

Global energy consumption reached a level of 10,465 million tonnes oil equivalent in 2008 with a CAGR of 2.4% between 2004 and 2008. Coal consumption has shown the highest growth in 2008 with a growth rate of 3.7%. Energy exporting regions such as the Middle East and Africa have also experienced growth in energy consumption . However, energy consumption is expected to experience a decrease in 2009 due to the global economic crisis. The fall in the consumption is expected to affect oil, natural gas and coal consumption. Oil has the highest share within the global energy consumption corresponding to 35% of the
total followed by coal, natural gas and hydroelectricity .

Oil
Strong growth in demand together with the reduction in spare capacity between 2003 and 2007 has led to rapid growth in oil prices, which culminated in a peak of over US$140/barrel in July 2008 . The peak was followed by even more rapid decline as the impending global recession took shape. From early 2009 onwards, however, oil prices have resumed their upward trend.

Natural Gas
In 2008, the demand for natural gas has started to decline with countries hit by recession reducing their energy usage. This trend continued in 2009. Although the consumption of natural gas was declining, at the same time new gas resources such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Middle East and Indonesia have emerged. Despite the global economic downturn, total natural gas production increased by 4.1% in 2008, Russia and the US being the main producers.

Coal
Coal production is expected to increase by nearly 60% between 2009 and 2030 with most of the growth expected in China and India . The World’s largest coal consumer is China which is expected to dominate 38% of world capacity by 2011. Another country in which coal is the primary source of energy is India, where 62% of the country’s electricity generation is obtained from coal-fired stations. The demand from these two big coal consumers has shaped the growth in the coal market with an annual increase in global demand of 5% from the beginning of the century .

Nuclear
The nuclear energy industry has become attractive due to the demand of many countries to diversify their energy sources and the high level of alternative energy costs. Russia and France are major players in nuclear power in Europe, where nuclear energy comprises more than 44% of total electricity generation. Concerns over the global warming effect of carbon-based electricity generation, together with concerns over the security of oil and gas supply, have reawakened interest in other countries such as the UK and Sweden. China is planning to construct capacity of more than 20,000 MW by 2015 .

The Domestic Sector

Sector Overview
Turkey is one of the fastest growing energy markets in the world, with significant further growth potential. Turkish energy demand was affected by an economic downturn experienced in Turkey in 2001 but picked up in 2002 and continued to grow thereafter, reaching the pre-crisis consumption level in 2003. The energy consumption increase continued between 2004 and 2008 equalling 102 tonnes of oil equivalent, or 1,415 kg of oil equivalent per head, which is still below Western standards. Together with the global economic crisis, the energy consumption slowed down since mid-2008 with an annual growth rate of 1.4% in 2008, compared to a rate of 5.3% in 2007. The decline is expected to continue in 2009 with a fall of 5.5% however a recovery of 2.5% annually is expected thereafter between 2010 and 2013.

Electricity
The Turkish electricity market is currently going through a liberalization process and rapid growth. The market is experiencing a transition towards a competitive electricity market in order to attract private sector investment and maximise efficiency. Electricity demand in 2008 equalled 198 TWh, representing 4.3% annual growth from 2007. The CAGR of electricity demand between 2004 and 2008 was 7.2% . Electricity demand has been growing in parallel
with the urbanization and industrialization level and economic development. Also supported by the population increase, the Turkish electricity demand shows great potential for further growth. Electricity demand is expected to be affected by the global economic downturn where there is a 4.7% decrease in the first ten months of 2009. However, there is a sign of recovery in demand in the following months and the demand turns to increase in October by 6.5% .
Installed capacity has continued to rise gradually in the last decade between 1998 and 2008 from 23,354 MW to 41,817 MW respectively with a CAGR of 7.8%. In line with the increase in share of natural gas fired power plants, natural gas constitutes the highest share in primary energy resources with 39% followed by lignite (30%), hard coal (7%) and fuel oil (6%) in 2008 . The current energy supply including the existing power plants, the licensed plants and those under construction was expected to be insufficient to cover the Base Energy Demand starting from 2009 . On the other hand, the decline in economic activity which has affected electricity demand has also delayed the electricity imbalance. After a recovery in electricity demand, there will be the requirement for further capacity to balance supply and demand. The estimated investment required for the period of 2009-2017 is approximately US$ 35-50 bn .
The top 15 generators by installed capacity ranking as of December 2008 are shown in the following table.

The state owned generation company EÜAŞ currently owns c.58% of total installed capacity. Due to the ongoing liberalization process in the Turkish electricity market the state owned generation assets are expected to be privatized Apart from state owned EÜAŞ, the other top players are: ENKA, a leading construction company in Turkey owning the Adapazari, Gebze and Izmir combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants. Isken owns an imported coal power plant and Baymina is the fourth largest player with 798 MW CCGT. Birecik owns one of the largest HEPPs (Hydro Electric Power Plants). There are basically two types of prices in the Turkish electricity market defined as: market prices and regulated tariffs approved by EMRA. A comparison of the system imbalance prices (SIPs) and TETAS whole sale prices is presented in the below chart.

System imbalances prices are set in the Balancing Market where upward and downward regulation offers to cover the long or short position of the market are accepted by the system operator, TEIAS. TEIAS accepts the offers in accordance with the daily demand forecast and daily generation schedule defined on an hourly basis. Prior to July 2008, the gap between regulated tariffs and market prices was high. The Automatic Pricing Mechanism, based on reflecting cost fluctuations onto the energy prices of state owned enterprises was introduced as of July 1, 2008 and had an immediate impact on the TETAS price. The Automatic Pricing
Mechanism affected the TETAS price and the gap started to close. The Turkish electricity markets regulatory structure is as follows: General principles are set by the Law. The
Council of Ministers and/or the High Planning Council make decisions in line with the spirit of the law. Detailed rules are set by secondary regulations and finally detailed operational matters such as tarif approvals and the issuance of licences are defined by EMRA Board Decisions. The Electricity Market Regulatory Authority established as per Law no. 4628 was later renamed the Energy Market Regulatory Authority. EMRA acts as a supervisory and regulatory body for the energy market. These laws aim to establish a stable and transparent energy market functioning in a competitive environment. The market chain can be divided into four sections; generation, wholesale, distribution and retail market (or consumers). There is a monopoly for transmission in between wholesale and generation. The general market value chain and structure is illustrated in the following figure.

Oil & Gas
Turkey’s known oil and gas reserves correspond to 300mn bbl and 8.0bcm, respectively. Oil production is far lower than the estimated consumption of c.673,000 b/d in 2008. Oil comprised c.31.5% of total primary energy consumption in Turkey in 2008, showing a slight increase compared to 2007 (30.2%) whereas natural gas comprised 31.6% of the total in 2008, almost stable compared to 2007 (31.2%). Natural gas prices have risen in line with global prices . Demand for natural gas is increasing rapidly as it is preferred as the fuel for industrial use as well as for power generation. 55.5% of natural gas was used for power generation, 22.5% for residential use and the remaining 22% for industrial use in 2008. Although relatively low compared to others, industrial usage has nearly doubled since the beginning of the decade . The network of the State-owned pipeline operator and gas supplier Botaş covered 63 cities by the end of 2008, increased from 54 at the end of 2007. The improvement in the distribution network is expected to increase natural gas availability. Turkey’s domestic extraction of oil and gas meets less than 3% of its energy requirement leaving Turkey a
major importer of oil and gas. 90% of Turkey’s crude oil is imported, mainly from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Russia. 70% of domestically produced oil is obtained from the state-run Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) whereas the remainder is produced mainly by Royal Dutch/Shell. As for natural gas, Turkey is dependent on imports from Russia corresponding to 63% of the total in 2007. Other suppliers included Iran accounting for 17% and Azerbaijan for 4% of the total . Turkey has a strategic location between European markets and major oil and gas-producing countries in the Middle East and around the Caspian Sea. Although the Bosphorus is a major oil shipping route between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, heavy oil tanker traffic through the Bosphorus is restricted due to environmental concerns. The legal framework for the EU-backed Nabucco pipeline project was signed by Turkey and four EU transit countries in mid-July 2009. Accordingly, the 3,300-km pipeline will carry gas from the Caspian region and the Middle East through Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary to Austria, with the gas further distributed to other EU countries through existing pipelines. The project is expected to reduce the dependence of EU countries on Russian gas .

Coal
30% of total primary energy consumption in Turkey is derived from coal. Coal consumption of 92.8m tonnes in 2008 declined by c.2.3% compared to the prior year , whereas total coal production in 2008 amounted to 1586.2m tonnes, up from 76.6m tonnes in 2007 . Hard coal is mainly mined by TTK in Zonguldak in the western Black Sea region. Lignite is mined mostly by the state-owned Turkish Coal Works (TKI) in various parts of the country. TKI controls mining in Afsin-Elbistan located in South-East Anatolia, where most lignite coal is produced.
Only one-half of the coal used is produced domestically in Turkey. This makes Turkey's coal market dependent on imports. The domestic coal market is largely considered as a monopoly operated by Turkish Hard Coal Enterprises (TTK) with minor parts of production, processing and distribution activities contracted to the private sector.

Nuclear
Turkey does not produce electricity from nuclear sources. A tender for building a 1,000-MW nuclear-power plant by 2005 was cancelled in 2000. In subsequent years, a tender was developed for the first nuclear plant with a combined capacity of 5 GW and was announced on September 24, 2008. However, with only one consortium submitting a bid, namely Russia's state-owned nuclear export company Atomstroyexport and Turkey's Park Teknik Group, the tender was cancelled by TETAŞ in November 2009. As the energy demand
grows in Turkey, nuclear energy could provide an important supply source and will remain on the agenda in the coming years.

Main Players

Electricity
Before the 1990s, a state owned company, the Turkish Electricity Authority (TEK), dominated the Turkish electricity industry. TEK was established in 1970 and in order to move towards market liberalisation and privatisation it was separated in 1993 into TEAS for generation, transmission and wholesale power supply and TEDAS for distribution. In 2001, TEAS was further separated into EUAS for generation, TETAS for wholesale and TEIAS for transmission; each being established as a separate legal entity with the introduction of the Electricity Market Law. EUAS operated 91% of Turkey’s power supply before the electricity reform in 2001 . Most of EUAŞ’s power plants are to be privatized according to the privatization plan.

Oil & gas
BOTAS, the state-owned gas supplier and pipeline operator, handled all gas and oil import and distribution infrastructure until recently. However, its monopoly position is changing from 2009. A competitive gas market in Turkey is shaped by the Natural Gas Market Law which was issued in 2001. According to the Law, a gas release program was started and a tender was completed for the transfer of the gas import rights under 4.75 bcm of BOTAŞ’s contracts (14% of actual natural gas imports). Following the program, the four private sector companies which won the tenders started to import gas and sell it wholesale to major customers in Turkey. In the coming years, further tenders are expected which should reduce BOTAS’s market share in imports to the limit of 20% set by the Natural Gas Market Law as the maximum for any one market player. The private sector’s market share should thus increase correspondingly. The companies which successfully tendered to take over the agreements and their corresponding volumes were Enerco 2.5 bcm, Bosphorus Gas 750 million Sm , Avrasya Gas 500 million Sm and Shell 250 million 3Sm . Bosphorus and Shell have completed the take-over process earlier and have started importing in 2008, whereas Enerco and Avrasya Gas started their operations in April 2009. There are 60 licensed natural gas distribution companies in the Turkish gas market of which 4 are owned by municipalities and the remaining 56 are private companies. The privatization tender for İzgaz was completed; Başkentgaz and Igdaş are to be privatized. Tenders for the remaining cities are planned to be completed by the end of 2011 . 78% of the Turkish fuels and lubricants supply market is controlled by Tüpraş and the biggest fuels retailer in Turkey is POAS, a former state company. BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips are the other active companies . In the petroleum refining market, Tüpraş has a strong monopoly position with 4 sites located in Izmit, Izmir,
Kırıkkale and Batman. Total combined capacity of Tüpraş is over 600,000 b/d. In September 2005, a 51% stake in Tüpraş was acquired by a consortium led by domestic group Koç Holding and Shell Co for US$4.4 billion.Turkey has one non-Tüpraş refinery which is the Ataş plant in Mersin. The plant is owned by BP (68%), Shell (27%) and domestic fuels supplier Turkpetrol (5%) .

Sector Outlook
Driven by high industrialization and urbanization, electricity demand has exceeded electricity production and largely resisted even the global financial crisis. The increase in demand is expected to continue with the population growth and economic development in future and Turkey is expected to outpace its European peers. TEIAŞ projections for 2009-2018 include 4 different scenarios. The high demand scenario accompanied by high capacity has been considered and presented below. There are also three other scenarios with lower demand and capacity estimates. Electricity demand is expected to exceed electricity generation with a CAGR of 7% between 2009 and 2018. The reliable electricity generation is expected to increase by 3.2% CAGR while installed capacity is expected to increase with 3% CAGR in the coming decade. While thermal capacity formed 64% and HEPP 34% of the total installed capacity in 2009, the share of thermal capacity is expected to slightly decrease to 60% whereas HEPP capacity increases to 38% by 2018. The oil import level is expected to rise in line with demand and increasing prices assuming an average of US$ 80 /barrel in Turkey by 2013 . On the other hand, growth in natural gas is expected to exceed petroleum and coal consumption. The natural gas consumption is expected to increase with a CAGR of 7%
between 2010 and 2013. In 2008, coal consumption in Turkey was 92.8 million tons which was mainly used for power generation. Coal consumption in Turkey is expected to decrease by c. 5.5% in 2009 and recover with an increase of 2.5% between 2010 and 2013.

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

-Well-organized and structured legal framework in the energy sector
-EMRA operating as an independent market regulator
-High growth potential of the Turkish Energy sector compared to other European countries.
-Advantage of Turkey operating as an energy hub between Europe and the Middle East.

Electricity

-Increase in the weight of the private sector through the privatization of state owned generation assets
-Probable horizontal and vertical mergers of electricity, natural gas and water distribution, to allow synergy and regional utility companies

Natural Gas
-High gas demand growth potential
-Favorable gas supply geography and infrastructure
-Potential role as a transit corridor and potential for development of trading hubs

Weaknesses

-Electricity
-Coal is the only energy source with significant domestic availability, leavingth ecountry
increasingly import-dependent

Natural Gas

-Requirement for gas storage for system security reasons

-Import dependence on natural gas supplies

Opportunities

Electricity

-Privatization of regional distribution companies (to be finalized by 2010) will allow for an independent merchants’ market
-Synergy expected to be created between electricity, natural gas and water distribution
businesses
Natural Gas
-Tenders for the remaining cities, gas requirements to be met by end of 2011
-Privatization of municipality owned natural gas distribution companies.
-Restructuring of Botaş and competitive market structure transition to a Interest of foreign investors in the natural gas distribution market.

Threats

-No new contract releases are announced/expected in the short term
-Shortage of electricity supply against electricity demand.

Investment Opportunities

Turkey is a major energy importer with energy consumption exceeding its production. For Turkey to meet its energy demand, significant investments are necessary in the energy sector. The transition of the Turkish electricity market to a liberalized market has already attracted private investment from both domestic and foreign investors and further opportunities will occur. Among the investment opportunities, the state owned generation and distribution assets together with new power plant establishments can be indicated. Turkey has experienced a lively investment environment in the last five years in which many foreign investors have made greenfield investments, entered into partnerships with local players and acquired state-owned and private companies. Below is a list of M&A transactions by foreign investors in the Turkish energy industry between 2004 and 2009:

The Turkish government is in the course of privatization of the distribution companies as a step towards full liberalization of the energy market. There are 101 assets with total capacity of 15,594 MW which are to be privatized:

-18 thermal power plants (11,769 MW)
-27 hydro-electric power plants of EUAS (3,677 MW)
-56 run-of-the-river power plants (148 MW)

There are 21 distribution regions under the Turkish privatization portfolio. Kayseri region was the only private region and currently, the privatization tenders for 4 DisCo’s have been finalized, although one has been cancelled by the Council of State. The competitive environment as a result of the privatizations is expected to accelerate electricity generation investments .

Abbreviations
b/d - Barrels per day
Bcm - billion cubic meters
BMI - Business Monitor International
CAGR - Compound Annual Growth Rate
CCGT - combined cycle gas turbine
DisCo - Distribution Company
EIU - Economist Intelligence Unit
EMEA - Europe, Middle-East and Africa
EUAS - Electricity Generation Co.Inc.
EUR - Euro
GDP - Gross Domestic Product
HEPP - Hydro Electricity Power Plant
IEA - International Energy Agency
ISE - Istanbul Stock Exchange
ISPAT - Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency (ISPAT)
KCETA - Kayseri Region Electricity Company (Kayseri ve Civarı Elektrik T.A. )
LNG - liquefied natural gas
OPEC - Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
PED - primary energy demand
Rmb - Chinese yuan
US - United States
US$ - US Dollars
TEAS - Turkish Electricity Generation and Transition Co.
TEIAS - Turkish Electricity Transmission Company
TEK - Turkish Electricity Authority
TETAS - Turkish Electricity Trading Company
TPAO - Turkish Petroleum Corporation

Turkey – China: Towards onto an Energy Partnership - Abdülkadir Emin Önen

2010-04-06T16:45:00.002+03:00

An energy partnership agreement signed between Turkey and China while the Turkish President Abdullah Gül’s visit to China. A new era has been started between Turkey – China relationship with the signing of this agreement which can be seen in the analysis of the agreement below.

Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Energy Sector which was signed between Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Energy and the National Energy Administration of the People’s Republic of China is primarily a cooperation memorandum. Cooperation areas and route map of Turkey – China partnership had been decided. According to the memorandum:

Proposed Cooperation Areas

1. Renewable Energy
2. Energy conservation and energy productivity
3. Rehabilitation of transformer substations and hydroelectric power plants jointly
4. Manufacturing electricity generation systems for the utilization of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, small water sources etc.
5. Hydrocarbon exploration and production
6. Mining Technologies
7. Boron Technologies
8. Production of solar energy equipment
9. Thermal power ( coal, oil and natural gas as power)
10. Hydroelectric Power Plants
11. Nuclear Energy

This memorandum of understanding consists of 6 articles and it bases on the parties’ agreement to encourage their enterprises to discuss possibilities for bilateral and mutually beneficial cooperation in the energy sector in line with applicable laws and regulations of both countries. Memorandum of Understanding has a constructive property.

Importance of the Memorandum of Understanding

MoU is important edge point for Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkey’s Asian Policy since the year 2003 but firstly it is important for bilateral relations of Turkey and China. Turkey formulated a new strategy towards Asia which is based on a economy – energy survey during the Justice and Development Party Government. Trade volume between Turkey and Asian Countries increased by 25% -30% between 2003 - 2009, this is a clear success of the new strategy of Turkey. Also Turkey’s interest is so much increased towards the Asia according to the Turkish Government visits to Asia. These visits do not only arranged for strengthen the diplomatic relations, they also have concrete results such as signing of Memorandum of Understanding. This MoU was signed during the President Abdullah Gül’s visit to China at 23-29 June. This was the first presidential visit to China after the Demirel’s visit in 1995.

Important points come forward when interpreting the Turkey’s Energy Policy during Justice and Development Party Government. It should be underlined that Turkey is no more developing strategies on basis the of being an energy bridge but Turkey focuses on becoming an energy corridor and being a thermal country. Turkey is not only concentrating on becoming an energy corridor on east-west direction, Turkey also developing strategies to become a multidirectional energy corridor which includes north – south direction just like general Foreign Policy Strategy of Turkey. Turkey aims to become a global actor on energy with taking parts at the regional and global energy projects.

Turkey – China Relations

To understand the China’s importance for Turkey, it should be stated that China is the biggest trade partner of Turkey in the Far East and China is the 3rd country within the Turkey’s import ranking. Trade volume between Turkey and China is increased by 40% in 2008 in spite of the global financial crisis. In 2002, Turkey’s trade volume with China was $ 1.4 billion dollars, this trade volume is increased by 7-8 times and it is $ 14-15 billion dollars today. Briefly this MoU is signed in accordance with the developing economic relations between Turkey and China.

This MoU is expected to strengthen the development and diversification of Turkey – China relations on a collaboration perspective. This collaboration memorandum will be a step on bearing Turkey – China relationship to a strategic level in the future. Turkey – Russia relations is a good example for proving the fact that developing energy-trade relation has a significantly positive affect on the development of political relations. China which has veto power in UN Security Council, has a potential for being a superpower in the near future. Cooperation between Turkey and China on politics become a stronger possibility by the development of energy cooperation between Turkey and China.

On the other hand, China will invest to Turkey according to the MoU and these investments will help Turkey to meet the deficits of Turkey-China trade relation. According to the Chinese Perspective, energy cooperation with Turkey and designation of Turkey as a strategic base (after the Turkey President Gül’s signing of a agreement on establishing a investment base in Turkey with Chinese Huawi Company) will be an important boost for developing China’s Middle East Initiative. Turkey’s cooperation with world’s potential superpower China in Middle East is not only an issue of energy sector, it also provides important advantages in world politics for Turkey.

Conclusion

Energy Memorandum Article is a turning point for bilateral relations of Turkey and China in general and it is also a turning point for energy relations in private. Countries which can provide energy security will be the main actors of international politics according to the energy security aspect. This Memorandum is a milestone for providing Turkey’s energy security. China investment to energy sector of Turkey, is an important contribution to efforts on satisfying Turkey’s energy need and proving Turkey’s energy security. Chinese investment of renewable energy and nuclear energy will give the ability of multiplying energy sources for Turkey. Energy is becoming the most important cooperation issue between Turkey and China in this sense. Cooperation on producing energy with China is strategically beneficial for Turkey. Turkey – China energy cooperation is based on the strategy of bilateral cooperation and win – win approach. Benefits which will gained through energy cooperation in the future will give positive opportunities to both state and individuals.

Turkey’s Policies for New and Renewable Energy - Emin KORAMAZ

2010-04-06T16:44:00.002+03:00

Energy has a strategic dimension in international policy, dilemma and conflicts. If we consider together the 9/11 attacks, the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the present crisis and developments in the world energy market, we can see that tendencies in energy issues are headed far from peace and prosperity, that delays are possible in investments and that these problems may be intensified.

An important rise in fossil fuel prices is also expected due to the difficulty of satisfying the world’s rising demand for petroleum. In global politics cheap oil and natural gas is going the way of history.

Accepting existing developments as they are and developing policies in increasing uncertainty will not prevent energy related problems and social disturbances. As a result, we should not be fooled by recent factors such as the 5% decrease in Turkey’s demand for electricity. In reality, over the last five years, Turkey’s primary energy consumption increased 35%, and its electrical energy consumption increased 43%.

Meanwhile, our country’s dependency on foreign energy has reached 75%. Only 25% of our total energy consumption (the equivalent of 107 million tons of petroleum) is being met by local production. We can say that Turkey’s 93% dependency on foreign oil and 97% dependency on foreign natural gas will continue.

Our energy loss in industry is at least the equivalent of 6 million tons of petroleum. Our country’s conservation potential is over 25%. By exploiting the 25-30% energy conservation potential in decisive sectors it is possible to save 5 billion dollars. It is possible to reduce the share of the energy cost within product cost in manufacture, which varies from 8 to 50%.

The main reason that problems have reached such a scale is that the public service energy production is seen as a market activity, and this is not a strategic planning approach. The cause is the division, downsizing and dysfunctionalization of public enterprises in the energy sector by means of privatization and liberalization policies implemented over the last 30 years. It is due to the encouragement of electric plants that depend on imported natural gas and to the failure to improve, maintain, repair and increase the capacity of our lignite fueled and hydroelectric plants because of commercial promises made to the natural gas plants. It is due to the failure to utilize adequately our rich lignite reserves, hydraulic resources, new and renewable energy sources such as wind, geothermal and solar. However, it is possible to change this situation. Our suggestions regarding this issue are below.

Suggestions for Necessary Steps in the Renewable Energy Sector

1. “The Draft Law on Supporting the Use of Renewable Energy Sources for Electrical Energy Production” should be revised and submitted to the parliament for ratification.

• The restructuring of the renewable energy legislation can be enabled by an integrated general framework law, a “renewable energy strategy and action plan” and a “Turkey general energy document and action plan,” prepared with the participation of universities, professional organizations, expert foundations and industrial institutions, taking market failures in consideration. Strategy documents and secondary legislation that covers incentives for each investment type such as hydraulic, thermal, wind, solar and geothermal should be separately prepared and 2020-2030-2050 targets should be identified for each resource.
• Plans, strategies and targets for the electrical energy sector should be determined, and incentives should especially target R&D and local production. Development of local industries and employment in renewable energy sector should be supported in planning.
•
• The productivity standards of each resource should be determined in order to prevent importing unproductive technologies, inefficient use of resources and the formation of technological junkyards. The world’s beneficial and productive technologies should be encouraged considering the minimum productivity of the technology to be used (turbine productivity, panel productivity, system productivity, etc).
• Inventories of the locations of future plants should be prepared ahead of time, making sure that these locations do not overlap with land uses such as agriculture and urban development.
• A production-consumption plan should be made that minimizes transport and distribution losses.
• If transport/distribution of the produced energy is obligatory, relevant institutions should determine existing limitations of the infrastructure ahead of time.
• Project feasibility reports should be the basis of production license grants.
• The secondary legislation to be prepared should be clear and based on objective criteria.
• In order to prevent confusion, investments should begin after the legislation is in effect.
2. In order to raise awareness concerning the use of renewable energy resources, pilot projects should be implemented in all provinces/towns, with public guidance and contributions from professional organizations, universities, government institutions and local governments.
3. It will be a more realistic structure if ETKB follows its actual functions including licensing, technically monitoring and contracting new investments in the energy sector, and EPDK to return to its role of regulation, monitoring and determining flow up investments.
4. The downsizing, dysfunctionalization and privatization of public enterprises in the energy sector should cease and public enterprises should be strengthened. BOTAS and TPAO should be reunited under Turkish Petrol and Natural Gas Institution in order to continue natural gas and oil search, production, transport, refinery, distribution and sale activities in an interated manner while EUAS, TEIAS, TEDAS and TETAS should be reunited under Turkish Electric Institution (TEK) so that electric production, transport and distribution activities are integrated.
5. The main principle of energy production investments should be the minimization of environmental damage. Environmental impact assessment reports and EPDK licence details should be transparent and ‘EIA Appropriate’ documents should be prerequisite for licences to be granted. Investment licences should be cancelled if previously licensed investments fail to get EIA documents or if previously given EIA documents are cancelled. In applications to renew EIA reports or EPDK licences, fuel changes, especially from coal to imported coal, and extensive capacity increases should not be permitted.
6. Liquid bed technologies should not be used in coal fueled plants and it should be obligatory to have chimney treatment facilities and high efficiency filters in existing and new plants. Air cooling systems should be used in natural gas fueled plants, rater than water cooling systems that diminish already limited water resources. Necessary revisions and capacity improvements in thermal plants should be finalized rapidly, idle capacities should be utilized, technical productivity and readiness of coal based thermal plants should be increased, and measures should be taken to reduce pollution. Privatization of plants that have been rehabilitated by public finance and contracting rehabilitation works to unqualified foreign firms should be stopped.
7. Investments toward reducing loss and piracy in electricity that is around 15% should be made rapidly, legal regulations on conservation and efficiency should be made.
8. Continuing public hydraulic plant projects should be finished by allocating necessary resources. EPDK should monitor the meeting of the construction deadlines it licensed. The importance of this issue is illustrated by the fact that only one of every five hydraulic plant projects licensed by EPDK has investment realization above 35%.
9. The grid connection and system balance of wind plants should be technically investigated, problems should be resolved by R&D support if necessary.
10. The existing capacity for electricity production (500 MW) from geothermal sources should be utilized, tens of thousands of homes should be heated with geothermal water, and the prioritization of the use of geothermal resources for centrally heating dense urban settlements should be obligatory.
11. A legal foundation for the utilization of the solar power potential should be established, secondary legislation should put in to effect according to this law, determination of solar power production technology level, the scope of R&D activities, methods, pilot facilities, production facilities, manufacturing and assembly stages should be planned. Local production of Photovoltaic cells and condensing systems should be aimed.
12. Decrees on norms, standards, minimum performance criteria and procedures for architectural design, heating/cooling needs and equipments, insulation needs and materias, electrical systems and lighting should be prepared by EIE, Ministry of Settlement and public works and professional organizations, put in effect and implementation should be monitored.
13. The number of academic research institutions such as TUBITAK and Marmara MAM should be increased. Research centers should be established for: solar energy technologies in Mugla, Adana, Mersin and Harran universities; lignite/coal burning technologies in Afsin Elbistan; wind plants in Izmir and Canakkale; geothermal energy in the Aegean region; hydraulic energy in southeastern Anatolia, and biofuel in Cukurova and the GAP region.

The EU’s Energy Politics - Dr. Dimitris Tsarouhas

2010-04-06T16:43:00.002+03:00

Introduction
The Lisbon Treaty is meant to usher in a new stage in European integration. The smooth functioning of the institutions, new bodies to coordinate policy and a better decision-making process are its main accomplishments. How these will translate into policy practice is uncertain. For the time being, enthusiasm is limited due to intra-institutional squabbles and the failure of the Union to inspire its citizens.
This was not always the case. Over the 1980s and for a large part of the 1990s, the European Union became the focal point of innovative politics the world over. The main reason was the realistic and at the same time idealistic decision of its member states to pool their sovereignty in economic affairs and create the world’s largest single market.
Today, however, intra-state antagonism is on the increase and intergovernmentalist considerations prevent closer cooperation. Energy politics is a case in point, precisely because dependence on oil and (especially) gas is so varied among EU member states.
In what follows I start with reviewing how the single market became possible before discussing Europe’s energy politics agenda. I conclude by arguing that European synergies on energy politics are needed if the Union is to match its economic clout with geopolitical power. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty could be a step in that direction.

Forming a Single Market
The signing of the Single European Act in 1986 was a historic step forward in the institutional development of the Union. Apart from modifying the Treaties that had created the European Communities, it also ‘brought major cooperative arrangements more firmly within the framework of what may be termed the Community process’ and granted new decision-making powers to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
In addition, the SEA incorporated into the Rome Treaty the concept of cooperation in economic and monetary policy and paved the way for EMU. More importantly, the SEA signalled the willingness of Europe to reform and expand its institutional machinery to face off the economic challenge of the United States and Japan, whose competitive advantage had grown over the previous decade. In all these respects, the SEA proved the crucial turning point in the history of European integration. It was the brainchild of an activist Commission, put in place under the leadership of the French Socialist Jacques Delors. Delors wished to mark a new beginning for the Community, whilst at the same time empowering the marginalized Commission. The Single European Act is therefore the one piece of legislation that unlocked Europe from past inertia and introduced the legislative conditions enabling the Community to move beyond a predominantly intergovernmentalist perspective.

Gas Supply and the Russia factor

There is a marked difference in the oil and gas markets. While the former functions pretty much on the basis of predictable prices and pretty secure supply, gas supply is very much depended on pipelines due to the nature of the product. The logical consequence of that is that gas supply becomes enmeshed in geopolitics and the relative power leverage the Union can have vis a vis its main suppliers.
Russia is here the world’s most important player as it is the largest producer of natural gas and has the largest proven gas reserves. The Union, by contrast, produces only one quarter of what it consumes. For the foreseeable future, the EU will be dependent on Russia and the question that emerges is how this relationship can be managed to avoid conflict and secure supply in the long term.
What is the main goal of the EU at this moment in time? The Union has declared that it wishes to establish a ‘balanced’ partnership with Russia on the issue and has been asking for the renewal of the PCA, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the two sides. The original agreement dates back to 1997 and is the framework within which bilateral trade relations are managed. Energy relations are but one of the items on this agenda and the negotiations between the two sides are ongoing. The PCA therefore addresses the issue of energy though it is by no means limited to it.
The 2009 Russia-Georgia war cast a shadow over EU-Russia relations, and it revealed that the Union remains deeply split on the issue. While some countries (mostly CEE states) push for a tough stance towards Moscow, old and powerful member states wish to maintain good relations with Russia, even at the cost of disappointing some new entrants. Furthermore, it is important to stress that not all EU member states are exposed to the Kremlin’s ability to control gas supplies in Europe to the same extent. In fact, member states such as Spain have no dependence on Russia whatsoever, and can therefore make their policy calculations regarding Moscow in a markedly different way compared to the Baltic states or Poland, whose dependence on Russian gas is absolute.
What is certain is that Russia is well aware both of EU divisions on the subject and its own ability to influence western policy. The prominent role of Gazprom, aided by the Kremlin, is no coincidence. What is Russia’s objective on this issue?
Russia’s dominant position in the vital gas market and the pipeline diplomacy necessary to achieve stability in supply means that Russia has been able to use its position for political reasons. This, in turn, is part of the larger Russian narrative of grievance and the insistent complaints levelled towards the west for the way it sought to exploit Russia’s weakness in the early post-Cold War era. The chaos of the time has left its mark on Russia’s attitude towards the west and suspicion has been ripe for quite some time. Following Putin’s arrival to power, that grievance manifested itself in a new type of neorealist policy towards the west. Disrupting gas supplies for a brief period in 2006 was a warning shot. In early 2009 Russia stopped supplies to Ukraine over a payment dispute leading to a (literally) frozen landscape across much of Eastern Europe for two long weeks. Europe is currently busy financing various gas and electricity projects to prevent a future supply crisis in an attempt to insure itself against unpredictability and pipeline politics.
The EU claims that securing supply diversity is a key priority and has therefore backed projects such as Nabucco, a project aiming at delivering Caspian gas to Austria from Turkey thus lessening dependence on Russia. Despite the signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the project in July 2009 and its recent parliamentary ratification by the Turkish Parliament (the countries involved including transit are Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary Austria) question marks remain s to the efficacy of this private-sector project, the amount of gas secured and the alternative routes mapped out. Moreover, Nabucco’s rival, the Kremlin-backed South Stream that will deliver gas from Russia to Europe via Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Croatia to Italy. In August 2009, Russia and Turkey agreed that the proposed pipeline will be able to pass through Turkish territorial waters. Russia and the EU both deny the alleged rivalry between the two projects. These are but two of the prominent examples highlighting the role of pipeline politics in the context of EU-Russia relations as the old continent is scattered with plans and ongoing pipeline projects all scrabbling for security and good positioning in the gas match.
The American factor should not be left outside completely. Russia’s actions in Georgia and its behaviour in what it sees as its ‘near abroad’, especially Ukraine, highlight its intense displeasure from US-backed initiatives to incorporate those countries into NATO (similar to what happened with CEE states earlier). The recent NATO Summit in Bucharest provided further evidence of many EU states’ unwillingness to sacrifice a level-headed political relationship with Russia for the sake of NATO expansion in former Soviet territory. Whether this policy can be reconciled with the alleged willingness by Brussels to push the Kremlin on its human rights and civil liberties record is a different question. Meanwhile, the realization that all three (US, Europe, Russia) need each other in the face of challenges such as the Iran question leads many to predict a soothing of relations in the near future. Following the Russian-Georgian war and the tension this was accompanied by, EU-Russia relations already seem to have been stabilized again. Meanwhile, the US and Russia are close to a very hopeful, new nuclear treaty to halve the number of their nuclear stockpiles. Obama’s arrival to the White House is already producing visible signs of improvement in US-Russian relations.

Conclusion: EU Energy Politics and the Lisbon Treaty
Last December, the Lisbon Treaty finally came into effect. After a decade-long process of soul-searching, failed referenda and endless arguments about integration, the Union now has a better tool to address global policy challenges and coordinates the work of its institutions more effectively.
Energy is explicitly mentioned in the Treaty and that is a first for such a document. More importantly, energy policy has shifted away from unanimity voting towards qualified majority. This should in theory make it easier for the Union to reach quick and effective decision on energy. Solidarity on energy supply is pledged by Brussels to member states and that is a gesture to countries that have been affected by the recent crises mentioned above. If it is more than a token gesture remains to be seen.
A common energy policy is now an official EU objective. Pipeline politics reveal that this may still be a far-fetched goal. Lisbon, however, has brought it a tiny step closer to reality. For the sake of European integration, energy constitutes a vital policy area where new initiatives can pave the way for integration.

Supply Perspectives of Russia Kremlin Winking at NABUCCO - Özer Çetinkaya

2010-04-06T16:37:00.002+03:00

It was not expected that increase of production, growth and prosperity would arise Russia again. This period which was started with the collapse of USSR, had reached its peak with the increase of oil prices by the impact of US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Moscow government made a strategic decision in 2000. Control of Russian economy should be transferred to the state solidly. Economy had transformed to a new system which is based on raw material exportation. Investments were slipping towards EU member Eastern Europe and Pacific. Energy demand in these region was expected to increase slightly per year. Besides all these, Russia stands in the middle of EU and Pacific and Russia controls the energy valve. Plan was worked well in the last 10 years. Russia embraces Europe with its strong claws like a grown-up bear and it challenges Atlantic Alliance. If Moscow is the body and Kremlin is the brain of this bear, GAZPROM and LUKOIL are the claws of this bear.

Europe and Russia

Europe and Russia are onto forming a strategic partnership since the US invasion of Iraq. This progress is leaded by Germany. The basic element of strategic partnership is economics actually and energy has the main role in the economic cooperation. Europe is importing %40 of its natural gas from Russia. 2/3 of Russian gas export is with Europe. EU also imports the 1/3 of its oil demand and ¼ of its coal demand from Russia. European companies are the main investors at Russian oil, gas and electricity sectors. Russian energy giants’ role in European Markets is also rising. Mutually and strongly developed European – Russia relations in recent years disturbs Washington. Washington brought up the threat of dependency to Russian energy for Europe. Arguments brought by Washington are stated as the vital for EU:

- Moscow is using energy as a political weapon.
- Russian companies do not invest on new areas.
- Russian companies have a tendency towards Asia.

Russian energy policy and supply perspectives are more likely to aiming at gaining economic power than gaining political power. Russia will become a bigger power by economic income. It means the Russia’s becoming a global, independent power in the conditions of 21st century.

Is the Islamic Countries True Choice?

What is the meaning of spreading Russia frighten among Europeans? EU had given a long list of duties. Decreasing the state role in Russian oil and gas market is the first duty on the list. Concerns of Europe are not derived from Moscow, main source of these concerns is Europe itself. Enlargement towards eastern countries was the role for EU which was designed by Atlantic Alliance. Atlantic bounded European Countries lost their ability of strategic thinking while they are trying to understand their role. EU preferred to trust far Islamic countries energy instead of establishing an energy partnership with Russia. Ambiguities like invasion of Iraq and Iran’s future helped Europe to see their strategic mistake. EU steps seems to be the efforts for fixing the strategic mistake by tactical steps.

Will Kremlin Participate to NABUCCO?

What if Russia does not have a desire to produce more natural gas? This question is an argument brought for scaring Europe in fact. For supporting this question, decrease of Russian oil produce which was had a growth capacity of 8% for years, since 2007 is stated as evidence. Situation may seem like this when looking at it for one, but it should not be forgotten that 2007 global economic crisis is still effective. Economies are shrinking and countries such Greece and Spain are in the edge of bankrupt. Even there is a positive movement in global economy in 2010; its reflections can only be seen after 2011 on Russian energy production. Demand decreasing also decreases the energy prices. Russia’s response would be a decrease in production. Gazprom will continue to be the leader in the gas production with its financial power and with its ability of strategic planning. Gazprom will reach till the North American market with its LPG raid. Two main issues will determine Russia’s energy strategy in the future:

1- Participation to NABUCCO
2- Partnership with China in big projects.

Germany requested Kremlin to participate NABUCCO project in senior level. This request shows the tactic change of EU which is problematic with finding gas sources. Kremlin has not decided yet. Attitude of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan will be effective on this decision. If Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan decide to develop cooperation with Russia, Russia will accept to participate NABUCCO. Russia advanced to be a real alternative for Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan assumes the rising in Europe as the most important potential strategy so Azerbaijan desires to canalize its consumers to put pressure on Turkey. Natural gas which will reached to Russia by Azerbaijan is 500 mcm per year. This amount does not make Azerbaijan advantageous. Azerbaijan’s other neighbor Iran demands gas in winter months especially Northern Iran. Turkmen gas meets the Iran gas demand already. New pipeline which was started operating, is enters Iran through Devletabad. This pipeline and Körpece-Kurtköy pipeline can provide 14 bcm of natural gas per year. This capacity may increase to 20 bcm. Also Azerbaijan exports natural gas with advantageous conditions. With the agreement which will be active until 2013 1.5 mcm of natural gas per day will be transferred to Georgia. Subject of extending the agreement is another issue. All these issues bring up the GAZPROM as a real alternative for Azerbaijan.

New Plans of Russia

Moscow prefers to establish partnerships with local energy distributors to ensure Europe’s trust instead of increasing energy production. Situation is same in the Asia-Pacific region too. Studies on huge projects continue by the association of GAZPROM and China. Fundamental issues in Russia’s new strategy proof this point:

a) Diversifying export market.
b) Diversifying product application areas.
c) Focusing on Asia.

Under those conditions Europeans should look forward to sign long term supply agreements instead of concerning about energy dependency to Russia. Russian entrance understood as a new threat for Europe. In fact, Russia’s partnership with Nigeria, Algeria and Libya provides new options to overcome increasing demand of Europe.

Box – 1
NABUCCO – South Stream Comparison

6 NABUCCO countries have an import amount of 80 bcm per year. Russia established a 900 km long pipeline project called South Stream which is passes through 2000 m deep of the Black Sea and connects to Bulgaria gas network. South Stream pipeline will divide into two directions. One direction will reach Austria through Serbia-Hungary route and the other direction will reach to Italy through Greece. Italian ENI company is an important partner of Russia in this project. NABUCCO country Hungary is also participating South Stream project. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan which does not have a tendency to provide gas to NABUCCO, signed a gas agreement with Russia for South Stream Project. South Stream’s capacity will be 30 bcm/year in the beginning then capacity will increased to 63 bcm/year. South Stream does not have problems such as providing gas and it will be finished before NABUCCO in 2015.

Box – 2

Supply-Demand Expectations for EU

YEAR GAS DEMAND EU PRODUCTION DEFICIT RF SUPPLY PLAN

2015 614 bcm 282 bcm 332 bcm 250 bcm

2030 694 bcm 217 bcm 467 bcm

Box – 3

Production Strategy of Russia

Expected oil production in the Russia’s 30 year plan for energy is 490-520 million tons. 200-215 million tons of this production will be expended by internal consumption. 100-105 tons are planned for Asia-Pacific region. 30-35 million tons of the rest will be reserved for Commonwealth of Independent States. The rest 150-160 million tons above the amount sold to Europe in 2001; 181 million tons.

Source of Conflict and Life: Energy Future of Iraq - Volkan Güner

2010-04-06T16:36:00.000+03:00

Planning and managing an energy future is a hard quest for a country like Iraq. Iraq is in a conflict zone which maintains various religious and ethnic groups. Conflict in the country is based on political, ethnic and economic problems. Especially after the US invasion in 2002, Iraq energy resources became a bigger question for the sides of this conflict. Iraq is expected to have stability after the elections held in March 7th, 2010. There are also some analysts who state that after the elections and US army withdrawn from Iraq there will be a state of conflict. The attacks and deaths on the Election Day can be understood as signals of an upcoming civil war in Iraq. All these issues will strongly affect the energy future of country. For understanding and interpreting the situation of energy, Iraq’s energy evolution should be examined, especially situation on oil and natural gas.

Iraq was the world’s 13th largest oil producer in 2008, and has the world’s third largest proven petroleum reserves after Saudi Arabia and Canada. Just a fraction of Iraq’s known fields are in development, and Iraq may be one of the few places left where vast reserves, proven and unknown, have barely been exploited. Iraq’s energy sector is heavily based upon oil, with approximately 94 percent of its energy needs met with petroleum. According to the International Monetary Fund, crude oil export revenues represented over 75 percent of GDP and 86 percent of government revenues in 20081.

Sanctions undermined Iraq’s oil sector and Iraq’s oil infrastructure needs to be reformed. US allocation of $ 2.05 billion to Iraqi oil and gas sector started a kind of reformation but it was ended in 2008. In 2009, Iraqi budget accepted $ 3.2 billion allocation to Ministry of Oil it was a %50 percent increase from the 2008 base budget. US government agencies reported that Iraqi reconstruction of oil, gas and electricity sectors cost $ 100 billion or higher. International oil companies are expected to be aided according to the Hydrocarbons Law in accordance with their investments.

Oil

Oil and Gas Journal announced that Iraq has oil reserves which contain 115 billion barrels but statistics have not been revised since 2001. In the unexplored territories of Iraq (western and Southern Deserts) there may be additional coverable oil of 45 to 100 billion barrels.

One of the main problems on oil is the division of resources across sectarian demographic lines. Hydrocarbon resources are mostly found in the Shiite areas of the South and resources of Northern Iraq which is ethnically Kurdish is controlled by Sunni minority.

Eastern edge of Iraq is known as the oil and gas depot of the country. There are 9 fields which are called as “Super Giants” (over 5 billion barrels) and there are 22 fields which are known as “Giant” fields (over 1 billion barrels). Southeastern Iraq contains the largest known concentration of such fields. This region also has the 70 to 80 percent of the Iraq’s proven oil sources. 20 percent of oil resources are located in the north of Iraq, near Kirkuk, Mosul, and Khanaqin. This area is controlled by the Kurds and other groups living in that region.

Oil Production

State owned oil companies were producing oil at an average of 2.4 million barrels per day. In 2008, production was 2.1 million barrels per day in 2007. Pre-war production capacity level still not reached which was 2.8 million barrels per day in 2003. Nearly 66% of the production comes from the southern fields. Actually, three giant fields are the major production areas: North and South Rumelia and Kirkuk.

Currently, the Ministry of Oil has central control over oil and gas production and development in all but the Kurdish territory through its three operating entities, the North Oil Company (NOC), the South Oil Company (SOC), and the Missan Oil Company (MOC), which was split off from the South Oil Company in 2008. According to the NOC’s website, their concession and jurisdiction extends from the Turkish borders in the north to 32.5 degrees latitude (about 100 miles south of Baghdad), and from Iranian borders in the east to Syrian and Jordanian borders in the west. The company’s geographical operation area spans the following governorates: Tamim (Kirkuk), Nineveh, Irbil, Baghdad, Diyala and part of Babil to Hilla and Wasit to Kut. The remainder falls under the jurisdiction of the SOC and MOC, and though smaller in geographical size, includes the majority of proven reserves. MOC's oil fields hold an estimated 30 billion barrels of reserves. They include Amara, Halfaya, Huwaiza, Noor, Rifaee, Dijaila, Kumait and East Rafidain.

Development

Iraq government aims to increase oil production by 300.000 barrels per day 70 2.7 million barrels by the end of 2010. Crude oil production capacity is expected to become 1.5 million barrels per day within 3-4 years and by an additional 2 million barrels per day to a total of 6 million barrels per day within 10 years according to the Iraq’s 10 year strategic plan (2008-2017). As part of this plan, Iraq planned three licensing rounds. The first was announced June 30, 2008, and included plans to rehabilitate six giant producing fields with reserves of over 43 billion barrels. These contracts were planned to be awarded by mid-2009. The second bidding round was announced in December 2008 for fields that were explored but not fully developed. Iraq also plans to sign delineation agreements on shared oil fields with Kuwait and Iran. It would like to set up joint committees with its neighbors on how to share the oil. In April 2009, Iraq started work on the Safwan field with Kuwait.

Kurdistan Regional Government Issues
The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the official ruling body of a federated region in northern Iraq that is predominantly Kurdish, passed its own hydrocarbons law in 2007. Despite the lack of a national Iraqi law governing investment in hydrocarbons, KRG has signed oil production sharing, development and exploration contracts with several foreign firms. In addition, more than a dozen contracts signed by the central government with international companies during Saddam Hussein’s regime are being renegotiated or may come under review when Iraq’s oil law and investment framework is in place. In the interim, the Iraqi Ministry of Oil has approved a request from the KRG to send 60,000 barrels per day of crude oil from the Tawke and Taq fields in the Kurdish region to the northern Iraq export pipeline, effective June 2009. KRG Natural Resources Minister Ashti Hawrami expects Kurdish production to reach 250,000 barrels per day by early 2010.

Refining
Iraqi refineries, with a total capacity of almost 600,000 barrels per day, have antiquated infrastructure, and their output does not reflect the current demand mix. Despite improvements in recent years, the sector has not been able to meet domestic demand for most refined products, and the refineries produce too much heavy fuel oil. As a result, Iraq relies on imports for about one fourth of the petroleum products it uses, with total petroleum product consumption averaging about 600,000 barrels per day in 2008. To alleviate product shortages, Iraq’s 10-year strategic plan for 2008-2017 set a goal of increasing refining capacity from 600,000 barrels per day to 1.5 million barrels per day. Iraq has plans for 5 new refineries, as well as plans for expanding the existing Daura and Basrah refineries.

Natural Gas

Reserves

According to the Oil and Gas Journal,Iraq’s proven natural gas reserves are 112 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). An estimated 70 percent of these lie in Basra governorate in the south of Iraq. Probable Iraqi reserves have been estimated at 275-300 Tcf, and work is currently underway by several IOCs and independents to accurately update hydrocarbon reserve numbers. Iraq’s proven gas reserves are the tenth largest in the world, and two-thirds of resources are associated with oil fields including, Kirkuk, as well as the southern Nahr (Bin) Umar, Majnoon, Halfaya, Nassiriya, the Rumaila fields, West Qurna, and Zubair. Just under 20 percent of known gas reserves are non-associated; around 10 percent is salt “dome” gas. The majority of non-associated reserves are concentrated in several fields in the North including: Ajil, Bai Hassan, Jambur, Chemchemal, Kor Mor, Khashem al-Ahmar, and al-Mansuriyah.

Production

Iraqi natural gas production has risen since 2003, and has returned to levels reached during the mid-1990’s. However, its 2006 dry natural gas production of approximately 104 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per year is still far below its peak level of 215 Bcf reached in 1989. The Ministry of Oil reported that approximately 60 percent of associated natural gas production is flared due to a lack of sufficient infrastructure to utilize it for consumption and export. Significant volumes of gas are also re-injectedto enhance oil recovery efforts. In addition, the flaring of the natural gas has meant lost Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) output of an estimated 4,000 tons per day, while at the same time there are LPG shortages requiring imports of 1,200 tons per day. To reduce flaring, the state-owned South Gas Company signed an agreement with Shell in September 2008to implement a 25-year project to capture flared gas and provide it for domestic use, with any surplus sent to an LNG project for export.

Upstream Development

The non-associated gas fields reportedly slated for priority development are mostly in the northern governorates near Kirkuk, including: al-Mansuriyah and the nearby Khashem al-Ahmar and Jaria Pika, Kor Mor, Akkas, Chemchemal and Siba. It is also been reported that the government of Iraq plans to capture more associated gas at Rumaila and Az-Zubair within five to ten years.
Iraq’s 10-year strategic plan for 2008-2017 set a goal of increasing natural gas production to 2.5 trillion cubic feet per year, and to end the flaring of natural gas. As part of this plan, Iraq planned three licensing rounds. The first was announced June 30, 2008, and included an expected $5 billion investment for natural gas fields with 22 Tcf of reserves, including Akkas in the western desert and al-Mansuriyah in the east. The contracts to develop these fields are planned for mid-2009. The second bidding round with 26 Tcf of reserves was planned for 2009, and includes the Siba field in the Basra area.

Iraq signed an agreement on producing oil in Bedra Region with a consortium which is a partnership of Russian Gasprom Neft Turkish TPAO, South Korean Kogas and Malaysian Petronas. Iraqi State owned oil companies have a share of %25 in this consortium. This consortium won a bid which was held in December 2009. This agreement will last for 20 years of time which is made for oil production of oil. Production is 170.000 barrels per day in Bedra region. Iraq government made agreements with 45 companies from 23 countries in December 2009 which is on oil reserves worth $ 41.2 billion. Russian giant oil production company LUKoil which was withdrawn from Iraq after the Iraq War in 2002, has been returned to west Kurna-2 region with the cooperation of Norwegian Statoil (ASA) Company. Russia had cancelled the payment of Iraq’s dept of $ 10 billion.

It is clear that Iraq is getting more and more privatized on producing and selling energy. International status and US effect on energy obliges Iraq to that kind of a policy. Iraq’s energy policy cannot be designed by Iraq’s own. Not only international pressure but home affairs of Iraq are so much complicated. Election cannot solve those internal problems in a short – time period. Energy games on Iraq will expected to continue after the election but actors and roles are a bit changing.

Iran was the most benefited country from the US invasion of Iraq in 2002. Actually, Iran got stronger and stronger after the invasion. Iran started the uranium enrichment program which seen as a possible threat especially by US. Iraq is so much problematic because of the conflicts and stability problem in its territory. So Iraq becomes more vulnerable to outside pressures. Iraq does not have the enough power to solve its problems by its own. Iraq needs to arrange new laws for preventing conflicts and to construct a political stability. Iran’s pressure on Iraq is based on forming a Anti-American government in Iraq. Iran is investing on Iraq’s energy sources and making donations to religious associations to increase their effect on Iraq.

US is planning to withdraw from Iraq until 2011, after US withdrawn, Iraq is expected have more problems about internal security. So Iraq will expect aid from its neighbors, Iran is preparing for this kind of an invitation and Iran would definitely use Iraq’s unstable situation to use Iraq’s energy resources and Iran would intervene Iraq policies. Russia is an another matter of fact on energy in the region. Russia will try to dominate natural gas production and exportation with using the advantage of its stability.

Iraq should find a solution to prevent a possible state of conflict solution may include delaying US withdrawn too. Consolidative laws for ethnic and religious groups and powerful support for efficiency of these laws may be effective for assuring stability. If stability cannot be assured energy exploitation over Iraq will become more widespread on oil and natural gas resources. It should be stated that Iraq is privatizing its energy production infrastructure with the agreements which are signed with foreign companies. This is a result of globalized world economy but Iraq’s policy seems to be a result of the conflicts within the region. Iraq cannot administrate its energy resources but privatize them. It seems to be hard to form a new government in Iraq, according to the unofficial results al- Iraqqiya coalition which is leaded by former prime minister Iyad Allawi is going ahead with a minor difference, National Iraqi Alliance and State of Law Coalition will be the second and third parties. Election results are hard to be predicted but a coalition government will be inevitable in Iraq. If Iraq cannot form a strong government after the elections then Iraq would lose its sovereignty on its energy resources so Iraq’s sovereignty in its borders will become suspicious.

Nuclear Energy Gift - Prof. Dr. Sümer Şahin

2010-04-06T16:35:00.000+03:00

Nuclear energy is the main energy source of universe because all stars including sun produce their energy from fusion nuclear reactions. Fusion is the producing engine of the energy resources. All energy sources are transformation of the energy which is derived from fusion in the sun. World’s energy future will be shaped by nuclear energy for certain because density of nuclear energy is significantly higher than any other energy types. The main cause at heading towards nuclear energy in the 21st century is that nuclear technology is the locomotive engine of developing high level technology and electricity is a by product energy. The ratio between the need of science and technology and the need of technology is equal. If you need high level science and technology, you will need nuclear energy absolutely. Alternative energy sources cannot replace the role of nuclear energy.

Hydraulic energy and wind power have a very low density of energy when they are compared to conventional thermal energy, which is produced by chemical burning (coal, natural gas, oil) and its density is higher than both hydraulic energy and wind power by ~ 10000 times. Thermal energy has been the main energy type used in the 19th and 20th centuries. Density of nuclear energy is 10 million – 100 million times higher than conventional thermal energy. Chemical energy production per reaction is in the range of few electron volts, but energy production from fission per reaction is 200 million electron volts and energy production from fusion is 17 million electron volts. 1/5000 of natural waters are heavy water. If extract deuterium from 1 lt of natural water and burn it in fusion reactor, produced energy will be equivalent to the energy which will be produced from burning of 300 lt of benzine.

Load factor of nuclear energy is also another important issue which shows the superiority of nuclear energy. Load factor of nuclear reactors is around 90 % - 98 %.

Developed countries use nuclear energy widespread but underdeveloped countries still producing energy from chemical thermal energy or hydro power. The block which has most widespread use of nuclear energy is EU. Among the countries US is the leading country in nuclear energy use. EU and US are giving a high level of importance to nuclear energy. For instance, Belgium which can be counted as a small country by its territory size has 7 nuclear centrals. Europe does not have the raw material resources needed for producing nuclear energy; Europe takes needed raw material from Africa. The raw nuclear material is mainly uranium. In spite of its resources Africa does not have any nuclear power plants except two nuclear Load factor in South Africa.

There are great discrepencies in distribution of energy worldwide. There are 1.5 billion people who have not interacted with electrical energy and there are 750 million people who have not even seen the electrical light. This is a big inequality on sharing the energy among humanity.

Nuclear energy production does not have that much danger which environmental associations mentioned. Nuclear power plants are constructions of high level technology and there are no safety problems about any issue. Arguments which defend that nuclear power plants are deadly dangerous are a piece of slanders. The worst disaster caused by nuclear energy was the Chernobyl Disaster which was happened in 1986. Nearly 30-40 people died by immediate effects, and some more thereafter. This death count is very near to a dead count which will be caused from a plane crush. Radioactive nuclear waste material produced by world’s nuclear reactors is 500 cubic meters/year; amount of industrial hazardous materials which consist of extremely highly toxic, carcinogenic materials are 10 million cubic meters measured in a year. Other industrial waste is measured as 1 billion cubic meter per year. Danger caused by highly toxic industrial waste is not less than the danger may be caused from radioactive nuclear waste. Nuclear radiation exists since the universe’s existence; it comes from sun, space, human, from stones, etc. There are radioactive materials everywhere so everybody is exposed to radiation at any place or situation. Intensity of radiation is the determining factor for the danger rate of nuclear energy.

Discussions on the danger of nuclear energy production are not scientific based discussions. Ideological aspects are coming forward while discussing this issue. There is a tendency towards anti-nuclear idea within some marginal groups in Turkey. These people, who are against nuclear energy, have not much information on nuclear energy so they can be called as half enlightened people. Anti-nuclear movements have no rational base actually. Even Patrick Moore (http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm) who is the founder of “Greenpeace” (an environmentalist association), admitted that nuclear energy is a need for future demand in his article published in The Washington Post in 2006. Moore also adds that environmentalist movements are opposing to all high technology and heavy machines and this leads world to a blind alley. In his Nuclear Statement to the US Congressional Committee http://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=70, he states wordly “I want to conclude by emphasizing that nuclear energy – combined with the use of other alternative energy sources like wind, geothermal and hydro – remains the only practical, safe and environmentally-friendly means of resolving America’s energy crisis. If America is to meet its ever increasing demands for energy, then the American nuclear industry must be revitalized and allowed to grow. The time for common sense and scientifically-sound leadership on the nuclear energy issue is now.”

The main aim of international treaties which were on nuclear energy is to develop nuclear energy for commercial uses. Treaties were functioned well in 60s and they prevented a potential nuclear weapon production spread over the world. Also they contain articles on helping no-nuclear countries to develop their nuclear energy. But developed countries generally offer alternative energy sources to underdeveloped countries. This behavior is honest. Countries which do not have nuclear energy such Turkey signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), although Turkey did not need to sign this kind of a treaty because Turkey has no nuclear energy production so it is a mistaken and meaningless policy for Turkey, before the start of the construction of a nuclear reactor. International treaties about nuclear energy are adequate for today but there is a problem in their functioning. Countries which have nuclear weapons have an intention to not signing these treaties such Israel. These treaties are expected to control the Proliferation of nuclear weapons but they are not effective on the countries which have nuclear weapons.

As stated before, most developed countries on producing and using nuclear energy are within the EU. US is the another country which has a high level of nuclear energy technology. Nuclear energy is an important gift given by God to people, every people on the world should benefit from nuclear energy. There are countries which have broken this nuclear energy monopoly. Those countries such as Japan and South Korea achieved their success by applying methodical state policies. The safest and most developed nuclear reactors are designed and constructed by Japan. Canada and South Korea can be counted also as other most successful countries about designing and constructing very safe nuclear reactors.

Turkey has been signing protocols to construct a nuclear power plant for 40 years. The first agreement on constructing a nuclear power plant in Akkuyu - Turkey was signed in 1960s with Sweden. All issues negotiated and finalized between Turkey and Sweden. There was a road problem to Akkuyu that roads were not sufficient to carry heavy loads and Turkey was expected to solve this problem because this issue was not included in the nuclear reactor construction package proposal given by Sweden. Turkey simply did nothing to solve this problem. Agreement between Turkey and Sweden is then cancelled by Sweden. Protocols on construction of nuclear centrals in Turkey were signed with various countries like Canada, France, Germany, US but none of them finalized in the near past. There are no expectations of a nuclear energy development in Middle East until the year 2050. Iran and United Arab Emirates are exceptional. UAE came to an agreement on building a nuclear power plant with South Korea. Iran is studying on nuclear energy by its own. .

Shah Regime was giving a particular importance on nuclear energy production in Iran. Shah regime was overthrown by Khomeini while France – Germany Partnership was constructing two nuclear reactors in Iran. 60% of the construction was finished at the time when Khomeini became the leader of Iran. Khomeini government stopped nuclear power plant construction because of their anti-western ideas. In 90s, Iran signed a treaty with Russia for finishing up the constructions of these reactors. In a speech of Iran Energy Minister which was made in 2009 stated that “Russia did not finish the nuclear centrals for 20 years and Russia is not likely to finish them in the next 200 years.” Iran decided to develop nuclear fuel needs by its own after Russia’s unwillingness to complete the Iranian nuclear reactors. Iran started the uranium enrichment program at last. Iran’s studies on nuclear energy aim at commercial use of nuclear energy, so far. This uranium enrichment only provides the needed fuel for the nuclear reactors which were not finished yet.

There are chances for countries which do not have nuclear energy production yet actually if they choose and come to an agreement with a qualified country or partnership for building nuclear power plants on their territory. Qualifications of the countries which are capable of building nuclear centrals are important at this point. For instance, Russia has an unsuccessful past on building nuclear power plants with the Iran case. Japan Hitachi Company can be called as the most successful company on building nuclear power plants. Hitachi Company is able to finish a nuclear power plant in 39 months if agreement is signed, this speed can be called as a record in nuclear power plant building. Canada finishes building up a nuclear power plant in 60 months, US lost its capability of building nuclear reactors within the last 30 years so US orders nuclear reactor components from South Korea. On the other hand France – Germany partnership builds nuclear power plants in 5 or 6 six years in their own countries but their past about building centrals abroad is unsuccessful. Building of a nuclear power plant to Brazil took 24 years and 6 months for France – Germany Partnership. This partnership has not finished building of another reactor in Finland which was started ~ 15 years ago. If Turkey or countries like Turkey have plans for building nuclear power plants, they have to have correct knowledge about nuclear power plants and they are obliged to design a well-planned program for nuclear energy future. Qualifications of companies and countries should be examined well and decisions should be taken carefully with a stable government policy. A nuclear power plant produces electricity for a century; it is a long term and productive investment.

If Turkey had started a nuclear energy program 40 or 50 years ago, today per capita of Turkey would be around 30000 – 40000 dollars. Also EU would open its gates to Turkey, if Turkey becomes a country which has high level of technology. If Turkey prepares and applies a nuclear energy program efficiently for forthcoming 5 years, Turkey’s membership of the EU will be approved before the year 2015. Nuclear energy usage is a determining factor for a country’s respect in international area. Turkey will not face with problems such as Armenian Genocide arrogations if Turkey focuses on high level technology and succeeds.

Foreign approach on Turkish technology development should be interpreted carefully. Western countries have a subtile tendency to undermine some technological developments because they will benefit from an increased dependency of Turkey. It should not be forgotten that Turkey had stopped developing airplane industry because the US offered airplanes practically free of charge in 50’s.

If a country wants to achieve a high level of technology and development, the one and only guide is science leading to industrial production.

New Energy Bridge: Pakistan - Ali Külebi

2010-04-06T16:31:00.002+03:00

2/3 of world population lives in Asia. World’s important natural resources are in this continent and 30% of the world trade is within the Asia as well. Japan is one of the five biggest economies in the world so it is expected that there will be three Asian countries in the five biggest economies of the world in the near future. Asia continent will be a matter of fact on shaping world economy and politics in the future.

There is also an important country in Asia which do not become a giant power but affective on world politics. Regional power Pakistan is a very important country with its high population, its strategic location which connects Central Asia to open seas, Southern and Western Asia. Pakistan which is observer member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, also connects Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s member countries to Arab Sea so Pakistan cements its strategic location with this condition too. Pakistan is only Muslim nuclear power in the world in respect with its memberships to international organizations and its military power.

Besides all those important issues, Pakistan has a strategically important role for the countries China, Japan and India which are called as Asian Tigers, with its potential place in the energy transportation and supply network of those countries. It would be a appropriate approach to say that India which is in a serious conflict with Pakistan for years, cannot solve its energy problems without having a cooperation with Pakistan.

Its clear that Pakistan has some major problems in contrast with its rising strategic importance on energy transportation routes and transportation of fossil fuels to Arab Sea.

Pakistan’s some major problems are spreading radical religious terror which is spreading inside the country, ethnic terror in Belucistan which has foreign origins, Pakistan had constructed and developed nuclear power as a result of Keşmir problem with India which cannot be solved since 1947. This nuclear power increased the US pressure on Pakistan.

In spite of its nuclear technology and three nuclear power plants, Pakistan will need more energy with it highly increasing population. This friendly country seems to be a energy corridor in the future but Pakistan will have a huge electricity need in the future.

Having nuclear technology gives the advantage of producing its own need for Pakistan, if only Pakistan makes the appropriate investments and developments. For having this advantage Pakistan needs to build nuclear power plants which have higher capacity. Nuclear power plants of today usually have a capacity of 1200 Megawatts, each nuclear power plant unit of Pakistan has a capacity of 300 megawatts. This capacity seems to be enough for today’s Pakistan but Pakistan will need more energy in the near future. Thus Pakistan is planning to have nuclear power plants which have 1000 Megawatts capacity. As a result of those studies, Pakistan’s electricity production from nuclear power plants will increase from 500 megawatts to 8000 megawatts in 2020s. Briefly, Pakistan will produce 16 times more electricity by nuclear power plants ten years later. This precisely means an important production and having liberation against foreign dependence for an undeveloped country like Pakistan which has not fossil fuel resources.

Pakistan which can deal with its energy hunger with the nuclear energy production, has also so much advantages deriving from its important geopolitical location on fossil fuels. Pakistan is in the middle of the Central Asian Countries which has rich oil and gas resources. Turkistan countries in Central Asia have oil reserve of 24 billion tons and have natural gas reserve of 3300 billion cubic meters. These Turkistan countries can reach open seas and world markets limitedly, Pakistan is also a path for this countries with Turkey.

On the other hand, not only Central Asia, Middle East which has 58% of the world oil reserves and has 25% of the world natural gas resources, also dependant on Pakistan’s geopolitical location.

As a result, Pakistan can serve for three main energy corridors,

- A north-south oil corridor which will connect Middle East and Central Asia to China.
- A east-west corridor which will connect India to Middle East
- A north south oil and natural gas corridor which will connect India to Turkistan countries is a future plan with building a pipeline link inside Pakistan.

Importance of Fossil Fuels on China – Pakistan Relations

When the issue of connecting Middle East and Central Asia with an oil corridor comes into the account, Gwadar Harbor which is located in southwest of Pakistan, gains importance. This harbor in the west of Karaci and has a distance of 400 km, its distance to Iran Border is 60 km and its distance to Hurmuz Strait is 350 km. Gwadar Harbor has a perfect strategic location for transportation and storage of petroleum. This harbor is also ideal for petroleum transportation between Turkistan countries and China. China contributed the construction of Gwadar Harbor with an aid of $198 million in 2006. Chinese officials also stated that they will contribute to the construction of Gwadar Harbor with serious investments in the future.

China energy demand increased from 8.5 million barrels per day to 9.1 million barrels per day which means an increase of 3.5 % in 2009. China can supply a part of its energy demand through Pakistan and Gwadar.

Gwadar Harbor is also safe for transporting the petroleum which is produced by China in Sudan against the threat of African Pirates.

Efforts of Pakistan for being an Energy Corridor

Pakistan which tries to handle both its own fossil fuel need and Southern and Southeast Asia countries fossil fuel need, was first started working on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) natural gas pipeline with Iran in the beginning of 1990s. Russia Federation supported this project for Iran to sell natural gas to east instead of Europe because of Russia’s desire to establish a natural gas monopoly over Europe. India first leaned towards this pipeline project which was supposed to be an 2.775 km long energy link passing through Karaci and connects Iran’s Pars Region to India. India stated withdrawn signals with using the natural gas prices as an excuse for not to lose nuclear technology opportunity which was offered by US. Pakistan’s strategic ally China has a high energy demand and started working on finding solutions to maintain the project without India.

Another project on energy is which sustains on a less problematic survey than IPI is aiming at carrying Turkmenistan natural gas to Pakistan through Afghanistan since 2002. Because US aims to harm Iran on IPI project but supports Pakistan and India for transportation of Turkmen natural gas. Only problem in the project is the confusion in Afghanistan and lacking transportation security. Afghanistan’s economical benefit from this project named as Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline is obvious. Pakistan assigned $10 billion to finish this project which is seriously supported by US and told to be given to a US company for construction. Just like in similar cases, Russia Federation’s detention and sabotaging actions against this project is also recognized.

Another project which can pass through Pakistan is Gulf Countries-South Asia (GUSA) pipeline. This project is in the agenda since the beginning of 1990s. Goal of the project is to carry Qatar natural gas beyond the Gulf, Gwadar Harbor through United Arab Emirates territory and territorial waters. China and India requested to join this project while the process. If this project successes, Pakistan is expected to use 25% of the gas which reached to its territory and sends the rest to Asian countries. This project’s progress is problematic because of finance, lacking of mutual trust and terror threat.

Political Struggles with India delay the Pakistan to become an Energy Corridor

Its clear that Cold War between US and Russia in transformed to a economical survey more than a political survey. Russia Federation which aims to maintain its energy monopoly over Europe, also wants to maintain its transportation country and control monopoly over the fossil fuels of Turkistan countries. Besides Russia’s concern on NABUCCO project, US’s reservations towards Iranian natural gas transportation to Europe and India shows the political dimensions of the game which is played on the energy chess board in Asia Minor.

Pakistan which has kind relations with US just like its neighbors, is taking the cuts derived from these games as much as possible.

Problems about Iran-Pakistan-India(IPI) pipeline project are getting more dimensional because of the political reasons, especially reasons derived from the problem with India caused by Keşmir problem. According to the agreement signed for this project in 1993 between Iran and India, 700 km of the pipeline will pass through Pakistan and will reach India. Project costs $4 billion and it was expected to be so much beneficial for Pakistan. If this project succeeded then Pakistan paid $500 million per year as a transportation payment and also Pakistan will be able to pull an amount of natural gas for itself to diversify its energy provision.

Keşmir problem between these states leading India to withdraw from the project and India is more closer to an idea to construct an undersea pipeline to exclude Pakistan from the issue. In spite of Pakistani guarantee which states pipeline will work in war time, India’s concerns are still important but another important issue is Russia and US support and shackles onto this kind of projects. In this sense, it was stated that Pakistan will get help for having energy from the new dams of the Tajikistan through Wakhan energy corridor, only if US abandons Iran natural. Pakistan’s position is not certain at this point.

While the games on energy proceeds like this, countries which have energy resources or countries which will make use of this energy, harmed from this situation.

Colonial countries’ plans for collapsing and sharing Ottoman Empire are applied upon the countries which have energy resources or countries on energy bridges, in different dimensions.

Liberalization Problems of Turkish Energy Market - Süreyya Yücel Özden

2010-04-06T16:30:00.002+03:00

In this century we are living in, it is impossible to understand or interpret any issue or case without the energy perspective. Energy use is actually a life sustaining action. When looking at issues like lightning, education, heating, water, communication, transportation, health and industry every single part of human life bases on energy. Briefly, energy is the basic element of civilization. Until near past, basic elements for life were water, air and earth. It will be appropriate to say that electrical energy should be added to this list. In this sense, without denying the electrical energy developments in Turkey, it should be admitted that there are lots of minor and major problems in Turkey about energy. Two perspectives needed to understand when handling the national and international problems.

A- Internal affairs of Turkey
B- Conditions in Turkey’s International Relations

Internal Affairs of Turkey

1- Turkey is having problems with transforming public energy sector to private energy sector. To regulate energy use, production and transformation, many regulations and laws are enacted. Laws on energy and their dates of release are listed below.
- Law No: 4628, Electricity Market Law, 3 March 2001.
- Law No: 4646, Natural Gas Market Law, 18 April 2001.
- Law No: 5015, Oil Market Law, 20 December 2003.
- Electricity Sector Strategy, 2004,
- Amendment No: 5177 on Law No: 3213 Mining Law, 5 June 2004.
- Law No: 5307 Liquid Petroleum Gas Market Law, 2 March 2005.
- Law No: 5346 Law on use of Renewable Energy Sources to Produce Electrical Energy, 18 May 2005.
- Law No: 5627 Energy Productivity Law, 2 May 2007.
- Law on Geothermal Sources and Natural Mineral Waters, 13 June 2007.
- Law No: 5710 Law on Energy Export, Constructing and Managing Nuclear Power Plants, 21 November 2007.

Sector defined itself in many means and ambiguities overcame mostly. This transformation is important and Turkey has not full liberalized its energy sector yet. There is a lack of communication and cooperation between Ministry of Energy and Natural Sources which is the main responsible in the governmental level and Energy Market Regulatory Authority which is an another regulation body of energy. Communication and cooperation problems also occur in the other bodies related with energy too. Other private associations which are expected to invest on energy, have still many complaints about many issues.

2- Supply Security is an another important problem which still exists in energy sector. There is a 75% foreign dependency for answering the demand on primary energy. For instance there is a 50% dominance of natural gas use at producing electrical energy. Payments which nearly worth $ 50 billion is reported for the energy input of petroleum, LPG and natural gas. These payments are composing the ¼ of the imports and it is an important part of export which worth $132 billion.
Investment Demand

3- Another important problem is the increase of energy demand. If hesitation caused by economic crisis in 2009 does not taken into account, demand increase of primary energy is 5% per year and demand increase of electirical energy is 7% or 8% per year. The issue of answering this demand should be considered. It is predicted that electric consumption of 196 billion Kw/h in 2009 will be increased to 420 billion Kw/h in 2020. According to this prediction the established power of 43000 MW should be upgraded to 96000 MW by a 2 times increase. When all investment demand in energy sector is calculated, $130 billion of financial need is expected in the upcoming 10 years. It is hard the answer the question that How could this financial need problem solved?
4- Another important problem is in the use of energy. Illegal use of electricity, Lose of power while transmitting and distributing electricity and problematic energy structure of the industry causes the extra energy consumption when compared to energy production. In the light of this information expecting a productive use of energy from citizens becomes a senseless expectation.
5- There are other problems apart from building a continuous supply security, demand management, decreasing the foreign dependence, finding appropriate financial support for investments and environmental problems:
- Taxes on fuel consumption.
- In spite of consumers’ cheap energy demand, investors’ high selling price demand.
- Delays or idleness on using local resources for energy production.
- Cancellations of the bids which held for nuclear power plants.
- Lacking construction of natural gas storage facilities.
- Source diversification difficulties.

International Dimensions

Prominent issues in international relations analysis:

- Geopolitical location of Turkey: 70% of the world’s oil and natural gas sources are within the countries around Turkey. In other words Turkey is located between the countries which have hydrocarbon resources and the countries which demand hydrocarbon. Turkey is in the center of Caspian Countries, Middle East Countries and European Countries.
- Countries which have their own energy resources do not hesitate to use the energy card in international relations.
- Internal energy policies would affected from international relations or the world energy politics would have a huge impact on internal energy policies.

Problems and questions about Turkey’s energy policies come forward when the issues are analyzed with the facts listed above. Briefly these problems are:

A) What is the aim of Turkey in respect to its international position? Is Turkey want to become an energy bridge or energy terminal or both? Does Turkey make any preparations according to these aims? How does the future of Ceyhan City planned in respect to field use, transportation, industrial future, residential planning and all other perspectives?
B) What is the current situation at NABUCCO project? Which countries assured to transfer gas to Turkey?
C) How does the capacity increase of the Blue Stream project to 32 bcm affect the projects such as Iraq Natural Gas Pipeline, Egypt – Turkey Natural Gas Pipeline and Qatar Pipeline after the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline?
D) How does the issue of providing Turkey’s energy security finalized by agreements with Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Russia, US and EU?
E) What kind of an approach will Turkey have after the KYOTO Protocol? CO2 and greenhouse gas emission is one of the contemporary problems of the world. How does Turkey behave towards this problem?

Each topic above have different dimensions in themselves.

While analyzing energy politics, this result comes forward: energy is the main engine of the economic and social development; energy should be produced in a competitive liberal market with qualified and safe conditions continuously at minimum cost. For solving problems which are explained briefly, Turkey needs to be governed successfully with the national and international consciousness.

Hidden Cost of Dirty Energy - Korol Diker

2010-04-06T16:29:00.002+03:00

Energy costs have always been a hot topic all around the world. Oil crises, gas pipelines, first investment estimations, etc. are made from an economic perspective. But power generation from each and every energy source has additional costs to the environment and the local communities living close.
Energy sources like coal and nuclear energy creates destruction at every point of their cycle; from mining, processing, transporting to the final wastes. Mechanical processes during uranium mining hazardous elements like Thorium, Radium, and Radon-222 are released. Couple months ago Greenpeace found high radiation contamination levels on the streets of Niger.
Nevertheless coal mining also has huge destructive effects on environment. Coal mining causes widespread deforestation, soil erosion, water shortages and pollution. All around the world locations where coal mining is being made the effects make it almost impossible for the local communities to continue to their daily lives.
150.000 additional deaths per year
The destruction continues during electricity generation; fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas cause CO2 emissions, which are triggering the catastrophic climate change. Global climate change caused by the relentless build-up of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, is already disrupting ecosystems and is already casuing about 150.000 additional deaths per year. An average global warming of 2C threatens millions of people with increased risk of hunger, maleria, flooding and water shortages. Besides this, nuclear power, coal power plants and all other fossil fuels pose multiple threats and damages on people and the environment.
On the other hand nuclear energy bearing unacceptable risks to the environment and human beings creates highly radioactive wastes during electricity generation. These and more are the hidden costs of dirty energy sources. They don’t reflect to our electricity bills or aren’t taken in to consideration when estimation are being made but usually the real cost is a lot more then what we see in our electricity bills.
Turkey has a solution!
On the other hand sustainable growth is a must for governments and the rising demand for energy is the main issue to be solved. In November 2009 Greenpeace proposed a very different way of planning our energy demand and consumption. Energy Revolution Scenario for Turkey was prepared together with EREC (European Renewable Energy Counsel). The scenario is providing sustainable growth and at the same time showing the pathway of a clean and fare energy future.
Actually the report showed that Turkey might not have to generate that much energy and the energy efficiency is creating the base of the whole scenario. Another thing, report is pointing out is that this total new system is less expensive than the reference scenario. In 2050 Energy Revolution scenario will be 2 Euro cents less expensive for kWh, than the reference scenario.
When we also take in to consideration that renewable energies and energy efficiency solutions provide more and better jobs, it looks a lot more sustainable than the traditional dirty and inefficient energy generation ways.
But to be able to make an energy revolution; to end our dependency to dirty energy sources –which is also a huge budget item in Turkish economy- new and supportive energy policies are also needed. Government should end the incentives given to coal and nuclear energy and develop the current renewable energy law. To stop the catastrophic climate change, end our energy dependency and create a clean and fare energy future we must make this revolution; from top to each and every person.
Renewable energy combined with the smart use of energy, can deliver half of the world’s energy near by 2050. Time is running out. Scientific opinion now agrees that the climate change is happening, is caused in large part by human activities such as burning fossil fuels. But Energy Revolution Report which is published by Greenpeace and EREC shows that it is economicaly feasible to cut global CO2 emissions by almost 50% within the next 40 years. Also the report demonstrates that renewable energy (wind, biomass, photovoltaic, solar, thermal, geothermal, ocean and hydroelectirc power) is not a dream for the future, it is real, mature and can be deployed on a large scale.

EU – Turkey Energy Security - BAHADIR MURAT AKIN

2010-04-06T16:28:00.002+03:00

The continual resistance of the main actors in Europe to show clear, coherent and a unified initiative concerning the need to enhance its relations with the resource rich Central Asian Republics through its advantageous relationship with Turkey, in spite of the encouragement of the US is causing the western hegemonic project to potentially wither away with the loss of “The Grand Chessboard” to Russia and China’s common initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
The strategic partnership between the EU and the US requires both to mutually help secure the opposites security interests. The western hegemonic project requires not just the physical and border security of the EU which is being developed through the neighborhood policy attempting to expand European influence to the former dominions of Russia in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses and far as the Central Asian Turkic Republics (in opposition to the Russian ‘Near Abroad’ policy and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization-SCO). A similar attempt is found in the development of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation through the Barcelona Process (in opposition to increasing economic interests and influence of China in the region).
The security of the European energy supply, required for the maintenance of its industry and economy, through diversification of sources of energy import by building new transit ways and securing the continuous flow through current ones is also an inseparable part of the above mentioned projects developed to enhance European regional security and influence in its immediate region through mutual dependence.
Most authors analyzing energy security cite Turkey as crucial for Europe to maintain its energy security by diversifying its gas sources, decreasing Europe’s dependence on gas provided by Russian Federation sources, in light of the clear utilization of energy supply as a political tool to further Russian interests.
Russia
The European need to diversify gas supply has been apparent since the declaration of the new Russian military doctrine by Vladimir Putin in 2000 that outlined its new security objectives. This declaration was followed by the “Energy Strategy of Russian Federation until 2030” in 2003. Which clearly constituted a warning to countries dependent upon Russia’s energy supply was made clear by the inclusion of the following in the preamble:
“Energy resources will constitute an instrument of Russia’s foreign policy” This declaration was followed by the agreement of cooperation between Gazprom and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Evidence suggests that this development was premeditated. All the Ambassadors of the Russian Federation were recalled back to Moscow for the first time in 16 years to reassess Russia's foreign policy concept where future relations with EU in the areas of economics, security and energy policies were discussed on 12 July 2002.
Russia appears to have found its ultimate soft weapon against its opponents: Russia controls 33% of the world natural gas reserves and 5% of the world’s petrol reserves. Meanwhile it is one of the two countries geostrategically positioned as an access route for Asian gas on route to Europe. As for production Russia's share of the world gas market is 24% and 9% of the world petrol market. In respect of export Russian petrol constitutes 7% and 56% of the gas exported in the world.
The Ambassador of the republic of Ukraine to the Republic of Turkey states:
“energy resources and energy policy became a geopolitical weapon even more dangerous than conventional military arsenal…it would take a middle sized war to leave millions of homes in Europe without heating and hot water; and heavy industry almost ruined without sources of energy. But it took only two weeks for Russia cutting off gas supply to the EU and Turkey to seed a chaos in Brussels, desperation in Sofia..”
This statement bears witness to the current European energy insecurity, as 80% of gas going to Europe from Russia (which accounts for 41% of Europe's gas imports) passes through Ukraine.
China
The overshadowing of western ambitions in the region by the progress of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is becoming a more distinct possibility. China is acting faster than Europe in integrating the Central Asian Republics economically to it. A gas pipeline is already being built to Kazakhstan and a new agreement has been reached for a project that will bring Turkmen gas to China after passing through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. China and Russia have used the SCO skillfully by developing it into a quasi OPEC for gas and security alliance. It was soon after the Astana SCO meeting in 2005 that Uzbekistan asked the US to leave its K-2 Airbase on its soil with support from the SCO. This gives the SCO a massive advantage against Europe's neighborhood policy as it sustains Central Asian economies and further integrates these states to Russia and China for its defense security. The EU could not provide any defensive advantages through enhanced relations while making continuous demands for further liberalization and democratization of these states.
The EU
This predicament that the EU finds itself in will only continue as the forecasts reflect a 50% increase in energy requirements by the year 2030. Unless there is a sudden shift in technology rendering fossil fuels obsolete, Europe needs to secure alternative sources of energy in order to diminish Russia's hegemonic objectives. At this point the US perceives the EU’s energy dependency on Russia as a security risk to itself and is attempting to help the EU secure diverse sources of energy.
In spite of US support, it has so far been the mistakes of the main actors of the EU that has hindered progress in securing energy sources needed for the rest of Europe. France has remained oblivious to the issue of securing alternative transit routes mainly because France derives nearly 80% of its energy demand from nuclear sources. France is also wary of the advantage Turkey would gain in its accession process to the EU if it becomes a vital route for energy for Europe. Germany has preferred to sidetrack a common European energy initiative in favor of bilaterally securing its energy needs through the Nord Stream Pipeline passing under the Baltic Sea that bypasses other transit routes. In order to avoid offending the private arrangement made with Russia, Germany has declined to support projects that would serve to benefit Europe as a whole.

The US and Turkey
The overlap of American and Turkish agendas and interests concerning Europe's energy security allows the two to be studied in parallel. The coherent policy of the US has been the greatest driving force for Turkey becoming an energy hub for Europe. It has even been repeated that the Baku-Tiflisi-Ceyhan pipe project, the first to bypass Russia to bring Asian gas to Europe has been credited as the greatest achievement of the Clinton administration.
It is within the interests of the US and NATO to assist and support said projects as soft policy tools that can be used until the hard policy backing of the US is required. As it was the case during the 1991 Gulf war where even though it was not an NATO effort, it also involved France, Britain and Italy that sought to prevent Iraqi control over Kuwaiti oil fields and threats to the oil supply from Saudi oil fields. . The successful implementation of European projects to secure energy sources and transit routes automatically secures energy sources and transit routes to the US as well since any source that provides fuel for one would provide fuel for the other.
The economic security of Europe will continue to be supported by the US as long as Europe continues to be dependent on the US for its own security (hence preventing Europe from becoming a military rival). At this point it is worth mentioning that the there is criticism in the US that ESDP could develop enough to compete with NATO, however US policy makers believe they can keep such aspirations in check while simultaneously diversifying its military presence to other areas that might require it and is pressuring Europe to take on a greater share of its military burden (without actually taking on all of it).
All sources researched for this paper repeatedly state the need for EU not to push Turkey away. How Turkey has been a loyal ally to the US and Europe since Turkey joined NATO in 1952 and supported allied efforts from Korea to Afghanistan. Repeatedly underlined is the necessity of the Nabucco projects implementation as the Main Oil Pipeline (MEP) for gas and oil derived from the Caspian Sea and the Central Asian Republics for building of a mutually dependent relationship.
This necessity has also been outlined by the Marc Grossman, Former Ambassador to Ankara (1994-1997) in his paper written in 2007.
“There are many other pipeline projects in and around Turkey that can have a direct impact on us and European energy security...new East-West oil pipelines, in addition to the return to full capacity of the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline, will bring more crude to market. East-West natural gas pipelines, including the proposed south Caucasus gas pipeline (Baku-Erzurum-Ceyhan) and the Turkey-Greece-Italy Gas Pipeline will transport this key commodity west. Projected North-lines, including the Samsun ceyhan oil pipeline and, perhaps some day, a Turkey-Israel oil gas pipeline, could also add to the West’s energy security…
No one knows what the future holds in Russia, but dreams of a democratic Russia tied positively to Europe have faded, at least for now. Russia’s intimidation of natural gas customers, distortion of the goals of missile defense deployments and such makes it vital that NATO remains strong and that Turkey remains strongly committed to NATO.
Instead, the EU must leave the door open to Turkey’s membership aspirations and make them dependent on Turkey’s own performance. Turks will need to work for another decade to fully meet EU standards. If the EU does not have its goal posts, Turkey will be a stronger society in 10 years, ready for full EU membership and even more ready to contribute to a Europe, and a neighborhood, whole, free and at peace…
The Turkish government can act to promote tolerance in ways that are symbolically crucial, for instance opening the land border with Armenia and opening the Greek Orthodox training school for priests in Istanbul. Ankara also needs to support basic freedoms by abolishing the sections of the penal code which restrict freedom of speech. Taking these steps would demonstrate that Turkey continues on the road to a more open, pluralistic and tolerant society.
By paying active attention to Turkey’s future today, US and European leaders can shape a positive outcome and Turkey’s success will further enhance and European security”.
The accuracy of the predictions of Marc Grossman, Former US ambassador to Turkey, makes concerning the future function of Turkey is surprising, especially when one considers that just recently the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline was reopened and an agreement was signed with Israel to develop a new pipeline the previous week.
The lack of alternative energy corridors also does not prevent the pressure for foreign policy concessions (in the form of opening the borders with Armenia for example). In spite of the fact that the EU and the US hegemonic ambitions require Turkey as a policy tool in order to succeed, more than Turkey needs them.
The pressures on the Turkish state continue to mount in spite of the opportunity to make demands of its own. Turkey is a net energy importing country that needs to secure its energy interests by the middle of the next decade. Energy security is one of the few areas where the US and Turkey are in absolute agreement. The insistence of US President Obama towards the EU to allow Turkey to join reflects this.
The US foresees European interests better than the EU itself does. The joining of Turkey and the EU will secure transit lines for Europe while enhancing European relation with the east in general. With Turkey as a member the neighborhood policy can be expanded to include Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Republics which are wary of Russian monopolistic and imperialistic tendencies concerning their resources, as Russia prevents or attempts to block these states from diversifying their client base and enhance their relations with Europe.
This arrangement will prove to be mutually beneficial for Turkey as well, since it would be difficult for Turkey to enhance its own relations with these states currently under Russian patronage without western backing, while securing energy at a lower cost for itself.
The “diversification with Europeanization through Turkey” Should become the EU’s main foreign policy goal in order to achieve several objectives. Unless Turkey is used as the main bridge to Central Asian energy sources, the advantage of acquiring energy from its primary source with lower overhead costs will seem a lesser loss then the loss of the Central Asian Republics politically to Russia and China.
Europe needs to immediately tone down its demands on Turkey concerning the accession process and speed up the Nabucco project in order to, at this point not catch up but at least secure some vital resources in Central Asia. Anything less will make Europe nothing but a minor actor in world affairs and entirely dependent on Russia to sustain its economy, while also burdening and weakening the US for its lack of ability in defending its own borders.
The inability of the EU to show clear initiative in developing a unified energy foreign policy in spite of clear warnings over the past ten year of future developments concerning its energy security interests, will continue to hinder the trans-atlantic hegemonic project to a degree that if continued will cause irreversible damage to the project and even the trans-atlantic alliance itself once the control of the lifeline that sustains the European economic engine is out of reach.

Energy Security Possibility of an Alliance against China - Editorial

2010-04-06T16:27:00.000+03:00

Coal, oil, natural gas, water and nuclear energy are still prior on constructing the international strategy. This priority will be effective in the first quarter of 21st century. Partly determined rules on energy will be reshaped. Reconstructing the balances between suppliers and demanders will cause problems. This situation derives from the suppliers’ desire of having more control on their supplies. Regional minor conflicts will be maintained if big demanders continue to insist about holding their advantages in energy market. This fundamental factor which will determine the energy security and stability in 21st century, may establish two options:

1. Global depression caused by sudden increase of prices which is a result of climate change by the reactivation of the coal.
2. Finding solutions by giving reciprocative compensations and establishing stability after a international cooperation period.

Oil as Determiner

Countries’ hydrocarbon demand is increasing in accordance with economic enlargement. With this picture, it is foreseen that Europe’s dependency on both oil and gas will increased to a huge amount at the year 2020. Developing Eastern Europe will be effective on this increase. Another determiner of price increase is the slipping of the developed countries’ investments towards Eastern Europe because of the low labor cost. Those energy resources which are determiners of world powers’ strategy are mostly located in the Eurasia. %67 of world’s oil production is held in this region.

EU provides almost all of its oil demand from this region and this oil trafficking is so much effective on political power struggles. Europe desires to affect the political transformation of Caspian Countries. Caspian countries are getting closer to Russia against this tendency of Europe. Oil demand will increased by %33 in the future 25 years and when this situation is taken into account with western pressure, an upcoming crisis can be predicted.

Crisis would be more destructive if the Iran threat and Iraq’s instability come into the account.

Developing Economies

If US meets its energy demand, EU economy have difficulties because US has the highest amount of demand chart. Results of a distribution clash will be negative for developing countries especially Far East Market. Negative effects of this progress on a developed country Japan should be considered as well as China’s growth rate will be harmed from it. Growth curve is one of the main determinants of the energy security and stability.

General situation of known oil reserves in the world:

- Middle East oil reserves.
- North Africa oil reserves.
- West Africa oil reserves.
- Alaska oil reserves
- Latin America oil reserves
- Caspian oil reserves
- West Siberia oil reserves
- South China Sea oil reserves should taken into consideration.

These areas have vital importance for US, EU and developing countries especially for China. Domination conflicts upon those areas have a strategic importance. Strategies which are built in opposition to each other are establishing threats among energy security. Countries may risk the energy security because of their clashing strategies. New arrangements may appear into the agenda for energy security. Negotiations such Kyoto which do not finalized may endanger energy security more.

Clash of Needs

It is expected that US oil consumption will increase to 27.5 million barrels per day towards the year 2020. On the other hand US natural gas consumption will be 1.020 billion cbm in 2020 according to the calculations.

Oil and Natural gas reserves are mostly in Middle East, Caspian Region and Central Asia. Countries located in these regions are seen as unstable because of their regimes according to the consumer countries. Energy agreements are usually objected by their functioning and their sustainability.

West Africa gains importance in this process. US and EU sensibility upon this region increases because of the oil reserves in this region.

Sao Tome which is known with its rich oil reserves faced with interventions in the recent years. Liberia is also stressed with internal conflicts. All these conditions brings the US intervention on the region as an option. US is trying to take gain the advantage before EU just like US did in the Iraq Case.

Events which are established by global economic crisis are appeared with the objection of Euro may lead a closed trade war between US and EU. US Dollar reserve advantage over Euro, enforces Europe to choose alternative ways. According to the perspective of energy security and supplier countries, increasing demand of China and India should be considered.

Position of the Suppliers

Among the predictions brought up, existence of 70-150 billion barrels of oil in the Central Asia and Caspian Region is assumed. According to some analyzes this amount may reach to 200 billion barrels. According to all assumptions Central Asia oil reserves come up with its vulnerability to conflict just like West Africa.

After establishing bases in Afghanistan, US action of establishing bases between Georgia and Central Asia threatens the energy security. Russia and US are performing an open profile conflict while China and EU are performing low profile actions. Results of the struggle points out the Russia as the more powerful one. This situation may cause instability which could even affect China too. US states may intervene on the supplier countries which will try to establish partnerships against US interest. This kind of an action is a huge threat for European Energy Security.
Possibility of an Alliance against China
China’s growth rate and speed of growth shows the Chinese political and economic goal to own a hinterland in Eurasia. Transformation of China’s economic power into a political and military power will affect region countries Russia and India as well as US and EU.

Chinese hunger to Eurasia oil reserves and South China Sea oil reserves may direct this group of countries to establish a deterrent alliance in the region. Just like Kissinger’s strategy of playing the China card against USSR. Reverse of the Kissinger case may happen.

US behavior of breaking Russian Energy Monopoly may turn into a different direction. Washington will act towards the transporting Caspian and Central Asia oil to the West for preventing China to use these oil reserves as a last resort.

Choice of Ukraine - Shemsey Vodinov

2010-04-06T16:25:00.000+03:00

Party of Regions which known with its close relations with Russia, had won the elections and finished up the era that shake Soviets and called as Orange Revolutions Era. Question in the agenda is on Ukraine’s choice on new strategic issues especially on energy. New energy chart seems to change the parameters of the region while an alliance with Russia is predictable. Victor Yanukovich who is the leader of Donetsk centered Part of Regions, is a former welder worker. Yanukovich went into politics in 90s and he was supported by Russia President Vladimir Putin in the beginning of 2000s. After the Yanukovich’s confession of their graft in the elections he lost his power in Ukraine and country surrendered to Western supported Orange Revolution. Country’s progress in five years which was expected to lead country to NATO membership was written to history as a period of increasing discontent. President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko who turned their back to Russia, caused natural gas crisis every winter period which harmed Ukraine because 1/5 of the natural gas passes through Ukraine which is sold to Europe by Russia. Russians punished the Kiev Government with accessions to natural gas and deduction of natural gas because of Kiev’s policy of getting closer to the West. Military issues were another source of crisis. Center point of Russian Navy Forces, Sevastopol in Crimea was the centre of this crisis. In spite of the Yuşçenko administration’s approach which defends removal of Russia forces from Sevastopol in 2017 according to the agreement, Yanukovich defended Russian existence in Crimea. Yanukovich told that Russia could stay in Crimea and Ukraine will not be a member of NATO by himself to Russian President Dimitry Medvedev while his visit to Moscow after the elections. Yanukovich tried to convince Medvedey for not bypassing Ukraine with alternative north and south energy lines.

Energy Balance in the Eastern and Western Dnieper

Yanukovich not only tried to solve the energy problem with those guarantees he also offered assigning 1/3 of Ukraine’s administration of natural gas transmission system to Russia (Kommersant Newspaper). Man of the day Yanukovich, did not forget to visit Brussels and gave natural gas guarantees while he was visiting Moscow. In this way, he gave concrete guarantees both to Russia and EU. Question on the agenda is nowadays is if Russia will make a discount on natural gas prices which Ukraine demands from Russia. Also Russia may abandon the southern stream program but Russia cannot abandon the northern stream which is guaranteed to Germany and France. At this point, Medvedev cannot make the discount which Ukraine demands but Russia can aid Ukraine by giving cheap credits and economic support to not to disappoint Yanukovich.

Dnieper River which was witnessed 2 million peoples’ death while the Soviet Red Army and German Nazi Army battle, is now separating Ukraine’s political geography. Today, Russian friendly politics in the east of this river has the power. This situation affects the conditions in the west of Dnieper which NATO come to its borders after Hitler’s march to those borders after 60 years. Political consolidation of Ukraine in the future is not certain but it is absolute that Yanukovich will have a strong effort on this issue. Ukraine is divided by two on the axis of Dnieper is defined as Russia’s territory by Moscow, gains a meaning only by being united.

Europe admits that Ukraine is a part of Russia strategically but Germany and France did not welcomed Ukraine’s membership to NATO and EU in their recent statements. EU’s priority is its natural gas demand. 1/4 of this demand is met by Russia. Energy issue is stabile in the region so Brussels does not care about how this region builds its stability. After this political picture in Ukraine, Europe speeded up the investments which cost billion dollars. A secret or open agreement between Continental Europe and Russia can be predicted. Main problem is US’s future movements. Soros supported Orange Revolution Wave finished by 2009. Main aim of US is to determine and control the energy lines in Central Asia and Caucasia. Apparently, energy alliance between EU and Russia weakens the US role in Eastern Europe and in Western Eurasia. Serbia was welcomed by EU with staying close to Russia, this can be a signal for Ukraine to follow the same strategy. As like Yanukovich’s priority, Ukraine may get economical aid from EU although Ukraine does not become an EU member.

Ukraine – Turkey – Russia Relations

Turkey recognized Ukraine as a country in 1991, 16th of December. These two countries are working together within the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization since 1992. In June 1997, an agreement signed for building the a pipeline between Baku and Ceyhan for transportation of crude oil in Ankara. Turkey is the second biggest trade partner of Ukraine after Russia. Turkey is importing iron and steel products, lard, herbal oil and mineral fuels from Ukraine and exports plastic, electronic machines, cleaning products and sub-industry products to Ukraine.

Turkish Embassy of Ukraine was opened in 1993. Ukraine also has a Consulate General in Istanbul, Honorary Consulates in İzmir and Çanakkale. Turkey Embassy of Ukraine is in Kiev and there is a Turkish Consulate General in Odessa.

Turkey does not have an interest on the government in Ukraine. Both international public and Ankara agree that election results of Ukraine will not effect Turkey’s role of being a transit country in recent years. Natural gas experts warn that an eventual Kiev-Moscow partnership would weaken the Ankara on an energy bargain. Ankara expected to play the stability card against this issue.

The positive course on Kiev and Moscow relations which was started with Yanukovich’s election victory is not expected to dismiss Turkey from the energy transportation game.

An energy expert from Turkey, Necdet Pamir interprets the situation as:

Election victory of Yanukovich will enables the transportation option of Ukraine for Russia. This result also strengthens the Russia’s hand at negotiations with Turkey. However Turkey is an important option for Russia and it is impossible for Russia to by pass Turkey. Negotiations which are made by Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yıldızlı is a package negotiation. Russia’s increasing advantage on the negotiations would affect other parts of this package. Negotiations continue on giving nuclear energy to Russia without a bid by a intergovernmental agreement. Strengthening of Russia’s hand on natural gas will make Russia advantageous in nuclear energy negotiations because negotiations are held as a whole. (Akşam Newspaper, Interview with Ezgi Akın)

Eurasia is Rising

Europe and Turkey will have to assess new positions against the pressure caused by regional dynamics. North Atlantic relations will constrain Ankara and Brussels at this point. One of the most determining element of strategy is energy issue so economics will face processes which will determine next 10 years’ world. Increasing advantage of Russia is not the only issue but reel politics’ increasing importance. EU and Russia are associating on a more realist survey. Turkey is joining this process naturally. NABUCCO and similar projects which will planned for the benefit of US and extracting Russia, will be reconstructed on a realist survey too. In spite of general view or view of western analysts statement that Russia’s impact on Ukraine will not harm the stability, it is a natural result of geopolitics. This is a turning point of new cooperation period in Eurasia. Future is not expected to bring Dnieper wars and conflicts which are remnants of Second World War, future will be a partnership period around the axis of energy in the Eurasia. This era will start to show itself by economic and political means, rising of Asia will occur as rising of Eurasia.

TURKISH INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES - Industry Report

2010-04-06T16:23:00.002+03:00

Executive Summary
The Turkish ICT sector is a fast growing sector with a CAGR of 14% between 2005 and 2009. Future trends, global and local developments present more opportunities each year. Since 2005, many large international players have invested in Turkish ICT sector companies.
The fact that the size of the Turkish ICT sector is still below EU averages gives Turkey great potential for growth.
The overall size of the ICT market in Turkey is estimated as US$29 billion in 2009. The sector can be considered to comprise four main categories: telecommunications, internet & broadband, hardware and software. The Turkish ICT market is dominated by telecommunications, constituting approximately 73% of the total, with the whole IT market comprising the other 27%. The IT market has experienced double-digit growth over recent years ever since the 2001 financial crisis, but the share of software and services are significantly behind western markets and CEE countries, signalling significant growth potential.
The telecommunications sector in Turkey has grown rapidly in recent years as a result of increases in the disposable income level and government support for liberalization and privatization of the telecommunications sector. However, Turkey still has low fixed-line, internet and broadband penetration rates compared to its European peers.
The large population in Turkey as well as the demand for high-tech telecommunication services are expected to increase total IT spending to a level of US$9.1 billion in 2013 from US$6.1 billion in 20091. Mobile penetration levels are expected to increase further.
Turkey is an attractive market for the development of telecommunications with its young population and its network infrastructure covering the whole country. Turkey's fixed line operator is Türk Telekom which was wholly state owned until 2005. Türk Telekom was privatized and 55% of its shares were acquired by Oger Telekomünikasyon in that year, and the State's ownership was further reduced by a public offer in 2008. Mobile communications is the most competitive sub-sector of the Turkish telecommunications market. There are 65.8 million registered mobile subscribers in Turkey as of 2008 year end. There are currently three licenced mobile operators namely Turkcell, Vodafone and Avea. Average mobile penetration rate for EU countries was 119% as of October 2008 whereas Turkey's penetration rate is 92%. the mobile penetration rate is expected to increase further.
Multinational players constitute a large part of Turkey's technology sector. Companies such as IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Siemens, Cisco and NCR have local subsidiaries in Turkey. Recently, there has been a huge increase in the number of technology improvement areas and where the Turkish IT companies are located.
Technology Development Zones (“TDZ”) have been established. Software houses benefit from significant tax and investment incentives provided by the government in these technoparks. The Turkish government has implemented new legal frameworks to encourage R&D and IT spending, which will support the growth of the sector. Income earned as a result of R&D activities by companies located in technology development zones is exempt from tax. Additional incentives include contributions to the social security payments of R&D employees.
Global Sector
Global IT spending reached a level of $2.4 trillion in 2008, from $2.2 trillion in 2007, with a growth rate of 8%. The US is the largest IT spender in the world, with $810 billion of spending in 2008. The Western and Central Europe region is the second largest IT spender, with $663 billion ( 483 billion) in 2008. Asia Pacific's IT spending followed closely at $588 billion and is estimated to have grown at double-digit rates in 2008.
Eastern European, Middle East and African IT spending was also growing at double-digit rates in 2006 and 20072. In 2009, global IT spending is forecast to fall by 7.1% in US$ terms due to the global economic conditions.
Within the global IT market breakdown, the largest category is IT staff costs with 30% share, estimated to have amounted to $699 million in 2008. The second largest category in the global market is the IT services and outsourcing category with 22%. The global software spending is lower than the computer or communications
In 2008, the global telecommunications market size reached US$1,377 billion, up from US$ 1,246 billion the previous year, a growth rate of 11%. Due to the global economic conditions, the global telecommunicationssector is expected to shrink by 5.3% from 2008 to 2009. The major telecommunication players in the world have been suffering from the unfavourable currency fluctuations and shortage of new growth opportunities.
During the slowdown, customers in western markets have switched to cheaper tariffs and limited their usagewhich placed serious pressure on the largest telecommunication operators. Accordingly, a movement towards consolidation is expected in global telecommunications markets. The global operators are actively seeking toacquire the few new licences and takeover targets left in under-penetrated emerging markets.
The internet market has been facing difficulties in 2008 however the number of people with internet accessis expected to reach c.31% of the global population in 2009, up from 28% in 2008. Broadband, which as yet has a small base, is also growing rapidly. Total broadband subscribers globally are projected to reach c.396m in 2009. However, the growth rate is expected to be higher in emerging markets than in the developed saturated markets.
Worldwide fibre-based broadband subscribers are expected to reach 44.7m by the end of 20095. Most of the growth in this area is expected to arise in the Asian and US markets, where leading fixed-line operators are expanding their networks in the major cities. South Korean and Japanese markets, which are already strong in broadband, are expected to continue to grow in this area. The emerging markets are suffering from the weak investment in broadband services.

The Semiconductor Industry Association, a US lobby group that tracks global markets and Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009 The hardware segment was heavily impacted by business spending cuts during the financial crisis in 2008.However it has started to recover from the effects of the crisis, and personal computer sales have started to grow above expectations. Chip sales in the US have been increasing consistently for several months in 2009 and the Q3'2009 sales were 19.7% higher than Q2'20096. However, these figures are still 10.1% lower than in the previous year and hardware spending is expected to contract by more than 12% in 2009 after a slow growth rate of 4% in 2008.
The Domestic Sector
Overview
The Turkish ICT sector is a fast growing sector with a CAGR of 14% between 2005 and 2009. Future trends, global and local developments present more opportunities each year. The fact that the size of the Turkish ICT sector is still below EU averages gives Turkey great potential for growth. The overall size of ICT market in Turkey is estimated to be US$29 billion in 2009. The Turkish ICT market dominated by telecommunication, constituting approximately 73% of the total, with the entire IT market constituting the other 27%. The IT market has experienced double-digit growth over recent years except during the 2001 financial crisis.
The size of the IT market and the share of software and services are significantly behind western markets and
CEE countries, indicating significant growth potential.
The export and import volumes in ICT sector have reached a level of US$4 billion and US$10 billion respectively
as of 2008. The foreign trade volumes in Turkish ICT sector are as follows:
The sector can be broken down into four main categories as follows:
• telecommunications,
• internet & broadband,
• hardware and
• software.
The four categories are further analyzed in the following sections.
Telecommunications
Turkey is an attractive market for the development of the telecommunications sector with its young population and its network infrastructure covering the whole country. The liberalisation of the telecommunications sector
in Turkey has led to higher quality services offered at more suitable prices. Total telecommunications revenuein Turkey, comprising both fixed line and mobile, reached US$ 13 billion in 2008 and is expected to reach US $16.9 billion in 20098. In 2008, 33% of total revenue consisted of fixed line revenues whereas 67% was mobile revenues. In parallel with the revenues sector, investment in electronic communications is also growing. Total investments for fixed and mobile operators reached to US$ 3.2 billion in 2008 with an increase of 68% compared to the previous year. Mobile sector investments amounted to c.62% of the investment total in 2008. The fixed line penetration rate reached a peak in 2001 at 28.5% and has been slightly decreasing starting from 2004 due to the growth of mobile usage
Turkey's fixed line operator is Türk Telekom which was state owned until 2005. In November 2005, Türk Telekom was privatized through a 55% shareholding being sold to Oger Telekomünikasyon (a consortium led by Saudi Oger and Telecom Italia). Following that block sale, a further 15% of Türk Telekom's capital was privatized through a public offering on the Istanbul Stock Exchange, where Türk Telekom has been traded since May 15, 2008. Turkey's fixed line and mobile sector revenue level is below mature markets such as Germany, Italy, France and the UK.
Mobile communications is the most competitive sub-sector of the Turkish telecommunications market. There were 65.8 million registered mobile subscribers in Turkey as of 2008 year end. There are currently three licenced mobile operators namely Turkcell, Vodafone and Avea. Mobile Number Portability was introduced in Turkey on November 9, 2008 to strengthen the free competition in the market.
Average mobile penetration rate for EU countries was 119% as of October 2008 whereas Turkey's penetration rate is 92%. The penetration rate in Turkey is expected to increase further towards the EU level.
Internet & Broadband
As shown in the graph below, the household broadband penetration rate in Turkey appears low compared to EU average; however penetration rate in Turkey still exceeds some European countries such as Italy, Bulgaria and Romania, and is very close to the rates in Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Estonia and Spain. On the other hand, the personal computer (PC) penetration level in Turkey in 2008 was only about 22.5%, compared to 72% in the UK. Since internet usage depends on PC penetration, increasing PC usage and ownership in Turkey should create opportunities for the broadband market.
After the migration from dial-up and cable Internet to ADSL, ADSL has become the most widely used Internet access tool in Turkey. The number of ADSL subscribers had risen to a level of 5.8 million in 2008 from 1.5 million in 2005.
Considering internet usage in Turkey, the ratio of subscribers per 100 people is expected to reach 41% in 2009, compared to 37% in Greece and 45% in Bulgaria. The number of internet users in Turkey has grown with CAGR of 225% between 2005 and 2009.
The rates of internet access, the computer usage as well as internet usage have increased consistently between 2007-2009 in Turkey13. As shown in the chart below, the internet and computer usage of the enterprises in Turkey has reached high levels between the same period.
Quarterly market shares of the broadband operators are indicated below. The market share of TTNet which is owned by the fixed line operator (Türk Telekom) decreased slightly to 93.3% in the Q4'2008 and the shares of alternative operators reached 5.6% of the market; however TTNet's dominance remains clear.
Hardware
The stock of PCs in Turkey was at a level of 92 per 1,000 people in 2006 have grown rapidly and reached an estimated level of 225 per 1,000 people in 2008. Compared to European markets, this figure corresponds to c.500 per 1,000 people in Italy and c.720 in France and Germany. The value-added tax (VAT) reduction on consumer durables, introduced in March 2009 in the Turkish market to counter the impact of the financial crisis, has improved the sales of PCs and laptops in 2009.
Major multinational institutions, such as IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Siemens, Cisco, and NCR, account for a considerable share of Turkey's technology market. These multinationals typically have local subsidiaries, which assemble PCs and other IT hardware components imported from overseas. Sales are realized both domestically and for export to the EU, Eastern and Central Europe, and the Middle East.
Software
The Turkish software industry is a dynamic and fast developing sector. However, the software market is not big as other developing countries such as India, Ireland, Israel, Brazil and China. Turkey has implemented a new export promotion system which is in line with the rules set out in international treaties. There are currently 10 different state aid programs. Four of these programs target only SMEs. Recently, there has been a huge increase in the number of “technology improvement areas” where the Turkish IT companies are located.
Technology Development Zones (“TDZ”) have been established. Software houses located in these technoparks and technology development zones benefit from significant tax and investment incentives provided by thegovernment. Law No: 4691, the “Technology Development Zones Law,” was enacted on June 26, 2001. By November 2009, the number of companies located in TDZ's reached 1,217.
Today, there are about 40 Computer Engineering Departments in Turkey in various universities. In addition to that, it is estimated that around 15,000 graduates of other disciplines with IT knowledge enter the market each year. Moreover, the number of private computer training courses under the support of the Ministry of Education is 727. Turkey has highly qualified human resources in the IT software sector. Very competent, young and dynamic computer engineers and software developers have been trained and fulfilled the increasing demand in the sector. It is believed that the rates of employee turnover are lower and loyalty is higher than in many of the
low cost base countries developing software around the world. Software piracy is one of the biggest problems in the sector. The software piracy rate in Turkey is around 64%.
The Turkish government is taking the necessary actions to prevent copyright theft. Turkish software companies are increasingly obtaining various certifications which are mandatory for large scale projects. The Turkish government is giving high priority to market friendly policies in order to improve the environment for foreign direct investors. Various incentives, tax exemptions and waiver mechanisms introduced in the law create important potential opportunities and benefits to universities, academics and companies that have R&D activities and/or are developing software in technoparks. Accordingly, the participants are exempt from corporate taxes on the revenues generated by software development and R&D activities until December 31, 2013. Additionally, the wages of R&D and software development personnel in the technopark companies are exempt from any taxes until December 31, 2013. The companies can also benefit from the other government support determined by the law.
Main Players
Reform of the communications market started in accordance with the Telecommunications Law in 2000. The law established an independent regulator, “the Information and Communication Technologies Authority” and predetermined full market liberalisation starting from January 2004.
Until 2001, the GSM operators Turkcell and Telsim enjoyed a duopoly in the mobile market. In 2001 the government awarded two further GSM licences, to Aycell, owned by Turk Telekom and to Aria, owned by telecom Italia. The two new mobile operators competed to gain market share and merged in February 2004.
The ownership of Telsim was transferred to the government after its owners were convicted of fraud in relation to different areas of their activity. The operator was afterwards privatised in an international tender won by Vodafone in December 2005. 3G mobile licences were awarded to all three operators in 2008 and services commenced in 2009.
Sector Outlook
The Turkish telecommunications and IT markets have grown rapidly in recent years as a result of increases in disposable income levels and the government support for liberalization and privatization of the telecommunications sector. However, Turkey still has low fixed-line, internet and broadband penetration rates compared to its European peers. The large population level in Turkey as well as the demand for high-tech telecommunication services is expected to increase total IT spending to a level of US$9.1 billion in 2013 from US$6.1 billion in 2009 12. Mobile penetration levels are expected to reach 115 per 100 people during the same period14. Increasing competition in the telecommunication sector is also expected to motivate operators such as Turk Telekom, Turkcell and Vodafone to continue looking for new business expansion and customer retention strategies to sustain and gain market share. These companies are likely to invest in new technologies such as WiMAX, IPTV and 3G, pushing the deployment of network infrastructure in the country.
Fixed-line penetration has been declining since a peak around 2001-2004 in Turkey, similar to most developed and developing countries. Accordingly, the penetration rate is estimated to have decreased to 24.5% in 2008, from around 28% in 2004. The penetration is low compared to EU countries, for example c.40% in France, 45% in Germany, 55% in Greece and 33% in Hungary.
Population growth and the increasing use of the Internet are the main demand growth drivers for telecommunications services in the forecast period. Fixed-line penetration is expected to decline to under 20 telephone main lines per 100 population by 2013, as more individuals choose to rely only on mobile telephony. Demand for broadband is expected to be the main revenue growth driver for fixed-line operators in the future.

Turkish mobile telecommunications segment has achieved a considerable size with its share of c.60% within the total sector revenue in 2008 and is expected to continue growing. The mobile number portability (MNP) which was launched in November 2008, as well as the 3G mobile services which were introduced into the market in July 2009, have accelerated the competition between the three market players. The mobile virtual network operators (MVNO) are also expected to start operating in the market along with the three mobile operators by the end of 2009. The mobile-phone subscribers are expected to grow by an annual growth rate of 5.5% between 2009 and 2013. This will increase the mobile-phone penetration rate in Turkey to about 115% in 2013, similar to most EU countries, where penetration rates are generally around 100-120%15. There were 24.5m internet users in 2008 in Turkey, compared to c.9.4m in 2004. The ratio of subscribers per 100 people reached a level of 34.1% in 2008, compared to 13.6% in 2004. The ratio is still low compared to European countries.
The stock of PCs increased with an annual growth rate of 38% between 2004 and 2008 and reached 16.2m in 2008. Sales were supported in recent years by declining international PC prices and the strong Turkish Lira (particularly until October 2008), making imported PCs less expensive. The reduction in value-added tax (VAT) on consumer durables, introduced in March 2009 to combat the impact of the financial crisis, has lifted PC and laptop sales. The number of PCs per 100 population is expected to rise to 36 per 100 population in the forecasts.
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
• Demand for high-tech telecommunication services,
as well as the large Turkish population, are expected
to increase total IT spending
• Huge potential for growth considering the young
population compared to Western developed countries
• Companies that have R&D activities in TDZs are exempt
from income tax for these activities
• Government institutions are one of the biggest IT buyers
• Share of IT in total public investment is growing WWeaknesses
• High (though reducing) software piracy rate
• High taxation (VAT and Special Communication Tax)
in the sector
Opportunities
• Increasing budget allocation by government for public
IT investments
• Mobile phone subscriptions are expected to continue
to grow
• The ability to train highly qualified, young and dynamic
computer engineers and software developers in ever
increasing numbers T Threats
• Undeveloped collaboration culture of R&D and
innovation in sector
2.5 Investment Opportunities
The ICT sector in Turkey has witnessed strong growth in recent years. The mobile penetration rate and internet usage are expected to continue to increase in line with higher demand in the country. Personal computer usage is also increasing, creating a sustained demand for the hardware sector.
The Turkish government has implemented new legal frameworks to encourage R&D and IT spending, which will support the growth of the sector. The income earned as a result of R&D activities for companies located in technology development zones is exempt from tax. Additional incentives include contributions to the social security payments of R&D employees.
Turkish companies operating in the ICT sector have great potential for growth. Of the top 500 IT companies within the Deloitte Technology Fast EMEA 2009 list, 30 companies were from Turkey, following the UK, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Germany.
Since 2005, many large international players have invested in Turkish ICT sector companies. Below is a list of M&A transactions by foreign investors in the Turkish ICT market between 2005 and 2009:
Sector Establishments and Institutions
Abbreviations
ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
BMI Business Monitor International
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CEE Central and Eastern European Countries
CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration
EIU Economist Intelligence Unit
EMEA Europe, the Middle East and Africa
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
ICTA Information and Communication Technologies Authority, Turkey
IDC International Data Corporation
IPTV Internet Protocol Television
ISO International Organization for Standardization
MNP Mobile Number Portability
PSTN Public switched telephone network
SME Small and Medium scale Enterprise
SPICE Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination
TDZ Technology Development Zone
US United States
US$ US Dollars
VAT Value Added Tax
WiMAX Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
3G 3rd Generation

The Legal Aspects of the Struggle against Terrorism in the Case of Turkey - Yasar Buyukanit

2010-04-06T16:22:00.000+03:00

The struggle against terrorism has two dimensions. Terrorists on one side, and security forces combatting terrorism on the other. When we look at the elements fighting against terrorism, they are units of the Turkish military, including the Gendarmerie, and police forces. Terrorists do not respect rules or law. Their struggle is based on violence. On the other hand, the forces against terrorism have to stay within the limits of law, and this is an obligation. Whether we like it or not, as security forces we cannot ignore the legal aspect. However, we have to mention legal regulations that have negative effects on security
forces. These are not just complaints, but include issues that arise from the practical problems of security elements. As well as the fighting forces awareness of the legal aspects that guide the struggle against terrorism, the recognition of the fight against terrorists and terrorism by the persons and institutions that direct law is just as important. In other words, collaboration and common understanding between the fighters against terrorism and the institutions that enact legislation is needed. The legal aspect of the fight against terrorism should not disregard the fact that this concept has two dimensions.

The first dimension is internal law. This can also be considered as the national dimension. The other dimension is the external dimension consisting of international treaties, conventions and protocols.

The external law dimension is very comprehensive. This issue is elaborated in detail by all treaties, conventions and protocols, including those of the UN. None of these are secrets. They can all be viewed at the web sites of the UN, the EU, the European Council and the European Parliament.

The reasons for the failure of the world in fighting against terrorism is to be seen in practice.

Terrorism and Domestic Law

What are the laws that shape the fight against terrorism? Let’s talk
about legal arrangements and important article in Turkey first.
Later we will look at the effects of these on the fight against
terrorism.

a. Without doubt, the most important law is Counter-Terrorism Law 3713.
b. Another important law is Provincial Administration Law 5442.
c. For some reasons, the first clause of the ninetieth article of
Criminal Court Law 5217.
d. Duties and Authorities of the Police Law 2559 (we will look at
this law particularly in terms of the scope of authority to stop and
control).
e. Law 5651 on the Regulation of Internet Publications and Fight against
Crimes Committed Through These Publications (The scope of this law does not include crimes of terrorism, which constitutes a gap that can be exploited by terrorist organizations).
f. Supplemental 5th Article of the Gendarmerie Organization Duties and
Authorities Law (This law gives different authorities to the police and the gendarmerie, which have the same set of duties. This leads to various problems in practice.
g. We can increase the number of examples. For now, let’s go into a little more detail and more examples.

The Importance of Transparency

One of the most important problems for military units given duties under the 5442 Provincial Administration Law is the difference between its application and interpretation by Republic prosecutors. This causes uncertainties about the legal authorities of the military units and negatively affects elements that are fighting against terrorism.

For instance, it is possible that a unit commander responsible for domestic security in the Southeast is told by the Republic’s prosecutor that he does not have legal authority and his unit can not conduct a search. How can this unit fight against terrorism? A similar situation arose in another city and the problem was overcome by negotiations. According to this interpretation, military units cannot use this legislation’s legal search powers when needed during a terrorist follow-up. As a result, it is necessary for the authorities of military units fighting against terrorism to be clarified in the Provincial Administration Law and for legislative bodies to be informed. In this context, a solution is thought to be a circular order from the Ministry of Justice in the short term, and a supplementary article to Counter-Terrorism Law 3713 on the powers of military units. There are no clauses on this issue in the Counter-Terrorism Law.

Another issue is the uncertainties about the security forces’ authority to enter dwellings, offices and private areas in order to apprehend terrorists in the act. These are serious reservations about entering dwellings, offices and private areas in order to apprehend terrorists in the act. These uncertainties sometimes result in terrorists escaping and prevent the accomplishment of the mission.

An event illustrates this problem. On June 13, 2007 an operation was conducted in the Southestern Elezığ/Karakoçan district. The operation team came across some people in the vicinity of the village of Hamurkesen. They asked “who are you?” in order to confirm their identities, the people said that they were villagers. Although they were asked to “raise their hands and approach” one of them shot their weapon, causing one casualty, and ran into one of the nearby houses. The operation team opened fire on the terrorists, but could not enter the house in question since they did not have a search warrant or authority. They merely patrolled around the house. One day later, on June 14, 2007 the village was searched after receiving a warrant, one of the five suspects was apprehended, but the terrorists involved in the shooting were lost.

In many places the fight against terrorism does not occur on football fields. It occurs under harsh terrain, inappropriate weather conditions and far from settlements, and these conditions give advantages to the terrorists.

How can this be solved? It is legally possible. In order to eliminate this problem an addition to the 10th article of the Counter-Terrorism Law or a revision of the first amendment of the 90th article of Criminal Court Law 5217 can be considered. Thus, it is possible to eliminate problems in situations such as operational conditions where written warrants are needed from the Republic prosecutor, and it is impossible to receive this warrant, and to ensure the detainment of the suspects and witnesses.

The Authority to Stop and Search

Another striking example is about the scope of the authority to stop and search.

Let’s first look at the legal aspect of the issue. As a result of recent changes in the Turkish Police Duties and Powers Law 2553, the authority to stop and search has been narrowed down, by a new amendment stipulating that, when persons are stopped due to complaints or intelligence information, the police are not allowed to take peoples clothes off or search parts of vehicles that are not visible from the outside (such as trunks) even if there is sufficient suspicion that there are weapons or other dangerous objects. Under these circumstances, these powers become meaningless and terrorists are given the opportunity to hide their weapons op explosives in parts of vehicles that are not visible from the outside, such as trunks.

On June 18, 2008, in Eastern Anatolia, 5 kilometers outside of Erincan, within the provincial gendarmerie jurisdiction, a pick up truck was stopped at a checkpoint, and terrorists hidden between bee hive boxes opened fire, wounding two NCOs and 2 privates. Even though the vehicle had been stopped as a result of a warning, since it was not legally possible for the gendarmerie to search the bed of the pickup truck, the terrorists could not be found and detained.

This could have led more dramatic events (investigation revealed that these terrorists were moving to the Black Sea region as part of their ‘Opening to the Black Sea’).

One issue should be emphasized.Of course, even in the fight against terrorism, we should abide the law. However, if the right to live becomes the terrorists’ right, this will harm the fight against terrorism. This should not be forgotten.

Terrorist Propaganda and the |nternet

Another problem is the prevention of terrorist propaganda.

Terrorist organizations win a lot of support through internet publications, and they use this medium especially for recruitment activities. During Interviews with detained terrorists, they clearly state that media\internet activities have significant influence on their decision to join terrorist organizations.

In order to prevent these activities, it is necessary to revise Law 5651 on the Regulation of Internet Publications and Fight against Crimes Committed Through These Publications.

Although the existing law is comprehensive, it does not include the crimes cited in the Counter-Terrorism Law 3713 (Article 8). These must be included in the law.

This issue is not only about terrorism. Technological developments surely make life easier. However, when technology is used with bad intentions the results are tragic.

This law article is tragic for security forces, and makes the fight against terrorism more difficult. The 5th amendment of Article 140 in the Turkish criminal court law prevents surveillance of people’s homes with technical equipment. Criminal organizations, especially, rent houses using couples that appear to be married and organize and plan their activities and hide material to be used in their activities in these houses. The prohibition brought by this article creates an untouchable area for security forces even with court warrants. This article is certainly justified and lawful when it comes to the privacy of citizens. Nevertheless, where does the recently publicized unlimited surveillance fit in this article?

Terrorism and International Law

a) An examination of international treaties, protocols and conventions reveals the reason for the rise of terrorism on a global scale, since signing a convention does not necessarily imply implementation. As long as nations do not incorporate the substance of these conventions into their domestic legislation and implement them, these conventions have no value.

b) There are a total of 17 conventions on the prevention of terrorism: 12 United Nations conventions and 5 EU/European conventions. One issue in the UN conventions deserves our attention. This is the piecemeal nature of the conventions. There are separate conventions concerning the hijacking of aircraft, and another for maritime attacks; one for attacks on diplomats, and another for the use of plastic explosives; a convention on the financing of terrorism, and another on cross border organized crime.

Evaluating these conventions comprehensively, we see that they do not have a comprehensive view of terrorist activities. There are particular conventions to meet the various circumstances that arise. However, however none of these have attained a concrete dimension because none of them have been applied in a practical sense. Let’s say the most important thing. The UN has still not defined terrorism because an international agreement has not been reached on the definition of terrorism. Here a question arises. How can we struggle against a threat that has not been defined?

c) As one can understand, although the concept of terrorism has existed for centuries, to this day there is no definition that nations have agreed to without exception. This is essentially because terrorism and concepts related to terrorism are difficult to define, and most importantly, because governments act according to their interests in the international arena. In other words, one organization defined as terrorist by one country might be seen as freedom fighters by another, and even be at the latter’s service.

From this perspective, we can see signs of this approach in the conventions prepared by the UN.

The UN’s first effort to combat terrorism was the the November 21, 1947 decision number 177/11 to charge the international law commission with preparing, “Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind.” This draft contains an important article, defining the following as an offense:

“The organization, or the encouragement of the organization, by the authorities of a State, of armed bands within its territory or any other territory for incursions into the territory of another State, or the toleration of the organization of such bands in its own territory, or the toleration of the use by such armed bands of its territory as a base of operations or as a point of departure for incursions into the territory of another State, as well as direct participation in or support of such incursions.”

I am mentioning the 1947 UN decision, in particular, because we see that terrorist activities today oppose it directly.

d) There are 2 European international conventions and 5 European Union international conventions. I must list the latter:

1. The European convention on the prevention of terrorism
2. The European Council convention on the prevention of terrorism
3. The search and seizure of terrorist organizations’ revenues
4. The European Council convention on the financing of terrorism
5. Convention on cyber forces

Now, these conventions notwithstanding, what has been done? Let me state clearly that nothing has been done. In Europe today the terrorist organization that conducts all kinds of violent activities against Turkey is leading convoys full of flags, or better, rags. PKK television is still on the air in Europe. In Europe the PKK lives with better security than Turks do. All their income comes from Europe.

No doubt counterterrorism should be conducted within the bounds of law. The opposite is unthinkable. While there are attacks on police and the gendarmerie and posters of terrorist leaders are hanging in the streets, it is difficult to find a response for innocent citizens who ask “which law?”

There is no difference between the EU and the UN conventions.

A terrorist organization cannot sustain itself without external support. In our long struggle we Turkish security units have learned something very well. The terrorist organization has support from abroad. This is certain. Secondary support comes from domestic collaborators. Burying our heads in the sand will not resolve the problems caused by terrorism.

The Kosovo Crisis and the UN - Bahadır Murat Akın

2010-04-06T16:20:00.002+03:00

Kosovo, which is formally a southern province of Serbia, has been a case which “exemplifies the ways in which ethnic communities in a multicultural setting may face problems in an environment of domestic hostility and regional rivalry.” However, an even more important aspect of the Kosovo case is that it has “assumed a central role in the regional politics of the Balkans, a shift with strong implications for international security.” Indeed Kosovo has been the place where the “appearance of a unified and vigorous UNSC able to protect international peace and security were to be shattered by a sequence of crises in which the use or threat of the veto power rendered the Council increasingly passive.” Kosovo has also been the place where this dilemma of Security Council of the United Nations was circumvented by the doctrine of ‘humanitarian intervention’ practiced by NATO in 1999. “The status of unilateral or unauthorized humanitarian intervention, in which a state or a group of states act against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another state in order to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis on its territory, remains controversial. Such was the case in the 1999 war in Kosovo.” But the aftermath has been even more important from the international perspective. The humanitarian intervention at Kosovo has gone beyond the “limited purpose of stopping the atrocities and restoring respect for human rights (and has been) a tool for achieving political goals such as greater political autonomy, self-determination, or independence for particular groups within the country”.With the implications of these actions taken into consideration “Kosovo’s status has been one of the most contentious issues to arise in the aftermath of the disintegration of former Yugoslavia.”

United Nation’s Role
UN’s role in a crisis has been first tested during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on 1990. “The UNSC, acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter the Charter), reacted swiftly, passing Resolutions 660
and 661, which condemned the invasion, demanded an immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops and placed economic sanctions on Iraq. See S.C. Res. 660 (August 2,
1990); S.C. Res. 661 (August 6, 1990). Resolution 661 determined that Iraq had failed to comply with paragraph 2 of Resolution 660 demanding its immediate and
unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait’s territory, and as a consequence imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Unyielding, Iraq ignored a long series of UN Security
Council and Arab League resolutions related to the conflict. One of the most important was UNSC Resolution 678 (S.C. Res. 678 (November 29, 1990)), passed under
Chapter VII of the Charter, giving Iraq a withdrawal deadline of 15 January 1991 and authorizing member states to use “all necessary means to uphold and implement
Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.” As a result of Iraq’s failure to comply with the UNSC
conditions, a US led coalition launched a massive air campaign codenamed Operation Desert Storm, which was followed by a ground offensive (Operation Desert Sabre), finally resulting in Iraq’s military defeat and withdrawal from Kuwait. S.C. Res. 686 (March 2, 1991) and S.C. Res. 687 (April 3, 1991) regulated the aftermath of the conflict. Parallel to these military operations, the coalition conducted Operation Desert Shield aimed at defending Saudi Arabia from Iraqi invasion.”
The UNSC was so successful in handling Kuwait crisis and following ‘Gulf War’ that it
“presented a textbook example of the application of the Charter’s normative framework for the protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty of a country and the use of enforcement measures under Article VII of the Charter.”
In this context “the triumph of international law in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and the appearance of a unified and vigorous UNSC able to protect international peace and
security” was eminent. But this image would soon be “shattered by a sequence of crises in which the use or threat of the veto power rendered the Council increasingly passive. After the end of the first Gulf War, a series of international events unfolded in such a manner as to bring about an important change in international relations, and arguably in public
international law. As a consequence of the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, the
U.S. and its NATO allies became the dominant global military, political and
economic force, with the ability to significantly impact the interpretation of the
normative framework regulating world affairs.”
So the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’ which was “characterized by the unilateral interpretation of UNSC Resolutions and the use of force bypassing the UNSC altogether” should be considered in this context. Indeed applying no fly zones in Iraq, “the 1998 bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in Operation Infinite Reach (and) Humanitarian intervention against the FRY( Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) in 1999” have all been practiced under this doctrine. However this “circumvention of the UNSC .., represents a further challenge to the entrenched understanding of peremptory norms of international law.” Indeed “the NATO military intervention of the FRY in 1999 temporarily suspended Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo. The legal framework of this suspension was UNSC
Resolution 1244 (1999), which gave a Chapter VII mandate to the international civilian administration and NATO-led military force.” But UN Resolution came only after the intervention of NATO not before.

NATO’s Role

With the termination of the Cold War and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, “rationales for NATO's existence also ended. A commonly perceived external enemy is, after all, the main reason for forging an alliance... There is no strategic balance in Europe to keep. NATO is dominant and international laws have become inconvenient. So from then on “What now threatens the states is no longer Russia, which has been transformed more or less inevitably into a partner, or interstate conflicts, but rather ethnic and intra-state issues, problems relating to control of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and peripheral conflicts such as that involving Iraq. Most of the threats to strategic
stability are thus outside the NATO area. At the same time, the United States no longer wants to assume sole responsibility for defending the so-called free world and would like to confer new missions on NATO and give its Allies a heightened role in the sharing of these duties.
.. In April 1999 .. the Alliance concluded that its security risks were “complex” and came from “numerous directions”, but ... “maintaining the strategic balance in Europe” was the Alliance’s primary task.10 In the meantime, NATO set new missions for itself. In Oslo, in 1992, it agreed to support case-by-case peacekeeping activities under the aegis of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), which became the OSCE (Organization) in 1994, and ... in response to the growing crisis in the former Yugoslavia, it offered to undertake missions for the UN, subject of course to Security Council authorization.” However this would not be a collaboration as described in UN Charter Article 53 as to “ utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority.” USA explained that it was very important “not to subordinate NATO to any other international body [meaning the UN] or compromise the integrity of its command structure”. To his mind, NATO could of course “act in concert with other organizations, and with respect for their principles and purposes”, but the Alliance must “reserve the right to act, when its members, by consensus, deem it necessary. (Also with regards to) Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management that NATO will strive, “in cooperation with other organizations, to prevent conflict, or, should a crisis arise, to contribute to its effective management, consistent with international law [emphasis added], including through the possibility of conducting non-... crisis response operations”. As may be seen, Washington appears to be making a concession by agreeing to act in accordance with international law, but this clarification is insufficient because it is merely a matter here of ‘seeking, in cooperation with other organizations’, something that is neither restricting nor binding.”
Concept of Humanitarian Intervention
“Because most legal experts agree that NATO’s action against Serbia was illegal, there is no other choice for “other more Libertarian experts cite humanitarian law or law of ‘collective emergency’ to justify NATO’s action...Any flagrant humanitarian law, be it crimes against humanity, violations of human rights, or the Geneva conventions or ethnic cleansing may provide a legitimate basis for action on the part of the international community because all this issues have international consequences and go well beyond the sacrosanct principle of the domestic jurisdiction of states. (In this sense) humanitarian law is just as compelling as the law of treaties freely entered into by states. There are some experts who believe that if the Security Council is incapable of acting, a new norm of intervention by a coalition of states would seem to be entirely justified where large scale atrocities are being committed. ”
In this context “Sean Murphy defines humanitarian intervention as the …threat or use of force by a state, group of states, or international organization primarily for the purpose of protecting the nationals of the target state from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized human rights.”
However,“ any interpretation based on the right to intervene in the name of humanitarian law is improper in two respects. First, it amounts to stripping the veto of the major powers of any substance, or nullifying the veto ;second, it creates an intolerable precedent, in that it means that a group or coalition of States may now, with no formal authorization from the Security Council, act as it pleases, citing the precedent of Kosovo.”
So humanitarian view underlines that “NATO’s action is objectively illegal (but) there are nonetheless certain bases for that action that are not legal, but justified” regard the Kosovo crisis as a singular case in which NATO decided to act without Security Council authorization out of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, but from which no general conclusion ought to be drawn. .. Rather, the decisive point is that we should not change the rules simply to follow our humanitarian impulses; we should not set new standards only to do the right thing in a singular case.
Hence there is another aspect to the intervention on humanitarian grounds. “ The doctrine of humanitarian intervention, if carried out without the mandate of the UNSC, remains illegal under public international law. However, such action can aspire over time to become legal – provided that it does not go beyond its original limited scope (i.e. to prevent humanitarian catastrophe within a sovereign state). In this way, the imposition of self-determination of
Kosovo on Serbia by the international community, by bypassing the UNSC, in the
case of a potential Russian or Chinese veto, will represent not only a revolutionary
challenge to established fundamental international norms, but also de-legitimize
the original intervention, and, more importantly, compromise the future legal and practical development of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention.”
Even if Security Council would be unanimously favourable to Kosovo’s independence , “ a legal interpretation granting the UNSC the right to trump the territorial integrity of a state is ambiguous due to the fact that such a situation has never occurred outside of the context of decolonization... (Besides) the post-WWII international legal order was heavily marked by such an example (i.e. the allied partition of Germany).
This point brings us to the subject of justifiable conditions of humanitarian intervention

Conditions of Humanitarian Intervention:
“According to Cassese, (who is an international lawyer who has dealt with Yugoslavia case(51), in order for individual cases of humanitarian intervention to become gradually justified from the point of view of international law, it is necessary to respect strict conditions:
1- The humanitarian crisis is substantially serious, amounting to “crimes against
humanity”, and that the sovereign state on whose territory these crimes occur is
either the perpetrator or is unable or unwilling to prevent the violence.
2- If the crime is a result of anarchy in a sovereign state, there must be evidence that the central authority is unable to prevent these crimes before any intervention can take
place. If, on the other hand, the state itself is the perpetrator, then force must
remain the last resort.
3- Unilateral intervention can only occur in the case of a paralyzed UNSC.
4- All peaceful avenues must be exhausted before any intervention.
5- It must be carried out by a group of states, and not by a “single
hegemonic power, however strong its military, political and economic authority,
nor such a power with the support of a client state or an ally. Cassese is arguing
that, in the present world order, the US cannot conduct a humanitarian intervention
alone or with its allies individually (e.g. the UK), but would have to reach a
consensus within NATO before carrying out such action. ..Intervention in the case of Kosovo would fulfil this condition, whereas in the case of the NFZs in Iraq... would not.
6-The gradual legalization of humanitarian intervention can occur only where the
future instances of such unauthorized involvement are strictly confined to the
“limited purpose of stopping the atrocities and restoring respect for human rights,
not for any goal going beyond this limited purpose.” The report of the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty is even clearer
with regard to the “permissible” goal and outcome of humanitarian interventions:
-…the responsibility to protect is fundamentally a principle designed to respond
threats to human life, and not a tool for achieving political goals such as greater
political autonomy, self-determination, or independence for particular groups within the
country (though these underlying issues may well be related to the humanitarian
concerns that prompted the military intervention). The intervention itself should
not become the basis for further separatist claims.”
In this sense, what has happened in Kosovo with UN resolution 1244 is not acceptable
taken into consideration that “the current international military and civilian administration
in Kosovo is a direct result of the NATO intervention of 1999” Indeed,
UN resolution 1244 Resolution also took “full account of the Rambouillet accords” in the context of the political process leading to “substantial self-government” for the province.
These accords, in Chapter I, Article 1, defined the future structure of Kosovo’s self-government, leaving Serbian authority in the fields of territorial integrity, common
market within the FRY, monetary policy, defence, foreign policy, customs services,
“federal” taxation, “federal” elections, and other areas specified in the Agreement.
So it seems that NATO countries have been in the position “to impose the independence of Kosovo on Serbia. However “it is even doubtful that the S.C. (assuming no Russian or Chinese veto) has legal basis to separate territory from a sovereign country. This has no precedent outside of the colonial context, where the application of a people’s right to self-determination remains unambiguous.”
However, in reverse of the general criteria for humanitarian intervention described above, a report prepared for NATO maintains that final the purpose of the humanitarian intervention should be to provide self determination. “The aim, therefore, of humanitarian intervention is to stop these large-scale violations of human rights and, ultimately, to remedy the violation of the right to internal self-determination. The implicit idea behind accepting humanitarian intervention as a “remedy” is that it is intended to, and should, pave the way for durable solutions with regard to a full respect of the rights of a people living in a territory. What is critical in the face of an intervention is determining that the principle of territorial integrity has to yield in order to defend a set of values enshrined in human rights law.” So it seems that NATO’s action in Kosovo is a clear violation of Article 53 which reads “But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council”;and also Article 2/4 which reads “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Indeed, “ the Independent International Commission on Kosovo concluded in its report that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was “not legal but legitimate”. The Commission simultaneously noted that the intervention was illegal because it did not meet with procedural rules provided by the UN Charter and that the intervention was legitimate because prior to its occurrence all necessary diplomatic means were utilized.”

Conclusions:
With the break of Kosovo case, the Kosovo region of former Yugoslavia with population of two million people , has not only “ assumed a central role in the regional politics of the Balkans, but it has marked a big shift in the actions of international and regional organizations and also super powers with strong implications for international security. Indeed Kosovo has been the place where the appearance of a unified and vigorous UNSC, able to protect international peace and security, was to be shattered by a sequence of crises in which the use or threat of the veto power rendered the Council increasingly passive. Kosovo has also been the place where this dilemma of Security Council of the United Nations was circumvented by the ‘humanitarian intervention’ practiced by NATO in 1999. However, the unauthorized humanitarian intervention made by NATO in 1999 at Kosovo has gone beyond the “limited purpose of stopping the atrocities and restoring respect for human rights (and has been) a tool for achieving political goals such as greater political autonomy, self-determination, or independence for particular groups within the country” ,
Just like East Timor case where the UN made a recourse to Chapter VII to re-establish minority rights that had been repressed by Indonesia UN established an administration with a recourse to Chapter VII with the task to bring Kosovo towards autonomy and self-governance within the framework of Yugoslavia following the NATO intervention. However there was two big differences First one was done in the context of non- self governed territories in the process of decolonization with the full consent of Jakarta. In contrast the operation in Kosovo was done by NATO unilaterally and without the permission of the UNSC. Also Kosovo was not a non-self governed colony but a part of a sovereign and UN member state. So after the unauthorized intervention establishing an administration with the task of bringing Kosovo towards autonomy and self-governance was nothing but “to trump the territorial integrity of a state.”

“The the long-term effects of this intervention are rooted in the Kosovo problem. Indeed, one might ask, are NATO and the UN from now on to be involved in a process of “majorization of minorities” and if so, how far should this process be pushed? In other words, where should humanitarian neo-interventionism begin and where should it end? This evolving situation suggests that we are now at the intersection of two phenomena: how to assure human security in the context of “majorization of minorities”?

Bibliography
1) Enika Abazi, “Kosova Independence: An Albanian Perspective”, Policy Brief SETA Foundation for Political Economic and Social Research April 2008 No:11
2) Srdjan Cvijic, “Self Determination as a Challenge to the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Interventions : The Case of Kosovo”, German Law Journal, 2007, Volume :8 No:1,Articles,Special Issue, “What Future for Kosovo?”
3)Alex N. Dragnich, “The Future of Kosovo”, Chronicles ,April 1995
4) Conflict History: Kosovo, International Crisis Group Conflict Preventing and Resolution 25 December 2009
5) Hector Pustina, “Kosovo” GPF Europe
6) Richard Becker, The Rambouillet accord A Declaration of War Disguised as a Peace Agreement, Agenda May-June 1999
7) UN Charter, Internet Official Site
8)“NATO’s Role in Relation to the Conflict in Kosovo: Historical Overviev”,15 July 1999
9) G. C. Thomas, “NATO and International Law”, Kosovo and Yugoslavia: Law in Crisis, Jurist Law Professor’s Network
10) Albert Legault, “NATO Intervention in Kosovo : The Legal Context” Canadian Military Journal, Spring 2000
11) Dajena Kumbaro “ The Kosovo Crisis in an International Law Perspective: Self Determination, Territorial Integrity and the NATO Intervention”- Final Report For North Atlantic Treaty Organization- Office of Information and Press 2001

The Effect of Greece’s Economic Crisis on Military Purchases - Ali Külebi

2010-04-06T16:19:00.002+03:00

For many years, Greece’s baseless paranoia about Turkey led it to allocate huge budgets (Europe’s third largest) to weapons acquisitions, and given the effects of the worldwide crisis, Greece has walked into an economic dead end, one that is both long expected and serious.

For this reason, especially during the last few weeks with every day international credit providers bring bad news concerning Greece and announce that its credit rating is being lowered.

Actually, it was known that this nation’s entry into the European Union was characterized by an apparent lassitude and that it had begun to live on aid and grants obtained from the EU. In order to obtain more aid the Greeks even lied and inflated figures about their agricultural production, and EU bureaucrats have been very busy with this matter for a long time. As well as all of these problems and mistakes, other heralds of the recently emerging crisis were the enduring financial burden on the economy of the 2004 Athens Olympics, which is expected to last for some time, and the cost of the Greeks’ armament efforts against Turkey.

In terms of solutions, the option of kicking Greece out of the Eurozone is not very likely because it would be too heavy a blow to the prestige of the Euro.

While excessive arms purchases in recent years and the Olympic Games’ expenditures put the Greek government in extreme debt, Greece’s persistent arms acquisitions, and the fact that they did not pay for various weapons, in particular, S-214 submarines and Leopard tanks acquired from Germany, became an international problem.

Geopolitically, Greece is located on the axes of the junction of three continents. It has a medium scale strategic position on energy transportation lines and the seaways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, namely, the Aegean. Greece’s importance to NATO was significantly diminished with the elimination of the Soviet threat and the strategy of gaining access to the Mediterranean by invading Greece through the Balkans.
However, it is also obvious that Greece had an important role in ensuring Turkey’s connection to the West, which was under significant Soviet threat during the Cold War era.
Nevertheless, perhaps the Greeks often attributed too much importance to their own role, and complained that their allies did not appreciate their importance as much as they did. From a geopolitical perspective, Greek complaints concerning this issue can be interpreted as the result of Turkey being attributed much more importance due to its having many neighbors.

When Greece chose to join NATO in 1951 as a direct result of Soviet pressure, it also took its domestic communist threats into account. Despite their entry into NATO, the Greeks oriented their strategy mainly towards Turkey, and even saw both fighting the Soviet armies to stop them from reaching the Mediterranean and countering its domestic communist threat as a secondary choice and a diversionary small scale conflict.

Military Doctrine in Jeopardy

Thinking that the US support for them in Cyprus in 1974 was insufficient, the Greeks distanced itself from the US step by step and developed good relations with the European community. After this development Greece tried to strengthen its army with the support of the Europeans and sophisticated weapons which they made sure to buy from them. In this period, the Kardak crisis with Turkey and efforts to unilaterally change the air space and territorial waters were critical episodes.

With the 1974 defeat resulting in the partition of the island of Cyprus, 37% going to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the remainder to the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus, the Greeks were traumatized and could not accept the situation. They first supported the Armenian terrorist organization, ASALA, and then the PKK terrorist organization. On the other hand, while they were arming the Aegean Islands, they began to establish military doctrine entirely oriented towards Turkey. Meanwhile, they also tried to give the impression to the public and the outside world that Turkey had begun to follow a policy of expansion, and even of challenging the status quo in the region. This is why they began their efforts to arm themselves excessively, which is one of the most important reasons for their financial problems today.

Sophisticated Weapons Purchases

Since the beginning of the 1990s, Greece has been systematically acquiring short, medium and long range air defense rockets. Thus they own almost all the world’s leading systems, such as the PAC-3 Patriot, S-300, TOR-1 Ms, 1-Hawk, OSA-AK (SA-8), SKYGUARD/SPARROW and CROTALE NG/GR. Apart from these, here we should also mention the six frigates that will constitute additional strength for air defense in the Aegean.

It is understood that Greece plans to strengthen its armored units rapidly. In addition to their existing inventory of German Leopard-2 tanks, brand new 170 Leopard-2 HEL tanks will be jointly produced by the German Krauss Maffei and the Greek ELVO firms. In terms of tanks, the Greek army is understood to have decided to switch from American platforms to German platforms. They have ordered 130 Leopard 2A4 tanks in addition to the 170 Leopard-2 HELs from Krauss Maffei.

According to the 2007 treaty between Moscow and Athens, Greece is expected to buy 40 billion dollars worth of weapons from Russia. The first part of the 40 billion dollar Greek deal is an agreement to buy 415 BMP-3 tanks and armored vehicles. The EU, disturbed by the Greeks acquiring weapons from non-NATO countries, is expected to block most of these purchases due to the economic crisis. European officials see the cancellation of a portion of these purchases as certain.

Four of the 12 AH-64 (D) radar equipped attack helicopters purchased by the Greek army, said to have the capacity to track 256 targets at once, have been received. The remainder of the delivery is expected to be delayed.

The Greek army’s air power will supplement its Hueys, which have been serving since 1970s, with 20 NH90 helicopters that they plan to buy from Eurocopter, and with 12 Apache attack helicopters, and gradually retire the Hueys. This plan is also expected to be delayed, at least until 2015.

It is known that Greece, which had a heavily American weapon inventory as a result of its NATO membership, is leaning towards having more French and German weapons platforms in its inventory due to its EU membership.

In order to develop their Navy, they have ordered 3 Papanikolis (Type 214) class submarines, in addition to 8 type 209 submarines. These type 214 submarines are interesting because they can be submerged for a long time with its fuel cell equipment, they are quietness and difficult to detect. However, budget constraints and a series of malfunctions with the first delivered submarine may delay the deployment of the submarines and even lead to the cancellation of the order.

The air force continues to be rapidly strengthened with the new F-16 Block 52+ and Mirage 2000-5 Mk2. All of these developments are significant enough to influence the regional balances of military power. However, the deepening economic crisis also affects these billion dollar purchases. Europe puts serious limits on Athens’ military acquisitions in the name of European budget discipline, and this is understood to mean that the US and Russia stand to lose. On the other hand, it is thought that Germany, which is expected to lend money to Greece, will have an advantageous position in weapons sales.

The Justifications for Armament

It can be seen that Greece’s excessive armament is based on the idea that the Turkish military’s increasing sophistication and experience has given Turkey a serious advantage in the military balance of force.

The Greek doctrine does not believe that the rapidity or kind of intervention and aid by forces such as the EU, the US or NATO is sufficient for a wartime situation. However, Turkey’s power and potential is incomparably larger than countries in the Near East and even Europe itself.

The justifications for the development of Greek military doctrine can be listed as follows:

1) Turkey, with its population of over 70 million, its large territory and hinterland, is a giant.
2) Turkish shores are a few kilometers away from Greece.
3) Turkey cannot accept the fact that Greece owns most of the Aegean Sea.
4) Turkey is disturbed by the fact that some of the Aegean islands are under Greek rule and equipped with military bases.
5) Nationalist and even Panturkist tendencies in Turkey have expansionist aims.
6) Turkey is resolute about not compromising its territorial waters and air space.
7) Since the 1990s, Turkey has seriously emphasized the acquisition of war planes, helicopters, battleships, armored vehicles and rocket systems, creating a very modern armed forces.

While these justifications for the Greek military doctrine are shared with the public, it is not mentioned that Turkey is very busy with externally supported terrorism across its territory, with some level of contribution from Greece itself.

Since the end of the Cold War when Greece focused all its armament efforts and strategies on Turkey, there are three important war alarms that Greek strategy experts emphasize. These are: Cyprus, the Aegean Sea and Thrace. Conflict might erupt in one or two of these or all three at the same time. It is obvious that the likelihood of conflict in the Aegean Sea is higher now because Greece’s territorial waters and air space demands persist and Turkey opposes these with the principle of casus belli.

The Military Doctrine’s Dead Ends

In 1994 the Common Defense Doctrine between Greece and the Greek administration of Northern Cyprus was put into effect. Accordingly, military cooperation is foreseen in case of a Turkish intervention in Greek Cyprus.

One deficit that arose after the Cyprus Peace Operation was the slackness of the Greek system of mobilization. The need for serious efforts to eliminate this problem arose.

Although the Greek military doctrine is defense oriented in comparison to NATO strategy, it should be mentioned that signs of a defense approach that starts beyond its borders can be seen.

Greece also developed strategies for deterring a potential enemy without using force. Accordingly, it focused on armament and military structure that shows it is power to respond. There was a special focus on establishing more mobile military units and in this context, brigades and battalions were formed, rather than divisions and regiments.

Qualitative improvements were sought by downsizing and mobilizing military units and by increasing training levels. The new doctrine was expected to offer a more modern approach, to increase cooperation between land, air and sea forces and to deploy capabilities to enemy territories when necessary. In order to create force multiplier effects sophisticated weapons were also acquired in this context.

An important subject of argument concerning Greek military doctrine is less dependency on defense since it is obvious that the outcome of wars in our day is determined by air power. It is a mistake to allow your opponent get the initiative during an air attack because it is no longer possible to hide ground forces in the hinterland and draw enemy forces into your territory. As a result, Greece does not have the luxury to wait for an eventual attack. Turkey’s high military level, its number of soldiers and its geopolitical depth can cost its opponent serious losses on the first attack, and when the opponent grows weaker, due to its territorial depth and Greece’s small territory, it can reach its targets without facing much resistance. Greek strategists oppose a defense oriented doctrine from this point of view. In light of these issues, in today’s wars a complete defense strategy is impossible to implement and more importantly, is equivalent to suicide. In order to eliminate the problems of this approach to defense, Greek military doctrine emphasizes issues that move away from this passive understanding.

The fact that the war will be lost in the first days, in case of a Turkish initial attack, Greeks have to consider the option of their own initiating attack.

However, the economic crisis made it necessary for them to review all their defense options and arms purchases. It is necessary to take into account the fact that it will take a minimum of three years to normalize after the criss. And this will mean a three year waiting period for Greece to establish its new military doctrine and purchase weapons accordingly.

Table 1

Greek Armed Forces

Greek Army
Troops: 93,500 active and 198,000 reserve soldiers

1 armored division headquarters
3 mechanized infantry division headquarters
2 service and support divisions
4 armored brigades
7 mechanized infantry brigades
5 infantry brigades
1 airborne brigade
3 special forces brigades (1 marine, 1 parachute, 1 special operations)
1 army air brigade
4 service and support brigades
1 logistics headquarters

Weapons
Tanks: 1,730 (Leopard 2A4, M-60 A, Leopard 1A and M-48 A5)
Armored vehicles: 172 VBL
Armored personnel carriers and battle vehicles: 2175 (BMP, Leonidas ve M-113A)
Cannons: 845 (approximately)
Multi-projectile rockets: 115 RM-70, 36 MLRS
Air defense missiles: 42 1-HAWK, 21 TOR-1M, 31 OSA-AK and 1250 Stingers
in the 4 helicopter transport battalions:
38 UI7A, 74UH1, 15 CH-47D, 20 AH-64-A Apache, 28 AB-205, 14 AB-206
Ground to air missiles: 2, 200 (MIM-23B I-HAWK, SA-8B “GECKO”, FIM-92 RMP “Stinger”)

Table 2

Greek Naval Forces

Military personnel: 20,000 (4,000 reserves)
10 Fifty class destroyers
4 Hydra class (MEKO) destroyers
4 Glaucos (type 209) submarines
4 Poseidon (updated to 209) submarines
3 +2 Roussen assault boat
4 Laskos class assault boat
6 Votsis class (old German S148 class) assault boat
4 Nike class (old German Tethys class) assault boat
2 Kaos class patrol boat
4 Andromeda class torpedo boat
2 Stamov class patrol boats
4 Ketallina class amphibious craft
9 Naxos class amphibious craft

Table 3

Greek Air Force

Military personnel: 31,500 (30,000 reserves)
Total war planes: 293 (F-16 Block 30, F-16 Block-52, RF-4 and F-4E, F-16 Block 52+, Mirage 200 EGM, A-7 and Mirage 2000-5
Air defense missiles: 6 batteries (36 ramp)
6 Skyguard/Sparrow, 2 SU-300 batteries (12 ramp), 4 TOR-MI, 9 CROTALE NG
Air transport planes: 118 craft (including helicopters) (C-130 B/H, C-27, CL-215, DO-28, CL-415, EMB-135 AEW& C, P3-B Orion, AB-205, B-212, AS-332, A-109)

Russian MINORTIES in UKRAINE - MAZHAR YASİN TÜYLÜOĞLU

2010-04-06T16:18:00.000+03:00

Introduction
In the 21st century, International Relations are extremely complex because it includes many problematic issues between the states. Among these problems, ethnic conflicts are one of the most significant issues in world politics. From China to Iraq, Europe to Africa ethnic problems cause mass violation of human rights and even result to genocides. Thus, ethnic studies, a relatively new discipline in social sciences, have formed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the scholars of ethnic studies found a great base for their works. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ (USSR) community became the citizens of the newly independent states and this situation brought some problems. Before 1991, they were all living in the USSR however, after the collapse, people from different ethnicities left within another states borders. Post-Soviet studies paid great attention to this issue. The scholars examined all situations one by one, and as of 2009 many problems are solved. Nevertheless one of them remains unchanged: The Russian Minorities in Ukraine.
The problem is made up of the Russians living in the southern and eastern part of Ukraine. This issue is vital because after the Orange Revolution took place in 2004, the Government of Ukraine hardened the conditions of the Russians in the country. Thus, they attracted higher Russian interest to the area.
Recently Russian Minorities in Ukraine became a key element of the Russian foreign policy towards Ukraine partly because of the change in the political system of Ukraine, and the Orange Revolution which brought pro-Western politicians to the office.
In this article, we are going to analyze the Russian Minorities in Ukraine and try to find an answer to the question about their future in the country. We are going to state the main actors of the issue and underline the basic documents of the problem. After a brief look to the current situation, we are going to mention about the future predictions and conclude in the final part.

A) Main Actors and Key Documents

As our topic is Russian Minorities in Ukraine, the main actor of the issue is therefore the Russians living in Ukraine. Ukrainian Republic has only one census after the last Soviet Census in 1989. According to 2001 Census of Ukraine, the number of the people who identify themselves as Russians is 8.334.100 with a percentage of 17.58. They speak Russian and they live in the region of Novorossiya. The areas with high Russian population are the city of Sevastopol (%71.6), the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (%58.3), Donetsk Oblast (%50.8), Dnepropetrovsk (%52.9) and Luhansk Oblast (%61.1). The majority of the Russians are Christians of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The second main actor of the issue is the Russian Federation (RF). It is well known that when it comes to the Russians living abroad, the government of Russia takes strict measures. RF has traditional, historic, geographic, cultural, national and religious ties with the Russians in Ukraine. Besides, RF has a naval fleet in the port of Sevastopol, the home of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia. The region is the main indicator of the historical Russian goal to reach the warm seas and the Russians living in the region marks this significance.
Related with the first two actors, third main actor is the pro-Russian sect in the politics of Ukraine. One can hardly find someone else than the former Prime Minister, new President Viktor Yanukovych in this category. Pro-Russian Party of Regions led by Yanukovych is the political choice of the Russians in Ukraine and the only way to make sure that their voice is heard. Also the RF was publicly supporting the party in the Orange Revolution period however, after a while, they changed their strategy and the support is implicit in recent years.
Fourth actor of the issue would be the Ukrainians living in Ukraine. The term “Ukrainian” commonly refers to those who are ethnically “Ukrain”. They are placed mostly in the western part of the country and speak Ukrainian language. They oppose to Russians and the Russian language in Ukraine, and they support European Union (EU) or North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) like western organizations. Some of them are die-hard nationalists that they even do not answer the questions which are asked in Russian, claiming that they don’t know Russian.
This brings us to our fifth main actor which is the revolutionary cadres of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (also known as the “Oranges”) such as the former President Viktor Yushchenko, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Anatoliy Hrytsenko etc… In the aftermath of the Revolution, the cadres were working harmoniously, yet in time they torn apart and the cadres have broken into pieces. Unsurprisingly, the situation strengthened the pro-Russian bloc on the political stage as well as the Russians in the everyday life. The leaders of the Orange Revolution have seen the clear picture and started to oppress the Russians more and more. For instance, they banned the Russian language in the universities and took some political rights away from the Russians. Such examples can be augmentable.

There are several documents regarding to the minorities in Ukraine. One of them is the Declaration of the Rights of Nationalities of Ukraine (1991). Article 1 of Ukraine’s Declaration of Nationality Rights guarantees equal rights for the nationalities and forbids discrimination based on nationality. Article 2 says that the state takes on itself the creation of circumstances necessary for development of language and culture of national minorities. Article 4 permits the use of national symbols.
Another key document, The Law of Ukraine about National Minorities (1992) declares that human rights and nationality rights are inseparable notions. Article 1 of the Law admits citizens to be equal irrespective of their nationality, and status that the rights of people belonging to national minorities are part of generally accepted human rights. Article 3 says: “Those citizens of Ukraine who are not of Ukrainian nationality and declare their national identity, belong to national minorities”. Article 11 makes it possible for the citizens to freely choose their nationality or its re-establishment. The Law forbids discrimination on a nationality basis (Article 18), provides the right of nominating candidates for Parliament and for national organizations (Article 14), and states that separate sums of money are allocated in the state budget for developing the national minorities.
A third document would be the Constitution of Ukraine (1996). Articles 11, 24 and 92 of the Ukrainian Constitution touch upon the question of legal status of national minorities. Article 11 proclaims that the state guarantees “ethnic, cultural, language and religious development of Ukraine’s indigenous peoples and national minorities” . Article 24 prohibits race, ethnic, nationality, language etc. discrimination. According to the wording of the text, the idea of positive discrimination cannot be implied, either. “There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on race, colour of skin, political, religious and other beliefs, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics” . Article 92 proclaims that the human and citizens’ rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples and national minorities are defined exclusively by the laws of Ukraine.
In addition, there are several international documents regarding the rights of the minorities in general. Although the documents mentioned above do not include the term of “Russian Minorities”, it is obvious that the laws cover Russians too, as they are the largest ethnic group in Ukraine.

B) Current Situation
The current situation in Ukraine is complicated in many ways. First of all the political stability is at stake. The Orange Revolution’s effects have been lessening day by day and the pro-Russian camp has been gaining power. Furthermore, the economic structure is partly deteriorated because of the already weak economy of Ukraine and the world economic crisis. Social conditions are not well for a great majority of the people.
As we mentioned above, Russian Federation’s interest in Ukrainian politics is not overt anymore. Vladimir Putin and his team saw the negative effects of their involvement, thus, they decided to watch the situation from outside. But RF still has the “big brother” title by pulling the wires when necessary. The Ukrainian Gas Crisis right after the Orange Revolution marked this occasion. Russia intends to pill the pressure on Ukraine by changing the energy prices irregularly. Fairly enough, Ukraine has experienced this matter several times before and acting very carefully when negotiating with Russia. Ukraine also thinks twice when it comes to the Russian Minorities because of the same reason, to prevent offending Russia.
Recently the cold atmosphere between Ukraine and Russia seems to be the reason of the stand-off between the two political camps. In the current circumstances Ukrainian nationalists become more anti-Russian and behavior violently towards Russians who are growing. The country seems to be on the verge of an ethnic separation: The western-northern part of Ukraine versus the eastern-southern tier. Central Ukraine is the only region that holds the country together, serving as glue. The country’s centre is a mixture of all socio-political fractions. The area also plays an important role in the elections. One can admit that whoever gains the support of the Central Ukraine wins the elections since the competing sides already have the support of either eastern or western parts of the country.
Finally in this part, we can state that recent trends in Ukraine concerning the Russian population are not so bright. Their numbers have reducing irrepressibly. In between the years 1959 and 1989 the number of the Russians living in Ukraine raised from 7 million to 11 million but in between 1989-2001 the number decreased to 8 million and is still decreasing. It is believed that the current number is below 8 million.

C) Future Predictions

Ukraine became a country of elections in recent years thus 2010 Presidential Elections is a significant indicator for the country’s future. In the six-year period after the Orange Revolution, Russian minorities faced with some difficulties but the 2010 Presidential Elections has a chance to change the whole situation.
Opinion polls before the elections were highlighting two major candidates; Viktor Yanukovich and Yulia Tymoshenko. Yet the presidency competition held between these two candidates and the rest of the candidates were not assertive. If Tymoshenko would be the new president, she could have followed a balanced policy both inside and outside the country. But as Yanukovych won the elections and gained power, there are many reasons for him to behave pro-Russian since his electoral base consists of Russian dominantly. In this current scenario, minorities may come into prominence and their political, social, economic rights may be returned. Russian language may once again be used as the education language and Russian Federation may feel relieved with a president who tends to oversee the rights of the Russians in Ukraine.

As a matter of fact, Russians in Ukraine have very respectable social conditions in terms of economic welfare. The main point of our research lies behind this truth. The pro-Western, nationalist, Ukrainian speaking, western part of Ukraine has relatively bad living conditions, thus, they support the European Union membership and strengthening ties with the Western countries. But the Russian Minorities possess the industrial, agricultural complexes and do not care if they are minorities or not. The only thing that the Russians in Ukraine care about is to use their own language and express themselves freely. They do not seek the economic aid of Russia but the social help of the motherland. Therefore, the Russian Minorities’ future in Ukraine is related with their socio-cultural rights more than their economic rights.

Conclusion
The historical divide of Ukraine is becoming more prominent. The country is walking on a thin line between the collapse and the rebirth. Nevertheless with the current inner and outer problems, Ukraine does not seem to overcome the danger of separation. New president Viktor Yanukovych has a lot to achieve in order to keep the country together. This may be probably the hardest task ever, yet in order to become a stable and prosper country Ukraine has to solve these problems one by one. Only then the minorities will not be an issue anymore.

Bibliography

BONDARUK, Halyna; “Yushchenko Appeals to Crimean Authority Not to Speculate on Language”, Ukrayinska Pravda, 3 March 2007.
KAMALOV, İlyas; “Putin Dönemi Rus Dış Politikası: Moskova’nın Rövanşı”, Yeditepe Yayınevi, January 2008.
MALHYNA, Katerina; “В борговій ямі: економічні виклики для України в 2010 р.”, Available at http://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/category/presidential-elections/, 26 December 2009.
Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project, University of Maryland, 2004, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=36902.
TUYLUOGLU, Mazhar Yasin; “Sovyet Sonrası Dönemde Ukrayna’daki Azınlıklar”, unpublished article, 2007.

RUSSIA CREATES THE MILITARY FIST IN THE CENTRAL ASIA - Vladimir Karyakin

2010-04-06T16:17:00.000+03:00

In conditions of NATO expansion in the sphere of Russian interests, aggravation of geopolitical concurrence for access to Central Asian energy resources and world instability caused by the global economic recession the Russian administration is focusing efforts on building up the military components of integration processes on the post-Soviet space. Right after the August war 2008 with Georgia the president of Russia Dmitry Medvedev has pointed out the necessity «to intensify military cooperation» within the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The implementation of this idea started in 2009. There was this year a series of CSTO summits with participation of seven states: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A final chord was a session of CSTO which took place on the 14th of July when the presidents of these states signed the agreement on creation of Collective Forces of Operative Reaction (CFOR) within the CSTO.
The issue on the CSTO conversion to the full-fledged political-military organization is being discussed for about 4 years already. But a momentum to implement practical steps in this direction was Russian-Georgian war in August, 2008 after which it was decided to escalate a military component of the CSTO. Officially this issue was publicly declared on February, 4th this year at the Moscow summit of the CSTO members-countries . In the final declaration it was said, that the serious military potential was accumulated in immediate proximity to the CSTO area of responsibility. It was also said, that CSTO members call the NATO countries to weigh all possible aftereffects of alliance expansion to the Orient and deployment of new anti-missile defense positions nearby the CSTO frontiers. In the final part of declaration of this meeting it has noted been, that CFOR forces were created to repel military aggression, to carry out special actions in the context of struggle against terrorism, the organized crime and drug traffic and also to liquidate emergency situations and catastrophes.
«These issues under the competence of CFOR and we have agreed that it will be serious, sufficient forces, well equipped, obtaining advanced military engineering, and very effective. Their battle potential will be not worse, than that of North Atlantic forces», - Dmitry Medvedev has illustrated . Russia will transmit to CFOR structure one airborne division and a landing-assault brigade (nearby 8000 soldiers). Kazakhstan will be represented in CFOR by a landing-assault brigade (up to 4000 soldiers); other allies will transmit in the general disposal one battalion each .
As a Spokesmen for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has informed, «we create the military structure for security of Central Asia in case of external attacks» .
CSTO summit found out in June 2009, that the leaders are not going to stop half-way. The CSTO Secretariat together with Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs plans to consolidate an integration breakthrough by creation of a military strike group in Central Asia which should complete the Russian-Belarus and Russian-Armenian military formations already existing in the framework of CSTO. At present, the new strike group includes military formations of five countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The creation of the Central-Asian military group meets Moscow aspiration to make CSTO alliance equal to military power of NATO.
The last edition of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, recently approved by D. Medvedev, stresses that Moscow considers CSTO «as the main instrument, designed to resist regional challenges and threats of political-military and strategic character». In this document it is pointed out, that the struggle for energy resources in the Caspian Sea and in Central Asia regions military conflicts are possible. The military balance near to frontiers of the Russian Federation and its allies could be broken at any time.
The signing agreements on CFOR creation of on June, 14th, 2009 still cannot be spoken about its final registration because of the presidents of CSTO member-countries should sign other documents, concerning the forces structure of the group.
According to CSTO Secretary General Nikolay Bordyuzha, effective strength of CFOR will constitute within the limits of 20000 people. These military units will be placed on permanent dispositions at home permanent bases and in case of need would be redeployed by air to the region of operation .
The operational decision about military use of CFOR will be made by the CSTO Secretariat with the consent the governments of the CSTO countries. The Secretariat will designate the commander of particular operation apparently, from out of military chiefs of the country where the given operation will be conducted.
Deployment planning, combat training and provision of CFOR forces are assigned to the CFOR headquarters which will be disposed in Moscow. Decisions to conduct particular operations will be made on the basis of consensus.
N. Bordyuzha is assured, that, despite of a number of divergences between the CSTO member-countries, CFOR would be an effective instrument to guarantee stability in Central Asia.
It is supposed to use CFOR to localize confrontations, settle border disputes and prevent terrorist attacks and struggle against drug-traffic. But these forces will be applied only when national military forces of the CSTO member-countries encounter difficulties .
It is natural, that solution to any conflict situation will come true all over again by political means. If they fail to and armed aggression poses a threat territorial integrity of the CSTO countries CFOR could be involved to defend allies.
To repel large-scale external aggression CSTO is planning to create another military formation – Collective Forces for Rapid Deployment (CFRD). At present the CSTO Secretariat is busy developing legislation on crossing the borders of the allied states. This group will include large troop formations of military combat readiness .
The Trans-Caucasian and European military directions are already protected by the Russian-Armenian and Russian-Belarus forces. The current order of the day is to settle a question of Central Asian security. As well as in the case of CFOR, the main striking forces will be in the places for permanent deployment. The questions of their equipment and combat training will be decided by national commands. Joint operations of CFOR/CFRD will be planned by the CSTO Staff Headquarters . For CFRD are planned to include the tank and artillery units, as well as the naval forces of the Caspian CSTO states.
Effective strength of future military CFRD group this not been spoken about but if to take into account that in the Russian-Belarus military group includes all military units of Belarus and Russian troops on the western direction than the five-sided military fist in Central Asia can became impressive. According to the Kremlin point of view on CSTO, planned the CSTO military group that will be formed in Central Asia must be comparable to NATO.
Meanwhile, as the reviewers say, the most vulnerable point in Moscow plans on reinforcement of military cooperation in the Central Asia with its CSTO allies. As is known, there were difficulties in implementation of the smaller project – CFOR. Russia had to persuade Tajikistan and to pay attention to separate opinion of Uzbekistan that refused to give its units it constant command of CFOR. Tashkent declared that it’ll take part only in some operations of own choosing.
There were difficulties with Belarus either. But this issue has also been settled. Alexander Lukashenko has left his initial evasive position concerning CFOR and agreed to their creation, as well as to participation of Belarus contingent in them .
Here it is necessary to note, that before transforming CSTO into the full-fledged military-political block, leaders of CSTO countries should think of how to make their membership in CSTO comply the national legislations. The matter is that in constitutions of some CSTO member-countries prescribes non-participation of national armed forces in military alliances. Time will show whether is possible for allies to settle this question.
It must be said, that Russia does take steps towards it’s the allies. It includes expansion of the military assistance to the CSTO countries. According to Bordyuzha's statement, Russia and the CSTO member-countries have agreements on arms deliveries on favorable terms which are successfully realized. Besides as the CSTO Secretary-General has noted, within the framework of cooperation CSTO national armies take free-of-charge military training in the Russian military schools. Under these agreements about 800 military men from the CSTO states come to study in Russia annually.
It should be noted, that military cooperating of Russia with the CSTO countries is based on the following principles:
1. Organization and realization of joint actions on combat trainings of armed forces with a view of achieving their operative compatibility.
2. Forming of CSTO peacekeeping contingent. To achieve these CSTO participants should ratify a number of documents in this field and detach units that should enter collective peacekeeping forces. If such activity is successful CSTO can offer its peacekeeping capabilities to the United Nations.
3. Continuation of development of normative legislative base for legalization of joint CSTO air defense system.
4. Expansion of Russian military-technical cooperating with the CSTO countries. At present the work on a draft program on military and economic cooperation of CSTO states up to 2015 is in progress.
As to CSTO-NATO relations it should be noted, that North Atlantic alliance tried not to recognize the existence of CSTO until recently. It can be explained only by the fact that the NATO administration has its own vision of the global alliance role and the role on the Eurasian continent that is to strengthen expansion of its political-military influence. After the arrival of the new USA administration to the White House Washington’s point of view on CSTO has changed. New approach was described in the article by Zb. Bzhezinsky in Foreign Affairs where he suggested signing an official agreement between NATO and CSTO . This idea found positive response not only in the White House, but also in Burrell. Recently elected Secretary General of NATO former Danish Prime Minister Andrea F. Rasmussen has declared that the alliance plans to consider the proposal of the American politician in the near future. It changes the situation radically because the former NATO administration ignored such idea despite the appeal of CSTO administration to alliance during the last years.
In this connection the CSTO Secretary General N. Bordyuzha in this connection has noted that there are some problems that CSTO and NATO should solve together. First of all they should struggle against drug-traffic and terrorism with the use of corresponding structures of both organizations that now protect the border of Afghanistan. «Only by joint efforts we can really influence the actual state of affairs», – the CSTO Secretary General has emphasized. As he said, now the Secretariat of CSTO develops a project of memorandum on CSTO-NATO relationships. But there are some questions: 1) Will NATO respond to our proposals about joint cooperation? 2) Is it really that NATO has serious interest to CSTO or not?
The CSTO administration assumes the cooperation with NATO to be in the field of data exchange about struggle against drug-dealing and terrorism in the Central Asia states, joint operations on suppression of narkocartels and drug traffic. The discussion of NATO freights transportation through the territory of CSTO states is also possible. The solutions of these problems will strengthen regional security. Thus it is clear, that CSTO does not assume it’s participation in any operations of alliance in Afghanistan and will not send CFOR to combat zones of this country.
However NATO-CSTO cooperation according to Bzhezinsky's version is supposed to have a different form. He assumes that ideological principle must be the heart of this cooperation. In accordance with it he proposes to give the CSTO countries an opportunity in future to enter to each of these blocks separately or both organizations simultaneously. The Official Representative of Russia at NATO Dmitry Rogozin considers that this idea infringes upon Russia national interests in the post-Soviet sphere, and signing of such document will be used to remove of Russian objections against annexation in the North Atlantic alliance new participants from CSTO. As D. Rogozin notes, it confirms NATO’s fundamental purpose is to strengthen alliance global role and its expansion to the Orient .
Rasmussen does not conceal the global rush of NATO to world expansion either. He considers that expansion of NATO is necessary first of all for replacement of alliance forces with the human resources which are in excess in Central Asian states that alliance can provide necessary engineering, armament and regimentals from the West. The matter is that the North Atlantic alliance with two-million armed forces acutely does not have enough human resources for battle operations. Now NATO can hardly support its contingent of 50 thousand soldiers in Afghanistan. Besides the park of helicopters of NATO countries because of its operating characteristics can’t be exploited in mountain-deserted regions of this country.
As is known, Moscow categorically objects to NATO expansion in the post-Soviet countries. The Kremlin considers that NATO expansion to the Orient will provoke Russia to take adequate measures. Russian expert community supposes that after the destruction of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact alliance aimed to expand its influence to Russian sphere of interests.
One can assume that hypothetically symbiosis of NATO and CSTO is possible, but under one condition: the North Atlantic alliance should agree not to expand on the Eurasian space. In Afghanistan NATO should be occupied only with pragmatically problems, instead of struggling against abstract Islamic extremism. These problems include destruction of narkocrops and creation of reliable barriers for their transportation from Afghanistan to the Central Asia and Europe. It can be engaged in joint humanitarian programs. Implementation of these problems will demand significant financial resources which can be found with positive political will of both parties.
Together with the discussions about CSTO-NATO ways of cooperation, practical problems of American military presence at the Central Asia being solved in Washington. According to EurasiaNet portal, the Pentagon is going to deploy in this region the 3rd Group of American Special Operations Force (SOF) that acted in Afghanistan before. As the PR SOF officer captain-lieutenant Fred Quibble has informed, the given variation of regional orientation reflects changing in the general political-military environment of region .
The vague phrase of the American officer means, that in each of Central Asian countries USA armed forces are preparing to carry out the mission on rendering military help to the states of the given region under the program of Foreign International Defense (FID). This program, first of all, implies consulting services to the local military and preparation of national armies for combat operations. But, as it seems, the main task of American forces will be not so much instruction of the local militaries as supervision over political situation in the countries of the given region and military participation in those situations in case they contradict Washington interests.
The order of rendering assistance and its purpose are presented in the instruction of Committee of Headquarters Chiefs. This includes military and peacemaking operations, psychological operations, information exchange, reconnaissance, material and technical support.
At the same time it is necessary to note, that American instructors train local military organizations more than one year. Joint maneuvers are carried out regularly, however discussions about the necessity to deploy the 3rd Group of American special troops in region on the regular basis have just begun. Yes, the danger of penetration of extremists from the neighbor Afghanistan still presents, but at the same time Central Asia countries have significant ability to defend its southern frontiers on their own.
Tracing the history of the 3rd Group which the Pentagon is planning to place in Central Asian countries, shows it has rich battle experience. In 1960’s soldiers and officers of this Group took part in Vietnam war, in 1990’s they participated in Persian Gulf war, later they defended interests of the USA in Western Africa. With the beginning of antiterrorist campaign these commandos had been thrown to Afghanistan. According to western mass-media, the 3rd Group numbers about 1000 fighting man. It is well-armed with small arms, more than 120 grenade launchers, up to 400 blasting devices, 6 airplanes and helicopters and about 100 cars .
The Central Asia initiative of the Pentagon give rise to some questions: whether the American commandos’ activity in Central Asia will be confined to training and how long will they stay here? A legal aspect of the given initiative is unclear. Deployment of foreign troops on the territory of the countries requires the agreement of their parliaments.
The proficiency of American commandos and the history of their activity arouse suspicions that their main objective is reinforcing the American military presence in Central Asia, rather than providing regional security and professional training of the local soldiery. It’s absolutely clear, those USA reinforcements in this region contradicts Russian and Chinese interests. Taking into account that most of the Central Asia countries along with Russia are CSTO members and have CFOR of their own.

Reassessing the Genocide Resolution - Alon Ben-Meir

2010-04-06T16:15:00.002+03:00

Once again, as has happened every spring for years running, the debate over whether the ethnic clashes against the Armenians in the break up of the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide has made it into the US political arena for Congress to weigh in. The recent resolution adopted by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs-to officially recognize actions against the Armenians in 1915 as genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks-has less to do with the US government's pursuit of historical accuracy, than political theater that has come at a strikingly inopportune time.

Genocide is a serious label, and requires not only moral authority from those who use it but a deep comprehension of the historical context in which these events occurred. Armenians have every right to demand official inquiries about the terms and conditions in which hundreds of thousands of their ancestors were killed, but this is not the task of US Congress, who has neither the moral standing to codify armed clashes of a century ago without proper inquiry nor the right to be selective about human rights offenses for political points. Every effort should be made by President Obama and the remaining House Representatives to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.

Beyond the very serious damage that such a resolution could inflict on US-Turkish relations, should it pass the full House, congressional interference at this juncture could severely erode the very moral argument used justify the resolution. Turkey and Armenia have only recently concluded two protocols calling for closer ties, open borders, and most importantly, the creation of a commission to examine the historical evidence of the tragic events. Not only will this vote undermine the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia, but it threatens the US-Turkish relationship at a time when Turkey is playing a critical role aiding the US and the Middle East peace process.
Sadly, this resolution was politicized at the outset, thereby diminishing much of its moral tenet. Had the purpose been for the US to champion human rights and officially condemn any large scale atrocities in times of war, then why was there no debate about massacres in Sudan, Rwanda, Algeria or the Balkans? The fact that it was supported by a powerful lobby and sponsored by many members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Committee Chairman Howard Berman from California, and Donald Payne and Albio Sires from New Jersey, each of whom represent relatively large Armenian constituencies, takes this debate out of the moral realm and into the political one. Beyond this matter, Howard Berman and the Foreign Relations Committee failed to address the pressing issues behind what such a resolution would invite forth, mainly the land disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the issue of reparations for descendants of the victims, none of which can be treated in isolation. However large the political benefit these members of Congress may garner this election year by pushing this resolution, it is not in US interests, as the end result will hurt the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process and severely undercut Turkish-US cooperation should it come to fruition. Such a serious resolution requires the application of the highest moral review and investigation, not a politically convenient act which is considered an insult to Turkish identity. If genocide was in fact committed, it should be left to an international investigative tribunal, not politicians who need to be reelected every two years.

Turkey has been a loyal friend of the United States for more than a half century, and continues to support American efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is a modern secular democracy, and has made great strides in remaining open and progressive. Why then should the United States Congress hold the descendants of the Ottomans responsible for the deeds of their fathers perpetrated a century ago? Since Turkey vehemently rejects the term genocide, what judgment should then be passed, and by whom, that will not tarnish the present generation of Turks? This generation had nothing to do with past events and, in fact, condemns the atrocities committed during that heinous war, regardless of who the perpetrators were. What then gives the United States' House of Representatives the moral authority to pass judgment, when domestic political interest shamelessly dominates their motives? The argument against the resolution by the full House should be based on moral grounds, and the members must not act as judges and jurors when Turkey and Armenia have agreed to establish their own joint committee to unravel what in fact happened.
At a time when America still suffers from a lagging global image after years of hawkish foreign policy and two ongoing wars, the United States Congress must support what Turkey and Armenia have agreed to do to resolve their conflict and help facilitate a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute. Even the Jewish lobby, in the wake of a series of diplomatic rifts between Turkey and Israel, acted quietly in favor of the Turks, resulting in a close margin in the vote. As much as Prime Minister Erdogan's recent statements have not fared well with the Israeli public, the Israeli diaspora is keen on maintaining the strategic nature of its relationship with Turkey as well as Turkey's relationship with the West.
But more importantly, the Turkish government who acted out fervently against the US government following the resolution must come to grips with the separation of power in the United States. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have come out strongly against the resolution-albeit last minute-yet they cannot control the votes or the agenda of Congress. Under no circumstance should Prime Minister Erdogan cancel his upcoming visit to the US, as he should use this opportunity to present his case and prove that Turkey is capable of handling the disputes with Armenia without US congressional intervention.
It is by no means certain that this misguided resolution taken by Pelosi and Berman will pass in the full House should it come to a vote. Furthermore, it is unlikely these sponsors will even bring the resolution to the floor unless they are certain it has a substantial chance to pass. This represents a keen opportunity for Democrats and Republicans alike to find a common area of interest and work in unison for the best interests of the US, Turkey, and the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.

EU-RUSSIA RELATIONS WILL BE TESTED THROUGH BOSNIA PAIN - Shemsey VODINOV

2010-04-06T16:14:00.002+03:00

Bosnians, Croatians and Serbians are highly nervous and stressed nowadays. Fragile stability become more breakable after the Freedom Declaration of Kosovo. Serbians were defining the Kosovo territory as a Serbian land so this Freedom Declaration alerted the Serbians in Bosnia Herzegovina.

War drums and separation signals are aimed to Serbians in Bosnia in the most problematic country of Balkans: Bosnia Herzegovina.

Serbians in Bosnia are defending that country cannot live in this situation of conflict possibility any more so a referendum should be made for deciding separation.

While the memories of thousands of death which died in the war between 1992 and 1995 are fresh and while former prime minister of Bosnia, Serbian Radovan Karacic’s judgment is not finished, this separation demand stressed the region a lot.

Complicated Dayton Agreement which was signed in 1995, cannot be exercised anymore. Dayton Agreement which was signed after the efforts of an American Diplomat Richard Holbrooke were could only be signed by the compromises given to both Yugoslavian leader Milosevic and Serbian Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina leader Karacic. Milosevic was died in a prison in Lahey before telling his truths and Karacic has started to tell what he knows after a long and slow judging process in the same place which Milosevic was died.

Karacic is accused for responsibility of thousands of death and for 11 war crimes. It is expected that his case will not come to a conclusion before the year 2012.

On the other hand political crisis in Bosnia may lead to many changes until 2012.

The leader of Republic of Serbia, Milorad Dodik offered joining with Serbia in a meeting which was held in Vogosca city near Sarajevo with Bosnia Serbians. Dodik was argued that Serbians rights are not still given in Bosnia Herzegovina and he offered a referendum in April. Dodik’s offer was accepted by consent.

Serbian Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina Parliament approved the draft law with 46 votes against 16 votes, which was designed to make referendums easier after the session which was lasted for two days in 12th of February. By using the existing law, Croatian and Muslim minorities could hinder the referendum with the wait up tactic. New law removed the time limitation and tactics cannot work on this new law.

US and EU warned about a potential intervention on Bosnia Constitution towards this move which is counted as a step to freedom. Dodik who decided to have a referendum, was disagreed with the idea of three nations’ live with harmony and he added that conflicts between these nations are started centuries ago.

“While this territory was Ottoman for 500 years Muslims or they can be called as Bosnians were feeling comfortable and they were feeling themselves as they were integrated to the society. Austria Hungary became sovereign after Ottoman Empire and in the Austria Hungary era Serbians and Muslims were feeling themselves as under pressure. Croatians were feeling comfortable. In the Yugoslavia period, Serbians were comfortable because they were living in a society in which Serbians were the majority. Dodik was argued that Serbians rights are not still given in Bosnia Herzegovina and he offered a referendum in April. Dodik’s offer was accepted by consent.

According to the Dayton Agreement which was ended the war in 1995, each nation has a quota on politics. Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian presidents are transforming in each 8 months period.

All three nations’ agreement is needed to decide about important issues. This state structure is not designed for finding solutions; it is designed for not to giving power to one hand, it is for not to give power to one nation. Because of this Bosnia Herzegovina politicians are trying to make new arrangements on constitution.

New arrangements include fundamental changes like reforming census and reforming new administrative borders. Actions for these changes did not success in 2009 and change is not seem possible in this year too. For changing the existing structure which has two entities and ten cantons, three nations should accept it. This is not possible with the new referendum decision of Serbians. Serbian Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina decision of joining with Serbia which was taken by the lead of autonomous Serbian Repulic’s(it is bound to Bosnia Herzegovina) President Dodik, was criticized by both Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia.

Former Croatia President Stipe Mesic stated right before he was leaving, that if Bosnia Serbians decide to join up with Serbia with a referendum, Croatia may make a military intervention against this.

Stipe Mesic,
There are Croatians living in the Republic of Serbia and we will not leave them to live under Serbia after the war happened.

Serbia does not giving an explicit declaration about the issue.

It is assumed that Belgrade Government is helping Serbian Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina by unofficial ways and they are making plans for annexation of Serbian Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina and Serbia.

Serbia is helped by Russia, Bosnians and Croatians are taking help from US and EU.

This complicated political chess may end up the history of young Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina.

Nobody wants a Yugoslavian disaster again, especially when extreme nationalist elements are cleaned from Serbia but this political stress is not expected to lead people to a logical conclusion.

Kosovo’s declaration of freedom and its recognition by west resulted as recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia.

Is it the turn for Serbian Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina now?

Referendum which will be held in April, this year will be the tipping point.In the short period until April, international actors’ visits to Sarajevo Airport will be seen more often. Turkey is also trying hard to help for keeping the stability in that territory but Turkey cannot affect Serbians too much for sure. There are two convincing factors for Serbians, first is EU and second is their traditional strategic ally Russia.

It is understood that Brussels, Moscow and Washington will have to start negotiating for a new Dayton. If Croatia reacts with an military intervention against a separation decision, Serbia would want to react in the same way. In this case, Balkans may have a new bloodshed. This kind of a conflict expected to have a controlled and local course. If Russia and Germany do not show up with Serbia and Croatia then if Germany which use Croatia as its backyard, cannot activate EU, Germany may behave by itself. In this kind of a situation Serbia would want Russian help. Russia which has a special link with Europe through Germany and France, may not want to be a part of this asymmetric war. If Moscow stands strong with Serbians, Europe’s relation with Russia would be collapsed in spite of the US affect.

Lets see if negotiations may come to a conclusion in a time which economic crisis is paralyzing all super powers.

If negotiations do not come to a conclusion then new conflicts and wars may start in Bosnia Herzegovina. A new conflict in Balkans will make the Bosnia an arena for testing relations with EU and Russia.

Ballistic Ability of Iran - Özer Çetinkaya

2010-04-06T16:13:00.000+03:00

Time is running out for Iran. The missile trials of Iran which was dated in the earlier February was not only disturbed US and Israel, it also disturbed which are planning to collaborate with Iran including Russia and China. Russia and China is actually disturbed from Iran’s provocation of US and Israel for an intervention. Moscow and Beijing give significant importance to control Iranian nuclear program with negotiations because Russia and China have strong economic relations among each other. China had reached a trade volume of 32 billions dollars also it should not be forgotten that China signed a treaty on management of CNPC’s 11th phase of South Pars oil field.

Moscow wants Adamant Sanctions

Russia is also developing strategic collaboration with Iran. Russia have some agreements for partnership of sophisticated weapon selling and production besides this some agreements made for energy alliances with Iran. Moscow and Tehran also agreed on the North – South transport path which was made against TRACECA program. This path will become the only alternative for transportation of goods for Central Asia.

All these progress make Russia sensitive for an intervention which may be applied on Iran. Iran’s missile trial means a disaster scenario for Moscow and Beijing so these two countries are alarmed for this kind of trials. Russia is ready for supporting any sanctions which will be applied upon Iran. According to the senior officials in Russia: “ US has a soft policy on Iran”.

Despite of Moscow’s support on adamant sanctions onto Iran, Beijing seems more cautious on the issue. US weapon trade with Taiwan is affective on the policy of Beijing.

Iran’s Ballistic Infrastructure

Iran officials give some clues while stating their pride about missile trials except of their usual rhetoric. One of the most important clues is the clue about the Iran’s developing ballistic ability. Iran officials state that their country achieved a new level on space studies. A senior Iranian expert announced that different missile trials which will be the parts of each new trials will be continued in 2010. Trial which was made on 3rd of February is the core of the future studies according to the Iranian experts. Technical properties of the missiles and satellites are such as:

New age liquid fuel was used in the new multistage, satellite carrier simurg missile. It can produce the needed energy for putting a 60-72 kg weighted satellite into the orbit which ranged 500-600 km.

Simurg, with its engines, it can accelerate 7300 m/s for reaching to a 500 km ranged orbit.

Simug’s engine consists of four engines, each weighted 32 tons. The trast which was formed by clustering of these 4 engines, weighted 143-145 tons.

This engine system will be able to put 700 kg weighted satellites into the orbits which are ranged 1000 km.

Misbah 2

Misbah has a prominence because it is the most developed satellite system of Iran. The main features of Misbah are gathering information from ground stations and transferring them to control stations, providing communication between all military units of Iran across the country’s territory.

It was announced that Misbah 2 will work for providing communication and telecommunication but there is no doubt that Misbah 2 will be used for military intelligence.

Misbah 2 which is weighted 70 kg, can work in the orbits which are 700 km high from the ground and its operating life is three years.

The most important aim at constructing Misbah – 2 is expressed as developing satellite designing and construction technology. Iran interprets Misbah -2 as a new level for construction of more developed spy satellites.

Tulu Satellite

Another developed satellite system of Iran is Tulu Remote Measuring Satellite. It has a capability of launching with Simurg satellite carrier and also has technologic capabilities like sight taking, mechanisms and supervision of sun cells which are used for the first time. The main duty of the Tulu Satellite will be the taking cross-section sights, recording them and transferring information to the ground station with its 50 m ranged recognition capability. For achieving this, Tulu will be in communication with telemetric, pursuit and flight inspection stations in the ground. Tulu can scan and transfer any military action in Iran’s borders or within Iran’s neighbors (like Iraq, Turkey, Gulf of Basra, Caspian Sea) to the main station.

2 years of time is planned for Tulu’s utility period. In this period Tehran will finish developing higher technology satellites. New developing satellite is expected to have a 5 years of operating time and it can take high resolution sights.

Tulu satellite which is hexagonal shaped has a weight of 100 kg, width of 86 cm and it has a height of 100 cm.

Support of North Korea

North Korea added Taepodong – 2 missiles to its inventory after adding Taepodong – 1 missiles which are the developed versions of old USSR production of SSN – 6 missiles.

North Korea which could not achieved the trial of these long ranged missiles because of the physical impossibilities, compromised with Iran and started to use Iran lands for the trials of these missiles.

In this sense, 4000 km ranged Musudan missiles which were similar to Taepodong – 1 and Taepodong – 2 missiles, developed by the cooperation of Iranian and North Korean defence industry experts are testing in Iran too.

According to the Iranian officials, technique/expert cooperation between Iran and North Korea continues. Especially on missile technologies, at least 3 North Korean experts are working in Iran. Also Iranian experts are joining the instructions and development studies in North Korea.

Potential of Nuclear Warhead

In spite of Iran’s declaration International Public thinks that Iran has a secret nuclear weapon program. Declaration of Iran’s Leader Ahmedinejad which states Iran as a “Nuclear Power”, strengthen the thoughts on the Iran’s secret nuclear weapon program[1]. Iran is defending that they are working on an amicable nuclear program until the beginning of these discussions. In fact there are only a few countries which are known as owning nuclear weapons officially or thought to own nuclear weapons. Most of the countries are known as only using nuclear energy. Declaration of Ahmedinejad which shows the Iran within the nuclear armament league automatically increases the number of question marks.

In spite of world’s focus on nuclear weapons, launching devices which can carry those nuclear weapons will be determining elements. Iran’s missile trials should be examined in this sense.

There are various options for launching missiles to their aims which include freefall of missiles with using hunting-bombardment/bombardment planes, ballistic missiles which can be launched both from ground and undersea, cruise missiles, barrel artillery systems, space located systems, torpedoes with nuclear warheads and mines. Iran may try some of those options if it owns nuclear weapons but the safest and most effective option for Iran is ballistic missiles. Not only using biological, chemical or nuclear warheads but also using conventional warheads, ballistic missiles can be very effective both physically and psychologically when they are launched onto military gathering points and cities.

Different of Shah Regime, Iran regime started to build up its deterrence ability mostly on ballistic weapons instead of conventional weapons after the collapse of the shah regime. The most important underlying reason behind this issue is the fear of possible spare part and education problems which risks conventional power construction because of the US configured military infrastructure in the Shah Regime. Another issue in this choice is actually the impossibility of winning a conventional war against US and US supported Gulf Region Countries. Because of this, a destructive asymmetric war doctrine has started to used in Iran against the threats. One of the basic elements of this doctrine is ballistic missiles.

Iran had gained the mass - production ability of aversive ballistic missile systems after the 30 years of research and development process. In this process Iran gained the technical aid of North Korea, China and Russia. Iran which gained a know-how ability in spite of the international pressures and embargos, is not only producing small ranged (SRBM, ballistic missiles have a range of 1000 km) and medium ranged missiles (MRBM, ballistic missiles have a range of 1000-3000 km) also Iran recorded many of these kinds of missiles in its inventory. Iran’s next aim is to produce long ranged ballistic missiles (IRBM, ballistic missiles which have a range of 3000-5500 km) and finally Iran aims to produce intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM, ballistic missiles have a range of more than 5500 km).

Small, Medium and Long Ranged Rockets

According to the announcements of Iranian officials, Iran continues to produce unguided rocket systems named as Nezeat which can be considered as artillery rockets, this type of rockets have 100-200 kg of warheads and their range is between 100-160 km. At Zelzal rocket program which was started for a similar reason with Nezeat, INS guidance system was used and margin of error was so much decreased. Zelzal – 2 rocket’s another version which was produced with the cooperation of Syria is named as Fattah – 110. This 600 mm caliber rockets have a range of more than 200 km. It thought that Iran is transferring those rockets to Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. If launched, those relatively small ranged Fattah – 110 rockets can hit many critical civil and military targets in Israel. Existence of these rockets leaded Israel to develop air defence systems (Like Iron Dome and David’s Sling air defence systems owned by Rafale) for destroying small ranged rockets. While the battle in Southern Syria in 2006, Hezbollah launched 4000 rockets (most of them were Handmade Kassam Rockets) and this attack caused death of more than 40 Israel citizen and temporary migration of 250000 people.

Both Şahap-1 and Şahap – 2 rockets are derivations of Russian Scud (R-17) rockets which were using liquid fuel. Şahap – 1 was developed in the end of the 80s with the help of North Korea and it is a derivation of SCUD-B Rockets which are ranged 300 km. It was thought that Şahap – 2 had become operational in the middle of 90s. Şahap - 2 rockets are derivations of Russian SCUD-C rockets and it was developed by the cooperation with North Korea. They have 550 km range and they have a warhead weight of 700 kg.

Medium ranged ballistic rockets have a range of 1000-3000 km. Iran Revolution Guards are using Şahap-3 rockets actively and testing more developed rockets in these days. Şahap-3 rockets are also in this rocket class. Şahap – 3 rockets were designed in the basis of No Dong-1 rockets with the cooperation of North Korea. Rockets became operational in the beginning of 2000s. The rocket which was known as Şahap has a range of around 1300 km. More developed Şahap – 3A’s range is around 1500-1800 km. The triangular warhead which is atmosphere cycled, rises the suspicions about Iran’s development of unconventional warheads. Circular error probability of Şahap – 3 rockets is between 500 and 1100 m according to Iranian Officials. They have a capacity of carrying warheads which are weighted 500-800 kg. It is known that, Şahap – 3 rockets gained the capacity of carrying atmosphere cycled warheads which can carry nuclear weapons. All series of the Şahap – 3 rockets have one leveled engines which work with liquid fuel. Iran officials are complaining about the difficulty of launching the rockets which use liquid fuel, because those rockets needed to get filled with fuel before launching. This issue directs Iran to develop rockets which use solid propellant with the information and technology gained from North Korea and China.

Future of Missile Program

It can be clearly seen that Iran continues working on high level ballistic missile technologies like GPS/INS guidance system, warheads which have capacity to carry nuclear weapons and so on. Iran may take the developments to the further points which they can produce ballistic missiles have more than 3000 km of range, called as IRBM. Iran’s action of putting satellites with its own capabilities is a signal for Iran’s inclination towards the dual use, both for civil and military uses. Iran’s space program may shade the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program in the near future. Officials from Iran state that Şahap – 5 and Şahap – 6 can be tested in 2015.

Mossad has Started Secret Operations
Possibility of an intervention on Iran is increased after Iran’s nuclear centrals has started to produce energy and at the same time Iran continues on missile development programs. Iran officials announced that according to the studies of Iran intelligence, MOSSAD has already started secret operations. According to those Iranian officials, secret operations of MOSSAD will be applied in three stages by the sign of Benjamin Netanyahu:

1) Planning assassinations for interrupting the Nuclear Program
2) Sabotaging nuclear facilities.
3) Hitting nuclear facilities with limited interventions.

According to Tehran death of nuclear physician Prof. Dr Mesud Ali Mohammed in a bombing attack is a part of these MOSSAD operations. Also murder of Mahmud al Mabhuh (one of the leaders of HAMAS) which was happened in his hotel room in Dubai was a part of these operations too. Iranian officials underline that Mabhuh’s role on Tehran-HAMAS relations, he was an important leader on this issue.

Tehran thinks that CIA and MOSSAD have a corporation on planning and organizing the attacks which are aimed through scientists who are working on Iran Nuclear Program. Iranian nuclear physics expert Shahram Amiri’s disappear while his umre visit to Saudi Arabia was a kidnapping operation of CIA, announced by senior official Manucher Muttaki. Besides this, Iran admits the Amiri’s role in the nuclear program. Iran Defense Ministry senior official Ali Rızari Asqhari’s disappearance in Turkey at February 2007 was thought as a part of those operations. If uranium enrichment and missile developments continue this fast, Iran may face with harsh sanctions of UN. Sanctions cannot convince Iran for stopping these programs at this point. After the US withdrawn from Iraq, Iran will become a military target. It is already known that Israel is closer to the intervention option. Hitting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with a US aided Israel intervention option will be an issue which will be discussed often after 2011. It should not be forgotten that Russia and China’s opposition towards an intervention on Iran will be stronger than their opposition towards the Iraq War.

A New Cold War between China and the US - Dr. Baris Adibelli

2010-04-06T16:11:00.002+03:00

With the American government fighting a big economic crisis, the Obama administration decided to go through with a 6.5 billion dollar weapons sale including attack helicopters and rockets to be sold to Taiwan, a package initially presented to Congress by the Bush administration in 2008. The package offered to congress by the Bush administration on October 3, 2008 included sales of 30 Apache helicopters, 30 Patriot rockets and 32 Harpoon rockets fired from submarines. This package consists of 6 separate weapons deals. These are: 330 Patriot-3 air defense systems worth 3.1 billion dollars; 30 AH-64D Block III Apache Longbow attack helicopters worth 2.532 billion dollars; 32 UGM 84L harpoon Block II rockets fired from submarines worth 200 million dollars; 2 UTM-84L Harpoon Block II rockets, 182 Javelin loaded rockets and 20 Javelin launch command control units worth 47 million dollars, the modernization of 4 E-2T aircraft worth 250 million dollars, and finally, 334 million dollars worth of modernization for F-E/F, C-130H, F-16A/B and IDF war plane communication equipment and radars, as well as logistic support for the repair of other parts. Moreover, the Taiwanese have been lobbying since 2008 for 60 Black Hawk helicopters left out of the package and joint production of diesel submarines, and trying to convince the US to sell them 60 F-16 C/D war planes.

Security Dilemma

The problem of Taiwan is the most important problem that China and the US inherited from the Cold War. War almost broke out three times between China and US over Taiwan. In 1950s General Douglas Mac Arthur emphasized Taiwan’s geopolitical importance in the Asian Pacific region for US by calling it the unsinkable aircraft carrier. Throughout the Cold War, Taiwan was a geostrategic advantage for the US, The Taiwanese Straits under Taiwan’s control is a crucial sea route for Japan and South Korea. These straits are the raw material and energy trade route for both countries. Although the US signed three important documents that state that Taiwan is part of China, it did not give up on arming Taiwan against China. Weapons sales to Taiwan have always been a problem in terms of Chinese-American relations. In 1982 the Reagan administration brought up weapon sales to Taiwan and disrupted Chinese-American relations. Similarly, in 1992 the Bush administration brought up selling 16 aircraft to Taiwan, causing further serious harm to Chinese-American relations.

In order to sell weapons to Taiwan, the US publishes annual intelligence reports and claims that China is involved in certain military activities against Taiwan. These reports usually conclude that China will attack Taiwan in about a year’s time. The US’s psychological propaganda has effect immediately and Taiwan buys billions of dollars worth of weapons from the US every year. The Chinese however, state that US reports do not reflect reality and emphasize that US is fooling Taiwan into buying weapons using a wily salesman’s mentality. In fact, while previous Pentagon reports claim that the number of ballistic rockets sent to Taiwan was 350, and then 750-800, today the number is over 1000. More than a 1000 ballistic rockets is not a rational strategy for either defense or attack, against a 36 thousand km2 island 160 km of the Chinese coast because China does not want to erase Taiwan of the map but wants to reunite it instead. These amounts show that the US convinces Taiwan to purchase weapons with exaggerated numbers. Since Taiwan buys weapons, China increases armament against Taiwan similarly. The situation where country A sees that country B is in arming, is threatened and begins to arm itself, too, causing country A to further increase its weapons is called a security dilemma in the discipline if international relations. Country B responds with more armament and situation continues like this. This is like the armament contest between China and Taiwan. In the end, international arms dealers are the ones that benefit.

The Chill in Taiwanese-American Relations Is Coming to an End

In his declaration, Taiwan’s President Ma interpreted the US government’s approval of the weapon sales as the end of a cold period that has lasted for the last eight years. The US, on the other hand, defended the legality of the weapon sales and stated that they are compatible with the Taiwanese relations law ratified by Congress in 1979 and derive their legitimacy from this law. As you may remember, when the US cut off diplomatic relations with Taiwan, Congress opposed this step and emphasized that, because of the principle of loyalty to agreements and since Taiwan was a long term ally against communism, the White House should maintain certain previously established relations. Congress was insistent on this and made the Carter administration accept the Taiwanese Relations Law. With this law, a new diplomatic relations mechanism called the Taiwanese model was born. Ma’s support for weapon sales also put this peaceful atmosphere at risk.

Actually, this sale was proposed by the US in 2001. However, Taiwan’s Nationalist Party’s MPs, the opposition at the time, opposed this purchase because it was very expensive, and they blocked the package’s passage in Parliament. The US shelved the sale. In addition to the costs, the reason the nationalists opposed such a sensitive issue was that the acquisition was interpreted as military support for the independence arguments of the Democratic Progress Party then in power. The nationalists, on the other hand, did not want to be independent from China. However, soon afterwards Taiwan approved the sale, but the US did not put it on the table in Congress for a while. This is because China played a big role in the diplomatic process of removing nuclear weapons from North Korea, and Washington did not bring up the arms sales in order not to provoke China and sabotage this diplomatic process.

China’s Reaction

As soon as the news about the arms sales reached China, there was very harsh reaction at the official level. A spokesperson of the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs stated that the arms sales constitute a risk for Chinese national security, that they will harm the military relations between China and the US that have been developing for years and that they put Beijing-Washington military relations at risk. China protested the weapons sale and announced that they cancelled some military and diplomatic meetings with the US. China already considers Taiwan's declaration of independence as a reason for war (casus belli). While China has such a policy, Washington’s insistence on arming Taiwan shows that the US is seriously gambling.

In Taiwan, the election of the pacifically minded leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang), Ma, to the Taiwanese presidency in March 2008 began a new period of peace between China and Taiwan. Traditionally, the Nationalists wanted to unite with China. The Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, advocates Taiwan's independence. With nationalists coming to power there were numerous protocol visits from Taiwan to China. Moreover, commercial flights started between China and Taiwan. Tourism contracts were signed, and Taiwan invited Chinese entrepreneurs, while China allowed Taiwan to invest in China. Therefore, the reason for Ma’s recent support for this weapons deal in this context is still being discussed in Beijing. In fact, Taiwan's Chinese population criticized Tibet and the Dalai Lama during the Tibetan uprisings and said that Tibet had been Chinese territory for centuries. Taiwanese nationalists stated that Tibet's separation from China is unthinkable and demonstrated an even more nationalist stance than China itself.

The Reasons for the Arms Sale

There are two important factors behind the strategy adopted by the US towards Taiwan. First, the most important export item for the US, which is in a big economic crisis, is weapons. The arms industry is the driving force of the American economy. Looking at the recent US history, the first and second world wars, the Vietnam war and the Gulf war all served the weapons industry. Whenever the American economy slows down, the war economy gets it back on its feet. The US economy is being dragged to collapse due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in order to avoid this collapse it has been looking for a chance to start a war against Iran for the last two years. Apart from Iran’s strategic position, the US’s main purpose is to revitalize its weapons industry with a regional war and to obtain necessary finances for the American economy.

Another reason is completely geostrategic. The fact that the Pacific-Indian ocean line, which the US has considered the most important security parameter since the Cold War, is falling under Chinese control is another source of concern for the US. The Pentagon thinks of China as one leg of the scissors that will narrow the gap from Hormuz Straits towards the Pacific region and push US out of the region by uniting with the other leg Russia in the Pacific region. In fact, Russia has indicated that it wants to become a determining military power in the Pacific by conducting nuclear rocket drills in the Far East, drills that it did not even hold during the Soviet period. It did not please Washington, and especially Obama and his team, that China not only became dominant in Asian Pacific, but also gained more influence in Eurasia. The Bush administration was not very interested in Eurasia. Its main concern was the Middle East, with Israel’s security in the center. However, almost for a century Eurasia has been the most important target for the US, and Halford John Mackinder was the one who pointed to Eurasia as the primary geostrategic target. Mackinder emphasized that the way to rule the world was mainly through Eurasia then under Soviet control.

The US’s New Policy of Containment

This concept, which originally reflected the spirit of the Cold War was revived by Zbigniev Brzezinski in the post-Cold War period. Zbigniev Brzezinski clearly explained the importance of Eurasia for the US in his book, The Grand Chessboard. According to Brzezinski, approximately 75% of the world population lives in Eurasia, and the majority of economic initiatives and underground resources are located there. Eurasia has 60% of the world’s gross domestic product and 3/4 of all known energy resources. All the officially acknowledged nuclear powers accept one and secret nuclear powers are in Eurasia. It is the biggest continent on earth and is a geopolitical axis. A power that dominates Eurasia can control two of the three most advanced and economically productive regions in the world. The last five centuries’ world events have been determined by Eurasian peoples and powers that fight each other for regional hegemony and global power. Today, a non-Eurasian power is leading Eurasia, and American global leadership depends on how long and with what effectiveness it will sustain its hegemony in Eurasia. Either by America’s withdrawal or by the sudden emergence of a successful competitor, the rapid loss of his hegemony will cause deep international instability. After explaining the reasons for the importance of Eurasia, Brzezinski goes on to warn the US in particular. He states that a potential rival to America might come out of the most important playing field on earth, Eurasia. According to Brzezinski, the US had to control the surrounding countries. The Clinton administration tried to follow these predictions for a while but the conjuncture did not fully allow it.

As soon as he took up his position Obama took his mentor Brzezinski’s road map off the shelf, and following his advice to control the surroundings, he set out to improve relations with Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Japan and Turkey. In this context, the US reviewed the issue of Taiwan and rather than seeking to separate it from China, saw it as part of the strategy of distracting China and pushing it away from Eurasia and Africa by locking it in the region. With this logic, the more China can be kept busy here, the more new regional power centers such as Japan and India can develop. Moreover, without China in Eurasia, Russia can be defeated more easily. Meanwhile, the US’s European allies will replace China in Africa. The US’s Taiwan strategy must be evaluated throughly. Evaluating it narrowly in terms of blocking Chinese economic power would lack foresight. The most important fact behind the Bush administrations’s attempt to form an organization similar to SEATO in the Asian Pacific is the concern that a growing China will naturally demand an expansion area. This act is more visible with an analysis in terms of geopolitics. This concern is what leads to the frequent comparisons in the West between today’s China and Nazi Germany or the Japanese empire.

McKinder’s prediction not only determined the horizons of American international policy, but China also took lessons from it. China skillfully maneuvered to identify the Asian Pacific region as an adjacent region to Eurasia, while the US threatened these independently and separately. In China’s approach the two regions are seen as an inseparable whole in terms of politics, economics and military, and Eurasia and Asian Pacific complement each other. This is perhaps Washington's biggest strategic mistake. Washington continues to evaluate its position in especially the Asian Pacific with Cold War parameters and ignores the evolution and transformation of its regional allies such as Japan. Contrary to assumptions, an Asian Pacific strategy that is not adapted to the existing conditions will entail a heavy burden and give strategic priority to China. What lies beneath Obama’s new Afghanistan oriented policy vision that he put forward as soon as he took office is actually the American strategists’ understanding that the new containment strategy against China cannot be conducted merely from the Pacific region.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in the year since Obama took office with big hopes, he took an unexpected step and initiated a process that will undermine peace and stability in the Asian Pacific. The long quiet region shifted to a tense posture with Obama’s announcement of the decision to sell weapons to Taiwan. In response to this announcement China made harsh statements and threats. Planting new seeds of instability instead of resolving the regional instability caused by the chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, gives the impression that Obama administration is pushing the US towards a more tangled process. As he is finishing the first year of his presidency, which he won with the slogan of change, Obama disappointed his domestic and foreign policy supporters and began 2010 with a major image change. Although he received the majority of the votes as a result of the American people’s reaction against the Bush administration, he failed to fulfill his promises to have a different profile in every field and began to follow Bush’s footsteps one year later. Without a doubt the most important item on Obama’s agenda at the beginning of his term was the global economic crisis. Failing to overcome the crisis with its decisions, the Obama administration was not very successful with its policies against Russia and China, which recently resumed their roles as traditional rivals of America. He could not find a solution for the rapidly decreasing global credibility of the US. The traditional American international policy strategy of creating a crisis if you cannot find a solution came into play. Obama is trying to distract the American and global public by starting certain regional crises. While he expects to gain more support with the profile of a hawkish president, provoking China, which had accepted the principle of peaceful development as a model, and causing it to follow more aggressive policies constitute more than anything else the greatest threat to US global interests.

With Hu Jintao officially becoming the president of China in 2003, an important process of change in Chinese international policy was started, and Hu Jintao formulated this change as the principle of zero problems with neighbors. In this context, initially China made diplomatic attempts to resolve old problems or misunderstandings with its neighbors. Similarly, being very sensitive about Taiwan, China lifted this sensitivity to another level in 2006, and with the Combat Against Separatism Law it announced that any step towards independence by Taiwan would be considered a casus belli (reason for war). Although this was in conflict with the principle of zero problems with neighbors, China sees the problem of Taiwan as a domestic issue rather than an international policy issue and evaluates Taiwan as part of the territorial unity of China, calling this One China Policy. However, due to its long term UN representation, Taiwan has drawn international attention. It is hard for China to exclude Taiwan from its international policy because Taiwan has been dealing with Chinese foreign policy for a long time. Thus, Chinese foreign policy is involved in Taiwan's status, and the international community is discussing Taiwan's status on a legitimate platform. No doubt China’s definition of Taiwan's status is based on three documents they signed with the US in the past. China always refers to these documents for Taiwan. However, there is another document which determines the US view of Taiwan, and it legitimizes all steps taken by the US. This documents is the Taiwan Relations Act passed by Congress in 1979.

As long as the US insists on this act and legitimizes everything with this act, China might enforce its right to use force against Taiwan according to the 2006 Combat Against Separatism Law. No doubt, the continuation of the US containment policy against China will lead China to adapt a more destructive policy, especially regarding North Korea and Iran. The Obama administration’s indirect propaganda claiming that China is responsible for recent problems in Iran and the new process started with Taiwan raises the question: Is the US getting revenge for Chinas support of Iran? It seems that difficult days are ahead for the Asian Pacific.

*For further information on Taiwan see Baris Adibelli, Cin Dis Politikasinda Tayvan Sorunu (The Taiwan Issue in Chinese Foreign Policy), IQ Yayinevi, Istanbul, 2006.

A Historical Year for Iran - Editorial

2010-04-06T16:10:00.002+03:00

2010 is a year in which discussions on Iran’s nuclear program getting more and more complicated. Uranium enrichment operation is nearly reaching towards 20%. If uranium enrichment program reaches to 20% limit then there is no way of controlling Iran. This kind of a situation is not a threat only for US also it would be a actual threat for both Russia and China. Iran’s declarations are predicting new weapon development. Nuclear program is getting away from being an amicable program. Approach of Tehran Government is getting closer to a point at which Iran would abandon the UN and IAEA agreements. This approach will start a dangerous conflict around the nuclear program of Iran. If Iran becomes a side at this conflict, Israel may react before US. Israel’s reaction will be a repressive hit which will aim to hit Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Iran’s response would be a widespread counter-attack and its dimensions cannot be presumed. Furthermore this counter-attack may be started from Afghanistan, Iraq, Basra Gulf and Lebanon in mean time. According to these issues this year will be a historical year for Iran. Decision for a solution or decision for a war will be finalized in this year.

Besides the progress of nuclear program, missile trials of Iran show that Iran had developed its ballistic ability too. It is so hard to support Iran, for countries such Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing state the need for more US pressure on Iran. Common idea is US contends with light precautions. Tehran government is gaining time for uranium enrichment program with the help of this US behavior. Moscow and Beijing are anxious about the possibility of a war which will be a result of this progress because Iran is an important partner for both Russia and China.

5+1 countries trying to calm down the atmosphere in which US and Israel still hide the option of military intervention solution. Time is running out. Diplomatic solution pursuits are on an end and more adamant sanctions are on the way. If sanctions would not work, there is still an option of a military intervention. US officials have this approach while explaining Obama government’s standpoint on Iran. Truth is that US president is getting under more pressure on developing negotiations day by day.

US requested Iran a negotiation which will guarantee Iran’s nuclear energy program in a amicable use. Obama was stating that Washington is not working on military solutions but Obama warned Iran a few months ago:

“No doubt that we have a limited patience, Iran should put an effort for transparency and Iran should prove that she uses amicable nuclear energy”

New Position of 5+1

Concrete steps were expected from Tehran government until the end of 2009. Obama also underlines the acceptable request which was formed by five constant member of UN Security Council and Germany is still on the table. Request contains an article which allows Iran to make uranium enrichment out of its borders, in countries like Russia, Turkey or France. Iran is not accepting this request which is expected the stop the studies of an atomic bomb developed by Iran.

Accepting this request would eliminate the military intervention option process option in which Russia and China would be hardly convinced on. The reason for Israel’s intervention to Iran will be eliminated by this request too. US clash with Russia and China about sanctions on Iraq would be prevented for now. While working on two important issues like Iraq and Afghanistan, US would have the option of resolving the Iran issue in the easiest way. Also disinclination of western countries (like France and Germany) to agree on adamant sanctions would be solved too.

Iran’s refusal of the 5+1’s request for solution had a strong influence on US prediction of Iran’s nuclear weapon program. Contemporary developments increased the military intervention possibility on Iran. Probably, Russia and China will be convinced on this issue too. Israel would put a stronger pressure on US for military intervention with the respect of its rightness about the Iran policies. Also UN would take part on this issue and Iran would be left alone in the International survey.

US Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates states their worry with these words:

“I am worried that we are running out of time for resolving the nuclear problem with Iran in diplomatic ways”

Gates is so much certain about Iran’s nuclear weapon development program personally: Ahmedinejad government has the thought of developing nuclear weapons but we are not sure that if they have started or not.

Super Bomb

While this period, US Defense Department transpired the information that they are developed a weapon called super bomb for hitting targets for both hitting the targets on the ground and for hitting the targets at underground.

This giant bomb which weights 14 thousand kilograms is called as “Massive Ordnance Penetrator“ Gates who states that a military attack is not in their agenda repeatedly, warns Tehran for nuclear armament would weaken the Iran so much. In this sense, development of the super bomb is an instrument for US warning to Iran.

On the other hand, nobody in Washington believe that China would participate the possible sanctions on Iran. Russia is ready to support the sanctions in the condition of cooperating with UN. Questions about Israel’s approach and time period for a diplomatic solution stand still.

It seems that Iran is not willing to get less enriched uranium out of the country. Iran is working on alternative solutions. Proposal which suggests the idea of buying nuclear fuel directly for medical usage, should be evaluated carefully.

Options

Iran is not opposing IAEA’s argument clearly but Iran worries about the issue of possibility of exchanged uranium would not given back to Tehran. Iran officials state the idea of 20% enriched uranium’s direct buying is more reasonable. Iran’s request which aims at showing their good will and gaining Iran Peoples’ respect by the negotiation countries is not welcomed by western countries and interpreted as a negative behavior. According to the western perspective this offer of Iran is contradicts with the nature of negotiations. Main aim is to use the nuclear material owned by Iran for only amicable purposes. If this aim has a success then Iran cannot enrich its nuclear material for developing nuclear weapons. If Iran keeps less enriched uranium in its borders while buying needed fuel for using medical purposes then Iran will have the uranium for continuing its nuclear program. So nuclear program of Iran cannot be controlled. Result which was reached through negotiations which was started by France and Russia in Wien will have no affect to stop Iran’s nuclear problem.

New Approaches to Security and the Transformation of the Turkish Military - (Ret.) Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt

2010-04-06T16:09:00.000+03:00

Since the stone age, security has always been on people’s agenda. Without doubt, the theory and practice of security has been continuously transformed in every era depending on nations’ concerns, interests and technologic advancements. In ancient times, people were probably not interested in global climate change. When we look at the history of approaches to security, states and groups of states have paid close attention to a wide range of concerns, such as war, cold war, asymmetric threat terrorism and, in our day increasingly important Cyber war.

The truth is history never repeats itself exactly. When deriving lessons from the past, a very good analysis of the factors that differentiate the past and the present has a vital importance. For example, following lessons it derived from the First World War, France prepared for WWII by constructing an incredible network of bunkers against German invasion, the backbone of defensive structure according to the principles of trench warfare. However, the German conception, Blitzkrieg, rapidly shattered French defensive line and reached the shores of the English Channel.

We can investigate “new approaches to security and the transformation of militaries” under three sections. In the first section, the historical development of security strategies will be considered. In the second section, we will investigate the future of the Turkish Armed Forces and finally, we will look at the future of security.

Turkey and the Transformation of Security since WWII

The end of WWII can be defined as the most important turning point of recent history. Russia and the United States essentially fought WWII as allies, and became adversaries at the end of the war, establishing the bipolar world. This period, marked by the division of Germany, the emergence of Russia as the Soviet Union and the establishment of NATO in opposition to the Soviets, initiated the Cold War, which allowed the bipolar system to last until the early 1990s. It also resulted in the birth of a very important approach to security.

NATO membership, following the Korean War, significantly changed Turkey’s approach to security, because nations no longer existed alone like stars in the universe, but were part of a greater system.

The logic behind security structures such as NATO, a grouping of nations, is directly related to threat assessment. Threat assessment during the Cold War was extremely simple. There was NATO on one side, and the Warsaw Pact on the other. According to threat assessment, the Warsaw Pact would attack and NATO would respond to this attack. According to this understanding, the Warsaw Pact is the aggressor and NATO is the defender. All security planning was dependent on this fundamental principle.

Another matter that should not the overlooked is the fact that intelligence is used for political ends from time to time. The driving powers of NATO (above all, the United States) tried to make the threat seem greater than it was with exaggerated approaches. Books were written to this end. According to these books, an attack by Warsaw Pact and Soviet forces could descend to the shores of Baltic Sea in a week. Yet the military effectiveness of the Soviet Union began to decrease towards the end of the 1970s. However, this fact was carefully avoided in NATO documents. The main reason behind this was to hold NATO together.

In 1990, NATO experienced a great shock following the collapse of Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, and since the threat that was the NATO’s raison d'être had disappeared the existence of NATO began to be debated. After this turning point, as those who experienced it know, NATO offered two approaches. The first approach was the decision to reduce NATO headquarters personnel by 20%. The second approach was the inclusion of North African radical religious movements in threat assessments. These approaches are typically used by powerful nations. In fact, the famous historian Toynbee’s “Challenge and Response” thesis is the product of such logic. Furthermore, Huntington embraced this idea and used it as the basis for his “Clash of Civilizations.” The point that has been elaborated here is this: nations must evaluate national security from the perspective of their own interests. National security governance cannot be done with imported threat assessments. Every nation should construct its own threat assessments.

In fact, the United States has argued that its two interventions in Iraq were due to Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction; however, as the then US Secretary of State has admitted, this was not true. In this process the concept of security changed significantly. Territorial gains have faded into history. At present, the United States is planning to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the current situation, “national interest” has the priority over territorial gains in the current understanding of security. This is the biggest change. Towards the end of his life Ataturk described the annexation of Hatay as follows: “I am not interested in territorial expansion. I do not have a habit of breaking the peace. However, I will insist on my rights when they depend on treaties. I must exercise my rights. I promised in parliament that I will take Hatay. My nation believe in my words. If I cannot fulfill my promise, I cannot face the nation, I cannot stay where I am.”

New World Disorder

How would the United States orient security in the unipolar world created by the end of the Cold War? This matter’s importance was global. During this period, a bipartisan commission was set up in the United States. This commission published its report on 12 July 2000. In this report, the national interests of the United States were divided into four categories: vital interests, very important interests, important interests and secondary interests. Within this framework, five goals were identified as vital interests:

- Preventing nuclear, biological and chemical attacks against the United States or the forces of the United States
- Protecting allied nations
- Preventing the emergence of powerful adversaries or failed states on the borders of the United States,
- Protecting the stability and existence of the global systems of international politics, financial markets and the environment
- Establishing effective cooperation with the possible strategic adversaries China and Russia in accordance with the national interests of the United States

In addition to these five points, “Very Important” and “Important” interests were also defined. This category includes the prevention of WMD proliferation, ensuring respect for international law, the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the prevention of genocide. We need to approach this report, which was published in 2000, critically.

- When we examine the list, the prevention of the proliferation of WMD, which was used as justification for occupation of Iraq some time after the publishing of the report, was not included in “vital interests.” Another weakness of the report is that it overlooked the US’s energy needs.
- Terrorism was not touched upon (one year after the report, the 9/11 attacks occurred).

This shows that the US’s mistake was caused by its overconfidence in the unipolar world structure that followed the Cold War. Security studies have shown, with examples, that overconfidence and arrogance can lead to miscalculations.

This paper’s author was working at NATO’s headquarters in Belgium during the pre-Khomeini Iran incidents. Every morning, briefings regarding developments in Iran were issued to then-NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Alexander Haig. After every briefing, it was said, “The Iranian military is loyal to the Shah, nothing will happen.” One day the Shah fled the country, and Khomeini returned. The next morning the commander told his SACEUR briefing officer. “Major, you have not provided the right evaluation to me about this matter.” The briefing officer replied “Sir, the information I have given you was wholly based on information that we received from US intelligence. You need to pose this question to them.”

No matter how strong your security evaluations are, you surely have some weaknesses. You should not ignore this fact. There is another issue that we need to touch upon concerning post-Cold War security. It relates to European nations,’ including other NATO members, perspective on military force in the post-Cold War environment. Nations considerably downsized their military forces following the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, and the disappearance of a threat to Europe. Initially, this approach seems reasonable. However, force weaknesses that appeared after assuming responsibilities in Afghanistan, first by the US, then by NATO, have become most important item in the agenda of NATO. The most important item on the agenda of the NATO Military Committee during the last few years has been the need for the deployment of more forces in Afghanistan. This matter closely interests Turkey.

Changes in the Conception of Security in the Post-9/11 Environment

It was rapidly understood that the US intervention in Afghanistan would not yield results. Since then, US pressure on NATO yielded results, and NATO assumed responsibilities in Afghanistan. This decision was NATO’s biggest mistake ever. The current situation proves it.

Various nations took charge in Afghanistan. The soldiers that were send by these nations did not meet the required force levels in Afghanistan, thus, these states put limits, generally referred to as a “caveats” on their force levels. Another issue soon became apparent was the realization that the forces deployed were insufficient to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan. What should be done transformed into sending more troops. Here, the Turkish Armed Forces felt the most pressure. According to the US, Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) is a human storehouse. However, they were forgetting something. The TAF have been fighting terrorism since 1984. In this fight, the TAF suffered more than 5,000 casualties and it was fighting alone. The Turkish nation’s attitude towards martyrs in the fight against terrorism was “Long Live the Homeland.” If martyrs started coming back from Afghanistan, how could this be explained to the nation? This is why Turkey decided not to send troops for fight terrorism in Afghanistan. This resolve is unshaken.

On the other hand, for Afghanistan Turkey has been one of the most helpful nations since the very beginning. Its main mission for the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) is in the Kabul region, and antiterrorism was not included in its mission statement. The Turkish Armed Forces successfully assumed command of this force during ISAF-II and ISAF-VII. Turkey assumed the command during these periods without help from other nations and succeeded.

Apart from the ISAF, the TAF assumed another important mission. This mission was the management of Kabul’s airport. This airport is Afghanistan’s only connection to the rest of the world. The airport is located in a pocket surrounded by Himalayas on one side and the Hindu Kush mountain range, and all of its facilities were destroyed and surrounded by minefields. The Turkish Air Force successfully managed Kabul Airport during ISAF-II and ISAF-VII. Among the nations that operate in Kabul and its vicinity, only Turkish soldiers are conducting foot patrols, since between Turkey and Afghanistan there is a cooperation rooted in historical realities. This cooperation began with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1922, before the official founding of the Republic of Turkey. Ataturk’s first decision appointed ambassadors to build bridges between Turkey and two other states. One of these states was Azerbaijan and the other was Afghanistan. The ambassador who was appointed to Afghanistan was one of Ataturk’s close friends. Furthermore, two groups were established to be sent to these nations. The first group was a medical team and second group was a security and military training team. These initiatives caused the extraordinary sympathy of the Afghan people for Turkey. Those, who went there under the circumstance of those days, devoted their lives to Afghan people and died there. Some of these people’s tombs are located and maintained in Kabul. The aim here is not only to remember the past, but also establish a perspective for today. For one day a report was mailed to Ankara from Afghanistan. The report was prepared by the Turkish unit deployed in Afghanistan and there were striking photos in it. The upshot of the report: some nations fighting terrorism in the southern part of the country, where the level of terrorism was high, attach small Turkish flags on their left shoulders to feel safe. This fact seems to need no further comment.

Two-Headed NATO and Turkey

The reality that has emerged is this: events in Afghanistan cannot directly affect Turkey. However, while global actors implement policies and strategies, the expectations
of these global actors, especially NATO and the US, may conflict with and even contradict Turkey’s interests. Since 9/11, according to public aspects of the event, the United States’ has approached the situation as counter-terrorism, and this approach has won important public support. Former US President Bush’s words, “If terror hit us at home, we will hit them where they live,” testify to this. At first glance these words seem meaningful. The US intervention in the Gulf War was initiated with the slogan, “Freedom for Kuwait.” However, it ended up meaning,“Freedom for Al Sabah and the Protection of US interests”. The intervention in Afghanistan began with the US slogan, “Enduring Freedom.” However, the initial expressions never corresponded to the desired results.

To this end, the attempt to use the NATO Response Force (NRF) to fight terrorism was initiated. The NATO Response Force is a force pool formed by member nations. Members allocate force to the pool according to their strength. Under normal circumstances these forces (in place forces) would not be deployed elsewhere, but remain in their home countries. When NATO need to intervene in a crisis, these forces are responsible for the initial intervention until the main force is ready. When the main force deployed, they immediately withdraw from operational theater. By definition, it is the force that enters and leaves the crisis region first. NATO Commander (SACEUR) have no authority over the use of this force. The authority belongs to NATO Military Committee and the supreme decision making body, the NATO Council. In both of these bodies, Turkey has equal rights and decisions are made unanimously.

At this point, this is the threat to Turkey. In 2007, SACEUR came up with a proposal to change the concept of the NATO Response Force. According to the proposal, the NRF role, first to enter and first to leave, would be annulled and this force would become SACEUR’s strategic reserve. Under these circumstances, Turkey’s opposition at the equally represented Military Committee and NATO Council would be be rendered useless. In practice, the NATO Commander could doubtlessly use this force anywhere. This would have meant Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, Turkey could be involved in terror in Afghanistan against its will. This proposal was not accepted due to Turkey’s objection.

When we consider NATO’s Afghanistan operation and Turkey’s position, NATO could ask, what must be done?:

- It is necessary to see Afghans with Pakistan
- Instability in this nation concerns not only these two nations, but whole region.
- Here the key state is Pakistan.

If developments in the region continue without resolution, Pakistan could come under the control of radical religious groups like Taliban, Al-Qaeda and others. Certainly, this is a scary scenario. Why it is scary? Such a development would offer a horrifying picture to front of all the world. This awful picture is that of, for first time in the history, a terror organization armed with nuclear weapons. In this situation instability would spread to India.

- NATO and the US’s ideas of counter-terrorism in the region should change entirely.
- Terrorists and people should be separated. The best example for this are Turkey’s practices in its fight against terrorism. These are also an example for Israel.
- Very serious, not cosmetic, steps should be taken to improve Afghanistan’s economic and social development. This has not yet been done.
- International support at highest level should be provided to bring stability to Pakistan. Disablement of Pakistan central government is the beginning of the chaos scenario.

“The struggle against terrorism should be global,” which leaders say, is an ungrounded statement. There are hundreds of agreements at the United Nations. However, the UN has yet to define terrorism. Thus, we find the division of “good terrorists” and “bad terrorists” in all regions. At this point, an inescapable question arises. How do you fight something that we cannot define? Certainly, you cannot. These days the United States, while planning to withdraw its soldiers from Iraq, is trying to send soldiers to Afghanistan. This is a sign of failure.

We’ll complete our evaluation of Afghanistan by providing two examples from the past. These two examples are about leaders’ perspective on the future and they are quite striking. Eleven years after the First World War, Churchill said during a speech in Canada; “For the last fifty years, the hope for peace has never been this strong;” however, ten years after this speech, a new world war broke out and drug human history into disaster.

The second example is from Ataturk. Against the excessive English optimism we just described, Ataturk invited the British Ambassador Percy Loraine and made this evaluation: “Honorable Ambassador, I have been saddened by the statements of British officials. There is a danger and it is growing. Dark clouds in the European skies are getting thicker every day. According to my evaluation within four to five years, Italy and Germany will be united and a Second World War will break out.” The date of this meeting was July 1936. This evaluation is more than a prophecy. One year after Hitler’s rise to power and six years before the appeasement between Chamberlain and Hitler Ataturk made an even more striking statement to General McArthur, “Germany will soon be able build an army capable of occupying all of Europe, except for the United Kingdom and Russia.”

The scope of national security has changed. In addition to this change in scope, the dimensions of threat and security have spread to a wide range. In the current situation, the expression “security is everywhere or nowhere” has emerged. Institutions that are responsible for security have a more difficult job than they did in the past, because the concept has acquired a definition that goes beyond the interests of security forces.

New Dimensions of Security and Turkey

Naturally, analyzing the Iraq Wars by abstracting from the Middle East is inevitable. Within a period of ten years (1991-2003) Iraq experienced two US interventions. The aim of the first Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait, and the second Gulf War was to get rid of the WMDs in Iraq and oust Saddam. Results have shown that both justifications were not the real intentions of the US. However, there is a truth for Turkey in both interventions. Turkey is the country that has suffered most.

Today, public opinion understands “security” as security forces, such as the military (including gendarmerie), police, rangers, etc., and this is normal. However, many more influential actors that affect national interests have emerged, thus categorizing these have become a necessity. In some articles and books, such new actors and threats are presented in a fragmented fashion rather than as a whole. However, looking at the phenomenon as a whole will help develop the bigger picture. No doubt, the reality cannot be provided as a whole with no weaknesses and even mistakes. However, every approach that puts forward a differentiation helps us reaching a better understanding through interaction.

Hot War Cold War Asymmetric Threat Ideological Differentiation Terror
Armed Forces Military-Political Cyber War Rightist Global
Economic Pressures Leftist Local
Political Pressures Radical Groups
International Sanctions Mafia-like formations
Bilateral Sanctions Drug trafficking

Psychological Operations Human trafficking
Pressures by Groups of States
Intentional NGO Pressures
Exploitation of Social Differences
Initiatives that Disturb Stability
Ethnic, Religious, Social Provocations
Movements to Construct Minorities

When this table is examined, the easiest sections to understand are the first two sections: hot and cold war. Today, hot wars (like the Gulf Wars) have become the exception. Cold wars have lost their global reach to a great degree. However, on the regional level, such tensions exist in bi- or trilateral relations. Another issue that needs to be discussed is the section “Asymmetrical Threats,” located in the center of the table. The threats that are described here threaten many states one way or another. In this scope, it is impossible to point out which states are being targeted by the twelve asymmetric threats identified. Some assumptions can be put forward. The author of this paper defined these threats and practices in various speeches for the first time as “Dark Wars,” since all of these activities are covert activities. For example, the Cyber attack on Estonia in 2008 crippled Estonia, which was using internet communication. Daily life, including banking sector, came to a halt in Estonia. According to estimates, internet communications totally collapsed. Estonia’s internet life is the busiest in Europe. As a result, cyber warfare is the most important war method of the future.

Now, according to the asymmetric threats table, which of the defined threats does Turkey face? Certainly, it is not possible to indicate exactly which of twelve threats target Turkey. However, if the people who live in this country would carefully consider developments, they would see some of the realities. Only this example can be given: what caused the collapse of the Turkish economy in 2000-2001. How did billions of dollars leave Turkey in one night? Isn’t this “some kind of a dark war?”

Greece and Turkey

From the perspective of Turkey’s security, without a doubt Turkish-Greek relations come to the fore. Greece acquired the most advantageous position in its history by becoming an EU member along with the South Cyprus administration. The European Union showed its position towards Turkey by accepting the South Cyprus Greek administration, which had rejected the Annan Plan, into the EU. This approach is impossible to justify with acceptable reasons. In the EU reports, while it is foreseen that Turkey will “resolve border disputes with its neighbors” (and Turkey does not have border disputes with any of its neighbors), it ignores the problem in Cyprus, the EU’s interesting approach to the Cyprus issue has been recorded by history.

Greece desires to increase its territorial waters to 12 miles. What this means is that the Aegean Sea would become a Greek sea. Turkey’s “decision of casus belli” regarding this initiative froze these desires. However, it is strange to observe that there are some circles, even in Turkey, that desire the annulment of this decision. Another Greek claim is that Turkish fighter planes are violating Greek airspace. This claim has no backing in any international document. Turkish fighter planes are entering Aegean international airspace for training purposes and according to Greek claims our planes cross the FIR line, justifying their claim that Greek airspace has been violated. FIR line stands for flight information region and Greece has no sovereignty over it. Greece’s judgement that the FIR line is in its national airspace has no legal basis whatsoever.

Another issue is related to airspace of islands. According to international rules, the airspace of islands is limited to borders of territorial waters. Since the territorial waters of islands are limited to six miles, the airspace of islands are also limited to six miles. Although these are the facts, Greece claims, “Yes, the territorial waters of the islands is six miles, but their airspace is ten miles.” This initiative has no legal basis. In addition to the three main problems I’ve mentioned, there is a claim about the Economic Exclusive Zone. A line is drawn from Rhodes island to Kastelorizo (Meis) island, which is practically just a rock formation, and this line is extended to the middle of Mediterranean, and then it is claimed, “This region is our Economic Exclusive Zone.” This is an attempt to confine Turkey, which has the longest coastline in the Mediterranean, to the Gulf of Antalya.

When this basic strategic approach is considered, it can be seen that problems between Turkey and Greece will continue to affect Turkey’s security assessments. This situation has the potential of triggering security problems between Turkey and the EU.

The Turkish Armed Forces

Turkey is located in a difficult region and in this region, only the powerful can continue to exist. Being powerful in this region means, above all, having deterrent armed forces. The Turkish Armed Forces have been moving in this direction in a planned and organized manner. This approach is necessary and healthy. When we examine the projects of recent years that have been completed or are on their way toward completion this can be seen. Looking at the Air Force, Navy and Army one can see how the Turkish Armed Forces are preparing for the future.

In the current environment, not only has the TAF’s view of the future changed, but so has that of all modern armed forces, for two reasons. The first reason is that security and areas of interest associated with it have expanded abnormally. Today, when Turkey is examined, the geography that extends from the Balkans to the Middle East, and from there to Afghanistan, has all been included in Turkey’s, and thus the TAF’s, area of interest. Naturally, in projections concerning the future, this matter must unavoidably be taken into account. The second important change is that the threats, risks and national interests that affect the Armed Forces concept, doctrine and restructuring have diversified to a great extent. As mentioned above, the simple understanding of defense and security planning during the Cold War period has been very much complicated in the post-Cold War and, especially, in the post-9/11 environment. When technological advances are included, the case becomes even more complicated.

Under the framework of above general understanding, some of the priorities of the structure of armies should be identified as follows:

a. Successful security planning depends on healthy projections. Without a doubt, determined threats and risks within projections should be free from prejudices and out dated approaches. The truth is this is not an easy task.
b. There is no single nation that has a defense industry capable of supplying 100% of the needs of a modern army. However, the level of the technological capabilities of a defense industry and a low level of foreign dependency determine the strength of the industry. In this matter, although Turkey has improved significantly, it cannot be said to be sufficient. The main reason behind this is the wrong approach to R&D. A weapon system is not a technology by itself. There are subcategories that compose such weapon system. R&D activities in a given nation and funding for this purpose should aim at obtaining these subcategories. Otherwise, when the need for a system arises, procurement of this system through R&D means the sacrifice of at least 10 years. However, if the sub-technology pool has been established, a good deal of the need can be satisfied. Missing technologies can be bought or produced jointly (joint venture). This approach should take hold in the defense industry.
c. The public constantly debates. Why don’t we establish a 100% professional Army? In order to maintain the Armed Forces’ current force numbers and become 100% professional, the current National Defense Budget should be increased two fold, which under current budget conditions is impossible. We must ask how sensible it is for those who do not know this fact to bring up the debate so often. However, a great effort is being made to employ specialized personnel for missions that require specialization. With the deployment of technological weapon systems, there can be reasonable force reductions. This approach can be called “Effectiveness through reduction.”
d. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. The Armed Forces is also a system. All the sub-elements of this system should have similar capabilities. The holistic structure of the Armed Forces should not be overlooked. No matter how many technological systems one has, these technologies will be used by humans. Any army’s generals, admirals, officers, NCOs, specialists, soldiers, civil servants and workers are the parts of a greater system. The training system of a modern Armed Forces should be very strong. In the last years, the biggest improvements have probably been made in the field of training.

This writing can be taken as a modest reflection on fifty-three years of observation, experiences and knowledge gathering in state service. The turning points in conceptions security began with the emergence of the Cold War following the end of WWII, since the twentieth century’s greatest shift in conceptions of security emerged during the Cold War. Shortly after the Cold War, the first Gulf War occurred. Then, in less than ten years, the 9/11 attacks initiated a new world disorder. These events were followed by the Afghanistan and the Second Gulf War.

There is a lesson that these developments have taught us. Mankind, since ancient times, has dreamed of flying. They dreamed of flying until the nineteenth century, and at the beginning of the twentieth century they succeeded. Fifty years later, they set foot on the Moon. It is not only in science and technology that steps are getting smaller, but also in conceptions of security that steps are getting smaller. Today will carry us into the future. Therefore, before looking at the future, we need to see today very clearly. History does not only not forgive those who wrongfully look at the future, but also those who are unable to see the present.

Turkey Rising, Arabs Sinking - Halid Amayreh

2010-04-06T16:08:00.000+03:00

While many Arab states are buried beneath their incapabilities and fighting with each other, Turkey is slowly, but with determined steps putting itself forward as a leading nation of the Middle East, alongside Israel and Iran. Especially during the period of AKP dominance Turkey has continued to expand its influence towards the East with resolute steps, preparing itself for the rank of leading Sunni nation.

Doubtlessly, Turkey fills a psychological and strategic gap, especially in the Arab world.
This gap makes it clear that the result of blind obedience to America has led to an unhappy situation and a loss of influence for Egypt and other traditional Arab states.

Turkey’s rise in the region is a complete success story, which can serve as a role model for other nations.

Turkey’s Rising Star

Without the use of the political lawlessness found in many Arab states, when the AKP came to power by way of elections it silently and cleverly tried to resolve a set of chronic problems that were plaguing Turkey. In the end, the AKP successfully treated many of the economically rooted sicknesses with surprising effects and aftereffects. Turkey’s economy overcame its once chronic doldrums, and at the same time extraordinary growth was recorded, especially in the manufacturing and export sectors. Today Turkey ranks as the world’s seventeenth economic power. At the same it can proudly stand up and say, “No,” to America and Israel.

In domestic politics, the Turkish government, by opening its ears to unresolved Kurdish problems and the troubles of Kurdish people, silently tried have their language and cultural rights legitimized, or at least to see to that they were not denied. For stabilizing domestic politics and increasing domestic security, since economic wellbeing is their basic prerequisite, this was a great help.

Under Erdogan’s leadership Turkey made headway towards resolving its longstanding problems with Armenia, thus depriving Israel and the American Jewish lobby of a sensitive pressure point that they had used over and over to keep Turkey in the the Israeli-American orbit.

However, what’s most worth mentioning concern the AKP is its determination to protect its freedom of will against the US and Israel. Seven years ago as America was about to invade Iraq, the Turkish government refused to let airplanes attacking Iraq take off from the Incirlik base. President Erdogan defended this decision, saying that it reflected the collective will of the Turkish people. All this happened while most Arab states were competing with one another in order to please and placate the George W. Bush administration, which was murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Erdogan had no need to give any explanations to the Americans. He just said, “No.” That was all.

Erdogan protects the dignity of one nation in the world that more closely resembles savage life than a society of civilized men. He did not shrink from confronting the world’s untouchable nation, Israel, which stages monstrous and Nazi-like attacks on the unfortunate Palestinian people. Due to certain practices Erdogan maintains relations with Israel, but he has shown Israel’s leaders very clearly that the future of Turkey’s relations with Israel will depend on their behavior, particularly with respect to Palestine.

At one time, coming from the leader of one of Israel’s strategic allies in the Middle East, these would be serious words. Israel has received the message, but we don’t know if they will internalize them and recognize their gravity.

Not being Arab, it is true that in Turkey’s foreseeable future Palestinians will not become proactive allies. But along with this, given Israel’s having forced the people of Gaza and other Palestinians to live through a Nazi-like genocidal venture, from now on Turkey will not play deaf and dumb. It will not look the other way. At the least, Turkey will no longer be a strategic asset for Israel, as it was before the AKP.

The Immobile Arab World

The Arab world, as opposed to the Turkish success story, continues to live with its internal divisions. From an economic perspective, many Arab states are struggling to stay on their feet, and meanwhile they are openly submitting their sovereignty and national dignity to Israel’s protector, America. Socially, the Arabs’ situation is perhaps the worst it has been since the fall of the Ottoman caliphate after WWI. The Arabs’ collective failure to accomplish the simple task of breaking the Gaza Strip blockade reveals a deep incompetence and the entire social body seems to be afflicted by paralysis.

Similarly, every Arab state or sheikdom is busy with its domestic issues, and efforts toward Arab economic and political unity find themselves blocked. The main cause of political paralysis, a suffocating kiss of death, is the control over the Arab world of a tribalist mentality and the despotism of powerful families. One of the most concrete expressions of this tribalist mentality, whether one observes a kingdom or a republic, is that autocratic Arab rulers hold their own people in check, and they exist to secure permanent power for themselves or their sons, but they do not seek to lead their nations or pursue their nations’ interests effectively. For example, Egypt’s population of 80 million makes it the owner of a tremendous human resource, and it has other resources in reserve, too. Once thought of as the tiger of Africa, due to its regime’s despotic policies and austere management, in every field of life this very important nation is headed backwards. It may easily be surmised that these circumstances feed and deepen social depression, indifference and desperation, since thousands of professionals have emigrated to find dignity, respect and job opportunities.

The Gulf States

For these rich Arab nations to be ruled by ignorant, decadent, clan-based despots is a frustrating cycle that they are caught up in, too, since the sovereign sheikhs’ ultimate strategy is to remain in power at any cost, even if this includes submitting to the will of foreign powers. It hardly needs to be said that in many cases these despots openly display their ignorance; they scandalously failed to turn the enormous financial resources under their control into concrete and long lasting economic realities. Some Arab sheikdoms are in reality so stupid that they pour billions of dollars into ostentatious, but economically unprofitable, projects, building tall towers to display their wealth.

However, these tribal chieftains, as we recently saw in Dubai, lack the basic tools to protect their economies from a real financial crisis. Destructive tribal thinking kept the culturally homogenous Gulf Cooperation Council nations from being able to establish a common market or a monetary union. Nor have they built a viable military force to protect themselves against the eventuality of a foreign attack.

No doubt the Arabs’ situation will continue to worsen until their house has completely and permanently fallen. If the Arab masses end their laziness, despair and indifference, only then will they grow strong again and win back the dignity and freedoms being usurped from them. Arabs are not stupid. If they want to learn from the Turks, our brothers in religion, they can learn. But while you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make him drink.

While the billionaires of the country where the Koran was sent to Hz. Muhammad (s.a.v) chase animal desires, they claim to be implementing Sharia law. Considering that food can’t be found for millions of Muslim children, which Sharia judgement would give such a decadent prince permission to spend his subject’s resources on his own wanton desires? Allah warns such a decadent prince in the Koran, and informs him that his punishment is only a matter of time: “God is rich, while you are poor. If you turn away, He will substitute other people in your place, and they will not be like you” (Muhammad, 47: 38).

Meanwhile, we would like to welcome our Turkish brothers again. We have been missing the Ottomans for a long time.

Iran’s Possible Nuclear Proliferation and World Scenarios

2010-04-06T16:07:00.000+03:00

Iran’s ongoing nuclear programme is a hot matter of debate in the chancelleries of the world and in the world’s public opinion: The Western world is accusing Iran of defying international norms and to proceed with uranium enrichment in order to possibly weaponise the enriched uranium. Iran defends its position by claiming that it needs uranium for “medical purposes” and for “electricity production”. Lately, Iran has announced that it will enrich uranium to %20.1But what is taking place behind the pro and contra shiny rhetoric that is taking place in world media?
First of all, it should be remembered that nuclear weapon is not like conventional weapons, it has unique peculiarities which confer a state “untouchability” in the competitive international security environment. This is called “nuclear deterrence” which is the ultimate guaranty against external intervention or a possible invasion.
Secondly, there is the fact that USA despite all her hyper-power, has not been able to threaten any country of nuclear deterrence with regime change or invasion. The episodic nuclearization of North Korea well illustrate the facts:While, Washington two years ago declared that “all options are on the table” for Iran6, they clearly renounced the military option against North Korea in favour of diplomatic negotiations, especially after the date of 9 October 2006 when North Korea tested a nuclear device.7 Thus an important lesson had been learnt: USA is unable or unwilling to militarily deal with Third World powers which effectively demonstrate that they have reached nuclear status. This lesson might have been, also grasped in Tehran, especially when they contemplate over the fate of neighbouring Iraq. USA and her allies had invaded Iraq on the rationale that Saddam Hussein’s regime was “producing” weapons of mass destruction. “Had Iraq really got nuclear deterrence, could the Allies so easily occupy and overthrow the Baath regime there?” the decision makers in Tehran might have pondered. In a historic setting, where the clerical regime in Tehran feels much less insecure due to the activities of reformist and opposition street movements after the disputed elections and open US and Israeli threats against the country, Iran’s decision makers might have concluded that the only way to safeguard the current regime and territorial integrity of the country is through nuclearization.
Thirdly, Iran is not an ordinary country: Iran is a regional power with influence from the Levant to the Persian Gulf and the Caspian basin. The so called “Shiite Crescent” increases Iran’s reach inside Iraq, since a substantial portion of Iraqi people is of the same Shiite denomination of Islam. 2 Iran controles huge reserves of oil and natural gas, especially in a historic era where power struggles for the control of strategic resources escalate to unprecedented heights. 3Also,Iran is a major power in the “currency wars” ongoing since the depreciation of US dolar started. As a major hydro-carbon exporter Iran has a big leverage on the fate of the US dollar,and hence the health of the US economy.4
Iran is also a revolutionary power, which has assumed itself a mantle to speak for the world’s Muslims since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. This date has also a symbolic importance of the beginning of the cold US-Iranian relations. Moreover, Iran has developed throughout the revolutionary years, a very intimate political and economic ties with Middle East’s non-state actors like HAMAS and Hezbollah, which USA has listed in the terror list of the US State Department5, where Iran calls them “resistance organisations” against Israeli occupation
Fourthly, Iran's nuclearization efforts is closely tied to Israeli calculus of security and Israeli grand strategy. For Israel, who lives in a chronic insecurity environment, its nuclear option8 is the ultimate guaranty of its survival as a “nation-state” in case it is defeated in a conventional war. Thus Israel is unwilling to lose its monopoly of nuclear weapons in the region. Iran's possible nuclearization will directly challenge Israeli monopoly, creating a situation of “balance of terror” between Israel and Iran and further destabilise the region by intensifying the already initiated arms races.9 Also it is possible that the Iranian- Syrian axis and its non-state proxies might feel emboldened visavis Israel if the senior partner of the alliance is nuclearized. Iran might want to provide Syria a kind of nuclear umbrella against the Israeli deterrence.
Fifth, Iran's close collaboration with terroristic formations bring forth the apprehension that 'what if Iran provides one of these possible nuclear devices to non-state actors?' In a historic setting of post 9/11, 2001 and growing risk of an hyper-terrorism10 event in which nuclear weapons might be used, Iran's nuclear proliferation is not welcomed by the Western capitals. Iran's possible proliferation will add another element of risk to nuclear calculus when the USA is in an intense effort to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in case of a government failure.
Sixth, Iran’s proliferation might trigger a “chain reaction” of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East: Turkey and Arab states might be forced to develop their own nuclear technology and possible deterrences in order to redress the nuclear imbalance of power. The Gulf Countries are especially vulnerable and weak visavis Islamic Republic of Iran and nowadays USA is taking military assistance programmes in order to embolden them against Tehran.
Egypt, the traditional leader of the Arab world is feeling intense pressure because of Iranian progress in nuclear technology. Egypt, re-initiated its civilian nuclear project in 2006 which was terminated after Chernobyl accident.11 Saudi Arabia is also very concerned and worried about the Iranian accomplishments 12 and the Saudis are also named as potential proliferators if Iran goes nuclear.
Turkey has an interesting role to play in the nuclear crisis. On the one hand, Turkey is against weaponisation of Iran’s uranium enrichment and informs Turkey’s “friendly warnings” to Tehran via diplomatic channels.13 On the other hand, Turkey who is pursuing Foreign Minister Davutoğlu’s “zero problem with neighbours” policy, is definitely opposes the escalation of the crisis to a military intervention by USA and/or Israel. Turkey wants play as a diplomatic broker to ease the crisis. In the coming months, Turkish diplomacy will be tried in a difficult test because Turkey is a member of the UN Security Council and Iranian sanctions issue will certainly come to the attention of the Council. Turkey might be forced to show its hand in a situation which will set Turkey between her neighbour/commercial partner and her NATO allies.
Iran’s possible proliferation will have grave consequences for the current non-proliferation regime, especially in a historic setting where the Obama Administration declared its intent of creating a world without nuclear weapons. 14 It is ironic that the American nation which introduced the world with nuclear weapons in 6 August 1945 to start an initiative to eradicate all nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. However, when it is considered more deeply, it is seen that a nuclear-free world is to the advantage of USA, hence serves US national interests. This might explained as follows: The proliferation of nuclear weapons to the smaller countries of the world,especially the Third World, diminishes the US ability to intervene in those areas. In other words, nuclear deterrence started to act as “great equaliser” in international relations which automatically confer a “great power” status to would be proliferators. Historically thinking, a dialectical contradiction occurred between the US role as a world-hegemon and the trend of nuclear proliferation to more “backward” parts of the world.
The realists criticise Obama’s vision as too optimistic and idealistic and rightly so: Because let alone de facto nuclear powers, de jure nuclear states as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty15, stil keep nuclear arsenals and continue their efforts at “vertical proliferation”,just in case. 16 The realist theory foresees that there is a constant mistrust among states and states tend to recourse to (nuclear)armament in order to survive in a anarchic international setting. The security dilemmas form as a result, and the nuclear arms races are too costly in a world where basic needs of most of the people could not be satisfied. This is another major historical contradiction which preoccupies our times.
Obama administration perhaps started this initiative in “good faith” however the legacy of the former Bush adminisrations and their “axis of evil” approach has not made the world more secure, but instigated the small powers to seek for survival guaranty in nuclear deterrence.
To sum up, Iranian nuclear crisis is no doubt the most pressing global issue of our times since all major powers have stakes in the conflict. It should also be remembered that, Iranian nuclear programme has dimensions regarding both domestic politics of Iran and Iran’s foreign policy regarding the region and her appeal to the Muslim world. Nuclear Project is made a “national cause” in Iran which the local politicians have to pay lip service, especially when one considers the power of Persian nationalism in the country. Also, Iran’s rhetorical and bold defiance of the West, Israel and world-hegemon USA is an effective public diplomacy move to gather sympathy and support both in the Third World and in the “Arab street”.
The stability and welfare of the Middle East as well as Israel’s security,the bigger picture of global nuclear non-proliferation regime and Obama administration’s new “nuclear-free world” initiatives depend on the moves will be made by Tehran’s decision makers. Historical responsibility fall on the decisionmakers in the capitals of Washington and Tehran to save the world from a difficult and convoluted situation. The key to the peaceful solution of the conflict lies in the alleviating the aura of distrust and insecurity between USA and Iran. As some analysts call a “Grand Bargain” between USA and Islamic Republic of Iran might then be imagined.
FOOTNOTES
*Evren İŞBİLEN is a Ph.D student of International Relations at Middle East Technical University at Ankara,Turkey. He is the author of the book “Nükleer Satranç: İran’ın Nükleer Politikası ve Türkiye” which was published in 2009 from Ozan Yayıncılık. He is also engaged in free-lance Turkish/English translation.
1“Iran to enrich uranium to %20 as nuclear fears grow”,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8503555.stm[9.02.2010].
2According to CIA estimates %60 to %65 of Iraqi popultation is of Shia denomination. “The CIA World Factbook”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html [9.02.2010].
3According to CIA estimates, Iran is the second largest holder of proven natural gas reserves, second to Russian Federation with 28 trillion cubic meter of natural gas. “The CIA World FactBook”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html[9.02.2010].
4For the workings of the petro-dolar system and the struggles around petro-dolars, consult Bülent Gökay's and Paul Roger's “Irak,İran ve Petrodoların Sonu”.First edition.Translation by Gamze Erbil.İstanbul:Versus Yayınları,2006.
5“Background Information on Foreign Terrorist Organizations”,http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm[9.02.2010].
6“Bush says U.S prefers diplomacy on Iran's nuclear efforts”, New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/americas/03iht-prexy.1.14199650.html[9.02.2010].
7“Nuclear Weapons Programme”, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html[9.02.2010].
8Israel never publicly confirms or denies its nuclear capability but it is a known secret for decades.
9Evren İşbilen, “Nükleer Satranç: İran'ın Nükleer Politikası ve Türkiye”, Ozan Yayıncılık:İstanbul,2009.p.165.
10For such scenarios, consult Graham Allison, “Nükleer Terörizm:Önlenebilir Nihai Felaket.” Translated by Güneş Ayas. Salyangoz Yayınları, İstanbul,2006.

11 “Egypt's Nuclear Imbroglio”,http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=106118[10.02.2010].

12 Rachel Bronson, “Bronson: Saudis ‘Deeply Concerned’ Over Iran’s Nuclear Program”, www.cfr.org/publication/10328/bronson.html[10.02.2010].

13 Turkey is apprehensive that Iran’s becoming a nuclear power will alter the delicate balance of power between the two countries which traditionally kept the peace on Turkey’s eastern borders for centuries. It should be remembered that Turkey oldest border is her eastern border which was set up by the Treaty of Kasr-ı Şirin, in1639. Notice that this date one and a half century earlier than the establishment of USA in 1,776.
14 “Obama promotes nuclar-free world”,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7983963.stm#graphic[10.02.2010].
15 ‘The Big Five’ or the ‘Nuclear Club’ are comprised of USA,Russian Federation(former Soviet Union), Britain, France and China as implied in the NPT. http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html[10.02.2010].
16 “Vertical Proliferation” refers to the efforts of the existing nuclear powers to enchance the quality and quantity of their nuclear arsenals as opposed to the “horizontal proliferation” of new-comers to the ‘Nuclear Club’.

Iraqi Elections Will Determine the Fate of the Middle East - Editorial

2010-04-06T16:06:00.000+03:00

When the people of Iraq go to the polling stations on March 7, the process will not only determine the future of their country, but also the fate of the Middle East. After a long and troublesome period, these elections are important since they will be held on the eve of the troop withdrawal. This situation will have a positive effect on the elections. The participation of people and the formation of different coalitions, and the rising consciousness of being Iraqi despite differences in sects and ethnicity are determining factors in the election. From this perspective, the salient features of these elections can be listed as follows:

A Surprise Alliance

After seven years of occupation, the people of Iraq are seriously fed up with the increasing ethnic and sectarian conflict/bombings/assassinations. Local elections in March 2009 were a clear triumph for parties that expressed Iraqi consciousness and a disappointment for sectarian groups. We should consider the fact that the role of Iraqi consciousness will increase in the March 2010 elections. At any rate, various political groups that realized this fact have opted to run in the elections as a block.

The Iraqiyya List, which includes representatives from a variety of sects and ethnicities, could surprise us as one of the stronger representatives of increasing power of idea of being Iraqi.

Ayad Allawi, the leader of Iraqi National Accord, which will take part in the elections as part of the Iraqiyya List, was able to craft the most surprising alliance and appears at its forefront as the leader. Ayad Allawi, a liberal Shiite, is preparing for the 2010 elections with a comprehensive alliance including: Saleh Al-Mutlaq’s Iraqi Front for National Dialogue; Vice-President and former leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Tariq Al-Hashimi’s, Renovation Movement; the brother of Atheel Al-Najafi, who is strong in Mosul and the leader of a movement known as Hadba List, Usama Al-Najafi’s Iraqis List; an important leader of the 1991 Shiite uprising, Iskandar Witwit; the Shiite tribal leader, Sheik Hussein Al-Shaalan and Deputy Prime Minister Rafi Al-Issawi.

Ayad Allawi managed to win 25 of the 275 seats in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Saleh Al-Mutlaq, the leader of the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue that take part in the coalition, represents second biggest Sunni Party and the fifth biggest group in the parliament with 11 MPs. Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi is the former leader of strongest Sunni Party in the 2005 elections, the Iraqi Islamic Party. Furthermore, as a politician who played a critical role in making various changes favoring Sunnis in the 2010 election law, his popularity is high.

The Ba’ath Effect

Despite being a Shiite, Allawi cooperates with the Sunni Party and groups affiliated with the Ba’athist Party, and this has also provoked debates. This is because the accountability and justice board, which was established during the post-occupation period by Paul Bremer, but has not operated effectively until today, first declared that 511, and then an additional 70 candidates, may not take part in the elections because they are Ba’athist. The list that was announced by the accountability and justice board included dozens of candidates from the Iraqi List, above all, MP Saleh Al-Mutlaq, which suggests that Maliki took this step to put obstacles in front of the rising Allawi.

Despite this, the decision by the Court of Appeals, which declared that those banned may participate in elections, increases the influence of the Allawi alliance on Sunnis.

With votes from both Sunnis and Shiites Allawi’s party could become Iraq’s number two party. However, Allawi’s votes from Shiites are likely to decrease with the accusations of his being Ba’athist. If we look at Allawi’s voter base, we see that he is in competition with Prime Minister Maliki and the Shiite politician, Ahmed Chalabi. In other words, Allawi will win very few votes from supporters of either Al Hakim or Sadr.

Criticism of Maliki

As Iraq prepares for the 2010 elections and right up to the last days before the elections, Prime Minister Maliki, whose success in the 2009 provincial elections went beyond expectations, is without a doubt the favorite. However, he is being accused of using state institutions, economic power and military structure to increase his authority and weaken the opposition.

According to the Shiite parties that oppose him, Prime Minister Maliki tried to consolidate his grip on government power, rather than sharing it with other partners in the government. The same criticism has also been aired by Kurdish and Sunni parties. The centralization of power and concentration in one man’s hands is dangerous, according to these parties, since this situation could lead over time to the rebirth of a new Ba’athism in the government.

Maliki’s Military Power

It is important that Prime Minister Maliki, who is accused of trying to become the only leader, is also accused of trying to expand his influence over the security forces. The Iraqi Army has approximately 600,000 soldiers, 400,000 police that are directly subordinate to him, and 5,000 specially trained Special Forces under the Prime Minister’s control. Furthermore, including the Sunni tribal Sahwa forces in his security forces strengthens Maliki’s hand. Consequently, Maliki is entering the elections with one million soldiers at his command. It is also known that Prime Minister Maliki gives special importance to the police force to obtain the “loyalty” of the military or to prevent coup against himself. Iraq’s police, equipped with heavy and high technology weapons, operate in a wide spectrum of activities ranging from border protection to military activities in disputed regions.

The Effect of Religion

Although participating parties and coalitions do not express a religious or sectarian views directly, it is clear that every party that is participating in the elections will get votes from specific sects or ethnic groups. In other words, Sunnis will vote predominantly for Sunni parties, Kurds for Kurdish parties, and Shiites for Shiite parties. We should note here that Shiite votes will be divided between the Dawa Party and the Iraqi National Alliance.

In the distribution of Shiite votes, undisputedly the most significant role among the elites will not be played by politicians, but by Shiite religious authorities. Religious leaders who rise to the rank of Ayatollah are the most influential people in Shiite social and political life. In a sense, Shiite religious leaders have moved beyond being the most important spiritual leaders of Shiite society to have determining role in political issues.

It is said that these authorities are not supporting any of the political parties in the 2010 elections, but calling on all parties to serve the nation. Shiite religious leaders openly advocate the inclusion of Sunnis and Kurds in the political process by saying, “Iraq is for everyone. No one has a right to oppose another or not take them into account.”

No matter how much religious, sectarian or ethnic difference exists; Iraq is experiencing a historical election on the eve of military withdrawal. The effects of these elections will not be limited to Basra, Baghdad or Erbil. Results from the voting booth will affect the entire Middle East from Iran to Israel and from Turkey to Saudi Arabia

Environmental Technologies and Renewable Energy: Industry Report

2010-04-06T16:05:00.000+03:00

Domestic Sector

1. Pollution Control, Waste Management and Recycling

Economic growth in Turkey has caused an increase in energy demand, industrialization and urbanization, raising concerns about environmental issues. These environmental concerns are forcing Turkey to establish effective water, waste and air pollution control management.
Total environmental expenditure in Turkey was US$7.5billion in 2007. The majority of environmental expenditure was municipality expenditures corresponding to 81.5% of the total, whereas the environmental expenditures of private companies were 8% of the total amounting to US$ 602million.
Turkey's attempt to become a full-fledged European Union member is creating a positive environment for foreign investment. Regulations in the sector are becoming more favourable for foreign investment, resulting in foreign investors partnering with local businesses in waste management solutions.
The environmental technologies market also benefits from new arrangements in local regulations. Since the change in the article of Environmental Law numbered 2872 in 2006, municipalities have been further enforced to build and establish waste management centres and protocols. The last five-year period has experienced a steep incline in waste management and recycling efforts. As an incentive to reduce and prevent industrial pollution, the government offers industrial plants a reduction up to 59% of their electricity bills if they set up their own waste treatment facilities, in accordance with the above-mentioned Environmental Law article.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry proposed a “Solid Waste Action Plan” in order to organize waste management policies and aid in sustaining the sector's growth in 2008. In this report, the Ministry aimed at drawing out a clear plan for the 2008-2012 periods. With the action plan, the number of waste management centres, the number of municipalities participated and the number of people that these centres cover reached 108, 1,128 and 50 million, respectively. And the number of people that these centres cover is expected to reach 57 million by 2012.
In order for Turkey to reach the regulatory compliance of EU environmental requirements, the EHCIP (Environmental Heavy Cost Investment Planning) Project funded by the EU was established in January 2004. This project aims to provide funds to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to increase capacity for a high level of environmental protection.
As seen elsewhere in the world, industrialisation and urbanization, reinforced by the economic growth, have increased the need for environmental goods and services in Turkey. As a result, waste management, water supply and air pollution control have become areas with an ever growing demand and opportunities for investment.

Waste Management

Currently Turkey's waste management infrastructure is not sufficient to cover the country's needs where an annual amount of 30 million tonnes of waste is produced. The majority of this waste is stored in municipal waste storage facilities and landfills. Existing landfills are insufficient in number and there is only one waste energy plant, Izaydas, in the country. Therefore, expertise for managing and constructing landfills and waste energy plants is needed in order to manage the current levels of waste production. Supply of waste handling equipment, technologies for treatment of waste, collection, separation and handling are also areas with extensive development opportunities and therefore offer investment options in the country.
According to environmental expenditures of Governmental Organizations in 2007, water management and wastewater management expenditures consist of 70% of total environmental expenditure. Comparison of environmental expenditure by sectors yields that wastewater management expenditure in the manufacturing industry incurs 96.7% of total wastewater management expenditure and 79% of total solid waste management in 2007.

Water Supply and Management

Population growth in Turkey from 2000 to 2009 from an estimated 65.7 million people to 72.6 million (CAGR of 1.1%) resulted in an increasing demand for drinking and irrigation water supply. As of 2008, usable water supply per capita is approximately 1,600m3, which classifies Turkey as a country facing water scarcity.15 Irrigation is the primary need for water consumption, accounting for 74% of the total in 2008, followed by drinking water at 15% and industrial use at 11%.
Current water supply and management facilities in Turkey are insufficient to meet the demand of the population, and this imbalance is likely to increase further in the future as freshwater reserves are expected to decline. Only a 34% of the population is served by water treatment plants as of 2005. The necessary construction of new plants and renewal of existing ones are open to significant investment opportunities in the country.

Air Pollution Control

Industrial CO2 emissions, household heating and carbon emissions from vehicles are the two main sources of air pollution in Turkey. Air pollution was monitored by 116 stations between 2005 and 2007. The measurement results obtained from the stations are evaluated in the environmental laboratories and hourly averages are published on the air quality monitoring network web site. Main obstacles in sustaining an acceptable level of air pollution are highlighted as follows.
• Low cost - low quality coal usage in household heating
• Inefficient use of energy in industrial production
• Lack of emission control in thermal power plants
As Turkey's air quality needs to develop, there will be long term opportunities for providers of air quality control testing stations, with resulting requirements for emission control devices, electronic displays, and monitoring devices.

2. Renewable Energy

Alternative energy sources are becoming more and more desirable in the world as pollution has become a global threat and the primary energy sources such as oil, natural gas and coal are decreasing in supply. The renewable market in Turkey is still at its infant stage with the majority of its capacity coming from thermal plants (66% of total installed capacity as of 2008). Hydro power plants contribute 33%, and the remaining 1% is from geothermal (0.1%) and wind (0.9%) sources as of end 2008.
Recent developments in Turkey such as liberalization of the electricity market and improvements in renewable legislations have opened the door for the growth and investment opportunities in renewable energy sources. These developments coupled with the country's naturally endowed potential for solar, geothermal and wind energy resources create a vast potential in this market.
In May 2005, the Law on Utilization of Renewable Energy Resources for Electricity Production No. 5346 was enacted for decentralization of renewable energy sector in Turkey. The law aims to increase renewable energy resources utilization and generate economic, secure, and high quality electricity. Large HEPPs in terms of installed capacity are excluded from the law. The law enacts feed-in tariffs determined by EMRA for power plants in operation for less than 10 years. However, same tariffs for every energy resource are to be determined whereas diversification may be necessary and there is also a need for efficient tax and investment incentives. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources prepares to give a draft report which is expected to be presented to Parliament in the first half of 2010. Despite the delay in the incentives, there is a considerable interest of investors to the renewable energy sector.
As of 2008, total electricity installed capacity is 41,802.6 MW in Turkey. 33% of total installed capacity corresponds to hydroelectricity, 32% to natural gas, 24% to coal, and the remaining 1% to other resources.

Hydroelectric Energy

The installed hydroelectricity capacity of the 150 HEPPs (13.8 GW) corresponds to approximately 38% of the country's technical hydroelectricity potential of 36 GW. The electricity generated from the hydroelectricity plants amounted to 33 TWh as of 2008.
66% of the total number of new licences granted to the private sector in 2008 was for construction of new HEPPs. The majority of the HEPPs are owned and operated by the state. The rest is divided among BOT and TORs and the private sector players. In practice, licences are usually granted for 49 years.

Wind

Turkey represents an attractive geography for wind energy investments. The Aegean and Marmara regions are the most attractive regions for wind energy power generation. The installed capacity of wind energy is 363.7 MW in 200819 and the total wind energy potential is estimated at 131,756 MW.
TEIAS projections for 2009-2018 include 4 different scenarios; with higher-lower capacity and higher-lower demand. According to the high capacity scenario of TEIAS, installed capacity of wind energy is expected to reach 1,012 MW by 2011 with a project electricity generation of 3,176 GWh continuing to increase to 3,663 GWh in 2012.
There has been a significant amount of interest in wind-based generation which has resulted in 1,118 licence applications for a total of 86GW capacity since 2002. This high level of enthusiasm has further caused multiple applications for overlapping locations and capacities exceeding the supported limits. In November 1st 2007 alone, there have been 725 such licence applications amounting to a total capacity of 71.4 GW. Given the supported grid capacity of 7 GW according to TEIAS, the licence applications need to go under a technical review to decide on the feasibility of non-overlapping applications and for the overlapping licence applications which have passed the technical reviews, TEIAS will make its decision through a tender bidding where the highest bidder will be granted the licence for a WPP.
As of September 2009, there are a total of 105 WPP given and approved licences, with a capacity of 4,237 MW. There are 727 licences awaiting review, corresponding to 31,957 MW.

Geothermal

Turkey takes 5th place for geothermal resources and 7th for the utilization of these resources in the world. However, only 3% of the total potential (31,500 MW) is in use23. Two-thirds of the country's geothermal resources are located in the Aegean region.
Out of the licenses granted by EMRA in 2008, only one was for a geothermal plant of 15 MW. Lack of technical expertise can be one of the main reasons for the low exploitation of the geothermal resources in Turkey.
The exploration, development, ownership rights and economic use of geothermal resources are regulated by the Geothermal Resources and Mineral Waters Law No. 5686, enacted in 2007. Licensing and feed-in tariff issues, on the other hand, fall within the scope of the Electricity Market Law and Renewables Law.

Solar

Solar energy is mainly utilized as flat plate solar collectors for domestic hot water production despite the huge potential for electricity generation in Turkey. The photovoltaic generation application is insignificant and currently, the total photovoltaic generation capacity in Turkey is 3 MWp25. Photovoltaic energy is used for signalling purposes and in rural areas such as the watch towers of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, light houses and lighting of highways.
Turkey's annual average insolation duration is estimated as 2,640 hours (7.2 hours/day) and the average annual solar radiation is 1,311 kWh/m2-year (3.6 kWh/m2 per day) by EIE. The total solar energy production equals 420 thousand TOE in 2007.

3. Energy Efficiency

Turkey is projected to reach an energy-saving potential of 15% in the transportation sector, 20% in the manufacturing sector and 30% in the building industry. The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources aims to reduce imported energy sources, using energy effectively, protecting wastage, relieving the burden of energy costs on economy, and to improve efficiency in the use of energy sources.
In April 2007, the Law on Energy Efficiency No. 5627 was enacted with an aim to use energy efficiently, to prevent waste energy, to reduce the weight of energy costs on Turkish economy and to increase energy resources. With this law, 20% of total energy costs will be covered with the contract signed between industrial companies and EIE. The industrial companies are to guarantee reducing their energy usage by minimum 10% within three years (Renewable energy is not included).

4. Foreign Trade
Turkey exports environmental technologies abroad to countries such as Germany, France, Italy and UK. Germany is the leading country for Turkish exports of environmental technologies with US$ 875 million in 2008.

Sector Outlook

1. Pollution Control, Waste Management and Recycling

The high demand for waste treatment facilities have led to creation of 5 hazardous waste zones which will have own central storage facility and incinerator. This strategy is expected to treat one million tonnes of hazardous waste per year. The investment required for waste management treatment expected to be made between 2010 and 2012 is approximately 1,201 million29. The following figure presents the storage and incineration facilities planned to be built in the five regions between 2008-2012 by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry by taking into consideration the growth of industrialization. It is observed that the Aegean, Thrace and Marmara regions have the greater potential for planned facilities.
Various companies producing waste are also trying to find solutions for waste treatment. For example Petkim, which is the largest petrochemical company in Turkey, is planning to build a new facility to manage its own waste and environmental companies engaged in hazardous/medical waste treatment are also expected to be very active in Turkey.
One of the reasons for low level of waste treatment in Turkey is the lack of landfills, storage for solid waste and solid waste handling equipment. The construction of landfills and storages are expected to start in the coming years.
Municipal water and wastewater treatment is the most emphasized area among others. Proper wastewater treatment is still low in Turkey and there still are small cities without any treatment facility. Although current public spending is low, there is a large potential for development due to scarce treatment facilities.
Air policy is another improvement area which Turkey is working towards. Public spending is low for air pollution as well as other environmental areas.

2. Renewable Energy

According to IEA, the ratio of global renewable energy power to the total energy consumption is expected to increase by 53% in 2020. This indicates a massive potential in the hydroelectric and other renewable energy market.
Turkey has significant wind, geothermal, and solar power potential. The high growth in electricity demand coupled with constraints on the supply side also signals high potential in the renewable energy market in Turkey.
Electricity generation in Turkey is currently largely based on coal, gas, oil and hydro. Gas provides about 49% of generated electricity, with coal accounting for some 29%30. Hydroelectric power generation is expected to significantly increase its market share by 2013 whereas the share of oil has been declining31.
Turkey's hydroelectric plants reached 150 HEPPs with a installed capacity of 13.8GW32. According to the BMI forecasts and BP Statistical Review of World Energy Report, hydro-electric generation is expected to grow with a CAGR of 7% and renewable energy generation with a CAGR of 52% between 2009 and 2013 which are both above the CAGR seen in electricity generation with a CAGR of 5%.
According to TEIAS forecasts, the total installed capacity is expected to grow from 48,817 MW to 71,273 MW between 2010 and 2015 with a CAGR of 6.5%. Renewable energies are expected to form 37% of the total installed capacity and to stay stable in the future years whereas currently the renewable energies correspond to 34% of total.

SWOT Analysis

Strengths
- Geographical position of Turkey for having various natural resources
- Turkey is among the first five leading countries in terms of geothermal resources
- The solar energy potential of Turkey is higher than the combined potential of several European countries
- According to ETKB information dated May 2009, Turkey’s hydroelectric plants reached 150 HEPPs with a installed capacity of 13.8 GW
- The Turkish electricity market represents one of the most promising markets in Europe with respect to growth potential in the next years

Weaknesses
- Significant need for foreign environmental expertise in Turkey as most Turkish firms within the environmental technologies lack the capabilities to handle large environmental projects
- Lower efficiency in energy utilization compared to Europe
- Lack of financial resources of local entrepreneurs and proper lending facilities

Opportunities
- High potential of resources for the use of new renewable energy technologies (particularly boron an thorium resources)
- As a result of economic growth, industrialization and urbanisation, the demand for EGS in Turkey is increasing, particularly in the waste management, water supply and management, and air pollution control sub-sectors.
- Turkey has started to focus on renewable energy, in an effort to decrease energy imports.
- Tremendous investment opportunity in renewable market

Threats
- Being import dependent on HEPP and WPP equipments
- Renewable energy resources are mainly state owned both in Turkey and globally
- Delay in the liberalization process and the private sector investments

Investment Opportunities

There is an encouraging investment environment for Environmental technologies and renewable energy sector in Turkey. There exists significant investment opportunities in hazardous waste and solid waste management, water and waste water treatment and in renewable energy. Current opportunities in waste management and water supply concerns a relatively large market with a broad range of activities whereas the opportunities in environmental consultancy concerns a smaller market. There are also other opportunities in air pollution and control, marine pollution, carbon capture and storage, and carbon finance. These segments form nearly none or very minimal sized market where there are limited regulations and restrictive trade and investment policies. These segments are expected to expand and offer attractive investment opportunities to investors in the future.
The Turkish renewable energy sector has been one of the most attractive sectors in terms of M&A activity in the last couple of years. Many utility industry giants have entered Turkey and there are numerous local entrepreneurs who have obtained renewable policies.
The Turkish Privatization Authority has announced the opening of the privatization tenders of 52 river plants currently belonging to EÜAS. According to the Privatization Authority statements, the closing date of the tender is February 19, 2010.
The following major transactions demonstrate the increasing interest from international investors in the Turkish market over the last four years.

Ukraine’s Elections: The Iron Curtain Gives Way to NATO Expansion - Ozer CETINKAYA

2010-04-06T16:04:00.000+03:00

Ukraine’s elections will be remembered as the first disaster for the glasnost policy NATO enacted regarding human rights and democracy. Above all, it must be seen as the first setback for NATO expansion ever since it began. Since 2001 NATO's expansion towards Russia’s borders has been blocked at the Dnieper River. Ukraine has taken on the historical role that was played by Germany after 1945 due to its objective conditions. The borders of the Eurasian bloc formed with Moscow’s leadership have now been established on the Dnieper River. The ongoing retreat since the fall of the Soviet Union has been stopped. Either a new ceasefire will occur, or else a conclusive peace treaty will be signed.

This is because Ukraine can be spoken of as two regions, eastern and western. This perspective’s historical roots go back to the eighteenth century. In the eighteenth century the Dnieper served as the border between the Orthodox Russian Czardom and the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire. The western region was influenced by the Austro-Hungarians, absorbed Central European culture and was Catholicized. The eastern region fell under Russian dominion and was entirely Russian and Orthodox in character. The depth of this relationship is expressed in an old Russian proverbs that says, “Moscow is our heart, St. Petersburg is our brain and Kiev is our mother.” This context makes it possible to say that there is an undeniable historical bond between Ukraine and Russia.

Ukrainian power allied with the West represents a break with Russia and a rapprochement with the US and NATO. From Russia’s perspective, the loss of Ukraine from its geography would be worse than the loss of any other nation. With its population of nearly 50 million and its vast steppes, Ukraine is both Russia’s door to the West and its first line of defense. Moreover, it is a critical valve for getting Russian hydrocarbon resources to Europe.

If Ukraine were in NATO, it would be the key to the West keeping Russia under its control. For the Transatlantic bloc to keep Russia from once again becoming a threat winning the Ukraine is a necessity. Anyway, this is what the Orange Revolution was about. Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the perspective of NATO, meaning the US, since it was impossible to take control of the Ukraine by force, new arguments in the name of democracy and human rights were used to effect regime change.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, as soon as the Russian motherland was put back in order it began to push against its old borders. Realizing that a Ukraine allied with Western power had escaped its control, Russia did not hesitate to use the strategic trump card of “energy” against its former back yard, Ukraine. On the other side, after the Orange Revolution the natural gas crises that began in 2006 and were repeated intermittently afterwards were in reality not the basic problem with relation between Russia and the Ukraine, but the reflection of much deeper problems. On the eve of 2006 their bilateral relations were worsened much more by the natural gas price hikes directed at the Ukraine by Russia’s Gazprom and then the natural gas embargo on Ukraine.

To understand relations between Russia and the Ukraine we also need to give an account of Ukraine’s relations with NATO. The main theme of the tension was created by NATO expansion toward the Russian motherland. While the fact that NATO expansion heralded a basic threat to its security did not escape the Kremlin, a NATO aligned government in Kiev was called a national security threat.

Relations with NATO

Ukraine’s integration into European and Atlantic security structures and the permanent conversion of its national security system became inseparable targets. However, with the last elections Russia managed to stick the Slavic sword right in the middle of this target.

For NATO two driving forces are to be found behind this target. One of them was Ukraine’s national interests. The other is relations between NATO and the Ukraine. Today the threat faced by Ukraine is not who will attack them, but who will try to weaken them. Understanding this well, over the last four years the Ukrainian people have watched the weakening of their pro-Western government and have changed their direction. This basic point caused the pro-Westerners to lose the elections, along with these factors:

a) political instability
b) economic collapse
c) the US and NATO’s failure to deliver on their promises
d) deepening social disappointment

Reforms were stumbling due to clashes of interest and economic realities, and yet gradually being realized. Ukraine had been participating in the Partnership for Peace planning and review process since the beginning (1994). Initially the focus was more on the units to be allocated to the PfP activities led by NATO. However in 2000, Ukraine decided to use this planning tool for the purpose of supporting defense reform. For NATO the most important obstacles to the progress of the reforms were seen as existing resources and armed forces not falling under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense. Moreover powerful NATO members within the EU, such as Germany and France, kept Ukraine on its toes in order to protect their relationships with Russia. This led to deep social disappointment and the people chose to get closer to Russia.

Interdependence on issues such as energy, terrorism and radicalism also motivates Russia and NATO member nations to negotiate on points of contention. Thus it can be said that the biggest obstacle to a new cold war is both security and energy interdependence between actors. On the other hand, it should be remembered that there is a limit to the interdependence between these parties. The Russian Minister of Defense at the time, Sergey Ivanov, looked his American colleagues in the eye during the NATO expansion meeting in Istanbul and drew these limits by saying, “NATO expansion poses a bigger potential for conflict than the Cold War.”

NATO realizes that it is not facing the old Russia. However, the US and England, in particular, have not managed to overcome their mood of distrust towards cooperation with Russia. Russia is not an enemy, but not yet an ally either. The parties are suspicious of one another. The main factor that will determine the relationship from now on is this suspicion.

The Kremlin’s Steps

Along with the presidency, the formation of the government under the semi-presidential system is important, too. The Regions Party led by Yanukovych has already started negotiations with almost all the other parties represented in parliament in order to form a new coalition government. The Regions Party might form a new coalition with the Our Ukraine Party founded by former President Viktor Yushchenko, the leader of the Orange Revolution. This is because many MPs that have little chance of being reelected should be expected to support this government in the case of a new parliamentary election. A new parliamentary election does not seem possible for Ukraine, at least for another year. After the formation of a new government, Russia-Ukraine relations should be expected to normalize. The first step towards normalization is the Kremlin's immediate assignment of an ambassador to the open position in Kiev. Next, Russian economic aid will begin to flow to Ukraine. The basis of this aid will again be energy. Ukraine will receive incremental investments from Russian corporations. Energy collaboration will increase Europe’s dependency on Russia. With the elimination of the Ukraine problem, European countries will reduce their interest and support for the NABUCCO project. In return for all this, Russia will grant strategically advantageous treaties to the Ukrainian government. NATO collaboration with Ukraine will be abolished if possible, or else put in deep freeze. Black Sea security is a card that Russia will play. With the new mentality Kiev warming towards the BLACKSEAFOR to which Russia and Turkey attribute great importance, Georgia will face policy of isolation in the Black Sea.

The New Capital, Donetsk

Yanukovych is generally considered to be on the Russian side, while Tymoshenko is thought to be on the Western side. However, it should be taken into account that in recent years this assessment has begun to lose its validity, since although they seem to be opposed, both sides make sure to wink at the global circles. It is true that Yanukovych gives priority to relations with Russia. He declared that if he is elected commerce with Russia will increase from 13 million to 40 million dollars. However, he also used the slogan: "Neither the EU nor Russia, the goal is the whole world.” Of course, this slogan was created in order to win votes in the western regions. According to Yanukovych, his country can act as a bridge between the EU and the CIS nations. He also claims that Russian should be the second national language. For this he uses the slogan: "two languages, one nation.” If he is elected it will be seen what he will do about it, and what reaction he
will get. Meanwhile, and again, if he is elected, he has made domestic political promises such as five years of tax exemptions for small businesses and the provision of government aid for families with low incomes and high numbers of children. Yanukovych has assigned special importance toward using economics during his term, since he got the majority of his votes in the eastern region. The center of this region can said to be Donetsk where he served as governor. This region is also the heart of the Ukrainian economy. It is often said that Yanukovych has the support of the richest businessman in Ukraine, Rinat Akhmetov. The owner of the SCM Holdings, established in Donetsk, Akhmetov is of Tatar origin and is among the most powerful men in Ukraine. It is known that he is also politically influential. He is also associated with Turkish businessmen that have close relationships with the Turkish government. This will bring different options for Ukraine’s economic development during Yanukovych's term. With this structure, Donetsk might begin to function as the real capital of Ukraine.

Tymoshenko’s Path

In an article published in Newsweek, Tymoshenko stated that the economic crisis brought Ukraine and Russia closer together. According to her, after the global crisis, Russia began to realize its "responsibilities arising from the past" towards its neighbors. During her term as prime minister, she cancelled the privatization of the steel giant, Kirvozihstal, which had been sold to Akhmetov for 800 million dollars and later facilitated its sale to India’s steel giant, Mittal Steel, for 4.79 billion dollars. The likelihood of this situation changing during Yanukovych's term is uncertain, but Russia’s weight will become more evident in Ukrainian politics.

The Status of Crimea

Ukraine is also important to Russia for its Crimean Peninsula and the Russian naval base located there. Ukraine is an indispensable port for the Russian fleet, which generally uses Ukraine to exit into the Black Sea. Although Russia has started building a new marine base in order to overcome its dependency on Sevastopol, it will certainly remain dependent on Ukraine in this area. Historically, the Russian population in the Crimean Peninsula and the Russian minority living in the country as a whole is a leading factor highlighting Ukraine in Russian international politics.

With the loss of Yushchenko, the support Crimea’s Tatars have had since the Orange Revolution will disappear. If parliamentary elections are held soon it seems that it will be impossible for the only Tatar representative in Kiev, Mustafa Cemilov, to be reelected. It is obvious that Tatars that have been denied their rights to autonomy, and losing their only representation in the Rada will generate support for the rising Wahhabi Islamists. This will increase tensions in Crimea. Moscow will certainly use its influence in Kiev in the case of a conflict involving the dominant Russian population in Crimea. Ukraine is actually a place where cold war never ended. "Ukraine" means "border country," and continued its historical role as a field for struggle between the West and the East. Today however, it is emerging as the new Iron Curtain blocking NATO expansion.

Table

Probable effects of the election’s outcome:

1. The Ukraine’s relationship with NATO will be in deep freeze.
2. Relations between Russia and Ukraine will be improved.
3. Russia’s military presence in Crimea will be increased, which will in turn increase its activities in the Black Sea.
4. Georgia will face a policy of isolation in the Black Sea.
5. Europe’s dependency on Russian energy will be increased.
6. Europe interest and support for the NABUCCO project will be diminished.
7. Moscow will help Ukraine to improve its economy. In exchange treaties involving strategic advantages will be signed.
8.Russia will support the modernization of the Ukrainian army for the sake of NATO’s complete withdrawal.
9. NATO expansion will shift towards the Pacific.
10. Moscow will attempt to advance its defense lines towards the West.

The Emergence and Evolution of Georgian Security Discourse: Failures and Implications - Aslan Yavuz ŞİR

2010-04-06T16:03:00.000+03:00

It is common knowledge that the August 2008 conflict erupted in response to the ongoing dispute between Russian Federation and Republic of Georgia. Still without being aware of the fundamental elements of Georgia’s unresolved embroilment with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it would be impossible to understand the recent conflict, its implications and future developments in the South Caucasus. One might ask whether “the South Ossetian war of 2008 [was] inevitable?” With Mikhail Saakashvili’s rise to power in 2004, peoples and states in the Caucasus region began to utter a more hopeful tone for the possible resolution of long-standing conflicts in the region, which was also reflected in Saakashvili government’s promises and policy choices. However, from the beginning of his rule, Saakashvili government’s policies concerning Georgia’s most detrimental problems proved to be failure to ensure security, stability or development. On the contrary, Georgia’s security policies evolved, in contradiction with the official and declared principles laid out by the Saakashvili government itself, in a way that the stability not only of Georgia but of the whole region was threatened by armed conflicts. There are several reasons for the failure of this new approach, but this paper specifically aims to highlight Georgian security discourse and its evolution, as well as assess its weaknesses in relation to the dispute with Abkhazia and its implications for Georgian security policy.
The central point in our analysis is that the security discourse put forward by Saakashvili government since its coming to power in 2004 failed to prove sustainable. The main argument is that the security perceptions of the two sides became incompatible with each other since these policies were shaped by the mutual clashes as well as the application of a security discourse which does not fit into the peculiar security situation inherent in the Caucasus. On the contrary, Georgian government’s policy towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia were continuously strained, and consequently, burst into armed conflict in August 2008. Russian Federation’s decision to recognize the independence of the two regions caused an irreversible rupture in the establishment of a normalization process. The security perception of the two sides evolved since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and since then both sides attempted to push forward unilateral policies upon each other. This study will try to understand the evolution of security perceptions and major issues that shape the security policies of Georgia and Abkhazia. Thus, it is also argued that a security discourse which takes the international institutional and political perspective dominant in the West or one that is imposed by foreign powers bears the threat of incongruity between the sides and therefore marginalization of the ongoing security problems.
Georgian National Security Discourse
Dissolution of the Soviet Union left the post-Soviet space with uncertain domestic transformations, potential civil strife and regional violence. Caucasus region was shaken with two major ethnic conflicts, which still continue to threaten security, stability and therefore create uncertainty for the countries and peoples of the region. Georgian state declared its independence in such circumstances as a weak state in a fragmented region. No country in any of the sub-regions of the post-Soviet region is more central than Georgia in determining whether settled threats in the region would affect other countries and security in the region. Attempting to define the major parameters of Georgian security is therefore detrimental to understand the source of conflicts.
For the sake of a more solid analysis, examination of the Georgian security will be limited to the period following the Saakashvili government’s coming to power, which we argue has thawed the frozen conflicts by attempting to adopt a clearly defined security policy, but failed to erect a case-specific solution to its security issues. Still an overall analysis of pre-Saakashvili period on the evolution of Georgian national security concept will be made. Then, what determines Georgia’s security? It can be argued that three main points are worth mentioning:
1. Violent separatist conflicts, seen as threat to the territorial integrity of the state
2. Georgia’s first government’s heritage, which left country weakened and poorly positioned
3. Instability that prevails beyond borders, such as Nagorno-Karabakh to the south and Chechnya to the north
Saakashvili government’s efforts towards defining Georgia’s security focused on overcoming these three problems in order to be able to break with the past state practices, reinvigorate the state, strengthen executive power, disrupt criminal networks, restore central authority, create a trustworthy police force and collect taxes etc. The Rose Revolution is assumed to bring about a more focused and decisive policy concerning the above said problems. However, as we will see Saakashvili government’s security policy and its implementation contravened each other.
Georgia’s experience with the introduction of a national security discourse reflects the confusion that the security studies experiences in the post-Cold War period. The inability to define and locate national interests, as well as threats, orientation and policy overlaps with the ambiguity surrounding the traditionalist views of security inherent in the international security structures. Despite the prevailing anti-Russian sentiment in the Georgian politics, 1990s obliged all ex-Soviet republics to search ways to integrate themselves with the Western world. The emergence and evolution of the Georgian security concept security has been a process that clearly predicated the concerns uttered in the debates that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. While traditional security studies prioritized a state-centered military-strategic security perception, in all of the post-Soviet republics and in Georgia, state differed from that which was taken for granted by the traditional security studies. Therefore, state-building, economic development and securitization processes in these countries had been a more difficult experience compared to the Western nation-state model. Especially, for Georgia which adopted a policy of emancipation from the Russian influence, 1990s had proved the identification of security and national interests a fragile process. Thus security discourse that was attempted to be built in the 1990s was inapplicable and became incongruent due to lack of legitimacy, the uncertainty of the state-building process and dissonance within the decision-making levels of the state. After the 1990s, country delved into a colored revolution with a renewed and more decisive attitude towards the establishment of a sound security discourse, but again problems emerged in the implementation of these new policies.
Evolution of the Georgian National Security Discourse
The evolution of Georgian national security began in mid 1990s with the Shevardnadze government’s undertaking. Shevardnadze had ordered the creation of a state commission to develop a national security concept in 1996. In 1997, Parliament adopted a resolution on military doctrine, based on a document written largely by the Minister of Defense and modified by the Parliamentary Committee on Defense and Security. The document followed Russian military doctrine’s discourse and it emphasized the need to cooperate with all states, while the document did not define Georgia’s national interests or the threats the country faced. The document did not find ground in the Georgian parliament.
The first attempt to erect a sound national security concept emerged from the recommendations provided by the London-based International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) that was formed in 1996 to provide high-level independent advice to the Baltic countries on the reform and modernization of their national security sectors. In 1998, Georgian government asked ISAB to prepare a recommendation report on the modernization of Georgia’s security policies. The group’s first report on Georgia was prepared in 1999. In 1999, the National Security Council acknowledged these recommendations to formulate a national security concept. Major issues emphasized in several reports produced during that period were state-building, the challenge of separatism, the interference of external players in domestic affairs, corruption, social inequality, the risk of regional conflict, Georgia’s military inferiority, and possible ecological catastrophes. Darchiashvili summarizes the content of these reports:
Some of these draft documents invoked the prevalence of ethnic identity over citizenship in the broader public’s attitudes, the low prestige of law enforcement agencies, and the violation of human rights by representatives of those agencies. Many of them emphasized the need to protect human rights, to achieve civilian control over the military, to foster political pluralism, and to strengthen local self-government. They also urged the peaceful solution of Georgia’s frozen ethnic conflicts.
In summer 1999, a new draft document was prepared by the state commission. The new report outlined a clearer vision of Georgia’s strategic vision by indicating the intention to join the key institutions of Euro-Atlantic community. It recommended a break with the past strategic vision and prioritized Westernization in all spheres of socio-political life. Still this new document also failed to provide concrete determination of the threats and risks, and obviously national interests. The adoption of a Western conception of security presumed NATO membership and deepened cooperation with the EU, while expressing skepticism over Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the existence of Russian military bases on the Georgian territory. A report which was published by the initiative of ISAB following this report entitled “Georgia and the World: Vision and Strategy for the Future” advanced further the proposed vision by including new attention to military reform so as to integrate Georgian military and defense policy with the Western world. Yet again both documents received no particular attention in the inner circles of the Georgian politics, nor was it taken into official consideration by the authorities.
In 2002, a White paper was published by the Ministry of Defense which simply summarized the organization of the armed forces, emphasized civilian control of the military while minimizing the importance of integration with NATO. The document again failed to provide a concrete examination of the security challenges facing the country or a definition of a national security strategy. In 2003, the National Security Council had prepared a new and more inclusive draft. This new draft also underscored the possible integration into NATO, but it provided more comprehensive evaluation of foreign relations, Georgia’s regional role and enmity in relations with Russia. Darchiashvili argued that in this draft the core principles such as “democratization and human rights issues were ignored. Instead, the document noted the chance the Georgian nation had to build a state corresponding to its spiritual preferences and cultural distinctiveness.”
In 2005, a new National Security Document was ratified by the Georgian Parliament. This new official strategy adopted a multi-tiered understanding of security, while national interests, threats, risks and challenges to national security and main directions of Georgia’s National Security Policy are outlined. The document is of advisory value, but since together with Constitution of Georgia and National Military Strategy paper, it is one of the defining elements and blueprints of Georgian security.
Fundamental National Values and National Interests of Georgia
In the National Security Concept document, Georgia’s fundamental national values are defined as of “ultimate importance to the very existence and security of Georgia, and to the security and prosperity of its citizens”. These values, namely independence, freedom, democracy and the rule of law, prosperity, peace and security, are mentioned as the values that will be protected by all available lawful means.
The National Security Concept document defines Georgia’s national interests as
1. Ensuring territorial integrity
2. Ensuring national unity and civil accord
3. Regional stability
4. Strengthening freedom and democracy in neighboring states and regions
5. Strengthening the state’s transit function and energy security
6. Environmental security of the country and region
7. Preserving national and cultural uniqueness
As the enumeration suggests, ensuring territorial integrity is assumed to be the primary national interest, by declaring that the state is “is dedicated to restoring and maintaining its territorial integrity and ensuring the non-violability of its internationally recognized borders. Georgia will employ all available lawful means to resolve peacefully and justly all issues that might arise in the process of restoring the constitutional order on the territory of Georgia.” The following elements are therefore linked directly to the territorial integrity, since Georgia defines the problem as one of a statehood issue, the attainment of which defines the achievability of the other elements.
Threats, Risks and Challenges to National Security
Possible threats and risks to the maintenance of these values and interests are directly linked with the schema provided in these documents. The definition of a security identity for Georgian state is limited and drawn according to the main elements hereby declared, but still the threats and adequate policies to overcome these threats do not reflect a reformed understanding of Georgian security. Firstly, the document does not make a distinction between internal and external dimensions and interprets factors of Georgian security as interrelated issues. For Georgia the primary threat to Georgian statehood is defined as “infringement of Georgia’s territorial integrity” which is argued to be at stake due to the threat of “de facto separation of Abkhazia and the former Autonomous District of South Ossetia from Georgia, and loss of control over these territories by the Georgian authorities.” The problem is seen as the root of political, economic and social instabilities in Georgia.
Secondly, the possibility of a spillover of conflicts from neighboring state is defined as a threat. Namely, acting as a destabilizing factor, spillover of conflicts might cause provocations from state and non-state actors in and outside Georgian territory, dragging Georgia into conflicts in the region due to “uncontrolled borders”. The document also refers to Russian military presence in Georgia as a threat factor, which is no longer the case.
Thirdly, the document emphasizes the possibility of a military intervention in Georgia, as Russian Federation continues to grant citizenship rights to the population in the de facto republics. The document highlights the possibility that there is a possibility that Russian Federation could use it as an excuse to intervene in Georgian sovereignty, which already proved true in the case of South Ossetia in August 2008.
The document also outlines international terrorism, contraband and transnational organized crime as threats to Georgia’s security. Moreover, Russian military bases are mentioned as a security risk and the withdrawal of Russian military from the Georgian territory as the basis for “normalization of bilateral relations and strengthening of mutual confidence.”
Corruption and inefficient public administration system, together with social and economic challenges, energy related challenges, information related challenges and environmental challenges are also defined as risks to Georgian national security. Among these risks, corruption and inefficient public administration are seen as threats to the development of the democratic regime, institutionalization, economic development, and therefore social cohesion and balance. Saakashvili government’s rise to power is interpreted as a result of mistrust in the government, which the Georgian society saw corrupted and inefficient. State’s inability and incapacity to find a permanent solution to the threats posed by the two regions to the territorial integrity of Georgia, worsening economic conditions and corruption were seen as important factors in the period before the Rose Revolution.
Main Directions of Georgia’s National Security Policy as Outlined in the National Security Concept
The principles laid out in this chapter outlines major political goals in line with the national interests defined in the document. Strengthening of Public Administration and Consolidation of Democratic Institutions call for institutional reform so as to develop a democratic political system of governance via decentralization and legitimacy of the government. Thus, it emphasizes efforts to combat corruption, increasing transparency and accountability as well as administrative and legal measures necessary to implement adequate mechanisms to secure democratization. Secondly, the document highlights the need to strengthen state defense, military reform and modernization of the Georgian army. Cooperation with NATO through the implementation of the Individual Partnership Action Plan is a major concern.
The critical element of this section is evaluated under the heading “Restoration of the Territorial Integrity of Georgia”, which evaluates the influence of unresolved dispute with Abkhazia and the former Autonomous District of Georgia. Accordingly, the inability to control these two regions “hampers Georgia’s transformation into a full democracy” and the document offers that with the participation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, constitutional order of Georgia could be developed. There is emphasis on the peaceful settlement of the conflicts “based on international law” while implying Georgian government’s readiness to “ensure protection provide civil, economic social, religious and cultural rights of all ethnic groups” in Georgia. The document prioritizes the principle of Georgian territorial integrity and broad regional autonomy and mentions the proposal put forward by Saakashvili government in 2005 concerning the settlement of disputes and renunciation of forces by highlighting “the principles of self-determination of nations, cultural identity, minority rights, human rights and freedom and equality of citizens as stipulated by the Constitution of Georgia.” The vagueness of the proposal as to the implementation of a plan in line with the principle of self-determination seems to contradict with the emphasis on the territorial integrity. Moreover, the document repeatedly highlights international law and Constitution of Georgia.
Concerning the external dimension of Georgian national security, integration with NATO, EU and relations with United States, Ukraine, Turkey and Azerbaijan are examined. On relations with Georgia, document suggests,
Georgia aspires to build cooperation with Russia upon the principles of good neighborly relations, equality and mutual respect. Georgia would welcome transition of Russia into a stable democratic state with a functioning market economy and respect for European values. Democratization and foreign policy predictability of the Russian Federation would positively influence Georgia’s and the regional security environment.
Georgia expresses its readiness to intensify political dialogue, deepen trade, economic and socio-cultural relations, cooperate in solving regional conflicts, and to fight against terrorism and transnational crime with the Russian Federation. Georgia believes that conclusion of the framework agreement on friendship and cooperation will create favorable conditions for the improvement of relations between the two states. Georgia reiterates its commitment to sign the framework agreement without delay.
The Russian Federation must fulfill the obligations undertaken at the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit regarding the withdrawal of its military bases from Georgian.
Assessment
At its core, Georgian security is about statehood. Beyond this case, it reflects the obtrusive reality that an insecure Georgia exists within a region of insecure states. The problematic vision outlined in the national security documents, although bringing no official or formal liabilities for the state policy, reflects the fact that confusion surrounding Georgian security-makers since independence. Beginning from the first attempt at formulating a national security strategy, significant uncertainties surrounding Georgian statehood are placed at the center of the security formulations. Georgian “insecurity” has become the main problem, as a result of the inability to provide a sound and adaptive security strategy. Moreover, Georgian security is thrown between the two peaks, namely a Russian-oriented and a Western-oriented security scheme. Therefore modern Georgian insecurity “does not derive from a dearth of protection, but from the ‘lack of clarity or its scope’.
Another critical problem that defines the Georgian security is the dilemma between the state-building process (which is the source of insecurity) and security which is defined as the source of the problems with the statehood. Thus “particular centralizing characteristics of Georgia’s state-building program, some of them necessary reforms … contributed to the increasing tensions” , namely insecurity. Saakashvili government’s state-building efforts were focused on an aggressive agenda of democratization, fight against corruption and institutional reform. Still the state-building efforts were aimed at the integration of the uncontrolled territories. Saakashvili’s aim was that a strengthened, wealthy and democratic Georgian state would reassure the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and attract their attention to the possibility of a reintegration solution to the ongoing dispute.
The lack of clarity in defining Georgian security, i.e. process itself began not with a focus on the security, but on threats – that is, by defining threats themselves. Thus, security was defined with less reference on Georgia’s ability to fashion a security strategy than to create a development strategy. On the contrary success of a possible Georgia’s development strategy was directly attached to the statehood problem. This however is dependent upon the ensuring sovereignty and independence of Georgia. Statehood precedes security. The two processes continuously forced each other and lead to a two-tiered security understanding, namely one of a statehood vs. security situation. The dilemma between statehood and security had been a major roadblock to ensuring security.
Ghia Nodia argues that there are four major roadblocks to statehood in Georgia. First, ethnic exclusivity among the Georgian people is assumed to prevent loyalty and social cohesion among the citizens of Georgia. Second, Nodia argues that a Soviet legacy aiding fragmentation is still influential. Third, powerful alternative national projects gained ground in Georgia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Fourth, Nodia argues that there is an array of potential sources of tension, namely an internal dimension of national security challenge. With reference to the first point, Darchiashvili argues that the future of Georgia’s Rose Revolution depends on its ability to mobilize around a national idea. Accordingly, Georgia’s democratic forces must promote Georgian nationalism to strengthen national project, but ethnicity-based nationalism must be abandoned.
Soviet legacy is one of the major causes behind the failure of institutional mechanisms. The institutional structures as well as the political system in Georgia were neatly based on the Soviet legacy and this legacy still continues to have detrimental effects for the country. Therefore, when Georgian government made the strategic decision to break up with the Soviet past and orient the country towards the Western model, the decision and the intention to be a part of the West in fact refers to the modernization of the country, i.e. the process of securitization. Thus adoption of the Western model is for security’s sake, not because of a strong attachment to the model’s intrinsic world. Thus another major critical problem for Georgian state-building, in connection to the institutional failures, is the criminalized state, which Saakashvili government targeted by the enervation of institutional organization. Darchiashvili argues that as a security problem, criminalization of the state structures caused the erosion of national security. National security concept pays particular attention to the problem of institutional reform and fight with corruption and other criminal activities inherent in the post-Soviet state system in Georgia.
In a similar fashion Pavel Baev argues that “Georgia’s troubles derive principally from the anomalies and distortions of its own society, political institutions, or communist legacies than from the all-penetrating shadow economy and corruption” . The goal of the state is defined as creating a liberal democratic system, but one that protects Georgia’s unique cultural and historical identity. Darchiashvili & Nodia, stress the contradiction between the liberal and democratic inclinations of the new elite and the widely popular traditional nationalist sentiment and practices with which they must contend. Georgia fell into a duality between democratization by democratic state or a strong state that is powerful and efficient enough to succeed transition process. Even the democratization for the sake of security is compromised due to internal political problems between the government and the opposition, now apparent more than ever.
Conclusion
Georgian security project is stuck between the attempts to transcend the legacy of Soviet ethno-federalist practices, which are dealt with a Western-based model of territorial integrity, with democratic forms and efforts aimed at constructing statehood. Consequently, the security discourse put forward by Saakashvili government since its coming to power in 2004 failed to prove sustainable. The security perceptions of the two sides became incompatible with each other since these policies were shaped by the mutual clashes as well as the application of a security discourse which does not fit into the peculiar security situation inherent in the country. On the contrary, Georgian government’s new security discourse based on state-building measures could not provide a ground for an effective definition of security policy towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia, continuously straining the security situation and consequently, bursting into armed conflict in August 2008. Russian Federation’s decision to recognize the independence of the two regions caused an irreversible rupture in the establishment of a normalization process.
The security perception of the sides evolved since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and since then both sides attempted to push forward unilateral policies upon each other. While traditional security studies prioritized a state-centered military-strategic security perception, in all of the post-Soviet republics and in Georgia, state differed from that which was taken for granted by the traditional security studies. Therefore, state-building, economic development and securitization processes in these countries had been a more difficult experience compared to the Western nation-state model. Especially, for Georgia which adopted a policy of emancipation from the Russian influence, 1990s had proved the identification of security and national interests a fragile process. Thus security discourse that was attempted to be built in the 1990s was inapplicable and became incongruent due to lack of legitimacy, the uncertainty of the state-building process and dissonance within the decision-making levels of the state. After the 1990s, country delved into a colored revolution with a renewed and more decisive attitude towards the establishment of a sound security discourse, but again problems emerged in the implementation of these new policies.

Bibliography
Brockmann, Kathrin & David Bosold (2009) Democratization and Security in Central and Eastern Europe and the Post-Soviet States (eds.) Published by: Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige, 12th New Faces Conference March 16–18, 2009, Prague, Czech Republic
Coppieters, Bruno (2005) “Locating Georgian Security” in Coppieters, Bruno & Robert Legvold (2005) Statehood and Security: Georgia after the Rose Revolution Cambridge: MIT Press
Darchiashvili, David (2005) “Georgian Defense Policy and Military Reform” in Statehood and Security: Georgia after the Rose Revolution Cambridge: MIT Press
Ghia Nodia (2005) “Georgia: Dimensions of Insecurity” in Statehood and security: Georgia after the Rose Revolution, Cambridge: MIT Press
Goerge, Julie A. (2009) “The Dangers of Reform: State-building and national minorities in Georgia” Central Asian Survey , Vol. 28, No.2 June
Mitchell, Lincoln (2009) “Compromising democracy: state building in Saakashvili’s Georgi” Central Asian Survey Vol. 28 No.2
National Security Concept of Georgia, Last Access: 08/02/2010 http://www.parliament.ge/files/292_880_927746_concept_en.pdf

Afghanistan and Volvo - Ali Kulebi

2010-04-06T16:01:00.003+03:00

Volvo is one of the most prestigious automakers in the world. An icon of the high quality steel mined along Swedish forests, its brand has been well known for 80 years. Geely, on the other hand, is an unknown Chinese automaker. What is the link between Afghanistan, Volvo and China? The answer to this question is not as simple as pointing out that China is a hungry investor because Geely, which produced its first car in 2002, when Afghanistan was occupied, is preparing to buy Volvo from Ford. This company grew rapidly in the domestic market, and is also exporting to former SSR nations, to the Middle East and Africa. With the capital its accumulated over the years and help from the Chinese government, it is buying Volvo. We need to recall that Geely established a strategic partnership with Goldman Sachs in producing spare parts for London taxis, and for this job it invested 250 million dollars. It is also necessary to point out that the Chinese government is closely observing these developments, even involved in them, since it is preparing to give one billion dollars to Geely.

Seeing these developments as China’s bid for technological advancement or Beijing’s indifferent development attack means missing the big picture because, with the opportunity created by 2,270 trillion dollar foreign currency reserves, investments are not directed only to safe regions, but also to the world’s most problematic, even war-ridden areas. Afghanistan, where the United States does the “heavy lifting,” is the most obvious example. Some have argued that the United States’ occupation of Afghanistan aimed to prevent China from acquiring raw material resources. This is still being debated. If this is really one of the reasons, the American strategy was unable to block China, even with war because, Beijing chose Afghanistan as the source for meeting Geely’s need for steel and copper, and it succeeded. The Metallurgical Company of China (MCC) bought the management rights of Afghanistan copper fields for twenty-five years. The worth of this investment is eleven million tons. This is equivalent to one-third of China’s known copper deposits.

Thus, Beijing both guaranteed its future and has become a business partner of the Afghan government. Moreover, this was accomplished in a situation where the American backed Afghan government was struggling even to get a confidence vote.

Without doubt, the roots of asymmetric warfare go back to the twentieth century. According to the founders of the twentieth century science of geopolitics, Turkestan is the heart of the world. We observe that this is still valid, given the occupations that Afghanistan has experienced over the last forty years. We know that first the former superpower, the Soviet Union and then the other superpower of the Cold War and today’s only superpower, the United States saw the importance of occupying Afghanistan despite heavy casualties and loss of prestige.

The United States, despite the failure of its Afghanistan adventure with NATO, continues to value being present in this country and made the decision to send an additional 30,000 soldiers in the coming days. In the same manner, it requests additional fighting forces from other NATO members, including Muslim Turkey. This development shows that the United States, which wants to get out of the Iraqi quagmire, is determined to show a stronger presence in Afghanistan and it may even employ a new strategy. On the other hand, while the United States increases its military presence, under the framework of the new strategy, it wants to develop this country economically and socially with its allies and reduce the influence of radical religious groups on the Afghan nation.

Underground Strategy

As the world population rapidly increases and countries’ living standards rise, the demand for natural resources also increases accordingly. Especially China and India’s rapid increase in production and consumption has increased the demand for agricultural products and especially industrial natural resources. As a result this trend increases the price of various natural resources. The demand for resources such as oil, iron, zinc, nickel, chrome and especially copper, which industry sorely needs, has increased geometrically.

Thus, the largest unexploited copper deposit in the world is highly important to industry, and it is located in Afghanistan. This deposit is located eighty kilometers from Kabul in the Aynak region. It is estimated that the worth of 700 million ton reserves of this precious metal reserve is 80 billion dollars. Doubtlessly, this asset is a godsend and even a harbinger of rebirth for a nation as poor as Afghanistan.

However, copper is not Afghanistan’s only asset. It has coal fields in the Baghlan region, natural gas in Sheberghan, oil in Mezar-e Sharif and iron in Badakhshan and Sar-e-Pol. It is estimated that these regions have significant reserves. In addition, various parts of the country have lead, zinc, gold, silver, sulphur, beryl and asbestos deposits.

Moreover, it is said that iron deposit in Hajigak, located one hundred and thirty kilometers west of Kabul, is the largest and most important in Asia. However, only small amounts of it have been extracted. In other words, these important reserves have made no contribution to Afghanistan. Continuous wars for many years and occupations by foreign powers have forced the nation’s people into a struggle for survival. Since mining management requires investment and has not been put into action, large numbers of people turn to opium production, which provides secure, easy and serious income. On the other hand, difficult terrain and the difficulty of transport to production sites have prevented the exploitation of these resources for the benefit of the people and to provide employment.

For example, the iron reserves in Hajigak, approximately 1.5 billion high grade tons, are located at an altitude of 3,500 meters. Since there is no railroad network that could transport the excavated ore, the nation also lacks an iron-steel factory that could process it. Currently landlocked Afghanistan has no way to transport it to the world market.

Would Economy Solve the Problem?

The Obama administration claims that its military will withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. It is also known that this claim does not fit with the US’s political and strategic line. The US needs Afghanistan and the excuse of terrorism there to maintain its presence in Central Asia. In other words, a forward base like Afghanistan is indispensable to the United States’ strategy for controlling Russia on the Asian continent.

On the other hand, the sufferings of the Afghan nation are disturbing to world public opinion. For this reason, the US’s new Afghanistan strategy, while maintaining security to some extent, should provide the Afghan nation with economic opportunities surpass opium production. Thus, natural resources could become means for a US exit strategy. Management of natural resources, the construction of roads for transport to domestic and international markets could provide employment for hundreds of thousands of Afghans.

Consequently, the management project that’s been initiated for Hajigak’s iron fields is a significant step. It is argued that the steel factory planned for this region will provide employment to 80 thousand people. This also means billions of dollars of income for the country’s economy.

It is also known that steps have taken for the management of natural gas in Jowzjan and oil fields in Sar-e Pol and proposals are expected from foreign companies. Iron fields in Logar province have already begun to be managed by the Chinese.

But thousands of workers have already begun work under the protection of soldiers and guidance of Chinese engineers at the one of world’s important copper deposits, Aynak. Opening operations here means a new future for Afghanistan and its people.

Afghanistan’s government realistically evaluated this development opportunity and selected China from sixteen nations for the management rights of this mining field. They did so because China is the closest nation that can produce the machinery needed to run the mine, and because it has the highest demand for copper, you might say, it’s starving for copper. China also guaranteed the construction of a power plant, roads, housing, hospitals and schools, a three billion dollar investment, in accordance with the criteria set by Afghan government for the management of the field. This project is China’s biggest overseas investment, and while it reveals China’s efforts to acquire natural resources it underlines the significance and place of Afghanistan in this strategy.

Another plan, promoted by China in particular, for transporting Afghanistan’s natural resources to the open seas is the construction of a railroad that would run from Jeyretan on Uzbekistan’s border, to Kabul and extend east from there to Torkham on the Pakistani border. If this project were realized, it would be realize the stability and security in Afghanistan that American weapons were unable to provide.

Who knows, Volvos produced with Afghan steel and copper may one day cruise the streets of Kabul or Helmand.