The "Other Iraq" Opens a DC Lobbying Office
Source: O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), February 22, 2007
"The Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq has officially opened a D.C. lobbying office, which is headed by Qubad Talabany ," reports O'Dwyer's. "His goal is to mobilize grassroots support for Kurdish interests," including by establishing a Kurdish Congressional Caucus and a Kurdish-American business council. Talabany, the son of Iraq's president, will also "promote Kurdish educational and cultural links with the U.S." The regional government, through its public / private partnership the Kurdistan Development Corporation , previously launched "The Other Iraq ," a PR and ad campaign to encourage investment and tourism in the region. That campaign was led by the Republican-associated PR firm Russo Marsh & Rogers , as the Center for Media and Democracy and others noted. Back in 2004, the Kurdish Democratic Party hired the Barbour, Griffith and Rogers lobbying firm, "to ensure that Iraqi Kurdistan maintains its autonomy from Baghdad," according to O'Dwyer's.
********************************************************************************
Kurdistan gives Western Oil Sands approval for exploration
Jon Harding, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, March 03, 2007
Western Oil Sands Inc. can explore for oil in northern Iraq after the key agreement it worked out almost a year ago with the Kurdistan Regional Government was finally passed into law. Calgary-based Western said yesterday its wholly owned subsidiary, Western Zagros Ltd., was notified that its exploration and production sharing agreement has been ratified. The area of Kurdistan, in northern Iraq, that Western will scour for reserves covers 2,120 square kilometers and holds a number of high potential prospects, Western said. The company, whose primary asset is a 20% stake in the Athabasca Oil Sands Project, an oilsands mining joint-venture between Western, Shell Canada Ltd. and Chevron Corp., surprised shareholders last May when it announced its plan to look for oil in the war-torn nation. Western paid US$45-million for rights to explore a block in the Zagros Fold Belt of Kurdistan over four years.
© National Post 2007
***************************************************************************
Projects and Possibilities: Turkey's Future Role as a Transit Country for Central Asian and Caspian Natural Gas to the EU
2/28/2007 (Balkanalysis.com)
By Mehmet Efe Biresselioglu*
Nowadays, energy diplomacy is more crucial than ever for the EU. There is a strong need for a long-term EU common energy policy in order to enable the bloc to meet its future energy needs. Turkey is likely to play an important role in the EU?s energy strategy.
Energy has always occupied a central place in the thinking of the European Union, as it is one of the main reasons for the union?s existence. In 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was established in order to reconstruct the energy sector of the post-war era. Six years later, in 1957, the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was established.
The main problem, then as now, was the recognition of energy as a national priority rather than as a communal one. The sector could not enjoy the benefits of a common approach, as all too often it meant clashing with national interests, i.e., the sovereignty of the members of the community.
The situation regarding the energy sector and energy policies of the community remained untouched even at the time of the setup of a single market (1992). The main attempt by the European Commission thereafter came in 1999, when the energy and transport policies of the European Union were combined under one Commissioner.
The EU is still trying to set up a common energy policy today. Its objectives include security of energy supplies, the improvement of competitiveness of energy markets, and the protection of the environment. It is accepted by all members of the union that energy must be taken into account in foreign and security policy-making, as well as in the external trade policy-making of the EU, in order to achieve the future security of energy supply towards the EU.
Global Energy Trends and the European Union
In the 21st century, global energy trends are developing along different lines than in the previous century. The new global energy tendency is shifting from energy dependency towards energy independency. In this process, different aspects should be taken into account, such as alternative energy source, renewable energy and external supplies.
These global trends are not different for the European Union. It is faced with high oil and natural gas prices, increasing energy dependence and energy access uncertainties. Beside these, the European Union has its own energy problems. There is a unity problem inside the EU on energy policies. It is always difficult to reach a consensus when it comes to energy. Also, its high energy dependency on concentrated regions such as Russia, Middle East and North Africa; and problems of transportation from such frequently turbulent regions, are creating security challenges for energy supply. The European Union is therefore making a great effort in order solve all the problems that it is facing. It is establishing and supporting bilateral, multilateral and regional dialogues on energy security and supply.
The latest EU energy strategy is UA European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy ,? a separate document from the main EU Security Strategy, which is UA Secure Europe in a Better World ?, released in March 2006. It is clearly stated in this strategy that the EU has problems because of its energy dependency on Russia, Northern Africa and the Gulf.
European Import Dependency on Natural Gas
European Union members share 2 percent of the world?s proven gas reserves. Natural gas accounts for 25 percent of the EU?s total energy consumption, and the EU accounts for 17.4 percent of the world?s total natural gas consumption, according to the EIA?s European Union Analysis . The EU is a net importer of energy. It is importing more then 40 percent of its natural gas consumption and the commission expects this import dependency to rise from 40 to 55 percent by 2010, to 67 percent by 2020 and to 81 percent by 2030, according to the European Energy Outlook 2020 .
EU gas imports are usually coming from concentrated regions except Norway (an internal supplier of the EU). The other major suppliers are Russia, the Middle East and the North African countries.
a. Natural Gas Suppliers of the EU
Country : Volume
Russia: 131 bcm
Norway: 62.6 bcm
Algeria: 33.5 bcm
Libya : 0.5 bcm
b. Natural Gas Suppliers of the EU (in LNG form)
Country: Volume
Algeria: 18.80 bcm
Nigeria: 10.75 bcm
Middle East: 5.40 bcm
Source: World Energy Outlook 2005 by IEA
As we can understand from the tables above, most of the EU?s natural gas import is regional, via pipelines, with the exception of LNG exports. Russia is exporting more than 40 percent of the EU?s natural gas needs, while African countries supply around 18 percent. Half of the African gas is exported in LNG form, which is important for the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of Europe; however, they are strongly lacking in market in Central and Eastern Europe.
The most considerable amount of imported gas is of course from Russia. The EU?s natural gas dependency on Russia is very high and volatile. The bloc was faced with an unexpected situation in 2006 when Russia suddenly cut the supply and stopped exports destined for the EU through pipelines via Ukraine. Also, the gradual exhaustion of North Sea gas resources is pushing the EU to come up with new energy policies.
The Central Asian and Caspian Regions as Alternative Gas Suppliers to the EU
One of the major alternatives for Europe, garnering ever-increasing attention, are the Caspian and Central Asian producers. Yet the EU has no direct dialogues with these regions. The bloc maintains bilateral energy cooperation with Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. But the EU is lacking a region-wide policy and any arrangements towards this region, such as the ones it maintains with Arctic Region, ECSEE, Africa (Gulf of Guinea), the Balkans, North Europe, the Mediterranean and OPEC.
The Caspian and Central Asian regions should be taken into account in order to diversify the energy dependence of the EU. Yet as the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi ?Ceyhan Pipeline has brought Azeri oil to global markets, the world has started to pay more attention to the region. We can now see a bandwagon effect in action, for other alternative pipelines to carry natural gas and for other suppliers in the region, in addition to Azerbaijan, to integrate into the system and angle to use it.
c. Proven Reserves in The Caspian and Central Asian Region
Country: Proven Gas Reserves
Azerbaijan: 1550 bcm
Iran: 358 bcm
Kazakhstan: 1840 bcm
Russia: 3168 bcm
Turkmenistan: 2860 bcm
Uzbekistan: 1870 bcm
Source: BP
Kazakhstan?s, Turkmenistan?s and Uzbekistan?s situation is different than that of Azerbaijan. They are much more dependent on Russia because of their need to use Russian pipelines to export their natural gas. Although this is currently the only way for these three countries to export their natural gas stocks, these pipelines are not always reliable, as they are not modern and not protected against corrosion.
However, Russia is using their dependency in order to profit as much as it can. For example, while Russian gas which enters Ukraine is more or less $95 per tcm, at its start in Turkmenistan, the gas? price is only around 30-45$ per tcm.
Turkey?s Role as a Transit Route to the EU
There are three alternative projects which will allow the Caspian/Central Asian region to sell their natural gas towards EU via Turkey.
Tabriz-Erzurum Pipeline: activated in 2001, this pipeline carries Iranian natural gas to Turkey. It has a capacity of 20 bcm/y, but it is currently using only one-quarter of this capacity.
South Caucasus Pipeline: also known as the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline, this is a parallel natural gas pipeline to the BTC. It will carry Azeri natural gas to Turkey and can possibly be extended to Kazakhstan by building a pipeline between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.
Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline: the result of an agreement between Turkey and Turkmenistan for building a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan, Georgia and finally Turkey, the Trans-Caspian Pipeline will have a capacity of 20 bcm/y. However, Caspian maritime disputes over territorial waters are proving a challenge to this project. Currently, this project is suspended because of an agreement between Russia and Turkmenistan obliging the latter to not sell natural gas via any other way than Russia.
Turkey is expected to be a major conduit for Caspian and Central Asian natural gas towards EU because of its geographical location and Turkey?s possibility to become a third largest gas exporter to EU after all these projects will come to reality.
Turkey?s energy strategy was stated clearly by Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in the opening ceremony for the BTC pipeline. UTurkey?s energy strategy is devised on the basis of its national requirements and the world energy needs directed by global developments,? he said. UIn this context, we aim at making Turkey a transit country in the East-West and North-South axes, transforming the Ceyhan Terminal into an energy trade centre and following the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline, the realization of the Samsun-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum and the Trans-Caspian Natural Gas Pipeline projects.?
There are two main projects from Turkey towards the EU to carry Caspian and Central Asian Natural gas
Nabucco Pipeline Project: this will allow Turkey to export Caspian natural gas to Europe via the Balkans. As Turkey has signed an agreement with Azerbaijan to import gas with a reselling option, it is placing much importance on this project. It could be one of the two projects enabling Turkey to export natural gas to the EU, other than the South-European gas ring. This project, estimated to have a capacity of around 25-30 bcm/y, would send gas to European energy markets via the Balkans. It will have to be achieved through the cooperation of Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary and Romania.
South European Gas Ring Project: the 2003 signing of an intergovernmental agreement between Turkey and Greece, as well as a Sale and Purchase Contract between the relevant organs of the two countries (namely, BOTAS and DEPA), paved the way for an energy project expected to be completed during 2007, with future expansion to Italy possible. Recently, a deal was signed by DEPA and Edison for just such an expansion. This second part of the project will come on stream around 2011. The gas ring will allow Turkey to export natural gas towards Europe via Greece. Its starting capacity is 0.75 bcm/y, with a long term capacity of 11 bcm/y.
It should be noted that the Nabucco pipeline and South European Gas Ring project do not compete with one another. Both will help secure the energy diversification and independency of the European Union from Russia. Turkey?s role is crucial for European energy security through such energy diversification. As a transit country, Turkey is important for both sides of the east-west corridor, the connector route between the producer regions to the east and energy-hungry Europe. Because of its geographical position and larger geo-political trends, in the future Turkey has a good change to become one of the four suppliers of natural gas for the EU, along with Russia, Middle Eastern countries and North African ones, by exporting the natural gas of Caspian and Central Asian regions.
*Mehmet Efe Biresselioglu is a PhD candidate at IMT Lucca Institute for Advanced Studies, Italy. He has a degree in M.A in European Studies from Jean Monnet Center of Excellence at University of Turku, Finland. He specialized in Energy Politics, Geopolitics, Security Mechanisms, and Foreign Policies in the geographic focus of Turkey, EU, Central Eurasia, Caucasus, Caspian Sea Region and US. He is currently working on his dissertation about ?The Future of Oil and Natural Gas in Central Eurasia and Caucasia: Turkey?s Critical Role as a Major Conduit towards Europe?. Contact the author by email at: efe.biresselioglu@imtlucca.it
Manana Kochladze
Regional Coordinator for Caucasus
CEE Bankwatch Network
********************************************************
Kirkuk Referendum to Be Postponed for Two Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-1-2007 15:22:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The controversial referendum on the status of Kirkuk has been postponed for two years, according to reports in the Iraqi media.
The Azzaman newspaper reported that the poll, originally scheduled to be held in December of this year, was bumped back according to an agreement between Turkey and Iraq during last week's visit to Ankara by Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi.
Azzaman cited the Iraq News Agency (INA), an independent news agency controlled neither by the Americans nor by the Iraqi government, which cited Abdul Mahdi as source of its report.
Nevertheless, both officials at the Iraqi and US embassies in Ankara told Today's Zaman on Wednesday that they didn't have any such information, with Iraq's Ambassador Sabah Omran avoiding comment on the report. Turkish Foreign Ministry officials said they didn't have such information, either. The status of the oil-rich area of Kirkuk has been hotly contested from all sides, with Kurds claiming that it should become a part of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region, while Turkmens, Arabs and others demand that it remain governed by Iraq's central government.
Turkey insists that a referendum on the fate of the city, which is believed to sit atop 6 percent of the world's known oil resources, should be postponed because massive Kurdish influx into the city over the past years has changed the demographic structure of the city and would guarantee a favorable outcome for Kurds. The referendum is slated to take place at the end of 2007.
Ankara has recently raised the prospect of resorting to military means in the event of a Kurdish "fait accompli" on Kirkuk. The US and Iraqi administrations have so far been cool toward Turkey's demands, saying Kirkuk was a matter for Iraq. Iraqi Kurdish remarks claiming that the city belongs to Kurds has increased tension between Ankara and the Iraqi Kurdish groups.
On Tuesday Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül accused the head of the de facto autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, Massoud Barzani, of being "irrational" after he told a Turkish television station that regional countries should get used to the idea of Kurdish independence because Kurds, who live in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey, have a right to independence.
"Irrational leadership and ... dreaming in the Middle East have always plunged the peoples into trouble," Gül told journalists on a flight back home from Afghanistan, slamming Barzani's remarks as "either deliberate or an example of irresponsibility at a time when the region, and particularly Iraq, is passing through a critical period and when Turkey is following a constructive policy."
Barzani, in an interview with private NTV, also insisted on Kurdish claims over Kirkuk and said the disputed city was in the "heart of Kurdistan."
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also denounced Barzani's comments late on Monday, saying, "Kirkuk resembles a small Iraq and is not the registered property of any ethnic group."
"Such an attitude is very wrong with regards to Iraq's future. I believe such an attitude will overshadow peace, love and brotherhood in Iraq," he said.
If it proves to be true, the postponement will certainly anger Kurdish groups in the northern Iraq, who regard oil-rich Kirkuk as the only meaningful source of revenue that would help turn their autonomous zone into an independent country. Afraid of such an independence process, non-Kurdish communities in the province of Tameen, of which Kirkuk is the capital, had threatened to use all options including violence in order to not let Kirkuk slip away from the control of the central government in Baghdad. The Iraqi deal with Ankara to postpone the referendum is bound to allay Arab and Turkmen's fears, albeit temporarily, of an imminent Kurdish move to control the city.
Only days before Azzaman's report and days after Abdul Mahdi's visit to Turkey, Bahruz Galali, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan's (PUK) representative in Ankara, said in an interview that the Kirkuk referendum would likely to be held on schedule as he called those who say there is ethnic tension in the city "propagandists."
In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Galali was reminded of the fact that during Abdul Mahdi's talks in Ankara Erdogan asked him for a delay in the Kirkuk referendum.
"The Iraqi people decided through Article 140 [of the Iraqi Constitution] on Kirkuk. All Iraqis -- Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens. I think we will hold the referendum [on schedule], and we are not thinking about postponing it," Galali replied then.
When asked whether he believed that Arabs and Turkmens would be open to holding the referendum in December, Galali said: "I think [yes] because the majority of Turkmens need this. Saddam Hussein also displaced Turkmens from Kirkuk [as he did with Kurds], and the Turkmens need to be returned to their homes in Kirkuk. We have a constitution, and the constitution says we have a plan, an agenda [regarding Kirkuk]. This is not something on the side of Kurds alone. The Arabs, the Turkmens, the Kurds, the Assyrians, Christians -- everyone supported this [through the constitution]."
Moreover, he said that claims that there was an ongoing ethnic tension in Kirkuk were solely "propaganda."
***************************************************************** TURKISH JUSTICE MINISTER MUST ACT RESPONSIBLY AND WITH SERIOUSNESS
KURDISHINFO
In a press conference on the 1 May 2007 in Rome Italy, we, the lawyers of Mr Ocalan, revealed the laboratory test results done on hair samples of Mr Ocalan and declared findings of "chronic intoxication" to the public opinion.
After the press conference statements by both the Turkish Minister of Justice and the Attorney General were made. In these statements we find that the matter was handled insufficiently and not with the necessary seriousness. The classical statement that Mr Ocalan does not have any health problems and that health check-ups are done have no decree over the scientific results that we have announced. Such an explanation has been constantly made over the years and despite it the health problems of our client continue.
The Ministry of Justice is now face to face with the duty of seriously handling the matter and the results which were reached through up-to-date technology and care. The matter and their duties can not be handled or satisfied simply by ordering the Attorney General to investigate the matter. The Ministry of Justice must see the reality that Mr Ocalan is facing a chemical threat. Hence it should facilitate the arrival of an expert delegation formed by the relevant organisations, foremost the CPT. The Ministry should invite these relevant organisations itself since the restitution of the consequences of these test results shall not be possible.
This matter, before being handled politically, is above all a humanitarian and a juridical question. As his lawyers this is how we are handling the matter. As can be understood from our press statements what is fundamental now is to solve the matter not create tension. Our press statement has not left anyone under any accusations but has declared the results and the dangerous consequences. We as a result expect a similar serious and responsible approach from the government and especially from the Ministry of Justice.
Once again, without a further-a-do, we repeat our request that an international expert delegation immediately start investigations at the Imrali Island Prison and call on the Ministry of Justice to abandon efforts to cover up or distort the matter and act with responsibility.
Lawyers:
Mr Mario Angelelli
Mr Mahmut Sakar
Kurdish party warns Ocalan poisoning claims may spark violence
ANKARA, March 2, 2007 (AFP) - 11h41 - Turkey's Kurds may respond with violence if jailed rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan's life is really in danger, the country's main Kurdish party warned Friday following claims that Ocalan is being progressively poisoned in prison.
"If the allegations are true, it means that a planned murder is being consciously committed," Aysel Tugluk, deputy chairwoman of the Democratic Society Party (DTP), told reporters here.
"Ocalan wields influence over the Kurdish people," she said. "If something bad happens, those who sympathise with him will react... Turkey will be faced with very serious dangers."
Tugluk argued that "some people may be planning a Turkish-Kurdish (civil) war" and urged Ankara to allow an independent medical commission to examine Ocalan's health and the poisoning claims, made by Ocalan's lawyers at a press conference in Rome Thursday.
The lawyers said laboratory tests on hair samples from Ocalan, 58, indicated the presence of what they described as toxic metals, including levels of chromium seven times higher than normal and high levels of strontium.
Ocalan, who led a bloody separatist rebellion in southeast Turkey from 1984 until his capture in 1999, is experiencing breathing and skin problems as well as severe pain which is interrupting his sleep, they said.
The justice ministry ordered an investigation into the allegations, even though it played them down as an attempt to revive international interest in Ocalan.
In February last year, Italian lawyers of the rebel chieftain said he was in serious condition after suffering a heart attack. Turkey denied the claim.
Ocalan is the sole inmate on the prison island of Imrali in northwestern Turkey, where he is serving a life sentence for treason and separatism.
Council of Europe officials, who have several times visited Ocalan, have found his jail conditions satisfactory, but have urged Ankara to ease his isolation.
Ocalan's Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is listed as a terrorist group by Ankara and much of the international community, but to many among Turkey's sizeable Kurdish minority its militants are freedom fighters.
The PKK campaign for Kurdish self-rule in the southeast has resulted in more than 37,000 deaths.
************************************************************* Kurds issue warning over Ocalan 'poisoning'
Published: Saturday, 3 March, 2007, 09:09 AM Doha Time
ANKARA: Turkey's Kurds may respond with violence if jailed rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan's life is really in danger, the country's main Kurdish party warned yesterday following claims that Ocalan is being progressively poisoned in prison.
"If the allegations are true, it means that a planned murder is being consciously committed," Aysel Tugluk, deputy chairwoman of the Democratic Society Party (DTP), said here.
"Ocalan wields influence over the Kurdish people," she said. "If something bad happens, those who sympathise with him will react... Turkey will be faced with very serious dangers."
Tugluk argued that "some people may be planning a Turkish-Kurdish (civil) war" and urged Ankara to allow an independent medical commission to examine Ocalan's health and the poisoning claims, made by Ocalan's lawyers at a press conference in Rome on Thursday.
The lawyers said laboratory tests on hair samples from Ocalan, 58, indicated the presence of what they described as toxic metals, including levels of chromium seven times higher than normal and high levels of strontium.
Ocalan, who led a bloody separatist rebellion in southeast Turkey from 1984 until his capture in 1999, is experiencing breathing and skin problems as well as severe pain which is interrupting his sleep, they said.
The justice ministry ordered a probe into the allegations, even though it played them down as an attempt to revive international interest in Ocalan.
In February last year, Italian lawyers of the rebel chieftain said he was in serious condition after suffering a heart attack. Turkey denied the claim.
Ocalan is the sole inmate on the prison island of Imrali in northwestern Turkey, where he is serving a life sentence for treason and separatism.
Ocalan's Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is listed as a terrorist group by Ankara and much of the international community, but to many among Turkey's sizeable Kurdish minority its militants are freedom fighters. – AFP
Gulf Times Newspaper, 2007 ©
***************************************************************************
Deal for oil
Posted on Sat, Mar. 03, 2007
ACTUAL INSTANCES of progress in Iraq have been especially scarce of late, so it's worth noting the breakthrough made by Iraqis in negotiations this week: The three main ethnic groups have resolved, in a deal in the Iraqi Cabinet, how to divide the nation's oil revenues, by far its greatest source of potential wealth.
If approved by the parliament, this deal can resolve the biggest of economic disputes — the pivotal economic source of conflict in Iraq. In the Arab world or elsewhere, when one group endures poverty while another prospers, this can contribute to civil conflict.
The distribution of oil revenues is of particular import to Iraq's Sunni Arabs, since most of the oil fields are in predominantly Shiite or Kurdish areas. Sunnis feel overwhelmed by the Shiite majority's move into power, and this deal could alleviate fears that the majority will impoverish Saddam Hussein's former power base, out of revenge.
One of the main reasons Iraq needs a central government is to reach such deals between the factions, and then enforce them. If this government can put this plan into place, it will have shown the country that it can take on a major issue facing all Iraqis.
Will this deal make a short-term difference in the awful violence plaguing the country? That's unlikely. But this might be a major building block of a more stable Iraq in the longer term. That's something that all Americans, no matter their viewpoint on the war and its conduct by the United States, should hope to see.
*****************************************************************
The sun sets in the west
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
Posted on Saturday, March 3, 2007
Email this story | Printer-friendly version
The Brits are going home.
Forty thousand marched in beside the Americans. Only 7, 100 remain; 1, 600 will be heading home by Easter.
By August, the Danish force of 470 is to be withdrawn, as is the tiny Lithuanian unit. South Korea has 2, 200 troops in the Kurdish north. Though they rarely leave base, 1, 100 are to depart by August, the rest by year's end.
The Italians are gone. The Spanish pulled out after the Madrid bombings. Ukraine's 1, 600 have departed. The Japanese have gone. Declaring the war " unjust and wrong, " Slovakia's new prime minister just ordered home his country's contingent of 110 engineers.
Only the Americans are going deeper in.
In Afghanistan, Americans, and Brits, Canadians and Dutch fight, as Germans, French and Italians do " reconstruction. " In World War I, France, Italy and Germany lost four million men. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the three together have probably not lost 50.
Prime Minister Romano Prodi resigned Wednesday, when his plan to stay in Afghanistan and enlarge a U. S. base in Italy, lest refusal be seen as " a hostile act toward the U. S. A., " was rejected in the Senate.
Vice President Cheney hails Tony Blair's announced withdrawal of British troops as a sign of success. Yet, he says the Pelosi-Murtha plan to withdraw U. S. troops would only " validate the al-Qaida strategy. "
The White House says the British pullout is an affirmation of our partnership, but the Brits could have sent those 1, 600 to Baghdad or Anbar. They did not.
The Brits are leaving with mission unaccomplished. They are being shot at and mortared every day in Basra. Tribal and Shia militias have not been disarmed. The Sunni are being ethnically cleansed from the south. Militant Shia want the Brits gone, so they can take over.
The British people are bridling at the cost in blood and money of a war that destroyed Tony Blair, who is weeks away from resigning as prime minister. One British historian said at year's end he has never seen such levels of anti-Americanism in his country.
There is a larger meaning to all this and Americans must come to terms with it. NATO is packing it in as a world power. NATO is little more than a U. S. guarantee to pull Europe's chestnuts out of the fire if Europeans encounter a fight they cannot handle, like an insurgency in Bosnia or Kosovo. NATO has one breadwinner and 25 dependents.
At the end of the Cold War, internationalists like Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana declared, " NATO must go out of area or go out of business. " What Lugar meant was, with the Soviet threat lifted from Europe, NATO must shoulder more of the global burden.
But the Balkan crises of the 1990 s showed that Europeans are not even up to policing their own playground. The Americans had to come in, gently push them aside and do the job. The message Europe is today sending to America, with the withdrawals from Iraq and the refusal of Italy, Germany and France to fight in Afghanistan: " We are not going out of area again. If you Americans want to play empire, go right ahead. We will not again send our sons overseas to fight in regions of the world from which we withdrew half a century ago. You're on your own. "
Where does this leave NATO ? This leaves NATO as little more than a U. S. guarantee to go to war for the nations of Europe, while Europeans can be freeloading critics of U. S. policy around the world. NATO is an expensive proposition. We maintain dozens of bases and scores of thousands of troops from Norway to the Balkans, from Spain to the Baltic republics, from the Black Sea to the Irish Sea. What do we get for this ? Why do we tax ourselves to defend rich nations who refuse to defend themselves ? Is the security of Europe more important to us than to Europe ? In the early years of World Wars I and II, Europeans implored us to come save them from the Germans. We did. In the early Cold War, Europeans welcomed returning GIs who stood guard in the Fulda Gap. Now, with the threat gone, the gratitude is gone. Now, with their welfare states eating up their wealth, their peoples aging, their cities filling up with militant migrants, they want America to continue defending them, as
they sit in moral judgment on how we go about it. This isn't an alliance. This isn't a partnership. Time to split the blanket. If they won't defend themselves, let them, as weaker nations have done to stronger states down through the ages, pay tribute. Sixty years after World War II, 15 years after the Cold War, Europe's defense should become Europe's responsibility
