WASHINGTON - AJC’den bu gece saatlerinde yapılan yazılı açıklamada, Erdoğan’ın “Siz öldürmeyi iyi bilirsiniz” sözleriyle Nobel Barış Ödüllü İsrail Cumhurbaşkanı Şimon Perez’e sözlü saldırıda bulunduğunu belirtti. Hürriyet'in haberine göre AJC Başkanı David Harris yaptığı yazılı açıklamada, “Başbakan Erdoğan’ın Davos’taki öfke nöbeti, giderek artan Yahudi karşıtı hareketler karşısında yangına körükle gitmek oluyor” dedi.
Harris açıklamasında, “Erdoğan’ın bu haksız sözleri ve İsrail Başbakanı’na saygısızlığı İsrail’i eleştirmenin giderek daha da öldürücü bir hale geldiğinin yeni bir göstergesi olmuştur” diye ekledi.
Açıklamada Erdoğan’ın eski bir İsrail vatandaşı olan ve Yahudilikten ayrılan Gilad Atzmon’un yazdıklarını referans göstermesinden Komite’nin büyük bir şaşkınlık duyduğu belirtildi. Açıklamada Atzmon’un daha önce yazdığı yazılarda, “Yahudi devletinin insanlık tarihinin karşısındaki en büyük tehdit olduğunu” söylediğinin altı çizildi.
AJC, “Bu tarz saçmalıkları yazan bir yazarın, demokratik bir ülkenin başbakanı tarafından referans gösterildiği zaman, durup kendimize aklın nerede bittiğini, nefretin nerede başladığını sormamız gerekiyor” dedi.
Türkiye ile İsrail arasındaki ilişkilerin hayati önemde olduğunun ve bugüne kadar Amerikan Yahudilerinin desteğini aldığının vurgulandığı açıklamada, Türkiye’de Yahudi karşıtı hareketlerin arttığı bir dönemde İsrail’e dönük bu tarz ters yaklaşımlara karşı sessiz kalınamacayağı belirtildi.
ABD’deki güçlü Yahudi lobilerinden biri olan AJC, 2004 yılında Erdoğan’a cesaret madalyası vermişti. Erdoğan, bu madalyayı alan ilk Müslüman olmuştu. Geçtiğimiz hafta içerisinde aralarında AJC’nin de bulunduğu yahudi örgütleri, Erdoğan’a bir mektup yazarak Türkiye’deki artan Yahudi karşıtlığına yönelik önlemler almasını istemişti.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Öfkeyle kalkan
Fırtınanın yaklaştığı sabah saatlerinde belliydi aslında. Amerikan Associated
Press haber ajansı dün sabah saatlerinde ilginç bir haber verdi: “Türkiye, Obama’dan Ortadoğu terörizmini yeniden tanımlamasını istedi”. Haberde, Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan’ın şöyle dediği bildiriliyordu: “Başkan Obama Ortadoğu’da terör ve terörist örgütler tanımını yeniden yapmalı bu yeni tanım üzerinde Ortadoğu’da yeni bir siyaset izlemelidir”.
Ajans, Türk Başbakanı’nın bu sözlerle ABD tarafından terörist örgüt olarak tanımlanan Hamas ve Hizbullah örgütlerini kastediyor izlenimi verdiği yorumunu da Erdoğan’ın bu sözlerinden hemen sonra yazmıştı. Haber Anadolu Ajansı’nca verilmemişti.
Başbakan Erdoğan’ın yeni Basın Sözcüsü Kemal Öztürk’ü telefonla aradım. Başbakan’ın böyle bir söz sarf edip etmediğini sordum. Doğruladı; önceki akşam Davos’taki bir grup yabancı gazeteciyle olan toplantısında söylemişti. Toplantıya Türk gazeteci alınmamıştı. “Ama” dedi Öztürk, “Sayın Başbakan herhangi bir örgüt adı vermedi.”
Peki Başbakan eğer Hamas ve Hizbullah’ı kastetmemişse, ABD Başkanı Barack Obama’dan Ortadoğu’daki hangi örgütlerle ilgili terörist tanımını yeniden yapmasını istiyordu? Hamas’ın Filistin’de seçim kazanmış bir örgüt olmasına karşın terörist örgütler listesinde yer almasını Başbakan Erdoğan’ın kabul edemediği anlaşılıyordu. Öte yandan Dışişleri Bakanı Ali Babacan’ın Hamas’tan silahlı örgüt mü, siyasi hareket mi olmak arasında bir tercih yapmasını istediği de biliniyordu.
Acaba Erdoğan, henüz görüşmediği Obama’ya bu yönde bir çağrıda bulunurken Hamas’a da silah bırakma, ya da artık bir tercih yapma çağrısı olmuş muydu? Bu yönde de bir bilgi yoktu.
Belki de Erdoğan bu sözleriyle Obama’nın dikkatini çekmeyi ve Ortadoğu barış çabalarına mesela Hamas’ın dahil edilmesiyle sonuçlanmasını bekliyordu. Filistin sorununa Hamas’ı katmadan bir çözüm bulmak gerçekten zor görünüyordu.
Dün gece fırtına sonrasında deneyimli bir Türk diplomatın dediği gibi, “Başbakan son
günlerde bomba gibiydi, sonunda patladı”.
Gül ve Dışişleri toparlayabilecek mi?
Dışişleri Bakanlığı ve diğer devlet kurumlarının Erdoğan’ı sakinleştirme, fren yaptırma çabaları sonuçsuz kaldı.
Belki sinirlerini iyice geren uluslararası basının birkaç gündür İsrail Cumhurbaşkanı Şimon Perez’in yanı sıra, BM Genel Sekreteri Ban Ki Mun ve Arap Birliği Genel Sekreteri Amr Musa ile birlikte katılacağı panelin önemini vurguluyor olmasıydı. Belki de Perez’in yer yer Erdoğan’ı azarlar gibi konuşması ve sesini gerçekten her zamankinin de ötesinde yükseltmesiydi. Perez’in tutumu doğrusu kışkırtıcı sayılabilirdi. Böyleyse, amacına ulaştı. Erdoğan karşılık vermek isteyip oturumu yöneten gazeteci David Ignatius süre doldu deyince Erdoğan adeta zembereğinden boşanırcasına patladı.
Ne Perez’in yaşlılığı, suçluluk kompleksi kaldı ve en iyi bildiği şeyin öldürmek olduğu.
Sonra da ‘Davos benim için bitmiştir’ deyip kasırga gibi salonu terk etti.
Erdoğan’ın bu hareketi halkın bir kısmınca alkışlanabilir. Perez’in olay sonrasında alttan alması bir zafer gibi işlenebilir. 29 Mart seçimlerinde ona belki fazladan oy getirebilir. Arap sokaklarında posterleri daha çok taşınabilir. İsrail Cumhurbaşkanı’na haddini bildiren Türk lider olarak dünya diplomasi tarihine geçebilir.
Ama bu öfkeyle kalkışın sonu Türkiye için kârla mı oturuş olacak? Türkiye bundan böyle bölgedeki arabuluculuk faaliyetlerini nasıl yürütecek? Türkiye’nin en önemli özelliği İsrail’le de, Suriye ile de, İran’la da aynı anda konuşabiliyor olması değil miydi? Öte yandan İsrail’le ilişkilerin Türkiye açısından ABD, ile ilişkiler demek olduğunu bilmeyen var mı? İsraille iyi ilişkilerin aynı zamanda AB ile de iyi ilişkiler demek olduğu bilinmiyor mu?
Dün bu fırtına patlamadan önce görüştüğüm bir yabancı diplomat, Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerinin sözler dışında fazla yara almamış olduğuna dikkat çekiyor ve “Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül ertelediği geziyi birkaç ay içinde yapabilirse, durum toparlanır” diyordu. Gül ve Dışişleri
Bakanlığı toparlayabilecek mi?
Türk diplomasisi dün akşamdan sonra pek çok alanda sıfırdan başlamak zorunda kalabilir.
Press haber ajansı dün sabah saatlerinde ilginç bir haber verdi: “Türkiye, Obama’dan Ortadoğu terörizmini yeniden tanımlamasını istedi”. Haberde, Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan’ın şöyle dediği bildiriliyordu: “Başkan Obama Ortadoğu’da terör ve terörist örgütler tanımını yeniden yapmalı bu yeni tanım üzerinde Ortadoğu’da yeni bir siyaset izlemelidir”.
Ajans, Türk Başbakanı’nın bu sözlerle ABD tarafından terörist örgüt olarak tanımlanan Hamas ve Hizbullah örgütlerini kastediyor izlenimi verdiği yorumunu da Erdoğan’ın bu sözlerinden hemen sonra yazmıştı. Haber Anadolu Ajansı’nca verilmemişti.
Başbakan Erdoğan’ın yeni Basın Sözcüsü Kemal Öztürk’ü telefonla aradım. Başbakan’ın böyle bir söz sarf edip etmediğini sordum. Doğruladı; önceki akşam Davos’taki bir grup yabancı gazeteciyle olan toplantısında söylemişti. Toplantıya Türk gazeteci alınmamıştı. “Ama” dedi Öztürk, “Sayın Başbakan herhangi bir örgüt adı vermedi.”
Peki Başbakan eğer Hamas ve Hizbullah’ı kastetmemişse, ABD Başkanı Barack Obama’dan Ortadoğu’daki hangi örgütlerle ilgili terörist tanımını yeniden yapmasını istiyordu? Hamas’ın Filistin’de seçim kazanmış bir örgüt olmasına karşın terörist örgütler listesinde yer almasını Başbakan Erdoğan’ın kabul edemediği anlaşılıyordu. Öte yandan Dışişleri Bakanı Ali Babacan’ın Hamas’tan silahlı örgüt mü, siyasi hareket mi olmak arasında bir tercih yapmasını istediği de biliniyordu.
Acaba Erdoğan, henüz görüşmediği Obama’ya bu yönde bir çağrıda bulunurken Hamas’a da silah bırakma, ya da artık bir tercih yapma çağrısı olmuş muydu? Bu yönde de bir bilgi yoktu.
Belki de Erdoğan bu sözleriyle Obama’nın dikkatini çekmeyi ve Ortadoğu barış çabalarına mesela Hamas’ın dahil edilmesiyle sonuçlanmasını bekliyordu. Filistin sorununa Hamas’ı katmadan bir çözüm bulmak gerçekten zor görünüyordu.
Dün gece fırtına sonrasında deneyimli bir Türk diplomatın dediği gibi, “Başbakan son
günlerde bomba gibiydi, sonunda patladı”.
Gül ve Dışişleri toparlayabilecek mi?
Dışişleri Bakanlığı ve diğer devlet kurumlarının Erdoğan’ı sakinleştirme, fren yaptırma çabaları sonuçsuz kaldı.
Belki sinirlerini iyice geren uluslararası basının birkaç gündür İsrail Cumhurbaşkanı Şimon Perez’in yanı sıra, BM Genel Sekreteri Ban Ki Mun ve Arap Birliği Genel Sekreteri Amr Musa ile birlikte katılacağı panelin önemini vurguluyor olmasıydı. Belki de Perez’in yer yer Erdoğan’ı azarlar gibi konuşması ve sesini gerçekten her zamankinin de ötesinde yükseltmesiydi. Perez’in tutumu doğrusu kışkırtıcı sayılabilirdi. Böyleyse, amacına ulaştı. Erdoğan karşılık vermek isteyip oturumu yöneten gazeteci David Ignatius süre doldu deyince Erdoğan adeta zembereğinden boşanırcasına patladı.
Ne Perez’in yaşlılığı, suçluluk kompleksi kaldı ve en iyi bildiği şeyin öldürmek olduğu.
Sonra da ‘Davos benim için bitmiştir’ deyip kasırga gibi salonu terk etti.
Erdoğan’ın bu hareketi halkın bir kısmınca alkışlanabilir. Perez’in olay sonrasında alttan alması bir zafer gibi işlenebilir. 29 Mart seçimlerinde ona belki fazladan oy getirebilir. Arap sokaklarında posterleri daha çok taşınabilir. İsrail Cumhurbaşkanı’na haddini bildiren Türk lider olarak dünya diplomasi tarihine geçebilir.
Ama bu öfkeyle kalkışın sonu Türkiye için kârla mı oturuş olacak? Türkiye bundan böyle bölgedeki arabuluculuk faaliyetlerini nasıl yürütecek? Türkiye’nin en önemli özelliği İsrail’le de, Suriye ile de, İran’la da aynı anda konuşabiliyor olması değil miydi? Öte yandan İsrail’le ilişkilerin Türkiye açısından ABD, ile ilişkiler demek olduğunu bilmeyen var mı? İsraille iyi ilişkilerin aynı zamanda AB ile de iyi ilişkiler demek olduğu bilinmiyor mu?
Dün bu fırtına patlamadan önce görüştüğüm bir yabancı diplomat, Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerinin sözler dışında fazla yara almamış olduğuna dikkat çekiyor ve “Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül ertelediği geziyi birkaç ay içinde yapabilirse, durum toparlanır” diyordu. Gül ve Dışişleri
Bakanlığı toparlayabilecek mi?
Türk diplomasisi dün akşamdan sonra pek çok alanda sıfırdan başlamak zorunda kalabilir.
Erdogan storms out of Davos debate
By Richard Edgar and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in Davos
Published: January 29 2009 20:46 | Last updated: January 29 2009 20:46
The World Economic Forum in Davos was rocked by a diplomatic fracas on Thursday night as Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, stormed off the stage after an emotional debate with Shimon Peres, Israel’s president, in a session about Gaza and the case for Middle East peace.
Klaus Schwab, organiser of the Davos gathering, scrambled to reassert “the Davos spirit” after Mr Erdogan said he would never come back to the Swiss resort. The incident was one of the biggest upsets to an event dedicated to what he called “natural understanding” between nations.
Mr Erdogan, sitting beside Prof Schwab in a press conference, said that he had walked out because David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist chairing the session, had not allowed him to reply to comments about the conflict in Gaza by Mr Peres.
Mr Peres had spoken for 25 minutes, twice the time Mr Erdogan had spoken and five times the length of time participants had been given for their opening remarks, he said.
Mr Ignatius had reached out to tap Mr Erdogan on the shoulder as his speech overran, prompting the Turkish prime minister to push him away.
Mr Erdogan complained that Mr Peres had raised his voice and addressed him “in a manner not in line with…the spirit of Davos.”
“I have great respect for Peres and for his age,” he said, but what the Israeli leader had said about Gaza was “not true because history refutes it and political science too”. Mr Erdogan said at the press conference he would talk to Mr Schwab about whether to return, but a repeat of the moderation “would cast a shadow over efforts to reach peace.”
“I always yield when it is necessary but that does not mean I will always take the lower hand,” he said.
Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League and another participant in the debate, told the Financial Times the moderation had been “simply unfair”.
Israel has long regarded Turkey as its closest ally among Muslim states, and has traditionally enjoyed diplomatic, commercial and military ties with Ankara. When the current Israeli government started its latest peace initiative with Syria, which has since been frozen, Turkey acted as the principal mediator.
However, relations have taken a turn for the worse since Israel launched its offensive against the Gaza Strip in late December.
Published: January 29 2009 20:46 | Last updated: January 29 2009 20:46
The World Economic Forum in Davos was rocked by a diplomatic fracas on Thursday night as Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, stormed off the stage after an emotional debate with Shimon Peres, Israel’s president, in a session about Gaza and the case for Middle East peace.
Klaus Schwab, organiser of the Davos gathering, scrambled to reassert “the Davos spirit” after Mr Erdogan said he would never come back to the Swiss resort. The incident was one of the biggest upsets to an event dedicated to what he called “natural understanding” between nations.
Mr Erdogan, sitting beside Prof Schwab in a press conference, said that he had walked out because David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist chairing the session, had not allowed him to reply to comments about the conflict in Gaza by Mr Peres.
Mr Peres had spoken for 25 minutes, twice the time Mr Erdogan had spoken and five times the length of time participants had been given for their opening remarks, he said.
Mr Ignatius had reached out to tap Mr Erdogan on the shoulder as his speech overran, prompting the Turkish prime minister to push him away.
Mr Erdogan complained that Mr Peres had raised his voice and addressed him “in a manner not in line with…the spirit of Davos.”
“I have great respect for Peres and for his age,” he said, but what the Israeli leader had said about Gaza was “not true because history refutes it and political science too”. Mr Erdogan said at the press conference he would talk to Mr Schwab about whether to return, but a repeat of the moderation “would cast a shadow over efforts to reach peace.”
“I always yield when it is necessary but that does not mean I will always take the lower hand,” he said.
Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League and another participant in the debate, told the Financial Times the moderation had been “simply unfair”.
Israel has long regarded Turkey as its closest ally among Muslim states, and has traditionally enjoyed diplomatic, commercial and military ties with Ankara. When the current Israeli government started its latest peace initiative with Syria, which has since been frozen, Turkey acted as the principal mediator.
However, relations have taken a turn for the worse since Israel launched its offensive against the Gaza Strip in late December.
Turkish PM given hero's welcome
Turkey's PM has received a hero's welcome on his return to Istanbul after he stormed out of a debate about Gaza at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan had reacted angrily when he was refused the chance to respond to Israeli President Shimon Peres' defence of the operation
Thousands of people turned out in the city to greet Mr Erdogan's plane.
He told them Mr Peres' language and tone had been unacceptable, so he acted to stand up for Turkish honour.
"I only know that I have to protect the honour of Turkey and Turkish people," said Mr Erdogan.
"I am not a chief of a tribe. I am the prime minister of Turkey. I have to do what I have to do."
The BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul said there had been huge anger in Turkey at Israel's operation in Gaza and there now appears to be widespread support for Mr Erdogan's actions in Davos.
Huge crowds were waiting at Istanbul airport in the early hours of the morning, with many people waving Turkish and Palestinian flags.
Correspondents said the crowds were shouting "Turkey is with you," and that some were holding signs greeting Mr Erdogan as "a new world leader".
"In Davos, all the world witnessed what has not been happening for many years," said Istanbul resident Mustafa Mastar.
"This showed the power of Turks. It showed that Turks are standing on their feet in Europe, in the world."
"Tonight I was really proud. I feel really happy," said Mustafa Sahin, another person in the crowd.
'Matter closed'
During the debate on Thursday, Mr Erdogan had clashed with Mr Peres, whose voice had risen as he made an impassioned defence of Israel's actions, jabbing his finger.
Mr Erdogan said Mr Peres had spoken so loudly to conceal his "guilt".
He said many people had died in Gaza and he found it sad that anyone would applaud Mr Peres for defending Israel's actions.
He then accused the moderator of not allowing him to speak and said he did not think he would return to Davos.
The Turkish PM stressed later that he had left the debate not because of his disagreements with Mr Peres but because he had been given much less time to speak than the Israeli leader.
He said he respected Mr Peres but that "what he says is not true".
Turkey is one of the few Muslim countries to have dealings with Israel, but relations have been under strain since the Islamist-rooted AK Party was elected to power in 2002.
But Mr Erdogan stressed to the crowds in Istanbul that "our hard words are not directed towards the people of Israel, not directed at the Jews, but they are totally directed towards the government of Israel".
He said no decision on Turkish-Israeli relations would be made "driven by momentary anger on such issues".
More than 1,300 Palestinians and 14 Israelis were killed during the three-week conflict in Gaza, which began on 27 December.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan had reacted angrily when he was refused the chance to respond to Israeli President Shimon Peres' defence of the operation
Thousands of people turned out in the city to greet Mr Erdogan's plane.
He told them Mr Peres' language and tone had been unacceptable, so he acted to stand up for Turkish honour.
"I only know that I have to protect the honour of Turkey and Turkish people," said Mr Erdogan.
"I am not a chief of a tribe. I am the prime minister of Turkey. I have to do what I have to do."
The BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul said there had been huge anger in Turkey at Israel's operation in Gaza and there now appears to be widespread support for Mr Erdogan's actions in Davos.
Huge crowds were waiting at Istanbul airport in the early hours of the morning, with many people waving Turkish and Palestinian flags.
Correspondents said the crowds were shouting "Turkey is with you," and that some were holding signs greeting Mr Erdogan as "a new world leader".
"In Davos, all the world witnessed what has not been happening for many years," said Istanbul resident Mustafa Mastar.
"This showed the power of Turks. It showed that Turks are standing on their feet in Europe, in the world."
"Tonight I was really proud. I feel really happy," said Mustafa Sahin, another person in the crowd.
'Matter closed'
During the debate on Thursday, Mr Erdogan had clashed with Mr Peres, whose voice had risen as he made an impassioned defence of Israel's actions, jabbing his finger.
Mr Erdogan said Mr Peres had spoken so loudly to conceal his "guilt".
He said many people had died in Gaza and he found it sad that anyone would applaud Mr Peres for defending Israel's actions.
He then accused the moderator of not allowing him to speak and said he did not think he would return to Davos.
The Turkish PM stressed later that he had left the debate not because of his disagreements with Mr Peres but because he had been given much less time to speak than the Israeli leader.
He said he respected Mr Peres but that "what he says is not true".
Turkey is one of the few Muslim countries to have dealings with Israel, but relations have been under strain since the Islamist-rooted AK Party was elected to power in 2002.
But Mr Erdogan stressed to the crowds in Istanbul that "our hard words are not directed towards the people of Israel, not directed at the Jews, but they are totally directed towards the government of Israel".
He said no decision on Turkish-Israeli relations would be made "driven by momentary anger on such issues".
More than 1,300 Palestinians and 14 Israelis were killed during the three-week conflict in Gaza, which began on 27 December.
Leaders of Turkey and Israel Clash at Davos Panel
By KATRIN BENNHOLD
DAVOS, Switzerland — Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, vowing never to return to the annual gathering.
Mr. Erdogan apparently became incensed after the moderator curtailed his response to remarks by Mr. Peres on the recent Israeli military campaign. The panel was running late, and Mr. Peres was to have had the last word, participants said.
Panel discussions at Davos are restricted to one hour, but Mr. Erdogan insisted on responding to Mr. Peres. Red-faced, and with one hand grasping the arm of the moderator, the columnist David Ignatius of The Washington Post, Mr. Erdogan turned to the Israeli president.
“Mr. Peres, you are older than me,” he said. “Your voice comes out in a very high tone. And the high tone of your voice has to do with a guilty conscience. My voice, however, will not come out in the same tone.”
Resisting efforts by Mr. Ignatius to end the session, Mr. Erdogan continued, saying to Mr. Peres, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.”
Eventually, the prime minister gathered up his papers and departed, saying, “And so Davos is over for me from now on.”
Mr. Peres pointed at the departing Mr. Erdogan and said Turkey would have reacted the same way had rockets been falling on Istanbul, participants said.
Mr. Peres called Mr. Erdogan five minutes later to apologize for any misunderstanding, saying that his words had not been directed at the prime minister personally, the semiofficial Anatolian News Agency reported.
In a news conference immediately after the panel discussion, Mr. Erdogan said he was particularly upset with Mr. Ignatius, who he said had failed to direct a balanced and impartial panel.
By all accounts, the discussion of the Gaza offensive was lively, with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations and Amr Moussa, the Arab League’s secretary general, joining Mr. Peres and Mr. Erdogan. Participants said Mr. Peres was mostly alone in defending Israel’s role in Gaza, and for that reason he was given the final 25 minutes to speak. Earlier, Mr. Erdogan spoke for 12 minutes about the Palestinians’ sufferings.
Although Mr. Erdogan has strongly criticized Israel’s Gaza offensive, his country and Israel have long enjoyed close diplomatic relations. With its strong relations with the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza, Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party has played a growing role mediating among Israel, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.
DAVOS, Switzerland — Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, vowing never to return to the annual gathering.
Mr. Erdogan apparently became incensed after the moderator curtailed his response to remarks by Mr. Peres on the recent Israeli military campaign. The panel was running late, and Mr. Peres was to have had the last word, participants said.
Panel discussions at Davos are restricted to one hour, but Mr. Erdogan insisted on responding to Mr. Peres. Red-faced, and with one hand grasping the arm of the moderator, the columnist David Ignatius of The Washington Post, Mr. Erdogan turned to the Israeli president.
“Mr. Peres, you are older than me,” he said. “Your voice comes out in a very high tone. And the high tone of your voice has to do with a guilty conscience. My voice, however, will not come out in the same tone.”
Resisting efforts by Mr. Ignatius to end the session, Mr. Erdogan continued, saying to Mr. Peres, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.”
Eventually, the prime minister gathered up his papers and departed, saying, “And so Davos is over for me from now on.”
Mr. Peres pointed at the departing Mr. Erdogan and said Turkey would have reacted the same way had rockets been falling on Istanbul, participants said.
Mr. Peres called Mr. Erdogan five minutes later to apologize for any misunderstanding, saying that his words had not been directed at the prime minister personally, the semiofficial Anatolian News Agency reported.
In a news conference immediately after the panel discussion, Mr. Erdogan said he was particularly upset with Mr. Ignatius, who he said had failed to direct a balanced and impartial panel.
By all accounts, the discussion of the Gaza offensive was lively, with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations and Amr Moussa, the Arab League’s secretary general, joining Mr. Peres and Mr. Erdogan. Participants said Mr. Peres was mostly alone in defending Israel’s role in Gaza, and for that reason he was given the final 25 minutes to speak. Earlier, Mr. Erdogan spoke for 12 minutes about the Palestinians’ sufferings.
Although Mr. Erdogan has strongly criticized Israel’s Gaza offensive, his country and Israel have long enjoyed close diplomatic relations. With its strong relations with the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza, Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party has played a growing role mediating among Israel, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Eastern Europe
It’s grim out east. Emerging Europe’s unravelling economic situation this week prompted the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to downgrade its 2009 growth forecast for its 30 countries of operation from 2.5 per cent to 0.1 per cent. Five countries, it believes, will experience recessions; Ukraine and Latvia could contract by 5 per cent. Social unrest is surfacing in several capitals.
The risk is that better-off western Europeans abandon their eastern neighbours to their fate. Already Greece has cautioned its banks against transferring funds from a €28bn support package to Balkan subsidiaries because of fears of financial turmoil. Such disengagement would be a historic mistake. Certainly, many east European countries made errors, going on credit binges fuelled by foreign currency borrowing and running up yawning current account deficits. They are suffering now, however, in large part because of their integration with the international economy. Nowhere is integration greater than in financial services: large chunks of east Europe’s banks are owned by foreign groups.
That creates opportunities and risks. In spite of political rhetoric, funds from west European banking bail-outs are generally trickling through to eastern subsidiaries. But further moves such as Greece’s could threaten such flows. Providing support only via western banks’ subsidiaries is also insufficient and could lead to disparities, depending on what proportion of countries’ banking systems are foreign-owned, and whether the owners are, say, French, Italian or Austrian. Eastern Europe’s public authorities need access to more funding for systemic measures.
Several commercial banks operating in the region are calling for European institutions to extend the kind of financial initiatives undertaken in the west into eastern Europe, including countries outside the European Union. The European Commission and EBRD back that call. Unless rapid co-ordinated action follows, however, eastern Europe’s economic achievements of the past decade could be undermined. And that will only exacerbate the challenges faced farther west.
To e-mail
The risk is that better-off western Europeans abandon their eastern neighbours to their fate. Already Greece has cautioned its banks against transferring funds from a €28bn support package to Balkan subsidiaries because of fears of financial turmoil. Such disengagement would be a historic mistake. Certainly, many east European countries made errors, going on credit binges fuelled by foreign currency borrowing and running up yawning current account deficits. They are suffering now, however, in large part because of their integration with the international economy. Nowhere is integration greater than in financial services: large chunks of east Europe’s banks are owned by foreign groups.
That creates opportunities and risks. In spite of political rhetoric, funds from west European banking bail-outs are generally trickling through to eastern subsidiaries. But further moves such as Greece’s could threaten such flows. Providing support only via western banks’ subsidiaries is also insufficient and could lead to disparities, depending on what proportion of countries’ banking systems are foreign-owned, and whether the owners are, say, French, Italian or Austrian. Eastern Europe’s public authorities need access to more funding for systemic measures.
Several commercial banks operating in the region are calling for European institutions to extend the kind of financial initiatives undertaken in the west into eastern Europe, including countries outside the European Union. The European Commission and EBRD back that call. Unless rapid co-ordinated action follows, however, eastern Europe’s economic achievements of the past decade could be undermined. And that will only exacerbate the challenges faced farther west.
To e-mail
Disappointing launch for Turkey’s Islamic bonds
By Delphine Strauss in Ankara
Published: January 28 2009 17:07 | Last updated: January 28 2009 17:07
Turkey’s launch of bonds designed to appeal to Islamic investors fell flat on Wednesday, raising only a quarter of the 1.89bn Turkish lira ($1.16bn) the Treasury had hoped for.
Banks bought just TL420.7m ($260m) and $49.1m worth of the new revenue-linked bonds, which rely on income from state bodies such as the airports authority and Turkish Petroleum Corporation rather than on interest rates, the Treasury said.
Turkey’s ruling Justice & Development (AK) party, often accused by its opponents of having a religious agenda, prefers not to term the new instrument “sukuk”, though it is aimed at meeting Islamic rules forbidding interest payments.
But the government, which is seeking IMF help to close an external financing gap estimated at between $15bn and $30bn in 2009, is keen to diversify borrowing and tap new sources of foreign capital.
Wednesday’s sovereign issue was Turkey’s first suitable for Islamic investors since a brief venture in the 1990s, and the lacklustre reception is a setback to its efforts to win a bigger share of Gulf petrodollars.
It is not clear how many Gulf institutions participated, but domestic investors hold most of Turkey’s sovereign debt. Much of the interest may have come from Turkish “participation banks” – the term for those offering Islamic finance - unable to join in previous Treasury debt auctions.
Albaraka Turk, one of the bigger participation banks, said it had bought TL100m and $5m worth of the bonds. It had previously invested in sukuk bonds issued by Bahrain.
“This is a very illiquid product,” said Senay Ugur Ustay, at Ata Invest, adding many investors would be deterred by the lack of a secondary market.
She said most preferred short term instruments, while the new bonds have a maturity of more than 3 years. Banks could also be waiting until big government debt redemptions next month set a benchmark for prices.
Published: January 28 2009 17:07 | Last updated: January 28 2009 17:07
Turkey’s launch of bonds designed to appeal to Islamic investors fell flat on Wednesday, raising only a quarter of the 1.89bn Turkish lira ($1.16bn) the Treasury had hoped for.
Banks bought just TL420.7m ($260m) and $49.1m worth of the new revenue-linked bonds, which rely on income from state bodies such as the airports authority and Turkish Petroleum Corporation rather than on interest rates, the Treasury said.
Turkey’s ruling Justice & Development (AK) party, often accused by its opponents of having a religious agenda, prefers not to term the new instrument “sukuk”, though it is aimed at meeting Islamic rules forbidding interest payments.
But the government, which is seeking IMF help to close an external financing gap estimated at between $15bn and $30bn in 2009, is keen to diversify borrowing and tap new sources of foreign capital.
Wednesday’s sovereign issue was Turkey’s first suitable for Islamic investors since a brief venture in the 1990s, and the lacklustre reception is a setback to its efforts to win a bigger share of Gulf petrodollars.
It is not clear how many Gulf institutions participated, but domestic investors hold most of Turkey’s sovereign debt. Much of the interest may have come from Turkish “participation banks” – the term for those offering Islamic finance - unable to join in previous Treasury debt auctions.
Albaraka Turk, one of the bigger participation banks, said it had bought TL100m and $5m worth of the bonds. It had previously invested in sukuk bonds issued by Bahrain.
“This is a very illiquid product,” said Senay Ugur Ustay, at Ata Invest, adding many investors would be deterred by the lack of a secondary market.
She said most preferred short term instruments, while the new bonds have a maturity of more than 3 years. Banks could also be waiting until big government debt redemptions next month set a benchmark for prices.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Creeping degree recognition
DAMIAN MAC CON ULADH
LESS than a fortnight in office, recently-appointed Education Minister Aris Spiliotopoulos has been presented with a Greek court decision that indirectly undermines the essence of recent laws in the contentious private college sector.
In a decision announced on January 20, the Administrative Court of Athens found against the Hellenic National Academic Recognition and Information Centre (Doatap), the country's authority for validating foreign university degrees, because it had acted "illegally" in refusing to recognise the degrees of a registered "liberal arts institution" (KES) with institutional links to a prominent French university.
The college that took the action, the Institution d'Etudes Francophones (IdEF), is an affiliate of the University of Paris 13. According to the IdEF, which is based in Panormou, northern Athens, its students are enrolled at Paris 13 and "have the same student status and receive the same education" as their counterparts in France. As such, they are awarded the same degrees, it says.
The IdEF case, which the college initiated in 2005, rested on the argument that while Doatap has the right to deliberate on whether the actual course of study offered by such an institution is equivalent academically to those available at Greek state universities, it may not refer to the franchise nature of liberal arts colleges in doing so.
Face value
In other words, Doatap must deal with the face value of such degrees - in this case, degrees from Paris 13 - and not the institutional conditions under which they were awarded.
The Athens court ruled that it was immaterial whether some or all of the courses took place in Greece at a private institution or under the terms of a franchise agreement.
Finding that Doatap had damaged the college's reputation in "illegally" refusing to recognise the degrees of IdEF students, the court awarded the college 20,000 euros in compensation.
In making its decision, the court referred to a 1989 EU directive (89/48/EEC), the purpose of which is to make it easier for professionals in one EU member state to practise their profession in another, as well as articles 48 and 49 of the treaty establishing the European Community, which cover freedom of movement.
In ruling that the Greek state must also recognise the degrees issued by, and not just the professional qualifications earned through, franchises in Greece, this court decision goes a step further than a European Court of Justice (ECJ) verdict, passed last October, which referred only to the issue of recognising professional qualifications.
Focus on Doatap
As the issue of professional qualification recognition is in the remit of another official body, the Council Responsible for Recognising Professional Equivalence of Higher Education Qualifications (SAEITTE), the ruling moves the focus to the work of Doatap.
In finding that the franchise nature of the colleges may not be questioned, the decision also casts doubts on the legality of recent laws that the education ministry established to regulate the private college sector.
On January 20, the new minister refused to comment on when he plans to publish a presidential decree on the issue of professional qualification recognition. The decree, which will incorporate the recent ECJ ruling, was promised by this summer by his immediate predecessor, Evripidis Stylianidis.
On January 21, Spiliotopoulos emphasised that as this was a "first instance" ruling, there was "a long way to go before a final decision could be made".
However, sources within the ministry say that it plans to appeal the decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to talks falls on deaf ears
Education Minister Aris Spiliotopoulos' call to a new national dialogue on all aspects of the Greek education system, which he promised would take place on a "tabula rasa" (clean sheet), has met with a varied response from opposition parties.
In advance of a parliamentary debate on education, scheduled for January 23, main opposition Pasok launched its own white paper, which calls for "mass access to quality higher education" and radical changes to the secondary school system.
The parties of the left flatly rejected the call to talks. "The Communist Party [KKE] will not take part in any debate when a series of contrived laws has passed in recent years which has aggravated the educational system and the popular classes," said KKE leader Aleka Papariga.
Alekos Alavanos, parliamentary chairman of Syriza, said that "there was no tabula rasa, no clean sheet, just a page full of misspellings and scribble on the government's state education policies".
LESS than a fortnight in office, recently-appointed Education Minister Aris Spiliotopoulos has been presented with a Greek court decision that indirectly undermines the essence of recent laws in the contentious private college sector.
In a decision announced on January 20, the Administrative Court of Athens found against the Hellenic National Academic Recognition and Information Centre (Doatap), the country's authority for validating foreign university degrees, because it had acted "illegally" in refusing to recognise the degrees of a registered "liberal arts institution" (KES) with institutional links to a prominent French university.
The college that took the action, the Institution d'Etudes Francophones (IdEF), is an affiliate of the University of Paris 13. According to the IdEF, which is based in Panormou, northern Athens, its students are enrolled at Paris 13 and "have the same student status and receive the same education" as their counterparts in France. As such, they are awarded the same degrees, it says.
The IdEF case, which the college initiated in 2005, rested on the argument that while Doatap has the right to deliberate on whether the actual course of study offered by such an institution is equivalent academically to those available at Greek state universities, it may not refer to the franchise nature of liberal arts colleges in doing so.
Face value
In other words, Doatap must deal with the face value of such degrees - in this case, degrees from Paris 13 - and not the institutional conditions under which they were awarded.
The Athens court ruled that it was immaterial whether some or all of the courses took place in Greece at a private institution or under the terms of a franchise agreement.
Finding that Doatap had damaged the college's reputation in "illegally" refusing to recognise the degrees of IdEF students, the court awarded the college 20,000 euros in compensation.
In making its decision, the court referred to a 1989 EU directive (89/48/EEC), the purpose of which is to make it easier for professionals in one EU member state to practise their profession in another, as well as articles 48 and 49 of the treaty establishing the European Community, which cover freedom of movement.
In ruling that the Greek state must also recognise the degrees issued by, and not just the professional qualifications earned through, franchises in Greece, this court decision goes a step further than a European Court of Justice (ECJ) verdict, passed last October, which referred only to the issue of recognising professional qualifications.
Focus on Doatap
As the issue of professional qualification recognition is in the remit of another official body, the Council Responsible for Recognising Professional Equivalence of Higher Education Qualifications (SAEITTE), the ruling moves the focus to the work of Doatap.
In finding that the franchise nature of the colleges may not be questioned, the decision also casts doubts on the legality of recent laws that the education ministry established to regulate the private college sector.
On January 20, the new minister refused to comment on when he plans to publish a presidential decree on the issue of professional qualification recognition. The decree, which will incorporate the recent ECJ ruling, was promised by this summer by his immediate predecessor, Evripidis Stylianidis.
On January 21, Spiliotopoulos emphasised that as this was a "first instance" ruling, there was "a long way to go before a final decision could be made".
However, sources within the ministry say that it plans to appeal the decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to talks falls on deaf ears
Education Minister Aris Spiliotopoulos' call to a new national dialogue on all aspects of the Greek education system, which he promised would take place on a "tabula rasa" (clean sheet), has met with a varied response from opposition parties.
In advance of a parliamentary debate on education, scheduled for January 23, main opposition Pasok launched its own white paper, which calls for "mass access to quality higher education" and radical changes to the secondary school system.
The parties of the left flatly rejected the call to talks. "The Communist Party [KKE] will not take part in any debate when a series of contrived laws has passed in recent years which has aggravated the educational system and the popular classes," said KKE leader Aleka Papariga.
Alekos Alavanos, parliamentary chairman of Syriza, said that "there was no tabula rasa, no clean sheet, just a page full of misspellings and scribble on the government's state education policies".
Turkey Is Very Much Still a Western Ally
In response to Soner Cagaptay's Jan. 23-25 commentary, "Is Turkey Still a Western Ally?":
I wish to underline that Turkey is located at the crossroads of important regions such as the Balkans, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the rise of the AK (Justice and Development) Party in Turkish politics, Turkey began to re-engage with its immediate neighborhood and remedy an anomaly left over from the Cold War era. Turkey implemented a proactive neighborhood policy which resulted in a marked increase in our political dialogue and economic interaction with our neighbors.
Consequently, Turkey is in the process of reintegrating into its immediate environment. Mr. Cagaptay's interpretation of our neighborhood policy as evidence that Turkey is turning its back to the West is not only false but very misleading. The Turkish government is following a multidimensional foreign policy that engages with all vectors in our neighborhood. This is neither a choice nor a luxury.
Besides, Turkey's growing influence in its neighborhood has been very much welcomed by our European and American partners and has increased our strategic value to the West. Such Western appreciation became very evident during the Russian-Georgian war and the early days of the war in Gaza. Turkey's active diplomacy first addressed the humanitarian crises as well as helped facilitating a cease-fire in both cases.
We feel that it is simply absurd to question Turkey's Western credentials. Turkey began accession negotiations with the European Union under the AK Party's watch. Turkey continues to be a reliable partner in most Western initiatives. It twice held the ISAF Command in Afghanistan as a responsible NATO member and actively participated in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and elsewhere. Turkey has just begun to serve in the U.N. Security Council with the backing of 151 countries and is an important member of the G-20, which will shoulder new responsibilities in restructuring the global economic order.
In a world depressed by considerable security challenges, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan chose to be a founder of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, which urges moderation and mutual understanding between our great cultures. Turkey's relations with Russia, Iraq, Iran and Syria should be seen within the framework of our developing neighborhood policy and not as an alternative to Turkey's Western vocation. In fact, it is Turkey's Western vocation, functioning democracy and growing economy that make it an attractive partner and inspiration for many countries in our neighborhood.
Turkey's experience with Westernization has deep roots and goes beyond centuries of Ottoman Turkish interaction with Europe. Interpreting Turkey's regional policy outreach and deepening neighborhood strategy as a major shift in orientation is not only wrong but does great injustice to the sophistication and work we put behind playing a key role in helping ease the tensions in a troubled neighborhood. The Journal's readers deserve more accurate analysis on Turkey than that of Mr. Cagaptay.
Suat Kiniklioglu
Deputy Chairman of External Affairs for the AK Party
Spokesman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Turkish Parliament
Ankara, Turkey
I wish to underline that Turkey is located at the crossroads of important regions such as the Balkans, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the rise of the AK (Justice and Development) Party in Turkish politics, Turkey began to re-engage with its immediate neighborhood and remedy an anomaly left over from the Cold War era. Turkey implemented a proactive neighborhood policy which resulted in a marked increase in our political dialogue and economic interaction with our neighbors.
Consequently, Turkey is in the process of reintegrating into its immediate environment. Mr. Cagaptay's interpretation of our neighborhood policy as evidence that Turkey is turning its back to the West is not only false but very misleading. The Turkish government is following a multidimensional foreign policy that engages with all vectors in our neighborhood. This is neither a choice nor a luxury.
Besides, Turkey's growing influence in its neighborhood has been very much welcomed by our European and American partners and has increased our strategic value to the West. Such Western appreciation became very evident during the Russian-Georgian war and the early days of the war in Gaza. Turkey's active diplomacy first addressed the humanitarian crises as well as helped facilitating a cease-fire in both cases.
We feel that it is simply absurd to question Turkey's Western credentials. Turkey began accession negotiations with the European Union under the AK Party's watch. Turkey continues to be a reliable partner in most Western initiatives. It twice held the ISAF Command in Afghanistan as a responsible NATO member and actively participated in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and elsewhere. Turkey has just begun to serve in the U.N. Security Council with the backing of 151 countries and is an important member of the G-20, which will shoulder new responsibilities in restructuring the global economic order.
In a world depressed by considerable security challenges, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan chose to be a founder of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, which urges moderation and mutual understanding between our great cultures. Turkey's relations with Russia, Iraq, Iran and Syria should be seen within the framework of our developing neighborhood policy and not as an alternative to Turkey's Western vocation. In fact, it is Turkey's Western vocation, functioning democracy and growing economy that make it an attractive partner and inspiration for many countries in our neighborhood.
Turkey's experience with Westernization has deep roots and goes beyond centuries of Ottoman Turkish interaction with Europe. Interpreting Turkey's regional policy outreach and deepening neighborhood strategy as a major shift in orientation is not only wrong but does great injustice to the sophistication and work we put behind playing a key role in helping ease the tensions in a troubled neighborhood. The Journal's readers deserve more accurate analysis on Turkey than that of Mr. Cagaptay.
Suat Kiniklioglu
Deputy Chairman of External Affairs for the AK Party
Spokesman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Turkish Parliament
Ankara, Turkey
Hükümetin Hamas ayarı ve PKK etkeni
Önce şu haberi duyuralım. Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan İsrail’e Gazze saldırıları ile en şiddetli eleştirileri yağdırırken bile İsrail’le ilişkiler devam etti. Gazze’de ateş devam ederken üst düzey bir Türk heyeti İsrail’e gitti. Orada hem Cumhurbaşkanı Şimon Perez, hem de Başbakan Ehud Olmert ile görüştüler.
Görüşmelerde Başbakan Erdoğan’ın aslında ne demek istediğini anlattılar. Dün Radikal’de Dışişleri Bakanı Ali Babacan’ın sözleriyle okuduğunuz gibi, anti-Semitizmin amaçlanmadığı ama Gazze’de yapılanlara tepki gösterildiği anlatıldı. Perez zaten Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül ile telefonda görüşmüştü ve toz duman yatıştıktan sonra Türkiye ile stratejik projelerde ‘yola devam’ yanlısıydı. Olmert ise ‘Tamam ama üzerimize bu kadar gelmesin, hiç değilse tonu düşürse’ türünden konuştu. Bu konuşmalar anında Ankara’ya iletildi. O sırada Başbakanlık Başdanışmanı Profesör Ahmet Davutoğlu, Dışişleri Müsteşar Yardımcısı Feridun Sinirlioğlu ve Ortadoğu Masasının başındaki Ömer Önhon’un yürüttüğü mekik diplomasisi devam ediyordu.
Cumhurbaşkanı Gül’ün Mısır’ın Şarm Eş Şeyh’teki, Başakan Erdoğan’ın da Brüksel’deki temaslarının İsrail ve diğer ülkelerle temaslarla uyum içinde olması amaçlanıyordu.
Yine de Gül’ün Mısır’da ‘Mahmut Abbas yönetimini güçlendirelim’ derken, Erdoğan’ın AB yönetimine Hamas’ın kazandığı seçimden söz ederek ‘Seçim Mahmut Abbas’ı memnun etmek için yapılmadı ki’ demesi gibi bir trafik kazası yaşandı.
Hükümet İsrail’le yola devam ediyor etmesine. Örneğin Milli Savunma Bakanı Vecdi Gönül dün PKK ile mücadelede havadan elektronik istihbarat desteğinde kullanılan Heron marka insansız hava araçları projesinin devam etmekte olduğunu açıkladı. Ahmet Çalık’ın işletmesi üzerinde Başbakan’ın tercihi bulunan ve Başbakan’ın Rusya Başbakanı Vladimir Putin ve İtalya Başbakanı Silvio Berlusconi ile görüştüğü Karadeniz-Akdeniz-Kızıldeniz petrol boru hattı projesinin de iptal edildiği bilgisi yok.
Ancak kısa dönemde İsrail’le sorunlar beklendiğini yine dünkü Radikal’de Babacan’ın sözleriyle okudunuz. Yahudi kuruluşlarının hem İsrail’le Türkiye’nin ilişkilerinden, hem de Türkiye’deki Yahudi vatandaşlarn durumlarından ndişe eden mektuplarının dikkate alınıp üzerinde çalışıldığını da söyledi Babacan. Başbakan Yardımcısı Cemil Çiçek, önceki gün Bakanlar Kurulu’ndan boşuna çıkıp önde gelen Türk Yahudisi işadamlarının adını vererek ‘Tamam dedim de sor bakalım ne demek istedim’ kıvamında konuşmadı ki.
Hükümetin Gazze nedeniyle verdiği tepkinin tonunu ayarlama sürecinde olduğu apaçık görülüyor.
Buna yalnızca ABD’de 24 Nisan’a doğru yeniden Kongre’ye geleceğinden endişe edilen Ermeni soykırımı iddialarına ilişkin tasarı sebep değil. Dün Ankara kulislerinde IMF ile görüşmelere ara verilmesinin etkenlerinden birisinin de zaten krizde olan dünya mali sisteminde Türkiye’ye ilişkin doğan siyasi havanın payı olup olmadığı konuşuldu.
Hamas ile irtibatı, Türkiye’ye diplomaside fazladan bir koz verdi. Bu doğru. Ama kozu yerinde ve zamanında kullanmazsanız nasıl koz elinizde kalır ve oyunu almanıza engel olur, Hamas ile irtibatın doğru ve zamanında kullanılmaması da Hamas’ın sözcüsü gibi görünmenize neden olabilir.
Muhtemelen o eşik henüz aşılmadı. Babacan’ın ‘Hamas’ın yaptıklarını onaylayacak halimiz yok. Ancak Hamas’ı yok sayarak da barışı sağlamak mümkün değil’ sözlerini bu çerçevede bir siyaset ayarı ifadesi olarak okumak mümkün.
Bir de dün CHP lideri Deniz Baykal’ın Meclis grubundaki sözleri var. Baykal şunu söyledi: “Şimdi bir Hamas sözcülüğüne, savunmacılığına çıkmış gibi görülüyoruz. Bunun sounçları olur. Birileri de bize çıkıp PKK ile ilgili olarak bu anlayış doğrultusunda tavır takınmaya kalkarsa..” Baykal bu sözlerle hem Hamas’ın, hem PKK’nın AB ve ABD’nin terörist örgütler listesinde olduğunu hatırlatıyordu.
İsminin yazılmasını istemeyen üst düzey bir Dışişleri kaynağı ise bu konuda şunları söyledi: “Birincisi, bu konuda şimdiye dek temaslarımızda bize ima yoluyla dahi söylenmiş bir şey yok. İkincisi, çünkü herkes PKK ve Hamas’ın durumunun çok farklı olduğunu görüyor. Hamas’ın yaptıklarını savunmuyoruz, ama işgal altındaki Filistin toprakları ve oradaki uygulama söz konusu. Durum çok farklı.”
Türk Dışişleri’nin yakında bu farkı diplomatik zeminlerde de açıklamak zorunda kalmaması için de yapılıyor bu ayar biraz.
Görüşmelerde Başbakan Erdoğan’ın aslında ne demek istediğini anlattılar. Dün Radikal’de Dışişleri Bakanı Ali Babacan’ın sözleriyle okuduğunuz gibi, anti-Semitizmin amaçlanmadığı ama Gazze’de yapılanlara tepki gösterildiği anlatıldı. Perez zaten Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül ile telefonda görüşmüştü ve toz duman yatıştıktan sonra Türkiye ile stratejik projelerde ‘yola devam’ yanlısıydı. Olmert ise ‘Tamam ama üzerimize bu kadar gelmesin, hiç değilse tonu düşürse’ türünden konuştu. Bu konuşmalar anında Ankara’ya iletildi. O sırada Başbakanlık Başdanışmanı Profesör Ahmet Davutoğlu, Dışişleri Müsteşar Yardımcısı Feridun Sinirlioğlu ve Ortadoğu Masasının başındaki Ömer Önhon’un yürüttüğü mekik diplomasisi devam ediyordu.
Cumhurbaşkanı Gül’ün Mısır’ın Şarm Eş Şeyh’teki, Başakan Erdoğan’ın da Brüksel’deki temaslarının İsrail ve diğer ülkelerle temaslarla uyum içinde olması amaçlanıyordu.
Yine de Gül’ün Mısır’da ‘Mahmut Abbas yönetimini güçlendirelim’ derken, Erdoğan’ın AB yönetimine Hamas’ın kazandığı seçimden söz ederek ‘Seçim Mahmut Abbas’ı memnun etmek için yapılmadı ki’ demesi gibi bir trafik kazası yaşandı.
Hükümet İsrail’le yola devam ediyor etmesine. Örneğin Milli Savunma Bakanı Vecdi Gönül dün PKK ile mücadelede havadan elektronik istihbarat desteğinde kullanılan Heron marka insansız hava araçları projesinin devam etmekte olduğunu açıkladı. Ahmet Çalık’ın işletmesi üzerinde Başbakan’ın tercihi bulunan ve Başbakan’ın Rusya Başbakanı Vladimir Putin ve İtalya Başbakanı Silvio Berlusconi ile görüştüğü Karadeniz-Akdeniz-Kızıldeniz petrol boru hattı projesinin de iptal edildiği bilgisi yok.
Ancak kısa dönemde İsrail’le sorunlar beklendiğini yine dünkü Radikal’de Babacan’ın sözleriyle okudunuz. Yahudi kuruluşlarının hem İsrail’le Türkiye’nin ilişkilerinden, hem de Türkiye’deki Yahudi vatandaşlarn durumlarından ndişe eden mektuplarının dikkate alınıp üzerinde çalışıldığını da söyledi Babacan. Başbakan Yardımcısı Cemil Çiçek, önceki gün Bakanlar Kurulu’ndan boşuna çıkıp önde gelen Türk Yahudisi işadamlarının adını vererek ‘Tamam dedim de sor bakalım ne demek istedim’ kıvamında konuşmadı ki.
Hükümetin Gazze nedeniyle verdiği tepkinin tonunu ayarlama sürecinde olduğu apaçık görülüyor.
Buna yalnızca ABD’de 24 Nisan’a doğru yeniden Kongre’ye geleceğinden endişe edilen Ermeni soykırımı iddialarına ilişkin tasarı sebep değil. Dün Ankara kulislerinde IMF ile görüşmelere ara verilmesinin etkenlerinden birisinin de zaten krizde olan dünya mali sisteminde Türkiye’ye ilişkin doğan siyasi havanın payı olup olmadığı konuşuldu.
Hamas ile irtibatı, Türkiye’ye diplomaside fazladan bir koz verdi. Bu doğru. Ama kozu yerinde ve zamanında kullanmazsanız nasıl koz elinizde kalır ve oyunu almanıza engel olur, Hamas ile irtibatın doğru ve zamanında kullanılmaması da Hamas’ın sözcüsü gibi görünmenize neden olabilir.
Muhtemelen o eşik henüz aşılmadı. Babacan’ın ‘Hamas’ın yaptıklarını onaylayacak halimiz yok. Ancak Hamas’ı yok sayarak da barışı sağlamak mümkün değil’ sözlerini bu çerçevede bir siyaset ayarı ifadesi olarak okumak mümkün.
Bir de dün CHP lideri Deniz Baykal’ın Meclis grubundaki sözleri var. Baykal şunu söyledi: “Şimdi bir Hamas sözcülüğüne, savunmacılığına çıkmış gibi görülüyoruz. Bunun sounçları olur. Birileri de bize çıkıp PKK ile ilgili olarak bu anlayış doğrultusunda tavır takınmaya kalkarsa..” Baykal bu sözlerle hem Hamas’ın, hem PKK’nın AB ve ABD’nin terörist örgütler listesinde olduğunu hatırlatıyordu.
İsminin yazılmasını istemeyen üst düzey bir Dışişleri kaynağı ise bu konuda şunları söyledi: “Birincisi, bu konuda şimdiye dek temaslarımızda bize ima yoluyla dahi söylenmiş bir şey yok. İkincisi, çünkü herkes PKK ve Hamas’ın durumunun çok farklı olduğunu görüyor. Hamas’ın yaptıklarını savunmuyoruz, ama işgal altındaki Filistin toprakları ve oradaki uygulama söz konusu. Durum çok farklı.”
Türk Dışişleri’nin yakında bu farkı diplomatik zeminlerde de açıklamak zorunda kalmaması için de yapılıyor bu ayar biraz.
An Answer to the Russian Challenge
By Joschka Fischer - 14 Jan 09
For 19 years, the West has been putting off answering a critical strategic question: What role should post-Soviet Russia actually play globally and in the European order? Should it be treated as a difficult partner or a strategic adversary?
Even when this choice became critically acute during the crisis of Russia's short war against Georgia in August, the West didn't provide a conclusive answer to this question. If you follow most East Europeans, Britain and the administration of President George W. Bush, the answer is "strategic adversary." But most West Europeans prefer "difficult partner." These seemingly mutually exclusive alternatives have one thing in common: Neither of them has been thought through to the end.
If you see Moscow -- with its restoration of power politics under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to the detriment of the rule of law in domestic and foreign policy -- as a strategic adversary, then the West should fundamentally change its agenda.
While Russia is no longer the superpower it was in the Soviet era, militarily it is still a great power -- at least in Europe and Asia. To address the numerous regional conflicts (Iran, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia and North Korea) and global challenges (climate protection, disarmament, arms control, nuclear anti-proliferation, energy security) that have high priority on the Western agenda, cooperation with Moscow is necessary.
A strategic confrontation with Moscow would undermine this agenda -- or at least complicate its implementation significantly. So the question is simply whether the threat emanating from Russia is so grave that this kind of strategic reorientation on the part of the West is required? I believe it is not.
Putin's claim to great-power status and his great-power policies are structurally very vulnerable. This is especially true at times when the price of oil has fallen below $40 per barrel. And he knows that.
Because of its geopolitical position and its potential, however, Russia will remain a permanent strategic factor in Europe and Asia that cannot be ignored. To integrate the country into a strategic partnership is therefore in the West's interest. But this would require a Western policy based on long-term thinking and a self-confident and strong power position, because the Kremlin will perceive any sign of division and weakness as encouragement to return to power politics.
A few months ago, the Russian government came up with a proposal to negotiate a new European order within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Kremlin considers the agreements from the 1990s unjust, based as they were on its weakness at the time, and it wants to revise them. Moscow's main strategic objective is the weakening or even rollback of NATO on the grounds that it is essentially an anti-Russian military alliance and the re-establishment of its East European and Central Asian zones of influence.
But Putin is making a big mistake here, because all these aims are unacceptable for the West, and the Kremlin still doesn't seem to understand that the best and most effective guarantee of NATO's existence was, is and will continue to be an aggressive Russian foreign policy.
In the former mother country of Marxism-Leninism, the leaders still don't seem to understand dialectics. After all, if the Kremlin really wanted to achieve a change in the country's post-Soviet status quo, it should, first and foremost, pursue a policy vis-a-vis its neighbors that reduces rather than increases fears.
But this applies similarly, if in reverse, to the West. On the one hand, the principles of a new Europe as defined by the OSCE after 1989 and 1990 don't allow decisions about alliances to be subject to the veto of a large neighbor. The same is true for free and secret elections and the inviolability of borders.
On the other hand, installing elements of a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the prospect of NATO accession for Georgia and Ukraine assume confrontation where this was not at all necessary.
The West should not reject Moscow's wish for new negotiations on a European security system. Instead, it should be viewed as an opportunity finally to answer the key question of its place within Europe.
NATO must play the central role here, because it is indispensable for the vast majority of Europeans and for America. The possible trade-off could be that the existing principles and institutions of the post-Soviet European order, including NATO, remain unchanged and are accepted and implemented by Russia, which would get a significantly enhanced role within NATO, including the perspective of full membership. The peripheral nature of the NATO-Russia Council was clearly not enough and did not work.
But why not think about transforming NATO into a real European security system, including Russia? The rules of the game would be changed and a whole variety of strategic goals could be achieved -- European security, neighborhood conflicts, energy security, arms reduction and anti-proliferation. Yes, such a bold step would transform NATO. But it would transform Russia even more.
If the West approaches these discussions with Russia without illusions, with a clear understanding of its own strategic interests and with new ideas for partnership and cooperation, the worst to be feared is failure.
Of course, this approach presupposes two things that don't exist at the moment: a common trans-Atlantic approach to dealing with Russia and a European Union that acts in much greater unison and is therefore stronger. Nonetheless, the challenge posed by Russia does not allow any further procrastination. There is simply too much at stake.
For 19 years, the West has been putting off answering a critical strategic question: What role should post-Soviet Russia actually play globally and in the European order? Should it be treated as a difficult partner or a strategic adversary?
Even when this choice became critically acute during the crisis of Russia's short war against Georgia in August, the West didn't provide a conclusive answer to this question. If you follow most East Europeans, Britain and the administration of President George W. Bush, the answer is "strategic adversary." But most West Europeans prefer "difficult partner." These seemingly mutually exclusive alternatives have one thing in common: Neither of them has been thought through to the end.
If you see Moscow -- with its restoration of power politics under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to the detriment of the rule of law in domestic and foreign policy -- as a strategic adversary, then the West should fundamentally change its agenda.
While Russia is no longer the superpower it was in the Soviet era, militarily it is still a great power -- at least in Europe and Asia. To address the numerous regional conflicts (Iran, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia and North Korea) and global challenges (climate protection, disarmament, arms control, nuclear anti-proliferation, energy security) that have high priority on the Western agenda, cooperation with Moscow is necessary.
A strategic confrontation with Moscow would undermine this agenda -- or at least complicate its implementation significantly. So the question is simply whether the threat emanating from Russia is so grave that this kind of strategic reorientation on the part of the West is required? I believe it is not.
Putin's claim to great-power status and his great-power policies are structurally very vulnerable. This is especially true at times when the price of oil has fallen below $40 per barrel. And he knows that.
Because of its geopolitical position and its potential, however, Russia will remain a permanent strategic factor in Europe and Asia that cannot be ignored. To integrate the country into a strategic partnership is therefore in the West's interest. But this would require a Western policy based on long-term thinking and a self-confident and strong power position, because the Kremlin will perceive any sign of division and weakness as encouragement to return to power politics.
A few months ago, the Russian government came up with a proposal to negotiate a new European order within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Kremlin considers the agreements from the 1990s unjust, based as they were on its weakness at the time, and it wants to revise them. Moscow's main strategic objective is the weakening or even rollback of NATO on the grounds that it is essentially an anti-Russian military alliance and the re-establishment of its East European and Central Asian zones of influence.
But Putin is making a big mistake here, because all these aims are unacceptable for the West, and the Kremlin still doesn't seem to understand that the best and most effective guarantee of NATO's existence was, is and will continue to be an aggressive Russian foreign policy.
In the former mother country of Marxism-Leninism, the leaders still don't seem to understand dialectics. After all, if the Kremlin really wanted to achieve a change in the country's post-Soviet status quo, it should, first and foremost, pursue a policy vis-a-vis its neighbors that reduces rather than increases fears.
But this applies similarly, if in reverse, to the West. On the one hand, the principles of a new Europe as defined by the OSCE after 1989 and 1990 don't allow decisions about alliances to be subject to the veto of a large neighbor. The same is true for free and secret elections and the inviolability of borders.
On the other hand, installing elements of a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the prospect of NATO accession for Georgia and Ukraine assume confrontation where this was not at all necessary.
The West should not reject Moscow's wish for new negotiations on a European security system. Instead, it should be viewed as an opportunity finally to answer the key question of its place within Europe.
NATO must play the central role here, because it is indispensable for the vast majority of Europeans and for America. The possible trade-off could be that the existing principles and institutions of the post-Soviet European order, including NATO, remain unchanged and are accepted and implemented by Russia, which would get a significantly enhanced role within NATO, including the perspective of full membership. The peripheral nature of the NATO-Russia Council was clearly not enough and did not work.
But why not think about transforming NATO into a real European security system, including Russia? The rules of the game would be changed and a whole variety of strategic goals could be achieved -- European security, neighborhood conflicts, energy security, arms reduction and anti-proliferation. Yes, such a bold step would transform NATO. But it would transform Russia even more.
If the West approaches these discussions with Russia without illusions, with a clear understanding of its own strategic interests and with new ideas for partnership and cooperation, the worst to be feared is failure.
Of course, this approach presupposes two things that don't exist at the moment: a common trans-Atlantic approach to dealing with Russia and a European Union that acts in much greater unison and is therefore stronger. Nonetheless, the challenge posed by Russia does not allow any further procrastination. There is simply too much at stake.
Why the Czechs must ratify the Lisbon Treaty
By Ulrike Guérot - 13 Jan 09
The Czech Republic began its EU Presidency term two weeks ago, and already it has had to engage in a complex and crucial diplomatic situation - the gas crisis. Now the Czech Republic must pass the base test to prove it is serious about the EU and gain the respect of Members States.
Ireland and the Czech Republic are the only countries that have not yet ratified the Lisbon Treaty (in Germany and Poland the respective President still has to formally sign off). This is the Treaty that defines tomorrow's EU and lays down its fundamental institutional arrangements. It is through the Lisbon Treaty that most of the goals that the Czechs have fixed as priorities for their EU-presidency can be dealt with more efficiently - enlargement policies, a bolder neighborhood policy, climate strategies with a meatier role for the EU Commission, and the reshaping and strengthening of transatlantic relations after Obama's election through enhancing Europe's military capabilities (something the US is in favour of). To put it bluntly: With the Lisbon Treaty, the Czech Presidency comes closer to its own success. There is no point in Europe pushing the Irish if the Presidency itself lags behind.
Unfortunately, Prague has defaulted on genuine discussion concerning ratification of the Treaty. The Czech government announced in late December, after the Constitutional Court ruled the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the Czech Constitution, that Parliament would approve ratification. But there has been no noise since. The reason for this is internal politics. October regional elections returned a difficult outcome for the running conservative ODS-party. Rumors say that Prague may engage in new elections once the EU-Presidency is over. President Vaclav Klaus is a difficult political hurdle to overcome for any serious discussions about the Lisbon Treaty in Prague as he campaigns so openly against Europe.
This is more than a shame. There will be no solid and convincing the Czech Presidency if it does not succeed in getting its ambitions for Europe right. After Slovenia, the Czech Republic is the second country from the East running an EU Presidency. This is important for the political culture of the EU after enlargement. Success is vital. Here is the chance for the Czech Republic to show-case itself as a highly efficient compromise-producer and solution-finder for Europe - but only if it can overcome its own Lisbon crisis and to bring Ireland back to the European path.
A solution to the ratification crisis in Spring 2009 is necessary as Europe is to undergo EP elections in June. It will be very difficult to organize the administration of these elections if it not clear which treaty - Nice or Lisbon - these elections should take place under. More importantly, it is impossible to expect interest and participation from European citizens if politicians in all countries and on all levels are not decided on which Treaty path Europe is to take.
The world is turmoil - the financial crisis, Iran, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestine-conflict. Europe must speak with one bold, strong and influential voice on the world's international scene when shaping global economic and political solutions to these and any other emerging problems.
To do this the EU needs the Lisbon Treaty. For this reason the Czech Presidency will be judged on how it promotes the Lisbon Treaty - so at the very least the Czech Republic must ratify it. The Czechs will have no moral authority to run the EU if they are only half-hearted committed to it.
The Czech Republic began its EU Presidency term two weeks ago, and already it has had to engage in a complex and crucial diplomatic situation - the gas crisis. Now the Czech Republic must pass the base test to prove it is serious about the EU and gain the respect of Members States.
Ireland and the Czech Republic are the only countries that have not yet ratified the Lisbon Treaty (in Germany and Poland the respective President still has to formally sign off). This is the Treaty that defines tomorrow's EU and lays down its fundamental institutional arrangements. It is through the Lisbon Treaty that most of the goals that the Czechs have fixed as priorities for their EU-presidency can be dealt with more efficiently - enlargement policies, a bolder neighborhood policy, climate strategies with a meatier role for the EU Commission, and the reshaping and strengthening of transatlantic relations after Obama's election through enhancing Europe's military capabilities (something the US is in favour of). To put it bluntly: With the Lisbon Treaty, the Czech Presidency comes closer to its own success. There is no point in Europe pushing the Irish if the Presidency itself lags behind.
Unfortunately, Prague has defaulted on genuine discussion concerning ratification of the Treaty. The Czech government announced in late December, after the Constitutional Court ruled the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the Czech Constitution, that Parliament would approve ratification. But there has been no noise since. The reason for this is internal politics. October regional elections returned a difficult outcome for the running conservative ODS-party. Rumors say that Prague may engage in new elections once the EU-Presidency is over. President Vaclav Klaus is a difficult political hurdle to overcome for any serious discussions about the Lisbon Treaty in Prague as he campaigns so openly against Europe.
This is more than a shame. There will be no solid and convincing the Czech Presidency if it does not succeed in getting its ambitions for Europe right. After Slovenia, the Czech Republic is the second country from the East running an EU Presidency. This is important for the political culture of the EU after enlargement. Success is vital. Here is the chance for the Czech Republic to show-case itself as a highly efficient compromise-producer and solution-finder for Europe - but only if it can overcome its own Lisbon crisis and to bring Ireland back to the European path.
A solution to the ratification crisis in Spring 2009 is necessary as Europe is to undergo EP elections in June. It will be very difficult to organize the administration of these elections if it not clear which treaty - Nice or Lisbon - these elections should take place under. More importantly, it is impossible to expect interest and participation from European citizens if politicians in all countries and on all levels are not decided on which Treaty path Europe is to take.
The world is turmoil - the financial crisis, Iran, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestine-conflict. Europe must speak with one bold, strong and influential voice on the world's international scene when shaping global economic and political solutions to these and any other emerging problems.
To do this the EU needs the Lisbon Treaty. For this reason the Czech Presidency will be judged on how it promotes the Lisbon Treaty - so at the very least the Czech Republic must ratify it. The Czechs will have no moral authority to run the EU if they are only half-hearted committed to it.
'Thirteen Days' of the gas crisis: lessons in the East
By Vessela Tcherneva - 20 Jan 09
"Sir, I am prepared to wait for your answer till Hell freezes over, if that's your decision," says the US Ambassador to the UN to his Russian counterpart in the movie 'Thirteen Days'. The film is set during the Cuban Crisis, the height of the Cold War. The temperature today in Eastern Europe created by the current Russian-Ukrainian gas war comes close - even physically - to the diplomatic frost depicted in the film. In Bulgaria - like in the rest of Europe - the Russian gas still does not flow, but we have already started counting the lessons we've learned in the past 13 days.
The first lesson sounds almost trivial today, but it was a rather extreme, politically driven statement a week ago: No bilateral solutions are good solutions, no matter how privileged a country's bilateral relations with Russia might seem. The Bulgarian government relied happily on its agreement with Gazprom and was totally unprepared for the crisis. Unlike Hungary, who after the first crisis in 2006 started building an expensive storage facility, or Latvia, who decided to pay above the market price for gas in order to keep Russia off their back, Bulgaria - almost entirely dependent on Russian gas - expected both lower gas prices and security of the deliveries from Gazprom.
"We scored a Grand Slam", announced Bulgarian president Parvanov exactly a year ago at the signing ceremony of the South Stream project with then-President Putin. The victorious tone was triggered by the Bulgarian government's belief that it had pressured Gazprom to concede 50% of the local company created to operate South Stream. But the current crisis demonstrated that gas security means both diversification of the transit routes and of the sources. With South Stream diversifying only the route but not the source (Russia), the government should have also attempted connections to other networks such as the Turkish-Greek-Italian pipe or to the LNG terminal in Thessaloniki.
The second lesson of the gas saga reads short: No intermediaries. The surprising fact that all Gazprom's delivery contracts with other national gas companies go through intermediaries became clearly visible through the crisis. As with Ukraine, the mediating companies in Eastern Europe are the other name of a corruption opportunity that can include high-ranking government officials. In the Bulgarian case the intermediaries do not have sufficient capitalization to answer possible damage claims from Bulgargas, the state-owned gas company. And it is doubtful whether they would, in turn, raise claims against Gazprom, the head company.
Now for the third lesson: Even the Russophile Bulgarians can easily turn to Russo-skeptics, if not Russophobes, within days. For the last decade, European polls have pictured the Bulgarian public opinion as the most Russia friendly (fluctuating in the margin 66-68% support for Russia). Even though the country's policies did not qualify it quite as a Russian ‘Trojan horse', it was often regarded as Moscow's trusted partner. But the past 13 days seem to have changed public attitude. Latest polls show that the crisis has worsened the public opinion towards Russia. A poll by Market Links agency taken 12-14 January shows that 49% of the respondents share negative attitude toward Russia due to the gas crisis, with only 32% having a positive attitude. Bulgarians now realize that relying on Russian gas - and compassion - is a tricky game. The Bulgarian economy has halved its gas consumption in the last week, and some factories have shut down. According to official data from the Ministry of Economy and Energy, the economic losses to date exceed 50million euro, and the gas reserves will only last for another week.
The early hours of 13 January gave hope that the gas would flow soon following the interventions from the European Commission and the Czech EU presidency. The fourth lesson arrived soon thereafter: the EU did not act decisively and was not considered an actor to be taken seriously by Russians and Ukrainians. At the outset of the crisis the Czech Presidency declared that it was a bilateral trade dispute and thus weakened the EU's chances to put political pressure on the parties involved. The big member states in the West did not intervene for the first two weeks - neither politically nor through the big companies like E.On, Gaz de France or ENI, who are close partners of Gazprom. The lack of even a verbal reaction by the leaders of Germany, France or Italy sent a bad signal - and it was heard by Prime Minister Putin. He summoned the leaders of the countries who have suffered the most from the crisis - Bulgaria, Slovakia and Moldova. Filling the vacuum of decisive international actors, Putin appeared almost as a referee in the dispute trying to help those in need.
The gas crisis was the EU's chance to show leadership in its Eastern fringe, and it has failed so far: according to the poll quoted above, the public attitude towards the EU has experienced a decline of 20%. Bulgarians, Slovaks and others realized that the gas problem was perceived as much more Eastern Europe's than a concern of the rest of the EU. Solidarity remained an empty word during the last 13 days - they left behind the impression that the new members are not worth being defended in times of trouble, that they are second-class club members.
Mid-term steps in setting minimum standards for gas security in the new EU member states, as well as political intervention for a long-term solution to the problems that originate in Gazprom, would be adequate measures to overcome the EU's credibility crisis in the East. The EU should alter its Gas Security Directive (2004) and make it compulsory for the new member states to keep their reserves at certain standards, while offering them financial support to build the necessary infrastructure. And, in more general terms, having a common European position on the relations with Russia and the Neighborhood will be helpful for countries that due to their geographical proximity risk turning into a collateral damage.
To use another quote from Thirteen Days: "[Aid] You're in a pretty bad fix, Mr. President. [President] Maybe you've forgotten, but you're in it with me."
Email this Page
Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version
"Sir, I am prepared to wait for your answer till Hell freezes over, if that's your decision," says the US Ambassador to the UN to his Russian counterpart in the movie 'Thirteen Days'. The film is set during the Cuban Crisis, the height of the Cold War. The temperature today in Eastern Europe created by the current Russian-Ukrainian gas war comes close - even physically - to the diplomatic frost depicted in the film. In Bulgaria - like in the rest of Europe - the Russian gas still does not flow, but we have already started counting the lessons we've learned in the past 13 days.
The first lesson sounds almost trivial today, but it was a rather extreme, politically driven statement a week ago: No bilateral solutions are good solutions, no matter how privileged a country's bilateral relations with Russia might seem. The Bulgarian government relied happily on its agreement with Gazprom and was totally unprepared for the crisis. Unlike Hungary, who after the first crisis in 2006 started building an expensive storage facility, or Latvia, who decided to pay above the market price for gas in order to keep Russia off their back, Bulgaria - almost entirely dependent on Russian gas - expected both lower gas prices and security of the deliveries from Gazprom.
"We scored a Grand Slam", announced Bulgarian president Parvanov exactly a year ago at the signing ceremony of the South Stream project with then-President Putin. The victorious tone was triggered by the Bulgarian government's belief that it had pressured Gazprom to concede 50% of the local company created to operate South Stream. But the current crisis demonstrated that gas security means both diversification of the transit routes and of the sources. With South Stream diversifying only the route but not the source (Russia), the government should have also attempted connections to other networks such as the Turkish-Greek-Italian pipe or to the LNG terminal in Thessaloniki.
The second lesson of the gas saga reads short: No intermediaries. The surprising fact that all Gazprom's delivery contracts with other national gas companies go through intermediaries became clearly visible through the crisis. As with Ukraine, the mediating companies in Eastern Europe are the other name of a corruption opportunity that can include high-ranking government officials. In the Bulgarian case the intermediaries do not have sufficient capitalization to answer possible damage claims from Bulgargas, the state-owned gas company. And it is doubtful whether they would, in turn, raise claims against Gazprom, the head company.
Now for the third lesson: Even the Russophile Bulgarians can easily turn to Russo-skeptics, if not Russophobes, within days. For the last decade, European polls have pictured the Bulgarian public opinion as the most Russia friendly (fluctuating in the margin 66-68% support for Russia). Even though the country's policies did not qualify it quite as a Russian ‘Trojan horse', it was often regarded as Moscow's trusted partner. But the past 13 days seem to have changed public attitude. Latest polls show that the crisis has worsened the public opinion towards Russia. A poll by Market Links agency taken 12-14 January shows that 49% of the respondents share negative attitude toward Russia due to the gas crisis, with only 32% having a positive attitude. Bulgarians now realize that relying on Russian gas - and compassion - is a tricky game. The Bulgarian economy has halved its gas consumption in the last week, and some factories have shut down. According to official data from the Ministry of Economy and Energy, the economic losses to date exceed 50million euro, and the gas reserves will only last for another week.
The early hours of 13 January gave hope that the gas would flow soon following the interventions from the European Commission and the Czech EU presidency. The fourth lesson arrived soon thereafter: the EU did not act decisively and was not considered an actor to be taken seriously by Russians and Ukrainians. At the outset of the crisis the Czech Presidency declared that it was a bilateral trade dispute and thus weakened the EU's chances to put political pressure on the parties involved. The big member states in the West did not intervene for the first two weeks - neither politically nor through the big companies like E.On, Gaz de France or ENI, who are close partners of Gazprom. The lack of even a verbal reaction by the leaders of Germany, France or Italy sent a bad signal - and it was heard by Prime Minister Putin. He summoned the leaders of the countries who have suffered the most from the crisis - Bulgaria, Slovakia and Moldova. Filling the vacuum of decisive international actors, Putin appeared almost as a referee in the dispute trying to help those in need.
The gas crisis was the EU's chance to show leadership in its Eastern fringe, and it has failed so far: according to the poll quoted above, the public attitude towards the EU has experienced a decline of 20%. Bulgarians, Slovaks and others realized that the gas problem was perceived as much more Eastern Europe's than a concern of the rest of the EU. Solidarity remained an empty word during the last 13 days - they left behind the impression that the new members are not worth being defended in times of trouble, that they are second-class club members.
Mid-term steps in setting minimum standards for gas security in the new EU member states, as well as political intervention for a long-term solution to the problems that originate in Gazprom, would be adequate measures to overcome the EU's credibility crisis in the East. The EU should alter its Gas Security Directive (2004) and make it compulsory for the new member states to keep their reserves at certain standards, while offering them financial support to build the necessary infrastructure. And, in more general terms, having a common European position on the relations with Russia and the Neighborhood will be helpful for countries that due to their geographical proximity risk turning into a collateral damage.
To use another quote from Thirteen Days: "[Aid] You're in a pretty bad fix, Mr. President. [President] Maybe you've forgotten, but you're in it with me."
Email this Page
Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version
EU pipeline scheme gains momentum
Central and southern European leaders have voiced strong backing for a major pipeline project that could reduce EU reliance on Russia for gas.
But the talks in the Hungarian capital Budapest did not result in a pledge of direct financing for the 3,300km (2,050-mile) Nabucco gas pipeline.
Nabucco would bring Central Asian gas to western Europe via Turkey and the Balkans, bypassing Russia.
It is expected to account for no more than 5% of EU gas needs.
The Budapest meeting followed serious disruption to European gas supplies during Russia's recent dispute with Ukraine.
Russian energy muscle
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, insisted that Nabucco "is not an anti-Russian project".
Russia's plans for two alternative pipelines bypassing Ukraine - Nord Stream and South Stream - are well advanced.
Mr Topolanek said the Russian pipelines would "maintain the EU's high energy dependency on Russia" and called them "a direct threat to the Nabucco project".
Work is scheduled to start on Nabucco in 2011, with the first gas deliveries expected in 2014.
The major sources of gas for Nabucco are expected to be Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
But Mr Topolanek said "we should also ask ourselves whether we are capable of reaching an agreement with Iran on gas supplies for Nabucco".
The EU said it could not go beyond offering loans and credit guarantees for the pipeline, which is expected to cost about 10bn euros (£9bn; $12bn). It is planned to supply up to 31bn cubic metres of gas annually.
EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, quoted by Reuters news agency, said the commission would avoid a bigger commitment to Nabucco "because then it's not anymore the consortium's project but a public-private partnership and I'm not ready at this stage to even consider such a type of option".
The consortium is led by Austria's OMV, and includes MOL of Hungary, Romania's Transgaz, Bulgargaz, Turkey's Botas and RWE of Germany.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development says it is ready to consider contributing to the project.
When complete, Nabucco will extend from an Austrian hub at Baumgarten to Turkey's eastern borders with Iran and Georgia.
But the talks in the Hungarian capital Budapest did not result in a pledge of direct financing for the 3,300km (2,050-mile) Nabucco gas pipeline.
Nabucco would bring Central Asian gas to western Europe via Turkey and the Balkans, bypassing Russia.
It is expected to account for no more than 5% of EU gas needs.
The Budapest meeting followed serious disruption to European gas supplies during Russia's recent dispute with Ukraine.
Russian energy muscle
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, insisted that Nabucco "is not an anti-Russian project".
Russia's plans for two alternative pipelines bypassing Ukraine - Nord Stream and South Stream - are well advanced.
Mr Topolanek said the Russian pipelines would "maintain the EU's high energy dependency on Russia" and called them "a direct threat to the Nabucco project".
Work is scheduled to start on Nabucco in 2011, with the first gas deliveries expected in 2014.
The major sources of gas for Nabucco are expected to be Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
But Mr Topolanek said "we should also ask ourselves whether we are capable of reaching an agreement with Iran on gas supplies for Nabucco".
The EU said it could not go beyond offering loans and credit guarantees for the pipeline, which is expected to cost about 10bn euros (£9bn; $12bn). It is planned to supply up to 31bn cubic metres of gas annually.
EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, quoted by Reuters news agency, said the commission would avoid a bigger commitment to Nabucco "because then it's not anymore the consortium's project but a public-private partnership and I'm not ready at this stage to even consider such a type of option".
The consortium is led by Austria's OMV, and includes MOL of Hungary, Romania's Transgaz, Bulgargaz, Turkey's Botas and RWE of Germany.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development says it is ready to consider contributing to the project.
When complete, Nabucco will extend from an Austrian hub at Baumgarten to Turkey's eastern borders with Iran and Georgia.
Turkey to renew IMF talks on financial package
By Delphine Strauss in Ankara
Published: January 27 2009 12:53 | Last updated: January 27 2009 12:53
Turkey will continue talks to secure a new financing package from the International Monetary Fund after a ten day break, prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday after an IMF mission left Ankara without reaching an agreement.
Disagreements over fiscal reform, despite progress on other areas, caused the talks to stall, according to statements issued by the Fund and Treasury on Monday evening after more than two weeks of intense negotiations.
The inconclusive pause came as a surprise after hints from Turkey’s central bank governor that an agreement was imminent. Investors had expected concrete news before Mr Erdogan and Mehmet Simsek, treasury minister, left to attend the World Economic Forum at Davos .
Yarkin Cebeci, an economist at JPMorgan, said the delay suggested there were still big differences, or a need “for some more political commitment from Mr Erdogan.”
Despite growing impatience among investors, Turkey’s ruling AKP party has only inched towards a new IMF deal since its last $10bn stand-by programme expired in May, reluctant to accept constraints on spending in the run-up to local elections.
But the government now concedes Turkey faces a financing gap of up to $30bn in 2009, and will need to sign a stand-by arrangement giving upfront access to IMF funds. At the start of the year, it announced spending cuts designed to meet IMF concerns, though some further reductions would be required to secure a deal.
Analysts said the remaining differences, over “medium term structural fiscal reform” in the IMF’s wording, probably centred on fiscal rules and public sector reform.
Nurhan Toguc, analyst at Ata Invest, added the IMF would be unwilling to finance some planned tax cuts, restructuring of tax arrears and agricultural subsidies, and could have questions over three months of aggressive central bank rate cuts.
Mr Erdogan said he would meet John Lipsky, IMF deputy managing director, in Davos this week before talks resumed. But the halt increases the risk of a deal being postponed until after local elections in late March.
“Short-term political consideration seems to have a major impact on the economic decisions taken by the AKP government,” said Wolfango Piccoli, at Eurasia group, attacking policymakers for “complacency and a risky sense of over-confidence.”
Economists say Turkey’s economy may have contracted as much as 5 per cent in the last quarter of 2008, judging by big falls in industrial production and capacity utilisation. The ratings agency Moody’s forecasts it will contract 0.8 per cent in 2009.
Published: January 27 2009 12:53 | Last updated: January 27 2009 12:53
Turkey will continue talks to secure a new financing package from the International Monetary Fund after a ten day break, prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday after an IMF mission left Ankara without reaching an agreement.
Disagreements over fiscal reform, despite progress on other areas, caused the talks to stall, according to statements issued by the Fund and Treasury on Monday evening after more than two weeks of intense negotiations.
The inconclusive pause came as a surprise after hints from Turkey’s central bank governor that an agreement was imminent. Investors had expected concrete news before Mr Erdogan and Mehmet Simsek, treasury minister, left to attend the World Economic Forum at Davos .
Yarkin Cebeci, an economist at JPMorgan, said the delay suggested there were still big differences, or a need “for some more political commitment from Mr Erdogan.”
Despite growing impatience among investors, Turkey’s ruling AKP party has only inched towards a new IMF deal since its last $10bn stand-by programme expired in May, reluctant to accept constraints on spending in the run-up to local elections.
But the government now concedes Turkey faces a financing gap of up to $30bn in 2009, and will need to sign a stand-by arrangement giving upfront access to IMF funds. At the start of the year, it announced spending cuts designed to meet IMF concerns, though some further reductions would be required to secure a deal.
Analysts said the remaining differences, over “medium term structural fiscal reform” in the IMF’s wording, probably centred on fiscal rules and public sector reform.
Nurhan Toguc, analyst at Ata Invest, added the IMF would be unwilling to finance some planned tax cuts, restructuring of tax arrears and agricultural subsidies, and could have questions over three months of aggressive central bank rate cuts.
Mr Erdogan said he would meet John Lipsky, IMF deputy managing director, in Davos this week before talks resumed. But the halt increases the risk of a deal being postponed until after local elections in late March.
“Short-term political consideration seems to have a major impact on the economic decisions taken by the AKP government,” said Wolfango Piccoli, at Eurasia group, attacking policymakers for “complacency and a risky sense of over-confidence.”
Economists say Turkey’s economy may have contracted as much as 5 per cent in the last quarter of 2008, judging by big falls in industrial production and capacity utilisation. The ratings agency Moody’s forecasts it will contract 0.8 per cent in 2009.
Gas crisis has to power EU reforms
The European Union has rightly put top priority on trying to secure an early end to the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute that has left millions of EU citizens short of fuel.
It must now put the same effort into implementing much-discussed energy reforms to limit the risks of a future supply shock again threatening the health and even the lives of its people.
The crisis must serve as a catalyst for persuading the 27 members to stand by the vulnerable countries of central and eastern Europe, where dependence on Russian gas runs up to 100 per cent.
This is not a matter of charity. The large EU countries which have put their trust in bilateral gas deals with Russia – notably Germany, France and Italy – have seen that if a supply shock is big enough they too will be hurt. Italy is among the countries suffering shortages, despite the cosy ties between Rome and Moscow. A bit more solidarity will make everybody more secure.
First, the union must redouble efforts to expand cross-border gas and electricity links so the energy-rich can support the energy-poor. While costs are an issue, the real obstacle is the reluctance of utilities to invest in adequate cross-border inter-connectors for fear of losing market share.
Next, the union must diversify gas sources. Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled monopoly, has 25 per cent of the EU market, with 80 per cent of its gas coming through one episodically unstable country, Ukraine. With North Sea reserves shrinking, the EU must increase links with north Africa, the Middle East and the Caspian, including the proposed Caspian-EU Nabucco route. With new pipelines taking years to complete, the EU must also invest more in liquefied natural gas terminals. Private companies should be encouraged to raise the funds but if public money is needed it must be forthcoming: energy security is a vital public good.
Third, the current crisis should be an excellent argument for accelerating investment in renewable and nuclear energy.
Fourth, the EU must seize the opportunity to boost energy saving, particularly in eastern Europe, where the equivalent of billions of cubic metres of gas is wasted every year in energy-inefficient homes, offices and factories.
With the world’s biggest gas reserves, Russia will be an essential element in the EU energy market for years to come. EU importers have no choice about continuing to co-operate with Gazprom. But they equally have no choice about mitigating the risks that co-operating with Gazprom involves.
It must now put the same effort into implementing much-discussed energy reforms to limit the risks of a future supply shock again threatening the health and even the lives of its people.
The crisis must serve as a catalyst for persuading the 27 members to stand by the vulnerable countries of central and eastern Europe, where dependence on Russian gas runs up to 100 per cent.
This is not a matter of charity. The large EU countries which have put their trust in bilateral gas deals with Russia – notably Germany, France and Italy – have seen that if a supply shock is big enough they too will be hurt. Italy is among the countries suffering shortages, despite the cosy ties between Rome and Moscow. A bit more solidarity will make everybody more secure.
First, the union must redouble efforts to expand cross-border gas and electricity links so the energy-rich can support the energy-poor. While costs are an issue, the real obstacle is the reluctance of utilities to invest in adequate cross-border inter-connectors for fear of losing market share.
Next, the union must diversify gas sources. Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled monopoly, has 25 per cent of the EU market, with 80 per cent of its gas coming through one episodically unstable country, Ukraine. With North Sea reserves shrinking, the EU must increase links with north Africa, the Middle East and the Caspian, including the proposed Caspian-EU Nabucco route. With new pipelines taking years to complete, the EU must also invest more in liquefied natural gas terminals. Private companies should be encouraged to raise the funds but if public money is needed it must be forthcoming: energy security is a vital public good.
Third, the current crisis should be an excellent argument for accelerating investment in renewable and nuclear energy.
Fourth, the EU must seize the opportunity to boost energy saving, particularly in eastern Europe, where the equivalent of billions of cubic metres of gas is wasted every year in energy-inefficient homes, offices and factories.
With the world’s biggest gas reserves, Russia will be an essential element in the EU energy market for years to come. EU importers have no choice about continuing to co-operate with Gazprom. But they equally have no choice about mitigating the risks that co-operating with Gazprom involves.
Brussels plans €250m boost for pipeline
By Joshua Chaffin in Brussels and Ed Crooks and Thomas Escritt in Budapest
Published: January 27 2009 20:36 | Last updated: January 27 2009 20:36
The European Commission is planning to invest €250m ($330m, £233m) in Nabucco, the pipeline project that would bring gas from the Caspian region.
The sum would cover just 3 per cent of the expected cost, but would provide a capital base for further lending. It is one of the first signs of European Union action to diversify energy supplies following a Russia-Ukraine gas dispute that left thousands of people without power in the dead of winter.
The proposed EU funding for Nabucco is part of a €5bn stimulus package the commission will unveil on Thursday to use unspent funds for a variety of infrastructure projects.
Nabucco, a 3,300km route from eastern Turkey to Austria, would transport Caspian gas to western Europe, thereby reducing EU dependence on Russian gas – 80 per cent of which is transported via Ukraine.
Zsolt Hernadi, chairman of Mol, the Hungarian oil and gas company that is a member of the Nabucco consortium, said the dispute between Russia and Ukraine had transformed the debate over the project, which has made frustratingly slow progress since first being proposed in 2002.
“Three months ago, if there were a delay, nobody cared too much. Now it is totally different,” he said.
The European Investment Bank, the EU’s finance arm, on Tuesday said it was prepared to finance up to 25 per cent of Nabucco’s cost – which could mean a commitment of more than €2bn.
However, speaking at a summit in Budapest of countries involved in Nabucco, Philippe Maystadt, the EIB’s president, warned that the project needed political agreement before it could raise any money.
Andris Piebalgs, EU energy commissioner, said Nabucco faced a “moment of truth” over the next few weeks.
European officials say the sticking point in the talks between Turkey and the other countries involved in Nabucco – Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania – has been Turkey’s demand to secure supplies of cheap gas as part of the deal. Turkey’s gas consumption has been soaring – it has more than doubled in the past six years – making the country vulnerable to gas price rises.
The €5bn European Commission stimulus package includes €3.5bn for energy, which includes projects such as building cross-border gas and electricity interconnections between member states; €500m for six offshore wind-farm projects; and €250m each to five pilot projects to test new technology to capture and store carbon emissions from power plants.
An additional €1.5bn will be used to increase availability of broadband internet in under-served rural areas.
The proposal must still win approval from member states as well as from the European parliament.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: January 27 2009 20:36 | Last updated: January 27 2009 20:36
The European Commission is planning to invest €250m ($330m, £233m) in Nabucco, the pipeline project that would bring gas from the Caspian region.
The sum would cover just 3 per cent of the expected cost, but would provide a capital base for further lending. It is one of the first signs of European Union action to diversify energy supplies following a Russia-Ukraine gas dispute that left thousands of people without power in the dead of winter.
The proposed EU funding for Nabucco is part of a €5bn stimulus package the commission will unveil on Thursday to use unspent funds for a variety of infrastructure projects.
Nabucco, a 3,300km route from eastern Turkey to Austria, would transport Caspian gas to western Europe, thereby reducing EU dependence on Russian gas – 80 per cent of which is transported via Ukraine.
Zsolt Hernadi, chairman of Mol, the Hungarian oil and gas company that is a member of the Nabucco consortium, said the dispute between Russia and Ukraine had transformed the debate over the project, which has made frustratingly slow progress since first being proposed in 2002.
“Three months ago, if there were a delay, nobody cared too much. Now it is totally different,” he said.
The European Investment Bank, the EU’s finance arm, on Tuesday said it was prepared to finance up to 25 per cent of Nabucco’s cost – which could mean a commitment of more than €2bn.
However, speaking at a summit in Budapest of countries involved in Nabucco, Philippe Maystadt, the EIB’s president, warned that the project needed political agreement before it could raise any money.
Andris Piebalgs, EU energy commissioner, said Nabucco faced a “moment of truth” over the next few weeks.
European officials say the sticking point in the talks between Turkey and the other countries involved in Nabucco – Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania – has been Turkey’s demand to secure supplies of cheap gas as part of the deal. Turkey’s gas consumption has been soaring – it has more than doubled in the past six years – making the country vulnerable to gas price rises.
The €5bn European Commission stimulus package includes €3.5bn for energy, which includes projects such as building cross-border gas and electricity interconnections between member states; €500m for six offshore wind-farm projects; and €250m each to five pilot projects to test new technology to capture and store carbon emissions from power plants.
An additional €1.5bn will be used to increase availability of broadband internet in under-served rural areas.
The proposal must still win approval from member states as well as from the European parliament.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Eastern Europe set for near-zero growth in 2009
By Stefan Wagstyl, east Europe Editor
Published: January 27 2009 17:21 | Last updated: January 27 2009 17:21
The economic clouds hanging over eastern Europe darkened today as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development slashed its forecasts for the region and predicted near-zero growth for 2009.
The region’s 30 states, including the former communist bloc plus Turkey, will see gross domestic product growth of just 0.1 per cent, says the bank, making a dramatic cut in its previous forecast of 2.5 per cent, made just three months ago.
Six countries – Ukraine, Turkey, Hungary and the Baltic states – are plunging into recession, while another five, including Russia, are seeing growth rates slow to 1 per cent or lower.
Erik Berglof, the EBRD’s chief economist, said the sudden deterioration in outlook was caused by the continuing decline in the global economic environment, which was undermining demand for the region’s exports. The last quarter of 2008 had also come out much worse than expected, bringing down the estimated growth figure for the year for the region from 6.3 per cent to 4.8 per cent, with two countries – Hungary and Latvia – already in recession.
“The EBRD region is feeling the full impact of the global slowdown, mainly because of the region’s increased integration within the global economy,” said Mr Berglof.
“The ability of these countries to withstand such a major external shock over the longer term will depend largely on the speed of the recovery of the global economy, the combined efforts of individual governments and international financial institutions, including the EBRD, to safeguard financial systems in the region, and the support of foreign banks to their eastern subsidiaries.”
Mr Berglof noted that the international banks active in the region had so far fully supported their subsidiaries. But he expressed concern that west European governments putting together bank rescue packages for their own countries would discriminate against foreign subsidiaries. “This is a very big worry. We hear countries may be putting restraints on banks’ ability to finance activities abroad,” said Mr Berglof, naming the UK, Greece and Austria as states where such policies were under discussion. “At the moment, this issue is vague. We will have to see how it works out in practice.”
Published: January 27 2009 17:21 | Last updated: January 27 2009 17:21
The economic clouds hanging over eastern Europe darkened today as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development slashed its forecasts for the region and predicted near-zero growth for 2009.
The region’s 30 states, including the former communist bloc plus Turkey, will see gross domestic product growth of just 0.1 per cent, says the bank, making a dramatic cut in its previous forecast of 2.5 per cent, made just three months ago.
Six countries – Ukraine, Turkey, Hungary and the Baltic states – are plunging into recession, while another five, including Russia, are seeing growth rates slow to 1 per cent or lower.
Erik Berglof, the EBRD’s chief economist, said the sudden deterioration in outlook was caused by the continuing decline in the global economic environment, which was undermining demand for the region’s exports. The last quarter of 2008 had also come out much worse than expected, bringing down the estimated growth figure for the year for the region from 6.3 per cent to 4.8 per cent, with two countries – Hungary and Latvia – already in recession.
“The EBRD region is feeling the full impact of the global slowdown, mainly because of the region’s increased integration within the global economy,” said Mr Berglof.
“The ability of these countries to withstand such a major external shock over the longer term will depend largely on the speed of the recovery of the global economy, the combined efforts of individual governments and international financial institutions, including the EBRD, to safeguard financial systems in the region, and the support of foreign banks to their eastern subsidiaries.”
Mr Berglof noted that the international banks active in the region had so far fully supported their subsidiaries. But he expressed concern that west European governments putting together bank rescue packages for their own countries would discriminate against foreign subsidiaries. “This is a very big worry. We hear countries may be putting restraints on banks’ ability to finance activities abroad,” said Mr Berglof, naming the UK, Greece and Austria as states where such policies were under discussion. “At the moment, this issue is vague. We will have to see how it works out in practice.”
Athens cautions banks on transfers to Balkans
By Kerin Hope in Athens and Stefan Wagstyl in London
Published: January 27 2009 17:20 | Last updated: January 27 2009 17:20
Greece has warned its banks against transferring funds from a €28bn government support package to their Balkan subsidiaries, because of growing fears of financial turmoil in these countries.
George Provopoulos, governor of the Bank of Greece, told the Financial Times he was concerned about the impact of the global crisis in countries – including Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia – that had experienced recent foreign currency lending booms.
“I have advised the banks to be more prudent and to lend on the basis of availability of local funding, taking into careful consideration local economic conditions,” he said.
The warning comes after about 10 international banks, including Greece’s EFG Eurobank, urged European Union governments not to discriminate in their anti-crisis policies against states outside the eurozone and EU.
They were supported by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the multilateral lender, which on Tuesday cut its 2009 growth forecast for the region from 2.5 per cent to 0.1 per cent. Erik Berglof, EBRD chief economist, said the danger of west European countries preparing bank support packages that discriminated against foreign countries was “a very big worry”.
The European Commission has welcomed the international banks’ initiative. The European Central Bank has already given liquidity support to EU members, notably Hungary, but has responded cautiously to proposals for assisting countries outside the union.
Bankers are particularly concerned about steep local currency declines, which have squeezed borrowers with foreign currency loans. Foreign exchange lending accounts for more than 70 per cent of loans in Serbia, 60 per cent in Hungary and in excess of 50 per cent in Romania and Bulgaria.
Mr Provopoulos said: “If economic conditions in these countries were to significantly weaken, Greek banks might find themselves exposed not just to credit risk but also to exchange rate risk.”
Banks with big market shares in south-east Europe include Italy’s Unicredit, Austria’s Raiffeisen International and Erste Bank, and Greece’s EFG, Alpha Bank and National Bank of Greece.
Meanwhile, some south-east European officials are concerned about the danger of foreign banks taking funds from the region.
Radovan Jelasic, Serbia’s central bank governor, told the FT this happened in Belgrade in December when he relaxed banks’ reserve requirements to release €600m ($780m, £564m) in local foreign exchange liquidity. Officials were dismayed to see €600m transferred out of the country by international banks in the following two weeks, he said. Foreign banks contacted by the FT in Belgrade declined to comment.
Elsewhere, Romania’s central bank said inflows from foreign owners were expected to slow, but not reverse. Some 39 per cent of the financing made available to Romanian subsidiaries of international banks was due for repayment this year but there was a “high probability” that about 80 per cent of this would be renewed, the bank said.
In Hungary, foreign banks poured in funds in October when the country faced a crisis and the International Monetary Fund launched an emergency package. Banks injected €2.8bn compared with a previous monthly average of €500m-€600m. Inflows have since dropped below the monthly average but the the central bank says “not a single bank is seeing an outflow”.
Published: January 27 2009 17:20 | Last updated: January 27 2009 17:20
Greece has warned its banks against transferring funds from a €28bn government support package to their Balkan subsidiaries, because of growing fears of financial turmoil in these countries.
George Provopoulos, governor of the Bank of Greece, told the Financial Times he was concerned about the impact of the global crisis in countries – including Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia – that had experienced recent foreign currency lending booms.
“I have advised the banks to be more prudent and to lend on the basis of availability of local funding, taking into careful consideration local economic conditions,” he said.
The warning comes after about 10 international banks, including Greece’s EFG Eurobank, urged European Union governments not to discriminate in their anti-crisis policies against states outside the eurozone and EU.
They were supported by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the multilateral lender, which on Tuesday cut its 2009 growth forecast for the region from 2.5 per cent to 0.1 per cent. Erik Berglof, EBRD chief economist, said the danger of west European countries preparing bank support packages that discriminated against foreign countries was “a very big worry”.
The European Commission has welcomed the international banks’ initiative. The European Central Bank has already given liquidity support to EU members, notably Hungary, but has responded cautiously to proposals for assisting countries outside the union.
Bankers are particularly concerned about steep local currency declines, which have squeezed borrowers with foreign currency loans. Foreign exchange lending accounts for more than 70 per cent of loans in Serbia, 60 per cent in Hungary and in excess of 50 per cent in Romania and Bulgaria.
Mr Provopoulos said: “If economic conditions in these countries were to significantly weaken, Greek banks might find themselves exposed not just to credit risk but also to exchange rate risk.”
Banks with big market shares in south-east Europe include Italy’s Unicredit, Austria’s Raiffeisen International and Erste Bank, and Greece’s EFG, Alpha Bank and National Bank of Greece.
Meanwhile, some south-east European officials are concerned about the danger of foreign banks taking funds from the region.
Radovan Jelasic, Serbia’s central bank governor, told the FT this happened in Belgrade in December when he relaxed banks’ reserve requirements to release €600m ($780m, £564m) in local foreign exchange liquidity. Officials were dismayed to see €600m transferred out of the country by international banks in the following two weeks, he said. Foreign banks contacted by the FT in Belgrade declined to comment.
Elsewhere, Romania’s central bank said inflows from foreign owners were expected to slow, but not reverse. Some 39 per cent of the financing made available to Romanian subsidiaries of international banks was due for repayment this year but there was a “high probability” that about 80 per cent of this would be renewed, the bank said.
In Hungary, foreign banks poured in funds in October when the country faced a crisis and the International Monetary Fund launched an emergency package. Banks injected €2.8bn compared with a previous monthly average of €500m-€600m. Inflows have since dropped below the monthly average but the the central bank says “not a single bank is seeing an outflow”.
Farmers tighten stranglehold on Greece
By Kerin Hope in Athens
Published: January 27 2009 14:38 | Last updated: January 27 2009 18:13
Greek farmers on Tuesday extended a blockade of the country’s main roads that is starving the capital of food and medicine, stalling exports and straining relations with neighbouring countries.
More than 9,000 tractors have blocked the main route for trucks carrying goods to and from western Europe. Farmers are demanding that the government increases a €500m ($660m, £465m) support package.
The eight-day blockade is gradually moving closer to Athens. It highlights widening social unrest in Greece as the centre-right government of Costas Karamanlis, prime minister, struggles to restore credibility following last month’s student riots in Athens.
Mr Karamanlis said the government was “open to dialogue” but only when the roads were open again.
“You cannot hold prisoner a whole society that works to provide the resources to subsidise farming, and burden the economy even further,” he said.
Wholesalers in Athens warned on Tuesday that supermarkets and pharmacies were starting to run short of supplies.
Kostas Michalos, chairman of the Athens chamber of commerce, said: “Exports and trade generally are taking a disastrous hit. Other sectors of the economy should be allowed to meet contracts in these difficult economic times.”
The Bulgarian government appealed to the European Commission to intervene to lift the blockade after tractors surrounded customs posts at all three border crossings with Greece, leaving more than 500 trucks on the Bulgarian side.
Transit traffic at crossings with Macedonia and Turkey were also affected. Customs officials at the Kipi crossing with Turkey said on Tuesday that scuffles had broken out between lorry drivers and farmers.
Bulgaria’s truckers’ association said that it would take legal action against Greek authorities if the protests continued.
The government’s offer to farmers consists of €300m in compensation for crop damage caused by fires and floods last year, and another €200m of extra subsidies for olive oil, wheat and cotton growers who are facing increased input costs.
The farmers want the package to be increased. They also want it to exclude people who cultivate small landholdings in time off from other jobs. About 12 per cent of the Greek workforce are registered as farmers but this number includes many “urban farmers” who have second jobs in the public sector or in tourism.
Greece’s system of fragmented holdings makes farming uncompetitive compared with other Mediterranean producers such as Spain and Italy.
Large tracts of land that were once used mainly for olive growing in southern Greece have been abandoned or offered for building second homes as young people have left for service sector jobs in the cities.
Published: January 27 2009 14:38 | Last updated: January 27 2009 18:13
Greek farmers on Tuesday extended a blockade of the country’s main roads that is starving the capital of food and medicine, stalling exports and straining relations with neighbouring countries.
More than 9,000 tractors have blocked the main route for trucks carrying goods to and from western Europe. Farmers are demanding that the government increases a €500m ($660m, £465m) support package.
The eight-day blockade is gradually moving closer to Athens. It highlights widening social unrest in Greece as the centre-right government of Costas Karamanlis, prime minister, struggles to restore credibility following last month’s student riots in Athens.
Mr Karamanlis said the government was “open to dialogue” but only when the roads were open again.
“You cannot hold prisoner a whole society that works to provide the resources to subsidise farming, and burden the economy even further,” he said.
Wholesalers in Athens warned on Tuesday that supermarkets and pharmacies were starting to run short of supplies.
Kostas Michalos, chairman of the Athens chamber of commerce, said: “Exports and trade generally are taking a disastrous hit. Other sectors of the economy should be allowed to meet contracts in these difficult economic times.”
The Bulgarian government appealed to the European Commission to intervene to lift the blockade after tractors surrounded customs posts at all three border crossings with Greece, leaving more than 500 trucks on the Bulgarian side.
Transit traffic at crossings with Macedonia and Turkey were also affected. Customs officials at the Kipi crossing with Turkey said on Tuesday that scuffles had broken out between lorry drivers and farmers.
Bulgaria’s truckers’ association said that it would take legal action against Greek authorities if the protests continued.
The government’s offer to farmers consists of €300m in compensation for crop damage caused by fires and floods last year, and another €200m of extra subsidies for olive oil, wheat and cotton growers who are facing increased input costs.
The farmers want the package to be increased. They also want it to exclude people who cultivate small landholdings in time off from other jobs. About 12 per cent of the Greek workforce are registered as farmers but this number includes many “urban farmers” who have second jobs in the public sector or in tourism.
Greece’s system of fragmented holdings makes farming uncompetitive compared with other Mediterranean producers such as Spain and Italy.
Large tracts of land that were once used mainly for olive growing in southern Greece have been abandoned or offered for building second homes as young people have left for service sector jobs in the cities.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Islam film Dutch MP to be charged
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".
"Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.
Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.
"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.
'Incitement'
The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.
"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.
"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.
The court's ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor's office, which said Mr Wilders's comments had been made outside parliament as a contribution to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and that no criminal offence had been committed.
Prosecutors said on Wednesday that they could not appeal against the judgement and would open an investigation immediately.
Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who pushed for Mr Wilders's prosecution, welcomed the court's decision.
"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism," he told reporters.
'Fascist book'
In March 2008, Mr Wilders posted a film about the Koran on the internet, prompting angry protests across the Muslim World.
The opening scenes of Fitna - a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife" - show a copy of the holy book followed by footage of the bomb attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004.
Pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.
The film ends with the statement: "Stop Islamisation. Defend our freedom."
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said at the time that the film wrongly equated Islam with violence and served "no purpose other than to offend".
A year earlier, Mr Wilders described the Koran as a "fascist book" and called for it to be banned in "the same way we ban Mein Kampf", in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.
Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo Van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.
Correspondents say his Freedom Party (PVV), which has nine MPs in the lower house of parliament, has built its popularity largely by tapping into the fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".
"Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.
Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.
"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.
'Incitement'
The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.
"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.
"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.
The court's ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor's office, which said Mr Wilders's comments had been made outside parliament as a contribution to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and that no criminal offence had been committed.
Prosecutors said on Wednesday that they could not appeal against the judgement and would open an investigation immediately.
Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who pushed for Mr Wilders's prosecution, welcomed the court's decision.
"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism," he told reporters.
'Fascist book'
In March 2008, Mr Wilders posted a film about the Koran on the internet, prompting angry protests across the Muslim World.
The opening scenes of Fitna - a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife" - show a copy of the holy book followed by footage of the bomb attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004.
Pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.
The film ends with the statement: "Stop Islamisation. Defend our freedom."
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said at the time that the film wrongly equated Islam with violence and served "no purpose other than to offend".
A year earlier, Mr Wilders described the Koran as a "fascist book" and called for it to be banned in "the same way we ban Mein Kampf", in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.
Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo Van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.
Correspondents say his Freedom Party (PVV), which has nine MPs in the lower house of parliament, has built its popularity largely by tapping into the fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Czech entropy
The current presidency of the European Union, the Czech Republic headed by the eurosceptic, climate change-denying president, Vaclav Klaus, was confidently expected to divide the Union. But lo! It has united Europe in a collective sense of humour failure of epic proportions – eight tonnes, to be precise.
That is the weight of a sculpture gathering notoriety in the atrium of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. Commissioned by the Czech government to challenge national stereotypes, its mischievous creator opted instead to do for the EU what Borat did for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan.
“Entropa”, by David Cerny, is a collection of nose-thumbing lampoons of the 27 member states, few of which see the joke. Purportedly the work of artists from each EU nation, it is in fact a giant hoax.
Thus, France, with its historic predilection for autocracy moderated by periodic insurrection, is denoted by a single word: Grève! or Strike! Germany is criss-crossed by autobahns in a pattern suspiciously resembling a swastika. The UK, in keeping with its notorious, er, europhilia, is absent. Italy is a football team doing something odd with footballs or, as the blurb helpfully explains, demonstrating “an autoerotic system of sensational spectacle with no climax in sight”.
It gets worse: Romania as a Dracula theme park; Bulgaria as a squat-toilet; or Luxembourg as a lump of gold, up for sale. The Czech entry has a news ticker with the europhobic sayings of Mr Klaus, whom his countrymen seem to treat like an eccentric professor in the attic.
The Czech government might have spotted the hoax by the entropic name of the exhibit, but the way it has already fumbled crises such as Gaza and Gazprom suggests a more Laurel and Hardy alertness.
But with perhaps a few modifications to “Entropa” – Bulgaria could certainly use a rethink – the Czechs should keep this sculpture up. It offers a golden opportunity to bring Europeans closer to their remote Union, whose motto hereafter will become: “We can take a joke.”
That is the weight of a sculpture gathering notoriety in the atrium of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. Commissioned by the Czech government to challenge national stereotypes, its mischievous creator opted instead to do for the EU what Borat did for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan.
“Entropa”, by David Cerny, is a collection of nose-thumbing lampoons of the 27 member states, few of which see the joke. Purportedly the work of artists from each EU nation, it is in fact a giant hoax.
Thus, France, with its historic predilection for autocracy moderated by periodic insurrection, is denoted by a single word: Grève! or Strike! Germany is criss-crossed by autobahns in a pattern suspiciously resembling a swastika. The UK, in keeping with its notorious, er, europhilia, is absent. Italy is a football team doing something odd with footballs or, as the blurb helpfully explains, demonstrating “an autoerotic system of sensational spectacle with no climax in sight”.
It gets worse: Romania as a Dracula theme park; Bulgaria as a squat-toilet; or Luxembourg as a lump of gold, up for sale. The Czech entry has a news ticker with the europhobic sayings of Mr Klaus, whom his countrymen seem to treat like an eccentric professor in the attic.
The Czech government might have spotted the hoax by the entropic name of the exhibit, but the way it has already fumbled crises such as Gaza and Gazprom suggests a more Laurel and Hardy alertness.
But with perhaps a few modifications to “Entropa” – Bulgaria could certainly use a rethink – the Czechs should keep this sculpture up. It offers a golden opportunity to bring Europeans closer to their remote Union, whose motto hereafter will become: “We can take a joke.”
EU Commissioner Stresses Importance of Alternative Gas Pipeline
Russia and Ukraine have finally agreed on a settlement over gas prices and transport fees, which could see supplies reaching Europe again within the next few days. Still, European Commissioner Günter Verheugen has sharply criticized the actions of both countries and is calling for secure gas supplies through alternative pipelines.
The infighting between Russia and Ukraine, which led to gas shortages across much of the European Union for two weeks, appears to have been resolved on Monday. Russia and Ukraine signed a 10-year gas supply deal that would see the restoration of natural gas shipments to Kiev. Still, although it appeared clear that gas supplies would soon be piped through Ukraine to the European Union, politicians said both Moscow and Kiev have proven to be unreliable partners for Europe -- and they are looking to secure alternate gas routes in case of future disputes.
"I can't give you any information about what procedures are being undertaken there or how you can sue," said European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Günter Verheugen of Germany. "But it is a fact that we are defending ourselves and that we are showing that we won't just sit back put up with it."
Verheugen was responding to recent threats made by European Commission President Jose Manuel Durao Barroso that Brussels would sue both its Russian and Ukrainian contract partners. He added that it was terrain that had never been covered before by the EU.
Verheugen also called for decreased dependence on Russian oil and gas supplies and Ukrainian pipelines for delivery. He furthermore stressed the importance of speedy progress on projects like an underwater Baltic Sea pipeline, which will bring Russian gas directly to Germany and bypass other countries.
Verheugen, who previously supported EU membership for Ukraine, expressed clear disappointment over the fact that the country blocked Russian gas from entering Europe after the Kremlin restored supplies under the watch of European observers last week. Ukraine's actions -- which resulted from disagreements over gas prices and transit fees -- undoubtedly hurt its hopes for future EU and NATO membership, Verheugen said.
Fingers have been pointed at both Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine has been accused of shutting off supplies to the EU. And last week, EU gas experts accused Russia of deliberately sending gas to areas where it is technically difficult to transfer on to Europe.
During a visit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin strenuously denied the allegation. At the same time on Friday, a group of German, Italian and French gas companies -- including E.ON-Ruhrgas, ENI (Italy) and Gaz de France -- said they would create a consortium that would provide the "technical gas" needed by Ukraine to run its compressor stations in order to again pump normal gas supplies to Europe again. This will mean buying 21 million cubic meters of gas per day at a cost of a half-billion euros during the first quarter of the year.
This plan is part of the EU's attempt to help both countries move passed their dispute, which has left many Europeans without heat since the start of the year.
The impasse between Moscow and Kiev ended on Sunday night after Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Yulia Timoshenko met an agreement after hours of negotiations. Under the terms of the deal, Ukraine will pay world market gas prices starting next year and, for the rest of 2009, will receive a 20 percent discount provided it does not increase gas transit fees, which will remain the same as before the standoff.
EU officials welcomed Sunday night's settlement, but many were hesitant to believe that peace in the gas conflict would be lasting. On Sunday, a spokesperson for the Czech Republic, which is currently the six-month rotating president of the EU, said greeted the deal. At the same time, the spokesperson added, many past agreements have been reached only to be violated later on.
German Economics Minister Michael Glos of the conservative Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democrats, said: "As pleasing as this agreement may be, it is just as important that customers again get their gas quickly and that deliveries in the future follow reliably."
The infighting between Russia and Ukraine, which led to gas shortages across much of the European Union for two weeks, appears to have been resolved on Monday. Russia and Ukraine signed a 10-year gas supply deal that would see the restoration of natural gas shipments to Kiev. Still, although it appeared clear that gas supplies would soon be piped through Ukraine to the European Union, politicians said both Moscow and Kiev have proven to be unreliable partners for Europe -- and they are looking to secure alternate gas routes in case of future disputes.
"I can't give you any information about what procedures are being undertaken there or how you can sue," said European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Günter Verheugen of Germany. "But it is a fact that we are defending ourselves and that we are showing that we won't just sit back put up with it."
Verheugen was responding to recent threats made by European Commission President Jose Manuel Durao Barroso that Brussels would sue both its Russian and Ukrainian contract partners. He added that it was terrain that had never been covered before by the EU.
Verheugen also called for decreased dependence on Russian oil and gas supplies and Ukrainian pipelines for delivery. He furthermore stressed the importance of speedy progress on projects like an underwater Baltic Sea pipeline, which will bring Russian gas directly to Germany and bypass other countries.
Verheugen, who previously supported EU membership for Ukraine, expressed clear disappointment over the fact that the country blocked Russian gas from entering Europe after the Kremlin restored supplies under the watch of European observers last week. Ukraine's actions -- which resulted from disagreements over gas prices and transit fees -- undoubtedly hurt its hopes for future EU and NATO membership, Verheugen said.
Fingers have been pointed at both Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine has been accused of shutting off supplies to the EU. And last week, EU gas experts accused Russia of deliberately sending gas to areas where it is technically difficult to transfer on to Europe.
During a visit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin strenuously denied the allegation. At the same time on Friday, a group of German, Italian and French gas companies -- including E.ON-Ruhrgas, ENI (Italy) and Gaz de France -- said they would create a consortium that would provide the "technical gas" needed by Ukraine to run its compressor stations in order to again pump normal gas supplies to Europe again. This will mean buying 21 million cubic meters of gas per day at a cost of a half-billion euros during the first quarter of the year.
This plan is part of the EU's attempt to help both countries move passed their dispute, which has left many Europeans without heat since the start of the year.
The impasse between Moscow and Kiev ended on Sunday night after Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Yulia Timoshenko met an agreement after hours of negotiations. Under the terms of the deal, Ukraine will pay world market gas prices starting next year and, for the rest of 2009, will receive a 20 percent discount provided it does not increase gas transit fees, which will remain the same as before the standoff.
EU officials welcomed Sunday night's settlement, but many were hesitant to believe that peace in the gas conflict would be lasting. On Sunday, a spokesperson for the Czech Republic, which is currently the six-month rotating president of the EU, said greeted the deal. At the same time, the spokesperson added, many past agreements have been reached only to be violated later on.
German Economics Minister Michael Glos of the conservative Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democrats, said: "As pleasing as this agreement may be, it is just as important that customers again get their gas quickly and that deliveries in the future follow reliably."
Ankara tries to play honest broker
By Delphine Strauss
Published: January 21 2009 02:00 | Last updated: January 21 2009 02:00
Ahmet Davutoglu, top foreign policy adviser to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, returned from eight days of frantic talks in Cairo and Damascus to a telling-off from his daughter. "You're travelling every day, we don't get to see you but there are still children being killed. You're not doing your job," was the 10-year-old's verdict, he says.
The anecdote illustrates the twin impulses driving Turkey's response to the crisis in Gaza - its ambition to lead diplomatic efforts to resolve the violence and an emotional reaction out of sympathy for Palestinian suffering.
In recent months, Turkey's ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) has been basking in international praise for a burst of diplomacy in which it mended relations with its neighbours and sought a role as peacemaker in regional conflicts.
After pushing for co-operation in the Caucasus, holding a dialogue with Iran on nuclear policy, mediating between Israel and Syria and hosting meetings between Pakistani and Afghan leaders, Turkey finally won a coveted two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council – which it took as confirmation of its new-found influence.
But Gaza has proved one of the biggest tests yet of Ankara's ambitions – one that has allowed it to flex its newly developed regional muscle but has also exposed the limits of its influence, strained long-standing ties with Israel and shown how hard it is to maintain statesmanlike detachment under pressure of public opinion. "It has been an extremely difficult position for Turkey, which has a privileged relationship with Israel but . . . cultural and historical ties with countries in the Middle East, especially with Palestinians," says Sinan Ulgen, an ex-diplomat who heads Edam, an Istanbul think-tank.
Ankara's policy has long been to avoid taking sides in an area once ruled by the Ottoman empire, sustaining both military co-operation with Israel and diplomatic relations with the Palestinians over several decades. But the outrage among Turks at the latest bloodshed is overwhelming. Mass protests replaced new year street parties when the attacks began. Banners draped around Istanbul declare: "We too are Palestinians" and taxi drivers display pictures of mutilated children.
Answering the public mood, Mr Erdogan toured Middle Eastern countries, called European leaders daily and received visits from Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, and Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general. But in contrast with Turkey's ambitions as regional mediator, his efforts have been tilted to the Palestinian side and his criticism of Israel has been unequivocal – calling for its exclusion from the UN, accusing its politicians of electioneering and describing the offensive as a "dark stain on humanity".
Turkish premiers have condemned Israeli actions in the past. But Mr Erdogan's criticism carries a sense of personal affront. He said Ehud Olmert's failure to warn Turkey of his plans – although the Israeli prime minister visited Ankara only a few days before launching the assault – was "an act of disrespect towards Turkey". Ankara's mediation between Israel and Syria, meant to prove its worth as a partner to the EU and the US, is now "in smoke", as one western diplomat put it, adding that Mr Erdogan's "street sensibility", a feeling of slight that Israel had not repaid his efforts, was behind his reaction.
But Mr Erdogan's emotive response has damaged Turkey's position as a non-partisan interlocutor in the region, attracting comment in the Israeli press, remonstrations with the Turkish ambassador in Tel Aviv and anger among Jewish lobby groups in the US. The episode is unlikely to cause a lasting breach with Israel. But some analysts warn there are dangers for US relations if Turkey loses the support of Jewish groups that have previously helped fend off the Armenian lobby's calls for massacres under the Ottoman empire to be recognised as genocide.
"The strength of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East is that it has a relation with all the major players," says Fadi Hakura at Chatham House in London. "By appearing to take an anti-Israeli stance, it undermined its ability to broker a peace deal."
A further complication is that the AKP's foreign policy is coloured, in the eyes of Turkish commentators, by its sense of Muslim identity: some say it wants to recreate the Ottoman role of leadership in the Muslim world.
But even if Turkey has not played the leading role in halting the Gaza violence in Gaza, it may still be instrumental in creating a lasting settlement – using its ties with Israel and political relations developed with Hamas. Ali Babacan, foreign minister, has made clear the country would contribute troops to a monitoring force, although diplomats prefer to talk of technical assistance.
Mr Davutoglu dismisses claims that Turkey is shifting from its US and European allegiances towards the Muslim world. "There is no shift in Turkey's foreign policy axis," he says. "Whatever happens in this region affects us. We can't be silent, we can't be waiting; we should be active."
Published: January 21 2009 02:00 | Last updated: January 21 2009 02:00
Ahmet Davutoglu, top foreign policy adviser to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, returned from eight days of frantic talks in Cairo and Damascus to a telling-off from his daughter. "You're travelling every day, we don't get to see you but there are still children being killed. You're not doing your job," was the 10-year-old's verdict, he says.
The anecdote illustrates the twin impulses driving Turkey's response to the crisis in Gaza - its ambition to lead diplomatic efforts to resolve the violence and an emotional reaction out of sympathy for Palestinian suffering.
In recent months, Turkey's ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) has been basking in international praise for a burst of diplomacy in which it mended relations with its neighbours and sought a role as peacemaker in regional conflicts.
After pushing for co-operation in the Caucasus, holding a dialogue with Iran on nuclear policy, mediating between Israel and Syria and hosting meetings between Pakistani and Afghan leaders, Turkey finally won a coveted two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council – which it took as confirmation of its new-found influence.
But Gaza has proved one of the biggest tests yet of Ankara's ambitions – one that has allowed it to flex its newly developed regional muscle but has also exposed the limits of its influence, strained long-standing ties with Israel and shown how hard it is to maintain statesmanlike detachment under pressure of public opinion. "It has been an extremely difficult position for Turkey, which has a privileged relationship with Israel but . . . cultural and historical ties with countries in the Middle East, especially with Palestinians," says Sinan Ulgen, an ex-diplomat who heads Edam, an Istanbul think-tank.
Ankara's policy has long been to avoid taking sides in an area once ruled by the Ottoman empire, sustaining both military co-operation with Israel and diplomatic relations with the Palestinians over several decades. But the outrage among Turks at the latest bloodshed is overwhelming. Mass protests replaced new year street parties when the attacks began. Banners draped around Istanbul declare: "We too are Palestinians" and taxi drivers display pictures of mutilated children.
Answering the public mood, Mr Erdogan toured Middle Eastern countries, called European leaders daily and received visits from Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, and Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general. But in contrast with Turkey's ambitions as regional mediator, his efforts have been tilted to the Palestinian side and his criticism of Israel has been unequivocal – calling for its exclusion from the UN, accusing its politicians of electioneering and describing the offensive as a "dark stain on humanity".
Turkish premiers have condemned Israeli actions in the past. But Mr Erdogan's criticism carries a sense of personal affront. He said Ehud Olmert's failure to warn Turkey of his plans – although the Israeli prime minister visited Ankara only a few days before launching the assault – was "an act of disrespect towards Turkey". Ankara's mediation between Israel and Syria, meant to prove its worth as a partner to the EU and the US, is now "in smoke", as one western diplomat put it, adding that Mr Erdogan's "street sensibility", a feeling of slight that Israel had not repaid his efforts, was behind his reaction.
But Mr Erdogan's emotive response has damaged Turkey's position as a non-partisan interlocutor in the region, attracting comment in the Israeli press, remonstrations with the Turkish ambassador in Tel Aviv and anger among Jewish lobby groups in the US. The episode is unlikely to cause a lasting breach with Israel. But some analysts warn there are dangers for US relations if Turkey loses the support of Jewish groups that have previously helped fend off the Armenian lobby's calls for massacres under the Ottoman empire to be recognised as genocide.
"The strength of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East is that it has a relation with all the major players," says Fadi Hakura at Chatham House in London. "By appearing to take an anti-Israeli stance, it undermined its ability to broker a peace deal."
A further complication is that the AKP's foreign policy is coloured, in the eyes of Turkish commentators, by its sense of Muslim identity: some say it wants to recreate the Ottoman role of leadership in the Muslim world.
But even if Turkey has not played the leading role in halting the Gaza violence in Gaza, it may still be instrumental in creating a lasting settlement – using its ties with Israel and political relations developed with Hamas. Ali Babacan, foreign minister, has made clear the country would contribute troops to a monitoring force, although diplomats prefer to talk of technical assistance.
Mr Davutoglu dismisses claims that Turkey is shifting from its US and European allegiances towards the Muslim world. "There is no shift in Turkey's foreign policy axis," he says. "Whatever happens in this region affects us. We can't be silent, we can't be waiting; we should be active."
Russia-Ukraine gas feud stands by for damage control
By Celestine Bohlen
Bloomberg News
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
PARIS: If you had a neighbor who cut off the heat in your building in the depths of winter, would you want him as a star guest at your party?
Probably not, but business is business, so the corporate hotshots who will gather this month at the Alpine resort of Davos will surely hear out Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia.
Unless he cancels at the last minute, Putin will be the opening speaker at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 28, which gives him a splendid chance to reassure nervous investors that Russia is a reliable partner and a stable environment for the world's shrinking pool of capital.
Or not.
The damage caused by this winter's gas war between Russia and Ukraine may already be too great for Putin to restore whatever good reputation Russia had.
"Russia's image has really suffered, and the image of Ukraine will suffer, too, at a time when both have liquidity problems," said Thomas Gomart, a research director at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. "That's why this has turned into such an arm-wrestling match."
Since Dec. 31, Russia has been playing a game of chicken with Ukraine over gas prices, transit fees and unpaid debts. On Jan. 7, after each side accused the other of cheating and stealing, Russia's Gazprom, the world's biggest natural gas producer, suspended supplies to Ukraine's transit pipelines, sending a chill through much of southeastern Europe.
The supplies were to resume after the two sides signed 10-year natural-gas contracts on Monday. Putin said gas shipments to the 27-nation bloc would resume in "full volumes" through all export routes.
Russia had the most to lose from the feud, according to Jonathan Stern, author of "The Future of Russian Gas and Gazprom" and director of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
"If it is correct that Ukraine was siphoning off gas, then the Russians had no choice to do what they did," he says. "If the Ukrainian version is true, then this is astonishingly reckless behavior by Russia."
Russia accused Ukraine of taking 65 million cubic meters, about 85 million cubic yards, of gas destined for Europe in the first days of January, and an additional 50 million on Jan. 6, Stern says. Ukraine said any missing gas was needed to maintain its compressor stations. Gazprom lost about $100 million for every day it wasn't pumping gas through Ukraine, by Stern's reckoning.
Besides the lost revenues, Gazprom risked being charged damages for non-delivery by furious customers. Most importantly, certainly in the public's eyes, Russia was losing - perhaps forever - its reputation as a reliable partner.
This kind of risk is hard to fathom if Gazprom didn't believe it was being ripped off. And yet it wouldn't be the first time Russia has put its bullying tactics ahead of its own long-term interests.
Some analysts said Russia was seeking to discredit Ukraine as a reliable transit country, with the goal of picking up political support for alternative pipelines that would bypass Ukrainian territory altogether.
Either way, Europe is stuck with both - Russia as a supplier, and Ukraine as a transit corridor. Getting the two to work out their dysfunctional relationship is critical for everyone. Europe relies on Russia for a quarter of its gas, 80 percent of which is carried through Ukraine.
Even after the Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, negotiated an arrangement to put international monitors along the gas-pipeline routes, the ill will on both sides was palpable.
"These two states are playing with their credibility," Martin Riman, Czech Minister of Industry and Trade, said during the negotiations in Brussels.
The timing couldn't be worse. Both Ukraine and Russia have been hurt by the global economic crisis. Ukraine, whose crucial steel production has dropped by half, had to seek a $16.4 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Ukraine collects about $3 billion in fees each year for the transit of Russian gas to customers in the West, which helps explain its stake in maintaining the current route.
As the price of oil plummets below $40 a barrel, Russia's fortunes are also deteriorating. The ruble has lost 29 percent of its value against the dollar since the beginning of August. Russia's foreign-currency reserves have shrunk 29 percent in the same period, prompting Standard & Poor's last month to cut the country's debt rating to BBB.
The drop in oil prices, from a high of $147 last July, is hurting Gazprom, which last year boasted that it would become the world's largest corporation, valued at $1 trillion, by 2014. Since January 2008, Gazprom shares have fallen 69 percent.
Now, with a market value of $75 billion and debts totaling $55 billion, Gazprom is poised to absorb the shock of falling gas prices, which historically lag behind oil by about six months. Gazprom's European customers last year paid on average $420 per 1,000 cubic meters; this year, the price is set to fall to between $260 and $300.
Until December, Ukraine was paying $179.50, a relic of Soviet-era subsidies that Moscow announced two years ago it would eliminate, in response to Ukraine's tilt to the West.
Russia offered Ukraine a price of $360 per 1,000 cubic meters for the first quarter, according to a statement from Bohdan Sokolovskyi, energy aide to the Ukranian president, Viktor Yushchenko. That may be out of reach for Ukraine's stumbling economy.
Maximizing revenues may make sense from a financial point of view, but as Putin this month faces a sea of anxious faces at Davos, he might ask himself whether it is worth the price.
Bloomberg News
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
PARIS: If you had a neighbor who cut off the heat in your building in the depths of winter, would you want him as a star guest at your party?
Probably not, but business is business, so the corporate hotshots who will gather this month at the Alpine resort of Davos will surely hear out Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia.
Unless he cancels at the last minute, Putin will be the opening speaker at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 28, which gives him a splendid chance to reassure nervous investors that Russia is a reliable partner and a stable environment for the world's shrinking pool of capital.
Or not.
The damage caused by this winter's gas war between Russia and Ukraine may already be too great for Putin to restore whatever good reputation Russia had.
"Russia's image has really suffered, and the image of Ukraine will suffer, too, at a time when both have liquidity problems," said Thomas Gomart, a research director at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. "That's why this has turned into such an arm-wrestling match."
Since Dec. 31, Russia has been playing a game of chicken with Ukraine over gas prices, transit fees and unpaid debts. On Jan. 7, after each side accused the other of cheating and stealing, Russia's Gazprom, the world's biggest natural gas producer, suspended supplies to Ukraine's transit pipelines, sending a chill through much of southeastern Europe.
The supplies were to resume after the two sides signed 10-year natural-gas contracts on Monday. Putin said gas shipments to the 27-nation bloc would resume in "full volumes" through all export routes.
Russia had the most to lose from the feud, according to Jonathan Stern, author of "The Future of Russian Gas and Gazprom" and director of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
"If it is correct that Ukraine was siphoning off gas, then the Russians had no choice to do what they did," he says. "If the Ukrainian version is true, then this is astonishingly reckless behavior by Russia."
Russia accused Ukraine of taking 65 million cubic meters, about 85 million cubic yards, of gas destined for Europe in the first days of January, and an additional 50 million on Jan. 6, Stern says. Ukraine said any missing gas was needed to maintain its compressor stations. Gazprom lost about $100 million for every day it wasn't pumping gas through Ukraine, by Stern's reckoning.
Besides the lost revenues, Gazprom risked being charged damages for non-delivery by furious customers. Most importantly, certainly in the public's eyes, Russia was losing - perhaps forever - its reputation as a reliable partner.
This kind of risk is hard to fathom if Gazprom didn't believe it was being ripped off. And yet it wouldn't be the first time Russia has put its bullying tactics ahead of its own long-term interests.
Some analysts said Russia was seeking to discredit Ukraine as a reliable transit country, with the goal of picking up political support for alternative pipelines that would bypass Ukrainian territory altogether.
Either way, Europe is stuck with both - Russia as a supplier, and Ukraine as a transit corridor. Getting the two to work out their dysfunctional relationship is critical for everyone. Europe relies on Russia for a quarter of its gas, 80 percent of which is carried through Ukraine.
Even after the Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, negotiated an arrangement to put international monitors along the gas-pipeline routes, the ill will on both sides was palpable.
"These two states are playing with their credibility," Martin Riman, Czech Minister of Industry and Trade, said during the negotiations in Brussels.
The timing couldn't be worse. Both Ukraine and Russia have been hurt by the global economic crisis. Ukraine, whose crucial steel production has dropped by half, had to seek a $16.4 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Ukraine collects about $3 billion in fees each year for the transit of Russian gas to customers in the West, which helps explain its stake in maintaining the current route.
As the price of oil plummets below $40 a barrel, Russia's fortunes are also deteriorating. The ruble has lost 29 percent of its value against the dollar since the beginning of August. Russia's foreign-currency reserves have shrunk 29 percent in the same period, prompting Standard & Poor's last month to cut the country's debt rating to BBB.
The drop in oil prices, from a high of $147 last July, is hurting Gazprom, which last year boasted that it would become the world's largest corporation, valued at $1 trillion, by 2014. Since January 2008, Gazprom shares have fallen 69 percent.
Now, with a market value of $75 billion and debts totaling $55 billion, Gazprom is poised to absorb the shock of falling gas prices, which historically lag behind oil by about six months. Gazprom's European customers last year paid on average $420 per 1,000 cubic meters; this year, the price is set to fall to between $260 and $300.
Until December, Ukraine was paying $179.50, a relic of Soviet-era subsidies that Moscow announced two years ago it would eliminate, in response to Ukraine's tilt to the West.
Russia offered Ukraine a price of $360 per 1,000 cubic meters for the first quarter, according to a statement from Bohdan Sokolovskyi, energy aide to the Ukranian president, Viktor Yushchenko. That may be out of reach for Ukraine's stumbling economy.
Maximizing revenues may make sense from a financial point of view, but as Putin this month faces a sea of anxious faces at Davos, he might ask himself whether it is worth the price.
Obama takes oath and nation embraces the moment
By Peter Baker
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
WASHINGTON: Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday and promised to "begin again the work of remaking America" on a day of celebration that climaxed a once-inconceivable journey for the man and his country.
Obama, the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, inherited a White House built partly by slaves and a nation in crisis at home and abroad. The moment captured the imagination of much of the world as more than a million flag-waving people bore witness as Obama recited the oath with his hand on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used at his inauguration 148 years ago.
Beyond the politics of the occasion, the sight of a black man climbing the highest peak electrified people across racial, generational and partisan lines. Obama largely left it to others to mark the history explicitly, making only passing reference to his own barrier-breaking role in his 18-minute Inaugural Address, noting how improbable it might seem that "a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."
But confronted by the worst economic situation in decades, two overseas wars and the continuing threat of Islamic terrorism, Obama sobered the celebration with a grim assessment of the state of a nation rocked by home foreclosures, shuttered businesses, lost jobs, costly health care, failing schools, energy dependence and the threat of climate change. Signaling a sharp and immediate break with the presidency of George W. Bush, he vowed to usher in a "new era of responsibility" and restore tarnished American ideals.
"Today, I say to you that the challenges we face are real," Obama said in the address, delivered from the west front of the Capitol. "They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America, they will be met."
The vast crowd that thronged the Mall on a frigid but bright winter day was the largest to attend an inauguration in decades, if not ever. Many then lined Pennsylvania Avenue for a parade that continued well past nightfall on a day that was not expected to end for Obama until late in the night with the last of 10 inaugural balls.
Bush left the national stage quietly, doing nothing to upstage his successor. After hosting the Obamas for morning coffee at the White House and attending the ceremony at the Capitol, Bush hugged Obama, then left through the Rotunda to head back to Texas. "Come on, Laura, we're going home," he was overheard telling the former first lady.
The inauguration coincided with more bad news from Wall Street, with the Dow Jones industrial average down more than 300 points on indications of further trouble for banks.
The spirit of the day was also marred by the hospitalization of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, whose endorsement helped propel Obama to the Democratic nomination last year. Kennedy, who has been fighting a malignant brain tumor, collapsed in convulsions at a Capitol luncheon after the ceremony and was wheeled out on a stretcher.
The pageantry included some serious business. Shortly after he and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. were sworn in, Obama ordered all pending Bush regulations frozen for a legal and policy review. He also signed formal nomination papers for his cabinet, and the Senate quickly confirmed seven nominees: the secretaries of homeland security, energy, agriculture, interior, education and veterans' affairs and the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
When he arrives in the Oval Office on Wednesday, aides said, Obama will get to work on some of his priorities. He plans to convene his national security team and senior military commanders to discuss his plans to pull combat troops out of Iraq and bolster those in Afghanistan. He also plans to sign executive orders to start closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and could reverse Bush's restrictions on financing for groups that promote abortion or condom use.
Delays in the confirmation process have left both the State Department and the Treasury Department in the hands of caretakers. But Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to win Senate confirmation as secretary of state on Wednesday, and the Pentagon remains under the control of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was kept on from the Bush administration and did not attend the inauguration so someone in the line of succession would survive in case of terrorist attack.
In his address, Obama praised Bush "for his service to our nation as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition." But he also offered implicit criticism, condemning what he called "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."
He went on to assure the rest of the world that change had come. "To all other peoples and governments who are watching today," Obama said, "from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."
Some of Obama's supporters booed and taunted Bush when he emerged from the Capitol to take his place on stage, with some singing, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, hey, goodbye."
The departing vice president, Dick Cheney, appeared at the ceremony in a wheelchair after suffering a back injury moving the day before. He later left without public comment.
The nation's 56th inauguration drew waves of people from all corners and filled the vast expanse between the Capitol and the Washington Monument. For the first transition in power since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, much of the capital city was under exceptionally tight security, with a two-square-mile swath under the strictest control. Bridges from Virginia were closed to regular traffic and more than 35,000 civilian and military personnel were on duty.
Obama secured at least part of his legacy the moment he walked into the White House on Tuesday, 146 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, 108 years after the first black man dined in the mansion with a president and 45 years after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared his dream of equality.
Obama, just 47 years old and four years out of the Illinois State Senate, arrived at this moment on the unlikeliest of paths, vaulted to the forefront of national politics on the strength of stirring speeches, early opposition to the Iraq war and public disenchantment with the Bush era. His scant record of achievement at the national level proved less important to voters than his embodiment of change.
His foreign-sounding name, his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia and his skin color made him a unique figure in the annals of presidential campaigns, yet he toppled two of the best brand names in American politics — Clinton in the primaries and Senator John McCain in the general election.
Obama himself is descended on his mother's side from ancestors who owned slaves and he can trace his family tree to Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. The power of the moment was lost on no one as the Rev. Joseph Lowery, one of the towering figures of the civil rights movement, gave the benediction and called for "inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance."
The Rev. Rick Warren, a conservative minister selected by Obama to give the invocation despite protests from liberals, told the crowd: "We know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven."
For all that, Obama used the occasion to address "this winter of our hardship" and promote his plan for vast federal spending accompanied by tax cuts to stimulate the moribund economy and begin addressing energy, environmental and infrastructure needs.
"Now there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans," he said. "Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage."
He also essentially renounced the curtailment of liberties in the name of security, saying that he would "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." He struck a stiff note on terrorism, saying that Americans "will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense."
"To those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken," he said. "You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
But Obama also added a special message to Islamic nations, a first from the inaugural lectern. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Obama said. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history — but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
Obama's public day started at 8:45 a.m. when he and his wife, Michelle, left Blair House for a service at St. John's Church, then joined the Bushes, Cheneys and Bidens for coffee at the White House.
The Obamas' daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, joined them at the Capitol, as did Clinton and McCain, as well as former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush.
While emotional for many, the ceremony did not go entirely according to plan. Biden was sworn in by Justice John Paul Stevens behind schedule at 11:57 a.m., and Obama did not take the oath until 12:05 p.m., five minutes past the constitutionally proscribed transfer of power.
Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. stumbled over the 35-word oath, causing Obama to repeat it out of the constitutional order. Instead of swearing that he "will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States," Obama swore that he "will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully."
Following time-honored rituals, the Obamas attended lunch with lawmakers in Statuary Hall at the Capitol, then rode and walked to the White House, where they viewed the parade from a bulletproof reviewing stand. They planned to attend all 10 official inaugural balls before spending their first night in the White House.
In his Inaugural Address, Obama seemed at times to be having a virtual dialogue with his predecessors. "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility," he said, "a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly." Bush and Clinton likewise called for responsibility at their inaugurations, but Obama offered little sense of what exactly he wants Americans to do.
Obama also seemed to take issue with Ronald Reagan, who declared when he took office in 1981 that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Clinton rebutted that in 1997, saying, "government is not the problem and government is not the solution."
Obama offered a new formulation: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
Clinton, at least, applauded the message. In a brief interview afterward, he said Obama's installation could change the way America was viewed.
"It's obviously historic because President Obama is the first African-American president, but it's more than that," Clinton said. "This is a time when we're clearly making a new beginning. It's a country of repeated second-chances and new beginnings."
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
WASHINGTON: Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday and promised to "begin again the work of remaking America" on a day of celebration that climaxed a once-inconceivable journey for the man and his country.
Obama, the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, inherited a White House built partly by slaves and a nation in crisis at home and abroad. The moment captured the imagination of much of the world as more than a million flag-waving people bore witness as Obama recited the oath with his hand on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used at his inauguration 148 years ago.
Beyond the politics of the occasion, the sight of a black man climbing the highest peak electrified people across racial, generational and partisan lines. Obama largely left it to others to mark the history explicitly, making only passing reference to his own barrier-breaking role in his 18-minute Inaugural Address, noting how improbable it might seem that "a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."
But confronted by the worst economic situation in decades, two overseas wars and the continuing threat of Islamic terrorism, Obama sobered the celebration with a grim assessment of the state of a nation rocked by home foreclosures, shuttered businesses, lost jobs, costly health care, failing schools, energy dependence and the threat of climate change. Signaling a sharp and immediate break with the presidency of George W. Bush, he vowed to usher in a "new era of responsibility" and restore tarnished American ideals.
"Today, I say to you that the challenges we face are real," Obama said in the address, delivered from the west front of the Capitol. "They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America, they will be met."
The vast crowd that thronged the Mall on a frigid but bright winter day was the largest to attend an inauguration in decades, if not ever. Many then lined Pennsylvania Avenue for a parade that continued well past nightfall on a day that was not expected to end for Obama until late in the night with the last of 10 inaugural balls.
Bush left the national stage quietly, doing nothing to upstage his successor. After hosting the Obamas for morning coffee at the White House and attending the ceremony at the Capitol, Bush hugged Obama, then left through the Rotunda to head back to Texas. "Come on, Laura, we're going home," he was overheard telling the former first lady.
The inauguration coincided with more bad news from Wall Street, with the Dow Jones industrial average down more than 300 points on indications of further trouble for banks.
The spirit of the day was also marred by the hospitalization of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, whose endorsement helped propel Obama to the Democratic nomination last year. Kennedy, who has been fighting a malignant brain tumor, collapsed in convulsions at a Capitol luncheon after the ceremony and was wheeled out on a stretcher.
The pageantry included some serious business. Shortly after he and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. were sworn in, Obama ordered all pending Bush regulations frozen for a legal and policy review. He also signed formal nomination papers for his cabinet, and the Senate quickly confirmed seven nominees: the secretaries of homeland security, energy, agriculture, interior, education and veterans' affairs and the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
When he arrives in the Oval Office on Wednesday, aides said, Obama will get to work on some of his priorities. He plans to convene his national security team and senior military commanders to discuss his plans to pull combat troops out of Iraq and bolster those in Afghanistan. He also plans to sign executive orders to start closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and could reverse Bush's restrictions on financing for groups that promote abortion or condom use.
Delays in the confirmation process have left both the State Department and the Treasury Department in the hands of caretakers. But Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to win Senate confirmation as secretary of state on Wednesday, and the Pentagon remains under the control of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was kept on from the Bush administration and did not attend the inauguration so someone in the line of succession would survive in case of terrorist attack.
In his address, Obama praised Bush "for his service to our nation as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition." But he also offered implicit criticism, condemning what he called "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."
He went on to assure the rest of the world that change had come. "To all other peoples and governments who are watching today," Obama said, "from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."
Some of Obama's supporters booed and taunted Bush when he emerged from the Capitol to take his place on stage, with some singing, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, hey, goodbye."
The departing vice president, Dick Cheney, appeared at the ceremony in a wheelchair after suffering a back injury moving the day before. He later left without public comment.
The nation's 56th inauguration drew waves of people from all corners and filled the vast expanse between the Capitol and the Washington Monument. For the first transition in power since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, much of the capital city was under exceptionally tight security, with a two-square-mile swath under the strictest control. Bridges from Virginia were closed to regular traffic and more than 35,000 civilian and military personnel were on duty.
Obama secured at least part of his legacy the moment he walked into the White House on Tuesday, 146 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, 108 years after the first black man dined in the mansion with a president and 45 years after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared his dream of equality.
Obama, just 47 years old and four years out of the Illinois State Senate, arrived at this moment on the unlikeliest of paths, vaulted to the forefront of national politics on the strength of stirring speeches, early opposition to the Iraq war and public disenchantment with the Bush era. His scant record of achievement at the national level proved less important to voters than his embodiment of change.
His foreign-sounding name, his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia and his skin color made him a unique figure in the annals of presidential campaigns, yet he toppled two of the best brand names in American politics — Clinton in the primaries and Senator John McCain in the general election.
Obama himself is descended on his mother's side from ancestors who owned slaves and he can trace his family tree to Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. The power of the moment was lost on no one as the Rev. Joseph Lowery, one of the towering figures of the civil rights movement, gave the benediction and called for "inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance."
The Rev. Rick Warren, a conservative minister selected by Obama to give the invocation despite protests from liberals, told the crowd: "We know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven."
For all that, Obama used the occasion to address "this winter of our hardship" and promote his plan for vast federal spending accompanied by tax cuts to stimulate the moribund economy and begin addressing energy, environmental and infrastructure needs.
"Now there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans," he said. "Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage."
He also essentially renounced the curtailment of liberties in the name of security, saying that he would "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." He struck a stiff note on terrorism, saying that Americans "will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense."
"To those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken," he said. "You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
But Obama also added a special message to Islamic nations, a first from the inaugural lectern. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Obama said. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history — but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
Obama's public day started at 8:45 a.m. when he and his wife, Michelle, left Blair House for a service at St. John's Church, then joined the Bushes, Cheneys and Bidens for coffee at the White House.
The Obamas' daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, joined them at the Capitol, as did Clinton and McCain, as well as former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush.
While emotional for many, the ceremony did not go entirely according to plan. Biden was sworn in by Justice John Paul Stevens behind schedule at 11:57 a.m., and Obama did not take the oath until 12:05 p.m., five minutes past the constitutionally proscribed transfer of power.
Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. stumbled over the 35-word oath, causing Obama to repeat it out of the constitutional order. Instead of swearing that he "will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States," Obama swore that he "will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully."
Following time-honored rituals, the Obamas attended lunch with lawmakers in Statuary Hall at the Capitol, then rode and walked to the White House, where they viewed the parade from a bulletproof reviewing stand. They planned to attend all 10 official inaugural balls before spending their first night in the White House.
In his Inaugural Address, Obama seemed at times to be having a virtual dialogue with his predecessors. "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility," he said, "a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly." Bush and Clinton likewise called for responsibility at their inaugurations, but Obama offered little sense of what exactly he wants Americans to do.
Obama also seemed to take issue with Ronald Reagan, who declared when he took office in 1981 that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Clinton rebutted that in 1997, saying, "government is not the problem and government is not the solution."
Obama offered a new formulation: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
Clinton, at least, applauded the message. In a brief interview afterward, he said Obama's installation could change the way America was viewed.
"It's obviously historic because President Obama is the first African-American president, but it's more than that," Clinton said. "This is a time when we're clearly making a new beginning. It's a country of repeated second-chances and new beginnings."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)