Lebanese Opposition Agrees to Join Unity Government

Lebanon's opposition bloc of lawmakers, led by Hezbollah, said over the weekend it had agreed to join a unity government with Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, a move that could end more than four months of political deadlock.

Mr. Hariri has yet to announce his 30-member cabinet, and a final accord could snag in coming days. But opposition officials have given their clearest signal yet that they will share power with the Western-backed bloc of lawmakers that Mr. Hariri led to victory in June parliamentary elections.

A deal, if consummated, would represent a significant easing of political tensions in Lebanon. It would also mark a deepening regional détente between two foreign powers that have exercised outsize sway in Lebanese politics: Saudi Arabia and Syria. Lebanon has long served as a battleground for bigger Middle East and global powers. The June election pitted Mr. Hariri's bloc, backed by the U.S., European allies and Saudi Arabia, against an opposition led by Hezbollah, the Shiite political and militant group supported by Syria and Iran.

...

WALL STREET JOURNAL

US Defense Department eyes missile sale to Turkey

The US Defense Department has notified Congress that it plans to sell Turkey the most advanced version of its Patriot air-defense missile system, in a deal worth as much as 7.8 billion dollars, AFP reported on Monday. The move is designed to bolster the security of Turkey, a US ally and the only NATO member to have a land border with Iran.
The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency said that the sale would include 72 PAC-3 interceptor missiles and a host of related hardware. The sale was essential for Turkey to maintain “a strong and ready self-defense capability that will contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area,” the agency said in a statement to lawmakers.

The notification comes amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. suspects has a military aim.

Link

A Wet Kiss for Kaddafi

The move to normalize relations between the U.S. and Libya accelerates next month when Muammar Kaddafi makes his first-ever trip to America to address the U.N. The arrival of Kaddafi is already creating problems for New York security officials: he travels with a massive, heated Bedouin tent. Libyan officials recently asked permission for Kaddafi to pitch it in Central Park. "The location for the tent is still an open question," says a senior State Department official who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters. (One alternative: coax Kaddafi, and his retinue of female bodyguards, to pitch the tent on Libyan-owned property in New Jersey.)

...
Newsweek article

Obama lifts some sanctions on Syria

Damascus welcomes a Washington measure to ease economic sanctions on Syria pertaining to civilian aviation, the Syrian envoy to Washington said.

Imad Mustafa, the Syrian ambassador to Washington, said the embassy was informed that Washington had lifted economic sanctions related to civilian aviation and the export of communications equipment to Syria, the official Syrian Arab News Agency reports.

The U.S. Congress passed the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 to punish Damascus for its support of terrorism, occupation of Lebanon and for the pursuit of a controversial weapons program.

Mustafa said U.S. President Barack Obama had suspended several of the sanctions measures, noting more restrictions could be lifted in the future. "We are focusing with President Obama's administration on using the U.S. president's executive authority to suspend the execution of the important articles in the sanctions law," he said.

Mustafa said the effort was part of a growing sign that Damascus was a vital player in the region. Obama has moved to restore U.S. relations in the Middle East as part of a broader policy move toward detente while Damascus pushes its own anti-isolationist efforts.

George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the region, was in Damascus during the weekend as part of a move by Washington to kick-start the Middle East peace process and improve bilateral ties with Syria.

theWashingtonPost

Solana: Obama speech opens new page

US President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo “will open a new page in relations with the Arab-Muslim world”, EU High Representative for the CFSP Javier Solana has told reporters, according to a Council press release.

“I found many things in this speech that represent a meeting of minds with what the European Union has been defending for some time,” he said, adding: “I think that together we – the EU, the US and the countries in the region – can begin to solve the many problems that face us in the Middle East.”

He said the climate created by the “remarkable” speech was very constructive. “Now, what we cannot do is fail. Now we have to really move, together, and try and to do what has to be done. There is no time to lose.”
http://www.euromedinfo.eu/site.168.news.en.5804.html

Hillary Clinton offers handshake of friendship to Syria

It was a brief but significant gesture: in the hubbub of the Gaza donor’s conference in Egypt, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, shook hands and exchanged a few words yesterday with Walid Mouallem, her Syrian counterpart.

In the Middle East, where even the slightest gesture is closely scrutinised, the brief encounter was seen as a sign that Washington was prepared to mend fences with Syria, whose leader, Bashar Assad, was treated as a pariah by the Bush Administration.

Mr Mouallem said afterwards that the meeting “was short but very pleasant”, and that he was “happy it happened”. With the strict protocols at summits, such encounters rarely happen by chance; they are more frequently designed to send subtle but powerful messages. The Syrian Foreign Minister was standing at the door to the banquet room as delegates filed in for lunch at the conference to pledge more than $5 billion (£3.6 billion) for the reconstruction of Gaza. Mrs Clinton, on her first official trip to the region, had just promised to breathe new life into the peace process. She stopped in front of Mr Mouallem, shook his hand and exchanged a few words with him.

The meeting was all the more significant as Mrs Clinton had just told Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister, that she doubted that Iran – Syria’s main ally in the region – would respond to President Obama’s offer to engage with it after years of enmity. “We’re under no illusions,” Mrs Clinton said, according to an aide. “Our eyes are wide open on Iran.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the weekend that Iran had enough uranium to complete its nuclear weapons programme – an ambition Tehran has always denied. “We think they do, quite frankly,” the admiral said. “And Iran having nuclear weapons, I’ve believed for a long time, is a very, very bad outcome – for the region and for the world.”

If Iran does not respond to US overtures, the new Administration may try to lure Syria away from its partner, opening the door to a return to the diplomatic fold at a time when Syria’s economy is suffering from years of isolation.

Times Online

Peace plan for the new President

Article I: Territory

Ever since Israel blitzed the Arabs in 1967's Six Day War—taking the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan—"land for peace" has been the guiding principle of any comprehensive deal. It remains the only option. Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza; it must now pull out of the vast majority of the West Bank. Palestinians will establish their homeland in these two swatches of land. In return, the Palestinians and other Arabs will formally renounce their claims on the Jewish state and recognize its right to exist. But there will have to be some adjustments to the pre-1967 borders. Israel and the Palestinians should swap equal amounts of land, allowing a majority of the roughly 270,000 Israeli settlers now residing in the largest of the West Bank settlement blocks to stay where they are while remaining under Israeli sovereignty. Israel in turn would give up a land corridor connecting Gaza to the West Bank and allowing for the free flow of people and commerce between the two. There is one additional challenge that did not exist when Clinton laid out his original proposal in 2000: the Israelis have erected a security barrier that puts a full 8 percent of the West Bank on their side of the fence. It has already changed the way Israelis think about the borders of their nation. "The security barrier is creating new conceptual and spatial contours in the Israeli imagination," says Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator and now a senior fellow at both the Century and New America foundations. But for any deal to succeed, the barrier would have to be torn down or, at the very least, moved.

Article II: Security

Back in 2000, this was the most straightforward of the issues to be worked out. Both sides generally agreed that the new Palestinian state would have to be largely de-militarized. Palestinian forces would be allowed to maintain light arms to enforce domestic law and order but would not have an offensive capability that could in any way threaten Israel. The Palestinians would have sovereignty over their airspace, but it would be limited to civilian aviation. Yet the violence of the last eight years—not only between Palestinians and Israelis but also between Fatah and Hamas forces—complicates the security equation. The Israelis are now more skeptical that Fatah is strong enough to assume responsibility for security. A more feasible approach would be to put a NATO-based international force in the West Bank that would later transfer control to the Palestinians. Obama might well go for this; his designated national-security adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, developed the idea while serving as Condoleezza Rice's envoy for Palestinian-Israeli security issues. As far as Israeli forces are concerned, they would be able to withdraw from the strategically important Jordan Valley over a longer period of time, perhaps three years. Israel would be allowed to maintain a number of warning stations on Palestinian territory. Finally, Israel would allow the Palestinians to have sovereignty over their borders and international crossing points. But these borders and crossing points should be monitored by an international presence.

Article III: Jerusalem

The sacred "City of Peace" is at the very heart of the 100-year conflict: how to divvy up rights to a holy place with too much history and not enough geography. In 2000, Clinton's deft diplomatic skills helped demystify Jerusalem. He asked Israeli and Palestinian mediators to come up with a list of 60 basic municipal responsibilities they could share, from garbage collection to mail delivery. There was remarkable consensus. By moving the conversation from the sacred to the mundane, the exercise isolated the practical issues of running a city from the abstract and emotionally fraught issue of sovereignty. Clinton's seductively simple notion was this: in occupied East Jerusalem, he said, "What is Arab should be Palestinian and what is Jewish should be Israeli." This is just as relevant today. So is the principle from Camp David that Jerusalem must be divided—but shared, and it must serve as a capital to both states.

One of Clinton's solutions will likely have to be dialed back. His concept of split-level sovereignty for the holiest parts of Jerusalem are too incendiary. Jews know the area as the Temple Mount, the site where the ancient temple once stood. It is revered by Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, the place where Muhammad ascended to heaven on a white steed. Clinton proposed Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the entire Western Wall, part of which runs beneath the Muslim quarter of the Old City. Today, it is very unlikely that either side would accept such a division. But there are other creative solutions. One is a proposal in a new book by Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel at the time of the 2000 summit. Indyk recommends that the Old City be placed under a so-called "special regime," with Israeli and Palestinian governments sharing sovereignty over the territory. But the religious sites inside the Old City walls would remain under the control of the respective Muslim, Jewish and Christian religious authorities without any actual designation of sovereignty. Alternatively, Indyk suggests, the entire Holy Basin—the Old City and religious sites—could be placed under international supervision, with religious authorities controlling their holy places.

Article IV: Refugees

This may be the most difficult problem to solve. What will become of the Palestinians who fled or were forced from their territory in 1948, and their descendants? There are as many as 4 million refugees living in camps on the West Bank and Gaza and in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. They are poor, stateless and angry. For half a century they have waited, believing that one day they will return to their homes. Throughout the years of negotiations, Palestinians have demanded a "right of return." But to Israelis, the notion implies an admission that they are responsible for the refugee crisis and the historical injustices leveled against the Palestinians. Israelis, offended at the suggestion that their country was born in sin, have drawn a clear line.

Israeli leaders have been willing to accept a partial solution: some refugees living in the camps would make homes in the newly established state of Palestine. A small, symbolic number would be permitted to move to Israel. For this to work, refugees living in camps in Syria and other foreign states would have to be allowed to stay if they chose, and be granted citizenship in their adopted countries—the Arab host countries could not demand that all of the refugees return to Palestine, where they would overwhelm the budding state. And the refugees must be granted a window of time—perhaps three to five years—to petition international courts for compensation for what they have lost, perhaps as part of a massive regional redevelopment plan.

But how to salve the wounds of Palestinian grievance? One intriguing solution is offered by writer Walter Russell Mead in an essay in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Mead argues that though Israel must take some responsibility for the Palestinian tragedy, the entire nakba, or catastrophe, "cannot simply be laid at Israel's door." Israel must acknowledge its part in the events of 1948, but the international community must take "ultimate responsibility" for the 60-year-old crisis. In this way, the world would acknowledge that the Palestinians have indeed suffered a historic injustice, but obviate the need for Israel to bear full responsibility. "This is a way to confer dignity on the Palestinian people," says Levy—a crucial step toward securing an elusive peace.

(Newsweek)

American Tanks For Lebanon

The U.S. is continuing its effort to rebuild the Lebanese armed forces. While Russia has recently contributed ten MiG-29 fighters, the U.S. contribution has been a lot more practical. Like over 600 hummers (about half are already there, the rest will arrive over the next four months). That's just the beginning, with 200 larger trucks and 41 155mm howitzers on the way. Recently it was announced that several dozen M-60A3 tanks would be sent as well.

Some Lebanese pundits pointed out that these tanks, which were retired by the United States in the 1990s, are no good against the new Israeli Merkava 4 (similar to the latest models of the U.S. M-1.) What these pundits didn't point out was that M-60A3s were easily able to defeat Iraqi T-72s in 1991, and are widely used in the Middle East (Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Jordan). The Lebanese generals know this, and are glad to have the M-60A3s, which are more likely to be used against Syrian T-72s, than Israeli Merkavas. The U.S. is also supplying the Lebanese with communications gear, radars, sensors, technical assistance and all manner of training.

Link

Annapolis peace conference

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice organized and hosted the conference. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and U.S. President George W. Bush attended the meeting. A partial list of over 40 invitees was released on 20. November 2007, including China, the Arab League, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations most of whom have accepted the invitation. Syria, Saud Arabia and Egypt participated on ministerial level.

The goal of the conference was to produce a substantive document on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines of President George W. Bush's Roadmap For Peace, with the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state.

The conference on November 27, 2007, took place approximately 30 years after Anwar El Sadat, president of Egypt, visited Israel on November 19, 1977 to sign a peace agreement and appoximately 60 years after the newly-created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city – a corpus separatum – administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status. The Jewish community accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.

Abbas stated that a clear agenda was necessary for the conference, and affirmed in early October that only a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip in their entirety would be acceptable, with any permanent Israeli control of land beyond its 1967 borders subject to discussion on a one-to-one basis. He further demanded that all six central issues be debated at the conference: Jerusalem, refugees and right of return, borders, settlements, water and security.

In October 2007, Prime Minister Olmert indicated that he would be willing to give parts of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as part of a broader peace settlement at Annapolis, drawing considerable criticism from right-wing Israeli and foreign Jewish organizations and Christian Zionists. Knesset members from within Olmert's own ruling coalition have also been trying to stop such plans.

Prior to the conference, President Bush met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in the White House. After meeting with Olmert and Abbas, President Bush read from a joint statement, signed by both parties, "We agreed to immediately launch good faith, bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including core issues, without exception," and that, "The final peace settlement will establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people."

Wikipedia

Rice in Istanbul

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that the United States considers PKK as a terrorist organization and a common enemy.

"We have agreed with Turkish FM Ali Babacan that effective measures must be taken so that Turkey is not faced with terror attacks in the future," told Rice a press conference in Ankara. In a joint press conference after her tete-a-tete meeting with Ali Babacan, Rice indicated that they discussed the problem in north of Iraq and terrorist organization PKK.

"PKK is a threat to Iraq's stability; and security of both Turkey and the United States," underlined Rice.

"Turkey is an important friend of the U.S.. We are thankful to Turkey for organizing an international conference on Iraq in Istanbul," she noted .

Meanwhile the PKK released 8 turkish prisoners, after they were kidnapped during a PKK attack in Daglica last week.

Egypt, too choses nuclear

Egypt's president announced plans Monday to build several nuclear power plants — the latest in a string of ambitious such proposals from moderate Arab countries. The United States immediately welcomed the plan, in a sharp contrast to what it called nuclear "cheating" by Iran.

President Hosni Mubarak said the aim was to diversify Egypt's energy resources and preserve its oil and gas reserves for future generations. In a televised speech, he pledged Egypt would work with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency at all times and would not seek a nuclear bomb. But Mubarak also made clear there were strategic reasons for the program, calling secure sources of energy "an integral part of Egypt's national security system."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. would not object to the program as long as Egypt adhered to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines.

Jordan, Turkey and several Gulf Arab countries have announced in recent months that they are interested in developing nuclear power programs, and Yemen's government signed a deal with a U.S. company in September to build civilian nuclear plants over the next 10 years.

Algeria also signed a cooperation accord with the United States on civil nuclear energy in June, and Morocco announced a deal last week under which France will help develop nuclear reactors there.

AP

Dozens die in Turkey border clash

At least 12 Turkish soldiers have been killed following an ambush by Kurdish rebels near the Iraqi border - with 32 rebels also killed, officials say.

The PKK guerrilla group claimed it had also taken "several" soldiers hostage. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recalled security officials to Ankara for a crisis meeting. Correspondents say the attacks will increase the pressure on the government to launch raids into Iraq, after it was given clearance to do so by parliament.

On Wednesday, MPs voted overwhelmingly in support of a motion to allow the military to launch offensives across the border, against rebels based in the remote, mountainous north of Iraq.

It followed an escalation of raids by the PKK - the Kurdistan Workers' Party - as part of its armed campaign for Kurdish autonomy. Recent attacks blamed on the group have left more than 30 Turkish soldiers and civilians dead.

About 3,000 PKK fighters are believed to be based in northern Iraq near the Turkish border, says the BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul. There have been regular clashes in the area since earlier in the year, but the latest attack was one of the deadliest for some time. The clashes will increase pressure on the government from the public and the military for a tough response, our correspondent says.

The United States, Turkey's Nato ally, has called for restraint, fearing that any incursions would destabilise Iraq's most peaceful area - the autonomous Kurdish region in the north.

The EU's policy toward Syria: a costly wait and see approach

Comment By Ruth Hanau-SantiniEUOBSERVER / COMMENT
Given the lack of a coherent and comprehensive EU approach to Syria and its role in the Middle East, it would be useful to look the costs and benefits of developing a proper policy towards Damascus.

In 2004, the EU total assistance aid allocated to Syria reached €55 million. It was mainly for technical assistance, institution-building and democracy promotion. In the same year, after eight years of negotiations, the EU and Syria finalised an Association Agreement.

The sanctions imposed by the US against Damascus in May 2004, however, influenced some member states' willingness to sign the agreement. The UK, Germany and the Netherlands' insistence on inserting an additional clause dealing specifically with chemical weapons blocked the overall process. The deal was called off and economic relations continue to be ruled by a 1977 Co-operation Agreement. So despite Syria being a partner in the Barcelona process, it does not benefit from the European Neighbourhood instruments.

While the EU remains Syria's first trading partner, the relationship's intensity has significantly decreased in the aftermath of the US embargo. Far from being passive, Syria has diversified its economic and political relations with third countries. Ankara, already Damascus' second trade partner, has been particularly privileged, as symbolized by the opening of a Free Trade Area at the beginning of 2007.

In the coming years, Turkey could become Damascus' largest trading partner: its exports to Syria have already nearly tripled in the past 10 years, rising from roughly USD 270m in 1997 to over USD 600m in 2006. In addition to that, Turkey has become a political and military ally, the two having signed a military agreement in 2004 aimed at countering the danger of potential spill-overs from Iraq's Kurdish areas.

By acting in an un-coordinated manner, the EU has diminished its overall capacity for influence. Acknowledging this risk, in the spring of 2007, national capitals informally agreed to be represented by the EU High Representative, Javier Solana, towards Damascus. In reality, this has never materialized and foreign ministers have kept visiting Assad without offering either an EU- coordinated long-term strategic vision or real carrots.

The consequences of the US ban have been far-reaching: on the one hand Syria has reinforced political and economic ties with third countries, thereby limiting the potential leverage of the EU. On the other, the sanctions have caused an internal split within the Union with some member states afraid to alienate the US Middle Eastern project. This has had its downside, namely the indefinite postponing of the establishment of an EU comprehensive vision of the region.

To conclude, the costs of envisaging a common approach to Syria's potentially beneficial role in the region would cause irritation in Washington, as well as in Israel, with whom the EU is struggling to improve the tone of the relationship.

A shift from a wait-and-see approach to a pro-active one, on the other hand, would entail significant benefits, both politically and economically.

Economically, Syria is an important gateway for European trade in the Arab world. Politically, reaching an association agreement with Syria remains the main channel through which the EU can hope to influence democratic forces and modernization impulses within the country, by setting clear benchmarks associated to further economic involvement.

Secondly, the same card should be used to forge a common strategic vision over the means the Union is ready to deploy in order to increase Damascus' stakes in developing an autonomous foreign policy in the area, resisting Teheran's influence.

Brussels should not wait to have fully-fledged economic relations before adopting an overall strategic policy towards Syria, but should strive to develop both simultaneously.

US funds allies against Iran

The US has announced military aid worth more than $43bn to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in an effort to boost its Middle East allies against Iran.

Egypt will receive $13bn in aid over 10 years while $30bn will go to Israel over the same period, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said on Monday.She also said that an unspecified defence aid package was allocated for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

The Saudi package is expected to upgrade the country's missile defences and air force and increase its naval capabilities, a defence official said on Saturday. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries are likely to receive as much as $20bn over 10 years, he said. Rice made the announcement hours before leaving with Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, for a joint trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to seek the support of Arab nations in stabilising Iraq.

"This effort will help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran," Rice said.

Al Jazeera

Turkey: EKP's Victory A Boost To Black Sea Stability?

Analysis

As Turkish citizens ponder what the Justice and Development Party's easy win in Turkey's recent parliamentary elections means for their future, citizens of neighboring countries are watching developments in Ankara with great interest.
For the Black Sea region, the election represents another milestone in the Muslim country's shift toward Europe that, observers say, will have positive economic and security implications for the entire region.

Of the six countries that share the Black Sea coast (Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Russia), just two -- Romanian and Bulgaria -- are members of the 27-member EU. The Black Sea region as a whole is considered to also include Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, Greece, and Moldova -- all of which are members of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC).

Because it sits between Europe and the energy-rich Russian and Caspian Sea region, the Black Sea region is a natural transit corridor for gas and oil.

More than 40 percent of Europe's natural gas is imported -- half of it from Russia. And as energy security has emerged as a key concern in the EU, the bloc has begun looking for ways to diversify its sources. In April, the EU launched a "Black Sea Synergy" initiative aimed at encouraging energy and transportation projects, as well as regional stability. And for first time, an EU representative in June attended the BSEC's annual meeting.

The organization has several regional pipeline projects in the works, each aimed at the region becoming an energy corridor for gas and oil supplies going west. The EU is backing those pipeline projects, as well as the proposed construction of a 2,000-kilometer coastal highway to facilitate regional trade.

The region's closer cooperation with the European Union on energy issues can't please Russia, which has competing plans for the rich energy resources of the Black Sea and Caspian regions.

Vladimir Socor, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington and an expert on Russian and Western security and energy policies in Eurasia, calls Russia "the resurgent power in the region" -- one that won't easily cede its position.

"The Black Sea region is where the future balance of power in Eurasia will be decided both in terms of location -- in terms of power projection from NATO Europe to the greater Middle East -- and of course in terms of non-Russian energy transit to Europe," Socor says. "So it's time, in my view, for the EU and U.S. and certainly NATO, to refocus their agenda for the Black Sea region."

Socor is an accession skeptic -- he sees little likelihood that Turkey will one day soon join the European Union. But that doesn't mean Turkey and the EU won't become closer partners on key issues, he says, noting the "growing consensus" in Europe to offer Turkey some kind of privileged arrangement that falls short of EU membership but contains cooperation agreements on key issues.

"Accession prospect is simply out of the question. But it would be to the mutual advantage of Turkey and the European Union to enter into reciprocal arrangements regarding security and energy transit," Socor says. "With respect to security, the European Union needs to project stability and security into its Eastern neighborhood, and increasingly to the Caspian basin and the South Caucasus. Turkey could definitely be instrumental in that."

Turkey's geographical location makes it a natural transit corridor for Caspian energy to Europe, but Socor says the United States and European Union realized "very late" the importance of being able to access gas and oil supplies from places like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, and Turkey's role in bringing it West.

Their interest now is a source of reassurance to Black Sea countries looking for evidence that the West has a stake in their future, he says. When combined with the pro-European results from the Turkish elections, Russia's efforts to maintain its dominance in the region look weakened, as countries that may have been nervous about being brought under its influence might be encouraged.

But for those states, there is an additional worry -- that the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are distracting it from paying closer attention to political and security developments elsewhere. "Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Georgia are really concerned about the resurgence of Russian power and about the strategic destruction of the United States and NATO in Iraq and Afghanistan," Socor says.

"Clearly, these countries do look for reassurance of the U.S. and EU interest, and EU and U.S. firmness in facing the kind of security issues that Russia has recently raised." Socor notes that those issues directly involve the Black Sea region, the Caucasus, and the Balkans. Though unrelated, he says, Russia has "thrown them all into a pot in the hopes of using them collectively as leverage with the West."

The issues include Moscow's threat to suspend participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, the critical reevaluation of the treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces, and the claim that U.S. military installations on the Black Sea in Romania and Bulgaria are upsetting the post-Cold War balance of power in Europe.

Regional Bargaining Chip

Socor also says Russia's "obstruction on Kosovo" and what he calls "the perennial issue of the so-called frozen conflicts" are examples of how Russia is seeking trade-offs with the West for its acquiescence.

"This is why the countries in the Black Sea region do expect their allies in the West to demonstrate firmness and not to relegate the Black Sea security issues to second place, behind other priorities," Socor says.

"Because this is the Russian calculation, that the United States, NATO, [and] the European Union to some extent, are so preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, [and] Kosovo, that they might neglect, or relegate to second place, those issues on which Russia is pressing them in the Black Sea. And this must not be allowed to happen."

Bulent Aliriza directs the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and is an expert on Caspian Sea energy issues. He tells RFE that, "If you're sitting in Tbilisi -- which is on the 'wrong end of the Black Sea' in terms of joining NATO and joining the EU -- and the country between you and Europe appears to be moving toward a closer relationship to Europe, then you feel slightly more comfortable."

But he also says that although Turkey is viewed by Europe as an indispensable factor in its drive to diversify energy resources, the practical implications of that partnership has gotten bogged down in Europe's conflicted feelings about its "very important relationship with Russia."

Until Europe decides who it needs more, it seems Turkey's future may remain an open question.
Radio Free Europe