English - L'Anglais
Today News

Dutch - Nederlands
Vandaag Nieuws

French - Français
Aujourd'hui Nouvelles

German - Deutsch
Heute Nachrichten

SHORT NEWS - KORTE NIEUWS - NOUVELLES COURTES - KURZE NACHRICHTEN

Video Shows Fugitive Mladic Moving Freely

English

 
May 22, 2009
 

Young Bosnians: waiting for their politicians to open the door to visa free travel?

Dear friends of ESI,

This is a time for taking concrete decisions concerning visa free travel to the EU for the citizens of Western Balkan countries.

Next week, Monday, 25 May 2009, the Commission will discuss its newest assessment reports on the issue with EU member states' officials. For more detailed information on the assessments please look at our exclusive Scorecard of Schengen White List Conditions (22 May 2009).

These assessments conclude – based on the most thorough expert assessments ever undertaken in the fields of document security, border control, migration management and security – that Macedonia meets the conditions for visa-free travel, that Montenegro and Serbia meet most of the conditions for visa-free travel, and that Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania do not (yet) meet the conditions for visa free travel.

If EU member states follow the Commission's assessments and apply the strict conditionality they have themselves defined they will offer Macedonia visa-free travel. As for Montenegro and Serbia, the Commission and EU member states will need to weigh whether to reward the impressive recent progress made in both countries (particularly in recent months) or whether to withhold any concrete rewards until all conditions are actually met. A third option, preferable to a negative decision, might be to make one more final assessement in these two countries before the end of July.

Kosovo, the sixth Western Balkan state whose citizens are required to obtain a visa to travel to the EU, is not yet included in this process leading to visa liberalisation. It risks being left behind as an isolated enclave in the region. It is not clear why the EU would wish to forego such a powerful instrument to improve policing, border controls and the rule of law in Kosovo.

Olli Rehn, Gerald Knaus, Alex Stiglmayer discussing the Balkans	Showing the way: Macedonian music knows no borders

Understanding visa liberalisation – from A to Z

ESI analysts, led by senior analyst and visa project coordinator Alex Stiglmayer, and supported by Kristóf Gosztonyi have also produced a detailed glossary on visa liberalisation (Visa Roadmap A to Z). We are grateful to the Robert Bosch Stiftung for supporting this project.

This glossary explains all the key concepts and technical terms that appear in the visa roadmaps for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, making clear how far-reaching the reforms are that these states have to undertake to qualify for visa-free travel with the Schengen countries. It is evident that these reforms will be beneficial not only to the Balkan countries, but will also help protect the EU against crime and illegal immigration from all over the world.

In coming days we will make more information and analysis available on our website. In case of questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Many best wishes,



Gerald Knaus

Further reading
 

• Exclusive: New Commission assessments (May 2009)
• About the Schengen White List Project
• Strict but fair – The Declaration
• Stories from the Balkan ghetto
• The road to visa-free travel
• Media reactions
• Recommended reading and watching
• Balkan Cage Video
• ESI Armenia-Turkey Report – Media Reactions
• ESI news

Feedback:

As always, we are looking forward to your feedback. However, please do not reply directly to this message but send your comments to feedback@esiweb.org.

Contact:

European Stability Initiative (ESI)
Grossbeerenstrasse 83
10963 Berlin
GERMANY

Tel: +49 30 53214455
Fax: +49 30 53214457
E-mail: info@esiweb.org
Website: www.esiweb.org

© European Stability Initiative (ESI)

Click for Big Picture

Almost 28,000 activists signed the Care2 petition urging the Iranian government to free Roxana Saberi, and these signatures made a difference. Today, American journalist Roxana Saberi walked out of prison in Iran, and is free.

Ms. Saberi appealed her conviction on charges of espionage, and thanks to international pressure on the Iranian government, she received an appeal date of yesterday and her charges were reduced.

You can read more about Ms. Saberi's appeal and release on the BBC News website. You can also visit FreeRoxana.net to read more about the global campaign to support Ms. Saberi and the Committee to Protect Journalists to learn about the journalists who remain imprisoned in Iran and around the world.

Thank you so much to everyone who signed our petition - it is so heartening to see that when people around the world tap the power of the internet to protest human rights abuses, we really can make a difference.


Read more: human rights, roxanasaberi, press freedom, freeroxana

Date: 27 April 2009
Sender: FOD VOLKSGEZONDHEID / SPF SANTE PUBLIQUE

Mogelijke gevallen van Mexicaanse griep in België : alle resultaten zijn negatief

Het Interministerieel Commissariaat Influenza laat weten dat 6 personen die verbleven hebben in een gebied dat getroffen is door de Mexicaanse griep, testen ondergaan hebben nadat zij symptomen van de griep vertoonden.

De analyses van het Wetenschappelijk Instituut Volksgezondheid (WIV), hebben vannacht aangetoond dat alle gevallen negatief zijn en dat geen enkele van deze zes landgenoten de Mexicaanse griep heeft opgelopen.

Meer informatie over de Mexicaanse griep is beschikbaar op : www.influenza.be.
 
Personal Contacts:
Personal Contacts:
Mr. Jan Eyckmans
Phone: 02/5249045
Email: jan.eyckmans@health.fgov.be

Gratis telefoon: 0800/99.777

Dejan Anastasijevic	Javier Solana	Radmila Sekerinska	Giuliano Amato
Spot the non-Europeans in this group

Dear friends of ESI,

In February 2004 the Serbian journalist Dejan Anastasijevic was invited to participate in a conference on EU security in Brussels. He applied for a Belgian visa in Belgrade and provided a letter of invitation by Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative:

"I was told that Mr. Solana's invitation was invalid, since he was not a citizen of Belgium, and the EU is not a Belgian company."

One year later, invited to the second part of the same conference in Spain, the question of Mr. Solana's invitation arose again:

"This time the problem was that he was not a Spanish resident. Eventually I got the visa after threatening to write a newspaper article about the issue."

Jacques Barrot	Olli Rehn	Mirek Topolanek	Wolfgang Schauble
Will they tear down the Schengen wall?

Strict, fair, transparent

Dejan was, and is, not alone: in coming weeks we will publish more Stories from the Balkan ghetto. Applying for a Schengen visa remains time-consuming, costly and stressful. People throughout the region perceive the visa requirement as personal rejection. They are unable to reconcile it with the offer of a future in the EU. Pro-EU reformers feel discriminated against; businesspeople despair over the limitations that it imposes on their companies' growth potential; young people feel imprisoned.

Now, for the first time in two decades, there is real hope that this situation will actually change. In 2008, the EU formulated a series of concrete and demanding requirements in detailed "visa roadmaps." It promised that visa-free travel is the reward for meeting these benchmarks.

We want to contribute to making sure this EU-led process is merit-based. This is also the key message of the declaration jointly made by the Schengen White List Project advisory board, chaired by former Italian Prime Minister and Interior Minister Giuliano Amato, and by ESI:

"The EU's conditions are demanding. To meet them requires money and effort. But their fulfilment will make the whole of Europe, not just the Western Balkans, safer. Having well-secured borders, regulated asylum procedures, forgery-proof passports and police structures able to cooperate with law enforcement agencies throughout Europe is a good in itself. It is cooperation, not exclusion, which works best in fighting organised crime and illegal migration."

ESI also believes that this requires that the process be transparent. The citizens of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia have to know what has been asked of their governments in order to hold them accountable for progress (or lack thereof). The European public deserves to know about the far-reaching reforms that the countries are undertaking in order to keep the EU safe. For this reason, we have collected relevant documents and put them online. They include the roadmaps, reports on activities and achievements sent by Western Balkan governments to the European Commission, and the Commission's assessments.

ESI is grateful to the Robert Bosch Stiftung, which has made this project possible.

Ohrid, Macedonia	biometric design in Macedonia and Montenegro

Macedonia and European principles

There will be an early test of the EU's commitment to the principle of "strict but fair". In all assessments undertaken until now Macedonia is judged to be the front runner.  Recently Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek visited Macedonia and stated that "Macedonia has fulfilled all conditions for visa liberalisation, but if there is a problem, it is political in nature."

As ESI Senior Analyst Alexandra Stiglmayer explains in a detailed look at EU internal procedures, it will require an effort on the part of the EU to ensure that even those countries (such as Macedonia) which meet the requirements set out in the benchmarks will be put on the Schengen White list in the course of 2009. Failure to do so would, however, risk undermining the credibility of the merit-based process.  

As Macedonian Deputy Prime Minister Ivica Bocevski told ESI in an interview:

"Macedonia – a country of 2 million citizens – is not a threat, by any means, to the security and the migration policy of the Union. In addition, Macedonia is at the bottom of the list of states with asylum seekers."

"'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'", US president Ronald Reagan told the Soviet leader in 1987, signalling the collapse of communism and the end of divisions in Europe. It is now my turn to use this line. Europe, tear down the Schengen wall for our citizens!"

Prague	Paris	Warsaw

European enlargement debates

What does the Czech political elite (the current EU presidency) think about future enlargement? Who in Poland (EU presidency 2011) is interested in the Balkans and Turkey? What does Sweden expect to be able to do for enlargement during its presidency in the second half of 2009? And who are the enlargement sceptics among the French elite in Paris?

In order to explore these questions ESI has organised a series of conferences and presentations in the past 2 years for leading policy makers and journalists from South East Europe. This has taken us to Vienna, Berlin, Rome and Paris; most recently we went to Prague and Warsaw.

In order to better understand the debate on the future of enlargement ESI has also undertaken detailed research, which we want to share with interested policy makers, journalists and civil society actors.

You can now find background analysis and ESI manuals on enlargement debates in the Czech Republic, in France and in Poland on our website. We hope these will help raise the profile of this debate so vital to the future of the European continent.

Many best wishes,

Gerald Knaus

ENGLISH

DR. DAVITOVITS ELABORATES ON CONCRETE MATERIAL USED IN BOSNIAN PYRAMIDS
Written by Prof. Joseph Davidovits   
Monday, 09 February 2009

Prof. Joseph Davidovits


Bonjour Sam,

I read with pleasure your last news about the analysis carried out at the University in Zenica.
 
This confirms the first impression I got by studying the sample of concrete you gave me in Edinburgh. I was struck by the presence of pockets of what seemed to be calcined clay.

In your news dated of 03 February 2009, STONE BLOCKS FROM THE BOSNIAN PYRAMIDS ANALYZED; RESULT - ANCIENT CONCRETE, the statement by professor Muhamed Pasic from the Institute for materials, "... that poorly baked clay crushed with water possesses binding properties ...", is very important.

As you probably know, some clays, notably those based on kaolinitic make up, when calcined, or backed at moderate temperature, i.e. between 500 and 750 °C, yields a very reactive material that is called metakaolin, when pure. This material is one of the preferred reactive ingredient (among others) in our modern geopolymer technology and geopolymer concrete. It has been the basis of the best Roman cement mastered by the Roman Engineers 2000 years ago, who added to lime the backed clay called in latin "testa", translated into pot-sherd or backed clay. The result of this technology was called Opus Signinum and Opus Testacaeum and can be admired today in the Pantheon and the Coliseo, the Thermal Baths, etc. in Rome. Our knowledge about the reactivity of this moderate temperature backed clay is very young (I discovered it, 30 years ago) and I am enthusiastic in reading that it could have been used by those who built the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun, Visoko.
 
But this is only one part of the story and I am sure we'll get more surprising results that will confirm the "concrete theory" despite of what Prof. Klemm wrote to Dr. Swellim (see in your news COMMENTS ON CHEMICAL SOMPOSITION OF THE STONE BLOCKS FROM THE RED PYRAMID, Tuesday, 30 December 2008), especially when he states that: "...I suspect the authors wanted to support with the nail the funny concrete story, created by J. Davidovits to power his "Pyrament" cement as a "geopolymer" already used by the ancient Egyptians ...".

You should know that Egyptologists thought that I used Egyptology and my pyramid concrete theory to make cheap publicity for the cement Pyrament that was launched in USA in the 1990 by an American Cement company.
 
Totally wrong and insulting. When I discussed with Prof. Klemm in 1988, at the Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, when I visited him in Munich in 1989, I was no longer involved in this industrial application, and this cement was not known, so far. But some Egyptologists are using this poor explanation to discredit my research because they do not have any valid argument.
 
(I guess, Sam, you know about this feeling yourself.)

Hope to see you with pleasure soon.
 
PS: you may publish my mail in your news.
 
Joseph
-------------
Prof. Joseph Davidovits
http://www.davidovits.info

Bosnian Pyramids

ENGLISH

Bosnia Capital Remembers Markale Massacre

Sarajevo | 05 February 2009

Sarajevans gathered on Thursday to commemorate the Feb 5, 1994 Markale market massacre that killed 67 people and wounded 142, one of the bloodiest incidents of civilian death of the 1992-95 Bosnia war.

Report done by Justice Report  www.bim.ba

The shelling attack by the Bosnian Serb Republika Srpska Army, VRS, came at noon, wreaking havoc in the crowded marketplace in downtown Sarajevo.  

“We must not forget this day and not to forget the people who died here, ever,” Zeljko Komsic, member of Bosnia’s tri-partite presidency said at the memorial ceremony.
"The pictures after the massacre shocked the whole world - bodies lying everywhere, people crying, begging for help, and the people of Sarajevo helping them. I remember that day vividly."

Scenes of the carnage were broadcast around the world, galvanizing public opinion against Bosnian Serb forces for attacking a crowded market place at lunchtime, when it was full of civilians and traders trying to eke out the daily necessities in the besieged city.

Bosnian Serb forces vehemently denied responsibility , accusing Bosnia’s government of shelling and killing its own people in a conspiracy to win sympathy abroad, while a report by United Nations peacekeepers at the time was inconclusive. The controversy fed on the mutual mistrust between the former rivals and was only partially put to rest  with the 2004 conviction  of Stanislav Galic, so far the only person to have been convicted for the massacre.
 
Major General Galic, commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps of the Republika Srpska Army from November 1992 to August 1994, was originally sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.

The verdict against Galic cites the massacre at Markale, among other things.

"The Trial Chamber heard detailed testimony on this incident. We examined the results of an investigation conducted by the United Nations staff and local investigators after the incident. We also studied the analyses made by experts who were invited by the parties to the trial. A number of pieces of new data were presented. Most Trial Chamber members determined that the mortar shell which caused the explosion had been fired from the territory controlled by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. This was a destructive attack on a civilian target," the verdict states.

The same decision determined that the citizens of Sarajevo "were directly and unselectively attacked from the positions held by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps... What we know is that hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands were wounded in sniper incidents and shelling that happened in the course of the two-year period covered by this indictment. An insignificant number of those incidents, only an insignificant number, could have been caused by accident".

Following an appeal, Galic’ sentence was revised to lifetime imprisonment, in November 2006.  On January 15 this yea he was transferred from the Detention Unit at The Hague to Germany to serve his sentence. 

Besides Galic, Radovan Karadžić is also charged with the shelling of Sarajevo. He is currently at The Hague awaiting trial, after having been arrested in Belgrade in 2008, following 13 years on the run.

Saffet Akkaya, Colonel (Retd)
Phd Candidate at the International Relations
Middle East Technical University, Ankara/Turkey
Member of IFIMES International Institute

US MILITARY BASES IN ROMANIA AND BULGARIA AND THEIR POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS ON REGIONAL SECURITY
 
INTRODUCTION
 
It is evident that, almost two decades passed after the end of cold war period, and the world is divided into two main camps to name; the Centre and the Periphery. At the beginning of this article, it may be useful to look at the position of the states like Bulgaria and Romania from a broader perspective, which once were the members of the periphery in the Communist Block. Throughout the new reformation and restructuring phases of the global age, new world order has dictated certain unnamed rules that are vital for the future of global order and mankind. Current world order is completely different and the political, geographical or cultural principles of the cold-war era to classify the states into different groups are not relevant anymore. Description of south, north, west, second world, and third world has changed dramatically. Centre is composed of economically and militarily b states, basically the representatives of hegemonic liberalism, no matter at which geographic location they occupy on the planet. On the other hand, Periphery is made by the states who were once the members of Second (communist block) or Third Worlds and some other states that are excluded from the centre for cultural, religious or ideological reasons. Now, there is a struggle among the peripheral states, trying to be a member of centre at all costs. The expansion of NATO and EU towards east to the expense of old Soviet territories in general and Russia in particular, need to be evaluated through the principles of a broader security perception.
 
 
REAL EXISTING LIBERALISM
 
The bi-polar system has been replaced by multi-polar power structure after the demise of Soviet Union. Addition to U.S as the super power of cold war era, new powers have emerged such as, European Union, China, Japan and Russia. Even India and Brazil can qualify for such a classification.  This new multi-polar system affords a reduction in the intensity of ideological or power rivalry and boosts the regional politics that will impose less pressure on the periphery states and encourage them to change location. Another common feature of the multi-polar centre is that there is no ideological rivalry among them and they all share a wider consensus on liberal economic system. Mainly based on this consensus, a “security community” has been created which minimizes the danger of war between the members. Since they do not need to compete with each others militarily, the members of security community possess a good advantage in International Political Economy and they can handle any challenge more easily. The military coalitions in first and second Gulf Wars and Afghanistan campaign are good samples for those quick and successful military collaborations. Such coalitions show the general nature of security relations in a future world dominated by the Centre which has the ability to isolate any aggressor that threatens the present political and economic order.  For the sake of their economic interests based on liberal rules, Neither China, nor Russia have proved rigid reactions even against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and have felt obliged to accept this de facto situation limiting their resistance to some soft-balancing diplomatic manoeuvres. 
 
Parallel to these uprooted changes in global age, a new sort of military organization, structure and a military culture is developing in the Centre that promotes the position of USA as the hegemonic power controlling the technology, financial resources, nuclear and conventional arsenal and international institutions. During the Cold War era, the teachings of liberalism were represented by the Americans in a robust mode to assure security in defense of both its global achievements and to respond a possible threat by Soviet Union which was not solely military but also ideological, social and economic. But in late1980s, a new security agenda emerged questioning the position of military-political issues as the centre of security concerns. Turbulence has started to surround the world politics, and in this new term, unlike the cold war era’s dogmatic military issues, security concern began to face a wider spectrum including economic, environmental, social aspects. In this respect, successful liberalism became a b movement to securitize a wider spectrum of economic, societal, political and environmental issues as well as traditional military ones. This relatively broad security agenda consists of five dimensions. Military security; includes the defensive and offensive capabilities of the states and their perceptions on each others intentions. Political security; concerns the organizational stability of states and the systems of the governments. Economic security; promotes access to the resources and markets that are vital to sustain the welfare and the power for the states. Societal security; explains the traditional patterns of language, culture, religion and national identity for societies. Environmental security; concerns the local and planetary biosphere where all humans depend on without any discrimination. These five sectors do not operate independent from each others, but tied b ly to each others.  
 
The position of Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Poland and some other ex-soviet states hosting US bases in Central Asia can be explained from a broader perspective of new security perception of global age.  Being the military partner of an organization does not provide full confidence to the states to feel themselves in security, and other four aspects of a broader security concept need to be fulfilled accordingly. The pre-cold-war political, social and ideological descriptions have changed and peripheral states seem ready to sacrifice their national and regional concerns to join the Centre. 
 
 
FOOTPRINTS OF AN EMPIRE
 
Parallel to above mentioned factors, the history of the U.S. military presence overseas is intimately connected with the growth of the United States as a world power. Military victory in two world wars enabled the United States to assume the controversial role of “global policeman” rebuilding war-damaged societies and containing communist expansion. By the end of the 1950s, as the gap grew bigger between the victor states of WWII, approximately 1 million American troops and family members resided on overseas bases in the world.  
 
In his book “Nemesis: The Last Days of American Republic”, Chalmers Johnson draws the framework how United States turned into an Empire in the post-cold war era from the point of its military bases spread out all over the world. In order to perceive the justification of the US bases in Romania and Bulgaria, it will be useful to give some details of these bases that sum up to a number of 735 with the figures of Pentagon.  According to Johnson, the interesting point is that there are 38 large and medium sized military facilities –mostly air and naval bases, spread all over the globe and this is almost the same number of British Empire’s 36 naval bases and army garrisons at the very beginning of 20th century. If we go one step backwards, we face almost the same numbers (37) of Roman Empire at its most glorious days in the 2nd century AD. It seems that the principles of geo-strategic realm for world supremacy do not change a lot and the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty. The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel including those based domestically, is 1,840,000 supported by an additional 473,000 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,000 local hires. The overseas bases contain 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings and 16,527 more that are leased. The size of these holdings are recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon easily one of the world's largest landlords.
 
 
WHY DO US NEED BASES IN BALKANS
 
Balkans have been the most volatile and troublesome part of Europe particularly after the dissolution of Ottoman Empire starting in 19th century. And afterwards, Balkans has been a non-coherent region in economic, political and cultural senses and parallel to the demise of Soviet Union, Russian influence has decreased whilst the western influence has increased gradually.   In the first couple years of the new millennia, US and EU proved reasonable efforts to integrate Eastern Europe and Balkan countries with NATO and EU. In year 2004 together with other 5 countries, Romania and Bulgaria joined the NATO which was the largest growth in NATO history. Actually these two countries were spending huge efforts to join both NATO and EU since the end of cold war, and as a solid indication of their intention, from the very beginning they supported the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with no reservations contrary to some of other states in Europe. As we clearly see in the official statements of the leaders of both countries they foresee the future of their countries in integration with political, economic, societal, cultural and military aspects with the West. In addition, the two countries' elites perceive U.S. assistance as crucial to enhance their economic transition into market capitalism and they hope that ber strategic ties with Washington will pave the way to further economic and financial cooperation and to an increase in U.S. investment.
 
From a military point of view, it is easy to justify the requirements of these bases. According to US military authorities the 20th century military philosophy that mass equals commitment is not true in the 21st century and the important thing is not the size of the force you have, but what you can do with it and the aim is to make the forces strategically more effective and agile.  The American forces in Europe will be in three types of bases. The first type is main operating bases, installations like Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and U.S. Naval Station Rota, Spain. These bases will remain hubs and have American forces assigned to them. The second are called forward-operating sites that are called "light-switch operations" meaning all troops arriving have to do is turn the lights on and operations can proceed. Examples of these bases are Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, Camp Eagle in Bosnia, and Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The bases established in Bulgaria and Romania are also the same type. The third type of bases is called a cooperative security site that could be as small as a fueling agreement or as complicated as a few American contractors ensuring facilities ready for US troops to operate. Within this context, the security challenges for Europe no longer lie to the east but to the south and southeast. The orientation of NATO towards the Middle East and Africa requires forces that can deploy quickly using a combination of inter-theater aircraft, sealift, and rail movement. Given the volatility of these outlying regions, deployment times must be measured in days, not weeks. Turkey, Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria appear best sited for power projection posture to the Middle East, whereas Italy, France, and Spain provide superb access to the Mediterranean Basin and Africa.
 
 
US BASES IN ROMANIA
 
In December 2005 an agreement signed by Romania and the United States on the activities of the American forces stationed on the Romanian territory that assigns four locations for the U.S. troops, namely the army ranges at Cincu, Smardan and Babadag as well as the Mihail Kogalniceanu airfield. The total personnel number will be 1700 and the units will be named as Jont Task Force-East (JTF-E). The Cincu range covers 104 sq km and the location benefits from nearly 100 km of roads which is authorized for carrying out tactical applications involving firing live ammunition by infantry companies and battalions, artillery battery and division. Shootings can also be made from all types of launchers and by aviation as well as by helicopters as tests conducted by the plants manufacturing weapons and ammunition.The Smardan army range, is located in the eastern Galati county and it covers 8,500 hectares and can accommodate 600 persons. The Smardan range is used for training shooting by infantry and tanks, artillery groups, special shooting from heavy infantry weapons, training for launching offensive and defensive grenades, shooting from the chemical troops' weapons, shooting at ground targets from helicopters and planes, bombing from warplanes for horizontal and vertical targets.The Babadag range is located in the eastern Tulcea county, covering 2,700 hectares and able to  accommodate 250 persons. It can host live ammunition shooting by infantry and tank companies, by artillery sub-units, special shooting from heavy infantry weapons, launching of offensive and defensive grenades, and shooting at ground targets from helicopter- and plane weapons. The Mihail Kogalniceanu airfield is 3,500 meters long and 45 meters wide and it has a concrete runway. The MK base can accommodate 900 persons and has the required facilities for the flight management and administrative management, buildings for the personnel accommodation and offices, hangars for the airplanes and warehouses.
 
 
US BASES IN BULGARIA
 
In April 2006, Bulgaria and U.S. signed an agreement for the use of several military facilities on Bulgarian territory. The U.S. military units deployed to Bulgaria will be known as Joint Task Force-East similar to Romania according to the Defense Cooperation Agreement between the United States and Bulgaria. Following bases will be allocated to US forces.
 
Bezmer Air Base in Yambol Province;
Novo Selo Shooting Range (NSTA) in Sliven Province;
Aitos Logistics Center in Burgas Province; and
Graf Ignatievo Air Base - LBPG in Plovdiv Province.
 
Under the agreement, no more than 2,500 U.S. military personnel will be located at the joint military facilities. Most training rotations will have small numbers and will be of short duration. Possible types of units are armor, mechanized infantry, airborne infantry or light infantry. The type of equipment they will use will depend on the unit and the training requirements. The treaty also allows the US to use the bases "for missions in third country without a specific authorization from Bulgarian authorities," The Bezmer Air Base is expected to become one of the major US strategic airfields overseas, housing American combat aircraft.
 
 
REACTIONS TO US BASES IN EASTERN EUROPE
 
High level military and civilian officials in both Romania and Bulgaria have repeatedly asserted on the importance of this military cooperation. They comment that, this agreement will add value to the strategic level security because of the commitment of US to both countries. They also declare that this strategic partnership with the US is a strategic investment for their countries and will adequately encounter new risks and security threats for the future.
 
On the other hand, some European authorities, particularly the leaders of left-wing political parties,  assert that the U.S. military bases in Bulgaria and Romania intend enhancing the U.S. potential to interfere in the developments in Balkans, the entire south of Europe and the Mediterranean in a way, contradicting the security and economic interests of Europe. They are simultaneously intended to provide a new instrument to the U.S. hegemonic policies in the Middle East and the Gulf, which is a key offender of the centers of tension and the alarming humanitarian crises in the region, as well as of the explosion of terrorism, spreading worldwide. On the other hand, growing U.S. efforts, in order to achieve a monopoly control over the Middle East natural resources, represent a serious menace to the European and Mediterranean security. Russia particularly shows a good deal of reaction not only to the bases in these two countries but also to the missile defense systems deployed to Poland and Czech Republic, saying that US and EU are using diplomatic and informational cover to hide their real plans. Russian officials state that despite their closing the bases in Vietnam and Cuba, West and NATO keep going one way and this may initiate an arms race in ballistic missile systems and force them to make certain decisions.
 
 
CONCLUSIONS
 
As expected, the positive trend in political and strategic relations between the U.S. and the two southeastern European countries of Romania and Bulgaria are continuing and the post-communist elites in both countries have proved more enthusiastic and an eager response in supporting U.S. policy in the region. This initiative in establishing U.S. military presence in the two countries signals the consolidation of the new American geo-strategic initiative in the Black Sea region and will have important consequences for the European Union and U.S.-Russian relations. Moreover, it also confirms that Washington now seeks small, flexible bases for the possible deployment of forces in Europe, instead of Cold War-style bigger, permanent facilities. This is precisely why Romania and Bulgaria are considered ideal partners by Washington and the Black Sea region provides excellent power projection towards the heart of the Middle East, Caucasus and Balkans. It is also the region which connects the Caspian Sea oil- and gas-rich zone with the eastern Mediterranean Sea, an area of crucial importance for the European Union's energy needs. In this respect, the military superiority of US in Black sea region is vital for the global position of the US. In case US consolidates its position in Black Sea region it will surely possess some opportunities such as; increasing its role in Caucasus, new opportunities on Georgia and Armenia, availability of initiating new policies on Turkey, and consequently an increasing influence on Turkish straits.
 
Among the statements welcoming the US military presence in Balkans and Black Sea region, following words of President Basescu of Romania are the most interesting ones. He says; "It is clear that the United States seems to be more interested by the instability in the Black Sea area than the Europeans are. They have already understood the importance of the Black Sea for the security of Europe." This statement signals that the leaders of Black Sea and Balkan countries may show positive attitudes for further US involvement in the Black Sea region. The position of Turkey and the cooperation among Turkey, Russia and other countries in the Black Sea region and the peripheral states is very important for the stability in the region. In last decade, Turkey’s foreign policy cornerstones are also being tested by international role players in order to acquire some benefits and interests based on Turkey’s geo-strategic location.
 
The decision makers in Turkey should keep in mind that the balance established on Black Sea and Turkish Straits is a vital cornerstone for the security not only of the country, but also for the region and future relations with Balkan and Black-Sea states, and Turkey has no luxury to attempt any step to deviate from its traditional stable foreign affair policies. In this respect, Montreux Convention is one vital factor to preserve the interests of coastal states to Black Sea, and also to abstain from being a potential area for any future conflicts in its periphery such as Balkans and Caucasus. Turkey, with its unique geostrategic position sitting at the heart of these three geographic locations has managed to become a peninsula of peace and stabilization throughout the cold war era. Based on the principles of Lausanne Treaty, Turkey has succeeded the Montreux convention to the favor of coastal states, particularly of Turkey and Russia. History taught us that stability and peace in the region is based on the balance established on the principles of lessons learned throughout the history, and concessions given to foreign powers at strategic level for some economic and military interests may turn out to be a challenge for peace and security in Black Sea region for coming years.
 
Ljubljana, 23 January 2009
International Institute for Middle-East
and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) – Ljubljana
 
Directors:
 
Bakhtyar Aljaf
Zijad Beæiroviæ, M.Sc.