By Tom Ellis
Just a few days before Greece signs the agreement with Russia and Bulgaria for construction of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline, the US hinted that Greece should invest in the transport of natural gas from Azerbaijan. The advice came in an interview with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew J. Bryza, who has just visited Turkey and is expected in Athens today.
Bryza insists Washington has no an anti-Russian agenda but is opposed to Greece and other European countries being dependent on Moscow when Russia is flexing its geopolitical muscle in the energy sphere.
A colleague of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice since she was National Security adviser, Bryza followed her to the State Department. He confirmed that Rice will meet her Greek counterpart Dora Bakoyannis in Washington on March 22 or 23. He also said that Greece is entitled to block the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s (FYROM) accession to NATO if it cannot reach a jointly acceptable solution for its name with Greece.
Though he does not doubt Cyprus’s right to mine energy sources, he notes that such a move would not help solve the Cyprus issue.
In a few days Greece, Russia and Bulgaria will sign an agreement for the construction of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline. How does the US see this development?
Greece and Bulgaria are our allies in NATO and American companies are interested in the pipeline, so we are not against the pipeline. We are interested in diversity, multiple means of transport. We don’t have an anti-Russian agenda. There are many ways of bringing oil from the Caspian, mainly via the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. We just want market rules to determine the means of the crowded Bosporus. That seems to be the case with the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline. So, congratulations. If the governments of allies decide to build a pipeline to meet their energy needs, that’s their business. And if it’s profitable it will proceed. You must understand that we are not against a project simply because Russian investors are involved.
You said American companies were interested.
The builders of the pipeline want to bring oil from Kazakhstan that is mined by American companies. The American company Chevron plays a leading role and the builders have already approached it. I’d also like to say that Azerbaijan has vast deposits of natural gas, which promises to be an important source of energy for Greece and Italy. It’s a very realistic prospect. Production will expand by 2012-14 to levels that will meet all the natural gas pipeline needs of Turkey, Greece and Italy.
We want to ensure that the governments and companies of Greece, Italy and the US work with Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia to coordinate investments and get the pipeline built. Then Greece would have lots of gas from Russia and from Azerbaijan and would strengthen its negotiating position.
Can FYROM join NATO without first resolving the issue of its name?
That depends on Greece, not on the US. We would like to see the issue solved so FYROM can join NATO. Greece is a NATO member, a sovereign state and a friend. NATO decisions are made unanimously and every country has the right to veto any step. I realize that Greece wants the accession of Macedonia as it is the biggest investor in that country.
How can the US support majority rights in Kosovo but not in Cyprus?
I get asked this in Abkhazia, Azerbaijan, Armenia. Every case is different.
What is the view of the US on Cyprus’s right to mine energy sources?
I’m not a lawyer so I can’t answer that but I have heard a legal opinion suggesting it was not entitled to. For me the question is what the interested parties can do to get closer to a solution of the Cyprus issue. Any action by the Republic of Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots, Turkey and even us increases the emotional pressure and reinforces division. It doesn’t help.
Turkey is threatening to invade northern Iraq to hit the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
That is indeed the No 1 enemy in Turkey. They feel, with some justification, that we have not fulfilled our obligation to end the terrorist threat of the PKK. We need to show results. Not only the government but all of Turkish society wants specific results on that front. And we have to focus on handling it effectively through cooperation with the US, Turkey and Iraq. But we don’t want unilateral actions.
Turkey is threatening the Kurds in northern Iraq to stop them from incorporating Kirkuk.
The Iraqis themselves must decide the future of Kirkuk. They are wondering whether they should stick to their timeline. Many Iraqis share the Turks’ concerns and ours on that sensitive issue and the need for delicate handling. But it’s not our job. The Iraqis will decide whether to change their constitution and allow more time for such a decision.
Condoleezza Rice recently referred to “Kurdistan,” prompting opposition in Ankara.
She was talking about the internal situation in Iraq. Kurdistan is the name the Iraqis themselves give to that geographical area. She did not refer to any area outside Iraq.
(Kathimerini, 12/03/2007)