US MILITARY BASES: US military eyes Balkan bases; US to consolidate forces into four huge bases in Iraq; Bulgaria & Romania in Black Sea's GeoPolitics

Last Updated: Friday, 14 January 2005, 14:36 GMT


US military eyes Balkan bases

Nato's top commander in Europe, US Gen James Jones, has been meeting officials in Romania and Bulgaria, exploring possible future military bases for US forces in the Balkans.

He says such strategically-positioned bases would enhance Nato's capabilities as the US adjusts its post-Cold War priorities.

The BBC's South-East Europe analyst, Gabriel Partos, examines the US plans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commander of United States forces in Europe, Gen James Jones, has been inspecting military sites in Bulgaria which the US might use in future as bases when it redeploys troops from western Europe.

Gen Jones' visit, and a series of talks in Romania, come as part of his preparations for Congressional hearings at which he will outline the Pentagon's plans for reassigning US forces in Europe.

Washington is planning to withdraw from their current locations some 70,000 troops stationed abroad.

Most of the forces to be redeployed - including two heavy army divisions based in Germany - are to be pulled out of western Europe.


Changed environment

Notwithstanding the reductions in US strength in western Europe over the past 15 years, the continuing presence of troops there in substantial numbers is seen as part of the Cold War's now redundant legacy.

In that bygone era, the troops' primary role was to resist a possible Soviet conventional attack.

Today's security environment is very different.

Washington perceives many of the main threats to its interests as coming from the Middle East - a volatile, oil-rich region which is either the source of, or the stage for, a number of conflicts.

During the Iraq war, the US made use of military bases in Bulgaria and Romania to assist its military effort.

These two south-east European countries are much closer to the actual and potential trouble-spots of the Middle East than Germany.

They are also in close proximity to Kosovo, home to the largest remaining US base in the region, and to Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The threat, even if remote, of a potential flare-up in either of these two areas means that swift reinforcements might be required.


Emergency force

Bulgaria and Romania also offer other benefits for the Pentagon - not the least of which is the fact that costs are considerably lower than in western Europe.

However, as the US administration has made clear, there is no question of any large-scale redeployment of US troops in south-eastern - or for that matter, central - Europe.

Most of the troops to be pulled out of Germany will be returning to the US, or they will be deployed in various trouble-spots elsewhere, as and when they are required.

That means that Washington's plan for the new military facilities envisages the deployment of small units, mostly maintenance and logistical staff, who can handle at short notice much larger troop movements in times of emergency.

Some may also be used for training purposes and for military exercises.

But as Gen Jones made it clear during his visit to Bulgaria, the four or five facilities the Pentagon is seeking there will not be US bases in the traditional sense of the term:

"The type of facilities that we hope to be able to partner with Bulgaria will affect the US navy, the US air force, US army, the US marines, and hopefully some facilities where we can pre-position equipment," Gen Jones said.

"We are not talking about establishing US bases. This is a partnership arrangement where these will be Bulgarian bases, at which we will be privileged to be a tenant."


Foreign investment

Yet whatever the limitations of these plans, Bulgaria and Romania - as well as other countries in the region - are eager to attract a US military presence.

A continuing US deployment would be seen as consolidation of the host countries' integration in the Nato security system.

Direct financial benefits linked to the US presence are among some of the important considerations.

And there are also likely to be indirect benefits with a possible expansion in foreign - particularly American - investment.

That is because some investors regard a US military presence in a country as a sign of stability.

Whatever the advantages, and possible drawbacks, the process of US redeployment is a lengthy one.

According to current plans, it is unlikely to get under way until next year.




"Some investors regard a US military presence in a country as a sign of stability"



Quick guide: Nato




© BBC MMVI



* * * * * * * * * *


posted May 23, 2005, updated 12:00 p.m.


US to consolidate forces into four huge bases in Iraq

US military also wants bases in Romania, Azerbaijan, and Bulgaria.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


Top US military officials in Iraq confirmed Monday that they are planning to consolidate the more than 100 bases where US personnel are now stationed in Iraq into four huge, more permanent bases.

The Washington Post reported Sunday, however, that these military officials say that, despite the appearance to the contrary, these moves do not signal a "permanent US presence in Iraq."

The US military commanders say that building these new bases, which would be located in the north, south, west and center of Iraq, are "part of a withdrawal expected to occur in phases, with Iraqi forces gradually taking over many of the bases inhabited by US and other foreign troops."

The Guardian reports that some Iraqi politicians opposed to a "long-term US presence in Iraq questioned the move."

"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.

The Guardian also reports that a US spokesman says there is no "hard and fast deadline" to build the new bases, and will depend to a large degree on the strength of the insurgency "and the progress of Iraq's fledgling security structures."

Last week, however, US military commanders in briefings in Washington and Baghdad, and in media interviews, said that growth of the insurgency has convinced them that the US will be in Iraq for "many more years to come," and that the pace at which Iraqi police, in particular, are being prepared to take over their own country's defense is not going anywhere near as fast as the US would like.

Meanwhile, United Press International reports that the US and Romania are discussing having the US use Romanian bases on a more permanent basis. And the Sofia (Bulgaria) News Agency reported last week that the US military will ask to use four bases in Bulgaria.

US officials have said they could use Bulgarian, alongside Romanian, sites to deploy troops on rotational training tours as part of a broader US strategy of shifting troops based in Europe further east.

Earlier this year, the top commander of US and NATO troops in Europe, General James Jones, said in Sofia that he would propose to the US Congress 'four or five Bulgarian military facilities for use by US forces.'

Power and Interest News Report, "an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations," looks at the geopolitical importance of Bulgaria and Romania, particularly as they "go Western."


The Russian news agency Interfax also reported over the weekend that the US and Azerbaijan had "agreed on the deployment of US military bases."

"These forces will start to be brought into the country this year, and taking into account the huge significance of the Caucasus region for the US, the American military presence here will be long-term. Moreover, the first US units will arrive in Azerbaijan within the next several weeks," reads an article published in the Saturday issue of Echo [an Azerbaijani newspaper].

The Azerbaijani government in Baku later denied the report and said "nothing of the sort is planned."

The Baku Sun reports that just this past weekend, Azerbaijan’s Defense Minister Safar Abiyev was in Tehran, where Iran’s President Mohammad Khatami told him Azerbaijan had "nothing to fear from a strong Iran," and that the increasing number of US military bases in the former Soviet republics is "a threat to the security and peace of regional countries and an affront to them."



Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor.



* * * * * * * * * *


20 May 2005

''Bulgaria, Romania and the Changing Structure of the Black Sea's Geopolitics''


The geopolitics of the Black Sea region has profoundly changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia has suffered from several setbacks since 1991, and its influence over the former Warsaw Pact countries -- including Romania and Bulgaria -- has declined. Although Russia maintains important -- and often underestimated -- economic ties with most of its ancient client states, American and European Union geopolitical penetration during the last 15 years into a great part of what has traditionally been Russia's sphere of influence has been tremendous. [See: "Russia's Future Foreign Policy: Pragmatism in Motion"]

This appears to be particularly true for the Black Sea region, which was poorly controlled by the U.S.-led bloc during the bipolar age (1947-1991). Turkey, which overlooks the Black Sea's southern shores, was then the only pro-Western country. Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Georgia were all tightly under Moscow's control. After Georgia's drastic pro-Washington reorientation in 2002 and Ukraine's new pro-Western course, Romania's and Bulgaria's admission into N.A.T.O. in 2004 and the E.U. (to be formalized in 2007) completed a dramatic change in regional power relations –- with global consequences not to be underestimated.


The Black Sea's Basic Geopolitical Coordinates

From a genuinely geopolitical perspective, the Black Sea region is a relatively small and closed area, historically crossed-through by conflicting forces from the northeast (Russia, via-Ukraine and/or Georgia), south (Turkey), and west (Romania, Bulgaria and European powers such as France, Germany, Austria, Great Britain). A big "salted lake," it has been historically a place of confrontation among the Russian-Orthodox world, the Turkish-Muslim world and the West. Its control is important from both the strategic/military and the economic aspects.

Today's geopolitical structure in this region is marked by two main dynamics. The first one is the substitution of former Russian and Soviet influence with American influence -- which, in its turn, enters in competition with French and German ambitions. The second dynamic is the emergence of an energy axis that connects Central Asian and Caspian gas and oil with the Balkans and the European Union. As the Soviet bloc collapsed in 1989-91, Ukraine and Georgia remained initially under Moscow's influence, but the Russian capacity of maintaining its grip dramatically diminished at the end of the century, losing positions in both regional countries.


N.A.T.O.'s and the European Union's Further Enlargement: Bulgaria and Romania Go Western

Just like in the case of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania were first integrated into N.A.T.O. before joining the European Union. Sofia and Bucharest joined N.A.T.O. in the spring of 2004, after an intense period of negotiations, while their admission in the European Union has been postponed until 2007. The years 2002-03 marked a very important turn in the relations between the Atlantic Alliance's Western countries and the two ex-communist nation-states. American influence grew stronger, and during the crisis which preceded the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq, the Bulgarian and Romanian governments allowed the U.S.-led coalition to use some of their military bases.

In February 2003, French President Jacques Chirac overtly criticized the "imprudent" move of the two E.U. candidates, mainly because it strongly complicated Paris' delicate anti-war diplomacy of the moment, but also because France felt it was losing influence over the E.U. "newcomers." It shouldn't be forgotten that France consistently backed Bucharest's and Sofia's application for E.U. and N.A.T.O. membership since the 1990s, and that historical ties between France and Romania have always been particularly strong. Paris has even accepted Bucharest as a member of the francophone countries, and the clear pro-American orientation of the new Romanian rulers disappointed France.

The Black Sea's new geopolitics show a new competition among great powers. With Russia in retreat, the United States, France and (more discretely) Germany are the new main external actors struggling for influence in the region. Economic interests and security enhancement are at stake in an energy-rich, strategically crucial area connecting the Balkans with the Caucasus and East-Central Europe with Turkey.

In November-December 2003, both Bulgaria and Romania were at the center of U.S. military attention, in the context of post-Cold War U.S. forces redeployment. On November 29, the U.S. naval attaché in Bulgaria declared that Washington was looking for "small flexible bases for possible deployment of forces in Europe," thus sending delegations to Bucharest and Sofia. The Bulgarian parliament passed a resolution on December 19 that granted the U.S. and N.A.T.O. permission to station military forces on its territory. Sofia's government and diplomacy openly said that Washington could count on future strategic collaboration by Bulgaria.

This move helped Bulgaria in its goal of rapidly joining N.A.T.O. -- although its military forces must still meet Western standards -– while at the same time allowing the U.S. to plan a strategic redeployment of its forces. Washington wants to reduce its presence in Germany drastically and to move forces farther east in Europe and nearer to the Middle East's theater of operations. [See: "U.S. Troop Redeployment: Rational Adjustment to an Altered Threat Environment"]

Romanian application for N.A.T.O. was actually one of the first among former Warsaw Pact members. In January 1994, Bucharest signed the Partnership for Peace, a first step toward integration. Traditionally, apart from the Warsaw Pact era, Romania has looked Western for its security, in order to escape Russian hegemony.

The Bulgarian and Romanian relative positions in front of Moscow remain, by the way, very different, as Sofia is more Russia-friendly for historical and cultural (i.e. religious) reasons. What is interesting, though, is that this difference does not prevent them from being equally eager to be integrated into N.A.T.O. and the European Union. This is a clear sign of the decline of Russian influence and security-providing abilities in our time.


Romania's and Bulgaria's Ambitions and Security Concerns

The post-communist elites in place in Bucharest and Sofia share with other former socialist countries' ruling classes the ambition to be fully integrated into the European economic and monetary system. The common perception among these elites is that both their personal success and national prosperity are inextricably linked to their acceptance into the Western political and financial set of rules. Integration into the E.U. is, therefore, a vital goal for the post-communist rulers in both countries. [See: "Romania: Europe's New 'Sick Man'"]

However, as far as national security is concerned, former Romanian president Ion Iliescu, current president Traian Basescu and former Bulgarian president Petar Stoyanov clearly opted for a strategic alliance with Washington and London instead of backing France's attempts to build a more autonomous European Security and Defense Policy (E.S.D.P.). This is the fundamental lesson of the 2003 European crisis following Paris', Berlin's and Brussels' refusal to take part in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As in the case of Poland and the Baltic states, Bulgaria's and Romania's new geopolitical orientation follows a double track: European integration (political and economic institutionalism) and a pro-U.S., pro-NA.T.O. strategic stance. This policy, as mentioned before, infuriated Chirac in February 2003, but it can be easily explained by historical and political reasons. Historically, the main security concern for all Eastern, Central-Eastern and South-Eastern European countries has been not to fall prey to German or Russian hegemony. An offshore great power (Great Britain or the U.S.) is therefore preferable to a continental one. Politically, the U.S. simply has momentum and capabilities far superior to French and German ones in the last 15 years, explaining its attractiveness to these smaller European states.


G.U.U.A.M. and U.S. Geopolitical Strategy

Placing Romanian and Bulgarian geopolitics in a macro-regional, broader context can help to clarify a lot of current stakes and dynamics. As we have seen, the Black Sea region must be analyzed also in light of the Balkans-Central Asia strategic and energy axis. This explains why the United States is trying to enhance the role of G.U.U.A.M. (Georgia-Ukraine-Uzbekistan-Azerbaijan-Moldova organization) and pushing Bucharest to adhere to this political association.

On April 22, the Georgian, Ukrainian, Azeri and Moldovan governments met in Chisinau to revitalize G.U.U.A.M., trying to make it a political tool for their "Euro-Atlantic" integration. This upgrade attempt apparently wasn't accepted by the Uzbeks, but the meeting was significantly attended by the presidents of Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as by a U.S. State Department representative.

Washington is, in fact, very active in the Black Sea region: in the last few years, Bruce Jackson -- a former U.S. Army officer and a former vice president with Lockheed Martin -- has worked with various pro-American lobbies in Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia and Ukraine in order to facilitate their future admission into N.A.T.O. and to open the way for a "Pax Americana" extending from the Adriatic Sea to the Caspian region.

Another significant U.S. move was the nominee of Jack Dyer Crouch II, an advisor to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as American ambassador in Bucharest. In fact, Romania is considered to be a key state necessary to increase American influence in the region. On March 9, one day before Romanian president Basescu visited Washington, Bruce Jackson explained to the press that the Black Sea is already vital for European energy acquisition, and that it will be even more so in the future. E.U. countries import around 50 percent of their energy, and they are projected to import 70 percent of it in 2020. The Black Sea will be the vital link to transport the Caspian resources to the West.

Washington is, therefore, trying to increase its political influence in the region, hence controlling present and future European capabilities.


Conclusion

The geopolitics of the Black Sea is still searching for stability after the 1989-91 "revolution." For the moment, a clear change can be assessed: Russian influence has declined and American influence has increased; in spite of still existing pro-Russian political forces, Moscow isn't able to contrast Western superior capabilities effectively in terms of economic integration and security-providing ability. Bulgaria's and Romania's admission into N.A.T.O. and projected admission into the European Union has been a major factor in altering the regional balance of power.

However, the situation is far from static. The political future of the European Union and the German-American relationship will be the key variables in how this develops. An increased, federalist European integration coupled by a strong Euro-American relationship would probably result in a diminution of great powers' competition and in a stronger Western hold on the area, at the expense of Russian ambitions. On the contrary, a more independent German foreign policy, predicated upon strategic partnerships with Russia and China rather than upon a "Euro-Atlantic community," could revamp a serious intra-Western competition, and will summon Sofia and Bucharest to make difficult choices.


Report Drafted By:
Dr. Federico Bordonaro



The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.



© The Power and Interest News Report (PINR)





********************************************************************************


Related News:


º US military confrims plans to consolidate its bases in Iraq
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/05/22/afx2046006.html


º Commanders Plan Eventual Consolidation of U.S. Bases in Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100611.html


º US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1490063,00.html


º US generals say Iraq outlook 'bleak
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0520/dailyUpdate.html


º UPI Hears ...
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050519-020701-5758r.htm


º USA plans to expand military presence in Azerbaijan, promises $100mil for Caspian guard
http://www.energybulletin.net/6074.html


º AZERBAIJAN FEARS STANDOFF BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND TEHRAN
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371026


º US, Azerbaijan and Oil, the strategic relation
http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/51083


º "Russia's Future Foreign Policy: Pragmatism in Motion"
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=293


º "U.S. Troop Redeployment: Rational Adjustment to an Altered Threat Environment"
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=203


º "Romania: Europe's New 'Sick Man'"
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=241


º USA plans to expand military presence in Azerbaijan close to Iran
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm51989.htm