Friday, May 2, 2025
ASPI - The Strategist - 2 May 2025 - John Coyne and Henry Campbell - Australian critical minerals reserve would put country on the right track
Australian critical minerals reserve would put country on the right track
Australia’s future prosperity will not be built on nostalgia for past booms.
It’ll be forged in the critical supply chains of tomorrow. That’s why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement of a $1.2 billion Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve, should Labor be re-elected, is an essential move.
The reserve is smart, pragmatic policy targeting both supply and demand aspects of Australia’s critical minerals sector. Executed properly, it will shore up Australia’s economic and geopolitical interests in the face of the global energy transition, geopolitical fragmentation and economic coercion.
Although it’s an important step, if policymakers and industry leaders are serious about delivering sovereign capability, they must build durable partnerships and plan for market instability.
Building a resilient and competitive alternative to China’s critical minerals dominance is a global strategic challenge. It’s a task far bigger than Australia alone can solve.
It demands deep, sustained co-operation with like-minded partners, particularly Japan, the United States, South Korea, India and the European Union.
While calling the announcement visionary may be a stretch, it’s a crucial addition to Australia’s long-term strategy. It signals a serious move beyond simply mining and exporting raw materials, toward making Australia a reliable supplier of refined, high-value minerals.
The reserve’s structure mirrors recommendations made at ASPI’s Darwin Dialogue meetings in 2023 and 2024. It’ll operate through two key mechanisms: government-backed offtake agreements and selective stockpiling.
Offtake agreements are already a familiar tool in the mining sector.
The innovation here is that the Australian government will become the buyer, anchoring investment, setting stable price limits and smoothing market volatility for producers and customers alike.
Stockpiling will complement this by building reserves of priority minerals to sell strategically into trusted domestic and international markets rather than simply holding resources in reserve.
Together, these mechanisms will stabilise supply, support market confidence and direct value chains away from politically coercive actors.
China’s dominance in the global critical minerals sector results from decades of deliberate policy.
Early action, subsidies, export controls and aggressive price manipulation have created structural dependencies that cannot be overcome through goodwill alone.
There have been few viable options but selling into Chinese-controlled markets.
Supply chains that depend overwhelmingly on a single actor, particularly one willing to weaponise economic relationships, are inherently insecure.
Labor’s proposed reserve accepts this reality and offers a practical response.
Australia cannot assume that action alone will be sufficient. The uncertain trajectory of US industrial policy only reinforces the need for Canberra to work harder with Japan, South Korea, India and the EU.
Building joint stockpiles, pursuing shared downstream investments and integrating offtake arrangements will be essential if Australia and its partners are to create a genuinely diversified and resilient supply chain.
Genuine engagement with Australian industry leaders who have fought to stay viable in a hostile global market will be equally important.
Companies such as Lynas Rare Earths, Iluka Resources and Arafura Rare Earths have hard-earned experience navigating the commercial, technological and political challenges of critical minerals supply.
Their operational knowledge, market intelligence and risk management lessons will be crucial in shaping a strategic reserve that is commercially realistic and strategically effective.
These companies know firsthand the difficulties of competing against state-backed Chinese giants that benefit from subsidies, price manipulation and market coercion. Despite these distortions, they’ve built capabilities that are globally competitive. Ignoring their experience would be a strategic mistake.
The proposed reserve fits neatly into the broader Future Made in Australia agenda. It complements the $7.1 billion in production tax credits designed to reduce production costs and strategic investments in Australia’s advanced battery and solar industries.
This layered approach to supply, demand and value-add is exactly what Australia needs.
In time, Australia must pursue co-investment strategies with trusted international partners, moving beyond simple export models to building integrated supply chains.
Strong partnerships with industry will also be essential to scaling up capability and de-risking future investments. As will investment into educating and training the necessary workforce.
The next government should continue to implement critical mineral policy not just as a national security imperative but one that would be seen by the US and other allies as in their interests too.
The critical minerals sector offers Australia a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It is a chance to move beyond the traditional resource economy and lead in enabling the global energy transition and building high-value technology ecosystems.
The Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve is a smart foundation and a necessary one. But Australia must act decisively, build strategically, work with trusted partners and listen to its battle-hardened industry leaders if it’s to fully realise this moment’s economic and strategic promise.
FPIF (Foreign Polcy in Focus) - by John Feffer - April 30, 2025 - Ending the War in Ukraine
Let me be clear about my preferences.
I would very much like to see Ukraine regain all of its territory, including Crimea. Russia should decisively lose the war that it started. In the best of all possible worlds, Vladimir Putin would be deposed and transferred to The Hague to face charges of war crimes. A more democratic Russia could then be welcomed back into the international community and an expanded European security system.
But this is not the best of all possible worlds—not even close.
Three peace deals are currently on the table to end the war in Ukraine: from Russia, from the United States, and from the Europeans (including Ukraine). Russia’s offer is nakedly imperialist. The U.S. plan is basically capitulation to Russia. And the Europeans offer something close to an authentic compromise.
Is a peace deal to end the three-year conflict even remotely close? If a deal is struck, will Russia resume its war after getting a breather for a year or so? And can the West and Russia avoid another half-century Cold War or, incomparably worse, a world-destroying nuclear war?
Donald Trump thinks that he can push the parties to the negotiating table, achieve an agreement, and walk away with a Nobel Prize that he can wave in Barack Obama’s face. Trump also thought that tweeting “Vladimir, STOP!” would persuade the Russian leader to end his aerial assaults on Ukrainian cities (it didn’t). The U.S. president is thus powerful and delusional. It is a dangerous combination.
But he also might, through no particular diplomatic genius or perhaps because of his powerful delusions, precipitate a deal. Given the various constraints—Russia’s imperialist ambitions, Ukraine’s relative weakness, NATO’s internal divisions, and Trump’s near-desperate desire to fulfill a campaign promise—what is the best agreement that can be salvaged from a very bad situation?
What Russian Wants
The primary obstacle to any peace deal is Putin himself. War is a self-gift that just keeps giving to him: a reason to suppress all dissent, a way to excuse the economic mistakes that his administration has made and the daily sacrifices ordinary Russians are making, and an opportunity to focus all the energies of Russian society on an external adversary (rather than an internal autocrat).
Putin thinks that he’s in the catbird seat—his political position is more-or-less secure, Russia has made incremental progress on the battlefield, the economy is still functioning—so he has instructed his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, to present uncompromising terms. Russia wants the world to recognize its territorial gains, not just Crimea or the land that Russian troops presently occupy but all of the four Ukrainian provinces it has constitutionally absorbed into the Russian Federation. In other words, Russia wants to grab land with a pen that it hasn’t so far been able to acquire by military force. Although Russia controls nearly all of Luhansk province, it only commands about three-quarters of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia provinces.
Russia wants NATO membership off the table for Ukraine. It also wants the country demilitarized, thus rendering it forever vulnerable to Russian interference and, ultimately, absorption. Lavrov has demanded legislative changes that restore the status of Russian language and culture in Ukrainian society. And, of course, Russia wants the economic sanctions against it lifted immediately.
This isn’t even Putin’s maximalist position. If he can’t occupy all of Ukraine, he wants at least to expand Russian territorial control around Kharkiv in the north and across Ukraine’s southern regions, cutting off the country’s access to the Black Sea. This ambition is consistent with the concept of Novorossiya (“New Russia”), which expands Russia in various directions. Short of Russian soldiers squatting in Kyiv, Putin wants Volodymyr Zelensky replaced by a more Kremlin-friendly leader.
Putin’s ambitions beyond Ukraine are less clear. The expansion of Russian bases near Finland and the Baltics as well as the increase in military capacities that have little to do with the war in Ukraine (hypersonic missiles, an upgraded nuclear arsenal) suggest preparations for a looming conflict with the West.
But how can Putin be preparing to fight NATO when his army couldn’t even subdue Ukrainian forces? Like Trump, he could simply be powerful and delusional. But in fact, despite a plethora of threats, Russia has assiduously avoided direct confrontation with NATO forces. It hasn’t, for instance, bombed supply lines into Ukraine. Although Russia is interfering in European politics—for instance, in the last Romanian presidential election—it doesn’t have the economic base or the military capabilities to take on a modern European military, even one that might in the future be abandoned by Trump’s America.
So, Putin is not likely preparing to attack. But he may well have genuine concerns about being attacked. If Putin had the military power of NATO and he was facing a hobbled superpower like Russia, he would probably launch a preemptive invasion to eliminate a future threat. Putin imagines that other leaders think the same way he does (even when they don’t).
The problem is that Putin isn’t bothering to distinguish the signals he sending about his colonial desire to absorb Ukraine—or at the very least “Finlandize” the country—from his rhetoric about confronting the “Anglo-Saxons,” his preferred label for the threat coming from the West. That doesn’t bode well for Ukraine or the rest of the world.
What Ukraine Wants
The Ukrainian position is quite simple. It wants to regain its lost territory and acquire enough security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression. It needs reconstruction funds. It aspires to join the European Union.
The Europeans have put on the table, with the support of Ukraine, a proposal vastly different from what the Russians offer. There would be no discussions of territorial changes until after an unconditional ceasefire goes into effect. The United States would participate in the monitoring of the ceasefire. There would be no restrictions on the Ukrainian military. In terms of security guarantees, the United States would provide an “Article 5-like agreement,” while NATO membership would remain in play. The coalition of the willing that supports Ukraine could send equipment and troops to Ukrainian territory. Ukraine would regain control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and the Kakhovka dam. Ukraine would receive reconstruction assistance while Russia would have to wait for sanctions relief until a stable peace is achieved.
The war has been so devastating for the Ukrainian population and the economy that Kyiv is willing to consider at least temporary territorial concessions in order to end the bloodshed and acquire those elusive security guarantees. A possible compromise would involve Ukraine de facto acknowledging Russian occupation while holding out the hope that a future referendum in those areas could return them to Ukrainian control.
If Ukraine joins the European Union, receives considerable reconstruction assistance, and manages to approach the economic level of a Romania or Bulgaria, then it’s not inconceivable that the current residents of Crimea, the Donbas, or the occupied sections of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would opt for the freedoms of Europe rather than the autocratic mediocrity of Russia.
That is, if the Russian government ever again lets anyone in the lands under its control freely express their preferences.
What Trump Wants
Who knows: it changes from day to day, hour to hour.
What the United States Wants
The consensus in the United States is:
- Russia is the aggressor (including 69 percent of Republicans)
- Russia would violate any agreement reached (including 69 percent of Republicans)
- The conflict is important to U.S. national interests (69 percent of all respondents)
- The United States should not send troops to Ukraine to support its military (70 percent of all respondents)
On pretty much all other questions—providing additional military assistance, supporting Ukrainian membership in NATO, whether the war should end quickly or not—the partisan divide is too wide to identify consensus positions.
The Trump administration has put a proposal on the table that reflects Russian positions: de jure recognition of Crimea by Washington, de facto acceptance of Russian occupation of other territory, NATO off the table, lifting of Russian sanctions, and a new economic relationship with Moscow. Ukraine would get a weak security guarantee, a tiny sliver of Russian occupied territory in Kharkiv province, and some reconstruction aid (maybe). The United States would gain control of the Zaporizhzhia power plant and access to an unknown quantity of Ukrainian minerals.
But even within the Trump administration, there are differing positions. Steven Witkoff—ostensibly the envoy to the Middle East, so what’s he doing in Moscow?—seems eager to be Putin’s best American friend. He’s also one of Trump’s oldest buddies, so he’s become a conduit for the Kremlin propaganda poured into the president’s ear. He’s also the U.S. representative most responsible for the administration’s latest peace deal.
Keith Kellogg, who’s the actual envoy for Russia and Ukraine, seems to have a better grasp of the geopolitical stakes. So, obviously, he’s been excluded from some of the high-level negotiations, presumably because the Kremlin considers him “too pro-Ukraine.” Kellogg came up with a territorial carve-up similar to the zones imposed on Germany (and Berlin) after the end of World War II. He was quick to follow up with a comment that he wasn’t recommending the partition of Ukraine (no?).
Some Republican members of Congress still haven’t jumped on the pro-Russia bandwagon. But they are pushing back against Kremlin mouthpieces largely behind closed doors.
What Comes Next?
The Trump administration could give up on a peace deal in the face of Putin’s intransigence, which it has threatened to do on several occasions. The Ukrainians could dig in their heels on the issue of insufficient security guarantees or territorial concessions. The Russians could redouble their current spring offensive—Putin’s illusory ceasefires notwithstanding—and push to acquire as much territory militarily before returning to the negotiating table in the late fall to try once again to get diplomatically what it couldn’t get by force.
But let’s say that the stars somehow align. Here’s a 10-point plan that all sides might agree on:
- A “permanent ceasefire” along the line of fire as well as by air and sea
- The United States recognizes Crimea as Russian territory
- Ukraine recognizes Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, as de facto but not de jure
- NATO is off the table for the foreseeable future
- Ukrainian membership in the European Union is fast-tracked
- Ukraine has unfettered freedom to upgrade its military
- The “coalition of the willing” of mostly European countries monitors the ceasefire along a demilitarized zone and deploys a limited peacekeeping force in Ukrainian territory
- Russia receives sanction relief after all other aspects of the agreement are implemented
- Ukraine receives economic assistance, part of which comes from Russia’s frozen assets in the West and which is also used for the reconstruction of the occupied territories
- Ukraine determines the timing and nature of its elections
Compare this list to my ideal preferences at the top of this article and obviously I’d be disappointed with such a deal. But it would satisfy some of the demands of both sides while providing some slender safeguards that the war wouldn’t just break out again after a few months. Now let’s see if Trump will impose Russian terms on Ukraine, get fed up with notoriously difficult peace negotiations, or somehow facilitate a deal that makes the best of a bad situation.
Thursday, May 1, 2025
30 Nisan 2025, Dışişleri Bakanlığı Sözcüsü Öncü Keçeli’nin Suriye’nin Güneyinde Yaşanan Gelişmeler Hakkındaki Soruya Cevabı
30 Nisan 2025, Dışişleri Bakanlığı Sözcüsü Öncü Keçeli’nin Suriye’nin Güneyinde Yaşanan Gelişmeler Hakkındaki Soruya Cevabı
Suriye’nin güneyinde yaşanan şiddet eylemlerinin, Suriye yönetimi ile bölgedeki yerel unsurlar arasında diyalog ve sağduyu yoluyla sona erdirileceğine ve olaylarda rolü olan kişilerin adalet önüne çıkarılacağına inancımız tamdır.
Suriye’nin bu hassas döneminde, başta bölge ülkeleri olmak üzere uluslararası toplumun üzerine düşen görev, Suriye’de güvenlik ve istikrarın tesis edilmesine katkı sağlamak ve toplumsal uzlaşı yolunda atılan adımları desteklemektir. Bu çerçevede, İsrail’in Suriye’deki birlik ve bütünlük çabalarına zarar vermekte olan hava saldırılarını sona erdirmesi gerekmektedir.
Türkiye, Suriye toplumunu oluşturan tüm unsurlar arasında uzlaşı ve barış çabalarına destek vermeye devam edecektir.
Wednesday, April 30, 2025
EURONEWS Ukraine ready to sign controversial minerals deal with the United States, officials say - By Gavin Blackburn with AP Published on 30/04/2025 - 20:11 GMT+2
EURONEWS
Ukraine ready to sign controversial minerals deal with the United States, officials say
(A view of an ilmenite open pit mine in a canyon in the central region of Kirovohrad, 12 February, 2025
Copyright AP Photo)
By Gavin Blackburn with AP
Published on 30/04/2025 - 20:11 GMT+2
US President Donald Trump indicated in February that he wanted access to Ukraine's rare earth materials as a condition for continued US support in the war, describing it as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in aid Washington has given to Kyiv.
Ukraine is ready to sign an agreement that would give the US access to its valuable rare minerals in the hopes of ensuring continues American support for Kyiv in the war with Russia, senior Ukrainian officials have said.
Ukraine's economy minister and deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, flew to Washington on Wednesday to help finalise the deal, according to two senior Ukrainian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
For Ukraine, the agreement is seen as key to ensuring its access to future US military aid.
"Truly, this is a strategic deal for the creation of an investment partner fund," Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on local television.
"This is truly an equal and good international deal on joint investment in the development and restoration of Ukraine between the governments of the United States and Ukraine."
US President Donald Trump indicated in February that he wanted access to Ukraine's rare earth materials as a condition for continued US support in the war, describing it as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in aid Washington has given to Kyiv.
A worker controls extraction of ilmenite, a key element used to produce titanium, in an open pit mine in the central region of Kirovohrad, 12 February, 2025
A worker controls extraction of ilmenite, a key element used to produce titanium, in an open pit mine in the central region of Kirovohrad, 12 February, 2025AP Photo
But talks on that agreement stalled after a tense Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy in February and reaching an agreement since then has proven difficult.
It wasn't immediately clear if the Trump administration was also ready to finalise the deal Wednesday.
The US is seeking access to more than 20 raw materials deemed strategically critical to its interests, including some non-minerals such as oil and natural gas.
Rare earth minerals
Among them are Ukraine's deposits of titanium, which is used for making aircraft wings and other aerospace manufacturing, and uranium, which is used for nuclear power, medical equipment and weapons.
Ukraine also has lithium, graphite and manganese, which are used in electric vehicle batteries.
After Kyiv felt the initial US draft of the deal disproportionately favoured American interests, it introduced new provisions aimed at addressing those concerns.
According to Shmyhal, the latest version would establish an equal partnership between the two countries and last for 10 years.
US President Donald Trump during a fiery meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the White House, 28 February, 2025AP Photo
Financial contributions to a joint fund would be made in cash and only new US military aid would count toward the American share.
Assistance provided before the agreement was signed would not be counted. Unlike an earlier draft, the deal would not conflict with Ukraine’s path toward European Union membership, a key provision for Kyiv.
The Ukrainian Cabinet was expected to approve the agreement’s text before it could be signed in Washington.
The deal would then need to be ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament before it could take effect.
Putin wants answers before committing to ceasefire
The negotiations come amid rocky progress in Washington's push to stop the war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin backs calls for a ceasefire before peace negotiations, "but before it's done, it's necessary to answer a few questions and sort out a few nuances," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
Putin is also ready for direct talks with Ukraine without preconditions to seek a peace deal, he added.
Firefighters put out a fire following a Russian drone attack that hit apartment buildings in Kharkiv, 30 April, 2025
Firefighters put out a fire following a Russian drone attack that hit apartment buildings in Kharkiv, 30 April, 2025AP Photo
"We realise that Washington wants to achieve quick progress, but we hope for understanding that the Ukrainian crisis settlement is far too complex to be done quickly," Peskov said during his daily conference call with reporters.
Trump has expressed frustration over the slow pace of progress in negotiations aimed at stopping the war.
Western European leaders have accused Putin of stalling while his forces seek to grab more Ukrainian land. Russia has captured ne early a fifth of Ukraine’s territory since Moscow's forces launched a full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022. arly a fifth of Ukraine’s territory since Moscow's forces launched a full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022.
Yazar: Mehmet Öğütçü / 30 Nisan 2025, Çarşamba / Kerkük–Baniyas: Türkiye’yi devre dışı bırakabilecek petrol hattı projesi
Kerkük–Baniyas: Türkiye’yi devre dışı bırakabilecek petrol hattı projesi
/ 30 Nisan 2025, Çarşamba / Oda: Ekonomi
Irak petrol ihracat kanallarını çeşitlendirmek için Kerkük ile Suriye’nin Baniyas şehri arasındak petrol boru hattını canlandırmak istiyor. Bu hattın işletmeye alınması Türkiye’ye zarar verebilir. Bölgedeki petrol ve doğal gaz boru hatları. (Harita: US Library of Congress)
Ortadoğu’nun enerji haritası Türkiye’yi devre dışı bırakabilecek Irak-Suriye petrol boru hattı projesiyle değişebilir. Irak’ın 2003’ten bu yana pasif bekleyen Kerkük–Baniyas petrol boru hattını tekrar canlandırma kararı, yalnızca bir altyapı yatırımı değil; bölgedeki güç dengelerini sarsacak stratejik bir hamle anlamına geliyor. Türkiye, bu koridorun devreye alınması halinde hem transit gelirlerini hem de bölgedeki “enerji dağıtım merkezi” iddiasını kaybetme riskiyle karşı karşıya. Ankara’nın artık uykuya yatma lüksü yok.
Irak: yeni ihracat kanalları
Irak, Petrol İhracatçısı Ülkeler Örgütü OPEC’in Suudi Arabistan’dan sonra ikinci büyük üreticisi olarak günde 3,5 milyon varili aşkın petrolüyle küresel enerji piyasasında kritik bir oyuncu. Ancak bu üretimin yüzde 85’i Basra Körfezi’ne bağımlı. Hürmüz Boğazı’ndaki bir gerilim, ambargo ya da deniz güvenliği krizi, Bağdat’ın milyarlarca dolarlık gelirini bir gecede sekteye uğratabilir.
Kerkük–Ceyhan hattı bir zamanlar 400–500 bin varil/gün sevkiyat kapasiteli olsa da son yıllarda hukuki anlaşmazlıklar ve güvenlik sorunları nedeniyle adeta durmuş halde. Ankara bunu müzakerelerde koz olarak kullanıyor.
Irak’ın önceliğiyse ihracat kanallarını çeşitlendirmek; Kerkük–Baniyas koridoru da tam bu noktada öne çıkıyor.
Ceyhan yerine Baniyas mı?
Suriye iç savaşıyla ekonomik altyapısı ağır darbe alsa da Akdeniz’e kıyısındaki Baniyas Limanı hâlâ işlevsel.
Kerkük’ten Baniyas’a uzanacak hat, Irak petrolünü hem doğrudan Akdeniz’e dökecek hem de Avrupa’ya kısa yoldan nakletme fırsatı sunacak.
Gerçi Ceyhan/Yumurtalık terminali sadece Kerkük ve Musul petrolünü değil, Azerbaycan petrolünü de Akdeniz’e taşıyor. Ancak Kerkük-Baniyas hattıyla Suriye, yeniden inşa sürecinde petrol gelirlerinden beslenen önemli bir enerji dağıtım merkezi konumuna gelebilir. Bu da hem Şam yönetimine yeni bir gelir kaynağı hem de bölgesel güç dengelerinde Suriye’nin eski statüsünü kısmen de olsa geri kazanması demek.
Irak ve Suriye Kürt bölgeleri
Irak Kürdistan Bölgesel Yönetimi (KBY) kontrolündeki petrol sahaları yıllardır Ceyhan üzerinden fiili bağımsız gelir sağlıyordu. Uluslararası Tahkim Kurulu’nun 2023’te aldığı karar, bu kanalı büyük ölçüde tıkadı ve KBY’yi mali krizle karşı karşıya bıraktı.
Kerkük–Baniyas hattı işletmeye alınırsa Bağdat, kuzeydeki petrol gelirinin kontrolünü tamamen eline alabilecek. Bu, Kürt özerkliğinin ekonomik dayanaklarından birini daha zayıflatıp bölgeyi merkezi yönetimin gölgesine çekecek güçlü bir araç olarak işlev görecek.
Suriye cephesindeyse Deyrizor ve Haseke gibi doğu sahalarında ABD destekli SDG/PYD kontrolü sürerken, Şam yönetimi bu koridoru canlandırarak ilgili bölgeleri yeniden ulusal enerji şemsiyesi altında toplamayı amaçlıyor. Dolayısıyla PYD/SDG oluşumlarının siyasi ve ekonomik özerklik talepleri de ciddi bir sınavdan daha geçecek.
Kerkük–Baniyas koridoru faal hâle gelirse bu Türkiye’nin en hızlı ve güvenilir çıkış imajını sarsabilir, taşımacılık gelirlerini sarsabilir, bölgesel pazarlık gücünü azaltıp stratejik etkisini zayıflatabilir.
Dört önemli nokta
Uyuyan güzel uyanıyor ve Türkiye’nin şimdi uykuya yatma zamanı değil. Bu koridorun enerji haritasını yeniden çizmesine fırsat vermeden, Ankara şu adımları derhal hayata geçirmeli:
1- Kerkük–Ceyhan hattı modernizasyonu: Boru hattının bakım, güvenlik ve dijital izleme yatırımlarını hızla tamamlayarak Irak’a hâlâ Türkiye’nin en uygun çıkış kapısı olduğu kanıtlanmalı.
2- Yeni ticaret ve yatırım modelleri: Ortak rafineri projeleri, serbest enerji bölgeleri, yatırım teşvikleri ve doğrudan alım garantileriyle Kerkük–Ceyhan güzergâhı ekonomik açıdan da çekici hale getirilmeli.
3- Irak KBY ve Bağdat’ın arası bulunmalı: Kürt bölgesinin ekonomik çıkarlarını da gözetecek, gelir paylaşımı mekanizmaları kurarak Ceyhan’a olan güveni yeniden inşa etmek.
4- Suriye ile enerji diplomasisi: SDG/PYD kontrolündeki sahalarda teknik rehabilitasyon teklifiyle Şam yönetimiyle enerji iş birliğini derinleştirmek; Baniyas hattını bir alternatif değil tamamlayıcı bir seçenek olarak sunmak.
Acele etmek gerekiyor
Kerkük–Baniyas koridoru, dört duvar arasında kalmış “uyuyan güzel” değil; operasyonel hale gelirse Türkiye’nin stratejik menfaatlerini zedeleyecek şekilde Ortadoğu’nun dengelerini yeniden kuracak bir hamle. Enerji hiçbir kaba sığmaz, engellenemez, akacak mecrayı mutlaka bulur. Türkiye eğer bu süreçte kritik eşiği kaçırırsa, “enerji merkezi” hayali suya düşer, bölgesel nüfuz ve gelir kaybı kaçınılmaz olur.
Ankara artık kısa vadeli çözümler değil, kapsamlı, stratejik bir seferberlikle hem kendi çıkarlarını hem de bölge istikrarını garanti altına almak zorunda.
Aksi takdirde “uyuyan güzel” uyanacak ve Türkiye’nin bu oyunun dışında bırakılması süreci başlayacak.
Cumhuriyet - Emperyalizmin Kemalizm saplantısı Ahmet Süha Umar (Emekli Büyükelçi) 30 Nisan 2025
Cumhuriyet
Emperyalizmin Kemalizm saplantısı
Ahmet Süha Umar (Emekli Büyükelçi)
30 Nisan 2025
Ermeni terörü, aralarında, kaybına hâlâ alışamadığım dostum Bahadır Demir’in de bulunduğu onlarca meslektaşımı öldürdü. Batı, yıllarca kol kanat gerdiği ASALA-Ermeni terörüne desteğini ancak 1983 Orly Havaalanı baskınından sonra kesti.
PKK terörü ise 1984 Siirt-Eruh baskını ile başlatıldı. Arkasında yine Batı vardı.
Batı’nın bu tutumunun nedeni, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün, Batı’nın, Sevr Antlaşması ile Türkleri ve Türkiye’yi, Orta Anadolu’ya hapsetmek ve ekonomik kurtuluşunu önlemek amacını boşa çıkarmasıdır. Batı emperyalizmi, Kemalizmin ve Türklerin bu başarısını hiçbir zaman kabullenemedi, sindiremedi.
Bu gerçeği gördüğümüzde, her yıl 24 Nisan öncesindeki sıkıntılı bekleyişin de ABD başkanının hangi sözcüğü kullandığını tartışmanın veya buna tepki göstermenin de bir anlamı yoktur. Ermeni ve Kürt terörü, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ni meşgul etmeye, enerjisini verimsiz alanlarda tüketmesini sağlamaya yönelik planlardır. Ciddiye almaya değmez. Halk değişiyle “Erkekseniz gelin, alın!” demek yeter.
Günümüzde üzerinde durulması gereken konu ise farklıdır ve önemlidir.
DEĞERLİ MADENLER
Batı’nın değerli madenlere gereksinimi, özellikle bilişim teknolojilerindeki ilerleme nedeniyle bugün büyük ölçüde artmıştır. Bu madenler için yapmayacağı yoktur. Bunun en son kanıtı, Trump’ın, Ukrayna’nın değerli madenlerine zorbalıkla el koymasıdır.
Osmanlı’nın son döneminde, “padişahlarımız, efendilerimizin!” gösteriş ve ihtişam merakı nedeniyle devletin borç batağına saplanması sonrasında da Batı, alacaklarının tahsili için Düyunu Umumiye aracılığı ile Türkiye’nin başta tuz gelirleri olmak üzere, büyük gelir kaynaklarına el koymuştur.
YENİ DÜYUNU UMUMİYE
Türkiye bugün yine, 2002’den bu yana Cumhuriyetin bütün varlıklarını yabancılara satan yöneticilerinin dirayetsizliği, yanlış ekonomi politikaları ve ihtişam-gösteriş merakı nedeniyle bir kez daha borç batağına saplanmıştır. Tarih tekerrür etmekte, Türkiye’nin, başta altın olmak üzere, tüm değerli madenleri, kişisel çıkar peşindeki içerideki işbirlikçilerin desteğiyle çıkarılıp yurtdışına götürülmektedir. Bu arada Türkiye’nin zenginlikleri -ormanları, denizleri, meraları, turizm alanları hatta tarihi ve arkeolojik sit alanları- amansızca yok edilmektedir.
BATI EMPERYALİZMİNİN AMACI
Batı emperyalizmi, onu dünyada ilk kez alt eden, Sevr’i çöpe atan, sonra da onca yoksulluk içinde bile Batı’nın kapısına gitmeyen; Cumhuriyetin ilk 15 yılında, dünyada eşi görülmedik bir ekonomik kalkınmaya imza atan, bazı hadsizlerin küçümsedikleri Atatürk Türkiye’sine, her ne pahasına olursa olsun diz çöktürmek, böylece Kurtuluş Savaşı’nın intikamını almak amacını tek bir gün bile aklından çıkarmamıştır.
Batı emperyalizminin, geçmişte olduğu gibi bugün de araçları aynıdır. Kürt ayrılıkçı hareketini teşvik eder, destekler. Türkiye’yi, ekonomik tutsak haline getirmeye çalışır. Gerek duyduğu destek, ülke içindeki işbirlikçilerdir.
TÜRKIYE GÜÇLÜDÜR: SORUN, YÖNETİM ZİHNİYETİDİR
Batı’nın Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne böylesine diş bilemesinin nedeni, Türk ulusunun, Kurtuluş Savaşı’nda ve sonrasında gösterdiği direnç, sergilediği başa çıkılmaz güç, bunu her an tekrarlama potansiyeli ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ni o dönem yöneten Kemalist iradenin, kendisini kanıtlamış, emperyalizmi alt eden niteliği ve gücüdür.
Türkiye ancak 1950’lerde başlayan ve son 23 yılda en üst düzeyine varan, Atatürk Türkiye’sinin kurucu değerlerinden kopan yönetim zihniyetinden kurtulduğu takdirde Batı’nın kurduğu tuzağı ve onun, Cumhuriyeti, ulusuyla, ülkesiyle ortadan kaldırma planını boşa çıkarabilir.
Yapılması gereken, egemenliğin tek kişiye değil ulusa ait olduğu; laik, demokratik ve sosyal hukuk devleti; ülke sınırlarının Misakı Milli ile belirlendiği; yurtta ve dünyada barış ilkelerine bağlı olarak başta komşular olmak üzere, NATO, AB, Rusya ve Çin ile her zaman ülke çıkarlarını titizlikle koruyan iyi ve dengeli ilişkiler politikasına dönmektir.
Türkiye’nin, bilinçli olarak içine düşürüldüğü duruma ve bunun nedenlerine bu gözle bakmadıkça ve umarım, bu yönetim zihniyetini her ne pahasına olursa olsun değiştirmekte olduğunu görmedikçe, Batı emperyalizminden kurtuluşu yoktur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)