A Call to Arms
Have
a look at a world map. As a patriotic Armenian, you will probably
want to first locate our diminutive but dear homeland in the south
Caucasus. Next, have a look around our beloved country, please do not
concentrate on the neighbors only, look a bit further…a few hundred or
even a few thousand kilometers away. You may want to start with Afghanistan,
the eternal hotspot where poverty, Islamic radicalism, terrorism and
militaristic expansionism have converged…Do you even know why wars,
killing and devastation have never left that country? Next, place your
focus on the other "failed" state called Pakistan…and with all the
political intrigues, back-stabbings, double-crossings coupled with a
healthy dose of Islamism, poverty, corruption and superpower
political/military/financial meddling and arm-wrestling, where do you
think that country is heading?
Move a bit to the west and now concentrate on Iran, the ancient culture, the oil wealth … the sworn enemy of Israel
and the Anglo-American alliance. They are under sanctions, under
pressure, under constant threat not only from the above countries, but
also from historic rivals Turkey and Sunni regimes in the Arab world. Do
you sometimes wonder who the Iranians think their worst enemy is?
Israel, the USA, Turkey or the Sunni Arabs? Keep going west and discover the wonderful “democracy” that has been “imposed” on Iraq… or should I say what’s left of Iraq because the autonomous Northern Kurdistan
province is for all intents and purposes independent… or perhaps too
dependent from a superpower. This multi-ethnic cradle of human
civilization is nothing but a gunpowder barrel ready to explode at the
slightest geopolitical change in the region…stay tuned for the next big
episode of bloodletting in this ancient land of Mesopotamia where Saddam is now almost forgotten.
Now,
head north to have a look at Turkey… or should I say the Ottoman
Empire wannabe. Despite their many problems like their persistent
troubles with their Kurdish population and their hands still bloody
from the Armenian Genocide, not only has Ankara not forgotten their
Pan-Turanian dreams they are also looking forward to re-establishing
their beloved empire that they lost to other imperialists… When Turkey
is not busy collaborating with Israel, they just clash with them. They
are for the "hearts and minds" of Sunni Arabs in problematic places
like Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya
and elsewhere. Their propaganda laden diplomatic offensive was begun a
while ago. Ankara wants to re-establish themselves as the Ottoman
rulers in a more modern 21st century manner. Many Arabs in
the aforementioned countries are already looking at Turkey as their
model of an Islamic state. The Turks are now the reincarnated
Saladdin… Just what the Arabs need: a foreign savior.
You
may think that I will now ask you travel further south into the Arab
world, particularly Lebanon and Syria where many of our ancestors who
survived the Genocide settled. No, instead I will invite you to jump
across the Bosphorus and move in to Europe only to find Greece
and many other European nations sinking in their own debt… The
financial issues of Greece will become trivial if you look at what used
to be Yugoslavia… Divided and re-divided on the basis of ethnicity,
religion, corruption or maybe just because larger powers want it that
way… Do you really think that that part of the world is in peace?
Well,
there you go. In case you were running it across all the above
countries on the map, did you feel your finger burning? If you did it's
because these places are defined as hotspots. And these
political hotspots are at the periphery of our homeland which is itself
blockaded from the east and west, flanked in the south by the favorite
bogeyman of the Western press, and has to share a border with a
country called Georgia, a nation
that is for all intents and purposes ruled from a major capital across
the Atlantic... Yes, what a recipe for trouble! A superpower playing
"adventurism" in the backyard of another one by politically,
financially and militarily supporting a corrupt and monopolistic
autocracy run by a perfectly designed, molded, shaped and prepared
puppet called Saakashvili. His nose was bloodied once during the brief
August 2008 war. Now that the real Russian Bear (Putin) is expected to
be elected president of a fast re-emerging Russia, do
you think there will be a round two and a knock-off punch delivered
right at Armenia's doorsteps? What will be Armenia's role in that mess?
Where does Javaghk fall in all of that?
I
have lived in Lebanon during the seventies and part of the eighties to
witness the civil war that was the result of ethnic intolerance,
foreign diplomatic meddling, radicalism, imperialistic military
adventurism, foreign military presence, terrorism, etc., etc. Now, I am
petrified watching whole regions that I discussed in the
above paragraphs metamorphizing into a gigantic Lebanon-like entity
that will inevitably see major conflicts and wars flare up with
slightest shifts in geopolitics or by simple military adventurism. I
am worried about our Homeland. I am worried about our brothers and
sisters living in places like Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere in the
region. Yet, I do see some bright light. Actually, I see two things
going the right way for us.
First,
we have (at last) some "real" leadership in our country. Our 3
consecutive presidents since independence and their respective
governments are far from perfect, but they are the kind of leaders that
we desperately needed. Despite many lingering domestic
issues and problems, they were able – despite all the difficulties - to
put the country on the correct political track and forge the right
alliances and relationships. Our military alliance with Russia was
the most crucial and correct decision that was ever made by any
Armenian leader for a long period of time. Thanks to that military treaty, no one can attack Armenia, no one can blackmail Armenia, no one can terrorize Armenia. The
Russians are just as worried as Armenians about the political
hotspots stretching for thousands of kilometers along their south and
west. Couple that with ethno-religious radicalism in some of their
north Caucasus republics (Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia) and the
Russians feel they need us just as much as we need them: hence the
alliance.
For the Russians, Armenia is their heavily guarded fortress at the edge of their influence zone. Armenia
is the strategic barrier that stops the spread of Islamism and Turkism
into their southern Caucasus region. The Russians know very well that
if they loose Armenia, they will eventually loose their north Caucasus
republics to Turkey’s Turanian dreams. For Russian leaders, Armenia
must be strong and untouchable. Well, how about Artsakh? Does the military alliance treaty between Russia and Armenia cover that region as well? On paper it does not, but for all intents and purpose Artsakh is just as untouchable because the Russian Federation is making sure that the military balance between Armenia and Azerbaijan
is remaining in favor of the former. Furthermore, the
Medvedev-Putin-Lavrov trio are maintaining the military status-quo
without alienating Azerbaijan. Moscow is successfully keeping Baku, to a
certain degree, under their influence (just like the USA makes sure no
one can touch Israel while selling billions worth of arms to oil rich
Arab sheikhdoms).
The recent military parades in both Baku and Yerevan
highlighted the above. Aliyev is spending billions of his petrodollars
to gain a substantial military advantage over Armenia, and he clearly
showed all his might during their parade only to be spat upon the face
when Armenia's defense ministry disclosed some very capable weapons
systems like the S-300, Tochka and Scud missiles, weaponry that are
beyond the financial means of our small economy… all of them being
compliments of the Kremlin!
One can wonder where we are supposed to use all these Russian weapons?
Is it to defend ourselves against some foolish attack from the Sultan
in Baku, or is it to be used against another country when wars occur in
the region and Moscow and Yerevan may want to seize an opportunity?
Second,
I see our nation re-invigorated. The tough times Armenia had to go
through (e.g. devastating earthquake, illegal blockade and a war of
liberation) and the continuing threat of yet another war has made
Armenians tougher. We are learning, adapting, adjusting and taking the
initiative. Our inherent creativity is bearing fruit. The 2011 Milex
Arms exhibition in Minsk
and the more recent military parade in Yerevan revealed what Armenians
on a shoestring budget can come up with: "Grung" unmanned aerial
reconnaissance aircraft, battlefield radars and high-tech electronic
and optical devices among other things. As our enemies are only now
beginning to find out, the extremely challenging times and the ongoing
blockade may have had a positive effect on Armenia. If necessity is the mother of all inventions… the creative, intelligent and hard working Armenians can surely invent.
We
Armenians need to be ready for the inevitable conflicts that the
region will unfortunately witness. Our domestic problems should be
placed permanently on the back burner and our people must cluster
around our current and future leaders despite all the contentious
internal matters. Elections and political rallying should be conducted
in the most civilized of manners. Armenia's opposition news press needs
to temper its incendiary style of reporting. Our many enemies would love to see us divided and weak.
Armenia is militarily strong, our population goes through 2 years of
military service, they know how to fight. If we remain united and
embrace our leadership, victory will be the certain outcome.
A
word to diaspora Armenians: Be mentally, physically and
psychologically ready to provide all possible assistance to our
brothers and sisters in the Homeland, be it financial or otherwise.
Armenia can always use a few more people like Monte. In case you happen
to be living in volatile places like the Middle East,
make sure you are familiar to the use of firearms while remaining in
compliance with the laws of the country you live in. Be prepared to
protect yourselves and your loved ones. No one should be allowed to
walk over us.
Zoravar
November, 2011
November, 2011
***
The Armenian Defense Ministry is apparently keen to increase the number of soldiers serving in the largely conscription-based army on a contractual basis. That number has already grown significantly over the past decade. News agencies also quoted Ohanian as saying that the extra funding sought by the government and the military would also be spent on fresh arms purchases as well as “the maintenance and exploitation of recently acquired systems and devices.” He did not elaborate. Armenia’s officially declared military spending will thus continue to pale in comparison with arch-foe Azerbaijan’s defense and security budget which is projected to reach $3.3 billion this year, up from $2.15 billion in 2010.
Armenia has been trying to offset this spending gap through close military ties with Russia that entitle it to receiving Russian weapons at discount prices or even for free. A new Russian-Armenian defense agreement signed in August 2010 commits Moscow to helping Yerevan obtain “modern and compatible weaponry and (special) military hardware.” The Armenian military demonstrated some of its new weaponry, including S-300 air-defense systems, during a high-profile parade staged in September. Ohanian insisted after the parade that Yerevan is maintaining “the balance of forces” with Baku despite the latter’s massive military buildup fuelled by oil revenues.
Source: http://www.azatutyun.am/content/article/24379553.html
Russian Army Chief Visits Armenia Again
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/russian_army_chief_visits_armenia_again/24381168.html
Armenian-Russian Joint Military Exercises End With Success
Military servicemen of Russia and Armenia on Monday successfully wrapped up their joint training exercises toward carrying out defensive battles under mountainous conditions, the Russian army’s press service informed. At present, units from the Russian army’s 102nd Military Base in Armenia are moving from Alagyaz Rifle Range toward Gyumri city, their permanent location. More than 500 military servicemen took part in, and close to 200-unit weapons and military equipment were used, from the Russian side, during the joint military exercises, which had started on October 27. And From the Armenian side, around 300 servicemen participated in, and 50-unit weapons and military equipment were used during the military training.
Source: http://news.am/eng/news/80049.html
Turkey to Give Military Support Azerbaijan, Says Minister
Source: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/125027/turkey-to-give-military-support-azerbaijan-says-minister.html
Azerbaijani-Turkish Joint Military Training Expected to Take Place
The existing level of Azerbaijani-Turkish relations makes it necessary to conduct joint military trainings, Zahid Oruj, MP and member of the Parliament's Security and Defense Committee, told Trend on Wednesday. He said the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations rose to a more significant level due to the Council for Strategic Cooperation established last year. "After the Council was established, it became clear that cooperation between Azerbaijan and Turkey was at the stage of becoming the real, working model having functional goals where structuring is broadly practiced and tasks were distributed," he noted. The agreement envisions cooperation in the sphere of defense and in other spheres between Azerbaijan and Turkey, assistance in supply of arms, and cooperation between production units, the MP said. The agreement of establishment of the Council for high-level Strategic Cooperation creates legal base for that, he believes. "In the past, generals and officers of Turkish Armed Forces helped form the military system of Azerbaijan. It is now time to establish common commandment and exchange mutual military experience through military trainings," Oruj said. He said Azerbaijan needs Turkey's experience. Azerbaijan can always offer its support to fight Turkey's enemies. The issue of military trainings, regardless from who and what conclusions makes of this, meets our national interests and security, he believes. "Joint military trainings will create perfect opportunities for to-be cooperation," Oruj said.
Source: http://en.trend.az/news/politics/1953034.html
Source: http://armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/32626/aliev_panturkism_summit_armenia_zangezur
‘If You Want Peace, Prepare For War,’ Says Turkish Defense Chief
Source: http://asbarez.com/98652/%E2%80%98if-you-want-peace-prepare-for-war%E2%80%99-says-turkish-defense-chief/
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/world/europe/turkey-is-sheltering-antigovernment-syrian-militia.html
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/world/europe/dozens-dead-in-attacks-on-turkish-forces.html
Source: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=38638&
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057210/Iran-ready-war-Tehran-retaliate-Israel-West-attack-nuclear-plants.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#
Faced with a round of threats and speculations of an impending war so shrill that it has sent oil prices soaring, Russia and China were quick today to caution the United States against launching an attack on Iran. Attacking Iran would be a “very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences,” warned Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, while China expressed concern that the threats were harming the prospects of diplomacy. They are just the latest in a growing chorus of nations to express concerns about starting another major war. Germany has also said they oppose such a move. A growing number of US officials past and present have expressed a preference for launching a military attack on Iran soon, with an IAEA report alleging some vague allegations about computer simulations serving as the latest pretext. Israeli officials have also been hyping the prospect of launching an attack on Iran themselves, with President Shimon Peres insisted the war was “more likely” than any sort of diplomatic solution. Israeli military officials are said to prefer an attack before winter.
Source: http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/07/russia-china-warn-us-against-attacking-iran/
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203537304577028490161890480.html
Afghanistan is a Proxy War Between India and Pakistan
The fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 allowed India to expand its influence in Afghanistan dramatically. Its engineers and IT specialists poured in as part of its most ambitious aid package – worth more than $1.5 billion – to build remote mountain roads, establish telephone, internet, and satellite links and reopen schools and hospitals. Washington encouraged India's involvement and believed it could use the soft power of its popular Bollywood film industry and other cultural links to encourage tolerance and pluralism in the country.
For India, which had been frozen out under the Taliban regime as a supporter of the Northern Alliance's warlords, Afghanistan holds the keys to the Central Asian mineral and energy reserves it needs to sustain its rapid economic growth. To that end, and to increase its chances of gaining access to Afghanistan's own rich reserves of iron ore, India has pledged another half a billion dollars in aid.
Afghanistan is keen to encourage India in this: it doesn't want Pakistan to be its sole customs guard or jailer, and it has seen how vindictive its twin can be. When India's Kabul embassy was blown up by a suicide bomber in 2008, killing 41, including India's defence attaché, American officials said they had evidence that members of Pakistan's ISI intelligence service had been involved in the plot. Just over a year later they struck again, killing 17.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8863073/Afghanistan-is-a-proxy-war-between-India-and-Pakistan.htm
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/russian_diplomat_criticized_for_speech_at_serbian_opposition_rally/24379085.html
Source: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110901/166347758.html
Georgia on Mr. Putin’s mind
ANYONE WHO was wondering whether Vladimir Putin is softening as he prepares to retake the Russian presidency would do well to review the Kremlin boss’s performance at a business forum in Moscow Thursday. Asked whether Russia was likely to join the World Trade Organization in the next several months — as both his trade minister and the Obama administration predicted after talks in Washington last Monday — Mr. Putin responded by claiming that Western governments seek to “hide behind the Georgian issue” in order to block Moscow’s accession. This cynical and patently false charge is worth deconstructing for what it reveals about Russia’s likely course during the next phase of Putinism, which, if the strongman has his way, will last a dozen years.
Georgia, a former Soviet republic in
the Caucasus, whose sovereignty, liberal democracy and alliance with
the United States are regarded as intolerable by the Kremlin, is a WTO
member and thus must consent before Russia is admitted to the
organization. The problem is that in addition to banning most Georgian
imports, Russia has occupied two of its provinces since a 2008
invasion; Moscow has tried — with a spectacular lack of success — to
have the enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognized as
independent states.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/georgia-on-mr-putins-mind/2011/10/07/gIQAY5daYL_story.html
Source: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/vladimir-putin-the-south-caucasus-5972
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/What_Does_Confederation_Mean_In_The_South_Caucasus/2160662.html
Global Warfare: Targeting Iran: Preparing for World War III
The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously.
Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27446
The West's Most-Cherished Desire: The Disintegration of the Russian Federation
Will a "Russian Spring" occur? Russian police have arrested hundreds of protestors recently. But the pro-liberal protestors claimed that they will not succumb to such moves and continue to hold protests every day. This scenario is similar to the initial phrase of the Arab Spring, where the revolutionary movement was triggered by small- scale protests. It is hard to predict the outcome of the current protest on Russia's election scandal, but everything is possible.
Vladimir Putin's rule will face increasing scrutiny and it will become much harder for him to withstand the challenges. However, this is not a victory for the West. Putin losing authority will not automatically gain the West influence in Russia. The future of Russia will be shaped according to its own interests. This is the principle set by its democratic environment. Putin's own authority came because he put the country back to track. He saved Russia from the confusion and chaos when the USSR disintegrated two decades ago.
The relation between election and a candidate's authority is complicated. However the latest State Duma elections did not suggest that Russia's understanding of its national interests has become obscure, as during the Yeltsin era. Ballots lost by the United Russia are now in the pocket of the Communists and the Liberal Democrats, which does not reflect the expanding of the West's ideology.
Russian interests are dominated by a combination of geopolitics, culture and ambition. The differences and even the hostility between the West and Russia will persist if these interests contradict each other, no matter who sits in the Kremlin. Should a "revolution" take place, the primary target of shock will be Russia itself. The worst nightmare would be the disintegration of the Russian Federation. This is the result the West most desires to see most.
Russian society does not want to undergo this nightmare again. This concern has partly resulted from Putin's lasting authority. The unity United Russia can bring to this country is limited, but unity under democracy is not that convincing either. The painful lessons of the past will make Russians more reluctant to give up their trust in strongman politics to its democratic peers.
Personal trust is the reason that facilitated the strategic relations between China and Russia. However, the foundation of these ties is built upon a mutual dream of national revival which outstripped the interests that connected the West and Russia. China wants a stable Russia. The West is on the opposite side.
Russia has undergone many tough challenges. The "revolutions" in the Middle-East is a cakewalk compared to the movements the former communist state experienced. The country has made several twists and turns in choosing its own path. Russia is not similar to the countries swept by the Arab Spring. It is a unique state and will remain so.
Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2810
Armenia To Boost Army In 2012
The
Armenian military has revealed plans to recruit new professional
soldiers and acquire more weapons next year as part of a 5.6 percent
increase in defense spending envisaged by the draft state budget for
2012. Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian said late on Tuesday that
Armenia’s military expenditures will total 150 billion drams ($400
million) if the budget is approved by parliament. Ohanian told
journalists that the additional expenditures proposed by the government
would primarily finance recruitment of more military personnel and
resulting “structural changes” in the country’s armed forces. Speaking
after the first parliamentary hearings on the budget, he gave no
details of the planned expansion.
The Armenian Defense Ministry is apparently keen to increase the number of soldiers serving in the largely conscription-based army on a contractual basis. That number has already grown significantly over the past decade. News agencies also quoted Ohanian as saying that the extra funding sought by the government and the military would also be spent on fresh arms purchases as well as “the maintenance and exploitation of recently acquired systems and devices.” He did not elaborate. Armenia’s officially declared military spending will thus continue to pale in comparison with arch-foe Azerbaijan’s defense and security budget which is projected to reach $3.3 billion this year, up from $2.15 billion in 2010.
Armenia has been trying to offset this spending gap through close military ties with Russia that entitle it to receiving Russian weapons at discount prices or even for free. A new Russian-Armenian defense agreement signed in August 2010 commits Moscow to helping Yerevan obtain “modern and compatible weaponry and (special) military hardware.” The Armenian military demonstrated some of its new weaponry, including S-300 air-defense systems, during a high-profile parade staged in September. Ohanian insisted after the parade that Yerevan is maintaining “the balance of forces” with Baku despite the latter’s massive military buildup fuelled by oil revenues.
Source: http://www.azatutyun.am/content/article/24379553.html
Russian Army Chief Visits Armenia Again
The
commander-in-chief of Russia's ground forces has visited Armenia where
he met top Armenian military officials and inspected Russian troops
stationed in the country, RFE/RL's Armenian Service reports. The
Armenian Defense Ministry gave no details of Colonel General Aleksandr
Postnikov's talks with Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian and the
chief of the Armenian army's General Staff, Colonel General Yuri
Khachaturov.
A ministry statement said the main purpose of Postnikov's three-day trip -- which ended on November 2 -- was to "verify and oversee" an ongoing "optimization of the order of deployment" of the Russian military base headquartered in Gyumri. It said he inspected various units and facilities at the base. Postnikov already visited Armenia twice in April for the same purpose. Armenian and Russian military officials have since given few details of the redeployment of Russian troops. It is unknown whether their overall number will change as a result of the redistribution
Senior Russian Defense Ministry official Andrei Gusev said in June that "excess weaponry and military hardware" from the Russian base will be transferred to the Armenian army for free as part of the redeployment. He did not elaborate. Gusev assured lawmakers in Moscow that that the "optimization" will not affect the combat-readiness of Russian troops. The Russian base has up to 5,000 soldiers, more than 100 tanks and armored personnel carriers, S-300 air defense missiles, and a squadron of MiG-29 fighter jets. A Russian-Armenian agreement signed in August 2010 extended the Russian military presence in Armenia by 24 years, until 2044, and upgraded its security mission. The deal also committed Moscow to supplying Armenia with modern weaponry.
The Russian troop presence, a major element of Armenia's national security doctrine, was called into question in April when Georgia decided not to renew a Russian-Georgian agreement that allowed Moscow to use Georgian territory for shipments to Armenia. The Armenian Defense Ministry downplayed the Georgian move at the time, saying that it will not lead to any "change in Armenia's security environment."
A ministry statement said the main purpose of Postnikov's three-day trip -- which ended on November 2 -- was to "verify and oversee" an ongoing "optimization of the order of deployment" of the Russian military base headquartered in Gyumri. It said he inspected various units and facilities at the base. Postnikov already visited Armenia twice in April for the same purpose. Armenian and Russian military officials have since given few details of the redeployment of Russian troops. It is unknown whether their overall number will change as a result of the redistribution
Senior Russian Defense Ministry official Andrei Gusev said in June that "excess weaponry and military hardware" from the Russian base will be transferred to the Armenian army for free as part of the redeployment. He did not elaborate. Gusev assured lawmakers in Moscow that that the "optimization" will not affect the combat-readiness of Russian troops. The Russian base has up to 5,000 soldiers, more than 100 tanks and armored personnel carriers, S-300 air defense missiles, and a squadron of MiG-29 fighter jets. A Russian-Armenian agreement signed in August 2010 extended the Russian military presence in Armenia by 24 years, until 2044, and upgraded its security mission. The deal also committed Moscow to supplying Armenia with modern weaponry.
The Russian troop presence, a major element of Armenia's national security doctrine, was called into question in April when Georgia decided not to renew a Russian-Georgian agreement that allowed Moscow to use Georgian territory for shipments to Armenia. The Armenian Defense Ministry downplayed the Georgian move at the time, saying that it will not lead to any "change in Armenia's security environment."
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/russian_army_chief_visits_armenia_again/24381168.html
Armenian-Russian Joint Military Exercises End With Success
Military servicemen of Russia and Armenia on Monday successfully wrapped up their joint training exercises toward carrying out defensive battles under mountainous conditions, the Russian army’s press service informed. At present, units from the Russian army’s 102nd Military Base in Armenia are moving from Alagyaz Rifle Range toward Gyumri city, their permanent location. More than 500 military servicemen took part in, and close to 200-unit weapons and military equipment were used, from the Russian side, during the joint military exercises, which had started on October 27. And From the Armenian side, around 300 servicemen participated in, and 50-unit weapons and military equipment were used during the military training.
Source: http://news.am/eng/news/80049.html
Turkey to Give Military Support Azerbaijan, Says Minister
Turkey
is ready to extend support to the Azerbaijani Armed Forces, Turkey’s
defense minister said in Baku yesterday. “We are ready to support,
cooperate and join in production with Azerbaijan Armed Forces,” Defense
Minister İsmet Yılmaz told journalists after visiting former
Azerbaijani President Haydar Aliyev’s grave in Baku.
“A bilateral strategic cooperation agreement [between Turkey and Azerbaijan] has been signed. Turkish Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] and [Azerbaijani] President Ilham Aliyev have also decided on the establishment of a high advisory council,” Yılmaz said.
The council will be the basis for the relations between the two countries, Yılmaz said, adding that there were good and sound relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Yılmaz is currently visiting Baku for meetings with Azerbaijani Defense Minister Sefer Abiyev and was received by Aliyev upon arrival. Turkish Ambassador to Baku Hulusi Kılıç and Turkey’s defense attaché in Azerbaijan, Brig. Gen. Yücel Karauz, were present at the meeting between Aliyev and Yılmaz yesterday.
“A bilateral strategic cooperation agreement [between Turkey and Azerbaijan] has been signed. Turkish Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] and [Azerbaijani] President Ilham Aliyev have also decided on the establishment of a high advisory council,” Yılmaz said.
The council will be the basis for the relations between the two countries, Yılmaz said, adding that there were good and sound relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Yılmaz is currently visiting Baku for meetings with Azerbaijani Defense Minister Sefer Abiyev and was received by Aliyev upon arrival. Turkish Ambassador to Baku Hulusi Kılıç and Turkey’s defense attaché in Azerbaijan, Brig. Gen. Yücel Karauz, were present at the meeting between Aliyev and Yılmaz yesterday.
Source: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/125027/turkey-to-give-military-support-azerbaijan-says-minister.html
Azerbaijani-Turkish Joint Military Training Expected to Take Place
The existing level of Azerbaijani-Turkish relations makes it necessary to conduct joint military trainings, Zahid Oruj, MP and member of the Parliament's Security and Defense Committee, told Trend on Wednesday. He said the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations rose to a more significant level due to the Council for Strategic Cooperation established last year. "After the Council was established, it became clear that cooperation between Azerbaijan and Turkey was at the stage of becoming the real, working model having functional goals where structuring is broadly practiced and tasks were distributed," he noted. The agreement envisions cooperation in the sphere of defense and in other spheres between Azerbaijan and Turkey, assistance in supply of arms, and cooperation between production units, the MP said. The agreement of establishment of the Council for high-level Strategic Cooperation creates legal base for that, he believes. "In the past, generals and officers of Turkish Armed Forces helped form the military system of Azerbaijan. It is now time to establish common commandment and exchange mutual military experience through military trainings," Oruj said. He said Azerbaijan needs Turkey's experience. Azerbaijan can always offer its support to fight Turkey's enemies. The issue of military trainings, regardless from who and what conclusions makes of this, meets our national interests and security, he believes. "Joint military trainings will create perfect opportunities for to-be cooperation," Oruj said.
Source: http://en.trend.az/news/politics/1953034.html
Aliyev Voices the “Great Turkic World” Idea in Kazakhstan Summit
The
Cooperation Council of Turkic Language Speaking States held a summit
last week in the capital of Kazakhstan. This institute of Turkic
solidarity was established by the decision made two years ago during the
9th Summit of leaders of Turkic language speaking states in
Nakhijevan. It was an outstanding summit when in the
presence of leaders of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and high-ranking
officials from a number of other Turkic language speaking states,
Azeri president Ilham Aliyev stated: “Nachijevan is an ancient Azeri
land. The separation of Zangezur- a historically authentic Azeri land –
from Azerbaijan and its annexation to Armenia at the time
geographically dismembered the great Turkic world.”
Armenia viewed this statement as a potential threat, and as an expression of pan-Turkism only under new political circumstances. And so now the first summit of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Language Speaking States was held in Almaty, during which the Azeri president declared: “Turkic world is a great world! We have to make it become even more united. We have all the means for that. First of all, there is a strong political will.”
This might seem like an innocent statement. However, from the perspective of the Armenian perception of the very concept of “Turkic world” is quite unequivocally associated with “the Great Turan” (Turan is the Persian word for Central Asia) - the very idea by which the Armenian nation has been victimized. In the beginning of last century two innocent scientific concepts (Turkic and Aryan) were used by Pan-Turkism followers and Nazis in a way that the contemporary usage of these terms can’t help but objectively sound ominous.
During the summit Aliyev also stressed: “The main issue Azerbaijan is facing is the Armenian-Azeri one, the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It is a source of the biggest threat and injustice not only towards us, but the whole region. Armenia committed ethnic purges against Azeris. As a result of that policy around one million Azeris have become refugees and migrants in their own motherland; 20 percent of our lands are occupied.” Obviously, such statements cannot be purely viewed in the context organizers of such summits commonly voice: “strengthening economic and cultural ties with brother republics”. Quite the opposite, it perfectly fits into the historic context.
Back in 1933, during the period of drastic cooling of relations between Moscow and Ankara, Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal stated: “One day Russia will lose control over the nations it is keeping tightly in its hands today. The world then would reach a new level. And at that very moment Turkey has to know exactly what to do. Our brothers by blood, faith and language are under Russia’s reign. We have to be ready to support them. Our common language is our bridge, our common faith is our bridge, our common history is our bridge. We have to remember our roots. We should not wait for them to reach out for us; we have to draw nearer to them ourselves. One fine day Russia will fall.”
This “eastern vector” specified by the founder of the republican Turkey has remained the most important guideline for the country’s political elite for the following several decades. Leader of modern Turkey Abdulla Gul’s speech at the Nakhijevan summit is exemplary: “Nakhijevan is native and precious not only to Azerbaijan, but to Turkey as well. The border between Azerbaijan and Turkey in the Nakhijevani region is physically small, but politically this 10-12-kilometer-long border has huge significance. This border of ours is a symbolic transition geographically linking Turkey with Turkic republics.”
If today’s use of the term “Aryan” is under strict “international control” (and is practically impossible from high international rostrums), things are different with the “Turkic” concept. To a certain extent, it is a consequence of who has, and when, condemned the crimes committed by Nazis and Pan-Turkism supporters. It is the lack of the total international condemnation of the crime of the Armenian Genocide that has allowed the concept of “Turkic” to return into the scientific ethno-linguistic arena, and conditions the world community’s indifference to the application of that ominous term today.
Armenia viewed this statement as a potential threat, and as an expression of pan-Turkism only under new political circumstances. And so now the first summit of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Language Speaking States was held in Almaty, during which the Azeri president declared: “Turkic world is a great world! We have to make it become even more united. We have all the means for that. First of all, there is a strong political will.”
This might seem like an innocent statement. However, from the perspective of the Armenian perception of the very concept of “Turkic world” is quite unequivocally associated with “the Great Turan” (Turan is the Persian word for Central Asia) - the very idea by which the Armenian nation has been victimized. In the beginning of last century two innocent scientific concepts (Turkic and Aryan) were used by Pan-Turkism followers and Nazis in a way that the contemporary usage of these terms can’t help but objectively sound ominous.
During the summit Aliyev also stressed: “The main issue Azerbaijan is facing is the Armenian-Azeri one, the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It is a source of the biggest threat and injustice not only towards us, but the whole region. Armenia committed ethnic purges against Azeris. As a result of that policy around one million Azeris have become refugees and migrants in their own motherland; 20 percent of our lands are occupied.” Obviously, such statements cannot be purely viewed in the context organizers of such summits commonly voice: “strengthening economic and cultural ties with brother republics”. Quite the opposite, it perfectly fits into the historic context.
Back in 1933, during the period of drastic cooling of relations between Moscow and Ankara, Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal stated: “One day Russia will lose control over the nations it is keeping tightly in its hands today. The world then would reach a new level. And at that very moment Turkey has to know exactly what to do. Our brothers by blood, faith and language are under Russia’s reign. We have to be ready to support them. Our common language is our bridge, our common faith is our bridge, our common history is our bridge. We have to remember our roots. We should not wait for them to reach out for us; we have to draw nearer to them ourselves. One fine day Russia will fall.”
This “eastern vector” specified by the founder of the republican Turkey has remained the most important guideline for the country’s political elite for the following several decades. Leader of modern Turkey Abdulla Gul’s speech at the Nakhijevan summit is exemplary: “Nakhijevan is native and precious not only to Azerbaijan, but to Turkey as well. The border between Azerbaijan and Turkey in the Nakhijevani region is physically small, but politically this 10-12-kilometer-long border has huge significance. This border of ours is a symbolic transition geographically linking Turkey with Turkic republics.”
If today’s use of the term “Aryan” is under strict “international control” (and is practically impossible from high international rostrums), things are different with the “Turkic” concept. To a certain extent, it is a consequence of who has, and when, condemned the crimes committed by Nazis and Pan-Turkism supporters. It is the lack of the total international condemnation of the crime of the Armenian Genocide that has allowed the concept of “Turkic” to return into the scientific ethno-linguistic arena, and conditions the world community’s indifference to the application of that ominous term today.
Source: http://armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/32626/aliev_panturkism_summit_armenia_zangezur
‘If You Want Peace, Prepare For War,’ Says Turkish Defense Chief
Citing
the proverb, “if you want peace, prepare for war,” Turkey’s Defense
Minister on Thursday underscored the importance of military cooperation
between Turkey and Azerbaijan as he kicked off talks in Baku. The
Turkish delegation led by Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz met with
Azerbaijani Defense Minister, Colonel General Safar Abiyev, Azerbaijani
Defense Ministry press service reported. The ministers exchanged view
on the prospects of military cooperation between the two countries.
Discussing the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the
ministers said that the time has come to withdraw “Armenian occupation
army from the Azerbaijani lands and restore the territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan.”
Abiyev
said that although negotiations continue for peaceful settlement of
the conflict, there is no concrete result yet and Armenia continues
its aggressive policy. He said, in such situation, there is no other
way for Azerbaijan except preparing its armed forces seriously. “We are
ready to support, cooperate and join in production with Azerbaijan
Armed Forces,” Yılmaz told journalists after visiting former
Azerbaijani President Haydar Aliyev’s grave in Baku. “A bilateral
strategic cooperation agreement [between Turkey and Azerbaijan] has
been signed. Turkish Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] and
[Azerbaijani] President Ilham Aliyev have also decided on the
establishment of a high advisory council,” Yılmaz said.
The
council will be the basis for the relations between the two
countries, Yılmaz said, adding that there were good and sound relations
between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Prior to arriving in Baku, Yilmaz was
interviewed by the Azeri news agency APA, saying that Turkey would
like to engage in more defense production with Azerbaijan. “Turkey and
Azerbaijan have a comprehensive military partnership based on long
years and mutual confidence. Our relations, which started after
Azerbaijan regained its independence, have developed with education,
training and other programs. We continue making efforts to unite our
potential in the defence industry. We can see that the relevant bodies
of the two countries have a shared demand and desire,” said Yilmaz.
“As
the Turkish proverb says: ‘If you want peace, prepare for war.’ The
presence of factors threatening stability in the South Caucasus poses a
serious threat to Azerbaijan’s independence and regional peace,”
added Yilmaz who explained that approximately 5,000 Azerbaijanis have
received military education in Turkey to date. “We aim to develop our
military and defence relations with Azerbaijan. The education of the
Azerbaijani Armed Forces in accordance with NATO standards, weapons and
maintenance is very important for the region’s stability. Turkey
supports Azerbaijan’s relations with NATO and other Western
organizations. We think that Azerbaijan-NATO cooperation within
Partnership for Peace is profitable and that this cooperation is
significant from the point of view of Azerbaijan’s economic and
political interests,” added Yilmaz.
Source: http://asbarez.com/98652/%E2%80%98if-you-want-peace-prepare-for-war%E2%80%99-says-turkish-defense-chief/
In Slap at Syria, Turkey Shelters Anti-Assad Fighters
Once one of Syria’s closest allies, Turkey is hosting an armed opposition group waging an insurgency against the government of President Bashar al-Assad,
providing shelter to the commander and dozens of members of the
group, the Free Syrian Army, and allowing them to orchestrate attacks
across the border from inside a camp guarded by the Turkish military.
The support for the insurgents comes amid a broader Turkish campaign to
undermine Mr. Assad’s government. Turkey is expected to impose
sanctions soon on Syria, and it has deepened its support for an
umbrella political opposition group known as the Syrian National
Council, which announced its formation in Istanbul. But its harboring
of leaders in the Free Syrian Army, a militia composed of defectors
from the Syrian armed forces, may be its most striking challenge so
far to Damascus.
On
Wednesday, the group, living in a heavily guarded refugee camp in
Turkey, claimed responsibility for killing nine Syrian soldiers,
including one uniformed officer, in an attack in restive central Syria.
Turkish officials describe their relationship with the group’s
commander, Col. Riad al-As’aad, and the 60 to 70 members living in the
“officers’ camp” as purely humanitarian. Turkey’s primary concern, the
officials said, is for the physical safety of defectors. When asked
specifically about allowing the group to organize military operations
while under the protection of Turkey, a Foreign Ministry official said
that their only concern was humanitarian protection and that they
could not stop them from expressing their views.
“At
the time all of these people escaped from Syria, we did not know who
was who, it was not written on their heads ‘I am a soldier’ or ‘I am an
opposition member,’ ” a Foreign Ministry spokesman said on the
condition of anonymity in keeping with diplomatic protocol. “We are
providing these people with temporary residence on humanitarian grounds,
and that will continue.”
At
the moment, the group is too small to pose any real challenge to Mr.
Assad’s government. But its Turkish support underlines how combustible,
and resilient, Syria’s uprising has proven. The country sits at the
intersection of influences in the region — with Iran, Hezbollah in
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel — and Turkey’s involvement will be
closely watched by Syria’s friends and foes. “We will fight the regime
until it falls and build a new period of stability and safety in
Syria,” Colonel As’aad said in an interview arranged by the Turkish
Foreign Ministry and conducted in the presence of a Foreign Ministry
official. “We are the leaders of the Syrian people and we stand with
the Syrian people.”
The
interview was held in the office of a local government official, and
Colonel As’aad arrived protected by a contingent of 10 heavily armed
Turkish soldiers, including one sniper. The colonel wore a business suit
that an official with the Turkish Foreign Ministry said he purchased
for him that morning. At the end of the meeting, citing security
concerns, the colonel and a ministry official advised that all further
contact with his group be channeled through the ministry. Turkey once
viewed its warm ties with Syria as its greatest foreign policy
accomplishment, but relations have collapsed over the eight months of
antigovernment protests there and a brutal crackdown that the United
Nations says has killed more than 3,000 people.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
of Turkey was personally offended by Mr. Assad’s repeated failure to
abide by his assurances that he would undertake sweeping reform.
Turkish officials predict that the Assad government may collapse
within the next two years. “This pushes Turkish policy further towards
active intervention in Syria,” said Hugh Pope, an analyst with the
International Crisis Group. He called Turkey’s apparent relationship
with the Free Syrian Army “completely new territory.” “It is clear
Turkey feels under threat from what is happening in the Middle East,
particularly Syria,” said Mr. Pope, who noted that in past speeches Mr.
Erdogan “has spoken of what happens in Syria as an internal affair of
Turkey.”
Turkish
officials say that their government has not provided weapons or
military support to the insurgent group, and that the group has not
directly requested such assistance. Still, Colonel As’aad, who thanked
Turkey for its protection, made it clear that he was seeking better
weapons, saying that his group could inflict damage on a Syrian
leadership that has proven remarkably cohesive. “We ask the
international community to provide us with weapons so that we, as an
army, the Free Syrian Army, can protect the people of Syria,” he said.
“We are an army, we are in the opposition, and we are prepared for
military operations. If the international community provides weapons,
we can topple the regime in a very, very short time.”
The
words seemed more boast than threat, and with mass pro-government
rallies and a crackdown that has, for now, stanched the momentum of
antigovernment demonstrations, the Syrian government appears in a
stronger position than it did this summer. Though deeply isolated,
Syria’s government felt emboldened by the vetoes of Russia and China of a
relatively tough United Nations Security Council resolution. Despite
predictions otherwise, the military and the security services, in
particular, have yet to fracture in the eight months of a grinding,
bloody crackdown.
Colonel
As’aad said he defected from the military and fled to Turkey after
protests erupted in his home village, Ebdeeta, in northern Idlib
Province, drawing a government crackdown in which several relatives were
killed and his sister’s house was shelled. But he also fled, he said,
because “I knew there was greater potential to lead operations in a
place in which I was free.”
He
said all the residents of the camp where he lives in Turkey are
members of the Free Syrian Army. The camp includes a personal assistant
and a “media office” staffed by about a half-dozen people. He said the
group’s fighters were highly organized, though only armed with
weapons they took when they defected or those taken from slain members
of Syrian security and pro-government forces. He would not specify
the number of fighters, saying only that it was more than 10,000, and
he was unwilling to disclose the number of battalions, claiming that
the group had 18 “announced” battalions and an unspecified number of
secret ones. None of his claims could be independently verified. “Our
strategy for the future is that we will confront the regime in its
weak places, and in the next period we hope to acquire weapons so we
can be able to face the regime more strongly,” Colonel As’aad said.
Though
many analysts contend that defectors’ attacks in Syria appear
uncoordinated and local, Colonel As’aad claimed to be in full
operational control. He said that he was in charge of planning “full
military operations” while leaving smaller clashes and day-to-day
decisions up to commanders in the field. Nevertheless, he is in daily
contact with the commanders of each battalion, he said, spending hours a
day checking e-mail on a laptop connected to one of four telephones —
including a satellite phone — provided to him by Syrian expatriates
living in the United States, Europe and the Persian Gulf.
Andrew
Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
said the emergence of the fledgling group was crucial to the larger
question of whether the opposition would stick to peaceful protest, as
it largely has, or if it would “go down another path to fighting
back.” “They are organized and they are speaking to people outside,”
Mr. Tabler said. “But the question is to what degree are they
receiving financial support from people outside, such as individuals
in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/world/europe/turkey-is-sheltering-antigovernment-syrian-militia.html
Turkey Pursues Kurdish Rebels After 24 Soldiers Are Killed Near Iraq
Kurdish militants killed at least 24 Turkish soldiers in an attack near the Iraq border on Wednesday, one of the deadliest strikes in years, and Turkey’s
military responded by sending hundreds of troops into northern Iraq in
a counterattack on Kurdish insurgent hide-outs. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
said that Turkish forces were pursuing the attackers, making it clear
that his military was crossing the Iraq border, which the Turks have
done numerous times in their protracted effort to crush a resilient
Kurdish insurgency movement.
“As
of now, wide-reaching operations, including hot-pursuit operations,
are continuing in the region within the framework of international law,”
Mr. Erdogan said at a news conference in Ankara. “We will combat
terror on one front and, on another front, we will continue our path to
destroy the grounds that terror manipulates.”
He
spoke after having conferred with senior government officials at an
emergency meeting about the deadly Kurdish militant attack, which the
prime minister’s office said had also left at least 18 Turkish soldiers
wounded. NTV, a private television network, said 600 Turkish ground
troops chasing the attackers pushed 2.5 miles into northern Iraq, where
the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a militant separatist group known as the
P.K.K., is based. The group has long battled the Turkish government
for autonomy in the predominantly Kurdish southeast.
Local
media also reported Turkish air deployments and artillery fire in the
mountainous border area. The militant strike, which started in the early
hours of Wednesday, mainly in Hakkari Province, lasted for about four
hours. It came a day after a blast in Bitlis, another southeastern
province, that killed five policemen and three civilians. Using
unusually harsh language, President Abdullah Gul
vowed in an earlier speech that the country would strike back against
the Kurdish militants. He had visited military bases in the region only
days before.
“They
will see that the revenge for these attacks will be massive and much
stronger,” he said. “Embracing our own people, being affectionate to our
people, protecting rights and law of our people is one thing while
struggling against terror without compromise is a joint decision of
both our state and the nation,” he said.
President Obama
also condemned the Kurdish attack in a statement issued by the White
House. “The United States will continue our strong cooperation with the
Turkish government as it works to defeat the terrorist threat from the
P.K.K. and to bring peace, stability and prosperity to all the people
of southeast Turkey,” Mr. Obama said. The top commander in the Turkish
Army flew to the region to coordinate the operation on Wednesday, local
media reported. The attacks came at a time when the country is drafting a
new constitution with greater rights for ethnic minorities. The effort
is widely perceived as designed to end Kurdish separatist violence
that has claimed more than 40,000 lives since the 1980s.
“In
today’s Turkey when there is a better democracy to respond the Kurdish
needs, the P.K.K. terror is no different than Osama bin Laden’s terror
manipulating Islam in the way it manipulates Kurdish ethnicity,” said
Ihsan Bal, a security expert at the Ankara-based International
Strategic Research Organization. The P.K.K. has escalated attacks in
recent months in rural and urban areas. The Turkish military has
responded with airstrikes and artillery attacks against the group’s
bases in northern Iraq, killing as many as 160 militants, according to
the Turkish military.
Iraq’s
foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, signaled during an official visit in
Ankara last week that the Iraqi Army could join military efforts to
eliminate P.K.K. bases in northern Iraq. At the same time, however, the
Iraqi government, as well as Kurdish officials in the northern Iraq,
have expressed concern about unilateral Turkish military interventions
in Iraq’s territory. Laid Abawi, Iraq’s deputy foreign minister, said in
response to the Turkey military operations on Wednesday that it was
still trying to learn details.
Mr.
Abawi said, “We are against Turkey violating our borders and we are
against the shelling.” But he also said, “We condemn the armed
operations of the P.K.K. in Turkey.” The United States, along with the
European Union and Turkey, list the P.K.K. as a terrorist organization
and have shared intelligence with Turkey on the group’s movements in
northern Iraq since 2007. “As a friend and ally, the United States will
continue to stand with the people and government of Turkey in their
fight against the P.K.K., which the United States has officially
designated as a terrorist organization,” the American ambassador to
Ankara, Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., said in a written statement.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/world/europe/dozens-dead-in-attacks-on-turkish-forces.html
US-Turkish Security Cooperation Deepens
The
US-Turkish bilateral relationship is entering a new period of
cooperation. While part of the positive mood characterizing the
relationship is attributable to the US-Turkish coordinated action in the
context of the Arab Spring, the recent changes in Turkey’s threat
perceptions have also played a role. Overall, although the rejuvenation
of the partnership might be welcome news, the manner in which it has
come about reflects an underlying weakness in US-Turkish ties, i.e., it
is still characterized by a security-dominant discourse.
After many years of confrontation during the Bush Presidency, epitomized by Turkey’s resistance to US plans prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkish leaders welcomed the election of President Barack Obama (EDM, November 7, 2008). Although Obama’s call for a fresh approach to US foreign policy in the Middle East excited the Turks, both parties were often involved in disagreements and clashed over many issues. Turkey’s deteriorating relationship with Israel caused discomfort on the part of US policy makers, and the US policy of pursuing punitive measures against the Iranian nuclear program angered the Turkish government. The resulting frictions were not limited to the Middle East, as Turkey and the United States diverged on other issues, such as Turkey’s stalled rapprochement with Armenia or Turkey’s posturing in NATO.
In the wake of the Arab Spring, both parties increasingly coordinate their policies. Ankara and Washington have given up their initial silence and increasingly supported the popular uprisings in the region. On Egypt, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan maintained close dialogue with Obama, as he adopted a pro-democracy position and called for the end of Mubarak’s rule. Despite Erdogan’s initial criticism of NATO’s military intervention in Libya, Turkey later joined the coalition and became an ardent supporter of the opposition that eventually toppled Gaddafi. On Syria, Turkey, in line with the Western world, has advocated regime change, moving in the direction of imposing sanctions on the Baath regime (EDM, July 20, August 10).
The changing threat perceptions have also drawn the two countries together. For the US, the planned withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan make Turkey an indispensable partner in the region. As the entire region experiences a period of turmoil, with its constructive policies toward these war-torn countries, Ankara emerges as an element of stability that can help fill the security vacuum and safeguard some US interests. Turkey’s constructive attitude in Iraq has been known for some time, as it had helped contain the deepening of civil conflict and extended assistance to facilitate US withdrawal from the country. In the context of Afghanistan, Turkey has also actively worked to mobilize the regional and international actors for the reconstruction of this country, a goal the United States deeply appreciates. In this context, Turkey hosted the latest round of the trilateral summit in Istanbul in the first week of November, which brought together the Afghan and Pakistani presidents under the Turkish President’s watch (Anadolu Ajansi, November 3).
For Turkey, the primary motivation for reinvigorating the relationship is its immediate security concerns, which have been heightened in recent months. In response to the acceleration of the PKK’s terrorist campaign, Turkey’s military shortcomings in counter-terrorism increasingly underscore its ongoing dependence on the US for its defense procurement needs. Moreover, as the Middle East has been more volatile – characterized by a heightened risk environment – Turkey obviously needs a more solid anchor. These new conditions apparently resulted in Ankara reevaluating its ties with Washington, and abandoning its confrontational rhetoric, which resulted in a series of recent decisions.
Indeed, Turkey-US security cooperation has remarkably increased recently. The most visible indication for this policy shift came with Ankara’s decision to host the NATO early warning radars on its soil (EDM, September 20). Later, the United States committed to Turkey’s fight against the PKK, by agreeing to the basing of US unmanned Predator drones at Incirlik base to supply Turkey with actionable intelligence. Moreover, an interagency delegation led by US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Alexander Vershbow, to discuss how to improve the joint struggle against the PKK was another major development (Anadolu Ajansi, October 28).
Furthermore, Washington finally decided to sell three Super Cobra helicopters to Turkey, which Turkey had requested for some time in order to use against the PKK (www.ntvmsnbc.com, October 30). The fact that the sale is unlikely to encounter opposition from the Senate, despite many lawmakers’ discomfort with Turkey’s harsh policy on Israel, has underscored how largely the administration’s views on Turkey is shared in the US policy community. It was against this background that Turkey’s Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz, while attending the American-Turkish Council’s annual conference in Washington, argued that Turkey and the US are rediscovering each other and are going through a unique period (Anadolu Ajansi, November 2).
Despite this positive mood, however, the reinvigoration of the US-Turkish partnership in many ways resembles the dynamics of bilateral relations in the Cold War and early post-Cold War era, when security-related considerations formed the basis of the alliance. Various efforts to bolster the volume of economic ties and foster closer societal dialogue still continue but the prevalence of security issues is undeniable. It remains to be seen how sustainable this new cooperative phase is, especially if one factors in the possible change of administration following the US presidential elections.
Even the current administration continues to accentuate the need for Turkey to mend ties with Israel, which currently remains uncertain and an element of instability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Nor is it clear if the efforts to pass a resolution in the US Congress on the genocide allegations might spoil the relations again, as the centennial of the 1915 events is approaching. But, at any rate, currently the United States acknowledges Turkey’s quest for a more autonomous foreign policy course in the Middle East, which it views as beneficial to US interests. Turkey, for its part, is aware of the US interests in the region and refrains from engaging unduly confrontation, as was the case in the Iranian nuclear issue.
After many years of confrontation during the Bush Presidency, epitomized by Turkey’s resistance to US plans prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkish leaders welcomed the election of President Barack Obama (EDM, November 7, 2008). Although Obama’s call for a fresh approach to US foreign policy in the Middle East excited the Turks, both parties were often involved in disagreements and clashed over many issues. Turkey’s deteriorating relationship with Israel caused discomfort on the part of US policy makers, and the US policy of pursuing punitive measures against the Iranian nuclear program angered the Turkish government. The resulting frictions were not limited to the Middle East, as Turkey and the United States diverged on other issues, such as Turkey’s stalled rapprochement with Armenia or Turkey’s posturing in NATO.
In the wake of the Arab Spring, both parties increasingly coordinate their policies. Ankara and Washington have given up their initial silence and increasingly supported the popular uprisings in the region. On Egypt, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan maintained close dialogue with Obama, as he adopted a pro-democracy position and called for the end of Mubarak’s rule. Despite Erdogan’s initial criticism of NATO’s military intervention in Libya, Turkey later joined the coalition and became an ardent supporter of the opposition that eventually toppled Gaddafi. On Syria, Turkey, in line with the Western world, has advocated regime change, moving in the direction of imposing sanctions on the Baath regime (EDM, July 20, August 10).
The changing threat perceptions have also drawn the two countries together. For the US, the planned withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan make Turkey an indispensable partner in the region. As the entire region experiences a period of turmoil, with its constructive policies toward these war-torn countries, Ankara emerges as an element of stability that can help fill the security vacuum and safeguard some US interests. Turkey’s constructive attitude in Iraq has been known for some time, as it had helped contain the deepening of civil conflict and extended assistance to facilitate US withdrawal from the country. In the context of Afghanistan, Turkey has also actively worked to mobilize the regional and international actors for the reconstruction of this country, a goal the United States deeply appreciates. In this context, Turkey hosted the latest round of the trilateral summit in Istanbul in the first week of November, which brought together the Afghan and Pakistani presidents under the Turkish President’s watch (Anadolu Ajansi, November 3).
For Turkey, the primary motivation for reinvigorating the relationship is its immediate security concerns, which have been heightened in recent months. In response to the acceleration of the PKK’s terrorist campaign, Turkey’s military shortcomings in counter-terrorism increasingly underscore its ongoing dependence on the US for its defense procurement needs. Moreover, as the Middle East has been more volatile – characterized by a heightened risk environment – Turkey obviously needs a more solid anchor. These new conditions apparently resulted in Ankara reevaluating its ties with Washington, and abandoning its confrontational rhetoric, which resulted in a series of recent decisions.
Indeed, Turkey-US security cooperation has remarkably increased recently. The most visible indication for this policy shift came with Ankara’s decision to host the NATO early warning radars on its soil (EDM, September 20). Later, the United States committed to Turkey’s fight against the PKK, by agreeing to the basing of US unmanned Predator drones at Incirlik base to supply Turkey with actionable intelligence. Moreover, an interagency delegation led by US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Alexander Vershbow, to discuss how to improve the joint struggle against the PKK was another major development (Anadolu Ajansi, October 28).
Furthermore, Washington finally decided to sell three Super Cobra helicopters to Turkey, which Turkey had requested for some time in order to use against the PKK (www.ntvmsnbc.com, October 30). The fact that the sale is unlikely to encounter opposition from the Senate, despite many lawmakers’ discomfort with Turkey’s harsh policy on Israel, has underscored how largely the administration’s views on Turkey is shared in the US policy community. It was against this background that Turkey’s Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz, while attending the American-Turkish Council’s annual conference in Washington, argued that Turkey and the US are rediscovering each other and are going through a unique period (Anadolu Ajansi, November 2).
Despite this positive mood, however, the reinvigoration of the US-Turkish partnership in many ways resembles the dynamics of bilateral relations in the Cold War and early post-Cold War era, when security-related considerations formed the basis of the alliance. Various efforts to bolster the volume of economic ties and foster closer societal dialogue still continue but the prevalence of security issues is undeniable. It remains to be seen how sustainable this new cooperative phase is, especially if one factors in the possible change of administration following the US presidential elections.
Even the current administration continues to accentuate the need for Turkey to mend ties with Israel, which currently remains uncertain and an element of instability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Nor is it clear if the efforts to pass a resolution in the US Congress on the genocide allegations might spoil the relations again, as the centennial of the 1915 events is approaching. But, at any rate, currently the United States acknowledges Turkey’s quest for a more autonomous foreign policy course in the Middle East, which it views as beneficial to US interests. Turkey, for its part, is aware of the US interests in the region and refrains from engaging unduly confrontation, as was the case in the Iranian nuclear issue.
Source: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=38638&
Israel Tests Missile For Iran Strike
Israel
has test-launched a ballistic missile capable of delivering a
nuclear warhead to Iran, amid claims Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is seeking cabinet support for a military strike. The
test, believed to have involved a long-range Jericho missile
yesterday, came a week after Israeli warplanes practised a long-range
bombing mission in Italy - prompting speculation that the cabinet is
considering a pre-emptive strike before Iran can complete its first
nuclear weapon. A Whitehall source yesterday said Britain was
reviewing its contingency planning for possible military action against
Iran. This is thought to include the positioning of British naval
ships and ways to keep the Gulf open should Iran retaliate against
international oil shipments.
The
International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to publish a detailed
report next week about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. An
Israeli official said Mr Netanyahu was working with Defence Minister
Ehud Barak to win support from members of the cabinet who oppose
attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, Haaretz newspaper reported. The
report came after days of renewed public discussion among Israeli
commentators about the possibility that the Jewish state would take
unilateral military action against Iran. Haaretz said Mr Netanyahu and
Mr Barak had already scored a significant win by convincing Foreign
Minister Avigdor Lieberman to throw his support behind a strike. But
the newspaper cited the Israeli official as saying those opposed to an
attack still held "a small advantage" in the cabinet.
Reports
said there was opposition from army and intelligence chiefs.
Yesterday's test drew a menacing response from the regime in Tehran.
Major-General Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, the chief of staff, was quoted as
saying the Islamic Republic would cause "serious damage" to the US and
to Israel if it were attacked. The Israeli media said last week that
Mr Netanyahu and Mr Barak favoured a pre-emptive strike on Iran
similar to that carried out on Iraq in 1981, when Saddam Hussein's
fledgling reactor was bombed by Israeli jets. Israel did the same to a
suspected Syrian reactor in 2007. Military analysts have warned that
for any airstrike to have a chance of halting Iran's nuclear
program, which is spread over a number of diverse sites - some built
into mountainsides - a large strike force would be needed and heavy
losses would be incurred.
There
would also be the risk of a long war with Iran and its proxies,
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Both have been provided by
Tehran with missiles capable of striking across Israel. Mr Netanyahu
has helped galvanise the West to apply pressure on Iran, but his
campaign lost much of its urgency this year when Meir Dagan, the
respected outgoing head of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, said
Iran was not as close to completing a bomb as was generally
believed. This was partly because of the Stuxnet computer virus that
disrupted its centrifuges, and which is thought to have been
developed by the US and Israel. Mr Dagan said a military strike on
Iran would be a "stupid idea". The US, which like Israel has declined
to rule out military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear
weapons capability, refused to be drawn on the Israeli media reports.
"I'm
not going to respond to that kind of speculation," White House
spokesman Jay Carney said. "We remain focused on a diplomatic channel
here, a diplomatic course in terms of dealing with Iran." A poll
showed the Israeli government would have support at home for a strike.
The Dialog polling institute found 41 cent of 500 surveyed backed
such an action while 39 per cent opposed the idea.
Iran 'is ready for war': Tehran vows to retaliate if Israel and the West attack nuclear plants
Iran
ratcheted up tensions in the Middle East yesterday when its foreign
minister declared the country was ‘ready for war’ with Israel and the
West. In inflammatory remarks certain to fuel uncertainty in the
volatile region, Ali Akbar Salehi warned that Tehran would ‘not
hesitate’ to retaliate if attacked. His posturing came as Foreign
Secretary William Hague urged Israel’s defence minister not to fan the
flames during top-level talks in London.
Iran has come sharply back into focus following the end of the Libya conflict. Mr Hague made it ‘very clear’ to Ehud Barak – who reportedly favours a pre-emptive strike against the rogue Islamic state – to pursue a diplomatic solution. Iran’s hardliners, led by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been increasingly aggressive in recent weeks sparking fears that the belligerent regime is close to producing a nuclear bomb. Israel reacted on Wednesday by test-firing a new long-range missile. Downing Street has also been warned that Iran is concealing technology to enrich uranium – used in atomic weapons – in a mountain base beneath the city of Qom to protect it from air strikes.
Britain is now developing plans for military action against Iran amid mounting alarm about the nuclear threat from Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the earth’. Submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Royal Navy warships could be deployed within range of Iran and RAF planes could carry out reconnaissance, surveillance and air-to-air refuelling. Diplomats in Whitehall are keen to rein in Iran using a diplomatic solution but admit that ‘all options should be kept on the table’.
However, the UK would take part only if the U.S. launched an attack.
Barack Obama is unlikely to strike before seeking re-election in a year, but the president is aware that action is needed before Iran acquires a nuclear bomb. Last night, Mr Salehi, Iran’s foreign minister, said the regime was ‘ready for war’ while on a visit to Libya. He said: ‘We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation. Such threats are not new to us. 'We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country.’ He warned of retaliation a day after Iran’s chief of staff said Israel and the West would be ‘punished’ for any attack on its nuclear sites.
General Hassan Firouzabadi said: ‘We take every threat, however distant and improbable, as very real, and are fully prepared to use suitable equipment to punish any kind of mistake. ‘The United States is fully aware that a military attack by the Zionist regime on Iran will not only cause tremendous damage to that regime, but it will also inflict serious damage to the U.S.’ Iran insists it has a nuclear programme only to produce energy. But a report by the International Atomic Energy Association, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, to be published next week, will conclude that Iran is attempting to produce nuclear weapons in defiance of UN sanctions. Yesterday Mr Hague said it was vital to continue tackling ‘shared concerns such as ... the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme’.
Jim Murphy, Labour defence spokesman, said: ‘Iran’s efforts to acquire and weaponise nuclear capabilities are well known. 'The international community has a responsibility to prevent this from happening through a combination of economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts. ‘Should the Government be thinking of going beyond that, this would be a very serious development indeed.’ Meanwhile, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered a probe into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Ministers in Tel Aviv believe that domestic opponents who authorised the leaks were undermining the government and ‘gambling with Israel’s national interest’.
In other developments, Mr Hague accused Israel of undermining peace efforts by accelerating settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He condemned the decision to build at least 2,000 apartments in Jewish-held areas in retaliation for Palestinian efforts to secure recognition as a state at the United Nations. Speaking after yesterday’s talks, Mr Hague insisted the UK remained ‘fully committed to Israel’s security’. But he said: ‘I urged Israel to revoke the plan for new settlements and to avoid further provocative steps which only make more difficult the attempt to facilitate a return to talks.
'These steps undermine efforts to achieve peace, and increase Israel’s isolation.’ 'The U.S. has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues. It only depends on power,' he said on a visit to the Libyan city of Benghazi. 'Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran.' In an interview published in Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, Mr Salehi had said that 'Iran was always ready for war'.
Work to develop nuclear facilities began in the 1990s, with the Russian Federation providing experts, although the U.S. blocked the trade of equipment or construction of technology for Iran. International attention was drawn to its developing nuclear potential in 2002 after an Iranian dissident revealed the existence of two sites that were under construction - a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sought access to these facilities, but it wasn't until 2003 that Iran agreed to cooperate with it and suspend enrichment activities. The investigation revealed Iran had failed to meet several obligations, including divulging the importation of uranium from China. The following year, work began on the construction of a heavy water reactor, but again Iran announced a suspension of uranium enrichment under the terms of the Paris Agreement.
After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president in August 2005, Iran removed the seals on its enrichment equipment and effectively rejected the Paris Agreement. President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium in a televised address in 2006, where he announced the country had joined those with nuclear technology.
Then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had urged the UN Security Council to consider 'strong steps' to force Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions. Subsequently the UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions on Iran insisting it ends its enrichment activities. These have included freezing the assets of people and organisations linked to its nuclear and missile programmes.Three nuclear scientists working on the programme have been killed in the last two years and a computer virus also affected enrichment at the Natanz plant in 2010.
Iran has come sharply back into focus following the end of the Libya conflict. Mr Hague made it ‘very clear’ to Ehud Barak – who reportedly favours a pre-emptive strike against the rogue Islamic state – to pursue a diplomatic solution. Iran’s hardliners, led by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been increasingly aggressive in recent weeks sparking fears that the belligerent regime is close to producing a nuclear bomb. Israel reacted on Wednesday by test-firing a new long-range missile. Downing Street has also been warned that Iran is concealing technology to enrich uranium – used in atomic weapons – in a mountain base beneath the city of Qom to protect it from air strikes.
Britain is now developing plans for military action against Iran amid mounting alarm about the nuclear threat from Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the earth’. Submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Royal Navy warships could be deployed within range of Iran and RAF planes could carry out reconnaissance, surveillance and air-to-air refuelling. Diplomats in Whitehall are keen to rein in Iran using a diplomatic solution but admit that ‘all options should be kept on the table’.
However, the UK would take part only if the U.S. launched an attack.
Barack Obama is unlikely to strike before seeking re-election in a year, but the president is aware that action is needed before Iran acquires a nuclear bomb. Last night, Mr Salehi, Iran’s foreign minister, said the regime was ‘ready for war’ while on a visit to Libya. He said: ‘We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation. Such threats are not new to us. 'We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country.’ He warned of retaliation a day after Iran’s chief of staff said Israel and the West would be ‘punished’ for any attack on its nuclear sites.
General Hassan Firouzabadi said: ‘We take every threat, however distant and improbable, as very real, and are fully prepared to use suitable equipment to punish any kind of mistake. ‘The United States is fully aware that a military attack by the Zionist regime on Iran will not only cause tremendous damage to that regime, but it will also inflict serious damage to the U.S.’ Iran insists it has a nuclear programme only to produce energy. But a report by the International Atomic Energy Association, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, to be published next week, will conclude that Iran is attempting to produce nuclear weapons in defiance of UN sanctions. Yesterday Mr Hague said it was vital to continue tackling ‘shared concerns such as ... the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme’.
Jim Murphy, Labour defence spokesman, said: ‘Iran’s efforts to acquire and weaponise nuclear capabilities are well known. 'The international community has a responsibility to prevent this from happening through a combination of economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts. ‘Should the Government be thinking of going beyond that, this would be a very serious development indeed.’ Meanwhile, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered a probe into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Ministers in Tel Aviv believe that domestic opponents who authorised the leaks were undermining the government and ‘gambling with Israel’s national interest’.
In other developments, Mr Hague accused Israel of undermining peace efforts by accelerating settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He condemned the decision to build at least 2,000 apartments in Jewish-held areas in retaliation for Palestinian efforts to secure recognition as a state at the United Nations. Speaking after yesterday’s talks, Mr Hague insisted the UK remained ‘fully committed to Israel’s security’. But he said: ‘I urged Israel to revoke the plan for new settlements and to avoid further provocative steps which only make more difficult the attempt to facilitate a return to talks.
'These steps undermine efforts to achieve peace, and increase Israel’s isolation.’ 'The U.S. has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues. It only depends on power,' he said on a visit to the Libyan city of Benghazi. 'Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran.' In an interview published in Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, Mr Salehi had said that 'Iran was always ready for war'.
Work to develop nuclear facilities began in the 1990s, with the Russian Federation providing experts, although the U.S. blocked the trade of equipment or construction of technology for Iran. International attention was drawn to its developing nuclear potential in 2002 after an Iranian dissident revealed the existence of two sites that were under construction - a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sought access to these facilities, but it wasn't until 2003 that Iran agreed to cooperate with it and suspend enrichment activities. The investigation revealed Iran had failed to meet several obligations, including divulging the importation of uranium from China. The following year, work began on the construction of a heavy water reactor, but again Iran announced a suspension of uranium enrichment under the terms of the Paris Agreement.
After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president in August 2005, Iran removed the seals on its enrichment equipment and effectively rejected the Paris Agreement. President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium in a televised address in 2006, where he announced the country had joined those with nuclear technology.
Then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had urged the UN Security Council to consider 'strong steps' to force Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions. Subsequently the UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions on Iran insisting it ends its enrichment activities. These have included freezing the assets of people and organisations linked to its nuclear and missile programmes.Three nuclear scientists working on the programme have been killed in the last two years and a computer virus also affected enrichment at the Natanz plant in 2010.
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057210/Iran-ready-war-Tehran-retaliate-Israel-West-attack-nuclear-plants.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#
Russia, China Warn US Against Attacking Iran
Faced with a round of threats and speculations of an impending war so shrill that it has sent oil prices soaring, Russia and China were quick today to caution the United States against launching an attack on Iran. Attacking Iran would be a “very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences,” warned Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, while China expressed concern that the threats were harming the prospects of diplomacy. They are just the latest in a growing chorus of nations to express concerns about starting another major war. Germany has also said they oppose such a move. A growing number of US officials past and present have expressed a preference for launching a military attack on Iran soon, with an IAEA report alleging some vague allegations about computer simulations serving as the latest pretext. Israeli officials have also been hyping the prospect of launching an attack on Iran themselves, with President Shimon Peres insisted the war was “more likely” than any sort of diplomatic solution. Israeli military officials are said to prefer an attack before winter.
Source: http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/07/russia-china-warn-us-against-attacking-iran/
U.S. to Build Up Military in Australia
President
Barack Obama will announce an accord for a new and permanent U.S.
military presence in Australia when he visits next week, a step aimed
at countering China's influence and reasserting U.S. interest in the
region, said people familiar with his plans. The agreement will lead to
an increase in U.S. naval operations off the coast of Australia and
give American troops and ships "permanent and constant" access to
Australian facilities, the people said. While no new American bases
will be built under the plan, the arrangement will allow U.S. forces to
place equipment in Australia and set up more joint exercises, they
said.
The
move could help the U.S. military, now concentrated in Japan and South
Korea in Northeast Asia, to spread its influence west and south across
the region, including the strategically and economically important
South China Sea, which China considers as its sovereign territory. It
was unclear how much the new presence would cost the Pentagon, which is
facing years and hundreds of billion dollars in spending cuts.
But
the expanded military presence is designed as a demonstration of U.S.
commitment to the region, part of an effort to refocus on Asia as the
U.S. withdraws from Iraq and draws its forces down in Afghanistan,
officials in both countries said. "It will demonstrate U.S. resolve, not
just for Australia, but in the region," Maj. Gen. Tim McOwan, the
Australian defense attaché in Washington, said in an interview this
week. At a daily press briefing on Thursday, Foreign Ministry spokesman
Hong Lei said Chinese officials "hope relevant countries' bilateral
cooperation will be conducive to the Asia-Pacific region's security,
peace and stability."
The
strategy comes weeks after China sent its first its first aircraft
carrier to sea, a defining moment in its effort to become a top-tier
naval power that seeks to challenge U.S. military supremacy in Asia and
protect Chinese economic interests that now span the globe. Several
Asian nations, fearful of the threat China poses, also are beefing up
their arsenals, fearing that the U.S. security umbrella is being eroded
by China's enhanced capabilities and possible U.S. defense cuts. One
base slated for the stepped-up American presence is in Darwin, on the
country's north coast. Other locations are possible, including one near
Perth, on the west coast, one person said.
"Strategically,
we want to be able to reassure the rest of Asia that the American
presence is still strong in the 21st century as China develops its
force," said Ernie Bower, director of the Southeast Asia Program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think
tank.
Officials
declined to detail how many new troops or sailors would be part of the
U.S. effort, or how many ships would be stationed in the area, ahead
of Mr. Obama's announcement next week. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta,
while traveling throughout the region last month, vowed an expansion in
U.S. influence, but also declined to specify costs or force sizes. An
administration official said the stepped-up presence will be phased in
over several years under the agreement. The deal isn't yet final and
details could change.
On
his trip, Mr. Obama will mark the 60th anniversary of the
U.S.-Australian alliance with a speech to Parliament and a visit to a
military base in Darwin, where he and Australian Prime Minister Julia
Gillard will jointly address Australian troops. Neither leader is
expected to characterize the move as directly confronting the Chinese.
But U.S. officials said one of the goals of Mr. Obama's Asia trip is to
clarify free access to the South China Sea. Mr. Panetta, after a
meeting with the Australians in September, said that enhanced military
cooperation would counter "threats and challenges" to come. "Security
and prosperity of our two great nations depends on the security and
prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region," he said.
The
full range of U.S. naval ships is expected to rotate through the joint
facilities, stopping for exercises as well as repairs and other shore
work. Naval aircraft also will have access to a base in Darwin. The
increased U.S. presence will be a rotating force, one person said. In
September, Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the enhance
cooperation would be "more ships in, ships out; more planes in, planes
out; more troops in, troops out."
Gen.
McOwan, the defense attaché, said the increase in U.S. naval
operations will send a message to the Chinese that the U.S. is committed
to defending the security of regional sea and air trade routes. The
stepped-up American presence will reassure Australia and well as other
countries in the region that the U.S. is engaged at a time when Chinese
intentions are uncertain, he said. Still, Gen. McOwan added that the
American commitments Mr. Obama plans to announce are "not going to
frighten the Chinese."
"It's more symbolic than real," he said.Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203537304577028490161890480.html
Afghanistan is a Proxy War Between India and Pakistan
When
Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai visited New Delhi earlier last
month to sign a strategic partnership deal, he quickly reassured
Islamabad it remained Kabul's most important partner. "Pakistan is our
twin brother, India is a great friend. The agreement we signed with
our friend will not affect our brother," he explained. India and
Afghanistan's problem is that Pakistan doesn't agree. It sees India's
involvement in Afghanistan as a threat to its 'strategic depth', a
concept in which Afghanistan is acknowledged as Pakistan's backyard in
which India has no right to hang out with its great friend.
The fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 allowed India to expand its influence in Afghanistan dramatically. Its engineers and IT specialists poured in as part of its most ambitious aid package – worth more than $1.5 billion – to build remote mountain roads, establish telephone, internet, and satellite links and reopen schools and hospitals. Washington encouraged India's involvement and believed it could use the soft power of its popular Bollywood film industry and other cultural links to encourage tolerance and pluralism in the country.
For India, which had been frozen out under the Taliban regime as a supporter of the Northern Alliance's warlords, Afghanistan holds the keys to the Central Asian mineral and energy reserves it needs to sustain its rapid economic growth. To that end, and to increase its chances of gaining access to Afghanistan's own rich reserves of iron ore, India has pledged another half a billion dollars in aid.
Afghanistan is keen to encourage India in this: it doesn't want Pakistan to be its sole customs guard or jailer, and it has seen how vindictive its twin can be. When India's Kabul embassy was blown up by a suicide bomber in 2008, killing 41, including India's defence attaché, American officials said they had evidence that members of Pakistan's ISI intelligence service had been involved in the plot. Just over a year later they struck again, killing 17.
A
few months later Pakistani officials successfully lobbied for India to
be excluded from last year's Afghanistan conference in Istanbul and
for its need for 'strategic depth' to be reflected in any peace
settlement for the country. The message for India was that it could
only operate successfully in Afghanistan with Pakistan's tacit
approval. This message has been received loud and clear by the major
Indian companies bidding to mine Afghanistan's deep mineral reserves:
Should they invest heavily in rail or oil pipeline projects when
their security cannot be protected from attacks by Taliban factions
close to Pakistan?
So
while India and Iran discuss opening a new Afghan 'silk route' which
bypasses Pakistan's tightly-controlled Wagah border with India, fear of
Islamabad's militant friends could still jeopardise this latest rail
project and other badly needed developments. Afghanistan is not just
the front line in Nato's fight against the Taliban, but also a proxy
war between India and Pakistan. Until relations really improve
between the nuclear neighbours, Afghanistan will remain another of
their battlegrounds – and no safe place for serious investors.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8863073/Afghanistan-is-a-proxy-war-between-India-and-Pakistan.htm
Karzai says he would side with Pakistan in a war against America
America
has been angered after Afghanistan's leader declared his country would
back Pakistan if war ever broke out. President Hamid Karzai said on
Pakistani TV his country would stand with its neighbour whoever attacked
it - even the U.S. 'If fighting starts between Pakistan and the U.S.,
we are beside Pakistan,' Karzai said. 'If Pakistan is attacked and the
people of Pakistan need Afghanistan’s help, Afghanistan will be there
with you.' He said his country was indebted to Pakistan for taking in
millions of Afghan refugees over the years and stressed that Kabul would
not allow any nation - be it the U.S., India, Russia, China or anyone
else - to dictate its policies. 'Anybody that attacks Pakistan,
Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan,' he said. 'Afghanistan will never
betray its brother.'
Both Washington and Kabul have repeatedly said Pakistan is providing sanctuary to terrorist groups launching attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan last week leading a high level delegation of U.S. officials including CIA director David Petraeus. She flew to Pakistan after her Kabul visit with the blunt message that if Islamabad is unwilling or unable to take the fight to the al-Qaida and Taliban-linked Haqqani network operating from its western border with Afghanistan, the U.S. 'would show' Pakistan how to eliminate that militant group's safe havens.
Today, a spokesman for the US embassy in Kabul, Gavin Sundwall, said: 'This is not about war with each other. 'This is about a joint approach to a threat to all three of our countries: insurgents and terrorists who attack Afghans, Pakistanis and Americans.' Mr Karzai needs Pakistani help to bring the Taliban to peace talks. In the event of a conflict, his army, which is dependent on the US, would be in no position to back Pakistan.
Both Washington and Kabul have repeatedly said Pakistan is providing sanctuary to terrorist groups launching attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan last week leading a high level delegation of U.S. officials including CIA director David Petraeus. She flew to Pakistan after her Kabul visit with the blunt message that if Islamabad is unwilling or unable to take the fight to the al-Qaida and Taliban-linked Haqqani network operating from its western border with Afghanistan, the U.S. 'would show' Pakistan how to eliminate that militant group's safe havens.
Today, a spokesman for the US embassy in Kabul, Gavin Sundwall, said: 'This is not about war with each other. 'This is about a joint approach to a threat to all three of our countries: insurgents and terrorists who attack Afghans, Pakistanis and Americans.' Mr Karzai needs Pakistani help to bring the Taliban to peace talks. In the event of a conflict, his army, which is dependent on the US, would be in no position to back Pakistan.
Russian Diplomat Criticized For Speech At Serbian Opposition Rally
The
Serbian ruling party has criticized a speech by the Russian ambassador
to Belgrade at a nationalist party rally as meddling by Moscow in
Serbia's internal affairs, RFE/RL's Balkan Service reports. Six weeks
after he blasted Serbian politicians and intellectuals at a Belgrade
security forum for leaving it to Russia to defend Serbian interests
abroad, Russian Ambassador to Serbia Aleksandr Konuzin praised the
nationalist Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) at a rally in Belgrade on
October 29.
He told the rally that the SNS -- despite being founded just three years ago -- is the strongest rival to the Democratic Party ahead of general elections slated for mid-2012. He also said it was "one of the main indicators of the mood of Serbian citizens." But Jelena Trivan, a spokeswoman for Serbian President Boris Tadic's ruling Democratic Party, told RFE/RL on November 1 that Konuzin overstepped his diplomatic mandate. She said, however, that his act cannot be compared to appearances by foreign guests, such as Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, who showed up at her party's campaign events two years ago.
"I ironically say that Mr. Konuzin feels so much at home that he forgot that this country is his host and he is the guest," Trivan said.
Konuzin enjoys widespread support among ultranationalist groups in Serbia. Posters with his picture and the slogan "Konuzin for President" were put up several weeks ago in Belgrade. The SNS is a relatively moderate offshoot of the ultranationalist Radical Party, whose long-standing leader Vojislav Seselj is on trial for war crimes at the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague. The SNS does not oppose European integration but places the fight for Kosovo and defense of Serbs living in other countries at the top of its priorities.
Rather than illustrating a rift over Belgrade's strong European integration ambitions -- which Moscow does not view fondly -- for some Serbian analysts the episode with Konuzin highlights the leverage Russia has over Serbia. Russia has been Serbia's staunchest ally in recent years in its fight to reverse the independence of the former Serbian province of Kosovo. The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed its full support for Konuzin, saying his participation at the rally was "normal diplomatic practice."
But Gennady Sisoyev, a foreign policy commentator for the Russian daily "Kommersant," says Konuzin's actions violate Russian diplomatic protocol. "I am not aware of any other case where a Russian ambassador anywhere takes part and speaks at preelection rallies of parties fighting for power," Sisoyev says. "Not only Serbia, but no other country would tolerate this." Nenad Canak, leader of a tiny regional civic party that backs Tadic's government, said Konuzin should be declared persona non grata and ordered to leave Serbia.
He told the rally that the SNS -- despite being founded just three years ago -- is the strongest rival to the Democratic Party ahead of general elections slated for mid-2012. He also said it was "one of the main indicators of the mood of Serbian citizens." But Jelena Trivan, a spokeswoman for Serbian President Boris Tadic's ruling Democratic Party, told RFE/RL on November 1 that Konuzin overstepped his diplomatic mandate. She said, however, that his act cannot be compared to appearances by foreign guests, such as Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, who showed up at her party's campaign events two years ago.
"I ironically say that Mr. Konuzin feels so much at home that he forgot that this country is his host and he is the guest," Trivan said.
Konuzin enjoys widespread support among ultranationalist groups in Serbia. Posters with his picture and the slogan "Konuzin for President" were put up several weeks ago in Belgrade. The SNS is a relatively moderate offshoot of the ultranationalist Radical Party, whose long-standing leader Vojislav Seselj is on trial for war crimes at the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague. The SNS does not oppose European integration but places the fight for Kosovo and defense of Serbs living in other countries at the top of its priorities.
Rather than illustrating a rift over Belgrade's strong European integration ambitions -- which Moscow does not view fondly -- for some Serbian analysts the episode with Konuzin highlights the leverage Russia has over Serbia. Russia has been Serbia's staunchest ally in recent years in its fight to reverse the independence of the former Serbian province of Kosovo. The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed its full support for Konuzin, saying his participation at the rally was "normal diplomatic practice."
But Gennady Sisoyev, a foreign policy commentator for the Russian daily "Kommersant," says Konuzin's actions violate Russian diplomatic protocol. "I am not aware of any other case where a Russian ambassador anywhere takes part and speaks at preelection rallies of parties fighting for power," Sisoyev says. "Not only Serbia, but no other country would tolerate this." Nenad Canak, leader of a tiny regional civic party that backs Tadic's government, said Konuzin should be declared persona non grata and ordered to leave Serbia.
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/russian_diplomat_criticized_for_speech_at_serbian_opposition_rally/24379085.html
Keeping Moscow at Bay - In Kosovo
World
War IV is real. It began not on September 11, 2001, but in 1978 when
the Russians installed a puppet regime in Afghanistan. The Russian
incursion south toward the Indian Ocean reproduced the history of more
than a century before, beginning in 1875, when the tsar incited the
Balkan Christians to rebel against the Ottomans. But events never repeat
themselves exactly. Developments today follow the cycle between the
Austrian absorption of Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1908 and the Sarajevo
assassination of 1914. Europe claims that, like the Habsburgs in Bosnia,
it will bring progress to Kosovo, now demanding independence. Russia
seeks aggrandizement. But while those are the permanent features of
the political landscape, the details have been distorted to appear
new.
Kosovo
has dropped off the political map for most Americans, who are
diverted by continuing terrorism in the core Islamic countries –
exemplified by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Similarly, Western
obliviousness has encouraged Turkey to attack Iraqi Kurdistan with
impunity. Westerners find it difficult to perceive clearly how, while
the U.S. is absorbed with the headlines in the battle against
jihadists, other malign interests – Russian and Chinese imperialism no
less than Turkish ultranationalism – pursue their own aims. The
appetites of Moscow could again set Europe afire, beginning in Kosovo -
just as war was touched off in Sarajevo. While Kosovo appears most
important to Albanians and their friends, the territory’s independence
is significant for another reason – as a bulwark against revived
Russian designs beyond its borders.
Kosovo independence has been promised, explicitly or implicitly, by the U.S. and some European countries since 1999. There are no special “processes” required for the attainment of independence, except, when necessary, a struggle against the colonial power. Indeed, the United Nations declared in the great age of decolonization – the 1950s and 1960s – that “Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”
Kosovo independence has been promised, explicitly or implicitly, by the U.S. and some European countries since 1999. There are no special “processes” required for the attainment of independence, except, when necessary, a struggle against the colonial power. Indeed, the United Nations declared in the great age of decolonization – the 1950s and 1960s – that “Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”
Failure
to secure independence for the Kosovar Albanians will have further
negative consequences. First, it would be a betrayal by the U.S. of one
of the few majority-Muslim communities in the world that is wholly
pro-American – a threat also visible in the alienation of Kurdish
affections by American hesitation to restrain Turkey in Iraq. But most
importantly, it will encourage Serbian adventurism, as well as similar
attitudes elsewhere – beginning in Turkey and Russia, but opening a
road without a predictable end, except probable disaster. While Western
media and pseudo-experts prattle about the dangers of “separatism” in
Europe, the real menace comes from the arrogance of the established
powers, not from the oppressed small nations.
Giant Russia has always backed nearby Serbia against the Albanians, except briefly during the Tito era, while the few million Albanians have real friends only in distant America. The balance is hardly as even as it should be. When I went to Kosovo in mid-December – expecting a declaration of independence at that time – Kosovars were still trusting and enthusiastic about America, but consumed with rage at the obstruction of Russia and the endless delays proposed by the Europeans.
Giant Russia has always backed nearby Serbia against the Albanians, except briefly during the Tito era, while the few million Albanians have real friends only in distant America. The balance is hardly as even as it should be. When I went to Kosovo in mid-December – expecting a declaration of independence at that time – Kosovars were still trusting and enthusiastic about America, but consumed with rage at the obstruction of Russia and the endless delays proposed by the Europeans.
Russian
imperialism has been the bulwark of obscurantism and collective
hatred in Europe since the 18th century, and the division of Poland
beginning in 1772. The regime of Vladimir Putin has revived the
strategy of encroachment and belligerence pursued by his predecessors.
Few of us who fought for and celebrated the defeat of Soviet
Communism imagined that it would be succeeded by mafia capitalism, and
then by a neo-tsarism that exploits its speculative prosperity to
demand submission from its neighbors. In accord with this legacy,
Putin and his cohort have repeatedly stated bluntly that the Kosovo
question must be deferred to the United Nations Security Council,
where Moscow will veto independence. The anticolonial principles that
the Russians claimed to support in 1960, when the issue was that of the
Congolese versus the Belgians, are elided now that Moscow wishes to
reincorporate Ukraine and China continues to exercise a cruel
domination over Tibet.
Kosovo has gained the renewed, if vague, attention of the Western press, which unfailingly covers the bid for statehood in two ways, both mendacious. The first turns victims of a 20th century attempted genocide into the victimizers. Thus the British dailies tearfully elicit sympathy for Kosovo Serbs who allegedly face “ethnic cleansing” from their supposed “cultural cradle.” The second way reduces the issue to irrelevance, treating the Kosovars as yet another quixotic separatist movement in which the arguments of “both sides” merit equal attention. The Kosovar Albanian viewpoint – the land was theirs centuries before the Slavic invasions 1,500 years ago – is seldom heard or read in the Western media.
Kosovo has gained the renewed, if vague, attention of the Western press, which unfailingly covers the bid for statehood in two ways, both mendacious. The first turns victims of a 20th century attempted genocide into the victimizers. Thus the British dailies tearfully elicit sympathy for Kosovo Serbs who allegedly face “ethnic cleansing” from their supposed “cultural cradle.” The second way reduces the issue to irrelevance, treating the Kosovars as yet another quixotic separatist movement in which the arguments of “both sides” merit equal attention. The Kosovar Albanian viewpoint – the land was theirs centuries before the Slavic invasions 1,500 years ago – is seldom heard or read in the Western media.
Srebrenica
– the site of the 1995 massacre of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and
boys by Serbian terrorists – is the most prominent recent symbol of
Moscow-backed genocidal aggression in Europe. While Boris Yeltsin, then
the titular leader of post-Soviet Russia, pursued inconsistent
policies on the issues created by Russia’s imperial history, powerful
interests in the former USSR backed Serbian and other terrorist crimes
against whole communities. Throughout the Bosnian conflict, Russian
nationalist media and politicians supported Serb claims, and Russian
volunteers served alongside Serbs in committing bloody atrocities in
Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo. I argued in my 2002 book The Two Faces
of Islam that a Muscovite strategy of Slav-Orthodox assault on
vulnerable Muslims had been visible not merely in Afghanistan, but in
Europe, too. Communists expelled Bulgaria’s Turkish minority and
“nationalized” domestic Bulgarian Muslims in the 1980s.
Armenia also assaulted Azerbaijan, and Russia’s devastation of Chechnya began as the Soviet Union collapsed. In other words, the wars against the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Albanians came after many warnings, for those capable of understanding them. Kosovo has a Srebrenica, which is much less well-known. It is called Korenica and is located in the western section of Kosovo, near the city of Gjakova. In Korenica, on April 27, 1999 – a month after the commencement of the NATO bombing of Serbia – nearly 400 Albanians were wantonly murdered by Serbian irregulars. But Korenica is significant for more than its having seen the largest number of Albanian victims in a single Serbian assault during the 1998-99 conflict.
Armenia also assaulted Azerbaijan, and Russia’s devastation of Chechnya began as the Soviet Union collapsed. In other words, the wars against the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Albanians came after many warnings, for those capable of understanding them. Kosovo has a Srebrenica, which is much less well-known. It is called Korenica and is located in the western section of Kosovo, near the city of Gjakova. In Korenica, on April 27, 1999 – a month after the commencement of the NATO bombing of Serbia – nearly 400 Albanians were wantonly murdered by Serbian irregulars. But Korenica is significant for more than its having seen the largest number of Albanian victims in a single Serbian assault during the 1998-99 conflict.
While
Serbs and their apologists portray their role in the long battle for
Kosovo as a defense against a jihadist offensive by Albanian Muslims
hateful of Slav Christians, their churches, and their sacred heritage,
the majority of the Albanians killed at Korenica were Catholics. The
aim of the Serbs, like that of their Russian protectors, has always
been to promote the dominance of the Orthodox Christian identity over
all the peoples that follow religious traditions different from it. I
first learned of the crime of Korenica only months after it took place,
during a visit to Gjakova. I found out about the killings
accidentally, when I drove along a rural road and found a Sufi turbe or
mausoleum. Inside the structure, I was shocked to discover the
coffins of 24 infants. It was then that I learned about the Korenica
slayings, and was taken to a graveyard that included many wooden
markers with the initials “N.N.” for an unidentified corpse. I believe
I was among the first foreigners, aside from some human rights
monitors, to thoroughly research the Korenica incident, and in the
years that followed I continued an extensive inquiry into it.
First, in 1999, I interviewed a brave Albanian Catholic priest from Gjakova, Pater Ambroz Ukaj, who had defied Serbian officers to learn what had transpired in Korenica. Later I learned that a Sufi, Shaykh Rama of Gjakova, had been killed at Korenica. In recent years, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, of which I am Executive Director, has supported reconstruction of a primary school in the Korenica district, the Pjetër Mugy School in the hamlet of Guska, that educates both Catholic and Muslim children
First, in 1999, I interviewed a brave Albanian Catholic priest from Gjakova, Pater Ambroz Ukaj, who had defied Serbian officers to learn what had transpired in Korenica. Later I learned that a Sufi, Shaykh Rama of Gjakova, had been killed at Korenica. In recent years, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, of which I am Executive Director, has supported reconstruction of a primary school in the Korenica district, the Pjetër Mugy School in the hamlet of Guska, that educates both Catholic and Muslim children
Europe
seems not to understand that in refusing to repudiate Serbian and
Russian blandishments, and in failing to assist the Kosovar Albanians
consequentially, it is committing a slow suicide. Spain is afraid of
demands for rights by the Basques and Catalans; Slovakia and Romania
have a bad conscience about their treatment of their large Hungarian
minorities, which possess capacity for resistance unknown among the
Roma, those other martyrs to Slovak and Romanian nationalism. Cyprus
should probably not have been admitted to the EU without the
participation of its Turkish-minority northern zone (a topic so
convoluted as to require a separate article.)
But rather than deal with stateless nations and minorities fairly, resolve its fear of Turkish Islam, and recognize the unquenchable desire of the Kosovar Albanians for freedom, Europe may blindly submit to the return of Russian power, enriched by energy and bent on reestablishing a bipolar world in which only the U.S. and Moscow count. The U.S. still counts, more than either the hallucinated Serbian and Russian leadership or the Europeans – the latter with a disgraceful record of preferring peace to freedom. America must support Kosovar independence, without dishonorable concessions to Belgrade or Moscow, and without delay.
Source: http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/keep...y_in_kosov.phpBut rather than deal with stateless nations and minorities fairly, resolve its fear of Turkish Islam, and recognize the unquenchable desire of the Kosovar Albanians for freedom, Europe may blindly submit to the return of Russian power, enriched by energy and bent on reestablishing a bipolar world in which only the U.S. and Moscow count. The U.S. still counts, more than either the hallucinated Serbian and Russian leadership or the Europeans – the latter with a disgraceful record of preferring peace to freedom. America must support Kosovar independence, without dishonorable concessions to Belgrade or Moscow, and without delay.
U.S. could threaten Russian strategic nuclear forces - Foreign Minister Lavrov
The United States continues to refuse to guarantee that the European missile defense shield
will not be directed at Russia, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on
Thursday. "They don't want to give us a guarantee that the U.S.-NATO
[European] missile defense shield will not be directed at Russia,"
Lavrov said during an address to students and professors at the Moscow
State University for International Relations.
Lavrov
said that in July 2009, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S.
President Barack Obama agreed on joint efforts in establishing an
anti-missile defense system by first starting with a general analysis of
challenges and threats. "We added concrete proposals to the parameters
for such a system and there were long consultations through bilateral
talks and within the Russia-NATO Council.
Unfortunately, we have not come to an agreement; however, a European
missile defense shield is currently being created according to the
parameters that Washington has defined and could create a threat to
Russia's strategic nuclear forces," Lavrov said.
"Military
experts understand completely that the unlimited expansion by one
party's anti-missile defense capabilities requires the other party to
take equal actions in order to protect its strategic restraint
potential," he added. Russia needs assurance that no military action
would be directed at any other country in the Euro-Atlantic zone, he
said, adding "otherwise we will return to the ideological stereotypes
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and that would be a big
mistake in the light of the global challenges threatening all the
members of the global society."
In June, Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said the United States was already deploying its missile defense system in Europe
without waiting for an agreement with Russia. Romania announced in June
that it had reached an agreement with the United States to deploy a
U.S. missile interceptor system at a disused Soviet airbase on its
territory. "We have seen once again that the United States plans to
unfold its system de facto without waiting for the end of [missile
defense] talks with Russia, as the situation with the treaty with
Romania shows," Rogozin said. Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the so-called European missile defense system
at the Lisbon summit in November 2010. NATO insists there should be
two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a
joint system with full-scale interoperability.
Source: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110901/166347758.html
Georgia on Mr. Putin’s mind
ANYONE WHO was wondering whether Vladimir Putin is softening as he prepares to retake the Russian presidency would do well to review the Kremlin boss’s performance at a business forum in Moscow Thursday. Asked whether Russia was likely to join the World Trade Organization in the next several months — as both his trade minister and the Obama administration predicted after talks in Washington last Monday — Mr. Putin responded by claiming that Western governments seek to “hide behind the Georgian issue” in order to block Moscow’s accession. This cynical and patently false charge is worth deconstructing for what it reveals about Russia’s likely course during the next phase of Putinism, which, if the strongman has his way, will last a dozen years.
Accepting
that it cannot use the WTO accession process to reverse this reality
but not wishing to ratify its loss of the provinces, Georgia has
proposed that Russia accept international customs monitors along their
borders. We’re told the government can accept proposals by Swiss
mediators under which the monitoring would be conducted in part
electronically. Russia, however, has rejected any monitoring of its
exports to the two provinces and says it won’t sign any deal that would
be part of its WTO accession.
The
cynicism of Mr. Putin’s statement lies in the fact that — as he well
knows — the Obama administration has made Russia’s WTO membership a
prime objective, with the president devoting himself to it personally. Mr.
Putin, on the other hand, is ambivalent; as he said Thursday, “we see
pluses and minuses to possibly joining the WTO.” That means he can use
the issue for his own purposes. Having accused Washington of employing
Georgia to block progress, Mr. Putin added: “If they really want us to
be part of the WTO, they can make things happen overnight.” In other
words, he expects Mr. Obama to strong-arm the Georgian government,
forcing it to agree to Russia’s terms.
Administration
officials tell us this will not happen. Among other factors, the White
House needs help from Georgia’s many friends in Congress to pass
legislation in connection with Russia’s WTO membership. But Mr. Putin
could win either way: If Georgia is not steamrolled, it can be blamed
for Russia’s failure to join a trade regime that might interfere with
the Kremlin’s corruption networks. Welcome back, Mr. Putin: You haven’t
changed a bit.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/georgia-on-mr-putins-mind/2011/10/07/gIQAY5daYL_story.html
Vladimir Putin and the South Caucasus
Russia’s
neighbors are asking what the heralded return of Vladimir Putin to the
Kremlin means for their own regions. One such region is the South
Caucasus. Caucasian leaders’ calculations will certainly change in the
wake of the Putin move. In Armenia, news of his return will have
gladdened Robert Kocharian, another ex-president who has been lurking
in the shadows. There are obvious parallels between the two: both men
gave up the position of president in 2008 after serving two terms and
handed over power to a trusted successor. Kocharian is, like Putin, a
man of action with a tough, uncompromising personality. And he may see
the return of his former ally as a chance to relaunch his own public
career.
There
are important differences, however. Unlike Dmitry Medvedev, current
Armenian president Serzh Sarkisian (whose term expires in early 2013)
is the equal of his predecessor. Indeed, the two men were partners for
thirty years; when they began their political careers in the early
1980s, in the Komsomol (Young Communist Party organization) of the town
of Stepanakert, Sarkisian was the senior partner and Kocharian was his
junior.
More
crucially, Putin is genuinely popular in Russia—if the country had an
authentically competitive election and not just a choreographed
coronation, he would probably win it. Kocharian, by contrast, is
extremely unpopular with much of the Armenian public, and he would
encounter strong public opposition if he initiated a comeback. Serzh
Sarkisian will know that—and may indeed win some covert support from
opposition figures, who prefer to see him in office over Kocharian.
In
Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliev will not be cracking open the
champagne. He and Putin got off to a fairly good working relationship,
but it deteriorated in 2006 when Aliev refused to cooperate with Putin’s
plans to deprive Georgia of cheap gas. Aliev struck up a better
relationship with Medvedev, who signed a grandiose declaration of
Azerbaijani-Russian partnership and friendship in Baku in July 2008, a
month before Georgia and Russia went to war.
When
it comes to the biggest issue in the South Caucasus, the smoldering
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorny Karabakh, we can expect far
less engagement from Putin than from Medvedev. Putin was reportedly
infuriated on the one occasion he genuinely tried to mediate between
the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents in September 2004 in Astana.
The two men kept him waiting, then quarreled with each other in his
presence. Putin does not like being treated that way—unlike Medvedev,
who had the stamina to convene nine meetings between Aliev and
Sarkisian.
In
February 2007, at one of Putin’s marathon Kremlin press conferences,
an Azerbaijani journalist asked a question about the Karabakh conflict.
The answer reveals all one needs to know about Putin’s views on the
issue. The Russian leader began sensibly, telling the Azerbaijani that
Russia would not impose a solution, “You [Armenians and Azerbaijanis]
shouldn’t shift this problem onto us. It’s you who have to find an
acceptable way out of this situation.” But Putin didn’t stop there. He
went on to muse aloud how drinkable the Soviet-era cheap alcoholic
drink Agdam portvein had been and said the Armenians and
Azerbaijanis should restore the town (now under Armenian control and in
ruins) and resume alcoholic production. He gave the impression that
this conflict was a far-away problem unworthy of much concern and which
he associated with a student-era cheap tipple.
In
Georgia, the reality is stark. Putin and Georgian leader Mikheil
Saakashvili deeply loathe each other. Putin told French president
Nicolas Sarkozy that he wanted to see his Georgian adversary hung by the
testicles. Saakashvili’s joke about the smaller man being “Liliputin”
got back to Moscow. They went to war once, and their animosity should
guarantee that Georgian-Russian relations will go from bad to very bad
next year as Putin returns. In the mean time, Georgia is still, using
its veto power to block Russia’s World Trade Organization accession
until it gets concessions over monitoring of the borders of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. We can only hope that a deal is done before Putin
returns.
None
of this is very promising. But any predictions on the Putin comeback
are inevitably incomplete. After all, Putin is a pragmatist who will be
dealing with a different and probably weaker Russia—certainly a Russia
in a very different economic and political circumstance from 2008.
Hence, it’s possible that Putin could use his authority to be the
Charles de Gaulle of the Caucasus, promising his small southern
neighbors a big strategic reconciliation on the part of Russia.
Possible, but not probable.
Source: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/vladimir-putin-the-south-caucasus-5972
What Does 'Confederation' Mean In The South Caucasus?
On
July 18, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili met with his
Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, in Batumi and mentioned the idea
of a “confederation” between the two countries. The phrase quickly
got people wondering what exactly the president had in mind. Analysts
have been raising questions and offering ideas ever since.
Journalists and political commentators from the countries of the South Caucasus have examined the idea (whether they endorse it or not) in the context of confrontational geopolitics. In August, Russia and Armenia agreed to extend the pact on the presence of Russian military bases in Armenia until 2044. At the same time, they expanded the format of bilateral military cooperation: henceforth Russia is obliged to defend Armenia from any external threat, which Yerevan expects primarily from Azerbaijan. In short, Armenia has become an even closer Russian ally than it was previously.
The discussion of a possible Georgia-Azerbaijan confederation was immediately placed in the traditional context of the “vertical” axis of Russia-Armenia (and, possibly, Iran) and the “horizontal” axis of Georgia and Azerbaijan (and, possibly, Turkey). And they don’t forget overseas allies, asserting that, of course, the idea of a confederation comes from Washington and is aimed at containing Russia. In a nutshell, after the failed Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, everything has come back to its place: we loved to talk about all these things back in the 1990s. But what concrete political and legal steps would be necessary to realize this “confederation” project? I haven’t heard anything specific about this yet.
First, let’s take a look at exactly what Saakashvili said, some two months ago. “A few years back I said that we must form confederative relations,” Saakashvili said. “In fact, relations between our countries are far beyond the relations that two countries ordinarily have. We are a continuation of one another.” In short, the Georgia-Azerbaijan confederation, according to the president, is not a project for the future, but a description of the present. That is, the term shouldn’t be viewed in strictly legalistic terms, but as a rhetorical figure of speech that signifies “particularly close relations between countries.”
What’s more, people in the president’s entourage insist that the same could be said of Georgia-Armenia relations: there as well, the level of closeness is very high. Of course, the Armenian side welcomes the use of this term (even rhetorically) considerably less. To be sure, it would be hypocritical to speak about an equivalence between Georgia-Azerbaijan and Georgia-Armenia relations. Under the circumstances of the cold war with Russia, Georgia can’t be pleased by the intensification of Russia-Armenia military cooperation. There’s no getting around that.
Enemies And Friends
Nonetheless, neither Georgia nor Armenia would benefit from drawing strict geopolitical conclusions from the two clear facts that Russia and Georgia are enemies, while Russia and Armenia are allies. Likewise, Russia and Azerbaijan do not intend to become enemies just because Azerbaijan and Armenia are enemies and Armenia and Russia are allies. The geopolitical formula that the “friend of my enemy is my enemy” does not apply in the Caucasus today. And thank God.
Since the August 2008 war with Russia, Georgia has placed more significance on regional relations and has actively sought to intensify ties with all the countries of the region without regard for their relations with one another. There is an element of competition with Russia in this. Russia’s policy of not recognizing the Saakashvili government is an effort to isolate Georgia internationally. Moscow wants not only to undermine Tbilisi’s support in the West, but also to exclude Georgia from regional connections.
Saakashvili is taking countermeasures, so far generally with success. Of course, one can always argue about what “success” means, but under the present circumstances Georgia views any sign of warming relations with the countries of the region as a success - and, at the same time, as a failure for Russia.
Russia is actively working to draw Azerbaijan into its sphere of influence with various economic projects. While Turkey and Armenia were flirting under Western patronage and Azerbaijan felt forgotten and rejected by its closest friends -- Ankara and Washington -- it seemed that some sort of geopolitical shift was possible. But the accelerated construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad and new steps toward realizing the Nabucco pipeline project show that the Georgia-Azerbaijan-Turkey axis of cooperation is still functioning. It is such projects most of all that are the real content of the rhetorical term “confederation.”
But, on the other hand, the opening in March of the Russia-Georgia border crossing at Verkhny Lars is not a sign of the warming of Russian-Georgian relations (as Western experts want to believe). It is an expression of Armenia-Georgia cooperation, since that road is needed most of all by Armenia. What difference does it make whether such a friendship is or is not called a "confederation?"
Journalists and political commentators from the countries of the South Caucasus have examined the idea (whether they endorse it or not) in the context of confrontational geopolitics. In August, Russia and Armenia agreed to extend the pact on the presence of Russian military bases in Armenia until 2044. At the same time, they expanded the format of bilateral military cooperation: henceforth Russia is obliged to defend Armenia from any external threat, which Yerevan expects primarily from Azerbaijan. In short, Armenia has become an even closer Russian ally than it was previously.
The discussion of a possible Georgia-Azerbaijan confederation was immediately placed in the traditional context of the “vertical” axis of Russia-Armenia (and, possibly, Iran) and the “horizontal” axis of Georgia and Azerbaijan (and, possibly, Turkey). And they don’t forget overseas allies, asserting that, of course, the idea of a confederation comes from Washington and is aimed at containing Russia. In a nutshell, after the failed Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, everything has come back to its place: we loved to talk about all these things back in the 1990s. But what concrete political and legal steps would be necessary to realize this “confederation” project? I haven’t heard anything specific about this yet.
First, let’s take a look at exactly what Saakashvili said, some two months ago. “A few years back I said that we must form confederative relations,” Saakashvili said. “In fact, relations between our countries are far beyond the relations that two countries ordinarily have. We are a continuation of one another.” In short, the Georgia-Azerbaijan confederation, according to the president, is not a project for the future, but a description of the present. That is, the term shouldn’t be viewed in strictly legalistic terms, but as a rhetorical figure of speech that signifies “particularly close relations between countries.”
What’s more, people in the president’s entourage insist that the same could be said of Georgia-Armenia relations: there as well, the level of closeness is very high. Of course, the Armenian side welcomes the use of this term (even rhetorically) considerably less. To be sure, it would be hypocritical to speak about an equivalence between Georgia-Azerbaijan and Georgia-Armenia relations. Under the circumstances of the cold war with Russia, Georgia can’t be pleased by the intensification of Russia-Armenia military cooperation. There’s no getting around that.
Enemies And Friends
Nonetheless, neither Georgia nor Armenia would benefit from drawing strict geopolitical conclusions from the two clear facts that Russia and Georgia are enemies, while Russia and Armenia are allies. Likewise, Russia and Azerbaijan do not intend to become enemies just because Azerbaijan and Armenia are enemies and Armenia and Russia are allies. The geopolitical formula that the “friend of my enemy is my enemy” does not apply in the Caucasus today. And thank God.
Since the August 2008 war with Russia, Georgia has placed more significance on regional relations and has actively sought to intensify ties with all the countries of the region without regard for their relations with one another. There is an element of competition with Russia in this. Russia’s policy of not recognizing the Saakashvili government is an effort to isolate Georgia internationally. Moscow wants not only to undermine Tbilisi’s support in the West, but also to exclude Georgia from regional connections.
Saakashvili is taking countermeasures, so far generally with success. Of course, one can always argue about what “success” means, but under the present circumstances Georgia views any sign of warming relations with the countries of the region as a success - and, at the same time, as a failure for Russia.
Russia is actively working to draw Azerbaijan into its sphere of influence with various economic projects. While Turkey and Armenia were flirting under Western patronage and Azerbaijan felt forgotten and rejected by its closest friends -- Ankara and Washington -- it seemed that some sort of geopolitical shift was possible. But the accelerated construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad and new steps toward realizing the Nabucco pipeline project show that the Georgia-Azerbaijan-Turkey axis of cooperation is still functioning. It is such projects most of all that are the real content of the rhetorical term “confederation.”
But, on the other hand, the opening in March of the Russia-Georgia border crossing at Verkhny Lars is not a sign of the warming of Russian-Georgian relations (as Western experts want to believe). It is an expression of Armenia-Georgia cooperation, since that road is needed most of all by Armenia. What difference does it make whether such a friendship is or is not called a "confederation?"
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/What_Does_Confederation_Mean_In_The_South_Caucasus/2160662.html
Global Warfare: Targeting Iran: Preparing for World War III
The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously.
Militarization
at the global level is instrumented through the US military's Unified
Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic
Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to
(former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military
road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: “[The] five-year
campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. A War on Iran has been on the drawing board of The Pentagon since 2004. Iran's
alleged nuclear weapons programme is the pretext and the
justification. Tehran is also identified as a "State sponsor of
terrorism", for allegedly supporting the Al Qaeda network.In recent
developments, what is unfolding is an integrated attack plan on Iran led by the US, with the participation of the United Kingdom and Israel.
While the media has presented Israeli and British military planning
pertaining to Iran as separate initiatives, what we are dealing with is
an integrated and coordinated US led military endeavor. In early
November, Israel confirmed that it is preparing to launch air attacks
against Iran's nuclear facilities, without however acknowledging that
this would be carried out as part of a US led initative:
Reportedly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently sought to drum up cabinet support for a military strike against the nuclear sites of the Islamic republic of Iran. In joint efforts with the defense minister Ehud Barak, Netanyahu has succeeded in wringing support for such a reckless act from the skeptics who were already opposed to launching an attack on Iran. Among those he managed to convince was Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.There are still those in the Israeli cabinet who are against such a move including Interior Minister Eli Yishai of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor, Strategic Affairs Minister and Netanyahu confidant Moshe Yaalon, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, army chief Benny Gantz, the head of Israel's intelligence agency Tamir Pardo, the chief of military intelligence Aviv Kochavi and the head of Israel's domestic intelligence agency Yoram Cohen. However, the support voiced by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is considered an ace in the hole for Netanyahu who also enjoys the full-throated support of Washington. In a show of military prowess and obvious brinkmanship, Israel test-fired a nuke capable missile on Wednesday which cannot be taken as a coincidence considering the threat made by Netanyahu. ( Ismail Salami. An Israel Attack on Iran: Military Suicide , Global Research, November 3, 2011)
Meanwhile, the British government has also signified that it will participate in a US led attack on Iran:
The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government. In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign. They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East. (The Guardian, November 2, 2011 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27439)
The War on SyriaThere
is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war
theaters. In the wake of the war on Libya, there are also war plans
directed against under NATO's Responsibility to Protect (R2P). These
plans are integrated with those pertaining to Iran. The road to Tehran
goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve,
as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") including
covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed
against the Syrian government
The World is at dangerous crossroads.
Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against either Syria or Iran, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war. There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya. An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war. In turn, a war on Syria would evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved. It would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.
The World is at dangerous crossroads.
Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against either Syria or Iran, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war. There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya. An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war. In turn, a war on Syria would evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved. It would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.
Central
to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it
legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy
prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public
opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a
means to preserving the Western way of life.” Breaking the "big lie"
which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a
criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit
is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys
human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
The
holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough.
What is required is the development of a broad and well organized
grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and
internationally, which challenges the structures of power and
authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda,
the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.
This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their
governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the
local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word,
inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a nuclear war,
initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.
The
objective is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war
criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which
support them. Break the American Inquisition. Undermine the
US-NATO-Israel military crusade. Close down the weapons factories and
the military bases. Members of the armed forces should disobey orders
and refuse to participate in a criminal war. Bring home the troops.
Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27446
Former Soviet States: Battleground For Global Domination
A Europe united under the EU and especially NATO is to be strong enough to contain, isolate and increasingly confront Russia as the central component of U.S. plans for control of Eurasia and the world, but cannot be allowed to conduct an independent foreign policy, particularly in regard to Russia and the Middle East. European NATO allies are to assist Washington in preventing the emergence of "the most dangerous scenario...a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran" such as has been adumbrated since in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Four years after the publication of The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski's recommended chess move was made: The U.S. and NATO invaded Afghanistan and expanded into Central Asia where Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests converge and where the basis for their regional cooperation existed, and Western military bases were established in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where they remain for the indefinite future.
As
the United States escalates its joint war with NATO in Afghanistan
and across the Pakistani border, expands military deployments and
exercises throughout Africa under the new AFRICOM, and prepares to
dispatch troops to newly acquired bases in Colombia as the spearhead
for further penetration of that continent, it is simultaneously
targeting Eurasia and the heart of that vast land mass, the countries
of the former Soviet Union.
Within
months of the formal breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics in December of 2001, leading American policy advisers and
government officials went to work devising a strategy to insure that
the fragmentation was final and irreversible. And to guarantee that the
fifteen new nations emerging from the ruins of the Soviet Union would
not be allied in even a loose association such as the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) founded in the month of the Soviet Union's
dissolution.
Three
of the former Soviet republics, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania, never joined the CIS and in 2004 became full members of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in all three cases placing
the U.S.-led military bloc on Russian borders. That left eleven other
former republics to be weaned from economic, political,
infrastructural, transportation and defense sector integration with
Russia, integration that was extensively and comprehensively developed
for the seventy four years of the USSR's existence and in many cases
for centuries before during the Czarist period.
A
change of its socio-economic system and the splintering of the nation
with the world's largest territory only affected U.S. policy toward
former Soviet space insofar as it led to Washington and its allies
coveting and moving on a vast expanse of Europe and Asia hitherto off
limits to it. Two months after the end of the Soviet Union then U.S.
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy in
the Pentagon, Lewis Libby, authored what became known as the Defense
Planning Guidance document for the years 1994–99. Some accounts
attribute the authorship to Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad under Wolfowitz's
tutelage.
Afghan-born
Khalilzad is a fellow alumnus of Wolfowitz at the University of
Chicago and worked under him in the Ronald Reagan State Department
starting in 1984. From 1985-1989 he was the Reagan administration's
special adviser on the proxy war against the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan and on the Iran-Iraq war. In the first capacity he
coordinated the Mujahideen war against the government of Afghanistan
waged from Pakistan along with Deputy Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency Robert Gates, now U.S. Secretary of Defense. (Gates
has a doctorate degree in Russian and Soviet Studies, as does his
former colleague the previous U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza
Rice.)
The
main recipient of U.S. arms and training within the Mujahideen
coalition during those years was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose still
extant armed group Hezb-e-Islami assisted in driving American troops
out of Camp Keating in Afghanistan's Nuristan province this October.
Hekmatyar remains in Afghanistan heading the Hezb-e-Islami and top U.S.
and NATO military commander General Stanley McChrystal in his
Commander's Initial Assessment of September - which called for a
massive increase in American troops for the war - identified the party
as one of three main insurgent forces that as many as 85,000 U.S. and
thousands of NATO reinforcements will be required to fight.
The
Wolfowitz-Libby-Khalilzad Defense Planning Guidance prototype
appeared in the New York Times on March 7, 1992 and to demonstrate
that the end of the Soviet Union and the imminent fall of the Afghan
government (Hekmatyar and his allies would march into Kabul two months
later) affected U.S. policy toward Russia not one jot contained these
passages:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."
"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."
In
its original and revised versions the 46-page Defense Planning
Guidance document laid the foundation for what would informally become
known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine and later the Bush Doctrine,
indistinguishable in any essential manner from the Blair, alternately
known as Clinton, Doctrine enunciated in 1999: That the U.S. (with its
NATO allies) reserves the unquestioned right to employ military force
anywhere in the world at any time for whichever purpose it sees fit
and to effect "regime change" overthrows of any governments viewed as
being insufficiently subservient to Washington and its regional and
global designs.
Five
years later former Carter administration National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who launched the Afghan Mujahideen support project
in 1978 and worked with Khalilzad at Colombia when the latter was
Assistant Professor of Political Science at the university's School of
International and Public Affairs from 1979 to 1989 and Brzezinski
headed the Institute on Communist Affairs, wrote an article called "A
Geostrategy for Eurasia." It was in essence a precis of his book of the
same year, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's
Geostrategic Imperatives, and was published in Foreign Affairs, the
journal of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. The
framework for the piece is contained in this paragraph:
"America's status as the world's premier power is unlikely to be contested by any single challenger for more than a generation. No state is likely to match the United States in the four key dimensions of power - military, economic, technological, and cultural - that confer global political clout. Short of American abdication, the only real alternative to American leadership is international anarchy. President Clinton is correct when he says America has become the world's 'indispensable nation.'"
Brzezinski
identified the subjugation of Eurasia as Washington's chief global
geopolitical objective, with the former Soviet Union as the center of
that policy and NATO as the main mechanism to accomplish the strategy.
"Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia.
America's stake in democratic Europe is enormous. Unlike America's
links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and
military power on the Eurasian mainland. With the allied European
nations still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of
Europe's political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S.
influence. Conversely, the United States' ability to project influence
and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.
"A
wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and
longer-term interests of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the
range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so
politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on
matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle
East...."
The
double emigre - first from Poland, then from Canada - advocated a
diminished role for nation states, including the U.S., and Washington's
collaboration in building a stronger Europe in furtherance of general
Western domination of Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa and the world
as a whole. "In practical terms, all this will eventually require
America's accommodation to a shared leadership in NATO, greater
acceptance of France's concerns over a European role in Africa and the
Middle East, and continued support for the European Union's eastward
expansion even as the EU becomes politically and economically more
assertive....A new Europe is still taking shape, and if that Europe is
to remain part of the 'Euro-Atlantic' space, the expansion of NATO is
essential."
While
giving lip service to the role of the European Union, he left no
doubt as to which organization - the world's only military bloc - is
to lead the charge in the conquest of the former Soviet Union as well
as the world's "periphery." It is NATO. Already stating in 1997, two
years before his native Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary would
become full members of the Alliance, that "Ukraine, provided it has
made significant domestic reforms and has become identified as a
Central European country, should also be ready for initial
negotiations with the EU and NATO," he added:
"Failure to widen NATO, now that the commitment has been made, would shatter the concept of an expanding Europe and demoralize the Central Europeans. Worse, it could reignite dormant Russian political aspirations in Central Europe. Moreover, it is far from evident that the Russian political elite shares the European desire for a strong American political and military presence in Europe....If a choice must be made between a larger Europe-Atlantic system and a better relationship with Russia, the former must rank higher."
That
a former U.S. foreign policy official and citizen of the country
would so blithely determine years before the event which nations would
join the European Union went without comment on both sides of the
Atlantic. That the nominal geographic location of a nation - placing
Ukraine in Central Europe - would be assigned by an American was
similarly assumed to be Washington's prerogative evidently. Despite
vapid maunderings about desiring to free post-Soviet Russia from its
"imperial past" and "integrating [it] into a cooperative
transcontinental system," Brzezinski presented a blueprint for
surrounding the nation with a NATO cordon sanitaire, in truth a wall
of military fortifications.
"Russia
is more likely to make a break with its imperial past if the newly
independent post-Soviet states are vital and stable. Their vitality
will temper any residual Russian imperial temptations. Political and
economic support for the new states must be an integral part of a
broader strategy....Ukraine is a critically important component of such
a policy, as is support for such strategically pivotal states as
Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan."
Adding
Georgia and Moldova, the three states he singles out became the
nucleus of the GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan,
Moldova) bloc originally created in the same year as Brzezinski's
article and book appeared. (Uzbekistan joined in 1999 and left in
2005.) GUAM was promoted by the Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright
administration as a vehicle for planned Trans-Eurasian energy projects
and to tear apart the Commonwealth of Independent States by luring
members apart from Russia toward the European Union, the so-called soft
power preliminary stage, and NATO, the hard power culmination of the
process.
In
the above-quoted article Brzezinski also wrote, in addressing Turkey,
that "Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the
Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of
strategic partnership with the United States. America should also
support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan,
to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for
the Caspian sea basin energy reserves." Eight years later, in 2005, the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline transporting Caspian Sea oil to Europe
came online, followed by the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum natural gas pipeline
and the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku railway, with the Nabucco
natural gas pipeline next to be activated. The last-named is already
slated to include, in addition to Caspian supplies, gas from Iraq and
North Africa.
The
book whose foreword Brzezinski's "A Geostrategy for Eurasia" in a way
was, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic
Imperatives, laid out in greater detail plans that have been expanded
upon in the interim. The volume's preface states, "It is imperative that
no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus
of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and
integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this
book....Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand
coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran....Averting this
contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of US
geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of
Eurasia simultaneously.”
In
pursuance of "America's role as the first, only, and last truly
global superpower," Brzezinski noted that "the chief geopolitical
prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated
by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for
regional domination and reached out for global power. Now a
non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global
primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its
preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained." The military
fist inside the diplomatic glove is and will remain NATO.
"The
emergence of a truly united Europe - especially if that should occur
with constructive American support - will require significant changes
in the structure and processes of the NATO alliance, the principal
link between America and Europe. NATO provides not only the main
mechanism for the exercise of US influence regarding European matters
but the basis for the politically critical American military presence
in Western Europe....Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the
struggle for global primacy continues to be played."
In
a section with the heading "The NATO Imperative," the author
reiterated earlier policy demands: "It follows that a wider Europe and
an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the
longer-term goals of US policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of
American influence — and, through the admission of new Central
European members, also increase in the European councils the number of
states with a pro-American proclivity — without simultaneously
creating a Europe politically so integrated that it could soon
challenge the United States on geopolitical matters of high importance
to America elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East."
A
Europe united under the EU and especially NATO is to be strong enough
to contain, isolate and increasingly confront Russia as the central
component of U.S. plans for control of Eurasia and the world, but
cannot be allowed to conduct an independent foreign policy,
particularly in regard to Russia and the Middle East. European NATO
allies are to assist Washington in preventing the emergence of "the most
dangerous scenario...a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps
Iran" such as has been adumbrated since in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization.
Four
years after the publication of The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski's
recommended chess move was made: The U.S. and NATO invaded Afghanistan
and expanded into Central Asia where Russian, Chinese and Iranian
interests converge and where the basis for their regional cooperation
existed, and Western military bases were established in the former
Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where they
remain for the indefinite future. Western-controlled pipelines traverse
the South Caucasus - Azerbaijan and Georgia - to drive Russia and Iran
out of the European and ultimately world energy markets, with a
concomitant U.S. and NATO takeover of the armed forces of both nations.
The two countries have also been tapped for increased troop
deployments and transport routes for the war in South Asia.
The
West is completing the process described by Brzezinski in his 1997
book in which he stated "In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly
led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and
sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged
to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political
integration." Note, not to obstruct a new "imperial" Russia from
exploiting the Commonwealth of Independent States to dominate much less
absorb former parts not only of the Soviet Union but of historical
Russia, but to integrate - or rather maintain the integration of -
nations which were within one state until eighteen years ago. At that
time, 1991, the Soviet Union precipitately disintegrated into fifteen
new nations and four independent "frozen conflict" zones - Abkhazia,
Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transdniester - and Russia made a
180 degree turn in its political structure and orientation, both
domestically and in its foreign policy. The response to those
developments by the U.S. and its NATO cohorts was to scent blood and
move in for the kill.
Starting
in 1994 NATO recruited all fifteen former Soviet republics into its
Partnership for Peace program, which has subsequently prepared ten
nations - all in Eastern Europe, three of them former Soviet republics -
for full membership. As noted above, in 1997 the West absorbed four
and for a period five former Soviet states - Georgia, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan, Moldova and Uzbekistan - into the GUAM, now Organization
for Democracy and Economic Development, format, which has recently
been expanded to include Armenia and Belarus with the European Union's
Eastern Partnership initiative. The latter includes half (six of
twelve) of the CIS and former CIS nations, all except for Russia and
the five Central Asian countries. [1]
Armenian,
Azerbaijani, Georgian and Ukrainian troops have been enlisted by the
U.S. and NATO for the war in Afghanistan, with Moldova to be the next
supplier of soldiers. All five nations also provided forces for the
war and occupation in Iraq. The five Central Asian former Soviet
republics - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan - have provided the Pentagon and NATO with bases and
transit rights for the war in South Asia and as such are being daily
dragged deeper into the Western military nexus. Kazakhstan, for
example, sent troops to Iraq and may soon deploy them to Afghanistan.
In recent days the West has stepped up its offensive in several former
Soviet states.
GUAM
held a meeting of its Parliamentary Assembly in the Georgian capital
of Tbilisi on November 9 and the leader of the host nation's
parliamentary majority, David Darchiashvili, said "GUAM has significant
potential, as its member states have common interests while the CIS
is a union of conflicting interests" and "It is important for GUAM
members to have a specific attitude to the EU. GUAM has a potential to
develop a common direction with the EU under the policy of the Eastern
Partnership." [2] Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze said at
the event that "Our relations are extending, new partners appear. The
US, the Czech Republic, Japan and the Baltic states will become GUAM
partners soon. They will participate in economic projects with us." [3]
The
Secretary General of the Council of Europe Torbjorn Jagland met with
GUAM member states' permanent representatives to the Council of Europe
and during the meeting "the Azerbaijani side emphasized the need to
intensify the Council of Europe's efforts in the settlement of 'frozen
conflicts' in the GUAM area." [4] The allusion is again to Abkhazia,
Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transdniester where several
thousand lives were lost in fighting after the breakup of the Soviet
Union and, in the case of South Ossetia, where a Georgian invasion of
last year triggered a five-day war with Russia.
Later
at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland
from November 13-17, Azerbaijani member of parliament Zahid Oruj said
that "the territories of both Georgia and Azerbaijan were occupied and
the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s policy in the region
proved that" and he "characterized these steps as an action against
NATO." [5] The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is a
post-Soviet security bloc consisting of Russia, Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Belarus (initially)
and Uzbekistan both boycotted the creation of the new CSTO rapid
reaction force last month and the Eastern Partnership is designed in
part to pull Armenia and Belarus out of the organization. Comparable
initiatives are underway in regards to the four Central Asian members
states, with the Afghan war the chief mechanism for reorienting them
toward NATO.
During
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly session, for example, a Turkish
parliamentarian said "Armenia’s releasing the occupied Azerbaijani
territories [Nagorno Karabakh] will create a security zone in the South
Caucasus and pave the way for NATO’s cooperation with this region."
An Azerbaijani counterpart was even more blunt in stating "NATO should
defend Azerbaijan” and stressing "that otherwise, security will not
be firm in the region, stability can be violated anytime [and a] new
military conflict will be inevitable." [6] The day after the NATO
session ended the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, revealed the
context for NATO "defending Azerbaijan" when he announced that "There
is strong support for building the national army. Our army grows
stronger. We are holding negotiations but we should be ready to
liberate our territories any time from the invaders by military means."
[7]
The
same day Daniel Stein, senior assistant to the U.S. Special Envoy for
Eurasian Energy, was in Azerbaijan where he confirmed strategic ties
with the nation's government and said that as "global energy security
is one of the priorities of US foreign policy, his country supports
diversification of energy resources while delivering them to world
markets." [8] Also on November 18 Stein's superior, U.S. Special Envoy
for Eurasian Energy Richard Morningstar, addressed the European Policy
Center, a Brussels-based think-tank, and said "Turkey will become a
very strong transit country in transporting the gas of the Caucasus and
Central Asia to Europe” - via Azerbaijan and Georgia - and
"Turkmenistan and Iraq could join in as other suppliers besides
Azerbaijan...." [9] The following day, November 19, a conference on
NATO's New Strategic Concept: Contribution to the Debate from Partners
was held in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The host country's deputy
foreign minister, Araz Azimov, stated at the meeting:
"I offer the signing of bilateral agreements between NATO and partner countries to cover security guarantees for partner countries along with the responsibility and commitments of the parties. "Yes, we (partner countries) are important for NATO in general for the security architecture of the Euro-Atlantic area. Today Azerbaijan's borders are the borders of Europe." [10]
On
November Azerbaijan hosted an international conference titled
Impediments to Security in the South Caucasus: Current Realities and
Future Prospects for Regional Development, co-sponsored by Britain's
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Speakers included Ariel
Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and the
Washington, D.C.-based Jamestown Foundation's President Glenn Howard
and Senior Fellow Vladimir Socor. Socor, a Romanian emigre and former
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty employee, in addressing the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, "stressed the
necessity of an undertaking by NATO of analogous steps in this conflict
taken for the settlement of the conflicts in the Balkans and former
Yugoslavia." [11] Novruz
Mammadov, head of the Foreign Relations Department of Azerbaijan's
presidential administration, said that "Azerbaijan is the only country
in the post-Soviet space usefully and really cooperating with the
West," and Elnur Aslanov, head of the Political Analysis and
Information Department for the President of Azerbaijan, said:
"The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum and Baku-Tbilisi-Kars projects...stimulate the development of regional cooperation, and also are important from the security standpoint....Azerbaijan is a reliable partner of the European security architecture...the country plays an important role in ensuring European energy security." [12]
Jamestown
Foundation chief Glenn Howard added "that Azerbaijan is an important
partner for NATO in terms of energy security," and backed the nation's
deputy foreign minister's demand the previous day that NATO must
offer Yugoslav war-style support to its Caucasus partners "especially
after the war in Georgia last year." Howard added:
"NATO can give security guarantees to a country in case of an attack, which is what happened in 1979 in the Persian Gulf - after the fall of the Shah of Iran the US gave security guarantees to countries through bilateral agreements with those countries....If Azerbaijani troops are going to help in one area, that will lessen the need for NATO troops in this particular area, so that they can be involved in some other area, for example, that helps put more troops in fighting the Taliban...." [13]
Azerbaijan
is not the only former Soviet republic the U.S. intends to use to
penetrate the Caspian Sea Basin. After leaving Baku the State
Department's Daniel Stein arrived in Turkmenistan where he stated that
"The United States offers its mediating mission in Turkmen-Azerbaijan
disputes over the Caspian status," in relation to a border demarcation
conflict in a sea that the two nations share with Russia and Iran. He
added, "The U.S. and EU member countries try to assure Azerbaijan and
Turkmenistan that they should reach an agreement on the division of
the Caspian to create real opportunities for Nabucco and other
projects." [14]
The
same day U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and
Central Asia George Krol was also in the Turkmen capital to deliver an
address at the the annual Oil and Gas Conference there and said, "The
U.S. considers energy security as a priority issue, and Central Asia
is an important region in the global energy map." [15] In Azerbaijan's
fellow GUAM member state Moldova, the new government of acting
president Mihai Ghimpu, which came to power after April's so-called
Twitter Revolution, announced that it was establishing a national
committee to implement an Individual Partnership Action Plan for NATO
membership. To indicate the importance the new administration attaches
to integration with the bloc, "Minister of Foreign Affairs and
European Integration Iurie Leanca has been appointed committee
chairman." [16]
Earlier
this month it was reported that the government's Prosecutor General's
Office had "dropped criminal proceedings against the people accused
of masterminding riots in the republic's capital in April, following
the Opposition's protest against the results of the parliamentary
election....After the early parliamentary election on July 29 when the
Opposition came to power, most cases were closed" and instead "When
the new prosecutor general was appointed, criminal cases were opened
against police who took part in driving the protesters from the city
center and their arrests." [17]
On
the same day that the Jamestown Foundation's Glenn Howard and
Vladimir Socor were in Azerbaijan advocating NATO intervention in the
South Caucasus, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden held a phone
conversation with Georgian president and former U.S. resident Mikheil
Saakashvili in which the first "reiterated the United States' 'strong
support' for Georgia´s sovereignty and territorial integrity" and
"underscored the importance of sustaining the commitment to democratic
reform to fulfill the promise of the Rose Revolution." [18] Also on
November 20 a major Russian news source reported that Washington had
shipped nearly $80 million in weapons to Georgia in 2008 and plans to
supply more in the future. "Despite the economic crisis, Georgia is
increasing expenditure on arms purchases in the U.S.," although
"Independent sources say[ing] Georgia´s unemployment stands at about
one-third of its able-bodied population." [19]
On
the same day a delegation from the Pentagon was in the Georgian
capital to meet with Temur Iakobashvili, the nation's State
Reintegration Minister - for "reintegration" read forcible
incorporation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - and the Georgian official
announced "We introduced to the guests our plan to ensure security in
the occupied territories. We also talked about the role the U.S. will
play in assisting the ensuring of regional security." [20]
The
U.S. Defense Department representatives, including Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Celeste Wallander, met
with Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia "to hold consultations
on defence cooperation issues concerning the two countries," and
"Wallander personally inspected ongoing military trainings aimed at the
preparation of the 31st Battalion of the GAF [Georgian Armed Forces]
for participation in the ISAF operation in Afghanistan. The sides
evaluated the US assistance provided during 2009 and considered in
detail future cooperation prospects for 2010/2011.
"Under
the visit's agenda the high-ranking US official met with the Security
Council Secretary, Eka Tkeshelashvili, State Minister for
Reintegration Temur Iakobashvili and Defence and Security Committee
members of parliament." [21] The inspection mentioned above was of
training following that conducted by U.S. Marines. The first
contingent of new Georgian troops thus prepared was sent to
Afghanistan four days before. Two days earlier NATO spokesman James
Appathurai announced that the Alliance was forging ahead with plans
for both Georgia's and Ukraine's full membership and that "assessments
would be made at a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia
Commissions to be held in Brussels in early December at the level of
NATO foreign ministers." [22]
Also
on November 18 Georgian Vice Premier and State Minister for
Euro-Atlantic Integration Giorgi Baramidze met with NATO Secretary
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Brussels. "The Georgian delegation
also included Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria and Deputy Defense
Minister Nikoloz Vashakidze. A meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission
at the ambassadorial level was also held in Brussels." [23] The day
preceding the meeting, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner
and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs Tina Kaidanow were in Georgia to convene "working meetings with
Georgian authorities within the Strategic Partnership Charter. "The
delegation will monitor the implementation of the U.S.-Georgia
Strategic Partnership Plan" inaugurated in January of this year, less
than four months after the war with Russia. [24]
The
prior week Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western and
allied nations of continuing to arm Georgia, stating “I hope many
take lessons from last year’s August events. But I have to say that
according to the reports of various sources, some countries are sending
arms and ammunition demanded by the Georgian leadership via different
complicated schemes.” [25] Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory
Karasin warned on the same day that "[Georgian] military drones have
started flying over South Ossetia and Abkhazia" [26} and the day before
Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, said "Georgia is getting
large amounts of weapons supplied from abroad" and "Georgian military
potential is currently higher than last August." [27]
Makarov's
contention was confirmed by Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia
on November 14 when he said "the country’s defense capabilities are
now better than they were a year ago and they are further improving."
The defense chief added, “a strong army will be one of our key
priorities until the last occupant leaves our territories.” [28] The
"occupants" in question are Russian troops in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Azerbaijan is not the only South Caucasus NATO partner
preparing for war. Regarding the recently concluded two-week Immediate
Response 2009 exercises run by the U.S. Marine Corps in Georgia, a
leading Russian news site wrote "Perhaps, the exercises were aimed at
issuing a warning to Russia." [29]
On
November 13 the Russian General Staff revealed that "Russian secret
services have declassified information about Georgia’s plans to start
forming its special forces in a move that will be implemented in close
cooperation with Turkey," and "voiced concern about Georgia’s ongoing
push for muscle-flexing amid efforts by Israel, Ukraine and NATO
countries to re-arm the Saakashvili regime." [30] In Ukraine, on
November 19 Deputy Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Yeliseyev said of
American ambassador to Georgia and ambassador designate to Ukraine John
Tefft that "The U.S. Senate [Foreign Relations] Committee has
approved his candidacy and we are expecting him to arrive soon." [31]
In time for January's presidential election. Incumbent president and
U.S. client Viktor Yushchenko is running dead last among serious
candidates and his poll ratings are never higher than 3.5%. Tefft's
task is to engineer some variant of the 2004 "Orange Revolution."
Yushchenko
is a die-hard, intractable, unrelenting advocate of forcing his
nation into NATO despite overwhelming popular opposition and for
evicting the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea. On November 16
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen addressed High-Level
NATO-Ukraine Consultations at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels
and said:
"In 2008 at the Bucharest Summit NATO Heads of State and Government welcomed Ukraine’s aspirations for membership in NATO and agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. To reflect this spirit of deepening cooperation, Ukraine has developed its first Annual National Programme which outlines the steps it intends to take to accelerate internal reform and alignment with Euro-Atlantic standards." [32]
The
same day Reuters revealed that "Poland and Lithuania want to forge
military cooperation with Ukraine to try to bring the former Soviet
republic closer to NATO." Poland's Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw
Komorowski was quoted as saying of the initiative, "This reflects our
support for Ukraine. We want to tie Ukraine closer to Western
structures, including military ones." [33] The agreement was reached at
talks in Brussels attended by Ukraine's acting Defense Minister Valery
Ivashchenko, Lithuania's Minister of National Defense Rasa
Jukneviciene and Poland's Komorowski.
The
combined military unit will be stationed in Poland and include as
many as 5,000 troops. The joint buildup on Russia's western and
northwestern borders "may have a political objective. It is meant to
set up an alternative center of military consolidation for West
European projects, a center which could embrace former Soviet republics
(above all Ukraine), now outside NATO. There is no doubt who will
control this process, considering U.S. influence in Poland and the
Baltics." [34] On the same day that the Polish, Lithuanian and
Ukrainian defense chiefs reached the agreement, Poland hosted
multinational military exercises codenamed Common Challenge 09 with
"2,500 troops from Germany, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland -
forming the so-called EU Combat Group....Common Challenge is being held
for the first time in Poland. Exercises are conducted simultaneously
in Poznan, western Poland, and the nearby military range in Wedrzyn."
[35]
In
a complementary development, The Times of London published an
interview with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on November 15
in which he "said Italy would push for the creation of a European Army
after the 'new Europe' takes shape at this week's crucial November 19
EU summit following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty." [36] A
commentary from Russia, which of course will not be included in the
plans, mentioned that "NATO has been actively discussing the possibility
of establishing a joint European army for a long time" and that
Frattini had "reiterated the need for deploying a joint naval fleet or
air force in the Mediterranean or other areas crucial to European
security." [37]
In
a Wall Street Journal report titled "Central Europe Ready To Send
More Soldiers To Afghanistan," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw
Sikorski, again emphasizing the connection between war zone training
in Afghanistan and preparation for action much closer to home, was
quoted as saying "The credibility of NATO will be decided in
Afghanistan. If NATO can be successful with what was a success in the
Balkans and Iraq, its deterrent potential will rise, and it is in
Poland’s national interest.” [38] On November 18 the ambassadors from
all 28 NATO member states gathered in Brussels commented on
Belarusian-Russian military exercises conducted months earlier,
Operation West, and "expressed concerns about the large scale of the
exercises and a scenario that envisioned an attack from the West...."
[39]
Sikorski's
allusion to so-called NATO deterrent potential is, then, clearly in
reference to Russia. On November 17 the European Union's Special
Representative for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby announced that the
first foreign ministers meeting of the Eastern Partnership program will
be held next month. He said that "The Eastern Partnership will be
under the jurisdiction of a new representative for foreign affairs and
security. The appointment will come after the Lisbon summit,” [40] as
will the creation of the new European Army Italian Foreign Minister
Frattini spoke of earlier. Participants will include the foreign
ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and
Ukraine, half - six of twelve - of the members or former members of the
Commonwealth of Independent States and all those in Europe and the
Caucasus except for Russia, which is not invited.
Comparable
efforts to pull the five Central Asian CIS members - Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - away from
cooperation with Russia through a combination of an analogous EU
partnership, energy project agreements and involvement in the Afghan
war are also proceeding apace. The eighteen-year-old project of Paul
Wolfowitz, Zbigniew Brzezinski et al. to destroy the post-Soviet
Commonwealth of Independent States and effect a cordon sanitaire around
Russia, enclosing it with NATO member states and partners, has
continued uninterruptedly since 1991.
Washington
will not tolerate rivals and will ruthlessly attempt to eliminate
even the potential of any nation to challenge it globally or
regionally. In any region of the world. Russia, because of what it
was, what it is, where it is and what it has - massive reserves of oil
and natural gas, a developed nuclear industry and the world's only
effective strategic triad outside the U.S. - is and will remain the
main focus of efforts by the United States and NATO to rid themselves
of impediments to achieving uncontested global domination.
The West's Most-Cherished Desire: The Disintegration of the Russian Federation
Old bear does not dance to Western tunes
-Should
a "revolution" take place, the primary target of shock will be Russia
itself. The worst nightmare would be the disintegration of the Russian
Federation. This is the result the West most desires to see most.
-Personal trust is the reason that facilitated the strategic relations between China and Russia. However, the foundation of these ties is built upon a mutual dream of national revival which outstripped the interests that connected the West and Russia. China wants a stable Russia. The West is on the opposite side.
-Personal trust is the reason that facilitated the strategic relations between China and Russia. However, the foundation of these ties is built upon a mutual dream of national revival which outstripped the interests that connected the West and Russia. China wants a stable Russia. The West is on the opposite side.
Will a "Russian Spring" occur? Russian police have arrested hundreds of protestors recently. But the pro-liberal protestors claimed that they will not succumb to such moves and continue to hold protests every day. This scenario is similar to the initial phrase of the Arab Spring, where the revolutionary movement was triggered by small- scale protests. It is hard to predict the outcome of the current protest on Russia's election scandal, but everything is possible.
Vladimir Putin's rule will face increasing scrutiny and it will become much harder for him to withstand the challenges. However, this is not a victory for the West. Putin losing authority will not automatically gain the West influence in Russia. The future of Russia will be shaped according to its own interests. This is the principle set by its democratic environment. Putin's own authority came because he put the country back to track. He saved Russia from the confusion and chaos when the USSR disintegrated two decades ago.
The relation between election and a candidate's authority is complicated. However the latest State Duma elections did not suggest that Russia's understanding of its national interests has become obscure, as during the Yeltsin era. Ballots lost by the United Russia are now in the pocket of the Communists and the Liberal Democrats, which does not reflect the expanding of the West's ideology.
Russian interests are dominated by a combination of geopolitics, culture and ambition. The differences and even the hostility between the West and Russia will persist if these interests contradict each other, no matter who sits in the Kremlin. Should a "revolution" take place, the primary target of shock will be Russia itself. The worst nightmare would be the disintegration of the Russian Federation. This is the result the West most desires to see most.
Russian society does not want to undergo this nightmare again. This concern has partly resulted from Putin's lasting authority. The unity United Russia can bring to this country is limited, but unity under democracy is not that convincing either. The painful lessons of the past will make Russians more reluctant to give up their trust in strongman politics to its democratic peers.
Personal trust is the reason that facilitated the strategic relations between China and Russia. However, the foundation of these ties is built upon a mutual dream of national revival which outstripped the interests that connected the West and Russia. China wants a stable Russia. The West is on the opposite side.
Russia has undergone many tough challenges. The "revolutions" in the Middle-East is a cakewalk compared to the movements the former communist state experienced. The country has made several twists and turns in choosing its own path. Russia is not similar to the countries swept by the Arab Spring. It is a unique state and will remain so.
Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2810
No comments:
Post a Comment