Dawood-ISI nexus exposed

[The following report from the Indian press, supposedly from an Indian intelligence report that was leaked to the press, makes some extraordinary claims about Pak. Army and intelligence officials attending the wedding of Dawood Ibrahim's son (SEE:  ISI lends muscle to Dawood, say sources  , this report was written by J. Dey, who was gunned-down recently). 

I can not confirm or deny any of the following--no one can.   Nevertheless, I present it here for you to examine.]

Dawood-ISI nexus exposed

Dawood-ISI nexus exposed
Dinesh SharmaNew Delhi: India has accessed fresh evidence that proves underworld don and India’s most wanted Dawood Ibrahim continues to live and flourish in Pakistan.

A highly classified intelligence report, prepared by Indian security and intelligence agencies, says a cabal of officials from Pakistan’s Army and its ace intelligence agency Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), along with host of his business associates, attended the walima (wedding reception) of the underworld don’s son on September 25, which was wrapped under a cloak of secrecy.

Dawood’s son Moin Nawaz tied the knot on September 23 in Karachi. The reception was held at Dawood’s mansion called ‘White House’ in Karachi’s posh Clifton area.

Prominent among those who attended the event were Col Ashwaq Ahmed, head of commando unit of ISI’s Special Operations Group (SOG), Brig Rashid Husian Shahid of the ISI’s Joint Intelligence Bureau, Col Rehman Rashid and Lt Col Rashidullah Khan from ISI’s External Intelligence Wing, Lt Col Shuja-ul-Pasha, Lt Col Asidur Rehman Kidwai, Major Sadiq Khan (from SOG) and Lt Col Shuj-ul-Pasha and Lt Col Asidur Reham (from the Pakistan Rangers).

The business associates who attended the reception ceremony included Afsar Ali, a key player in Karachi Stock Exchange; his brother Noor Ali (who has floated several front companies for Dawood); Jumed Usmani of A-One Construction, Karachi; Javed Qasim, owner of Key Project Pvt Ltd; hotelier Sheikh Muhammed Khalid; and Rehman Sueliman and Abdur Wahab, who manage a company called Best Deals.

“Dawood did not allow any videography or photography of the wedding reception,” the classified documents said.

Though more officials from the Army and Pak security agencies were present on the occasion, efforts were made not to establish their identity, the documents added.

A couple of months back photographs of Dawood Ibrahim’s daughters’ marriage surfaced and Zee News was the first to reveal the exclusive photographs.

Mahrukh, the first daughter of Dawood, had tied the knot with Junaid, son of former Pakistani Test cricketer Javed Miandad, way back in July 2005 at a five-star hotel in Dubai. His second daughter, Mehreen had also secretly tied the knot with a Pakistani-American Ayub at Dawood’s palatial bungalow in Tony Clifton area of Karachi in February this year.

All these could add to the piling up evidences of Dawood’s presence in Pakistan.

Dawood is based in Karachi and is reportedly living under ISI’s protection. He is wanted by India for engineering the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts that snuffed out the lives of 300 people.

The Government of India has continually asked Pakistan to extradite Dawood. However, the Pakistan government has repeatedly denied Dawood’s presence in the country.

The Interpol has already issued a red corner notice against the don.

Hillary’s Delusions of Permanent American Global Domination

America’s Pacific Century

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.

Hilary Clinton in Nov 2011 Foreign Policy Magazine 

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific has become a key driver of global politics. Stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans — the Pacific and the Indian — that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy. It boasts almost half the world’s population. It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It is home to several of our key allies and important emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia.

At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over — and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward — we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these “come home” debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

Beyond our borders, people are also wondering about America’s intentions — our willingness to remain engaged and to lead. In Asia, they ask whether we are really there to stay, whether we are likely to be distracted again by events elsewhere, whether we can make — and keep — credible economic and strategic commitments, and whether we can back those commitments with action. The answer is: We can, and we will.

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region’s key players.

Just as Asia is critical to America’s future, an engaged America is vital to Asia’s future. The region is eager for our leadership and our business — perhaps more so than at any time in modern history. We are the only power with a network of strong alliances in the region, no territorial ambitions, and a long record of providing for the common good. Along with our allies, we have underwritten regional security for decades — patrolling Asia’s sea lanes and preserving stability — and that in turn has helped create the conditions for growth. We have helped integrate billions of people across the region into the global economy by spurring economic productivity, social empowerment, and greater people-to-people links. We are a major trade and investment partner, a source of innovation that benefits workers and businesses on both sides of the Pacific, a host to 350,000 Asian students every year, a champion of open markets, and an advocate for universal human rights.

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature — long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises — and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

As secretary of state, I broke with tradition and embarked on my first official overseas trip to Asia. In my seven trips since, I have had the privilege to see firsthand the rapid transformations taking place in the region, underscoring how much the future of the United States is intimately intertwined with the future of the Asia-Pacific. A strategic turn to the region fits logically into our overall global effort to secure and sustain America’s global leadership. The success of this turn requires maintaining and advancing a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the Asia-Pacific to our national interests; we seek to build upon a strong tradition of engagement by presidents and secretaries of state of both parties across many decades. It also requires smart execution of a coherent regional strategy that accounts for the global implications of our choices.

WHAT DOES THAT regional strategy look like? For starters, it calls for a sustained commitment to what I have called “forward-deployed” diplomacy. That means continuing to dispatch the full range of our diplomatic assets — including our highest-ranking officials, our development experts, our interagency teams, and our permanent assets — to every country and corner of the Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will have to keep accounting for and adapting to the rapid and dramatic shifts playing out across Asia. With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

By virtue of our unique geography, the United States is both an Atlantic and a Pacific power. We are proud of our European partnerships and all that they deliver. Our challenge now is to build a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is as durable and as consistent with American interests and values as the web we have built across the Atlantic. That is the touchstone of our efforts in all these areas.

Our treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand are the fulcrum for our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific. They have underwritten regional peace and security for more than half a century, shaping the environment for the region’s remarkable economic ascent. They leverage our regional presence and enhance our regional leadership at a time of evolving security challenges.

As successful as these alliances have been, we can’t afford simply to sustain them — we need to update them for a changing world. In this effort, the Obama administration is guided by three core principles. First, we have to maintain political consensus on the core objectives of our alliances. Second, we have to ensure that our alliances are nimble and adaptive so that they can successfully address new challenges and seize new opportunities. Third, we have to guarantee that the defense capabilities and communications infrastructure of our alliances are operationally and materially capable of deterring provocation from the full spectrum of state and nonstate actors.

The alliance with Japan, the cornerstone of peace and stability in the region, demonstrates how the Obama administration is giving these principles life. We share a common vision of a stable regional order with clear rules of the road — from freedom of navigation to open markets and fair competition. We have agreed to a new arrangement, including a contribution from the Japanese government of more than $5 billion, to ensure the continued enduring presence of American forces in Japan, while expanding joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities to deter and react quickly to regional security challenges, as well as information sharing to address cyberthreats. We have concluded an Open Skies agreement that will enhance access for businesses and people-to-people ties, launched a strategic dialogue on the Asia-Pacific, and been working hand in hand as the two largest donor countries in Afghanistan.

Similarly, our alliance with South Korea has become stronger and more operationally integrated, and we continue to develop our combined capabilities to deter and respond to North Korean provocations. We have agreed on a plan to ensure successful transition of operational control during wartime and anticipate successful passage of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. And our alliance has gone global, through our work together in the G-20 and the Nuclear Security Summit and through our common efforts in Haiti and Afghanistan.

We are also expanding our alliance with Australia from a Pacific partnership to an Indo-Pacific one, and indeed a global partnership. From cybersecurity to Afghanistan to the Arab Awakening to strengthening regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Australia’s counsel and commitment have been indispensable. And in Southeast Asia, we are renewing and strengthening our alliances with the Philippines and Thailand, increasing, for example, the number of ship visits to the Philippines and working to ensure the successful training of Filipino counterterrorism forces through our Joint Special Operations Task Force in Mindanao. In Thailand — our oldest treaty partner in Asia — we are working to establish a hub of regional humanitarian and disaster relief efforts in the region.

AS WE UPDATE our alliances for new demands, we are also building new partnerships to help solve shared problems. Our outreach to China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Pacific Island countries is all part of a broader effort to ensure a more comprehensive approach to American strategy and engagement in the region. We are asking these emerging partners to join us in shaping and participating in a rules-based regional and global order.

One of the most prominent of these emerging partners is, of course, China. Like so many other countries before it, China has prospered as part of the open and rules-based system that the United States helped to build and works to sustain. And today, China represents one of the most challenging and consequential bilateral relationships the United States has ever had to manage. This calls for careful, steady, dynamic stewardship, an approach to China on our part that is grounded in reality, focused on results, and true to our principles and interests.

We all know that fears and misperceptions linger on both sides of the Pacific. Some in our country see China’s progress as a threat to the United States; some in China worry that America seeks to constrain China’s growth. We reject both those views. The fact is that a thriving America is good for China and a thriving China is good for America. We both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. But you cannot build a relationship on aspirations alone. It is up to both of us to more consistently translate positive words into effective cooperation — and, crucially, to meet our respective global responsibilities and obligations. These are the things that will determine whether our relationship delivers on its potential in the years to come. We also have to be honest about our differences. We will address them firmly and decisively as we pursue the urgent work we have to do together. And we have to avoid unrealistic expectations.

Over the last two-and-a-half years, one of my top priorities has been to identify and expand areas of common interest, to work with China to build mutual trust, and to encourage China’s active efforts in global problem-solving. This is why Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and I launched theStrategic and Economic Dialogue, the most intensive and expansive talks ever between our governments, bringing together dozens of agencies from both sides to discuss our most pressing bilateral issues, from security to energy to human rights.

We are also working to increase transparency and reduce the risk of miscalculation or miscues between our militaries. The United States and the international community have watched China’s efforts to modernize and expand its military, and we have sought clarity as to its intentions. Both sides would benefit from sustained and substantive military-to-military engagement that increases transparency. So we look to Beijing to overcome its reluctance at times and join us in forging a durable military-to-military dialogue. And we need to work together to strengthen the Strategic Security Dialogue, which brings together military and civilian leaders to discuss sensitive issues like maritime security and cybersecurity.

As we build trust together, we are committed to working with China to address critical regional and global security issues. This is why I have met so frequently — often in informal settings — with my Chinese counterparts, State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, for candid discussions about important challenges like North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and developments in the South China Sea.

On the economic front, the United States and China need to work together to ensure strong, sustained, and balanced future global growth. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the United States and China worked effectively through the G-20 to help pull the global economy back from the brink. We have to build on that cooperation. U.S. firms want fair opportunities to export to China’s growing markets, which can be important sources of jobs here in the United States, as well as assurances that the $50 billion of American capital invested in China will create a strong foundation for new market and investment opportunities that will support global competitiveness. At the same time, Chinese firms want to be able to buy more high-tech products from the United States, make more investments here, and be accorded the same terms of access that market economies enjoy. We can work together on these objectives, but China still needs to take important steps toward reform. In particular, we are working with China to end unfair discrimination against U.S. and other foreign companies or against their innovative technologies, remove preferences for domestic firms, and end measures that disadvantage or appropriate foreign intellectual property. And we look to China to take steps to allow its currency to appreciate more rapidly, both against the dollar and against the currencies of its other major trading partners. Such reforms, we believe, would not only benefit both our countries (indeed, they would support the goals of China’s own five-year plan, which calls for more domestic-led growth), but also contribute to global economic balance, predictability, and broader prosperity.

Of course, we have made very clear, publicly and privately, our serious concerns about human rights. And when we see reports of public-interest lawyers, writers, artists, and others who are detained or disappeared, the United States speaks up, both publicly and privately, with our concerns about human rights. We make the case to our Chinese colleagues that a deep respect for international law and a more open political system would provide China with a foundation for far greater stability and growth — and increase the confidence of China’s partners. Without them, China is placing unnecessary limitations on its own development.

At the end of the day, there is no handbook for the evolving U.S.-China relationship. But the stakes are much too high for us to fail. As we proceed, we will continue to embed our relationship with China in a broader regional framework of security alliances, economic networks, and social connections.

Among key emerging powers with which we will work closely are India and Indonesia, two of the most dynamic and significant democratic powers of Asia, and both countries with which the Obama administration has pursued broader, deeper, and more purposeful relationships. The stretch of sea from the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca to the Pacific contains the world’s most vibrant trade and energy routes. Together, India and Indonesia already account for almost a quarter of the world’s population. They are key drivers of the global economy, important partners for the United States, and increasingly central contributors to peace and security in the region. And their importance is likely to grow in the years ahead.

President Obama told the Indian parliament last year that the relationship between India and America will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century, rooted in common values and interests. There are still obstacles to overcome and questions to answer on both sides, but the United States is making a strategic bet on India’s future — that India’s greater role on the world stage will enhance peace and security, that opening India’s markets to the world will pave the way to greater regional and global prosperity, that Indian advances in science and technology will improve lives and advance human knowledge everywhere, and that India’s vibrant, pluralistic democracy will produce measurable results and improvements for its citizens and inspire others to follow a similar path of openness and tolerance. So the Obama administration has expanded our bilateral partnership; actively supported India’s Look East efforts, including through a new trilateral dialogue with India and Japan; and outlined a new vision for a more economically integrated and politically stable South and Central Asia, with India as a linchpin.

We are also forging a new partnership with Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, and a member of the G-20. We have resumed joint training of Indonesian special forces units and signed a number of agreements on health, educational exchanges, science and technology, and defense. And this year, at the invitation of the Indonesian government, President Obama will inaugurate American participation in the East Asia Summit. But there is still some distance to travel — we have to work together to overcome bureaucratic impediments, lingering historical suspicions, and some gaps in understanding each other’s perspectives and interests.

EVEN AS WE strengthen these bilateral relationships, we have emphasized the importance of multilateral cooperation, for we believe that addressing complex transnational challenges of the sort now faced by Asia requires a set of institutions capable of mustering collective action. And a more robust and coherent regional architecture in Asia would reinforce the system of rules and responsibilities, from protecting intellectual property to ensuring freedom of navigation, that form the basis of an effective international order. In multilateral settings, responsible behavior is rewarded with legitimacy and respect, and we can work together to hold accountable those who undermine peace, stability, and prosperity.

So the United States has moved to fully engage the region’s multilateral institutions, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, mindful that our work with regional institutions supplements and does not supplant our bilateral ties. There is a demand from the region that America play an active role in the agenda-setting of these institutions — and it is in our interests as well that they be effective and responsive.

That is why President Obama will participate in the East Asia Summit for the first time in November. To pave the way, the United States has opened a new U.S. Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta and signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN. Our focus on developing a more results-oriented agenda has been instrumental in efforts to address disputes in the South China Sea. In 2010, at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, the United States helped shape a regionwide effort to protect unfettered access to and passage through the South China Sea, and to uphold the key international rules for defining territorial claims in the South China Sea’s waters. Given that half the world’s merchant tonnage flows through this body of water, this was a consequential undertaking. And over the past year, we have made strides in protecting our vital interests in stability and freedom of navigation and have paved the way for sustained multilateral diplomacy among the many parties with claims in the South China Sea, seeking to ensure disputes are settled peacefully and in accordance with established principles of international law.

We have also worked to strengthen APEC as a serious leaders-level institution focused on advancing economic integration and trade linkages across the Pacific. After last year’s bold call by the group for a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific, President Obama will host the 2011 APEC Leaders’ Meeting in Hawaii this November. We are committed to cementing APEC as the Asia-Pacific’s premier regional economic institution, setting the economic agenda in a way that brings together advanced and emerging economies to promote open trade and investment, as well as to build capacity and enhance regulatory regimes. APEC and its work help expand U.S. exports and create and support high-quality jobs in the United States, while fostering growth throughout the region. APEC also provides a key vehicle to drive a broad agenda to unlock the economic growth potential that women represent. In this regard, the United States is committed to working with our partners on ambitious steps to accelerate the arrival of the Participation Age, where every individual, regardless of gender or other characteristics, is a contributing and valued member of the global marketplace.

In addition to our commitment to these broader multilateral institutions, we have worked hard to create and launch a number of “minilateral” meetings, small groupings of interested states to tackle specific challenges, such as the Lower Mekong Initiative we launched to support education, health, and environmental programs in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the Pacific Islands Forum, where we are working to support its members as they confront challenges from climate change to overfishing to freedom of navigation. We are also starting to pursue new trilateral opportunities with countries as diverse as Mongolia, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, and South Korea. And we are setting our sights as well on enhancing coordination and engagement among the three giants of the Asia-Pacific: China, India, and the United States.

In all these different ways, we are seeking to shape and participate in a responsive, flexible, and effective regional architecture — and ensure it connects to a broader global architecture that not only protects international stability and commerce but also advances our values.

OUR EMPHASIS ON the economic work of APEC is in keeping with our broader commitment to elevate economic statecraft as a pillar of American foreign policy. Increasingly, economic progress depends on strong diplomatic ties, and diplomatic progress depends on strong economic ties. And naturally, a focus on promoting American prosperity means a greater focus on trade and economic openness in the Asia-Pacific. The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia. Last year, American exports to the Pacific Rim totaled $320 billion, supporting 850,000 American jobs. So there is much that favors us as we think through this repositioning.

When I talk to my Asian counterparts, one theme consistently stands out: They still want America to be an engaged and creative partner in the region’s flourishing trade and financial interactions. And as I talk with business leaders across our own nation, I hear how important it is for the United States to expand our exports and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.

Last March in APEC meetings in Washington, and again in Hong Kong in July, I laid out four attributes that I believe characterize healthy economic competition: open, free, transparent, and fair. Through our engagement in the Asia-Pacific, we are helping to give shape to these principles and showing the world their value.

We are pursuing new cutting-edge trade deals that raise the standards for fair competition even as they open new markets. For instance, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports within five years and support an estimated 70,000 American jobs. Its tariff reductions alone could increase exports of American goods by more than $10 billion and help South Korea’s economy grow by 6 percent. It will level the playing field for U.S. auto companies and workers. So, whether you are an American manufacturer of machinery or a South Korean chemicals exporter, this deal lowers the barriers that keep you from reaching new customers.

We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific — developed and developing alike — into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people’s lives — whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation’s fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

Achieving balance in our trade relationships requires a two-way commitment. That’s the nature of balance — it can’t be unilaterally imposed. So we are working through APEC, the G-20, and our bilateral relationships to advocate for more open markets, fewer restrictions on exports, more transparency, and an overall commitment to fairness. American businesses and workers need to have confidence that they are operating on a level playing field, with predictable rules on everything from intellectual property to indigenous innovation.

ASIA’S REMARKABLE ECONOMIC growth over the past decade and its potential for continued growth in the future depend on the security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military, including more than 50,000 American servicemen and servicewomen serving in Japan and South Korea. The challenges of today’s rapidly changing region — from territorial and maritime disputes to new threats to freedom of navigation to the heightened impact of natural disasters — require that the United States pursue a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture.

We are modernizing our basing arrangements with traditional allies in Northeast Asia — and our commitment on this is rock solid — while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean. For example, the United States will be deploying littoral combat ships to Singapore, and we are examining other ways to increase opportunities for our two militaries to train and operate together. And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia to enhance opportunities for more joint training and exercises. We are also looking at how we can increase our operational access in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region and deepen our contacts with allies and partners.

How we translate the growing connection between the Indian and Pacific oceans into an operational concept is a question that we need to answer if we are to adapt to new challenges in the region. Against this backdrop, a more broadly distributed military presence across the region will provide vital advantages. The United States will be better positioned to support humanitarian missions; equally important, working with more allies and partners will provide a more robust bulwark against threats or efforts to undermine regional peace and stability.

But even more than our military might or the size of our economy, our most potent asset as a nation is the power of our values — in particular, our steadfast support for democracy and human rights. This speaks to our deepest national character and is at the heart of our foreign policy, including our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific region.

As we deepen our engagement with partners with whom we disagree on these issues, we will continue to urge them to embrace reforms that would improve governance, protect human rights, and advance political freedoms. We have made it clear, for example, to Vietnam that our ambition to develop a strategic partnership requires that it take steps to further protect human rights and advance political freedoms. Or consider Burma, where we are determined to seek accountability for human rights violations. We are closely following developments in Nay Pyi Taw and the increasing interactions between Aung San Suu Kyi and the government leadership. We have underscored to the government that it must release political prisoners, advance political freedoms and human rights, and break from the policies of the past. As for North Korea, the regime in Pyongyang has shown persistent disregard for the rights of its people, and we continue to speak out forcefully against the threats it poses to the region and beyond.

We cannot and do not aspire to impose our system on other countries, but we do believe that certain values are universal — that people in every nation in the world, including in Asia, cherish them — and that they are intrinsic to stable, peaceful, and prosperous countries. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Asia to pursue their own rights and aspirations, just as we have seen people do all over the world.

IN THE LAST decade, our foreign policy has transitioned from dealing with the post-Cold War peace dividend to demanding commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As those wars wind down, we will need to accelerate efforts to pivot to new global realities.

We know that these new realities require us to innovate, to compete, and to lead in new ways. Rather than pull back from the world, we need to press forward and renew our leadership. In a time of scarce resources, there’s no question that we need to invest them wisely where they will yield the biggest returns, which is why the Asia-Pacific represents such a real 21st-century opportunity for us.

Other regions remain vitally important, of course. Europe, home to most of our traditional allies, is still a partner of first resort, working alongside the United States on nearly every urgent global challenge, and we are investing in updating the structures of our alliance. The people of the Middle East and North Africa are charting a new path that is already having profound global consequences, and the United States is committed to active and sustained partnerships as the region transforms. Africa holds enormous untapped potential for economic and political development in the years ahead. And our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere are not just our biggest export partners; they are also playing a growing role in global political and economic affairs. Each of these regions demands American engagement and leadership.

And we are prepared to lead. Now, I’m well aware that there are those who question our staying power around the world. We’ve heard this talk before. At the end of the Vietnam War, there was a thriving industry of global commentators promoting the idea that America was in retreat, and it is a theme that repeats itself every few decades. But whenever the United States has experienced setbacks, we’ve overcome them through reinvention and innovation. Our capacity to come back stronger is unmatched in modern history. It flows from our model of free democracy and free enterprise, a model that remains the most powerful source of prosperity and progress known to humankind. I hear everywhere I go that the world still looks to the United States for leadership. Our military is by far the strongest, and our economy is by far the largest in the world. Our workers are the most productive. Our universities are renowned the world over. So there should be no doubt that America has the capacity to secure and sustain our global leadership in this century as we did in the last.

As we move forward to set the stage for engagement in the Asia-Pacific over the next 60 years, we are mindful of the bipartisan legacy that has shaped our engagement for the past 60. And we are focused on the steps we have to take at home — increasing our savings, reforming our financial systems, relying less on borrowing, overcoming partisan division — to secure and sustain our leadership abroad.

This kind of pivot is not easy, but we have paved the way for it over the past two-and-a-half years, and we are committed to seeing it through as among the most important diplomatic efforts of our time.

I Do Believe In Nabucco…I Do Believe In Nabucco

[As hard as it may be to believe, the following report seems to make a lot of sense, when added to the grand total of things.  This may explain Turkey's shift in actions lately, by throwing-in its support to the Nabucco pipeline project (which is itself, on life support), as it seems to reject commitments to Russian gas and its South Stream pipeline project.  Turkey appears to be siding with American plans, but this may be nothing more than a neo-Ottoman negotiating tactic to gain leverage in negotiations with Russia. 

It is nearly impossible to tie all the many ongoing American-led conspiracies together in a common narrative, making it much easier for the leaders and planners of these many psyops to work their evil magic.  At this point in time, everything is running on "magical thinking," the belief that you can make things happen just by believing in them strong enough.  This is especially true concerning everything associated with "diplomacy," as defined by Hillary's State Dept (SEE:  America’s Pacific Century). 

All of these plans are betting everything on America's ability to survive for the next three or four years.  This means using America's primary asset, its military strength, to make up for its failing economic strength, in a plan to acquire dominance over all hydrocarbon reserves and their delivery systems.  This means nudging Gazprom out of Europe and Russia out of Central Asia, while simultaneously establishing military dominance over the oil and gas-bearing regions of Africa.  The preferred US strategy is one that  relies on "limited warfare" techniques, in order to avoid accidentally causing actual world war.  This explains why there are so many separate confrontations, both military and economic ones, that American planners are juggling at once.  It is like an orchestra, or a symphony of terror and apparent insanity, as first this confrontation is brought to a boil, then that one.  Libya is allowed to cook at a raging boil until the Imperial chefs run out of ingredients, while Syria stubbornly simmers, refusing to boil over on command. 

 

Worry the world silly until the next great worry can used to distract from the last one.  Everything is pre-arranged, in the New World Order.]    

Gov’t to hand gas deal with Russia over to private firms

GAMZE GÜL, İSTANBUL
The government’s approach to the recent dispute over the price of gas purchased from Russian energy giant Gazprom, followed by the termination of the Turkey-Russia Western Pipeline agreement, has raised doubts, as the government is looking at different sources of natural gas, as well as ways to take advantage of its current location in order to become a natural gas transfer hub, observers argue.
Turkey currently has natural gas purchase deals with countries such as Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan, as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) deals with Nigeria and Algeria. Turkey’s plans for the future include buying natural gas from Turkmenistan, Iraq and Egypt. The country plans to store the natural gas from these countries until it can become a supply center for energy-hungry Europe via Southern Gas Corridor pipeline projects such as Nabucco and Interconnector Turkey-Greece-Italy (ITGI), which will lower Europe’s dependence on Russian gas.

Such maneuvers, analysts agree, will help increase Turkey’s strategic importance. The Nabucco and ITGI pipelines are very important to Turkey for many reasons. For one, they will help Turkey and the European Union break the ice that formed due to the EU’s controversial delay of Turkey’s membership. It will prove that Turkey, which has been accused of getting overly close to the East at the expense of the West, is still a strong ally of the West.

The pipeline will also help improve relations with the US by lessening Russia’s influence in the region. Turkey reportedly expects to gain US support to be part of the natural gas and oil exploration process by Israel and Greece in the eastern Mediterranean, which Turkey also has rights to through the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ (KKTC) presence in the area. Although Greek Cyprus is part of the EU and the KKTC is not recognized by any nation other than Turkey, it is expected that Turkey will defend the KKTC’s rights in the east Mediterranean. In the meantime, Turkey hopes these pipelines will decrease terrorist attacks from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which gets most of its financial support from  supporters in Europe, through the tightening of ties with European governments, who will wish to prevent interruptions in the transfer of natural gas across Turkish land. In other words, European countries cannot afford to ignore security problems within Turkey.

Not renewing contract opens door to private investments

Zeynep Dereli, director of the Black Sea Energy and Economic Forum, told Sunday’s Zaman that she supported the government’s latest decision not to renew the Western pipeline contract with Russia. “It is time to diversify Turkey’s energy supply channels and let private Turkish companies negotiate the deals. In this way we will be able to procure gas at lower prices. Private companies can negotiate better terms.”

Dereli also underlined the importance of the ITGI pipeline, a joint project between the Public Gas Corporation of Greece (DEPA) and Italian gas company Edison SpA. “I actually believe that the Southern Corridor can start with ITGI as it requires only 10 billion cubic meters [bcm] of gas, which is already available, and then Nabucco can be implemented. Nabucco will not and cannot be operational until 2017 at the earliest and ITGI can be the key in starting the transfer of gas from the Caucasus to Europe via Turkey. It does not require as much investment and there is sufficient supply for it already,” she added. ITGI submitted its technical proposal and commercial offer to transport gas from the Shah Deniz II field in Azerbaijan to markets in Europe on Oct. 3 and it can be operational as early as 2013. DEPA Chairman Harry Sachinis has praised the project, saying: “We have many prospective buyers lined up to buy capacity rights, providing a ready-made customer base. Plus we have 145 million euros of co-financing in place from the European Commission through the European Energy Programme for Recovery [EEPR] framework for the construction of Poseidon and Interconnector Greece-Bulgaria [IGB].” World Energy Council’s Ankara-based Turkish National Committee (DEK-TMK) board member Necdet Pamir contradicted these arguments, as he explained that this is not a case of “termination” of a contract, but an “end to an agreement.”

“The ruling Justice and Development Party [AK Party] is taking advantage of the end of the contract term to enable the state-owned Turkish Pipeline Corporation [BOTAŞ] contracts to be turned over to private companies that are politically motivated,” he said and added, “The Western Pipeline has provided gas to the relatively developed western part of Turkey and since infrastructure is not yet complete to bring the natural gas from eastern Turkey to the western side, those who live in the western provinces will have to continue to buy natural gas from Russia through private companies.”

Turkey deploys naval units to east Med

Turkey deploys naval units to east Med

TODAY’S ZAMAN, ANKARA

In a recent dispute between Turkey and Greek Cyprus over drilling for hydrocarbons in the eastern Mediterranean, Turkey has given the green light to its military to station units in various critical zones in the region in order to conduct surveillance and monitor activities, the Bugün daily reported on Monday.

Turkey has deployed frigates and choppers in the eastern Mediterranean carrying naval units, including Special Underwater Defense Units (SAS) and Special Underwater Attack Units (SAT), Bugün reported. These specially trained units have been given orders to keep 10 critical zones of hydrocarbon exploration under surveillance, in line with a map prepared by the Turkish military that defines risky zones in the area.

Turkey dispatched four frigates, one logistical support vessel and three naval choppers in accordance with a military decree dating back to Aug. 15 to work in shifts around these zones. The first troops currently deployed are expected to monitor activity until Nov. 15, with two following shifts already planned to provide coverage until August 2012, the daily reported.

Turkey has increased activity on the Mediterranean high seas since Greek Cyprus began drilling for sources of hydrocarbons in its self-proclaimed exclusive economic zone (EEZ), drawn in confidential agreements with Israel last year. Turkey rejects the Greek Cypriot EEZ, claiming that because there is a territorial dispute between the Turkish and Greek sides of the island, drilling should be delayed until reunification negotiations bring a solution.

EASTMED: US carrying Turkey’s water?

Cry havoc! – and let loose the frigates of war

The ante is being upped in the Eastern Mediterranean as the crisis south of Cyprus bubbles along.  Turkish news outlet Today’s Zaman reports that on Monday, the Turkish government announced a deployment of special forces along with the four frigates and naval helicopters maintaining a “security” presence in the undersea drilling area off Cyprus’ southern coast.  The special forces include a Special Underwater Defense Unit and a Special Underwater Attack Unit.

Reporting the deployment of the Underwater Attack Unit is obviously a political move.  The unit has quite probably been deployed as indicated, but pointing out that it’s there can only have a political purpose.  Announcing that your special forces are coming is not generally the prelude to deniable covert action.

The Erdogan government is probably increasing its force profile in order to establish a posture for bargaining.  That doesn’t mean that the Turks aren’t serious, or that they wouldn’t take military action; they’re not bluffing.  I do think they believe, however, that the EU will blink first.

What’s the US doing?

This may be because they appear to believe the US will intervene on their behalf in the coming days.  According to the government-friendly Today’s Zaman, an elaborate interlocking quid pro quo is being set up in which the Turkish government offloads its interest in a Turkish-Russian natural gas pipeline (the one known as “South Stream”) to private companies, and the US supports Turkey’s oil/gas claims in EASTMED.

The US has long preferred the EU-backed “Nabucco” pipeline over South Stream, for moving gas from Central Asia to Europe.  Throughout the last decade, however, Russia maneuvered to inhibit progress on Nabucco (yes, named after the Verdi opera) by co-opting one potential participant after another.  (In one last-ditch effort, Russia’s Gazprom averted an Azerbaijani commitment to Nabucco by the simple expedient of buying up all the gas Baku was selling.)

Here is Today’s Zaman (emphasis added):

The [Nabucco] pipeline will also help improve relations with the US by lessening Russia’s influence in the region. Turkey reportedly expects to gain US support to be part of the natural gas and oil exploration process by Israel and Greece in the eastern Mediterranean, which Turkey also has rights to through the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ (KKTC) presence in the area.

It is not exactly looking in the rearview mirror for the US administration to prioritize wining support for Nabucco, and reducing Turkey’s stake in South Stream.  But it’s close.  It’s worth noting at the outset that for Turkey, consigning her interest in South Stream to private companies is not the same thing as divorcing herself from the project.  It’s merely putting Turkish participation in a different context, one that seems more meaningful to the US government than to Turkey’s.

But the importance of the whole “Nabucco versus South Stream” dynamic has receded significantly, with, first of all, the emergence of both of them as funded, viable projects, and second, with the Arab Spring and the increasing Islamization and activism of Turkey under a neo-Ottoman regime.  Seeing Turkey’s participation in these pipelines as a prize to be won is yesterday’s strategic factor: it has been overtaken by events.  Turkey has already agreed to participate in both.  Let her.

Given Turkey’s increased saber-rattling, Russia is likely to slow down on the Turkish segment of South Stream anyway.  Turkey is upping the ante on South Stream by forcing Russia to renegotiate the sale of gas to Turkey.  The Russians and Turks are both masters of the art of negotiating to retain leverage and slow things down, as opposed to negotiating to get things done.  Meanwhile, the North Stream pipeline into Germany has a more promising financial future in the next decade.

Russia is concerned about Erdogan’s behavior, and is cultivating friendships on the other side of Turkey in EASTMED.  A Russia-Turkey cabal is not our greatest worry today.  IfToday’s Zaman is right about the quid pro quo here, the Obama administration is spending too much to buy something worth very little.

A bad solution, way overpriced

The price is too high in part because it will be a triumph for Turkey’s saber-rattling if she gets what she has wanted all along:  a veto over oil-and-gas activities in EASTMED.  (The other part is the encouragement such an outcome would be for Turkey’s stated intention to ramp up her naval posture in the region.  More Turkish warships and aircraft patrolling EASTMED on a routine basis is not a stabilizing development.)

I’ve been predicting that what Turkey wants is a multilateral mechanism in which she can exercise the veto she craves.  As the situation is developing now, Cyprus and Israel, having agreed on a maritime delineation of their Economic Exclusion Zones, are proceeding – quite properly, by the terms of international law – without reference to Turkey.  Turkey doesn’t want to start a war: she wants to leverage military threats to create a need for bargaining, and for a multilateral decision-making body in which she will participate.  Through such a body, Turkey would get a seat at the table for matters she has no natural right to exercise a veto over, and she could ultimately prevent everything except what she wants to do.

If the US goes through with the diplomatic effort suggested by the Today’s Zaman article, and if the gambit succeeds, Erdogan will have achieved his goal, and the US government will have been his path of least resistance.  There is also the possibility of not succeeding; e.g., if we assume that the emerging gambit is opposed by Russia, the major nations of the EU, and Israel.  A diplomatic black eye for the US would be the least of the evils here, but the entire situation has a shabby, regrettable character; the US figures in it not as a superpower and arbiter, but as a target for diplomatic exploitation.

La France Surcouf

As the Obama administration practices leading from behind, others are polishing up their leading-from-the-front skills.  Greek news sources report that France is dispatching her own frigate, FS D’Estienne d’Orves, to patrol the afflicted area off Cyprus.  A caveat must be entered on this:  D’Estienne d’Orves will apparently not conduct a dedicated patrol in EASTMED; she will be heading for antipiracy operations in the Indian Ocean, and stopping for a show of maritime presence along the way.

That said, if Greek commentators are overstating the import of the frigate’s activities en route, it is only in a tactical sense.  In a strategic sense, France is on the move, and whatever her navy does will take on greater significance in the coming days.  There has been no question that France played the leading political and geostrategic role in the NATO operation in Libya, a reality affirmed with the state visit to Libya of Nicolas Sarkozy, along with David Cameron, in September, and a growing taste in Europe for military photo ops like this one.

(As an aside, a recent report suggests that the main US contribution to the Libya operation – reconnaissance and surveillance – was largely disdained by the French pilots who have made up most of the air attack force.  The pilots’ complaint is that it takes too long for the video/imagery intelligence from US assets to be processed through the NATO command center in Italy, so they have frequently operated without it.  This is a particularly interesting indicator of the light political governor on NATO operations in Libya; in other operations, the concern about collateral damage and mistargeting has been too great for the participating forces to consider dispensing with synoptic intelligence.  Indeed, the targeting process in other operations has often been delayed by the need for strike approval at the highest echelons for the most minor tactical targets.  The apparent absence of this decision-making regime in the Libya operation is noteworthy.)

In just the last couple of days, France has announced her intention of establishing relations with the national council being formed by the Syrian opposition – another preemptive diplomatic action, and an interesting one in light of Turkey’s patent interest in the future of Syria, and the dust-up in the last few days over a call by Sarkozy for Turkey to acknowledge the slaughter of Armenians in World War I as a genocide.  Turkish news daily Hurriyet speculates on the return of a Franco-Turkish rivalry, like that which manifested itself after World War I in – naturally – Syria.

Britain may no longer have the view she once did of the strategic importance of EASTMED, but France has always had a view of her own – and today she has one of the biggest, best-equipped navies in the region.  Sarkozy has been criticized by French traditionalists for an uninspired foreign policy; he may or may not be responding to the complaints of the “Groupe Surcouf,” which posted a letter in February 2011, when the Libya crisis was spinning up, lamenting that “the voice of France has disappeared from the world.”

(The group is named after France’s famous “submarine-cruiser,” a big, heavy-gunned ship built to be capable of submerging, during the years of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, because the treaty did not impose limits on the size of a submarine. Surcouf was a quintessentially French blow for ingenious French independence from France’s commitments to collective security arrangements.  If you can’t love France, you can’t love anything.)

French submarine-cruiser Surcouf; Wikimedia Commons

Sarkozy may simply see the need for a counterweight to the injudicious US policy toward Turkey.  The Turks aren’t the only ones who detect some big quos being handed out from Washington for their quids.  Besides beefing up Turkey’s force of AH-1W Super Cobras, which are being used for the ground operations against the Kurdish separatists in Eastern Turkey, the US is reportedly selling armed drones to Turkey (something we have, to date, sold only to the UK).  The quid from Turkey in this case is the agreement to host the X-band radar for the NATO missile defense system, something we didn’t actually need Turkey for, as Bulgaria was anxious to host it.  Hosting it in Turkey will create difficulties in the matter of sharing radar data with Israel – which is currently routine, since Israel also hosts an X-band radar and is linked in to the NATO data system.

Negotiate or we’ll shoot

The US approach to Turkey comes off as unwarrantedly enthusiastic and indiscriminate right now.  The concerns about Turkey are obvious to everyone in the region, yet US policy is to court and gratify Erdogan’s activism.  Whatever the EU’s rarefied stance, the nationsof Europe will not join us in that burbling enthusiasm, and will find it natural instead to make common cause with a more wary Russia.  For our ally Israel it creates a separate but related set of concerns.  Israel too must lose no time in brushing up her alternatives, especially given the geographic importance of Syria to all the various EASTMED issues, including Israel’s own security.

It is both good news and bad news that when there is a power vacuum in Europe and the Med, rhetoric and posturing multiply far faster than actual armed encounters.  The good news is that shooting is likely to be postponed.  The bad news, however, is that while we congratulate ourselves on the good news, power relationships will be changing materially.  If Turkey succeeds, by making threats, in getting a veto she has no right to over the economic activities of others, everything will have already changed.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green RoomCommentary’s “contentions,Patheosand The Weekly Standard online.

“Hollywood” Style Saudi Kill Plot So Absurd That “Nobody could make that up, right?”

“The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up, right?”–says Killary.

[Killary is right.  This plot is so amateurish that it must be real...Right?  Wrong!  It is a typical Hollywood-type movie scenario for an Inspector Clouseau, or perhaps the Three Stooges.  It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Iran would plan to bomb a crowded Washington, D.C. restaurant or the Saudi Embassy, if it wanted to assassinate a Saudi official, especially while it is suffering from years of American punitive actions.  The obvious repercussions that would have followed  such a successful high-profile attack of this magnitude would have prohibited such an insane plan from ever being contemplated in the first place.  It is also ridiculous to suggest that Iranians would have sought-out an assassin from the heavily infiltrated Mexican drug cartels.  Hillary's suggestion is the cue intended for the American public--this plan is so stupid that only another "underwear bomber" could have thought it up.  Iran's Revolutionary Guard would have done much better planning than this.  (SEE:  Iranian Terror Plot Complaint, Amended)]

Manssor Arbabsiar (Patsy) Manssor Arbabsiar, as he appeared at a court in New York City on Tuesday

US to pressure Iran over ‘plot to kill Saudi envoy’

The US secretary of state has called for a “very strong message” to be sent to Iran, after allegations of a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US.

Hillary Clinton said Washington was preparing new penalties against Iran, which is already subject to a variety of international sanctions.

Two Iranians were charged over the plot which US officials said implicated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Meanwhile the US issued a worldwide alert about possible anti-US actions.

“The US government assesses that this Iranian-backed plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador may indicate a more aggressive focus by the Iranian government on terrorist activity against diplomats from certain countries, to include possible attacks in the United States,” the alert said.

It urged Americans residing and travelling abroad to review the information available when making travel plans.

Iran has dismissed the allegations as false and baseless.

‘Well-grounded suspicions’

Mrs Clinton praised those involved in the operation to uncover the plot.

“It was a terrific achievement by our law enforcement and intelligence communities, and we will be consulting with our friends and partners around the world about how we can send a very strong message that this kind of action, which violates international norms, must be ended,” she said at a news conference.

“This case will, I think, reinforce the well-grounded suspicions of many countries about what they’re up to.”

Mrs Clinton said the suspected plotters had been trying to involve hired killers from Mexican drug cartels.

“The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up, right?” she said.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said Iran’s involvement in the plot was “a flagrant violation of US and international law”.

In a statement, UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said: “Indications that this plot was directed by elements of the Iranian regime are shocking… We will support measures to hold Iran accountable for its actions.”

US officials have said military action was not being considered.

The US Treasury Department placed five Iranians, including the two men charged, under sanctions on Tuesday for their alleged involvement in the plot.

The two accused were named as Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old naturalised US citizen with dual Iranian and US passports, and Gholam Shakuri, based in Iran and said to be a member of Iran’s Quds Force, a unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The other three were described as high-ranking members of the Quds force.

Mr Arbabsiar, who was arrested at New York’s John F Kennedy airport on 29 September, has confessed to his involvement in the alleged plot, Mr Holder said.

A lawyer for Mr Arbabsiar said he would plead not guilty when he was officially indicted.

‘Shocking’

Mr Shakuri was said to be in Iran.

US officials said that on 24 May 2011, Mr Arbabsiar made contact with an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Agency, who was posing as a Mexican drug cartel member.

Over a series of meetings, it is said that details emerged of a conspiracy involving members of the Iranian government paying $1.5m (£960,000) for the assassination of Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir on US soil.

Justice department officials said the initial envisaged target was the Saudi embassy.

But in conversations secretly recorded for the US authorities, Mr Arbabsiar also allegedly considered having the ambassador killed at a purported favourite restaurant, despite the possibility of mass casualties.

The plot would have been carried out with explosives, Mr Holder said. But he added that no explosives were ever put in place and the public was not in danger.

Mr Holder said Mr Arbabsiar, with approval from Mr Shakuri, wired $100,000 to a US bank account for the informant as a downpayment.

Mr Arbabsiar and Mr Shakuri have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, weapons conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit international terrorism charges.

Unnamed US officials also told journalists that the Israeli embassy in Washington was also to have been attacked.

Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency called the charges a “propaganda campaign” by the US government against Tehran.

The allegations were “a comedy show fabricated by America”, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the semi-official Iranian news agency, Fars.

Mr Arbabsiar appeared briefly at a New York City court on Tuesday. He did not enter a plea and was held without bail.

He could face a life prison sentence if convicted on all charges, the Department of Justice said.

What Does 15 Trillion Look Like?

What does 15 Trillion looks like?

 

 

So you all think USA can get themselves out of this HOLE?

 

Print more money would only over supply themselves

causing USD to drop lower, interest rate goes

lower, inflation and so on.

 

No way USA is going to repays the 23 Trillion by 2013.

thanks to:  Tahir M. Raja Munnoo

U.S. aid to Uzbekistan: the danger for Russia?

U.S. aid to Uzbekistan: the danger for Russia?

October 9 2011. 16:41

News of Uzbekistan. Accomplishes Washington administration sharp turns to foreign policy has long ceased to amaze anyone.Often a sharp change of priorities due to the White House “special approach” allegedly practiced by President Obama, or the cost crisis in the economy, at least, an objective necessity.

Many sharp turns in U.S. foreign policy, in principle, was predictable immediately after the arrival of the White House, the new owner – and it’s warming relations with Russia , and chill with Israel , but many “peripheral” areas, seemed to remain unchanged. But no, Washington, and in this respect acts decisively and fairly revolutionary, for example, reducing the co-operation with Pakistan and increasing with Uzbekistan.

As previously folded Uzbek-American relations?

Public co-operation. Zemljachestva Experts traders and investors in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan Academy of forex and stock trading Masterforex-V say that after the anti-terrorist operations by coalition forces in Afghanistan, official Tashkent gave “good” to place on the territory of the country’s military air base the United States . Even then through Uzbekistan to NATO countries began military supplies to their troops:
■ charges. As payment for the provision of the territory under the military base but the rent provided for more arms and equipment to the Uzbek side under the “Foreign Military Financing”;
■ condition. The laws of the United States provided that the provision of military aid to that country, Secretary of State confirmed the presence of specific movements of the State in improving the human rights situation. So, since 2004 none of the U.S. secretaries of state did not put his signature on such document;
■ conflict. Six years ago, Washington imposed restrictions on arms sales to Uzbekistan. Moreover, the relations were frozen at very many points. In response, Tashkent decided to close the U.S. military base in Khanabad. The cause of the conflict was the harsh suppression of unrest in Andijan, Uzbekistan and several other cities. U.S. is actually recognized the Uzbek leader Islam Karimov, the dictator and did their best to distance himself from it;
■ tacit reconciliation. Over time, the relationship was adjusted. For three years, Uzbekistan is a key part of the so-called Northern Route – a network of road, rail and air connections, which carried supplies from Europe to U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as well as their allies. Through the territory of the Central Asian nation goes up to 98% of cargo. Washington was unable to find him an alternative:Turkmenistan has refused, Tajikistan too long in doubt. So Tashkent now enjoys a unique privilege transit;
■ Tashkent is a rapprochement. In 2009, Uzbekistan has offered the U.S. military and the right to fly through Uzbek territory and access to a military base in Termez, which is used only before the Bundeswehr;
■ United States plans to remove all restrictions. In September 2011 the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama in Congress received a proposal to lift restrictions on military sales to Uzbekistan. Thus, cooperation will be fully restored.

Which country dictates the terms?

This question is now occupied by many political scientists. Who is more advantageous to this apparent convergence: Tashkent and Washington?

As explained by the expert of Masterforex-V Eugene Olhovsky (Canada), the benefits of Barack Obama are as follows:
1. Uzbekistan’s role in the transit of military goods has increased significantly. This is largely due to major problems in Pakistan and heightened risks of the Southern Corridor to supply troops. Now we are talking about the possibility to transfer through the territory of Uzbekistan is not only military goods, but a living force by coalition forces. That increased risk of Tashkent and explains the need for military aid.
2. The importance of Uzbekistan to the United States. For Barack Obama, who wants to demonstrate his nation success of the mission in Afghanistan, all that is connected to the military operation in the country, it is extremely important. Therefore, the cooperation with Uzbekistan is considered only in this plane.
3. U.S. influence in Central Asia politicum. Fortifying in Uzbekistan, Washington will shake a lot of Russian and Chinese positions in Central Asia, which for him is always on hand.

Eugene Olkhovsky drew attention to the loss of an American president.
· Transit opportunities. In principle, the possibilities for transit through the territory of Uzbekistan, the U.S. had, and without any official documents on cooperation, and this situation is obviously happy with them. In recent years, much of Washington was made accusations against the current Uzbek government, which now somehow not very comfortable so openly extend its hand of friendship;
· Image losses to Obama and his administration are already felt. About 20 human rights and labor organizations, including Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Confederation of Trade Unions AFL-CIO warned U.S. President Barack Obama to resume military aid to Uzbekistan . The human rights organization “Freedom House” calls on U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to oppose military aid to Uzbekistan. ”We call on you (Clinton – IF) to confirm your previous statements in connection with violations of human rights in Uzbekistan, including those that you have done to President Islam Karimov during his visit to Tashkent last year – the statement says. – We urge you to oppose the law and not to abolish restrictions on the provision of care. “ A September 13 the U.S. State Department in its annual report on International Religious Freedom called Uzbekistan a “country of particular concern”.

At the Pentagon a little faith in the possibility of breaking the Taliban from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan. Thus, Americans are well aware that all this talk about the new equipment necessary to protect Uzbek Sun northern path, no more than a contrived reason.But, nevertheless, they are forced to make concessions, understanding the fragility of their situation.

What are the benefits for Uzbekistan?
Benefits that Islam Karimov.

First of all, the President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov is important to get out of Washington a clear and unambiguous message of friendship, which would mean support for his course, as they say in the U.S., “would give ligitimatsiyu.” It is not accidental phone call to Barack Obama, the Uzbek president on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of independence of the republic was considered there as a significant international breakthrough:
1. In addition, it would mean the end to talk of a “dictatorship” and “repression.” And in this direction have already been outlined significant progress. For example, meeting with his Uzbek counterpart Elyor Ganiev, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Uzbekistan is “showing signs of improvement in human rights and greater political freedoms.”
2. Facts about the U.S. military presence. The fact of military supplies from the U.S. suggests that a country is democratic overseas.
3. The domestic political situation. The newest armaments, and most importantly, special machinery (hardware, you can listen to telephone conversations, invading social networks, exercise control over the Internet, etc.) allow to control the political situation.
4. Islam Karimov receives a significant bargaining chip in relations with Russia. It is more convenient to now be playing on the contradictions between Moscow, Washington and Brussels.
5. Uzbekistan as an ally. Being the main ally of the United States in the region, Tashkent can count on the fact that after an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, the lion’s share of the American “good” get to him.
6. The Uzbek army could begin to modernize.

Uzbek-American rapprochement can greatly angering Beijing. And if Tashkent might even like to tease Moscow, it is wholly irrelevant to the powerful eastern neighbor. Huge investments, strategic alliances, the fate of the largest in Central Asia gas pipeline – all can be at stake.

As can be seen from the above list many more benefits with minimal risk gets exactly the Uzbek leader, the American president in this situation clearly does not look like a man who has concluded a successful transaction. Therefore, the question “Who defeated whom?” In this case it seems quite rhetorical.

Editorial, “Market Leader” in conjunction with experts from the Academy of forex and stock trading Masterforex-V is conducting interviews for our traders and investors: What do you think about whether Russia somehow react strongly to the convergence of U.S. and Uzbekistan?
■ Yes, it is necessary to defend their turf;
■ No, in fact, nothing has changed, just became more formally;
■ may be able to use this situation to exert pressure on Washington.

Reaction to Tymoshenko verdict swift and harsh

Reaction to Tymoshenko verdict swift and harsh

Kyiv Post Staff

Reaction to Tymoshenko verdict swift and harsh

Riot police detain supporters of Ukraine’s former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko during a rally in Tymoshenko’s support outside a court building in Kiev, Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011.AP

From the West to Russia and within Ukraine, harsh criticism dominated the public reaction to the Oct. 11 guilty verdict in the politically charged trial against ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
In Ukraine, such convictions are not decided by a jury of a defendant’s peers but by a single judge. In this case, 31-year-old Judge Rodion Kireyev, whom the defendant dismissed as a tool of President Viktor Yanukovych, delivered the verdict and granted prosecutors’ request to give her a seven-year prison term.

But not even Yanukovych, Tymoshenko’s political enemy, expressed satisfaction with the proceedings. He also hinted that the ex-prime minister, whom he narrowly defeated for president in 2010, could be set free soon.

“It is certainly a regretful case, which today is thwarting Ukraine’s European integration. It raises concerns in the European Union and I want to say: we are well aware of why this is so,” Yanukovych told journalists on Tuesday. “Today the court took its decision in the framework of the current criminal code. This is not the final decision.”

Many are disbelieving that Yanukovych will set her free. Already, the president has already eliminated her as a future political rival in the 2015 presidential election because as a convicted felon she is barred by law from running for office.

At least one European Union leader expects that the situation around former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to be settled upon appeal.

EU Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fule said at a meeting with journalists on Tuesday in Brussels that he still believes “that a solution will be found” through the decriminalization of laws for which Tymoshenko was convicted, possibly allowing her to retroactively get a lesser prison sentence.

EU ‘deeply disappointed’

“The EU is deeply disappointed with the verdict of the Pechersk District Court in Ukraine in the case of Ms Yulia Tymoshenko. The verdict comes after a trial which did not respect the international standards as regards fair, transparent and independent legal process, which I repeatedly called for in my previous statements,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

A member of the European Parliament, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, has said that Ukraine does notdeserve EU membership prospects.

“You betrayed your friends in the European Union. You don’t need the prospect of membership in any documents. You don’t deserve membership prospects,” Wolski said, while addressing Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Gryschenko in Brussels on Tuesday. “The Ukrainian leadership has values other than European ones.”

Some of the members of the European Parliament, including Wolski, have stated that a visit by Yanukovych to Brussels on Oct. 20 should be cancelled.

Putin: Verdict ‘dangerous and counterproductive’

“It is dangerous and counterproductive to cast the entire package of agreements into doubt,” Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told reporters while on a visit to Beijing. “I don’t really understand why they handed her seven years.”

Russia saw the verdict as an attempt by the Yanukovych administration to renege on the fateful 2009 gas deal that Tymoshenko negotiated as prime minister. “We cannot ignore an obvious anti-Russian underlying message in this whole story. In fact, Tymoshenko has been tried for legally binding agreements between Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukrainy, which remain in effect and which nobody has invalidated,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Viktor Mironenko, the head of the Center of Ukrainian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Europe, said the conviction will block Ukraine’s integration with the West, forcing its leaders to turn East – and becoming more accepting of joining a Russia-led customs union.

“Undoubtedly, this very ruling had to be expected. There can be no doubts that the proceedings were political. Surely, one of the goals was to remove a strong political competitor, and Yulia Volodymyrivna [Tymoshenko] is a strong political fighter, and she has proven this more than once,” Mironenko said.

German reaction

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said that he was disappointed. “Today’s verdict in the case of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is a setback for Ukraine,” Westerwelle said. “This verdict cannot help but have consequences for our, and the European Union’s, relations with Ukraine.”

Karl-Georg Wellmann, a lawmaker in the German Bundestag in Christian Democratic Union that German Chancellor Angela Merkel belongs to.

“The association and the free trade agreement with the EU has moved, from the point of view of Bundestag, into distant future. All signs point at the fact that the verdict was written based on political motives,” he said. “The counties of the European Union should take some measures. Along with this process we need to restore visa regime for holders of diplomatic passports.”

He said that the decision to convict Tymoshenko hit Ukraine’s investment attractiveness.

“The biggest obstacle to foreign investment in Ukraine is a judiciary that is not independent and is subject to political and commercial pressure,” Wellman added.

Ukrainians react

Member of parliament and former defense minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko said the verdict means Yanukovych has no chance of winning the presidency for a second time. “This is a verdict against Yanukovych, rather than against Tymoshenko,” Hrytsenko said. “It’s clear now that Yanukovych has no chance for a second term, regardless of whether he pardons Tymoshenko in a month or in a year. This bulldozer regime is doomed [to failure].”

Tetiana Alihnovych, 58-year-old pensioner waving a Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko flag, had been pushed by riot police. “They snatched the flag out of my hands. But I took a bottle of milk and poured it on the transparent helmet of a policeman to make him blind,” she said, adding that she brought milk for this purpose. “I hope Europe will protect Yulia just like she protected Europe in 2009, when the Europeans were freezing without gas,” Alihnovych said. “They now have to impose sanctions against the Ukrainian top officials and to arrest their foreign bank accounts.”

Tymoshenko lawyer Mykola Siry said that the verdict “will undoubtedly go down in the history of the Ukrainian legal system as a disgraceful page.” Tymoshenko is planning an appeal — but to the European Court of Human Rights because there is no justice in Ukraine.

Whatever a person’s opinion, they felt compelled to express it. Tuesday’s proceedings were among of the top 10 issues discussed on Twitter, with the hash tag #Tymoshenko.

Iranians charged as US foils plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador

[The way things are, the Saudis may want to treat this as an act of war.  It sounds like the typical false flag set-up.  The alleged Iranian "Revolutionary Guard" bosses who allegedly hired the Mexican? gangster for the attack could easily have been just another bit player in another American "soap opera."  Maybe this is why Blackberries were blacked-out from N. Africa to Europe yesterday and today--they didn't want texters to spill their beans?]

Iranians charged as US foils plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador

UN Iran Ahmadinejad

It is unclear whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knew about the plot. Picture: AP.

AMERICAN undercover agents have foiled a plot by extremists linked directly to the Iranian Government who planned to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States by blowing up a popular restaurant in Washington DC.

Two Iranian men have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction after one of them was caught in a sting.

Manssor Arbabsiar, 56, a naturalised US citizen holding both Iranian and US passports, travelled to Mexico several times in recent months to meet with a man he believed was a member of a Mexican drug cartel, whom he had engaged to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir.

Arbabsiar was instead dealing with an undercover agent from America’s Drug Enforcement Administration.

Arbabsiar also allegedly discussed plans to bomb the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, and in Buenos Aires.

The FBI said Arbabsiar answered to his boss in Iran, Gholam Shakuri, a member of the Qods Force, which is a special operations unit of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now faces tough new sanctions from the US Treasury Department, The New York Times reports.

Both Arbabsiar and Shakuri have been indicted in the US District Court in Manhattan after Arbabsiar allegedly confessed to the plot.

New York arrest

Arbabsiar was arrested on September 29 at New York’s John F Kennedy Airport while Shakuri remains at large in Iran.

“The criminal complaint unsealed today exposes a deadly plot directed by factions of the Iranian Government to assassinate a foreign ambassador on US soil with explosives,” said the US Federal Attorney General, Eric Holder.

The complaint against both men alleges that, from early 2011 to Arbabsiar’s arrest, Arbabsiar and Shakuri had been plotting the murder of the Saudi Ambassador.

The FBI says Arbabsiar allegedly met on a number of occasions in Mexico with a DEA agent, known as CS-1, who posed as an associate of a violent Mexican narco-terror cartel.

The complaint alleges Arbabsiar arranged to hire CS-1 and CS-1’s purported accomplices to kill Ambassador Al-Jubeir, while Shakuri and other Iran-based co-conspirators monitored the plan and sanctioned it.

Arbabsiar allegedly arranged for a $100,000 downpayment for the attack to be wired to CS-1’s US bank account.

Arbabsiar allegedly first met CS-1 in Mexico on May 24, 2011, where discussion centred around attacking an unspecified embassy in Saudi Arabia.

There were subsequent meetings in Mexico, and then, on July 14, CS-1 allegedly told Arbabsiar that he would need to use four men to carry out the Ambassador’s murder and asked for $1.5 million. The price was agreed.

“Arbabsiar allegedly agreed and stated that the murder of the Ambassador should be handled first, before the execution of other attacks,” said the FBI.

Arbabsiar allegedly told the undercover agent he had been commissioned to undertake the ambassador’s assassination by a cousin who was a “big general” in the Iranian military.

The FBI said that in a July 17 meeting in Mexico, CS-1 told Arbabsiar that one of his colleagues had already been to Washington to case the Saudi Ambassador’s movements.

‘F*** ‘em – no big deal’

Arbabsiar allegedly told CS-1 to push ahead with the assassination, despite CS-1 raising concerns about the likely mass casualties.

Arbabsiar allegedly told CS-1: “They [his Iranian bosses] want that guy [killed and] if the hundred go with him, f*** ‘em.”

Arbabsiar and the undercover agent allegedly discussed bombing a restaurant in the United States that Adel Al-Jubeir frequented. When Arbabsiar was told many well known people, including US senators, also routinely dined at the restaurant, Arbabsiar allegedly said it was “no big deal”.

The $100,000 downpayment to the undercover agents was allegedly made in two lots, on August 1 and August 9, with Arbabsiar allegedly promising CS-1 that he would provide the remainder of the $1.5 million after the assassination.

The FBI says on or about September 28, Arbabsiar flew to Mexico for final preparations but was refused entry into Mexico and placed on a return flight.

The following day, Arbabsiar was arrested by federal agents at JFK airport and allegedly confessed to his participation in the murder plot.

Arbabsiar allegedly also admitted he was recruited, funded and directed by men he understood to be senior officials in Iran’s Qods Force, which the FBI said was known to conduct covert operations abroad, including terrorist attacks, assassinations and kidnappings, and was a sponsor of attacks against Coalition forces in Iraq.

“He allegedly said these Iranian officials were aware of and approved of the use of CS-1 in connection with the plot; as well as payments to CS-1; the means by which the Ambassador would be killed in the United States and the casualties that would likely result,” the FBI said.

In October, Arbabsiar was cooperating with US authorities as he made monitored phone calls to Shakuri in Iran, who allegedly urged him to complete the mission as quickly as possible.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement that President Barack Obama had been briefed on the operation in June and had directed that all possible assistance be given to the FBI and DEA.

“The disruption of this plot is a significant achievement by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the President is enormously grateful for their exceptional work in this instance and countless others,” Mr Vietor said.

The Saudi Embassy released a statement thanking US authorities, CNN reported.

“The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia would like to express its appreciation to the responsible agencies of the United States Government for preventing a criminal act from taking place,” the statement read.

“The attempted plot is a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions and is not in accord with the principles of humanity.”

Both defendants are charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, conspiracy to engage in foreign travel and use of interstate and foreign commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire; conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction; and conspiracy to commit an act of international terrorism transcending national boundaries.

The US Administration was reportedly considering new sanctions against the Iranian Government, whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in New York only two weeks ago to attend the UN General Assembly.

The investigation, conducted by the FBI and DEA in Houston, has been described as a triumph for US counter—intelligence services. US attorneys handling the prosecution also thanked the Mexican Government for its cooperation.