Taliban To Focus On Pakistan’s Adversary

Afghan Taliban plans to attack Indians

Updated on Thursday, July 01, 2010, 13:33 IST

Islamabad: The Afghan Taliban has said that it would now launch a “new war strategy” in which they will target Indians, who are working in various NGOs and other organisations in the country.

“The operation commanders of the Islamic Emirate (as Taliban movement calls itself) are going to meet shortly to finalize a new war strategy under which the foreigners working on their national agendas, particularly Indians, will be targeted,” a newspaper quoted Qari Ziaur Rehman, a Taliban commander, as saying.

“Indians are on top among the foreigners who are working on hidden agenda on the pretext of carrying out development activities,” he added.

Rehman said that another meeting of the operation commanders would be convened before the holy month of Ramazan to devise the new strategy.

“Until now, the Taliban groups have been devising their own strategy in different areas of the country but now onwards a joint war strategy will be adopted across the country,” he added.

Earlier, in October last year, a Taliban suicide bomber had killed 17 people and wounded more than 80 in an attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

Indo-Afghan relations had strengthened in the wake of Afghanistan’s persisting tensions and problems with Pakistan, which was suspected of sheltering and supporting the Taliban.

Both nations have also developed strategic and military cooperation against the insurgency.

India has pursued a policy of close cooperation with Afghanistan, and in 2007, had pledged 850 million dollars to reconstruction efforts in the country.

It is the largest amount from any country without a military presence in Afghanistan.

ANI

Russia’s Foreign Ministry fears the rapprochement of Georgia and Iran

[The new international strategic solution to the troubled Caucasus will see Georgia fall to another colored revolution, while the southern route to Turkey opens up.  SEE: Georgian opposition fanned “Irangeyt” ; Georgia: Tbilisi Woos Iran While Washington Watches ]

Russia’s Foreign Ministry fears the rapprochement of Georgia and Iran

Russia’s Foreign Ministry hopes that the cooperation of Iran and Georgia will not be directed against third countries. So today said Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko saidwhen asked about the existing contacts of the spirit of the country. “With regard to bilateral relations between Georgia and Iran, I can only say that we respect the plans for sovereign states, they are to develop friendly and good neighborly relations with each other … This is especially important for countries included in such a difficult region. We believe that the development of bilateral relations between Georgia and Iran will not be directed against third countries “, – said Nesterenko.

The Real NATO–21/08/2007

The Real NATO

21/08/2007

Igor Muradian

Computers already firmly implemented in mass consciousness the idea that brutality – this is not only something not typical in today’s world, but rather the image of the time, mode of existence, a product of global processes. Orderly brutality or controlled chaos steel products, increase non-system or even the anti-decisions and trends in world politics and economy, when the liberal ideology can no longer claim to universalism, and market relations are constraint to further successful development of the world’s leading economies. Enhanced features for convergence, but not between the market-state and vulgar-Marxist economic systems, and between enlightened paternalism and false-market determinism. In this way the era increasingly becomes latent, but more “legitimacy” to regulate the use of world resources. With the increased data trends, picking up a contradictory phenomenon: the international institutional redundancy and scarcity of real international cooperation, especially in the formation and development of political, military-political and geo-economic alliances.

90th years were spent in forced strengthen crisis and split NATO, which is independent of further developments, will remain in the form of tangible and quite meaningful trends. At the turn of the century, due to the efforts of U.S. and UK lead partner, managed to curb the increasing division of the alliance, helped by military operations in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that NATO is not involved in operations in Iraq, but the war also contributed to the containment of the centrifugal and divisive process in the Euro-Atlantic relations. A huge blow was dealt to the NATO establishment of the European Rapid Reaction Corps, which emerged in the locomotive by France and Germany and supported by Britain. European defense initiative with great skepticism has been accepted, including in Europe and the U.S. did not immediately able to orientate themselves in this situation, because Washington and tactical approaches have been developed with some delay. The significant shift to the right of government offices of the leading countries of Europe and a favorable prognosis in the settlement of the US-European relations is not justified and had no solid ground, and were caused, most likely, the requirements of the election campaign. An important aspect of strengthening NATO enlargement has, in fact, functions and areas of responsibility of the Alliance to the East, receiving the organization loyal to the U.S. partners and the promotion of new NATO missions. In general, in the early 2000’s European partners are the United States found that a radical leveling of the defense and the political significance of NATO’s dangerous and can lead to undesirable consequences in the global security system. U.S. seeks to implement a new system of global security and providing the most suitable form for their European partners. The answer to the question: will the world be safer if NATO ceased to exist or will lose many of their tasks, yet simple – no. NATO is still necessary to peace and, moreover, at a time when NATO is increasingly associated with European policies. Even opponents of anthological Atlanticist NATO began to perceive a more relaxed, compared with the strategy and the actions of the United States. For example, some Iranian politicians (certainly not all) began to perceive the presence of NATO in the South Caucasus, without still cautious, and Iranian experts working both in Iran and beyond, carefully choosing the various pro-American and anti-American trends in the Alliance . Prominent Arab experts note that a possible replacement for U.S. troops to NATO troops in Iraq would be more acceptable to the Arab world. Now the question arises as to whether NATO’s strategy to become a limitation in the U.S., despite leading the U.S. role in the alliance?

It is clear that the U.S. follow the path of the devaluation of the leading international organizations related to safety, above all, the UN and the OSCE, which at certain stages of the limiters act of U.S. foreign policy and the supporters of legitimate decision-making. In the late 90’s, it seemed that the U.S. will proceed to the devaluation of NATO, but after the proper scale policies, they virtually replaced the UN Atlantic Alliance – a new arena for the adoption of legitimate international decisions. This was facilitated by some key factors – strengthening transnational radical Islamic organizations, the Iranian nuclear threat, the regional ethnic conflicts, Russia’s desire to regain their lost geopolitical position and the associated problems of regional security and, finally, the problem of rising China. Perhaps, in the face of growing challenges and threats, the trend of division and of NATO’s crisis fade away and become maloaktualnoy. The transatlantic relationship in a significant aspect will be saved and will gain new features and content. But one way or another, the former NATO no longer exists and will not be going to form a new content of the Alliance, and is likely to retain strong political component of NATO as a military power has run its course. The tendency has been the creation of the Anglo-Saxon military bloc, or as something within NATO, or as a completely independent, including the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some other states, the Commonwealth, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan .

The expansion of NATO into Eastern European direction leads to a new strengthening of fundamental threats. This causes not only confusion but also an explicit rejection of the leading European countries in matters such as, for example, the possible accession to NATO of Ukraine and, especially, Georgia, as well as the U.S. desire to assert its strong military presence in the Black Sea basin.New European leaders – Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Mr Brown has managed to express their attitude to the possible accession of Georgia to NATO. These estimates are much more uncertain than in the position of their predecessors. Ukraine, which have significant military-technical and human potential, more desirable member of NATO. In regard to Georgia’s problem is not that it does not meet the requirements of NATO and that NATO, with its comfortable and strict conditions, does not correspond to the Black Sea and Caucasus realities. What is the main factor for this discrepancy? Russia has always had more or less friendly and allied relations with many European countries, as well as the United States. Of the newly admitted NATO states of Eastern Europe, only Poland and the Baltic States to face Russia’s irrational, but more than specific sense. One of the first members of NATO – Greece has always felt sympathy for Russia, and in its defense doctrine and operational plans, the potential enemy was seen Turkey as a neighboring member of the Warsaw Pact – Bulgaria was regarded as a friendly country. At present, NATO members – Greece and Bulgaria, together with Russia form the alternative elements energokommunikatsionnoy system, despite the resistance of the United States. Czech Republic and Hungary, who remember the events of 1956 and 1968, does not have actualized hostility to Russia. Accession of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia to NATO clearly does not lead to the inclusion of these states into a real “anti-Russian bloc.” From the uniquely pro-American bloc are many states that need to be Russia, not only in terms of putting the energy, but also as a living space. Perhaps one of the errors of Russian policy has been reluctance to establish more friendly relations with Albania and the Albanians, who for centuries fought against the Ottoman Empire. Favorable expectations are in the development of Turkish-Russian relations, there are stories, which could not be more 10 years ago.Inclusion in NATO countries in the Balkan region has not yet led to the set goals to reduce Turkey’s geostrategic role for NATO and the U.S., so the role of Turkey in the near future may become very high in the formation of relations between Russia and NATO. Turkey needs Russia as part of its dialogue with the Western community. Strengthening tandem Turkey-Russia could allow Russia to limit or prevent the spread of the influence of Euro-Atlantic community in the direction of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Increasing problems in Turkish-American relations has led to what is called into question the universality of “Eurasian corridor” adjusted performance of other energy and communications and geo-economic projects. It should be noted that these trends in Turkish politics are not conjunctural reasons, and based on the deep problems of Turkish society. And finally, the main European partners are Russia, Germany and France, which both became leaders vnutriatlanticheskoy opposition. France and Germany are not satisfied with the progress on the establishment of the European armed forces and are going to create together with Belgium, a closer military alliance, in effect, joining the armed forces. As always, these plans if not deferred, then located on the long pending, but the idea has already been received and not rejected. In the late 90’s the author of the assumption was made regarding the fact that NATO expects the emergence of “clubs” of interest, ie the blocking of goals, preferences and objectives.Insufficient attention is drawn to the position of the Nordic NATO member countries whose intentions and interests clearly pulling on the formation of the “club” within NATO. Accelerated expansion of NATO, will undoubtedly lead to these results. Participation or non-NATO nations in military operations in Iraq to some extent confirmed these assumptions. One of the “Knights of the American political analysts said the author of these lines that the new NATO members from Eastern Europe on their own are not reliable and principled U.S. allies, but rather” selected situation “and are associated with the short term, rather than the strategic choice . In the future, these countries put forward a completely ridiculous issue. In these countries a very strong left-wing ideas, and they are very interested in constructive relations with Russia, and their political and economic elites are subject searching and reflection of new realities.

Quite differently conceived accession to NATO of Georgia. Long, it became apparent that this country is put on the “slaughter”, and with it associated destructive, scandalous situations which are arranged in the framework of the Baltic Syndrome, despite the fact that between Georgia and Russia do not have the problems that exist in Russian-Baltic relations . Other goods are not interested in its partners – neither the West nor the East. Georgia is capable of actually build a new relationship with the departments of the provinces and with its neighbors, is not needed. Georgia set aside well-defined functions, which in recent history have served leftist revolutionary regimes. As acknowledged by a number of British political planners, who with great sympathy for Georgia, “the most unpleasant and unacceptable in expectations for the Europeans is the fact that Georgia ties with NATO resolve all their problems.” Of course, this can not be met and no cause for concern, not only Europeans but also Americans.

Undoubtedly, Europeans and Americans are, if not agreement, then at least an agreement on joint efforts to exert pressure on Russia, including through regional ethnic conflicts. However, for example, the situation in Abkhazia has already indications that the U.S. and the European Union came to the conclusion – if the former metropolis does not offer a more effective way of removing of Abkhazia, which has now been of strategic importance in the new U.S. objectives in the Black Sea from Russia’s influence, it will have to do this without Georgia, that is, directly penetrating into Abkhazia. At the same time, Europeans are trying to identify the principles and methods of its policy, more pacifist and certainly different from the methods of the United States. It is possible that Abkhazia as a regular “An update” is currently a problem in a number of uncontrolled territories, which needs of sovereignty, will be the scene of a controversial and competitive partnership the U.S. and EU, which will lead to the beginning of chronic crisis, in submissions and initiatives in line with the US-European cooperation. But, as the Abkhaz problem is closely linked with the objectives of the United States in the Black Sea, some discrepancy occurs in NATO.

The U.S. has always assumed a backup version of the military-political integration of the South Caucasus, if their admission to NATO would be unacceptable. Moreover, the U.S. is not the ideal entry of the region in NATO, and direct cooperation with them in the field of defense and security. That is, the U.S. does not have big expectations from the NATO activities in the South Caucasus, and consider the membership of these countries in the alliance, most likely as a factor in the Euro-Russian confrontation.There is no doubt that the U.S. and UK are very interested in ensuring stability and security in South Caucasus, as a priority for the successful extraction and transportation of oil and gas. However, it is not antagonistic to the use of processes in the region as a lever of pressure on Russia. These objective interests and the U.S. position will maintain the peaceful coexistence of the South Caucasus.And without the United States to maintain such a position has become impossible, but this “objectivity” does not deny the contradictory U.S. policy in the region. In this regard, virtually no one in the analytic community is not considered the prospect of military and geo-economic presence of the United States and Britain in the South Caucasus. Could this present time restricted to the depletion of oil reserves and other resources, or it could be connected with a “clean” Geopolitics? It seems that oil companies are represented in the Caspian basin, especially in Azerbaijan, trying to force the extraction of oil contract, or the overwhelming part of a decade or a little more. How safe will the region after the exhaustion of oil reserves here, loss of interest in him when geo as ekonomizirovannaya doctrine of geopolitics, will give way to this very “clean” geopolitics? How comfortable would feel like NATO in the region in this case?

NATO is a rather controversial conglomerate, which includes very different cultures, motivations, interests and mentality. Russia can not prevent the expansion of NATO, the more that part, and the Europeans are interested in this. But Russia has many opportunities to develop relations with NATO, which will lead to depoliticize the Alliance, to form vnutriblokovyh groupings of States, which will have to distance themselves from “common” policies block. It is possible that soon it will be possible to talk about the creation of new, local alliances with Russia and some NATO countries. Regulation of data bundles “may be quite different, depending on the performance of certain tasks in a safe. Why, for example, or come to some agreement of Russia and European forces. This much has been said in the initial period of formation Evrosil, but then it was thoroughly forgotten. Typically, the NATO crisis due to loss of the enemy, but it is not so – the split and the crisis of NATO was detected at all stages of the Alliance.

NATO is currently inept organization, it needs to transform the ideology of security, which, despite the debate, and has not been formed. The notorious “battle of civilizations,” if it began, then, first of all, in the framework of NATO. But we must understand that NATO is the only global organization that can contain the most dangerous challenges. And it’s her role will be carried out until a new system of security. Russia’s role could be significant in supporting the various interests within the alliance. Other ways to reduce or even eliminate confrontation there. Then came the period of a complete rethinking of Russian politicians and political analysts directions of cooperation with NATO members and directly with the alliance. This process has apparently begun, but not be allowed to prevent it. The fact that Russia intended to save from collapse of the global system of the Western world there is no paradox.

Igor Muradian: Real NATO

Computers already firmly implemented in mass consciousness the idea that brutality – this is not only something not typical in today’s world, but rather the image of the time, mode of existence, a product of global processes. Orderly brutality or controlled chaos steel products, increase non-system or even the anti-decisions and trends in world politics and economy, when the liberal ideology can no longer claim to universalism, and market relations are constraint to further successful development of the world’s leading economies. Enhanced features for convergence, but not between the market-state and vulgar-Marxist economic systems, and between enlightened paternalism and false-market determinism. In this way the era increasingly becomes latent, but more “legitimacy” to regulate the use of world resources. With the increased data trends, picking up a contradictory phenomenon: the international institutional redundancy and scarcity of real international cooperation, especially in the formation and development of political, military-political and geo-economic alliances.

90th years were spent in forced strengthen crisis and split NATO, which is independent of further developments, will remain in the form of tangible and quite meaningful trends. At the turn of the century, due to the efforts of U.S. and UK lead partner, managed to curb the increasing division of the alliance, helped by military operations in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that NATO is not involved in operations in Iraq, but the war also contributed to the containment of the centrifugal and divisive process in the Euro-Atlantic relations. A huge blow was dealt to the NATO establishment of the European Rapid Reaction Corps, which emerged in the locomotive by France and Germany and supported by Britain. European defense initiative with great skepticism has been accepted, including in Europe and the U.S. did not immediately able to orientate themselves in this situation, because Washington and tactical approaches have been developed with some delay. The significant shift to the right of government offices of the leading countries of Europe and a favorable prognosis in the settlement of the US-European relations is not justified and had no solid ground, and were caused, most likely, the requirements of the election campaign. An important aspect of strengthening NATO enlargement has, in fact, functions and areas of responsibility of the Alliance to the East, receiving the organization loyal to the U.S. partners and the promotion of new NATO missions. In general, in the early 2000’s European partners are the United States found that a radical leveling of the defense and the political significance of NATO’s dangerous and can lead to undesirable consequences in the global security system. U.S. seeks to implement a new system of global security and providing the most suitable form for their European partners. The answer to the question: will the world be safer if NATO ceased to exist or will lose many of their tasks, yet simple – no. NATO is still necessary to peace and, moreover, at a time when NATO is increasingly associated with European policies. Even opponents of anthological Atlanticist NATO began to perceive a more relaxed, compared with the strategy and the actions of the United States. For example, some Iranian politicians (certainly not all) began to perceive the presence of NATO in the South Caucasus, without still cautious, and Iranian experts working both in Iran and beyond, carefully choosing the various pro-American and anti-American trends in the Alliance . Prominent Arab experts note that a possible replacement for U.S. troops to NATO troops in Iraq would be more acceptable to the Arab world. Now the question arises as to whether NATO’s strategy to become a limitation in the U.S., despite leading the U.S. role in the alliance?

It is clear that the U.S. follow the path of the devaluation of the leading international organizations related to safety, above all, the UN and the OSCE, which at certain stages of the limiters act of U.S. foreign policy and the supporters of legitimate decision-making. In the late 90’s, it seemed that the U.S. will proceed to the devaluation of NATO, but after the proper scale policies, they virtually replaced the UN Atlantic Alliance – a new arena for the adoption of legitimate international decisions. This was facilitated by some key factors – strengthening transnational radical Islamic organizations, the Iranian nuclear threat, the regional ethnic conflicts, Russia’s desire to regain their lost geopolitical position and the associated problems of regional security and, finally, the problem of rising China. Perhaps, in the face of growing challenges and threats, the trend of division and of NATO’s crisis fade away and become maloaktualnoy. The transatlantic relationship in a significant aspect will be saved and will gain new features and content. But one way or another, the former NATO no longer exists and will not be going to form a new content of the Alliance, and is likely to retain strong political component of NATO as a military power has run its course. The tendency has been the creation of the Anglo-Saxon military bloc, or as something within NATO, or as a completely independent, including the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some other states, the Commonwealth, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan .

The expansion of NATO into Eastern European direction leads to a new strengthening of fundamental threats. This causes not only confusion but also an explicit rejection of the leading European countries in matters such as, for example, the possible accession to NATO of Ukraine and, especially, Georgia, as well as the U.S. desire to assert its strong military presence in the Black Sea basin.New European leaders – Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Mr Brown has managed to express their attitude to the possible accession of Georgia to NATO. These estimates are much more uncertain than in the position of their predecessors. Ukraine, which have significant military-technical and human potential, more desirable member of NATO. In regard to Georgia’s problem is not that it does not meet the requirements of NATO and that NATO, with its comfortable and strict conditions, does not correspond to the Black Sea and Caucasus realities. What is the main factor for this discrepancy? Russia has always had more or less friendly and allied relations with many European countries, as well as the United States. Of the newly admitted NATO states of Eastern Europe, only Poland and the Baltic States to face Russia’s irrational, but more than specific sense. One of the first members of NATO – Greece has always felt sympathy for Russia, and in its defense doctrine and operational plans, the potential enemy was seen Turkey as a neighboring member of the Warsaw Pact – Bulgaria was regarded as a friendly country. At present, NATO members – Greece and Bulgaria, together with Russia form the alternative elements energokommunikatsionnoy system, despite the resistance of the United States. Czech Republic and Hungary, who remember the events of 1956 and 1968, does not have actualized hostility to Russia. Accession of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia to NATO clearly does not lead to the inclusion of these states into a real “anti-Russian bloc.” From the uniquely pro-American bloc are many states that need to be Russia, not only in terms of putting the energy, but also as a living space. Perhaps one of the errors of Russian policy has been reluctance to establish more friendly relations with Albania and the Albanians, who for centuries fought against the Ottoman Empire. Favorable expectations are in the development of Turkish-Russian relations, there are stories, which could not be more 10 years ago.Inclusion in NATO countries in the Balkan region has not yet led to the set goals to reduce Turkey’s geostrategic role for NATO and the U.S., so the role of Turkey in the near future may become very high in the formation of relations between Russia and NATO. Turkey needs Russia as part of its dialogue with the Western community. Strengthening tandem Turkey-Russia could allow Russia to limit or prevent the spread of the influence of Euro-Atlantic community in the direction of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Increasing problems in Turkish-American relations has led to what is called into question the universality of “Eurasian corridor” adjusted performance of other energy and communications and geo-economic projects. It should be noted that these trends in Turkish politics are not conjunctural reasons, and based on the deep problems of Turkish society. And finally, the main European partners are Russia, Germany and France, which both became leaders vnutriatlanticheskoy opposition. France and Germany are not satisfied with the progress on the establishment of the European armed forces and are going to create together with Belgium, a closer military alliance, in effect, joining the armed forces. As always, these plans if not deferred, then located on the long pending, but the idea has already been received and not rejected. In the late 90’s the author of the assumption was made regarding the fact that NATO expects the emergence of “clubs” of interest, ie the blocking of goals, preferences and objectives.Insufficient attention is drawn to the position of the Nordic NATO member countries whose intentions and interests clearly pulling on the formation of the “club” within NATO. Accelerated expansion of NATO, will undoubtedly lead to these results. Participation or non-NATO nations in military operations in Iraq to some extent confirmed these assumptions. One of the “Knights of the American political analysts said the author of these lines that the new NATO members from Eastern Europe on their own are not reliable and principled U.S. allies, but rather” selected situation “and are associated with the short term, rather than the strategic choice . In the future, these countries put forward a completely ridiculous issue. In these countries a very strong left-wing ideas, and they are very interested in constructive relations with Russia, and their political and economic elites are subject searching and reflection of new realities.

Quite differently conceived accession to NATO of Georgia. Long, it became apparent that this country is put on the “slaughter”, and with it associated destructive, scandalous situations which are arranged in the framework of the Baltic Syndrome, despite the fact that between Georgia and Russia do not have the problems that exist in Russian-Baltic relations . Other goods are not interested in its partners – neither the West nor the East. Georgia is capable of actually build a new relationship with the departments of the provinces and with its neighbors, is not needed. Georgia set aside well-defined functions, which in recent history have served leftist revolutionary regimes. As acknowledged by a number of British political planners, who with great sympathy for Georgia, “the most unpleasant and unacceptable in expectations for the Europeans is the fact that Georgia ties with NATO resolve all their problems.” Of course, this can not be met and no cause for concern, not only Europeans but also Americans.

Undoubtedly, Europeans and Americans are, if not agreement, then at least an agreement on joint efforts to exert pressure on Russia, including through regional ethnic conflicts. However, for example, the situation in Abkhazia has already indications that the U.S. and the European Union came to the conclusion – if the former metropolis does not offer a more effective way of removing of Abkhazia, which has now been of strategic importance in the new U.S. objectives in the Black Sea from Russia’s influence, it will have to do this without Georgia, that is, directly penetrating into Abkhazia. At the same time, Europeans are trying to identify the principles and methods of its policy, more pacifist and certainly different from the methods of the United States. It is possible that Abkhazia as a regular “An update” is currently a problem in a number of uncontrolled territories, which needs of sovereignty, will be the scene of a controversial and competitive partnership the U.S. and EU, which will lead to the beginning of chronic crisis, in submissions and initiatives in line with the US-European cooperation. But, as the Abkhaz problem is closely linked with the objectives of the United States in the Black Sea, some discrepancy occurs in NATO.

The U.S. has always assumed a backup version of the military-political integration of the South Caucasus, if their admission to NATO would be unacceptable. Moreover, the U.S. is not the ideal entry of the region in NATO, and direct cooperation with them in the field of defense and security. That is, the U.S. does not have big expectations from the NATO activities in the South Caucasus, and consider the membership of these countries in the alliance, most likely as a factor in the Euro-Russian confrontation.There is no doubt that the U.S. and UK are very interested in ensuring stability and security in South Caucasus, as a priority for the successful extraction and transportation of oil and gas. However, it is not antagonistic to the use of processes in the region as a lever of pressure on Russia. These objective interests and the U.S. position will maintain the peaceful coexistence of the South Caucasus.And without the United States to maintain such a position has become impossible, but this “objectivity” does not deny the contradictory U.S. policy in the region. In this regard, virtually no one in the analytic community is not considered the prospect of military and geo-economic presence of the United States and Britain in the South Caucasus. Could this present time restricted to the depletion of oil reserves and other resources, or it could be connected with a “clean” Geopolitics? It seems that oil companies are represented in the Caspian basin, especially in Azerbaijan, trying to force the extraction of oil contract, or the overwhelming part of a decade or a little more. How safe will the region after the exhaustion of oil reserves here, loss of interest in him when geo as ekonomizirovannaya doctrine of geopolitics, will give way to this very “clean” geopolitics? How comfortable would feel like NATO in the region in this case?

NATO is a rather controversial conglomerate, which includes very different cultures, motivations, interests and mentality. Russia can not prevent the expansion of NATO, the more that part, and the Europeans are interested in this. But Russia has many opportunities to develop relations with NATO, which will lead to depoliticize the Alliance, to form vnutriblokovyh groupings of States, which will have to distance themselves from “common” policies block. It is possible that soon it will be possible to talk about the creation of new, local alliances with Russia and some NATO countries. Regulation of data bundles “may be quite different, depending on the performance of certain tasks in a safe. Why, for example, or come to some agreement of Russia and European forces. This much has been said in the initial period of formation Evrosil, but then it was thoroughly forgotten. Typically, the NATO crisis due to loss of the enemy, but it is not so – the split and the crisis of NATO was detected at all stages of the Alliance.

NATO is currently inept organization, it needs to transform the ideology of security, which, despite the debate, and has not been formed. The notorious “battle of civilizations,” if it began, then, first of all, in the framework of NATO. But we must understand that NATO is the only global organization that can contain the most dangerous challenges. And it’s her role will be carried out until a new system of security. Russia’s role could be significant in supporting the various interests within the alliance. Other ways to reduce or even eliminate confrontation there. Then came the period of a complete rethinking of Russian politicians and political analysts directions of cooperation with NATO members and directly with the alliance. This process has apparently begun, but not be allowed to prevent it. The fact that Russia intended to save from collapse of the global system of the Western world there is no paradox.

Hillary’s Caucasus Trip Signals Breakthrough Between Armenia and Azerbaijan

G8 Statement/Hillary Visit To Armenia Raise Expectations And Concerns

G8 Statement/Hillary Visit To Armenia Raise Expectations And Concerns

The statement by the Presidents of Russia, the United States and France on the Karabakh conflict issued from the G8 Summit in Canada over the weekend instantly caught the attention of politicians as well as pundits and political analysts, generating plenty of commentary on both sides.

The first impression of the statement is that the U.S. and Russia have managed to come to agreement over one of the key issues, on which they previously had disagreements – namely, whose troops will serve as peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh. The U.S. has always opposed the presence of only Russian troops in Karabakh, especially in the areas bordering on Iran. Russia recently seconded a U.S. proposal to introduce new sanctions against Iran, and it is not ruled out that an arrangement on peacekeepers in Karabakh is part of the package of issues agreed by the U.S. and Russia. Information was circulated by the Forum of Armenians of Europe alleging that the United States and Russia had agreed that American troops would be deployed in Fizuli, on the border with Iran, and Russian troops would be deployed in Kelbajar. (Fizuli and Kelbajar are two of seven districts controlled by the Karabakh military around the territory of the former autonomous republic of Soviet Azerbaijan proper). Nor is it excluded that peacekeepers will enter jointly under the United Nations auspices.

That such an option is likely is evidenced by recent tough statements by Iran’s ambassador to Armenia that Tehran will not tolerate the presence of American troops in Karabakh.

Nevertheless, the border with Karabakh remains, perhaps, the only sector of the Iranian border, to which Americans have no access. Gaining access to this part of the border, the United States can say with confidence that it has closed the ring around Iran.

The forthcoming visit of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the region also suggests that intensive developments are expected.

Experts believe that the main difference between the so-called “Madrid principles” and the so-called “updated Madrid principles” is that the former referred to the Armenian withdrawal from all seven districts around the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region, and the updated principles call for such withdrawal only from Fizuli and Kelbajar.

Armenia has stated its agreement with the proposed scenario of the settlement, although specific details are not published. Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan said in his reaction to the statement issued by the leaders of the U.S., Russia and France from the G8 summit that “in the coming days it will become clear whether Azerbaijan is ready to move forward along this path, or continue its militaristic mindset, trying to derail the peace talks, taking provocative and unconstructive steps.”

Nevertheless, political analyst Igor Muradyan, who stood with demonstrators at the formation of the Karabakh Movement in the late 1980s, believes that time has come for Armenia to end the negotiating process. “Continuation of talks would mean that Armenia capitulates to force-based actions, and that the actions of Azerbaijan are politically legitimate. Continuation of negotiations means political death for the political leadership of Armenia,” said Muradyan.

The analyst believes that the statement of the leaders of the United States, Russia and France mean nothing else than a signal about the revival of the previous scheme of simulating negotiations. “They need to stretch time, or better altogether shelve the real process,” said Muradyan. In his opinion, it is possible that the “great powers will wait and see which of the parties to the conflict has a nervous breakdown, and will not save the one who shows greater incompetence.”

“The answer to force is with force, rather than exiting the negotiating process,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharyan in an interview with Armenian Public Television aired at the weekend. According to Kocharyan, continued provocation by Azerbaijan will lead to the international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence.

And Masis Mailyan, chairman of the NKR Public Council on Foreign Policy and Security Affairs, said in an interview with ArmeniaNow: “Perhaps some of the proposals would have been relevant and attractive to the people of Karabakh 20 years ago. But after a full-scale war initiated by Azerbaijan against the Nagorno-Karabakh population, after thousands of deaths, ethnic cleansings, military occupation and damage done, to offer to the Armenian parties an incomprehensible interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh with a vague “expression of will of its population” in exchange for a sharp reduction of its own security, is at least not serious.”

Source: ArmeniaNowOriginal Article

“All we want is to carry out acts to prevent assimilation.”– Israeli F.M. Lieberman

[Why is the Jewish State intent upon preventing Russian Jews from “assimilating” into Russian society?  The answer to that question is the nature of political Zionism itself–the state of Israel would not exist if Jews were made to feel comfortable within the countries of their birth and were not compelled by other individuals, who were pushing their own political agendas, into moving to Israel.  Normally, it has been anti-Semitic attacks which have historically been used to pressure the Jewish people to leave their homelands.  Until we see Lieberman’s “acts to prevent assimilation” carried-out (considering Israel’s history of “false flag” provocations), it is natural to wonder just what the Foreign Minister had in mind.  Russian authorities should consider finding-out what it is that motivates Russian Jews into seeking a “Promised Land” under the Netanyahu regime, then take steps to alleviate that pressure.]

“All we want is to carry out acts to prevent assimilation.”– Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

Russia Refuses Israeli Cultural Center over Spy Fears

Readers Number : 182

Moscow has refused repeated requests from Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to open an Israeli cultural center in Russia, for fear it would operate as an intelligence agency, Haaretz quoted Israeli officials as saying.

Lieberman has been trying to obtain Russia’s permission for the cultural center, to be run by Nativ – the Israeli Liaison Bureau – in Novosibirsk, Russia’s third-largest city, Haaretz said.

At a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday, Lieberman raised the issue again, promising Lavrov that Nativ is not involved in any espionage work in Russia, the Israeli daily added.

According to Haaretz, Nativ falls under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office and operated in a semi-covert fashion until the Soviet Union’s dissolution. During Cold War, the organization was in charge of maintaining contact with Eastern Bloc Jews and encouraging immigration to the Zionist entity. It also gathered intelligence.

In 1989, Nativ offices started operating openly and in the ’90s it was officially permitted to operate in Russia. Since then it has ceased from carrying out any covert or intelligence activity, and deals with encouraging Jews to immigrate to Israel.

In recent years, the need to continue Nativ’s existence has come into question and officials have suggested dissolving it and transferring its authorities to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Jewish Agency. Since Lieberman’s entering the Foreign office he has taken over Nativ and poured funds into it, becoming in effect responsible for hundreds of thousands of Russian-speaking Jews.

Over the course of the past year, Lieberman has tried to expand Nativ’s activities in Russia – including setting up the cultural center in Novisibirsk, in southwest Siberia, home to 12,000 Jews. Russia has not welcomed these steps and responded by restricting the movements of Nativ’s envoys in it.

At this week’s meeting with Lavrov, Lieberman, accompanied by Nativ head Naomi Ben Ami, tried to persuade Lavrov to permit the opening of the center.

He assured his Russian counterpart that the center would only be used for cultural activities and would have nothing to do with espionage activity. “All we want is to carry out acts to prevent assimilation. We’re willing to give you all the information or clarifications you request,” Lieberman said.

Lavrov has not agreed to the request.

Turkey and Israeli hold first talks since flotilla raid

[It is significant that Israel’s abrasive Foreign Minister Lieberman was cut out of this public kiss and make-up session.  This is meant to put the shine on Obama’s allegedly legendary powers of persuasion, but it is merely closing the first phase of this latest psyop by the forces of Empire and opening the next phase.]

Turkey and Israeli hold first talks since flotilla raid

Ahmet Davutoglu (left) shakes hands with Benjamin Ben-Eliezer (23 November 2009) Ahmet Davutoglu and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer have held talks in the past

Israel and Turkey have held their first high-level meeting since the row over the killing of Turkish activists on an aid ship bound for Gaza, officials say.

Israeli Trade Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer held secret talks with Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, reportedly in Brussels on Wednesday.

Turkey later confirmed the meeting but said nothing substantial was agreed.

Ankara curtailed diplomatic relations with Israel in May, after the naval raid in which nine Turks were killed.

This is an insult to the norms of accepted behaviour and a heavy blow to the confidence between the foreign minister and the prime minister

Avigdor LiebermanIsraeli Foreign Minister

The country, which had been Israel’s most important Muslim ally, has demanded an apology and compensation for the victims’ families.

Israel has refused, saying its commandos acted in self-defence after being attacked by a group of passengers on the ship, which was part of a flotilla trying to break its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, the ship’s cargo has begun to arrive in Gaza via land, starting with second-hand mobility scooters for the handicapped. The aid was impounded by the Israeli authorities after the raid.

‘White House pressure’

News of the secret meeting between representatives of the former allies was broken on Wednesday evening by Israeli Channel 2 TV.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office subsequently confirmed the reports, saying: “Minister Ben-Eliezer informed the prime minister of an offer by a Turkish figure to hold an unofficial meeting.”

“The prime minister saw nothing to prevent such a meeting, as in recent weeks there have been various initiatives for contacts with Turkey.”

A senior Israeli source told the Haaretz newspaper that the White House had pushed for a meeting and co-ordinated its details with both parties.

President Barack Obama met Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the recent G20 summit in Toronto, and will hold taks with Mr Netanyahu in Washington on Tuesday.

Mr Ben-Eliezer is the most pro-Turkish member of the Israeli cabinet and, unlike his colleagues, he openly supported a call by the UN for an international inquiry into last month’s raid. Israel has agreed only to an internal investigation involving two foreign observers.

Turkish officials said nothing substantial was agreed during the meeting and that their demand for an apology from Israel, compensation for the victims of the raid and an international inquiry were not met.

But they said Turkey’s goal was still to rebuild relations with Israel.

There were conflicting reports about who requested Wednesday’s meeting. An Israeli spokesman told the BBC that Turkey had initiated contact, while Turkish officials told the AFP news agency Israel had.

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was not aware the secret talks had taken place until they were reported by the media and he later accused Mr Netanyahu of undermining his authority.

“The foreign minister takes a very serious view of the fact that this occurred without informing the ministry of foreign affairs,” he said in a statement.

Pro-Palestinian protests in Ankara, 6 June 2010There were large-scale Turkish protests against Israel’s naval raid

“This is an insult to the norms of accepted behaviour and a heavy blow to the confidence between the foreign minister and the prime minister.”

Mr Netanyahu’s office blamed “technical reasons” for the failure.

Correspondents say Mr Lieberman’s hardline approach to Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs has made him unpopular abroad. In the past, other ministers have been sent in his place to diplomatic meetings.

Last month, Turkey barred two Israeli military flights from using Turkish airspace, but it says it will examine further requests from Israel on a case-by-case basis. Civilian flights remain unaffected.

The BBC’s Jonathan Head in Istanbul said that after a month of angry exchanges between the Israeli and Turkish governments, Wednesday’s meeting would be seen as an important step back from a complete break in relations.

Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy

Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy

The Turkish government this week brokered an 11th-hour nuclear fuel swap deal with Iran. Turkey’s foreign minister explains the principles that made it possible.

BY AHMET DAVUTOGLU | MAY 20, 2010

Throughout modern history, there has been a direct relationship between conflict and the emergence of new ways of arbitrating world affairs. Every major war since the 17th century was concluded by a treaty that led to the emergence of a new order, from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 that followed the Thirty Years’ War, to the Congress of Vienna of 1814-1815 that brought an end to the Napoleonic Wars, to the ill-fated Treaty of Versailles that concluded the first World War, to the agreement at Yalta that laid the groundwork for the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. Yet the Cold War, which could be regarded as a global-scale war, ended not with grand summitry, but with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was no official conclusion; one of the combatant sides just suddenly ceased to exist.

Two decades hence, no new international legal and political system has been formally created to meet the challenges of the new world order that emerged. Instead, a number of temporary, tactical, and conflict-specific agreements have been implemented. From the Nagorno-Karabakh region to Cyprus, and even the deadlocked Israeli-Palestinian dispute, a series of cease-fire arrangements have succeeded in ending bloodshed but have failed to establish comprehensive peace agreements. Overall, the current situation has quantitatively increased the diversification of international actors and qualitatively complicated the foreign-policy making process.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made it clear that this situation is not sustainable. Immediately after the attacks, the United States began attempting to establish an international order based on a security discourse, thus replacing the liberty discourse that emerged after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It is in this context that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq can best be understood. The intent was to transform an unstable international environment by targeting crisis-prone zones that were considered to be the sources of insecurity. But in the process, predictions about the end of history and the expansion of civil rights and liberties have largely lost their appeal.

U.S. President Barack Obama challenged the security-based perspective of the post-Sept. 11 era as soon as he assumed the presidency in 2009. He has actively attempted to restore America’s international image, and has made considerable efforts to adopt a new vision that embraces a multilateral international system and fosters close cooperation with regional allies.

Still, we are faced with an incredibly difficult period until a new global order is established. Many of today’s challenges can only be resolved with broader international involvement, but the mechanisms needed to meet fully those challenges do not exist. It will therefore fall largely to nation-states to meet and create solutions for the global political, cultural, and economic turmoil that will likely last for the next decade and beyond.

In this new world, Turkey is playing an increasingly central role in promoting international security and prosperity. The new dynamics of Turkish foreign policy ensure that Turkey can act with the vision, determination, and confidence that the historical moment demands.

Turkey in the post-Cold War era

Turkey experienced the direct impact of the post-Cold War atmosphere of insecurity, which resulted in a variety of security problems in Turkey’s neighborhood. The most urgent issue for Turkish diplomacy, in this context, was to harmonize Turkey’s influential power axes with the new international environment.

During the Cold War, Turkey was a “wing country” under NATO’s strategic framework, resting on the geographic perimeter of the Western alliance. NATO’s strategic concept, however, has evolved in the post-Cold War era — and so has Turkey’s calculation of its strategic environment. Turkey’s presence in Afghanistan is a clear indication of this change. We are a wing country no longer.

Turkey is currently facing pressure to assume an important regional role, which admittedly has created tensions between its existing strategic alliances and its emerging regional responsibilities. The challenge of managing these relationships was acutely felt in recent regional crises in the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Turkey remains committed to establishing harmony between its current strategic alliances and its neighbors and neighboring regions.

Turkey’s unique demographic realities also affect its foreign-policy vision. There are more Bosnians in Turkey than in Bosnia-Herzegovina, more Albanians than in Kosovo, more Chechens than in Chechnya, more Abkhazians than in the Abkhaz region in Georgia, and a significant number of Azeris and Georgians, in addition to considerable other ethnicities from neighboring regions. Thus, these conflicts and the effect they have on their populations have a direct impact on domestic politics in Turkey.

Because of this fact, Turkey experiences regional tensions at home and faces public demands to pursue an active foreign-policy to secure the peace and security of those communities. In this sense, Turkish foreign policy is also shaped by its own democracy, reflecting the priorities and concerns of its citizens. As a result of globalization, the Turkish public follows international developments closely. Turkey’s democratization requires it to integrate societal demands into its foreign policy, just as all mature democracies do.

The European Union and NATO are the main fixtures and the main elements of continuity in Turkish foreign policy. Turkey has achieved more within these alliances during the past seven years under the AK Party government than it did in the previous 40 years. Turkey’s involvement in NATO has increased during this time; Turkey recently asked for, and achieved, a higher representation in the alliance. Turkey also has advanced considerably in the European integration process compared with the previous decade, when it was not even clear whether the EU was seriously considering Turkey’s candidacy. EU progress reports state that Turkish foreign policy and EU objectives are in harmony, a clear indication that Turkey’s foreign-policy orientation aligns well with transatlantic objectives.

As we leave behind the first decade of the 21st century, Turkey has been able to formulate a foreign-policy vision based on a better understanding of the realities of the new century, even as it acts in accordance with its historical role and geographical position. In this sense, Turkey’s orientation and strategic alliance with the West remains perfectly compatible with Turkey’s involvement in, among others, Iraq, Iran, the Caucasus, the Middle East peace process, and Afghanistan.