Russia ready to supply Afghanistan with arms

Russia ready to supply Afghanistan with arms

Russia is ready to cooperate with NATO on the issues of arms supplies forAfghanistan, RIA Novosti news agency reported on Monday.

“We confirm our readiness to ship the military equipment to Afghanistan,” Russian ambassador to Afghanistan Andrei Avetisyan said during a two-day meeting of Russian ambassadors being held in Moscow, Xinhua reported.

According to a diplomat, Afghans value Russian arms and are interested in its shipment.

“So we are ready to cooperate with Afghanistan and NATO unilaterally in this respect,” Avetisyan said. He noted that until now these supplies had been insignificant.

Russian ambassadors were meeting to discuss modernization and protection of the country’s national interests, Interfax news agency reported.

Turkmen Military Build-Up, Despite Hosting Disarmament Conference

09/07/2010

[SEE:  Regional Disarmament Conference in Ashgabat: Leading the World to Global Peace]

Neutral Turkmenistan military buildup

NBCA

Modern threats and proximity to unstable countries make Ashgabat pay close attention to national defense. However, the authorities should pay attention to the training of military personnel.

July 2 in a military town Akdepe Berdymukhammedov, the president of Turkmenistan, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and the Army General of the State Council held a visiting session of the Security and familiar with samples of new specialized equipment, received the national army.

In the training center Berdymukhammedov personally experienced the power of modern military aircraft simulators “Su-25 fighter jet and” MiG-29 “.

Turkmen leader demonstrated unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters, emergency vehicles, motorcycles and other modern technology that is used during the arrest of criminals at the border, transport aircraft An-74 “, weapons workshops and stables to office of horses used in the Turkmen army.

The campaign to modernize the army Berdymukhammedov began a few months after coming to power in June 2007. Then the Turkmen armed forces constituted a “structural legacy of the Soviet Army, the most mobile units, which were aircraft, artillery and tank units.

“The armored units deployed in Serhetabat [in the south of Mary Province] of ten tanks, only one could be acquired and self-moving” – recalls a military observer NBCA Turkmenistan, who commended the authorities’ determination to modernize weapons in the army.

The reason for the refusal to re-Turkmen authorities have until 2007 served as the political neutrality and lack of need for participation in military blocs.

In January 2010 adopted a Programme of development of the naval forces in the period before 2015, because the Turkmen flotilla is the weakest among the littoral states.

Currently, the main base of the Turkmen fleet, numbering about 2,000 people, located in the western port city of Turkmenbashi.

At its armed patrol boats are Ukrainian, Russian and American production, as well as Coast Guard cutters and the destroyer, the resulting long-term lease from Iran.

“Call today demonstrate the need to re – Ashgabat commentator notes .- The proximity to potential areas of tension – Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Iran, as well as a number of unsolved issues with Uzbekistan and controversial areas in the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan to justify the authorities’ desire to strengthen the army.”

However, the technical re-equipment must be accompanied by increased human resource capacity and training of the true defenders of the Fatherland, said other commentators.

Respondents stressed the need for more careful selection of young military personnel by vocation, their physical and vocational training.

When collecting material for this article mediaobozrevatel News Briefing Central Asia held several interviews with graduates of military academies, and noted that many of them received a diploma are valued as a means of career advancement, opportunity to use their authority and privileges, such as good salary and free housing.

He also referred to the speech teacher at the Military Academy, according to which “85 percent of graduates – are relatives of existing staff the Defense Ministry, Frontier, or DHS, entered the Academy with the help of bribes and patronage.”

“Nobody is ready to just give his life for the sake of the country and the president,” – shared his observations mediaobozrevatel.

Azerbaijan, United States consider military cooperation

Azerbaijan, United States consider military cooperation (PHOTO)

Azerbaijan, Baku, July 12 / Trend S. Agayeva /

Azerbaijani and U.S. military officials are discussing future cooperation.

Consultations are being held today between officials, the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan told Trend.

Representatives of the Pentagon and the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry will discuss a wide range of issues and plans for next year during their two-day meeting, the embassy said.

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Celeste Wallander is heading the talks.

The consultations are held annually.

Do you have any feedback? Contact our journalist at trend@trend.az

Photos to news:

The Secrets Behind the “Roses Revolution”

The “Roses Revolution”

The Secrets of the Georgian Coup, an ex-Soviet Republic

by Paul Labarique

Presented as a spontaneous and non violent movement, the riot that forced Eduard Shevardnadze’s resignation from the presidency of Georgia is, in real life, the result of a patient manipulation. Georgia, a disputed strategic oil target between the Russian Federation and the U.S., has become the center of their conflict. The popular anger, skillfully manipulated by Madeleine Albright’s Democratic Institute and formed by youth associations funded by George Soros, allowed the CIA to put its men in control of Tbilisi, the capital of the country.

Ruled since 1991 by the USSR former Minister of Foreign Relations, Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgia has overcome a pacifist revolution. The so called “White Zorro” was expelled by his people -tired of a total corruption and an endless economic fragility- who questioned the regularity of last November 2003 elections. This spontaneous movement (compared with the “carnation revolution” by which the Portuguese people overthrew without violence Marcelo Caetano’s regime, heir of Salazar’s dictatorship) has been named the “roses revolution” for such a movement will lead to the reestablishment of a more transparent and less corrupted democratic regime that would give hope to the people.

But then we would believe the extraordinary propaganda campaign that led to this coup planned abroad for a long time. And the thing is that Georgia is far from being a country without any international perspective. Its importance is even crucial in the international arena. In fact, its territory occupies the south of the Caspian Sea and has borders with Turkey, Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. This central position usually places it in the middle of a turbulent area since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, especially in the middle of the pipelines war between the U.S. and the Russian Federation.

Georgia in the Middle of the “Great Game”

Hostilities began on April 17, 1999 with the inauguration of the pipeline that goes from Baku (Azerbaijan) to the port of Supsa (Georgia) in the Black Sea. The project, financed by Washington, put an end to the Russian hegemony on the hydrocarbon exports of the Caspian Sea. During that year too, Georgia allied with Ukraine and Azerbaijan and separated from Russia. It also broke the borders collective defense treaty of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Tashkent collective security treaty (signed in this city, capital of Uzbekistan, another former Soviet republic).

Instead of this diplomatic system of alliances organized around Russia, Georgia preferred to join NATO and its American leading. This attitude forced president Yeltsin to sign, in November 1999 during the Summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Istanbul, an agreement to dismantle two of the four Russian military bases in Georgia, a dismantling that began in year 2000 despite the General Staff’s reluctance. The Georgian decision of siding with the U.S. in a moment, in which its strategic position was fundamental, was a tendency which characterized the countries of the southern Caucasus. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. changed its “containment” strategy in the region and applied the “rollback” strategy which consisted in causing the rise and falls of the Russian positions. Thus, the most important countries of the region formed Guuam, an acronym composed by the first letter of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldavia. This organization, in favor of the U.S., met in May 2000 -in Washington- to address military and security issues.

The Guuam countries are the core of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline American project that would link up Azerbaijan with Turkey through the Georgian capital. Its route does not include the Russian territory, goes through Chechnya and surrounds both Iran and Armenia. Armenia and Azerbaijan have a conflict regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region and Armenia is still the only member state of the area working for Moscow’s military cooperation bodies. Therefore, western countries are putting a lot of pressure on Armenians for they want them to make the necessary concessions on the conflict with Azerbaijan and join the great BTC pipeline project.

In October 1999, Armenia’s Primer Minister and President of Parliament were murdered. These pressures were aimed at stabilizing the countries the pipeline would go through. However, oil is not the only thing at risk, but political and military objectives too. The CIA presented an extremely optimistic report -completely false, according to experts- on the reserves of the Caspian Sea to exaggerate its importance. According to experts on the Caucasus Jean Radvanyi and Philippe Rekacewicz, «the pressure exerted by Washington and Ankara on the companies so that they co-finance the pipeline construction in Georgia and Turkey show the priority given to political purposes over economics». [1].

Eduard Shevardnadze, an Ungrateful Ally

In this new “Great Game”, characterized as a sort of a new Cold War, [2]. Georgia was a key country for it could guarantee the stability of oil installations and Turkey’s supplies. Consequently, Shevardnadze’s regimen was especially “spoiled” by Washington which turned it into the main regional recipient of its economic assistance. In return, Georgia followed the White House’s foreign policy without hesitation.

In 1999, when Russian president Boris Yeltsin decided to use the Georgian territory to invade Chechnya, Shevardnadze did what Clinton’s special adviser to Russia -Strobe Talbott- told him to do: reject the Russian request. A month after September 11, 2001, Shevardnadze proposed the admission of American troops in the region in exchange of a huge financial assistance. Georgia was later used as a stopover for the US Air Force flights during the war against Afghanistan and authorized several hundreds of American military men to supposedly direct Georgian commandos in the search for hypothetical members of al-Qaeda in neighboring Chechnya. By the end of 2001, Shevardnadze even purged his own intelligence agencies and appointed his pro-American former ambassador to Washington, Tedo Dzhaparidze, as head of the national security.

But as years passed by, the Georgian president lost his influence, the corruption and the poor economic results weakened his position and led him to review his exclusively alignment with Washington’s policy. Gradually, he allied with Alan Abchidze, the Russian follower governor of Adjaria autonomous region, which shared borders with Turkey and was strategically important because the oil coming from neighboring Azerbaijan was essentially transferred through its port which was also Turkey’s main trade door. This rapprochement forced Shevardnadze to improve his relations with Moscow and review his strategic partnership with the U.S. According to agency AFP, in 2003, «American firms were taken out of the Georgian market due to an arbitrary tax». [3]. In this context, Washington gradually withdrew its unconditional support to this ungrateful ally, especially when it fell behind with the construction of the pipeline.

Several officers of the American administration then traveled to Georgia during year 2003 to meet with Shevardnadze. According to English journal The Guardian, the purpose of these official visits was to let Georgian president know that his days as president were counted. Richard Miles, the American ambassador to Georgia, told the Washington Post that the U.S. wanted a “stronger government”, an unusual critic that came from a long time ally. The very same Richard Mile devoted a lot of time to prepare young Mijail Saakashvili for his future job [4].

The U.S. Planning of the Spontaneous Revolution

Saakashvili, 35 years old, got his Law degree at Columbia University, New York and after working for a while in an enterprise there, he went back to Georgia as a protégée and leader of Eduard Shevardnadze’s former party Union of Citizens. In year 2000, he was appointed Minister of Justice. After using his position to denounce the corruption of politicians even in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, he was forced to resign in 2002. He founded then his own party and became one of the leaders of the opposition. Actually, Saakashvili became Washington’s man to overthrow Shevardnadze. The operation, based on Slobodan Milosevic’s overthrow in Serbia, needed the manipulation of several forces.

JPEG - 4 kb
Madeleine Albright
Clinton’s former Secretary of State directed the NGO that said elections were manipulated.

The first thing to be done was to denounce the result of the legislative elections of November 2, 2003 that allowed President Shevardnadze and Aslan Abchidze’s political forces achieve a victory by a narrow margin over the opposition led by Mijail Saakashvili and Nina Burjanadze, then president of the parliament. The “spontaneous” protest was based on two elements: first, it was said the electoral registers were falsified; and second, the result of the last minute polls was different from the official ones. But the problem was that these accusations were made by the same institution: the National Democratic Institute, which, supposedly was an American NGO but in real life was a creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, [5] directed by Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This foundation also made the electoral registers electronically and its numerous mistakes led to the popular distrust and fraud suspicion. It was also in charge of conducting the last minute polls in which the results of the opposition parties were overestimated.

JPEG - 7.4 kb
George Soros
The multimillionaire funded the youth movement called Kmara which was a copy of the Serbian movement Otpor that challenged and withdrew Milosevic.

But fraud was not the most important thing. The key issue was to find out if the opposition could use this argument and mobilized the public opinion to finally withdraw the regime and force Georgian president’s resignation, something that happened on November 23, 2003. It must be acknowledged that, as Eduard Shevardnadze said to the Russian press some time later; there were no spontaneous movements too. But according to him, the organizers of the whole thing were, first of all, millionaire George Soros [6], the said American Democratic Institute and former Secretary of State James Baker;«George Soros founded youth groups Kmara [Enough!] to challenge the power. They recruited very young boys, 15 years old and trained them in two months […] The American National Institute did the same thing». [7].

These methods were similar to those used by the U.S. in Serbia in year 2000 to withdraw Slobodan Milosevic. According to the former Georgian minister of security, Igor Giorgadze,«Mijail Saakashvili followed exactly the instructions given to him». It is also true that the youth movement called Kmara denounced by Shevardnadze was financed by George Soros and was a copy of Otpor, the Serbian movement that challenged Milosevic in Belgrade. [8].

The first telephone call made by the interim president was: “the oil pipeline is ok”. Nina Burdjanadze, the interim president of the parliament according to the constitution, announced on November 23, 2003 that she wanted to continue with “the fair political direction” that former president Eduard Shevardnadze had chosen, by making emphasis on the “western values”, the “strategic partnership” with the U.S. and improving relations with Russia. In an interview granted to CNN, she reaffirmed that Georgia’s goal was to «be a member of the European family, of the Euro-Atlantic alliance. We want to keep our strategic partnership with the U.S. who has made a lot for our country». But, according to The Guardian, «the first telephone call made by the acting interim president […] was to BP [the Anglo-Dutch oil company]. She called them to ‘guarantee that the pipeline is OK’, pointed out an important Georgian official». This first act showed the real purposes of the coup d’état that ended on Sunday, January 4, 2004 with the election of Mijail Saakashvili (Washington’s favorite) as president of the republic.

Then, Russia was forced to react. During the crisis, Vladimir Putin sent his Minister of Foreign Relations, Igor Ivanov, to strengthen the Kremlin’s image in a moment in which its position was considerably weakened. The return to regional tensions was perceived due to the remarkable presence of the Russian forces in the country since the Soviet era that controlled three secessionist or autonomous enclaves (South Osetia, Abkhazia and Adjaria) and two military bases.

The episode was an evidence of the new American interfering methods, inspired by those of the stay behind though greatly modernized, as shown by the Serbian example. But in order to make them operative, these methods must have a real popular support. The last failure of the attempted coup in Venezuela was a cruel warning for the CIA and questioned the doctrine of those that, in Washington, think they can impose their will upon the peoples of the world.


[1] Jean Radvanyi y Philippe Rekacewicz: «Conflits caucasiens et bras de fer russo-américain», Le Monde diplomatique, October 2000

[2] The Cold War was characterized by the confrontation of two blocks: the U.S. and the USSR without being a direct military clash. This is similar to what we have nowadays in the Caspian Sea region where Washington and Moscow are using intermediary forces to undermine each other’s position. An example of this are the attacks against the northern pipeline which links up Baku with the Russian port of Novorossiysk, registered as part of the Chechnyan territory since it was opened on April 1999 though immediately closed.

On August 1999, Chamil Basaev and Khabib Abdarrahman’s Chechnyan fighters took control of Dagestan where, by proposing the establishment of an Islamic state, they weakened Russian’s southern flank. On their side, the Russian tried to used the conflicts in Abkhazia, Osetia and Karabakh to maintain its own influence in the region and, especially, to keep Azerbaijan and Georgia out of the American influence

[3] «Crise géorgienne: l’ami américain n’est plus ce qu’il était», AFP, November 22, 2003

[4] Ian Traynor: “The people smoke out the grey fox”, The Guardian, November 24, 2003

[5] This organization, founded by Ronald Reagan to counteract the “axis of evil” forces is the CIA’s official political funding structure in the world. Its existence allows CIA to fund several political manipulation operations by financing false “left-wing” parties through the American National Democratic Institute or financing “right-wing” organizations thanks to the International Republican Institute

[6] George Soros is an American millionaire of Hungarian origin that owes his fortune to an intense speculative activity. As a member of the International Crisis Group, George Soros funded, with his personal fortune, a number of non governmental organizations and associations. At the beginning of November, the offices of the Soros Foundation in Moscow were confiscated and its activities in Russia were halted

[7] «L’ex-président Chevardnadzé dénonce le rôle des Américains dans sa chute», AFP, December, 1st., 2003

[8] «’It looks disturbingly like a coup’», The Guardian, November 25, 2003

Ex-President: Soros financed the Rose Revolution

Ex-President: Soros financed the Rose Revolution

Eduard Shevardnadze, the ex-President of Georgia, stated that George Soros, a renowned financier, and Richard Miles, the then U.S. ambassador to Georgia, were privy to the Rose Revolution, which lead Mikheil Saakashvili to the presidential post – the VZGLYAD.

According to Shevardnadze, Soros financed the revolution, and Richard Miles participated in it actively. He also noted that U.S. ex-ambassador “brought much evil to Georgia, but it’s too late to talk about it.”

Miles is considered privy to toppling leaders not only in Georgia, but also in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia – in these countries he headed U.S. diplomatic missions.

Angry Druze Residents Trap Israeli Police in Golan Heights Building

Angry Druze Residents Trap Israeli Police in Golan Heights Building

Hundreds of angry Druze residents of the Golan Heights surrounded a building in the main town of Majdel Shams, trapping inside policemen for several hours, police said.

    The 10 policemen were searching for “criminals” inside the building, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said, adding that reinforcements were called in who negotiated with the crowd and community elders to end the standoff.Rosenfeld said the operation was not political, adding there were no reports of injuries.

    Israel captured the strategic Golan Heights plateau from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War and unilaterally annexed it in 1981. Damascus has repeatedly demanded its return as a non-negotiable condition for peace.

    More than 18,000 Syrians, mostly Druze, are left from the Golan’s original population of 150,000. The vast majority of the Druze in the Golan have refused to take Israeli citizenship.

    Followers of a breakaway sect of Islam concentrated in Israel, Syria, and Lebanon, the Druze are not considered Muslims by most of the Islamic world.(AFP)

Robert Blake–American Spinmeister In Turkmenistan

Soviet Power and Water Systems and Peaceful Democratic States

Influence of water and energy problems in the integration processes in CentrAsia

Shahrier Turgunboev

Effect of water and energy problems

IN THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATION IN CENTRAL ASIA

In Central Asia (CA) Water is essential to the survival of entire peoples. And so, despite the emergence of post-1991 borders between the Central Asian republics, the water does not recognize these barriers, and this would inevitably lead to controversy. It happened. Moreover, previous inter-republic water-energy relationships do not meet the new realities in CA: if earlier conflicts over water and energy resources have been settled from the center, then after 1991, the Central Asian countries themselves had to deal with these problems. As a result, the history of relations between sovereign states of Central Asia since 1991 is characterized by conflict, in particular around the use of water resources in the region.
The main cause of water-power conflict is the fact that these resources are distributed in the region by nature not equally. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are the main holders of water, whereas, hydrocarbon resources (oil, gas, etc.) are concentrated in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. From this it follows that there is a certain complementarity between the Central Asian countries, but today, this complementarity is not used in the interests of all Central Asian states.
Tension is created around the two main rivers of Central Asia, which flow into the Aral Sea – the Syr Darya River, originating in Kyrgyzstan and flows through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan and the Amu Darya River, which flows from Tajikistan through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. And now, accusations of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan can be reduced, firstly, the use of cascade as a means of political pressure on neighboring countries, and secondly, attempts to gain unilateral economic benefits from the sale of water services and electricity at inflated prices.
Therefore, water and energy issues since 1991 are a major factor in the relations between Central Asian countries. In addition, this factor exerted a direct influence on the integration processes in Central Asia, as between water and energy issues and the integration processes in Central Asia, there is a direct relationship. And the development of integration processes in Central Asia largely depends on how quickly and efficiently can be solved by water-energy issues.
The uneven distribution of water and energy resources, after independence the Central Asian countries before the 2000’s was mainly unifying factor affecting the interests of all states in the region. This is indicated by numerous inter-governmental agreements on water and energy problems. In particular, 18 February 1992 signed the first “agreement on cooperation in the sphere of joint water resources management of international water resources”, in 1993 he founded the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS), the decision of the Presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, March 17 1998 framework agreement signed between Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on joint and integrated use of water and energy resources of the Naryn-Syr Darya reservoirs and hydropower Toktogul. All these agreements serve as a deterrent potential interstate conflicts in the area of water and energy resources. It was during this period were established institutional framework of Central Asian integration – CRA (1994), a tripartite agreement of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan “On Eternal Friendship” (1997), CAPS (1997), CACO (2001), signed a set of documents covering all areas of interaction between the Central Asian republics.
However, by early 2000-ies the situation has changed radically. Instead of further strengthening the integration process started in Central Asian disintegration. All the foundations of regional integration have been destroyed. In particular, in 2004, the CACO joined Russia, and on Oct. 6, 2005, the organization altogether ceased to exist and became part of the EurAsEC. In foreign policy, some Central Asian countries instead of the overall efforts in addressing regional problems, began to dominate ambitions. Update construction in 2007 Rogun in Tajikistan and Kambarata in Kyrgyzstan was the highest manifestation of these ambitions. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which are the “upper country” of transboundary rivers of the Central Asian region, began construction of giant hydroelectric power station, ignoring the interests of “low countries” – Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Therefore, since 2007 the water-energy issues being actively discussed at the meeting of the Council of Heads of SCO Member States on Aug. 16, 2007, at the summit of Heads of State IFAS April 28, 2009, at the general debate of the UN General Assembly in September 2009, etc. In all these meetings, representatives of Bishkek and Dushanbe say the construction of the HPP is not directed against other countries that new hydropower will export electricity to Afghanistan, Pakistan and China, that the construction of hydropower is their sovereign right.
However, firstly, if the construction of the HPP is not directed against other countries, then why is still “lower country” extremely concerned about the negative impact of these projects? Because neither of Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan are unable to provide convincing arguments and evidence that would reassure other countries of Central Asia.
Secondly, as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan can export electricity, if Afghanistan remains unstable, and in Pakistan exacerbated the security situation? Who and how can guarantee the security of energy transit in this country?
Fourth, and Rogun, and Kambarata built on transboundary rivers [1] Central Asian region, which are vital for all countries and peoples of Central Asia. By its actions, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan violates several international legal instruments:
– Principle 2 of Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Environment and Development “, that” States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their policies on environment and development and are responsible for ensuring that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond national jurisdiction “; [2]
– Article 5 of the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, which states that “Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable use and obtain benefits therefrom, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse “, and Article 7 of the Convention states:” the watercourse States in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent significant harm to other States watercourse. “[3]
Analyzing all the above facts and positions on water-energy issues, we can note the following:
First, after 1991 in CA ever going two opposite and at the same time, interconnected processes: the acute worsening water and energy problems, fewer and fewer mentions of regional integration in Central Asia, not to mention the specific steps in this direction . You get the feeling that it is “Water and energy agreement” is an incentive for Central Asian integration, which, unfortunately, not yet.
Secondly, in the history of water and energy relations between Central Asian countries there is a certain evolution: first, the main cause of conflicts were ownership of water resources, distribution of water and energy resources equally to all states in the region (until 2000), and today has become a bone of contention construction of new hydroelectric power station on the transboundary rivers.
Thirdly, the construction of new hydroelectric power station – is not so much the vital interests of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, as many ambitious leaders of those countries. According to most experts, or Kyrgyzstan, or Tajikistan is not able to build such giant structures. Since the completion of Kambarata requires a minimum of 2,5 billion U.S. dollars, and for Rogun – $ 3 billion. At the same time, in 2009, Tajikistan’s foreign debt amounted to 1 billion 691.3 million U.S. dollars, this amount is equivalent to 35.8 per cent to gross domestic product ($ 5, 05 billion) [4], and the public external debt of Kyrgyzstan, As of May 1, 2009 amounted to 2 billion 348.6 million U.S. dollars, and GDP – $ 5 billion [5].
Fourth, with the new HPP of Bishkek and Dushanbe are going primarily to get a very strong leverage on the “bottom of the country, including Uzbekistan, to dictate its own terms, rather than generate additional revenue from the sale of electricity. And it is not so much gidropolitika as geopolitics.
Given the importance of water and energy problems in the fate of Central Asian integration, may be considered the following ways to address these problems:
1. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan rather than construction of new hydroelectric power station, should be to modernize the old buildings on their own territory. It would be beneficial to all states in the region, since upgrading HPP does not require such increased costs as construction of new, and most importantly, there would be no disagreement with the “Low Countries”.
2. Promise (which received support from Uzbekistan), delivered at the Summit of Heads of States Parties IFAS, April 28, 2009, the President of Turkmenistan that his “country is ready to deliver the required number of its neighbors and the amount of natural and liquefied gas, and electricity.” [6] At the same time Uzbekistan will continue to play an important transit country. In the case of this proposal Tashkent should agree to a free transit of Turkmen gas to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan in exchange for a guaranteed free water from these countries and the suspension of the construction of new hydroelectric power plants.
3. Selling Kyrgyzstan Uzbek gas at domestic prices of Uzbekistan. [7] In this case, Tashkent received the most favorable conditions for the settlement of water and energy problems with Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and they just could not justify the construction of new hydroelectric no arguments.
4. Establish a regime of joint management of transboundary rivers. Such solutions in the world experience have met in the XIX century, for example, in 1824 an agreement was concluded between France and Switzerland on the joint use of the Rhone, treaties between Belgium and Luxembourg (1843), Spain and Portugal (1866) and others, based on the idea of compromise the interests of the contracting parties.
In conclusion, I would like to stress that all Central Asian countries are responsible for the fate of Central Asian regional integration. Therefore, solving the problem of water and energy resources peacefully, taking into account the interests of all Central Asian countries, they would have committed a further step towards integration. For, as emphasized by President Islam Karimov at the Summit of Heads of States Parties IFAS (April 28, 2009), “the Heads of State, responsible to their people, to history, must first think about how to find common ground today. Uncommitted these discussions and do not show them on the political level. … The most important thing – do not strain relations between countries and heads of state, but rather to find a compromise. The other way we have not. “[8]
Uzbekistan, as the most powerful state in Central Asia, can and should become a leader in addressing water and energy problems of the region. Because as stated by the Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan to the UN Murad Askarov, speaking at a debate in the 64 th session of UN General Assembly devoted to water management, “Uzbekistan, where every other inhabitant of Central Asia, has a moral right to be a leader in coordinating the efforts of region in the search for solutions of problems of water management. [9] As Henry Kissinger wrote in his book “Diplomacy”, “Bismarck … decided to build alliances and forge a relationship with someone you like, to Prussia always appeared closer to any of the contending parties than they do themselves – to each other.” [10] Of course, the same policy Tashkent could hold on to the Central Asian countries in addressing water and energy problems.

Notes:
1. “Transboundary waters” means any surface or ground waters which mark, cross the boundary between two or more States or are located on the borders. / / Protocol on Water and Health to the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, 1992 / / http://www.un.org/russian/documen/convents/water_protection.html
2. Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Environment and Development / / http://www.un.org/russian/documen/declarat/riodecl.htm
3. The Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses / / http://www.un.org/russian/documen/convents/watercrs.htm
4. Tajikistan: External Debt of the country exceeded half a billion dollars / / http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=126445374
5. On 1 May 2009 Kyrgyzstan’s external debt amounted to almost $ 2.35 billion / / http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1244267160.
6. Kuanov A. Water contention. By the results of the Almaty summit, Bul-Bul / / http://www.tazar.kg/news.php?i=10407
7. M.Laumulin / F.Tolipov: Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The struggle for leadership? / / http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1267266480
8. Speech by President of Uzbekistan at the Summit of the founding of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea / / http://www.press-service.uz/ # ru / news / show / vistupleniya / vyistuplenie_prezidenta_uzbekistana_na_v /
9. M. Askarov: “Uzbekistan has a moral right to be a leader in addressing the problems of water management in Central Asia” / / http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1257842160
10. H. Kissinger Diplomacy. Moscow: Scientific Publishing Center LODOMIR, 1997, C – 105.

Shahrier Turgunboev, III year student
National University Ulugbek
Faculty of Philosophy, Political Science directions
shahriyor_t@mail.ru

Source – CentrAsia

Riots in N.Ireland see 27 officers hurt

Riots in N.Ireland see 27 officers hurt

Orangemen march amid tight security past the Nationalist Ardoyne area of North Belfast, Northern Ireland

BELFAST : Rioting by Catholics left 27 police injured in Northern Ireland, including three with gunshot wounds, officials said Monday, ahead of the biggest day of Northern Ireland’s marching season.

The overnight violence in Belfast saw missiles being thrown and petrol bombs ignited as Catholics took to the streets hours before Protestant Orangemen march in a traditional flashpoint in the British province.

“This is utterly wrong and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms,” said Chief Superintendent Mark Hamilton of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

“Those involved… were intent on causing mayhem and destruction.”

July 12 is the biggest day in Northern Ireland’s marching season and sees Protestants mark Prince William of Orange’s victory over the Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.

Despite the relative calm in Northern Ireland since a peace agreement in 1998, violence frequently breaks out around July 12 as Catholics try to prevent the marches from going ahead.

Twenty-one police officers were injured last year and there have also been serious disturbances in previous years.

None of the officers injured overnight were seriously hurt.

“Officers put themselves in danger in order to restore normal and calm to the area for the residents who live there. No one wants a return to this type of behaviour,” said Hamilton.

“We have appealed for calm in the run up to the 12th of July and we continue to do so. We would appeal to anyone with influence in the community to exert it to ensure that the next few days pass off without incident.”

– AFP/jm

China mulls setting up military base in Pakistan

–(10,000 article posted on There Are No Sunglasses, since  2008/07/10)–

Vodpod videos no longer available.

China mulls setting up military base in Pakistan


Agencies
Beijing, January 29, 2010

BEIJING: China has signaled it wants to go the US way and set up military bases in overseas locations that would possibly include Pakistan. The obvious purpose would be to exert pressure on India as well as counter US influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. ( Watch Video )

“(So) it is baseless to say that we will not set up any military bases in future because we have never sent troops abroad,” an article published on Thursday at a Chinese government website said. “It is our right,” the article said and went on to suggest that it would be done in the neighborhood, possibly Pakistan.

“As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct the retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighboring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the potential enemies’ overseas interests,” it said.

A military base in Pakistan will also help China keep a check on Muslim Uighur separatists fighting for an independent nation in its western region of Xingjian, which borders the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Beijing recently signed an agreement with the local government of NWFP in order to keep a close watch on the movement of Uighur ultras.

“I have personally felt for sometime that China might one day build a military base in India’s neighborhood. China built the Gadwar port in Pakistan and is now broadening the Karokoram highway. These facilities can always be put to military use when the need arises,” Ramesh V Phadke, former Air Commodore and advisor to the Institute of Defense Studies told TNN.

Phadke said the article in very significant. “The purpose may be to see how the international community reacts to it,” he said.



The obvious purpose would be to exert pressure on India as well as counter US influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“(So) it is baseless to say that we will not set up any military bases in future because we have never sent troops abroad,” an article published on Thursday at a Chinese government website said. “It is our right,” the article said and went on to suggest that it would be done in the neighborhood, possibly Pakistan.

“As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct the retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighboring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the potential enemies’ overseas interests,” it said.

A military base in Pakistan will also help China keep a check on Muslim Uighur separatists fighting for an independent nation in its western region of Xingjian, which borders the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Beijing recently signed an agreement with the local government of NWFP in order to keep a close watch on the movement of Uighur ultras.

“I have personally felt for sometime that China might one day build a military base in India’s neighborhood. China built the Gwadar port in Pakistan and is now broadening theKarokoram highway. These facilities can always be put to military use when the need arises,” Ramesh V Phadke, former Air Commodore and advisor to the Institute of Defense Studies told TNN.

Phadke said the article in very significant. “The purpose may be to see how the international community reacts to it,” he said. China, which has no military bases outside its territory, has often criticized the United States for operating such overseas bases. It has not just changed its standpoint but also wants to enter the lucrative protection business.

“With further development, China will be in great demand of the military protection,” the article said. Pakistan, which buys 70% of its military hardware from China, is likely to be an eager buyer for such protection. Beijing may also be able to pressurize Islamabad to accept its diktat using the threat of withholding military supplies.

A Pakistani expert on China-Pakistan relationship has a different view on the subject. “The Americans had a base in the past and it caused a political stink. I don’t think it would be politically possible for the Pakistani government to openly allow China to set up a military base,” he said while requesting anonymity. Pakistan might allow use of its military facilities without publicly announcing it, he said.

A Chinese military base can tackle several international relations issues, it said. One of them is “the relationship between the base troops and the countries neighboring to the host country.” This is another indication that Beijing is considering Pakistan as a possible base. China’s argument is that a foreign base would actually help regional stability.

“If the base troops can maintain the regional stability, it will be probably welcomed by all the countries in the region,” the article said. Beijing is conscious that the move might result in opposition from the US, UK and France which has overseas military bases.

“Thirdly, the relationship between the big countries in the world. The establishment of the troop bases is sensitive to those big countries which have already set up the bases abroad,” the article said.



Don’t shun the idea of setting up overseas military bases


By Shen Dingli
Jan 28, 2010

Whether we (China) should set up overseas military bases has been a hot topic ever since China joined the international anti-pirate co-operation last year. The issue sparks hot debates online. Some navy officers believe there is a need to set up some bases for military supply, while the government declares China is in no need to seek supplies from such kind of bases.

Chinese troops once garrisoned in other countries

Setting up overseas military bases is not an idea we have to shun; on the contrary, it is our right. Bases established by other countries appear to be used to protect their overseas rights and interests. As long as the bases are set up in line with international laws and regulations, they are legal ones. But if the bases are established to harm other countries, their existence becomes illegal and they are likely to be opposed by other countries.

China develops its military force with a theme of peace in mind. Therefore, we can either develop military forces domestically to maintain peace, or place the forces abroad as long as we take world peace as the ultimate goal. In the 1950s, the Korean War enflamed the border of China. China had no option but to call up volunteer soldiers to fight against the overseas intervention in its northern neighbor. Many of the volunteer soldiers remained in North Korea for years after the end of the Korean war to safeguard the peace of the two countries. Finally, the troops withdrew from the peninsular where the stability was regained.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China dispatched troops abroad under the invitation of the foreign countries as long as their requests are in line with our security interests, good to resume regional stability and benefit for the world peace process. So it is baseless to say that we will not set up any military bases in future because we have never sent troops abroad.

We need to know the military bases are not set up in view of the previous practices but are established in accordance with China’s interests as well as world peace. We can speak the point clearly even though to set up overseas military bases is not yet on agenda. It is wrong for us to believe we have no rights to set up the bases abroad.

The current four overseas interests for China:

With the continuous expansion of China’s overseas business, the governments are more accountable for protecting the overseas interests. There are four responsibilities: the protection of the people and fortunes overseas; the guarantee of smooth trading; the prevention of the overseas intervention which harms the unity of the country and the defense against foreign invasion. The purpose of the tasks is to deter the threats posed on our legal interests.

To guarantee the above mentioned interests, we need to enhance the power in safeguarding our overseas interests. And the power should be comprehensive enough to demonstrate our political, economic and military forces. As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct the retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighboring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the potential enemies’ overseas interests. With further development, China will be in great demand of the military protection.

Obviously, navy is crucial in safeguarding the security of the country. When our country’s core interests are harmed, the navy is responsible to conduct retaliatory attack including blocking the enemy’s sea traffic. When the public discusses overseas military bases, they refer to the supply base for the navy escorting the ships cruising in the Gulf of Aden and Somali. The discussion shows people’s enthusiasm in defending the interests of the country. Yet their worries are not the most important reasons for the setup of an overseas military base.

It is true that we are facing the threat posed by terrorism, but different from America, it is not a critical issue. The real threat to us is not posed by the pirates but by the countries which block our trade route. The threats also include secessionism outside the Chinese mainland. The situation requires us be able to hit the vulnerable points of our potential opponents by restricting their international waterway. So we need to set up our own blue-water navy and to rely on the overseas military bases to cut the supply costs.

Diplomatic ways urged for setting up an overseas military base

Whether the overseas military base has a proper name is not important. What is important is to contact the host countries which would allow our ships to harbor and provide the facilities for our navy soldiers to take a rest. As long as we aim to maintain the world peace, international society won’t misunderstand our move in building overseas military bases. There are three international relations we need to tackle with when building overseas military bases. Firstly, the relations between base troops and the host countries.

It is possible to set up military bases as long as the establishment is in line with the host countries’ interests. Secondly, the relationship between the base troops and the countries neighboring to the host country. If the base troops can maintain the regional stability, it will be probably welcomed by all the countries in the region. Thirdly, the relationship between the big countries in the world. The establishment of the troop bases is sensitive to those big countries which have already set up the bases abroad.

It is inevitable for some countries to suspect our good intention in maintaining the world peace, but their suspicion shall not become an obstacle to our military base strategies. Currently, America, France and Britain own a majority of troop bases in the world. Yet China seldom felt being threatened by the military bases set up by Britain and France. Therefore, we have no reasons to feel that the military bases we set up will agitate other countries.

China is in need of a strong power to maintain the world peace. So it is necessary for us to build troop bases to face the challenge from other countries. We build the bases not to offend other countries but to cooperate with the rest of the world for the sustainable security and peace in the world.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/node_7082361.htm

Official Russian Comment On Hillary’s Georgian Statement

MFA of Russia

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

INFORMATION AND PRESS DEPARTMENT
_______________________________

32/34 Smolenskaya-Sennaya pl., 119200, Moscow G-200;
tel.: (499) 244 4119, fax: (499) 244 4112
e-mail: dip@mid.ru, web-address: http://www.mid.ru

Russian MFA Press and Information Department Comments on the Statements of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tbilisi on July 5, 2010

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has noted the statements by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to Tbilisi on July 5 that the United States will not accept the “Russian occupation of Georgia’s territories” and will seek “de-occupation of Georgia.”

Under international law, occupation is a temporary stationing of the troops of one state on the territory of another in conditions of a state of war between them. Moreover, authority in the occupied territory is exercised by the military command of the occupying state.

Thus, the use by Secretary of State Clinton of the term “occupation” has no foundation beneath it. There is not a single Russian service member in the territory of Georgia. In the region there are Russian military contingents, but they are stationed in the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have seceded from Georgia as a result of the aggression unleashed by the Saakashvili regime. At the same time Abkhazia and South Ossetia have their own democratically formed legislative, executive and judicial authorities fully operational; political parties are actively working there.

Russian troops and bases in the two republics are stationed on the basis of bilateral interstate agreements in full accordance with the norms of international law.

We expect that our partners will take account of this objective reality in their public and practical activities.

Everyone Must Play Nice In Georgia

[Another analyst who thinks that the Russian/American “reset” is another propaganda ploy, intended to show Western audiences that things have changed.  Nothing has changed, both Russian and American leaders still answer to the same elitist controllers.  The only change, is that now, it suits the interests of the puppeteers to risk exposing their hand behind the former antagonism.]

Russia-Georgia: Is it worth waiting for warming?

Nina Akhmeteli

bbcrussian.com, Tbilisi

Sergey Lavrov, Temur YakobashviliAccording to Georgian politicians, Russia was forced to take a softer stance because of the West

In Tbilisi, after the statements of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke about the possibility of a long-awaited thaw in Russian-Georgian relations.

In an interview with television station “Mir” Lavrov said that Russia is ready to resume air links between Moscow and Tbilisi, as well as go on a lot more “to restore” artificially broken links “- in the interest of the Georgian side.

The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry noted that “the regime of Mikhail Saakashvili personifies the Georgian people, but is an anomaly.” However, against the background of the previous declarations of the Kremlin speech in Tbilisi, Lavrov praised as changing rhetoric of the Russian political elite with respect to Georgia.

Georgian politicians, as well as some experts believe that Russia was forced to take a softer stance toward Georgia because of pressure from the West.

“In the statements of Russian leaders feel a certain search for a way out of difficult situations and attempt to justify their actions”, – said Vasily Chkoidze, president of the Center for Research of European integration.

Moscow’s rhetoric changed after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton used the term “occupation” by evaluating the actions of Russia towards Georgia, believes Chkoidze.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry on July 7 Pressreleased a statement saying that the term “occupation” Secretary of State has no basis, as Russian military forces within the territories seceded from Georgia, and Georgia “no Russian soldier.”

“Do not flirt”

Tbilisi also called for dialogue with Russia, but it is not going to any concessions in matters of territorial integrity of Georgia and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, saying the government of Georgia.

We are always ready for dialogue, the Russian government is flirting – that they like Saakashvili, does not like, you have to talk to him, then no. Let determined

Temur Yakobashvili,
Minister for Reintegration of Georgia

“We reiterate that we value good relations with Russia. We have only two conditions – respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and, of course, from the territory of Georgia must withdraw Russian forces,” – said the Georgian Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili Commenting the statement Lavrov. However, he advised Russia not “flirt” and have a more definite stance.

“We were always ready for dialogue, the Russian government is flirting – that they like Saakashvili, who do not like something, you have to talk to him, no. Let be defined. If they have a desire on our part is ready”, – said Yakobashvili .

Earlier, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said the willingness without preconditions to dialogue with Russia to normalize relations, under which, he said, meant the return of refugees to the breakaway republics, “deokkupatsiya Georgia, as well as economic, diplomatic and other bilateral relations.

“We have no interest in confrontation with Russia – Saakashvili said at a meeting of the National Security Council. – We are ready for dialogue, including with the Russian government, which, in contrast to the Georgian authorities, elected in violation of all international norms.”

Games in the dialogue?

Change of aggressive rhetoric in a more restrained statement, both in Moscow and in Tbilisi, according to some political scientists, would not entail a real compromise.

There are sociological studies that indicate that the Georgian population requires a dialogue with Russia.Therefore, the government simply forced to change the record

Irakli Sesiashvili,
Expert on Security Policy

Expert on Security Policy Irakli Sesiashvili believes that the statements made by political elites rather for the international community, which calls on Georgia and Russia to begin a dialogue and to resolve the relationship.

“It’s a game, both from Russia and part of Georgia – said Sesiashvili. – The Georgian government is well aware that it did not reach these negotiations. But he has a sociological study which showed that the Georgian population requires dialogue with Russia. Therefore, the government simply forced to change the record.

Russia is not configured for dialogue with Georgia, as it was now a priority position, and she has no desire to change something in the Russian-Georgian relations, he added Sesiashvili.

According to the Director Center for the Study of the Russian-Georgian conflict Bakura Kvashilava in the normalization of relations now both parties are interested.

First of all, believes Kvashilava is Russia, which is content with the status quo, and she tries to show the world that between Russia and Georgia, ostensibly no fundamental problems.

But the dialogue, according to Kvashilava, go and Tbilisi, realizing that the only way to ensure that people increasingly felt safe – reducing tension in relations with Russia.

“The threat from Russia exist, and safeguards to protect Georgia if military invasion by Russia against Georgia’s Western partners did not receive at least – officially. So today, Georgia’s self-defense by military means is not possible, – said Bakur Kvashilava. – On that basis, Georgia is happy with any de-escalation of relations with Russia. ”

What Do the Hungry Eat?

What Do the Hungry Eat?

Image

It was narrated by Ibn Kathir that, once Allah inspired the spirit in Adam’s body, he desired food and could not wait till the spirit spread in his leg, and he jumped to catch the fruits of Paradise!

Allah has created for us those entirely amazing sorts of food in different shapes, colors, and tastes. Those different types and shapes of food do fulfill all our physical and emotional needs. Food has to do not only with keeping the body alive, but also with desiring and enjoying. However, what if you are in a place where the food is not healthy or widely available but only keeps you alive?

At times of war, famine, drought, or poverty, people have just one choice: to eat whatever their hands can reach in order to survive. But what do they eat?

In the past, poor people used to eat directly from the land, as it was the only place to get food from. Nowadays, even those crops are not available; the food price crisis, high rates of poverty, and climate change have made even cheap, local, fresh crops no longer available. Maybe that is why strange recipes and substitutes for food have started to materialize.

Here are some recipes that the poor around the world have developed under their tight budget or severe conditions to relieve their hunger.

In Bosnia: Eating Grass Is a Way of Survival  

Bosnia and Herzegovina have experienced long-term wars and catastrophes; during those horrible circumstances, it was very hard for Bosnian people to have food.

Mensur Ganibegovic, a 22-year-old from Bosnia, said:

“Bosnians who used to live in apartment buildings used to plant vegetables on their apartment balconies; tomatoes, carrots, and things like that can be planted in limited spaces. The people could not go outside and buy food in the city due to heavy sniper fire from Serbs and Croats — they used to kill anyone who went outside. Bosnians got used to eating small quantities of food, in order to conserve what they had.”

This was only for the lucky people, but the very poor Bosnians were forced to eat grass as there was nothing else to eat.

In Somalia: Neither Enjoyable nor Affordable Roasted Leather 

has experienced lots of tough climate changes and military conflicts. Moreover, Somalia already has a high poverty rate. Keeping oneself fed in such situations is like a mission impossible.

“There was a time where Somalians roasted the skins of animals, and they also used to sleep on them to survive,” said Abdnasir Guld, a Somalian.

“The food you have today may not be available tomorrow, and that’s why preserving food is something essential in such an environment,” he noted

“As for preserving food, we slaughter camels and preserve the meat by drying and mixing it with dates and salt,” Abdnasir added.

In Nigeria: Don’t Throw the Peel Away!

For Nigerians, preserving food is an inherited culture due to severe conditions, which have forced people to hold on to this practice for a long time. At times of prosperity, cassava — a local crop in Nigeria, like yam — has been used to make delicious dishes. Cassava has a thick skin, which is always cooked after peeling it off the vegetable. However, hunger finds other uses.  

“Nigerians used to throw the peel of Cassava away, but at the time of hunger and food shortage, the peel of Cassava can be used to make edible powder, by drying the peel in the sun and crushing it, then eating it,” said Kamal Badr, a Nigerian. They also eat lots of Pap, which is a kind of porridge that Nigerians make by adding water to ground corn and mixing them until the mix turns thick.

In Afghanistan: Survive on Domestic Animals  

In a country where poverty rate is estimated at over 50 percent and unemployment at 40 percent and where clean water, electricity and advanced medical care are luxuries and drought is a chronic problem, food remains the people’s daily and bitter challenge.

Some Afghan families get used to going to bed with empty stomachs; others would eat the dry bread that is stored for domestic animals. They buy seven kilos of bread for 40 Afghans and eat it with cold water.

For Afghan people in general, boiling rice is considered as the starvation dish, as it is the cheapest and most abundant food for the poor. What makes rice the starvation dish is that a family eats only a dish of rice, without any other additions, to the meal.

Borhan Yunis from Afghanistan affirmed this as follows:

During starvation, the Afghan people always resort to the substitutes of wheat. I remember about three years ago there was a starvation in Afghanistan, and people were depending mainly on rice as the cheap substitute for wheat. The people here in Afghanistan called that year “The Year of Rice”.

In Gaza: Dukkah used to Quiet Children’s Hungry Stomachs  

In the world’s largest prison, Gaza (the home of more than 1.6 million people, according to UN humanitarian aid officials), hunger pushes people to eat grass and leaves that grow wildly beside the roads.

Abu Mohamed Hemto, from the Gaza Strip, said that the long-term siege and severe war made Palestinians really self-sufficient. They can make their bread by themselves at home, using very simple and old ovens that are fueled by straw and firewood.

“Gazans are used to make an edible powder of wheat, sumac, and some local cheap spices. They call it Dukkah, and they use this Dukkah to make sandwiches, especially for young kids, as it can mitigate their hungry, angry stomachs,” Hemto said.

As for the Gazans’ ways to preserve food, Hemto added:

We also dry thyme and vegetables and store olive oil so as to use them when the siege is so sharp. Also, we as neighbors exchange food and help each other to keep ourselves fed.

In Egypt: Nationals Eat Bread and Lick the Bones  

Egypt, the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, nowadays finds that there is not enough bread for its citizens due to the serious shortage in flour, in one of the world’s worst bread crises.

Not only bread, but even the local cheap dishes that the poor used to depend on to survive are no longer available. The cheap, most popular falafel (a bean recipe) has become an unattainable dream because of the high prices.

The poor Egyptians prepare bread porridge, which is made by adding some water to old, dried scraps of low-quality local bread. Then, the scraps are mixed with water until the mix turns into a thick sauce, which looks like sesame sauce. They eat this sauce with another piece of bread.

Egyptians also substitute the very expensive meat with the bones of livestock. They manage to make a soup using livestock’s and chickens’ bones that are thrown away by butchers for cats and dogs to eat. They buy these bones then wash and cook them with large amounts of water and onion. They sip the soup and lick the bones. They call it meat soup, although there is hardly any meat in it!

In Haiti: People Die From Hunger or Dirt Cakes  

Although dirt contains deadly parasites or toxins that can harm health, the poor Haitians who cannot afford to buy food have got no other option but to bake cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country’s central plateau.

In Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world with 80 percent of the population living under the poverty line, women buy the dirt vegetables and meat swarmed with flies, then they process them into mud cookies. Carrying buckets of dirt and water up the ladders to the roof, they press rocks and clumps on a sheet, and stir in shortening and salt. Then, they pat the mixture into mud cookies and leave them to dry under the scorching sun. The finished cookies are carried in buckets to markets or sold on the streets.

At times to come, when you are enjoying eating your delicious meal, stop for a moment and think about the kind of food that others are forced to eat. Imagine that you could at any moment be in their place.

Thank Allah deeply and do not forget to think about helping the hungry in every possible way.


Huda Gamal El-Din is assistant editor for Muslim 4 Humanity. She is a graduate of the Cairo University’s Faculty of Mass Communication, and holds a bachelor degree in journalism. She can be contacted through foundationsoflife@iolteam.com

North Korea “had nothing to do with the incident.”

English.news.cn
PYONGYANG, July 10 (Xinhua) — The Foreign Ministry responded to a presidential statement of the UN Security Council over the sinking of the the South Korean corvette Cheonan, describing it as a miscalculation by U.S. and Seoul in framing Pyongyang.

“This clearly proves what a foolish calculation the U.S. and South Korea made when they were recklessly behaving in so great haste to do harm to the DPRK for no reason,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman said, quoted by the KCNA.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has rejected the results issued by multinational investigators over the Cheonan sinking. The investigation claimed the “Cheonan” was sunken by a torpedo of the DPRK.

“It can be predicted” that because the truth of the incident had not been find out, the DPRK spokesman said, adding that the presidential statement had neither clear judgement nor conclusion on the case.

The presidential statement, which was adopted by consensus at the UN Security Council on Friday, mentioned the findings of the investigation and took note of the response from the DPRK, which has stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.

The spokesman said the “Cheonan” case originally should be resolved between the DPRK and South Korea.

The DPRK would constantly make its effort to reach peace agreement and denuclearization on the peninsula through the six-party talks based on equal footing, he said.

Editor: Lin Zhi

Uganda bombings kill 64 as World Cup fans targeted

Uganda bombings kill 64 as World Cup fans targeted

Main Image People carry a man, injured in an explosion, upon his arrival at the Mulago Hospital in Kampala July 12, 2010. Two separate explosions killed at least 23 people packed into bars in the Ugandan capital Kampala to watch the World Cup final on Sunday Credit: REUTERS/Ronald Kabuubi

By Elias Biryabarema

KAMPALA | Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:30am EDT

(Reuters) – Suspected Somali Islamists carried out two bomb attacks that killed at least 64 people in the Ugandan capital as they watched the World Cup final at a restaurant and a sports club, authorities said on Monday.

Suspicion fell on the al Shabaab rebel group, which claims links with al Qaeda, after the severed head of a Somali suspected suicide bomber was found at one of the blast sites.

The explosions ripped through two bars packed with soccer fans watching the final moments ofWorld Cup final in an Ethiopian-themed restaurant and at a gathering in a Kampala rugby club on Sunday.

Al Qaeda-inspired al Shabaab militants in Somalia have threatened to attack Uganda for sending peacekeeping troops to the anarchic country to prop up the Western-backed government.

“At one of the scenes, investigators identified a severed head of a Somali national, which we suspect could have been a suicide bomber,” said army spokesman Felix Kulaije.

“We suspect it’s al Shabaab because they’ve been promising this for long,” he said on Monday.

There has been no claim of responsibility for the bombings.

An al Shabaab commander in Mogadishu praised the attacks but admitted he did not know whether his group was responsible.

“Uganda is a major infidel country supporting the so-called government of Somalia,” said Sheikh Yusuf Isse, an al Shabaab commander in Somalia’s capital Mogadishu.

“We know Uganda is against Islam and so we are very happy at what has happened in Kampala. That is the best news we ever heard,” he said.

One American was among those killed and U.S. President Barack Obama, condemning what he called deplorable and cowardly attacks, said Washington was ready to help Uganda in hunting down those responsible.

One bombing targeted the Ethiopian Village restaurant in the Kabalagala district, a popular night-spot which was heaving with soccer fans and is popular with foreign visitors. The second attack struck a rugby club showing the match.

Twin coordinated attacks have been a hallmark of al Qaeda and groups linked to Osama bin Laden’s militant network.

“Sixty-four are confirmed dead. Fifteen people at the Ethiopian Village and 49 at Lugogo Rugby Club. Seventy-one people are injured,” said police spokeswoman Judith Nabakooba.

She said 10 of the dead were either Ethiopian or Eritrean. Earlier, the U.S. embassy in Kampala said one American was killed in the bomb blasts.

“This is a cowardly act by al Shabaab terrorists,” Bereket Simon, the Ethiopian government’s head of information, told Reuters.

Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia in 2006 to oust an Islamist movement from Mogadishu. That sparked the Islamist insurgency which still rages.

Reveling one minute in the closing moments of the final between Spain and Netherlands, the bombings left shocked survivors standing among corpses and scattered chairs.

“We were watching soccer here and then when there were three minutes to the end of the match an explosion came … and it was so loud,” witness Juma Seiko said at the rugby club.

Heavily armed police cordoned off both blast sites and searched the areas with sniffer dogs while dazed survivors helped pull the wounded from the wreckage.

“EVIL-MINDED CHARACTERS”

Uganda, east Africa’s third largest economy, is attracting billions of dollars of foreign investment, especially in its oil sector and government debt markets, after two decades of relative stability.

But investors in Uganda and neighboring Kenya, which shares a largely porous border with Somalia, often cite the threat from Islamic militants as a serious concern.

“We have evil-minded characters who have been warning us, like the ADF (Allied Democratic Forces), al Shabaab and the Lord’s Resistance Army,” Kayihura said.

The Lord’s Resistance Army waged a two-decade war in northern Uganda before crossing into Sudan and further afield into central Africa. In May, Uganda said ADF rebels could be regrouping along the western border with the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In Washington, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said Obama was “deeply saddened by the loss of life resulting from these deplorable and cowardly attacks.”

“The United States is ready to provide any assistance requested by the Ugandan government,” said Hammer.

A senior U.S. administration official said: “We are in contact with our embassy in Kampala and in touch with the FBI regarding government of Uganda requests for assistance.”

On Saturday, Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed told Reuters he was worried by the growing number of foreign jihadists joining the ranks of Islamic insurgents and said they posed a growing threat to regional security.

Regional allies are preparing to send an extra 2,000 peacekeepers to Somalia, bringing the total number of African Union troops to around 8,100. Al Shabaab responded by urging Muslims to join a jihad and pledged to attack before being attacked.

(Additional reporting by Frank Nyakairu and Sahra Abdi in Nairobi; Editing by Helen Nyambura-Mwaura and Giles Elgood)