Category: Asia and Pacific

  • PKK finance custodian “Behzat from Cukurca” arrested in attempting to escape in Armenia

    PKK finance custodian “Behzat from Cukurca” arrested in attempting to escape in Armenia

     
     

    [ 28 Aug 2008 12:45 ]
    Rome –APA. PKK custodian for one billion dollar finances, drug and arm smuggling, as well as transnational organized crime Nedim Seven known as PKK’s “European cashier” was arrested as a result of secret operation. He was arrested while attempting to escape from Italy to Armenia.

    According to APA Nedim Seven, also known as “Behzat from Cukurca” has an image of dangerous special criminal not only in Turkey, but in Europena countries as well. The PKK terrorist attempted to pull through the pursuit in Europe and to find secure refuge and scene of action in Armenia. He was arrested as a result of international cooperation of the European special security services.
    Behzat from Cukurca is known for his close relations with one of the PKK leaders Syrian Fehman Huseyn. It was reported that another PKK leader Murat Karayilan contributed to his arrest. Nedim Seven is in custody near Paris and interrogated by the French law-enforcement bodies.
    Turkey officially asked France to extradite Nedim Seven. Turkish anti-terrorism experts have left for France Thursday morning. They have already interrogated Seven. Turkish side has provided the French justice bodies with PKK dossier, which contains photos of Northern Iraqi villages where PKK produces heroin. They are smuggling heroin to Frankfurt, Germany passing via Van, Hakkari and Shirnak provinces of Turkey and selling heroin there through the International Kurdish Employers Union. Money collecting from the heroin smuggling is delivered to the PKK terrorists’ camped in Kandil Mountain via Syria and Armenia.

  • Turkish Bodyguards ‘Preparing For’ Gul’s Trip To Armenia

    Turkish Bodyguards ‘Preparing For’ Gul’s Trip To Armenia

     

     

     

     

     

    By Ruben Meloyan

    A team of Turkish security officials will reportedly travel to Yerevan this weekend to discuss security measures that would be put in place in the event of President Abdullah Gul’s historic visit to Armenia.

    President Serzh Sarkisian, meanwhile, has again expressed hope that Gul will accept his invitation to arrive in the Armenian capital and watch with him the first-ever game between Armenia’s and Turkey’s national football teams scheduled for September 6.

    Gul said in televised remarks late Wednesday that he is “still considering” the invitation. “What is important is whether such a visit will be useful or not,” he said.

    The Turkish daily “Zaman” reported on Thursday that the Turkish president’s security detail is already preparing for his possible trip and planning to send a “forward unit” of 15 bodyguards to Yerevan. It said they would discuss with their Armenian colleagues security measures in and around the city’s Hrazdan stadium where the qualifying match for the 2010 football World Cup in South Africa will be played.

    “According to current plans, a group from the [Turkish] counterattack team, armed with M5 and M16 rifles, will be responsible for Gul’s security during the visit,” “Zaman” said.

    Another leading Turkish newspaper, “Hurriyet,” said the Foreign Ministry in Ankara is trying to arrange the security team’s visit and is going to contact the Armenian government for that purpose. The paper said the Turks will either approach the Armenian embassy in Georgia or Armenia’s permanent representative at the Istanbul headquarters of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation organization.

    A diplomatic source in Yerevan told RFE/RL that the Armenian side has not been contacted by Ankara as of late Thursday afternoon. Another Armenian source, who asked not to be identified, essentially confirmed the Turkish newspaper reports.

    The invitation extended to Gul in June underscored a thaw in relations between the two estranged neighbors that followed Sarkisian’s victory in Armenia’s February 19 presidential election. The new Armenian president responded positively to Ankara’s offers of a “dialogue” on problems hampering the normalization of Turkish-Armenian ties. Senior diplomats from the two countries held confidential talks in Switzerland in early July.

    In an interview with the Turkish daily “Radikal” made public on Thursday, Sarkisian stressed the importance of what would be the first-ever trip to Armenia by a Turkish president. “If I did not believe in the visit’s importance, I would not invite Mr. Gul in the first place,” he said. “We are neighbors. We went through difficult times in our history. But Armenia is prepared for a development of our relations and expects the same from Turkey.”

    Sarkisian also stated that he and his Turkish counterpart “have reached the decision-making phase.” “Those will not be easy decisions,” he said. “Those decisions will not be approved by the entire publics in Armenia and Turkey. But I am sure the majority of the publics will support positive decisions.”

    Sarkisian also indicated that Yerevan and Ankara can reconcile their conflicting proposals to set up commissions discussing issues of mutual concern. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested in 2005 that the two states form a commission of historians who would look into the 1915 Armenian massacres in the Ottoman Empire and jointly determine whether they consistuted a genocide. The Armenian government turned down the offer and came up with a counter-proposal to have this and other problems hampering a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement tackled by an inter-governmental body.

    “The best solution is the establishment of diplomatic relations,” Sarkisian told “Radikal.” “That way we can form many subcommissions and groups within the framework of the commission to be set up by the governments.”

    Sarkisian was also asked whether the Yerevan government shares territorial claims to Turkey voiced by some Armenian political groups. “I don’t remember a single Armenian official speaking about territorial claims,” he replied. “But I keep hearing about that from the opposite side.”

    “If that was our official policy, then we would be called not the Republic of Armenia but the Republic of Eastern Armenia,” added the Armenian president.

  • Iran to supply gas to Armenia

    Iran to supply gas to Armenia

    TEHRAN, Aug. 27 (UPI) — Iran plans to start exporting 39 billion cubic feet of gas per year to Armenia beginning in October, the National Iranian Gas Co. said Wednesday.

    Rasoul Salmani with the export division of the state-run gas firm said the deal comes from negotiations between the two countries that concluded last week, Iran’s Mehr News Agency said.

    In exchange, Iran will import some 3.3 billion kilowatts per hour of electricity from Armenia through the city of Tabriz in northwestern Iran.

    “Iran plans to annually export some (39 billion cubic feet) of gas to Armenia. In the first phase Iran will export less volume to Armenia but will increase the export volume gradually,” Salmani said.

    Exports will travel through a $28.2 million pipeline to the Armenian capital, Yerevan.

    Salmani said Iran will satisfy all of Armenia’s gas needs by 2010.

  • The Montreux Convention and energy — outdated or essential?

    The Montreux Convention and energy — outdated or essential?

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 (UPI) — The five-day military conflict between Russia and Georgia over the disputed enclave of South Ossetia has thrown into the spotlight a nearly forgotten 72-year-old treaty governing the passage of both merchantmen and warships between the Mediterranean and Black seas through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, collectively known as the Turkish Straits.

    The 1936 Montreux Convention roiled relations between Washington, which wanted to send humanitarian aid on massive vessels through the Turkish Straits, and Ankara, which has steadfastly insisted on the terms of the treaty being respected. The incident is a reminder, if any is needed, that despite Turkey and the United States being close allies and NATO compatriots, the two nations’ strategic interests do not always run in tandem. While America and its NATO allies attempt to cram as many warships as legally allowed up the Turkish Straits, thoughtful analysts should remember that the passage is also a conduit for massive tankers of up to 200,000 tons or more. In 2006, tankers carrying more than 140 million tons of Azeri, Kazakh and Russian oil used the Turkish Straits. Washington’s increasingly aggressive stance with the Kremlin over South Ossetia could have a direct impact on these oil shipments, something that hawks both inside the Beltway and the Kremlin should consider.

    The Turkish Straits consist of two waterways connected by the landlocked Sea of Marmara. The 17-mile-long Bosporus, which debouches into the Black Sea, bisects Istanbul with its 11 million inhabitants, and its sinuous passage is only a half-mile wide at its narrowest point at Kandilli and has a convoluted morphological structure that requires ships to change course at least 12 times, including four separate bends that require turns greater than 45 degrees. At its southern end the Bosporus empties into the Sea of Marmara, which in turn connects to the 38-mile-long Dardanelles. Under good conditions merchant vessels currently canpass the 200 miles of the Turkish Straits in about 16 hours.

    Under Montreux, Turkish sovereignty is recognized over the entire channel, but while the agreement guarantees merchantmen unhindered passage, the passage of warships of non-Black Sea nations is tightly regulated, which has led to the current friction between Washington and Ankara. Disputes over the waterway date back to the dawn of European history. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey recount the struggles of the Trojan War, which is assumed to have occurred in the 13th or 12th century B.C.; modern archaeology has placed Troy at the entrance to the Dardanelles.

    The Turkish Straits now carry 50,000 vessels annually, making the passage the world’s second-busiest maritime strait, whose volume of traffic is exceeded only by the Straits of Malacca, and the only channel transiting a major city. The development of the former Soviet Caspian states’ energy riches has led to an explosion of tanker traffic through the Turkish Straits; in 1996, 4,248 tankers passed the Bosporus; a decade later 10,154 tankers made the voyage, a development that Ankara, worried about a possible environmental catastrophe, views with growing concern as the Turkish Straits have become a tanker superhighway. The tankers transport Russian, Kazakh and, until the 2006 opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, Azeri crude to increasingly ravenous foreign markets.

    Under the terms of Montreux, Turkey cannot even charge tankers transit fees or require them to take on pilots to traverse the treacherous waterway.

    Montreux is quite explicit on the passage of foreign warships through the Turkish Straits, however, limiting non-riverain Black Sea forces to a maximum of 45,000 tons of naval vessels, with no single warship exceeding 30,000 tons.

    Washington originally proposed to send to Georgia two U.S. Navy hospital ships, the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, but both are converted oil tankers displacing 69,360 tons apiece, and the Turks demurred.

    Four ships belonging to the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 — Spain’s SPS Almirante Don Juan de Borbon, Germany’s FGS Luebeck, Poland’s ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski and the USS Taylor — last week passed into the Black Sea to Romania’s Constanza and Bulgaria’s Varna ports to participate in a NATO maritime exercise scheduled in October 2007 to conduct joint operations with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. The Bulgarian navy currently has one Koni-class, one Wielingen-class and three Riga-class frigates, one Tarantul and two Pauk-class corvettes, three Osa-class missile boats and a Romeo-class submarine, while Romania has three frigates, four light frigates, three Molniya-class corvettes, three torpedo boats, one minelayer, four minesweepers and 16 auxiliary ships. In contrast, the Russian Black Sea Fleet has 40 warships; its flagship is the guided missile cruiser Moskva. According to the Russian General Staff, these soon will be joined by an additional eight NATO warships, even as the Moskva dropped anchor in Abkhazian waters.

    The Pentagon finally got its chance to fly the flag when on Aug. 22 the USS McFaul (DDG-74, 8,915 tons) guided-missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian aid passed the Bosporus headed for Georgia with supplies such as blankets, hygiene kits and baby food, to be followed two days later by the USCGC Dallas (WHEC-716, 3,250 tons) cutter passing the Dardanelles, which eventually will be joined by the USS Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC 20, 18,400 tons), now loading supplies in Italy.

    The Kremlin is not pleased by the foreign show of naval force; Russian General Staff Deputy Chief Anatoly Nogovitsyn observed of the NATO exercise, “From the Russian point of view … the usefulness of this operation is extremely dubious,” later labeling the deployment “devilish.”

    The Turkish press is now full of speculation that Washington will pressure Turkey to revise Montreux, but is it really in America’s and its allies’ interests to be provocatively flying the flag in waters through which pass a number of tankers fueling European and Asian needs? As Turkey is allowed under Montreux to shut the Turkish Straits completely in the event of conflict, it is a question to which hawks in Europe and Washington ought to give more consideration.

  • Geopolitical Diary: How Far Will the Caucasus Conflict Go?

    Geopolitical Diary: How Far Will the Caucasus Conflict Go?

    Stratfor.com
    August 28, 2008

    Russian President Dmitri Medvedev flew to
    Tajikistan on Wednesday for a summit with China
    and four Central Asian countries. The countries
    are members of the Shanghai Cooperation
    Organization, which meets regularly. This meeting
    had been on the schedule for while and has no
    significance, save that it brings the Russians
    into contact with four former members of the
    Soviet Union and ­ as important ­ China.

    Each of the Central Asian countries is obviously
    trying to measure Russia’s long-term intentions.
    The issue will not be Georgia, but what Georgia
    means to them. In other words, how far does
    Russia intend to go in reasserting its sphere of
    influence? Medvedev will give suitable
    reassurances, but the Russian empire and Soviet
    Union both conquered this area in the past.
    Retaking it is possible. That means that the four
    Central Asian countries will be trying very hard
    to retain their independence without irritating
    the Russians. For them, this will be a careful meeting.

    Of greater interest to the world is China’s view
    of the situation. Again, China has no interest in
    Georgia. It does have to have quiet delight over
    a confrontation between the United States and the
    Russians. The more these two countries are
    worried about each other, the less either ­ and
    particularly the United States ­ can worry about
    the Chinese. For China, a U.S.-Islamic
    confrontation coupled with a U.S.-Russian
    confrontation is just what the doctor ordered.
    Certainly the least problem Washington will have
    is whether the yuan floats ­ and, hoping for
    cooperation with China, the United States will
    pull its punches on other issues. That means that
    the Chinese will express sympathy to all parties
    and take part in nothing. There is no current
    threat to Central Asia, so they have no problems
    with the Russians. If one emerges, they can talk.

    In the meantime, in the main crisis, Russian
    Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called attention to
    the Black Sea as a potential flash point in the
    confrontation between Russia and the West. He
    warned that there could be direct confrontations
    between Russian and NATO ships should NATO or its
    member nations increase their presence there.
    According to NATO there are currently four NATO
    ships in the Black Sea for a previously scheduled
    exercise called Active Endeavor. Putin explicitly
    warned, however, that there could be additional
    vessels belonging to NATO countries in the Black
    Sea that are not under NATO command.

    It is hard to get ships into the Black Sea
    unnoticed. The ships have to pass through the
    Bosporus, a fairly narrow strait in Turkey, and
    it is possible to sit in cafes watching the ships
    sail by. Putting a task force into the Black Sea,
    even at night, would be noticed, and the Russians
    would certainly know the ships are there.

    As a complicating factor, there is the Montreaux
    Convention, a treaty that limits access to the
    Black Sea by warships. The deputy chief of the
    Russian general staff very carefully invoked the
    Montreaux Convention, pointing out that Turkey,
    the controlling country, must be notified 15 days
    in advance of any transit of the Bosporus, that
    warships can’t remain in the Black Sea for more
    than 21 days and that only a limited number of
    warships were permitted there at any one time.
    The Russians have been reaching out in multiple
    diplomatic channels to the Turks to make sure
    that they are prepared to play their role in
    upholding the convention. The Turkish position on
    the current crisis is not clear, but becoming
    crucial; both the United States and Russia are
    working on Turkey, which is not a position Turkey
    cares to be in at the moment. Turkey wants this crisis to go away.

    It is not going away. With the Russians holding
    position in Georgia, it is now clear that the
    West will not easily back down. The Russians
    certainly aren’t going to back down. The next
    move is NATO’s, but the alliance is incapable of
    moving, since there is no consensus. Therefore,
    the next move is for Washington to lead another
    coalition of the willing. It is coming down to a
    simple question. Does the United States have the
    appetite for another military confrontation
    (short of war, we would think) in which case it
    will use its remaining asset, the U.S. Navy, to
    sail into the Black Sea? If it does this, will it
    stay awhile and then leave or establish a
    permanent presence (ignoring the Montreaux
    Convention) in support of Ukraine and Georgia,
    with its only real military option being
    blockade? If this happens, will the Russians live
    with it, will they increase their own naval, air
    and land based anti-ship missile capabilities in
    the region, or will they increase pr essure
    elsewhere, in Ukraine or the Baltics?

    In short, how far does this go?

  • Defying the great Chinese dragon

    Defying the great Chinese dragon

    By GRAEME GREEN – Thursday, August 21, 2008

    The Muslim Uighurs claim China has used the ‘war on terror’ to label all Uighur nationalists as terrorists and supress their culture and religion While the Olympic Games have provided a chance for China to present its most polished face to the world, they have also given marginalised groups the opportunity to bring their agendas to the world’s attention.

    As the games draw to a close, we look again at China’s ‘enemies’ before they slip back intothe white noise of international news.

    The UighurWho? The Uighur, predominantly Muslim, live in Xinjiang, an autonomous region in north-west China.

    Spanning 1.6million sq km, it occupies approximately a sixth of the country.

    More than 19million people live in Xinjiang; about 8.3million are Uighur. Traditionally once an obscure nomadic tribe, the Uighur rose to challenge the Chinese Empire.

    The name Xinjiang, which means ‘new territory’ in Chinese, is considered offensive by advocates of Uighur independence who prefer historical or ethnic names such as Uyghurstan or East Turkestan.

    Why protest? Uighurs have reported arbitrary arrests, torture and executions.

    Human rights organisations have voiced their concern that, since 9/11, the ‘war on terror’ has been used as an excuse by the Chinese government to repress ethnic Uighurs; China claims Islamic fighters operating in the region have been trained and funded by Al-Qaeda and repeatedly refer to Uighur nationalists as ‘terrorists’.

    The Chinese government has also been accused of suppressing Uighur culture and religion.

    Falun Gong

    Who? Falun Gong (Work of the Law Wheel) is a religious and spiritual practice of ‘self cultivation’ based on ancient teachings but brought to public attention in 1992 by Master Li Hongzhi.

    It mixes Taoist and Buddhist principles and exercises such as meditation and the importance of truthfulness and compassion.

    Though numbers are contested, the group has an estimated 100million members worldwide (the Chinese Communist Party has 60million), including 70million in China.

    Why? After 10,000 followers staged a 24-hour silent protest outside Communist Party headquarters in Beijing in 1999 against the arrests and beatings of several of their leaders, Falun Gong was banned and declared an ‘evil cult’, accused of engaging in illegal activities, advocating superstition and jeopardising social stability.

    A German protest against Chinese presence in Tibet Since then, the state has cracked down on its followers with, say Amnesty International, torture, beatings, illegal imprisonment, psychiatric abuses and ‘re-education’ through forced labour camps.

    More than 800 followers are said to have been beaten or tortured to death in custody, though actual figures are thought higher.

    There are also reports followers have been executed to harvest organs for the profitable transplant trade.

    Tibetans

    Who? Tibet is a mountainous region in Central Asia. It was formerly an independent kingdom but, after China invaded the country in 1950, it became part of the People’s Republic of China (which claims Tibet has always been a part of China).

    It’s now known as the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). Its capital, Lhasa, was previously home to the mainly Buddhist country’s spiritual and political leader, the 14th Dalai Lama, who is living in exile in India.

    Why? Since invading Tibet, China has clamped down on religious and cultural freedoms, with documented cases of human rights abuses, religious persecution and torture.

    Many Tibetans, both within the country and in exile, continue to demand a return to independence.

    Chinese authorities have also been accused of trying to bring about demographic change or ‘cultural genocide’ by giving jobs and other incentives to Chinese populations within Tibet and plundering the country’s natural resources, both likely to be hastened by the construction of a new rail connection between China and Tibet.

    Internal dissidents

    Who? Despite claiming the Beijing Olympics would open China up to the world, clamping down on dissidents and activists continues.

    Individuals and groups calling for democratic change, freedom of information, internet and other media, freedom of expression, workers’ rights and religious freedom are among those jailed or punished.

    A recent example is Hu Jia, accused of ‘inciting to subvert state power’ for writing articles about freedom, democracy, the environment and Aids and for repeated contact with foreign journalists.

    After months of house arrest, he was recently jailed for three-and-a-half years. His wife and baby daughter went missing on August 7, the day before the Olympics started, both thought to have been taken into police custody.

    Why? Chinese authorities continue to take a tough stance against internal criticism, often handing out lengthy jail sentences for ‘dissent’ or ‘subversion’ of state power.

    Activists abroad and inside China are calling for the release of dissidents in prisons or forced labour camps, and to end torture and intimidation.

    Many dissidents have sought asylum in other countries and would be arrested if they attempted to re-enter China.

    From: yawoozezzat@yahoo.com [mailto:yawoozezzat@yahoo.com]
    Subject: The Uighur