Ankara – APA. Turkish Foreign Ministry confirmed that leader of Afghanistan’s Uzbek community, General Rashid Dostum is in Turkey, APA reports quoting Turkish media. Spokesman for Turkish Foreign Ministry Burak Ozugergin told journalists the reports that Dostum was in Turkey were true. Asked whether General had been illegally sent into exile by afghan government, the spokesman said no criminal case had been launched on Dostum in Afghanistan and he was not in house arrest in Turkey. Ozugergin said Dostum was together with his family living in Turkey.
“General Dostum is the leader of Turkic community in Afghanistan. It is normal for him to hold meetings in Turkey,” he said.
Enver Sedat, representative of the political party led by Rashid Dostum told Anadolu Agency that General had left for Ankara at the invitation of Turkish Foreign Ministry to celebrate Gurban holiday together with his family and would return after the holiday.
Afghan refugees in Calais will be removed on flights jointly funded by the British and French governments.
Sylvie Copyans, from the French charity Salam, said:”Many of the Afghan refugees sleeping rough here fought against the Taliban. They face huge dangers if they go back, especially since the Taliban are becoming more powerful again.”
Daily Express: Afghans will be sent home in handcuffs
Indymedia: Afghans in Calais to be mass deported on Anglo/French charter flights
He was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, a hawk in terms of foreign policy. In an interview with Stern magazine Zbigniew Brzezinski explains why President-elect Obama reminds him of John F. Kennedy, what he expects from the new administration’s foreign policy – and why the US will demand a greater European military commitment in Afghanistan
Dr. Brzezinksi, as one of Washington’s ultimate insiders you have witnessed many presidential elections. How did you experience Obama’s victory last Tuesday?
I was with friends, watching television. I had predicted his win. But when it actually really happened, it was exactly 11.01 p.m., I was very moved.
You? During your time as National Security Advisor, you were regarded to be one of the toughest politicians ever.
I saw the faces of so many citizens, black and white, reacting to their choice. And it just dramatized to me, that this was really a historically significant election. We might witness the birth of a 21st century America. In fact, this election could define America as the prototype of an eventual global society.
And why should this be America?
I cannot imagine another country, neither in Europe, neither in Asia, which could have elected someone as uniquely different as Barack Obama is. Barack Hussein Obama is accepted and cherished, really cherished, because he epitomizes the unique diversity of American society and shares the dominant values of that society.
Which are?
Racial equality, a basic commitment to democracy, a notion of elementary social justice. The notion that some people should not be allowed to be as poor as they are – and that some are not entitled be quite as rich as they think they can be.
Don’t you expect a little too much from a relatively inexperienced Senator from Illinois?
I met him last year, and he made the best impression on me of anyone since John F. Kennedy.He is better equipped in intellect and temperament for the highest office than anyone I can think of in recent memory. He is very different from most American politicians.
What makes him so unique?
A kind of intellectual self-confidence, which reflects real intelligence, not arrogance. A friendliness – but with a distance and a dignity. A little patrician, almost. And a calculating rationality. He does not wave the do-gooders flag. He is an idealist, but not an ideologue. He knows, that compromises will be needed.
Will Obama be the President of a superpower in decline?
No. That’s nonsense and often said with a lot of schadenfreude. The matter of fact is, that the era of American superpower stupidity is over, the time of self-isolation. Under President Bush, we acted arrogant, unilateralist and – worst of all – driven by fear. A culture of fear was cultivated by this administration, which replaced the Statue of Liberty as a symbol for America with Guantanamo. America has lost its confidence. This is one of the worst legacies of the Bush era. But that will come to an end now, very quickly.
Obama already claims the dawn of a new American leadership. How could he achieve this while the country faces the worst economical crisis since 70 years?
He will inherit a grim reality. But the painful financial crisis also teaches us an important lesson: without America the world is in trouble. If America is declining, the rest of the world is falling apart. And have no illusions: the German economy will not recover without an American recovery. America can recover without Germany. At the same time, we understand: we have to cooperate with the world in order to do well.
What will be the biggest foreign policy challenges for the new President?
Afghanistan is certainly one of them. There, for he time being, we would need to deploy more troops. But more soldiers are not the solution. The solution is a demilitarization of our engagement.
By negotiating with the Taliban, as Obama already indicated?
By negotiating wit the various groups of Taliban. We should be able to reach local and regional arrangements with them. If they would stop al-Qaeda activities, for example, we would locally disengage.
You are promoting a de facto withdrawal of Nato troops?
No. Nato has to continue our military activities in the meantime. And if we are serious about our alliance and about consultations, we have to be also serious about sharing burdens. You cannot have arrangements, where some soldiers risk their lives day and night and some soldiers cannot even go on patrols at night. That is not an alliance.
Will Obama expect more engagement from Europe, Germany?
The American people expect this. If the Europeans want to give us only nice advise, but expect us to do the heavy lifting – then don’t expect America necessarily to listen to these advises. Europeans will no longer have the alibi of Bush’s bad policy. But let’s be clear: there are no alibis for us any more, either. We will have to consult, share decisions and cooperate.
Russia’s President greeted Obama by announcing he would deploy short range missiles along the Baltic Sea.
Yes, but I think we can relax.
Relax?
Russia is a country with enormous problems. Its leaders should know, that Russia cannot isolate itself from the world or base its foreign policy on the assertion that it is entitled to an imperialist sphere of influence. It is baffling to me, how unintelligent its leaders are. Self-isolation will be destructive for Russia, not for us.
Would you suggest relaxing also in regard to Iran and its nuclear ambitions?
We need a more realistic, a more flexible and sensible approach. We should negotiate; we might negotiate even without preconditions. A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. This new diplomatic approach could help bring Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region. This would be a sensible path.
Last Updated: November 06. 2008 7:11PM UAE / November 6. 2008 3:11PM GMT
Nobleman: Baron David de Rothschild, the head of the Rothschild bank. The Rothschilds have helped the British government since financing Wellington
Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent.This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.
“We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business,” says Baron Rothschild. “We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally.”
The Rothschilds have been helping the British government – and many others – out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815. According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today.
In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis. There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the US Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power – just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months – the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence. So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long?
The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just US$1 million (Dh3.67m) in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.
Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf. “There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint,” he says.
An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity. “For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader,” he says. “Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs.”
He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear – at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil. They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the US, a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.
Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future?“There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse,” he says. “They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold – and sold at a profit.”
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.”
So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.”
It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region. “In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity,” he says. “They are two arms of the same body looking for money.”
The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals. “Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies,” says Mr Reynolds. “I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition.
“We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients.”
He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them “trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night”. Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates. “It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people,” says Mr Reynolds. “Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser.”
Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.
In what the British press are calling “Yachtgate”, the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity. “If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture,” he says. “You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober.”
Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man – he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters – an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the “odd concert”. He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.
It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?
“I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States,” he said. “And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE.”
Many analysts have commented on Turkey’s increasingly innovative and confident foreign policy initiatives, most recently its Caucasian Stability and Cooperation Platform to defuse tension in a region recently torn by armed conflict between Georgia and Russia. Ankara is now using its good offices in an attempt to quell violence in another volatile region, the Pakistani-Afghan border, where recent U.S. aerial attacks into Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) bordering on the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) have led to rising tension between Islamabad and Washington. The raids have killed dozens of Pakistanis whom Islamabad claims were civilians, adding stress to the two allies in the war on terror.
On October 27 Pakistan’s Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani began a four-day official visit to Turkey. In Ankara Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed Gilani with full military honors at the Prime Ministry (Hurriyet, October 28). During meetings with Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, Gilani discussed myriad matters of mutual interest, agreeing to sign framework agreements for cooperation in science and technology. Economic issues were also high on the agenda; the two prime ministers agreed to increase bilateral trade from its current level of around $700 million to $1 billion as soon as possible and to fast-track negotiations for a Preferential Trade Agreement. After three days Gilani flew to Istanbul to attend the World Economic Forum (WEF) (www.pakwatan.com, October 30).
Economic issues aside, however, Gilani’s greatest accomplishment was to persuade Erdogan to agree to use the Turkish government’s good offices to endeavor to rein in U.S. aerial raids into Pakistani territory. Gilani’s press secretary, Zahid Bashir, confirmed to the Pakistani media that Turkey had informed Pakistan that it would use its “influence” as a NATO member and U.S. ally to attempt to persuade Washington to stop the U.S. incursions into Pakistan’s territory (The News International, November 2).
Not wanting to lose momentum from the commitment, Gilani dispatched Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to Turkey for further discussions. According to the Pakistani Armed Forces (PAF) Inter Services Public Relations, on November 4 Kayani flew from the PAF’s Chaklala Base, where he was seen off by the Turkish ambassador Engin Soysal, for an official visit to Turkey and Saudi Arabia (Inter Services Public Relations Press Release, No/2008-ISPR, November 4).
While attending the WEF in Istanbul, Gilani used the occasion to press home the fact that Pakistan was, in fact, deeply committed to combating terrorism. He told journalists, “We have the will and ability to control and fight extremist terrorism, but the world should also understand that although it is fighting under NATO with very sophisticated weaponry, in Afghanistan they have not achieved desired results” (Turkish Daily News, Oct.31).
Gilani also continued his discussions in Istanbul with Erdogan, where they joined Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Following the discussions, the three leaders subsequently issued a joint declaration that lauded “their comprehensive, cordial, and useful meeting on regional and international issues” and “reiterated their pledge to cooperate towards promoting peace, security, stability and economic development in the region” as it reinforced their commitment to cooperation in counterterrorism efforts (ARY OneWorld, October 31).
As the three leaders conferred, Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted the 17-article Turkiye-Pakistan Ortak Bildirisi, Ankara, 27-31 Ekim 2008 (“Pakistan-Turkey Joint Statement, Ankara, 27-31 October 2008”) on its website (www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-pakistan-ortak-bildirisi_-ankara_-27-31-ekim-2008.tr.mfa). Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also posted the Pakistan-Turkey Joint Statement on its website (“Pakistan-Turkey Joint Statement,” October 31, www.mofa.gov.pk/).
While the joint statement does not explicitly mention the Turkish commitment, Article 12 underlined Turkish support for Pakistani territorial integrity, stating:
“Turkey expressed full solidarity and support for Pakistan’s sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. Turkey also expressed support for the efforts of Pakistan to combat the menace of terrorism and extremism. Both sides decided to increase their cooperation in security and counterterrorism” (www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-pakistan-ortak-bildirisi_-ankara_-27-31-ekim-2008.tr.mfa).
Both Turkey and Pakistan have had significant disagreements with the Bush administration about its actions in the war on terror, while the United States’ NATO allies have been under pressure to accede to U.S. wishes on everything from increasing their troop commitments in Afghanistan to Washington’s insistence during the April NATO summit in Bucharest on admitting Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance.
Ankara’s discreet criticism of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan would carry some weight, inasmuch as Turkey has been involved in efforts to pacify Afghanistan since November 2001, when it sent about 100 troops for International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations. Turkey currently has approximately 750 peacekeepers stationed in and around Kabul.
Nor is Ankara’s intention to use its influence with Washington to ameliorate its “hot pursuit” policy of targeting terrorists in FATA the only international support that Islamabad has received. Another high profile U.S. NATO ally has also recently expressed mounting concern over the U.S. strikes into Pakistan. Britain’s Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw said in an interview with Pakistan’s ARY OneWorld on October 31 that his government opposed any strikes inside Pakistan that did not have the government’s consent, and he urged the U.S. to respect the sovereignty of its allies (Associated Press of Pakistan, October 31).
In the first seven months of this year there were five aerial violations of Pakistani territory by U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Predator aircraft equipped with missiles. It is clear that the tempo has been increasing, as there have been 14 more since July.
In the most recent incident, on October 31, 17 people died and several others were injured in two missile attacks by U.S. UAVs in the North and South Waziristan agencies. Pakistani private television channels put the death toll far higher at 32 (The News International, November 1). The encounters are not without risk: on September 24 Pakistani forces reportedly fired on two U.S. American Kiowa OH-58 reconnaissance helicopters, forcing them away from the frontier. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari strove to downplay the incident, saying that his forces had only fired flares as a way “to make sure that they know that they crossed the border line,” adding, “Sometimes the border is so mixed that they don’t realize they have crossed the border” (Dawn, Sept. 25).
Pakistani objections to the raids have been unavailing. In a recent BBC interview, security correspondent Frank Gardner asked U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates whether Islamabad had authorized the cross-border air strikes. Gates replied, “I wouldn’t go in that direction,” adding, “I would just say that we will take whatever action necessary to protect our troops” (BBC, September 18).
The issue of U.S. military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq will doubtless be deeply affected by the election of Barack Obama as America’s next President. In contrast to the current administration’s “go it alone” policy, Obama pointedly referred in his victory speech to “alliances to repair.” Such an environment will doubtless allow the concerns of vital allies such as Pakistan and Turkey, as well as NATO, to receive a more sympathetic hearing. Its attempts to promote peace in the NWFP adds another element to Turkey’s efforts to promote diplomacy over conflict, in keeping with the dictum of its first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who said, “Yurtta Sulh, Cihanda Sulh” (“Peace at Home, Peace in the World”).
The British Ambassador to Kabul has been drawn into an embarrassing row after a French newspaper published quotes purporting to come from a diplomatic cable that claimed he said the Afghan government had “lost all credit”.
By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 1:21AM BST 02 Oct 2008
Sir Sherard is quoted as saying that the American strategy in Afghanistan 'is bound to fail' Photo: AP
In the diplomatic cable written by François Fitou, the deputy French ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles is also quoted as saying that the coalition’s military presence is “part of the problem not the solution”.
In the cable, dated Sept 2 and published in the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîne, Sir Sherard is quoted as having said that “the current situation is bad. Security is worsening, but also corruption, and the current government has lost all credit.”
He is alleged to have gone on to say that “the presence, notably military, of the coalition is a part of the problem, not the solution.
“Foreign forces are assuring the survival of a regime, which, without them, would quickly crumble. In doing so, they are slowing down and complicating an eventual end to the crisis (incidentally, probably a dramatic one).”
France has just agreed to increase its deployment in Afghanistan despite public resistance, and send more drones and helicopters.
In other quotes from the coded cable, addressed to President Nicolas Sarkozy and Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister, the British ambassador is cited as saying that sending extra French troops “would have perverse effects: it would single us out even more clearly as an occupying force and multiply the number of targets (for insurgents).”
He is quoted as saying that the only solution at present is to support the Americans “but we must tell them that we want to be part of a winning, not a losing strategy.”
According to the newspaper, Sir Sherard said that the best scenario was that “in five to ten years,” when British troops were no longer present on Afghan soil, the country would be “governed by an acceptable dictator”.
“This is the only realistic outcome, and we must prepare public opinion to accept it … In the meantime, the American presidential candidates must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan. (Their) strategy is bound to fail,” he reportedly said.
However, a British embassy spokesman said the views were not the Ambassador’s.
“It is not for us to comment on something that is presented as a French telegram, but the views quoted are not an accurate representation of the Ambassador’s views.
“The UK, with international partners, is committed to working in support of the government of Afghanistan to deliver solutions to the challenges facing the country, through both civilian and military effort.
“The UK has always acknowledged that success in Afghanistan is a long-term objective, and requires a comprehensive approach to address security, political, social and economic development.
“The UK and the US are united in the Afghanistan strategy. We work closely with our US allies in all aspects of decision making and regularly review our approach.
The Foreign Office said yesterday that Britain had decided to withdraw the 60 children of diplomats based in neighbouring Pakistan in the wake of the bombing at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad last month. A spokesman said that spouses would also be offered the opportunity to leave.
While the review was triggered by the terrorist incident, it reflects the growing instability of the country and reflected the broad views of diplomats. Officials said the ruling will be lifted as soon as conditions permit.
Speculation was mounting that one of the suspects in the hotel bombing, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, had died of kidney failure. Baitullah Mehsud, who is in his mid-30s is also accused of being responsible for the assassination of the former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, was known to have been unwell for months.
A doctor who has treated him insisted that Mehsud had a kidney problem but was still alive. But if the rumours prove to be true his death would prove a triumph in anti-terrorist efforts by Pakistan and the West.
