Category: Eastern Europe

  • NAVAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOUTH OSSETIAN CRISIS

    NAVAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOUTH OSSETIAN CRISIS

    By John C. K. Daly

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008

     

    Last month’s confrontation between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia had a maritime dimension that continues to expand. Russia deployed elements of its Black Sea fleet to Georgia’s coast during its military operations and subsequently sank several Georgian naval vessels in Poti. During the clash Russia dispatched 10 vessels from Sevastopol to the Georgian coast.

    Following the conflict, the United States determined to send humanitarian relief to Georgia but found its efforts constrained by the 1936 Montreux Convention. Now Moscow, clearly irritated by Washington’s intrusion into what it regards as its southern maritime frontier, has announced that it is deploying significant naval forces next month to the Caribbean for joint naval exercises with Venezuela. Kremlin spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told reporters, “Before the end of the year, as part of a long-distance expedition, we plan a visit to Venezuela by a Russian navy flotilla” (Izvestia, September 8).

    The Caribbean deployment is not insignificant, as it includes the guided missile cruiser Peter Velikii, the largest surface vessel constructed by the Russian Federation since the collapse of the USSR, along with the anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko (El Universal, September 8). Venezuelan Rear Admiral Salbatore Cammarata Bastidas said, “This is of great importance because it is the first time it is being done [in the Americas].” For Caracas, next month’s deployment is a timely riposte to the American administration’s announcement earlier this year that it was reactivating its Fourth Fleet, last deployed in southern hemisphere waters during World War Two.

    In the aftermath of the South Ossetian confrontation, when the U.S. decided to dispatch humanitarian aid by sea to Georgia, it found its initial efforts constrained by the 1936 Montreux Convention, whose 29 articles limit the number of foreign warships that non-Black Sea powers can send through the Turkish Straits to no more than nine vessels with a total of 45,000 aggregate tons. Moreover, they could remain there for no longer than three weeks. The United States had initially considered dispatching the hospital ships USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, both converted oil tankers, but as each displaced 69,360 tons, they fell outside the Montreux convention limits. While Washington chafed under the restrictions, there was little it could do.

    Last month NATO dispatched four ships from its Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 to the Black Sea for an exercise scheduled last October. The flotilla included Spain’s SPS Almirante Don Juan de Borbon, Germany’s FGS Luebeck, Poland’s ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski, and the USS Taylor. On August 22 the USS McFaul 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 cutter passing the Dardanelles. The USS Mount Whitney was also dispatched into the Black Sea with humanitarian aid, which it offloaded in Poti (Stars and Stripes, September 2).

    Before the Montreux Convention was negotiated, both Turkey and Russia had suffered from foreign naval intervention through the Turkish Straits during and after World War One. The Gallipoli campaign was preceded by a joint Anglo-French maritime effort in March 1915 to force the Dardanelles, and the Royal Navy subsequently occupied Constantinople after the war and dispatched vessels into the Black Sea to assist anti-Bolshevik forces.

    The Montreux Convention was intended to replace the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which had demilitarized the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Given their recent experience, both the Soviet Union and the Turkish Republic were interested in limiting foreign warships in the Black Sea; and for Ankara, the Montreux Convention was the first international agreement that fully acknowledged its sovereignty and position as successor to the “sick man of Europe,” the Ottoman Empire. Britain, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Japan, Turkey, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia ratified the Montreux Convention, which formally recognized Turkish sovereignty over the Turkish Straits. Given that Britain at the time was the predominant naval power in the Mediterranean, the United States was so uninterested in the diplomatic conference that produced the convention that it did not even send an observer to the negotiations.

    The Russian media is now reporting that Washington is negotiating with Georgia and Turkey to establish a naval base at one of Georgia’s Black sea ports in Batumi or Poti, but Ankara is reportedly carefully assessing its position in order to avoid further political tension with Moscow (Gruziya Online, September 7). In a replay of a dispute earlier this year, Russia has temporarily blocked the shipment of Turkish produce into Russia, citing sanitary concerns; and the dispute, which has cost Turkey an estimated $500 million in lost trade, has triggered speculation in the Turkish media that Russia is trying to punish Turkey for allowing U.S. warships to transit the Bosporus (Hurriyet, September 8).

    For those with a sense of history, a factor behind the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was Washington’s deployment of Atlas IRBMs in Italy and Turkey, which, in the wake of the confrontation, Washington quietly agreed to remove, as the development of ballistic missile submarines, the final component of Washington’s nuclear triad, obviated the need for forward basing of nuclear missiles off Russia’s southern shore. Forty years later, Turkey, sea power, and the Caribbean as subplots in rising U.S.-Russian tensions seem as interconnected as ever.

  • ERMENI GOZU ILE : Georgia’s Adventurous President Saakashvili

    ERMENI GOZU ILE : Georgia’s Adventurous President Saakashvili

     

    By Appo Jabarian
    Executive Publisher/Managing Editor
    USA ARMENIAN LIFE Magazine
     

     

    Much controversy was created with former Soviet Republic of Georgia’s surprise military attacks on Russian peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

     

    The ill-devised attack, authorized by Georgia‘s adventurous President Saakashvili, has effectively triggered an irreversible process that may cost him his career and Georgia‘s territorial integrity.

     

    The 8.8.08 attack broke centuries-old tradition of friendship and alliance with the Russian Uncle to the north, instigating a strong popular backlash in Russian public and governmental circles. Except for Pres. Saakashvili, no Georgian official has ever actively worked to weaken his country’s ties with Russia and actively sought to “integrate” it with the oil interests of the West.

     

    In turn, he earned the status of being a strong U.S. ally in the Caucasus. But the inexperienced Georgian grossly miscalculated the extent of the Russian response, on the one hand, and the lame-duck posture adopted by his neo-con masters in the West, on the other.

     

    On Aug 29, F. William Engdahl, the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press), and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (www.globalresearch.ca), and a contributing writer of Online Journal wrote: “An examination shows 41-year-old Mikheil Saakashvili to be a ruthless and corrupt totalitarian who is tied to not only the US NATO establishment, but also to the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The famous ‘Rose Revolution of November 2003 that forced the aging Edouard Shevardnadze from power and swept the then 36-year-old US university graduate into power was run and financed by the US State Department, the Soros Foundations, and agencies tied to the Pentagon and US intelligence community.”

     

    On September 1, in an article titled “The ‘Stupidest Guy on the Planet’ Has Lots of Company,” John Taylor of www.antiwar.com, wrote: “Saakashvili acted with such remarkable stupidity and miscalculation that a 38-inch yardstick is needed to measure his foolishness against other famously bad decisions … Did Saakashvili really think the Russians would stand idly by and let him pound their forces in South Ossetia? That the U.S., Israel, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would come to his aid? Or that Georgia‘s army could hold off the Russians?”

     

    Unmasking the real face of certain NGO’s, Engdahl added: “But there is more. The NGOs were coordinated by the US Ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, who had just arrived in Tbilisi fresh from success in orchestrating the CIA-backed toppling of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, using the same NGOs. Miles, who is believed to be an undercover intelligence specialist, supervised the Saakashvili coup. It involved US billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Georgia Foundation, the Washington-based Freedom House whose chairman was former CIA chief James Woolsey, and generous financing from the US Congress-financed National Endowment for Democracy, an agency created by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to °do privately what the CIA used to do,° namely coups against regimes the US government finds unfriendly.”

     

    Further bringing Saakashvili’s real persona to light, Engdahl reported: “Since coming to power in 2004 with US aid, Saakashvili has led a policy of large-scale arrests, imprisonment, torture and deepened corruption. Saakashvili has presided over the creation of a de facto one-party state, with a dummy opposition occupying a tiny portion of seats in the parliament, and this public servant is building a Ceaucescu-style palace for himself on the outskirts of Tbilisi. According to the magazine, Civil Georgia (Mar. 22, 2004), until 2005, the salaries of Saakashvili and many of his ministers were reportedly paid by the NGO network of New York-based currency speculator Soros — along with the United Nations Development Program.”

     

    Taylor added: “On an official visit to Israel, Saakashvili proclaimed that the Georgians were ‘the Jews of our time’ and compared Russian President Putin’s anti-Georgian policies to the anti-Semitic decrees of the 18th-century Russian Empress Catherine the Great. He also asserted that his model when refounding the Georgian state was Israel‘s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. And Saakashvili did not hesitate to take his case directly to Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in New York: ‘We need to establish relations with the U.S. Jewish community because you understand better than many in this country the international repercussions with the rest of the world.… I want your help in having better relations with the United States….’”

     

    One wonders if the world Jewry can fathom Saakashvili’s adventurous politics as a “Jew of our time.” By masquerading as a “Jew” of the Caucasus, Saakashvili has certainly brought liabilities to the Jewish quest for healthy relations with Russia and other countries. That’s why the Israeli military specialists and advisers in Georgia “were reluctant to upset the Russians. They need President Putin’s support at the UN to get stronger anti-nuclear sanctions on Iran.”

     

    Engdahl ominously noted that “With Russia openly backing and training the indigenous military in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to maintain Russian presence in the region, especially since the US-backed pro-NATO Saakashvili regime took power in 2004, the Caucasus is rapidly coming to resemble Spain in the Civil War from 1936-1939, where the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and others poured money and weapons and volunteers into Spain in a devastating war that was a precursor to the Second World War.”

     

    By his misguided military move against Russia, Saakashvili has de facto triggered a counter-“Rose Revolution” process. The process which already yielded Russia‘s trashing of Georgia‘s army may soon bring reversal of fortunes both for him and his masters in Washington and elsewhere.

     

    As for Saakashvili’s Azeri counter-part Pres. Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan, it is yet to be seen if the junior Aliev has learned from his colleague’s experience to tone down his belligerent rhetoric against Armenia.

     

    One hopes that Aliev’s advisors in Baku are hard at work to convince their boss not to join the club of the “Stupidest Guys” of the Caucasus. After all, like Georgia, Azerbaijan has much to worry about its shaky and unstable ethnic makeup. Nearly 60% of its inhabitants come from restive non-Azeri ethnic groups such Daghestanis, Alans, Lezgis and many others.
     
  • The EU, Turkey and Russia: An Unlikely Troika

    The EU, Turkey and Russia: An Unlikely Troika

    Michael Werbowski (minou)

    Published 2008-09-06 04:57 (KST)

    Russia’s strategic comeback, or the Georgian crisis in the Caucasus, might be a blessing in disguise for Turkey, as a realignment of power in Russia’s favor could hasten accession negotiations between Ankara and Brussels. Why? Because the European Union, for obvious trade and energy reasons (aside from defense ones), needs Turkey as a solid strategic partner now more than ever.

    NATO’s Demise and the EU’s Rise

    The multilateral Ordungsmacht, or stabilizing power, that was NATO in the 20th century’s bipolar world, today looks crippled by transatlantic divisions, partly stemming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additional fractures over Georgia’s and Ukraine’s status (with the United Kingdom and the United States pushing for further NATO expansion into former Soviet space, while France, Germany and Italy remain very frosty to the idea) have split the cohesiveness of the erstwhile defensive military organization. Overall, NATO looks overstretched, overcommitted, and underequipped. It has so far skillfully concealed these divisions and shortcomings.

    Furthermore, NATO is always on the offensive against its perceived enemies (oil-rich Russia, and radical Islam — also in oil-rich regions). In the 21stcentruy, NATO clearly seeks to play the role of the global cop, with station headquarters in Washington. This is unacceptable to the Russians.

    In Munich in 2007, the West seemed deaf to Moscow’s warnings about putting a missile defense system in their backyard and about NATO’s eastward push. In the summer of 2008, taking advantage of the waning months of a weak and directionless Bush presidency, Russia has made itself heard by using military force in Georgia.

    Moscow has always had legitimate security concerns in the area that stretches from the Black to the Caspian seas. However, if the EU one day begins to carry more diplomatic and military weight in the region, it will do so only with Turkey’s approbation and cooperation. A greater EU role in Europe’s underbelly to the southeast might be more palatable to the tetchy Russian bear.

    A Semipermanent Seat for Turkey at the EU Conference Table

    Russia’s Georgian blitzkrieg triggered the collapse of the post-Cold War order that began in 1989. In this new regional configuration, whereby Russia calls the shots in its “near abroad,” the EU must act as a counterweight in Eurasia to the remerging hegemon. It is for this reason that Turkey can no longer remain on the sidelines of European integration. It must be given a seat at the table of European foreign policy consultations.

    I am not suggesting full EU membership for Turkey by the end of this decade or in the distant future, for that matter. But within the context of an EFDP (European foreign and defense policy), Turkey may one day become an indispensable player. Brussels must face up to this new reality.

    The EU’s ties with Russia often overshadow its ties with Turkey. But this is a flawed policy in the long term. As Mesut Tastekin, a doctoral candidate at Gazi University, points out, areas of great geopolitical concern to the EU are also “risk areas” that include Turkey and are part of Ankara’s purview of interest. Thus, the EU and Turkey have overlapping strategic concerns when it comes to the overall stability of the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and even the Caspian Sea regions.

    As Tastekin asserts, “Turkey stands at the crossroads of the regions which are regarded in the document [the European security strategy document elaborated by Brussels in 2003] as important regions for European security such as the Balkans, the Mediterranean, the near east and the Caucasus.”

    Turkey as the Great Mediator Between East and West

    Turkey has been taken for granted for far too long, despite its growing and obvious geopolitical importance in Brussels. For instance, EU leaders gathered last week to discuss the brief war between Russia and Georgia. Next, a similar emergency EU meeting will tackle the same issue. Yet Turkey, as an “associative member” of the EU, is absent from these crucial consultations.

    This is no mere omission or oversight; it is a great diplomatic error.

    Ankara has proven its diplomatic skills playing the part of the “honest broker” between Syria and Israel. Furthermore, the country has made several good will gestures (most likely with helpful prompting from Brussels) to normalize relations with Nicosia over the issue of a divided Cyprus. And most remarkable of all, by sending the Turkish head of state to Yerevan, the country has made a grandiloquent move to heal the century-old wound between the Turks and the Armenians.

    These are truly impressive and daring diplomatic maneuvers. They will likely bear fruit for Turkey and for its neighbors and serve to strengthen European stability as well. For this reason the EU must consider Turkey a serious strategic partner in its future relations with Russia. In the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian conflict, ignoring Turkey at EU foreign policy making forums is no longer viable.

    Michael Werbowski is a Prague-based journalist who pursued post-Communist studies at the University of Leeds, U.K. He would like to thank Beykent University and the staff of its journal of strategic studies for their kind support and cooperation for making this article possible.

    Source: www.ohmynews.com, 06.09.2008

  • Gül, Bush speak on the phone after Lavrov talks in Istanbul

    Gül, Bush speak on the phone after Lavrov talks in Istanbul

    ANKARA – Turkish Daily News

    President Abdullah Gül yesterday held a telephone conversation with U.S. President George W. Bush for “comprehensive consultations” over regional and international matters, reported the Anatolia news agency.

    The two leaders discussed the Turkish-led Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform, as well as the problem over the oil-rich Iraqi city of Kirkuk and the negotiations set for today on the divided island of Cyprus, said Anatolia, citing unidentified sources.

    The telephone conversation follows a meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Istanbul. At the expense of triggering a collision course with the west, Russia declared last month that it recognizes the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The global balances upset in the wake of the latest Caucasus crisis has left Turkey in a dilemma as the country may be forced to choose between the two if the rift deepens in the near future.

    The passage of NATO’s military vessels through the Turkish straits, under the Montreux Convention of 1936, to dispatch humanitarian aid to war-torn Georgia has become a source of controversy. Russian military officials raised concerns over the NATO buildup in the Black Sea.

  • Turkey retaliates with checks on Russian cargoes

    Turkey retaliates with checks on Russian cargoes

    Turkey is going to tighten checks on goods being transported from Russia. The retaliatory move follows similar measures against cargoes from Turkey introduced by Moscow around the time of the Russian invasion of Georgia.The stringent checks on the Russian side of the border have led to long queues, especially for lorries. The original Russian measures were seen as punishment for Turkey’s allowing United States ships into the Black Sea.

    Source : Radio Netherlands

  • PM Erdogan says Turkey must keep balance, cannot ignore Russia

    PM Erdogan says Turkey must keep balance, cannot ignore Russia

    Turkey would maintain a balance in its relations with Russia in line with its own interests, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told Milliyet daily on Tuesday. He added there has been a significant cooperation between the two countries on trade and energy.

    Turkey could not ignore Russia due to the economic and commercial relations, Erdogan told Milliyet in an interview published on Tuesday, and added his country would pursue a balance based on its national interests.  

    “It would not be right for Turkey to be pushed towards any side (of the conflict),” the Turkish prime minister said. “Certain circles want to push Turkey into a corner either with the United States or Russia after the Georgian incident.” 

    “One of the sides is our closest ally, the United States. The other side is Russia with which we have an important trade volume. We would act in line with what Turkey’s national interests require,” he added. 

    Turkish State Minister Kursad Tuzmen said Monday Turkey started to subject Russian goods to detailed searches at border posts in retaliation for the extensive inspections holding up Turkish trucks in Russian customs. 

    Turkey’s council of ministers, however, has rejected the custom restrictions demanded for Russian export goods, while Turkey’s Government spokesman Cemil Cicek said he hoped recent trade problems between Turkey and Russia would be resolved during Lavrov’s visit to Turkey. 

    Speculation is rife in Turkey, a NATO member, that the Russian move is linked to Turkish support for neighboring Georgia, and especially Ankara’s decision to allow U.S. warships to pass through the Turkish Straits into the Black Sea to deliver humanitarian aid to Tbilisi. 

    Russia was the largest market outside the European Union for Turkish goods last year, with $4.9 billion of exports. 

    Trade volume between Turkey and Russia, the largest market outside the European Union for Turkish goods in 2007, is estimated to reach $38 billion at the end of 2008. Turkish exports to Russia reached $4.7 billion in 2007 consists mostly of the sale of automobiles, citrus fruits, tomatoes, synthetic thread, textiles and jewelry. 

    Turkey imported mostly oil, natural gas and mineral oil from Russia worth $23.5 billion for the same period. Turkey meets nearly two-thirds of its total natural gas needs from this country.

    Source : Hurriyet