Russia hopes to sell Turkey surface-to-air missile systems, state-run news agency RIA cited the head of Russia’s arms export company as saying on Wednesday.
“The Turkish army has a great need to acquire S-300 and S-400 missile systems,” RIA quoted Rosoboronexport director Anatoly Isaikin as saying, referring to two Russian missiles.
Reuters
Britain will stop giving aid money to China and Russia, as “it is not justifiable” any longer, the UK government has said.
International Developement Secretary Andrew Mitchell announced a review into how the UK funds overseas development work in around 90 countries.
“The money will be redirected towards those countries where they can make the most difference,” he said.
In 2008-09, China received more than £40m, while Russia got £190,000.
Britain’s annual bilateral aid budget stands now at £2.9bn.
Mr Mitchell said that, apart from Russia and China, “other country programmes which are less effective will be closed or reduced”.
The news came on the same day as the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, Serhiy Lyovochkin, told journalists that Russia had agreed to lend Ukraine $4bn.
China is considered to be the fastest growing economy in the world, while Russia is also among the leaders.
Mr Mitchell said: “I am determined to get value for money across my department’s work and focus on the big issues such as maternal health, fighting malaria, and extending choice to women over whether and when they have children.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10334927, 16 June 2010
There has been a great resistance in the international arena to Israeli operation on volunteers who tried to help Gaza. Everybody who is against Israel or not pointed out that Israeli action was not acceptable for the values of humanity. Especially some groups which bear religious or humane values held great meetings and discussed Israel’s position in the region.
Different sides have different approaches to Israeli intervention into Turkish-Israeli relations. Opposite groups give anti-Turkish speeches because of Turkey’s important policies on the foreign affairs in the region. All media organs in Russia and Caucasus briefly talked about Israel’s actions and the situation of people. Some writers declared that Israel was a big problem for the region and the world from the time it was founded. Pravda, which is a media organ in Russia, criticized Israel’s action against Turkey and supported Israel’s terrorism based politics. Pravda praised the efforts of volunteers and said that action was only against Turkey. Russian authorities underlined Israel’s bad situation during the meeting of the United Nations Security Council. The state accused Israel because of its violation of the international law and called Israel to leave Gaza. Other Russian media organs analyzed the possibility of new balances in the region, a possible war in the Mediterranean and possible situation of Israel to terminate itself.
Armenia, with which Turkey tried to normalize its relations, has different approaches about the last issues. Commonly media members and academicians pointed out how national interests were influenced by tensions between Turkey and Israel with too many contradictions.
Ruben Mehrabyan, who is a researcher from Armenian Center of International and Political Research, talked to an Armenian news agency. He stated that Israel worked to protect its security when it attacked ships. “The purpose of the action to break the sea blockade of Gaza was to test Israel’s tolerance and determination. In the long run, a force has come to power in Israel, which is interested in the problem of Israelis’ right to life, rather than Palestinians’ rights. Naturally, Israel must act how it is supposed to in order to ensure its own security. Israel’s steps were aimed to ensure Israel’s security irrespective of what flag the ships were flying”. Mehrabyan underlined that action wasn’t against Turkey. He spoke about political and legal results of the tension: “We should not forget that Turkish-Israeli relations are not as they were before; they are worsening. It is not Israel’s initiative. Turkey is the cause, as it is trying to restore its influence in the Middle East.”
Another analyze in Armenia now emphasized that last issue was a result of the Davos tension in 2009, Turkey damaged normalization process with Armenia and Western states weren’t content with Turkish position in the region. According to the analyze Turkey shouldn’t have cooperated with Iran. According to Ruben Melkonyan from Yerevan State University, Knesset will recognize so-called Armenian genocide issue and Jewish Lobbies can support Armenian people. According to Melkonyan, strategic partnership of Turkey and Israel cannot be ended for a short time but it can lead to different circumstances for next elections. If the current government continues, new situation could turn against to Armenia. He reminds supports of Pakistan to Azerbaijan without Armenia.
Russia and Azerbaijan keep their positions to blame Israeli politics as positive approaches. But we can classify Armenian predictions about the last issue like that:
• Parliament of Israel will recognize Armenian genocide issue after the last tension with Turkey.
• Lobbies of Israel will have new approaches about Armenian issue and support Armenia.
• If the current administration in Turkey wins elections for next time, Armenia will be harmed by Turkish politics.
• Violence might increase against minorities in Turkey. Especially Jewish and Armenian minorities can be discriminated by Turks. Armenian people who know 1955 syndrome should be ready to all actions.
• If Turkey continues to increase and grow its popularity in the region, there could be new tensions like Israeli issue.
Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU – Institute of Strategic Thinking
By Amir Oren
The Israeli defense establishment – and especially the Mossad’s foreign relations department, which maintains ties with Turkey’s national intelligence organization (MIT ) – is concerned over the recent appointment of Hakan Fidan as head of that organization, and the implications of that appointment vis-a-vis Turkish relations with Israel and Iran.
Ten days ago, Hakan Fidan, 42, a personal confidant of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, assumed the post of head of MIT, which combines the functions of the Mossad and Shin Bet security force.
Israeli security sources believe last week’s the Mavi Marmara incident reflects an intentional change in relations between Israel and Turkey – orchestrated by Erdogan, along with Fidan and Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu.
There is no concrete information, however, regarding Fidan’s involvement in the incident or his ties with IHH, the group that organized the flotilla.
In meetings between Mossad officials and others in the local political-security establishment, it was noted that Fidan has close ties with Erdogan’s Islamist party, and that during the past year he was deputy director of the prime minister’s office and played a central role in tightening Turkish ties with Iran, especially on the nuclear issue.
Fidan’s appointment at MIT will help strengthen Erdogan’s control over certain civilian elements in the Turkish intelligence community, both in terms of determining foreign and defense policy, and also vis-a-vis members of the senior military echelons, who are considered to be a central threat to the Islamist party’s power.
To date intelligence ties between Israel and Turkey have been good, in parallel to the good relations between the Israel Defense Forces and the Turkish military, and their respective intelligence services.
In April the last head of MIT, Emre Taner, retired after a five-year stint. Erdogan appointed Fidan as acting head then, but he only formally took over late last month. Fidan served in the Turkish military for 15 years, until 2001, but was not an officer.
MIT has extensive authority, in both internal security and foreign intelligence gathering. Its chief answers directly to the prime minister, although the law obliges him also to report to the president, the chief of staff and the country’s National Security Council.
Fidan completed a B.A. at the University of Maryland, and he completed his master’s and doctorate in Ankara. His dissertation was a comparative analysis of the structure of U.S., British and Turkish intelligence organizations.
After his military service, Fidan served in the Turkish embassy in Australia, and last year he represented Ankara in the International Atomic Energy Agency, where he defended Iran’s right to carry on with its nuclear program for “peaceful purposes.”
With Davutoglu, Fidan formulated last month’s uranium transfer deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran.
Apparently, he supports the idea of splitting MIT’s authority into an internal and an external intelligence organization, like in Israel, Britain and the United States. It is reported that he intends to concentrate on “institutional” tasks and to work with an independent security service, one of whose main purposes is to deal with the Kurdish PKK organization – partly to deflect criticism of his appointment.
In Israel there is concern Fidan’s appointment will have a two-pronged effect: on one hand, that exchange of intelligence between the two countries will be harmed, and on the other, that Israel will have to limit the transfer of information to Turkey, out of a concern that it may be passed on to enemy organizations or states.
, 07.06.10
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 6, 2010
The Israeli Naval Commando had prior knowledge of who was on the Turkish ship including where passengers were residing in terms of cabin layout. According to Swedish author Henning Mankell, who was on board the Marmara , “the Israeli forces attacked sleeping civilians.”
These were targeted assassinations. Specific individuals were targeted. Journalists were targeted with a view to confiscating their audio and video recording equipment and tapes.
“We were witnesses to premeditated murders,” said historian Mattias Gardell who was on the Mavi Marmara.
“…Asked about why activists on the Turkish ship had attacked the Israeli soldiers, Gardell stressed “it is not as if Israel is a police officer whom no human being has the legitimate right to defend him or herself against”:
“If you are attacked by commando troops you of course must have the right to defend yourself … Many people on this ship thought they were going to kill everyone. They were very frightened … It’s strange if people think one should not defend oneself. Should you just sit there and say: ‘Kill me’?” he said.” (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Detailed Compiled Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Cold-Blooded Murder and Executions by Israeli Military, Global Research, June 1, 2010)
“They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot,” (quoted by Press TV)
The Israeli Commando had an explicit order to kill.
What was the role of the United States?
The raids on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, bear the mark of previous Israeli operations directed against unarmed civilians. It is a well established modus operandi of Israeli military-intelligence operations, which is tacitly supported by the US administration.
The killing of civilians is intended to trigger a response by Palestinian resistance forces, which in turn justifies Israeli retaliation (on “humanitarian” grounds) as well as a process of military escalation. The logic of this process was contained in Ariel Sharon`s “Operation Justified Vengeance” initiated at the outset the Sharon government in 2001. This Operation was intent upon destroying the Palestinian Authority and transforming Gaza into an urban prison. (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: Israeli Strike on Freedom Flotilla to Gaza is Part of a Broader Military Agenda, Global Research, June 1, 2010).
The Israeli attack of the Flotilla bears the fingerprints of a military intelligence operation coordinated by the IDF and Mossad, which is headed by Meir Dagan. It is worth recalling that as a young Coronel, Dagan worked closely with then defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on the Palestinian settlements of Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut in 1982.
There are indications that the US was consulted at the highest levels regarding the nature of this military operation. Moreover, in the wake of the attacks, both the US and the UK have unequivocally reaffirmed their support to Israel.
There are longstanding and ongoing military and intelligence relations between the US and Israel including close working ties between various agencies of government: Pentagon, National Intelligence Council, State Department, Homeland Security and their respective Israeli counterparts.
These various agencies of government are involved in routine liaison and consultations, usually directly as well as through the US Embassy in Israel, involving frequent shuttles of officials between Washington and Tel Aviv as well as exchange of personnel. Moreover, the US as well as Canada have public security cooperation agreements with Israel pertaining to the policing of international borders, including maritime borders. (See Israel-USA Homeland Security Cooperation, See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement, Global Research, 2 April 2008)
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s White House chief of Staff was in Tel Aviv a week prior to the attacks. Confirmed by press reports, he had meetings behind closed doors with Prime Minister Netanyahu (May 26) as well as a private visit with President Shimon Peres on May 27.
Official statements do not indicate whether other officials including cabinet ministers or IDF and Mossad officials were present at the Rahm Emmanuel-Netanyahu meeting. The Israeli press confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel had a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose Ministry was responsible for overseeing the Commando attack on the Flotilla. (Rahm Emanuel visits Israel to celebrate son’s bar mitzvah – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News, 23 May 2010). The White House also confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel was to meet other high-ranking Israeli officials, without providing further details. (Rahm Emanuel in Israel for Son’s Bar Mitzvah, May Meet With Officials)
While born in the US, Rahm Emmanuel also holds Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli military during the First Gulf War (1991).
Rahm is also known for his connections to the pro-Israeli lobby in the US. The Israeli newspaper Maariv calls him “Our Man in the White House” (quoted in Irish Times, March 13, 2010). Rahm Emmanuel gave his support to Obama in the November 2008 presidential elections following Obama`s address to the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC.
At the time of Rahm Emmanuel’s confirmation as White House chief of staff, there were reports in the Middle East media of Rahm Emanuel’s connections to Israeli intelligence.
The exact nature of Rahm Emmanuel’s ties to the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus, however, is not the main issue. What we are dealing with is a broad process of bilateral coordination and decision-making between the two governments in the areas of foreign policy, intelligence and military planning, which has been ongoing for more than 50 years. In this regard, Israel, although exercising a certain degree of autonomy in military and strategic decisions, will not act unilaterally, without receiving the “green light” from Washington. Rahm Emmanuel`s meetings with the prime minister and Israeli officials are part of this ongoing process.
Rahm Emmanuel’s meetings in Tel Aviv on May 26 were a routine follow-up to visits to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu in March and by Minister of Defense Ehud Barak in late April. In these various bilateral US-Israel encounters at the White House, the state Department and the Pentagon, Rahm Emmanuel invariably plays a key role.
While the pro-Israeli lobby in the US influences party politics in America, Washington also influences the direction of Israeli politics. There have been reports to the effect that Rahm Emmanuel would “lead a team of high octane Democratic party pro-Israel political operatives to run the campaign for the Defense Minister Ehud Barak” against Netanyahu in the next Israeli election. (Ira Glunts, Could Rahm Emanuel Help Barak Unseat Netanyahu? Palestine Chronicle, June 2, 2010)
The April 27 meeting between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Defense Minister Barak pertained to “a range of important defense issues” directly or indirectly related to the status of the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation:
“As President Obama has affirmed, the United States commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable, and our defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations. The United States and our ally Israel share many of the same security challenges, from combating terrorism to confronting the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.
For years, the United States and Israel have worked together to prepare our armed forces to meet these and other challenges, a recent major example being the Juniper Cobra joint exercise held last October. Our work together on missile-defense technology is ongoing, and the United States will continue to ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.” (Press Conference with Secretary Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Barak, April 2010 – Council on Foreign Relations April 27, 2010)
These consultations pertained to ongoing military preparations regarding Iran. Both Israel and the US have recently announced that a pre-emptive attack against Iran has been contemplated.
Washington views Israel as being “‘integrated into America’s military architecture,’ especially in the missile defense sphere.” (quoted in Emanuel to rabbis: US ‘screwed up’ Jerusalem Post, statement of Dennis Ross, who is in charge of the US administration’s Iran policy in the White House, May 16, 2010).
The attack on the Freedom Flotilla, might appear as a separate and distinct humanitiarian issue, unrelated to US-Israeli war plans. But from the standpoint of both Tel Aviv and Washington, it is part of the broader military agenda. It is intended to create conditions favoring an atmosphere of confrontation and escalation in the Middle East war theater;
“All the signs are that Israel has been stepping up its provocations to engineer a casus belli for a war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Tel Aviv sees as unfinished business its inconclusive wars: the first in Lebanon in 2006, and the second in Gaza in 2008-09.” (Jean Shaoul Washington Comes to the Aid of Israel over Gaza Convoy Massacre, Global Research, June 4, 2010)
Following Israel’s illegal assault in international waters, Netanyahu stated emphatically “Israel will continue to exercise its right to self defence. We will not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza,” suggesting that the Gaza blockade was part of the pre-emptive war agenda directed against Iran, Syria and Lebanon. (Israeli forces board Gaza aid ship the Rachel Corrie – Telegraph, June 5, 2010, emphasis added) .
Moreover, the raid on the Flotilla coincided with NATO-Israel war games directed against Iran. According to the Sunday Times, “three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.” (Israel Deploys Three Nuclear Cruise Missile-Armed Subs Along Iranian Coastline).
While Israeli naval deployments were underway in the Persian Gulf, Israel was also involved in war games in the Mediterranean. The war game codenamed “MINOAS 2010” was carried out at a Greek air base in Souda Bay, on the island of Crete. Earlier in February, The Israeli air force “practiced simulated strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities using airspace of two Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, which are close territorially with the Islamic republic and cooperate with Israel on this issue.” Ria Novosti,War Games: Israel gets ready to Strike at Iran’s Nuclear Sites,, March 29, 2010)
Also, in the wake of the final resolution of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation directed against Israel’s nuclear weapons program, the White House has reaffirmed its endorsement of Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Washington’s statement issued one day before the raid on the flotilla points to unbending US support to “Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities”, which also include the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran:
“a senior political source in Jerusalem said Sunday that Israel received guarantees from U.S. President Barack Obama that the U.S. would maintain and improve Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities.
According to the source, “Obama gave [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu unequivocal guarantees that include a substantial upgrade in Israel-U.S. relations.”
Obama promised that no decision taken during the recent 189-nation conference to review and strengthen the 40-year-old Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty “would be allowed to harm Israel’s vital interests,” the sources said. Obama promised to bolster Israel’s strategic capabilities, Jerusalem officials say – Haaretz Daily Newspaper)
The Turkey-Israel Relationship in Jeopardy?
The actions of Israel against the Freedom Flotilla have important ramifications. Israel’s criminal actions in international waters has contributed to weakening the US-NATO-Israel military alliance.
The bilateral Israel-Turkey alliance in military, intelligence, joint military production is potentially in jeopardy. Ankara has already announced that three planned military exercises with Israel have been cancelled. “The government announced it was considering reducing its relations with Israel to a minimum.”
It should be understood that Israel and Turkey are partners and major actors in the US-NATO planned aerial attacks on Iran, which have been in the pipeline since mid-2005. The rift between Turkey and Israel has a direct bearing on NATO as a military alliance. Turkey is one of the more powerful NATO member states with regard to its conventional forces. The rift with Israel breaks a consensus within the Atlantic Alliance. It also undermines ongoing US-NATO-Israel pre-emptive war plans directed against Iran, which until recently were endorsed by the Turkish military.
From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military alliance was directed against Syria, as well as Iran and Iraq. (For details see See Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, 2006)
In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched “A Strategic Dialogue” involving a bi-annual process of high level military consultations by the respective deputy chiefs of staff. (Milliyet, Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).
During the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which in practice is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara.
Starting in 2005, Israel has become a de facto member of NATO. The triple alliance was coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which included “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (“Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon).
Israel’s blockade of Gaza is in large part motivated by the broader issue of control of Gaza’s territorial waters, which contain significant reserves of natural gas. What is at stake is the confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral de facto declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas. If the blockade were to be broken, Israel’s de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves would be jeopardy. (See Michel Chossudovsky,War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields, Global Research, January 8, 2009. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
, 6.6.2010
Crimea’s Tatars mark Deportation Day in Simferapol.
May 18, 2010
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — Ukraine’s Crimean Tatar minority has marked the 66th anniversary of their deportation, RFE/RL’s Ukrainian and Tatar-Bashkir services report.
On May 18, 1944, Soviet Army and Interior Ministry troops deported the entire Tatar population of Crimea — some 180,000 people — to Siberia and Central Asia on the orders of Soviet leader Josef Stalin.
Thousands of people died along the journey.
In 1991, the Crimean Tatars received official permission to return to Crimea. They currently make up more than 12 percent of the Crimean Peninsula’s population of some 2.1 million.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych issued a decree last week calling on the authorities “to provide all necessary conditions for marking the 66th anniversary of the deportation at the appropriate level.”
Crimean Tatar leaders and activists have been holding commemorative gatherings and mourning ceremonies in Crimea since May 16.
Mustafa Dzhemilev, the leader of the Crimean Tatar parliament, or Mejlis, said on May 17 that the gatherings are not protest actions but acts of mourning.
The Day to Commemorate the Victims of the Deportation has been marked every year in Crimea since 1993.
https://www.rferl.org/a/Crimean_Tatars_Mark_Deportation_Anniversary/2046088.html