Category: Iraq

Between the Hammer and the Anvil: An Exclusive Interview with PJAK’s Agiri Rojhilat

Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 31

October 23, 2009 11:46 AM Age: 3 days

Featured By: Derek Henry Flood

Agiri Rojhilat

Agiri Rojhilat is one of the top seven members of the Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistane (PJAK) which is a part of the larger umbrella organization Koma Civaken Kurdistan (KCK) that includes the PKK. The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan portrays itself to be more of an armed democratization movement rather than a traditional national liberation movement for Kurdish sovereignty. PJAK says it is taking a stand in the name of all of Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities and it is much more than a Kurdish ethno-nationalist organization. Its expressed aim is to change the regime of the Iranian Ayatollahs to form an inclusive, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic participatory, federalized democracy in Tehran. Jamestown spoke to Rojhilat at the PJAK base in Qandil, northern Iraq.

JT: Can you tell our readers about PJAK’s internal political framework?

AR: Every four years we will have a congress that is made up of two-hundred delegates that from come from within our organization representing our women’s wing, youth wing and armed wing. This congress assembles itself in secret in Kurdistan. Because of the situation for Kurds in Iran, the elections for our congress cannot be held in the open. From the 200 assembled delegates, a thirty-person parliament is elected. Of those thirty elected, seven are chosen to form the coordination board of PJAK.

JT: How precisely are these elections conducted? Since your organization is not a legal party in Iran, they must be done clandestinely, no?

AR: The elections are done secretly. I want to let you know that we have over a million supporters inside Iran today. There is a lot of support for PJAK. But these elections cannot be perfectly [democratic] but of the secrecy in which they must be conducted.

JT: It has been reported that PJAK is very concerned about women’s issues and gender equality. What can you tell us about this aspect of your organization?

AR: I want to emphasize that women’s issues and women’s rights are paramount to our organization and we have a quota for female PJAK membership. Women are active at all levels of our organization. From the delegates to the parliament to the coordination board, we require a forty percent quota for females in PJAK. From top to bottom, we stress female participation in PJAK.

JT: Even participating in guerrilla attacks?

AR: Even fighting, yes.

JT: Do the PKK and PJAK conduct joint military operations or are their kinetic activities totally isolated from one another?

AR: What the PKK and PJAK have in common is that we both follow the ideology and philosophy of [imprisoned PKK leader] Abdullah Ocalan and we are both Kurdish parties. Let me explain this; there are four parts of Kurdistan since it was divided. Within both the PKK and the PJAK, there are Kurds from the different parts of Kurdistan. So within the PKK, there are Iranian Kurds and there are Germans and within PJAK there are Kurds from other parts of Kurdistan, but the PKK and PJAK are different groups with different political objectives.

JT: You are referring to diaspora Kurds from Germany or European Germans?

AR: Both. Let me explain; there are Kurds from all four parts of Kurdistan participating in the PKK, diaspora Kurds as well as some Germans. All of these types of Kurds are also participating in PJAK as well but I want to stress that the PKK and PJAK are two different organizations with different aims and objectives.

I want to add something else. If the regime in Syria attacks Syrian Kurds, PJAK is obligated to have a reaction to such behavior. Despite the fact that PJAK operates primarily in Iranian Kurdistan, we feel we have a responsibility to protect Kurds from the other sectors of Kurdistan as well. There are not different kinds of Kurds. There is one Kurdistan and one Kurdish people.

JT: Is PJAK a purely Kurdish liberation movement or is its appeal more broad based within Iran?

AR: In our movement, there are several nationalities. We have Azeris, Baluchis as well as ethnic Persians fighting.

JT: What is the geographical scope of the insurgency you are mounting?

AR: We have guerrillas in place from Maku all the way to Kermanshah. Throughout Iranian Kurdistan we have over one million sympathizers.

JT: What is the size of PJAK’s current military force?

AR: Until now, we do not like to give out precise figures for this but we have over one thousand active guerrillas. Eighty percent of which are inside Iranian territory.

JT: How are the values and teachings of Abdullah Ocalan carried out by PJAK?

AR: Of course it is a matter of evaluating the philosophy of Abdullah Ocalan according to our specific needs. The PKK and PJAK are two different organizations and the situation in Turkish Kurdistan is different than in Iranian Kurdistan. We implement his teachings according to the needs of Kurds in Iran. Do we put everything exactly as Ocalan says into practice? Not necessarily. You cannot say exactly that whatever Ocalan says we put into practice…

JT: What can you tell us about how PJAK was founded?

AR: For about five or six years before 2004 when our organization was officially announced, we were having some meetings to decide about how to organize ourselves politically and improve the situation for Kurds in Iran.

JT: Can you answer the allegations that PJAK has received support in any form from the Central Intelligence Agency? Journalist Seymour Hersh and former CIA officer Robert Baer have stated the United States government is very likely aiding PJAK in its proxy struggle with the Iranian regime. Is there any truth to these assertions?

AR: It is not right that the CIA is helping PJAK. That is not the reality or right at all. Once we had a meeting with Americans in Kirkuk to discuss possible cooperation. Our friend Akif Zagros [a former member of PJAK’s seven person leadership council who the author was informed was killed in a flash flood] talked with them but the Americans said PJAK should abandon the ideology of Abdullah Ocalan and our brotherhood with the PKK if we want help from them. Akif Zagros told the Americans PJAK would not abandon the teachings of Ocalan or our friendly relations with the PKK. Because of the way the Americans approached the issue, shaheed Zagros left the meeting. Since the meeting in 2004, no other such meetings occurred.

JT: If the United States were to approach you again asking to work with your organization against the Iranian regime, but this time without such preconditions, what would be the reaction of PJAK’s leadership?

AR: We have nothing against the United States of America. We are not closing our doors to anyone. We are open to dialogue with everyone. We are open to America, Europe and still Iran for talks. We decide what is best for our people based on our own will. We decide democratically when, where and with whom we will engage in such dialogue. We do not want to be simply used against others…

JT: So PJAK does not want to be used in a proxy war even if its interests temporarily converge with an outside power?

AR: Until now, both the U.S. and the European Union approach Iran for their own benefit. Within these dialogues, the Kurds are always used and then thrown aside after we have served their purposes. Because of these failed policies, we do not accept these kinds of approaches.

JT: Why do you believe that the Americans put PJAK on the Treasury Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations?

AR: Last year, there was a small bit of rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran and the nuclear issue and then suddenly PJAK gets put on this terrorist-financing list. We know there are some political parties [in Iran] that get some support from the U.S. but we are a totally different kind of party. We have our own will and objectives.

JT: Out here in Qandil, I do not see any visible economy with which your organization can sustain itself. How is PJAK funded? Do you benefit from the Afghan opium trade? Do you receive donations from sponsors?

AR: Our economy is based purely on the Kurdish people living in Iran. We collect voluntary donations from the Kurdish people according to how much they are able to give within their relative means. To explain to you the level of support that we receive, the Kurdish people even bring their children to us to join our organization.

JT: Children of what age?

AR: Normally eighteen. You must understand that Kurdish society is very different than the West. Because there are so many operations to suppress us, Kurdish society has turned inward. This stress from the outside strengthens our communities. We have some recruits that are under eighteen, maybe sixteen, but they are not participating in our military operations. Where we are from in Iran, there is a very large youth population and our party sees a lot of potential in them as we consider ourselves a young party. The Islamic Republic of Iran has three elements it uses in the destruction of our youth. Firstly it encourages and facilitates drug use among them. Secondly, it employs the Basij [militia] system and tries to brainwash our young people to be against the U.S. and Europe, saying, “We [Iran] stand for Islam and therefore the U.S. and E.U. are our enemy.” Thirdly, the regime systematically imprisons and tortures them in order to annihilate us and discourage them from joining PJAK or supporting the Kurdish freedom movement.

JT: Can you be more specific about how the guerrilla movement is financed?

AR: For example, certain Kurdish people that have relations with PJAK come and visit us. They pledge to sponsor maybe fifty or one hundred guerrillas from top to bottom for an entire year. They buy everything for them and it is their way of supporting their own freedom struggle. All of this is done through voluntary sponsorship.

About the drug question you brought up, Iran has very special policies in regard to this matter. They encourage Kurdish youth in Iranian Kurdistan to use drugs and the percentage of addiction among our youth has been increasing. The Iranian state wants our young people to remain outside the political framework of the country. Let me give you an example of how this policy affects our people. Recently, a mother came here from Iran asking us to help her deal with her son who was badly addicted to drugs and she felt powerless to do anything about it. She said she could not turn to the Iranian state for help and came to us because she felt that by joining PJAK, [her son] could shake his addiction. We told her “bring your son to us. We can help him.”

JT: PJAK does not profit from the transit of Afghan narcotics through its territory?

AR: There have been clashes with police in Iran with Sunni groups who are fighting the Islamic regime in Baluchistan and Khorosan. Sometimes these police die. From time to time, we also have clashes between our armed wing and regime elements. When some pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards] die, the regime says it is because of bandits involved in the drugs trade. They describe clashes with PJAK as banditry and try to link us to the drugs. Iranian authorities do not like to mention the name PJAK after some pasdarans die, just referring to us as bandits. These Iranians are not dying because of the drugs trade. They are being killed because they are oppressing Sunnis and Sunnis in these provinces are fighting the regime. If you come back to me on another visit, I can provide you with names of those in the regime that are involved in the drugs trade.

When the Iranian regime prepares its annual budget, it does not have enough money to sustain itself and so it supplements governmental coffers with money from the transshipment of Afghan narcotics. The drugs are shipped across Iranian territory under the supervision of Ettela’at (Iranian Intelligence: Vezarat-e Ettela’at Jomhuri-e Eslami – VEVAK) to Orumieh (provincial capital of West Azarbaijan Province). From Orumieh they are sent to Hakkari Province in Turkey where they are shipped under the supervision of the MIT (Milli Istihbarat Teskilati – Turkish intelligence) and from Turkey these drugs reach Europe. Both Iran and Turkey may employ some Kurds as part of their trafficking apparatus but the trafficking is state organized by both countries’ intelligence services.

Can you imagine this high volume of drugs coming into Turkey from Iran without the Turks’ knowledge? It would be impossible. Turkey has many checkpoints. How could they not know about all of these drugs passing through their territory?

JT: Is PJAK a 100% independent organization that exists without the support of international actors?

AR: Yes that is completely right. I will stress that we have not so far [received] any international aid or weapons from anyone. We are an independent organization.

JT: There has been a lot of speculation [surrounding] your leader Abdul Rahman Haji Ahmadi’s visit to Washington in the summer 0f 2007. Can you comment on it?

AR: As you can see Haji Ahmadi is not here for comment. Whatever I say is on the record as a PJAK official. As the president of PJAK, he is available to have dialogue with anyone. He can visit different countries and meet with different people. Yes, he did visit Washington, as it was within his power to do so. He has the power to do such things. But I want to reiterate that until now we have not received support from any outside powers…

JT: What is PJAK’s attitude toward the Turkish-Iranian military alliance?

AR: Iran and Turkey have an alliance against us and [have worked] on joint military operations together for the past few years. Despite their differences, they are unified on the Kurdish issue. The alliance between Iran and Turkey is not purely a military one though, it is also now political…

Turkey is taking intelligence that it is receiving from the U.S. in regard to PKK positions here in Iraq and passing it on to Iran so they can attack PJAK. So Iran is now acquiring U.S. intelligence meant for Ankara in this Turkish-Iranian bilateral military strategy against the Kurds. Through this cooperation, we are attacked here in Iraq by Turkish warplanes while Iran fires Katyushas from the other side of these mountain ridges. We believe there are even Turks training members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps to fight Kurds inside Iran.

Additionally, I want to let you know that besides Iran’s increased alliance with Turkey, it is also greatly expanding its bases along the Iran-Iraq border. It says it is doing this to defend the Islamic Republic against a possible invasion by the United States. But what this effort is really meant to do in our view is to separate the Kurds and stop the flow of our movement across the border. From our observations, some of these expanded military bases look to be modeled on Israeli bases.

JT: What can you tell of your organization’s military strategy against Iranian forces?

AR: Iran and Turkey insist that the PKK and the PJAK are the same and this works very well for their own propaganda efforts. We are being shelled here. If you look beyond you, you can see the entire mountainside is burned from Katuysha fire. Our strategy is one of pure self-defense. We do not make offensive operations against the Revolutionary Guards. We defend Iranian Kurds and ourselves. We have a right to retaliate against the Iranian state as part of our self-defense policy. If Iran attacks our people, we will respond. Iran uses the death penalty and likes to hang people. If they will hang more of our friends, we have plans to retaliate directly… Our main work is political but we have to have an armed wing because Iran is not a truly democratic state and it does not allow people to organize themselves politically.

JT: What can you tell our readers about PJAK’s philosophy and ideological outlook?

AR: Our aim is a free Kurdistan and a democratic Iran.

JT: Are you speaking of creating an independent Kurdish state?

AR: What we are talking about now is not the changing of borders or the replacing of flags but creating an all-inclusive Iran.

JT: Does PJAK seek to overthrow the religious government of Iran?

AR: We do not oppose religion and we are in no way against the Islamic religion, nor do we have any animosity toward any other ethnic groups living in Iran today. Our goals are not limited to the freedom of Kurds. We wish for all the ethnic groups living in Iran to have their democratic rights.

JT: Do you seek a structure of parallel government for Kurds in Iran comparable to the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq that has its own parliament and issues its own visas?

AR: Not at all. We would prefer to have much more participation in a democratized central government. To achieve this, we are trying to permeate Iranian Kurdistan with democratic values so that our people can improve themselves and organize themselves politically. We never want to impose cultural hegemony on others and would like to see Baluchis and Azeris organize themselves similarly as well.

JT: Do you believe that Iran is a Shia chauvinist regime that uses Khomenism and evangelical Mahdism similar to the way Turkey uses the notion of Turkism at the expense of its minorities?

AR: Yes, that’s right. Iran gives Kurds a degree of recognition but with other groups like Azeris, they practice a forced assimilation policy. Iran also practices a divide and rule policy to pit different groups against one another. There is discrimination against Sunnis as well…

JT: Does PJAK have a relationship with the Jundullah insurgency in Sistan-Baluchistan Province?

AR: For us, yes, we have some relations with Baluchi people. However, we do not have a specific relationship with Jundullah. Baluchis have a special meaning for us because of their oppression by the Islamic Republic. Iran’s policy has been to make the Baluchis depend on the income from the transit of Afghan narcotics as well as depend on the Iranian state.

JT: Do you have any connections with Ahwazi Arabs in Khuzestan Province? There has been some unexplained political violence there.

AR: We do not have guerrillas there but we do have some indirect political relations.

JT: In closing, can you tell our readers what core principles drive PJAK’s internal dynamics?

AR: Our movement operates under three core principles: democracy, women’s rights, and ecology. We believe these three principles must be integrated into our everyday activities. Did you know that every year, it is required that every member of PJAK must plant two trees? PJAK strongly believes that understanding ecology improves people’s lives in the region where we are active. We have programs to help surrounding villages to acquire fresh water and PJAK also believes in helping to educate the people in our surroundings.

https://jamestown.org/program/between-the-hammer-and-the-anvil-an-exclusive-interview-with-pjaks-agiri-rojhilat/

October 26, 2009
Iraq Oil Scandal Threatens Former U.S. Diplomat Galbraith

Peter Galbraith says his business activities took place only when he was working in the private sector.

October 15, 2009

By Charles Recknagel

There is little love lost between the top UN envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and Peter Galbraith, his recently dismissed deputy.

Galbraith was dismissed from the UN mission earlier this month after accusing the senior Norwegian diplomat of concealing information about the extent of fraud in the contested Afghan presidential election.

Eide later responded with an angry defense of his reputation as an honest broker. He acknowledged there had been “significant” fraud but said that Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador, had no way to substantiate claims that as much as 30 percent of the vote count was influenced by fraud.

Now, in an ironic twist to the story, Galbraith, too, has suddenly found himself at the center of alleged scandal that could damage his own reputation.

That scandal is taking place in Norway, where Galbraith, the son of famed Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, lives in Bergen with his Norwegian wife.

Norway’s largest financial newspaper, the “Dagens Naeringsliv,” reported last week that Galbraith acquired a 5 percent share in an oil field in the Iraqi Kurdish region at a time when he was a leading voice in the U.S. debate over the structure of post-Saddam Iraq.

At the time, the former diplomat urged in meetings with U.S. officials and in articles in the “New York Review of Books” that the Kurds should be given maximum autonomy.

And he helped draft Iraq’s 2005 constitution by advising Kurdish leaders on legal language they should seek to insert into it — including keeping future oil development in their region under their own control.

The U.S. daily “The Boston Globe,” which picked up the story on October 15, reports that in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Galbraith worked as an adviser to then-U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Galbraith then left government service and in late 2003 and early 2004 worked as a paid consultant to Kurdish politicians. Later, in 2005, he advised them again on an unpaid basis.

Conflict Of Interest?

Galbraith’s dual role in Iraq appears to have broken no laws. But it does raise ethical questions, according to some analysts.

“The dual role is problematic particularly in terms of the American policy debate that unfolded from around 2005 to 2007, in which Galbraith was the leading voice in shaping the so-called alternative to the Bush administration policy,” says Reider Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo and the editor of the Iraq-focused website historiae.org.

“At the core of that alternative was the idea of some sort of radical decentralization for Iraq,” Visser says. “But when it now emerges that additionally he had an ownership interest, or a business interest, in an oil field whose political and economic status was directly governed by his policy recommendations, then I think we can speak of a conflict of interest.”

Galbraith says in “The Boston Globe” that he sees no conflict of interest because he was working as a private citizen at the time.

“The business interest, including my investment into Kurdistan, was consistent with my political views,” he told the paper. “These were all things that I was promoting, and in fact, have brought considerable benefit to the people of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan oil industry, and also to shareholders.”

Rumors of Galbraith having financial dealings in Iraq have swirled around for years. But the Norwegian newspaper’s detailed account stems not from an investigation into Galbraith but into a Norwegian oil company, DNO.

The investigation, as often happens in such cases, advanced in unanticipated ways, with one discovery leading surprisingly to another.

The newspaper began by looking into a large, unexplained fine leveled on DNO by the Oslo Stock Exchange on June 18. DNO is the only Norwegian oil company active in northern Iraq and one of the first foreign companies to receive a drilling license from the Kurdistan regional government (KRG).

The minutes of the stock exchange meeting showed only that the fine was to punish DNO for selling 5 percent of its shares to a publicly undisclosed buyer. “Dagens Naeringsliv” filed a Freedom of Information request with the stock exchange and learned that the undisclosed buyer of the shares was the KRG itself.

When “Dagens Naeringsliv” published that news, the KRG reacted vehemently to being publicly named. It threatened to suspend DNO’s activities in Kurdistan and evict the company without compensation. It also set some conditions for continued cooperation with DNO, including one that was completely unexpected: for the company to clear up all conflicts with “third-party interests.”

Again the newspaper’s interest was piqued. This time, the challenge was to find out the identity of the “third party,” which apparently had previously been part of an agreement with DNO and the KGR but which now was in a conflict so important it needed to be solved immediately.

Unexpected Connections

In the search, the paper learned of an arbitration case in London which started sometime after March of last year and pits DNO against two companies: one called Porcupine, the other belonging to a Yemeni businessman. Tracking down Porcupine led to Delaware, where it turned out the company’s incorporation document was signed by Peter Galbraith.

The financial news editor of “Dagens Naeringsliv,” Terje Erikstad, says the discovery of Galbraith’s name was completely unanticipated.

“We started out the investigation looking at the fine levied against a mid-sized Norwegian oil company, DNO,” Erikstad says. “It is often in the news because it was a pioneer in northern Iraq and its shares on the Oslo stock exchange go up and down with developments there. We were not looking for Galbraith’s name at all, so finding it on [Porcupine’s] founding documents in Delaware was quite a surprise for us.”

Porcupine was established in Delaware on June 30, 2004 — one day after DNO signed a contract with KRG to begin drilling for oil in northern Iraq.

Later, the relations between the partners — KRG, DNO, and the third party –soured for as yet unknown reasons. The contract between DNO and the KRG was renegotiated last year and the third party was dropped out of the agreement. That, in turn, appears to have sparked the arbitration case in which the third party — Porcupine and the Yemeni businessman — is asking compensation.

The Norwegian newspaper reports that the compensation sought is equivalent to 10 percent of the total reserves and output of the Tawke field, where the DNO operates. The paper published a document from 2006 that lists the partners in the Tawke field and shows Porcupine as having a 5 percent interest in it.

The paper estimates that the total amount of compensation being sought jointly by Porcupine and the Yemeni businessman is some $525 million. A ruling is expected in the first half of next year.

DNO has the capacity currently to export roughly 43,000 barrels per day from Iraqi Kurdistan, worth approximately $30 million annually. However, exports are currently blocked as the KRG and Baghdad continue to dispute the same kind of issues Galbraith once tried to resolve.

The current dispute is whether Baghdad, which handles the sale of all exported oil, should pay any of DNO’s operating costs when DNO is working under a contract awarded by the KRG but not recognized by the Baghdad government.

Baghdad insists instead that the KRG pay the company out of the 17 percent of Iraqi oil revenues that the Kurdish region receives under Iraq’s current revenue-sharing agreement.

A final Iraqi oil law to resolve such conflicts between Baghdad and the KRG has been under discussion ever since the signing of Iraq’s 2005 constitution, with no conclusion in sight.

https://www.rferl.org/a/Iraq_Oil_Scandal_Threatens_Former_US_Diplomat_Galbraith/1852916.html

October 17, 2009
Iran’s nuclear threat is a lie

John Pilger

01 October 2009

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. The media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war

In 2001, the Observer published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

The threat is one-way

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Preparing for endless war

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran – in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with stepped-up wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush’s America, Obama’s America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?

New Statesman

October 9, 2009
Iran arrests al-Qaida militants

TEHRAN, Oct. 1 (UPI) — Iranian intelligence officials announced the arrest of several members of foreign-based terrorist groups in the western part of the country.

Iranian Intelligence Minister Heyder Moslehi announced the arrest of 14 members of a “Wahhabi terrorist” group that he said was “affiliated with al-Qaida,” reports state-funded news agency Press TV.

The announcement follows a series of arrests earlier this week in the western province of Kordestan, the site of a recent spate of assassinations of high-level judicial authorities.

Iran blamed a variety of “foreign agents” for the attacks, pointing to Salafist groups operating in the region.

Wahhabism and Salafism are often used interchangeably to describe an ultra-conservative form of Sunni Islamic thought that draws on religious teachings to advocate jihad.

Meanwhile, Iranian military officials said they struck a “fatal” blow to militants with the Free Life Party of Kurdistan, or PJAK.

“In a serious clash, the counterrevolutionary group of PJAK sustained fatal damage,” said Brig. Gen. Yadollah Javani.

PJAK is affiliated with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party and is active in the Kurdish regions of Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria.

Javani went on to blame the U.S. presence in neighboring Iraq for the recent instability in the west of the country.

“One of the goals behind the U.S. occupation of Iraq was to destabilize Iran,” he said.

© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Source: www.upi.com, Oct. 1, 2009

October 7, 2009
Is Turkey new light ray in darkness of Middle East?

Trend News Middle East Desk Commentator, Ulviyya Sadikhova

Perhaps, after the end of the Israel – Hamas war in the Gaza Strip in January, 2009, Turkey did not seek to solve the acute problems in the Middle East with such zeal, as it has shown in the last two months.

Ankara made its debut in the Middle East by nominating itself as the chief mediator in the resolution of the Syrian-Iraqi dispute, which erupted after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accused the Syrian regime of sheltering organizers of two major terrorist attacks on Baghdad, which killed nearly 100 people.

Although Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davudoglu said his country does not mediate in the reconciliation of Damascus and Baghdad, since the very beginning of disagreements Davudoglu has met with Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and then with al-Maliki in Baghdad.

At a meeting of the League of Arab States in Cairo the Arab countries acknowledged Turkey’s success in preventing acute Syria-Iraq conflict.

In fact, Ankara needs to pacify the situation in the Middle East, which went out of control as a result of constant internal collisions. One can mention several reasons, but the most prominent are two: the fight against the separatists of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the immense progress in relations with Syria.

Regarding the PKK matter, the Iraqi government has never been the best assistant for Turkey. Firstly, views on cooperation with Turkey in the fighting against separatists, who are based in the north, have split up in Iraq. Despite President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd by origin, expressed his full support in the fight against PKK terrorists in Iraq, the issue of an independent Kurdistan is still questionable. Analysts also believe the Shiite parties in Iraq, including al-Maliki’s party, are unlikely to disregard the Kurdish political organizations on the eve of elections in January 2010. Therefore, Turkey will not benefit from the agreement with Iraq to cooperate against the PKK. Taking into account the internal weakness of Iraqi state power due to the struggle among of pro-Iranian Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni parties, new differences with Syria could offer a ground for further division of the country. Realizing this risk and the fear that the PKK will take advantage of the situation to strengthen fighting, Turkey demanded the Iraqi authorities to clarify accusations against Damascus and provide substantial evidence.

Besides, a slight warming has been observed recently between the Iraqi pro-Iranian bloc and Turkey. One of the most influential Iraqi Shiite leaders, Muqtada al-Sadr, visited Turkey in summer.

The cooperation with Syria in the fight against PKK terrorists is another issue. Though the PKK issue was about to cause the Syria -Turkey war ten years ago, now this is one of the pillars of relations between the two countries. Syria, where head of the Kurdistan Workers Party, Abdullah Ocalan, hid more than ten years ago, stated on its readiness to open its borders to the Syrian citizens of Kurdish origin, who are fighting against the Turkish government in mountainous areas, if the latter lay down their arms against Ankara.

It seems Syria could not offer better one, because Turkey virtually received a guarantee and the place, where it will be able to banish the terrorists and extremists, whereas the Kurdistan administration of Iraq and the Kurdish parties in Iraq do not give any guarantee to Ankara in suppressing the PKK.

It is interesting, since 2008, Turkey has focused on improving relations with Syria. Turkey started with the weak point – negotiations with Israel and the returning of the Golan Heights. Although a year later Turkey’s mediation failed, Syria and Israel were able to come together in only one – both were satisfied with Ankara’s role.

In addition, Turkey’s rapprochement with Syria is not accidental. Damascus – Iran’s main ally among the Arab countries – has a direct impact on the internal situation in Lebanon, where a pro-Iranian Party of Hezbollah operates. More likely, Turkey wants to participate in an internal crisis in Lebanon and the Palestinian split, as well as to find alternative routes to Iran through Syria, given the ambitions to assume the role of chief peacemaker in the Middle East.

Cooperation with Turkey is advantageous also for Syria, especially to improve relations with Sunni and pro-Western Arab countries.

Al-Assad’s surprising visit to Riyadh on Wednesday, following the Turkish president’s meeting with King Abdullah II in Jeddah, was the first signal that Damascus resumed dialogue with the Saudis, who will have a direct impact on the political crisis in Lebanon, shaken by grim struggle for power between the pro-Saudi majority of Saad al-Hariri and the pro-Syrian opposition Hezbollah. Analysts predicted that the formation of government in Lebanon will delay until Syria and Saudi Arabia come to an agreement. However, Syria and the Saudi kingdom have very different interests in Lebanon and now Turkey, which is one of the largest Sunni countries, interferes in the dialogue. Ankara wants to show Saudi Arabia that it could persuade Syria to take a more moderate position in Lebanon. Al-Assad’s visit to Riyadh, on the backdrop of the refusal of the Saudi king Abdullah II to visit Damascus, is a great chance for Syria to demonstrate its “humility” in the Middle East policy and select a diplomatic way to solve the Arabian interior problems.

Experts believe that attraction of Syria to the pro-Western Ankara is a hidden attempt to weaken Iran.

Ankara has never had open tensions with Tehran and even enshrined Iran the right to peaceful atom in the issue of nuclear program. However, speaking to the 64th UN General Assembly in New York, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan supported Russia’s plan and the United States to clear up the Middle East from nuclear weapons. Is Turkey decided to throw down a secret challenge to Iran? Although nuclear program exists in Israel and will soon appear in Saudi Arabia, it is still associated with the enrichment of uranium by Iran. Does Turkey strive for a new mediation in the nuclear program between Tehran and Western countries, what had Davudoglu hinted at during a visit to Iran?

To prove and to demonstrate the effectiveness of its diplomacy in the Middle East – that is what Turkey wants to demonstrate to the West. Still the old interests of the Middle East will define whether Turkey will achieve it easily and what else Ankara has to do.

Source: en.trend.az, 26.09.2009

September 26, 2009
SOITM submits report to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review of Iraq

Date: September 15, 2009
No.: PRe.25-I1509

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 to provide a regular review of the human rights records of UN member states through a common mechanism.
Once a state comes under review, it may prepare its response to a background note and initial questions raised by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The UNHRC should then engage in a dialogue with the state under review to examine how well it is meeting its human rights obligations and implementing recommendations for improvement from special procedures or treaty bodies.
Iraq is included in the eighth group of states to have their human rights records reviewed under the UPR process during the seventh session of the UNHRC that begins in February 2010.
SOITM has compiled a report for submission to the UNHRC under sections B, C, and D of the Information and Guidelines for Relevant Stakeholders on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism:

ü In Section B, SOITM focuses on the normative and institutional framework of the state, placing particular focus on:
· The undemocratic drafting process of Iraq’s constitution;
· Discrepancies in the Iraqi Constitution;
· Discrimination in the Iraqi Constitution
· The ongoing deadlock over issues of federalism
ü In Section C, SOITM comments on the implementation and efficiency of the Iraqi normative and institutional framework, drawing attention to the following in the north of Iraq
· Inefficiencies in administration
· Lack of human rights monitoring and evaluation
· Demographic changes
· Imbalance in standard of living
· Incidences of ethnic cleansing
ü In Section D SOITM issued a number of recommendations to:
· Iraqi National Assembly
· Iraqi Government
· UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and international human rights organizations
· Members of the United Nations
Eight annexes were attached to SOITM’s submission to the UNHRC:
· Statements submitted by SOITM to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
· Satellite maps of Kerkuk of 2002 compared with maps of 2007
· Official documents about the population of Kerkuk city before and after occupation
· Official documents about the complaint cases in the Propriety Claim Commission of Kerkuk
· Ethnic allocations of high-ranking posts in Kerkuk
· Lists of Turkmen who had been intimidated, arrested, kidnapped or assassinated

September 26, 2009