Category: Middle East

  • SOITM submits report to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review of Iraq

    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

  • The principles of justice in attitudes of the occupation authorities

    The principles of justice in attitudes of the occupation authorities

    Date: September 16, 2009
    No.: rep.26-I1609
    Mr. Raymond Odierno, the current commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, was commander of coalition forces in northern Iraq when occupation troops entered Kerkuk province on 10 April 2009. He founded the first Kerkuk province council and was a lead organizer in the rebuilding of Northern Iraq’s administration after the fall of the Ba’ath regime.
    Mr. Odierno allocated six members for each component of Kerkuk city, for the Chaldea-Assyrians too, who constituted less than 5% of the Kerkuk population. Latter on, selected a Chaldea-Assyrian and 5 Kurds claiming that they represent independents and social groups such as teachers, lawyers, religious leaders and artists, whilst the Kurdish social groups have never been larger in the province. Six of the 7 selected Chaldea-Assyrians were pro-Kurdish. There was a pro-Kurdish member in each of Turkmen and Arabic groups.
    Thus, the Kurdish group dominated the decision-making process in Kerkuk province. The council elected a Kurdish governor, mayor and chief of police. Most of the high-ranking officials were replaced by Kurds. Thousands of Kurds were appointed in the governmental offices. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds redeployed to Kerkuk province. Kerkuk, which had hosted a population of 870,000 at the time of occupation, today hosts up to 1,400,000 even though more than 100,000 Arabs left the province. The Iraqi general elections in 2005 were organized by the Kurdish dominated administration and supervised by occupation troops – two factors that further increased Kurdish authority over the city councils.
    The upcoming Iraqi general elections in January 2010 are a major concern for non-Kurdish peoples and politicians. The country’s previous experience of two general elections, in 2005, gave the Kurdish dominated administration the opportunity to increase Kurdish control of the whole region. Notably, in areas where the Iraqi army replaced Kurdish militias, results of the provincial elections of January 2009 were significantly changed. The occupation troops who promised to control the northern and eastern boundaries of Kerkuk province during the general elections of 2005 to prevent voters coming from Kurdish provinces did not keep the promise.
    Throughout the north of Iraq, an area inhabited by an estimated 10 million Iraqis, similar processes of land and job appropriation have been exposed. Consequently, thousands of square kilometers populated by non-Kurds were handed to Kurdish political parties enjoying support and security from Peshmerga militias. Additionally, most of this area has been assertively claimed by the Kurdish parties.
    Hundreds of cases have been reported of non-Kurdish ethnic groups facing political intimidation, arrests, detentions, torture in prisons, kidnapping, and assassinations. In response, large numbers of non-Kurdish communities have left the region.
    After an escalation in the transfer of population and miscommunication about brutal violations of human rights reported by non-Kurdish communities, the Iraqi government mobilized the recently formed Iraqi army as a presence throughout the region. The Iraqi government could deploy the army sections of the region until it was confronted by Kurdish militias and security agents and the deployment was stopped to prevent fighting.
    A new proposal has subsequently been designed to bring Peshmerga militias into a collaborative security policy alongside Iraqi and occupation troops throughout the disputed area of Northern Iraq. This proposal parallels, in essence, the previously enforced Kurdification process that began when the post-occupation rebuilding of the administration played a major role in empowering Kurdish hegemony.
    The proposal to form joint MNF-Iraqi-Kurd forces would bring Kurdish forces into so-called disputed areas and give Kurdish militias control over areas supposedly protected by Iraqi army units. The outcome of the policy will be to legally support a militant force that facilitates further Kurdification of these areas and the continued suppression of non-Kurdish inhabitants in the region.
    The proposal could represent a breach of the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and clearly violates the Iraqi Constitution, which by design unequally benefits Kurdish authorities. Moreover, Article 121.5 of the Constitution denotes that the Kurdish Peshmerga militia should be given the status of guard and determines their presence to the three provinces ruled by Kurdish parties. The possession of heavy weaponry and the presence out of those three regions can be considered as a violation of the Iraqi constitution and international laws and should be addressed.
    Despite assessments accusing al-Qaida of responsibility for recent bombings in several regions, the violence may reflect other scenarios:
    – Forceful claim of Iraq’s disputed area by Kurdish authorities, some of whom threaten to fight to secure them if required.
    – The rejection, by the region’s different ethnic or religious communities, of both Kurdish claims to the disputed areas and the presence of Kurdish militias and security agents.
    – The growing spread of Kurdish militias affiliated to political parties within the region
    – Claims by some local authorities that Kurdish Peshmerga have culpability in the bombings
    – The proposal came after the Kurdish authorities created a sphere of war and threatened to fight against the Iraqi government.
    However questions remain as to:
    – Which groups have the ability to organize such attacks?
    – Who would ultimately stand benefit from the situation and the subsequent joint MNF-Iraq-Kurd security proposal?
    The proposal provoked massive storm of outrage and protest, particularly by the peoples and politicians of the non-Kurdish communities in the region. The Arab group in Kerkuk council threatened to boycott the province council if the proposal realized. Almost all Arab and Turkmen authorities in the region rejected the proposal. Mosul province council, non-Kurdish politicians and notables have refused the proposal and considered the presence of Kurdish militias in so-called disputed regions as illegal. Political parties in Diyala also expressed their opposition while many Iraqi parliamentarians considered it a violation of the Iraqi constitution and stated that the Iraqi constitution authorizes the Iraqi army to include soldiers from all the Iraqi communities to guard these regions. Others believed that this proposal is a threat to the boundaries of the provinces and the effective legalization of a militia forces. Other politicians complained that the Kurdish Peshmerga militants and security agents are already present in the region like Kerkuk and in the regions which were exposed to the attacks.
    In fact, the presence of a militia forces with a political agenda claiming the region should be considered the source of insecurity. As a result, the best proposal would be to send to the region units of the Iraqi army, which comprise soldiers from all the Iraqi ethnic and religious groups alongside large numbers of Kurdish soldiers. Such a solution would be supported by the constitution and will strengthen the state. The Iraqi army is also wanted by the non-Kurdish inhabitants of the region, who are the majority. At the same time, the Kurdish authorities should be asked to adhere to the Iraqi Constitution, Temporary proposals in favor of Kurdish side will only deepen animosity between communities and threatens the future of the region, particularly, after the departure of the occupation troops. Accordingly, the region is in need of permanent and impartial solutions from the occupation authorities.
    The USA and the international community therefore bear a moral responsibility to stop the politicized Kurdish militia system and the threat that it poses to:
    – Terrorize the Iraqi non-Kurdish peoples
    – Distort unity of the state
    – Disturb the stability in the region
    – Threaten the regional peace

  • Ahmadinejad slams Israel as world powers turn up heat

    Ahmadinejad slams Israel as world powers turn up heat


    Ahmadinejad slams Israel as world powers turn up heat

    By JTA Staff · September 24, 2009


    Thousands of Iranian-Americans in New York protested the appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations General Assembly Sept. 23, 2009. Jewish groups and other organizations organized their own anti-Ahmadinejad rally for the next day.

    NEW YORK (JTA) — As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted Israel and the United States on Wednesday at the United Nations General Assembly, world powers sought to step up the pressure on the Islamic Republic.

    “We expect a serious response from Iran and will decide, in the context of our dual track approach, as a result of the meeting, on our next steps,” said David Milliband, the British foreign secretary, after representatives of the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany met Wednesday on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York. The countries are scheduled to meet with Iran on Oct. 1.

    And Hillary Rodham Clinton, the U.S. secretary of state, emphasized the “dual track” policy of both isolating Iran and negotiations.

    “No one should underestimate our intention to follow through on either or both of these tracks,” she said. “It depends on Iran’s response. And some of you have heard me say this numerous times — this process is now firmly up to Iran.”

    There was even a signal that Russia, which has been most resistant to additional sanctions on Iran, may be ready to relent.

    “Our task is to create such a system of incentives that would allow Iran to resolve its fissile nuclear program, but at the same time prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. That’s why we, as responsible members of international community and, indeed, two nuclear superpowers, should send great signals in that direction,” said Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in a photo opportunity with President Obama.

    “Russia’s belief is very simple, and I stated it recently — sanctions rarely lead to productive results,” he added. “But in some cases sanctions are inevitable.”

    Ahmadinejad spoke of “the elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,” during his speech to the UN, but otherwise didn’t mention his country’s nuclear program. Instead, he criticized Israel’s “inhuman policies in Palestine” and said the Jewish state had committed “genocide” in a speech that led to walkouts by numerous other countries in the General Assembly.

    The international community “is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza,” said Ahmadinejad. He added, in an apparent reference to Jews, “It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions.”

    Delegations from Argentina, Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand and the United States walked out of the General Assembly chambers in protest, with the United States accusing Ahmadinejad of using “hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

    The Iranian president also criticized the United States, also not by name, saying that it is “not acceptable that some who are several thousands of kilometers away from the Middle East would send their troops for military intervention and for spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the whole region.”

    Meanwhile, Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, in her General Assembly speech, called for the extradition to her country of Iranian officials wanted in the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish center. Among the suspects wanted by Interpol is Ahmed Vahidi, who earlier this month was confirmed as Iran’s defense minister.The 1994 bombing, which killed 85 people, was allegedly carried out by Hezbollah agents with Iranian sponsorship and organization, but Argentina has not been able to bring anyone to justice for perpetrating the attack.

    President Obama spoke at the start of Wednesday, saying that Iran and North Korea must be “held accoutnable” for their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

    The president also called for Israelis and Palestinians to  “re-launch negotiations, without preconditions, that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees and Jerusalem,” he said.

    The reference to preconditions appeared to target Palestinian negotiators who insist on a total settlement freeze before renewing talks. Obama’s explicit commitment to comprehensive talks rebuts Israeli efforts to confine talks for now to borders.

    Speaking immediately after Obama, Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi insinuated that Israel was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because he allegedly wanted to launch a probe into its clandestine nuclear program.

    “Jack Ruby, an Israeli, killed Lee Harvey Oswald,” the Libyan leader was quoted by the translator as saying. “Why did this Israeli kill Harvey? Ruby later died mysteriously. The whole world should know that Kennedy wanted to investigate the actions of the Israeli nuclear reactor in Dimona.”

    Ruby, a local nightclub owner who was Jewish, shot Oswald, the only official suspect in the Kennedy slaying, just days after Oswald’s arrest. Despite persistent conspiracy theories, numerous investigative committees have pointed at Oswald as plotting and carrying out the murder by himself.

    The firebrand leader added that the Arabs had historically been friends of the Jewish people and blasted Europe for mistreating the Jews.

    “You are the ones that brought on them the Holocaust,” he said.”We gave them havens during the Spanish Inquistion. We are not enemies of the Jews. The Jews will one day need the Arabs, and then the Arabs will give them protection.”

  • Turkey Boosts its Ties with Syria and the Middle East

    Turkey Boosts its Ties with Syria and the Middle East

    Turkey Boosts its Ties with Syria and the Middle East

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 171September 18, 2009 05

    By: Saban Kardas

    The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad visited Turkey on September 16-17 as the special guest of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, during which the two countries signed landmark agreements to deepen their bilateral relations. Assad attended a Ramadan fast-breaking dinner on September 16, held in his honor by the Justice and Development Party (AKP). He expressed Syrian support for Turkey’s recent Kurdish opening. Both leaders emphasized their desire to end the terrorist problem in Turkey through democratic initiatives and transform the Middle East into an area of peace and stability. Assad also praised Turkey’s role as peacemaker in the Syrian-Israeli indirect peace talks, which he described as “reliable.” He said that they still needed Turkey’s impartial mediatory role in the peace process (Anadolu Ajansi, September 16).

    The first visible achievement of Assad’s trip was the lifting of visa requirements between the countries. In a related development, they also agreed to remove taxes on trailer trucks operating between both countries. Given the flourishing of bilateral trade, these developments were welcomed by many Turks, especially those living in provinces on the border, where trade with Syria constitutes a major source of economic activity. Representatives of the business community expect the trade volume to double following the agreement on these new regulations (Yeni Safak, September 18).

    In a related decision a High-level Strategic Cooperation Council (HLSCC) was established between the two countries. Turkey has followed a similar pattern in its efforts to deepen its multi-dimensional political, economic and cultural ties with Iraq. The format of the Turkish-Syrian council will resemble the model used between Turkey and Iraq (EDM, August 12).

    During his joint press briefing with his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mualem said that “this is the biggest demonstration of cooperation, solidarity and mutual trust.” Davutoglu concurred by saying that this decision moved the brotherhood between the two nations to a political level (Anadolu Ajansi, September 17).

    Meanwhile, the first ministerial meeting of the Turkey-Iraq HLSCC also took place in Istanbul on September 17. Speaking at this meeting, Davutoglu said that the two governments are willing to shape their countries’ future in line with the model partnership framework being developed. He added that their goal is to achieve the most comprehensive economic integration between the two countries. His Iraqi counterpart reciprocated by saying that “we desire cooperation that could help shape the future of the region” (Anadolu Ajansi, September 17).

    This intensive diplomatic traffic also provides another opportunity for Turkey to act in a mediation role. On the sidelines of the Turkey-Iraq HSCC, Davutoglu brought together Mualem and his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari, joined by the Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. The meeting was held to facilitate the ongoing dialogue between Syria and Iraq aimed at reducing tensions between the two countries following Baghdad’s claim that Damascus was behind the terrorist attacks in the Iraqi capital in August. They mutually withdrew their ambassadors and Turkish diplomats have been working intensively to heal the strained relations, which it views in terms of developing closer regional integration. Earlier, Davutoglu toured the two capitals and attended an Arab League meeting in Cairo to address this problem. Although no specific steps to solve Syrian-Iraqi tensions were announced, Davutoglu emphasized that Turkey would promote confidence building measures between the two brotherly nations, and he will also explore the involvement of the United Nations in the crisis (Cihan, September 17).

    The removal of barriers between Turkey and Syria has a strong symbolic meaning, and reflects a deliberate attempt on the part of the two governments to overcome the political divisions that kept them apart for decades. When the Turkish-Syrian border was formed following the First World War, many families were separated on both sides of the border. During the Cold War even mutual family visits on the occasion of religious feasts were difficult to conduct. In the post-Cold War era, such border crossings were facilitated through the issuing of short term visas. Nonetheless, for decades, the Turkish-Syrian border and those visa difficulties symbolized the political and ideological isolation of Turkey from its Middle Eastern, cultural hinterland. This decision, therefore, complements earlier initiatives undertaken by the AKP government to normalize Turkish-Syrian relations, such as the clearing of the mines on the Turkish side of the border (EDM, May 21), or holding joint military exercises in border areas (EDM, May 1). Through such steps, Turkey has moved toward reconnecting with its Middle Eastern neighbors. Moreover, it sees this reorientation as more than a cultural project: rather, it is part of Turkey’s efforts to develop platforms to resolve security problems in the region through the involvement of local actors.

    Indeed, Assad also underscored a similar vision when he addressed the fast-breaking dinner. After emphasizing that for centuries people sharing the same culture were divided, he maintained that this problem was caused by the local leaders’ failure to appreciate the pitfalls of acting in line with the manipulations of great powers. However, he avoided apportioning the blame exclusively on great powers, and engaged in self-criticism by noting that many of the problems in the region were of their own making. He called for the resolution of “regional problems by the regional countries themselves,” a sentiment that resonates well with Turkey’s foreign policy vision (www.cnnturk.com, September 17).

    Nonetheless, such initiatives raise the question of whether Turkey is reorienting its foreign policy priorities. Although the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) Deputy Head Onur Oymen, a former diplomat, supported the establishment of the HLSCC and the normalization of relations with the country’s neighbors, he still raised key questions: “Given its values, Turkey belongs to Europe. We do not even have mutual visa lifting agreements with our E.U. neighbors… But we sign such agreements with Syria and other Muslim countries with which [we do not share the same world view]. Is this indicating a break with Turkey’s traditional foreign policy orientation?” (ANKA, September 17).

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-boosts-its-ties-with-syria-and-the-middle-east/

  • Black Sea Crisis Deepens As US-NATO Threat To Iran Grows

    Black Sea Crisis Deepens As US-NATO Threat To Iran Grows

    by Rick Rozoff

    15239

    Global Research, September 16, 2009

    Tensions are mounting in the Black Sea with the threat of another conflict between U.S. and NATO client state Georgia and Russia as Washington is manifesting plans for possible military strikes against Iran in both word and deed.

    Referring to Georgia having recently impounded several vessels off the Black Sea coast of Abkhazia, reportedly 23 in total this year, the New York Times wrote on September 9 that “Rising tensions between Russia and Georgia over shipping rights to a breakaway Georgian region have opened a potential new theater for conflict between the countries, a little more than a year after they went to war.” [1]

    Abkhazian President Sergei Bagapsh ordered his nation’s navy to respond to Georgia’s forceful seizure of civilian ships in neutral waters, calling such actions what they are – piracy – by confronting and if need be sinking Georgian navy and coast guard vessels. The Georgian and navy and coast guard are trained by the United States and NATO.

    The spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry addressed the dangers inherent in Georgia’s latest provocations by warning “They risk aggravating the military and political situation in the region and could result in serious armed incidents.” [2]

    On September 15 Russia announced that its “border guards will detain all vessels that violate Abkhazia’s maritime border….” [3]

    Russia would be not only entitled but obligated to provide such assistance to neighboring Abkhazia as “Under mutual assistance treaties signed last November, Russia pledged to help Abkhazia and South Ossetia protect their borders, and the signatories granted each other the right to set up military bases in their respective territories.” [4]

    In attempting to enforce a naval blockade – the International Criminal Court plans to include blockades against coasts and ports in its list of acts of war this year [5] – against Abkhazia, the current Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili is fully aware that Russia is compelled by treaty and national interests alike to respond. Having been roundly defeated in its last skirmish with Russia, the five-day war in August of last year, Tbilisi would never risk actions like its current ones without a guarantee of backing from the U.S. and NATO.

    Days after last year’s war ended then U.S. Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden flew into the Georgian capital to pledge $1 billion in assistance to the nation, making Georgia the third largest recipient of American foreign aid after Egypt and Israel.

    U.S. and NATO warships poured into the Black Sea in August of 2008 and American ships visited the Georgia port cities of Batumi and Poti to deliver what Washington described as civilian aid but which Russian sources suspected contained replacements for military equipment lost in the conflict.

    Less than a month after the war ended NATO sent a delegation to Georgia to “evaluate damage to military infrastructure following a five-day war between Moscow and Tbilisi….” [6]

    In December a meeting of NATO foreign ministers agreed upon a special Annual National Program for Georgia and in the same month Washington announced the creation of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership.

    In the past week a top-level delegation of NATO defense and logistics experts visited Georgia on September 9 “to promote the development of the Georgian Armed Forces” [7] and on September 14 high-ranking officials of the U.S. George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies arrived at the headquarters of the Georgian Ministry of Defense “to review issues of interdepartmental coordination in the course of security sector management and national security revision.” [8]

    The ongoing military integration of Georgia and neighboring Azerbaijan, which also borders Iran – Washington’s Georgetown University is holding a conference on Strategic Partnership between U.S. and Azerbaijan: Bilateral and Regional Criteria on September 18 – by the Pentagon and NATO is integrally connected with general military plans in the Black Sea and the Caucasus regions as a whole and, even more ominously, with joint war plans against Iran.

    As early as January of 2007 reports on that score surfaced in Bulgarian and Romanian news sources. Novinite (Sofia News Agency) reported that the Pentagon “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one on Romania’s Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran….” [9]

    The bases are the Bezmer and Graf Ignitievo airbases in Bulgaria and the Mihail Kogalniceanu counterpart near the Romanian city of Constanza on the Black Sea.

    The Pentagon has seven new bases altogether in Bulgaria and Romania and in addition to stationing warplanes – F-15s, F-16s and A-10 Thunderbolts – has 3,000-5,000 troops deployed in the two nations at any given time, and Washington established its Joint Task Force-East (JTF-East) permanent headquarters at the Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in Romania.

    A U.S. government website provides these details about Joint Task Force-East:

    “All U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force training operations in Romania and Bulgaria will fall under the command of JTF–East, which in turn is under the command of USEUCOM [United States European Command]. Physically located in Romania and Bulgaria, JTF East will include a small permanent headquarters (in Romania) consisting of approximately 100-300 personnel who will oversee rotations of U.S. Army brigade-sized units and U.S. Air Force Weapons Training Deployments (WTD). Access to Romanian and Bulgarian air and ground training facilities will provide JTF-East forces the opportunity to train and interact with military forces throughout the entire 92-country USEUCOM area of responsibility. U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and U.S Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) are actively involved in establishing JTF-East.” [10]

    The four military bases in Romania and three in Bulgaria that the Pentagon and NATO have gained indefinite access to since the two nations were incorporated into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 2004 allow for full spectrum operations: Infantry deployments in the area and downrange to Afghanistan and Iraq, runways for bombers and fighter jets, docking facilities for American and NATO warships including Aegis class interceptor missile vessels, training grounds for Western special forces and for foreign armed forces being integrated into NATO.

    Added to bases and troops provided by Turkey and Georgia – and in the future Ukraine – the Bulgarian and Romanian sites are an integral component of plans by the U.S. and its allies to transform the Black Sea into NATO territory with only the Russian coastline not controlled by the Alliance. And that of newly independent Abkhazia, which makes control of that country so vital.

    Last week the Romanian defense ministry announced the intention to acquire between 48 and 54 new generation fighter jets – American F-16s and F-35s have been mentioned – as part of “a new strategy for buying multi-role aircraft, which means to first buy aircraft to make the transition to fifth generation equipment, over the coming 10-12 years.” [11]

    With the recent change in government in the former Soviet republic of Moldova – the aftermath of this April’s violent “Twitter Revolution” – the new parliamentary speaker, Mihai Ghimpu, has openly spoken of the nation merging with, which is to say being absorbed by, neighboring Romania. Transdniester [the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic] broke away from Moldova in 1990 exactly because of the threat of being pulled into Romania and fighting ensued which cost the lives of some 1,500 persons.

    Romania is now a member of NATO and should civil war erupt in Moldova and/or fighting flare up between Moldova and Transdniester and Romania sends troops – all but a certainty – NATO can activate its Article 5 military clause to intervene. There are 1,200 Russian peacekeepers in Transdniester.

    Transdniester’s neighbor to its east is Ukraine, linked with Moldova through the U.S.-concocted GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) bloc, which has been collaborating in enforcing a land blockade against Transdniester. Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko, whose poll ratings are currently in the low single digits, is hellbent on dragging his nation into NATO against overwhelming domestic opposition and can be counted on to attack Transdniester from the eastern end if a conflict breaks out.

    A Moldovan news source last week quoted an opposition leader issuing this dire warning:

    “Moldova’s ethnic minorities are categorically against unification with Romania.

    “If we, those who are not ethnic Moldovans, will have to defend Moldova’s
    statehood, then we will find powerful allies outside Moldova, including in Russia. Along with it, Ukraine, Turkey and Bulgaria would be involved in this fighting. Last year we all witnessed how Russia defended the interests of its nationals in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Why does somebody believe that in case of a civil war in Moldova Russia will simply watch how its nationals are dying? Our task is to prevent such developments.” [12]

    Indeed, the entire Black Sea and Caucasus regions could go up in flames if Western proxies in GUAM attack any of the so-called frozen conflict nations – Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Georgia, Nagorno Karabakh by Azerbaijan and Transdniester by Moldova and Ukraine. A likely possibility is that all four would be attacked simultaneously and in unison.

    An opportunity for that happening would be a concentrated attack on Iran, which borders Azerbaijan and Armenia. The latter, being the protector of Nagorno Karabakh, would immediately become a belligerent if Azerbaijan began military hostilities against Karabakh.

    On September 15 news stories revealed that the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, DC, founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell, had released a report which in part stated, “If biting sanctions do not persuade the Islamic Republic to demonstrate sincerity in negotiations and give up its enrichment activities, the White House will have to begin serious consideration of the option of a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.” [13]

    The report was authored by Charles Robb, a former Democratic senator from
    Virginia, Daniel Coats, former Republican senator from Indiana, and retired General Charles Wald, a former deputy commander of the U.S. European Command.

    Iran is to be given 60 days to in essence abandon its civilian nuclear power program and if it doesn’t capitulate the Obama administration should “prepare overtly for any military option” which would include “deploying an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the waters off Iran and conducting joint exercises with U.S. allies.” [14]

    The main Iranian nuclear reactor is being constructed at Bushehr and would be a main target of any U.S. and Israeli bombing and missile attacks. As of 2006 there were 3,700 Russian experts and technicians – and their families – living in the environs of the facility.

    It has been assumed for the past eight years that a military attack on Iran would be launched by the United States from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and by long-range Israeli bombers flying over Iraq and Turkey.

    During that period the U.S. and its NATO allies have also acquired access to airbases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (in Baluchistan, bordering Iran), Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in addition to those they already have in Turkey.

    Washington and Brussels have also expanded their military presence into Bulgaria, Georgia and Romania on the Black Sea and into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea bordering northeastern Iran.

    Plans for massive military aggression against Iran, then, might include air and missile strikes from locations much nearer the nation than previously suspected.

    The American Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced plans last week to supply Turkey, the only NATO member state bordering Iran, with almost $8 billion dollars worth of theater interceptor missiles, of the upgraded and longer-range PAC-3 (Patriot Advance Capability-3) model. The project includes delivering almost 300 Patriots for deployment at twelve command posts inside Turkey.

    In June the Turkish government confirmed that NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) planes would be deployed in its Konya province.

    The last time AWACS and Patriot missiles were sent to Turkey was in late 2002 and early 2003 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq.

    On September 15 the newspaper of the U.S. armed forces, Stars and Stripes, ran an article titled “U.S., Israeli forces to test missile defense while Iran simmers,” which included these details on the biannual Juniper Cobra war games:

    “Some 1,000 U.S. European Command troops will soon deploy to Israel for a large-scale missile defense exercise with Israeli forces.

    “This year’s Juniper Cobra comes at a time of continued concern about Iran’s nuclear program, which will be the subject of talks in October.

    “The U.S. troops, from all four branches of service, will work alongside an equal number of Israel Defense Force personnel, taking part in computer-simulated war games….Juniper Cobra will test a variety of air and missile defense technology during next month’s exercise, including the U.S.-controlled X-Band.” [15]

    The same feature documented that this month’s exercise is the culmination of months of buildup.

    “In April, about 100 Europe-based personnel took part in a missile defense exercise that for the first time incorporated a U.S.-owned radar system, which was deployed to the country in October 2008. The U.S. X-Band radar is intended to give Israel early warning in the event of a missile launch from Iran.

    “For nearly a year, a mix of troops and U.S. Defense Department contractors have been managing the day-to-day operation of the X-Band, which is situated at Nevatim air base in the Negev Desert.” [16]

    The same publication revealed two days earlier that the Pentagon conducted a large-scale counterinsurgency exercise with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade last week in Germany, “the largest such exercise ever held by the U.S. military outside of the United States….” [17] The two units are scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, but could be diverted to Iran, which has borders with both nations, should need arise.

    What the role of Black Sea NATO states and clients could be in a multinational, multi-vectored assault on Iran was indicated in the aftermath of last year’s Georgian-Russian war.

    At a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels a year ago, Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin “said that Russian intelligence had obtained information indicating that the Georgian military infrastructure could be used for logistical support of U.S. troops if they launched an attack on Iran.” [18]

    Rogozin was further quoted as saying, “What NATO is doing now in Georgia is restoring its ability to monitor its airspace, in other words restoring the whole locator system and an anti-missile defence system which were destroyed by Russian artillery.

    “[The restoration of surveillance systems and airbases in Georgia is being] done for logistic support of some air operations either of the Alliance as a whole or of the United States in particular in this region. The swift reconstruction of the airfields and all the systems proves that some air operation is being planned against another country which is located not far from Georgia….” [19]

    Early last October Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security
    Council “described the U.S. and NATO policy of increasing their military presence in Eastern Europe as seeking strategic military superiority over Russia.

    “The official added that the United States would need allies in the region if the country decided to attack Iran.” [20]

    Patrushev stated, “If it decides to carry out missile and bomb attacks
    against Iran, the US will need loyal allies. And if Georgia is involved in this war, this will pose additional threats to Russia’s national security.” [21]

    Later last October an Azerbaijani website reported that 100 Iranian Air Force jets were exercising near the nation’s border and that “military sources from the United States reported that territories in Azerbaijan and in Georgia may be used for attacking Iran….” [22]

    Writing in The Hindu the same month Indian journalist Atul Aneja wrote of the effects of the Georgian-Russian war of the preceding August and offered this information:

    “Russia’s military assertion in Georgia and a show of strength in parts of West Asia [Middle East], combined with domestic political and economic preoccupations in Washington, appear to have forestalled the chances of an immediate strike against Iran.

    “Following Russia’s movement into South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev acknowledged that Moscow was aware that serious plans to attack Iran had been laid out. ‘We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and [a] military solution to the nuclear crisis.’

    “Russia seized control of two airfields in Georgia from where air strikes against Iran were being planned. The Russian forces also apparently recovered weapons and Israeli spy drones that would have been useful for the surveillance of possible Iranian targets.” [23]

    The same newspaper, in quoting Dmitry Rogozin asserting that Russian military intelligence had captured documents proving Washington had launched “active military preparations on Georgia’s territory” for air strikes against Iran, added information on Israeli involvement:

    “Israel had supplied Georgia with sophisticated Hermes 450 UAV spy drones, multiple rocket launchers and other military equipment that Georgia, as well as modernised Georgia’s Soviet-made tanks that were used in the attack against South Ossetia. Israeli instructors had also helped train Georgia troops.” [24]

    Rather than viewing the wars of the past decade – against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq – and the concomitant expansion of U.S. and NATO military presence inside all three countries and in several others on their peripheries as an unrelated series of events, the trend must be seen for what it is: A consistent and calculated strategy of employing each successive war zone as a launching pad for new aggression.

    The Pentagon has major military bases in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq that it never intends to abandon. The U.S. and its NATO allies have bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Bahrain (where the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered) and other nations in the vicinity of the last ten years’ wars which can be used for the next ten – or twenty or thirty – years’ conflicts.

    1) New York Times, September 9, 2009
    2) Ibid
    3) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 15, 2009
    4) Ibid
    5) Wikipedia
    6) Agence France-Presse, September 8, 2009
    7) Trend News Agency, September 9, 2009
    8) Georgia Ministry of Defence, September 14, 2009
    9) Turkish Daily News, January 30, 2007
    10) U.S. Department of State
    11) The Financiarul, September 9, 2009
    12) Infotag, September 11, 2009
    13) Bloomberg News, September 15, 2009
    14) Ibid
    15) Stars and Stripes, September 15, 2009
    16) Ibid
    17) Stars and Stripes, September 13, 2009
    18) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 17, 2008
    19) Russia Today, September 17, 2008
    20) Russian Information Agency Novosti, October 1, 2008
    21) Fars News Agency, October 2, 2008
    22) Today.AZ, October 20, 2008
    23) The Hindu, October 13, 2008
    24) The Hindu, September 19, 2008

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/black-sea-crisis-deepens-as-us-nato-threat-to-iran-grows/15239

  • Patriot Missile Procurement Option Sparks Controversy in Turkey

    Patriot Missile Procurement Option Sparks Controversy in Turkey

    Patriot Missile Procurement Option Sparks Controversy in Turkey

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 170September 17, 2009

    By: Saban Kardas

    The Turkish government’s possible purchase of missile defense systems from the United States, as part of an ongoing tender, has sparked a new debate on Ankara’s new regional policies and its domestic arms procurement projects. On September 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified the U.S. Congress of a possible sale to Turkey of 13 Patriot fire units, various Patriot missiles including the advanced capability (PAC-3) missiles, and other related support equipment. Raytheon Corporation and Lockheed-Martin are the principal contractors and if they are awarded the tender, the project is estimated to cost $7.8 billion. The statement described Turkey as the major U.S. ally in the region and added that by acquiring these systems Turkey will “improve its missile defense capability, strengthen its homeland defense, and deter regional threats” (www.dsca.mil, September 9).

    Although this notice is a legal requirement for an ongoing tender, and did not mean a sale was concluded, the Turkish press widely covered this development and labeled it as one of the largest arms sales agreements in the country’s history. The extensive coverage of the story led to an impression that Ankara had already “decided to purchase” the Patriot systems.

    The Turkish media maintained that Turkey wants Patriot platforms to defend itself against Iran and linked this decision to U.S. plans to build a missile shield. Others, by contrast, claimed that the U.S. decision was sparked by a concern to thwart Turkey’s negotiations with Russia over the purchase of the new generation S-400 platforms. Moreover, the Turkish press also highlighted that the country would be returning as a major customer of U.S. weapons systems, after having granted several multi-billion projects to other countries (Turkiye, Vatan, Hurriyet, September 13; Radikal, September 14).

    To defuse such speculation, the Turkish defense ministry released a statement in which it said that the notice was part of Turkey’s ongoing international tender to acquire long-range air and missile-defense systems. Under this program, which was launched in June 2006, the under secretariat for the defense industry (SSM) issued a request for a proposal in April 2009 for the direct purchase of missile systems. The statement also underscored that in addition to the U.S. companies Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, requests for proposals were also sent to China’s Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC) and Russia’s Rosoboronexport. Moreover, since possible U.S. exports will take place under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) credits, a separate letter of request was also sent to the U.S. administration (ANKA, September 14).

    The statement, however, did not end the debate. Critics raised two questions: from whom Turkey plans to purchase these systems and whether this multi-billion dollar project is justified given the huge financial burden involved.

    Several Turkish and international observers quoted by the Turkish press maintained that the project was developed to quell threats from Iran. They believe that despite its flourishing ties with Iran, Turkey still perceives a threat from Iran’s nuclear program. Through the missile defense system, allegedly, Turkey seeks to enhance its defensive capabilities against Iran’s medium-range Scud missiles or long-range Sahab missile program. To substantiate their arguments, they referred to a report submitted to the U.S. Congress in February 2008, (Chain Reaction: Avoiding a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East), in which it was stated that the United States should acknowledge Turkey’s concerns and contribute to its development of a missile defense capability (www.superonline.com, September 13; Vatan, September 15).

    The congressional report concluded that considering Iran’s ballistic missile program has a range to strike any part of Turkish territory, combined with the prospect of eventual Iranian nuclear weapons capability, Turkey had concerns about the balance of power shifting in Iran’s favor. The report warned that if Turkey’s legitimate missile defense concerns were not met, it might opt for the development of a “Turkish bomb.” Since the U.S. plan for any future ballistic missile defense shield in Europe would not include Turkey, the report proposed that “the U.S. government should remove unnecessary obstacles to the speedy development of a missile defense system that addresses Turkey’s needs” (www.gpo.gov, February 27, 2008).

    Several Turkish experts, however, criticized the plans for the purchase of this weapons system and the designation of Iran as a source of threat. Some speculated that this project is not driven by Turkey’s real needs. Rather, it is promoted by the “weapons lobby,” which is trying to make profits by sowing seeds of distrust between Turkey and its neighbors, Iran and Russia. They add that the media reports about Turkey’s perception of Iran as a threat are merely the manipulations of these weapons lobbies. Others maintain that “if this purchase ever takes place, it will be inflammatory, especially while Turkey is trying to be a peacemaker in the region” (Today’s Zaman; www.usak.org.tr, September 15).

    Asked about how the purchase of these systems can be reconciled with the government’s policy of normalization with its neighbors, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu ruled out any specified target. “[Developing projects to meet our security needs] is not an alternative to [Turkey’s regional policies]. It does not mean that we perceive threats from any neighbors. Our policy of ‘zero problem with our neighbors’ is still intact” Davutoglu said (Cihan; ANKA, September 15).

    The second line of criticism emphasizes the financial burden of the project. Some maintain that given the economic difficulties the country is experiencing and in light of the soaring budget deficit, such spending on expensive weapons systems, which in their view does not correspond to Turkey’s real security needs, cannot be justified. The critics call for redesigning Turkey’s defense procurement policies and significant cuts on arms expenditures (Taraf, September 14; Yeni Asya, September 16). Others emphasize that this development underscores an underlying problem: the lack of democratic and parliamentary scrutiny over Turkey’s arms procurement policy, which creates an imbalance between the country’s improving relations with its neighbors and the priorities of the military establishment (Taraf, September 16).

    While improving relations with its neighbors, Turkey is also intent on hedging against future threats, reflecting the volatile nature of the region. Although as a member of the transatlantic alliance, it is a part of NATO’s security umbrella, Turkey realizes that in the past, there were problems in the activation of NATO security guarantees. Most notably, the dispatch of Patriot systems during the Gulf War (1991) and Iraq War (2003) were delayed due to intra-NATO disagreements, which fostered a legacy of developing national capabilities. Despite the domestic criticisms, the Turkish defense industry is unlikely to drop its plans to acquire missile defense systems any time soon.

    https://jamestown.org/program/patriot-missile-procurement-option-sparks-controversy-in-turkey/