Category: Middle East

  • Cautious expectations for relationship between Russia and the US

    Cautious expectations for relationship between Russia and the US

    This online supplement is produced and published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russia), which takes sole responsibility for the contents

    The estrangement between Moscow and Washington has lately given way – with the election of Barack Obama – to a cautious sense of expectation. The apprehension is palpable in both Russia and the US. Given how much effort both countries have put into improving relations over the last 20 years, it would be a pity to lose the fruits of this difficult rapprochement.

    Having said that, one cannot deal with a partner who does not value the partnership and who ignores your interests. No matter how important America is, friendship or enmity with her is not paramount in the life of the Russian people.

    A new feature of American politics is the recent spate of moderately concerned pronouncements about Russia. Also the changes in personnel. Russia experts have been appointed to the National Security Council, to the State Department and to intelligence. Former ambassadors to Moscow were behind a recent report published by the Bipartisan Commission on US Policy Toward Russia.

    in any case, for the first time in 20 years the American public has been told in no uncertain terms that US interests and those of Russian-border states are not one and the same thing. The commission’s report says that there is no reason to fear Russian investments outside the energy-sector in the US and the EU.

    The report recommends extending the Start 1 treaty, suspending the Jackson-Vanick amendment, and making Russia a member of the World Trade Organisation. It also urges new negotiations on Russia’s participation in the planned American ABM systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Most revolutionary of all is the report’s idea that America should not try to build spheres of influence along Russia’s borders while counting on a “constructive response” from Moscow.

    The report’s key theme is that the US administration must stop ignoring Russia’s interests since co-operation with Russia will be important in achieving American goals such as the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and solving the “Iran problem”.

    Right after the report was made public Moscow was visited by Henry Kissinger. Dr Kissinger was accompanied by a group of Russia experts, including the authors of the report. Now that they have gone, everyone is waiting anxiously for the results…

    Though some of the recommendations made informally by the Americans are encouraging, their formal proposals leave much to be desired. The Americans are trying to sell as a constructive idea a plan that would enhance their superiority of forces while forfeiting the last remnants of our former strategic parity – Russia’s only guarantee, in essence, of military-strategic security.

    The American proposal does not stipulate a parallel reduction of tactical weapons of mass destruction, conventional forces and so-called geographical offensive weapons, meaning America’s new Nato bases near and around Russia.

    The leitmotif of these expert recommendations is that America stop ignoring Russia’s interests. Yet US actions suggest a determination to restore America’s total strategic invulnerability. What does that have to do with Russian interests? Where is the opportunity to consider and defend them? The iron fist in the velvet glove…

    I do not think that Russian diplomacy can easily return to the romantic atmosphere of Soviet-American relations under Gorbachev. “Perestroika diplomacy” was never poisoned by the bitterness of deception. It remained the diplomacy of negotiated breakthroughs.

    But post-Soviet diplomacy is another matter entirely. It has been saturated with the spirit of the disappointments of the 1990s: the Nato-isation of Eastern Europe, Kosovo, poi-soned relations with Ukraine and – worst of all – the military destabilisation of Russia’s borders in the Caucasus.

    To restore honest and respectful relations with the US is one thing; to accept American proposals that do not benefit Russia in order to do so is quite another. If the US is as intent on improving relations with Russia as Russia is on improving relations with the US, it must be prepared for some very tough negotiations – tougher than any since the 1980s – on a broad range of issues, including regional security.

    The US is primarily interested in co-operation with Moscow over non-prolif-eration and Iran. Moscow, by contrast, is more interested in reforming the security system in Europe. We need to learn again how to link such things. The first meeting between presidents Medvedev and Obama seemed to have a generally stimulating effect on diplomats and politicians in both countries.

    At the same time one must be clear: while Russia wants stable and friendly relations with America, for Russian foreign policy this is not an end itself. Rather it is an important tool for building a safer and more prosperous world. Russia will advance along this path in any case – preferably with the US, but if necessary without.

    • Professor Anatoly V Torkunov, a former Washington diplomat, is rector of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations

    Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, 27 Apr 2009

  • Israel “troubled” by Turkish-Syrian military drill

    Israel “troubled” by Turkish-Syrian military drill

    Apr 27, 2009

    JERUSALEM, April 27 (Reuters) – Israel is troubled by an unprecedented military exercise between its ally, Turkey, and its arch-foe Syria, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Monday.

    Ankara announced on Sunday it would hold its first drill with Syria this week, using ground forces in a border area that has been the focus of a 25-year conflict between Turkey and separatist Kurdish rebels.

    Israel has extensive defence ties to Turkey, a NATO member and among the few Muslim nations to have built an alliance with the Jewish state. The Israeli and Turkish air forces and navies have held joint exercises.

    “Today we see a Syrian-Turkish drill, which is certainly a troubling development,” Barak told reporters. “But I believe that the strategic ties between Israel and Turkey will overcome even Turkey’s need to take part in this drill.” (Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Charles Dick)

    Source:  www.reuters.com, Apr 27, 2009

  • Barack Obama Is No Jimmy Carter. He’s Richard Nixon.

    Barack Obama Is No Jimmy Carter. He’s Richard Nixon.

    THE NEW REALISM

    By Michael Freedman | NEWSWEEK

    Published Apr 25, 2009
    From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009

    Republicans have been trying to link Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter ever since he started his presidential campaign, and they’re still at it. After Obama recently shook hands with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, GOP ideologue Newt Gingrich said the president looked just like Carter—showing the kind of “weakness” that keeps the “aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators” licking their chops.

    But Obama is no Carter. Carter made human rights the cornerstone of his foreign policy, while the Obama team has put that issue on the back burner. In fact, Obama sounds more like another 1970s president: Richard Nixon. Both men inherited the White House from swaggering Texans, whose overriding sense of mission fueled disastrous wars that tarnished America’s image. Obama is a staunch realist, like Nixon, eschewing fuzzy democracy-building and focusing on advancing national interests. “Obama is cutting back on the idea that we’re going to have Jeffersonian democracy in Pakistan or anywhere else,” says Robert Dallek, author of the 2007 book, “Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power.”

    Nixon met the enemy (Mao) to advance U.S. interests, and now Obama is reaching out to rivals like Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the same reason. “The willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran is very compatible with the approach Nixon would have conducted,” says Henry Kissinger, the architect of Nixon’s foreign policy. “But we’ll have to see how it plays out.” Hillary Clinton has assured Beijing that human rights won’t derail talks on pressing issues like the economic crisis, another sign of Nixonian hard-headedness. And echoing Nixon’s pursuit of détente, Obama has engaged Russia, using a mutual interest in containing nuclear proliferation as a stepping stone to discuss other matters, rather than pressing Moscow on democracy at home, or needlessly provoking it on issues like missile defense and NATO expansion, which have little near-term chance of coming to fruition and do little to promote U.S. security. Thomas Graham, a Kissinger associate who oversaw Russia policy at the National Security Council during much of the younger Bush’s second term, says this approach by Obama, a Democrat, resembles a Republican foreign-policy tradition that dates back to the elder George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, and then even further to Nixon and Kissinger.

    It’s hard to know if such tactics will work, of course. But Obama has made clear he understands America’s limitations and its strengths, revealing a penchant for Nixonian pragmatism—not Carter-inspired weakness.

    © 2009

    Source: Newsweek, Apr 25, 2009

  • A family history on the Jews of Kurdistan (sic)

    A family history on the Jews of Kurdistan (sic)

    By SHELDON KIRSHNER, Staff Reporter

    Wednesday, 08 April 2009

    Walter Fischel, an American academic, visited the Jews of  Kurdistan in the 1940s. “Such Jews,” he exclaimed with a sense of wonder. “Men virile and wild-looking. Women wearing embroidered turbans, earrings, bracelets, even ring-noses, and with symbols tattooed into their faces…”

    Roughly 25,000 Jews lived in Kurdistan back then, 18,000 in Iraq and the rest in Iran, Syria and Turkey.

    Largely illiterate but famous as gifted storytellers and speaking the ancient language of Aramaic, Kurdish Jews were found in some 200 Muslim villages and towns throughout the Middle East on the eve of Israel’s establishment.

    Ariel Sabar, an American journalist, has more than a passing knowledge of this exotic Jewish community, most of whose members immigrated to Israel in the early 1950s.

    Sabar, in My Father’s Paradise: A Son’s Search for His Jewish Past in Kurdish Iraq (Algonquin Books), produces a family history and a portrait of Kurdish Jews in this richly documented volume.

    As the title suggests, the book turns on his father, Yona, a linguist, researcher and professor of Hebrew at the University of California in Los Angeles.

    Born in the northern Iraqi town of Zakho, in the heart of Iraq’s Kurdish region, but raised in Israel, Yona Sabar  has published more than 90 monographs and two books on Aramaic – a nearly extinct language today – and the folklore of Kurdish Jews.

    Despite his father’s international reputation as a scholar, Sabar did not appreciate his accomplishments and was even ashamed of him.

    “I swore horribly in front of him, ridiculed him behind his back and took pains to avoid him, to be nothing like him,” he readily admits.

    Sabar, who was born in Los Angeles,  wanted to be part of what he describes as “the California mainstream,” and since his father rejected that ethos, father and son, like oil and water, did not mix.

    “When we collided, it wasn’t pretty,” he writes in this frank and pungent memoir. “I threw tantrums and unleashed hailstorms of four-letter words. He stewed privately over how any son could behave that way toward his father, then consoled himself with the hypothesis that this was how children were in America.”

    The cultural clash he alludes to forms  but a segment of the core of My Father’s Paradise. In the final pages, Sabar comes to terms with him as he reclaims his heritage and visits Zakho.

    The Jews of Zakho lived among 26,000 Kurdish Muslims and were concentrated in the mahala Juheeya, the oldest district, on an island on the Habur River. “Their mud-brick houses lined narrow alleys that zigzagged down to the river,” Sabar writes.

    Since they were so isolated, they spoke Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Middle East until Arab armies from Arabia conquered Mesopotamia in the 17th century.

    By all accounts, Jews and Kurds lived in harmony until Israel’s creation in 1948. To the Jews of Zakho, Sabar observes, Zionism represented, among other things, hopes for a better life and unease over the breakdown of Jewish-Muslim relations.

    The first Jews to make aliyah were the have-nots – the small peddlers, the porters, the beggars. “Most carried only the rags on their backs and perhaps a single clay bowl,” says Sabar.

    Once Sabar’s family was ready to leave in 1951, the Iraqi government passed a law that cancelled the citizenship and froze all the assets and property of departing Jews.

    Sabar’s father was 13 years old when he and his parents and siblings left the country of their ancestors.

    “The end arrived suddenly,” Sabar writes. “A line of motor coaches rolled into town early one April morning, and word went out that the time had come. Under a sky still full of stars, Jewish families, anxious and bleary, dragged suitcases and children out front doors and into cramped alleys that led to the main street.”

    Hundreds of Kurds bid farewell to their Jewish neighbours, but the atmosphere was very different in Baghdad. “At the airport, angry mobs pressed against the barricades, hurling curses.”

    Life was hard for Sabar’s family in Jerusalem, particularly for his grandmother: “Her relatives bought her a washing machine and stove, but the controls confounded her… She trudged off to night classes to learn Hebrew, but quit in frustration after two years, scarcely able to distinguish the letters of the alphabet. She had never learned to read or write her mother tongue. Why did people think she could master a second language?”

    Sabar’s father, Yona, was more adaptable. A good student, he graduated from the Hebrew University with a BA in Hebrew and Arabic. Nevertheless, he felt that Kurdish Jews were patronized by the Ashkenazi elite, and he wondered whether he could pursue a scholarly career in Israel.

    He was thus only too pleased to accept a scholarship  from Yale University, where he plumbed the depths of Aramaic and met his wife.

    In 1972, a year before Sabar was born, he was offered a position at the University of California. And there he thrived.

    “The Promised Land had been a disappointment,” Sabar writes in a reference to Israel. “It had broken his father and his grandfather. It had humiliated and infantilized his mother. A generation of Kurdish Jews had been spit on by a society that should have known better.”

    Yona Sabar’s success as an up-and-coming scholar did not spoil him, but his plain, unpretentious mien, his cheap clothes and his malapropisms in English alienated his insecure son.

    “I didn’t know it as a boy, but he was almost single-handedly turning the field of Neo-Aramaic from a marginal curiosity to one commanding serious and growing attention at major academic conferences,” Sabar adds.

    After Sabar himself became a father, he learned to value his father and his achievements and quit his job so that he could explore the lost world of Iraqi Kurdish Jews on a spiritual journey.

    Having convinced his father to accompany him, the pair set off. They arrived in Zakho after Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, was unseated by the United States and its allies.

    To Sabar, the purpose of the trip was crystal clear: “We could repair our relationship over cups of cardamom tea at cafés by the Habur River. We could walk together through the streets of the old Jewish neighbourhood, summoning the spirits of our ancestors… He would at last see me for the better son I had become.”

    And so, as Sabar relates in this  intriguing book, father and son  finally bonded.

    Source:  www.cjnews.com, 08 April 2009

  • Opening of Armenia-Turkish border weakening Russian influence

    Opening of Armenia-Turkish border weakening Russian influence

    By Messenger Staff

    Thursday, April 23

    Alexander Skakov from the Russian Institute of Strategic Research thinks that opening the Turkish and Armenian border will hamper Russian attempts to bring Armenia under its influence.

    Today Armenia is under the Russian sphere of influence because it is confronting Azerbaijan and Turkey. Its connection to the rest of the world through Georgia is partly blocked and therefore the basis of its communications is Iran.

    The Americans think they can offer Armenia better options and thus attract it into the US sphere of interest. Skakov says that if Armenia receives direct access to the Turkish coast, Black Sea and Mediterranean it will engage in more direct trade with the West, bypassing Russia. The West will also guarantee Armenia’s sovereignty. Skakov thinks that after opening the border with Turkey Armenia will become less dependent on Russia and more on NATO and the EU.

    Source:  www.messenger.com.ge, 23 April 2009

  • Azerbaijani-Turkish holding to build petrochemical enterprise in Iran

    Azerbaijani-Turkish holding to build petrochemical enterprise in Iran

    Azerbaijan, Baku, April 23 Trend Capital

    moz screenshot 13plant_petkimThe Turkish petrochemical holding Petkim whose 51 percent of stakes belong to the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) in alliance with Turcas will build a petrochemical plant in Iran which will produce methanol and polyethylene. Turcas Board of Directors Chairman Erdal Aksoy said, Petkim’s official Web site reported.

    The Turkish Petkim company and the National Petrochemical Company of Iran signed a contract to construct the plant. A joint enterprise with 50/50 stakes will be formed with this purpose.

    Capacity of methanol producing plant is 1.6 million tons per year and polyethylene – 300,000 tons.

    Aksoy said the holding is interested in implementing projects in other countries. The negotiations are being held with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    Forming the enterprise in Iran is explained with low cost of raw material (gas) in the Persian gukf countries and low cost of power.

    Earlier, SOCAR in alliance with Turcas Petrol and Injaz Projects possesses 51 percent participation share in Petkim. Turkey currently imports 70-75% of the necessary chemical products, but developing Petkim, the investment alliance SOCAR/Turcas/Injaz will provide an opportunity to increase the import up to 30%.

    Petkim Petrokimya Holding is specialized in the production of plastic packages, fabric, detergents and is the only producer of these goods in Turkey exporting the fourth part of the output.

    SOCAR intends to by 2015 increase the volume of the incomes of this enterprise to $4 billion from $1.9 billion today. Now the production capacity of this holding is 3.2 million tons. By 2015 this index will grow to 6.3 million tons. Today the needs of Turkey for the petrochemical production equal $6.1 billion, and this demand will annually grow 11-12 percent. Today the production of Petkim covers nearly 25 percent of the market of Turkey.

    As a result of the measures planned to be taken, the production of Petkim will cover 40 percent of the Turkish market. SOCAR invested approximately $2 billion in the development of petrochemical complex.

    Do you have any feedback? Contact our journalist at [email protected]

    Source: capital-en.trend.az, April 23 2009