Category: America

European countries provide most of PKK’s weapons

Intelligence sources indicate that the biggest arms suppliers of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) are allies of Turkey that are also members of NATO. Recently drafted General Staff reports say that many mines planted by the PKK were obtained from Italy and Spain.

Turkey is ready to start a new round of diplomatic initiatives to stop countries that supply the PKK with arms. Turkey has undertaken similar initiatives in previous years.

Over the past few months, the PKK has relied on arms from Mediterranean countries, intelligence reports indicate. The roadside bomb that exploded in Halkalı on Tuesday was of Portuguese origin, intelligence sources said, adding this country to the list of countries that supply arms to the terrorist organization. That attack was carried out by the PKK’s urban offshoot, the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAK).

The most crucial question is how the PKK is able to bring these arms supplies it obtains from Mediterranean countries to northern Iraq. US journalist Seymour Hersh claimed in 2007 that this was done via Israel.

The General Staff has seized PKK arms and ammunition originating from 31 different countries. However, NATO-member countries have been the biggest suppliers. Most of the arms and ammunition seized are of Russian, Italian, Spanish, German and Chinese origin.

In 2007 Turkey questioned the countries where the arms used by the PKK — particularly the heavy artillery the terrorist group uses — are mostly manufactured on how the PKK could have obtained these weapons. These diplomatic attempts must have produced some sort of a result, as all PKK weaponry seized in the past three years have had their serial numbers erased. The military has noticed that the PKK now generally erases serial numbers, especially on explosives. However, most of the time the origins of the ammunition can still be traced. Turkey is concentrating on finding the sources of not the lighter arms but of heavy artillery such as heavy machine guns, rocket launchers, mines and hand grenades.

According to data from the General Staff, the Kalashnikovs used by PKK terrorists are from Russia and China. The rocket launchers, mines, hand grenades and heavy machine guns so far seized from the organization appear to have been manufactured in Italy, Germany, England, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic and Hungary.

The organization uses a third country to bring the weapons to northern Iraq and then into Turkey. What disturbs Turkey most is that the mines that have killed more than 100 Turks recently were all obtained from Italy.

Another issue is that the PKK, which had been rather sloppy in using remote-controlled mines until 2008, has become more of an expert at such attacks. Terrorism experts say the PKK has been given special training, with many suspecting Mossad agents. In 2009, Interior Minister Beşir Atalay claimed that some Mossad agents had gone to northern Iraq and given training on remote-controlled explosives.

According to documents from the General Staff, 72 percent of the Kalashnikovs used by the PKK are from Russia, 15 percent from China and the rest from Hungary and Bulgaria.

In 2007, it was reported that more than 170,000 weapons donated by the US to the Iraqi army had ended up in the PKK’s hands. The US Defense Department started an investigation after Turkey’s discovery of this fact.

Turkey is making a point to not publicly announce how it suspects these weapons are being brought into northern Iraq. Pulitzer-winning journalist Hersh, in an interview with the Takvim daily earlier this month, said Israel helped the PKK base in the Kandil Mountains bring in arms and supplies on helicopters.

He said that Israel gives extensive support to the PKK and the related Iranian organization Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), especially in terms of arms supplies. He also said that Mossad operatives are active in the area, noting that Jewish Kurds who left northern Iraq 50 years ago returned to the region after the 2003 US occupation. He argued that most of these people are cooperating with the PKK and the purpose of these developments will become clear to all in the near future.

Although this interview has attracted the attention of Turkish security units, there is a visible effort to avoid making any official statements at this point. Turkey recently made a decision to start diplomatically lobbying countries that supply arms to the PKK. If these countries fail to cut the support they provide for the PKK, then they will be warned openly in the international arena.

24 June 2010, Thursday

ERCAN YAVUZ ANKARA

www.todayszaman.com, Jun 26, 2010

June 26, 2010
US Supreme Courts Final Decision on Aiding PKK Terrorism
TURKISH FORUM WELLCOMES THE DECISION AND THANKS TO THE US SUPREME COURT

THE US SUPREME COURT RULES:

Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton. HLP sued the United States claiming that providing lobbying, public relations, legal services and other types of assistance to the PKK &LTTE terrorist organizations were freedom of speech protected by the US Constitution.

With a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed, holding freedom of speech does not include materially assisting a group listed as a terrorist organization by the US Department of State. The Supreme Court further held that it is not an excuse or defense that a person did not have knowledge of whether a group he/she was assisting is on the Terror List or whether his/her assistance to such group would further the terrorist acts of the group.

The United States Supreme Court ruling also noted that: “It is not difficult to conclude as Congress did that the “taint” of such violent activities is so great that working in coordination with or at the command of the PKK and LTTE serves to legitimize and further their terrorist means.”

==================================================================================

PKK & Tamil Tiger advocates in U.S. using ‘Freedom of Speech’ right amounts to Aiding Terrorism – US Supreme Court rules

Tue, 2010-06-22 14:25 — editor
Daya Gamage – US National Correspondent Asian Tribune

Washington, D.C. 22 June (Asiantribune.com):

The United States Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts delivering the court’s majority decision Monday, June 21 giving a final blow to advocates of terrorism/separatism of Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers (LTTE) and Turkey’s PKK who use American soil said: “under the material-support statute, plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic. They may speak and write freely about the PKK and LTTE, the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka, human rights and international law. They may advocate before the United Nations.” But they may not coordinate the speech with those groups on the US terrorist list.”

And drawing a distinction between assisting the group and simply speaking on their behalf, the Chief Justice said, “We in no way suggest that a regulation of independent speech would pass constitutional muster.”

The First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech under the US Constitution does not protect humanitarian groups or others who advise foreign terrorist organizations, even if the support is aimed at legal activities or peaceful settlement of disputes, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a case that weighed free speech against national security, the court voted 6 to 3 to uphold a federal law banning “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations. That ban holds, the court said, even when the offerings are not money or weapons but things such as “expert advice or assistance” or “training” intended to instruct in international law or appeals to the United Nations.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s majority opinion upholding the Material Support statute as applied even to peacemakers. He noted that Congress and the executive branch had both concluded that even benign support like this can benefit terrorist organizations by giving them an air of legitimacy, or allowing such organizations to use negotiations to stall while they regroup from previous losses. What’s more, Roberts said, allowing such peaceful advocacy would undermine U.S. relations with allies, like Turkey, which is in a violent struggle with the PKK. It is vital in this context, he said, not to substitute “our own judgment” for that of Congress and the executive branch. The material support statute, he noted, is a “preventive measure — it criminalizes not terrorist attacks themselves but aid that makes the attacks more likely to occur,” and in this context the government “is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its conclusions.”

The law barring material support was first adopted in 1996 and strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks. It was amended again in 2004.

The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.
The law, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison, does not require any proof the defendant intended to further any act of terrorism or violence by the foreign group.

This litigation concerns 18 U. S. C. §2339B, which makes it a federal crime to “knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” Congress has amended the definition of “material support or resources” periodically, but at present it is defined as follows:

“The term ‘material support or resources’ means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

In full, 18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1) provides: “Unlawful Conduct.—
Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowl¬edge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization . . ., that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity . . .,

Plaintiffs in this litigation are two U. S. citizens and six domestic organizations: the Humanitarian Law Project HLP) (a human rights organization with consultative status to the United Nations); Ralph Fertig (the HLP’s president, and a retired administrative law judge); Nagalingam Jeyalingam (a Tamil physician, born in Sri Lanka and a naturalized U. S. citizen); and five nonprofit groups dedicated to the interests of persons of Tamil descent.

Plaintiffs claimed that they wished to provide support for the humanitarian and political activities of the PKK and the LTTE in the form of monetary contributions, other tangible aid, legal training, and political advocacy, but that they could not do so for fear of prosecution under §2339B.

As relevant here, plaintiffs claimed that the material support statute was unconstitutional on two grounds:

First, it violated their freedom of speech and freedom of association under the First Amendment, because it criminalized their provision of material support to the PKK and the LTTE, without requiring the Government to prove that plaintiffs had a specific intent to further the unlawful ends of those organizations. Second, plaintiffs argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
Both arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court.

The case is directly connected to Sri Lanka because the Humanitarian Law Project was representing two U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) one of which is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) which claimed during its 26-year armed struggle for a separate independent nation in the north and east of Sri Lanka as the ‘sole representative of the Tamil People’. The outfit was militarily defeated May 2009 within the borders of Sri Lanka eliminating the entire Tamil Tiger leadership but has energized a section of the West-domiciled Tamil Diaspora floating an organization called Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam to diplomatically lobby to achieve ‘self-determination’ for the Sri Lanka Tamil minority (12%), meaning a separate independent state of Eelam.

A meeting of the World Tamil Forum was held recently in London which advocated an economic blockade of Sri Lanka citing war crimes, human rights abuses, genocide against minority Tamils and other atrocities. It was addressed by British Foreign Secretary Miliband and graced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The inaugural meeting of the Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam was held in Philadelphia convened by its provisional held Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran a Sri Lanka-born naturalized US citizen who has a law practice in New York.

The Government of Sri Lanka and its overseas diplomatic representatives in the West have to figure out how to prevent a ‘Kosovo-type situation’ emerging in the international arena which can gather support for the ‘cause’ the proponents of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam seeking.

It is in this context that Sri Lanka which is faced with this challenged overseas from the remnants of the Tamil Tigers who are connected to the Humanitarian Law Project which challenged some provisions of the ‘Material Support Law’ which was rejected by the US Supreme Court on Monday.

Following are salient sections of the Supreme Court ruling:

(Begin Excerpts) (d) As applied to plaintiffs, the material-support statute does not violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

(1) Both plaintiffs and the Government take extreme positions on this question. Plaintiffs claim that Congress has banned their pure political speech. That claim is unfounded because, under the material-support statute, they may say anything they wish on any topic. Section 2339B does not prohibit independent advocacy or membership in the PKK and LTTE. Rather, Congress has prohibited “material support,” which most often does not take the form of speech.

And when it does, the statute is carefully drawn to cover only a narrow category of speech to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations.

On the other hand, the Government errs in arguing that the only thing actually at issue here is conduct, not speech, and that the correct standard of review is intermediate scrutiny, as set out in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377. That standard is not used to review a content-based regulation of speech, and §2339B regulates plaintiffs’ speech to the PKK and the LTTE on the basis of its content.

Even if the material-support statute generally functions as a regulation of conduct, as applied to plaintiffs the conduct triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message. Thus, the Court “must [apply] a more demanding standard” than the one described in O’Brien. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 403

(2) The parties agree that the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order, but plaintiffs argue that this objective does not justify prohibiting their speech, which they say will advance only the legitimate activities of the PKK and LTTE. Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. Congress rejected plaintiffs’ position on that question when it enacted §2339B, finding that “foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.” §301(a), 110 Stat. 1247, note following §2339B.

The record confirms that Congress was justified in rejecting plaintiffs’ view. The
PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of their violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimizes and furthers their terrorist means.

Moreover, material support meant to promote peaceable, lawful conduct can be diverted to advance terrorism in multiple ways. The record shows that designated foreign terrorist organizations do not maintain organizational firewalls between social, political, and terrorist operations, or financial firewalls between funds raised for humanitarian activities and those used to carry out terrorist attacks. Providing material support in any form would also undermine cooperative international efforts to prevent terrorism and strain the United States’ relationships with its allies, including those that are defending themselves against violent insurgencies waged by foreign terrorist groups.

(3) The Court does not rely exclusively on its own factual inferences drawn from the record evidence, but considers the Executive Branch’s stated view that the experience and analysis of Government agencies charged with combating terrorism strongly support Congress’s finding that all contributions to foreign terrorist organizations—even those for seemingly benign purposes—further those groups’ terrorist activities. That evaluation of the facts, like Congress’s assessment, is entitled to deference, given the sensitive national security and foreign relations interests at stake.

The Court does not defer to the Government’s reading of the First Amendment. But respect for the Government’s factual conclusions is appropriate in light of the courts’ lack of expertise with respect to national security and foreign affairs, and the reality that efforts to confront terrorist threats occur in an area where information can be difficult to obtain, the impact of certain conduct can be difficult to assess, and conclusions must often be based on informed judgment rather than concrete evidence. The Court also finds it significant that Congress has been conscious of its own responsibility to consider how its actions may implicate constitutional concerns.

Most importantly, Congress has avoided any restriction on independent advocacy, or indeed any activities not directed to, coordinated with, or controlled by foreign terrorist groups. Given the sensitive interests in national security and foreign affairs at stake, the political branches have adequately substantiated their determination that prohibiting material support in the form of training, expert advice, personnel, and services to foreign terrorist groups serves the Government’s interest in preventing terrorism, even if those providing the support mean to promote only the groups’ nonviolent ends.

It simply holds that §2339B does not violate the freedom of speech as applied to the particular types of support these plaintiffs seek to provide.

(e) Nor does the material-support statute violate plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom of association. Plaintiffs argue that the statute criminalizes the mere fact of their associating with the PKK and the LTTE, and thereby runs afoul of this Court’s precedents. The Ninth Circuit correctly rejected this claim because §2339B does not penalize mere association, but prohibits the act of giving foreign terrorist groups material support. Any burden on plaintiffs’ freedom of association caused by preventing them from supporting designated foreign terrorist organizations, but not other groups, is justified for the same reasons the Court rejects their free speech challenge.

Plaintiffs want to speak to the PKK and the LTTE, and whether they may do so under §2339B depends on what they say. If plaintiffs’ speech to those groups imparts a “specific skill” or communicates advice derived from “specialized knowledge”—for example, training on the use of international law or advice on petitioning the United Nations— then it is barred.

Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted §2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism.

One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further the terrorist activities of the PKK and LTTE: “[F]oreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.”

Plaintiffs argue that the reference to “any contribution” in this finding meant only monetary support. There is no reason to read the finding to be so limited, particularly because Congress expressly prohibited so much more than monetary support in §2339B. Congress’s use of the term “contribution” is best read to reflect a determination that any form of material support furnished “to” a foreign terrorist organization should be barred, which is precisely what the material-support statute does. Indeed, when Congress enacted §2339B, Congress simultaneously removed an exception that had existed in §2339A(a) for the provision of material support in the form of “humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involved in” terrorist activity. That repeal demonstrates that Congress considered and rejected the view that ostensibly peaceful aid would have no harmful effects.

We are convinced that Congress was justified in rejecting that view. The PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. “The PKK’s insurgency has claimed more than 22,000 lives.” The LTTE has engaged in extensive suicide bombings and political assassinations, including killings of the Sri Lankan President, Security Minister, and Deputy Defense Minister. (End Excerpts)

The United States Supreme Court ruling also noted that: “It is not difficult to conclude as Congress did that the “taint” of such violent activities is so great that working in coordination with or at the command of the PKK and LTTE serves to legitimize and further their terrorist means.”

– Asian Tribune –
June 24, 2010
TURKEY DEFENCE: Colorado company pleads guilty in military tech case
(AP) – 7 hours ago

DENVER — A Colorado company has pleaded guilty to illegally exporting defense technology to Turkey, South Korea, China and Russia.

Federal authorities say Rocky Mountain Instrument Co. pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court in Denver to one count of exporting defense technology without a license. The company must forfeit $1 million, which authorities say represents what it made from criminal activities.

The company was also sentenced to five years of probation, during which it must develop an export control compliance program.

David Gaouette, U.S. attorney in Colorado, says most of the technology involved is used by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Authorities say the Lafayette-based company exported such items as prisms and technical data about optics used in military applications between April 1, 2005, and Oct. 11, 2007.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
- Colo. company pleads guilty in military tech case
  The Associated Press – 7 hours ago
- More coverage (1) »
June 23, 2010
Wait and See Game for Turkey’s Enforcement of UN Sanctions on Iran
Dorian Jones | IstanbuL

21 June 2010

Photo: AFP

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flashes the V-sign for victory as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan looks on after the Islamic republic inked a nuclear fuel swap deal in Tehran (File Photo – 17 May 2010)
Related Articles
Turkey Troops, Kurdish Rebels Clash Near Iraq Border

US Defense Secretary: Europe Pushing Turkey ‘Eastward’

Israel Moves to Repair Relations With Turkey
This month, Turkey voted against the United Nations Security Council’s fourth round of sanctions against Iran. With Turkey’s Islamic rooted government increasing its economic ties with Iran in the past few years, fears are arising that the pivotal Western ally is in danger of swinging eastward because of resistance in Europe to its bid for membership of the European Union.

Despite growing international tensions over Iran’s nuclear energy program, the Turkish government has forged ahead with energy deals with Iran, expanding its dependency on energy with the nation.

These deals put Turkey in a precarious situation: to enforce or not to enforce the UN sanctions imposed on its neighbor Iran.

Turkey has long been seen as a bridge between East and West. But its belief that sanctions are ineffective and that there are dangers in pushing the Islamic republic into a corner is likely to change its relationship with Western nations.

Earlier this month Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu expressed concern over the existing sanctions against Iran.

AP

“Turkey and Iran’s trade volume is around $10 billion,” he says. “And it can rise to $30 billion if sanctions are lifted.”

Iran’s energy resources are seen as important by Ankara to break its dependency on Russian energy.

Iran expert Gokhan Cetinsayar of Sehir University says that in addition to its dependency on gas, there are other trade initiatives with Iran that are economically key to Turkey.

“75,000 trucks going on between Turkey and Iran every year,” said Cetinsayar. “Now there are energy deals. You know how important the Iranian natural gas and all other agreements and initiatives are economically important for Turkey.

With large families usually depending for their livelihoods on cargo trucks, its estimated as many a million Turkish people depend on Iranian trade.

With its increasing economic ties with Iran, there are growing fears that Turkey will balk at enforcing the UN sanctions against Iran.

Turkish foreign minister spokesman Burak Ozugergin says Turkey has already paid a heavy economic price for UN policies with another of its neighbors, Iraq.

“At the beginning of the 90’s, the Turkish volume of trade with Iraq was around the 15 to 20 percent mark of our total volume of trade. The next year, after the imposition of sanctions, this trickled down to almost zero,” said Ozugergin. “Money is not everything. But at least if it did work then we might be able to say to our public, ‘look it was for a good a cause.’ But can we really honestly say that looking back? For Iran again we don’t think it will help to solve the nuclear issue and perhaps may work against it.”

The new sanctions on Iran are expected to cut into the present $10 billion trade volume. It could possibly undermine its energy policy as well. But political scientist Nuray Mert of Istanbul University say some western nations may now not be able to depend on Turkey.

“I was inclined to think that at the end of the day Turkey will join the club when it comes to realization of these sanctions,” she said. “But nowadays I can see the government is planning to avoid these sanctions. Because now we have Turkey signing a lot of economic agreements, against the policy of sanctions.”

For now Turkey has remained circumspect over enforcing new sanctions. One foreign ministry official said “you will have to wait and see.” Analysts say Iran would probably reward any breaking of sanctions with lucrative energy deals. But the political cost could be high because of Turkey’s aspirations for joining the EU. The coming weeks will see Ankara facing a difficult a choice.
June 22, 2010
In Kurdistan (sic.), Mossad is is an embarassment to Washington

by G. M.

Resumed after the war which drove Saddam Hussein out of power in Baghdad in 2003, the secret security co-operation between Israelis and Iraqi Kurds was put to a crushing stop these last few months, under Washington’s influence.

After Jalal Talabani’s (the Kurdish leader) nomination to the presidency of

the Republic of Iraq in spring 2005, “a conflict of interest appeared

between the two allies”, estimates an expert in Middle East safety. “In

order not to be criticized by the Shiites and the sunnites,” he adds, “the

new Head of the State Talabani could not allow the further development of a

relationship that is condemned by the immense majority of the Iraqis. The

Kurdish two-sided-game was stopped.” Since then, some of the Israeli agents

are believed to have left the north of Iraq. Apparently, there would remain

only one hundred of them, and Israeli businessmen practically only act

through Kurdish or Jordanian intermediaries.

The conflict had however helped to tighten the partnership between Mossad,

the Israeli secret service, and the Kurdish leadership, who combined their

effort in thirty years struggle against the nationalist regime of Baghdad.

Israel wanted to support the Kurds’ federal aspirations and contain the

Iranian influence over Iraq. “After the hostilities, the Israelis, anxious

to see thousands of so-called Iranian pilgrims entering Iraq, tried in vain

to convince the Americans to close the border between Iran and Iraq”,

explains Patrick Clawson, deputy manager of the American research center

“The Washington Institute for Near East Policy”. But the United States,

willing to preserve their relationship with their Iraqi Shiites allies,

refused to act.

The Israelis then decided to take matters in their own hand. In Erbil and Souleymanieh, Israeli instructors, often disguised as businessmen, were charged to improve the training of the pechmergas, the Kurdish militiamen. Beginning of 2004, approximately 1,200 agents either from Mossad or from the Israeli military intelligence operated in Kurdistan, according to French

military estimates. Their mission was to set up sufficiently strong Kurdish commandos that could effectively counter the Shiites militia in the South of Iraq (that are more or less manipulated by Teheran), in particular that of the troublemaker Moqtada Al-Sadr. The Kurdish leaders returned the favor by making positive declarations. Last 6 June, Massoud Barzani, of the democratic Party of Kurdistan, estimated that a relation with Israel “is not a crime since the majority of the Arab countries maintain the relationship” with the Hebrew State.

Kurdistan’ mountains have always been filled with spies. “The presence of many people in this area, autonomous since 1991, makes it possible to the Israelis to recruit agents which will infiltrate other organizations“, declared the former boss of a European intelligence service. Today, the Kurdish priority to infiltrate the new Iraqi army, directed by one of their own, serves the Israeli interests. Through its alliance with the Iraqi Kurds, the Hebrew State has reinforced its monitoring on Iran and Syria, its two great enemies in the Middle East. But Israeli actions ended up disturbing Washington. “We’ve received strong pressure from Washington to stop our operations with the Kurds”, said an Israeli sent to Erbil under cover of being a student. “the Americans do not agree any more with the Israeli plans”, he affirms. Washington does not seem to tolerate anymore this presence that threathens its interests.

Le Figaro International, 28 Sept 2005

June 22, 2010
US denies intelligence sharing lack after PKK attacks

U.S. Ambassador in Ankara James Jeffrey denied any deficiency in his country’s part in intelligence sharing with the Turkish Army after PKK attacks.

Monday, 21 June 2010 16:26

U.S. Ambassador in Ankara James Jeffrey denied any deficiency in his country’s part in intelligence sharing with the Turkish Army after PKK attacks.

Jeffrey, in a message of condolence he released Monday for the families of Turkish soldiers killed in a deadly attack staged by PKK militants, said he shared the grief over the loss of Turkish soldiers, regarding PKK as the “common enemy” of Turkey and the U.S.

A large group of PKK militants which infiltrated into Turkey from the North of Iraq, attacked a military outpost near the Iraqi border Saturday. 11 soldiers were killed and 16 were wounded during that attack and operations that ensued.

In the after math of the attack news and comments appeared in the media voicing doubts over the intelligence sharing mechanism between the U.S. and Turkish Armed Forces against PKK.

Many columnists and military analysts criticized the mechanism, some accuseed U.S. of not providing intelligence.

Jeffrey’s message comes after such setting.

Jeffrey said his country continued to actively support Turkey, “a U.S.ally” in his own words, in its fight to terminate the terrorist threat.

“There is no change to the level of our intelligence-sharing with Turkey regarding PKK activities in northern Iraq.”

In November 2007, Turkish Prime Minister met former U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington D.C. and the two agreed on intelligence sharing. The U.S. military began supplying real-time intelligence to Turkey and Turkish Armed Forces used the intelligence to launch air strikes against PKK targets in the north of Iraq.

Agencies

June 22, 2010