Category: America

  • The United States and Turkey: A View from the Obama Administration

    The United States and Turkey: A View from the Obama Administration

    usdos logo sealPhilip H. Gordon
    Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

    Sabanci Lecture, The Brookings Institution

    Thank you, Strobe. It’s a great pleasure to be back at Brookings to deliver the sixth annual Sakip Sabanci Lecture. This is a homecoming of sorts for me and it’s great to see so many good friends here today. I’ve worked with Strobe both in the U.S. government, during the Clinton administration, and outside of it, during my tenure at Brookings. Throughout that time, he has been a constant source of wise counsel and clear-headed leadership. And though the Obama Administration has done its best to deplete the ranks of his staff, I am happy to see that Brookings under his direction is still thriving. Thank you for inviting me here today.

    I’m especially pleased to be giving the Sabanci Lecture – an event I am proud to say I played a part in conceiving six years ago, to help foster a dialogue in Washington with and about Turkey. I’m happy to see you have maintained the tradition of including Sabanci University students and faculty by video link – something which makes this lecture a unique event – and I look forward to hearing from colleagues in Istanbul today. I extend my best regards to Guler Sabanci who will be participating in the discussion from that end.

    The growth and success of Sabanci University in Istanbul and this lecture in Washington are both testament to the vision of the man for whom they are named: Sakip Sabanci. A successful businessman and great philanthropist, his contributions to the intellectual, cultural, and economic life of his country were major forces behind Turkey’s continued development and modernization. The Sabanci Lecture was established to highlight Turkey’s increasing importance in world affairs and to promote Turkey’s reform and integration into Europe – causes which Sakip Sabanci championed. I think the past several years have only confirmed the importance of this forum and of these issues, and that is precisely what I want to talk about today.

    The topic that I wish to address is the relationship between the United States and Turkey – a dynamic and multi-faceted relationship that is beneficial to both our countries. This could hardly be a more important or timely subject and this is a particularly appropriate moment to reflect on it. Almost a year ago, President Obama traveled to Turkey during his first overseas trip. He went to deliver a message of partnership, saying “Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.” Turkey and the United States have been partners for decades and that partnership is as important today as it has ever been. When Secretary Clinton went on her first trip to Europe, she too made a point of going to Turkey and she spoke of Turkey as a critical partner. The reasons why the President and the Secretary traveled to Turkey early in this administration’s term are the reasons why I want to talk about Turkey today – because we believe that an engaged, active, and cooperative relationship with Turkey is an important interest of the United States. As the President put it when he met Prime Minister Erdogan at the White House in December, “given Turkey’s history as a secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, but is also a majority Muslim nation, it plays a critical role … in helping to shape mutual understanding and stability and peace not only in its neighborhood but around the world.”

    Few countries play such a crucial role in such a diverse set of important areas. How many countries have borders with as diverse an array of countries as Turkey – Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. With its combination of strategic, economic, and cultural links, Turkey’s influence touches such vital concerns of both our countries as the stability of the Middle East and relations with the broader Islamic world, relations with the Caucasus and Black Sea region, the transit of energy from the Caspian Basin to Europe, the security and development of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the maintenance of strong ties to Europe and the Trans-Atlantic alliance. The geography that I have just mentioned spans some of the most sensitive and significant parts of the globe and in every one of these areas U.S.-Turkish cooperation can be a force for progress.

    This is also a timely moment to be addressing the U.S.-Turkish relationship because the dynamic nature of Turkey is attracting the world’s attention in new ways. Domestically, debates about civil-military relations, and about the role of religion in society, have generated enormous interest abroad, and are followed closely in the United States. Economically, the last decade has seen Turkey display one of the highest rates of economic growth in the world – making Turkey one of the 20 largest global economies. In foreign affairs, Turkey has pursued an active foreign policy that has seen it interacting more intensively than ever with countries all across its neighborhood and beyond. Whenever and wherever I travel, which is a lot these days, one of the sentences I hear most often is “Ahmet Davutoglu was just here.”

    Let us be frank: the dynamism we see in Turkey has raised questions in the minds of some observers about where Turkey is heading, and that too is a reason why this is a timely topic. It is worth addressing these questions squarely. Though phrased in different ways, the questions all eventually boil down to a single concern: Is Turkey turning away from the West? We do not see it that way. Turkey is an integral part of the Euro-Atlantic alliance and has been for decades. Throughout that time it has always maintained strong relations with its neighbors to the west as well as its neighbors to the east. It is also reaching out in new ways. Turkey has always had multiple identities. But what binds the United States and Turkey together are shared interests, shared values, and a commitment to partnership. We believe that Turkey is and wants to remain anchored in the Euro-Atlantic community.

    However, the fact that some have questioned the strength of our ties does highlight an important issue. The relationship, which was much easier to justify when we faced a shared Soviet threat, requires hard work and attention – on both sides. Today, the global challenges we face are more varied and diffuse than they were during the Cold War. In this new environment, those of us who believe in the relationship have to make a special effort to explain the enduring value of the partnership between the United States and Turkey. Indeed, that enduring value is something I want to underscore today. On nearly every vital issue we face, the United States benefits from having Turkey as an engaged and supportive partner. The reverse is also true: on nearly every issue that is critical to Turkey’s future, the United States plays an enormously important role as a trusted friend and ally.

    The United States and Turkey may no longer be fighting the Cold War or containing Iraq, but we are working closely together in a number of important ways. In Afghanistan, the United States and Turkey are working together to offer a better life to the Afghan people by giving them the training and tools they need to build security and grow their economy. The United States and Turkey are working together closely on an action plan for joint assistance to the Afghan people. So far we have worked together with Turkey to develop key economic sectors in Wardak, and soon we plan to begin cooperative projects on infrastructure and health care in Kabul. Turkey is a major contributor of forces and expertise to the NATO mission in Afghanistan and its soldiers support the Afghan security forces’ effort to secure the capital region of the country.

    In Iraq, the Turkish government’s commitment to high-level strategic cooperation with the government in Baghdad, as well as the improvement in its relations with Iraqi Kurds, have been positive contributions to Iraq’s stabilization. The Iraqis just completed national elections with very robust turnout. Now the negotiations on forming a government are about to begin. It is important that all those with a stake in Iraq’s path to stability allow the Iraqis to make their own decisions and encourage their Iraqi leaders to support a process that will lead to formation of an effective government. Iraq is now Turkey’s second largest export market after Germany and the two countries’ growing economic and commercial relationship is yet another reason it is in Turkey’s interest to build a mutually beneficial relationship with Iraq. The United States and Turkey are also cooperating closely on counter-terrorism, both to fight international terrorist groups like al-Qa’ida and to battle the PKK terrorist organization in the region.

    In addition, Turkey is in the process of negotiating its accession to the European Union. While we recognize the decision is not ours, the United States continues to strongly support Turkish accession and urges Turkey to continue the democratic and political reforms necessary to complete the membership process. Further progress on promoting human rights and religious freedom, including important steps like reopening the Halki Seminary, will move Turkey’s EU prospects forward. These reforms do more than further Turkey’s EU accession bid – they also make Turkey an even more democratic and modern nation. The EU has its own part to play. It can help ensure that Turkey’s progress continues by making clear that the door to the EU will be open to a Turkey that fulfills the requirements for EU membership. We remain convinced that a Turkey that meets EU membership criteria would be good for the EU, and that Turkey’s effort to meet those criteria is good for Turkey.

    Turkey is already playing a crucial role as a transit hub for energy to the rest of Europe – heating homes, lighting offices, and powering industry across the continent. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which came online in 2006, delivers one million barrels per day of petroleum and in 2007 the South Caucasus pipeline began bringing natural gas from Azerbaijan to Turkey. What these various projects and a variety of proposed future initiatives show is that Turkey will be an integral part of meeting Europe’s energy needs and providing for Europe’s energy security.

    While Turkey plays an active role on the world’s stage as a European power, it has also been equally active in reaching out to its immediate neighbors. We are supportive of the Turkish government’s concept of pursuing a policy of “zero problems” with its neighbors. This is a lofty and admirable goal. Bringing it to fruition, as everyone recognizes, will require difficult compromises and brave leadership.

    Turkey’s work with Armenia to normalize relations demonstrates both the promise and the difficulty of this enterprise. It holds out the prospect of positive transformative change in the region. The steps taken so far by both countries have shown vision and courage. Last October, in the presence of Secretary Clinton, the foreign ministers of France, Russia, and Switzerland, and the EU High Representative, the Turkish and Armenian Foreign Ministers signed protocols on normalizing and developing their relations. We believe that the implementation of these protocols – leading to diplomatic ties and open borders – would be a historic development that would benefit both countries and contribute to security and economic prosperity throughout the region. We appreciate the effort that has been made so far and urge both countries to ratify the protocols without preconditions and as soon as possible, a point President Obama made on the phone to President Gul just two weeks ago. Let us not squander the historic progress already made. Ratification will bring valuable benefits to both Turkey and Armenia. All who are invested in the process must do their part to ensure that it moves forward.

    Let me address in this context the resolution recently considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As President Obama has said, our interest remains a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts related to the events of 1915. But the best way to do that, we believe, is for the Armenian and Turkish people themselves to address this history as part of their efforts to build a future of shared peace and prosperity. As both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have indicated, further Congressional action could impede progress on the normalization of relations and for that reason we oppose this resolution.

    Another regional issue where Turkey can play a productive role is Cyprus. The United States continues to encourage the negotiations between the two communities under the auspices of the UN Secretary General. Turkey and Greece can also play constructive roles in helping the Cypriot parties toward a lasting solution to their differences. We welcome as well the positive dynamic in the relationship between the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers – something that Greek Prime Minister Papandreou, who was just on this stage, spoke about when he was in Washington last week. We commend both Cypriot leaders for their efforts and urge them to seize this window of opportunity to pursue negotiations leading to a settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation. Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent and very constructive comments to the Cypriot press endorsing such a solution were very welcome and should help bring this outcome about.

    These are all issues where Turkish leadership can be constructively applied to bring about a more peaceful and prosperous neighborhood. But it is important to remember that while the concept of “zero problems” with neighbors is a good one, it should not be pursued uncritically or at any price. As one of the world’s leading states, Turkey has international responsibilities that extend beyond its immediate neighborhood. With respect to Iran, while the international community has sought to present a single, coordinated message to Iran’s government, Turkey has at times sounded a different note. We know Turkey shares our concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran and is supportive of international efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. But we also believe it to be vitally important that we avoid actions that could potentially undermine or complicate our shared goal of a peaceful diplomatic resolution of this issue. We do not believe that Turkey’s decision to abstain in the IAEA last November helped this goal and we hope that Turkey will join the broad group of nations in the UN Security Council who are seeking to hold Iran to its IAEA and Security Council obligations.

    Nor should improved relations with Turkey’s Middle Eastern neighbors come at the expense of its historic allies such as Israel. We are hopeful that Turkey and Israel will work to reinforce these ties, even as Turkey develops its relationships with other states of the region. Turkey has long had good, even special, ties with Israel, and this has given Turkey an important opportunity to support peace in the Middle East – a cause that we all support.

    We in the United States also pay close attention to developments within Turkey. Obviously, decisions about Turkey’s political future can and must be made only by Turks within the context of Turkey’s democratic system. But as a friend we care about the ongoing development of successful, open democracy in Turkey. The process of reform and modernization that is so vital to Turkey’s future remains an important priority. Turkey’s leaders recognize this and have taken bold steps to foster a more cohesive country. The Democratization Project, which aims to protect the rights of Kurds and other minority groups, is a major step in Turkish history. We applaud this initiative and encourage Turkey to continue to move forward. The success of this effort would go a long way in securing Turkish democracy, promoting reconciliation in Turkish society, as well as advancing Turkey’s case for EU accession.

    But Turkey must also be careful to ensure that its hard-won successes in building a secular state and strong democratic system are sustained into the future. Media freedom is one of the bedrocks of a democratic society and no actions should be taken that appear to undermine the ability of the press to do its vital job. The rule of law is another essential element of true democracy and for that reason it is important that investigations or court proceedings, especially on politically sensitive cases, must be open and fully respect Turkish law. The ability of political parties to function freely is crucial as well – in a democracy, political parties should not fear being closed down. The citizens of Turkey deserve nothing less. The development of democratic politics is one of modern Turkey’s greatest achievements and dealing with difficult issues such as these in an exemplary manner will demonstrate to its people and to the world the strength and vitality of Turkish democracy.

    Let me end where I began: by describing what it is that I believe binds the United States and Turkey together. When you consider all of the things I have talked about today – from Afghanistan to the Middle East to the European Union to energy security – it becomes clear that the alliance between the United States and Turkey is founded on a firm base of diverse and deep shared interests. And when one considers so many of the pressing challenges in the world today, it becomes equally clear that U.S.-Turkish cooperation can be a force for immense progress.

    But our relationship is based on much more than a calculation of interest – it is rooted in shared values and a shared vision. The United States and Turkey have made a choice to establish a partnership, and with that partnership comes important responsibilities on both sides. As two large countries with broad and diverse interests, we will not always see eye-to-eye on every issue but we must never forget the larger outlook that we share. A vision of a democratic Turkey, with a vibrant economy, integrated into Europe, and with good relations with its neighbors, is a vision that has motivated generations of Turkish leaders. It is a vision we share too, and we want to help Turkey achieve it.

    Thank you.

    , March 17, 2010


  • Turkish-Azerbaijani-Israeli Axis Revived

    Turkish-Azerbaijani-Israeli Axis Revived

    Gulnara Inandzh
    Director
    International Online Information Analytic Center Ethnoglobus

    RELATED INFO

    https://www.turkishnews.com/ru/content/

    [email protected]

    The visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to Baku on February 8-11, which has attracted so much comment and speculation, is a constituent part of Tel Aviv’s policy in the post-Soviet space.  An analysis of the results of this visit shows that the resonance arising from the Baku meetings of the Israeli minister serves only as a cover for the discussion behind the scenes of issues, which have strategic geopolitical importance.

    Azerbaijani and Israeli media in their discussion of these meetings devoted most of their attention to several questions, including the broadening of Azerbaijani-Israeli ties at a time when contacts between Ankara and Jerusalem are increasingly tense, Azerbaijani permission for Israeli use of the territory of the country in the event of military actions against Iran, and a mediating role of official Baku in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.  The links among these various issues become obvious upon close examination.

    As far as the first question is concerned, one should note that Israel and part of the Jewish lobby, which has spoken out against military actions in Iran, do not consider the territory of Azerbaijan as a place des armes for military actions against Iran.  Related to this and as part of an effort designed to restrain Iran, the United States and Georgia have signed an agreement on the use of Georgia’s territorial waters in the Black Sea if US military bases in the Persian Gulf are used for an attack on Iran.

    Correctly assessing the situation, Israeli political analysts understand that Azerbaijan will not under any circumstances agree to the use of its territory for an invasion of Iran but rather will do everything it can to prevent the beginning of military actions against its southern neighbor.  Any military invasion, be it a broad scale military action or surgical strike, would entail a humanitarian catastrophe (including an incalculable number of refugees from the northern part of Iran), a collapse of the economy, and a growth of terrorism in Azerbaijan.  These threats in turn are entirely capable of delivering a destructive blow to the security of Azerbaijan.  Consequently, official Baku cannot agree to such a step even in exchange for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

    There is, however, a plethora of other issues that invite attention of Baku and Tel Aviv, as well as Ankara, and could hence serve as a solid foundation upon which the relations among the three could develop further.  Since Lieberman’s visit to Baku, there have been several extremely interesting events.  On February 16, Pinchas Avivi, the deputy director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and head of that organization’s Division for Central Europe and Eurasia, made a working visit to Ankara.  Not only did the two parties discuss bilateral relations, but they also touched upon the issues of cooperation and interaction in “third countries,” in particular those in the South Caucasus (Goldenstein 2010).  That suggests that the meeting in Ankara represented a continuation of the Baku negotiations.  The possibility of tripartite cooperation in dealing with the regional issues at a time when Turkish-Israeli relations appear to be in “conflict” is not fantastic if one comes to analyze more closely recent events.  Despite a certain public cooling in recent months, both countries have enough in common that cooperation with regard to regional issues is far from impossible.  As one Turkish official put it, “populism is part of contemporary politics,” but “Turkey was and remains a most serious guarantor of Israel’s security” (Oguz 2010).

    Consequently, while some experts have hurried to bury the Azerbaijan-Israel-Turkish military-political union, it is obvious that precisely this union and not individual states are capable of being a key geopolitical center and playing a defining role in the region.  And local conflicts, which are taking place in these countries, are considered not in isolation but as part of regional policies.

    This nexus also reflects Azerbaijan’s interest in playing a larger international role.  Indeed, many countries hope that it will.  In May 2009, for example, when Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov was in Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Azerbaijan could take on itself greater responsibility and leadership in the resolution of important issues in the region of the South Caucasus.  She stressed that “Azerbaijan is a strategic location which is important not only for Azerbaijanis, but also for the region and the entire world,” including not unimportantly not only the Caucasus but the areas to its south. [1]

    Not surprisingly, therefore, during Lieberman’s visit to Baku, the two parties discussed in detail the possibility of Azerbaijan’s mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Baku’s growing interest in playing a greater role in the broader region to its south is also reflected in its continuous reluctance to open up its embassy in Tel Aviv.  Experts in Baku often cite relations with the Organization of the Islamic Conference and with Iran as the reasons Azerbaijan has not taken that step, but the experience of Turkey and Israel suggests that in reality there is another reason at work: a desire, on the part of Baku, to demonstrate its respect for, and solidarity with, the Palestinians and the Islamic world more generally, something which will help increase the influence of Azerbaijan as a mediator in the Middle Eastern conflict.

    As the situation around the region heats up, the links between Azerbaijan, Turkey and Israel seem certain to become closer, and this axis is destined to bear a direct effect on the broader region for years to come.

    Note

    [1] See (accessed 25 February 2010).

    References

    Goldenstein, Alexander (2010) “Турция и Израиль сохраняют координацию по Кавказу” [“Turkey and Israel keep coordination on the Caucasus”], Izrus, 17 February, available at http://izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2010-02-17/8651.html (accessed 25 February 2010).

    Oguz, Dzhem (2010) “Есть причины, вынудившие Турцию изменить отношение к Израилю” [“There are reasons that prompted Turkey to change its attitude to Israel”], Regnum, 11 February, available at (accessed 25 February 2010).

    source

  • Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs

    Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs


    AP – FILE – In this Feb. 23, 2005 file photo, Susan Chapman, director of the Division of Federal Investments, …

    By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:19 pm ET

    PARKERSBURG, W.Va. – The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.

    It’s time to start cashing them in.

    For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.

    Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.

    Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg’s municipal offices.

    Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn’t be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.

    Social Security’s shortfall will not affect current benefits. As long as the IOUs last, benefits will keep flowing. But experts say it is a warning sign that the program’s finances are deteriorating. Social Security is projected to drain its trust funds by 2037 unless Congress acts, and there’s concern that the looming crisis will lead to reduced benefits.

    “This is not just a wake-up call, this is it. We’re here,” said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst with The Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group. “We are not going to be able to put it off any more.”

    For more than two decades, regardless of which political party was in power, Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.

    Remember Al Gore’s “lockbox,” the one he was going to use to protect Social Security? The former vice president talked about it so much during the 2000 presidential campaign that he was parodied on “Saturday Night Live.”

    Gore lost the election and never got his lockbox. But to illustrate the government’s commitment to repaying Social Security, the Treasury Department has been issuing special bonds that earn interest for the retirement program. The bonds are unique because they are actually printed on paper, while other government bonds exist only in electronic form.

    They are stored in a three-ring binder, locked in the bottom drawer of a white metal filing cabinet in the Parkersburg offices of Bureau of Public Debt. The agency, which is part of the Treasury Department, opened offices in Parkersburg in the 1950s as part of a plan to locate important government functions away from Washington, D.C., in case of an attack during the Cold War.

    One bond is worth a little more than $15.1 billion and another is valued at just under $10.7 billion. In all, the agency has about $2.5 trillion in bonds, all backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. But don’t bother trying to steal them; they’re nonnegotiable, which means they are worthless on the open market.

    More than 52 million people receive old age or disability benefits from Social Security. The average benefit for retirees is a little under $1,200 a month. Disabled workers get an average of $1,100 a month.

    Social Security is financed by payroll taxes — employers and employees must each pay a 6.2 percent tax on workers’ earnings up to $106,800. Retirees can start getting early, reduced benefits at age 62. They get full benefits if they wait until they turn 66. Those born after 1960 will have to wait until they turn 67.

    Social Security’s financial problems have been looming for years as the nation’s 78 million baby boomers approached retirement age. The oldest are already there. As that huge group of people starts collecting benefits — and stops paying payroll taxes — Social Security’s trust funds will shrink, running out of money by 2037, according to the latest projection from the trustees who oversee the program.

    The recession is making things worse, at least in the short term. Tax receipts are down from the loss of more than 8 million jobs, and applications for early retirement benefits have spiked from older workers who were laid off and forced to retire.

    Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, says the crisis has been years in the making. “If this helps get people to look more seriously at that in the nearer term, that’s probably a good thing. But it’s only really a punctuation mark on the fact that we have longer-term financial issues that need to be addressed.”

    In the short term, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will continue to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes for the next three years. It is projected to post small surpluses of $6 billion each in 2014 and 2015, before returning to indefinite deficits in 2016.

    For the budget year that ends in September, Social Security is projected to collect $677 billion in taxes and spend $706 billion on benefits and expenses.

    Social Security will also collect about $120 billion in interest on the trust funds, according to the CBO projections, meaning its overall balance sheet will continue to grow. The interest, however, is paid by the government, adding even more to the budget deficit.

    While Congress must shore up the program, action is unlikely this year, said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who just took over last week as chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Social Security.

    “The issues required to address the long-term solvency needs of Social Security can be done in a careful, thoughtful and orderly way and they don’t need to be done in the next few months,” Pomeroy said.

    The national debt — the amount of money the government owes its creditors — is about $12.5 trillion, or nearly $42,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. About $8 trillion has been borrowed in public debt markets, much of it from foreign creditors. The rest came from various government trust funds, including retirement funds for civil servants and the military. About $2.5 trillion is owed to Social Security.

    Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt, said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who is now president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

    “Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” Kennelly said. “They’re as solid as what we owe China and Japan.”

  • Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants

    Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants

    15contractors CA1 articleLarge

    From Left: United States Air Force; Robert Young Pelton; Mike Wintroath/Associated Press; Adam Berry/Bloomberg News

    From left: Michael D. Furlong, the official who was said to have hired private contractors to track militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Robert Young Pelton, a contractor; Duane Clarridge, a former C.I.A. official; and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive.

    By DEXTER FILKINS and MARK MAZZETTI
    Published: March 14, 2010

    KABUL, Afghanistan — Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States. The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

    While it has been widely reported that the C.I.A. and the military are attacking operatives of Al Qaeda and others through unmanned, remote-controlled drone strikes, some American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work.

    It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as covert spies. Officials said Mr. Furlong’s secret network might have been improperly financed by diverting money from a program designed to merely gather information about the region.

    Moreover, in Pakistan, where Qaeda and Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, the secret use of private contractors may be seen as an attempt to get around the Pakistani government’s prohibition of American military personnel’s operating in the country.

    Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

    Even in a region of the world known for intrigue, Mr. Furlong’s story stands out. At times, his operation featured a mysterious American company run by retired Special Operations officers and an iconic C.I.A. figure who had a role in some of the agency’s most famous episodes, including the Iran-Contra affair.

    The allegations that he ran this network come as the American intelligence community confronts other instances in which private contractors may have been improperly used on delicate and questionable operations, including secret raids in Iraq and an assassinations program that was halted before it got off the ground.

    “While no legitimate intelligence operations got screwed up, it’s generally a bad idea to have freelancers running around a war zone pretending to be James Bond,” one American government official said. But it is still murky whether Mr. Furlong had approval from top commanders or whether he might have been running a rogue operation.

    This account of his activities is based on interviews with American military and intelligence officials and businessmen in the region. They insisted on anonymity in discussing a delicate case that is under investigation.

    Col. Kathleen Cook, a spokeswoman for United States Strategic Command, which oversees Mr. Furlong’s work, declined to make him available for an interview. Military officials said Mr. Furlong, a retired Air Force officer, is now a senior civilian employee in the military, a full-time Defense Department employee based at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.

    Network of Informants

    Mr. Furlong has extensive experience in “psychological operations” — the military term for the use of information in warfare — and he plied his trade in a number of places, including Iraq and the Balkans. It is unclear exactly when Mr. Furlong’s operations began. But officials said they seemed to accelerate in the summer of 2009, and by the time they ended, he and his colleagues had established a network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan whose job it was to help locate people believed to be insurgents.

    Government officials said they believed that Mr. Furlong might have channeled money away from a program intended to provide American commanders with information about Afghanistan’s social and tribal landscape, and toward secret efforts to hunt militants on both sides of the country’s porous border with Pakistan.

    Some officials said it was unclear whether these operations actually resulted in the deaths of militants, though others involved in the operation said that they did.

    Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would often boast about his network of informants in Afghanistan and Pakistan to senior military officers, and in one instance said a group of suspected militants carrying rockets by mule over the border had been singled out and killed as a result of his efforts.

    In addition, at least one government contractor who worked with Mr. Furlong in Afghanistan last year maintains that he saw evidence that the information was used for attacking militants.

    The contractor, Robert Young Pelton, an author who writes extensively about war zones, said that the government hired him to gather information about Afghanistan and that Mr. Furlong improperly used his work. “We were providing information so they could better understand the situation in Afghanistan, and it was being used to kill people,” Mr. Pelton said.

    He said that he and Eason Jordan, a former television news executive, had been hired by the military to run a public Web site to help the government gain a better understanding of a region that bedeviled them. Recently, the top military intelligence official in Afghanistan publicly said that intelligence collection was skewed too heavily toward hunting terrorists, at the expense of gaining a deeper understanding of the country.

    Instead, Mr. Pelton said, millions of dollars that were supposed to go to the Web site were redirected by Mr. Furlong toward intelligence gathering for the purpose of attacking militants.

    In one example, Mr. Pelton said he had been told by Afghan colleagues that video images that he posted on the Web site had been used for an American strike in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan.

    Among the contractors Mr. Furlong appears to have used to conduct intelligence gathering was International Media Ventures, a private “strategic communication” firm run by several former Special Operations officers. Another was American International Security Corporation, a Boston-based company run by Mike Taylor, a former Green Beret. In a phone interview, Mr. Taylor said that at one point he had employed Duane Clarridge, known as Dewey, a former top C.I.A. official who has been linked to a generation of C.I.A. adventures, including the Iran-Contra scandal.

    In an interview, Mr. Clarridge denied that he had worked with Mr. Furlong in any operation in Afghanistan or Pakistan. “I don’t know anything about that,” he said.

    Mr. Taylor, who is chief executive of A.I.S.C., said his company gathered information on both sides of the border to give military officials information about possible threats to American forces. He said his company was not specifically hired to provide information to kill insurgents.

    Some American officials contend that Mr. Furlong’s efforts amounted to little. Nevertheless, they provoked the ire of the C.I.A.

    Last fall, the spy agency’s station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, wrote a memorandum to the Defense Department’s top intelligence official detailing what officials said were serious offenses by Mr. Furlong. The officials would not specify the offenses, but the officer’s cable helped set off the Pentagon investigation.

    Afghan Intelligence

    In mid-2008, the military put Mr. Furlong in charge of a program to use private companies to gather information about the political and tribal culture of Afghanistan. Some of the approximately $22 million in government money allotted to this effort went to International Media Ventures, with offices in St. Petersburg, Fla., San Antonio and elsewhere. On its Web site, the company describes itself as a public relations company, “an industry leader in creating potent messaging content and interactive communications.”

    The Web site also shows that several of its senior executives are former members of the military’s Special Operations forces, including former commandos from Delta Force, which has been used extensively since the Sept. 11 attacks to track and kill suspected terrorists.

    Until recently, one of the members of International Media’s board of directors was Gen. Dell L. Dailey, former head of Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the military’s covert units.

    In an e-mail message, General Dailey said that he had resigned his post on the company’s board, but he did not say when. He did not give details about the company’s work with the American military, and other company executives declined to comment.

    In an interview, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the top military spokesman in Afghanistan, said that the United States military was currently employing nine International Media Ventures civilian employees on routine jobs in guard work and information processing and analysis. Whatever else other International Media employees might be doing in Afghanistan, he said, he did not know and had no responsibility for their actions.

    By Mr. Pelton’s account, Mr. Furlong, in conversations with him and his colleagues, referred to his stable of contractors as “my Jason Bournes,” a reference to the fictional American assassin created by the novelist Robert Ludlum and played in movies by Matt Damon.

    Military officials said that Mr. Furlong would occasionally brag to his superiors about having Mr. Clarridge’s services at his disposal. Last summer, Mr. Furlong told colleagues that he was working with Mr. Clarridge to secure the release of Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, a kidnapped soldier who American officials believe is being held by militants in Pakistan.

    From December 2008 to mid-June 2009, both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Clarridge were hired to assist The New York Times in the case of David Rohde, the Times reporter who was kidnapped by militants in Afghanistan and held for seven months in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The reporter ultimately escaped on his own.

    The idea for the government information program was thought up sometime in 2008 by Mr. Jordan, a former CNN news chief, and his partner Mr. Pelton, whose books include “The World’s Most Dangerous Places” and “Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror.”

    Top General Approached

    They approached Gen. David D. McKiernan, soon to become the top American commander in Afghanistan. Their proposal was to set up a reporting and research network in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the American military and private clients who were trying to understand a complex region that had become vital to Western interests. They already had a similar operation in Iraq — called “Iraq Slogger,” which employed local Iraqis to report and write news stories for their Web site. Mr. Jordan proposed setting up a similar Web site in Afghanistan and Pakistan — except that the operation would be largely financed by the American military. The name of the Web site was Afpax.

    Mr. Jordan said that he had gone to the United States military because the business in Iraq was not profitable relying solely on private clients. He described his proposal as essentially a news gathering operation, involving only unclassified materials gathered openly by his employees. “It was all open-source,” he said.

    When Mr. Jordan made the pitch to General McKiernan, Mr. Furlong was also present, according to Mr. Jordan. General McKiernan endorsed the proposal, and Mr. Furlong said that he could find financing for Afpax, both Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pelton said. “On that day, they told us to get to work,” Mr. Pelton said.

    But Mr. Jordan said that the help from Mr. Furlong ended up being extremely limited. He said he was paid twice — once to help the company with start-up costs and another time for a report his group had written. Mr. Jordan declined to talk about exact figures, but said the amount of money was a “small fraction” of what he had proposed — and what it took to run his news gathering operation.

    Whenever he asked for financing, Mr. Jordan said, Mr. Furlong told him that the money was being used for other things, and that the appetite for Mr. Jordan’s services was diminishing.

    “He told us that there was less and less money for what we were doing, and less of an appreciation for what we were doing,” he said.

    Admiral Smith, the military’s director for strategic communications in Afghanistan, said that when he arrived in Kabul a year later, in June 2009, he opposed financing Afpax. He said that he did not need what Mr. Pelton and Mr. Jordan were offering and that the service seemed uncomfortably close to crossing into intelligence gathering — which could have meant making targets of individuals.

    “I took the air out of the balloon,” he said.

    Admiral Smith said that the C.I.A. was against the proposal for the same reasons. Mr. Furlong persisted in pushing the project, he said.

    “I finally had to tell him, ‘Read my lips,’ we’re not interested,’ ” Admiral Smith said.

    What happened next is unclear.

    Admiral Smith said that when he turned down the Afpax proposal, Mr. Furlong wanted to spend the leftover money elsewhere. That is when Mr. Furlong agreed to provide some of International Media Ventures’ employees to Admiral Smith’s strategic communications office.

    But that still left roughly $15 million unaccounted for, he said.

    “I have no idea where the rest of the money is going,” Admiral Smith said.

    Dexter Filkins reported from Kabul, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

  • Canadian MP calls on colleagues to commemorate the victims of Khojaly tragedy in Parliament

    Canadian MP calls on colleagues to commemorate the victims of Khojaly tragedy in Parliament

    40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

    Thursday, March 11, 2010

    HedyFry
    Hon. Hedy Fry Member of House of Common Canadian Parliament

    Member of Canadian Parliament Hedy Fry at the meeting of the House of Commons called on colleagues to commemorate the victims of the Khojaly tragedy jointly with members of country’s Azerbaijani community.

    Fry also called to recognize the tragedies that occurred in the life of peoples, which representatives live in Canada.

    (Non-official translation from French to English)

    L’hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver-Centre, Lib.):

    “Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask this House to join me and the Azeri community in Canada to commemorate the tragedy of Khojaly, which took place 18 years ago, on 25 and 26 February. I know that this date has passed.

    However, I think it is important for Canada, as a global nation, home to people from different countries who came here to find new beginnings, to recognize the tragedies that once marred their lives and mourn with them, however briefly. The tragedy of lost human life is still too common in a world plagued by civil strife. Canada, through democracy and rule of law, has found peaceful resolution to our own civil disagreements. By remembering tragedies such as Khojaly, we can hopefully help our new citizens to remember the past while beginning anew to embrace values of peaceful coexistence here in Canada”.

    Link: 

  • Clinton Invites Sarkisian To Washington

    Clinton Invites Sarkisian To Washington

    A162A1DA B37C 4308 9830 3ADBAB059009 w527 sU.S. — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a briefing on the State Department’s 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, Washington, DC, 11Mar2010

    12.03.2010
    Emil Danielyan, Ruben Meloyan

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday invited President Serzh Sarkisian to visit Washington next month, in a telephone conversation that appears to have centered on Armenia’s stalled rapprochement with Turkey.

    Sarkisian’s office said Clinton phoned the Armenian leader to invite him to an international summit on nuclear energy security that will take place in Washington in mid-April. It said she expressed hope that the two sides will use the occasion to “continue discussing issues on the bilateral, regional and international agenda.” It gave no further details.

    The phone call came the day after Sarkisian suggested that Turkey will not unconditionally normalize relations with Armenia anytime soon and again threatened to annul the U.S.-brokered protocols signed by the two nations in October. Clinton similarly phoned Sarkisian in December just hours after he publicly voiced such a threat for the first time.

    The Washington conference, which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan plans to attend, will come ahead of the April 24 remembrance of more than one million Armenians massacred in Ottoman Empire in 1915-1918. The remembrance day is now seen by some observers as Yerevan’s new unofficial deadline for Turkish ratification of the two protocols.

    A deputy chairman of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party on Friday rejected this and other “artificial deadlines” set by Armenian officials and reiterated that the Turkish parliament will not ratify the protocols without further progress in the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh.

    “By April, unless there is progress on Karabakh, [the protocols] will not passed the Turkish parliament,” Suat Kiniklioglu told an international seminar held in Yerevan by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. “The [Turkish-Armenian] border has been closed for 17 years. I think we can wait for another year, if that is going to lead to a solution to the problem.”

    Kiniklioglu also said Ankara does not insist on a comprehensive resolution of the Karabakh dispute. “We are not talking about the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the seven [Azerbaijani] raions or anything else,” he said. “ We are talking about a roadmap that puts a clear timeline with international guarantees of how the process should work.”

    Armenian leaders have repeatedly rejected any linkage between Turkish-Armenian relations and Karabakh peace.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1982261.html