Category: America

  • Brzezinski Says Ignore US Public on Afghanistan

    Brzezinski Says Ignore US Public on Afghanistan

    Political Views
    By MWC News

    By David Swanson

    BrzezinskiZbigniew Brzezinski spoke at a RAND Corporation forum on Afghanistan in a Senate caucus room on Thursday.  His first statement was that “Withdrawal from Afghanistan in the near future is a No-No.” He offered no reasons why and suggested that his other statements would be more controversial.

    During a subsequent question-and-answer period, I asked Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, why he had provided no rationale for his first rule. I asked him why such a rule should be considered uncontroversial when approximately half of Americans oppose the occupation of Afghanistan.  I asked how he would respond to the arguments of a US diplomat who just resigned in protest.

    Brzezinski’s response would make Dick “So?” Cheney proud.  He responded that it was understandable but that a lot of people are weak and don’t know any better, and they should be ignored. But, he urged that those supporters of war who would criticize the president if he pulled out should be feared and followed.

    These are paraphrases.  For exact wording get the video.  Here are my notes on Brzezinski’s remarks:

    1. “Withdrawal from Afghanistan in the near future is a No-No.”  He gives no reason, just takes it for granted everyone agrees.  Says #2 will be more controversial.
    2. Don’t repeat what Soviet Union did.  Don’t Americanize the American occupation of Afghanistan.
    3. Make sure NATO and anybody else willing is there with the Americans, esply Islamic troops.
      The Three Fundamental Noes.

    To Do:

    1. Deny safe haven to al Qaeda.  That is THE objective.  Don’t build a nation.
    2. Be sensitive to ethnic diversity while we’re building a nation.
    3. Do what USSR did in crushing democratic movements in places like Poland.  Hire natives to fight.
    4. We may have to put in more troops.  Control cities and roads.  Undertake counterinsurgency.
    5. Pursue accomodations with Taleban and Talebanlike formations.
    6. Keep economic assistance flowing rather than abandoning Afghanistan as we did after the counterinsurgency against the USSR.  Seduce the population.
    7. Involve the Europeans in funding elimination of narcotic crops.
    8. Be more respectful of Pakistani strategic interests in Afghanistan.
    9. Engage China and Iran with their interests in Afghanistan.
    10. Build a North-South pipeline to the Indian Ocean.
    11. Rename it The Vietghanipipelinistan Quagmire of Freedom.
      OK I made up #11.

    Source:

  • J Street comes alive on Washington, DC map

    J Street comes alive on Washington, DC map


    Friday, October 30, 2009

    İLHAN TANIR

    The Israel-Palestine peace process – a top foreign-policy objective of the Obama administration – faces continued challenges after months of intense diplomatic talks engineered by George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy for the Middle East. These negotiations have produced a mere handshake between U.S. President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, without being able to produce any framework for an ongoing peace process.

    Obama’s tough rhetoric against Netanyahu backfired, said Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s secret service, and former commander in chief of the navy after a panel discussion at the J Street conference in Washington, D.C. The initial stalemate was presented by Netanyahu as a victory, which was in reality a mere defense of the status quo, he added. Ayalon also stated that after this first round of diplomacy, Obama started to be viewed as a collaborator with the current Israeli administration, which created some questions in the Arab world regarding the degree to which he can uphold his strong stance against Israeli demands.

    Under these circumstances, I asked Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of the J Street movement, to describe his organization to me. “[J Street] is the political voice of American Jews and other Americans who believe that it is in our best interests and as well as that of Israel to end the conflict with the Palestinians and to have a two-state solution and a comprehensive peace process in the Middle East.”

    J Street, with a history a mere 18 months in the making, attracted thousands of supporters, the support of hundreds of the members of Congress, high-profile attendees and the Obama administration’s unequivocal backing last week. The Obama administration has shown its support by sending the National Security Adviser, Ret. General James L. Jones, to represent the President and to speak at the conference. Gen. Jones concluded that “this U.S. administration will participate in J Street’s other activities in the future.” On the other hand, while J Street hosted many members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, the one person who shied away from the conference was Israel’s ambassador to Washington, D.C., Michael Oren. According to the statement that was released by the Israeli embassy, there were “concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel.”

    One would rightly ask why is it that this new movement attracted so much attention and sparked a range of discussion in America and across the globe, while Israel already has a mighty lobby, centered around the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, in Washington, D.C., an organization that has been staunchly and unequivocally defending Israel’s policies? What is it that makes J Street so unique to draw thousands of participants, many of whom come from the other states and places as far away as Jerusalem?

    I attended most meetings of the conference for two-and-a-half days to receive answers to these questions. I met many ordinary participants as well as religious leaders, rabbis and humanitarian workers from Jerusalem. I met a couple of the participants during the “Jewish Community Town Hall” meeting, after speeches by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism and Jeremy Ben-Ami. After these speeches, the crowd discussed some of the questions of the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the Israeli-Arab peace process in general. Two participants were from Oxfam International, a confederation of 14 organizations working in more than 70 countries to find permanent solutions to poverty and injustice. One of these participants was John Prideaux-Brune, Oxfam’s country director, who has been living in Jerusalem and Gaza for about five years.

    John said that Israel still occupies Gaza from the sea, land and air, even if it claims officially it does no longer do so. According to the Geneva Conventions, Israel has to allow humanitarian help to enter Gaza. However, John argues, what is allowed to go into Gaza is incredibly limited. For example, macaroni cannot get in because it is considered a luxury food item. Israel only allows about 100 trucks of food to go in to Gaza a day, as opposed to 600-700 trucks before the Gaza conflict. Cement or any other construction materials are not allowed by the border officials as they could be used to make tunnels. His frustration goes further by talking about the terrible circumstances the Gazans live under; ordinary Jewish-American people also sitting at our table are equally angry and add their own criticisms to his frustrations. Another Jewish-American participant who is equally frustrated by the Israeli government’s harsh treatment of the Gazan people was Naftali Kaminski, a doctor, who joined the conference from Pittsburgh.

    Therefore, the first reason for J Street’s success and wide popularity undoubtedly comes from the grassroots support of ordinary American Jews who are tired of Israel’s grinding policies in Gaza and stubborn settlement practices. The grassroots support is, I believe, the most important element for any organization to be effective and apparently J Street has it all. There is another very important reason for J Street’s immediate success, which is that it coincided perfectly with a new U.S. administration coming into office. J Street’s close relationship with and support of the Obama administration was seen very clearly during the conference and this special relation apparently makes the organization’s mission to fill a gap in American politics even stronger. J Street defends many parallel policies that fit well with the Obama administration’s plans, such as the two-state solution and a complete freeze of the settlements. It was also interesting to see that whenever a panelist talked about a two-state solution, criticized Israel for what it did during the last Gaza war or called for ending the occupation, the J Street crowd roared and applauded excitedly.

    Even though J Street received heavy flak from AIPAC and other hard-line right-wing Israeli factions in respect to their criticism of Israel’s policies, the open-minded discussions and honest debates on the panels were exhilarating and personally lifted my hopes for the peace process. To see a crowd in an inaugural conference describe themselves ‘pro-Israel,’ but stand up against the country’s many wrong-headed policies gained my deep respect.

    PS. Washington, D.C. marks its streets with letters, and J is missing from the actual map.

    __._,_.___

  • Chomsky: Palestine and the region in the Obama era: the emerging framework.

    Chomsky: Palestine and the region in the Obama era: the emerging framework.

    Date: 29.10.09
    Time: 14:00
    Location: Logan Hall, Institute of Education, Bedford Way
    Speakers:
    Prof. Noam Chomsky – Professor Emeritus in Linguistics at MIT; world renowned author and leading intellectual
    Tariq Ali – Historian, Author and well known political commentator

    The Imperial College Political Philosophy Society, in association with Palestine societies at UCL, SOAS, Goldsmiths, LSE, Imperial and Kings, proudly present one of the greatest political philosophers of all time: MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, for what could be his last trip to London.

    The Imperial College Political Philosophy Society

    To Watch the video:

    Chomsky: Palestine and the region in the Obama era: the emerging framework. from ICU Political Philosophy Society on Vimeo.

    Chomsky: Palestine and the region in the Obama era: the emerging framework. from ICU Political Philosophy Society on Vimeo.

  • Serious Turkish diplomacy

    Serious Turkish diplomacy

    By: Flynt Leverett & Hillary Mann Leverett
    October 29, 2009 05:25 AM EST

    Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was expected to come to the White House on Thursday for a meeting with President Barack Obama. Erdogan’s visit has now been postponed, and the decision to postpone comes on the heels of the Turkish leader’s high-profile visit to Iran this week.

    When Erdogan does come to Washington, Obama would do well to listen to his Turkish visitor about the current state of play in the strategically vital Middle East. Erdogan will come to Washington not only at a time of strong domestic support for his government and the ruling Justice and Development Party, a moderate Islamist party that has dominated Turkish electoral politics in this decade, but also at a time of increasing influence for Turkey in the broader Middle East — while America’s influence in the region continues to decline.

    We spent several days in Turkey last week, where we heard Erdogan describe his country’s “zero problems” policy vis-à-vis its neighbors. Regarding the Middle East more specifically, Erdogan’s chief foreign policy adviser explained to us that Turkey’s approach to the region is based on four principles:
    1. Engage all actors;
    2. respect the results of all democratic elections (including those in the Palestinian territories in 2006 and Iran in 2009);
    3. increase cultural and economic relations among countries in the region; and
    4. work with regional and international organizations to maximize possibilities for engagement.

    Turkey is, of course, a member of NATO and has long had a positive economic and strategic relationship with Israel. But, working from these four principles, the Erdogan government has in recent years effected major improvements in Turkey’s relations with a much wider range of Middle Eastern states, including Iran, Iraq and Syria.

    This opening to the broader Middle East has been very strongly in Turkey’s interest. Expanding trade and investment links to Iran, Iraq, Syria and other regional states has boosted the growth of Turkey’s economy and reinforced its status as an “emerging market” of international significance. Moreover, closer ties to Middle Eastern countries, along with links to Hamas and Hezbollah, have made Ankara an increasingly important player across a wide spectrum of regional issues.

    Erdogan wants to position Turkey to act as a mediator between its Muslim neighbors and the West — including the United States, which needs to move beyond nice speeches by Obama and undertake concrete diplomatic initiatives to repair its standing in the Middle East.

    But if Washington is too shortsighted to see the necessity of realigning its relations with key Middle Eastern actors such as Iran, the Erdogan government’s opening to the broader Middle East gives Ankara a wider array of strategic options for pursuing Turkish interests — the essence of successful diplomacy.

    During his visit to Tehran this week, Erdogan met with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — a rare honor for a foreign leader. (In 2007, Russia’s then-President Vladimir Putin was also accorded a meeting with Khamenei.) Turkey’s expanding ties to the Islamic republic — including gas supply contracts and preliminary agreements for major upstream and pipeline investment projects — are essential to consolidating Turkey’s role as the leading transit “hub” for oil and gas supplies to Europe. While in Iran, Erdogan said that he hopes Turkish-Iranian trade — currently valued at roughly $10 billion — will double by 2011 and strongly supported Iranian participation in the Nabucco gas pipeline. Meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Erdogan criticized international pressure on Tehran over its nuclear activities as “unjust and unfair” while other states maintain nuclear weapons.

    These statements signal that Turkey may well move ahead and conclude significant upstream and pipeline contracts in Iran despite U.S. opposition. The U.S. position on this issue is detached from economic reality. However much the Obama administration resists admitting it, the Nabucco pipeline will almost certainly not be commercially viable in the long run without Iranian gas volumes. In the end, Turkey’s approach to Iran does more for Western interests than does the U.S. approach. Under the Erdogan government, Ankara is increasingly confident that it can pursue its interests in the Middle East without either succumbing to U.S. pressure or fundamentally sacrificing its relationship with Washington. Erdogan’s planned visit to the White House strongly suggests that this confidence is eminently justified.

    Israelis and some of Israel’s friends in the United States decry what they see as the expansion of Turkey’s ties to other important Middle Eastern states at the expense of Turkey’s ties to Israel. Ankara has indeed been sharply critical of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and its role in the continuing humanitarian crisis there — a posture manifested in Erdogan’s highly publicized walkout from a joint event with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum and the postponement of NATO military exercises in Turkey that would have included Israeli forces. But criticism of Turkey from pro-Israel circles misses an important reality: At this point, Israel arguably needs a relationship with Turkey more than Turkey needs a relationship with Israel.

    There is an important lesson here for the Obama administration. America no longer has the economic and political wherewithal to dictate strategic outcomes in the Middle East. Increasingly, if Washington wants to promote and protect U.S. interests in this critical region, it will have to do so through serious diplomacy — by respecting evolving balances of power and accommodating the legitimate interests of others so that U.S. interests will be respected. Turkey’s Middle East policy provides a valuable model of what that kind of diplomacy looks like.

    Flynt Leverett directs the New America Foundation’s Iran Project and teaches international affairs at Penn State. Hillary Mann Leverett is CEO of Stratega, a political risk consultancy.

    © 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
  • STREAMS TAKING DOWN OBSTACLES

    STREAMS TAKING DOWN OBSTACLES

    Tribuna
    October 29, 2009

    Fortunately, Russia has powerful allies in Europe nowadays
    Author: Giulietto Chiesa
    SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE THE PRESENCE OF MIND TO DISREGARD WASHINGTON’S ORDERS IN THE MATTER OF ENERGY COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA

         As soon as Nord Stream negotiated all bureaucratic and
    technological obstacles, Europe and the United States initiated
    debates or, rather, mounted a campaign aiming to circumvent the
    whole project. It was then that Premier Vladimir Putin organized
    informal meetings with his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi
    and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany.
         Nord Stream is the largest project Moscow designed in years.
    It is a gas pipeline across the Baltic Sea to Germany that will
    spare Russia inconveniences of transit via Ukraine. Victor
    Yuschenko’s reign made the situation absolutely intolerable. The
    so called Orange Revolution put Kiev under Brussels’ and
    Washington’s protective wing and set it on a course into NATO via
    the European Union. In other words, it fomented a deliberate
    confrontation with Moscow. Why would Russia continue to try and
    appease Kiev? Past friendship is kaput. Besides, not even all of
    Europe is prepared to put up with the Ukrainian blackmailers. That
    their methods lack finesse is putting it mildly. Whenever gas
    bound for Europe disappears somewhere in Ukraine, Moscow turns the
    valve. As a result, both Kiev and Europe remain without gas. Sure,
    it costs Russia too but what really counts is that Europe is
    swindled out of one fourth of the gas it needs.
         Moscow’s pragmatic policy secured it another prospective
    buyer, one who desperately needs all energy it can lay its hands
    on. This new customer can well reroute the channels still going to
    the West in its own direction. The matter concerns China, of
    course. Gas pipelines to China are already built.
         In other words, Putin has found someone interested and
    prepared to pay. Nord Stream in the meantime costs more than 10
    billion euros. Germany was the first country where the Kremlin’s
    voice was finally heard. Ex-Chancellor Schroeder became the head
    of the project. Frau Merkel backed him. Sarkozy in France wants
    his slice of the pie too. There is South Stream as well, an
    alternative to Nabucco. South Stream will send Russian gas via the
    Black Sea to Bulgaria, Balkans, Greece, Italy. Putin’s plans found
    enthusiastic supporters in official Rome – Berlusconi and Eni. So,
    there is a new situation to be taken into account. It is in
    Moscow’s power now to deliver gas, Russian and Central Asian, to
    Europe without fearing that Ukraine will pull something off.
         Needless to say, official Washington does not take to all
    these developments. Pretty well forgotten, Jimmy Carter’s National
    Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski raised his voice again.
    Washington plainly announced that Moscow was out to divide West
    and East Europe. Its satellites joined the critical chorus.
    Estonia began complaining that the Baltic states had been
    “ignored”. A bunch of exes (former heads of states and
    governments) condemned Moscow for the intention “to restore its
    sphere of influence”. All projects promoted by Moscow seek to
    undermine economic stability of East Europe – that’s the most
    popular tune in East European capitals, these days. The Kremlin is
    condemned for what is called “energy blackmail”.
         But why wouldn’t Brussels itself rearrange gas in accordance
    with market realities? Russia will keep exporting gas in any
    event. East Europeans claim that Moscow has planned some foul play
    and that demands will be put forth soon enough. Sikorski in Warsaw
    went so far as to equate Nord Stream with the Molotov-Ribbentrop
    Pact. (To listen to these guys, construction of gas pipelines must
    be thwarted no matter what.) European allies sing hosannah to
    Nabucco, a project lobbied by the United States. Nabucco is about
    giving Russia the mitten and having the Central Asian work for the
    West. Besides, Nabucco is to be built across Turkey and Georgia.
    By and large, that’s a great plan, but… but Putin and Medvedev
    have already struck back. They have powerful (not to say decisive)
    allies in Europe now.
         Some events of considerable magnitude and importance are
    bound to follow. Since Putin, Berlusconi, and Schroeder decided to
    meet informally in St.Petersburg, it can only mean that a
    counteroffensive is about to be mounted.
         

    Translated by Aleksei Ignatkin

  • CONNECTICUTT TURKISH REPUBLIC DAY; OCT. 30

    CONNECTICUTT TURKISH REPUBLIC DAY; OCT. 30

    moz screenshot 13

    hareketli29ekimresim

    ATATURK3

    ATATURK2

    CUMHURIYET BAYRAMI

    TURKISH REPUBLIC DAY

    “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people.”
    Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

    86cı Cumhuriyet Bayramınız Kutlu Olsun!

    86th Annual Republic Day celebrations commemorating the establishment of the secular, democratic and modern Republic of Turkey.

    Friday, October 30, 2009
    2:00 P.M. – 4:00 P.M.

    Connecticut State Capitol, 3rd floor, Old Judiciary Room

    The Turkish flag flies over the Connecticut State Capitol and Town Hall of Wolcott

    The modern Turkish Republic was founded exactly 86 years ago on October 29, 1923. The Grand National Assembly proclaimed the Republic of Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was named its president and Ankara its capital, and the modern state of Turkey was born out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.

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

    CONNECTICUTTDA

    CUMHURIYET BAYRAMI KUTLAMALARI

    CONNECTICUTT EYALETI

    17inci Sene Ananevi Cumhuriyet Bayramı Kutlamaları.

    Türk Bayrağı

    24 Ekim – 1 Kasım tarihleri

    arasında Connecticutt eyaletinin

    Hartforddaki Eyalet merkezi ve Meclis  binasında ve

    Wolcott Sehrindeki Belediye Binasında

    Amerikan Bayraginin yani sira dalgalanacak.

    3

    Cumhuriyet töreni

    Hartford sehrinin merkezinde olan,  Vilayet-Meclis

    binasında, Dorduncu katda

    Tarihi Meclis Salonunda (Judiciary Room)

    30 Ekim Cuma günü

    saat 14:00’de başlayacak.

    Kokteyl ve Türk müziği saati 16:00 ve 17:00

    arasında aynı odada gerçekleşecek.

    Connecticut valisi, Newyork basKonsolosumuz,

    Birlesmis Milletlerin Turkiye ve Kıbrıs

    Buyukelcileri (temsilcileri), Connecticut eyaletinin

    Senator ve Milletvekilleri, Congressman

    Murphy, Himes, Courtney and Rosa

    Delauro, Turk Nufusunun yogun oldugu

    Hartford, Newington ve

    Wolcott Sehirleri Belediye Baskanlari, TURKISH FORUM,

    ATAA, ve FTAA temsilcileri ve Tum Dernek Uyelerimiz törene davet edildi.

    Toren ve Kokteyl Katilmak isteyen her dostumuza acikdir – hepinizi bekliyoruz

    Connecticutt Üniversitesi öğretim

    üyelerinden Prof. Dr. Okşan Bayülgen’in

    “Türk Kimliği” konulu bir konuşmada

    yapacağı töreni Dernegimizin Kurucularindan

    Dr. Robert B.  McKay son 16 senedir oldugu gibi

    bu sene de törenin Acilisini, yönetimini, takdimlerini ve Kapanisini  yapacaklardir..

    Acilis Konusmasi ise Dernek Baskanimiz sayin Goknur McAvoy tarafindan yapilacakdir.

    Dr. Kayaalp Buyukataman

    SNE-TACA Kurucu Baskani,  SNE-TACA Onursal Baskani

    NOT: 75 INCI YIL CONNECTICUTT CUMHURIYET BAYRAMI KUTLAMALARININ BIR MISALI https://www.turkishnews.com/29Ekim/  ADRESINDEN GORULEBILIR.

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

    The Southern New England Turkish American Association was established in 1992 and is a non profit organization. Our mission is to foster, promote, plan and execute programs aimed at improving the social, cultural, educational, economic and general welfare of the Turkish-American community in Connecticut and adjacent states. Application for membership is open to anyone 18 years or older who is willing to abide by the principles and aims of the Association The structure of the Association built by the General Assembly, Board of Directors, and Executive Committee: Officers of the Association: Göknur McAvoy—President Evgin Heath—Vice President Zeynep Akkan—General Secretary Güzin Biro—Treasurer

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

    Southern New England Turkish American Association cordially invites you to celebrate the Turkish Republic Day “Cumhuriyet Bayramı” celebration commemorating the establishment of the secular, democratic and modern Republic of Turkey, on Friday, October 30, 2009 2:00 – 4:00 P.M. It will be held at the Connecticut State Capitol building on the third floor in the Old Judiciary Room The modern Turkish Republic was founded exactly 86 years ago on October 29, 1923. The Grand National Assembly proclaimed the Republic of Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was named its president and Ankara its capital, and the modern state of Turkey was born out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. Respectfully, Mrs. Göknur McAvoy President Program of the Turkish Republic Day and Proclamation Ceremony Introduction – MC National Anthems Opening Remarks Official Statements and Presentation of Proclamations Theme of the Ceremony – Turkish Identity Achievement Awards Recognition Awards Cocktails and Turkish Music Turkish Republic Day Cumhuriyet Bayramı

    ——————————————————————————————–

    SNETACA Southern New England Turkish American Cultural Association P.O. Box 6009 Wolcott, CT 06716 E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: