Category: America

  • Russian Mediterranean Naval Build-Up Challenges NATO Sixth Fleet Domination

    Russian Mediterranean Naval Build-Up Challenges NATO Sixth Fleet Domination

    By 20 August 2008 Moscow is flexing its muscles again in the eastern Mediterranean, and aims to reactivate old cold war naval installations with its ally, Syria. President Bashar Assad, on his way to the Kremlin to finalize what looks to become a high profile deal invited Russia to position surface/surface missiles on his land in response to US deployment of missile interceptors in Poland. The Russians have sent their only aircraft carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov” from its home base in Murmansk, towards the Mediterranean and the Syrian port of Tartus. The mission comes after Syrian President Bashar Assad said he is open to a Russian base in the area.  The Admiral Kuznetsov, part of the Northern Fleet and Russia’s only aircraft carrier, will head a Navy mission to the area. The mission will also include the Black Sea fleet flagship, the missile cruiser Moskva, and several submarines.

    On December 2007 Russia launched their frist north sea flotilla to the Mediterranean, to demonstrate its military strength. It was when Russian President Vladimir Putin alarmed Europe by finally declaring Russia’s official rejection of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), (the treaty entered into force on July 17, 1992 limiting the number of combat elements that Russia could deploy along its borders with Europe). Immediately following this declaration, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced sending a sortie of six Russian warships to the Mediterranean, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Other vessels escorting the carrier as part of the task force are Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine ships, and the Sergei Osipov and Nikolai Chiker support ships. The group is expected to be joined by the flagship Moskva a guided missile cruiser and four additional ships as it arrives in the Mediterranean.

    This will be the first prolonged stay of a Russian carrier to the eastern Mediterranean in waters dominated with regular patrolled by the US Sixth Fleet and in vicinity of Israel’s shores. On its decks Admiral Kuznetsov carries 47 warplanes (mostly Su-33) and 10 helicopters. The Russian Black Sea Fleet contingent, which has already set out for its new mission from Sevastopol, will rely on the naval facilities at Syria’s Tartous port. Its presence for several months will be a complication for the Israel navy’s operations opposite the Lebanese and Syrian coasts, especially if the Russians could be joined at Tartous by Iranian extended Kilo class submarines armed with the Russian-made “Sizzler” Klub-S (3M54) missile, as some unofficial Israeli sources reported. The Rusian Kuznetsov carrier group will conduct three tactical exercises, including real and simulated launch of missiles, said Serdyukov, adding 11 port visits are expected to be made.

    Update – January 20, 2008: Following last week’s joint exercises in the Mediterranean, the Russian naval strike group joined the Moskva missile cruiser, which left Sevastopol on January 12. The group is expected to conduct an exercise in the Atlantic Ocean, beginning January 20. The two months mission is expected to end early in February. “After this visit to the Mediterranean and France, the first in 15 years, we will establish a permanent presence in the region,” Vice-Admiral Nikolai Maksimov said.

    Last week, the group was split into two elements which performed joint naval exercises with the Italian and French Navies. The Russian and Italian navies practiced rescue and counter-terror operations. The two Italian vessels participating in the drill were the Frigate Espero and Bersagliere. Following the exercise part of the Russian flotilla sailed to the French naval port of Toulon, for a short rest. Their Mediterranean voyage will continue on January 17th as the elements from the Northern Fleet under the command of Vice Admiral Nicholas Maximov, will be joined by the Black Sea Fleet flagship, missile cruiser Moskva, which left Sevastopol on the 13th. The Moskva is commanded by the Vice-Admiral Vasily Kondakov, Deputy Commander of the Black Sea Fleet. As with their Italian counterparts, the French Navy is planning to hold naval exercises with the Russian visitors.

    Sending such powerful Russian warships onto the Mediterranean, for any amount of time, is no small matter. With the Mediterranean having been a “NATO lake” for the past 15 years, since the demise of the Soviet Union, the simple presence of a naval Russian force will require reviewed strategy and tactics of many of western and Israeli navies.

    But making matters even more complicated for NATO, the Kremlin has also decided to send a sortie of warships to the northeastern Atlantic. No less that eleven vessels from the Northern Fleet have set sail on a range of voyages that will cover much of the globe. Extending to more than 12,000 miles they are scheduled to enter ports of six countries in 71 days.

    In the latest twist to worsening East-West relations, NATO submarines and surface ships, which may include Royal Navy vessels, are already engaged in trying to gather information on the new Amur stealth class boat, being secretly tested by the Russian Navy in the Baltic. Adding to this greater-than-normal scrutiny effort is in part, a response to Russia’s recent decision to resume long-range bomber flights close, or even penetrating into NATO airspace, which has revived memories of Cold War confrontation between the two blocs. In fact, twice during last summer, Russian Tu-95 Bear nuclear bombers have been spotted heading towards British airspace off Scotland, prompting the RAF to send fast reaction interceptors to head them off.

    The prospect of Russia reactivating its cold war naval bases in Syria’s Tartus and Latakia ports, could have a most dramatic strategic impact. High-profile air defense missiles and surveillance systems deployment around any Russian-manned installations in Syrian ports, might also shift the military balance to Israel’s disadvantage, or even threaten a clash between Israel and Russian forces, as happened during the later stages of the so-called War of Attrition in 1970, along the Suez Canal.

    The Russian Black Sea fleet’s 720th Logistics Support Point at Tartus has been in disuse since 1991, when the Soviet Union imploded. Yet it remains the only Russian military base outside the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States territory. Last year Russia reportedly dredged Tartus and began building a new dock at Latakia.

    The Syrian ports are invaluable for the Russian navy as an alternative naval base, provided that their security could be assured, by a viable air defense barrier – The Moskva with 64 SN-A-6 missiles on board (navalized S-300) will be able to provide such capability

    Israeli analysts believe that the present and rather unprecedented Russian strategic decision – sending such an impressive naval sortie into the eastern Mediterranean – could have resulted from Israel’s still mysterious foray into Syrian air defense, during the air strike on an alleged nuclear development or weapon assembly site. According to Aviation Week – who interviewed the retired Brigadier General Pinchas Burchris, director general of Israel’s Ministry of Defense, before the Israeli fighter aircraft ingress, a main Syrian radar site was struck with a combination of electronic attack and precision weapons, causing complete black-out of the entire Syrian air defense system which relied exclusively on Russian produced and installed equipment. Aviation Week claims this event may have been one of the first examples of offensive and defensive network attacks that included higher-level, non-tactical network penetrations.

    No precise information, nor confirmation of the AW&ST report was released by Israeli official authorities, but the very fact that non-stealth jet fighters managed to enter unscathed into the highly sophisticated Russian supplied air defense barrier, built painstakingly during decades, since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, speaks for itself. It certainly must have caused Moscow considerable embarrassment, over the lack of performance of their latest sophisticated air defense systems sold for hard cash to Mid Eastern Muslim nations.

    But not embarrassment alone, painful as it was, could have triggered Moscow to such a rapid reaction. The Russian navy is under growing pressure from Ukraine to withdraw the Black Sea Fleet from its traditional deployment at Sevastopol by 2017. Some recent incidents has sharpened this into, sofar minor, clashes with local elements, but the warnings are out in clear: “get out – you are no longer wanted here”!

    The ‘Kiev Post’ noted that the Black Sea fleet’s lease on its Sevastopol base is “hostage” to Ukraine’s volatile relations with Moscow – which will expire in 2017, necessitating a renegotiation or withdrawal. The Russian Black Sea Fleet base already boosted security at its navigational facilities, amid a dispute with Ukraine authorities, over a lighthouse, linked to the fleet in the Crimean city of Yalta. The Russian move came after Ukraine threatened to take over all the navigational facilities of the Black Sea Fleet. The dispute emerged when the staff of a Ukrainian state company seized the lighthouse and denied Russian servicemen access to the lighthouse.

    All this would render the Syrian ports invaluable for an alternative naval base, provided that their security could be assured, by a viable air defense barrier, safeguarding them from any future Israeli, or US attack, or even surveillance activities. Bolstering such an air defense can be enhanced by the long-term presence in off-shore deployment of high-profile warships, mounting sophisticated airpower (Su-33 fighters) and air defense armament, such as the Admiral Kuznetsov’s 3K95 Kinzhal missile system, the navalized version of the TOR and the Slava class Moskva’s SA-N-6 Grumble navalized version of the S-300 (SA-10).

    Another aspect of the new Russian Med deployment is intelligence. Israeli electronic warfare experts warn that the presence of a strong Russian naval force, most likely based in the Syrian port of Tartus, would represent a significant strengthening of Russian intelligence gathering capabilities in the region. The Russian navy is considered to have high-quality electronic equipment capable of observing new weapons systems and intercepting communications, which could become high-value assets to Syria and Iran. Russian intelligence maintained constant presence for several decades in international waters, where listening ships, camouflaged as fishing boats were positioned continuously off the Israeli coast, gathering electronic and communications. This activity continued at least through the 1990s.

    Whatever the latest Russian foray might signal, one thing is clear, the Mediterranean will soon become a new ‘Cold War’ type contest between Western and Russian navies, which will heat up substantially once the new Russian fourth generation Project 955 Borey class submarines, armed with Bulava missiles also enter into the fray.

    For further reading we recommend:

    Assad’s Ticket to Putins Mid East Comeback (12/23/2006)
    An Eastern Mediterranean Oil War? (2/16/2007)
    Is America Losing its Strategic Hold on Central Asia? (2/22/2007)
    Putin’s Muscle Flexing: Bluff or Cold War Challenge? (8/27/2007)
    Is Washington Losing the Gulf to Moscow? (11/20/2007)

     

     

    David Eshel

     

  • Obama-Biden Democratic Presidential Ticket Strong on Genocide Recognition, US-Armenia Relations

    Obama-Biden Democratic Presidential Ticket Strong on Genocide Recognition, US-Armenia Relations

     


       

    WASHINGTON-The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) welcomed Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s announcement of longtime Armenian American issues supporter, Sen. Joe Biden as his choice for Vice-President. Sen. Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been an outspoken advocate of U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide and brings the principled international leadership needed to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

    “As we stated back in January, Armenian Americans, a community that is deeply committed to a moral U.S. foreign policy and constructive American engagement abroad, respect Senator Biden’s leadership and, today, we welcome his addition to the Democratic ticket,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

    Elected to office in 1972, Senator Biden has been a voice of moral clarity on issues of concern to the Armenian American community.

    He has been a support for U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, dating back to his work with Senator Bob Dole to pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.J.Res.212) in 1990, and stronger U.S.-Armenia relations.

    Sen. Biden was also a perennial supporter of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, adopted in 1992, which restricted U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan due to its ongoing blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.

    In May, 2007, Sen. Biden, in response to a question from the Los Angeles Times editorial board about the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.Res.106), said: “I support it, and the reason is simple: I have found in my experience that you cannot have a solid relationship with a country based on fiction. It occurred. It occurred.” Senator Biden has been cosponsor of every resolution reaffirming the Armenian Genocide introduced in the Senate over the past 20 years.

    In connection with his leadership in pressing the Administration to explain its firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, and the controversy over the subsequent nomination of Dick Hoagland in 2007, Senator Biden secured from the Administration a number of commitments, among them that:
    • The next U.S. Ambassador to Armenia will meet extensively with representatives of the Armenian American community before and during their tenure in Yerevan.
    • The State Department will brief Members of Congress on its efforts to promote Turkish recognition of the real history of the Armenian Genocide.
    • U.S. ambassadors to Yerevan and Ankara would exchange visits for the purpose of ending Turkey’s economic blockade of Armenia.

    Sen. Biden also authored a resolution (S.Res.65), which was adopted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent, to honor journalist Hrant Dink, who was assassinated in Turkey last year for writing about the Armenian Genocide.

    In July, 2008, Sen. Biden reiterated his commitment to securing U.S. and Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide in connection with the nomination of U.S. Ambassador to Armenian Marie Yovanovitch. “Recognition by the United States of the Armenian Genocide is not the final goal. The real goal is the recognition of Turkey – of the Turkish Government – of the Armenian Genocide and the establishment of a common Turkish-Armenian understanding of the events and tragedy that took place,” stated Sen. Biden.

    The ANCA endorsed Senator Obama in the Democratic primaries and will announce its general election endorsement decision following the Democratic and Republican primaries. The ANC of Iowa had endorsed Sen. Joe Biden in his presidential election bid prior to the Iowa primary earlier this year.

     
     

    Friday, August 22, 2008

  • SEN. MENENDEZ FIGHTS TO ENSURE TURKISH GOVERNMENT RESPECTS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCH’S ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

    SEN. MENENDEZ FIGHTS TO ENSURE TURKISH GOVERNMENT RESPECTS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCH’S ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

    OBAMANIN BASKAN VEKILI NAMZEDI BIDEN’DE TURKIYE ALEYHNE KANUN TASARISINI TAKDIM EDEN GURUBUN ICINDE (SEYTANIN UCGENI= OBAMA+BIDEN+PELOSI)

    In seeking to join European Union, Turkey must adhere to certain criteria, including the guarantee of respect and protection for religious minorities

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has introduced legislation to urge the Government of Turkey to respect the rights and freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Christian Church, in accordance with criteria necessary to join the European Union. The Ecumenical Patriarch is the leading figure in the Orthodox Church and has suffered from discriminatory treatment from the Turkish government.

    “For a government to treat a revered religious institution and leader in such a discriminatory manner is an affront to human and religious rights and shows disrespect to the hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians,” said Senator Menendez. “There must be fairness and freedom when it comes to the Turkish government’s treatment of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As Turkey appeals to the European Union for membership, I would expect its treatment of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be a prime topic that must be addressed.”

    Senator Menendez’s resolution, which is co-sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MA), urges the Government of Turkey to respect the rights and religious freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Christian Church. It calls on the Turkish government to immediately:

    • recognize the right to the title of ��Ecumenical Patriarch”;
    • grant the Ecumenical Patriarch appropriate international recognition and ecclesiastic succession;
    • grant the Ecumenical Patriarch the right to train clergy of all nationalities, not just Turkish nationals; and
    • respect property rights and human rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

    The Government of Turkey has sought membership in the European Union and maintains strong bilateral relations with the United States Government. The accession of Turkey to the European Union will depend on its adherence to the Copenhagen criteria that require candidate countries to have stable governmental institutions that guarantee human rights and that respect and protect minorities, including religious minorities such as Orthodox Christians.

  • Who should be USA’s CTO?

    Who should be USA’s CTO?

    Tantek Celik, of San Francisco, is a computer scientist of Turkish-American descent and was the Chief Technologist at Technorati.

    Today I visited Larry Lessig. He’s the founder of Creative Commons. A professor of law at Stanford University. And does many other things.He is one of those guys who is just interesting to talk to. Why? Whip smart and has a view of things that very few other people have.

    On the way over to the interview I kept thinking back to our Washington DC visit. Both Republicans and Democrats told me they wish there were someone in the White House that they could talk to about tech and science issues. That seemed to support Barack Obama’s tech policy, which calls for a national CTO position.

    There are two views of the CTO position and Larry laid out both views in his interview and explained why he didn’t want the job (which, personally, is the best reason to want him in the position).

    View #1 is a person who could help shape our nation’s tech policies. This person would need to be a great speaker, because he or she would need to go to places like the World Economic Forum and communicate what our tech policy should be. She or he would also need to be up to date on law, since they would be talking with congress about what could or couldn’t be done and would help shape policies and laws. She or he would also need to be both trusted and accessible to the tech industry, too.

    That sounds like Lessig would be a perfect candidate.

    But he laid out the other view of what a national CTO should do and explained why he wouldn’t be a good choice. That view is: be a traditional CTO and get more of our government to use technology to be more efficient and transparent. Lessig is much more interested in seeing a CTO take on that role and says for that role you’d need a geek who understands the technology.

    That got me thinking. If you were the next President, and you wanted to have a national CTO role, who would you put into that position?

    Here’s a few names to get you thinking:

    Mark Andreessen?
    Dave Winer?
    Joel Spolsky?
    Tantek Celik?
    Molly Holzschalg?
    Meg Whitman?
    Bill Gates?
    Steve Wozniak?
    Caterina Fake?

    Overall, though, I still like the idea of Lessig in the White House.

    Oh, and wait until you hear what he says about how he’d retard corruption in the Capitol. The interview will be up in a couple of weeks on FastCompanyTV.

    Source :

  • CONF.- Azerbaijan-Turkey-US Relationship in Eurasia, Baku, Sept. 17-18

    CONF.- Azerbaijan-Turkey-US Relationship in Eurasia, Baku, Sept. 17-18

    Posted by: Louette Ragusa <[email protected]>

    Azerbaijan-Turkey-US Relationship in Eurasia: Georgia from the Caucasus,
    Kazakhstan from Central Asia

    Baku, Azerbaijan, September 17-18, 2008

    Azerbaijan Turkey Business Association (ATIB) is one of the most active Business
    Associations in the Region dedicated to furthering economic, social and cultural
    relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey and then between Azerbaijan and other
    countries. ATIB organized the first of its kind trilateral international
    conference entitled “The Azerbaijan-Turkey-US relationship and its Importance
    for Eurasia” in Washington, D.C. December 10, 2007.

    The 2nd Annual International Conference “Azerbaijan-Turkey-US Relationship in
    Eurasia, Georgia from the Caucasus, Kazakhstan from Central Asia,” will be held
    on September 17-18, 2007, we will discuss the cooperative roles of all fives
    countries in furthering the development of Eurasia.

    The conference will bring together representatives from policy realms, academic
    fields, the business community, civil society and members from the government
    of all five countries in an effort to continue to define the importance of the
    trilateral relationship of the initial three countries and the two other
    important players in the region. The conference will discuss:

    Day One:
    * Eurasian Geopolitics: Regional Security
    * Eurasian Geo-economic: Regional Economic Development and Cooperation

    Day Two:
    * Eurasian Geopolitics: Energy Security and
    * Eurasian Geo-economics: Entrepreneurship & Innovation

    The conference is extended to two days so that the panels may be able to
    elaborate on each area of discussion with an extended Q & A Session. These
    panels are intended to be highly interactive where panelists and moderators
    will not deliver speeches from a podium, but will instead be seated around a
    discussion table. This is designed to stimulate open and honest discussion with
    all participants.

    For more information please visit: www.atus.az

    Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

    Louette Ragusa
    International Project Advisor
    Azerbaycan-Türkiye Business Association
    Istiglaliyat St. 21 5th Floor Baku AZ 1066 Azerbaijan
    Tel 994 12 449 8882
    Fax 994 12 449 8884
    Cell 994 50 255 0535
    email [email protected]; [email protected]

    US Cell number: 985 869 3012

  • Turkey: The Caucasian Challenge

    Turkey: The Caucasian Challenge

    MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/AFP/Getty Images Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The recent war in the Caucasus has shifted Turkish geopolitical priorities. Given that the United States is in no position to counter Russian moves, Ankara is unilaterally trying to deal with the Russian resurgence and the threat it poses to Turkish interests in the region.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Aug. 20 made a one-day trip to Azerbaijan, where he met with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to discuss regional security issues in the aftermath of the Russian-Georgian war. Erdogan’s trip to Baku is the latest in a series of Turkish initiatives in the wake of the Russian resurgence. Ankara mooted the idea of a Caucasian Union on Aug. 11 to achieve regional stability. Separately, Turkey is reaching out to its (and Azerbaijan’s) regional foe, Armenia; talks reportedly are under way to get Yerevan on board with the Caucasian Union project.

    The recent war in the Caucasus has shifted Turkish geopolitical priorities. After Turkey’s failure to secure entry into the European Union, the Turks decided to emerge as a player in the Middle East. The most significant manifestation of this has been its role as mediator in the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations. The brief but extremely significant war in Georgia dramatically changed the Turkish calculus, however, and, in a matter of days, Turkey went from playing minor league in the Middle East to having to deal with what is essentially a new Cold War between Washington and Moscow.

    Turkey cannot afford to view the resurgence of Russia in purely Cold War terms. It wants to emerge as a major player in what is essentially its front yard. But it cannot count on help from the United States, which is preoccupied with Iraqi-Iranian and Afghan-Pakistani issues and therefore is not in any position to counter Russian moves in the Caucasus at present. Unlike Washington, which has the luxury of addressing the situation in the longer term, Ankara must, in the short term, deal with the Russian invasion of the Caucasus — an area of core national security interest to the Turks.

    The Russians have a deep interest in reconfiguring the energy infrastructure that bypasses their territory and supplies European energy needs through Turkey. From the Kremlin’s point of view, this is the key to ensuring European — and Turkish — dependence on Moscow for the continent’s energy requirements. Therefore, Turkey must deal with the Russian stranglehold of Georgia and Moscow’s moves to force the hand of Azerbaijan regarding Baku’s energy export options..

    Judging from their behavior, the Turks are in no mood to confront the Russians and instead have chosen the diplomatic route (for their part, the Russians are not itching for a fight with Turkey either). Turkey knows it cannot succeed diplomatically with Russia by simply behaving as a U.S./NATO ally in the Caucasus, which would explain its efforts to distinguish its position from that of the United States. Under Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party, Ankara has in general been trying to craft a more independent foreign policy.

    A recent example is President Abdullah Gul’s statement that the conflict in Georgia showed that the United States could no longer shape global politics on its own and should begin sharing power with other countries. In an interview with the British daily The Guardian published Aug. 17, Gul called for common decisions rather than unilateral action, saying “a new world order, if I can say it, should emerge.”

    The transformation of Turkish foreign policy notwithstanding, it is difficult for Russia to ignore Turkey’s reality as a NATO member state and hence not look at Turkish moves as part of a U.S. plan to counter Moscow. The Kremlin can afford not to seek a negotiated settlement with Turkey. After all, Russia controls the situation on the ground. Therefore, Turkish diplomacy could run into problems. Turkey must try the diplomatic work anyway, as the alternative raises specters of dark times long past.

    Should diplomacy fail, Turkey’s only other option would be to confront Russia militarily. Turkey is well-positioned to deal with Russia; for example, its navy is in a good position to defend the Bosporus from Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

    But the critical missing element from the military option is the political will that would enable the Turks to return to their historic mode of dealing with Russians with force. Ankara is thus unlikely to readopt a course of action in a matter of weeks that it has not engaged in within some 90 years. Russia and Turkey (then known as the Ottoman Empire) fought several wars between the mid-16th century to the early 20th century, with the last one being fought in the Caucasus in 1917-1918.

    Facing a choice between unsuccessful diplomacy and reluctance toward military option, Turkey is pretty much in the same situation the United States finds itself in with regards to the Russians. The critical difference between Washington and Ankara, however, is that Ankara must deal with the situation now.

    Source : Stratfor