Category: Regions

Military Relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey

After the collapse of USSR, necessaries of new states were that economic, politic, military and educational relations with each other and other international platforms and countries. On that way all former Soviet countries created Commonwealth of Independence States union. With creation of CIS, these countries which were unificated on old Soviet map will create new relations on the new world system. Also for regulating new systems, geopolitical situation was very important. Firstly a state can create strong relations where it was near another state.

If we describe relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan, we will see influence of border factor. Strong relations of Turkey with Azerbaijan are result of near abroad condition.
Cooperations of Turkey and Azerbaijan had been decreased sometimes. But it ended in new powerful authorities.

Pro Russian politics of Ayaz Muttalibov influenced Turkish relations as only embassy found. In short time of Muttalibov administrative Turkey was working to make new perspective for other Turkish countries.

Ebulfez Elchibey who came to power after Muttalibov followed new way Pro Turkish politics as opposite to Muttalibov. So many agreements had been created in economy, military, education, energy, politics and new activities started. First military cooperations between Azerbaijan and Turkey borned in that time.

In 1992 military education agreement signed between Azerbaijani and Turkish government. In this period Azerbaijan was working to create international pressure circumstances on Armenia about Nagorno Karabakh conflict. So military agreements with Turkey, created new tensions in this region. We can say a diminish symbol with Russia as military.

Military conventions were less than next years in new political actions to make strong authority and balanced actions period. Haydar Aliyev’s balance political way made a cooperation as pragmatist mind of Azerbaijan. We will see importance of Turkish military agreements. Because if Azerbaijan want to be important actor on this region, it should regulate new relations for the USA and NATO via Turkey.

In 1996 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on base of cooperation of staff members of supporting service of Armed Forces protocol signed.

In 1997 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on regulation of civil and military flying in 10 km of astride Azerbaijan-Turkey border protocol signed.

In that time agreements of Azerbaijan with Iran and Russia were targeting only friendship situation and solve problems on bounds And agreements with the USA were not totally military cooperations. It is important to not forget that Russian embargo on Azerbaijan because of Chechen problem increased Turkish inclination on military subjects. Strong relations with Turkey of Azerbaijan will create new diplomatical positions from Cyprus to Yerevan.

Military positions as international importance of Azerbaijan borned with agreement between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on activities of platoon of Azerbaijan is going to the Kosovo in the staff of Turkey battalion.
Azerbaijan will keep its soldiers untill period of independence of Kosovo. With this step Azerbaijan became an important and strategical country on extend to East policy of NATO. Azerbaijan won a good position on Caucasus region with taking some other militaryal duties via Turkey in different countries.

In 2000 between the Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Head of Naval Forces of Republic of Turkey about giving the attack launch of AB-34 P-134 to the Azerbaijan protocol signed and :

– Protocol between the Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Ministry of national security of Republic of Turkey on cooperation in the topographical area,
– Protocol between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Turkey on forming and training of profession school of forces kind of Baku,
– Protocol between the Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on carrying out of the material and technical purchasing,
– Agreement between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on military industry cooperation signed.

In 2001 between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on development of Nakhchivan 5th army protocol;

In 2002 Ministry of defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on cooperation in the area of war history, military archive and museum work and military publication protocol and in 2003 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of on training, material and technical assistance of State Border Service of Azerbaijan by Armed Forces of Turkey and Protocol between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on cooperation in the safety of the West-East energy corridor protocol signed.

Since 1999 Azerbaijan took steps quickly. As opposite to Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia and Greece signed an agreement as “Send Armenian soldiers to Kosovo via Greek army”. Armenian parliament agreed this on 13 December 2003. According to this agreement 30 Armenian soldiers had gone to Kosovo with ratification of Ministry of Defence of Armenia. It had been explained as to support European-Atlantic integration on South Caucasus. Against to modernization of Azerbaijan by Turkish Military Forces, Greece take a decision to support to Armenian army. Also military cooperations created influences on political problems. In that time mix circumstances about these events will share a balance of situations on energy and trade agreements.

After the September 11 terrorist acts, Azerbaijan supported the decision of counter attack to terrorism of the USA. So it sent some peacekeepers to Afghanistan and opened air space for American forces. These actions share Turkish support and modernisation to Azerbaijani army. Azerbaijan use this experiment to be main actor in the region.

In 2004 and 2005 between the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the government of the Republic of Turkey on long-term economical and military cooperation and between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on application of the financial aid protocol signed.

And in 2006 between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey on application of material and technical provision protocol shared new improvements of new actor.

Since 2006 new approaches regulated cooperations with other states :
– Supports of Azerbaijan to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,
– Turkey purchases rockets from the USA,
– New relations of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey as result of alternative energy way against to Russia.

Same year new circumstances created balance regulations for Azerbaijan with agreement of natural gas project with Greece. It was political and militaryal goal of Azerbaijan because Yerevan loosed its good militaryal and political relations with Greece. So it must choose a new way as balance politics.

There is a balance activities with military cooperations of Azerbaijani relations from the independence time. Pro Turkish military activities regulated international perspective on problems of Azerbaijan. Example, mainly Azerbaijan use Cyprus card about Greek support to Armenia. And also it used totally the USA and NATO supports and created new politics as alternative to Russia. We can say thay experiments of Elchibey’s totally Pro Turkish politics and Aliyev’s balance politics which agree all region as a whole will regulate positions of Caucasus region.

Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU / Baku Qafqaz University

November 24, 2008
“THE START OF A NEW ERA IN US-TURKISH RELATIONS”

GWU Turkish Student Association cordially invites you to

“THE START OF A NEW ERA IN US-TURKISH RELATIONS”

A Panel Discussion with
Dr. Ian Lesser,
Senior Transatlantic Fellow
of the German Marshall Fund of
the United States (GMF)

and

Mr. Jonathan Katz,
Staff Director of
the Subcommittee on Europe
U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Date: Tuesday, November 25
Time: 6:00-7:00pm(reception)
7:00-8:00pm (lecture)
Location: Marvin Center
Dorothy Betts Theatre(1st floor)
800 21st Street, NW
Washington, Dc 20015

* Please send yout RSVPs via email at turkish@gwu.edu or via phone at 202.725.0273

—
Esra Alemdar
President, GWU TSA

2140 L Street, NW Apt.602
Washington, DC 20037
Tel. (202) 725-0273
alemdar@gwmail.gwu.edu

November 24, 2008
TURKEY ADJUSTS ITS FOREIGN POLICY TO THE PLANNED U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

By Emrullah Uslu
Thursday, November 20, 2008

U.S. and Iraqi officials finally agreed on a withdrawal plan requiring Washington to withdraw its forces within three years. The withdrawal will have a direct impact on Turkish-Iraqi relations. Ankara’s immediate concern is related to the control of Iraqi airspace, which will fall under the authority of Baghdad on January 1, 2009. This could affect Turkish air raids on the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) camps in northern Iraq. With a green light from the United States, Turkish jets have been launching attacks on the camps since 2007. Moreover, since November 5, 2007, the United States has been sharing satellite intelligence from its Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAV). Ankara is concerned about whether Iraqi officials will allow Turkey to continue its air raids (Milliyet, November 19).Although U.S. President-elect Barack Obama told the Turkish president that his country had the right to protect itself from PKK terrorism (Milliyet, November 19), Turkey wants to ensure that the raids will not be interrupted by the transition of control over Iraqi airspace. Turkish diplomats are working hard to adjust the Turkish position to fit the new situation. Turkey’s Interior Minister Besir Atalay paid a visit to Baghdad, during which the Iraqi government announced the establishment of a joint committee of senior Iraqi, Turkish, and U.S. officials to fight the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (Today’s Zaman, November 20). While Turkish delegates were visiting Iraq, an Iraqi delegation was in Ankara; and there are plans for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to meet with Iraqi Minister of State for National Dialogue Akram al-Hakim and Iraq’s Counter Terrorism special envoy Sirvan Elvai (Zaman, November 19).

Turkey’s second concern is whether Iraq will be able to maintain its unity and, more precisely, how the Kurds will respond to the changing circumstances. How will the Kirkuk question be addressed? The relationship between the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and the central government in Baghdad is becoming increasingly tense. KRG President Massoud Barzani used an appearance on local television to condemn Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for attempting “to place power in the hands of one person and one party” (Al-Bayyna al-Jadidah, November 18).

During security operations in March, Maliki created “Support Councils” that were made up of members of important tribes. They are funded and directed by Maliki’s office, and their ostensible aim is to give the tribes a role in maintaining local security and providing services (www.npr.org, October 22). The editor of the Kurdish Globe said that “Al-Maliki’s plan to establish Support Councils, including a tribal force in Kirkuk, is not only a direct threat to the Kurdish national interests but at the same time an issue that has the potential to destroy the already feeble relations between Kurds and Iraq” (Kurdish Globe, November 20).

Barzani strongly reacted to the plan, stating that “the prime minister was one of the contributors of drafting the constitution, but any retreat from the constitution means retreating to dictatorship” (Kurdish Globe, November 20). He warned that Kurds who joined these Support Councils would be dealt with as “traitors” and Arabs who enrolled in them as “enemies” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, November 18).

The Financial Times reported that the Kirkuk issue will become a pressing foreign policy concern for the next U.S. administration, not just because the Kirkuk dispute has the potential to pit Arab against Kurd and provoke intervention from neighboring states. It could also harm Washington’s relations with its closest allies in Iraq “the Kurdish authorities” (Financial Times, November 11, Zaman, November 13).

It seems that the tension between Kurds and Arabs will continue for the near future. For this reason, the KRG wants to improve its relations with Turkey. The International Crisis Group maintains that when the U.S forces start drawing down significantly in the next two years, the Kurds will increasingly be dependent on the federal government and neighboring states such as Turkey and Iran. â EURO oeUnder this scenario, Turkey would be a more useful partner to the Kurds than either Baghdad or Tehran, because of the prospect it offers of access to the European Union, its availability as a transit country for Kurdish oil and gas; its ability to invest in major infrastructure projects; and the better quality of the goods it sells to Iraqâ EURO ™s Kurdistan Federal Regionâ EURO (www.crisisgroup.org, November 13).

Yet Turkish and Arab demands on the Kirkuk issue are similar. It will therefore be very difficult for the Kurds to convince Turkey to support its Kirkuk claim. Under the circumstances the KRG has two cards to play: first, the KRG could use PKK terrorism as a means of balancing the KRG and Turkish demands (Hurriyet, November 18); and second, after January 1 the KRG will have some authority to stop Turkeyâ EURO ™s air operations against the PKK in Iraqi territory. Thus, allowing Turkey to continue its air operations will be a bargaining chip for the KRG. For Turkish side, it is expected that the United States will use the Incirlik airbase and the port of Mersin for a quick withdrawal. In this case, Turkey could use Incirlik and Mersin as a bargaining chip for convincing the United States to persuade the KRG to cooperate with Turkey against the PKK (www.ntvmsnbc.com, November 18).

No matter how and when the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq, it will create many complications that would unsettle the region for a while. The key issue during the withdrawal period is the Kirkuk question. If the United States uses its influence on the Kurds to recognize Kirkuk as outside of Kurdish Regional Government jurisdiction, the Kurds will have the benefit of easily establishing good relations with Turkey. Ankara will be happy to see the Kurdish region as a buffer zone between itself and Iraq in case a civil war erupts in Iraq. Otherwise, Kirkuk could potentially be the center of a civil war between the Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmens.

November 24, 2008
Greek Americans gain a seat in the House of Representatives and all major friends re-elected

Washington, D.C.- The National Coordinated Effort of Hellenes (CEH) released an analysis of how the U.S. Congress changed, following the elections on November 4, particularly with regard to Greece and Cyprus’ top advocates (and detractors) and how Hellenic and Orthodox issues may be handled differently with the new line-up.While a number of our strongest supporters seemed vulnerable to being defeated, including those on the key Committees and Subcommittees that handle U.S. policy toward Cyprus, almost all were re-elected. As well, of the over 59 Members of Congress and 10 Senators who will not be in office next year (because they were defeated, elected to another office or are retiring), very few were strong supporters. In fact, a vast majority had not been engaged in Hellenic and Orthodox issues at all. In the end, the greatest determinant of how Hellenic and Orthodox issues may be handled differently in the 111th Congress (2009 – 2010) will be who are the Chairmen, Ranking Members, and Members of the key Committees and Subcommittees that handle the Cyprus issue. These changes are just beginning and won’t be finalized until December or later.

All six “Greek-Americans” in the House and Senate will remain. Greek-Americans Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), John Sarbanes (D-MD) and Zack Space (D-OH) were re-elected, with 63%, 70% and 60% of the vote, respectively. At the beginning of this election cycle, Congressman Space was one of the top three Members of Congress targeted by the Republican party to defeat, as he was elected in a traditionally Republican district. However, he ran an excellent campaign and won by a wide margin. Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV), whose family is from the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki, Greece, was re-elected with 68% of the vote. Greek Orthodox Christian, and wife of a former Greek-American Senator and Presidential candidate, Niki Tsongas (D-MA), was re-elected, running unopposed. In the U.S. Senate, Greek-American Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) was not up for re-election (and will not be so until 2012).

And there will be two new “Greek-Americans” in the 111th Congress. Greek-American Dina Titus (D-NV), for whom Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Congresswoman Berkley campaigned very hard, won with 47% of the vote over 5 other challengers, the closest of whom was incumbent Congressman Jon Porter who received 42% of the vote. Dina’s grandfather, Arthur Costandinos Cathones, after whom she is named, came to America in 1911. As well, Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) defeated Congressman Tom Feeney 57% to 41%. While Suzanne is not Greek, her ex-husband, with whom she had four children and still keeps in touch, is.

Two other “Greek-Americans” were unsuccessful in their run for Congress. Greek-American Jim Trakas (R-OH) lost to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) 57% to 39% and Jane Mitakides (D-OH), who is married to a Greek-American, lost to Congressman Michael Turner (R-OH) 64% to 36%.

Other Strong Supporters

Just weeks before the election, four of our top supporters (who had “A+” grades for their support of our issues) were on the list of the top 25 most likely Republican Members of Congress to lose. Three of them survived. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) won with 58% and 53% of the vote, respectively. And, Congressman Henry Brown (R-SC) won with 54% of the vote. Unfortunately, Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), who was also a member of the crucial House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, was defeated 52% to 43%.

Two other advocates who play a crucial role in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy toward Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, were soundly re-elected despite being considered vulnerable in recent months. House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) won with 58%. Chairman of the House Europe Subcommittee, Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), won with 66% of the vote, against two opponents. While Chairman Wexler is the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkish Issues, he has also engaged the Greek-American community and has taken a positive step on all of the major Hellenic and Orthodox issues.

The most significant change, from the Congressional perspective only, will be the loss of Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), who was elected as Vice President of the United States. Senator Biden’s advocacy for Hellenic and Orthodox issues is legendary. After former Senator Paul Sarbanes and current Senators Bob Menendez and Hellene Olympia Snowe, no one in the Senate surpasses Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in terms of advocacy for our issues. As well, the loss in the U.S. Senate of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who was elected President of the United States, and was the Chairman of the Senate European Affairs Subcommittee, will be significant. Obviously, the movement of these Senators into the positions of President and Vice President will enable them to have an even more profound impact on our issues.

In addition, five other Republican Senators with “B+” grades for their support of Hellenic and Orthodox issues, will not be serving in the 111th Congress. This is somewhat significant, as far fewer Republican Senators have been supportive. Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and John Sununu (R-NH) were defeated, and Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Pete Domenici (R-NM) and John Warner (R-VA) retired.

Key Committees and Subcommittees

While the Chairman, Ranking Members and Members of the key Committees and Subcommittees that handle U.S. policy toward Cyprus, Greece and Turkey will not be finalized until next month, if not later, there are some significant changes already.

As mentioned earlier, in the Senate the Chairman of both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate European Affairs Subcommittee will be new. Also, there will likely be several open slots to fill on that full Committee. As well, in the Senate, Turkey’s number one advocate, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), recently agreed to step down as Chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

November 24, 2008
Nobel laureate: Suspend Israel from UN

Nov 20, 2008 17:31 | Updated Nov 21, 2008 7:49

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire says the United Nations should suspend or revoke Israel’s membership.

Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead McGuire, who arrived in Gaza on the "Free Gaza" boat, left, holds a gift from Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, right, at his office in Gaza City last month. Photo: AP

Maguire says Israel should be punished for ignoring a series of United Nations resolutions over the years. Maguire won the 1976 peace prize for her work with Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

She is visiting the Palestinian territories to protest Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. Israel virtually sealed off the territories after the Hamas took over there in 2007. The closure tightened two weeks ago in response to Hamas rocket fire on Israeli border communities.

Maguire told a news conference Thursday that it’s time for the international community to take action against Israel.

Last month, Maguire and 27 international protesters sailed into the Gaza Strip in the “Free Gaza” boat to bring attention to Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-controlled territory

Source: www.jpost.com, Nov 20, 2008

November 24, 2008
Middle East Priorities For Jan. 21

By Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski

Friday, November 21, 2008; Page A23

The election of Barack Obama to be the 44th president is profoundly historic. We have at long last been able to come together in a way that has eluded us in the long history of our great country. We should celebrate this triumph of the true spirit of America.

Election Day celebrations were replicated in time zones around the world, something we have not seen in a long time. While euphoria is ephemeral, we must endeavor to use its energy to bring us all together as Americans to cope with the urgent problems that beset us.

When Obama takes office in two months, he will find a number of difficult foreign policy issues competing for his attention, each with strong advocates among his advisers. We believe that the Arab-Israeli peace process is one issue that requires priority attention.

In perhaps no other region was the election of Obama more favorably received than the Middle East. Immediate attention to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would help cement the goodwill that Obama’s election engendered. Not everyone in the Middle East views the Palestinian issue as the greatest regional challenge, but the deep sense of injustice it stimulates is genuine and pervasive.

Unfortunately, the current administration’s intense efforts over the past year will not resolve the issue by Jan. 20. But to let attention lapse would reinforce the feelings of injustice and neglect in the region. That could spur another eruption of violence between the warring parties or in places such as Lebanon or Gaza, reversing what progress has been made and sending the parties back to square one. Lurking in the background is the possibility that the quest for a two-state solution may be abandoned by the Palestinians, the Israelis, or both — with unfortunate consequences for all.

Resolution of the Palestinian issue would have a positive impact on the region. It would liberate Arab governments to support U.S. leadership in dealing with regional problems, as they did before the Iraq invasion. It would dissipate much of the appeal of Hezbollah and Hamas, dependent as it is on the Palestinians’ plight. It would change the region’s psychological climate, putting Iran back on the defensive and putting a stop to its swagger.

The major elements of an agreement are well known. A key element in any new initiative would be for the U.S. president to declare publicly what, in the view of this country, the basic parameters of a fair and enduring peace ought to be. These should contain four principal elements: 1967 borders, with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications; compensation in lieu of the right of return for Palestinian refugees; Jerusalem as real home to two capitals; and a nonmilitarized Palestinian state.

Something more might be needed to deal with Israeli security concerns about turning over territory to a Palestinian government incapable of securing Israel against terrorist activity. That could be dealt with by deploying an international peacekeeping force, such as one from NATO, which could not only replace Israeli security but train Palestinian troops to become effective.

To date, the weakness of the negotiating parties has limited their ability to come to an agreement by themselves. The elections in Israel scheduled for February are certainly a complicating factor, as is the deep split among Palestinians between Fatah and Hamas. But if the peace process begins to gain momentum, it is difficult to imagine that Hamas will want to be left out, and that same momentum would provide the Israeli people a unique chance to register their views on the future of their country.

This weakness can be overcome by the president speaking out clearly and forcefully about the fundamental principles of the peace process; he also must press the case with steady determination. That initiative should then be followed — not preceded — by the appointment of a high-level dignitary to pursue the process on the president’s behalf, a process based on the enunciated presidential guidelines. Such a presidential initiative should instantly galvanize support, both domestic and international, and provide great encouragement to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

To say that achieving a successful resolution of this critical issue is a simple task would be to scoff at history. But in many ways the current situation is such that the opportunity for success has never been greater, or the costs of failure more severe.

Brent Scowcroft was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. He is president of the Forum for International Policy and the Scowcroft Group. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. He is trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The two are authors of “America and The World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy.”

Source: www.washingtonpost.com, November 21, 2008

November 24, 2008