5 New Messages
Digest #4482
Messages
Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:02 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Nazar" muratoglunazar
ARMENIA 'READY FOR WAR' AFTER AZERBAIJAN AXE-KILLER PARDON
Star Africa
http://www.starafri
Sept 3 2012
Armenia warned Azerbaijan it was ready for war as tensions soared
Monday between the ex-Soviet foes...
Armenia warned Azerbaijan it was ready for war as tensions soared
Monday between the ex-Soviet foes after Baku pardoned and promoted
an Azerbaijani officer who axed an Armenian soldier to death.
Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev last week immediately pardoned
Ramil Safarov after he was extradited from Hungary, where he had been
serving a life sentence for the 2004 killing.
Safarov was also promoted to the rank of major, given a house and eight
years' worth of back-pay after returning home to a hero's welcome,
in defiance of assurances from Baku to Budapest that he would serve
out his term in Azerbaijan.
"We don't want a war, but if we have to, we will fight and win. We are
not afraid of killers, even if they enjoy the protection of the head
of state," Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian fumed in a statement
late on Sunday.
"They (Azerbaijanis) have been warned," he said, calling Azerbaijan
a country where "illicit orders set free and publicly glorify every
bastard who kills people only because they are Armenians".
Safarov hacked Armenian officer Gurgen Margarian to death at a
military academy in Budapest where the servicemen were attending
English-language courses organised by NATO.
His lawyers claimed in court that he was traumatised because some of
his relatives had been killed during Azerbaijan's war with Armenia,
and alleged that Margarian had insulted his country.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are locked in a long-running conflict over
the disputed region of Nagorny Karabakh, where they fought a war in
the 1990s.
Armenia-backed separatists seized Nagorny Karabakh from Azerbaijan
in the war that left some 30,000 people dead.
The two sides have not signed a final peace deal since the 1994
ceasefire and there are still regular firefights along the front line.
Analysts warn the frozen conflict risks slipping again into full-scale
war.
Russia, which is part of the OSCE Minsk Group that is mediating in
negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict,
expressed "deep concern" over the extradition and pardon.
"We believe that these actions of the Azerbaijanis, as well as
the Hungarian authorities, go against the efforts agreed at an
international level primarily through the OSCE Minsk Group aimed at
reducing tension in the region," Russian foreign ministry spokesman
Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.
The OSCE Minsk Group said Monday its co-chairs had expressed "deep
concern and regret for the damage the pardon and any attempts to
glorify the crime had done to the peace process" at meetings with
both countries' foreign ministers.
It stressed there was "no alternative to a peaceful settlement of
the Nagorny Karabakh conflict".
The EU said Baku and Yerevan should refrain from exacerbating the
dispute.
In a statement, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and
Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele said they "are concerned by
the news" of the pardon, adding that EU officials were "in contact
with the relevant authorities"
EU officials will "continue to follow the situation closely," the
statement said.
"In the interest of regional stability and on-going efforts towards
reconciliation,
on Azerbaijan and Armenia to exercise restraint, on the ground as
well as in public statements, in order to prevent an escalation of
the situation."
Baku on Monday accused Yerevan of launching a wave of attacks on
eight Azerbaijani websites including those of the president and
various news portals, sometimes posting photographs of the murdered
Armenian soldier.
"The very fact of this action speaks of the powerlessness of Yerevan,
resorting to the tactics of the weak," Azerbaijani presidential
administration official Elnur Aslanov said in a statement.
The administration also published a series of letters from citizens
praising Aliyev for pardoning the convicted killer.
"I am grateful to you for the nationwide joy you have given us by
releasing Ramil Safarov, returning him to his homeland and, most
importantly, doing justice," wrote one of them, Zamina Aliyeva.
Yerevan on Friday cut diplomatic ties with Hungary over the pardon,
while US President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" about
the incident.
Hungary summoned Azerbaijan's ambassador on Sunday to protest at
Baku's decision after earlier saying it had been assured Safarov
would serve out his term.
Star Africa
http://www.starafri
Sept 3 2012
Armenia warned Azerbaijan it was ready for war as tensions soared
Monday between the ex-Soviet foes...
Armenia warned Azerbaijan it was ready for war as tensions soared
Monday between the ex-Soviet foes after Baku pardoned and promoted
an Azerbaijani officer who axed an Armenian soldier to death.
Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev last week immediately pardoned
Ramil Safarov after he was extradited from Hungary, where he had been
serving a life sentence for the 2004 killing.
Safarov was also promoted to the rank of major, given a house and eight
years' worth of back-pay after returning home to a hero's welcome,
in defiance of assurances from Baku to Budapest that he would serve
out his term in Azerbaijan.
"We don't want a war, but if we have to, we will fight and win. We are
not afraid of killers, even if they enjoy the protection of the head
of state," Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian fumed in a statement
late on Sunday.
"They (Azerbaijanis) have been warned," he said, calling Azerbaijan
a country where "illicit orders set free and publicly glorify every
bastard who kills people only because they are Armenians".
Safarov hacked Armenian officer Gurgen Margarian to death at a
military academy in Budapest where the servicemen were attending
English-language courses organised by NATO.
His lawyers claimed in court that he was traumatised because some of
his relatives had been killed during Azerbaijan's war with Armenia,
and alleged that Margarian had insulted his country.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are locked in a long-running conflict over
the disputed region of Nagorny Karabakh, where they fought a war in
the 1990s.
Armenia-backed separatists seized Nagorny Karabakh from Azerbaijan
in the war that left some 30,000 people dead.
The two sides have not signed a final peace deal since the 1994
ceasefire and there are still regular firefights along the front line.
Analysts warn the frozen conflict risks slipping again into full-scale
war.
Russia, which is part of the OSCE Minsk Group that is mediating in
negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict,
expressed "deep concern" over the extradition and pardon.
"We believe that these actions of the Azerbaijanis, as well as
the Hungarian authorities, go against the efforts agreed at an
international level primarily through the OSCE Minsk Group aimed at
reducing tension in the region," Russian foreign ministry spokesman
Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.
The OSCE Minsk Group said Monday its co-chairs had expressed "deep
concern and regret for the damage the pardon and any attempts to
glorify the crime had done to the peace process" at meetings with
both countries' foreign ministers.
It stressed there was "no alternative to a peaceful settlement of
the Nagorny Karabakh conflict".
The EU said Baku and Yerevan should refrain from exacerbating the
dispute.
In a statement, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and
Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele said they "are concerned by
the news" of the pardon, adding that EU officials were "in contact
with the relevant authorities"
EU officials will "continue to follow the situation closely," the
statement said.
"In the interest of regional stability and on-going efforts towards
reconciliation,
on Azerbaijan and Armenia to exercise restraint, on the ground as
well as in public statements, in order to prevent an escalation of
the situation."
Baku on Monday accused Yerevan of launching a wave of attacks on
eight Azerbaijani websites including those of the president and
various news portals, sometimes posting photographs of the murdered
Armenian soldier.
"The very fact of this action speaks of the powerlessness of Yerevan,
resorting to the tactics of the weak," Azerbaijani presidential
administration official Elnur Aslanov said in a statement.
The administration also published a series of letters from citizens
praising Aliyev for pardoning the convicted killer.
"I am grateful to you for the nationwide joy you have given us by
releasing Ramil Safarov, returning him to his homeland and, most
importantly, doing justice," wrote one of them, Zamina Aliyeva.
Yerevan on Friday cut diplomatic ties with Hungary over the pardon,
while US President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" about
the incident.
Hungary summoned Azerbaijan's ambassador on Sunday to protest at
Baku's decision after earlier saying it had been assured Safarov
would serve out his term.
Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:02 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 5, 2012
NATO holds secret meeting approving Syrian operation - interview
John Robles
Recorded on September 3, 2012
Audio at URL above
Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO, and among the topics he touched upon was a secret meeting by NATO which apparently approved military operations against Syria. Mr. Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically using Syria as a pretext.
NATO has decided to stop training Afghan soldiers. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what you know about that? That seems to be the latest development. They’ve been very quiet lately, which worries me.
It worries us both, John. Yes, in fact NATO has suspended, I suppose, what’s called the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan to develop, I guess, a more comprehensive and reliable system of, to use their own word, "vetting" potential recruits for the Afghan National Army and this is after, as your listeners know, an unprecedented series of so-called “green on blue” attacks by Afghan military personnel against U.S. and other NATO forces in the country. Simultaneously the United States’ armed forces in Afghanistan have announced that they are going to suspend if not terminate the training of Afghan police personnel, so it signals the West falling deeper and deeper into an intractable quagmire in South Asia.
Would you characterize this as part of an overall failure of U.S. policy and NATO policy in Afghanistan?
Yes, it’s a demonstrable, it's a signal indication of a catastrophic failure in Afghanistan of course. On October 7th, which is to say next month, the U.S. and NATO will be in Afghanistan for their 11th year and it’s certainly not produced any successful results. It’s led to the dislocation, impoverishment and in many instances killing of Afghan civilians without any measureable achievements even according to what the West itself claimed it intended to do in Afghanistan when it first sent troops there on October 7th 2001. However, I should mention, we are talking about a quiet NATO and for the most part they have been, arguably since the summit here in Chicago in May, but certainly over the last month or so, nevertheless, NATO is about to launch fairly large-scale air exercises, a series of air exercises in Czech Republic, something called Ramstein Rover 2012, which will include the participation of 12 [actually 16] nations, presumably both NATO
full member states and partners, and this is a test of what are called Forward Air Controllers by NATO, by the United States Joint Terminal Air Controllers. These are the people who call in air support including attacks in Afghanistan. So, the fact that such a large-scale air exercise clearly targeted either towards Afghanistan specifically, John, or with applicability for an Afghan-style operation elsewhere in the world afterwards, suggests that the US and NATO plans for Afghanistan have certainly not ceased and contrary to pledges that both the U.S. and NATO will draw down or withdraw troops from Afghanistan in two years it certainly suggests that they are planning ongoing military operations.
On Saturday September 1st an article was published on the Internet. They say that NATO has secretly authorized an attack on Syria. Do you know anything about that?
Yes, I do. It’s by Gordon Duff who is a former US intelligence [military] official. It’s actually quite a valuable work. In the article he talks about a meeting of NATO’s Military Committee in recent days where they had two topics on their agenda, one was Greenland, which he passes over quickly as that's not of primary importance, but the second was on Syria. And what Duff indicates in his article rather convincingly, I'm persuaded, is that NATO is elaborating plans for military action in, and against, Syria. I think it’s noteworthy that the meeting of the Military Committee that the author refers to is nowhere addressed on the NATO websites, including on the main NATO homepage. I don’t know how Duff gained access to that information, but certainly it suggests that NATO is keeping a low profile so as not to divulge what its plans may be.
I’ve seen some reports say that NATO is actually targeting Bashar Assad and the Ayatollah of Iran for regime change. Do you know anything about that?
You know, it’s nothing that we're going to see NATO openly acknowledge but it’s common wisdom at this point, or conventional wisdom that, to use the expression that's current, the road to Teheran runs through Damascus, which is to say that the proxy war by NATO forces and their allies amongst the Arab Gulf sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf is, say, a warm-up exercise, if you will for a comparable campaign against Iran. In that sense, if you want to draw a historical parallel, it’s much like the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s where forces on both sides of the political divide in Europe and in the world gave support either to the Spanish Republic, that is to the elected government, or to the military insurgents of Generalismo Franco. To update that parallel, just as Mexico and the Soviet Union had sent military and other aid to the Spanish Republic, so Hitler and Mussolini supplied troops and warplanes against the government. And something comparable is
occurring in Syria now where the United States and NATO allies, and there was a recent story in the British press that at least 200 special forces troops from Britain and France, leading NATO members of course, are active on the ground, and your listeners I'm sure have heard or read comparable reports. So that what you have is a proxy war by the NATO forces and their sheikdom allies in the Persian Gulf not only directly against Syria but by proxy against Iran which, as you indicated in your comments, is the ultimate target. Though as we've had occassion to discuss before on your show, John, the other two targets of the campaign against Syria are of course Russia and China, you know diplomatically at this point. But one wonders if the Russian North Caucasus or China’s Xinjiang province could not be made into the next Syria at some point in the future.
What is NATO’s position on intervention by Russia and China in Syria and Iran?
There is no question about military intervention by Russia and China at this point but if you are talking about Russia and China’s defense of international law in the cases of both Syria and Iran, the position of NATO, which has not been formulated as a collective position by the alliance, but certainly listening to the statements by the foreign ministers and the heads of states of the major NATO powers, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and others, it’s patently obvious that Russia and China are being criticized and in fact are being excoriated for having the alleged temerity to defend the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of other members of the United Nations such as Syria and Iran. So, the NATO members acting in collusion if not completely collectively under the banner of NATO are criticizing, and more than criticizing, attempting to politically, and diplomatically isolate Russia and China using Syria as a pretext.
That was PART I of the interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
September 5, 2012
NATO holds secret meeting approving Syrian operation - interview
John Robles
Recorded on September 3, 2012
Audio at URL above
Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO, and among the topics he touched upon was a secret meeting by NATO which apparently approved military operations against Syria. Mr. Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically using Syria as a pretext.
NATO has decided to stop training Afghan soldiers. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what you know about that? That seems to be the latest development. They’ve been very quiet lately, which worries me.
It worries us both, John. Yes, in fact NATO has suspended, I suppose, what’s called the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan to develop, I guess, a more comprehensive and reliable system of, to use their own word, "vetting" potential recruits for the Afghan National Army and this is after, as your listeners know, an unprecedented series of so-called “green on blue” attacks by Afghan military personnel against U.S. and other NATO forces in the country. Simultaneously the United States’ armed forces in Afghanistan have announced that they are going to suspend if not terminate the training of Afghan police personnel, so it signals the West falling deeper and deeper into an intractable quagmire in South Asia.
Would you characterize this as part of an overall failure of U.S. policy and NATO policy in Afghanistan?
Yes, it’s a demonstrable, it's a signal indication of a catastrophic failure in Afghanistan of course. On October 7th, which is to say next month, the U.S. and NATO will be in Afghanistan for their 11th year and it’s certainly not produced any successful results. It’s led to the dislocation, impoverishment and in many instances killing of Afghan civilians without any measureable achievements even according to what the West itself claimed it intended to do in Afghanistan when it first sent troops there on October 7th 2001. However, I should mention, we are talking about a quiet NATO and for the most part they have been, arguably since the summit here in Chicago in May, but certainly over the last month or so, nevertheless, NATO is about to launch fairly large-scale air exercises, a series of air exercises in Czech Republic, something called Ramstein Rover 2012, which will include the participation of 12 [actually 16] nations, presumably both NATO
full member states and partners, and this is a test of what are called Forward Air Controllers by NATO, by the United States Joint Terminal Air Controllers. These are the people who call in air support including attacks in Afghanistan. So, the fact that such a large-scale air exercise clearly targeted either towards Afghanistan specifically, John, or with applicability for an Afghan-style operation elsewhere in the world afterwards, suggests that the US and NATO plans for Afghanistan have certainly not ceased and contrary to pledges that both the U.S. and NATO will draw down or withdraw troops from Afghanistan in two years it certainly suggests that they are planning ongoing military operations.
On Saturday September 1st an article was published on the Internet. They say that NATO has secretly authorized an attack on Syria. Do you know anything about that?
Yes, I do. It’s by Gordon Duff who is a former US intelligence [military] official. It’s actually quite a valuable work. In the article he talks about a meeting of NATO’s Military Committee in recent days where they had two topics on their agenda, one was Greenland, which he passes over quickly as that's not of primary importance, but the second was on Syria. And what Duff indicates in his article rather convincingly, I'm persuaded, is that NATO is elaborating plans for military action in, and against, Syria. I think it’s noteworthy that the meeting of the Military Committee that the author refers to is nowhere addressed on the NATO websites, including on the main NATO homepage. I don’t know how Duff gained access to that information, but certainly it suggests that NATO is keeping a low profile so as not to divulge what its plans may be.
I’ve seen some reports say that NATO is actually targeting Bashar Assad and the Ayatollah of Iran for regime change. Do you know anything about that?
You know, it’s nothing that we're going to see NATO openly acknowledge but it’s common wisdom at this point, or conventional wisdom that, to use the expression that's current, the road to Teheran runs through Damascus, which is to say that the proxy war by NATO forces and their allies amongst the Arab Gulf sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf is, say, a warm-up exercise, if you will for a comparable campaign against Iran. In that sense, if you want to draw a historical parallel, it’s much like the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s where forces on both sides of the political divide in Europe and in the world gave support either to the Spanish Republic, that is to the elected government, or to the military insurgents of Generalismo Franco. To update that parallel, just as Mexico and the Soviet Union had sent military and other aid to the Spanish Republic, so Hitler and Mussolini supplied troops and warplanes against the government. And something comparable is
occurring in Syria now where the United States and NATO allies, and there was a recent story in the British press that at least 200 special forces troops from Britain and France, leading NATO members of course, are active on the ground, and your listeners I'm sure have heard or read comparable reports. So that what you have is a proxy war by the NATO forces and their sheikdom allies in the Persian Gulf not only directly against Syria but by proxy against Iran which, as you indicated in your comments, is the ultimate target. Though as we've had occassion to discuss before on your show, John, the other two targets of the campaign against Syria are of course Russia and China, you know diplomatically at this point. But one wonders if the Russian North Caucasus or China’s Xinjiang province could not be made into the next Syria at some point in the future.
What is NATO’s position on intervention by Russia and China in Syria and Iran?
There is no question about military intervention by Russia and China at this point but if you are talking about Russia and China’s defense of international law in the cases of both Syria and Iran, the position of NATO, which has not been formulated as a collective position by the alliance, but certainly listening to the statements by the foreign ministers and the heads of states of the major NATO powers, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and others, it’s patently obvious that Russia and China are being criticized and in fact are being excoriated for having the alleged temerity to defend the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of other members of the United Nations such as Syria and Iran. So, the NATO members acting in collusion if not completely collectively under the banner of NATO are criticizing, and more than criticizing, attempting to politically, and diplomatically isolate Russia and China using Syria as a pretext.
That was PART I of the interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 5, 2012 7:59 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thenews.
The News
September 5, 2012
The Syrian debacle
Iftekhar A Khan
====
Britain has already given £5 million in aid to opposition groups in Syria, and its special envoy to the Syrian opposition, John Wilks, has remained in contact with FSA members in Istanbul. Western powers continue to change the regimes of countries which cannot defend themselves and they do it too often and too brazenly.
It is strange for the Arab League, which also contains repressive monarchies and dynastic emirates, to declare one of its member-states tyrannical.
====
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are engaged in a proxy war at the behest of the United States to destabilise Syria and change the regime in Damascus. Saudi Arabia bankrolls the insurgency, Qatar plays a role similar to the one it played in the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and Turkey provides bases to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting President Bashar al-Assad. It is incredible how the FSA irregulars inflict heavy casualties on the battle-hardened Syrian army and knock out its tanks and helicopter-gunships
The United States, Britain and France have thrown their might behind the Syrian rebels by providing them intelligence support and sophisticated weapons. The clandestine operation going on for the last 17 months against Syria is meant to weaken the influence of Iran in the region.
The Iranian leadership refuses to acquiesce to imperial designs in the Middle East, unlike the oil-rich sheikdoms. The pattern of Western intervention in Syria is all too familiar. It is the same old pretext of weapons of mass destruction as it was in Iraq, and the same powers - mainly the US, the UK and France.
The Iraq invasion in March 2003 was fresh in people’s minds when Libya was attacked by Western forces and its leader Muammar Qaddafi lynched. The new candidate for regime change is Syria and its leader Bashar al-Assad. In Libya the opposition was the Transitional National Council (TNC), and in Syria it is the Syrian National Council (SNC). Tony Blair played out the US agenda in Iraq, and David Cameron is faithfully doing the same in Syria.
Britain has already given £5 million in aid to opposition groups in Syria, and its special envoy to the Syrian opposition, John Wilks, has remained in contact with FSA members in Istanbul. Western powers continue to change the regimes of countries which cannot defend themselves and they do it too often and too brazenly.
The recently held summit of the OIC in Mecca has suspended Syria’s membership and backed calls for arming Syrian rebels to launch offensives against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has accused Assad of acts of repression against his own people. It is strange for the Arab League, which also contains repressive monarchies and dynastic emirates, to declare one of its member-states tyrannical. Who knows the scenario could change for the worse for Muslim countries which are now instigating rebellion in Syria.
For instance, what would happen if the Western media suddenly began to advocate the arrival of democracy in, say, Saudi Arabia, asking it to hold elections? And CNN and The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, known for influencing US foreign policy, could take up the sensitive issue of emancipation of women in the ultra-conservative Saudi society and insist that Saudi Arabia granted them the right to vote. Ridding Afghan women of their blue cloak was part of the lofty agenda of the US invasion in Afghanistan, although the cloak stays when the invaders pack up to leave.
It is sad that the Muslim countries allow themselves to be part of campaigns against other Muslim countries because of sectarian prejudices. Iran has always assured Saudi Arabia and the emirates that it has no ill will towards them. Without outside support Qatar can hardly face Iran. In fact, Qatar is so vulnerable on its own that if threatened by Iran it would have to back off...
The writer is a freelance columnist based in Lahore.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
The News
September 5, 2012
The Syrian debacle
Iftekhar A Khan
====
Britain has already given £5 million in aid to opposition groups in Syria, and its special envoy to the Syrian opposition, John Wilks, has remained in contact with FSA members in Istanbul. Western powers continue to change the regimes of countries which cannot defend themselves and they do it too often and too brazenly.
It is strange for the Arab League, which also contains repressive monarchies and dynastic emirates, to declare one of its member-states tyrannical.
====
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are engaged in a proxy war at the behest of the United States to destabilise Syria and change the regime in Damascus. Saudi Arabia bankrolls the insurgency, Qatar plays a role similar to the one it played in the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and Turkey provides bases to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting President Bashar al-Assad. It is incredible how the FSA irregulars inflict heavy casualties on the battle-hardened Syrian army and knock out its tanks and helicopter-gunships
The United States, Britain and France have thrown their might behind the Syrian rebels by providing them intelligence support and sophisticated weapons. The clandestine operation going on for the last 17 months against Syria is meant to weaken the influence of Iran in the region.
The Iranian leadership refuses to acquiesce to imperial designs in the Middle East, unlike the oil-rich sheikdoms. The pattern of Western intervention in Syria is all too familiar. It is the same old pretext of weapons of mass destruction as it was in Iraq, and the same powers - mainly the US, the UK and France.
The Iraq invasion in March 2003 was fresh in people’s minds when Libya was attacked by Western forces and its leader Muammar Qaddafi lynched. The new candidate for regime change is Syria and its leader Bashar al-Assad. In Libya the opposition was the Transitional National Council (TNC), and in Syria it is the Syrian National Council (SNC). Tony Blair played out the US agenda in Iraq, and David Cameron is faithfully doing the same in Syria.
Britain has already given £5 million in aid to opposition groups in Syria, and its special envoy to the Syrian opposition, John Wilks, has remained in contact with FSA members in Istanbul. Western powers continue to change the regimes of countries which cannot defend themselves and they do it too often and too brazenly.
The recently held summit of the OIC in Mecca has suspended Syria’s membership and backed calls for arming Syrian rebels to launch offensives against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has accused Assad of acts of repression against his own people. It is strange for the Arab League, which also contains repressive monarchies and dynastic emirates, to declare one of its member-states tyrannical. Who knows the scenario could change for the worse for Muslim countries which are now instigating rebellion in Syria.
For instance, what would happen if the Western media suddenly began to advocate the arrival of democracy in, say, Saudi Arabia, asking it to hold elections? And CNN and The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, known for influencing US foreign policy, could take up the sensitive issue of emancipation of women in the ultra-conservative Saudi society and insist that Saudi Arabia granted them the right to vote. Ridding Afghan women of their blue cloak was part of the lofty agenda of the US invasion in Afghanistan, although the cloak stays when the invaders pack up to leave.
It is sad that the Muslim countries allow themselves to be part of campaigns against other Muslim countries because of sectarian prejudices. Iran has always assured Saudi Arabia and the emirates that it has no ill will towards them. Without outside support Qatar can hardly face Iran. In fact, Qatar is so vulnerable on its own that if threatened by Iran it would have to back off...
The writer is a freelance columnist based in Lahore.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 5, 2012 7:59 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.
Trend News Agency
September 5, 2012
Kazakhstan attaches importance to NATO
D. Mukhtarov
====
The grand opening of the tenth peacekeeping exercise Steppe Eagle, which will be attended by members of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, the U.S., the UK and Tajikistan, as well as representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Ukraine will be held on Thursday in accordance with one of the objectives of the IPAP.
====
Astana: Kazakhstan attaches much importance to continuing the dialogue with NATO in ensuring regional and global security, Defense Minister Adilbek Dzhaksybekov said during a meeting with NATO Parliamentary Assembly Chairman Karl Lamers, the ministry said on Wednesday.
The third cycle of the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO for 2012-2013, prepared by the Ministry of Defense of Kazakhstan together with government bodies and that included new activities in the military sphere was approved in August.
The sides expressed confidence that the implementation of the plan will contribute to the development potential of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, especially its peacekeeping component.
The grand opening of the tenth peacekeeping exercise Steppe Eagle, which will be attended by members of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, the U.S., the UK and Tajikistan, as well as representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Ukraine will be held on Thursday in accordance with one of the objectives of the IPAP.
Dzhaksybekov also mentioned the development of the Training Center Partnership for Peace, which became one of the main tools for teaching methods and NATO standards for Kazakh soldiers.
Lamers, in turn, noted Kazakhstan's significant contribution to strengthening stability and security.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Trend News Agency
September 5, 2012
Kazakhstan attaches importance to NATO
D. Mukhtarov
====
The grand opening of the tenth peacekeeping exercise Steppe Eagle, which will be attended by members of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, the U.S., the UK and Tajikistan, as well as representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Ukraine will be held on Thursday in accordance with one of the objectives of the IPAP.
====
Astana: Kazakhstan attaches much importance to continuing the dialogue with NATO in ensuring regional and global security, Defense Minister Adilbek Dzhaksybekov said during a meeting with NATO Parliamentary Assembly Chairman Karl Lamers, the ministry said on Wednesday.
The third cycle of the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO for 2012-2013, prepared by the Ministry of Defense of Kazakhstan together with government bodies and that included new activities in the military sphere was approved in August.
The sides expressed confidence that the implementation of the plan will contribute to the development potential of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, especially its peacekeeping component.
The grand opening of the tenth peacekeeping exercise Steppe Eagle, which will be attended by members of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, the U.S., the UK and Tajikistan, as well as representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Ukraine will be held on Thursday in accordance with one of the objectives of the IPAP.
Dzhaksybekov also mentioned the development of the Training Center Partnership for Peace, which became one of the main tools for teaching methods and NATO standards for Kazakh soldiers.
Lamers, in turn, noted Kazakhstan's significant contribution to strengthening stability and security.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 5, 2012 8:12 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 6, 2012
European intellectuals’ fears of a new war: dangerous lack of self-critique
Dmitry Babich
====
When reading these articles, one gets an impression that the dangerous war nearing us is not a man-made affair, but some natural disaster that comes from nowhere. There is no sign of repentance or self-critique, despite the fact that this time the destabilization again came from Western Europe – just like during the previous two world wars, both started by Western European powers.
[I]f Mr. Fischer means the crisis of international law, it was HIS support for the illegitimate war against Yugoslavia in 1999 that brought to fruition the crisis that we saw in Libya and continue to see in Syria.
[O]ne of the saddest details about the World War I was that there were so few European intellectuals who raised their voice against the war in 1914, dismissing lots of mutual (and largely imaginary) fears that led to this fratricidal conflict.
Unfortunately, some modern European intellectuals play an incendiary role, raising the flames of unfounded fears instead of extinguishing them.
====
There is something substantial that changed in Europe’s intellectual landscape during the last 1-2 months: talk of a new “big war” (some intellectuals even say “world war”) is no longer taboo.
“The Drums of War in the Middle East” – that is the title that the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer has chosen for his opinion piece for Project Syndicate. “This World War that Ambushes Us” – the prolific French writer Max Gallo, former secretary of state in the French government under president Francois Mitterand in the 1980s, echoes Fischer’s fears in the French daily Le Figaro. “The Virus of a Total War” – that is the title of an article by Gueorgy Mirsky, a veteran pro-Western Russian Arabist and a brilliant intellectual, in the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
What happened? When reading these articles, one gets an impression that the dangerous war nearing us is not a man-made affair, but some natural disaster that comes from nowhere. There is no sign of repentance or self-critique, despite the fact that this time the destabilization again came from Western Europe – just like during the previous two world wars, both started by Western European powers.
“No one can predict in which direction the Islamist Sunni president of Egypt and his Islamist parliamentary majority will take the country,” writes Fischer, adding a bleak prediction of “a combination of grave economic and political crises, that may produce a cumulative effect at some mega-decisive moment.” At the end of the paragraph he adds: "The Sunni Islamists are drastically changing the regional politics [of the Middle East]. This new regional realignment of forces does not have to be anti-Western, but it will certainly become anti-Western if Israel or the United States attack Iran militarily.”
How very interesting. Can Mr. Fischer, one of the architects of modern Western foreign policy, name just one of the aforementioned crises that would not be Western-made? Who hastily supported the so called “Arab spring” in Egypt and Libya despite Russia’s warnings and doubts? Wasn’t it this support, as well as the Western engagement on the rebel Sunni side in the mutiny in Syria that brought about a dramatic growth of Islamist Sunni influence in regional politics?
Which “economic and political” crises does Fischer mean? If he means the debt crisis in the Eurozone and the rising unemployment in Greece and Spain, it is a direct consequence of HIS policies, as well as the policies of his colleagues from the European Union. (It was under Mr. Fischer as the foreign minister that the euro was introduced and whole branches of traditional European industries were made redundant by EU integration.
Mr. Fischer’s negative attitude to Russia and especially to its president, Vladimir Putin, is well known. But, strangely, in his article Fischer in fact voices the same concerns which Putin voiced in his electoral campaign in winter this year – with a six months long delay. The arbitrary nature of the joint handling of the Iranian nuclear issue by Israel and Iran, the lack of regard for international law and long-established rules of foreign policy – Putin spoke about those things months earlier, but at the time these concerns were dismissed by European politicians, including Mr. Fischer, as “anti-Western propaganda.”
“If Iran is determined to prevent regime change in Syria by all means at its disposal, does it mean that the militias of Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon will get involved in the civil war in Syria? Will such an intervention revive the memories of the civil war in Iran, that took place in 1970s and 1980s?” Fischer asks rhetorically. There is no doubt that both of his fears have a very high chance of materializing, but whose fault will it be? Who destabilizes Syria and continuously harasses Iran by economic sanctions and aggressive political pressure? The EU and the US. Who brought about the creation of Hezbollah? The Israeli attack against Lebanon in 1982. But there is no word about it in Fischer’s text. And, of course, no shadow of remorse.
Max Gallo, also a former government member, but now more known as a historian and a political thinker, talks about a new global conflict – a disaster of the same proportions as World War II, which, as he concedes, shaped his writer’s personality. “The UN and the WTO are powerless,” he complains in his article for Le Figaro, painting a picture of global disorder not only in the Middle East, but also in his native Europe. The question looms however: who conducted the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq without the UN’s approval and who barred Russia from entering the WTO for 13 years under artificial pretexts?
Max Gallo writes that he is afraid of a chain reaction of conflicts, which, starting in Syria, may get other countries involved – with the Middle East playing the same role of a fuse that the Balkans played in 1914. A wise comparison, but why is Mr. Gallo so pessimistic about Europe’s ability to stop this chain reaction? After all, one of the saddest details about the World War I was that there were so few European intellectuals who raised their voice against the war in 1914, dismissing lots of mutual (and largely imaginary) fears that led to this fratricidal conflict.
Unfortunately, some modern European intellectuals play an incendiary role, raising the flames of unfounded fears instead of extinguishing them.
Here is one example. Andre Glucksmann, France’s most anti-Russian “philosopher,” when answering questions from Der Spiegel magazine this week, says: “In this anarchist context, Europe must reaffirm its power and take a position of attack, not defense, against the threats facing it. Putin’s Russia, with its desire to reconquer a part of its former power, is one such threat.”
Here we are again in 1914, with somber predictions and invented enemies.
Voice of Russia
September 6, 2012
European intellectuals’ fears of a new war: dangerous lack of self-critique
Dmitry Babich
====
When reading these articles, one gets an impression that the dangerous war nearing us is not a man-made affair, but some natural disaster that comes from nowhere. There is no sign of repentance or self-critique, despite the fact that this time the destabilization again came from Western Europe – just like during the previous two world wars, both started by Western European powers.
[I]f Mr. Fischer means the crisis of international law, it was HIS support for the illegitimate war against Yugoslavia in 1999 that brought to fruition the crisis that we saw in Libya and continue to see in Syria.
[O]ne of the saddest details about the World War I was that there were so few European intellectuals who raised their voice against the war in 1914, dismissing lots of mutual (and largely imaginary) fears that led to this fratricidal conflict.
Unfortunately, some modern European intellectuals play an incendiary role, raising the flames of unfounded fears instead of extinguishing them.
====
There is something substantial that changed in Europe’s intellectual landscape during the last 1-2 months: talk of a new “big war” (some intellectuals even say “world war”) is no longer taboo.
“The Drums of War in the Middle East” – that is the title that the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer has chosen for his opinion piece for Project Syndicate. “This World War that Ambushes Us” – the prolific French writer Max Gallo, former secretary of state in the French government under president Francois Mitterand in the 1980s, echoes Fischer’s fears in the French daily Le Figaro. “The Virus of a Total War” – that is the title of an article by Gueorgy Mirsky, a veteran pro-Western Russian Arabist and a brilliant intellectual, in the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
What happened? When reading these articles, one gets an impression that the dangerous war nearing us is not a man-made affair, but some natural disaster that comes from nowhere. There is no sign of repentance or self-critique, despite the fact that this time the destabilization again came from Western Europe – just like during the previous two world wars, both started by Western European powers.
“No one can predict in which direction the Islamist Sunni president of Egypt and his Islamist parliamentary majority will take the country,” writes Fischer, adding a bleak prediction of “a combination of grave economic and political crises, that may produce a cumulative effect at some mega-decisive moment.” At the end of the paragraph he adds: "The Sunni Islamists are drastically changing the regional politics [of the Middle East]. This new regional realignment of forces does not have to be anti-Western, but it will certainly become anti-Western if Israel or the United States attack Iran militarily.”
How very interesting. Can Mr. Fischer, one of the architects of modern Western foreign policy, name just one of the aforementioned crises that would not be Western-made? Who hastily supported the so called “Arab spring” in Egypt and Libya despite Russia’s warnings and doubts? Wasn’t it this support, as well as the Western engagement on the rebel Sunni side in the mutiny in Syria that brought about a dramatic growth of Islamist Sunni influence in regional politics?
Which “economic and political” crises does Fischer mean? If he means the debt crisis in the Eurozone and the rising unemployment in Greece and Spain, it is a direct consequence of HIS policies, as well as the policies of his colleagues from the European Union. (It was under Mr. Fischer as the foreign minister that the euro was introduced and whole branches of traditional European industries were made redundant by EU integration.
Mr. Fischer’s negative attitude to Russia and especially to its president, Vladimir Putin, is well known. But, strangely, in his article Fischer in fact voices the same concerns which Putin voiced in his electoral campaign in winter this year – with a six months long delay. The arbitrary nature of the joint handling of the Iranian nuclear issue by Israel and Iran, the lack of regard for international law and long-established rules of foreign policy – Putin spoke about those things months earlier, but at the time these concerns were dismissed by European politicians, including Mr. Fischer, as “anti-Western propaganda.”
“If Iran is determined to prevent regime change in Syria by all means at its disposal, does it mean that the militias of Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon will get involved in the civil war in Syria? Will such an intervention revive the memories of the civil war in Iran, that took place in 1970s and 1980s?” Fischer asks rhetorically. There is no doubt that both of his fears have a very high chance of materializing, but whose fault will it be? Who destabilizes Syria and continuously harasses Iran by economic sanctions and aggressive political pressure? The EU and the US. Who brought about the creation of Hezbollah? The Israeli attack against Lebanon in 1982. But there is no word about it in Fischer’s text. And, of course, no shadow of remorse.
Max Gallo, also a former government member, but now more known as a historian and a political thinker, talks about a new global conflict – a disaster of the same proportions as World War II, which, as he concedes, shaped his writer’s personality. “The UN and the WTO are powerless,” he complains in his article for Le Figaro, painting a picture of global disorder not only in the Middle East, but also in his native Europe. The question looms however: who conducted the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq without the UN’s approval and who barred Russia from entering the WTO for 13 years under artificial pretexts?
Max Gallo writes that he is afraid of a chain reaction of conflicts, which, starting in Syria, may get other countries involved – with the Middle East playing the same role of a fuse that the Balkans played in 1914. A wise comparison, but why is Mr. Gallo so pessimistic about Europe’s ability to stop this chain reaction? After all, one of the saddest details about the World War I was that there were so few European intellectuals who raised their voice against the war in 1914, dismissing lots of mutual (and largely imaginary) fears that led to this fratricidal conflict.
Unfortunately, some modern European intellectuals play an incendiary role, raising the flames of unfounded fears instead of extinguishing them.
Here is one example. Andre Glucksmann, France’s most anti-Russian “philosopher,” when answering questions from Der Spiegel magazine this week, says: “In this anarchist context, Europe must reaffirm its power and take a position of attack, not defense, against the threats facing it. Putin’s Russia, with its desire to reconquer a part of its former power, is one such threat.”
Here we are again in 1914, with somber predictions and invented enemies.
