8 New Messages
Digest #4495
Messages
Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:22 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 19, 2012
Afghanistan: spinning failure as success
John Robles
The number of green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan is increasing amid widespread rioting over the American film “The Innocence of Muslims” as the US attempts to make a saving-face drawdown of troops from the country. Cooperation between “coalition” troops and the Afghans is being cut back as the attacks continue, yet the US is still trying to paint a different picture of their failure in Afghanistan.
The Western media report that this year alone there have been 37 attacks on the US, and its NATO and want-to-be NATO allies, all part of George Bush’s coalition of the willing engaged in their endless world war on terror.
Just like at the beginning of the invasion when the US and the Western media reacted with horror and indignation anytime the Afghans fought back, branding them enemy combatants, then terrorists and hauling them off to their illegal torture prison, outside of the jurisdiction of international law, in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the media in the West still don’t seem to get it. They continue to react with shock and indignation whenever their Afghan “allies,” yes that is the term they use now for the countrymen of the country they invaded, attack "coalition" forces.
Let’s stop for a minute here and put things into the proper perspective. Unlike the Soviet Union, whose intervention was officially requested by the Afghan government, the United States and NATO were never asked to enter the country. That’s one. Two: the invasion of Afghanistan, and that is what it was no matter how the West hates to admit it, was never sanctioned internationally or even within the US, and Afghanistan never threatened the US, never committed an act of aggression against the US warranting invasion, and last and most importantly was never involved in the questionable events of 9-11.
The Western media says that the attacks by Afghan “allies” have killed 51 “international service members” this year with 12 attacks in August leaving 15 dead. Yet nowhere can you find an accurate body count of the innocent Afghan people, including women and children, who have died at the hands of the coalition. This is simple to explain and is part of the US propaganda war; the people back in Kansas don’t want to hear about it, the Afghan people are an abstraction, less than human, their lives do not count as much as those of the “coalition” forces. If the American people were to find out what the US is really doing in Afghanistan, they might become upset and call for an end to the military adventure.
The US’ vested interest in hiding the truth, including about Afghanistan, is obvious by the US reaction to Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, yours truly, and anyone else who gets too close to the truth. The war should be over soon, you may think, at least that is what they want you to believe. Not hardly, despite the fact that the US is to announce that 33,000 troops who were part of the “surge” three years ago have left the country, this actually means nothing. The number of troops will remain at close to invasion level with 68,000 US troops still in-country. That is the great pull-out?
The Western media doesn’t mention this very real and provable fact; they continue to complain about Afghan "attacks." Either they just doesn’t get it or they actually believe what they are writing when it comes to Afghanistan.
This is completely understandable as no one in the US wants to hear that they illegally invaded and decimated a country for no real reason, or at least not for the reasons they were lied to about and led to believe. No one wants to hear that their presence is not wanted and that they are aggressors and invaders: invaders who attacked one of the poorest and most defenseless countries in the world illegally and on false pretexts and then stayed there for more than a decade killing the population without being able to claim any kind of victory.
The media in the West complains that the spike in “insider” attacks is somehow souring relations between the US and its Afghan allies who are fighting side by side. Against whom? Against other Afghan people. The once-CIA-backed Taliban? The reality is that the US invaded their country, and is killing their people, so how is it that an Afghan could, in his right mind, fight alongside the invaders? Well apparently many are now taking the first chance they have to fight back. Not against their Afghan brothers and sisters but against the invaders.
This is something the US just doesn’t seem to understand. Even if there weren’t thousands of cases of innocent civilians being killed and the constant “scandals” that go unpunished, incidents of urinating on corpses, collecting body parts as trophies and the like, the US would never be welcomed in the country. They are invaders.
In the latest in a spate of what are now called “green-on-blue” attacks, an Afghan soldier in Helmand province opened fire on a vehicle he believed was driven by NATO soldiers, slightly wounding a foreign staff member. Also on Sunday, an Afghan police officer shot and killed four American troops in Zabul and on Saturday a member of a government-backed militia killed two British troops, also in Helmand.
Of course the escalation in violence and attacks against the Americans is being painted in a different light by officials and the press, and instead of admitting that they are completely losing control of the country and that the situation for them is growing worse by the day, people like U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are attempting to paint the increase in attacks as a sign of the decrease in power by the attackers. Panetta said while visiting Japan that the “insider attacks are the last gasp of a Taliban insurgency that has not been able to regain lost ground.” So the fact that they are attacking more means that they are in fact weaker? Ahem. Okay, but sorry if you call a black kettle white - it is still black.
Further underlining the US military adventure’s failure in Afghanistan and in their meddling in the Muslim world in general, on Tuesday September 18th a woman wearing a suicide vest blew herself up on a minibus in Kabul, killing 12 people including 7 foreigners. According to reports, the dead were mostly Russian and South African nationals. Apparently the attack was in protest of the infamous film “The Innocence of Muslims”.
In Kabul thousands of protestors clashed with police over the same film, in violence that was even worse that the outbreak that occurred at the beginning of the year over the burning of Korans by US troops.
On Monday NATO reported that it has cut the number of joint operations with Afghan soldiers and policemen in order to lessen the chance of insider attacks. This is the second such order given recently which further flies in the face of the claim that they are fighting "shoulder to shoulder" with the Afghans.
The Pentagon, for its part, has "suspended most joint field operations with Afghan forces because so many Americans are being killed by the men they are training" according to a CBS News report. This comes on the heels of a decision to end all joint patrols and operations without first obtaining approval from the command structure.
If they call that winning, I would hate to see what they call losing.
============
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 19, 2012
Afghanistan: spinning failure as success
John Robles
The number of green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan is increasing amid widespread rioting over the American film “The Innocence of Muslims” as the US attempts to make a saving-face drawdown of troops from the country. Cooperation between “coalition” troops and the Afghans is being cut back as the attacks continue, yet the US is still trying to paint a different picture of their failure in Afghanistan.
The Western media report that this year alone there have been 37 attacks on the US, and its NATO and want-to-be NATO allies, all part of George Bush’s coalition of the willing engaged in their endless world war on terror.
Just like at the beginning of the invasion when the US and the Western media reacted with horror and indignation anytime the Afghans fought back, branding them enemy combatants, then terrorists and hauling them off to their illegal torture prison, outside of the jurisdiction of international law, in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the media in the West still don’t seem to get it. They continue to react with shock and indignation whenever their Afghan “allies,” yes that is the term they use now for the countrymen of the country they invaded, attack "coalition" forces.
Let’s stop for a minute here and put things into the proper perspective. Unlike the Soviet Union, whose intervention was officially requested by the Afghan government, the United States and NATO were never asked to enter the country. That’s one. Two: the invasion of Afghanistan, and that is what it was no matter how the West hates to admit it, was never sanctioned internationally or even within the US, and Afghanistan never threatened the US, never committed an act of aggression against the US warranting invasion, and last and most importantly was never involved in the questionable events of 9-11.
The Western media says that the attacks by Afghan “allies” have killed 51 “international service members” this year with 12 attacks in August leaving 15 dead. Yet nowhere can you find an accurate body count of the innocent Afghan people, including women and children, who have died at the hands of the coalition. This is simple to explain and is part of the US propaganda war; the people back in Kansas don’t want to hear about it, the Afghan people are an abstraction, less than human, their lives do not count as much as those of the “coalition” forces. If the American people were to find out what the US is really doing in Afghanistan, they might become upset and call for an end to the military adventure.
The US’ vested interest in hiding the truth, including about Afghanistan, is obvious by the US reaction to Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, yours truly, and anyone else who gets too close to the truth. The war should be over soon, you may think, at least that is what they want you to believe. Not hardly, despite the fact that the US is to announce that 33,000 troops who were part of the “surge” three years ago have left the country, this actually means nothing. The number of troops will remain at close to invasion level with 68,000 US troops still in-country. That is the great pull-out?
The Western media doesn’t mention this very real and provable fact; they continue to complain about Afghan "attacks." Either they just doesn’t get it or they actually believe what they are writing when it comes to Afghanistan.
This is completely understandable as no one in the US wants to hear that they illegally invaded and decimated a country for no real reason, or at least not for the reasons they were lied to about and led to believe. No one wants to hear that their presence is not wanted and that they are aggressors and invaders: invaders who attacked one of the poorest and most defenseless countries in the world illegally and on false pretexts and then stayed there for more than a decade killing the population without being able to claim any kind of victory.
The media in the West complains that the spike in “insider” attacks is somehow souring relations between the US and its Afghan allies who are fighting side by side. Against whom? Against other Afghan people. The once-CIA-backed Taliban? The reality is that the US invaded their country, and is killing their people, so how is it that an Afghan could, in his right mind, fight alongside the invaders? Well apparently many are now taking the first chance they have to fight back. Not against their Afghan brothers and sisters but against the invaders.
This is something the US just doesn’t seem to understand. Even if there weren’t thousands of cases of innocent civilians being killed and the constant “scandals” that go unpunished, incidents of urinating on corpses, collecting body parts as trophies and the like, the US would never be welcomed in the country. They are invaders.
In the latest in a spate of what are now called “green-on-blue” attacks, an Afghan soldier in Helmand province opened fire on a vehicle he believed was driven by NATO soldiers, slightly wounding a foreign staff member. Also on Sunday, an Afghan police officer shot and killed four American troops in Zabul and on Saturday a member of a government-backed militia killed two British troops, also in Helmand.
Of course the escalation in violence and attacks against the Americans is being painted in a different light by officials and the press, and instead of admitting that they are completely losing control of the country and that the situation for them is growing worse by the day, people like U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are attempting to paint the increase in attacks as a sign of the decrease in power by the attackers. Panetta said while visiting Japan that the “insider attacks are the last gasp of a Taliban insurgency that has not been able to regain lost ground.” So the fact that they are attacking more means that they are in fact weaker? Ahem. Okay, but sorry if you call a black kettle white - it is still black.
Further underlining the US military adventure’s failure in Afghanistan and in their meddling in the Muslim world in general, on Tuesday September 18th a woman wearing a suicide vest blew herself up on a minibus in Kabul, killing 12 people including 7 foreigners. According to reports, the dead were mostly Russian and South African nationals. Apparently the attack was in protest of the infamous film “The Innocence of Muslims”.
In Kabul thousands of protestors clashed with police over the same film, in violence that was even worse that the outbreak that occurred at the beginning of the year over the burning of Korans by US troops.
On Monday NATO reported that it has cut the number of joint operations with Afghan soldiers and policemen in order to lessen the chance of insider attacks. This is the second such order given recently which further flies in the face of the claim that they are fighting "shoulder to shoulder" with the Afghans.
The Pentagon, for its part, has "suspended most joint field operations with Afghan forces because so many Americans are being killed by the men they are training" according to a CBS News report. This comes on the heels of a decision to end all joint patrols and operations without first obtaining approval from the command structure.
If they call that winning, I would hate to see what they call losing.
============
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 19, 2012 9:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://cominf.
Republic News Agency
September 19, 2012
What are the authorities of Georgia preparing for?
On the eve of parliamentary elections, the domestic political struggle in Georgia became extremely heated. And the trends in Georgian society are not in favor of Saakashvili.
There is a possibility that the population of the country, tired of the ill-conceived and adventurist policy of the current regime, will give their votes to "renovationists" in the person of supporters of Bidzina Ivanishvili.
Naturally, Saakashvili will never accept such a new political spectrum.
To raise his rating, he tries to use a proven script to update the Russian military threat. According to him, that will rally around Saakashvili the Georgian nation on the eve of the election.
To that end he is putting up an act with regard to the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers being held by Russia.
Tbilisi, with the help of international organizations, has launched a campaign charging Russia with preparations for an attack on Georgia under the guise of conducting maneuvers.
In Georgia demonstrative preparations for the repulsion of so-called Russian aggression are being carried out. For what are fortifications built, and why are troops and military equipment drawn up at the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
According to local residents, Georgian aircraft and unmanned planes began to penetrate into the territory of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
It is possible that Saakashvili for persuasiveness will carry out armed provocations in order to provoke a reflex action by Russian troops.
According to intelligence service sources of South Ossetia, the highest probability of these provocations may take place during the celebration of Independence Day. It will be celebrated in the 20th of September, with an invitation extended to Russian servicemen.
The same source has reported on a significant revitalization of Georgian special services last week. Another interesting fact is the replacement of Georgian policemen at border checkpoints by fighters of special mission units.
The Russian side, in order not to provoke Georgia, is conducting the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers only in its own territory; the 4th and the 7th military bases are not involved in the maneuvers. No additional Russian troops have been introduced in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This was repeatedly stated by the chief of the General Staff of Russia, by his deputy and by the commander of the Southern Military District.
And, by the way, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, in order not to give rise to accusations of Russian preparation for aggression, the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers were initially planned to be conducted on the plains and in firing grounds in the opposite direction from Georgia.
Being aware of the inadequacy of Saakashvili, it would be desirable to believe that the international community will clarify the reliability of the Georgian leader`s propaganda campaign and will put pressure on him in order to prevent further bloodshed.
============
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@
============
Republic News Agency
September 19, 2012
What are the authorities of Georgia preparing for?
On the eve of parliamentary elections, the domestic political struggle in Georgia became extremely heated. And the trends in Georgian society are not in favor of Saakashvili.
There is a possibility that the population of the country, tired of the ill-conceived and adventurist policy of the current regime, will give their votes to "renovationists" in the person of supporters of Bidzina Ivanishvili.
Naturally, Saakashvili will never accept such a new political spectrum.
To raise his rating, he tries to use a proven script to update the Russian military threat. According to him, that will rally around Saakashvili the Georgian nation on the eve of the election.
To that end he is putting up an act with regard to the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers being held by Russia.
Tbilisi, with the help of international organizations, has launched a campaign charging Russia with preparations for an attack on Georgia under the guise of conducting maneuvers.
In Georgia demonstrative preparations for the repulsion of so-called Russian aggression are being carried out. For what are fortifications built, and why are troops and military equipment drawn up at the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
According to local residents, Georgian aircraft and unmanned planes began to penetrate into the territory of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
It is possible that Saakashvili for persuasiveness will carry out armed provocations in order to provoke a reflex action by Russian troops.
According to intelligence service sources of South Ossetia, the highest probability of these provocations may take place during the celebration of Independence Day. It will be celebrated in the 20th of September, with an invitation extended to Russian servicemen.
The same source has reported on a significant revitalization of Georgian special services last week. Another interesting fact is the replacement of Georgian policemen at border checkpoints by fighters of special mission units.
The Russian side, in order not to provoke Georgia, is conducting the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers only in its own territory; the 4th and the 7th military bases are not involved in the maneuvers. No additional Russian troops have been introduced in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This was repeatedly stated by the chief of the General Staff of Russia, by his deputy and by the commander of the Southern Military District.
And, by the way, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, in order not to give rise to accusations of Russian preparation for aggression, the Caucasus-2012 maneuvers were initially planned to be conducted on the plains and in firing grounds in the opposite direction from Georgia.
Being aware of the inadequacy of Saakashvili, it would be desirable to believe that the international community will clarify the reliability of the Georgian leader`s propaganda campaign and will put pressure on him in order to prevent further bloodshed.
============
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 19, 2012 5:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.mod.
Ministry of Defence of Georgia
September 19, 2012
NATO Assessment Group positively evaluates the defence reforms
Today, the Georgian Minister of Defence has hosted the Director of Force Planning, NATO Defence Policy and Planning Directorate Frank Boland. Head of the NATO Assessment Group Mr. Boland positively assessed the fulfillmet of commitments undertaken by the Ministry of Defence of Georgia under the defence section of Planning and Review Process (PARP) and Annual National Plan (ANP).
The meeting was also attended by Staff Officer, Defence Policy and Planning, NATO HQ Gustav Vroemen. At the meeting Dimitiri Shashkini presented to the guests the new 3Ts Concept of the Defence Ministry.
In the framework of the visit, Frank Boland and Gustav Vroemen held meetings with Deputy Defence Ministers.
Since 2003 Frank Boland has been serving as Director of Force Planning, NATO Defence Policy and Planning Directorate. He is responsible for the conduct of force planning, both for allies and partners.
============
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@
============
Ministry of Defence of Georgia
September 19, 2012
NATO Assessment Group positively evaluates the defence reforms
Today, the Georgian Minister of Defence has hosted the Director of Force Planning, NATO Defence Policy and Planning Directorate Frank Boland. Head of the NATO Assessment Group Mr. Boland positively assessed the fulfillmet of commitments undertaken by the Ministry of Defence of Georgia under the defence section of Planning and Review Process (PARP) and Annual National Plan (ANP).
The meeting was also attended by Staff Officer, Defence Policy and Planning, NATO HQ Gustav Vroemen. At the meeting Dimitiri Shashkini presented to the guests the new 3Ts Concept of the Defence Ministry.
In the framework of the visit, Frank Boland and Gustav Vroemen held meetings with Deputy Defence Ministers.
Since 2003 Frank Boland has been serving as Director of Force Planning, NATO Defence Policy and Planning Directorate. He is responsible for the conduct of force planning, both for allies and partners.
============
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 19, 2012 5:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.messenge
The Messenger
September 19, 2012
Tornike Gordadze meets with NATO Deputy Secretary
State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Tornike Gordadze and Deputy Minister Elene Khoshtaria met with NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow in Brussels.
The NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, James Appathurai, also attended the meeting, the press service of the Ministry European and Euro-Atlantic Integration told InterpressNews.
The sides discussed Georgia’s NATO membership prospects and the current political situation.
NATO representatives gave a positive assessment to the ongoing reforms in Georgia and emphasized the positive dynamics in Georgia-NATO relations. Security issues were also discussed at the meeting.
============
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 Messenger
September 19, 2012
Tornike Gordadze meets with NATO Deputy Secretary
State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Tornike Gordadze and Deputy Minister Elene Khoshtaria met with NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow in Brussels.
The NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, James Appathurai, also attended the meeting, the press service of the Ministry European and Euro-Atlantic Integration told InterpressNews.
The sides discussed Georgia’s NATO membership prospects and the current political situation.
NATO representatives gave a positive assessment to the ongoing reforms in Georgia and emphasized the positive dynamics in Georgia-NATO relations. Security issues were also discussed at the meeting.
============
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 19, 2012 5:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 19, 2012
The Friends of Syria: whose foes are they?
Pyotr Iskanderov
====
Washington wants the [UN} envoy to have no influence on military and political issues in Syria, giving the US and NATO a carte blanche.
So, the West claims that all it wants is to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and enhance democracy there, but the very nature of the anti-Assad coalition puts in doubt these good intentions.
====
The Friends of Syria group is to meet in the Netherlands Thursday. This group of countries and bodies supports Syria’s opposition in its struggle to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
The session will be held amid escalating conflict in the country and a new UN envoy for Syria, ex-Algeria’s Foreign Minister, Lakhdar Brahimi, taking up his office.
Our political observer Pyotr Iskenderov comments on the situation.
The Friends of Syria was initiated by France’s leader Nicolas Sarkozy who openly spoke about his intention to apply the Libyan scenario to Damascus. Before striking Libya, NATO gathered a collection of countries and organizations to ensure support of its actions. Then, France, the UK and the US were strongly backed by the Arab League, mainly Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those who masterminded the operation knew that if it had been initiated by Arab countries, this would have sparked a conflict between the West and the Muslim world.
The administration of Barack Obama contrasted to George W. Bush is pursuing a more exquisite foreign policy. It keeps emphasizing that after withdrawing its troops from Iraq, all it cares about is Afghanistan. In other hot spots, like Libya or Syria, the US prefers to operate through its allies, mainly France, the UK or the Arab League, being behind the operation.
This worked in Libya and could well work with Syria but it’s more complicated to mount military interference in Damascus than in Libya back in 2011. This time there is no UN Security Council resolution which has at least an subtext allowing an operation. In the case of Libya it was a no-fly zone imposed by the UN, but this time Russia and China vetoed UN resolutions against Syria. So, the move was taken at creating a broad though quite vague coalition of countries, activists and bodies to internationally legitimize pressure put on Damascus.
Recently, Syria has attempted to reinforce ties with other international unions, less broad but more diverse. In the run-up to the Netherlands meeting, a contact group on Syria met in Cairo. It features Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey which treat Assad’s regime differently and are all key players in the region.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi proposed to send the group’s own observers to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict without foreign intervention.
It was quite timely, as in August the UN and the West decided to withdraw its observers from Syria.
However, the West obviously will do its best to prevent countries which it doesn’t control from monitoring the situation in Syria.
As some UN leaks reveal, delegates from the West were the ones skeptical about the necessity of a UN envoy at all.
Richard Gowan of New York University stated:
"I doubt that any U.N. envoy can really prevent the current conflict from getting worse, although the U.N. has an absolute obligation to keep up efforts to get humanitarian aid into the country alongside the Red Cross and Red Crescent."
This means that Washington wants the envoy to have no influence on military and political issues in Syria, giving the US and NATO a carte blanche.
So, the West claims that all it wants is to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and enhance democracy there, but the very nature of the anti-Assad coalition puts in doubt these good intentions.
============
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 19, 2012
The Friends of Syria: whose foes are they?
Pyotr Iskanderov
====
Washington wants the [UN} envoy to have no influence on military and political issues in Syria, giving the US and NATO a carte blanche.
So, the West claims that all it wants is to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and enhance democracy there, but the very nature of the anti-Assad coalition puts in doubt these good intentions.
====
The Friends of Syria group is to meet in the Netherlands Thursday. This group of countries and bodies supports Syria’s opposition in its struggle to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
The session will be held amid escalating conflict in the country and a new UN envoy for Syria, ex-Algeria’s Foreign Minister, Lakhdar Brahimi, taking up his office.
Our political observer Pyotr Iskenderov comments on the situation.
The Friends of Syria was initiated by France’s leader Nicolas Sarkozy who openly spoke about his intention to apply the Libyan scenario to Damascus. Before striking Libya, NATO gathered a collection of countries and organizations to ensure support of its actions. Then, France, the UK and the US were strongly backed by the Arab League, mainly Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those who masterminded the operation knew that if it had been initiated by Arab countries, this would have sparked a conflict between the West and the Muslim world.
The administration of Barack Obama contrasted to George W. Bush is pursuing a more exquisite foreign policy. It keeps emphasizing that after withdrawing its troops from Iraq, all it cares about is Afghanistan. In other hot spots, like Libya or Syria, the US prefers to operate through its allies, mainly France, the UK or the Arab League, being behind the operation.
This worked in Libya and could well work with Syria but it’s more complicated to mount military interference in Damascus than in Libya back in 2011. This time there is no UN Security Council resolution which has at least an subtext allowing an operation. In the case of Libya it was a no-fly zone imposed by the UN, but this time Russia and China vetoed UN resolutions against Syria. So, the move was taken at creating a broad though quite vague coalition of countries, activists and bodies to internationally legitimize pressure put on Damascus.
Recently, Syria has attempted to reinforce ties with other international unions, less broad but more diverse. In the run-up to the Netherlands meeting, a contact group on Syria met in Cairo. It features Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey which treat Assad’s regime differently and are all key players in the region.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi proposed to send the group’s own observers to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict without foreign intervention.
It was quite timely, as in August the UN and the West decided to withdraw its observers from Syria.
However, the West obviously will do its best to prevent countries which it doesn’t control from monitoring the situation in Syria.
As some UN leaks reveal, delegates from the West were the ones skeptical about the necessity of a UN envoy at all.
Richard Gowan of New York University stated:
"I doubt that any U.N. envoy can really prevent the current conflict from getting worse, although the U.N. has an absolute obligation to keep up efforts to get humanitarian aid into the country alongside the Red Cross and Red Crescent."
This means that Washington wants the envoy to have no influence on military and political issues in Syria, giving the US and NATO a carte blanche.
So, the West claims that all it wants is to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and enhance democracy there, but the very nature of the anti-Assad coalition puts in doubt these good intentions.
============
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 19, 2012 6:05 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://dawn.
Dawn
September 19, 2012
Nato under siege
Najmuddin A Shaikh*
The furore in the Muslim world over the vicious trailer of the Innocence of Muslims, leading to the death of the US ambassador and three other US embassy officials in Libya, was only one facet of the hebdomas horribilis, or horrible week, that the Americans have suffered.
Much could be written about what this will mean for America’s relations with the Muslim world and Pakistan in particular, but in this article the focus is on the other facet of the ‘horrible week’ — the developments in Afghanistan over the past few days.
On Friday and Saturday, in two separate green-on-blue attacks, six coalition soldiers were killed by Afghan security personnel.
This brought to 51 the total number of Nato troops killed in such incidents in 2012 and follows the 13 deaths under similar circumstances in August.
So far the Americans had been expressing a measure of satisfaction with the steps that the Afghans were taking to recheck the background of recruits in the Afghan forces to suspend those suspected of having ties with the insurgents. Booklets were also issued to Afghan forces on cultural differences that urged Afghans not to take umbrage at some of the things American soldiers did.
Now this latest set of insider attacks has prompted a harsher reaction, with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey stating bluntly that the Afghan authorities have to take the problem seriously.
Whatever the Americans may ask for, the fact is that there is little that the Afghans will be able to do given the unwieldy size the Afghan security forces have acquired and given the American insistence on enlarging the Afghan Local Police from 16,000 to 30,000. It is said that recruitment has now been suspended; but since the Americans do see it as a means of countering the Taliban in the rural areas this suspension is likely to be lifted.
On Sept 11, probably to mark the 9/11 anniversary, the Taliban destroyed a heavy transport helicopter at Bagram base, killing three Afghan soldiers and wounding a number of Americans. Attacks on Bagram from outside the base have happened before — most notably about a month ago when Dempsey’s transport aircraft was damaged. This time, however, it seemed that the Americans were more concerned by the accuracy of the attack.
Nevertheless, this attack was far less important than the one launched by 15 insurgents on what was regarded as the “impregnable” British base, Camp Bastion, in Helmand. Not only did the insurgents, wearing US military uniforms, penetrate the defences but in something eerily reminiscent of the Mehran base tragedy in Karachi succeeded in their attack. In addition to killing two American marines, they destroyed six Harrier jets valued at $30m each, three refuelling stations and a number of aircraft hangars.
Helmand, it must be remembered, was one of the provinces in which the ‘surge’ was supposed to have broken the back of the Taliban resistance.
The Taliban have also issued a call on their website for increased attacks in Afghanistan, specifically on US forces, to avenge the aforementioned anti-Muslim film. If nothing else, one can expect that a few more Afghan soldiers will cause green-on-blue incidents.
Relations with President Karzai touched a new low when the latter condemned the said film and implicitly held the American administration responsible, but failed to condemn the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi. He is also at loggerheads with the Americans regarding their insistence, even while handing over control of Bagram prison holding some 60 high-value prisoners.
As if this were not enough, Karzai also issued a scathing criticism of the air raid in Laghman province on Sunday where the Americans conceded that while the attack was on insurgents, there had been civilian fatalities, which according to the Afghans included nine women and girls. The International Security Assistance Force has accepted full responsibility and will presumably pay compensation but this will be fresh fodder for the anti-American sentiment that seems to be growing stronger by the day in Afghanistan as much as it is in other Muslim countries.
British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, who was visiting Camp Bastion just a couple of days before the insurgent attack, claimed in an interview to the Guardian that his commanders were now advising that British troops could be withdrawn more quickly than originally thought. It is probable that the major part of the 9,000 British troops now in Afghanistan will be withdrawn in 2013 leaving only a skeleton force in place till full withdrawal in 2014.
Interestingly, Hammond also spent some time in the interview talking about the urgent need for reconciliation. He said: “The Afghan government needed to do much more to bring about a political settlement with the insurgents because the diplomatic effort was lagging behind the military campaign” and that any peace in Afghanistan will need to involve “reaching out Northern Ireland-style to at least the moderate part of the insurgency, to try to bring it inside through reconciliation and integration”.
He suggested that the “Afghan government needs to do more and the neighbours who have influence [Pakistan] also need to maintain pressure on those parties...to come to the table”.
Speaking of the objectives of the British in Afghanistan, he maintained that Al Qaeda having been “eliminated” it would not be right to ask British troops to risk their lives for nation-building. His view was: “Even if we had achieved nothing lasting, every year that goes by keeping the bombers at bay, keeping them off our streets, is a significant achievement in itself. But we have clearly built the basics of a future that will deny the space of Afghanistan to those who would seek to harm us.”
The British do from time to time have differences with the Americans. Hammond said as much when he asserted that “tracking people down and removing them from the battlefield” was not the best way of finding a settlement, calling into question the American campaign to eliminate mid-level commanders.
One assumes he was reflecting the views of the Nato alliance as a whole. If so, it would be fair to suggest that not only will Nato forces face greater military difficulty in the months ahead but the maintenance of a residual American military presence after 2014 may also be called into question.
For Pakistan this adds to the urgency of promoting reconciliation and doing whatever lies in its power to make this happen.
*The writer is a former foreign secretary.
============
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@
============
Dawn
September 19, 2012
Nato under siege
Najmuddin A Shaikh*
The furore in the Muslim world over the vicious trailer of the Innocence of Muslims, leading to the death of the US ambassador and three other US embassy officials in Libya, was only one facet of the hebdomas horribilis, or horrible week, that the Americans have suffered.
Much could be written about what this will mean for America’s relations with the Muslim world and Pakistan in particular, but in this article the focus is on the other facet of the ‘horrible week’ — the developments in Afghanistan over the past few days.
On Friday and Saturday, in two separate green-on-blue attacks, six coalition soldiers were killed by Afghan security personnel.
This brought to 51 the total number of Nato troops killed in such incidents in 2012 and follows the 13 deaths under similar circumstances in August.
So far the Americans had been expressing a measure of satisfaction with the steps that the Afghans were taking to recheck the background of recruits in the Afghan forces to suspend those suspected of having ties with the insurgents. Booklets were also issued to Afghan forces on cultural differences that urged Afghans not to take umbrage at some of the things American soldiers did.
Now this latest set of insider attacks has prompted a harsher reaction, with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey stating bluntly that the Afghan authorities have to take the problem seriously.
Whatever the Americans may ask for, the fact is that there is little that the Afghans will be able to do given the unwieldy size the Afghan security forces have acquired and given the American insistence on enlarging the Afghan Local Police from 16,000 to 30,000. It is said that recruitment has now been suspended; but since the Americans do see it as a means of countering the Taliban in the rural areas this suspension is likely to be lifted.
On Sept 11, probably to mark the 9/11 anniversary, the Taliban destroyed a heavy transport helicopter at Bagram base, killing three Afghan soldiers and wounding a number of Americans. Attacks on Bagram from outside the base have happened before — most notably about a month ago when Dempsey’s transport aircraft was damaged. This time, however, it seemed that the Americans were more concerned by the accuracy of the attack.
Nevertheless, this attack was far less important than the one launched by 15 insurgents on what was regarded as the “impregnable” British base, Camp Bastion, in Helmand. Not only did the insurgents, wearing US military uniforms, penetrate the defences but in something eerily reminiscent of the Mehran base tragedy in Karachi succeeded in their attack. In addition to killing two American marines, they destroyed six Harrier jets valued at $30m each, three refuelling stations and a number of aircraft hangars.
Helmand, it must be remembered, was one of the provinces in which the ‘surge’ was supposed to have broken the back of the Taliban resistance.
The Taliban have also issued a call on their website for increased attacks in Afghanistan, specifically on US forces, to avenge the aforementioned anti-Muslim film. If nothing else, one can expect that a few more Afghan soldiers will cause green-on-blue incidents.
Relations with President Karzai touched a new low when the latter condemned the said film and implicitly held the American administration responsible, but failed to condemn the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi. He is also at loggerheads with the Americans regarding their insistence, even while handing over control of Bagram prison holding some 60 high-value prisoners.
As if this were not enough, Karzai also issued a scathing criticism of the air raid in Laghman province on Sunday where the Americans conceded that while the attack was on insurgents, there had been civilian fatalities, which according to the Afghans included nine women and girls. The International Security Assistance Force has accepted full responsibility and will presumably pay compensation but this will be fresh fodder for the anti-American sentiment that seems to be growing stronger by the day in Afghanistan as much as it is in other Muslim countries.
British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, who was visiting Camp Bastion just a couple of days before the insurgent attack, claimed in an interview to the Guardian that his commanders were now advising that British troops could be withdrawn more quickly than originally thought. It is probable that the major part of the 9,000 British troops now in Afghanistan will be withdrawn in 2013 leaving only a skeleton force in place till full withdrawal in 2014.
Interestingly, Hammond also spent some time in the interview talking about the urgent need for reconciliation. He said: “The Afghan government needed to do much more to bring about a political settlement with the insurgents because the diplomatic effort was lagging behind the military campaign” and that any peace in Afghanistan will need to involve “reaching out Northern Ireland-style to at least the moderate part of the insurgency, to try to bring it inside through reconciliation and integration”.
He suggested that the “Afghan government needs to do more and the neighbours who have influence [Pakistan] also need to maintain pressure on those parties...to come to the table”.
Speaking of the objectives of the British in Afghanistan, he maintained that Al Qaeda having been “eliminated” it would not be right to ask British troops to risk their lives for nation-building. His view was: “Even if we had achieved nothing lasting, every year that goes by keeping the bombers at bay, keeping them off our streets, is a significant achievement in itself. But we have clearly built the basics of a future that will deny the space of Afghanistan to those who would seek to harm us.”
The British do from time to time have differences with the Americans. Hammond said as much when he asserted that “tracking people down and removing them from the battlefield” was not the best way of finding a settlement, calling into question the American campaign to eliminate mid-level commanders.
One assumes he was reflecting the views of the Nato alliance as a whole. If so, it would be fair to suggest that not only will Nato forces face greater military difficulty in the months ahead but the maintenance of a residual American military presence after 2014 may also be called into question.
For Pakistan this adds to the urgency of promoting reconciliation and doing whatever lies in its power to make this happen.
*The writer is a former foreign secretary.
============
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 19, 2012 6:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thefront
The Frontier Post
September 20, 2012
Sino-Japanese standoff and international politics
Afshain Afzal
Edited by RR
====
[I]t was the presence of the US’ most advanced submarines in the Philippines’ Subic Bay this month which generated alarms in Beijing while the Japanese action regarding the detention of Chinese was taken as part of the plan.
The expanding US’ submarine presence in the region, especially on bases in Guam, Japan and Hawaii, coupled with movement on Subic near the Chinese Navy’s southernmost submarine base on the side of a cliff on Hainan Island was something that required monitoring.
[D]ue to Chinese commitments to put her own house in order, the US’ Navy presence in Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean would remain undetected, which may pose a threat to Iran.
====
It is always difficult to guess on which side the camel will sit but the recent statement of Japanese Liberal Democratic Party’s Secretary General, Nobuteru Ishihara, has given quite clear signals from Washington. Ishihara said: “Our relations with China are at their worst ever since the normalization of relations between the two countries. It is precisely because the US-Japan alliance is shaken that neighbouring countries keep entering Japan’s territory and Japan’s peace and safety have come under great threat.”
It is pertinent to mention here that relations with Washington had also turned hostile after the ruling Democrats took power in 2009. The ongoing tension between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands flared up last month when on intelligence input from Washington Japan detained Chinese activists who had landed on the islands.
This led anti-Japanese protests in China followed by a political statement from Tokyo that they intend buying the islands from a Japanese businessman. If we recall, on 16 April 2012, Tokyo’s Governor Shintaro Ishihara during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank in Washington, issued a statement that the Tokyo Metropolitan Government is negotiating with the owner of three major islands in the uninhabited chain.
The present standoff has been conspired with to realize in Japanese political circles the necessity of the alliance with the US. If we critically examine the latest developments we will arrive at the conclusions that it was the presence of the US’ most advanced submarines in the Philippines’ Subic Bay this month which generated alarms in Beijing while the Japanese action regarding the detention of Chinese was taken as part of the plan.
The expanding US’ submarine presence in the region, especially on bases in Guam, Japan and Hawaii, coupled with movement on Subic near the Chinese Navy’s southernmost submarine base on the side of a cliff on Hainan Island was something that required monitoring.
Beijing did what it had to do but both Japan and China should not come to the point of no return.
In fact it is third countries that are playing their game in the region. Washington benefit from the present standoff in three ways. Firstly, due to Chinese commitments to put her own house in order, the US’ Navy presence in Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean would remain undetected, which may pose a threat to Iran.
Secondly, it would also provide a chance to the anti-China bloc to win geo-strategically important countries like Maldives to its side, directly or through its partners like India.
And thirdly, it would distort the international image of Japan as well as China, which will help India to contest a United Nations Security Council seat quite comfortably.
In fact, Western nations have completely backed capitalist India as a third world playboy for the US in the Asian region. In the recent move involving the navy buildup in Indian Ocean against Iran, China being a veto-wielding power has international obligations and Beijing must remain current on day-to-day movements in the Arabian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea.
The present Chinese standoff with Japan would not allow its navy to move to the other side of the world and monitor US-Israeli moves. Indians also got a life time opportunity to mend its fence with the Maldives in order to isolate China. To counter Chinese influence in the Maldives, Indian Defence Minister AK Antony is on a three-day visit to Male in connection with the inauguration of a military hospital and foundation stone-laying ceremony at the Training Academy of the Maldivian National Defence Forces. In another development, Japan’s ambassador-designat
Doctors were looking into the cause of his death. He was in mid-October to take over from Uichiro Niwa as Japan’s ambassador in Beijing. The latest setback in long-troubled relations between China and Japan is due to Washington’s instigation and assurance to some politicians of support against Beijing.
As the tensions between the two powers increased, Washington gained a golden chance to cash this opportunity to further isolate China and Japan.
The dispute over the islands is not only distorting the international image of both countries but is also militarily weakening them in favour of countries ambitious to emerge as new powers in the region.
There is no doubt that, being a strong supporter of cooperation between regional countries, one also needs to comprehend that India’s invitation to Western powers on Asian land and waters would be no wise step. Japan’s decision to buy the disputed islands seems to be a political decision rather than Tokyo’s ambitious plans against China.
The magnitude of the tension between the two nations has grown so out of proportion that Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda had to ask Beijing to ensure the safety of Japanese citizens and businesses amid growing anti-Japan demonstrations. New Delhi’s interference in the internal affairs of smaller states in South Asia left Male in chaos.
It is the wisdom of the Maldivian leadership to agree on early elections, otherwise the US had been pressuring the Maldives to hold elections at the end of 2013.
The fact cannot be denied that Washington always looked for tackling single individuals as compared to negotiations with elected representatives.
To conclude, if the tension continues, Japan will be forced to pull out its nationals from China and vice versa.
Such moves will only benefit the enemies of Japan and China who want to establish their hegemony in the region.
It is high time that both countries agree on bilateral talks to ease the tension, as further escalations are neither in the interest of the two countries or for global peace.
============
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 Frontier Post
September 20, 2012
Sino-Japanese standoff and international politics
Afshain Afzal
Edited by RR
====
[I]t was the presence of the US’ most advanced submarines in the Philippines’ Subic Bay this month which generated alarms in Beijing while the Japanese action regarding the detention of Chinese was taken as part of the plan.
The expanding US’ submarine presence in the region, especially on bases in Guam, Japan and Hawaii, coupled with movement on Subic near the Chinese Navy’s southernmost submarine base on the side of a cliff on Hainan Island was something that required monitoring.
[D]ue to Chinese commitments to put her own house in order, the US’ Navy presence in Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean would remain undetected, which may pose a threat to Iran.
====
It is always difficult to guess on which side the camel will sit but the recent statement of Japanese Liberal Democratic Party’s Secretary General, Nobuteru Ishihara, has given quite clear signals from Washington. Ishihara said: “Our relations with China are at their worst ever since the normalization of relations between the two countries. It is precisely because the US-Japan alliance is shaken that neighbouring countries keep entering Japan’s territory and Japan’s peace and safety have come under great threat.”
It is pertinent to mention here that relations with Washington had also turned hostile after the ruling Democrats took power in 2009. The ongoing tension between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands flared up last month when on intelligence input from Washington Japan detained Chinese activists who had landed on the islands.
This led anti-Japanese protests in China followed by a political statement from Tokyo that they intend buying the islands from a Japanese businessman. If we recall, on 16 April 2012, Tokyo’s Governor Shintaro Ishihara during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank in Washington, issued a statement that the Tokyo Metropolitan Government is negotiating with the owner of three major islands in the uninhabited chain.
The present standoff has been conspired with to realize in Japanese political circles the necessity of the alliance with the US. If we critically examine the latest developments we will arrive at the conclusions that it was the presence of the US’ most advanced submarines in the Philippines’ Subic Bay this month which generated alarms in Beijing while the Japanese action regarding the detention of Chinese was taken as part of the plan.
The expanding US’ submarine presence in the region, especially on bases in Guam, Japan and Hawaii, coupled with movement on Subic near the Chinese Navy’s southernmost submarine base on the side of a cliff on Hainan Island was something that required monitoring.
Beijing did what it had to do but both Japan and China should not come to the point of no return.
In fact it is third countries that are playing their game in the region. Washington benefit from the present standoff in three ways. Firstly, due to Chinese commitments to put her own house in order, the US’ Navy presence in Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean would remain undetected, which may pose a threat to Iran.
Secondly, it would also provide a chance to the anti-China bloc to win geo-strategically important countries like Maldives to its side, directly or through its partners like India.
And thirdly, it would distort the international image of Japan as well as China, which will help India to contest a United Nations Security Council seat quite comfortably.
In fact, Western nations have completely backed capitalist India as a third world playboy for the US in the Asian region. In the recent move involving the navy buildup in Indian Ocean against Iran, China being a veto-wielding power has international obligations and Beijing must remain current on day-to-day movements in the Arabian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea.
The present Chinese standoff with Japan would not allow its navy to move to the other side of the world and monitor US-Israeli moves. Indians also got a life time opportunity to mend its fence with the Maldives in order to isolate China. To counter Chinese influence in the Maldives, Indian Defence Minister AK Antony is on a three-day visit to Male in connection with the inauguration of a military hospital and foundation stone-laying ceremony at the Training Academy of the Maldivian National Defence Forces. In another development, Japan’s ambassador-designat
Doctors were looking into the cause of his death. He was in mid-October to take over from Uichiro Niwa as Japan’s ambassador in Beijing. The latest setback in long-troubled relations between China and Japan is due to Washington’s instigation and assurance to some politicians of support against Beijing.
As the tensions between the two powers increased, Washington gained a golden chance to cash this opportunity to further isolate China and Japan.
The dispute over the islands is not only distorting the international image of both countries but is also militarily weakening them in favour of countries ambitious to emerge as new powers in the region.
There is no doubt that, being a strong supporter of cooperation between regional countries, one also needs to comprehend that India’s invitation to Western powers on Asian land and waters would be no wise step. Japan’s decision to buy the disputed islands seems to be a political decision rather than Tokyo’s ambitious plans against China.
The magnitude of the tension between the two nations has grown so out of proportion that Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda had to ask Beijing to ensure the safety of Japanese citizens and businesses amid growing anti-Japan demonstrations. New Delhi’s interference in the internal affairs of smaller states in South Asia left Male in chaos.
It is the wisdom of the Maldivian leadership to agree on early elections, otherwise the US had been pressuring the Maldives to hold elections at the end of 2013.
The fact cannot be denied that Washington always looked for tackling single individuals as compared to negotiations with elected representatives.
To conclude, if the tension continues, Japan will be forced to pull out its nationals from China and vice versa.
Such moves will only benefit the enemies of Japan and China who want to establish their hegemony in the region.
It is high time that both countries agree on bilateral talks to ease the tension, as further escalations are neither in the interest of the two countries or for global peace.
============
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 19, 2012 7:39 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.
Trend News Agency
September 19, 2012
Azerbaijan, U.S discuss cooperation prospects in energy sphere
E. Ismayilov
Baku: Azerbaijani Minister of Industry and Energy Natig Aliyev has received new U.S. Ambassador Richard Morningstar today.
During the meeting the sides discussed the prospects of cooperation in the energy sphere between Azerbaijan and the U.S, as well as energy security, spokesman for the Ministry of Industry Azer Mensimli told Trend today.
Previously, Morningstar was a special representative of the U.S. Department of State for Eurasian Energy.
Aliyev said that Morningstar'
The sides discussed Azerbaijan's role in the energy security of the region, the projects of Trans-Anatolian and Trans-Caspian gas pipelines.
Trend News Agency
September 19, 2012
Azerbaijan, U.S discuss cooperation prospects in energy sphere
E. Ismayilov
Baku: Azerbaijani Minister of Industry and Energy Natig Aliyev has received new U.S. Ambassador Richard Morningstar today.
During the meeting the sides discussed the prospects of cooperation in the energy sphere between Azerbaijan and the U.S, as well as energy security, spokesman for the Ministry of Industry Azer Mensimli told Trend today.
Previously, Morningstar was a special representative of the U.S. Department of State for Eurasian Energy.
Aliyev said that Morningstar'
The sides discussed Azerbaijan's role in the energy security of the region, the projects of Trans-Anatolian and Trans-Caspian gas pipelines.
