Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Monday, December 8, 2008
Turkey a Main Hub in Transporting Terrorism Suspects to Guantanamo
"Radikal," Turkey
5 December 2008
Translated By Garabet Moumdjian
Edited by Sonia Mladin
Turkey - Radikal - Original Article (Turkish)
The revelation comes from Spain, where the court presiding over the case opened against Spain’s participation in transporting so called “terrorists” to the Guantanamo concentration camp, announced that Turkey was a main point of the transportation process. This information was derived from a secret document, which was presented to the court by Spain’s Defense Ministry.
According to the released document, which was classified as ‘Top Secret,” Turkey was one of the main hubs from where American military airplanes transported “terrorists” captured in Middle Eastern countries to Guantanamo. The news was first released by Spanish newspapers, which quoted sources from the Spanish Defense Ministry. This necessitated the ministry of releasing the "Top Secret” document to the court.
According to the prestigious Spanish newspaper “El Pais,” the Ministry released the list of such hubs after State Attorney Ishmael Morneo asked it to deliver to the court a list of countries that acted as hubs for transporting terrorist suspects to Guantanamo by way of Spain.
According to the released document, Turkey was the initial hub for 4 of the 11 flights that transported such suspects to Guantanamo through Spanish Military airports. Moreover, 12 other such flights did not land on Spanish soil for refueling.
THE LIST
According to the document, between 2002 and 2006 a total of 24 flights were registered as transporting terrorism suspects to Guantanamo. Of these 11 landed in Spain, while 13 others didn’t. Of the ones that landed in Spain, 4 initiated from Turkey.
‘El Pais' also wrote that in January 2002 a C-141 type American military plane that landed at the “Jabal Tariq” [Gibraltar] Spanish military base airport, was transporting 23 suspects to Guantanamo.
THE FLIGHTS
The list of the flights originating from Turkey is as follows:
May 2, 2002, flight RCH709, C-141 type American military plane landed at the Moron airport base in Seville. The reason for the flight was registered as “logistics.”
October 28, 2002, flight RCH319, C-17 type American military plane landed at the Ussu airport at Cadiz. The reason for the flight was registered as “logistics.”
April 4, 2005, flight RCH950, C-17 type American military plane Landed at Rota coming from Adana. The flight assumed a direct route to Guantanamo. The reason for the flight was registered as “logistics.”
October2, 2006, flight RCH919, KC-10 type American military plane had an itinerary of Turkey-Moron-Guantanamo. The reason for the flight was registered as “logistics.”
There is also a log for an uncompleted flight in the opposite direction, which was supposed to take place on April 11, 2005. The flight had to land in Spain on its way to Turkey, where it was supposed to be an escort for a plane transporting suspects to Guantanamo. This flight didn’t materialize.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The U.S.-Iraq Agreement and Turkey’s Dilemma
Radikal, Turkey
By CENGIZ ÇANDAR
Translated By Garabet Moumdjian
23 November 2008
Edited by Bridgette Blight
The signing of the SOFA agreement between the USA and Iraq early last week made it possible for the American army to pull out of Iraq by 2011 and to pull back from the cities by June 2009, enabled the Iraqi authorities to assume the authority and sovereignty over its cities and towns. This incident was met with mixed feelings in Turkish governmental circles. Some Turkish circles were dismayed that by June 2009, when the Iraqi airspace would come under the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, its ability to use that airspace for security purposes would be undermined. It so happens that while this airspace was under American control, Turkish military airplanes could bomb PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party) targets in Northern Iraq at will and without any repercussions. What would happen now if the Iraqi government attempts to ban such a move by Turkey? This would really be a big problem for Turkey!
That this ban can now be publicly discussed is in itself a problem for Turkish authorities. This means that what had been agreed upon with the American military administration in Iraq since November 2007, and which enabled the Turkish military and especially its air force to fight the PKK will not be possible any more. Leaving aside the intelligence cooperation between the American and the Turkish military, Turkey, after June 2009, will be banned from such preemptive attacks over Iraqi air space. It seems that when the time comes we will be faced with an Iraqi opposition against such maneuvers by our air force.
Turkish political authorities had no problems as long as Iraqi air space was under the control of the American military. This was obvious in the declaration that Turkish Prime Minister Rajap Tayyip Erdogan made at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. last week. While there, Erdogan also asked president elect Barack Obama to reconsider his scheme of early military withdrawal from Iraq by sending a commission there, which would advise him on the repercussions of such a withdrawal.
It is awkward that the SOFA agreement pours directly into Obama’s policy of early withdrawal from Iraq, which creates an impasse for Turkey, especially since the agreement legitimizes the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq in accordance with the time table found in the body of the agreement itself.
What I want to stress here is that this fear within Turkish political circles is unfounded. It is true that point 3 of article 9 of the SOFA agreement states that “with this agreement Iraqi air space passes to Iraqi sovereignty,” however, one must also read point 4 of the same article, which states:
“Iraq can ask the American military authorities to assume the sovereignty of its air space.” However, this must be read in conjunction with point number 1 of the same article, which states: “In its efforts to fight against Al Qaida and other terrorist groups operating from within and without Iraqi territories, the Iraqi government can ask for the help and cooperation of the American military authorities in Iraq.”
If this reading of the SOFA agreement’s article is coupled with what Iraqi Prime Minister Nureddin Al Maliki declared, as well as Iraqi Interior Minister Bashir Atalay said during the meeting of the Commission of 3 regarding the PKK issue, then the unfounded fear within Turkish political circles regarding the issue becomes clear.
This means that Turkish military planes can continue their operations against PKK positions in Northern Iraq even after the June 2009 deadline.
In my opinion the issue then is not in this. It is in a totally different place. It is in the territorial integrity of Iraq. The SOFA agreement, which still awaits the ratification of the Iraqi Parliament during this week, has already shown how defragmented and weak this territorial integrity is. The highest Shiite authority in the country, Ayatollah Sistani, had already declared that the SOFA agreement must have the consensus of the Iraqi people. This aside, the ratification of the agreement was imbued in fears during last week. Even if the SOFA agreement is accepted or not, it is hard to envision that it will lead to the restoration of law and order in the country. For Turkey, this means that the implementation of the agreement in the short, medium, or distant future is not yet ascertained.
In the present Iraq is maligned with the following issues:
-The Shiite-Sunni problem
-The Shiite-Shiite problem
-The Sunni-Sunni problem
-The Arab-Kurdish problem
All these issues will be magnified once the USA pulls out of the country. The Shiite center of gravity, which is for now the Daawa party of Prime Minister Nureddin Al Maliki, is at odds with Abdul Aziz Al Hakim’s SCIRI (Supreme Council of Islamic Republic of Iraq) and Muqtada Al Sadr’s forces. Therefore, an intra-Shiite strife is not discounted.
After years of fighting the Sunni insurgency in Al Anbar Province, the Americans have finally found an ally in the Sunni tribes there. They were able to position the tribes against Al Qaida by signing a long term agreement with the heads of the Sunni tribes. These Sunni forces are now united and are developing under what is called the “Al Sahwa” confederation. Al Sahwa has gone a long way in marginalizing the Islamic Party of Tariq Al Hashimi, which is the dominant Sunni faction within the parliament. Al Hashimi’s party’s position is at best lukewarm regarding the SOFA agreement. Hashimi’s party, which is the friendliest political organization to the AKP ruling party in Turkey, is not a match to the AL Sahwa confederation. Besides, one must not forget that the majority of the 350,000 strong Iraqi army and police forces are composed of Shiite elements that are loyal to Al Maliki and SCIRI. Sunnis, which can now muster some 135,000 armed elements, are not a match against the Shiite might to which the armed elements of Muqtada Al Sadr must be added. However, the existence of such forces is in itself a recipe for a civil war in the country. This aspect becomes more explosive if the Arab-Kurdish strife is added to it. One must also underline the fact that the Shiite-Kurdish configuration at this time is not as coherent as it used to be under the old regime (where both segments were marginalized). In fact there are many differences between Shiites and Kurds today. The Kurdish armed forces (Peshmerge in Kurdish) number some 90,000 soldiers.
If Iraq’s internal (sectarian) balance is not in equilibrium. If this equilibrium collapses, Turkey will not be spared from the turmoil of the Iraqi internal quagmire. It is for this reason that Turkey must think wisely which side to choose—or not to choose.
It seems that we are on the verge of upsetting events...
By CENGIZ ÇANDAR
Translated By Garabet Moumdjian
23 November 2008
Edited by Bridgette Blight
The signing of the SOFA agreement between the USA and Iraq early last week made it possible for the American army to pull out of Iraq by 2011 and to pull back from the cities by June 2009, enabled the Iraqi authorities to assume the authority and sovereignty over its cities and towns. This incident was met with mixed feelings in Turkish governmental circles. Some Turkish circles were dismayed that by June 2009, when the Iraqi airspace would come under the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, its ability to use that airspace for security purposes would be undermined. It so happens that while this airspace was under American control, Turkish military airplanes could bomb PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party) targets in Northern Iraq at will and without any repercussions. What would happen now if the Iraqi government attempts to ban such a move by Turkey? This would really be a big problem for Turkey!
That this ban can now be publicly discussed is in itself a problem for Turkish authorities. This means that what had been agreed upon with the American military administration in Iraq since November 2007, and which enabled the Turkish military and especially its air force to fight the PKK will not be possible any more. Leaving aside the intelligence cooperation between the American and the Turkish military, Turkey, after June 2009, will be banned from such preemptive attacks over Iraqi air space. It seems that when the time comes we will be faced with an Iraqi opposition against such maneuvers by our air force.
Turkish political authorities had no problems as long as Iraqi air space was under the control of the American military. This was obvious in the declaration that Turkish Prime Minister Rajap Tayyip Erdogan made at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. last week. While there, Erdogan also asked president elect Barack Obama to reconsider his scheme of early military withdrawal from Iraq by sending a commission there, which would advise him on the repercussions of such a withdrawal.
It is awkward that the SOFA agreement pours directly into Obama’s policy of early withdrawal from Iraq, which creates an impasse for Turkey, especially since the agreement legitimizes the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq in accordance with the time table found in the body of the agreement itself.
What I want to stress here is that this fear within Turkish political circles is unfounded. It is true that point 3 of article 9 of the SOFA agreement states that “with this agreement Iraqi air space passes to Iraqi sovereignty,” however, one must also read point 4 of the same article, which states:
“Iraq can ask the American military authorities to assume the sovereignty of its air space.” However, this must be read in conjunction with point number 1 of the same article, which states: “In its efforts to fight against Al Qaida and other terrorist groups operating from within and without Iraqi territories, the Iraqi government can ask for the help and cooperation of the American military authorities in Iraq.”
If this reading of the SOFA agreement’s article is coupled with what Iraqi Prime Minister Nureddin Al Maliki declared, as well as Iraqi Interior Minister Bashir Atalay said during the meeting of the Commission of 3 regarding the PKK issue, then the unfounded fear within Turkish political circles regarding the issue becomes clear.
This means that Turkish military planes can continue their operations against PKK positions in Northern Iraq even after the June 2009 deadline.
In my opinion the issue then is not in this. It is in a totally different place. It is in the territorial integrity of Iraq. The SOFA agreement, which still awaits the ratification of the Iraqi Parliament during this week, has already shown how defragmented and weak this territorial integrity is. The highest Shiite authority in the country, Ayatollah Sistani, had already declared that the SOFA agreement must have the consensus of the Iraqi people. This aside, the ratification of the agreement was imbued in fears during last week. Even if the SOFA agreement is accepted or not, it is hard to envision that it will lead to the restoration of law and order in the country. For Turkey, this means that the implementation of the agreement in the short, medium, or distant future is not yet ascertained.
In the present Iraq is maligned with the following issues:
-The Shiite-Sunni problem
-The Shiite-Shiite problem
-The Sunni-Sunni problem
-The Arab-Kurdish problem
All these issues will be magnified once the USA pulls out of the country. The Shiite center of gravity, which is for now the Daawa party of Prime Minister Nureddin Al Maliki, is at odds with Abdul Aziz Al Hakim’s SCIRI (Supreme Council of Islamic Republic of Iraq) and Muqtada Al Sadr’s forces. Therefore, an intra-Shiite strife is not discounted.
After years of fighting the Sunni insurgency in Al Anbar Province, the Americans have finally found an ally in the Sunni tribes there. They were able to position the tribes against Al Qaida by signing a long term agreement with the heads of the Sunni tribes. These Sunni forces are now united and are developing under what is called the “Al Sahwa” confederation. Al Sahwa has gone a long way in marginalizing the Islamic Party of Tariq Al Hashimi, which is the dominant Sunni faction within the parliament. Al Hashimi’s party’s position is at best lukewarm regarding the SOFA agreement. Hashimi’s party, which is the friendliest political organization to the AKP ruling party in Turkey, is not a match to the AL Sahwa confederation. Besides, one must not forget that the majority of the 350,000 strong Iraqi army and police forces are composed of Shiite elements that are loyal to Al Maliki and SCIRI. Sunnis, which can now muster some 135,000 armed elements, are not a match against the Shiite might to which the armed elements of Muqtada Al Sadr must be added. However, the existence of such forces is in itself a recipe for a civil war in the country. This aspect becomes more explosive if the Arab-Kurdish strife is added to it. One must also underline the fact that the Shiite-Kurdish configuration at this time is not as coherent as it used to be under the old regime (where both segments were marginalized). In fact there are many differences between Shiites and Kurds today. The Kurdish armed forces (Peshmerge in Kurdish) number some 90,000 soldiers.
If Iraq’s internal (sectarian) balance is not in equilibrium. If this equilibrium collapses, Turkey will not be spared from the turmoil of the Iraqi internal quagmire. It is for this reason that Turkey must think wisely which side to choose—or not to choose.
It seems that we are on the verge of upsetting events...
Monday, November 17, 2008
Obama’s America and the Kurdish Question
Watching America
Hurriyet, Turkey
By Yalcin Dogan
Translated By Garabet Moumdjian
16 November 2008
Original Article (Turkish)
It is important that we keep strong against his advances, and play the diplomatic game when we sit with him at the negotiating table. What we really have to do is ensure that the Americans are not worried about it. But is this possible with Obama?
It’s a big book. Like an encyclopedia volume. It may be about 3 to 4 kilograms in weight. It has very bright pages with lots of photos.
It deals with issues concerning the Kurds since the 1850’s. The book always mentions Kurdistan as a country. It has lots of photos, lots of history. Perhaps it’s what awaits us tomorrow…
The book can’t be found everywhere. Those bookstores that carry it are keeping the copies as precious things.
The book can be found at the bookstore of the World Bank. Is this the Word Bank that I know? There is a lot of buzz about Kurds and Kurdistan nowadays in America and in many European countries. Go to any bookstore in these countries and you will find a section about the Kurds. They speak about their history and even the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party).
Know this and study it as your lesson for school. It’s obvious--wherever there are books about Kurds, there are writings about the PKK.
American civil society, non-governmental organizations, and now the bureaucracy of the country are asking us Turks the same question: Ok, you beat up the PKK. What are you now going to do regarding the Kurds?
Is there anyone among us who knows the answer to this question? Do those who rule Turkey have a serious and timely answer to this? No, and of course no!
The issue is: Who is asking us this same question now and why is it important to us who this asker is?
It is Obama’s administration and his team who are asking the question.
This is what this means: As soon as he takes over the administration of the United States, Obama will deal very closely with the Kurdish issue. Even though officially America considers the PKK as a terrorist organization, Obama too will start his interrogation from that point of view. But what will happen then? He will then ask us what we are going to do now. Yes, what are we going to do? Do you have a project, a policy, an alternative dossier for this issue?
Instead of sending the message of “stay strong and don’t listen to anybody” to Obama, It would be wiser for Rajap Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey’s Prime Minister) to study the dossier and have some solutions regarding the issue.
Preferred course of action:
For the time being Turkey can only deal with Obama and his administration through unofficial channels.
As soon as he presides over the Administration, Obama’s priority will be the internal economic situation of America.
As for his foreign policy, Iraq will be the top priority. This entails bringing soldiers out of Iraq, dealing with the internal divisions of that country and trying to solve them, Preserving American hegemony there after pulling soldiers out, etc. Obama has already made it clear that these are the priorities of his administration.
But one must not forget that when he says Iraq, this also means the Kurdish issue. And when he says Kurdish issue, it means the PKK; its terror, and the condition of Kurds inside Turkey, and thus his policy toward that issue.
It is possible to assume that in our dealings with Obama he will ask us to come to an agreement regarding these issues. It is also possible to assume that our dealings with Obama will not be limited to intelligence sharing with the American administration.
It is important that we keep strong against his advances, and play the diplomatic game when we sit with him at the negotiating table. What we really have to do is ensure that the Americans are not worried about it. But is this possible with Obama?
So what’s the solution? It is one that would make Turks and Kurds content. Is there such a solution? Please be advised that if Turkey doesn’t have such a solution, one might be formulated for it by the new American administration!
http://watchingamerica.com/News/12010/the-united-states-never-prioritizes-democracy-over-its-national-security/
Hurriyet, Turkey
By Yalcin Dogan
Translated By Garabet Moumdjian
16 November 2008
Original Article (Turkish)
It is important that we keep strong against his advances, and play the diplomatic game when we sit with him at the negotiating table. What we really have to do is ensure that the Americans are not worried about it. But is this possible with Obama?
It’s a big book. Like an encyclopedia volume. It may be about 3 to 4 kilograms in weight. It has very bright pages with lots of photos.
It deals with issues concerning the Kurds since the 1850’s. The book always mentions Kurdistan as a country. It has lots of photos, lots of history. Perhaps it’s what awaits us tomorrow…
The book can’t be found everywhere. Those bookstores that carry it are keeping the copies as precious things.
The book can be found at the bookstore of the World Bank. Is this the Word Bank that I know? There is a lot of buzz about Kurds and Kurdistan nowadays in America and in many European countries. Go to any bookstore in these countries and you will find a section about the Kurds. They speak about their history and even the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party).
Know this and study it as your lesson for school. It’s obvious--wherever there are books about Kurds, there are writings about the PKK.
American civil society, non-governmental organizations, and now the bureaucracy of the country are asking us Turks the same question: Ok, you beat up the PKK. What are you now going to do regarding the Kurds?
Is there anyone among us who knows the answer to this question? Do those who rule Turkey have a serious and timely answer to this? No, and of course no!
The issue is: Who is asking us this same question now and why is it important to us who this asker is?
It is Obama’s administration and his team who are asking the question.
This is what this means: As soon as he takes over the administration of the United States, Obama will deal very closely with the Kurdish issue. Even though officially America considers the PKK as a terrorist organization, Obama too will start his interrogation from that point of view. But what will happen then? He will then ask us what we are going to do now. Yes, what are we going to do? Do you have a project, a policy, an alternative dossier for this issue?
Instead of sending the message of “stay strong and don’t listen to anybody” to Obama, It would be wiser for Rajap Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey’s Prime Minister) to study the dossier and have some solutions regarding the issue.
Preferred course of action:
For the time being Turkey can only deal with Obama and his administration through unofficial channels.
As soon as he presides over the Administration, Obama’s priority will be the internal economic situation of America.
As for his foreign policy, Iraq will be the top priority. This entails bringing soldiers out of Iraq, dealing with the internal divisions of that country and trying to solve them, Preserving American hegemony there after pulling soldiers out, etc. Obama has already made it clear that these are the priorities of his administration.
But one must not forget that when he says Iraq, this also means the Kurdish issue. And when he says Kurdish issue, it means the PKK; its terror, and the condition of Kurds inside Turkey, and thus his policy toward that issue.
It is possible to assume that in our dealings with Obama he will ask us to come to an agreement regarding these issues. It is also possible to assume that our dealings with Obama will not be limited to intelligence sharing with the American administration.
It is important that we keep strong against his advances, and play the diplomatic game when we sit with him at the negotiating table. What we really have to do is ensure that the Americans are not worried about it. But is this possible with Obama?
So what’s the solution? It is one that would make Turks and Kurds content. Is there such a solution? Please be advised that if Turkey doesn’t have such a solution, one might be formulated for it by the new American administration!
http://watchingamerica.com/News/12010/the-united-states-never-prioritizes-democracy-over-its-national-security/
U.S. Prioritizes National Security Over Democracy
Watching America
Zaman, Azerbaijan
By Natiq Penahi
Translated By Garabet Moumdjian
11 November 2008
Edited by Jessica Tesoriero
Azerbaijan - Zaman - Original Article (Azerbaijani)
“Is America the bastion of democracy in the world?” Political analysts do not definitely answer this question in the affirmative. Some answer “yes,” while others say “no.”
We asked this and other questions to Dr. Roshvan Ibrahimova, the director of the International Relations Institute at the Kavkas (Caucasus) University. According to the academician, democracy in the United States comes second where national interests and national security issues are involved. “People are even ready to go to war in order to defend their national security and national interests,” adds Ibrahimova. “In other words, democracy is, at best, an important element in achieving national security.”
We continued our conversation with Prof. Ibrahimova:
How would you characterize the election of the first dark-skinned president in the United States, then?
In reality this is not a coincidence. Five black senators have been elected to the United States’ Senate thus far. Both of the Bush Administration’s Secretaries of State, Gen. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, were African American. An African American by the name of Jessie Jackson was a candidate for the United States’ presidency. Even though he was not elected, the mere fact that he was a candidate made a difference. It is interesting that what used to be considered as imaginative is now becoming a reality.
There is also another issue here. The chance for Republicans to win was dismal in this election. Even if Hillary Clinton was the democratic nominee, she would’ve won.
Does this mean that the falling of the Republicans in the eyes of the American citizens made it possible for the Democrats to win?
The Democrats came to power four times during the 20th century: Woodrow Wilson, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. In general Democrats come to power either when Republicans are in big trouble, or when they have a charismatic leader. Wilson, Kennedy, and Clinton were charismatic. Kennedy was even the first Catholic to win the presidency in the history of the United States. As for Carter, he came to power in the wake of the “Watergate” fiasco that Nixon faced. History repeated itself with Obama. The financial meltdown, coupled with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Bush’s inability to solve that problem, which are all the result of unwise foreign politics, created the atmosphere needed for Obama to win.
Obama promised lots of change in America’s internal and external policies. What would these changes be in your opinion?
In fact Obama built his whole campaign on the notion of change. He promised to empower all, to unite people, and to create consensus. He said that America is for all Americans. The rest of the nominees—even Hillary—were talking in terms of “we,” and “you.” Obama was saying “we all.”
However, Obama is not yet an expert in the realm of foreign politics. Even as a senator his forte was not international relations. He just visited the Ukraine, Russia and Azerbaijan as a senator. But America is such a country that its president doesn’t need to be an expert in everything. There is a set system that rules the country. Obama will let that system operate. From this perspective, the difference between a Democratic or a Republican administration is not that big. Let’s take Iraq and Afghanistan as examples. Most people say that America should exit these countries. This is not easy and not even possible.
Clinton’s administration acted more on the economic well-being of the country. Obama too will try to work in that arena as soon as time permits him to do so. That’s what Democrats usually do. Obama will not imperil the country with new wars. Clinton’s reign saw the Panama debacle and the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These were not things that Clinton wanted to do. They emerged out of necessity. Today, America’s most important priority is providing for its energy usage. If this sector is disturbed, America has no other choice but to go to war.
Will Obama recognize the so-called Armenian genocide?
Where America’s national interest starts, the voices of lobbyists are shut down. Therefore, it is only in areas where America’s national interests are not yet formulated that lobbyists have free play. For example, section “907” (i.e. no aid to Azerbaijan unless it solved its problems with Armenia) was adopted in 1992 because American national interest was not yet formulated regarding the Caucasus. America never wants to worsen its relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is apparent in its usage of the term tragedy when describing the so-called “genocide.”
There are those who say that America is not sincere in its quest to propagate democracy around the world. What is your take on this?
There are different opinions regarding this issue. Every region has its national interests. For example the United States first tried to advance democracy in the Caucasus. It soon found out that that was not what its national interest needed. When Georgia tried to re-conquer territories it had lost and Russia waged a counter-offensive against it, the United States did not interfere… American officials repeatedly stressed that America is after stabilizing the situation in the region (Caucasus) so that oil pipes can operate without any harm. This is as if to say that, for America, democracy is at best one of the important elements of national interest…
In his doctrine, Bush stressed that the propagation of democracy can come in different forms. That is to say that no size fits all. In Iraq and Afghanistan that was through wars, while in Georgia and the Ukraine it was to happen by broadcasting American influence into those countries. All these showed that in places where America is at war, democracy is not even in its agenda. This means that America never considered democracy as superior to its national interests. Its not interfering in Georgia is a direct indication of this doctrine.
How does the United States categorize Azerbaijan?
In general, America’s policies toward Azerbaijan began to be formulated during the rule of Haydar Aliev. In 1994, after the signing of the bilateral economic agreements, American oil companies started settling in Azerbaijan. It was these companies that started lobbying for us in Washington. The result was that we started to balance the Armenian Lobby’s actions…It was our oil that gave us such importance. Azerbaijan’s geopolitical importance started increasing after 9/11. Azerbaijan had a big role in the operations that took place in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Azerbaijan was considered important in any action against Iran…
http://watchingamerica.com/News/12010/the-united-states-never-prioritizes-democracy-over-its-national-security/
Zaman, Azerbaijan
By Natiq Penahi
Translated By Garabet Moumdjian
11 November 2008
Edited by Jessica Tesoriero
Azerbaijan - Zaman - Original Article (Azerbaijani)
“Is America the bastion of democracy in the world?” Political analysts do not definitely answer this question in the affirmative. Some answer “yes,” while others say “no.”
We asked this and other questions to Dr. Roshvan Ibrahimova, the director of the International Relations Institute at the Kavkas (Caucasus) University. According to the academician, democracy in the United States comes second where national interests and national security issues are involved. “People are even ready to go to war in order to defend their national security and national interests,” adds Ibrahimova. “In other words, democracy is, at best, an important element in achieving national security.”
We continued our conversation with Prof. Ibrahimova:
How would you characterize the election of the first dark-skinned president in the United States, then?
In reality this is not a coincidence. Five black senators have been elected to the United States’ Senate thus far. Both of the Bush Administration’s Secretaries of State, Gen. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, were African American. An African American by the name of Jessie Jackson was a candidate for the United States’ presidency. Even though he was not elected, the mere fact that he was a candidate made a difference. It is interesting that what used to be considered as imaginative is now becoming a reality.
There is also another issue here. The chance for Republicans to win was dismal in this election. Even if Hillary Clinton was the democratic nominee, she would’ve won.
Does this mean that the falling of the Republicans in the eyes of the American citizens made it possible for the Democrats to win?
The Democrats came to power four times during the 20th century: Woodrow Wilson, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. In general Democrats come to power either when Republicans are in big trouble, or when they have a charismatic leader. Wilson, Kennedy, and Clinton were charismatic. Kennedy was even the first Catholic to win the presidency in the history of the United States. As for Carter, he came to power in the wake of the “Watergate” fiasco that Nixon faced. History repeated itself with Obama. The financial meltdown, coupled with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Bush’s inability to solve that problem, which are all the result of unwise foreign politics, created the atmosphere needed for Obama to win.
Obama promised lots of change in America’s internal and external policies. What would these changes be in your opinion?
In fact Obama built his whole campaign on the notion of change. He promised to empower all, to unite people, and to create consensus. He said that America is for all Americans. The rest of the nominees—even Hillary—were talking in terms of “we,” and “you.” Obama was saying “we all.”
However, Obama is not yet an expert in the realm of foreign politics. Even as a senator his forte was not international relations. He just visited the Ukraine, Russia and Azerbaijan as a senator. But America is such a country that its president doesn’t need to be an expert in everything. There is a set system that rules the country. Obama will let that system operate. From this perspective, the difference between a Democratic or a Republican administration is not that big. Let’s take Iraq and Afghanistan as examples. Most people say that America should exit these countries. This is not easy and not even possible.
Clinton’s administration acted more on the economic well-being of the country. Obama too will try to work in that arena as soon as time permits him to do so. That’s what Democrats usually do. Obama will not imperil the country with new wars. Clinton’s reign saw the Panama debacle and the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These were not things that Clinton wanted to do. They emerged out of necessity. Today, America’s most important priority is providing for its energy usage. If this sector is disturbed, America has no other choice but to go to war.
Will Obama recognize the so-called Armenian genocide?
Where America’s national interest starts, the voices of lobbyists are shut down. Therefore, it is only in areas where America’s national interests are not yet formulated that lobbyists have free play. For example, section “907” (i.e. no aid to Azerbaijan unless it solved its problems with Armenia) was adopted in 1992 because American national interest was not yet formulated regarding the Caucasus. America never wants to worsen its relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is apparent in its usage of the term tragedy when describing the so-called “genocide.”
There are those who say that America is not sincere in its quest to propagate democracy around the world. What is your take on this?
There are different opinions regarding this issue. Every region has its national interests. For example the United States first tried to advance democracy in the Caucasus. It soon found out that that was not what its national interest needed. When Georgia tried to re-conquer territories it had lost and Russia waged a counter-offensive against it, the United States did not interfere… American officials repeatedly stressed that America is after stabilizing the situation in the region (Caucasus) so that oil pipes can operate without any harm. This is as if to say that, for America, democracy is at best one of the important elements of national interest…
In his doctrine, Bush stressed that the propagation of democracy can come in different forms. That is to say that no size fits all. In Iraq and Afghanistan that was through wars, while in Georgia and the Ukraine it was to happen by broadcasting American influence into those countries. All these showed that in places where America is at war, democracy is not even in its agenda. This means that America never considered democracy as superior to its national interests. Its not interfering in Georgia is a direct indication of this doctrine.
How does the United States categorize Azerbaijan?
In general, America’s policies toward Azerbaijan began to be formulated during the rule of Haydar Aliev. In 1994, after the signing of the bilateral economic agreements, American oil companies started settling in Azerbaijan. It was these companies that started lobbying for us in Washington. The result was that we started to balance the Armenian Lobby’s actions…It was our oil that gave us such importance. Azerbaijan’s geopolitical importance started increasing after 9/11. Azerbaijan had a big role in the operations that took place in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Azerbaijan was considered important in any action against Iran…
http://watchingamerica.com/News/12010/the-united-states-never-prioritizes-democracy-over-its-national-security/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)