Russia, Belarus to boost air defenses on western borders
Russia and Belarus are perhaps making this move because the United States is going reassign soldiers to Eastern Europe. Again this also probably has something to do with Incirlik.
See also: Incirlik becomes logistical, potential “operations” to the East. #msg-6003766
-Am
BARANOVICHI. April 13 (Interfax-West) - Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko said more air defense troops will be deployed on the western borders of the Russia-Belarus Union.
Several Russian S-300 systems will be delivered to Belarus, Lukashenko said during a visit to the Obuz-Lesnovsky testing ground on Wednesday.
"As far as the re-deployment of several S-300 systems to Belarus is concerned, this matter has been decided," the president said.
"This measure will allow us to enhance our air defenses in the West. The air defense troops deployed on the western borders protect both Belarus and Russia," he said.
Commenting on bilateral military-technical cooperation, Lukashenko said that "the Russian Federation has already started providing Belarus with all the kinds of weapons in which we are interested at domestic [Russian] prices. We and the Russian army purchase them at the same prices," he said.
US army to reduce ground forces in Europe to 24,000
HEIDELBERG, Germany (AFP) Apr 12, 2005 The United States is going to reduce the number of American ground soldiers stationed in Europe to 24,000 from the current 64,000 troops within the next five to 10 years, a US army spokeswoman said here Tuesday. The proposed troop reduction would result in only four of the 13 main operating bases remaining. The four bases would be; Wiesbaden in central Germany, which would become the European headquarters for US ground forces, and Kaiserslautern in western Germany, Grafenwoehr in southern Germany and Vicenza in northern Italy, according to the spokeswoman, Elke Herberger.
The number of US army barracks and installations would drop from 236 to 88 with the reorganization, according to the American army in Europe website.
The US army is involved in a major redeployment in Europe so it can reassign soldiers back to the US or else to Eastern Europe.
Putting U.S. bases in Azerbaijan would lend legitimacy to the idea that a U.S. attempted takeover of Armenia is in the works.
see also: Incirlik, Turkey: Launchpad to points East? #msg-6003766
RUMSFELD’S BAKU TRIP STIRS CONTROVERSY Alman Talyshli 4/13/05
"Rumsfeld is interested in oil!" read a headline in the April 12 edition of the popular daily Echo. The April 12 visit of the Pentagon chief to Azerbaijan was a natural target for local media hungry for sensational news. But not only the press is looking for answers. Rumsfeld’s visit took place under extreme secrecy, with limited public information, leaving many local analysts and pundits to speculate about the reasons for the US secretary of defense’s trip, the third such visit in the past 15 months.
Most observers look to the issue of US military bases in Azerbaijan as a possible cause. Last year, considerable speculation focused on the possibility that worsening relations between Washington and Tehran would push the American military to seek bases in Azerbaijan, Iran’s northern neighbor, in preparation for any possible attack on the Islamic Republic. Although the White House has since opted for diplomatic negotiations to deal with Iran’s nuclear energy program, many Middle East experts continue to believe that military force remains an ongoing option.
The Pentagon and US Azerbaijan embassy web sites contained no information on Rumsfeld’s one-day visit to Baku, and Azerbaijani officials preferred to keep their explanations general. The purpose of the defense secretary’s visit, Ali Hasanov, head of the presidential administration’s political department, told the ANS television news station on April 10, "is to hold new discussions on the principles of cooperation between Azerbaijan and the USA in the sphere of security and [to] solve problems present in this sphere." Hasanov also emphasized Azerbaijan’s role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Partnership for Peace program, citing Rumsfeld’s participation "in cooperation issues implemented within the framework of NATO."
But, given the recent redeployment of US military forces from Germany, some Azerbaijani observers take a different view. Independent military expert Uzeyir Jafarov, in an April 9 interview with Echo, stated that Rumsfeld was coming to Baku to get a final answer about establishment of a US military base in Azerbaijan. Jafarov added that he believed the answer would be positive, and could come as early as mid-April. Pro-government political figures such as Jumshid Nuriyev, former head of Azerbaijan’s customs service, however, disagree with Jafarov, and have argued that Azerbaijan would never agree to its territory being used for an attack on Iran, a country with which Azerbaijan shares close cultural and historical ties.
Analysts’ views on the chances for a US military presence in Azerbaijan coincide with shifts in Pentagon plans for deployment of US forces. In a February 2004 visit to Uzbekistan, for example, Rumsfeld outlined the concept of "operating sites" in Asia that would allow the US and its allies "to periodically and intermittently have access and support." In times of crisis, these "sites," usually manned by small groups of personnel, could be expanded to handle larger numbers of troops and supplies.
Recent statements from Pentagon officials about strategic needs in the Caspian Sea region appear grounded in this "rapid reaction" strategy. General James Jones, commander of US troops in Europe, confirmed in recent congressional testimony the Pentagon’s interest in creating a special "Caspian guard" that would protect the Caspian Sea’s oil infrastructure as well as the nearly finished Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. The Wall Street Journal on April 11 reported that the US plans to spend $100 million on such a "Caspian guard" capable of responding to crisis situations in the Caspian Sea region, home to one of the world’s largest reservoirs of oil. This would include the development of a command center in Baku, responsible for monitoring ships in the Caspian Sea.
Most analysts believe any kind of American military base in Azerbaijan would have to be only of a temporary, mobile nature. In 2004, the Azerbaijani parliament adopted a law prohibiting the stationing of foreign troops on the country’s territory, a move widely believed to be a gesture towards Moscow and Tehran, which both oppose any strengthening of military ties between Azerbaijan and the US.
With that opposition in mind, President Ilham Aliyev has so far shown restraint in addressing Azerbaijan’s military cooperation with Washington. Though expected to meet with Rumsfeld, Aliyev instead departed April 12 on a two-day visit to Pakistan.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijani opposition parties have speculated that Rumsfeld’s visit also carried a political message. Upcoming parliamentary elections in November 2005 promise to be heated, and some media outlets, such as ANS TV, have argued that official Washington would close its eyes to the Aliyev administration’s progress with democratic reforms – and with them, any potential election falsifications – if Azerbaijan would agree to deployment of US military forces in the country. Pro-government members of parliament have also not stopped short of charging that recent closed-door meetings by US Ambassador Reno L. Harnish with regional opposition leaders make up part of the Pentagon’s negotiation scheme.
In his April 12 interview with ANS, Ali Hasanov rejected these rumors. "America is a democratic country and would never try to impose its interests on others," Hasanov said. "We are a sovereign state and have our own interests, too."
Editor’s Note: Alman Talyshli is a freelance political analyst in Baku.
Playing the Democracy Card How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East
Now we also see the same hypocritical stance toward democracy in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the phenomenon still goes largely unnoticed in the United States itself.
-Am
Playing the Democracy Card How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East
by Dilip Hiro March 17, 2005
The United States flaunts the banner of democracy in the Middle East only when that advances its economic, military, or strategic interests. The history of the past six decades shows that whenever there has been conflict between furthering democracy in the region and advancing American national interests, U.S. administrations have invariably opted for the latter course. Furthermore, when free and fair elections in the Middle East have produced results that run contrary to Washington's strategic interests, it has either ignored them or tried to block the recurrence of such events.
Washington's active involvement in the region began in 1933 when Standard Oil Company of California bid ten times more than the British-dominated Iraq Petroleum Company for exclusive petroleum exploration rights in Saudi Arabia's eastern Hasa province.
As a leading constituent of Allied forces in World War II, the U.S. got its break in Iran after the occupation of that country by the British and the Soviets in August 1941. Eight months later President Franklin Roosevelt ruled that Iran was eligible for lend-lease aid. In August 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull said, "It is to our interest that no great power be established on the Persian Gulf opposite the important American petroleum development in Saudi Arabia."
The emergence of Israel in 1948 added a new factor. Following its immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East. While each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S., and links between Iran and Israel became progressively tighter, Saudi Arabia and Israel, though staunchly anti-Communist, remained poles apart. Nonetheless, the overall arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979.
Besides pursuing the common aim of countering Soviet advances in the region overtly and covertly, each member of this troika had a special function. Being contiguous with the Soviet Union, Iran under the Shah helped the Pentagon by providing it with military bases. By inflicting a lightning defeat on Egypt and Syria -- then aligned with Moscow -- in June 1967, Israel proved its military value to the U.S. This strengthened Washington's resolve to get Israel accepted by its Arab neighbors, a policy it had adopted in 1948 and implemented soon after, even though it meant subverting democracy in Syria.
In March 1949, following Brig.-General Husni Zaim's promise to make peace with Israel, the CIA helped him mount a military coup against a democratically elected government in Syria. After Zaim had signed a truce with Israel on July 20, he tried to negotiate a peace treaty with it through American officials. A month later, however, he was ousted by a group of military officers and executed. The military rule that Washington triggered lasted five years albeit under different generals.
As the possessor of the largest reserves of petroleum in the region, Saudi Arabia helped the U.S. and its Western allies by keeping oil prices low. Furthermore, as a powerful and autocratic monarchy Saudi Arabia played a leading role in helping to suppress democratic movements in the small, neighboring, oil-rich Gulf States.
American clout increased when Britain -- the dominant foreign power in the region for a century and a half -- withdrew from the Gulf in 1971. The British withdrawal allowed the U.S. to expand its regional role as the four freshly independent Gulf States -- Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman -- struggled to adjust to the new reality. But instead of pressuring these sheikhdoms to institute democracy, Washington either opted for secret defense agreements with them or let the House of Saud implement an anti-democratic agenda in the region unhindered.
The Saudi Anti-Democratic Mission
In 1962, during a severe crisis in the House of Saud, Crown Prince Faisal promised political reform, especially the promulgation of a written constitution specifying a Consultative Council, with two-thirds of its members elected. But when he ascended the throne two years later he reneged on his promise.
Washington said nothing. It also remained silent when Riyadh helped suppress democracy in neighboring countries.
After its independence from Britain in 1961, Kuwait acquired a constitution which specified a National Assembly elected on a franchise limited to males belonging to families domiciled in Kuwait since 1921 -- in other words, about a fifth of adult citizens. Despite its limited nature, the Assembly evolved into a popular forum for expressing the aspirations and grievances of several important constituencies. Stung by criticism of official policies by its representatives, and encouraged by the Saudi monarch, Kuwaiti Emir Sabah ibn Salim al Sabah suspended the Assembly in 1976, accusing it of "malicious behavior," and then dissolved it. Its revival in 1981 lasted a mere five years.
At no point did Washington criticize the ruler's undemocratic actions.
Since 1992, when limited parliamentary elections were restored, voters have returned more Islamist MPs than pro-Western liberals. Emir Jabar ibn Ahmad al Sabah's efforts to extend the vote to women have failed, while he has made no move to extend the vote to the remaining four-fifths of adult male citizens -- nor has America pressured him to do so. He and the Americans fear, of course, that a universal adult male franchise would bolster the strength of the Islamist bloc in the Assembly.
Bahrain: Limited Democracy Derailed
In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia's anti-democratic mission melded with America's military needs. Bahrain became independent in August 1971. Its constitution, drafted by a constituent assembly (half nominated, half elected on a limited franchise), specified a National Assembly of 42 deputies, 30 of whom were to be elected on a restricted franchise. The first Assembly convened in December 1972 while Saudi Arabia watched warily.
As in Kuwait, however, the elected representatives criticized the government, angering the ruler, Shaikh Isa al Khalifa. This -- combined with pressure from Riyadh -- led the Emir to dissolve the Assembly in August 1975 and suspend the constitution.
Once again, Washington said nothing about the quashing of limited democracy in Bahrain. Why? In 1971, after the Pentagon leased naval facilities previously used by the British, Bahrain became the headquarters of the American Middle East Force. In 1977, the ruler extended the US-Bahraini agreement; and in 1995 Bahrain became the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.
Jordan: An Election Law Altered by Decree
Jordan provides another telling example of how American administrations have dealt with democracy in the Middle East. In an uncommonly free and fair election in November 1989, the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, won 32 seats in the 80-member House of Representatives. It joined the government and ran five ministries.
During the 1990 Kuwait crisis which culminated in the 1991 Gulf War, the Jordanian king took into account popular opinion, both inside and outside parliament, which was opposed to joining the US-led alliance against Iraq, and advocated a negotiated solution to the crisis. By so doing, he acted as a constitutional monarch.
Instead of praising this welcome democratic development, the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush pilloried Hussein as "a dwarf king." Unable to stand the pressure, King Hussein crawled back into Washington's fold after the 1991 Gulf War. To thwart the possibility of the IAF emerging as the leading party in the next election, he altered the election law by decree. In quietly applauding his action, the elder Bush's administration showed its cynical disregard for democracy.
Egypt: Supporting the Autocrat
While King Hussein manipulated the Jordanian political system with some sophistication to achieve the result he wanted, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt blatantly used the government machinery and state-run media to produce a pre-ordained electoral result to endorse his signing of the U.S.-brokered bilateral peace treaty with Israel in 1978-79 after he had broken ranks with the Arab League.
The depth and durability of popular antipathy towards peace with Israel, while it continues to occupy the Palestinian Territories, is highlighted by the fact that a quarter-century after the peace treaty, relations between the two neighbors remain cold. While remaining firmly under American tutelage, President Husni Mabarak has continued to spurn offers to visit Tel Aviv.
As in Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest political party in the Middle East and long outlawed in Egypt, offers a credible challenge to the semi-dictatorship of Mubarak (in power since 1981). His regime has continued to be the second largest recipient of the U.S. aid after Israel under both Democratic and Republican Presidents.
Several months ago, Mubarak mused that democracy in Egypt would mean Muslim Brotherhood rule over the country. The key question now is: Will Mubarak -- who recently agreed to hold the Presidential election scheduled for September through "direct, secret balloting" instead of simply rubber-stamping his sole candidacy in a stage-managed referendum -- let the Brotherhood challenge him?
The answer will come in the wording with which Article 76 of the constitution will be amended and passed by a Parliament dominated by Mubarak's National Democratic Party. At present, it specifies a single presidential candidate, endorsed by at least two-thirds of parliamentary deputies, to be offered to the voters for approval.
Yemen: Rebuffing Democracy
Another victim of the way American administrations have placed their narrow interests above any program to democratize the Middle East was Yemen. Ever since the creation of Republic of Yemen, following the union of North Yemen and South Yemen in 1991, the country has had a multiparty political system. Indeed, since North Yemen had been governed by the General People's Congress and South Yemen by the Yemen Socialist Party, a peaceful unification could only come about through the creation of a multi-party system.
In April 1993, the government organized the first general election on the Arabian Peninsula based on universal suffrage. It was for a 301-member House of Representatives and the Presidency. This historic event went unnoticed in the United States where the Clinton administration continued to rebuff the Yemeni government because of its insistence on an Arab solution to the 1990-91 Kuwait crisis and its negative vote on United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizing military action against Iraq.
Encouraged by the Yemeni election, six Saudi human rights activists -- professors, judges, and senior civil servants -- established the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) in Saudi Arabia. It demanded political reform in the kingdom, including elections based on universal suffrage. Government persecution followed, including job dismissals and arrests. Prof. Muhammad al Masaari, the head of the CDLR, managed to flee first to Yemen, and then to Britain.
Yet Washington did not protest.
Now George W. Bush loudly applauds the local elections held recently in the Saudi Kingdom. His administration ignores the fact that only half of the seats were even open for contest, and so distrustful were Saudi citizens of their government's electoral promise that only a quarter of eligible voters even bothered registered. Women were, of course, barred from voting.
By contrast, Bush endlessly laments the absence of freedom for the people of Iran, which his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently described as "a totalitarian state." These statements run counter to the facts. Since the 1979 revolution in that country, the Islamic regime has held seven parliamentary, eight presidential, and two local elections -- as well as four Assembly of Experts polls -- all of them multi-candidate and based on universal suffrage with a voting age of 15.
What explains this blatant myopia? While practicing an Islamic version of democracy, Iran is actively opposing the economic, military, and strategic ambitions of America in the region.
Actually, the historic pattern of American administrations in the Middle East -- downgrading democracy at the expense of narrow national interests -- is in line with what the United States has been practicing in Central and South America for a much longer period -- a phenomenon that has gone largely unnoticed in the United States itself.
AZERBAIJANI AUTHORITIES AGAIN CRITICIZE U.S. AMBASSADOR
The Azerbaijani authorities’ criticism of U.S. Ambassador Harnish, the unification of opposition groups and the involvement of NGOs and their use of the media as a means of propaganda are unmistakable characteristics of U.S. takeovers under the guise of democracy although bogus democracies at best.
Kyrgyzstan recently complained of their U.S. ambassador in the same manner before their ill fated revolution.
The Council of the Assembly of the People of Kyrgyzstan has criticized the U.S. ambassador in Bishkek, Steven Young, saying his activities can be regarded as preparations for a velvet revolution.
His activities can be considered as preparation in Kyrgyzstan of a velvet revolution comparable to the revolution in Georgia which is believed to have been orchestrated by U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Lynn Pascoe, says a council statement received by Interfax on Tuesday. #msg-4985230 #msg-6040530
This is one country after another. Rapid fire.
-Am
AZERBAIJANI AUTHORITIES AGAIN CRITICIZE U.S. AMBASSADOR Meeting on 21 April, representatives of pro-government political parties again subjected U.S. Ambassador Reno Harnish to harsh criticism for his imputed sympathy for and support of the Azerbaijani opposition, Turan reported. Harnish has met in recent weeks with representatives of the Democratic and Musavat parties and the progressive wing of the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, which have aligned in a bloc to contest the parliamentary elections due in November. Harnish also met on 20 April with the leaders of the newly formed Yeni Siyaset (New Politics) bloc, echo-az.com reported on 21 April. Several speakers at the 21 April meeting argued that it is inappropriate for a U.S. diplomat to meet with politicians who they claimed "are preparing to stage a coup d'etat under the guise of parliamentary elections." Parliament speaker Murtuz Alesqerov called for a probe into Harnish's activities after he toured rural areas and met with local opposition supporters (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 14 April 2005). LF
MOVEMENT TO SUPPORT PUBLIC TELEVISION LAUNCHED IN AZERBAIJAN Some 30 representatives of political parties, NGOs, and the media attended the founding meeting in Baku on 20 April of a movement named Elik Televiziya (Public Television), the aim of which is to lobby for the creation of a truly independent public broadcaster, Turan and zerkalo.az reported on 20 and 21 April, respectively. Participants reaffirmed their disapproval of the appointment of parliament deputy Ismail Omarov to head the newly created Public Television and Radio (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 18 April 2005), and they appealed to the international community to pressure the Azerbaijani leadership to take steps to ensure that broadcaster is truly independent and impartial. LF
“I think you can measure democracy also in terms of the economy and the choices that people have and less state control and more opportunity and cutting back on poverty,” he said. “We are not waiting just for an election. In fact, we are working aggressively to strengthen the economic base to provide a better atmosphere for a free and democratic process.”
Our economy is tanking, we have fewer choices, more state control, less opportunity and our poverty base is rising.
-Am
By Nane Atshemian
The United States believes it can help to make future elections in Armenia more democratic by continuing to “aggressively” support its government’s economic reforms and efforts to tackle poverty, an influential Republican senator said on Tuesday.
Norm Coleman, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made a positive assessment of political reform in Armenia, saying that the freedom and fairness of elections should not serve as the sole indicator of democratization. He also indicated his opposition to pre-term presidential and parliamentary elections in the country.
“Elections alone don’t make democracy,” Coleman told RFE/RL at the start of a three-day visit to Yerevan.
“I think you can measure democracy also in terms of the economy and the choices that people have and less state control and more opportunity and cutting back on poverty,” he said. “We are not waiting just for an election. In fact, we are working aggressively to strengthen the economic base to provide a better atmosphere for a free and democratic process.”
The United States has criticized virtually all national elections held in Armenia in the past. The criticism was particularly strong in the wake of the 2003 presidential ballot which international observers said failed to meet democratic standards due to serious fraud. The State Department said at the time that President Robert Kocharian’s administration missed “an important opportunity to advance democratization.”
Armenian opposition leaders say democratic elections are impossible under the current regime and have pledged to continue seek its ouster before the next presidential election due in 2008. They have been buoyed by President George W. Bush’s recent strong endorsement of the November 2003 “rose revolution” in neighboring Georgia.
But Coleman, who also chairs the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, spoke out against fresh elections in Armenia. “There is an election and it’s at a set period of time,” he said. “You want stability, you don’t want to promote instability.”
That election will lead to a “strengthening of democracy in this country,” the Minnesota senator added. It is not clear if the comments reflect the U.S. government’s position.
Coleman spoke to RFE/RL after a meeting with Prime Minister Andranik Markarian and Finance Minister Vartan Khachatrian. He was received by President Robert Kocharian later in the day.
Markarian’s office said the meeting focused on the provision of additional U.S. assistance to Armenia under Bush’s Millennium Challenge Account program. Yerevan hopes to receive $175 million within the next four years under the scheme designed to spur economic reforms around the world.
According to Coleman, the Armenian government also wants “more aggressive” U.S. efforts to get Turkey to lift its long-running economic blockade of Armenia. He said Washington, for its part, is concerned about government corruption and “would like to see a strengthening of rule of law in Armenia.”
“We’ve got a good relationship and I see it moving in the right direction,” Coleman added.
Coleman arrived in Yerevan late Monday with Gerard Cafesjian, a Minnesota-based businessman and philanthropist of Armenian origin. He will attend a ceremony marking the start of construction on a Cafesjian-funded museum in Yerevan.
The Armenian Assembly of America, a Washington-based lobbying group, described Coleman and Cafesjian as “long-time friends.” In a statement on Monday, it said the senator has been “an active supporter of Armenian issues” and welcomed his trip to Armenia.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
