Regional geopolitics

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

How Turkey shopped Mossad spies to Iran: A story leaked by Washington to caution Netanyahu
DEBKAfile Special Report October 17, 2013

Early last year, the Erdogan government blew the cover of up to 10 Israel agents in Iran who had been meeting inside Turkey with their Mossad case officers. This story was published in The Washington Post, by David Ignatius, who has excellent connections in the US capital, Thursday, Oct. 17 – the day after a two-day conference in Geneva between six world powers with Iran on its nuclear program. A chorus of Western powers led by the US hailed the event as “substantive” and “forward-looking.”
But on the quiet, the WP story was directed against Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as a caution to him to drop his “lone voice” posture against trusting Iran to abandon its nuclear weapon aspirations. Instead, he must look forward and start getting used to the “new Middle East" and role Barack Obama has assigned for Iran. If he persists in his defiant attitude, Israeli intelligence may face more debacles like the Turkish betrayal.
The WP story reveals from “knowledgeable sources” that Israeli intelligence had apparently run part of its Iranian spy network through Turkey, which has relatively easy movement back and forth across its border with Iran. “The Turkish intelligence service MIT had the resources to monitor those meetings, but after 50 years of cooperation with Turkey, Israel never imagined the Turks would “shop” Israeli agents to a hostile power.
Ignatius reports: “US officials assessed the incident as a problem of misplaced trust, rather than bad tradecraft.”
Still, the article presents Israel’s Mossad in an unflattering light, claiming that Israeli intelligence officers in 2010 complained to the CIA that Hakan Fidan Turkish intelligence chief was in fact “the MOIS station chief in Ankara.” MOIS is Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
He describes “Israeli anger at the deliberate compromise of its agents,” which he said may help explain why Netanyahu “became entrenched in his refusal to apologize to Erdogan about the May 2010 Gaza flotilla incident" in which nine Turks were killed. He did apologize later but the “severe strain with Erdogan continues.”
DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources underline five lessons from the WP article and its timing:
1. The US never protested to Ankara about over its deliberate compromise of the Israeli network because President Barack Obama was intent on cultivating Prime Minister Erdogan as a key Muslim ally.
2. Washington wasn’t sure of Turkey’s motives. According to one theory, Erdogan was settling a score with Israel for its commando raid on the Turkish Mavis Marmama which was leading the flotilla to Gaza with pro-Palestinian activists.
3. Netanyahu’s apology, forced on him by Obama, did not ease strained relations with Ankara.
4. Although US officials treated the exposure of the Israeli network as an unfortunate intelligence loss, they continue to work with Hakan Fidan on sensitive issues despite his suspected collaboration with Tehran.
“This practice of separating intelligence issues from broader policymaking is said to be a long-standing US approach,” the writer reported.
5. “Kaleidoscopic changes” lie ahead of the Middle East, says Ignatius, and countries like Israel, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are searching – openly as well as covertly - for alliances in the constantly changing Middle East.
The sixth lesson appears between the lines of the article. It is that if Netanyahu wants to escape more punishment over his bad relations with Erdogan and attitude on Iran, he must change his approach and acclimatize to the new Middle East, however cruel and cold, in which the US and Iran are beginning to cooperate.
The same message applies equally to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of which actively challenge Barack Obama’s approach to the region.
As usual in the covert world of intelligence and espionage, the WP story has another dimension. It is also the answer to a Wall Street Journal piece of Oct. 10 entitled “Turkey’s Spymaster Plots Own Course on Syria,” which quotes former US Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey as saying, “Hakan Fidan is the face of the new Middle East.”
He accused Fidan of working against US policy by helping to supply arms and ammunition to the al-Qaeda-linked jihadis fighting with Syrian rebels. Jeffrey describes Fidan as one of three spy chiefs acting to shape the “new Middle East.” The other two are Prince Bandar bin Sultan, director of Saudi General Intelligence, and Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of the notorious Iranian Al Qods Brigades intelligence and terror network.
Mossad chief Tomer Pardo did not make the list.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Long Syrian convoy transports chemical arms from Al Safira to Hama
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 15, 2013

A convoy of about 100 Syrian army trucks was sighted Monday, Oct. 15, transporting a large consignment of chemical arms from their big depot at the Al Safira military base east of Aleppo to another facility in the town of Hama, some 160 kilometers to the south, DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources disclose. Tarpaulin sheets concealed the trucks’ freights from foreign spy planes and satellites. A large military escort secured the convoy.
The general assumption was that Bashar Assad was moving part of his chemical weapons stocks and missiles of delivery out of Al Safira, where Scud C and Scud D surface-to-surface missiles capable of carrying chemical warheads were also known to be housed in bunkers.
This was the first time in the more than two and-a-half years of the Syrian civil war that a large shipment of chemical weapons has been taken out of Al Safira.
The rebels have repeatedly battled in vain to capture Al Safira and get hold of the chemical weapons and missiles stored there. But they never got further than the adjoining town, where many Syrian officers attached to the base are lodged with their families.
In the second half of last week, a number of rebel militias returned to the attack. The Syrian military hit back hard: Bombing attacks by fighter planes and assault helicopters were intense enough to stop the rebel advance in its tracks.
However, under cover of this harsh counter-offensive, the Syrian military prepared the way for the exit of chemical weapons stocks from Al Safira by mopping up rebel emplacements on the hills overlooking the base and clearing them off the access roads.
At the end of this cleansing operation, the trucks and their chemical shipment exited the base Monday afternoon.
Western intelligence sources tracking Syrian chemical movements offer four optional reasons to account for their transfer:
1. Bashar Assad decided to forestall the very real danger of a rebel break-in to Al Safira;
2. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, shortly after being award the Noble Peace Prize, complained that its inspectors had only reached five out of at least 20 facilities capable of producing chemical weapons, but was prevented from reaching any more because they were located in rebel-controlled battle zones.
Vilified by the world as a mass-murderer of his own people, even Assad basks in the unfamiliar praise he has won for cooperating with the UN inspectors - not only from the Russians but even from the Americans. He may hope to keep the plaudits going by his action in moving large chemical weapons stocks out of Al Safira, where they are at risk, to Hama, where they are accessible to OPCW inspectors.
3. But the reverse explanation is also worth consideration: In Hama, the Syrian army may distribute small CW parcels to small fleets of trucks for onward trips to new places of concealment inaccessible to the international monitors.
4. Or else, Assad is preparing to smuggle those stocks out of the country,
by Taboola

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Geneva talks fail to break standoff on Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran unclear on concessions
DEBKAfile Special Report October 16, 2013



Two days of talks in Geneva between Iran, the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany ended Wednesday, Oct. 16, with little more than a decision, confirmed only by Tehran, to reconvene in the coming weeks for another attempt to break the standoff on Iran’s nuclear program.
Those governments will meanwhile evaluate whether it is possible to bridge the gaps between Iran’s proposals and the American position. Those gaps were so wide that the forum in Geneva suspended its multinational discussion after the first day and the delegations broke up into two camps Wednesday for bilateral meetings on the sidelines. The Western delegates conferred with each other, while the Iranians put their heads together with the Russian and Chinese delegates.
Although Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and his deputy Abbas Araghchi pumped out a stream of upbeat comments about the “positive” response to their proposals, their Western audience saw nothing more than partial frameworks lacking concrete details. The Iranian delegates were believed to be inhibited by uncertainty about how their performance at Geneva would be received by Supreme leaer Ali Khamenei and other Iranian radicals. He too is under radical pressure at home to put a stop to bridge-building with America and the West.
DEBKAfile reports from Western sources close to the Geneva talks that Iran signaled willingness to consider seven partial concessions as “the last step” in a process – indicating that sanctions relief must come first:
1. Iran refuses to renounce uranium enrichment altogether under any circumstances.
2. A certain amount of enriched material might be given up within a given period of time.
3. Enrichment will be pegged to a low level – probably 5 percent.
4. Enrichment to 20 percent purity (close to weapons grade) would be partially scaled down, but enough medium-refined uranium would be retained for the production of isotopes for medicine and research. This section was not clearly phrased.
5. After long hedging, Tehran would give IAEA inspectors access to the military facility at Parchin where Western and Israeli intelligence reported that nuclear explosions were tested.
6. Tehran is prepared to address calls to sign the Additional Clause of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which allows more intrusive and unannounced UN nuclear watchdog inspections. However, the inspectors will not receive access to facilities that have not been declared nuclear sites.
Abbas Araghchi made it clear that this like all other concessions would depend on the lifting of sanctions.
7. Tehran will promise not to construct a plutonium separation reactor at Arak. The plan to stockpile plutonium as an alternative to enriched uranium for fueling a nuclear weapon appears to have been set aside for now, but not the reactor itself.
The Geneva conference ended with all the main issues up in the air or too vague to be pinned down. The forum will most probably meet again as some future date. This outcome has exacerbated the skepticism in Washington and Tehran about the prospects of further diplomacy achieving any real progress toward a deal for curtailing Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Obama’s potential release of $12bn of frozen Iranian assets would be followed by $35 billion from Europe
DEBKAfile Special Report October 18, 2013

Tehran stands to gain access to nearly $50 billion if the Obama administration decides to free up $12 billion of frozen Iranian assets in the US, inevitably followed by Europe’s release of another $35 billion. The White House was reported Friday, Oct. 18 to be weighing a proposal to offer Iran access to these funds “in installments” against "steps to cut down on its nuclear program."
DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources: This plan offers Barack Obama a way to ease sanctions on Iran, while avoiding political and diplomatic fallout in Congress and from Jerusalem that would result from an attempt to get the sanctions legislation repealed or amended.
US lawmakers and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu continue to call for harsher measures against Iran, after the Geneva conference last week failed to achieve any breakthrough in the controversy on Iran’s nuclear program.
Although its delegation avoided any pledge to suspend uranium enrichment and offered no plan to dismantle its enrichment facilities, US officials complimented the Iranian position as “more candid and substantive” than in previous diplomatic encounters.
Indeed, according to our sources, the Iranian delegation advised the six world powers on the opposite side of the table to simply accept Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s fatwa as an ironclad pledge of the Islamic Republic’s commitment to refrain from developing a nuclear weapon and continue to pursue a peaceful program.
As for a substantial proposal to cut back on their nuclear operations, the Iranian negotiators said firmly: Sanctions relief first; concessions only at the end of the road.
Ahead of the next round of talks on Nov. 7-8, the Obama administration hopes to warm world opinion to the proposition that Iran’s leaders, especially President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his deputy Abbas Araghchi, need more incentives for concessions. They must be able to show their doctrinaire colleagues at home that diplomacy and smiles win more than intransigence.
Even before the Geneva conference, the White House was already putting in place the plan for relieving sanctions by the release of frozen funds - which is why the US delegation included for the first time the Director of the OFAC (the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control), Adam Szubin.
Asked by CNN what Szubin was doing there, senior US negotiator Undersecretary Wendy Sherman said:
“The purpose of having our sanctions team here with us is because … Iran wants to get sanctions relief. But they also have to understand what the range of our sanctions are, what they require, how they work, what it takes to implement sanctions relief, what sanctions we believe need to stay in place.”
Even this gesture failed to elicit from the Iranian delegates any concrete concessions. The obviously fed-up senior Russian delegate, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, summed up his impression of the conference by commenting sourly that it was “…better than Almaty" (where the last round of talks took place in April) but offered “no guarantee of future progress.”
Nevertheless, President Obama is determined to keep up his strategy of appeasing Tehran and showing Congress and the Israeli prime minister that they are wasting their time by trying to stop him easing sanctions on Iran, because he will bypass them with presidential decrees.
Most of all, Obama is set against allowing himself to be persuaded by Netanyahu’s arguments of the terrible danger posed by a nuclear Iran.
Foreign Minister Zarif put his oar into the conflict between Washington and Jerusalem Friday with this comment: “There is a high possibility that the talks will be disturbed by various efforts on the part of Israel,” he said. “This reflects Israel’s frustration and warmongering.”

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Գալիս է գլոբալ վերաբաշխման պատմական ժամանակաշրջանը
Իգոր Մուրադյան
Շաբաթ, 19 Հոկտեմբերի 2013,

Եվրոպայի աշխարհքաղաքական հավակնությունները
ԱՄՆ ներքաղաքական եւ տնտեսական խնդիրներն այսպես թե այնպես, նույնիսկ հակառակ եվրոպական որոշ շրջանակների շահերի, Եվրոպական միությանը թույլ են տվել որոշակի դիրքեր զբաղեցնել արտաքին քաղականության մեջ, որտեղ ինչ որ չափով ստեղծվում է եթե ոչ վակուում, ապա քիչ թե շատ բարենպաստ ասպարեզ նախաձեռնությունների ու գործողությունների համար:
Որքան էլ մոտ ու համաձայնեցված լինեն ամերիկացիների ու եվրոպացիների հարաբերությունները ներկայում, երբ շահերը լիովին համատեղվել են, համաշխարհային երկու աշխարհքաղաքական բեւեռների գոյությունը չի կարող չպայմանավորել որոշակի մրցակցություն եւ շահերի տարբերություն:
Սակայն խոսքն ամենեւին մրցակցության մասին չէ: Եվրոպան մտադիր է միջազգային ասպարեզում ծավալել նոր, առավել ակտիվ քաղաքականություն, ինչը պայմանավորված է ոչ միայն քաղաքական հավակնություններով, այլեւ արտաքին տնտեսական նոր հնարավորություններ ձեռք բերելու ձգտմամբ, ինչպես նաեւ անվտանգության խնդիրներով:
ԱՄՆ պատասխանատվության մակարդակի նվազումը մի շարք տարածաշրջանների հարցում եւ նրա կենտրոնացումը Ասիական-խաղաղօվկիանոսյան տարածաշրջանում դարձել է եվրոպական առաջատար պետությունների հետ լիովին համաձայնեցված գլոբալ նախագիծ, ինչը շատ է հիշեցնում ազդեցության ոլորտների բաժանումը, որն անշուշտ ունի ժամանակավոր շրջանակներ: Գալիս է ազդեցության գլոբալ վերաբաշխման պատմական ժամանակաշրջանը, եւ դա նախեւառաջ կապված է ԱՄՆ եւ Չինաստանի միջեւ հարաբերությունների հետ:
Ռուսաստանը, հասկանալով այս հեռանկարը, այն իր համար ընկալում է ամենեւին էլ ոչ բարենպաստ: Ռուսաստանը փորձել է որոշ տարածաշրջանների ուղղությամբ ճեղքում անել, քանի որ լիովին ակնհայտ է դարձել Ռուսաստանի աշխարհքաղաքական շրջափակման եւ մեկուսացման մեկնարկը: Արեւմտյան հանրությունը կլուծի այդ խնդիրը, նույնքան հաջող, որքան նման ծրագիրը Թուրքիայի դեպքում, որի արտաքին քաղաքականության մոդելը որոշել է պատճենել Ռուսաստանը: Չի բացառվում նաեւ այն, որ նեոօսմանիզմի ու նեոեվրասիականության հայեցակարգերը նախաձեռնվել են պսեւդո-աշխարհքաղաքական ծրագրերի մշակման եւ նախագծման նույն կենտրոնի կողմից:
Հայաստանի նախագահի անիմաստ ու անթույլատրելի պասաժը Մաքսային միության վերաբերյալ հայտարարության մասով, անշուշտ, որոշակի նշանակություն է ունեցել Եվրոպայում եւ ԱՄՆ-ում ռեսուրսների մոբիլիզացման համար, քանի որ լիովին ակնհայտ ցուցադրվել է, թե որքան վտանգավոր է կործանվող, ոչ միջուկային երկրի քաղաքականությունը: Եվրոպացիներին հերթական անգամ առիթ են տվել տեսք ընդունելու, որ իրենք չեն հասկացել, որ Հարավային Կովկասում ազդեցության մեծացումը ենթադրում է անվտանգության երաշխիքներ տարածաշրջանի երկրներին, թեկուզ եւ մասնակի ձեւաչափով:
Հնարավորություն է ընձեռնվել օգտվել «թարմ» թեմայից, քանի որ «վրացական թեման» հնացել է ու կորցրել ակտուալությունը, առավել եւս, որ «հայկական թեման» կապված է ոչ միայն Ռուսաստանին, այլեւ Թուրքիային: Եվրոպացիները դուրս եկան շոկային իրավիճակից եւ հասկացան, որ Ռուսաստանի այդ զիջումը կասկածի տակ կդնի ինքնիշխան աշխարհքաղաքականության հարցում Եվրոպայի սպասումները եւ կցուցադրի ԱՄՆ հետ հավասարակշռված երկխոսության անիմաստությունը:
Բացի այդ, բուն Եվրոպական միության շրջանակներում կմեծանա իզոլյացիոնիզմը, եւ նոր կշիռ ձեռք կբերեն Ռուսաստանի հետ դիմակայության մեջ չմտնելու փաստարկները: ԵՄ արտաքին քաղաքականության եւ անվտանգության հարցերով բարձր ներկայացուցիչ մադամ Էշթոնը հանձնարարել է կրկին հավաքել եւ մշակել Մաքսային միության վերաբերյալ տեղեկատվությունը: Ակնհայտ է, որ Եվրոպական միությունը, մեղմ ասած, շահագրգռված չի լինելու այդ անհասկանալի կազմավորման զարգացման մեջ:
Սակայն ինչպիսի՞ն է ԱՄՆ քաղաքականությունը տարածաշրջանային խնդիրների հարցում: ԱՄՆ «հանձնում է» Կենտրոնական Ասիան, սակայն ինչպե՞ս է հանձնում եւ ո՞ւմ: Վերջին տասնամյակում ԱՄՆ եւ Եվրոպայի քաղաքական տեղանվանության մեջ կիրառվում է Կենտրոնական Ասիա բառակապակցությունը, ինչը հասկացությունների մեջ խառնաշփոթ է առաջացրել: Երեւում է, ներկայում դրա տակ ենթադրվում է միայն այն, ինչը խորհրդային տարիներին Միջին Ասիա էր, բայց ոչ ամենեւին Հարավային Կովկասը:
Հետխորհրդային Կենտրոնական Ասիան ներկայում նկատելի բաժանված է, եւ Հարավային Կովկասը դիտարկվում է որպես Եվրոպայի մաս: ԱՄՆ-նԿենտրոնական Ասիան «հանձնում է» Չինաստանին, հաշվի առնելով արդեն կատարված փաստը: Սակայն, նույնիսկ այս իրավիճակում ԱՄՆ եւ Չինաստանի միջեւ կան պայմանավորվածություններ, կամ էլ առնվազն ձեռք է բերվել համաձայնություն, որ Չինաստանը Ռուսաստանի հետ չի կիսելու տարածաշրջանի համար պատասխանատվությունը եւ շահագրգռված է լինելու Ռուսաստանից այդ պետությունների անկախության մեծացման մեջ:
Ասենք, ամերիկացիներն ընդամենը հաստատել են Չինաստանի իրական մտադրությունները: Այսպիսով, Չինաստանի գլոբալ զսպման քաղաքականության շրջանակներում Կենտրոնական Ասիան դիտարկվում է որպես Չինաստանի ազդեցության գոտի, շահերի որոշակի համատեղման ռեժիմում: Ամերիկացիները բավական երկար են մտածել Շանհայի համագործակցության կազմակերպության մասին եւ եկել եզրակացության, որ ոչ մի հատուկ բան պետք չէ ձեռնարկել, քանի որ ցանկացած կառույց կհանգեցնի Չինաստանի ուժեղացմանը եւ Ռուսաստանի թուլացմանը Եվրասիայում: Եւ պարզվում է, որ գլոբալ զսպումը ենթադրում է նախեւառաջ քաղաքականությունը Հարավ-արեւելյան Ասիայում, Խաղաղ օվկիանոսում եւ Հեռավոր Արեւելքում, եւ ոչ թե Եվրասիայում, որտեղ Չինաստանը կարող էր դառնալ ԱՄՆ գործընկերն առկա սպառնալիքները չեզոքացնելու հարցում:
Ներկայում Եվրոպական միության անվտանգության քաղաքականությունը հնարավոր չէ պատկերացնել առանց Հարավային Կովկասի ինտեգրման եւ Սեւծովյան ու Միջերկրածովյան տարածաշրջաններում ՆԱՏՕ-ի ուժեղացման: Ներկայում պայքար է գնում Ուկրաինայի համար, եւ Արեւմուտքը պատրաստ է շատ փոխզիջումների ու զիջումների, բայց ոչ թե Ռուսաստանի, այլ հենց Ուկրաինայի հետ, ներառյալ այդ երկրի տարբեր քաղաքական կուսակցությունները եւ ուժերը: Ուկրաինան, այլ անմիջական խնդիրներից զատ, դիտարկվում է որպես լոկոմոտիվ Եվրամիության հետ ինտեգրվելու ուղղությամբ Արեւելյան Եվրոպայի այլ պետությունների համար: Ընդ որում, հաշվի է առնվում ԳՈՒԱՄ-ի տխուր փորձը:
Եվրատլանտյան հանրությունը սխալ է արել, զուգահեռ չօգտագործելով երկու «անկախ» մեխանիզմ՝ Եվրամիությունը եւ ՆԱՏՕ-ն: Այս երկու կառույցները պետք է գործեն համատեղ: Փորձեր կարվեն Դաշինքին ինտեգրել Արեւելյան Եվրոպայի երկրներին, առանց վերանայելու ինստիտուցիոնալ հիմքերը եւ նոր ծրագրերի ընդունումը: Որոշակի ռազմական շրջանակների լեզվով, «տվյալ իրական քաղաքական իրավիճակում, առանց Արեւելյան Եվրոպայի պետություններին Դաշինք ընդունելու, գործնականում ՆԱՏՕ-ին են միացվելու այդ պետությունների զինված ուժերը»:
Կասկած չկա, որ Ռուսաստանը, կեղտոտ թելադրանք իրականացնելով Հայաստանի հանդեպ, կհայտնվի կոտրած տաշտակի առաջ, եւ Ռուսաստանի աշխարհքաղաքական շրջափակման քաղաքականությունը կուժեղանա, որն այդ երկիրը կհասցնի միջազգային վնասակարության նոր փուլին: Եւ դրա առավել ակնհայտ օրինակը կդառնան մոտակա իրադարձությունները Մերձավոր եւ Միջին Արեւելքում:
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/com....yH4wt1R8.dpuf

[Eddo211]

Re: Regional geopolitics

NATO SAYS CHINA-MADE DEFENSE SYSTEMS IN TURKEY 'VIRUS' FOR ALLIANCE

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/171295/

Turks have been after interception friend/fow codes for their F-4s (unable to engage NATO aircraft without it) in case they decide to attack NATO fighter aircraft (US) but never been able to get those codes....now they are trying to get the transponder code 5 IFF system from US in disguise by this Chinese air defense system for Turkey that they say needs to meet NATO standards.

I am afraid one of these days US will give them the codes....

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Kurdish rebels ready to re-enter Turkey, PKK member says
Kurdish rebels are ready to re-enter Turkey from northern Iraq, the head of the group's political wing said at his mountain hideout, threatening to rekindle an insurgency unless Ankara resuscitates their peace process soon.

Accusing Turkey of waging a proxy war against Kurds in Syria by backing Islamist rebels fighting them in the north, Cemil Bayik, a founding member of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) told Reuters the group had the right to retaliate.

Bayik, the group's most senior figure at liberty, spoke at a small, heavily guarded house in the Qandil Mountain range in Iraq's Kurdish north, a badge featuring jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan pinned to a pocket on his guerilla uniform, according to Reuters.

"The process has come to an end," Bayik said in the interview, which took place on Saturday, Oct 19. "Either they accept deep and meaningful negotiations with the Kurdish movement, or there will be a civil war in Turkey".

As prerequisites, Turkey must improve the conditions in which Ocalan is being held and deal with him on equal terms, guarantee amendments to the constitution and enlist a third party to oversee any further steps in the process, he said.

"Now we are preparing ourselves to send the withdrawn groups back to North Kurdistan if the government does not accept our conditions," said Bayik, who shares his position with a female militant. He said the direction of the process would become clear "in the coming days".

North Kurdistan is the term Kurds use to refer to the area of Turkey they lay claim to as part of a larger homeland that also takes in tracts of Iran, Iraq and Syria, referred to as East, South and West Kurdistan respectively.

The PKK took up arms against Turkey in 1984 with the aim of carving out a separate state in the southeast for the country's Kurds, which make up around 20 percent of the population but have long been denied basic political and cultural rights.

The effort to negotiate with Ocalan is seen as Turkey's best chance at ending a conflict that has blighted its human rights record, held back its European Union candidacy and undermined economic growth. For the rebels, it holds out hope of concessions in a struggle with no clear military victor for nearly 30 years, Reuters says.

But the process, which had already lost some momentum, was thrown further into doubt earlier this month when Turkey unveiled a package of reforms Bayik described as "empty".

"That package has nothing to do with democracy," he said, accusing Erdogan of giving false hope. "There is no change in the mentality."

The reforms - which the government says are part of a broader "democratization" drive and not just aimed at solving the Kurdish issue - include proposals to change a vote threshold that kept Kurdish parties out of parliament in the past, and allow for privately funded Kurdish-language education.

But they stopped short of constitutional guarantees for Kurdish identity and culture, greater autonomy and native-language education, and did not touch anti-terror laws that have put thousands of political prisoners behind bars, Bayik said.

"We silenced our weapons so that politics could speak, but now we see that politics is in prison".

Bayik said whilst his side had abided by the ceasefire, Turkey had simply moved the frontline in its fight against Kurds to Syria, where civil war has raged for more than two years.

The PKK accuses Ankara and influential Turkish preacher Fethullah Gulen of recruiting and training Islamist "bandit groups" to fight Kurds in Syria on their behalf.

"At a time when the Turkish government is helping the bandit groups and is waging a war on the people of West Kurdistan... it is the right of the Kurdish people to bring the fight to Turkey," Bayik said, referring to the northeastern corner of Syria, where a Kurdish group aligned with the PKK is in control.

Ankara denies arming the rebels or facilitating the passage of foreign fighters who have gone to join al Qaeda-affiliated factions in Syria, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the Nusra front.

Asked whether the PKK had sent guerillas to reinforce the ranks of fellow Kurds in Syria, or would consider doing so in future, Bayik said they did not need help. "We don't want to send them to West Kurdistan," he said. "If the Turkish government wants to insist on fighting, North Kurdistan is the field of war".

However, Reuters says, he admitted some Kurds from Syria who had previously fought with the PKK in Turkey had returned home of their own volition, and that young Kurds in Turkey increasingly felt compelled to go to Syria and fight there. "This is a very dangerous development".

Bayik said in principle the PKK had nothing against Iraqi Kurdistan developing good relations with Ankara, as long as they were based on "equality, freedom and democracy".

"Relations based on oil and gas and economy: we don't find such relations right, and they don't serve a solution to the Kurdish question," Bayik said. "Turkey used to fight with South Kurdistan... on the field, but now they want to win the war from inside the castle."

[UrMistake]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Good for them .

[Eddo211]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Ocalan control PKK.....Ergekons control Ocalan.

No civil war wet dream in Turkey and no Kurdish rights in Turkey.

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

OUR BEST OPTION...FOR NOW

Editorial, 19 October 2013

Because too many Armenians willfully ignore some of the fundamental
truisms of international politics, it bears to repeat the number
one "law" on how states ultimately relate to each other. To put it
bluntly, military muscle is the tacit but determining "supreme court"
of political conflict. And since the Big Powers dominate militarily,
it is their will that will be done, not that of Burkina Faso,
Fiji...or Armenia. Many other diplomatic "laws" get their cue from
this first law.

For all the striped pants, top hats, elegant tails, and the diplomatic
civilities at the UN, international politics is, in essence, little
different from the way "peace" is maintained by the street-corner
bully. Power will not be denied. Witness the western invasions of the
Middle East or Turkey's recent Kurdish-friendly reforms. The latter
are being proposed not because Ankara has suddenly seen the justice
of the Kurdish cause, but primarily because the Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK - Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan), the Pesh Mergas have cost
Turkey thousands of casualties, not to mention $300 billion to wage
war against the Kurds.

When we lobby for the recognition of the Genocide, demand the return of
our lands, argue that Artsakh is rightfully ours, and insist Armenians
should retain some western Azerbaijani territory to discourage future
Baku attacks, it behooves us to pay heed to the above rules.

Another rule is that no country cedes an inch of land, unless it is
forced to do so. The time-honored way of acquiring land is war or
its threat. Which brings us to the subject of the return of some of
Western Armenia to Armenia.

For more than a decade some in the Armenian media and intelligentsia
have expressed the hope that a democratic-liberal Turkey is our
best chance to regain parts of Western Armenia. Despite Armenian
disappointments in Turkish promises of modernity and tolerance ("Young
Turks" in 1908; Ataturk's "modern" Republic of Turkey), these same
Armenians hope against hope that Ankara would return to us Kars,
Ardahan, Ararat, Van, etc. because somehow and someday Turkey would
believe it's the right thing to do.

But democracy, liberalism, etc. have nothing to do with self-interest,
especially when it comes to occupying another's land or returning lands
to their rightful owners. Britain acquired its empire when it was
a liberal democracy. It gave away its empire only when the "natives
got restless" and packed the British back to their island. To this
day, Britain refuses to give up the Falklands in the South Atlantic
or Gibraltar. The U.S, a democracy since its birth, illegally took
everything west of continental Northeast US from the Natives. To this
day, it keeps its hold on Guantanamo, a Cuban beach outpost.

France was a democracy when it acquired its African and Southeast
Asian colonies. It was a democracy when it refused to return Algeria
to the Arabs or Vietnam to the Vietnamese.

When western countries, with centuries of democratic values, refuse to
return what's not theirs, why do we assume a traditionally intolerant
and racist Turkey would behave differently? This is delusional thinking
writ large. Besides, how will Turkey return an inch of Western Armenia
to us when from Kozan (Sis) to Kars, the land is populated mostly by
Kurds who demand autonomy, if not independence.

Turkey has lost thousands of troops and civilians, in addition to
spending vast sums to suppress Kurdish insurgency. Why would it just
hand over anything to us?

To say that regaining our lands from Turkey through military means is
not an option is to state the obvious. Thus the Kurdish option (see
Q&A with Dr. Henry Astarjian in our previous issue) is the only game
in town--for now. As Kurds get stronger in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, it
seems inevitable to many observers that Ankara will eventually concede
some of Western Armenia to a future Kurdistan. Meanwhile, as Dr.

Astarjian suggests, we should make serious and strategic approaches
to the Kurdish leadership. Representatives of the National Congress
of Western Armenians have been touring Western Armenia for the past
several years and meeting Kurdish leaders, half-Kurd/half-Armenian,
converted and hidden Armenians. Their focus is cultural ties with
the Kurds. These are incipient moves. We need to see more vigorous
exchanges. Armenian organizations in North America, in Europe and
elsewhere should establish friendly relations with the Kurds. We need
Armenian-Kurdish Friendship Associations wherever Armenians and Kurds
live. We should-in particular--learn how we can help the Kurds. One
obvious strategy is promoting the Kurdish cause in the west.

Our efforts would require a quid pro quo--a solid agreement that when
Kurds take control of Western Armenia, they would return some of the
land to us...at least those adjacent to the western slopes of Ararat.

The "rule" which says states don't cede land, unless militarily forced,
stands. But there are always exceptions to the rule. Let's try to
regain some of our lands through means other than military. A pipe
dream? Perhaps not. It IS a dream, but one with a plan attached to it.

It's certainly more constructive than what we've done for so long:
chatter among ourselves as Western Armenia drifts away from us.

http://www.keghart.com/Editorial-Best-Option