The Struggle for Caucasia

[Ani_]

Well, the serbs were bombed by NATO, but you're right only after many months of ethnic cleansing. But if Turkey was to attack us, you think we would depend on Europe.

Please clarify your statement and tell me that you're not one of those individuals that think the poor, poor innocent muslim albanians were being ethnically clensed by bad, bad evil Christian Serbs.

[karoaper]

Please clarify your statement and tell me that you're not one of those individuals that think the poor, poor innocent muslim albanians were being ethnically clensed by bad, bad evil Christian Serbs.

Well, I didn't mention who is poor and who is bad, but I'd like to answer your question with a question: was there ethnic cleansing or not. In other words were little children maimed and killed, were women and old men put to the knife? If you think they were not, then it's a different discussion. If you think they were then I don't think you can argue that whatever the catalyst, there was in fact ethnic cleansing. Also, religion had nothing to do with what happened there. Those were old nationalistic vandettas. Serbs did a number to Croatia by the way. Croatians are Christians. One thing I'll say though is that these old nationalistic vandettas and clashes were put in motion by the repulsive turks, who came, divided, conqured, force-converted people, pitted Slavs against Slavs and so on.

[skhara]

Also, religion had nothing to do with what happened there. Those were old nationalistic vandettas. Serbs did a number to Croatia by the way. Croatians are Christians.

They did a number on each other. Besides there was that bloody "Operation Storm" by Croats so I wouldn't paint victims there. And religion most certainly played a part. At least from a cultural/traditional perspective. Obviously if the Bosnian Muslims weren't Muslims, they wouldn't have a separate ethnicity to begin with. Its much the same with Adjarians in Georgia.

One thing I'll say though is that these old nationalistic vandettas and clashes were put in motion by the repulsive turks, who came, divided, conqured, force-converted people, pitted Slavs against Slavs and so on.

In the recent conflict in Kosovo at least, the Western imperialist powers are fully to blame. If they hadn't armed, financed, trained, and supplied the KLA (using identical methods they did for Afgan mujahedin in the 80s), it would never had escalated to the level that it did. They trained the KLA in the art of PR and together with the gathering neo-liberal forces, with the help of the neo-liberal media, they executed. One hoax after another, one fraud after another made it to western television screens and newspapers, and there is your process of demonisation. What is undeniable and unchalligable is the end result. Just evaluate this end result.

But anyway, this is the "Struggle of Caucasia" not "Struggle for Balkania". Although both have several common denominators: (US, EU, Turkey, Russia -- Iran is the extra power in the case of the Caucasus). And their interests and agendas are consistent when it comes to both. Balkans has already turned into a defeat for Russia. So the "struggle for Caucasia" rages. US and EU had a regional "power ally" in Turkey. At least in case of the Caucasus, Russia has a regional "power ally" in Iran, so things are a bit more complicated for Turkey, EU, and US.

[Ani_]

Well, I didn't mention who is poor and who is bad, but I'd like to answer your question with a question: was there ethnic cleansing or not. In other words were little children maimed and killed, were women and old men put to the knife? If you think they were not, then it's a different discussion. If you think they were then I don't think you can argue that whatever the catalyst, there was in fact ethnic cleansing. Also, religion had nothing to do with what happened there.

Yes, there was ethnic cleansing. It started around WWII when Hitler and Mussolini helped albanians to cleanse Kosovo of Serbs. Subsequently, it continued unabated up to the nato bombing and intensified after the nato bombing. The nwo/western powers/zionists conspired to break up Yugoslavia into little controllable states and so there was a breakaway that was both illegal and unconstitutional. The Serbian population was terrorized and the FRY army sought to protect their people in those regions. I am not saying that the Serbs never did anything wrong, there were some excesses by a few individuals/groups as a result of what was done to Serbs, but Serbs were not aggressors, nor ethnic cleansers. In fact, Serbs were the most tolerant people in the region and that's what they got, massive demonizing by Ruder Finn, a jewish PR firm and the jewish lobbies, crying genocide and a new "holocaust."

Those were old nationalistic vandettas. Serbs did a number to Croatia by the way. Croatians are Christians. One thing I'll say though is that these old nationalistic vandettas and clashes were put in motion by the repulsive turks, who came, divided, conqured, force-converted people, pitted Slavs against Slavs and so on.

Yes, the turks and their jewish friends had a lot to do with what happened in the Balkans.

[Armenian]

German pro-Armenian Intervention on Caucasus Possible?
Can Karpat, AIA Turkish section

It is argued that Germany that has recently taken a decision about "Armenian massacre in 1915", actually is prepared to intervene through that way in Caucasian affairs in the future. This last decision of the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) must be seen as a new German policy, which consists to be present in Caucasus along with other major political powers, Turkish Cumhuriyet reports. As pressure upon Baku government intensifies, the German radio "Voice of Germany" insists that Karabakh Armenians should be allowed to leave Azerbaijan.

To that extent, the new decision about "Armenian massacre in 1915" in favour of Armenians is to be interpreted as a step further for Germany in Caucasus. Especially, in a time that an eventual government change is discussed in Azerbaijan, these initiatives prove that Germany is willing to take part in the reconstruction process in this region.

While the United States of America declared that a special military unit is to be formed to protect the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the strategic importance of Caucasus is increasing. The claims that Germany turns day by day in favour of the Karabakh Armenians' zeal to part from Azerbaijan become therefore interesting. Last Sunday Parliament elections in Karabakh took place breaking with Azeri laws, and aftermath a regional government was formed. And on the "Voice of Germany", the "rights of separating" of Karabakh Armenians from Azerbaijan, which is officially demanded by this new government, have been publicly uttered.

It is argued that all this evolution shows that Germany, in this regional dispersion period does not want to be out of the game. According to some international observers, the decision taken by all political parties existing in the German Parliament about "Armenian massacre" in 1915 along with other statements about "the importance of peace efforts between Turks and Armenians" and about the German responsibility in "this historical crime", all these form the background for Germany to take part in Caucasian affairs in near future. Thus, Germany plans to be the third power in the region along with the United States of America and Russia. As in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, whether Berlin is intended to influence once again regional affairs in Karabakh is therefore highly discussed.

In March 1999, German Professor Otto Luchterhandt from Hamburg University had made a speech in American University in Yerevan, and defended that Karabakh should determine its own fate, that Armenians in this region should separate from Azerbaijan and set up an independent state. That he also stated that "Armenians could reach that target playing on time factor" had provoked discussions at that time.

Last month, the German Orient Institute in Hamburg published a research, where it is argued that the Karabakh issue should be resolved according to the American policy. The same report emphasised that only hereby intense relations between Armenia and Russia would have been broken. The report reminded that among the Armenian opposition, number of American supporters increased considerably, and stated that Armenia is at a crossroad to choose either Russia or the United States of America.

Furthermore, the European Union's Enlargement Commissioner, Olli Rehn stated that Turkey must open its frontiers to Armenia, and defended that if frontiers is opened that would be in favour of Turkey. Rehn also stated that "Armenian issue is a very important one", and claimed that Turkish officials have problems to deal with "historical facts". He confirmed that if Turkey signs six legal regulations and the supplement protocol mentioned in the 17th December decisions, there will be no reason not to start the European Union membership negotiations with this country on the 3rd of October. Though, he reminded that the negotiations will be an open process, so the membership should not be taken for granted.

Source: http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=182

[Armenian]

RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN MILITARY EXERCISE ANACHRONISTIC

By Vladimir Socor

Friday, September 16, 2005

On September 10-13, Russia and Armenia conducted a tactical military exercise at the Marshal Bagramian training grounds, close to the Armenian-Turkish border. President Robert Kocharian and other Armenian officials attended the final, live-fire stage of the joint exercise. Each side committed a motor-rifle regiment, artillery, and tank company, for a total of 1,300 ground troops, to the four-day exercise. In addition, four Su-25 and four MiG-24 planes from the Armenian side, S-300 air defense systems, and four MiG-29 planes from the Russian side, and combat helicopters from both sides took part.

Armenia's Deputy Defense Minister, Lt.-General Mikael Grigorian, acted as coordinator of the exercise in the presence of Maj.-General Andrei Popov, commander of Russia's Group of Forces in the Transcaucasus (GRVZ), to which the Russian forces stationed in Armenia are subordinated. The GRVZ command headquarters has yet to be moved out of Tbilisi by Russia's Defense Ministry, presumably to the Russian base at Gyumri in Armenia. Russia stations an estimated 5,000 troops of all types in Armenia, including 3,000 officially reported to be based at Gyumri.

The exercise aimed to test the interoperability of Russian and Armenian forces. It rehearsed a defensive battle against "aggressor forces from the direction of Turkey" that attacked on the ground and in the air, advancing into Armenia during the first stage of the battle. In the follow-up stages, Russian and Armenian forces counterattacked and destroyed the invader's forward elements, then encircled and attacked the main invasion grouping, forcing it to surrender. This type of scenario is traditional at Armenian-Russian annual tactical exercises, but it now seems out of step with the bilateral rapprochement between Russia and Turkey on all levels, including that of regional security. This year's exercise scenario added for the first time an "anti-terrorist operation" to suppress a diversionary terror attack by the invading force.

Armenia's Su-25 planes made their first public appearance in the country on this occasion. Armenia took delivery of 10 planes of that obsolescent type from Slovakia's air force last year. They are co-located with the Russian base in Gyumri.

Addressing all troops in Russian after the exercise, Kocharian characterized Armenia-Russia relations overall as "brotherhood…thanks to which the Russian military base exists and we conduct joint exercises to ensure our countries' security." If viewed in those terms, however, the exercise scenario of battling Turkey seems anachronistic and unrealistic. For his part, Defense Minister Serge Sarkisian cited Azerbaijan as a source of threats to Armenia's security; he expressed confidence in the Armenian army's readiness to face that challenge.

While Yerevan portrayed the exercise accurately as a bilateral event, Moscow billed it as an undertaking of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Russia's Security Council Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha, also attending the event, listed the Russia-Armenia "group of forces" as a CSTO component, together with a Russia-Belarus group of forces and the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces in Central Asia. However, those two "groups of forces" exist only virtually, in Russian planning for wartime operations, and remain at any time a matter of Russia's bilateral relations with Armenia or Belarus. Armenia's participation in CSTO exercises remains confined to the annual air defense practice.

Moscow traditionally relies on bilateral relations for alliance management. However, Russia is interested in advertising the CSTO in order to enhance Russia's own status vis-à-vis NATO. Attending the NATO-Russia meeting of Defense Ministers on September 13 in Berlin, Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov cited the Russian-Armenian exercise as part of ongoing CSTO activities. He sought to portray the CSTO as an operational reality and urged NATO to establish cooperation with this Russian-led organization. Armenia, however, is interested in developing its own ties with NATO through an Individual Partnership Action Plan.

(Interfax, Regnum, Arminfo, Armenian Public Television, September 12-14; Air Force Monthly, August 2005)

Source: http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370230

[Armenian]

An anti-American military confederacy may loom in Asia

September 21st, 2005

The members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an intergovernmental association comprising China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, will recognize the organization’s fifth anniversary in June 2006 with a much anticipated celebration, “Everyone agrees this first jubilee date must be celebrated accordingly,” said Vitally Vorobyev, Russia’s coordinator in the SCO. Washington, however, will not be joining in the festivities.

The reason for Washington’s sour mood? Growing anxiety surrounding the ultimate mission of the SCO and its impact on Central Asia and the Middle East. Pictures taken by journalists of Russian President Vladimir Putin during the recent joint Russsian-Chinese Peace Mission 2005 military exercises, showing the president in full military attire and holding a large model warplane were not reassuring. His subsequent flight in a supersonic bomber specifically designed to deliver a nuclear payload did not help either.

This raises an important question: with SCO leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Hu Jintao and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly embracing military modernization and improved synergies, is the organization destined to become a military confederacy with the U.S. as its main target?

“For the SCO to be turned into a military and political bloc or alliance, the present-day SCO would need to be dissolved. The legislation of some of the SCO member-countries makes this [military confederacy] impossible,” said Vitally Vorobyov. He immediately followed these comments with a contradictory statement, “Cooperation between defense agencies within the SCO framework can and should develop. The SCO makes provision for this, it’s nothing new.”

Statements of this type from high-level Russian and SCO officials continue to perplex western intelligence officials, leading some to speculate that it may be only a matter of time before the SCO begins to exert its collective military influence in Central Asia and the Middle East.

Peace Mission 2005

In August, “Peace Mission 2005,” a joint eight-day military exercise involving 10,000 Russian and Chinese troops, was held in Russia’s Far East and China’s Shandong Peninsula. The exercises were led by Russian General Makhmut Gareyev, a veteran of World War II who fought against both Germany and Japan. Requests by Washington to reduce the scope of the exercises were rejected by both Russia and China.

The joint exercises involved beach landings, airborne assaults, naval blockades, anti-ship missiles and precision bombing from strategic bombers. To the surprise of western intelligence officials, Russian Tu-95MS Bear and Tu-22M3 Backfire strategic bombers designed to carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were deployed during the exercises. The exercises reportedly involved a mock intervention to stabilize an imaginary country driven by ethnic strife.

In response, the U.S. launched a week long “Joint Air Sea Exercise 2005” in Okinawa and Guam which included 10,000 troops and 100 warplanes from the USS Kitty Hawk strike group. In addition, the U.S. and South Korea participated in a twelve day “Ulchi Focus Lens 2005” military exercise. Taiwan has already announced that it has scheduled its own invasion defense exercise code named “Yama Sakura” for 2006. Taken collectively, the military exercises send a clear message to Moscow and Beijing that the U.S. is prepared to respond to any collaborative military threat.

Recent Military Exchanges

In September, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov announced his country had agreed to supply China with a total of 40 IL-76 transport and IL-78 refueling planes at a cost of about $1 billion. Later this month, Ivanov is expected to sign contracts to deliver Russian military vehicles to China.

The recent plane and vehicle sales continue a trend of Russian military hardware transfers to China which have included: 200 fourth-generation fighter aircraft, several S-300 air defense batteries, guided missile destroyers and sophisticated submarines worth a combined $15 billion over the past ten years. In 2004 alone, Russian arms exports to China totaled $2.3 billion.

According to Konstantin Makiyenko, the deputy director of the Center for Strategic and Technological Analysis, a Moscow-based think tank, China is also interested in purchasing Russian made A-50 Mainstay AWACS planes and a manufacturing license for the Su-30MK2 multi-role fighter. Moreover, Beijing has made it clear that wants to accelerate the purchase of advanced Russian fighters, unmanned aircraft and long and short-range missiles as part of its ongoing modernization program.

Not surprisingly, Russian Defense Minister Ivanov announced this month that Russian servicemen would travel to China for training stating, “Russia needs more experts who can speak Chinese.” More than 500 Chinese students already study at Russian military universities. But why the sudden urgency for improved communication between the two militaries?

Washington has begun to take notice of the evolving relationship. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack commented in August,

“We would hope that anything that they [China and Russia] do is not something that would be disruptive to the current atmosphere in the [Central Asia] region.”

Unfortunately, Mr. McCormack may be disappointed.

Future Military Exercises

Immediately after the completion of their historic joint military exercises, Russia and China announced plans to hold additional joint exercises in 2006. Both countries anticipate expanding the exercises to include SCO member states Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as observer states India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan. “It is possible by the time we decide to hold such exercises with China; other SCO countries would be willing to join, like India,” one Russian official said. Russian Defense Minister Ivanov concurred, “I think that future Russia-China military exercises will be held and other members of the SCO will probably take part in them.”

Russia and India are scheduled to hold their first joint army drill next month, with mock raids on terrorist facilities taking place in the Indian province of Rajastahn, on the boarder with Pakistan. Andrei Kokoshin, a former secretary of the Russian Security Council and a member of parliament said the impending follow-up to the Peace Mission 2005 exercises could be part of a Russia-China-India triangle which supports the increased activity of the SCO. “The exercise might focus on maintaining stability in Central Asia and ensuring the security of oil supplies via sea routes,” Kokoshin said.

Chinese, Indian and Russian naval assets working in unison to protect oil supplies in the Persian Gulf? This comment shows another disturbing aspect of the emerging confederacy, an increased willingness to use its combined military strength to secure strategic energy reserves located in the Middle East. The mere thought of the Persian Gulf clogged with warships enforcing multilateral allegiances and interests is enough to make any intelligence analyst stay up all night.

General Yury Baluyevskiy, Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, further elaborated on the topic of SCO military cooperation,

“I do not rule out that, if a decision is made by the SCO, of which Russian and China are members, the armed forces of our countries may be involved in performing certain tasks.”

General Baluyevskiy failed to elaborate on what those “certain tasks” would include.

Observer country Pakistan is also becoming more active in the military aspects of the SCO. In September, Chinese General Liang Guanglie, a member of the Central Military Commission and Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), met with Pakistani General Ehsan Ul Haq, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to strengthen military-to-military ties. During the meeting in Beijing, the two generals exchanged views on issues of common global and regional interest, as well as army building.

The most troubling development of the past month related to the SCO is the growing prospect of a nuclear-obsessed Iran joining the organization as a permanent member. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the newly elected conservative President of Iran, is a proven U.S. antagonist and a firm believer in spreading revolutionary Islamist ideology throughout the Muslim world. His recent comments at the U.N. concerning the U.S. show a preparation for confrontation with the U.S. Making matters worse; Iran is planning to build up its military forces. Iran had planned to double its military budget by 2010, but thanks to record oil revenues, that timetable has been adjusted to 2008.

New Thinking Needed

The SCO is a menacing confederacy of powerful nations arising out of the shadows of the Cold War that could cause tremendous global instability and even lead to world war. Geopolitics aside, the SCO has the potential to become the most powerful alliance on earth, combining Russia’s energy, military and technology expertise; China and India’s economic and human capital; and Iran’s enormous energy resources and growing military capabilities. This unique combination makes the SCO a formidable adversary for the U.S.

In February, Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) chief of staff General Liang Guanglie said the Peace Mission 2005 exercises would, “protect the peace and stability in our region and the world.” The world? The world has been led to believe that the SCO is a regional alliance designed to address issues of mutual concern such as terrorism, separatism and extremism -- whatever they may mean at the moment for the members of the SCO. With military operations scheduled for 2006 and an expanded list of participating nations, the military threat posed by the SCO is starting to take shape.

At this time, what steps need to be taken by the U.S. to prepare for a possible SCO military threat? First, the U.S. Congress, Department of Defense and U.S. intelligence community must recognize that the continued military modernization and integration involving Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Iran will directly threaten the U.S. and its allies within the next several years. This is an uncomfortable reality, but one which is taking shape right before our eyes.

Second, calls by the SCO and others in the international community for an immediate withdraw of U.S. troops from the Middle East and Central Asia should be disregarded, due to the horrific consequences that the inevitable power vacuum would cause. Instead, strategic alliances should be strengthened with countries such as Georgia and the Ukraine to counter any regional threat.

Third, recent calls by Iran for a Muslim seat on the UN Security Council should be viewed for what they are; an effort by Tehran to weaken U.S. legitimacy in the international community and diminish its influence in Central Asia and the Middle East. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s announcement that his country will sell “peaceful” nuclear technology to other Islamic countries is too chilling to contemplate.

In short, the SCO is an immature, but potentially dangerous confederacy of countries with a mutual interest to dethrone the U.S. and if necessary, confront it militarily. Under the guise of economic partnership, regional alliances and friendship, China, Russia and the other members of the SCO are rapidly increasing their collective power. Recent Pentagon reports identifying China as a growing threat are indeed accurate, but don’t go far enough.

The reports are deficient in that they base their analysis and predictions on countries such as China acting unilaterally. As a result, compulsory discussions concerning the rise of regional and global alliances that threaten the U.S. are not taking place. This could be a fatal mistake, since the SCO has become the perfect vehicle for coordinated military action in the future.

Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr. is an expert on bilateral and trilateral alliances as they relate to China foreign policy.

Frederick W. Stakelbeck, Jr.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4837

[Armenian]

A BASE OR NOT A BASE FOR AZERBAIJAN?

Alman Mir Ismail 9/12/05

Print this article Email this article

As the Azerbaijani parliamentary election campaign gathers pace, local media speculation is building about the possible establishment of a US military facility in Azerbaijan.

Both US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev have firmly dismissed the possibility that the US would open a permanent military base on Azerbaijani territory. "I have said this before, and I repeat: ‘Azerbaijan will not host American military bases on its territory," the president said on August 19 while visiting the Agsu, Gabala and Oguz regions. Harnish has similarly denied that Washington has made Aliyev any official request for bases. "[W]e are not going to locate our military bases in the territory of Azerbaijan," the US ambassador told Azerbaijani journalists on August 26, the Russian-language newspaper Zerkalo reported Harnish as saying.

But as the Pentagon prepares to withdraw troops from Uzbekistan at the request of the Uzbek government, speculation has mounted that US forces could relocate to Azerbaijan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has visited Azerbaijan three times in the past year, and, despite a denial by US Ambassador Harnish, local media continue to report that the Pentagon chief plans a return trip in the near future. A Pentagon spokesperson said Rumsfeld’s travel plans were generally not released in advance due to security considerations. Like Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan has also been rumored as a potential home for a US base. Those reports were fanned by Russian media and were strenuously denied by both US and Turkmen officials. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

President Aliyev’s denials notwithstanding, the speculation about a future US base in Azerbaijan could prove damaging to the government’s interests, noted one prominent political scientist. "Raising the issue about American military bases in Azerbaijan comes at a bad time, because the pro-Russian and pro-Iranians voters will be unhappy about it and will vote against the ruling party [Yeni Azerbaijan Party]," said Professor Musa Gasimli, an expert on American politics at Baku State University. "Such timing is [also] bad for America’s national interests in the region."

Already, the debate is colored by strong political overtones. Opposition leader Isa Gambar, chairman of the Musavat Party, recently spoke out strongly in favor of the opening of US military bases in Azerbaijan, saying that as "a member of the anti-terror coalition, [Azerbaijan] must carry out its commitments as a coalition member," the newspaper Ayna reported on September 1. "Given that the US wants to secure its presence in this territory, Azerbaijan should be positive about this issue."

Nonetheless, Azerbaijan’s laws and international agreements make the establishment of such an installation unlikely. In 2004 the Azerbaijani parliament, adopted a law that bans the establishment of a foreign military base on Azerbaijan’s territory. During a trip to Iran this January, Aliyev also signed a non-aggression agreement – a document believed to carry particular significance given ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Some Azerbaijani news sources have instead focused their sights on alleged plans for a temporary, mobile installation. Citing an unnamed diplomatic source, the APA news agency recently reported that while a force similar to the former US air base at Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan may not be in the offing for Azerbaijan, "a structure" with no "concrete purpose" could be opened to defend Washington’s "various strategic interests, including the interest to protect the main oil pipeline [Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline]."

While Washington has not commented on such speculation, one mobile force is already planned for Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. In August, the Pentagon announced that it will allocate $130 million to provide training for a Caspian Guard over the next six years. The force will be responsible for intercepting drug and weapons trafficking on the Caspian Sea, as well as fighting international terrorists and the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the region.

As part of the program, the United States hopes to build a command and control center in Azerbaijan as well as sites to oversee related maritime and air security operations, an August 10 Stars and Stripes report cited Army Lt. Col. Scott Sweetser, a Caspian Guard Initiative coordinator, as saying.

In recent months, the United States has exerted pressure on Aliyev’s government to hold free-and-fair parliamentary elections on November 6. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Some local experts believe the US government would be willing to scale back its scrutiny of the Aliyev administration’s conduct during the election period, in return for a commitment to accept an American strategic presence in the country. Vafa Guluzadeh, a former presidential advisor on foreign affairs, recently told the newspaper Sherg that the question of a US base should be seen as affecting the parliamentary elections one way or another.

Sulheddin Akber, the deputy chairman of the opposition Musavat Party, dismissed any possibility that a military base could be used as part of a quid pro quo involving the US stance toward Azerbaijan’s election. "The United States did not give up on its principles" in Uzbekistan, where strong criticism of the Uzbek response to the June 2005 protest in Andijan was followed by Tashkent’s demand that the US withdraw from the air base in Karshi-Khanabad in southern Uzbekistan, Akber noted. "From this point of view, America will not sacrifice its democratic demands [in Azerbaijan] for the sake of bases that are still to be built."

For now, Washington shows no sign of diminishing its scrutiny of Azerbaijan’s preparations for the November 6 ballot. The vote is widely viewed as a critical test of the Aliyev administration’s commitment to democratic reforms. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In early September, Senator Richard Lugar (Republican-Indiana), the influential chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Barak Obama (Democrat-Illinois) were the latest in a series of high-profile US visitors to Azerbaijan to observe voting preparations. The visit, Lugar told journalists in Baku on August 31, convinced the congressmen that "fair and free polls will be held."

Editor’s Note: Alman Mir Ismail is a pseudonym freelance political analyst in Baku.

Source: http://www.eurasianet.org/department...091205ru.shtml

[Armenian]

US deploys another military base on post-Soviet territory

09/06/2005 11:45

Ashkhabad seems to be drastically changing its foreign policy: it abandons CIS and becomes more loyal to America. The Uzbekistan Government has recently demanded that Americans must withdraw the US contingent from Khanabad, and soon the American base will be removed to Turkmenistan, a neighboring country. If it happens Turkmenistan's policy will seriously change and at the same time will indicate changes in US's priorities in Central Asia.

The authority of Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov is unlimited in Turkmenistan which became a close state after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The country often revealed its absolute neutrality in the past years. Until recently, Turkmenistan has been a formal CIS member, and now after the CIS summit in Kazan it is an associated member. Russia always criticizes Turkmenistan for discrimination of Russians and other national minorities in the republic. The US from time to time emphasizes that people's freedom is violated in the republic. At that, Americans applied no strict measures to the republic and its president just because Turkmenistan is one of the world's largest gas exporters.

It seemed that Turkmenistan would not like to expand relations with other countries in any spheres except gas export. During his visit to Ashkhabad last spring, CENTCOM Commander General John Abizaid arranged that the US base stationed in Uzbekistan's Khanabad would be moved to Mary in Turkmenistan. At that time, Uzbekistan was not yet requesting removal of the American base. Several construction companied from the United Arab Emirates have repaired the Mary-2 airbase to be ready to receive US army technique. American pilots will also be able to use an aerodrome in Kushka, once the most extreme south settlement of the former Soviet Union.

Ashkhabad seems to be drastically changing its foreign policy. One of the Turkmenistan vice-premiers came to the CIS summit in Kazan to announce the republic would abandon the Commonwealth to have just associated membership. The Turkmen Government is obviously seeking separation from Russia and wants to be closer to the US to get secure against a revolution in the republic. It is not ruled out that the Turkmen president has struck a deal with the American Administration as a result of which the republic must abandon the CIS and allow Americans to deploy their bases on the Turkmenistan territory, and in return the US helps Niyazov remain the president.

America has several concerns in Turkmenistan. The republic is first of all one of the largest gas exporters. Gas pipelines go from Turkmenistan along the Russian territory, but Americans want to build a gas pipeline of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan type bypassing Russia. Attempts to build such a pipeline were made in the mid-1990s but there was little hope that Talib Afghanistan would be a transit country. Turkmenistan's coast of the Caspian Sea is attractive for Americans as well - large-scale petroleum production is to be started there soon.

Geopolitics is absolutely essential for the US that wants to have a military base in Central Asia close to Russia, China and neighboring Afghanistan. Iran is Turkmenistan's neighbor in the south. America has already deployed its military bases in Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Bahrain; Georgia and Azerbaijan are likely to allow Americans to their territories to exert pressure upon Iran if necessary. To have wider authority in the region, America needs to deploy its base in Turkmenistan.

Having decided to deploy bases in Turkmenistan, America demonstrates that the issues of freedom, democracy and human rights may be ignored when it comes to energy resources. And it may happen so that the Turkmenistan president will all the same lose the position even being really loyal to Washington, the same way it happened to Eduard Shevardnadze and Askar Akayev who actively cooperated with America and were still dethroned. Today, there is no opposition in Turkmenistan that is why no overthrowing of the president can be expected in the nearest time. Now Washington wants to get settled on the strategic territory of the republic to have wider authority there in the future and probably exert pressure upon Turkmenistan's neighbors, Russia and even China.

Ivan Shmelev

Source: http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/92...kmenistan.html

[Glock21]

As a note to this older thread, the Caspian Guard Initiative seems to be going strongly. There are lots of US Coast Guard personnel at the coastal bases around Baku, and it is a fairly common sight to see them on the streets of Baku.

As far as a formal military post, I am of the opinion that we will see one in Azerbaijan next year.