Russian Military and Security Media Coverage #4524 [20 April 2005]
[Open-source resources compiled by Ralph Davis for the recipient's personal use.]
In this issue: Middle East, Turkey
01. NG, 04-13-05; Rumsfeld Cuts Soldiers' Tour of Duty
[Open-source resources compiled by Ralph Davis for the recipient's personal use.]
In this issue: Middle East, Turkey
01. NG, 04-13-05; Rumsfeld Cuts Soldiers' Tour of Duty
02. Eksport Vooruzheniy, 04-01-05; On the Principles of Russian-Israeli VTS
03. RIA, 04-20-05; RUSSIA BETWEEN ARABS AND ISRAELIS
04. Itar-Tass, 04-19-05; Russian Lawmaker Says Middle East Policy Intensifying Prior To President's Visit
05. Ma'ariv, 04-15-05; President Putin's Mysterious Visit
06. Tel Aviv Vesti, 04-14-05; Change Tracks
07. Strana, 04-15-05; Iraqi Businessmen Have Established Contact With Primakov
08. President of Russia, 04-20-05; Interview with Israeli television Channel One
09. AVN, 04-20-05; Russia said negotiating to supply helicopters, combat vehicles to Palestinians
10. Nasname, 01-08-05; The Turkish Fascist Party Has Been Established
11. Hurriyet, 03-15-05; The Wolf and the Lamb
12. BBC, 03-19-05; A Turkish lesson in nation building
13. AP, 03-20-05; Mein Kampf becomes a bestseller in Turkey, raising the question: Why?
14. MEMRI, 03-23-05; Turkish Expressions of Solidarity with Syria
************************
01. Moscow Daily Sees Rumsfeld Unimpressed by Talabani Assurances on Iraqi Army
Moscow Nezavisimaya Gazeta in Russian 13 Apr 05 p 6
[Report by Artur Blinov: "Rumsfeld Cuts Soldiers' Tour of Duty. Pentagon Chief Pays Unexpected Visit to Baghdad"]
[Excerpt] US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has paid an unexpected visit to Iraq, demonstrating that the full panoply of responsibility for Iraqi affairs has once again passed to him. This is the Pentagon chief's ninth visit to the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates since 2003 and his second in the past three months.
We would remind you that in late-2003 US President George Bush robbed the Pentagon of the function of Iraq policy coordinator, transferring this duty to Condoleezza Rice (at the time she was the President's national security adviser). Now, with Rice's transfer to the position of secretary of state, Rumsfeld has once again shouldered the responsibility for the security situation. What is more, henceforth he will be overseeing issues pertaining to the political leadership of the country if not formally then in practice at least. [passage omitted]
Rumsfeld's explanations to journalists accompanying him indicate that Washington is worried by the "red tape and manifestations of corruption" involved in the formation of new organs of power. Hence in conversations with Iraqi leaders the secretary warned them against taking action that could undermine confidence in the new regime. In addition to corruption such manifestations include the appointment of officials and bureaucrats on the principle of nepotism and personal connections as well as purging administrative services of supporters of Iyad Allawi, the previous prime minister.
The US defense secretary has asked Iraqis "not to lose the pace" set by the January election and not count on the schedule for the formation of the new organs of power being postponed. As you know, the formulation of the country's new Constitution is to be completed by mid-August, it is to be adopted in October, and a general election held by the end of the year with a view to forming permanent rather than interim organs of power.
According to AP, Rumsfeld and the Iraqi leadership had a meeting on military matters. They discussed, in particular, President Talabani's public assurances that the formation of the new Iraqi Army would be completed within the next two years. [passage omitted]
Talabani's assurances do not seem to have made the right impression on Rumsfeld: He demanded that the Iraqis make more vigorous efforts to set up their own Armed Forces. The defense secretary said that the Pentagon has downsized its contingent in Iraq from 150,000 at the beginning of the year to the current 140,000. Further cuts are planned, to be specific, it is intended to reduce the tour of duty in the country for officers and enlisted men from one year to six months. For that to happen it is necessary for Iraqis to carry out more vigorous anti-insurgent operations.
Moscow Nezavisimaya Gazeta in Russian 13 Apr 05 p 6
[Report by Artur Blinov: "Rumsfeld Cuts Soldiers' Tour of Duty. Pentagon Chief Pays Unexpected Visit to Baghdad"]
[Excerpt] US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has paid an unexpected visit to Iraq, demonstrating that the full panoply of responsibility for Iraqi affairs has once again passed to him. This is the Pentagon chief's ninth visit to the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates since 2003 and his second in the past three months.
We would remind you that in late-2003 US President George Bush robbed the Pentagon of the function of Iraq policy coordinator, transferring this duty to Condoleezza Rice (at the time she was the President's national security adviser). Now, with Rice's transfer to the position of secretary of state, Rumsfeld has once again shouldered the responsibility for the security situation. What is more, henceforth he will be overseeing issues pertaining to the political leadership of the country if not formally then in practice at least. [passage omitted]
Rumsfeld's explanations to journalists accompanying him indicate that Washington is worried by the "red tape and manifestations of corruption" involved in the formation of new organs of power. Hence in conversations with Iraqi leaders the secretary warned them against taking action that could undermine confidence in the new regime. In addition to corruption such manifestations include the appointment of officials and bureaucrats on the principle of nepotism and personal connections as well as purging administrative services of supporters of Iyad Allawi, the previous prime minister.
The US defense secretary has asked Iraqis "not to lose the pace" set by the January election and not count on the schedule for the formation of the new organs of power being postponed. As you know, the formulation of the country's new Constitution is to be completed by mid-August, it is to be adopted in October, and a general election held by the end of the year with a view to forming permanent rather than interim organs of power.
According to AP, Rumsfeld and the Iraqi leadership had a meeting on military matters. They discussed, in particular, President Talabani's public assurances that the formation of the new Iraqi Army would be completed within the next two years. [passage omitted]
Talabani's assurances do not seem to have made the right impression on Rumsfeld: He demanded that the Iraqis make more vigorous efforts to set up their own Armed Forces. The defense secretary said that the Pentagon has downsized its contingent in Iraq from 150,000 at the beginning of the year to the current 140,000. Further cuts are planned, to be specific, it is intended to reduce the tour of duty in the country for officers and enlisted men from one year to six months. For that to happen it is necessary for Iraqis to carry out more vigorous anti-insurgent operations.
************************
02. Israel's Security Said To Be in Russia's Arms Sales
Moscow Eksport Vooruzheniy in Russian 01 Apr 05
[Article by Ruslan Pukhov: "On the Principles of Russian-Israeli VTS"]
In the beginning of 2005, reports appeared in the Russian and Israeli mass media that deliveries of operational-tactical Iskander-E missile systems from Russia to Syria were supposedly under preparation. Later the mass media reported about plans to deliver Igla PZRK's [man-portable surface-to-air missile systems] to this country. There was even mention of the possibility of sales of long-range S-300-family surface-to-air missiles to Damascus. Russian officials refuted the plans for the delivery of OTRK's [operational-tactical missile systems], but said that there were negotiations on the possible export of Strela systems, which are Igla PZRK's modified for fixed launchers. According to assertions of the Russian side, these systems cannot be transported by one person without the help of a vehicle, and therefore cease to be "man-portable".
But regardless of whether real plans exist for the deliveries of SAM's, PZRK's or OTRK's to Syria, and also without getting into an analysis of the origin of the information and the motivation of the Russian mass media concerning this topic, we will try to formulate the main principles of military-technical cooperation with countries of the Near and Middle East, pursuant to which Russia would ensure its national interests.
First, reducing the level of the state of Israel's national security is not in Russia's interest. In addition, Russia must regard with increased attention the possibility of real military threats appearing as a consequence of the deliveries of Russian arms to Syria or other countries hostile to Israel. An assessment of the consequences of the delivery of systems which could be used against the civilian population or civilian facilities and also offensive weapons, from which defense is extremely difficult, should be regarded particularly attentively.
Russia's desirable sensitivity to Israel's interests is not altruism, but a consequence of the circumstance that Israel may potentially become one of the Russian Federation's most important, although extremely unusual, partners in military-technical cooperation. A particular of VTS [military-technical cooperation] with Israel consists of the fact that this country is not a VVT [arms and military equipment] sales market for Russia or a potential partner in carrying out large, joint military-industrial projects. To the degree that the Russian OPK [defense-industrial complex] has degraded and is increasingly lagging behind the military-technological leaders, Israel may to an increasing degree become one of Russia's most important sources of technologies, which are cheaper and faster to import than to try to create independently. In addition, Israeli dealer networks may in some cases be used to promote Russian aviation platforms equipped with Israeli avionics in the world market. Cooperation of this type is distinguished by complete complementariness and mutual commercial interest. In regard to Russia, such complementariness is harder to achieve with other avionics-producing countries, for example, with France, since they are themselves serious players in the aviation and helicopter-platform market.
Finally, Israel is of interest to Russia from the point of view of obtaining experience in the anti-terrorist and counter-partisan struggle, including in conditions of dense, urban construction.
Although at the present time, when the Russian Army is not in a position to load up our own industry with orders, the idea of Russia importing military equipment does not seem probable, but it seems to us that in the foreseeable future such purchases will be unavoidable. In fact, the first cases of importing dual-use equipment for the Russian militarized agencies have already taken place. For example, NPK Irkut is buying equipment and technologies for unmanned aviation systems as well as observation and target-identification systems from Israel. These deals were realized in the interest of the MChS [Ministry of Emergencies, Civil Defense and Natural-Disaster Recovery], which conducts a policy which is much more effective from the point of view of Russia's aviation industry than the Ministry of Defense.
It is essential to note that Israel has a large number of advantages both as a source of VVT and defense technologies. The main ones of these are Israel's readiness to transfer technologies and the already noted complementariness of Russian and Israeli offerings in the market.
It is clear that relations with a potential strategic VTS partner can be built only under conditions of increased attention to his interests, and in the case of Israel, this topic is especially urgent.
On the other hand, while attentively considering Israel's security interests, Russia can and should defend its commercial interests, including when selling arms systems to Syria, the other Arab countries, and also to Iran that are not a threat to a European state.
It seems that these principles do not contradict one another and can be fully compatible in real VTS practice. Based on the given approaches, one would consider the transfer to Syria of weapons systems such as an Iskander-E OTRK, S-300-family surface-to-air missile systems, and PZRK's of any type as undesirable. Under Near East conditions the Iskander with its high strike precision, 300-km range, and the impossibility of intercepting it with an anti-missile system is a strategic weapon, which can strike vitally important military, economic, and administrative facilities throughout almost all of Israel's territory. The S-300 SAM system also has too great of a range for the Near East, and its transfer to Syria would threaten aircraft flights, including civil aircraft, over the territory of Israel itself. A PZRK could fall into the hands of irregular, militarized formations, which would use them against civilian targets.
At the same time, the transfer of intermediate-range and short-range SAM systems such as the Buk-M1, Tor-M1, Tunguska-M1, and Pantsir-S1, would strengthen Syria's military security and not threaten Israeli civilian facilities. These defensive systems can be used only against military targets and only in case of actions by Israeli aviation over Syrian or Lebanese territory. Analogously, the military balance in the region will not substantially change should wide-scale modernization of the Syrian Air Force's military aircraft fleet, which will always be behind Israel's Air Force and Ground Troops in combat effectiveness, take place.
Moscow Eksport Vooruzheniy in Russian 01 Apr 05
[Article by Ruslan Pukhov: "On the Principles of Russian-Israeli VTS"]
In the beginning of 2005, reports appeared in the Russian and Israeli mass media that deliveries of operational-tactical Iskander-E missile systems from Russia to Syria were supposedly under preparation. Later the mass media reported about plans to deliver Igla PZRK's [man-portable surface-to-air missile systems] to this country. There was even mention of the possibility of sales of long-range S-300-family surface-to-air missiles to Damascus. Russian officials refuted the plans for the delivery of OTRK's [operational-tactical missile systems], but said that there were negotiations on the possible export of Strela systems, which are Igla PZRK's modified for fixed launchers. According to assertions of the Russian side, these systems cannot be transported by one person without the help of a vehicle, and therefore cease to be "man-portable".
But regardless of whether real plans exist for the deliveries of SAM's, PZRK's or OTRK's to Syria, and also without getting into an analysis of the origin of the information and the motivation of the Russian mass media concerning this topic, we will try to formulate the main principles of military-technical cooperation with countries of the Near and Middle East, pursuant to which Russia would ensure its national interests.
First, reducing the level of the state of Israel's national security is not in Russia's interest. In addition, Russia must regard with increased attention the possibility of real military threats appearing as a consequence of the deliveries of Russian arms to Syria or other countries hostile to Israel. An assessment of the consequences of the delivery of systems which could be used against the civilian population or civilian facilities and also offensive weapons, from which defense is extremely difficult, should be regarded particularly attentively.
Russia's desirable sensitivity to Israel's interests is not altruism, but a consequence of the circumstance that Israel may potentially become one of the Russian Federation's most important, although extremely unusual, partners in military-technical cooperation. A particular of VTS [military-technical cooperation] with Israel consists of the fact that this country is not a VVT [arms and military equipment] sales market for Russia or a potential partner in carrying out large, joint military-industrial projects. To the degree that the Russian OPK [defense-industrial complex] has degraded and is increasingly lagging behind the military-technological leaders, Israel may to an increasing degree become one of Russia's most important sources of technologies, which are cheaper and faster to import than to try to create independently. In addition, Israeli dealer networks may in some cases be used to promote Russian aviation platforms equipped with Israeli avionics in the world market. Cooperation of this type is distinguished by complete complementariness and mutual commercial interest. In regard to Russia, such complementariness is harder to achieve with other avionics-producing countries, for example, with France, since they are themselves serious players in the aviation and helicopter-platform market.
Finally, Israel is of interest to Russia from the point of view of obtaining experience in the anti-terrorist and counter-partisan struggle, including in conditions of dense, urban construction.
Although at the present time, when the Russian Army is not in a position to load up our own industry with orders, the idea of Russia importing military equipment does not seem probable, but it seems to us that in the foreseeable future such purchases will be unavoidable. In fact, the first cases of importing dual-use equipment for the Russian militarized agencies have already taken place. For example, NPK Irkut is buying equipment and technologies for unmanned aviation systems as well as observation and target-identification systems from Israel. These deals were realized in the interest of the MChS [Ministry of Emergencies, Civil Defense and Natural-Disaster Recovery], which conducts a policy which is much more effective from the point of view of Russia's aviation industry than the Ministry of Defense.
It is essential to note that Israel has a large number of advantages both as a source of VVT and defense technologies. The main ones of these are Israel's readiness to transfer technologies and the already noted complementariness of Russian and Israeli offerings in the market.
It is clear that relations with a potential strategic VTS partner can be built only under conditions of increased attention to his interests, and in the case of Israel, this topic is especially urgent.
On the other hand, while attentively considering Israel's security interests, Russia can and should defend its commercial interests, including when selling arms systems to Syria, the other Arab countries, and also to Iran that are not a threat to a European state.
It seems that these principles do not contradict one another and can be fully compatible in real VTS practice. Based on the given approaches, one would consider the transfer to Syria of weapons systems such as an Iskander-E OTRK, S-300-family surface-to-air missile systems, and PZRK's of any type as undesirable. Under Near East conditions the Iskander with its high strike precision, 300-km range, and the impossibility of intercepting it with an anti-missile system is a strategic weapon, which can strike vitally important military, economic, and administrative facilities throughout almost all of Israel's territory. The S-300 SAM system also has too great of a range for the Near East, and its transfer to Syria would threaten aircraft flights, including civil aircraft, over the territory of Israel itself. A PZRK could fall into the hands of irregular, militarized formations, which would use them against civilian targets.
At the same time, the transfer of intermediate-range and short-range SAM systems such as the Buk-M1, Tor-M1, Tunguska-M1, and Pantsir-S1, would strengthen Syria's military security and not threaten Israeli civilian facilities. These defensive systems can be used only against military targets and only in case of actions by Israeli aviation over Syrian or Lebanese territory. Analogously, the military balance in the region will not substantially change should wide-scale modernization of the Syrian Air Force's military aircraft fleet, which will always be behind Israel's Air Force and Ground Troops in combat effectiveness, take place.
************************
03. RUSSIA BETWEEN ARABS AND ISRAELIS
20/04/2005
(RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya) A president of Russia is about to visit the Middle East for the first time.
In late April, Vladimir Putin will hold talks in Egypt and Israel, as well as with the leaders of the territory under the control of the Palestine National Authority (PNA).
The visit aims to highlight Russia's role in the Middle East and end debates on Moscow's choice between the West and the East, Israel and the Arab world.
Russia does not choose its cooperation partners. It is working on a development strategy that will enable it to occupy a leading position in the international arena.
In fact, the country is also developing new strategies in different regions. Considerable time was needed to restore the political contacts that had been destroyed in the last ten years and to give a new lease of life to Russian business in various parts of the world. After all, in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's disintegration Moscow oriented itself primarily to the West, whereas the East was unjustly relegated to the background.
The restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel was Russia's only achievement in the Middle East during that period. Moscow seemed to have eventually corrected the mistake it committed in the Cold War by rejecting all contacts with Israel and wholeheartedly siding with the Arabs in an effort to consolidate its hold over the Middle East.
But the mistakes of the past have not disappeared completely, as many Cold War stereotypes linger on. The Israelis still find it difficult to believe that Moscow has erased its pro-Arab sentiments, while the Arabs expect Russia to play the same regional role as the USSR did. This means Russia is faced with the unenviable task of maintaining a balance in relations between the Arabs and Israelis.
The example of Russian-Israeli relations is particularly eloquent in this respect, as complete understanding has been reached at the highest level. In the run-up to Putin's visit, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said: "I understand the Russian president better than many Western politicians."
Nevertheless, bilateral relations are marred by tensions every now and then, be it over Russian-Syrian cooperation in the military and technical field or Russia's assistance to Iran in developing nuclear power engineering. However, Mark Sofer, the deputy director general of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and head of its Central European and Eurasian department, made a reassuring statement in a conversation with Russian journalists. He said, "A difference in views does not mean a crisis in relations." He added there were no closed subjects for Israel and Russia, who remain open to dialogue. Moreover, he believes that Moscow understands Israel's concern over a number of issues. Judging by Sharon's statement, Tel Aviv also understands what prompts Moscow to make certain decisions. But there are opportunities to drive a wedge in relations between the two countries.
There is only one issue where the positions of Israel, Russia and the US, the most influential player in the Middle East, coincide completely: terrorism. Today Moscow does not care what "noble" motives underlie a terrorist attack. Such methods are simply unacceptable.
Unlike the U.S., Russia prefers not to interfere in the domestic affairs of individual countries in the Middle East. Still less does it want to try to exert pressure on them. One factor is obviously a lack of funds, but the main reason is still Moscow's desire to avoid any steps that may destabilize an already volatile region.
The domestic politics factor should also be taken into account. Russia is a multiethnic country with a significant Muslim population, which means Moscow is not about to make any abrupt moves in relations with Muslim countries. For the same domestic reasons it will refrain from bringing its relations with Israel to crisis point.
In this situation the only option for Russian diplomats in the Middle East remains to alleviate, wherever possible, Washington's most divisive moves in the region, either directly or by proxy, for instance, involving the EU. After all, the Russian and European views of the prospects for the future development of the Middle East coincide in many respects.
Regrettably, the "position of non-interference" does not always work, especially for a nation that claims to be a proactive player in international affairs. Rapid changes are currently taking place in the Middle East. The political, economic, ethnic and religious status quo that has existed there for decades is starting to crack.
This means that a party involved in the Middle East process must be able to adapt quickly to developments, foresee events and adopt a strategy oriented to the future. Today, Russia has no such strategy. Its efforts are currently limited to a desire to diversify economic contacts and resolve security issues.
This is obviously not enough if Russia wants to play a leading role in the Middle East in the future, the more so given American and European plans to bring their vision of democracy and globalization to the Middle East.
20/04/2005
(RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya) A president of Russia is about to visit the Middle East for the first time.
In late April, Vladimir Putin will hold talks in Egypt and Israel, as well as with the leaders of the territory under the control of the Palestine National Authority (PNA).
The visit aims to highlight Russia's role in the Middle East and end debates on Moscow's choice between the West and the East, Israel and the Arab world.
Russia does not choose its cooperation partners. It is working on a development strategy that will enable it to occupy a leading position in the international arena.
In fact, the country is also developing new strategies in different regions. Considerable time was needed to restore the political contacts that had been destroyed in the last ten years and to give a new lease of life to Russian business in various parts of the world. After all, in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's disintegration Moscow oriented itself primarily to the West, whereas the East was unjustly relegated to the background.
The restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel was Russia's only achievement in the Middle East during that period. Moscow seemed to have eventually corrected the mistake it committed in the Cold War by rejecting all contacts with Israel and wholeheartedly siding with the Arabs in an effort to consolidate its hold over the Middle East.
But the mistakes of the past have not disappeared completely, as many Cold War stereotypes linger on. The Israelis still find it difficult to believe that Moscow has erased its pro-Arab sentiments, while the Arabs expect Russia to play the same regional role as the USSR did. This means Russia is faced with the unenviable task of maintaining a balance in relations between the Arabs and Israelis.
The example of Russian-Israeli relations is particularly eloquent in this respect, as complete understanding has been reached at the highest level. In the run-up to Putin's visit, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said: "I understand the Russian president better than many Western politicians."
Nevertheless, bilateral relations are marred by tensions every now and then, be it over Russian-Syrian cooperation in the military and technical field or Russia's assistance to Iran in developing nuclear power engineering. However, Mark Sofer, the deputy director general of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and head of its Central European and Eurasian department, made a reassuring statement in a conversation with Russian journalists. He said, "A difference in views does not mean a crisis in relations." He added there were no closed subjects for Israel and Russia, who remain open to dialogue. Moreover, he believes that Moscow understands Israel's concern over a number of issues. Judging by Sharon's statement, Tel Aviv also understands what prompts Moscow to make certain decisions. But there are opportunities to drive a wedge in relations between the two countries.
There is only one issue where the positions of Israel, Russia and the US, the most influential player in the Middle East, coincide completely: terrorism. Today Moscow does not care what "noble" motives underlie a terrorist attack. Such methods are simply unacceptable.
Unlike the U.S., Russia prefers not to interfere in the domestic affairs of individual countries in the Middle East. Still less does it want to try to exert pressure on them. One factor is obviously a lack of funds, but the main reason is still Moscow's desire to avoid any steps that may destabilize an already volatile region.
The domestic politics factor should also be taken into account. Russia is a multiethnic country with a significant Muslim population, which means Moscow is not about to make any abrupt moves in relations with Muslim countries. For the same domestic reasons it will refrain from bringing its relations with Israel to crisis point.
In this situation the only option for Russian diplomats in the Middle East remains to alleviate, wherever possible, Washington's most divisive moves in the region, either directly or by proxy, for instance, involving the EU. After all, the Russian and European views of the prospects for the future development of the Middle East coincide in many respects.
Regrettably, the "position of non-interference" does not always work, especially for a nation that claims to be a proactive player in international affairs. Rapid changes are currently taking place in the Middle East. The political, economic, ethnic and religious status quo that has existed there for decades is starting to crack.
This means that a party involved in the Middle East process must be able to adapt quickly to developments, foresee events and adopt a strategy oriented to the future. Today, Russia has no such strategy. Its efforts are currently limited to a desire to diversify economic contacts and resolve security issues.
This is obviously not enough if Russia wants to play a leading role in the Middle East in the future, the more so given American and European plans to bring their vision of democracy and globalization to the Middle East.
************************
04. Russian Lawmaker Says Middle East Policy Intensifying Prior To President's Visit
Report by Andrey Shirokov
TEL AVIV, April 19, 2005 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia is intensifying its eastern policy, primarily in the Middle East, and an upcoming regional visit of President Vladimir Putin is an illustrative example to that, Chairman of the Federation Council International Committee Mikhail Margelov told Itar-Tass on Tuesday.
Margelov came on a visit to Israel and Palestinian lands on Tuesday as a Middle East rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
Next Monday the PACE Political Commission will listen to Margelov's report on his visit, and a new resolution on the Middle East will be discussed at the PACE in late June.
Palestinian National Authority head Mahmoud Abbas will address a PACE session in Strasbourg in June. Margelov said Abbas had confirmed that he would attend the PACE session. He noted that the Russian delegation proposed to invite Abbas to Strasbourg.
"We put forward the initiative in January, and the Assembly accepted it," Margelov said. "Many Russian members of the PACE delegation monitored the Palestinian presidential elections this January," he said.
Margelov said he hoped to receive an invitation for PACE observers to the Palestinian parliamentary elections of July 17.
The Russian Society for Solidarity and Cooperation with Asian and African Peoples, whose chairman Margelov is, will send a large delegation of observers to the Palestinian parliamentary elections, the same as it did in the Palestinian presidential elections. The society is the oldest Russian non-governmental organization, which will mark its 50th jubilee in 2006.
This is the first time that the PACE rapporteur is visiting not only Israel and Palestinian lands, but also adjoining countries. "Jordan was the number one on that list. Egypt will come next, and visits to Lebanon and Syria are scheduled for fall," Margelov said. "In Jordan I met with the recently appointed prime minister, the foreign minister, the parliament speakers and members of the parliamentary committees on international affairs and the Palestinian problem."
On Wednesday Margelov will meet with the Palestinian foreign minister, the parliament speaker and representatives of non-governmental organizations. His meeting with Abbas will be held within two days.
Then Margelov will have negotiations with Israeli officials.
Report by Andrey Shirokov
TEL AVIV, April 19, 2005 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia is intensifying its eastern policy, primarily in the Middle East, and an upcoming regional visit of President Vladimir Putin is an illustrative example to that, Chairman of the Federation Council International Committee Mikhail Margelov told Itar-Tass on Tuesday.
Margelov came on a visit to Israel and Palestinian lands on Tuesday as a Middle East rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
Next Monday the PACE Political Commission will listen to Margelov's report on his visit, and a new resolution on the Middle East will be discussed at the PACE in late June.
Palestinian National Authority head Mahmoud Abbas will address a PACE session in Strasbourg in June. Margelov said Abbas had confirmed that he would attend the PACE session. He noted that the Russian delegation proposed to invite Abbas to Strasbourg.
"We put forward the initiative in January, and the Assembly accepted it," Margelov said. "Many Russian members of the PACE delegation monitored the Palestinian presidential elections this January," he said.
Margelov said he hoped to receive an invitation for PACE observers to the Palestinian parliamentary elections of July 17.
The Russian Society for Solidarity and Cooperation with Asian and African Peoples, whose chairman Margelov is, will send a large delegation of observers to the Palestinian parliamentary elections, the same as it did in the Palestinian presidential elections. The society is the oldest Russian non-governmental organization, which will mark its 50th jubilee in 2006.
This is the first time that the PACE rapporteur is visiting not only Israel and Palestinian lands, but also adjoining countries. "Jordan was the number one on that list. Egypt will come next, and visits to Lebanon and Syria are scheduled for fall," Margelov said. "In Jordan I met with the recently appointed prime minister, the foreign minister, the parliament speakers and members of the parliamentary committees on international affairs and the Palestinian problem."
On Wednesday Margelov will meet with the Palestinian foreign minister, the parliament speaker and representatives of non-governmental organizations. His meeting with Abbas will be held within two days.
Then Margelov will have negotiations with Israeli officials.
************************
05. Putin Visit to Israel Possibly Set To Coincide With Khodorkovskiy's Sentencing
Tel Aviv Ma'ariv in Hebrew 15 Apr 05 p 13
[Report by Eli Bradenstein and Menahem Rahat: "President Putin's Mysterious Visit"]
The circumstances of Russian President Vladimir Putin's planned visit to Israel, due to take place in late April, is shrouded in a heavy veil of mystery. "It's a major surprise. No one understands how his visit was so quickly decided on, and mainly why," a political source involved in the preparations for the historic visit told Ma'ariv.
President Putin last visited Israel in 1996 as a Saint Petersburg city hall representative. On 27 April, he will land in Israel while the Passover festival will be in progress. It is unclear whether it was a coincidence or a planned move, as the sentence in the case of his major political adversary Mikhail Khodorkovskiy -- a Jew on his father's side, formerly the director general of the gigantic Russian oil company Yukos, who has been in prison for 18 months -- will be handed down on that same day. One theory is that Putin is coming to Israel to deflect the harsh criticism he and his regime are expected to come under from Western countries in the wake of the Khodorkovskiy sentence, which is expected to include as many as 10 years in prison.
Another possible reason for the visit, according to the political source, is the Russian effort to build up its international standing in general and in the Quartet in particular in the wake of the favorable developments between Israel and the PA. A clue that supports this theory is the fact that Putin will be accompanied by Aleksey Miller, president of Gazprom. Russian Gazprom company is the world's largest natural gas supplier, and it has been trying for a long time to get a foothold in the Israeli market.
According to the political source, Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran might have also precipitated Putin's visit. A relevant fact in this respect is the deterioration in the Israeli-Russian relations over the past few months in connection with the Russian arms deal with Syria. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom yesterday referred to the upcoming Russian-Syrian deal by saying that Israel opposes the supply of weapons to terror-sponsoring states. He noted that as long as Syria hosts the Islamic Jihad and HAMAS on its territory and facilitates the supply of Iranian weapons to Hizballah, it should be viewed as a terror-sponsoring state.
Dr Eli'ezer Feldman, director of the Mutagim Social and Political Research Institute, rejected the possibility that Putin's visit is accidental: "There are no accidents in Russian politics. Putin is visiting Israel on the opening day of Khodorkovskiy's sentencing. He will be photographed with Sharon and is even willing to be friendly with Israel. But at the same time, he wants to go on selling weapons to Syria and assisting the Iranian nuclear project. Israel did not have the courage to oppose this visit."
Tel Aviv Ma'ariv in Hebrew 15 Apr 05 p 13
[Report by Eli Bradenstein and Menahem Rahat: "President Putin's Mysterious Visit"]
The circumstances of Russian President Vladimir Putin's planned visit to Israel, due to take place in late April, is shrouded in a heavy veil of mystery. "It's a major surprise. No one understands how his visit was so quickly decided on, and mainly why," a political source involved in the preparations for the historic visit told Ma'ariv.
President Putin last visited Israel in 1996 as a Saint Petersburg city hall representative. On 27 April, he will land in Israel while the Passover festival will be in progress. It is unclear whether it was a coincidence or a planned move, as the sentence in the case of his major political adversary Mikhail Khodorkovskiy -- a Jew on his father's side, formerly the director general of the gigantic Russian oil company Yukos, who has been in prison for 18 months -- will be handed down on that same day. One theory is that Putin is coming to Israel to deflect the harsh criticism he and his regime are expected to come under from Western countries in the wake of the Khodorkovskiy sentence, which is expected to include as many as 10 years in prison.
Another possible reason for the visit, according to the political source, is the Russian effort to build up its international standing in general and in the Quartet in particular in the wake of the favorable developments between Israel and the PA. A clue that supports this theory is the fact that Putin will be accompanied by Aleksey Miller, president of Gazprom. Russian Gazprom company is the world's largest natural gas supplier, and it has been trying for a long time to get a foothold in the Israeli market.
According to the political source, Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran might have also precipitated Putin's visit. A relevant fact in this respect is the deterioration in the Israeli-Russian relations over the past few months in connection with the Russian arms deal with Syria. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom yesterday referred to the upcoming Russian-Syrian deal by saying that Israel opposes the supply of weapons to terror-sponsoring states. He noted that as long as Syria hosts the Islamic Jihad and HAMAS on its territory and facilitates the supply of Iranian weapons to Hizballah, it should be viewed as a terror-sponsoring state.
Dr Eli'ezer Feldman, director of the Mutagim Social and Political Research Institute, rejected the possibility that Putin's visit is accidental: "There are no accidents in Russian politics. Putin is visiting Israel on the opening day of Khodorkovskiy's sentencing. He will be photographed with Sharon and is even willing to be friendly with Israel. But at the same time, he wants to go on selling weapons to Syria and assisting the Iranian nuclear project. Israel did not have the courage to oppose this visit."
************************
06. Israel's 'Secrets' on Kremlin Can Prevent Russia-Syria Missile Deal
Tel Aviv Vesti (Vesti-2 Supplement) in Russian 14 Apr 05
[Commentary by Vitaly Portnikov: "Change Tracks"]
Vladimir Gusinskiy has safely flown out of Israel. Although he promised to return at any moment, the absence of any grievances against the oligarch in disgrace in the hands of the Israeli law enforcement bodies put on their guard those Russian observers who have become accustomed to the fact that Gusinskiy's arrests usually exert a negative influence on Russia's, instead of Gusinskiy's, reputation. Let us recall that Gusinskiy's first arrest in Moscow resulted in a spectacular political scandal when it turned out that the television tycoon was freed only after he ceded his NTV television channel to Gazprom. By the way, it was Mikhail Lessin, Russian minister of information and publishing at the time, who served as guarantor of the deal concluded between Gusinskiy and Gazprom, in which Lessin acted in his personal capacity, so to speak. Then the European arrests followed and ended in new disgraces for Russia. The Israeli arrest appeared to be a blessing, a real gift to Russia and rehabilitation of Russian justice--and now such a flop once again!
By the way, this flop may once again reflect unpleasantly on Russia's reputation. Certain observers in Moscow believe that it was not in fact Vladimir Gusinskiy who was wanted in Israel but another well-known businessman with an Israeli passport who also finds himself abroad at present: Arkady Gaydamak, alias Arye Bar-Lev. In contrast to Gusinskiy, Gaydamak maintains fairly good contacts with President Putin's administration. He used to spend money for Jewish needs when it was necessary to reduce Gusinskiy's authority and that of the Russian Jewish Congress Gusinskiy headed before his departure from Moscow. Gaydamak maintained communications with most important members of the Russian leadership. It was only recently--and this also became known in Russia from Israeli newspapers--that he helped the state-owned Russian company, ALROSA, get access to the diamond market of Angola and to oust another person well-known in Israel, Lev Levayev, from the Angolan diamond niche... By the way, Gaydamak is Levayev's old-time partner both in business and in providing political services to Russian power structures.
The story about Gaydamak and his Angolan ties is an old one, and he possesses a fairly odious reputation. France has long issued an order for the arrest of the Israeli businessman now living in Russia, and Gaydamak's banking accounts have been seized in Luxemburg already this year. However, this odiousness has never hampered either Gaydamak's Israeli life or his business opportunities in Israel and Russia. Let us note that, in Russia Gaydamak has always given preference to the provision of "help" to state-owned companies. The reader will agree with me if I say that he has a very precise feeling of reality. In particular, it is believed that he was able to emerge unscathed from the destruction of Yukos, whose banking services Gaydamak used during his operations in Angola, only because he had provided inestimable services to the Rosneft Company. Moreover, he intended to continue the provision of such services and, in particular, to bring Rosneft and other state-owned companies to the development of Angolan oil fields. Happy are the Angolans! They have everything, both diamonds and oil! True, their living standards are limping, but this does not concern Gaydamak. He lives in the lap of luxury in Angola.
Now, however, after what happened in connection with the Bank Hapoalim case, everything may change--everything that concerns both Gaydamak's feeling of reality and his opportunities in Israel. If such a change does take place, the following question arises: Why did it happen right on the eve of Vladimir Putin's state visit to Israel that bad Gusinskiy was set free while good Gaydamak is being slowly but surely dragged through the mud? What sort of gifts are these?
The gifts are not casual. After all, Vladimir Putin is not a pupil in the senior group of a kindergarten. He is the politician who discussed with Bashar al-Asad the sales of Russian missiles to Syria. Some people assumed at the time that it was Putin's warning to Israel: Do not provide asylum to all kinds of Nevzlins and Gusinskiys, otherwise we can indeed sell the missiles. One could be really frightened on hearing this. But it is also possible to give an elegant explanation: Many secrets are being kept in Israel, both about people who are disliked in the Kremlin and those who are welcomed there; and, consequently, about the Kremlin itself. Is it worthwhile to strike rash deals in this situation and place in jeopardy the security of a state so important for Russia?
Tel Aviv Vesti (Vesti-2 Supplement) in Russian 14 Apr 05
[Commentary by Vitaly Portnikov: "Change Tracks"]
Vladimir Gusinskiy has safely flown out of Israel. Although he promised to return at any moment, the absence of any grievances against the oligarch in disgrace in the hands of the Israeli law enforcement bodies put on their guard those Russian observers who have become accustomed to the fact that Gusinskiy's arrests usually exert a negative influence on Russia's, instead of Gusinskiy's, reputation. Let us recall that Gusinskiy's first arrest in Moscow resulted in a spectacular political scandal when it turned out that the television tycoon was freed only after he ceded his NTV television channel to Gazprom. By the way, it was Mikhail Lessin, Russian minister of information and publishing at the time, who served as guarantor of the deal concluded between Gusinskiy and Gazprom, in which Lessin acted in his personal capacity, so to speak. Then the European arrests followed and ended in new disgraces for Russia. The Israeli arrest appeared to be a blessing, a real gift to Russia and rehabilitation of Russian justice--and now such a flop once again!
By the way, this flop may once again reflect unpleasantly on Russia's reputation. Certain observers in Moscow believe that it was not in fact Vladimir Gusinskiy who was wanted in Israel but another well-known businessman with an Israeli passport who also finds himself abroad at present: Arkady Gaydamak, alias Arye Bar-Lev. In contrast to Gusinskiy, Gaydamak maintains fairly good contacts with President Putin's administration. He used to spend money for Jewish needs when it was necessary to reduce Gusinskiy's authority and that of the Russian Jewish Congress Gusinskiy headed before his departure from Moscow. Gaydamak maintained communications with most important members of the Russian leadership. It was only recently--and this also became known in Russia from Israeli newspapers--that he helped the state-owned Russian company, ALROSA, get access to the diamond market of Angola and to oust another person well-known in Israel, Lev Levayev, from the Angolan diamond niche... By the way, Gaydamak is Levayev's old-time partner both in business and in providing political services to Russian power structures.
The story about Gaydamak and his Angolan ties is an old one, and he possesses a fairly odious reputation. France has long issued an order for the arrest of the Israeli businessman now living in Russia, and Gaydamak's banking accounts have been seized in Luxemburg already this year. However, this odiousness has never hampered either Gaydamak's Israeli life or his business opportunities in Israel and Russia. Let us note that, in Russia Gaydamak has always given preference to the provision of "help" to state-owned companies. The reader will agree with me if I say that he has a very precise feeling of reality. In particular, it is believed that he was able to emerge unscathed from the destruction of Yukos, whose banking services Gaydamak used during his operations in Angola, only because he had provided inestimable services to the Rosneft Company. Moreover, he intended to continue the provision of such services and, in particular, to bring Rosneft and other state-owned companies to the development of Angolan oil fields. Happy are the Angolans! They have everything, both diamonds and oil! True, their living standards are limping, but this does not concern Gaydamak. He lives in the lap of luxury in Angola.
Now, however, after what happened in connection with the Bank Hapoalim case, everything may change--everything that concerns both Gaydamak's feeling of reality and his opportunities in Israel. If such a change does take place, the following question arises: Why did it happen right on the eve of Vladimir Putin's state visit to Israel that bad Gusinskiy was set free while good Gaydamak is being slowly but surely dragged through the mud? What sort of gifts are these?
The gifts are not casual. After all, Vladimir Putin is not a pupil in the senior group of a kindergarten. He is the politician who discussed with Bashar al-Asad the sales of Russian missiles to Syria. Some people assumed at the time that it was Putin's warning to Israel: Do not provide asylum to all kinds of Nevzlins and Gusinskiys, otherwise we can indeed sell the missiles. One could be really frightened on hearing this. But it is also possible to give an elegant explanation: Many secrets are being kept in Israel, both about people who are disliked in the Kremlin and those who are welcomed there; and, consequently, about the Kremlin itself. Is it worthwhile to strike rash deals in this situation and place in jeopardy the security of a state so important for Russia?
************************
07. Way to Political Relations Wtih Iraq for Russia Seen Lying Through Private Business Channels
Moscow Strana.ru National Information Service WWW-Text in Russian 15 Apr 05
[Ivan Preobrazhenskiy report: "Iraqi Businessmen Have Established Contact With Primakov"]
There was today the crash of a powerful explosion in Baghdad 200 meters from the Russian Embassy. As Strana.Ru was told in the Russian diplomatic mission, there were no Russian casualties but several windows in the embassy building were blown out, it is true. According to Russian diplomats' theory, an explosive device planted in an automobile driven by a suicide bomber, who detonated the bomb at the moment that American military equipment was passing down the street, went off. This explosion was thus not aimed at the Russian Embassy and was not, consequently, a response to the consolidation of Russo-Iraqi relations, of which it has been possible to speak as of late.
The visit to Moscow of delegations of the Baghdad and Kurdish chambers of commerce and industry, which ended today, may be considered a reason for talk about the possibility of a sharp growth of bilateral contacts. In the several days of their visit to the Russian capital the businessmen met with their Moscow counterparts, held talks with Yevgeniy Primakov, and initialed an agreement with the Russian Trade and Industry Chamber (TPP) and also signed several trade agreements and opened in Moscow and Iraq permanent missions of the Russo-Arab Business Council's Russo-Iraqi Committee.
As your Strana.Ru columnist was told in the Russian Embassy in Baghdad, the delegation of Iraqi businessmen that had visited Moscow was the most representative in the history of bilateral relations. But, according to an organizer of the Iraqi businessmen's visit to Moscow, Majid Javad Abed, member of the TPP of Baghdad, they had for a very long time been seeking the possibility of contact with their Russian counterparts, who left Iraq after the start of hostilities and the increase in terrorist activity in the this country. Reaching Russian businessmen or some official bodies, not to mention Yevgeniy Primakov, who is widely known in the Arab world, was not possible--the Iraqis found themselves in the position of Soviet party officials that in the 1980s fetched up in a world that was entirely new to them. They were misled and, simply put, "abandoned" several times before the organizers of the visit finally managed to locate Russian entities that assisted them in making the visit to Moscow. These entities were the Russo-Arab Business Council and the RF Trade and Industry Chamber, although the Russian and Iraqi diplomatic services were notified, of course. As far as personal contacts are concerned, the Iraqis were rendered great assistance by Russian industrialists interested in our business going to this country, despite the continuing unrest there. Specifically, Aleksey Chepa, president of the Rokada (Russia) company, and representatives of the Russian Zarubezhneft and Tekhnopromeksport companies.
It is hard for Russia's news media to evaluate the level of the Iraqi businessmen's visit--we have today very little information on this country and on what is happening there, aside from the news about the practically daily terrorist acts, of course. But it is clear even to the person that is merely superificially informed about what is happening in the country that the Iraqi businessmen's visit was extremely representative: the delegation was composed of entrepreneurs from all three main religious-ethnic communities of the country--Kurds, whose leader is now the president of Iraq, Sunnis, who constitute the basis of the forces resisting the American presence in the country, and Shi'ites, who won the parliamentary elections and who have a majority in the National Assembly. Among the most notable Iraqi visitors were Mohammad al-Qazzaz, chairman of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce, Mahmud al-Wash, vice chairman of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce, Shaykh Ali al-Fariz, general secretary of the Central Council of Shaykhs of Iraqi and Arab Tribes of Iraq, and Qawa Sardar-Omar, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Kurdistan.
The main difficulty for the Iraqi delegation was that it lacked official status and could make only limited contacts with its Russian partners. Specifically, there could have been no question of meetings with officials, to whom, it remains to hope, information concerning this visit will be conveyed by the Russian businessmen and Yevgeniy Primakov, ex-prime minister and former minister of foreign affairs of the USSR and Russia and head of the RF TPP.
Only in this case will it be possible to say that the contacts of Russia and the new Iraq have finally begun to be established. Iraq awaits Russian businessmen and investments, not only the authorities, what is more, but also the private business of this country, which today represents a serious force. According to representatives of the Iraqi delegation, this year alone private Iraqi business has deposited in accounts in Jordanian banks approximately $2 billion. As far as the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce and Industry is concerned, then, as your Strana.Ru columnist was told in the Russian Embassy in Iraq, this is a very substantial association of industrialists, which was in existence even in the time of the Saddam regime, but was not at that time entitled to pursue foreign economic activity independently. The TPP of Iraq preserve a certain continuity with the former regime here, as distinct from the state-owned companies and the authorities, and could, consequently, facilitate even the defrayal or a revision of contracts concluded earlier, if, of course, private Iraqi business was engaged in their implementation.
Today, on the other hand, with connections among the new Iraqi authorities, the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce and Industry, like other regional chambers of commerce of Iraq also, the Kurdish chamber, for example, have an opportunity to obtain extremely profitable contracts for the restoration of the country. But they need contractors from other states that possess the latest technology, specifically in the sphere of energy production, which has in the past two years in Iraq declined from 19,000 megawatts to 4,200 megawatts, and, naturally, oil production and refining. The Russians have this technology. But the problem today is that Russian business is not afraid even to return to a country that is virtually at war, but is leery of doing business where there are practically no laws. "Supply procedures and techniques before the war were clear to everyone: they were regulated by the United Nations," Viktor Labusov, president of the Infaikom Investment Group, explained the situation during a meeting with the Iraqi delegation. "What these procedures are now is not known: after all, merely arrangements between businessmen are clearly insufficient. And not one insurance company will assume the political risk."
But the Iraqis are in a resolute frame of mind, they say in private conversation that they would work with pleasure with the Russians, who in the final years prior to the American invasion erected the majority of facilities in Iraq. "We have made the maximum effort to restore the disrupted Russo-Iraqi ties. Earlier the gate was closed to Iraqi business since all trade was between the governments. Now we are absolutely open for contracts, and the Iraqi Government has authorized direct contacts with overseas partners," Mohammad al-Qazzaz, chairman of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce, said at the meeting in the RF TPP.
As the Russians say, our country is today "smart" enough for organizing political relations based on economics. Since pursuing political contacts is today complicated owing to the American pressure on the Iraqi authorities, we need to content ourselves with economics. Sooner or later, Iraq will be restored, and then the countries whose business all these years, despite the terrorist acts and hostilities, helped restore Iraq will have exclusive opportunities for trade with this country and for political alliances with the leadership of the state. Specially since private Iraqi business is prepared to pay for this, not make part of the contacts "on credit," as they did under Saddam Husayn.
Moscow Strana.ru National Information Service WWW-Text in Russian 15 Apr 05
[Ivan Preobrazhenskiy report: "Iraqi Businessmen Have Established Contact With Primakov"]
There was today the crash of a powerful explosion in Baghdad 200 meters from the Russian Embassy. As Strana.Ru was told in the Russian diplomatic mission, there were no Russian casualties but several windows in the embassy building were blown out, it is true. According to Russian diplomats' theory, an explosive device planted in an automobile driven by a suicide bomber, who detonated the bomb at the moment that American military equipment was passing down the street, went off. This explosion was thus not aimed at the Russian Embassy and was not, consequently, a response to the consolidation of Russo-Iraqi relations, of which it has been possible to speak as of late.
The visit to Moscow of delegations of the Baghdad and Kurdish chambers of commerce and industry, which ended today, may be considered a reason for talk about the possibility of a sharp growth of bilateral contacts. In the several days of their visit to the Russian capital the businessmen met with their Moscow counterparts, held talks with Yevgeniy Primakov, and initialed an agreement with the Russian Trade and Industry Chamber (TPP) and also signed several trade agreements and opened in Moscow and Iraq permanent missions of the Russo-Arab Business Council's Russo-Iraqi Committee.
As your Strana.Ru columnist was told in the Russian Embassy in Baghdad, the delegation of Iraqi businessmen that had visited Moscow was the most representative in the history of bilateral relations. But, according to an organizer of the Iraqi businessmen's visit to Moscow, Majid Javad Abed, member of the TPP of Baghdad, they had for a very long time been seeking the possibility of contact with their Russian counterparts, who left Iraq after the start of hostilities and the increase in terrorist activity in the this country. Reaching Russian businessmen or some official bodies, not to mention Yevgeniy Primakov, who is widely known in the Arab world, was not possible--the Iraqis found themselves in the position of Soviet party officials that in the 1980s fetched up in a world that was entirely new to them. They were misled and, simply put, "abandoned" several times before the organizers of the visit finally managed to locate Russian entities that assisted them in making the visit to Moscow. These entities were the Russo-Arab Business Council and the RF Trade and Industry Chamber, although the Russian and Iraqi diplomatic services were notified, of course. As far as personal contacts are concerned, the Iraqis were rendered great assistance by Russian industrialists interested in our business going to this country, despite the continuing unrest there. Specifically, Aleksey Chepa, president of the Rokada (Russia) company, and representatives of the Russian Zarubezhneft and Tekhnopromeksport companies.
It is hard for Russia's news media to evaluate the level of the Iraqi businessmen's visit--we have today very little information on this country and on what is happening there, aside from the news about the practically daily terrorist acts, of course. But it is clear even to the person that is merely superificially informed about what is happening in the country that the Iraqi businessmen's visit was extremely representative: the delegation was composed of entrepreneurs from all three main religious-ethnic communities of the country--Kurds, whose leader is now the president of Iraq, Sunnis, who constitute the basis of the forces resisting the American presence in the country, and Shi'ites, who won the parliamentary elections and who have a majority in the National Assembly. Among the most notable Iraqi visitors were Mohammad al-Qazzaz, chairman of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce, Mahmud al-Wash, vice chairman of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce, Shaykh Ali al-Fariz, general secretary of the Central Council of Shaykhs of Iraqi and Arab Tribes of Iraq, and Qawa Sardar-Omar, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Kurdistan.
The main difficulty for the Iraqi delegation was that it lacked official status and could make only limited contacts with its Russian partners. Specifically, there could have been no question of meetings with officials, to whom, it remains to hope, information concerning this visit will be conveyed by the Russian businessmen and Yevgeniy Primakov, ex-prime minister and former minister of foreign affairs of the USSR and Russia and head of the RF TPP.
Only in this case will it be possible to say that the contacts of Russia and the new Iraq have finally begun to be established. Iraq awaits Russian businessmen and investments, not only the authorities, what is more, but also the private business of this country, which today represents a serious force. According to representatives of the Iraqi delegation, this year alone private Iraqi business has deposited in accounts in Jordanian banks approximately $2 billion. As far as the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce and Industry is concerned, then, as your Strana.Ru columnist was told in the Russian Embassy in Iraq, this is a very substantial association of industrialists, which was in existence even in the time of the Saddam regime, but was not at that time entitled to pursue foreign economic activity independently. The TPP of Iraq preserve a certain continuity with the former regime here, as distinct from the state-owned companies and the authorities, and could, consequently, facilitate even the defrayal or a revision of contracts concluded earlier, if, of course, private Iraqi business was engaged in their implementation.
Today, on the other hand, with connections among the new Iraqi authorities, the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce and Industry, like other regional chambers of commerce of Iraq also, the Kurdish chamber, for example, have an opportunity to obtain extremely profitable contracts for the restoration of the country. But they need contractors from other states that possess the latest technology, specifically in the sphere of energy production, which has in the past two years in Iraq declined from 19,000 megawatts to 4,200 megawatts, and, naturally, oil production and refining. The Russians have this technology. But the problem today is that Russian business is not afraid even to return to a country that is virtually at war, but is leery of doing business where there are practically no laws. "Supply procedures and techniques before the war were clear to everyone: they were regulated by the United Nations," Viktor Labusov, president of the Infaikom Investment Group, explained the situation during a meeting with the Iraqi delegation. "What these procedures are now is not known: after all, merely arrangements between businessmen are clearly insufficient. And not one insurance company will assume the political risk."
But the Iraqis are in a resolute frame of mind, they say in private conversation that they would work with pleasure with the Russians, who in the final years prior to the American invasion erected the majority of facilities in Iraq. "We have made the maximum effort to restore the disrupted Russo-Iraqi ties. Earlier the gate was closed to Iraqi business since all trade was between the governments. Now we are absolutely open for contracts, and the Iraqi Government has authorized direct contacts with overseas partners," Mohammad al-Qazzaz, chairman of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce, said at the meeting in the RF TPP.
As the Russians say, our country is today "smart" enough for organizing political relations based on economics. Since pursuing political contacts is today complicated owing to the American pressure on the Iraqi authorities, we need to content ourselves with economics. Sooner or later, Iraq will be restored, and then the countries whose business all these years, despite the terrorist acts and hostilities, helped restore Iraq will have exclusive opportunities for trade with this country and for political alliances with the leadership of the state. Specially since private Iraqi business is prepared to pay for this, not make part of the contacts "on credit," as they did under Saddam Husayn.
************************
08. Interview with Israeli television Channel One
President of Russia
April 20, 2005
The Kremlin, Moscow
QUESTION: Next week, Mr President, you will come to Israel on a visit, and I would like to know the goals of your visit.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia and Israel have special relations, I believe. The Soviet Union was one of the founders of the state of Israel, when as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, in the post-war period, it actively supported the creation of the state of Israel. Later, during the cold war, everyone knows how relations between the countries developed, and these relations were not to the benefit of Israel or the Soviet Union, in my opinion.
Israel has – I won’t try to give precise figures, you probably know this better than I do – but I think that 25% of its population is Russian-speaking. And in this sense, Israel is almost a Russian-speaking country. I have had the opportunity to see this for myself, when I visited your country. And what was mostly striking for me, and made quite a strong emotional impression on me, was that the Russian-speaking population of Israel, at least it seemed so to me, try in their vast majority to maintain their Russian culture and Russian language. This creates a special charm in relations between our countries and is a good basis for developing intergovernmental ties. We are watching very closely how the situation is developing in the region and in the country itself; we have enormous respect for the achievements of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.
I have already said that when I visited Israel, I had a chance to travel around the country. I even spent the night at a kibbutz, and was able to feel how people live there, how they think and what worries them. I was particularly impressed by monuments to victims of the Holocaust. And this memory of the victims of the Second World War also unites us.
Finally, we have received the Israeli Prime Minister here several times. And I believe that a return visit is a sign of respect for Israel, for the Israeli people, and the desire to continue our dialogue directed towards the development of intergovernmental ties in all areas: in the economy, in politics, in international security and in the humanitarian sphere.
QUESTION: Mr President, you just talked about the Israeli Prime Minister, about your warm relations. He also constantly talks about his warm relations with you. But the recent rocket deal with Syria, as they say, has thrown a shadow on your relations. Do you think that this will have an effect on relations with Israel?
MR PUTIN: I don’t think so. I really do have great respect for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the President of your country. I have similar respect for the people of Israel, and I have just some personal contacts among them. There are people whom I knew and who were friends of mine, who now live in Israel.
As for the position of the Israeli leadership on the so-called “rocket deal” which you mentioned, I am very glad that you asked this question, because it provides the opportunity to explain our position to the Israeli public. And I hope that most people will understand our motives, and I think may even support us.
First of all I would like to say that Mr Ariel Sharon has often asked me about the presence of so-called “katusha” rockets in Lebanon. I have never been able to understand him: what is he talking about, what “katushas”? “Katushas” are first generation rocket systems which we used in the Second World War. And perhaps there are rocket systems in Lebanon: they may have produced them themselves, or bought them in third-world countries or Eastern European countries – we do not know anything about this.
He then asked me about possible deliveries of serious rocket equipment, including to Syria, which really could cause concern in Israel and reach the territory of Israel from dislocation points in Syria. We refused this deal because we do not want to violate any balance, however fragile it may be, that exists in the region.
As for the deal that was signed with Syria and will be realised, this concerns close-range anti-rocket systems. These systems can attack air targets in visible range. Furthermore, these systems are set on vehicles, and they cannot be unnoticeably handed over to terrorist organisations.
Furthermore, our military have the right to control and inspect them in places they are stored and stationed.
Of course, this makes it more difficult to make low-altitude flights over the residence of the President of Syria, but I am not sure that these flights are the correct decision, if we all, including Israel, want in the interests of its people, to create a favourable situation to continue the peace process.
In saying this, I would like to stress that we behave very responsibly and openly, and do not disturb the balance in the region. I would like to stress this once more. And we do not create threats for countries in the region. I would ask you not to mix up one concept with another, and use the equipment that I mentioned to scare the Israeli public into thinking that Russia is delivering systems that could reach its territory and do any harm to the people of Israel and to the state of Israel itself.
QUESTION: And what are these rockets called?
MR PUTIN: Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov will inform you of this in more detail.
QUESTION: Now I can feel safe. Syrian rockets do not present any danger to me.
Now that we are talking about concerns, I cannot help but mention the fact that Russia helps Iran in creating its nuclear potential. How can you be certain, Mr President, that Iran – a fundamentalist regime – is not misusing this technology?
MR PUTIN: First of all I would like to say that Russia does not just help Iran to strengthen its nuclear potential. We work exclusively in the sphere of peaceful atomic power, in the economic energy sphere.
We conduct our work under the full control of international organisations, above all under the full control of MAGATE. To be certain that our partners are not using our cooperation for military goals, we secured appropriate amendments to be made in our agreements. According to these amendments, Russia has received the right to have back from Iran the nuclear fuel that has been processed at the nuclear power station in Bushehr.
And I can say that our position on the problem of nuclear non-proliferation is quite consistent and strict: we are categorically against the spread of nuclear weapons across the planet and are categorically against any nuclear weapons programmes of Iran.
We do not believe that Iran should feel that it is being infringed upon in its use of the modern achievements of science and technology. Iran is our neighbour, it is a big country, and to infringe upon on a country like Iran is counterproductive, and could lead to quite complicated and serious consequences. A country like Iran and the Iranian people must not be humiliated. But at the same time, we must be certain that their nuclear programmes are not directed towards creating nuclear weapons, and we will continue to insist that the Iranian side abandons the idea of creating systems of uranium enrichment, creating nuclear cycle technologies while ensuring their interests in the sphere of science and the economy.
QUESTION: How do you comment, Mr President, on the rumours that your relations with President George Bush, which were very close, have now cooled off?
MR PUTIN: I prefer not to respond to rumours, but I cannot refuse to give you an answer to the question.
Russia and the United States have a large number of mutual interests and joint work. And this lies at the base of my personal, very warm relations with the President of the United States. The President and I have learned to fight for our interests and stand up for our point of view. But we have learnt to do this in forms that do not harm our personal relations.
We are expecting the President of the United States in Moscow on 9 May at the ceremony dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and we are certain that this will be another step towards strengthening our personal relations and relations between the United States and the Russian Federation.
QUESTION: State secretary Condoleezza Rice, who just completed a visit to your country, also talked about relations between the Russian Federation and the United States. Before her visit she made two statements. In one of them, she called on you not to stand for President in 2008, and in the second she harshly criticised Russia from the point of view of its democratic development.
MR PUTIN: I do not look at the statements which our partners make for the press. I rely on the information that arises during our personal discussions. These issues were not raised in these discussions, but here I do not see anything special if we had discussed these problems as well.
As for 2008, we have a Constitution, and we will not be guided by the attitude of our partners to issues of this kind, even greatly respected partners, but by the current legislation in Russia.
And as for elections in the United States, if she wants to stand for President, we will be glad. I think she will be a good President.
Now for the issue of democracy. We also have things to criticise concerning democratic institutions, including in the United States. We behave with reserve, but I think that there are indeed many democratic institutions here in a state of formation and development, and a well-disposed view from the outside can be useful. But if this thesis is used exclusively as a tool to realise a country’s own foreign policy plans, as a tool to influence another country with the aim of achieving one’s own national interests, then of course we will ignore this.
QUESTION: I would like to talk about the summit that was held at the U.S. President’s ranch in Texas between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George Bush. There was disagreement there concerning the expansion of Israeli settlements. What is your attitude to this issue?
MR PUTIN: You asked me just now about my relations with President George Bush, and I said that a similarity of views and interests on many issues lie at the base of these relations.
We have a very close position on the Iranian nuclear programme, and we have a very close position on Middle East regulation. I know that the President of the United States has often expressed his support for implementing the “road map”, and I also adhere to this point of view.
REPLY: I see that you have the same foreign policies as President George Bush, but not the same internal policies.
MR PUTIN: I do not have the same policies as President George Bush in the foreign sphere. For example, we had different views of the situation in Iraq. We have other differences, but we look for points of contact, and our personal relations help us to find common acceptable decisions. We conduct major joint work in the war on terror and believe that the United States is an ally for us in this sphere, not just a partner.
As for our internal policies, we cannot have a common position on internal policies in Russia, because internal policies in Russia are our affair. Just as the internal policies of the United States are an internal matter of the United States. But I want to stress once more: we are interested in our partners’ opinion if it is objective and well-disposed, and does not serve as a tool for achieving their own national interests, which in fact is also quite explicable and obvious. But I would like to make it clear that this is obvious to us too, and our attitude to this will be appropriate.
REPLY: We like how Russian sounds. It is very familiar for Israelis. It is like music.
MR PUTIN: Thank you. I must say that I was surprised that some melodies, some songs that are considered to be national Israeli songs in Israel are in fact Russian national songs.
QUESTION: Do you see Russia as a country that is regaining its former position as a superpower?
MR PUTIN: This is not the best position, because it contains certain drawbacks. I would like Russia above all to be a prosperous country, for its citizens to feel that the country is prosperous from their own pockets, from their material situation as far as social well-being is concerned, and for them to feel safe. To achieve this, of course, it is necessary to accordingly maintain and develop the Armed Forces, and then Russia’s place and role will be important, and it will take its place naturally.
And furthermore, it is the largest country in the world by size. We have our own interests and representation in the Asian part of the world and the European part, in the north and in the south. This is enough for us.
QUESTION: Many people in Israel express concern about the anti-semitism that exists in Russia.
MR PUTIN: Anti-semitism is a complex ethnic and historical phenomenon. And it is not a Russian invention. I think that in some countries that are traditionally considered Israel’s strategic partners, unfortunately, the phenomenon of anti-semitism is quite noticeable. And in a number of countries in the post-Soviet area, as strange as this may seem to you, Jews and Russians are considered to be the same. And unfortunately, we must deal with all this mess.
We are categorically opposed to any manifestations of xenophobia or nationalism. I don’t think that in Russia today anti-semitism can decide anything or present any threat, although this needs to be treated with much caution. It is necessary to react to any manifestations of this kind to protect the interests of national minorities, in this case the Jewish people, but no less importantly, to maintain Russian statehood itself: Russia was created and exists as a multinational and multi-religious state. And for us, combating anti-semitism, just like combating any nationalism or chauvinism, is the basis of our internal policy.
QUESTION: But then how do you regard the inciting letter signed by many artists, even Duma deputies, calling for Judaism to be removed from the political and legal system?
MR PUTIN: They did not call for Judaism to be removed from the political system. No, there were different appeals with references to certain sources of Judaism.
I can tell you that Judaism, along with Islam and the Orthodox Church, are classified as traditional Russian religions, are classified by law as traditional Russian religions, and thus are protected by law.
As for the letter you mentioned, I have essentially already answered it. I would like to say that it is always necessary to react to such manifestations adequately, very carefully and timely, but according to the doctor’s principle of doing no harm. If you followed the events in public life in Russia after this letter, then you could not help but noticing what society’s reaction to this was.
QUESTION: As you have already said, Mr President, on 9 May there will be a major celebration – the anniversary of Victory over Nazi Germany. There are 20,000 veterans living in Israel. What is the historical lesson that should be learned from this?
MR PUTIN: First of all I would like to say that I had the opportunity ten years ago, probably, when I was in Israel, to meet with Israeli veterans of the Second World War. And this was a very emotional meeting. For me it was to a certain extent also another discovery of Israel, just like visiting memorial sites connected with the Holocaust. I think that this, as I have already said, is also something that unites Israel and Russia.
The Jewish people suffered the tragedy of the Holocaust, while about 30 million of our people were also killed during the Great Patriotic War. And this is why I am not surprised that when we see manifestations of sympathy for Nazis, turning SS troops into heroes and so on, including in the post-Soviet area, then among the first to openly oppose this, and consistently and in harsh forms, are Jewish organisations. And the main conclusion from the tragedy of the Second World War should be that we do not have the right to ignore or close our eyes to manifestations of fanaticism, nationalism, and extreme views in politics and religion. A policy of appeasement ultimately ends tragically. Extremism needs to be fought where and when it arises, where it tries to achieve its goals – and this is the most important conclusion.
QUESTION: In a letter by American congressman Lantos and in newspapers there have been accusations that Russia is conducting a campaign or persecution of oligarchs, especially Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
MR PUTIN: I do not dabble in the epistolary arts.
As for attitudes to the problem as a whole, I can say that many decisions that were taken at the beginning and the middle of the 1990s during the process of privatisation are considered by the vast majority of Russian society to be very questionable, to put it mildly. And of course, people who over five to six years made a personal fortune of 5, 6, or 7 billion dollars are capable of spending a few million on defending their interests.
You know, when I was in Israel I met with some immigrants there who came to live permanently in Israel and have been living there for many years now, 20 or 15 years. And I saw how people work and the difficulties they face. Doctors with a private medical practice fight every day not to lose clients. Agricultural workers in Israel work for small salaries. Ministers give their money to a kibbutz and also receive quite modest salaries. I am certain that ordinary citizens in any country, including in your country, will of course ask: “How is it possible in a normal economy, observing the law, to earn $6-7 billion in personal fortune legally?”
But the fact that people develop the economy of their own country, do business and accumulate a fortune – there is nothing bad in this. It is important that this is all in the framework of the current legislation. And where it is violated by economic actors, the state must react.
Let us take well-known scandals, such as the Enron scandal in the United States, and a series of others. Some people involved in these scandals face 20 or more years in prison. We don’t write letters there. It is necessary to go to court, to consult with lawyers and defend one’s interests in court. And until the court finds a person guilty, in accordance with our legislation, just like the legislation of any other civilised country, he is considered innocent.
But there is another moral aspect to this case. When, for example, major sums are blocked, as happened several months ago with the group that you mentioned, $5 billion were blocked in Switzerland, one of the close shareholders of this company and the colleague of the person that you mentioned, said quite directly and openly in the media: “Let them be confiscated. That isn’t our last five billion. The money is in a safe place.” When people make statements like these, then we cannot call behaviour like this anything else but amoral. We will act according to the law, according to Russian law.
QUESTION: Do you think it is possible that these rich people, or oligarchs, as you call them, will try to overthrow you?
MR PUTIN: I think that those who break the law, who want to return Russia to the past – they probably would like it.
But what I do not doubt at all is that policies directed on the one hand to supporting Russian business and to support, as we say, the captains of Russian business, acting within the framework of legislation, and on the other hand, the equal position of everyone before the law – these policies are greeted and will be greeted, I do not doubt for a second, with support from the vast majority of citizens of the Russian Federation.
QUESTION: Next week there will be a game between the TSSKA and Makabi (Tel-Aviv) basketball teams. Will you go to the game or watch it on television? Or are you only interested in judo?
MR PUTIN: Basketball is an interesting game, and Makabi is a strong team. I don’t know whether I will be able to watch this game, but if I can, then of course I will watch it on television.
REPLY: Thank you very much for this interview. We eagerly await you in Israel.
MR PUTIN: Thank you very much for your interest in this visit and for your questions.
I very much hope that during this interview we were able to provide important explanations to issues which could interest the Israeli public.
I am looking forward to visiting to your country, which made a very strong impression on me. The first time, I was there on an official invitation, but when I saw it for the first time I wanted to come back for a second time with my family. And I must say that I have the warmest memories of my encounters with Israel. I hope that this visit will not just be pleasant, but also very beneficial.
Thank you very much.
President of Russia
April 20, 2005
The Kremlin, Moscow
QUESTION: Next week, Mr President, you will come to Israel on a visit, and I would like to know the goals of your visit.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia and Israel have special relations, I believe. The Soviet Union was one of the founders of the state of Israel, when as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, in the post-war period, it actively supported the creation of the state of Israel. Later, during the cold war, everyone knows how relations between the countries developed, and these relations were not to the benefit of Israel or the Soviet Union, in my opinion.
Israel has – I won’t try to give precise figures, you probably know this better than I do – but I think that 25% of its population is Russian-speaking. And in this sense, Israel is almost a Russian-speaking country. I have had the opportunity to see this for myself, when I visited your country. And what was mostly striking for me, and made quite a strong emotional impression on me, was that the Russian-speaking population of Israel, at least it seemed so to me, try in their vast majority to maintain their Russian culture and Russian language. This creates a special charm in relations between our countries and is a good basis for developing intergovernmental ties. We are watching very closely how the situation is developing in the region and in the country itself; we have enormous respect for the achievements of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.
I have already said that when I visited Israel, I had a chance to travel around the country. I even spent the night at a kibbutz, and was able to feel how people live there, how they think and what worries them. I was particularly impressed by monuments to victims of the Holocaust. And this memory of the victims of the Second World War also unites us.
Finally, we have received the Israeli Prime Minister here several times. And I believe that a return visit is a sign of respect for Israel, for the Israeli people, and the desire to continue our dialogue directed towards the development of intergovernmental ties in all areas: in the economy, in politics, in international security and in the humanitarian sphere.
QUESTION: Mr President, you just talked about the Israeli Prime Minister, about your warm relations. He also constantly talks about his warm relations with you. But the recent rocket deal with Syria, as they say, has thrown a shadow on your relations. Do you think that this will have an effect on relations with Israel?
MR PUTIN: I don’t think so. I really do have great respect for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the President of your country. I have similar respect for the people of Israel, and I have just some personal contacts among them. There are people whom I knew and who were friends of mine, who now live in Israel.
As for the position of the Israeli leadership on the so-called “rocket deal” which you mentioned, I am very glad that you asked this question, because it provides the opportunity to explain our position to the Israeli public. And I hope that most people will understand our motives, and I think may even support us.
First of all I would like to say that Mr Ariel Sharon has often asked me about the presence of so-called “katusha” rockets in Lebanon. I have never been able to understand him: what is he talking about, what “katushas”? “Katushas” are first generation rocket systems which we used in the Second World War. And perhaps there are rocket systems in Lebanon: they may have produced them themselves, or bought them in third-world countries or Eastern European countries – we do not know anything about this.
He then asked me about possible deliveries of serious rocket equipment, including to Syria, which really could cause concern in Israel and reach the territory of Israel from dislocation points in Syria. We refused this deal because we do not want to violate any balance, however fragile it may be, that exists in the region.
As for the deal that was signed with Syria and will be realised, this concerns close-range anti-rocket systems. These systems can attack air targets in visible range. Furthermore, these systems are set on vehicles, and they cannot be unnoticeably handed over to terrorist organisations.
Furthermore, our military have the right to control and inspect them in places they are stored and stationed.
Of course, this makes it more difficult to make low-altitude flights over the residence of the President of Syria, but I am not sure that these flights are the correct decision, if we all, including Israel, want in the interests of its people, to create a favourable situation to continue the peace process.
In saying this, I would like to stress that we behave very responsibly and openly, and do not disturb the balance in the region. I would like to stress this once more. And we do not create threats for countries in the region. I would ask you not to mix up one concept with another, and use the equipment that I mentioned to scare the Israeli public into thinking that Russia is delivering systems that could reach its territory and do any harm to the people of Israel and to the state of Israel itself.
QUESTION: And what are these rockets called?
MR PUTIN: Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov will inform you of this in more detail.
QUESTION: Now I can feel safe. Syrian rockets do not present any danger to me.
Now that we are talking about concerns, I cannot help but mention the fact that Russia helps Iran in creating its nuclear potential. How can you be certain, Mr President, that Iran – a fundamentalist regime – is not misusing this technology?
MR PUTIN: First of all I would like to say that Russia does not just help Iran to strengthen its nuclear potential. We work exclusively in the sphere of peaceful atomic power, in the economic energy sphere.
We conduct our work under the full control of international organisations, above all under the full control of MAGATE. To be certain that our partners are not using our cooperation for military goals, we secured appropriate amendments to be made in our agreements. According to these amendments, Russia has received the right to have back from Iran the nuclear fuel that has been processed at the nuclear power station in Bushehr.
And I can say that our position on the problem of nuclear non-proliferation is quite consistent and strict: we are categorically against the spread of nuclear weapons across the planet and are categorically against any nuclear weapons programmes of Iran.
We do not believe that Iran should feel that it is being infringed upon in its use of the modern achievements of science and technology. Iran is our neighbour, it is a big country, and to infringe upon on a country like Iran is counterproductive, and could lead to quite complicated and serious consequences. A country like Iran and the Iranian people must not be humiliated. But at the same time, we must be certain that their nuclear programmes are not directed towards creating nuclear weapons, and we will continue to insist that the Iranian side abandons the idea of creating systems of uranium enrichment, creating nuclear cycle technologies while ensuring their interests in the sphere of science and the economy.
QUESTION: How do you comment, Mr President, on the rumours that your relations with President George Bush, which were very close, have now cooled off?
MR PUTIN: I prefer not to respond to rumours, but I cannot refuse to give you an answer to the question.
Russia and the United States have a large number of mutual interests and joint work. And this lies at the base of my personal, very warm relations with the President of the United States. The President and I have learned to fight for our interests and stand up for our point of view. But we have learnt to do this in forms that do not harm our personal relations.
We are expecting the President of the United States in Moscow on 9 May at the ceremony dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and we are certain that this will be another step towards strengthening our personal relations and relations between the United States and the Russian Federation.
QUESTION: State secretary Condoleezza Rice, who just completed a visit to your country, also talked about relations between the Russian Federation and the United States. Before her visit she made two statements. In one of them, she called on you not to stand for President in 2008, and in the second she harshly criticised Russia from the point of view of its democratic development.
MR PUTIN: I do not look at the statements which our partners make for the press. I rely on the information that arises during our personal discussions. These issues were not raised in these discussions, but here I do not see anything special if we had discussed these problems as well.
As for 2008, we have a Constitution, and we will not be guided by the attitude of our partners to issues of this kind, even greatly respected partners, but by the current legislation in Russia.
And as for elections in the United States, if she wants to stand for President, we will be glad. I think she will be a good President.
Now for the issue of democracy. We also have things to criticise concerning democratic institutions, including in the United States. We behave with reserve, but I think that there are indeed many democratic institutions here in a state of formation and development, and a well-disposed view from the outside can be useful. But if this thesis is used exclusively as a tool to realise a country’s own foreign policy plans, as a tool to influence another country with the aim of achieving one’s own national interests, then of course we will ignore this.
QUESTION: I would like to talk about the summit that was held at the U.S. President’s ranch in Texas between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George Bush. There was disagreement there concerning the expansion of Israeli settlements. What is your attitude to this issue?
MR PUTIN: You asked me just now about my relations with President George Bush, and I said that a similarity of views and interests on many issues lie at the base of these relations.
We have a very close position on the Iranian nuclear programme, and we have a very close position on Middle East regulation. I know that the President of the United States has often expressed his support for implementing the “road map”, and I also adhere to this point of view.
REPLY: I see that you have the same foreign policies as President George Bush, but not the same internal policies.
MR PUTIN: I do not have the same policies as President George Bush in the foreign sphere. For example, we had different views of the situation in Iraq. We have other differences, but we look for points of contact, and our personal relations help us to find common acceptable decisions. We conduct major joint work in the war on terror and believe that the United States is an ally for us in this sphere, not just a partner.
As for our internal policies, we cannot have a common position on internal policies in Russia, because internal policies in Russia are our affair. Just as the internal policies of the United States are an internal matter of the United States. But I want to stress once more: we are interested in our partners’ opinion if it is objective and well-disposed, and does not serve as a tool for achieving their own national interests, which in fact is also quite explicable and obvious. But I would like to make it clear that this is obvious to us too, and our attitude to this will be appropriate.
REPLY: We like how Russian sounds. It is very familiar for Israelis. It is like music.
MR PUTIN: Thank you. I must say that I was surprised that some melodies, some songs that are considered to be national Israeli songs in Israel are in fact Russian national songs.
QUESTION: Do you see Russia as a country that is regaining its former position as a superpower?
MR PUTIN: This is not the best position, because it contains certain drawbacks. I would like Russia above all to be a prosperous country, for its citizens to feel that the country is prosperous from their own pockets, from their material situation as far as social well-being is concerned, and for them to feel safe. To achieve this, of course, it is necessary to accordingly maintain and develop the Armed Forces, and then Russia’s place and role will be important, and it will take its place naturally.
And furthermore, it is the largest country in the world by size. We have our own interests and representation in the Asian part of the world and the European part, in the north and in the south. This is enough for us.
QUESTION: Many people in Israel express concern about the anti-semitism that exists in Russia.
MR PUTIN: Anti-semitism is a complex ethnic and historical phenomenon. And it is not a Russian invention. I think that in some countries that are traditionally considered Israel’s strategic partners, unfortunately, the phenomenon of anti-semitism is quite noticeable. And in a number of countries in the post-Soviet area, as strange as this may seem to you, Jews and Russians are considered to be the same. And unfortunately, we must deal with all this mess.
We are categorically opposed to any manifestations of xenophobia or nationalism. I don’t think that in Russia today anti-semitism can decide anything or present any threat, although this needs to be treated with much caution. It is necessary to react to any manifestations of this kind to protect the interests of national minorities, in this case the Jewish people, but no less importantly, to maintain Russian statehood itself: Russia was created and exists as a multinational and multi-religious state. And for us, combating anti-semitism, just like combating any nationalism or chauvinism, is the basis of our internal policy.
QUESTION: But then how do you regard the inciting letter signed by many artists, even Duma deputies, calling for Judaism to be removed from the political and legal system?
MR PUTIN: They did not call for Judaism to be removed from the political system. No, there were different appeals with references to certain sources of Judaism.
I can tell you that Judaism, along with Islam and the Orthodox Church, are classified as traditional Russian religions, are classified by law as traditional Russian religions, and thus are protected by law.
As for the letter you mentioned, I have essentially already answered it. I would like to say that it is always necessary to react to such manifestations adequately, very carefully and timely, but according to the doctor’s principle of doing no harm. If you followed the events in public life in Russia after this letter, then you could not help but noticing what society’s reaction to this was.
QUESTION: As you have already said, Mr President, on 9 May there will be a major celebration – the anniversary of Victory over Nazi Germany. There are 20,000 veterans living in Israel. What is the historical lesson that should be learned from this?
MR PUTIN: First of all I would like to say that I had the opportunity ten years ago, probably, when I was in Israel, to meet with Israeli veterans of the Second World War. And this was a very emotional meeting. For me it was to a certain extent also another discovery of Israel, just like visiting memorial sites connected with the Holocaust. I think that this, as I have already said, is also something that unites Israel and Russia.
The Jewish people suffered the tragedy of the Holocaust, while about 30 million of our people were also killed during the Great Patriotic War. And this is why I am not surprised that when we see manifestations of sympathy for Nazis, turning SS troops into heroes and so on, including in the post-Soviet area, then among the first to openly oppose this, and consistently and in harsh forms, are Jewish organisations. And the main conclusion from the tragedy of the Second World War should be that we do not have the right to ignore or close our eyes to manifestations of fanaticism, nationalism, and extreme views in politics and religion. A policy of appeasement ultimately ends tragically. Extremism needs to be fought where and when it arises, where it tries to achieve its goals – and this is the most important conclusion.
QUESTION: In a letter by American congressman Lantos and in newspapers there have been accusations that Russia is conducting a campaign or persecution of oligarchs, especially Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
MR PUTIN: I do not dabble in the epistolary arts.
As for attitudes to the problem as a whole, I can say that many decisions that were taken at the beginning and the middle of the 1990s during the process of privatisation are considered by the vast majority of Russian society to be very questionable, to put it mildly. And of course, people who over five to six years made a personal fortune of 5, 6, or 7 billion dollars are capable of spending a few million on defending their interests.
You know, when I was in Israel I met with some immigrants there who came to live permanently in Israel and have been living there for many years now, 20 or 15 years. And I saw how people work and the difficulties they face. Doctors with a private medical practice fight every day not to lose clients. Agricultural workers in Israel work for small salaries. Ministers give their money to a kibbutz and also receive quite modest salaries. I am certain that ordinary citizens in any country, including in your country, will of course ask: “How is it possible in a normal economy, observing the law, to earn $6-7 billion in personal fortune legally?”
But the fact that people develop the economy of their own country, do business and accumulate a fortune – there is nothing bad in this. It is important that this is all in the framework of the current legislation. And where it is violated by economic actors, the state must react.
Let us take well-known scandals, such as the Enron scandal in the United States, and a series of others. Some people involved in these scandals face 20 or more years in prison. We don’t write letters there. It is necessary to go to court, to consult with lawyers and defend one’s interests in court. And until the court finds a person guilty, in accordance with our legislation, just like the legislation of any other civilised country, he is considered innocent.
But there is another moral aspect to this case. When, for example, major sums are blocked, as happened several months ago with the group that you mentioned, $5 billion were blocked in Switzerland, one of the close shareholders of this company and the colleague of the person that you mentioned, said quite directly and openly in the media: “Let them be confiscated. That isn’t our last five billion. The money is in a safe place.” When people make statements like these, then we cannot call behaviour like this anything else but amoral. We will act according to the law, according to Russian law.
QUESTION: Do you think it is possible that these rich people, or oligarchs, as you call them, will try to overthrow you?
MR PUTIN: I think that those who break the law, who want to return Russia to the past – they probably would like it.
But what I do not doubt at all is that policies directed on the one hand to supporting Russian business and to support, as we say, the captains of Russian business, acting within the framework of legislation, and on the other hand, the equal position of everyone before the law – these policies are greeted and will be greeted, I do not doubt for a second, with support from the vast majority of citizens of the Russian Federation.
QUESTION: Next week there will be a game between the TSSKA and Makabi (Tel-Aviv) basketball teams. Will you go to the game or watch it on television? Or are you only interested in judo?
MR PUTIN: Basketball is an interesting game, and Makabi is a strong team. I don’t know whether I will be able to watch this game, but if I can, then of course I will watch it on television.
REPLY: Thank you very much for this interview. We eagerly await you in Israel.
MR PUTIN: Thank you very much for your interest in this visit and for your questions.
I very much hope that during this interview we were able to provide important explanations to issues which could interest the Israeli public.
I am looking forward to visiting to your country, which made a very strong impression on me. The first time, I was there on an official invitation, but when I saw it for the first time I wanted to come back for a second time with my family. And I must say that I have the warmest memories of my encounters with Israel. I hope that this visit will not just be pleasant, but also very beneficial.
Thank you very much.
************************
09. Russia said negotiating to supply helicopters, combat vehicles to Palestinians
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 20, 2005
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax-AVN web site
Moscow, 20 April: Palestine is planning to procure two Mil Mi-17 transport helicopters and 50 BRDM-2 combat and reconnaissance vehicles from Russia, a high-ranking official of the Russian Defence Ministry told Interfax-AVN on Wednesday [20 April].
"Talks on supplying Palestine with two helicopters and a batch of BRDM vehicles have been in progress for about two years. Unfortunately, we have so far failed to reach an accord on payment for and aftersale servicing of the hardware intended for delivery to Palestine, which causes delays in signing the contract," the official said.
BRDM-2 vehicles are to be used only in the interests of Palestinian police forces, he stressed. The helicopters are intended for airlifting [transporting] Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and other high-ranking Palestinian officials.
According to the Russian official, hardware to be supplied to Palestine will come from the Defence Ministry's warehouses if the contract is signed. It will go through expanded presale servicing before shipment.
Source: Interfax-AVN military news agency web site, Moscow, in English 1226 gmt 20 Apr 05
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 20, 2005
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax-AVN web site
Moscow, 20 April: Palestine is planning to procure two Mil Mi-17 transport helicopters and 50 BRDM-2 combat and reconnaissance vehicles from Russia, a high-ranking official of the Russian Defence Ministry told Interfax-AVN on Wednesday [20 April].
"Talks on supplying Palestine with two helicopters and a batch of BRDM vehicles have been in progress for about two years. Unfortunately, we have so far failed to reach an accord on payment for and aftersale servicing of the hardware intended for delivery to Palestine, which causes delays in signing the contract," the official said.
BRDM-2 vehicles are to be used only in the interests of Palestinian police forces, he stressed. The helicopters are intended for airlifting [transporting] Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and other high-ranking Palestinian officials.
According to the Russian official, hardware to be supplied to Palestine will come from the Defence Ministry's warehouses if the contract is signed. It will go through expanded presale servicing before shipment.
Source: Interfax-AVN military news agency web site, Moscow, in English 1226 gmt 20 Apr 05
************************
10. Nasname Reports on Program of Turkish Fascist Party
Essen Nasname WWW-Text in Turkish 08 Jan 05
[Unattributed report: "The Turkish Fascist Party Has Been Established"]
For further details: http://www33.brinkster.com/turanproje/kurulus.asp
This is the program of the Turkish Fascist Party!
We shall implement this program when we come to power or when we take control of the administration in any other way.
1. The accession process to the EU has been stopped for an indefinite period. Each and every person who wants to become an EU member will be put on trial on grounds of crimes such as "treason," "wanting the mandate of another country," and "incorporating the country within the territory of another country" and he will be executed in line with the laws that we enact.
2. The NATO membership will be abandoned.
3. Efforts will begin for establishing a new Turkish Union in the Asia continent. A Turkish Common Market will be established and goods will be imported to and exported from only from these countries.
4. An economic embargo will be imposed on the United States, the EU, Russia, China, and Israel. Economic or political relations will not be established with these countries.
5. All the consulates of the non-Turkish countries in the country will be closed.
6. All factories (tobacco, frozen food, soft drinks, and alcoholic drinks factories primarily) and associations that have foreign origins will be closed. The purchase-sale of goods that are produced abroad will be banned.
7. Agriculture fields will be controlled by the state. The state will decide what and where to plant. This way, it will be possible to calculate the amount of crop that will be harvested each year and to prevent economic fluctuations. Everyone will be able to eat whatever he wants comfortably.
8. The Constitution and the laws will be amended in a way that will only serve the interests of the Turkish race and that will ensure the eternity of the country.
9. All prisons will be turned into single-person cell-type prisons. When we come to power, those incarcerated in prisons will be retried and they will be sentenced according to the new laws that will be enacted.
10. All the foreign currency in the country will be seized. Payment will not be made in any way whatsoever to the owner of the foreign currency.
11. All foreign products in the country will be confiscated. Products that will be found suitable will be used by the state. The citizens will be given the Turkish-made version of the same products (if available). If a Turkish-made version of the product that was confiscated by the state is not available, the owner will be paid in Turkish currency in return for the product.
12. All private television channels will be closed and only state television channels will be allowed to broadcast. Newspapers will not be closed. Nonetheless, if at least one of the partners or one of the workers of a newspaper is a foreigner, the state will seize the newspaper. The newspapers will not employ foreign workers who have become Turkish citizens later.
13. Privatization procedures will be stopped and the state will seize the sectors that were privatized by former governments in case they are suitable for the needs of the state. No state institution, organization, or production facility will undergo privatization.
14. An agreement will be reached with all the Turkish countries and it will be ensured that all these states gather in one state. This way, Turks who are members of the same race but who live separately will unite under a single flag and in a single state.
15. The TBMM [Turkish Grand National Assembly] will be closed and instead, the Turkish Union will be transformed into a regime that is based on the rule of a single person and that is known by the people as dictatorship. The military forces will determine the dictator. He will not be elected by the people. This method aims at preventing the people from making emotional choices. States are ruled only with reason, rather than emotions.
16. Foreign workers or workers who have become Turkish citizens later will be deported and striped off from their citizenships.
17. The administrators of the foreign associations (such as the Lions Club) in the country as well as their workers will be hanged and all their movable possessions and fixed properties will be seized by the state.
18. Mines (such as boron, gold, coal) and underground resources (such as water and oil) within the borders of the country will be operated under the control of the state.
19. All foreign schools and hospitals as well as similar institutions will be closed and the state will seize all their movable possessions and fixed properties. (For example, the Robert College and the American Hospital)
20. Turkish will be used as mother tongue. To speak and to broadcast in a language other than Turkish will be banned. Those who do not comply with this ban will be hanged.
Essen Nasname WWW-Text in Turkish 08 Jan 05
[Unattributed report: "The Turkish Fascist Party Has Been Established"]
For further details: http://www33.brinkster.com/turanproje/kurulus.asp
This is the program of the Turkish Fascist Party!
We shall implement this program when we come to power or when we take control of the administration in any other way.
1. The accession process to the EU has been stopped for an indefinite period. Each and every person who wants to become an EU member will be put on trial on grounds of crimes such as "treason," "wanting the mandate of another country," and "incorporating the country within the territory of another country" and he will be executed in line with the laws that we enact.
2. The NATO membership will be abandoned.
3. Efforts will begin for establishing a new Turkish Union in the Asia continent. A Turkish Common Market will be established and goods will be imported to and exported from only from these countries.
4. An economic embargo will be imposed on the United States, the EU, Russia, China, and Israel. Economic or political relations will not be established with these countries.
5. All the consulates of the non-Turkish countries in the country will be closed.
6. All factories (tobacco, frozen food, soft drinks, and alcoholic drinks factories primarily) and associations that have foreign origins will be closed. The purchase-sale of goods that are produced abroad will be banned.
7. Agriculture fields will be controlled by the state. The state will decide what and where to plant. This way, it will be possible to calculate the amount of crop that will be harvested each year and to prevent economic fluctuations. Everyone will be able to eat whatever he wants comfortably.
8. The Constitution and the laws will be amended in a way that will only serve the interests of the Turkish race and that will ensure the eternity of the country.
9. All prisons will be turned into single-person cell-type prisons. When we come to power, those incarcerated in prisons will be retried and they will be sentenced according to the new laws that will be enacted.
10. All the foreign currency in the country will be seized. Payment will not be made in any way whatsoever to the owner of the foreign currency.
11. All foreign products in the country will be confiscated. Products that will be found suitable will be used by the state. The citizens will be given the Turkish-made version of the same products (if available). If a Turkish-made version of the product that was confiscated by the state is not available, the owner will be paid in Turkish currency in return for the product.
12. All private television channels will be closed and only state television channels will be allowed to broadcast. Newspapers will not be closed. Nonetheless, if at least one of the partners or one of the workers of a newspaper is a foreigner, the state will seize the newspaper. The newspapers will not employ foreign workers who have become Turkish citizens later.
13. Privatization procedures will be stopped and the state will seize the sectors that were privatized by former governments in case they are suitable for the needs of the state. No state institution, organization, or production facility will undergo privatization.
14. An agreement will be reached with all the Turkish countries and it will be ensured that all these states gather in one state. This way, Turks who are members of the same race but who live separately will unite under a single flag and in a single state.
15. The TBMM [Turkish Grand National Assembly] will be closed and instead, the Turkish Union will be transformed into a regime that is based on the rule of a single person and that is known by the people as dictatorship. The military forces will determine the dictator. He will not be elected by the people. This method aims at preventing the people from making emotional choices. States are ruled only with reason, rather than emotions.
16. Foreign workers or workers who have become Turkish citizens later will be deported and striped off from their citizenships.
17. The administrators of the foreign associations (such as the Lions Club) in the country as well as their workers will be hanged and all their movable possessions and fixed properties will be seized by the state.
18. Mines (such as boron, gold, coal) and underground resources (such as water and oil) within the borders of the country will be operated under the control of the state.
19. All foreign schools and hospitals as well as similar institutions will be closed and the state will seize all their movable possessions and fixed properties. (For example, the Robert College and the American Hospital)
20. Turkish will be used as mother tongue. To speak and to broadcast in a language other than Turkish will be banned. Those who do not comply with this ban will be hanged.
************************
11. Commentary on Edelman's Remarks About Turkey's Place in International Community
Istanbul Hurriyet (Internet Version-WWW) in Turkish 15 Mar 05
[Column by Oktay Eksi: "The Wolf and the Lamb"]
Assume that relations between two people or two countries suddenly turn sour. Both parties become suspicious of the other's actions.
In fact every thing you do to correct relations just makes matters worse.
It is obvious that relations between Turkey and the United States are at that point now. So much so that President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's trip to Syria to pay a return visit to Syria's President Bashar al-Asad would have been pleasing to the United States once. In fact, the United States might have said something like:
"We cannot make ourselves heard because our relations with Syria are not good. For example, even though solving the dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights is very important for Middle East peace we cannot get Syria to soften its attitude. Use this visit to help us out."
From the papers though we learn that Sezer's visit to Syria, planned for April, has annoyed the United States considerably. Indeed, here is what US Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman said in Bursa in reply to journalists questioning the news that the United States was not happy with the visit:
The only thing to say about Syria is that they should comply with UN Resolution number 1559 and accordingly withdraw their soldiers from Lebanon immediately. President Bush saw on his trip to Europe that there was complete agreement in this matter. During his meetings with France's President Chirac, Germany's Chancellor Schroeder and the leaders of Russia and Egypt he saw that they were in agreement. We hope that Turkey will be a part of the international community. Of course, it is up to Turkey whether or not to go along with the international community."
You can see that the ambassador sees Turkey as being outside not just a "particular international community" but the "international community" in general. He does not consider it condition enough for Ankara to be a part of the international community that it support UN Security Council resolution 1559 that he spoke of. Indeed, Ankara had announced on 7 March 2005 that it: "Welcomed wholeheartedly Syria's complete withdrawal of its forces in Lebanon in accordance with this resolution."
But Edelman wants more. Indeed, according to yesterday's Sabah newspaper: "Despite the fact that Ankara was expected to remind Damascus of Resolution number 1559 this was not done," allegedly. Worse, Turkey said nothing on this matter.
As you can see they are ignoring the statement given on 7 March.
What does this mean?
This means that the United States is pressing ahead with applying the policy it announced to the world after the 11 September act of terrorism. This policy is one of: You are either with us or against us.
True, our colleague Ugur Ergan says that during his trip to Damascus President Sezer is going to inform President al-Asad of the West's expectations. However, as long as the United States administration maintains, "You have to please us first" it looks like it is going to be difficult keeping these relations healthy.
Istanbul Hurriyet (Internet Version-WWW) in Turkish 15 Mar 05
[Column by Oktay Eksi: "The Wolf and the Lamb"]
Assume that relations between two people or two countries suddenly turn sour. Both parties become suspicious of the other's actions.
In fact every thing you do to correct relations just makes matters worse.
It is obvious that relations between Turkey and the United States are at that point now. So much so that President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's trip to Syria to pay a return visit to Syria's President Bashar al-Asad would have been pleasing to the United States once. In fact, the United States might have said something like:
"We cannot make ourselves heard because our relations with Syria are not good. For example, even though solving the dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights is very important for Middle East peace we cannot get Syria to soften its attitude. Use this visit to help us out."
From the papers though we learn that Sezer's visit to Syria, planned for April, has annoyed the United States considerably. Indeed, here is what US Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman said in Bursa in reply to journalists questioning the news that the United States was not happy with the visit:
The only thing to say about Syria is that they should comply with UN Resolution number 1559 and accordingly withdraw their soldiers from Lebanon immediately. President Bush saw on his trip to Europe that there was complete agreement in this matter. During his meetings with France's President Chirac, Germany's Chancellor Schroeder and the leaders of Russia and Egypt he saw that they were in agreement. We hope that Turkey will be a part of the international community. Of course, it is up to Turkey whether or not to go along with the international community."
You can see that the ambassador sees Turkey as being outside not just a "particular international community" but the "international community" in general. He does not consider it condition enough for Ankara to be a part of the international community that it support UN Security Council resolution 1559 that he spoke of. Indeed, Ankara had announced on 7 March 2005 that it: "Welcomed wholeheartedly Syria's complete withdrawal of its forces in Lebanon in accordance with this resolution."
But Edelman wants more. Indeed, according to yesterday's Sabah newspaper: "Despite the fact that Ankara was expected to remind Damascus of Resolution number 1559 this was not done," allegedly. Worse, Turkey said nothing on this matter.
As you can see they are ignoring the statement given on 7 March.
What does this mean?
This means that the United States is pressing ahead with applying the policy it announced to the world after the 11 September act of terrorism. This policy is one of: You are either with us or against us.
True, our colleague Ugur Ergan says that during his trip to Damascus President Sezer is going to inform President al-Asad of the West's expectations. However, as long as the United States administration maintains, "You have to please us first" it looks like it is going to be difficult keeping these relations healthy.
************************
12. A Turkish lesson in nation building
By Humphrey Hawksley
BBC News, Turkey
Saturday, 19 March, 2005, 12:05 GMT
In its campaign to spread democracy, Washington reckons one of the key players should be Turkey, which it holds up as an example of how a successful democracy can flourish within an Islamic society. But some Turks are wary of this close relationship.
Rain splattered on the dusty ground of the central Turkish hill town of Beypazari.
Huseyin Yulmaz, five years retired from the coal mines, withdrew money from a high street cash machine and headed down an alley, past the fire and the banging from a metal forge, to a café where we had agreed to go.
It was a place of thick cigarette smoke and gloomy colours, dark winter clothing, hard wood tables and rich brews of Turkish tea.
Huseyin and his friends were playing cards at the tables.
When viewed from Washington they are pretty much an example of what the US believes it is beginning to create in this part of world.
It cites Iraqi and Palestinian elections, people power in Beirut, changes in Egypt, an argument that societies can be both Islamic and democratic, the dream ticket that will put an end to terrorism.
And Turkey, it says, knows how to do it.
Except, the last thing Huseyin Yulmaz wants is to be held up as an example America can use. The prospect was met with disdain and shaking heads.
"What America wants to do is divide us into small weak countries so that we can be controlled from the Pentagon," said Huseyin.
While his huge hands gently cupped a match to light a cigarette, his friend Yinasi Ertugal agreed.
"America's trying to set a trap for us, wanting us to think that we, too, will become like Iraq if we don't do what it says."
American ally
Had this been Iraq, Iran or Syria, the sentiment would not have been so surprising.
But these people are in the heartland of Turkey, a long-standing American ally.
They remember the Cold War, when Turkey and America stood shoulder to shoulder against the Soviet Union.
Their grandparents, great grandparents and beyond would have formed the backbone of the Ottoman Empire, which stretched from the Gulf to North Africa and the Balkans.
They have been raised on the doctrine of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, who carried out the sort of reforms the White House envisions for the rest of the Islamic world.
He banned Sharia Law and Islamic schools and marriage, switched the weekly holiday from Friday to Sunday, adopted the Western calendar, and gave women the right to vote.
All achieved in 13 years from 1922 to 1935, roughly the same period that the Middle East has foundered between the first Gulf War and now.
Little wonder, Washington would like Turkey to take a lead.
So why won't it, and also why is there the anti-American venom? Not only in the heartland, but also in the cosmopolitan café society in Istanbul.
Disdain
"America should learn about democracy itself," said a designer, clad totally in black, taking off his shades to make sure I got the point.
"America is now a threat to the whole world," agreed a television presenter, walking two huge, but finely behaved and coiffured dogs.
And it went on like that, one after the other.
I found the intricate explanation at the political science department of Ankara University. It turned out that where America is now heading, Turkey feels it has been before.
It does not like it and it knows what might happen.
"The nation state building in the Middle East is based on an anti-Turkish sentiment," said Dr Cagri Erhan.
"Because of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Syria, other countries, accuse Turkey of keeping their lives underdeveloped for five centuries. So Turkey now has to balance its policies. We're not a Pacific island. We have troublesome areas around us."
Historically, Turkey has been a frontier or meeting point of Islam and Christianity.
Pawn?
As US politics are taking a lead from its deeply conservative and Christian heartlands, so Turkey is beginning to follow its own grass roots sentiment.
The first real sign was two years ago, just before the Iraq invasion, the Turkish parliament voted to ban US troops from going into northern Iraq through Turkey.
"This absolutely changed our image in the region," explained Dr Sukrum Elekdag, an elegant and urbane member of parliament, and former Turkish Ambassador to Washington.
"The Arab countries said they never expected this to come from Turkey. They thought we were Washington's pawns."
So, democracy in the Middle East?
"Well," he said, "first there must be peace in Iraq and secondly there's got to be a way to solve the Palestinian Israeli problem, so unfortunately, the present circumstances do not allow the US to implement its vision for the region successfully."
From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 19 March, 2005, at 1130 GMT on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.
By Humphrey Hawksley
BBC News, Turkey
Saturday, 19 March, 2005, 12:05 GMT
In its campaign to spread democracy, Washington reckons one of the key players should be Turkey, which it holds up as an example of how a successful democracy can flourish within an Islamic society. But some Turks are wary of this close relationship.
Rain splattered on the dusty ground of the central Turkish hill town of Beypazari.
Huseyin Yulmaz, five years retired from the coal mines, withdrew money from a high street cash machine and headed down an alley, past the fire and the banging from a metal forge, to a café where we had agreed to go.
It was a place of thick cigarette smoke and gloomy colours, dark winter clothing, hard wood tables and rich brews of Turkish tea.
Huseyin and his friends were playing cards at the tables.
When viewed from Washington they are pretty much an example of what the US believes it is beginning to create in this part of world.
It cites Iraqi and Palestinian elections, people power in Beirut, changes in Egypt, an argument that societies can be both Islamic and democratic, the dream ticket that will put an end to terrorism.
And Turkey, it says, knows how to do it.
Except, the last thing Huseyin Yulmaz wants is to be held up as an example America can use. The prospect was met with disdain and shaking heads.
"What America wants to do is divide us into small weak countries so that we can be controlled from the Pentagon," said Huseyin.
While his huge hands gently cupped a match to light a cigarette, his friend Yinasi Ertugal agreed.
"America's trying to set a trap for us, wanting us to think that we, too, will become like Iraq if we don't do what it says."
American ally
Had this been Iraq, Iran or Syria, the sentiment would not have been so surprising.
But these people are in the heartland of Turkey, a long-standing American ally.
They remember the Cold War, when Turkey and America stood shoulder to shoulder against the Soviet Union.
Their grandparents, great grandparents and beyond would have formed the backbone of the Ottoman Empire, which stretched from the Gulf to North Africa and the Balkans.
They have been raised on the doctrine of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, who carried out the sort of reforms the White House envisions for the rest of the Islamic world.
He banned Sharia Law and Islamic schools and marriage, switched the weekly holiday from Friday to Sunday, adopted the Western calendar, and gave women the right to vote.
All achieved in 13 years from 1922 to 1935, roughly the same period that the Middle East has foundered between the first Gulf War and now.
Little wonder, Washington would like Turkey to take a lead.
So why won't it, and also why is there the anti-American venom? Not only in the heartland, but also in the cosmopolitan café society in Istanbul.
Disdain
"America should learn about democracy itself," said a designer, clad totally in black, taking off his shades to make sure I got the point.
"America is now a threat to the whole world," agreed a television presenter, walking two huge, but finely behaved and coiffured dogs.
And it went on like that, one after the other.
I found the intricate explanation at the political science department of Ankara University. It turned out that where America is now heading, Turkey feels it has been before.
It does not like it and it knows what might happen.
"The nation state building in the Middle East is based on an anti-Turkish sentiment," said Dr Cagri Erhan.
"Because of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Syria, other countries, accuse Turkey of keeping their lives underdeveloped for five centuries. So Turkey now has to balance its policies. We're not a Pacific island. We have troublesome areas around us."
Historically, Turkey has been a frontier or meeting point of Islam and Christianity.
Pawn?
As US politics are taking a lead from its deeply conservative and Christian heartlands, so Turkey is beginning to follow its own grass roots sentiment.
The first real sign was two years ago, just before the Iraq invasion, the Turkish parliament voted to ban US troops from going into northern Iraq through Turkey.
"This absolutely changed our image in the region," explained Dr Sukrum Elekdag, an elegant and urbane member of parliament, and former Turkish Ambassador to Washington.
"The Arab countries said they never expected this to come from Turkey. They thought we were Washington's pawns."
So, democracy in the Middle East?
"Well," he said, "first there must be peace in Iraq and secondly there's got to be a way to solve the Palestinian Israeli problem, so unfortunately, the present circumstances do not allow the US to implement its vision for the region successfully."
From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 19 March, 2005, at 1130 GMT on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.
************************
13. Mein Kampf becomes a bestseller in Turkey, raising the question: Why?
JAMES C. HELICKE
20 March 2005
ISTANBUL (AP) - In Turkish bookshops, there's one bestseller that some book shops are hesitant to put on the shelves next to the rest.
New paperback versions of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf have suddenly made the book a top seller in Turkey, raising questions about whether the sales reflect growing anti-Semitism and anti-American sentiment in this Muslim country, or if it's just curiosity and a cheap read.
The books were printed without the permission of the Finance Ministry of the German state of Bavaria, which handles the book's copyright. The ministry said Friday that it had asked Germany's federal Foreign Ministry to instruct diplomats in Turkey to investigate possible lawsuits in an attempt to prevent the continued publication of the books.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf - or My Struggle in the 1920s, filling it with anti-Semitic diatribes and his strategy for world domination.
Tens of thousands of copies of the book have sold in recent months since at least two cheap paperback versions were released.
Many people are not sure why they're such hot sellers.
Analysts point out that many in this Muslim country are angry over the violence between Israelis and Muslim Palestinians. There is also increased frustration with U.S. policy in neighbouring Iraq.
But others point out that the book can be purchased for as little as 6 new Turkish lira (about $5.50 Cdn) and many Turks may simply be curious.
Bavaria was designated guardian of Hitler's estate by victorious Second Second War allies, and said it remained vigilant about the copyright.
"The book Mein Kampf should not be reprinted," Bavarian Finance Minister Kurt Faltlhauser said in a statement. "The state of Bavaria administers the copyright very restrictively to prevent an increase of Nazi ideas."
The Bavarian ministry is asking the embassy in Turkey through the Foreign Ministry to "examine the initiation of legal steps," the ministry said.
JAMES C. HELICKE
20 March 2005
ISTANBUL (AP) - In Turkish bookshops, there's one bestseller that some book shops are hesitant to put on the shelves next to the rest.
New paperback versions of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf have suddenly made the book a top seller in Turkey, raising questions about whether the sales reflect growing anti-Semitism and anti-American sentiment in this Muslim country, or if it's just curiosity and a cheap read.
The books were printed without the permission of the Finance Ministry of the German state of Bavaria, which handles the book's copyright. The ministry said Friday that it had asked Germany's federal Foreign Ministry to instruct diplomats in Turkey to investigate possible lawsuits in an attempt to prevent the continued publication of the books.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf - or My Struggle in the 1920s, filling it with anti-Semitic diatribes and his strategy for world domination.
Tens of thousands of copies of the book have sold in recent months since at least two cheap paperback versions were released.
Many people are not sure why they're such hot sellers.
Analysts point out that many in this Muslim country are angry over the violence between Israelis and Muslim Palestinians. There is also increased frustration with U.S. policy in neighbouring Iraq.
But others point out that the book can be purchased for as little as 6 new Turkish lira (about $5.50 Cdn) and many Turks may simply be curious.
Bavaria was designated guardian of Hitler's estate by victorious Second Second War allies, and said it remained vigilant about the copyright.
"The book Mein Kampf should not be reprinted," Bavarian Finance Minister Kurt Faltlhauser said in a statement. "The state of Bavaria administers the copyright very restrictively to prevent an increase of Nazi ideas."
The Bavarian ministry is asking the embassy in Turkey through the Foreign Ministry to "examine the initiation of legal steps," the ministry said.
************************
14. Turkish Expressions of Solidarity with Syria
MEMRI Special Dispatch Series - No. 883
March 23, 2005
The Turkish media has recently expressed a high level of solidarity with Syria directed primarily against the U.S. It called upon Turks to travel to Syria in order to demonstrate solidarity in the face of alleged American military plans against the Syrian regime. [1]
Next month Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer will conduct his visit to Damascus, as planned. This visit was the basis for a further deterioration of U.S.-Turkish relations, following a comment by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman which was interpreted as criticism of Sezer's visit. [2] The comment aroused harsh reactions in the Turkish media, with widespread calls for his removal from Turkey. The subsequent resignation of Ambassador Edelman was reported by the Turkish media with a sense of victory.
The following are excerpts from a few articles in the Turkish press about the ongoing diplomatic tension between Turkey and U.S. (the format of the text appears as in the original):
Milliyet on the Subject of Damascus: Ankara Looks Out of Step with the World and in Tune with Hizbullah
Columnist Yasemin Çongar of Milliyet, the second largest, mainstream, moderate Turkish daily, wrote: [3]
"If you follow the world agenda only through the voices and pens in Turkey, you can be fooled by the recent messages about Syria. Please don't!
"Don't, because by looking at 'some anti-war intellectuals' going to Damascus to show solidarity with Syria, you might come to think that 'the USA might [really] be planning to attack Syria after Iraq, and that the bombings are imminent.' If you do, you would be very wrong.
"Your respect to the status and the personality of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul might push you to believe his recent statement, which said: 'Syrian leader Bashar Assad is very much loved by his people and must be strengthened.' Don't [believe it]!
"[…] Looking at the majority of the many recent columns in the Turkish newspapers dealing with Syria, you might also think that the U.S., out of the blue and all by itself, is starting a campaign against Syria. Beware!
"If you are not careful, you might be carried away to believe that the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri benefited the U.S. and Israel and that it opened the way for them to put pressure on Syria. And you might miss hearing the combined voices of France, England, Germany, in fact all of the European Union, and of Saudi Arabia and the Arab Union, Russia and the United Nations (with its Resolution 1559 of September 2004). Most importantly, you would be closing your ears to the voice of the Lebanese people.
"[…] Don't be blinded not to see the winds of change towards democratization blowing in the region, because of those [journalists] who continuously pump you with animosity to the U.S.
"[…] The new statements by the U.S. government show that their argument is picking up strength from the elections in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, as well as the anti-Syria demonstrations in Beirut.
"This is the argument that there are [important] steps being taken on the way to democracy in the larger Middle East, and [all these developments] are not coincidental or unrelated.
"Washington is accusing the countries in the region with anti-democratic regimes for being 'against the new current' and pushing for change in those countries (including in Saudi Arabia and Egypt).
"President Bush and Secretary of State Rice are criticizing the capitals in the region that do not follow the trend toward democratization and accuse them of being 'out of step.' They see the upcoming municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, and the recent decisions by Egypt and Qatar to hold elections as 'even if imperfect, important beginnings for democracy.'
"How Ankara, which gives the impression that, regarding Syria, it is out of step with the world, but in harmony with Hizbullah, will catch up with these regional changes remains to be seen."
Turkish Media Reporting on Ambassador's Comment: "A 'Radikal' Contribution to Anti-Americanism"
Erdal Guven, of the center-left liberal daily Radikal, critical of the way his paper had reported on the remarks by Ambassador Edelman, wrote: [4]
"On March 14, USA's Ambassador in Ankara Eric Edelman was in Bursa. One of the reporters there asked him a question. The question was: 'There is news in today's papers that President Sezer will go to Syria at the pre-planned time, despite America's expectations for postponement. What are your evaluations on that?'
"Edelman answered: 'The important point is that the international community is in consensus behind Resolution 1559 of the U.N. Security Council. This resolution was jointly prepared by France and the U.S., and calls for immediate withdrawal of all Syrian forces from Lebanon and arming of the Lebanese militias. This [position] has international support. During President George W. Bush's visit to Europe, this agreement was confirmed by Chirac, Schroeder, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We believe this is the way to follow, in order to maintain the stability in the region. We hope Turkey will join this international coalition. Of course, evaluating this position of the international community is Turkey's decision.'
"Those were Edelman's words. Words that were clear, comprehensible and said in a well defined context…
"[…] Now let's look at the way they were presented at Radikal on March 15, 2005: […] The opening sentence of the news: 'U.S. Ambassador in Ankara Eric Edelman yesterday gave Turkey an ultimatum-like message about Syria.' Second sentence goes like this: 'Edelman warned that if Turkey does not join in the international demands of Syria to pull out of Lebanon, it [Turkey] will remain outside the international community.'
"An ambassador, even of a superpower, cannot give 'ultimatum-like' messages to a country where he serves. […]
"You read [the ambassador's words] above: Edelman did not give Turkey 'ultimatum-like' messages, did not claim 'Turkey would be left outside the international community, if it did not join the demands for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon' and did not say 'put pressure on Syria.'
"The American Embassy said in a statement that Edelman's words were distorted. […] Of course, this statement was not given to Radikal alone. The subject was reported in the same [distorted] manner by other newspapers as well.
"No doubt, the reason for 'perception' to overshadow 'the essence' [the facts] was due to the anti-Americanism prevalent in Turkey. Whether it is right or wrong, anti-Americanism is a political stand, and should not be attached to news reporting. News is news.
"In relation to this particular news, we as Radikal have gotten a failing grade. Obviously we made a 'Radikal' [radical] contribution to the anti-Americanism in Turkey."
Milliyet: U.S. Ambassador – "Persona Non Grata"
Milliyet columnist Can Dündar wrote, in an article titled "Persona Non Grata:" [5]
"When a diplomat makes a public statement regarding the domestic and foreign policy of the country where he serves, this is called 'diplomatic interference.'
"Respectable countries can demand the immediate removal of a diplomat who behaves in that manner.
"The U.N. confirmed this in the framework of the 1961 'Vienna agreement on Diplomatic Relations.'
"A diplomat who is regarded as 'persona non grata' must pack his suitcase and return to his country the next day.
"Asked on March 14 about [Turkish] President Sezer's possible visit to Syria, U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman said: 'I hope Turkey will join the international consensus supporting the rapid withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon,' thus giving the message 'don't go.'
"[…] With Edelman, Turkey-USA relations have seen the worst period.
"If Turkey today is the leader in the race of 'America hating countries,' Edelman has played a major part in it.
[…] The Turkish people is moving toward giving up their 200-year-old dream of westernization, because of the Westerners who keep waving their fingers at us and tell us what to do and what not to do […] with the attitude of colonial governors.
"[…] It is pleasing that despite such pressures our President reconfirmed that he will be going to Damascus.
"For Turkey to continue its efforts to develop good relations with our neighbors is the best answer to such [U.S.] pressures.
"To show the door to the 'unwanted man' is the other good answer."
AKP Unofficial Mouthpiece: "Edelman Must Go"
Columnist Ahmet Kekeç of the Islamist daily Yeni Şafak, known as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) wrote: [6]
"It's been two years that I am writing 'this Ambassador will cause a lot of headache'… Yes, he will [have to] do all that is dictated by the interests of the country he represents. But Edelman is not mindful of the sensitivities in the country where he serves and is not acting in accordance with the interests of the country he represents.
"A rude and crude diplomat.
"His style is problematic, his attitude is problematic, and his policy (whatever that may be) is problematic.
"In the past he had been on our [Yeni Şafak] case. He still is.
"There was that news about the 'savage [sexual] assault [by U.S. soldiers] in Iraq' which [later] we at Yeni Şafak had corrected. The Ambassador was furious and started bashing our newspaper everywhere. In revenge, he first documented the relationship (!) between Yani Şafak and certain porn sites and then […] used a high circulation newspaper to disseminate distorted news. Not satisfied with this, he resorted to a psychological attrition campaign [against Yeni Şafak].
"[…] We [in Turkey] were angry upon reading the ugly (arrogant) article of Robert Pollock, the Wall Street Journal editor; and we were astonished at how he had obtained all his information. We shouldn't be astonished. Things that Pollock wrote were in line with Edelman's statements. […]
"The Ambassador did nothing to alleviate our annoyance. As a matter of fact, he acted as if he was on a 'special mission' to ruin the relations between Turkey and America.
"As a result [of all this] he now is declared an 'unwanted man.' […]
"Edelman must go. […]"
Nationalist Islamic Daily: Suspicions About Hariri's Murder Focus on the U.S. and Israel
In an article in the nationalist-Islamic daily newspaper Yenicağ, columnist Ferruh Sezgin asks: [7]
"[…] Edelman in his statement shows [us] the stick and hints: 'If Sezer goes to Syria, we will distance Turkey from the international community.' […]
"[…] I keep wondering about [the question] 'on whose behalf Edelman speaks.'
"On behalf of the U.S., of which he is a citizen and a high-ranking official, or the country of his race Israel? Which one would you serve, if you were Edelman?... Every kind of pressure is being applied to prevent Sezer from going to Syria.
"But it is becoming more and more apparent that the culprit in Hariri's murder, which they use as a pretext, is not Syria. As the fog lifts, suspicions are focusing on [the] U.S.-Israel [duo].
"[…] İbrahim Karagül of Yeni Şafak, in his March 15 article, elaborated that Hariri was a pan-Arabist and was opposed to a U.S. airbase in the north of Lebanon […] which would be built in the model of El-Udeid base in Qatar, for covert operations against the Assad regime and to safeguard the oil pipelines of Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan and Mosul-Kerkuk-Ceyhan. […]
"Why was Hariri murdered?
"Will our [Turkish] Foreign Office brief our President, prior to his visit in Syria […] about these recent developments? The building of a large U.S. airbase in the north of Lebanon may necessitate the shaping of a Turkey-Syria 'joint stand.'"
Hürriyet: Colonial Governor
In an article in the largest mainstream moderate daily Hürriyet, columnist Oktay Ekşi wrote: [8]
"[…] The U.S. Ambassador in Ankara who at every possible opportunity expressed 'displeasure' about President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's upcoming visit to Syria, claims he has made no insinuations regarding Sezer's Syria visit.
"So who was the one who kept expressing displeasure about this visit?
"[Or] was it Zambia's ambassador who was showing Turkey the 'stick,' when talking about Syria's pull out of Lebanon?
"No, Edelman never makes any such insinuations.
"[…] Let no one be fooled. It is obvious that Ambassador Edelman saw in himself the authority to try and prevent the visit President Sezer will pay to Syria. But as you read in yesterday's papers, he received a short and clear response from Sezer: 'Most certainly, we will go!.'
"We also think that [the President's] decision which was openly backed by the Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan, is the right one.
"[…] It is clear that the source of the differences of the views [between Turkey and the U.S.] is the question, 'should Turkey be run by Washington or Ankara?'
"We believe that Turkey is and should be run by Ankara."
Sabah: Bye Bye…
In an article in the popular mainstream moderate daily Sabah, columnist Umur Talu wrote:[9]
"It is not correct to talk behind somebody's back. But if that somebody has not yet left, and has still not 'grasped' [certain things] one can talk about him. To the ambassador who has recently resigned here [in Ankara] but who probably will go to a [more important] key position […] and take his place in the heart of the nucleus that designs USA's policies, goodbye from us.
"[…] The 'resigned' ambassador of the U.S. who could not digest Turkey's values, feelings, reactions […] and the different, opposing views in the general media as a 'necessity of democracy,' unleashed on us his deep indigestions in the form of a 'propaganda war.' […]
"[…] Instead of truths to be found and voiced, he [Edelman] released distortions like 'anti-Americanism' or 'anti-Semitism' or 'false news' and in doing so he crossed all professional lines and helped create a 'cloud of threats.'
"In response to what he perceived was a 'local hatred.' he developed his own 'hatred.' […]"
[1] Turkish intellectuals indeed paid highly publicized visits to Syria. See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 874, "Turkish Media on the Anniversary of the March 1, 2003 Parliamentary Resolution Not Allowing U.S. Troops to Open a Northern Front Against Iraq from Turkish Soil," March 8, 2005, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP87405.
[2] Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's upcoming visit to Syria was criticized by the leader of the Lebanese opposition Walid Jumblatt in an interview on March 21, 2005, in the Turkish daily Tercuman (Turkey), conducted by Cengiz Candar. According to the article, Walid said of the official visit "Mish Mnih," or "It is not good." When asked how he evaluates Sezer's expected visit to Syria, Jumblatt was quoted as saying: "This is completely up to Turkey and we cannot interfere in Turkey's decisions. [...] Turkey got rid of military regime and became a democracy.We too want to get rid of the Syrian military and the Muhabarat regime and build our democracy.The country in this region that would best understand this is Turkey… The whole world supports the Lebanese democracy. They are behind Lebanon. Turkish authorities know this. Therefore we expect them to act accordingly."
[3] Milliyet (Turkey), March 7, 2005.
[4] Radikal (Turkey), March 18, 2005.
[5] Milliyet (Turkey), March 17, 2005.
[6] Yeni Safak (Turkey), March 17, 2005.
[7] Yenicağ (Turkey), March 17, 2005.
[8] Hürriyet (Turkey), March 18, 2005.
[9] Sabah (Turkey), March 20, 2005.
MEMRI Special Dispatch Series - No. 883
March 23, 2005
The Turkish media has recently expressed a high level of solidarity with Syria directed primarily against the U.S. It called upon Turks to travel to Syria in order to demonstrate solidarity in the face of alleged American military plans against the Syrian regime. [1]
Next month Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer will conduct his visit to Damascus, as planned. This visit was the basis for a further deterioration of U.S.-Turkish relations, following a comment by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman which was interpreted as criticism of Sezer's visit. [2] The comment aroused harsh reactions in the Turkish media, with widespread calls for his removal from Turkey. The subsequent resignation of Ambassador Edelman was reported by the Turkish media with a sense of victory.
The following are excerpts from a few articles in the Turkish press about the ongoing diplomatic tension between Turkey and U.S. (the format of the text appears as in the original):
Milliyet on the Subject of Damascus: Ankara Looks Out of Step with the World and in Tune with Hizbullah
Columnist Yasemin Çongar of Milliyet, the second largest, mainstream, moderate Turkish daily, wrote: [3]
"If you follow the world agenda only through the voices and pens in Turkey, you can be fooled by the recent messages about Syria. Please don't!
"Don't, because by looking at 'some anti-war intellectuals' going to Damascus to show solidarity with Syria, you might come to think that 'the USA might [really] be planning to attack Syria after Iraq, and that the bombings are imminent.' If you do, you would be very wrong.
"Your respect to the status and the personality of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul might push you to believe his recent statement, which said: 'Syrian leader Bashar Assad is very much loved by his people and must be strengthened.' Don't [believe it]!
"[…] Looking at the majority of the many recent columns in the Turkish newspapers dealing with Syria, you might also think that the U.S., out of the blue and all by itself, is starting a campaign against Syria. Beware!
"If you are not careful, you might be carried away to believe that the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri benefited the U.S. and Israel and that it opened the way for them to put pressure on Syria. And you might miss hearing the combined voices of France, England, Germany, in fact all of the European Union, and of Saudi Arabia and the Arab Union, Russia and the United Nations (with its Resolution 1559 of September 2004). Most importantly, you would be closing your ears to the voice of the Lebanese people.
"[…] Don't be blinded not to see the winds of change towards democratization blowing in the region, because of those [journalists] who continuously pump you with animosity to the U.S.
"[…] The new statements by the U.S. government show that their argument is picking up strength from the elections in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, as well as the anti-Syria demonstrations in Beirut.
"This is the argument that there are [important] steps being taken on the way to democracy in the larger Middle East, and [all these developments] are not coincidental or unrelated.
"Washington is accusing the countries in the region with anti-democratic regimes for being 'against the new current' and pushing for change in those countries (including in Saudi Arabia and Egypt).
"President Bush and Secretary of State Rice are criticizing the capitals in the region that do not follow the trend toward democratization and accuse them of being 'out of step.' They see the upcoming municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, and the recent decisions by Egypt and Qatar to hold elections as 'even if imperfect, important beginnings for democracy.'
"How Ankara, which gives the impression that, regarding Syria, it is out of step with the world, but in harmony with Hizbullah, will catch up with these regional changes remains to be seen."
Turkish Media Reporting on Ambassador's Comment: "A 'Radikal' Contribution to Anti-Americanism"
Erdal Guven, of the center-left liberal daily Radikal, critical of the way his paper had reported on the remarks by Ambassador Edelman, wrote: [4]
"On March 14, USA's Ambassador in Ankara Eric Edelman was in Bursa. One of the reporters there asked him a question. The question was: 'There is news in today's papers that President Sezer will go to Syria at the pre-planned time, despite America's expectations for postponement. What are your evaluations on that?'
"Edelman answered: 'The important point is that the international community is in consensus behind Resolution 1559 of the U.N. Security Council. This resolution was jointly prepared by France and the U.S., and calls for immediate withdrawal of all Syrian forces from Lebanon and arming of the Lebanese militias. This [position] has international support. During President George W. Bush's visit to Europe, this agreement was confirmed by Chirac, Schroeder, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We believe this is the way to follow, in order to maintain the stability in the region. We hope Turkey will join this international coalition. Of course, evaluating this position of the international community is Turkey's decision.'
"Those were Edelman's words. Words that were clear, comprehensible and said in a well defined context…
"[…] Now let's look at the way they were presented at Radikal on March 15, 2005: […] The opening sentence of the news: 'U.S. Ambassador in Ankara Eric Edelman yesterday gave Turkey an ultimatum-like message about Syria.' Second sentence goes like this: 'Edelman warned that if Turkey does not join in the international demands of Syria to pull out of Lebanon, it [Turkey] will remain outside the international community.'
"An ambassador, even of a superpower, cannot give 'ultimatum-like' messages to a country where he serves. […]
"You read [the ambassador's words] above: Edelman did not give Turkey 'ultimatum-like' messages, did not claim 'Turkey would be left outside the international community, if it did not join the demands for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon' and did not say 'put pressure on Syria.'
"The American Embassy said in a statement that Edelman's words were distorted. […] Of course, this statement was not given to Radikal alone. The subject was reported in the same [distorted] manner by other newspapers as well.
"No doubt, the reason for 'perception' to overshadow 'the essence' [the facts] was due to the anti-Americanism prevalent in Turkey. Whether it is right or wrong, anti-Americanism is a political stand, and should not be attached to news reporting. News is news.
"In relation to this particular news, we as Radikal have gotten a failing grade. Obviously we made a 'Radikal' [radical] contribution to the anti-Americanism in Turkey."
Milliyet: U.S. Ambassador – "Persona Non Grata"
Milliyet columnist Can Dündar wrote, in an article titled "Persona Non Grata:" [5]
"When a diplomat makes a public statement regarding the domestic and foreign policy of the country where he serves, this is called 'diplomatic interference.'
"Respectable countries can demand the immediate removal of a diplomat who behaves in that manner.
"The U.N. confirmed this in the framework of the 1961 'Vienna agreement on Diplomatic Relations.'
"A diplomat who is regarded as 'persona non grata' must pack his suitcase and return to his country the next day.
"Asked on March 14 about [Turkish] President Sezer's possible visit to Syria, U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman said: 'I hope Turkey will join the international consensus supporting the rapid withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon,' thus giving the message 'don't go.'
"[…] With Edelman, Turkey-USA relations have seen the worst period.
"If Turkey today is the leader in the race of 'America hating countries,' Edelman has played a major part in it.
[…] The Turkish people is moving toward giving up their 200-year-old dream of westernization, because of the Westerners who keep waving their fingers at us and tell us what to do and what not to do […] with the attitude of colonial governors.
"[…] It is pleasing that despite such pressures our President reconfirmed that he will be going to Damascus.
"For Turkey to continue its efforts to develop good relations with our neighbors is the best answer to such [U.S.] pressures.
"To show the door to the 'unwanted man' is the other good answer."
AKP Unofficial Mouthpiece: "Edelman Must Go"
Columnist Ahmet Kekeç of the Islamist daily Yeni Şafak, known as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) wrote: [6]
"It's been two years that I am writing 'this Ambassador will cause a lot of headache'… Yes, he will [have to] do all that is dictated by the interests of the country he represents. But Edelman is not mindful of the sensitivities in the country where he serves and is not acting in accordance with the interests of the country he represents.
"A rude and crude diplomat.
"His style is problematic, his attitude is problematic, and his policy (whatever that may be) is problematic.
"In the past he had been on our [Yeni Şafak] case. He still is.
"There was that news about the 'savage [sexual] assault [by U.S. soldiers] in Iraq' which [later] we at Yeni Şafak had corrected. The Ambassador was furious and started bashing our newspaper everywhere. In revenge, he first documented the relationship (!) between Yani Şafak and certain porn sites and then […] used a high circulation newspaper to disseminate distorted news. Not satisfied with this, he resorted to a psychological attrition campaign [against Yeni Şafak].
"[…] We [in Turkey] were angry upon reading the ugly (arrogant) article of Robert Pollock, the Wall Street Journal editor; and we were astonished at how he had obtained all his information. We shouldn't be astonished. Things that Pollock wrote were in line with Edelman's statements. […]
"The Ambassador did nothing to alleviate our annoyance. As a matter of fact, he acted as if he was on a 'special mission' to ruin the relations between Turkey and America.
"As a result [of all this] he now is declared an 'unwanted man.' […]
"Edelman must go. […]"
Nationalist Islamic Daily: Suspicions About Hariri's Murder Focus on the U.S. and Israel
In an article in the nationalist-Islamic daily newspaper Yenicağ, columnist Ferruh Sezgin asks: [7]
"[…] Edelman in his statement shows [us] the stick and hints: 'If Sezer goes to Syria, we will distance Turkey from the international community.' […]
"[…] I keep wondering about [the question] 'on whose behalf Edelman speaks.'
"On behalf of the U.S., of which he is a citizen and a high-ranking official, or the country of his race Israel? Which one would you serve, if you were Edelman?... Every kind of pressure is being applied to prevent Sezer from going to Syria.
"But it is becoming more and more apparent that the culprit in Hariri's murder, which they use as a pretext, is not Syria. As the fog lifts, suspicions are focusing on [the] U.S.-Israel [duo].
"[…] İbrahim Karagül of Yeni Şafak, in his March 15 article, elaborated that Hariri was a pan-Arabist and was opposed to a U.S. airbase in the north of Lebanon […] which would be built in the model of El-Udeid base in Qatar, for covert operations against the Assad regime and to safeguard the oil pipelines of Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan and Mosul-Kerkuk-Ceyhan. […]
"Why was Hariri murdered?
"Will our [Turkish] Foreign Office brief our President, prior to his visit in Syria […] about these recent developments? The building of a large U.S. airbase in the north of Lebanon may necessitate the shaping of a Turkey-Syria 'joint stand.'"
Hürriyet: Colonial Governor
In an article in the largest mainstream moderate daily Hürriyet, columnist Oktay Ekşi wrote: [8]
"[…] The U.S. Ambassador in Ankara who at every possible opportunity expressed 'displeasure' about President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's upcoming visit to Syria, claims he has made no insinuations regarding Sezer's Syria visit.
"So who was the one who kept expressing displeasure about this visit?
"[Or] was it Zambia's ambassador who was showing Turkey the 'stick,' when talking about Syria's pull out of Lebanon?
"No, Edelman never makes any such insinuations.
"[…] Let no one be fooled. It is obvious that Ambassador Edelman saw in himself the authority to try and prevent the visit President Sezer will pay to Syria. But as you read in yesterday's papers, he received a short and clear response from Sezer: 'Most certainly, we will go!.'
"We also think that [the President's] decision which was openly backed by the Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan, is the right one.
"[…] It is clear that the source of the differences of the views [between Turkey and the U.S.] is the question, 'should Turkey be run by Washington or Ankara?'
"We believe that Turkey is and should be run by Ankara."
Sabah: Bye Bye…
In an article in the popular mainstream moderate daily Sabah, columnist Umur Talu wrote:[9]
"It is not correct to talk behind somebody's back. But if that somebody has not yet left, and has still not 'grasped' [certain things] one can talk about him. To the ambassador who has recently resigned here [in Ankara] but who probably will go to a [more important] key position […] and take his place in the heart of the nucleus that designs USA's policies, goodbye from us.
"[…] The 'resigned' ambassador of the U.S. who could not digest Turkey's values, feelings, reactions […] and the different, opposing views in the general media as a 'necessity of democracy,' unleashed on us his deep indigestions in the form of a 'propaganda war.' […]
"[…] Instead of truths to be found and voiced, he [Edelman] released distortions like 'anti-Americanism' or 'anti-Semitism' or 'false news' and in doing so he crossed all professional lines and helped create a 'cloud of threats.'
"In response to what he perceived was a 'local hatred.' he developed his own 'hatred.' […]"
[1] Turkish intellectuals indeed paid highly publicized visits to Syria. See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 874, "Turkish Media on the Anniversary of the March 1, 2003 Parliamentary Resolution Not Allowing U.S. Troops to Open a Northern Front Against Iraq from Turkish Soil," March 8, 2005, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP87405.
[2] Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's upcoming visit to Syria was criticized by the leader of the Lebanese opposition Walid Jumblatt in an interview on March 21, 2005, in the Turkish daily Tercuman (Turkey), conducted by Cengiz Candar. According to the article, Walid said of the official visit "Mish Mnih," or "It is not good." When asked how he evaluates Sezer's expected visit to Syria, Jumblatt was quoted as saying: "This is completely up to Turkey and we cannot interfere in Turkey's decisions. [...] Turkey got rid of military regime and became a democracy.We too want to get rid of the Syrian military and the Muhabarat regime and build our democracy.The country in this region that would best understand this is Turkey… The whole world supports the Lebanese democracy. They are behind Lebanon. Turkish authorities know this. Therefore we expect them to act accordingly."
[3] Milliyet (Turkey), March 7, 2005.
[4] Radikal (Turkey), March 18, 2005.
[5] Milliyet (Turkey), March 17, 2005.
[6] Yeni Safak (Turkey), March 17, 2005.
[7] Yenicağ (Turkey), March 17, 2005.
[8] Hürriyet (Turkey), March 18, 2005.
[9] Sabah (Turkey), March 20, 2005.
************************
[END]
Contributions are welcomed; if accepted, they will be included in a future issue of the newsletter. Email address for submissions: davis004@...
NOTE: There are 3 ways to subscribe to RMSMC:
1. Through Yahoo/E-Groups at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMSMC
2. Directly to me at davis004@...
3. You can also subscribe to individual sections [see list below] by directing an email to me at davis004@..., stating which sections you are interested in receiving.
To unsubscribe as an individual subscriber, send an email with "unsubscribe to RMSMC" in the subject to: davis004@...
[DISCLAIMER: The selection of articles posted in this e-newsletter does not necessary reflect the views nor endorsement of the compiler. They are submitted in the interest of public discourse.
In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Please submit all inquiries/questions to Ralph Davis at davis004@...]
Publishing schedule:
Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and/or Sunday
The following areas/issues are covered:
* Arms Proliferation, WMD
NOTE: There are 3 ways to subscribe to RMSMC:
1. Through Yahoo/E-Groups at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMSMC
2. Directly to me at davis004@...
3. You can also subscribe to individual sections [see list below] by directing an email to me at davis004@..., stating which sections you are interested in receiving.
To unsubscribe as an individual subscriber, send an email with "unsubscribe to RMSMC" in the subject to: davis004@...
[DISCLAIMER: The selection of articles posted in this e-newsletter does not necessary reflect the views nor endorsement of the compiler. They are submitted in the interest of public discourse.
In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Please submit all inquiries/questions to Ralph Davis at davis004@...]
Publishing schedule:
Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and/or Sunday
The following areas/issues are covered:
* Arms Proliferation, WMD
* Arms Proliferation: Iran
* Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine
* Caucasus, Caspian
* Central Asia
* Foreign-Security Policy
* Georgia
* Middle East, Turkey
* Military Affairs
* Narcotics Trade
* Terrorism
Current Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMSMC
Related Sites
RMSMC-WEB PORTAL
http://www.rmsmc.com/
Russian-Chechen War Media Coverage
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RCWMC
* Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine
* Caucasus, Caspian
* Central Asia
* Foreign-Security Policy
* Georgia
* Middle East, Turkey
* Military Affairs
* Narcotics Trade
* Terrorism
Current Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMSMC
Related Sites
RMSMC-WEB PORTAL
http://www.rmsmc.com/
Russian-Chechen War Media Coverage
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RCWMC
Offline 
Send Email