What Defense Cuts? by * Benjamin Friedman&Caitlin Talmadge

Much deficit deal analysis has focused on why it could lead to big defense cuts — anywhere from $350 billion to $1 trillion over the next decade. Hawkish members of Congress and Pentagon officials, including new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, are warning about the dangers of a hollow military force. Contractors, meanwhile, are already lobbying heavily to protect their programs.

Yet the Senate Appropriations Committee last week unveiled its spending caps for fiscal year 2013 — without a big defense cut. The appropriators proposed nonwar defense spending (“base” spending) just $2.9 billion below 2011. That cut, less than 1 percent, comes entirely from the military construction and family housing budget — not exactly the pointy end of the spear.

The House is unlikely to cut more, making a larger defense cut this year virtually impossible.

In fact, the deficit deal is unlikely to deliver bigger reductions in defense spending in coming years either. Here’s why.

Compared with 2011 spending, the deal requires only a minor trim in security budgets: $4.5 billion in 2012 and $2.5 billion in 2013. And that reduction — pocket change in a $529 billion annual defense budget — need not even come from the Pentagon.

The legislation defines “security” spending as Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans, State and the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department.

To get under the 2012 cap, Senate appropriators took $3.5 billion from State and around a half-billion from Homeland Security. Veterans and NNSA got small increases. Defense dodged the bullet — save for that military construction trim.

Second, the widely reported claim that the security cap would cut $350 billion from defense over 10 years is likely a White House claim. The Office of Management and Budget asserts that the Budget Control Act puts us “on track” for those savings. It is comparing what we are due to spend under the BCA not to what we spend now, but rather to the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent projection of spending growth.

Then, even though the security cap expires after two years, they pretend that defense spending will stay at that level plus inflation.

But after 2013, the law caps only total discretionary spending — meaning all programs other than entitlements. Nothing in the BCA then compels the president and Congress to hold down defense spending rather than save elsewhere. After the 2012 elections — the leaders who cut those deals might not be those that agreed to the BCA last month.

The deficit deal guarantees larger defense cuts only if its spawn, the congressional supercommittee, fails to cut debt by $1.2 trillion — either because it cannot reach an agreement or because Congress won’t pass its recommendations on an up or down vote. That would trigger “sequestration,” what Panetta now calls the “doomsday mechanism.” This would require automatic Pentagon budget cuts of more than $500 billion over 10 years. But there are several reasons why the doomsday scenario is unlikely.

For starters, the supercommittee might recommend taxes and nondefense cuts that lower debt enough to avoid sequestration, sparing defense. That is the White House’s preference.

The committee also might save some portion of the $1.2 trillion, limiting the amount sequestered from the Pentagon. Or, if the committee finds itself short, it might claim savings from ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — counting as savings money that was never going to be spent anyway.

Even if the committee stalemates, the president and Congress still might avoid sequestration by rewriting the law with higher budget caps. By January 2013, the first time sequestration can occur, deficit worries may have mellowed. Congress dodged sequestration in the late 1980s this way.

The wars offer another escape. Because the bill doesn’t cap war spending, Congress may evade caps by shifting base spending to that account. The past decade has given appropriators ample experience in loading war bills with base spending. Already, Senate appropriators seem to have slipped more than $6 billion of expenses previously in the base budget into the 2012 war request.

Still, let’s say the Pentagon’s worst fears materialize: Defense absorbs all the cuts required by the security caps, full sequestration occurs and wars are not used as a loophole. Even then, Pentagon spending would then drop by only about 15 percent — far less than drawdowns after World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam and the Cold War. The “doomsday” scenario would only return America to its 2007-level of defense spending.

The wisdom of large defense cuts is an important argument for Americans to have. But we cannot properly debate decisions that we pretend already to have made.

Benjamin Friedman is a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the Cato Institute. Caitlin Talmadge is an assistant professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University.

Carlyle Group's Social Networking with Gaddafi by *PEU Report

Carlyle co-founder David Rubenstein courted Libyan oil money after Colonel Gadhafi established the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), a sovereign wealth fund currently valued at $60bn-$80bn.  Chronicle Herald reported:


The investment authority was established in 2006, just as Libya, and Gadhafi in particular, were making a concerted attempt to rejoin the community of nations. 


What role did Rubenstein play in legitimizing Gadhafi's efforts in the global financial community?  FT reported:

Carlyle was one of the first to receive money from the fund, in part due to the efforts of its chief, David Rubenstein, who first travelled to Tripoli in 2006.


A year later Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, flew to the US to meet prominent financial executives. Frank Carlucci, former defence secretary and retired chairman of Carlyle, hosted a dinner for him in a private room at the City Club.

FT makes this dinner sound like it occurred in 2007, the same year Frances Townsend had a bizarre visit to Gadhafi's Tripoli compound on behalf of the White House.  Carlyle hosted a 2008 event at The Washington Club, with diplomats and Carlyle big wigs in attendance.   In 2009 David Rubenstein and fellow PEU Stephen Schwarzman flew to Tripoli for the wedding of LIA's Deputy Chief Executive.


The record of social contact and business deals is clear.  Yet, NPR missed the FT source.   Did they not consider FT credible, as it is 3% owned by the LIA?  NPR pushed Carlyle's obfuscation:

Officials of the politically connected private equity firm The Carlyle Group have had meetings with Libyan officials, including one of Gadhafi's sons. It's not clear whether they ultimately did business. Carlyle's managing director, David Rubenstein, said this week that Moammar Gadhafi himself was not an investor.

Will anyone tweet Rubenstein's line?   Why did he not speak to LIA's stake in Carlyle investments?

Christopher W. Ullman of Carlyle said that the company did not comment on the identity of its investors.

Rubenstein continued his social networking on financial reform.  Carlyle and the PEU trade group spun Congress.  The Doddo Bill hardly touched private equity and completely missed sovereign wealth funds. 

The White House celebrated the bill with Rubenstein.  It was a fairly standard pep rally.  There's little chance the club will use social media.  Code talk works better face to face.


Update 3-13-11:  During his time as President of the African Union 2009-2010, Gadhafi pushed for it to become an economic union, like the European Union or the Gulf Cooperation Council.   FT reported Carlyle will launch a $750 million Africa fund.  This came after a $500 million capital injection from Mubadala Development Authority, a UAE sovereign wealth fund that partners with Carlyle on the Middle East and North Africa.  Oddly, Larry Fink of BlackRock recently noted, "Markets like totalitarian governments."   How will these forces interact? 

*PEU Report, Private Equity Underwriter

Waiting for the Endgame in Libya by * Franklin Lamb

The Libyan government, which is keeping statistics on NATO-caused civilian deaths, may not even be able to present its facts to the UN meeting next month. The reason is because Secretary of State Clinton has refused to grant Libya’s UN ambassador a visa.

Since this observer is not privy to any secrets around here and would not share them if he were, it’s fair enough to engage in frank discussions with former colleagues in Congress and new cyber acquaintances who work on the Hill.

I got an ear full this week from sources familiar with John Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee activities about President Obama’s semi-private views on what is happening in Libya and the President's  doubts about NATO’s role in bombing this unlucky country.

Contrary to some Washington speculation that Obama’s new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (some Congressional staffers who know  him well good naturedly refer to his as  “Leon the Lite”)  is in charge of overseeing NATO while Obama faces a slew of political and economic problems, the reality is different.  President Obama said to be “hands on” and is closely following NATO’s use of “all necessary measures to protect civilians.” NATO bombing here, including this morning’s 5 a.m. seven bomb drop near my hotel, has become a cruel hoax for the people of Libya and all whom reject  the claimed right of NATO to” destroy as a necessity to save & protect.”

Unlike his two predecessors in the Oval office and also “VP Joe,” Obama disapproves of officials using colorful language that might offend voters. But he did reportedly tell his friend who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently that “We have stepped into a pot of s— and we need to get out of it!”
Part of Obama’s growing concern is said to be about his prospects for re-election. The Democratic National Committee sent Senator Kerry and the White House a “for your eyes only” memo on the President’s re-election prospects amid approval ratings which continue to slide amidst economic uncertainties and doubts about the Obama stewardship generally.

According to Congressional sources working on the Libya crisis, some Obama advisors see Libya as becoming another Iraq if NATO continues forbidding its rebels from negotiating with the Gaddafi government or if “the leader” is killed.

Assassinating Gaddafi  is widely believed here to be the only reason NATO continues to re-bomb, some as many as five times,   the so-called “command  and  control  center“ sites that these days could be just about anywhere in Tripoli.

Yesterday, at precisely noon, this observer was meeting with two officials at the Foreign Ministry. One is in charge of the American Bureau, and we were discussing a range of subjects.  Suddenly within a five minute period four NATO bombs exploded very loudly and close to the Foreign Ministry. I eyed the massively thick conference table we were sitting at and even considered scrambling under it—just in case — as my interlocutors quickly exited the room —without even saying ‘goodbye.’  They seemed surprised, maybe amused also, when they returned to continue the meeting and I was still sitting at the table reading my notes. “Have we all become NATO targets?” one asked, “private homes, our universities, hospitals all are legitimate targets now according to NATO?”

Obama and some of his advisors like Senator John Kerry are said to be wondering the same thing that some Libyan officials are.  One staffer volunteered to me this week:

“Both the CIA and Pentagon told  our committee that green lighting NATO to bomb Libya would be really quick and not even very dirty.  Now it’s become a potentially endless nightmare.”

NATO insiders have advised Congressional staffers recently that the apparent eternal US armed “coalition of the willing” cannot afford another humiliation from its point of view, given Iraq and Afghanistan, so NATO has no plans to stop the bombing until one of three events occur.  Those three in order of NATO preference are: Gaddafi is killed, Gaddafi “surrenders” or Gaddafi flees Libya.

President Obama is being advised by some members of the Foreign Relations Committee among others to “just pull NATO’s god-damned plug and get this mess behind us!”

The much disparaged NATO weekly “Carman and Roland show” live from Brussels and Naples, billed as “NATO’s Media Conferences to inform the public” adds to the concerns of some in Washington. In a long overdue turnaround from last February, when the main stream media here parroted those who for years had been working on toppling Gaddafi about his alleged killing Libyans, CNN just this morning aired a downright balanced report about how NATO’s claims that it is protecting Libyan civilians are dubious and in fact the main cause of  civilians being slaughtered here in NATO sorties, now nearly 20,000 with more than 8,000 bombing sites.

It appears from talking with many people here, including the media, that virtually no one but the script writers for the “Carman & Roland show” believe NATO bombings have anything to do with fulfilling the original objectives of UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973.

Carmen told reporters following her and Roland’s 8/16/11 briefing show that NATO expects no problem with an expected un extension next month when NATO’s June renewal expires. She may know what she is talking about because NATO has reportedly been intensively lobbying the White House to bar Gaddafi’s government from the coming UN debate.  The Libyan government, which is keeping statistics on NATO-caused civilian deaths, may not even be able to present its facts to the UN meeting next month.  The reason is because Secretary of State Clinton has refused to grant Libya’s UN ambassador a visa.  Clinton, according to committee staffers mentioned above, plans to arrange at the last minute for the National Transitional Council to represent the views of those being bombed by NATO.

Kerry’s committee staff is fairly confident that the rebels will not oppose an extension of NATO bombing of their country.  Indeed their political and financial futures depend on NATO doing just that.

Yet, the White House has been advised by Committee staffers that NATO has become the main danger to civilians in Libya and that a political solution can be reached if Obama orders a ceasefire.

The President is said to be thinking about doing just that.

Tripoli

*Franklin Lamb, suddenly all over the place.

US Learns No Lesson by *Sajjad Shaukat

Faced with a prolonged war against terrorism on global level, its defeat in Afghanistan, showing determination to withdraw forces from that country in wake of financial crisis and other related problems, the United States seeks to fight covert wars in some Islamic countries, which will especially include Pakistan.

Recently, after a long debate, the US debt crisis to avoid the default has been resolved. The solution included $ 2.4 trillion cuts over the next decade and the rise of the $14.3 trillion debt limit. Now, the default seems further away on temporary basis. Financial experts opine that the US would miss payments on its bonds and default, which will result in dire consequences, particularly for America including other countries. US has also ignored the interests of creditors. Besides other most developed countries, the US could be in serious trouble, if China does not extend more loans by buying US treasury securities. America currently owes 800 billion dollars to China.

Meanwhile, on August 4, the US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of dire consequences, if the Pentagon is forced to make cuts to its defence budget. Notably, defense spending represents about half of the federal government’s discretionary spending, while the military’s budget has increased by more than 70 percent since 2001.

Russian Prime Minister Putin stated on August 2, that the US and its people “are living beyond their means like a parasite.”

In fact, America has suffered due to an endless war against terrorism. Since 9/11, the total cost of global war against terrorism is more than 7 trillion dollars.

On July 7, 2011, a writer, David DeGraw wrote, “When Obama launched his re-election propaganda campaign to trick the public…that he intends to end the Af-Pak War, he disclosed that the war on terror has cost $1 trillion over the past decade.” But a recent study by the Eisenhower Research Project revealed that the cost of the war on terror is greater than Obama has claimed.” US was spending $12 billion a month in Iraq and is spending over $10 billion per month in Afghanistan. However, the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed $6 trillion—apart from other related expenditures at home and abroad. In this regard, the war on terror is a war against the American people. As President Eisenhower had remarked, “Every dollar spent on war is a dollar not spent on education, food, health care etc.”

It is mentionable that the Muslim militant organisations, fighting against the US-led imperialist powers through ambush rocket attacks and suicide bombers have broken the myth of old model of power. In this respect, most of the western defence analysts have admitted that new brand of Islamic radicalism cannot be eliminated by military forces, equipped with sophisticated weaponry which has badly failed. Since 9/11, various suicide attacks in various countries show that the Muslim activists are giving a greater setback to world economy which protects the interests of the US-led western countries.

On the other side, despite various steps taken by the US in connection with the Islamic militants since 9/11 such as heavy aerial bombardment, ground shelling, arrests and detentions—technical intelligence, US intelligence agencies, especially CIA failed in destroying Al Qaeda’s terrorist network in the Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Nigeria etc. because American enemy is invisible. It proves that Al Qadea has franchised as a perennial different war in the concerned countries indicates.

Notably, on July 22 this year, Al Qaeda-type, the twin terror-attacks in Oslo which killed 92 persons were arranged by a Norwegian right-wing fundamentalist Christian who called for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination. In this respect, Western media pointed out the existence of Christian extremists.

It is surprisingly mentionable that while learning no lesson from the flawed policies of the ex-President Bush, President Obama has been acting upon the similar strategy so as to eliminate the Muslim radicals. Setting aside the US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration which already continues with its agenda of secret war in Pakistan through bomb blasts, suicide attacks, targeted killings etc. as arranged by the CIA, Indian RAW, and Israeli Mossad collectively, it has planned a covert war against Pakistan which will include Karachi, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where these secret agencies are assisting the insurgents and their agents with money and weapons. The course of drone attacks will further be extended to other regions beyond Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Unveiled on June 29, President Obama’s counterterrorism strategy is focused on what poses the “most direct and significant threat to the US–Al-Qaeda and its affiliates…America’s best offense would not always be deploying large armies abroad, but delivering targeted surgical pressure against these groups.” In this context, a report had confirmed on July 16 that the coming CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus will implement the covert war in Pakistan. Besides similar threats and pressure of the US other high officials, on August 1, Admiral Mike Mullen stated, “Unless they (Pakistan) move against terrorists like the Haqqani network, it could affect relations between Washington and Islamabad.”

As regards the Haqqani network, Pakistan has already made it clear that army is engaged in other tribal areas, so it cannot attack the militants of North Waziristan.

The contradictory statements of the US high officials which still continue, shows American duplicity with Islamabad. In this connection, a deliberate campaign regarding the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, location of terrorists’ safe-havens in the country, blame game against Pak Army and its intelligence agency, ISI, cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan keeps on going. While, in the recent past, aerial and ground shelling by the US-supported NATO forces inside Pakistan’s border, cross-border attacks by heavily- armed militants who entered Pakistan from Afghanistan and targetted the infrastructure of our country’s various regions have continued intermittently.

Under the pretext of Talibanisation of Pakistan and unrest in the country, which has collevtively been created by the CIA, RAW and Mossad, US India and Israel have been destabilising Pakistan to ‘denculearise’ the latter. For this purpose, the US seeks to shift Afghan war to Pakistan after the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.

On August 6, NBC TV channel disclosed that the “US has a contingency plan to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons…if it fears they are about to fall into the wrong hands.”

Knowing the US real intentions, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership has flatly refused to act upon American undue demands. And Islamabad sent home 120 US military trainers. In response, on July 10, America withheld $800 million in military assistance to Pakistan. Islamabad has rejected American pressure to do more against the militancy without bothering for public backlash in wake of the strained relations with Washington.

If US continues its covert war in Pakistan and in some other Islamic countries, both Iran and Pakistan might stand together to thwart the US strategic designs. In that worse scenario, a vast region from Pakistan to Somalia and Nigeria to Iraq will further be radicalised, bringing about more terrorism, directed against the Americans. In such adverse circumstances, American worldwide interests are likely to be jeopardised in these countries including whole of the Middle East where the US has already failed in coping with the Islamic militants directly or indirectly—and where anti-American resentment is running high in wake of the violent protests against the pro-American rulers. Besides, instability in Pakistan will also envelop India by which the United States wants to counterbalance a peace-loving country like China.

These negative developments will further reduce the US bargaining leverage on hostile small countries like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela etc.

Although at present, other NATO allies supported America for attack on Libya, yet in case of targeting Pakistan, most of the US allies could leave the US war against terrorism, and a greater rift will be created between the US and other NATO members in wake of the competing debt crises, while people of other European states held the US responsible for the global financial crisis.

Nonetheless, if after fighting the different war for ten years, America has leant no lesson, its internal problems will give a greater blow to the US economy vis-à-vis other most developed countries, besides making it vulnerable to other external setbacks, ultimately reducing the US role as sole superpower.

Defeating Zionism! by *Alan Hart

That was the headline over a recent post by David Hearst for The Guardian’s Comment Is Free space. It began: “There is an Arabic word you come across a lot when Palestinians talk about their future. Sumud means steadfastness, and it has turned into a strategy: when the imbalance of power is so pronounced, the most important thing to do is to stay put. Staying put against overwhelming odds is regarded as a victory.”

Hearst didn’t offer any substantial explanation of why Palestinian steadfastness is a victory, so I will.

When the Palestine file was closed by Israel’s victory on the battlefield in 1948, it was not supposed to have been re-opened. There was not supposed to have been a regeneration of Palestinian nationalism. The Palestinians were supposed to accept their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency.

And the whole truth includes this fact. Behind closed doors, and despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the Arab regimes shared the same hope as Zionism and the major powers – that the Palestine file would never be re-opened. They knew that if it was, there would one day have to be a confrontation with Israel and its big power supporters, the U.S. in particular, and they didn’t want that.

They, the Arab regimes, also feared that a Palestinian state, if it was ever established, would be more or less democratic and provide a model of government which all Arabs would want. Palestinian nationalism was therefore perceived by Arab autocrats as a potentially subversive force. (It’s because my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews tells these and related truths that it can’t be published in the Arab world. The regimes of an impotent, corrupt and repressive Arab Order order were and still are every bit as determined as Zionism to suppress the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became the Zionist not Jewish state of Israel).

For their part Israel’s leaders were aware that if they failed to keep the Palestine file closed, a regeneration of Palestinian nationalism would cause the legitimacy of Zionism’s colonial-like enterprise (not to mention its crimes only starting with the first ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians) to be called into question.

After its occupation in 1967 of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, Israel’s leaders became more and more aware that Palestinian Sumud is a very powerful weapon. (Actually it’s the only weapon the Palestinians had and have). In essence Israel’s strategy for dealing with it was, and still is, humiliating the occupied Palestinians and making life hell for them, in the hope that they will give up their struggle for an acceptable amount of justice and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table or, better still, abandon their homeland and seek a new life elsewhere.

To date Palestinian Sumud has proved to be stronger than Zionism’s ability to destroy it but… Does it necessarily follow that at some point in the future it will defeat Zionism? It depends on the answer to another question. How will the demographic time-bomb created by Israeli occupation be defused?
In theory are three possibilities.

1. Israel ends its occupation completely (subject to minor and mutually agreed border modifications) to make the space for a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states. In this scenario provision would have to be made for appropriate compensation to be paid to those Palestinian refugees wishing to return but for whom there was no the space in the Palestinian mini state. In reality this won’t happen because Zionism was and remains a project for taking for keeps the maximum amount of land with the minimum number of Arabs on it. Also true is that Zionist colonization of the West Bank has gone much too far to be reversed without a Jewish civil war; and as Shimon Peres  once said to me (quoted in my book), no Israeli prime minister is going down in history as the one who triggered it.

2. As the Zionist state becomes more and more isolated in the world, enough Israelis come to their senses and demand that their government goes for the One State solution in order to best protect their own interests. One of my Jewish friends said it could be called Palestein! If it happened this would be the end of Zionism and complete victory for Palestinian steadfastness. (My own take on the One State solution is well known but bears repeating. The Jews, generally speaking, are the intellectual elite of the Western world. The Palestinians are by far the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership in One State with equal human and political rights for all, they could play the leading role in changing the region for the better and by doing so give new hope and inspiration to the whole world).

3. Zionism’s in-Israel leaders create a pretext (possibly involving Mossad agents dressed as Arabs planting bombs) to go for a final round of ethnic cleansing – to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan or wherever.

It’s because I believe a Zionist Final Solution (as in 3 above) is a real possibility in a foreseeable future that I think a way should be found for the major powers, led by America, to put Israel on public notice that if it did resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing, it would be universally condemned as a criminal state and subjected to sanctions of every kind, universally applied.

*Alan Hart, a researcher and author

Another smoking gun: Breivik link to Israel by *Wayne Madsen

One question is not being asked: Why is a correspondent who supports Breivik’s thoughts on Muslims and non-whites in a kibbutz in Israel and not answering questions in a police station in Sweden?

Although the mainstream corporate media and even a few “alternative news” websites are ignoring the proven links between Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik and Israel, yet another “smoking gun” connection between the pro-Zionist mass murderer and Israel has emerged.

Ninety minutes before Breivik was reported to have detonated a huge fertilizer-fuel bomb in the government district of downtown Oslo and then proceeding to Utoya island dressed as a uniformed police officer to massacre scores of youth attending a Norwegian Labor Party jamboree, he sent an email containing a 1500-page rambling manifesto to Isak Nygren, a member of the far-right, anti-Islamic and Roma (gypsy), and pro-Zionist Sweden Democrats (SD) political party. Among Breivik’s writings is this quote: “So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.”

Who is Isak Nygren?

One will not see any mention of him in the English-language corporate media. Nygren is a pro-Israeli SD activist who is only 21 years old but has already run for municipal-level political office in his native province of Sodermanland and municipality of Katrineholm, Sweden. It is also noteworthy that Nygren was not in Sweden when he received Breivik’s e-mail but, according to the July 24 edition of Sweden’s Nyheter newspaper, was in Israel living on a kibbutz. The location of the kibbutz was not reported. There are other reports on Internet websites that Nygren is Jewish.

The only English-language media that reported Breivik’s connection to Nygren is Die Presse of Vienna, Eskiltuna-Kurinen of Sweden,Sveriges Radio, Expo magazine of Sweden, the Berliner Zeitung of Germany, and Kurier of Austria. To its credit, Nyheter is the only media outlet that officially reported on Breivik’s connections to Nygren, in addition to Nygren’s current presence in Israel.

The media blackout of Breivik’s Israeli connections is largely the result of marching orders sent out from the Israel and Zionist lobby. The orders are clear: there will be no mention of Breivik’s pro-Israeli stance nor his connections to individuals like Nygren. Attention to Breivik’s Israeli and Jewish connections would expose Mossad’s infiltration of neo-Nazi groups and political parties to turn them away from anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and into anti-Islamic and pro-Israeli pressure movements.

Nygren has stated that he is pro-Israel. However, he is also a member of the neo-Nazi Nordic Alliance, which has branches in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. There are now reports that last year Breivik attended a rally of the English Defense League (EDL) in London to hear Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders, an ardent anti-Muslim and supporter of Israel, to address the gathering. There are other reports that Breivik met with the leadership of the EDL and Wilders. The EDL’s Swedish offshoot is the Swedish Defense League, which counts Nygren as one of its activists. In September 2010, the Danish leftist newspaper Arbejder pointed to possible links between Nygren and the xenophobic far-right Danish People’s Party of Pia Kaersgaard, which provides parliamentary support for the current center-right Danish government.

Nygren’s blog states that he has no connections with Breivik. However, in response to a request from a reporter for Austria’s ORF television network about Breivik’s use of .at domains to send e-mail to an entity called the “Vienna School,” Nygren, from Israel, refused to cooperate. The reporter pointed out that in Austria, most e-mail addresses do not use the .at country domain for Austria but addresses like gmx.mail and other commercial addresses.

Nygren was interviewed by Sweden’s English-language publication, Expo, and said he is opposed to mixed marriages between European women and “niggers, Asians, etc.” Nygren also opposes adoption by Swedish parents of non-white children from abroad. Nygren has advocated for the expulsion of Roma (gypsies) from Sweden and the mandatory “re-eduction” of Swedish Muslims. Last February, Nygren, according to the SVT Swedish television network, said, “As long as you do not live in Sweden so I do not care. I’m not attracted to the Negroes.”

The EDL, SD, Wilders, Nygren, and Zionists in the United States like Pam Geller, who Breivik admires, are all attempting to distance themselves from the Norwegian mass murderer. The “lone wolf” appellation being conferred on Breivik by his Zionist and neo-Nazi friends, as well as the English-speaking corporate media, is now neing undermined by reports of law enforcement investigations of Breivik’s network, including the two additional operating cells he mentioned in an Oslo court room on July 25. The police investigations extend beyond Norway to France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Austria, Poland, and other countries.

However, the corporate media is still insisting that Breivik is a deranged single actor. Although, he is clearly deranged, even some alternate news outlets, while believing Breivik could not have acted alone, are continuing to ignore Breivik’s connections to Israel and Zionist groups, pushing fanciful notions of involvement by NATO, Freemasons, and the Illuminati in Breivik’s massacre.

One question is not being asked: Why is a correspondent who supports Breivik’s thoughts on Muslims and non-whites in a kibbutz in Israel and not answering questions in a police station in Sweden?

*Wayne Madsen, is a Washington, D.C.-based author, columnist , and self-described investigative journalist.

A Reminder-President Shimon Peres at UN: “Gaza Has Become a Terrorist State”

President Shimon Peres held a working meeting yesterday with Ambassadors from countries currently serving in the UN Security Council as well as other countries from the Middle East.  Ambassadors from the following countries attended: Russia, France, Britain, India, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Norway, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Portugal and the Palestinian Observer to the UN.

President Shimon Peres received the news about a rocket striking a bus carrying children in the Shaar Hanegev regional council during the meeting with the Ambassadors. The President, who was discussing the security threats from Gaza immediately updated the Ambassadors and said:  “I was just informed that an Israeli bus carrying schoolchildren home from school was hit with a mortar fired from Gaza.  There are reports of injured.  This is a real life example that Gaza has become a terrorist state.  Can the United Nations guarantee that terror attacks will not happen again?  None of you would give up on the safety and security of your citizens just as Israel will stand in its own defense.”  The President pointed out to the Ambassadors that “hundreds of thousands of mothers and their children in Southern Israel cannot sleep at night as a result of the rocket attacks from Gaza.”

The President also commented on the proliferation of flotillas traveling to Gaza and said: “Behind every flotilla is a provocation and a desire for newspaper headlines.  Whoever wants to help Gaza should insist that Gazans stop firing on Israel.”

Regarding the Iranian situation, President Peres told the Ambassadors:  “Israel is not willing to accept that there is a member in the United Nations, Iran, headed by a President who threatens to destroy another member nation of the UN, Israel.  Why do you permit him to do this while allowing him to continue to be a member?  He appears here and calls for destruction and hate.  There is a double standard when it comes to Iran.”
President Peres continued and referred to the Goldstone Report: “It is the same thing with the Goldstone Report –   Israel conducted an investigation into Cast Lead.  We investigated ourselves – not because we were accused of something but rather because the Israeli army is not just based on guns but values as well.  The investigative committee checked 400 incidents and in three cases there was suspicion of wrong doing.  Those soldiers in those three cases stood trial.  Everyone who fights terror – and it makes no difference if he is American, Russian or French knows how complicated it is.”  He added: “I read that Goldstone expressed regret about the report he wrote. Unfortunately fictions exist longer than denials.”

With respect to Israel’s position in the United Nations President Peres said: “We see ourselves as a responsible member of the UN and we want to be a contributing nation but we don’t want to be a victim in the UN because we are a minority.  We can never benefit from a majority.  The blocs in the UN are based on being anti-Israel and we don’t have an opportunity for justice.  In spite of this we will continue to struggle for our defense and fight for peace.  Today, the top priority is the desire to achieve a responsible peace with the Palestinians so that that can achieve independence and we can have security.  If you want to help the Middle East, put an end to conflict as soon as possible.”

Later this morning, Friday, April 8, President Peres plans to meet the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon.   The President will discuss in detail the Goldstone Report, the apologetic op-ed of Judge Goldstone, and the President’s demand to retract and repudiate the report.  The two will also discuss the situation in Gaza, weapons smuggling in the region, and ways to advance the peace process between Israel and its neighbors.

Israel Politik

A New Epoch Has Begun in the History of the Euro by *SPIEGEL staff

Prior to Thursday evening's euro-zone agreement on a second aid package for Greece, the demands for action had become deafening. Some were insisting that Athens was doomed if Europe didn't undertake a significant restructuring of the country's debt. Others said such a move would be disastrous, and would result in riots on the streets of the Greek capital.

In the end, euro-zone leaders gathered in Brussels opted to split the difference. Greece gets €109 billion in aid, allowing it to remain solvent through 2014 -- but private creditors are to have a significant role to play in helping Athens find its way out of the debt predicament in which it finds itself. By 2014, private involvement is to be worth fully €50 billion -- much higher than expected.

In addition, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) will be granted the authority to buy bonds of debt-stricken euro-zone countries as a way of extending them a pre-emptive credit line. The move puts the EFSF on the path to becoming a kind of European Monetary Fund on the model of the Washington-based International Monetary Fund.

"It was a meeting at a difficult time and I am satisfied with the results," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "Developments have shown that we in Europe need to work together more closely and more flexibly."

Private sector involvement is to take the form of a debt swap, whereby private investors will be able to exchange their current Greek bonds for EFSF bonds during a brief time window this autumn. The move will likely be viewed by rating agencies as a selective default, making Greece the first euro-zone country to default.

Euro-zone leaders also lowered the interest rate Athens is required to pay on its rescue loans to 3.5 percent. "I think this is extremely important to ensure the debt sustainability of Greece," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

German commentators on Friday also take a closer look at the deal.

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"First of all, it is commendable that after the German-French disagreement in Brussels a tangible solution even came about. The chancellor can count the participation of private investors, something she had been pushing for months, as a success. Now one point of contention that was always cause for uncertainty has been resolved."

"The second piece of good news is that Greece will de facto be taken off the capital market for a decade. Figuratively speaking, that means the ailing country will be moved from the intensive care unit to a rehabilitation facility. The third plus is that the rescue fund EFSF may allocate pre-emptive credit lines, though naturally with the German caveat that certain conditions be imposed."

"But questions remain. Greece's debt problem will not be solved -- the high level of national debt is hardly reduced. The ongoing burden will only ease when the EU nations finally stop charging punitive interest on their loans."

"A primary problem, as experience shows, is that the markets react quickly and mercilessly. After summits investors always show relief until new pressures start building. The weakness of the deal is already apparent: The rescue fund will not be increased and it is doubtful whether or not €440 billion will be enough, because no solution was found for Italy in Brussels."

Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel writes:

"The 17 heads of state and the European Central Bank have obviously acknowledged the depth of the problem, and this was clearly an effort to overcome the self-imposed blockade and break a number of euro-zone taboos. This effort includes the buyback of Greek bonds, in part through the European rescue fund, the EFSF."

"It's also right that the Greeks (as well as the Irish and the Portuguese) should pay lower interest for EFSF loans. Rich nations don't need to profit from a crisis among the poorer member states. The idea of extending the terms of aid loans is also reasonable because the Greeks will need many years to free themselves from the current mess -- and they'll manage it only with help from their partners and friends in the EU, and in a currency union that has finally committed itself to a restructuring plan. This will all cost money."

"But is it all really necessary? Yes. The currency union is worth the sacrifice, above all for Germans, because we have the euro and its positive influence on our export markets to thank for our prosperity … Even the stability and growth pact never managed to replace the missing EU-level coordination in financial and economic policy that the euro requires. But that is the direction Europe needs to head. The Brussels summit represents the first real step."

Left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

"A new epoch has begun in the history of the euro. There were three remarkable developments at the EU summit in Brussels. First, the European Central Bank (ECB) was deprived of its power. Second, no more respect will be paid to the ratings agencies. Third, it is only a matter of time until euro bonds are used across the board. All three developments are worthy of embrace. They are also unavoidable if the euro is to survive."

"In the long term, this means that the euro zone is declaring independence from the financial markets. That is a historic step."

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

"The bankers are not stupid. After the months of wrangling, it was entirely predictable (that private-sector creditors would be involved in the bailout). Many institutions have already reacted, by selling as many Greeks bonds as they can, buying credit default swaps and already partially writing down their exposure to Greek debt."

"In plain language, this means that the burden on the financial industry will generally be limited. In any case, the whole thing is voluntary for the banks -- even if no one really knows how the 'voluntary' participation will ultimately be divided up so that the total amount ... the private sector is supposed to provide, is reached."
"At the same time, the banks can be happy that the new rescue package also grants the EFSF more flexibility. In the future, it will be able to buy up bonds, which was not previously possible and which ultimately benefits banks and insurance companies. They will be able to dump any bonds there that they want to get rid of, on top of their voluntary contribution."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"Contrary to expectations, the message of the crisis summit to save the euro turns out to be clear and European. The EFSF rescue funds now have significantly more duties and flexibility. With that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have helped a European monetary fund into being -- an apparatus that corrects the construction flaws of the monetary union, a common currency without political union. That is the sensation of the meeting, which also made Greece's debt more manageable."

"(A European monetary fund) would be a bulwark against dangerous speculation attacks. It is the guarantee that the euro-zone countries stand together for the euro -- and thus indirectly for each other.
"Is that then the beginning of the transfer union so feared by the Germans? It is at least a step toward integration. Through the revaluation of the EFSF, chances of curtailing the crisis are good."

Sarkozy and the Saudis by *Wayne Madsen

In what may prove to be an old scandal but one that could come back to further tarnish his already poor image, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been heavily implicated in a bribery scandal from the 1990s involving an Airbus deal to supply Saudia Airlines with commercial passenger planes.

The French government, then led by Prime Minister Edouard Balladur, a political mentor of Sarkozy offered to pay a bribe to a major Saudi official in return for a $6 billion contract with the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation (MODA) to re-supply Saudia with aircraft. WMR has learned from a source involved with the Saudi contract negotiations that Sarkozy, France's Budget Minister at the time, was Balladur's "right-hand man" in offering the bribe to the Saudi official, said to be a high-level prince in the Saudi government.

Balladur traveled to Saudi Arabia in January 1994 to personally lobby King Fahd for the contract with Airbus. However, President George H. W. Bush had sealed a deal with the Saudis in 1992 for McDonnell-Douglas to supply 72 F-15 fighter jets to the Saudis in a $4 billion deal, with $600 million to Pratt and Whitney for jet engines and an additional $1 billion in "commissions" paid to the same top Saudi prince through a MODA account maintained at Riggs Bank. George H. W. Bush's brother Jonathan Bush became the President of Riggs Investment after the bank bought his J. Bush & Co. in 1997.

In the McDonnell-Douglas "deal" with the Saudis, a package that totaled $5.6 billion, Bush believed he could deliver his promise of election year jobs to the people of St. Louis, where the planes would be built. Bush made the promise to McDonnell-Douglas workers and their families in a speech at Lambert Field on September 11, 1992. Missouri was a key battleground state between Bush and Bill Clinton. In the end, the bribe paid to the Saudi prince, a noted friend of the Bush family, had no impact on Missouri. Clinton won the state's 11 electoral votes.

In detailed information provided to WMR by an aviation industry top executive who was involved with the sensitive negotiations, we learned that the original jet fighter deal worked out between Bush and King Fahd had an additional sweetener: the Saudia commercial plane deal was to go to Boeing to the tune of $4 billion for Boeing, $1.2 billion for General Electric engines, $420 million for Pratt and Whitney/International Aero Engines (IAE) engines, $1.6 billion for McDonnell-Douglas to help it keep it from curtailing production at its Long Beach, California commercial aircraft plant. The total contract was worth $7.2 billion. In addition, our source reports that a "commission" (bribe) equaling $250 million, was paid to Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz, the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden and the owner of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia. Bin Mahfouz, who died of a sudden heart attack in 2009, threatened to sue major publications who reported that he was the brother-in-law of Bin Laden, even after CIA director testified in 1998 that Bin Mahfouz was Bin Laden's brother-in-law. Woolsey and major publications, including the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, later retracted the report on the brother-in-law link between the two Saudis.

In 1997 Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas merged, strengthening the combined company's influence in Saudi Arabia.

In 1995, when the Saudia airline contract was being considered, Balladur had no way of knowing that the Clinton administration had been apprised of the Boeing deal with the Saudis and that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had intercepted communications between Balladur and his Budget Minister Sarkozy offering the Saudis bribes in return for Saudia awarding its contract for new planes to Airbus. In the end, the Saudis nixed the deal with Balladur and Sarkozy. Sarkozy's involvement with the Saudi bribery scandal mirrors similar allegations of receiving kickbacks in return for French defense contracts with Taiwan and Pakistan.

However, WMR has learned that the French bribery involvement with the Saudis pales in comparison with bribes and kickbacks involving top Saudis and U.S. politicians, particularly George H. W. and George W. Bush. WMR has learned that violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by U.S. corporations in deals with the Saudis have totaled $350 billion. $83 billion from U.S. bribes have been placed in special Saudi fund devoted to squelching civil dissent in Saudi Arabia. The CIA is fully supportive of the "arrangement."

*Wayne Madsen, is a Washington, D.C.-based author, columnist , and self-described investigative journalist.

Murdoch's Ben Ali moment? by *Brian Whitaker

For the last couple of weeks my attention has been divided between the uprisings in the Middle East and an affair much closer to home: the unfolding storm around Rupert Murdoch and News International (part of News Corp).

Murdoch is the most powerful media figure in the English-speaking world, with interests in Britain, the US and Australia plus others elsewhere. Though once regarded as unassailable, he now reminds me more and more of ex-presidents Ben Ali and Mubarak as the growing scandal moves steadily closer to the top.

There are some striking parallels. Murdoch runs his media empire in much the same way that Arab rulers run their countries: autocratically. News Corp is a public company but, since his family owns a crucial block of voting shares, there isn't much need to worry about what other shareholders think.

Like many an Arab ruler, Murdoch has held power for far too long. He's now 80 years old but, in the hallowed tradition of Arab leaders, has a son – James – waiting in the wings to inherit his throne. 

The Murdoch name inspires both awe and fear. Politicians have often been reluctant to stand in his way and many of his employees live in constant fear for their jobs.

This culture of fear, which kept Murdoch on top for many a year, now looks like becoming his nemesis. Journalists at the News of the World – his British Sunday tabloid – were under such pressure to deliver spectacular stories that some of them, aided by a private detective, began hacking the voicemails of celebrities, as well as paying the police for information.

An affair began in a small way several years ago with the jailing of what was wrongly claimed to be a single rogue reporter has now burst open with a series of arrests and resignations – including two of Britain's most senior police officers – and raising uncomfortable questions about the British prime minister's links with the Murdoch empire. This has since spread across the Atlantic to the US, where investigations are also getting under way.

Rupert Murdoch's behaviour in all this has been more than a little reminiscent of Ben Ali in Tunisia – failing to appreciate either the scale of the problem or the groundswell of public opinion against him. In a recent interview with his own Wall Street Journal, he even congratulated himself on his handling of it.

Could a "Ben Ali moment" now be in store for Murdoch? Two weeks ago it seemed unlikely but, judging by some recent American commentary on the way he runs his businesses, his position is looking more precarious. Perhaps the most significant pointer, as in the Arab uprisings, is the breaking of the fear barrier. In the words of one London broker quoted by the Bloomberg news service:

"We'll see more pressure on Murdoch now. One of the things that’s kept people away is that he has a powerful media presence, and people are fearful of crossing swords with him. Much of that fear is gone now."

Murdoch, it need scarcely be said, has had a powerful and often harmful influence on American discourse about the Middle East – through ill-informed commentary on Fox News, some bizarre opinion articles in the Wall Street Journal by Bernard Lewis and others (despite its generally thorough news reporting), and the neoconservatives' house journal, the Weekly Standard.

It's not surprising, therefore, that Melanie Phillips, one of Britain's most outspoken pro-Israel columnists, should be concerned about Murdoch's fate:

"In a western world whose intelligentsia is consumed by irrational and malevolent hatred of America and Israel and is hell-bent on undermining the west and assisting its mortal enemies, Murdoch has provided the one media voice putting forward a pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-defence of the west position – including support for the Iraq war."

Interestingly, though, Ms Phillips didn't mention that News Corp'slargest shareholder outside the Murdoch family is the Saudi billionaire, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Murdoch, in turn, also holds a stake in the prince's Rotana media empire.

Brian Whitaker, is a journalist for the British newspaper The Guardian since 1987 and its Middle East editor from 2000-2007. He has a degree in Arabic from the University of Westminster. He also runs a personal website Al-Bab.com about politics in the Arab world.

Hafıza Tazeleme: Ankara Grubu Değil, Hakurk Grubu ya da Rest

5 Kasım 2007 Tarihinde Erdoğan-Bush görüşmesinde Bush'un önüne konulan resimlerden sonra ABD'nin geri adım atmak mecburiyetinde kaldığı ve Açılım Süreci'ne giden yolun açıldığı günlerin yeniden hatırlanması gerekiyor. Özellikle Silvan'da 13 Şehit haberleri arasında Sabah Gazetesi'nin kamuoyunun dikkatine sunduğu Ankara Grubu'nun, aslında Hakurk Grubu olması hafıza tazelemeyi gerekli hale getiriyor. 5 Kasım 2007 Tarihli Bush-Erdoğan görüşmesinin hemen ardından İtirafçıların bir röportajı aşağıda yer almaktadır.

----

Beyaz Saray'daki kritik Erdoğan-Bush zirvesinin ardından, ABD’nin PKK'ya destek verdiğini öne süren itirafçıların ifadeleri, yargılandıkları mahkemelerden istendi.

ABD’lilerin PKK kamplarına giderek görüşme yaptığı ve örgüte silah sağladığı yönündeki ifadeler Adalet Bakanlığı Uluslararası Hukuk ve Dış İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü ile İçişleri Bakanlığı'na gönderildi. Bu ifadelerin ABD’nin Ankara Büyükelçiliği aracılığıyla Pentagon yetkililerine delillendirilerek sunulacağı bildirildi.

3 SANDIK M-16 GETİRDİLER

R. Ş.: “Kandil Dağı’ndaki Kortek Kampı’na 28 Aralık 2006 günü 3 adet zırhlı paletli Amerikan askeri aracı geldi. Araçlar, Süleymaniye tarafından sadece paletli arazi araçlarının geçebileceği yerden geldi. ABD’li askerlere ait olan bu araçlar kamp alanına ulaştığında 100’er adet M-16 marka Amerikan piyade tüfeği bulunan 3 adet sandık bıraktılar.

R. Ş.: Silahların tümünde dürbün ve bomba atar takılıydı. Bizzat elime alarak kontrol ettim. Araçlardaki şahıslar ise askeri üniformalı, siyah gözlüklü, kafalarında kask vardı. 6 Amerikan askeri kampa gelmişti. Hepsinin üniformasında ABD bayrağı vardı. Askerlerden 4’ü sandıkları alana indirdi. Sonra araçların başında beklediler.

R. Ş.: 2’si, PKK yönetiminin bulunduğu taştan örülü, üstü naylonla kapalı barakaya giderek Hakkari bağımsız milletvekili adayı H.İ.’nin kardeşi olan sözde Tabur Komutanı Kawa ve Şıvan kod adlı teröristle 10 dakika görüşüp tekrar araçlarla geldikleri istikamete geri döndüler.

R. Ş.: Amerikalılar gidince Kawa kod adlı terörist bizleri alana toplayarak gelen araçlardaki şahısların Amerikalı olduğunu, gördüğümüz araçları ve şahısları kimseye anlatmamamız yönünde bizi uyardı. Kampa getirilen silahların bir kısmı üst düzey yöneticilere, kalan kısmı İran’a karşı savaşan PJAK’a gönderildi.”

"BİR ÇANTA DOLUSU PARA GETİRDİLER"

İ. P.: “ABD’li üst düzey bir komutan ayda bir kez helikopter ile Kandil Dağı’na gelerek Murat Karayılan ile gizli görüşme yapıyor. ABD’liler ayrıca Osman Öcalan’a bir çanta dolusu para getirdi. Ben Öcalan’ın şoförüydüm. Türkiye’nin olası operasyonlarına karşı Dolekoge kampında her biri 400 kişi kapasiteli 3 ayrı mağara inşa edildi.

İ. P.: Operasyon anında el bombası tesirine karşı zik zaklı kaçış için ayrı çıkışları var. Uydu telefon ve telsiz ihtiyaçlarımız bazı özel şirketler tarafından karşılanıyor. Bu şirketler KDP ve KYB’ye ait şirketlerdir. İran’ın PKK’ya karşı operasyon yapması nedeniyle İran istihbarat örgütü İltihat’ın adamlarını Erbil’den alıp Süleymaniye’nin Köysancak İlçesi’nde Osman Öcalan ile görüştürdüm.

İ. P.: Ardından tekrar Erbil’e bıraktım. IKDP ve KYB’nin adamları, Osman Öcalan’ı tedavi amacıyla Tahran’a götürdü. Osman Öcalan, PKK’nın paralarını alıp ayrılınca ABD’liler kendisiyle görüştü. Yanlarında bir çanta dolusu para getirdiler. KYB’de kendisine 7 bin dolar para veriyor. IKDP’de ise 3 ayda bir 10 bin dolar para Öcalan’a yardımda bulunuyor.”

"IRAK ORDUSUNUN SİLAHLARINI GETİRDİK"

A.K.: “Türkiye-Irak sınırındaki güvenlik güçlerinin hareketlerini sınır hattındaki gruplar ve işbirlikçilerle takip ediyoruz. Kandil’deki Şehit Harun kampına son olarak 2’si ABD, 2’si de KYB’den olmak üzere 4 kişilik bir heyet gelip üst düzey yöneticilerle görüştü. ABD’nin Irak’ı işgalinden sonra Mahmur Kampı’nda PKK bir bölük konuşlandırdı. Bunlar sivil ve silahsız faaliyet yürütüyor. Bunlar, Irak ordusuna ait silah ve patlayıcıları araçlarla kamplara taşıdı. Öcalan’ın zehirlenme iddiaların sonra eylemlerin tırmandırılması kararlaştırıldı.”

"ATEŞKES KARARI ABD GÜDÜMÜNDE ALINDI"

G.K.: “ABD’li askeri ve siyasi temsilciler 28 Haziran 2006 günü Kuzey Irak’taki Hakurk Kampı’ndaki dış ilişkiler idare birimi denilen yerde Murat Karayılan ile gizli görüşme yaptı. Hatta geçen yıl alınan eylemsizlik kararı da bu görüşme sonrası ABD güdümünde alındı. PKK’nın Rusya, KDP ve KYB’yle diplomatik ilişkileri çok güçlü. PKK, ABD’den silah, KDP ve KYB’den ise lojistik destek alıyor.”

"ABD BASKININDA MAHMUR KAMPINDAYDIM"

L. K.: “Ben 15 yıl örgüt içinde kaldım. Bölük komutanlığına kadar yükseldim. ABD askerleri, Mahmur Kampı’nda nüfus sayımı yaparak PKK’lı bulunup bulunmadığını belirlemek için arama yapacağını önceden PKK yönetimine bildirince bizde gerekli tedbirleri alıp geçici olarak kampı boşalttık. ABD baskınından kısa süre önce ben de bu kamptaydım.”

"ABD’LİLER HAKURK KAMPINA GELDİ"

A. K.: “Rus ordusunda 2 yıl askerlik yaptıktan sonra Moskova’dan örgüte katıldım. Kandil’de 5 yıl kaldım. PKK Hollanda’dan telsiz temin ediyor. Füzeler Ermenistan üzerinden kamplara ulaşıyor. Kuzey Irak’taki Lolan Nehri kıyısındaki sığınakta 3 ton TNT, 2 bin 500 mayın, 2 bin adet havan mermisi ile yerden atılan Katyuşa füzesi var. KDP’nin istihbarat temsilcisi Tarık, PKK’ya silah ve malzeme temin ediyor.

A. K.: ABD işgalinden sonra Irak Ordusu’na ait silah ve mühimmat PKK’nın eline geçti. Hakurk Kampı’na ABD ordusundan bir heyet gelerek, Amed Malazgirt ile görüştü. Görüşme sonrasında bize ABD helikopterlerinin zaman zaman kamp alanında keşif uçuşları yapacağını, bu nedenle Türk helikopteri diye ateş açmamamız yönünde uyarıldık.”

A Special Decipher: U.S & EU Point of View and 13 Soldiers' Deaths

I am deeply saddened by the deaths of 13 Turkish soldiers in Diyarbakir province. On behalf of the United States I send heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims. We stand with Turkey in its fight against the PKK, a designated terrorist organization which has claimed tens of thousands of Turkish lives. We support Turkey in its fight against terror and we will continue to work with the Government of Turkey to combat terrorism in all its forms. I will be meeting with Turkey’s leaders over the next two days in Istanbul where I will personally convey to them our commitment to close cooperation.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State 

***

Statement by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton on the terrorist attacks in Turkey

“I am deeply shocked by reports of the deaths of 13 Turkish soldiers in clashes with the PKK and strongly condemn these acts. There is no justification for such terrorist attacks. I express my deep sympathy and solidarity to the families of the victims and to the government and the people of Turkey. I have conveyed my condolences in person to Foreign Minister Davutoglu today.

The EU supports Turkey in its fight against terrorism and will continue to work closely with Turkey bilaterally and multilaterally to combat terrorism in all its manifestations and forms.”

Source 

***

Background Briefing En Route Istanbul, Turkey

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’re en route to Istanbul for the fourth meeting of the Libya Contact Group tomorrow. And then on Saturday, as you know, we will have a bilateral visit with Turkish officials. We have Senior State Department Official to talk about the Contact Group and the bilateral visit with the Turks.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Great. Thanks, [Senior State Department Official One].

So as [Senior State Department Official One] said, this is the fourth official meeting of the Contact Group. All of you have been along for most of these. It’s actually, by my count, the ninth big international meeting on Libya if you count Paris G-8 and the other Paris meeting that President Sarkozy did and the London meeting and the NATO ministerial in Berlin, the point being that I think that’s a reflection of the international community’s determination to come together and continue to focus on how to build – continue to build a broader and deeper coalition for achieving our aims in Libya.

At this Contact Group meeting, we expect some 35 countries to be represented. There’s some – still some details to nail that down. Twenty-one full participants in the Contact Group plus a wide range of international organizations, including the Arab League, the African Union, NATO, the European Union, the OIC, the TNC – the Transitional National Council and the GCC. So again, a very broad representation.

As we’ve discussed in previous Contact Group meetings, we seek to use these to move forward on two tracks – pressure, continued pressure on the regime, and continued support for the opposition now well-represented by the TNC, and that’s what we hope to do at this Contact Group meeting as well. I expect that participants will reiterate the determination and the view that Qadhafi has lost legitimacy and should go. I expect participants to reiterate their strong support for the UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and to fully implement them.
On the support track, I think you can really think about this meeting as how we are going to collectively help prepare the TNC to govern. It’s just a fact that countries are now starting to look past Qadhafi. He is going to go, and the meeting can be a useful place to take stock and prepare for that transition. As you know, the United States has already called the TNC as the legitimate interlocutor for the Turkish people.

QUESTION: The Libyan.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Sorry. (Laughter.) For the Libyan people – it’s the fourth Contact Group meeting, right? And a number of other participants in the Contact Group that made similar statements about the legitimacy of the TNC. And we will look for more and more to express themselves in that way.

The TNC representative, Mr. Jibril, will be present, as he has been present at past Contact Group meetings. And he will brief on the TNC’s plans for a post-Qadhafi Libya. And we’ll be looking to hear about the TNC’s roadmap, which we hope and expect will be for a democratic Libya, an inclusive process that will include all parts of Libyan society – geographically east and west, different tribes, different political groups. We think the TNC understands that if they are going to be the legitimate interlocutor representative of the Libyan people, that it needs to be an inclusive process. We’ll look to participants to support – continue to support the lead UN role in this transition process. UN Special Envoy Khatib, the former Jordanian foreign minister, will be president – present, and he’ll talk about his ideas and principles for a democratic transition in Libya.

We will also look to participants to report on assistance. This is, again, in the category of how we support the TNC moving forward. As you know, one of the key questions has been providing financial support to keep the TNC operating. We have continued to make progress even if incremental on that regard. This time, the temporary financial mechanism that was first referred to at the very first Contact Group meeting is now up and running as a legal entity. And prior to it being up and functioning, there have been significant pledges to it. Remember the Kuwaitis pledged $180 million. The Qataris pledged a hundred million. Bahrain has pledged 5 million. Now we can report that money has actually been provided to the TFM, a total of a hundred million dollars from Qatar and Kuwait. So the TFM will be able to help and will look to other countries to report on what else they are doing to provide money either bilaterally or through the TFM.

Turkey has also, in recent weeks, announced a commitment of $200 million for the TNC, which will be helpful, and we will look to other countries to announce what they’ve been able to do not just in terms of direct pledges, but in terms of unfreezing assets, which is something that most members of the Contact Group have been focused on doing.

The LIEM, the Libyan Information Exchange Mechanism, is also up and running in Benghazi. Italy is playing the major role in that, and you’ll remember that that’s the effort to coordinate assistance. Some countries, including the United States, have been able to provide nonlethal assistance, and this is a mechanism to help make sure we’re matching what the TNC needs with what we are able to provide. So I think those are the things we’re looking for on the support track, and as I say, what it’s really about is preparing the TNC to govern and looking past Qadhafi for what we believe will be the next regime in Libya.

We’re also keeping up the pressure, and I think you’ve seen signs of that. You’ve seen the opposition making progress on the ground, especially most recently in the western mountains of Libya. NATO operations continue at a very high pace. There have been – since Operation Unified Protector began, there’s been more than 15,000 sorties, more than 5,000 strike sorties, and allies are determined. You recall that NATO recently extended its mission for another 30 days, and allies are determined to continue the military operations until the conditions that were spelled out in the Berlin ministerial have been met.

So overall, I would just say that we continue to believe that time is on our side. We’re making progress on both of these tracks and we’ll be looking to participants in the Contact Group tomorrow to continue to support that process.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Why don’t we go on and do a quick brief on Turkey and then come back to questions?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Just a few words on Turkey, because the Secretary, following the Contact Group, will do a whole bilateral day, a full day with her Turkish counterparts on the bilateral agenda with Turkey, which is considerable.

Turkey is really a partner with which we engage on the full range of global considerations. Turkey is a key player, obviously, in the Middle East, a member of NATO in the region with Greece and Cyprus and the Caucasus and Afghanistan, on the energy issue, on the counterterrorism issue, and this will be an opportunity for the Secretary to engage on that full global agenda.

I want to say that this is a relationship that is already very deep and intensive. That is to say that Secretary Clinton speaks to her counterpart Foreign Minister Davutoglu regularly. The President engages very regularly as well with Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul. I think you’ll see on this visit, if a year ago there were some – where we also had a very intensive relationship with Turkey, there were some critical issues and issues on which we disagreed publicly, like Iran following the Turkish vote in the Security Council, I think we have – you’ll find that the relationship now is in a very strong place on many issues and that we’ve made progress. And I think it’s a result of the intensive engagement that we have. Rather than letting the differences that we had come between us, we have engaged all the more and the Secretary personally has engaged all the more. Where we had differences, we confronted them and have talked it through. And where we are cooperating, we’ve sought to intensify that cooperation.

So let me just very briefly tell you what meetings she’ll have, sort of walk you through the day and underscore what I think some of the things she’ll talk about will be. She’ll see President Gul the evening following the Contact Group, which is tomorrow. And then the next day, she’ll see Foreign Minister Davutoglu, she’ll see the Prime Minister Erdogan, she’ll meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, and then she’ll see all of the opposition parties in the Turkish parliament.
And I won’t go into too much lengthy detail on all the issues because that would keep us here for a very long time. But just to note, they’ll obviously talk about Libya following the Contact Group, and I already noted what Turkey has done in recent weeks on that score.

Syria has been a very big issue for Turkey and obviously for the United States as well, and we’ve been in close touch with them. I would underscore Syria is a big issue for Turkey. They have a long border. There are more than 9,000 displaced Syrians who are in Turkey, and Turkey has been making a real commitment to take care of those people and joining us in pressing the Syrian regime to reform. I think, just by the way, on the both of those, U.S.-Turkish cooperation has been excellent.

Afghanistan as well. Turkey has some 1,800 troops in Afghanistan, has been a very close partner working with us on the political process as a NATO partner. And the Secretary and her counterparts will no doubt talk about NATO’s agenda as well.

They’ll talk about Iran. I mentioned already, and everybody knows that we had some differences on Iran last year over the Tehran declaration on Turkey’s vote, but it is clear to us that Turkey shares our goal of seeing – preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, that it is implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1929. And they’ll talk together about how to continue with the P-5+1 process, which Turkey has been a part of by hosting one of the recent meetings.

We’ve worked well with the Turks on Iraq in terms of government formation. I mentioned counterterrorism regional issues in the Caucasus, Armenia, Cyprus, and the Balkans.
I could go on. I think you would get the point that this relationship is extraordinarily both intensive and broad, and we really see this as an opportunity to move the agenda on our common interest in all of these areas.

Let me also just flag the economic relationship with Turkey is a very important one that we have sought to invest in and expand. Under Secretary Hormats is along on the trip and will be meeting his counterparts. The energy relationship is also highly important to us, and Special Envoy Morningstar is also on the trip and will be engaging his counterparts.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Good. Let’s go to your questions. William.

QUESTION: Is there a difference between interlocutor, as you are calling the TNC, and recognizing them as the official government of Libya? And if so, are you guys moving closer towards that? And then secondly, is that, to your mind, a way to open up finances to the TNC, and like where in the spectrum are you?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: You’re right to describe it as a spectrum. And a number of different governments, as I said, (inaudible) what it is they’re saying when they say legitimate interlocutor, legitimate – legitimate authorities. All of those formulations stop short of what you might call formal recognition of a government.

But one of the things we’ll be consulting with counterparts here on is how to continue to strengthen and see them as the legitimate representatives or authorities in the country. So that is something that the Secretary will be speaking to her counterparts about. And to the degree that is a question of unfreezing assets, obviously that will be a part of the conversation as well.

QUESTION: So what’s the main watch words of that official recognition, or what’s the main kind of question to your mind – to the mind of U.S. officials for that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think certainly for the United States, obviously, and I can’t speak to other countries, but you would want to be sure that you know about the plans of the organization that is to be so-recognized, and you’d want to make sure that what they had in mind for the country was something that you were prepared to support. You would want to see that they had the attributes necessary. And I think recognizing a government is not something you would take lightly. You’d want to understand that the previous authorities were no longer capable of or deserving of being the government of that country. And that’s a process that from the start, I think, all of the countries in the Contact Group and elsewhere have been observing.

QUESTION: This – is this – is U.S. recognition is a scenario that you could envision happening before Qadhafi left power? Or is that something to be left until after?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, let’s see how discussions here come out with, but clearly, we’ve already said that Qadhafi has lost legitimacy and needs to go. And almost by definition when that happens, you’re going to be looking toward what the follow-on regime is. And we want to see both of those things happen sooner rather than later.

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about (inaudible)? You talked about inclusiveness, that it needs to – is there some kind of marker that you want or specific thing that they need to do to – that you’re going to think that this demonstrates this is an inclusive authority that is – represents a wide swath?

And then on Syria, they’ve really stepped up their criticism of the regime. Is there anything specific that you’d like to – that you think would be helpful for Turkey to do in terms of trying to get him to step down, whether it’s sanctions or anything? But they certainly have a lot of – more leverage, I would think, than we do.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On the first, Elise, I mean, I don’t think there’s a scientific bar for inclusiveness, but I also think that we do know when an authority, an organization, has included people from different brands. I mean, the first point, I think it’s a geographic one. It probably wouldn’t be considered exclusive if everyone came from one part of the country and no one from the other part of the country was involved.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. Right. No, I don’t – not right now, because I don’t think that’s the case. I think there are some who are not from the east. And clearly, there’s a significant opposition in the west that is part of the TNC. So I don’t think that’s the case, but I’m saying that for something to be seen as properly inclusive, there would – you’d want to see representation in it from all geographic parts of the country.

QUESTION: What about the south?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: South – all parts of the country.

QUESTION: But I don’t think anyone lives in the south.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, but there are –

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Welcome to my world. Welcome to my world.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Right. We’ll get back to you on the south. But I think –

QUESTION: I guess my question is: Right now, are they saying that they’re representative and we’d like to see more representativeness?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think again, our briefer has already spoken to the fact that they are going to come and present a plan tomorrow, so it’s important to hear that plan.

You want to go to the Syria-Turkey issue?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: There are specific things that we’d like to see Turkey do – increase pressure. We’ve done – we’ve been clear about the process. You heard the President May 19^th, that we need to see reforms or Asad needs to step aside. So prior to and since then, we have moved on visa bans and asset freezes, together with the European Union. Turkey has not gone as far as we have or other Europeans on that. We respect Turkey’s own decisions about how they can move forward on the pressure track. They have exerted pressure diplomatically and have been engaged very much with their neighbor in making clear to Asad that they want to see and expect to see reform. But as a country with a long border with Syria and, as I say, receiving thousands of displaced people from Syria, I don’t want to stand here and tell them what types of sanctions that they should be thinking about. I can say that they join us in believing that there needs to be pressure on the regime to reform.

QUESTION: Can I ask about two – one on the Contact Group and one on Turkey itself? On the Contact Group, is the Secretary coming – what is she bringing to the table tomorrow? Or is she really bringing – or is all – is anything that she might be bringing all contingent on the TNC making – saying the right things and doing the right things and really what you want to hear?
And then on Turkey, did you see this nine-page letter that the Hellenic Institute sent to the Secretary outlining all these demands, what she should tell the Turks, how bad they are and how mean they are and this kind of thing? Have you seen that letter, and does she plan to raise any of those issues that they’ve talked about, which were the standard Greek complaints about Turkey, Cyprus, the claims on the sea – on – and that kind of thing?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I haven’t seen the letter. I’d be happy to look at it.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think you can be sure that she will raise regional issues with Turkey, and they’ll talk about Greece and they’ll talk about Cyrpus and they’ll talk about domestic developments in Turkey as they always do. So that will definitely be a part of the conversation.

As to the first, obviously – that the Secretary announce or talk about anything specific that she is bringing to the Contact Group. I did already talk about the way we’re thinking about this meeting and trying to see it as a pivot in this process for looking past Qadhafi, and I outlined the types of things we’ll be engaged with on how we can increase support for the TNC and increase pressure on Qadhafi.

QUESTION: Right. But I guess what I’m saying is that – I mean, will she have anything to offer the TNC even if they are not able to present an acceptable plan of becoming the next government or the next regime?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, we are coming here to continue to express support for the TNC. It’s not as – it’s not about what they will say tomorrow. We do want to hear their report and we want to listen very carefully to their plans for post-Qadhafi Libya, which we strongly support.

QUESTION: Do you expect those – maybe [Senior State Department Official One] did this because you were in Abu Dhabi. Do you expect them to be more refined now than they were in Abu Dhabi, the TNC’s plans?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Absolutely. Between these meetings, the Secretary works with individual Contact member partners, and our team works with the TNC to increase and continue the thinking about how you get from where they are now to an entity that is prepared to govern when the time comes and prepared to get Libya to elections and the kind of support that they will need from the international community, particularly with the UN in the lead, the kind of supporting international umbrella they’d like to see. So as everybody talks about this individually, to come together in this meeting, hear how their plans have evolved, hear how the UN’s work with them has evolved, and then to hear how we can all contribute to that evolving roadmap, is the goal.

QUESTION: Can I ask – can we expect any discussion about station a defense radar in Turkey?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I noted that NATO will be a part of the conversation, and one of the issues that NATO has decided to do is move forward with missile defense based on President Obama’s plan, the European phased-adaptive approach. We have said from the start, as we elaborated that approach – and you know what it consists of and the four phases and the interceptors deployed in Poland and Romania – we have noted from the start that the system also will involve the radar that would ultimately or optimally be placed somewhere in Southeastern Europe. There haven’t been any decisions on where that radar will be, but we’ll certainly be discussing the entire program of missile defense with Turkey. And –

QUESTION: That was a question about the missile defense sites?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.

QUESTION: And you said that –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I said they were going to talk about it.

QUESTION: But it’s – the letter that you got from whoever it was, Kyl or whoever, you don’t have anything to worry about, no deal is going to be signed?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t expect there to be a deal signed on missile defense or anything else in Turkey. As I noted, we have from the start been exploring where this radar might be, and we’ll definitely exchange views with the Turks on that.

QUESTION: Can I – (inaudible).

QUESTION: Back on the TNC, the first one is the statements from the U.S. about these reports of contacts with Qadhafi’s group have been quite a bit cooler than some of the European sort of statements to that effect – the French. To what degree is – are we confident that these contacts are underway and that they’re real, and does the U.S. have a different perception of this than perhaps some of its NATO allies?

And secondly, France put out a report, circulated a report on their post-stabilization mission, which included some pretty interesting recommendations, including one that the Libyan military should be allowed to remain intact after Qadhafi’s exit. To what degree is that report going to be the subject of discussions, and does the U.S. sort of back this idea that the military has to be left intact and to keep the country stable going forward?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let me say something about the second issue, because I’m glad you raised it because I failed to underscore the degree to which that is actually another important discussion to be had here in Istanbul, the question of because we’re so focused on post-Qadhafi transition – and I was talking a little bit about the political aspects of that, inclusive TNC, and also the need to focus on the security aspects of that.

And the report to which you refer will – has been circulated, people are well familiar with it, and will be an element in the discussion. It is by no means the plan or anything that would likely be adopted in exactly that form. But that is another major reason for this meeting. It is a very timely one because we do expect that sooner rather than later there’s going to be this transition, and we need to be ready for it. We don’t know when it will be, whether it will be tomorrow or later than that, but the ideas in that report – and there are other contributions on the table as well – is something that we really want ministers to have a chance to focus on here.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So again, just to be clear, we’ve all been talking individually, the TNC has been talking, about the need for political planning, economic planning, security planning. So this is a chance for all the countries involved to concert views and also to hear from the UN about the role that it can play in coordinating the support.
So on the –

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Can we – can I –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: [Senior State Department Official One] is going to take the first part of Andy’s question. Then I can (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEAPRTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So, Andy, you know we’ve been saying that there are a lot of straws in the wind and there are a lot of Libyans contacting a lot of folks. I think we are not persuaded yet that any of this is decisive in terms of the red lines that we have laid out, namely that Qadhafi needs to cease the violence, he needs to get his forces back, and he needs to make clear that he is prepared to step down from all of the posts that he holds so that one could move on to the transition. So that’s what we’re looking for, is decisive action from him and from his people.

We’ll take one last one and then we’ve got to go.

QUESTION: Yeah. On Russia, Russia has refused to attend the Contact Group meeting in Turkey. Have you discussed this topic with Lavrov when he was there, and what are you thinking of that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes. As you noted, Foreign Minister Lavrov was in Washington yesterday, actually for a couple of days of the Quartet meeting. He met at length with the Secretary and discussed our very full agenda with Russia, and also with the President. And Libya was certainly discussed. And as you know, Russia has engaged and committed itself to the same goal of us, which is to ensure this transition. Russia also believes that Qadhafi has lost legitimacy and needs to go.

Russia is not attending this meeting. We would welcome their attendance, as we welcome their agreement to engage and see what they can do to promote this transition in Libya. They named a special envoy, Mikhail Margelov. He’s been to Tripoli a couple of times and we’ve been in very close touch. President Obama has spoken several times with President Medvedev about it, including just last week.

So we’re actually working well with the Russians on it. The Secretary had a long discussion on Libya with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday, and we think we are very much committed to the same goals. Russia would be welcome at the Contact Group, should they choose to come. In this particular case, they’re not going to be here, but maybe they’ll come to one in the future.

Source. 

***

Turkey is increasingly taking a leading role in the Middle East

An insight into the increasingly important role that Turkey is playing in its Middle East neighbourbood, further consolidating its influence and how Ankara is demonstrating itself to be a key partner of the West in dealing with the democratic transformation of the region. While Turkey, as others, was not prepared for the Arab Spring, Ankara is now meeting the challenge head-on. Turkey is host to a key meeting of the Libya Contact Group on 15-16 July in Istanbul where a number of Turkish proposals will be discussed, while at the same time Ankara is carrying out active shuttle diplomacy between all the different players, as well a other key powers, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, which are of significant important in guaranteeing regional stability.

Without doubt the Arab Spring has already begun to change the Middle East’s political landscape.This is a unique opportunity for Turkey to prove its new foreign policy approach can have positiveresults for the region in promoting democratic regimes and political stability. Although Ankara was not prepared for the Arab Spring and the reaction came quite late in the case of Libya, it is nowplaying a key role including acting as the lynchpin between the region and its allies in the West