About the relations between the initiators of humanitarian convoy to Gaza and Chechen fighters

Immediately after the events in the Mediterranean Sea Israeli mass media published the information that Turkish fund İnsanın Yardım Vakfı (IHH, The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief), the main initiator of the convoy to Gaza, had also been supporting Chechen terrorists.
Salih Bilici, a fund representative, has told us that the organization has always taken part only in peaceful humanitarian actions and is to do so in the future. He confirmed the fact that the fund worked in Chechnya and delivered medication, food (mostly halal products for Muslim holidays), and clothes; however, he resolutely contested the possibility of financing or providing with supplies of any military operations in North Caucasus, as well as relations with such organizations as Ichkeria, the Caucasus Emirate, and others; he also denied the fact of sending of volunteers to any illegal armed forces. As for information which appeared in Israeli press, Salih Bilici has pointed out that Israel has been carrying out informational war, using any possible measures to soften consequences of its barbaric operation and to put Russia at odds with the Islamic world, Arab countries, and Turkey.

See the whole text which touches also the problem of Muslim's attitude to Chechnya problem, on http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/about-relations-between-initiators-humanitarian-convoy-gaza-and-chechen-fighters

Africa: clash of the American and Chinese geopolitical interests

Yemen is considered to be the cradle of the Arab world. In the north Yemen borders Saudi Arabia, narrow part of the western border falls on the Red Sea area, the southern border faces the Gulf of Aden while the Oman is in the east. Political system of Yemen allows the country to maneuver among the endless mosaic of tribes that are characterized by the different degree of the territorial independence. Tribal differences are also connected to the division of the country population onto Sunni — who make up the majority with the insignificant superiority in numbers — and the Shia who make up about 45% of population.In the recent year Shiaz have undergone numerous attacks from the governmental troops.
In November 2009 the conflict was first internationalized. Air Forces of Saudi Arabia bombed the Shiites’ positions at Jebel Duchan. Saudis were afraid of the Shiites’ strengthening — in Saudi Arabia itself they make up the oppressed minority.
The USA are playing their own political game in the region. They are interested mostly in one question: who will control Bab-el-Mandeb strait?
Bab-el-Mandeb strait between Yemen, Djibouti and Eritrea is a key to the “oil path” between Africa and the Middle East — it connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Indian Ocean. Every day 3.5 million barrels of oil “float” through it to the USA, Europe and Asia. Besides that, oil fields in the Masila and Shabwa basins are also located in Yemen, which neighbors the Saudi Arabia. Geopolitical significance of Yemen and Somali turn these countries into the sphere of the U.S. strategic interests.
Americans have outstripped China that has also stated the need to create a military base in the western part of the Indian Ocean. For now, only Iran is open for China in that region as long as the rest of the countries have already been pulled inside of the NATO orbit. Control over the Aden port in Yemen brings huge benefits to the Americans and opens the infinite possibilities for maneuver in front of them.
China, on its part, is trying to improve its influence in Sri Lanka and Burma in order to form the new transport paths in the Persian Gulf, Africa and Middle East area. Recently, British press media reported that the USA promised to delete Burma out of the “axis of evil”-countries list if it stops “playing on the Chinese side”.
Thus, it is unlikely that the political games in the regions will cease in the nearest future. On the contrary, American desire to control everything possible might lead to another outbreak of instability in this already instable part of the world.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/africa-clash-american-and-chinese-geopolitical-interests

Afghanistan: an apple of discord or a field for co-operation?

Twenty years ago Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, and eight year ago NATO forces were deployed there. The state has passed through two occupations against the background of the never-ending civil war, has become the main supplier of heroin to the global market, the symbol of international terrorism, famine and devastation. Soviet administration, planning the expedition, didn’t expect Pashtun guerillamen, equipped with old British rifles – the trophy of Anglo-Afghan wars – to occasion well-trained and armed troops of the USSR a lot of troubles. However in the 80s Afghanistan was foreordained to become the last range territory for the Cold war: with the help of the USA the opposition succeeded in outfighting the great neighbor and gaining independence.

Contemporary advocates of democratic Afghanistan don’t face such challenges. Today's guerillamen are equipped with self-made machine guns, which are made of locally available material in the north of Pakistan, with Russia preserving friendly neutrality. Ample resources are directed to the humanitarian aid, the conduction of free elections and maintenance of security. How come no positive shift has taken place in the past eight years? The famine has not been overcome, the war is still in progress, the drug production is increasing.

The greatest disillusionment of the NATO operation is caused by political and social situation in modern Afghanistan. It is still the poorest country in the world. The large part of the population shifts with less than one dollar a day while the international community spends millions on tackling this problem. Cultivation of opium poppy and production of heroin amount to more that 60 percent of GNP of modern Afghanistan.

That’s about the situation in modern Afghanistan, which is officially controlled by NATO. The country has changed a lot in the course of eight years but the question is if it has become less dangerous for the global community, for Europe and Russia? To what extent the presence of the USA is profitable for Afghanistan?

The USA succeeded in gaining predominance in Central Asia region with the complete approval of the global community. Nineteen new military bases, which are located in the territory of Iraq, Afghanistan and former Soviet republics – Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, were opened after 2001. It gives an opportunity to control from the East and from the West one of the main declared hostiles of the USA – Iran, as well as China, Pakistan and Russia.

American cynicism is not typical for the Europeans. If the promotion of democracy, tackling social problems and the war on terror are just propagandistic clichés for the USA administration, the European treat this terms seriously. They are ready to wage the war on international terror, threatening both the USA and the West European countries, on Islamism radicalization, which can have negative influence on spirit among immigrants, or at least they are ready to struggle for universal democratic ideals. After eight years of occupation there is clash of views of Europe and the USA on the possible policy in Afghanistan. This clash can lead to the split in the coalition.

Public polls in Russia and some European countries show the negative influence of anti-terrorist operation conducted by the USA on the global situation and the necessity of making new decisions on Afghanistan in co-operation with Europe and Russia. Can we expect it in the short-run? I doubt so as Afghanistan issue is again off the top priorities of today's political agendas due to never-ending economic troubles suffered by many countries due to Afghanistan and other useless expenses.

http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/afghanistan-apple-discord-or-field-co-operation

Long farewell, USSR

From the historical point of view, Soviet regime was a more appropriate structure then a preceding archaic and ignorant epoch. One can’t totally reject the Soviet period, at least because the government managed to teach to read and write the nation illiterate on the whole in a very short period of time. In the same time, one can’t worship it unconditionally, because it proved impossible to teach to understand what was read and written in such short time, with all implied consequences.
There is, truly, a problem of terrible legacy. The terrible thing about it lies in the human type left as a legacy, a type of an underdeveloped person of no principles, an incubatory conformist, incapable of demonstrating common consistency and integrity in social matters.
Today a total breakup with the Soviet past is suggested to us by the government - with smashing the monuments and banning Soviet symbols. Before smashing the monuments like a Barbarian one shouldn’t forget that there are leaders, and then, there are leaders. Lenin’s rule is the one thing, Stalin’s is another, and Chrushchev’s is completely different.Besides, political renovationists suggest nothing to replace the Soviet ideology which, in all its ugliness, was a very strong one.
There is no other post-Soviet country where the government would like the people to forget their Soviet past completely, and the reasons of that are quite obvious. And if it’s so, wouldn’t it be wiser not to spit in the well of the past, but to study it impartially and thoroughly making vital conclusions with consideration of all light and dark sides? Perhaps, that will help us to deal with the present and, finally, to start building the future.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/long-farewell

Alexander Rahr: Russia is a part of Europe

Here you will find an interview with Alexander Rahr, a well-known political scientist, the son of Russian emigrant, who has been living in Germany. In 2000 he published a book "The German in the Kremlin" about Vladimir Putin. Today he answers several questions about his vision of Russia and Russia's role in the modern Europe.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/interview-famous-political-scientist-director-programs-russia-and-cis-german-society-foreign

Uranium exchange agreement and a project of new sanctions against Iran

In the middle of May in Teheran a new summit of G-15 took place, the organization including 19 developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. During the talks foreign affairs ministers and leaders of Iran, Brazil, and Turkey have achieved a very important agreement concerning Iranian nuclear program. A following exchange alternative has been discussed: Iran is to receive fuel for Teheran research reactor in return for a half of Iranian supplies of low-enriched uranium. Despite that the USA has proposed the UN Security Council a project of resolution imposing new sanctions against the Islamic republic.

According to the statement signed on May 17, 2010by the USA, France, Russia, and the IAEA Iran is to deliver 1200 kilos of low-enriched uranium to Turkey. This uranium is to be kept by Turkey; however, it is to remain the property of Iran and may be supervised both by representatives of Iran and IAEA. After the low-enriched uranium is delivered to Turkey, it is to be exchanged for 120 kilos of nuclear fuel necessary for Teheran research reactor within one year.

After the document was signed, Turkey, Russia and China claimed that there was no more need in imposing sanctions against Iran. The Western community, however, reacted different. The USA are still drafting a resolution aiming at “further efforts in order to bring pressure on Iran”.
If new sanctions are to be adopted and come into force, it would lead to further confrontation and failure of the compromise found by Brazil, Turkey, and Iran. Thus, a new coil of this vicious circle will begin, putting off an efficient solution of Iranian question to uncertain future.

It is clear that the USA are afraid that Turkey and Brazil will get too much political credit, having once shown themselves the succeessful negotiators. But isn't it the time to put ambitions aside in order to heal this long-itching wound?
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/uranium-exchange-agreement-and-project-new-sanctions-against-iran

Turkey: the nature of national modernization

Today's Turkey is one of the most dynamically developing economies in the world. The underdeveloped agrarian state turned into the member of G20, lying in the 15th place in the rating of the greatest global economies. In 2002-2009 the average GDP was 6-9 percent, the figure was doubled in five years. Now it is 880 billion dollars (the nearest competitors are South Korea, Mexico and Australia). Turkey expands its international influence, seeking to gain the role of informal leader of the Middle East and the Balkans. It may lead to the revival of the new Ottoman Empire. How did it happen that the poor state turned into politically, economically strong entity?

The elections of 2002 shocked both Turkey and the international community: the Islamists came to power! However, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the new Turkish leader proved to be a clever man. Aspiration to full-fledged EU membership and reforming legislation to meet its standards represented one of the main directions of the political program. This step was very successful and the party still enjoys its dividends. Having quickly understood that the main danger is posed to his party from inside the country - mainly from traditionally secular military and civil officers who head the Constitutional Court and the Council for National Security- Erdoğan took care of their non-involvement in political life of his country. According to the incumbent Constitution of 1982 these bodies are completely entitled to dissolve any political force which could be accused of attempted violation of secular bases of the society. Amendment of legislation towards europeization would deprive the army from this right. Slogans of democratization and europeization provide strong support from abroad.

Many other home reforms found approvement of the EU leaders and bodies and clever foreign policy made Turkey one of the new leaders of emerging world order. I guess almost every country could find some useful example to take from this country's policy, but will any? I doubt as despite these achievement Turkey is still perceived by most Europeans as a second chop state.

http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/turkey-nature-national-modernization-essay-1