googlebizelogoyapsana

googlebizelogoyapsana

Bir grup yakışıklı Türk genci, sivil toplumun Türkiye'de yeşerdiğini ve bireylerin herşeyi devletten beklemediğinin bir kanıtı olarak, googlebizelogoyapsana, başlığında, Türkiye'mize Google'ın tıpkı Kore'ye ya da başka dinlere gösterdiği saygıyı göstermesi için çalışıyorlar. Onlara destek verelim. Logo fikirlerimizi paylaşalım. Bence Google'ın, UNESCO'nun da 2007'yi Mevlana Yılı ilan etmesinden yola çıkarak, Mevlana ile ilgili bir logo hazırlaması gerekir. Haydi gençler arkadaşlarımızı yalnız bırakmayalım...
Google, Google, duy sesimizi, işte bu Türklerin ayak sesleri...

Putin urges limit on U.S. presence in Iraq in letter to Arab leaders

Putin urges limit on U.S. presence in Iraq in letter to Arab leaders

Thursday, March 29, 2007

MOSCOW:Russia's President Vladimir Putin has sent a letter to a summit of Arab leaders, the Kremlin said Thursday, calling for a time limit for U.S. military presence in Iraq and issuing what sounded like a veiled criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

Putin's letter to the summit which opened Wednesday in the Saudi capital reflected efforts by the Kremlin to expand Russia's global clout and take a higher profile in international affairs.

Putin said in the letter that Russia highly values "the Arab world's contribution to building a just multipolar world order and political and diplomatic settlement of crises."

Russia has repeatedly pushed for a multipolar world — a term underlining its opposition to the unipolar world of U.S. domination.

In what sounded like a veiled criticism of the U.S., Putin complained in the letter against a "policy of unilateral use of force and a desire to monopolize conflict settlement." He also criticized those seeking to "provoke a confrontation between civilizations and faiths."

Putin openly assailed what he described as U.S. over-reliance on force and a unilateral approach to global affairs in last month's speech at a security conference in Munich, Germany.

In a foreign policy review released earlier this week, the Russian Foreign Ministry also strongly warned the United States against attacking Iran, warning that it could trigger a "war of civilizations."

Putin said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been at the root of unrest in the region and reaffirmed Russia's call for an international conference on the Middle East.

Russia is a member of the international Quartet of Mideast peacemakers which also includes the U.N., the U.S. and the EU, and it has sought to take a broader role in peacemaking efforts.

Putin also repeated Russia's call on Washington to set a time limit for its military presence in Iraq, saying it would become an important factor helping national reconciliation.

Russia has opposed the U.S. military action in Iraq and has not contributed any troops to the U.S.-led coalition force. It said it was willing to help peace efforts, but urged Washington to revise its policy in Iraq by giving more say to opposition groups and by inviting nations such as Iran and Syria to take part in peace-building.

Saudi king calls U.S. presence in Iraq 'illegitimate'

Saudi king calls U.S. presence in Iraq 'illegitimate'

March 28, 2007

RIYADH: King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, opening a summit meeting of Arab leaders here Wednesday, called the U.S military presence in Iraq "illegitimate" and warned that sectarianism could lead to all-out civil war.

"In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war," he said, in unusually strong criticism of the United States from a strong ally.

But Abdullah's focus was mostly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which Sunni Arab leaders see as a major cause of violent radicalism in their own countries and threat to regional stability.

In a strongly worded speech, he chastised the leaders for infighting and said their divisions had fueled turmoil throughout the Middle East. He painted a bleak picture of the crises and bloodshed in the region - from Lebanon and Sudan to Iraq - and lectured those attending that it was time to act.

The gathering is aimed at restarting a 2002 initiative that offered Israel peace with the Arab world if it withdrew from lands it seized in the 1967 Mideast war, a proposal the United States and Europe hope can build efforts to resume the long-stalled peace process. Abdullah on Wednesday prodded Arab leaders to take united action aimed at reviving the peace offer.

The leaders have refused calls for changes in the plan to win Israeli acceptance, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, allies of the United States, want the summit meeting to give them flexibility in promoting the offer to the West and to Israel.

Abdullah called for the lifting of the "oppressive" international financial embargo on the Palestinians "as soon as possible so the peace process will get to move in an atmosphere without oppression."

"The real blame should be directed at us, the leaders of the Arab nation," he said. "Our constant disagreements and rejection of unity have made the Arab nation lose confidence in our sincerity and lose hope."

The two-day summit meeting comes against a tense regional backdrop, with fears high among Arab leaders that a U.S.-led attack on Iran, a non-Arab nation that has refused to comply with UN demands to halt its nuclear program, could further destabilize the region.

Washington's Arab allies are increasingly worried that crises in the Middle East are building up to a point of disaster, with fears of disintegration in Iraq, increasing Iranian power in Iraq and Lebanon, and growing militancy fueled by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Saudi Arabia has taken a leading role in trying to mediate an easing of the tensions, particularly in the peace process. The kingdom brokered the formation of a Palestinian unity government between the moderate Fatah party and the militant group Hamas, hoping it would be able to enter peace talks with Israel and prompt the West to end the financial embargo on the previous Hamas-led government.

Israel, which rejected the Arab peace initiative in 2002, now says it could accept it if it was amended, particularly to water down its provisions calling for a "just solution" to the Palestinian refugees issues.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, toured the region ahead of the summit meeting, trying to build momentum for the peace process and the Arab initiative. Ban spoke Wednesday at the summit talks, calling the initiative "one of the pillars of the peace process" and urging Israel to "take a fresh look at it."

The secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, rejected amending the peace offer, saying, "They tell us to amend it, but we tell them to accept it first, then we can sit down at the negotiating table." But he said Arabs must "do more to convince" the Israelis on the offer.

Although the summit meeting is restarting the peace plan as is, it will create "working groups" to promote the offer in talks with the United States, United Nations and Europe - and perhaps Israel. The summit meeting's final resolution calls on Israel to accept the initiative and "seize this opportunity to resume serious, direct negotiations on all tracks."

Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are hoping that the working groups can work behind the scenes to make the initiative more palatable to Israel and the West. The Jordanian foreign minister, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, told the Arab daily Al-Hayat that there was a "potential" that the working groups could hold direct talks with Israel.

But much depends on the makeup of the working groups, which could be a source of dispute at the summit meeting. Some have spoken of restricting the membership to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. But Syria, which opposed changing the initiative, may also seek to join, fearing it could be sidelined by the moderates.

The European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, a guest at the Riyadh summit meeting, said both sides should show flexibility.

"The important thing is to get the negotiations started," he said. "In any negotiations there are changes in positions, because negotiations are like that."

Mete Çubukçu: K. Irak'tan Kerkük'e

Mete Çubukçu yazdı: K. Irak’tan Kerkük’e

“Ülkenin Sünni ve Şii Arap bölgeleri tam bir çöküş ve iç savaş yaşarken, Iraklı Kürtler sanki başka bir ülkeymişçesine kendi yollunu çiziyor. Ancak bağımsız bir Kürt devletinin sadece kendilerinin inisiyatifinde olmadığını Iraklı Kürtler de biliyor.”

DİĞER HABERLER

Mete Çubukçu

NTV-MSNBC

15 Mart 2007 Perşembe

İSTANBUL - 1991’deki 1. Körfez Savaşı’ndan 2003’e kadar fiili olarak özerk bir yapıda olan Irak Kürt bölgesi -ya da Türkiye’deki yaygın kullanımıyla Kuzey Irak- 2003’teki işgalin ardından 2005 yılında kabul edilen anayasa ile resmi bir yapıya kavuştu. Haberin devamı

Bu yapının ismi Irak Kürdistan bölgesel yönetimi. Anayasa gereği federal bir yapıya sahip olan bölgesel yönetim, merkezi olarak Bağdat’a bağlı ve 275 sandalyeli Irak Ulusal Meclisi’nde KDP, KYB ve Irak Kürdistan İslam Birliği’nden 53 milletvekili ile temsil ediliyorlar. Ayrıca Erbil’deki Kürt Parlamentosu aracılığı ile yerel yasalar yapma ve bölgede politika yapma haklarına sahipler.

Irak Kürt bölgesi, uygulamalarıyla son yıllarda giderek merkezden kopuyor. Bölgenin herhangi bir yerinde Irak bayrağına rastlamanız mümkün değil; çünkü daha önceleri Celal Talabani’nin bölgesinde Irak bayrağı da dalgalanırken, bu bölgesel yönetim lideri Mesud Barzani tarafından yasaklanmış durumda. Her yerde kırmızı- beyaz-yeşil zemin üzerindeki sarı güneşli bayrak dalgalanıyor.

Yıllar öncesinin ‘dağ savaşçıları’ peşmergeler düzenli ordu olma yolunda. Diploma töreni sırasında Kürt bölgesi marşı söyleniyor; askerler öncelikle Irak değil Kürt bölgesini korumakla yükümlü. Kürt bölgesi sınırları içinde petrol arama çalışmaları devam ediyor; çıkarılan petrolün Irak halkının mı yoksa bölge yönetiminin mi olacağı ise hala belli değil.

Ülkenin Sünni ve Şii Arap bölgeleri tam bir çöküş ve iç savaş yaşarken, Iraklı Kürtler sanki başka bir ülkeymişçesine kendi yollunu çiziyor. Erbil ve Süleymaniye büyük bir şantiye gibi. Çoğunluğunu Türk şirketlerinin oluşturduğu şirketler bölgede ihale kovalıyorlar. 300 Türk şirketi ve yaklaşık 15 bin işçi kayıtlı durumda. Tabii ki bunda ABD işgalinin büyük payı var.

Sırtlarını ABD işgaline dayayan Kürtler tarihin bu döneminde yakaladıkları ‘şansı’ iyi değerlendirmek, tarihin kendilerine ‘Amerikan tepsisi’ ile sunduğu bu olanağı değerlendirmek istiyor. Bu görüşü Mesud Barzani dahil olmak üzere bütün Iraklı Kürt yetkililer sürekli ima ediyorlar. Bugünden sonra federal bir Kürt bölgesinden geri dönüş olmadığı biliniyor. Hatta Türkiye’deki asker ve sivil yetkililer de bunu kabullenmiş durumda.

Ancak, asıl ‘kuşku’ Kürt bölgesinin bağımsız bir devlete dönüşmesi konusunda kendini gösteriyor. Bölgenin kaygan zemininde önümüzdeki dönemde neler olacağını bugünden bilmek olanaksız.

Ancak bağımsız bir Kürt devletinin sadece kendilerinin inisiyatifinde olmadığını Iraklı Kürtler de biliyor. Irak’ın geleceğinde, ve özellikle Iraklı Kürtlerin konumunda Türkiye, İran, ve Suriye’nin tavrı belirleyici olacak gibi görünüyor. Iraklı Kürtler, tüm bu belirsizlik içinde, bütün kurumlarıyla geleceğe hazır olmak için var gücüyle çalışıyor.

MECBUREN BAĞDAT
Bütçesinin tamamını Bağdat’tan alan Kürt bölgesi şu an için kendi ayakları üzerinde duramıyor. Yani, Bağdat’tan gelen paralar olmadıkça bütçenin yüzde 68’ini oluşturan memur maaşları bile ödenemiyor. Ya da, Bağdat ödemeleri biraz geciktirdiği zaman kriz başlıyor, halk homurdanıyor.

Buna rağmen 3 milyonluk Kürt bölgesinde hummalı bir yeniden yapılanma çalışması var. Gelirler KDP ve KYB’nin üst düzey yöneticilerinin akrabalık ilişkilerinden oluşan yönetici kastının süzgecinden geçtikten sonra bölüşülüyor. Özellikle KDP ve KYB’nin akrabalık ilişkileri paylaşılan gelirler milyonlarca dolarlık ‘saraycıklara’ dönüşmüş durumda. Bir dönem Saddam Hüseyin’in saraylarını eleştirenler sanki onu ‘örnek’ alıyor.

Irak petrollerini 30 yıl boyunca yabancı şirketlerin hizmetine veren ‘yarı sömürge’ anlaşmasından sonra Kürtler, her yıl bu gelirin % 17’sine sahip olacak. Bu da önemli bir zenginlik kaynağı. Ancak bölgede tek bir fabrika ya da üretime dönük tesis yok. İşte bu nedenle bağımsızlık arzusuna rağmen Iraklı Kürtler şimdilik Bağdat’taki merkezi yönetime göbekten bağlılar. Bu yüzden Kerkük, Iraklı Kürtler için farklı bir anlam taşıyor ve Kürt yönetimi de tüm enerjisini Kasım ayında Kerkük’te yapılması planlanan referandum için harcıyor.

KERKÜK MÜ PETROL MÜ?
Türkmenler tarihi olarak Kerkük’ün bir Türkmen kenti, Kürtler ise Kerkük’ün Kürdistan’ın tarihi sınırları içinde olduğunu iddia ediyorlar. Kerkük bir Türkmen kenti. Ancak, bazı Osmanlı ve İngiliz haritalarına göre, 1700-1800’lü yıllarda Kürdistan sınırları içinde bulunuyor. Tarih tartışmasının Kerkük sorununa bugün için çözüm getirmesi çok zor.

Ancak, Türkmenlere göre Kürtlerin Kerkük konusunda bu kadar ısrarcı olmalarının altında yatan neden, dünyanın zengin yataklarından biri olan petrol. Kerkük petrollerinin denetiminin sadece Kürtlere verilmesi ise çok zor. Bu Irak’taki Şii ve Sünni grupların büyük tepkisini çekeceği gibi ABD’nin çıkarlarına uymuyor.

Ancak, bu noktada devreye ‘tarihin bu dönemecinde yakalanan fırsat’ devreye giriyor. Yani Iraklı Kürtler petrolü kontrol edemeyecek olsalar da referandum sonucu Kerkük’ün kendi sınırları içinde olduğunun tescilini istiyorlar. Çünkü bu tescil edildiği takdirde, Irak ve Birleşmiş Milletler belgelerine gireceğinden, ileride ellerinin güçlü olacağını ve geriye dönüşün olmayacağının bilincindeler.

Hungary chooses Gazprom over EU

Hungary chooses Gazprom over EU
As the European Union struggles to achieve a common energy security policy, the Socialist-led government of Hungary has broken with the bloc by joining forces with Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, to extend a pipeline from Turkey to Hungary.

The joint project would compete directly with an EU plan to construct its own pipeline to reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies.

Starting in Turkey and crossing Bulgaria and Romania, the extended Gazprom pipeline, called Blue Stream, would follow almost the same route as the EU project, cost just as much and be finished at about the same time.

The immediate advantage to Hungary in joining the Russian project was unclear, because Budapest could end up contributing to the construction of competing pipelines.

The opposition in Hungary claims that Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany, who leads the former Communist Party and has close ties to President Vladimir Putin of Russia, supports Gazprom's strategy to expand its influence in central and southeastern Europe.

The Hungarian Economy Ministry, however, says that the country has ambitions to become a major energy hub in central Europe and that the Blue Stream project, with access to more Russian natural gas, would further this aim.

Gyurcsany said in an interview that because the EU project, known as Nabucco, had experienced significant delays and could face further problems, the Russian plan was more realistic.

When completed, at the earliest in 2011, the €5 billion, or $6.6 billion, Nabucco project would benefit all the bloc's 27 members and carry at least 30 billion cubic meters, or 1 trillion cubic feet, of natural gas a year to the Union. Currently, more than a quarter of the Union's gas, or 150 billion cubic meters, is imported annually from Russia.

"Which of these two pipelines exists?" asked Gyurcsany, whose company joined the Union in 2004. The Blue Stream line already runs under the Black Sea to Turkey.

"The Nabucco has been a long dream and an old plan," he said. "But we don't need dreams. We need projects."

"The single problem with Nabucco is that we cannot see when we will have gas from it," Gyurcsany said. "If someone could say to me definitively, you would have gas by a certain time, fine, but you can only heat the apartments with gas and not with dreams."

Andris Piebalgs, the Union's energy commissioner, said the Nabucco pipeline would transport natural gas across from the Caspian region, mostly from Azerbaijan to Turkey. It would then be sent through Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary and finally to Austria. These transit countries have established a consortium for the Nabucco pipeline.

Gyurcsany said Hungary would support Russian plans to extend the Blue Stream pipeline into central Europe despite its being a member of the Nabucco consortium.

"Blue Stream is backed by a very strong will and a very strong organizational power," Gyurcsany said. "And there is capacity behind it." The cost of extending the Blue Stream pipeline to Hungary would be €5 billion, according to the Hungarian Economy Ministry.

The Blue Stream pipeline is one of the world's deepest undersea pipelines. But because of low compression and other technical problems it pumps less than three billion cubic meters of gas a year, well below the total of regional needs. It was built to supplement Gazprom lines through other countries, including Ukraine and Belarus.

Once the Russian natural gas arrives in Hungary through the Blue Stream line, it is to be either sold to other European countries or stored in facilities that Gazprom recently acquired.

Gyurcsany said he still wanted Hungary to diversify its energy supplies. Hungary depends almost completely on Russia for natural gas.

Fidesz, the main opposition party in Hungary, said Gyurcsany was making the country even more dependent on Russia by teaming up with Gazprom.

"I would be most thankful if we could diversify our supplies," Gyurcsany said. "I can hardly overestimate the risk that Hungary runs. Any prime minister would be a fool if he did not want to diversify or if he bound himself to one supplier. But chasing dreams is also foolish instead of building on realities."

Janos Koko, the Hungarian economy minister, said he saw no inconsistency in the Hungarian position because it would lead to competition. "We also want to diversify our energy supplies," he said. "Over 80 percent of our gas comes from Russia. There are two competing projects. But Nabucco is more imagination than tangible. I would like to see a stronger Nabucco."

The EU agreed to speed up the construction of the 3,000-kilometer, or 1,900-mile Nabucco pipeline after an energy dispute between Russia and Ukraine in January 2006 that led to shortages of natural gas in some EU countries. Piebalgs said the Nabucco pipeline would "concretely contribute to energy security."

The pipeline has been subject to many delays, not least because of uncertainty over whether it would be able to ship natural gas from Iran. Iran is now subject to UN sanctions because it refuses to halt its uranium enrichment program.

There also have been problems with financing the project. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which advocates competition in the energy sector as well as diversification, agreed last year to finance 70 percent of Nabucco's construction costs.

Australia and Japan sign agreement on security

Australia and Japan sign agreement on security

The Associated Press
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

TOKYO: Japan and Australia signed a security agreement on Tuesday to improve an increasingly close defense relationship, while the leaders of the two countries played down concerns that the pact was directed specifically at China or other countries in the region.

Under the joint declaration signed Tuesday by Prime Minister John Howard of Australia and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, Japanese forces will train alongside Australians for disaster relief and peacekeeping missions.

The pact also calls for cooperation between the two countries in counterterrorism measures and intelligence sharing.

"Prime Minister Howard and I agreed that the joint declaration offers a framework for concretely stepping up security ties between our two countries," Abe told reporters at a press conference held after the signing.

The declaration is a "further mark of the trust and cooperation between us," Howard added.

The two countries' security ties have vastly improved since Australian troops provided security for a Japanese aid mission consisting of about 600 troops in the southern Iraqi city of Samawa. The noncombat mission ended in July.

China has raised concerns that the Australia-Japan security pact was negotiated in secret; it fears the agreement is aimed at containing China's power in the region.

But Howard dismissed those concerns after the signing.

"This declaration lifts the security aspects of our relationship more closely to the level of our economic and commercial ties," Howard told reporters. "Neither China nor any other country in the region should see this declaration as being antagonistic toward them."

Howard, who had dined earlier in the day with Japanese business leaders, and Abe also agreed that negotiations on a free trade pact to begin next month should be undertaken with "sensitivity" toward areas of concern to both sides.

In particular, Howard noted the importance Japan places on its agriculture industry and expressed his "appreciation" that Tokyo was willing to discuss all elements of its concern.

"Japan has been Australia's largest export market," Howard said.

"Given the diversity of our two countries' economies and the interest in a free trade pact," there is much to be gained, Howard said.

The trade agreement would "have major merits in that it will ensure a stable supply to Japan of resources, energy and food," Abe said. "But we both have to be mindful of sensitivities. For Japan, we must attach importance to agriculture."

Japan is already the biggest buyer of Australian exports, and two-way trade in goods and services between the countries was worth about ¥4.07 trillion, or $34.7 billion, during the 2005- 2006 business year.

Australia mainly exports coal, natural gas and beef and buys Japanese motor vehicles and machinery.

The two men, meanwhile, sidestepped a question about whether Japan should apologize anew for wartime atrocities.

"We must of course always have consideration for the past in mind, but at the same time we want to advance the legacy of trust we have built up in the 60 years since the war to contribute to world peace," Abe told reporters.

Howard echoed Abe's sentiments.

"We don't forget the past, but we need also to look to the future and build on a commitment to put the past behind," he said.

Abe triggered outrage across Asia earlier this month by saying there was no proof that women — including some Australians — were coerced into prostitution.

He later said Japan would not apologize again for the military's "comfort stations." A senior Japanese official apologized in 1993 for the government's role, but the apology was not approved by Parliament.

Chinese officials reiterated on Tuesday that Beijing did not pose a military threat to the region and said that more should be done to boost trust throughout Asia.

"We hope what they've said is true," a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said at a news conference, referring to Japanese and Australian assurances.

"In the meantime, we are not going to invade or pose a threat to anybody," Qin said.

Whose oil is it, anyway?

Whose oil is it, anyway?
Antonia Juhasz
SAN FRANCISCO:Today more than three-quarters of the world's oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn't always this way.

Until about 35 years ago, the world's oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.

They are among the world's largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.

Iraq's oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list.

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would — if passed — go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The law would take the majority of Iraq's oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force), which included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve.

It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq's economy, democracy and sovereignty.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president's benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al- Maliki, a fact that Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, General William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.

The administration has highlighted the law's revenue-sharing plan, under which the central Iraqi government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis.

But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law's many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq's oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.

The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.

The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current "instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.

The vast majority of Iraq's oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country's economic development.

The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry's preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq's draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world's oil.

Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.

Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.

Iraq's five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting "the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people."

They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.

The Brotherhood is gathering outside the pharaoh's palace

The brotherhood is gathering outside the pharaoh's palace
Timothy Garton Ash

The Mubarak regime is heading for a succession crisis. By trying to strangle Egypt's Islamists, it has strengthened them Timothy Garton Ash in AswanThursday March 8, 2007The Guardian
In front of the towering golden sandstone entrance to the temple of Edfu stands an imposing granite statue of a falcon, some 12ft tall, representing Horus, a premier league Egyptian god. Sculpted into his chest is a small figure of one of the Greek rulers of Egypt at the time when the temple was built. To buttress his political legitimacy, the alien neo-pharaoh had not merely wrapped himself in the flag but carved himself into the stone of a powerful god. The rulers of Egypt have been playing this game for thousands of years - and they are at it again today.
More than three millennia before the birth of Christ, when ancient Britons were still wandering the primal forests in skins, behaving like proleptic football thugs, the first dynasty of the pharaohs had already built a unified kingdom down the valley of the Nile, and they were treated as demi-gods. Later they presented themselves as children and intimates of the sun-god Ra, of Isis and Osiris, and of their divine offspring, the falcon-headed god Horus.
Gods were great for keeping you in power, but they were also fungible. Over the centuries, as the politics changed, there were god-mergers and corporate god-takeovers. Luxor luminary Amun and sun-god Ra merged to become Amun-Ra, a strong new brand. The Ptolemaic successors of Alexander the Great promoted Serapis, a deliberate blending of Greek and Egyptian gods. At the Graeco-Roman temple of Philae, you see a mother and child image sculpted on the walls of the sanctuary, but the face of the mother has been chiselled away. In a Christian time, Isis was thus crudely rebranded Mary, turning the falcon-god Horus into Jesus.
Later, there was Allah, of course, and his messenger Muhammad. For the 19th-century Albanian-born Muhammad Ali Pasha, the new divinity was European-style modernity. For Napoleon and Lord Cromer there were the western gods of progress and civilisation, carried by the bayonet and the Gatling gun. For Nasser, the architect of post-colonial Egypt, there was pan-Arabism but also socialism, with added Islam.
Now they're changing gods again at the pharaoh's palace. Twenty-six years into the reign of President Mubarak, amendments are proposed to the constitution. Article 1, instead of reading "the Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic, socialist state based on an alliance of the working forces of the people", is to say simply "the Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic state, based on citizenship...". Socialism is being excised like the face of Isis at Philae. References to it are to be removed from nine other articles of the constitution.
Despite the opposition of secular and Coptic Christian politicians, article 2 will continue to describe Sharia as "the principal source" for Egyptian legislation. At the same time, by banning both political parties based on religion and independent candidates in presidential elections, the president's ruling National Democratic party aims to keep its principal enemy, the outlawed but popular Muslim Brotherhood, out of any future competition for legal political power. So it tries to embrace Islam while fighting Islamism.
Politics, seen from this perspective of 5,000 years of Egyptian history, is something very different from what you find in US civics textbooks. It's not about the installation of this or that logically and legally constructed political system, based on this or that ideology. It's about rulers borrowing, bending and merging gods, ideologies and legal systems, adapting to internal and external forces, mixing coercion and patronage, sharing some of the spoils where necessary, but always with the goal of maximising your own power and wealth, and hanging on to it for as long as possible - for yourself, and your children, and your children's children. Those who take the legitimating religion or ideology too seriously - be it Osirisism or socialism - are missing the point. The gods come and go; what endures over the millenia is men's lust for power and wealth, and their vain quest for immortality.
Which brings us back to the regime of President Hosni Mubarak, who is 78 years old. Although he has been re-elected until 2011, a succession crisis - that bane of all authoritarian regimes - is looming. One thing that brought people onto the streets in the Kifaya (Enough!) protest movement, during the run-up to the presidential election in 2005, was the prospect that he might be grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, to succeed him. "Despite the police, no to extension, no to succession!" chanted the veteran leftwing activist Kamal Khalil. "Oh, Egypt," he continued, "you still have a palace, you still have slums, tell those who live on Orouba [a boulevard in a neighbourhood with many grand houses, including the president's residence] that we live 10 to one room."
For now, President Mubarak has seen off the Kifaya movement and, as I reported last week, he has also seen off the short-lived US pressure for rapid democratisation. The military, police and security service foundations of his rule seem as solid as the mighty pylons of the temple at Karnak. (They also render valuable services to the Pentagon, including extensive overflight facilities and the nasty business of extraordinary rendition.) He has a rather impressive prime minister, Dr Ahmed Nazif, a computer scientist by education, who described to me his government's push to integrate Egypt into the global economy. They are lowering barriers to trade and investment, and achieved growth of more than 5% last year. Gamal Mubarak, who holds an MBA and used to work for the Bank of America, is one of the driving forces behind the government's new free market agenda. But the economic benefits will only trickle down to the poor, if at all, in the longer term, while the costs will be felt sooner - for example, in the reduction of state subsidies for petrol and household fuel.
For many of those who live 10 to one room in the poorer quarters of Cairo, the great myth remains that of the Muslim Brotherhood, with its brilliantly simple slogan "Islam is the solution". So long as it is banned, the Brotherhood does not need to demonstrate how exactly Islam is the solution. It can hardly be expected to produce detailed, specific policies, let alone to deliver on them. In fact, the Mubarak regime is performing the Brotherhood a great service by continuing to persecute it. Trying to strangle Islamism, it feeds its growth. And the secular left-wing and Coptic Christian oppositionists, to whom I have talked, feel themselves caught between the devil and the deep green sea. (Green as in the colour of Islam.) On many cultural issues, including women's rights, they actually regard the Mubarak regime as the lesser evil.
Whatever happens in the transition from Hosni Mubarak over the next decade - whether we get President Mubarak II, or a candidate supported by the military, or someone else - I would bet on one thing: the Islamic component in the legitimating god-mix of Egyptian politics is likely to grow stronger, not weaker. If you find that worrying, I can suggest only one faint consolation: in time, it will pass. The process may take decades, but one day Islamism, too, will join the 5,000-year line of the gods that failed.· www.timothygartonash.com

Generals says Iraq talks critical

General says Iraq talks critical
Gen Petraeus was confident violence could be reduced General's comments The top US general in Iraq says the military alone cannot provide a solution to the country's conflict.
Gen David Petraeus, in his first news conference since taking the command last month, said it was critical that alienated groups be brought into talks.
He said the new Baghdad security drive had had some "tough days" but he was confident violence could be reduced.
He was speaking after the US defence secretary approved an extra 2,200 military police to aid the crackdown.
Gen Petraeus said: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq.
"Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect."
In recent days Shia pilgrims were killed in a barbaric manner by thugs with no soul, but the pilgrims continue to march Gen David Petraeus
He said some groups "who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them" would have to be engaged in talks.
The new Baghdad offensive involves US and Iraqi forces, thousands of whom are already on the ground, sweeping the city for militants and illegally held weapons.
Gen Petraeus said: "It's too early to discern significant trends, but there have been a few encouraging signs."
However he admitted "sensational attacks inevitably will continue".
BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says that despite the scale of the new Baghdad drive, there simply are not enough US troops to prevent the violence shifting to other areas.
Our correspondent says that privately US officials believe it will not be possible to judge whether the surge has worked until all the troops have arrived in the summer and, if it does not, there will be few options remaining.
Gen Petraeus said it was essential to tackle the sectarian violence that has flared between Sunni and Shia Muslims since an attack on a key Shia shrine in Samarra just over a year ago.
He said US and Iraqi forces must "control the demons responsible for the vicious sectarian violence of the past year - demons who have torn at the very fabric of Iraqi society".
The general detailed the measures taken jointly by US and Iraqi forces to secure Baghdad's neighbourhoods.
He said the aim was not just to secure areas of the capital, but to hold them and help to improve the provision of basic services.
The general also denounced as "thugs with no soul" the recent attackers of Shia pilgrims. On Tuesday, more than 100 people died when suicide bombers targeted a crowd of pilgrims in the town of Hilla.
Nerves 'jangling'
On Wednesday US Defence Secretary Robert Gates approved the general's request for an extra 2,200 military police to support the security drive in Baghdad.
Mr Gates said the deployment would be in addition to the nearly 24,000 combat troops and support personnel approved by President George W Bush.
The BBC's James Westhead says the new troop allocation will set nerves jangling in Washington.
Congressional sources on Wednesday said Democrats were planning to propose legislation requiring US troops to return from Iraq by the second half of next year or sooner if Iraq's government failed to meet security goals.
The legislation could be tied to the $100bn ($52bn) funding request by the Bush administration for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, the sources said.

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6429519.stmPublished: 2007/03/08 11:56:00 GMT

AK PARTİ TÜRK DIŞ POLİTİKASI VE BİR AKIL KAYMASI

AK PARTİ, TÜRK DIŞ POLİTİKASI VE BİR AKIL KAYMASI
Sernur Yassıkaya

Türkiye 2007 yılında iki önemli seçimi yaşıyacak. Mayıs ayındaki Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri ve Kasım 2007’de düzenlenmesi büyük ihtimal olan (ki Eylül 2007’de düzenleneceğine dönük tartışmalara da rastlanmaktadır) Genel Seçimler sadece Türk kamuoyu’nun değil dünya kamuoyunu da meşgul etmektedir. Acaba Türkiye’nin seçimler sonrası iç ve dış politikası ne gibi bir pozisyon alacak? AB-Türkiye ilişkileri nasıl gelişecek? Başbakan Recep Tayyib Erdoğan’ın Cumhurbaşkanı olması durumunda AK Parti’nin Genel Seçimlerdeki pozisyonu ve yeni seçimlerdeki oy oranı nasıl etkilenecek? Tüm bu sorular biraz da ön yargılarla beslenerek dış basında da yer ediniyor. İlginç olan o dur ki bazı gözlemciler, objektif gözlem yetisini kaybederek varolmayan bir durumu varmış gibi dış basında aksettirmeye çalışmasıdır. Bu yazı da yukarıda bahsettiğim konuların paralelinde içeriğe sahip Bitterlemons’da yayınlanan bir söyleşiden bahsedeceğim. Söz konusu söyleşi Neo-Con bir düşünce kuruluşu olan Washington Institute’un Türkiye Direktörü Dr. Soner Çağaptay ile yapılmıştır.

Söyleşi de Çağaptay Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri öncesinde ABD Kongresine sunulan Ermeni tasarısının oylanacağına dikkat çekiyor. Bilindiği üzere bu tasarı şu an Türk-ABD ilişkileri açısından özellikle Türkiye’deki ultra ulusalcı kesim için olmak ya da olmamak meselesi olarak görülmektedir. Söz konusu tasarının bu haliyle Kongreye gelmesi durumunda Çağaptay Türkiye’deki milliyetçi duyguların daha da kabaracağını ve hiçbir adayın bunu görmemezlikten gelemeyeceğini belirtiyor. Ayrıca Bahar aylarında PKK’ya düzenlenecek bir sınır ötesi , nokta hedeflere yönelik düzenlenmesi muhtemel, operasyonunun AK Parti’ye Genel seçimler öncesi önemli puan kazandıracağının altını çiziyor.

Ancak benim Çağaptay’ın söylemleri ile ilgili üstünde durmak istediğim konu, Çağaptay’ın AK Partiyi ABD ile ilişkilerin soğuması ve Türkiye’nin “Batı” yönelimli dış politikasının yön değiştirmesinin asli sorumlusu olarak göstermesidir. Bu problematik ve birçok gerçeği göz ardı eden düşünce tarzını eleştirmemek elde değil. Çağaptay’a göre AK Parti iktidarı ile Türkiye’nin dış politikadaki yönü Batı’dan Ortadoğu’ya dönmüş durumda. Büyük bir safsata ve vizyon körlüğü! Çağaptay’a göre “laik” bir parti iktidarda olsaydı hem ABD ile ilişkiler daha iyi bir durumda olacak hem de Batı’ya yönelim sekteye uğramayacaktır. Türkiye’de Çağaptay’a göre hangi “laik” parti ABD ile ilişkileri geliştirecek ti, CHP mi DYP mi MHP mi yoksa “hayal kur büyük olsun” partisi Genç Parti mi? Hepimiz tüm CHP kademelerinin hatta ona sempati duyan eski bürokratların ABD’ye yönelik söylemlerini izlemekteyiz. Aynı kadroların AB’ye yönelik sert söylemleri de zihnimizin bir köşesinde. 1 Mart tezkeresinin en büyük sorumlusu CHP değil midir? ABD’ye her fırsatta bir müttefikten bahseder şekilde değil de, Türkiye’yi bölmek isteyen bir güçmüş gibi bahseden CHP değil midir? Bugün CHP iktidar olsaydı, Türkiye’de özgürleşmeye, zenginliğe doğru atılan adımların hangisi atılırdı? CHP iktidar olsaydı biz hala AB’ye üyelik adaylığından bahsediyor olacaktık. Türkiye’deki milliyetçi dalgayı her fırsatta sertleştirmeye çalına CHP midir yoksa AK Parti midir? Kimilerine göre AK Parti iktidarının en büyük destekçisi ABD değil midir?

Çağaptay’a göre Türkiye’deki güçlü milli kimliğin altında bir “İslami gurur” yapılanması varmış. Bunun da sebebi AK Parti olabilir mi? Gülme seslerinizi duyuyor gibiyim. Hepimiz bildiği gibi, bu his yeni bir şey değil ki, bu toprakların bin yıllık harcında bu gurur saklıdır. Ve bunu her adımda hissetmek mümkündür. Bugün Fatih Sultan Mehmet’le gurur duymayan Türk olabilir mi? Bunu yeni bir şeymiş gibi sunmak için herhalde Washington’da ikamet etmek gerekmektedir...

ABD’nin Ortadoğu’yu özellikle Irak’ı bir cehennem çukuruna çevirmesi, her şeyi en iyi ben bilirim edasıyla başladıkları dış politika macerasında, Bush Yönetiminin, cam eşya dükkanına girmiş fil misali her hareketiyle bir yeri kırıyorken, bu toprakların imparatorluk bakiyesi duygulara sahip olan Türk kamuoyunun alkışlamasını beklemek iyimserlik olurdu! Bu coğrafyanın insanlarına her gün görülen insanlık dışı muameleyi gördükçe, Babil’in, Harun Reşid’in Bağdat’ının yandığını hissettikçe elbette bu toprakların vicdanı insanımız tepki gösterecektir. Türkiye’yi kamuoyunun baskı altında tutulduğu Ürdün, Mısır gibi ülkelerle karıştırmamak gerekir. Buna rağmen bu ülkelerde ABD’yi onaylama oranları ancak % 12’lerde seyrediyor. Washington’dan bakıp ta görememe hastalığı anlaşılan sayın Çağaptay’a da sirayet etmiş. Soner Çağaptay ve benzeri düşünce sahipleri artık anlamalı ki Washington dahi küresel gelişmelere Batı ekseninde bakmazken, Türkiye gibi ateş çemberinin ortasındaki bir ülkenin dış politikasını sadece Batı’ya endeksleyerek yönetmesi mümkün değildir. Türkiye AK Parti iktidarı ile bugün hiç olmadığı kadar Afrika’yla, Ortadoğu’yla, hatta Asya ile ilgilenmek durumundadır. Dünyamızın küreselleştiğinden bahsederken, dış politikayı tek bir boyuta indirgemek mümkün değildir. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk gerektiğinde Sadabad Paktını kurmuştur. Atatürk bu paktı kurmakla Batı medeniyetlerini geçme, Batılılaşma iddiasından vazgeçmiş midir? Elbette hayır. O halde elmalarla armutları karıştırmamak gerektir.

Türkiye, AK Parti hükümetleri döneminde hiçbir Türkiye Cumhuriyeti hükümetinin atmadığı adımlar atarak AB’ye üye olma sürecine girmiştir. Özgürleşme ve Zenginleşme yolunda hiç umulmadık adımlar atılmıştır. Önemli Türkiye uzmanlarından Philip Robins’in de ifade ettiği gibi Kasım 2007 sonrası ortaya çıkacak yine etkili bir AK Parti çoğunluğu 2008-2010 dönemini Türkiye için yeni bir reformlar yılı haline dönüştürebilir.

ABD’den her gün bir yetkili hatta İsrailliler bir Ortadoğu ülkesini ziyaret ederken, Türkiye’nin yanı başındaki bölgeye ilgi göstermemesi mümkün müdür? Böyle bir düşünce olsa olsa Türkiye’yi Ortadoğu politikalarından soyutlamak ve onu etkisiz bir aktör haline getirmek isteyenlerin işine yarayacaktır. Nasıl bir denklemdir ki Türkiye’nin Ortadoğu politikalarında aktif rol almak istemesi, rejimin laik temellerinin tehdit edilmesi sonucunu doğurmakta, AK Parti’ye İslamcı nitelikler kazandırmaktadır. O halde Çin, Rusya, AB ülkeleri hatta ABD Türkiye’den daha fazla İslamileşme tehlikesiyle karşı karşıyadır. Bush ailesi’nin Suud hanedanıyla yakın ilişkisi onları sakın Vahabi yapmasın!

Sayın Çağaptay’ın artık Washington Institute gözlüğünü çıkararak, Türkiye perspektifli bir bakış açısı geliştirmesinde fayda vardır. Korkarım ki eğer bu söylem tarzını devam ettirirse, Türkiye masası direktörlüğü ona fazla geniş gelecektir. Çünkü Türkiye seksenli hatta doksanlı yılların Türkiye’si değildir tıpkı yaşadığımız dünyanın olmadığı gibi...

Hoşgeldiniz

Bu blog'da sizinle ilgimi çeken uluslararası gelişmeleri ve Türk dış politikası ile ilgili haberleri ayrıca kendi yorumlarımı paylaşacağım.