Iraq War, Budget Pressures Squeeze Aid for Poor Nations

Fri Jan 28, 2005 -10:57 AM ET

Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan 28 (OneWorld) – Even as the Bush administration
refutes charges by critics that U.S. aid to poor nations is miserly
compared to the contributions of other wealthy countries, it appears
to be quietly rolling back its previous commitments to increase
development assistance by 50 percent beginning next year.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the website for the Bush
administration’s new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)–an innovative
program designed to substantially increase aid going to poor countries
that are implementing far-reaching political and economic reforms–has
been updated to erase a reference to his 2002 pledge to provide it
with US$5 billion by next October 1, the first day of the fiscal year.

Last Friday, according to the Journal, the website of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC)–which administers the MCA–noted that
“President Bush has pledged to increase funding to $5 billion a year
starting in FY06,” roughly a 50% increase over current U.S. core
development assistance.

This week, the MCC site now reads: “The president has pledged to
increase funding for the MCA to $5 billion in the future.”

Bush made his original pledge in the spring of 2002 at the UN’s
development aid conference in Monterey, Mexico where he said, “there
are no second class citizens in the human race. I carry this
commitment in my soul.”

MCC officials said they were informed by the White House’s Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) that, instead of the $5 billion request
they were expecting, Bush intended to ask for only $3 billion when he
submits his FY06 budget proposal to Congress after delivering his
State of the Union Address early next month.

As noted by the Journal, even if Congress funds Bush’s full request,
the MCA will still be $4.5 billion short of the total amount the
administration promised to provide over the program’s first three
years of operation. So far, Congress has provided only $2.5 billion to
the MCA, about 40 percent less than what Bush had originally proposed.

“From what we hear, the president appears to be stepping back from his
promise to fully fund (the MCA),” Mary McClymont, president of
Interaction–a coalition of 160 U.S. aid groups–told the Journal.

The cuts–and the effort to obscure them–come less than a month after
the U.S. was strongly criticized for initially pledging $15 million in
disaster relief for the December 26 tsunami disaster that took as many
as 200,000 lives in the Indian Ocean region.

Stung by one UN official’s observation that wealthy countries in
general had been “stingy” with aid to poor countries, the
administration raised its commitment to $350 million, an amount it
doubled this past week. The episode, however, drew renewed attention
to the fact that, of the world’s 21 biggest donors, the United States
ranks 19th in the amount of development aid it provides as a
percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP )–or only 0.15 percent.

Bush has in fact tried to increase that percentage through the MCA and
a five-year $10 billion emergency program to fight AIDS ,
tuberculosis, and malaria in 15 mainly African nations. But the
increase is not enough to significantly alter Washington’s low
ranking, particularly compared to the Nordic and Benelux countries of
Europe whose per capita GDP aid contributions are five or six times
greater.

Meanwhile, in a major report released earlier this month, economist
Jeffrey Sachs, director of the UN’s Millennium Project, warned that
poor countries would not be able to reach the “Millennium Development
Goals” (MDGs)–among them, halving the number of people living in
absolute poverty and hunger by 2015–without a doubling of development
assistance from the world’s wealthy countries.

At the same time, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is calling for the
world’s wealthiest nations to commit themselves to a global Marshall
Plan that would provide the world’s poorest nations with the resources
they need to achieve the MDGs on time, as agreed to by the world’s
leaders at the Millennium Summit in 2000.

“Time is running out for millions living in poverty and rich countries
must act now,” noted Katia Maia of the international development
agency Oxfam at the World Social Summit in Porto Alegre, Brazil
Thursday. “It is absolutely shameful that at the start of the 21st
century, more than a billion people are living in abject poverty, and
more than 100 million children don’t go to primary school.”

In this context, any retreat from previous public commitments to
increase aid is particularly damaging. Development groups and
activists argue that Bush has sufficient political capital to fulfill
his promise if he were as devoted to doing so as he is to other
priorities–such as the Iraq war for which he just asked Congress to
approve $80 billion in a supplemental appropriation for FY05.

“Bush’s ‘compassionate conservatism’, it turns out, is really
‘compassionate charades’,” noted Salih Booker, director of Africa
Action. The organization has called for Bush to increase aid to Africa
and support comprehensive debt relief for the poorest nations of the
region as proposed by Blair’s government. “The sad reality is that
2005 risks being another year of compassionate showmanship rather than
a year of sea change.”

Eight low-income African countries are among the 15 nations worldwide
whose record on fighting corruption, implementing market reforms,
respecting human rights, and fighting absolute poverty and disease
make them eligible for MCA assistance.

Countries that meet these criteria include Armenia, Benin, Bolivia,
Cape Verde, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and

PRESS RELEASE
Wales-Armenia Solidarity
Contact: E. Williams
Cardiff, Wales
Tel: 07870267447
Email: [email protected]

Wales-Armenia Solidarity

Uk government recognises the Armenian Genocide by the “back-door”

For the first time ever, an UK government web-site has referred to the
“Armenian Genocide” and “Armenian Holocaust”

This was in the official Holocaust Memorial Day web-site, with
reference to the Commemmoration in Cardiff, Wales of the
Commemmoration of the Armenian and Jewish Holocausts at the Temple of
Peace, Cardiff on 26th January. Taking part was the First Minister if
the National Assembly of Wales, Rhodri Morgan.

This might be the way of testing the water by the British government,
who are fearful of debating the matter in full view of the media, but
are hoping for a gradual softening by the Turks on the issue. It seems
that they are happily allowing Wales to take the moral lead, seeing
what the Turkish response will be.

During the meeting,Jenny Randerson, a senior figure in the Welsh
Liberal Democrats and a former minister in the Assembly government
conveyed that she was astonished at the sustained pressure to which
she was subjected since speaking out on the Genocide issue in 2001.We
are proud that she has not wavered once in her support.

We can assume that those in the pay of Turkish authorities are
putting similar pressure on our prime minister Rhodri Morgan. We call
on Armenians world-wide to send messages of support for the
Recognition of the Genocide by the National Assembly for Wales to
[email protected] and [email protected] to
counter this menace.

OSCE MISSION DOES NOT KNOW WHOM IT WILL MEET, AND WHAT ESTIMATION WILL
IT GIVE TO SITUATION IN “THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES”

YEREVAN, JANUARY 29. ARMINFO. To establish facts of creation of
Armenian settlement in the occupied Azerbaijani territories round
Nagorny Karabakh, the OSCE Mission intends to ascertain whether there
are people in the mentioned territories, where are they from, when and
in what connection, on their initiative or not. Russian Cochairman of
th OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov informed journalists in Yerevan on
behalf of the cochairmen of the OSCE MG.

According to him, the routes of the visit have been worked out, and
Sunday morning members of the delegation will leave for Stepanakert,
and from there within a week they will visit all the districts every
day. Commenting on the aforementioned terminology, in particular,
answering the question on the status of the territories was formulated
as “occupied” Merzlyakov mentioned it’s a translation from English. At
the same time he mentioned he does not know other Russian word.

Answering the question on how will be the estimation of the mission in
the case if Armenians, former citizens of Azerbaijan, were found, who
left their residences forcedly, Merzlyakov mentioned he is not a
supporter to forecast, “whom we shall meet there, and what the
estimation will be”. In this connection he also reminded that the
cochairmen are not a member of the group and the issue concerns the
members of the mission, and the cochairmen lead them. As regards the
visit to the districts of Aghdam and Fizuli, occupied by Karabakh
forces, Merzlyakov said that the mission has planned to visit these
districts, and the information on that the Azerbaijani side does not
insist on their visit, was not true. “Later Azerbaijani party made a
statement, I think, it was Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan
Mr. Araz Azimov, saying that “we had no materials concerning these two
districts, now we possess them and we shall hand over it to the leader
of the group”. There were such plans, that’s why we did not change our
plans – 7 districts, Merzlyakov said.

Answering the question on whether the mission’s members plan to visit
also the North Karabakh, Merzlyakov noted that, in his opinion, it is
an absolutely separate question. He also informed that during the
meetings in Baku the members of OSCE delegation were given documents
and photos. Merzlyakov reminded that this co-chairs’ visit to the
region is not usual and regular. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are in
the region not to discuss the issues on settlement of Nagorny Karabakh
conflict. He refused to comment on the PACE resolution adopted
recently. Merzlyakov introduced journalists with new French
co-chairman of OSCE MG Bernar Fassier and the Head of OSCE mission
Emily Haber, the Director of OSCE Department of Foreign Ministry of
Federal Republic of Germany.

Bush-Putin meeting to form new policy on Karabakh problem – Azeri ex-minister

Yeni Azarbaycan, Baku
26 Jan 05

Azerbaijan’s former foreign minister has said the USA’s policy on the
South Caucasus will undergo fundamental changes under the new US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In his interview with the
pro-government newspaper Yeni Azarbaycan, Tofiq Zulfuqarov said that
the USA now realizes that the “frozen” conflicts are hampering
economic development, as well as social and political reforms in the
region. Zulfuqarov added that US President George W. Bush and Russian
President Vladimir Putin will adopt a new policy on the settlement of
the conflicts in the South Caucasus during their forthcoming meeting
in Bratislava. The following is the text of Rufat Ahmad’s report by
Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Azarbaycan on 26 January headlined “Neither
the USA, nor Russia are happy with the situation in the South
Caucasus” and subheaded “America insists on resolving the
conflicts”. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:

The White House is not happy with Russia’s position on the frozen
conflicts in the South Caucasus. The US stand has become even tougher
since the former national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, took
over as secretary of state. The Bush administration’s serious
criticism of Russia over the last week has become even harsher in
Rice’s statements. She said that the no war no peace situation in the
region poses a serious threat to the development of democracy.

On the other hand, the fact that the Kremlin has come under criticism
ahead of the Bush-Putin meeting in Bratislava next month has given
political analysts serious food for thought. The discussions on the
South Caucasus between the two world centres of power will help
improve the situation in any case, because Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov who commented on Rice’s critical remarks has said that
his country is ready to hear constructive criticism.

What kind of effect can Rice’s statement have on the situation in the
South Caucasus? We asked Azerbaijan’s former foreign minister, Tofiq
Zulfuqarov, to comment on this.

New South Caucasus policy

Correspondent Does this criticism mean that the White House is trying
to take the initiative in the region?

Zulfuqarov The USA and Russia have said at different levels that they
share a common position on the settlement of conflicts in the region
and that they are trying to resolve the conflicts peacefully. The
statement made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is a new
factor. At least it shows that cooperation between the USA and Russia
in mediating the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, which
emerged as a result of the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan,
will undergo certain changes. In that respect, the Bratislava meeting
will form a new policy on the conflicts in the South Caucasus.

Correspondent Russia stepped up its activities immediately after the
statement of the US secretary of state. What do you think is the link
between Lavrov’s visit to the South Caucasus and this statement?

Zulfuqarov To be honest, the long-lasting cooperation between the USA
and Russia has not resolved the conflicts. In fact, there is no
progress in these conflicts. The only achievement is that the
cease-fire has been secured. However, the sides are still far from a
political settlement to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. From this
point of view, it cannot be ruled out that some political circles in
Russia have realized the importance of changing the current policy.

After Condoleezza Rice’s statement, Sergey Lavrov was also expected to
criticize the opposite side. From this point of view, mutual criticism
shows that both countries are not happy with the current
situation. And this is a positive factor, because the mutually
critical statements are expected to be followed by discussions that
will clarify the situation. I think that some approaches and a more
active position will emerge during these discussions, which is in our
interests.

Conflicts hamper reforms

Correspondent The Astana meeting was followed by some activity
regarding Nagornyy Karabakh. The Bratislava meeting will cover a
broader aspect. What possible changes may Russia and the USA make to
their policies after discussing the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict in
Bratislava?

Zulfuqarov Under Colin Powell, the Department of State and the
Department of Defence had different views on different issues,
including the South Caucasus. The Security Council gave more
prominence to Donald Rumsfeld’s position on the South Caucasus. From
this point of view, Rice’s appointment as secretary of state will lead
to fundamental changes in US policy on our region. US political
circles already realize that other goals will be difficult to achieve
until the conflicts are resolved. The White House is not hiding its
intentions. Economic development, social and political reforms will
drag on as long as the conflicts have not been resolved. From this
point of view, the frozen conflicts should have been resolved a long
time ago.

The USA will be more insistent on this policy. This insistence will
manifest itself in various spheres. I think that the USA will be
active in its policy on the countries of the region, as well as
Russia.

Correspondent Do you expect any activity in the settlement of the
South Caucasus conflicts in the near future?

Zulfuqarov The Azerbaijani government has made it clear that the main
issue hampering the development of the country is the Armenian
occupation of Nagornyy Karabakh. Work has been carried out in this
direction. Now the situation is more favourable for these statements
to yield results. Naturally, our policy will also become more active
after the Bratislava meeting, because one can sense the desire of the
centres of power to resolve the problems.

Kyrgyzstan not involved in illegal arms trade – paper

MSN, Bishkek
7 Jan 05

A Kyrgyz paper has denied Internet reports to the effect that
Kyrgyzstan sold a helicopter gunship to Liberia in violation of a UN
embargo. The paper said the helicopter was sold in 1998 to a firm from
the Republic of Guinea. However, Kyrgyzstan does sell outdated
Soviet-era armaments to ease the acute lack of funds in the army, the
paper added. The following is an excerpt from the article entitled
“Tanks do not fire in political wars. They are sold”, written by Yuriy
Gruzdov and published by MSN newspaper on 7 January; subheadings
inserted editorially:

Kyrgyzstan is not trading in weapons violating international military
embargoes. But it does not intend to cede its niche in the world arms
market to anyone.

Kyrgyzstan accused of illegal arms trade

At the end of 2004, information appeared on many web sites in the
Internet related to illegal arms trade by Kyrgyzstan. An idea was
persistently suggested in it that weapons to Africa are sold via our
country as well.

Referring to a report by Amnesty International, a London-based human
rights organization, these publications highlighted as an example the
fact that a Mi-24 military helicopter had been sent to Slovakia from
Kyrgyzstan for maintenance. However, it had not returned and been sold
to Liberia in violation of a UN embargo on selling weapons to that
country. Another military helicopter from Kyrgyzstan was to end up
there as well but was intercepted.

Internet report out of date

It is a sensation! Absolutely, if not for such a circumstance that a
six-year old story is twisted to agree with contemporary
realities. Moreover, there is no information substance in it.

MSN correspondents dealt with this topic back in 2001. A journalist
investigation coincided with the time of a visit by Martin Chungong
Ayafor, chairman of a committee for sanctions under the UN Security
Council, to Kyrgyzstan. At that time he arrived in our country with
the aim of checking facts related to Kyrgyzstan selling military
helicopters to one of the fighting republics in Africa.

Naturally, the results of his visit were not widely publicized, since
it touched upon not only military secrets, but state secretes as well,
for selling military equipment and weapons is an exclusive prerogative
of the government and president. Military servicemen only fulfil
orders at such deals. But we still managed to learn the main details
of the event.

As it transpired, one European and several African states, the UN
Security Council and a former general from Kyrgyzstan were involved in
the scandal with the Kyrgyz helicopters.

So, the Kyrgyz government did sell two military helicopters to a
company that officially represented the Republic of Guinea in
1998. The sale was carried out in full accordance with international
legislation. Before the conclusion of the contract, the country’s
special services checked whether Guinea was at war and whether it was
listed with the UN as an “unreliable” state. A positive resolution was
issued by the leadership of other ministries and the Foreign Ministry
while agreeing the deal. The latter underlined that the deal would in
no way tarnish Kyrgyzstan’s image in the international arena.

Then servicemen broke up the helicopters and loaded them on lorries,
which the buying company’s staff drove up to the military aerodrome
based in Kant Kyrgyz north . And, as the saying goes, we waved goodbye
to the helicopters being taken away. But the high-ranking UN official
arrived in Kyrgyzstan just to find out how the helicopters ended up in
Slovakia and one of them in Africa after maintenance. Martin Ayafor,
chairman of the committee for sanctions under the UN Security Council,
established that accompanying documents confirmed the fact of sending
two helicopters to Slovakia from Kyrgyzstan for maintenance. The order
for maintenance was placed in accordance with all rules and was signed
by Maj-Gen Rashid Urazmatov, a representative of the armed forces of
the Kyrgyz Republic at the Moscow staff for coordinating military
cooperation, based on a power of attorney issued by the Kyrgyz Defence
Ministry. The signature of Maj-Gen N. Chomoyev, who was then the head
of the main staff of the Kyrgyz armed forces, was at the bottom of
that document. But an investigation established that neither he nor
any other official of the Defence Ministry had done this. Moreover,
such documents undergo obligatory registration at the Defence
Ministry, but this had not been done either.

Gen Urazmatov himself actually could have told us about who put a
signature on the power of attorney but he quit our army due to health
conditions on the eve of the scandal and preferred not to appear
within sight of concerned parties. The head of that company that
initially bought helicopters in Kyrgyzstan legally and then exposed
our country almost as a supplier of weapons to hot spots of the planet
disappeared in unknown direction as well. After the incident, any
activity of any company that represented the Republic of Guinea was
prohibited on our country’s territory.

It is possible that relevant services of the UN Security Council have
fully unravelled this incident. It cannot be excluded that a scheme
which the mediators and main actors in this incident with the Kyrgyz
helicopters used has already been revealed. But probably only special
services possess this information, and they are unlikely to publish it
in the near future.

Kyrgyzstan sells arms to help cash-strapped army

As is known, Kyrgyzstan gave up a large army long ago. Also, in its
military doctrine Kyrgyzstan proceeds from the fact that it will bring
its troops into accordance with new political-military and
strategic-military tasks, directed at preventing potential threats to
national interests, in the near future. All this requires maintaining
ammunition and equipment in order. Military subunits are also to be
equipped with the most up-to-date equipment.

But an acute budget deficit does not allow servicemen to possess the
whole range of modern weaponry. This is why it is extremely hard to
find solution to the main task – establishing compact, combat-ready,
technically equipped and mobile subunits. It is primarily so because
military units of the Defence Ministry possess Soviet-made equipment
which has been used and stored for over 30 years (some systems and
ammunition for over 40 years).

Passage omitted: old military equipment requires maintenance

Unfortunately, industrial enterprises in the country are not capable
of carrying out full maintenance of tanks, armoured military vehicles,
aircraft and helicopters. Full maintenance of only one T-72 tank costs
14m soms some 340,000 dollars , Mi-8MTV helicopter 30m soms some
650,000 dollars , MiG-21 aircraft over 26m soms some 635,000 dollars ,
in neighbouring foreign countries. This is not including transport and
other expenses. The government is incapable of providing such money to
servicemen neither currently nor in the near future.

We indeed receive assistance from many states in the military field,
and Russia, China and the USA top the list. But that is extremely
insufficient. Therefore, selling surplus weaponry and military
equipment the further use of which is deemed purposeless from the
military and economic viewpoints remains one of the main areas of
attracting additional sources of extra-budget financing. To be
absolutely frank, scrap metal is frequently sold to customers in the
guise of aircraft, helicopters, armoured technology and other items,
for most of the items for sale simply cannot be restored in local
conditions. The only thing that can attract potential customers of
military goods is low prices.

Actually, this factor works not always either, and tonnes of military
equipment rot and rust in military storage bases, and probably no-one
will now be able to sell it.

This very trend has been lately traced in trade operations related to
selling production of the Kyrgyz military-industrial complex
abroad. The number of deals has decreased.

By the way, it should be clarified what goes abroad from Kyrgyzstan.
Primarily these are all special products produced by our defence
enterprises. And of course – the aforementioned Soviet era “surplus”.

Passage omitted: military enterprises unsuccessfully attempted to sell
products abroad after independence

More cooperation urged with CIS enterprises

The loss of a number of markets due to tough competition with
developed Western countries’ monopolistic structures, and those of
China lately, has had a very negative effect on the defence
sphere. But after the establishment of the commission for military and
technical cooperation with foreign states (in 2000), the situation
started to improve. The commission with powers of an executive body
has provided coordination, planning and control of the activity of
entities of military and technical cooperation within the framework of
international law. Thus, a qualitatively new step meeting current
realities was taken.

An international and internal legal basis for the activities of
entities of military and technical cooperation on military export and
import issues had already been established by that time. On the legal
basis of military and technical cooperation, it is necessary to
underline that international agreements play a certain role in this
case. Kyrgyzstan is a participant in over 15 documents which were
signed by heads of state, government and defence departments of the
CIS and CSTO Collective Security Treaty Organization member states.
Kyrgyzstan reached military and technical cooperation agreements on an
international level with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and other
countries.

Passage omitted: Arabian states do not want USSR-produced weapons

What does Kyrgyzstan have left to do in such conditions? It needs to
establish close contacts with Rosoboroneksport, a Russian federal
state unitary enterprise; the Ukrainian Defence Ministry state
enterprise Lugansk aviation and maintenance plant; Aerostar
aviation-industrial group (Romania); Kazakh and Belarusian enterprises
involved in export and import operations with military production. Our
country has managed to occupy its niche in the world market of
military products with the help of these enterprises.

Passage omitted: the article speculates who could post the report in
the Internet

OSCE mission arrives in Karabakh to check facts of Armenian settlement

Regnum, Moscow
30 Jan 05

The OSCE expert mission to collect facts of settlement in the
territories controlled by the Karabakh forces arrived in the Nagornyy
Karabakh capital of Stepanakert on 30 January.

The members of the group have met the foreign minister of the Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic, Arman Melikyan, and discussed the forthcoming
monitoring with him. At this moment, their meeting with the republic’s
president, Arkadiy Gukasyan, is continuing.

Passage omitted: Details of the visit

.html

Nuclear Awareness Project
Media Backgrounder
June 1998

[email protected]

The Threat of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation from Turkey
——————————————————————–

The dark underside of nuclear power has always been its potential for
nuclear weapons proliferation, either through the reprocessing of spent fuel
to produce plutonium – – an inevitable byproduct of reactor operation – – or
through the transfer of sensitive nuclear information, technology and
materials.

Canadian nuclear cooperation with India and Pakistan provides a chilling
example of how the transfer of so-called “civilian” nuclear technology can
contribute directly and indirectly to the development of nuclear weapons.
Canada provided the technology at the foundation of the Indian and Pakistani
nuclear programs and continues to provide vital information and assistance
to maintain those programs through the CANDU Owners Group (COG).

The Turkish Electricity Generation and Transmission Company (TEAS – – a
state-owned utility) is expected to soon make a long-awaited announcement
about the winner of a bidding process to build a nuclear power station at
Akkuyu Bay on the Mediterranean. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is
bidding to sell two 700 MW CANDU reactors to Turkey at a cost of about $4
billion (CDN). It is bidding against a German/French consortium (Nuclear
Power International – NPI – is a cooperative venture between Siemens/KWU and
the French national nuclear company Framatome). The third consortium bidding
is a partnership of Westinghouse and Mitsubishi.

Three items providing background on the possible nuclear weapons
proliferation threat from nuclear power development in Turkey follow.

The first item is an article from the Turkish daily newspaper “Radical” on
June 1, 1998. The article is entitled Pakistan’s offer for cooperation.
Radical is a major daily paper of an intellectual nature (it is NOT
particularly left-wing, as the name might suggest). We have investigated the
report and have confidence in its reliability. The reported offer from
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to Turkish President Suleyman Demirel
took place on May 11, 1998 – – the day after India exploded its first three
nuclear bombs on May 10.

The second item is a report on a former Turkish NATO General making a thinly
veiled statement in support of a nuclear weapons program for Turkey. This
report indicates that there is at least some support in the Turkish military
for nuclear weapons development. Although Turkey is a nominal democracy,
nobody has any doubts that the military really runs the country. For
example, it was the military that forced the government of Necmettin Erbakan
to step down in June 1997, and replaced it with the government of Mesut
Yilmaz.

The third item is an excerpt from a report called “The CANDU Syndrome” that
I wrote in 1997. It provides some historical background with evidence of
Turkey being used to ship nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan; and an
attempt to purchase a reactor from Argentina, likely for plutonium
production. The purchase was stopped by pressure from the USA.

It is very likely that nuclear-armed confrontation is in the future of the
middle east if nuclear development is allowed to continue unchecked. Israel
already has a well developed nuclear weapons program. Iran has two reactors
under construction by the German company KWU, with two more to be built
there by China. Iraq’s nuclear program was destroyed only during the Gulf
War.

For more information, please refer to “The CANDU Syndrome” on ,
or , or contact:

Dave Martin
Nuclear Awareness Project
Box 104
Uxbridge, Ontario
Canada
L9P 1M6

tel/fax 905-852-0571
E-mail: [email protected]

————————————————————–

1.
Radical
June 1, 1998

Pakistan’s offer for cooperation

It is declared that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has offered Turkey
cooperation for Nuclear Weapons. Being surrounded by countries with nuclear
programs pushes Turkey to take the necessary measures even while it
continues disarmament efforts.

By Deniz Zeyrek

Ankara — India and Pakistan’s nuclear tests, which sparked international
opposition, have resulted in action in Turkey, which is surrounded by
countries with nuclear programs, including Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel, and
the former USSR. Turkey is anxious about the latest developments. On the
other hand, according to the information received, Pakistan Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif has said to Turkey `Let’s work together on nuclear weapons’. It
is reported that Nawaz Sharif made this offer personally to [Turkish]
President Suleyman Demirel and to the Minister with him.

According to the information we received, during the May 11-12 Economic
Cooperation Organisation (ECO) Summit at Almati, Kazakhstan, President
Suleyman Demirel met with Nawaz Sharif. During the discussions Demirel put
the India-Pakistan conflict onto the agenda. Nawaz Sharif explained that a
large part of the conflict was caused by India’s nuclear tests, and said
that Pakistan is also conducting nuclear research for defense purposes.

Foreign threats

Border disagreements between Pakistan and India, and their declaration of
themselves as nuclear states, prompted Turkey to put nuclear weapons on the
agenda as a national security issue. The record of Turkey’s neighbours on
nuclear and chemical weapons, also led Ankara to undertake an initiative in
this direction. One cabinet member spoke about the anxiety of Turkey because
of the danger with which it is confronted, and said: “We must also acquire
these technologies in the next ten years. The necessary investments are
unavoidable.”

Because the efforts of the UN Security Council and the international
campaign for the reduction of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons could
fail, Turkey’s defense plans were put onto the political agenda of the
Government. Some of the members of the government continue to insist that
these initiatives should be taken, and they defend the use of nuclear
technology for military purposes. Ankara, however, is demanding that a
“regional forum” should be constituted and that nuclear and chemical weapons
should be removed from the arsenals of countries in the region. [Turkish]
Foreign Minister Ismail Cem forwarded this proposal to all countries of the
region except Israel. Turkey also continues efforts for conventional
disarmament and is trying to revive the Agreement for the Reduction of
European Conventional Forces. However, the lack of response >from countries
in the region, and the failure of disarmament efforts, leads Turkey to take
the necessary measures.

——————————————————————————–

2.
On May 18, 1998, the Turkish TV news channel NTV re-broadcast a program
called “Pasaport” which was originally broadcast from Ankara on May 17,
interviewing the retired Turkish Lieutenant-General Erdogan Oznal, who was
formerly in charge of the Balikesir Nato Air Base. He was responsible for
NATO fighter/bomber aircraft in Turkey armed with nuclear warheads during
the cold-war.

The moderator reported on the recent nuclear weapons tests in India and
Pakistan, and asked the General what his feelings were while he was in
charge at the Balekesir Base, waiting for a possible command to launch and
fire nuclear weapons. He spoke cooly about waiting over the years for the
possible command.

General Oznal described the nuclear threats around Turkey’s borders, such as
Israel and Iran, which have their own nuclear programs. General Oznal
repeatedly emphasized the nuclear threat from Israel, India, Pakistan and
Iran, and said: “TURKEY MUST NOW DEVELOP ITS OWN NUCLEAR POLICY”. It is
clear that Oznal was referring to the development of a nuclear weapons
program.

——————————————————————————–

3.
Turkey and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

This is an excerpt from “The CANDU Syndrome: Canada’s Bid to Export Nuclear
Reactors to Turkey”, by David H. Martin, September 1997. The entire report
is posted on the web page of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear
Responsibility,

Turkey ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
on April 17, 1980, and the safeguards agreement went into force on September
1, 1981.[1] At the controversial “Extension Conference” of the NPT in April
1995, the five nuclear weapons states sought, and despite strong opposition,
obtained indefinite extension of the treaty. Turkey demonstrated its loyalty
to the international nuclear status quo by supporting the “indefinite and
unconditional extension” of the treaty.[2]

Despite Turkey’s observation of the non-proliferation proprieties, there
have been past concerns about alleged nuclear proliferation connections with
Pakistan. Signing the NPT does not necessarily mean much. Article X of the
NPT allows any party to withdraw with only three months notice if
“extraordinary events… have jeopardized the supreme interests of its
country”.[3] Alternately, states such as Iraq and the Peoples Republic of
China have simply ignored the strictures of the Treaty, despite their
continued adherence. Pakistan has actively pursued nuclear weapons
capability for many years, and has refused to sign the NPT. Pakistan is in
an unofficial sub-continental nuclear arms race with India – and both
countries are considered undeclared nuclear weapons states. Connections with
such states may have serious implications – Chinese nuclear dealings with
Pakistan have been the main cause of an American nuclear trade boycott of
China.

The first allegation of a Turkey/Pakistan nuclear connection was in 1981.
The current Turkish ambassador to Canada, Omer Ersun (then Chief of Policy
Planning at the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the military
junta) has confirmed that the US administration protested a $30,000 shipment
of “inverters” from a Turkish textiles firm to Pakistan, allegedly for use
in the Pakistani uranium enrichment program.[4]

Relations between Turkey and Pakistan became increasingly close after the
military coup in Turkey on September 12, 1980. The respective military
leaders of Turkey and Pakistan, President/General Kenan Evren, and
President/General Zia ul-Haq exchanged a series of official visits that only
ended with Zia’s 1988 death in a plane crash. In the early 1980s, Greek
Prime Minister Papandreou charged that “Pakistan expected Turkey to act as a
transshipper of material for a nuclear bomb and would reciprocate by proudly
sharing the nuclear bomb technology with Turkey”.[5]

It has also been reported that Canada withdrew its bid to supply CANDU
reactors to Turkey in the mid-1980s, partly “in response to pressure from
Western countries which [are] concerned that Turkey may build a nuclear bomb
based on CANDU technology”.[6]

Concerns about Turkey’s potential involvement in nuclear weapons
proliferation have continued in the 1990s. As noted above, international
pressure was required in 1990-91 to force an end to joint plans by Argentina
and Turkey to build the CAREM-25, a 25 MW reactor in their respective
countries. As noted above, Yalcin Sanalan, a former Director of TAEA stated
that the CAREM- 25 was “…too small for electricity generation and too big
for research or training, however, very suitable for plutonium
production”[7] Furthermore, in 1992, Senator John Glenn and other US
congressmen accused Turkey of supplying sensitive technology to Pakistan in
order to aid in that country’s acquisition of uranium enrichment
technology.[8]

In 1995, a Greek foreign ministry official, Thanos Dokos repeated concerns
about “nuclear cooperation between Ankara and Islamabad… and reports that
Turkey might try to acquire nuclear weapons material and technology and
recruit nuclear scientists from the Muslim republics of the former Soviet
Union.”[9]

It has been suggested that the American government does not have serious
concerns about the nuclear proliferation potential of Turkey.[10] However,
the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation through the sale of CANDU
reactors to Turkey remains a valid concern. It can be assumed that the
American government is pleased with the ouster of Erbakan’s Islamist
Refahyol government, and its replacement by the more pro-western government
of Mesut Yilmaz in June 1997. However, two issues must be raised in
response. One is that Erbakan may be returned to power in the near future if
the military allows a democratic election to take place. Second, continued
military domination of Turkey should not really give any reassurance. As
noted above, the military has also had strong ties to Pakistan, and may
favour the creation of `Islamic’ nuclear weapons.

Notes

1. United Nations, The United Nations and Nuclear Non-Proliferation, UN
Department of Public Information, 1995, Document 46, p. 183.

2. Kibaroglu, ibid., p. 33.

3. United Nations, ibid., p. 62.

4. Kibaroglu, ibid., p. 35.

5. “Turkey’s role in Pakistan’s nuclear program”, Worldwide Report, March
20, 1987, pp. 14. Cited in: Kibaroglu, ibid., p. 35.

6. “Canadian firm drops bid to build nuclear plant”, Nuclear Developments,
February 25, 1988, p. 39. Cited in: Kibaroglu, ibid., p. 36.

7. Cited in: Kibaroglu, ibid., p. 38.

8. Kibaroglu, ibid., p. 39.

9. Thanos Dokos in “Greece”, in Harald Muller, ed., Nuclear Export Controls
in Europe, Brussels, European Interuniversity Press, 1995, p. 208. Cited in:
Kibaroglu, ibid., p. 39.

10. Mark Hibbs, ibid., September 4, 1997, p. 8.

——————————————————————————–

Nuclear Awareness Project
P.O. Box 104
Uxbridge, Ontario
Canada
L9P 1M6

Tel/Fax 905-852-0571
E-mail: [email protected]

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EUROPEAN ARMENIAN FEDERATION
For Justice and Democracy
Avenue de la Renaissance 10
B – 1000 BRUXELLES
Tel: +32 (0) 2 732 70 26
Tel./Fax: +32 (0) 2 732 70 27
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

PRESS RELEASE
January 30th, 2004
Contact: Talline Tachdjian
Tel.: +32 (0)2 732 70 27

BRANDENBURG ENDORSES TURKEY’S POLICY OF GENOCIDE DENIAL

Brussels, Belgium – Following extensive pressure from Turkish authorities,
the German state of Brandenburg removed references of the Armenian Genocide
from its state education curriculum.

Brandenburg was the first German state to include the Armenian Genocide
within its teaching guidelines in 2002. However, in October 2004, the
Ministry of Education reversed a decision calling on Bochum’s Institute for
Genocides and Diasporas to prepare a book on the Armenian Genocide. The book
would have been the first of a series of three on genocide related issues
and collective violence in the twentieth century. The order was cancelled by
incoming Minister of Education Mr. Holger Rupprecht (SPD), at the request of
Brandenburg Prime Minister Mr. Matthias Platzeck, who had succumbed to
Turkish lobbying efforts.

Bochum University’s Director of the Institute for Genocides and Diasporas,
Prof. Mihran Dabag, denounced the decision, stating “The Armenian genocide
is inseparable from European remembrance. It is the first genocidal
achievement of our common history.” He went on to argue that “At the very
time when the world commemorates the victims of the Nazi camps, our country
must, if we are sincere in our fight against negationism, give a firm answer
to Turkey’s denial; The Brandenburg government must reconsider its decision
and carry out its genocides teaching project.”

The Potsdam government’s announcement provoked a chorus of protests in
German public opinion. In television news shows and dozens of print
articles, available on the European Armenian Federation website –
, policy-makers from throughout the political spectrum
denounced the unacceptable attitude of the state.

The European Armenian Federation considers the decision of the local German
authorities symptomatic of a lack of courage by a certain segment of
European leaders in dealing with this critical issue. This position only
encourages Turkey to export its denialist propaganda to Europe, explained
the Federation. It went on to deplore the deep consequences of the
complicity between and European leaders and Turkey’s historical revisionists
on the European project.

“How can we believe the goodwill statements made by German leaders when they
allow genocide denial to be instilled in the minds of the German children?”
asked Hilda Tchoboian, chairwoman of the European Armenian Federation. “The
90th anniversary of the Genocide must mark the end of European complicity,
as shown by its silence during the extermination of the Armenians. We call
upon all German political leaders to turn this regrettable initiative into
an act of justice best representing this great nation,” said Mrs. Tchoboian.

FEDERATION EURO-ARMENIENNE
Pour la Justice et la Démocratie
Avenue de la Renaissance 10
B – 1000 BRUXELLES
Tel: +32 (0) 2 732 70 26
Tel./Fax : +32 (0) 2 732 70 27
E-mail : [email protected]
Web :

COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE
28 janvier 2005
Contact: Talline Tachdjian
Tel.: +32 (0)2 732 70 27

LE BRANDEBOURG AVALISE LA POLITIQUE NEGATIONNISTE DE LA TURQUIE CONCERNANT
LE GENOCIDE DES ARMENIENS

Bruxelles, Belgique – Suite aux pressions de la Turquie, le gouvernement de
l’Etat de Potsdam a ordonné la suppression de la mention du génocide des
Arméniens des directives pédagogiques de son Ministère de l’Education,
préparées à l’intention des enseignants de ce land allemand.

C’est en 2002 que le land de Brandebourg avait inclus l’enseignement du
génocide des Arméniens dans le cursus scolaire. Cependant, dès le mois
d’octobre 2004, le Ministère de l’Education avait décommandé un livre sur le
génocide des Arméniens que l’Institut des Génocides et des Diasporas de
Bochum avait préparé à la demande du même Ministère. Ce livre devait être le
premier d’une série de trois traitant de la question des génocides et de la
violence collective au XXème siècle. La commande avait été dénoncée après le
remplacement de l’ancien Ministre de l’Education par M. Holger Rupprecht
(SPD), obéissant ainsi aux injonctions du Premier Ministre de Brandebourg,
M. Matthias Platzeck à la suite des pressions de la diplomatie turque.

« Le génocide des Arméniens est inséparable de la mémoire de l’Europe ; il
est la première réalisation génocidaire de notre histoire commune » a
déclaré Mihran Dabag, le directeur de l’Institut des génocides et des
Diasporas de l’Université de Bochum.

« En ces jours de commémoration des victimes des camps nazis, si nous
sommes sincères dans la lutte déclarée contre le négationnisme, notre pays
doit donner une réponse ferme au négationnisme de la Turquie ; le
gouvernement de Brandebourg doit revenir sur cette décision et réaliser le
projet d’enseignement des génocides » a conclu le professeur Dabag.

La décision du gouvernement de Potsdam a provoqué un tollé général dans
l’opinion publique allemande ; des dizaines d’articles (disponible sur le
site Internet ) et d’émissions télévisées, des figures
politiques de tous bords ont dénoncé l’attitude inadmissible des autorités
du land.

La Fédération Euro-Arménienne considère cette décision des autorités locales
allemandes comme symptomatique du manque de courage d’une certaine classe
politique européenne : elle considère que cette attitude encourage la
Turquie à importer son négationnisme en Europe. Elle déplore les lourdes
conséquences que la participation de la classe politique au mensonge de
l’Etat turc aura sur la construction européenne.

« Comment croire aux déclarations de bonne volonté des dirigeants allemands
à Auschwitz lorsque ces mêmes dirigeants permettent d’instiller le
négationnisme dans les esprits des enfants allemands ? » s’est interrogée
Hilda Tchoboian, Présidente de la Fédération.

« Le 90ème anniversaire du génocide doit marquer la fin de la complicité par
le silence dont l’Europe a fait preuve pendant l’extermination des
Arméniens. Nous appelons l’ensemble des forces politiques allemandes à faire
de cet événement condamnable l’occasion d’un acte de justice digne d’un
grand pays » a déclaré la Présidente de la Fédération Euro-Arménienne.

Caucaz
europenews
01/30/2005 23:43 Tbilisi

EU-Caucasus, interview with Damien Helly [4/4] [PERCEPTION – EUROPEAN
IDENTITY]
By François GREMY in Paris
On 14/11/2004

Perception of EU in Caucasus : Interview with Damien Helly, independent
researcher in Brusells and former director of the « Caucasus » project of
the International Crisis Group –

May EU exist and be perceived as a unique entity, whereas European States
invest quite considerably and visibly in the three South-Caucasus countries
( France in Armenia, Germany in Georgia and Great-Britain in Azerbaijan ) ?

Untill recently, the European Union had a problem of visibility. Its major
member States were the Ses grands Etats membres en étaient la vitrine. The
efforts that EU undertook by EU by way of the humanitarian and Tacis
programs have slightly changed the situation. The nomination of its special
representative, Heikki Talvitie, also changed it. This visibility is getting
better, but from the point of view of the Caucasian citizen who does not
know those issues in detail, EU is still assimilated to the Council of
Europe, or even to the United States sometimes. The confusion between the
European Institutions has been noticed in other places, is it not the case
even among EU ?

Do the Caucasian leaders have the same expectations of EU than EU has of
Caucasus ?

There have always been comprehension issues and a mismatch between
perceptions. Mainly, the Caucasian political leaders have a short-term
approach : they would want to take benefit of the relations with EU on the
practical and financial level, or also for the political prestige. When
Europeans are still on a long-term prospect as for creating a real political
and economic change.
This mismatch is decreasing, but the issue is still the same : to take the
common decision to move forward in the same direction. We do not know wether
the three countries of South-Caucasus really have the choice to move on
toward Europe, or if all this is only rhetoric.

EU tries to promote the developments of democracy and the civil society.
Does not it seem too early or to not be among the priorities of the
Caucasian countries which still depend on latent conflicts?

It is not because the democratisation of Caucasus is taking time that we
have to push it back. It is preferable to initiate this process upstream in
order to quickly get the relative effects. Moreover, the conflicts-solving
depends very strongly on the societies’ democratisation. Indeed the
authoritarian systems, by way of propaganda and a national rhetoric, do not
favour the free expression of the public opinion about the conflicts issue.
On the other hand, within a politicaly open society there could be a debate
about the conflicts and intercommunities relations. In this case, to
democratise the conflicts issue makes it consequently less dramatic. Thus
those two process are absolutly linked.

Translated by Marie Anderson

Caucaz
europenews
01/30/2005 23:41 Tbilisi

European Parliament plays the South Caucasian hand. Does the Commission
follow up? [EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT – NEIGHBORHOOD]

By Célia CHAUFFOUR in Strasburg
On 22/11/2004

Why did the European Union choose to include the South Caucasus in the New
Neighborhood Policy ? Political strategy or agreement dictated by
circumstances ? Marie-Anne Isler Béguin, President of the Delegation of
Parliamentaries Cooperation Commissions EU-South Caucasus, highlights this
event.

The European Parliament and the Parliaments of the Transcaucasian republics
-Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia- have established relations in the
framework of the partnership and cooperation agreements. Those agreements
came into effect in July 1999. Do the three commissions work with an equal
ease with each one of the South-Caucasian countries?

There is no difference of form and content between the Commisions. After
five years of interparliamentary cooperation, we have been establishing
in-depth relations in spite of the difficulties inherent to several
sensitive matters, notably the Human Rights and the latent conflicts such as
Nagorno-Karabakh one.

We have official meetings twice a year, once in Strasburg, once on the spot.
But we also get to meet with other members of Parliament upon additional
trips. Owing to these regular meetings and my close relationships with the
ambassadors of those three countries, kind of a dynamic has been
established.

In a first time, these three countries were frequently confused. But, we
quickly became aware of the particularities of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia – in spite of all those three countries evolve in a common
geostrategic region. Today, the new neighborhood policy totally
differentiates between those three countries.

Precisely, what was the impact of the new neighborhood policy extended to
the South-Caucasian countries regarding on both the objectives and the room
for manoeuvre of your delegation ?

Before all, I would want to precise that, when the new neighborhood policy
of the European Union was defined, neither the Council nor the Commision
really wished to integrate into it the South-Caucasus countries. Attentive
and sensitive to this, our delegation regularly exerted pressure so as to
add the necessary clauses – notably, the additional clauses to the
Commission of Foreign Affairs.

The Turkish problems also encouraged the ones who foresaw that there might
be a South-Caucasian card to play so as to avoid issues and upcoming
conflicts. That is why they integrated those three countries at the last
minute. But, this only an achievement at the level of the European
Parliament.

But this is just a first step. Indeed, what does this new neighborhood
policy mean as of today ? The EU and the Council do not know it themselves.
There is unavoidably some mistrust. When it presented its policy, the
Council was very careful. Alike the Commission.

I intervened in plenary session when M.Solana was presenting his general
policy so that we carefully take into consideration the three South-Caucasus
countries. Those countries are neighbors of Turkey which asked membership to
EU. Overall they have a European culture and they took the decision to
orient Westward, such as the countries of the former Eastern bloc. Even if
Teheran is closer to Strasburg, the southern Caucasus countries assert
sharing EU’s values. Obviously, those countries have also difficulties to
les mettre en place, but maybe one day they will integrate EU ? Our
delegation defends this objective. I believe that EU as much as the Council
got it without willing to admit it.

But, the decision to integrate the three South-Caucasus countries to the new
neighborhood policy has for the time being only theoretical direct
consequences…

Our delegation clearly announced to the Commission, to Solana and to the
Council that it would encourage to set up concrete actions for those three
countries. The Action Plan for Georgia is absolutly mandatory. Saakashvili
publicaly announced, but not yet officialy, that he was in favour of a
future application for EU’s membership. We have to live up to his
expectation.

The problems met by those small countries, and that we can solve today,
might increase tomorrow. The faster we will solve those latent conflicts,
the faster EU will strongly commit in this region still stuck between Russia
and the United States. EU is already present, but today a political
commitment is needed.

After having got the nomination of Heikki Talvitie as EU special
representative in South-Caucasus in July 2003, what is your next objective
regarding the still lacking commitment of EU in South-Caucasus?

The Green Party had been demanding for a long time, the nomination of a
special representative for the region. This nomination is very positive,
although a real feuille de route is necessary. I regularly meet with Heikki
Talvitie. He fulfils his task as a coordinator, but this action is still not
enough.

Maybe there should have been one year of adaptation in order to be able to
set up a waybill ?

M.Talvitie wants to wait until the half of his mandate, that is to say still
one year. We think that we have to act today. EU has to demonstrate, by the
voice of M. Talvitie, that it has a political project and is strongly
commited.

EU will most probably not solve those conflicts, but it has to make the
wills focus and to encourage now a plan of action. EU may not be satisfied
with this status quo, since any event could aggravate the situation and make
the conflicts bouncing back.

Your commissions aim to increase the awareness of the three South-Caucasus
countries about key issues such as the democracy, the Civil Society, and the
conflicts-solving. Except the conflicts-solving issue, what are today the
points noirs, or at least the most sensible questions that you would want to
advance?

We have to help those countries on their way for democracy and as regards
several domains : Human Rights, NGOs, political prisoners, etc. For
instance, the last elections in Azerbaijan did not take place according to
the International norms and standards. Southern-Caucasus has to be helped in
its democratic transition. Nevertheless those countries also ask us to be
patient with them.

Is there a concrete advance as regards those matters ?

Baku offered us to visit the jails so as to meet political prisoners. It is
essential. At the same time, we do not want to teach those countries a
lesson when they do not have the same past.

The delegation changed a lot owing to the addition of the ten new Eastern
countries. Not only, members of Parliament demonstrate a real will to put
more effort in South-Caucasus, but there is also an emerging concept of
network. For example, Vytautas Landsbergis, first vice-president of this
delegation who is also an acknowledged and very involved Lithuanian key
figure, has a certain authority. He can go further away in the criticism of
South-Caucasus given that the Baltic countries went trough the same history.

Translated by Marie Anderson

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress