Turkish Forum » SCO

Turkey, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization

aira — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:11:45 +0000

Could Turkey be heading towards membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? China, at least, seems enthusiastic about it, according to a report in the Associated Press of Pakistan:

“China is very positive for Turkey to become a SCO dialogue partner. However, whether it become dialogue partner it would depend on the consensus of the member states of the SCO”, said Cheng Guoping, Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister…

“Turkey is a friendly country of China and in terms of economic, political, security and people-to-people cultural exchanges and cooperation we have very smooth cooperation”, Cheng observed.

Now, becoming a “dialogue partner” would put Turkey in the same class as Belarus and Sri Lanka, which is to say, not very significant in the SCO. But it’s still an intriguing move, not least because it seems like China is especially interested in Turkey’s cooperation. A Chinese scholar, Zhao Huasheng, speaking recently here in Washington, mooted Turkey as a possible cooperation partner, as well. As Cheng put it:

The SCO is an open organization as defined in its charter, he said, noting that it is willing to cooperate with “organizations and nations that hold the same opinions as us”.

How, exactly, China imagines that Turkey has “the same opinions” as China is not clear, but that’s an interesting statement, in the context. Last year the two countries carried out two rounds of military exercises, which raised some eyebrows in Washington.

Turkey reportedly had some interest in SCO cooperation a few years ago, but I haven’t been able to find any Turkish official commentary on this, or analysis (if there is some out there, I’d love to hear about it).

The SCO is holding its 10th anniversary summit in Astana on June 15, and according to the Kazakh hosts, there probably isn’t too much to expect, at least in terms of expansion of the group, other than adding Afghanistan as an observer:

The Summit is highly unlikely to produce decisions on expanding the full members list but is going to review Afghanistan’s bid to obtain an observer status.

But it’ll be worth watching to see if Turkey comes up in the discussion.

via Turkey, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization | EurasiaNet.org.

US State Dept downplays spy case fallout

Media Watch — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:17:27 +0000

By Robert Burns

New Zealand Herald

10:57 AM Wednesday Jun 30, 2010

WASHINGTON – The scandal over an alleged Russian spy ring erupted at an awkward time for a White House that has staked its foreign policy record on improved cooperation with Moscow, but it appeared unlikely to do lasting damage to US-Russian relations.

The administration sought to dampen tensions, while the Russian government offered the conciliatory hope on Tuesday that US authorities would “show proper understanding, taking into account the positive character of the current stage of development of Russian-American relations.”

The White House response was notably restrained following the dramatic announcement that 11 people assigned a decade or more to illegally infiltrate American society had been arrested. They are accused of using fake names and claims of US citizenship to burrow into US society and ferret out intelligence as Russian “illegals” – spies operating without diplomatic cover.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs laboured to show that the arrests were a law enforcement matter – one not driven by the president, even though President Barack Obama was informed – and played down any political consequences.

CCID: 31622

Obama was asked about the matter by reporters twice on Tuesday. He declined to comment both times.

Gibbs said Obama was aware of the investigation before he met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the White House on Thursday, although Gibbs said he did not know whether Obama knew then that the arrests were imminent. The two leaders did not discuss the issue, Gibbs said.

Officials in both countries left the impression that spy rings remain a common way of doing business.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin offered a message of restraint during a meeting at his country residence with former President Bill Clinton, who was in Moscow to speak at an investment conference.

“I understand that back home police are putting people in prison,” Putin said, drawing a laugh from Clinton. “That’s their job. I’m counting on the fact that the positive trend seen in the relationship will not be harmed by these events.”

The administration has made a high priority of improving relations with Russia.

At stake in the short term is a newly concluded nuclear arms control deal, dubbed New START, which requires a favourable vote in the US Senate and approval by the Russian legislature.

More broadly, Obama wants to build the foundation for a strategic partnership with Moscow – to increase security and economic and other cooperation with the former Cold War foe.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10655470

Rising Powers Do not Want to Play by the West’s Rules

Media Watch — Sat, 22 May 2010 14:34:45 +0000

Financial Times

By Philip Stephens May 20 2010

There are two ways of looking at the efforts of Turkey and Brazil to resolve the dispute about Iran’s nuclear programme. One dismisses the initiative as collusion with Tehran’s attempt to derail a fourth round of United Nations sanctions; another welcomes a recognition in Ankara and Brasilia that rising powers have a stake in sustaining a rules-based global order.

Unsurprisingly, the default response in the west has been the former. Reactions in Washington, London and elsewhere to the agreement brokered by Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ranged along a spectrum from condescension to intense irritation. Ankara and Brasilia, at best, were dupes.

The bargain struck by the two leaders with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, if implemented, would see Iran transfer to Turkish custody a large proportion of its stockpile of enriched uranium. In return, Tehran would be supplied with the more highly-enriched material used in medical isotopes. The risk of an Iranian bomb would be reduced, while Tehran would retain what it sees as a sovereign right to mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle.

There is nothing novel about the idea. It is modelled on an offer made last autumn by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The difference is that this first proposal envisaged the Iranian uranium would be sent to Russia.

The latest plan raises plenty of legitimate questions. Among other things it does not tell us what Iran proposes to do with the rest of its uranium stockpile and why it is continuing to produce more. Tehran has also yet to explain why it is now enriching to a higher concentration.

The timing of the deal raises the justified suspicion that Iran’s primary objective is to upset the US-led move towards further UN sanctions. During many years of negotiations with the west, Tehran has hardly been subtle in its tactics: the pattern has been one of apparent concessions at moments of pressure followed by lengthy prevarication and enrichment as usual. On a generous interpretation, one western diplomat told me, Mr Erdogan and Mr Lula da Silva were naive.

Against this background, the US, France and Britain have unveiled their plans for the latest sanctions – this time directed at Iran’s Revolutionary Guard – with obvious satisfaction. Turkey and Brazil might think their deal had abrogated the need for further punitive measures, but China and Russia had been persuaded otherwise.

Perhaps I am overly cynical but I detect a certain petulance here. Turkey and Brazil have temporary seats on the Security Council, and it is as if the permanent members are affronted the two nations should presume to strike out on their own.

The Iranian nuclear issue, you could almost hear diplomats saying, is an argument that has to be settled by the established powers. If others want to help that is fine – but they should do so by backing the west’s plan rather than coming up with crackpot ideas of their own.

There are several reasons why this is short-sighted. Most obviously the permanent five have got just about nowhere so far. Even those arguing that sanctions are the only way to coerce Iran into toeing the UN line do not really believe the measures can work on their own. If Tehran really has decided to build the bomb, a squeeze on the Revolutionary Guard will not change its mind.

It is evident, too, that in the event that the present regime were to change course and seek an accommodation on its nuclear programme, ways would have to be found to ensure it was not seen as capitulating to the great, and lesser, Satans of the west. A deal struck with a neighbouring Islamic state might – and I emphasise the might – be a route out of the impasse.

For Mr Erdogan’s government the attempt to broker a deal is a natural extension of Ankara’s active regional diplomacy. The last few years have seen a marked rise in both Turkey’s economic prosperity and its political confidence. As France, Germany and others have found reasons to exclude it from the European Union, Turkey has turned eastwards.

Ankara’s rising stature in the region has been based on the brilliantly simple proposition that nations that want to project influence should start by fixing their own disputes. Mr Erdogan has settled long-running arguments with Syria and Iraq and sought to lower tensions in the Caucasus.

The neighbourhood problem-solving has not been universally successful but it has been sufficiently so to turn Turkey into a big regional player. Mr Erdogan’s government now shows the political confidence that comes with understanding that it has opened up options for itself beyond frustrating and fruitless negotiations in Brussels about the terms under which it might at some point qualify as a “European” power. Here, I think, lies a source of the irritation in Washington and elsewhere about the latest initiative.

The off-stated ambition of western governments is that the world’s rising powers should bear some of the burden of safeguarding international security and prosperity. The likes of China, India and, dare one say, Turkey and Brazil, are beneficiaries of a rules-based global order and, as such, should be prepared to contribute. They should, in a phrase coined some years ago by Robert Zoellick, act as stakeholders in the system.

Seen from Ankara or Brasilia, or indeed from Beijing or New Delhi, there is an important snag in this argument. They are not being invited to craft a new international order but rather to abide by the old (western) rules. As I heard one Chinese scholar remark this week, it is as if the rising nations have been offered seats at a roulette table only on the strict understanding that the west retains ownership of the casino.

As it happens, the US understands better than Europeans the shifting distribution of power. Barack Obama’s administration has been thinking hard about the new geopolitical geometry, even as Europe remains trapped in its anxiety to cling on to the old Euro-atlantic order.

In its excellent exercise in crystal-ball gazing, Global Trends 2025, the US National Intelligence Council presciently included a scenario in which Brazil acts as a mediator at a moment of crisis in the Middle East. Imagining a different future, though, is not the same as coming to terms with it. If the west wants global order, it has to get used to others having a say in making the rules.

philip.stephens@ft.com

More columns www.ft.com/philipstephens

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey after meeting

Media Watch — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:53:24 +0000

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

December 07, 2009

Oval Office

1:25 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to extend the warmest of welcomes to Prime Minister Erdogan. I’m glad that I, personally, and the American people have a chance to reciprocate the wonderful hospitality that was extended to me when I visited Turkey in April.

As I said when I had the great honor of addressing the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, I am strongly committed to creating the best possible relationship between Turkey and the United States.

Turkey is a NATO ally, which means that we are pledged to defend each other. There are strong ties between our countries as a consequence of the Turkish American community that has been established here. We have had the opportunity to work together during this recent financial crisis, given Turkey’s role as a member of the G20. And given Turkey’s history as a secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, but is also a majority Muslim nation, it plays a critical role I think in helping to shape mutual understanding and stability and peace not only in its neighborhood but around the world.

During the course of our discussions here, we’ve had the opportunity to survey a wide range of issues that both the United States and Turkey are concerned about. I thanked Prime Minister Erdogan and the Turkish people for their outstanding contributions to stabilizing Afghanistan. We discussed our joint role in helping Iraq achieve the kind of independence and prosperity that I think has been advanced as a consequence of the election law finally being passed over the weekend.

We discussed issues of regional peace, and I indicated to the Prime Minister how important it is to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capacity in a way that allows Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy but provides assurances that it will abide by international rules and norms, and I believe that Turkey can be an important player in trying to move Iran in that direction.

And we discussed the continuing role that we can play as NATO allies in strengthening Turkey’s profile within NATO and coordinating more effectively on critical issues like missile defense.

I also congratulated the Prime Minister on some courageous steps that he has taken around the issue of normalizing Turkish/Armenian relations, and encouraged him to continue to move forward along this path.

We reaffirmed the shared commitment to defeat terrorist activity regardless of where it occurs. I expressed condolences to the Prime Minister and the Turkish people for the recent terrorist attack that was taken there and pledged U.S. support in trying to bring the perpetrators of this violence to justice.

And finally, I complimented the Prime Minister for the steps that he’s taken, often very difficult steps, in reintegrating religious minorities and ethnic minorities within Turkey into the democratic and political process, and indicated to him that we want to be as supportive as possible in further steps that he can take, for example, assuring the continuation of the Halki Seminary and addressing the vital needs of continuing the ecumenical patriarchy within Turkey.

Over all, just to summarize, I am incredibly optimistic about the prospect of stronger and stronger ties between the United States and Turkey that will be based not only on our NATO relationship, our military-to-military relationship, our strategic relationship, but also increasing economic ties.

And one of the concrete outcomes of this trip is to follow through on discussions that I had with both Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul in Turkey to stand up a strategic working group around economic issues and improving commercial ties. That will be launched with the participation of Secretary of Commerce Locke and our U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk, along with Turkish counterparts. And we think that there is enormous potential for us to grow trade and commercial ties between the two countries.

Turkey is a great country. It is growing in influence around the world. And I am pleased that America can call Turkey a friend, and I’m pleased that I’m able to call Prime Minister Erdogan personally a friend. I’m grateful for his trip here and look forward to many years of collaboration with him to observe both the prosperity of the American people and the Turkish people.

Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN: (As translated.) Thank you very much. I’m very grateful for the hospitality that both myself and my delegation have been shown since our arrival here. And I would like to once again express my thanks for that hospitality.

The fact that the President visited Turkey on his first overseas trip and that he described and characterized Turkish-U.S. relations as a model partnership has been very important for us politically and in the process that we all look forward to in the future as well. And important steps are now being taken in order to continue to build on our bilateral relations so as to give greater meaning to the term “model partnership.”
Of course, there are many sides to the development of this relationship — be it in the economic area, in the areas of science, art, technology, political areas and military areas.

We have also appointed two people from our side to act as counterparts in order to liaise with their American counterparts to continue on this process. Those two people are the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Ali Babacan; and the Minister of State responsible for economic affairs, Mr. Zafer Caglayan on the Turkish side. I do believe that this group is going to work to take the Turkish-American relations forward, not just in the economic area, but in all areas in general.

We, of course, have — we take joint steps on regional issues. This is in the Middle East, in Iraq, with respect to the Iranian nuclear program. We continue to have joint activity in Afghanistan, and the Turkish armed forces have taken over the command of the forces there for a third time with the additional support that we have sent to Afghanistan in the last couple of months. And there are steps that we have taken with respect to training activity and other activities in the context of provisional reconstruction teams, and we continue on that. We’ve had an opportunity to continue discussing those issues during our visit here.

Another important area, of course, is energy. Turkey is a transit country for energy issues. And the agreement has been signed for Nabucco and we are ready to take some important steps with respect to Nabucco.

We continue to talk with Azerbaijan. I do believe that positive progress will be made in this area. In addition to Azerbaijan, of course, there is the importance of companies like Statoil, Total, and British Petroleum and others.

We have also discussed relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is of great importance. This is important in the context of Turkish-Armenian relations. We have discussed the Minsk Group and what the Minsk Group can do — the United States, Russia, and France — to add more impetus to that process. I can say that to have more impetus in the Minsk process is going to have a very positive impact on the overall process, because the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia is very much related to these issues. As the administration in Turkey, we are determined to move forward in this area.

Another important issue with respect for us in Turkey is the fight against terrorism. And there was a statement that was made in this very room on the 5th of November 2007, which was very important in that context, because at the time we had declared the separatist terrorist organization as the common enemy of the United States, Turkey, and Iraq, because terrorism is the enemy of all mankind.

Our sensitivity and response to terrorism is what we have displayed when the twin towers were hit here in the United States. Wherever a terrorist attack takes place our reaction is always the same, because terrorism does not have a religion — a homeland. They have no homeland, no religion whatsoever.

We have also had opportunity to discuss what we can do jointly in the region with regard to nuclear programs. We as Turkey stand ready to do whatever we can to ensure a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue in our region. And we stand ready as Turkey to do whatever we can do with respect to relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel and Syria, because I do believe that, first and foremost, the United States, too, has important responsibility in trying to achieve global peace.

And we, too, must lend all kinds of support that we can in our regions and — in our respective regions and in the world in general in trying to achieve global peace, because this is not the time to make enemies, it’s the time to make friends. And I believe that we must move hand in hand towards a bright future.

Thank you once again.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

All right, where’s Ben Feller? There you are.

Q Thank you sir. I’d like to ask you briefly about a domestic issue, that being the economy, heading to your speech tomorrow. Do you support the use of federal bailout money to fund job creation programs? Is that an appropriate use of that money? Is that something that you plan to support tomorrow?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, Ben, it would be a mistake for me to step on my speech tomorrow by giving you the headline today.

Q Not that big a mistake. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But let me speak generally about what we’ve seen. On Friday we got the best jobs report that we’ve gotten in a very long time. And it significantly beat expectations. At minimum, it showed that for all practical purposes, we’ve stopped losing jobs. And that’s consistent with the fact that in the third quarter we saw the economy grow.

My first job when I came into office was to make sure that we got the financial crisis under control and that we tried to limit the devastating effects that it was having on the real economy. We have had a very tough year, and we’ve lost millions of jobs. But at least now we are moving in the right direction.

What my speech tomorrow will focus on is the fact that having gotten the financial crisis under control. Having finally moved into positive territory when it comes to economic growth, our biggest challenge now is making sure that job growth matches up with economic growth. And what we’ve seen is, is that companies shed jobs very quickly, partly induced by the panic of what was happening on Wall Street, and they are still tentative about hiring back all those people who were laid off. Also what we’re seeing is some long-term trends where companies are becoming so efficient in terms of productivity that they may feel that they can produce the same amount of goods or services without as many employees.

So those present some particular challenges, given the fact that we lost over 3 million jobs just in the first quarter of this year before any of the steps we took had a chance to take effect.

With respect to TARP specifically, I think you saw stories today and you’ve seen stories over the last several weeks that TARP has turned out to be much cheaper than we had expected, although not cheap. It means that some of that money can be devoted to deficit reduction. And the question is are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP — for example, making sure that small businesses are still getting lending — that would be appropriate in accelerating job growth?

And I will be addressing that tomorrow. But I do think that, although we’ve stabilized the financial system, one of the problems that we’re still seeing all the time — and I heard about it when it was in Allentown just this past week — was the fact that small businesses and some medium-sized businesses are still feeling a huge credit crunch. They cannot get the loans that they need to make capital investments that would allow them to then expand employment. And so that’s a particular area where we might be able to make a difference.

Is there somebody in the Turkish delegation that wants to call on a reporter?

Q Mr. President, is there any new and concrete U.S. action plan for disarmament and the elimination of the PKK terror organization in northern Iraq? Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, what the Prime Minister and I have discussed is coordinating closely in dealing with the problem of the PKK. We have stated before and I have reaffirmed since I came into office that the United States considers PKK a terrorist organization, and that the threat that it poses not only in Turkey but also in Iraq is one that is of deep concern. And as NATO allies, we are bound to help each other defend our territories. More broadly, I think that it is important for us to have a consistent position with respect to terrorism wherever it takes place.

So we discussed how we can coordinate militarily. I will tell you that with respect to the issue of the PKK, I think that the steps that the Prime Minister has taken in being inclusive towards the Kurdish community in Turkey is very helpful, because one of the things we understand is, is that terrorism cannot just be dealt with militarily; there is also social and political components to it that have to be recognized.

With respect to Iraq, I think the degree to which the Kurdish population within Iraq feels effectively represented within the central government in Baghdad, to the extent that we can resolve some long-term pressing issues like Kirkuk, the more I think that Kurds will recognize that their interests are not in supporting any kind of military activity but rather in working through conflicts politically, in a way that allows everybody to be prosperous. And that’s the kind of process that we would encourage.

Okay? Thank you very much, everybody. Happy holidays.

END
1:45 P.M. EST

Erdogan resists US calls for Iran sanctions

Media Watch — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:07 +0000

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has failed to persuade the prime minister of Turkey of the need for sanctions against Iran.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (REH’-jehp TY’-ihp UR’-doh-wahn) stressed at a press conference following his White House meeting, that persuading Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions should be left to diplomacy.

He said that he expressed Turkey’s willingness to mediate negotiations between Iran and the West. But he also criticized current sanctions against Iran as being ineffective because of loopholes for Western goods to reach the Iranian market.

The Obama administration may seek new sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, where Turkey currently votes as a non-permanent member.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking more help in the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama praised Turkey for its “outstanding” contributions there.

Speaking in the Oval Office after a private meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Obama said Turkey’s commitments have helped bring stability to Afghanistan. Turkey took over the rotating command of the NATO peacekeeping operation in Kabul last month and doubled its number of troops to around 1,750. However, it has resisted repeated U.S. requests to send its troops on combat operations.

Last week, Obama ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops be sent to Afghanistan. The administration expects its allies to provide up to 10,000 reinforcements.

Obama also expressed his condolences for a recent terrorist attack in Turkey, and said the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to defeat terrorism “regardless of where it occurs.”

At least five Turkish soldiers were killed and several others wounded in an ambush Monday in central Turkey. Authorities have not identified the attackers but Kurdish and leftist militants are active in the area.

Monday’s meeting between the two leaders comes at a time of rising Turkish influence in the Middle East and Central Europe. Before leaving for Washington, Erdogan said Turkey has already contributed the “necessary number” of troops in Afghanistan, and that Turkish military and police will train their Afghan counterparts and press ahead with health, education and infrastructure projects there.

Turkey’s participation in the Afghan mission carries enormous symbolic importance because it is the only Muslim country working with U.S. troops to beat back the resurgent Taliban and deny al-Qaida a sanctuary.

More broadly, however, the United States would like Turkey to use its sway as a regional power and Muslim majority ally to help solve some of America’s trickiest foreign policy problems. But the two sides disagree on many of the important issues.

Turkey has sought to become a mediator for the United States with Iran and Arab countries, but it is unclear whether the Obama administration is eager for Ankara to play that role. The two sides disagree on sanctions against Iran and the Obama administration is uneasy about recent Turkish disputes with Israel.

Greater friction is looming as the Obama administration intensifies pressure on Iran to end its nuclear ambitions. A U.S. push for sanctions at the U.N. Security Council, where Turkey currently sits as a nonpermanent member, will force Ankara to choose between a NATO ally and an important neighbor.

The two allies also will need to navigate the perennial issue of an annual U.S. statement on the World War I-era massacre of up to 1.5. million Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Breaking a campaign pledge, Obama has refrained from referring to the killings as genocide, a term widely viewed by genocide scholars as an accurate description.

The Obama administration has said it is wary that the sensitive issue could upset talks that could lead to reconciliation and a reopening of the border between Armenia and Turkey. It remains unclear how the administration will handle the issue in the future, especially if talks between Turkey and Armenia falter.

Tensions have eased over cooperation in Northern Iraq. Turkish complaints about a lack of U.S. help in rooting out Kurdish militants launching attacks on Turkey from Iraq loomed over Erdogan’s White House visit with former President George W. Bush in 2007.

Since then Turkey has boosted trade in the region and improved ties with members of the Kurdish minorities living on both sides of its border with Iraq.

Washington is Playing a Deeper Game with China

Canikli — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:25:33 +0000

by F. William Engdahl

Global Research, July 11, 2009

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14327

After the tragic events of July 5 in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China, it would be useful to look more closely into the actual role of the US Government’s ”independent“ NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). All indications are that the US Government, once more acting through its “private” Non-Governmental Organization, the NED, is massively intervening into the internal politics of China.

The reasons for Washington’s intervention into Xinjiang affairs seems to have little to do with concerns over alleged human rights abuses by Beijing authorities against Uyghur people. It seems rather to have very much to do with the strategic geopolitical location of Xinjiang on the Eurasian landmass and its strategic importance for China’s future economic and energy cooperation with Russia, Kazakhastan and other Central Asia states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

The major organization internationally calling for protests in front of Chinese embassies around the world is the Washington, D.C.-based World Uyghur Congress (WUC).

The WUC manages to finance a staff, a very fancy website in English, and has a very close relation to the US Congress-funded NED. According to published reports by the NED itself, the World Uyghur Congress receives $215,000.00 annually from the National Endowment for Democracy for “human rights research and advocacy projects.” The president of the WUC is an exile Uyghur who describes herself as a “laundress turned millionaire,” Rebiya Kadeer, who also serves as president of the Washington D.C.-based Uyghur American Association, another Uyghur human rights organization which receives significant funding from the US Government via the National Endowment for Democracy.

The NED was intimately involved in financial support to various organizations behind the Lhasa ”Crimson Revolution“ in March 2008, as well as the Saffron Revolution in Burma/Myanmar and virtually every regime change destabilization in eastern Europe over the past years from Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgystan to Teheran in the aftermath of the recent elections.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in a published interview in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The NED is supposedly a private, non-government, non-profit foundation, but it receives a yearly appropriation for its international work from the US Congress. The NED money is channelled through four “core foundations”. These are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, linked to Obama’s Democratic Party; the International Republican Institute tied to the Republican Party; the American Center for International Labor Solidarity linked to the AFL-CIO US labor federation as well as the US State Department; and the Center for International Private Enterprise linked to the US Chamber of Commerce.

The salient question is what has the NED been actively doing that might have encouraged the unrest in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and what is the Obama Administration policy in terms of supporting or denouncing such NED-financed intervention into sovereign politics of states which Washington deems a target for pressure? The answers must be found soon, but one major step to help clarify Washington policy under the new Obama Administration would be for a full disclosure by the NED, the US State Department and NGO’s linked to the US Government, of their involvement, if at all, in encouraging Uyghur separatism or unrest. Is it mere coincidence that the Uyghur riots take place only days following the historic meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization?

Uyghur exile organizations, China and Geopolitics

On May 18 this year, the US-government’s in-house “private” NGO, the NED, according to the official WUC website, hosted a seminal human rights conference entitled East Turkestan: 60 Years under Communist Chinese Rule, along with a curious NGO with the name, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO).

The Honorary President and founder of the UNPO is one Erkin Alptekin, an exile Uyghur who founded UNPO while working for the US Information Agency’s official propaganda organization, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as Director of their Uygur Division and Assistant Director of the Nationalities Services.

Alptekin also founded the World Uyghur Congress at the same time, in 1991, while he was with the US Information Agency. The official mission of the USIA when Alptekin founded the World Uyghur Congress in 1991 was “to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics in promotion of the [USA] national interest…” Alptekin was the first president of WUC, and, according to the official WUC website, is a “close friend of the Dalai Lama.”

Closer examination reveals that UNPO in turn to be an American geopolitical strategist’s dream organization. It was formed, as noted, in 1991 as the Soviet Union was collapsing and most of the land area of Eurasia was in political and economic chaos. Since 2002 its Director General has been Archduke Karl von Habsburg of Austria who lists his (unrecognized by Austria or Hungary) title as “Prince Imperial of Austria and Royal Prince of Hungary.”

Among the UNPO principles is the right to ‘self-determination’ for the 57 diverse population groups who, by some opaque process not made public, have been admitted as official UNPO members with their own distinct flags, with a total population of some 150 million peoples and headquarters in the Hague, Netherlands.

UNPO members range from Kosovo which “joined” when it was fully part of then Yugoslavia in 1991. It includes the “Aboriginals of Australia” who were listed as founding members along with Kosovo. It includes the Buffalo River Dene Nation indians of northern Canada.

The select UNPO members also include Tibet which is listed as a founding member. It also includes other explosive geopolitical areas as the Crimean Tartars, the Greek Minority in Romania, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (in Russia), the Democratic Movement of Burma, and the gulf enclave adjacent to Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and which just happens to hold rights to some of the world’s largest offshore oil fields leased to Condi Rice’s old firm, Chevron Oil. Further geopolitical hotspots which have been granted elite recognition by the UNPO membership include the large section of northern Iran which designates itself as Southern Azerbaijan, as well as something that calls itself Iranian Kurdistan.

In April 2008 according to the website of the UNPO, the US Congress’ NED sponsored a “leadership training” seminar for the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) together with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Over 50 Uyghurs from around the world together with prominent academics, government representatives and members of the civil society gathered in Berlin Germany to discuss “Self-Determination under International Law.” What they discussed privately is not known. Rebiya Kadeer gave the keynote address.

The suspicious timing of the Xinjiang riots

The current outbreak of riots and unrest in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang in the northwest part of China, exploded on July 5 local time.

According to the website of the World Uyghur Congress, the “trigger” for the riots was an alleged violent attack on June 26 in China’s southern Guangdong Province at a toy factory where the WUC alleges that Han Chinese workers attacked and beat to death two Uyghur workers for allegedly raping or sexually molesting two Han Chinese women workers in the factory. On July 1, the Munich arm of the WUC issued a worldwide call for protest demonstrations against Chinese embassies and consulates for the alleged Guangdong attack, despite the fact they admitted the details of the incident were unsubstantiated and filled with allegations and dubious reports.

According to a press release they issued, it was that June 26 alleged attack that gave the WUC the grounds to issue their worldwide call to action.

On July 5, a Sunday in Xinjiang but still the USA Independence Day, July 4, in Washington, the WUC in Washington claimed that Han Chinese armed soldiers seized any Uyghur they found on the streets and according to official Chinese news reports, widespread riots and burning of cars along the streets of Urumqi broke out resulting over the following three days in over 140 deaths.

China’s official Xinhua News Agency said that protesters from the Uighur Muslim ethnic minority group began attacking ethnic Han pedestrians, burning vehicles and attacking buses with batons and rocks. “They took to the street…carrying knives, wooden batons, bricks and stones,” they cited an eyewitness as saying. The French AFP news agency quoted Alim Seytoff, general secretary of the Uighur American Association in Washington, that according to his information, police had begun shooting “indiscriminately” at protesting crowds.

Two different versions of the same events: The Chinese government and pictures of the riots indicate it was Uyghur riot and attacks on Han Chinese residents that resulted in deaths and destruction. French official reports put the blame on Chinese police “shooting indiscriminately.” Significantly, the French AFP report relies on the NED-funded Uyghur American Association of Rebiya Kadeer for its information. The reader should judge if the AFP account might be motivated by a US geopolitical agenda, a deeper game from the Obama Administration towards China’s economic future.

Is it merely coincidence that the riots in Xinjiang by Uyghur organizations broke out only days after the meeting took place in Yakaterinburg, Russia of the member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as Iran as official observer guest, represented by President Ahmadinejad?

Over the past few years, in the face of what is seen as an increasingly hostile and incalculable United States foreign policy, the major nations of Eurasia—China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan have increasingly sought ways of direct and more effective cooperation in economic as well as security areas. In addition, formal Observer status within SCO has been given to Iran, Pakistan, India and Mongolia. The SCO defense ministers are in regular and growing consultation on mutual defense needs, as NATO and the US military command continue provocatively to expand across the region wherever it can.

The Strategic Importance of Xinjiang for Eurasian Energy Infrastructure

There is another reason for the nations of the SCO, a vital national security element, to having peace and stability in China’s Xinjiang region. Some of China’s most important oil and gas pipeline routes pass directly through Xinjiang province. Energy relations between Kazkhstan and China are of enormous strategic importance for both countries, and allow China to become less dependent on oil supply sources that can be cut off by possible US interdiction should relations deteriorate to such a point.

Kazak President Nursultan Nazarbayev paid a State visit in April 2009 to Beijing. The talks concerned deepening economic cooperation, above all in the energy area, where Kazkhastan holds huge reserves of oil and likely as well of natural gas. After the talks in Beijing, Chinese media carried articles with such titles as “”Kazakhstani oil to fill in the Great Chinese pipe.”

The Atasu-Alashankou pipeline to be completed in 2009 will provide transportation of transit gas to China via Xinjiang. As well Chinese energy companies are involved in construction of a Zhanazholskiy gas processing plant, Pavlodar electrolyze plant and Moynakskaya hydro electric station in Kazakhstan.

According to the US Government’s Energy Information Administration, Kazakhstan’s Kashagan field is the largest oil field outside the Middle East and the fifth largest in the world in terms of reserves, located off the northern shore of the Caspian Sea, near the city of Atyrau. China has built a 613-mile-long pipeline from Atasu, in northwestern Kazakhstan, to Alashankou at the border of China’s Xinjiang region which is exporting Caspian oil to China. PetroChina’s ChinaOil is the exclusive buyer of the crude oil on the Chinese side. The pipeline is a joint venture of CNPC and Kaztransoil of Kazkhstan. Some 85,000 bbl/d of Kazakh crude oil flowed through the pipeline during 2007. China’s CNPC is also involved in other major energy projects with Kazkhstan. They all traverse China’s Xinjiang region.

In 2007 CNPC signed an agreement to invest more than $2 billion to construct a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China. That pipeline would start at Gedaim on the border of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and extend 1,100 miles through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Khorgos in China’s Xinjiang region. Turkmenistan and China have signed a 30-year supply agreement for the gas that would fill the pipeline. CNPC has set up two entities to oversee the Turkmen upstream project and the development of a second pipeline that will cross China from the Xinjiang region to southeast China at a cost of some $7 billion.

As well, Russia and China are discussing major natural gas pipelines from eastern Siberia through Xinjiang into China. Eastern Siberia contains around 135 Trillion cubic feet of proven plus probable natural gas reserves. The Kovykta natural gas field could give China with natural gas in the next decade via a proposed pipeline.

During the current global economic crisis, Kazakhstan received a major credit from China of $10 billion, half of which is for oil and gas sector. The oil pipeline Atasu-Alashankou and the gas pipeline China-Central Asia, are an instrument of strategic ‘linkage’ of central Asian countries to the economy China. That Eurasian cohesion from Russia to China across Central Asian countries is the geopolitical cohesion Washington most fears. While they would never say so, growing instability in Xinjiang would be an ideal way for Washington to weaken that growing cohesion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization nations.

William Engdahl is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.

Time for US-NATO to Leave Central Asia

Haluk Demirbag — Sun, 24 May 2009 14:32:50 +0000

Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Prospects for a Multipolar World

by Rick Rozoff

(Saturday, May 23, 2009)

“The world is at a historical crossroad with the security and even survival of humanity at stake. One path continues along the way that has been pursued to date, of the right of might and every person for himself regardless of the consequences. The other is one of a more rational, just, peaceful and multipolar alternative.”

On June 15th and 16th the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will hold its ninth annual heads of state summit in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.

It will be attended by the presidents of its six full members – China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – and by representatives of various ranks from its four observer states - India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan – and from several aspiring partner nations yet to be announced.

The SCO as an institution and as a concept represents the world’s greatest potential and in ways is its major paradox as its capacities and their realization to date are so far apart.

Its six full members account for 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and its population is a third of the world’s. With observer states included, its affiliates account for half of the human race.

At its fifth and watershed summit in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, in June of 2005, when representatives of India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan attended an SCO summit for the first time, the president of the country hosting the summit, Nursultan Nazarbayev, greeted the guests in words that had never before been used in any context: “The leaders of the states sitting at this negotiation table are representatives of half of humanity.” [1]

Former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and political analyst Leonid Ivashov later described the significance and unique nature of the SCO in asserting that, “Contrary to Samuel Huntington’s concept of the allegedly inevitable clash of civilizations, the conclusion drawn in the SCO framework was that harmonized interactions between civilizations and their mutual assistance were possible.

“The contours of an alliance of five non-Western civilizations – Russian, Chinese, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist – began to materialize.” [2]

To emphasize the world-historical prospects of the organization, he added: “The SCO is supposed to be a special world without a clearly defined boundary, a world spanning the entire global space.

“The quadrangle of the new global entity – Brazil, Russia, China, and India – is already taking shape….The above and certain other formations are related to the SCO.” [3]

The quartet Ivashov mentions above – Brazil, Russia, China, and India – has since 2001 been known by the acronym formed by the first letters of the nations’ names, BRIC, the world’s fastest and most consistently growing economies with the largest foreign currency and gold reserves.

BRIC held its first summit last May in the same city as this year’s SCO summit will occur, Yekaterinburg, and will be holding the next in June.

Three of the four members of BRIC are also members or observers of the SCO, as are four of the world’s seven official nuclear states.

As a Russian daily said in 2006, “The SCO is a momentous organisation which occupies territory from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean and from Kaliningrad to Shanghai.

“It may become the second political pole of the world.” [4]

SCO members and observers also take in a stretch of Eurasia from the South China Sea to the Baltic Sea and from the Persian Gulf to the Bay of Bengal.

At the 2006 heads of states summit in Shanghai the presidents of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan – Hamid Karzai, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Pervez Musharraf – attended as observers. Photographs of the three standing side by side appeared on numerous websites at the time and abounded in importance, both symbolic and substantive. The Afghan and Pakistani presidents had been hurling mutual accusations for years over the other’s nation being the base of destabilization of his own and there even had been loss of life in military exchanges between the two states’ armed forces.

Iran was the intended victim of thinly veiled threats of US military strikes. In fact the granting of observer status to the nation in 2005 and Ahmadinejad’s attendance at three successive heads of state summits – China in 2006, Kyrgyzstan in 2007 and Tajikistan in 2008 – played no small role in thwarting whatever plans the United States and Israel have nurtured for attacking Iran.

To see the three above-mentioned leaders in the founding city of the SCO under the auspices of a multinational security alliance headed by Russia and China, as all three of their nations were at war or could soon be, revealed the regional and global prospects for the SCO as a new model for conflict resolution and cooperation.

During the 2007 summit the SCO discussed establishing a “unified energy market” and then Russian president Vladimir Putin stated, “I am convinced that energy dialogue, integration of our national energy concepts, and the creation of an energy club will set out the priorities for further cooperation.” [5)

The following year Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Massimov speaking in reference to an impending meeting of SCO energy ministers and in affirming that "the existing system of pipelines on the SCO space connecting Russia, Central Asian states and China is a serious basis for the establishment of an SCO unified energy space," said:

“The projects on the establishment of a unified energy market and the SCO common transport corridor could become bright examples of the global approach to defining the forms and mechanisms of cooperation.” [6]

By 2007 the SCO had initiated over twenty large-scale projects related to transportation, energy and telecommunications and held regular meetings of security, military, defense, foreign affairs, economic, cultural, banking and other officials from its member states. No multinational organization with such far-ranging and comprehensive mutual interests and activities has ever existed on this scale before.

America’s First Afghan War And Its Aftermath In Central Asia

Leaders of SCO member states routinely deny that the organization is a military alliance or one in the process of formation or that it entertains plans to model itself after or to directly challenge NATO. The first half of the claim is perfectly true, the second may be an obligation forced on it.

A penetrating Iranian analysis of late last year, “Iraq Smoke Screen” by Hamid Golpira, had this to say on the topic:

“According to Brzezinski’s theory, control of the Eurasian landmass is the key to global domination and control of Central Asia is the key to control of the Eurasian landmass….Russia and China have been paying attention to Brzezinski’s theory, since they formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2001, ostensibly to curb extremism in the region and enhance border security, but most probably with the real objective of counterbalancing the activities of the United States and NATO in Central Asia.” [7]

The SCO grew out of the Shanghai Five alliance of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan formed in 1996 on the basis of the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions to insure border demarcation and security in an area of the world thrown into turmoil by the precipitate break-up of the Soviet Union five years earlier.

Mutual concerns of the five nations also included cross-border armed extremism based in the Ferghana Valley that takes in parts of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and the threat of violent secessionist movements often connected to it.

What Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were in fact contending with was the aftermath of the American Afghan proxy war of 1978-1992 which had spread, as its architect Zbigniew Brzezinski intended it to, into the Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union during that period and continued to expand in the region after 1991.

When Uzbekistan joined the Shanghai Five in June of 2001 the group was formalized as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and commenced annual heads of state and heads of government (prime ministers) summits.

Less than three months later the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. occurred and in October the US and its NATO allies invaded Afghanistan and began establishing military bases in that nation and in Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

It was at that point which, whatever the SCO’s original purpose and goals envisioned, it was brought face-to-face with the US and NATO deploying troops, warplanes and military installations on SCO territory and in adjoining nations.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, SCO members like the rest of the world seemed inclined to give the US the benefit of the doubt and take it at its word: That it would launch a – limited – military operation in Afghanistan to avenge the attacks and perhaps along the way address the situation in the country and its environs that its own actions had in large part brought about.

These included the destruction of Afghanistan as a nation state after Washington’s mujahedin clients took the capital of Kabul in 1992 and soon reduced much of it to rubble with mortar attacks and other acts of factional fighting.

The resultant collapse of the nation’s economy and infrastructure.

The second-generation invasion of the shattered country by Taliban and their capture of Kabul in 1996 with the support of American favorite Benazir Bhutto and the active connivance of the US. Earlier this month current Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari told NBC News, concerning Taliban, that it is a “part of our past and your past, and the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] and CIA created them together.” [8]

By the time of the fifth SCO heads of state summit in Kazakhstan in 2005, with few of the claimed objectives of the US – and NATO which joined the fray by invoking its Article 5 mutual military assistance clause – accomplished and no sign of the Pentagon and NATO ever preparing to remove their military forces from Afghanistan and four neighboring nations, patience had worn thin among SCO member states.

The United States and its NATO allies had launched three unprovoked wars in four years – Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 – as well as waging counterinsurgency and proxy conflicts and subversion campaigns in Colombia, Macedonia, Ivory Coast, Yemen, the Philippines, Liberia and elsewhere.

What alarmed SCO members as much as the preceding was the so-called Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in March of 2005 and what government authorities in Tashkent saw as a variation on the theme of regime change in Uzbekistan in May of that year, a month before the SCO summit.

The uprising in Kyrgyzstan and the overthrow of its president Askar Akayev was the fourth in a series of Western-backed “color revolutions” in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union following those in Yugoslavia in 2000, Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in December of 2004, only three months before that in Kyrgyzstan. The dominoes were falling with an increasing rapidity and now were occurring on the Chinese as well as Russian borders. And in the very heart of the SCO community.

The newspaper of the Chinese ruling party, People’s Daily, wrote a month after the summit:

“The recent SCO Summit was held against a background featuring major changes taken place in the regional political situation. After the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and other direct military actions, the United States and other Western powers have basically completed integration of the world security pattern, launched offensives of ‘democratic reform’ and ‘elimination of tyrannical outposts’ in former Soviet states and the Greater Middle East region and started ‘color revolutions’ one after another.” [9]

At the summit in Kazakhstan the SCI issued a Declaration of Heads of Member States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which addressed a broad panoply of concerns and which contained a general statement on the situation obtaining in the world at the time and an elaboration of the organization’s principles. It included:

“The heads of the member states point out that, against the backdrop of a contradictory process of globalisation, multilateral cooperation, which is based on the principles of equal right and mutual respect, non-intervention in internal affairs of sovereign states, non-confrontational way of thinking and consecutive movement towards democratisation of international relations, contributes to overall peace and security, and call upon the international community, irrespective of its differences in ideology and social structure, to form a new concept of security based on mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and interaction.

“Diversity of cultures and civilisations in the world is a common human value. At a time of fast developing information technologies and communications it must stimulate mutual interest, tolerance, abandonment of extreme approaches and assessments, development of dialogue. Every people must be properly guaranteed to have the right to choose its own way of development.

“The heads of the member states are convinced that a rational and just world order must be based upon consolidation of mutual trust and good-neighborly relations, upon the establishment of true partnership with no pretence to monopoly and domination in international affairs. Such order will become more stable and secure, if it comes to consider the supremacy of principles and standards of international law, before all, the UN Charter. In the area of human rights it is necessary to respect strictly and consecutively historical traditions and national features of every people, the sovereign equality of all states.” [10]

As an earlier quote mentioned, the SCO is composed of six member states and four observers representing a true diversity of cultures, civilizations, histories and political systems, from many of the world’s oldest and most venerable traditions to some of its newest nations, from the world’s two most populous states to Kyrgyzstan with slightly over five million citizens, and political structures ranging from secular to religious and multi-party to single-party. The internal demographic composition of the ten members and observers, excluding Mongolia, is also a rich tapestry of ethnic, national, linguistic and confessional pluralism and variety.

In additional to calling for a just, rational and peaceful world in a global situation that was little enough of any of the three, the Declaration contained both an appeal and blueprint for the sort of international order required as an antidote to the current one of unipolarity, unilateralism, cutthroat competition, cynical complacency, brute force and war.

The summit declaration was the opening salvo in a long-overdue campaign for a multipolar international system, one not dominated by a self-appointed sole superpower or by several powers with presumptions to global domination or respective spheres of influence, but a democracy between nations that would augment the development of democracy within nations.

In November of 2005 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that the “Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is working to establish a rational and just world order” and that “The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation provides us with a unique opportunity to take part in the process of forming a fundamentally new model of geopolitical integration.” [11]

It also recognized that no single, standardized model of political, economic, social, cultural and ethical development and practices could be forced on the 88% of humanity that lives outside the Euro-Atlantic world, not a parliamentary system devised in the British Isles centuries ago nor a consumerist culture and pseudo-civilization designed on Madison Avenue and in Hollywood.

That genuine structural problems exist in the political systems of SCO member states is indisputable. Five of the six were thrust into sudden independence in 1991 with the near instantaneous break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the USSR’s former Central Asian republics were among the most adversely affected by that catastrophic occurrence. Social dislocation, economic destitution, cross-border armed incursions and general destabilization are not conducive to the optimal development of electoral and other political institutions.

The SCO Declaration evinced a recognition that even if trends in all nations and societies should evolve in the direction of government that is equitable, accountable, accessible and humane, each nation and culture will arrive at that destination by its own path as well as that of universal principles.

The West that presumes to dictate, often to the point of blackmail and bombs, that its increasingly constricted and impracticable model of governance must be enforced always and everywhere, even where the native soil rejects such transplantation, would be better advised to examine its own deficiencies.

The standard bearer of Western values, the United States, held federal elections last year in which two billion dollars of private funds were expended in an effort to buy influence. And that in a system where only two established political parties are given automatic ballot status and thus have a monopoly on fielding candidates broadly and surely in winning posts.

Time For US And NATO To Leave Central Asia

The Declaration adopted at the 2005 SCO summit also contained this provision:

“Considering the completion of the active military stage of antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan, the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation consider it necessary that respective members of the antiterrorist coalition set a final timeline for their temporary use of the above-mentioned objects of infrastructure and stay of their military contingent on the territories of the SCO member states.” [12]

Which is to say that the US and NATO had outlived whatever usefulness their presence in South and Central Asia had served and it was now time for them to leave.

A Chinese daily expressed the matter in these terms:

“The Declaration points out that the SCO member countries have the ability and responsibility to safeguard the security of the Central Asian region, and calls on Western countries to leave Central Asia. That is the most noticeable signal given by the Summit to the world.” [13]

On July 7 of 2006 Uzbekistan issued an eviction notice to the 800 US military personnel housed in its base at Karshi-Khanabad, stating that the use of the base had been allowed “for the sole purpose of ousting Taliban rulers from Afghanistan” which had been achieved almost four years earlier.

The government demarche said “Any other prospects for a U.S. military presence in Uzbekistan were not considered by the Uzbek side.” [14]

On the 17th Kyrgyzstan’s newly elected President Kurmanbek Bakiyev “stressed …that with the appeasement of the situation in Afghanistan, it is the time for the United States to schedule its pullout of forces from the base in his country,” where an estimated 1,500 US and NATO military personnel were stationed.

On July 20 Tajik Foreign Minister Talbak Nazarov said “it is time for the United States and its allies to set a date to pull their conventional troops out of Central Asia as the situation in Afghanistan has stabilized,” with local reference to the use of the former Soviet Kulyab airbase and the use of Tajikistan’s airspace. [15]

“Nazarov reiterated the call made jointly by the six member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) earlier this month that the US-led anti-terror coalition should set a deadline for the withdrawal of their troops and the temporary use of infrastructure in Central Asian countries.” [16]

Later in the month Russia signed an agreement with the government of Tajikistan for the use of a military base in the country.

The US Secretary of State at the time, Condoleezza Rice, denounced the SCO Declaration’s call for the removal of US and NATO bases in Central Asia with the pat response that “there is still a lot of terrorist activity in Afghanistan and US troops were needed to train the Afghan army to counter it,” [17], a state of affairs that from the Western perspective persists to this day, four years later, and into the indefinite future with the war now fully extended into Pakistan.

So concerned was Washington that its plans for permanent military deployments in Central and South Asia under the guise of the so-called Global War on Terror were in jeopardy that it deployed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on a hastily scheduled tour to the region, visiting Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

At the time the US had “1,000 planes in the Ganci military base” in Kyrgyzstan and “about 1,500 military staff and planes in the Khanabad base in Uzbekistan.” [18]

“Rumsfeld planned his trip after the Shanghai Cooperation Organization called for a timetable for US withdrawal in an early June summit in Astana.

“During his talks in Bishkek, Rumsfeld will demand the lease of Ganci military base, in the vicinity of Bishkek’s Manas Airport, to be extended.” [19]

Washington had leverage with the governments of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in two respects: The ever-looming threat of another “color revolution” could be activated against any government that defied US diktat and America could offer economic incentives to the two Central Asian nations that had no substantial oil and natural gas resources, unlike Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

In August what were described as anti-terrorist exercises (most any military deployment or exercise since September 11, 2001 has been characterized as such) were conducted in the Caspian Sea with the participation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the post-Soviet Collective Security Treaty Organization (comprised of Russia, Armenia, Belarus and the four Central Asian nations in the SCO) and the Commonwealth of Independent States anti-aircraft defense allied command.

Participants included the chiefs of anti-terrorist units and secret services from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and officials from the Iranian Security Ministry attended the exercise in the capacity of observers for the first time. [20]

This was while US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was conniving to establish a Western-dominated Caspian Guard in the region.

Days later Russia and China launched their first-ever joint military exercises, the eight-day Peace Mission 2005, in Eastern Russia and in China’s Shandong Province, consisting of land, sea and air components and 10,000 troops.

In December the Chief of the Russian General Staff at the time, Yuri Baluyevsky, announced “Our goal is to organise such multi-country military exercises [with both India and China] within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.” [21]

A Pakistani commentary in the same period drew attention to the purpose of such exercises:

“NATO was often regarded as the hidden fist behind a peaceful US-led drive for equal access to the vast energy resources of the successor states of the Soviet Union.” [22]

SCO Appeal Resonated Throughout Eurasia

But the most significant aspect of the period following the SCO June summit was the eagerness with which nations outside the organization welcomed its new enhanced role and the underlying call for global multipolarity.

Indian External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh, who had represented his nation at the summit, announced a month afterward “To deepen engagement with the region, India plans to apply for full membership of the SCO,” [23], a position he repeated in November when stating that India planned to expand its engagement with the SCO and “declared India’s intention for a greater role in the organisation.” [24]

At the same time the Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz “stressed that the SCO…represents 3 billion population of the world” [25] and said his country “wanted to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,” adding, “This organization is of immense strategic importance” and “that if the SCO conducted military exercises like those performed by Russia, China, and India recently, Pakistan would consider participating.” [26]

New observer state Iran also expressed its desire to become a full member and stated that it would offer the SCO access to the Middle East and, according to Iran’s First Vice-President Mohammad-Reza Aref, “Iran would play a key role in linking the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to Persian Gulf states and even Europe.” [27]

Malaysian Ambassador to Russia Mohamad Khalis, who had attended the Astana summit, said “Malaysia completely supports the goals set by the SCO and is ready to cooperate with the organisation and its members for common interests.” [28]

In the ensuing months similar interest was expressed by nations as diverse as Bangladesh, Belarus, Nepal, Turkey and Azerbaijan.

On November 4, 2005 a ceremony was held at the SCO Secretariat to sign a protocol on the establishment of a Contact Group between the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Afghanistan. [29]

The SCO has also established relations with the United Nations, where it is an observer in the General Assembly, the European Union, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The response to the prospects of an expanded SCO was such that a Pakistani commentator considered “The new contenders for admission are Afghanistan, North Korea and South Korea. If the SCO continues its southward expansion, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia may join in the future.” [30]

US Strikes Back: India

The US counteroffensive was not long in coming nor was it limited to attempts at maintaining airbases in Central Asia.

It targeted the most populous new SCO observer state and that nation which can tilt not only the region but the world either toward Western dominance or a new multipolar international order: India. July 18, 2005 American President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued a joint statement on the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement that came into effect three years later and that permitted a waiver to be granted to India to commence civilian nuclear trade.

This was the economic enticement to lure India away from the SCO and closer security arrangements with Russia and China and begin the process of its orientation toward strategic military ties with Washington and its serving as the fourth pillar of an emerging Asian NATO along with Japan, Australia and South Korea. India as a full member of the SCO would insure the demise of global unipolarity, of bloc and power politics on the world stage and of Western domination on not only the military but the diplomatic and economic fronts.

India as a US military ally will perpetuate divisions in the world and hostilities in Eurasia.

An Indian analyst warned two years ago that “Washington is not interested in New Delhi’s official admission to the nuclear power club because that would enhance the latter’s influence in international affairs. An important objective of the Americans in the region is to turn India into a major factor capable of counterbalancing a rapidly growing China.

“In order to reduce the SCO’s role and influence in the region and to promote realisation of the American concept of a ‘Greater Central Asia,’ Tokyo and Washington are trying to drag New Delhi into a so-called Quadrilateral of Democracies aimed at building an alliance-like relationship between the US, Japan, Australia and India.” [31]

Another Indian writer at the time echoed the same concern in stating, “It is indeed sad that New Delhi should continue to underestimate the importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

“So enamoured are our foreign policy mandarins of the new found friendship with Washington that they have found no time to evaluate the SCO’s great potential strategic importance to India.

“The US has sought to undermine the SCO and given an opportunity, it would have loved to throttle it in its infancy.

“India is the most important ‘swing state’ in the international system. It has the potential to emerge as a strong, independent centre of power. Must India allow the US to play midwife to the birth of a new great power?” (32)

India is, as a member of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, China, India) and RIC (Russia, India, China; the Strategic Triangle that former Russian foreign minister and prime minister Yevgeny Primakov spoke of in 1998) group of nations, as a major economic power in its own right and as a nation of over one billion citizens, that country in the world which can decide whether efforts by the SCO and complementary ones in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East toward securing a democratic, peaceful, prosperous and safe world system are successfully expedited or are made more laborious, painful and costly by artificially prolonging the disproportionate and by now manifestly unjust and disastrous power of the major Western states in and over the world.

West Contained And In Decline

Yet the 2005 SCO summit has not been without effects. Since that time the cycle of wars waged by the US and its NATO allies from 1999-2003 has been halted. There have been no more successful “color” coups in the former Soviet Union, notwithstanding apparent attempts in that direction in Belarus, Armenia and most recently Moldova.

The current president of Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, attended the 2007 heads of state summit as did Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the second for two years in a row.

In early October of 2007 the SCO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization signed a memorandum of mutual understanding to integrate regional and international security cooperation and the following month agreed on a collaborative approach to Afghanistan.

This May 15th Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov informed the news media that the SCO had recommended what is described as dialogue partner status to Belarus and Sri Lanka, which would extend the geographical range of the SCO to a nation entirely in Europe and to another not part of the Eurasian landmass.

And not only has the post-World War II global domination of the West, given an extended and virtually unbridled license after the end of the Cold War, been curtailed by the new assertiveness of a revived Russia, a democratized and progressively more integrated Latin America and new formations like the SCO, but its power to dictate economic, financial, trade, copyright, political and energy terms to the rest of the world – and its ability to reserve the exclusive prerogative of using military force outside its own borders – has begun to collapse under its own weight.

Not that the military, including strategic, threats have abated. A Turkish analyst reminded readers last September that “the SCO has seen the unipolar mentality of the US as a source of conflict rather than a cure for the world’s common challenges.

“Stressing the necessity of a multipolar world for the sake of international security, the SCO has supported the maintenance of a strategic balance of power.

“The SCO has thus warned that the US endeavor to create a global missile defense system, as in Poland and the Czech Republic, is a futile attempt, as such efforts will neither help uphold the strategic balance nor prevent the spread of weapons of every kind, including nuclear.” [33]

In the same month the head of Russia’s Center for Contemporary Studies on Iran, Rajab Safarev, indicated the outlines of an alternative: “If Iran would become a SCO member, the SCO would become the third most influential, most powerful international body after the United Nations and the European Union.”

“I even believe the SCO would rank second, next to the UN, from the competence point of the view, after Iran’s membership.”

“The SCO would also get stronger following Iran’s membership, because its member states would be the owners of two thirds of the world’s energy sources which gives them a great financial power.” [34]

Caucasus War As Turning Point

On August 1st of last year Georgian armed forces launched artillery barrages against the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, killing several people including a Russian peacekeeper. Only the preceding day a US-led NATO military exercise had been completed in Georgia and American troops and hardware remained in the country. Six days later Georgia, hours after its US-educated leader Mikheil Saakashvili announced a unilateral ceasefire, unleashed a full scale invasion of South Ossetia.

Russian forces beat back the Georgian offensive and decisively defeated an army that for years had been armed and trained by the Pentagon and NATO.

The Caucasus war was a double precedent. It marked the first time that a US and NATO proxy army had come into direct armed conflict with Russia and its defeat put the first dent in the West’s post-Cold War image of invincibility.

After the war last August and in response to it Iranian President Ahmadinejad affirmed his country’s intention of joining the SCO and added, “The thing is that every organization has its own functions. We have our own expectations related to the SCO. The world does not consist only of NATO and the United States.” [35]

Addressing the Georgia-Russia war also, the head of Russian Center of Political Information Alexei Mukhin took the above point to the next level: “If we are talking about SCO’s move from an economic organization to a military one, then this has already happened….All the member states were willing to respond to the strengthening of NATO.” [36]

The director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ center for SCO and regional problems, Anatoly Bolyatko, added:

“[T]he recent conflict in the Caucasus underscored the need for a multipolar world order. If NATO and even the UN are unable to settle this conflict, the SCO could well become a viable platform for resolving such problems….

“The SCO should eventually start playing a new role both in and outside the Caucasus. What we see now is a real crisis of the idea of a unipolar world now that the US and its NATO allies pretend they are unable to get to the core of what’s been happening in the Caucasus.

“I believe that organizations like the SCO and BRIC, that brings Russia together with Brazil, India and China, should play an important role here.” [37]

Russian political analyst Andrei Areshev also noted on this score that “Following the August crisis in the Caucasus, political consultations within the SCO have intensified….The SCO’s transformation into an organisation capable of effective resolution, inter alia, of joint defense issues will become ever more relevant as the tension on the Eurasian continent, which is provoked from without, increases further.” [38]

An even more forceful assessment is that which follows:

“Changes in world politics that took place after ‘the awakening of the Russian bear’ could open the SCO’s doors for Tehran, which remains one of the key oil suppliers for China.

“If this should be the case, it may be possible to speak of an unprecedented consolidation of the countries of the Eurasian continent around Beijing and Moscow.

“This will render the US’s attack on Iran impossible and put an end to America’s plans of redrawing the lines in the Middle East and Central Asia.

“Such developments…change the entire world order formed after the collapse of the USSR.” [39]

Prospects: World Crisis And Emerging International Alternative

In late October of 2008 the prime ministers of the SCO member states met in Kazakhstan against the backdrop of the worst world financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

At the summit Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that “Amid the global financial turmoil the SCO function acquires new meaning.” [40]

He specified that each member of the organization “offers its competitive advantages to be added to the common asset of interaction on international markets.”

“In this sense, the organization’s role doubles today, since we are going through a complicated process in the international financial system and in the world economy. God has blessed the countries of our region to make use of their competitive geographical and historical advantages.” [41]

What Putin was alluding to was a central hallmark, indeed the very foundation, of the SCO and its model of horizontal rather than vertical integration. What provides the organization the vast potential it has both as the major multifaceted alliance and structure in Eurasia and also as microcosm and prototype alike for an international transformation in all realms is not only the individual or even collective resources of its members, but its principle and practice of complementarity, of avoiding inefficient and costly repetition and redundancy and what in the West is uncritically celebrated as “competition.”

It is that precise variant of myopic and avaricious, ruthless and asocial policy practiced over the past twenty years – when the US and its allies held practically uncontested sway over the world and were free to fashion it just as they chose to – that has led to the people of the West and the world staring into an economic and social abyss. The last mechanisms left available to power-obsessed Western political elites is to rob their own citizens and those of the world to subsidize the institutions and individuals that created the crisis and to maintain war as their ultimate trump card.

At last October’s SCO summit Iranian Vice President Parviz Davudi addressed an initiative that has been garnering greater interest and assuming a heightened sense of urgency when he said, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a good venue for designing a new banking system which is independent from international banking systems.” [42]

The address by Russia’s Putin also included these comments:

“We now clearly see the defectiveness of the monopoly in world finance and the policy of economic selfishness. To solve the current problem Russia will to take part in changing the global financial structure so that it will be able to guarantee stability and prosperity in the world and to ensure progress.”

“The world is seeing the emergence of a qualitatively different geo-political situation, with the emergence of new centers of economic growth and political influence.

“We will witness and take part in the transformation of the global and regional security and development architectures adapted to new realities of the 21st century, when stability and prosperity are becoming inseparable notions.” [43]

The world is at a historical crossroad with the security and even survival of humanity at stake. One path continues along the way that has been pursued to date, of the right of might and every person for himself regardless of the consequences. The other is one of a more rational, just, peaceful and multipolar alternative.

Notes:

[1]. Kazinform, July 5, 2005

[2]. Strategic Culture Foundation, January 8, 2008

[3]. Ibid

[4]. From Pravda as quoted in Daily Jang (Pakistan]. , June 14, 2006

[5]. Eurasia.net, August 16, 2007

[6]. New Europe (Belgium]. , November 4, 2008

[7]. Tehran Times, November 20, 2008

[8]. Press Trust of India, May 11, 2009

[9]. People’s Daily, July 6, 2005

[10]. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, July 13, 2005

http://www.sectsco.org/news_detail.asp?id=407&LanguageID=2

[11]. UzReport, November 28, 2005

[12]. Ibid

[13]. People’s Daily, July 8, 2005

[14]. New York Times, July 8, 2005

[15]. Xinhua News Agency, July 21, 2005

[16]. Ibid

[17]. Xinhua News Agency, July 21, 2005

[18]. Cihan News Agency (Turkey]. , July 26, 2005

[19]. Ibid

[20]. Itar-Tass, August 17, 2005

[21]. The Hindu, December 4, 2005

[22]. Daily Times, December 2, 2005

[23]. Indo-Asian News Service, July 6, 2005

[24]. Indo-Asian News Service, October 27, 2005

[25]. Pakistan Tribune, October 27, 2005

[26]. Russian Information Agency Novosti, October 27, 2005

[27]. Islamic Republic News Agency, July 5, 2005

[28]. Vietnam News Agency, December 9, 2005

[29]. Shanghai Cooperation Organization, November 4, 2005

[30]. Daily Jang, June 14, 2006

[31]. Mansoor Ali, Choice between Quadrilateral of Democracies and SCO, Mainstream, October 9, 2007

[32]. Ash Narain Roy, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – Towards New Dynamism, Mainstream, September 18, 2007

[33]. Guner Ozkan, Russia and the remaking of the ‘near abroad’ part 2, Zaman, September 23, 2008

[34]. Islamic Republic News Agency, September 15, 2008

[35]. Interfax, August 29, 2008

[36]. Deutsche Presse-Agentur, August 27, 2008

[37]. Voice of Russia, September 7, 2008

[38]. Strategic Culture Foundation, December 24, 2008

[39]. RosBusinessConsulting, August 30, 2008

[40]. Voice of Russia, October 31, 2008

[41]. Interfax, October 30, 2008

[42]. Mehr News Agency, October 31, 2008

[43]. Russia Today, October 30, 2008

Source: www.globalresearch.ca, May 24, 2009