Doc's Talk: Turning Point For Caspian Region 5 Presidents Agree On Joint Security

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Turning Point For Caspian Region 5 Presidents Agree On Joint Security

Comment:Iran has cemented its ring of safety and added the protection of Russia against any attack from the USA. As I stated in a previous piece, Iran is clever and now believes it is protected.

TEHRAN, Oct. 16--President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said agreements reached by the Caspian Sea littoral states mark a turning point in bilateral relations and cooperation. Addressing a press conference at the end of the second Caspian Summit on Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad said the leaders of the five Caspian states in Tehran agreed to form the Caspian Economic Cooperation Organization.
He added that the Caspian Economic Cooperation Conference, to be chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin, will be held in the summer of 2008.

The Iranian president did not specify the venue or date of the conference but said delegations, headed by ministers of economy of the littoral states, will attend the meeting.
He noted that expert meetings will be held and comprehensive economic agreements will be drafted when the organization is formed.
Emphasizing that the Caspian Sea would remain the sea of peace, friendship and solidarity, Ahmadinejad said the presidents of five states also agreed to draft a Caspian security arrangement.
“Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev will undertake management of the project,“ he said.
The president said besides signing the Caspian Sea final declaration, he and his counterparts reached an agreement on holding their foreign ministerial session every six months and summits on a regular basis.
He added that the Third Caspian Sea Summit will be held in Baku in October 2008, under the chairmanship of President Aliyev.
Ahmadinejad noted that the five littoral states have stressed their willingness for stronger cooperation and promotion of regional peace, friendship and security.
Describing the first-ever political document signed by presidents of the five-nation Caspian Sea as a “big achievement“, the Iranian president said the participants in the meeting had been able to address all issues on the summit’s agenda.
“The political document, signed for the first time by the presidents of the five (Caspian Sea) littoral states, is a big achievement. Very good agreements, reached in the Caspian Sea Summit, will be a turning point in relations and cooperation among the littoral states,“ he said.

Bushehr Commitment
Also speaking in the same press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin said delay in the completion of Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is not politically motivated and Russia is serious about finishing the job as soon as possible, but there are minor issues that should first be resolved.
“We have signed an agreement with Iran that the nuclear fuel should be returned to Russia which is on top of the agenda of meetings between experts of the two sides,“ he said.
Referring to Iran as a big regional power, he said Iran and Russia have friendly ties and are keen on broadening cooperation and activities.
“Iran and Russia are to help resolve regional conflicts and help restore peace and tranquility to nations,“ he said.
On US unilateralism in global affairs, Putin said, “We seek a multipolar world and I personally am against unilateralism. The US is unable to enforce a unipolar system because no power would be able to resolve all issues single-handed.“

Tehran Declaration
The leaders of the Caspian states released the 25-point Tehran Declaration on major regional and international issues.
Caspian Sea states declared that they would not let their territory be used for attacking another littoral country.
The declaration followed a speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin calling on the Caspian nations not to let any third country use their territory for an attack.
“We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against another Caspian state,“ he said.
Putin also said nations should not pursue oil pipeline projects that are not backed by regional powers.

He suggested that a water channel be established to link Caspian Sea to the Black Sea.
“Such a measure will create a potential power for transit of goods through which the Caspian Sea states would receive more facilities,“ he said.
The Russian president urged the Caspian states to materialize a North-South corridor.
Underscoring the need for implementing infrastructural projects among the Caspian states, he said, “Today, the Caspian Sea has turned into one of the main centers for oil and gas production and trade.“

Putin criticized the inappropriate ecological status of the Caspian Sea.
Referring to the importance of the Caspian Sea and its natural resources for its littoral states, he called on neighbors “to reach an agreement through dialogue and maintaining territorial integrity“.

“As we cannot allow other countries to use our soil for any kind of military operation against any of the Caspian Sea littoral states, our position should be the same regarding the Caspian Sea,“ he said.

Stressing the importance of shipping in the Caspian Sea while bearing their national flags as well as the principles of Tehran Declaration, Putin said the Tehran Declaration’s principles can build confidence that will help resolve all other issues.

The Caspian Sea leaders believe that cooperation on the basis of friendship and good neighborly relations will serve their national interests and regional security.
They called for the final approval of the Caspian legal regime in light of the agreements already reached by the five states, which envisages fair distribution of Caspian Sea resources.

In the final declaration signed by the five heads of states, all countries voiced their commitments to non-proliferation of nuclear arms and stressed that the peaceful use of nuclear energy is the right of all Caspian Sea littoral states.
The leaders of the Caspian states agreed to hold regular multilateral contacts on regional and international issues.

They reaffirmed their commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including respect for national sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and equality of the nations and not to resort to use of force or intimidation.

The Second Summit of the Caspian Sea Littoral States ended its work after holding a joint press conference in the presence of the heads of state of Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan Republic, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk