Crescent Magazine

MD-Toronto, Crescent–online  
March 16, 2010 – 10:00am EST

A study by David Pollock, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) traps the US decision-making process in an illusionary perception of US-Arab relations. Pollock’s research, presented on March 11, focused on studying the anti-US actions of the wider Arab public.

In order to examine this phenomenon, the study produced the so-called Arab behavioral index. It claimed that since 2005, US image in the Arab world had improved as had cooperation between the US and Arab regimes. In support of his contention, Pollock stated that since only 3 million Arabs protested against the Iraq war, it was a sign that the Arab street was not hostile to the US. He also opined that the spike in Arab arms purchases from the US was indicative of the fact that the behavior of Arab regimes was compatible with US interests even if public attitude was consistently hostile.

Even though the WINEP study attempted to give the findings credibility through some fancy, but questionable statistics, it is essentially flawed. Since when has the Arab public been free to express its views and expectations? How can one study the relationship between the authoritarian regimes in the Arab world and the US and claim that their policies represent the aspirations of the Arab masses?

Most of the statistics produced by the report refer to ties between the illegitimate, unelected and authoritarian Arab regimes sustained in power primarily through US support. The author makes a false claim that it represents the people’s will. If sale of weapons or any other commodity to the Mubarak regime or the Saudi family has gone up, it is not indicative of improved relations with the Arab street since the rulers are completely detached from the masses.

Pollock's argument that only 3 million Arabs demonstrated against the US invasion of Iraq was challenged by Marc Lynch, director of the Institute for Middle East Studies. He correctly pointed out that this was a flawed assumption; very few people actually joined Martin Luther King for civil liberties during his march on Washington in 1963. This does not mean that the majority of US citizens were against the civil liberties movement.

The statistics and arguments from which such conclusions are drawn show that the neo-con policy “experts” are detached from reality in the Arab world. The fact that many Arabs buy US products does not mean that they also view US policies favorably.

Arab masses are often left with no choice but to buy US goods because their own industries are virtually non-existent due to the incompetence of their rulers and mismanagement of the country's resources. It is, however, hard to believe that those who produced the study were unaware of these basic facts. The WINEP study is primarily aimed at keeping the average US citizen in the dark, who is in any case not well informed about US standing in the region. Such studies aim to create support for US aggression in the Middle East by making ordinary average Americans believe that US presence in the Arab world is “welcomed.”

END

MD, Moscow-Crescent-online (Exclusive)
March 14, 2010 – 11:00 am EST

Fifteen years ago Azerbaijan went through one of its most traumatic events in modern history. For many Azeris this date represents the consolidation in power of a brutal dictatorship that rules Azerbaijan to this day.

On March 17, 1995 Geidar Aliyev publicly accused members of the Special Operations Police Unit, better known in Azerbaijan under its Russian acronym OMON, of a coup plot. He had already launched a military assault on OMON headquarters in Baku four days earlier. The inability of government forces to overcome OMON militarily forced Aliyev to agree to a negotiated settlement with the founder of OMON, then Deputy Interior Minister, Colonel Rovshan Djavadov. On the way to meet Aliyev on March 17, Colonel Djavadov was shot and died in hospital because security forces loyal to the president prevented medical treatment. Along with Colonel Djavadov, nearly 20 other OMON members were killed and thousands were later imprisoned, sentenced to lengthy jail terms.

In Azeri politics, the word OMON was transformed into a political idea and became synonymous with a free and independent Azerbaijan. Many former members of OMON still spearhead the struggle for a free Azerbaijan. One such person is Eldar Orujev.

He had served in the elite airborne forces of the Soviet army and from 1992 to 1993 he was commander of the reconnaissance division of OMON. In 1994 he was imprisoned by Aliyev’s regime for four years on fabricated charges of being a “foreign spy”. He is currently Chairman of the Movement for Free Azerbaijan.  

To understand the significance of OMON and the events of those momentous days, Crescent International conducted an interview with Eldar Orujev.  

CI: How significant was OMON to the defense strategy of Azerbaijan during the aggression launched by Armenian extremists?

Eldar Orujev:  During all stages of the struggle for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity OMON was a major component of the struggle. It was the most effective and efficient military structure which defended Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. OMON was primarily composed of people who had previously served in the armed forces of the USSR and many of them were in the special forces of the Soviet army. OMON was an elite unit of the Azeri armed forces which was highly respected by all Azeris and feared by the Armenian nationalists in Karabakh.  
However, if we are to talk of OMON in terms of its strategic contribution to the Azeri defense strategy we must note that OMON went through three stages of Azerbaijan’s history which were very different.

The first period of OMON’s active role was during the Presidency of Ayaz Mutalibov (1990-1992). During this period OMON was at the core of Azerbaijan’s defense strategy. Major responsibilities for leading the war in Karabakh were placed on OMON.  

After the 1992 massacre in Khojali by Armenian nationalists, Abulfaz Elchibey took power in Azerbaijan. During this stage, the war in Karabakh turned into a large-scale conflict and it became obvious that OMON alone could not fight on all fronts. Therefore, the ruling Popular Front Party (PFP) hastily began creating a national army. Even during this stage, OMON played a crucial role in Azerbaijan’s national defense strategy because the newly formed National Armed Forces (NAF) were not professional and lacked combat experience. Therefore, OMON detachments were used as offensive troops and conducted all major offensive operations. Once OMON troops captured any territory, responsibility for securing its defenses would be transferred to the NAF.

The third stage in the process of OMON’s evolution was the period when on the basis of treachery the KGB General, Geidar Aliyev usurped power in 1993. During this stage of Azerbaijan’s history, OMON was pulled into politics. Once OMON and its leader Colonel Rovshan Djavadov became the guarantors of Aliyev’s security, OMON and its leader signed their own death warrants.

Aliyev’s accession to power marks the period when Azerbaijan began losing the war in Karabakh. One of the key reasons for Azeri armed forces’ defeat in Karabakh was Aliyev’s disbanding of 30 volunteer brigades of the national army who by that time had gained an extensive combat experience and were effective in fighting the Armenian nationalists. Aliyev perceived the volunteer brigades as politically dangerous. Even though the regime began literally handing over the territories to Armenian nationalists, OMON was still fighting in Karabakh attempting to change the course of the war. The situation on the war front convinced Colonel Rovshan Djavadov that Aliyev was not interested in preserving the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and began to perceive OMON as a danger to his [Aliyev] rule.

CI: Why did you choose to enroll in OMON and not in the National Army of Azerbaijan?

Eldar Orujev: After the 1992 massacre in Khojali by Armenian nationalists I decided to go and fight in Karabakh. I had heard about OMON long before the Khojali massacre and knew that it was spearheading the resistance in Karabakh against Armenian nationalists. Therefore, I chose OMON because it was at the forefront of the resistance.

CI: Why do you think Geidar Aliyev decided to disband OMON and kill many of its members?

Eldar Orujev: OMON and its leader Colonel Djavadov were highly respected in Azerbaijan and turned into the last real obstacle to Aliyev’s authoritarian rule. Therefore, Aliyev not only decided to disband OMON, but to kill many of its members in order to instill fear in Azeri society.

CI: Currently you are the Chairman of the Movement for Free Azerbaijan (MFA). What are the primary objectives of MFA?

Eldar Orujev: The main objective of the Movement for Free Azerbaijan is to free Azerbaijan from the corrupt dictatorship of the Aliyev clan. The second objective is to free Karabakh which is currently occupied by Armenian nationalists. We also want to create an atmosphere in the country where we could hold free elections and create a law abiding state system that would protect legal, social, economic and political rights of all citizens of our country.

CI: Does MFA plan to participate in the current political process in Azerbaijan?

Eldar Orujev: The current political situation in Azerbaijan excludes legal possibilities for a genuine opposition movement to function. Therefore, at the moment MFA’s only involvement in the political process is to conduct intensive informational work to inform people about the reality in the country. The decision to participate through other ways in the political process will be made by the leadership of the MFA which will depend on the evolving situation in Azerbaijan.   

CI: How do you think the situation will evolve in the near future?

Eldar Orujev: There is no reason to believe that the political, social or economic situation will improve in Azerbaijan under the present setup. Corruption, looting of national resources and constant human rights violations will remain the bases of Aliyev’s rule. Such unlawful and brutal policies leave no room for Azerbaijan to resolve any of its fundamental problems. It is obvious that the political and economic crises in Azerbaijan will not be resolved as long as the present system remains in place which uses power only for the ruling oligarchy’s personal benefit. No gas or oil money will help our society since people do not see the income from natural resources. It is usurped by the current clan in power. There is no doubt that the current regime will be overthrown by the people, the only question is when.

CI: What is you view of Azerbaijan’s current foreign policy?  

Eldar Orujev: If we define foreign policy as an obligation of the government to preserve the interests of the people and the state, then the foreign policy of the current regime is a complete failure. Over the past 15 years the regime has formulated its “foreign policy” priorities within the framework of securing its illegitimate grip on power. It is not interested in preserving the interests of the state. The “foreign policy” of the regime is merely pretence for a policy. The regime is only interested in securing its own survival.


END

Washington DC, Crescent-online
March 11, 2010 - 11:00 am EST

Hardly a day passes by in the US or Israel without some think tank, organization or individual discussing a zionist strike on Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities. If Muslims were ever to consider attacking Israel or the US, they would be immediately branded as terrorists. Yet, it is virtually a routine matter to talk about Israeli or American strikes on Iran's facilities.

Two members that were involved in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution study last month participated in a discussion at National Public Radio on March 11 during which they explained their findings. Ken Pollack and Suzanne Maloney were ranged on either side; Pollack representing the Israeli side while Maloney reflecting on how the Iranians might react.

The two participants presented hypothetical scenarios based on the assumption that the Israeli strike with about 100 planes would be completely successful. Then they asked: what consequences would ensue? Pollack and Maloney admitted that for Israel to carry out a strike, it would have to fly over Saudi Arabia and Iraq, one a close US ally and the other under direct US military occupation.

Their assumption was that the US would be upset with its close ally Israel but would still rush to its defence. At the same time, the US would immediately approach Iran to assure it that the strike had taken place without its knowledge. Further, Maloney, who speculated on Iran's reaction, said Israel would be subjected to a rocket barrage from Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza as well as missile attack from Iran. But, the US would rush Patriot Batteries as well as other military equipment to Israel to "defend" it.

The two Americans said the matter would die down in about eight to ten days because the US would warn Iran against expanding the war or continuing with attacks against Israel.

Such scenarios are now being played out with greater frequency, all intended to intensify the psychological pressure on Iran as well as prepare their own public for the possibility of such an attack.

What is not brought up in all such discussions is the completely criminal nature of such an attack. But then Israel and its patron saint, the US, have never been constrained by legality or international law. The Saban Center study simply confirms this. There will be no peace in the world as long as the racist ideology of zionism continues to thrive like a virus on the body-politic of the Middle East and create havoc for hapless Palestinians as well as other people in the region.  

END

London, Crescent-online
March 11, 2010 - 11:00 am EST

Despite intense pressure from the zionist lobby, the European Parliament adopted on March 10 a resolution backing the findings of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Goldstone Report).  The EU Parliament urged member states to “demand the implementation of the Goldstone Report’s recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law”. It also called upon all parties to respect international humanitarian law and international human rights law under all circumstances.

In pursuance of the resolution and to ensure its implementation, it called for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and EU member states to work towards a strong EU common position on the follow-up to the Goldstone Report and to publicly "demand the implementation of its recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes.” Additionally, it called on the EU Representatives for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, together with member states, to "monitor actively the implementation of recommendations included in the Goldstone Report by consulting the EU's external missions and NGOs working in the field."

Aware and taking note of the hurdles placed by the zionist state in investigating such charges, the Resolution expressed concern about pressure placed on NGOs which were involved in the preparation of the Goldstone Report and called upon all sides to refrain from any measures restricting the activities of these organizations.
Finally, the European Parliament welcomed the Resolution of the Council of the European Union of December 8, 2009, that called for "an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings" along the Gaza-Israel frontier as the blockade has further worsened the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

This is the first such resolution adopted by the European Parliament to actively monitor the implementation of an instrument regarding respect for international humanitarian law and human rights law. It represents a slap in the face of the zionist Israel and its criminal policies.

While mere resolutions will not force the zionists to rectify their obnoxious behavior, it is becoming evident that even their close friends and allies are finding it difficult to remain silent about their egregious crimes.

END