U.S. air bases in Persian Gulf to eventually replace those in Iraq, senior
general says

AP Worldstream; May 14, 2006
JIM KRANE
The U.S. military is preparing for the day when air power from bases
along the Persian Gulf will help ensure that friendly governments in
Iraq and Afghanistan survive without American ground troops, a senior
U.S. general said.
“We’ll be in the region for the foreseeable future,” said U.S. Air
Force Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, deputy air commander of U.S. Central
Command, which oversees the region. “Our intention would be to stay as
long as the host nations will have us.”
Agreements have been struck recently with Qatar, Kuwait and the United
Arab Emirates for long-term use of their bases. Already home to
U.S. and allied fighter, transport and observation planes, the bases
will become more critical if plans proceed to gradually withdraw
ground forces from Iraq.
A capable Iraqi air force is years away and Iraqi infantry need the
back-up and surveillance provided by U.S. warplanes, Peck said. The
bases also could help rush soldiers into Iraq in a crisis. The
Pentagon has been keeping thousands of troops in reserve in Kuwait, on
Iraq’s southern border.
Not everyone is convinced.
The Bush administration declines to say it won’t seek to keep bases in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. military is spending almost US$1
billion (A770 million) this year for base construction in Iraq
alone. For example, the base at Balad, north of Baghdad, has been
expanded to host F-16 fighter and C-130 transport squadrons.
A former Iraq intelligence chief for the State Department, Wayne
White, said he believes one of the administration’s unstated
pre-invasion goals was to secure permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq
after overseeing the installation of a pro-American government.
Peck, however, said he knew of no current U.S. plans to maintain
permanent air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Because of the Iraqi insurgency, experts say bases in the Persian Gulf
nations are a better option given the long relationships Washington
has had with them.
But there are risks even in those countries, where many people harbor
suspicions of U.S. policy. Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals
agitate against the U.S. military presence in the Muslim world. A huge
U.S. air base and headquarters in Saudi Arabia was closed before the
invasion of Iraq because of fundamentalists’ pressure on the Saudi
government.
Indeed, American diplomats and some military officers interviewed for
this article agreed to discuss the matter only on condition of
anonymity, because Arab governments have asked the U.S. military not
to publicize their presence.
The Air Force operates refueling, cargo and surveillance flights from
large bases in Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, while
maintaining runway access and warehoused supplies in Oman and Saudi
Arabia.
The plan Peck described would have the Air Force eventually
consolidate most of its Iraq operations in the Persian Gulf bases.
Afghanistan’s military also could be backed up from Manas Air Base in
Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic where U.S. officials are
negotiating a long-term agreement. The Kyrgyz government has requested
a doubling of the base rental, Peck said.
The U.S. base at Incirlik, Turkey, could also enter into the
equation. For now, the Turkish government, a NATO ally, allows the
U.S. military to operate only cargo, refueling and passenger flights
to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the U.S. has based
fighter jets there in the past.
Peck and others caution that the shift would take years. The top U.S.
officer in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, recently said plans to begin
reducing the U.S.
presence this year are still on track. But U.S. President George
W. Bush also has said the counterinsurgency mission in Iraq will
continue at least through the end of his term in January 2009.
“The idea that we can envision a time when air power in places like
the UAE becomes our main way of watching over Iraq is still a bit
ahead of its time _ to put it gently,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a
military analyst at the Brookings Institution.
Either way, the Pentagon is planning for the time when U.S. forces
pull out of Iraq, or in case Iraq’s government asks them to leave. The
idea of a long-term U.S. military presence is deeply unpopular in
Iraq, polls say.
White and others say the United States could eventually turn over its
bases to the Iraqi military and still back up the Iraqi government
with small numbers of U.S. special forces troops, along with warplanes
based in nearby countries.
“If we do not support the Iraqi army with reconnaissance and airstrike
capabi lities, which we now rely on so heavily against the insurgents,
they’re not going to stand a chance,” said White, now an Iraq analyst
at the Middle East Institute.
O’Hanlon said the Gulf bases are safer than almost anywhere in
Iraq. “And everything in the region is close enough together that for
most purposes the bases along the gulf should suffice.”
The air bases expected to host U.S. air operations after an Iraq
pullout are Al-Udeid in Qatar, Ali Al Salem in Kuwait and Al-Dhafra in
the UAE. The three bases also lie just across the Persian Gulf from
Iran, which the Bush administration and other nations suspect is
pursuing nuclear arms.
Visits to U.S. bases in Kuwait and Qatar found signs of heavy
construction of permanent housing and operations buildings.
At Al-Udeid, forward headquarters for the U.S. Central Command,
construction is under way on a concrete bunker that will house a
command center where American and coalition teams will direct and
monitor air operations over Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the
region. The current center is housed in a temporary building on the
base.
Construction of the new operations center is being funded by the
Qatari government, a U.S. military official said on condition of
anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the topic.
The change is inevitable, some experts say.
“We will not be able to retain bases in Iraq. That will simply not be
possible,” White said.

Vigen Hakobyan: Breakup of Armenian ruling coalition will dissolve the
Speaker’s party
_
()
18:35 05/13/2006
After all, the ruling coalition in Armenia has failed and collapsed
before the 2007 parliamentary elections. The most important in the
situation is that Robert Kocharian’s promise to preserve the alliance
was broken. Last December, the Armenian President said: `The coalition
that is a political agreement of the four subjects, namely the three
parties and the President, is created for the four-year period. It
could be modified one way or another, but we are going to carry the
obligations and the responsibility before ourselves and before the
people.’ The fact that the Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law, OY) party
headed by the Parliament Chairman Artur Bagdasarian has left the
coalition means the breakup of the ruling alliance, which in its turn
means breaking the political agreement and the failure of political
parties and the President himself to live up to their promises. Who is
to blame for the failure?
Before we approach to answering the question, we should point to the
circumstances that prepared the ground for the disintegration. The
Orinats Yerkir party was the first to pronounce its intent to exit the
coalition after a series of scandals caused by the statements the
Speaker made on topics of domestic and international Armenian
policy. Bagdasarian repeatedly accused his colleagues in the coalition
(who had chosen him a Chairman) with electoral fraud.
On top of these charges, he shocked the crowd by presenting his vision
of Armenian international priorities and the formula of `Russian
impediment on Armenia’s way to joining NATO.’
The last move had the least influence on Bagdasarian’s political
career since it fit the multi-vector orientation of Armenian
international policy. But the Speaker’s doubts on the integrity and
transparency of the past parliamentary elections accompanied by his
massive correspondence with the Prosecutor General of Armenia appeared
to be quite contradictory to the very logic of political cooperation
between Orinats Yerkir, on the one hand, and Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (Dashnaktsutsiun) and Republican Party of Armenia, on the
other, within the alliance.
The latter two political bodies who consistently implemented the
Speaker’s social projects, including the main one to return funds
accumulated on resident saver accounts to the public, were clearly
determined to preserve the existing political format before the
parliamentary elections. The Orinats Yerkir party, however, proved to
be an extremely uncooperative partner. It stuck to its uncompromising
policy on several delicate issues, including the issue of
denationalization. By doing this, Orinats Yerkir hurt interests of the
Republican Party best represented in the ruling alliance.
>From the point of view of Orinats Yerkir’s philosophy, the pre-term
exiting the coalition was, in its essence, an end in itself. The party
needed to define its own political course and, so to speak, to show
its face to the public.
Association with the RPA and Dashnaktsutsiun stripped the party of any
chance to develop its own policy. Such policy, according to Orinats
Yerkir functionaries, could yield substantial results at the
parliamentary elections and create a basis for running a presidential
campaign. Besides, close alliance with the ruling parties narrowed
Orinats Yerkir’s choices in its looking for international
investors. The latter justly identified the party as a political
reserve of the acting President, whereas Bagdasarian’s rhetorical
demarches ` as a tactical move of dubious openness.
2005 and the beginning of 2006 became for Orinats Yerkir a tough
period of molding its political identity. It switched from the image
of the new opposition locomotive force to the stance of self-reliant
alternative organization capable to alter the course of the
game. This, however, did not change the essence of the party’s
character. It remained a new ` and, frankly speaking, a hastily
knocked together ` party that, quite unexpectedly, made its way to the
parliament. Its leader was almost an only eminent figure in its
ranks. The public could feel the absence of both ideological and
resource background behind the party scene. The most conspicuous was
the young age and the unhampered ambitions of Orinats Yerkir
leader. They obviously broke the rules of the harsh Armenian political
game.
The situation was quite commonplace. After the conflict of the
Speaker’s party with colleagues inside the coalition and the President
became obvious, the process of intended demolition of Orinats Yerkir
was launched. The organization was charged with breaking the
`political consensus’ and failing to meet its `obligations before the
people.’ One after another, the most important party members including
the so-called oligarchs, started to leave the party.
That was not surprising: their integrity did not prevent them from
caring more about their businesses than about the party fate. After
all, they had joined it merely to create better conditions for their
businesses. And security and success of large businesses in Armenia
are only possible if they do not openly conflict with the
government. That makes the oligarchs’ motives clear.
Exiting the ruling coalition is leading Orinats Yerkir to join the
other block, the opposition one. The prospect is quite dubious for the
Speaker’s party, taking in account the current situation of the
opposition block. Opposition’ s failure to change regime in 2003-2004
has lead to its virtual impotence, to its fractionalization and
marginalization. Orinats Yerkir’s joining the opposition ranks will
hardly be appreciated, since it will be a forced and unnatural
move. Another option for the party is to act on its own. This will
also force Orinats Yerkir to join the opposition since the party has
lost its economic ground. Its leaders will have to appeal to the
oppositional clichés, such as `Say `no’ to the President, Long
live Democracy.’ These slogans proved to be ineffective in Armenia
whose population is busy looking for the stability and peace.
As far as the authorities are concerned, they will find a political
substitute for Orinats Yerkir in the near future. A probable candidate
for the role of `centrist liberals’ once assigned for the Orinats
Yerkir party could be another new party. Like Prospering Armenia that
is being hurriedly created under the auspices of oligarch Gagik
Tsarukian. It will accumulate a great number of businessmen and
relatives of acting politicians. A pre-term sacking of the parliament
is also possible. This will leave no chance for Orinats Yerkir to
regroup and consolidate before the ultimate fight.
Vigen Hakobyan is Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the REGNUM News Agency

7DAYS, United Arab Emirates
May 14 2006
Armenian genocide threat

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened France with trade
sanctions if it adopts a bill making it illegal to deny that the
1915-1917 massacre of Armenians in Turkey was genocide, a Turkish
newspaper said yesterday.
`Patience has its limits. We do not have hatred (towards France) but
we will impose our sanctions,’ the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet quoted
Erdogan as saying at a summit of Muslim countries on the Indonesian
island of Bali.
French lawmakers were due to consider on Thursday a bill from the
opposition Socialists which would make anyone denying the existence
of the Armenian genocide liable to a five-year jail term and $57,000
fine.
French MPs should be `particularly sensitive’ to the issue of
possible sanctions since France is the number one investor in Turkey,
Erdogan said.

Anatolian Times, Turkey
May 14 2006
Parliaments Cannot Decide On Historical Facts, Charrette
PARIS – Parliaments cannot decide on historical facts, said Herve de
Charrette, the deputy chairman of French Parliamentary Foreign
Affairs Commission.
In an exclusive interview with A.A correspondent, Charrette announced
that he is against the resolution, presented by the Socialist Party,
and which makes any denial of the so-called Armenian genocide a
crime.
Charrette, who is also the chairman of the French-Turkish Friendship
Group, noted that historical incidents must be examined by historians
and researchers.
“I am against this resolution since I attach great importance to
Turkish-French friendship,“ he stressed.
Charrette indicated that he is optimistic that the resolution will be
rejected.
The resolution will be debated at the French parliament on May 18th.
The resolution has to be adopted at the Senate in order to be
enacted.
French parliament passed a resolution acknowledging the so-called
genocide in 2001, and this caused a serious tension between Paris and
Ankara.

Anatolian Times, Turkey
May 14 2006
Turkey’s Ambassadors In Paris & Ottawa Return To Their Posts
ANKARA – Turkey`s ambassadors to France and Canada returned to their
posts on Thursday after having consultations in Turkish capital of
Ankara regarding so-called Armenian genocide allegations.
Turkey`s Ambassador in Paris Osman Koruturk and Ambassador in Ottawa
Aydemir Erman arrived in Ankara at the beginning of this week to have
consultations over recent baseless Armenian genocide allegations in
these two countries.
Koruturk and Erman participated in meetings held at the Turkish
Foreign Ministry, and were received by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer
and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Canadian parliament has adopted a resolution, acknowledging the
Armenian claims, while Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have
made remarks in which he qualified unfounded Armenian allegations as
“genocide“.
On the other hand, French parliament will debate a bill on May 18th
which makes any denial of the so-called Armenian genocide a crime.

Anatolian Times, Turkey
May 14 2006
Turkish Parliamentary Delegation Continues Meetings In France
PARIS – Turkish Parliamentary delegation continues its lobbying
activities in Paris against the draft law which envisions
imprisonment to those “denying“ so-called Armenian genocide
(submitted by French Socialist Party).
The delegation, which is comprised of Justice & Development Party
(AKP) parliamentarians Mehmet Dulger and Musa Sivacioglu as well as
Republican People`s Party (CHP) parliamentarians Onur Oymen and
Gulsun Bilgehan Toker, held its first meeting with Herve de Charette,
deputy chairman of Foreign Affairs Commission of French Parliament.
Following the meeting, Dulger told A.A that parliamentarians of
French ruling Popular Movement Party (UMP) promised to do their best
to prevent adoption of the draft law at Parliament.
On the other hand, Oymen said, “we conveyed parliamentarians that if
the draft law is adopted, it will ham Turkish-French relations on a
large scale. From now on, relations between the two countries should
be based on a more different structure to eliminate lobbying
activities against Turkey.“
CHP parliamentarian Toker said, “this draft law is not moral. Even
if it is rejected, the draft law has already harmed Turkish-French
relations.“
The draft law will be debated at French Parliament on May 18th. It
must be accepted at senate to become law.

Anatolian Times, Turkey
May 14 2006
Letter To French M.Ps
ANKARA – ”Members of the Turkish-French Parliamentary Friendship
Group have sent a letter to French parliamentarians in which they
express their objection to the resolution that considers denial of
Armenian genocide a crime”, said Omer Ozyilmaz, the deputy chairman
of the group.
Ozyilmaz told a press conference at the parliament that the mentioned
resolution will be debated at the French parliament in coming days,
and their letter has been sent to French parliament speaker, chairmen
of political groups at the parliament, chairmen of parliamentary
commissions and delegations, dignitaries of the Socialist Party, and
the members of the French-Turkish Friendship Group.
In the letter, Turkish MPs have stressed that it is an unjust move to
define the incidents which occurred during the World War I and which
have not been clarified yet, as ”genocide”, Ozyilmaz noted.
Ozyilmaz said that the letter refers to the joint press conference
that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and CHP (main opposition
Republican People’s Party) leader Deniz Baykal held last year in
which they announced that Turkish archives will always be open to
historians.
However, Armenia has not responded to Erdogan’s and Baykal’s call
yet, he stated.
Expressing belief that bilateral relations get harmed if this
resolution is adopted at the French parliament, Ozyilmaz said that
historians and researchers are the ones who should actually deal with
this matter.
On the other hand, Ankara Chamber of Commerce (ATO) Chairman Sinan
Aygun sent letters to Jean-Francois Bernardin, president of the
Association of French Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ACFCI), and
Pierre Simon, chairman of the Paris Chamber of Commerce, expressing
his reaction to French draft law which aims to criminalize denial of
so-called Armenian genocide.
In his letters, Aygun stresses that Turkish-French relations should
not be harmed due to populist initiatives of a few irresponsible
politicians.
Aygun notes that an EU member France, which is one of defenders of
freedom of expression, wants to restrict freedom of speech through
this bill, which is a contradiction.

Anatolian Times, Turkey
May 14 2006
FRENCH AMBASSADOR ON SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS
ANKARA – “I think that any one with common sense can see that I have
no intention to intimidate anything between Turkey and France,“ said
French Ambassador to Turkey Paul Poudade.
Answering questions of reporters, Poudade indicated, “they tried to
derive a sensational meaning from my words, but it is not so. What I
said was so clear. Those who read my remarks can understand what I
mean.“
Poudade said that Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to express
his concerns during his meeting with executives of French companies
investing in Turkey.
“My duty is to convey these concerns and sensitivities to the other
party,“ he noted.
Poudade indicated that PM Erdogan is in fact trying to preserve
friendly relations between Turkey and France. “This is everybody`s
aim,“ he added.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
May 14 2006
Turkey Threatens Sanctions Over Armenian ‘Genocide’ Law

May 14, 2006 — Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is today
quoted as threatening France with trade sanctions if it adopts a bill
making it illegal to deny that the 1915-17 massacre of Armenians in
Turkey was “genocide.”
The Turkish newspaper “Hurriyet” quotes Erdogan as saying sanctions
will be imposed if French lawmakers pass a bill making denial of the
“Armenian genocide” liable to a five-year jail term and a 45,000 euro
($58,000) fine.
Legislators are expected to vote on the measure on May 18.
Armenians allege up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered in
orchestrated killings between 1915 and 1917, while the Ottoman Empire
was falling apart.
Turkey rejects the claim that the killings were systematic.

Zaman Online, Turkey
May 14 2006
French Company Trading with Turkey Warns France Against Genocide Bill
By Erkan Acar, Marseilles
Published: Sunday, May 14, 2006
zaman.com
Tension between Turkey and France is mounting over a bill to
criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide due for discussion in the
French Parliament on March 18.
French companies with commercial ties with Turkey are most concerned
over the escalation tensions between the two countries.
French companies are expending every effort to persuade French
parliamentarians to vote against the bill that they fear will cause
them to suffer immeasurable commercial losses from future embargoes
imposed by Turkey, as the bill is chiefly designed to win Armenian
votes.
The De Villepin administration received a strong warning over the
Armenian bill from Eurocopter, one of the world’s largest helicopter
manufacturers with French partners, as the company fears losing a
contract to supply attack helicopters to the Turkish military late
this summer.
Fabrice Breiger, chief executive of Eurocopter, pointed to the
temporary nature of the crises that will eventually be overcome by
ties of friendship between the two countries:
`I am not a politician; I am the manager of an international company.
But that does not necessarily mean that I am not familiar with news
articles; it also does not imply that company managers cannot form
ideas about what is going on outside. As European industrialists, we
conveyed the necessary messages to European countries.’
Turkey had planned to buy attack and exploration helicopters for its
fight against terrorism, as part of the ATAK Project launched in
1996.
The Project, expected to cost $1.5 billion, was delayed for five
years and the previous tender was cancelled during a Defense Industry
Executive Commission meeting in May 2004.
After the cancellation of the tender, studies began in search of a
new model that aimed at meeting the military’s needs in a shorter
time and make more cost effective use of Turkey’s domestic capacity.
For this purpose, a new tender invitation was released on 10 February
2005.
Several defense companies applied to participate in the tender that
closed in December 2005.
Those companies include: Eurocopter with the Tiger helicopter, the
Italian Agusta company with the A-129 Mangusta, Russia’s
Rosoboronexport with the MI-28 Havoc, and the South African Denel
Company with the CSH-2 Rooivalk helicopter.