“The United States is deeply concerned about Iran’s recent ballistic missile launch,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said in a statement.
The United States has confirmed that Iran tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon in “clear violation” of a United Nations Security Council ban on ballistic missile tests, a senior US official said on Friday.
“The United States is deeply concerned about Iran’s recent ballistic missile launch,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said in a statement.
“After reviewing the available information, we can confirm that Iran launched on Oct. 10 a medium-range ballistic missile inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon,” she said. “This was a clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1929.”
This article originally appeared in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Translated from German by Nils Hansen
One can only be astounded at the scope of almost criminal naïveté, or even just plain ignorance, shown by many who are judging the Syrian crisis – in particular when it comes to revealing the background motives behind the tough game of tug-of-war in the UN Security Council, between America and the western powers on the one side and China and Russia on the other.
If one were to follow the narrative of the conflict in large parts of the western world, then the heart of the matter would seem to be only the question of whether or not the Syrian people could eventually be freed from a cruel dictator. Particularly in Germany, the lack of awareness seems to be limitless in the current discussion of this contest – up to the point of an alleged (although not confirmed) enquiry to the Russian government as to whether Russia would be ready to grant asylum to Assad should he be overthrown.
However, very different issues are at the core of this matter. The lines of conflict run where most German observers fail to notice them – chiefly because they have forgotten how to think in global-political and geostrategic terms. Viewed from a global-political angle, it is in the first instance irrelevant from the perspective of geostrategic considerations, whether the Syrians will be now, or in the future, ruled either by a dictator of the house of Assad, by a democratic government or at least one pretending to be democratic, or a radical Muslim regime.
A division into ‘World Island’ and ‘Heartland’
Around and after the year 1900, the world, the entire global land surface, was divided and mostly under the political reign of the Europeans and the Americans, the geostrategic thinkers of that time developed a completely new idea for global politics going forward.
The Anglo-Saxons, even though they in particular seemed invulnerable, for the first time had a reason to fear for their position in the world. British geographer and politician Halford Mackinder, shortly before the onset of the First World War, developed his extraordinarily momentous doctrine of the inferiority of the maritime global powers.
Whereas previously the maxim posed by American military historian Alfred T. Mahan had applied, stating the unassailability of globally acting maritime powers, Mackinder asserted the contrary.
In his new analysis of the world’s land surface, he assigned the sea powers to the ‘Outer Insular Crescent’, while conceiving of Europe, Asia and Africa collectively as a gigantic supercontinent which he dubbed the ‘World Island’.
The core of this World Island was supposed to be the ‘Pivot Area’, which he found to be in northern and central Asia. According to Mackinder, seven out of eight of the world’s population were situated in the ‘Pivot Area’ and its surroundings, , as well as by far the largest share of globally available raw materials. Thus, the future rulers of the world were bound to be not the Anglo-Saxon maritime powers, so Mackinder argued, but possibly the very power (or group of powers) that would succeed in bringing the ‘Pivot Area’ completely under their control.
The debate about the worlds-politically decisive region on the earth
Not only the strong Anglo-Saxon distrust in the communist Soviet Union in the interwar period, but also the inexorably led war by America and Great Britain, fought to unconditional surrender against the two axis powers Germany and Japan, who were threatening the ‘Pivot Area’ from West and East, can only be understood against the backdrop of this geopolitical conception:
The nightmare of a pivot area jointly controlled by Germany and Japan, or by Germany alone in the worst case, in the heart of Eurasia. This situation had to be averted using all possible means. This was the primary and most important war aim of Roosevelt and Churchill, to which everything else was subordinated.
Still, before the end of the war, Mackinder’s teachings about the meaning of the pivot area were improved upon and slightly altered. Nicholas Spykman, the most significant American geo-politician of his time, had developed during the war the theory that it was not actually the ‘Pivot Area’, but rather its bordering area, the ‘Rim Land’, which was the geopolitically decisive region of the world. This ‘Rim Land’ reaches from Scandinavia across Central Eastern Europe, Turkey, the Arab and Near Eastern countries and India, to Indochina, Korea as well as Eastern and Northern China.
This was to be the truly decisive region of the World Island, of the whole Eurasian continent, and he who would succeed in subjugating the ‘Rim Land’ with its enormous population and undeletable stock of raw materials, would be the ruler of the earth or at least have the ability to force it’s will upon other powers, in particular upon the traditional maritime powers.
A ban on interventions by powers from outside the region?
Based not least of all on the premises of these fundamental analyses by Spykman, who died in 1943, it became the post-war foreign policy of the United States to ultimately abandon its traditional isolationism and henceforth develop into an active driver of world politics.
For the era of the Cold War in any case it can be said that almost all of the main conflict lines between East and West have been located in the regions of this wide ‘Rim Land’ between Finland in the West and Korea in the East. Most wars of the post-WWII period, from the Korean War to the Middle-Eastern and Gulf wars to the Vietnam conflict, have taken place in this very zone.
The counter theory to Mackinder and Spykman in terms of geopolitics and international law dates back perhaps even longer; its core it can be found in the American Monroe Doctrine of 1823; borrowing the title from a well-known oeuvre of the 20th century, it could be called an “International Legal Order for Large Regions with a Ban on Interventions by Powers from Outside” (the title of a book written by Carl Schmitt).
Admittedly, this model did not work out at the time of its creation; and especially with a view to the importance of the ‘Rim Land’ and the heart land, the Americans have neither recognised, nor accepted, a ban on interventions outside of their own American hemisphere (in any case if it was directed against their own interests).
The primary goal is not to protect the Syrian people
Quite the opposite: after 1945, the Americans have repeatedly intervened in those places where they deemed it necessary to strengthen their own position of power. The oil affluent and strategically crucial region between the eastern Mediterranean and the Arab Sea has made this area in particular, a main field of action for American foreign policy. The recent Iraq war, the occupation of Afghanistan and the opaque actions in north-eastern Pakistan, which are by no means legitimate by International Law, are the result of this policy.
The current conflict about an intervention, or non-intervention into the Syrian civil war is so explosive because this question is the manifestation of the antagonism between two radically different geostrategic and world political concepts.
The Americans and the Western side are not particularly concerned with helping the pitiable Syrian people, but rather with influencing the reshaping of the country after an anticipated overthrow of the current regime. Even though the US and its Western partners have been able to work well with the Syrian government in the past, several long-planned oil and gas pipelines of paramount importance for the West are at stake. These pipelines are designed to connect Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the eastern Mediterranean area and Turkey and therefore are, at least partially, to cross Syrian territory.
The tables have turned
The Russians and Chinese have a different perspective. The Russian Mediterranean military base, situated in the Syrian port of Tartus, is also at stake – just like the general power/political position of Moscow and Beijing in the Middle and Near East. The prospect of a possible military conflict between Israel and Iran makes it inevitable that the two largest Asian powers will be present there.
It cannot yet be foreseen which of the two sides will prevail, as the Americans have oftentimes in the past ignored UN resolutions when they deemed it necessary for the advancement of their own interests. The undeclared war against Iraq, which led to the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, was only grudgingly accepted by Moscow and Beijing – in the end only because they did not dare to stand more decisively against the only highly armed world power at the time.
Today, the tables have turned: Due to severe home-made economic problems, themselves connected to a strongly over-expansionist foreign policy and military engagement, the United States finds itself in a considerably weakened position. A military intervention in Syria on their part, for this reason alone, seems hardly probable.
The die is not yet cast
Therefore the government in Washington must interpret the veto by Beijing and Moscow, now voiced three consecutive times, with which a UN resolution against the Syrian regime has been averted, as a serious warning. It appears that China and Russia perceive themselves in a common position of co-dominance over the South Asian realm, and their fierce ‘no’ against an intervention by western powers in Syria can well be seen in the sense of a political-international-legal doctrine of an, at least hinted at, ban on interventions by powers from outside the region, directed chiefly at America.
The government in Washington would hardly be able to accept such a ban if it is meant seriously. Because, as a consequence, it would mean the ultimate surrender of its political-economic influence, possibly even of military intervention, in the regions of the ‘Rim Land’. Washington cannot, simply in their very own interest, afford to leave these Eurasian Rim Land regions to their fate, let alone to the two Asian world powers.
Therefore, one can derive from the scope, the course, and, as can be foreseen, the soon materialising consequences of the Syrian conflict, the current distribution of geopolitical power potentials is like using a concave mirror. The die is not yet cast. Yet the geostrategic global players hold these things in their hands.
–
Hans-Christof Kraus teaches recent and modern history at the University of Passau.
U.S. Official Bemoans Russian Destruction Of “Our” Terrorists
Some U.S. official is whining because his flock of bastards gets hurt:
“Putin is deliberately targeting our forces,” a U.S. official, who is disappointed in the U.S. response to Russia, told Fox News.”Our guys are fighting for their lives,” said the official, estimating up to 150 CIA-trained moderate rebels have been killed by the Russians.
“Our forces”, “our guys” – hmm. The official is referring to the CIA-mercenaries who are fighting under al-Qaeda’s command:
Advancing alongside the Islamist groups, and sometimes aiding them, have been several of the relatively secular groups, like the Free Syrian Army, which have gained new prominence and status because of their access to the TOWs.Even in smaller quantities, the missiles played a major role in the insurgent advances that eventually endangered Mr. Assad’s rule. While that would seem like a welcome development for United States policy makers, in practice it presented another quandary, given that the Nusra Front was among the groups benefiting from the enhanced firepower.
It is a tactical alliance that Free Syrian Army commanders describe as an uncomfortable marriage of necessity, because they cannot operate without the consent of the larger and stronger Nusra Front.
The “official” should go to jail for, at least, indirectly arming and supporting the terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra aka al-Qaeda in Syria.
Under U.S. domestic law Obama justifies his attacks on the Islamic State in Syria (which is illegal under international law) with reference to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists as passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001. According to that AUMF:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist …
If that is the relevant legal code to fight the Islamic State then this even more so applies to Jabhat al-Nusra as it is loyal to the original al-Qaeda organization.
What Russia does, fighting on behalf of the legal government of Syria after having been asked to do so, is not only legal under international law but it is also easily justifiable by the same U.S. domestic law which the U.S. president applies to fight the Islamic State.
That whining official should recognize that a. what “his forces” do is illegal under U.S. law b. what Russia does with “his guys” is legal even under U.S. law and c. that there is always a moral hazard when using such proxy forces.
When the CIA send some idiots to invade Cuba where they were killed or capture it could do nothing and did nothing to protect them because that would have started a much bigger war. This is the same case here. These forces will be destroyed and there is nothing the U.S. can or will do about that. If you are sentimental about the fate of mercenaries and if you do not want this to happen do not use proxy forces but be man enough to go yourself.
Posted by b on October 15, 2015 at 01:51 PM | Permalink
Russian warplanes in Syria have destroyed a total of 456 ISIL targets since the operation began on September 30, the Russian General Staff said Friday.
Russian warplanes in Syria have destroyed a total of 456 ISIL targets since the operation began on September 30, the Russian General Staff said Friday.Over the past week, they have carried out 394 sorties, destroying 46 command and communication posts, 6 explosives manufacturing facilities, 22 warehouses and fuel depots, along with 272 militant positions, strongpoints and field camps, Colonel-General Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, told journalists during a briefing.
“Most armed formations are demoralized. There is growing discontent with field commanders, and there is evidence of disobedience. Desertion is becoming widespread,” Kartapolov told reporters.
Around 100 extremists cross the Syria-Turkey border each day, Kartapolov said citing intelligence data, adding that evidence suggests the militants are leaving combat zones through refugee routes.
“I would like to point out once again, our aircraft carry out strikes against the militants infrastructure based on data provided through several intelligence channels as well as intel supplied by the information center in Baghdad,” Kartapolov said, referring to accusations that Russian warplanes had hit targets other than ISIL.
“We only attack targets held by internationally-recognized terrorist groups. Our warplanes do not operate in the southern regions of Syria where, according to our intel, units of the Free Syrian Army operate,” Kartapolov said.
Kartapolov said some of the airstrikes carried out by the US-coalition target civil facilities.
“It is against our principles to advise our colleagues which targets to strike. However, on October 11 a power plant and an electrical substation were destroyed by coalition warplanes in the vicinity of Tell-Alam,” he told foreign military attaches and journalists attending the briefing.
“It looks like someone is deliberately destroying the civilian infrastructure in population centers making them unfit for habitation. Because of that civilians are fleeing these towns and contribute to the flow of refugees to Europe,” Kartapolov noted.
At the same time, he stressed that Russia had repeatedly asked coalition members to share intelligence on ISIL positions, but none of these requests were met.
“When we didn’t receive the ISIL forces coordinates, we requested our partners to provide us data about regions held by moderate opposition. Unfortunately, our partners didn’t provide a coherent answer to any of our questions,” Kartapolov said.
“So we went ahead and created a comprehensive map of areas controlled by ISIL, based on our intel and on data provided by the information center in Baghdad,” he went on to say.
He added that Russia and US are about to sign an agreement to provide for the safety of their aircraft over Syria. “All the technicalities have been agreed on. Russian and US lawyers are checking the text which we hope will be signed soon,” Kartapolov said.
Russia started precision airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria on September 30, following a request from Syria’s internationally recognized government. The Russian airstrikes hit targets that are chosen based on intelligence collected by Russia, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Does this mean that Russia is now defending U.S. homeland ?
The Islamic terror threat in Afghanistan is expanding and poses new threats to the U.S. homeland as the Taliban, al Qaeda, and now the Islamic State build up forces inside the war-torn Southwest Asian state.
The persistent terrorist threat includes four separate Islamist groups inside the country and is one reason President Obama announced Thursday that he is reversing plans to pull all but 1,000 U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the end of next year.
“Afghan forces are still not as strong as they need to be,” Obama said in announcing the decision to keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan through 2016.
“And meanwhile, the Taliban has made gains, particularly in rural areas, and can still launch deadly attacks in cities, including Kabul,” he said, noting that the Islamic State is also emerging in the country.
“The bottom line is in key areas of the country, the security situation is still very fragile, and in some places there is risk of deterioration,” Obama said.
The reversal on the troop drawdown is a setback for the president’s strategy and an indication that his policies over the past six years have not worked. Obama outlined in December 2009 three main goals for Afghanistan: Denying a safe haven to al Qaeda, reversing Taliban momentum, and bolstering Afghan forces.
The growing terror threat was outlined in little-noticed written testimony to the Senate earlier this month by Army Gen. John Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, who stated that Afghan forces remain weak as terrorists are gaining strength.
The four-star general identified the main threats as the Taliban, al Qaeda, the al Qaeda-aligned Haqqani Network, and the Islamic State, also called Daesh, along with other extremist groups he did not name.
“Collectively, these enemies will present formidable challenges to the Afghan government, [Afghan National Defense and Security Forces], [U.S. Forces-Afghanistan], and the coalition for the remainder of 2015 and beyond,” Campbell stated.
During the past 10 months al Qaeda has sought to rebuild support networks and planning capabilities aimed at “reconstituting its strike capabilities against the U.S. homeland and western interests,” Campbell said.
The newest threat to the country comes from the Islamic State, which is building on its success in the Middle East to gain new members in Central and South Asia and many of its members view al Qaeda as the moral foundation for jihad and IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS) as the action arm, Campbell said.
“Daesh has grown much faster than we anticipated, and its continued development in Afghanistan presents a legitimate threat to the entire region,” the four-star general said. “Its adherents have already committed acts of brutality that have shocked Afghan sensibilities. Moreover, Daesh senior leadership has publically declared its goals of reclaiming Khorasan Province, which extends from the Caucuses to Western India, as its spiritual home.”
Nick Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in Senate testimony on Oct. 8 that terrorists have increased their ability to communicate without detection as a result of the exposure of U.S. intelligence collection techniques.
“The difficulty in collecting precise intelligence on terrorist intentions and the status of particular terrorist plots is increasing over time,” Rasmussen said.
Rasmussen told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that some terrorist groups in Afghanistan are fighting each other and U.S. intelligence is watching closely to see whether IS “turns from that project to something aimed at us,” as al Qaeda did in the past.
For the Taliban, ousted in the 2003 U.S. military operation that led to the current Afghan conflict, the Islamist group is working to seize one provincial capital and multiple district centers while working to control and hold more Afghan territory, Campbell said.
“The Taliban have attempted to gain more control of the countryside in order to expand their freedom of movement and action. They have been at least partially successful in accomplishing these goals,” Campbell said.
The Institute for the Study of War also warned in a recent report that the Taliban are gaining strength. “Afghanistan may again become a safe haven for the Taliban and al Qaeda,” the think tank said in an Oct. 6 report. “Taliban factions have markedly increased the pace of operations throughout Afghanistan following the September 28 offensive against Kunduz city.”
Additionally, the loss of U.S. and allied close-air support aircraft has allowed the Taliban to mass their forces and they are gaining area in Pashtun-dominated areas of southern Afghanistan, according to Campbell.
The recent attack on the city of Kunduz also showed Taliban advances in the northern part of the country and further strained Afghan forces that are battling them.
“Overall, the Taliban remain a resilient, adaptable, and capable foe in spite of markedly increased casualties this year,” Campbell said.
The Taliban has also suffered fissures in its leadership following the death of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the group’s commander and spiritual head, in 2013. “It is still unclear whether his death will lead to greater cohesion or splintering within the movement,” Campbell stated.
The recent successes in Kunduz appear to have bolstered efforts by new Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour, who has the endorsement of al Qaeda leader Aymen al Zawahiri, to consolidate power and possibly limit rivals’ attempts to oust him.
The Mansour also appears to have moved the Taliban close to al Qaeda by naming a known ally of the terror group, Siraq Haqqani, as a deputy emir.
The linkage is raising new concerns that Taliban terrorists could begin conducting attacks outside Afghanistan.
Domestically, Taliban propagandists are influencing the population and the international community through social media.
Yet Campbell revealed that the Pakistan-based Haqqani Network—not the Taliban and al Qaeda—remain “the most virulent strain” of the Afghan insurgency.
Haqqani terrorism “presents one of the greatest risks to coalition forces, and it continues to be an al Qaeda facilitator,” Campbell said.
The network shares the goal of the Taliban of expelling coalition military forces and taking over the Afghan government and installing an Islamist regime.
Haqqani Network fighters “lead the insurgency in several eastern Afghan provinces, and they have demonstrated the intent and capability to launch and support high profile and complex attacks against the coalition,” the commander stated.
Several Haqqani planned attacks in Kabul and other locations that would have caused large numbers of casualties were they not disrupted.
Of the threat by the Haqqani Network, Campbell stated: “It will take a concerted AF/PAK effort to reduce the effectiveness and capabilities of HQN.”
A key priority, Campbell said, is countering the emergence of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.
“In the last year, we have observed the movement’s increased recruiting efforts and growing operational capacity,” Campbell said.
“We now classify Daesh as ‘operationally emergent,’”—a growing threat, he added.
The group is attracting disaffected Taliban and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Taliban members who are rebranding themselves as Islamic State members.
Despite the emergence of IS, Campbell said there has not been a wholesale convergence of IS with other insurgent groups, and there also has not been an influx of foreign fighters to IS ranks.
Still, while lacking military capabilities of the Taliban, IS is creating problems for Afghan security forces and the political leadership of the government.
“In the near term, we expect most Daesh operations to remain directed against the [Taliban], although attacks against nearby ANDSF or other soft targets of opportunity are possible,” Campbell said.
However, the IS presence appears to be spreading rapidly. Campbell noted that of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces, IS fighters in varying degrees are present in 25 provinces, with most located in the eastern part of the country, specifically Nangarhar Province.
“In the near term, we predict that they will continue to recruit and grow their numbers, using higher pay and small-scale, successful attacks as recruitment tools,” Campbell said.
The Islamic State’s “virulent, extremist ideology” is a greater threat than its combat power, he said.
Asked about the increasing terror threat, Lisa Monaco, White House homeland security and counterterrorism director, told reporters that al Qaeda and IS will be the main targets of continued U.S. involvement in counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan.
“The focus is on going after al Qaeda, the remnants of al Qaeda, and anybody who could pose a threat to the homeland,” she said.
“We’re going to be very focused in watching what happens with ISIL in Afghanistan,” Monaco said. “Right now, it’s militants who are largely disaffected with other groups, but that’s a factor in terms of if it could present a threat to the homeland. We’re obviously going to be attentive to that. But the core mission on the counterterrorism side is going after remnants of al Qaeda.”
Russian Navy can carry out missile strikes on the Islamic State positions in Syria at any moment, if ordered by the high command, the Russian General Staff said Friday.The Russian warships operating in the Mediterranean can be used in the fight against ISIL in Syria, if need be, Colonel-General Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, said in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.
“Our group in the Mediterranean primarily supplies materials. For this to go unhampered, a group of attack vessels is deployed there as well. In addition, this group guarantees our base’s air defense. We are in no way using these air defense systems against coalition countries,” he said.
The Russian General Staff does not rule out the establishment of a military base in Syria consisting of naval, air, and ground troop components, Kartapolov said.Kartapolov stressed that there are no Russian officers in the ranks of the Syrian Army.
“Our group is operating on its own and we have a small operations group from the Syrian Armed Forces at our headquarters in Syria that provides coordination of flights with the Syrian Air Force and gives us exact information of where front line of the government troops is,” he said.
Prior to its air operation against ISIL in Syria Russia established an information center in Baghdad to share intelligence with Iraq, Syria and Iran. According to Kartapolov, Russia invited the US to cooperate, but the Americans never responded to this invitation.
“They have a number of reasons not to do so,” he said. “They believe it is humiliating to acknowledge that without Russia they cannot achieve their goals which they announced a year ago.”“They are unlikely to have enough information on ISIL facilities, and the results of their airstrikes bear witness to that. They have a vague understanding of where the militants’ objects really are and it probably embarrasses them to admit that,” Kartapolov said.
Russia started precision airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria on September 30, following a request from Syria’s internationally recognized government. The Russian airstrikes hit targets that are chosen based on intelligence collected by Russia, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Not exactly known for his accurate military predictions, US Senator John McCain was once firmly convinced that Russia would never act in Syria. Oops.
Back in 2013, Russia, China, and Iran all warned the United States of the devastating consequences that would occur if it began airstrikes in Syria. Destabilizing the legitimate government of President Bashar al-Assad would lead to the inevitable rise of terrorist groups like the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
Arizona Senator John McCain, however, could not foresee this. And he was dead wrong about the future in other ways, as well.
It doesn’t concern me in the slightest,” McCain said in 2013, when asked if he was worried about a Russian and Chinese intervention in Syria. “Because they will not act.”
“The United States is the most powerful nation in the world, and we’re not going to be intimidated by Russia and China,” he added. “We are not, so I guarantee you that they will not act.”
Flash forward two years and the United States is, indeed, being intimidated. Beijing’s construction of artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago is forcing Washington to scramble together alliances in the Pacific.
But, more importantly, Russia’s anti-terror campaign in Syria has forced the United States to completely rethink its regional strategy. Airstrikes have devastated IS militants, and since the bombing began on September 30, Russian support is already helping to stabilize a nation thoroughly wrecked by the United States and its allies.
On Thursday, reports surfaced that a Russian airstrike killed Abu Bakr al-Shishani, a prominent leader of the Ahrar ash-Sham terrorist group.
“A group of militants, including the leader of Jaish al-Sham terrorist group, Chechen native Abu Bakr al-Shishani, was eliminated on October 14 as a result of a Russian airstrike in the Homs province,” a Syrian military source told Sputnik.
McCain, at least, is not in denial. Recognizing Russia’s success, the senator wrote an op-ed for CNN on Wednesday.
“Vladimir Putin must be stopped,” he wrote.
At least he didn’t risk his reputation by writing “Putin will be stopped,” because that would be…another false prediction.
Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu has discredited any argument suggesting war-torn Syria could regain stability under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, saying anyone defending such an argument was “in a dream,” while also asserting that Russia has made “a big mistake” in regards to its Syria policy.
“If there are those who believe that Bashar al-Assad could again rule over Syria, that he could rebuild his authority and that this way, Syria could regain stability again, then they are in a dream,” Sinirlioğlu said on Oct. 15, at a joint press conference with his Saudi Arabian counterpart, Adel al-Jubeir, following their meeting.
“We are of the opinion that the only way to do this [provide stability] in Syria can be carried out through a transition period which would provide a political transformation,” Sinirlioğlu said, citing the principles of the Geneva I agreement signed at a peace conference in 2012, laying the groundwork for a transitional government, as an appropriate framework.
The ongoing “chaos” in both Iraq and Syria was not in favor of Turkey, which has the ultimate goal of rebuilding a lasting stability between these two countries, particularly Syria, Sinirlioğlu added.
Listing the fatal consequences of “the war declared by al-Assad against his own people in the last four years,” the career diplomat reiterated: “Assuming that such a person, who is currently able to control only 14 percent of the country, can exist in Syria’s future is nothing but a dream.”
He noted Turkey has been openly telling these views to all countries which have “intervened in the situation in Syria.”
Sinirlioğlu’s comments on the role that Turkey’s Black Sea neighbor Russia has been playing in Syria were clear-cut.
“Russia has made a big mistake. What it has been doing will not bring any good other than delaying Syria’s transition period and its possibility of getting out of this turmoil. We will continue our warnings on this issue,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) announced on the very same day that a delegation from the Russian air force informed the Turkish military about air space violations that took place on Oct. 3 and 4 at a meeting in Ankara on Oct. 15.
The delegation, chaired by Russian Air Force Major General Sergey Dronov, also informed the Turkish army about measures taken to prevent a repetition of such violations, the statement said. In Moscow, earlier on Oct. 15, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was ready for close cooperation with Turkey on fighting terrorism, in comments after a deadly blast that killed at least 99 people in Ankara last weekend.
“We are ready for very close cooperation and very close engagement with the Turkish authorities in the fight against the terrorist threat,” Lavrov said at a Russian-Turkish partnership conference in Moscow.
Elsewhere, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov was quoted as saying by RIA news agency that Russia was expecting consultations to take place in the next few days with Turkish officials over Syria.
Bogdanov said he hoped Turkey would support Russia’s efforts in Syria, the agency reported.
Speaking to Radio Sputnik on Thursday, Israeli political analyst Avigdor Eskin attempted to explain Israel’s motivations in the war against ISIL.
Commenting on Hamas’s role in the war, Eskin recalled that Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, adding that “the Muslim Brotherhood is, in a sense, partially ISIS,” with some of their members “turning to ISIS: It happened in Iraq, it happened in Syria, when certain significant numbers of their people decided to become more radical.”
In the case of Hamas, as you know, this organization was aided largely by Syria and Iran up until a couple of years ago, and their military headquarters were sustained in Damascus…And what they did when the civil war started was to turn their weapons against the government of Syria. Therefore the government of Syria –Assad and Iran today are very unhappy with Hamas –they fight Hamas. And Hamas people in Syria joined ISIS. Therefore, today we cannot separate Hamas from ISIS.”
As far as Israel’s position toward ISIL is concerned, Eskin noted that “Israel is definitely threatened by ISIS, and has helped Yazidis and the Kurds in Iraq since the beginning of the fighting there. Israel was the first to assist them in their fight against ISIS. Thus, Israel has been fighting ISIS in indirect ways since shortly after ISIS came into existence.”
Citing the recent arrests of ISIL-affiliated would-be terrorists in Moscow, Eskin emphasized that today, “everybody is threatened by ISIS. As far as Israel is concerned, the one thing I can say is that the country is trying not to interfere in Syrian affairs, since there are still anti-Israeli sentiments in the Arab world…the involvement of Israel could undermine Russian efforts, so Israel just needs to keep quiet about the situation in Syria. Let Russia and President Assad do the job. But on the other hand, Israel is assisting indirectly by helping the Yazidis and the Kurds to destroy ISIS in Iraq.”
The analyst noted that “one thing is clear: terrorism is terrorism. And it’s important that the West will help Russia, President Assad and Israel instead of criticizing, instead of undermining their efforts and spreading information which is not correct.”
Commenting on the assessment that Israel may actually benefit from the existence of ISIL, Eskin suggested that this was a “disturbed way of thinking,” adding that “ISIS is a group which wants to destroy Israel, and acts against Israel, and from the very beginning supports the idea that Israel should not exist in the Middle East, so how can anyone be benefiting?”
WASHINGTON — The agreement signed last year by the Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs was explicit: For $5 million, Norway’s partner in Washington would push top officials at the White House, at the Treasury Department and in Congress to double spending on a United States foreign aid program.
But the recipient of the cash was not one of the many Beltway lobbying firms that work every year on behalf of foreign governments.
It was the Center for Global Development, a nonprofit research organization, or think tank, one of many such groups in Washington that lawmakers, government officials and the news media have long relied on to provide independent policy analysis and scholarship.
More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
The money is increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington. And it has set off troubling questions about intellectual freedom: Some scholars say they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research.
The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign governments. And they have not registered with the United States government as representatives of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of federal law, according to several legal specialists who examined the agreements at the request of The Times.
As a result, policy makers who rely on think tanks are often unaware of the role of foreign governments in funding the research.
Joseph Sandler, a lawyer and expert on the statute that governs Americans lobbying for foreign governments, said the arrangements between the countries and think tanks “opened a whole new window into an aspect of the influence-buying in Washington that has not previously been exposed.”
“It is particularly egregious because with a law firm or lobbying firm, you expect them to be an advocate,” Mr. Sandler added. “Think tanks have this patina of academic neutrality and objectivity, and that is being compromised.”
The arrangements involve Washington’s most influential think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council. Each is a major recipient of overseas funds, producing policy papers, hosting forums and organizing private briefings for senior United States government officials that typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas.
Most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, particularly the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway, and takes many forms. The United Arab Emirates, a major supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quietly provided a donation of more than $1 million to help build the center’s gleaming new glass and steel headquarters not far from the White House. Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.
Some scholars say the donations have led to implicit agreements that the research groups would refrain from criticizing the donor governments.
“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware — they are not getting the full story,” said Saleem Ali, who served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar and who said he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers. “They may not be getting a false story, but they are not getting the full story.”
In interviews, top executives at the think tanks strongly defended the arrangements, saying the money never compromised the integrity of their organizations’ research. Where their scholars’ views overlapped with those of donors, they said, was coincidence.
“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at Brookings, one of the oldest and most prestigious think tanks in Washington.
“Our currency is our credibility,” said Frederick Kempe, chief executive of the Atlantic Council, a fast-growing research center that focuses mainly on international affairs and has accepted donations from at least 25 countries since 2008. “Most of the governments that come to us, they understand we are not lobbyists. We are a different entity, and they work with us for totally different purposes.”
In their contracts and internal documents, however, foreign governments are often explicit about what they expect from the research groups they finance.
“In Washington, it is difficult for a small country to gain access to powerful politicians, bureaucrats and experts,” states an internal report commissioned by the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry assessing its grant making. “Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.”
The think tanks’ reliance on funds from overseas is driven, in part, by intensifying competition within the field: The number of policy groups has multiplied in recent years, while research grants from the United States government have dwindled.
Foreign officials describe these relationships as pivotal to winning influence on the cluttered Washington stage, where hundreds of nations jockey for attention from the United States government. The arrangements vary: Some countries work directly with think tanks, drawing contracts that define the scope and direction of research. Others donate money to the think tanks, and then pay teams of lobbyists and public relations consultants to push the think tanks to promote the country’s agenda.
“Japan is not necessarily the most interesting subject around the world,” said Masato Otaka, a spokesman for the Japanese Embassy, when asked why Japan donates heavily to American research groups. “We’ve been experiencing some slower growth in the economy. I think our presence is less felt than before.”
The scope of foreign financing for American think tanks is difficult to determine. But since 2011, at least 64 foreign governments, state-controlled entities or government officials have contributed to a group of 28 major United States-based research organizations, according to disclosures by the institutions and government documents. What little information the organizations volunteer about their donors, along with public records and lobbying reports filed with American officials by foreign representatives, indicates a minimum of $92 million in contributions or commitments from overseas government interests over the last four years. The total is certainly more.
After questions from The Times, some of the research groups agreed to provide limited additional information about their relationships with countries overseas. Among them was the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whose research agenda focuses mostly on foreign policy; it agreed last month to release a list of 13 foreign government donors, from Germany to China, though the organization declined to disclose details of its contracts with those nations or actual donation amounts.
Michele Dunne resigned as the head of the Atlantic Council’s center for the Middle East after calling for the suspension of military aid to Egypt in 2013.Credit Global Development Network
In an interview, John J. Hamre, president and chief executive of the center, acknowledged that the organization’s scholars at times advocate causes with the Obama administration and Congress on the topics that donor governments have funded them to study. But Mr. Hamre stressed that he did not view it as lobbying — and said his group is most certainly not a foreign agent.
“I don’t represent anybody,” Mr. Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense, said. “I never go into the government to say, ‘I really want to talk to you about Morocco or about United Arab Emirates or Japan.’ I have conversations about these places all the time with everybody, and I am never there representing them as a lobbyist to their interests.”
Several legal experts who reviewed the documents, however, said the tightening relationships between United States think tanks and their overseas sponsors could violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the 1938 federal law that sought to combat a Nazi propaganda campaign in the United States. The law requires groups that are paid by foreign governments with the intention of influencing public policy to register as “foreign agents” with the Justice Department.
“I am surprised, quite frankly, at how explicit the relationship is between money paid, papers published and policy makers and politicians influenced,” said Amos Jones, a Washington lawyer who has specialized in the foreign agents act, after reviewing transactions between the Norway government and Brookings, the Center for Global Development and other groups.
At least one of the research groups conceded that it may in fact be violating the federal law.
“Yikes,” said Todd Moss, the chief operating officer at the Center for Global Development, after being shown dozens of pages of emails between his organization and the government of Norway, which detail how his group would lobby the White House and Congress on behalf of the Norway government. “We will absolutely seek counsel on this.”
Parallels With Lobbying
The line between scholarly research and lobbying can sometimes be hard to discern.
Last year, Japan began an effort to persuade American officials to accelerate negotiations over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.
Akin Gump lobbyists approached several influential members of Congress and their staffs, including aides to Representative Charles Boustany Jr., Republican of Louisiana, and Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington, seeking help in establishing a congressional caucus devoted to the partnership, lobbying records show. After those discussions, in October 2013, the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
To bolster the new group’s credibility, Japanese officials sought validation from outside the halls of Congress. Within weeks, they received it from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to which Japan has been a longtime donor. The center will not say how much money the government has given — or for what exactly — but an examination of its relationship with a state-funded entity called the Japan External Trade Organization provides a glimpse.
In the past four years, the organization has given the center at least $1.1 million for “research and consulting” to promote trade and direct investment between Japan and the United States. The center also houses visiting scholars from within the Japanese government, including Hiroshi Waguri, an executive in the Ministry of Defense, as well as Shinichi Isobe, an executive from the trade organization.
In early December, the center held an event featuring Mr. Boustany and Mr. Reichert, who spoke about the importance of the trade agreement and the steps they were taking to pressure the White House to complete it. In addition, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing later that month, Matthew P. Goodman, a scholar at the center, testified in favor of the agreement, his language driving home the very message Japan’s lobbyists and their congressional allies were seeking to convey.
The agreement was critical to “success not only for the administration’s regional economic policy but arguably for the entire Asia rebalancing strategy,” Mr. Goodman said.
Mr. Hamre, the center’s president, acknowledged that his organization’s researchers were pushing for the trade deal (it remains pending). But he said their advocacy was rooted in a belief that the agreement was good for the United States economy and the country’s standing in Asia.
Foreign Government Contributions to Nine Think Tanks
Foreign governments and state-controlled or state-financed entities have paid tens of millions of dollars to dozens of American think tanks in recent years, according to a New York Times investigation.
Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman for the center, said that language in the agreements the organization signs with foreign governments gives its scholars final say over the policy positions they take — although he acknowledged those provisions have not been included in all such documents.
“We have to respect their academic and intellectual independence,” Mr. Otaka, the Japanese Embassy spokesman, said in a separate interview. But one Japanese diplomat, who asked not to be named as he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the country expected favorable treatment in return for donations to think tanks.
“If we put actual money in, we want to have a good result for that money — as it is an investment,” he said.
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — two nations that host large United States military bases and view a continued American military presence as central to their own national security — have been especially aggressive in their giving to think tanks. The two Persian Gulf monarchies are also engaged in a battle with each other to shape Western opinion, with Qatar arguing that Muslim Brotherhood-style political Islam is the Arab world’s best hope for democracy, and the United Arab Emirates seeking to persuade United States policy makers that the Brotherhood is a dangerous threat to the region’s stability.
The United Arab Emirates, which has become a major supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies over the past decade, turned to the think tank in 2007 after an uproar in Congress about the nation’s plan to purchase control of terminals in several United States ports. After lawmakers questioned whether the purchase would be a national security threat to the United States, and the deal was scuttled, the oil-rich nation sought to remake its image in Washington, Mr. Hamre said.
The nation paid the research organization to sponsor a lecture series “to examine the strategic importance” of the gulf region and “identify opportunities for constructive U.S. engagement.” It also paid the center to organize annual trips to the gulf region during which dozens of national security experts from the United States would get private briefings from government officials there.
These and other events gave the United Arab Emirates’ senior diplomats an important platform to press their case. At a round table in Washington in March 2013, Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador to the United States, pressed Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about whether the United States would remain committed to his country given budget reductions in Washington.
Mr. Dempsey’s reply was quickly posted on the Facebook page of the United Arab Emirates Embassy: The country, he assured Mr. Al Otaiba and others in the crowd, was one of America’s “most credible and capable allies, especially in the gulf region.”
Access to Power
Small countries are finding that they can gain big clout by teaming up with American research organizations. Perhaps the best example is Norway.
As one of the world’s top oil producers, a member of NATO and a player in peace negotiations in spots around the globe, Norway has an interest in a broad range of United States policies.
The country has committed at least $24 million to an array of Washington think tanks over the past four years, according to a tally by The Times, transforming these nonprofits into a powerful but largely hidden arm of the Norway Foreign Affairs Ministry. Documents obtained under that country’s unusually broad open records laws reveal that American research groups, after receiving money from Norway, have advocated in Washington for enhancing Norway’s role in NATO, promoted its plans to expand oil drilling in the Arctic and pushed its climate change agenda.
Norway paid the Center for Global Development, for example, to persuade the United States government to spend more money on combating global warming by slowing the clearing of forests in countries like Indonesia, according to a 2013 project document describing work by the center and a consulting company called Climate Advisers.
Norway is a major funder of forest protection efforts around the world. But while many environmentalists applaud the country’s lobbying for forest protection, some have attacked the programs as self-interested: Slowing deforestation could buy more time for Norway’s oil companies to continue selling fossil fuels on the global market even as Norway and other countries push for new carbon reduction policies. Oilwatch International, an environmental advocacy group, calls forest protection a “scheme whereby polluters use forests and land as supposed sponges for their pollution.”
Kare R. Aas, Norway’s ambassador to the United States, rejected this criticism as ridiculous. As a country whose territory extends into the Arctic, he said, Norway would be among the nations most affected by global warming.
John J. Hamre, the president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that he did not view as lobbying his scholars’ advocacy on topics foreign donors have funded them to study.Credit Drew Angerer for The New York Times
“We want to maintain sustainable living conditions in the North,” Mr. Aas said.
But Norway’s agreement imposed very specific demands on the Center for Global Development. The research organization, in return for Norway’s money, was not simply asked to publish reports on combating climate change. The project documents ask the think tank to persuade Washington officials to double United States spending on global forest protection efforts to $500 million a year.
“Target group: U.S. policy makers,” a progress report reads.
The grant is already paying dividends. The center, crediting the Norwegian government’s funding, helped arrange a November 2013 meeting with Treasury Department officials. Scholars there also succeeded in having language from their Norway-funded research included in a deforestation report prepared by a White House advisory commission, according to an April progress report.
Norway has also funded Arctic research at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, at a time when the country was seeking to expand its oil drilling in the Arctic region.
Mr. Hamre, of the center, said he was invited to Norway about five years ago and given a presentation on the Arctic Circle, known in Norway as the “High North.”
“What the hell is the High North?” he said in an interview, recalling that he was not familiar with the topic until then.
But Norway’s government soon began sending checks to the center for a research program on Arctic policy. By 2009, after the new Norway-supported Arctic program was up and running, it brought Norway officials together with a key member of Congress to discuss the country’s “energy aspirations for the region.”
In a March 2013 report, scholars from the center urged the Obama administration to increase its military presence in the Arctic Circle, to protect energy exploration efforts there and to increase the passage of cargo ships through the region — the exact moves Norway has been advocating.
The Brookings Institution, which also accepted grants from Norway, has sought to help the country gain access to American officials, documents show. One Brookings senior fellow, Bruce Jones, offered in 2010 to reach out to State Department officials to help arrange a meeting with a senior Norway official, according to a government email. The Norway official wished to discuss his country’s role as a “middle power” and vital partner of the United States.
Brookings organized another event in April 2013, in which one of Norway’s top officials on Arctic issues was seated next to the State Department’s senior official on the topic and reiterated the country’s priorities for expanding oil exploration in the Arctic.
William J. Antholis, the managing director at Brookings, said that if his scholars help Norway pursue its foreign policy agenda in Washington, it is only because their rigorous, independent research led them to this position. “The scholars are their own agents,” he said. “They are not agents of these foreign governments.”
But three lawyers who specialize in the law governing Americans’ activities on behalf of foreign governments said that the Center for Global Development and Brookings, in particular, appeared to have taken actions that merited registration as foreign agents of Norway. The activities by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Atlantic Council, they added, at least raised questions.
“The Department of Justice needs to be looking at this,” said Joshua Rosenstein, a lawyer at Sandler Reiff.
Ona Dosunmu, Brookings’s general counsel, examining the same documents, said she remained convinced that was a misreading of the law.
A drilling rig in the Barents Sea in 2012. Norway, which as a top oil producer has an interest in United States policy, has committed at least $24 million to Washington think tanks in recent years.Credit Harald Pettersen/Statoil, via Scanpix, via Associated Press
Norway, at least, is grateful for the work Brookings has done. During a speech at Brookings in June, Norway’s foreign minister, Borge Brende, noted that his country’s relationship with the think tank “has been mutually beneficial for moving a lot of important topics.” Just before the speech, in fact, Norway signed an agreement to contribute an additional $4 million to the group.
Limits on Scholars
The tens of millions in donations from foreign interests come with certain expectations, researchers at the organizations said in interviews. Sometimes the foreign donors move aggressively to stifle views contrary to their own.
Michele Dunne served for nearly two decades as a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs at the State Department, including stints in Cairo and Jerusalem, and on the White House National Security Council. In 2011, she was a natural choice to become the founding director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, named after the former prime minister of Lebanon, who was assassinated in 2005.
The center was created with a generous donation from Bahaa Hariri, his eldest son, and with the support of the rest of the Hariri family, which has remained active in politics and business in the Middle East. Another son of the former prime minister served as Lebanon’s prime minister from 2009 to 2011.
But by the summer of 2013, when Egypt’s military forcibly removed the country’s democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, Ms. Dunne soon realized there were limits to her independence. After she signed a petition and testified before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging the United States to suspend military aid to Egypt, calling Mr. Morsi’s ouster a “military coup,” Bahaa Hariri called the Atlantic Council to complain, executives with direct knowledge of the events said.
Ms. Dunne declined to comment on the matter. But four months after the call, Ms. Dunne left the Atlantic Council.
In an interview, Mr. Kempe said he had never taken any action on behalf of Mr. Hariri to try to modify positions that Ms. Dunne or her colleagues took. Ms. Dunne left, he said, in part because she wanted to focus on research, not managing others, as she was doing at the Atlantic Council.
“Differences she may have had with colleagues, management or donors on Middle Eastern issues — inevitable in such a fraught environment where opinions vary widely — don’t touch our fierce defense of individual experts’ intellectual independence,” Mr. Kempe said.
Ms. Dunne was replaced by Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., who served as United States ambassador to Egypt during the rule of Hosni Mubarak, the longtime Egyptian military and political leader forced out of power at the beginning of the Arab Spring. Mr. Ricciardone, a career foreign service officer, had earlier been criticized by conservatives and human rights activists for being too deferential to the Mubarak government.
Scholars at other Washington think tanks, who were granted anonymity to detail confidential internal discussions, described similar experiences that had a chilling effect on their research and ability to make public statements that might offend current or future foreign sponsors. At Brookings, for example, a donor with apparent ties to the Turkish government suspended its support after a scholar there made critical statements about the country, sending a message, one scholar there said.
“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the moment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”
The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.
Brookings executives cited strict internal policies that they said ensure their scholars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criticized the role it has played in supporting militants in Syria.
But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.
Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visiting fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though unwritten, was clear.
“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.”
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments