Stop NATO news: November 10, 2011
====
Russia: IAEA’s Iran Report Replicates Iraq War Build-Up
Horrendous Scenario: Russia Warns Against Use Of Force Against Iran
NATO Chief Tells Iran To Halt Uranium Enrichment
NATO Allies U.S., Portugal To Collaborate Against Syria, Iran
NATO in Libya – UN And ICC Risk Becoming Irrelevant To Africans
U.S. Spends More On Nuclear Warheads Now Than During Cold War
U.S. Interceptor Missiles In Northern Seas Gravest Threat To Russia
Video And Text: Serbia Is Flashpoint In New World Disorder
Georgia “Lot Closer To NATO”: Rasmussen
NATO-Georgia Commission Session Backs Saakashvili Against Russia
====
Russia: IAEA’s Iran Report Replicates Iraq War Build-Up
http://rt.com/news/russia-iran-watchdog-nuclear-953/
RT
November 9, 2011
Russia: IAEA report‘s goal to make Iran “guilty”
-The statement draws a parallel between the current situation in Iran and the unfounded rumors of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction which led to a military invasion of the country and a long, drawn-out, financially and humanly draining war, detrimental to stability in the region.
Diplomats in Moscow say the UN nuclear watchdog presented no new facts concerning the Iranian nuclear program – but instead deliberately politicized the existing ones, largely ignoring Tehran’s willingness to cooperate.
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s official statement says the fact the IAEA’s director was able to visit several locations of interest previously restricted to Agency inspectors is being underplayed. That, together with the fact Tehran’s desire to work closely with the UN watchdog to resolve any outstanding issues should be present in the report and is conveniently absent, led Russian officials to the conclusion that the IAEA “had a set goal to deliver a guilty verdict”.
Russia also expressed concern that the report, though still officially unpublished, is already being used to undermine international efforts at resolving the issues around Iran’s nuclear agenda in a diplomatic way. A further step in this direction, Moscow warns, could lead to a confrontational turn in the negotiations.
The statement draws a parallel between the current situation in Iran and the unfounded rumors of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction which led to a military invasion of the country and a long, drawn-out, financially and humanly draining war, detrimental to stability in the region.
====
Horrendous Scenario: Russia Warns Against Use Of Force Against Iran
-“Any conflict should be resolved peacefully, via diplomacy. However, several countries prefer employing military means to solve regional conflicts, which has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. This adds to the fact that the Libya-like scenario is completely unacceptable, it violates international law and the world order based on rules and regulations set in the UN Charter…”
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/10/60188391.html
Voice of Russia
November 10, 2011
Russia warns against use of force over Iranian nuclear problem
In an interview with the Voice of Russia aired on Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said that the use of force against Iran was impossible without an appropriate resolution by the UN Security Council.
“Israel’s officials, he added, have repeatedly said that they are not ruling out the possibility of a military strike on Iranian territory.
“We proceed on the assumption that similar actions in international relations are unacceptable because use of force can only be sanctioned by the decisions of the UN Security Council or the UN Charter and its 51st clause which provides for the right of self-defense”, Lukashevich said, adding that “neither of these options have ever been discussed at the UN Security Council.
“This is why even theoretically, he concluded , we cannot think about such a horrendous scenario being put into practice.”
—————————————————————————
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/10/60187287.html
Voice of Russia
November 10, 2011
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich’s interview with the Voice of Russia
-“Any conflict should be resolved peacefully, via diplomacy. However, several countries prefer employing military means to solve regional conflicts, which has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. This adds to the fact that the Libya-like scenario is completely unacceptable, it violates international law and the world order based on rules and regulations set in the UN Charter…”
In an interview with the Voice of Russia aired on Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said that the use of force against Iran was impossible without an appropriate resolution by the UN Security Council.
“Israeli officials have repeatedly said that they are not ruling out the possibility of a military strike on Iranian territory. We proceed on the assumption that similar actions in international relations are unacceptable because use of force can only be sanctioned by the decisions of the UN Security Council or the UN Charter and its 51st clause which provides for the right of self-defense. Neither of these options have ever been discussed at the UN Security Council. This is why, even theoretically, we cannot think about such a horrendous scenario being put into practice.
“And we believe that those politicians who hypothetically speculate on the matter are making a serious mistake because they speculate on this in real time. The implementation of such plans would be fraught with regional and global implications. We would like to reiterate once again that the Iranian nuclear program has no military solution – something that is also the case with any other problem in modern-day international relations.
“Both the Russian Federation and many other countries are calling for the use of a whole array of international instruments, including political, diplomatic and intermediary tools, which contribute to the potential and peacemaking efforts of the UN and the ability of the international community to resolve any problem effectively and through diplomatic means.”
Iran’s nuclear problem may only be solved only peacefully and diplomatically, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich stated in an interview with the VoR.
“Any conflict should be resolved peacefully, via diplomacy. However, several countries prefer employing military means to solve regional conflicts, which has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. This adds to the fact that the Libya-like scenario is completely unacceptable, it violates international law and the world order based on rules and regulations set in the UN Charter. Russia will stick to its plan that unfortunately wasn’t accepted by the Big Six mediators as a collective strategy to solve the Iranian problem. It’s still on the negotiation table and we hope that it will be gradually incorporated in the joint actions by the global community aimed at finding a peaceful solution to the problem that is, obviously, a matter of common concern.
“The issue cannot be solved either by militarily means or by attempting to isolate the country. We believe these actions are inefficient.
“Russia believes that the sanctions had already run their course when the UN adopted a very tough Resolution 1929 that was to show Iran that the global community expected it to ensure the transparency of its nuclear programme.
“The Big Six is putting its stakes on resuming talks with Iran and sorting out all the related issues which pose concern to the IAEA.”
====
NATO Chief Tells Iran To Halt Uranium Enrichment
http://en.trend.az/regions/scaucasus/georgia/1954996.html
Trend News Agency
November 9, 2011
NATO Secretary-General urges Iran to halt uranium enrichment program
N. Kirtskhalia
Tbilisi: NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has urged Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program.
NATO does not pursue a separate policy on the Iran issue and cooperates in this matter with the international community, Rasmussen said Wednesday in the Georgian capital Tbilisi.
“It is the international community that should take decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear policy and NATO will support these decisions,” he said.
Rasmussen said that 50 countries of the world currently possess booster rockets [ballistic missiles], or wish to have them.
“In these circumstances, we are developing a joint missile defense system that will protect the peoples of the countries united in the Alliance,” said NATO Secretary General.
====
NATO Allies U.S., Portugal To Collaborate Against Syria, Iran
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/10/c_131238267.htm
Xinhua News Agency
November 10, 2011
U.S., Portugal agree to continue cooperation on Syria, Iran
-In their last summit in Nov. last year in Lisbon, Portugal, NATO leaders adopted a new strategic concept for the next decade, recommitting the military bloc to a global military role…
WASHINGTON: The United States and Portugal agreed on Wednesday to continue their close cooperation at the UN Security Council over issues like Syria, Iran and the Middle East peace.
At their White House talks, U.S. President Barack Obama and his Portuguese counterpart Anibal Cavaco Silva reaffirmed the strength of the partnership between their countries, which they said is building on the “deep friendship and long-standing alliance” between the two NATO allies.
“We also agreed to continue our close cooperation within the UN Security Council, where Portugal currently serves as Council President, on issues of mutual concern, such as Syria, Libya, Middle East peace and Iran,” the two leaders said in a joint statement.
…
Obama and Silva also reviewed plans for the upcoming NATO summit slated for May 2012 in Chicago. “We agreed that we would work together in the coming months to ensure that the summit advances our joint goal of ensuring that the alliance is fully prepared to meet the security challenges of the 21st century,” they said.
In their last summit in Nov. last year in Lisbon, Portugal, NATO leaders adopted a new strategic concept for the next decade, recommitting the military bloc to a global military role…
Obama and Silva discussed ongoing NATO operations, in particular in Afghanistan, saying Portugal intends to maintain its contribution to the Asian nation.
As officials from the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank are in Portugal to review progress in its debt bailout, the two leaders also exchanged views on the present world economic and financial situation. “The United States underscored its full support for Portugal’s implementation of its reform program backed by the IMF and the EU,” their joint statement said.
====
NATO in Libya: UN And ICC Risk Becoming Irrelevant To Africans
http://allafrica.com/stories/201111100803.html
AllAfrica
November 9, 2011
NATO in Libya – UN And ICC Risk Becoming Irrelevant to Africans
Yaw Asare Adu-Otu
Repeating the falsehood that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) exercised its military capability in Libya to protect civilians against attacks by the military of the Gadahfi regime did not make the assertion truthful when reasonable people around the world examined all the facts. Additionally, repeating NATO’s false premise has not made intervention in Libya and the brutal murder of Col Gadahfi either legal or legitimate in the context of international law.
Rather, the chances may be that heads of government of NATO member-countries and their outside allies must be ready to exculpate themselves at the International Criminal Court (ICC) from charges of the willful overthrow and assassination of the head of state of an African country, Muammar Gadhafi.
The NATO Air Force attack supported organized Libyan civilian forces engaged in armed hostilities in opposition to the Gadahfi regime for eight months. The hostilities had the character of a civil war, culminating in the assassination of Gadahfi in cold blood through the instrumentality of NATO’s air force.
Considering the glee and euphoria with which popular media outlets in the West reported the internal conflict and hostilities in Libya, it is tempting for one to hazard a question regarding the source of NATO’s actual motivation for the intervention in Libya as it happened.
In the context of NATO feigning concern for the civilian population of Libya, it is defensible to question why the organization did not intervene in South Africa during the period of apartheid when the Afrikaans regime unleashed brutality against the African population. NATO was a no-show in Sudan to protect the African population in the South of the country against the brutalities of the Khartoum government. In the event of genocide hostilities in Rwanda in 1994, NATO was nowhere near. The world is waiting to see when NATO will decide to protect civilian population in the Great Lakes region of Africa to secure the peace and protect Democratic Republic of Congo against foreign predators plundering its mineral resources. Since NATO had not seen fit to respond to other critical internal conflicts in Africa as cited here, it takes a stretch of one’s imagination to fathom its “real” reason for the decision to engage in Libya.
Until NATO provides satisfactory explanation for its intervention in Libya, African people would have reason to believe that the organization has engaged in aiding and abetting imperialist forces with neo-colonialist intentions in Africa.
One could only be suspicious that, given the downturn of European economies, forces must be at work in support of Europe’s return to its imperialist past. Nothing will rescue Europe from its current economic quagmire except to have unfettered access to African resources and raw materials. It is not sheer co-incidence that Libya is oozing sweet crude oil that the Europeans and United States need desperately.
If the ICC does not initiate steps to investigate and prosecute President Nicolas Sarkozy of France for dropping bombs in Libya, that court must consider itself irrelevant to Africans. The ICC has become notorious for focusing its prosecutorial power primarily on African heads of state by preferring frivolous charges against some of them to satisfy the whims and caprices of world imperialist powers. Russia and China noted that the intervention of NATO in Libya violated provisions of UN resolutions 1970 and 1973. Leaders of the African Union have pointed out that NATO’s campaign risked replicating the “Somaliasation” in Libya.
While the NATO air force rained mayhem on the government and people of Libya, the ICC had the effrontery to issue warrants for the arrest of Gadahfi and his children. That was an example of the frivolousness of the ICC’s behavior towards Africans. Regarding the bombardment of Libya, it is defensible to question the fairness about the ICC’s decision to arrest Gadahfi. Shouldn’t the ICC have arrested leaders of the oil-hungry world imperialist forces that attacked the people of Libya and Gadahfi, head of state and government of the sovereign nation of Libya? Didn’t Gadahfi have a duty to defend the sovereignty of the nation of Libya against external attack?
Dr. Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president in the 2012 United States elections, has repeatedly stated that the United States constitution does not grant authority to the government to intervene in the internal affairs of any country.
France is broke and short of resources and risks becoming bankrupt without access to African resources that it had during a long period of European colonization of Africa. Towards the re-colonization of Africa, France has been fomenting confusion and atrocities and promoting internal conflicts in some of its former colonial holdings in Africa such as Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Cameroon. Currently, it seems France is getting help from the United States and NATO to have access to Libya’s oil and cash reserves. Therefore, it appears that the moves by the ICC in Libya added to the consternation of forces to deprive people of Libya of their oil and money resources.
Meanwhile, prosecutors at the ICC have appeared unconcerned when leaders of world powers in the West such as Britain and France commit atrocities in the international arena through unwarranted wars as well as other forms of irresponsible actions or inactions against humanity. In this instance, the events and outcomes of the Katrina submergence of New Orleans, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo come to mind.
While NATO claimed the false premise of protecting a section of the Libyan population against the Gadhafi regime, France kept dropping arms unilaterally into the hands of another section of the Libyan civilian population.
For many years, African governments had campaigned against the infiltration of arms into the continent from outside. Infiltration of arms into Africa had encouraged local conflicts and hostilities in various societies, drawing attention and resources away from needed development. Therefore, doling out arms to a civilian population in Libya constituted an action for which the ICC must indict Nicolas Sarkozy of France.
Instead of indicting Sarkozy, the ICC set its eyes on Gadahfi and his children. Gadahfi had a duty to protect his regime against chaos and conflict sponsored by forces of economic imperialism. Clearly, Gadhafi’s regime had a duty also to protect the territorial integrity of Libya against external attack.
In the process of considering intervening in Libya, the UN as well as NATO and its reactionary allies ignored overtures from the African Union, the AU, the organization representing the majority of Africans. At the end of June 2011 a spokesperson for the AU, speaking from Equatorial Guinea, pointed out the risk of a number of problems linked to the unilateral airdrop of arms in Libya by France. The problems the AU spokesperson listed included, “The risk of civil war, risk of partitioning of the country, the risk of ‘Somaliasation’ of the country, risk of having arms everywhere…and risk of terrorism.” The spokesperson raised also the specter of the spillover effects of the outcome in Libya into neighboring countries, BBC News reported.
The AU, on March 10, 2011, empanelled five African presidents “to mediate an end to the bloodshed in Libya,” online Times live of South Africa reported. A spokesperson for South Africa said, “South Affrica viewed the situation in Libya as grave and wanted Muammar Gaddafi and the rebels fighting to end his four decades in power to cease hostilities.” A Libyan radio report suspected members of the al-Qaeda organization fighting alongside the anti-Gadahfi Libyan forces.
The UN-NATO war machinery group shoved the AU presidential peace mediators panel aside and, rather, listened to the advice of backward thinkers like David Cameron, David Owen and William Hague to carry on with air attacks on Libya.
France has not denied dropping arms to a civilian populated area of Libyan territory where there had been on-going civil war. Who knows what Sarkozy has tried to achieve in Africa. In the final analysis, armed Libyan civilians murdered Gadahfi brutally with the help of NATO air attacks. Had NATO and France done the bidding of the UN? Who are the good people now in the Libyan contradiction?
====
U.S. Spends More On Nuclear Warheads Now Than During Cold War
http://rt.com/usa/news/cold-war-nuclear-warheads-961/
RT
November 10, 2011
USA spending more on nukes now than during Cold War
Though it has been decades since the Cold War came to a close, the United States government spends more money on nuclear warheads now than it did during its stand-off with the Soviet Union.
As the US vows to cut down its arsenal of nuclear weapons, the cost the country spends annually on maintaining its supply is much more than America invested each year during the Cold War. Estimates suggest that currently the US puts around $55 billion annually into its nuclear weapons program, reports Mother Jones; by comparison, the cost of the nuke complex for the country during the Cold War ran at an average of only $35 billion each year.
Only three months into his presidency, Barack Obama said in April 2009 that he envisioned an Earth in the future fee of nuclear weapons. Just two years later, however, America’s arsenal of those warheads amounts to roughly 2,500 nukes ready to be deployed.
It was only less than two weeks ago that the United States finally dismantled its largest atomic bomb, the B53, which was said to be 600 times more powerful than the nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan towards the finale of the Second World War. As that nuke was dismantled, Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Poneman told NPR that the bomb was a “Cold War relic” and showed the direction of dismantling that the United States was heading towards.
Even if the country is cutting back on its nukes, the United States has a backup stash larger than the active bombs, allowing for the country to in total have 5,113 nuclear warheads in its position. The surplus of not-quite-ready nukes is at 2,600, and though they cannot be deployed at a drop of a hat like the others, they can be reanimated as full-fledged warheads.
Peter Fedewa of the pro-disarmament Ploughshares Fund says that those nukes “could be ‘raised from the dead’ and brought back into deployment with relative ease.”
Under the START treaty that the US signed with Russia last year, both countries vow to soon enough limit their stash of active warheads to only 1,500. The document does not, however, say how many back-up nukes either country can have. In the interim, Mother Jones reports that the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas holds around 3,000 warheads that are on the schedule to be dismantled, something America used to do at a pace of around 1,300 per year. Last year, however, both Congress and the White House said that the country would cut back on the cost of dismantling the warheads and instead now invest the money on the upkeep of already dead nukes.
At the country’s current rate, dismantling the thousands of atomic nukes would take longer than a decade, Joe Cirincione, a longtime analyst of nuclear weapons policy, tells NPR. Currently, only around 250 warheads are dismantled at Pantex each year.
It doesn’t help that the country is more interested in revamping the retired nukes than pulling the plug on them entirely, either.
In 2012, the country will spend $4.1 billion on the “refurbishment” of retired nukes, while only a fraction of that — $57 million — will be invested in dismantling them. That figure accounts for less than one percent of the country’s total budget for the nuclear program. In all, America’s nuclear program operates at a cost of around $55 billion, which is spread across the Departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security. Despite Obama’s insistence on curbing the program, the tally of funding is believed to have gone up by around $3 billion since only 2008, which at the time accounted for five times the budget of the Department of State — or 14 times what the Energy Department spends on everything else.
“The same facilities that dismantle U.S. nuclear warheads are also refurbishing US warheads,” Cirincione added in speaking to NPR. “And right now a decision has been made to prioritize refurbishment. So we’re actually building more nuclear weapons than we’re dismantling. That didn’t use to be the case, but it is now.”
When weapons are dismantled at the current snail’s pace, the risks in place are of immense danger as well. “There are very strict manuals on exactly what you have to do,” Hans Kristensen, spokesman for the Federation of American Scientists, tells MSNBC. “How much pressure can you apply to each screw, what kind of glue holds the chemical high explosives together around the spear of highly enriched uranium.”
Both Russia and America have agreed to have an arsenal of only 1,550 deployed nukes come 2018, only a fraction of the 22,000-plus on hand at the end of the Cold War. Obama told an audience in Prague in 2009 he aimed “To put an end to Cold War thinking,” adding that America “will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.” As the country is investing more money in rebuilding nukes than kicking them to the curb, however, will the president follow through with his plea or will it be added to the list of other promises gone unfulfilled?
====
U.S. Interceptor Missiles In Northern Seas Gravest Threat To Russia
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/09/60116007.html
Voice of Russia
November 9, 2011
Arctic: cooperation, not confrontation
Maria Chupina
-”It’s easier to fire cruise missiles at Russia from the Arctic. This is the only region where a missile defense system can be really effective. It’s impossible to shoot down Russian missiles from Europe. This is easier to do from ships deployed in the Arctic, if, of course, American anti-aircraft missiles are substantially upgraded.”
Moscow has been seriously worried over plans by the United States to deploy missile warships in northern seas. Meeting with servicemen of the Western military district on Tuesday, Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said that Washington was studying the possibility of temporarily deploying its missile fleet in the North, Baltic and Barents Seas. But, he added, there is nothing more permanent than temporary. Russia has been firmly opposing the militarization of the Arctic and suggests turning the region into a key platform for economic and scientific cooperation between the Arctic “five” – Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark. The Arctic is rich in hydrocarbons and offers vast opportunities for developing sea and air transportation.
But it looks like Washington has different plans for the Arctic.
Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine, says that the United States has a significant number of warships equipped with the Aegis sea-based missile defense and anti-aircraft system.
“This system can theoretically intercept Russian ballistic missiles in case of a hypothetical conflict between Russia and the United States. In this case, the presence of U.S. missile warships in northern seas can be regarded by the Russian military and political leadership as a factor threatening the normal functioning of the Russian strategic nuclear forces.”
The ground-based version of the Aegis will form the basis of the European missile defense system, which is being built by the United States and NATO…Russia continues missile defense talks with the United States and NATO, but its role in the new security architecture is the subject of heated discussions in the West.
Alexander Khramchikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, thinks that the appearance of the U.S. missile fleet in northern seas is dangerous to Russia.
“It’s easier to fire cruise missiles at Russia from the Arctic. This is the only region where a missile defense system can be really effective. It’s impossible to shoot down Russian missiles from Europe. This is easier to do from ships deployed in the Arctic, if, of course, American anti-aircraft missiles are substantially upgraded. Theoretically, it is the deployment of U.S. warships in the North that is most unfavorable for us. But it’s not clear, what precisely this deployment means and what it will look like.”
Russia does not want confrontation with the West. The Kremlin has repeatedly said that parity should be discussed at the negotiating table and not through muscle-flexing. But that does not mean that Russia will give up plans to modernize its defense potential in various regions, including in the northern seas. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has unveiled plans to strengthen the Russian Northern Fleet. Work continues to create a new Borei-class strategic missile-carrying submarine, Borei 955, and a Yasen-class nuclear-powered submarine, Yasen 885.
====
Video And Text: Serbia Is Flashpoint In New World Disorder
http://rt.com/news/serbia-world-pavic-kosovo-957/
RT
November 9, 2011
‘Serbia is one flashpoint in a new world disorder’
- “The same powers that are controlling NATO are controlling what is happening in Greece. They are behind the crisis in Greece, they are behind the crisis in Iran. What we are seeing right now is the sign of a new world disorder, and Serbia is one of the flashpoints.”
NATO peacekeepers have used tear gas to take control of one of the barricades in Northern Kosovo, built by local Serbs several months ago in an ongoing border dispute. Political analyst Aleksandar Pavic insists KFOR forces act as occupiers.
But the success of the KFOR troops was short-lived, after a new block was put up further down the road. The crackdown comes just days after the head of the UN drew attention to the increasing number of attacks on Serbs living in Northern Kosovo.
NATO troops were deployed to the region to keep the peace and separate the conflicting sides. However, by bulldozing barricades they seem to have taken a particular side. And as Aleksandar Pavic says, the alliance has been doing this for years, while there is a bigger picture behind its actions in Serbia.
“They’ve broken their mandate, actually. They are doing the job of the Albanian-controlled government in Pristina, and they are doing it openly, in spite of their mandate from the UN, which is supposed to be a peace-keeping mandate, to keep the warring sides separated,” he told RT.
Speaking of the latest events around the barricades, Pavic notes that the KFOR action is an “aggressive show of force”. “They are acting like an occupier, instead of peace-keeping,” he added.
With all that, it is not just about Kosovo, the political analyst pointed out.
“This is part of a larger picture, and I think people should be very much aware of that,” Pavic said. “The same powers that are controlling NATO are controlling what is happening in Greece. They are behind the crisis in Greece, they are behind the crisis in Iran. What we are seeing right now is the sign of a new world disorder, and Serbia is one of the flashpoints.”
“All the people who are active in all Occupy Wall Street and all the other streets throughout the Western world right now – the Kosovo Serbs are the forefront of this fight,” Aleksandar Pavic concluded.
====
Georgia “Lot Closer To NATO”: Rasmussen
http://en.rian.ru/world/20111109/168556946.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
November 9, 2011
Georgia ‘a lot closer’ to NATO – Rasmussen
TBILISI: NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Wednesday noted Georgia’s progress toward integration with the alliance and called for a continuation of reforms.
“Since our Bucharest summit, Georgia has come a lot closer to NATO,” Rasmussen said at a meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission, adding that there is still “work to be done in a number of areas.”
NATO’s Bucharest summit in 2008 opened the door to eventual Georgian membership in the alliance, and Rasmussen reaffirmed that decision.
Rasmussen and a NATO delegation he leads arrived in the capital Tbilisi on Wednesday for a two-day visit.
Further reforms will be “Georgia’s ticket to membership in NATO,” the secretary general said.
====
NATO-Georgia Commission Session Backs Saakashvili Against Russia
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=7&id=286199
Interfax
November 10, 2011
Tbilisi happy with NATO-Georgia Commission session results
TBILISI: A joint document addressing all key issues was confirmed at a session of the NATO-Georgia Commission in Tbilisi, Georgian Deputy Prime Minister Giorgi Baramidze told journalists.
“This high-level meeting proceeded in a constructive and fruitful atmosphere. One more step forward was taken in relations between NATO and Georgia,” Baramidze said.
The document reaffirms NATO’s support of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and calls on Russia to cancel its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, he said.
“The document confirms the decision adopted by the alliance at the Bucharest summit that Georgia will certainly become a NATO member,” the deputy premier said.
The alliance also thanked Georgia for its contribution to the peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan, Baramidze said.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a press conference in Tbilisi on Wednesday that Georgia’s possible entry into the alliance largely depended on the success of the country’s reforms in different sectors.
====
