|
|
April 08, 2003
Iraq's territorial integrity in agenda of talks in Ankara
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, referring to Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi's recent visit to Turkey, here on Monday said that Iranian and Turkish officials reviewed the issue of preserving Iraq's territorial integrity. He stressed that no arrangement for post-war Iraq would work and endure unless neighboring countries are part and parcel, highlighting the identical stances of Tehran and Ankara on the issue. Responding to a question on the recent threats raised by US officials against Iran, he said: "If you mean political, economic and cultural threats, I have to say that the country has faced such threats since the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. We are not concerned about any US military threat". Update: BBC Reporters' Log, 12.35: Iranian students pelt UK Embassy in Tehran with petrol bombs chanting "death to America, death to Britain". Posted By Gabriel Syme (Samizdata) at April 8, 2003 07:22 AM | TrackBackComments
Iran is obviously on the cutting edge of international relations analysis... Posted by: gabriel syme at April 8, 2003 07:23 AMI'm not aware of any 'close relations' between Iran an EU. Can enlighten me somebody? Posted by: murple at April 8, 2003 07:25 AMIran and Turkey working together to keep the Kurds repressed. Nice. Murple, some links on Iran and EU: http://www.payvand.com/news/03/jan/1092.html http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-06/20/article57.shtml ...there is more, just put Iran and EU into Google... Posted by: gabriel syme at April 8, 2003 07:42 AMmurple: the rule of thumb is that if a nation is: The europeans will have a close and almost intimate relationship with it. gabriel: two of the links originated IRNA - quite biased. And the start of some talks doesn't mean close relations. By using Google i also find: like this one: Whatever murple :-), I am with spin on this one... Posted by: gabriel syme at April 8, 2003 08:43 AMRegarding Spin's Rule of Thumb; where exactly would that put the US/UK relationship with Saudi Arabia? Posted by: Joe at April 8, 2003 08:57 AMJoe, Or the US & Pakistani relationship? Or the US & Egyptian relationship? Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:06 AMLet's also not forget that the Reagan administration swapped arms for hostages, that is they made outright deals with terrorists. American self-rigtheousness is nauseating. Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:08 AMGunnels, curious: where do you live? Posted by: FOG at April 8, 2003 09:12 AMHmm ... taking sides with the Iranian mullahs against the Americans. Wonder what the Turkish military thinks of their "secular, pro-Western" Islamist government. Posted by: Ray at April 8, 2003 09:19 AMFOG, Why do you ask? Does my residence have anything remotely to do with my ability to make valid arguments? No. Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:25 AMLets face it the 'realpolitik' of supporting repressive dictatorships is a far more palatable proposition to US/UK/EU governments than allowing 'unhelpful' democracies to emerge. I bet a military dictatorship in Turkey would have been much more amenable to coalition war aims than the pesky democratic one they've got now. Posted by: Joe at April 8, 2003 09:27 AMRay, Turkey is looking out for its own interests. The fact that they've been bastards to the Kurds, the Armenians and the Zoasterians who live in Turkey is well known. One of the reasons why the Arab revolt against the Turks could be pulled off was due to the inhumanity visited upon them by the Turks, and the resentment this caused. Turkish security officers also apparently rape women who are in their custody with impunity. Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:29 AMOhhh, those "close relations" between the EUnicks and Saddam really helped too. Find another horse, fellas. Posted by: Andrew at April 8, 2003 10:14 AMIranian students pelt UK Embassy in Tehran with petrol bombs chanting "death to America, death to Britain". Blah blah blah. "Four legs good - two legs bad." Posted by: Dan Lovejoy at April 8, 2003 10:21 AM" the rule of thumb is that if a nation is: I think you made a type other and mispelled europeans when you mean to type: Americans. Saudi, Pakistan, Azerbiejan, Egypt are all a,b,c and d. They are larger recipients of aid or trade than any EU country gives to Iran. Didn't a Republican president give weapons to Iran at the same time as we insisted the Europeans break relations? Or is that unfair to Reagan because in all fairness he also give the Iraqis a billion dollars with of military intelligence? Posted by: Tanisha at April 8, 2003 11:12 AM"Hmm ... taking sides with the Iranian mullahs against the Americans. Wonder what the Turkish military thinks of their "secular, pro-Western" Islamist government. " Scroll back over the last ten years. The Turkish "secular pro-estern" military and the Iranians have had very high level meetings regularly. The Syrian, Iranian and Turkish Foreign Ministers held a phone conference a couple of days ago. You know their common interest...working against US influence and screwing the Kurds. As far as the Turkish faith-based government being different than previous governments, the last prime minister, "secular" Bulent Ecevit called Israel "genocidal." Turkey is not more sympathetic or supportive of the US and Israel...it is just more duplicitous.
Word to the Turks: Friends, your official position, as well as your man on the street polls, all said Yugoslavia should be partitioned. Your position is Cyprus should be partitioned. Careful, this is not your business. Posted by: blogistan at April 8, 2003 06:12 PMPost a comment
|