EUROPEAN UNION – TAJIKISTAN : A DEVELOPING RELATION

Between 25-26 July 2011 Ambassador of Tajikistan to European Union , Rustamjon Soliev  ,  had made an working visit to Romania at the invitation of Professor Dr. Anton Caragea, President of European Council on International Relations  in order to further develop the bilateral relation and offer new dimensions to economical, cultural and political dialogue between Tajikistan  , European Union and Romania .

His Excellency Ambassador Rustamjon Soliev – Ambassador of Republic of Tajikistan to European Union

In the framework of the visit Ambassador Soliev paid special attention to de-frozen  the economic dimension of the relations between the two countries.

Ambassador of Tajikistan had arranged meetings with Romanian Chamber of Commerce President and European Union Bilateral  Chambers of Commerce Vice-President , Director of Romanian Investment Agency  and Ministry of Economy and other Romanian economic officials .

The parties expressed the common desire of re-launch the bilateral relations by mutual assured investment , development of trade and tourism . Romanian side express the desire , in accordance with Tajikistan Ambassador views ,  to have an Romanian ( EU) – Tajikistan Economic Forum , to have Tajikistan investment in Romanian tourist sites and to have practical offers for investment in Tajikistan .

In the meetings  held by Ambassador Soliev  at Energy Minister , Romania offered technical expertise for rehabilitation of Tajikistan energy system and also expressed interest in programs for solar and wind energy exploitation in Tajikistan .

In all the meetings Ambassador Rustamjon Soliev received official congratulation on the appointment of President of Tajikistan, Emamoli Rahmon for the prestigious European Award of LEADER OF XXI CENTURY , the Romanian side underlining  that this famous award is the expression of Tajikistan new position of strength in the world and also an incentive for foreign investors to seek closer economical and political relations  with Tajikistan , as the prize is awarded as a proof of European confidence in a country and a leader.

In a special meeting at the European Council on International Relations Headquarters Ambassador Rustamjon Soliev presented for an impressive audience of academics , politicians, diplomats and foreign observers , a report about Tajikistan development today .

The report was based on the masterpiece book TAJIK ARTS AND CRAFTS THROUGH THE CENTURIES by Hamrokhon Zarifi , Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan and highlighted the cultural richness  and lofty tradition  of the country. From Alexander the Great to Silk Road and today development and beauties of Tajikistan under President Emomali Rahmon economic and social reform program , the complete image of Tajikstan was presented in the Ambassador Soliev report .

Ambassador Soliev and european academics.

In the official audience granted by President of European Council on International Relations , professor Dr. Anton Caragea to Ambassador Soliev  the parties expressed the determination to boost cultural and academic relations, to create a framework for cultural and political dialogue and to organize an art exhibition : TAJIKISTAN IN THE HEART OF SILK ROAD  based on the art crafts presented in the book of   Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan ,  Hamrokhon Zarifi.

The parties had agreed a calendar of mutual consultation to search for new ways of fostering European Union – Tajikistan relations  but also Romania-Tajikistan relation.

The cultural dimension of bilateral Romania- European Union-Tajikistan relation was underlined also by meetings at Ministry of Culture and by visit of Ambassador Soliev Rustamjon Abdulloevich   to the oldest ethnographic museum in Eastern Europe : Village Museum of Romania .

The two day visit succeeded , after  a long time, to recreate a new dimension of European Union – Tajikistan relation.In addition in August 2011 a delegation of high ranking officials of European Council on International Relations are expected to arrive in Tajikistan for a working visit.

Solid discussion on economy, culture and political agenda create a new framework and the Romanian side expressed, at the end of the visit of Ambassador Soliev , the desire for a continuity in this fruitful dialogue and for new ways according with the concepts of XXI century diplomacy to develop the bilateral relation in the framework of European Union .

DANUBE AND DANUBE DELTA – THE CENTER OF EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CONFERENCE

On 23 June 2011 in the presence of Diplomatic Corp accredited to Romania and European officials it was unveiled the International Exhibition : DANUBE & DANUBE DELTA under the High Patronage of the European Council on International Relations .

 

Professor Dr. Anton Caragea – President of European Council on International Relations opening the INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DANUBE AND DANUBE DELTA

It is the first edition of such an exhibition and as the organizers are stating it hopes to provide real support in erecting a platform to encourage and support fostering new initiatives and partnerships between local and regional authorities , private and state entities , environmental protection foundation in order to further develop the economic power of the Danube region .

The opening speech of the International Conference : DANUBE AND DANUBE DELTA : OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES was held by Professor Anton Caragea who offered his High Patronage to the event had presented the main objectives of the Conference: to mark 29 June 2011 as the official International Day of Danube , to emphasize the economic dimension of Danube as the second European rivers , crossing 10 countries , uniting 4 capitals and constructing a water way between North Sea and Black Sea and offering an avenue for more than 100 billions exchanges on goods and services .

Taking in consideration this economic dimension of Danube is absolutely vital for European Union and for Romania that is receiving 28, 9% percent of the length of the Danube, to transform this in economic opportunity and constructing international partnership not only with riverbanks’ country but with Mediterranean area countries, stated in his opening speech professor dr. Anton Caragea . 

The INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION DANUBE AND DANUBE DELTA (23-26 June 2011 ) opened under the High Patronage of European Council on International Relations.

Dr. Petru Lificiu, Vice-president of National Agency for Energy and President of Ecological Forum had presented in his speech the importance of economic development of Danube in the framework of environmental protection and also emphasize the importance of energy and transportation exploitation of Danube shores .

The main focus of the conference was offered by United Arab Emirates and State of Qatar ambassadors’ assessment of the Danube Delta and Danube potential after participating in the diplomatic trip along the Danube. 

Huge european presence at the opening ceremony.

H.E Yacoub Yousef Al Hosani – United Arab Emirates Ambassador to Romania focused his speech in assessment of the economical and environmental opportunities of Danube and Danube Delta and the practical dimension of his trip for observing area of interest for investors from United Arab Emirates . Also Ambassador Yacoub Yousef al Hosani expressed his appreciation towards the European Council on International Relations and President Anton Caragea for hosting this trip and for opening the magic gates of a UNESCO heritage site as valuable as Danube Delta and in such a short span of time to organize and an international conference on Danube and Danube Delta.

H.E Salem al Jaber- Ambassador of State of Qatar underlined his complete appreciation toward the observation and insightful analyses of Danube and Danube Delta offered by United Arab Emirates Ambassador stating also that now they are sharing a friendship cemented by waters of Danube , that according to legend make the perfect friendship .

Instead his speech will be directed toward concrete proposal such as including Danube Delta among the national flag carrier destination, including Mr. Petru Lificiu`s book as the travel guide for the area and offering support for state investment in tourism area in Danube region. He also expressed his gratitude for European Council on International Relations for offering this conference to European public.

At the end of the conference officials and ambassadors made the honor tour of the International Exhibition on Danube and Danube Delta admiring the marvelous objects presented in the exhibition and receiving a complementary book of Natural Patrimony of Romania by Mr. Petru Lificiu, book that was honored with Romania Book Award for 2011.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BOY WHO BECOME A SYMBOL OF ANTI-SYRIAN UPRISING : HAMZA AL KHATEEB

UNITED STATES TERRORISTS KILLED HAMZA AL KHATEEB SAYS HIS FAMILY 

A report by the Syrian Television broadcast on Tuesday unveiled the truth about the story of martyr Hamza al-Khateeb, closing the door in the face of the lies and false accounts of the satellite channels and websites which badly used al-Khateeb’s pictures over days to serve their purposes.

Syrian people take to the streets to protest against Washington Post and New York Times lies about Hamza Al Khateeb murder

The report started with showing how in April 29th after Friday Prayer, people began to gather in some villages of Daraa countryside responding to inciting calls for Jihad, which were taken advantage of by armed groups to attack army, police and security forces and citizens, and set off toward the military housing compound in Said area where al-Khateeb was martyred.

“At that time, armed members showed up among the crowd and succeeded in misleading many young children into going with them to fire at the compound’s guards whose chief was martyred,” said the report.

It continued that al-Khateeb, who was found killed in the surrounding of the compound and still unidentified then, was transferred to hospital among the victims.

“At a late hour on Friday 29/4/2011, we were informed by the Coronary Department that body for unidentified boy was in the hospital,” said Samer Abbas, the judge in charge of the case.

Abbas added that after all the medical and legal procedures were taken and once the body was identified as Hamza al-Khateeb’s, it was handed over to the martyr’s family through the National Hospital in Daraa on May 21, 2011.

“Since I am the one who undertook the investigation and the medical check up, I came to know that al-Khateeb died while he was inside the military compound’s surrounding from several gunshots without any traces of torture on the body,” said judge Abbas, pointing out that al-Khateeb’s family can come and know all the details they want.

Coroner Akram al-Shaar who checked al-Khateeb’s body pointed out that after the body reached the hospital on April 29th, a legal commission including the judge and the coroner came to identify the body whose owner’s name was not known.

“A precise description of the body showed it belongs to a plump young man in his twenties,” said al-Shaar, adding that the body had three deadly gunshots which were the reason behind the death as proven by the x-ray photography and the examination of the gunshot muzzle wounds on the body.

“There weren’t any traces of violence, resistance or torture or any kinds of bruises, fractures, joint displacements or cuts,” the coroner pointed out, indicating that there period between the check and the handover of the dead body to his family was required for the identification.

Al-Shaar affirmed that the photos of the body which appeared by some channels and news agencies were taken after an advanced stage of disintegration after death which can be detected by any coroner through different manifestations on the body.

Syrian Television expose the lies around the so called martyr boy.

He pointed out that the photos taken by the Coronary Department, however, were new as they were taken immediately upon the arrival of the body which was only few hours after death.

The TV report continued to tell the truth about the story as told by the participants in the attack on Saida military housing compound.

Abdel Aziz al-Khateeb, one of the participants, told in detail how “I used to go with my friends Hamza al-Khateeb, Abdel Majeed al-Khateeb and Mohammed Sweidan to perform Friday prayers at the Grand Mosque in al-Jizah led by sheikh Haroon al-Zoubi and Talal Shkeir who were calling for Jihad.”

“We were holding meetings at al-Jizah Square to protect the participants in Friday gatherings in coordination with other sheikhs from other villages. There was a blacksmith who distributed sharp arms to us,” al-Khateeb added.

“On Friday, April 29th, I joined Hamza al-Khateeb and Mohammad Sweidan and Abdel Majeed al-Khateeb to the gathering place where we met other people from al-Mseifra and Bosra. We headed to the military residences in Saida accompanied by armed men. As we reached there, some demonstrators opened fire toward the compound injuring one soldier. Later, there was a heavy fire exchange and we had to hide behind trees,” al-Khateeb said.

He added that Hamza al-Khateeb was among the injured people. “He fell to the ground and I didn’t know what happened to him. I fled with Abdel Majeed al-Khateeb and Mohammad Sweidan.”

President Bashar al-Assad met the family of Hamza al-Khateeb on Tuesday afternoon and offered them condolences before discussing the death issue in detail.

Father of the martyr said President al-Assad was so “gentle and kind”, adding that the President promised to fulfill the people’s demands and make necessary reforms that serve the interests of the Syrian citizens.

Hamza’s father noted that it was President al-Assad who invited Hamza’s family to listen to them about their son’s death.

For his part, the martyr’s uncle said we received the body from Daraa National Hospital, stressing what has been showed is all proven and based on the coroner’s report written at the Attorney General.

He added that President al-Assad during the meeting stressed forming a committee to investigate the incident to reach the truth.

Professor of media psychology at Damascus University, Majdi Fares, said the incident of al-Khateeb’s death was used by some satellite channels and media in a biased way for misleading purposes through lies and fabrications.

In the same context, Interior Minister Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaar issued a decision on forming an investigation committee chaired by Assistant Interior Minister to uncover the circumstances of the incident and reveal the results to the public opinion. The committee will start its mission today.

Concluding the report, the Syrian TV said the information which has been presented shows the fact that Hamza al-Khateeb has never been jailed or arrested recently.

AN EUROPEAN UNION STATEMENT ON SYRIA

On 27 April 2011 the Board of Directors of European Council on International Relations  had convened in a special session to give a strong message of support for Syrian people and for Syrian Arab Republic independence and unity .

Professor Anton Caragea , President  of  European Council on International Relationshad read the final declaration of the meeting stating that :

Professor dr. Anton Caragea-President of European Council on International Relations

In front of  a media campaign of lies and disinformation  and manipulation regarding the events in Syrian Arab Republic we, the intellectual community of Europe we state our solidarity with Syrian people, victim of foreign intervention and aggression .

We voice our support for Syrian Arab Republic territorial integrity as is stated in all international law and United Nations Charta with territory of Golan as a integral part of Syrian Arab Republic as stated in the UN Charta .

We condemn the terrorist aggression that had launch attacks in Deraa , Latakia and Damascus  and we underline our support for the Government of President Bashar Al Assad as the soul legal , legitimate and unique representative of Syrian people.

We support the legal and lawful intervention of Syrian security forces against terrorist attacks in order to protect the life and property of Syrian people . Syrian security forces had only done their duty with honor and professionalism repealing the aggression and invaders from Syrian territory.

We condemn the media outlets that are calling terrorist attacks a revolution , mercenaries and terrorists as freedom fighter`s and advocate the destruction of Syria . We must state clear that in Syrian there is no revolution , in Syria a democratic reform process organized by President Bashar Al Assad is giving to every person the right to freedom of expression and human rights and dignity are provided for making useless any revolution.

Finally we express our trust in President Bashar Al Assad of Syria as the representative of the unity of Syrian people and the guarantor  of the integrity of Syria  , as the representative of reform policy for a better, democratic and free Syria. President Bashar Al Assad is in this grave hours the voice of people of Syria and is giving the example and dedication of  a true leader, we are respecting and we express our solidarity with him .

European Union must stand beside Syria as are under question the fundamental values that Europe is speaking for: freedom, independence, national unity and non-interference in internal affairs. If this principles will be forgotten not only Syria`s security will be under question but Europe and any other state existence will be subject to debate.   Supporting Syria , Europe is supporting herself.

In this difficult time European`s must not forget and abandon the brother people of Syria , the European-Syrian relation is a historical one and Europe must always stay behind Syria , his people and his leader, in the process of building a free and independent Syria.

KAZAKHSTAN ELECTIONS : FREE AND FAIR PREPARATIONS SAYS ROMANIA

On 28 of March 2011 the Commission of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation for preparing the Monitoring Mission in Republic of Kazakhstan presented the public preliminary report regarding the pre-election monitoring of Kazakhstan Presidential poll.

Professor Anton Caragea presented the main high-lights of the report: Kazakhstan electoral law, Kazakhstan electoral commission activities and mass media and domestic and international observer’s presence for the poll.

Professor Dr. Anton Caragea meets the Kazakh Central Electoral Commission Chairman when supervising 2007 parliamentary elections.

The preliminary assessment of the preparation for Presidential Election in Kazakhstan is that: ″Kazakhstan Government is insuring an open and fair climate, with equal opportunities for all candidates and with mass media and international and domestic observers’ presence and we consider that preliminary measures are in accordance with international law and elections provisions and the democratic nature of  election process in Kazakhstan  is self evident″.

A clear endorsement of the Kazakhstan pre-election preparation to hold free and open Presidential elections is the conclusion of the IRICE Commission for preparing the Monitoring Mission in Republic of Kazakhstan.

Based on this report Professor Anton Caragea accepted to lead a monitoring mission for Kazakhstan Presidential Election. This the eight such mission and the second in Kazakhstan all of the mission being a success and in six of this missions the final report of IRICE was accepted as an European document and evaluation report .

In 2007 a delegation from Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation has supervised the elections for Madjilis ( the Lower House of Kazakhstan Parliament ) in august 2007 with a great success supporting the democratic process in Kazakhstan.

″We are not accepting such a monitoring mission if we don’t have the confidence that the organizing state is committed in respecting fundamental values and democratic process″, declared Professor Anton Caragea, IRICE director.  Romanian support and commitment for Kazakhstan democratic process and development is a long term commitment and the Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania decision in strengthening relations between Romanian and Kazakhstan is unwavering stated professor Anton Caragea.

Romania has being a long side Kazakhstan in 2010 , when Kazakhstan held the Chair Office of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and we have organized the OSCE Bucharest Conference. Kazakhstan Presidency to send a public message to international community that Kazakhstan Presidency of OSCE will be a success and the message was acknowledge as such.

Today we are sending a new message , Kazakhstan is on a democratic path , is building free and open elections, is offering to the Kazakh people a clear chance to vote ,choose and express their views in a transparent manner. ″The pre-election commitments are clear and fulfilled by Kazakhstan government  and we will be on the spot to monitor and the final step of the election: Election Day and election results″ declared Professor Dr. Anton Caragea director of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation.

 

ROMANIA IS LEADING EUROPEAN UNION POLICY IN CENTRAL ASIA

The bilateral relation Romania-Turkmenistan has become a rapidly increasing one after the opening of Turkmenistan Embassy in Romania. It could be considered that the bilateral relationship has grown with an outstanding speed becoming a strategic partnership. The visit of  Prime Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan H.E. Vepa Hagjyev for Romanian-European Union-Turkmen consultation in Bucharest between 24-26 January 2011 it is giving a new dimension and proof of the strength of bilateral relation.  On 24 of January 2011 H.E.  Prime Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan has held discussion with a Romanian delegation from European Council on International Relations and Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania headed by Professor Anton Caragea, President of  European Council on International Relations in order to build up a coherent strategy for further development and deepening of European Union – Romania-Turkmenistan relation.

Prime Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan H.E. Vepa Hagjyev and Professor Anton Caragea, President of  European Council on International Relations

 

In his speech Mr. Vepa Hajyev has praised the important part played by European Council on International Relations in the bilateral relation dynamic and asked for further support from European Council on International Relations and  Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation in building under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan a similar institution with the European Union and Romanian one.  Your successful experience in building a highly successful and influential Institute in the European politics will have his fruition for our part, underlined the distinguish guest. The discussions have touched on a variety of issues ranging from the preparative for a successful high level visit of President of Turkmenistan H.E. Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov in Romania to economic cooperation. Professor Dr. Anton Caragea, President of   European Council on International Relations has emphasized the necessity to fulfill the bilateral agreements reached during his visit in Ashgabat in December 2010 in order to maintain the ascendant path in bilateral relation. So it was reiterated the opening of a European Union -Romanian-Turkmen Trilateral Economic Forum in 2011, of a Turkmen Art Exhibition, and to continue the cultural exchange program with more than 5 European union cultural delegations invited in Turkmenistan.

European Union -Romania-Turkmenistan: a successful political story

Concluding the discussion Mr. Vepa Hajyev has underlined in the European Union and Romanian  part approval that European Union -Romania-Turkmenistan trilateral political relation could be described as an excellent one, the cooperation in international organizations is also a fruition one and there are all the opportunities for becoming a strategic partnership. The official visit of Prime Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan was a new success of Romanian and European Union diplomacy and a new step in building a long term relation with the Central Asia region, especially with Turkmenistan a beacon of democracy, political stability and economic development in the area. The Romanian-Turkmenistan relation is becoming a model for European Union relationship building with Central Asia region.

ANDERS RASMUSSEN IS A LITTLE NAZI FUHRER SAY`S FIDEL CASTRO

NATO – A MILITARY MAFIA – SAY`S FIDEL CASTRO

Many people feel nauseous when they hear the name of that organization.
On Friday, November 19 in Lisbon, Portugal, the 28 members of that aggressive institution, engendered by the United States, decided to create something that they cynically call “the new NATO”.
NATO was born after WW II as an instrument of the Cold War unleashed by imperialism against the USSR, the country that paid for the victory over Nazism with tens of millions of lives and colossal destruction.
Against the USSR, the United States mobilized, along with a goodly portion of the European population, the far right and all the neo-fascist dregs of Europe, brimming with hatred and ready to gain the upper hand for the errors committed by the very leaders of the USSR after the death of Lenin.
With enormous sacrifice, the Soviet people were able to keep nuclear parity and to support the struggle for the national liberation of numerous peoples against the efforts of the European states to maintain the colonial system which had been imposed by force throughout the centuries; states that, in the post-war period, became allies of the Yankees who assumed command of the counter-revolution in the world.

In just 10 days –less than two weeks –world opinion has received three great and unforgettable lessons: G-20, APEC and NATO, in Seoul, Yokohama and Lisbon, in such a way that all honest persons who can read and write and whose minds haven’t been warped by the conditioned reflexes of the imperialist mass media machine, can have a true idea about the problems affecting humankind today.
In Lisbon, not one world was said that was capable of transmitting hope to billions of persons suffering from poverty, under-development, shortages of food, housing, health, education and jobs.
Quite the opposite: the vainglorious character who is the head of the NATO military mafia, Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared, in tones reminiscent of a little Nazi Fuhrer, that the “new strategic concept” was to “act anywhere in the world”.  Not in vain was the Turkish government about to veto his appointment when the Danish neo-liberal Fogh Rasmussen, as premier of Denmark, using the excuse of freedom of the press, defended, in April of 2009,  the authors of serious offences against the prophet Mohammed, a figure much respected by all Muslim faithful.
There are quite a few in the world who remember the close relations of cooperation between the Danish government and the Nazi “invaders” during WW II.
NATO, a bird of prey sitting in the lap of the Yankee empire, even endowed  with tactical nuclear weapons that could be up to many times more destructive that the one that obliterated the city of Hiroshima , has been committed by the United States in the genocidal Afghanistan war, something even more complex than the Kosovo exploit and the war against Serbia where they massacred the city of Belgrade and were about to suffer a disaster if the government of that country had held its ground, instead of trusting in the European justice institutions in The Hague.
The ignominious declaration from Lisbon, vaguely and abstractly states in one of its points:
“I support regional stability, democratic values, the security and integration of the Euro-Atlantic space in the Balkans.”
“The Kosovo mission is oriented towards a lesser and more flexible presence.”
Now?
Even Russia cannot forget it so easily: the actual fact is that when Yeltsin broke up the USSR, the United States moved NATO boundaries and its nuclear attack bases forward from Europe and Asia to the heart of Russia.
Those new military installations were also threatening the Peoples’ Republic of China and other Asian countries.
When that happened in 1991, hundreds of SS-19, SS-20 and other powerful Soviet weapons were able to reach, in a matter of minutes, the US and NATO military bases in Europe.  No NATO Secretary General would have dared to speak with the arrogance of Rasmussen.
The first agreement on nuclear weapons limitations was signed as early as May 26, 1972 between President Richard Nixon of the United States and Communist Party Secretary General Leonid Brezhnev of the USSR with the aim of limiting the number of antiballistic missiles (ABM Treaty) and to defend certain points against missiles having nuclear payloads.
Brezhnev and Carter signed new agreements in Vienna, known as SALT II in 1979, but the US Senate refused to ratify those agreements.
The new rearmament promoted by Reagan, with the Strategic Defence Initiative, ended the SALT agreements.
The Siberian gas pipeline had been blown up already by the CIA.
A new agreement, on the other hand, was signed in 1991 between Bush Sr. and Gorbachev, five months before the collapse of the USSR. When that happened, the socialist bloc no longer existed. The countries that the Red Army had liberated from Nazi occupation were not even able to maintain independence.  Right-wing governments that came to power moved over to NATO with weapons and baggage and fell into the hands of the US.  The GDR which, under the leadership of Erich Honecker had made a great effort, was unable to overcome the ideological and consumerist offensive launched from the same capital that had been occupied by the Western troops.
As the virtual master of the world, the United States increased its mercenary and warmongering policy.
Due to a well-manipulated process, the USSR fell apart.  The coup de grâce was dealt by Boris Yeltsin on December 8, 1991 when, in his capacity of president of the Russian federation, he declared that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.  On the 25th of that same month and year, the red flag bearing the hammer and sickle was lowered from the Kremlin.
A third agreement about strategic weapons was then signed by George H. W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin, on January 3, 1993, that prohibited the use of multiple-warhead Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (the IBMs). It was passed by the US Senate on January 26, 1993 with a margin of votes of 87 to 4.
Russia was the heir to USSR science and technology – which, in spite of the war and the enormous sacrifices, it was able to bring its power up to the level of the immense and wealthy Yankee empire – the victory over fascism, the traditions, the culture and the glories of the Russian people.
The war in Serbia, a Slavic country and people, had severely sunk its fangs into the security of the Russian people, something no government could allow itself to ignore.
The Russian Duma – outraged by the first Iraq war and the war in Kosovo where NATO had massacred the Serbian people – refused to ratify START II and didn’t sign that agreement until 2000 and in that case it was to try to save the ABM Treaty that the Yankees were not interested in keeping by that date.
The US tries to use its enormous media resources to maintain, dupe and confuse world public opinion.
The government of that country is going through a difficult phase as the result of its war exploits.  In the Afghanistan war, all the NATO countries, with no exception, are committed along with several others in the world, whose people find hateful and repugnant the carnage that rich industrialized countries such as Japan and Australia and others in the Third World are involved in to greater or lesser degrees.
What is the essence of the agreement approved in April of this year by the US and Russia?  Both parties commit to reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550. About the nuclear warheads in France, the United Kingdom and Israel, all capable of striking Russia, not one word is spoken.  About the tactical nuclear weapons, some of them much more powerful than the one that obliterated the city of Hiroshima, nothing. They do not mention the destructive and lethal capacity of numerous conventional weapons, the radio-electric and other systems of weapons to which the US dedicates its growing military budget, greater than those of all the other nations together.  Both governments are aware, and perhaps many of them that met there also, that a third world war would be the last war.  What kind of delusions can the NATO members be having?  What is the tranquility that humankind can derive from that meeting?  What benefit for the countries of the Third World, or even for the international economy, can we possibly hope for?

They cannot even offer the hope that the world economic crisis will be overcome, nor for how long that improvement would last.  The US total public debt, not only of the central government but of all the rest of the public and private institutions in that country, now totals a figure equal to the world GDP of 2009, totalling 58 trillion dollars. Have the persons meeting in Lisbon even wondered about where those fantastic resources would be coming from? Simply, about the economies of all the rest of the peoples of the world, to whom the US handed over pieces of paper transformed into currency that over the last 40 years, unilaterally, ceased to be backed by gold and now the value of that metal is 40 times as much. That country still has veto power in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  Why didn’t they discuss that in Portugal?
The hope of pulling out US, NATO and their allies’ troops from Afghanistan is idyllic.  They will have to leave that country before they hand over the power to the Afghan resistance, in defeat. The self-same US allies are beginning to acknowledge now what could happen decades before the end of that war; would NATO be prepared to stay there all that time? Would the very citizens of each of the governments meeting there allow that?
Not to be forgotten that a vastly populated country, Pakistan, shares a border of colonial origin with Afghanistan, as well as quite a large percentage of its inhabitants.
I do not criticize Medvedev; he is very correctly trying to limit the number of nuclear warheads that are pointing at his country.  Barack Obama can make up absolutely no justification. It would be a joke to imagine that the colossal and costly deployment of the anti-nuclear missile shield is to protect Europe and Russia from Iranian rockets, coming from a country that doesn’t even own any tactical nuclear devices.  Not even a children’s comic book can make such a statement.
Obama already admitted that his promise to withdraw US soldiers from Afghanistan may be postponed, and the taxes for the richest contributors suspended right away.  After the Nobel Prize, we would have to award him with the prize for “the best snake charmer” that has ever existed.
Taking into consideration the G.W. Bush autobiography now on the best seller list and that some smart editor pulled together for him, why didn’t they give him the honour of being a guest in Lisbon?  Surely the far right, the “Tea Party” of Europe would be happy.

MAN OF THE YEAR AWARD FOR 2010 SURPASS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IN IMPORTANCE

Foreign dignitaries , academic corp. member , professors warmly greeted professor Anton Caragea , president of European Council on International relations and director of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania on the decision of awarding MAN OF THE YEAR title to President of Turkmenistan , H.E Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov . Professor Shirin Akiner from Cambridge University went as far as observing that MAN OF THE YEAR award has become this year more influential and less controversial than the Nobel Prize congratulating Romania for this decision.

Professor Shirin Akiner congratules prof.dr.Anton Caragea and Ambassador Shohrat Jumayev of Turkmenistan to Romania for MAN OF THE YEAR AWARD

 

OSCE Secretary General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut,

Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), had arrived in Ashgabat to attend the OSCE Secretary General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut. The head of the authoritative international organisations congratulated the Turkmen leader on receiving the diploma of the title of honour of “The Man of the Year” of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania and Professor Anton Caragea presence on the 15th anniversary of neutrality and the great success of the international forum dedicated to the national holiday.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Ahmet Davutoglu, had arrived in Ashgabat to participate in the celebration of the 15th anniversary of neutrality of Turkmenistan. Minister Ahmet Davutoglu congratulated the Turkmen leader on receiving the diploma of the title of honour of “The Man of the Year” of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania and Professor Anton Caragea presence and the great success of the international forum dedicated to the national holiday. In this regard, the distinguished guest said that Turkey was proud to be one of the first states in 1995 to support the adoption of the United Nations Resolution on the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan, the constructive foreign policy strategy of which due to President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov’s prudence stood today as a critical factor for peace and stability in the region.

Chairman of the CIS Executive Committee

Chairman of the Executive Committee, Executive Secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States Sergei Lebedev, had arrived in Ashgabat to attend the International Conference on Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan: Cooperation for Peace, Security and Progress and the celebrations in honour of the 15th anniversary of neutrality of Turkmenistan, at the Ruhiyet Palace. Expressing gratitude for the heartfelt welcome extended in the Turkmen land, the guest congratulated the President on receiving the diploma of the title of honour of “The Man of the Year” of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania and Professor Anton Caragea presence and emphasized that he was glad to visit again Turkmenistan, which due to the Turkmen leader’s innovative, prudent policy had gained the reputation of being a dynamically developing country with the great future in the world arena. Another evidence for this was the high-level forum organized in Ashgabat, which had provided an open platform for an exchange of views on new approaches and forms of interstate cooperation, including issues of stability and security in Central Asia and all over the world.

ECO Secretary General

Mohammad Yahya Maroofi, Secretary General of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), who had arrived in Ashgabat to attend the International Conference on Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan: Cooperation for Peace, Security and Progress, at the Ruhiyet Palace. Expressing gratitude for the opportunity of a personal meeting, the distinguished guest heartily congratulated the leader of the Turkmen state and the Turkmen people the 15th anniversary of neutrality of Turkmenistan. Mr Mohammed Yahya Maroufi emphasized that Turkmenistan’s open door policy and the Turkmen leader’s constructive initiatives on wide international cooperation had earned Turkmenistan the high international prestige. Another evidence for that was the presence of Professor Anton Caragea awarding the title of honour of “the Man of the Year” of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania to President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov and the presence of the Executive Committee of the Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania, said the ECO Secretary General.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan Vladimir Norov,

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan, had arrived in the Turkmen capital to participate in the International Conference on Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan: Cooperation for Peace, Security and Progress, at the Ruhiyet Palace. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan congratulated President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov on receiving the title of honour of “The Man of the Year” awarded by the Executive Committee of the Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania and Professor Dr. Anton Caragea presence at the meeting noting that this award vividly testified to worldwide recognition of the outstanding achievements of the Turkmen leader, the author of the foreign policy neutral Turkmenistan and the strategy for fundamental progressive reforms, which had won the country had the high international prestige by the community.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Republic ,

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Elmar Mamedyarov, who had arrived in Ashgabat to participate in the International Conference on Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan: Cooperation for Peace, Security and Progress. The meeting took place in the Ruhiyet Palace, which had become the venue for the conference. The Azerbaijani Foreign Minister congratulated the Turkmen leader on receiving the prestigious title of “The Man of the Year” , of Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania and Professor Anton Caragea presence. He said that Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania, one of the major research centres in Europe.

UAE Minister of Culture, Youth and Community Development Abdul Rahman Mohammed Al Owais,

Minister of Culture, Youth and Community Development of the United Arab Emirates, who arrived in Ashgabat to attend the International Conference on Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan: Cooperation for Peace, Security and Progress, in his residence at the Oguzkent Hotel. Emphasizing that the United Arab Emirates took great interest in large-scale progressive reforms launched in Turkmenistan on the initiative of the national leader and were sincerely proud in the achievements gained by Turkmen brothers, the guest congratulated President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov on receiving the title of honour of “The Man of the Year” by the Executive Committee of the Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania and on the presence of professor Anton Caragea on the event .

Shanghai Cooperation Organization Secretary General ,

Muratbek Imanaliev, Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), who had arrived in Ashgabat to participate in the International Conference on Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan: Cooperation for Peace, Security and Progress and the celebrations to mark the 15th anniversary of neutrality of Turkmenistan, at the Ruhiyet Palace. Greeting the leader of the Turkmen state, the distinguished guest congratulated Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov on the organisation of the high-level international forum in Ashgabat dedicated to the landmark date in the history of independent Turkmenistan as well as awarding the diploma of the title of honour of “The Man of the Year” to the Turkmen leader. The SCO Secretary-General noted that by pursuing the active, consistent peacekeeping policy, Turkmenistan demonstrated a responsible approach to international cooperation as illustrated by the Turkmen leader’s statement at the conference opening ceremony.

Organization of Islamic Conference

Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at the Ruhiyet Palace, where the ceremony of opening the International Conference on Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan: Cooperation for Peace, Security and Progress had taken place. The head of the largest international organisation congratulated President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov on the success of the statement at the International Conference, the high level of which was another bright evidence for the growing prestige and role of Turkmenistan in the world arena and the 15th anniversary of neutrality of Turkmenistan celebrated widely in the country. taking an opportunity, Mr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu congratulated the leader of the Turkmen state on receiving the title of honour of “The Man of the Year” warded by the Executive Committee of the Institute of International Relations and Economic Cooperation of Romania and emphasized that this event was a sign of wide recognition of an invaluable contribution made by President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov to strengthening peace, security and sustainable development.

 

A NEW ECONOMIC CRISIS WILL HIT THE WORLD ANNOUNCED FIDEL CASTRO

A Colossal Madhouse. This is what the G-20 meeting that started yesterday in Seoul, the capital of the Republic of Korea, has been turned into. Many readers, saturated with acronyms, may wonder: What is the G-20? This is one of the many miscreations concocted by the most powerful empire and its allies, who also created the G-7: the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Canada. Later on they decided to admit Russia in a club that was then called the G-8. Afterwards they condescended to admit 5 important emerging countries: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Then the group membership increased after the inclusion of the member countries of the OECD –another acronym-, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Australia, the Republic of Korea and Turkey. The group was also joined by Saudi Arabia, Argentina and Indonesia, and they all summed up 19. The twentieth member of the G-20 was no other than the European Union. As from this year, 2010, one country, Spain, holds the peculiar category of “permanent guest.” Another important international high level meeting is taking place almost simultaneously in Japan: the APEC meeting. If patient readers bother to add to the former group the following countries: Malaysia, Brunei, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong,  Taiwan, Papua-New Guinea, Chile, Peru and Vietnam -all of them with a significant trade volume, with coasts washed by the Pacific Ocean waters- the result would be what is called the APEC: the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, and with that the entire jigsaw puzzle is completed. They would only need a map, but a laptop could perfectly provide that. At such international events crucial international economic and financial issues are discussed. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, with decision-making powers when it comes to financial matters, have their own master: the United States. It is important to remember that after the Second World War, the US industry and agriculture remained intact; those in Western Europe were totally destroyed, with the exceptions of Switzerland and Sweden. The USSR had been materially devastated and scored huge material losses that surpassed the figure of 25 million persons. Japan was defeated, in ruins and occupied. Around 80 per cent of the world’s gold reserves were sent to the United States. In a remote, though spacious and comfortable hotel at Bretton Woods, a small community of the US north eastern state of New Hampshire, the Monetary and Financial Conference of the recently created United Nations Organization was held from July 1st to 22 of 1944. The United States was granted the exceptional privilege of turning its paper money into an international hard currency pegged to a gold standard mechanism fixed at 35 US dollars per one Troy ounce of gold. Since the overwhelming majority of countries keep their foreign exchange reserves in the US banks -which is the same as granting a significant loan to the richest country in the world-, the gold pattern mechanism established at least a ceiling for the unrestricted issuance of paper money. This was at least some sort of guarantee on the value of the reserves that countries kept in US banks. Based on that enormous privilege -and for as long as the issuance of paper money was limited by the gold standard mechanism- that powerful country continued to increase its control over the planet’s wealth. The military adventures of the United States in alliance with the former colonial powers, particularly the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and the recently created West Germany, led that country into other military adventures and wars that plunged the monetary system established at Bretton Woods into a crisis. At the time of the genocidal war in Vietnam, a country against which the US was at the verge of using nuclear weapons, the US President took the shameless and unilateral decision of suspending the dollar’s gold pattern. Ever since then, there have been no limits to the issuance of paper money. That privilege was so much overused that the value of the Troy ounce of gold went from 35 dollars to figures way above 1 400 dollars, that is, no less than 40 times the value it kept for 27 years until 1971, when Richard Nixon took such nefarious decision. The worst thing about the present economic crisis that affects the American society today is that former anti-crisis measures applied at different moments in the history of the US imperialist capitalist system have not helped it now to resume its usual pace. The US is wracked by a national debt close to 14 billion dollars -that is, as much as the US GDP- and the fiscal deficit remains unchanged. The sky-rocketing banks bailout loans and interest rates almost equal to zero have hardly decreased unemployment to figures below 10 per cent. The number of households whose houses are being closed out have barely decreased either. Its gigantic defense budgets which are much higher than those of the rest of the world – and what is worse, those devoted to the war- have continued to grow. The US President, who was elected hardly two years ago by one of the traditional parties, has been dealt the biggest defeat ever remembered in the last three fourths of a century. Such a reaction is a combination of frustration and racism. The US economist and writer William K. Black wrote a memorable phrase: “The best way to rob a bank is to own one”. The most reactionary sectors in the United States are sharpening their teeth and have appropriated an idea that would be the antithesis of the one expressed by the Bolsheviks in October of 1917: “All power to the US extreme right.” Seemingly, the US government, with its traditional anti-crisis measures, resorted to another desperate decision: the Federal Reserve announced it would buy 600 billion US dollars before the G-20 meeting. On Wednesday November 10, one of the most important US news agencies reported that “President Obama had arrived in South Korea to attend meetings of the world’s top 20 economic powers.” “Tensions over currencies and trade gaps have simmered ahead of the summit following a decision by the U.S. to flood its sluggish economy with $600 billion in cash that has alarmed leaders around the globe. “Obama has defended the move by the U.S. Federal Reserve.” On November 11, the same agency reported to the world’s public opinion the following: “A strong sense of pessimism shrouded the start of an economic summit of rich and emerging economies Thursday […] with world leaders arriving in Seoul sharply divided over currency and trade policies. “Established in 1999 and raised to summit level two years ago, the G-20 has— encompassing rich nations such as Germany and the U.S. as well as emerging giants such as China and Brazil — has become the centerpiece of international efforts to revive the global economy and prevent future financial meltdowns…” “Failure in Seoul could have severe consequences. The risk is that countries would try to keep their currencies artificially low to give their exporters a competitive edge in global markets. That could lead to a destructive trade war. “Countries might throw up barriers to imports — a repeat of policies that worsened the Great Depression. There are countries, such as the United States, whose top priority would be “to get China to allow its currency rise” against other currencies that would allow for a reduction of the huge trading surplus of the Asian giant with Washington, since it will make Chinese exports to be more expensive and US imports cheaper. “There are those which irate over U.S. Federal Reserve plans to pump $600 billion of new money into the sluggish American economy”. They see this measure as a selfish move to fill markets with dollars, thus devaluing that currency and giving US exporters and unfair price edge. “The G-20 countries […] are finding little common ground on the most vexing problem: What to do about a global economy that depends on huge U.S. trade deficits with China, Germany and Japan?” “Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, warned that the world would go “bankrupt” if rich countries cut back on consumption and tried to export their way to prosperity.” “‘If the rich countries are not consuming and want to grow its economy on exports, the world goes bankrupt because there would be no one to buy. Everybody would like to sell…’” The summit started amid a rather pessimistic ambiance for Obama and the South Korean President Li Myung-bak, “whose negotiators failed to agree on a long-stalled free trade agreement that it was hoped could be reached this week.” “G-20 leaders gathered Thursday evening at Seoul’s grand National Museum of Korea for the dinner that marked the official start of the two-day event.” “Outside, a few thousand protesters rallied against the G-20 and the South Korean government.” Today, Friday 12, the summit concluded with a declaration that contained 20 items and 32 paragraphs. Presumably, the world is not made up only by the 32 countries that belong to the G-20 or only by those which belong to the APEC. The 187 nations that voted in favor of lifting the blockade against Cuba, as opposed to the two that voted against and the two that abstained, make a total of 192. For 160 of them there is no forum whatsoever where they could express a single word about the imperial plundering of their resources or about their urgent economic needs. In Seoul, the United Nations does not even exist. Won’t that honorable institution say a single word about it? In these days European news agencies have been publishing really tragic news about Haiti –where, in only minutes, an earthquake killed around 250 000 persons in January this year. According to reports, the Haitian authorities have warned about the speed with which the cholera epidemic is spreading throughout the city of Gonaives, in the northern part of the island. The Major of that coastal village, Pierreleus Saint-Justin, asserts he has personally buried 31 corpses on Tuesday, and expected to bury another 15. “Others could be dying as we speak”, he added. The report states that as from November 5, 70 corpses have been buried only in the urban area of Gonaives, but there are more people who have died in rural areas nearby the city. According to the report, the situation is becoming catastrophic in Gonaives. The floods caused by hurricane ‘Tomas’ could make the situation to be even worse.” Last Wednesday, the health authorities in Haiti fixed at 643 the number of victims who had died until November 8 in the entire country as a result of the epidemic. The number of persons infected with the cholera virus during the same period amounts to 9 971. Radio stations report that the figures to be released on Friday could include more than 700 deadly casualties. The government asserts now that the disease is taking a serious toll on the population of Port-au-Prince and is threatening the capital outskirts, where more than one million people have been living in tents since the earthquake on January 12. News are reporting today a figure of 796 deaths and a total of 12 303 persons infected. More than 3 million inhabitants are now threatened; many of them live in tents and among the rubble left by the earthquake, without potable water. The main US agency reported yesterday that the first part of the US Fund for the Reconstruction of Haiti was already on the way now, more than seven months after being committed to help rebuilding the country devastated by the earthquake in January. Reportedly, in the next few days, the agency will transfer approximately 120 million dollars –around one tenth of the amount promised- to the Fund for the Reconstruction of Haiti, managed by the World Bank, as was stated by P.J.Crowley, the State Department’s speaker. An assistant of the State Department stated that the money allocated to the Fund would be used to remove the rubble, build houses, grant credits, support and educational reform program to be implemented by the Inter-American Development Bank and support the Haitian government budget. Not a single word has been said about the cholera epidemics, a disease that for years affected many countries in South America and could spread throughout the Caribbean and other parts of our hemisphere.

Fidel Castro Ruz

NATO IS LOSING AFGHAN WAR AND ANY CREDIBILITY AFTER LISBON SUMMIT

Lisbon Summit will be surely remembered as one of the lost opportunity of the North Atlantic Treaty to reform and to obtain a new significance in the XXI century. Instead of this, the Summit concentrated on an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and lost the sight of the fact that already Taliban’s are a force that can’t be uprooted from the country. No mention of the corruption and inefficiency that is crippling afghan army and administration and is making unthinkable the time line of 2014 for redraw from Afghanistan. After days of planning to win a war that is already lost on the ground the Summit turn his attention on the much anticipated European defense shield construction. Here also the summit did not produced any new information, still the same countries Romania and Bulgaria are accepting the defense shield while there are all the indication that Turkey will refuse the military installation on here soil. The Russia – NATO discussion was a new failure of this summit: Russia wanted security concern alleviated and a meaningful discussion on defense shield. Instead of this Russia was proposed an anti-Iran and anti-China partnership and support for President Dimitry Medvedev reform plans against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin conservative agenda. The new security concept of NATO that should have prepared the alliance for the new century  is still  the old one discussed in Bucharest in 2008 plus for convenience two lines on global warming and on cyber terrorism.

For Romania this a specially unfruitful summit as Romanian delegation goes unprepared to the summit and suffered serious humiliation from the part of    French and Italian delegation that refused even the protocol necessary contact. Supplementary Romania accepted the plan of missile defense shield without any security guarantee or material compensation (for comparison Turkey was offered a financial package of 40 billion euro for the same deal that Romania got nothing). Romanian national interests in Black Sea region where ignored but we received the honor of being the country that will head the next wave of antiterrorist war, a word    that is hiding the attack on Iran nuclear facilities. In conclusion if for Romania the Lisbon summit was an unprecedented humiliation for NATO it was a missed opportunity.

Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon

1.  
   1. NATO’s fundamental and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Today, the Alliance remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world.
   2. NATO member states form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Alliance is firmly committed to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to the Washington Treaty, which affirms the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
   3. The political and military bonds between Europe and North America have been forged in NATO since the Alliance was founded in 1949; the transatlantic link remains as strong, and as important to the preservation of Euro-Atlantic peace and security, as ever. The security of NATO members on both sides of the Atlantic is indivisible. We will continue to defend it together, on the basis of solidarity, shared purpose and fair burden-sharing.
   4. The modern security environment contains a broad and evolving set of challenges to the security of NATO’s territory and populations. In order to assure their security, the Alliance must and will continue fulfilling effectively three essential core tasks, all of which contribute to safeguarding Alliance members, and always in accordance with international law:
      1. Collective defence. NATO members will always assist each other against attack, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. That commitment remains firm and binding. NATO will deter and defend against any threat of aggression, and against emerging security challenges where they threaten the fundamental security of individual Allies or the Alliance as a whole.
      2. Crisis management. NATO has a unique and robust set of political and military capabilities to address the full spectrum of crises – before, during and after conflicts. NATO will actively employ an appropriate mix of those political and military tools to help manage developing crises that have the potential to affect Alliance security, before they escalate into conflicts; to stop ongoing conflicts where they affect Alliance security; and to help consolidate stability in post-conflict situations where that contributes to Euro-Atlantic security.
      3. Cooperative security. The Alliance is affected by, and can affect, political and security developments beyond its borders. The Alliance will engage actively to enhance international security, through partnership with relevant countries and other international organisations; by contributing actively to arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament; and by keeping the door to membership in the Alliance open to all European democracies that meet NATO’s standards.
   5. NATO remains the unique and essential transatlantic forum for consultations on all matters that affect the territorial integrity, political independence and security of its members, as set out in Article 4 of the Washington Treaty. Any security issue of interest to any Ally can be brought to the NATO table, to share information, exchange views and, where appropriate, forge common approaches.
   6. In order to carry out the full range of NATO missions as effectively and efficiently as possible, Allies will engage in a continuous process of reform, modernisation and transformation.
   1. Today, the Euro-Atlantic area is at peace and the threat of a conventional attack against NATO territory is low. That is an historic success for the policies of robust defence, Euro-Atlantic integration and active partnership that have guided NATO for more than half a century.
   2. However, the conventional threat cannot be ignored. Many regions and countries around the world are witnessing the acquisition of substantial, modern military capabilities with consequences for international stability and Euro-Atlantic security that are difficult to predict. This includes the proliferation of ballistic missiles, which poses a real and growing threat to the Euro-Atlantic area.
   3. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery, threatens incalculable consequences for global stability and prosperity. During the next decade, proliferation will be most acute in some of the world’s most volatile regions.
   4. Terrorism poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of NATO countries, and to international stability and prosperity more broadly. Extremist groups continue to spread to, and in, areas of strategic importance to the Alliance, and modern technology increases the threat and potential impact of terrorist attacks, in particular if terrorists were to acquire nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological capabilities.
   5. Instability or conflict beyond NATO borders can directly threaten Alliance security, including by fostering extremism, terrorism, and trans-national illegal activities such as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people.
   6. Cyber attacks are becoming more frequent, more organised and more costly in the damage that they inflict on government administrations, businesses, economies and potentially also transportation and supply networks and other critical infrastructure; they can reach a threshold that threatens national and Euro-Atlantic prosperity, security and stability. Foreign militaries and intelligence services, organised criminals, terrorist and/or extremist groups can each be the source of such attacks.
   7. All countries are increasingly reliant on the vital communication, transport and transit routes on which international trade, energy security and prosperity depend. They require greater international efforts to ensure their resilience against attack or disruption. Some NATO countries will become more dependent on foreign energy suppliers and in some cases, on foreign energy supply and distribution networks for their energy needs. As a larger share of world consumption is transported across the globe, energy supplies are increasingly exposed to disruption.
   8. A number of significant technology-related trends – including the development of laser weapons, electronic warfare and technologies that impede access to space – appear poised to have major global effects that will impact on NATO military planning and operations.
   9. Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to significantly affect NATO planning and operations.
   1. The greatest responsibility of the Alliance is to protect and defend our territory and our populations against attack, as set out in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The Alliance does not consider any country to be its adversary. However, no one should doubt NATO’s resolve if the security of any of its members were to be threatened.
   2. Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy. The circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.
   3. The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.
   4. We will ensure that NATO has the full range of capabilities necessary to deter and defend against any threat to the safety and security of our populations. Therefore, we will:
      • maintain an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces;
      • maintain the ability to sustain concurrent major joint operations and several smaller operations for collective defence and crisis response, including at strategic distance;
      • develop and maintain robust, mobile and deployable conventional forces to carry out both our Article 5 responsibilities and the Alliance’s expeditionary operations, including with the NATO Response Force;
      • carry out the necessary training, exercises, contingency planning and information exchange for assuring our defence against the full range of conventional and emerging security challenges, and provide appropriate visible assurance and reinforcement for all Allies;
      • ensure the broadest possible participation of Allies in collective defence planning on nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces, and in command, control and consultation arrangements;
      • develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defence, which contributes to the indivisible security of the Alliance. We will actively seek cooperation on missile defence with Russia and other Euro-Atlantic partners;
      • further develop NATO’s capacity to defend against the threat of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction;
      • develop further our ability to prevent, detect, defend against and recover from cyber-attacks, including by using the NATO planning process to enhance and coordinate national cyber-defence capabilities, bringing all NATO bodies under centralized cyber protection, and better integrating NATO cyber awareness, warning and response with member nations;
      • enhance the capacity to detect and defend against international terrorism, including through enhanced analysis of the threat, more consultations with our partners, and the development of appropriate military capabilities, including to help train local forces to fight terrorism themselves;
      • develop the capacity to contribute to energy security, including protection of critical energy infrastructure and transit areas and lines, cooperation with partners, and consultations among Allies on the basis of strategic assessments and contingency planning;
      • ensure that the Alliance is at the front edge in assessing the security impact of emerging technologies, and that military planning takes the potential threats into account;
      • sustain the necessary levels of defence spending, so that our armed forces are sufficiently resourced;
      • continue to review NATO’s overall posture in deterring and defending against the full range of threats to the Alliance, taking into account changes to the evolving international security environment.
   1. Crises and conflicts beyond NATO’s borders can pose a direct threat to the security of Alliance territory and populations. NATO will therefore engage, where possible and when necessary, to prevent crises, manage crises, stabilize post-conflict situations and support reconstruction.
   2. The lessons learned from NATO operations, in particular in Afghanistan and the Western Balkans, make it clear that a comprehensive political, civilian and military approach is necessary for effective crisis management. The Alliance will engage actively with other international actors before, during and after crises to encourage collaborative analysis, planning and conduct of activities on the ground, in order to maximise coherence and effectiveness of the overall international effort.
   3. The best way to manage conflicts is to prevent them from happening. NATO will continually monitor and analyse the international environment to anticipate crises and, where appropriate, take active steps to prevent them from becoming larger conflicts.
   4. Where conflict prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO will be prepared and capable to manage ongoing hostilities. NATO has unique conflict management capacities, including the unparalleled capability to deploy and sustain robust military forces in the field. NATO-led operations have demonstrated the indispensable contribution the Alliance can make to international conflict management efforts.
   5. Even when conflict comes to an end, the international community must often provide continued support, to create the conditions for lasting stability. NATO will be prepared and capable to contribute to stabilisation and reconstruction, in close cooperation and consultation wherever possible with other relevant international actors.
   6. To be effective across the crisis management spectrum, we will:
      • enhance intelligence sharing within NATO, to better predict when crises might occur, and how they can best be prevented;
      • further develop doctrine and military capabilities for expeditionary operations, including counterinsurgency, stabilization and reconstruction operations;
      • form an appropriate but modest civilian crisis management capability to interface more effectively with civilian partners, building on the lessons learned from NATO-led operations. This capability may also be used to plan, employ and coordinate civilian activities until conditions allow for the transfer of those responsibilities and tasks to other actors;
      • enhance integrated civilian-military planning throughout the crisis spectrum,
      • develop the capability to train and develop local forces in crisis zones, so that local authorities are able, as quickly as possible, to maintain security without international assistance;
      • identify and train civilian specialists from member states, made available for rapid deployment by Allies for selected missions, able to work alongside our military personnel and civilian specialists from partner countries and institutions;
      • broaden and intensify the political consultations among Allies, and with partners, both on a regular basis and in dealing with all stages of a crisis – before, during and after.
   1. NATO seeks its security at the lowest possible level of forces. Arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation contribute to peace, security and stability, and should ensure undiminished security for all Alliance members. We will continue to play our part in reinforcing arms control and in promoting disarmament of both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, as well as non-proliferation efforts:
      • We are resolved to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons in accordance with the goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in a way that promotes international stability, and is based on the principle of undiminished security for all.
      • With the changes in the security environment since the end of the Cold War, we have dramatically reduced the number of nuclear weapons stationed in Europe and our reliance on nuclear weapons in NATO strategy. We will seek to create the conditions for further reductions in the future.
      • In any future reductions, our aim should be to seek Russian agreement to increase transparency on its nuclear weapons in Europe and relocate these weapons away from the territory of NATO members. Any further steps must take into account the disparity with the greater Russian stockpiles of short-range nuclear weapons.
      • We are committed to conventional arms control, which provides predictability, transparency and a means to keep armaments at the lowest possible level for stability. We will work to strengthen the conventional arms control regime in Europe on the basis of reciprocity, transparency and host-nation consent.
      • We will explore ways for our political means and military capabilities to contribute to international efforts to fight proliferation.
      • National decisions regarding arms control and disarmament may have an impact on the security of all Alliance members. We are committed to maintain, and develop as necessary, appropriate consultations among Allies on these issues.
   1. NATO’s enlargement has contributed substantially to the security of Allies; the prospect of further enlargement and the spirit of cooperative security have advanced stability in Europe more broadly. Our goal of a Europe whole and free, and sharing common values, would be best served by the eventual integration of all European countries that so desire into Euro-Atlantic structures.
      • The door to NATO membership remains fully open to all European democracies which share the values of our Alliance, which are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, and whose inclusion can contribute to common security and stability.
   1. The promotion of Euro-Atlantic security is best assured through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organisations around the globe. These partnerships make a concrete and valued contribution to the success of NATO’s fundamental tasks.
   2. Dialogue and cooperation with partners can make a concrete contribution to enhancing international security, to defending the values on which our Alliance is based, to NATO’s operations, and to preparing interested nations for membership of NATO. These relationships will be based on reciprocity, mutual benefit and mutual respect.
   3. We will enhance our partnerships through flexible formats that bring NATO and partners together – across and beyond existing frameworks:
      • We are prepared to develop political dialogue and practical cooperation with any nations and relevant organisations across the globe that share our interest in peaceful international relations.
      • We will be open to consultation with any partner country on security issues of common concern.
      • We will give our operational partners a structural role in shaping strategy and decisions on NATO-led missions to which they contribute.
      • We will further develop our existing partnerships while preserving their specificity.
   4. Cooperation between NATO and the United Nations continues to make a substantial contribution to security in operations around the world. The Alliance aims to deepen political dialogue and practical cooperation with the UN, as set out in the UN-NATO Declaration signed in 2008, including through:
      • enhanced liaison between the two Headquarters;
      • more regular political consultation; and
      • enhanced practical cooperation in managing crises where both organisations are engaged.
   5. An active and effective European Union contributes to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. Therefore the EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO. The two organisations share a majority of members, and all members of both organisations share common values. NATO recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defence. We welcome the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which provides a framework for strengthening the EU’s capacities to address common security challenges. Non-EU Allies make a significant contribution to these efforts. For the strategic partnership between NATO and the EU, their fullest involvement in these efforts is essential. NATO and the EU can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security. We are determined to make our contribution to create more favourable circumstances through which we will:
      • fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional integrity of both organisations;
      • enhance our practical cooperation in operations throughout the crisis spectrum, from coordinated planning to mutual support in the field;
      • broaden our political consultations to include all issues of common concern, in order to share assessments and perspectives;
      • cooperate more fully in capability development, to minimise duplication and maximise cost-effectiveness.
   6. NATO-Russia cooperation is of strategic importance as it contributes to creating a common space of peace, stability and security. NATO poses no threat to Russia. On the contrary: we want to see a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia, and we will act accordingly, with the expectation of reciprocity from Russia.
   7. The NATO-Russia relationship is based upon the goals, principles and commitments of the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the Rome Declaration, especially regarding the respect of democratic principles and the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states in the Euro-Atlantic area. Notwithstanding differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined and that a strong and constructive partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability can best serve our security. We are determined to:
      • enhance the political consultations and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests, including missile defence, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, counter-piracy and the promotion of wider international security;
      • use the full potential of the NATO-Russia Council for dialogue and joint action with Russia.
   8. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and Partnership for Peace are central to our vision of Europe whole, free and in peace. We are firmly committed to the development of friendly and cooperative relations with all countries of the Mediterranean, and we intend to further develop the Mediterranean Dialogue in the coming years. We attach great importance to peace and stability in the Gulf region, and we intend to strengthen our cooperation in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. We will aim to:
      • enhance consultations and practical military cooperation with our partners in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council;
      • continue and develop the partnerships with Ukraine and Georgia within the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia Commissions, based on the NATO decision at the Bucharest summit 2008, and taking into account the Euro-Atlantic orientation or aspiration of each of the countries;
      • facilitate the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans, with the aim to ensure lasting peace and stability based on democratic values, regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations;
      • deepen the cooperation with current members of the Mediterranean Dialogue and be open to the inclusion in the Mediterranean Dialogue of other countries of the region;
      • develop a deeper security partnership with our Gulf partners and remain ready to welcome new partners in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
   1. Unique in history, NATO is a security Alliance that fields military forces able to operate together in any environment; that can control operations anywhere through its integrated military command structure; and that has at its disposal core capabilities that few Allies could afford individually.
   2. NATO must have sufficient resources – financial, military and human – to carry out its missions, which are essential to the security of Alliance populations and territory. Those resources must, however, be used in the most efficient and effective way possible. We will:
      • maximise the deployability of our forces, and their capacity to sustain operations in the field, including by undertaking focused efforts to meet NATO’s usability targets;
      • ensure the maximum coherence in defence planning, to reduce unnecessary duplication, and to focus our capability development on modern requirements;
      • develop and operate capabilities jointly, for reasons of cost-effectiveness and as a manifestation of solidarity;
      • preserve and strengthen the common capabilities, standards, structures and funding that bind us together;
      • engage in a process of continual reform, to streamline structures, improve working methods and maximise efficiency.
   1. We, the political leaders of NATO, are determined to continue renewal of our Alliance so that it is fit for purpose in addressing the 21st Century security challenges. We are firmly committed to preserve its effectiveness as the globe’s most successful political-military Alliance. Our Alliance thrives as a source of hope because it is based on common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and because our common essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members. These values and objectives are universal and perpetual, and we are determined to defend them through unity, solidarity, strength and resolve.
   • It reconfirms the bond between our nations to defend one another against attack, including against new threats to the safety of our citizens.
   • It commits the Alliance to prevent crises, manage conflicts and stabilize post-conflict situations, including by working more closely with our international partners, most importantly the United Nations and the European Union.
   • It offers our partners around the globe more political engagement with the Alliance, and a substantial role in shaping the NATO-led operations to which they contribute.
   • It commits NATO to the goal of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons – but reconfirms that, as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance.
   • It restates our firm commitment to keep the door to NATO open to all European democracies that meet the standards of membership, because enlargement contributes to our goal of a Europe whole, free and at peace.
   • It commits NATO to continuous reform towards a more effective, efficient and flexible Alliance, so that our taxpayers get the most security for the money they invest in defence.

We, the Heads of State and Government of the NATO nations, are determined that NATO will continue to play its unique and essential role in ensuring our common defence and security. This Strategic Concept will guide the next phase in NATO’s evolution, so that it continues to be effective in a changing world, against new threats, with new capabilities and new partners:

The citizens of our countries rely on NATO to defend Allied nations, to deploy robust military forces where and when required for our security, and to help promote common security with our partners around the globe. While the world is changing, NATO’s essential mission will remain the same: to ensure that the Alliance remains an unparalleled community of freedom, peace, security and shared values.