In expectation of the launch of NATO-lead military campaign against Iran, Robert Simmons, NATO secretary general's special envoy for the Caucasus and CA, went on visit to Azerbaijan for further negotiations on deployment of permanent military bases on Azerbaijani territory. It is known that a while ago Azerbaijani authorities were flatly going against any military installations and in 2004 the Azerbaijan's parliament adopted a law that bans the establishment of a foreign military base on Azerbaijan's territory.

However, Americans do need a military base in South Caucasus in the respect that Tashkent demanded that the US withdraws its troops from the air base in Karshi-Khanabad in southern Uzbekistan. So, the US decided to play for keeps and make Azerbaijan an offer they can't refuse - to permit establishment of US air base in exchange for NATO's entry.

But it is incorrect, don't you agree?! NATO must not be making allowance for any of claimants. The rules must be equal! Besides, once NATO admits Azerbaijan, there will surely be other claimants for early membership to by-pass necessary preparations and political and structural developments in the country, Georgia for instance that is known to be having too many unresolved issues (like high unemployment, arbitrary rule, low living standards, etc.) to be a NATO member.

Do you have a source for this? This is teh first I've heard of it.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

I've just posted how NATO has become corrupted and disregards its own charter in order to follow the American President in his unholy 'policeman of the world' bullcrap.

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters

I am relucatant to agree or disagree until I know the actual facts. In my experience, when users dont post sources there is usually a very good reason.

I want to see it for myself. No offense.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page