Athens 2004 Official website
Aug 18 2004
Men’s Light Fly (48kg) : Bouts 110 to 115
ATHENS, 18 August – Iraqi Light Flyweight (48kg) boxer Najah ALI, who
is competing in the Athens 2004 Olympic Games by special invitation,
was the first contestant in the ring for the evening session of
competition at the Peristeri Boxing Hall.
Trained in New York by Maurice `Termite’ Watkins, ALI came via the
USA from war torn Baghdad to take part in the Olympic Games, and was
given a warm welcome by spectators at the venue.
Equal shortest boxer in the tournament at just 1.5m, ALI’s opponent
KWAK Hyok Ju (PRK) had a distinct reach advantage, but from the
opening bell the young Iraqi put together some blistering
combinations to the head and body and made a dream Olympic debut,
winning the bout 21-7.
Redouane ASLOUM (FRA) took two standing eight counts in round two of
his clash with Aleksan NALBANDYAN (ARM), but fought back bravely, the
two trading punches toe to toe for most of the four rounds before the
Armenian was declared the winner, 27-20.
HONG Moo Won (KOR) was too experienced for Lalaina RABENARIVO (MAD)
in the next bout, the referee stopping the contest in round three
under the 20 point rule.
Sherali DOSTIEV (TJK) lost a tight contest, 17-12, to Harry TANAMOR
(PHI), twice a World Championship bronze medallist.
The quick hands of former World Champion, Yan BHARTELEMY VARELA (CUB)
made short work of Miguel Angel MIRANDA GUERRA (VEN), the referee
stopping the contest in the third round with the Cuban ahead 24-4.
In the final Light Flyweight bout of the evening session, Suban
PANNON (THA) looked untidy at times, but did enough to make it
through to the round of 16 over Salim SALIMOV (BUL), the judges
scoring the contest 26-14.

UEFA.com
Aug 18 2004
Pandev ensures perfect start
Wednesday, 18 August 2004
By Igor Panevski

Goals from Goran Pandev, Artim Sakiri and Velice Sumulikoski earned
F.Y.R. Macedonia a 3-0 victory against Armenia in Skopje in 2006 FIFA
World Cup qualifying Group 1.
Strong section
The victory will leave the Macedonians in good heart for their next
qualifying test, a trip to Romania, 2-1 winners against Finland this
evening, on 4 September. Armenia, meanwhile, will hope for better
fortunes at home to the Finns four days later, with the Netherlands
and the Czech Republic – both semi-final losers at UEFA EURO 2004′ –
joined by Andorra to complete the lineup.
Early advantage
S.S. Lazio forward Pandev struck first for the home side at the
Gradski stadium – home of FK Pelister – opeing the scoring with a
fine shot from 16 metres. The forward might have doubled his side’s
lead midway through the first half when he found himself unmarked in
front of Armenian goalkeeper Armen Ambartsumyan but defender Marotyan
Vardanyan recovered well to clear.
Sakiri strikes
With the home side threatening on the counterattack throughout the
first 90 minutes, it was no surprise that such a source lead to a
second goal seven minutes before half-time. This time two Macedonian
players were left with time and space in front of Ambartsumyan’s goal
and Sumulikoski unselfishly squad for Sakiri to roll in.
Ambartsumyan stops
It was nearly 3-0 in the final minutes of the half as Pandev met
Aleksandar Mitrevski’s cross with a powerful header but this time
Ambartsumyan was equal to it. The Armenian goalkeeper then denied the
same player ten minutes after the restart, and also kept out Sakiri’s
close-range header two minutes past the hour.
Decisive moment
The visitors almost found a way back into the match a minute later,
but Andrey Movsesyan’s fine close-range volley struck an upright and
Armenian hopes were effectively ended with 21 minutes left as captain
Marotyan Vardanyan was dismissed for a professional foul on Pandev.
First goal
The points were duly secured in the final minute as another fine
counterattack was clinically rounded off by Sumulikoski from Igor
Jancevski’s pass, his first goal for his country.
Kanatlarovski cheer
“I want to thanks to my players for a good game,” said F.Y.R.
Macedonia coach Dragan Kanatlarovski. “We deserved to win, although I
knew that would be a hard game, but we had several chances to score
one or two goals more. It’s important to earn a victory in the first
match in qualification.”
‘Expected result’
His counterpart Bernard Casoni was more downbeat, saying: “It was the
expected result for us, as we were missing several players. F.Y.R.
Macedonia are a good team and they deserved to win. They scored early
and after the second we knew that we would lose.”

Los Angeles Times
Aug 18 2004
Dad’s in His Corner
Vanes Martirosyan’s immigrant father gave him a love of boxing and a
belief in the American dream. Now the son wants to give him a medal.
By Diane Pucin, Times Staff Writer
ATHENS – Norik Martirosyan lost a hand in a grenade explosion, so he
uses his other one when he’s smoking cigarettes, one after another.
It is an old, unhealthy habit and Martirosyan’s son, Vanes, has
begged his father to stop.
So Martirosyan said, “Vanes, if you win the Western boxing trials and
qualify for the Olympic trials, I’ll stop smoking.”

When Vanes won those trials, Norik said, “Vanes, if you qualify for
the Olympic team, I’ll stop smoking.”
When Vanes won the Olympic trials after the two favorites in his
weight class were disqualified in controversial circumstances, Norik
said, “Vanes, if you win a gold medal, I’ll quit smoking.”
So here he is, Vanes Martirosyan of Glendale, an 18-year-old
underdog, son of an Armenian immigrant, in love with the home cooking
of his mother and the rap music of America and determined to win an
Olympic gold medal in the 152-pound welterweight class so that his
father will quit smoking. And for one other reason.
“For all the time I have been boxing,” Vanes said, “my father has
told me what a lucky boy I am to be growing up in the United States,
where we have freedoms to do what we want and be what we want. He has
told me, since I can remember, that there would be no greater honor
for a sportsman such as me to win a gold medal to honor our country.
The United States is our country now.”
“Yes,” said Norik Martirosyan, his younger brother Serge translating
Norik’s Armenian words. “It would be our gift to the United States.
>From Vanes and from Norik, our gift.”
Martirosyan will fight 2003 Pan American Games gold medalist Lorenzo
Aragon of Cuba in the second round today. Martirosyan out-pointed
Benamar Meskine of Algeria in the first round.
At the Olympic trials, Andre Berto was disqualified – he later joined
Haiti’s Olympic team – for a flagrant foul that injured his opponent,
Juan McPherson. Berto and McPherson were considered the two strongest
fighters in the weight class. Berto had thrown McPherson to the mat
and sent him to the hospital with a head injury. McPherson appealed
to reenter the tournament after leaving the hospital but his appeal
was denied and Martirosyan won the trials.
Because of his youth and because he didn’t beat the top competitors,
Martirosyan isn’t given much chance to win a medal here.
“But that doesn’t matter,” Martirosyan said. “Our family has been
underdogs for a long time and what I have learned from here, so far,
is that anything can happen if you work hard.”
In 1990, as the Soviet Union was breaking apart. Armenia and
Azerbaijan, two former republics, were readying for a war rooted in a
history of religious conflict and Norik Martirosyan was doing what he
thought was best.
Martirosyan was foraging in an aging Soviet bomb-making facility,
looking for repairable weapons, when he picked up a grenade. Before
he even knew what was in his hand, the thing exploded.
But out of that accident, a dream was born. Looking for freedom and
peace, longing for a chance to raise his three sons in a land where
they could prosper, Martirosyan decided to go to the United States
with his parents and his brother. They would join other families in
California and start over.
Vanes, the middle child, was 4 in 1991, when they left Armenia. Norik
had been an amateur boxer in the Soviet Union before he had to join
the Soviet army. Even when he wasn’t competing, Norik would hang
around gyms, watching, learning the craft, memorizing footwork or the
way to throw a perfect jab.
When the family arrived in California, Norik went to work in a
family-run pizza parlor in Eagle Rock. In his free time, he took his
sons, Vahe, Vanes and Vatche, to the gym every day. Vahe eventually
gave up boxing for swimming and Vatche turned to soccer. But Vanes,
the most inexhaustible of the boys, the fiercest competitor and the
son most tuned to the father’s love of boxing and America, stuck with
boxing.
“It gave me pride and it was a great outlet for my energy,” he said.
“It was a way to be so close with my father because he was always my
coach. He had learned boxing under the Soviet and European style and
then he spent so much time studying at home the American style. In
his head, my dad put together both styles to teach me the best.”
Early this year, Vanes was ranked only 14th in the country in his
weight class. Then he went 5-0 at the Western qualifier in
Bakersfield.
“My dad stopped smoking for a moment,” Vanes said. “But then he
started again. When I won the Olympic trials, he stopped again – but
has started up again. I think it’s his way to motivate me more for
the gold medal. He promises, no more cigarettes if I win.”
Norik said he wouldn’t smoke anymore, medal or no medal.
“I believed when I saw my son walking inside the Olympic boxing
arena,” Norik said, “I believed that in the USA, everybody’s dream
can come true. I believed the world is mine now. And my son’s. So,
yes, I will quit smoking.”
‘He has told me, since I can remember, that there would be no greater
honor for a sportsman such as me to win a gold medal to honor our
country.
The United States is our country now.’
Vanes Martirosyan speaking of his father, Norik
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Calcutta Telegraph, India
Aug 19 2004
Draw takes Harikrishna to 4th spot
Abu Dhabi: P. Harikrishna shared a point with Ghaem Maghami Ehsan of
Iran but a draw in the fourth round meant the Indian Grandmaster
slipped further behind the leaders in the masters section of 14th Abu
Dhabi Chess Festival here on Wednesday.
Mikhail Kobalija of Russia joined overnight leaders compatriot Evgeny
Gleizerov and Ashot Anastasian of Armenia at the top with 3.5 points
out of a possible four.
Harikrishna is tied for the fourth spot with Maghami, Kazakhstan duo
of Evgeny Vladimirov and Pavel Kotsur, Artashes Minasian of Armenia
and Russians Konstantin Cheryshov and Dmitry Bocharov. They have
three points each.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
Aug 19 2004
Mousa and Hassan lead UAE charge
By A Correspondent
19 August 2004
ABU DHABI – Grandmaster Taleb Mousa and International Master Abdullah
Hassan were on top among the UAE contingent to attain hard fought
wins on the fourth day of the 14th Abu Dhabi chess festival.
Taleb Moussa outplayed Aarthie Ramaswamy in a keenly contested match
in the endging in 42 moves while Abdullah got the better of Illijin
Nebosia of Romania in 54 moves. Both Taleb and Abdullah came back
into reckoning for title Norms and Elo rating points.
The top board ended as it began as a grandmaster draw with the seeded
grandmasters opting for consolidation rather than risk the points
early at the initial phase. Kobalia was persistent and his deft
defense enabled him to attain a crucial win against Dzhumaev in a
pirc defense.
The players castled on opposite sides and went for all out attack.
Kobalia struck first and his threats gave him material advantage. He
survived a vicious attack against his king and he had to march his
king to fifth rank and clinch victory by a whisker.
Anastasian Ashot of Armenia, Kobalia Mikhail and Gleizerov Evgeny of
Russia shared the lead with 3.5 points in masters section at the end
of the fourth round of the Abu Dhabi Chess Festival held at Cultural
Foundation, Abu Dhabi. Vladimirov Evgeny, Bocharov Dmitry, Kotsur
Pavel, Minasian Artashes, Ghaem Maghami Ehsan and Chernyshov
Konstantin are close on the heels of the leader half a point behind.
Kobalia Mikhail defeated Dzhumaev Marat of Uzbekistan in 33 moves
from a Modern defence. Players castled on opposite sides and Kobalia
was an exchange up. Kobalia had a superior position and he nursed his
advantage to victory. Most of the top board matches ended in a draw.
Top seed Vladimirov Evgeny of Kazakhstan defeated Bistric Faruk of
Bahrain in 37 moves. Vladimirov won a pawn and in a queen and bishop
ending, Vladimirov trapped his opponent’s king and Bistric resigned
on the 37th move when he couldn’t parry the threat for checkmate.
Among UAE players, Taleb Moussa defeated Aarthie Ramaswamy of India
while Hassan Abdullah defeated Illijin Neboisa of Romania. Jasim A.R.
Saleh and Nabil Saleh drew their games against Neelotpal Das of India
and Mohamed Hossein respectively.
In Children section, Azemati Amir and Bajarani Ulvi are at the top of
the table with 4 points. UAE’s Zayed Ali, Mohamed Mubarak and
Abdulaziz Ibrahim are in the second spot with 3.5 points.

The National Review
Aug 18 2004
Avoiding Genocide
The right to bear arms could have saved Sudan.
By Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, & Joanne Eisen
[T]he sovereign territorial state claims, as an integral part of its
sovereignty, the right to commit genocide, or engage in genocidal
massacres, against peoples under its rule, and…the United Nations,
for all practical purposes, defends this right. To be sure, no state
explicitly claims the right to commit genocide – this would not be
morally acceptable even in international circles – but the right is
exercised under other more acceptable rubrics…. – Leo Kuper,
Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century
On July 22, 2004, both houses of Congress upped the ante in Darfur,
Sudan, by calling the situation there genocide instead of “ethnic
cleansing.” That legal change in terminology was inspired by the 1948
U.N. Convention on Genocide, in which all the signatories promise to
prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

The definition of “genocide” was very tightly written. According to
Matthew Lippman (“A Road Map to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” Journal of Genocide
Research, 2002), “measures directed towards forcing members of a
group to abandon their homes in order to escape ill-treatment” – what
we now know as ethnic cleansing – is not considered genocide
according to the U.N. definition.
For months, the world has bickered over what to call the situation in
Darfur. According to Article 8 of the U.N. Convention: “Any
Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United
Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United nations
as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of
acts of genocide…” The U.S., which signed and ratified the Genocide
Convention, is a “Contracting Party,” and has forced the world to
accept the fact that another genocide is taking place.
If the U.N. follows its own laws, it must now intervene on the side
of the victims. But the world’s governments cannot agree on an
effective remedy. At the heart of the U.N.’s failure is a grave
misunderstanding of national sovereignty: the notion that
“sovereignty” belongs to the government, not the people. And this
mistaken notion of sovereignty precludes consideration of one of most
effective ways to prevent genocide: arming the victims.
TOO LATE – AGAIN
As the U.N. Security Council tried to craft language every government
could support, the threat of sanctions against Sudan was dropped. The
final resolution that passed the Security Council on July 30, 2004,
included an arms embargo. Notwithstanding the practical difficulties
of imposing a successful embargo, such a policy is too late.
As many as 50,000 people have been killed, and more will probably
starve to death. Livestock and food have been destroyed; the dead
animals have been used to poison the wells, and trees have been
uprooted. Rape is used as an instrument of warfare, and, because of
the Islamic culture of Darfur, it has irrevocably destroyed many
families. Fifteen-year-old Aziza recalled: “Five of them raped me
twice…they were armed…I am still in pain.” The situation
continues to deteriorate.
Even if all hostilities ceased at this very moment, if all weapons
were destroyed, if all aid groups could bring all the necessary food,
water, and medical supplies into the refugee camps – even if it were
safe for the refugees to return home – during the months that the
world diddled, the culture of Darfur has been demolished. There is no
going back.
Despite all the platitudes about “never again,” the world did let it
happen – again.
ARMED RESISTANCE
Sudan is the largest country in Africa, over four times the size of
Alaska. Its capital is Khartoum, and it shares its northern border
and the Nile River with Egypt. Sudan became independent from the U.K.
in 1956. Darfur, about the size of France, is situated in the western
part and shares a border with Chad. Islamist Arabs run Sudan;
Sudanese Arab nomads have been persecuting the black Muslims of
Darfur, who are mostly farmers.
Because of the scarcity of natural resources, and desertification in
the area caused by two decades of drought and poor land management,
the Arab tribesmen have, in the last few years, invaded the farming
communities. Two self-defense forces arose among the black
population: the SLA (Sudan Liberation Army) and the JEM (Justice and
Equality Movement). Although it is very difficult for ordinary
citizens to obtain firearms legally, the black self-defense groups
were able to procure black-market arms, and therefore were able to
protect the farming communities.
In mid-2003, the Sudanese government began to arm the Arab Janjaweed
militias. Although the government claims to deplore the Arabs’ war on
the blacks, the government has assisted the Arabs by bombing black
villages and by allowing the Janjaweed to attack the blacks at will.
Approximately 100,000 refugees have been forced into Chad, and it is
estimated that about one million people have been displaced
internally.
The destruction of black society in Darfur has made it difficult for
the populace to protect and provision the self-defense groups. So the
refugee camps are vulnerable and unarmed, and cannot fill basic human
needs, including food and water. And the camps are guarded by the
Arab Janjaweed, the very people who caused the refugee crisis in the
first place.
The pattern of arming Khartoum’s allies began decades ago when,
during the civil war against blacks in southern Sudan, the Khartoum
government gave arms to the Arab militias and attempted to disarm the
Christians and Animists. According to Douglas H. Johnson, the central
government waged war through surrogates, so as to maintain plausible
deniability. The policy continues today in Darfur.
INTERNATIONAL IMPOTENCE
The rainy season now makes roads nearly impassable, so supplies must
be airlifted in. A lack of sufficient sanitation is expected to make
the refugee camps breeding grounds for cholera, malaria, and
dysentery. With the refugees already weakened from their ordeals,
their resistance to potentially fatal diseases will be low. And while
genocide includes outright murder by machete, gas, or bullet, it also
includes techniques such as those used by the Turks against the
Armenians, and those Pol Pot used against the Cambodians: forced
migration without supplies. Genocide can be accomplished by ensuring
debilitation, starvation, and disease – as it is now in Sudan. And as
it denies complicity in this genocide-in-progress, the government in
Khartoum continues its delaying tactics and has threatened the
nations attempting to save lives.
For example, the BBC News reported that Sudan’s military called the
U.N. resolution “a declaration of war.” The BBC also observed a
placard at a public demonstration that stated, “Darfur will be a
foreign graveyard.”
According to the July 9, 2004, New York Times, Sudan’s Foreign
Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail warned: “The American and British
voices that call for the imposition of sanctions on Sudan are those
that dragged the world into the Iraq problem…. I hope that they
will not drag the world into a new problem from which it will be
difficult to extricate itself and that is the problem of Darfur.”
Recently, the Arab League passed a resolution declaring its support
for Khartoum, apparently under the principle that the mass murder of
Muslims is not a problem when an Arab tyranny is doing the killing.
Sudan’s junior foreign minister, Najuid al-Khair Abdul Wahab,
explained: “We regard this…[as] a violation of our country’s
national sovereignty.”
For years, the U.N. has been attempting to promote the notion of a
rapid-reaction constabulary force responsible only to itself – which
would be triggered by warnings from genocide scholars, who are
presently studying the early warning signs of impending genocide.
But genocide scholar Donald Krumm described “the paralysis induced by
sovereignty…. This is the fundamental difficulty to be overcome.
Actions based on early warning generally would require interventions
inside another nation-state, which the United Nations and its member
states are loath to do.” As late as June 30, 2004, the BBC News
reported that “U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan refused to use the
term genocide, which would carry a legal obligation to act.”
Krumm’s prediction was correct. The international threats, warnings,
and admonitions have accomplished almost nothing. Furthermore, Sudan
has rejected proposals for 2,000 soldiers to be supplied by the
African Union. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has talked tough,
but there is no force to back up his words. According to the BBC
News, “Analysts say that 15-20,000 troops would be needed to secure
Darfur and no one is talking about sending anything like that
number.”
The U.N. remains impotent against genocide.
DISARMED, THEN ABANDONED
If genocide is to be averted, it is essential to understand that once
a victim population has been disarmed, those victims require
protectors. If the protectors are absent or refuse to act, then the
killing continues – as when the French garrison abandoned 20,000
Armenians in February 1920, and when U.N. forces stood idle in
Srebrenica and Rwanda.
In Rwanda, U.N. personnel knew that the victim group had been
previously disarmed by laws enacted in 1964 and 1979. Early in the
genocide, thousands of Rwandan civilians gathered in places where
U.N. troops were stationed. The Rwandans believed the U.N.’s promise
that its troops would protect them. If Rwandans had known that the
U.N. troops would withdraw, the Rwandans would have fled, and some
might have survived. According to the Report of the Independent
Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994
Genocide in Rwanda: “The manner in which troops left, including
attempts to pretend to the refugees that they were not, in fact,
leaving, was disgraceful.” The victims were slaughtered.
Sometimes genocide against disarmed victims ends when another nation
invades, for the invader’s own interests, as when the Allies invaded
Germany, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, or when Tanzania – defending
itself against incursions by Uganda’s military – invaded Uganda and
overthrew Idi Amin.
Unlike Hitler, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin, however, the genocidal regime
in Sudan has been careful not to violate any other nation’s
sovereignty. Accordingly, the international community is, in
practice, respecting the “sovereign” power of Sudan’s dictatorship to
perpetrate domestic genocide.
According to provision (1) of Article 25 of the U.N. Declaration of
Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948: “Everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and
medical care.” But in Darfur, the government has been complicit in
depriving its citizens of these basic necessities.
THE FIFTH AUXILIARY RIGHT
The Darfur genocide is more proof that the human rights ostensibly
guaranteed by U.N. documents often disappear when the people are
disarmed, and are thereby unable to prevent a tyranny from usurping
their sovereignty. As the American Founders recognized, political
power often does grow out of the barrel of a gun. If you are
disarmed, you are at the mercy of an armed government.
In Sudan, it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to
lawfully acquire and possess the means for self-defense. According to
gun-control statutes, a gun licensee must be over 30 years of age,
must have a specified social and economic status, and must be
examined physically by a doctor. Females have even more difficulty
meeting these requirements because of social and occupational
limitations.
When these restrictions are finally overcome, there are additional
restrictions on the amount of ammunition one may possess, making it
nearly impossible for a law-abiding gun owner to achieve proficiency
with firearms. A handgun owner, for example, can only purchase 15
rounds of ammunition a year. The penalties for violation of Sudan’s
firearms laws are severe, and can include capital punishment.
International gun-control groups complain that Sudan’s gun laws are
not strict enough – but the real problem with the laws is that they
can be enforced arbitrarily. The government can refuse gun permits to
the victims in Darfur and execute anyone who obtains a self-defense
gun. Meanwhile, the Arab militias can obtain guns with government
approval, or the government can simply ignore illegal gun possession
by Arabs.
The blacks in Sudan therefore face a situation somewhat like that of
blacks in the 19th-century American south. There, ostensibly neutral
gun-control laws were enforced vigorously against blacks, amounting
to de facto prohibition. Meanwhile, the governments of the
post-bellum south allowed the terrorist KKK to arm with impunity, and
the Sudanese government does the same for Arab terrorist militias.
The result: second-class citizenship for American blacks, and
genocide for Sudanese blacks.
The solution to the worldwide violation of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights is the worldwide recognition of one more human right.
As the great English jurist William Blackstone explained, core human
rights would be “the dead letter of the laws” if not guarded by
“auxiliary rights.” So the law “has therefore established certain
other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve
principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three
great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and
private property.”
Thus, “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject…is that of
having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and
degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the
same statute …and is indeed a public allowance, under due
restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and
self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found
insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
The Darfur genocide – like the genocides in Rwanda, Srebrenica,
Cambodia, and so many other nations in the last century – was made
possible only by the prior destruction of that fifth auxiliary right.
It is long past time for the United Nations and the rest of the
international community to do more than bemoan genocide after the
fact. It is time for formal international law to recognize the
natural right of self-defense, and to acknowledge the universal human
right of “having arms for their defense” so that, as a last resort,
victims can “restrain the violence of oppression.” As history has
shown, as long as dictatorships exist, the only way to ensure the
primary right to life is to guarantee the auxiliary right to arms.
– Dave Kopel is research director, and Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen
are senior fellows, at the Independence Institute. Their most recent
academic publication is “Firearms Possession by Non-State Actors: The
Question of Sovereignty.”

Baku Today
Aug 17 2004
South Korean Ambassador To Azerbaijan Completes Mission
On Monday, Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov received Kim Song Kwan,
the South Korean Ambassador to Azerbaijan, on the completion of his
diplomatic mission.
Mammadyarov said that Azerbaijan attached particular importance to
the development of multi-faceted cooperation with South Korea.
Underlining the necessity of developing bilateral economic relations,
Mammadyarov stressed that it was necessary to take the territorial
integrity, sovereignty of state and inviolability of borders as a
priority during the discussions on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
over Upper Garabagh held within the framework of international
organizations.
The South Korean ambassador, in turn, expressed his gratitude to
Azerbaijan for supporting his country within international
organizations.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Xinhua General News Service
August 17, 2004 Tuesday 3:00 PM EST
Results of men’s 62kg weightlifting at Athens Olympics
ATHENS
Following are the results of men’s 62kg category weightlifting at the
28th Olympic Games Monday evening:
1. Shi Zhiyong, China, 325kg (152.5/172.5)
2. Le Maosheng, China, 312.5 (140/172.5)
3. Leonidas Sampanis, Greece, 312.5 (145/167.5)
4. Israel Jose Rubio, Venezuela, 295 (132.5/162.5)
5. Armen Ghazaryan, Armenia, 295 (135/160)
6. Gustar Junianto, Indonesia, 292.5 (132.5/160)
7. Samson Ndicka, France, 287.5 (127.5/160)
8. Umurbek Bazarbayev, Turkmenistan, 287.5 (130/157.5)

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
August 16, 2004, Monday
THE BLUFF IN THE CAUCASUS
SOURCE: Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, No. 30, August 2004, p. 3
by Alexander Khramchikhin, chief analyst at the Political and
Military Analysis Institute
The sudden escalation of the war of nerves first around South Ossetia
and then Abkhazia leaves the impression that a full-scale war (or
rather, wars) could be possible between Georgia and these
unrecognized republics in the near future. Under the circumstances,
it is necessary to asses the military resources of both sides.
Like the national armies of other CIS countries, the Armed Forces of
Georgia are part of the remnants of the Soviet Armed Forces. Ukraine
and Belarus, for example, took possession of whatever was on their
territory at the moment that the USSR disintegrated (numerous and
well-equipped second-echelon troops), but Georgia found itself with
only a part of the much weaker Caucasus Military District. It didn’t
even inherit everything stationed or located on its territory: only
what Russia agreed to part with. It should likewise be admitted that
that skills of Georgian officers and soldiers cannot match those of
Slavs, or the nearby Armenians, for example.
The weakness of the Georgian military was one of the major reasons
for its defeat in the wars with Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the
early 1990s. At the same time (the second important reason), these
rebel republics had help. On the one hand, they were assisted by
Russia’s federal government; on the other, by the Russian regions in
the Caucasus – above all, by the then-independent Chechnya. In fact,
in the Georgian-Abkhazian war Russia managed to help both sides at
once. In any case, Georgia lost both wars and found itself deprived
of a great deal of military hardware – most of it seized by the
Abkhazians and South Ossetians as trophies of war.
These days, the Georgian Ground Forces number almost 25,000 men, or
six brigades and two battalions. One of these battalions has been
trained by American instructors according to American curricula. They
have 80 tanks, but only thirty T-72 tanks may be regarded as more or
less modern (the rest are hopelessly outdated T-55s). There are also
80 battle infantry vehicles, 110 armored personnel carriers, over 100
artillery pieces, 18 BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, and about
200 portable SAM launchers.
The Georgian Air Force includes five to ten SU-25 ground-strafers
(seven more were shot down in the war with Abkhazia). In theory, all
these aircraft were assembled in Tbilisi, but the factory there
depended entirely on spare parts and components sent from Russia.
Israel equipped one of the ground-strafers with its own avionics.
This aircraft was named the Scorpio. Georgia takes a great deal pride
in it.
As for the Georgian Navy, it has up to 20 vessels – made in the
Soviet Union, America, Germany, Romania, Greece, and Turkey.
Information about the armed forces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is
much sparser. Most of their military hardware was seized from the
Georgians 10 or 12 years ago. It is reasonable to assume that some
light weapons (perhaps plenty of them – including anti-tank and air
defense weapons) were received from Russia after the wars. According
to some estimates, Abkhazia has up to 50 tanks, 80 battle infantry
vehicles and armored personnel carriers, and 80 artillery pieces.
There may even be some MI-8 helicopters (in fact, the Abkhazians even
used gliders in the war), and there is one SU-25 fighter. The
Abkhazian Navy is mostly made up of converted civilian barges and
boats. The South Ossetian “military” is even weaker.
On paper, the Georgian Armed Forces are stronger than the forces of
both unrecognized republics combined – but not by much. In fact,
however, this is a textbook case of a strategic stand-off: neither
side can hope to win a war of conquest, but can and will succeed in
defending itself. It is likewise clear that neither the Abkhazians
nor the South Ossetians need to mount a war of conquest.
Just like in the first wars, the psychological advantage (should a
new war take place) will be on the side of Abkhazians and South
Ossetians. Their eagerness to defend their ancestral lands is much
stronger than the Georgians’ desire to restore territorial integrity.
Terrain will also play into the hands of the Abkhazians and South
Ossetians – defense in the mountains and cities is much easier than
offensive action. If the Georgian troops overrun some part of the
territory of an unrecognized republic, they will encounter guerrilla
resistance – much worse than what the Russian military is
encountering in Chechnya. Moreover, personnel and weapons would start
entering Abkhazia and South Ossetia unchecked from Russia. Abkhazian
and South Ossetian detachments will be able to retreat to the
territory of Russia to rest and regroup. Moreover, Abkhazian and
South Ossetian forces may use the territory of Russia for
maneuvering, where they will be completely safe from the Georgian
regular army.
Even Georgia’s advantage in aerial and naval warfare won’t help. The
Georgian Air Force is too small to have any substantial effect on the
situation, particularly since their opponents undoubtedly have
portable SAM launchers. The Georgian Navy could lay siege to the
Abkhazian coast, but the rebel republic would have its supply lines
on land. The Georgian Navy cannot be relied upon to mount any
substantial frontal operation.
There is no point in even discussing the idea that America might
enter the war on Georgia’s side. The United States has never been
prepared to fight for anyone else’s interests at the cost of a direct
confrontation with Russia. Now that it is helplessly losing the
campaign in Iraq, this option is clearly out of the question.
President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia understands all this. He
doesn’t intend to go to war either. He has been bluffing since the
very first day of his presidency. It’s hard to blame Saakashvili for
doing so, since it’s really his only option.
Saakashvili inherited a country in such a pitiful condition that he
could either finish stealing whatever hadn’t already been stolen, or
take advantage of the enthusiasm of the public and his own mandate.
Being an honorable man, the president of Georgia chose the latter
option. He scored a brilliant victory in Adzharia, which he literally
bluffed into submission. So Saakashvili decided to build on his
success, but… The problem is that Adzharia never fought Georgia or
declared its independence from Tbilisi. Abkhazia and South Ossetia
did do so – and became sovereign states, de facto. That is why taking
them back by bluff alone will be much more difficult than it was to
take Adzharia. Actually, it is only possible if the restive republics
are crushed economically and Russia is outmaneuvered and outbluffed.
It isn’t hard to see that Abkhazian and South Ossetian sovereignty
are entirely based on Russia. If stripped of Moscow’s support, their
regimes would collapse instantly – just like Aslan Abashidze’s regime
in Adzharia. As for Russia itself, it is in an extremely sensitive
position. It is difficult to support separatists elsewhere while
fighting them on one’s own territory (in the same general region).
Doing so while formally recognizing Georgia’s territorial integrity
is even more difficult. Neither is the task made any easier by the
fact that Russia doesn’t really know what it wants, while Saakashvili
knows exactly what he is after.
Needless to say, Russia would prefer to maintain the status quo – but
that’s impossible. Moreover, the existence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia as unrecognized states may benefit their local elites, but it
doesn’t benefit their citizens. South Ossetia, and particularly
Abkhazia, are “dirt-poor millionaires” that have considerable mineral
resources but are forced to survive by smuggling because of their
uncertain status. This state of affairs cannot satisfy the
impoverished population. The elites have enough – that much is clear;
and they cannot go back. The point of no return was passed long ago
as far as they are concerned. As for the people, they close ranks
around the elites merely because they fear another war.
Russia probably could have absorbed Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the
early 1990s. Owing his presidency entirely to Russia, Eduard
Shevardnadze was too weak to put up a fight then, and post-Soviet
territory (the Baltic states and probably Ukraine being the only
exceptions) was as much Russia’s back yard then as Latin America was
and remains Washington’s back yard. Unfortunately, at the time Russia
was content to annex the Georgian autonomies de facto, and the legal
status of the matter was ignored. (Boris Yeltsin was notoriously
incapable of taking advantage of the fruits of his own victories.)
The situation is different now. Tbilisi will never consider the idea
of giving up Abkhazia and South Ossetia, while any unilateral action
by Moscow aimed at absorbing them would be viewed negatively by the
West.
If the authorities are off limits from the legal point of view, why
maintain the status quo? Russia’s positions are much weaker than
Georgia’s, and it is bound to continue backing off in the face of
Saakashvili’s bluffing, supported by Washington. If the autonomies
find themselves under an economic siege (and this would further
exacerbate the already-bad economic situation there), they may find
themselves in trouble. Without a war as such to fight, the people
will inevitably turn their wrath against their rulers sooner or
later. It is with economic isolation in mind that Saakashvili is
declaring Abkhazia a war zone and promising to open fire on tourist
vessels. The Georgians will not actually do it. They only want to
ruin tourism, the foundation of Abkhazia’s economy.
On the other hand, Saakashvili is treading on thin ice. He could
miscalculate at any moment and find himself with a war on his hands –
and a war would only benefit the authorities of the rebel autonomies.
Their people would rally around the separatist regimes, and Georgia
doesn’t stand a chance in an all-out war. It will be either defeated
or find itself fighting a guerrilla war. Either option would mean a
debacle for Saakashvili – but not, unfortunately, a victory for
Russia. Russia would only get another war in the Caucasus, even worse
and more hopeless than the war in Chechnya.
Translated by A. Ignatkin

Associated Press Online
August 16, 2004 Monday
U.S. Boxer Vanes Martirosyan Advances
by GREG BEACHAM; AP Sports Writer
ATHENS, Greece
They began the year as teammates and competitors for the same spot on
the U.S. team. After a string of calamities that seems possible only
in the wild world of amateur boxing, they went to Athens as friendly
rivals hoping to fight each other for a medal. Of course, amateur
boxing got the last laugh.
U.S. welterweight Vanes Martirosyan got off to a promising start with
a first-round 45-20 victory over Algeria’s Benamar Meskine on Sunday.
But Andre Berto won’t join him. Berto, a Floridian fighting for his
parents’ native Haiti after being disqualified during the U.S. team
trials, lost a contentious 36-34 decision to former French world
champion Xavier Noel.
“We were hoping we could meet up at the end of the road, but I guess
it’s not happening,” Berto said.
American lightweight Vicente Escobedo joined Martirosyan and
middleweight Andre Dirrell in the second round Monday with an easy
30-10 win over Colombia’s Jose David Mosquera, keeping the U.S. squad
unbeaten. Light heavyweight Andre Ward and light welterweight Rock
Allen also drew byes into the second round.
Martirosyan, an 18-year-old from Glendale, Calif., was the
14th-ranked U.S. welterweight seven months ago, but rose to the
division’s upper echelon in the weeks before the team trials in
Tunica, Miss., last February.
That’s when Berto and Juan McPherson, the top two American prospects,
both were disqualified – Berto for misconduct after allegedly
throwing McPherson to the ground during their fight, and McPherson
because of his injured neck.
While Berto engaged in a protracted appeals process to clear his
name, Martirosyan filled the void with a series of victories and even
more wins in the qualifying events leading up to the Olympics.
When Berto’s appeals failed, the Miami-born fighter became Haiti’s
one-man boxing team, coached by American Tony Morgan and encouraged
by his former teammates – including Martirosyan, who was thinking
about Berto moments after he pulverized Meskine.
“I feel like there’s a reason I’m on one side (of the draw) and
Berto’s on the other,” Martirosyan said. “I just feel like in the
finals, we’re going to be together.”
But amateur boxing has little to do with emotion and power – both
strong suits for most American fighters. Since the rule changes
adopted in the wake of judging scandals and an increasing aversion to
violence, Olympic boxing is a technical sport of flurries and
defense.
While the taller Noel fought a prototypical amateur fight, Berto
wanted a brawl. Though he nearly rallied from a nine-point deficit in
the fourth round with a strong charge, Noel hung on for a decision
that was loudly jeered by fans.
“I thought I pulled it out, but I guess not,” Berto said. “I went
through a lot to get here, so I still think that’s a big
accomplishment. I fought my heart out. … I got here, man. I’m just
glad I got to participate in the opening ceremony. It’s a
once-in-a-lifetime type of thing.”
Martirosyan extended his Olympic hopes at least to Thursday, when
he’ll fight two-time world champion Lorenzo Aragon of Cuba.
The Armenian-born fighter showed the power and flair of a contender
in his opener, dictating the fight’s pace with a stiff jab and
opportunistic combinations. He also counterpunched effectively while
landing more shots to the head than almost any competitor so far at
the busy Peristeri Olympic Boxing Hall, which hosts more than 20
fights every day of the preliminaries.
While Berto’s exuberance hurt him against a skilled technical
fighter, Martirosyan battered Meskine with a series of early shots
before essentially finishing the fight with a devastating left to the
Algerian’s head early in the third round.
“We’re Armenian. We have this thing where we get a little bit out of
control in the ring,” Martirosyan said. “I love this sport so much.
The coaches have told me to calm down, just think about points
instead of trying to get the guy out of there.”
Two Americans received first-round byes, and five more will fight in
the next three days before the second round begins Wednesday. Tougher
fights still loom for a team that’s thought to be among the weakest
in the United States’ superb Olympic boxing history, but the boxers
believe they can improve on their four-medal haul four years ago in
Sydney.
“We’re a great team, we’re in great shape – and we’re going to bring
a lot of medals home,” Martirosyan said.