alllAfrica.com
MCA-Eligible Countries ‘Proud’ of Recognition, Aid Official Says
United States Department of State (Washington, DC)
July 20, 2004
Posted to the web July 21, 2004
Washington, DC
Enthusiastic about country ownership concept, Applegarth adds
The 16 developing countries selected as the first eligible to submit
proposals for supplemental aid from the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)
are “uniformly proud” of being recognized for their accomplishments in
implementing political and economic reforms, says John Applegarth, head of
the agency that administers the fund.
Speaking July 20 at the start of the quarterly meeting of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) in Washington, Applegarth added that the 16 also
are enthusiastic about the concept of “country ownership” of development
priorities that is at the core of the MCA program.
Applegarth said MCC teams recently visited all 16 nations to review with
government officials how their proposals for MCA funding will be evaluated.
The teams also communicated to members of civil society, the private sector
and the general public in each country how they can participate in the
proposal-development process.
The MCA is the administration’s supplemental aid program for developing
countries that meet certain political and economic standards. The House of
Representatives July 15 approved funding the account at $1.25 billion in the
fiscal year beginning October 1 (FY05), an amount that is 25 percent more
than the current, first-year spending.
Applegarth gave examples of how selected countries are altering their views
of receiving aid from the United States. A senior official in Armenia, he
said, stated that his country’s inclusion in the program helped it focused
more strongly on governing, governance and democracy.
Cape Verde is treating its selection as MCA-eligible as the country’s
third-most-significant achievement after gaining independence from Portugal
and making the transition to democracy, he said.
Applegarth said there are no specific timelines for countries to submit
funding proposals. The countries want to “stop, take stock and rethink about
how they could really use this new resource,” he said.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, who conducted the meeting as chair of the
MCC, said countries that were not selected have asked: “What did we do wrong
or what is it we have to do right to get into this game?”
“We lay it out for them,” he said. “You can be a recipient, you can work out
a compact [agreement] with us, but you have got to do the right things” to
create conditions for attracting investment and trade, he said.
The MCA is “the most significant development program since the [post-World
War II] Marshall Plan,” he said.
Powell added that the MCA is in addition to and not at the expense of other
aid programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID).
The 16 selected countries are Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Cape Verde, Georgia,
Ghana, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua,
Senegal, Sri Lanka and Vanuatu.

ROBERT KOCHARIAN: ARMENIA CANDIDLY INTERESTED IN STABILITY IN GEORGIA
22.07.2004 14:12
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenia is candidly interested in stability in
Georgia, Armenian President Robert Kocharian stated at a meeting with
Georgian Foreign Minister Salome Zurabishvili in Yerevan today. The
President said he hoped that the Georgian leaders would find ways to
overcome problems in the country as soon as possible. In the course of
the conversation R. Kocharian said he was satisfied with the current
level of relations between the two countries. At the same time the
parties considered the opportunities of further development of
Armenian-Georgia ties, as well as discussed the key questions of
future prospects in the region.

The Globe and Mail, Canada
July 22 2004
The gentleman writer’s epic

The remarkable success of Captain Corelli’s Mandolin in 1994 has
allowed Louis de Bernières to write his latest exotic epic at a
leisurely pace at his English country house, he tells REBECCA
CALDWELL
By REBECCA CALDWELL
Thursday, July 22, 2004 – Page R1
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Louis de Bernières’s latest
novel, Birds Without Wings, is a grand saga encompassing the full
range of human experience in the lives of villagers in the tiny
hamlet of Eskibahce in Turkey around the time of the First World War.
Fans of the author’s 1994 sleeper bestseller Captain Corelli’s
Mandolin, an epic tale fleshing out the extent of humanity on a tiny
village on a Greek island during the Second World War, would hope for
no less. No, the real shocker of Birds Without Wings is that the book
began not in some sun-drenched Mediterranean paradise, but in
Calgary.
Before Cowtowners start rejoicing at their newly minted literary
importance, it should be noted that the first line of the book that
de Bernières wrote in 1996 while a writer-in-residence at the
University of Calgary’s Markin-Flanagan Distinguished Writers program
is shot through with insanity and tragedy: “The people who remained
in this place have often wondered why Ibrahim went mad.”
“It might have been from being in a tiny little office with no
windows at a university,” he jokes during a phone interview from his
home, a country house in Norfolk, England. “No, I’d had this going
through my mind for some time, and I think I was waiting for one of
my victims to arrive and I just had this idea about what the first
page should be.”
Although he ended up completing his manuscript on a return journey to
Calgary last year as well, the real inspiration for Birds Without
Wings was a visit to a ghost town in Turkey about a decade ago.
De Bernières was struck by how he could still see the pretty pastels
of the ruined houses of a once-harmonious multicultural community,
home to Christians and Muslims, Greeks and Turks, that was devastated
by political turmoil and a disastrous policy of expulsions and
resettlements, first of Armenians, then of Christian Greeks,
following the First World War, one of the first swellings of a new
wave of 20th-century nationalism.
“They obviously used to have a sophisticated and pleasant life. All
the houses had water systems that filled up off the gutter on the
roofs and had an outside loo on the corner,” he said. “When [the
Christians] left, the local economy collapsed. They lost everybody
who knew how to make anything, and everybody who knew how to do
anything. Some people did come to replace the Christians, but they
were never the same again.”
It was in such a town where de Bernières imagined the setting for his
sketches of young lovers, Christian Philothei and Muslim Ibrahim;
childhood friends Karatavuk and Mehmetcik; the two spiritual leaders
of the town, Father Kristoforos and Abdulhamid Hodja; and the wealthy
landlord, Rustem Bey, his wife Tamara and his Circassian mistress
Leyla.
Interspersed between their vignettes are nearly straight segments of
the historical events of the early 20th century that would shatter
the bucolic world, notably the rise of Mustafa Kemal. Better known as
Mustafa Ataturk, he would lead the disintegrating Ottoman Empire
through the First World War and the savage Gallipoli campaign,
eventually consolidating his own power as the first chief of the new
nation of Turkey.
With 625 pages broken into 95 chapters, plus six epilogues and a
postscript, Birds Without Wings feels a bit episodic, a result not of
intended structural design but how his work evolves from short
stories, he says. De Bernières’s seemingly characteristic impulse to
write about Big Ideas such as nationalism and religious intolerance
also wasn’t a deliberate artistic aim. That he happened to write a
book about the historical failure of nationalism and religious
fanaticism at a time when issues of nationalism and religious
fanaticism are once again radically dividing the world was
coincidental, he says. If anything, the civil and religious wars that
tore through the former Yugoslavia in the nineties were more salient
when he started the book, he points out.
“What gets me interested in a story is a narrative,” said de
Bernières. “The themes, I suppose, come up almost by accident when
you’re writing a book like this. They’re there, but you don’t have to
put them in on purpose. There’s all sorts of things, you know,
there’s nationalism and religion and honour and love, war,
comradeship, all of these things. But I would never sit down and
think, ooh, I must write a book about comradeship.”
For the record, though, the abuse of nationalism and religion is
something he feels strongly about. In a way, writing about the topic
is his inheritance: De Bernières may be a French name, but he is
English, a descendent of Huguenots fleeing persecution in
18th-century France.
“I actually think religion is evil when it’s in its militant phase,”
he said. “When you’re militant, and you think you have God on your
side and you have a direct telephone line to him, then you’re going
to start all sorts of unpleasant mayhem. I actually think it is
absurd to claim to know things that are actually unknowable. And I
know that nationalism is a load of rubbish. Look at my country. There
is no such thing as a purebred Englishman.”
In the slow summer book season, newspapers in Britain have been
anxiously awaiting their turn to weigh in on what’s being touted as
the adult equivalent of a Harry Potter novel. As with Captain
Corelli’s Mandolin, the initial critical reception to Birds Without
Wings in Britain has been mixed (North American reviews will wait
until the book’s official release date on July 24). The Independent
declared it a masterpiece; while Peter Kemp of The Sunday Times
accused him of “stereotypes spray-painted with exoticism.”
The somewhat publicity-reluctant de Bernières — he’s not doing any
television interviews in Britain because, “As soon as you are on the
television, you become interesting to the tabloid newspapers, and
then you have people on the lawn with cameras” — doesn’t go out of
his way to read reviews, although people will call him up with
congratulations or commiserations.
“Sometimes you read criticism which is actually quite helpful, and
you think, hmm, yes, that’s a good point,” he said. “The Peter Kemp
one — he was annoyed with me that everyone was called Ali the
Broken-Nosed or Ali the Snowbringer, or etc, etc. The fact is that
back in those days, Turks didn’t have surnames, so that’s what they
were being called, but Peter Kemp thought that was just me trying to
be fake-exotic. That kind of criticism is just so ignorant, it just
makes you feel contemptuous rather than hurt.”
De Bernières, 49, is in the fortunate position of being able to take
the occasional bad review in stride. He’s earned his professional
cred long ago, selected as one of the Best of Young British Novelists
by Granta in 1993 and claiming a fistful of Eurasia-region
Commonwealth Writers Prizes — for a double-dose of magic realism,
1990’s The War of Don Emmanuel’s Nether Parts and 1991’s Senor Vivo
and the Coca Lord. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin won the overall
Commonwealth Writers Prize in 1995, but more important, Corelli won
him some creative breathing space.
Since being released in 1994, Corelli has sold 2.5-million copies in
the Commonwealth alone, propelled by a marketer’s impossible dream —
word-of-mouth sales. The film rights were sold for roughly £200,000
(almost $486,000 Canadian). With his money, de Bernières was able to
stop scratching out a living as a substitute teacher and buy his
country house, which he shares with his partner, an actress and
director. There, the rural-Surrey-bred, prep-school-educated author
has built his own Arcadia.
In the 10 years since Corelli, he’s leisurely produced Red Dog, a
children’s book about a legendary Australian mutt, and Sunday Morning
at the Centre of the Universe, a radio play meant as a farewell to
his old London community before he left for the country. De Bernières
has plans for two more novels as well as two books of short stories,
but he’s not racing to write them, although not because the success
of Corelli means he doesn’t have to.
“I only ever wrote when I felt like it, so that hasn’t changed,” he
said. “There was never a time when I suddenly thought, ooh, my life
has changed, everything is completely different, because it was all
happening so gradually. The best thing is that I bought myself a
house in the country where I can live with lots of space and
tranquillity.”
He spends his newly purchased spare time not writing more, but
tinkering about with cars (he has fixed up three, his oldest a 1947
Ford Pilot) and indulging in his one real obsession: playing music
and restoring instruments. He’s fond of woodwinds, and “things with
frets and strings” including guitars, banjos and, of course,
mandolins.
“It was the first time I’d had any money or spare time and I found
that when I quit teaching, I suddenly had that much more time for
hobbies, so I didn’t write any more than I did before,” he said. “I
also wanted time for my style and approach to change a bit, to
mature. I didn’t want to write Captain Corelli’s Mandolin twice.”

Baku Today
July 22 2004
Russian Azerbaijanis Protest Armenian Occupation
Nearly 50 Azerbaijanis staged an authorized picket in front of the
Armenian embassy in Moscow Wednesday, demanding that Yerevan withdraw
from Azerbaijan’s occupied territories.
The protest marked the 11th anniversary of the occupation of
Azerbaijan’s Aghdam District by Armenia.
The picketers urged international organizations to give up double
standards in their approach to the occupation of the Azerbaijani
territories, chanting anti-Armenian slogans, such as `There is no
Azerbaijan without Karabakh,’ `Take your hands out of Karabakh,’
among others.
Ilqar Qasimov, head of the coordination council of the Movement for
Azerbaijan and also a General of the Russian army, told a news
briefing following the picket that although more Azerbaijanis had a
desire to attend the action, the Moscow authorities did not give
permission for a larger action.
Armenian troops occupied Aghdam and six other administrative
districts along with Nagorno-Karabakh – Azerbaijan’s western region
that was home to nearly 100,000 ethnic-Armenians in 1989 – during
1991-94 war.
A cease-fire agreement reached between the two countries in May 1994
is frequently violated by exchange of fire while peace talks mediated
by the Minsk group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation
of Europe since 1992 have yielded no result.

Interfax
July 22 2004
South Ossetia makes contacts with Abkhazia, Transdnestr,
Nagorno-Karabakh permanent
MOSCOW/TSKHINVALI. July 22 (Interfax) – The South Ossetian Foreign
Ministry has made permanent contacts with the foreign ministries of
other unrecognized republics, Abkhazia, the Transdnestr Moldovan
Republic and Nagorno-Karabakh, due to the escalating tension in the
Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone.
“We need regular contacts to supply the public with objective
information about the developments in Tskhinvali and to gain military
support if necessary,” South Ossetian Foreign Minister Murad Jioyev
told Interfax by telephone on Thursday.
“Nearly all volunteers, who had came to South Ossetia, left but they
would return as need be,” he said. “I must stress though that
Tskhinvali wants a peaceful settlement of the crisis and is ready to
continue negotiations.”
“OSCE intermediaries in the conflict zone should be more active and
objective,” he said. “The OSCE pays almost no attention to our
statements on the Georgian breach of agreements.”
South Ossetian representatives may soon meet with head of the OSCE
Mission in Georgia Roy Reeve, the minister said.
South Ossetia (Tskhinvali) and Abkhazia (Sukhumi) are de jure
provinces of Georgia, which gained de facto independence from Georgia
(Tbilisi) in the 1990s. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is
urging Abkhazia and South Ossetia to restore state relations, but
they have been declining the offer. Nevertheless Saakashvili pledges
that his victory over the separatist leader of Ajaria will be
followed by regained control of two breakaway provinces.
Nagorno-Karabakh and Transdnestr are also self- proclaimed republics.
Azerbaijan lost control of Nagorno-Karabakh in a fierce conflict with
Armenia, and Moldova lost control of Transdnestr in the 1990s. <>

Azer News, Azerbaijan
July 22 2004
Azerbaijan says ‘no’ to OSCE Minsk Group

The long-anticipated visit by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the
region has yielded absolutely no results, as this high-ranking group
lost even more credibility in the eyes of the Azerbaijani public. On
Thursday the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish hosted a
reception dedicated to
the co-chairs’ visit. Over 100 people were invited to the reception,
including representatives of political parties and NGOs, parliament
members, foreign ambassadors and journalists. Touching upon the Upper
Garabagh conflict, all the three co-chairs, Steven Mann of the United
States, Yuri Merzlyakov of Russia and Henry Jacolin of France,
pointed out the need for reconciliation, compromises and concessions,
without which a peace resolution would be impossible.
One of the co-chairs said that no third party will be able to resolve
the conflict and that the conflicting parties need to come to terms
on their own. The gist of all statements made by the co-chairs is
that Azerbaijan must submit to occupation, give up its demands on
restoring its territorial integrity and accept the independence of
Upper Garabagh. Addressing the meeting, former state adviser,
political scholar Vafa Guluzada said explicitly that such statements
are absolutely unacceptable, as they are aimed at compelling
Azerbaijan to relinquish its struggle for the liberation of its
territories. Guluzada told reporters after the reception that the
co-chairs are trying to blame Azerbaijan for the protracted conflict.
Azerbaijan is a victim of aggression, and instead of considering
liberation of its land, the co-chairing countries demand the country
to submit to occupation. The co-chairs are deliberately making this
blatant mistake by regarding the aggression as a conflict, Guluzada
said. The former state adviser emphasized the four resolutions,
passed by the UN Security Council on liberation of Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories. Particularly reprehensible is the position of
Russia, which is supplying arms to Armenia and has a military
cooperation agreement with this country, Guluzada said. Guluzada’s
statement caused confusion among the co-chairs, who subsequently
suggested that another speaker take the floor, but the other
participants supported Guluzada with an applause. Guluzada also said
he was confident that the goal of the meeting was to convince the
Azerbaijani public that the country must make concessions to Armenia.
Nonetheless, this attempt has failed again. The position of the OSCE
MG co-chairs has triggered a public outcry in Azerbaijan. Chairman of
the Party of National Independence of Azerbaijan (PNIA) Etibar
Mammadov said the co-chairs are making the same mistakes as before.
He said that they are not interested in a fair settlement of the
conflict and demand concessions only from Azerbaijan. Mammadov
further voiced his approval of Guluzada’s statement, saying that it
reflects the real state of affairs. “The co-chairs must understand
that neither the authorities nor the opposition of Azerbaijan will
make any concessions”, Mammadov said. Leader of Musavat Party Isa
Gambar also censured the position of OSCE MG co-chairs. He approved
of Guluzada’s statement, confirming that Azerbaijan will not make any
concessions to Armenia. Former Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov said
the co-chairs must criticize the non-constructive position of one of
the conflicting parties. As for Guluzada’s statement, it was overly
emotional, Mammadov said and added that he still agrees with some of
its parts. Another political scholar Eldar Namazov gave a negative
assessment to the co-chairs’ utterances. He said the co-chairs do not
understand the real state of affairs and that nothing has changed in
their position. Moreover, the OSCE MG is absolutely unaware of the
public opinion in Azerbaijan and this statement by Guluzada was
unexpected for the co-chairs, Namazov said. “Vafa Guluzada gave a
very harsh response”, he added.
Disappointment
In a meeting with the co-chairs on Friday, President Ilham Aliyev
expressed his dissatisfaction with the inefficient activity of the
OSCE Minsk Group. He underlined that the co-chairs are well aware of
Azerbaijan’s position stated during the meetings of Azerbaijani and
Armenian presidents and foreign ministers. Aliyev said his country
aspires to a conflict settlement within international legal norms and
noted that all conflicts should be settled this way. The President
underlined that Armenia has not honored the UN Security Council’s
four resolutions on an unconditional withdrawal of its armed forces
from the occupied lands of Azerbaijan. On the same day, the MG
co-chairs held a private meeting with Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov. Commenting on the results of the meeting, Jacolin told
journalists that it was fruitful.
UN resolutions rejected
A heated debate unfolded during a meeting of Azerbaijani Defense
Minister, Colonel General Safar Abiyev with the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs on Friday. Jacolin stated that peace talks have entered a
new stage. “If the conflicting sides do not make compromises, there
will be no progress in the Upper Garabagh conflict settlement. Any
incident occurring on the contact line of the military troops may
lead to military action.” General Abiyev underlined that Armenian
armed forces must pull out of the occupied Azerbaijani lands. “It is
necessary to comply with the UN Security Council’s four resolutions
on unconditional withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the
occupied land of Azerbaijan in order to fully settle the conflict.
Finally, the OSCE should pass a relevant decision on the matter.”
With regard to the MG co-chairs, Abiyev said that the group’s mission
is to settle the conflict and ensure that the conflicting sides come
to terms. The US co-chair Steven Mann argued that the Upper Garabagh
conflict should be solved by the governments of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, but not by the OSCE Minsk Group. He added that the co-chairs
would only assist in this. In reply to General Abiyev’s question on
the priorities for the conflict resolution and the principles the MG
proposed to the conflicting sides, the Russian co-chair Merzlyakov
said international legal norms envision a peaceful solution and
litigation as options for settling conflicts. “Today, the UN
resolutions may not be executed as they were adopted in a different
atmosphere and new versions for a conflict resolution should be
sought” Merzlyakov noted. In reply, the Minister said that the UN
resolutions are still in force. “These resolutions have already been
executed in Yugoslavia and Iraq and one day they will be applied to
the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict,” Abiyev said.
Co-chairs indifferent to public opinion
In a news conference dedicated to the results of their tour of the
region at the International Press Center of Baku on Friday, the
co-chairs failed to elaborate on the work they carried out to resolve
the Garabagh conflict. The US co-chair Mann said that they were
confident of the peaceful settlement of the Upper Garabagh conflict.
Russian co-chair Merzlyakov said all the three countries co-chairing
the OSCE MG support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and do
not recognize the independence of the “Upper Garabagh Republic”.
Unlike in a meeting with Defense Minister, Merzlyakov, touching upon
the issue of observance to the mentioned UN resolutions, said he
believes they are still in effect. Some of the resolutions on
stopping military action adopted in 1994 have been observed. As for
other regulations, for instance, one on stopping the hostilities by
the conflicting parties, the MG continues working in this direction,
Merzlyakov added. Commenting on a possible mediation by Turkey,
Merzlyakov said that this country is already playing an active role
in the Minsk Group. “We are working closely with Turkey”, he said.
The French co-chair Henry Jacolin, in his turn, noted that the peace
talks entered a new stage after Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev’s
death and Vilayat Guliyev’s dismissal from the position of Foreign
Minister. Jacolin stressed that it would take Azerbaijani and
Armenian presidents as well as foreign ministers a certain period of
time to bring their positions closer. Asked about Minsk Group’s
failure in solving the Upper Garabagh conflict, the MG co-chairs
underlined that Azerbaijan and Armenia should be blamed for this.
They declined to answer a question about the occupation of
Azerbaijani lands. Asked about the Azerbaijani public’s distrust in
the Minsk Group, Jacolin admitted that the co-chairs were not
concerned over this, as they are recognized by the Presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia. He noted that neither the UN nor the European
Union have assumed responsibility for mediating the conflict.
Unplanned meeting
Although the OSCE MG co-chairs did not plan to meet with the
leadership of the Azerbaijani community of Upper Garabagh, the
meeting took place on the insistence of the community leader Nizami
Bahmanov. Bahmanov said that if the co-chairs meet with the
separatist regime of Garabagh, they are obliged to meet with the
Azerbaijani community as well. The MG co-chairs, in turn, said that
they could not meet with the leadership of the Azerbaijani community
due to their busy schedule. Just like in the previous meetings, the
co-chairs did not come up with any concrete proposals.
>From The Editor-in-Chief
I was among those who attended the meeting of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs with the Azerbaijani public on the first day of their visit
to Baku. The Azerbaijani public came out strongly against the
statements made by the co-chairs, backing their statements with
convincing arguments. I will try to look into the reasons behind such
a harsh objection by the public. First, it was apparent that the MG
co-chairs came to Baku to impose the idea of surrender on Azerbaijan.
Second, the MG co-chairs are far from recognizing the aggression of
Armenia, a country which has occupied Azerbaijan’s lands, driven out
about one million people from Garabagh by pursuing a policy of ethnic
cleansing, destroyed ancient historical monuments and residential
areas in this region. Third, the co-chairs claim that the mentioned
UN Security Council resolutions are no longer ‘valid’, as they were
adopted in ‘different conditions’. Fourth, they call on Azerbaijan
‘to accept realities’, saying that ‘if Azerbaijan does not make any
compromises today, the conflict will not be resolved for the next 60
years’. Although the co-chairs declined to explain what compromises
should be made, it is common knowledge that Azerbaijan is expected to
give up Upper Garabagh, the city of Shusha and the Lachin District,
which is unacceptable. Neither Azerbaijani authorities nor the
opposition can agree to sign such an unfair and disgraceful peace
agreement… It is amazing that Russian co-chair Merzlyakov expressed
conflicting opinions on the same issue in various meetings. These
utterances are not accidental and reflect the policy Russia is
pursuing in the region. It is common knowledge that Russia, a
mastermind of conflicts ongoing in South Caucasus, is not interested
in their settlement. Besides, Russia is still able to keep the two
countries under pressure using the Garabagh problem. I am amazed that
the United States, a superpower, which is, contrary to Russia,
interested in establishing stability in the region, is taking a
passive stance on the issue and following Russia’s path

Azer News, Azerbaijan
July 22 2004
President Aliyev satisfied with development of relations with Russia

President Ilham Aliyev received Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russian
Ambassador to the Ukraine, former Prime Minister of Russia on
Thursday.
President Aliyev said he attaches a particular importance to
strengthening the ties with Russia and stressed the dynamics of
developing relations between Azerbaijan and Russia, which are
strategic partners. Chernomyrdin, in turn, voiced a hope for the
strengthening of the Russo-Azeri ties.
Although the purpose of the unexpected visit by Chernomyrdin, who is
one of Russia’s gas tycoons, to Baku is not officially disclosed,
political observers relate this to the issue of the construction of
an Iranian gas pipeline transporting gas to Europe through
Azerbaijan. Russia, which opposes Iranian gas exports to Europe, has
managed to hinder the construction of a pipeline transporting gas via
Armenia.

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
July 22 2004
Erdogan Urges Armenians to Give up Genocide Claims
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday said while on
an official visit to France that his country is willing to open its
gates to Armenia, but added that the main precondition for this is
the Armenians’ giving up the genocide claims.
“The Armenian Diaspora is making a mistake by keeping the so-called
Armenian genocide issue on the agenda,” Erdogan said in response to a
question from a member of the French Parliament about what Turkey
thinks of the Armenian issue.
“Progress in the relationship will be difficult to achieve as long as
the [genocide] campaigns continue. The border gates will not be
opened unless the campaigns are ended,” Turkey’s daily newspaper
Zaman quoted Erdogan as saying.
The Turkish premier suggested leaving the issues of the past to
historians and looking into ways to boost cooperation between the two
countries.
`We are well aware what situation Armenia is in,’ Erdogan said,
adding that a betterment of the Turkish-Armenian relations would be
in the interests of the latter.

IN YEREVAN ARMENIAN AND GEORGIAN FOREIGN MINISTERS DISCUSSED
DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORT COMMUNICATIONS
22.07.2004 14:14
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Questions of development of roads and transport
corridors as one of the ways to progress in the South Caucasus were
discussed by Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian and his
Georgian counterpart Salome Zurabishvili during her present stay in
Yerevan. At that, as reported by the Press Service of the Foreign
Ministry of Armenia, the parties noted that by means of equal
development of communications both in East-West and North-South
directions, the Caucasus can be turned into an actual crossroad. The
Ministers exchanged views on full launching of all railways in the
region, specifically Kars-Gyumri-Tbilisi and the Abkhazian segment of
the Russia-Georgia-Armenia railway. The Armenian and Georgian
Ministers of Foreign Affairs also discussed energy provision of the
region, realization of programs with Iran. Apropos, as S. Zurabishvili
stated in an interview with RFE/RL, the idea of possible
transportation of Iranian gas to Georgia via the Iran-Armenia gas
pipeline regia, whose leadership wishes to make the region a transit
one. As noted by Zurabishvili, the Georgian authorities are ready to
consider the idea.

21 July, 2004
”Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology”
Over the last twelve years, it has become customary to refer to the
Russian military establishment as decayed, under-armed, under-trained,
and under-supplied, thereby effectively writing it off as
second-rate. Russia’s long war in Chechnya seems to reinforce the
above sentiments, and current writings and reports on the Russian
armed forces all point to the dire need for reform and financial
assistance across the board. In essence, current analysis seems to
indicate that Russia stopped being a viable competitor to the American
military sometime after 1992. The media coverage of Russian military
technological achievements has been limited to coverage of its fighter
jet crashes at international air shows, and an occasional
complimentary article on a recent Russian entrant at a military show
or exposition.
At the same time, there has been wide and detailed coverage of
American achievements in the development of numerous military
technologies, especially after the 1991 Gulf War. The United States’
military interest is concentrated on continuing the process of
revolutionizing its military affairs with new technologies and tactics
that were learned in conflicts and wars very different from the
once-possible war between the U.S. and Russia on the European plains.
Meanwhile, the Russian military is forced to make do with weapons that
should have been retired in late 1980s.
However, even in the current dire circumstances, Russia never stopped
being a powerful entity that produced state-of-the-art military
technologies — a trend that continued from its inception as a modern
state. While its army, navy and air force are in dangerously derelict
conditions, every part of the formula for Russia’s resurgence as a
military powerhouse is still in place. Russia has been consistently
fielding top-notch military technology at various international trade
shows, and has been steady in the demonstration of its capabilities.
In spite of financial and economic difficulties, Russia still produces
state-of-the-art military technologies that continue to impress the
world. One of its best achievements after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union has been its armored fighting vehicle BMP-3, which has
been chosen over Western vehicles in contracts for the United Arab
Emirates and Oman, long located in Washington’s sphere of
influence. Russia’s surface-to-air missile systems, the S-300, and its
more powerful successor, the S-400, are reported to be more potent
than American-made Patriot systems. The once-anticipated military
exercise between the Patriot and the S-300 never materialized, leaving
the Russian complex with an undisputed, yet unproven, claim of
superiority over the American system. Continuing this list is the
Kamov-50 family of military helicopters that incorporate the latest
cutting-edge technologies and tactics, making them an equal force to
the best Washington and the West has to offer.
Additional proof of the strength of Russian military technology is the
recently held joint Indo-American air force exercises, the results of
which were widely covered in the media. Modern Russian-made Su-30
fighters in service with the Indian Air Force out maneuvered
American-made F-15 planes in a majority of their engagements,
prompting U.S. Air Force General Hal Homburg to admit that Russian
technology in Indian hands has given the U.S. Air Force a “wake-up
call.” Furthermore, the Russian military establishment is continuing
to design other helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles that are on
par with the best that the West has to offer. In addition, Mexico,
long a customer of U.S. military technology, has expressed an
interest in a limited amount of Russian weapon systems.
Part of such success — limited, but nonetheless crucial to the
survival of the Russian military industry — stems from the fact that
even in these difficult times, some of Russia’s military factories and
its covert cities, once the sites of ultra-secret projects, are still
operational and continue to work on essentially the same projects as
before the demise of the Soviet Union: the development of military
technologies that are on par or better than those available in the
West. Since the American military will be fighting its future wars
against armies possessing Russian weapons — or derivatives thereof —
Washington should pay closer attention to what is happening across the
wide spaces of the Russian Federation for three reasons.
One is the simple fact that weapons export is one of the best ways for
Russia to earn much-needed hard currency. Already, Russia is the
second-largest worldwide exporter of military technology after the
United States. As reported in various magazines, journals and
periodicals, at present, Russia’s modern military technology is more
likely to be exported than supplied to its own armies due to the
existing financial constraints and limitations of Russia’s armed
forces. This has implications for America’s future combat operations
since practically all insurgent, guerrilla, breakaway or terrorist
armed formations across the globe — the very formations that the
United States will most likely face in its future wars — are fielded
with Russian weapons or its derivatives. Even if the Russian
government exercises control over the sale and export of its military
technologies, given the present derelict state of its military and
lack of proper checks and balances, its state-of-the-art technology
might end up in the wrong hands.
The second reason has to do with Russia’s growing assertiveness in its
“near abroad,” or the states of the former Soviet Union. Russia
considers these states in its rightful economic, political and
military sphere of influence, and has acted accordingly in some of the
U.S.S.R.’s former republics, such as Georgia and Armenia. This
justification is particularly applied to oil- and natural gas-rich
Central Asian states. Already, Russia is slowly growing weary of the
American military presence in that region, and is seeking to bolster
its own presence there through closer contacts and military bases. In
order for Russia to fully exercise its influence, it would have to
field a viable, high-tech military force that is capable of projecting
its strength if the need for that arises. Given the developing
competition between the United States and Russia for Central Asia, the
Russian military will have to field the above-described technologies
in order to truly protect and exercise its sphere of influence.
The third reason has to do with Russia’s current military doctrine,
which adheres to the concept of multipolarity. The articles of the
doctrine state Russia’s conviction that the social progress, stability
and international security can only be accomplished in a multipolar
world. The doctrine further states that the Russian Federation will
work towards the establishment of such a world with all the means at
its disposal. Russia cannot be one of the potential powers in this
multipolar scenario if its military lacks advanced technologies and if
it cannot be considered a state-of-the-art military force on par with
U.S. and Western armies. Therefore, it is to be expected that Russia
will attempt to field its armies with the country’s best military
achievements.
If U.S.-Indian exercises were indeed a “wake-up call,” it is
conceivable that more such lessons for the United States can
follow. While the United States currently spends more on its military
strength than all of its potential competitors combined, one only
needs to turn to history to remember that it took Russia less than two
decades to build a state-of-the-art navy at the dawn of the 18th
century, with which it took on major powers of the day and firmly
established itself as one of the world’s superpowers. While the
current state of the Russian military is far from where the Russian
leadership wants it to be, the country’s support for modern
technological developments, and its historical ability to succeed in a
short period of time in spite of internal economic weaknesses, should
not be underestimated. Russia has yet the chance and ability to
someday rival the most technologically advanced states.
Report Drafted By:
Yevgeny Bendersky
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR).