ARMENIAN PAPER REVIEWS 10 YEARS OF KARABAKH CEASE-FIRE CRITICALLY
Novoye Vremya, Yerevan
4 May 04
Novoye Vremya headlined “Will cease-fire become peace?” on 4 May
In several days, on 12 May it will be ten years of the cease-fire
regime in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict.
Unfortunately during all these years of cease-fire the parties did not
make the day of final political settlement of the NKR (Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic) problem closer. Moreover, the Azerbaijani party is
often coming forward with threats to restart battle actions, in fact
refusing to search for mutually acceptable compromise in
settlement. For this reason a question raises: is cease-fire
transforming into final peace? There is not a strict answer to this
question yet.
There is not an answer because the parties have different attitudes to
the conflict. In Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh the cease-fire jubilee
is understood as a positive phenomenon that promotes peaceful
settlement of the conflict. But in Baku they have an undisguised
attitude of irritation towards so long a term of cease-fire, because
during that period they did not manage to return Nagornyy Karabakh to
the constitutional field of Azerbaijan. As for the international
intermediaries, they have the same point of view as the Armenian party
has, regarding the problem.
They had almost the same attitude towards the cease-fire ten years
ago. The intermediaries had to work hard to make the Azerbaijani party
to agree on a final cease-fire though it needed that most of all. Let
us recall the events that took place ten years ago. (Passage omitted:
In 1994, in Bishkek the cease-fire document was signed by the heads of
the delegations of Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh as well as by all the
intermediaries except Azerbaijan. But the intermediaries continued
their peacemaking efforts. Finally Heydar Aliyev agreed to accept the
document, and it was signed by the head of Azerbaijani parliament.)
How did the parties use the cease-fire? Unfortunately, they used it in
different ways. The Azerbaijani party had a goal to buy time to
strengthen its army with the hope of gaining military revenge over
Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh in future and to settle the conflict
finally.
As for the Armenian parties, understanding very well the intentions of
their neighbours, they did not forget about the rigging of their
armies as well. Along with it they were urgently aspiring to build
bridges (of trust) with Azerbaijan for the creation of a favourable
atmosphere for constructive talks on a settlement.
As for the talks, naturally they could not lead to a desirable result
without trust between the parties of the conflict. Moreover, the
Azerbaijnai party using the oil factor, started a policy of provoking
the world and regional countries to implement political and economic
isolation of Armenia. At the same time Baku did not at all take into
account the interests of the world and regional states, insisting on
setting the Armenian-Azerbaijani cooperation in the conditions of
settlement of the conflict as a necessary step for creation of an
atmosphere of mutual trust.
To all appearances Azerbaijan intends to continue a policy of the
isolation of Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh. The recent speech of Ilham
Aliyev at the PACE session in Strasbourg is evidence of this. The
Azerbaijani president in fact confirmed that his country will continue
to blockade any bilateral or regional cooperation with Armenia. As for
setting measures of trust, he cynically said that withdrawal of troops
from all the territories of Nagornyy Karabakh would become such a
measure of trust. Though it is clear to any man of sober judgment that
for such a step as withdrawal of troops, it is necessary to trust a
neighbour that does not at all need that trust.
The last condition means that Azerbaijan has not stopped fighting with
Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh and is not going to search for mutually
acceptable peace with us. Simply it temporary transferred the
bellicose actions into a sphere of policy and economy until “the best”
time comes, that is, until the moment when it will have an opportunity
to settle the conflict by means of force.
In addition, agreement on cease-fire is not an agreement on a military
conflict stopping as such. In connection with this, it should be
recalled that there was a point in the document adopted ten years ago,
according to which the parties obliged during ten days term to make an
agreement about stopping of the armed conflict on the whole. In its
turn it was necessary for settlement of all the military and technical
issues before passing to the stage of direct political settlement. But
this intention remained on a list and mainly because of the
Azerbaijani party.
The logic of the Baku authorities is quite clear. It does not allow
fixing in any document a sentence about inadmissibility of a restart
of battle. They think in Baku that such fixing will mean the final
loss of Nagornyy Karabakh. By the way, as it was mentioned above,
Azerbaijan is using the cease-fire with a purpose to gain force for a
new war. By the way, the officials of Baku do not hide such
intentions. If the intermediaries will not make Armenia refuse
supporting of Nagornyy Karabakh, in that case Azerbaijan itself will
take “its lands” back.
Naturally, Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh have their own plans on
this. In Stepanakert as well as in Yerevan they think that there is no
alternative to a peaceful settlement. Along with it, they understand
what Azerbaijan hopes to. For this reason one should always be ready
for unpredictable actions from official and unofficial Baku. Moreover,
they are sure in Stepanakert that the way to the international
recognition of the NKR is via building of really democratic statehood
in Nagornyy Karabakh. Just this is being implemented in Karabakh in
the conditions of the cease-fire regime, though slowly, with tests and
mistakes.

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION MARCHING DOWN CAPITAL’S STREETS
A1+ web site
4 May 04
The participants in today’s procession, headed by the opposition
leaders, are marching right now down the streets of Yerevan. In order
to have a rough impression of the number of the protesters, we should
say that part of them are already on Koryun Street, near Matenadaran,
and the remaining people are still on Moskovyan Street.
The participants in the procession with photos of (ex-defence
minister) Vagarshak Arutyunyan, Aramazd Zakaryan, Suren Surenyants are
demanding that these political prisoners be set free.
The procession passed by the Police Department, stopped near the
National Security prison. The protesters demanded that the political
prisoners being held in this prison be released and political
persecution be stopped.
The protesters are now marching through Nalbandyan Street towards the
Prosecutor’s Office to protest at fabricated criminal case against
Agvan Ovsepyan.
The procession will end on Freedom Square.

POST-COUNCIL OF EUROPE REACTION CONTINUES – ARMENIAN PAPER
Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
4 May 04
Haykakan Zhamanak headlined “The Strasbourg passions have not calmed
down yet” on 4 May
On Saturday (1 May), in Zvartnots airport (Yerevan, Armenia) several
hundred armed young men met Shavarsh Kocharyan and Artashes Gegamyan
returning from Strasbourg with the following slogans: “Gegamyan –
president of Azerbaijan” and “Shavarsh Kocharyan – an agent of
Turkey”.
As one of the young men holding the slogans said, they were angry
because Gegamyan and Shavarsh Kocharyan took our dirty linen to
Europe.
Yesterday, in the National Unity party office Artashes Gegamyan and
Shavarsh Kocharyan invited a press conference. It became clear that
the latter were not insulted because of an action organized at the
airport, which Gegamyan called just a clownery. “In the municipal
offices they organized special consultations and reported how many
persons they would bring, and gathered only enough people to fit in
six buses, and they were taken to the airport.
But the most painful thing is that while the situation of the country
is really serious, our authorities are dealing with such clownery. It
is obvious that the authorities are doing everything possible to stop
the Armenian delegation’s authorities,” Artashes Gegamyan said. By the
way, the opposition members of our delegation also said that in
Strasbourg they informed Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Walter Shvimer and PACE chairman Piter Schider of the scenario
according to which Armenian events will develop. “We told them that
the Dashnaks (an opposition party – The Armenian Revolutionary
Federation – Dashnaktsutyun) will immediately say that Turks are mixed
up in this matter, in fact blaming PACE that Turks and Azeris have
levers to affect this structure.
We said that in the expected scenario the Republicans will follow the
Dashnaks, so that the Dashnaks stop speaking of 30m US dollars that
were stolen in the water system. Certainly, they were surprised if
they may be so much simple to try to suspect that the Council of
Europe is not an independent body. But as we landed in the airport and
saw that our predictions have become reality, we immediately informed
PACE that the scenario mentioned by us, has acted,” Gegamyan said. As
for Prime Minister Andranik Markaryan’s statement made last week that
the Turks, Azeris and Armenian opposition members must be praised for
discussion of Armenia’s issue in PACE, Shavarsh Kocharyan informed
that neither Turks nor Azeris participated in voting on adopting the
resolution as well as a discussion on Armenia. “They were not in the
hall. That is, our European counterparts told us that the delegations
of those two countries made a political decision not to participate in
any discussion concerning Armenia,” Shavarsh Kocharyan said.
Deputy Chairman of the National Assembly Tigran Torosyan also invited
a press conference during the second part of the day. The latter
specially stressed that it is funny that some people take some
fragments from the document and comment on them as they like. “The
people are trying to appropriate nonsense victories or defeats to
themselves or their opposites. This is not a place for winning or
losing, this is not sport. This is a document which suggests
decisions,” the head of our delegation said. And as Foreign Minister
Vardan Oskanyan selected some fragments from the resolution adopted by
PACE and quoting them said about defeat of the opposition, we tried to
clarify from Tigran Torosyan if such efforts of Vardan Oskanyan were
also funny. Certainly, the latter tried to give a diplomatic shape to
Oskanyan’s announcements, but he was not successful.
So, unlike some our officials, Tigran Torosyan confessed that the
resolution adopted by PACE is a half step back from the PACE
resolution on Armenia adopted in January. “Positions of Armenia after
the January resolution were very much favourable. Today the point on
stopping the authorities took us a half step back. Certainly, it is
not desirable for our country to get such kind of decision, but it is
not late to correct everything and return our positions to the January
state,” Tigran Torosyan said.

OFFICIAL URGES ARMENIA TO VACATE LANDS TO BECOME AZERBAIJAN’S FRIEND
ANS TV, Baku
4 May 04
(Presenter) Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov has made a
statement. He said that Armenia would benefit from cooperation and
peace with Azerbaijan.
(Araz Azimov, speaking to microphone) Armenia must understand that for
Azerbaijan to become its friend and close neighbour it must leave
Azerbaijan’s (occupied) lands and establish cooperation. Azerbaijan
will gain more than it loses through such cooperation. I think that
Armenia is the main loser today. As time goes by, the situation does
not develop in accordance with their interests.
This is our position. As for the use of levers of power, we are not
saying it’s our condition but if all resources are used up and the
issue is not resolved, we will be obliged to act (as heard).

Amnesty International
AI Index: EUR 55/001/2004 (Public)
News Service No: 113
4 May 2004
Azerbaijan: Political opposition leaders must receive fair trial
Amnesty International today called on the Azerbaijani authorities to
ensure that seven leading members of the political opposition in
Azerbaijan receive a fair trial in line with international standards.
Rauf Arifoglu, a deputy chairman of the Musavat (Equality) party and
editor-in-chief of the Yeni Musavat opposition newspaper, Arif Hajili
and Ibrahim Ibrahimli, also deputy chairmen of Musavat, Panah
Huseynov, chairman of the Khalq (People) party, Etimad Asadov,
chairman of the Karabakh’s Invalids Association, Sardar Jalologlu,
the executive secretary of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party and Igbal
Agazade, the chairman of the Umid (Hope) party are due to go on trial
at the Court for Grave Crimes in Baku later this week for their
alleged participation in violent clashes between opposition
supporters and law enforcement officers in the wake of the
presidential elections in October 2003. All seven political opponents
are reportedly accused of having masterminded the post-election
violence and are charged with organizing mass disturbances (Article
220 part one of the Azerbaijani Criminal Code) and endangering the
life or health of representatives of the authorities by means of
force (Article 315 part two) – charges which they have consistently
denied since their pre-trial arrests in October 2003.
Amnesty International is concerned about allegations that, after they
were reportedly arbitrarily detained, some of the seven opposition
politicians were tortured by members of the Ministry of Internal
Affair’s (MVD) Organized Crime Unit (OCU) to force them to confess to
having organized or participated in the post-election violence and to
denounce the opposition electoral bloc Bizim Azerbaijan (Our
Azerbaijan) and its presidential candidate, Isa Gambar, the chairman
of Musavat and runner-up in the election, who had been placed under
house arrest.
For example, on 17 October masked OCU officers detained Iqbal
Agazadeh at his home, after a special session of parliament had
stripped him of his parliamentary immunity earlier that day. On the
way to the OCU offices he was allegedly repeatedly punched in the
face with a steel-reinforced glove. At the OCU he was reportedly
severely beaten and tortured during three days in order to force him
to denounce Isa Gambar in a television interview on 20 October, after
which he was allowed access to his lawyer. His lawyer told the
international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch that
Iqbal Agazadeh’s body was covered in bruises and that he had been hit
some 50 times on one leg.
Others were reportedly detained in cruel, inhuman and degrading
conditions. Rauf Arifoglu told members of the international press
freedom organization Reporters without Borders, who visited him in
pre-trial detention in Bailov prison in Baku, that he had been held
in solitary confinement for 32 days and forced to sleep on the floor
of an unheated cell for 18 days. He went on hunger strike in December
2003 and again in February 2004 together with dozens of opposition
detainees to protest their arrests, which they believe were
politically-motivated.
“Such ill-treatment and torture are against basic human rights
principles endorsed by Azerbaijan when it signed and ratified the
European Convention on Human Rights and if substantiated cast serious
doubts on Azerbaijan’s commitment to the respect of human rights and
the rule of law,” the organization said.
Amnesty International is further concerned about reports from earlier
trials of opposition activists, accused of having taken part in the
post-election violence, that evidence based on confessions extracted
under torture was admitted in court. The organization reminds the
Azerbaijani authorities of their obligations under international fair
trial standards not to admit such evidence in court and to promptly
and impartially investigate all allegations of torture and
ill-treatment and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Background
In August 2003 President Heydar Aliyev appointed his son, Ilham
Aliyev, as Prime Minister. Two weeks before presidential elections on
15 October, he resigned as President and withdrew his candidacy in
favour of his son who went on to win the elections by a large margin,
as the sole candidate, for the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan (New
Azerbaijan) party. The elections were marred by widespread voting
irregularities, including ballot box stuffing, multiple voting and
intimidation of voters and election observers. Scores of election
officials who refused to sign flawed election protocols during the
vote count were reportedly threatened and detained. Violent clashes
between opposition activists protesting election irregularities and
officers from the police and MVD special forces in the centre of the
capital Baku on 16 October left hundreds of protestors and dozens of
police officers injured, many seriously, and claimed at least one
death. Over 50 independent and opposition journalists covering the
demonstration were reportedly severely beaten by police and several
were detained along with scores of protestors and bystanders. There
were credible reports that large numbers of opposition activists or
supporters and members of their families were intimidated and
dismissed from their jobs following the election because of their
political affiliation.
Hundreds of opposition activists, officials and supporters – mainly,
but not exclusively, of the Musavat party – were detained throughout
the country reportedly for “instigating, organizing or participating
in violent activities”. Most were sentenced to short-term
administrative detention but more than a hundred were remanded in
custody. To date 118 opposition activists have been tried in separate
court cases for their alleged participation in the post-election
violence. Thirty three men received prison sentences of between three
and six years while the rest received suspended sentences. Among
those who received a conditional sentence was human rights activist
and imam of the independent Juma mosque, Ilgar Ibrahimoglu. He was
released on 2 April.

Eurasianet Organization
may 4 2004
POLITICAL ATTACKS ON BAKU MAYOR PROMPT SPECULATION ABOUT POWER
STRUGGLE IN AZERBAIJAN
5/04/04
Political analysts in Baku, culling clues from state-run media,
suggest jockeying within the ruling New Azerbaijan Party’s hierarchy
may be intensifying. Recent media attacks on Baku Mayor Hajibala
Abutalibov have fueled speculation about a potential rift within
President Ilham Aliyev’s power base.
Abutalibov has long been the target of criticism by opposition
outlets, including the Yeni Musavat newspaper. But when the official
parliamentary newspaper, Azerbaijan, published an article criticizing
the Baku mayor for letting the city’s construction boom spin out of
control, it caused a minor sensation in the Azerbaijan capital.
Shortly after publication of the Azerbaijan article, several
state-run broadcast media outlets aired features that were critical
of Abutalibov’s performance.
During a subsequent parliamentary debate, ruling party MPs both
defended and chastised Abutalibov. Some pro-government deputies
called on their colleagues, as well as state-run media, not to air
differences in public. “I believe YAP [the ruling New Azerbaijan
Party] has done a lot for Azerbaijan and the official newspaper of
the parliament should refrain from these kinds of accusations and
slanders,” said Musa Musayev, a YAP deputy.
In addition to the Baku mayor, state-run media has criticized the
Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. The newspaper
Azerbaijan said Aliyev has received thousands of complaints about the
performance of both ministries. This revelation prompted some
political observers to suspect that presidential Chief-of-Staff Ramiz
Mehtiyev may be orchestrating a media campaign to discredit his
rivals for influence within the ruling party.
Minister of Education Misir Mardanov’s response to the criticism
appeared to lend credence to the notion that Mehtiyev was somehow
involved in the attacks. “I know which forces are behind these
articles and I advise them to refrain from them,” Mardanov told Lider
TV. Mardanov and Ali Insanov, the Minister of Health, are widely
viewed as political rivals of Mehtiyev.
The New Azerbaijan Party (YAP) has long been known for its internal
rivalries among various factions, political analysts in Baku say.
Some of the factions comprise politicians from the same region, such
as the Nakhichevan exclave. Other groups inside the YAP are formed
around common economic interests. Former president Heidar Aliyev was
widely recognized as a master politician, capable of maintaining a
delicate balance among factions. Aliyev’s son Ilham, who became
president in 2003, is widely viewed as not having anywhere near the
same level of political acumen as his deceased father. Thus, many
political observers predicted that Ilham might find it difficult to
keep the ambitions of his top lieutenants in check. [For additional
information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
The YAP appeared to come together in order to ensure a dynastic
succession in Azerbaijan, formalized during the country’s
controversial presidential election last October. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive]. Now that the father-to-son transition
seems secure, the factions within the YAP may be focusing their
energy on securing a greater degree of influence within the younger
Aliyev’s administration, some analysts suggest.
Abutalibov makes for a relatively easy political target, given the
considerable criticism over the chaotic nature of Baku’s growth in
recent years. The construction of office buildings and other edifices
has not been well regulated, critics contend, leading to a drastic
reduction of green space in the capital. The mayor has also been
assailed for pursuing overzealous urban renewal policies that have
led to the destruction of kiosks that were a primary source of income
for Azerbaijanis displaced by the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In
addition, many Baku residents complain about the poor quality of the
city’s roads.
Aliyev has not issued any public comment on the Azerbaijan newspaper
criticism of the Baku mayor. However, the president is on record as
having earlier instructed Abutalibov to make sure that urban
development proceeds “according to the general plan of the city.”
Observers do not believe that the recent signs of maneuvering within
the YAP threaten its ability to govern. However, some analysts say
the president will have to start paying more attention to internal
YAP politics in order to prevent the intra-party rivalries from
becoming a problem down the road.

Two Loudouners involved in Fairfax fatal crash
By Emily Tjelmeland
04/30/2004
Two Loudoun residents were involved in a crash April 29, and one has
since died, according to Fairfax Police.
Sterling resident Haik Vartanian, 53, was crossing Leesburg Pike at
Old Gallows Road and had just entered the second traffic lane when he
hesitated. Vartanian, who was not in the crosswalk, was in the path
of a 2000 Nissan sedan, which struck him. The vehicle was driven by
Courtenay Byron Hicks, a 34-year-old Potomac Falls resident.
Vartanian was transported via a Fairfax Police helicopter to Inova
Fairfax Hospital in critical condition, and succumbed to his injuries
the next day. Hicks, who was not injured, has not been charged in the
incident.
According to investigators, speed and/or alcohol were not factors in
the crash.
©Times Community Newspapers 2004

Poynter.org, FL
April 27 2004
Journalists Who Lie, Journalists Who Die
A veteran journalist assesses the international trend of journalists
targeted for their truth-telling against a backdrop of recent fraud
in American newsrooms.

By Betty Medsger (more by author)

I wonder if Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley and Stephen Glass, the best
known of American journalism’s recently discovered practitioners of
fraud, know about Manik Saha, Sajid Tanoli and Ruel Endrinal. While
the U.S. trio wrote stories composed of lies, the other three
journalists were among the many journalists in other countries who
paid the ultimate price for revealing the truth.
Manik Saha, a veteran journalist in Bangladesh for the daily New Age
and BBC’s Bengali-language service, died January 15 when a bomb was
hurled at his rickshaw and decapitated him. He was well known in his
home country for bold reporting on criminal gangs, drug traffickers,
and Maoist insurgents.
Sajid Tanoli, a reporter with the Urdu-language daily Shumal in
Pakistan, was shot and killed in Pakistan January 29 by a local
government official who was enraged about an article Tanoli had
written a few days earlier about an allegedly illegal liquor business
run by the official.
…most journalists who were killed were hunted down and murdered,
often in direct reprisal for their reporting.
Ruel Endrinal was killed February 11 by two unidentified gunmen. They
shot him in the foot and then continued shooting him in the head and
body until he fell dead. His death is believed by investigators to be
the price he paid for speaking out against local politicians and
criminal gangs on a political commentary program he hosted on a
broadcast outlet in Legazpi City in the eastern Philippines.
It is a striking aspect of the changing international journalism
landscape that American journalism, however fine much of it is,
currently is best known for the fraud some journalists have committed
as journalists, sinking their own careers and damaging the reputation
of the profession by reporting stories that were lies in full or in
part. Blair, Kelley, and Glass have become household names, symbols
of a corruption and malaise that many in and out of journalism fear
may be far more widespread than we now know. In recent weeks I’ve
heard several very worried editors, most of them people who have
judged major journalism competitions, wonder how many more are hiding
in their newsrooms.
The slashes to journalism’s reputation have occurred with painful
frequency since 1998. They have ranged from a lack of editorial
involvement at CNN, Time Magazine, the San Jose Mercury and the
Cincinnati Enquirer that led to publication and broadcast of major
accusations the truth of which is still unknown. In some cases,
journalists were condemned because of accusations of criminal
activity in the gathering of information (the Enquirer) and in other
instances because of insufficient evidence for powerful claims. Since
dozens of journalists have been forced out of the profession for
fabricating and distorting.
Meanwhile, Saha, Tamoli, and Endrinal and many others were killed.
According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ), an international organization that defends the right of
journalists to report the news without fear of reprisal, their plight
represents a tragic trend: the literal killing of the messenger by
people who don’t want truth revealed. Every week there are new
reports on the CPJ website of deaths of journalists or threats to
journalists and news organizations for trying to reveal the truth.
Some current ones:
· April 11: Four Armenian journalists were seriously beaten in
Yerevan simply for covering an opposition rally.
· April 13: Early morning arson destroyed the building that housed
the printing presses of the biweekly The Independent in Banjul in
Gambia. Six armed men stormed the building, fired guns, then doused
printing equipment with gasoline and set it on fire. When journalists
arrived at the scene, the armed arsonists tried to lock them inside
the burning building.
· April 12: Three Czech journalists and a Japanese journalist were
abducted in Iraq. Their captors threatened to burn the Japanese
journalist alive, along with two Japanese aid workers, if Japan did
not recall its troops from Iraq.
· April 9: Cheng Yizhong, editor-in-chief of Nanfang Dushi Bao, a
weekly newspaper in the Guangdoing Province in China, was arrested on
suspicion of corruption. His home was searched and publications about
Chinese politics were confiscated. As people in the region have come
to depend on the newspaper for investigative reporting about issues
important to them, such as the beating death of a student last year
while in police custody, the government took steps against the
editors.
These and other recent actions against journalists in other countries
contrast sharply with the breaking in the U.S. of the de facto
promise journalists have with the public to provide truthful accounts
of events.
There is a strong impression among many that journalists are killed
primarily in the crossfire of wars and street violence. Research by
CPJ found instead most journalists who were killed were hunted down
and killed, often in direct reprisal for their reporting. Of the 346
journalists killed in the last 10 years for carrying out their work,
only 55 journalists, 17 percent of the total killed, died in
crossfire, while 263, 76 percent, were killed in reprisal for their
reporting. The others were killed in other violent situations, such
as violent street demonstrations.
In its investigations of slayings of journalists in the last decade,
CPJ, a New York-based organization that tracks attacks against
journalists and defends press freedoms, found only 25 cases in which
the person or persons who ordered or carried out a journalist’s
killing have been arrested and prosecuted. That means that in more
than 90 percent of the cases, those who killed journalists did so
with impunity. The motive usually was to prevent journalists from
reporting on corruption or human rights abuses, or to punish them
after they have done so. Of the 263 who were murdered, 53 were
threatened before they were killed. In 20 cases, journalists were
kidnapped and subsequently killed. While the kidnap and murder of
Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 is well known,
there have been several cases, most notably in Algeria and Turkey,
where journalists have disappeared and never been seen again after
being taken into custody either by government or opposition forces.
More than 30 journalists were killed during the last decade in
Russia, 19 of them targeted, often by the mafia, in retaliation for
their stories, according to CPJ. In Chechnya, 11 were killed in
crossfire or by mines, but at least four were killed there for their
reporting on the war, usually for investigating human rights abuses
by the Russian military. In Rwanda 16 journalists were killed in the
last decade, 14 of them massacred by Rwandan Armed Forces and Hutu
militias in April 1994.
…in more than 90 percent of the cases, those who killed journalists
did so with impunity.Like their fallen and imprisoned colleagues
abroad, most American journalists produce honest work that they hope
will help citizens be informed and active participants in democracy.
They realize that the use of false information destroys trust, the
most essential ingredient in the bond between journalists and the
public, and they are rigorous in their efforts to be accurate.
In addition to being tainted by the actions of journalists who have
lied, American journalists have been criticized in the past year for
being timid in their coverage before the war against Iraq. Some
critics say journalists should have displayed more skepticism and
independence in their coverage of the Bush Administration’s case for
going to war, including the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction. Given what we now know could have been known before the
war started, that criticism carries serious implications for the
potential power of missing information in a democracy.
Some foreign journalists are startled when they look at the
malfeasance that has been occurring here since 1998.
Peruvian journalist Gustavo Gorriti, who has endured severe
persecution for his reporting, wrote eloquently in 1998 of the
influence of American journalists in inspiring some of the most
important investigative reporting in Latin America in the last two
decades. There, in national cultures in which journalists often had a
reputation for corruption, the ones who boldly revealed official
corruption gained the confidence and respect of the public. In
numerous instances, governments have been forced to change, indeed,
have forced out, because of stories that revealed corruption.
“…..The influence of American journalism was decisive,” wrote
Gorriti. “Its principles of thoroughness, fact-checking, editing, the
effective separation between editors and publishers – all this
influenced us profoundly.
“Given these standards, we can scarcely fathom the recent
journalistic wreckage in the United States. How did competence and
integrity dissipate in so many American newsrooms?”
We need to search for the answers to his question. We also need to
ask how the trust can be rebuilt – among journalists and between
journalists and the public. Since public relations has come to
dominate many public and private institutions, people have felt that
it was very difficult, if not impossible, to separate fact from spin
in news stories. In the present season of malfeasance, many readers
feel they are being asked to separate fact from fiction. What a
mockery of the trust essential between journalists and the public,
and what a mockery of the courage displayed daily by journalists
everywhere who risk their lives in order to deliver truthful
information to the public.
There probably are numerous personal and institutional factors that
have contributed to the individual acts of dishonesty that are now
being revealed. Surely one of them is me-ism, an overwhelming
preoccupation with the promotion and success of the self. For that
reason, I think it is unlikely that Blair, Kelley and Glass could
understand the idealism that shaped the courage of Saha, Tanoli and
Endrinal.
Betty Medsger, a former Washington Post reporter, was the founder of
the Center for the Integration and Improvement of Journalism at San
Francisco State University. She currently is a writer and journalism
education consultant based in New York. ([email protected])

Calcutta Telegraph, India
April 27 2004
Surya Sekhar loses to 13-year-old Norwegian
Dubai: Grandmaster Krishnan Sasikiran slipped to joint second place
yet again after drawing with GM Artashes Minasian of Armenia in the
seventh round of Dubai international chess championship on Monday.
GM Pavel Eljanov of the Ukraine shot into sole lead following a
hard-fought victory over GM Alexei Federov of Belarus.
Surya Sekhar Ganguly lost to 13-year-old Magnus Carlsen of Norway. IM
D.V. Prasad also ended up on the losing side against Goran Dizdar of
Croatia. Eljanov, on six points, is closely followed by top seeded
Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu of Romania, Shakhriyaz Mamedyarov of
Azerbaijan, Moldova’s Viorel Iordachescu, Alexander Goloshchapov of
Ukraine, Carlsen, Minasian, Sasikiran and P. Harikrishna. They have
5.5 points each.
With just two rounds remaining, a pack of eight players share the
third spot with five points apiece.
The Indian IM norm aspirants suffered a setback in their quest as
Parimarjan Negi and Manthan Chokshi went down fighting against
Russian GM Alexey Kuzmin and Armenian GM Karen Asrian, respectively.
P. Harikrishna was in his elements in beating GM Zahar Efimenko of
Ukraine from the white side of a King’s Indian defence.
In the late middle game, the Ukrainian fell prey to a well-disguised
pawn sacrifice by the Indian and found himself a pawn less. Not
giving any chances thereafter, Harikrishna traded queens at the
opportune juncture and romped home in 47 moves. Sasikiran maintained
a minuscule advantage for the major part of the game against Minasian
but could not really convert that with his white pieces as his
opponent posted stiff resistance.
The middle game arising from a Torre attack was on expected lines and
pieces got exchanged at regular intervals leaving Sasikiran with a
better-placed knight against bishop. However as it turned out in the
end, black had just about sufficient replies to maintain the balance.
The draw was agreed to in 49 moves.
The big winner of the day was Carlsen who looks set to become the
youngest GM after his spectacular victory over Surya Sekhar who
played the black side of a Trompowski opening.
Women GM Aarthie Ramaswamy lost to Shanava Konstantine while her
husband GM R.B. Ramesh was held to a draw by Nadera Barlo.
The other Indians in the fray had good results with Abhijeet Gupta,
IMs Deepan Chakravarthy and Rahul Shetty scoring over A.R. Saleh
Jasiom, Asylguzhin Radik and Janahi Zeyaad, respectively.

The Globe and Mail, Canada
April 27 2004
Unhealed wounds undercut an experiment in democracy
By JEFFREY SIMPSON

Prime Minister Paul Martin was not amused, and said so to his cabinet
last Thursday morning.
The day before, he and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham had urged
the Liberal caucus not to support a Bloc Québécois MP’s motion
“acknowledging the Armenian genocide of 1915” – a tragedy that was
further described as a “crime against humanity.”
Mr. Martin had made the vote a “two-line whip,” which under the new
government procedures meant that ministers had to vote together but
backbenchers were free to vote as they saw fit. This “two-line whip”
was part of the Prime Minister’s new attempt to reform the
“democratic deficit” in Parliament.
The new strategy boomeranged. It was embarrassing enough that 78
Liberal MPs supported the opposition motion against the Prime
Minister’s wishes. At least that’s the new game. But for cabinet
ministers to fail to vote as one mocked the whole point of the
“two-line whip” system.
Ministers such as Stephen Owen and Rey Pagtakhan sat in their seats.
Other stayed away. (That the Prime Minister himself skipped the vote
irritated some cabinet ministers.
Thursday morning, Mr. Martin laid down the law. Being a minister is a
privilege, he told ministers. You play by the rules. When there’s a
“two-line whip,” you vote as government ministers, not solo flyers.
Across the aisle, the Conservatives voted as a bloc for the motion,
as did the other opposition parties. That’s the kind of behaviour
that will sink this parliamentary reform.
If the government allows its backbenchers to vote freely, but sees
the opposition voting as a bloc, these kind of votes won’t last long.
The opposition parties, in other words, are as responsible as the
government for seeing that this parliamentary reform works. So far,
they are flunking the test in their eagerness to show up the
government.
The Conservatives, blinded by their own short-sightedness and led by
their foreign affairs spokesperson, Stockwell Day, will now find
themselves caught if they ever form the government. Having voted for
this motion in opposition, the Conservatives will be badgered in
government by the Armenian lobby to make this resolution government
policy, thereby aligning Canada with only France and Switzerland.
The operative principle in a highly multicultural country should be
to remain wary of allowing strongly held ethnic grievances to
influence foreign policy, whether it’s the Armenian-Turkish dispute
over the violence of 1915 or any number of other disputes.
That principle has wide applicability in a country such as Canada.
Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Jews and Palestinians
(and other Arabs), Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Greeks and Turks,
Pakistanis and Indians, Serbs and Croats, Tamils and Sinhalese are
among the rivalries, rife with bitter historical memories, that can
be played out on Canadian soil. The principle has nothing to do with
business contracts at peril.
Canada has never been completely immune from these imported pressures
ever since the Fenian raids just before Confederation. When a country
has been settled, and continues to be settled, by those from many
lands, it is understandable that at least some ancient disputes will
be brought to Canadian shores.
People have their own historical memories of what happened to their
ancestors, and perhaps even to themselves. They will want sometimes
to carry on those feuds in their adopted country, or at least to have
their particular and deeply-felt interpretation of past and current
events legitimized by the Canadian government. The question is what
their adopted country will and should do about these efforts.
By and large, Canadian governments have tried not to allow these
memories, and the ethnic lobby groups that form around them, to
influence unduly contemporary policy.
Canada has tried to develop a reputation as an honest broker, so that
Canadians troops can be used in divisive situations (Cyprus, the
Middle East) or that individual Canadians can play healing roles
(Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Rwanda) without their country being
tainted by preferring one version of historical memory over another
and succumbing to domestic lobbying by one particular group.
Does that mean Canada should be insensitive to contemporary disputes
that lead to gross violations of human rights? Of course not: Proof
is Canada’s strong support for the International Criminal Court, now
headed by a Canadian.
A multicultural country like Canada has to be careful about allowing
ancient grievances to be played out such that they push foreign
policy in a particular direction. Once that starts to happen in a
country like this, it won’t end.