Month: June 2005

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
June 14, 2005, Tuesday
WAS THE PERSON CHARGED OF ESPIONAGE IN FAVOR OF AZERBAIJAN PREPARING
A TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST ROBERT KOCHARYAN?
The trial on the case of Armenian citizen Andrei Maziyev, charged
of parricide, assistance in preparations of a terrorist attack and
assassination of the president, began in the Yerevan Court on June 9.
Andrei Maziyev, 44, a Russian by nationality, was born in Tuapse. He
worked as an engineer at the Zvartnots airport; he’s married and has
two children. Twice (in 1994 and 1999) convicted for hooliganism.
Under verdict, in October 1999, Maziyev was to Azerbaijan on
business, where he was enlisted by the Azerbaijani special services.
Until January 4, 2005 he received missions from the special services
and accomplished them. Overall, Maziyev met with members of the
Azerbaijani special services 17 times and received some $2,500 for
his services. He was sending Armenian newspapers issued in Russia to
Azerbaijan, gathered information on the domestic situation in Armenia,
the defense industries and the situation in the army, economic data,
as well as intelligence concerning Karabakh.
The Azerbaijani special services were particularly concerned with
the process of Armenian President Robert Kocharyan’s arrival at the
airport and his departure, how the president’s plane is guarded,
routes of the president’s escort around the airport. In autumn 2000
Maziyev took photos of the president’s plane landing, the helicopters
defending the airport from the air, the president coming down the
boarding bridge and his escort passing by the building where Maziyev
resides. He also took photos of the president’s plane and the airport
terminal. The photos were handed over to the Azerbaijani special
services; positions of snipers were marked. At the trial Maziyev has
fully recognized the charges brought against him. (…)

Easing Dialogue Via the OSCE
By Andrej Benedejcic
The Moscow Times, Russia
June 15 2005
It was June 2001, only a few days before the planned first meeting of
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, and the U.S.-Russia
summit in Slovenia seemed in jeopardy. The advance teams of both
presidents could not agree on how to divide up the rooms in the Brdo
Castle, the favorite mansion of the late Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia.
The protocol deadlock was only broken when the Slovenian side
suggested a solution worthy of Solomon: The east wing of the castle
went to the Russians, the west wing to the Americans and the south
wing to the Slovenians. The summit took place.
The meeting in Slovenia was marked by bright and sunny weather, which
was also reflected in the talks of both presidents. This positive
spirit was most clearly expressed by Bush, who is still remembered
for saying that he looked Putin in the eye and found him
straightforward and trustworthy. Summit participants came away with
the impression that they had witnessed the dawning of a new period in
East-West relations, characterized by mutual trust and candor.
The events of the past four years, however, have shown that the logic
of presidential advance teams in dividing up the Brdo Castle remains
sound. The dialogue between Moscow and Washington, for one, has had
its share of vicissitudes, reflected most clearly in the changing
fortunes of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
chaired this year by Slovenia.
The OSCE, with a membership of 55 participating states, is the
largest regional security organization and extends from Canada’s west
coast to the Russian Far East. The discussions and events that take
place in this forum thus reflect the many processes that take place
in the Euro-Atlantic space. As outgoing OSCE Secretary General Jan
Kubis recently noted: “What is going on in the OSCE is therefore
worth watching, because it is a barometer of the political atmosphere
in Europe today.”
Judging from the current situation in the OSCE, the state of affairs
in the area between Vancouver and Vladivostok at the moment is not at
all reassuring. The statements at the regular ambassadorial meetings
of the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna sometimes even hark back to
the bygone days of the Cold War. There is talk of countries belonging
to different “blocs,” and the general level of distrust is palpable.
The situation is unfortunate not only because the OSCE member states
should be concentrating on celebrating a number of important
anniversaries this year — including the 30th anniversary of the
signing of the seminal Helsinki Final Act — but also because the
organization as such still holds great promise. Part of this is due
to its innate openness and historically induced flexibility. For
example, while the Collective Security Treaty Organization — which
unites Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and
Tajikistan — still regrets the European Union and NATO’s lack of
responsiveness to dialogue, it cannot say the same about its
relationship with the OSCE. The secretary generals of both
organizations met in February 2004 here in Moscow. The CSTO secretary
general, Nikolai Bordyuzha, was also invited to and took part in the
OSCE’s 2nd Annual Security Review Conference in June 2004.
The current impasse in the OSCE is primarily due to the
dissatisfaction of countries “East of Vienna” with its work. This
discontent was most clearly expressed last July, when the presidents
of nine countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States signed
the Moscow Declaration. Then, in September, foreign ministers from
eight CIS countries adopted the Astana Address, which made concrete
proposals for changing the OSCE’s work. Finally, last December the
OSCE was shaken by a financial crisis on account of certain
reservations from the Russian side regarding its new budget.
The OSCE’s current predicament is regrettable. It is the only
regional security organization with established and comprehensive
field presence in Central Asia, as well as in some of the most
problematic areas of the European continent, including Transdnestr,
Nagorny Karabakh and South Ossetia. It is also the only regional
organization that takes the holistic approach to security for
granted, as evidenced by the political, military, economic,
environmental and humanitarian dimensions of its activities.
Finally, the OSCE has taken the calls for its reform seriously. In
fact, one of the first measures taken by the OSCE’s new chairman,
Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, was to establish the Panel
of Eminent Persons, which is required to come up with concrete
proposals to improve the organization’s work by the end of this
month. The panel includes a Russian representative.
At a time of dissonance in the dialogue between East and West and
their security institutions, the OSCE is a natural forum for
discussion of different points of view. After all, the organization
was originally created precisely for this purpose. In its current
chairmanship role, Slovenia will endeavor to ensure the continued
viability of the OSCE, including through discussions regarding how it
can function more effectively.
This will allow the organization to continue its important activities
and concentrate on new tasks and projects, such as the upcoming
seminar on military doctrines and the energy security conference.
This will also allow the trusting and candid spirit of Brdo to live
on.
Andrej Benedejcic is the Slovenian ambassador to Russia. As an
adviser to the prime minister, he was a member of the Slovenian
organizational committee for the Bush-Putin summit of June 16, 2001.
He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

Interfax
June 14 2005
Removal of assets from Georgia to Armenia poses no threat, says
Russian general
Jun 14, 2005, 22:56 GMT
Moscow, 14 June: The withdrawal of some hardware from Russian military
bases in Georgia to Armenia should not arouse concern in Azerbaijan,
the chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Army Gen
Yuriy Baluyevskiy, has told journalists at a briefing at the Russian
Defence Ministry.
“I have already said that, given the tight schedule for the closure
of Russian military bases in Georgia (by the end of 2008 – Interfax
note), some hardware may have to be redeployed in Armenia, at the
102nd base in Gyumri,” Baluyevskiy said.
He stressed that “this hardware will not change the balance of forces
in the region under the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and it
does not pose a threat to the countries of this region”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azerbaijan News Service
June 14 2005
PACE TURNS DOWN ARMENIAN REGIME’S APPEAL IN DAQLIQ QARABAQ OF
AZERBAIJAN
2005-06-14 15:08
Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe’s session considered
appeal by the self-proclaimed Armenian regime in Daqliq Qarabaq
territory of Azerbaijan to observe “Parliamentary elections” here on
June 19. As a result of discussion of the appeal PACE bureau pointed
the fact that the so-called Qarabaq Republic has not been recognized
by any country or organization and that the elections contradict
international law principles. Taking into account the aforementioned
PACE turned down appeal by the Armenian regime.

POSTPONEMENT OF HISTORY CONFERENCE SPARKS CONTROVERSY IN TURKEY
Igor Torbakov 6/14/05
EurasiaNet Organization
June 14 2005
Turkey’s bid to join the European Union appears caught in a vicious
cycle. As EU support for Turkish membership falters, the influence
of Euro-skeptics in Ankara is rising. A recent controversy over the
postponement of an academic conference has helped focus attention on
the resurgence of Turkey’s EU detractors.
EU leaders decided to leave the expansion issue off the agenda of
this week’s EU summit in Brussels. The move followed the rejection of
the proposed EU constitution by French and Dutch voters. Some experts
linked the “no” votes to the expansion issue, and EU foreign ministers
admitted that doubt now surrounds Turkey’s accession prospects. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Turkish accession talks
are slated to begin in October.
The growing doubts in Europe concerning expansion seem to have
emboldened opponents EU integration within Turkey’s political
class. These Euro-skeptics have long been suspicious of measures
undertaken by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government to
satisfy EU membership criteria. In late May, just days before the
French referendum on the EU constitution, the anti-EU faction in
Turkey flexed its political muscle, forcing the postponement of an
academic conference that was to examine the complexities of Turkey’s
relationship with neighboring Armenia.
The conference entitled “The Ottoman Armenians during the Era of
Ottoman Decline” was to be sponsored by three leading Istanbul
universities – Bosphorus, Sabanci and Bilgi. On May 24, the day
before the conference was to open, organizers called it off. A joint
statement issued by conference organizers and participants cited an
aggressive campaign of “pressure, threats and slander” as the reason
for the postponement.
Turkish-Armenian relations have long been dominated by the events of
1915-23, when up to 1.5 million Armenian died amid the collapse of
the Ottoman Empire. Armenian officials insist that the slaughter of
Armenians constituted genocide. Turkish officials deny the genocide
claim, saying the mass deaths were mainly caused by civil strife that
accompanied World War I and its aftermath.
Conference organizers, according to a May 17 press release, had sought
to air a variety of views about “what happened before, during and
after 1915.” The intent, they added, was to understand an extremely
complex, controversial and emotionally-charged historical issue that
“during the last years has become trapped and increasingly politicized”
by the official Armenian and Turkish positions.
“The emergence of different, critical and alternative voices …
would be, once again, to the utmost benefit of Turkey,” the press
release stated. “Today, 90 years after the tragic 1915 incidents,
it’s time for Turkey’s people of science and thought to jointly raise
their voices differing from the official thesis.”
It was precisely this aspect of the conference that appeared to
arouse the suspicion of what the Turks call the “deep state” – the
entrenched statist-nationalist establishment comprising conservative
members of Turkey’s state bureaucracy, judiciary and military. Such
an open manifestation of intellectual dissent prompted an immediate
and forceful response from leading representatives of “deep state”
thinking.
Speaking in parliament on May 24, Justice Minister Cemil Cicek angrily
asserted that holding the conference would be tantamount to stabbing
Turkey in the back. He adding grimly; “I wish I had not renounced my
authority to open criminal cases as justice minister.” Cicek went on
to say that at a time when the entire country was campaigning to show
that Armenian genocide allegations were false, the organization of
a forum at which people supporting the Armenian view could air their
opinions constituted a violation of national interests.
Opposition lawmakers from the Republican People’s Party (CHP) were
even more aggressive in their remarks with Sukru Elekdag, a former
Turkish ambassador to the United States, claming the conference’s
aim was to disseminate Armenian propaganda. He accused the potential
academic participants of high treason.
The decision to postpone the conference caused an outcry in Turkey and
dismayed foreign diplomats, who said the move to suppress dissenting
views on sensitive historical issues raised questions about Turkey’s
commitment to academic freedom.
The controversy also proved embarrassing for Erdogan’s government. As
part of an effort to promote a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement,
Erdogan had proposed just two months ago the formation of a joint
Turkish-Armenian commission of historians to examine the complex
relationship between the two peoples. Now, political analysts
say, the ability of the Erdogan’s government to promote a thaw in
bilateral relations has been compromised. [For addition information
see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Erdogan disavowed Cicek’s remarks,
saying that the justice minister spoke in his “personal capacity.”
But such rhetoric was insufficient to repair the damage already done.
“Cicek’s devastating remarks are a disservice to the government’s
recast efforts on the Armenian issue,” one foreign diplomat told the
Turkish Daily News. In addition, the justice minister’s comments could
“kill support for Turkey’s EU bid,” the diplomat added.
Although the Armenian genocide issue is not specifically a subject
of the planned EU-Turkish accession negotiations, Ankara will likely
have to address the matter as it proceeds with its EU membership
bid, if only because Brussels demands that Turkey normalize ties
with Armenia. Currently the two countries don’t have diplomatic
relations and Turkey continues to maintain an economic blockade
against Armenia, insisting that Yerevan withdraw its troops from
the occupied Azerbaijani territory. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive]. Meanwhile, Armenian official are lobbying EU member
states to raise the issue of the 1915-1923 atrocities in its membership
negotiations with Turkey.
The backlash against the conference postponement has been
considerable and has raised hopes among academics about the future
of democratization efforts in Turkey. “What we are witnessing here
is the state of Turkish democracy,” said Halil Berktay, a historian
at Sabanci University who had planned to attend the conference. “The
matter is not finished yet.”
Some 110 academics from Bosphorus University condemned the postponement
and issued a joint statement calling for the conference to be held
as soon as possible. The well-respected Turkish Economic and Social
Studies Foundation (TESEV) also criticized the postponement, saying
in a statement that the “deep state’s” actions and threats were not
compatible with democratic norms. “The public should know that TESEV,
in this process, would be on the side of our universities and academic
freedom,” the think-tank’s statement said.
In addition, Turkish media reported that two local NGOs – the
Izmir Contemporary Attorneys’ Association and the Izmir Human Rights
Association – filed charges with the Supreme Court of Appeals against
Justice Minister Cicek, claiming he had violated several articles of
the Turkish Constitution.
Political analysts caution that academics and NGO activists face
long odds in their struggle to open up the “deep state.” The Turkish
military, which continues to wield enormous influence over political
developments, appears opposed to a public discussion of sensitive
historical issues. In recent public comments, a top military commander,
Gen. Hursit Tolon, was dismissive of those trying to revise the
established version of events. He said patriotic Turks should pay no
attention to “those who are trying to blacken Turkish history with
baseless and biased information,” the Anatolia news agency reported.
Editor’s Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist and researcher
who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History
from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences. He was Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1988-1997; a Visiting Scholar at
the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
Washington DC, 1995, and a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University,
New York, 2000. He is now based in Istanbul, Turkey.

Fact: Armenians were intentionally deported
By Jos Weitenberg
de Volkskrant (Dutch newspaper)
Forum
June 14, 2005
The article by Justin McCarthy on the Armenian genocide is in need
of a reaction. McCarthy belongs to the few non-Turkish scholars who
deny the existence of the Armenian genocide. His arguments have been
the same for years. He shows no inclination to seriously consider
the refutal of his fellow colleagues.
Two points stand out in his article. Firstly, the proposition that
Armenians and Turks were equal opponents in a situation of war. This
is a false depiction of the case.
The Armenians were victims of intentional deportation. The able-bodied
men were summoned under weapons and killed. The deportations were aimed
at unarmed women and children. The deportations were organized and
systematically aimed at specific communities (Armenians and Syrians)
and ended in the deserts of present Syria. That food was distributed
by the Ottoman army, as the article claims, is refuted by countless
eyewitness reports.
It is true that Armenians incidentally rebelled, that there were
armed nationalistic revolutionaries and that crimes against the
Turkish population were committed. To call this rebellion “war”
is chutzpah. The discussion should at least be kept accurate.
Secondly, it is evident that McCarthy regrets the silence of the
Turkish government on the events and declares this “out of fear
that the Turkish population will seek revenge’. But on who? Since
1915 scarcely any Armenians live in Turkey, evidence in itself of a
successful genocide. The few who dared to return after the war were
indeed still (vengefully?) killed.
That the present Turkish population is unfamiliar with the ethnic
cleansings – of Armenian, Syrians, Greeks and Kurds – that went hand
in hand with the foundation of modern Turkey in the second and third
decades of the twentieth century, is certainly regrettable. Turkey’s
wish to access the EU finally offers an opportunity to come to terms
with these kind of facts.
McCarthy’s article distorts and denies the facts and is not a useful
addition to reconciliation.
Jos Weitenberg
The author is professor of Armenian Studies at Leiden University.

McCarthy is a professional denier
By Ton Zwaan
de Volkskrant (Dutch newspaper)
Forum
June 14, 2005
Even though the term “genocide” was invented later, the Turkish act
in 1915 against the Armenians was most definitely a genocidal process,
says Ton Zwaan.
Under the tendentious title “Term ‘genocide’ for Turkish act
demonstrably incorrect” (Term ‘genocide’ voor Turks handelen
aantoonbaar onjuist), an article by the American historian Justin
McCarthy was published in de Volkskrant (Forum, June 9).
In a groundless, hazy and disorderly argumentation replete with
half-truths and complete untruths, McCarthy attempts to persuade his
readers that an Armenian genocide never transpired in the Ottoman
empire in 1915 and 1916. For the benefit of your readers, I would
like to point out that in serious circles of scholars, a consensus
has existed for quite some time of the main facts.
In the years involved an estimated one million members of the Armenian
minority in the Ottoman Empire became victim of a meticulously planned
and large-scale persecution, deportation and massacre.
This systematic persecution and destruction transpired with the
initiative and under the leadership of the central government at that
time in Istanbul. Even though the term ‘genocide’ did not exist then
(it was only used for the first time in 1944), there can be no doubt
that this involved a genocidal process.
The space here lacks to extensively examine McCarthy’s argumentation,
but contrary to what he claims, there was not a “terrible war between
Turks and Armenians”, nor a “great rebellion” by Armenians. He also
cites the genocide-convention of the UN incompletely and falsely and
confuses the terms “war” and “genocide”.
His claim on the brilliant and brave Turkish author Orhan Pamuk is
undoubtedly libelous and his remarks on the Turkish denial policy and
their reports in American newspapers are silly and wholly unfounded.
Whoever wants to be informed of the true course of events can read
recently published good studies, such as:
Donaid Bloxham: The Great Game of Genocide. Imperialism, Nationalism
and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians (Oxford University
Press, 2005);
Jay Winter (red.): America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915 (Cambridge
University Press, 2003);
H.L. Kieser en D. Schaller (red.): Der Völkermord an den Armeniern
und die Shoah (Chronos, 2003).
For a summary review in Dutch:
‘De vervolging van de Armeniërs in . het Ottomaans-Turkse rijk,
1894-1922’, in: Ton Zwaan, Civilisering en decivilisering (Boom, 2001).
Among bona fide historians McCarthy is known as one of the professional
deniers, subsidized by the Turkish government.
The printing of an article such as that without further comment does
not grace de Volkskrant.
Ton Zwaan is affiliated with the Center for Holocaust and Genocide
Studies of the NIOD and the University of Amsterdam.
PHOTO: Armenian refugees, crowded in boats, looking for rescue on a
French ship before the Syrian coast, October 1915. FOTO CORBIS
–Boundary_(ID_6JpIBqEON/rmzmKsaMDS/A)–

Turkish legislator calls for cultural exchanges with Armenia
AP Worldstream; Jun 14, 2005
A legislator from Turkey’s governing party called Tuesday for
increased cultural exchanges with Armenia after visiting the landlocked
country with which Turkey has no diplomatic relations.
Turhan Comez met with the head of the country’s parliament and students
at Yerevan University during his three-day visit.
Relations between the two countries are tense and visits by legislators
are unusual.
Comez called for more exchanges of legislators, journalists and
students, saying that Turks and Armenians could start repairing
relations by laying common ground.
“The base of this work is dialogue,” Comez said in an interview with
CNN-Turk television. “We’re trying to take positive steps toward
resolving the problems.”
Several informal earlier attempts at dialogue faltered amid disputes
between Turks and Armenians over the massacre of Armenians at the
time of World War I. Armenians say that Ottoman Turks slaughtered
1.5 million Armenians in a planned genocide and have demanded that
Turkey recognize the killings as genocide.
Turkey says the death toll is wildly inflated. Many Turks also fear
that Armenia is pressing for recognition of the killings as genocide
as a step toward making territorial claims against Turkey.
Turkey is under pressure from the European Union to address the
genocide issue as its bid for membership in the EU progresses.
Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 during Christian
Armenia’s six-year war with Muslim Azerbaijan. Armenia says the border
closing is devastating its economy.
In a meeting with an Armenian legislator in Yerevan, Comez said that
he would make a speech in the Turkish parliament to open the border
but only if the legislator addressed his parliament and said that
the events of World War I were not genocide.
Last week, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said that
universal acceptance that the massacres were genocide remains on
Armenia’s foreign policy agenda but that Turkey would not have to
yield on that question before relations could be restored.

CIS air force experts meet in Belarus capital to discuss strategy
Belarusian television, Minsk
14 Jun 05
[Presenter] The use of air forces under the Collective Security Treaty
Organization is being discussed today in Minsk. In the course of a
three-day meeting, military experts from Belarus, Russia, Armenia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will work out a mechanism for
using air forces to rebut military aggression in the Eastern European,
Caucasian and Central Asian regions. The choice of Minsk as a locale
of the meeting is hardly accidental. Military cooperation between
Belarus and Russia is the most efficient and promising in the CIS
and could be used as a model by other member states of the Collective
Security Treaty Organizations.
[Commander of the Belarusian air force and air defence forces Lt-Gen
Aleh Paferaw] The experience of cooperating with Russia will certainly
be used as a basis. Perhaps not as a basis, but we will show what
we have achieved. It is up to each member state to decide whether it
will apply this experience.

Karabakh polls not to be recognized by world community – Azeri speaker
Trend news agency
14 Jun 05
Baku, 14 June: The parliamentary elections in the “Nagornyy Karabakh
republic”, which are due on 19 June, will not be recognized by any
international organization, Trend has quoted Parliament Speaker Murtuz
Alasgarov as saying at a session of the Milli Maclis today.
Separatists asked several international organizations to send their
observers to the “parliamentary elections”, but were refused.
“Their appeal to the Council of Europe to send representatives to
Xankandi [Stepanakert] also remained unanswered because the Council
of Europe does not recognize such a ‘republic’ and is not going
to send its representatives there. This resolute position by such
an authoritative international organization is very important for
Azerbaijan,” Alasgarov said.