Month: October 2006

The Irish Times
October 13, 2006 Friday

Armenian dissident sees a threat to free speech

by Nicholas Birch in Istanbul

Turkey: Hrant Dink knows all about freedom of speech and the lack of
it.

An Armenian Turk who edits the bilingual Istanbul-based weekly Agos,
he is the only person to have been convicted so far under a notorious
law that has been used to bring Nobel prize-winner Orhan Pamuk and
dozens of others to trial.

With a six-month suspended sentence under his belt for "insulting
Turkishness", Dink now faces up to three years’ prison under the same
law for describing the deaths of at least 600,000 Armenians in 1915
as "genocide". Not that that has stopped him criticising the French
parliament’s vote yesterday morning to make denying genocide a
punishable offence.

"If this law passes through the senate, I will go to France and say
that there was no genocide, even if it pains me to say so," he said.
"There is no difference in mentality between the Turkish and French
laws. Let French and Turkish justice compete to see which of them can
judge me faster."

Like other liberals here, Dink sees both pieces of legislation as
flagrant breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, which
argues that freedom of speech can only be limited if national
security, territorial integrity or public safety is under threat.

But his greatest concern is that this slew of legislation and
counter-legislation will stifle the rapidly growing debate in Turkey
on the reality of 1915.

The biggest taboo in a country political analyst Fuat Keyman
describes as "founded on historical amnesia", the Armenian genocide
is the subject of an increasing number of books, exhibitions and
academic conferences. "Beneath the bluster, the Turkish
establishment’s position is crumbling," says Halil Berktay, referring
to the state’s insistence that Armenians were the victims of a civil
war that killed more Muslims.

A historian at Istanbul’s Sabanci University, Berktay was the target
of months of death threats in 2000 when he became the first Turkish
historian publicly to describe 1915 as a genocide.

He doesn’t like using the word, though. "Turks are furious when you
use it, Armenians when you don’t", he said. "What is needed is to
find common ground, but the climate of polarisation makes that near
impossible."

For him, the meddling of any parliament in the matter is "no better
than those Turkish policemen who used to raid tourist hotels at night
to check couples were married."

The author of a powerfully moving 2005 memoir of her grandmother, who
told her late in her life that she was an Armenian who converted to
Islam in 1915, Istanbul lawyer Fethiye Cetin agrees: "These debates
over terminology and statistics are barren,", she says. "They hide
the lives and deaths of individuals and do nothing to encourage
people to listen."

The Herald (Glasgow)
October 13, 2006

Controversial Turkish writer wins;
Nobel Award’s ‘unfortunate’ timing criticised

by PHIL MILLER

COURTING TROUBLE: Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted for
insulting his country. Picture: Tolga Bozoglu/EPA

ATURKISH novelist, who was once prosecuted for insulting his country,
has won the Nobel prize for literature.

Orhan Pamuk, who had been heavily tipped to win literature’s leading
prize, was honoured by the Swedish Academy. It said that in his
"quest for the melancholic soul of his native city [Istanbul] he has
discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures".

However, the award was criticised for being a "political" rather than
a cultural decision, especially as it came on the day that France’s
parliament approved a Bill making it a crime to deny Armenians
suffered genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.

The European Union said the French parliament’s approval of the Bill
could harm efforts to end decades of dispute over the killings.

Ankara said the French lower house vote was a severe blow to
French-Turkish ties and its Economics Minister Ali Babacan, the man
leading EU entry talks with Brussels, said he could not rule out
consequences for French firms.

A European Commission spokeswoman noted the Bill still needed upper
house approval and said EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn had
often warned it would damage efforts in Turkey and Armenia to resolve
the dispute.

Pamuk, 54, was prosecuted inIstanbul for "insulting Turkishness"
after he told a Swiss newspaper Turkey was unwilling to deal with two
of the most divisive episodes in its recent history: the massacre of
Armenians during the First World War and guerrilla fighting in
Turkey’s Kurdish south-east.

The charges against the writer were dropped only in January, ending a
trial that outraged some Western observers and cast doubt on Turkey’s
commitment to free speech.

"Thirty-thousand Kurds and one million Armenians were killed in these
lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it, " Pamuk said in the
interview.

Horace Engdahl, head of the Swedish Academy, yesterday maintained
that Pamuk’s political position had not affected the Nobel decision.

"It could of course lead to some political turbulence but we are not
interested in that, Mr Engdahl said. "He is a controversial person in
his own country, but on the other hand so are almost all of our prize
winners."

Atilla Koc, culture minister of Turkey, said he was delighted by the
news. However, Pinar Kur, a leading Turkish novelist, said: "It is
known, in Turkey and abroad, that this prize is much more related to
politics than to literature. It is very unfortunate that this prize
announcement was made on the same day as the [Armenian genocide] Bill
in France."

Suat Kiniklioglu, director of the German Marshall Fund’s new office
in Ankara, said of Pamuk: "I believe his comments on the Armenian
genocide have been influential in winning this prize. Many Turks will
see it in this way too and will not be cheering.

"I do not believe he was chosen purely on the basis of his artistic
capacity."

Mr Engdahl said Pamuk was selected because he had "enlarged the roots
of the contemporary novel" through his links to both Western and
Eastern culture.

"This means he has stolen the novel from us Westerners and has
transformed it to something different from what we have ever seen
before."

Pamuk’s prize is the first for a writer from a mainly Muslim country
since 1988 when the Nobel went to Naguib Mahfouz, of Egypt.

In its citation, the academy said Pamuk’s international breakthrough
came with his third novel, The White Castle, a historical novel set
in 17thcentury Istanbul. Mr Engdahl added: "He has a flowing
imagination and impressive ingenuity."

Pamuk will receive a 10m kronor (GBP1.1m) cheque, a gold medal and
diploma.

Financial Times (London, England)
October 13, 2006 Friday
London Edition 2

Award for Turkish writer strikes a blow for freedom of speech

By QUENTIN PEEL

The award of the Nobel Prize for literature to Orhan Pamuk, the
Turkish novelist, is a very good thing for freedom of speech and a
great achievement for Turkey.

It comes at a moment when freedom of speech is under serious attack
around the world: from the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, the
campaigning Russian journalist, in Moscow on Sunday, to the vote in
the French national assembly yesterday seeking to make it a crime for
anyone to deny that Armenians suffered genocide in Turkey during the
first world war.

Free debate about Islam is under fire in Europe, as is free debate
about Israel in the US. Those who would like to see a clash of
civilisations seem equally intent on suppressing open and tolerant
discussion.

Mr Pamuk is a good choice for the Nobel prize because of his writing.
He belongs to a modern Turkish literary tradition – republican,
secular, European-minded – that is deeply embedded in the history of
his country. He shines a light on the tensions between past and
present, secularism and Islam, and the "clash and interlacing of
cultures", as the citation says. His novels make a uniquely Turkish
contribution to world literature.

Yet his choice is also political, because he was charged last
December in Istanbul under article 301 of the Turkish penal code with
insulting "Turkishness, the republic and state institutions": he
dared to criticise his country for denying its historical
responsibility in the massacre of Armenians and Kurds. The case was
dropped, but the absurd and archaic law remains.

Turkey fails to face up to the systematic persecution and massacre of
the Armenians that began in 1915. The subject is glossed over in
Turkish debate and in Turkish history books. For the Armenian
diaspora it is seen as a fundamental historical injustice. It is a
real political question in many parts of Europe (especially France)
and America that will not simply disappear by being ignored. But the
idea of seeking to criminalise "denial" of a genocide, as the French
parliamentarians would do, is itself intolerant and a denial of free
speech.

Catherine Colonna, the French minister for Europe, said yesterday it
was for historians, not legislators, to "illuminate history". You
cannot rewrite history books by law, she said.

The French assembly’s vote on the Armenian resolution was feeble,
even if few dared oppose it. The overwhelming majority stayed away,
apparently out of fear at being seen to vote either way. If the
Senate acts responsibly, it will simply kill the bill.

There is a danger that popular reaction in Turkey, stoked by
nationalists, will see both the French vote, and the Nobel Prize for
Mr Pamuk, as all part of some international conspiracy. That is quite
wrong.

Mr Pamuk and fellow writers and intellectuals in Turkey have spoken
out against the French bill. They are as appalled by the idea of
criminalising genocide denial as they are by article 301 in their own
country’s penal code, criminalising anyone who dares use the word.

They also warn against another possible European reaction: to use
article 301, and its exploitation by a small group of Turkish
nationalists, as a reason to postpone or block Ankara’s EU membership
application. That is precisely what the nationalists want. Indeed,
the real conspiracy may be between Turkish and Armenian nationalists,
both of whom want to preserve the old enmity, and keep Turkey out of
the EU, rather than heal the wounds of history.

Financial Times (London, England)
October 13, 2006 Friday
London Edition 2

Turkey’s EU bid hit by French bill on Armenians

By MARTIN ARNOLD, VINCENT BOLAND, DANIEL DOMBEY and GEORGE PARKER

Turkey’s prospects of joining the European Union took a heavy blow
last night when France’s National Assembly approved a bill that
outraged Ankara and that critics say will set back the cause of
reform within Turkey.

The French legislation, which could still be blocked by the Senate,
would make it a crime to deny that Armenians were the victims of
genocide in the last years of the Ottoman Empire.

The bill was read in Turkey as a sign that France was now permanently
opposed to Ankara’s bid to join the EU.

Bulent Arinc, the parliamentary speaker, criticised France’s "hostile
attitude" towards Turkey. "This is a shameful decision. We are very
sorry to see that this (bill) was passed only because of internal
(French) politics."

Turkey denies genocide, and the judicial authorities have prosecuted
writers who have used the term to describe thekillings of Armenians.

Opinion polls show a majority of French voters oppose Turkish
membership. The issue is sensitive in France because of the country’s
450,000-strong Armenian community, which has grown rich and
influential.

Jacques Chirac, the French president, favours Turkish accession to
the EU but prominent ministers such as Nicolas Sarkozy are opposed.
Segolene Royal, the Socialists’ leading presidential candidate, has
been non-committal, saying she would defer to public opinion on the
question.

But Mr Chirac said on a visit to Armenia this month that Turkish
recognition of the Armenian genocide should become a pre-condition of
EU membership.

Additional reporting by George Parker in Brussels and Daniel Dombey
in London

Financial Times (London, England)
October 13, 2006 Friday
London Edition 1

Threat to free speech France should renounce an attempt to legislate
history

Yesterday’s vote by France’s National Assembly was an act of
diplomatic folly and electoral opportunism. It dealt a blow to
Turkey’s hopes of joining the European Union and damaged the cause of
free speech within theEU itself.

By a margin of 106 to 19, the chamber backed a bill that could jail
people for a year for denying that there was an Armenian genocide
early last century. The move is an attempt to use legislation rather
than persuasion to change others’ beliefs – a tactic already proving
counterproductive in Turkey and running counter to Europe’s
traditions of free expression and open debate.

The vote was the result of transparent electioneering. French
Socialists insisted on pushing the bill through, while most deputies
kept away. Characterising the murder of up to 1.5m Armenians in
Anatolia in 1915-18 has no bearing on France’s vital interests. But
it is an issue of great concern for the 450,000 French citizens of
Armenian origin ahead of the 2007 elections.

This comes at a terrible time for Turkey’s troubled EU negotiations
and all they symbolise for an accommodation between Europe and the
Islamic world. If the bill ever became law, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Turkey’s prime minister, could run the risk of arrest while on French
soil.

Fortunately, the legislation is likely to die in the French Senate.
But by allowing the measure to get this far, France’s politicians
have damaged the case for sorely needed reform in Turkey itself.
Officials and politicians in Ankara demur from ditching Turkey’s own
rules against "denigrating" the Turkish state, arguing that the
French proposal shows the limits of the EU’s own respect for free
speech.

Europe’s record is already blotted. Austria imprisoned the historian
David Irving for denying the holocaust, making him a martyr for
far-right sympathisers. Britain’s government sought – but luckily
failed – to pass legislation that would have restricted the right to
criticise religion.

The risk is that France’s strong-arm tactics will only bolster
Turkey’s intolerance of any mention of Armenian genocide. As a
result, it is now more likely that Turkish writers will continue to
be prosecuted for such references – the indignity suffered among
others by Orhan Pamuk, the novelist who yesterday won the Nobel
prize.

Turkey’s combination of prickliness and authoritarianism means it
will have to change radically if it is to join the EU one day. The
country needs to address the massacres of Armenian families that
preceded the creation of the modern Turkish state – whether they are
called genocide or not.

That does not excuse France’s pandering politicians. President
Jacques Chirac’s government was right yesterday to repudiate the
genocide bill. The rest of the political class must now follow – and
renounce the idea of legal curbs on what people say or think.

Financial Times (London, England)
October 13, 2006 Friday
London Edition 1

Turkey dealt blow over EU
*Ankara angered by French bill on Armenian issue*

Move seen as sign Paris opposes membership

By MARTIN ARNOLD, VINCENT BOLAND, DANIEL DOMBEY and GEORGE PARKER

Turkey’s prospects of joining the European Union took a heavy blow
last night when France’s National Assembly approved a bill which
outraged Ankara and that critics say will set back the cause of
reform within Turkey.

The French legislation, which could still be blocked by the Senate,
would make it a crime to deny that Armenians were the victims of
genocide in the last years of the Ottoman Empire.

The bill was read in Turkey as a sign that France was now permanently
opposed to Ankara’s bid to join the EU.

Bulent Arinc, the parliamentary speaker, criticised France’s "hostile
attitude" towards Turkey. "This is a shameful decision. We are very
sorry to see that this (bill) was passed only because of internal
(French) politics."

Turkey denies genocide, and the judicial authorities have prosecuted
writers who have used the term to describe thekillings of Armenians.

One of the most prominent such figures is Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish
novelist, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature yesterday,
minutes after the French vote.

Opinion polls show a majority of French voters oppose Turkish
membership. The issue is sensitive in France because of the country’s
450,000-strong Armenian community, which has grown rich and
influential.

Armenians say as many as 1.5m people died in 1915-18, while Turkey
admits only that hundreds of thousands of both Armenians and Turks
died, largely as a result of civil war and famine.

The bill may never become law, because it must still be approved by
the Senate, France’s upper house of parliament, and signed by
President Jacques Chirac, who is opposed to the initiative and whose
government ultimately controls the agenda of the Senate.

However, yesterday’s vote is likely to bolster the position of
Turkish nationalists.

Anti-EU sentiment in Turkey has risen sharply recently, ahead of a
crucial European Commission report next month that is likely to be
critical of Turkey’s lack of progress over reforms.

Even before yesterday’s vote, many diplomats believed that the EU
membership talks could be formally suspended this year and might
never be revived.

Politicians in Ankara have threatened to retaliate with economic
sanctions and have even toyed with a law making it a crime to deny
that North Africans were massacred by French colonial rulers.

Olli Rehn, the EU enlargement commissioner, has criticised the draft
French law, which he believes could heighten anti-western sentiment
in Turkey and snuff out an emerging debate inside the country about
the events of 1915. "If this law entered into force it would prohibit
debate and dialogue necessary for reconciliation on this issue," said
Mr Rehn’s spokeswoman.

While Mr Chirac favours Turkish accession to the EU, prominent
ministers such as Nicolas Sarkozy are firmly opposed. Segolene Royal,
the Socialists’ leading presidential candidate, has been
non-committal, saying this week she would defer topublic opinion on
the question.

But Mr Chirac said on a visit to Armenia this month that Turkish
recognition of the Armenian genocide should become a pre-condition of
EU membership.

Additional reporting by George Parker in Brussels and Daniel Dombey
in London

EuroNews – English Version
October 13, 2006

Coaxing angry Turkey to open ports to all EU-25

The French storm over Armenian deaths under Turkish rule in the last
century continues. In newspapers and public places, echoes of outrage
ricocheted from Ankara to Strasbourg to Paris… and Helsinki. The
Turkish prime minister said he was studying reprisal possibilities
after the French parliament approved a bill making it a crime to deny
that Armenians suffered a genocide.

While it moved to calm tempers, the EU nevertheless urged Ankara to
respect its customs protocol commitments to all the bloc’s members.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso made no secret of
his feelings: "We of course have to respect all the decisions taken
by the parliament in France, but let me tell you very frankly: I
don’t think this decision at this moment is helpful in the context of
the European Union relations with Turkey."

The Commission has warned of a "train crash" in Turkey’s membership
talks unless Ankara speeds reforms and opens its ports to shipping
from Cyprus. This is part of a customs protocol which the Turks have
signed but refuse to implement: Ending Turkish Cypriot isolation on
the divided island is unconditional, the Turkish side has said.

Turkish Economics Minister Ali Babacan was in Brussels on Thursday.
He said: "We believe that the improvements in one area also help the
improvements in the other area. When I say areas, I mean on the one
hand the protocol of Ankara and on the other hand the isolation of
northern Cyprus."

A plan floated by the Finnish EU presidency envisages Turkey opening
some ports and Turkish Cypriots being allowed to trade directly with
the outside world through a port run jointly, under EU supervision by
Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cypriot government, which
joined the EU in 2004, has threatened to veto Turkey’s EU entry talks
if Ankara does not act to open its ports by the end of this year.
Brussels is to report on November 8 on Turkey’s progress towards the
EU and the bloc’s leaders will decide in December what to do.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 13, 2006 Friday

"THERE IS THE DANGER THAT THE SITUATION WILL WORSEN YET"

by: Mikhail Vignansky

AN INTERVIEW WITH MAJOR GENERAL ANDREI POPOV, RUSSIAN ARMY GROUP IN
THE CAUCASUS COMMANDER; An interview with Major General Andrei Popov,
Russian Army Group in the Caucasus Commander.

The Russian Army Group in the Caucasus returned to a normal state of
combat readiness on October 9. Its readiness status had been upped in
late September, when the Georgians arrested four Russian officers on
charges of espionage and cordoned off the Army Group headquarters in
Tbilisi demanding the fifth suspect. Here is an interview with Major
General Andrei Popov, Commander of the Russian Army Group in the
Caucasus.

Andrei Popov: Tension abated some, the siege was lifted from the
headquarters, and we are back to a normal state of readiness now. And
yet, there is the danger that the situation will worsen yet. That is
why we are ever ready to upgrade the readiness status again.

Question: Georgia announced that new rules of transit of personnel
and military shipments to the 102nd Military Base in Gyumri (Armenia)
came into effect on October 9…

Andrei Popov: I do not know what new rules are meant by that. All
procedures are specified by the withdrawal accord signed in 2005. We
always apply for transit permits on time. We always discuss
everything with the Georgian side beforehand.

Question: How many servicemen and members of their families are in
Georgia nowadays?

Andrei Popov: Almost 3,000 servicemen and as many family members.

Question: How many civilians were evacuated by planes of the
Emergency Ministry?

Andrei Popov: Forty-four people.

Question: Did anybody else apply for evacuation?

Andrei Popov: Five people did.

Question: Have the Russian sanctions against Georgia backfired and
affected the military? How do objects of the Russian Army Group in
the Caucasus receive shipments and reinforcements?

Andrei Popov: Nothing has affected us. We’ve been bringing everything
via Armenia or buying whatever we need right here for several years
already. We have what we need to last until the withdrawal scheduled
for 2008. Unfortunately, Georgia has been making problems with visas
for our servicemen for over a week already. As for the measures taken
by the Russian leadership, we support them wholeheartedly.

Question: The Russian Army Group in the Caucasus was scheduled to
turn over to Georgia five objects that are no longer used in
September and October…

Andrei Popov: We are ready to keep our part of the bargain. It’s the
Georgians who have been silent.

Source: Vremya Novosti, October 10, 2006, p. 6

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 13, 2006 Friday

TBILISI WOULDN’T LET GO

by Oleg Gorupai

GEORGIA DOES NOT HONOR THE MILITARY SHIPMENTS TRANSIT ACCORD WITH
RUSSIA; Georgia is making life as hard as possible for the Russian
Army Group in the Caucasus.

This Monday, Georgia introduced new rules for transit of shipments
and personnel of the Russian 102nd Military Base across its
territory. The 102nd Military Base of the Russian Army Group in the
Caucasus is located in Gyumri, Armenia, and may therefore be reached
only via Georgia. Tbilisi’s latest decision concerns transit of
military shipments, base personnel, and family members. The Georgian
Defense Ministry wouldn’t say exactly what changes have been
introduced. Its officers only say that the Russian Defense Ministry
is not supposed to approach the Georgian Defense Ministry on all
involved issues.

The Russian Duma ratified the accords "On organization of transit of
Russian military shipments and personnel via Georgia" and "On
withdrawal of Russian military bases and other objects of the Russian
Army Group in the Caucasus from the territory of Georgia", last week.
The parliament of Georgia ratified the documents too. The Georgian
side apparently feels that it is entitled to unilateral amendment of
the accords after their ratification by signatories’ and national
legislatures. It may complicate the process of withdrawal from
Georgia.

As a matter of fact, Georgia has been doing its best to prevent
transit and withdrawal of Russian bases from its territory even
before these latest developments. Under the terms of the existing
accords, border and customs control of Russian shipments and
personnel follows procedures stipulated by the Georgian legislation
but Georgia in the meantime is not supposed to require any customs
duties or taxes. Even so, the Georgian authorities did try to collect
customs duties and taxes in the episodes when big landing ships of
the Russian Navy sailed into the Batumi port to evacuate Russian
military hardware. They even demanded a duty on the Russian armored
vehicles withdrawn from the territory of Georgia on their own nearly
hysterical insistence. Similarly outrageous episodes occur when
military convoys bring food and fuel to Russian military bases.

The situation with Russian military transit to the 102nd Military
Base in Armenia is no better. In 2005, the Russian Defense Ministry
forwarded to Georgia 270 requests for permission for Russian planes
to flyover Georgia en route to Armenia. Only 80 permits were given,
not one of them after March. Eighty-eight permits were required in
2006. Georgia granted only nine of them. In other words, Georgia has
all but blocked transit without so much as an explanation. Air
transit is all that is left Russia at this point. Transit by
railroads and highways is permitted by the existing accords too, but
Georgia has put an end to it.

Colonel General Alexander Skvortsov, Deputy Chief of the General
Staff, does not think that Georgia may be counted on to honor the
transit accords. "As for the accords, the situation is such that
nothing may be guaranteed. Ratification of the accord put it into
effect. In theory, Russia may officially demand that Georgia honor
it. Still, I cannot give you any guarantees with regard to what
Georgia will or won’t do," Skvortsov told the Duma. He added that the
Defense Ministry is looking for a roundabout ways of reaching the
base in Armenia.

Sergei Ivanov, Defense Minister and Deputy Premier, maintains
meanwhile that the base withdrawal accord will be carried out.
According to Ivanov, the last Russian soldier will leave the
territory of Georgia in late 2008. As a matter of fact, Russia is
actively evacuating merchandise from the 62nd Military Base in
Akhalkalaki. More than 50% has already been evacuated but all of that
cannot be done overnight. Merchandise has to be prepared for
evacuation. It means that specialists and technicians should go to
Akhalkalaki to do whatever is necessary.

This is apparently what Georgia is out to prevent from happening.
Tbilisi may even launch another round of the visa blockade of Russian
servicemen the way it already did earlier this year. Count on the
Georgian authorities to invent excuses to prevent the coming of the
specialists who are supposed to prepare military hardware of the 62nd
Military Base for withdrawal. Food and fuel convoys to objects of the
Russian Army Group in the Caucasus will certainly encounter
difficulties again.

The "withdrawal accord" also stipulates establishment of the
Russian-Georgian counter-terrorism center. Georgian Defense Minister
Gela Bezhuashvili in the meantime says that the center cannot be
established because of the state the relations between Tbilisi and
Moscow are in. It means that official Tbilisi would stop at nothing
to make life hard for servicemen of the Russian Army Group in the
Caucasus carrying out the withdrawal. Shortly speaking, Georgia
refuses to honor its commitments under the accord. Bezhuashvili is
not telling the truth when he says that the document in question only
stipulates Russian-Georgian consultations on the matter. Article 20
of the Accord states that "the signatories pledge to prepare for the
signing of an accord on establishment of the Russian-Georgian
counter-terrorism center, a document in accordance with which a part
of the personnel, materiel, and infrastructure of the Russian
military base in Batumi agreed upon by the signatories will be used
in the interests of the center."

Ivanov says in the meantime that the Georgian leadership knows what
should be done to normalize the relations with Russia. "We will judge
by deeds, not rhetoric," Ivanov said.

Source: Krasnaya Zvezda, October 10, 2006, p. 3

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 13, 2006 Friday

THE SOUTH CAUCASUS UNDER ME;
Changes in the format of Russian-Georgian relations will only
strengthen Russia’s positions in the region

by Anatoly Tsyganok

PUNISHING GEORGIA: WHAT RUSSIA CAN AND SHOULD DO; Georgia confirmed
that it is an authoritarian state where the letter of the law is
worthless and the justice system can easily fabricate any case at all
– or close it just as easily, for a price. Several fundamental
conclusions can be drawn from the current situation in and around
Georgia.

(…)

Several fundamental conclusions can be drawn from the current
situation in and around Georgia.

The first is that the nationalist policy pursued in Georgia over the
past 15 years – instilling into the citizenry the idea that Georgia’s
historical experience is unique and that the exceptional nature of
the Georgian nation must be recognized by the international community
– has met with full support amongst the majority of the population,
within Georgia and in Georgian diasporas elsewhere, including Russia.
This explains the Georgian public’s general adherence to the
stereotypical notion that Georgia’s inclusion in the Russian Empire
and the USSR was unacceptable, and the reluctance to recognize the
right of the Ossetians and Abkhazians to self-determination – while
simultaneously upholding Georgia’s rights to the territories that
were attached to Georgia during the "Soviet occupation" period.
Therefore, Russia should differentiate its retaliatory response to
Georgia’s anti-Russian syndrome and its historical superiority
syndrome, in dealing with the Tbilisi government and the Georgian
population, as well as the Georgian diaspora in Russia.

The second conclusion is based on the failure of Georgia’s peaceful
reintegration policy for the "rebel autonomous regions." For the past
15 years, Georgia has refused to amend its constitution to grant
autonomy to ethnic minorities, and rejected UN Security Council and
OSCE recommendations to sign agreements with South Ossetia and
Abkhazia against the use of force. This clearly shows that options
for peacefully resolving the problems of the self-proclaimed states
and Georgia’s federative structure – options which still existed
three years ago – have now failed completely. Therefore, Russia
should revise its own views on the unrecognized republics: South
Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The third conclusion entails recognizing the fact that Georgia,
striving to expel Russia from the peacekeeping formats in the
conflict zones by any means available, has managed to establish a
perception in the media that the Georgian-Ossetian and
Georgian-Abkhazian conflicts are escalating into a Georgian-Russian
conflict. This has formed the foundation of Georgia’s push to join
NATO – in order to protect its independence, or so Georgia claims. In
effect, Georgia has achieved its purpose already, forcing Russia to
enter into a conflict with it.

The fourth conclustion is that after Russian military bases are
withdrawn from Georgia, Russia will face the prospect of the
Russian-Armenian group of forces being completely isolated and
Armenia reorienting itself to NATO standards. If Russia wishes to
prevent this, it must create conditions that ensure Armenia’s
security and Russia’s presence in the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiation
process.

The fifth conclusion follows from an assessment of Russia’s role in
the overall energy sector of the South Caucasus. Russia’s positions
with regard to using energy leverage in the South Caucasus require
substantial corrections and accelerated decision-making.

The sixth conclusion is that Russia’s severance of relations with
Georgia in the areas of diplomacy, transportation, and mail services
represent only one direction of political action with regard to our
recalcitrant neighbor. At the same time, Russia needs to accelerate
the process of making some equally important decisions, with the aim
of enhancing its political influence throughout the Caucasus region.
Primarily, this means using our levers of influence on Ukraine and
Azerbaijan with the aim of minimizing their involvement in the GUAM
organization.

The seventh conclusion is that changes should be expected in the
format of Russia’s relations with Turkey and Iran in Caucasus
politics. We could also draw China’s attention to resolving these
problems – and this would do substantial damage to British-American
energy interests and military strategy interests in the South
Caucasus.

The eighth conclusion is that following Moscow’s move to impose
diplomatic, transport, and mail sanctions, and the intervention of
Washington and London, Russia’s confrontation with Georgia will grow.

Thus, the current Georgian-Russian confrontation has entered into a
new phase, in which events may develop along the lines indicated in
the abovementioned conclusions. The events in Georgia provide a good
pretext for an effective analysis of Russia’s immigration policy, and
its policy on relations between the authorities (federal and
regional) and ethnic diasporas. Some members of the Georgian diaspora
have been acting aggressively on radio and television, providing
assistance to official Tbilisi in promoting the Saakashvili regime’s
interests on Russian territory (the possibility that they were paid
to do so cannot be ruled out). This necessitates a review of the role
of these diasporas in our society’s economy and politics, as well as
the legislative basis for the presence of diasporas on Russian
territory. But it’s short-sighted to start a campaign of identifying
"individuals of Georgian ethnicity" with the aim of deporting them.
Yes, it is necessary to restore order with regard to employment and
taxation for all immigrants, without exception. I repeat: deporting
hundreds of thousands of Georgian citizens to their homeland will
only do harm to Russian-Georgian relations. At the same time, we need
to expand opportunities for all, including the Georgian diaspora, to
promote Georgian-Russian friendship.

On the topic of Tbilisi’s military policy, it’s worth citing a few
figures. Aiming to reintegrate the unrecognized territories at all
costs, Georgia has increased funding for the military component of
the state almost ten-fold since 2004, raising it to $500 million.
This year alone, Tbilisi has expanded the Defense Ministry’s budget
by over a third: the state treasury is now spending over 600 million
lari (around $336 million) on military requirements. This is 15.8% of
Georgia’s total state spending, or 4.6% of GDP. The Saakashvili
administration is getting the rest of the money from various
"extra-budget funds." Additional money for defense spending is mostly
supplied from Turkey and America.

Since the Rose Revolution, the Americans have provided Georgia with
$1.5 billion in aid. Georgia has also received over $64 million from
the American Train and Equip program, and $60 million in 2005 alone
from Operation Maintaining Stability. Turkey has provided Georgia
with $40 million a year in military aid. In the meantime, the
Georgian government has been spending only 100.9 million lari ($55
million) a year on social services. This figure hasn’t been increased
for several years.

Over the past four years Georgia has purchased 24 tanks, 97 armored
vehicles, 95 artillery pieces, around 100,000 firearms, four Su-24
aircraft, four MiG-23 fighter jets, and five helicopters. The
Georgian Armed Forces now have 26,000 personnel, 80 tanks, 18 rocket
systems, seven Su-25 aircraft, ten training aircraft, and 15
helicopters, including two Mi-24 strike helicopters. The Georgian
Navy has eight patrol boats, two small landing vessels, and two
tank-landing vessels.

Obviously, given that it possesses these forces and is constantly
increasing its military budget, Georgia will persist in its refusal
to comply with UN Security Council and OSCE recommendations to sign
agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia on not using force. Under
the circumstances, Russia is justified in assuming that the regional
security of the entire Caucasus is under threat. Therefore, Moscow
has every right to revise its stance on the territorial integrity of
Georgia – and, giving priority to the right of nations to
self-determination, every right to recognize the independence of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The current conflict between Moscow and
Tbilisi is highly likely to convince the Russian leadership that
Russia shouldn’t wait for the Kosovo precedent before making its
position clear on the frozen conflicts in the CIS; that is, Russia
should set a precedent of its own.

Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has already
stated that Russia may accelerate withdrawal of its military bases
from Georgian territory. Presumably, this statement is based on
apprehensions that our military personnel, now engaged in withdrawing
the bases, might be vulnerable to acts of provocation, and would not
be able to offer substantial resistance in the event of a large-scale
armed conflict. Keeping them in Georgia as Mikhail Saakashvili’s
hostages is simply foolish; besides, if matters do reach the point of
a military conflict, all of Georgia’s territory is well within range
from Russian territory or from the sea. Moreover, if we assume that
Russia will no longer negotiate with President Saakashvili, then
accelerated withdrawal of the bases is also necessary in the event of
energy sanctions against Georgia.

Russia is likely to accelerate Gazprom’s involvement in the plan for
completing the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline as soon as possible, by the
end of 2006; this will guarantee gas supplies to Armenia and prevent
a total blockade of the Russian-Armenian military group by Turkey and
Azerbaijan. Only then will Yerevan use its resources and support
Russia in the confrontation with Georgia. Moreover, Russia should
immediately expand its participation in developing Armenia’s power
generation and distibution system. The confrontation with Georgia has
created a unique opportunity to accelerate the revision of Russia’s
position in the South Caucasus energy sector and reinforce Russia’s
role in developing the region’s energy system. But the introduction
of energy sanctions against Georgia by Gazprom and RAO Unified Energy
Systems should be preceded by sustained, integrated, systematic
action, synchronized with other Russian companies.

It’s equally important for Russia to use all available measures to
increase its influence on one of Tbilisi’s milch cows: Azerbaijan.
Primarily, this should involve minimizing Baku’s involvement in the
GUAM organization. In future, this could even extend to persuading
Azerbaijan to withdraw from GUAM and join the CIS Collective Security
Treaty Organization, which would only be possible if Russia once
again becomes one of the chief mediators in resolving the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Within the framework of its decisions on
sanctions against Georgia, Russia simply must play the Ukraine card
as well. Some compromises are entirely possible in relations with
Kiev. (…)

Source: Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier, No. 39, October 11, 2006, pp. 1,
3

Translated by Elena Leonova

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress