Month: May 2008

AZERBAIJAN SEES ARMENIA DIFFERENTLY AFTER ELECTIONS
By Fariz Ismailzade

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 30 2008

"Democracy in Azerbaijan is at least no worse than in Georgia, but the
comparison with Armenia is almost impossible," said Khazar Ibrahim,
the head of the press service of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (, April 29). This statement came as a result of
presidential elections in Armenia and the shattered situation with
democracy and human rights in that country. For Azerbaijan, this
turn-around seems to bring more self-confidence, as well as positive
hopes for a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

For many years the international community has been rating Armenia’s
democratic developments ahead of those in Azerbaijan. Rankings used
by prestigious organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Freedom
House and others indicated that Armenia had made more progress toward
democracy than Azerbaijan. Although serious doubts remained about
the methodology and indicators used for these rankings, the general
public seemed to trust them, both at home and abroad.

This had several negative implications for Azerbaijan and for
regional security. On the one hand, many foreign governments
and international organizations have justified the occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia with the fact that Armenia enjoyed higher
democratic standards. The United States Congress even openly declared
support for sanctions on Azerbaijan, citing human rights problems,
although the official text of the sanctions had nothing to do with
the domestic developments, but rather the military situation between
Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Now, however, the situation seems to have changed. What was expected to
be a smooth transition of power from former President Robert Kocharian
to his closest political ally, Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian,
has become one of the most serious cases of political turmoil since
the country’s independence in 1991. Officially, Sarkisian received
a little more than 52 percent of the votes cast, with opposition
arguing that there needed to be a second round. The opposition
protested. The police and army reacted brutally. Tanks were brought
in and bullets were used against the demonstrators. As a result,
eight people were killed and more than 100 were severely wounded. The
Kocharian-Sarkisian regime imposed martial law and arrested more than
200 opposition activists. Media censorship, including on the Internet,
was imposed in the country.

The situation has severely damaged the image of Armenia abroad. The
governments of Norway and the United States, and international
organizations such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe and others have
expressed deep regret about the events in Yerevan and have urged
Armenian authorities to use democratic means to build political
dialogue and consensus in the country.

These recent developments, if closely analyzed, do not stand alone
from the rest of Armenia’s post-Soviet history. The use of violence
for political purposes has been a frequent feature in the Armenian
political arena. In 1997 President Levon Ter-Petrosian was forced to
resign by an internal coup headed by Robert Kocharian, who was then
Prime Minister, and backed by the defense and security ministers. In
1999 gunmen stormed parliament and killed the speaker of parliament,
the prime minister and dozen more MPs and government officials. It
is still unclear who was behind these gunmen and what were they
trying to achieve. Analysts believe, however, that the murder of
these high-profile officials was aimed at empowering former President
Kocharian and undermining the peace process around the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. There are also other examples in the history of Armenia of
the use of violence and terror for political purposes.

These undemocratic developments in Armenia–the use of violence
and a brutal crackdown on the opposition activists–will affect
the future of the country and the region in a number of areas,
including political stability, economic prosperity and the state of
democracy. The biggest blow to Armenia, however, will be with regard
to the process of negotiations over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Azerbaijan, having achieved political stability, enjoys the highest GDP
growth in the world at 35 percent (Ministry of Economic Development
website), maintains absolute sovereignty over its foreign policy
(enjoying very good, but equal, relations with both the West and
Russia) and is making further advances in political freedoms and
democratic standards.

Armenia, on the other hand, has nearly fallen into complete dependence
on Russia, both politically and economically, sees itself increasingly
isolated from regional transportation and energy projects, continues
to struggle with the economy and trade and now has also proven that
the state of democracy in the country has greatly worsened.

Under these conditions Azerbaijan’s self-confidence is rapidly
increasing, and it is likely that this will have an impact on the
future of the negotiation process as well. Azerbaijan no longer sees
itself as "second-rate" country, and its growing capacities will
push it to be more principled. It will also bring more international
pressure on Armenia, as the West is increasingly irritated by the
sharp drop of democratic standards in that country.

PRESIDENT SERZH SARKISSYAN: "ARMENIA WELCOMES IRAN’S BALANCED POLICY ON NAGORNO KARABAKH ISSUE"

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
.html
April 30 2008

Armenian President Serzh Sarkissyan announced that Armenia welcomes
the balanced policy of Iran in Nagorno Karabakh issue.

According to the press service for the Armenian government, the due
announcement was made by Sarkissyan during his meeting with Iranian
ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Armenia Seyed Ali
Sagayn.

"The Armenian President noted that Armenian side is for the peaceful
resolution of the conflict in the framework of international law and
in line with the right of nations for self-determination", the press
service noted.

In turn, Sagayan said Iranian side highly evaluates the reserved
reaction of Armenia "to militaristic announcements, periodically
voiced by one of the countries of the region".

"During the meeting the sides agreed that the countries should join
efforts to ensure regional stability and security in this tense
region", said the press service.

TURKEY: EU WELCOMES CHANGE IN PENAL CODE

Adnkronos International Italia
cs/?id=1.0.2122044229
April 30 2008
Italy

Ankara, 30 April (AKI) – The European Union has welcomed a move by
the Turkish parliament to soften its controversial law restricting
freedom of speech as a "welcome step forward".

The EU has indicated that reform of article 301 of Turkey’s penal
code was necessary to advance the country’s bid for EU membership.

An EU spokesman said the EU now "looks forward to further moves to
change similar articles in the penal code".

The Turkish parliament on Tuesday voted 250-65 in favour of amendments
to article 301 of the penal code making it a crime to insult the
Turkish nation, rather than "Turkishness".

Calls for reform to the law have grown since last year’s murder of
Hrant Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian descent who had been
charged with "insulting Turkishness."

Nobel-prize winning author Orhan Pamuk was also charged under the
law in 2005 after he spoke in an interview about the mass killings
of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War I. The charges were
later dropped.

According to the Turkish daily, The New Anatolian, hundreds of people
have been tried under the controversial law since 2003.

However, critics said the amendments do not go far enough. Insulting
the Turkish nation is punishable by a maximum of two years in jail,
rather than three years previously for the crime of "insulting
Turkishness".

The new law however allows a judge to issue a suspended sentence,
enabling those convicted under article 301 to avoid serving a jail
term.

The EU has long called for changes to article 301 arguing that the
law places severe restrictions on free speech in Turkey.

The issue threatened to stall Turkey’s EU accession talks.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A DIPLOMATIC DEAL ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH IS THE WISEST PATH TO TAKE
By Elmar Mammadyarov

European Voice, Belgium
ted/a-diplomatic-deal-on-nagorno-karabakh-is-the-w isest-path-to-take/60585.aspx
April 30 2008

A diplomatic accord with Armenia would benefit the region and Europe,
writes Azerbaijan’s foreign minister.

With oil at more than $115 a barrel, and the global market on
tenterhooks, there is virtual inaction by the major consumer countries
of the West to resolve a simmering conflict less than 20 km from the
world’s second-longest oil pipeline.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline bringing Caspian oil to the
Mediterranean and western markets through Azerbaijan, Georgia,
and Turkey skirts the conflict zone of Nagorno-Karabakh – the
internationally-recognized Azerbaijani territory currently under
Armenian occupation. World energy security, as well as the stability
and economic prosperity of the Caspian region, now demands that the
long-running dispute over Karabakh, part of Europe’s new neighbourhood,
is settled.

My country is not only resource-rich; we have systematically
attempted to embed ourselves in multilateral structures and
negotiations. Azerbaijan is determined to see its territorial integrity
restored in the near future. Over two decades, almost a million of
our people have been displaced by a foreign occupying force.

A resolution will not just benefit us. Armenia too will see its
international isolation ended. Its borders with Azerbaijan will
be opened, with all the prosperity that will follow lucrative
east-west trade and transport. Regional powers – Iran and Turkey –
will benefit from decreased instability in their neighbourhood, and
Europe will gain stable partners in the region, with one less haven
for trans-national threats.

As for Russia, its interests in the region for once converge very well
with those of the EU. As one of the biggest foreign direct investors
in our countries, Russian businesses will benefit from stability,
transparency, and predictability in the South Caucasus.

Despite phenomenal economic progress in Azerbaijan, our full potential
– and thus the full potential of the Caspian region – cannot be
realised while the conflict remains unresolved. The occupied areas
are also havens for illegal transnational activity, money laundering
and drug and arms trafficking, which directly affects the citizens
of European countries as well as the states in the region.

On 15 April, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed
clear support for Azerbaijan’s full sovereignty and called for more
political will to achieve resolution. The NATO alliance at its summit
in Bucharest earlier this month agreed that peace in Karabakh must
be realized quickly and within the borders of Azerbaijan. In March,
the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution reaffirming
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and explicitly calling for the
withdrawal of all Armenian forces.

This widespread support is partly based on the nature of the Armenian
occupation. Today’s uncertain status quo rests on a foundation
of ethnic cleansing comparable to that which occurred in Bosnia or
Kosovo. Azerbaijan and the international community cannot tolerate the
continued, systematic eradication of Azerbaijani culture and Muslim
tradition in the occupied areas. Staring down Armenian forces over a
shaky ceasefire line inside our internationally recognized territory
is no longer a workable reality. They must leave and the displaced
people return.

Azerbaijan proposes a final offer to Armenia. We support full autonomy
for Karabakh within Azerbaijan. Our priority is diplomacy, but we
keep all options on the table when it comes to restoring the full
sovereignty of Azerbaijan.

Elmar Mammadyarov is Azerbaijan’s minister of foreign affairs

AUSTRALIA’S SECRET GENOCIDE HISTORY

MWC News, Canada
;Itemid= 1
April 30 2008

La Trobe, "Bundoora Eucalyptus" & Black Crimes of White Australia

La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne is one of Australia’s
top dozen universities with particular expertise in paramedical
training and an excellent reputation for research and teaching in the
humanities and biological sciences in particular. The main campus is
set in beautiful bushland about 20 kilometers north of Melbourne at
Bundoora. Bundoora means "the country kangaroos like" in the local
Indigenous Australian Wurrundjeri language and indeed one can often
see kangaroos grazing and hopping about in the outskirts of La Trobe
University in the evening and early morning.

La Trobe University is named after a former Lieutenant-Governor of
Victoria, Charles Joseph La Trobe (1801-1875), who administered
the colony of Victoria from 1839-1854. However there are 2 sides
to this man that reflect a continuing dichotomy of good and evil in
Australia as a whole. Thus Charles La Trobe was a gentle, cultured
man and a mountaineer, adventurer and writer. However he was a poor
administrator and his rule over the British colony of Victoria was
associated with 2 major failures: (1) the Eureka Stockade rebellion
of gold miners that was brutally put down by British soldiers and
(2) the expansion of the Aboriginal Genocide with ethnic cleansing of
Indigenous (Aboriginal) people involving the notorious Native Police
set up under La Trobe. This paradoxical good/evil duality is perhaps
behind the statue of Charles La Trobe at La Trobe University that is
exhibited standing on its head!

The beautiful La Trobe Bundoora landscape with its wonderful gum trees
(Eucalyptus species), birds and kangaroos is the inspiration for my
huge (1.3 metres x 2.9 metres) "Bundoora Eucalyptus" painting which
also illustrates the dark/light, good/evil dichotomy of Charles La
Trobe and of Australia as a whole. On the one hand Australia is a
prosperous, educated, democratic society that was one of the first
countries to have women’s suffrage, trade unions, and compulsory
State-provided education. On the other hand, Australia has a shocking
secret history of involvement in appalling genocides that continues to
this day. Thus in 2008 Australia is involved in Palestinian Genocide,
Iraqi Genocide, Afghan Genocide, Biofuel Genocide and Climate Genocide.

Before going further it must be clearly stated that the term "Genocide"
used here is "Genocide" as precisely defined by Article 2 of the UN
Genocide Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of
the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e)
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Further, in assessing deaths from particular policies of invasion,
occupation and dispossession one notes that deaths can be violent
(from bombs and bullets) or non-violent (from deprivation and
deprivation-exacerbated disease). Both kinds of avoidable death (death
that should not have happened) are included within the term "excess
death" used below (see "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since
1950" (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: ).

The following catalogue of Australian involvement in Genocide as
defined by the UN Genocide Convention – and notably in British- and
American-imposed genocides – is given below in roughly chronological
order from 1788 (the year of European Invasion and First Settlement)
to 2008. A key reference is my book "Body Count. Global avoidable
mortality since 1950"; other relevant books are Chalk, F. and
Jonassohn, K. (1990), The History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses
and Case Studies (Yale University Press, New Haven & London); Tatz,
C. (2003), With Intent to Destroy. Reflecting on Genocide (Verso,
London); and Blum, W. (2006), Rogue State, A guide to the world’s
only superpower (Zed Books, London).

1. 18th-19th century Aboriginal Genocide (the Indigenous Aboriginal
population dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million in the first
century after invasion in 1788).

2. Tasmanian Aboriginal Genocide (the "full-blood" Indigenous
population dropped from 6,000 to zero in 1803-1776; however there are
several thousand "mixed race" decendants of Tasmanian and Mainland
Aborigines still living in Tasmania today).

3. British Indian Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 0.6 billion,
1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; 0.4 BILLION,
1901-1947: see MWC News).

4. European Chinese Genocide (10-100 million deaths in the European
imperialism-driven Tai Ping rebellion period; Australia was involved
in suppressing the Boxer rebellion).

5. Maori Genocide (Maori population dropped from 0.1-0.2 million in
1800 to 42,000 in 1893; Australia was involved in the 19th century
Maori wars).

6. African Genocide (scores of million perished over 5 centuries of
European slavery and colonialism; Australians participated in the
Sudan War, 1881-1898).

7. Pacific Genocide (there was a catastrophic population decline
due to introduced disease and slavery; thus 40,000 Fijians died
from measles out of a population of 150,000 in 1876; "blackbirding"
slavery was conducted by Australians in the late 19th century).

8. Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide (1899-1902; 28,000 Afrikaaner women and
children died in British concentration camps; Australians participated
in the Boer War as immortalized in the movie "Breaker Morant").

9. Armenian Genocide (1.5 million killed; the Australian invasion
of Gallipoli as part of an Anglo-French force in 1915 helped to
precipitate this atrocity; indeed April 24 is Armenian Genocide Day
and April 25 is the day of the Australia invasion in 1915 and also a
sacred war dead remembrance day for Australians and New Zealanders –
it is called Anzac Day after the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps
(ANZAC) which stormed ashore on that first Anzac Day at Gallipoli
in 1915).

10. Bengali Genocide (6-7 million perished in the "forgotten" man-made
Bengal Famine atrocity in Bengal and adjoining provinces in British
India, 1943-1945; Australians were there and indeed the Governor of
Bengal in 1944 was an Australian, R.G. Casey).

11. British post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths
in countries subject to British occupation as a major occupier in
the post-war era totalled 727 million; Australia has the same Head
of State as the UK and continues to be a loyal military ally of the
UK in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan).

12. US post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in
countries subject to US occupation as a major occupier in the post-war
era totalled 82 million; Australia participated in all post-1950 US
Asian Wars in Korea, Indo-China, Iraq and Afghanistan with Indigenous
Asian excess deaths now totalling 25 million).

13. Australian Colonial Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries
subject to Australian occupation as a major occupier in the post-war
era, namely Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands totalled 2.1
million).

14. 20th century Aboriginal Genocide (total excess deaths clearly
of the order of 1million; 0.1 million Stolen Generations Aboriginal
children forcibly removed from their Mothers in the 19th and 20th
centuries; excess deaths in the 11 years of the Bush-ite Coalition
Government totalled 90,000 for 1996-2007).

The following Australian genocide involvements in this catalogue of
horrors areongoing.

15. Palestinian Genocide (post-1967 excess deaths 0.3 million,
post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million and 7 million refugees;
with bi-partisan agreement Australia provides diplomatic, financial and
haven support for Israeli state terrorism – even when directed against
tens of thousands of Australian citizens as in Lebanon in mid-2006 –
and up to life imprisonment for anyone giving support to the Hamas
Party that overwhelmingly won the 2006 Occupied Palestinian elections).

16. Iraqi Genocide (4 million excess deaths 1990-2008; 2 million
post-invasion excess deaths, 0.6 million post-invasion under-5 infant
deaths and 4.5 million refugees; Australia militarily involved since
1990 ).

17. Afghan Genocide (3-7 million post-invasion excess deaths,
2.3 million post-invasion under-5 infant and 4 million refugees;
Australia involved militarily since 2001).

18. Ongoing Aboriginal Genocide (9,000 excess deaths annually; 90,000
excess deaths in the last 11 years of Bush-ite Coalition rule; see
MWC News).

19. Biofuel Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year but this is
increasingly biofuel-impacted as the legislatively-mandated US, UK
and EU biofuel perversion forces up global food prices; Australia is
a major sugar cane grower and sugar exporter with 60% of sugar going
to bioethanol production worldwide; Australia has biofuel-promoting
legislation and is a major canola grower, this being a major source
for biodiesel; see MWC News).

20. Climate Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year already from
deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease; Professor James
Lovelock FRS says that over 6 billion will perish this century die
to unaddressed climate change; on a per capita basis Australia is
among the very worst greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters – in terms of
2004 figures for "fossil fuel-derived annual per capita CO2 pollution"
Australia is about 40 times worse than India and 160 times worse than
Bangladesh if you include Australia’s world number 1 coal exports;
see MWC News).

Yet politically correct racist Australia steadfastly "looks the other
way" and its past and present involvements in the above atrocities
are overwhelmingly not reported by racist, lying, holocaust-ignoring
Mainstream media NOR taught in Australia’s schools and universities. PC
racist White Australia just cannot see the "Elephant in the room" –
its continuing involvement in over 2 centuries of horrendous genocide.

Australians are trapped in an Orwellian dream – Australia will only
stop doing it when it is informed that it is doing it. Please inform
everyone you can.

Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Chief political editor, published some
130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge
pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive
Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003),
and is currently writing a book on global mortality —

ELMAR MAMMADYAROV: WE KEEP ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE WHEN IT COMES TO RESTORING THE FULL SOVEREIGNTY OF AZERBAIJAN

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 30 2008

Baku. Turan Huseynova-APA. "With oil at more than $115 a barrel, and
the global market on tenterhooks, there is virtual inaction by the
major consumer countries of the West to resolve a simmering conflict
less than 20 km from the world’s second-longest oil pipeline.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline bringing Caspian oil to the
Mediterranean and western markets through Azerbaijan, Georgia,
and Turkey skirts the conflict zone of Nagorno-Karabakh – the
internationally-recognized Azerbaijani territory currently under
Armenian occupation," says the article by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov published in European Voice magazine.

"World energy security, as well as the stability and economic
prosperity of the Caspian region, now demands that the long-running
dispute over Karabakh, part of Europe’s new neighbourhood, is
settled. Azerbaijan is determined to see its territorial integrity
restored in the near future. Over two decades, almost a million of our
people have been displaced by a foreign occupying force. A resolution
will not just benefit us. Armenia too will see its international
isolation ended. Its borders with Azerbaijan will be opened, with
all the prosperity that will follow lucrative east-west trade and
transport," the article says.

"As for Russia, its interests in the region for once converge very well
with those of the EU. As one of the biggest foreign direct investors
in our countries, Russian businesses will benefit from stability,
transparency, and predictability in the South Caucasus.

Despite phenomenal economic progress in Azerbaijan, our full potential
– and thus the full potential of the Caspian region – cannot be
realised while the conflict remains unresolved," the minister writes.

The minister underlines that the occupied areas are also havens for
illegal transnational activity, money laundering and drug and arms
trafficking, which directly affects the citizens of European countries
as well as the states in the region.

"On 15 April, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed
clear support for Azerbaijan’s full sovereignty and called for more
political will to achieve resolution. The NATO alliance at its summit
in Bucharest earlier this month agreed that peace in Karabakh must
be realized quickly and within the borders of Azerbaijan. In March,
the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution reaffirming
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and explicitly calling for the
withdrawal of all Armenian forces," the article writes.

"Staring down Armenian forces over a shaky ceasefire line inside
our internationally recognized territory is no longer a workable
reality. They must leave and the displaced people return.

Azerbaijan proposes a final offer to Armenia. We support full autonomy
for Karabakh within Azerbaijan. Our priority is diplomacy, but we
keep all options on the table when it comes to restoring the full
sovereignty of Azerbaijan," the article writes.

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER IS READY TO CONTINUE TALKS ON BASIS OF LAST PROPOSALS OF OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
April 30 2008

The foreign minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan stated that Armenia
is ready to continue talks on the basis of the proposals of the OSCE
Minsk Group co-chairmen.

Accordingtmo Mediamaks, Azerbaijan should also be ready to continue
talks for the productive peace process, the minister said during his
interview with the media in the National Assembly of Armenia.

Edward Nalbandyan added that he considers it to be right for the
parliament to make a statement on the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict this week as ‘the last statement and move of Azerbaiajn
should cause a revelant response’.

The Armenian foreign minister said that the resolution on Karabakh
problem adopeted in UN General Assembly became an obstacle for peace
process.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NIZAMI BAHMANOV: "ARMENIAN PARLIAMENTARIANS HAVE PROVED OCCUPATION OF AZERBAIJANI LANDS BY THEIR STATEMENT"

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 30 2008

Baku. Lachin Sultanova-APA. "Armenian parliamentarians have proved
the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by the Armenian armed forces",
Nizami Bahmanov, leader of Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno Karabakh
told APA speaking about the statement of Armenian parliament issued
on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

Bahmanov said Armenians knew that Azerbaijan would liberate its
occupied territories sooner or later and they tried to insure
themselves and to show their peaceful intentions to the world
community. "They said in the statement as if Armenian government and
armed forces are the guarantee of separatists’ security in Nagorno
Karabakh". Bahmanov said domestic situation in Armenia also had an
impact on the statement. "They have tried to distract public attention
from the tensions inside the country and to direct it to the war. They
have showed once again their willingness to develop their occupying
policy and not to hold constructive negotiations".

A VIEW FROM UTOPIA: IMAGINING OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY
Victor Davis Hanson

Jewish Press, NY
April 30 2008

We know the critique of present American foreign policy under George
W. Bush – unilateralist and preemptive – and to some extent we know
Sen. Obama’s promised corrective – multilateral and reflective. So
let’s take a serious look at what exactly is wrong with the former,
and how things would substantially improve under the latter.

Let’s start with India. Indians poll pro-American by wide margins,
due no doubt to America’s unnecessary coddling of the world’s largest
democracy. If Sen. Obama acts on his complaints about the outsourcing
of U.S. jobs to India and institutes his anti-NAFTA preferences in
U.S. trade relations, India may finally receive the tough love it’s
been needing.

After all, didn’t President Bush give away the nuclear game with
India? Perhaps a President Obama will back out of existing agreements
in order to ensure that India does not receive advanced nuclear
technology. (In recompense, they’ll have little reason to complain,
relatively speaking: Sen. Obama has suggested the U.S. should
preemptively invade our ally Pakistan in order to hunt down Osama
bin Laden.)

And China – what are we doing wrong there? Its increasing appetite for
world resources means it cares not a whit what happens in the Sudan,
as long as it gets its oil. Some Chinese products, as Sen. Obama
reminds us, are shoddy and sometimes dangerous, no doubt a result of
our indiscriminate free-trade policy. The way China treats Tibetans
and Uyghur Muslims violates canons of human decency.

Will a President Obama protect American jobs, champion human rights,
and ensure fair and safe trade by redefining our relationship with
China, which holds a trillion dollars in U.S. government bonds?

Anti-Americanism runs rampant in Europe. Under an Obama administration,
should we expect friendlier governments than Sarkozy’s France
or Merkel’s Germany? Perhaps Obama might cancel that provocative
missile-defense system in Eastern Europe designed to stop an Iranian
nuclear guided missile.

Or will Sen. Obama try to save American jobs by nullifying contracts
with the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. to provide refueling
tankers to the U.S. Air Force? We can be sure he will embrace the
emissions-reduction targets set in the Kyoto accords; in that way,
he will encourage Europeans to do the same, since their repeated
failures in meeting their promised reductions must surely be laid at
Mr. Bush’s feet. The EU has been waiting for America to show the way.

Then there is Russia. Surely Obama will do something about Putin,
who seemed too cozy with Bush while he hijacked Russian democracy and
used his oil to bully Europe. Perhaps Obama can craft an ingenious
speech that will persuade the Kremlin’s ex-KGB kleptocrats to act
more civilly in the world, especially concerning their trafficking
with the likes of Iran and Syria.

Speaking of the Middle East, how will Obama restore American prestige
there and ameliorate the damage done in the Bush years? Perhaps he
could send Nancy Pelosi back to Syria to engage Mr. Assad? Or ask
the Democratic Congress to condemn Turkey for the Armenian genocide?

Will Obama’s fast-track pullout of Iraq, and his willingness to sit
down, without preconditions, with the mullahs of Iran, assure stability
in the region, and win the confidence of our Arab allies? Sens. Obama
and Clinton have both written epitaphs for the surge: why, then,
continue a failed policy?

Once Americans are out of Iraq by mid-2009, Iraqis themselves,
as Afghans, Cambodians, Somalis, Rwandans, and Yugoslavs have done
before them, can work out their differences on their own. And since we
were always the gratuitous targets that created terrorists ex nihilo,
no doubt Dr. Zawahiri and President Ahmadinejad will move on to other
Great Satans, once they see that those provocative American GIs have
turned tail and fled their neighborhoods.

Since it is self-evident that the absence of another 9/11-like
attack here at home was a fluke – and had nothing to do either with
Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, wiretaps, the destruction of Al Qaeda
bases in Afghanistan, or the annihilation of Wahhabi terrorists in
Iraq – President Obama will be free to shut down all such legally
dubious homeland-security measures. This will reassure Americans and
Europeans that those efforts were both unnecessary and antithetical to
our values. There never was, and won’t be, any danger of another 9/11.

Since NAFTA was a sellout of American workers, President Obama can,
as he seems to promise, withdraw from the association and restore
tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, while ending our xenophobic
paranoia about "secure borders" – especially silly ideas like fences
and walls. There would be no need to extend NAFTA-like accords
to Colombia, and we should also reexamine sweetheart deals with
Middle-Eastern countries like Jordan.

The world between 1992-2000 is the model we are to emulate,
it seems. The world was much safer then before George W. Bush’s
indiscriminate wars and it can be so again. In those golden days,
the U.S. rightly contextualized "random" terrorist acts – making the
proper distinctions between war and "police matters."

Yes, it’s true that thousands of American soldiers died in those
peaceful days – about 7,500 between 1993-2000 – but they did so in
noncombatant-related operations. Back then, our experts appreciated
the hard lines and firewalls that separated Hizbullah from Iran,
Sunni terrorists from Shiite killers, and were always careful not to
overreact and turn mere responses into needless wars.

In extremis, we can employ tried-and-true tools like no-fly zones,
oil-for-food embargoes, UN sanctions, and the occasional cruise
missile, avoiding the mess of President Karzai’s Afghanistan or
President Maliki’s Iraq, and the peripheral blowback involving a
jittery Libya, Syria, and Pakistan’s Dr. A. Q. Khan.

Presently the United States does the world’s heavy lifting under
a Texan who says "nucular." But soon it may well be charmed and
mesmerized by a smooth-talking icon who raises trade barriers,
leaves the Middle East to the Middle East, gets tough on China and
India, relaxes relations with Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela,
while redefining existing ones with Pakistan – and says to Europe,
"We’re right behind you!"

Let’s hope it will be as pleasant to see the results as it has been
to listen to the utopian rhetoric.

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution,
the author of several bestselling works of nonfiction including,
most recently, "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans
Fought the Peloponnesian War," and a regular contributor to National
Review Online, where this essay first appeared.

ALI AHMEDOV: "WE SHOULD NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THE RECENT REPORT OF FREEDOM HOUSE ON FREEDOM OF MASS MEDIA"

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
.html
April 30 2008

"The fact that the report of Freedom House on freedom of press
places Azerbaijan behind Armenia says that this document should not
be trusted, as it is biased".

The due announcement was made by Ali Ahmedov, deputy chairman and
executive secretary of the Yeni Azerbaijan party, according to APA.

He said the most important is the assessment of the country residents.

"The assessments made by any public international organizations differ
from each others so much and are so discrepant and it is difficult to
trust them. To place Azerbaijan behind Armenia after all the events,
which occurred in this country in connection with the presidential
elections, is another demonstration of the policy of double standards.

We should not pay attention to such groundless and biased reports. The
document is based on principles which are far from justice".

Ahmedov said Armenia has many supporters and development of such a
report pursues the goal of concealing its shame from the world.

It should be noted that in the report, Azerbaijan occupies the 168th
place by freedom of press and Armenia 144th.