Month: August 2008

PROKOFIEV – THE SYMPHONIES
Carol Main

The List
14 August 2008
UK

Russian around with the tireless Valery Gergiev

In one of the most exciting orchestral weekends hosted by the Usher
Hall, the London Symphony Orchestra appears with its principal
conductor, Valery Gergiev, performing all of Prokofiev’s seven
symphonies plus the two violin concertos with soloist Leonidas
Kavakos. As the venue’s redevelopment programme is still in progress,
audiences are advised to allow more time than usual to find your
seat. The real problem may be getting people to vacate them, as this
particularly potent combination of music and musicians is highly
likely to leave audiences demanding more.

A long-time champion of the music of Prokofiev – and, indeed, fellow
Russian Shostakovich – Gergiev is at his ‘absolute best’ with these
two composers, according to EIF director Jonathan Mills. ‘But it is
more than just as a conductor,’ he says. ‘He is a conductor and a
proselytizer in the best sense.’

Born in Moscow in 1953, Gergiev spent the formative years of his
conducting career in Russia. He conducted many of the main orchestras
of the former Soviet Union, especially the Armenian State Orchestra,
leading to his appointment as chief conductor at the Kirov Opera in
1988 where he has been artistic director and principal conductor
since 1996 when he was invited by the Russian government to take
up the post. ‘He’d had the choice to cut and run or make a stance,’
says Mills. ‘It was at a time when Russia was in difficult social and
economic circumstances and Gergiev was in charge of one of its great
institutions, the Kirov and Mariinsky Theatre. He was being sounded
out for many glittering jobs in the west, but he stayed in Russia. I
think that he showed incredible guts and courage for standing up for
the people and supporting their own culture, and he should be praised
for it. "We may not have bread," he would say, "but we can sing!"’

Although there are a number of enticing one-off concerts, the
residencies that underpin them are vital to the Festival’s orchestral
programming. ‘It gives people the opportunity to hear more than just
one idea from an orchestra,’ says Mills. ‘And Gergiev certainly brings
a special quality to this repertoire.’

CSTO PA: GEORGIA COMMITTED GENOCIDE AGAINST S. OSSETIA

News Agency "24.kg"
14/08-2008 07:48
Bishkek

"Georgia committed genocide against innocent civilians in S. Ossetia,"
Collective Security Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly (CSTO
PA) says.

A special statement unveiling evaluation of Georgia assault on
S. Ossetia was composed at the Council of CSTO PA, Speaker of State
Duma Boris Gryzlov said. The statement is a result of consultations
held with the leadership of CSTO member-state.

"Consultations revealed similarity of our positions with regard to
S. Ossetia," Boris Gryzlov added.

CSTO PA admits horrible consequences of the war: thousands of dead
civilians, destroyed infrastructure, doubtful peaceful settlement of
Georgia- S. Ossetia conflict.

Among SCTO member-states are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

THE LOBBY LIKE NO OTHER WANTS A WAR LIKE NO OTHER
by Michael Scheuer

Antiwar.com
August 14, 2008
CA

Having watched John McCain and Barack Obama resolutely pledge their
allegiance – and their countrymen’s lives and treasure – to the
defense of Israel via AIPAC, the media, and personal meetings with
Israeli leaders, it is worth asking what could possibly drive these
men to so ardently commit America to participation in other people’s
religious wars. This question is particularly important today as the
Bush administration and the Israel-firsters continue to push for an
unprovoked U.S. attack on Iran.

Let me say that I harbor no resentment over the actions of Israel’s
leaders. For more than 60 years, they have knowingly made their country
a pariah in the Arab and Islamic worlds, just as the Palestinians
have made themselves pariahs in much of the West. This is, of course,
the right of both parties, but neither seems to want to face the
consequences of their decisions. With demographic realities and
increasingly radical, well-armed Arabs making them panicky about
Israel’s security, Israel’s leaders naturally to try to lock down as
much U.S. support as possible. Having consciously – if unwisely –
put all their eggs in the U.S. basket since the 1973 War, Israel’s
leaders must do everything possible to protect their relationship
with Washington.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq, it seems, was not enough for the
Israel-firsters. Now, according to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a
U.S.-launched war on Iran is needed because "the threat that the
U.S. and Israel face from the Islamic Republic of Iran is today
greater than ever." Though based on the fantasy that Ahmedinejad’s
tin-pot regime is a threat to the world’s only superpower, this is a
perfectly commonsense position for Israel and its U.S.-citizen backers
in AIPAC to champion. In their view, U.S. wars with Muslims are the
ultimate good for Israel. Recall, if you will, the perfectly accurate
April 2008, words of Benjamin Netanyahu, likely Israel’s next prime
minister: "We [Israel] are benefiting from one thing, and that is the
attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, and the American struggle
in Iraq." These wars, Netanyahu said, have "swung American public
opinion in our favor." How much more must Netanyahu and AIPAC believe
that a U.S. war with Iran would add to this "swing" in Israel’s favor?

My own anger falls not on Israel, then, or on Palestine, for that
matter; as I have written elsewhere, America would do just fine and
would be better off without either or both. It falls rather on the
lobbying efforts of AIPAC, that organization’s blatant purchasing
of fealty from U.S. politicians in both parties, and the media’s
obsequious parroting of specious canards about "Israel’s right to
exist" and "the duty of Americans to support an island of democracy
in the Middle East."

While few would question the right of AIPAC leaders to lobby
U.S. politicians, legally bribe them with campaign contributions, or
limit their right to speak as they please in public, not matter how
scurrilous or libelous their words, I sometimes wonder if Americans
have focused on what AIPAC lobbies for and what its acolytes in
politics and the media support.

It is a commonplace to say that lobbying is a pervasive activity
in U.S. politics at all levels of government, especially at the
federal level. People lobby for tax advantages for business or tax
breaks for individuals; for the right to own guns or laws to ban
them; for subsidies for agriculture or vouchers for private schools;
for universal health care or smaller government. Across this diverse
array of lobbyists there are two common threads: (A) None are working
to push the United States to participate in other peoples’ wars; and
(B) All are arguing for things that will – from their perspective –
improve America, whether by making it richer, better protected, more
competently educated, healthier, freer, etc. The anti-gun lobby,
for example, is no less confident than the NRA and its affiliates
that they are working for the best interests of Americans. One or the
other is wrong, but their activities are shaped by their perception
of what is best for America.

It is this last point that separates the lobbyists working for and
with AIPAC – most of whom are U.S. citizens – from almost all other
U.S.-based lobbyists. AIPAC does not lobby, bribe, and libel to make
Americans and America better off. It lobbies solely, forthrightly,
and cynically to make Israel richer, better protected, and able to
do as it pleases in its relations with Muslim states. AIPAC makes
no pretense of doing things meant to benefit America; rather, its
members take pride in seeking a goal that runs directly counter to
the economic welfare and physical security of almost all other U.S
citizens by seeking to keep them involved in a religious war in which
no U.S. national interest is at stake.

Now, there are a few other similar anti-American lobbies – those for
Armenia, Lebanon, Greece, etc. – but AIPAC is clearly primus inter
pares in this dastardly group. And given that every AIPAC success
is a net loss for U.S. security and the U.S. Treasury, it seems odd
that our so-called political leaders take orders and funds from this
fundamentally anti-U.S. organization. Odd or not, however, that is
the reality. Senators Obama and McCain have become AIPAC poster boys,
each strengthening his support for Israel over the course of the
current presidential campaign. Obama’s position, in fact, has changed
so drastically in a pro-Israel direction that the Illinois senator
appears to have no mind of his own on this issue. He has simply and
obsequiously adopted the Democrats’ traditional abject subservience
to their small but powerful pro-Israel constituency.

McCain is an Israel-firster of the deepest hue. Coached by Joe
Lieberman – who argues there is a U.S. duty to ensure God’s promise to
Abraham about Israel is kept – McCain is now considering Republican
Congressman Eric Cantor for his running mate. Rep. Cantor, needless
to say, is eager to spend American blood and treasure to secure
Israel. Speaking in Israel, Cantor pushed the same false assertion
that is the staple of U.S. leaders in both parties. "What befalls
Jerusalem," Cantor said, "threatens the security of the United States
and its allies worldwide. That’s because Jerusalem and Israel are
Ground Zero in the global battle between tyranny and democracy,
radicalism and moderation, terrorism and freedom."

This, of course, is nonsense of a high order, and Lieberman and
Cantor know it. Both men are committed to Israel as a religious idea,
not because it has anything to do with U.S. security. According to
Lieberman, "The rabbis say in the Talmud that a lot of rabbinic
law is to put a fence around the Torah so you don’t get near
to violating it. Well, McCain has a series of very clear-headed
policies toward terrorism and Islamic extremism [that put] extra
layers behind his support for Israel." He also told a conference
of Christians United for Israel that he was pleased they recognized
it was America’s duty to defend Israel, blithely lying to them that
"President Washington and the Founding Fathers" would support America
fighting Israel’s wars. Cantor, playing to both the Israel-firsters
and their U.S. evangelical allies, also has made clear where his
primary loyalty lies:

"Jerusalem is not merely the capital of Israel but the spiritual
capital of Jews and Christians everywhere. It’s the site of the
First and Second Temples, which housed the Holy of Holies, and it’s
the direction in which we Jews face when we pray. This glorious City
of David is bound to the Jewish people by an undeniable 3,000-year
historical link."

My own view is that if God promised Palestine to the Israelis, God
is perfectly capable of keeping that promise, and America is no way
committed to expend the lives of its soldier-children in a war over
conflicting interpretations of God’s word. The Israelis and the Muslims
should be perfectly free to fight over whether Yahweh and Abraham or
Allah and Mohammed are right, and Americans should be perfectly free
to draw the correct conclusion, that the United States does not have
a dog in this fight. In addition, there is a genuine constitutional
question of church-state separation on this issue. Why should American
taxpayers have their earnings and children’s lives spent to defend
a theocracy in Israel or, for that matter, to protect an Islamic
theocracy in Saudi Arabia.? (Imagine the howls of protest and torrents
of church-state separation rhetoric from the media and both parties
if a congressman introduced a bill calling for the U.S. to designate
that an amount equivalent to what’s spent to protect Israel and Saudi
Arabia be sent to the Vatican – a nation-state like Israel and Saudi
Arabia – to improve its defenses against the now well-articulated
threat from al-Qaeda and other Islamists.)

Objectively, three realities are clear: (1) U.S. survival is not at
stake in the Israeli-Muslim war; (2) the taxes of Americans should
not be spent to defend theocratic states; and (3) holy books are
insane tools to use as guides for U.S. foreign policy. In America,
however, these realities lie unspoken because of the lobbying efforts
of AIPAC and the pro-Israel mantras of the politicians it purchases
with campaign contributions and promises of media exposure, including
McCain and Obama. By their consistent anti-American actions, AIPAC and
the U.S. politicians who do its bidding have fully validated the words
of the real George Washington – not the figment of Washington painted
by Joe Lieberman. "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,"
President Washington wrote in 1796, "the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican
government."

WATERTOWN TOWN COUNCIL MAY ASK BLUE CROSS TO SEVER TIES WITH ‘NO PLACE FOR HATE’ OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Steve Bagley

Watertown TAB & Press
Wed Aug 13, 2008, 11:07 AM EDT
MA

Watertown’s Town Council, which last summer launched a state-wide
movement to decry the Anti-Defamation League’s stance on the Armenian
Genocide, may also sever ties with Blue Cross Blue Shield over
the issue.

The Town Council has decided to send Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Massachusetts a strongly-worded letter asking for the company
to explain why they fund the ADL’s "No Place for Hate" tolerance
program. The ADL, a group that fights anti-Semitism and other forms
of bigotry, has come under fire from Armenian-Americans and their
supporters for failing to unequivocally call the Armenian Genocide
a genocide.

Several people went to the Town Council meeting to cheer the
resolution. After the council decided to draft a letter, reactions
were mixed. Berge Jololian wanted the council to do more.

"It’s taxpayer’s money," he said. "Denying genocide is murdering the
victims twice, by erasing their memory from the pages of history."

Blue Cross is among the health insurance options for town employees.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Spokesman Jay McQuaide said the healthcare
provider would be happy to appear before the board.

"They’re an account," he said, "We’d be happy to talk to them."

McQuaide said the healthcare provider was very happy to be associated
with the ADL’s mission.

"We’re very proud to be the first company to be named a ‘No Place
for Hate’ company."

The healthcare provider has been funding the ADL’s program since 2001,
he said.

"It’s a great message against intolerance," McQuaide said. "It’s a
key part of our diversity program for employees."

Read the Town Council resolution (pdf)

The letter will go out by August 14, Councilor at Large Mark Sideris
said. Town Council President Clyde Younger pushed for the letter
because he wanted to give the healthcare provider a chance to explain
why they are apparently sending money to the Anti-Defamation League,
despite the ADL’s continuous refusal to call the eight-year slaughter
of 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman empire a genocide. It would
be only fair to give BCBS a chance to explain themselves, Younger said.

"I don’t like to make decisions in ignorance," Younger told a council
room packed with members of Watertown’s Armenian community and their
supporters. Younger is among those who has Blue Cross insurance.

Councilors said if the health company does not appear before the board,
they would go forward with a resolution demanding they stop sending
cash to the ADL. That resolution was sponsored by Town Councilors
Steve Corbett, a candidate for state representative, and co-signed
by Councilors at Large Marilyn Devaney and Mark Sideris.

"It’s the next step toward advocating for the Armenian people,"
Corbett said. "It’s a simple request. We’re requesting Blue Cross
Blue Shield sever its ties with ADL and ‘No Place for Hate.’"

Watertown thinks it can tell Blue Cross Blue Shield what to do
because many Watertown residents, including members of the council,
have insurance with the company, Devaney said.

"Blue Cross Blue Shield is blatantly using people’s money, taking their
subscribers’ money and using it supporting programs to deny Armenian
people their history, denying the Armenian genocide," Devaney said.

The ADL did not return calls for comment.

Of Blue Cross’ 3,800 Massachusetts employees, McQuaide said, he was
sure there were some of Armenian descent. McQuaide refused to state
on the record how the company justifies the ADL’s mission with its
ongoing denial of the Armenian genocide.

Khatchig Mouradian, editor of the Armenian Weekly, an Armenian
newspaper based out of Watertown and circulating in 32 states across
the East and West Coast, said the Town Council’s resolution is the
next step in a long process.

"This issue hasn’t stopped," Mouradian said. "As long as there are
people in different towns and different communities willing to stand
together with Armenians, the issue will continue to come up."

Mouradian had harsh words for the Anti-Defamation League. They have
not been doing their job, he said.

"It is expected that the ADL be as firm when it comes to the denial
of other holocausts," the editor said.

When Watertown first stopped supporting ‘No Place for Hate,’
Mouradian said, a movement spread across Massachusetts, the country
and eventually, the world.

"Some of the major activists behind this were Watertown residents
first," he said.

Several nations changed their foreign policy decisions, Mouradian said.

"It was being talked about in the Turkish Parliament," Mouradian
said. "When ADL issued the statement [the Armenian Genocide] was
‘tantamount to genocide,’ even the Turkish Parliament was upset."

The Anti-Defamation League has posted a statement on their Web site
after several municipalities in Massachusetts left or suspended their
ties to ‘No Place for Hate.’ It said if the word genocide existed
during the time of the Armenian genocide, from 1915-23, that word
would have been used. The ADL refers to the three-year organized
slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians in living in the Ottoman Empire as
"tantamount to genocide."

"’Tantamount to genocide’ is not good enough," said Alin Gregorian,
editor of the Mirror Spectator, another Armenian paper based in
Watertown.

Gregorian said many of the survivors of the genocide are almost 100
years old.

"I’m afraid it won’t get official recognition in their lifetimes,"
she said.

Devaney was overcome with emotion when she discussed why she cosigned
Corbett’s resolution.

"They took the people across the desert, put them into caves and
gassed them," Devaney said, sobbing. "Hitler got the idea from them."

Devaney took credit for getting 13 municipalities to cut ties with ‘No
Place for Hate.’ She said she had hope for Corbett’s initiative, too.

"I’m very confident. We’re close. We’re going to do it," Devaney
said. "Right here, we should make a stand."

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LIU BREAKS 3 WEIGHTLIFTING RECORDS

China Post
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Taiwan

BEIJING — Liu Chunhong broke three world records in the women’s
69-kilogram division Wednesday, def ending her Olympic title to win
China’s sixth gold medal in the weightlifting competition.

Liu set a new high score of 128 kg (282.2 pounds) in her third attempt
in the snatch. She then lifted 158 kg (348.3 pounds) to set a new
top mark in the clean and jerk.

Her total of 286 kg (630.52 pounds) also was a world record, beating
the previous mark by an astounding 10 kg (22.1 pounds).

World champion Oxana Slivenko of Russia was a distant second, lifting
a total of 255 kg (562.17 pounds). Ukraine’s Natalya Davydova took
the bronze.

Sa Jae-hyouk of South Korea stopped China’s gold rush in weightlifting
by edging home crowd favorite Li Hongli to win the men’s 77-kilogram
division.

Sa and Li both lifted a total of 366 kg (806.9 pounds), but Sa got
the win because of a lower body weight. Armenia’s Gevorg Davtyan took
the bronze, totaling 360 kg (793.7 pounds) in the two events.

China had previously won all six of the weight categories it had
participated in.

Sa was 3 kg (6.6 pounds) behind Li after lifting 163 kg (359.4 pounds)
in the snatch, but stunned the Chinese crowd by heaving 203 kg (447.5
pounds) in his second clean and jerk.

It was South Korea’s first gold in the weightlifting competition.

Liu’s performance, meanwhile, was the most impressive yet in the
weightlifting competition, which China has dominated from the start.

The Olympic host has won three gold medals for women and another
three for men in the sport, boosting its overall Olympic medal count.

Underscoring her superiority, Liu entered the snatch at 120 kg (264.6
pounds), 5 kg (11 pounds) higher than any of the other lifters had
managed in all three attempts.

After easily clearing that weight, she set new snatch world records
in her next two lifts, at 125 kg (275.6 pounds) and 128 kg (282.2
pounds), delighting the home crowd.

Even the third attempt looked easy. Instead of holding for a moment
in a squat like most lifters, Liu stood up as soon as she had pulled
the bar overhead. She took one small step with each foot and then
remained perfectly steady.

The lift was 5 kg (11 pounds) higher than Slivenko’s previous snatch
world record.

In the clean and jerk, Liu took 145 kg (319.7 pounds) in her first
try and 149 kg (328.5 pounds) in the second. At that point she already
had set a new world record total.

Backed by the chants of the Chinese audience, she then obliterated
Russian’s Zarema Kasaeva’s clean and jerk world record to cap a
perfect competition.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AFTER 15 YEARS IN GEORGIA, UNT PROFESSOR LEAVES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE AMID BOMBING
By Anna M. [email protected]

Fort Worth Star Telegram
Aug. 13, 2008
TX

You know it’s summer when chupacabra shows up Seat belts could have
saved many in bus crash, official says

Despite the jets flying overhead and the sound of constant bombing,
UNT professor Reid Ferring didn’t want to leave Georgia.

But after a bomb blast knocked him out of bed near his archaeological
site in southern Georgia on Monday, he knew that he needed to leave
his research project on medieval ruins and temporarily stop his work
on building a cooperative relationship between the Georgian National
Museum and the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History.

"We knew things were hot, and we had been hearing Russian jets
overhead. But the bomb that shook me out of my bed was a signal
that there was some danger," said Ferring, a geology and archaeology
professor at the University of North Texas and a board member of the
Fort Worth museum. "They were bombing all over the country."

He contacted the U.S. Embassy and ultimately joined a caravan of four
buses and 25 to 30 private vehicles on a five-hour drive south across
the border to Armenia. There he caught a flight to Munich, Germany,
and then to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport on Tuesday night, wrapping up
about 50 hours of travel.

Ferring is among 170 Americans evacuated from Georgia as fighting
between Russian and Georgian troops escalated after the outbreak last
week in Georgia’s breakaway province of South Ossetia.

"We knew days before that things were steaming up," said Ferring,
60, who has worked on and off in Georgia on this project since the
early 1990s. "They were lobbing shells across the border into Georgia."

But he continued his research on the oldest archaeological sites
outside Africa — this one being Dmanisi in south Georgia, 1.75
million years old.

"After the ground invasion began, they said we needed to get out,"
he said Wednesday.

UNT officials called Ferring late last week after a computer system
set up to track students and professors notified them that he was
in Georgia.

They reached him on the phone by Friday afternoon and started working
on backup plans in case he couldn’t reach the U.S. Embassy in the
capital, Tbilisi, about 135 miles away, or needed emergency help.

"We got lucky," said Eric Canny, UNT’s director of international
initiatives, who worked with Ferring. "We didn’t need the fallback
plans. We were ecstatic knowing he was on his way back."

"I had mixed feelings about leaving," Ferring said from his home in
Denton. "I wanted to get out, but part of me wanted to stay there
with my Georgian friends, to show them that Americans do care.

"I’ve been working there for 15 years and have a lot of friends
there. All of them were saying, ‘Where’s America? Why aren’t you
helping us?’ What could I say?"

Just that he would be back, but perhaps not until next summer.

"I’ll go back as soon as I can," he said. "At this point, I’m just
terrified of what the final situation is going to be in Georgia.

"I’ve watched it from a newly free state to a country that is building
new roads, schools, hospitals and truly becoming an emerging democracy
and an ally of the U.S.," he said. "I hope that system is preserved."

CHINESE TOP LIGHT FLYWEIGHT ZOU, U.S. BET YANEZ ADVANCE BUT TANAMOR FALLS
Norman Vergara

AHN
August 13, 2008 9:40 p.m. EST

Beijing, China (AHN) – China’s Zou Shiming, the only boxer with
previous Olympic experience in Beijing, stamped his class against
Venezuelan Eduard Bermudez 11-2 to reach the Round of 16 in the light
flyweight division Wednesday night at the Workers’ Gymnasium.

The host nation’s only gold bet in the division moved on to the next
round against Frenchman Nordine Oubaali, who nipped his Uzbekistani
foe Rafikjon Sultonov 8-7.

While Zou coasted to a searing win, his old rival Harry Tanamor of
the Philippines suffered a crushing loss against Ghana’s Manyo Plange
6-3. Tanamor, the silver medalist in last year’s world championships,
was in disarray early on and was a shadow of his earlier self that
appeared in the Chicago event.

The defeat gives Zou almost a clear path in duplicating his gold-medal
finish in the worlds. In Athens four years ago, Zou copped the
bronze medal.

In other light flyweight matches held Wednesday night, Winston Mendez
Montero carved out a 9-3 beating of Kenya’s Suleiman Bilali. Thai
Amnat Ruanroeng bombed out Jack Willie of Papua New Guinea 14-2 and
American Luis Yanez held off Spaniard Kelvin de la Nieve 12-9.

Yanez’s victory came almost a month after he was reinstated to the
USA Boxing Olympic team. He next faces Mongolian Purevdori Serdamba
in the Round of 16.

The rest who made the next round include Ukrainian Georgiy Chygayev,
Cuban Yampier Hernandez, Irish Paddy Barnes, Ecuadorian Jose Luis
Meza, Namibian Japhet Uutoni, Polish Lukasz Maszczyk, Kazakh Birzhan
Zhakypov and Armenian Hovhannes Danielyan.

In heavyweight action, world champion Clemente Russo of Italy secured a
place in the quarterfinals by beating Belarus’ Viktar Zuyev 7-1. Russo
will face Ukrainian Oleksandr Usyk in the last eight.

The United States’ Deontay Wilder also advanced by defeating Algerian
Abdelaziz Toulbini, and Frenchman John M’Bumba likewise moved on
after nipping Colombian Deivi Julio Blanco.

LDS MISSIONARIES PULLED FROM WAR-TORN GEORGIA

ABC 4, Salt Lake City
Aug 13, 2008

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The LDS Church says it evacuated all
of its missionaries from Georgia.

The conflict heated up again on Wednesday when Russia sent more tanks
and troops into the country after a brief peace agreement.

The church says it had 15 missionaries in Georgia and Armenia.

Included in the group is the mission president, his wife, nine young
missionaries and two senior couples.

BLAMING DEMOCRACY

Washington Post
August 14, 2008; Page A16
United States

Editorials

The fundamental principle at stake in Georgia

YOU MIGHT think, at a moment such as this, that the moral calculus
would be pretty well understood. Russian troops are occupying large
swaths of Georgia, a tiny neighboring country, and sacking its
military bases. Russian jets have roamed Georgian skies, bombing
civilian and military targets alike. Russian ships are said to be
controlling Georgia’s port of Poti, while militia under Russia’s
control reportedly massacre Georgian civilians. Russian officials
openly seek to depose Georgia’s elected government. Yet, in Washington,
the foreign policy sophisticates cluck and murmur that, after all,
the Georgians should have known better than to chart an independent
course — and what was the Bush administration thinking when it
encouraged them in their dangerous delusions? If the criticism is
correct, a fundamental and generations-old tenet of American foreign
policy is wrong, so we should be clear about what is at stake.

Part of the blame-the-victim argument is tactical — the notion
that the elected president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, foolishly
allowed the Russians to goad him into a military operation to recover a
small separatist region of Georgia. Mr. Saakashvili says, in an article
we publish on the opposite page today, that the facts are otherwise,
that he ordered his troops into action only after a Russian armored
column was on the move. If that’s not true — if he moved first —
he was indeed foolish, and if Georgian shelling targeted civilians,
it should be condemned. It is a bit rich, though, for the Russians
— who twice flattened their separatist-inclined city of Grozny,
the capital of Chechnya, killing tens of thousands of civilians in
the name of territorial integrity — to wave the war-crimes banner now.

Moreover, the evidence is persuasive and growing that Russia planned
and instigated this war. Russian cyberwarfare against Georgia’s
Internet infrastructure began as early as July 20, the New York
Times reported yesterday. Weeks before that, Russian railway troops
had entered another separatist region of Georgia to repair key
tracks. Russia had 150 tanks and other armored vehicles ready to roll,
strategic targets selected for its air force, naval units off Georgia’s
Black Sea coast. And during the week before the war, Russian-controlled
militia were shelling Georgian villages with increasing ferocity.

In the face of those provocations, U.S. officials urged Mr. Saakashvili
to show restraint. But if the charge is that the Bush administration
encouraged Georgia’s yearnings for true independence, the verdict
surely is "guilty" — just as when the Clinton administration
encouraged Georgia under Eduard Shevardnadze and as the first President
Bush welcomed the freedom of Warsaw Pact nations when the Berlin Wall
fell in 1989. Now we are told that Russia’s invasion last weekend
proves the improvidence of this policy: The United States should
have helped Georgia to understand that it lies in Russia’s "sphere
of influence," beyond the reach of American help.

At first blush, that may sound like common sense. What is Georgia
to us, after all, far away and without natural resources? And yet,
where would the logic carry us? Poland, too, used to be in Moscow’s
"sphere" — and Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, and on and on. Should
they, too, bow to Vladimir Putin? Why not Finland, while we’re at
it? You can quickly begin to see the reemergence of a world that
would be neither in America’s interest nor much to Americans’ liking.

If a democratically elected Ukraine chooses not to join NATO —
and Ukrainians are divided on the question — NATO will not force
itself on Ukraine. But if Ukrainians — or Georgians, Armenians or
anyone else — recoil at Russia’s authoritarian model and choose to
associate with the West, should the United States refrain from "egging
them on"? Since the days of the Soviet Union, when the United States
never abandoned the cause of "captive nations," American policy has
been that independent nations should be free to rule themselves and
shape their future. How, and how effectively, the United States can
support those aspirations inevitably will vary from case to case and
from time to time, and supporting those aspirations certainly won’t
always involve military force. But for the United States to counsel a
"realistic" acceptance of vassal status to any nation would mark a
radical departure from past principles and practices.

Q&A: PROFESSOR M. STEVE FISH COMMENTS ON RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN CONFLICT
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations

UC Berkeley
13 August 2008
CA

BERKELEY – Tensions appear to be mounting in the continuing violent
conflict between Russia and Georgia that began last Thursday over
the separatist Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The
number of dead exceeded 2,000 and the number of Georgian refugees
was more than 30,000 within a few days.

M.Steve Fish Georgia borders the Black Sea between Russia and
Turkey. It was ruled by Moscow for almost 200 years before the Soviet
Union’s breakup in 1991. Russia has backed the separatist movements
in Georgia of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

M. Steven Fish, a UC Berkeley professor of political science, has
written extensively about contemporary Russian history and culture and
answers below some basic questions about the situation in Georgia. He
also has a video presentation about Russian autocracy on YouTube.

He also is among a few of UC Berkeley’s experts available to talk
about the clash between Georgia and Russia.

Q. Can a cease-fire hold?

A. Since so many conflicts in the contemporary world are between
stateless entities, observers of world politics have come to regard
"cease fire" as a virtually meaningless, made-to-be-broken rule,
but in the conflict between Russia and Georgia, we’re talking about
two states and two national military organizations.

It is definitely in the best interests of both countries to adhere
to a cease fire, hopefully sooner rather than later.

The Russians might not want to be seen as violating a cease-fire they
agreed to; and the Georgians might want to adhere to the cease first
because the Russians showed that they were willing and able to tear
Georgia apart, so for Georgia to violate any cease-fire agreement
would verge on national suicide. On the other hand, the Russian
government might want to demonstrate — to Georgia, other neighbors,
the world as a whole, and its own people — that it will act at will,
unconstrainted by law and formal agreements, even those it has signed.

Here we see the arrogance of the aggrieved, insecure great power that
seeks to demonstrate its might by thumbing its nose at international
disapproval. If the Russians choose this path, they won’t be alone;
such a posture has characterized the Bush administration’s mentality
and actions ever since 2001.

Q. What are the prospects for peace?

A. The prospects for a lasting, truly peaceful settlement are dim
because of the national antagonism between Russians and Georgians
(the people, not just the governments); the untenability in political
and legal terms of the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (formally
part of Georgia but de facto annexed by Russia); and the Russian
government’s deeply-rooted, long-term intention of reestablishing
dominion (not full formal control, but very extensive influence)
over the south Caucasus (meaning Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan).

Q. How might presidential politics in the United States impact what
happens between Russia and Georgia?

A. Some of the prospects for peace rest on what happens in the United
States in November. Bush and McCain have both eagerly sought a new
Cold War with Russia, and part of their policy has been forming an
intimate, almost client-like relationship with Georgia.

Absent that kind of relationship with the United States (and I
think a Democratic president would be much more savvy and much less
confrontational in relations with Russia), no Georgian government
will engage in the kind of antics that this one did by launching
the (legally justifiable but politically idiotic) military play for
South Ossetia.