Month: August 2008

OLYMPIC CHAMPION ISRAEL MILITOSIAN TURNS 40

Noyan Tapan

Au g 26, 2008

YEREVAN, AUGUST 26, NOYAN TAPAN. The famous Armenian weightlifter
Israel Militosian (Gyumri) turned 40 on August 25. He has been a
champion and prize-winner of the USSR, the world, European champonships
and Olympic Games. As a member of the USSR Olympic team he won a
silver medal at the Seoul Olympic Games and became a champion of the
Barcelona Olympic Games.

I. Militosian is an Honored Master of Sports of the USSR. He is
currently the director of the Gyumri weighlifting school of the RA
ministry of sport and youth issues.

UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR ARMENIANS TO RECLAIM THEIR PROPERTIES IN TURKEY
By Harut Sassounian, The California Courier

Noyan Tapan

Au g 26, 2008

Armenian citizens of several Middle Eastern countries may have a
unique opportunity to reclaim their properties in Turkey without
hiring a lawyer or going to court.

A Turkish newspaper reported last week that the government of Turkey
has been negotiating with Syria, Iraq and Egypt over conflicting land
claims of those citizens who lost their properties after the collapse
of the Ottoman Empire.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan took up this long-standing issue during their recent
meeting in Turkey, but failed to come to a mutually acceptable
solution, according to an article by Ercan Yavuz in the August 23,
2008 issue of Today’s Zaman.

Turkey claims that its citizens own a total of 750,000 acres of land
in Syria, Iraq and Egypt. Turkish officials also claim that the Syrian
government confiscated lands belonging to citizens of Turkey. In a
reciprocal move, in 1966, Ankara confiscated the properties of Syrian
citizens living in Turkey. After lengthy negotiations, Turkey and Syria
signed a protocol in 1972 and created a joint commission to document
the disputed properties. "Turkish citizens hold 2,411 title deeds in
Syria, of which 2,108 are slated for evaluation by the commission,"
Today’s Zama n reported.

The commission reportedly confirmed that Turkish citizens own 2,534
real estate plots in Syria, involving 250,000 acres of land, 1,576
houses and 3,533,844 Syrian liras. Some of these deeds were rejected
by the Syrian government, while the status of more than 700 others
could not be resolved.

Syria also rejected 276 out of 987 submitted files; and 711 cases have
not yet been decided upon, according to Mr. Yavuz’s article. Syria
reportedly confirmed that Turkish citizens own about 250,000 acres of
land in Syria, while claiming that its citizens own an equal amount of
land in Turkey. Turkey, on the other hand, claimed that its citizens
own twice as much land in Syria.

Turkey has had a similar dispute with Iraq and Egypt. Iraq adopted a
law in 1961 restricting Turkish citizens to buying no more than one
house and one workplace. Iraq then ordered the sale or confiscation
of properties belonging to Turkish citizens, according to Today’s
Zaman. In 1985, Turkey and Iraq agreed to allow property owners in
their respective countries five years to file a claim. The due date
was subsequently extended twice. Turkey sent 87 files of land claims
to Iraq, 53 of which were reportedly accepted by Iraq. In all, Turkey
claimed that its citizens own in Iraq about 160,000 acres of land,
150 buildings, 11 charitable foundations, more than 2 million Iraqi
dinars and 8,000 pounds sterling. On the other hand, I raq claims
its citizens own 48 buildings and 11 plots of land in Turkey. The
American invasion of Iraq interrupted the settlement of these claims.

Turkey also signed an agreement with Egypt in 1982 to solve their
property disputes. According to Today’s Zaman, 1,590 files have
been submitted by Turkish citizens who claim property ownership in
Egypt. The Egyptian government has reportedly accepted 256 of these
files. In addition, Turkey claims that the Egyptian government,
agreeing that 31 charitable foundations in Egypt belong to citizens
of Turkey, paid more than ,000 to 72 Turkish citizens.

Leading Armenian organizations in Syria, Iraq and Egypt should contact
their respective government officials and verify the information
published by Today’s Zaman. If the Turkish report is accurate, these
organizations should urge Armenian citizens of their countries,
including those living overseas, to submit to them copies of their
property deeds or other documentary evidence of ownership. The
organizations would then pursue the inclusion of Armenian claims
in the negotiations being held by their respective governments with
Turkey, demanding either the return of Armenian-owned lands or fair
compensation for the lost properties.

The key advantage of this approach is that Armenians do not need
to hire lawyers and go to court, as the officials of the three Arab
countries, on behalf of their citizens, are negotiating directly with
their Turkish counterparts to settle such reciprocal claims.

This is a unique opportunity that Armenians need to take advantage
of immediately. Once the outstanding property ownership disputes are
settled, Armenian citizens of Syria, Iraq and Egypt may never again
have the opportunity to reclaim their properties located in Turkey.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ASSETS OF CENTRAL BANK OF ARMENIA REDUCE 0.75% TO AMD 579.2 BILLLION

ARKA
Aug 25, 2008

YEREVAN, August 25. /ARKA/. The assets of the Central Bank of Armenia
totaled AMD 579.2 billion by late June after reducing 0.75% over six
months, the Central Bank’s report for the 2nd Q 2008 says.

According to the report, assets in foreign currency made 82.67%
of total assets against 84.79% earlier this year.

The bank’s assets in foreign currency reduced 3.23% or by the amount
equal to about AMD 16 billion and totaled about AMD 478.8 billion by
late June.

Foreign banks’ liabilities toward the Central Bank reached about
AMD 185 billion after growing 13.38% or by AMD 21.8 billion over the
second quarter.

Foreign currency assets placed in IMF totaled 4.4 billion against
2.3 billion in early April.

The foreign currency assets intended for sale remained unchanged –
AMD 1 million 216 thousand.

The Central Bank’s investments in financial instruments totaled AMD
288.6 billion by late June against AMD 328.6 billion in early April.

Cash in foreign currency was AMD 374.2 million against 383.1 million
in early April.

The Central Bank’s other assets in foreign currency reached AMD 550.2
million by late June after growing 81.42%.

Assets in Armenian drams amounted to AMD 100.3 billion against AMD
88.8 billion earlier that quarter.

They grew 13.08% in the second quarter.

According to balance data, credit investments and agreements on return
REPO reached AMD 42.2 billion by late June after growing 38.07%.

The Central Bank’s investments in assets available for sale totaled
AMD 48.6 billion against 48.9 billion.

Fixed assets and non-material assets totaled AMD 8.7 billion.

Other assets in drams shrank from AMD 1.2 billion to AMD 898
million. ($1 = AMD 303.44).

$20 MLN ALLOCATED TO ARMENIA UNDER MILLENNIUM CHALLENGES CORPORATION PROGRAM IN JAN-AUG

ARKA
Aug 26, 2008

YEREVAN, August 26. /ARKA/. $20mln was allocated to Armenia in
January-August under Millennium Challenges Corporation program, General
Executive Director of "Millennium Challenges – Armenia Foundation"
state non-commercial organization Ara Hovsepyan told journalists.

A part of these funds has already been used for implementation
of programs, he said adding that the Armenian side is
submitting applications to the Corporation for allocation every
quarter. Applications are discussed at Millennium Challenges
Corporation sittings. The next application is to be submitted in
September for works to be carried out in September-December, Hovsepyan
said adding that the exact amount of the allocation is not known yet.

As to the road construction component of the Millennium Challenges
program, according to the agreement between the Armenian Government
and the Corporation, construction works under the first package
of the program were to be carried out of the state budget proceeds,
Hovsepyan said. According to him, the Government has already allocated
$16.8mln. The corporation funds are expected to come as from January
2009, Hovsepyan said.

Under the agreement of March 27 2006 the Armenian Government is to
receive a $235.65mln grant from Millennium Challenges Corporation
during five years.

The grant means are to be used for reconstruction of rura l roads and
irrigation systems. $108mln is to be allocated for reconstruction of
irrigation systems alone.

$11mln was allocated to Armenia under the Millennium Challenges
Corporation program in 2007.

AMERICAN DIPLOMAT: USA TO CONTINUE WORK IN OSCE MINSK GROUP

ARKA
Aug 26, 2008

YEREVAN, August 26. /ARKA/. The USA will continue taking part in OSCE
Minsk Group on settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, U.S. Charge
d’Affaires in Armenia Joseph Pennington told journalists in Yerevan.

In commenting the opinion of the Head of Eurasian Policy Center of
Hudson University that participation of the USA and Russia in OSCE
Minsk Group is senseless bearing in mind the current relationship
between the USA and Russia after the events in South Ossetia,
American diplomat said that the one making this statement is not a
U.S. official. An American official could not make such a comment,
Pennington said.

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict started in 1988 when Nagorno-Karabakh
with prevailingly Armenian population declared its withdrawal from
Azerbaijan.

On December 10 1991, just a couple of days before the collapse of
the Soviet Union, a referendum was held in Nagorno-Karabakh in the
presence of international observers where 99.89% of the population
voted for full independence from Azerbaijan.

In response, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale war against
Nagorno-Karabakh.

The cease-fire agreement signed on May 12 1994 has been maintained
since then.

Since 1992 negotiations have been held on peaceful settlement of the
conflict under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chaired by
the USA, Russia and France.

LAVROV TO VISIT ISTANBUL NEXT WEEK FOR CAUCASUS TALKS

Today’s Zaman
Aug 27 2008
Turkey

Senior level talks conducted yesterday in Moscow between Turkish
and Russian diplomats concerning a proposed "Caucasia Stability and
Cooperation Platform" yielded positive results, prompting Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to pay a visit to Ä°stanbul next week
for detailed talks with his Turkish counterpart, Ali Babacan.

Ambassador Unal Ceviköz, the deputy undersecretary of the Foreign
Ministry, flew to Moscow on Monday. Amidst a global reaction against
Russia’s decision to recognize breakaway Georgian territories,
Ceviköz had talks with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir
Titov on what Ankara earlier called "a set of concrete proposals."

As a result of these talks between Ceviköz and Titov, Lavrov decided
to hold detailed talks with Babacan earlier than expected, Russian
sources told Today’s Zaman. Lavrov will arrive in Ä°stanbul on Monday
evening and have talks with Babacan on Tuesday, the same sources said,
noting that Lavrov would depart from Ä°stanbul following a joint press
conference with Babacan. The concrete proposals were first briefly
explained by Babacan to Lavrov on Friday when the former initiated
a telephone conversation with the latter.

Ankara had already announced that officials from the Turkish
and Russian foreign ministries would meet this week to work on
the proposals and that Babacan and Lavrov will also meet in early
September to review progress in the technical talks. Yet, both Russian
and Turkish officials are still tightlipped concerning the content
of Ankara’s proposals, apparently due to the delicacy of the issue
given the conjuncture in the region as well as the conflict between
Georgia and Russia, which has led to global tension.

Ankara’s proposal for the platform — which is supposed to bring
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey around the same table
— came after a regional crisis erupted following a Georgian military
offensive in its Russian-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia
earlier this month. In the first half of August, Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid successive visits to Moscow and Tbilisi
and traveled to Baku last week to promote and gain support for the
proposed platform. Both Georgian and Russian leaders said they would
welcome the idea, while a joint statement released by Erdogan and
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said Baku had approached the
proposal "positively."

Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a state of enmity due to Armenia’s
continued occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan and observers
say a regional alliance including both countries as members may
be difficult to implement. Ahead of his departure for Baku on
Aug. 20, however, Erdogan disclosed Ankara’s eagerness for Armenia’s
participation in a "Caucasus alliance," as he said it would greatly
increase regional stability. He said the form of talks with Armenia
would be set following Babacan’s consultations with Lavrov. In an
initial reaction, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said
Yerevan welcomed the Turkish initiative.

–Boundary_(ID_ymmA838ke83E46s40LIqPg )–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE NEW MAP OF GEORGIA
By Ben Judah

ISN
cfm?id=19351
Aug 27 2008
Switzerland

Moscow redraws the map of Georgia, recognising Abkhazia and South
Ossetia, as the dust settles and it becomes clearer where power lies
on Europe’s borderlands, Ben Judah writes for ISN Security Watch.

Hours before the Russians pulled their forces out of the strategic
Georgian town of Gori, self-declared commandant General Vlachyslav
Borisov stopped his vehicle and gruffly threw open the door to speak
to journalists. Sweating and smelling faintly of cognac, he barked:
"I’m out of here. I’m withdrawing my combat forces form the area. But
peacekeepers are staying." Then he slammed the door.

Russian officials accidentally dropped another hint to their
intentions. ISN Security Watch managed to see a roughly drawn ink
diagram left behind after a meeting of Russian and Georgian officials
on 21 August. This is the new map of Georgia.

The map showed two circles emanating from the center of both the
Ossetian and Abkhaz enclaves that reached out to touch the Georgian
cities of Gori and Senaki. These are the buffer zones where Borisov
plans to leave his troops. However, the future of these territories
is still uncertain.

Inside Enclavia Just outside the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali,
the peacekeeping barracks that once hosted a 500-strong Russian
contingent is a burned-out wreck. The Kremlin’s spokesman and one of
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s chief aides, Alexander Machevsky,
accompanies a tightly controlled press tour through the enclave to
inspect the damage.

Standing in front of the rubble, pointing through the smashed walls
of the base to the dozens of scorched bare metal bed frames, Machevsky
makes his point clear. "There can be no return to the status quo ante."

He trudges over a floor littered with bullet casings from AK-74s,
pieces of burned clothing and the shredded personal belongings of the
soldiers, stressing the brutality of the Georgian attack. Unnoticed
by their superiors, a few troops are sitting around drinking heavily
in the evening gloom. None look happy.

In Tskhinvali, the de facto South Ossetian president bellows to
the crowds from a podium on Stalin Street: "The Caucasus is a
Russian region. It has always been that way. We are not going to
let adventurers like [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili or
[US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice change that. We are going
to be an independent state within Russia. It’s logical."

The poorly dressed and glum looking huddle drifts away, perhaps
contemplating the implications of that speech. The Kremlin’s flag flies
from government buildings and paramilitaries wear little ribbons of
Russian and Ossetian colors.

Russia is clearly in control – but for the moment this is nothing
like a permanent settlement.

On 26 August, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced he had
recognized Georgia’s breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia
as independent nations. It is highly unlikely they will return to
Georgian control.

In Tbilisi, Keti Tsikhelashvili of the think tank European Stability
Initiative (ESI) advances a more nuanced view of how the situation
might play itself out.

"There are several possible outcomes considering these territories. The
first is that the Europeans have been dropping hints about the
possible internationalization of the conflict. This would involve
the stationing of observers and maybe peacekeepers in Ossetia and
Abkhazia and their futures being brought under intense discussion,"
she tells ISN Security Watch.

However, the ESI believes such an outcome to be unlikely.

"The EU and the US remain committed to Georgian sovereignty and
territorial integrity. The most likely outcome I can imagine will
be the North Cyprus situation. The world will recognize Georgia’s
territorial integrity, while Russia and maybe a few of its satellite
states will acknowledge South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent,"
Tsikhelashvili says.

She continues: "The South Ossetians already can see what an example of
Russian rule in the Caucasus is like if they look to North Ossetia. How
many schools there teach in Ossetian? The answer is none. In a few
years the concern of cultural autonomy will mount and they will begin
to realize the trap they are in."

Crushed rose This is not how Georgians hoped the "Rose Revolution"
would turn out.

In 2003, a wave of nationalism and a desire for western living
standards and true democracy swept Saakashvili to power. Young and
intensely charismatic, he led his country on an adventure that has
turned sour.

"The president turned this country from a sort of post-Soviet ruin into
a modern country," a senior western Europe diplomat tells ISN Security
Watch, gesturing at perhaps the rather unrepresentative setting of
the ornate restaurant in the Tbilisi Marriott hotel to prove his point.

"However, Saakashvili’s definitely in until September. Then I can’t
say. There will be serious questions asked about what has happened
and those questions will have consequences."

The Russian invasion has put a stop to those "rose" aspirations
for now, and Georgia is reckoning with defeat. Tbilisi may not look
miserable on the surface, but you only have to venture into one of
the public buildings being used to house over 60,000 displaced people,
or drive for under an hour to some of the burned-out villages to find
misery waiting for you.

Reconstruction will take years. Georgia’s transport infrastructure
has been badly damaged, communities in the conflict zone have been
hit hard, national parks have reportedly been set alight, commercial
shipping has taken a massive blow, the economy has been shaken,
but above all, Georgia’s diplomatic and military position has been
smashed. The armed forces that Saakashvili painstakingly built up
though clever arms deals with Israel, the US and former communist
states simply no longer exists.

Diplomatically, Georgia is in a disastrous position. Seen as unreliable
and even a liability by many EU member-states and now most likely
shorn of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for good, Georgia is reaping the
consequences of its failed attempt to join the West.

Nona Varanadze, a retired professor and opposition supporter, blames
Saakashvili for what has happened.

"Under Shevernadze, we practiced a political balancing act between
Russia and the West. Just look at where we are on a map. When the
balance got upset, we angered a neighbor and it destroyed so much of
the good development that was going on. We could have avoided this
and just got rich."

The ESI’s Tsikhelashvili stresses that "though my political and
cultural values are completely western. I am starting to think that
Georgia put all of its eggs in one basket."

In many ways the EU and the US should hold themselves responsible for
Georgia’s current predicament. Having ostensibly supported a country’s
bid to remove itself from what Russia considers its exclusive sphere
of influence, they failed to give Georgia the necessary security
guarantees to make such a transition possible. With Russian forces
stationed inside their territory, where EU flags still fly hopelessly
from most major buildings, the promise of the West is starting to
sound like a deadly siren to many Georgians.

The new order The recent conflict has achieved a primary Russian
objective, in proving that American power cannot be solidified along
borderlands. This leaves only two powers that can actually integrate
or control these territories – the EU or Russia.

The post-Soviet space can either seek to emulate the Baltic republics
and find security inside the Union or embrace and hope to benefit from
Russian dominance, as have Armenia and Belarus. Both are asymmetrical
in how they wield influence.

Russia’s strength lies in the areas of hard power such as its military
capacities, energy power, cyberwarriors, pro-Russian parties and
ethnic minorities or former KGB networks. However, it lacks the powers
of persuasion.

Bulgarian expert Ivan Krastev argues in a recent article that "Russia
is a born-again 19th-century power that acts in the post-20th-century
world where arguments of force and capacity cannot any longer be the
only way to define the status or conduct of great powers. The absence
of ‘soft power’ is particularly dangerous for a would-be revisionist
state. For if a state wants today to remake the world order, it must
be able both to rely on the existing and emerging constellation of
powers and be able to capture the international public’s imagination."

The EU has the opposite strengths. Its power is soft and lies in
the promise of membership, cultural appeal, diplomatic influence and
financial clout. However, just as the Kremlin’s failure to convince
the world its actions are legitimate should force a re-think in its
inner circles about a return to great-power status, the EU needs to
learn that it does not exist in a vacuum.

Russia’s strategy may be 19th century – but Europe is stuck in
the future.

The great source of instability for the borderlands is that neither
the EU nor Russia have reached their final destinations. Both are
lost in transition.

The EU is caught between a disunited vague confederacy and a
near-federation capable of speaking with a single voice in foreign
policy and acting purposefully in a single direction. Its foreign
policy mechanisms may slip into irrelevance and its own stability
is far from assured. The news from Brussels is still frustration and
malaise following on the heels of the French and Dutch "No" votes in
2005. The Irish "No" vote earlier this year does not bode well.

Russia itself is in a similar unsettled position. Its own territory
is too large to be run in a conventional democratic manner and the
state is still too weak to dominate its neighbors successfully. In
the long run, further disintegration cannot be ruled out and the
Kremlin is well aware of this.

Hovering between a post-modern empire and joining the club of
post-imperial European great powers alongside the UK, France and
Germany, Russia will continue its struggle to find institutional
stability at home and a place in the state system – to the great
detriment of both its citizens and surrounding countries.

Trapped between two uncertain creatures the post-Soviet states need
to learn from the Georgian experience and tread carefully to avoid
its fate.

Ben Judah is a senior correspondent for ISN Security Watch, currently
writing from the Caucasus and Russia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE WAR AT HOME
By Chandra Niles Folsom

fairfieldweekly.com
http://www.fairfieldwe ekly.com/article.cfm?aid=9344
Aug 27 2008
CT

Local immigrants from Russia and Georgia fall on the sides of their
homelands over the South Ossetian clash

"My mom is so scared," says Nina Maledev. "When I talk to her on the
phone, she doesn’t even want to say what she thinks because she is
afraid someone is listening."

Maledev, a caregiver living in Fairfield, is half a world away from her
mother, who lives in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia and a city that’s
been enveloped into the new war in Eastern Europe, one that’s being
waged in the name of the continuing democracy of the former Soviet
republic–Maledev’s homeland–and to prevent Russian prime minister
and former president Vladimir Putin from achieving his suspected goal
of controlling the pipelines in that oil-rich region–perhaps even
reestablishing a Soviet Union.

The conflict has sparked a war of words between Maledev and her
godmother and closest friend in the area, Larissa Tarishkova–who
happens to be Russian.

"It is not because of democracy but for oil that the U.S. wants to
help Georgia," says Tarishkova. "I don’t believe [Georgia President
Mikheil] Saakashvili. He’s not a normal person. There is something
wrong with his brain. I am not saying this because I don’t think
Georgia should be independent, but it was wrong for him to start a
bloody conflict. Georgians are very warm and loving people and they
have the closest relationship with Russians because we have one
church, one religion, together. It is very sad to see that in one
day Saakashvili can ruin the long life of these two peoples."

They argue over the focal point of the conflict: The province of
South Ossetia. Located in Georgia but loyal to Russia, it broke away
from Georgian control in 1992. On Aug. 7, U.S.-trained Georgian troops
began an offensive to attack pro-Moscow separatists and regain control
over South Ossetia, launching heavy artillery fire and air strikes
that pounded the regional capital of Tskhinvali. The next day, Russia
responded by rolling tanks into the province, prompting heavy fighting
that spread to another breakaway territory, Abkhazia. More raids were
launched on Georgian territories outside the initial conflict zone and
civilians began spilling into refugee camps. Organizations including
Save the Children, headquartered in Westport, have been working to
provide food and medical supplies to the upwards of 158,000 people,
according to the U.N. refugee agency, who’ve been displaced.

"I tell [my godmother], ‘If the Ossetian people want to be Russian
let them go live there–not in Georgia,’" Maledev asserts. "They don’t
want to leave their homes where they have lived all their lives, but
they want Russian passports and to be called Russian. It’s the same
in Abkhazia, which is the most beautiful vacation place but Russia
took it over in 1992."

The views of the two immigrants reflect those of their
countrymen. Georgians claim its offensive was mounted only after
Russian troops entered South Ossetia, but Russians insist they advanced
because Georgians began attacking Tskhinvali–and both sides have
very different views of the U.S.’s role in the conflict.

"[Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice was in Georgia in 2005,
which is when all the perturbations began," says Gennady Shikariov,
a SoNo artist originally from St. Petersburg. He does not believe
Russia was the aggressor, nor that the U.S. helped instigate the
conflict to make Russia look like the bad guy and gain an oil-rich
ally in Georgia. Rice, whose area of expertise is the Soviet Union,
also visited in July, before the current outbreak of violence and has
stood stony-faced alongside President Saakashvili as he made appeals
for international intervention.

"Saakashvili wants badly to enter NATO, hoping to get privileges from
the U.S.," says Shikariov. "It gave him ambition to attack Ossetia,
which is part of Russia."

Maledev has an almost opposite opinion. "I don’t want to start World
War III over our little Georgia," she says. "But if nobody defends us
there will be no more Georgia tomorrow. Oil pipeline, which is very
important, goes through Georgia, so Russia wants to control this but
innocent people are dying."

Blood for oil–imagine that.

"We always had the best relationship with Russians and now this affects
our relationship because we think Putin is wrong and Russians think
Saakashvili is wrong, and I just wish it never happened at all,"
says Maledev.

Has the conflict ruined the relationship between Maledev and her
godmother?

"Not a war, not Saakashvili, not Putin, not Bush, can destroy my
love for my goddaughter," says Tarishkova. "But it has created much
discomfort. Let me tell you–I have lived in a place where there was
genocide–Azerbaijan, and I went to a refugee camp in Moscow. So,
I hate war and want only peace. My husband is from Armenia where
there was massive genocide but America won’t even recognize this
genocide. America is not telling the truth about Georgia, either. Where
do you hear the Russian side of this–on CNN or anywhere? Do they
tell you that Georgians killed 2,000 people in Ossetia? No. So, why
are they lying? I love this country–but I am an independent person
and I know what is the truth."

NO GOLD MEDALS FOR WAR, OCCUPATION & GENOCIDE
By Gideon Polya

MWC News

Aug 27 2008
Canada

Olympic Medal Tally Analyzed

The top dozen countries in terms of 5 or more Gold medals were the
host nation China (#1, 51 Gold medals), the US (#2, 36), Russia (#3,
23), the UK (#4; 19; the next Olympic host nation), Germany (#5,
16), Australia (#6, 14), South Korea (#7, 13), Japan (#8, 9), Italy
(#9, 8), France (#10, 7), Ukraine (#11, 7), the Netherlands (#12,
7), Jamaica (#13, 6), Spain (#14, 5) and Kenya (#15, 5).

The outcome of the Olympic Games as measured by the Olympic Medal
Tally of the marvellous athletes involved is heavily determined by
a number of major factors as briefly set out below.

1. Wealth i.e. how much countries invest in particular sports. This
is best illustrated the remarkable success of China (#1 for Gold
medals), as well as that of the US (#2), UK (#4) and Australia (#
6). China invested billions in the Olympic Games and both the UK (the
next host) and China made intelligent "investment decisions" that are
reflected in their Success. Australia did disproportionately well in
terms of population size due to its sports-mad culture and massive
investment in science-based sports training through the Australian
Institute of Sport.

2. Population i.e. the size of the genetic pool from which the athletes
are drawn. The biggest gene pools in the top dozen are those of China
(#1, 2005 population 1.3 billion), the US (#2, 300 million) and Russia
(#3, 140 million).

3. Population genetic factors. Thus West African or West
African-derived people (notably from the Caribbean and the Americas
e.g. Jamaica, #13) do very well at short-term endurance events such as
boxing and short-distance running while East African-derived people
(notably from Ethiopia and Kenya, #15) do very well at long-term
endurance events such as long distance running. However the bell-shaped
curve of "numbers" versus "attainment" for each country for particular
sports means that many other countries and regions can also deliver
athletics champions.

4. Sports culture and "cultural sport" are extremely important. Thus
Australia (#6) is sports-mad with a high level of participation. China
(#1) has stepped up participation in sports. As indicated under
population genetic factors above, particular populations go for what
they are good at (e.g. long-distance running for East Africans). While
most countries have joined the "World Game" of football (soccer),
the "top 15" at Beijing included 8 top football countries, namely
Russia (#3 in the Gold Medal Tally), the UK (#4), Germany (#5),
Italy (#9), France (#10), the Ukraine (#11), the Netherlands (#12)
and Spain (#14). Wrestling and weightlifting are major "cultural
sports" in a swathe of Middle East and Asian countries from Turkey
to Mongolia. In contrast, cricket was not an official Olympic event
but is an extremely important sport in the UK (#4) and Australia (#6)
as well as in countries not in the "top 15", notably India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.

5. Serendipity was important in many event outcomes. Thus astonishing
baton-change failures by the Jamaican women and US men allowed lesser
competitors to gain medals. Some swimming events were decided by as
little as 0.01 second.

6. Socio-economic and geopolitical factors such as war, occupation,
devastation and genocide were extremely important. Thus of the "top
15" countries only China (#1), Jamaica (#13) and Kenya (#15) were
not involved in the invasion and occupation of other countries in the
21st century and Russia (#3) only recently invaded Georgia (and then
mostly withdrew) in response to genocidal, civilian targeting, US- and
Israeli-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia and destruction of
the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali during the 2008 Beijing Olympic
Games. All 11 of the other "top 15" countries have been variously
involved in the ongoing Iraqi Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths
2 million, refugees 4.5 million) and/or the ongoing Afghan Genocide
(post-invasion excess deaths 3-6 million, 4 million refugees). In
contrast, lack of performance at the Beijing Olympics can be directly
related to colonial, neo-colonial or current devastation by imperialist
powers. Thus Occupied Afghanistan and Mauritius (which hosts the poor
people who were 100% ethnically cleansed from Diego Garcia by the UK
and the US) each won a Bronze medal but Occupied Iraq (soccer Asian Cup
winner in 2007), Occupied Haiti, Occupied Somalia, Occupied Palestine
and Pakistan (whose Waziristan villages are being bombed by the US)
gained no medals of any kind.

For a detailed breakdown of Beijing Olympics involvement by country
see here: for the latest on the Beijing Olympics medal tally –
subject to drug tests – see Yahoo.

The superb Beijing Olympics finished with China leading the World in
the Olympic medal tally (51 Gold, 100 Total) over the US (36, 110),
Russia (23, 72), the UK (19, 47), Germany (16, 41), Australia (14,
46), South Korea (13, 31), Japan (9, 25), Italy (8, 28), France (7,
40), the Ukraine (7, 27), Netherlands (7, 16), Jamaica (6, 11), Spain
(5, 18), Kenya (5, 14), Belarus (4, 19), Romania (4, 8), Ethiopia (4,
7), Canada (3, 18), Poland (3, 10), Hungary (3,10), Norway (3, 10),
Brazil (3, 15), Czech Republic (3, 6), Slovakia (3, 6), New Zealand
(3, 9), Georgia (3, 6), Cuba (2, 24), Kazakhstan (2, 13), Denmark (2,
7), Mongolia (2, 4), Thailand (2, 4), North Korea (2, 6), Argentina
(2, 6), Switzerland (2, 6), and Mexico (2, 3). I’ll call this Group
A – the group of countries that generally includes the top past
Olympics performers and all the countries we expect to score gold
medals because of national wealth and size (China, the US, the UK,
Germany, Japan, Italy, France and the Ukraine), wealth coupled with
keen sporting traditions (Australia, Netherlands, Spain, Belarus,
Romania, Canada, Poland, Hungary, Norway, Brazil, Czech Republic,
Slovakia, New Zealand, Argentina and Switzerland) and much poorer
countries with well-established track records in particular sports
that relate to the genetic predispositions of their populations
(e.g. Ethiopia and Kenya in long-distance running and Cuba and Jamaica
in short-distance running).

These successful countries were followed by a number of countries
(I’ll call this Group B) who only gained 1 gold medal, namely Turkey
(1 Gold, 8 Total), Zimbabwe (1, 4), Azerbaijan (1, 7), Uzbekistan (1,
6), Slovenia (1, 5), Bulgaria (1, 5), Indonesia (1, 5), Finland (1, 4),
Latvia (1, 3), Belgium (1, 2), Dominican Republic (1, 2), Estonia (1,
2), Portugal (1, 2), India (1, 2), and Iran (1, 2). Group B contains
many countries that don’t lead the world in general sporting prowess
but which are both very keen about and very good at particular sports
such as football (Turkey, Belgium, Portugal and Iran), weightlifting
and wrestling (Turkey and Iran) and cricket (Zimbabwe and India).

My Group C contains countries that obtained no Gold medals but which
nevertheless scored Bronze and/or Silver medals, namely Armenia (6
non-Gold medals), Sweden (5 non-Gold medals), Croatia (5), Lithuania
(5), Chinese Taipei (4), Greece (4), Nigeria (4), Austria (3), Ireland
(3), Serbia (3), Algeria (2), Bahamas (2), Trinidad and Tobago (2),
Colombia (2), Kyrgyzstan (2), Morocco (2), Tajikistan (2), Chile (1),
Ecuador, (1), Iceland (1), Malaysia (1), Netherlands Antilles (1),
Singapore (1), South Africa (1), Sudan (1), Vietnam (1), Afghanistan
(1), Egypt (1), Israel (1), Mauritius (1), Moldova (1), Venezuela
(1), and Togo (1).

Group C is similar to Group B in that it contains some countries with
well-known expertise in particular sports notably short-distance
running (Trinidad and Tobago, Nigeria, and Bahamas), long-distance
running (Algeria), tennis (Croatia, Serbia, Sweden, and Austria),
football (Sweden, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, Nigeria, Columbia),
weightlifting (Armenia), wrestling (Armenia, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan) and winter sports (Sweden and Austria).

Finally, my Group D contains countries who sent athletes to the
Beijing Olympics but which gained no medals at all, namely Albania,
American Samoa, Andorra, Angola, Antigua/Barbuda, Aruba, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darusallam, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Central African
Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cyprus,
Côte D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji,
Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Iraq, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait,
Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Macedonia (FYROM), Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall
Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique,
Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan,
Palau, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Puerto Rico, Qatar, Rwanda, St Kitts/Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent
and Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia,
Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Timor Leste, Tonga,
Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu,
Virgin Islands, Yemen and Zambia.

All the Group D countries (with the exception of Peru and Saudi Arabia
and the tiny European principalities of Andorra, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Monaco and San Marino) have been subject to European
colonial occupation and its horrendous consequences in the post-war
era.

For a detailed history of the US contribution to this carnage see
William Blum’s "Rogue State". For a detailed history and "body
count" of this horrendous burden of war, occupation, devastation
and genocide imposed by the "democratic Nazi" imperialist powers
since 1945 see "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1905":
1990-2005 avoidable deaths (excess
deaths,deaths that should not have happened) in non-European countries
total 1.2 billion, this including a Muslim Holocaust involving 0.6
billion avoidable deaths.

It is useful to sum the 1950-2005 excess deaths in all the countries
occupied by foreign occupiers in the post-war era – country-by-country
analysis. Most of the perpetrators have been European countries and
are listed below alphabetically with both their number of Gold Medals
from the 2008 Beijing Olympics and their "body count" of 1990-2005
excess deaths in the countries they occupied as major occupiers for
some time in the post-war era (excluding Germany and Japan as occupied
countries): Australia (14 Gold, 2.1 million in Papua New Guinea and
Solomon Islands); Belgium (1 Gold, 36.0 million); Ethiopia (4 Gold,
1.8 million in Eritrea); France (7 Gold, 142.3 million); Indonesia
(1 Gold, 0.694 million in Timor Leste); Iraq (0 Gold, 0.1 million
in Kuwait); Israel (0 Gold, 23.9 million); Netherlands (7 Gold,
71.6 million); New Zealand (3 Gold, 0.04 million in Samoa); Pakistan
(0 Gold, 52.2 million in Bangladesh); Portugal (1 Gold, 23.5 million);
Russia (23 Gold, 37.1 million); South Africa (0.7 million in Namibia);
Spain (5 Gold, 8.6 million); Turkey (1 Gold, 0.05 million in Cyprus);
the UK (19 Gold, 727.4 million); and the US (36 Gold, 82.2 million).

For the record, neither China (51 Gold medals, Iran (1 Gold medal)
nor India (1 Gold medal) have occupied any other country over the
last few centuries.

If there were Gold Medals for War, Occupation and Genocide, the
leading Gold medallists scoring over 1 million on this 1990-2005 excess
mortality score would be, in descending order, the UK, France, the US,
Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, Belgium, Israel, Portugal and Spain
… or if Gold, Silver and Bronze were given for "total body count"
the UK would get Gold, France the Silver and the US the Bronze.

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 —

–Boundary_(ID_CDW85mCTNiFvlcRK4bFrbA)–

WHAT IS AT STAKE
By Richard Palmer

theTrumpet.com
ndex.php?q=5455.0.108.0
Aug 26 2008
OK

The conquest of Russia by any foreign power has always been
difficult. With the exception of Genghis Khan, no power has ever been
able to subdue it. It’s just too big. Napoleon and Hitler both met
their comeuppance trying.

Though part of the problem is its size, topography is also very much
on Russia’s side. On its western frontier, the vast open flatlands
of Ukraine, providing no cover to any eastward advancing incursion,
and the extensive marshlands plus heavy forestation of Belarus tend
to act as a buffer to aggression from the west. In the south, nature
provides a fortress. Sandwiched between the Black and Caspian seas is
the Caucasus, a narrow corridor leading up into Russia. This passage
is guarded by the vast Caucasus Mountains. If one wishes to invade
Russia further east, the endless plains, deserts and mountains of Iran,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan must first be conquered.

The Caucasus is crucial to Russia’s defenses, and not just because of
its location. It is key to Russia’s fuel supplies also. In 1940 the
French General Gamelen wrote, "Dependence on oil supplies from the
Caucasus is the fundamental weakness of Russian economy. The Armed
Forces were totally dependent on this source also for their motorized
agriculture. More than 90 percent of oil extraction and 80 percent of
refinement was located in the Caucasus (primarily Baku). Therefore,
interruption of oil supplies on any large scale would have far-reaching
consequences and could even result in the collapse of all the military,
industrial and agricultural systems of Russia."

Hitler was obsessed with the area, especially Azerbaijan’s capital,
Baku. He was convinced Germany needed the oil in the Caucasus and the
farmland in the Ukraine to be self-sufficient and invulnerable. Indeed,
if Hitler had controlled these two areas, Germany could have produced
all its own fuel and food.

Hitler, however, failed. While the Nazis made their way to Baku,
the German 6th Army was defeated at Stalingrad. His panzers never
made it through the Caucasus Mountains. Some historians believe that,
had Hitler made it to Baku, the war would have ended very differently.

Today, 19 percent of proven world gas reserves are within nations
bordering the Caspian, not including Russia. This area is expected
to become a major area of oil and gas extraction, with oil production
levels predicted to reach 4 billion barrels a day. Azerbaijan today has
one of the largest known undeveloped offshore reserves in the world.

The Caucasus is the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Not
only is there much fossil fuel in the Caucasus and in the Caspian Sea,
but the area is also key to transporting oil and gas.

This small area is receiving more and more of the world’s
attention. The little nation of Georgia occupies a crucial strategic
location on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains and the
eastern shore of the Black Sea. Ukraine, on the northern shore of
the Black Sea, is also key to controlling the Caucasus. In addition
to housing Russia’s Black Sea fleet and its continental ballistic
missiles, Ukraine is a buffer state in defending Russia’s south.

The allegiance of both Georgia and Ukraine is, in a way, crucial to
the hegemonic plans for expansion of both the EU and Russia.

Europe is desperate for a fuel supply that comes with no strings
attached. It is especially desperate for gas. Unlike oil, which
often travels in containers, the only real way to move gas is through
pipelines. Europe gets some gas from the North Sea. Some it imports
from North Africa. That is not enough. Europe needs to get most of
its gas from the east. Currently it comes from Russia, but Russia
has no qualms about pulling the plug on the West when the urge arises.

Europe, fed up with this situation, is turning to new suppliers. Though
Iran and other Middle Eastern nations such as Egypt have offered to
fill the need, these sources may be just as unreliable as Russia,
if not more so. Europe’s only hope for gas, aside from the volatile,
unpredictable Middle East, comes from the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea
and Central Asia. At the moment, all this gas travels to Europe
via Russia. However, Europe has a number of projects underway to
build pipelines directly from Europe to the Caucasus. Armenia has no
diplomatic relations with Turkey, and is under a trade embargo from
both Turkey and Azerbaijan, so no pipelines can travel through Armenia
in the foreseeable future. All of these pipelines would have to travel
through Georgia. It is the only possible route to get oil from the
Caspian region to Europe without direct Russian or Iranian involvement.

With Russia now controlling Georgia, however, the bulk of Europe’s
gas must come from Russian-controlled territory or Iran.

This is what is at stake in this little nation. Control of Georgia
means control of the Caucasus. It means that Europe is forced to
choose between Russia and the Middle East for its gas.

Both Russia and Germany are on the rise. Each is trying to increase its
power in the world. Germany is conquering the Balkans, and Russia now
has control of Georgia. As these powers compete against each other,
watch for a new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to emerge. It may be that
dealings are already underway to conclude such an agreement.

The Caucasus is Russia’s Balkans. In Europe, control of the Balkans
was imperative for the eastward expansion of the German-dominated
European Union. For similar strategic reasons, just as Germany
ruthlessly went after the Balkans, watch for Russia to ruthlessly
consolidate its imperialist goals in the Caucasus.