Month: August 2008

TURKEY’S PROPOSAL OF ‘CAUCASUS ALLIANCE’: HOW LIKELY IS ITS SUCCESS?
by Guner Ozkan

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Aug 21 2008
Turkey

Amidst desperate attempts of the EU, and of toughening words from
the US against Moscow, to get an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal
of Russian forces in the war between Russia and Georgia, Turkey
has offered the establishment of a formation named as ‘Caucasus
Alliance’. Surely, Turkey is acting in a good faith as it has, with
some reservations, good economic, political and social relationships
with both Moscow and Tbilisi, and seeking a durable peace on its
doorstep. So, what does the Turkish proposal include? and how likely
can it be successful in such a region as complex as the Caucasus,
and why?

Goals and Means of the ‘Alliance’

Though still in the process of creation, the Turkish Prime Minister,
Erdogan, after his prompt visits to Moscow and Tbilisi, outlined the
purpose and content of the ‘Caucasus Alliance’. The main objective
of the ‘Alliance’ is meant to be the establishment of a permanent
peace and security in the region through bringing all regional states
together in a joint formation. To this end, in the new structure
regional states are expected once again to re-assure each other of
respecting state sovereignty, refraining from the use and threat to use
of force, inviolability of state borders and of non-harming economic
and energy security in their common space of the Caucasus. Such
principles as state sovereignty, inviolability of borders and so on
in the formation will take their main references from the Charter
of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),
of which Russia, Turkey and all other Caucasian states are members.

Erdogan is seeing that the establishment of a lasting peace and
security is the principal aim here and he believes that this goal
could be archived through the increase of economic cooperation among
the regional states. In order to better present this idea, he gave the
examples of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC), Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE)
and Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) projects as the best economic ventures
contributing to the regional peace and security greatly.

He pointed out the necessity to develop more that sorts of projects
and to expand them such a way that they could connect all peoples in
the Caucasus.

Russia and Georgia appear to have accepted the new formation in
principle and foreign ministries of the three states are going to
work on details, while Turkey is getting ready to offer it first to
Azerbaijan and Armenia and then to the EU for their participation. The
Turkish side is particularly hopeful that the ‘ Caucasus Alliance’
in the offing will resolve the other most important regional security
issue, the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict, between Baku and Yerevan
once-and-for-all.

Interdependence as Security Solution

In fact, the proposal Turkey is now presenting is a method that it has
been discussed in security studies in international relations for years
mainly between the Liberal and Realist thinkers on security. Turkey’s
suggestion of ‘Alliance’ for the Caucasus takes its logical base from
liberal views on security solutions developed mainly as responses
to those of the state centric realist perspectives in inter-state
relations.

Of others, neo-liberal institutionalists principally suggest that
there are various diverse and important actors in domestic and
international levels which function away from the strict control of
governments. Inter-governmental organisations, as well as private
ones, with having diverse agendas is and can influence governments’
decisions in the way of pushing them to co-operate among themselves
further and thereby allowing states to get over a number of inter-
and intra-state disputes. Basically, liberal school suggests that
presence of complex interdependence among societies and states allows
multiple channels open between those actors in their trans-governmental
and transnational relations. This ‘complex web of linkages’ between
formal and informal actors deals with a myriad of issues in which
military security and/or survival of the state prioritized by the
Realists is supposed not to take top priority. Rather, it is assumed
that if or when states manage to construct a complex interdependence
among themselves, like voluminous trade relations and joint economic
projects in a particular region, the risk of the use of military
force will be greatly evaded.

Realist perspectives on security on the other hand do not share
much of those liberal views on security. For them, though complex
interdependence is a source of cooperation and an important method
for problem solving, or at least decreasing the tension among states,
the same sources are the scarce commodities for which individuals
and states often strive for control paving the way for inter- and
intra- state military conflicts. Indeed realists argue that states
always seek for maximising their power in line with their national
interests in economic, military and security issues and minimise the
risks in the same matters. Realists see that complex interdependence
can only work so long as all parties get satisfied, and yet this is
often impossible to succeed and hard to sustain. So, interdependence
resembles no more than a fierce power competition and domination
over scarce resources. As continuous rivalry on scarce resources is
a never-ending phenomenon, conflict cannot always be avoidable. In
this never-ending state of rivalry, inter-governmental organisations,
for the realists, are no more than instruments in the hands of states
for promoting their national/security interests.

Energy Pipelines for Peace?

The interdependent model, so to speak ‘Alliance’ of Turkey in this
case, needs to be such in kind that it must cover most, if not all, of
the intra- and extra regional security issues and actors, if it wants
to produce fruitful results. But, how easy is it to bring them all
together while they all have polarizing priorities and interests? As
Erdogan hinted, diversification of energy pipelines in the region is
the backbone of the suggested ‘Alliance’. This entails that if those
actors such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia (S.Ossetia) and Armenia benefit
from existing or impending regional big economic projects like energy
lines and railways, ethno-territorial wars, the most serious regional
security issues, can be prevented and even resolved totally.

Not going into too much detail, however, examples on the ground suggest
otherwise. As many remember, similar proposals were discussed and
even offered to the conflicting sides to resolve their differences for
permanent solutions in the midst 1990s. At that time, it was suggested
that if Russia had joined into energy projects and pipelines in
Azerbaijan, this would have integrated not only the Caucasian states
and ethnic republics but also the neighbouring countries. By this
way, for instance, the Chechen problem was believed to be resolved
peacefully as Grozny would get transit fees from the Baku-Novorossiysk
early oil pipeline crossing the Chechen territory. Yet, Russia did
not get so much satisfied with the only early oil pipeline from
Azerbaijan. Nor did the Chechens accept the amount of revenues that
they would have received from the Azerbaijani oil transportation via
their territory. As well known, Russia pushed further for main oil
pipeline, later to be known as BTC, to cross its own territory. Not
enough, the dispute between Moscow and Grozny forced Russia to change
the direction of the Baku-Novorossiysk line from Chechnya to Dagestan
Republic. Equally, neither the flow of Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline nor
Moscow’s shares in the ‘Contract of Century’ and Shah Deniz projects
in Azerbaijan did soften its pro-Armenian position in the NK dispute,
and even continued to supply huge amount of arms to Yerevan ready to
be used by the NK Armenians in an eventual war against Azerbaijan.

Similarly, the US negotiator in the NK dispute, John Maresca, made
public in Winter 1995 that if an oil pipeline, called ‘peace pipeline’,
had followed the direction from Baku to Ceyhan via the NK and Armenian
territories, this would have encouraged the like-minded Armenian
politicians to capitalize it and so get involved in an honest effort
to resolve the dispute. Obviously, the suggested ‘peace pipeline’ was
thought to have the potential that it would have resolved the still
existing problems between Turkey and Armenia, too, and given the two
the chance to normalise their political and economic relations. At
the end, both sides ruled out the project from the outset and did
not have any serious discussions on its potential benefits for
the inter-state relations and regional security. While Azerbaijan
concentrated on alternative roads for its oil, Yerevan followed a
realist way of heavily arming itself with Russia’s military hardware
against Azerbaijan, and intensified its effort of the recognition
of the so-called ‘Armenian genocide’ by the international community
against Turkey.

Intergovernmental Organisations for Solution: the OSCE

Interdependence model of the ‘Alliance’ regarding the
inter-governmental organisations can unlikely generate any positive
results in the region either. The OSCE, which is referred as another
important means in the ‘Alliance’, has already been involved in the two
of the three conflicts of S.Ossetia, Abkhazia and NK for more than a
decade. The organisation had had no mandate in the Abkhaz conflict,
while it has maintained a very limited role, only 8 observers
for monitoring the cease-fire, in S.Ossetia in the Joint Control
Commission alongside Russian, S.Ossetian, N.Ossetian and Georgian
representatives. With such a limited number of observers and a weak
mandate, the OSCE could not have been able to stop unleashing the
current fire and Russia’s heavy-handed behaviour.

The OSCE’s involvement in the NK is even much more worrisome. The
Minsk Group established within the framework of the OSCE in 1992
has specifically been dealing with the NK problem in the forms of
either bringing the sides to negotiating table or proposing its own
peace-plans to Baku and Yerevan. Since then, it brought the sides
together for dozens of times for a possible break-through in the
dispute. As this did not work, it prepared three different peace-plans
for the resolution of the NK dispute, but they were not accepted
by either Azerbaijan or Armenia due to the disagreement centred
especially on the final status of the region. Most importantly, the
Minsk Group has three permanent members of Russia, the US and France,
each of which is holding chairmanship of the Group in rotation. As
Russia has actively participated in the NK since its inception
with a pro-Armenian stance, similar to those of the conflicts
between Georgia and breakaway regions of Abkhazia and S.Ossetia,
the Minsk Group especially under Moscow’s watch did not yield a
permanent solution acceptable for both Baku and Yerevan. Hence if the
‘Alliance’ is wanted to become successful on the resolutions of all
three conflicts via inter-governmental involvement, the OSCE, as well
as its sub-entity of the Minsk Group, must be much more active on the
ground and most importantly divorce itself from being influenced by
its powerful members, such as Russia, in the Caucasus.

As far as the differing behaviours and conducts of the regional and
extra-regional actors above are concerned, the ‘Caucasus Alliance’
of Turkey, boosted up with the interdependence model of liberal
thinking rested on intensive economic relations and institutional
involvement, highly unlikely generates any promising results in the
establishment of a permanent peace in the region. Indeed, Turkey put
‘Caucasian Home’, a very similar proposal carrying the same objectives
as that of the current one, on the agenda in the 1990s. This met
with an outright rejection from the Armenian side claiming that it
was against the national interests of both Armenia and Russia, and
that it was nothing but aimed to resuscitate the ‘old Pan-Turkist
dream’ of uniting all Turks from Caucasus to Central Asia. There is
no any reason now why Armenia should not think the same way as it
thought few years ego. In fact, Russia has come out of the war against
Georgia much stronger and domineering along its backyard than before,
and is now much more defiant against the more active involvement of
international organisations (e.g. OSCE) in the ‘near abroad’. So,
it can be hardly said that Moscow has genuinely believed in the
formation and the success of the ‘Alliance’. If it is the case, why
then the Russian military is bombing various economic sites, destroying
railways and sinking ships and boats in Poti and Georgia in general is
the question waiting for some answers for all these are the important
means for Tbilisi upon which the ‘Alliance’ is supposed to be built.

It is unfortunate once again to see that old realist thinking of
power maximisation of states overwhelms the liberal model of complex
interdependence, and of the Turkish proposal of ‘Caucasus Alliance’,
at the expense of peace and security in inter-state relations. How
this can be reversed the other way around does not and will not have
an easy answer for long years ahead. Indeed, the Caucasus is not a
unique region in that respect in the world. This is the fact of the
post-Cold world order/disorder, and it can be easily seen all around
if one just turns around and looks at what is happening in Iraq today
and then asks himself why.

IRAN NEEDS BETTER ADVOCATES
By Rostam Purzal

CounterPunch
Aug 21 2008
CA

Because Iran’s leadership and the U.S. power elite each
include influential figures who press for dialog between the two
countries, we must conclude that Iran is not in danger of a military
attack. Conclusion: people of conscience should drop their opposition
to a possible U.S. or Israeli attack and instead condemn imperialism’s
best ally in the Middle East, Iran. You may laugh, but this is the
essence of Reza Fiyouzat’s hawkish argument as he struggles in a
recent Counterpunch article to sow antagonism towards Iran. Never
mind that the former government of Iraq had diplomatic and trade
relations with the U.S. and still was violently overthrown with
calamitous consequences. His assessment is the familiar one that
we have heard for decades from Iranian Monarchists, who swear that
Washington forced out the former Shah in 1979 in order to install a
pliable Islamic order in his place.

Such simplistic far left and far right analyses portray Iranians
as a nation of simpletons and victims without agency. Missing from
Fiyouzat’s neoconservative-style rush to blame the victim is any
reference to the enthusiasm of a great majority in Iran, registered
in survey after opinion survey, to restore trade and diplomatic
relations with the U.S. If Iran’s leadership is indeed eager to
welcome U.S. diplomats, investors, and tourists after nearly three
decades of estrangement, it is certainly acting with the consent
of the governed. With his rejection of detente, Fiyouzat in effect
advocates minority rule even as he demands an expanded democracy in
which Iran’s left forces would have more room to organize.

What’s more, Fiyouzat argues, mainstream pro-dialog groups, such
as the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
(CASMII), are aiding a Tehran-Washington conspiracy to fool and exploit
Iranians. His evidence that Iran is, behind the scenes, a partner in
crime with Yankee imperialists? Why, of course, it is Iran’s declared
but unsuccessful attempts to attract foreign investment. That is
proof enough to Fiyouzat that Iran is for sale and advocates of
Iran’s national rights, like CASMII, are sell-outs, even if their
purpose is to help expose Western double standards. According to
this sophomoric fantasy, presumably the nations of the world must
all boycott the U.S. to prove their independence! Fiouzat does not
explain why Iran should be the first. I suggest he personally set an
example by refusing to boost the U.S. war machine with his income tax.

Apparently, journalist Seymour Hersch, who regularly warns us about
ongoing U.S. efforts to destabilize Iran, is just another dupe of the
Islamic Republic, and so are the other award-winning authors Reese
Erlich and Stephen Kinzer, who each spoke in dozens of American cities
last fall and winter against a U.S. attack on Iran. The 118-nation
Non-Aligned Movement’s repeated declarations of support for Iranian
nuclear rights must similarly be delusional.

Ironically, contrary to Fiouzat’s tired claim that Iran’s leadership
uses the threat of a foreign attack as a fig leaf for legitimacy,
Iran’s Farsi-language state broadcast monopoly downplays the
possibility of U.S. or Israeli aggression. Last January, I was asked to
leave a televised show on Iran’s Channel Two (I was being interviewed
by telephone) after I refused to agree with the host that Iran was
safe from foreign attack.

Real anti-imperialists, Fiyouzat suggests with self-righteous rage,
should stand by and refuse to take U.S. and Israeli threats of
aggression seriously. He conveniently forgets that in 1953, Iran’s
communist Tudeh party hastened the overthrow of Iran’s most revered
anti-colonial campaigner ever, Mohammad Mossadegh, by withdrawing its
support. Tudeh abandoned the prime minister because, it explained,
he was too cozy with Washington. Months later the CIA overthrew
Mossadegh, ostensibly for his softness on communism! The coup
resulted in the executions of hundreds of Tudeh activists, social
democrats, and nationalists and ushered in a quarter century of
brutal dictatorship that led to the Revolution of 1978-79. The widow
of one of the perished, Mossadegh’s heroic foreign minister, Hussein
Fatemi, returned to Iran March of this year for a meeting with Iran’s
President. Afterwards she told reporters that her husband would have
been proud of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s resistance to foreign manipulations.

The centerpiece of Fiyouzat’s attempt to mobilize the progressive left
against Iran is Tehran’s participation in regime change in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Here, too, Fiyouzat is so eager to paint Iran’s decision
makers as unrepresentative that he ignores overwhelming support
for that policy among Iranians. He assures us that "Western powers
prefer an Islamic to a secular government" and "Western imperialists
cannot have it any better than the regime that exists [in Iran] now",
conveniently overlooking the considerable U.S. support for secular
elites against the popular Islamist resistance movements in Palestine
and Lebanon. Nor does Fiyouzat recognize that Iran’s alliance with
Christian Armenia and tense relations with the Shi’i-dominated Republic
of Azerbaijan is inspired by Iran’s opposition to U.S. domination in
the region.

Similarly, he makes no mention of Iran’s incessant demand, consistent
with the wishes of almost all Iraqis, that U.S. forces leave
Iraq without extracting concessions. He also fails to mention that
Iran’s closest international ally is Venezuela, hardly a U.S. client
state. All that seems to matter to him is that the Iranian government
is interested in conditional peace with Washington. Never mind that
Cuba’s anti-imperialist government is as anxious as Iran’s to have
normal trade and diplomatic relations with the U.S.

The obsession leads Fiouzat to lump defenders of Iranian sovereignty
with the "realist" wing of U.S. imperialism. It matters not to
him that advocates of Iran’s national rights against the West’s
intimidation may be motivated by other than blind support for the
current Iranian government. He is troubled that Iran has frustrated
desperate U.S. efforts to isolate it. On the fifty-fifth anniversary
of the August coup in which anti- imperialists acquiesced in the
U.S. subversion of Iranian sovereignty, Fiyouzat recommends that
the U.S. antiwar community do the same. Fortunately, only a tiny
fraction in the U.S. antiwar movement is likely to be swayed by his
short-sighted ideology.

Rostam Pourzal is a board member of the US branch of the Campaign
Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.

GEORGIA’S FAIL TO HOLD MILITARY CAMPAIGN IN SOUTH OSSETIA LEADS SEVERAL FRIENDSHIP COUNTRIES TO EXTREMELY COMPLICATED SITUATION: AZERBAIJANI POLITICAL SCIENTIST

TREND Information
Aug 21 2008
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, Baku, 21 August / Trend News/ An interview with Rashad
Rzaguliyev, president of the Azerbaijani Social Projects Fund.

– The comments regarding the Russian-Georgian relations filled all
information areas. What is about your vision on the issue?

– At early millennium most analysts and experts forecasted beginning
of the war era. The forecasts, as we see, are justified. The world
repartition begins. Force becomes the main issue for development
of world rather than devalued international deals. As for the
incident… Georgian’s attempts to restore constitutional area in its
uncontrolled territories by force caused conflict of interests with
Russia, where Russian citizens reside. Taking into consideration that
Russian troops did not have a mandate for peacemaking activity in the
region, the Georgian-Russian military contradiction in active phase
was inevitable. The incident, undoubtedly, has tragic consequences,
not only for Georgia. The Georgian leadership failed the military
campaign in South Ossetia dully and led most friendship countries
including Azerbaijan to extremely complicated situation.

– What do you mean?

– Georgia is the key partner for Azerbaijan and Turkey on a range of
international geoeconomic projects. Energy and transport highways,
with Georgian participation, have formed a new geopolitical landscape
of the region, as well as permitted us to strengthen the status
of independence and later, to commence a new phase to restore
the territorial integrity in our countries. Today, the serious and
complicated work was in danger, as to me, through most dully manners
by Mikhail Saakashvili’s Administration.

– Georgia did run into risk and lose?

– Georgia has been deceived in hopes, expectations, and forecasts
and in leader finally. Countless countries ‘warmed their hand’ in
tragedy of Georgian people. Unfortunately, it had happened.

– What will change after Georgia leaves the CIS?

– In practice, the Commonwealth of Independent Countries has been
not functioned. Today, the organization, in its functional plan,
carries ornamental character only. The organization can be referred
to political anachronism of near past. We can consider Georgia’s
threats to leave the CIS as a net demonstrative step. Initially, the
CIS was infected with the virus to collapse, and the organization did
not carry the foundation frame, as Armenia being an aggressor country
and Azerbaijan the victim of Armenian aggression remained its members
from the begging. CIS did nothing to solve the conflict between the
conflict member-countries. Therefore, the number of countries, which
have conflict, has been increasing.

– Which further prospective do you see in the event?

– Russia has crossed "Rubicon’ by its actions in Georgia. The
democratic image of the new Russia has been damaged by interference
into the Georgian-Ossetin conflict seriously and for a long
period. Russia will actively locate itself as the world leader by using
the key tool of the modern epoch- force: political, financial-economic
and military… It is too expensive pleasure and time will show how
it will affect the Russian economy. One can forecast the beginning of
Russian more activity in the whole post Soviet area. At the same time,
I do not see serious contradictions of interests between the Russian
Federation and the United States in the near future. These countries
are able enough to reach agreement. The only disagreement point is the
upcoming interference into Iran by the United States. In this context,
both the United States and Russia will derive their dividends. Will
Georgia experience serious change of its foreign policy as Mikhail
Saakashvili proclaims? I am not sure… Georgian President’s anti
Russia rhetoric has been on the brink. There is another factor – the
Georgian Diaspora in Russia is numerous and integrated into political
and economic system of Russia and Georgia, and unlikely it will
permit the conflict between the countriesto take place long. Georgian
political and financial groups cannot reconcile with lost of Russian
markets. Saakashvili will have either take into consideration the fact
or have to face with serious political difficulties in the country.

– To what degree, as foro you, rational Azerbaijan’s position in the
Georgian-Russian conflict?

– I consider Azerbaijan’s position in the context as the adequate
and one right thing. I am surprised by… Armenia, which occupied 20%
territories of Azerbaijan, is the same national state and full right
actor in international policy, like Russia. I cannot understand why
the parents of international laws do not want to announce the country
as aggressor. Moreover, the leading countries, which demonstrate
altruism and peaceableness, propose both Armenia and Azerbaijan to
compromise, which will force Azerbaijan to make free-will refusal
from its territorial integrity principle.

– Can the conflict flare into a regional one and can it involve our
country as well?

– Certainly, there are high risks and threat for Azerbaijan. However,
the further development of events is controlled. Taking into
consideration the format of the country’s foreign policy, which has
been implemented by the incumbent President Ilham Aliyev, the threats
will be minimized.

-Do the blast committed in the Abu-Bakr Mosque in Baku have
interaction with the recent events in Georgia and explosion in the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline?

– The recent blast occurred in the Abu-Bakr Mosque in Baku during
prayer, is more than monstrous and tragic. I hope that the names of
criminals and motive of the crime will be revealed soon. Although
the investigation is going on, to my mind, there is no interaction
between them.

TURKEY AND THE CAUCASUS: WAITING AND WATCHING

Economist
/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11986092
Aug 21 2008
UK

A large NATO country ponders a bigger role in the Caucasus

Erdogan plays the Georgian flagAT THE Hrazdan stadium in Yerevan,
workers are furiously preparing for a special visitor: Turkey’s
president, Abdullah Gul. Armenia’s president, Serzh Sarkisian, has
invited Mr Gul to a football World Cup qualifier between Turkey and
its traditional foe, Armenia, on September 6th.

If he comes, Mr Gul may pave the way for a new era in the
Caucasus. Turkey is the only NATO member in the area, and after the
war in Georgia it would like a bigger role. It is the main outlet
for westbound Azeri oil and gas and it controls the Bosporus and
Dardanelles, through which Russia and other Black Sea countries ship
most of their trade. And it has vocal if small minorities from all
over the region, including Abkhaz and Ossetians.

Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has just been to
Moscow and Tbilisi to promote a "Caucasus Stability and Co-operation
Platform", a scheme that calls for new methods of crisis management
and conflict resolution. The Russians and Georgians made a show of
embracing the idea, as have Armenia and Azerbaijan, but few believe
that it will go anywhere. That is chiefly because Turkey does not have
formal ties with Armenia. In 1993 Turkey sealed its border (though not
its air links) with its tiny neighbour after Armenia occupied a chunk
of Azerbaijan in a war over Nagorno-Karabakh. But the war in Georgia
raises new questions over the wisdom of maintaining a frozen border.

Landlocked and poor, Armenia looks highly vulnerable. Most of its
fuel and much of its grain comes through Georgia’s Black Sea ports,
which have been paralysed by the war. Russia blew up a key rail bridge
this week, wrecking Georgia’s main rail network that also runs to
Armenia and Azerbaijan. This disrupted Azerbaijan’s oil exports,
already hit by an explosion earlier this month in the Turkish part
of the pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan, in Turkey.

"All of this should point in one direction," says a Western diplomat
in Yerevan: "peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Reconciliation
with Armenia would give Azerbaijan an alternative export route for
its oil and Armenia the promise of a new lifeline via Turkey. Some
Armenians gloat that Russia’s invasion of Georgia kyboshes the chances
of Azerbaijan ever retaking Nagorno-Karabakh by force, though others
say the two cases are quite different. Russia is not contiguous with
Nagorno-Karabakh, nor does it have "peacekeepers" or nationals there.

Even before the Georgian war, Turkey seemed to understand that
isolating Armenia is not making it give up the parts of Azerbaijan that
it occupies outside Nagorno-Karabakh. But talking to it might. Indeed,
that is what Turkish and Armenian diplomats have secretly done for
some months, until news of the talks leaked (probably from an angry
Azerbaijan).

Turkey’s ethnic and religious ties with its Azeri cousins have long
weighed heavily in its Caucasus policy. But there is a new worry that a
resolution calling the mass slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks
in the 1915 genocide may be passed by America’s Congress after this
November’s American elections. This would wreck Turkey’s relations with
the United States. If Turkey and Armenia could only become friendlier
beforehand, the resolution might then be struck down for good.

In exchange for better relations, Turkey wants Armenia to stop backing
a campaign by its diaspora for genocide recognition and allow a
commission of historians to establish "the truth". Mr Sarkisian has
hinted that he is open to this idea, triggering howls of treason
from the opposition. The biggest obstacle remains Azerbaijan and
its allies in the Turkish army. Mr Erdogan was expected to try to
square Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliev, in a visit to Baku this
week. Should he fail, Mr Gul may not attend the football match–and
a chance for reconciliation may be lost.

DEFENSE MINISTERS OF CSTO MEMBER STATES TO MEET WITH ARMENIAN PRESIDENT

National Legal Internet Portal
Aug 21 2008
Belarus

Defense ministers of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization)
member states will have a meeting with Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan, BelTA learnt from the CSTO press service.

"A session of the Council of Defense Ministers of the CSTO member
states has finished in Yerevan and the ministers are going to meet
with Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan," the press service noted.

During the session in Yerevan, the defense ministers of the CSTO member
states discussed the plan of coalitional military construction of
the Collective Security Treaty Organization for the period till 2010
and also the issues concerning the operational and combat training of
CSTO’s forces and facilities. The ministers also considered the draft
resolution on development, financing and implementation of the CSTO
special interstate programmes, the avenues of organization’s activity
in H2 2008 and H1 2009. The defense ministers of the CSTO member states
also discussed the issue regarding the conflict in South Ossetia.

In line with the established order, Armenia has chaired the Council
of Defense Ministers of the CSTO member states.

On August 22, the defense ministers of the CSTO member states are
expected to take part in the 4th round of the joint command post
exercise Rubezh 2008 which will be held in Armenia.

AZERBAIJAN: CIVILIAN INTERNEE TRANSFERRED UNDER ICRC AUSPICES

Reuters
Aug 21 2008
UK

Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this
article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are
the author’s alone.

Geneva (ICRC) – On 19 August, the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) facilitated the transfer of an Armenian civilian
internee detained in Azerbaijan. The transfer took place in Agdam
district, Azerbaijan.

Before the internee was transferred, ICRC delegates had visited him
to assess his treatment and conditions of detention and to ensure
that he was returning of his own free will.

Acting as a neutral intermediary and in accordance with its mandate,
the ICRC facilitated the transfer with the full cooperation of
all sides.

VENTURING "INTO THE UNKNOWN" WITH EXPLORER JOSH BERNSTEIN
By Troy Rogers

Deadbolt
04905/joshbernstein_interview.php
Aug 21 2008

After traversing the globe, exploring ancient mysteries on his
popular series Digging for the Truth, explorer and survival expert
Josh Bernstein returned to the Discovery Channel airwaves on Monday
for the premiere of his new eight episode expedition called Into the
Unknown. Next week on Monday, August 25, Josh Bernstein travels to
parts unknown to investigate a compelling new theory about the truth
behind the story of Noah’s Ark, exploring questions whether Noah
actually existed and whether his gargantuan animal transport was real.

Although Josh cracked open a vault of secrets last week surrounding
the world’s Gladiators, we set out on our own expedition on a recent
conference call with the survivalist to explore a number of new
mysteries Into the Unknown has to offer and what Bernstein thinks of
the mystery surrounding the new Bigfoot discovery.

THE DEADBOLT: What did you find out about gladiators that really
surprised you?

JOSH BERNSTEIN: I didn’t know there were female gladiators. I don’t
know if that made it into the show. I didn’t realize that they were
mostly vegetarian, which was surprising. That was one of the data
points we got out of the Stansky analysis that we looked at and their
bones. And I didn’t realize that even though they were the lowest
of the low in terms on their status and hierarchy in ancient Rome,
they could also be simultaneously glorified as celebrities. It’s an
interesting paradox and there’s a lot more. Obviously Hollywood has
to focus on the stories to create a blockbuster, but there’s a lot
more to a gladiator’s day-to-day life that I found fascinating. Plus
the role that Christianity played in the decline of the gladiatorial
games, I wasn’t aware of the religious connection.

THE DEADBOLT: You mentioned that the locations need to be beautiful
because of HD. Was that always possible? You’re in the desert
sometimes, which sometimes doesn’t really look that nice?

BERNSTEIN: Really? I don’t know, I like deserts. I think the cameraman,
the DP’s job is to make the show visually exciting and that’s what
I meant more than we don’t only shoot beautiful locations. But we
want the cinematography to be compelling and to support the sense of
bigness we hope the series represents. So even if we’re in a dark
cave in Egypt exploring Akhenaten or the 18th Dynasty, we want it
to be shot in a way that makes you say, "Dude, this is incredible,
and I’m even more grateful it’s in High Definition."

THE DEADBOLT: Did you revisit places that you’re already been to in
Digging for the Truth?

BERNSTEIN: Absolutely, yeah. It’s hard not to. I did a show in Peru
where I’ve been several times. But I explored a region and a culture
I had not explored previously, the Chachapoyas, the Cloud Warriors
episode. Egypt, of course I’ve done what – seven, eight shows in
Egypt for Digging. I worked with Dr. Zahi Hawass many times and I
explored the 18th Dynasty. I looked at Nefertiti, I looked at King Tut,
but I never really focused on Akhenaten. So if there’s any overlap,
that’s direct in the sense that I’ve already done this. We just shoot
it down and I don’t do that episode and we just move on to the next
idea. It’s important that I feel like I can engage intellectually
and honestly whatever material I’m exploring.

THE DEADBOLT: With the Noah’s Ark episode or any of the biblical
[oriented expeditions], is there ever a worry about pissing certain
people off?

BERNSTEIN: [laughs] Yeah, of course. There has to be because there are
people who are going to be offended that you’re evaluating the word of
God and questioning it in any sort of way. But I’ve faced that before
when I did King David or King Solomon or any of the biblical stories
I explored on Digging. I’m respectful of that. I understand it and I
think I’m very clear upfront with any conversations I have with people
that when it comes to biblical studies, it’s fairly binary. Either
you think it’s all God’s word and shouldn’t be questioned at all or
there’s interpretation there, and I’m in the latter camp. I think
that exploring the bible is a fascinating story, some of it grounded
in history and proven by archeology and some of it perhaps still to
be proven.

When it comes to Noah and the flood, that’s the second oldest
story. The only older, basically, is Adam and Eve and Cain and
Able. So to get anything that to prove that in the landscape is an
uphill challenge. That’s a battle, but I was up for it. I think it
is unusual and a bit curious that so many cultures, Judeo Christian
and others in the Mediterranean, have the same story. Why is that the
case? If everyone says that someone was shot on the corner and then
got hit by a car, if everyone says that then you think maybe it really
happened. This is the same thing. But it was so many thousands of years
ago, maybe there’s some truth to it. It’s worthy of my explorations.

THE DEADBOLT: You mentioned that you went to Israel for that story. Did
you also go to Mount Ararat [to explore that theory]?

BERNSTEIN: Mount Ararat in Turkey, I did. I’ve been to Turkey and
to Armenia exploring the – We decided to fall on the Armenian side
so we’re certainly in view of Ararat and we shot up there. But we
went to a church that believe they actually have a piece of the Ark,
that’s where the show begins.

THE DEADBOLT: Can you let us know what the other six episodes are?

BERNSTEIN: Sure. I don’t know the run order, but gladiators, Noah’s
flood, there’s one called Cloud Warriors on the Chachapoyas culture
in Northern Peru, pre-Inca culture, and I went and explored its
mysterious disappearance. Timbuktu, I went into Mali, the fabled City
of Gold, to find out if it truly was as rich as people, legend would
tell us. Akhenaten, the Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who overturned
all of the pantheon of Egypt to create monotheism. There’s another
episode, elephants attacking in Kenya for no reason that people
understand. Papua New Guinea, the dying wish of the chief of the Anga
people – [he said] "No one has been mummified in fifty years. It’s a
sacred tradition and I was the last person to do it to my father. I’m
about to die, I want to teach my sons how we used to mummify." And
so we came in with our cameras to document that. And the last episode
is life on Earth, could it have come from Mars?

THE DEADBOLT: Is there anything you didn’t get to do on Digging for
the Truth that you brought over to this one?

BERNSTEIN: No, not really. Well, I hope I get to Angkor Wat. That was
on my list. Timbuktu I was happy to go to. I know that Digging did
that in season four, and so, yeah, I’d love to go. And I was jealous
when they called me from Mali and said, "Guess where we are?" And I’m
thinking, "You guys suck." So yeah, I think it’s a little different
series in that we don’t want to replicate Digging, we want to bring
a fresh face to it. I guess the same face, but a fresh feel.

THE DEADBOLT: What are your thoughts on that recent Bigfoot story
coming out of Georgia?

BERNSTEIN: [laughs] You know, if the timing was right maybe I could
explore that eventually. I do think it’s fascinating that Bigfoot,
Sasquatch, Yeti – the different terminology that exists in different
parts of the world – there does seem to be some pervasive story of
larger than life. Even the Abominable Snowman, there seems to be
something out there that people look to. I have not done any more
research than reading about it on the internet. I don’t know what’s
in the freezer. I don’t know what the story is about. These guys who
claim to have shot it and seen others, I do think it certainly is
water cooler conversation worthy. I don’t know if it can hold up to
a full hour of credible analysis. But if this story is still kicking
around when I get back in the game for Season Two, maybe I’ll go down
there and take a look.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LITTLE BENEFIT IN OSCE MISSION: GEORGIA MINISTER
By Julian Hale

DefenseNews.com
Aug 21 2008

BRUSSELS – Georgian Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili has expressed
doubt that the immediate deployment of 20 military monitoring
officers to the areas adjacent to South Ossetia, as supported by
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),
will appreciably improve the environment.

"Russia was successful in restricting their mandate so that they will
have no opportunity to see what is going on in areas under Russian
control," said Tkeshelashvili to members of the European Parliament
at an extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee on
Aug. 20. She added that observers would therefore not have the
chance to see the destruction of villages and the ethnic cleansing
of Georgians that is being completed.

Land Warfare She said that bridges had been blown up or mined
and that there would need to be an "extensive demining operation"
after the Russians had withdrawn. Painting a bleak picture of the
humanitarian situation in areas still under Russian control, she
said that in addition to scarcities of food and medicine, looting,
destruction of property and executions were ongoing.

Tkeshelashvili indicated that Russia’s naval blockade was still
fully in place and was having an impact not just on Georgia but on
Armenia, for which Georgia is a transit state. She said that Georgia
had suffered cyberattacks on the president’s Web site before and on
other government information spaces during the Russian incursion.

"This is not just a regional issue but an issue for the whole
of Europe," said Tkeshelashvili at a press conference after the
event. "Russia is reincarnating the notion of its sphere of influence
and challenging Europe with the aggressive action it has taken."

She was confident that Georgia would have a NATO Membership Action
Plan soon if not membership in an accelerated fashion.

She also said that there was "no sign of the withdrawal of Russian
forces from Georgia" and that Russia had in fact "enlarged the
territorial scope of its military operation."

Tkeshelashvili added that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana has
clearly stated that Russian forces cannot be peacekeepers in a Georgia
that it has invaded. She and Solana had discussed the possibility of
an EU peacekeeping mission, she said.

The chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee,
Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, said that the European Parliament was planning
a debate in plenary in Strasbourg and was drafting a resolution on
the issue. He expected members to recommend to EU states that they
first send in observation forces and then peacekeeping forces.

Tkeshelashvili also denounced the Russian talk of thousands of
civilians having died in South Ossetia as "disinformation," referring
to Human Rights Watch figures in the hundreds.

ALL CONFLICTS IN SOUTH CAUCASUS REGION SHOULD BE SETTLED WITHIN TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF COUNTRIES OF REGION: PRESIDENT OF ROMANIA

Trend News Agency
Aug 21 2008
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, Baku, 21 August /corr. Trend J.Babayeva / All conflicts
in the South Caucasus region should be settled within territorial
integrity of the countries of region, the President of Romania, Trayan
Basesku, told during the meeting with the President of Azerbaijan,
Ilham Aliyev, in Baku.

" Romania supports solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh and other conflicts
in the region within territorial integrity of the countries of region,"
Basesku said.

During the meeting, the President of Azerbaijan highlighted development
of friendly relations between Azerbaijan and Romania in political,
economic, cultural spheres. " Romania and Azerbaijan are close allies,
and regional co-operation between the two countries is successfully
realized," President Ilham Aliyev said.

President of Romanian made a short-term visit to Azerbaijan. Trayan
Basesku’s visit took place within tour to the countries of Black
Sea region.

RUSSIA TO KEEP SOLDIERS IN GEORGIA
By Sergei L. Loiko and Borzou Daragahi

Los Angeles Times
Aug 21 2008
CA

Moscow plans to set up 18 checkpoints, some in Georgia proper,
a Kremlin official says. The plan appears to violate the terms of
a cease-fire.

MOSCOW — Russia plans to establish a long-term presence in Georgia and
one of its breakaway republics by adding 18 checkpoints, including
at least eight within undisputed Georgian territory outside the
pro-Russian enclave of South Ossetia, a ranking Russian military
official told reporters Wednesday.

The checkpoints will be staffed by hundreds of Russian troops, the
official said, and those within Georgia proper will have supplies
ferried to them from breakaway South Ossetia.

If implemented, the plan would in effect put under Russian control
the border between Georgia and the South Ossetia region, which is
seeking independence, as well as a small chunk of Georgia proper.

"This is the essence of it," Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief
of the army general staff, told reporters at a briefing. He showed
maps detailing the proposed Russian positions, one just outside the
Georgian city of Gori, which lies along a crucial juncture of the
country’s main east-west highway.

"The president ordered us to stop where we were," he said. "We are
not pulling out and pulling back troops behind this administrative
border into the territory of South Ossetia."

The plans appear to violate the terms of a French-endorsed cease-fire
deal signed late last week by the presidents of Georgia and Russia. It
called for both country’s troops and allied armed groups to move back
to their positions held before hostilities between the two countries’
troops led to a Russian military incursion early this month into the
staunchly pro-U.S. Caucasus Mountains nation.

Russian officials say the deal allows them to keep troops along the
South Ossetia-Georgia border as well as within Georgia proper as
part of a peacekeeping mission begun in the 1990s. The Russians say
their peacekeeping mandate gives them access to a "security zone"
along the border.

At the United Nations, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on Wednesday
circulated a draft resolution calling for the Security Council’s
endorsement of the cease-fire plan that had been promoted last week
by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

U.S. Deputy U.N. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff made it clear that
Washington opposed the Russian initiative. He said it is "designed
to rubber-stamp a Russian interpretation" of the cease-fire that the
West rejects.

Western envoys at the U.N. supported a French draft resolution Monday
calling for immediate Russian withdrawal from Georgia. But Russia,
which wields a Security Council veto, blocked it. The 15-member
council did not debate the rival Russian draft.

Relations between the West and Moscow have plummeted to their
lowest depths since the end of the Cold War, prompting fear that an
economically invigorated Russia would strive to reestablish authority
over what it views as its centuries-old sphere of influence, including
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Top diplomats of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization members said they would reconsider their relations
with Moscow in light of its incursion into Georgia.

In this month’s fighting, at least 64 Russian soldiers were killed
and 323 injured, Nogovitsyn said. Russians were outraged by what
they called an unprovoked surprise attack by Georgians on Russian
peacekeepers based in South Ossetia, as well as civilians in the
breakaway region. Georgians have accused Moscow of provoking the
fight as a pretext for sending troops into Georgian territory.

Officials in Georgia, the U.S. and European nations have demanded
that Russia pull its troops back to positions held before the fighting
broke out Aug. 7.

President Bush reiterated that message Wednesday during a speech at
the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Orlando, Fla.,
and defended Georgia’s claim to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another
pro-Moscow breakaway region.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the presence
of Russia’s forces is "now having an effect" on Georgia’s neighbors,
Armenia and Azerbaijan, by making imports and exports difficult. She
said Armenia is beginning to see shortages.

Rice said that as of midafternoon, U.S. officials had seen no signs
of a Russian retreat from Georgia. Another U.S. official said some
movement suggested that some military units might be pulling back.

In Moscow, Nogovitsyn said "time will tell" when Russians would pull
troops out of areas they control in Georgia proper, including the
key city of Gori. He called the proposed new checkpoints "observation
posts."

Georgian officials voiced outrage over the continued Russian
presence. The Georgian Foreign Ministry announced Wednesday that
Russians had set up a new position along the highway between the
Black Sea port city of Poti and Abkhazia.

"Over the last seven days they’ve promised three times to leave,
but they’ve yet to fulfill their promises," said Alexander Lomaia,
Georgia’s national security advisor, during an interview in downtown
Gori.

"We’re here and we haven’t seen any sign of them pulling out," he
said. "There is the same number of checkpoints and the same severe
rules for entering and exiting."

The U.S. military flew in five loads of relief supplies, news agencies
reported. It is also attempting to dispatch several military vessels
from the Mediterranean to Georgia’s Black Sea coast with additional
aid.

[email protected]

Loiko reported from Moscow and Daragahi from Gori. Times staff writers
Paul Richter in Warsaw and Richard Boudreaux at the United Nations
also contributed to this report.