At History’s Centre

AT HISTORY’S CENTRE

Economist.com
Oct 6th 2008

Oil, war and stirring imperial ghosts

INTREPID travellers have long had a penchant for visiting the
Caucasus. This is a land of mountains and seas, squeezed into the
borders of three old empires–Persian, Ottoman and Russian. As such it
has been strategically important (and remains so, as we learned again
in the short war that Russia fought against Georgia in August). And it
has an enticing whiff of exoticism, associated with all the old images
of fierce mountain tribesmen who spent the 19th century resisting
successive attacks by the Russians, always keen to incorporate the
Caucasus into their empire.

The city of Baku, where I begin my trip to the three countries of the
south Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia), was an important
Russian base during most of those wars. The old walled town in the
centre retains an appealing medieval look. But what attracts the eye
more are the garish modern buildings, extravagantly large cars and
jeeps, massive traffic jams and the city’s general gaudiness. For
this is today an oil town: the equivalent of a Gulf emirate dumped
on the shores of the Caspian.

Baku got there first, of course. Amid today’s glitz can be discerned
some sturdy late 19th century mansions, many of them put up by the
French, when Baku went through its first oil boom. At that time,
this region was responsib le for as much as half of the world’s oil
output. The industry went into decline during the late 20th century
under Soviet rule, but it has boomed in the past decade or so, on the
back of more offshore discoveries in the Caspian and rising oil prices.

Because of its oil and, increasingly, gas, Azerbaijan has become
a key country for the West. A stream of top American officials have
visited. The Russians are also courting the country, hoping to persuade
it to ship more of its oil and gas northwards. But the government, led
by President Ilham Aliev, is wary. There are big advantages in selling
energy to all comers, not just to a monolithic unfriendly company like
Russia’s gas giant Gazprom. And BP, the biggest Western oil company in
Baku, has been a great friend to the country for a decade and a half.

The president, who would not grant us an interview, is no democrat,
even though his economic advisers insist that he has liberalised the
economy and cut back on red tape. So much so, indeed, that Azerbaijan
recently came top for most rapid improvement in the World Bank’s
annual report "Doing Business".

Next weekend Mr Aliev faces an election that the leading opposition
candidates have boycotted. In a café, we meet one opposition
leader who wanted to run, but he notes that elections are rigged,
the opposition is harassed and the media is not free. Indeed, he
suggests t hat things are a lot worse than they were in the days of
Ilham’s father, Heidar, who ran the country from 1994 to 2002 before
passing it on to his son like some oil-rich satrapy.

In the streets of Baku, plenty of people complain about soaring
inflation, and most also suggest that the benefits of high oil
prices have not trickled down to ordinary folk. Azerbaijan has a bad
reputation for corruption, although BP (which by some measures accounts
for half of the country’s GDP) says it has no problems. Certainly the
oil money is going somewhere–the restaurant in the old town where
we have dinner, and the hotel in which we stay, are both almost as
expensive as in Moscow, which is now the costliest city in Europe. And,
given the country’s reputation for corruption, it is no surprise to
find that the cost of an entry visa at Heidar Aliev international
airport has risen sharply to $100–or that an army of dubious-looking
fixers swarm around the arrivals hall offering to sort out all the
documents and jump the long queues. For a price, naturally.

–Boundary_(ID_4b41DPgWchRxAdfk4U0b6A) —

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CEC Of Armenia Registers Lernik Alexanyan As A Deputy Of Armenian Pa

CEC OF ARMENIA REGISTERS LERNIK ALEXANYAN AS A DEPUTY OF ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT

ArmInfo
2008-10-06 17:14:00

ArmInfo. The Central Electoral Commission of Armenia registered Lernik
Alexanyan as a deputy of the Armenian National Assembly, Monday.

During Oct 6 sitting, CEC Secretary Abraham Bakhchagulyan said that
Lernik Alexanyan received a deputy’s mandate in accordance with the
proportional list of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), as former
MP, RPA member Karen Karapetyan was recently appointed head of the
RA presidential administration and his powers of an MP were suspended
in this connection.

Institute For Armenian Studies In Ankara

INSTITUTE FOR ARMENIAN STUDIES IN ANKARA

"Noravank" Foundation
06 October 2008
Haykaram Nahapetyan

In summer 2001 in Ankara was founded the Institute for Armenian Studies
Organization. It works in cooperation with Turkey’s "Eurasian" Center
for Strategic Studies. The latter one is one of the biggest centers in
Turkey carrying out strategic researches. According to some information
the structure is patronized by the Turkish "Nationalist Movement"
Party (MHP).

The structure is located at 550, 61 Konrad Adenauer Street, in Ankara’s
Cankaya district. In the very district is located the President of
Turkey’s office. It is quite ridiculous that the organization spreading
denial is located in the Avenue after Konrad Adenauer, which, as it
is known, set the policy of "confronting" and "confessing" fascist
crimes in post-war Germany.

In 2002 and 2004 the structure has organized a Congress on Armenian
Studies.

The structure also has a working library on the subject of the Armenian
Question which has French, English, German, Russian, Amenian and
Turkish literature. It has also a video archive on the subject. In
summer months in the institute is organized working practice of
Turkish students.

The structure is presently headed by Omer Engin Lyutem.

Although the structure is called the Institute for Armenian Studies,
however, by its functions it doesn’t20completely coincide with
its name.

One can not even speak about objective researches on the subjects of
Armenian civilization, culture and history. The structure is mainly
engaged in carrying out works of denying character in the issue of the
Armenian Genocide and conducts researches to reveal propagandistic,
social-political activities and economic capabilities of the Armenian
Diaspora. As it is mentioned in the organization’s site "The institute
has an objective to embrace the issue taking into consideration
historical, psychological, legal and international elements of the
Armenian Question."

In 2007 the structure published the work "The Armenian Question:
main data and documents" where are presented the Turkish and American
"historians’" articles of denying character referring to the "Great
Genocide." In particular Justin McCarty presented the articles
"Armenian rebellions and Ottomans" and "Let historians judge." There
is also a page on the subject of the NKR conflict, where one can read
the work by Omer Lyutem "Nagorno-Karabakh issue."

It is noteworthy that since the time the structure has been functioning
there was a short period when an attempt was made to refuse "radical
denying" policy and not to limit the researches on the Armenian
subjects by mere denial. In 2003-2004 the organization was headed
by Hasan Oktay, who, according to some information, made an attempt
to make some corrections in that extremist approach. On August 2004
Oktay came to Yerevan and visited the monument to the victims of the
Armenian Genocide and the Genocide Museum.

During the meetings he was speaking in favor of certain liberation in
Turkey. Under the leadership of Oktay the research institute organized
the Second Congress of Armenian Studies, where, together with works
of mere denying character, were also voiced reports relating to other
periods of the Armenian history, in particular, early medieval period.

According to the information at hand, Oktay’s liberal approaches
caused serious discontent among Turkish extremists; the relations
between the Institute for Armenian Studies and Turke’s Historical
institute became tense. Three months after he has returned from
Armenia, at the end of 2004, Hasan Oktay was dismissed.

Hasan Oktay’s name can not be put in the same rank together with
Turkish intellectuals and human rights advocates with liberal
ideas- Halil Berktay, Elda Ozjan, Orhan Pamuk etc. Oktan just
had more moderate approaches and was aspiring not to appear among
the oppositionists and work with governmental circles to ensure
liberalism of certain extent to the Armenian Question. Oktay failed
in his efforts because of striking discrepancy with officials with
tough and extremist approaches.

It is also noteworthy the page of the Institute’s site20where one
can find information on the Armenian subject-matter in other Turkish
publications. In particular here are represented the studies on
"Turkish facts against Armenian confirmations" published by Turkish
Great National Assembly which was made ready for publication by the
head of the Department of Armenian Studies of Turkish Historians
Union Hikmet Ozdemir.

The General Directorate of State Archives has published
"Armenian-American relations in Ottoman documents" two-volume edition,
the state administration of Bitlis – volumes about "massacres"
allegedly perpetrated by Armenians in Bitlis against Turks and Eldar
Ilter – the book "Great treachery: Armenian Church and terrorism." In
reality it is the republished version of Ilter’s book "Armenian
Church and terrorism" published in 1997. Ilter is well known by his
extremism. According to him, in the above mentioned work the Armenian
party massacred for about 2,5 million Turks. Ilter doesn’t detail how
such a limited number of Armenian units located in limited territories
could perpetrate such a hideous massacre, if, putting aside the
historical part of the story, it was not even possible mere technical
realization of it. In the site one can also get information about
English language editions published in the US and Turkey, such as the
work "Armenian rebellions in Van" published by the University of the
US Uta h State. The authors of the work are "American representatives"
of Turkish denial Justin McCarty and a group of Turkish Authors –
Esat Arslan, Jemaletin Tashqra, and Omer Tura. In the site is also
represented the work of another American "denier" Hyunter Levi titled
"Armenian massacres perpetrated in the Ottoman Turkey."

Special attention is to be devoted to the Armenian language manual "I
learn English" published in Ankara in 2007 by Birsen Karajan. According
to the site, it is the first manual of Eastern Armenian published
in Turkey.

It consists of 160 pages and 18 separate lessons. It is also noteworthy
the "Eastern Armenian-Turkish" dictionary published by the very Birsen
Karajan. It consists of 372 pages.

It is to be mentioned that the Armenian party has some privileges over
Turkey today, as for the last decades Turkology has been developed
in Armenia and at present there are some specialists working in
the mentioned direction. However, in Turkey Armenology has not been
developed. Publication of the mentioned books, rising interest to
Eastern Armenians and involving of the Armenian language into Turkish
higher educational system have come to prove that Ankara aspires at
filling up the gap.

Other issues of author

PROPAGANDISTIC ACTIVITIES OF AZERBAIJANI "DIASPORA" [07.07.2008]
DISCUSSIONS ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION DAY IN TURKISH
MASS MEDIA [19.06.2008] ON THE PROBLEM OF THE INCREASING NUMBER OF
AZERBAIJANI WEB-SITES IN THE INTERNET [31.01.2008] ON PURPOSEFUL
DISINFORMATION ACTIVITY IN AZERBAIJAN [03.09.2007] The dynamic of
carrying on the Azerbaijani lobbing [16.05.2007] The process of the
making of Azerbaijani lobbing: general data [26.04.2007]

The War For South Ossetia

THE WAR FOR SOUTH OSSETIA
Daniele Scalea (Italia)

en.fondsk.ru
05.10.2008
Eurasia

Georgia declared its independence on the 9th April 1991 and its first
President (appointed in 1990 when the country was still USSR-federate)
was Zviad Gamsakhurdia, former leading dissident in the communist era.

The independence proclaimed through the "Georgia to Georgians"
slogan couldn’t but concern the several ethnic minorities living
around the administrative entity of Tblisi which Gamsakhurdia and
his nationalistic supporters wrongly regarded as being a monolithic
national bloc. Namely, the regions of Azarija and Abkhazia (that
were annexed to Georgia by the Russians who had taken them away from
the Turks), as well as South Ossetia (whose inhabitants are alike
those from the Russian province of North Ossetia) claimed the same
right to independence from Russia Tblisi itself wanted (and put into
practice). Already in 1989, South Ossetia, autonomous province of
the socialist soviet republic of Georgia, was scene to violent fights
between the Ossetians, loyal to Moscow, and nationalistic Georgians.

The Ossetian regional council came to declaring secession from the
Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia but this one reacted by lifting
Ossetia’s autonomy status, thus prompting further fights.

Newly-born Georgia’s internecine clashes weren’t inter-ethnic only
but also political: on 6th January 1992 Gamsakhurdia-led government was

overthrown by a bloody coup d’etat that was anything but quick since
it was started two weeks before.

Gamsakhurdia found shelter in Chechnya (after a brief stay in Armenia),
under the rebel government of General Dzochar Musaevic Dudaev. The coup
leaders proclaimed Eduard Shevarnedze as new president, former Soviet
Foreign Minister at the time of Gorbacev. The fights between the new
President’s supporters and the partisans of the removed one went on for
two years. On September 1993, then, an outright war burst between the
Georgian army and the Abkhazians who refuse still today to be subdued
to Tblisi’s authority since they are the majority in the north-western
part of the country. There were dreadful fights and the Abkhazians
came off successful since they fought off Tblisi’s troops and drove
out some thousand Georgians living in Abkhazia. Gamsakhurdia snapped
up the chance and, already on late September 1993, he returned to
his homeland, leading his armed followers in an revolt attempt. The
rebellion seemed likely to be successful but Shevarnadze, by approving
to let Georgia join the Independent States Community, received the
support by the neighbour countries, not least Russia which provided
him with men and weapons: within November the rebels were defeated
and on the following month their leader Gamsakhurdia died under
circumstances that were never completely cleared up.

Meanwhile, the long time of disorders and internecine fights cost
a high price to the newly-born Georgian republic: alongside with
Abkhazia, also South Ossetia managed to achieve the independence:
oddly enough, many Chechnyan separatists have fought for the freedom
of the former, whereas the Russian aid was decisive for the latter.

The "Rose Revolution": Saakashvili President of Georgia President
Shevarnadze, during the following decade, got two acknowledgments from
the people, by winning the elections on 1995 and 2000. The elections
held on 2nd November 2003, that were allegedly rigged according to the
pro-US media and organizations, embodied the fuse for a new political
violent reshuffle, the so-called "Rose Revolution". Shevarnadze
has often repeated that those who wanted and led that coup were the
US; and, needless to say, the deposed Georgian President can’t be
suspected of anti-Americanism. For example, suffice it to remind that,
in the capacity of Russian Foreign Minister, during a meeting with the
American President of that time, George H. W. Bush, he asked him for
an advice about what kind of foreign policy Russia was to maintain,
since he wanted to refrain from pursuing any ambition of defence
of the national stakes. Yet, as President of Georgia, Shevarnadze
proved to be too independent and, above all, too prone to keep good
relations with Moscow. It was probably because of this that the US
hatched one of the most success ful "coloured revolutions", bringing
back to power a racist and strongly anti-Russian nationalistic leader:
the new Gamsakhurdia is called Michail Saakavshili, a jurist who was
trained at the American universities.

Saakashvili served as Minister of Justice under Shevarnadze’s
government, well-known for its repressing character (partly accounted
for by the Gamsakhurdian insurrection and by the fight against
separatist tendencies). As President, albeit the incessant emphasis
on "democracy", Saakashvili has not proven any better in respecting
his people’s civil rights: appointed by "Bulgarian" percentages (96%
of votes in 2004), he has often accused his rivals of being criminals
or Russian spies, treating them accordingly.

After seizing power, Saakashvili has purged the Georgian leadership
through mass arrests both of former ministers of Shevarnadze’s
government (that is to say his former peers, in controversy with
which he had stepped down) and of simple local administration
representatives. In 2004, a group of Georgian intellectuals wrote an
open letter to denounce the intolerance against political opponents.

An emblematic case of the dreary situation and of the rampant violence
in Saakashvili’s Georgia was the murder of Sandro Girgvliani. He was a
28 year old bank manager and on the night between 27th and 28th January
2006, in a Tblisi’s bar, he had a quarrel with some high officers=2
0from the Interior Ministry, who were there to celebrate the birthday
of one of them, Inspector General Vasil Sanodze. Girgvliani and his
friend Levan Buchaidze, after leaving the bar, were shoved into a
Mercedes and brought to the outskirts of the town: Buchaidze managed
to escape but Girgvliani was beaten to death and his body was found
the following morning,.

The investigation from the "Imedi" tv station managed to shed light
upon the case, denouncing the Interior Ministry’s responsibilities. The
alleged murderers were arrested and sentenced seven to eight years,
yet whoever gave the order has still gone unpunished: in spite of the
popular protests, all of the high officers from the Ministry retained
their charge.

Badri Patarkatsisvili, owner of the "Imedi" station that not only
reported the authorities’ responsibilities in Girgviliani affair but
also other similar cases, underwent several fiscal investigations
and political pressures so that he would be induced to curb his
journalists’ autonomy.

Irakli Okruasvili, former Georgian Defence Minister, accused his former
ally Saakashvili of wanting to attempt the life of Patarkatsisvili
himself who, meanwhile, entered politics as the rival of the
President: two days later, Okruasvili was arrested with the charge
of corruption and money laundering, and only after having disavowed
the accusations against Saakashvili he was released. Expelled to
France, where he got asylum, on 5th November 2007 he appeared on
"Imedi" tv where he confirmed the authenticity of the accusation
against Saakashvili while accounting for the disavowing due to the
forced imprisonment. Few months later, he was convicted with final
judgment by the Georgian magistracy, the same one which abstained
from investigating over the alleged murderous will of Saakashvili
against Patarkatsisvili. Incidentally, on 12th February 2008 Badri
Patarkatsisvili was found dead in his British residence, few hours
after having a meeting with Boris Berezovskij, Russian "oligarch"
and Putin’s implacable enemy. The Georgian businessman, who was only
50 years old and had never suffered of heart problems during his
lifetime, died from heart attack. The local police classified his
case as "suspicious".

Saakashvili has regularly adopted the iron fist against any opposition.

During the second half of 2007, the government reacted by putting
down the demonstrations sponsored by his political adversaries:
on November 7th, after repeated attacks from the police, a group of
protesters decided to resist the institutional violence and thus the
fights took place.

Saakashvili quickly exploited the pretext in order to proclaim the
state of emergency for nearly ten days while imposing, amongst other
things, the censure on the national media.

Yet, the mass protests forced Saakashvili to step down and face,
on Januar y 2008, a new electoral test: he won, notwithstanding the
strong criticism both from the OCSE (generally much acquiescent
towards US-sponsored candidates) and from the opposition, which
denounced systematic fixing and manipulated opinion polls.

Mikhail Saakasvili has never forgotten the crucial support from the
US for his violent seizure of power. During his mandates, he has
always been a staunch ally to them, emerging also for his nationalism
liable to rash actions and for his visceral Russia-phobia, that is
after all widely shared by his fellow countrymen. Georgia entering
the NATO is Saakasvili’s main target and he has dispatched a hefty
amount of troops following the US all over the main theatres of war
and occupation: Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.

[…] When Saakashvili became President, South Ossetia was living in
peace for about a decade: in 1992 Tblisi, Moscow and Tskhinvali (South
Ossetia’s capital) agreed upon a ceasefire, setting up in the area a
mixed peacekeeping force made up of Georgians, Russians and Ossetians.

In 2004, after having subdued Azarija, Saakashvili made the tension
mount again with South Ossetia: yet, for years the clash has never gone
beyond a "creeping" and "dirty" war made up of kidnappings, dynamite
attacks and occasional fire exchanges between the opposite militias.

The outburst of the conflict In the summer of 2008, Georgia marked
a quantum leap in its war activism. If it has up to now limited
itself to fostering occasional border clashes and leading a strongly
anti-Russian diplomacy (suffice it to remind the strict alliance with
Ukraine of Jushenko and Timoshenko, the attempts to join the NATO,
the building of BTC pipeline conceived in order to leave Russia out of
the Caspian Sea source trade), in recent times Tblisi has multiplied
its provocations with the clear aim to bring about a war. It is hard
to imagine which plans Saakashvili and his staff have had in the past
and which ones they will have in the future: maybe to overcome the
political internal crisis by directing people against an external
enemy, thus making them gather closer to their President; maybe
they hoped to seize Abkhazia and Ossetia through blitzkriegs without
enabling Moscow to counteract; maybe the aim was and really is that
of embroiling Moscow in a new Caucasian war so as to both wear out
its military apparatus and to dim its international image with the
aid of the propaganda juggernaut handled by the US.

What’s obvious, knowing the strict alliance existing between Tblisi
and Washington, is that the US must have played some fundamental
role in the crisis bursting out: to say the least, they took no step
to prevent Saakashvili from setting off this war. Yet, let’s stick
precisely to the chronology of facts.

To avoid having to go back to older incidents and disputes, a
reasonable starting point can be fixed at the 20th of April of this
year when, according to the Georgian authorities, one of their drones
(a remote-controlled aircraft, part of a lot purchased from a private
Israeli company, with the green light of the Israeli Defence ministry)
was shot down in Abkhazia’s airspace by Russian crafts. Consequently
Tblisi demanded a compensation from Moscow which, instead, denied
the fact. The tension in the area was already high since Georgia
had started massing troops on the border with the breakaway region,
namely in the disputed area of Kodori gorge.

On May 29th a car bomb blasted in Tskhinvali during the independence
celebrations, injuring six passers-by: the Ossetian President
pinned the blame for the attack on the Georgian government. On May
31st three hundred Russian unarmed soldiers entered Abkhazia at the
local government’s demand, in order to help build a railway system:
at the same time, Moscow increased the amount of peacekeeping troops
in the province–as a reply to the Georgian mobilization–but without
exceeding the maximum number fixed by the agreement (that’s 3,000
soldiers): this induced Georgians to cry out against the "occupation
of Abkhazia", supported by the EU that calls for the Russians to
withdraw the additional troops.

On June 17th on the Ossetian border the Georgian troops arrested
four peacekeeping Russian soldiers accused o f smuggling weapons:
they are released after a nine-hour third degree.

In the meantime, drones start flying again over Abkhazia, even if
Tblisi denies. On the following day, two blasts took place along a
railway at Suchumi, Abkhazia’s capital: the target, according to the
investigators, were the Russian troops deployed there. On June 29th two
new dynamite attempts occurred, this time at the Abkhazian coast town
of Gagrij: six are injured. Two days later, a blast at the Suchumi’s
market mowed down further civilians. The repeated attacks lead the
Abkhazian authorities to shut the border with Georgia that is regarded
as being responsible for the terrorist attacks. On July 4th, during the
night, the Ossetian capital Tskhinvali (at the border with Georgia)
was briefly bombed by the Georgian artillery (at least 15 mortars,
according to the witnesses): 3 persons lost their lives and 11 are
wounded. The incident was confirmed both by the Russian peacekeeping
forces and by the OSCE envoys, yet the Georgians gave no account;
Moscow’s reply defined the fact as "an act of open aggression", and
a few days later it begun manoeuvres in the northern Caucasus. The
Abkhazian President Sergej Begaps claimed he has laid his hands,
thanks to his secret services, on an invading plan of Abkhazia by
Georgia which, meanwhile, has massed twelve thousand soldiers at the
borders, 2 thousand of which only at the Kodori gorge.

On July 7th, a new bomb shocked Abkhazia again: four people injured
by a blast in a café and the local authorities have no doubt in
holding the Georgian security forces as responsible. The following
day also South Ossetia protested against Saakashvili’s expansionistic
aspirations: the proof is claimed to be the evacuation started by
Tblisi of some thousand Georgians living in South Ossetia. On July 9th
it was Georgia’s turn to denouncing an attack at one of its outposts
along the border with Abkhazia, an operation carried out by about
ten armed men but with no casualties.

Oddly enough, the same day the Abkhazians claimed they have suffered
an identical attack at one of their outposts.

The focus of the fighting, in the first half of July, seemed
to be directed more towards Abkhazia than North Ossetia, and the
Abkhazian President Sergej Bagaps rushed to Moscow to ask the Russian
aid; there he met also with the South Ossetian colleague Eduard
Kokojty. Meanwhile, the American Secretary of State Condoleeza
Rice arrived in Tblisi: Washington’s envoy expresses full support
to Tblisi’s warlike policy while warning Moscow from trying to
defend the freedom of Abkhazians and Ossetians. On July 10th Georgia
called back its own Moscow-based ambassador due, officially, to "the
outrage over the aggressive Russian policy". Sergej Lavrov, Russian
Foreign Minister, tried to restore the dialogue while demanding,
yet, the precondition of the Georgian evacuation of troops deployed
in fighting trim at Kodori gorge; Tblisi’s reply is a litany of the
same old anti-Russia rhetoric, the accuse of an alleged "aggression"
by Moscow and the closing to any mediation (Abkhazia and Ossetia are
outspokenly defined, leaving no room to negotiations, "inalienable
parts of Georgia"). The Georgians oppose a clear refusal to Lavrov’s
offer to hold talks in Moscow, preferring to use July for joined
military manoeuvres with American, Azerbajian and Ukrainian troops and
to get a Presidential decree approved by the Parliament to increase
of 5,000 units the number of recruits, thus raising Tblisi’s armed
forces to 37,000 soldiers.

On July 16th, the 76th Russian airborne division arrived in northern
Caucasus, officially to take part to the military manoeuvres that
in all involve 8,000 men, 700 fighting vehicles and 30 crafts. While
President Saakashvili turned down the idea about a Moscow-sponsored
non-aggression agreement with Georgia and Abkhazia, it was Suchumi to
refuse the mediation plan proposed by the Germans which is considered
as questioning of Abkhazia’s independence status. The following week
there was a succession of new incidents between Georgia (always active)
and South Ossetia: four Ossetians arrested by the Georgian police; the
infringement of the Ossetian space by Georgian air forces; finally, on
0D July 29th, Georgian troops opened fire over two Ossetian villages.

The night between August 1st and 2nd some fire exchanges came about
along the Georgia-South Ossetia border, with at least 6 dead and 15
wounded amongst the Ossetians and 10 casualties amongst the Georgians
(but the Ossetians claim 29 dead Georgian soldiers): it was the
beginning of the present war, even if on August 7th a formal truce
is proclaimed by both the fronts. Yet, few hours later, the Georgian
would break it in order to launch their own attack.

Before analyzing carefully the details of the conflict, let’s look
at the set of facts schematically reported so far and which embody
the prelude to war, as a whole . What we can detect is the obvious
concentration of Georgian troops at the borders with Abkhazia and
Ossetia, accompanied by continuous provocations that range from the
warlike rhetoric to mortar shells and outright terrorist attacks
(the bombs in Abkhazia the local authorities charge Tblisi with).

On the other hand, the reaction is the mobilization of the breakaway
forces in both the regions, as well as the massing of Russian troops
both in northern and southern Caucasus.

At this point, we have to go back to the hypothesis made at the
beginning of the paragraph as regards the Georgian leadership’s
hidden aims. If Tblisi’s plan were that of seizing Abkhazia and
Ossetia through quick and sudden attacks, thus20forestalling the
Russian reactions, then we should draw the conclusion that all this
has been arranged and carried out in the worst possible way: the even
too obvious preparations and the continuous provocations couldn’t but
alert the enemies who, as a matter of fact, were poised to fight off
the Georgian offensive as soon as it was eventually set off. The way
of approaching to the conflict makes us think of other hypothesises
as well.

For instance, Tblisi might have tried to provoke the Russians pushing
them into carrying out the attack as first in order, then, to play
the victim and to win international support. Actually, this hasn’t
completely turned out well since the Georgians had to launch the
first attack and only thanks to the huge and effective US-managed
propaganda machine they have succeeded in slanting the American and
western European public opinions to their own advantage. At any rate,
what’s left is the problem whether NATO’s diplomacy can really force
the Russians to evacuate Abkahzia and South Ossetia, leaving them
at Tblisi’s mercy. This possibility looks extremely remote, if one
takes into account that Moscow enjoys the right of veto within the
UN Security Council. Economic pressures might be more effective,
yet it’s hard to think that Moscow will approve of a settlement
that be detrimental over the status quo ante of a conflict it is
definitely winning.

0D One can also suppose that Tblisi has overrated (at least in view of
the aforementioned considerations) its own military power, thinking
of maybe being able to overwhelm the Abkhazian, Ossetian and Russian
defences; or, at least, of being able to drive the Russians to trespass
its territory and to face them there through guerrilla warfare. But
in this case we should draw the conclusion that Mr Saakashvili is
pursuing stakes diverging from the ones of the country which he’s
called to answer to.

Anyway, the impression is that the Georgians have lost control over
the situation. It’s likely that they didn’t expect such a massive
and resolute reaction by Moscow and that they set too many hopes in
the effectiveness of its own military machine and in a more incisive
and quick intervention by the Atlanticist diplomacy (and maybe also
in greater military support).

The war On early August several shootings took place along the border
between Georgia and South Ossetia while Russian volunteers begun
flocking into the separatist region. After some days of preparations,
with mortar shells over Tskhinvali and the surrounding villages,
the night between August 7th and 8th the Georgian troops launched
the offensive against the South-Ossetian capital. Tskhinvali, on the
extreme southern limit of Ossetia, is located only five kilometres
(ca. 3 miles) from the Georgian border, along the main road of the
region that, from=2 0the Georgian town of Gori, crosses South Ossetia
and leads to Rokskij tunnel that can be considered the sole junction
with the Russian Federation.

The attack against the Ossetian capital was carried out with infantry
and armour while the Georgian Su-25 jet aircrafts dropped bombs over
Kvernet village (and even over a humanitarian convoy, according to
the Ossetians).

The Georgian advance immediately penetrated as far as 10 kilometres
(6.2 miles) the Ossetian inland along three fronts: South Ossetia’s
eastern border, Tskhinvali’s corridor in the south and a salient in
the west for what looks like a pincer movement. Yet, the offensive
stopped at the Ossetian capital: the breakaway troops resisted starting
violent fights from house to house during which Tskhinvali suffered
many damages and civilian casualties (some thousands): it’s worth
reminding that most of the South Ossetian inhabitants have Russian
citizenship. The South Ossetian Parliament and a couple of the Russian
peacekeeping forces’ barracks were also blown up: about ten Russian
soldiers were killed and the Russian Premier Vladimir Putin, from
Beijing, announced a response.

The reaction is immediate: while Russian aircrafts started bombing
Gori, the first big centre on the way to Tskhinvali (30 kilometres
is the distance between the two cities), the units from the 58th army
(comprising about one hundred tanks and heavy artillery) entered South
Ossetia: on the following day, also President Medvedev officially
announced the Russian counteroffensive.

On August 9th the Georgian troops are fought off from Tskhinvali
that, yet, has suffered huge material damages and human losses,
notwithstanding the brevity of fights.

Some of the 35 thousand Ossetian refugees who have fled to Russia
reported atrocities carried out by the Georgians: snipers wilfully
opening fire on the helpless, entire villages set ablaze, bombings
on civilian targets, tanks wilfully running over children. Those
testimonies made Putin and Medvedev state that they were dealing
with the attempt on the part of the Georgians to carry out a genocide
against the Ossetians.

In the meantime, the Russian counteroffensive got wider: airborne
troops were parachuted near Tskhinvali, thus raising to 10,000 the
number of effectives in the operation while the air force started
hammering new targets, mostly Poti, a harbour town on the Black Sea
from which Georgia is thought to get Ukrainian military supplies. The
Russian airforce losses were said to amount to four crafts, although
the Georgians claim to have shot down twenty of them. American planes
brought back to Georgia the contingent of 2,000 men Tblisi sent to
Iraq. On August 10th, a part of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea,
including the Moskva cruiser, after setting sail from Sebastopolis
base, got to the border with Georgian territorial waters (only a
Geor gian rocket-launching patrol boat tries to react but it will
be sunk); at the same time, the Russian bombings has reached Kodori
gorge, favouring an offensive by the Abkhatian militias against the
Georgian troops massed there with threatening purposes. On August
12th, after setting South Ossetia free from Georgian soldiers (many
of which are reported as having given in to the Russians), Moscow
announced the end of its counteroffensive, yet reserving the right
to intervene again in case of further Georgian attacks against the
separatist region. These are the words pronounced by Medvedev: "The
operation’s targets have been accomplished: the peacekeeping forces
and the civilians are now safe. The aggressor has been punished and
has suffered heavy losses as well".

As things stand, it’s impossible to foresee whether the truce will
last or not […]. Awaiting to know what is bound to happen, we can
draw a partial conclusion over this short conflict — or over this
first part of a longer conflict. In doing so, we are required to take
into account both the military factors and the strategic importance
of the events and the diplomatic context.

On the eve of the war, the Georgian armed forces could count on over
30 thousand men, two third of which organized in the army. The tanks
at Tblisi’s disposal were about two hundreds, all of them Soviet
Union-made: forty T-55 and one hundred six ty five T-72. The T-55 is a
mid-size tank (35,4 tons, 203 mm as maximum armour, a 100mm cannon),
is considered as being the most successful model in the history of
tanks, being it still used in 65 countries although its birth dates
back to sixty years ago which indeed represents its huge limit.

The T-72 is the more modern type yet it dates back to 1972. It’s
heavier (45 tons) than the T-55, better armoured (250mm) and more
equipped with fire power (125mm cannon), it’s faster and more provided
with fuel distance.

Whatever the conditions, the fact is that only one Russian motorized
infantry division would have been sufficient to stand up to the entire
Georgian army.

That’s why Tblisi should have planned the attack against South Ossetia
as a blitzkrieg: to occupy immediately Tskhinvali–capital and sole
big city of the province–and the main road leading to Russia, while
possibly reaching and making not practicable Rokskij tunnel before
Moscow’s reaction.

Mission not accomplished, since even before the Russian intervention,
the Ossetian forces alone have been sufficient to restrain the
Georgian advance.

It’s taken the Georgians a preliminary bombing with BM-21 "Grad"
(a Russian-made rocket launcher dating back to the 60’s, still used
due to its effectiveness) and two following waves of foot soldiers
and armour to penetrate into Tskhinvali, and yet the Ossetian capita
l has been able to resist until the Russian aid showed up. The D-30
howitzers, the 100mm cannon "Rapir" anti-tanks and, above all, the
less advanced remote-controlled 9M113 "Konkurs" rockets provided to
the Ossetian militia turned out to be sufficient so that the several
obsolete Georgian tanks would turn into wrecked vehicles decorating the
streets of a town half destroyed by the violent preliminary bombing.

After all, the "Konkurs", although they were projected in the 60’s
and they began being used in 1974, were successfully used also by
Hezbollah militia to stand up to the Israeli "Merkava" tanks.

The Georgian air force is insignificant and indeed it played nearly
no role in the conflict: only five Su-25 (Soviet land-covering
crafts whose production started in 1981) and fifteen L-29 and L-39
(Czech jet fighters respectively made in the 60’s and 70’s only
for pilot training). Too little even to overcome the South Ossetian
anti-aircrafts defence.

What’s more, the Georgian troops aren’t renowned at all for their
training, in spite of their (official) American and (private) Israeli
instructors’ efforts and, indeed, there are considered worse than
their Ossetian rivals.

Hence the Georgians are thought to have attempted a lightning
attack, yet running into the Ossetian resistance and, above all, a
surprisingly swift reaction by the Russians who, withi n few hours,
have sent their armour and paratroopers near Tskhinvali and started
heavily bombing Georgia’s strategic targets and troop massing.

In this respect, the too obvious preparations by the Georgians
and their continuous provocations against Ossetians, Abkhazians
and Russians turned out to be a big mistake. The only fact that can
account for the behaviour of the Georgian political and military staff
is that they probably hoped to push the enemy to attack first. Even
if this hasn’t happened, the political aim has been partly achieved:
the American ally, setting off its propagandistic machine and allied
diplomacies, has managed to spread the Russia-aggressor/Georgia-victim
pattern; even if the Georgian initiative hasn’t gone unobserved
to anyone and the European diplomatic milieu has defined Moscow’s
reaction as "disproportionate" (the same expression used in 2006 to
mildly blame the Israeli invasion of Lebanon).

Nonetheless, Russia’s veto right within the UN Security Council has
spared Moscow serious backlashes. In consideration of the facts, for
the moment the Georgian "diplomatic victory" seems to be just in its
preliminary stages. Yet, it has been important for them to involve
Russia as an active and belligerent part in the dispute over the
two separatist regions, thus undermining its peacemaking role it has
played up to now. Not surprisingly, the EU has immediately welcomed the
idea according to which Moscow won’t be any longer allowed to act as
mediator in the Caucasus but, on the contrary, it will have to resort
to Brussels’ mediation in its clash with Tblisi. Hence it will be up
to Moscow and its resoluteness to ward off the possible diplomatic
backlashes of the conflict: Russia is historically a master in winning
wars on the ground and then losing them at the negotiation table.

Going back to the strictly military point, what’s left is the fact that
the Russians have kicked the Georgian troops out of South Ossetia
and have actually bombed Georgia’s military or military-related
infrastructures.

The merely military targets seems therefore to have been achieved with
a surprising rapidity and with little losses (the official report
speaks, at the moment, of 18 dead and 152 wounded): the Georgian
attack has been fought back beyond the starting-point (Tblisi has
lost its contingent stationed in South Ossetia and, seemingly, even
the northern part of the Kodori gorge) and the Georgian resiliency
for another attack has been seriously undermined, maybe even foiled
for months or years to come.

The Russian armed forces has demonstrated to be very fast in the
decision-making process at its highest ranks and in reacting at its
lowest ones; the only negative aspect is the high losses suffered by
the air force: considered the poorness of the enemy, four crafts are
undoubtedly=2 0too many, even if the undisputed control of air has been
achieved quite immediately. Moreover, the Russian counteroffensive has
brought some political advantages to Moscow, though a small deferment
in closing the operations might have optimized them. First of all,
Saakashvili has been destabilized. The Georgian can look at the
Russian aggressor pattern as much as they want (since they consider
South Ossetia as being part of the Georgian territory, so the Russian
one has been a violation of their sovereignty) but they surely don’t
ignore that the Russian alleged "aggression" could have been avoided
if their President hadn’t taken such venturesome decisions. Therefore
Saakashvili will have to bear responsibility for having set off a
conflict they have ruinously lost, even if he will try to politically
optimize the "victim" aura.

Secondly, the US’ prestige–and secondly EU’s one –has endured
remarkable backlashes in the region. Today facts have showed how much
the balance of military power in the Caucasus leans undoubtedly towards
Moscow. Washington has been able to counter the Russian offensive with
propaganda, with fulminating declarations, with word-only solidarity,
and it’s likely to do it also with hefty donations for the rebuilding
of Georgian infrastructures; yet the US hasn’t even been able to send a
single soldier to protect the supposedly "aggressed" Georgi an ally,
and Moscow has brought the operation to an end only after having
accomplished its own targets. The rash closing of the operations
by Moscow will certainly be exploited by Washington and Tblisi in
order to make it look like it depended on American pressures aiming
at preserving the White House’s prestige in the region.

Moscow’s third success lies in putting off Georgia’s admission to
the NATO. If Georgia had been a NATO member, today Europe and the
US should have either engaged in the third world war or lost their
face before the whole world. Reason for which Georgia’s entrance in
the NATO has always been dependent on settling the Abkhazian and
Ossetian problems. Now more than ever these problems are serious
and their possible consequences obvious. Paradoxically, the only
way for Tblisi to enter the NATO, at the moment, would seem to be
the annexation of Abkhazia and Ossetia to the Russian Federation:
as the saying goes, "off goes the tooth, off goes the ache". Maybe
that’s why Moscow will go on lingering, putting off the settlement
of both issues until doomsday.

–Boundary_(ID_BwxqZwyLj6BpnSDi73voXg)- –

A Branch Of France Telecom Has All Grounds To Win Tender On Choice O

A BRANCH OF FRANCE TELECOM HAS ALL GROUNDS TO WIN TENDER ON CHOICE OF CELLULAR OPERATOR IN ARMENIA

ArmInfo
2008-10-06 17:05:00

ArmInfo. The Orange SA company, which is a branch of France Telecom,
has all grounds to win the tender for the right to provide mobile
communication services in Armenia, Armenian Minister of Transport
and Communication Gourgen Sargsyan said at a briefing after opening
the packages of pricing facilities, Monday.

Gourgen Sargsyan said that Orange’s pricing facilities turned out
to be the highest – 51 mln 500 thsd EUR. He explained that the price
for the licence is the most important and crucial term of the tender.

Officially the winner’s name will be announced within 3 days, the
minister said. He pointed out that the winner will receive the licence
for providing mobile communication services in Armenia in mid December
2008. The minister noted that the new operator will start its activity
in Armenia within 6 months. At the final stage of the tender, along
with France Telecom, contending for the position of the third cellular
operator were CEO Blackrock Communications (Great Britain, Ireland),
which proposed 31mln 600 thsd EUR for the licence, and M&A Tele2 AB
(Sweden), whose pricing facilities made up 45 mln 600 thsd EUR.

According to the tender, the third operator must have relevant
experience and ability to invest at least 200 million in development
within 2 years.

The following codes will be provided to the third operator +374 (0)
55 and +374 (0) 95. If the operator fails to use the provided codes
by at least 60% by the end of the year, the PSRC has a right to take
back the unused numbers. The third operator will be provided with GSM
frequency and an opportunity to provide 3G services including voice
and data transmission.

The frequencies will be provided within the following limits: 880-890,
925-935, 1745-1765, 1840-1860, 1910-1915, 1950-1965, 2140-2155 MHz.

To recall, the specified three companies passed the pre-qualification
stage of the tender announced on July 19, 2008. To note, the mobile
operator and internet provider Orange SA has 90 mln subscribers and
provides services in 23 countries. At present GSM service providers
in Armenia are ArmenTel CJSC (100% subsidiary of Russian VimpelCom
OJSC with trademark Beeline) and K-Telecom with trademark VivaCell,
80% stake of the latter belong to Russian MTS operator. By the data
of the companies, the number of subscribers was up 45.5% over 2007
to 1,824,344. Both operators have about 1.8 mln subscribers, while
the whole population of the republic currently makes up 3.2 mln people.

Baku: Karabakh Status And Lachin Corridor Issues Not Coordinated Yet

BAKU: KARABAKH STATUS AND LACHIN CORRIDOR ISSUES NOT COORDINATED YET

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.10.2008 14:09 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Official Baku announced that both Azerbaijan and
Armenia still fail to agree on the key issues in the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict settlement process.

"The status of Nagorno Karabakh and Lachin corridor as well deployment
of peacekeeping forces have not been coordinated yet," said Novruz
Mammadov, Head of the International Relations Department at the
Azerbaijani President’s Office.

"When in Yerevan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that
Baku and Yerevan managed to agree on several principles. The statement
caused a stir, like other statements of the kind made by the sides
earlier. The point is that the conflict is being resolved step by
step and the agreements achieved earlier can be implemented only in
case the positions on key issues harmonize," he said.

"It is not easy to disclose the coordinated points and there is no need
to do so, since it can damage the ongoing process, according to him.

"The issues under discussion are most important ones. Their
coordination will affect other provisions," Mammadov said, Trend
reports.

Turkey’s Caucasus Stability And Cooperation Platform Demands An "Ope

TURKEY’S CAUCASUS STABILITY AND COOPERATION PLATFORM DEMANDS AN "OPEN GAME"

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.10.2008 14:15 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey’s Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform
demands an "open game", a Russian expert said.

"As a rule, cooperation becomes possible if the sides waive
their national interests to combat a common enemy or if there is
a necessity of diversification of economic relations. Under the
global financial and energy crisis, the Caucasus states could reach
an agreement to resolve the existing conflicts and secure beneficial
economic cooperation. However, there are some irrational historical
factors that hamper normalization of relations," senior lecturer at
Saint-Petersburg State University, deputy editor at the Center of
Oriental Studies, Ph.D. in history Alexander Sotnichenko said in an
interview with PanARMENIAN.Net.

Armenia could officially renounce territorial claims against Turkey
and stop the worldwide campaign calling for recognition of the Armenian
Genocide. In response, Turkey could reconsider its position on Nagorno
Karabakh and open the border with Armenia, according to him.

"A similar precedent was in case with Syria. As soon as Damask
recognized territorial integrity of Turkey and stopped laying
claims to the province of Hatay that was annexed to Turkey in 1838,
the relations between the two states considerably improved, not to
mention the economic factor. Presently, Turkey is mediating for the
Syrian-Israeli reconciliation, what is convenient for both sides. I
am hopeful that the Caucasus nations will overcome their historic
hostility and establish fruitful political and economic cooperation,"
Dr. Sotnichenko said.

Full text of the interview

Alexander Sotnichenko:

Caucasus nations most interested in peaceful development of the region
Given the latest changes on the regional political map, the growing
attention to the Caucasus is not surprising. Recognition of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence, Turkey’s Caucasus Stability
and Cooperation initiative and forthcoming presidential election in
Azerbaijan are among the most topical issues. Senior lecturer at
Saint-Petersburg State University, deputy editor at the Center of
Oriental Studies, Ph.D. in history Alexander Sotnichenko comments on
the situation to PanARMENIAN.Net.

06.10.2008 GMT+04:00 Can we suppose that the U.S. and EU are against
normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations?

Surely, no. Both the U.S. and EU hope for successful resolution of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict and normalization of the Armenian-Turkish
relations. Nevertheless, they want it to happen through their
mediation. European countries and organizations, such as NATO, EU
and OSCE want to be direct intermediaries in settling conflicts in
the Caucasus in order to expand their influence throughout the region.

How could you explain the precedent of conflicts in Kosovo, South
Ossetia and Abkhazia? Both the U.S. and Russia insist that other
conflicts, including Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria, should be
resolved in a different way…

There is no system of international relations which could regulate the
world politics on the basis of universally recognized international
law. Each event is interpreted from the position of strength and
benefit. Since 1991, the ideas of "state sovereignty" and "right
of nations to self-determination" have been interpreted one-sidedly
by the world powers. Both Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria can be
internationally recognized if their longing for independence will
coincide with strategy of one or several world players. The case
with Nagorno Karabakh is demonstrative: I can’t name a power which
is interested in recognition of this territory.

Does the Caucasus Stability Platform have any future?

Such projects demand an "open game". As a rule, cooperation becomes
possible if the sides waive their national interests to combat a
common enemy or if there is a necessity of diversification of economic
relations. Under the global financial and energy crisis, the Caucasus
states could reach an agreement to resolve the existing conflicts
and secure beneficial economic cooperation. However, there are some
irrational historical factors that hamper normalization of relations.

Armenia could officially renounce territorial claims against Turkey
and stop the worldwide campaign calling for recognition of the Armenian
Genocide. In response, Turkey could reconsider its position on Nagorno
Karabakh and open the border with Armenia.

A similar precedent was in case with Syria. As soon as Damask
recognized territorial integrity of Turkey and stopped laying
claims to the province of Hatay that was annexed to Turkey in 1838,
the relations between the two states considerably improved, not to
mention the economic factor.

Presently, Turkey is mediating for the Syrian-Israeli reconciliation,
what is convenient for both sides. I am hopeful that the Caucasus
nations will overcome their historic hostility and establish fruitful
political and economic cooperation.

What’s your vision for the Caucasus?

All depends on the countries’ willingness to maintain friendly
ties. Moreover, they should stop building their national policy
dependently from the powers beyond the region. The August conflict
demonstrated that Washington’s power is not universal. With
Russia mediating for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution
and with Turkey alleviating tensions between Georgia and Russia,
the Caucasus states will be able to implement their economic and
political strategic for the glory of the region. However, if some of
the countries orient for the West, like Georgia does, new conflicts
are possible. Deployment of NATO troops in Georgia will aggravate
tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Escalation will involve Turkey,
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Georgia may provoke a new war in
an attempt to take back Abkhazia and Ossetia with the help of the
U.S. forces.

Are there parallels between the Israeli-Palestinian and Nagorno
Karabakh conflicts?

I do not see vivid parallels. Religion is the key factor between
Arabs and Jews. Besides, Israel enjoys support of a superpower –
the United States, while majority of the UN member states recognize
Palestine as an independent entity.

Don’t you think that it’s unreasonable to decide the fate of Nagorno
Karabakh people behind their back? Are the borders of the former
soviet republic correct?

I think a decision that will satisfy all parties to conflict
will be the reasonable one. The notion of justice is absent in the
international law, all the more so in present days, when sovereignty
of states is violated so often. Certainly, the borders between the
soviet republics were outlined proceeding from the interests of the
empire. Actually, the USSR decline provided the people living in the
Caucasus with a possibility to decide their fate themselves.

As result of the unfair soviet policy, we received three unrecognized
republics, dozens of thousands of victims of inter-ethnic conflicts,
hundreds of thousands of refugees, destroyed infrastructure and
agriculture. The policy of nationalists, who came to power in Caucasus
states in 1991, yielded deplorable results.

I am confident that territorial and national problems can be resolved
through dialog, multilateral meetings and agreements. Caucasus people
are most interested in a peaceful development of the region. Meanwhile,
the goal of mediators from outside is to strengthen their positions. If
peace is established in the Caucasus, no one will need American bases.

Statements About "Genocide Of Mountain Jews" Aimed To Undermine Frie

STATEMENTS ABOUT "GENOCIDE OF MOUNTAIN JEWS" AIMED TO UNDERMINE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN JEWS AND ARMENIANS

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.10.2008 15:42 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Despite the bitter lesson of the South Ossetian
and Abkhazian conflicts and neglecting Turkey’s stability pact,
Azerbaijan continues to poison its public with disinformation,
head of the institute of national and strategic studies at the RA
Defense Ministry, major general Hayk Kotanjyan said when commenting on
Azeri media reports that the Knesset intends to form a commission to
investigate "the genocide of Mountain Jews" perpetrated in early 20th
century in the territory of present-day Azerbaijan, the RA Defense
Minister’s spokesman, col. Seyran Shahsuvaryan told PanARMENIAN.Net.

"Specialists know that the so-called "genocide of Mountain Jews
perpetrated by Armenians" is a pure invention being imposed on Israeli
public and Diaspora by Azeri propaganda machine throughout the globe,"
Dr Kotanjyan said, and added, "These actions are aimed to undermine
the centuries-old friendship between Jews and Armenians, the nations
which survived Genocide and Holocaust and managed to restore their
statehood".

"One thing is clear: this falsification is immoral. It’s nothing
but offence to the memory of Armenians slaughtered by gangs of
Caucasian Tatars in habitations of Armenians and Mountain Jews. Now,
the remains of those Armenians are presented as the remains of Jews
killed by Armenians. Actually, the matter concerns the gangs which
killed several thousands of Russian soldiers and officers going back
home from the Caucasus front during that period," he said.

ANPP, IAEA Clinch 1 580 000 Euro Deal

ANPP, IAEA CLINCH 1 580 000 EURO DEAL

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.10.2008 16:28 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On October 3, Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Arman
Kirakossian attended the 52nd conference of the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Austria, the RA MFA press office told PanARMENIAN.Net.

Addressing the conference, the Deputy FM touched on the Armenia-
IAEA cooperation, safety and operation of the Armenian nuclear power
plant and construction of a new NPP.

Earlier, Arman Kirakossian and Anita Nilsson, Head of the IAEA
Office of Nuclear Security, discussed ways to maintain safety of
the ANPP. Then, the Armenian delegation took part in the ceremony of
signing of an agreement between the IAEA and EnergyRepairGarant.

The agreement is a program meant to ensure safety of the Armenian
NPP. The expenses amounting to 1 580 000 euro will be covered by the
British government.

Armenia’s Regional Authority Grew After August Events

ARMENIA’S REGIONAL AUTHORITY GREW AFTER AUGUST EVENTS

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.10.2008 16:49 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The visit of the Armenian President to Georgia
proved timely, a Georgian political scientist said.

"The Armenian diplomacy manifested professionalism during the
Georgia-Russian clashes in August. It managed to separate the interests
of a strategic and a permanent partner, thus strengthening Armenia’s
regional authority," Soso Tsiskarishvili said during Yerevan-Tbilisi
TV space bridge today.

"The visit of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to Georgia proved
timely. The results of this visit will be fruitful, to begin with
the construction project of Akhalkalaki-Batumi highway. Georgia and
Armenia need an alternative highway. Although, there are opponents
to this project, who think that it can provoke separatist attitude of
mind in Javakheti, I am confident that all obstacles will be overcome,"
he said.

Meanwhile, expert on economic issues Niko Orveashvili noted that
first of all an economic-technical conclusion on expediency of the
project should be drawn. "Before this, any talk about a motorway to
connect Georgia and Armenia is premature," he said.