[22-02-2005 ‘Region’]
————————————————- ———————
IRAN THREATENS BAKU WITH `HEZBOLLAH’?
Source : “Echo” newspaper (Azerbaijan)
Author: N. Aliev, R. Orujev
British press states that in case of US assault on Islamic Republic of
Iran, Tehran, through its ally `Hezbollah’ movement, will attack
American targets in AzerbaijanIran started public preparation for a
possible US invasion, British `The Globe and Mail’ newspaper
reports. According to the publication, official Tehran even declared
about mobilization of the population. The newspaper quotes the
statements of an anonymous high-ranking Iranian official, in whose
opinion, `Iran may react to any attack of United States or any other
country within 15 minutes’.
As `The Globe and Mail’ reports, the Iranian response to US strike may
include an attack on the targets in Azerbaijan, that are of interest
to Washington. Moreover, it will be realized by the militants of
`Hezbollah’ movement. `The Iranian ally – Lebanese `Hezbollah’ group –
may launch a number of offensives against Israel. The `Hezbollah’
militants may attack American targets in Azerbaijan, Central Asia or
Turkey’.
“Hezbollah’ is an organization that is not new to the world and not to
be satisfied with empty threats. An interesting question comes about:
how can `Hezbollah’ launch its operations in Azerbaijan and in what
layers of society may it rely on shelter and support?
“There are no concrete data on Azerbaijan provided in the newspaper’,
Head of the Public Relations Center of AR Ministry of National
Security (MNS), Arif Babaev stated to `Echo’. `However, alongside
this, MNS fully controls the current situation in the country. To
prevent any negative factors and developments likely to impact or
destroy national and public security, all necessary measures are taken
in due time”.
On his behalf, an independent expert on the issues of terrorism
Djakhangir Aras holds that the possibility of a menace should not be
fully ignored. `In my previous comments to your newspaper, I
repeatedly stated that in case Iran is attacked by USA, it will
respond with quite severe actions using all the means at hand,
including terrorist ones on the adjacent territories – both in the
Caspian and the Caucasus”.
As for the efficiency of `Hezbollah’ group, the expert noted, `it
principally seems to be quite considerable. However, the point is that
they are mostly supported by the Lebanese Diaspora in various
countries. It is a fact that there is no big Lebanese Diaspora in
Azerbaijan, for the exception of several dozens of people who used to
study in Azerbaijan and settled there, through local marriages. The
possible response of Iran, in case it follows, will most likely rely
on the internal potential, i.e. its own special forces both within the
armed forces and the Corps of the Guards of Islamic Revolution. In any
case, we should not exclude the possibility of response measures
undertaken by Iran in case of US assault, and this danger should not
be underestimated”.
`No state is safeguarded against the terrorist attacks of such
organizations, member of parliamentary Committee on National Security
and Defense, Alimamed Nuriev noted in his comment to `Echo’. `As for
the threat of `Hezbollah’, it is no secret that its main sponsor is
Iran, not refuting this fact anyway. However, to launch serious
terrorist acts, we need serious grounds, but I see no such reasons in
Azerbaijan. Even despite the fact that we stated about the policy of
integration in EuroAtlantic space and NATO, we are involved in the
antiterrorist coalition. Moreover, recently Azerbaijan and Iran
achieved mutual understanding on many of these issues. Theoretically,
such actions against American targets in Azerbaijan are possible but
in practice all of them are guarded quite closely. I don’t think our
special services will allow the conditions for committing such acts of
terrorism to emerge, however, they should certainly be always ready
for such attempts. The reason is that such plans may arise not only
within `Hezbollah’ but in many other terrorist groups. Therefore, both
the military structures of the country and the public should always
remember about such danger”.
[19-02-2005 ‘Region’]
———————————————————————-
THE CAUCASIAN TOUR WITH THE VIEW OF BRATISLAVA
Source : “Novoye Vremya” newspaper (Armenia)
Author: Tamara Hovnatanian
The official visit of the RF Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Armenia
is viewed on the one hand along the lines of the political dialogue of
the strategic partner countries, on the other – as a part of the
Minister’s tour in the region. In early February the head of the
Russian Foreign Office paid a visit to Baku, and on February 18, right
after the completion of his mission in Yerevan, he flew to Tbilisi.
Many analysts tend to consider the Caucasian tour of Sergey Lavrov in
a broader context than the regional problems or conflict. One of the
subjects that were touched on during his visit to Baku was the
question of CIS reformation. The choice of the subject is not
incidental and is associated with the new realities in the post-Soviet
space and the need to enhance the attractiveness of the Commonwealth
for the member states. The official representative of the RF Ministry
of Foreign Affairs Alexander Yakovenko informed that in order to
discuss the issue the Foreign Minister intends to visit all the CIS
countries.
The plans are still in force, particularly, if one takes into account
that the subject of CIS future was also on the agenda of the visit to
Armenia, and the country to follow Georgia in the Minister’s schedule
is Ukraine. Besides, by the communications of the news agencies, the
question of the CIS situation was recently discussed in the Russian
Foreign Ministry at an ordinary session of the Scientific
Board. Having noted that the interrelations with the CIS countries
remain a priority for the RF foreign policy, the leading Russian
political scientists and analysts spoke about the possibilities of the
CIS evolution, taking into account the eurointegration processes,
taking place in the countries of the Commonwealth.
Apart from the CIS reformation, there is another factor, explaining
the concentration of the Russian interest on the countries of the
region in February.
The meeting of the Russian and US Presidents is scheduled in
Bratislava, where Bush’s intentions on Iran will certainly be touched
upon.
>From this view point the attitudes of the countries bordering with
Iran acquire particular importance for Russia.
`I do not come from either USA or Iran, and I can only say that all of
us are concerned with the international aspects of Iranian nuclear
problem’, Lavrov said on the matter, expressing confidence that a
political solution will be found to the issue, taking into account the
interest of Iran in the peaceful development of nuclear energy. `The
solution must also take into account the legitimate interests of Iran
to be represented in the political dialogue on the resolution of
regional problems as an equal partner’, he noted.
Overall, the questions mentioned set up the context for Lavrov’s
visit, which, however, does not exclude the existence of other urgent
issues, discussed, during his visit to Baku, Yerevan and
Tbilisi. Whose side is Kremlin on?
The negotiations in Baku and Yerevan were held in almost a perfect
parity, the preconditions for which were set by the previous
agreements in terms of strengthening of bilateral relations. Thus, in
Armenian-Russian relations the 2005 is signified as the Year of Russia
in Armenia. The next, 2006, is marked in the partnership calendar as
the Year of Armenia in Russia.
In Azerbaijani-Russian relation everything is replicated
backwards. Year 2005 is the Year of Azerbaijan in Russia, and year
2006 is the Year of Russia in Azerbaijan. Lavrov’s visit to Yerevan
coincided with the visit of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev to
Moscow, which, however, did not prevent the strategists of Paterson
from feigning something like a jealousy scene.
`Despite the compliments of a Russian leader to the address of Ilham
Aliev’s, the head of the Russian foreign office, being in Yerevan,
made it clear that Kremlin is still on the side of its historical
ally’.
It is not very difficult to say what exactly called for the discontent
of Baku. Judging from the headlines of Azerbaijani publications,
stating with a shade of frustration that `Armenia is the ally of
Russia’, they probably were distressed by this very `revelation’.
`Presently between Russia and Armenia there is a relationship of old
friends, reliable allies and partners. I am positive such relationship
between our countries will continue and develop in future’, Sergey
Lavrov said at the meeting with the students and professors of the
Russian-Armenian University. Another quote from the same speech: `The
friendship between our countries and nations has deep roots. We have
accumulated a huge potential of mutual liking and respect. I am
certain that the young people of Armenia and Russia will enhance the
achievements of the older generation’.
Apparently, Paterson was awaiting statements in the spirit of the
recent mistake of Boris Gryzlov about the outpost, and were greatly
upset that the professional diplomat Lavrov chose other words, more
suitable for the relations between Russia and Armenia – thus depriving
them of a pleasure to speculate on the lack of independence of
Armenia.
No-One is Going to Impose Solutions from Outside
In the issue of Mountainous Karabagh Sergey Lavrov, again, due to his
diplomatic skills, kept to general, but still very clear definitions,
that did not give ground for interpreting in any other sense. Thus at
a press-conference at the RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he, while
answering a question on the role of Moscow and Washington in the
resolution of regional conflicts, noted: `I hope no one here has the
impression that Moscow and Washington must rule the fates of the
countries and people, historically residing in the region. Moscow and
Washington, similarly to the UN and OSCE, must help in the search of
the resolution scheme, if the parties want them to do, as it is
happening in the case of Mountainous Karabagh resolution, where
Moscow, Washington and Paris are co-chairing the Minsk processes under
OSCE. But it is up to parties to arrive at an agreement. The mediators
can help, create certain conditions and propose certain
compromise. But no one can resolve the problem instead of the parties
and no one is going to impose any solution form outside on the
sovereign states’.
He also stressed that he considers the Minsk format the most optimal
one and supposes that the parties to the conflict share this
opinion. Lavrov made a positive stress on the Prague format of the
meetings of Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. He mentioned
this both in Baku and Yerevan.
Lavrov also referred to the introduction of peace forces in the
conflict region, recently mentioned in the interview of Serzh
Sargsian. `The parties did consider this option, it is not a new one.
After the resolution, on the stabilization stage peace forces will be
introduced to the region. This will depend on the agreement of the
parties themselves’, Lavrov noted, speaking in RAU.
`Uncomfortable Questions`
There were also some `uncomfortable’ questions. Thus, in Yerevan the
Minister was asked to comment on the behavior of the Russian
delegation in PACE, which, despite the strategic partnership, keeps
voting for Azerbaijan. `RF delegation in PACE, similarly to other
countries, receives no orders’, Lavrov said, and, stressing the
effectiveness of OSCE Minsk Process, continued, `The public debate on
the questions that call for a careful treatment, the very delicate
themes of borders, fates of people do not help the businesslike
discussion of the problems, argumentations, respect for the interests
of each other’.
Another hard question referred to the statements he made in Baku on
the priority of territorial integrity principle. `I believe, there is
an attempt of provocation. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is
acknowledged by the resolutions of the UN Security Council that have
not as yet been challenged by anyone. In Baku I was asked a question
of which of the two principles, the territorial integrity or the
national self -determination should be of prior importance’, Lavrov
said, answering the question to the effect that these two principles
are not to be contrasted.
Baku also limited itself to quoting Lavrov saying that both Russia and
Armenia are members of the Collective Security Agreement Organization.
Notably, during the recent press-conference in Moscow the journalist
asked Ilham Aliev, `There is information that during his visit to Baku
Lavrov tried to get your consent to Azerbaijan joining the
CSAO…’. `This issue was not discussed. We are not considering the
possibility of joining the organization’, Aliev answered.
In Baku, Lavrov said in answer to a question on Azerbaijan-NATO
cooperation: `Azerbaijan is a sovereign state and as any sovereign
state it chooses its partners’. This, however, did not impede the
Azerbaijani press to voice their concerns by the principle of CSAO
formation, according to which `aggression against any member state is
considered to be an aggression against the organization’. Yet, the
roots of this concern are understandable hey should be sought in the
militaristic statements of Baku.
Russia Takes into Account the Interests of Armenia
The main danger of Lavrov’s visit to Armenia is viewed by Paterson to
be the discussion of transportation and communications problem. The
Azerbaijani press views the following statement by Lavrov as
surprising: `Russia takes the interests of Armenia into account with
regard to communications and does not take steps that would damage
it’.
This refers to the plans of Baku to launch the railway
Kazvin-Resht-Astara and the intentions of Tbilisi to start the
construction of a railway Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi. In both cases
Armenia has a railway infrastructure, posing an alternative to these
projects. And naturally, Armenia is concerned over the plans of its
neighbors to include these branches into the transcontinental
North-South east, which in essence means the isolation of Armenian
from the communicational infrastructure in the region. In this regard
the statement of Lavrov that he will state this concern to the RF
Minister of Transportation Levitin and the Head of the Russian Railway
Fadeev inspires hope that the interests of Armenia will be taken into
account under the North-South project.
This in no way suits the strategists from Baku and apparently has
caused their anger. The seem to be seeing `an attempt to oust
Azerbaijan form North-South project’, `against the background of Year
of Azerbaijan and numerous oaths of friendship’. `The relations
between Iran on the one hand and Moscow and its allies in Yerevan on
the other are so close, that Moscow can use certain levers in Tehran
to oppose the construction’, they say. `But if Lavrov’s words on
`taking into account the interests of Armenia’ meant a promise to use
these very levers, the situation may prove to be more dramatic than it
seems at first sight’.
Judging from the tone of the recent publications, the attack on
Armenia on the communicational from will continue. So far the victory
of Azerbaijan on this front was ensured with the Turkish blockade.
But Turkey may sooner or later find itself facing a choice – either EU
or blockade, and may tend towards EU. This is when the option of
Kazvin-Resht-Astara will come handy, allowing to damage Armenia, even
if the Turkish border is opened. The only obstacle for this may be the
relations between Russia and Armenia, the level of which can restrict
the appetites of Paterson. And this is probably the main reason of
Baku’s discontent over Lavrov’s visit to Yerevan.
[19-02-2005 ‘1915 Issues’]
———————————————————————-
THE SUIT AGAINST ORHAN PAMUK
Source : `Zaman’ newspaper (Turkey)
Author:
Orhan Pekmezci, representative of Kayseri Bar, filed a suit to the
Republican Prosecutor’s Office against writer Orhan Pamuk. He claimed
the writer’s statements were anti-Turkish. According to Pekmezci, in
his interview to a Swiss newspaper, Pamuk made `groundless’ statements
against Turkey.
Pekmezci noted that his charges against Pamuk were provoked by his
statements and added, `By his statement, `No one voices it but I
will. 1 million Armenians and 30 thousand Kurds were killed in
Turkey’, published in the Swiss newspaper, Pamuk insulted and
humiliated the Turkish nation, Turkish Republic, Parliament,
government and armed forces of the country. Besides, these words
instigate hatred and enmity among the peoples. It made me file a suite
to the Kayseri Prosecutor’s Office, with a claim for a penalty to
Orhan Pamuk in accordance to Articles 159 and 312 of Turkish Criminal
Code’.
Earlier Pekmezci applied to the European Court of Human Rights,
demanding for annulment of the French Parliament decision on the
recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
An official statement was made also by `Iletishim’ publishing house,
where most of Orhan Pamuk’s books are published. The statement runs
that the response of many to the excerpts of Pamuk’s interview to the
Swiss `Tagesanzeiger’ newspaper surpasses all reasonable
criticism. `The meaning of Pamuk’s words is that the events on these
territories, having taken many lives, are still not discussed or
studied, and therefore, we view as unacceptable the irrelevant
statements, insulting the honor, literary talent and personal dignity
of Pamuk’, the statement runs. Herein, the words of Pamuk himself are
quoted, `I am really upset by the deliberate misinformation on my
behalf and on the behalf of my family, dissemination of groundless
lies, as well as the fact that my criticism of the atmosphere of
intolerance in the country is interpreted as attacks against the
Turkish nation to which I belong. I am not used to the aggressive
manner of speech, evident in the quotation that has undergone double
translation. I just wanted to note that intolerance in the past has
already generated too many sufferings’.
[16-02-2005 ‘Region’]
———————————————————————-
`THE EUROPEAN UNION WILL PROBABLY TAKE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STANCE
ON ARMENIA’
Source : `24 Saati’ newspaper (Georgia)
Author: Sofo Bukia
On-line interview with one of the leaders of `Dashnaktsutiun’ party,
Kiro Manoyan
Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development regularly
organizes online interviews with the political figures of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia. `24 Saati’ newspaper got an opportunity for
interviewing political department head of `Dashnaktsutiun’
Revolutionary Movement party bureau, Kiro Manoyan.
– Is there a branch of `Dashnaktsutiun’ party in Georgia,
Samtskhe-Djavakheti region and what type of activity does the
organization develop in that region?
– Our party is represented neither in Samtskhe-Djavakheti nor Georgia
as a whole. However, I would like to note that it is in Tbilisi that
`Dashnaktsutiun’ party was founded in 1890. Samtskhe-Djavakheti is the
weakest link in Georgian-Armenia relations. However, our party is
convinced that through joint efforts we may achieve developing this
region into the strongest link of Georgia-Armenia relations. If
Georgia has really taken the path of Euro-integration, it should
reckon with the interests of national minorities. As of today, the
current problems in Samtskhe-Djavakheti are not simply of social
economic type. They are also of national political nature, the
consequence of previous authorities’ policy in Georgia. Current
Georgian government has a chance for correcting the mistakes and
conducting more constructive policy in this region.
– Are the dashnaks in any way related to `Djavakhk’ social movement
active in Samtskhe-Djavakheti?
– It should be pointed out that `Djavakhk’ was established in
Samtskhe-Djavakheti in time of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, whereas
`Dashnaktsutiun’ is a pan-Armenian movement, aimed at defending the
interests of Armenians world over. The latter does not necessarily
require a direct relation to any organization. In Georgia,
`Dashnaktsutiun’ movement does not enjoy fully positive
evaluations. Thus, given the current situation in Samtskhe-Djavakheti,
we prefer indirect participation in the activity of regional
organizations. We hold that opening of `Dashnaktsutiun’ branch in
Georgia is possible only with availability of impartial information
about our party. In Soviet Armenia history, `Dashnaktsutiun’ party
existed only until 1931. In 1931, the party, to ensure national
security, made a decision on self-elimination. The security of
Armenians, irrespective of their residence, was always a key priority
of the party. It is the standing priority of the party today as well.
– After the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, the political lines of
both states were focused on EuroAtlantic commonwealth. Russia is
apparently losing its influence in post-Soviet space, South Caucasus
included. According to `Dashnaktsutiun’ party, what should be the
response of the Armenian public to this situation?
– Armenia’s integration in EuroAtlantic space is implemented at a pace
similar to the rest of South Caucasus states. Who will ensure
Armenia’s security in case of your predictions coming true?
`Dashnaktsutiun’ never relied on external forces; therefore the main
guarantee of our security is creating a strong state. Herein, I want
to emphasize that Armenia and Russia are strategic allies, and the
presence of Russian troops on Armenian territory is conditioned by the
intention of our government.
– Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, the Russian side has
blocked border checkpoints for several weeks. These measures caused
more damage to Armenia than Georgia. Russian officials then stated,
`Armenia will understand us’. Does Armenia understand Russia in such
cases?
– Frankly speaking, sometimes Armenia does not fully understand some
of Russia’s actions. Most strange is Russia’s policy on Turkey and
Azerbaijan. We hope that Russia perceives the fact that Armenia is an
independent state, whereas Armenian-Russian strategic partnership is a
partnership of two equal states. Russia, like Armenia, is equally
interested in this partnership. The issue raised by you really impedes
comprehension of current realities.
– Your party actively opposed sending Armenian contingent to Iraq. Is
your protest conditioned only by 15,000 Armenian population in Iraq or
by other reasons?
– The people, having survived Genocide, found its shelter with
Arabs. The Arab people hold that the forces on the territory of Iraq
occupied their country. The position of `Dashnaktsutiun’ fully
corresponds to the position of those European states, by the way US
allies, not sending their troops to Iraq.
– How do you assess the dynamics of Armenian-Iranian relations? What
may be the consequences for the region in case USA launches a military
operation against Iran?
– `Dashnaktsutiun’ holds that Armenian-Iranian relations are of
primary importance. Therefore, we are interested in preserving Iran’s
territorial integrity. In this respect, we are strongly concerned over
possible actions initiated against Iran by USA or other states.
– Last fall, European Commission presented a report stating that
Turkey meets the so-called `Copenhagen’ criteria. In December, a
decision was adopted about starting negotiations on the date of
Turkey’s accession to the European Union. At present, Turkey is the
only state in the region with the official EU candidate status. What
is your attitude to the fact that the European Union `has approached’
Armenian borders?
– In accordance with the decision, adopted on December 17, the issue
is just the start of negotiations, discussing the fact of Turkey’s
accession or non-accession to the European Union and not the date of
accession. In other words, the negotiations may impede Turkey’s
accession. As for the intention to join the European Union, our
northern neighbors also have it. Thus, the European Union may take a
completely different stance on Armenia.
—
Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue Web Site as a
Regional Information Hub’ project. As a part of the project
web site is maintained, featuring the most
interesting publications from the press of Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest updates on
the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
www.mediadialogue.org