The young face of Georgia distorted

Noyan Tapan News Agency

The young face of Georgia distorted

By Haroutiun Khachatrian

It looks like that in the future, July-August of 2004 will
be marked as the period of surprising transformation of the
policy of the official Tbilisi toward its breakaway autonomies,
South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is also a period of
disappointment with the actions of the new Georgian leadership.

The reason is simple. Theoretically, there are several ways
to re-gain Georgian control over the separatist regions. One is
to repeat every other day that the “international law” is on the
side of Tbilisi, or in other words, South Ossetia and Abkhazia
are internationally recognized as parts of Georgia (as if
somebody has forgotten about it), and to hope that external
forces (e.g., Russia, USA, OSCE, EU) will push these regions
back into the Georgian control. The second is war and other
versions of forcible actions. Both these options were applied
by the previous leaders of Georgia, and the results were what we
had earlier this year.

Meanwhile, the only way to have progress in these
deadlocked conflicts is the third option. It is to persuade the
people living in these regions that, if they rejoin Georgia,
they will live at least not less safe than now (and preferably,
better). For this reason, when President Saakashvili addressed
in May to the Ossetians and the Abkhazians, calling them
“brothers,” everybody who was interested in re-establishment of
peace and stability in Georgia and the whole South Caucasus, got
new hope that the new leadership of Georgia had chosen that
option.

Alas! Now, two and a half months after that statement, it
is obvious that no progress will be achieved in the observable
future. The reason is again simple – shootings in the South
Ossetia which were absent for the last ten years, have now
re-started, hence the Ossetians saw once again that they would
feel no safer under the Georgian rule. For this reason, Georgia
will not re-gain its control over South Ossetia, even if Russia
pulls out and NATO establishes its base in Tskhinvali. The
Ossetians do not trust the Georgians, and this is the only
fundamental factor feeding the conflict. The same is true for
Abkhazia.

The Georgians may claim that the provocative actions of
their partners were to be blamed for this escalation. First,
this is not an excuse. When you initiate planting flowers in
January, you should not protest of the treacherous behavior of
Nature, which has sent snow and frost to the flowers. After all,
the instability in Iraq and rocketing of oil prices were caused
by actions of Bush and Blair, rather than of, say, Muqtada
As-Sadr.

Second, the Georgians also have done a lot to worsen their
own positions. Let’s take alone the episode of arresting the
Russian rockets in Ossetia. I have no doubt that the Georgians
were right claiming the import of these rockets illegal. They
stopped an illegal action of Russia. But instead they lost a
much more important thing, namely, the sense of security among
the Ossetians, who, as before, are linking their security with
the Russians only. As for the Russians, they will continue doing
illegal actions both in Georgia and everywhere possible. And
especially in Georgia, as the Georgians failed to keep another
principal precondition, also declared by President Saakashvili:”
“Not to humiliate the Russians” (how can be combined these
obligations with threats to shoot at tourist boats?). And
Georgia will never have enough resources to prevent these
actions.

After the May 26 appeal of Saakashvili a fantastic hope was
born in my head. I thought that, in case of Saakashvili’s success
in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, an Azeri leader may follow his
example and apply to his “Armenian brothers”, thus initiating
reconciliation between the Armenians and Azeris… Alas and
alas! The example is not likely to be a success. The young
leaders of Georgia have displayed no more patience than the
previous ones.

The Noyan Tapan Highlights, August 16, 2004

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

http://www.noyan-tapan.am/

American Jews and dual loyalty

Boston Globe, MA
Aug 27 2004

American Jews and dual loyalty
By H.D.S. Greenway

CONSERVATIVE WRITERS David Frum and Richard Perle, in their book “An
End To Evil, How To Win The War On Terror,” spend the better part of
four pages confronting the charges that their agenda seems to many
like a “Zionist cabal.” They say that in interviews around the world
this question always comes up — “with beguiling directness” in the
Far East, “with excruciating awkwardness among Germans,” and with
“elegant sinuosity” from the British. Is there among neoconservatives,
many of whom are Jewish, a hidden motivation to make sure that
American foreign policy is good for Israel? The authors find such
suggestions insulting and anti-Semitic. But Tom Powers, in The New
York Review of Books, suggested: Why not admit openly that of course
the fate of Israel is much on their minds? “Anglophiles of yesteryear
did not apologize for arguing that it was in America’s best interest
to come to the aid of Britain in 1940, and Polish Americans did not
worry in silence about the fate of Lech Walesa. Complex loyalties are
a big part of the American style.”

Powers has a point. “Bundles for Britain” drives were big in American
East Coast cities in the early ’40s, while some Irish-Americans —
one remembers Colonel Robert McCormick’s Chicago Tribune — felt just
as strongly that the British did not deserve our bundles. No one
questions that Polish-Americans feel strongly about the old country,
and none complain about Irish-Americans today involving themselves in
the fate of Northern Ireland. Cuban-American passion for what happens
on their island is legendary, and could dramatically affect yet
another presidential election.

Lawrence Lowenthal of the American Jewish Committee told me that for
“decades and decades American Jews have been apprehensive about
charges of dual loyalty. The Pollard case made us very nervous.”
Jonathan Pollard was an American Jew caught spying for Israel and is
now serving a life sentence. “Pollard stepped over the line,”
Lowenthal said, but then so did Americans who ran guns for Irish
Republican Army.

When his family first came to America from Europe, Lowenthal said,
they wanted to put their past behind them. “Good riddance.” But all
that has changed; today’s Americans are no longer ashamed of ethnic
ties. Many Mexican-Americans are insisting on keeping their language
and culture. French-Canadians in the United States who once turned
their back on their French heritage are picking it up again.

Greek-Americans have a strong political lobby, so do Armenians,
although neither is as powerful as the pro-Israel lobby. The
congressional black caucus made its influence felt in sending the
Marines to Haiti in 1994, and black-Americans had a role in the
anti-apartheid cause in South Africa.

Duel citizenship is on the rise. Israel allows anyone Jewish to
become an Israeli. Ireland allows anyone who can prove he has an
Irish grandparent to apply for Irish citizenship, and “we certainly
experienced an enormous increase in applications over the last 10
years or so, ” says Isolde Moylan, the Irish consul in Boston.

In Perle’s case, much has been made of a paper that he and others,
including the Pentagon’s Douglas Feith, wrote some years ago for
Israel’s right-wing politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, calling for a
“New Strategy For Securing The Realm.” Their advice included getting
the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein as well as other moves
in the Middle East to increase Israel’s strategic position. But
Americans have written constitutions for foreign countries, soldiered
in foreign armies, and even served in foreign governments. Americans
who identify with a foreign country are not, and should not, be held
suspect. There is nothing un-American about wanting to link this
country’s foreign policy to that of Israel. Nor is it anti-Semitic to
disagree.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IPI calls on Kocharian to investigate attacks on journalists

Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Azerbaijan
Aug 27 2004

Am: IPI calls on Kocharian to investigate attacks on journalists

CASCFEN, Vienna, 27 Aug 2004 — Johann P. Fritz, Director of the
International Press Institute based in Vienna on Aug 27, 2004
addressed to Robert Kocharian, the President of the Republic of
Armenia in regard to recent attack on two journalists. Following is
the text of the letter:

“The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of
editors, media executives and leading journalists in over 120
countries, strongly condemns the attack on Mkhitar Khachatrian, a
photojournalist with the news agency Fotolur.

According to information before IPI, the attack occurred on 24 August
while Khachatrian and Anna Israelian, a correspondent for the
independent daily Aravot, were on assignment in the exclusive resort
town of Tsaghkadzor. The journalists had travelled to the central
Armenian town to write an article about the damage caused to the
local environment by building projects carried out over recent years.

Khachatrian was taking pictures of a house allegedly belonging to
Armen Yeritsian, deputy chief of national police, when a guard came
out and told him to stop photographing. Later, the two journalists
were confronted by the same guard at a cafe in Tsaghkadzor. The guard
recognised the journalist and called several men over, one of whom
subsequently assaulted Khachatrian. The journalist said the man
kicked, punched, cursed and threatened to kill him, and that he was
forced to surrender the memory card of his digital camera to
prevent his camera from being broken.

According to reports, Khachatrian’s description of the attackers
matches that of the men who assaulted several journalists and
destroyed their cameras at an opposition rally in Yerevan on 5 April.

IPI urges Your Excellency to authorise an immediate and thorough
investigation into these incidents and to do everything in your power
to create an environment in Armenia that allows journalists to
practice their profession without fear of harassment or
intimidation.”

IPI, the global network of editors, media executives and leading
journalists, is dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of
press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression,
the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the
improvement of the practices of journalism.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BAKU: Azeri campaigner slams Iran for ties with separatist Karabakh

Azeri campaigner slams Iran for ties with separatist Karabakh

Ekspress, Baku
27 Aug 04

Text of Alakbar Raufoglu’s report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekspress on
27 August headlined “Iran regards Karabakh as its own province” and
subheaded “Cahandar Bayoglu: A document signed between Ardabil
Province and Karabakh separatists describes Nagornyy Karabakh as the
‘Artsakh state'”

Tehran’s interest in increasing investment in Nagornyy Karabakh stands
behind Iranian-Armenian talks, the chairman of the committee to
protect the rights of the [NRMSA] National Revival Movement of
Southern Azerbaijan [northwestern Iran], Cahandar Bayoglu, told
Ekspress yesterday commenting on Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s
scheduled visit to Armenia in September.

He said that official Tehran suggested that Armenian businessmen
expand activities in Southern Azerbaijan in exchange for assistance by
Persian businessmen to Nagornyy Karabakh.

The chairman of the committee said that an “economic cooperation
accord” consisting of 30 points had been signed between the so-called
Nagornyy Karabakh republic [NKR] and Ardabil governor-general’s office
during the visit by so-called NKR economists to Ardabil a short time
ago. The document describes Karabakh as the “Artsakh state”. This
shows that Tehran is insincere in its statements that it supports
Azerbaijan in the Karabakh settlement, the chairman of the committee
said.

Iran obviously regards Karabakh as its province and continues to cast
doubt on Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Therefore, the committee
to protect the rights of the NRMSA calls on the Azerbaijani government
to demand an explanation of this from official Tehran in the run-up to
the Iranian president’s visit to Armenia.

To recap, the visit of “Karabakh economists” to Ardabil last month was
accompanied by mass protest actions in Southern Azerbaijan. In an
interview with Ekspress during his visit to Baku, the governor of
Western Azerbaijan, Nariman Sobhan-Elahi, described his country’s
cooperation with Karabakh Armenians as a normal issue that caused no
problems.

The Iranian embassy in Baku has no information about the signing of
any agreement between Ardabil Province and the Karabakh separatists.

“We know nothing about this,” the embassy told Ekspress.

Incidentally, Azerbaijanis living in Sweden are concerned about
Iranian President Khatami’s unexpected visit to Armenia.

“We condemn this visit. A total of 30m Turks living in Southern
Azerbaijan see this step by Khatami as a gesture of disrespect,” a
statement by the Azerbaijani Federation – Swedish Committee sent to
Ekspress says.

The organization has sent a letter to the Iranian president protesting
against the visit.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BAKU: Daily Slams Govmt for Lagging Behind Armenia in Army Building

Azeri daily slams authorities for lagging behind Armenia in army building

Azadliq, Baku
27 Aug 04

Armenia is building up its military might and has increased defence
spending from the state budget by 10 per cent as against 2003. Armenia
occupies the first rank in terms of military spending among the CIS
[Commonwealth of Independent States] countries.

Armenia will soon purchase 10 SU-25 fighters from Slovakia. Before
this procurement of military hardware, it purchased two IL-76 military
transport planes from Russia and contracts were signed with Belarus to
purchase weapons, armoured hardware, ammunition and rifles with
telescopic sight.

Greek’s Athens military and military-medical academies will increase
the quota of Armenian officers, and Washington will give another 7m
dollars in aid to Armenia, in addition to 5m dollars, to upgrade the
army’s communication system. All these prove the [Armenian President
Robert] Kocharyan government’s performance in the military field.

We wonder what is [Azerbaijani President] Ilham Aliyev’s government
doing? It is planning to join a single economic zone with Russia and
Belarus which actually provide Armenia with military aid. He gave a
red carpet treatment to the Greek president, whose country is training
more and more Armenian officers, and saw him off without getting a
guarantee of any profit.

He has given up Washington to embrace Europe where is also Slovakia,
and at best, he could purchase passenger planes from them. And this is
occurring when our passenger planes have been impounded by [the
Turkish Saka Korkmaz] company due to the notorious debt.

[Passage omitted: quotes from various agencies and military magazines]

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian FM meets Black Sea bloc rep, discusses projects

Armenian foreign minister meets Black Sea bloc rep, discusses projects

Public Television of Armenia
26 Aug 04

Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan has received Valeriy
Chechelashvili, secretary-general of the standing international
secretariat of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization.

The secretary-general told the minister about the activities of his
organization mainly aimed at reinforcing and raising its authority
worldwide. The organization set up a development foundation to invest
in important programmes through it.

At the end, Chechelashvili said that he will be transferred to another
post in the near future. Chechelashvili will be Georgia’s ambassador
plenipotentiary and extraordinary to Russia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

One of Founders of First Armenian Republic Aram Manukian is 125

ONE OF FOUNDERS OF FIRST ARMENIAN REPUBLIC ARAM MANUKIAN IS 125

YEREVAN, August 27 (Noyan Tapan). An exhibition dedicated to the
activities of Aram Manukian, one of the founders of the First Armenian
Republic, was opened at the National Library of Armenia on August
27. Candidate of historical sciences Armen Karapetian mentioned during
the arrangement dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the well-known
political figure that to speak about Aram Manukian means to speak
about the 30-year history of the Armenian liberation movement. According
to him, Aram Manukian is one the figures, whose biography has national
importance. “Being born in Kapan, this man could raise over his own
fate, participate in the liberation movement of the Western Armenians
and become one of the central figures of the national liberation
struggle,” said Armen Karapetian. David Sargsian, Director of the
National Library, mentioned that “the contribution of political figure
Aram Manukian, a member of Dashnaktsutyun, to the matter of the
self-defense of Van, as well to the establishment of the first
Armenian Republic is great.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri KLO threatens to stage more rallies

ArmenPress
Aug 27 2004

AZERI KARABAKH LIBERATION ORGANIZATION THREATENS TO STAGE MORE
RALLIES

BAKU, AUGUST 27, ARMENPRESS: The so called Karabakh Liberation
Organization (KLO) of Azerbaijan told a press conference, that unless
Azerbaijani authorities set free their “patriot” comrades who took
part in the actions of protest against participation of Armenians in
NATO military exercises in Baku, they will stage new rallies across
Azerbaijan.
According to Azeri Uch Nokta, KLO members released statements in
Azeri press saying that if their demands are not fulfilled they will
again stage new actions against participation of Armenians in the
upcoming NATO military exercises in Baku slated in September.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Kyrgyz scientists seek St. Matthew remains

United Press International
August 27, 2004 Friday 21:01 PM Eastern Time

Kyrgyz scientists seek St. Matthew remains

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan, Aug. 27 (UPI)

A Kyrgyz-Russian expedition is searching Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan
for remains believed to be those of the Apostle Matthew, local media
reported Friday.

Issyk-Kul, 2,250 square miles in area, is a mountain lake in the
north of the country. The Vecherniy Bishkek newspaper refers to a map
dating back to the 14th century that a Russian scientist saw in
Venetia in the middle of the 19th century.

The scientist found an Armenian monastery on the map and read the
legend, according to which the body of St. Matthew, the apostle and
evangelist, was kept in the monastery.

The monastery was built on the north coast of Issyk-Kul before it
disappeared in the lake. People have found various artifacts in the
lake not far from the monastery’s location.

According to the gospels, St. Matthew followed Christ, accompanying
him up to the time of his passion and crucifixion and was one of the
witnesses of his resurrection. He is believed to have died sometime
during the first century A.D.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Bush’s two-element strategy

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
August 27, 2004, Friday

BUSH’S TWO-ELEMENT STRATEGY

SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, August 26, 2004, p. 5

by Alexei Bogaturov

Four key circumstances define the international environment in which
the United States is planning another round of reforms to the
security structure of the Old World. Firstly, in light of Mideast
events, American politicians have started tacitly acknowledging that
there are some fundamental contradictions between the United States
and the Arab-Muslim world, and they have become afraid of being
dependent on the Arab-Muslim world. Secondly, US economic security
priorities have required a partial shift in energy consumption
towards deliveries from the depths of Eurasia: the Trans-Caspian
region and Russia. Thirdly, Russia’s influence over the global energy
situation has increased; at the same time, Russia has moved to a more
active foreign policy and defense policy. Fourthly, American views of
real threats to US security are decreasing their focus on the
possibility of conflicts in East-Central Europe.

The Americans have realized the inadequacy of the “expanding
democracy” strategy formulated back in 1993. That strategy is based
on “new democracies” arising in place of the erstwhile socialist
bloc: from Hungary and the Czech Republic in the west to Russia and
Kazakhstan in the east. None of these “newly democratic” nations,
save for Belarus, is opposing the West; almost all of them are saying
they want a closer relationship with the West. All the same, the
orientation towards the United States and the European Union is not
absolute for all these countries – only for the Eastern European
countries along the border of the former USSR, and the Baltic states.

Ukraine is acting more cautiously. It periodically declares (as it
recently did) that striving for friendship with the US and the EU is
equally important for Kiev as the wish to cooperate with Russia.
Although such avowals should not be believed without reservation,
it’s still good to see that Ukraine’s leaders have enough common
sense to moderate their pro-Western gestures to a reasonable level,
given the importance of Ukraine’s proximity to Russia and its degree
of economic dependence on Russia. Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan
are maneuvering in a similar way (though not as successfully as
Ukraine). The nations of Central Asia are even more inclined to
emphasize the diversity of their foreign policy orientations; they
say that China is important for them, as well as Russia. Moscow
itself also speaks of a multilateral foreign policy. Although
relations with the US (and the EU) essentially play a determining
role for Russia, there is no reason to underestimate the “China
direction.”

In theory, the countries of Central Asia have always had multilateral
foreign policies. But while Russia was mired in its economic crisis
and shaken by the threat of separatism everywhere (in the Yeltsin
era), no one took the “Russia factor” seriously. Although everyone
expected a “Russian revival,” in principle, no one thought it would
happen soon, nor that it would be due to oil – it’s the oil factor
that enables Russia to act on the advantages of its unique position
as a “nuclear oil state.”

These shifts are taking place at an unfavorable time for the US
administration: the war in Iraq isn’t going well for the Americans,
and in domestic politics the Democrats are trying to paint the Bush
administration’s actions in the murkiest possible tones. It would
seem that this is no time for the American president to ponder global
strategy prospects. That makes it all the more remarkable that he is
thinking about them.

The redeployment of American bases and troops abroad is the second
stage (after the democratization of Eastern Europe, and NATO’s
eastward expansion) of a great reconstruction of the system of
America’s political-strategic presence in Eurasia.

Moreover, an important new element has appeared in America’s
strategy. The strategy is ceasing to be anti-Russian in the
traditional sense; it is losing its overt orientation against Russian
interests. Over the past 15 years – despite all the confrontations,
reciprocal grievances, and irritations – Russia and the United States
have made so much progress towards building the foundations of
partnership that the American elite has started to view relations
with Moscow in in a context that’s not so much about renewed
confrontation as it’s about opportunities for cooperation with Russia
– even if this is on terms primarily favorable for Washington. The
intention of the United States to firmly establish itself along the
Ukraine-Georgia-Uzbekistan-Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan belt does not seem
like a simple act of squeezing Russia out of its traditional
influence zone, but the first element in a sophisticated two-element
strategy, with the second element being the conflict-free (though not
problem-free) integration of Russia into the developing system of US
interests in this part of the world.

Both major parts of the American elite are inclined to pursue
partnership with Moscow. This attitude is based on the intention to
use the positional and other advantages of Russia to serve American
interests in the region of Central Eurasia – which the United States
has started to view as a key region for itself. Washington’s actions
combine pressure with invitations to cooperate: Anglo-Saxon
“bargaining ethics.” So we need to maintain our composure and be
persistent in this bargaining process. And it seems to me that this
is what Russian diplomats are preparing to do, regardless of who wins
this November’s election in the United States.

Translated by Sergey Kolosov

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress