Author: Badalian Vardan

AZERI OPPOSITION BACKS KIEV PROTESTS, CAN’T REPLICATE THEM

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
IWPR Caucasus Reporting #727
March 14 2014

Sustained, regime-shaking demonstrations seem out of the question
in Azerbaijan.

By Shahla Sultanova – Caucasus CRS Issue 727,

An Azerbaijani opposition leader has told IWPR that Ukrainians’
struggle for democracy is a test case for other Soviet nations seeking
freedom from autocratic rule. Analysts note, however, that Azerbaijan
is in a different position, as the opposition is much weaker than
Ukraine and protests are put down ruthlessly before they gain momentum.

Isa Gambar, head of the Musavat party, said events in Ukraine would
decide the future of all the countries in the former Soviet Union. If
Ukraine became a democracy, then liberal activists everywhere would
gain confidence in their own effort to create more open societies.

“It is a good lesson for the Azerbaijan government to realise that
regimes which ignore the will of the people cannot stay in power for
long,” he told IWPR.

The Azerbaijani government has refrained from saying much about
the demonstrations in Kiev that led to President Viktor Yanukovich
fleeing his post, followed by Moscow’s military occupation of Crimea
and sabre-rattling along Ukraine’s eastern border.

But while officials in Baku may have been dismayed at the speed and
ignominy with which the once-powerful Yanukovich fell, they have
taken a different line from Moscow on the future of Ukraine.

Speaking after talks in eastern Turkey on March 14, Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov called for negotiations and the restoration of
stability in Ukraine.

“Unfortunately, the situation in that country remains tense, and
Baku is calling for stabilisation. The situation cannot be allowed to
escalate,” he said, in remarks quoted by Turkish TRT Haber television.

On March 16, a referendum will be held in Crimea to decide whether it
should join Russia or become a quasi-independent state. Maintaining
Crimea’s current status is not offered as an option.

The significance of a post-Soviet state having part of its territory
sliced off is not lost on Azerbaijan, which still holds out hope of
regaining control of Nagorny Karabakh, which has operated as a de
facto independent entity since war in the early 1990s left it under
Armenian rule.

Mammadyarov said the principle of territorial integrity was of great
importance to Baku, whose position he re-stated.

“Azerbaijan supports the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial
integrity,” he said.

The Ukrainian protests have been an inspiration to pro-democracy
groups in Azerbaijan and elsewhere. Gambar himself appeared on stage
in the Maidan on December 15, with a message of solidarity from the
“democratic forces of Azerbaijan”.

“We are cheering you on. We understand that today is not only crucial
for the future of Ukraine, but also for the future of all post-Soviet
countries,” he told the crowd. “In Azerbaijan we are now protesting
against the authoritarian Aliyev regime, against corruption and
against violations of human rights. Azerbaijanis, too, are demanding
European integration.”

He was followed the next day by Rasul Jafarov, head of the Human Rights
Club of Azerbaijan, who said he was also speaking on behalf of Ilgar
Mammadov, head of the Republican Alternative political movement,
and of Anar Mammadli, head of the Election Monitoring Centre, both
of whom are under arrest in Azerbaijan.

“They fight for democracy and human rights in their country, just as
you are doing today on the Maidan, and as many others are doing in
cities in Ukraine,” Jafarov said.

The possibility that Kiev-style demonstrations could be replayed
in Baku appears remote. There have been mass protests in the past,
particularly against the presidential election result in 2003, in
which the incumbent Ilham Aliyev defeated Gambar, and again in 2005.

But opposition groups have never managed to sustain the kind of
prolonged demonstrations that brought down Yanukovich.

As Gambar pointed out, “The Ukrainian government started dispersing
protesters long after they had organised themselves on the Maidan
[central square]. In Azerbaijan, it’s impossible to hold any action
in downtown Baku. The government deals too aggressively with any kind
of protest. Sustained mass protests like those in Ukraine are out of
the question in Azerbaijan.”

Farid Guliev, a PhD student specialising in Azerbaijani politics at
Jacobs University in Bremen, agrees that there is little prospect of
the Ukrainian protests being repeated in his country.

He said the government’s silence on the Ukrainian protests probably
indicated that it was sure they would not inspire copycat demonstration
s in Azerbaijan.

“It seems plausible that the government has been watching events on the
Maidan closely but has not been alarmed by them, because these events
aren’t really spreading to Ukraine’s immediate neighbours like Belarus
and don’t pose an imminent threat,” he said. “Given their limited
organisational resources and the general state of public apathy, the
opposition parties would have a hard time mobilising the population
to a Euromaidan-type protest if they decided to do so,” he told IWPR.

Guliev also noted that in contrast to Ukraine’s Orange revolution of
2004, the unrest of recent weeks had been marred by violence. As a
result, he said, “The participation of extreme radical groups has made
the ‘Euromaidan model’ culturally and symbolically less attractive
for framing protests in other post-Soviet regimes.”

Students interviewed by IWPR in Baku said they feared the turbulence
seen in Ukraine more than the prospect of Azerbaijan remaining as
it was.

“It seems to me that those events were organised by Nazi-like groups.

They are struggling against a Russia, a great power, and want to be
part of a rival power, Europe,” said Mahir Dashdemirov, a first year
student at Baku State University. “I am glad Azerbaijan’s government
supports a balanced policy in dealing with these powers.”

Elshan Nasibov, studying for a PhD in politics at Azerbaijan’s National
Academy of Sciences, said there were no lessons to be learned from
Ukraine.

“We don’t want chaos here. We don’t need revolution. Democratic
elections are the best way to build the system,” he said. “As the
economy grows, Azerbaijan will become more democratic, society will
become more liberal, and gradually the liberals will take over the
government.”

Shahla Sultanova is a freelance journalist in Azerbaijan.

‘CRIMEA IS ABOUT THE SURVIVAL OF PUTIN’S SYSTEM’

Deutsche Welle, Germany
March 14 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin is currently flexing his muscles in
the Crimea crisis. But what are his long-term goals, and who could
still have the power to influence him?

There is only one explanation for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
behavior on the Crimean peninsula, according to Stefan Meister,
a Russia expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“This is about the survival of Putin’s system,” he told DW. “For
him, foreign policy has become a central instrument for internal
legitimization.”

Meister said Putin’s strong stance is intended to increase the
president’s dwindling popularity among the Russian population.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Putin has been Russia’s dominant
political force. In 1999, Boris Yeltsin made him prime minister. When
Yeltsin himself resigned several months later, he made Putin president
of the Russian Federation. In March 2000, the Russian people confirmed
their support of Yeltsin’s choice in a presidential election. Ever
since, Vladimir Putin has been at the helm of the huge country –
even when he did not officially hold the country’s highest office.

Russia Expert Stefan Meister thinks that Putin is using foreign policy
to garner domestic support

In May 2012, Putin began his third term as president. From 2008 to
2012 he swapped roles with his close confidant Dmitry Medvedev and
was Russia’s prime minister for one legislative period, since the
Russian constitution only allows two successive presidential terms.

Putin wants to show strength

“Putin is a politician who knows how to cleverly wield political
power,” said Meister. “But if he is put under pressure, he sometimes
reacts in impulsive ways,” he said, adding that for Putin, key is to
show strength.

This can also be seen in the image of himself he presents to the
public. He has shown a foible for portraying himself as a tough
outdoorsman, riding bare-chested through the endless Siberian steppe
and catching huge fish. It is a public image that large segments of
the Russian population approve of thoroughly.

Putin likes to present himself as one with Russian nature

Asked in a 2012 interview for German television what the source of
negative Western attitudes towards him could be, Putin responded:
“It mainly stems from a fear of Russia – of our scale, our nuclear
weapons, our potential in various other spheres. But that is an old
way of thinking.”

Vision of a Eurasian Union

Russia too, is trying to find its geopolitical role. One important
strategy for that is the Eurasian Union. According to Putin’s plans,
Russia, Belarus, Armenia and Kazakhstan will be joining to form this
customs union in the near future. Later on, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
might become members. Ukraine, which Putin considered a particularly
important player due to its size and geographical position, was also
supposed to join. But with the upheaval that has taken place in Kyiv,
whether Ukraine looks towards the EU, Russia or some mix of the two
is impossible to predict.

“Ukraine is the most important country for Russia, for Putin to
fulfill his dream of Russia as a powerful state based on orthodox
values, values which are distinct from Western values,” said Pavol
Demes, a Transatlantic Fellow at the Bratislava office of the German
Marshall Fund, a US think tank that aims to strengthen transatlantic
cooperation.

Putin and Germany

Pavol Demes thinks that Germany could be the key to negotiations
with Putin

Both Demes and Meister said Germany is the most important Western
partner for Putin. Since being stationed in East Germany as a Russian
KGB agent from 1985 to 1990, Putin has had special relationship to
Germany. He speaks fluent German and his second daughter was born in
Dresden in 1986.

After he took office as president in 2001, Putin gave a speech to
the German Bundestag in German. The move was unusual for a foreign
guest of the German state and it sent a clear message. In his speech,
Putin supported the eastward expansion of the EU and pleaded for
strong ties between Russia and Europe.

The idea has hardly come to fruition. The political unity of Germany,
France and Russia in opposition to the US-led “coalition of the
willing” that attacked Iraq in 2003 was short-lived, for example, even
as some EU members supported then-US President George W. Bush’s war.

Merkel’s role

Merkel speaks Russian, Putin speaks German – but they still can’t
seem to come to an understanding

Russia is now largely isolated, when it comes to many aspects of
foreign policy. In Syria, Moscow supports Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad, Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear technology, and in
Ukraine, Moscow is at loggerheads with the EU and the US.

Some observers have called on Germany to play more influential role
in attempts to restart dialogue with Russia. “It hurts Putin to be
criticized in Germany or to be perceived in a negative way in Germany,”
said Meister. “That plays an important role for him.”

That is also why Demes said he has a clear demand for the German
chancellor: “Germany, and Angela Merkel in particular, has an enormous
responsibility and chance to modulate this conflict situation, more
properly than anybody else.”

Still, as Meister said, Germany’s influence on Putin will only become
noticeable in incremental steps, and he said the country’s leverage
is limited, “German politicians won’t be able to stop him annexing
Crimea.”

WHAT DOES THE NEW GLOBAL FOREST WATCH WEBSITE SAY ABOUT ARMENIA?

Friday, March 14th, 2014

The new Global Forest Watch website shines a spotlight on global tree
loss (screengrab from )

BY JASON SOHIGIAN

Last month’s launch of the Global Forest Watch website was big news.

Google, World Resources Institute, and a few dozen other partners are
part of the effort. The site allows users to monitor deforestation in
“near real time.” The big takeaway: global tree cover loss far exceeds
tree cover gain. Data shows that the world lost 2,300,000 square
kilometers of tree cover between 2000 and 2012, or the equivalent of
losing 50 soccer fields’ worth of forests every minute of every day
for the past 13 years. By contrast, only 800,000 square kilometers
have regrown, been planted, or restored during the same period.

We welcome initiatives like GFW, which use cutting edge technology to
make forestry data available to the public. This kind of transparency
is essential to shine a spotlight on forest loss and to show areas
where natural regeneration or reforestation has been successful. This
information empowers citizens and is even valued by corporations that
want to use sustainably harvested wood.

Now, what does the site show for Armenia? GFW shows that there was
forest loss in Armenia over an area of 2,089 hectares and a gain
of 1,276 over the period of 2000 to 2011. It’s interesting to note
that the data relies on Landsat satellite imagery which has become
an accepted source to measure forest cover globally. According to
this data, Armenia has seen a loss of approximately 813 hectares of
forest over this 12 year timeframe. For reference, a hectare is 2.47
acres or an area the size of a soccer field.

Armenia Tree Project has been planting in urban areas and towns since
1994 and launched its forestry program in 2004. ATP has planted a
total of 4,455,869 trees to date at more than 925 sites in all regions
of Armenia. Most of our forestry has been focused around 30 sites in
Northern Armenia. Our forestry department has planted approximately
3,500,000 tree seedlings over an area of 850 hectares.

However, our seedlings have not even formed into forests with a canopy
that would be recognized by satellite data at this resolution. There is
no question we are losing forest cover and ATP is trying to turn the
tide along with other partners. It’s also worth noting that Armenia’s
Hayantar forestry department has been planting during this timeframe.

A new tree seedling sprouting up at a site planted by ATP in Northern
Armenia (Photo by Jason Sohigian)

There have been other efforts to monitor forest cover in Armenia
and the general conclusion was that that there has been a net gain
in forest cover, consistent with what we have seen in other parts
of Europe. However some experts in the environmental community have
pointed out that the regrowth of forest has been a lower quality
“coppice” tree which is almost like a shrub that has grown out of
tree stumps. Setting the statistics aside, there is a consensus that
Armenia needs to curb forest loss and that reforestation should be
accelerated in order to restore our historic tree cover.

Some of the drivers of forest loss have been industrial logging,
unsustainable livestock grazing, and the use of wood for cooking
and heating fuel. Of course we recognize that people in rural areas
rely on wood. At the same time forests are a renewable resource when
they are sustainably managed and not overexploited. In addition to
planting there are other strategies that may be deployed in order
to reduce the pressure on forests. These include subsidizing the
cost of natural gas for households, enforcing a ban on wood exports,
and reducing tax on imported wood.

In general, we are in favor of initiatives like GFW that make the
information about our forests transparent and publicly accessible. In
the end we hope this draws attention to the issue of deforestation in
Armenia and globally, and that it shows the importance of investing
resources in protecting and restoring this important part of our
natural infrastructure.

Clearly there’s a lot left to be done in Armenia to reverse
deforestation. One thing we know is that sustainable management of
our natural resources like forests will be more cost-effective than
depleting the reserves and trying to fund environmental restoration
programs. Particularly when some environmental impacts-like
desertification caused by deforestation-are irreversible.

Jason Sohigian is deputy director of the Armenia Tree Project. He
has a master’s degree in Sustainability and Environmental Management
from Harvard University. His research on Payments for Environmental
Services was adapted for a talk at TEDx Yerevan on “Redefining Our
Economic Systems.”

THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: FALLING APART AT THE SEAMS?

March 14, 2014-

By Bulent Aras

Border skirmishes and casualties at the Azerbaijani-Armenian border
have raised fears about the possibility of a new war in the South
Caucasus. The war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008 brought
an end to the extended cold war in the region. No new order has been
established since, and uncertainty prevails.

In the wake of the 2008 war, external and internal actors alike have
been in search of a regional design. Attempts by Russia, the European
Union, and Turkey to establish regional order, together with the
survival strategies pursued by the nation states that comprise the
Caucasus, have shaped the geopolitical landscape of the region since
2008. The United States, unable to reach out to support Georgia,
has remained outside this picture.

Russia’s current policy towards the Caucasus seems similar to the
Soviet nationalities policy, which entailed redrawing maps based on
ethnic relocation and the creation of enclaves within countries. In
2008, Moscow recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
positioning them as de facto states in the region. With Karabakh’s
status pending, the South Caucasus has virtually broken up into six
separate states.

Moscow has succeeded in shifting attention away from the North
Caucasus, and the challenge of dealing with fundamentalist terrorism
is now an internal matter for Russia. A “cold peace” was enough
to suspend the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict at a manageable level
of tension. Russia’s only concern has been the prevention of a hot
conflict between Baku and Yerevan, and it regularly brings the two
heads of state together to sign non-aggression agreements.

Turkey’s policy aims to contain the crises, promote regional
ownership, and find a solution in the spirit of political and
economic integration. Turkish policy in the aftermath of the war
between Russia and Georgia prevented the problem from escalating
into an international crisis. By imposing limits on the passage of
vessels through the Bosphorus strait, Ankara blocked a potential
U.S./NATO-Russia encounter in the Black Sea and curbed U.S.

involvement while bolstering its own regional legitimacy for an
integrationist approach.

Ankara also initiated a Caucasus Cooperation and Stability Platform,
bringing together Russia, Turkey, and the three Caucasian states with
the aim of building up an inclusive order in the region.

The third strand of Turkey’s policy was to attempt to normalize
relations with Armenia and reopen the border, which has been
closed since 1993. This diplomacy was tied to progress in the
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and aimed to achieve simultaneous progress
on both fronts.

The EU’s approach is based on soft-power capabilities and entails a
refined and focused version of its “neighborhood policy” towards the
Caucasus. The 2008 crisis engaged the EU’s interest, causing it to
recognize its lack of presence in the region. During the crisis, the
EU failed to develop a concrete policy initiative. The only exception
was Germany’s failed mediation attempt.

In 2009, the EU launched its Eastern Partnership initiative to improve
EU engagement and support for political and economic stability in
the Caucasus. The EU’s role in promoting rule of law, civil-society
capacity-building, structural reforms, and the regional economy
has increased, though slowly, since the creation of this new policy
framework.

The nation states of the Caucasus also have their own survival
strategies for dealing with the post-2008 situation. Georgia is
trying to reintegrate its de facto separated territories, and is
working towards political and economic stability.

Armenia tied its economic and political future to Russia, but Russian
assistance has fallen short of what Armenia actually needs to address
its problems. The Armenian economy is weakening, and emigration rates
are increasing year on year.

Azerbaijan benefits from oil and gas resources, and utilizes these
riches for economic reform and political stability at home. Azerbaijan
has increased its role in regional energy geopolitics and used this
leverage to rally support for the liberation of the Armenian-occupied
territories.

Ultimately, the EU’s initiative was both delayed and slow, Turkey’s
efforts failed to bring real change to the regional landscape, and
Russian policies have aggravated the situation. The status quo in the
Caucasus is unsustainable, and a regional war is a real danger. This
instability could rapidly spread to the North Caucasus, mobilizing
fundamentalist elements.

Russia, the EU, and Turkey should agree on – or at least should
not oppose – measures to eliminate the risk of war between Armenia
and Azerbaijan. Armenia’s withdrawal from occupied regions, for
instance – deferring a decision on the legal status of Karabakh –
would be a positive step, and would pave the way for the opening of
the Turkish-Armenian border. Armenia would consequently be brought
out of its isolation and reap the economic benefits of normalized
relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. For Georgia, economic incentives
and political targets would help improve stability.

Russia, the EU, and Turkey have the opportunity to implement these
initiatives. Russia would not consider this to be detrimental to
its interests, since even Moscow is not in a position to deal with a
new war in the Caucasus. There is no visible U.S. role, apart from
the region’s energy issues, though U.S. support for constructive
diplomatic attempts would certainly provide a good deal of incentive
for the three Caucasian states.

The situation in the Caucasus needs immediate action. To prevent
another regional war, Russia, the EU, and Turkey must address the
situation as soon as possible.

Bulent Aras is the academic adviser to Ahmet Davutoglu, Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey. He also served as director
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Center for Strategic Research
(SAM), while also serving as chairman at the Diplomacy Academy,
between 2010 and 2013.

This article first appeared in

ONLY 40-50% OF ARMENIAN CONSUMERS AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS – CONSUMER WATCHDOG

YEREVAN, March 14. / ARKA /. Only 40%-50% of Armenian consumers are
aware of their rights, according to Armen Poghosyan, head of the
Consumers’ Association of Armenia.

Speaking at a news conference today he said although the awareness
of Armenian consumers about their rights rose sufficiently in recent
years, the current level is not sufficient because normally it should
be 80 percent.

According to him, consumers first need to know their basic rights and
services to which they can turn to for the protection of their rights.

“Basically, consumer complaints are about poor quality food and
clothing. People have problems when wanting to return low quality
goods,” he said.

He explained that consumers can exercise their right to return or
exchange the purchased goods within 14 days and need also to preserve
cash register receipts as evidence.

He said citizens’ complaints are very often disregarded and the
process of responding to these complaints is not monitored properly.

“I believe that all complaints must be systematized, and the most
serious of them be singled out and addressed,” he said.

At the same time, Poghosyan said that over the past 20 years the
quality of food products and services has improved noticeably and
the personnel in supermarkets, stores and service sector has become
more friendly. According to him, the Association receives about 60
complaints a month. -0-

– See more at:

NEW PLANT TO PRODUCE MEDICAL DEVICES IN ARMENIA

18:16 * 14.03.14

Medical devices – syringes, needles, ampoules and other articles –
will from now on be produced in Armenia.

The Mega Med company has opened a new plant of medical articles in
Yerevan on Friday.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan attended the opening ceremony.

Armenia’s Minister of Health Derenik Dumanyan told reporters it has
always been his dream that medical devices be produced in Armenia.

“The plant will be of great help to our system, first of all, due to
a lower cost of production. It will fully meet Armenia’s demand and
even more. Jobs will be created here for many of our fellow citizens,”
Minister Dumanyan said.

Armenia’s hospitals will use the new plant’s products, as they will
be much cheaper, with their quality not inferior to that of imported
articles.

General Manager of the new plant Zhirair Hepoyan told Tert.am that
the medical articles produced in Armenia will be cheaper, but it is
drugstores that set the market price.

“If a drugstore sets a high price, we cannot do anything. But I
think home-produced articles will be cheaper that their imported
counterparts. Our products meet the GMP standards, which will allow
us to export them,” Hepoyan said.

The new plant will start supplying its products to Armenia’s market
in the first half of April.

“We plan to monthly produce 14 million syringes, 32 million needles,
14 to 16 million ampoules. Before the end of this May, we plan to
create 400 jobs. At the second stage, another 400 people will be
employed. We need production and mechanical engineers,” he said.

Investments totaling $42m have been made in the new plant, and will
reach $47m when full-scale production process is launched.”

Armenian News – Tert.am

IS KHARKIV UKRAINE’S NEXT TIPPING POINT?

The Daily Beast
March 13 2014

Kharkiv, the old Soviet capital of Ukraine, is torn between its
pro-Russia past and the new masters in Kiev–and it be will one of
the major bellwethers for the country’s united or divided future.

“I want to smash the television for its fascist propaganda,” shouted
the speaker at a pro-Russian rally in Ukraine’s eastern stronghold of
Kharkiv last weekend. In response, the boisterous crowd waved red flags
emblazoned with the hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union and cried,
“Kharkiv, wake up.” With the largest Lenin statue in Ukraine forming
the backdrop to this ‘anti-fascist’ demonstration, the protestors were
energized by the glories of the Soviet past. The next speaker exhorted
the crowd to storm the headquarters of the regional government down
the road, which was being protected by a phalanx of riot police.

The gathering, however–which was heavy on pensioners– didn’t seem
inclined for now to repeat the previous Saturday’s storming of the
building, which saw dozens injured in fierce clashes before the
government regained the upper hand.

“I’m here to support family values, and not engage in violent acts,”
declared Arsen Sargasyan, a Kharkiv native with Armenian roots. “In
Europe and the United States, children are taught that homosexuality
is normal. I don’t want to bring up my kids in a perverted society
like that.”

It was to Kharkiv that former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych
first fled after abandoning his palatial estate in Kiev on Feb 22. The
local government was strongly supportive of the fugitive president
and vocal in its criticism of the Maidan. He was hailed there as a
hero by the city’s elite, even after the bloody massacre on Kiev’s
Independence Square had revulsed the world.

Ukraine’s second-largest city, and its first Soviet capital, is a
world away from the pro-European revolutionary fervor of Kiev. Most
natives speak Russian as their first language, and are more in thrall
to Russian culture than Ukrainian. Pushkin, not Shevchenko, is their
poet of choice. With the Russian border just 30 miles away, the big
neighbor casts a long shadow over this industrial city. Lenin still
towers over the main square, whose streets are dotted with posters
advertising upcoming gigs by Russian pop stars and theaters. Kharkiv
was the first city in Ukraine to embrace Communism, and was the first
capital of Soviet Ukraine between the wars. The city is also famous for
the Malyshev Tractor Factory, which built many of the Soviet Union’s
iconic tanks, including the Cold War’s T-80 series. The residents’
memories of the Soviet Union are also a lot rosier than those from
Western Ukraine, who were forcibly annexed after the Second World War.

When some pro-European activists tried to take down the statue of
Lenin, the city’s taxi drivers scuttled their efforts by surrounding
the monument in defense. The Lenin statue has now become the focal
point of protests for Russia, and against the ‘fascists’ in Kiev.

Ukraine’s future as a unified state depends on bellwether cities
like Kharkiv, where residents are split between pro-European and
pro-Russian camps.

The city’s political elite, however, were firmly pro-Yanukovych until
recently. Both the city’s Mayor and Governor were caught with their
pants down, literally, when the revolution succeeded. Their first
response was to flee the city and head to Russia for a few days.

However, on their return, Gennady Kernes, the city’s mayor–who was
instrumental in organizing anti-Maidan protests–did a remarkable
about-face and pledged his loyalty to the new government in Kiev. He
claimed that he was a ‘prisoner’ of the Yanukovych system, and had no
choice in his actions. The region’s popular governor Mikhail Dobkin,
meanwhile, announced his candidancy for president in the upcoming
elections. The new rulers in Kiev, however, don’t seem in a forgiving
mood. Dobkin, was arrested Monday on charges of ‘inciting separatism’
in a dramatic move that has sent shock waves through the region.

Kernes has also been called in for questioning.

Pro-Russian demonstrators take part in a rally in front of a statue
of Soviet state founder Vladimir Lenin in central Kharkiv on March 8,
2014. (Reuters)

While the new government has a right to clamp down on separatist
sentiments to preserve the country’s unity, its heavyhanded tactics
risk alienating many on the sidelines. Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s most
prominent oligarch, expressed shock at Dobkin’s arrest and has warned
the government against ‘inflaming’ the situation in the East further.

Though a good majority of residents of Kharkiv are in favor of the
new government, and remaining within Ukraine, they’re very prickly
about interference from Kiev.

“We don’t want nationalists from the Right Sector telling us what
to do,” said a local businessman, with mutual friends in Kiev. “We
have our own way of doing things in Kharkiv, and we want to keep it
that way.”

It was a sentiment shared by many in this ‘bridge’ city between Russia
and Ukraine.

“Even though we love Ukraine, we don’t have to agree with everything
said on the Maidan,” declared another Kharkiv resident.

With its wide boulevards and grand buildings funneling into narrow,
balcony-lined streets, Kharkiv feels like a European version of a
provincial Russian city. Rollerbladers careen down its immaculate
sidewalks while couples stroll leisurely past. Gorki Park, the city’s
Central Park, has been cleaned up and remodeled in the past few years,
and is now the pride of Kharkiv natives. It had a festive air last
Sunday as residents flooded into the spotlessly clean park to soak
up the first rays of spring. With its ‘French’ gardens, children’s
playground, and clean public toilets, the park feels more European
than any of Kiev’s garbage-strewn public spaces.

The vibe in the city is more Mediterranean than Russian. It’s that
laid-back culture that sets the city within the European sphere of
influence, and apart from a nationalistic Russia.

At a local poker club catty corner from the Lenin statue, players
were dismissive of the pro-Russia protestors.

“In Russia, they wouldn’t be able to stand on the square and speak
their minds,” noted a player. “They’d be thrown in jail for such
provocations.”

“Why are some people so keen to unite with Russia?” another said.

“Poker is illegal there.” He shook his head and added, “We should be
demonstrating to unite with America. Or better even, Las Vegas.”

It was clear after an hour at the Hold ‘Em tables that there were no
separatists in the poker rooms at least. They were all card-carrying
Ukrainians, who were somewhat suspicious of Russia. Instead, they were
concerned about events in the Crimea, and worried about a friend who
had recently bought a summer house there.

Despite its Russian-speaking natives, Kharkiv still feels very much
like Ukraine. It was a major center of Ukrainian culture within
the Russian empire, and has always been part of this country. It is
unlikely that this ‘revolution’ in Kiev will sever a centuries-old
bond.

However, it’s also important that the new government doesn’t alienate
its residents with a ‘witchhunt’ or a heavy-handed imposition of
Western Ukrainian values. That would certainly end up inflaming
sentiments against the capital, and increase support for more autonomy
within Ukraine. With Russia just next door, and Putin intent on
carving out what he can from a weak Ukraine, the results might be all
too predictable. The next critical few months will determine whether
cities like Kharkiv–and its troubled neighbor Donetsk–can become
comfortable again inside the mould of the new Ukraine.

SOCIALLY RELEVANT FILM FESTIVAL 2014

March 11 2014

Filed under: Film — louisproyect @ 8:39 pm

Rated SR is the clever short name for the Socially Relevant Film
Festival that will be held at the Quad Cinema in New York between
March 14 and March 20. To my knowledge this is the first time such
a festival has been held and based on the evidence of the six films
I’ve seen, it would be very good if it became a permanent feature of
New York’s rich cultural and political tapestry.

It might be obvious from my Counterpunch review of “From both sides
of the Aegean” that the subject of ethnic cleansing in Turkey is very
close to my heart. Despite my love of Turkish culture, I feel an even
deeper connection to the people who have resisted forced assimilation.

That in essence is the subject of Hamshen Community at the Crossroads
of Past and Present, a documentary directed by Lucine Sahakyan
that takes us into the remote hinterlands near the Black Sea to meet
Armenians who were Muslimicized and Turkified in the 16th century long
before the genocide and expulsions of the 20th century. Since Turkey
has historically regarded them as countrymen, they have managed to
avoid the brutal treatment meted out to Christian Armenians and Kurds
even though they speak an Armenian dialect that is on the decline.

Even if the language disappears, it is doubtful that their traditions
will as well since Hamshen identity is as powerful today as it was
a half-millennium ago based on the evidence.

The film has a charmingly old-fashioned quality as the director
narrates throughout the film in Armenian about all the good-hearted
and lovely people she meets in a virtual travelogue. In some ways,
the film transported me back to 1958 when feature films were often
preceded by a 15-minute “short subject” with a title like “Along the
Silk Road” or “Welcome to Wine Country”.

Although they number less than a million, the Hamshen are used to
fighting above their weight. The film mentions that despite their
Muslim affiliations, atheism and Marxism have also gained wide
acceptance–explained perhaps by their proximity to the USSR in its
infancy. Today you can see pictures of Che Guevara carried at their
protest marches.

Although the film does not have a trailer, this performance by Hamshen
musicians above should give you a good idea of the pleasures found
in a documentary that includes lots of folk music and dance from
this altogether appealing nationality. If Turkey ever found itself,
it would do everything it could to preserve Hamshen ethnic identity
along with that of the Kurds. That would be as much a contribution
to their civilization as the Topkapi palace.

[omitted other movies]

PERINCEK: SWITZERLAND REQUESTS REFERRAL TO GRAND CHAMBER

European Union News
March 12, 2014 Wednesday

Bern

Office of The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation has
issued the following news release:

Switzerland is to request that the European Court of Human Rights have
the case of Dogu Perincek referred to the Grand Chamber for review.

The decision was made by the Federal Office of Justice (FoJ). A review
would clarify the scope available to the Swiss authorities in applying
Swiss criminal law to combat racism.

The European Convention on Human Rights provides for referral to the
Grand Chamber in cases including those which raise a serious question
affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention. In
the present case, Switzerland’s primary interest is in clarifying the
scope available to the domestic authorities in applying the criminal
anti-racism provision laid down in the Swiss Criminal Code (Art.

261bis CC). Switzerland created this penal provision, which entered
into force on 1 January 1995, to close loopholes in criminal law and
enable the country to accede to the UN Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

On 9 March 2007, Turkish national Dogu Perincek was sentenced in
Canton Vaud to both a financial penalty and a criminal fine under Art.

261bis CC for denying the Armenian Genocide. The Cantonal Court of
Canton Vaud and the Federal Supreme Court both rejected appeals against
the judgment. In its ruling of 17 December 2013, the competent chamber
of the European Court of Human Rights determined that the Swiss courts’
rulings violated the appellant’s right to freedom of expression.

For more information please visit:

AZERBAIJANI HISTORICAL FALSIFICATIONS

By MassisPost
Updated: March 12, 2014

A presentation of the Russian edition of Ruben Galchian’s book entitled
“Azerbaijani historical and geographical falsifications” was held on
March 4 at the Armenian Embassy in Moscow, Russia.

In the book the author details the main historic stages of the states
south of the Caucasus with maps of different epochs and references
to historical sources. Research includes historical and ethnographic
materials, it also presents an analysis of 45 important Christian,
Islamic, Greek and Roman maps, which are of great historical
significance.

During the presentation of the book Galchian referred to the ongoing
policy of Azerbaijan to distort history, its origins and methodology
used. He noted that the book is the result of long and hard work,
and is an attempt to objectively represent real history thru
internationally accepted sources.

By Rouben Galichian

In May 1918 in the region south of the Caucasus three new states
were formed, two of which – Armenia and Georgia had a rich history
and tradition of the statehood. At the same time, north of the
Arax River and on the east coast of the Caspian Sea another state –
Azerbaijan was formed, whose name was an anomaly for this region. The
newly established country gave itself the name of one of the ancient
north-eastern provinces of Persia, Azerbaijan, which the Armenian
call with its historical name – Atrpatakan.

At the time, many Persian scholars protested against the use of the
name of their province for the naming of the newly established state.

However, at the time the Great Powers were engaged in the division of
Middle East oil wells amongst themselves and they did not have time
to deal with other seemingly unimportant issues. When the Communist
order was established in Azerbaijan, the new government decided to
keep the old name with the intention of using it in the future to
their political advantage.

In 1925 the Russian orientalist Vassily Vladimirovich Bartold in
his speech in Baku University announced that the name Azerbaijan was
given to the new country only for political purposes, a prediction,
which was later confirmed. This was first manifested when in 1947 in
Tabriz the Democratic Party announced its desire to join the Soviet
Azerbaijan and yet again in 1992, when the President of independent
Azerbaijan, Mr. Elchibey announced that he intends to reunite their
brothers and sisters living across the border in Iran.

In time Stalin ordered that each republic of the Soviet Union should
have its unique and particular history and culture. But how could
this be made true by a newly created state without past and unified
history and culture? The solution was found – the history and culture
of the peoples living in this territory of ancient peoples could be
declared as their own. To this end Azerbaijani authorities planned and
implemented special programs which were intensified during the 1960s.

They reached their apex after independence, with the encouragement
and guidance of President Ilham Aliyev.

Since the dominant culture in the region was Armenian, the Azerbaijani
historians had to take the following steps:

a) to eliminate the names of all Armenians from the region claiming
them to be newcomers in the region of the South Caucasus, who arrived
there during the early 19th century.

b) to declare that the Albanian Christians or Caucasian Albanians
who embraced Islam after the tenth century, were their forefathers.

c) when the opportunity arose to announce that they belong to the
“great” Turkic nation.

The above actions would give them the possibility of appropriating
all the local history and culture and make them an “ancient” and
“great” country.

While implementing these programs Azerbaijani authorities encountered
many problems which they conveniently ignored in order to achieve
their end. The main problems were:

1. Despite the fact that the name of the country was changed to
Azerbaijan, until the adoption of the Stalinist constitution in 1936,
the locals called themselves “Turks”.

2. The vast majority of Christian monuments of Azerbaijan and Artsakh
were built during the 10th to 18th centuries, when the local Albanians
had already been Islamized. The question arises- how could Islamized
Albanians build and renovate Christian churches, monasteries,
cross-stones, or were they perhaps done by local Armenian builders?

3. From the 12th century the region was visited by European, Arab and
Persian travellers who meticulously described the life and culture of
the Armenians living in the South Caucasus. The Persian Shah Abbas, who
the Azerbaijanis claim to be their own, in 1604-5 forcibly displaced
about half a million Armenians to Persia from Nakhichevan, Armenia and
Artsakh. If one is to believe what the Azerbaijani historians claim,
there would be no Armenians living there, therefore, where did Shah
Abbas brought this great mass of people from and why did he give
them special permission to name their new settlement New “Julfa”,
which was one of the names of their previous hometowns?

4. The common language spoken in Azerbaijan and Iranian provinces of
Azerbaijan is erroneously called “Azeri”, while it actually is a form
of “Turkish”. According to Iranian and Iranian Azerbaijani scientists,
until the 15th to 16th centuries the spoken language of the Iranian
Azerbaijani people was not Turkish, but a dialect of middle Persian,
which was the real Azeri language. Since the rule of the Seljuks
the local language was gradually replaced by the language of the
new masters – the Turks. It should be noted that in the Azerbaijani
provinces of Iran there still are some settlements, whose inhabitants
speak with their ancient Iranian dialects.

Azerbaijanis have an excellent weapon for amending, modifying and
censoring the ancient history. A country that insists having five
thousand years of statehood, has no written culture language until
the second half of the 19th century, and even then uses the Persian as
their written language. Thus, they began writing any official document
and books in Persian and when the language was changed to Turkish, they
first used the Persian alphabet. First they used the Persian-Arabic
script, later, in 1929 they changed it to the Latin alphabet, and
in 1939 this was changed to the Cyrillic alphabet, and once again,
after independence they returned to a modified Latin alphabet.

All these transliterations allow the Azerbaijani authorities and
historians to change, transform and falsify their own history to
serve their political goals, which manifest itself in all literature.

Azerbaijanis insist that: Azerbaijani statehood has five thousand
years of history.

1. Azerbaijan as an independent country has existed more than 2,000
years.

2. Empires, including the Arab Caliphate, Iran and Russia colonized
Azerbaijan, emasculating its Turkish culture.

3. In 1813 and 1828 a joint Russian-Iranian conspiracy divided
Azerbaijan into two parts and brought the Armenians to the Caucasus.

4. Founded in 1918, the Republic of Azerbaijan testified to the
revival of historical Azerbaijan, the first democracy in the East.

The present book carefully studies the works of European, Arab,
Persian, and other historians born in the territory of modern
Azerbaijan concluding that the country called “Azerbaijan” located
north of the Arax River, was founded in 1918 and its population being
a mixture of various nationalities and cultures, cannot be claimed
to have one unique and individual culture and history. The book also
reveals the reasons and purpose of historical falsification of the
Azerbaijan Republic.

Like the United States of America, Azerbaijan should also have
the courage to admit that its population is a mixture of different
cultures and histories that cannot be uniform and be called uniquely
Azerbaijani.

After this introduction and for further clarification, some twenty
ancient and medieval map images were presented and analysed.