Author: Ekmekjian Janet

MOSCOW POLICE MARKS YEAR OF ARMENIA IN RUSSIA
PanARMENIAN.Net
05.10.2006 12:49 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The first creative concert for Moscow police
dedicated to the Year of Armenia in Russia was given in Moscow. The
attendees not only enjoyed the Armenian songs and art but also got
useful information about Armenia and the Armenian people since the
ancient times up to our days and certainly about the centuries-old
Russian-Armenian friendship, President of the Armenian-Russian
Friendship Association Victor Krivopuskov told a PanARMENIAN.Net
reporter. “Events of the kind will be held by a worked out
scenario. “The presenters of the concerts will furnish information
taking into account the peculiarity of the audience,” he said.
“These creative meetings will be held by the initiative of the Russian
association of friendship and cooperation with Armenia till the end
of the year for the law enforcers of all the Moscow administrative
districts. By decision of the Moscow state department of interior open
lessons of international friendship “Armenia our friend” will be held
in police training centers and colleges. According to the Moscow state
department of interior, the events will help the policemen in their
activities in the multinational city and strengthen the international
community of Muscovites,” Victor Krivopuskov said.

TURKISH MINISTER URGES EU, FRANCE NOT TO “INTERFERE” IN ARMENIAN ISSUE
Anatolia news agency, Ankara,
4 Oct 06
Brussels, 4 October: Turkish State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
Abdullatif Sener warned the EU and some other countries not to
interfere in Turkish-Armenian relations.
Sener is in Belgian capital of Brussels to participate in events
organized by the Turkish Industrialists’ & Businessmen’s Association
(TUSIAD) and European Policy Centre to mark the first anniversary of
the start of Turkey-EU negotiations.
In an exclusive interview with the AA [Anatolia] correspondent,
Sener referred to French President Jacques Chirac’s remarks about the
so-called Armenian genocide allegations, and said: “Chirac said that
recognition of so-called Armenian genocide should be a precondition
before Turkey’s EU membership. A resolution is being discussed in
France and it foresees fine and imprisonment for those who deny
Armenian genocide. It is not possible to accept such an attitude.
This is against the cultural atmosphere the EU is trying to create.”
“Armenia is not a European country, it is an Asian country. So, it is
a third country for the EU. So, it is meaningless to bring this matter
up within the scope of Turkey’s EU membership process,” he stated.
Sener added: “Whether it is an EU member or another country, everybody
who is affecting the Armenian policy from outside should give up his
endeavours. Chirac’s remarks are not sincere, they aim to affect the
domestic policy.” [Passage omitted]

MERZLYAKOV: ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN WILL BE PRESENTED “MODIFIED VERSION” OF THE BUCHAREST DOCUMENT
Public Radio of Armenia
Oct 3 2006
Russian Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov told the
journalists that in case an agreement is reached on holding a recurrent
round of negotiations, Armenia and Azerbaijan will be presented the
“modified version” of the Bucharest document, Day.az reports. “In
the forthcoming talks the parties will be suggested to discuss a
document, which the Presidents were presented in Ramboulliet and
which was later reedited in Bucharest, and now with some amendments
it should be presented at the next meeting,” he noted. The Russian
diplomat said that the new ideas are based on the clarification of
the document presented to the sides in May 2006 by the mission on
the level of Foreign Ministers of the Co-Chair countries.

TURKEY CONCERNED WITH STATEMENTS BY FRENCH PRESIDENT – TURKISH AMBASSADOR
Author: S.Agayeva
TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 3 2006
Turan Moraly, the Turkish Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary Ambassador to
Azerbaijan told journalists that Turkey is very concerned regarding
the statements made by France’s leadership. They contradict the
existing historic, friendly and mutually profitable relationships
between Turkey and France, Trend reports citing the local television
channel ANS. He was commenting on the last statement made by the
French President Jacques Chirac, who called on Turkey to recognize
the Armenian genocide and open its borders with Armenia.
Turkey is ready for open channels of communication with Armenia,
but on condition that Armenia stabilizes its relationships with the
Turkic-speaking neighbors,” the diplomat stressed.

GEORGIA AND RUSSIA: WITH YOU, WITHOUT YOU
Donald Rayfield
Open Democracy, UK
Oct 3 2006
Wine and roses, spies and sanctions, Abkhazia and South
Ossetia…Tbilisi’s long, intimate and turbulent relationship with
Moscow has gone badly wrong. Donald Rayfield explains how and why.
The current quarrel between Georgia and Russia – which started with
the arrest of an alleged Russian spy-ring on Georgian territory,
and quickly escalated via embittering mutual accusations towards
the imposition of a range of severe sanctions by Russia on its small
southern neighbour – is based on more than a conflict of interests;
it has all the viciousness of a love affair gone sour, which is
why it seems so hard to see an end to the ever-escalating series of
recriminations between the two countries.
For hundreds of years Russia was for Georgia a distant Christian
neighbour, if one slowly but surely expanding towards Georgia’s
northern frontiers. After the collapse of the Byzantine empire and
the devastations wrought by the Mongols, Georgia was for centuries
vulnerable to invasion and despoliation by Iran from the east and
Ottoman Turkey from the west, while the wild highland tribes of
the north periodically came down like wolves on the fold. Russia
during this period was a land more of myth than reality: only a
few inter-dynastic marriages linked the ruling families of the two
countries, and the remnants of the Scythians and the Golden Horde
put an impenetrable barrier between them.
Likewise, Georgia was at first a Shangri-La for Russia, a Christian
kingdom which would in principle be an ally in the expansion of Russian
rule and Orthodoxy throughout the orient, a state which had a common
interest in dominating the Circassians and Chechens who resisted all
forms of statehood and empire.
Donald Rayfield is professor in the department of modern languages,
Queen Mary College, University of London. Among his books is Stalin
and his Hangmen (Random House, 2005)
A wary embrace
Only in the 17th and 18th century did reality modify the dreams;
Russia and Georgia made contact, at first over the Caspian sea and
then, spasmodically, across the mountain passes. Russia provided
hospitality for Georgian exiles and refugees from Iranian depredations;
through Russia, Georgians got a European education, access to western
culture, and experience as officers in the Russian armies. They were
even given large estates and their aristocratic rank was recognised.
Finally, in the 1780s Russia offered military assistance in
repelling the Iranian forces. And here the first rifts appeared in
the relationship. Russian help consisted too often in encouraging the
Georgians to attack Persians or Turks, standing by while both sides
fought each other to a standstill, and then mopping up the remnants.
Georgians had their first lesson in modern Realpolitik.
When in 1783 the exhausted Georgian kingdom accepted the Russian
offer of protectorate status, they had their second lesson: within
two decades the Georgian kingdom was dismantled, the royal family
was exiled (comfortably and respectfully) to St Petersburg, the
Georgian church was incorporated into the Russian church – its
frescoes whitewashed, its polyphonic singing replaced by chant –
and a Russian viceroy governed the country.
Still, under Russian rule a corrupt, ignorant bureaucracy was
a distinct improvement over Persian and Turkish satraps. Nobody
was beheaded, castrated or enslaved, even if they were taxed and
occasionally exiled, and Georgian nobles enjoyed unfettered control
over their peasants and protection from bankruptcy. The Georgian
rebellions against Russian rule were half-hearted, and for most of
the 19th century, given liberal viceroys, the gratitude was greater
than the grievances.
The aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 transformed
the picture. Soviet rule in 1921 violently crushed the independent
Georgian state that had sprung up in 1917; while lip-service was paid
to the status of Georgian language and culture, both Lenin and Stalin
systematically destroyed all hopes of any real autonomy. Instead,
autonomy (accompamnied in some cases by Russification) was granted to
several of Georgia’s provinces – Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Adzharia –
following the same tactics of divide and rule that the Iranian shahs
had applied. Georgians were subjected to mass arrests and executions in
the “great terror” of 1937-38, and their male population was reduced
by a fifth in the terrible fighting of the second world war.
The problem is that, relatively, Georgia remained a land of
plenty, even in the hungriest years of the 1930s and 1940s. Soviet
Russia, like Czarist Russia, was convinced that it had provided the
protective mantle under which grateful Georgians could enjoy peace and
prosperity. But gratitude was not apparent; many Russians were aware
of Georgian attitudes to them as a nation of male boors and female
sluts. After Stalin’s death the conviction steadily grew among ordinary
Russians that Georgians had parasitically exploited Soviet tolerance.
On the rocks
Today’s mutual hostility has escalated from this misunderstanding.
Georgia’s eagerness to declare independence in 1990 was taken by many
Russians as monstrous ingratitude. Within two years, Georgia seemed
on the verge of dismemberment, as Abkhazia broke away, South Ossetia
rose up against the abolition of its autonomy and Adzharia fell into
the hands of a narco-baron (Aslan Abashidze) with close links to the
mayor of Moscow.
Much of the responsibility for the loss of Georgia’s provinces
has to be blamed on Georgian politicians and their inflammatory,
nationalist – at times even fascist – rhetoric, in which they insisted
that their own minorities (Abkhaz, Ossetes, even Armenians) were just
“guests” on Georgian territory. But Georgian suspicions that Russia
was surreptitiously fomenting separatism are justified. South Ossetia
is a paradise for racketeers among the Russian army “peacekeepers”,
while Abkhazia’s magnificent villas and resorts are coveted by the
Russian business and bureaucratic elites. The issue of offering Russian
passports to the population of Abkhazia, the Georgians rightly believe,
amounts to effective annexation of Georgian territory.
There are many varieties of anti-Georgian opinion in Russia. At the
crudest level is the view that all Caucasians are gangsters; at a
higher level, Eduard Shevardnadze (the former Soviet foreign minister
who returned to head Georgia in 1992 after the chaotic rule of Zviad
Gamsakhurdia) is seen as the traitor who enabled Mikhail Gorbachev
to dismantle the Soviet Union and hand the remnants to the Americans.
Mikheil Saakashvili’s “rose revolution” of November 2003-January 2004
was in fact given tacit assent by elements in the Russian government:
primarily in order to punish Shevardnadze, and secondarily because
Saakashvili was seen as an amateur who would not be able to intrigue
as cunningly as his tetri melia (white fox) predecessor.
In fact Saakashvili has shown a mixture of astuteness and
incompetence. On one hand, he secured the return of a lost province,
hounding out Abashidze from Adzharia, and he has made the Russians
agree eventually to evacuate their military bases. On the other hand,
to assuage his electorate he has made one inflammatory statement
after another, for each of which Georgia has been punished by denial
of energy and bans of exports.
No Georgian politician dares admit to the electorate that Abkhazia
is lost forever, like a wife that has run off to be with a bigger
and richer man, and that South Ossetia is now almost certainly
irrecoverable; nor would he or she have the wisdom of a Czech or
Hungarian politician to say that the country is all the better off
for being smaller and ethnically more homogeneous.
Meanwhile, although Russia has reconciled itself to the independence of
the Baltic states, Russian public opinion cannot swallow the idea of
an independent Georgia. Given the disparity of size and power between
the two countries, and given the certainty that if the Americans and
Europeans ever have to make a choice they will side with the Russians
(who have gas, oil and platinum, whereas the Georgians have only
a pipeline route to offer), Georgia is going to get the worst of
the conflict.

CYPRUS STATE OF DENIAL: NOTHING LIKE PEACE TO KEEP CNN AWAY
by Nikolas K. Gvosdev
The National Interest Online, DC
Oct 2 2006
Cyprus hasn’t been grabbing news headlines lately. Sure, there is
concern about the possible derailment of Turkey’s EU-accession process
because Ankara still won’t deal with the government of the Republic
of Cyprus, which it chooses not to recognize as being legitimate. But
other than that, it’s not on the list of the hotspots of the world’s
“frozen conflicts”-waiting for war to break out in the Caucasus is
much more interesting.
It is an indictment, however, of the “squeaky wheels get the grease”
approach to conflict resolution. The United States and the Europeans
have not put a great deal of effort behind efforts to get Cyprus
“solved” because there is no pressing urgency, or so it is said.
But the failure to take advantage of a number of windows of opportunity
to get a workable bi-zonal, bi-communal federation up and running on
the island (and to get Turkish troops out, and to remove the Cyprus
question as a roadblock for Ankara’s EU aspirations) has not gone
unnoticed in the region.
There are four lessons to be “unlearned” from Cyprus-all of which
will make our task of ending other regional conflicts all the more
difficult.
Lesson number one: Don’t resettle your refugees. After the 1974
invasion of the island, the government in Nicosia made a tremendous
decision. Refugees would not be permanently confined to squalid
camps and kept in perpetual limbo (guaranteeing the emergence of
second and third generations of refugees), as had happened with
the Palestinians. No, resettlement would occur by creating new
neighborhoods (with refugees acquiring the ability to eventually own
property) and by directing investment to create job opportunities
(rather than have people on a perpetual dole). The end result: no
“showcase” camps filled with desperate, radicalized people. The
international community, however, has interpreted this to mean that
there is no problem at all. This is why in more recent conflicts
governments have quite cynically allowed and encouraged refugees
camps to develop and become permanent; nothing better than to parade
before international observers the dispossessed. And usually, the
refugees-encouraged to vote as a bloc-give their ballots to the
political forces most disinclined for compromise or moderation. The
“refugee factor” is an important reason for the lack of progress in
settling the conflicts in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Lesson number two: Highlight ethnic conflict. When the “green line”
separating the Greek and Turkish areas of Cyprus opened in 2003, the
world media was prepared to televise the predicted violence; that
once Greek and Turkish Cypriots encountered each other, “age-old”
ethnic hatreds would flare up, leading to dramatic clashes. For the
last three years, millions of cross-zonal visits have taken place with
almost no incidents. There’s nothing like peace to keep CNN away. The
Kosovar Albanians, in contrast, have adopted a more successful
strategy-by having extremists continue to target the minority Serbs,
the argument is made that accommodation is impossible and independence
(and separation) the only solution.
The third lesson: Don’t compromise. The government in Nicosia could
have used its veto to prevent EU accession talks with Turkey from
ever starting, on the grounds that Ankara’s refusal to recognize
the government of an EU-member state and its continued deployment
of 40,000 troops on the island constitute an illegal occupation of
European territory. It didn’t. It signaled that it would even support
Turkish membership in the EU and wouldn’t act as the proxy for those
central European states who don’t want Turkey in the EU but don’t
want to provoke Washington by scuttling Ankara’s European bid.
Nicosia gambled that its moderation would lead to some reciprocal
gestures on Turkey’s part. Those hopes have been, so far, dashed.
The lesson the rest of the region is learning is that might makes right
and that compromise is a sign of weakness. Nowhere in the region are
rivals prepared to make the concessions necessary to move forward on
long-term peace arrangements.
Finally, the Cypriot case shows that the vaunted “European approach”
is, so far, zero for one. This thesis is that the incentive of
joining the EU-with all the economic benefits entailed plus the
protections provided by EU institutions-can motivate political leaders
to reach a settlement. (The “EU approach” is the one advocated
by former secretary of defense, Frank Carlucci, in these pages
?id=11962 “The Crucial
Final Step”, rests on the assumption that competing Serb and Albanian
interests in Kosovo can be reconciled via EU membership for both Serbia
and an independent Kosovo state.) So far, that approach has not worked
to reunite the island nor caused Turkey to modify its stance. And the
extent to which the EU backs away from its commitments (to recognize
the territorial integrity of the island under the government of the
Republic) only erodes confidence that any EU-based settlement can in
fact be trusted to be implemented.
Failure to reach a final settlement for Cyprus, with all of its
positive conditions, makes it that much harder to believe that the
more difficult cases-Kosovo, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and even
Iraq-will prove easier to resolve, especially when leaders in those
states and entities conclude that there’s no benefit to be gained
from being moderate and reasonable.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest.

CHIRAC POKES FINGER IN TURKEY’S EYE ON ARMENIA ‘GENOCIDE’
By Andrew Rettman
EUObserver, Belgium
Oct 2 2006
French president Jacques Chirac paid no heed to Turkish sensitivities
on his first-ever visit to Armenia this weekend, calling on Turkey to
own up to “genocide” before joining the EU and comparing the killings
to Nazi Germany’s holocaust.
“Should Turkey recognise the genocide of Armenia to join the EU?” Mr
Chirac asked, AP reports. “I believe so. Each country grows by
acknowledging the dramas and errors of its past…Can one say that
Germany, which has deeply acknowledged the holocaust, has as a result
lost credit? It has grown.”
The French leader made the remarks in Yerevan on Saturday (30
September) at a wreath-laying ceremony beside the country’s “Genocide
Monument”, before visiting the “Genocide Museum” and writing the
solitary word “remember” in the visitors’ book.
Armenia says Turkish forces slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians between
1915 and 1917 but the Turkish government and Turkish history books
claim that 300,000 Armenians and 300,000 Turks died in a ‘civil war’
in the region.
Fifteen countries, including France, Switzerland, Russia and Argentina,
have previously classified the killings as “genocide” – defined by
the UN as “harmful acts…committed with intent to destroy, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
In Turkey, any deviation from the official line can land novelists
or university professors in jail under article 301 of the country’s
new penal code against “insulting Turkishness.”
But there has been no official reaction to Mr Chirac’s statements so
far, despite mumblings by unnamed Turkish diplomats in the Turkish
Daily News that they are “worried” about worsening bilateral relations.
Chirac goes further than EU The French leader’s remarks go further
than Brussels’ formal EU accession conditions, which require Ankara
to boost democratic standards in areas such as free speech and to
lift its blockade on Cypriot shipping – but do not mention the thorny
Armenian question.
MEPs voting on a highly-critical report on Turkey’s EU accession
progress last week also opted to cut out a clause calling for
recognition of the Armenian genocide for fear of stirring up a
nationalist backlash in the EU’s most controversial candidate state.
Armenia itself has so far shied away from confrontation on the subject,
with president Robert Kocharian on Saturday saying merely “we would
like that our interests be discussed” in the EU-Turkey accession talks.
The small, landlocked country of 3.6 million people is in a tricky
position: it has closed borders with Turkey in the west; the prospect
of a Russian-Georgian conflict in the north; escalating tensions with
Azerbaijan in the east and borders with international pariah Iran in
the south.
But France plans to keep on pressing the issue with a vote tabled
in parliament on 12 October over a fresh resolution that Turkey must
give the Armenian killings their proper name.
About 400,000 Armenian ex-pats live in France, with some – such as
singer Charles Aznavour – rising to social prominence and with Paris
promising to hold a referendum before it ratifies Turkish EU accession
in the future.

AZERI LEADER HOPES PEACE TALKS TO RESOLVE NK CONFLICT
Lider TV, Baku,
2 Oct 06
[Presenter] We reported earlier that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
has touched upon the resolution of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan during his speech in the Milli Maclis
[parliament]. Now we present you with a brief report on this.
[Aliyev] We are not thinking of giving up the format of the OSCE
Minsk Group [which mediates between the two countries in the Karabakh
peace process]. At the same time, we think that other organizations’
participation may help resolve the issue too. True, Armenia is trying
to use the discussion of the issue at the UN as a ground to break the
[Karabakh peace] talks. However, this is their own business. They
may break the talks. If they are looking for a pretext, it is not
to difficult to find that pretext. Azerbaijan acts in a constructive
way, is involved in the talks and hopes the issue can be resolved as
a result of the talks.
[The president was speaking at the autumn session of the Azerbaijani
parliament which started on 2 October]

SEPARATISM IN CAUCASUS DISCUSSED IN BAKU
Author: S.Agayeva
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Sept 30 2006
Separatism in Caucasus is a call for ethnograty and its base has
always been comprised by the big nationalism ideology of small nations,
the Director of the Human Rights Institute of the Azerbaijan National
Academy of Sciences, politician Rovshan Mustafayev told on September
30, by making a speech in the round table on the topic “Caucasus
without separatism and separatists” that was organized within the
first meeting of Baku Club, Trend reports.
Mustafayev considers the Armenian separatism a cause for all conflicts
existing in South Caucasus. The politician regretfully stressed that
the ideology started from the beginning of XX century to create an
ethically clean zone in Caucasus still continues.
“Armenian ideologies also stumped Armenian people. The Armenian
ideologies need to recognize that Armenian illusions achieved nothing,”
the politician said.
Mustafayev considers necessary to cerate a special group organized by
the recognized Caucasian countries to define the scenario of counter
rules to decrease the rate of conflicts in the region.
The participants of the round table – the Head of the Department for
Work with Citizens of CIS and Baltic Countries of Russian Foreign
Ministry, Russian politician Tatiana Poloskova, Co-chairman of the
European Forum Maxim Meyer and outstanding Georgian lawyer, Professor
Patu Davit exchanged views on the key principles of restoring the
peace and stability in the region, the necessity of holding dialogue
regarding the questions that are important for the future of region and
mentioned the important role of Baku Club in implementing this mission.
In addition, the participants of the forum discussed the relations
between Russia and Georgia. According to the participants, the problems
preventing the development of the bilateral relations between the two
countries should be resolved through joint efforts of the two sides.
The event has been organized by the Human Rights Institute of
Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, European Union and Russian
Foreign Center of Russian Foreign Ministry. The project reflects
conceptual variant of international union of new elite and id held
under motto “New Development. New Generation. New Corridors”.

MIA ARRESTED TWO MORE EMPLOYEES OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Prime News, Georgia
Sept 28 2006
The employees of MIA have arrested two more representatives of the
Russian Intelligence Service suspected of espionage on Wednesday night.
Prime-News was informed at the Ministry of Internal Affair that the
law inforcement bodies arrested Aziz Aslanian, the citizen of Georgia
in Batumi and Ruslan Skrilnikov in Tbilisi.
Zia Samnidze, suspected of espionage, the brother of Tamaz Samnidze and
the supporter of Igor Giorgadze detained on September 06, is wanted
by the Police. The search is also announced on Colonel Konstantin
Pugachin, who according to the preliminary information is hiding in
the headquarters of Russian military troops in the South Caucasus.
The Georgian special services are conducting piquet of the building
of the Headquarters of Russian troops, because this territory is
involiable from the diplomatic viewpoint.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs arrested four high-ranking Russian
servicemen suspected of espionage on Wednesday. They are: Alexander
Sava, the Colonel of the above mentioned headquarters, Dimitry
Kazantsev, the Lieutenant Colonel, Alexander Alborov and Mayor Barnov
arrested in Batumi. Twelve Georgian Citizens are arrested with the
same accusations.
The group was led by Anatoly Sinitsin, the orginizer of the
Gori terror act, who is in Armenia now. They were conducting
intelligence activities in Tbilisi and Batumi, orginizing rather
serious provocations.