Author: Emil Lazarian

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
March 9 2007

Kosovo cannot be used as example for Nagorno-Karabakh – French Ambassador

Azerbaijan, Baku / Trend , corr A.Ismayilova / Contrary to his
Russian counterpart Yuriy Merzlyakov, the French Ambassador Bernard
Fassier, an OSCE Minsk Group co-chair who is currently visiting Baku,
stated at a news conference on 8 March that the Kosovo situation
cannot be used as an example for Nagorno-Karabakh.

He did not comment on Merzlyakov’s statement but said that each
conflict has its own peculiarity. `I will repeat my statement made in
Khankendi and that is the situation with Kosovo differs from the
conflicts existing in the post-Soviet area."

Commenting on the necessity for the European Union’s attraction to
the OSCE Minsk Group, Fassier stressed that the EU could contribute
towards the resolution of the conflict, as it is presently doing.
However, the OSCE Minsk Group is directly involved in peace
negotiations.

According to the co-chair, the Great 8, as well as the EU Special
Representative for South Caucasus, Peter Semneby, backs the OSCE
Minsk Group’s activities and this is regarded as political support.

Fassier noted that the EU could play a considerable role in the
formation and development of public opinion and the rehabilitation of
relationships between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 10 2007

Shaw: ICJ’s Serbian genocide verdict does not improve the standing of
the court

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on Bosnia has created
waves of intense debate, not only in Bosnia and Serbia but all over
the world.

As the ICJ cleared Serbian state of genocide, both Bosnian victims
and many scholars criticized the verdict as being political.

Professor Martin Shaw of Sussex University, one of the leading
experts of the issue, has strongly condemned the decision and accused
the ICJ of "engaging in the systematic denial of the Bosnian
Genocide." Professor Shaw answered our questions:

In your article "The International Court of Justice: Serbia, Bosnia
and Genocide," posted on the opendemocracy.net Web site, you argue:
"It is not too strong to say that in this case, the International
Court of Justice has engaged in systematic denial of the Bosnian
genocide." It is quite a tough statement.

Clearly the International Court of Justice did recognize that
genocide occurred at Srebrenica and indicted Serbia with its failure
to prevent the massacre there. This is important. However, while the
court recognized that acts that could constitute genocide had been
committed by Serbian nationalists across Bosnia throughout the years
1992-1995, it produced unconvincing, inconsistent legal reasons for
saying that genocide had not generally occurred. Thus I argue that
the court denied the full scale of the Bosnian genocide — because it
recognized genocide at Srebenica, this was a partial denial of the
Bosnian genocide, but a serious failure nonetheless.

Is this verdict a purely technical one or a political one? How one
can make that distinction?

The court argued its verdict in legal terms. However, because of the
unconvincing character of its legal arguments, one is bound to ask
whether political factors influenced the verdict.

If the decision was not taken not on purely legal grounds, what are
the other considerations?

Clearly the court could have wanted to avoid a verdict that would
have provoked further political conflict inside Serbia, where the
situation is currently delicate. But we cannot be certain that this
sort of consideration influenced the verdict.

Anthony Dworkin, also writing for opendemocracy.net, has criticized
your approach and implies that genocide is something serious and
cannot be applied wherever you like. He also argues that the Serbs’
intentions regarding the Bosnians were far from clear.

I agree that genocide is a serious charge. This is why it must not be
applied lightly — nor must it be rejected or minimized without good
reason. I think the Serbian intentions to destroy the Bosnian Muslim
and Croat communities, in the areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina that the
Serbian nationalists controlled or conquered, were very clear and
consistent from the widespread policies of expulsion, murder and rape
that they adopted from 1992 onwards. And they were, and still are,
largely successful — only a small number of non-Serbs remain in the
so-called Republika Srpska inside Bosnia.

As you said in your article: "Yet in relation to the Srebrenica
massacre, the ICJ ‘sees no reason to disagree’ with the finding of
the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] that
these acts constituted genocide." How can one possibly explain this?

It seems to me that this is a compromise verdict. The court upheld
the Bosnian claim that genocide was committed at Srebrenica, but in
other respects upheld the Serbian view that genocide had not been
committed. So both sides gained something.

Do you think the confidence in the court will now be in jeopardy with
the latest verdict?

This kind of verdict does not improve the standing of the court.

How do you think the verdict will contribute to the healing process
in the region?

I think the verdict will not help much since it is inconsistent and
enables both sides to stick to their original positions, saying they
have won something.

Do you think this verdict has once more punished Bosnians who were
victims and rewards the Serbian state by clearing it from the "crime
of crimes," i.e., genocide?

It is too strong to say that this has rewarded Serbia, since clearly
there are some serious indictments of it and there is more pressure
to yield Ratko Mladic to the Hague. But the Serbian state has
certainly escaped the more serious consequences that could have
followed if Bosnia’s case had been fully successful.

Have Bosnian Muslims interpreted the verdict as yet another decision
of the West against Muslims? How do you react to the Bosnians’
evaluation?

I think this is too simple. This was an international court with
judges drawn from a wide range of countries. And it does still
reinforce the prevailing view that the Serbians were the main
criminals in the Bosnian war and the Muslims the main victims.

Muslims in Europe, citing the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam and
the war in Iraq, argue that this verdict will not help in the
dialogue between civilizations. Do you think the verdict can have
such implications?

Genocide should not be an issue between civilizations. Muslims were
victims in Bosnia, but they were also victims in Iraq when Saddam’s
regimes massacred Kurds, and they are victims there today when Sunni
militias kill Shia, and Shia militias kill Sunnis. Muslims can be
perpetrators of genocide as well as victims; Christians can be
victims as well as perpetrators. From a human point of view we have
to stop all genocide — whoever commits it and whoever is the victim.

Another popular question among Muslims is if the Bosnians were
Christians and the Serbs Muslims, would the verdict be the same?

International courts and authorities often avoid recognizing genocide
whoever the victims are — look at Rwanda, where the UN turned away
from helping the Tutsis, who were mostly Christians. This weakness of
international institutions is not to do with anti-Muslim ideas.

Turkey has been accused of the Armenian "genocide" with no court
decision and you have referred to the events of 1915 as genocide in
your book "War and Genocide: Organized Killing in Modern Society?" Do
you think the court decision can create a jurisprudence for similar
cases? If Turkey goes to international arbitration, for example, do
you think it can be exonerated?

The International Court of Justice decision arose because Bosnia took
a case against Serbia to the court. In relation to the events of
1915, no such case can now arise: this is now a matter for history
rather than law. However, just as Serbia will not be a healthy
society until it recognizes the Serbian state’s responsibility for
genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, so Turkey will not be a healthy
society until it abandons the denial of the Ottoman genocide against
the Armenians. Nearly a century on, it should be possible for modern
Turkish democracy to fully acknowledge that this crime was committed,
and to say that Turkey today is a society in which this kind of
policy will never again arise.

I don’t think I can answer your question about international
arbitration, as I don’t know enough about it. I’m not sure in any
case that the issues arising from the Armenian genocide are
necessarily issues between modern Turkey and modern Armenia, although
if both sides favored that, it could help. The ICJ decision by itself
is only one decision in the international jurisprudence of genocide,
and needs to be seen with other decisions by the tribunals and the
new ICC.

Do you think it is wise to legislate laws to punish the deniers of
genocides or to legislate on historical events?

No, in general I think that it is better to deal with genocide denial
through argument and education than through law.

10.03.2007

SELÇUK GÜLTAªLI BRUSSELS

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ïðàî Âûáîðà, Azerbaijan
Democratic Azerbaijan
March 10 2007

`Zerkalo’: Whatever the Case May Be, Armenia Will Be Loser, If USA
Attacks Iran
10.03.2007

Current stage of peace talks on regulation of Garabagh conflict was
discussed in Washington by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia,
Vardan Oskanyan and US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
As information and press section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Armenia informed, in the course of the meeting bilateral relations
were also focused on: realization of program `Challenges of
millennium’, forthcoming parliamentary elections in Armenia,
Armenian-Turkish relations and USA’s mediation in this direction. We
should remind here that soon our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Elmar
Mamadyarov, will leave for Washington to meet US Secretary of State.
Most likely, official information in this connection will be
distinguished with the same scantiness. However, it is not difficult
to guess what issues are discussed by C. Rice, E. Mamadyarov and V.
Oskanyan. First of all we may say that Washington is making last
attempt to regulate Armenian-Azerbaijani and Armenian-Turkish
relations, at least, this year. Not long time ago, high rank
representatives of political and military leadership of Turkey
visited Washington. At least slight warming of relations between
these 3 states taking into account aggravation of situation caused by
possible action against Iran, is vitally important for Washington.
The matter is that permanent members of UN Security Council (Russia,
China, France and UK) having supported first resolution of Security
Council on Iran, initiated by USA, have deprived themselves of any
chance for manoeuvre. It is hard to imagine that anyone ever believed
that Iran would bend in UN Security Council’s will. Now permanent
members of UN Security Council should either support, of course with
minor reservations, new tougher resolution proposed by USA, which
will be ignored by Iran once adopted, or to recognize their own
weakness before Tehran’s regime. In first case USA will make pressure
on Iran with `compelled’ support on the part of UN Security Council,
precisely, Russia and China, in the second case, Washington will
blame Moscow and Beijing for inconsequence starting to act in
alliance with London and Paris.
`USA’s attacking Iran will take place, but the question is what way
will it take place?’, political scientist, Levon Melik-Shakhnazaryan,
who can’t be suspected in pro-American sentiments, declared at press
conference in Yerevan. It was informed by Panarmenian.net.
Accordingly to political scientist, Washington did too much for this
to go back.
Accordingly to him, USA has developed 3 directions of actions. `Fist
direction – `punctuated bombing’ accordingly to method used in
Belgrade, when industrial objects get out of the order and
infrastructure suffers destruction. Second – direct land invasion
just like Iraqi scenario, and at last, third direction, `traditional’
– to cause unstable situation inside the country, making Turkish
speaking citizens and Persian speaking ones quarrel and to establish
pro-American regime’, he stressed.
Armenian political scientist said that in last case the role of
Azerbaijan increases, on the borders of which Turkish speaking
population of Iran is living numbering `12-16 mln.’. `Upcoming visit
of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mamadyarov, to
USA is connected with possible participation of Azerbaijan in solving
of Iranian issue’, Melik-Shakhnazaryan stressed.
Political scientist also pointed out that USA’s allies for Iranian
campaign may be Israel, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Armenia will under no
circumstances join it as authorities of the country are not suicides.
If Baku joins Iranian campaign then Washington will grant bonus to
Azerbaijan not in the form of regulation of Nagorni Garabagh conflict
in favor of Azerbaijan, but in the form of part of Iranian territory,
as Armenian lobby in USA is strong enough.
However Armenia, as political scientist thinks, will be loser
whatever the case may be. `No matter what USA does regarding Iran,
isolation of Armenia will be complete. Unfortunately, this way
Armenia can change nothing. We have very influential diaspora, which
should take steps to prevent complete isolation of the country’, said
he adding that US’s attitude towards Armenia is the most loyal. `The
fact that only Armenia is permitted to have commercial affairs with
Iran can’t be disregarded’, said Melik-Shakhnazaryan.
However, Iran won’t be in somebody’s `debt’. Political scientist
underlines that Iranian missiles may freely reach the above states at
the same time Americans need military basis on Middle East. `Even
today Tehran has drawn up plan concerning 900 `objects under attack’
in Israel, Azerbaijan and Georgia. However, not only Armenia can face
humanitarian disaster but also Azerbaijan. No economy will stand such
flow of refugees, especially such economy as Armenian. Don’t forget
that population of Iran is 80 mln., half of which living at the
border with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey’, Melik-Shakhnazaryan
stressed. Armenian political scientist doesn’t rule out even
fantastic variant of developments, that is, possible conquer of Baku
by Iranian military forces.
Omitting some `trifles’, such as number of Azerbaijanis living in
Iran and Melik-Shakhnazaryan’s oblivion concerning active military
actions of allies of Armenians – Kurds – against Iranian governmental
forces, then everything is almost truth. As for conquer of Baku by
Iran, Armenian political scientist went too far. It conflicts with
Armenian interests. Land forces of Turkey, commander of which, Ilker
Bashbug visited Azerbaijan, can march up to Baku. However it hardly
can meet Armenia’s interests. If we take seriously
Melik-Shakhnazaryan’s saying, then aggravation of situation brings
nothing to Armenia…

R. Mirkadirov

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

WORLD BANK ALLOCATES 22 MILLION DOLLAR CREDIT TO ARMENIAN HEALTH SYSTEM

YEREVAN, MARCH 9, NOYAN TAPAN. The World Bank Board of Directors
approved the second credit program of 22 mln USD for modernization of
Armenia’s health system. The credit is provided for 20 years with a
10-year grace period and 75% interest rate. The agreement on credit was
signed on March 9 by the RA Minister of Finance and Economy Vardan
Khachatrian and the WB Yerevan Office’s Acting Director Naira
Melkumian. According to V. Khachatrian, within the program, assistance
will be provided to extend primary health services based on family
medicine and to modernize net of hospitals in marzes. The program’s aim
is to ensure management of risks to public health, accessibility and
quality improvement of health services provided to most vulnerable
groups of the population. Repairs will be done in 50 rural ambulance
stations, and prior to program’s completion the population of marzes
will be provided with high-quality services of family medicine.
According to WB, although some progress has been registered in Armenia
recently in terms of provision of health services, their accessibility
and quality of their use remains low. Citizens use more services of
policlinics and hospitals than primary health care medical
establishments.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The New Anatolian, Turkey
March 10 2007

Armenian historian bows out of Harput dig

The New Anatolian / Ankara

Yusuf Halacoglu, head of the Turkish Historical Society (TTK), stated
yesterday that despite saying earlier he would participate in the
project, an Armenian historian has now decided against jointly
excavating an alleged mass burial site.

Holding a press conference at the TTK’s offices, Halacoglu said that
he had accepted a proposal by Ara Sarafian to work together to look
into allegations of a mass grave. "We have been in contact via
email," said Halacoglu. "In the email I sent him on Feb. 26, I told
him not to take some stories published in papers into consideration.
I proposed we meet face to face to set a date of the work,
principles, those who will participate in the commission and which
archives will be investigated. I also asked him to write in Turkish
as he speaks perfect Turkish."

Halacoglu said that he got a negative reply from Sarafian. "He wrote
that he has been following the developments in the Turkish media and
was sorry he will not be carrying out the common project," said the
historian. "Sarafian said that he thought the project would be
productive for both sides. He wrote, ‘If, contrary to what you said,
well-kept Ottoman archives are lacking, we can’t make any progress,’
adding that he hopes to work together on new projects. Following his
message I sent him an email, but haven’t gotten an answer."

Stating that he received a press release from the Gomidas Institute
on Thursday saying that they couldn’t conduct the research, Halacoglu
said that they were supposed to conduct the research together in line
with the proposal. "We were planning to examine foreign archives, as
well as Ottoman archives and look at the report of then U.S. Consul
Leslie Davis," he said.

Citing an article from the March 2 issue of the Agos newspaper,
Halacoglu said that there was about him, but more important was
another saying, "The diaspora is opposing Sarafian." "I think this
news clearly shows why Sarafian has given up," he said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ISTANBUL GOVERNOR’S OFFICE REFUSES TO ENSURE SECURITY OF ARMENIAN
ESTABLISHMENTS

ISTANBUL, MARCH 9, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. As reported from
Istanbul governor’s office, they cannot ensure security of numerous
Armenian establishments. This statement was made in response to
application of the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople Archbishop
Mesrob Mutafian. The governor office’s letter says that each
establishment shall ensure its own security. Archbishop Mesrob Mutafian
on March 8 inviated heads of Armenian establishments to the
Patriarchate in order to discuss this issue. According to the newspaper
"Marmara" (Istanbul), the patriarch noted that cooperation with private
security services is quite expensive so it is necessary to create a
fund for this purpose. It was decided to form a commission to deal with
the problem of funds.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Swissinfo, Switzerland
March 10 2007

Swiss and Turkish press mull Perinçek verdict

The Swiss media have taken a critical look at trial of Turkish
politician Doðu Perinçek, found guilty on Friday of racial
discrimination over Armenian genocide comments.

In Turkey reactions were strong, with some newspapers condeming with
the verdict. The Turkish Foreign Ministry said it was "saddened" by
the trial’s result.

Perinçek was found guilty by a court in Lausanne, western
Switzerland, of racial discrimination for denying the 1915 Armenian
massacre was genocide. He was handed a suspended fine of SFr9,000
($7,336).

The politician, the head of the left-wing Turkish Workers’ Party,
came before the court after calling the genocide "an international
lie" during a public speech in Lausanne in July 2005.

Armenians maintain the mass killings in 1915 were genocide, a charge
Turkey disputes.

Under the Swiss penal code any act of denying, belittling or
justifying genocide is a violation of the country’s anti-racism
legislation.

The Turkish politician said he would appeal against the verdict.

"Doðu Perinçek had to be punished," wrote the Zurich-based
Tages-Anzeiger on Saturday, adding that Perinçek had deliberately
provoked the trial. It also criticised Perinçek’s "overbearing and
arrogant behaviour".

But it warned that the verdict was not water tight, raising doubts
over whether the appeal court would follow the Lausanne judge’s
reasoning.

Sense and nonsense

Another Zurich newspaper, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), had mixed
views.

The trial had not made sense because a Turkish politician from a
minor party had been judged on behaviour more relevant in his own
country, it said. In addition the trial had given Perinçek a platform
and blighted relations with Turkey.

But the judge had also delivered a consistent judgement, despite
being criticised for using historians’ views rather than medical or
technical knowledge, wrote the editorialist.

"Nevertheless, the government is still free to avoid using the world
"genocide" out of foreign (trade) considerations," it noted.

The Geneva-based Le Temps described the judgement as one on memory.

"The Lausanne judgement does not make history. It gives the Armenians
a protection of [their] memory that has already been recognised for
the Shoah victims," it wrote in its editorial.

However, the mass-circulation Blick said it was time for the
government to recognise the mass killings as genocide after the
Lausanne court’s "courageous" verdict.

Referring to Swiss Justice Minister Christoph Blocher’s controversial
attempts to revise the racism law, Blick said Blocher would be better
off recognising the genocide than changing legislation.

"If he keeps on, the other six [cabinet members] should at least show
him the red card for this totally unnecessary messing around," said
the newspaper.

For their part, Swiss Turks interviewed in the Basler Zeitung were
restrained in their reaction, with most welcoming the trial as a way
of opening up debate.

Turkish reaction

The press reaction comes a day after the Turkish Foreign Ministry
sharply criticised the Lausanne verdict, saying it ignored "freedom
of expression". In a statement, the ministry said the Swiss legal
system and the press had been biased.

"The court case was inappropriate, groundless and controversial in
every sense … The verdict cannot be accepted by the Turkish
people," said the ministry in a statement on Friday.

The Saturday editions of Turkish newspapers also had harsh words. The
nationalist press was particularly critical.

"Dishonourable Switzerland" screamed the headline of Gözcü, which
went on to say that the verdict was another proof of European
hypocrisy – Europeans underline the importance of freedom of opinion
but were quick to condemn it.

For its part, the right-leaning Yeni Cag newspaper wrote that
Perinçek’s verdict meant "the whole Turkish nation had been
punished".

Other parts of the media were less severe, but were still widespread
in their coverage. Hürriyet quoted Perinçek as saying his trial had
started a debate in Switzerland over how to judge historical events,
but that he would go to the European Court of Human Rights with his
case.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The New Anatolian, Turkey
March 10 2007

The Swiss are creating a hero out of Perincek

Ilnur Cevik
10 March 2007

A Swiss court has fined controversial Turkish politician Dogu
Perincek for defying Swiss laws by challenging claims that the
Ottoman Turks were involved in an act of genocide against the
Armenians in eastern Turkey at the turn of the last century …
Perincek is also to pay compensation to an Armenian organization for
insulting them.

The claims of the so-called genocide have been a hot issue thanks to
the efforts of the international Armenian lobby. The lobby has pushed
for parliaments to acknowledge the so-called genocide from Latin
America to Europe and the issue is now a major area of confrontation
between Turkey and the United States where a resolution is pending in
Congress that would acknowledge the genocide claims.

So while the Armenian lobby has been pushing Turkey into
confrontation with other states, even countries that are friendly
have come to odds with Ankara over this issue.

But the Armenian lobby has not stopped its offensive. It has managed
to get some parliaments to pass another law that makes it a crime to
reject the claims of genocide. The Swiss Parliament has passed such a
law and there are efforts to get the French Parliament to legislate
such a bill.

The Swiss are supposed to be liberal people and even they have fallen
into a trap of banning a debate on whether such genocide took place.
So they have prosecuted Perincek according to this very controversial
law…

Perincek himself is no angel. He is a controversial person in Turkey
whose views are regarded as extremist and antagonistic. He is one of
these left wing people who have turned into an ultranationalist. They
are called "ulusalci" in Turkey. He has been prosecuted many times in
Turkey and has served long prison terms. He has been responsible for
Maoist publications and founded the extreme left wing Workers Party
(IP), which could not even get one percent of the national vote in
the last elections.

He uses his organization to hit at intellectuals and journalists who
try to advance liberal and reformist views. He is strongly
anti-American and anti-European Union …

But it is sad that the Swiss court has put us in a position where we
as democrats and advocates of freedom of expression have to defend
Perincek against this injustice.

The Swiss are creating a hero out of Perincek and are allowing him to
exploit the current situation. Isn’t this a farce?

It is time we Turks put our resources together to find a way out of
the current mess regarding Armenian claims and this offensive against
us where friends are turning into antagonists. Does anyone have any
innovative views?

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Daily Georgian Times, Georgia
March 10 2007

Georgia’s NATO aspirations

This interview was recently taken by the `Eurasian Home’ a Moscow
based think tank with Mr. Pachulia, head of GORBI Gallup
International, a Georgian based research firm. The verbatim text
follows:

Q. How far can the Georgian leadership go in terms of collaboration
with NATO, including opportunities for placing NATO troops in the
country?

The Georgian leadership has strong support of its population in terms
Georgian NATO relationship at this moment. The consensus about the
benefits that the country could receive after becoming a member
appears mutual but there remain many contradictions. Although
Georgian president Saakshvili and key officials have stated several
times that NATO membership does not necessarily means locating NATO
troops on Georgian territory. However, this argument is not
convincing for NATO bashers outside of the country. Moreover, there
are many homegrown opponents in Georgia who see NATO needing Georgia
and ask whether Georgia really needs NATO?

Nonetheless, and as some pundits believe, Russia can even digest (as
a matter of fact that NATO may end up on its door step, sooner or
later) Georgian membership, but they could not digest the theoretical
possibility of Turkey (via a possible heavy military presence in
Georgia), and from a country that has been a historical rival of
Russia to be some 300 kilometers closer to the Russian borders than
they are at already.

In the meantime, however, striving for NATO is a useful distraction
for the more pressing social and human rights issues facing Georgia.
It is easier to blame the domestic problems of Georgia on the lack of
territorial integrity and the constant meddling that Russia stands
behind in the conflict zones. This becomes a convenient distraction
as to more pressuring problems facing the average citizen such as
problems of human rights, living wages and ever-increasing inflation
(both actual and hidden).

Under normal circumstances, Georgians ambitions would be held in
abeyance until it would clear up its act, and get away from fancy
proclamations that all is well on the home front, and prove it in
fact. NATO does, however, serve in the meantime as a useful function
for the Georgian State. And that NATO standard means more than to
volunteer Georgian troops for the NATO mission in Afghanistan as a
down payment for membership.

Q. To what extent is the Georgian population supportive of NATO
membership?

After the recent expansion of the EU, which even took hold of once
Soviet territory, the majority of those new member states quickly
welcomed NATO membership. Although not a member of the EU, Georgian
has expressed a similar desire to sign on to European structures such
as NATO not only for economic reasons, but to distance itself from
Russia, especially following the recent deterioration of
Georgian-Russian relations and political standoff in late 2006 over
the arrest of alleged Russian military officers who were alleged to
be spies. The ensuring war of words contributed already stressed
relations. Interestingly though, in early 1990s, opinion polls
demonstrated that Georgians were not very eager even to join the EU
and the sentiments were split, however this was due to the fact that
experience of being a member of the USSR was not considered as `good’
and respondents seemed a bit skeptical about future membership of any
club. There must be a reason for a shift in public opinion and not
only because Georgians to buy into NATO as a transparent organization
that has a clear definition in the post-Cold War period. It may be
that Georgians see NATO as a stick not to measure the success of
their government’s efforts to gain membership but a beating stick to
whip the government into line to what are the membership requirements
and how that can improve their lives. Georgians are pragmatic in
nature and more concerned about true democracy and not political
rhetoric.

Interestingly enough, right after NATO’s secretary general’s remark
that `Georgia and Ukraine may become members of NATO in 2009′ this
issue raised debates among different parties and it was understood in
different ways by those with different standpoint dependencies.

A week earlier, Russian ambassador Vyacheslav Kovalenko’s new
initiative even added fuel to the fire with his proposition of
`Moscow wants Georgia to be independent and a neutral state’ and this
could have been heard far and wide. All things considered, its is
pretty pathetic that such proclamation was not heard 16 years ago,
right after Georgia declared independence and started crashing and
burning with the help of Russia and its imbedded agents. However,
better late than never; those years have passed. Now Russia and
Georgia can look back and dwell on them or get on with their lives
and start fresh. The time has passed for finger pointing and trying
to sort out who is guiltier for making a mess of things. In the
meantime bad memories still serve the purpose of keeping a
controversial political relationship, nothing to say about official
Tbilisi accusing Russia of annexing territories of its own country,
and Russian keeping the `breakaway’ regions as their hedge for a
showdown over NATO.

This begs the question as to what the Kremlin really means with its
conception of neutrality, and what price is Georgian willing to pay
for this neutrality, if anything. There are many questions in the
air, and should Georgia and the alleged stakeholders trust such an
initiative? The price could be very high if trust is not forthcoming
and it does not conform to the reality on the ground. More
importantly, however, is what benefits would a vaguely defined
position of neutrality serve when there is the possibility of being
part of a collective security organization in the not-too-distant
future? Georgians see NATO as the cure-all for resolving their
problems with territorial integrity and this overall attitude is
supported by various comments of key members of the US Senate foreign
intelligence committee.

In some respect Georgia is doing quite well at first impression (in
terms of international relationship with NATO and the West,
conducting reforms in the Army, etc). However, one thing that is
often forgotten in the minds of many still remains missing: there is
a need for a public education campaign about NATO, and what benefits
it actually will bring in the future, apart from a collective
security agreement, the sooner results are forthcoming to the average
Georgian the better.

Otherwise, we could find ourselves in the same situation as the
famous quote of the Jewish-American comedian, Grocho Marks (of the
Mark’s Brothers) "I wouldn’t want to join any club that would have me
as a member". In fact, this may be an overstatement but if Georgia
really qualified for membership then Georgia would not need NATO. Not
all Georgians are delusional in understanding that membership for
Georgia is not a serious issue for NATO.

In the final analysis it may be that NATO can find more fertile
ground in Georgia for collaboration and this can be a good example in
bringing Ukraine back to active negotiations and put some color back
into the Orange Revolution whose colors have started to fade and run
because of meddling influence of Kremlin. It goes without saying that
so goes Georgia, so goes other countries in the neighborhood as in
the case of the future pragmatic direction of Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Q. What kind of problems and issues could be solved, thanks to
joining NATO, in terms of general public opinion of (e.g. solving
territorial disputes, etc)?

Perhaps the biggest challenge to membership is not from Russia but
from within: time will resolve the conflict zones and demands of
secessionist governments. Ideally, if all goes well, all parties will
realize that the time has arrived to sit down at the same table of
negotiations, and without outside influences calling the shots.
Tbilisi and its supporters do not need to be drawn into a military
confrontation, the situation could be solved faster than anyone is
willing to expect. Case study of Aslan Abashidze and his little black
sea fiefdom that is still in the minds of those who thought that it
could not be ended because of its closes ties with the inter-circle
of the Kremlin.

Snows are melting due to the arrival of spring, and it is highly
likely if things are not carefully considered on diplomatic fronts,
that the smoking coals could be stirred and everybody knows the
potential fallout. Outsiders have nothing to lose but Georgia has
everything to loose, its statehood, while secessionist governments
and those who blatantly egged them on will lose face and this can
result in lots of unintentional consequences.

Moreover, NATO is a goal – something to aim high in the hope that we
will come closer to the mark. Georgia needs standards, and even if
the sentence to wander is shortened by just a few years in trying to
live up to those standards, then all the extra effort will have been
well worth it. However, one thing is missing and it should be
emphasized as perhaps the weakest link: in the minds of many, mostly
politicians and those looking to belong to the proverbial club with
wannabe members, there needs to be more than just a military
emphasis. Alternatively, there should be more emphasis on the process
in itself that allows for a professional army as part of a civilian
government that actually works.

National Security does not mean an army in isolation but it rather
means democracy; a system where the informed majority of the
population holds their elected leaders accountable, where there is no
doubt that the society is one of a rule of law and not the rule of
men.

As it stands now, Georgian officials on the one hand, are proclaiming
peaceful integration of breakaway regions, and on the other hand they
can see only a united Georgia as being able to enter NATO. Can those
two things happen in this sequence? At this moment, it is hard to
predict, however during the last 3 years several miracles had
transpired in the political life of Georgians, so one could never
know what to expect next (you never know).

Georgian Times

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A new Armenian Genocide bill to be presented to US Senate

ArmRadio.am
10.03.2007 12:12

Democrat Senator Richard Durbin has declared he plans to present a bill on
Armenian Genocide to the Senate, which will `slightly differ’ from the one
presented to the House of Representatives. `Anatolu’ agency reports that
Senator Diana Feinsteier has already expressed support for Durbin’s project.

Congressman Adam Schiff who authored the resolution presented to the House
of Representatives characterized Durbin’s intention as `wonderful.’

The agency informs that the bill waiting for a vote in the House of
Representatives has already been approved by 179 Congressmen.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress