Iran’s electricity network connects to EuropeService: Industry

Iran’s electricity network connects to EuropeService: Industry

ISNA – Tehran
Service: Industry

TEHRAN, Jan.2 (ISNA)-Iran’s electricity network company manager,
Masoud Hojjat informed that connection with Europe’s electricity
network was possible via Russia and Turkey.

"Actually this could be done via Azerbaijan Republic and Georgia
through Armenia as the mediator side," he stated.

Also Iran’s electricity development organization director, Mohammad
Behzad acknowledged that Iran maintained current energy exchange ties
with neighboring countries but was considering initiation of these
ties with Europe as well.

He also informed that two project lines were ready to initiate
the plan.

"One of them is through the Sarakhs border which will be ready by
the end of this year (Iranian year, March.21) and Turkmenistan must
also make the necessary provisions ready in its own land so that we
can transfer energy in better conditions," stated Behzad.

"The other line is through Ardebil province via Azerbaijan," he added.

He also informed that Iran was to install a series of new lines
to Russia.

"The new lines are being constructed through Khouy, Ahar and Jolfa
and the project completion date is estimated within three years. By
then we will have electricity ties," he concluded.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Iran: Iranian-Armenians celebrate New Year 2007

Payvand, Iran
Jan 1 2007

Iranian-Armenians celebrate New Year 2007

Tehran, Jan 1, IRNA-Iran’s Armenian Christian community held a
ceremony at Sarkis church here Sunday night to celebrate New Year
2007. According to estimates, nearly 200,000 Christians are living in
Iran.

Archbishop of Tehran Sebu Sarkissian felicitated the New Year and
wished success and health for the Christians.

He called for establishment of peace and tranquility throughout the
world.

During the ceremony, special prayers were said and religious songs
were played.

At the end of the ceremony, New Year’s bread was distributed among
large number of Iranian Armenians attending the celebration.

The Armenian community goes to churches in Iran on the first day of
January and the Archbishop says New Year prayers.

Photos:

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jan/1006.html

AIPRG Conference on Opening Armenia-Turkey Border

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian International Policy Research Group
P.O. Box 28179
Washington, DC 20038-9998
Contact: Nicole Vartanian
Tel: 202-487-5212
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

GROUNDBREAKING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TO EXPLORE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF OPENING THE ARMENIA-TURKEY BORDER

The border between Armenia and Turkey that was closed in 1993 has
imposed economic and social costs on both countries, while possibly
providing benefits to particular segments of each society. The closed
border is becoming more significant from a geopolitical perspective in
light of the Republic of Turkey’s ongoing campaign to join the
European Union and increased attention to developments in the
transportation network of the south Caucasus region.

To explore the important issue of the closed border and the economic
and social costs and benefits that it has imposed, the Armenian
International Policy Research Group (AIPRG) has organized a conference
entitled `The Economic and Social Consequences of Opening the
Armenia-Turkey Border,’ to be held on January 13-14, 2007, in Yerevan,
Armenia. Co-sponsored by USAID, the Eurasia Foundation, and the UK
Embassy in Armenia, the conference will present findings from six
commissioned studies and nine other papers that aim to provide
policymakers with an understanding of the costs of the current
situation and the economic and social changes that border opening
might bring, as well as ways that benefits could be maximized and
costs be minimized once the border is opened. An international group
of researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders will participate
in the event as both presenters and audience members, hailing from
Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Cyprus, Georgia, Romania, Turkey, the
United Kingdom, and the United States. A robust discussion of this
regionally and globally important topic is expected.

The conference papers evaluate a range of economic and social
impacts. Several studies explore the effect of the closed border on
transport costs and trade flows. One of these studies proposes a
phased strategy for opening the border that is economically beneficial
and also preserves or enhances security for the two countries, as well
as other countries in the region that will be impacted (Georgia, Iran,
and Russia). Another study evaluates the potential for trade between
Armenia and various Turkish provinces and makes a surprising yet
plausible finding.

Additional findings relate to:
– The impact of the lack of normalized relations between Armenia and
its neighbors on foreign direct investment and military spending. An
end to the regional `cold war’ would lead to a reduction in the level
of external conflict risk, increase the level of foreign direct
investment in Armenia by 50%, and result in a significant reduction in
military spending that could be spent on other important social needs.
– The effect that border opening and relationship normalization could
have on regional migration and expansion of labor market opportunities.
– The sectors of the Armenian economy which might win or lose from
border opening.
– The challenges facing the public and private sectors in managing
border opening.
– The factors affecting Armenian public attitudes towards border
opening, particularly in the northwestern Armenian community of Gyumri.
– The dynamics and outcomes of border opening, with a case study of
the opening of the internal Cyprus border.

Serving as distinguished keynote speaker of the conference is Dr. Gary
Hufbauer, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Institute of
International Economics. Prior to his appointment at IIE,
Dr. Hufbauer served as the Marcus Wallenberg Professor of
International Finance Diplomacy at Georgetown University as well as
Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Trade and Investment
Policy of the U.S. Treasury. He has written extensively on
international trade, investment, and tax issues. The conference will
also present a roundtable discussion on border opening that will bring
together private-sector businesspeople from b ditional information
about the conference and AIPRG is available at

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AIPRG is a non-partisan, non-political association that researches and
encourages the dissemination of discussion of public policy issues in
Armenia and the Diaspora. AIPRG aims to consolidate the existing
Armenia related expertise around the world by bringing together
accomplished researchers and practitioners of economics, political
science, law, and governmental affairs. By way of research and
conferences, AIPRG collaborates with Development Agencies,
International Financial Institutions, the donor community, individual
researchers, and policy practitioners in order to achieve a greater
understanding of the development issues related to Armenia and the
Diaspora. Registered as a 501(c)3 corporation in Washington, AIPRG has
an office in Yerevan and unites over 40 Fellows from around the world.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

http://www.aiprg.net
www.aiprg.net.

The misguided execution of Saddam Hussein

The misguided execution of Saddam Hussein

09:51|30/ 12/ 2006

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Marianna Belenkaya) –
Saddam Hussein has been put to death. The execution of a head of
state, even if a toppled one, is an unusual event and is bound to
provoke a strong reaction.

The trial of the Iraqi dictator became an important signal to all
heads of state, a warning that sooner or later they will be called to
account for their actions. Nobody will get away with crimes like the
ones for which Saddam was tried. Heads of state are not immune and
will have to answer for their deeds. However, extremists can now
exploit his execution at a time of total chaos in Iraq to escalate the
violence in the country and throughout the Middle East.

Moreover, the legitimacy of the verdict is questionable.

Hussein is definitely guilty of crimes against his own people, which
is why hundreds of Iraqis crowded around the government building
demanding that they be allowed to carry out the court’s ruling. They
wanted to avenge the deaths of their relatives during Hussein’s rule.

Iraq’s Kurds and Shias, Hussein’s political opponents irrespective of
nationality and religion, and the people of Iran and Kuwait can say
that justice has been done.

This may be so, but it has left a bitter aftertaste. The situation
reminds me of the recent death of another dictator, Augusto Pinochet,
who, although charged with crimes against humanity, was never
tried. The trial was called off because of the dictator’s old
age. When he died, hundreds of his opponents said they were sorry
Pinochet had died without a trial and a sentence. They wanted a legal
punishment rather than his death.

Unlike Pinochet, Hussein was sentenced to death, yet not all of his
crimes have been proven in court.

Hussein was charged with crimes committed during more than a dozen
incidents but only sentenced to death for the massacre of 148 Shias in
the village of Dujail in 1982. After handing down this sentence, the
court began proceedings against Saddam and his accomplices for the
genocide of 182,000 Kurds in Al-Anfal, where chemical weapons were
used during an army operation in 1988. Other cases have not yet gone
to court.

These trials can still be held after the dictator’s execution, but we
may never know what happened during his rule.

Hussein is definitely guilty of the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and
of the wars against Iran and Kuwait launched on his orders or with his
silent approval. But his actions were in some cases part of a greater
regional game involving other players.

For example, during the Anfal trial in late December, the court read
out the orders from Nazzar Abdel Karim Feysal, then chief of the Iraqi
general staff, to the commanders of the 1st and 5th corps of the Iraqi
army, in which he instructed the Iraqi officers to "cooperate with
Turkey in accordance with the cooperation protocol."

The details of the protocol were not made public, and the alleged
cooperation of Iraq and Turkey in the genocide of the Kurds has not
been officially proven. If it is, the consequences could be
tremendous.

The trial of Hussein could have revealed many more secrets.

For example, the media often write that on July 25, 1990, the U.S.
ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, was summoned to the dictator’s
office for "comprehensive political discussions" before the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait on August 2. Glaspie allegedly told Hussein: "We
have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait."

The "border disagreement" later turned out into a full-scale
aggression and became the beginning of the end for Hussein. The Iraqi
dictator became the arch-enemy of the United States, although
American-Iraqi relations had seemingly been on the rise before the
Kuwaiti campaign.

Several weeks before the war, a delegation of U.S. senators visited
Baghdad to assure the Iraqi authorities of Washington’s goodwill. This
visit took place after the Dujail massacre and the use of chemical
weapons against Kurds in Anfal. Or didn’t Washington know about that?

Not surprisingly, this was only one example of the international
community turning a blind eye to suspect events in the interests of
big-time politics. There are dozens of such examples in Iraqi
history. Iraq’s Kurds suffered most and have been let down by the
Untied States more than once.

In short, as is the case with any leader, many people in Iraq and
outside it might have shared the responsibility for Hussein’s
crimes. But this does not matter now that he has been executed, for he
has taken many of his secrets to the grave.

The world could have learned many lessons from Hussein’s
trial. Washington now says that a new era will begin in Iraq after the
dictator’s death, and that the Iraqis will be able to replace the
rules established by Hussein with the rule of law. Is this really
possible?

Many human rights organizations and prominent lawyers have questioned
the legitimacy of the sentence. Hussein’s trial, which was held during
a foreign occupation of Iraq, can hardly be called impartial. A trial
that should have served justice and been fair turned into a banal
settling of accounts. A democratic society cannot be built on this
foundation, and those who want to rewrite history – there are always
such people – will have a chance to turn Hussein from a tyrant into a
hero.

Saddam Hussein said he was a martyr and his impending death was a
sacrifice. I wouldn’t be surprised if Iraqis, whose feelings have
been mixed and distorted by chaos, will remember the dictator with
nostalgia. The world has seen such things before.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may
not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Nationalistic Russians take aim at migrants

Posted on Sun, Dec. 31, 2006

Nationalistic Russians take aim at migrants
ETHNIC VIOLENCE RISING RAPIDLY
By Alex Rodriguez
Chicago Tribune

REUTOV, Russia – Nationalism has been on the rise in Russia, and now
it appears it’s out on patrol.

On a recent Sunday morning, three busloads of Russian teenagers
wearing green armbands emblazoned with the word “Locals” stormed
into a bustling produce market in this Moscow suburb, screaming,
“Down with migrants!” They stalked past aisles of dried fruit and
pickled garlic, singling out traders with non-Slavic faces and
demanding to see passports and proof that their produce was safe. Some
of the teens appeared to be as young as 14. Though they had no
authority, they carried on like immigration agents, barking out
demands and commandeering the market for nearly two hours.

“They were humiliating us, and I don’t know why,” said Zoya
Abdullayeva, 40, a native of Russia’s restive Chechnya province who
sells cabbage at the market. “They looked for anyone with dark hair
and dark skin. It was a circus.” Hatred of foreigners Russia is in
the throes of its worst wave of xenophobia since the 1991 collapse of
the Soviet Union. Ethnic violence is on the rise, nationalist
movements are picking up steam and the government has passed
anti-migrant laws aimed at placating a nation warier than ever about
the place of foreigners in society.

In 2004, 146 non-Russians were victims of ethnic violence, according
to the Sova Center, a Moscow human-rights organization that tracks
ethnic violence in Russia. This year, that figure has soared to 437
attacks on non-Russians, 47 of them killings.

Unable to stem the tide of nationalism, the Russian government has
taken steps that, to some, appear to fan the flames. Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Oct. 5 urged stricter enforcement of Russia’s
immigration laws, citing the need to “protect the interests of
Russian producers and the Russian population at large.”

Deportation of more than 1,000 Georgians followed. Then, at Putin’s
request, the government imposed new restrictions on migrants that ban
them from working at outdoor markets after April 1. The move deals a
severe economicblow to migrants from the Caucasus region and Central
Asia, many of whom work at markets selling produce, clothes and
household goods.

In the long run, the Kremlin will have to reconcile its crackdown on
Caucasian and Central Asian migrants with a dwindling population that
loses an average of 700,000 people each year and labor shortages that
eventually could cripple the economy.

But with parliamentary elections next December and a presidential
election in March 2008, the anti-migrant measures are sure to garner
favor among Russians who say foreigners take away jobs and raise crime
rates. Those sentiments are no longer harbored only by Russia’s
disgruntled and poorly educated; in many ways, nationalism has gone
mainstream.

Dominant idea “In Russia, these xenophobic ideas are shared by
well-educated people, well-educated, politically active youth and even
by academics,” said Alexander Verkhovsky, director of the Sova
Center. “It has become the dominating idea in society, and that’s a
bad sign.”

A year and a half ago, Sergei Fateyev quit his job as an economist at
a quasi-governmental company in suburban Moscow and formed Mestnye,
the Russian word for “locals.” The group takes aim at migrants who
“violate our laws and traditions,” Fateyev said during an interview
at a posh nightclub in downtown Moscow.

His group began with 250 members. Today it is 150,000-strong and
enjoys the backing of the governor of the Moscow region, Boris
Gromov. The raids carried out by Mestnye on Nov. 26 involved 6,500
members descending on 20 suburban Moscow markets. Traders at the
Reutov market said some Mestnye teenagers took over trading stalls,
shouting, “Don’t buy goods from migrants — buy from Russian
traders!”

While Fateyev’s group is just beginning to build steam, Alexander
Belov’s Movement Against Illegal Immigration already is a national
phenomenon.

Adding fuel to fire

Belov is the poster child for Russian nationalism. When an Aug. 29 bar
fight between Russians and Chechens ignited a wave of riots in the
northern town of Kondopoga, Belov and his activists appeared on the
scene to rev up anger toward local Chechens. Russians responded by
firebombing Caucasian-owned restaurants and businesses, prompting
scores of Chechens and other Caucasian migrants to flee.

Belov, 30, calls Russia’s problem with migrants “a disease that needs
to be cured right now. I’d even say it’s a little too late.”

What worries human-rights advocates like Verkhovsky is that the
majority of Russians espouse the same nationalist sentiments Belov
preaches. Accordingto a recent poll from the Levada Center in Moscow,
54 percent of respondents backed the nationalist slogan “Russia for
Russians.” Fifty-two percent support restricting the number of
migrants who can enter Russia.

Nationalism is especially prevalent among Russia’s youth, who did not
grow up in a Soviet system where Tajiks, Armenians, Georgians, Uzbeks
and Kyrgyz were all Soviet citizens. Their identification with ethnic
Russia, with Russian culture and the Russian Orthodox Church has
strengthened in post-Soviet times. More recently, it has been
kick-started by Putin’s push for Russians to regain a sense of
national pride.

For many Russians, however, national pride has given way to
nationalism, human-rights advocates say.

© 2006 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources.

http://www.mercurynews.com

Academic in Trouble for Ataturk Speech

Associated Press
Dec 31 2006

Academic in Trouble for Ataturk Speech

By SUZAN FRASER
Associated Press Writer

When political science professor Atilla Yayla questioned the legacy
of the revered founder of modern Turkey, nationalists called him a
traitor and his university suspended him.

Yayla said he was punished for shattering a taboo: daring to
criticize Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a leader so idolized that his
portrait hangs in all government offices, life stops for a minute
every year on the anniversary of his death 68 years ago, and his
ideas are still the republic’s most sacred principles.

"There was a lynching campaign against me," Yayla recalled recently
in his office surrounded by books on liberal thought.

In a Nov. 18 speech, Yayla said that the era of one-party rule under
Ataturk, from 1925 to 1945, was not as progressive as the official
ideology would have Turks believe but was "regressive in some
respects."

The uproar that ensued shows how Turkish universities, most of them
state-controlled, are not always places where ideas float freely.
Anyone deviating from the set of principles inspired by Ataturk and
closely guarded by the military, bureaucracy and judiciary, is
chastised and, in some cases, fired.

Ataturk was a soldier and statesman who founded secular and
Westward-looking Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in 1923.

He set about on a series of secular reforms that imposed Western
laws, replaced Arabic script with the Latin alphabet, banned Islamic
dress and granted women the right to vote. The country he founded is
frequently held up as an example that democracy can exist in a
predominantly Muslim country.

"As an academic, I must be free to think, to search and share
findings," Yayla, 50, said in an interview at the Ankara-based
Association for Liberal Thinking, an organization he co-founded in
1994. "If Turkey wants to be a civilized country, academics must be
able to scientifically criticize and evaluate Ataturk’s ideas."

Yayla’s ordeal is a reminder of how Turkey is still grappling with
ensuring basic freedoms – one of the main problems it must address if
it wants to realize its ambition of joining the European Union.

Many European observers think academic and artistic freedoms still
clash too often with patriotic rhetoric. Novelist Orhan Pamuk, before
winning the 2006 Nobel Prize for literature, stood trial for
"insulting Turkishness" after telling a Swiss newspaper that 1
million Armenians were killed on Turkish territory in the early 20th
century. Turkish authorities say the number is greatly inflated and
often cited out of the context of the violence surrounding the fall
of the Ottoman Empire.

The trial, like many of its kind, was dismissed on a technicality.

Another writer was recently charged with insulting Ataturk because he
wrote that the leader fled an assassination attempt dressed in
women’s clothing.

Yayla has insisted he was not insulting Ataturk but questioning the
rigid way some followers interpret his principles.

"Some people have created a cult of Ataturk, but by doing this, what
they want to do is not to revere Ataturk but rather to … give
themselves an undisputed position in political life," he said. "That
is what I cannot accept."

Gazi University’s chancellor, Kadri Yamac, bowed to public pressure
and temporarily removed Yayla from his teaching post pending the
outcome of an investigation, saying a professor "does not have to
like Ataturk but I cannot allow a person who is opposed to the
republic’s main principles to educate students."

The professor also has his supporters. Academics have signed a
petition to have him reinstated. A group of protesters wearing masks
bearing Yayla’s image sent the university chancellor a parcel
containing sticky tape – to "gag professors."

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

President Kocharyan visits Yerablur

President Kocharyan visits Yerablur

ArmRadio.am
30.12.2006 14:55

This morning RA President Robert Kocharyan visited `Yerablur’ pantheon
to pay homage to the memory of victims of the Artsaki war. The
President was accompanied by RA Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan,
Secretary of the Presidential Council on National Security, RA Defense
Minister Serge Sargsyan, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, NA Chairman
Tigran Torosyan, Head of the National Security Service Gorik Hakobyan,
other senior officials and servicemen.

They laid flowers at the graves of Commander Andranik, Vazgen Sargsyan
and the monument to the victims of the Artsakhi war.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Horrors of the Holocaust bring Jews closer to their faith

Providence Journal, RI
Dec 31 2006

Horrors of the Holocaust bring Jews closer to their faith

01:00 AM EST on Sunday, December 31, 2006

He told me that the columns I’d written about Auschwitz and Dachau
had moved him deeply. `What happened in those places was a horror
show,’ he said. Then he added this:

`But the whole idea of gas chambers, a lot of that was just myth.’

He went on: `Many of the claims surrounding the camps are just
atrocity propaganda.’

I don’t often write a series of three columns on the same subject,
but in this case, I was drawn to explore it one more time.

Two weeks ago, the Holocaust deniers’ conference in Iran prompted me
to revisit the words of camp survivors I’d interviewed over the
years. After that article appeared, I heard from an aging Catholic GI
who had helped liberate Dachau, so last week, I told his story.

Those columns brought several phone messages from people questioning
the Holocaust. One such caller went on for almost 10 minutes.

I’ll tell you what left me most surprised about him. You expect such
people to be angry and less educated. But he was respectful, measured
and articulate. He signed off by saying, `I’ve always liked your
column, and I thank you for your time. I hope you have happy holidays
and God bless.’

He did not leave a name, but I’d like to have a conversation with him
today. Let me begin with some of what he told me.

`In Europe,’ he said, `you can insult Muslims, insult Christians, but
if you question one iota of the Holocaust, you’re subject to censure,
fines and imprisonment. You’re a heretic questioning holy writ, and
that’s a thought-stopping smear.’

He went on: `I can’t imagine the horror that went on in those places.
But the living in Germany today should not be unfairly demonized for
things that may or may not have happened.’

He talked about the deaths.

`Did millions of Jews die in the camps? Most certainly, and in a
gruesome fashion.’ But he said it wasn’t intentional – these were
meant to be work camps. Many, if not most, of the deaths, he said,
were from starvation after allies bombed rail-lines. `The food just
ran out when trains couldn’t get to the camps anymore.’

Typhus, he added, caused many camp deaths, and he said that the real
function of any gas chambers were not to kill prisoners, but to kill
the typhus. The infamous Zyklon-B gas used at places like Auschwitz,
he said, was a known pesticide.

Finally, he said he didn’t care much about Middle East politics, but
claimed that Holocaust `exaggerations’ have long been used to keep
anyone from questioning Israel in any way.

`What happened wasn’t right,’ he concluded. `It just wasn’t as
malevolent as people claim it was.’

How to respond?

Let me start by saying he got me thinking about laws in Germany and
other countries that make Holocaust denial a crime. On the one hand,
such speech can incite anti-Semitic extremists, in the same way that
radical Muslim clerics can incite terrorism. But I can see how
imprisoning Holocaust questioners could backfire by punishing
controversial ideas.

As for the rest of what he said, well, for starters, Zyklon-B was
indeed a pesticide, but even Nazi officials have testified its
cyanide component made it effective for mass killing in gas chambers.
And there are libraries of evidence showing that Hitler planned and
implemented a `final solution’ of the `Jewish problem.’ Frankly,
`proving’ the Holocaust is as easy as talking to survivors with
tattooed numbers on their arms.

So with the little space I have left, I’d like to address a question
that I think is more central.

Why do people bother to question the Holocaust? In the Arab world and
elsewhere, it seems to be a suspicion that Jews obsess on the death
camps to gain sympathy for Israel.

I don’t think that’s true. Partly, it’s the same reason people
`obsess’ about, oh, events ranging from the Civil War to 9/11 – these
are important parts of history with cautionary lessons for today.

But there’s an even deeper reason Jews focus on the Holocaust that
few understand.

Although it happened less than 70 years ago, many Jews have begun to
see it as their faith’s version of the Crucifixion. A thousand years
from now, if Jews survive, it will likely remain that sacred.

Why focus on something so sad as a centerpiece of identity?

You could ask the same question of Christians: Why focus on Christ’s
terrible death? Much of it, of course, is the theology that He died
for people’s sins. But I’ve come to realize that every people finds
it important, even shaping, to remember and honor the deepest
suffering of their kind.

I once wrote an almost too-graphic column about the horrible things
done to Armenians when more than a million were killed in a genocide
by Turks from 1915 to 1917. I wondered if Armenian readers would
chide me for being so grisly in print. Instead, I heard from scores
who thanked me for remembering. Curiously, they were grateful that I
mentioned the most horrible details.

Why? Because such ancestral suffering is central to them.

As the Crucifixion is for Christians.

And the Holocaust for Jews.

It’s not political. It’s a matter of the soul.

And so, to my caller, I thank you for your time, and hope this
holiday season will bring you peace.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

How Washington, London created monster they went to war to Destroy

How Washington and London helped to create the monster they went to war to
destroy
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Sunday Independent/UK
31 December 2006

When they hanged him, he was America’s vanquished foe, likened to
Hitler and Stalin for the murderous evil of his ways. What is
forgotten is that once, for more than a decade, Saddam Hussein was
staunchly supported by the US.

Indeed, it was Washington that supplied him with many of the weapons
of mass destruction the dictator used against his foes – weapons that
one day would serve as a pretext for the US-led invasion that toppled
him.

The dealings between the US and Saddam’s Iraq over the quarter of a
century before 2003 are a story of deceit, miscalculation and
strategic blunders by both sides. And they began, as they would end,
in the shadow of a common enemy: Iran.

Saddam seized complete power in 1978. Two years later he attacked
Iran, in what he called an "Arab war against the Persians", to
overthrow the Islamic revolutionary regime.

Washington was under no illusions about the brutality of Saddam’s
regime. But as Tehran gained the upper hand in the fighting, he came
to be seen as the lesser of two evils – a vital bulwark against
domination by a radical, anti-Western Iran of the strategically vital
Gulf region, with its colossal oil reserves.

Quietly, the US delivered the technology, weapons and logistical
support to prevent Iraq’s defeat. Its policy was symbolised by the
cordial meeting in Baghdad in December 1983 between Saddam and a
certain Donald Rumsfeld, then President Reagan’s special envoy to the
Middle East. Two decades later, as Secretary of Defence, he would plan
the invasion that toppled Saddam.

American assistance often took the form of dual-use technology that
had legitimate civilian uses, but which Washington was well aware
could (and would) be used on the battlefield. US intelligence also
provided Iraqi commanders with crucial information on Iranian troop
movements.

American backing grew ever more explicit. In 1982, the administration
ignored objections in Congress and removed Iraq from its list of
countries supporting terrorism. By November 1983, the National
Security Council had issued a directive that the US should do
"whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent an Iranian
victory. Washington did nothing to deter Saddam’s use of chemical
weapons.

As the 1980s progressed, a clandestine network of companies developed
in the US and other countries to help the Iraqi war effort. The
conflict between Iraq and Iran ended in 1988, but Saddam continued his
Western-supported military build-up until the very moment he invaded
Kuwait in August 1990.

It would be the turning point. Until then, the US had dealt with
Saddam in the context of keeping Iran at bay. Thereafter, however, the
Iraqi dictator was the enemy in his own right. The irony, of course,
was that America’s previous support encouraged him to think he could
get away with annexing Kuwait.

Indeed, just a week earlier, on 25 July 1990, the American ambassador,
April Glaspie, had met Saddam. According to a transcript of the
meeting, she informed him that Washington had no opinion on Arab-Arab
conflicts, "like your border disagreement with Kuwait".

The US-led coalition drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait in a 100-hour
ground war, but the first President Bush decided not to press on to
Baghdad, creating the stalemate that in one form or another continued
until 2003. In the meantime, however, the truth gradually emerged
about how the US (and Britain) helped to create the monster they had
now half-slain.

Events thereafter make familiar reading: Saddam’s moves against the
Kurds and the Shias, as the first President Bush encouraged them to
rise up but did nothing to support them; a dozen years of sanctions
that brought misery on ordinary Iraqis but not to the regime; and
Operation Desert Fox in 1998, as the US and Britain launched their
heaviest air attacks until the 2003 war itself.

All the while, Saddam remained in power. Almost from the moment he
came to office, the second President Bush had his eye on finishing his
father’s business.After a three-week ground war he was duly
overthrown. But in doing so, the US has achieved exactly what it
sought to prevent when it backed him in the 1980s.

It is a matter of debate whether Iraqis are now worse off than under
Saddam’s dictatorship. The chaos in their country, however, has
produced one undisputed winner: an unchecked Iran, more menacing today
than in Ayatollah Khomeini’s time.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Strumenti di Pace Live

RootsWorld, CT
Dec 30 2006

Strumenti di Pace Live

Luca di Volo e Claudia Bombardella

Radici Music Records ()
Strumenti di Pace is built in three cycles: "Grung’s Legend," "The
Legend of Eternal Return" and "Two Days to Easter." "Grung’s" is the
story of an Armenian crane and its wanderings through time. "Eternal
Return" is based on an oriental theory whereby all events re-occur
unchanged for eternity, while "Two Days to Easter" is a reflection on
the deportation of the Jewish population from the Warsaw ghetto.
Musically, the performance revolves around di Volo’s clarinets and
sax contralto and Bombardella’s voice, baritone sax and cello. A
chorus and an orchestra support the work.

The three cycles are each quite different. The first is rather
playful and Eastern in its sound, the musical equivalent of the
bird’s flight. The second Legend is far darker in feeling and
context, taking in elements such as the hymna sung by Crusaders on
their way east, before giving way to fragments of Sufi and Armenian
poetry and music. It all feels medieval, dark and troublesome,
resigned to its fate, save for the six-minute "Shnirele Perele,"
which is rousing and triumphant before giving way to a poignant
melancholy. The last piece starts off fragmented and
pseudo-militaristic, with an extended timpani solo, then there is a
bit of theatrical prose, followed by a wild dance, some vocal solos
and a few other surprises. It is like a trip through war and loss,
through remembrance of times past and horror, and finally to
perseverance and hope. It’s beautiful and varied; a great piece of
music indicative of its subject matter.

This record is not easy listening. The material is dark, the music is
more classical than traditional and the live recording struggles to
find equilibrium between a full chorus and a single voice or a
clarinet solo. But the result will reward the listener who treats
this demanding recording with respect and care, and provide numerous
fulfilling moments. – Nondas Kitsos

Note: This live 1999 performance first appeared as a small
independent release and is now available to the world through Radici
Music.

.shtml

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

http://www.rootsworld.com/0603123/reviews/pace07
www.suoniearmonie.it