Author: Hambardsumian Paul

Talking Turkey about Turkey
By Gerald A. Honigman

KurdishMedia.com
27 May 2004* *

The Turks are upset with Israel these days.

The same folks who have declared over one fifth of their own non-Turk
Kurdish population (over ten million people) to be “non-existent” in
the past (they’re really just “Mountain Turks, don’t you know?) and
have taken steps to outlaw Kurdish language and culture (Arabic is
one of Israel’s two official languages), are allegedly mad at Israel
for going after the Arab terrorist infrastructure in Gaza. These are
the same folks who have killed tens of thousands of Kurds over the
years in the name of their own security, have invaded neighboring
Iraq for similar reasons, etc., etc., and so forth.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I like the Turks, for the most part at least.
But Turkey’s relationship with Israel must not be an unbalanced
affair…something to use when relations are on the downswing with
Syrian Arabs, for example. Now that they’re again on the upswing,
Ankara needs its excuse to back off from the Jews. Gaza schmaza.

Talk about guts…Ankara complains about Israel not wanting Arabs
turning Gaza into a terrorist base and threatens to withdraw its
ambassador–while Israel has agreed in theory to an Arab state being
set up there–but totally nixed the idea of an independent Kurdish
state being set up in adjacent northern Iraq for its own security
reasons. Think about that for a minute. We’ll return with vengeance
to this point a bit later.

So, it’s time to really “talk turkey,” if you know what I mean. Israel
has neglected a brave people who have helped many Jews in the
past. Just ask the hundreds of thousands in Israel who originated in
Iraq. Israeli leaders have done this largely to not anger the Turks
over this painful issue. So the Turks’ policies towards the Kurds
were treated in a hands off manner.

If the Turks, however, insist on joining the rest of the world in
applying hypocritical double standards towards the Jewish State, the
time has come for certain truths to at long last come out in the open.
So let’s begin…

The ink had barely dried on the exchanged letters between President
Bush and Prime Minister Sharon back in April 2004 over the Gaza
disengagement plan when the State Department masters of foggy
doublespeak began to whittle away at any real progress that may have
been made.

While I welcomed President Bush’s apparently fleeting April2004 remarks
about Israel not having to return to those 1949 U.N.-imposed armistice
lines (and, for the first time, in public, I heard him call them just
that, not “borders”) or not having to consent to national suicide by
allowing millions of real or fudged descendants of Arab refugees a
“right of return” (half of Israel’s Jews originated in “Arab”/Muslim
lands), it could be argued that all of this was very late in the
coming. An earlier dose of these facts of life could have eliminated
the Arab hope of Israel being offered up on a silver platter by its
“friends”–a la Czechoslovakia1938 –and perhaps led them to negotiate
more seriously. I also wish that Mr. Bush would have explained all
of this to much of the world that was watching him on television in
different terms, not simply as “new facts on the ground.”

The territorial adjustments which Israel deserves has to do with
justice…not simply the imposition of power.

The disputed lands in question that Israel came to “occupy” as
a result of renewed Arab hostilities in 1967 (being blockaded–a
casus belli–etc.) were not Arab lands but unapportioned areas of
the original 1920 Palestinian Mandate that all peoples were allowed
to settle in. Top legal scholars such as Eugene Rostow and others
have written extensively about this. Indeed, the League Of Nations
Permanent Mandates Commission and other sources recorded Arabs pouring
into the Mandate from all over the Middle East and North Africa because
of the economic development going on due to the Jews. Any22 nd or23
rd Arab state that might be created — and second, not first, Arab
one within the original 1920 borders of “Palestine” (Jordan emerging
out of the lion’s share in1922 )– must not emerge at the expense of
the security of the sole, miniscule state of the Jews.

So, with all that’s happening with the Iraq mess right now, and in
light of recent developments regarding the Turks, it’s time to put
things into a broader perspective.

Consider, for example, the world wide obsession to create an additional
Arab state (supposedly in the name of “justice”), while Kurds are
still not yet deemed worthy of one. When America finally withdraws
from Iraq, the Arabs will likely take vengeance upon these people
for their friendship and cooperation with Washington.

Now think about this…

Over thirty million Kurds remain stateless today, often at someone
else’s mercy. At a time when much of the world insists that justice
demands that there be yet another Arab state, there is a nauseating
silence–in most of the media, in academia, at the United Nations,
etc.– over the plight of this people.

Spread out over a region which encompasses parts of southeastern
Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other adjoining areas as well, these
modern day descendants of ancient Medes and Hurrians continue to find
themselves in very precarious circumstances.

Kurdish culture and language have periodically been “outlawed”
in attempts to Arabize or Turkify them, and in an age when other
dormant nations/national groups were able to seize the moment with
the collapse of empires, the Kurds were repeatedly denied this chance
by an assortment of so-called “friends” and foes alike.

Having been promised independence after World War I, the Kurds saw
their hopes dashed after the British received a favorable decision from
the League of Nations on the Mosul Question in1925 . Predominantly
Kurdish Mosul and Kirkuk were where much of the oil was located,
and the main arm of British imperial power – the navy – had recently
switched from coal to oil.

The Brits decided that their long term interests involved not angering
the region’s Arabs, who–by their own writings–declared that the
rise of an independent Kurdistan would be seen as the equivalent
of the birth of another Israel. Regardless of scores of millions
of non-Arabs living in the region (including one half of Israel’s
Jews who were from “Arab”/Muslim lands), Arabs declared a political
monopoly over what they regarded as “purely Arab patrimony.” We are
living with the consequences of this mindset today.

Much has been written about America’s abuse of the Kurds, although the
mainstream press, media, academia, and other supposedly “enlightened”
folks have – with some notable exceptions – too often ignored this.

Having stood by our side and aided America continuously over the
decades, the State Department has too often pulled the rug out
from under the Kurds after their immediate “use” was deemed over,
with deadly consequences to this people. And yet, they have remained
strangely loyal to Washington.

While I won’t rehash the disgraceful behavior of much earlier periods,
recent and current policies are sufficient to make the point. And while
I am focusing on America, the rest of the world – for the most part –
has been as bad or worse.

Because America has the power to greatly influence the course of
geopolitics all around the world, my focus is mostly on my own country.
But others–especially Israel, whose people were called to be the
original “light unto the nations”–should pay more attention to this
as well. Regarding the latter, any “help” that Israel might want to
provide might actually, in some ways at least, actually hurt. So this
must be thought out very carefully.

America should always strive to be a shining light. I say this not
out of naivete. America has the power and ability to do this as no
other nation has. All it lacks is the will. And this is largely due
to the clique that runs the Department of State. On the Kurdish issue,
it has assumed Britain’s posture in the post-World War I era vis-a-vis
the Kurds.

Foggy Bottom insists – after hundreds of thousands of Kurds have
been maimed, gassed, and slaughtered in other ways by Arabs just in
Iraq alone over the last several decades (Syrian Arabs have recently
renewed their previous slaughter of Kurds as well) – that Kurds will
never gain independence. The heartland of Kurdistan had been in the
region around oil-rich Kirkuk.

State insists that the Kurds remain part of a united Iraq, regardless
of the bloody consequences this will probably have for them in the
future yet again. And while I hope I’m wrong, I doubt it.

America’s federal dream, while looking good on paper, has largely
been rejected by the Arabs themselves, be they Shi’a or Sunni. The
majority Shi’a, long suppressed by Saddam, now have other plans.

The Shi’a refuse to grant Kurds any control over their own fate,
regardless of any alleged partial federal agreement achieved so
far with America’s continuous prodding. And Arabs, of any stripe,
are still not about to grant Kurds any real equality. A visit to the
Kurdish Media’s website would be very useful to any and all needing
“enlightenment” in these regards. An article posted by Dr. Hussein
Tahiri’s “The Iraqi Shi’ites: When An Oppressed Becomes Oppressor,”
posted March8 , 2004 in is revealing; and the
site has many other informative essays.

While the formula for a summer 2004 handoff of American power to an
Iraqi government looks reasonable– again, on paper–the reality
is likely to be something far different. I hope I’m wrong, but my
opinions have something to do with tigers changing their stripes or
leopards changing their spots. And those tigers and leopards are very
old and entrenched ones, indeed.

The same State Department – which fought President Truman over
America’s recognition of a reborn Israel in 1948 – insists that there
be no partition of Mesopotamia/Iraq. Britain had earlier received
the Mandate for Mesopotamia at the same time it received the Mandate
for Palestine in the post-World War I era. But, unlike Palestine,
which would undergo a number of partitions in attempts to arrive at
a compromise solution between Arab and Jew, a much larger Mesopotamia
was somehow declared to be incapable of doing this for its Kurds.

After World War I, the British were given control of previous Ottoman
territory. Of this vast area, a small piece – they called it Palestine
– was intended for the Jews. In1922 , Colonial Secretary Churchill
chopped off roughly80 % of Palestine, and handed it over to its
Hashemite Arab allies. Purely Arab Transjordan – today’s Jordan – was
thus born. Arabs rejected another partition in 1947 which would have
given them roughly half of the20 % of the land that was left. President
Bush and State today insist that Arabs will get another state, their
second one in “Palestine.”

The main reason put forth for why Mesopotamia/Iraq is incapable
of this sort of partition is the potential for instability it will
cause in the region. Not only will the Arabs be miffed at someone
else gaining national rights in “their” region, but the Turks, in
particular, will supposedly have a fit due to their own large and
suppressed Kurdish minority.

While a strong Turco-American alliance is worthy of support, the
Turks are wrong on this matter, and too many have allowed them to
get away with this for too long. While it is understandable that
they’re nervous about the potential problems, this does not give
them the right to have a veto power over the plight of some thirty
million long-oppressed and abused Kurds. Again, think of the irony
here regarding Ankara’s “concerns” over rejectionist Arabs, who could
have had their additional state decades ago had they just not continued
to work towards the destruction of the sole Jewish one.

An independent Kurdistan set up in northern Iraq – under the right
conditions – might actually be a blessing for the Turks. Those Kurds
– like those Jews, Greeks, Armenians, etc. – wishing to live in an
independent state could migrate to it. An arrangement could also be
made whereby the oil wealth of the area could be shared with the Turks
as well, since they feel they got robbed via the earlier decision by
the League of Nations on the Mosul Question.

Putting things into the broader perspective, consider the following
facts:

The CIA’s Fact Book on the Internet shows Israel to have a population
of roughly 6 million people, of whom about20 % are Arab. Among the
latter are some very hostile elements. Israel’s territory is about20 ,
770sq Km.

Turkey has a population of about 68 million people, of whom about 20%
are Kurds. Turkey’s territory is about780 , 580sq Km. About38 Israels
would fit into Turkey.

Despite Israel’s small size, Foggy Bottom has no problem demanding that
Israel allow the creation of another Arab terrorist state, dedicated
to its destruction, right in its backyard. State continues to ignore
proclamations by even so-called Arab “moderates” that Oslo and all
other such “peace initiatives” are but “Trojan Horses,” steps along the
way in the Arabs’ post-‘ 67destruction in phases strategy for Israel.

Now, how will the fifth of miniscule Israel’s population that is
Arab react to this adjacent potential development? And how will the
majority of Hashemite Jordan, which is also mostly Palestinian Arab
(however you define that, in that many, if not most, “Palestinians”
entered Mandated Palestine from elsewhere in the region during the
Mandatory Period), react to this? Arafat’s boys had already tried
a takeover of Jordan in1970 . They were crushed in King Hussein’s
“Black September.” And Israel’s mobilization in the north sent a
message to the PLO’s Syrian allies at the time as well. Yet the Foggy
Folks seem not to be worried about any destablizing effects here.

The same hypocrites who declare that Israel must grossly endanger
itself so that yet another Arab state might be born insist that Kurds
must remain forever stateless because of some problems their freedom
might cause to a Turkey nearly forty times Israel’s size in territory
and over eleven times its size in population, and with the same80 %
to 20% mix of potential “headaches.”

There’s no defense for this. An ex-State Department career person
contacted me after one of my earlier articles. In our subsequent
correspondence, he told me to just accept the fact that the Kurds
will never be allowed their state, while attacking me, of course,
for my reservations over what State has in store for Israel. He even
brought up the subject of “dual loyalty.” I asked him if he would
say that to some 60 million or so – if not more – Christians who are
saying the same thing that I am. No answer – pathetic.

Regardless of America’s good intentions (and we were correct in ridding
the land of Adolf, I mean Saddam), it’s likely that Iraq will become
even more of a mess – rather like Yugoslavia with the death of Tito,
though I really don’t like mentioning him and Saddam in the same breath
– and more costly over time. Entrenched Arab attitudes – centuries
old – are not likely to change regarding their relationships with
their conquered, non-Arab populations. Any of the latter that have
not agreed to the forced Arabization process – be they Kurd, Jew,
Berber, Black African, Copt, Lebanese, etc. have had major problems
to contend with, often deadly ones.

Asking Kurds to forsake the creation of their one, sole state for the
pipedream of an egalitarian Iraq is a travesty of justice if ever
there was one. Regardless of their religious coloration, the vast
majority of Arabs are in no sharing mood when it comes to questions
about what they see as “purely Arab patrimony.” They’re the rulers,
the rest are the ruled. Period…

Again, when America leaves Iraq, as it will sooner or later, the
backlash will once again fall on the people who supported us the
most–the Kurds. We have left them holding the bag too many times
already.

Think about how the course of history may have been changed if an
Israel existed prior to the Holocaust. You read about the problems with
the Shi’a above. Saddam’s regime was largely Sunni-supported. Abu Musab
Zarqawi, of al-Qaida fame, wrote a letter that was recently intercepted
by U.S. forces in Iraq. He’s the guy who is believed responsible for
the recent slaughter of Shi’a in Baghdad and Karbala. In the letter
he listed four enemies. America, of course, was No.1 . No. 2 is the
Kurds. Here’s what he says about them: They are “…a lump in the
throat and a thorn whose time to be clipped has yet to come.”

Now, while Foggy Bottom demands some two dozen states for Arabs
and actually encourages the good cop/bad cop team of Arafat and
Hamas/Islamic Jihad by at least some of its actions, double standards,
and doublespeak, we all need to think harder about the direction we
want the greatest country on Earth – The United States of America –
to follow regarding the fate of our strangely loyal friends, the Kurds.

The roadmap for Kurdistan is long overdue. And if the Turks can join
the Arab chorus in favor of terrorists bent on Israel’s destruction,
then it’s time for Israel to reconsider its silence regarding the
Kurds as well.

TV chides Oscar-winning Azeri writer for Karabakh interview on BBC web site

ANS TV, Baku
15 Jun 04

[Presenter in studio] It appears that our famous compatriot Rustam
Ibrahimbayov is missing the Armenians who have left Baku. The only
Oscar-winning Azerbaijani, in an interview published on the BBC
Karabakh page, said he recognizes the Armenians’ rights to Karabakh.

[Correspondent Mirsahin over video of the Karabakh page and archive
pictures of Ibrahimbayov] I hadn’t looked at the BBC’s Karabakh
page for some time. And then I thought that maybe this time I would
find something interesting there that would be in the interests
of Azerbaijan as well. My first impressions of the interview by a
famous Azerbaijani author and script-writer, Rustam Ibrahimbayov,
were quite reassuring. It was headlined “It is in the interests of
Karabakh to be Azerbaijan’s”. I thought this is our man and that he
is going to speak about our realities. Having read the interview,
I thought that I should share with you my sentiments as regards some
of the views held by the famous Azerbaijani.

Of course, Rustam Ibrahimbayov is no small man. In fact, the BBC
interviewed him exactly because he is a renowned author, playwright,
script-writer for a number of Soviet cinematography masterpieces
and winner of the Oscar award. And it goes without saying that
the international audience has no reason whatsoever to distrust
such a famous man and listen to a Mirsahin. From this standpoint,
it was a shrewd choice. Rustam muallim [form of address] believes
that the 10 years that have elapsed since the cease-fire accord are
a blessing. Because they serve peace. Even though the cease-fire is
not peace yet and the 10 years more than anything testify to the fact
that Azerbaijan has come to terms with the occupation of its land.

Rustam Ibrahimbayov is making no secret of the fact that he misses
the Armenians who have left Baku. He is sorry that so many intelligent
Armenians have left Azerbaijan. And that people from the countryside
have taken their place. The city is now in the hands of those who
have come from the village. By this utterance the esteemed writer is
taking no heed of the deprivation and grief of those Azerbaijanis who
had to leave their homes, head for an unknown destination and settle
down in Baku. These people are inferior to the Armenians only because
they have come from the countryside.

The playwright thinks it is possible to resolve the Karabakh problem
on the basis of mutual concessions. As a matter of fact, he supports
Karabakh’s independence. This is what he says. I am giving both
sides the right to consider Karabakh their land. I cannot deny the
Armenians this right, end of quote. However, Rustam Ibrahimbayov does
not elaborate whether he is giving the Armenians the right to set
houses on fire, kill the civilian population in the most barbarous way,
rape children and drive out people from their homes.

Baku has lost hundreds of thousands of Bakuvians who were professionals
and loved Baku and Azerbaijan. We know that the Armenians are one
of the most prominent nationalities in the world. They are skilful
professionals. And if they could be involved in the economic
development of the modern Azerbaijan, our country would greatly
benefit from this.

This is said by a resident of Baku and a citizen of Azerbaijan and,
most importantly, a citizen of the world, Rustam Ibrahimbayov. Citizen
of the world Rustam Ibrahimbayov is distancing himself from Azerbaijan
and the Azerbaijanis so much that he is nearing Armenia and the
Armenians.

I personally believe that the fact that well-known Azerbaijanis are
either not seen at all or seen in the wrong light in the world is quite
a serious issue. Let’s compare: Rustam Ibrahimbayov to the Azerbaijanis
is what [singer] Charles Aznavour is to the Armenians. Incidentally,
about a month ago the Armenian national hero award was conferred
on famous Armenian Charles Aznavour for his service to the Armenian
people. Now let’s try to imagine Rustam Ibrahimbayov as the national
hero of Azerbaijan. Doesn’t the idea seem a little funny? Because
Charles Aznavour donates a lot of money that he earns from concerts
in France, Great Britain, Denmark and the United States to Armenia
and the Armenian people. He makes statements in the countries he
visits that Karabakh belongs to the Armenians. And no-one can ever
doubt that an Armenian such as Charles Aznavour can tell a lie. And
naturally people believe him.

No-one will ever doubt what an Azerbaijani such as Rustam Ibrahimbayov
says either. People are destined to believe his statements I quoted
earlier. I may not be familiar with a world citizen’s way of thinking
but let me say quite sincerely that I would give such a citizen a
different passport. Because the ending of the Azerbaijani name of
Ibrahimbayov should be different. To cut the long story short, let
me say that the Azerbaijanis are simple-minded. When they want or
expect a lot and eventually receive a little, they do nothing less
than take offence. We were expecting everything in the world from
Rustam. Instead, he foisted a globe on us, and as the well-known joke
goes, a truly Armenian globe.

Mirsahin, ANS.

Journalist Attackers Fined By Court
By Karine Kalantarian 11/06/2004 12:39

Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep
June 11 2004

A court in Yerevan convicted Thursday two men of involvement in last
April’s unprecedented attack on journalists covering an opposition
rally but stopped short of imprisoning them, fining each of them
100,000 drams ($182) instead.

Ashot Avetisian and Hrair Harutiunian admitted assaulting journalists
and smashing their cameras and were found guilty of “deliberately
damaging property” belonging to other persons. The light punishment was
demanded by city prosecutors who cited “many mitigating circumstances”
such as the defendants’ confession of their guilt. The trial was
dismissed as a farce by some of the journalists subjected to violence
during the April 5 demonstration held in the Armenian capital by the
opposition National Unity Party (AMK). “For me it’s obvious that they
were simply carrying out orders on that day,” one of those reporters,
Anna Israelian of the “Aravot” daily, told RFE/RL. “I still don’t
have an answer to the question of how strictly those carrying out
orders must be punished.

“The pre-trial investigation and the court did not wish to establish
the complete picture of what happened on that day. They just buried
the case.”

The AMK demonstration was nearly disrupted by about two dozen men
who hurled eggs at the party’s leader Artashes Geghamian and set off
firecrackers. Journalists at the scene filmed the attempted disruption
only to have their video and still cameras smashed by the well-built
thugs. According to eyewitnesses, among them an RFE/RL correspondent,
scores of police officers led by General Hovannes Varian stood nearby
and looked on as the ugly scene unfolded. Their conspicuous refusal
to intervene prompted speculation that the violence was engineered
by the Armenian authorities.

Of all journalists questioned in connection with the case only
Israelian has testified that the two defendants were among the
attackers. The two other journalists, including a cameraman for state
television, said they do not remember the men’s faces.

Avetisian and Harutiunian, for their part, refused to be cross-examined
in the court, asking their lawyer to read out their written pre-trial
testimony. They both denied being hired by anyone to stir up trouble
and claimed to have found themselves at the site of the Geghamian rally
“by chance.”

The announcement of the court verdict followed a brief but extremely
tense trial. The small courtroom was packed with about 30 burly men
who appeared to be the defendants’ friends or acquaintances. Several
of them blocked entrance to the courtroom before the start of the
hearings, preventing journalists from entering it and ignoring their
protests. They did not relent even after being approached by the
court chairman, Zhora Vartanian.

“Step aside and let them go in,” Vartanian told them. “Listen to me,
I am the chairman of this court.”

The journalists were allowed to make their way into the courtroom
only 15 minutes later. But two of them, officially listed as
“victims” in the case, walked out shortly afterward in protest
against the psychological pressure exerted by the attackers’ friends.
Police guards showed up only half-way through the trial.

Armenia ratifies accord on Iraq-bound troops’ stay in Kuwait

Mediamax news agency
8 Jun 04

Yerevan, 8 June: The Armenian National Assembly today ratified the
Armenian-Kuwaiti interstate agreement on the status of Armenian armed
forces in Kuwait signed on 15 February 2004.

The chairman of the parliamentary commission on defence, national
security and internal affairs, Mger Shakhgeldyan, said in an interview
with Mediamax news agency that this document outlines conditions for
Armenian servicemen’s presence in Kuwait before being dispatched to
Iraq to participate in the post-war rehabilitation of this country.

Armenian ambassador to the USA Arman Kirakosyan said in an exclusive
interview with Mediamax news agency in April this year that “the
United States and Armenia are holding intensive consultations on
sending Armenian military specialists to Iraq”.

The ambassador recalled that the Armenian side was intending to send
to Iraq a limited contingent of non-combat military specialists to
render assistance in the post-war restoration of the country.

[Passage omitted: more quotes from envoy’s April interview]

National Review Online
June 7 2004

Moscow’s Spring
Ronald Reagan at Moscow State University.

EDITOR’S NOTE: President Ronald Reagan delivered this speech at Moscow
State University on May 31, 1988.

Before I left Washington, I received many heartfelt letters and
telegrams asking me to carry here a simple message, perhaps, but also
some of the most important business of this summit. It is a message
of peace and goodwill and hope for a growing friendship and closeness
between our two peoples.

First, I want to take a little time to talk to you much as I would
to any group of university students in the United States. I want to
talk not just of the realities of today, but of the possibilities
of tomorrow.

You know, one of the first contacts between your country and mine
took place between Russian and American explorers. The Americans were
members of Cook’s last voyage on an expedition searching for an Arctic
passage; on the island of Unalaska, they came upon the Russians,
who took them in, and together, with the native inhabitants, held a
prayer service on the ice.

The explorers of the modern era are the entrepreneurs, men with
vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave
the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are
responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.
They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. In fact,
one of the largest personal computer firms in the United States was
started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage
behind their home.

Some people, even in my own country, look at the riot of
experiment that is the free market and see only waste. What of
all the entrepreneurs that fail? Well, many do, particularly the
successful ones. Often several times. And if you ask them the secret
of their success, they’ll tell you it’s all that they learned in their
struggles along the way — yes, it’s what they learned from failing.
Like an athlete in competition, or a scholar in pursuit of the truth,
experience is the greatest teacher.

We are seeing the power of economic freedom spreading around the
world — places such as the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan
have vaulted into the technological era, barely pausing in the
industrial age along the way. Low-tax agricultural policies in the
sub-continent mean that in some years India is now a net exporter of
food. Perhaps most exciting are the winds of change that are blowing
over the People’s republic of China, where one-quarter of the world’s
population is now getting its first taste of economic freedom.

At the same time, the growth of democracy has become one of the
most powerful political movements of our age. In Latin America in
the 1970’s, only a third of the population lived under democratic
government. Today over 90 percent does. In the Philippines, in the
Republic of Korea, free, contested, democratic elections are the
order of the day. Throughout the world, free markets are the model for
growth. Democracy is the standard by which governments are measured.

We Americans make no secret of our belief in freedom. In fact, it’s
something of a national pastime. Every four years the American people
choose a new president, and 1988 is one of those years. At one point
there were 13 major candidates running in the two major parties, not
to mention all the others, including the Socialist and Libertarian
candidates — all trying to get my job.

About 1,000 local television stations, 8,500 radio stations, and
1,700 daily newspapers, each one an independent, private enterprise,
fiercely independent of the government, report on the candidates,
grill them in interviews, and bring them together for debates. In
the end, the people vote — they decide who will be the next president.

But freedom doesn’t begin or end with elections. Go to any American
town, to take just an example, and you’ll see dozens of synagogues and
mosques — and you’ll see families of every conceivable nationality,
worshipping together.

Go into any schoolroom, and there you will see children being taught
the Declaration of Independence, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights — among them life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, that no government can justly deny —
the guarantees in their Constitution for freedom of speech, freedom
of assembly, and freedom of religion.

Go into any courtroom and there will preside an independent judge,
beholden to no government power. There every defendant has the right
to a trial by a jury of his peers, usually 12 men and women — common
citizens, they are the ones, the only ones, who weigh the evidence and
decide on guilt or innocence. In that court, the accused is innocent
until proven guilty, and the word of a policeman, or any official,
has no greater legal standing than the word of the accused.

Go to any university campus, and there you’ll find an open, sometimes
heated discussion of the problems in American society and what can
be done to correct them. Turn on the television, and you’ll see
the legislature conducting the business of government right there
before the camera, debating and voting on the legislation that will
become the law of the land. March in any demonstrations, and there
are many of them — the people’s right of assembly is guaranteed in
the Constitution and protected by the police.

But freedom is more even than this: Freedom is the right to question,
and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing
revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows us
to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put
forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire
among the people. It is the right to stick – to dream – to follow
your dream, or stick to your conscience, even if you’re the only one
in a sea of doubters.

Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority
of government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual
life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put on this world
has been put there for a reason and has something to offer.

America is a nation made up of hundreds of nationalities. Our ties to
you are more than ones of good feeling; they’re ties of kinship. In
America, you’ll find Russians, Armenians, Ukrainians, peoples from
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. They come from every part of this
vast continent, from every continent, to live in harmony, seeking a
place where each cultural heritage is respected, each is valued for its
diverse strengths and beauties and the richness it brings to our lives.

Recently, a few individuals and families have been allowed to visit
relatives in the West. We can only hope that it won’t be long before
all are allowed to do so, and Ukrainian-Americans, Baltic-Americans,
Armenian-Americans, can freely visit their homelands, just as this
Irish-American visits his.

Freedom, it has been said, makes people selfish and materialistic,
but Americans are one of the most religious peoples on Earth. Because
they know that liberty, just as life itself, is not earned, but a
gift from God, they seek to share that gift with the world. “Reason
and experience,” said George Washington in his farewell address,
“both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principle. And it is substantially true,
that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”

Democracy is less a system of government than it is a system to keep
government limited, unintrusive: A system of constraints on power to
keep politics and government secondary to the important things in life,
the true sources of value found only in family and faith.

I have often said, nations do not distrust each other because they
are armed; they are armed because they distrust each other. If this
globe is to live in peace and prosper, if it is to embrace all the
possibilities of the technological revolution, then nations must
renounce, once and for all, the right to an expansionist foreign
policy. Peace between nations must be an enduring goal — not a
tactical stage in a continuing conflict.

I’ve been told that there’s a popular song in your country —
perhaps you know it — whose evocative refrain asks the question,
“Do the Russians want a war?” In answer it says, “Go ask that silence
lingering in the air, above the birch and poplar there; beneath those
trees the soldiers lie. Go ask my mother, ask my wife; then you will
have to ask no more, ‘Do the Russians want a war?'”

But what of your one-time allies? What of those who embraced you on
the Elbe? What if we were to ask the watery graves of the Pacific,
or the European battlefields where America’s fallen were buried
far from home? What if we were to ask their mothers, sisters, and
sons, do Americans want war? Ask us, too, and you’ll find the same
answer, the same longing in every heart. People do not make wars,
governments do — and no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her
sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology. A
people free to choose will always choose peace.

Americans seek always to make friends of old antagonists. After
a colonial revolution with Britain we have cemented for all ages
the ties of kinship between our nations. After a terrible civil war
between North and South, we healed our wounds and found true unity
as a nation. We fought two world wars in my lifetime against Germany
and one with Japan, but now the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan
are two of our closest allies and friends.

Some people point to the trade disputes between us as a sign of
strain, but they’re the frictions of all families, and the family of
free nations is a big and vital and sometimes boisterous one. I can
tell you that nothing would please my heart more than in my lifetime
to see American and Soviet diplomats grappling with the problem of
trade disputes between America and a growing, exuberant, exporting
Soviet Union that had opened up to economic freedom and growth.

Is this just a dream? Perhaps. But it is a dream that is our
responsibility to have come true.

Your generation is living in one of the most exciting, hopeful times
in Soviet history. It is a time when the first breath of freedom stirs
the air and the heart beats to the accelerated rhythm of hope, when the
accumulated spiritual energies of a long silence yearn to break free.

We do not know what the conclusion of this journey will be, but
we’re hopeful that the promise of reform will be fulfilled. In this
Moscow spring, this May 1988, we may be allowed that hope — that
freedom, like the fresh green sapling planted over Tolstoy’s grave,
will blossom forth at least in the rich fertile soil of your people
and culture. We may be allowed to hope that the marvelous sound of
a new openness will keep rising through, ringing through, leading to
a new world of reconciliation, friendship, and peace.

Thank you all very much and da blagoslovit vas gospod! God bless you.

The Observer / Guradian (UK)
June 6 2004

Ask the experts
Our Lonely Planet experts, Tom Hall and Fiona Christie, answer your
travel queries

[parts omitted]

I plan an autumn trip to Armenia, and want to go by train from there
to see England play Azerbaijan in a World Cup qualifier in Baku in
October. But I’m told I will have to travel via Tbilisi in Georgia
as the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan is closed due to a
territorial dispute.

As the situation between the two countries is tense, is there a
problem visiting Azerbaijan with an Armenian visa and entry stamp in
my passport?

Geir Engene, by email

Though you should clarify this with the Azeri Embassy (020 7938 3412)
closer to the time, the only visa stamp which will prevent your entry
into Azerbaijan is that of the breakaway enclave of Nagorno Karabakh,
which you’re highly unlikely to visit anyway.

Otherwise, you shouldn’t have any problems travelling from Armenia
to Azerbaijan via Georgia.

Of the three Caucasus countries, Armenia is the safest and easiest
to visit.

Lake Sevan and the Dilijan forests are wonderful natural sights,
but it’s the history of ancient monasteries at Tatev and Sanahin and
the hundreds of stone monoliths at Zorats Karer that really make the
trip special.

British Mediterranean flies from London direct to Yerevan. Flights
cost from £460, including taxes. Book through British Airways (0870
850 9850; ).

It’s also possible to fly from Cologne to Tbilisi in Georgia with the
German budget airline Germania Express (00 49 805 737 100; )
for £253 return including taxes.

The rival German Wings () flies from London to
Cologne for as little as £4, so this could prove the cheapest route
for you.

“Aztag” Daily Newspaper
P.O. Box 80860, Bourj Hammoud,
Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: +961 1 258529
Phone: +961 1 258529, +961 1 260115, +961 1 241274
Email: [email protected]

AZTAG: Interview with Igor Mouradian

Interview by Khatchig Mouradian

Eighth of May 2004

Igor Mouradian has played a key role in the early stages of
the struggle for self-determination in Karabagh. A member
of The International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS), Dr. Mouradian is also the author of a number of
books, in Russian, about geo-politics and geo-economics (
).
I spoke to him in Beirut.

Aztag- What is your take on the current ruling elite in Georgia?

Igor Mouradian- It was clear from a long time that the culinary change
in Georgian politics will be connected to the right forces not to
the leftist ones. The right in Georgia would become the most popular
and the most active in the political arena. This has something to do
with the connection with the United States. Georgia was always keen
to demonstrate its orientation towards the west. However, this was
only declaration; the orientation was only towards the U.S. However,
the U.S. is maintaining a very rigid framework in its international
politics in general and regional politics in particular. Some people
think that the U.S. politics is very wide, but it’s an illusion. The
interest of Georgia and other countries in the region cannot really
fit into the framework of U.S. interest, and the situation is dramatic
for this very reason.

Armenia has chosen a different path. Some analysts accuse Armenia of
being isolated. This is rubbish. Either these people do not understand
the realities on the ground, or they’re simply lying. In fact, Armenia
has a well-balanced international policy. Because of their policies,
Georgia and Azerbaijan are much more isolated than Armenia. The
main problem of Georgia is that the regime is not adequate. The
ruling elite is more than a marionette, it is extremely dependant on
foreign signals. It is not capable of creating long-term international
policies, because the U.S. is demanding that they quickly solve very
important issues. The new Georgian president does not really understand
the problems of the Georgian foreign policies.

Aztag- What are these problems?

Igor Mouradian- This country has chosen its main political and
economic profile, which is based on the development of transit and
services. If they want to succeed as a transit country, they should
be keen on establishing good relations with their neighbors. Georgia
cannot really develop the model it had chosen when it is in conflict
or confrontation with Russia. Of course, one can understand why the
Georgian elite is behaving in this way: Russia has been carrying
forward inconsistent policies in the area, and it has done little to
improve its relations with Georgia.

The main problem that the Georgian politics is facing at the moment
is not Adjaria or Abkhazia and not even the economical issues,
but creating an effective and a centralized administration. Most
members of the new administration have already had the experience of
administrative work, but with no positive results. In my opinion,
the present Georgian administration is illegitimate, inadequate,
and it is clear that it’s not permanent.

Aztag- How can it be illegitimate? After all, it is the people that
brought this administration to power.

Igor Mouradian- No revolution can create legitimate governments; it can
create efficient regimes, but never legitimate governments. Georgia
has neither. The leaders are very ambitious, and they will refuse to
be consistent in setting up a well-balanced regime. The current regime
is doomed to catastrophe. The foreign influences are too strong. The
situation is very dangerous for Yerevan not because this experience
could also be applied to Armenia, but because the current situation
in Georgia is very inconvenient for our interests and us.

Aztag- And what are, in your opinion, the factors that make an unstable
Georgia a problem for Armenia?

Igor Mouradian- One and only one factor: Communication. Even the
situation of Armenians in Georgia is not that much of a problem. The
politicians in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East are interested
in the following question: could the Georgian scenario happen in
Armenia as well? That’s rubbish. We have a completely different
social and economical system, our country is developing very fast,
the shortcomings of the ruling regime in Armenia are being compensated
by the presence and the activities of very stable political structures
within the country, the parliamentary process, and other factors. We
have created a powerful army, and at the same time, a very efficient
security system.

Armenia is approaching a time when the opposition will be represented
by nationalistic forces. The political parties oriented towards
Russia, Europe, or the U.S. will refuse to maintain policies that have
anything to do with external factors. Armenia will become a patriotic
nationalist state. In this respect, we can become an example to the
other independent states. And of course, our main problem will be the
problem of the elite, but our administration is much more adequate. The
problem of elite is a problem that runs for decades, and therefore,
it is not worthwhile to speed up any process; a revolution is not
something that is necessary. Revolution would make sense in only one
instance: if the ruling regime ignores the national interests.

Aztag- The western media refers to the current Georgian elite as
“nationalists” and “pro-western”. You are saying that Sahakashvili’s
government is extremely dependent on the U.S. How can this dilemma
of nationalism-dependence be explained?

Igor Mouradian- Every nation has its own notion of
nationalism. Nationalists cannot be “anti”. If nationalism is directed
against a political pole or a major political force then it is
defective. Nationalism is not only about maintaining the uniqueness
of your own nation but also that of other people. Liberalism and
cosmopolitism, especially imperialistic liberalism and communism,
do not respect the notion of nation. But nationalism is fighting for
the uniqueness of all nations. Perhaps the ruling elite in Georgia is
not really nationalist. Or it might be a pseudo-nationalist regime,
or a racist regime. Any idea could be perverted. The thing is that
Georgia has established a European political system; the leftists and
the rightists are very obvious. Armenia doesn’t have that; Armenia
has a different scheme: the conservatives and the liberals. I don’t
think that any of those as better or worse than the other. Georgian
nationalism has not become a uniting force; it has not created
national ideas. Moreover, the policies of the regime have divided the
society. Of course, the situation in Armenia is not ideal; there, the
clash between fake liberalism and conservatism will become fiercer
with time. One has to be reminded that in Armenia, nationalism has
very deep roots. One can even speak of national fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, our social situation does not allow this national
ideology to become a real thing. One has to be reminded that
Pan-Armenian National Movement and the satellites of this movement
are not incidental. The basic aim of this movement was ideological
modernization, a desire to modernize Armenian politics…it would
have had positive results, of course, but their aims were very low.

Aztag- Currently, Ankara is bringing up the issue of opening the
borders with Armenia more frequently. Some analysts say that the
Armenian side might gain from such a move on the economic level, but
it has things to lose on the political front. What are the factors
at work here?

Igor Mouradian- The economic interests and the national interests
are not necessarily conflicting. Now we do have trade relations with
turkey. According to different estimates, we buy goods from Turkey
worth something between 100 and 160 million U.S. dollars. Our export
to Turkey is about 20 million U.S. dollars. Politically, all this
doesn’t change much.

There are two major problems for the U.S. in the region: The
Russo-Georgian relations and the Turkish-Armenian relations. Both
problems are connected with the idea of getting rid of Russian
influences. Despite the fact that the relationship between the
U.S. and Turkey have deteriorated recently and it continues to
deteriorate because the Americans are not insisting on solving
the Cyprus problem, the U.S. continues to insist on improving the
Armenian-Turkish relation. The American idea is very simple: once
they improve the relations, this will create a security; Armenia
will become so much more secure. It’s a lie or failure to appreciate
the situation. The relations can be improved, the border may get
opened at some point and investments might start flowing to Turkey
and Armenia, but the threat will still be there. Turkey appreciates
only strong position. We must be strong in order to become partners
with Turkey. Now we have a strong army, an efficient security system,
and developed international relations. We are more prepared to start
relations with Turkey. However, one has to separate two things that
have little to do with each other: our economic development and our
relations with Turkey, which include the issue of Genocide recognition.

Aztag- but couldn’t the economic factor be used to pressure Armenia
to get other concessions on the political front?

Igor Mouradian- We speak of Armenia as some other country that has
nothing to do with us. Armenia is us. It all depends on us. We should
sort our own problems and not the problems of Turkey. We should do
everything we can to make sure that we have a government that has a
nationalistic agenda and is not a marionette. Refusal to push for the
recognition of the Armenian genocide, concessions in the Karabagh issue
will not improve our relations with Turkey. Turkey is not interested
in Karabagh at all and they are not interested in the opinions of
Azerbaijan. This is an illusion that has been created. Turkey has its
own tasks, its own problems. Turkey is more interested in the question
of genocide than in the question of Karabagh. It wants to show the
western community that apart from the genocide problem there’s also
the Karabagh problem that Turkey is interested in.

Aztag- What are the strategic aims of Turkey in the region?

Igor Mouradian- They want to achieve firsthand political and economic
dominance in the region. Apart from pan Turkism, there’s also the
doctrine of neo-Ottomanism. When it became clear that Turkey is not
capable maintaining its important presence in central Asia, and that
the U.S. is doing nothing to help Turkey become a Eurasian power,
Turkey has become more interested in neo-Ottomanism. I couldn’t find a
better term to describe this doctrine, according to which Turkey must
suck non-Turkish people (Albanians, Bosnians, Georgians, Chechens,
and Uzbekistanis) into Turkish politics. Turkey is now interested in
closer regions like the Caucasus, the Balkans, Ukraine, and Iraq. It’s
very important that the Armenian communities in the U.S. and the Middle
East appreciate one thing: the U.S. is now carrying out anti-Turkish
policies in the Caucasus. They are doing everything they can to make
sure that Turkey loses its influence on Azerbaijan, they are doing
everything they can to pressure Turkey by creating alternative air
bases in Georgia and they are also using the Armenian factor as a
tool for pressure. It seems that the U.S. likes to create a little
Israel in Armenia, simply because Armenia is the most stable, the
most organized country in the region.

Aztag- What do you mean by “a small Israel”?

Igor Mouradian- Israel means an isolated country serving as an aircraft
carrier for the U.S. It’s a very dangerous perspective for us, we
shouldn’t allow this to happen, we should maintain very good relations
with the Arab countries, Iran, and central Asian countries. This
is extremely important for us. Armenia has demonstrated that under
conditions that are far from perfect, it can make breakthroughs in
many areas. Georgia and Azerbaijan cannot be genuine partners of the
U.S. They are very unreliable partners not only for the U.S. but also
for Russia, Iran, and Europe. There are only two countries in the
south Caucasus capable of maintaining the role of strategic partners:
the republic of Armenia, and the N.K.R.

Aztag- Armenia boasts excellent relations with Iran, despite the
religious and cultural differences between the two countries. What
are the foundations of this alliance?

Igor Mouradian- The region is coming up with new alliance and with
new blocks that have nothing to do with religious affiliation. These
blocks they are called geo-civilizations, which are not formed within
a cultural-religious framework.

Aztag- So you don’t believe in Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”
theory.

Igor Mouradian- I do believe in the clash of civilizations, but I
think alliances based merely on historical and cultural factors do not
work. The geo-civilizations which are based on geopolitical interests
are the ones that work. The Slavic countries are acting against
Russia and there’s lots of conflict between Christian countries, and
between Muslim countries. And the major conflict of them all is not
the conflict between the Islam and Christianity, but between U.S. and
Europe. Islam civilization does not have a common policy. The Islamic
world is being used by many, even by Israel. The Islamic world is not
capable of creating a common policy; even the Arab world isn’t capable
of doing that. Accordingly, however well the relations with Turkey and
Azerbaijan develop, Iran will never refuse to maintain good relations
with Armenia. This is because of fundamental geopolitical interests.

Aztag- What does the future hold for the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict? The
status quo cannot be maintained forever, can it?

Igor Mouradian- The conflict is not going anywhere. One
should understand a few things: Russia is not interested in any
changes. Russia is now maintaining its relations with Azerbaijan in
a completely different dimension. There are the other issues where
Russia and Azerbaijan understand each other well. Russia is supportive
of the political regime in Azerbaijan; there are also the issues
of Caspian oil, the Russian gas imports, the question of the Azeri
economic migrants in Russia, and some security questions connected
with Russian interests in northern Caucasus. The Azeri leadership
has no illusions about Russian intentions in the Karabagh problem.

On the other hand, Europe has no operational abilities in Caucasus at
all and has no goals or aims in the region. The only European task
is to make sure that Americans feel uncomfortable; this is the only
thing that they are interested in.

Turkey has no time at all for Karabagh. The Turks are terrified
of this topic, because if they are accused of supporting one side,
the Azeri side, it will create for them another problem in terms of
joining the EU. Iran is also very happy with the status quo.

In turn, the U.S. has only three aims: oil, oil and oil. Sometimes
people confuse priorities and goals; the priority is stability,
and the status quo perfectly corresponds to the U.S. interests. The
U.S. administration has had the chance to see for itself in Key West
that there’s no political solution to the Karabagh problem, which
can only be solved militarily. The U.S. will not accept a military
solution, they’re afraid of military solution, and they are supportive
of the current administration on one condition: Ilham Aliev should
not try to solve the Karabagh problem by resorting to the option of
war. For the U.S., if there is no political way, there is no other way.

If you had asked me three years ago “what is the future of Karabagh?” I
would have told you that it will stay like this for decades and it
will be capable of developing successfully in its current state. But
now, seeing the current movements and tendencies, I’ve come to
understand that the western community will have to decide the status of
uncontrolled territories (Kosovo, Bosnia, Taiwan, Sumatra, Palestine,
Karabagh, Adjaria, Abkhazia, the Iraqi Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus
and possibly another 10 more territories including Kashmir and some
territories in Afghanistan).

Sometimes they ask the question “how many U.S. congressmen know the
surname of the Nigerian president?” I don’t think that many do.
It’s a country with 100 million people. However, Ghougasian,
the president of Karabagh, is known to many congressmen and so is
Denktash. They’re playing an extremely important role in the external
balance of power. And this problem will persist and it should be
solved. Moreover, there’s another question of task or problem: not
all the territories will receive its formal status, and the Americans
have discussed this publicly. Nevertheless, Karabagh has more chances
than anyone else does to become internationally recognized. Of course,
there is a danger when discussing the recognition of the N.K. state;
the question of territories will arise, but there is probably a way
out. Perhaps Karabagh will play an exceptional role in political
history by demonstrating how a tiny country coming out of the fierce
and bloody war can create a fascinating democratic society.

LITHUANIA CONTINUING COOPERATION WITH SOUTH CAUCASIAN, CIS STATES

Baltic News Service
June 1, 2004

VILNIUS, Jun 01 — Representatives of the Armenian, Azerbaijani,
Bulgarian, Romanian, Slovak, Ukrainian and Uzbek armies are starting
a four-day visit to Lithuania on Tuesday, during which they will get
acquainted with the country’s system of military training.

This is the first visit of the kind, the Defense Ministry has reported.

The guests are scheduled to go to the Kaunas-based Division General
Stasys Rastikis NCO School, Nemencine-based General Adolfas Ramanauskas
Military Advanced Training Centre, Lithuanian Great Hetman Jonusas
Radvila Training Regiment in Rukla, General Jonas Zemaitis Military
Academy of Lithuania in Vilnius.

The military officers will hold a meeting to discuss results of
the visit.

In the framework of the Partnership for Peace Program, in the end
of 2003 Lithuania proposed military officers from South Caucasian,
some Central Asian and CIS countries training at the Lithuanian
Military Academy. Lithuania also suggested sharing experience in such
fields as crisis management, resource planning, military strategies,
security policy.

The training at the Military Academy — intensive 4-month English
language classes arranged according to NATO program and international
courses for captains — has been favored the most.

Since 2002 the Lithuanian Defense Ministry has sponsored education
of Georgian officer in the Baltic Defense College, and from this
year will pay for studies of two Georgian officers, one officer from
Armenia and one from Azerbaijan.

CIS Kurds support People’s Congress decision to end truce

Interfax
May 31 2004

MOSCOW. May 31 (Interfax) – The International Union of Kurdish Public
Organizations, which unites Kurds in Russia and other CIS nations,
thinks the decision of the People’s Congress of Kurdistan (the former
Kurdistan Workers’ Party) to end its truce with the Turkish authorities
is well-founded.

“We think this decision is grounded, because the Turkish authorities
have done nothing to resolve the Kurdish problem, but have intensified
punitive operations during the cease-fire period,” Union Deputy
Chairman Kamis Jabrailov told Interfax on Monday.

“Yet the Kurds who live in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
and Armenia object to any use of force on the part of governments or
organizations, and want a peaceful solution to the Kurdish problem,”
he said.

“Kurds will not be the first to spill blood, but they will launch
an offensive if the Turkish army continues military operations,”
Jabrailov said.

A statement by the administration of the People’s Congress of Kurdistan
was released last Sunday. It said the truce with Turkey, announced
five years ago after the arrest of party leader Abdullah Ocalan, is
“senseless,” and they will resume hostilities. <>

Pepsi plant opens in Georgia

Interfax
May 27 2004

Tbilisi. (Interfax) – A Pepsi plant costing $7 million opened this
week in Tbilisi and it will be the exclusive distributor of PepsiCo
products in Georgia and Armenia.

The plant is owned by Georgia’s Iberia Group, the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and two individuals, the plant’s
General Director David Lomjari told Interfax.

The Bank of Georgia extended a $2 million loan and the EBRD loaned
1 million euros to finance the project. The plant has a capacity of
12,000 liters of soft drinks a day, which will completely satisfy
market demand, Lomjari said. The plant will produce soft drinks,
including Pepsi, Pepsi Light and Miranda.