Author: Hovhannisian John

POSSIBLY, TIME FOR MAKING VERY IMPORTANT DECISIONS WILL COME SOON, BERNARD FASSIER CONSIDERS

Noyan Tapan

Se p 18, 2008

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 18, NOYAN TAPAN. The process of peaceful settlement
of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict continues to be carried out on the
basis of "Madrid principles." Possibly, time for making very important
decisions will come soon. Bernard Fassier, the OSCE Minsk Group French
Co-chairman, stated at a press conference in Yerevan.

According to him, one of today’s tasks of OSCE Minsk Group
is to create possibilities for a meeting between Presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan after holding of presidential elections in
Azerbaijan. B. Fassier said that at present OSCE Minsk Group exerts
efforts for organizing a tripartite meeting of Foreign Ministers of
Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan within the framework of the session
of the UN General Assembly to be held at the end of the current month
in New York.

Answering the question about Turkey’s showing an initiative in
the issue of peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict,
the French diplomat said that this initiative of Turkey does not
pose danger for OSCE Minsk Group. He stated that he welcomes any
manifestation of good will "if it does not pursue the goal to search
out a new variant of conflict settlement." In his words, Turkey is
a member of OSCE Minsk Group, which several times a year presents
OSCE with details regarding the process of settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. "If Turkey’s wish to exert mediation efforts in
the conflict settlement is indeed good, we are not against."

As regards the latest events in Georgia, Bernard Fassier stated that
OSCE Minsk Group is against settlement of conflicts through a war. He
also gave assurance that the latest regional events confirmed that
a military solution is not acceptable for any of the conflict sides.

AHMADINEJAD: REGIONAL STATES DO NOT NEED NATO INTERFERENCE TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.09.2008 19:06 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday
that promotion of relations between Iran and Armenia at bilateral,
regional and international levels will relay a message of friendship
to the world.

"Regional states do not need NATO interference to solve their
problems," said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Armenian Foreign Minister
Edward Nalbandian.

He said cooperation between Tehran and Yerevan can set a model
for others.

He went on to say that expansion of relations with Armenia is the
definite policy of Iran.

"There is no limit on expansion of relations with Armenia," he added.

Ahmadinejad said unipolar system has been almost demolished and its
consequences are visible throughout the world, so efforts should be
made to build a new order on the basis of which friendship and peace
can be established.

Nalbandian for his part touched on the Caucasus events and said the
events indicate that the region is in a sensitive situation. "So,
we should think of new ways for expansion of mutual ties," he added,
IRNA reports.

WHY, WHEN AND HOW TURKEY BECOMES A NUCLEAR POWER
By Mehmet Kalyoncu

Today’s Zaman
Sept 18 2008
Turkey

The trendy rhetoric regarding Turkish-Iranian relations is that the
two have enjoyed friendly relations ever since the Kasr-i Sirin Treaty
of 1639, which more or less determined today’s border between the two

It is also fashionable to wish that the Middle East be cleared of
nuclear weapons. Whether or not it is true about Turkish-Iranian
relations, the real question is whether it is justifiable in terms
of Turkish national security interests to have a nuclear power next
door while Turkey itself does not have the same capabilities? Another
question is what is Ankara’s plan B if Iran eventually becomes able
to develop its own nuclear weapons? Wishing for the region to be free
of nuclear weapons is one thing, and failing to counter the shift in
the regional balance of power is another, even if Iran arguably does
not pose a direct military threat to Turkey.

Furthermore, the German Marshall Fund’s recent report 2008
Transatlantic Trends signals that whether Turkey becomes a nuclear
power may not necessarily be up to the political leadership in Ankara,
but rather to the Turkish public, which is becoming increasingly
confident and nationalistic. According to the report, 48 percent of
the Turks who participated in the poll want Turkey to act unilaterally
in its international affairs, while only 8 percent view US global
leadership as desirable and only 22 percent the EU’s. The numbers of
Turks who view Iran and the EU positively are almost tied, with the
first group at 32 percent and the second at 33 percent. The numbers
are not so favorable for the US and Israel. Only 14 percent of Turks
view the US positively while only 8 percent see Israel in a positive
light. Another poll recently conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org
indicates that 36 percent of the Turkish respondents believe that
Sept. 11 was an insider job, and 39 percent believes that al-Qaeda
was behind it. While, as some may argue, these two are not necessarily
mutually exclusive possibilities, the evolving trends in Turkish public
opinion suggest that the question of whether Turks would favor the
idea of Turkey having its own nuclear capabilities seems irrelevant.

So the real question is why, when and how Turkey would become a nuclear
power? What are the underlying and governing assumptions? And finally,
what are the possible scenarios that could lead Turkey to become a
nuclear power?

In the retrospect: Turkey acquires nuclear weapons technology

Underlying assumptions

Anchored in the Western hemisphere and encouraged by the recently
improved prospects of Turkey’s EU membership, Ankara is unlikely
to proactively adopt a policy toward acquiring nuclear weapon
capabilities. Any signs of such policy would irritate Turkey’s Western
allies, most notably the United States and the EU, and put the present
government’s political survival at risk. That is, the government
in Ankara with little or no Western support would be vulnerable to
the continuous interference of the Turkish military, though the
military may seem relatively silent at the moment. In addition,
such an orientation would dramatically weaken Ankara’s diplomatic
capabilities with regards to its major foreign policy and security
issues, which include EU membership, the Cyprus issue, the so-called
Armenian genocide issue, the Kurdish formation in northern Iraq and
fighting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been launching
attacks on Turkey from northern Iraq. Although all these foreign
policy and security matters seem to have been handled relatively well
and hence lie dormant thanks to the Justice and Development Party
(AK Party) government’s diplomatic skills, they can easily be used
against Ankara at any given time. Therefore, Ankara, be it under the
current AK Party government or another one in the near future, would
first be inclined to seek the protection of the security alliances
such as NATO instead of itself becoming a self-reliant military power.

However, Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power in the region changes
the regional balance of power, puts Israel’s survival at risk and
bolsters the extremists around the Muslim world. Therefore, it
becomes a moral and strategic imperative for Turkey to seek nuclear
weapon capabilities to counterbalance nuclear Iran and offset its
possible radicalizing impact on the Muslim world. Once Iran declares
its nuclear weapon capabilities, the Turkish public will force the
standing government to make Turkey a nuclear power as well. As a matter
of fact, the 2008 Transatlantic Trends report indicates that 48 percent
of Turks already want Turkey to act unilaterally in its international
affairs, which requires it to be fully capable of doing so. Moreover,
in recent years an increasing number of Turks have criticized the AK
Party government for not being as bold as Iran in pursuing a nuclear
program independently from the West.

Governing assumptions

1. The EU accession process is directly related to the political
survival of the current AK Party government and likely to be so for
the following government(s) given the importance attached to Turkey’s
Western orientation and secular-democratic regime. Therefore, Ankara
refrains from any move within the realm of nuclear energy that would
harm its EU accession negotiations.

2. Turkey and Iran have been inherent rivals, with both aspiring
to become the regional leader. Turkey aspires to do so via becoming
de-facto leader of the Sunni world, while Iran seeks to do the same
through reviving the Shiite populations not only in Iraq but also
within Saudi Arabia and even in Yemen.

3. Iran is likely to continue its financial and military support of
the Shiites inside Iraq for the duration of the US occupation and
after the number of US troops are substantially reduced. Iran does
so in order to make sure that in Iraq, whether it is governed under
a representative central government or under a federal system, the
Shiites dominate Iraqi politics, especially policies and international
agreements governing the country’s energy resources.

4. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria are cautious about Iran’s prospects
of acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities. They would seek to acquire
the same capabilities in order to counterbalance nuclear Iran. For
Saudi Arabia, it seems also a moral and, as they would put it, divine
imperative to do so because it perceives itself as the natural leader
of the Sunni Muslims vis-a-vis the Shiite Iran.

5. Compared to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, with their authoritarian
regimes and lack of checks and balances, Turkey, with its secular
and democratic regime and modern military closely cooperating with
the US and Israel, would seem more amenable to become a nuclear
counterbalance to nuclear Iran.

*Mehmet Kalyoncu is an international relations analyst and author
of the book titled "A Civilian Response to Ethno-Religious Conflict:
The Gulen Movement in Southeast Turkey".

TURKEY PRESSED TO ‘UPDATE’ CONSTITUTION
By Rikard Jozwiak

European Voice
Sept 16 2008
Belgium

EU suggests it will soon expand accession talks with Turkey, but
urges it to revise its constitution.

The EU has called on Turkey to "update" its constitution in the wake
of Turkey’s constitutional court’s decision to reject an attempt to
ban the country’s ruling party.

Speaking late on 15 September, after a biannual meeting with Turkey’s
foreign minister, Olli Rehn, the European enlargement commissioner,
said that Turkey’s political elite should seize on the rare moment of
political stability "to update its constitution to reflect the country
and society it has become and to consolidate rights and freedoms for
its citizens".

The court ruled, very narrowly, in late July that the governing
Justice and Development (AK) party had not breached its constitutional
obligation to maintain Turkey’s secular order, a ruling that has
eased some of Turkey’s political tensions.

Turkey’s foreign minister, Ali Babacan, did not comment on Rehn’s
call, but emphasised that Turkey has already made numerous legal
changes in order to comply with EU rules and, in particular, changes
to the notorious Article 301 of its penal code. The article, which
made it a crime to "insult Turkishness", had been invoked in numerous
cases brought against public intellectuals who raised questions about
the culpability of Turks in what Armenians and a growing number of
countries describe as the genocide of ethnic Armenians in the latter
years of the Ottoman Empire. The article has not been repealed, but has
been modified to replace "Turkishness" with "the Turkish nation" and
it can now only be invoked with the permission of the justice minister.

Accession talks The biannual meeting of foreign ministers from Turkey
and from the current and next occupants of the EU’s presidency – on
this occasion, France and the Czech Republic – produced no concrete
results, but France’s European affairs minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet,
said that the EU expected to expand accession talks with Turkey during
its presidency.

Turkey has so far opened 10 chapters of the EU’s acquis communitaire,
the body of legislation that must be transposed into national
legislation before enlargement. It has, though, provisionally closed
only one. Talks on two another have been frozen since December 2006
because of Turkey’s refusal to open its ports to Cypriot ship. For the
same reason, the EU has also refused to discuss opening another six,
principally on trade issues and foreign affairs.

Jouyet said did not say how many chapter the EU expects to open this
year, but Rehn hinted that two chapters might be opened: Chapter Four,
on the free movement of capital, and Chapter Ten, on information
society and media.

Sources in Brussels also suggest that Chapter 15, on energy, might
be opened before the Czech Republic takes over the presidency of the
EU, in January 2009. In part due to the recent crisis in Georgia,
energy has become a key area for the EU, as it is keen to diversify
its energy sources and reduce its dependence on Russia.

Babacan also mentioned that Turkey was ready to open negotiations
on two other chapters, one on economic and monetary policy and the
other on culture and education.

Both could be politically sensitive for the EU, as completion of the
economic chapter would bring forward the notion of Turkey adopting the
euro, while the chapter on education could raise difficult questions
about the massacres of Armenians in 1915.

France, which is one of the countries that describes the killings as
genocide, is one of the strongest opponents of Turkish membership of
the EU. However, Jouyet, who chaired the meeting in the absence of
the Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, insisted that Paris would lead
negotiations impartially during its occupancy of the EU presidency.

ArmInfo News Agency (in Russian), Armenia
Sept 10 2008

Armenian parliament passes amendments to media law

Yerevan, 10 September: The Armenian parliament approved amendments to
the law on TV and radio in the third and final reading at its
emergency session today.

Armenian Minister of Economy Nerses Yeritsyan said that Armenia’s
transition to digital broadcasting was important in ensuring the
country’s information security. He pointed out that Armenia has joined
the Geneva convention on international telecommunications, under which
the deadline for the transition to the digital system for the
countries of the European (first) frequency band is 2015. However,
this process will finally end in most European countries in 2010-12.

"Armenia should not lag behind the international tendency, especially
as if our country fails to switch to the digital broadcasting system,
the issue may be raised of stripping our country of the frequencies it
has now. This may cause a number of problems to Armenia’s information
security," Yeritsyan said.

[Passage omitted: Yeritsyan speaking about high quality of the digital
system]

The minister pointed out that in order to ensure a smooth transition
from the analogue system to the digital one, the two systems would be
operating together up to 2010. He said that international experts
would audit the broadcasting field for two years, but a special
interdepartmental commission would draw up a blueprint on the
implementation of the digital broadcasting system and specific actions
in this connection. On the whole, the transition to the digital
broadcasting system may sharply decrease the number of available
frequencies by 2010.

The decrease is explained by the fact that digitalization of
broadcasting will go though a transition period up to 2010, during
which TV and radio companies will be able to broadcast both in the
analogue and digital mode. Thus the number of busy frequencies will
double. "After Armenia finally switches to digital broadcasting, the
number of vacant frequencies will be back to its initial level," the
minister of economy said.

He pointed out that anyone would be able to bid for vacant frequencies
starting in 2010. It has been decided to complete the transition
period by 2010, inasmuch as the term of validity of licences of many
TV and radio companies will end then. Under the Armenian law, a
broadcasting licence is valid for seven years. However, Yeritsyan said
that the draft law does not envisage issuing interim licences in the
period of 2008-10. "The reason for the duration [of the validity of
the licence] being seven years is that an applicant company should not
only have the necessary funds for broadcasting, it also has to be
given time for the funds invested to be recovered. Therefore, the
issuing of short-term licences will not give them the opportunity to
recover their expenditure, and one will not be able to demand that
they broadcast digitally," the minister noted.

Turkish Press
Sept 13 2008

Restoring Trust With Azerbaijan

Published: 9/13/2008
BY MURAT YETKIN

RADIKAL- There was little official Azeri reaction to President
Abdullah Gul’s visit to Armenia last week to watch a soccer match,
from either President Ilham Aliyev or any other Azeri official.
Despite the reactions and uneasiness in the Azeri public, Baku acted
like a real ally on this issue: when questioned, Azeri Ambassador to
Turkey Zakir Hashimov would only say that they respected the
president’s decision. Actually Turkey acted carefully as well. The
best example of this was seen with the Turkish delegation to Yerevan
preceding Gul carrying equipment. Gul’s official car, his escort
vehicles and equipment for security and protocol purposes were carried
via Georgia, through a 600-kilometer detour.

There, the aim was to give the same message to both Azerbaijan and
Armenia: Ankara closed the Armenian border to protest Upper Karabagh’s
occupation by Armenians, and it won’t use the border even for security
purposes, unless the situation changes there. Yet Ankara heard
comments from Azeri politicians and newspapers such as ‘Farewell to
Turkey’ on the day Gul visited Armenia, because Turkey has very
special relations with Azerbaijan. As Gul took a bold step in
relations with Armenia and gave Yerevan a chance to make certain
corrections in its foreign policy in line with international law, it
should also make efforts not to damage its relations with Azerbaijan.

Besides meetings to discuss such issues as a proposed Caucasus
stability and cooperation platform, Armenia, and relations with the
US, Gul will also hold a press conference while visiting Baku. Gul is
running the risk of Azeri reporters asking tough questions, and will
work to dispel the Azeri public’s doubts about Turkey’s politics. This
is the right move. Turkey should help to strengthen both Azerbaijan
and Georgia not only out of friendship, but also for its own
interests.

I previously wrote that when he got back from Yerevan, Gul said that
actually he had decided to go to Armenia before it was officially
announced. Indeed, Gul waited for Deputy Foreign Undersecretary Unal
Cevikoz, whom he sent to Yerevan to officially tell his Armenian
counterpart Serzh Sarkisian he would visit, to come back to Ankara on
the evening of September 3. Gul said that he decided to pay the visit
a week earlier, but announced it later. It might be interesting to
review a series of incidents from that time.

I went to Yerevan to interview Sarkisian on August 25. A high-ranking
official from the Cankaya Presidential Palace phoned me on August 26
to ask me if I could deliver a message from Gul. In the message, Gul
delivered his greetings and good will and said he would be glad to
meet Sarkisian in Astana. So the two presidents met in the Kazakh
capital Astana, and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev even translated for
them when they talked without even sitting down, after Sarkisian’s
op-ed invitation was published in the Wall Street Journal.

The fact that he gave his kind regards on the occasion of a Turkish
journalist’s interview was of course no indication of a decision.
Turkey wasn’t a country lacking contacts in Armenia, as it has many
channels. But this greeting showed that the good will, which started
when the invitation weren’t rejected, was stronger now. Similarly,
Sarkisian said during the interview that he considered even that a
part of the improved atmosphere. So this situation showed that the
mutual good will was understood. I delivered Sarkisian’s greetings and
message of good will to Gul in our meeting in Ankara the next day, on
August 28. Gul said that he considered Sarkisian’s interview an
example of how contributions can be made to solving the problem and
dispelling misunderstandings at every level. So it seems the decision
had become ripe, and the next day the decision was made at the Cankaya
Presidential Palace.

LAWRENCE SHEETS: "TURKEY’S EFFORTS TO PLAY THE ROLE OF A STATE HAVING LEVERS OF INFLUENCE ON THE REGION ARE NOT SURPRISING"

Azeri Press Agency
Sept 11 2008
Azerbaijan

Baku. Tamara Grigoryeva – APA. "It is early to say how Turkey’s
involvement in the format of negotiations within the framework of OSCE
Minsk Group will influence the settlement of the conflict," Lawrence
Sheets, International Crisis Group Caucasus Project Director told APA.

He said improvement in the relations of Turkey and Armenia, Turkish
President’s visit to Yerevan were important steps, but it was still
early to fully assess the events.

"One should not be surprised at Turkey’s efforts to play the role
of a state having levers of influence on the region. It is not a
surprise. Turkey is the member of NATO and this state wants to play
influential role like Russia, US and other countries. I want to mention
that Turkey had before stated they wanted to have positive influence
on the negotiations on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict,"
he said.

ARMENIA’S ECONOMY SUFFERS $680 MLN. DAMAGE FROM RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN CONFLICT

ARKA
Sep 12, 2008

YEREVAN, September 12. /ARKA/. Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) opened
Sept 9 hearing entitled "U.S.-Russia Relations in the Aftermath of
the Georgia Crisis" to address concerns and to "consider the future
of U.S. relations with Russia in the aftermath of the crisis that
erupted with sudden ferocity in the Republic of Georgia five weeks
ago," reported the Armenian Assembly of America (Assembly).

Testifying on behalf of the Bush Administration, Daniel Fried,
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,
starting with the region’s history, told Members of Congress that the
collapse of the former Soviet Union "was marked by ethnically-based
violence, especially in the South Caucasus."

Fried also explained, in greater detail, the Administration’s $1
billion economic support package that Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice announced on September 3, in an effort to help meet "Georgia’s
pressing humanitarian needs, repair infrastructure damaged by
Russia’s invasion, sustain commercial confidence, and restore economic
growth." He added that the Administration would be working extensively
with Congress, as to fine-tune how the assistance will be delivered.

Fried commented that Armenia is already a recipient of significant
amount of aid, although he acknowledged that Armenia has been impacted
by the crisis.

Sherman added that due to strife, Armenia has suffer ed an estimated
$680 million in damage to its economy and again asked if additional
aid would be provided. Fried responded that there would be more,
but would have to look into the figure as to an amount.

"The Administration has an important opportunity to reinforce
stated U.S.

policy goals of regional cooperation and economic integration in the
South Caucasus region," said Congressman Sherman. "As such, I was
deeply troubled that the Administration failed to take into account
the impact that this recent crisis has had on our ally Armenia. We must
ensure that any aid package also includes Armenia," Sherman concluded.

The House Appropriations Committee will need to review the aid package,
of which the Assembly last week sent a letter to Members of Congress
pointing out the impact not only for Georgia, but Armenia as well.

SHERMAN PRESSES ADMINISTRATION FOR AID TO ARMENIA IN AFTERMATH OF RUSSO-GEORGIAN CRISIS

A1+
[04:27 pm] 11 September, 2008

Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) opened hearing entitled "U.S.-Russia
Relations in the Aftermath of the Georgia Crisis" to address concerns
and to "consider the future of U.S. relations with Russia in the
aftermath of the crisis that erupted with sudden ferocity in the
Republic of Georgia five weeks ago," reported the Armenian Assembly
of America (Assembly).

Testifying on behalf of the Bush Administration, Daniel Fried,
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,
starting with the region’s history, told Members of Congress that the
collapse of the former Soviet Union "was marked by ethnically-based
violence, especially in the South Caucasus." Fried also explained,
in greater detail, the Administration’s $1 billion economic support
package that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced on
September 3, in an effort to help meet "Georgia’s pressing humanitarian
needs, repair infrastructure damaged by Russia’s invasion, sustain
commercial confidence, and restore economic growth." He added that
the Administration would be working extensively with Congress, as to
fine-tune how the assistance will be delivered.

During a question and answer session with Secretary Fried,
Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA), citing a September 3, report from
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty entitled, "Armenia Claims Huge Losses
>From Georgian Crisis," pressed the Administration whether they plan
on providing additional aid to Armenia.

Fried commented that Armenia is already a recipient of significant
amount of aid, although he acknowledged that Armenia has been impacted
by the crisis. Sherman added that due to strife, Armenia has suffered
an estimated $680 million in damage to its economy and again asked
if additional aid would be provided. Fried responded that there would
be more, but would have to look into the figure as to an amount.

The House Appropriations Committee will need to review the aid package,
of which the Assembly last week sent a letter to Members of Congress
pointing out the impact not only for Georgia, but Armenia as well.

In the letter, the Assembly wrote, in part, that:

"Armenia, as a land-locked nation facing dual blockades by its
neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan, is forced to orient on a north-south
axis for trade and shipment of goods and supplies. As such, the
bombing of ports in Georgia and damage to rail lines therein has not
only caused hardships for the people of Georgia, but also for Armenia,
most prominently is the shortage of fuel."

"The Administration has an important opportunity to reinforce stated
U.S. policy goals of regional cooperation and economic integration in
the South Caucasus region," said Congressman Sherman. "As such, I was
deeply troubled that the Administration failed to take into account
the impact that this recent crisis has had on our ally Armenia. We must
ensure that any aid package also includes Armenia," Sherman concluded.

"We commend Chairman Berman for holding this timely hearing and applaud
Congressman Sherman for making sure that the needs of Armenia, as
a result of this crisis, will be taken into account," said Assembly
Executive Director Bryan Ardouny.

Rep. Sherman is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation and Trade.

WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHEN THEIR GOVERNMENTS FIGHT?
Galina Sapozhnikova

75725/
Sept 11 2008

My sadness didn’t hit me in Georgia when Tbilisi residents joined hands
in a human chain yelling "Stop Russia!" or even Monday in Hague when
representatives of our two nations faced off at the International
Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s highest court. Instead, it hit me
in a Georgian restaurant in Moscow. On that Saturday evening, the
venue was completely empty. The staff were as polite as always —
the chef, waiters and performers — and everyone pretended that
nothing had happened.

Gentle influence

"They should have been gentler with us," an Adjarian businessman,
Murman, told me in Batumi. He owned a hotel that was privatized just
before the fall of the Soviet Union. "Russia could have received
anything she wanted — Akhazia, South Ossetia and even Georgia."

When Murman said "gentler," he was referring to the U.S. mechanism
for influencing foreign nations — pumping finances into a country
and taking upon oneself the minimal obligations.

Pleasing the people

I’ve had the chance to observe Georgia over the past two years. And
I can state with certainty that the finances that have been poured
into the country were used appropriately. This doesn’t mean that
all Georgians have hot running water and no longer fear electrical
shortages. However, schools have become genuine schools and hospitals
real, functioning hospitals. Fountains burst round-the-clock in Tbilisi
and Signakhi has turned into a magnificent European city. But the true
eye catcher in Georgia is the large number of small children playing
in the streets. The country’s birth rate is a fail proof barometer
for its stability.

KP correspondent Galina Sapozhnikova (second from the left).

"Go-o-o-od evening, my fellow Georgians!"

Imagine this strange picture. You’re walking down the street in a city
in Russia and hear 5-year-old children playing and yelling in their
courtyards: "Russia!", "Russia!" And this isn’t during Eurovision or
the UEFA championship.

This is exactly what I saw in Georgia. Four hours after the
all-national anti-Russian campaign, children were still roaming the
streets and hanging out of their parents’ cars waving Georgian flags
and chanting: "Sakartvelo! Sakartvelo!"

After watching a fair amount of Georgian television, I started to
realize that the issue at hand isn’t just Western propaganda. The
mentality of Georgians today is more the result of their President
Mikhail Saakashvili, and his unique ability to captivate his citizens.

Every evening, Saakashvili appears on live television and addresses the
country for 40 minutes. Although I don’t understand a word of Georgian,
after staring at the television three nights in a row, I slowly began
to discern between his tones of voice. His method of addressing the
people has a truly hypnotic effect. I wouldn’t be surprised if an
army of rebellious Georgians is soon born whose aim will be to seek
revenge on Russia for "its aggression" during the South Ossetian War.

The beaches were empty without Russians.

Divide and rule

As I watched representatives of various Russian-speaking minorities
join hands in the human chain against Russian aggression in Batumi, I
couldn’t help but think back to the early 1990s in the Batlics. Exactly
the same thing had happened.

The Russian-speaking population had been sidelined and divided into
numerous ethnic groups so they could easily be controlled by the
government. Now, in Georgia, if something happens to Russians, only a
small group will appeal to Moscow for assistance. The rest will turn
to the individual governments that correspond with their ethnicity
— Ukrainians to Ukraine, Armenians to Armenia, and Belarusians to
Belarus — even if they’ve never been there and don’t speak a word
of the national language.

Later in the day, I was introduced to an elderly Jew. He had such
sadness in his eyes. He had never been to Israel and didn’t speak a
word of Hebrew, but he had been asked to stand in the square waving
an Israeli flag. What a strange feeling. A crowd of Soviet people
with Georgian passports, all of whom spoke Russian and read Russian
newspapers and books, were now foreigners to each other. This is the
most sure-fire way to reduce the voice of local Russian sympathizers.

Such a method of dividing and ruling the people worked well in the
Baltics, but the repercussions could be far more severe in Batumi,
where there are over 83 nationalities. Combined with the Caucasus
temperament, this could be a recipe for disaster.

The signs overlooking Georgia’s streets are a reminder of our
friendship.

"Our Georgia. And yours, too!"

"Why do I need this?! I want to go to Russia!" several taxi drivers
told me. "Everyone supports you here!" the director of a cafe on the
shore in Batumi told me. I heard almost the same thing from everyone
in the area. I don’t know where they got all those people who lined
up during the anti-Russian meetings. Can the people just not make up
their minds?

But this has nothing to do with indecisiveness. This is an ideological
choice. And this choice between Russia and the U.S. is divided along
social lines. It has nothing to do with geography or age. Richer
Georgians support Saakashvili. But they were the ones who ran away
first when they heard the Russians were approaching Batumi. They
packed their things and headed to their dachas in the mountains.

Russia has the support of the 80 percent of the people who are
poorer. These were the soldiers who were fighting in South Ossetia. And
this explains the looks of confusion Russians saw on the faces of
Georgian soldiers on national television. They simply don’t know who
their enemy is and why. I walked over to a bunch of students waving
flags of "friendly" nations on the street — U.S., EU, Ukraine and the
Baltics and asked them a few questions hoping to incite their anger.

"So you mean to say the Russians are your enemies?" I asked.

"No. They’re good, too!" they told me.

Just how hopeless is the situation?

I was sitting with Murman in his restaurant one evening. He
was reciting Turgenev to me, and I recalled a few lines of
Baratashvili. Everything we talked about was painful — Paradzhanov,
Griboedev and Okudzhav…

"Okudzhav would die today if he knew what was happening," Murman
said. "My tears aren’t figurative, but real. Now it’s time for us to
leave Russia…"

When we parted, I didn’t go to my room to cry. Instead I left Georgia
with a smile because I know things are far from over. Everything is
still possible, even though I know that with each paragraph I write
Georgia’s lawyers are accusing Russia of human rights violations
before the ICJ.