Author: Jilavian Emma

Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908
( preparation-for-a-revolution-the-young-turks-1902- 1908/)

2/23/2008 (Balkanalysis.com)
_Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908_
( lution-1902-1908-Studies-Eastern/dp/019513463X/bal kanalys
isc-20)
By M. Å=9Eükrü HanioÄ=9Flu
Oxford University Press (2001), 560 pp.
Reviewed by Christopher Deliso

In this new study of the intrigue and organization behind the Young Turk
revolution of 1908, author and Princeton professor M. Å=9EükrüHanioÄ=9Fl u makes a
compelling case that the real motivation of these plotters and political
agitators was, contrary to what some have maintained, not exactly an egalitarian,
liberal reform movement having the simple goal of restoring the constitution
of 1876. Nor was it at bottom an inclusive movement supported by a majority of
the feuding Ottoman factions under a mantle of =80=98pan-Ottoman=80=99 reform.
Rather, it was a conservative, militaristic movement, and the first sustained
iteration of a xenophobic, anti-European Turkish nationalism, the repercussions of
which are still being felt today.
Indeed, the Turkish police’s _January 2008 arrests_
( 2332) of ultra-nationalist plotters alarmed at the apparent
loss of their country to an untrustworthy government is just one recent events
that a shows remarkable continuity between the present and the relatively
recent past, one in which a small though determined group of agitators developed
a wide network of collaborators and finally won over large portions of the
military to put muscle behind their demands. The major difference between the
activities of then and now was that, unlike the Turkish =80=98Deep State’ of the
post-WWII period, the Young Turks did not rely on illicit commerce or
organized crime for propelling their revolution. But it was unquestionablyin the
pre-WWI period that the seeds of a future militaristic and nationalistic
conservatism were sown in Turkey, one which be institutionalized and energized
after the mid-1960’s.
The Young Turks: A New Picture
Since he restricts himself to the period of 1902-1908, of course, the author
does not draw out these connections. What he does do in _Preparation for a
Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908_
( lution-1902-1908-Studies-Eastern/dp/019513463X/bal kanalysisc-20) is
nevertheless more than enough. Although very dense and undoubtedly somewhat slow
going for the more general reader, this work will prove indispensable to serious
students of the Balkans and, after a somewhat sluggish start, does become
somewhat more exciting as the narrative unfolds, chronicling the final frenzied
months leading up to the daring revolution in July 1908.
In documenting the evolution of the Young Turk movement, the major political
organization of which was known as the CPU or CUP (Committee of Progress and
Union), the author reappraises the organization, tactics and goals of the
group as it struggled to attain relevance, something which it did substantially
between the two Congresses of Ottoman Opposition Parties in 1902 and 1907.
With a small leadership body based in Paris, and with secret branches
throughout Europe and the Ottoman Empire, the CPU evolved in a few short years from
an insignificant group of idealists and theorists into a pragmatic and
effective network employing propagandists, assassins and plotters who were
also
taken seriously by European diplomats. Using previously neglected primary source
material from dozens of archives across Europe, and the voluminous private
correspondence of the CPU leaders themselves, HanioÄ=9Flu very objectively
analyzes the evolution of Young Turk thought, and how the evolution of this thought
led fatefully towards a scenario in which it could act, and in so doing
change the course of history.
The new picture of the CPU that emerges from the pages of _Preparation for
a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908_
( lution-1902-1908-Studies-Eastern/dp/019513463X/bal kanalysisc-20) is, from
the idealistic perspective, a rather unflattering one: far from being liberal
reformers, the Young Turks in Paris were authoritarian, conservative
nationalists motivated specifically by the perception that the sultan was on the
verge of losing the empire’s Balkan and Arabian provinces through crude
incompetence and mismanagement. To do this was disaster for the CPU, as itwould,
they feared, destroy Turkey’s prominence on the world stage and reduce its
contact with European scientific and other forms of `progress.=80=9D
It was the overriding desire to keep the empire that led the CPU to grasp
onto concepts such as =80=98Ottomanism’ – the building of a single Ottoman identity
capable of including the disparate ethnic and religious groups of the vast
empire. However, the very divergent rhetoric that the CPU used in appealing to
different groups indicate that this abstraction was, like the others
employed, just another manifestation of the Young Turks’ cunning opportunism.
Rhetoric and Its Ends
Indeed, while the CPU used Ottomanism in attempts to win over Christians
such as Armenians and Greeks, they used the pan-Turkic ideal and pan-Islamist
ideal when approaching the Turks of Azerbaijan and Central Asia (they even
attempted, less successfully, to appeal to the Bulgarians by citing the shared
Turkic roots of the Ottoman Turks and early medieval Bulgars). And the Young
Turks’ appeal for support to the Kosovo Albanians was also based on the stated
desire to preserve Islam and implement Sharia law, both of which
fundamentalist leaders among the Albanians desired. Ironically, however, while the CPU
regularly railed on Sultan Abdul Hamid in its appeals to peoples being
massacred under his watch such as the Armenians, Bulgarians and Macedonians, it
praised him to the Kosovo Albanians, who apparently regarded the sultan fondly as
a sort of `father figure.’
On at least one occasion, the author recounts, a contemporary Greek journal
pointed out the contradictions in this wildly divergent rhetoric, which would
have been clear to anyone capable of reading the CPU’s printed materiel.
Indeed, while the CPU was able to bring together a wide enough coalition to act
with its confusing and opportunistic rhetoric, the latent contradictions in
it would cripple its efforts to rule afterward, and provide direct impetusfor
the already rebelling ethnic groups to continue their quest- the exact
opposite of what the Young Turks had hoped to avoid by their revolution.
Nevertheless, by 1913, with the conclusion of the Balkan Wars, the unthinkable had
happened, and the Ottoman Empire had been driven almost entirely out of Europe.
Of course, those non-Turks who signed on with the CPU were not necessarily
taken in by the Young Turk rhetoric; they were merely attempting to secure
their own interests. In any case, it would have been clear to them that Ottoman `
equality’ in the eyes of the CPU meant an understood dominant rolefor the
Turks, who resented what they felt was special treatment for the non-Muslim
populations of the empire.
Realpolitik, nevertheless, played a considerable role. The Armenian rebels in
the east were in dire straits by 1907, as was Jane Sandanski’s Macedonian
band of rebels, following a schism caused by this faction’s assassination of
two leaders of the Bulgarian IMRO in November of that year. The Albanian Tosks
in Albania proper saw alliance with the Young Turks as a precursor to
independence, whereas the Ghegs of Kosovo saw it as a way to promote Islamand stave
off foreign intervention, in order to keep the European _Murzsteg reforms_
( nternational-intervention-in-macedonia
-1903-1909- the-murzsteg-reforms/) , set up to protect persecuted Christians
in Macedonia, out of their lands. In the months preceding the revolution, the
CPU made appeals to both the right-wing of the IMRO in Bulgaria and the Greek
government, which controlled surreptitiously the Greek bands fighting in
Macedonia. Both were mistrustful of the `reformist’ intentions and refused to
participate.
Developing a Network
This did not mean, however, that the Young Turks were not active through
their secret networks in these lands. It took them several years to createthis
network, and even to grasp the concept of how vital it would be in any effort
to make the government bend to its will. At the same time, the CPU was not
prepared to dilute its message or give up any of its power to groups formed
inside the bounds of the empire – what became known as the =80=98internal’
committees – and the =80=98external’ one in Paris.
Lawless Macedonia, then under weak European supervision with the advent of
the Murzsteg reform program, proved exceptionally fertile ground for CPU local
branches to operate and to infiltrate the Ottoman army. It was also able to
set up branches among Turkish populations in Bulgarian towns such as
Kazanlak, Plovdiv, Vidin, Shumen, Balchik and Dobrich. The Greek island of Crete,
then in an uneasy state of autonomy, also contained CPU sympathizers amongthe
threatened Muslim population.
The CPU, aware that any reinforcement troops to be sent to Macedonia in case
of a rebellion would be sent from Aydin province (near Izmir in Anatolia),
made special efforts to propagandize the Aydin troops against the Sultan well
in advance (they would be spectacularly successful in the end in so doing).
Nevertheless, on an operational level, the Macedonian port city of
Thessaloniki and Bitola to the north played the major role in the Young Turk’s =80=98internal
‘ committee structure in the Balkans.
Constantinople, the ultimate prize, proved however exceptionally hard to
penetrate, as the Sultan’s `extensive spy networks=80=9D were naturally very active
there (one would like to have heard more about the activities and
organization of these networks). From the correspondence and records of the CPU leaders,
a marvelous picture emerges of turn-of-the-century intrigue: members
crossing international borders in disguise, secret notebooks meant to be stored in
safes, special code numbers ofr committee members, oaths of silence and
penalties of death- all these and more tell the story of the CPU as an operational
force. Although to modern ears they can sound amusingly archaic at times,
these were the attributes of espionage a century ago, and were taken very
seriously.
Another element that is oddly touching, in light of our modern sense of
cynicism, is the very real influence of written propaganda (in the form ofthe
CPU journal, Turk and other publications) on readers. In an age when
periodicals relied to some extent on payment of subscriptions rather than advertising,
readership was significant to the life of any journal and the pages of
_Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908_
( lution-1902-1908-Studies-Eastern/dp/019513463X/bal kanalysisc-20)
are full of examples of activist journals that failed. Turk, however,
resonated with common people from North Africa to the Middle East and Europe, and
the (to us, strangely) heartfelt letters it elicited evidence this. In fact,
the CPU seems to have gotten a fair number of branch members from those who
read, and agreed with, its party magazine.
Unanswered Questions and Interesting Details
The arrangement of these branches was done cleverly. CPU’s leadership in
Paris was a paranoid and authoritarian lot, and to lessen the chances thatfield
operations would not be compromised, they established each branch via
written correspondence and authorized direct communication only between each branch
and the center- not, at first, from branch to branch. Yet given the rapid
success of the CPU in establishing and managing these branches from afar, the
author could have attempted to delve somewhat into the personalities of the
leaders. True, _Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908_
( lution-1902-1908-Studies-Eastern/dp/019513463
X/ba lkanalysisc-20) is neither a psychological study nor a novel: still,
the reader would like to comprehend how a small group of activists only
differentiated by the nuances of their ideological stance was able to accomplish so
much, so fast.
Clearly, the CPU was led by some capable figures, yet we do not hear much
about their individual personal qualities- just who was popular with who, and
who wielded more authority than the others at various points. Nevertheless,
considering the rapid expansion of CPU activity between 1906-1908, it remains a
mystery to us as how a handful of men were able to deal with what must have
been an ever-mounting avalanche of correspondence, and increasingly complex
issues requiring immediate and careful decision-making.
There are other unanswered questions that emerge from _Preparation for a
Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908_
( lution-1902-1908-Studies-Eastern/dp/019513463X/bal kanalysisc-20) . Considering
the highly controversial activities of the CPU, and its ambivalent
relationship with the European powers (whom it accused of bloodthirsty imperialism in
the Ottoman Empire, as well as Islamophobia, morale hypocrisy and disingenuous
pontification) it is unfortunate that the author does not mention how they
were allowed to operate undisturbed from the very middle of Paris. Very
interesting questions are not raised, such as why the French government tolerated
the group (at one point it is revealed that the French were keeping police
dossiers on the CPU, apparently still in the Paris archives today), and why the
Sultan never sent assassins to eliminate them.
Nevertheless, one mark of a good study is that it raised more questions the
further the investigation goes, and in this Dr. HanioÄ=9Flu’s work is a fine
example. Another distinction is the number of interesting details that popup
here and there, regarding which readers and scholars might be intrigued enough
to delve into further on their own.
Such is the case with the tales of a Turkish professor at Cambridge
University whom the CPU recruited to monitor the British media for anti-Turkish
articles, or the Turkish science students in Paris who were asked for bomb-making
advice. And we learn that in their early days, in fact, the Young Turks
contemplated assassinating hated Ottoman political leaders with the help of
Italian anarchists. We read of the uproarious case of an angry Albanian mob that
gathered when it was learned that the children of Austrian railworkers in
Skopje had been allowed to have a picnic in Kosovo. The surprising number of
Young Turks that became Freemasons, the personal descriptions of Turkish death
squads pillaging Macedonian villages, and the decisive role of Albanian
irregulars in fleshing out the actual revolutionary brigades of 1908 are just a few
of the great many interesting details presented in the book.
Most fundamentally, however, _Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks,
1902-1908_
( on-Revolution-1902-1908-Studies-Eastern/dp/0195134 63X/balkanalysisc-20) is vital for what it proves, and how
it does so. From the fervent scrawlings of the Young Turks themselves, the
reader of today is exposed for the first time to the intimate thoughts of these
turn-of-the-century revolutionaries who, despite their own success, would
hasten the downfall of an empire they had sought to save.
In the pages of this seminal work, it becomes eminently clear that all of
the rich complexities and contradictions of modern Turkey – ranging from
fiercely argued attitudes to Europe and the idea of `Western progress,’
nationalism and the question of other ethnicities in Turkish and former Turkish lands,
and of course Islam – have been not only existing, but have been actively
debated, for well over 100 years. While the immediate value of the work isits
historical specifics, it is the insights into an uncanny and remarkable
continuity of existence that is perhaps the reader’s greatest reward.

Garegin II: I think demonstration of intolerance is inadmissible and I
hope that post-election processes in Armenia will remain within the
frames of law and sanity will win

2008-02-23 16:45:00

ArmInfo. Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II met today Prime
Minister Serzh SarkisyanAs ArmInfo was informed from press-service of
the Armenian government, over the meeting Catholicos congratulated
Serzh Sarkisyan for the victory at the presidential election and
blessed him.
Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II touching on the post-election
situation in the country said that demonstration of intolerance is
inadmissible and he hopes that post-election processes in Armenia will
remain within the frames of law and sanity will win. For his part,
Serzh Sarkisyan assured Garegin II that the authorities are very much
concerned about preserving of the post-election situation within the
frames of all and do everything possible for that. Relevant structures
are ready to implement the measures for preserving law and order, Serzh
Sarkisyan said.

Armenian president accuses opposition of coup attempt

18:30 | 23/ 02/ 2008

YEREVAN, February 23 (RIA Novosti) – Armenia’s incumbent president
described on Saturday opposition protests against the results of
Tuesday’s polls in the country, which elected Prime Minister Serzh
Sarkisyan its new leader, as a coup attempt.

European and CIS observers described the February 19 polls, where
Sarkisyan received 52.86% of the vote, as complying with international
democratic standards. However, supporters of Sarkisyan’s nearest rival,
Armenia’s first president Levon-Ter-Petrosyan, who garnered 21.5%, have
refused to recognize the elections as valid. The opposition has been
rallying in central Yerevan since Wednesday, calling for new elections.

"Our action will be resolute and sharp, aimed at maintaining stability
and constitutional order in the country," President Robert Kocharyan
said, adding that the country’s stability could never be "a bargaining
issue."

The outgoing president held three separate meetings on Saturday with
chiefs of the country’s police, Army and security service. He
complained that the events in Armenia were aimed at creating tensions
and regretted the absence in the country of "an important element of
democracy," a culture to admit failure.

Senior police officers assured the president that the police had enough
capacity to neutralize provocations and maintain law and order in the
republic.

Earlier on Saturday, Kocharyan decreed to dismiss Gagik Dzhangiryan,
deputy prosecutor general, who expressed his support to Ter-Petrosyan
at an opposition rally on Friday.

Meanwhile, the European Union and Washington have issued statements to
congratulate Armenia on "competitive" presidential polls.

"We congratulate the people of Armenia on the active and competitive
presidential election of February 19 and note the preliminary
assessment of the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights (ODIHR) and Parliamentary Assembly that the election was ‘mostly
in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for
democratic elections,’" State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey
said on Friday.

However, Washington pointed to certain problems with electoral
procedures and urged the Armenian government "investigate all
allegations of irregularities, and implement steps to improve future
elections."

The EU Presidency welcomed "the genuine efforts that were made to
address the shortcomings in previous elections" and called Armenia’s
elections "an important test for democracy."

The EU also expressed concerns about the electoral process and pushed
for further improvements "to address the remaining challenges."

DeFacto Agency, Armenia
Feb 19 2008

RA FM: ARMENIA TO EXPRESS ITS POSITION ON KOSOVO ISSUE IN NEAR TIME

YEREVAN, 19.02.08. DE FACTO. Armenia will express its position on the
Kosovo issue in the near future, RA FM Vardan Oskanian told
Novosti-Armenia Agency on Tuesday.
`We are still discussing the Kosovo issue and in the near future
we’ll express our opinion’, Oskanian said.
Answering a question if the Kosovo issue could contribute to the
Karabakh conflict settlement Oskanian said, `We’ll see’.
On February 17, 2008 the Kosovo Parliament voted for the adoption of
the independence declaration.
109 MPs voted for the declaration’s adoption. The representatives of
Serbs, who have 10 seats in the Parliament, did not participate in
the ceremony.

Police brings up facts of law violation by supporters of Ter-Petrosyan

armradio.am
19.02.2008 19:39

Head of the Public Relations Department of the Armenian Police,
Lieutenant Colonel Sayat Shirinyan stated that this afternoon member of
the central headquarter of presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan
Samvel Gevorgyan and 12 allies of his entered the territory of the
polling station 22/37 in Vardadzor village of Gegharkunik marz and
tried to hinder the work of the electoral commission.

Mediamax reports that Sayat Shirinyan stated that the electors and
proxies of the presidential candidates, who were at the polling
station, managed to send them out of the polling station, after
which Gevorgian’s group escaped. The Police are searching for Samvel
Gevorgyan and the people accompanying him.

Sayat Shirinyan informed that at about 14:00, the police department
of Maralik town of Shirak marz received a statement, according to
which not far from the polling station 36/34, the head of the local
pre-election staff of Levon Ter-Petrosyan Harutiun Urumyan inflicted
bodily injuries to the proxy of Serge Sarkisyan Suren Avetisyan.

Sayat Shirinyan informed that at 14:30 the chairman of the electoral
commission of Vanadzor polling station 30/22 Edik Vahanyan turned to
the employee of the Police on duty at the polling station with the
request to move away from the territory of the polling station the
proxy of presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who hindered the
normal work of the commission. Members of the commission composed the
corresponding protocol, after which Sofia Kalantaryan was moved away
from the territory of the polling station.

ARMENIAN DEFENCE MINISTER BACKS PREMIER IN PRESIDENTIAL POLLS

ArmInfo
Feb 15 2008
Armenia

Yerevan, 15 February: Armenian Defence Minister Mikayel Harutyunyan
is sure that the presidential candidate andformer Armenian defence
minister, Serzh Sargsyan, who currently holds the post of prime
minister, will be a goodpresident. Harutyunyan said this at a meeting
with journalists today.

"I have supported and will support Sargsyan in the presidential
election. For me, as defence minister, it is notjust the election
of the president, but also that of the supreme commander-in-chief
who will be making decisionsconcerning the armed forces and will be
leading them if necessary," the minister said.

Harutyunyan added that Sargsyan has headed the country’s armed forces
for many years and is well-versed in this sphere and its problems.

WEEKLY REPORT
The Armenia Fund Rural Development Program
Governmental Building 3, Yerevan, RA
Contact: Sose Amirkhanian
Tel: + (3741) 56 01 06 ext. 107
Fax: +(3741) 52 15 05
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

15 February, 2008

The Armenia Fund Rural Development Program Weekly Update

15 February, 2008, With St. Valentine’s Day just behind us and the
Presidential elections fast approaching, this week we are truly caught in
the middle of the two great powers – love and politics. Nevertheless, we
will resist the temptation to stray away and are determined to stick to our
core topics. So, this week’s topics are: the Rural Development Program
working trip to Karabakh (with a little something extra) and yet another
small project coming to life. In the spotlight of the meet the people
section is Sevan Varteressian, who made the latest small project possible.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM VISIT TO KARABAKH

On February 11, the Armenia Fund Rural Development Program staff made a
three day working trip to Karabakh. The aim of the visit was on the ground
assessment of the situation in some of the border villages.

The revitalization of the border villages of Karabakh is very much in the
focus of the Rural Development Program and while the challenges we face are
comparable to the ones we have in Armenia, the magnitude of the work to be
done is significantly larger. Where in Armenia we are working on reviving
the infrastructure damaged by the lack of maintenance and a turbulent
transition period, in Karabakh we are dealing with places directly and
painfully affected by an armed conflict.

While the capital Stepanakert is a rapidly developing, vibrant city, the
rural areas still very much bear the heavy marks of war. The road through
these villages is a powerful testament to the extent of the devastation. A
lot has been done both by the governments of Armenia and Karabakh and
organizations like the Armenia Fund yet the signs of war are not easy to
erase and there is still a long way to go to ensure the people of Karabakh a
normal life.

As part of our trip we visited several border villages in Karabakh’s
Martakert region. The economic development and market access are serious
issues that need to be tackled in these communities as the roads that are
the lifelines of commerce are almost nonexistent: in the wintertime, these
villages are virtually cut off from the rest of the world; all that the
people there can do is hope that the winter will not last too long.

In the village of Mokhratagh we had a very personal experience of what it is
like to try to get somewhere without a road. Our car (a Niva – Russia’s
(inadequate) answer to Jeep) was trying to make its way up a steep hill,
which wasn’t an attempt at extreme tourism but simply the road to the local
community administration. For half an hour, the car was sliding, turning,
getting stuck and performing all the associated actions except for moving
forward. Only thanks to the help (and valuable advice) of the community
members and the efforts of our driver (he should do off-road racing!) were
we finally able to reach our destination point, (follow this link to catch a
bit of the action for yourself). For us this was a one time occurrence, for
people living here this is everyday life.

What really stays with you after the trip to the villages is the admiration
with the people who live and try to build their lives there. Deprived of
almost everything that is taken by us for granted, these people are full of
resolve to carry on. Their spirit is unwavering and they have great hopes
for a better future for themselves and their children. Our job is to do
everything to make sure that their hopes become a reality.

YET ANOTHER SMALL PROJECT COMES TO LIFE

The launch of the small projects by the Armenia Fund was met with a lot of
enthusiasm by people from all around the world. This enthusiasm materializes
into specific projects coming to life. The latest project will see Lori
region’s Dzyunashogh community library receive a computer and a printer.

The project was made possible by Mr. Sevan Varteressian from the US. With
the funds already transferred, we were able to go on and purchase the
necessary equipment and will deliver it to the border village in the
beginning of the next week.

The community of Dzyunashogh met the news with excitement. In fact, the
community made the decision to undertake the reconstruction of the local
library with their own resources. In a place where there are scores over
scores of unsolved problems, this kind of a decision is a strong statement
and an indicator of just how important this kind of projects are for the
community.

The Dzyunashogh community school will also receive furniture as part of the
Armenia Fund joint project with Hay Dproc Foundation.

MEET THE PEOPLE: SEVAN VARTERESSIAN

This week, our spotlight is on Sevan Varteressian, who made possible the
realization of the Dzyunashogh community library computer/printer small
project. Mr. Varteressian and his wife Miganoosh have been closely following
the progress of the Rural Development Program through our regular updates.
This is what Mr. Varteressian told us in a short interview:

"My wife and I are glad to have been of help for a good cause. Once an
Armenian is aware of the difficulties of his country people, it will take a
cold heart to refuse help. Your reports are instrumental in providing vision
of our country people.

>From the three programs that you had offered, the computer program was most
attractive as an informative, organizational and educational tool,
especially for the children. I hope it will have Internet connection for the
people to have an understanding of the world.

And why we chose Dzyunashogh? Since we haven’t been to those villages,
because it had the most beautiful and unique name. We hope the children will
take advantage of our help to advance their knowledge and skills and become
successful people and in turn to help others."

Georgia has no plans to recognize Kosovo

20:02 | 17/ 02/ 2008

TBILISI, February 17 (RIA Novosti) – Georgia does not intend to
recognize Kosovo’s independence, and the issue is not on the agenda, a
parliamentary spokesman for the former Soviet republic said on Sunday.

Kosovo unilaterally declared independence on Sunday. The U.S. and other
European states are expected to recognize its sovereignty on Monday.

He said Georgia was more concerned by Russia’s stance on South Ossetia
and Abkhazia.

"The issue is not on the agenda. We care about the future of our
territories," he said. "We will wait and see what Russia does
concerning Abkhazia and South Ossetia."

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on Saturday that "Under the
Constitution all people living on the Georgian soil are the citizens of
Georgia and the country has a constitutional obligation and the right
to protect its territory and citizens."

He added that "if there are citizens of Russia in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia, then they are living there illegally."

Russia has repeatedly said that granting Kosovo sovereignty could set a
precedent and trigger a chain reaction for secessionist regions
throughout the world.

"The declaration of sovereignty by Kosovo and its recognition will
doubtlessly be taken into account in [Russia’s] relations with Abkhazia
and South Ossetia. Nevertheless, Russia confirms its intention to seek
a peaceful settlement for the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South
Ossetian conflicts," Russia’s Foreign Ministry said earlier.

However, Western countries supporting Kosovo’s independence insist that
its case is unique, and that there is no threat of the subsequent
weakening of international law.

The Conservative Voice, North Carolina
Feb 16 2008

The Enemy of My Friend is My Enemy?

by by Edward Papelian
February 16, 2008 12:00 PM EST

With all due respect to the numerous Jewish-born humanists,
historians, writers, individual personalities, Chief Rabbi, Yona
Metzger and many other that have had the courage to take a stand for
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and justice for this crime,
it is none the less obvious that the official representatives of
Judaism and above all Jewish/Israeli politicians still have a lot to
catch up on.

Turkish Prime Minster, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, called upon Turkish
migrant workers in a very controversial and emotional speech, on Feb
10 in Germany city of Cologne, to resist assimilation and remain
Turkish. Erdogan confused in his above mentioned speech "integration"
with "assimilation". According to Turkish Prime Minister:
`Assimilation is a crime against humanity’! Erdogan´s nationalistic
views on needed intergration of Turks in German society cuased an
outcry in Germany. One should just bring to the attention of Turkish
authorities that the Australian government apologized Wednesday (Feb
13) for years of "mistreatment" and decades of racist policies that
inflicted "profound grief, suffering and loss" on the country’s
Aboriginal people. When is Turkey – an `allay and friend’ of Israel
and Us – going to end its racist policies and apologize for the
systematic destruction of Armenians as other Christian folks and
forced turcifications in Turkey? According to Turkish palace
historians all Non Turks living in Ottoman Turkey were `foreign spies
and infidels…"

Even though the internationally recognized and respected Jewish
jurist and human rights activist Rafael Lemkin already concerned
himself with and recognized the systematic destruction of the
Armenians as a "murder of race" at the start of the 1930s, the fact
remains that justice for the Armenian Genocide is still being
aggressively denied by influential organizations of the Jewish
Diaspora as well as by the State of Israel itself.

Genocide – extermination of a race – is a political crime. Genocides
are not committed by private individuals, but by the state itself.
The reference to historians and historical science in regard to the
Armenian Genocide is a tactical and spurious argument to relieve the
world governments from the responsibility to act while simultaneously
giving the perpetrators carte blanche. The proper reaction to
political crimes is therefore only possible through political
response – from the parliamentary houses, the politicians and the
governments.

Now more than ever the denial of genocide must be responded to, for
denial is intrinsic to the methodology of genocide. Genocide is
denied even as it is practiced.

>From the beginning, the perpetrator seeks pretexts and justifications
to conceal the real intentions. Thus, the extermination is referred
to as "transporting," as "deportation" or "resettlement" – "moving to
secure places" or even as the "final solution." A verbal code is used
to camouflage and thus deny the annihilation, even as it is being
committed. No wonder after the `deportation (i.e. Annihilation) of
Armenians in Turkey everything become ?Turkish’.

Genocide without simultaneous denial is unthinkable – yes, even
impossible. The first thing that must be done is to consider what the
perpetrators want to attain through denial. Denial is not just the
simple negation of an act; it is much more the consequent
continuation of the very act itself. Genocide should not only
physically destroy a community; it should likewise dictate the
prerogative of interpretation in regard to history, culture,
territory and memory. As the victims- Armenians – "never exists".

The Turkish have not only murdered humans , destroyed an ancient
culture/civilization and rewritten history, but they continue to
legitimize the act as well as the racist ideology that led to the
act. This includes the legitimization of any and all stereotyping of
the Armenian people as a dangerous enemy, as a deadly bogeyman in the
closet.

Denial is the final step in the completion of a mass extermination –
and the first step towards the next genocide. If genocide is
committed in Ruanda or Sudan, it is done with the knowledge that the
rest of the world will only watch and then forget.

They look to Turkey and think themselves safe in the assumption that
their actions will likewise remain unpunished! Whether in Sudan or
Ruanda or any other potential hotspot of mass murder the accountable
powers-that-be rhetorically ask – as Hitler supposedly did just
before invading Poland – "Who, after all, speaks today of the
annihilation of the Armenians?"

The Republic of Turkey has denied the Armenian Genocide for the past
84 years, and politicians in Israel and a vast majority of officials
of Jewish Diaspora are aboard their boat now. In the USA, for
example, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) not only denied the
Armenian Genocide in the past but also actively fought against the
Congressional Resolution for the Recognition of the Armenian
Genocide. At the end of August 2007, the ADL finally recognized the
Armenian Genocide through gritted teeth. The acknowledgment given,
however, was qualified to such an extent that one could have done
without it. A similar statement of recognition was also
simultaneously supplied by the American Jewish Committee.

Presently, the AIPAC totally denies to have ever fought against the
official recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US government
and now presents itself as being neutral in regard to the subject.
(And apparently "neutral" is just what they are.)

Pierre Besnainou, the acting president of the European Jewish
Congress (EJC) until early 2007, stated in 2006 that the Armenian
people should stop making fools of themselves: there has been only
one genocide in modern times and as everyone knows it was that of the
Jews – an Armenian Genocide never happened. (We have yet to see what
the attitude of Moshe Kantor, the current president of the EJC, is in
this regard.)

In 2001, while he was the Israeli Foreign Minister, Nobel Prize
winner and current President of Israel Shimon Peres described the
Armenians as "meaningless" ("Armenian allegations") Moreover, this
year President Shimon Peres and the current Israeli Foreign Minister
Tzipi Livni did a heroic act that in no way pales to the statements
regarding the Holocaust expressed by the President Ahmadinejad: Peres
affirmed Israel’s attitude to the "Armenian Question" and promised
the Turkish Prime Minster Erdogan to lobby against the Armenians,
while Minster Livni prevented the Knesset from officially recognizing
the Armenian Genocide.

The statement given: "Genocide never happened. There was a "tragedy"
with victims on both sides. Please reconcile yourselves now and start
a dialog." Once again, a replay of the Turkish argument of shameless
denial by a Israeli official: "There were mutual killings and No mass
Killings."

Just recently Israeli President Shimon Peres let himself be vocally
celebrated by hundreds of Genocide deniers in the Turkish Parliament,
including numerous Turkish fascists, racists, ultra-nationalists and
fundamentalists In Ankara, President Shimon Peres reiterated his
support for the denial of the Armenian Genocide and conveyed his full
acceptance of the Turkish politics of lies and denial. But it cannot
escape the notice of an experienced politician like President Shimon
Peres that the Genocide deniers in Ankara are no longer simply
satisfied with the repudiation of the Armenian Genocide.

Turkish Prime Minster Erdogan and the other Turkish nationalists have
long since joined forces to create Pan Turanic – "Pan Turkish"-
institutions with the specific aim of try(ing) to prove the
‘illegality’ of the existence of the Armenian people to the world.

When the French Ambassador to Great Britain, Daniel Bernard, referred
to Israel as "this shitty little country" in 2001, there was a storm
of protest and he was quickly labeled an Anti-Semite. But what should
an Armenian call someone that denies the Armenian Genocide and refers
to Armenians as "meaningless"? If that were even just all that is
being done: Above and beyond this, Turkey has demanded that Israel
instruct the "Jewish Lobby" to agitate against the Armenians. Of
course the reference to the "Jewish Lobby" is an allusion to the
Jewish Diaspora and – as is the case when talking of Diasporas –
carries a whiff of world conspiracy and global domination.

Thus, the "Jewish Conspiracy" should follow Ankara’s tune and
eliminate, obliterate, purge (whatever you choose to call it) the
"Armenian Conspiracy." Under normal circumstances the concept would
be laughable, but laughter is not advisable as it could result in
asphyxiation.

Why Do Jewish Organizations and their Functionaries Deny the Armenian
Genocide as Turkey Does Deny recognition and Justice for this Crime?
How can this act of denial be harmonious with the Jewish moral
concepts and identity in light of the xenophobia, racism,
Anti-Semitism, hostility and intolerance that the sorely tested
Jewish People are themselves confronted with on a daily basis?
Genocide is racism: it is the most paramount and aggressive form of
racial discrimination, and is aimed at the obliteration of the
existence and life of a people only because they belong to a specific
community or collective – a community that is defined by the
aggressors as "the others," as "the alien."

Two reasons are commonly given for the "placating" activities of the
international Jewish community in regard to Turkey’s denial policies:
Israel needs Turkey, and the Holocaust is unique. On occasion a third
reason is also offered: to do otherwise would result in repercussions
against the Jewish community in Istanbul. (Although if this were
true, the US Congress and Senate could never pass any resolutions
against Iran: as is well known, numerous Jewish people also live in
Tehran, Yazd, and Isfahan for centuries!) Statements such as those
are, in the end, nothing but hollow attempts to justify denial.
The attitude of Jewish Organizations and their functionaries in
regard to the Armenian Genocide not only results in their involvement
in the guilt of the perpetrators but also produces a culpability of
their own as well.

An attitude such as theirs supports and perpetuates the bogeyman
image of the Armenians that has long been cherished by the Turkish
while simultaneously strengthening the Turkish nationalistic
self-image. Above and beyond this, when Jewish functionaries describe
the Ottoman Turkey as a paradise of earth, they both distort history
and negate the inhumanities experienced by the Armenian as other Non
Turkish People; instead, an unmerited image of a heroic and
pro-Judaic Turkey is propagated throughout Jewish communities and
private homes.

Thus, in turn, within the sphere of the Jewish Diaspora and even
Israel itself, a new generation grows that is spoon-fed the
misconceptions of the valiant Turk and perfidious Armenian. In regard
to this current situation, is oddly ironic that the modern usage of
the word "Holocaust" – used so often by international communities to
describe the Shoah – was first introduced to describe the Turkish
bloodbath suffered by the Armenians in Adana in 1909. (Ferriman,
Z.D.: The Young Turks and the Truth about the Holocaust at Adana in
Asia Minor during April 1909; London, 1913.)

The Enemy of My Friend is also My Enemy. Is the demonization of the
Armenian Community within the Jewish Diaspora done with this concept
in mind? Some examples among others: In July 2007 an article was
published in the "Juedische Zeitung" ("Jewish Newspaper") in Germany
which totally supported and serviced the policies of genocide denial
and victim-perpetrator-reversal as practiced alla Turca.

The "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs" published in November this
year in its webpage an article written by Ms. Aydan Kodaloglu, an
advisor to the former Turkish President Turgut Özal; in her article,
Kodaoglu attempted to make the denial of the Armenian Genocide (even
more) palatable for the Jewish and Israeli population. (Ironically
enough, according to Nüzhet Kandemir, the former Turkish ambassador
to the USA, President Turgut Ozal was himself on the brink of
recognizing the Armenian Genocide.)

In turn, in the Jerusalem Post Joel J. Sprayregen (the former
National Vice-Chair of the ADL and a member of the Executive
Committee of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA)) took the Armenian resistance during the Genocide to justify
denial alla Turca – "There was no genocide" – he was referring to
history fakers – despite the fact that he must be fully aware that
one could easily reinterpret reality and deny the Jewish Holocaust
through the misrepresentation of the Warsaw Uprising, the
Theresienstadt- deportation camp, the "sale" and departure of the
Jews to Switzerland during the Holocaust , existence of Jewish units
in the British Army (traditional foe of Germany during WW) ,struggle
of Jewish for a "Jewish State", and survival of millions of Jews
people …

And in the US, one could easily come to assume that Washington Times
– which often reads as a copy of the Turkish press – aims at leading
a war against the Armenian Genocide Resolution (HR 106) in the US
Congress.

Holocaust-denier, David Irving, is serving more and more as example
as a paradigm for the denial of Armenian Genocide. Mr. Lenny
Ben-David, former undersecretary at the Israeli Embassy in the US and
A adviser for five years to the Turkish embassy in Washington, until
earlier this summer, In his article published in the Oct. 5 issue of
the Jerusalem Post, titled "Turkey and Armenia: What Jews should do,"
Not only denied the Armenian Genocide and creates hysteria and
Armenophobe but in his article he gives a lot of credit to the
fabrication of Turkish and Azeri nationalists and fascists. This is
again not a hidden fact even for this politician that the aim of
Turkish fabrications against Armenians in the next step includes:
suggesting removing Armenia from the maps, as a people and country
which doesn’t exist…

If you assume A Armenian student from Jerusalem will be allow in an
official ceremony in Israel to refer to the Armenian Genocide, you
are mistaken. This shouldn’t come to you as a surprise either; in
Istanbul the remaining Armenian children from "Western Armenia"
(After Genocide renamed to "Eastern Anatolia") are forced to write
essays how their ancestors committed "genocide against Turks" (This
is just distressful, nauseating, sadistic and perverse.)

Denial is known as a second killing (a "bloodless-killing"). There is
an aggressive denial of Armenian Genocide on going by Turkey.
Unfortunately, a big part of officials of Jewish Diaspora and Israel
are involved in the denial of Armenian Genocide and this act – their
involvement in denial – doesn’t differ much from the involvement of
German military officer in Armenian Genocide in 1915 (This reference
should make clearer – to help to reach a better understanding- what
really the denial of Armenian Genocide by Jewish politicians means
for Armenian people and other Christian people who were subject of
genocide by Turkish!)

If politically allies do it, it’s not genocide but "Tragedy". `Only
the Turkish Nation has the right to put an ethnically and racial
claim on this land (e.g. "Anatolia" including ears where Armenians
were deported and killed en mass by Turkish).’ Ismet Inonu 1939,
President and successor of Ataturk. Presdient Isemt Inonu was one of
the chief architects of Turkish denial and justification of Armenian
Genocide. Today, there are Turkish "palace historians" that aim to
erase all references to "Armenia" and "Armenian people" in the
libraries of the world. This is a fact that is easily documented.
Professor Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu, the racially motivated President of
the Turkish Historical Society with the assistance of Turkish
fascists, extends great effort on proving the non-existence of the
Armenian People and, in turn, the state of "Armenia." The statements
of many Jewish Diaspora and Israeli officials that "there was no
Armenian Genocide" play directly into the hands of the official
policy Turkey and the Turkish Nationalists and fascists.
Justification of Armenian Genocide and a narrow-minded ethnic foreign
politics of Turkey in the region leads us to the conclusion that
Turkey has no problems with the fact of Armenian Genocide. Turkish
problem seems to be the existence of Armenian State and the struggle
of Armenian Diaspora for justice. Denial of Armenian Genocide by
Turkey, Turkish hostile attitudes regarding Armenian State and the
statement of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2004 that `Even if the Kurds
establish a Kurdish State in Argentina Turkey would fight this’, are
the policies of a failed State rather than the policy of a civilized
and democratic country!

A nation that has been the victim of genocide should not be forced to
prove the fact of genocide. For a nation to support the perpetrators
of genocide by placating the world with official statements
supporting the Turkish government’s shameless policies of denial is
disgraceful and appalling; for a nation that itself has likewise
suffered an attempted obliteration to do so is incomprehensible. The
"placating" efforts by Jewish officials and functionaries are doomed
to backfire: the denial of the Armenian Genocide in no way helps to
make Israel stronger or to increase the security of the Jewish
People.

Turkey and Turkish nationalists have always used other people for the
implementation of their inhuman policies against "non-Turks" in order
to achieve their own final goals, if not their own "final solution"

Words such as dialogue, reconciliation, and rapprochement are terms
that awaken fundamentally positive associations, but they are being
used without any reflection upon or reference to historical fact or
fairness, let alone justice. It is beyond understanding that the
newspapers of the Jewish Diaspora present the Armenians as the
"irreconcilable" or "troublemaker", as the "true" disruptor in
international relations, when it is the Turkish that continually
attempt to illegalize or negate the discussion. (What dialogue would
the Jewish Nation have with Germany had Germany demanded and been
permitted to forbid the acknowledgment of the holocaust and justice?)

Is the Jewish community the "troublemaker" when the Iranian President
Ahmadinejad denies the Shoah? A crime that happened 60 years ago and
that he himself did not participate in?

The statement that the genocide happened 90 years ago or the
insinuation that the Armenian Diaspora – the "Armenian Conspiracy" –
are endangering world peace because they are motivated by
self-swerving interests serve again nothing else than to protect the
perpetrator. But is it not the purpose and duty of international
criminal law to protect the victim? Should criminal law protect the
rapist or killer because the victim supposedly "asked for it"? Is
international law only a "law for the stronger" and thus only there
to protect the state and not the individual?

Are terms such as "crimes against humanity," "genocide," "war crimes"
and "war of aggression" only there to protect the aggressors and not
the victims? The Armenian Diaspora – the masses of people forced to
disperse throughout the world – is a result of the genocide executed
by the Turkish; the Diaspora Armenians are not pursuing an arbitrary
and unfounded interest, they have a justified demand for justice and
recognition. At the same time, this demand is also a concern of the
international community of states which created and approved the
legislation known as "public international law" or "international
criminal law."

It is not just a matter of morality to condemn genocide; it is a
premise for peaceful coexistence. It is a cornerstone of
international peace, and the looming threat of this very crime is a
principal reason behind military intervention and self-defense.

A question that might arise when reading this text is why do I only
write about the Jewish Community and Israeli politicians? Well, this
is due to the following fact: aside from the Turkish themselves,
Israeli politicians and the Jewish Diaspora are the only ones that go
beyond the "simple" denial of the Armenian Genocide (and denial of
Turkish genocides against other Christian people, e.g. The Assyrian
Genocide) to both aggressively practice a virulent policy of denial
and likewise try to inspire others to do the same. For example, the
unprecedented dedication with which Shimon Peres supported the
"fight" against the Armenian Resolution in the US Congress while Bill
Clinton was still president.

The relationship between the Jewish People and the Turkish is based
on lies and the denial of the Armenian Genocide – the denial of the
1.5 million Armenians that died by the hands of the Ottoman Turkey
from 1915-1923. It is a relationship that is based on criminal
complicity in hushing up a horrific transgression against humanity
and that totally disregards all concepts of moral and justice.

Namik Tan, the Turkish Ambassador to Israel, described this
relationship in September 2007: "The Turkish People make no
differentiation between Israel and the Jews of the world. To us, you
are all one. We have no pact with Israel, but rather with the whole
Jewish world. If the Jewish lobby disappears, Israel loses its
importance to us. Therefore, Israel takes the responsibility when a
Jewish organization speaks of Genocide." (Jerusalem Post, 2007)

The truth shall set Turkish and Jewish officials free. Implementation
of international agreed reforms for "Western Armenia/ Turkish
Armenian" and eliminating – "getting rid" – of a nation/people by
Turkey are not the same. Only the fact of genocide can keep alive
disinformation policy, the genocide denial industry and the
nationally authorized and aggressive Turkish politics of denial.
Israeli/Jewish officials should advice their "friends/allies" in
Ankara to stop making fools of themselves. Armenian Genocide was
proved as Armenian Genocide was happening.

The whole world was witness of this genocide. Besides this: Armenian
Genocide is well documented above all by Turkish war time ally
Germany (even though a part of this documents being destroyed in1919
and 1940s.) According to Taner Akcam, a nonconformist Turkish
historian, "The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the basis of
Turkey’s existence." At the latest, Amb. Namik Tan’s statements above
and the aggressive denial of Armenian Genocide by President Shimon
Peres also reveal and proves that the relationship between Israel and
Turkey is also based the denial of the Armenian Genocide (raison
d’État instead of right to truth and justice.)

One cannot help but wonder how long a relationship built on boundless
dishonesty, immorality, denial and lies is capable or destined to
last… Indeed, it is truly incomprehensible that the Jewish Diaspora
denies the Armenian Genocide for the "good" of Israel. What lasting
"good" has ever come from the denial of genocide, from the denial of
truth, from the denial of the justice?

Author’s Note: I am aware of the fact that my essay on Jewish/Israeli
Denial of Armenian Genocide may upset some so please feel free to
write comments on it . And, in the meantime, the author likes to let
you know: who ever denies one genocide he/she denies all genocides.
Jewish denial of Armenian Genocide kills not only the Armenian
Genocide but in the end this denial kills The Jewish Holocaust too…

E-mail: [email protected]">noahsark2008@yahoo .com

30795.html

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
Feb 16 2008

Main Problem with Declaring Kosovo Independence is its Interpretation
– experts
16.02.08 12:53

Russia, Moscow, 16 February / Trend News corr R. Agayev, A. Gasimova,
E. Huseynov / The crucial problem with declaring Kosovo’s
independence for all main figures in the conflict is the
interpretation of the independence, the well-known Russian expert
Sergey Markedonov said.

On 15 February, the Kosovo Parliament approved of the resolution
allowing the passing of a set of laws on Kosovo’s independence within
24 hours.

` Russia may call declaring Kosovo’s independence awful, while the
United States treat it as freedom, therefore, interpretation is very
important,’ Markedonov, who is the head of the International
Relations Department at the Russian Institute for Political and
Military Analysis, said to Trend on 15 February. According to the
political scientist, in this situation Russia may act on several
scenarios. `The first variant: as the UN Security Council has not
recognized anything, so there is no recognition. Kosovo
self-proclaimed its independence, but what of it?! Trans-Dniester
also proclaimed its independence in 1990, Nagorno-Karabakh in 1991,
and Abkhazia did that after the war with Georgia in 1993. Now Kosovo
has done that, but the main issue is recognition of the independence
and its legitimation by the UN,’ Markedonov said. As the second
scenario Markedonov mentioned Russia’s statements on importance of
self-proclaiming.

Markedonov believes that Moscow will take the first position and will
appeal to the international law. ` Russia will say the proclaiming of
the independence is a fact. But is has no importance until the UN
Security Council recognizes the independence,’ he said.

Markedonov did not rule out that Kosovo’s independence may be
recognized by countries, but even in this case the fact of the matter
will not change. `Some countries still do not recognize China,
nevertheless it manages without that. Twenty-four countries recognize
Taiwan, but China does not. Russia cannot prohibit the States or
other countries from recognizing Kosovo,’ he said.

`Neglect to the international law, as it is with Kosovo, weakens
world’s controllability and undermines the prestige of the
international organizations which are in charge of the
controllability,’ the high-ranking Russian MP Mikhail Margelov said.

The day before, the EU and U.S. representatives in the UN Security
Council with the minority of 5 votes supported the Kosovo
separatists, while, the remaining members of the Security Council,
including Russia and China, opposed Kosovo’s separation from Serbia.

`The warnings that Kosovo’s one-side independence may be used as a
precedent became getting true. The Russian Foreign Ministry promised
to change its policy towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And the
heads of these two republics stated that they prepared several steps
corresponding with the international law in case of Pristina declares
its independence,’ Margelov, who is the chair of the International
Relations Committee at the Federation Council of Russia, said to via
e-mail Trend on 15 February.

Calling Kosovo `the East Timor in the center of Europe’ Margelov said
that it is difficult to foretell all aftermath of the indulgence by
the United States and European Countries in this regard.

The East Timor, the former Portugal colony was occupied by Indonesia
after the demise of Portugal Empire in 1975 in defiance of UN
decision. The East Timor sought independence from Indonesia in the
following years. The population of East Timor vote for independence
from Indonesia in referendum held under UN supervision in 1999. The
international community recognized its independence in 2002.

As to fact that separatism is a phenomenon which exists in all
continents, Margelov cited examples. `In Iran it is the Tabriz region
populated with the Iranian Azerbaijanis, and the Khuzestan province
populated with Iranian Arabs. Palestine has been divided into two
parts. In fact, Iraq is on the verge of collapse. Turkey will hardly
admit the appearance of an independent government of Kurds on its
borders,’ he said.

The Georgian political scientist Ramaz Sakvarelidze said that the
recognition of Kosovo’s independence poses threat to Georgia to a
lesser degree. According to Sakvarelidze, Moscow has been recently
stating that the possible recognition of Kosovo’s independence by the
international community will not be precedent for Russia with regard
to the separatist regimes in Georgia and other countries.

Mentioning the fact that only 5 out of 15 members of the UN Security
Councils support independence of Kosovo, the political scientist
said: `It means that the independence of the region will be partially
recognized and the international community and Russia will not
recognize it at all.’

According to the expert, despite of that, the separatists constantly
follow all changes and try to take advantage of them. Moreover,
Russia has recently stated many times that if the independence of
Kosovo is recognized, it will revise the status of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Sakvarelidze said that recognition of Kosovo should not be
viewed as a threat to Georgia, however he did not rule the threat may
come from Russia.

Since 1999, Kosovo region, which is formally a part of Serbia, has
been controlled by the UN. Kosovo strives for independence, but
Serbia offers only the status of autonomic region. The EU and USA are
ready to recognize Kosovo’s independence, while Russia supports the
position of Belgrade.