Author: Kalantarian Kevo

Associated Press
Jan 22 2005
Nine Armenian charity groups to get $3 million of insurance
settlement
The Associated Press
Nine Armenian charitable groups will receive $3 million over the next
two weeks as part of a $20 million settlement between an insurance
company and descendants of Armenians killed nearly 90 years ago in
the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
Five organizations on the East Coast will each receive checks for
more than $333,000 during a ceremony Wednesday in New York, the Daily
News of Los Angeles reported. The remaining groups will receive
payments at a second event being organized in Los Angeles.
The organizations include New York’s Armenian General Benevolent
Union, New Jersey’s Armenian Missionary Association of America, Inc.,
and the Armenian Education Foundation, based in Glendale.
“As the grandson of two genocide survivors, I’m particularly pleased
to be handing money to these organizations, because these kinds of
organizations helped my grandparents when they first arrived here,”
said Brian Kabateck, an attorney in the lawsuit.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they filed the class-action lawsuit
to raise awareness of the deaths as well as to win unpaid life
insurance benefits from New York Life Insurance Co.
They contend that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in an act of
genocide by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Turkey rejects the genocide
claim and maintains that Armenians were killed in civil unrest during
the collapse of the empire.
The legal agreement approved last July by U.S. District Court Judge
Christina A. Snyder is believed to be the first ever in connection
with the disputed event.
At least $11 million was set aside for heirs of some 2,400
policyholders while $4 million was to cover legal fees. Another $3
million was earmarked for charities, with $2 million used for
administrative costs and anything not spent on expenses going to
charities.
Potential heirs of policyholders have until March 15 to file a claim
for a portion of the settlement.

AGREEMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF THERMOELECTRIC POWER PLANT WITH USE OF
BIOGAS TO BE SIGNED IN YEREVAN BY THE END OF 2005
YEREVAN, JANUARY 21. ARMINFO. A Japanese company Shimizu will sign an
agreement on construction of a 1.5 megawatt thermoelectric power plant
with use of biogas in Yerevan by the end of 2005,> Nature Protection
Minister of Armenia Vardan Ayvazyan told ARMINFO, Friday.
He said that TPP would be built in the territory of Nubarashen dump on
the funds of the Japanese party. The project will cost $4.5 mln. The
Japanese State New Energy and Industrial Technology Organization will
finance the construction of bio-TPP. Tariff for the electricity
received due to use of biogas (marsh-gas) is established at 8 cents
for 1 kW/h by the Commission for Regulation of Public Services Sphere.
The minister thinks that besides production of electricity, the
construction of the plant will contribute to solution to ecological
problems in the capital. This project is favorable for Armenia and the
given technologies have already been successfully used in Japan, the
minister says.
Nubarashen dump in the outskirts of Yerevan started forming in 60s and
some 800-900 cubic meters of garbage are daily accumulated there. The
dump occupies some 60 ha.

Family struggles to keep teen daughters in U.S.
LV girls are in federal custody, face deportation to Armenia
Las Vegas Sun
January 20, 2005
By Timothy Pratt ([email protected])
Speaking from a federal jail cell in Los Angeles Tuesday afternoon,
18-year-old Emma Sarkisian said one way she has kept up her spirits
since being taken into custody Friday by federal agents in Las Vegas was
watching her little sister’s impersonations of “bad ‘American Idol’
singers.”
She laughed. Then she cried, blurting out, “I miss everybody and want to
go home.”
Using a 12-minute calling card to speak to her mother in Henderson at 4
p.m. Wednesday, Emma had just been told by a Department of Homeland
Security official for the second time in five days that she and her
sister, Mariam, had been granted a reprieve from being put on a plane to
the Republic of Armenia — a land that, despite being their birthplace,
is so foreign to both that they don’t even speak its language.
Emma graduated from Palo Verde High School in June. Her sister, who’s
17, is set to do the same in 2006. Their father, Rouben, runs Tropicana
Pizza at Pecos Road and Wigwam Parkway.
The Sarkisian family is now wrapped up in a case that their attorney
Jeremiah Wolf Stuchiner — who worked 26 years for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service before opening a private law practice 23 years
ago — called “absolutely ridiculous.”
Stuchiner compared the case to that of Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy in
2000 who also was taken by armed federal agents from his relatives in
the United States.
And though a small crowd of Armenians and Russians burst into applause
at Tropicana Pizza 3:30 Wednesday afternoon when they heard the news
that the Sarkisian sisters had gained another day on U.S. soil, only
three hours before the flight was scheduled to leave Los Angeles,
Stuchiner said the case was far from over.
The family’s odyssey began in 1991 when Rouben and his wife, Anoush,
came to the United States with their two young daughters on a tourist
visa from Ukraine.
Anoush applied for political asylum as the Soviet Union was about to
break up. The application was denied.
The couple split up after having three more daughters in the United
States in the next three years. Rouben married a U.S. citizen and
thereby became a resident, the step below citizenship.
That marriage also broke apart.
Rouben has lived with his five daughters and shared raising them with
their mother for about five years.
In July, Stuchiner said, Rouben took his two oldest daughters to
immigration officials in Las Vegas to inquire about their status, since
he understood that they also should have become residents.
He was told they should be deported. However, when U.S. authorities
called Armenian authorities, they were told that the sisters had been
born in a country that no longer exists, since the Soviet Republic no
longer existed.
They were Soviet citizens, but not citizens of the Republic of Armenia.
So the Armenian government wouldn’t accept them.
Immigration authorities issued an order of supervision, meaning the
daughters had to visit local federal offices each month.
Meanwhile, Stuchiner waited for an appointment to be granted for their
father’s citizenship exam, but that date never came. Once Rouben becomes
a citizen, the whole issue of his daughters’ status becomes moot, since
he can petition for them to become residents, Stuchiner said.
When the Sarkisians showed up for their monthly visit Jan. 14,
immigration officials told them that Armenia had decided to issue the
daughters passports. They could now be deported.
The girls were sent on a plane to Los Angeles that same day, but not
before a Las Vegas official said to Stuchiner that their flight out
would not be until Tuesday.
On Monday, the attorney got a call from the girls.
“They said, ‘They’re putting us on a plane.’ ” he said. It was 5:45 p.m.
The plane was scheduled to take off at 6:45 p.m.
Stuchiner said he called an official in Los Angeles and got him to
contact the official in Las Vegas who had promised the sisters would
remain in the country until Tuesday.
Ten minutes before the flight left, the girls were taken back to their cell.
On Tuesday, the flight was full, Los Angeles officials told the attorney.
On Wednesday, Stuchiner filed a writ of habeas corpus with attorney Troy
Baker at the George Federal Courthouse.
Again, the flight was scheduled for 6:45 p.m. At 3:30 p.m., the
magistrate handed down a decision to grant the stay.
But Los Angeles officials wouldn’t release the girls Tuesday, a
development Stuchiner saw as “madness.”
“What are they afraid of?” the attorney said. “It’s not like they’re
public enemy No. 1. This is a girl missing high school, for God’s sake.”
Stuchiner will be back in court today to file an emergency order
requesting immediate release of the sisters.
Then he will argue that the federal government should allow Rouben to
obtain his citizenship and petition for his daughters, on humanitarian
grounds.
He also said that members of Nevada’s congressional delegation could
step in and pass what’s known as a private bill, which would also grant
the girls residence.
Stuchiner said the system — a system he knows from the inside — has
become more rigid and entrenched since Sept. 11, 2001.
“(The attacks) have caused the most compassionate nation in the world to
not have compassion with a couple of teenage girls,” he said.
Meanwhile, the youngest of the five Sarkisian girls, Patricia, has
decided to go straight to the top.
The 10-year-old wrote a letter to President Bush Tuesday asking a series
of questions about her sisters.
Why are they in jail? she asks.
“Why can’t they come home?”
“I mean they didn’t do anything wrong like drugs or even smoke.”
“I’m asking you these questions because you are the only person that can
answer these questions.”
She signed the letter, “Just a kid, Patricia Sarkisian.”

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
January 18, 2005, Tuesday
ELIZABETH JONES: THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DICTATOR
SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, January 18, 2005, pp. 1, 8
by Andre Terekhov
Question: Have you taken into account a forecast made recently by
Morgan Stanley analysts, claiming that Putin will be forced to resign
this year? Are you predicting regime change in some CIS countries?
Elizabeth Jones: First, I don’t think this particular forecast will
come to pass. Secondly, the best way of replacing governments is by
means of elections. Moreover, elections should be free and fair.
Unfortunately, the elections in Georgia and Ukraine were not fair –
much to the disappointment of the citizens of these countries. That
disappointment was precisely what sparked the changes. The United
States and the international community aim to ensure free and fair
elections, and to have the changover of governments be a tranquil
process, as it has been in many countries lately. Romania is a fine
example of that. Elections in Moldova and Kyrgyzstan are expected
later this year. We hope they will be free and fair. And if the free
and fair elections result in new governments, then so be it. The
international community should support that.
Question: What do you think of the controversy over the hypothetical
sale of Russian-made missile systems to Syria? Washington has
threatened Moscow with sanctions.
Elizabeth Jones: It is very important for everyone – including Russia
and any other country – not to take any steps that would promote
instability in the Middle East. We all should be seeking ways to
continue the peace process, of which the United States and Russia
alike are co-sponsors. We count on productive cooperation with Russia
within the framework of the Middle East quartet – particularly now,
after elections in the Palestinian autonomy.
Question: There have been reports that Washington intends to revise
its policy with regard to Moscow. What effect might this have on
bilateral relations?
Elizabeth Jones: As for the “revision,” reporting it as a sensational
piece of news is not entirely correct. The way we work in Washington,
our policy is in a state of constant change. There won’t be any
dramatic revision of policies with regard to Russia or any other
country.
I disagree with the assumption that policy changes should be expected
in the course of President Bush’s second term. The general agenda in
U.S.-Russian relations is quite clear. The global war on terrorism is
a major effort we have undertaken. It is of paramount importance for
all of us, not only for the United States or Russia alone. I know
that both the Russian and American leaders want constructive
cooperation.
Question: Presidents Putin and Bush will meet in Bratislava soon.
Which topics will be raised there?
Elizabeth Jones: Preparations for the summit are under way. We have
established effective cooperation in addressing issues connected with
nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Special attention will be
paid to joint efforts in the field of non-proliferation. We also hope
to discuss all sorts of economic matters – like Russia’s application
for membership of the World Trade Organization.
Another group of issues concerns state control, particularly in the
energy sector. For example, the YUKOS affair. We want to know
Russia’s true intentions in this matter and the actual situation. For
the time being, the impression is that tax legislation is being
misused and the rule of law doesn’t apply at all. We would also like
to discuss the process of democratic changes in Russia.
We will also discuss the situation in the territories bordering on
Russia where separatist attitudes are present. We believe that these
trends undermine security, including Russia’s security. There are two
such territories in Georgia and one in Moldova. There are problems
with Nagorno-Karabakh as well. Russia can be instrumental in a
solution to all these problems. It is not in Russia’s own interests
to tolerate a continuation of these criminal activities in
territories located so close to Russia’s borders. It is not in the
interests of the United States or Europe either. None of us would
benefit if these areas turn into arms transit points. We must find a
political solution.
We know that Russia needs to overcome its difficulties with Chechnya.
The United States and Europe are ready to offer assistance in
political resolution and the restoration of Chechnya.
Question: Which aspects of democratic changes in Russia are causing
concern for the United States?
Elizabeth Jones: The United States, and many people in Russia as
well, are concerned about the growing disparity between society and
the authorities. Many are concerned about excessive centralization of
power. It doesn’t seem that there are valid reasons for total
concentration of control in the hands of the state.
Question: Putin recently said that Russia was working on new nuclear
weapons and described Washington’s foreign policy as dictatorial.
What did the United States think of that?
Elizabeth Jones: Putin’s statement about new missiles with nuclear
warheads wasn’t exactly a surprise. The matter has been discussed for
some time now. As for viewing America’s foreign policy as
dictatorial, that is an incorrect assessment, of course. Dictatorial
methods are not what we use. I’m sure Putin is aware of that.
Translated by A. Ignatkin

SHARE OF FLESH COMPANY IN CAPITAL OF ALIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY
INCREASED TO 55%
YEREVAN, JANUARY 18. ARMINFO. In connection with a governmental
decision to increase the minimum size of the authorized capital of
insurance companies, the share of the largest oil trader in Armenia,
Flesh company, in the capital of Alianz Insurance Company has been
increased to 55%. Executive Director of Alianz IC Karen Vahramyan told
ARMINFO.
He said that Flesh has been the promoter of Alianz IC since 1997, with
its share being 25%. Since promoters are provided with a top-priority
right to buy out shares, a decision was made to increase the size of
the authorized capital to the demanded size due to an increase in the
share of the above oil trader company. Vahramyan said that in
connection with redistribution of the participants’ shares, no
cardinal changes are expected in the company’s management and tariff
policy. The company has been just renamed into Alianz Flesh. Vahramyan
noted that the authorized capital will be increased in 2006 at the
expense of undistributed profits. He added that already at the end of
2004, a 100% growth of profits was secured due to an 80% increase in
the volume of insurance premiums and some decrease in the size of
compensations.
By the end of the current year, the volumes of insurance premiums and
profits will also be doubled due to an increase in insurance
operations and maintenance of last year’s level of risk
operations. “We intend to activate transport and property insurance as
well as to participate in the programs of compulsory automobile
liability insurance in case if a relevant law is adopted,” he said.
Vahramyan also pointed out that despite the increase in the share of
Flesh company, Alianz will not insure the imported fuel and
lubricants.
It should be noted that in conformity with the governmental decision,
starting from January of 2005, the minimum size of the authorized
capital of insurance companies was increased to 100 mln AMD. In 2006,
this figure will total 200 mln AMD, in 2007 – 350 mln AMD, and already
in 2008 – 500 mln AMD.
It is noteworthy that as a result of the first half of 2004, the
assets of Alianz IC totaled 113.9 mln AMD, funds – 29.5 mln AMD. At
the same time, the volume of premiums reached 174 mln, compensations –
2 mln AMD. The profits of the company totaled 10.5 mln AMD on June 1.

PanArmenian News
Jan 15 2005
NEW DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER OF ARMENIA APPOINTED
14.01.2005 17:34
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Gegham Gharibjanian, the Former Armenian Ambassador
in Iran, is appointed Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia by a decree
of Armenian President R. Kocharian.

PRESIDENT OF LEBANON RECEIVES ACTIVISTS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Azg/arm
15 Jan 05
General Emil Lahud Baabday, President of the Republic of Lebanon,
received a group of activists of the Liberal Democratic Party at his
residence on January 11.
Avo Daqesian, Edi Bahadian, chairman Lahud of the LDP, Nar
Khachaturian, Hovsep Emirian, Edi Kostandian and Sevak Panosian were
present at the meeting with the president. They discussed a number of
important and actual issues in the course of the meeting.

Associated Press Worldstream
January 13, 2005 Thursday 7:07 AM Eastern Time
OSCE must build on Ukraine election monitoring success, new chairman
says
by: SUSANNA LOOF; Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria
Terrorism and human trafficking remain priorities for the OSCE, but
the 55-nation trans-Atlantic security group must build on the success
its election monitors achieved in Ukraine, the organization’s new
chairman said Thursday.
In his first address to the Vienna-based Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe’s permanent council since taking office two
weeks ago, Dimitrij Rupel described the OSCE’s vote monitoring
mission to Ukraine as “essential in restoring faith in the integrity
of the democratic system.”
The group’s monitors said the Nov. 21 presidential election did not
meet international standards. The Ukraine Supreme Court ordered a
Dec. 26 rerun, which opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko won.
OSCE monitors said the rerun had made progress in reaching democratic
standards.
“Expectations are high for what comes next,” said Rupel, Slovenia’s
foreign minister.
“I believe that the OSCE and Ukraine have a good opportunity to
strengthen cooperation across a range of issues, including freedom of
the media, national minorities, democratization, the
political-military dimension and regional security. This opportunity
should not be missed,” he said.
Rupel also said the OSCE needs to be reformed to become more
effective, and that its members need to build on common issues to
“prevent political fault lines from reappearing” in the group.
Russia and other former Soviet republics have accused the group of
having “double standards” by focusing too much some former Soviet
republics and the Balkans while ignoring issues such as the plight of
Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic countries.
Kosovo also could be a major issue for the organization in 2005,
Rupel said, adding the group should be involved in the review of
Kosovo’s progress later this year. The review is expected to lead to
talks on Kosovo’s future.
Rupel also said the OSCE should “redouble its efforts” to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and continue efforts to bring sustainable
peace to the Georgian region of South Ossetia.
“We have no magic solutions, but we feel that targeted and pragmatic
steps can contribute to thawing frozen conflicts, consolidating
peace-building processes and supporting democratization,” he said.
In Central Asia, Rupel said more efforts must be taken to control
migration, promote human rights, strengthen human security, improve
border controls and promote cooperation in de-mining and
anti-trafficking measures.
“I also believe we should deepen our efforts to assist the
governments in Central Asia in their democratization processes,
particularly in relation to elections,” he said.
Iraq has requested that the group monitor its Jan. 30 elections, but
diplomats have said the group is unlikely to send a mission because
it is unlikely that its members – many of whom were opposed to the
Iraq war – would reach a consensus on it.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
January 12, 2005, Wednesday
ARMENIA MEETS NEW DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan has signed a decree to appoint
Grachya Arutyunyan as first deputy director of the National Security
Service.
The press service of the Armenian president stated that Kocharyan
dismissed his predecessor Grigory Grigoryan on a pension.

In Defense of Marxism, UK
Jan 10 2005
The 1905 Revolution – marking the centenary
By Rob Sewell
`In the history of revolutions there come to light contradictions
that have ripened for decades and centuries. Life becomes unusually
eventful. The masses, which have always stood in the shade and have
therefore often been ignored and even despised by superficial
observers, enter the political arena as active combatants. The masses
are learning in practice, and before the eyes of the world are taking
their first tentative steps, feeling their way, defining their
objectives, testing themselves and the theories of all their
ideologists. These masses are making heroic efforts to rise to the
occasion and cope with the gigantic tasks of world significance
imposed upon them by history.’ (Lenin, Revolutionary Days, January
1905)
The 9th January (22th January in the Gregorian calendar) marks the
centenary of one of the greatest events of the twentieth century. The
stormy events of 1905 formed the majestic prologue to the
revolutionary drama of 1917, and were described famously by Lenin, as
the `dress rehearsal’ for the October revolution. Revolution puts
parties and individuals to the acid test and clarifies programmes,
ideas and perspectives. In reality, the success of 1917 was due in
very large measure to the experience acquired by the generation in
the 1905 revolution.
The 1905 Revolution was no surprise to the Russian Marxists, who had
long predicted the revolutionary movement of the Russian masses. Yet
when revolution came, the sweep and scale of events was truly
historic.
`Events of the greatest historical importance are developing in
Russia’, wrote Lenin a few days after the massacre of Bloody Sunday.
`The proletariat has risen against Tsarism… Events are developing
with astonishing rapidity. The general strike in St. Petersburg is
spreading. All industrial, public, and political activities are
paralysed… The revolution is spreading.’
The 1905 Revolution was a product of the accumulation of
contradictions deep in Russian society. Tsarism was in a blind
impasse and could not develop society any further. The emergence of
the proletariat placed revolution on the order of the day. But there
were more immediate causes that produced the spark of revolution. The
events of 1905 grew directly out of the Russo-Japanese war, just as
the revolution of 1917 was the direct outcome of the First World War.
The military defeats of Tsarism, combined with the intolerable
burdens imposed by the regime on the backs of the masses, was the
final straw that broke the camel’s back.
Tsarist Russia had long been the most reactionary power in Europe.
Ruled by a feudal autocracy, capitalist development had come late to
Russia. Capitalism had been largely imported from the West and
artificially grafted onto backward economic and social relations.
Unlike its counterparts in the West, the Russian bourgeoisie was
extremely weak and incapable of carrying through a
bourgeois-democratic revolution that would create a modern democratic
republic. In fact, rather than play a revolutionary role, it played a
counter-revolutionary one. The bourgeoisie was terrified of the
masses, and while seeking `reforms’, it above all sought protection
from the Old Order. Everything fell to the newly-emerging Russian
proletariat to carry through a revolutionary struggle against
Tsarism. But the struggle would not end there. As Trotsky explained
in his brilliant theory of Permanent Revolution, which he developed
largely from the experience of 1905, the workers would fight to come
to power, carry through the bourgeois tasks and then proceed to the
socialist tasks. The revolution would inevitably break through
national confines and become part of the chain of world socialist
revolution.
The leading role of the proletariat in the coming revolution, as
explained by both Lenin and Trotsky, was confirmed in the events of
1905. It was the first time that the Russian working class had
decisively entered upon the stage of history and attempted to take
its destiny into its own hands.
`In the revolution whose beginning history will identify with the
year 1905′, wrote Trotsky, `the proletariat stepped forward for the
first time under its own banner in the name of its own objectives.’

Father Gapon
The tsarist dictatorship, the burden of war, as well as the harsh
conditions in the factories, drove discontent in the working class to
new levels. This reached its climax with the explosive strike at the
Putilov arms factory in December 1904. A sea change was taking place
in the working class, as strikes spread from industry to another. It
represented the ferment that preceded the explosion. However, the
1905 Revolution finally erupted over an incident: with the
presentation of a petition to the tsar on 9th January. Led by a
priest, Father Gapon, a peaceful demonstration of some 140,000
marched to the Winter Palace to appeal for help from the tsar, known
affectionately as the `Little Father’.
`Sire, our strength is at an end! The limit of our patience has been
reached; the terrible moment has come for us when it is better to die
than to continue suffering intolerable torment.’
But their pleas fell on deaf ears. Instead of sympathy, the
demonstration was faced with a massacre – some 4,600 people were
killed or wounded by government troops – and went down in history as
`Bloody Sunday’. The savage reaction of the regime transformed the
situation within 24 hours. The pent up revolutionary energy of the
masses finally exploded.
Marx explained that the revolution sometimes needs the whip of the
counterrevolution to drive it forward. The massacre of January 1905
acted as such a revolutionary catalyst. The cry went up everywhere:
`Arms! Arms!’
`The working class’, wrote Lenin from exile, `has received a
momentous lesson in civil war: the revolutionary education of the
proletariat made more progress in one day than it could have made in
months and years of drab, humdrum, wretched existence. The slogan of
the heroic St Petersburg proletariat, `Death or Freedom!’ is
reverberating throughout Russia.’
On 10th January barricades were erected in Petersburg. Within a week,
160,000 workers had struck work. Strikes quickly spread to other
areas. In January around 400,000 workers went on strike throughout
Russia. The revolutionary wave swept through Poland and the Baltic
states, Georgia, Armenia, and Central Russia.
The tsarist autocracy took fright. Rather than teaching the workers a
lesson, they had provoked a revolution! `The vast majority of people
seemed to go mad’, wrote Count Witte in his memoirs. But all
revolutions appear as madness to those it seeks to sweep aside. On
18th February, under pressure of a growing strike movement, the tsar
issued his first Manifesto, hinting at a constitution and reforms. Of
course, this concession `from above’ was simply a manoeuvre, aimed at
splitting the movement and defusing the situation. But the movement
continued and intensified.
The Russian social democracy – both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks –
originally met with hostility from the masses before 9th January.
Now, for the first time they connected with the mass movement and
their influence grew by leaps and bounds.
Conditioned by years of clandestinity, Lenin urged the Bolsheviks to
immediately open up their ranks. `We need young forces. I am for
shooting on the spot anyone who presumes to say that there are no
people to be had. The people in Russia are legion: all we have to do
is to recruit young people more widely and boldly, more boldly and
widely, and again more boldly without fearing them. This is a time of
war.’
He went on: `Get rid of all the old habits of immobility, of respect
for rank, and so on. Form hundreds of circles of Vperyod-ists [the
Bolshevik paper] from among the youth and encourage them to work at
full blast.’
`To sum up’, he said, `we must reckon with the growing movement,
which has increased a hundredfold, with the new tempo of the work,
with the freer atmosphere and the wider field of activity. The work
must be given an entirely different scope. Methods of training should
be refocused from peaceful instruction to military operations. Young
fighters should be recruited more boldly, widely, and rapidly into
the ranks of all and every kind of our organisations. Hundreds of new
organisations should be set up for the purpose without a moment’s
delay. Yes, hundreds; this is no hyperbole, and let no one tell me
that it is `too late’ now to tackle such a broad organisational job.
No, it is never too late to organise.’
These remarks were aimed at the `committee-men’, the professional
revolutionaries who ran the party and who had, in reality, a contempt
for its working-class followers. They wanted to continue the methods
of the underground period, which were now completely out of date.
How very different is this Lenin from the caricatures drawn by
bourgeois academics and Stalinist commentators alike, who portray him
as a ruthless party dictator, a conspirator, who, fearing the masses,
held on to power at all costs.
At the same time, Lenin poured scourn on the liberals with their
illusions in peaceful constitutional reform, as well as the
Mensheviks who clung to their coat-tails. The question was poised
point blank: to arm the workers and overthrow Tsarism. This was the
urgent task facing the revolutionary movement.
Throughout the spring and summer the pendulum swung continually to
the left. While the workers of Petersburg took a breather, the
provinces rose up in struggle. Strikes took on an increasingly
political character and there was mutiny in the Black Sea fleet. The
threat of revolution at home forced the regime to end the war with
Japan.
Alongside peace with Japan, the authorities announced a new Manifesto
in August, promising a new parliament, or Duma. However, the
proposals gave the vote to the landlords and urban middle class, but
disenfranchised the bulk of the population. Given the revolutionary
conditions, the Bolsheviks correctly came out for a boycott of the
elections. They explained only the overthrow of Tsarism by the
revolutionary actions of the masses could prepare the ground for
genuine democracy.
A new revolutionary impulse came in the autumn, beginning with a
print strike in Moscow that quickly spread to the railways. `This
small event’, wrote Trotsky, `set off nothing more or less than the
all-Russian political strike – the strike which started over
punctuation marks and ended by felling absolutism.’
By October, there was a general strike on the railways involving some
750,000 workers. The movement became generalised and again raised the
question of power. On 10th October, a political general strike was
proclaimed in Moscow, Kharkov, and Revel; the next day in Smolensk,
Kozlov, Yekaterinoslav and Lodz; in a few days the strike was
declared in Kursk, Byelgorod, Samara, Saratov, Poltava, Petersburg,
Orsha, Minsk, Odessa, Riga, Warsaw and elsewhere. `The October
strike’, noted Trotsky, `was a demonstration of the proletariat’s
hegemony in the bourgeois revolution and, at the same time, of the
hegemony of the towns in an agricultural country.’
`In its extent and acuteness,’ Lenin explained later, `the strike
struggle had no parallel anywhere in the world. The economic strike
developed into a political strike, and later into insurrection.’
Terrified of the revolution, `Nicholas the Bloody’ was forced to make
concessions and sign a new Manifesto on 17th October. `Herod’s got
his tail between his legs’, remarked a worker. But the Manifesto
solved nothing, only to detach the liberals from the tailcoat of the
revolution. However, with Tsarist concessions came bloody repression.
This was the time of General Trepov’s famous order: `No blank
volleys, and spare no bullets.’ An orgy of reaction was unleashed by
the Black Hundred gangs, resulting in up to 4,000 people murdered and
a further 10,000 injured in pogroms. The experience demonstrated,
above all, the need for the revolution to arm itself in its own
self-defence. In Petersburg, the Soviet organised the arming of the
proletariat and the setting up of workers’ militias.
The revolution brought the proletariat to its feet. It raised its
class-consciousness and self esteem. Above all, it gave rise to
self-organisation in the form of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies,
established on 13th October.
`The Soviet came into being’, wrote Trotsky, `as a response to an
objective need – a need born out of the course of events. It was an
organisation which was authoritative and yet had no traditions; which
could immediately involve a scattered mass of hundreds of thousands
of people while having virtually no organisational machinery; which
united the revolutionary currents within the proletariat; which was
capable of initiative and spontaneous self-control – and most
important of all, which could be brought out from underground within
twenty-four hours.’
The initiative for the Soviet organisation came from the St
Petersburg Mensheviks. Trotsky had a similar idea when he arrived
from Finland. The general strike needed an extended strike committee
to coordinate things, and the Soviet played this key role by drawing
in delegates from the factories (one delegate for every 500 workers).
To have the necessary authority in the eyes of the masses, it had to
be based upon the broadest representation. Astonishingly, the Soviet
was rejected by a part of the Bolshevik leadership who were in
Petersburg, fearing it as a rival political organisation to the
party. They even went to the Soviet with a resolution: either accept
the full revolutionary programme of social democracy or disband! This
sectarian attitude towards the Soviet, which resulted in the
Bolshevik faction failing to gain a leading position in the events,
lasted until Lenin arrived in November.
Of all the revolutionary leaders of the social democracy, it was
Trotsky who played the most prominent role in 1905. By this time none
of the main leaders had returned from exile. Martov only returned to
Russia after 17th October; Lenin on 4th November. Trotsky, on the
other hand, had arrived in Kiev in February.
Lunacharsky, who was one of Lenin’s closest collaborators at the
time, recalled: `His [Trotsky’s] popularity among the Petersburg
proletariat at the time of his arrest [in December] was tremendous
and increased still more as a result of his picturesque and heroic
behaviour in court. I must say that of all the social democratic
leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his
youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the
stamp of a certain kind of émigré narrowness of outlook which, as I
have said, even affected Lenin at that time. Trotsky understood
better than all the others what it means to conduct the political
struggle on a broad, national scale. He emerged from the revolution
having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither
Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had
lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet tendencies.
Trotsky stood then in the very front rank.’
Since the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903, Trotsky
had broken with the Mensheviks and attempted to unite both factions.
On political questions, however, Trotsky was very close to Lenin. On
Lenin’s return to Russia, he took up the need for the re-unification
of the two wings of the social democracy – the RSDLP.

Undated poster on the 1905 revolution
Trotsky was only 26 when he became president of the St Petersburg
Soviet. The first brief chairman of the Soviet, the Menshevik
sympathiser G S Khrustalyov was an accidental figure, like Father
Gapon. Trotsky wrote the most important declarations and resolutions
of the Soviet, and was the natural replacement after Khrustaloyov’s
arrest. `Well, Trotsky has earned it by his brilliant and unflagging
work’, commented Lenin.
Trotsky thrived in the leadership of the St Petersburg proletariat.
He immediately connected with the revolution and threw himself into
its work. He took over the tiny Russian Gazette and transformed it
into a fighting organ. As a result, its circulation rose from 30,000
to 500,000. Closed down by the government, Trotsky put his efforts
into a new political organ, Nachalo (The Beginning), which was a
great success. He also wrote editorials for the Izvestia (The News),
the official organ of the Soviet, as well as its manifestos and
resolutions.
`The fifty-two days of the existence of the first Soviet’, wrote
Trotsky, `were filled to the brim with work – the Soviets, the
Executive Committee, endless meetings, and three papers. How we
managed to live in this whirlpool is still not clear, even to me.’
While the October manifesto produced concessions, they were of a
partial and temporary nature. The Soviet’s response was to continue
the general strike. However, the strike had lost its momentum and the
decision was made to end the strike on 21st October. But this was no
solemn act. Hundreds of thousands marched with the Soviet at its head
demanding amnesty, which was partially granted.
Once more, feeling the lull in the struggle, the counter-revolution
reared its ugly head. Pro-tsarist demonstrations were organised, led
by clergy and bishops. The bands played `God Save the Tsar’, the hymn
of the pogromists. Police directed crowds of hooligans in the
wrecking of Jewish homes and shops. Some 3,500-4,000 people were
killed and as many as 10,000 maimed in 100 towns. Thanks to the
workers no pogroms took place in St Petersburg, but workers’
detachments were steadily dispersed and arms confiscated. The
manifesto and amnesty concessions represented only a momentary truce,
nothing more.
In Kronstadt, on 26th and 27th October a mutiny flared up. Martial
law was declared a day later and the mutiny was crushed. Many
revolutionary soldiers and sailors were threatened with execution.
Pressure mounted on the Soviet to act against this open provocation.
The Soviet issued an appeal for a general strike on 2nd November,
under the slogans: `Down with court-martial! Down with the death
penalty! Down with martial law in Poland and throughout Russia!’
The success of the appeal surpassed all expectations. Once again the
authorities were wrong-footed and conceded that there would be no
court martial. Given that the struggles nationally were on the wane,
the leaders of the Soviet decided to end the strike on 7th November.
However, the return to work was undertaken with the same degree of
spirit and unity as when it began.
It was a turning-point for the revolution as a whole. The St
Petersburg proletariat after ten months of tremendous exertions were
finally exhausted. On 3rd December, the whole of the St Petersburg
Soviet was arrested. The life of the Petersburg Soviet had come to an
end.
Fifty-two members of the St Petersburg Soviet were finally placed on
trial in September 1906, on the charge of `preparing an armed
uprising’ against the existing `form of government’. From the dock,
Trotsky defiantly turned his speech into an attack on the autocracy
and a defence of the Soviet and the revolution. `The historical power
in whose name the prosecutor speaks in this court is the organised
violence of the minority over the majority! The new power, whose
precursor was the Soviet, represents the organised will of the
majority calling the minority to order. Because of this distinction
the revolutionary right of the Soviet to existence stands above all
juridical and moral speculations…’
For now, with the arrest of the Petersburg Soviet, the revolutionary
initiative moved to Moscow. On 2nd December a mutiny had broken out
in the Moscow Rostov regiment, but was suppressed. Nevertheless,
despite this setback, the mood in the factories was reaching fever
pitch. They were prepared for resolute action, even some layers
proposing armed insurrection. This mood affected the Moscow Soviet,
which declared a general strike on 7th December. But under the
circumstance, everyone knew this to be a vote for an insurrection.
The appeal for solidarity from Petersburg had partial success, with
83,000 coming out on strike.
The spark for the insurrection in Moscow was a government provocation
– troops were sent to disperse workers’ meetings. There were clashes
and barricades were thrown up as a general strike began to spread.
Despite this advance there was vacillation in the Soviet leadership
and the counter-revolution struck back. This provoked the masses
further and an armed uprising broke out. Barricades were thrown up
throughout the city and there was extensive street fighting.
Unfortunately, the government troops remained loyal and the
insurrection was eventually put down. The Moscow defeat constituted a
heavy blow to the revolution.
Although defeated, the struggle had not been in vain. Without this
experience, the October Revolution would not have been possible. The
experienced served to crystallise the political differences between
Bolshevism and Menshevism. Plekhanov’s famous remark that `they
should not have taken up arms!’ was the plea of one who was moving
away from revolution. Lenin in reply, stated that `On the contrary,
we should have taken up arms more resolutely, energetically and
aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was
impossible to confine ourselves to a peaceful strike, that a fearless
and relentless armed struggle was indispensable.’ The Mensheviks were
increasingly looking to the liberal bourgeoisie to lead the
(bourgeois) revolution, while Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks were
relying on the working class for leadership. Eventually, this would
place the Mensheviks on the wrong side of the barricades in the
October Revolution of 1917.
In conclusion, it is appropriate to finish with a quote from
Trotsky’s book, 1905: `In 1905, the working class was still too weak
to seize power, but subsequent events forced it to gain maturity and
strength, not in the environment of a bourgeois-democratic republic,
but in the underground of the Tsarism of 3rd June. The proletariat
came to power in 1917 with the help of the experience acquired by its
older generation in 1905. That is why young workers today must have
complete access to that experience and must, therefore, study the
history of 1905.’
January 10, 2005