Author: Kalantarian Kevo

Hold the Froth: Armenian-American Youth Revel in Café Culture
New California Media (San Francisco, CA)
(Reprinted from Asbarez Armenian Daily)
January 09, 2005
By Ishkhan Jinbashian
Hollywood might have its Little Armenia, but there’s no doubt that
Little Yerevan is by now firmly ensconced in what I like to call the
blessed city of Nagorno-Glendale.
Little Yerevan, and quite a bit of Little Tehran for sure. But
definitely not Little Beirut or Aleppo or Baghdad, as a good chunk of
the Western-Armenian contingent bolted years ago. As for the remnants,
sometimes it feels as though their glaring visibility more than makes up
for their diminishing numbers. Try Glendale watering holes like Sarkis
Pastry, Carousel Restaurant (a favorite with community movers and
shakers), or the editorial offices of Asbarez, and you’ll know what I mean.
What perhaps most palpably distinguishes Glendale’s sprawling Little
Yerevan from any number of cities with a large Armenian presence is its
kitschy ostentation. Here we don’t just drive late-model German and
Japanese cars, we insist on driving them extremely fast, wearing some
kind of determined malevolence as a badge of honor. And we don’t merely
put ululating rabiz music on in our apartments and souped-up road
machines; we make sure entire neighborhoods reverberate with the stuff.
Loud and obnoxious? You already gathered as much. Glad to suffer from a
pandemic case of narcissism? Yes, sir. And habitually confusing rudeness
with cool? Ditto.
Here’s a little clarification, before I get in too deep: The demographic
in question is between the ages of, say, 17 and 25, though to my
knowledge the next age bracket has so far shown no signs of significant
change.
Like one’s sun and rising signs, the youth is where the energies of a
community are at their most salient. And it’s where the cultural and
civic shape of things to come is molded (so help us God). In Little
Yerevan, you would be hard-pressed to ascribe a certain collective
character to the youth. By any standard, the young here seem to be a
normal bunch, despite a worrisome knack for white-collar and petty crime
in some quarters. But if you’re in the market for some naked sidewalk
truths based on casual observation, some signposts if you will, to gauge
the dynamic of the youth, then read on.
In Glendale today, by far the most public manifestation of Armenian
youth culture happens in coffee houses. And within the hierarchy of the
city’s cafés, no one has yet managed to dethrone La Goccia, Brand
Boulevard’s premier destination for ceremonious outdoor gathering. At La
Goccia, as throughout the city’s coffee houses (including some owned by
Armenians and the ubiquitous Starbuckses), Armenian dudes and dudettes
do what people the world over like doing in cafés: watch people, shoot
the breeze, court one another, catch up on gossip, watch people some
more, refill the spiritual batteries following the rigors of office or
school. But the vibe at La Goccia is in a league all its own.
Consider the location. On any given day or night, lounging around on the
massive sidewalk stretch that doubles as La Goccia’s patio, you’re sure
to be noticed from here to eternity–that is to say, from any vantage
point between Broadway and Wilson. You’ll be noticed by pedestrians. And
by people in the cars zooming through Brand. You’ll be plenty noticed by
other customers at the café. Plus, for the more romantically inclined
among us, La Goccia on clearer evenings is a wonderful spot for enjoying
the “magic hour,” that deep, achingly uniform blue that envelops the sky
right before the sun has finally set. But most importantly, La Goccia is
where you get pretty damn close to feeling something, at least
something, akin to a sense of community.
If this sounds a tad problematic, it’s because it is. As in any other
context, the sense of community experienced at a crowded Glendale café
can be fraught with provisos. For instance: you love the fact that a
throng of cappuccino sippers on either side of you happens to be of
Armenian descent. Yet you can get quickly annoyed by the impertinent and
lingering, sometimes lewd stares, the shouting that passes for benign
conversation, and the green house effect-inducing clouds of tobacco
smoke. You might also lure yourself into believing that a place like La
Goccia may well represent a microcosm of the Armenian world as we know
it. Yet such thoughts might quickly cede to the realization that that
microcosm has less and less space for anything Western-Armenian these
days, with entire dialects, literary and musical and theatrical
traditions dying off to our bemused helplessness, given the cultural
hegemony of Eastern-inflected Armenia.
This last point is thus very much the point of allowing that sense of
community to seep into you. Because La Goccia and similar coffee houses,
with their sheer volume of young Armenians teeming around you, may now
and again impel you to think about your own role in, and your own
position on, the larger patterns of our community.
Countless times I’ve caught myself vaguely musing on a smorgasbord of
questions, mostly rhetorical, while having business meetings or
tête-à-têtes with friends at La Goccia. Questions, in no particular
order, such as: How can we, as a community, be so industrious,
street-smart and resourceful, yet continue to be considerably lacking in
terms of artistic creativity–notwithstanding our output in the visual
arts? Why is it that I have yet to catch an Armenian youth engrossed in
a book (and not a textbook), at La Goccia or elsewhere in cafédom here
in Nagorno-Glendale? How come Armenian young men in general, who were
nurtured and reared by women (their mothers for Chrissake), end up
becoming misogynists of varying degrees? How does one explain the fact
that Hayastantsi guys, for all their unbending machismo, possess the
kind of mental athleticism that makes them so astonishingly witty? Are
we more like the Italians or the Jews? More “The Sopranos” or
“Seinfeld?” Why do so many Armenian young women unquestioningly
subscribe to mainstream conventions of desirability, allowing so much to
ride on physical appearance? Why do their male counterparts do the exact
same thing, only more damagingly? If young Armenians enjoy each other’s
company so much, why is it that they’re often gripped with panic by
Armenian-heavy stomping grounds, as though the plague were afoot? How is
this problem handled in Armenia, where compatriots are to be found
everywhere you look? Are the Armenians gathered at La Goccia ultimately
just another faceless crowd, or do these people have something
noteworthy to contribute to Glendale–something thoughtful, positive,
original, extraordinary even, in the spirit of building that’s supposed
to all but define us as a nation? And, all said, does anyone care about
any of this, when it’s time to go home because your friend has started
yawning like a debil and your bladder is about to burst as La Goccia has
no benefit of a restroom?
I’m inclined to say yes, absolutely, quite a few of us do care about
such matters – and then some. For one thing, Glendale is fast becoming
arguably the most important hub in the diaspora, and we better remember
that population growth has the danger of not automatically translating
to collective excellence. And also because rare is the Armenian
community, save the city of Yerevan, offering the kind of bustling café
culture that Glendale does, as both challenge and comfort.
NCM Online is sponsored by Pacific News Service in collaboration with
the Chinese American Voter Education Committee

Armenian leader replaces deputy security chief
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
8 Jan 05
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan signed a decree on 8 January
dismissing Grigoriy Grigoryan from the National Security Service and
from the post of first deputy chief of the National Security Service
of the Armenian government in connection with the expiry of his term
of service.
Under another presidential decree, Hrachya Arutyunyan has been
appointed to the post of first deputy chief of the National Security
Service of the Armenian government.

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
01/04/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1) Appeal to Community 2) New OSCE Chairman Headed to South Caucasus 3) Armenian Economy Again Rated Freest in CIS 4) Aliyev Says 2004 Marked Turning Point in Karabagh Negotiations 5) Prelate's New Year's and Christmas Message 1) Appeal to Community ARF West Urges Assistance to Tsunami Victims The December 26 natural disaster in Southwest Asia recognized no political frontiers. The resulting death and destruction from that forceful tsunami once again reveal that all of humanity belongs to one global family. The entire world has rushed to provide aid to the victims of that disaster. Approximately 15 years ago, at about the same time of the year, the world over provided relief to Armenians when tragedy struck Armenia. We believe that international peace and harmonious coexistence of nations are permanent values, and mankind can overcome such calamities only through cooperation. We, therefore, appeal to all Armenians living in the Western region of the United States, to follow the initiative taken by the Armenian Relief Society as well as the Diocese and Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church to provide necessary assistance to the tsunami victims, and contribute to the humanitarian drive to provide comfort to them. As a member of the global family of nations, we should take the opportunity to convey our gratitude and assist those in need. Armenian Revolutionary Federation US Western Region Central Committee 2) New OSCE Chairman Headed to South Caucasus YEREVAN (Armenpress)--The Azeri press reports that the new head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, will visit the South Caucasus in mid-January. Rupel, who officially took over the OSCE chairmanship from Bulgaria on January 1, will formally present the priorities of the new Chairmanship to the OSCE's 55 participating States at its Permanent Council in Vienna on 13 January. "The OSCE has always responded well to challenge and adversity," Rupel said at the OSCE Ministerial Council in Sofia in 2004 December. "Its ability to adapt has, over the years, become one of its greatest virtues and advantages." "The responsibility to make it stronger and more visible in the global arena rests on us. Slovenia is resolute that the OSCE should have a strong role in sowing the seeds of security and co-operation throughout its area and beyond," he said. 3) Armenian Economy Again Rated Freest in CIS (Heritage Foundation, RFE/RL)--Armenia continues to boast the sole "mostly free" economy in the ex-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States, according to The 2005 Index of Economic Freedom that was released on Tuesday. The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation, a leading Washington, DC think tank, publish the Index annually, with the most current data available on taxes, tariffs, banking regulations, monetary policies and other information for 161 countries worldwide. Armenia's aggregate score of 2.58, measured on a 5-point negative scale, represents a slight improvement over the previous year, putting it in 42nd place in the WSJ/Heritage rankings--just ahead of economic powerhouses like France and South Korea. Armenia was 44th in the 2004 index that covered 155 nations. Its indicator of economic freedom has steadily improved since 2000 when it stood at 3.21. "The Republic of Armenia remained committed to the gradual pursuit of a democratic society and free-market economy in 2004," reads the WSJ/Heritage report. "Economic policy continues to be guided by the economic and fiscal policies and the poverty-reduction strategy developed in cooperation with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Reforms should provide improvements in the banking sector, transparency, and enforcement of anti-corruption measures." The survey primarily takes into account the legal environment for doing business in a particular country, including tax rates, trade tariffs, and government impact on prices. The survey's assessment of all other CIS countries is far more critical. Neighboring Georgia and Azerbaijan, for example, were ranked 100th and 103rd respectively, making their economies "mostly unfree." The US, for the first time ever, no longer ranks among the top 10 "free" nations of the world, according to the 2005 Index that puts economic freedoms in Estonia, Ireland, Chile, Denmark, and Iceland, ahead of those in the United States. 4) Aliyev Says 2004 Marked Turning Point in Karabagh Negotiations BAKU (Combined Sources)--President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said in his New Year address to the nation, that 2004 marked a turning point in negotiating a settlement to the Karabagh conflict, noting that "considerable progress was made during Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks. . . the international community approaches the issue more seriously, and the OSCE Minsk Group has intensified its activities." He emphasized that negotiations should be conducted in compliance with international law, but stressed that Azerbaijan would liberate "native lands" in any way possible. "I've stated more than once that Azerbaijan would never compromise the issue of territorial integrity; we will never discuss the issue," Aliyev said, calling for the development of a strong army so as to reach that goal. He stressed that Azerbaijan would be able to resolve many of its economic and social problems when the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline becomes operational in 2005, and when the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline is finished. 5) Prelate's New Year's and Christmas Message Following The Footsteps of The Good Shepherds "And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear." (Luke 2:8-9) On the threshold of the year 2005, as we exchange good wishes, once again the feast of the Glorious Birth and Theophany of our Lord Jesus Christ invites us to renew and reinvigorate our faith and brighten our spirits. During a holy and silent night in the open weather, the tidings of the birth of Jesus filled the spirits of the good and humble shepherds and the glory of the Lord shone around them. "And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear." (Luke 2:8-9) What a blessed divine gift! The shepherds in their solitude, while they were keeping watch over their flock by night, they were blessed by the visit of the angel. They were greatly afraid. Dear beloved, Lately, it seems, more and more people find themselves in the same predicament as those shepherds. We seem to take upon ourselves serious responsibilities to keep watch over our families and properties, only to find ourselves exposed to the open elements of life, oftentimes feeling cold and alone, groping in the darkness. It begs the very basic question: `What am I doing here, in this place, cold, alone, and in the dark, and why am I doing it?' The answer is found in the Revelation of God. When we take upon our shoulders the heavy responsibility of shepherding, whether we shepherd our family, or our business, or our school, or our social organization, or our political party, or our church, we also receive upon our shoulders the gentle but guiding Arm of the Lord. Be assured, my faithful flock, that even if you perceive that you are left out in the open, cold, alone, or in the dark, that the Lord Himself is steadfastly beside you always. Our Lord came down from heaven and became man so that mankind would never abide alone. Our Lord enkindled the flame of truth and righteousness in our hearts so that our love for one another might never grow cold. Indeed, the Glory of the Lord has shone upon us, dispelling the darkness of gloom and directing our ways in faith and peace. As we begin 2005, I wish to engage each and every one of you to be an active, Christian shepherd. We are so aware of people in our communities, even within our own families, who are alone, who are infirm, who are despondent, who are searching for the Light of God within their lives. I ask each of you: are you able to become a shepherd to our people? Are you willing to respond to the needs and wants of our community? Are you ready to join the active mission of the Church, to serve with righteousness, and to proffer spiritual and meaningful charity? The shepherds responded to this same call by saying to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." (Luke 2:15) Come, now, dear shepherds of the Armenian Church, and let us go to Bethlehem, and see this thing, this great gift of Grace and Hope and Joy which the Lord shows us daily in our lives through the Holy Bible, the Holy Badarak, and the Holy Sacraments. Let us make a spiritual and charitable commitment to extend our love and assistance to the Church, to our schools, to our organizations, to our communities across the globe, and to our family and friends. In so doing, may the Eternal Light, which pierced the darkness of Christmas night, enlighten our minds and enrapture our hearts. Let the glad tidings to us and for you all be magnified through our joint commitment to foster good works and to fortify our Christian fellowship. On the joyous occasion of the New Year and the Revelation of God, I extend to our spiritual shepherds, the reverend clergy, and to our community shepherds, Executive Council, parish boards, the school administrators, teachers, and to our faithful, benefactors, supporters and the members of our Church, my fatherly blessings and sincere wishes for the best of health and peace in your lives, and I thank you for your continued charitable support of our Church, our Prelacy, our schools and institutions. Let Christ be revealed in you, that Christ may be revealed through you. Happy New Year to you all. Christ is born and revealed. Prayerfully, Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian Prelate of Western Prelacy All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and subscription requests. (c) 2004 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved. ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through mass media outlets.

The Jamestown Foundation
Tuesday, January 4, 2005 — Volume 2, Issue 2
EURASIAN DAILY MONITOR
IN THIS ISSUE:
*Moscow scuttles OSCE border patrols in Georgia
*Georgian president reviews accomplishments of 2004
*New equipment won’t alleviate shortcomings of Russian air force
*”Year of Russia in Kazakhstan” ends with little fanfare
————————————————————————
AXING THE BMO, RUSSIA MENACES GEORGIA

Using its veto power in the OSCE, Russia has carried out its threat to
terminate the mandate of the organization’s Georgia Border Monitoring
Operation (BMO) as of December 31. This unarmed international mission,
patrolling the Georgia-Russia border on Georgian territory, has played
a key role in shielding Georgia against Russian threats to pursue
alleged “Chechen and international terrorists” into Georgian
territory, e.g. in Pankisi. Russia cast its veto on December 30 in
Vienna, at the OSCE Permanent Council’s last session of 2004 (RFE/RL,
December 30; Itar-Tass, December 31).

Moscow has long tried to build a case for military intervention in
Georgia, or at least for Russian deployment on the Georgian side of
the border, through those accusations. The BMO’s internal reports to
the OSCE helped to disprove the accusations; moreover, the monitors
reported on some of the Russian air raids over Georgian territory,
despite Russian denials. Consequently, Moscow wants to eliminate the
BMO and to exclude any international presence, so that Georgia would
be left to face Russia one-on-one.

Without an international presence, Russia would be emboldened to: a)
try to impose its own presence on the Georgian side of the border; b)
exert political and psychological pressure on the Georgian government,
so as to extract concessions on other issues, under the threat of
“anti-terrorist” action inside Georgia; c) divert attention from the
issue of Russian troops and bases in Georgia, as Moscow has already
done with some success by forcing the now-phony issue of “terrorists
in Pankisi” to the top of the agenda with Tbilisi and Washington.

Contrary to some ongoing speculation, Russia’s move to terminate the
BMO has nothing to do with Kremlin frustrations over its recent defeat
in Ukraine and a presumed quest for compensatory satisfaction on the
Georgia front. Russia had threatened to veto an extension of the BMO
throughout 2004. Analysts who interpret Russia’s move as an
understandable reaction to the Orange Revolution and recommend
demonstrating “goodwill” by giving in to Moscow on the Georgia border
monitoring issue miss this key point.

Moscow now proposes forming a purely bilateral Russian-Georgian
“border police” force, albeit with Western financing, in place of the
BMO. Inasmuch as the BMO operated by definition on Georgian territory,
the Russian-proposed substitute could be used for deploying Russians
on the Georgian side of the border.

For public consumption, Russia argued throughout the year that the BMO
has been “ineffective,” as well as too costly to the OSCE budget, and
must therefore cease. In reality, the BMO proved highly effective, and
its cost was borne by Western countries. Shortly before the OSCE’s
year-end conference, Moscow changed its argument. It now claims that
the BMO has fulfilled its tasks, managed to improve the situation on
the border, and is therefore no longer needed. In the latest twist to
its case, Moscow now contends that Russian and Georgian border guards
and intelligence services cooperate well with one another, and can
henceforth protect the common border on a bilateral basis, without an
international presence (Foreign Affairs Ministry statements,
Itar-Tass, December 30, 31; January 1).

Both sets of assertions contradict Moscow’s own propagandistic
accusations that Georgia tolerates “Chechen terrorists” crisscrossing
that border. Those accusations will probably continue as a means of
pressuring Georgia into accepting a Russian-Georgian operation,
instead of the BMO or some other international operation.

Moscow has repeatedly presented its key argument that it cannot
tolerate any international presence, even this unarmed one, near
Russia’s borders. This contention seems to impress the French and
German governments, whose position is now bringing confusion to the
European Union’s collective position on this and other issues.

Border security is one of the key dimensions to the EU’s evolving
security and neighborhood policies. Consequently, Georgia asked the EU
to undertake a border monitoring operation in Georgia, should Russia
kill the BMO. The consent of Georgia would be sufficient, and that of
Russia is not required for this. The U.S. State Department supports
the idea. The EU seemed to give it favorable consideration and held a
pre-Christmas meeting in Brussels to send a signal of intent to
Russia. However, the Franco-German position thwarted that signal and
emboldened Moscow. The issue remains under consideration in Brussels.

The OSCE’s outgoing Bulgarian and incoming Slovenian chairmanships
informally suggested a compromise with Russia, whereby the BMO’s
mandate would be extended for six months only, and its personnel and
funding deeply cut. The idea was designed to “save” not the BMO, but
the OSCE institutionally and politically through “consensus” with
Russia at the expense of Georgia, international security, and legal
principle. The BMO’s survival in a reduced form would have diminished
its effectiveness and credibility, robbing Georgia and its Western
friends of a crucial counter-argument to Moscow’s propaganda about
“Chechen terrorists” using Georgian territory. Moscow might then have
been justified in arguing that the BMO had become
ineffective. Moreover, Russia would almost certainly have reopened the
issue as a bargaining card at the six-month interval.

In Russia’s view, the BMO is obligated to stop its patrolling and
reporting as of January 1, 2005, start packing immediately, and phase
itself out within a few months. Meanwhile, Moscow seems to be hinting
that it might accept some compromise in return for Western concessions
on several of the following Russian demands: a) creating a common
OSCE-“CIS” [in fact, Russian-Belarusian-Central Asian] system of
monitoring and evaluating elections and setting up a joint working
group for that purpose; b) holding a high-level seminar on military
doctrines; and c) calling an international conference on energy
supplies and security. The United States and other Western countries,
unwilling to turn NATO and EU functions over to the OSCE, let alone to
abdicate from democratic standards, have until now resisted those
Russian initiatives in varying degrees.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to block the adoption of the OSCE’s 2005
budget, underscoring the OSCE’s vulnerability to Russian
blackmail. The organization maximizes its vulnerability by maintaining
secrecy, hoping at each step for backstage compromises with Russia,
thus encouraging the latter’s use of “salami tactics.” The OSCE would
be better placed to resist the blackmail by exposing it publicly. The
BMO was this organization’s one and only successful undertaking in the
security sphere. Without the BMO, or with an emasculated version of
it, the OSCE’s credibility as a security actor — already compromised
over Trans-Dniester, South Ossetia, Karabakh, the CFE Treaty, and
Istanbul Commitments — would descend to nil.

On the positive side, however, the BMO’s and indeed the OSCE’s demise
as a security actor can at last open the way for direct Western
involvement — in this case, a border monitoring mission in Georgia
under EU aegis. The United States can keep a low profile and
contribute a portion of the funding for such a mission. Russian
personnel can be invited to participate, as they did in the BMO. The
time for action is short: a substitute operation must be in place
before the ice and snow start melting in the high-altitude passes in
April. Given the EU’s characteristically slow decision-making process,
the United States could help jump-start a political initiative in
Brussels for a EU-sponsored border monitoring operation in Georgia.

At stake is not only Georgia’s security and sovereignty. The larger
issue is Russia’s behavior toward neighboring countries
generally. Giving in to Russia over a genuinely democratic,
pro-American, EU-aspirant country, and accepting a Russian veto over
its neighbor’s border security arrangements, would embolden Moscow
into pressuring other countries as well.

–Vladimir Socor

SAAKASHVILI RINGS IN NEW YEAR WITH YUSHCHENKO

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili delivered his New Year’s
address to Georgia from the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, where he had
flown to congratulate Viktor Yushchenko on his victory in the
presidential elections. This step emphasizes the importance
Saakashvili gives to warm relations with a Yushchenko-governed
Ukraine.

Before his departure for Kyiv, Saakashvili convened a news conference
on December 29 to evaluate his government’s performance for 2004. He
called the year “the most successful in independent Georgia’s
history.”

As expected, Saakashvili named the restoration of control over the
Ajarian Autonomous Republic as the year’s most important
achievement. The president also enthusiastically spoke about increased
budgetary revenues and expenditures, adoption of a more liberal tax
code, the new tax law, and the program for financial amnesty.

Saakashvili declared that continued efforts to restore Georgia’s
territorial integrity would top his agenda for 2005. He said that
Georgia soon would submit new peace initiatives to settle the frozen
conflicts with the other breakaway regions: Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Two weeks earlier, Saakashvili had instructed leading
Georgian NGOs and think tanks to elaborate a new plan for resolving
the conflicts.

During his press conference, Saakashvili admitted that his initial
promises to resolve the country’s basic problems, including
territorial integrity, have become unrealistic, at least in the short
term. “Things cannot be settled so quickly, within five months. I
also thought so, but it is impossible,” he said. Saakashvili further
declared that under his governance Georgia has become a stronger
state.

Saakashvili is known to loath criticism and told reporters that he
“would not like to focus” on failures. He also slammed opposition
forces for criticizing him and his government for economic and
political underperformance.

Meanwhile the opposition, represented by political parties in and out
of parliament and several NGOs, has prepared a long list of mistakes
made by Saakashvili and his team during the past year. Shalva
Natelashvili, leader of the Labor Party, raised the issue of
Saakashvili’s mixed record during his three-week trip to the United
States in December. Reports that the U.S. Department of State invited
one of Saakashvili’s staunchest opponents to visit the United States
— simultaneously with Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania’s U.S. trip —
were evidently unpalatable to the ruling party.

The Georgian opposition charges that the constitutional amendments
made shortly after the Rose Revolution have completely destroyed the
notion of separation of powers. This assertion contains a grain of
truth. Georgia essentially has a one-party system and a “pocket”
parliament dominated by the ruling party majority. During the last
2004 plenary session, parliament passed more than hundred bills,
including tax and financial amnesty without proper scrutiny or outside
comment. The opposition also claims that the current Electoral Code
makes fair elections impossible. Several NGOs are ringing alarming
bells about declining media freedom and judicial independence, illegal
arrests, state extortion of private firms, and the reappearance of
political prisoners.

Saakashvili is also criticized for flip-flopping on Abkhazia and South
Ossetia and particularly for the failed military campaign against
South Ossetia last August, which the government still tries to hush
up. Moreover, the “power ministers” responsible for that failure
remain in the government.

Saakashvili’s personnel policy, namely rotating the same faces among
different posts, has disappointed even his followers. Despite the
government’s bombastic rhetoric, scandals still undermine the Georgian
army. On December 20, 70 soldiers based in Mukhrovani (eastern
Georgia) abandoned their barracks, which they said were unfit for
human habitation.

The recent reshuffle of the cabinet, conflict in the Tbilisi
government, parliamentary chairwoman Nino Burjanadze’s refusal to join
the ruling party, conflicts in regional branches, and division within
the ruling party’s parliamentary faction do not bode well for future
party unity. Even Saakashvili’s supporters have publicly noted
setbacks in conflict settlement, freedom of speech, local democracy,
and governance.

The government is trying to win the hearts and minds of the population
through a variety of popular measures. The government announces it
will raise pensions but remains tight-lipped about the lari’s
decreasing purchasing power and the significant increase in the cost
of living.

The coming year appears to be critical for Saakashvili and his team
because the people’s euphoria from the Rose Revolution has run its
course. Now the government will be judged by its deeds. According to a
nationwide poll commissioned by the GORBI sociological agency on the
anniversary of the Rose Revolution, the number of citizens who believe
that Georgia is heading in the wrong direction has doubled over the
last year.

(Akhali Taoba, December 29; 7 Dge, December 30; Week’s Palette,
December 26; Resonance, December 27; TV-Rustavi-2, TV-Imedi, December
29).

–Zaal Anjaparidze

RUSSIAN AIR FORCE PINS HOPES ON TECHNOLOGY

Russia’s top brass have decided that the best way to halt the decline
of Russian airpower capabilities is to upgrade equipment and transform
some air elements into effective anti-terrorist strike
forces. Therefore in 2005 the Russian air force will continue to rely
heavily upon extending the service life of its long-range bombers,
enhance its technological capabilities, and promote the work of its
defense industries on aviation equipment. Unfortunately, little
attention is given to morale, training, and professional standards.

Military transport aviation will see upgrades by the summer of 2005,
according to Viktor Livanov, Director-General of the Ilyushin Aircraft
Corporation. This will entail the installation of new avionics in the
cockpit of the IL-76MD-90, improving the current cockpit management
system with multi-function LCDs. If successful, the technology will be
introduced later in the year into other Russian military transport
aircraft.

Experimental technologies are also being prioritized in an effort to
strengthen the capabilities of the KA-52 (Alligator) helicopter. After
17 successful test flights in 2004, the first quarter of 2005 should
conclude the testing phase for the new Arbalet airborne radar
system. The radar system itself shows high-quality images with a wide
range of detection ranges, making its creators, Fazotron Research
Corporation, believe it superior to the radar system aboard the
U.S. AH-64 (Long Bow) in terms of detection range, precision, and
image quality (Interfax, December 21, 28). Such advances also enhance
the appeal of Russian aviation technology exports.

Moreover, a modernized Tu-160 (Blackjack) long-range bomber will also
be added to the inventory of long-range aircraft by April 2005. The
modernizing of this aircraft, carried out at the Kazan aircraft plant,
has included avionics upgrades, as well as weapons
capabilities. Lieutenant-General Igor Khvorov, commander of the 37th
Air Army, confirmed that work is continuing on upgrading precision
cruise missiles with a range of 3,000 km (Interfax, December 20).

The mainstay of Russian long-range aviation consists of the Tu-160
(Blackjack) supersonic strategic bombers and Tu-95MS (Bear) and
Tu-22M3 (Backfire) strategic bombers. Khvorov emphasized that only one
in three of these aircraft is used regularly, thus allowing many to
pass their service life of 25 years while remaining in good
condition. He therefore believes that the service lives of some
aircraft could be reasonably extended based on an assessment of their
actual state.

Such signs of progress in the Russian air force, placing its emphasis
on cost-cutting and greater reliance on technological upgrades, are
welcomed within the service itself. However, Khvorov also argues that
long-range aviation can be successfully used against Russia’s most
pressing security threat — terrorism. “Long-range aviation has not
been intended for combating terrorists, but times are changing,” he
observed. A feasibility study into the use of such airpower against
terrorist targets, conducted by the Russian air force in the aftermath
of Beslan, appears to signal the possible use of long-range aviation
as an option against terrorists. Although Khvorov readily admits that
it has no role to play in a Beslan type crisis, he equally discounted
the use of “carpet-bombing” during such an operation. Evidently the
Russian air force sees a need to justify the theoretical use of
long-range bombers in the context of international terrorism, though
it does not have any clear picture of what this may involve.

Existing manpower problems, budgeting, and overall standards within
the Russian air force give rise to serious concerns within the Russian
Ministry of Defense. A recent study into the causes of military air
accidents in Russia between 1992-2004 found that five percent of these
accidents resulted from the poor medical service and reduced
efficiency of pilots. According to Lieutenant-General Sergei Solntsev,
head of the armed forces flight safety service, around one-third of
such accidents have been caused by the failure of pilots to comply
with the pre-flight rest routine or even flying while drunk (Interfax,
December 27).

Underlying the publicly touted technical advances in some aspects of
the Russian air force or within army aviation, a culture of decline
persists, with failing pilot standards and little serious systemic
effort to reverse these trends. Yet more alarming is the notion that
long-range bombers may fly against “terrorist” targets, in an
unspecified operational tasking, while the terrorist threat facing
Russia is more likely to involve enemy action within population
centers, rather than insurgents out in the open presenting themselves
as a target for long-range aviation. In reality, as the Russian armed
forces are subjected to increasing political cliches about the need to
restructure into effective forces that can combat terrorism, many
elements within the existing system are promoting their own case for
greater funding on the basis of combating terrorism. At this time,
when there is arguably a greater need for raising the standards of
personnel within the air force, Solntsev observed that military
accident levels are surpassing civilian aviation accidents. Falling
standards among air force personnel cannot be replaced by technology,
but technology is a useful mechanism for deflecting attention from the
decline.

–Roger N. McDermott

ASTANA PONDERS KREMLIN’S “LOST OPPORTUNITIES” IN KAZAKHSTAN

Summing up the main events of the widely hyped “Year of Russia in
Kazakhstan,” policymakers on both sides of the border have good reason
to be disappointed. Even on the secondary level of inter-parliamentary
contacts, leaders are not pleased with the state of bilateral ties.

Speaking at a joint meeting of Russian and Kazakh parliament members
in Almaty, Kazakhstan Senate Chairman Nurtay Abikayev said that the
past decade was a time of “serious ordeals” for both states. “Since
the cornerstone of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s policy is
defending the interests of the Russians in the post-Soviet space, it
is natural that the attention of our neighbor is focused on
Kazakh-Russian relations. But what did we get from the Year of Russia
in Kazakhstan?” asks political analyst Gulbigash Omarova. To maintain
normal relations, Omarova says that first, Putin and his political
environment should stop calling ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan
“compatriots” and, second, Kazakhstan must effectively counter the
Russian media’s interference in Kazakhstan’s domestic
affairs. (Turkistan, December 16).

Some Russian analysts feel disillusioned by the unfulfilled aims of
the Year of Russia in Kazakhstan program, which was designed to draw
Kazakhstan closer to the Russian sphere of political and economic
influence. Political observer Andrei Kurtov notes with unconcealed
regret that Russia has missed many rare opportunities to reinstate its
superpower status in Central Asia. According to Kurtov, Western media
propaganda has significantly helped to smear Russia’s image in the
region by depicting it as an “evil power” and belittling the value of
the Russian language and culture in the face of the unrestrained
spread of American economic and political influence in the
region. Kurtov believes, “The sooner Russia becomes aware that the
position of an outside observer may in fact mean the catastrophic loss
of its influence in the region, the more realistic is the hope that
Moscow will, at least, manage to minimize these losses” (novopol.ru,
December 28).

Given Russia’s weakened position in Ukraine in the wake of
presidential elections there, Kazakhstan is increasingly regarded as
one of Russia’s last bastions in the CIS. While pursuing a
multi-vector policy in security and economic issues, Kazakh officials
always stress their country’s loyalty to Moscow. During his December
22 visit to Moscow, Kazakhstan Prime Minister Danial Akhmetov assured
his Russian counterparts that Russia, as before, is Kazakhstan’s top
foreign policy priority. Akhmetov and Russian officials discussed a
wide range of issues relating to space research, joint construction of
a fuel and energy complex, and joint development of the oil and gas
sector. The most important of these issues is the planned joined
development of the Kurmangazy oil field in West Kazakhstan on a
production-sharing basis, a lucrative deal long sought by
Russia. Government delegations also considered the possibility of
Kazakhstan’s state Kazmunaygaz company and Russia’s Gazprom setting up
a joint venture to process the Karachaganak gas from Kazakhstan at the
Russian gas processing plant in Orenburg (Panorama, December 24).

Many of the issues discussed in Moscow during Akhmetov’s visit,
however, contain nothing new. Talks on Caspian oil, construction of
new highways, and tariffs have dragged on for many years. It is hardly
surprising, given the bureaucratic machinery in both countries, why so
little has been achieved despite so much effort.

Kazakhstan sees economic and political integration with Russia as a
double-edged sword. On the one hand, it needs Russia as an economic
partner (Kazakhstan’s imports from Russia in 2003 totaled $3.27
billion) and security ally. On the other hand, it is reluctant to
sacrifice its economic independence for the sake of integration. One
illustration of this drive for greater independence from Russia is the
construction of the new railroad linking Altynsarino in Kostanai
region (North Kazakhstan) and Khromtau (in West
Kazakhstan). Previously Kazakh trains had to cross Russian territory
to use this route. At the same time, the Kazakh government severed the
1994 accord on the transit of Russian military cargo through
Kazakhstan, arguing that it was an economic burden for the country, as
the agreement allowed Russia to use the transit route without paying
customs duties (Interfax-AVN, December 10).

Russia’s interest in Kazakhstan is not limited to geopolitical and
economic considerations. Kazakhstan also plays a prominent role in
Moscow’s demographic policy. In the early 1990s thousands of ethnic
Russians from Kazakhstan flooded Russian cities, exacerbating the
already complicated housing and employment problems. But now the
process has reversed. In 2003 28,668 Russians from CIS countries
migrated to Kazakhstan for permanent residence. In 2004 the figure
rose to 32,228. Russians are flowing in mainly from Uzbekistan, where
they feel increasingly discriminated against on ethnic grounds
(Central Asian Monitor, December 24).

Despite contradictions and uneasy relations, Kazakhstan and Russia
need each other more than any other neighbors in the region. There is
no other alternative for them other than to build good neighborly
relations.

–Marat Yermukanov
————————————————————————
The Eurasia Daily Monitor is a publication of the Jamestown
Foundation. The opinions expressed in it are those of the individual
authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Jamestown
Foundation. If you have any questions regarding the content of EDM, or
if you think that you have received this email in error, please
respond to [email protected].
Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of EDM is strictly
prohibited by law.
The Jamestown Foundation
4516 43rd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
202-483-8888 (phone)
202-483-8337 (fax)
Copyright (c) 1983-2004 The Jamestown Foundation.

The Daily Star, Bangladesh
Jan 2 2005
Perspectives
Turkey’s rocky road to EU
M Abdul Hafiz
The Ottomans once entered Europe as conquerors causing a measure of
trepidation among the Europeans who cowered at the Ottomans’
triumphant advance into their continent, traditionally the abode of
Christendom. They could be repulsed from the gate of Vienna only in
1683. But for several centuries the ottomans were the virtual master
of Europe. It is an irony that their descendants today have been
knocking on EU’s door for last forty years to get an entry into
European Union — a regional forum for mutual benefit at the best.
The EU’s public and politicians both have made its membership
discriminatory and are uneasy about Turkey’s large population,
relative poverty and above all Islam, the religion of 70 million
Turks, even though the country has a secular constitution.
When compared with some of the new entrants of EU from former
communist block Turkey is much more deserving case in terms of its
socio-economic advancement. Not only the country has one of the
fastest growing economies of Europe its geographical location is a
strategic asset for Europe. Turkey’s membership of the EU will boost
EU’s global standing, infuse much needed dynamism into EU’ flagging
economy and help Europeans build bridge with the Islamic world as
well as 15 million Muslims living in Europe itself. Also by admitting
a country which has long been member of NATO military alliance but
kept out of EU for a host of political, social and religious reason
— the decision to open entry talks with Ankara — will set the EU on
course for even more significant transformation.
Yet the pronouncement of EU leaders meeting on December 16-17 fell
far short of expectation that they would signal a go-ahead for
membership talk. Instead they offered for talk with strict new
conditions which may indeed be difficult to meet. They want the Prime
Minister Recep Teyyip Erdogan to recognise Greek Cyprus, accept all
time restriction on labour migration to the EU and agree that entry
talks could be put on backburner any time if there is Turkish
slippage on political reforms.
The conditions are indeed disincentive considering that Turkey has
been waiting for the entry into Europe since 1963 when it was given
the associate membership of the European common market. In contrast
last May Slovakia and Estonia joined EU within only four years and
Poland within six years of the negotiation. Two Balkan countries,
Bulgaria and Romania are in the line and would most probably become
member by 2007. For Turkey the observers predict that the entry
negotiations may drag on till 2015. For Turks it is an insult upon
injury.
Although all leading European powers have supported Turkey’s
membership bid but those supports do not seem to be substantiated by
any active steps. Deep down there is a lot of reservations about the
very idea of a large Muslim country becoming the member of virtually
a Christian club. Turkey, it is feared, would overtake Germany, the
EU’ most populous country — a prospect which few Europeans entertain
charitably.
The EU and Turkey took a fateful decision weeks before on the
settlement over Cyprus — much as it is to be desired. But it could
not conceal the collisions between different values and between the
aims of the decision makers and the instinct of their people that lie
ahead. Nothing illustrated so well the disjunction between carefully
formulated common aspiration and the reality of divergent values. The
entry negotiation, if any, is likely to be tough as can be gauged
from the warnings of Romano
Pradi, the chairman of European Commission. He warned that the talks
would not be open-ended and the EU could call off the process if
Ankara did not continue to move forward on reforms. It is in spite of
Ankara staying firm in its drive to ease European concerns. Erdogan
and his ministers have in the mean time spent time sweet-talking EU
leaders and European big business while Turkish artists showcased the
country’s modern and traditional culture. Although Erdogan’s justice
party is also an Islamic party, but very significantly the prime
minister has shed the ex-prime minister Erbakan’s extremist pollicies
and took up a moderate policy which alone could lead to the
conditional ‘yes’ by the EU in October last.
Yet unfortunately many in the EU have, off late, put emotion and
prejudice ahead of rational debate on the pros and cons of Turkey’s
membership. Although Gerhard Schroeder is a supporter of Turkey’s
entry but the biggest opposition to Turkish membership is now found
in Germany where already more than 3m Turks live. The Germans fear
that their country will be
swamped by Turks once they are granted membership of EU which does
not impose any restriction on transborder movement of population.
French President Chirac, once willing to admit Turkey into EU is also
lukewarm now and his country demands that Turkey can at best be given
a privileged relationship with EU, but not membership.
EU fretting over relation with Turkey is not new. The current EU
discussions on the issue has become even more difficult because of
many Europeans’ post 9/11 weariness of Islam and Muslims. As a result
some of the arguments put forward by Turko-sceptics in Europe
illustrate an unabashed anti-Islam bias. At
times their demands almost border on claiming Turks to purge
themselves of past sins — their conduct of the imperial days with
regards to the Slavs or Armenians.
A former EU high-up Frit Bolkestin finds in Turkish entry into EU a
denial of its repulsion from the gate of Vienna. The French Prime
Minister Jean Pierre Raffarin warns against allowing the ‘river of
Islam’ to mingle with European secularism. Former French president
Valery Giscard d’Estaing cautioned that Turkey inside Europe will
mean the end of the bloc’s dream of ever closer union. The attitude
on both sides has recently hardened when Mr Ergodan, the Turkish
prime minister categorically said that Turkey has no intention of
trading its social and cultural values for EU membership.
There are however silver linings for Turkey because it can count on a
number of strong friends and allies, including Britain’s Tony Blair
and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as well as the leaders of
Spain and Italy. The European Commission itself is on Turkey’s side,
announcing in October last that Ankara had met all the key
pro-democracy and human rights standard to join the EU. It will be
interesting to see whether basically an Asian country with barely 3
percent of its territory lying in Europe will at long last be the
proud member of EU for which it had to wait for 41 years and pass the
litmus test. Even if it does the road will remain rocky till the
last.
Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.

Portlan Press Herald
Saturday, January 1, 2005
Despatches
Portland: Orthodox Armenians plan Christmas Mass on Jan. 8
PORTLAND – The city’s Orthodox Armenian community will gather at the
Anglican Cathedral of St. Paul on Jan. 8 to celebrate Christmas Mass for its
traditional holiday, which is celebrated in the Orthodox and Apostolic
Armenian Church according to the Eastern Church calendar on Jan. 6.
The Mass, in Armenian and English, will be celebrated by Father Vartan
Kassabian of St. Gregory’s Armenian Apostolic Church in North Andover, Mass.
This is the second Christmas Mass held in Portland. Hundreds from all over
the state attended last year.
The effort to organize the Mass reflects a renewed interest in Portland’s
Armenian heritage.
Last year, the community dedicated a memorial to the Armenians who had
settled in Portland’s Bayside neighborhood. Last April, St. Paul’s Cathedral
hosted a special service marking the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide
by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, when more than 1.5 million
Armenians died. Portland’s Armenian community dates back to the late 19th
century.

Azeri court convicts 21 over Nagorno-Karabakh guerrilla plot
Agence France Presse — English
December 22, 2004 Wednesday 3:52 PM GMT
BAKU Dec 22 — An Azeri court on Wednesday handed down jail sentences
to 21 men found guilty of trying to set up a guerrilla movement with
the aim of wresting the disputed enclave of Nagorno Karabakh from
Armenian control.
The group’s leader, Rovshan Badalov, was sentenced to 10 years
imprisonment on charges of creating an illegal armed group and
purchasing and carrying weapons, according to an AFP correspondent.
Five others, all of them Azeri nationals, were handed suspended
sentences ranging from two to four years. All five were allowed to
walk free at the end of the trial.
Several Azeri non-governmental organisations had urged Baku to release
the men, describing them as “fighters for the country’s sovereignty.”
Azerbaijan fought a war with Armenia in the early 1990s over
Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave in the heart of
Azerbaijan, that left 35,000 people dead and a million civilians
displaced.
The conflict ended with a ceasefire in 1994 that kept the enclave
under de facto Armenian control. But Baku still claims the territory,
which is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan.
Peace talks have been taking place intermittently for 10 years, under
the mediation of the Minsk Group, to hammer out a permanent solution.

Iran seeking pact with Baku against US attack – Azeri daily
Ayna, Baku
22 Dec 04
Iran seeks to ensure Azerbaijan’s neutral stance in the event of a
US invasion, the Azerbaijani daily Ayna has quoted military sources
as saying. In return, Azerbaijan may receive credits, grants and
support in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, the paper
said. Commenting on the report, a military expert pointed out that
a deal with Iran will be of no benefit to Azerbaijan as the USA will
respond to Iran’s rapprochement with Azerbaijan and the country may
be cornered in the international arena. The following is an excerpt
from Sumarinli’s report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ayna on 22 December
headlined “Iran lures Azerbaijan into a secret military pact” and
subheaded “In return for some ‘services’, the Persian regime wants
Baku to take a neutral stance in America’s ‘Iran agenda'”. Subheadings
have been inserted editorially:
A “turn” in Iran’s policy
Iranian Defence Minister Adm Ali Shamkhani is paying a two-day visit
to Azerbaijan, a spokesman for the [Azerbaijani] Defence Ministry,
Capt Ilqar Verdiyev, has told Ayna newspaper.
Shamkhani is scheduled to have the following meetings during the
visit: with Defence Minister Safar Abiyev, with Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov and with President Ilham Aliyev. No documents are
expected to be signed during the visit, Verdiyev said.
This is the first visit of Shamkhani to Azerbaijan. So far, his
name has figured only in controversial statements aired against
Azerbaijan. He has threatened to carry out strikes on border
territories if there is any threat to Iran, and he has demanded that
Azerbaijan should not provide the military forces of a third country
with access to its territory or to the Caspian (Turan news agency).
Such a turn in the Tehran government’s policy can be explained by
Iran’s serious concerns about prospective US military pressure on the
mullah regime and by its attempts to prevent Azerbaijan’s participation
in the operation. To recap, Iranian Minister of Information
[Intelligence] Ali Yunesi visited Baku on 19 December. However,
Verdiyev said that he disagrees with such reports.
Mooted Iran-Azerbaijan agreements
During his meeting with Abiyev, Shamkhani will discuss a range of
“significant” military and political topics, Ayna has found out
from military sources. Some sources said that several agreements
may be signed during the meeting. Abiyev recently expressed his
concern that military cooperation between Iran and Azerbaijan is not
at the necessary level. During a meeting with the outgoing Iranian
ambassador to Azerbaijan, Ahad Qaza’i, Abiyev said he was dissatisfied
with the level of bilateral military cooperation. Abiyev said then
that Azerbaijan expects more from Iran in the resolution of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
When we consider all this, it becomes clear that Shamkhani’s visit
is not a “factfinding” one. Experts reckon that during the visit,
Iran will try to reach an agreement with the Azerbaijani leadership on
some issues. Certainly, they will clear up some issues regarding the
possibility of Azerbaijan’s participation in a US plan to attack Iran.
What can be promised to Baku in exchange for a neutral stance? Experts
believe that Tehran is ready to offer Azerbaijan cheap credits,
financial assistance grants and so on.
The most important aspect concerns the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict. Iran will announce at international organizations that
it completely supports the Baku government’s position on settling
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, and will restrict its economic,
military and political cooperation with Armenia. In return for these
“services”, Azerbaijan will take a neutral stance on the US plan to
attack Iran. However, will the West, especially the USA, accept such
an accord? The probable course of events is likely to become clear
in the coming months.
In addition to this, Shamkhani’s visit may serve to reinforce
Iran-Azerbaijan military cooperation. Verdiyev shares this view and
does not rule out that Abiyev may visit Iran in the future.
Expert says no benefits for Azerbaijan
“Shamkhani’s visit to Baku was unexpected. By sending its officials
one by one to Azerbaijan, Tehran is presenting Baku with a fait
accompli in the run-up to a US military attack against Iran,” Lt-Col
(retd) Uzeyir Cafarov has told Ayna in an interview. In his opinion,
Baku will come to feel the pain of such relations.
“Granted, Iran is our neighbour. But it is Armenia’s strategic
ally. Let me remind you that during the first Armenian-Azerbaijani
war Armenian servicemen adjusted their artillery from Iran,” Cafarov
said. In Cafarov’s view, the USA is bound to respond to Tehran’s
policy of getting closer with Baku. “The consequences will surface
later. Azerbaijan may be cornered in the international arena,” he said.
Since the South Caucasus is an extremely sensitive region, Azerbaijan’s
foreign policy must be balanced. “One could better see a balanced
policy under [the late president] Heydar Aliyev. However, now this
policy has been ruined,” Cafarov said. No military or political
agreement with Iran will benefit Azerbaijan, he said.
[Passage omitted: Iran’s reaction to statements by American officials]

Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Azerbaijan
Dec 19 2004
South Azerbaijan Human Rights Group addresses to the EP
Published: 19.12.2004
CASCFEN, Baku, 19.12.2004 — Shahin Ostajloo, Spokesman for South
Azerbaijan Human Rights Group (S.A.H.R) based in Europe has delivered
a copy of letter addressed to the members of the European Parliament
in regard to “strained relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia”
while the last has occupied about 20% of lands of the first.
Following is the text of the letter:
“We are a group of South Azerbaijan Human Rights who live in Europe.
We are in contact with our fellow countrymen in Azerbaijan, therefore
we have important informations about the strained relations between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. It is our belief that it is of the utmost
importance that EU or UN do interfere in the area now, before it is
too late to prevent another war to break out.
During summer 2004 we visited different refugee camps in Azerbaijan.
The people in the camps had fled from their homes when the Armenians
had occupied their country. More than 1 million people are living
under very bad conditions. They are in need of the most necessary
means to lead a decent life. Many of them are women and children who
have lost their husband/father during the war. They are totally
dependent of what help they can get from other people or
organisations. They are also a heavy burden for Azerbaijan.
People thought they were able to return to their homes after the war
stopped. But they were very wrong. Their hope of returning is
weakening as time goes by. Every day they receive bad news from
their homeland. Armenians have sacked their homes and sold their
belongings. The churchyards, historical and cultural monuments have
been destroyed. People feel that the western world don’t care much
about them. Nobody has spoken their cause in UN, and they are close
to loose faith in peace in the area.
They are living a life as a social bomb which can detonate any time
now. It is a huge tragedy to which the western countries close their
eyes. More than 20% of Azerbaijan is under Armenian occupation, and
there are no signs of them withdrawing. The Azerbaijan fugitives have
completely lost their faith in a peaceful solution. They now believe
that the only way to have their homes back is another war.
This is a disasterous development, because a new war in the area will
not be any good for any side in the conflict. On the contrary, it is
likely that a war will spread to more groups in the area. Therefore
it is necessary to prevent it and stop it before it starts.
That is why it is so important that democratic organisations in the
western world – especially the EU interfere in the conflict very
actively. Representatives from the EU ought to go to Azerbaijan
themselves to look into the conditions of the refugees on the very
spot. Pressure should be laid upon Armenia to withdraw from the
occupied areas. And the problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan
should be solved in a peaceful way.
The western world can do a lot to install peace right now, but it can
not do much, if another war breaks out in the area.”

TURKISH BUSINESSMEN KEEN TO START BUSINESS IN ARMENIA
ArmenPress
Dec 17 2004
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 17, ARMENPRESS: A Turkish businessman pledged
Thursday in Yerevan to redouble his efforts to press his government
to open border with neighboring Armenia. Juskun Kaplan, the president
of a Turkish Vela garment producer company, told reporters the warm
welcome given to him in Armenia was the main reason behind his
decision to launch his business in the South Caucasus from Armenia.
Juskun Kaplan is in Armenia together with other Turkish
businessmen to prospect for possibilities to start business here.
Their trip was mediated by the community head of an Istanbul quarter
Sisli, that has a significant portion of Armenian population.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress