This Year’s Hunting Season to Last August 23 to March 15, 2009

THIS YEAR’S HUNTING SEASON TO LAST IN ARMENIA FROM AUGUST 23 TO MARCH
15, 2009

Y EREVAN, AUGUST 22, NOYAN TAPAN. The hunting season starts in Armenia
on August 23. The chairman of "National Alliance of Armenian Hunters"
NGO Grigor Grigorian said at the August 22 press conference that some
positive changes were observed this year as compared with the previous
ones. In particular, the necessary arms-ammunition were obatined for
hunters. Besides, the hunting season has been extended: the previous
hunting season was until February 28, whereas this year’s season will
last until March 15.

G. Grigorian informed those present that the hunting season will start
with the fowling of ducks, then also partridges, waterfowls and
pigeons. The largest animal which is allowed to hunt is the hare. There
are also other animals such as goats and wild boars that may be hunted
in small numbers and with special permission.

According to chief expert of the State Environmental Protection
Inspection of the RA Ministry of Nature Protection Arthur Beglarian,
about 60 kinds of animals, birds and fish have been allowed for
hunting. The hunting of animals considered as harmful such as stray
dogs and cats, grey crows, magpies, wolves and jackals is allowed in
unlimited numbers during the whole huting season.

The criminal responsibility envisaged for hunting the animals included
in the Red Book and the amounts of large fines were announced. For
example, a fine of up to 3 million drams (about 9 thousand dollars) is
envisaged for hunting Armenian moufflon, chamois, panther, and
Caucasian bear.

A. Beglarian also announced that the hunting of hares and partridges
has been extended until January 31 during this hunting season. He gave
assurances that as usual, the law-envisaged control will be done this
year too.

http://www.nt.am/news.php?shownews=116612

ANKARA: Turkey’s Caucasus boat likely to sail

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 24 2008

Turkey’s Caucasus boat likely to sail

Turkey is in a bid to be the shipyard for the construction of a boat
called "Caucasia Stability and Cooperation Platform," with five
sailors on the boat having "deep-frozen conflicts" with each other.

Views regarding the proposed platform differ, with some suggesting
that this boat is destined to sink even before setting sail for the
first time, while others say that it may be a good idea for those five
sailors — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey — to be on
their own in the high seas so they can put their heads together to
discuss their issues with each other. Ankara’s proposal for the
platform came after a regional crisis erupted following a Georgian
military offensive in its Russian-backed breakaway region of South
Ossetia earlier this month. In the first half of August, PM Recep
Tayyip ErdoÄ?an paid successive visits to Moscow and Tbilisi and
earlier this week traveled to Baku to promote and gain support for the
proposed platform. Both Georgian and Russian leaders said they would
welcome the idea, while a joint statement released by ErdoÄ?an
and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev said Baku had approached the
proposal "positively."

Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a state of enmity due to Armenia’s
continued occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, and observers
say a regional alliance including both countries as members may be
difficult to implement. With Armenian troops still in
Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani leadership is unlikely to warm to any
sort of cooperation with Yerevan.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Aliyev, ErdoÄ?an did
not refer to Armenia and said instead Turkey was willing to further
cooperation with Azerbaijan and Georgia for peace and stability in the
Caucasus. He also said the Nagorno-Karabakh problem should be resolved
on the basis of principles of international law and through peaceful
ways. Aliyev thanked Turkey for its supportive stance.

Ahead of his departure for Baku on Aug. 20, however, ErdoÄ?an
disclosed Ankara’s eagerness for Armenia’s participation in a
"Caucasus alliance," as he said it would greatly increase regional
stability. He said the form of talks with Armenia would be set
following Babacan’s consultations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov.

In the meantime, as of Aug. 16 and 17, Babacan initiated a hectic
telephone diplomacy, having talks with US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice; EU term president France’s Foreign Minister Bernard
Kouchner; German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier; Council of
Europe term president Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt; and
Alexander Stubb, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) chairman-in-office and Finnish foreign minister.

His talks focusing on Turkey’s proposal took place before he departed
for Brussels to participate in a key meeting of NATO foreign
ministers, who had emergency talks to reconsider the alliance’s ties
with Russia after the conflict in Georgia.

As of Thursday this week, remarks by Georgian Ambassador to Turkey
Grigol Mgaloblishvili, who firmly said that his country would not
participate in the proposed cooperation platform for the Caucasus as
long as Russia doesn’t entirely withdraw its forces from Georgian
soil, led to curiosity over whether Tbilisi’s initial welcome to the
idea was just out of courtesy.

In an initial reaction to the Turkish plans to involve Armenia in the
Caucasus talks, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said
Yerevan welcomed the Turkish initiative. "Armenia was always in favor
of dialogue and talks, particularly on the issues concerning
cooperation and security in our region. The Turkish prime minister’s
statement on the intention to start talks with Armenia on this agenda
could be welcomed," he said in a statement in response to a question
posed by Today’s Zaman on Wednesday.

It is not clear what shape the planned talks with Armenia will
take. Turkey severed its ties with Armenia in the early 1990s in
protest of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to
official Turkish policy, normalization of ties depends on Armenian
withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, the termination of the Armenian
policy of supporting claims of an Armenian genocide at the hands of
the Ottoman Empire and an official endorsement by Armenia of the
current borders between the two countries.

As of Friday afternoon Babacan, as expected, initiated a telephone
conversation with Russia’s Lavrov and spoke of the proposed platform.

"During the conversation, Mr. Babacan conveyed our concrete proposals
concerning the Caucasia Stability and Cooperation Platform to the
Russian side," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Burak
Ã-zügergin told the Anatolia news agency. The two ministers
decided to meet next week within this framework, Ã-zügergin
said, noting that the two also decided to hold another meeting in
early September.

Russia’s ‘one package for all’

If this platform can at least bring together in Ankara the foreign
ministers of the two sides — Georgia and Russia, who say that they
will not meet with each other for the time being — then it will take
an important step on the way to building peace and stability in the
Caucasus, believes Associate Professor Kasım Kamer.

South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh are all "frozen
conflicts," Kamer, a Caucasia expert of the Ankara-based International
Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/ USAK), first of all noted,
while speaking with Sunday’s Zaman.

"OSCE [the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] is
ineffective in regards to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, since Russia is
one of the co-chairs in the OSCE Minsk Group. If such a Caucasia
platform is established, Russia’s participation in this body is
inevitable, and if Turkey can get Russia and Georgia together under
the same roof, then this will be a success by itself," Kamer said.

"Both Russia and Georgia do not want to give up South Ossetia and
Abkhazia at the same time. However there may be a bargaining on the
two regions, while Georgia will definitely be very stubborn, as it
considers both of the regions its own soil. On the other side, there
is a deep lack of confidence vis-à-vis Russia, a lack of
confidence which makes expectation of great consequences from this
platform in the short run very difficult. Russia’s main goal was to
topple Saakashvili with its recent move; it would either walk to
Tbilisi in order to enter the capital or it would force Georgia to
give major concessions, like withdrawing half of its troops from the
disputed regions. Nevertheless, none took place, and it seems
Saakashvili will remain in power for a considerable time. Thus Russia
couldn’t reach its eventual goal," he explained.

The Nagorno-Karabakh factor

When asked about the possibility of any improvement in resolution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the
event of their sitting around the same table within the framework of
the proposed platform, Kamer underlined that Armenia’s acceptance of
Turkey’s mediation in the international legal sense doesn’t seem
possible, since Turkey is a party in this dispute. On the other hand,
the same thing applies to Russia’s mediation from the point of view of
Azerbaijan, as according to Azerbaijan, Russia is a party in this
dispute, he said.

"What could happen is this: The parties come together around the same
table, and they can take steps regarding secondary issues related to
Nagorno-Karabakh, for example the refugee issue. In the long run,
Russia has a tendency to introduce the issues of Nagorno-Karabakh,
South Ossetia and Abkhazia in one package, which will not be
acceptable for a large majority of the international community because
the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is entirely different from all
others, since Armenia is de facto on Azerbaijan soil via invading
Nagorno-Karabakh. Following the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s
independence and its recognition by the world, Russia has become
increasingly aggressive concerning the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. But
it is impossible to put these issues in the same file — neither
geographically nor historically [can this be done]. Even looking at
the significant differences of population between Kosovo and these
regions make this point clear," Kamer said.

"We also have this triangle of Caucasia, the United States and
Turkey. The US is actually looking favorably at all kinds of moves of
rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. Yet a significant step by
Armenia is not easy to be taken in the short term due to the clout of
the hard-liner Karabakh clan with the leadership of the country. As a
matter of fact, Turkey’s conditions for reopening the border and
re-establishing diplomatic relations are quite moderate," he added.

Does anyone have a better idea?

According to retired Ambassador Ã-zdem Sanberk, a former Foreign
Ministry undersecretary and an esteemed foreign policy analyst,
Turkish diplomacy has taken a very appropriate step that deserves
appreciation — via maturation of the idea of the Caucasia
platform. Sanberk also has a strong conviction that this initiative is
destined to "take off," given that Russia, one of the two countries
key to rendering the initiative successful, has approached Turkey’s
idea positively. The other is the United States, which should
definitely not be excluded from this process, he says.

"If someone has a better idea, then s/he should come forward and tell
us this better idea," Sanberk told Sunday’s Zaman, saying that he
could not agree with those analysts and politicians who suggest that
Turkey’s proposed platform is "a stillborn idea."

"Such an initiative could not be taken without having Russia’s
consent, and Turkey gained this consent. Nobody takes initiatives with
consequences or success being taken for granted, as there is always a
calculated risk. When Turkey initiated the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation back in the early 1990s, the same kinds of comments were
made, suggesting that the idea was not realistic at all. But it took
off. Later it lost its vigorousness due to neglect by the governments
of the time, starting from 1996," Sanberk said, while bringing to mind
a similar idea for constituting a Caucasia cooperation platform put
forward in 1999 by the then-President Süleyman Demirel.

"Unfortunately the coalition government led by late Prime Minister
Bülent Ecevit and the next president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer,
neglected the idea put forward by Demirel purely on political
concerns, since it was not first floated by them, and it failed before
it was born," Sanbek continued.

As for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) coming to
power for the first time in 2002, it handled the European Union
membership process as a priority and made a very appropriate decision
by doing so, Sanberk said, adding however, he wished the AK Party
government had also made the Caucasus platform idea a priority and had
matured it simultaneously with the other priorities, such as playing a
key role in the Middle East.

"When governments give clear signals about their priorities, the
people of Turkey read this message and act accordingly and make the
necessary sacrifices falling on their shoulders. In the case of the
absence of clear signals and messages, extreme ideas such as Turkey
joining the Shanghai Five or its establishing a new front with Iran
and Russia gain currency in the town," the veteran diplomat said,
highlighting the influence of foreign policy messages on domestic
politics as well.

Turning back to the proposed Caucasia platform, Sanberk said that
today’s circumstances were not sustainable for Russia, although it had
manipulated very good chess maneuvers in the recent incidents by
showing off its military capacity at a time when the European
continent’s security capacity was overstretched.

"But now it needs sustainable power, and it cannot rely forever and
solely upon the ups and downs in natural gas prices to maintain its
power. This should be well explained by Turkey to Russia, with which
it has a strategic relationship. Moscow should understand that the
Soviet Union cannot be re-established and that the current situation
is not in its interests, either. As for the Georgian ambassador’s
remarks, they are not surprising, Tbilisi is naturally trying to
maintain its position at this phase.

"I find comments suggesting that a new cold war era has started as
exaggerated, but it is obvious that the cards are being
redistributed. And that this is happening — putting forward
constructive and positive ideas — as Ankara has been doing, is
extremely good," Sanberk said. "The fact that this idea has not been
rejected spells that it will be able to stand on its own feet. Even if
these five countries come together and set a date for their second
meeting without making a concrete decision over disputed issues, this
will be a real success."

`EU, US should be well informed’

As of Tuesday, during a briefing at the US State Department’s Foreign
Press Center on the "Situation in Georgia and Implications for the
Caucasus," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an’s proposal for a
Caucasus cooperation platform appeared to have received a lukewarm
response from the State Department’s top diplomat for Eurasian and
Caucasian affairs.

"I must say I was surprised," Matt Bryza, the US deputy assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was quoted as
saying by the Anatolia news agency at the briefing. "I hadn’t been
briefed that that was going to happen. We have a partnership with
Turkey on the Caucasus, and I presume that we’ll be able to work
together very closely now with our allies in Turkey since we do have
clearly shared interests, not to mention values, throughout the
Caucasus with our Turkish ally."

According to Associate Professor Kasım Kamer, the United States
would like to actively take place in such a platform, and those
remarks reflect their disappointment over the perception they got as
if they were being excluded on purpose from this platform by Turkey.

"Russia’s actions in Gori led to an environment of cold war, and
Washington was actually not expecting such action by Russia, which
fuelled already existing doubts over Moscow’s respect for Georgia’s
sovereignty. All of these facts might have led to such a distanced
manner by the United States; however, in the long term, this platform
is also in the interest of the United States," Kamer, of the
Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/
USAK), told Sunday’s Zaman.

Retired Ambassador Ã-zdem Sanberk, a former Foreign Ministry
undersecretary, was actively involved in 2001 in the arrangement and
conduct of series of conferences under the title "Seeking Stability in
the Caucasus," initiated by the İstanbul-based Turkish Economic
and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV).

The late İsmail Cem, then foreign minister, had also attended
those conferences — during which establishment of a Caucasus
Stability Pact was discussed.

"Then we were discussing the involvement of the United States and Iran
in the issue; today there is no US aspect of the issue at the time
being, but Washington should definitely be persuaded to effectively
support this initiative," Sanberk told Sunday’s Zaman.

"The Western world in general, for example via NATO, and the United
States in particular should be appropriately briefed that their
interests in the region will be protected. In this regard,
Mr. Babacan’s telephone talks are very positive. Yet I believe that
the level should be upgraded with Mr. Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]
ErdoÄ?an holding talks with EU term president France’s leader
Nicolas Sarkozy as well as with the EU’s foreign policy chief Javier
Solana," the veteran diplomat added.

Approached by Sunday’s Zaman on Friday and invited to comment on the
Turkish proposal, US Embassy Press Attaché Kathryn Schalow
first of all praised Turkey’s efforts as a regional player.

"As we have seen in the recent past, Turkey has played an important
role in the region, and we hope that Turkey’s new efforts to promote
stability in the South Caucasus will be in harmony with other
international efforts to promote peace, prosperity and stability in
the Caucasus — including through NATO, the EU and the OSCE," Schalow
told Sunday’s Zaman. "And we look forward to consulting with Ankara on
its Caucasus platform concept," she added. Ankara Today’s Zaman

24 August 2008, Sunday
EMİNE KART ANKARA

Bizarro Imperialism: How It Works, And Who Profits

BIZARRO IMPERIALISM
by Justin Raimondo

Antiwar.com
Aug 22 2008
CA

How it works, and who profits

The US-Iraqi "status of forces" agreement has been months in the
making, and today [Thursday] we are told that it’s "almost" ready –
but not quite. So what’s the problem? Well, there are a few bones of
contention between the "liberators" and the "liberated," the first
being how long US forces will stay, and the second being the terms
under which they will essentially continue their occupation. What this
increasingly contentious issue between the Americans and the Iraqis
reveals and underscores is just how far down the road to empire the
US has traveled.

What is becoming readily apparent, even to this administration, is
that the Americans are no longer wanted by any of the Iraqi factions:
not the Sunnis, who hated us from the beginning, not the Shi’ites,
who soon learned to hate us, and not even the Kurds, formerly our
trusted compradors in the region and now sullenly resentful at having
had their anti-Turkish campaign reined in by a joint effort of US
and Iraqi forces.

President Bush has long disdained the very idea of setting a timetable
for the withdrawal of US troops, but last month had the rug pulled
out from under him – and John McCain – when Barack Obama went to Iraq
and was greeted by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who
promptly endorsed Obama’s call for a definitive timetable. The status
of forces agreement has been demoted to the level of a "memorandum
of understanding," so as not to require a vote by the US Congress,
nevertheless it cannot avoid a vote in the Iraqi Parliament. That’s
what they mean by "exporting" democracy: It’s the Iraqis who do the
voting, while we just get to foot the bill.

That’s how American imperialism works. We’re the only empire on earth
where, as Garet Garrett put it, "everything goes out and nothing comes
in." In the olden days, you’ll recall, when Roman legionnaires went
a’ conquering, at least they came back with some loot, which they
would distribute to the populace whilst keeping some for themselves:
however, here in Bizarro Rome, it’s we who are being looted. Not
that I’m suggesting the Iraqis ought to pay the costs of their own
occupation, but only to point out the irony of our predicament.

The Iraqis reportedly want us to begin withdrawing by the end of next
June, with all forces out by 2010. The Bush administration has so far
not agreed to any of this, and is insisting on staying until 2011 –
and, even then, we’ll still retain bases in the country. This should
clear up, once and for all, the question of whether we are creating an
empire in the Middle East: Iraq is clearly being treated as a colony
of the US, or else there would be no negotiations, certainly not the
prolonged song-and-dance performed by the US and Iraqi sides – there
would only be the unilateral decision of the Iraqis to politely ask
us to leave.

This is an attempt by the White House to give its own policies a life
beyond the grave of this administration, and it’s not at all clear
how strenuously the Democrats will oppose it. Expecting a victory in
November, albeit with less certainty than before, the Obama campaign
hasn’t made this is an issue, so far, and the Democrats in Congress
are unlikely to take a bold initiative, such as nullifying the most
objectionable provisions – including the one that keeps US troops in
Iraq until 20011-or-12.

Locked in by a "treaty" obligation that was never put to a vote of
the people’s representatives, President Obama will conveniently
cite this document – which no ordinary person has yet had the
privilege of reading – and intone that the only responsible thing
to do is to abide by it. Thus the essential continuity of American
foreign policy, a theme extrapolated on in this space before, will
be maintained. Change? A Democratic administration would usher in a
change of faces, certainly, and we’d hear a rhetorical shift, to be
sure – but no real fundamental sea change in the guiding principles
and present direction of policy, which amounts to a permanent rationale
for a massive overseas projection of US military power.

The battlelines in our endless "war on terrorism" are shifting
eastward, away from Iraq – where we’re being pushed out by the Iraqis,
and their Iranian allies – and toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama
wants thousands more US soldiers sent to the Afghan front, and
certainly our reverses in that theater aren’t being publicized as
widely as the alleged "success" of the surge. I’ll leave it to Michael
Scheuer to explain why the bones of so many empires are buried in
those hills: suffice to say that the Democrats’ Afghan adventurism
is bound to be just as successful – and involve just as many if not
more casualties and other costs – as the conflict in Iraq. The alleged
rationale for it is also exactly the same: we’re fighting al Qaeda,
the destroyers of the twin towers! The only answer to that is: it’s
a little late for that, now isn’t it?

Bin Laden and the leadership of his quasi-organization have long since
spread out across the globe: they are in every country, including
most likely the United States. To imagine that we can destroy Bin
Ladenism militarily is an illusion, and a dangerous one – the danger
being that the wars of "liberation" we wage will only succeed in
growing and militarizing al Qaeda’s base of support. Al Qaeda cannot
be stopped with fighter planes and advanced missile systems, and the
more we go around the world playing the regime-change game, the more
recruits the terrorists will reap.

The shift to the Afghan-Pakistani front marks a general shift in the
nature of the alleged "enemy." Every American administration must come
up with at least one foreign adversary, a credible overseas ‘threat"
to our national security interests, and there are many indications
that Russia is a favorite for the nomination. The Central Asian
‘stans are lining up on one side or the other, and the West, led by
the Americans, is bound to continue the encirclement of Russia no
matter which party wins in November.

China, too, is on the enemies list, on account of the labor unions’
Sinophobia, which has always been pronounced and unapologetic:
they are a key Democratic constituency, and, given Obama’s victory
this November, there will be considerable pressure on him to take
up the campaign for "human rights" in China. Never mind that China,
like Russia, has come a long way since the Communist era, while in
America and the West the trend is in the other direction. This "human
rights" hooey is really a protectionist crusade, dressed up in liberal
"humanitarian" garb, but just remember that old libertarian maxim:
if goods don’t cross borders, then armies soon will.

Securing the goods – in this case, oil – is what the maneuvering in
the region is all about. Oil from distant Kazakhstan, the gigantic
US-allied autocracy rivaled only by neighboring Uzbekistan for the
megalomaniacal authoritarianism of its dotty old ruler, Nursultan
Nazarbayev. The Kazakh dictator is a sclerotic leftover from the
Communist era who has reportedly transferred over one billion dollars
worth of the nation’s wealth to his personal bank account. And that’s
just one of the advantages of online banking!

One of the beneficiaries of the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline
is Turkmenistan, another neo-Soviet Central Asian "republic" with a
one-party system and no liberty in any sphere. With a "human rights"
record far worse than the Chinese, you can bet they’ll get a free pass
no matter which party takes power in Washington: there’s too much money
involved here, and, besides that, it was the Democrats who initiated
this "Silk Road" pipeline project, and the Clinton administration
that set up a special office to see that it was realized.

And don’t forget Azerbaijan, yet another neo-Soviet dictatorship, whose
Maximum Leader, Heydar Aliyev, a former Communist party chieftain,
seized power in a coup and established a one-party state, passing on
power to his son, in the North Korean style. Azerbaijan is locked in
a struggle with Armenia, a Russian ally, over the Nagorno-Karabakh
region, which is inhabited by both Azeris and Armenians, and has been
the object of a long intramural conflict. This conflict could easily
intersect the route of the BTC pipeline, a tripwire that could lead to
a confrontation between the US and Russia, and/or their proxies. The
Georgian/Ossetian incident prefigures this coming conflict.

The worst autocracies in the region – these are "democratic"
Georgia’s economic partners and diplomatic-military allies in the
fight against Putin’s Russia. Standing behind them is the US, and
the Western powers, particularly the British, who have a lot invested
in the BTC project. The idea is to avoid Iran and Russia completely
while reaping the oil bounty to be found in Central Asia. This would
undercut Russia’s economic and geopolitical position, and complete
the encirclement of the Slavs, which has been the long-range goal
of American policy in the post-Soviet era no matter which party is
in power. The long ago promise made to Gorbachev by George Herbert
Walker Bush – that NATO would not expand to include the former Warsaw
Pact nations, never mind Ukraine and Georgia – is conveniently tossed
down the Memory Hole. Not only Georgia, but also distant Azerbaijan
is on the fast-track for NATO membership.

In the battle for the top of the world, which looks set to take place
on the steppes of Central Asia, neither expense nor lives will be
spared. It doesn’t matter which party takes the White House, because
it’s the same old game played by the same old players. We’re done
with Iraq, and it’s time to move on: there are new lands to conquer,
fresh crusades to take up, and a whole new set of beneficiaries, laptop
bombardiers, and official spokespersons to contend with. If this is
"change," then you can have it. All I know is that Antiwar.com is bound
to be busier than usual, no matter who wins in November. That’s why the
endless framing of every issue in partisan terms is so irrelevant and
just plain boring. Republicans and Democrats, red-state/blue-state,
conservative-liberal – it’s just a game show, albeit often an
entertaining one, that really decides nothing much of anything.

What decides the course of nations isn’t politics, but ideas – and
that’s where Antiwar.com comes in. We’re fighting the battle of ideas
every day, 24/7 – against a well-funded and not very well-intentioned
enemy. The War Party knows what it wants, and knows how to get it:
they’re not only wealthy beyond measure, they’re also organized:
they’ve systematically eliminated any and all voices of opposition to
our interventionist foreign policy from the councils of government, and
only now, from the grassroots, do we hear the sounds of dissent. Why
do we have to police the world – and bear the burden of empire? This
is the question we’ve been asking since our founding, in 1995, and we
have yet to find anyone who has come up with a satisfactory answer. Who
benefits from this policy of global meddling? Because it most certainly
isn’t the great bulk of the American people, who must pay the costs
of empire on top of the tremendous domestic debt we’ve already rung up.

Everything goes out and nothing comes in: that’s how Garrett, in his
1952 pamphlet Ex America, described the then newly-emerging American
empire. He was, however, a writer whose specialty was economics, and,
being quite a perceptive analyst, he would have instantly understood –
had he lived to see it – that, in the year 2008, something does come
in. While us ordinary peons pay, certain business concerns profit,
namely the investment bankers who are financing the BTC pipeline,
the governments of Georgia and the Central Asian axis of anti-Russian
autocracies, not to mention the politicians who are feeding at that
particular trough.

The beneficiaries of our foreign policy are fighting hard to stay in
the saddle, in spite of the awakening of the American people to the
racket they’ve been running. Eight years of constant warmongering has
surely taken its toll on the support the War Party can generate, but
they have new tricks up their sleeves, of that you can be sure. That’s
why it’s so important that you help us make our fundraising goal of
$70,000: as you may know, we’re in the midst of our summer drive,
and we are depending on you to come through.

The summer fundraisers are always the hardest, and I dread their
approach. This one I especially dreaded, because of the economic
hardship I know many of our readers are going through right
now. That’s why it’s so important that those who can afford to give,
this time, dig deeper than usual into their pockets to make up for the
shortfall. I apologize if I’m sounding a little desperate, here, but,
come to think of it, I am feeling pretty desperate: that fundraiser
thermometer on our front page needs to be well advanced into the green
"optimist" range before we’re out of the woods – that is, before we
can guarantee that you’ll continue to get the kind of coverage of
world affairs you’ve come to expect from Antiwar.com.

So, please, give as much as you can as soon as you can – contribute
today.

AUA Celebrates Establishment of Southern California Office

PRESS RELEASE
August 21, 2008

American University of Armenia Corporation
300 Lakeside Drive, 5th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 987-9452
Fax: (510) 208-3576
Contact: Gaiane Khachatrian
E-mail: [email protected]

American University of Armenia Celebrates Establishment of Southern
California Office

The American University of Armenia (AUA) celebrated the opening of its
Southern California office on Sunday evening, August 17. The cocktail
party, attended by a number of board of trustees members, major donors and
friends of AUA, also served to welcome University President Dr. Haroutune
Armenian and his wife Sona to the Los Angeles area following their
relocation from the Baltimore, MD area. The event also introduced AUA’s new
Director of Development, Daniel Maljanian and Administrative Assistant to
the President, Marianna Achemian.

AUA, an American accredited graduate university located in Yerevan, Armenia,
offers degrees in engineering, health sciences, law, English, business
management, and political science. It is affiliated with the University of
California, with offices provided by UC in Oakland, in addition to the new
Pasadena offices provided by the AGBU at 2495 E. Mountain St. The new
office will enable AUA to engage more fully its Southern California
constituents and raise the Armenian community’s awareness of AUA’s
activities in Armenia. AUA seeks active support for its programs of higher
education and the sustainable development of Armenia and the Caucasus
region.

Dr. Mihran Agbabian, board of trustee member and AUA President Emeritus,
opened the evening’s program by recognizing his fellow trustees Gerald
Turpanjian, Sinan Sinanian and Edward Avedisian, who had traveled from
Boston to be in attendance, along with Board Secretary Dr. Theony Condos.
He then thanked the many AUA donors in attendance, and proceeded to
introduce Dr. Armenian, who now divides his time between his Yerevan and Los
Angeles area residences.

After showing a short video on the soon-to-be-completed Paramaz Avedisian
Building (PAB), Dr. Armenian thanked and introduced Edward Avedisian, who
commissioned and has overseen the construction of the PAB. The state of the
art building, which will enable AUA to more than double its teaching
capacity, will add 100,000 square feet to AUA’s existing facilities,
including classrooms, seminar rooms, laboratories and research areas. Mr.
Avedisian thanked the many people who had contributed to the building’s
design and construction, and informed the attendees that it is not too late
to consider the room naming opportunities that are still available for
donations of $20,000 and above.

Dr. Armenian also announced AUA’s upcoming seminars, which will be held in
Southern California, highlighting AUA’s involvement in Armenia’s rural
development, improvement of public health, and legal reform. More
information about these seminars will be provided in the coming months.

The program concluded with Dr. Armenian emphasizing the need for Armenia to
excel in order to make a lasting contribution to the region. He emphasized
that AUA, with its American accreditation and focus on academic excellence,
free inquiry, scholarship, leadership and service to society, is a key
participant in training the next generation of Armenia’s leaders. Dr.
Ruzanna Mkhitaryan, a 1997 graduate of AUA who was in attendance, stood up
at the end and expressed her gratitude for the education that she had
received and the hope that AUA had instilled in her during the darkest days
in Armenia’s recent history.

—————————————- —————-

The American University of Armenia Corporation (AUAC) is registered as a
non-profit educational organization in both Armenia and the United States
and is affiliated with the Regents of the University of California.
Receiving major support from the AGBU, AUA offers instruction leading to the
Masters Degree in eight graduate programs. For more information about AUA,
visit

www.aua.am.

ISG Insurance Taking Interest In Financial Risk Insurance

ISG INSURANCE TAKING INTEREST IN FINANCIAL RISK INSURANCE

arminfo
2008-08-20 14:46:00

ArmInfo. ISG Insurance Company plans more active involvement in
the financial risk insurance segment. ISG Executive Officer Artak
Antonyan told ArmInfo that in July to reinsure financial risks,
the company made an exclusive contract with the largest Ukrainian
insurance company Lemma with (Ð~B.Ð~J.Best B+ (good)) rating that
meets Armenian Central Bank standards.

ISG Insurance Company has licenses for insurance of financial risks
and guarantee provision. A. Antonyan said the company plans to get
another license at the end of the 3rd quarter to insure credits. The
banks will be offered the most favorable cooperation terms in the
market, he said. A. Antonyan underlined that the aggregate premiums
from insurance of the group of financial risks for the 3rd qt will be
ensured through insurance of provided guarantees. The company plans
30 mln drams financial risk insurance premiums especially after it
has already made 50 insurance contracts over Jul-Aug 2008. Ranking
of Armenian Insurance Companies prepared by the Agency of Rating
Marketing Information (ArmInfo) says ISG took the 1st position among
ten operating insurance companies in Armenia by 1.542 bln drams
insurance premiums for the 1st half of 2008. The premiums were from
insurance of the group of aviation risks.

–Boundary_(ID_XXLJcaSyPFHVS9R/STZP7g)–

In Georgia, Russia sends clear message: NO US, Israeli Influence

The Daily Star
In Georgia, Russia sends clear message US, Israeli influence will not be
tolerated
By Theodore Karasik

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Analysis BY Theodore Karasik
DUBAI: South Ossetian separatists, supported by Moscow, escalated their
machine-gun and mortar-fire attacks against neighboring Georgian villages
last week. In response, Georgia attacked the separatist capital South
Ossetian Tskhinvali with artillery to suppress fire. Tskhinvali suffered
severe damage, thus providing the pretext for Moscow’s invasion of Georgia.
Russians in Abkhazia are also fighting the Georgians.
As Russia responded with overwhelming force, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
flew from the Beijing Olympics to Vladikavkaz, taking control of the
military operations. Putin sidelined his successor, Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev, thereby leaving no doubt as to who is in charge. Medvedev’s role
is to handle the international diplomatic front which seems to be not on the
table. Under Putin’s orders, the 58th Russian Army of the North Caucasus
Military District rolled into South Ossetia, reinforced by the 76th Airborne
"Pskov" Division. Cossacks from the neighboring Russian territories moved in
to combat the Georgians as well.
The Black Sea Fleet is blockading Georgia from the sea, while Russian
ballistic missiles and its air force are attacking Georgian military bases
and cities including Tbilisi. What Russia is trying to do – and looking like
she may succeed – is to establish a pro-Russian regime in Georgia that will
also bring the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the
Baku-Erzurum (Turkey) gas pipeline under Moscow’s control.
More importantly and with immense strategic implications, Russia is also
trying to send Israel a clear message that Tel Aviv’s military support for
Tbilisi in organizing, training and equipping Georgia’s army will no longer
be tolerated. Private Israeli security firms and retired military officials
are actively involved in Georgian security. Further, Israel’s interest in
Caspian oil and gas pipelines is growing and Russia seeks to stop this
activity at this time. Intense negotiations about current and future
pipelines between Israel, Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan are
tied to receiving oil at the terminal at Ashkelon and on to the Red Sea port
of Eilat. Finally, Russia is sending a clear message that it will not
tolerate US influence in Georgia nor Tbilisi’s interests – supported by the
pro-US Georgian President Mikhal Saakashvili – in joining NATO. Overall, the
military crisis will push Moscow to punish Israel for its assistance to
Georgia, and challenge the US to do more than voice rhetoric.
In the Gulf, there are several broad implications. First is the impact of
the war on Gulf investment in the Caucasus and in Russia. The Russian damage
to Ras al-Khaimah’s investment plan in Georgia is troublesome. The Ras
al-Khaimah government has recently invested in the Georgian port of Poti
where its real-estate development arm Rakeen is developing a free zone.
Rakeen is also developing some mixed-use projects near the capital Tbilisi.
The firm has three projects in Georgia – Tbilisi Heights and Uptown
Tbilisi – with a total value of $1.98 billion, while a third is being
planned. But Ras al-Khaimah’s other major investment did not remain unhurt.
The Georgian harbor Poti, which is majority owned by the Ras al-Khaimah
Investment Authority (Rakia), was badly damaged in Russian air raids. In
April 2008, Georgia sold a 51 percent stake in the Poti port area to Rakia
to develop a free economic zone (FEZ) in a 49-year management concession,
and to manage a new port terminal. The creation of FEZ, to be developed by
Rakeen, was officially inaugurated by Saakashvili on April 15, 2008.
Previously the trend in Russo-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) relations
focused on strengthening the "north-south" economic corridor between the two
regions; this linkage may now be in jeopardy if more Gulf investment goes up
in smoke.

The second implication is the growing military presence in both Gulf waters
and the Mediterranean Sea by the West and Russia that cannot be separated
from the Russo-Georgian conflict. There is an unprecedented build-up of
American, French, British and Canadian naval and air assets – the most since
the 2003 invasion of Iraq – that are to be in place shortly for a partial
naval blockade of Iran. Three US strike forces are en route to the Gulf
namely the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Iwo
Jima. Already in place are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea
opposite Iranian shores and the USS Peleliu which is cruising in the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden.
There is also a growing Russian Navy deployment begun earlier this year to
the eastern Mediterranean comprising the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov
with approximately 50 Su-33 warplanes that have the capacity for mid-air
refueling along with the guided-missile heavy cruiser Moskva. This means the
Russian aircraft could reach the Gulf from the Mediterranean, a distance of
some 1360 kilometers, and would be forced to fly not only over Syria but
Iraq as well, where the skies are controlled by the US military. The Russian
task force is believed to be composed of a dozen warships and several
submarines. While the West is seeking to defend Gulf oil sources destined to
the West and the Far East, Russia is increasing its desire to control
Caspian oil resources and setting herself in a strategic position near the
Levant.
A final implication is what may be a complete collapse of any back channel
communications via Russia to Iran regarding Tehran’s preparation for
confrontation with the West and slowing down Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear
weapon. In the past year, Russia acted as an intermediary between the US,
Israel, the GCC – specifically Saudi Arabia – and Tehran. With the
Russian-Georgian war, the door may now slam shut between these players.
Saudi Arabia, for instance, is attempting to halt the Russian sale of the
S-300 anti-air defense system to Tehran and also is seeking to purchase
large amounts of Russian weapons to "buy-off" Moscow’s pursuit of selling
conventional weapons to Iran. As a consequence of the Russo-Georgian war,
Russia may start to play hardball with going through with arms sales to Iran
and dropping support for sanctions against Iran that may invite a unilateral
Israeli strike on Iran.
As further evidence of the heightening of tensions, Kuwait is activating its
"Emergency War Plan" as the massive US and European flotilla is heading for
the region. Part of Kuwait’s plan is to put strategic oil assets in reserve
in the Far East and outside the forthcoming battle space. And Israel is
building up its strike capabilities for an attack on Iran, purchasing 90
F-16I planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran. Israel has also
bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany capable of firing
nuclear-armed warheads, in addition to the three already in service with its
navy. Many strategic and tactical pieces for a confrontation are falling
into place.
Overall, analysts have argued that there might be a series of triggers that
could force a confrontation between the West and Iran. Some maintained that
this trigger may occur in the Gulf or in the Levant – whether accidental or
on purpose. There were potential triggers before-the April 2007 seizure of
British sailors in the Gulf, the September 2007 Israeli attack on a
suspected Syrian nuclear facility, and Hizbullah’s seizure of west Beirut in
May 2008. Now it appears that a more serious trigger may be the
Russo-Georgian war – despite geographical distance – that may carry dire
consequences for all-especially in the Gulf littoral.
Theodore Karasik is the director for research and development at the
Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis.

Russian troops blow up key rail bridge, set fields on fire

San Francisco Chronicle, USA

Russian troops blow up key rail bridge, set fields on fire
Forces dig in, despite new cease-fire pact with Georgia

Megan K. Stack, Los Angeles Times

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Even as Russia signed a cease-fire agreement with Georgia Saturday,
its troops destroyed a key railroad bridge that links the Caucasus
region to the Black Sea coast, effectively cutting off east-west
transportation routes through the country, the Georgian Foreign
Ministry announced.

Russia denied blowing up the bridge, calling the charge "another
unverified allegation" in the wake of large-scale fighting over a
pro-Moscow separatist republic. A Los Angeles Times photographer
traveling in the area Saturday saw explosives attached to the
underbelly of a nearby railroad bridge, but it was still intact.

The blast in the Kaspi region forced Azerbaijan to suspend the
transport of crude oil to the Black Sea ports and stranded 72
Armenia-bound freight cars in Georgia, Interfax reported.

The bridge attack came as Russian soldiers dug into strategic posts
along the country’s main roadway, setting up gun positions,
camouflaging their hardware with tree branches and hiking on foot into
the sunburned hills. Russian soldiers interviewed between the garrison
town of Gori and the capital, Tbilisi, said they had been deployed to
protect the road.

Tanks flying Russian flags were parked in the small town of Igoeti,
about 25 miles from the capital, for most of the day.

A Russian tank convoy that streamed from Gori to Igoeti Saturday
afternoon left fields burning in its wake, apparently lit on fire by
Russian troops. By late afternoon, the Russian tanks had fallen back
but were holding positions at the edge of the nearby Lekhura River.

Russia’s aggressive troop movements in Georgia proper calls into
question its commitment to a cease-fire, Georgian and international
officials said Saturday.

"I don’t see why they signed it if they don’t want to implement it,"
said Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, who was trying to make his
way from Tbilisi to Gori to evaluate the state of the cease-fire.

But Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that the Russian
troops might stay put in Georgia for some time.

Any departure would come gradually and would depend upon "extra
security measures" for Russia’s soldiers in the breakaway republic of
South Ossetia, Lavrov said. Asked how long the withdrawal would take,
Lavrov replied, "As much as is needed," Interfax reported.

"This does not depend on us alone, because we are constantly coming up
against some problems on the Georgian side," he said. "Everything
depends on how effectively and quickly these problems are solved."

Last week’s fighting has ramped up tensions between Russia and the
West and soured relations between Moscow and Washington, D.C., to a
degree not seen since the Cold War.

The mutual frustration probably will rise as Russia and the United
States square off diplomatically over the fate of South Ossetia and
Georgia’s other breakaway republic, Abkhazia. Washington has called
for Georgia’s borders and territorial integrity to be respected.

Moscow has vowed to back the republics’ drive for independence, which
critics regard as a veiled annexation of the former Soviet lands.

President Bush said Saturday that Russia could not claim the
republics. "There is no room for debate on this matter," he said.

For the time being, Russia’s troop movements in Georgia are being
scrutinized for hints of Moscow’s intentions. "If they violate their
own agreement, that has even more serious consequences," said Richard
Holbrooke, a prominent U.S. diplomat now in Georgia. "Each hour, each
day, is a test."

In the cool shade of an acacia tree, men from the roadside farming
village of Natareti clumped around a Russian tank. They had approached
the Russian troops not only to inquire how long they would stay but
because they were hungry, they said.

"We are very scared. We don’t know what to do," said Suliko Usradze, a
60-year-old farmer. "We can stand the fear but not the hunger."

The Russian occupation had interrupted their harvest. They had no fuel
for the tractors, and the soldiers had taken over their
farmlands. They were out of bread and flour. They had nothing left to
eat but potatoes.

Tbilisi: Georgian Resorts Stripped Of Holidaymakers

GEORGIAN RESORTS STRIPPED OF HOLIDAYMAKERS
By M. Alkhazashvili

Messenger.ge
Thursday, August 14
Georgia

The summer tourist season in Georgia has been greatly affected by
the Russian aggression.

Most holidaymakers left urgently as soon as they heard news of air
strikes on Georgian territory. Most of these tourists were staying
at one of the Black Sea resorts in Adjara. The beginning of military
clashes in South Ossetia had little or no effect on numbers, but as
soon as Russia bombed the Adjara-Khelvachauri region panic spread
among holidaymakers and they fled.

Many Armenians on holiday in Adjara left speedily using back routes
through Akhaltsikhe. The many Russian tourists who were also visiting
Adjara returned home via Ukraine.

Los Angeles Times – For The Record

FOR THE RECORD

Los Angeles Times
August 14, 2008
CA

Armenian band: An article in Saturday’s Calendar section about the
Armenian Navy Band, making its U.S. debut Friday at Walt Disney Concert
Hall, said "Armenians carry in their collective DNA the memory of what
they consider a genocide by the Turks in the early 20th century." The
statement should not have qualified the term "genocide"; historical
evidence and research support the accuracy of the term. Also, the phone
number for tickets was wrong. The correct number is (818) 808-8222.

December 31 Deadline For Techinical Checkup Of Vehicles In Armenia

DECEMBER 31 DEADLINE FOR TECHINICAL CHECKUP OF VEHICLES IN ARMENIA

ARKA
Aug 13, 2008

YEREVAN, August 13. /ARKA/. The Achilles Society for the Defense of
Drivers’ Rights says August 31 is not the deadline for the technical
checkup of vehicles in Armenia.

"By the RA Law, the deadline for the technical examination of
vehicles is December 31," reported Eduard Hovhannisyan, chairman of
the Achilles NGO.

It as initially set by the RA Law that vehicles were to pass technical
checkup from June 19, 2007 to June 19, 2008. As the checkup points
failed to meet the deadline, technical checkup oh vehicles was
postponed till January 1, 2008.

So far, 31 vehicle checkup points have been licensed in Armenia.