Author: Khondkarian Raffi

A PARLIAMENTARY SEAT AS HARBINGER OF PRESIDENCY?
By Joseph A. Kechichian, Special to Gulf News

Gulf News, United Arab Emirates
egion/10145141.html
Aug 9 2007

The Michel Aoun 2005 political tsunami was downgraded to a hurricane
a few days before the August 5 by-election in the Metn District
of Lebanon.

After final results were posted on Monday morning, it was demoted to a
mere tropical storm and, while still very dangerous, eliminated Aoun
from the coveted presidency. How Lebanese leaders weighed the new
balance of power highlighted inevitable reassessments and probably
clarified the identity of the next head of state.

Because Aoun fought the wrong battle – fielding the candidacy of an
unknown physician, Camille Khoury, among a population that rejected
his alliance with Syria – he doomed his chances to win the support
of a majority of parliamentarians whose votes are required.

Maronites in particular rejected him in droves, as Khoury won with a
tiny majority of less than half a per cent, due to a combination of
the Murr/Tashnag machine that stands accused of ballot stuffing.

In a comic twist, citizens naturalised by then interior minister,
Michel Murr, were bussed in from Syria, believing they would vote for
Hassan Nasrallah, before being reminded that he was not a candidate.

Aoun now faces at least two major dilemmas.

First, sophisticated Hezbollah leaders will contend that Aoun is
no longer the overwhelming Maronite politician and, consequently,
will wait for the first opportunity to sever their relations with a
blemished candidate.

What Nasrallah ultimately wants is power and he knows that it will only
come through effective alliances not by association with a depleted
front. For Hezbollah, Aoun is no longer capable of delivering, now
that the old canard that the former military strongman speaks for a
majority of Maronites/Christians is no longer true.

Second, mature Hezbollah officials are more likely to seek a
rapprochement with Sa’ad Hariri and his Mustaqbal Party (as well as
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora), to agree on a compromise candidate.

Remarkably, Nasrallah recently emphasised the need to fully
implement the Ta’if Accord, and to decentralise the administration of
government. Indeed, the bloodied Ta’if Accord and the 1943 National
Compact, are legitimate agreements accepted by most.

Moreover, the quest for decentralisation is a goal espoused by the
Siniora government, to redress grievances throughout the country’s
outer provinces. Parallel to these meetings, few should be surprised to
hear that Nasrallah and former president Ameen Gemayel met yet again,
to further coordinate their respective agendas.

This will be their third meeting in a year, at a time when few
non-Shiite Lebanese, including Aoun, undertook such contacts.

If Aoun faces specific challenges so do two main losers: the Maronite
hierarchy and the Armenian Tashnag Party.

Because Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir wished to bring the two Maronite
contenders under his wing, and because he failed to broker a working
accord, Bkerke is probably far weaker today than anyone in Lebanon
wishes.

Consensus

In the past, Church leaders managed to force consensus but Sfeir
no longer has that capability, especially as secular factions gain
ground. In fact, a third of Maronites in the Metn stood with Aoun
because they sincerely believed that their candidate was independent
of the religious hierarchy.

Equally important is the utter confusion expressed by the Tashnag
Party, even if Aoun referred to himself as "Michel Nasrallahian".

Aside the accolade, Armenians who voted the Tashnag Party preference
did so out of revenge against the late Rafik Hariri who, allegedly,
divided them in the 2000 elections. Even if that were true, post-2005
Lebanon is a different country, so Armenians can ill afford to side
against their historical position: with the "state".

Aoun thus won on the basis of an Armenian vote that, though with the
opposition in 2007, may switch back to the majority in the upcoming
2009 parliamentary plebiscite. How Tashnag leaders extract themselves
from the Syrian-backed resistance is now their challenge.

Given these new realities, the only remaining source of legitimacy is
the army, and that is why few should be surprised if its commander,
General Michel Sulayman is elected the next president of Lebanon.

Ironically, he will probably receive an overwhelming majority of
votes, including the explicit support of Hezbollah. Unlike Aoun,
who was and remains a polarising figure more comfortable at divisions
than alliance building, General Sulayman reunited the military.

Unlike Aoun, General Sulayman has the support of Christians and
Muslims and is, therefore, a unifier, which is precisely what Lebanon
craves for.

While the Aoun tsunami withered at the proverbial vine, and because
everyone wishes for a departure from the status quo, both opposition
and majority groups will be inclined to diligently work on a
nationalist compromise figure.

Since the time is not ripe to change complex election rules, and
because no Lebanese will dare question the loyalty of the military
– especially after Nahr Al Bared – the groundwork for the upcoming
presidential elections is now firmly set.

This means forming alliances, drafting accords and agreeing on detailed
plans to tackle the nations two pressing challenges: security and
the economy.

In politics, timing is everything, and one should not miss too many
opportunities if one is ambitious. Last Sunday, Aoun missed his,
while Sulayman probably sealed a six-year mandate.

Dr. Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books
on Gulf affairs.

Shakhtar survive scare to advance
Wednesday 8 August 2007
by Igor Linnyk

FC Shakhtar Donetsk survived a first-half scare before
coming back to defeat ten-man Armenian champions FC
Pyunik and earn a meeting with Austrian champions FC
Salzburg in the third qualifying round of the UEFA
Champions League.

Decisive goals
Shakhtar had brought a 2-0 lead back to Ukraine from
Yerevan last week and just as in the Armenian capital,
strikes from Olexandr Gladkiy and Brandão proved
decisive at the RSC Olympiyskiy Stadium after the
hosts had conceded an early Gevorg Ghazaryan goal.

Shakhtar comeback
Mircea Lucescu’s side, who reached the group stage
last season, were behind after 32 minutes when
Ghazaryan headed in Agvan Lazarian’s cross and Pyunik
might have levelled the tie overall when Felix
Hzeina’s shot shaved the crossbar. Shakhtar resisted,
however, and after substitutes Jadson Rodriguez and
Gladkiy had entered the fray they began to dictate
matters, scoring either side of half-time. Brandão hit
a powerful shot in at the near post, before combining
with Jadson to set up Gladkiy for a volleyed finish.
Pyunik’s disappointment was compounded when they were
forced to play most of the second half with ten men
following a red card for Artur Yedigaryan.

uefa.com

AZERBAIJANI AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA MAY STAND TRIAL

PanARMENIAN.Net
08.08.2007 13:31 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Leaders of some Azeri political parties and NGOs
urged the Prosecutor General Zakir Garalov to bring Azerbaijani
Ambassador to Russia Polad Bulbuloglu to account. The plaintiffs claim
that the Ambassador’s statements question Azerbaijan’s independence.

Amb. Bulbuloglu and Armen Smbatyan, the RA Ambassador to Russia,
accompanied by Armenian and Azeri intellectuals visited Nagorno
Karabakh and Armenia late June.

"Ambassador Bulbuloglu made statements conflicting with the
Azerbaijani legislation and national interests," the plaintiffs
said. They called for initiating a criminal case under the article 281
(open calls against the state), article 308 (use of official duties
for personal purposes) and article 309 (exceeding the authority),
NewTimes.Ru reports.

Armenian and Azeri intellectuals took a visit to Stepanakert, Yerevan
and Baku in the end of June. The initiative was welcomed by Presidents
Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev during the Saint Petersburg meeting
June 9.

RELATIONS WITH ARMENIA WILL NOT DEVELOP UNTIL IT IS KNOWN WHO IS IN POWER IN TURKEY, ARMENIAN POLITICIAN SAYS

arminfo
2007-08-07 18:41:00

The relations with Armenia will lack development as long as it is
unknown who is in power in Turkey, Head of ARFD Bureau Hay Dat and
Political Affairs Office Kiro Manoyan said at a press conference.

"Turkey is bellicose to Armenia. Such policy has been waged since the
establishment of the Republic of Turkey. It was Turkey’s initiative
not to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia. Turkey is
against diplomatic relations irrespective of whether problem of
Genocide will be settled in favor of Armenia or not," he said. At the
same time he thinks the normalization of the relations with Turkey
hopeless. "Ankara must choose in what direction to move to. At present
Turkey is experiencing a serious domestic political fight and a threat
of military coup." Nevertheless, there are forces in Turkey that are
for opening of the boundary with Armenia, he said.

Britain’s a terrible bore, that’s why I left

Norman Stone is Britain’s most idiosyncratic historian, famed for his
bibulous tutorials at Oxford, many delivered across a pool table. A
natural rebel, he was one of the few academics to speak up for Margaret
Thatcher and was the only man on earth to find lunch with Princess
Diana a bore

The Sunday Times
August 5, 2007

Rosie Millard meets Norman Stone

Although he does not seem like a misanthropist, there are plenty of
things about British society that Professor Norman Stone does not like.
Let us begin with the big one.

Stone has insisted we forgo our planned rendezvous at his club (the
Garrick), because he needs to smoke. We are therefore sitting at a
table outside a Covent Garden pub.

`The nanny state,’ he says with venom. `The nanny state here is a
terrible bore.’ Not that Stone spends much time in Britain anyway,
since for the past 10 years he has been based at Bilkent University in
the Turkish capital of Ankara. And Turkey, by contrast, is positively
antinannyish.

`Wonderful place,’ he enthuses, lighting up. `As soon as I stepped off
the plane, I became a Turkish nation-alist! There was a man in a black
uniform, smoking heavily underneath a `No smoking’ sign. I thought,
`That’s my kind of place’.’

This is exactly the sort of gently rebellious gesture that would appeal
to Stone, 66, who has spent a lifetime agitating against the
Establishment, while at the same time enjoying a career firmly within
it. He is back here to promote his latest book.

For 13 years the Glaswegian-born academic was professor of modern
history at Oxford University, where he immediately cemented his
reputation as a maverick, media-friendly don. Columns (notably for this
newspaper), myriad appearances on News-night, even a stint on Radio 4’s
The Moral Maze marked him out as anything but a lofty academic.

Some called his reign at Oxford `brilliant but turbulent’, while Edward
Heath said that `many parents of Oxford students must be both horrified
and disgusted that the higher education of our children should rest in
the hands of such a man’, which was pretty stern stuff considering that
Stone was (and still is) one of the cleverest, most articulate people
to advocate the Tory cause.

However, he is a natural iconoclast, who simply cannot help putting the
boot into Britain’s treasures. Cackling with laughter as he sups with
gusto on the first of several pints of bitter, he takes me through a
detailed account of a lunch with Princess Diana.

`When I met her, it was quite disastrous. She talked the entire time
about colonic irrigation and matters of that sort. Rabbiting on about
rock stars and colonic irrigation. And hairdressers. It was chalk and
cheese straight away,’ says Stone, whose chaotic coiffure indicates he
is not all that hot on hairdressers, and whose enjoyment of British
pubs indicates he is probably not big on alternative therapies either.

`I always suspected it would go wrong, you know. With Diana and Charles
. . . there was something about it . . . which smelt. I remember
sitting there watching her TV interview with that chap, Martin Bashir,
and getting terribly angry about it, because she was letting the side
down.’

But Charles did the same thing, didn’t he? `Did he? Is that right? Oh,
I didn’t remember that.’

After Diana, we proceed to British movies. `I once reviewed British
films of the 1980s. Unbelievable tripe! Derek Jarman, do you remember
him? Horrendous stuff. Hanif Kurei-shi has also done some dreadful
rubbish . . . Everyone agrees I was right, in the end. All those films,
nobody remembers them now. That dead world of subsidised art films,’ he
snorts, with pleasure.

Stone, who founded his reputation as a historian in 1975 with a
prize-winning account of the eastern front in the first world war is,
of course, ferociously bright. Fluent in eight languages (he learnt
Russian in two years in Haiti; his first marriage was to the niece of
Papa Doc Duvalier’s finance minister) and conversant in Turkish, his
latest book is a 40,000-word account of the great war he knocked out
while simultaneously working on a giant project for Chatto & Windus.
`The history of everything. From 1944 to today. It was in terrible
doldrums for a long while.’ He sighs. `Trying to write about modern
history,’ he says, as if that explains it all.

`I don’t know if you have tackled any of those 800-page histories on
the Cuban crisis, or biographies of Kennedy. Nightmare books. No shape
or insight. They are usually American,’ he adds, crisply.

`Well, I got bogged down reading this sort of thing. Dealing endlessly
with beta (query) plus.’ He shakes his head. I gather we are back in
the world of the undergraduate.

`Beta (query) plus. Or beta double plus. It’s the killer mark. It means
the student who gets nothing wrong, and nothing right. You know?’ I do.
It’s the place where most of us tend to congregate. Those of us who are
only fluent in one language.

`Well, I was swimming in the glue of beta double pluses,’ he continues.
`And then, I got this e-mail from Random House asking me if I could
write 40,000 words on the first world war. I said yes! I thought I’d
take a bit of time out for crop rotation. You know, my carrots were
wilting, let’s try turnips.’

But however welcome the turnips were, they were not so good by the end.
Delivering the finished manuscript, Stone stumbled into an entire
entourage of beta double plus people. `First, I had the most utterly
incompetent editor. Then I ran into the Armenian lobby.’ It seems the
Armenians were disgusted by his description of their treatment at the
hands of the Turks as a `massacre’.

`The diaspora of Armenians in America were in hysterics. They won’t
settle for a massacre.’ fumes Stone. `They have to have their own nice,
homely genocide, all neatly baked by Momma in the kitchen. So they
knifed the book. Then the editor sent it to someone who said the book
was slapdash and full of inaccuracies.’

Fair comment? `Well, there are a few inaccuracies. I get Einstein’s
Christian name wrong. That is bad. And I also get the title of
Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms wrong. Not good. But I’m not an
inaccurate historian, slips apart.’

The upshot was that Stone’s relationship with Random House was,
effectively, severed. Did he retreat to his ivory tower in Ankara and
fume? Hardly. This man is an operator.

`I took it to my son’s agent [Nick Stone, the eldest of his three sons,
is a successful thriller writer]. And she sold the book to Penguin in
under 48 hours!’ He must feel pretty triumphant. `Well, you know. If
you are trying to write about the first world war in 40,000 words, you
have to cut corners. But it’s not a dishonest book.’

Indeed, it is rather engaging; from a brilliant account of how German
U-boats brought America into the conflict, to details of how the
beleaguered tsar licked his own stamps to save money, it is an
energetic read of under 200 pages that never forgets to position the
great war as the seminal event for the entire 20th century. It also
balances what most people know about the war ` trench warfare on the
western front ` with a clear record of the Italian front and the
eastern front.

The book has been reviewed sparingly: most say, a bit like him, it has
flashes of brilliance and good one-lin-ers but some bad inaccuracies.
His peers were reluctant to tackle it, most not wanting to be the one
who pointed out that a once great historian was dashing something off.
Most wondered why he had done it at all.

Stone, who wrote the book in Istan-bul, in a study overlooking the
Bosphorus, is a natural pan-European, although he describes himself as
`a Scotsman, in my innermost fibre of my being’. He was brought up in
Glasgow and went to the private Glasgow Academy on a scholarship for
the children of dead servicemen (his father, a lawyer, was killed in
the war).

Stone is depressed that the educationally aspirant country he grew up
in has gone. These days, he is really a broad Continental, fascinated
by multiple cultures, a man who arrives in a secondhand corduroy suit
from Jer-myn Street clutching a Turkish novel that he has brought along
to read `on the bus from Oxford’ (where he still has a house).

Does he miss British university life? `The long and short of it is that
British universities pay so badly. In the old days you were paid about
half of what you needed to survive. Nowadays, it’s about a tenth. It’s
a national scandal.

`And I wasn’t terribly happy with Oxford. If you are a professor in
these ancient institutions, the reality is that you come down very low
in the list of college priorities. You were supposed to give lectures,
but undergraduates don’t go to them. I was having a wonderful time
writing journalism.’

This apparently went down pretty badly with the university. `If I had
written some leaden stuff of a left-liberal nature, no doubt they would
have been quite pleased,’ he says, anxious to press upon me that his
cuttings file does not include one single piece of worthy writing.

`I was a Thatcherite! And they hated her. I was one of very few at the
time who said, `This lady is on to something’.’ He pauses. `She was a
very remarkable woman, and I think probably nowadays people would agree
I was right about the 1980s.’

Does his admiration for Baroness Thatcher extend to her current heir?
`Cameron? He just seems terribly bland. I would like to see a Tory be a
Tory. What I think will happen is that the Tories will repeat what
happened with Heath, when 2m Tories just abstained. They will go on
with this silly mistake of thinking they must win the middle ground,
and alienate their own bedrock.’

So what is his take on our new prime minister? `Brown? I’m sorry to
say, I have lost interest. Turkish politics is much more interesting.’

He has closely followed the recent Turkish elections, where fundamental
Islamists were pitted against secularist Turks, and the issue of women
wearing headscarves was a hot political potato. `The thing is that the
secularist Turks are asking for our support, and we should understand
them when they say they don’t want women wearing bags on their heads!

`Most western journalists wrote them off as a bunch of snobs who didn’t
want the advancement of peasants. It’s not that. In an Islamic country
women aren’t allowed to drive. And if you go out without your head
covered, and have a beer in a pub, you are glowered at.

`Ataturk [the founder of modern, secular Turkey], was a great man. He
knew no society can become civilised unless it stops women wearing bags
over their heads.’

He shakes his head. `There are various proverbs I have great fun
beating the Turks with.’ He prepares for his favourite: `An educated
man is a judge. An educated woman is a witch!’

Oh, professor. And I worried that you were a terrible chauvinist, what
with your Garrick membership and all. Then he ruins it. `I mean, I
agree! Privately, ha ha he he,’ he cackles, downing another pint of 6X.

At the end of this month, Stone will leave Britain for his annual
seven-month Turkish stint. He looks about the crowded pub forecourt,
jammed with exiled smokers like himself.

`If you look at the English state, it does nothing. You are constantly
reminded of the immortal words of Nietzsche. What the state has, is
theft. What the state says, is lies.’ He grins. `A big hand to the old
boy, I say.’

ARMENIA AND BENIN ESTABLISHED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

PanARMENIAN.Net
03.08.2007 16:31 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On August 2 in the RA permanent representative
office to the United Nations Armenian and Beninese Ambassadors signed
a memorandum on establishing diplomatic relations between the two
countries. The document says, proceeding from the wish to strengthen
the friendly relations between the two countries and cooperation
that represent mutual interest and following principles set by the
UN Regulations and international law, the two countries are ready
to develop relations based on mutual respect, self-determination,
territorial integrity and non-intervention into affairs of other
countries, the RA MFA Press Office reports.

ACCORDING TO PARUYR HAYRIKIAN, TEAM AND NOT INDIVIDUAL WILL WIN IN FORTHCOMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Noyan Tapan
Aug 2, 2007

YEREVAN, AUGUST 2, NOYAN TAPAN. If a team, composed of forces united
around the universality of their programs and struggling for autocracy
of Armenia in favour of a real democracy and legal state, is formed,
the National Self-Determination Union will join this team and take
part in the 2008 presidential elections "in a very stormy way and
with all its capacities."

This statement was made by Paruyr Hayrikian, the Chairman of the
National Self-Determination Union, at the press conference, which
was held on August 2. According to him, "an individual will not win
in these elections, a team should be formed."

For this purpose Paruyr Hayrikian organized a meeting of political
figures on July 26 in which Artashes Geghamian, the Chairman of the
"National Unity" party, Arthur Baghdasarian, the Chairman of the
"Orinats Yerkir" ("Country of Law") party, Stepan Demirtchian, the
Chairman of the Armenian People’s party, and Ararat Zurabian, the
Chairman of the Administration of the "Armenian National Movement"
party, took part. It was mentioned that irrespective of the fact that
Aram Zaven Sargsian, the Chairman of the "Republic" party, was not
present at this meeting, he expressed his satisfaction with the fact of
the latter’s being organized. As for Aram Gaspar Sargsian, the Chairman
of the "Armenian Democratic" party, according to Paruyr Hayrikian, he
took part in the meeting by correspondence, that is to say "through
him." And Raffi Hovhannisian, the Chairman of the "Zharangutiun"
("Heritage") party, was represented by Vardan Khachatrian.

"It is evident that the list of the participants will become enlarged.

However, I am seriously waiting for the moment, when this number will
reduce to 5 to 7 people after increasing up to 15-17 and these 5 to
7 people will already do practical work . These 5 to 7 people will
win everybody," Paruyr Hayrikian said.

In his conviction, the team to be formed has an opportunity to
receive approximately 60% of the votes. As for the common candidate,
according to Paruyr Hayrikian, it will only be the representative
of this united team and each person can be that person, even one,
"who is unknown in the political world."

As for the nomination of his own candidature in these forthcoming
presidential elections, it is most unlikely, according to Paruyr
Hayrikian.

A SHORT, SHARP ASSAULT ON THE GREAT WAR

Daily Telegraph/UK
02/08/2007

Nigel Jones reviews World War One: A Short History by Norman Stone

Back in the Thatcherite 1980s Professor Norman Stone was the most
fashionable historian of the day: a Niall Ferguson avant la lettre.

Youngish. Handsomeish. Scottish. Right-wing. Iconoclastic. No respecter
of reputations. A familiar figure in TV studios and newspaper columns
as well as Oxford lecture halls. Then, always his own man, he prised
the mud of Oxford from his feet, exchanging it for the dust of Istanbul
where he has taught at two universities ever since.

advertisementSince then we have heard little of him – apart from a
controversy in which Stone refused to condemn his new Turkish homeland
for the 1915 Armenian genocide – an event which he does not admit
actually happened.

Now he is back in Britain, at least in book form, using the genre in
which he is most at home: not a Fergusonian slab of a study marshalling
whole armies of sources and references, but a slim volume – almost
an extended essay, a squib more than a sledgehammer – in which Stone
compresses the whole history of the Great War into fewer than 200
pages, and does it as entertainingly as his old admirers would expect.

Reading it is much like hearing a lecture from the Professor in his
prime – it fizzes with life and sparkles with aphorisms tossed off
with aplomb, along with condemnations and commendations alike – most of
them sensible – delivered with magisterial, even arrogant, authority.

Haig’s staff are ‘creepy young officers who help him on with
his coat’. The ‘son of a peasant’ Pétain ‘knew what he was
about’. Ludendorff, by contrast, was ‘really saving his own reputation:
he would encourage others to make an end to the war, then turn round
and say it had not been his fault.’

As might be expected from someone who has already written a brilliant
book on the much-neglected Eastern Front, Stone is especially strong
on theatres apart from the over-familiar Western trenches: especially
Russia and his beloved Turkey, whom he predictably acquits from
responsibility for the Armenian genocide in a couple of lines.

The great iconoclast is no revisionist here, falling in with the
main received truths of modern Great War historiography. Thus the
Germans engineered and started the war; Haig was mulishly stubborn
in refusing to deviate from his full-on offensives, and stupid in
his never-to-be-realised hopes of using his beloved cavalry; and the
Second World War followed inexorably from the failure properly to
occupy Germany after the Armistice and rub their noses in the fact
of their defeat.

In such a short book, which is at once a summary of the war and
Stone’s own take on it, something has to give, and what is missing
is an adequate appreciation of the growing importance of air war and
the war at sea.

The book’s faults are the obverse of its glittering virtues, its
skimpy source notes indicating a slightly slipshod approach to dull
facts. It is, surprisingly in such a short text, repetitious. (We
learn twice that the Sarajevo assassin, Princip, was refreshing himself
in a café when his victims happened by; and thrice that the Russian
general staff was called the ‘Stavka’).

Some errors are of the schoolboy howler variety: Hemingway’s novel
about Caporetto was called A Farewell to Arms not Goodbye to Arms
and the explosive used to blow up the Messines ridge was ammonal,
not TNT. If you are going to play the magisterial authority it is
important to get the facts right.

All told though, Stone’s introduction to the war – following in
the distinguished footsteps of Michael Howard, Correlli Barnett and
Hew Strachan, who have all written their own short histories of the
conflict – is thought-provoking, readable and thoroughly enjoyable,
and his conclusion, as Hitler, temporarily blinded by a gas attack,
meditates the next war on the very day that the Great War ended,
is chillingly prophetic. Students of the great slaughter are now
spoiled for choice.

–Boundary_(ID_I/ReS9rtJgNtP302zT0YTA)–

PROBLEMS IN DAGESTAN ARE INDICATIVE OF LARGER ISSUES
By Sergei Markedonov

Russia Profile, Russia
Aug 1 2007

The threats and political challenges in the Russian North Caucasus
are changing rapidly at present. Similarly, the geography of the
political instability is also changing. Now, the main opponent of
the Russian state–and therefore the main challenge to security and
stability in the region–will not be "defenders of a free Ichkeria"
or secular nationalists, but participants in the "Caucasian Islamic
International." Today it is not Chechnya, but Dagestan that is the
hotspot in the region. Reports from the area’s largest republic now
recall the "counterterrorism operation" in Chechnya.

What is striking, however, is the ideological and methodological
inability of those in the government who have created the strategy for
the Caucasus. The events of 1999 in Chechnya and around the "rebellious
republic" were categorized as a "terrorist threat" and the struggle
against it was dubbed a "counterterrorist operation"; it’s also
frequently termed "the fight against international terrorism." The
Russian authorities at least attempted to place the Chechen crisis
within a defined system of coordinates.

What is now happening in Dagestan, however, is not explained through
any kind of framework, not even an inadequate one. In the first half
of 2006 alone over 70 terrorist acts were carried out. And, unlike
terrorist acts in Chechnya, the majority of those in Dagestan are
not anonymous in nature. Thus, an understanding of what is happening
in the largest republic in the North Caucasus should become the top
priority for Russia’s leadership.

At the beginning of the 1990s, during the period of the so-called
"parade of sovereignties," ethno-nationalism and the idea of ethnic
self-definition dominated in the North Caucasus. In practice, this
resulted in the implementation of the principle of ethnic domination
in politics, administration and business. Radical ethno-nationalists
actively used terrorist methods in their struggle, and it would be
wrong to say that the outbreak of terrorism in Dagestan began only
recently.

Between 1989 and 1991, over 40 politically-motivated attempted
murders were carried out. The number dropped to just under 40 in
1992, but in 1993, there were around 60 attempted murders and armed
attacks. There were also key terrorist acts in the early 1990s. In
June 1993, gunmen of the ethnic Avar Imam Shamil People’s Front and
the ethnic Lak "Kazikumukh" movement seized personnel of the regional
military commission in Kizlyar and demanded that the Russian Interior
Ministry remove its special forces units from the city.

Unlike the terrorist acts of 2005-2007, the attacks committed during
this period were not ethno-political in character and not driven by
religious justifications. The same motivation lay behind the actions
of the Chechen separatists who, from 1991, were fighting for an
"independent Ichkeria." After 2000, however, the ethno-nationalistic
slogans lost their former attraction and began to give way to those
of religious radicals. Dagestan became the distinctive leader in the
political struggle for the "purity of Islam."

It was this republic that evolved into the distinctive intellectual
center for religious radicalism in which the "Wahhabis" carried out
their most stubborn acts of armed resistance against the official
authorities–both those in the republic and on the national level.

What caused this change in events?

The Role of Religion

In Dagestan, the replacement of the nationalist discourse with the
discourse of religious radicalism was made easier because the republic
is the most multiethnic in Russia. Until the recent reforms to the
Dagestani administration, the State Council, the executive body of
power in the republic, was formed on the basis of ethnic parity and
comprised 14 different ethnic groups. It’s also worth noting that
certain ethnic groups in the republic weren’t considered separate
during the compiling of censuses; both during the Soviet era and
during the preparation of the All-Russian Census of 2002, for example,
the Botlikh were recorded as Avars and the Kubachins were recorded
as Dargins. Due to this diversity, ethnic nationalism simply has no
future in Dagestan.

The groups living in the republic seemed to realize this: At the
beginning of the 1990s, Dagestan was the only republic in the North
Caucasus not to adopt a declaration on independence and sovereignty.

During those years, there was only one "separatist party" in the
republic–the Party for the Independence and Revival of Dagestan.

Almost from its foundation in June of 1992, however, it was a
marginal party.

At the same time, Dagestan is the most heavily Islamic region of the
Russian Federation. Over 90 percent of the population of Dagestan is
Muslim. Ninety-seven percent of Dagestan’s Muslims are Sunni, with
Shiites making up the remaining 3 percent. The non-Muslim population is
split between the Russian Orthodox and Armenian churches and a small
minority of Mountain Jews (Tats). At the same time, unlike the other
republics, Dagestan has strong theological traditions that sometimes
manifest as religious radicalism. The penetration of the republic by
"renovationist Islam," whose adherents are called Wahhabis in the
media, dates back to the 1920s and 1930s.

Traditionalism versus Radicalism

At the beginning of the 1990s, Islam was regarded as an integrating
force that could bind together the ethnic mosaic of Dagestan.

According to Zagir Arukhov, a leading expert on the study of Islam in
Dagestan, who was killed in a terrorist attack, "It was expected that
the all-out nature of the Islamic system of regulation, the limited
nature of Islam as a socio-cultural system, and flexible interaction
with the state authorities would give Islam important advantages in
the conditions of the socio-political reconstruction of society."

However, the transformation of Islam into a factor of stability and
unity failed to occur. In the process of the "rebirth" of Islam
in Dagestan, fundamental contradictions between the followers of
traditional Caucasian Islamic traditions–Sufis–and the Wahhabis
became evident.

In the opinion of expert Dmitri Makarov, "Wahhabism and Sufism occupy
different positions with regard to the existing social-political
order in Dagestan, which is founded on clan ties. Sufi Islam is
structurally incorporated into those ties. In rejecting Sufism,
Wahhabism also rejects the social order that is sanctioned by it."

Dagestan’s Wahhabis made criticism of the republic’s authorities the
keystone of their propaganda and promotional efforts. Widespread
misuse of official positions by bureaucrats, corruption, social
differentiation and, as a result, high levels of unemployment, the
lack of transparency among the authorities and their insensitivity to
the needs of the population lay behind the successes in recruitment
achieved by the Wahhabis who were able to offer an alternative: True
"Islamic order," a radical rejection of communism, democracy and
"false Islam" as political models incapable of providing social
harmony and ethnic peace.

This desired "order" could only be achieved through the path of the
struggle for the true faith–a jihad. Wahhabism appealed not to the
clans, but to values of equality and brotherhood that were higher
than clan links. As commmunist values collapsed, the universal,
inter-ethnic principles of Wahhabism, focused on social justice,
filled the ideological vacuum. In these circumstances, the Wahhabis
created their social foundations in the republic.

The Role of the State

But the rise of Wahhabism in Dagestan also resulted from a loss
of Russian influence in the republic and the regionalization of
authorities. The political elite in Dagestan has, in effect, not
changed since the early 1990s. It proved to be effective in the
struggle with ethnic extremism during the "parade of sovereignties,"
the "Chechen revolution" and at the time of Basayev’s raid in 1999.

But to counteract religious extremism, a more subtle adjustment to
the administrative system is required.

But what are the options facing the Russian state in this context?

The first immediate goal is to bring the power of the federal
authorities to Dagestan and to the Caucasus as a whole. The remoteness
of Moscow from the region’s problems can no longer be endured. The
ignorance of the Russian community–both expert and political–should
also no longer be tolerated.

Additionally, Russian ideology–the idea of a Russian nation–needs
to be spread actively and, in the best possible sense of the word,
aggressively. Many Dagestanis are not yet ready for a radical break
with Russia in favor of an Islamic state. Consequently, the Russian
project, universal and supra-ethnic, should win out if handled
correctly.

The assertion of Russian state institutions in the Caucasus is not just
an anti-terrorist struggle, which would in itself be ineffective. It
is the normal regulation of internal migration.

Dagestan is densely populated, and the movement of its working-age
population into the rest of Russia is a timely goal. But that movement
into the country’s internal regions is impossible without a sense that
Dagestanis are citizens of a united nation–as well as some efforts
to combat xenophobia among ethnic Russians. Without that sense,
such a movement will merely provoke a new wave of inter-ethnic tension.

As early as 1993, in an interview, Magomedsalekh Gusayev, who was
at the time the chairman of the committee on national policies and
external relations of the Republic of Dagestan, maintained: "Migration
is very active among the peoples of Dagestan; 400,000 Dagestanis are
living beyond the republic’s borders. Returning to Dagestan, often
embittered, having lost their housing and property, they become a sort
of detonator for the migration of the Russian-language population
of Dagestan." Unfortunately, over the past 14 years, little has
changed. The number of migrants has merely grown, as has the extent
of dissatisfaction with the corruption of the authorities. Today,
in light of ever-increasing terrorism in Dagestan, it should also be
acknowledged that bringing order to this republic will be impossible
without changes in the very heart of Russia. Dagestan is merely a
specific case in the general crisis of Russian internal politics.

Regional elections held in early March showed again how dangerous it
is to introduce change into the power structures of Dagestan. These
elections, the first held under new rules requiring representatives
to the local parliament to be elected on party lists, resulted
in the marginalization of the Communist Party, which traditionally
played a popular and positive role in the republic. Unlike in central
Russia where the Communist Party is an archaic, nationalist force,
in Dagestan, the Communist Party is the only political movement
not structured around ethnic groupings or clans. It is a secular
force that cites ideas of social justice. It promotes the virtues
of science and education as well as the "friendship of peoples." The
United Russia party, which won a crushing victory on March 14, will not
bring political stability to the region. The local branch of United
Russia suffers from internal power struggles between bureaucratic
clans led by Mukhu Aliyev, the republic’s current president and Said
Amirov, the mayor of Makhachkala. Party list voting in regions like
Dagestan that have no multi-party tradition will only weaken local
power structures and leave the door open for Islamic extremists to act
outside the system if they feel their concerns aren’t being addressed.

Sergei Markedonov is head of the Department for International Relations
at the Institute for Political and Military Analysis.

ARMENIAN TRIUMPHS POWER PYUNIK BID

MSNBC –
July 30 2007

FC Pyunik face daunting opposition in big-spending FC Shakhtar Donetsk
tonight but the Armenian champions are taking strength from their
country’s recent UEFA EURO 2008~Y successes.

Previous meeting The Yerevan club won 2-0 on aggregate against Irish
representatives Derry City FC in the first qualifying round to set
up another UEFA Champions League second qualifying round meeting with
Shakhtar having lost 4-1 on aggregate to the Ukrainian giants at the
same stage of the 2004/05 competition. However, this time they feel
the fates may be on their side.

Armenian confidence For tonight’s home leg in the Armenian capital
coach Armen Gyulbudaghyants hopes his side will take inspiration from
the national team’s last two competitive results under Ian Porterfield
– a 2-1 win in Kazakhstan and a 1-0 defeat of Group A leaders Poland,
which prompted prime minister Serzh Sargasyan to perform a spontaneous
dance of joy at the Republican Stadium.

‘Not afraid’ "Pyunik aim to play good football no matter what," said
Gyulbudaghyants. "Most of our players are part of the national team
that proved its strength by beating Kazakhstan and Poland. We’re not
afraid of Shakhtar. Of course they are strong but at home we need to
do everything we can to match them. I expect an attractive match. I
hope we can fulfil our potential and surprise them."

Changed side Shakhtar coach Mircea Lucescu is aware the Ukrainian
side might be in for a choppier ride than they experienced in their
previous meeting.

"Pyunik have changed a lot," said the Romanian, who celebrated his
62nd birthday on Sunday. "They play a different game now. They are
more mobile, tactically more intelligent and physically strong with
experienced players."

‘We’re ready’ Gyulbudaghyants referred to Shakhtar as "a team with a
capital ‘T’ – a team of European class" after victory against Derry
set up tonight’s tie, but Lucescu expects no deference on the pitch,
saying: "Some consider Shakhtar to be favourites but in modern football
there are no favourites. Any team can spring a surprise. Away from
home we will have a very difficult game but we’re ready."