Turkish writer attacks oppression

BBC News, UK
Jan 7 2007

Turkish writer attacks oppression

Mr Pamuk spoke out for writers and intellectuals in Turkey

Writer and Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk used a day as guest editor of a
newspaper to highlight oppression of intellectuals in his native Turkey.
Mr Pamuk, who has a degree in journalism, was asked to edit the Radikal
daily as part of its 10th anniversary celebrations.

His cover story accused the Turkish state of suppressing free expression and
oppressing dissident thinkers.

Mr Pamuk, an acclaimed novelist, is a controversial figure in Turkey.

He is the author of works such as Snow and My Name Is Red, and in 2006 won
the Nobel Prize for literature.

A year earlier, he had faced charges of "insulting Turkishness" over
comments on the mass killing of Kurds and Ottoman Armenians, charges which
were later dropped.

His cover article quoted a 1951 story about Turkish poet Nazim Hikmet,
declared a traitor and imprisoned for his left-wing views, in which the
public were urged "to spit in his face".

"This expression… summarises the unchanging place of writers and artists
in the eyes of the state and the press," the cover story said.

Other articles on his front page included a piece on the low percentage of
women in politics and reactions to video footage of former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein’s execution.

ORHAN PAMUK
Born in Istanbul in 1952
Initially trained as an architect
Books translated into more than 40 languages
Novels My Name is Red, Snow and The White Castle hailed as dealing with
East/West culture clashes
Prosecuted for "insulting Turkishness" in 2005

Motorways Of Total Length Of About 114 Km Repaired In Armenia In 200

MOTORWAYS OF TOTAL LENGTH OF ABOUT 114 KM REPAIRED IN ARMENIA IN 2006

Noyan Tapan
Dec 27 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 27, NOYAN TAPAN. This year motorways of the total
length of 113.95 km were repaired in Armenia with the state budget
resources of 12 bln 420.23 mln drams (about 34 mln USD). The RA
Minister of Transport and Communication Andranik Manukian said
during the December 27 press conference that 24 bridges and 15
breast-walls have undergone major repair. According to him, it is
envisaged to repair roads of 240 km with state budget resources
next year. A. Manukian said that this year work of 4 bln 859 mln
drams was done for maintenance and operation of motorways of state
significance. By the way, the minister informed those present that
only the Selim mountain pass is closed due to the heavy snow in the
country on Decemeber 26 and 27, while all roads of interstate and
republican significance are open.

134 Armenian Rural Communities Already Included In Rural Areas Econo

134 ARMENIAN RURAL COMMUNITIES ALREADY INCLUDED IN RURAL AREAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Noyan Tapan
Dec 27 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 27, NOYAN TAPAN. 134 Armenian rural communities
have already been included on the Rural Areas Economic Development
Program financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD). Under the program that started in 2006, work on gas supply,
repairs of irrigation and drinking water networks, road construction
and purchase of agricultural machinery is being done in 71 rural
settlements of Gegharkunik and Tavush marzes. The RA Minister of
Agriculture Davit Lokian said during the December 27 press conference
that gas supply provision work with IFAD resources is underway in
40 villages of Aragatsotn, Ararat. Gegharkunik, Lori and Syunik
marzes. According to the minister, the 12-km Gavar-Gegharkunik
intercommunity road was also restored within the framework of the
program.

NKR: Birthrate Is A Primary Problem

BIRTHRATE IS A PRIMARY PROBLEM
Laura Grigorian

Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
26 Dec 2006

In June the Center for Social Survey and Analysis was set up in
NKR. And the first thing the NGO started to deal with is the survey
of birthrate in NKR.

According to the director of the center Valery Avanessian, when the
government launched a policy of stimulating the rate of birth in
1999-2000, the policy was effective, and in the first two years the
rate of birth started to grow.

But recently the rate of death has been growing and the rate of birth
started to decline. "It seems that migration could help to solve the
problem, but it is not realistic. It is not true to think that the
Armenians from all over the world will come to live in Karabakh. It
is clear that immense funds are necessary for this. Therefore,
the population will grow only if the birth rate grows." According
to Valery Avanessian, the Center for Social Survey and Analysis is
conducting a survey among women aged 19 to 35. Questionnaires with 13
questions were sent out to the regions, including 140 to Martakert,
90 to Hadrut, 120 to Askeran, 170 to Martuni, 30 to Shushi, 20 to
Shahumian, and 70 to Kashatagh. "The poll is anonymous and we have
already 500 filled-in forms.

The survey will last till late January," said Valery
Avanessian. According to the director of the Center for Social Survey
and Analysis, the information will be released to the media, and
parliamentary hearings may be held, and the problems will be extended
to the government to tackle with. "In particular, we the members of
the center want to have a national policy worked out, where the birth
rate must be primary as a component of the strategy of the country,
and the problem must become part of the national security."

Armenian Minister Of Trade And Economic Development: Industry Will R

ARMENIAN MINISTER OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: INDUSTRY WILL RE-ASSUME ITS LEADING ROLE IN THE COUNTRY’S ECONOMY IN COMING YEARS

Noyan Tapan
Dec 26 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 26, NOYAN TAPAN. According to forecasts of the RA
Minister of Trade and Economic Development Karen Chshmaritian, by the
results of 2006, Armenia’s industrial production (without diamonds)
will grow by 5% compared with 2005. The results of financial and
economic activities of over 200 companies, which underwent the
ministry’s monitoring in 11 months of 2006, show that the volume
of industrial prodiction (without diamond cutting) made 243.6 bln
drams (about 580 mln USD), exceeding by 4.4% the index of the same
period of last year. Industrial production of 261.1 bln drams was
sold against production of 247.9 bln drams last year (the growth
rate made 5.3%). Production of 163.4 bln drams was exported against
production of 151.1 bln drams in 2005 (the growth rate of 108.1%). In
K. Chshmaritian’s opinion, investments and the re-equipment process
in industry in 2006 have created good preconditions so that industry,
along with construction and the service sector – the currently leading
sectors) will re-assume its leading role in the country’s economy in
the coming years.

OSCE MG: "We Call Turkey And Armenia Overcome Existing Contradiction

OSCE MG: "WE CALL TURKEY AND ARMENIA OVERCOME EXISTING CONTRADICTIONS"

PanARMENIAN.Net
26.12.2006 12:45 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and OSCE MG
Co-Chair Matthew Bryza stated that, "we strongly call Turkey and
Armenia to make moves to overcome the existing contradictions,
including positive response on possibilities for dialog."

Commenting on the perspectives to reach progress in Armenian-Turkish
relations before the Nagorno Karabakh conflict solution, Matthew Bryza
said, "We understand that there exist a number of issues which need to
be solved, and we believe that if there is good will from both sides,
the progress is possible even if we take into account the fact that
we work on the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Turkey
will have to play an important role from the point of view of
providing regional support to fair and long-term settlement of the
conflict. We are sure that the regional cooperation including open
borders, reestablishment of trade and communications, transportation
and cultural ties in the South Caucasus will serve the security and
stability interests of the whole region. Progress in the Nagorno
Karabakh settlement will move us nearer for reaching these goals,"
Mediamax reports.

"Armenian Encyclopedia Of Don" Published In Rostov-On-Don

"ARMENIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DON" PUBLISHED IN ROSTOV-ON-DON

Noyan Tapan
Dec 25 2006

ROSTOV-ON-DON, DECEMBER 25, NOYAN TAPAN. "Armenian Encyclopedia
of Don" was published at publishing-house "Old Russians" in
Rostov-on-Don. According to the report of the Yerkramas (Krai)
newspaper of Armenians of Russia, this edition is part of the global
project, within the framework of which it is supposed to publish
a series of books about all national-cultural unions of Rostov
region. When preparing the book a new approach was used in collecting
materials and in forming the edition itself, which became not only
a story about Armenians of Don, but also a viewpoint about them of
a person of another nationality.

Is It All Yeltsin’s Fault? 15 Years Later, the Legacy of a Russian R

The Washington Post
December 24, 2006 Sunday
Final Edition

Is It All Yeltsin’s Fault?;
15 Years Later, the Legacy of a Russian Reformer

by Stephen Sestanovich

"Great historical transformations are always bought dearly, often
after one has already thought that one got them at a bargain price,"
wrote the 19th-century historian Jacob Burckhardt. Tomorrow marks the
15th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the
occasion will surely revive debate about how high the price really
was.

Many commentators will say this event and the hardships that followed
permanently colored the ordinary Russian’s view of democracy and gave
Vladimir Putin his chance to build an authoritarian alternative. A
few will even argue that the whole effort was a mistake — that
"reform communism" would have been better than the mess we’ve ended
up with.

Was Boris Yeltsin the gravedigger of Russian democracy? The
indictment against him looks strong. If you give people reason to
link democracy with economic privation, political corruption and the
trauma of national dismemberment, lots of them will miss the
stability of the old order. (Some will miss Joseph Stalin!) And it
isn’t much of a response to say that this wasn’t what you intended.

Yet, before we throw Yeltsin to the historical wolves, it’s important
to remember that the terrible conditions Russians associate with him
were not just the result of his policies but also their cause. The
Soviet Union collapsed because ethnic separatism, economic decline
and political paralysis were severe problems before Yeltsin came to
power. Moderate Communist reformers — even as they eased repression
and censorship — couldn’t do a thing about them.

In the summer of 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev was at the end of his rope
trying to manage the Soviet Union’s contentious ethnic politics. To
suppress movements seeking independence for the Baltic states, he had
ordered tanks into the streets. There had been ethnic pogroms against
Armenians in Azerbaijan, and a lunatic nationalist professor of
literature had become president of Georgia. Gorbachev had patched
together a new "union treaty" to redistribute power between Moscow
and the non-Russian republics, but the most important of them,
Ukraine, was having none of it. In December Ukrainians voted to leave
the Soviet Union. The Chechen parliament had already done the same
thing.

Gorbachev’s efforts at economic reform were also failing. Long before
the curtain came down on the Soviet Union, the ruble had begun a
steady slide toward worthlessness, selling at several times the
official exchange rate on the black market. Food disappeared from the
shops and foreign exchange from the treasury. Gorbachev’s own
policies tacitly authorized theft of state property; enterprises were
told to balance their books even if it meant selling off their assets
at a discount. The first "millionaires" appeared at this time: They
took advantage of "gradual economic reform" by setting up "exchanges"
to trade in stolen goods.

There was no political consensus on how to handle any of this. Some
of the Communist old guard still believed in ideas that Yuri Andropov
had espoused early in the 1980s as he rose from running the KGB to
running the Kremlin. Discipline, he insisted, would solve everything.
But in the course of the decade, the elite lost confidence in this
answer, and many joined the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators
calling for an end to the Communist Party’s monopoly on political
power. Gorbachev became an increasingly lonely figure and "reform
communism" an irrelevant idea.

At the end of 1991, Yeltsin was the only Soviet politician with a
popular mandate to act. He was the democratically elected president
of Russia. No one else was in a position to deal with the three
crises that had broken his predecessor — ethnic division, economic
chaos and a failed political system. But did his response end up
weakening Russia’s democratic prospects?

His first and most dramatic step — agreeing with the president of
Ukraine and leaders of other Soviet republics to dissolve the Union
— still gives Russians nostalgic pangs. Even so, history’s verdict
is likely to be that it was Yeltsin’s most important achievement and
a piece of simple good fortune for his country. By disbanding the
empire, Russia freed itself from a gigantic burden on its national
energies. It shed responsibility for countless problems that it could
not possibly have managed well, and it reduced the risk that popular
politics would turn into a Milosevic-style dictatorship.

By not trying to prevent Baltic or Ukrainian independence, by not
being the arbiter of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, by staying
on the sidelines of other conflicts, Yeltsin greatly reduced Russia’s
involvement in post-Soviet violence. His success can be measured in
part by looking at those cases in which Russia did not fully turn its
back on empire. It propped up separatist enclaves inside Georgia and
Moldova and sought to crush radical separatism in Chechnya. The
results were predictable: quasi-criminal satrapies, military
brutality, deeper ethnic hostility. Had the Soviet Union been kept
intact, we’d have seen this pattern everywhere.

Yeltsin’s second step — the economic program known as "shock
therapy" — will be judged less favorably. But the verdict may say
little about his own responsibility for the fate of Russian
democracy. The elements of Yeltsin’s program that look most unwise
today — above all the privatization policies that left a large part
of the state’s most valuable industrial assets in the hands of a very
small number of owners — were not the main source of popular
unhappiness with him or with Russian democracy. What embittered
people was the squeeze on their living standards and the acute
anxiety created by years of high inflation. Given the situation
Yeltsin and his team faced when they took over, there may have been
no way to make the transition to a modern economy anything but
painful.

History’s harshest judgment about how Yeltsin handled the Soviet
collapse may be reserved for the way he dealt with the question of
political power. At a moment when he was still the towering figure of
Russian politics, he was not bold enough to insist on creating new
democratic institutions. He left the Soviet-era constitution in place
as well as the Soviet-era parliament, while he handled other
problems. The KGB was renamed but barely reformed.

It is hard to overstate the impact of these choices. By 1993 Yeltsin
was back to fighting with parliamentary leaders about changing the
constitution and holding new elections, not to speak of salvaging
something of his economic reforms. He was, ironically, almost
completely in the right, but by then his victory had to be purchased
by force.

As for the KGB and the other coercive institutions of the Soviet
state, reforming them was a project to which Yeltsin never returned.
The consequences are with us still.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and
a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University. He was
U.S. ambassador at large for the former Soviet Union from 1997 to
2001.

Georgia: Winter Gas Gamble

A1+

Georgia: Winter Gas Gamble
[04:49 pm] 23 December, 2006

Georgia: Winter Gas Gamble

After rejecting Russian gas, Georgia looks to
Azerbaijan and Turkey for emergency supplies.

By Nana Kurashvili in Tbilisi

"Again nothing new," said Tbilisi resident Malkhaz Gelovani, 56,
after watching the latest news. "They make promises, but no real
decisions have been made yet."

Like everybody else in Georgia, Gelovani is waiting anxiously for
the outcome of negotiations between Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey
over gas supplies to Georgia this winter.

After the government in Tbilisi decided to reject Russian gas, which
is doubling in price from the New Year, the three countries are
negotiating about the provision of extra supplies from Azerbaijan’s
Shah Deniz gas field in the Caspian Sea, a development of which
started a month ago.

A Georgian government delegation led personally by President Mikheil
Saakashvili arrived in Turkey on December 20 for talks over this
issue. After the first round of discussions, Georgian energy minister
Nika Gilauri commented only that Georgia would have gas on January 1.

"Today we pay all the fees and tariffs, and all families in Georgia
have had light and warmth for the past two years," Saakashvili
told a press conference in Ankara. "We are not going to change our
policy and return to the times of darkness and cold apartments.
The Georgian government will do its utmost to ensure energy security
for its country."

In November, the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom said it would increase
the price of gas for Georgia to 230 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters
in 2007, which is more than double the amount Georgia paid in 2006
and the highest price among CIS countries.

Gazprom made it clear that the price would only be lowered if Georgia
agreed to sell its main gas pipeline to the company.

Saakashvili called Gazprom’s decision "political, not commercial",
and insisted his country would refuse to buy gas from Russia and
definitely not sell any of its assets to Gazprom.

Georgia’s main hope now lies in the South Caucasus pipeline running
from Baku to the Turkish city of Erzerum via Georgia, which is still
under construction. The pipeline is due to provide Georgia with
300 million cubic metres of gas for 63 dollars per thousand cubic
meters in 2007. Turkey’s share for 2007 is 2.8 billion cubic metres,
but the Turkish segment of the pipeline has not been finished yet,
meaning it will be some time before the country is ready to start
receiving gas from Azerbaijan.

As a result, Azerbaijan and Georgia plan to share Turkey’s portion of
gas. After preliminary talks in Baku, it was announced that Georgia
will receive 800 million cubic metres of the supplies meant for Turkey,
in addition to its own share from Shah Deniz. However, this would
still leave Georgia with a shortfall of 600-700 million cubic metres.

Some experts say that in the long run Turkish gas will cost Georgia
no less than that from Russian.

"I hope Georgia won’t be left without gas, but, because it’s short
of time, the government may have to agree to worse conditions,"
energy expert Giorgy Khukhashvili told IWPR.

To meet the shortfall, Georgia has also been talking to Iran about
receiving gas, thereby risking the disapproval of its main ally,
the United States.

John Tefft, US ambassador to Georgia, told Georgian journalists that
"a long-term strategic cooperation between Georgia and Iran in the
gas field is unacceptable to the USA".

Giorgy Khukhashvili warned that "getting involved with Iran is,
in the current political situation, a risky move for Georgia".

"Georgia has declared that its orientation is towards the European
Union and NATO, which is why it must pay heed to recommendations
given by its strategic partners. If Georgia has to choose – to buy
gas from Iran or Russia at one and the same price, the preference
should be given to the old headache, rather than the new one," he said.

However, Paata Zakareishvili, head of the Development and Cooperation
Centre, said that the Georgian authorities had stated clearly what
the direction of their foreign policy was, and Washington should have
no doubts on that score. "I think that Washington can close its eyes
at some moves taken by Tbilisi under pressure," he said.

Ordinary citizens have been following the talks closely. They are
all too aware of what living without electricity and gas would mean,
having endured darkness and cold for years after the country became
independent in 1991. The situation has improved markedly since the
Rose Revolution of 2003, but no one is relaxed about it.

Housewife Lali Dadunashvili said she knew "probably as much as the
energy minister himself" about the gas talks. "I watch absolutely
all the news broadcasts to know whether we are going to have gas or
not. It’s frightening even to think what may happen to us this winter,"
she said.

Lali lives in a two-room apartment together with her four children
and husband. They warm themselves with a gas stove and use gas to
heat their water as well. She recalls with horror the situation last
January when explosions along the pipeline connecting Russia and
Georgia left the country without fuel for weeks.

"We wore fur coats at home, we slept in our warm clothes and stood
freezing in queues for kerosene for hours… God forbid this should
happen again!" she said, adding she didn’t care where the gas came
from – Russia or Iran, "just so long as there is some!"

Gocha, who sells gas stoves at the market, said his trade was
brisk. "People are still buying gas stoves. Our president has promised
we’ll have gas, and that means we’ll have it," he said. "Why shouldn’t
we believe him? We can do without Russian gas."

But doctor Malkhaz Gelovani is angry with the government. "The
authorities are promising that there will be no gas problem this
winter, but that’s hard to believe. They’d better tell us the truth
and explain why we are refusing Russian gas and what the winter holds,"
he said.

Nana Kurashvili is a reporter for Imedi television in Tbilisi. IWPR