Georgian Political Scientist Paata Zakareishvili: "Armenia Seems To

GEORGIAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST PAATA ZAKAREISHVILI: "ARMENIA SEEMS TO BE PURSUADED TO WITHDRAW FORCES AT THE COST OF HOLDING A REFERENDUM IN KARABAKH"

Today.Az
politics/48705.html
Nov 3 2008
Azerbaijan

By raising the issue on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict,
Russia tries to prove to the world that it regulates the processes in
the Caucasus, said conflict scientist Paata Zakareshvili, commenting
on the document, signed between the Presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia
and Russia in Moscow Sundau.

"It is already 12 years that Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
have not signed any joint documents. In this sense this is a progress,
but on the whole this is a superficial document.

The document includes five paragraphs. It does not fix any principal
issues and no paragraph is new. It seems that signing the document
is more political than directed at the conflict resolution. Thus,
Russia shows to the world that it plays an important role in the
Caucasus and takes all the decisions.

After the conflict with Georgia in August, Russia demonstrated its
influence on the other countries as well. This is Russia’s next
demonstration of its influence", said Zakareishvili.

The political scientist noted that the Karabakh issue is a complicated
issue which can not be settled only by formation of such a document. It
is necessary to sign additional documents.

"Karabakh conflict is too complicated and I do not think that it
can be settled by the help of this document. This document can be a
basic stage of the process. This document is exclusively political
and nothing more. The process can be launched on the basis of other
documents which means that it is necessary to development additional
documents, which can promote it", said Zakareishvili.

According to Zakareishvili, Russia needs Azerbaijan for regulation
and control over the energy sources of this country.

"Russia has turned Georgia into an disabled state and "settled"
relations with it for some time. It needs good relations with
Azerbaijan to manage the issues of energy sources. Certainly, this
is not seen from the document, signed by the presidents of the three
countries but the two-hour one-one-one meeting of Sargsyan and Aliyev
could not be by accident", said Zakareishvili.

The conflict scientist notes that Armenia will be ready to return
at least five of seven occupied regions to Azerbaijan and thus the
Karabakh conflict settlement will overcome the deadlock.

"The Karabakh conflict is multilayer and multilateral. This conflict
will not be settled at once, but there are some moments in which
Armenia can make concessions.

If Armenia starts to withdraw forces from seven regions of Karabakh,
it will be a serious sign that Russia could provide positive impulses
into relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia,.

Certainly, it is impossible to speak of the return of Karabakh, but
Armenia seems to be persuaded to withdraw forces at the cost of the
referendum in the Karabakh.

Perhaps, Azerbaijan and Armenia have reached this agreement,
in exchange Russia will get Azerbaijan’s favor and in the future
Azerbaijani energy sources from be supplied only under Russia’s
agreement", said Zakareishvili.

Presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia notably signed a
declaration on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict in Moscow on
November 2.

The document fixes that the sides "will promote the improvement of
the situation in the Caucasus and ensure stability and security in
the region by way of the political resolution of the Karabakh conflict
in line with the principles and norms of international law.

The sides agreed that all stages of the peaceful resolution will have
international guarantees and legal commitments.

Under the document, the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed
that they will further work on the political resolution of the conflict
and instructed their foreign ministers to "intensify the process of
negotiations with cooperation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs".

http://www.today.az/news/

Armenian, Russian, Azerbaijani Presidents Sign A Declaration On Nago

ARMENIAN, RUSSIAN, AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENTS SIGN A DECLARATION ON NAGORNO KARABAKH

armradio.am
03.11.2008 10:55

In compliance with a preliminary agreement, on November 2 the President
of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, and the President of the
Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, had a meeting at the Maindorf
Castle in Moscow.

Settlement of the Karabakh issue was on the agenda.

The President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev joined
Sargsyan and Aliyev after the two-hour face-to-face meeting, and the
negotiations continued in a trilateral format.

Following the meeting the Presidents of the three countries signed
a declaration in presence of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs and mass
media representatives.

The declaration calls for a peaceful settlement of the conflict on
the basis of international law and decisions and documents adopted
within this framework to create favorable conditions for economic
development and comprehensive cooperation in the region.

Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed that the peaceful resolution
should be accompanied by judicially biding international guarantees
and stressed the importance of continuation of mediating efforts of
the OSCE Minsk Group.

The Presidents agreed that further discussion is needed for working
out the main principles of settlement.

The full text of the declaration signed by the Presidents of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Russia is presented below:

"Having met in Moscow on November 2 at the invitation of the Russian
President, and having discussed the current state and perspectives
of the Karabakh issue, the question of solving the conflict through
political means via continuation of direct dialogue between Armenia and
Azerbaijan with the mediation of Russia, France and the United States
as Minsk Group Co-Chair countries, the Presidents of the Republic of
Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation:

1. Declare that they will facilitate the improvement of the situation
in the South Caucasus and establishment of stability and security in
the region through a political settlement of the conflict based on
the principles and norms of international law and the decisions and
documents adopted in this framework to create favorable conditions
for economic development and comprehensive cooperation in the region.

2. Reinstate the importance of the mediating efforts of the OSCE
Minsk Group Co-Chairs, taking into consideration their meeting with
the parties on November 29, 2007 and the future discussions held for
the purpose of working out the main principles of political settlement.

3. Agree that the peaceful resolution should be accompanied by
judicially biding international guarantees in all aspects and stages
of settlement.

4. Note that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to
continue the efforts for the political settlement of the conflict
and instructed the Ministers of Foreign affairs to take more active
steps in that direction through cooperation with the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-chairs.

5. Emphasize the importance of creating conditions that will contribute
to the reinforcement of trust within the framework of the efforts
targeted at the settlement of the conflict.

The defence army of Nagornyy Karabakh practiced offensive operations

Regnum, Russia
October 25 2008

The defence army of Nagornyy Karabakh practiced offensive operations

"The peculiarities of the current military exercises are that for the
first time, we practiced purely offensive operations with all
proceeding consequences. We want to train our troops to the level when
we shall not expect Azerbaijan’s attack, and proceeding from a
situation, we shall launch attacks to neutralize threats to the
Nagornyy Karabakh Republic," Movses Akopyan, defence minister of
Nagornyy Karabakh, said in Stepanakert, when commenting on the outcome
of the 25 October tactical exercises of the NKR defence army, a Regnum
correspondent reports. The defence minister of the NKR described the
results of the exercises as satisfactory.

Earlier the president of the NKR, Bako Saakyan, also gave a high
assessment of the military exercises. He said that in case of need,
the armed forces of the republic were not only ready to carry out
military operations on the territory of the enemy but also switch them
deep into hearts of Azerbaijan.

The tactical exercises with involvement of all kinds of military
hardware took place in Nagornyy Karabakh. Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan, who arrived in Nagornyy Karabakh on a two-day working visit
yesterday, observed the military exercises. Armenian Defence Minister
Seyran Ohanyan is accompanying him in the visit.

[translated]

Armenian chief prosecutor says recent killing in capital "vendetta"

Armenian Public TV
Oct 27 2008

Armenian chief prosecutor says recent killing in capital "vendetta" – TV

[Presenter] A vendetta on Komitas Avenue [in Yerevan], this is the
theory of Prosecutor-General Aghvan Hovsepyan. Unidentified persons
fired from an automatic firing gun and a pistol at a Niva car
yesterday in the yard of 48a, Komitas Avenue and killed 43-year-old
Hrachya Matevosyan and wounded 32-year-old Harutyun B., who was
transported to the Mikaelyan surgery institute. The prosecutor-general
of the republic said today that this case is a vendetta.

[Correspondent speaking over video of the crime scene] The murder
which took place in Komitas Avenue is the continuation of the murder
of another leader of the Union of Hunters, Sayat Davtyan, in November
last year. There is evidence that yesterday’s murder was committed out
of revenge, the prosecutor-general of the republic said today.

[Aghvan Hovsepyan, speaking to journalists] I regret that we still
cannot eliminate elements of revenge form the minds of our people,
this is a trait of not only the Armenian people, many other people
have it as well as a national trait. An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth, you know the law of vendetta.

[Correspondent] A few grave crimes were committed in the republic in
the past three days. Four people were killed in Spitak [town in
northern Lori Region] and a severe injury was inflicted. According to
Aghvan Hovsepyan, there is evidence, an investigation is under
way. According to preliminary information, money was the motive for
the murder.

[Hovsepyan] According to the latest available information, this
killing was motivated by financial issues, the so-called settling of
scores in the criminal world. The case has not been solved so far.

[Correspondent] There is a need to investigate and assess what
happened to the newly- elected mayor of Stepanavan [town in Lori
Region, who was also wounded in a shooting]. The investigation should
clarify whether the shooting was lawful within the boundaries of
necessary defence. The prosecutor-general of the republic believes
that the elimination of the death penalty has somehow contributed to
the increase in the number of grave crimes.

[Hovsepyan] Of course, I am not against the elimination of the death
penalty, I have always backed it and back it today, but this has also
shaped a specific mentality among people.

[Correspondent] Aghvan Hovsepyan also spoke about the establishment of
a fact-finding group to probe the 1 March case [post-election
disturbances]. His attitude to it is very good. Every prosecutors
dreams of fact-finding services, the prosecutor-general said.

[translated]

Movement For Unification Of Armenia And Nagorny Karabakh Set Up In A

MOVEMENT FOR UNIFICATION OF ARMENIA AND NAGORNY KARABAKH SET UP IN ARMENIA

ArmInfo
2008-10-30 17:18:00

ArmInfo. A number of oppositionists, scientists and art workers
declared at a press conference at ‘Iravunk De-Facto’ Club about
a national initiative ‘Union’ (‘Miatsum’) which comes out for
unification of Nagorny Karabakh and Armenia and against any territorial
concession to Azerbaijan. The movement disseminated a statement that
the territories under control of Armenia including the security belt
around NKR are the minimum pledge of Armenia’s security. Zhirayr
Sefilyan, Karabakh war hero, Head of the organization ‘Protection
of Liberated Territories’, Zaruhi Postanjyan, parliamentarian from
Heritage opposition party, Tigran Khzmalyan, film director, Hrant
Ter-Abrahamyan, publicist and other members of the new movement
declared at the press conference that NKR’s independence is just a
transitional stage and a way to join Armenia.

In response to ArmInfo’s question regarding the participation of
Heritage party representative in the movement despite the party’s
demands for immediate recognition of NKR by Armenia, Zaruhi Postanjyan
said: ‘There is no contradiction. The program of our party considers
unification of Armenia and Karabakh as a final goal and independence
of NKR as a transitional method to achieve that goal’.

Ambassador Of India In The National Assembly

AMBASSADOR OF INDIA IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

National Assembly of RA
Oct 30 2008
Armenia

On October 29 RA NA Speaker Mr Hovik Abrahamyan received the Ambassador
of India to Armenia Mrs Rina Pandey.

Touching upon the Armenian-Indian centuries-old friendship, the NA
Speaker noted that India is not only an influential member of the
international community, but also a traditional friend, with whom
the Armenians had close connection during the history beginning
from the 15th century. Mr Abrahamyan highlighted the development
of inter-parliamentary relations, noting within that framework that
in the National Assembly a parliamentary friendship group with the
Indian Parliament was set up. NA Speaker invited the Speaker of
the Indian Parliament, expressing confidence that the mutual visits
are an opportunity for making closer the cooperation. Mr Abrahamyan
expressed satisfaction that India always had balanced position in
Nagorno Karabakh issue, being for the settlement of the conflict
through peaceful means, through negotiations in the context of
international security. It was noted that Armenia had unchangeable
position regarding the Kashmir problem and repeatedly announced
that he defended the settlement of the problem through bilateral
negotiations. NA Speaker expressed confidence to activate more the
economic, scientific-cultural relations of the two countries and
expressed confidence for the opportunity given for the training of
the Armenian specialists within ITEC programme framework, where the
NA employees were also included.

The Ambassador of India to Armenia Mrs Rina Pandey congratulated
the NA Speaker for being elected in that post and conveyed the
congratulatory message of Mr Somnath Chatterjee, Speaker of the
Indian Parliament. The Ambassador is also for the activation of the
inter-parliamentary relations and hopes that those relations will
receive a new quality by the head of NA Speaker: in this issue the
Indian side is also interested in it. Highlighting the development
of the inter-parliamentary relations with Armenia, which adopted the
path of the democracy development, the Ambassador touched upon the
necessity of the mutual visits. The Ambassador informed the NA Speaker
that during the last period the Indian businessmen had repeatedly
been in Armenia to study on spot the possibilities of economic
cooperation and wished to make investments in Armenia. In December
an Indian-Armenian business forum would be held in Delhi. During the
last four years the goods turnover between the two countries had been
increased four-folded. Besides, in February 2009 a week of the Armenian
culture is planned to be organized in Delhi. In the third city of Delhi
a street was named Armenia, which the Indians accepted with great joy.

At the meeting other issues of mutual importance were also discussed.

From The Emperor Who Ate His Victims To The Tyrant Who Killed His Fa

FROM THE EMPEROR WHO ATE HIS VICTIMS TO THE TYRANT WHO KILLED HIS FAMILY, A NEW BOOK REVEALS HISTORY’S MURDEROUS VILLAINS
By Simon Sebag Montefiore

Daily Mail
34/From-emperor-ate-victims-tyrant-killed-family-n ew-book-reveals-historys-murderous-villains.html
O ct 30 2008
UK

When Caligula ordered a killing, he used to say: ‘Make him feel
he’s dying.’

When Empress Irene of Byzantium overthrew her son, she had him blinded
in the room where she had given birth to him.

Vlad the Impaler didn’t just impale his enemies, he also burned to
death all the vagrants, disabled and mentally-ill people he could find.

When Empress Irene of Byzantium overthrew her son, she had him blinded
in the room where she had given birth to him.

Vlad the Impaler didn’t just impale his enemies, he also burned to
death all the vagrants, disabled and mentally-ill people he could find.

‘Mistress of poison’: The Italian Lucrezia Borgia was the ultimate
femme fatale

While Himmler played with his children downstairs, his study upstairs
was furnished with tables made from human hips and lampshades of
human skin. Soviet secret police chief Beria sent out his bodyguards
to kidnap girls for him to rape.

The dictators of Uganda and Central Africa, Idi Amin and Bokassa,
both ate their enemies, while Colonel Mengistu of Ethiopia personally
purged his own cabinet with a machine-gun.

It is hard not to agree with the great historian Edward Gibbon, who
wrote that ‘history is little more than the register of the crimes,
follies and misfortunes of mankind’.

Of course, Gibbon was partly playing to the gallery with his cynicism:
history is also a register of heroism and courage.

But the horrific stories of villainous leaders over the ages still
have the power to warn us of the dangers of power.

Gibbon, whose Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire revels in the
depravity of the emperors, was only too aware that monsters are
usually more exciting than the heroes.

Anyone who has read Milton’s masterpiece, Paradise Lost, will know that
despite the brilliant poet’s best efforts, Satan is his most compelling
character. And so it is with my own list of monsters through the ages.

Ever since I was a child, I have been fascinated by the great villains
of history and in my new book, Monsters, I have selected those I
consider to be the worst.

This begs a number of questions: How did I choose them? What makes a
monster? And what if my idea of a monster is someone else’s idea of
a hero?

Of course, the list is highly subjective, but there is no escaping the
most obvious candidates. One could argue that there were mitigating
circumstances for many early villains.

It was not until the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century –
in which reason was advocated as the basis of Western culture and
philosophy – that many countries began to consider the concept of
human rights.

But by the 20th century, human rights were the moral foundations of
civilised nations.

Hitler and his gang – Himmler, Heydrich, Mengele and Hoess – are
well-known, but almost forgotten today are their collaborators.

People such as the vile Ante Pavelic of Croatia, who killed 600,000
innocent Jews and Serbs in a frenzy of slaughter. Or Marshal Antonescu
of Romania, who murdered 380,000 Jews in Odessa.

The Nazi slaughter of six million Jews remains the most wicked act of
human history because of its rational execution, its cold-heartedness
and its aim to destroy an entire race.

But Hitler also qualifies because he started the most brutal war in
history: 27 million Russians perished on the Eastern Front alone,
and 70 million died during World War II.

The 20th century was also the age when modern technology and pervasive
state power combined to make killing possible on a gargantuan
scale. Technology enabled Soviet dictators Lenin and Stalin to carry
out more than 20 million killings; the Chinese Chairman, Mao Zedong,
managed 70 million.

It is easy to dismiss the world’s monsters as insane, but this simply
excuses them of their depravity.

Admittedly, there were some true madmen, such as Idi Amin and the
Roman Emperors Caligula and Elagabalus, the first and only tyrannical
transsexual – while Ivan the Terrible and Herod the Great both
ultimately became clinically insane.

And there was Baron Ungern von Sternberg, a warlord in the Russian
Civil War, who in 1920 believed himself to be the reborn Genghis
Khan, conquered Mongolia and ruled there for several months in a
reign of terror.

His favourite way of killing was to tie the victim’s limbs to two
trees which had been bent back to the ground. He would then release
the trees, and the man’s body would be torn in half.

Saddam Hussein: The dictator ruled Iraq with an iron fist, killing
countless thousands The real tragedy is that men such as Hitler, Mao
and Stalin weren’t mad – they were extremely competent and intelligent
politicians, however psychopathic, ruthless and evil. The same must
apply to Osama bin Laden.

And this is why we need to know the real-life stories of these monsters
and to understand how they rose to power. Because to treat them simply
as cardboard ghouls we learn nothing.

Most of the great monsters of my book – from Saddam Hussein and
Bin Laden to Nebuchadnezzar and Vlad the Impaler, from Al Capone to
the Colombian drugs baron Pablo Escobar – share one common feature:
a messianic belief in their own unique destiny.

Some had unhappy childhoods – Stalin, Hitler and Saddam Hussein had
drunken, violent fathers and strong mothers – but others, such as
Lenin and Mao, had happy upbringings. All were avid self-dramatists,
believing themselves to be the chief actors in a holy theatre of
history.

Take Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, who renamed himself The Genius Of
The Carpathians. Or the lunatic butcher of Equatorial Guinea Macias
Nguema, who insisted on being called The Unique Miracle.

But perhaps the most extraordinary rebranding was that of President
Mobutu of Zaire, who changed his name to The Warrior Who Knows No
Defeat Because Of His Endurance And Inflexible Will, The Cockerel
Who Goes From Hen To Hen, Conquest To Conquest.

One of the most self-regarding monsters was surely Niyazov, the
obsessional dictator of oil-rich Turkmenistan until his death two
years ago, who renamed the months and weekdays after himself and his
mother, and dubbed himself Turkmenbashi, Father of the Turkmen.

But there are many monstrous women in my book, too. Look at the
6th-century Byzantine empress Theodora, who earned her way as a live
sex act until she married the Emperor Justinian the Great and became
a most ruthless politician.

Or the 16th-century Queen of France Catherine de Medici, whose hatred
of Protestants knew no bounds, and who ordered the Massacre of St
Bartholomew in which thousands of Huguenots were killed.

That beautiful Italian mistress of poison, Lucrezia Borgia, was
the ultimate femme fatale. Yet few diabolical hussies can equal
the 10th-century ‘whore of the papacy’, Maurozia, who was mistress,
murderess, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother of Popes in a
Vatican that resembled and sometimes served as a brothel.

Another common feature, in addition to this unbending faith in
their own ability, is a belief in the panacea of a Utopian ideology,
whether religion or Marxism or Nazism.

This terrifying conviction in their total virtue permits the most
terrifying crimes.

The Crusaders, for example, were religious fanatics every bit as
disgusting as the suicide bombers of Al Qaeda.

When Godfrey of Bouillon and his Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099,
they slaughtered every Muslim and Jew – 70,000 men, women and children
– in a single frenzied day.

Religious fanatics from Savaronola – the 15th-century Italian ascetic
who ‘purified’ Florence from corruption, burning books and works of
art in his infamous Bonfire Of The Vanities – to Torquemada of the
Spanish Inquisition share much in common with Nazi racial theorists and
Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, which killed half the population of Cambodia.

In their zealotry, these monsters believed human life was almost
worthless: all that mattered was history.

Stalin, who often expressed such thoughts with a frank gallows humour,
thought that killing was one of the most useful political tools. ‘One
man, one problem,’ he used to say. ‘No man, no problem.’ Stalin once
explained to a colleague: ‘The advantage of the Soviet model is that
it solves problems quickly – by shedding blood.’ One of the tragic
truths of examining the most awful people in history is that the
bigger the lie, the more credible it seems.

The Holocaust is a classic example: even the Jews who arrived
for selection by Dr Joseph Mengele at the railway station at
Auschwitz could not believe any regime would carry out something so
diabolical. Naturally, they wanted to believe they were going into
showers which were, in fact, gas chambers.

The big lie and gigantic crime are equally relevant in the Soviet
Union where Stalin himself put it famously: ‘One death is a tragedy,
a million is a statistic.’ Many Western Leftists so hated their
own free cultures and American power that they chose, and in some
cases still choose, to ignore the overwhelming evidence from Russia
and Maoist China of slaughter on a colossal scale. But this does not
apply only to the totalitarian monsters of the mid-20th century.

King Leopold II of Belgium owned the biggest private estate in the
world – the Congo – which he ran as dystopian murder factory to
terrorise the locals, turn them into slaves and maximise his profits.

Reinhard Heydrich: One of Hitler’s henchmen, he was nicknamed ‘The
Butcher of Prague’ No one believed it until some brave writers
exposed the horror that inspired Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart Of
Darkness. Colonel Kurtz, who was Americanised and put in Vietnam
in the movie Apocalypse Now, was based on King Leopold’s barbaric
warlord Leon Rom, who collected the ears of his enemies.

The real inventor of modern genocide was the German Lothar von
Trotha, governor of German South-West Africa (now Namibia) in the
first years of the 20th century, who declared about the country’s
Herero people: ‘All Herero will be shot – all are exterminated. That
is my decision for the Herero peoples.’ All of this is still horribly
relevant. History matters because old crimes justify new ones.

Until recently, the Armenian Massacres – the murder of two million
Armenians by Talaat Pasha and the Ottoman regime of the Three Pashas
during World War I – had been famously ignored.

This fact encouraged Hitler when he was thinking about the
Holocaust. ‘Who now remembers the Armenians?’ he mused over dinner.

But statesmen are hard to categorise morally, because even the most
admirable can make decisions that cost innocent lives.

Hence one man’s monster may be another’s hero: the People’s Republic
of China is still ruled by Mao’s Communist Party; indeed he is still
revered as he lies in his mausoleum – even as the country revels in
its capitalistic prosperity.

Lenin enjoyed the greatest whitewash in history, hailed as a cuddly
father whose Revolution was based on decency and equality.

When Stalin was denounced in 1956, many gullible Western liberals
believed what Khrushchev told them: that Stalin’s brutality was a
distortion of Leninism.

But the opening of Lenin’s archives recently revealed his frenzied
barbarism in the name of Marxism. He and Stalin were one and the same.

Yet today, even Stalin is being rehabilitated in Russia: President
Putin recently unveiled a new history textbook in which he was hailed
as ‘the most successful Russian leader of the 20th century’.

This is because, until recently, success was the only test of a great
ruler, however brutal.

Genghis Khan and Tamurlane, the two great Mongol conquerors, left a
trail of killing as they built empires – yet both were political and
military geniuses, not unlike Napoleon or Basil the Bulgar-Slayer,
one of the greatest Byzantine emperors.

We regard Alexander of Macedon as the Great, but Zoroastrian priests
in Iran saw him as a monster because he persecuted them.

There are many autocrats who could have appeared as monsters, from
Napoleon to Rameses the Great, from Suleiman the Magnificent to
Ataturk. Yet they could also be regarded by many as heroes.

I regard Henry VIII as a monster: his story is so over-familiar that
we almost forget that he killed two young wives on trumped-up charges –
though at least he spared his children.

Of course, killing one’s wives or children or parents is definitely
the sign of a monster.

Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great both killed their eldest
sons. Constantine the Great, who was made an Orthodox saint for
converting the Roman Empire to Christianity, was a murderous tyrant
who killed his own wife and a son.

But the King of Judaea, the half-Jewish, half-Arab Herod the Great,
wins this contest: he killed his favourite wife and three of his
children.

The Roman Emperor Nero runs him a close second after killing his
mother and then his wife, Popea, by kicking her in the stomach.

Such a survey of historical monsters is not just indulging in a
ghoulish banquet of slaughter and torment – there are many lessons
in these stories.

Some are obvious. Absolute power corrupts. Monopolists of virtue such
as Robespierre, dogmatic theocrats such as Bin Laden or Torquemada
or the mullahs in Iran, and fanatical Utopians such as Lenin or Pol
Pot always lead to terrible oppression and suffering – as do racial
supremacists such as Hitler.

Some lessons are less obvious: many of these leaders, especially in
modern times, were superb play-actors about whom warnings were ignored;
others were saliva-flecked demagogues who warned frankly of their
extremism – as the Nazis and Bolsheviks did – but no one believed them.

But the lesson they teach us above all is that lives matter: once one
crosses a line where it is morally acceptable to kill a few enemies,
then killing can quickly become a routine part of policy.

I am often asked who is the worst monster: was it Hitler, Stalin or
Mao – as if we can name the worst killer and forgive the others. But
this is to put a price and number on murdered individuals.

All we can conclude is that one murder is a crime, never mind
millions. Such crimes should be first punished – and then
remembered. Sometimes that is all we can do for the victims of history.

Adapted from Monsters: History’s Most Evil Men And Women by Simon
Sebag Montefiore, published by Quercus at £20. Copyright Simon Sebag
Montefiore 2008. To order a copy at £18 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.

–Boundary_(ID_i66nnH5wcoIuNqch0JaJBA)–

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10816

Azerbaijan Offers Total And Unconditional Surrender To Armenia — Ex

AZERBAIJAN OFFERS TOTAL AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER TO ARMENIA — EXPERT OPINION

Regnum
/1075220.html
Oct 29 2008
Russia

The inaugural address of Ilham Aliev, President of Azerbaijan,
reiterates that Azerbaijan’s stance on the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unchanged, Dr Armen Ayvazyan, Head of
the ARARAT Center for Strategic Research told a REGNUM correspondent.

Dr Ayvazyan noted that Baku rules out, even in theory, the possibility
for reasonable compromise with the Armenian side regarding not
only the question of territories, but also the future status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. "As a matter of fact, the Armenian side is dealing
with nothing less than Baku’s demand for total and unconditional
surrender of Armenia." This uncompromising stance of Azerbaijan
completely undermines the current negotiation process, making it a
common farce, which in the future will beget nothing but a full-scale
war," Dr Ayvazyan stresses.

He noted that the Armenian side continues to invoke the "Madrid
agreements," which mention the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh
to self-determination. "Yet, the right to self-determination may be
defined in various ways. De jure, the now defunct Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Oblast was also a form of self-determination: Nevertheless,
it was unable to ensure the physical, demographic or cultural security
of the Karabakh Armenians." Dr Ayvazyan further noted that if the
parties to the conflict interpret the very fundamental provisions of
their agreements differently, then those "agreements" as well as the
negotiations that lead to them have no value whatsoever. "After all,
with many different interpretations in place, the interpretation
that will be implemented will be the one which the stronger side of
the conflict forces upon the weaker, in accordance with the ‘might
decides right’ principle. Whereas surrender of territories in the
meantime will radically decrease the defensibility of the Armenian
side," says the expert.

In Dr Ayvazyan’s opinion, "at a time when Azerbaijan is airing
ultimatums, it is suicidal for the Armenian side to make any
compromises, especially to concede land — the utmost component of
its military security. In this context, the diplomatic overtures by
high-ranking Armenian officials towards Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey,
are not serious, to say the least. Such unreciprocated pleasantries
only mislead the Armenian public.

The expert highlights that Armenia’s stance lacks precisely that
clarity which is explicit in Azerbaijan’s position on the settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "Complementary policy, no less inherent
in the Azerbaijani foreign policy than in the Armenian one, succeeds
only because it clearly draws the line beyond which no compromise is
acceptable. This enables Baku to put constant pressure on Armenia and,
at the same time, protects her from the pressure and criticism of the
mediators and other third parties," he explains. "As for the current
intensive debate in the press about possible scenarios of how the
events may unfold in light of the so called ‘pressures’ by Russia
on Armenia, this is very much akin to fortune-telling: they torture
themselves with the question ‘will they or will they not cede’? This
attitude is especially evident in the commentary about the remarks
of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who suggested the ceding
of liberated territory, which serves as a security/buffer zone around
NKR," argues Dr Ayvazyan.

Ayvazyan believes that the number of unknowns in the Russian
initiative does not give Yerevan or Baku, and even more so the expert
community, any grounds for making far-reaching conclusions. "There is
no doubt Russia is trying to make a diplomatic leap into the former
Transcaucasus, and it is possible that Russia wants to achieve this by
partly sacrificing the interests of Armenia’s military security." But
the expert notes that even this Russian scenario, if it really consists
of surrendering territories and deploying Russian peacekeepers in and
around Karabakh, would not satisfy the ambitions of Azerbaijan. The
latter will hardly agree to the presence of Russian military bases on
the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, especially when considering the fate
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "Such scenario cannot be accepted by
the Armenian side either. And in this particular case — namely in
this life and death issue — the party to the conflict is not the
Armenian government, but all Armenian people," he noted.

Ayvazyan does not exclude other scenarios as well. "It is possible that
an entirely different combination is being laid out by the Kremlin
— namely a bluff intended to grab first place in the new game for
dominance in the Transcaucasus. A similar short-lived bluff is the
Turkish initiative for Caucasus Stability and Security Platform,
which, though it has no chance of fruition, is already yielding
dividends to Turkey, the initiating side," Ayvazyan explains.

The expert deduces that the only somber conclusion that can be made
in regard to the current peace talks is that the Karabakh conflict
cannot be resolved through negotiations. "A peaceful settlement
of the conflict could only imply preservation of the status-quo
solidified in a legal form, because all other scenarios will imply
resumption of war, with unforeseen consequences for the parties to the
conflict as well as to the region at large." Ayvazyan believes that
in the current situation the Armenian leadership should focus its
attention not so much on the external processes that defy reliable
medium-term forecasts, but on strategic constants of security —
such as strengthening the army, utilizing the liberated territory,
building effective state institutions, and launching a demographic
policy focused on mass repatriation of Armenians.

http://www.regnum.ru/english/polit

EBRD To Invest In Armenia’s Araratbank

EBRD TO INVEST IN ARMENIA’S ARARATBANK

ArmInfo
2008-10-29 23:25:00

ArmInfo. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
is acquiring 25% + 1 share stake in AraratBank, a privately owned
Armenian bank, to support its plans for further expansion.

EBRD Director for Caucasus, Moldova & Belarus Mike Davey, Chairman of
the Board and majority shareholder of AraratBank Barsegh Beglaryan
and the bank’s CEO Ashot Osipyan have agreed today that EBRD will
purchase the stake for $7mln.

EBRD’s investment will provide a strategic guidance through its Board
nominee, strengthen the bank’s internal policies and procedures,
corporate governance and existing management structure. It will also
support the development of AraratBank’s retail, medium, small and
micro-finance lending programs. Growth will be achieved by attracting
new customers through diversification of its products range, increasing
regional branch network and further improving its service culture.

EBRD & AraratBank have been partners since Nov 2007, when EBRD extended
$5mln credit-line for lending to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
and $1mln limit for trade financing.

AraratBank, previously called Haykap Bank, was founded in 1991 by
a number of organizations operating in the communications sector in
Armenia. In 2004, following the implementation of a financial recovery
program, Haykap Bank was purchased by Flash Ltd., owned and managed
by Barsegh Baglaryan, a prominent Armenian businessman. In Sept 2005,
the bank was renamed AraratBank. AraratBank provides a full range of
banking services to corporate, MSME and retail customers. The bank
is rapidly establishing an image as a small but reliable, reputable
and dynamically growing financial institution.

As a result of the purchase the authorized capital of AraratBank
will amount to $24mln. In the next three years the bank’s capital is
supposed to be increased to $50mln.

Ashot Osipyan, the CEO of AraratBank said: "I am delighted to work
with EBRD, and am proud to consider that the hard work for the past
two years has paid off. AraratBank is one of the leading banks in
Armenia with a strong reputation and a loyal customer base. I feel
assured that with EBRD’s expertise we can further improve our bank’s
operations to benefit our stakeholders, clients, employees, society
and the economy of the country."

Mike Davey, EBRD Director for Caucasus, Moldova & Belarus added:
"We hope our support will further enhance AraratBank’s competitive
position, increasing bank’s attractiveness to a potential strategic
investor."

EBRD is one of the largest investors in Armenia, having committed
more than 202mln EUR in 52 projects.

It also has stakes in Armeconombank (25%+1), ProCredit Bank (16.67%)
and Byblos Bank Armenia (25%).

Bako Sahakian And Andrzej Kasprzyk Discussed Situation Along Line Of

BAKO SAHAKIAN AND ANDRZEJ KASPRZYK DISCUSSED SITUATION ALONG LINE OF CONTACT BETWEEN NKR AND AZERBAIJAN’S ARMED FORCES

DE FACTO
28.10.08

STEPANAKERT, 28.10.08. DE FACTO. On October 27 Nagorno-Karabagh
Republic President Bako Sahakian received the personal representative
of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk.

According to the Central Department of Information under the Office of
NKR President, issues related to the current situation along the line
of contact between NKR and Azerbaijan’s armed forces were discussed
during the meeting.