Author: Tigranian Ani

Yeni Musavat, Azerbaijan
Aug 3 2008

Matthew Bryza has unveiled the target of the mediation mission `to
grab Nagornyy Karabakh from Azerbaijan’

It has been confirmed once again following the talks between the
Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers in Moscow yesterday [2
August] that those who mediate these talks have only one aim: to grab
Nagornyy Karabakh from Azerbaijan. Giving us the ground to say so is
US co-chairman [of the OSCE Minsk Group] Matthew Bryza, who grows more
active after meetings between the presidents or foreign ministers and
makes statements that help journalists identify the gist of the talks.

Referendum

The assistant to the US Secretary of State told journalists in Moscow
that the population of Nagornyy Karabakh would determine its future
status: "Those people who live there will decide on it through
voting. I mean residents of Karabakh. Our proposals are that the
Armenian forces should be withdrawn from the seven districts around
Karabakh, international peace keeping forces should be deployed there
and conditions should be created for the return of refugees and
internally displaced persons. Also, a corridor should be opened to
connect Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh and finally a vote should be
conducted to determine the future status of Nagornyy Karabakh," Bryza
said. He also added that they do not know when all this will happen.

Of course, there is nothing new in the statement of the US
diplomat. The talks have been under way on the basis of the principles
he mentioned for more than three years and the sides were very close
to achieve agreement several times as the mediators put it. Taking
into account the provision in the Azerbaijani constitution that it is
impossible to hold a referendum in one part of the country, Bryza uses
the term "". But the essence does not change at all. The ultimate goal
of the talks mediated by him and another two co-chairmen [from Russia
and France] is to make Nagornyy Karabakh’s independence official in a
vote.

If the talk is about a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh, its outcome is
clear both for now and for a period of 10-15 years from now. The
Armenians will have the majority even in the ideal option when all the
ethnic Azerbaijanis of Nagornyy Karabakh return there. Bryza, the
negotiating foreign ministers and the presidents know what those
Armenians will decide.

Territorial integrity?

What is use continuing the talks on the basis of these proposals,
which seriously question Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and are
considered as a time bomb to separate Nagornyy Karabakh? Why have not
the Azerbaijani leadership officially refused these proposals and are
negotiating on their basis, saying in every opportunity that the talks
are being conducted on the basis of the territorial integrity of the
country?

When commenting on Bryza’s statement, officials in Baku say that the
Azerbaijani constitution does not allow the conduct of a separate
referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh. From this viewpoint the statement
about the determination of the status of Nagornyy Karabakh in a
referendum is wrong. However, this position does not alleviate
concerns because it will not be difficult for the Azerbaijani
authorities to make any amendment they wish to the constitution. Votes
of people do not decide anything in this country in any case.

"Scandalous statement maker"

It should be noted that Bryza is noted for making scandalous
statements and then denying them. Such cases have occurred more than
once in the mediation practice of the US diplomat. For example, it is
common for him to speak in one way in Yerevan and say in Baku that
journalists actually distorted his words. It is not ruled out that
Bryza may deny or otherwise interpret what he said in Moscow when he
comes to Baku. However, the essence does not change again. This is the
gist of the talks and perhaps it is worth thanking the US diplomat for
announcing it. Otherwise, the Azerbaijani public would have to be
confined to the statement of the country’s officials that "the talks
are being held within the principle of territorial integrity" and
would be unaware of the true essence of the talks.

"Hypocrite US policy"

Nevertheless, it becomes clear from the position of the US diplomat
how hypocrite his country’s policy is. For example, he says that the
status of Nagornyy Karabakh should be determined in a referendum, but
refers to another principle exceptionally that of territorial
integrity when it comes to the conflicts around Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Bryza said that the USA’s aim and national interest are
having these conflicts resolved within the framework of Georgia’s
territorial integrity. But who will believe the mediation of his
country after hearing from him conflicting positions on two sets of
separatist conflicts? The leader of Abkhaz separatists, Sergey
Bagapsh, did not conceal yesterday [2 August] that he was encouraged
by Bryza’s statement. Bagapsh said that he welcomes the position of
the US diplomat on a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh and at the same
time believes that the USA should recognize the outcomes of
referendums on independence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Bagapsh’s statement is quite logical. How fair and sincere is it for
the USA to speak about territorial integrity concerning the conflicts
in Georgia at a time when it believes that a referendum is important
in Nagornyy Karabakh? So, as can be seen here, Bryza has encouraged
separatists with his statement in Moscow. Earlier, the USA questioned
one of the crucial principles of international law by recognizing
Kosovo’s independence in the Balkans. In response, Russia gained quite
a strong argument to support separatists in the former Soviet
republics.

The USA and its embassy in Baku declare on every occasion that the USA
recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and does not view
Nagornyy Karabakh as an independent state. But Bryza’s statement casts
doubts on the announcements of the USA that it recognizes Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity.

Perhaps, the position of the USA is as declared, but will change
following a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh. It seems that every time
the USA issues statements recognizing Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity it accidentally misses a phrase that the future status of
Nagornyy Karabakh is a topic of the talks.

[translated from Azeri]

NEW YORK LAW TO RUSSIAN CLAW
by Kit R. Roane

Conde Nast Portfolio
Aug 15 2008
NY

The idealism and ambitions of Georgia’s embattled leader were shaped
in Manhattan.

More than a decade before he became Georgia’s president, Mikheil
Saakashvili was just another struggling law student with big plans
tooling around Manhattan on his bicycle.

"He was ambitious, idealistic, and I think he had something of the
American messianic sense that you could use law to change the world,"
recalls professor Lori Damrosch, who taught Saakashvili in a Columbia
law seminar entitled International Institutions in Transition.

"This was at a time of turmoil in the ex-Soviet republics, and he
had a lot to say on those topics," she adds, noting that students
at the law school were "imbued with this idealistic spirit" and that
Saakashvili "absorbed these values."

With his country now bloodied after a clash with Russia and his
leadership questioned, the overarching idealism of his New York
student days would seem to have been finally shaken.

Critics have certainly come out of the woodwork, saying that the loss
of Georgia’s breakaway regions, particularly that of South Ossetia,
would foment protest to Saakashvili’s rule. Italy’s foreign minister,
Franco Frattini, has said that the war brought on by Saakashvili’s
futile and perhaps rash attempt to secure the areas "pushed Georgia
further away not just from Europe, but also complicates the NATO
council in December." And Michael Evans, defense editor for the Times
of London, noted that Saakashvili’s "military adventure had all the
hallmarks of rushed planning and a finger-crossed strategy," adding
that the Georgian president gave Vladimir Putin "the opportunity he
was waiting for to stamp his authority over Georgia and at the same
time to cock a snoot at the West."

So far, Saakashvili has not wavered. He continues to hammer out a
drumbeat of statements aimed at presenting himself as the biblical
David, Russia as the corrupt Goliath intent upon creating a new iron
curtain, and Georgia as the thin edge of the wedge.

"Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in
Europe," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

He has failed to persuade the West to send in reinforcements. With
Russia still marching into new cities, the best news that Georgia could
muster so far this week was word that its Olympic beach volleyball
team had trounced the Russians in two out of three rounds.

Saakashvili would have likely modeled for a more robust response
from the West. Well studied in the intricate dance among nations,
he wrote a seminar paper on humanitarian intervention, which focused
on ethnic conflicts in the former Soviet satellite states.

Unlike many other 1994 graduates of Columbia Law School, Saakashvili
put his training to the test on the world stage.

By 1996, Saakashvili, who idolizes John F. Kennedy and leans
politically toward John McCain, had already jettisoned a doctoral
thesis at George Washington University Law School, quit the high-power
law firm of Patterson Belknap and won a parliamentary seat in the
Republic of Georgia (population 4.4 million).

This was the first of many leaps that would, in a short and
bloodless coup, move Saakashvili into the presidency, an ascendancy
that Saakashvili has said was helped along by the knowledge that he
acquired while a law student in the United States

"He clearly knew what he wanted when he was at Columbia, and he chose
his courses very carefully and in a conscious way that didn’t follow
the usual diet, which is corporate and securities law," says professor
George Bermann, who taught Saakashvili courses in European Union law,
and transnational litigation and arbitration.

Despite Georgia’s setbacks, no one should count Saakashvili out just
yet. He has spent the last decade and a half proving that idealism
in the most adept hands can be a strong bulwark against even the
strongest and most depressing reality.

The man known as Misha abandoned a life of Knicks games and opera
nights to turn around the poor, corrupt, and complicated country
from which he sprang. He also became a leading light among the wave
of twentysomething rat-packers who had washed onto our shores hungry
for American-style democracy, then eagerly trekked back home to plant
this new-found seed in the dark soil left vacant following the Soviet
Union’s collapse.

"He is a western person, and a very dedicated person, very dedicated
to human rights," notes professor Dinah Shelton, of George Washington
University’s Law School, adding that when Saakashvili failed to finish
his dissertation, his professors joked that his tackling Georgia’s
weighty issues as its president was no excuse.

Little seemed to stop Saakashvili once back in Georgia. When his
mentor, then-president Eduard Shevardnadze, balked at Saakashvili’s
attempts to tackle official corruption, Saakashvili quit the government
and went to work forming an opposition party.

After winning election to the head of the Tbilisi city council, he
then used his populist appeal to claw his way back into power during
the Rose Revolution of 2003. Again, he was unyielding, breaking with
other opposition leaders who proposed talks with Sheverdnadze and
sought a more measured approach. Instead Saakashvili and his supporters
stormed the parliament chamber where Shevardnadze was holed up, then
reportedly chased him from the building under the threat of flowers
instead of guns.

Answering critics, Saakashvili told reporters at the time that his
style was the type that "mobilizes people here," noting later that
"Georgia needs a new way" and that every moment Shevardnadze remained
in power meant "losing time."

Despite criticism of some of Saakashvili’s methods–and despite
evidence that a frustrated Saakashvili turned to a more thuggish
approach himself during crackdowns on demonstrators last fall–his
many successes spring from the same tight-rope approach.

He has overhauled the police, brought about important economic reforms,
increased average salaries, and improved the country’s power supply,
notes Alexandra Stiglmayer, a senior Brussels-based policy analyst
with the independent think tank European Stability Initiative.

"Saakashvili may be a complex personality and he has certainly
made mistakes. But he has given the civil society breathing space,"
she says. "Compared with its neighbors in the region, such as the
Northern Caucasus region in Russia, but also Armenia, Azerbaijan,
and eastern Turkey, Georgia is more liberal, more open, and more
committed to the rule of law."

The question now is whether he can stay in power. His old professors
certainly hope their favored son will weather this latest storm.

Professor Damrosch recalls happening upon Saakashvili riding his
bicycle when she was visiting Washington at the same time he was
pursuing his doctoral studies there. She waved and Saakashvili sailed
through several lanes of traffic just to chat.

"The image of Misha on a bicycle–whether in Washington, New York,
or the more mountainous terrain of Georgia –conveys something of
his energetic spirit," says Damrosch. "I can’t think of anything that
would slow him down."

KNOW WHAT YOU ARE PICKING
By Ken Allen

Kennebec Journal
08/16/2008
ME

Dry years have less of an effect on encouraging folks to become wild
mushroom gatherers, but this wet summer has fungi sprouting on lawns,
beside roads and in forests and fields. Such obvious abundance has
folks talking about becoming amateur mycologists more so than usual.

I once picked wild mushrooms on a routine basis, a serious hobby
that lasted 12 years before an incident spooked me enough to quit,
but I’m getting way ahead of my story.

My stint as a mushroomer began one August 35 years ago when a
Massachusetts native of Armenian descent taught me a few basics as
I followed him around the woods.

This wonderful gentleman passed away years ago after a long life of
running hounds, fly-fishing and living partly off the land, gathering
wild foods and gardening. His parents were born in Eastern Europe,
where mushrooming is a national pastime, and he learned from them.

My mentor and his wife were staying on Frost Pond near the Penobscot’s
West Branch by Ripogenus Dam when we met, and in this northern
latitude and high elevation, mushrooms associated with fall around
central Maine were growing there in mid-August.

This fellow stressed a concept. He claimed that the North American
mushroom family contained about the same percentage of poisonous
species as this continent’s herbaceous and woody plants did, so
picking fungi proved no more dangerous than gathering plants —
the latter having ultra-toxic species, too.

Tom Seymour, an author and well-known wild-food gatherer from Waldo,
also claims this point about the percentage of poison plants vs. fungi.

Neither man was saying that wild-food gatherers could be careless,
but rather, picking the wrong plant could be as lethal as choosing
a bad mushroom. They stress this point because, for one reason or
another, Americans are far more afraid of mushrooms than plants.

My friend said that a tiny percentage of fungi proved of gourmet
quality and a small number of species would make folks very sick or
very dead, and the trick began with concentrating on the quality,
edible mushrooms and mastering identification one species at a time.

Not to belabor the point, but in this man’s estimation, most mushrooms
might possess a poor flavor or unsuitable consistency such as being
watery, but the majority were not toxic.

In that halcyon summer so many years ago, we picked Boletes, hen
of the woods, chicken of the woods, coral (a species that grows in
conifer forests) and puffballs, and years later, I learned horse
mushrooms that grow in horse pastures.

The latter looks like supermarket fungi — just giants in comparison
to the store-bought variety. Before my frightening experience,
I’d sometimes fill a paper grocery bag or two with horse mushrooms
for freezing.

Here’s what got me thinking about poison mushrooms this week:

Recently, an acquaintance of my partner and intrepid companion, Jolie,
wound up in the emergency room after eating poison mushrooms.

This might not have caught my attention, but the woman, Masha
Ben-Tepherith of Augusta, has picked mushrooms her whole life, so
she has experience galore. While growing up, she learned fungi skills
from her parents, immigrants from Russia.

A recent interview with Masha fascinated me, beginning with this:

We had quite a time, trying to communicate about which mushrooms were
which because she had learned mushroom identification in Russian
and doesn’t know the English names. I did take Russian in college
— for one day. As soon as the professor told the class we had to
learn a different alphabet, I dropped the language, so I was no help
with Masha.

Apparently, Masha, her sister and the sister’s boyfriend had picked
a species, thinking the mushrooms were puffballs, but according to
Masha, the fungi turned out being a poison variety colloquially called
"earth ball."

When her sister sliced the first mushroom, the center was a lovely
purple rather than puffball white. The odd color concerned Masha,
but the sister, who has also picked mushrooms her whole life, felt
the fungi were fine and cooked them.

To complicate matters, Masha has recently suffered abdominal pains,
so when the bad mushrooms started causing her stomach problems,
she figured it was more of the same ailment — not a case of poisoning.

However, the stomachache turned to excruciating pain, so the three
of them headed to the emergency room. Soon, the sister and boyfriend
were also suffering with typical symptoms of mushroom poisoning —
stomach pains, sweating, vomiting and diarrhea. In fact, the guy
passed out and fell onto the ER floor.

When all three were suffering at the hospital, Masha and her sister
realized that they had made a horrible mistake, but they lived to
tell the tale.

It must be stressed that the two women are not casual fungi gatherers,
either, illustrating that experienced folks may get themselves in
trouble. No one is immune to making a mistake.

My scare also came with puffballs but proved far less dramatic. After
eating this common mushroom for 12 years, I read in a book that if a
sliced puffball had the tracing of a mushroom on the inside slices
— beware. It’s not a puffball, but rather, an extremely poisonous
species. I didn’t know that tidbit and would have eaten it tracing
or not — probably killing myself.

My lesson?

If I were going to gather mushrooms, I needed to know far more than
what a brief summer had taught me.

For folks like myself not born into mushrooming, I’ve often thought of
joining some group such as The Maine Mycological Association, amateur
and professional fanciers of wild mushrooms and other fungi. MMA
formed in 1985. The Web site is
and the e-mail is: [email protected].

It was either go that route or enroll in a course at a community
college or night class at a high school.

If someone is going to pick mushrooms, this fall would be the time
to sign up somewhere because this is a grand year for picking.

Ken Allen, of Belgrade Lakes, is a writer, editor and photographer.

USING GEORGIA TO TARGET RUSSIA
by Stephen Lendman

OpEdNews
August 13, 2008 at 05:19:35
PA

After the Soviet Union’s 1991 dissolution, Georgia’s South Ossetia
province broke away and declared its independence. So far it
remains undiplomatically recognized by UN member states. It’s been
traditionally allied with Russia and wishes to reunite with Northern
Ossetes in the North Ossetia-Alania Russian republic. Nothing so far
is in prospect, but Russia appears receptive to the idea. And for
Abkhazia as well, Georgia’s other breakaway province. The conflict
also has implications for Transdniestria, the small independent
Russian-majority part of Moldova bordering Ukraine, and for
Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.

Tensions arose and conflict broke out in late 1991. It resulted in
a 1992 ceasefire to avoid a major confrontation with Russia, but
things remained unsettled. Moscow maintains a military presence in
the province as well as in Abkhazia and exerts considerable political
and economic influence. Throughout the 1990s, intermittent conflict
erupted but nothing on the order of early August 7 when Georgia acted
with aggression against the S. Ossetian capital, Tskninvali.

Russiatoday.com reported the early timeline:

— at 22:50 GMT, Tskhinvali reported heavy shelling;

— 22:00 GMT – TASS news agency reported intensive Georgian firing
on the capital’s residential areas;

— 21:27 GMT – Russia’s Vesti television reported that S. Ossetia’s
military downed a Georgian attack plane;

— 21:25 GMT – Georgia announced plans to withdraw half its Iraq
forces because of the conflict;

— 21:22 GMT – S. Ossetia claimed to be in control of Tskhinvali,
but Georgian forces attempted to retake the city;

— 20:36 GMT – The UN Security Council began closed-door discussions
on the conflict – initiated by Georgia and the second in 24 hours;

— 20:25 GMT – Georgia asked the US to pressure Russia to "stop (its)
armed aggression;"

— 19:08 GMT – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said "Russia is
taking adequate military and political measures" to end the violence;

— 18:56 GMT – S. Ossetia’s government said it controls Tskhinvali,
but fighting in one city district continued;

— 17:35 GMT – Georgian President Saakashvili claimed that Georgia
controlled Tskhinvali and most S. Ossetian villages and regions;

— 17:20 GMT – S. Ossetian leader Kokoity asked the world community to
stop Georgia’s "genocide" and recognize the territory’s independence;
he claimed 1400 deaths in the fighting;

— 16:46 GMT – thousands of S. Osettians fled the fighting;

— 16:14 GMT – Russia’s Air Force denied bombing a Georgian military
base;

— 14:23 GMT – reports from Tskhinvali indicated mass fires in
the city;

— 13:25 GMT – Russia’s Defence Ministry accused Georgian troops of
shooting peacekeepers and civilians and denying them medical help;

— 13:16 GMT – Saakashvili accused Russia of waging war and asked
for US support;

— 12:55 GMT – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov accused Georgia of
ethnic cleansing Ossetian villages;

— 12:04 GMT – Russia’s Defence Ministry said it sent peacekeeping
reinforcements to S. Ossetia;

— 11:25 GMT – reports indicated that Tskhinvali was completely
destroyed;

— 10:33 GMT – Georgia announced a three-hour ceasefire to let
civilians evacuate the conflict zone;

— 9:36 GMT – Russia’s Parliament cited Georgia’s aggression as a
"serious reason" to recognize S. Ossetian independence;

— 8:18 GMT – firefights spread to Tskhinvali streets;

— 6:51 GMT – the UN Security Council failed to approve a
Russia-sponsored ceasefire call; fighting intensified;

— 5:01 GMT – S. Ossetia sought Russian protection and help to stop
the fighting; and

— 4:13 GMT – Georgian troops resumed attacking Tskhinvali in a
continued act of aggression; things remained unsettled; fighting
continued and at times with ferocity.

On August 8, The New York Times reported that Georgia officials
"accused Russia (on August 5) of violating the country’s airspace
and firing a guided missile…." Russia denied the charge, called
it baseless, and said no Russian planes were in the area either
August 4 or 5th. Georgia, on the other hand, said they were as a
"provocation aimed only" to disrupt Georgia’s peace and "change the
political course of the country."

Earlier in March, Georgia accused Russia of launching missile
attacks on Georgian villages in the volatile Kodori Gorge. Relations
deteriorated markedly last year after Georgia arrested and deported
four Russian Army officers, accusing them of spying. Moscow recalled
its ambassador, cut air, sea and postal links, and deported several
thousand Georgians in response. These events and others led up to
the present conflict with considerable suspicions about what’s behind
them. The New York Times reported (August 10) that conflict had been
brewing for years but suggested Russia is at fault:

— emboldened by its Checknya successes;

— the Kremlin’s loathing of President Saakashvili – personally
and politically;

— tensions over Washington’s ties with him – providing political,
economic and especially military support, including a total overhaul
of its forces complete with large stockpiles state-of-the-art weapons
and munitions as well as training to use them;

— Saakashvili’s alliance with the Bush administration in Iraq; and

— President Putin granting citizenship and passports to most
S. Ossetian and Abkhazian adults.

Unmentioned by The Times are:

— reasons behind the growing tensions between Washington and Moscow;

— the Bush administration’s unilateral abandonment of the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM);

— its continued provocations around the world, including in areas
sensitive to Russia;

— its massive military buildup;

— its advocacy for preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars with
first-strike nuclear weapons;

— NATO’s role in serving America’s imperial interests;

— enlarging it with new member states, including former Soviet
republics;

— encircling Russia with US military bases;

— situating them in former Soviet republics and regional states;

— the strategic importance of Georgia for the Anglo-American Caspian
oil pipeline; its extension from Baku, Azerbaijan (on the Caspian)
through Georgia (well south of S. Ossetia), bypassing Russia and
Iran, and across Turkey to its port city of Ceyhan – the so-called
BTC pipeline for around one million barrels of oil daily, adjacent to
the South Causasus (gas) Pipeline with a capacity of about 16 billion
cubic meters annually;

— the regional stakes involved: Washington and Russia vying to
control Eurasia’s vast oil and gas reserves;

— Israel’s role in the region; its interest in the BTC pipline;
its negotiations with Georgia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan
to have it reach its Ashkelon oil terminal and Red Sea Eilat port;
its selling Georgia state-of-the-art weapons, electronic warfare
systems and intelligence; its use of military advisors to train
Georgian forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery tactics
as well as instruction on military intelligence and security;

— its refusal to freeze its Georgian military alliance; the dubious
reliability of Haaretz citing an AP August 7 report that "Israel has
decided to halt all sales of military equipment to Georgia because of
(Russia’s) objections….to give Israel leverage with Moscow….not
to ship arms and equipment to Iran" such as sophisticated S-300 air
defense missiles; the Israeli Foreign Ministry refusing comment on an
arms freeze and Georgian Cabinet minister Temur Yakobashvili saying
"There has been no decision by Israel to stop selling (us) weapons;"

— believe it, and here’s what Haaretz says Israel supplies: high-tech
infantry weapons, artillery systems electronics, and upgrades for
Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets as well as Israeli generals
advising Georgia’s military; Israel also sells Hermes 450 UAV spy
drones according to Russiatoday.com; according to some sources, it’s
a virtual gold mine for Israeli defense contractors, but Haaretz
reports it’s much less at around $200 million a year – well below
American and French sales;

— on August 10, the Israeli ynetnews.com highlighted "The Israeli
Connection" and reported "Israeli companies have been helping (the)
Georgian army (prepare) for war against Russia through arms deals,
training of infantry and security advice;" it was helped by Georgian
citizens "who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople,"
and the fact that Georgia’s Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili,
"is a former Israeli fluent in Hebrew (whose) door was always open
to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms;" deals went
through "fast" and included "remote-piloted (Elbit System) vehicles
(RPVs), automatic turrets for armed vehicles, antiaircraft systems,
communications systems, shells and rockets;"

— Russia’s anger over Georgia and Ukraine seeking NATO membership
and Washington’s pressuring other members to admit them;

– the planned installation of "missile defense" radar in the region
– in Poland, Czechoslovakia and potentially other sensitive areas,
all targeting Russia, China, and Iran;

— its provoking Russia to retarget nuclear missiles at planned
"radar" locations; and

— targeting Russia for dissolution (as the US’s main world rival),
diffuse its power, control Eurasia, including the country’s immense
resources on the world’s by far largest land mass.

The New Great Game

What’s at stake is what former National Security advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski described in his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard." He
called Eurasia the "center of world power extending from Germany
and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and
including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent." He continued:
"The most immediate (US) task is to make certain that no state or
combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States
from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration
role." Dominating that part of the world and its vast energy and other
resources is Washington’s goal with NATO and Israel its principal
tools to do it:

— in the Middle East with its two-thirds of the world’s proved oil
reserves (about 675 billion barrels); and

— the Caspian basin with an estimated 270 billion barrels of oil
plus one-eighth of the world’s natural gas reserves.

"New World Order" strategy aims to secure them. Russia, China, and
Iran have other plans. India allies with both sides. Former Warsaw
Pact and Soviet republics split this way:

— NATO members include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland,
Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania;

— Georgia and Ukraine seek membership; while

— Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazahkstan, Moldova, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgystan ally with Russia.

Georgia now occupies center stage, so first some background about a
nation Michel Chossudovsky calls "an outpost of US and NATO forces"
located strategically on Russia’s border "within proximity of the
Middle East Central Asian war theater." Breakaway S. Ossetia and
Abkhazia, though small in size, are very much players in what’s
unfolding with potential to have it develop into something much bigger
than a short-lived regional conflict.

In 2003 with considerable CIA help, Georgia’s President Saskashvili
came to power in the so-called bloodless "Rose Revolution." Georgia
held parliamentary elections on November 2. International observers
called them unfair. Sackashvili claimed he won. He and the united
opposition called for protests and civil disobedience. They began
in mid-November in the capital Tbilisi, then spread throughout the
country. They peaked on November 22, the scheduled opening day for
parliament. Instead, Saakashvili-led supporters placed "roses" in
the barrels of soldiers’ rifles, seized the parliament building,
interrupted President Eduard Shevardnadze’s speech, and forced him
to escape for his safety.

Saakashvili declared a state of emergency, mobilized troops
and police, met with Shevardnadze and Zurab Zhvania (the former
parliament speaker and choice for new prime minister), and apparently
convinced the Georgian president to resign. Celebrations erupted. A
temporary president was installed. Georgia’s Supreme Court annulled
the elections, and on January 4, 2004, Saakashvili was elected and
inaugurated president on January 25. New parliamentary elections were
held on March 28. Saakashvili’s supporters used heavy-handed tactics
to gain full control, but behind the scenes Washington is fully in
charge. It pulls the strings on its new man in Georgia and stepped
up tensions with Russia for control of the strategically important
southern Causasus region.

On January 5, 2008, Saakashvili won reelection for a second term in a
process his opponents called rigged. Given how he first gained power
and the CIA’s role in it, those accusations have considerable merit.

After the outbreak of the current crisis, Russia’s NATO envoy, Dmitry
Rogozin, accused the Alliance of "encourag(ing) Georgia to attack
S. Ossetia and called it "an undisguised aggression accompanied by
a mass propaganda war." Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov,
called attention to Georgia’s "massive arms purchasing….during
several years" and its use of "foreign specialists" to train "Georgian
special troops."

In his August 10 article titled – "War in the Causasus: Towards a
Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?" – Chossudovsky notes how
"attacks were timed to coincide with the Olympics largely with a view
to avoiding frontpage media coverage" and to let saturation Beijing
reports serve as distraction.

Now after days of fighting, headlines cite 2000 or more deaths
(largely civilians), huge amounts of destruction, Tskhinvali in
ruins, and many thousands of refugees seeking safe havens. Accounts of
Georgian atrocities have also surfaced, and according to Chossudovsky
they’re part of a planned "humanitarian disaster (against civilian
targets) rather than (an impossible to achieve) military victory"
against a nation as powerful as Russia. Had Georgia sought control,
a far different operation would have unfolded "with Special Forces
occupying key public buildings, communications networks and provincial
institutions."

So why did this happen, and what can Washington hope to gain when
it’s bogged down in two wars, threatening another against Iran,
and thoroughly in disrepute as a result? It’s part of a broader
"Great Game" strategy pitting the world’s two great powers against
each other for control of this vital part of the world.

Bush administration plans may come down to this – portray Russia
as another Serbia, isolate the country, and equate Putin and/or
Medvedev with Milosevic and hope for all the political advantage it
can gain. "The war on Southern Ossetia," according to Chossudovsky,
"was not meant to be won, leading to the restoration of Georgian
sovereignty over (the province). It was intended to destabilize the
region while triggering a US-NATO confrontation with Russia."

Georgia is its proxy. Its attack on S. Ossetia is a made-in-Washington
operation. But not according to George Bush (on August 10) who
"strongly condemned (Russia’s) disproportionate response," and Dick
Cheney (on the same day) saying its military "aggression must not go
unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences
for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader
international community." An EU statement agreed. It expressed its
"commitment to the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of
Georgia" and pretty much accused Russia of aggression.

Russia’s response and capabilities are unsurprising. It counterattacked
in force, battered Georgian troops, inflicted damage at will,
reportedly overran the Gori military base in Senaki, moved south into
Georgia proper, and largely attacked military targets with great
effect. It also wants an emergency meeting with NATO and issued
an ultimatum for Georgian troops to disarm in the Zugdidi District
along the Abkhazia – Georgia border. For its part, Georgian officials
said Russia’s "wide-scale assault (is) aimed at overthrowing the
government."

On August 10, the London Guardian reported that the Caucasus conflict
"spread to Georgia’s second breakaway province of Abkhazia, where
separatist rebels and the Russian air force launched an all-out
attack on Georgian forces." Abkhazia’s leader, Sergei Bagapsh, said
"around 1000 Abkhaz troops" engaged in a major "military operation"
to force Georgian forces out of the strategic Kodori gorge. Russian
army spokesman, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told Interfax: "We do not intend
to take the initiative in escalating the conflict in this region. We
are primarily interested in" stabilizing Abkhazia.

On August 12, AP reported that "Russian President Dmitri Medvedev
ordered a halt to military action in Georgia (today), saying it had
punished (the country) and brought security for civilians and Russian
peacekeepers." Nonetheless, reports are that fighting continues,
and Medvedev ordered his military to quell "any emerging hotbeds of
resistance or any aggressive actions…." Foreign Minister Lavrov
added that Moscow won’t talk to Saakashvili and said he’d "better go."

The latest AP August 13 report is that Georgian officials claim Russian
tanks "seized a (Georgian) military base (and) also held onto ground
in western Georgia, maintaining control of the town of Zugdidi." For
its part, "Russia accused Georgia of killing more than 2000 people,
mostly civilians, in South Ossetia." Witnesses confirmed that hundreds
had died there, and expectations are that the death toll will rise
"because large areas of Georgia (are) too dangerous for journalists
to enter (to assess) the true scope of the damage."

On the Attack – The Corporate Media React

Despite the Olympic distraction, the dominant media jumped on this
story and are unsurprisingly one-sided in their reports. On August
11, a New York Times editorial headlined "Russia’s War of Ambition"
in which it lamented that Saakashvili "foolishly and tragically baited
the Russians – or even more foolishly fell into Moscow’s trap…." It
accused the Kremlin of "bull(ying) and blackmail(ing) its neighbors
and its own people." It stated "There is no imaginable excuse for
(invading) Georgia" and defended "Saakashvili’s ‘democratically
elected’ government."

It accused Vladimir Putin of "shoulder(ing) aside (Medvedev) to
run the war (and) appears determined to reimpose by force and
intimidation as much of the old Soviet sphere of influence as
he can get away with." The US and its European allies "must tell
Mr. Putin in the clearest possible terms that such aggression will
not be tolerated." They’ll also "need to take a hard look at their
relationship with Russia going forward….Russia needs to behave
responsibly. And the United States and Europe must make clear that
anything less is unacceptable."

The Los Angeles Times’ op-ed writer Max Boot (noted for his hard-right
views) was just as one-sided in referring to the "Red Army" and saying
the West must "Stand up to Russia." It must protect Saakhashvili
and prevent Moscow from "replac(ing) him with a pro-Kremlin
stooge." Its leaders must "stand together and make clear that this
aggression will not stand." He called Russia’s "excuses" for its
"aggression….particularly creepy" and said they mirrored Hitler’s
when he "swallow(ed) Czechoslovakia and Poland." He added that "the
lesson" of the 1930s must be heeded because the "cost of inaction"
is too high.

David Clark in the London Guardian was also hostile in his op-ed
headlined "The west can no longer stand idle while the Russian bully
wreaks havoc." He described "Russian policy (as) uniquely destructive
in generating instability and political division in the Caucasus"
and excused Saakhashvili for his actions. He referred to "Georgia’s
role in maintaining the only east-west pipeline route free of Russia’s
monopolistic grip…." He called Georgia’s security concerns "real,
and Russia is the cause." David Clark is a former government adviser
and now chairman of the pro-West Russia Foundation.

The Wall Street covers this story daily in news reports and
commentaries. On August 11, it gave Saakashvili a half page for his
op-ed headlined "The War in Georgia Is a War for the West," and he
didn’t mince words. He accused Russia of "waging (all-out) war on my
country (that’s) not of Georgia’s making (nor its) choice. The Kremlin
designed this war….(it’s) a war about (Georgia’s) independence and
future (and) about the future of freedom in Europe."

On August 12, writers Gary Schmitt and Mauro De Lorenzo headlined "How
the West Can Stand up to Russia," and they were just as hostile. They
accused Moscow of "cutthroat politics….at home and abroad" and
asked "What can the West do?" First they urge "rush(ing) military and
medical supplies to Tbilisi (and) Washington should lead." It should
then tell Moscow that the West has a "greater capacity to sustain a
new Cold War (and aim) to put Mr. Putin and Dmitry Medvedev on their
back foot diplomatically."

Then on to the larger issue of "break(ing) Russia’s "stranglehold on
Europe’s energy supplies" and one other thing – building a "strong,
prosperous and fully independent Georgia (heading for) NATO and EU
membership" allied against Russia.

The Journal’s same day editorial headlined "Vladimir Bonaparte"
after one day earlier accusing Moscow of "Kremlin (business) Capers"
and admonishing investors against "putting money into Russia." On the
12th, it warned that "Georgia is only the first stop for Eurasia’s new
imperialist." It referred to Putin "consolidat(ing) his authoritarian
transition as Prime Minister with a figurehead president….Ukraine is
in his sights, and even the Balkan states could be threatened if he’s
allowed to get away with it. The West needs to draw a line at Georgia."

It called on NATO to "respond forcefully….start today (and said)
this is perhaps the last chance for President Bush to salvage any
kind of positive legacy toward Russia (by) rally(ing) the West’s
response." Putin seeks to "dominat(e)….the world stage. Unless
Russians see that there are costs for their Napoleon’s expansionism,
Georgia isn’t likely to be his last stop."

Welcome to the new Cold War and new Great Game, what a new
administration will inherit next year, and the very worrisome thought
that it will handle things no better than the current one no matter
who’s elected or which party controls Congress.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research
on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
[email protected].

ARMENIAN PRIME MINISTER: ARMENIA WILL DISCUSS AN OPPORTUNITY OF GIVING HUMANITARIAN AID TO THOSE WHO SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE ARMED CONFLICT IN SOUTH OSSETIA

arminfo
2008-08-13 16:29:00

ArmInfo. Armenia will discuss an opportunity of giving humanitarian
aid to those who suffered as a result of the armed conflict in South
Ossetia, Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisyan told journalists
today.

‘We are going to discuss this issue. At present big number of
humanitarian aid arrives in South Ossetia, for this reason we should
clear out what they need most of all’, – Armenian prime minister said.

To recall, yesterday Armenian Transport and communication Minister
Gurgen Sarkisyan said that Armenia gave a corridor for delivery of
humanitarian aid of European Union in the conflict zone.

STAR IS READY TO TAKE PART IN GOVERNMENT’S TAX REFORMS

arminfo
2008-08-12 20:29:00

ArmInfo. The leading super-market network of Armenia, STAR, is ready
to take part in the tax reforms that are currently being implemented
by the Armenian Government and to offer its knowledge and experience
of applying high-quality and effective echnological solutions,
Vahan Kerobyan, the executive Director of STAR, said during a
press-conference today.

"These reforms are crucial for our economy. Our discussions with
foreign investors and local businessmen have shown that transparent
economy is the key component of our prosperity and competitiveness,"
Kerobyan said.

Today, it is important to develop the sectors that provide
technological support for the economy. Our tax legislation must
but is not reacting to the global tendencies for application of
modern information technologies in retail trade. This is seriously
complicating the work of local supermarkets.

"None of the 100 types of cash and sales check systems registered by
the Tax Service of Armenia suits a modern super-market as they can
carry out several dozens rather than several thousands transactions
a day and can be used in small shops only," Kerobyan said. He noted
that local IT companies were unable to design software for issuing
sales checks in Armenian. "Meanwhile, our super-markets apply the
best technological solutions in the world," Kerobyan said.

He advised the Government and the Tax Service of Armenia to cooperate
with retail companies and to consider their recommendations on how
to improve the reform rather than just impose it on them. "We have
repeatedly asked the authorities to legalize the best international
technologies we apply in our super-markets: they minimize human factor
and would make tax administration much easier. However, the Tax Service
refuses to accept them," Kerobyan said. He pointed out that cooperation
between the Government and businessmen would enhance the transparency
of retail trade and would stimulate the growth of direct investments.

To remind, one of the shareholders of STAR super-market network,
established in 1998, is the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (28.3% stake), The STAR network consists of 11
super-markets: 10 in Yerevan and 1 in Hrazdan.

BRITONS FLEE RED ARMY’S BATTLE ZONE

UK Express
Wednesday August 13,2008
UK

Georgian children carrying bundles of family possessions flee the
city of Gori – Photo

By Mark Reynolds in London and Will Stewart in Moscow Have your say(0)
A TERRIFIED group of British tourists found themselves directly in
the path of the advancing Russian army, it emerged yesterday.

As Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called a halt to military action,
it was revealed how the Britons, on a walking holiday in Georgia,
had to flee for their lives from the Red Army.

The 11 men and women, aged between 31 and 59, were finishing a 10-day
mountain trip on Saturday and were completely oblivious to the outbreak
of a war that has cost more than 2,000 lives.

As they descended from a mountain, the party suddenly came into mobile
phone contact from people in the city of Kutaisi – and were stunned
to learn the entire Red Army was fast heading their way.

Jonny Bealby, of travel company Wild Frontiers, said: "Sometimes we
have to get people out of tricky situations – but I’ve never had to
deal with a full advancing army before."

One of the group, engineer Ross Bishop, 31, from Preston, Lancs,
told how their phones started ringing as they reached a remote village.

He said: "When we drove towards the border we saw military transport
carrying troops. It’s a new one for me, being on holiday in a war
zone."

They were driven through the mountains in 4x4s and a minibus then
took them to safety in Armenia. Most flew home yesterday.

Mr Bealby said: "The party would not have known much about the war
until they got to Kutaisi. At that stage the fighting wasn’t as
serious as it became. But we knew from our experience of that region
that the city of Gori was a possible target.

ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: "NAGORNO KARABAKH SHOULD TAKE PART IN THE TALKS ON THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION"

Today.Az
11 August 2008
Azerbaijan

Nagorno Karabakh should take an active part in the talks on the
resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict, said Armenian Defense Minister
Seyran Ohanyan in Khankendi.

He said the issues to lay a basis of new talks with the officials and
people of the self-declared "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" may emerge
at the last stage of the negotiations.

As for the recent situation on the contact front line of Nagorno
Karabakh and Azerbaijani troops. Ohanyan noted that "the defense
army" of the separatist "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" fully controls
the situation on the front.

"Tensions arise at some moments, but Nagorno Karabakh "army" is
confident of its powers and is able to resist the enemy", said the
Armenian Defense minister.

During the visit to Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenian Defense Minister
met with the "president" of the self-declared "NKR" Bako Saakyan, the
staff of the "defense army" of Nagorno Karabakh and visited the border.

MARCHING INTO GEORGIA
By Nat Parry

Consortium News

A ug 8 2008

Six years ago, just six months after the 9/11 attacks as George
W. Bush’s "war on terror" was still taking shape, we ran the following
article about Bush’s decision to send U.S. troops into the nation of
Georgia, supposedly to help hunt down Islamic terrorists hiding in
the rugged Pankisi Gorge.

Much has changed since – Russian President Vladimir Putin and Georgian
President Eduard Schevardnadze have been replaced and Bush refocused
his attention on invading and occupying Iraq – but in light of the
flare-up of border hostilities between Russia and Georgia, we are
republishing the article with its valuable background:

George W. Bush’s decision to dispatch about 150 U.S. troops to
the former Soviet republic of Georgia highlights the complexities
and dangers that his global war on terrorism will confront — and
possibly cause.

Share this article Bookmark Digg

Email Printer friendly

The Bush administration justifies the intervention as a strike against
alleged al-Qaeda fighters who supposedly have blended among Chechen
rebels hiding out in Georgia’s remote Pankisi Gorge in the Caucasus
Mountains.

Thousands of Chechens are holed up in the rugged terrain after
fleeing Russia’s brutal counterinsurgency war in the neighboring
Russian province of Chechnya. Most likely, among the refugees, are
fighters who launch attacks into Russia.

As militarily daunting as it will be for the U.S. troops and their
Georgian allies to locate, separate out and eliminate the alleged
al-Qaeda terrorists, the geopolitical challenge might be even trickier.

Two governments – Georgia and Russia – are facing off against each
other over the region’s nationalist claims and counterclaims dating
back centuries. Both simultaneously are confronting restive ethnic
groups operating inside their own countries.

Follow this scenario for a moment: the Russian government of Vladimir
Putin has criticized the Georgian government of Eduard Schevardnadze
for giving safe haven to the Chechen rebels. Meanwhile, Schevardnadze’s
Georgian government has blamed Putin’s Russia for aiding and abetting
separatists from the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia.

While rebels in Chechnya want to break away from Russia,
rebels in Abkhazia and South Ossetia want to break away from
Georgia. Complicating matters further, the Chechen civil war has
been the scene of widespread human rights abuses on both sides,
while the Georgian region of Abkhazia has had its own ugly scenes of
ethnic cleansing.

A ‘Crusade’

Into this maelstrom of regional and ethnic warfare now steps George
W. Bush and his "crusade" to "rid the world of evil." The Bush
administration wants U.S. troops to assist Georgian soldiers in
hunting down and killing al-Qaeda fighters holed up in Georgia’s
lawless Pankisi Gorge.

This operation was initiated with almost no consultation with leaders
of the U.S. Congress or with key international players who have been
working to resolve the chronic civil wars in the Caucasus territory.

The Bush administration also has offered little detail about the
hazy accusations that the al-Qaeda operatives, who are allegedly
among the Chechen fighters, have links to the Sept. 11 attacks or
represent a terrorist movement with "global reach" – the new catch-all
justification for U.S. military interventions anywhere in the world,
from Yemen to the Philippines to Colombia.

Bush committed the troops to Georgia with little or no explanation
to the Russian Federation, the United Nations and the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe. All three have been active
for years addressing Georgia’s separatist struggles.

Though Putin announced belatedly that he did not object to the
U.S. intervention, Russian military officials have warned that the
presence of U.S. troops so close to Russia’s southern border is
a provocation.

Many in Russia see the U.S. intervention in Georgia and the placement
of four permanent military bases in former Soviet Central Asian
states as encroachments on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence,
comparable to Russia sending troops to intervene in a civil war
in Mexico.

The lack of consultation was particularly galling for Moscow because
Russia has long suspected that Georgia was collaborating with the
Chechens, letting them use the Pankisi Gorge to mount assaults on
Russian forces in Chechnya in exchange for the Chechens helping the
Georgians battle pro-Russian separatists in Abkhazia, in Georgia’s
northwest corner.

Oil Motive

Some observers also see U.S. motives that go beyond exacting
retribution for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.

Bush is seen as wanting to pacify the territory around the oil-rich
Caspian Sea basin so pipelines can be laid to extract an estimated
$5 trillion in oil and natural gas to the West. One possible route
for a pipeline would be through Georgia, bypassing Russian territory.

Beyond the long-term risk of antagonizing and destabilizing
nuclear-armed Russia, Bush’s move places American troops in the
morally ambiguous spot of picking out "evil-doers" in the midst of
a murky civil war where there is plenty of guilt to go around.

European leaders, in particular, have questioned the wisdom of
Bush’s unilateralism. To effectively combat terrorism, they argue,
multinational cooperation is needed.

"You can’t deal with the dark side of globalization – the terrorism,
the financing of terrorism, the crime, the drugs, the trafficking
of human beings, the relationship between environmental degradation
and poverty and security," said Chris Patten, the European Union’s
external affairs commissioner, "unless you deal with them as a result
of multilateral engagement."

Historical Tensions

Yet, the risks of U.S. unilateralism are especially striking in
Georgia because of its complex history of regional tensions dating
back centuries.

Georgia has historically been at odds with Russia, which has used
its might to dominate the small republic for centuries. In the
early 1800s, the Russian Empire gradually annexed Georgia’s entire
territory. Eastern Georgia became part of the Russian Empire in
1801, and western Georgia was incorporated in 1804. In the second
half of the 19th Century, "Russification" of Georgia intensified,
as did Georgian rebellions.

With the collapse of the Russian Empire in October 1917, Georgia formed
a short-lived government with the neighboring states of Armenia and
Azerbaijan. When that dissolved in May 1918, Georgia declared its
independence.

For almost three years, Georgia’s moderate social democratic
government survived the revolutionary fervor sweeping the old Russian
Empire. Then, in February 1921, the Red Army invaded, making Georgia
part of the Transcaucasian Federal Soviet Socialist Republic.

Georgia remained part of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991,
when Georgia declared its independence and sought closer ties to
the West.

Georgian-Russian relations grew tense in fall 1993, when Russia coerced
Georgia into joining the Russia-dominated Commonwealth of Independent
States in exchange for Russian military help in quashing a comeback
by the ousted Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia.

Since then, there have been flashes of hostility between Georgia
and Russia, including Russian threats to invade its tiny neighbor
to the south. Despite that history, Georgia has grudgingly accepted
Russian assistance as a political mediator between Georgia and its
separatist insurgents.

Russian Bias

Georgia tolerated Russian assistance as a facilitator for negotiations
and its military presence as peacekeepers. But many Georgians feel the
Russians have undercut Georgia and tacitly supported the sovereignty of
Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions, along the Russian border.

These two regions have declared independence and have their own
governments, although they are not recognized by the international
community, which holds that the conflicts must be settled within the
framework of a united Georgia.

There is some evidence behind Georgia’s suspicions. For instance,
Russia backed away from a commitment by the Commonwealth of Independent
States to allow citizens from member states to travel without visas.

Russia imposed a visa requirement for citizens of Georgia who wished
to enter Russia, while not requiring visas for residents of Georgia’s
two unrecognized separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The move gave implicit legitimacy to their claims of independence
and prompted a rebuke from the U.S. State Department, which said the
Russian action "runs directly counter to [Russia’s] stated policy of
support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity."

The issue of Russian peacekeepers in Georgia also has been a source
of friction between Moscow and Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia.

A Russian force of peacekeepers was dispatched under the authority
of the Commonwealth of Independent States to prevent another outbreak
of civil war in Georgia and to protect the Abkhazian population from
Georgian incursions.

But many Georgians feel the peacekeepers have favored the separatists,
while doing little to protect the 300,000 ethnic Georgians who fled
or were expelled from Abkhazia and South Ossetia eight years ago.

Chechen ‘Terrorists’

The peacekeeping issue between Georgia and Russia has been complicated
by Russia’s accusations that Georgia is "harboring terrorists" from
Chechnya. Russia also alleged that the Chechens fight with Georgian
guerrilla formations against the Abkhaz separatists.

Georgia responded that any Chechens in Georgia were refugees who
fled the Russian military occupation of Chechnya. Georgia invited the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in December 1999
to send monitors to watch the border between Georgia and Chechnya.

Soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Moscow began accusing
Tbilisi of a double standard. While offering Washington assistance in
the U.S. war on terrorism, Georgia refused to cooperate with Moscow
over the Chechen rebels, or even to acknowledge their presence on
Georgian territory.

Russian politicians began threatening to send Russian troops into
Georgia to capture or kill Chechen "terrorists."

In late September 2001, some Georgian deputies confirmed that there
were Chechen fighters in Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge. But Georgia continued
to snub Russian requests to coordinate military efforts to root out
the Chechens.

"Georgia will not allow any foreign state to use its territory for
military operations," said a Georgian Foreign Ministry official about
Russia’s pressure.

More Resources

Meanwhile, President Shevardnadze began assuring Georgia’s displaced
persons that they would be returning to their homes in Abkhazia
"very soon" because, Shevardnadze said, "we have more resources now
and more international support."

The resources and support could have been an allusion to the military
aid and training that Georgia was beginning to get from NATO and the
United States, including 10 fighter helicopters in October 2001. It
also could have been a reference to the upcoming deployment of
U.S. troops.

The Georgians also took a tougher line on the presence of Russian
peacekeepers, an issue that came to a head in October 2001 as new
violence broke out in Georgia.

Some Georgians suspected the trouble was partly instigated by the
Russian peacekeepers, whose departure was demanded by the Georgian
parliament and Shevardnadze. The peacekeepers have "proved incapable
to fulfill the obligations and keep the peace in the region," the
Georgian president said.

In an Oct. 11, 2001, resolution, the parliament said the Russian
peacekeepers "are not the facilitators of the conflict settlement
but rather its instigators."

The parliament added that "after deployment of Russian peacekeepers
… ethnic cleansing of Georgians has not been stopped. It is confirmed
that during this period more than 1,700 persons were killed in the
security zone, [and that the] peacekeeping forces committed numerous
crimes against the peaceful population."

The parliament asked the UN, the OSCE and "friendly countries [to]
deploy international peacekeeping forces in [the] conflict zone in
order to substitute [for the] peacekeeping forces of the Russian
Federation."

But "friendly countries" showed no eagerness to assume the burden of
peacekeeping in Georgia. Eventually, Tbilisi rethought its stance,
and decided to let the Russians stay, with a more limited mandate.

Also in October 2001 came reports that Russia was bombing
the Pankisi Gorge in apparent attempts to kill Chechen fighters
hiding out there. Russia denied that they were bombing Georgia, but
eyewitnesses said the planes came from Russian territory. The OSCE,
which monitors the border, confirmed that there were unidentified
jets coming from Russia.

These incidents made Georgian-Russian relations even worse. The
Georgian government vowed to shoot down any unidentified planes over
its territory.

Changed Attitudes

Considering that Georgia had long denied the presence of Chechen
rebels on its territory, it seems possible that Georgia made the
admission to avert a Russian invasion. Georgia also might have seen
an opportunity to gain the support of the United States, which was
looking for allies in its global war on terrorism.

It’s possible, too, that Georgia hopes to use the U.S. military
assistance to subdue Abkhazia, expel the de facto government in
Abkhazia’s capital, and return the 300,000 Georgian displaced persons
to the area.

Some international observers fear the Bush administration is being
lured into a regional conflict under the guise of chasing al-Qaeda
operatives, a pursuit that could complicate multilateral efforts for
a political settlement to Georgia’s separatist disputes.

These negotiations have been stalemated for a long time, but there have
been renewed efforts by the international community in recent months to
get the opposing sides back to the bargaining table. U.S. intervention
now may fuel Russian fears of a Georgian invasion of Abkhazia.

"We think it could further aggravate the situation in the region,
which is difficult as it is," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor
Ivanov on Feb. 27, 2002.

Abkhazian separatist leaders already are signaling that they may seek
closer relations with Russia, while Russian officials have indicated
they might be forced to recognize the independence of Abkhazia.

The new developments seem certain to alter the balance of power in the
Caucasus region. Only a year ago, Georgian officials were assuring
Moscow that they were not seeking membership in NATO, but now they
want to join the U.S.-dominated military alliance as early as 2005
and are hosting American troops close to Russia’s border.

Despite widespread concerns in Moscow, Putin said he supports the
American intervention because Russia’s greatest concern is eliminating
the Chechen terrorist threat.

Hidden Objectives?

But if the real U.S. aim is to combat the al-Qaeda terrorists allegedly
hiding among the Chechens in Pankisi Gorge, it is puzzling why the
Bush administration left Moscow so much in the dark.

While some observers speculate that there may have been very high-level
consultations, official Moscow clearly was caught off-guard by the
U.S. announcement. "There have been no preliminary consultations with
Moscow," said the mass-circulation Komsomolskaya Pravda.

The reason for the secrecy may have more to do with ulterior American
motives. One of these hidden motives may be to establish a base
for launching attacks on Iraq, if Bush acts on his warning to oust
Saddam Hussein.

Bush also has demonstrated a deep interest in the oil and natural
gas of the Caspian basin, the world’s largest known deposits of
fossil fuels.

Komsomolskaya Pravda argues that the U.S. actions "are episodes in
a giant battle for controlling the major deposits of Caspian oil and
gas, primarily, for routes to transport the Caspian oil."

Without doubt, Bush and his inner circle have long had their eyes on
the Caspian oil riches.

Former Secretary of State James Baker, who was Bush’s point man for
stopping the Florida recount, represents a consortium of major oil
companies based in Azerbaijan.

After taking office in January 2001, Bush brushed aside calls for
U.S. diplomatic initiatives in Israel and other hot spots. But he
personally became engaged in negotiations to settle a border dispute
between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

These diplomatic initiatives were widely interpreted as part of
Bush’s strategy to arrange new pipeline routes out of the Caspian
basin. Currently, Russian companies control all the routes for
Caspian oil.

Those early diplomatic initiatives predated the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks. Since those attacks, however, the Bush administration has
enjoyed broad public support to take a variety of actions that it
deems justified in bringing those behind the mass murders to justice.

A byproduct of some military actions may be to position U.S. forces
to allow pipeline construction to proceed.

"The U.S. military presence will help ensure that a majority of
oil and gas from the Caspian basin will go westward," observed the
intelligence analysis service STRATFOR.

Russian fears about Bush’s underlying strategy prompted a group of
retired Russian generals to brand Putin a western lackey and a traitor
to Russian interests.

"With your [Putin’s] blessing, the United States has received military
bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and, maybe, Kazakhstan,"
the generals declared in a published broadside. "In the long run,
these bases are for dealing a strike on Russia, not bin Laden."

So far, Putin seems to have kept his active-duty generals in
line. Col. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, first deputy chief of the general
staff, told a news conference that he did not consider U.S. military
trainers in Georgia to be "American troops." [NYT, March 1, 2002]

But Bush’s leap into the turbulence of Central Asia may bring a host
of unintended consequences. The wild terrain of the Pankisi Gorge –
and the hunt for elusive al-Qaeda fighters – may be just the first
of many dangers.

ARMENIAN MINISTER CALLS FOR UNITY AGAINST CHALLENGES

Mediamax News Agency
Aug 8 2008
Armenia

Yerevan, 8 August: Armenian Defence Minister Seyran Ohanyan today said
in Stepanakert [Xankandi] that the exacerbation of the situation in
[Georgia’s separatist] South Ossetia "should consolidate our people".

Answering the question whether the exacerbation of the situation
in South Ossetia can impact on Nagornyy Karabakh, Ohanyan said that
"this should consolidate our people, since only united, we can stand
up to any challenges," Mediamax reported.

Ohanyan also said that "those who try to undermine our unity and
solidarity, should answer to the people".

Commenting on the recent cease-fire regime violations by Azerbaijan,
Ohanyan said that the defence army of the NKR fully controls the
situation in the front-line and is able to solve the tasks set
before it.