Book Review: Whitewashing Western Intervention

BOOK REVIEW: WHITEWASHING WESTERN INTERVENTION
by Dimitri Oram

Swans, CA
Feb 26 2007

Samantha Power’s A Problem from Hell

(Swans – February 26, 2007) Samantha Power, an advocacy journalist,
professor at Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, and leading figure
in the Save Darfur movement, is one of the best examples of a crusader
against genocide who has been involved in denying, condoning, or
trivializing US war crimes. Right out of college, Samantha Power began
her career as an intern with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace under
then President Morton Abramowitz, who had quit the State Department
in order to lobby for military intervention in Bosnia. Having been
told that the situation in Bosnia was "genocide," Power went off to
the former Yugoslavia in 1993 where she worked for several years as
a reporter serving up the familiar (if oversimplified and factually
inaccurate) tale of "genocidal" Serbian aggression against Bosnia. As
she tells it, she and her colleagues questioned "how the United
States and its allies might have responded if the same crimes had
been committed in a different place…against different victims…at a
different time" (p. xv) This prompted her to undertake an investigation
of US responses to previous cases of genocide and write her 2002 book,
A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, a book that
has been widely read and often respectfully reviewed.

The book’s premise is essentially as follows: "We have all been
bystanders to genocide" (xvii), the US government time and again has
failed to exercise its power in order to stop genocide. Power tries
to show over the course of more than 500 pages the US reaction (or
failure to react) to different cases of genocide over the twentieth
century. She begins with the Turkish genocide against the Armenians
during World War I, then moves on to the Holocaust in World War II,
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Iraq’s attacks on the northern Kurds,
Serb atrocities in Bosnia, the Hutu massacres of Tutsi in Rwanda
in 1994, Kosovo and NATO’s "humanitarian" bombing campaign. With
the exception of the Armenian genocide, all the genocides (real and
alleged) to which Power devotes serious attention involve enemies of
the U.S. The genocides in which the U.S. and its client states are
directly implicated (including Vietnam, Iraq after Saddam Hussein
became an enemy, Guatemala, Indonesia, East Timor, El Salvador)
receive only passing mention when discussed at all.

Power’s book has a few good points: She presents an interesting and
sympathetic portrait of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jew who coined
the word genocide and played a leading role in getting the Genocide
Convention passed. (To her credit, she does also reproduce the actual
text of the 1948 Genocide Convention on p. 62-63) She notes that the
US government was late to ratify the Genocide Convention, doing so
only in the late 1980s in order to counter domestic criticism stemming
from the President Reagan’s 1985 visit to the Bitburg cemetery in West
Germany, which included the graves of SS soldiers, and his appalling
equation of SS soldiers with concentration camp victims. Even so,
the ratification only passed with added resolutions that made it
essentially inapplicable to the U.S. Power allows enough challenging
of the official line to appear critical of the U.S. government: She
criticizes US failure to help or save the various victims as well as
US support for the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein’s government during the
1980s, and the US role in pushing for withdrawal of UN peacekeepers in
Rwanda. And, of course, she is critical of the U.S. for its failure
to state that "genocide" was occurring in Bosnia and intervene
even sooner.

This may sound like harsh criticism but, in fact, her complaints only
serve to underscore the evil of our current enemies. The true villains
always lie elsewhere and the real trouble is, as she said about the
alleged failure to confront Yugoslav President Milosevic, that "Western
officials … [were/are] engaged in a wishful thinking, failing to
imagine evil and presuming rational actors." The U.S. and the other
First World countries may have done some not so very nice things
in the past but the basic moral supremacy of the West is presumed;
only its refusal to do more about the crimes of others is questioned.

Our Crimes Don’t Count

In order to make her case that the U.S. is derelict in its duty
to stop genocide Ms. Power presents a warped and decontextualized
version of events, relying largely on the say-so of of various
interventionists and hawkish US officials, omitting key facts and
distorting others. Events are reduced to simple tales of bad leaders
who do bad things and need to be stopped or countered by the U.S. and
its allies. As a result of this the reader is left with a wildly flawed
but typically American view of the designated enemy as "irrational" or
"evil," with war or US intervention as a positive thing or at least
the lesser evil. Most disturbing is Power’s refusal to deal honestly
with the crimes of the United States and hold her government to an
equal level of accountability as the various enemy states she decries.

On those occasions when she does mention US crimes it is usually to
downplay them or use them in background to emphasize the greater crimes
of the enemy. She is critical of US conduct during the war on Vietnam,
which she mentions briefly — "American lives were being lost, American
honor was being soiled AND North Vietnam was winning the war." (p. 91,
Power’s emphasis) — and particularly of the bombing of Cambodia, which
she notes killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed Cambodia’s
economy and "did great damage in its own right." (Curiously she never
mentions Laos.) But she never calls US atrocities in Southeast Asia
genocide, or spends much time on them.

Primarily, she writes about the crimes of the Khmer Rouge and US
inaction.

As with the Western media in general she pays far less attention
to the comparable crime of a Western client state occurring at the
same time as the KR rule over Cambodia. She devotes one misleading
sentence to the US-backed Indonesian invasion of East Timor: "In 1975,
when its ally, the oil-producing, anti-communist Indonesia, invaded
East Timor, killing between 100,000 and 200,000 civilians, the United
States looked away." (pp.146-147) But the U.S. did not simply look
away, it supported Indonesia with large amounts of military aid,
blocked UN action and denied atrocities while the "Free Press" put
East Timor in virtual media blackout. (1)

Similarly, Power manages to give the U.S. a war-crimes-free version
of the 1991 Gulf War: "The U.S. bombing of Baghdad began in January
17, 1991. U.S. ground troops routed Iraqi republican guards soon
thereafter." (p. 237) There are no cluster bombs or depleted uranium
or highways of death in this account. The enormous suffering,
death, and damage caused by UN sanctions pushed through, enforced,
and maintained by the U.S. and Britain for over 12 years is not a
subject of discussion anywhere in Power’s book. For Power, like the
neoconservatives, only the US betrayal of Iraq’s Kurds and Shia is
a problem worth dwelling on. Indeed, Ms. Power even does her bit to
present the deeply suffering Iraq as a post-September 11 threat to
the United States:

States that murder and torment their own citizens target citizens
elsewhere. Their appetites become insatiable. Hitler began by
persecuting his own people and then waged war on the rest of Europe
and, in time, the United States. Saddam Hussein wiped out rural Kurdish
life and then turned on Kuwait, sending his genocidal henchman Ali
Hassan al Majid to govern the newly occupied country.

The United States now has reason to fear that the poisonous potions
Hussein tried out on the Kurds will be used next on Americans. (p.
513) If there is any difference between this passage and the rhetoric
of the Bush administration, one is hard pressed to find it. Indeed,
Power and her favored sources mix liberal human rights appeals with
the cold language of US "interests," both of which are supposedly
served by intervening in other countries one way or another, a road
that leads eventually to "bomb[ing] the fuckers" (Richard Holbrooke)
allegedly to prevent atrocities. Naturally, the bad guys are so bad
they deserve it.

Benevolent Atrocities

Certainly this is the way she portrays the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo,
which take up the greatest part of her book. Following the standard
script, which collapses under any serious scrutiny as Diana Johnstone
has shown in her book Fools’ Crusade, (2) she takes all allegations
against the Serbs at face value: Serbs are always the victimizers,
never the victims. Power does reluctantly acknowledge the post-bombing
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by Albanian extremists (although she ignores
earlier KLA crimes) but attributes it to "revenge" and ignores NATO’s
obligation under international law to protect Kosovo’s Serb, Roma, and
other minority groups. Power actually looks favorably on the largest
ethnic cleansing operation of the Balkan wars, Operation Storm, in
which the Croatian armed forces drove over 200,000 Serbs from the UN
protected areas of Krajina on the eve of a peace agreement: "Croatia’s
success showed that the so-called Serb juggernaut was more of a paper
tiger, a vital piece of news for those who had deferred for years to
alarmist Pentagon warnings of steep US casualties." (p. 438) Ms. Power
does not mention the US support for this operation including training
given to Croatian forces by US private military contractor MPRI or
the US role in blocking a UN resolution condemning the atrocities
then being committed. She hails NATO’s large-scale bombing of the
Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and wholeheartedly supports NATO’s 1999 bombing
campaign against Yugoslavia.

Anyone who was alive at that time and had any access to mainstream
Western media will recognize the cliched, overwrought rhetoric and the
gross apologetics for NATO war crimes: "From his time at the Dayton
peace talks, [NATO general Wesley] Clark was well-acquainted with the
spuriousness of Milosevic’s charm, the prevalence of his lies and
the hardness of his heart" (p. 453); "Given the choice, virtually
every Albanian in Kosovo would have preferred to take his or her
chances with the NATO bombing then business as usual under Milosevic"
(p. 454); "NATO planners were especially sensitive about violations
of international humanitarian law"(p. 457) even though there were
"mistakes" and a number of the targets (i.e., Yugoslavia’s civilian
infrastructure), were "controversial" etc. Walter J. Rockler, a former
Prosecutor at the Nuremburg War crimes trials, whom Samantha Power,
despite her numerous references to the Holocaust and the Nuremburg
Tribunal, never cites, demolishes the NATO PR line:

The attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen act of
international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent
"Polish atrocities" against Germans. The United States has discarded
pretensions to international legality and decency. And embarked
on a course of raw imperialism run amok… In reality, when we the
self-appointed rulers of the planet, issue an ultimatum to another
country it is "surrender or die." To maintain our "credibility" we
must crush any resemblance of resistance to our dictate, to that
country." (3) >>From the US government’s recruitment of leading
Nazi war criminals, to Wesley Clark’s attempt to force a military
showdown with Russian troops, there is a great deal Samantha Power
is not telling us. (4) Given the extensive amount of information
available to those who wish to look, it is not believable that
Ms. Power is unaware of these realities. Her allegedly damning look
at US policy provides cover for a much grimmer reality. Namely, that
the U.S. is itself guilty of acts of genocide and numerous other
horrendous crimes and that US intervention abroad (not US inaction)
has been the cause of enormous suffering and devastation for much
of the world’s population. While numerous writers, researchers, and
activists (including William Blum in his excellent book Killing Hope)
(5) have documented the terrible consequences of US intervention,
Ms. Power is not interested in a similarly full and honest look at
the record. She wants to make a case for further US intervention in
the affairs of other countries and limit examination of the past.

Those interested in a serious reform of US policy and a critical
look at the past would spend time examining the crimes that were
and are undertaken or supported by the U.S. They would not engage in
egregious evasions, accepting all allegations of the enemy’s evil at
face value. A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide is an
attempt to obscure the real problem from hell: Western intervention,
undertaken by the U.S. and its various imperial partners and rivals
along with the current global economic system that have led to
destruction, war, genocide, the continual globalization of poverty
combined with ever widening disparities in wealth and an increase in
nationalism, racism, and religious fundamentalism worldwide.

[I will address Power’s work on Rwanda, which serves primarily to mask
the crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front and its Western backers,
in a separate article.]

If you find our work valuable, please consider helping us financially.

Notes

1. On East Timor see among other sources Noam Chomsky and Edward
Herman, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, South End
Press, 1979, pp. 129-204. (back)

2. Diana Johnstone, Fools’ Crusade, Pluto Press, 2002. See
reviews here:
her e and here:
(back)

3. The Chicago Tribune, May 10, 1999
erg.html (back)

4. Among other sources see Christopher Simpson, The Splendid Blond
Beast (Grove Press, 1993) and Blowback: America’s Recruitment of
Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1988).

On Wesley Clark’s attempt to provoke a confrontation with
Russian troops at Pristina airport, an action vetoed by NATO
General Sir Michael Jackson who stated, "I’m not going to start
World War III for your sake," see The Guardian, August 2, 1999:
,,20 8120,00.html

Clark earned the disapproval of the Pentagon and his dismissal for
this kind of hawkishness rather than Power’s claim that "favoring
humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move." (p.
473) (back)

5. William Blum, Killing Hope, Common Courage Press, 1995. (back)

Internal Resources

Book Reviews

The Balkans and Yugoslavia

About the Author

Dimitri Oram is a writer and researcher based in Western
Massachusetts. He was born and raised in Northampton and graduated from
the University of Massachusetts in 2000. He woke up to the realities
of the US Global Empire back in 1999 during the NATO bombing campaign
against Serbia.

2.html

http://www.swans.com/library/art9/lproy04.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/herman10.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/ga156.html
http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ks21nurnb
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0
http://www.swans.com/library/art13/doram0

U.S. Entrepreneurs Call On George Bush Not To Recognize Armenian Gen

U.S. ENTREPRENEURS CALL ON GEORGE BUSH NOT TO RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
26.02.2007 17:00 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ 100 American leading entrepreneurs including Bill
Gates and Warren Buffett addressed a letter to President Bush calling
on him not to recognize the Armenian Genocide. The letter says,
in part, that recognition of the Armenian Genocide may turn out a
calamity for the United States and trade relations with Turkey will
be damaged badly. Besides, the authors of the letter are convinced
that the Genocide recognition will hamper reconciliation between
Turkey and Armenia, Turkish media reports.

The Armenian Genocide resolution was introduced in the U.S. Congress
in January 2007. Its adoption is quite real due to democratic
majority. It’s worth mentioning that if passed by the Congress,
the resolution cannot be vetoed by the President.

ANKARA: America’s Turkey Problem

AMERICA’S TURKEY PROBLEM
By F. Stephen Larrabbe & Suat KiniklioÐlu

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 26 2007

As America struggles to stabilize Iraq while fighting rages, the last
thing it needs is to become embroiled in a new crisis with Turkey.

But that is where Washington appears headed if Congress passes a
resolution recently introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and
several colleagues in the US House of Representatives accusing Turkey
of committing genocide against Armenians from 1915 to 1918.

Turkey denies claims by Armenians that the Ottoman Empire, Turkey’s
predecessor government, caused the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in
a genocide. The Turkish government contends that far fewer Armenians
died and that Armenians were killed or displaced in civil unrest when
the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Clarifying the events surrounding the tragic deaths of the Armenians
is an important issue and deserves attention. But passage of the
proposed congressional resolution would open a Pandora’s box of new
problems by aggravating US-Turkish relations and seriously impairing
the progress Turkey has made to address the Armenian issue — all while
failing to promote Turkish-Armenian reconciliation that is most needed.

The Bush administration has warned that even congressional debate
of the resolution could damage US-Turkish relations. Even Schiff has
acknowledged that the resolution might harm relations between the two
countries in the short term. The resolution comes at a particularly
sensitive moment in Turkish domestic politics. Turkey is entering
a volatile electoral period, with presidential elections in May and
parliamentary elections in November.

As these elections approach, Turkish politicians will be tempted
to play to the galleries. Consequently, the passage of the genocide
resolution could put the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdoðan under strong domestic pressure to reduce cooperation with
the United States. A new crisis in US-Turkish relations would hurt
America at a time when the two nations are beginning to overcome the
strains caused by the US invasion of Iraq and could undercut President
Bush’s new strategy to stabilize Iraq.

Some 60 percent of all US military equipment destined for Iraq goes
through the territory or airspace of Turkey, a Muslim ally and member
of NATO. If this route to Iraq were restricted or closed entirely,
the ability of the United States to effectively combat the insurgency
and violent militias in Iraq would be impaired. The Erdoðan government
could also come under domestic pressure to restrict US use of the
air base at Incirlik in southern Turkey to re-supply American troops
in Afghanistan.

In the last several years, Turkey has begun to address the Armenian
issue more openly, recently opening up to scholars Ottoman archives
from the period. Erdoðan offered in 2005 to set up an international
commission of historians to examine the Armenian issue and deliver its
findings to the world community. In addition, motivated by Turkey’s
negotiations to join the European Union, a lively internal debate has
begun within Turkish society. In March 2006, a major international
conference devoted to the fate of the Armenians was held in Istanbul —
a development unthinkable a few years ago.

Rather than taking steps that will inflame popular opinion in
Turkey and undercut this process of greater openness, Congress and
the White House should work together to press Turkey and Armenia to
take concrete steps to promote bilateral reconciliation and regional
security. In particular, the United States should press Armenia to
make a more vigorous effort to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh border
dispute with neighboring Azerbaijan. At the same time, Turkey should
be encouraged to alter Article 301 of the penal code, a broad law
that restricts free speech and press by making it a crime to insult
Turkish identity. Turkey should also take additional steps to address
the Armenian issue more openly.

These moves could pave the way for an opening of the Turkish-Armenian
border, closed since l993. Both sides would benefit from such a move.

Opening the border would enable Armenia to reduce its current
economic isolation and dependence on Russia and Iran. It would
also open new possibilities for Armenia to participate in regional
economic cooperation and energy initiatives from which it has so far
been excluded. In addition, it would remove an important obstacle in
Turkey’s relations with the European Union.

When it comes to US-Turkish relations as well as Turkish-Armenian
relations, all parties benefit by steps that promote reconciliation
rather than confrontation.

(F. Stephen Larrabee holds the Chair in European Security at the
RAND Corporation, Suat Kýnýklýoglu is head of the Ankara office of
the German Marshall Fund.)

–Boundary_(ID_1DjiDGtm/ZoPZXhwq0z+dA)–

Gandzasar Draws Game with Nebitchi

GANDZASAR DRAWS GAME WITH NEBITCHI

ASHGHABAD, FEBRUARY 23, NOYAN TAPAN. At the International Tournament
of Turkmenbashi’s Cup on February 22 in the capital of Turkmenistan,
Ashghabad, Kapan’s Gandzasar ended the match with Nebitchi in a draw,
with a score of 0 to 0. The Armenian football-players included in the
second subgroup will hold the second match on February 24, with
Kazakhstan’s Ordabas.

Armenian Wrestlers To Participate In An International Tournament

ARMENIAN WRESTLERS TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT

armradio.am
22.02.2007 16:32

The Armenian nacional team of free-style wrestlers headed by trainer
Hrant Yenokyan left for Kiev today to participate in an international
tournament.

The trainer of the team is Arayik Baghdasaryan.

The Armenian team comprises Mihran Jaburyan (55 kg), Artyom Nalbandyan
(60 kg), Jirair Hovhannisyan (66 kg), Ruslan Kokaev (74 kg), Vadim
Laliev (84 kg), Shamil Gitinov (96 kg) and Ruslan Basiev (120 kg).

Iravunk Newspaper’s Next Issue To Be Published In Time, Hrant Khacha

IRAVUNK NEWSPAPER’S NEXT ISSUE TO BE PUBLISHED IN TIME, HRANT KHACHATRIAN PROMISES

Noyan Tapan
Feb 21 2007

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 21, NOYAN TAPAN. "By the direct instruction of the
oligarch-criminal system, on the pretext of giving a judicial solution
to allegedly disputable issues connected with the founder of Iravunk
newspaper, Constitutional Law Union (CLU) Party, through obvious
judicial retribution, the Iravunk newspaper’s activity was actually
liquidated." This was mentioned in the statement of CLU Iravunk
official newspaper’s editorial staff signed by Hayk Babukhanian, as
well as Hovhannes Galajian and some other employees of the newspaper.

According to the statement, Iravunk’s editorial office was seized
through a brigand attack, "on behalf of the law," criminal elements
broke into the rooms of newspaper’s editorial staff and seized the
newspaper’s entire property."

The newspaper’s editorial staff mentioned that they had to stop
publishing Iravunk.

However, as CLU founder Hrant Khachatrian declared in his interview to
Noyan Tapan correspondent, these false accusations secure the agitation
of intra-party coup. In his words, the coup was being carried out
for liquidating party’s control over its official newspaper and for
making it serve for personal or group purposes.

"The self-promoting leaders of editorial staff and party left
the office on February 20 taking almost the whole property and
documents with them. Now the office is ruined, but the activities
have been already organized," H. Khachatrian said. In his words,
Iravunk’s editorial staff has partly changed and Piruza Meliksetian
was appointed as the new editor-in-chief. It was also mentioned that
Iravunk’s next issue will be published on coming Friday.

The Washington Times: Congress Should Have More Important Priorities

THE WASHINGTON TIMES: CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE MORE IMPORTANT PRIORITIES THAN THE EVENTS OF 80 YEARS AGO

ArmRadio.am
20.02.2007 16:30

"Mrs. Pelosi has scheduled a vote in April on a resolution
(H. Res. 106) that accuses Turkey’s Ottoman Empire of perpetrating
genocide resulting in the death or displacement of nearly 2 million
Armenians between 1915 and 1923.

With the United States currently fighting a war for its very survival
against radical Islamists, Congress should have much more important
priorities than revisiting events that occurred more than 80 years ago
– particularly when doing so has the potential to do serious damage
to US relations with Turkey, whose cooperation will be critical to
US efforts to stabilize Iraq," the Washington Times wrote in today’s
periodical.

At the same time the author states: "Armenian and Greek lobbying
organizations hostile to Turkey command far more power in Washington
than do pro-Turkish groups. And in their effort to settle old scores
dating back to World War I, they have the potential to damage our
current ability to maintain Turkey’s cooperation in stabilizing Iraq."

ANKARA: Lack Of Hope

LACK OF HOPE
By Hikmet Bila

Anatolian Times, Turkey
Turkish Press
Feb 19 2007

(CUMHURIYET)- Chief of General Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit’s remarks
in the US weren’t new. He pointed to the same issues when he first
rose to the helm of the Turkish military. Back then, he said that the
Turkish Republic has never faced so many and varied risks and threats
since 1923, that is, when it was founded. If he’s saying the same thing
six months later, it means that same threats are there. If the person
who heads the army of a country which is surrounded with threats —
from Cyprus to northern Iraq, and the Caucasus to Iran — says this,
it means that there’s a serious situation. Turkey has been trying
to join the European Union for many years, and look at what Europe
is doing now. Cooperation between members of a terrorist group and
the secret services of European countries is being exposed, but still
they are indifferent. They are leaving the Copenhagen criteria aside,
making strategic calculations using 19th century logic, and pursuing
territory and influence on Cyprus. A group of hawks who seized the
US are floundering, but now they are opening a front in northern Iraq
with America’s army, weapons and tanks. If this isn’t risk and threat,
then what is?

Maybe the most interesting and dangerous side of the so-called Armenian
resolution set to be debated by the US House of Representatives is that
it claims that half a million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were
subjected to a genocide in 1915-1923. Just this sneaky calculation
suffices to show how great the risk is. Why 1923? Because, if you
include 1923 in the claims of genocide, you can get the opportunity to
accuse not only the Ottomans, but also the republic and Ataturk. It
seems that our friends and allies make such fine calculations
this way. These friends and allies either don’t know how to make
calculations, or they’re ready to write off 70 million people.

Gen. Buyukanit made another important remark in the US. Maybe this
is something new. He urged us not to lose hope in spite of all the
risks and threats. Let’s remember what he said. He said that the
direst situation in a country is a lack of hope and that someone who
has lost hope has lost everything. Buyukanit stated that when the
Turkish Republic and the people who make it up are hopeless, they lose
everything. He added that the situation of the Turkish people isn’t
like this now and that we should have confidence in ourselves. I think
the most important aspect of his speech in the US lies in these words.

Sergey Shamba: We Speak For Russia’s Presence In Caucasus, We Don’t

SERGEY SHAMBA: WE SPEAK FOR RUSSIA’S PRESENCE IN CAUCASUS, WE DON’T WANT TO NATO

Regnum, Russia
Feb 19 2007

"The statement that the Kosovo precedent is unique and it cannot
be spread to our republics is at least naïve. It is a part of the
process occurring after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty
Organization, when many countries were granted independence.

Now, another stage is taking place: big autonomies start becoming
independent," Abkhaz Foreign Minister Sergey Shamba announced at a
news conference in Moscow on Friday, a REGNUM correspondent informs.

"Opinions differ among Russian experts whether Abkhazia’s independence
is worth recognizing. Some people say it is dangerous, and it must
not be done. We can answer to it like this: Georgia will soon become
a NATO member, what Armenia will do after that? And Azerbaijan? And
what should Abkhazia and South Ossetia do in this case? And how will
peoples of North Caucasus behave after that? The question is here,
whether Russia needs Caucasus and Transcaucasus? If not, independence
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia does not need to be recognized and then
the region will enter NATO," Shamba believes.

"From our side, we speak for Russia’s presence in the area. We don’t
want to go to NATO!" the minister said.

–Boundary_(ID_rL5VOAnPNEUI84nQ+6N53A)–

Fiber-Optic Communication Cable Yerevan-Poti To Be Also Used To Impr

FIBER-OPTIC COMMUNICATION CABLE YEREVAN-POTI TO BE ALSO USED TO IMPROVE INTERNET-COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Arminfo
2007-02-19 13:21:00

In the beginning of March, 2007, the "ArmenTel" Company intends to
actuate the Yerevan-Poti fiber-optic communication cable, used in
the railway system, to improve the quality of Armenia’s Internet
communication.

As the Head of the Department of Foreign Relations of RA Ministry
of Transport and Communication, Gagik Grigoryan, told ArmInfo, it
is a question of using the present cable from Yerevan to Poti for
telecommunication purposes as well. Until recently, he said, this
cable had been used only for safe functioning of the railway. However,
a high carrying capacity of the cable allows to use it for another
purposes as well, in particular, for providing the country with more
qualitative Internet communication.

The currently functioning cable had been out into operation in 2000
and was intended to enhance the safety and reliability of railways
of he region’s states. The European Union allocated about 17 mln Euro
to implement this Project, which have been equally distributed among
the South Caucasian countries.

According to ArmInfo data, the cable is tested at present for the
purpose of Internet communication.