Author: Vorskanian Yeghisabet

Azeri speaker, Norwegian minister discuss Karabakh settlement
Trend news agency
13 Oct 04
Baku, 13 October: Azerbaijani Speaker Murtuz Alasgarov received the
Norwegian foreign minister and chairman of the Council of Europe
Committee of Ministers, Jan Petersen, on 13 October. Alasgarov said
that the visit is of great importance to Azerbaijan and the talks
will give impetus to the development of Azerbaijan’s relations with
Norway and the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.
He said that Azerbaijan has fulfilled most of its commitments to the
Council of Europe and will soon resolve the issues of alternative
military service, ethnic minorities and others.
Talking about the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, Alasgarov said that
the settlement of the problem has been delayed due to international
organizations and leading countries’ wrong approach to the problem. It
is amazing that visiting experts from the Council of Europe and other
international bodies show interest not in the flagrant violation of
the rights of 1m refugees, but in the fate of three or five people
convicted for the crimes they have committed, Alasgarov said.
He went on to say that Azerbaijan will not cede even an inch of
its land and that the country’s policy is aimed at restoring its
territorial integrity within international legal norms. I hope that
the international organizations and leading countries will understand
our position and defend us, he said.
In turn, Petersen said that his visit will contribute to the
development of bilateral relations. He went on to say that Statoil and
other Norwegian companies want to make investments in Azerbaijan and
expressed the hope that Azerbaijan will create conditions for that. As
for the Karabakh conflict, Petersen said that he can empathize with
Azerbaijan over the conflict which has not been resolved so far. We
hope that [the country] will find a fair solution to it in the near
future, he said. Petersen stressed that the basis for this is the
fact that the conflicting sides have sat at the negotiating table.

2004 BUDGET SURPLUS TO EXCEED FORECASTS SIXFOLD
RIA Novosti, Russia
October 12, 2004
MOSCOW, October 12. (RIA Novosti) – At its session on Tuesday the
Russian government will consider a bill on introducing amendments to
the federal law On the Federal Budget for 2004 and invalidating some
clauses of legislative acts of the Russian Federation.
According to a source in the government, the Finance Ministry forecasts
that the federal budget surplus will this year amount to 505.7 billion
roubles ($1 equals 29.22 roubles). At first the surplus was projected
at 83.4 billion roubles.
“The Finance Ministry has submitted to the government the budget
forecast till the end of the year. It expects revenues to grow by
531 billion roubles, expenditures by 108.6 billion,” the source said.
Revenues grow due to increased collection of the mineral extraction
tax of 430 billion roubles and export duties.
As to expenditures, interest-bearing expenditures will be cut by 40.9
billion roubles, while others will rise by 149.6 billion roubles.
Thus, the total revenues of the budget by the end of the year will
amount to 3.2738 trillion roubles, while expenditures will total
2.7681 trillion, the source said.
Target allocations to the Stabilization Fund by the end of the year are
expected to amount to 397.4 billion roubles, exceeding the forecasts
by 313.9 billion.
According to the source, international cooperation will also
receive increased financing. For example, a loan of $175 million
will be provided to Belarus to partly finance Russian gas supplies
and balance mutual trade. Also, the loan to Armenia will be increased
by $31 million.

Oil Wars: U.S. military is being remolded into an oil-protection force
By Michael T. Klare
Oct 11, 2004, 09:34
Under the pressure of Bush administration energy geopolitics (and
under the guise of anti-terrorism), the U.S. military is being remolded
into an oil-protection force.
In the first U.S. combat operation of the war in Iraq, Navy commandos
stormed an offshore oil-loading platform. “Swooping silently out of
the Persian Gulf night,” an overexcited reporter for the New York Times
wrote on March 22, “Navy Seals seized two Iraqi oil terminals in bold
raids that ended early this morning, overwhelming lightly-armed Iraqi
guards and claiming a bloodless victory in the battle for Iraq’s vast
oil empire.”
A year and a half later, American soldiers are still struggling to
maintain control over these vital petroleum facilities â^À^Ó and the
fighting is no longer bloodless. On April 24, two American sailors and
a Coast Guardsman were killed when a boat they sought to intercept,
presumably carrying suicide bombers, exploded near the Khor al-Amaya
loading platform. Other Americans have come under fire while protecting
some of the many installations in Iraq’s “oil empire.”
Indeed, Iraq has developed into a two-front war: the battles for
control over Iraq’s cities and the constant struggle to protect its
far-flung petroleum infrastructure against sabotage and attack. The
first contest has been widely reported in the American press;
the second has received far less attention. Yet the fate of Iraq’s
oil infrastructure could prove no less significant than that of its
embattled cities. A failure to prevail in this contest would eliminate
the economic basis upon which a stable Iraqi government could someday
emerge. “In the grand scheme of things,” a senior officer told the
New York Times, “there may be no other place where our armed forces
are deployed that has a greater strategic importance.” In recognition
of this, significant numbers of U.S. soldiers have been assigned to
oil-security functions.
Top officials insist that these duties will eventually be taken
over by Iraqi forces, but day by day this glorious moment seems to
recede ever further into the distance. So long as American forces
remain in Iraq, a significant number of them will undoubtedly spend
their time guarding highly vulnerable pipelines, refineries, loading
facilities, and other petroleum installations. With thousands of
miles of pipeline and hundreds of major facilities at risk, this task
will prove endlessly demanding – and unrelievedly hazardous. At the
moment, the guerrillas seem capable of striking the country’s oil
lines at times and places of their choosing, their attacks often
sparking massive explosions and fires.
Guarding the Pipelines
It has been argued that our oil-protection role is a peculiar feature
of the war in Iraq, where petroleum installations are strewn about
and the national economy is largely dependent on oil revenues. But
Iraq is hardly the only country where American troops are risking
their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In
Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, U.S. personnel
are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and
refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission.
American sailors are now on oil-protection patrol in the Persian
Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea
routes that deliver oil to the United States and its allies. In fact,
the American military is increasingly being converted into a global
oil-protection service.
The situation in the Republic of Georgia is a perfect example of
this trend. Ever since the Soviet Union broke apart in 1992, American
oil companies and government officials have sought to gain access to
the huge oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea basin â^À^Ó
especially in Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Some
experts believe that as many as 200 billion barrels of untapped oil
lie ready to be discovered in the Caspian area, about seven times the
amount left in the United States. But the Caspian itself is landlocked
and so the only way to transport its oil to market in the West is by
pipelines crossing the Caucasus region â^À^Ó the area encompassing
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the war-torn Russian republics of
Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia.
American firms are now building a major pipeline through this volatile
area. Stretching a perilous 1,000 miles from Baku in Azerbaijan
through Tbilisi in Georgia to Ceyhan in Turkey, it is eventually
slated to carry one million barrels of oil a day to the West; but will
face the constant threat of sabotage by Islamic militants and ethnic
separatists along its entire length. The United States has already
assumed significant responsibility for its protection, providing
millions of dollars in arms and equipment to the Georgian military
and deploying military specialists in Tbilisi to train and advise the
Georgian troops assigned to protect this vital conduit. This American
presence is only likely to expand in 2005 or 2006 when the pipeline
begins to transport oil and fighting in the area intensifies.
Or take embattled Colombia, where U.S. forces are increasingly assuming
responsibility for the protection of that country’s vulnerable oil
pipelines. These vital conduits carry crude petroleum from fields in
the interior, where a guerrilla war boils, to ports on the Caribbean
coast from which it can be shipped to buyers in the United States
and elsewhere. For years, left-wing guerrillas have sabotaged the
pipelines â^À^Ó portraying them as concrete expressions of foreign
exploitation and elitist rule in Bogota, the capital â^À^Ó to deprive
the Colombian government of desperately needed income. Seeking to prop
up the government and enhance its capacity to fight the guerrillas,
Washington is already spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
enhance oil-infrastructure security, beginning with the Cano-Limon
pipeline, the sole conduit connecting Occidental Petroleum’s prolific
fields in Arauca province with the Caribbean coast. As part of this
effort, U.S. Army Special Forces personnel from Fort Bragg, North
Carolina are now helping to train, equip, and guide a new contingent
of Colombian forces whose sole mission will be to guard the pipeline
and fight the guerrillas along its 480-mile route.
Oil and Instability
The use of American military personnel to help protect vulnerable
oil installations in conflict-prone, chronically unstable countries
is certain to expand given three critical factors: America’s
ever-increasing dependence on imported petroleum, a global shift in
oil production from the developed to the developing world, and the
growing militarization of our foreign energy policy.
America’s dependence on imported petroleum has been growing steadily
since 1972, when domestic output reached its maximum (or “peak”) output
of 11.6 million barrels per day (mbd). Domestic production is now
running at about 9 mbd and is expected to continue to decline as older
fields are depleted. (Even if some oil is eventually extracted from the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as the Bush administration
desires, this downward trend will not be reversed.) Yet our total oil
consumption remains on an upward course; now approximating 20 mbd,
it’s projected to reach 29 mbd by 2025. This means ever more of the
nation’s total petroleum supply will have to be imported â^À^Ó 11
mbd today (about 55% of total U.S. consumption) but 20 mbd in 2025
(69% of consumption).
More significant than this growing reliance on foreign oil,
an increasing share of that oil will come from hostile, war-torn
countries in the developing world, not from friendly, stable
countries like Canada or Norway. This is the case because the older
industrialized countries have already consumed a large share of their
oil inheritance, while many producers in the developing world still
possess vast reserves of untapped petroleum. As a result, we are seeing
a historic shift in the center of gravity for world oil production
â^À^Ó from the industrialized countries of the global North to the
developing nations of the global South, which are often politically
unstable, torn by ethnic and religious conflicts, home to extremist
organizations, or some combination of all three.
Whatever deeply-rooted historical antagonisms exist in these countries,
oil production itself usually acts as a further destabilizing
influence. Sudden infusions of petroleum wealth in otherwise poor
and underdeveloped countries tend to deepen divides between rich
and poor that often fall along ethnic or religious lines, leading to
persistent conflict over the distribution of petroleum revenues. To
prevent such turbulence, ruling elites like the royal family in
Saudi Arabia or the new oil potentates of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan
restrict or prohibit public expressions of dissent and rely on the
repressive machinery of state security forces to crush opposition
movements. With legal, peaceful expressions of dissent foreclosed in
this manner, opposition forces soon see no options but to engage in
armed rebellion or terrorism.
There is another aspect of this situation that bears examination. Many
of the emerging oil producers in the developing world were once
colonies of and harbor deep hostility toward the former imperial powers
of Europe. The United States is seen by many in these countries as
the modern inheritor of this imperial tradition. Growing resentment
over social and economic traumas induced by globalization is aimed
at the United States. Because oil is viewed as the primary motive
for American involvement in these areas, and because the giant U.S.
oil corporations are seen as the very embodiment of American power,
anything to do with oil â^À^Ó pipelines, wells, refineries, loading
platforms â^À^Ó is seen by insurgents as a legitimate and attractive
target for attack; hence the raids on pipelines in Iraq, on oil
company offices in Saudi Arabia, and on oil tankers in Yemen.
Militarizing Energy Policy
American leaders have responded to this systemic challenge to stability
in oil-producing areas in a consistent fashion: by employing military
means to guarantee the unhindered flow of petroleum. This approach
was first adopted by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations after
World War II, when Soviet adventurism in Iran and pan-Arab upheavals
in the Middle East seemed to threaten the safety of Persian Gulf
oil deliveries. It was given formal expression by President Carter in
January 1980, when, in response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
and the Islamic revolution in Iran, he announced that the secure flow
of Persian Gulf oil was in “the vital interests of the United States
of America,” and that in protecting this interest we would use “any
means necessary, including military force.” Carter’s principle of
using force to protect the flow of oil was later cited by President
Bush the elder to justify American intervention in the Persian Gulf
War of 1990-91, and it provided the underlying strategic rationale
for our recent invasion of Iraq.
Originally, this policy was largely confined to the world’s most
important oil-producing region, the Persian Gulf. But given America’s
ever-growing requirement for imported petroleum, U.S. officials
have begun to extend it to other major producing zones, including
the Caspian Sea basin, Africa, and Latin America. The initial step
in this direction was taken by President Clinton, who sought to
exploit the energy potential of the Caspian basin and, worrying
about instability in the area, established military ties with future
suppliers, including Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and with the pivotal
transit state of Georgia. It was Clinton who first championed the
construction of a pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan and who initially took
steps to protect that conduit by boosting the military capabilities of
the countries involved. President Bush junior has built on this effort,
increasing military aid to these states and deploying American combat
advisers in Georgia; Bush is also considering the establishment of
permanent U.S. military bases in the Caspian region.
Typically, such moves are justified as being crucial to the “war
on terror.” A close reading of Pentagon and State Department
documents shows, however, that anti-terrorism and the protection of
oil supplies are closely related in administration thinking. When
requesting funds in 2004 to establish a “rapid-reaction brigade”
in Kazakhstan, for example, the State Department told Congress that
such a force is needed to “enhance Kazakhstan’s capability to respond
to major terrorist threats to oil platforms” in the Caspian Sea.
As noted, a very similar trajectory is now under way in Colombia. The
American military presence in oil-producing areas of Africa,
though less conspicuous, is growing rapidly. The Department of
Defense has stepped up its arms deliveries to military forces
in Angola and Nigeria, and is helping to train their officers and
enlisted personnel; meanwhile, Pentagon officials have begun to look
for permanent U.S. bases in the area, focusing on Senegal, Ghana,
Mali, Uganda, and Kenya. Although these officials tend to talk only
about terrorism when explaining the need for such facilities, one
officer told Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal in June 2003 that
“a key mission for U.S. forces [in Africa] would be to ensure that
Nigeria’s oil fields, which in the future could account for as much
as 25 percent of all U.S. oil imports, are secure.”
An increasing share of our naval forces is also being committed to the
protection of foreign oil shipments. The Navy’s Fifth Fleet, based at
the island state of Bahrain, now spends much of its time patrolling
the vital tanker lanes of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz
â^À^Ó the narrow waterway connecting the Gulf to the Arabian Sea and
the larger oceans beyond. The Navy has also beefed up its ability
to protect vital sea lanes in the South China Sea â^À^Ó the site of
promising oil fields claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and
Malaysia â^À^Ó and in the Strait of Malacca, the critical sea-link
between the Persian Gulf and America’s allies in East Asia. Even
Africa has come in for increased attention from the Navy. In order to
increase the U.S. naval presence in waters adjoining Nigeria and other
key producers, carrier battle groups assigned to the European Command
(which controls the South Atlantic) will shorten their future visits
to the Mediterranean “and spend half the time going down the west
coast of Africa,” the command’s top officer, General James Jones,
announced in May 2003.
This, then, is the future of U.S. military involvement abroad. While
anti-terrorism and traditional national security rhetoric will be
employed to explain risky deployments abroad, a growing number of
American soldiers and sailors will be committed to the protection
of overseas oil fields, pipeline, refineries, and tanker routes. And
because these facilities are likely to come under increasing attack
from guerrillas and terrorists, the risk to American lives will grow
accordingly. Inevitably, we will pay a higher price in blood for
every additional gallon of oil we obtain from abroad.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies
at Hampshire College. This article is based on his new book, ‘Blood
and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Petroleum
Dependency’ (Metropolitan / Henry Holt
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Imprint, Canada
Oct 8 2004
Pro-life speaker stirs debate
Christine Loureiro – Imprint staff
Stephanie Gray, pro-life activist and executive director of the
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform visited campus on October 4 to
present a lecture on behalf of the Genocide Awareness Project, a
controversial exhibit on display at universities around Canada which
attempts to present similarities between abortion and the genocides
of the 20th century, the Holocaust in particular.
Gray, who has come to UW on a previous occasion to debate UW Prof.
Jan Narveson on the topic of abortion, presented “Echoes of the
Holocaust” to an audience of about 50, beginning a half-hour past the
advertised start time of 4:00 p.m. due to a booking conflict with the
lecture hall. Her mandate was to show what she called the “double
standard” of abortion by applying identifying factors of genocide to
abortion practices.
Students began to protest the lecture and its theme prior to October
4. One community member left a modified event poster outside Imprint
prior to the event, with obscenities scrawled across the front. The
poster used two quotes, one from the German Supreme Court in 1936
that denied personhood to Jews, and another in which the Supreme
Court of Canada reissues a denial of legal rights to unborn children
in 1997.
UWSFL President Theresa Matters brought Gray to UW because of her
track record as an “articulate and professional speaker.
“She received positive reviews during her last visit to UW in 2002,”
said Matters. “We originally wanted her to debate an abortion
advocate – similar to the event in 2002, however
no abortion advocate was available or willing to debate.”
UWSFL held the event “to raise awareness of the humanity of the
unborn,” continued Matters. “Too often when a woman faces a crisis
pregnancy, rather than offer help many just suggest an abortion. With
increased awareness of the humanity of the unborn we hope that
everyone will be more willing to be supportive of women facing
unexpected pregnancies – thus leading to fewer abortions.”
Feds Clubs Director Rick Theis approved the event, but, he said,
UWSFL did not receive any special Feds funding for the event.
“The nature of the lecture was to draw a correlation between the
manipulation of language in cases of genocide and the manipulation of
language in issues surrounding abortion,” said Theis, who spoke with
Gray to clarify the nature of the event.
If students have a problem with the event, he continued, they are
encouraged to bring it forward. Feds hopes the talk stimulates
discussion.
Matters echoed this sentiment, stating, “We respect every
individual’s right to uphold their own opinion. As a result, we
encourage those who disagree with us to voice their opinions
in a spirit of dialogue on campus.”
The arguments were framed in a very academic fashion. None of the
arguments were religious in nature, and focused solely on working
towards proving her thesis of abortion as genocide.
Gray began her argument by examining the principle of a fetus as a
living human – the basis of her argument. She then delved further
into the debate by comparing the context of abortion to other
genocides, examining the word genocide and looking at what she called
the “role of power and selfishness in mass killings.”
The basis of the lecture was a list of five identifying factors of
genocide, which, Gray stated, was not exhaustive and included various
forms of genocide the world has seen in the past century.
Gray showed how the list of factors was applicable in genocides such
as that of the Armenians in 1914, the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge
oppression in Cambodia and the more recent problems in Bosnia and
Rwanda. In all cases, Gray argued, victims were subject to
dehumanizing rhetoric, the value of life was based on form, function,
and the feelings of others, medical experimentation was conducted,
the killing was of a systematic nature and there was a massive loss
of life.
Abortion compares to these atrocities, Gray argued, because of
literature calling fetuses a “coercer, which violates bodily
integrity and liberty,” parasites and spongers and comparisons to
animals. Among other arguments, Gray stated that the Nazi “lives
unworthy of life” euthanasia program is similar to the quality of
life argument made by some pro-choice supporters. Gray compared
embryonic stem cell research to “rationalizing health care on the
backs of the innocent,” comparing it to Nazi scientific experiments.
Gray also called the federal funding and ready availability of
abortion systematic and said that the lack of law regulating abortion
in Canada was “open season on the unborn in this country.” Finally,
Gray’s statistics showed that abortions number approximately 105,000
per year in Canada; she stated that one out of every four pregnancies
ends in abortion. She puts global yearly estimated abortions at 46
million per year.
Two main protests were heard from audience members: some students
disagreed with Gray’s anti-abortion arguments, while others were
offended at her comparing abortion to the Holocaust. The most vocal
audience members, who at various times through the lecture let their
opinions be audibly known, posited that death in childbirth and the
prevalence of illegal, unsanitary abortions prior to the legalization
of abortion are two important reasons to have a pro-choice stance.
These two did not wish to make their names known to Imprint.
To audience member Kenneth Rose, a Jewish student at UW who objected
to Gray’s comparison of abortion to the Holocaust, Gray argued that a
trend exists whereby to communicate the severity of one act of
genocide, it is often compared to genocides of the past.
Gray named her speech “Echoes of the Holocaust” because of Holocaust
Memorial Museum Director Walter Reich’s dubbing ethnic cleansing in
Bosnia “very loud echoes” of the Holocaust.
Matters hopes that students who attended the lecture were challenged
on the abortion issue.
“In a university environment it is most important that students are
repeatedly challenged on pertinent societal issues,” she said. “With
over 100,000 abortions in Canada per year, we hope that every student
will take the time to decide if this is the best solution to an
unplanned pregnancy.”
“It is important to note that at no point did Stephanie Gray state
that the
Holocaust and abortion in Canada were identical,” she continued, in
an e-mail interview with Imprint. “Instead she noted that there were
similarities between the two, hence the word `echoes’ in the title
[of the event]. The key similarity is the denial of personhood.”

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
October 5, 2004, Tuesday
“DEMOCRACY MUST BE DIGESTIBLE”
SOURCE: Izvestia, October 5, 2004, p. 1
by Natalia Ratiani
AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH RAOUL KHADZHIMBA, FAVORITE FOR ABKHAZIAN
PRESIDENCY
“I voted for independence of our state and for its future,” candidate
for president of Abkhazia Raoul Khadzhimba said at the polling
station, last Sunday. Exit-polls indicate that Khadzhimba came in
first. Here is an exclusive interview with Raoul Khadzhimba.
Question: What tasks will the new president of Abkhazia find himself
facing first and foremost?
Raoul Khadzhimba: Recognition of our sovereignty is the foremost
task. Abkhazia may be small as countries go, but it is a state. I
already said and repeat it again that return to Georgian jurisdiction
is out of the question. We were a part of Georgia once. Enough is
enough. Neither is absorption by Russia on the agenda. But associated
relations Abkhazia means to develop with Russia are quite possible
between two independent and recognized states. History of
civilization knows examples when states fell apart in a decent and
civilized manner and produced several independent states. The Czech
Republic and Slovakia are such an example, or the states formed on
the ruins of former Yugoslavia.
I refuse to understand why this turn of events cannot be applied to
the Caucasus. Why must Georgia insist on remaining the only one and
integral state? Why not develop neighborly relations with the state
that was a part of Georgia for only 60 short years? Can Georgia still
be unable to grasp that solutions to the problem of Abkhazia
currently discussed in Tbilisi are impossible?
Question: What do you think is Georgia’s worst misunderstanding with
regard to Abkhazia and what is Russia’s?
Raoul Khadzhimba: Georgia goes on insisting that Abkhazia is a part
of its territory. We joined the Russian Empire on our own volition in
1810. Georgia did so before us. How could it forget about Abkhazia
then? This is the worst misunderstanding cherished by Georgia. As for
Russia, there was a period when it erroneously though that if it was
to take something back, it should take back absolutely everything.
I.e. all of Georgia along with Abkhazia. Hence Moscow’s attempts to
promote the leader of Georgia who would turn to Russia. Still, the
whole history of the Russian-Georgian relations should have taught
Moscow that Georgia turns to face it only when it finds it rewarding.
As I see it, Abkhazia and Armenia are what Russia should be first and
foremost interested in nowadays. Still, it requires that Russia
formulates its policy with regard to these countries.
Question: If you are elected the president, what will be your first
moves in the sphere of domestic politics?
Raoul Khadzhimba: I will decree a reorganization of law enforcement
agencies. What has been done these past 11 years aims at
fortification of external security. We concentrated on prevention of
another conflict. Time has come to pay attention to internal security
as well. I’m not saying that we need a reduction in this or that
ministry or structure. The Interior Ministry, prosecutor’s office,
court – all of that are necessary attributes of every state. But
everybody should mind his own business. It’s a height of absurdity
when the prosecutor’s office has the right to suggest legislative
initiatives. And this is what we have in Abkhazia nowadays. The new
legislative foundation has to be created. Every structure should
observe the law within the framework of its own jurisdiction.
Question: What legislative initiatives did the prosecutor’s office
suggest?
Raoul Khadzhimba: Had at least one of them been normal, we would not
be facing so many problems. Even the Constitution does not specify
the arrangement of forces between the parliament and executive branch
of the government. The prime minister is appointed by the president
and answers to the president alone. This is wrong. It is the
parliament that should endorse the premier and be responsible for the
government. As things stand, nobody wields the power to disband the
parliament. The parliament interprets the very laws it itself passes.
It is an absurdity too.
Question: Do you mean that the Constitution has to be amended?
Raoul Khadzhimba: Order should be restored everywhere. Every branch
of the government should be responsible for its own sphere.
Question: Do you expect the people to support you?
Raoul Khadzhimba: I think they will.
Question: Your opponent Sergei Bagapsh claims readiness to cooperate
with you, given a chance. What kind of relations with the opposition
do you intend to build? What if the opposition decided to form a grey
Cabinet?
Raoul Khadzhimba: I do not think it will go that far. We are a small
state where everybody knows everybody. Whatever positive ideas the
opposition comes up with will be accepted. But democracy must be
“digestible” for society. When there is too much by way of democracy,
it is not all that great.
Question: But the opposition claims that the election is not
legitimate, that it is invalidated by numerous violations and black
PR…
Raoul Khadzhimba: Whoever spent these days in Abkhazia knows that the
election was at a maximum transparent. It only proves its democratic
nature. I regard statements made by the opposition as another
indication of democracy.
Translated by A. Ignatkin

WTNH, CT
Oct 9 2004
UConn wins $500,000 for Armenian studies program

(Storrs-AP, Oct. 9, 2004 11:50 AM) _ The University of Connecticut
has won a half- million grant to restart an Armenian studies program.
The gift is from Alice Norian who died five years ago. She once
viewed an exhibit of Armenian rugs and other artifacts in the early
1980s at the university.
Norian was a long-time Enfield elementary school teacher who
graduated from Eastern Connecticut State University. When she died
with no heirs, she bequeathed 504 thousand dollars to U-Conn. The
endowment is expected to be supplemented by a 252 thousand dollar
state grant.
The new program will expand an exchange program, offer an annual
lecture series, provide courses on culture and history and develop
publications to help educate Americans about the southeast European
country.

Reuters
Oct 1 2004
Azeri leader says territorial row turning dangerous
Source: Reuters

By Magarita Antidze and Jonathan Thatcher
BAKU, Oct 1 (Reuters) – Azerbaijan’s president said on Friday that an
impasse over Nagorno-Karabakh was dangerous for the restive Caucasus
region and warned that his country would not wait forever to settle
the issue with neighbouring Armenia.
Ilham Aliyev said the oil-rich country would never surrender its
claim to the territory, populated by ethnic Armenians but legally
part of Azerbaijan since the Soviet era and scene of one of the
bloodiest ethnic wars that followed communism’s collapse.
“I agree that nothing is changing. That is very dangerous, I think,”
Aliyev said in a rare interview with the foreign media.
“International law norms have to be restored, the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan must be restored, Armenian military forces
should pull out from occupied territories. Only this is a condition
for peace,” the president told Reuters.
The dispute over the region began 16 years ago but it was in the
dying days of the Soviet Union that it erupted into a war in which an
estimated 35,000 people were killed.
About one million refugees fled to Azerbaijan where they remain,
though their grim living conditions have begun to improve since
Aliyev came to power almost exactly a year ago.
Thousands of ethnic Armenian refugees also fled to Armenia. A truce
was agreed in 1994, but there has been little movement to end the
dispute, despite international meditation.
Asked if by saying “dangerous” he meant a return to war, he said: “If
there is no peace for so many years and negotiations do not bring any
result, what can be the alternative?
“The Caucasus in general are not stable. Not having peace between
Armenia and Azerbaijan does not help regional security. The longer
the conflict stays unresolved, the more dangerous the resumption of
military action will be.”
COMMITTED, OPTIMISTIC
But Aliyev, elected after the death of his father who had ruled the
country by the Caspian Sea almost uninterrupted from 1969, said he
remained committed to resolving the issue peacefully. He was
optimistic of a solution and urged the international community to do
more to help.
Azerbaijan demands the return of Nagorno-Karabakh and other parts of
its territory occupied in the conflict. Armenia insists the
mountainous region, once ruled by its president Robert Kocharyan,
should decide its own fate.
“We want to resolve it by political means … we hope this will
happen. But at the same time, everyone should understand that we are
not going to agree with the fact of occupation and our patience has
its limits,” he said.
“We will never compromise on our territorial integrity and
sovereignty.”
When asked how long he was prepared to wait, he said: “If or when we
see and we are convinced that there is no use continuing the
negotiations, of course we will stop.
“When we see that all political means are exhausted and there is no
way to peacefully restore our sovereignty, then the Azeri government
will start to think about other means.”

Eye on Eurasia: Putin’s greatest fear
Putinru.com
05 October 2004
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned last month that the
post-Soviet states face “up to 2,000” potential ethno-confessional
conflicts, any one of which could explode “if we don’t do anything
about them.” Both that number and the possibility that they will
involve violence far exceed estimates made by most Russian and Western
analysts. But Putin’s expressed belief in them highlights his sense of
the fragility of Russia and other former Soviet republics. And it
helps to explain his commitment to rebuilding the coercive capacity of
the state.
In a partial transcript of the Russian president’s meeting with
foreign academics and journalists on Sept. 6 provided by Jonathan
Steele of The Guardian newspaper and distributed on the Johnson Russia
List, Putin provided his clearest statement yet of just how much
ethnic and religious conflicts threaten the post-Soviet states.
“In the wake of the break-up of the Soviet Union, many conflicts of
ethnic and confessional nature have broken out,” Putin said, adding,
“We do have up to 2,000 conflicts of the type which are in the dormant
stage.” But, “If we don’t do anything about them, they could provide a
flare up instantaneously.”
Putin then offered his views on why such conflicts could emerge, who
is responsible, and the roles democracy and state power have to play
to ensure that potential conflicts do not become real.
The Russian president suggested that the conflicts that have broken
out did so precisely because of the collapse of state power: Pointing
to the violence in Karabakh and South Ossetia, Putin said that “once
the state became weaker, separatism, which was very natural, was on
the rise. It happened elsewhere. It happened here.”
In linking the emergence of such conflicts to the decline of state
power, Putin explicitly rejected that Russian policies had been in any
way responsible for what has happened in Chechnya. “There is no
connection whatsoever, there is no connection between the policies of
Russia regarding Chechnya and subsequent events,” he said.
The Russian leader indicated that the free play of democracy could not
by itself prevent ethnic and confessional flare-ups. Indeed, democracy
introduced too quickly or in ways that are not “in conformity with the
development of society” could in that event be “carrying a destructive
element.”
Consequently, Putin said, he and his government will “see to it” that
democratic institutions in his country become ever more “efficient”
and work closely with those institutions that are rebuilding the power
of state rather than weakening them.
Three aspects of Putin’s remarks are striking. First, he views his
country and its neighbors as far more threatened by ethnic and
religious conflicts than almost any other leader or analyst does. And
he sees conflicts as potentially having a domino effect, in which the
outbreak of any conflict anywhere threatens to spark more conflicts
elsewhere.
Second, the Russian president clearly believes that the weakness of
the state rather than the aspirations of the people involved is the
primary cause of current conflicts and of future ones.
And third, he sees democracy as a a form of government that may
trigger such conflicts rather than as a means of managing or even
solving them. Consequently, democracy for Putin is a system that must
be managed lest democratic arrangements “undermine through
counterproductive means” the ideas of democracy.
This set of views helps to explain why Putin is so obsessed with the
restoration of the agencies of state power, why he is unwilling to
deal with these challenges in a political way, and why he views
democracy as a threat rather than an opportunity.
But the experience of authoritarian states, including the Soviet
Union, suggests, Putin’s approach — however understandable it may be
given his premises — may prove counterproductive, radicalizing those
whose views the authorities are not prepared to listen to and making
them more rather than less willing to turn to violence to gain their
ends.
Source: The Washington Times
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NATO seminar to focus on Karabakh conflict – Azeri MP
Trend news agency
2 Oct 04
BAKU
Trend correspondent Q. Azizoglu: The upcoming 58th Rose-Roth seminar
of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Baku on 26-28 November will
focus on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, the
Azerbaijani deputy speaker and head of the Azerbaijani delegation to
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Ziyafat Asgarov, has told
journalists.
Asgarov said that the holding of this event in Azerbaijan was a move
towards the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict. “The NATO Parliamentary Assembly has been striving to make
its contribution to this issue. Azerbaijan’s main purpose at this
seminar, which will be attended by more than 80 deputies from almost
40 countries, is to ensure that the occupation of the Azerbaijani
lands is discussed, and we have achieved this,” Asgarov said.
Asgarov regretted that “some forces have an interest in disrupting
this event”. “But the main point is not who will attend the seminar,
but what issue will be discussed. That is why, one should take into
account the essence of the issue and not to stage a show about
somebody’s participation in this event,” he added.

Putin holds meeting of presid Council for religious unions
ITAR-TASS, Russia
Sept 29 2004
MOSCOW, September 29 (Itar-Tass) – Russian President Vladimir Putin
is chairing a meeting of the presidential Council for interaction
with religious unions in the Kremlin on Wednesday.
The meeting is focused on discussing ‘activities of religious
organisations on consolidating the civil society and counteracting
to the global threat of terrorism and extremism.’
The Council has recently undergone changes.
By his decree the president included in the Council the head of
the Russian Orthodox Church of Old Belief, Metropolitan Andrian
(Chetvergov).
So now the Council consists of 22 members.
There are four hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, three muftis,
the Chief Rabbi of the Federation of Jewish Communities, the Head of
Buddhists of Russia, the Old Believers Metropolitan, a representative
of the Armenian Church, heads of Russian Catholics, Lutherans,
Baptists and Adventists, as well as seven secular experts among them.