Category: News

SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, September 17, 2004, pp. 1 – 2
by Arkady Dubnov
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
September 17, 2004, Friday
ASTANA VERSES
The CIS heads of state summit in Astana that ended yesterday was a
momentous event. It was the last summit for some CIS presidents, and
the first for others. Replacing Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine, Vladimir
Putin was elected chairman of the “club of presidents.” This was
conclusive evidence that Kuchma will not run for re-election. In
fact, CIS leaders all but admitted that they would like to see Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovich as the next president of Ukraine.
For President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia, this was the first
formal summit of the CIS.
In fact, the summit may mark a turning point in the history of the
CIS. President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan came up with a
concept for a drastic reorganization of the CIS – saying it is
“bogged down in bureaucracy” and “expensive even though there is
nothing to show for the spending.” Nazarbayev mentioned the
activities of the CIS Economic Court. It has considered only 62 cases
in its 10 years of existence, and issued four verdicts which “no one
actually noticed,” Nazarbayev said.
In short, Nazarbayev proposed abolishing this “pointless structure.”
Also earmarked for abolition are the council of defense ministers,
the headquarters for coordination of military cooperation, and the
international statistics committee. There is also a proposal to
reduce the staff of the CIS Executive Committee from 220 to 140
officials, the numbers of its chairmen to two, the numbers of
departments in it from nine to five, and to abolish some other CIS
bodies. Nazarbayev proposes ending the practice of appointing
“veterans and the elderly” to CIS structures. He argues that some
kind of G8 counterpart should be formed in the CIS, with an emphasis
on three spheres: security, economic cooperation, humanitarian
cooperation. It will require establishment of a CIS Security Council
comprising foreign ministers and heads of national security councils,
defense ministers and heads of secret services.
The final decision on reorganization of the CIS will be made at an
emergency summit within the next twelve months.
Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met on September 15. Robert
Kocharjan and Ilham Aliyev spent four hours (!) talking things over.
Putin was present at the conversation at some point. When he left,
the meeting was attended by chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia,
the United States, and France). It seems that Yerevan and Baku
restored their dialogue.
The discussion of the Abkhazia issue by Putin and Saakashvili was
quite emotional. In fact, their polemics even continued into the
press conference after the meeting. Saakashvili expressed his
satisfaction with finding documents of the CIS summit confirming
adherence to the principles of the previous accords (Almaty in 1996
and Sochi in 2003) and went on criticizing Russia for what he called
collided with these provisions. The matter concerned restoration of
train runs between Sukhumi and Sochi. Putin replied that “commercial
relations do not conflict with decisions of CIS summits” – but
Saakashvili pressed on.
“Minister Fadeev’s presence in Sukhumi doesn’t align with Russia’s
position,” he said. “Besides, Russia can and should solve the problem
of the return of Georgian refugees to the Gal district of Abkhazia.”
“We have yet to discuss the matter with the president of Georgia,”
Putin frowned. “In fact, the refugees are already returning…”
Putin and Saakashvili had another meeting after that, one that lasted
20 minutes or so. No information on its results is available because
the presidents met privately. On the other hand, the fact of the
meeting itself is quite heartening. Prime ministers of Russia and
Georgia Mikhail Fradkov and Zurab Zhvania met as well.
An exchange of opinions on the Trans-Dniester conflict was also quite
sharp. “We do not understand the motives of the authorities of
Moldova when they turned down a chance to settle the conflict with
Trans-Dniester,” Kuchma said. “As for the economic blockade of the
region, it will certainly hurt its mostly Russian and Ukrainian
population.”
Saakashvili intervened again. “We support Moldova’s territorial
integrity,” he said. “All contacts with separatist regimes must be
made only with the permission from the authorities of the countries
where these regimes are located.”
The presidents of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan had an argument. Islam
Karimov of Uzbekistan was critical of Askar Akayev’s confidence that
terrorists can only be killed by means of supersonic fighter jets.
Only Aliyev didn’t say a word in front of TV cameras.
Translated by A. Ignatkin

NATO Cancels Its War Games in Azerbaijan
RIA OREANDA
Economic News
September 17, 2004 Friday
Baku. Appeared in Russian in Moscow’s ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA. NATO has for
the first time in its history cancelled its military exercises slated
to begin on September 13 on the territory of Azerbaijan as part of the
Partnership for Peace Program. Notably, NATO was forced to do so not
because of some natural or man-caused calamities or refusal of one of
the parties to participate, but because the Azerbaijani authorities
refused to issue visas to the Armenian military. Exercises as part
of the program Cooperative Best Effort 2004 were formerly stages in
Armenia and Georgia, and were designed to practice the key aspects
of peacekeeping operations. In line with the unchangeable “principle
of parity” the exercises were to be held in Azerbaijan as well. The
principle of parity has been violated this time, forcing NATO to cancel
the exercises, read a NATO press release. The scandal the erupted
over these war games began long before their cancellation and lasted
for over nine months. Back in January Armenia’s representatives were
unable to attend a conference in Turkey that preceded the exercises
also for lack of visas. But Yerevan was determined not to give up,
making consistent efforts to participate in the maneuvers, albeit to
no avail.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
September 17, 2004, Friday
NATO HAS STUMBLED OVER KARABAKH
SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, September 14, 2004, p. 5
by Shakhin Abbasov
A scandal has broken out in Azerbaijan. Cooperative Best Effort-2004,
which NATO and Azerbaijan planned to conduct within the framework of
the Partnership for Peace program, has been cancelled. The cause of
this decision will be announced a bit later. Meanwhile, it is
possible that this has happened because of Azerbaijan’s protest
against the participation of Armenian servicemen in the maneuvers.
Newspapers reported yesterday that Azerbaijan refused to issue visas
to Armenian servicemen.
Many observers state that this incident is “the first serious defeat
of President Ilkham Aliyev”. It should be noted that relations
between Azerbaijan and NATO may aggravate. Actions of protest against
the arrival of Armenian servicemen were held in Baku on September
11-12. The opposition launched a campaign in the media. The
parliament noted in its message to NATO that the arrival of Armenian
servicemen may aggravate the situation in the region and damage
negotiations over the Karabakh conflict.
The situation was as serious that President Ilkham Aliyev was forced
to address the nation on Saturday. He stated: “Armenian servicemen
were invited by NATO. Azerbaijan does not want to see these people on
its land. I don’t want to see Armenians in Azerbaijan.”
(…)
Political analyst Ali Abbasov said that “government controls
democratic processes in Azerbaijan, which is why all actions of
protest are sanctioned by government”. The political analyst said
that the government of Azerbaijan wants to show the international
community that Azerbaijan will not make concessions regarding the
Karabakh problem.
It should be noted that the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan plan
to meet at the CIS summit in Kazakhstan on September 15. By the way,
Russian President Vladimir Putin will attend this summit. The
newspaper reports that precisely Putin initiated the meeting of the
leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
ORIGINAL-LANGUAGE: RUSSIAN

EU’s Prodi visits Azerbaijan, calls for more democracy
Associated Press Worldstream
September 17, 2004 Friday
BAKU, Azerbaijan — European Commission President Romano Prodi on
Friday urged Azerbaijan to conduct democratic reforms that would give
more say to the opposition.
Speaking at a news conference after his talks with Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliev and other officials, Prodi said that they
discussed “the need for a vital democracy in the country.”
“Such a democracy requires a meaningful role for the opposition,”
Prodi said.
Prodi said that the EU has voiced its dissatisfaction with the latest
elections in Azerbaijan, as well as in two other ex-Soviet Caucasus
nations, Armenia and Georgia.
“It’s of vital importance that Azerbaijan makes clear reform steps
in the months ahead – reforms of democracy, human rights, the rule
of law, the market economy and conflict settlement,” Prodi said.
Aliev, the son of the late President Geidar Aliev, won last October’s
election by a wide margin, according to official results. Opposition
supporters and international observers said the election was marred
with fraud.
The vote sparked riots in which about 3,000 protesters tore through
the capital, Baku; one person died and dozens were injured. Hundreds
of people were detained, and more than 120 have been convicted.
Prodi said he also discussed prospects for a political settlement
of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave
within Azerbaijan, which has been de-facto independent since its
Armenia-backed forces drove out Azerbaijan’s military in 1994.
After visiting Azerbaijan, Prodi is set to head to Georgia and then
Armenia. The three Caucasus nations have been included in the EU’s
Neighborhood Policy.

Nagorno-Karabakh president pardons convicts who tried to kill him
Associated Press Worldstream
September 17, 2004 Friday
YEREVAN, Armenia — The president of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh
region on Friday pardoned a group of people convicted of trying to
kill him.
Among those pardoned by President Arkady Gukasian was Samvel Babaian,
the enclave’s former defense minister, whom a court named the
mastermind of the assassination attempt.
In March 2000, a group of assailants sprayed Gukasian’s car with
bullets, wounding him in both legs.
Gukasian on Friday pardoned 13 people and softened punishment for
another 22, but refused clemency to 16 other convicts.
Nagorno-Karabakh, a mostly ethnic Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan,
waged a 1988-1994 war against Azerbaijan in which its forces, backed
by Armenia, won control of almost 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory.
No political settlement has been reached in the conflict, and small
clashes have continued at a no man’s land around the enclave.

RIA OREANDA
Economic News
September 17, 2004 Friday
Company “Baltica” Bears Losses in Georgia
Saint Petersburg. Saint Petersburg. Events of the last two months
show tendency of changing foreign economic relations with Russia on
part of Georgia, notifies Russias brewing company “Baltica.”
The document informs that there has been developing conflict related
to Russian manufacturers on part of Georgia, including Russian beer
exporters. In particular, cargo with Balticas production addressed
to the distributor form “Royal Express Ltd” has been kept in Georgian
customs without any explanation.
According to preliminary assessment “Balticas” retained proceeds amount
to about $ 850 thousand. The company is unable to sell its product
on Georgian market. It cannot even use transit facilities in Georgia
due to which the company fails to export its production in Armenia.
Brewing Company “Baltica” intended to extend its export in Georgia.
At present its very doubtful that the plan on investment for 2005
amounting to $ 2 million will be concluded.

Thursday, September 02, 2004
***********************************
MIKOYAN’S ROLE IN THE STALINIST PURGES.
TOLSTOY, DOSTOEVSKY AND SHAKESPEARE.
GREGORIAN CHANT.
WHAT IS ARMENIANISM?
*************************************************
A number of Sovietologists have identified Anastas Mikoyan as the main architect of the Stalinist purges in Armenia. If he was, he was a reluctant one, writes Simon Montefiore. In his recently published book, STALIN: THE COURT OF THE RED TSAR, based on interviews with the children of survivors, post-Soviet studies, and newly opened archives, he writes that Stalin chose Mikoyan for that grim task to test his loyalty. “In late 1937,” we read here, “Stalin tested Mikoyan’s commitment by dispatching him to Armenia with a list of three hundred victims to be arrested. Mikoyan signed it but he crossed off one friend. The man was arrested anyway.”
*
While in Siberia, Dostoevsky read some stories by a writer who signed himself “L.T.” Dostoevsky liked the stories but he said, “I believe he will write very little,” adding, “but perhaps I am wrong.” He sure was! “L.T.” stood for Leo Tolstoy, one of the most prolific writers of all time.
*
Though contemporaries, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky avoided each other. But the last book Tolstoy read shortly before his death was Dostoevsky”s BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, perhaps because his home situation, from which he was running away, was more Dostoevskian than Tolstoyan.
*
Tolstoy and Dostoevsky shared one thing in common: they didn’t much care for Shakespeare.
*
Readers sometimes complain that I don’t always answer questions. The truth is everything I write is an answer to a specific question, even when the questioner is anonymous and even when the question is disguised verbal vandalism and hooliganism. Case in point: on a number of occasions I have been asked if my mother was a concubine in a Turkish harem. My mother became an orphan at the age of one and was brought up by French Catholic nuns in Lebanon. Instead of lullabies she sang Gregorian chant to me, which to this day is my favorite kind of music – music in its purest form: simple, accessible, melodic, incandescent, with none of the technical fireworks of J.S.Bach or the rhetoric of Beethoven.
*
Whenever I read an ugly e-mail from an Armenian, I cannot help wondering: what if in our case the concept of survival of the fittest should be replaced with the concept of survival of the nastiest?
*
There are open minds and closed minds, but when an Armenian decides to close his mind, he locks it with seven rusty keys.
*
Why is it that some Armenians use the massacres as a license to do to civilized discourse what the Turks did to us? And more often than not, they are the very same Armenians who demand our unconditional love on grounds of Armenianism.
*
Writes Denis Donikian: “At one time or another we have all been victims of Armenianism.” Perhaps because no one has yet defined what Armenianism is and every Armenian thinks his own brand is the only true one.
#
Friday, September 03, 2004
*******************************
BAYROU ON TURKS.
MONTEFIORE ON MIKOYAN.
AXIOMS.
MEMO TO MY CRITICS.
************************************
Francois Bayrou, identified as the President of the UDF, in a recent interview published in LE POINT (August 5, 2004): “Turkey’s geography, history, and sociology are not European. Its anthropology is not the same as ours. During a recent conversation with Turkish Prime Minister Nayyip Erdogan, he said: ‘For us, Europe must be a place where different civilizations meet and coexist,” thus conceding that our civilizations are indeed different. In order to qualify as a member of the European Union, Turkey must meet certain criteria. Even the recognition of the Armenian genocide, an indispensable condition in our eyes, is open to negotiation and compromise. That’s not the real stumbling bloc. The real stumbling bloc is the question: Is Turkey’s membership compatible with the political unity of Europe? My answer is, No.”
*
Simon Montefiore on Anastas Mikoyan: “This Armenian who had studied for the priesthood like Stalin himself, was slim, circumspect, wily and industrious, with black hair, moustache and flashing eyes, a broken aquiline nose and a taste for immaculate clothes that, even when clad in his usual tunic and boots, lent him the air of a lithe dandy. Highly intelligent with the driest of wits, he had a gift for languages, understanding English, and, in 1931, he taught himself German by translating DAS KAPITAL.” (And to think that most people can’t understand DAS KAPITAL even when they read it in their mother tongue).
*
We know what we think and how we feel. It is only by knowing what others think and feel that we may acquire a better understanding of our fellow men, and by extension, of the world in which we live – that is to say, reality.
*
Can we really understand ourselves if we don’t understand others? And if we don’t understand others, what can we really understand?
*
Understanding of reality is a seamless web. Partial understanding might as well be misunderstanding, and action based on misunderstanding is bound to fail.
*
Memo to my anonymous critics: “The merit of a criticism is diminished when the critic is too afraid to identify himself.”
#
Saturday, September 04, 2004
*********************************
THE ORIGIN OF WISDOM.
SOCRATES AND ERASMUS.
PERVERTED PATRIOTISM.
ARMENIAN-HATERS.
**********************************
All wisdom begins with the realization that what we know is only a very small fraction of knowledge, and very often so small that it would be more accurate to admit, like Socrates, that all we know for certain is that we don’t know.
*
And speaking of Socrates: there are people who reject ideas simply because they are new ideas. Whenever in history great men, like Socrates, have been persecuted, you can be sure of one thing: the persecution was organized by such people, namely, the scum of the earth who, in the words of Erasmus, prefer “the smell of their excrement,” simply because they are familiar with it.
*
Where hooligans are allowed to hijack the word “patriotism,” love of country becomes hatred of fellow countrymen.
*
To those who at one time or another have accused me of being an Armenian-hater, I say: You have no idea what you are saying. A real Armenian-hater is one who hates Turks not because they massacred us, but because they didn’t do a more thorough job; and I happen to be personally acquainted with such an Armenian, and he happens to be a genuine, bona fide, dyed-in-the wool born-again Christian whose every other line is a quote from the Bible. And he feels as he does because he is convinced Armenians are evil and the Turks massacred them because they were following orders from God – not their Allah, be it noted, but our God who can do no wrong. And if you were to say, I should be ashamed to admit that I have such friends, I will reply: I have made it my business to understand all kinds of Armenians and not just a fraction of them.
#

Turkey snaps over US bombing of its bretheren
By K Gajendra Singh
Asia Times, Hong Kong
Sept 17 2004
For the first time since the acrimonious exchange of words in July
last year following the arrest and imprisonment of 11 Turkish
commandos in Kurdish Iraq, for which Washington expressed “regret”,
differences erupted publicly this week between North Atlantic Treaty
Organization allies Turkey and the US over attacks on Turkey’s ethnic
cousins, the Turkmens in northern Iraq.
Talking to a Turkish TV channel, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul warned
that if the US did not cease its attacks on Tal Afar, a Turkmen city
at the junction of Turkey, Iraq and Syria, Ankara might withdraw its
support to the US in Iraq.
“I told [US Secretary of State Colin Powell] that what is being done
there is harming the civilian population, that it is wrong, and that
if it continues, Turkey’s cooperation on issues regarding Iraq will
come to a total stop.” He added, “We will continue to say these
things. Of course we will not stop only at words. If necessary, we
will not hesitate to do what has to be done.”
Turkey is a key US ally in a largely hostile region. US forces use
its Incirlik military base near northern Iraq. Turkish firms are also
involved heavily in the construction and transport business in Iraq,
with hundreds of Turkish vehicles bringing in goods for the US
military every day. It is an alternative route through friendly
northern Kurdish territory to those from Jordan and Kuwait. But many
Turks have been kidnapped by Iraqi insurgent groups and some have
been killed.
Turkey contains a large ethnic Turkmen population and Ankara has long
seen itself as the guardian of their rights, particularly across the
border in northern Iraq, where they constitute a significant
minority.
The US attacks on Tal Afar, which Iraqi Turkmen groups in Turkey say
have left 120 dead and over 200 injured, were launched, the US says,
to root out terrorists. The US has denied the extent of the damage,
saying that it avoided civilian targets and killed only terrorists it
says were infiltrating the town from Syria.
US ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman commented, “We are carrying out
a limited military operation and we are trying to keep civilian
losses to a minimum. We cannot completely eliminate the possibility
[of civilian casualties] … We believe the operation is being
conducted with great care,” he said after briefing Turkish officials.
There have not been any reports of further attacks since the Turkish
warning.
The deterioration in US-Turkish relations underlines the
fast-changing strategic scenario in the region in the post-Cold War
era after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the September 11 attacks
on the US, the US-led invasion on Iraq, now conceded as illegal by
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the deteriorating
security situation in that country.
Despite negative signals on Ankara’s mission to join the European
Union, Turkey is moving away from the US and closer to the EU – it is
even looking to buy Airbuses, and arms, from Europe rather than the
US.
At the same time, Turkey is drawing closer to Syria, normalizing
relations with Iran and improving economic relations with Russia, as
well as discuss with Moscow ways to counter terrorist acts, from
which both Russia and Turkey suffer. Russian President Vladimir Putin
called off a visit to Turkey when the hostage crisis broke at Beslan
in the Russian Caucasus last week.
And Turkey has also moved away from long-time friend Israel, the US’s
umbilically aligned strategic partner in the Middle East. Turkey has
accused Israel of “state terrorism” against Palestinians. A recent
ruling party team from Turkey returned from Tel Aviv not satisfied
with Israeli explanations over charges that it was interfering in
northern Iraqi affairs.
With newspapers full of stories and TV screens showing the Turkmens
being attacked in the US operations at Tal Afar, many Turks are angry
at what is being done to their ethnic brethren. These have been large
protests outside the US Embassy in Ankara, and the belief that the US
attacks are a part of a campaign to ethnically cleanse the Turkmens
from northern Iraq is widespread.
“Some people are uncomfortable with the ethnic structure of this
area, so, using claims of a terrorist threat, they went in and killed
people,” said Professor Suphi Saatci of the Kirkuk Foundation, one of
several Turkmen groups in Turkey.
He claims that the the attacks are a part of a wider campaign to
establish Kurdish control over all of northern Iraq, and he points to
the removal of Turkmen officials from governing positions in the
region to be replaced by Kurds. He also says that the Iraqi police
force deployed in northern Iraq is dominated by members of Kurdish
factions. “The US is acting completely under the direction of the
Kurdish parties in northern Iraq,” says Saatci. “Tal Afar is a
clearly Turkmen area and this is something they were very jealous
of.”
While Kurdish officials deny any attempt to alter the ethnic balance
in the region, last week Masud Barzani, leader of one of the two
largest Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), said
that Kirkuk “is a Kurdish city” and one that the KDP was willing to
fight for, which certainly did not calm fears of the Turkmens and
angered the Turks. Many Turkmen see Kirkuk as historically theirs.
Turkey considers northern Iraq – ie Kurdistan – as part of its sphere
of influence, especially the Turkmen minority. Ankara is especially
concerned that the Kurds in Iraq don’t gain full autonomy as this
would likely fire the aspirations of Turkey’s Kurdish minority.
The US military disputes that its forces laid siege to Tal Afar,
saying that the operation was to free the city from insurgents,
including foreign fighters, who had turned it into a haven for
militants smuggling men and arms across the Syrian border. And a
military spokesman denied that Kurds were using US forces to gain the
upper hand in their ethnic struggle with the Turkmens. The US
characterized the resistance in Tal Afar as put up by a disparate
group of former Saddam Hussein loyalists, religious extremists and
foreign fighters who were united only by their opposition to US
forces.
Gareth Stansfield, a regional specialist at the Center of Arab and
Islamic Studies at Britain’s University of Exeter, said recently that
“the most important angle of what the Turkish concern is [and that
is] that there is a strong belief in Ankara that Iyad Allawi, the
Iraqi prime minister, and the Americans, were suckered into attacking
Tal Afar by Kurdish intelligence circles, and really brought to Tal
Afar to target ostensibly al-Qaeda and anti-occupation forces with
the Kurds knowing full well that this would also bring them up
against Turkmens and create a rift between Washington and Ankara over
their treatment of a Turkmen city.”
Turkey maintains a few hundred troops in the region as a security
presence to monitor Turkish Kurd rebels who have some hideouts in the
region. But any large-scale presence has been derailed by the
objections of Iraqi Kurdish leaders. “That has created an uneasy
state of co-existence between Ankara and the two major Kurdish
political parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party and Patriotic Union
of Kurdistan, a balance which any US military operation in the area
could easily disturb.”
Stansfield added that the incident shows how volatile tensions remain
between Ankara and the Iraqi Kurds, despite ongoing efforts by both
sides to work together. “The Turkish position has become increasingly
more sophisticated over the last months, and arguably years, with
Ankara finding an accommodation with the KDP and PUK and beginning to
realize that while it is not their favored option to allow the Kurds
to be autonomous in the north of Iraq, it is perhaps one of the
better options that they are faced with in this situation,” said
Stansfield.
He added, “However, the relationship between the two principle
Kurdish parties and the government of Turkey will always be
sensitized by the Kurds’ treatment of Turkmens and indeed now the
American treatment of Turkmens vis-a-vis Kurds.”
Transfer of sovereignty and the Kurds
In January this year, the then Iraqi Governing Council agreed to a
federal structure to enshrine Kurdish self-rule in three northern
provinces of Iraq. This was to be included in a “fundamental law”
that would precede national elections in early 2005. The fate of
three more provinces claimed by the Kurds was to be decided later.
“In the fundamental law, Kurdistan will have the same legal status as
it has now,” said a Kurdish council member, referring to the region
that has enjoyed virtual autonomy since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.
“When the constitution is written and elections are held, we will not
agree to less than what is in the fundamental law, and we may ask for
more,” said the Kurdish council member. Arabs, Turkmens, Sunnis and
Shi’ites expressed vociferous opposition to the proposed federal
system for Kurdish Iraq. They organized demonstrations leading to
ethnic tensions and violence in Kirkuk and many other cities in north
Iraq. Many protesters were killed and scores were injured.
However, when “sovereignty” was transferred on June 30 to the interim
government led by Iyad Allawi, the interim constitutional arrangement
did not include a federal structure for Kurdish self-rule, although
to pacify the Kurds, key portfolios of defense and foreign affairs
were allotted to them.
A press release from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) stated
that “the current situation in Iraq and the new-found attitude of the
US, UK and UN has led to a serious re-think for the Kurds. The
proposed plans do not seem to promise the expected Kurdish role in
the future of a new Iraq. The Kurds feel betrayed once again.” It
added that “if the plight of the Kurds is ignored yet again and we
are left with no say in the future of a new Iraq, the will of the
Kurdish people will be too great for the Kurdish political parties to
ignore, leading to a total withdrawal from any further discussions
relating to the formation of any new Iraqi government. This will
certainly not serve the unity of Iraq.” Underlining that the Kurds
have been the only true friends and allies of the US coalition, the
release concluded that “the Kurds will no longer be second-class
citizens in Iraq”. However, the Kurds did not precipitate matters.
Demographic changes in north Iraq
Kirkuk, with a population of some 750,000, and other towns are now
the scene of ethnic and demographic struggles between Turkmens, Arabs
and Kurds, with the last wanting to take over the region and make the
city a part of an autonomous zone, with Kirkuk as its capital.
The area around Kirkuk has 6% of the world’s oil reserves. In April
2003, it was estimated that the population was 250,000 each for
Turkmen, Arab and Kurd. A large number of Arabs were settled there by
Saddam Hussein, and they are mostly Shi’ites from the south. The
Turkmens are generally Shi’ites, like their ethnic kin, the Alevis in
Turkey, but many have given up Turkmen traditions in favor of the
urban, clerical religion common among the Arabs of the south. Kirkuk
is therefore a stronghold of the Muqtada al-Sadr movement which has
given US-led forces such a hard time in the south in Najaf. The
influential Shi’ite political party, the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), also has good support, perhaps 40%, in
the region. Kurds are mostly Sunnis, and were the dominant population
in Kirkuk in the 1960s and 1970s, before Saddam’s Arabization policy
saw a lot of Kurds moved further north.
According to some estimates, over 70,000 Kurds have entered Kirkuk
over the past 17 months, and about 50,000 Arabs have fled back to the
south. It can be said, therefore, that now there are about 320,000
Kurds and 200,000 Arabs in the city. The number of Turkmen has also
been augmented. During the Ottoman rule, the Turkmen dominated the
city, and it was so until oil was discovered. It is reported that,
encouraged by the Kurdish leadership, as many as 500 Kurds a day are
returning to the city. The changes are being carried out for the
quick-fix census planned for October, which in turn will be the basis
for the proportional representation for the planned January
elections, if these are even held, given the country’s security
problems. Both the Turkmens and Arabs have said that the Kurds are
using these demographic changes to engulf Kirkuk and ensure that it
is added to the enlarged Kurdish province which they are planning.
The Kurds hope to get at least semi-autonomous status from Baghdad.
North Iraq and Turkey’s Kurdish problem
Turkey has serious problems with its own Kurds, who form 20% of the
population. A rebellion since 1984 against the Turkish state led by
Abdullah Ocalan of the Marxist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has cost
over 35,000 lives, including 5,000 soldiers. To control and
neutralize the rebellion, thousands of Kurdish villages have been
bombed, destroyed, abandoned or relocated; millions of Kurds have
been moved to shanty towns in the south and east or migrated
westwards. The economy of the region was shattered. With a third of
the Turkish army tied up in the southeast, the cost of countering the
insurgency at its height amounted to between $6 billion to $8 billion
a year.
The rebellion died down after the arrest and trial of Ocalan, in
1999, but not eradicated. After a court in Turkey in 2002 commuted to
life imprisonment the death sentence passed on Ocalan and parliament
granted rights for the use of the Kurdish language, some of the root
causes of the Kurdish rebellion were removed. The PKK – now also
called Konga-Gel – shifted almost 4,000 of its cadres to northern
Iraq and refused to lay down arms as required by a Turkish
“repentance law”. The US’s priority to disarm PKK cadres was never
very high. In fact, the US wants to reward Iraqi Kurds, who have
remained mostly peaceful and loyal while the rest of the country has
not.
Early this month, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that
Turkey’s patience was running out over US reluctance to take military
action against Turkish Kurds hiding in northern Iraq. In 1999, the
PKK declared a unilateral ceasefire after the capture of its leader,
Ocalan. But the ceasefire was not renewed in June and there have been
increasing skirmishes and battles between Kurdish insurgents and
Turkish security forces inside Turkey. Turkey remains frustrated over
US reluctance to employ military means against the PKK fighters – in
spite of promises to do so.
Iraqi Kurds have been ambivalent to the PKK, helping them at times.
Ankara has entered north Iraq from time to time – despite protests –
to attack PKK bases and its cadres. Ankara has also said that it
would regard an independent Kurdish entity as a cause for war. It is
opposed to the Kurds seizing the oil centers around Kirkuk, which
would give them financial autonomy, and this would also constitute a
reason for entry into north Iraq. The Turks vehemently oppose any
change in the ethnic composition of the city of Kirkuk .
The Turks manifest a pervasive distrust of autonomy or models of a
federal state for Iraqi Kurds. It would affect and encourage the
aspirations of their own Kurds. It also revives memories of Western
conspiracies against Turkey and the unratified 1920 Treaty of Sevres
forced on the Ottoman Sultan by the World War I victors which had
promised independence to the Armenians and autonomy to Turkey’s
Kurds. So Mustafa Kemal Ataturk opted for the unitary state of Turkey
and Kurdish rebellions in Turkey were ruthlessly suppressed.
The 1980s war between Iraq and resurgent Shi’ites in Iran helped the
PKK to establish itself in the lawless north Kurdish Iraq territory.
The PKK also helped itself with arms freely available in the region
during the eight-year war.
The 1990-91 Gulf crisis and war proved to be a watershed in the
violent explosion of the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey. A nebulous and
ambiguous situation emerged in north Iraq when, at the end of the
war, US president Bush Sr encouraged the Kurds (and the hapless
Shi’ites in the south) to revolt against Saddam’s Sunni Arab regime.
Turkey was dead against it, as a Kurdish state in the north would
give ideas to its own Kurds.
Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in the Gulf were totally opposed
to a Shi’ite state in south Iraq. The hapless Iraqi Kurds and
Shi’ites paid a heavy price. Thousands were butchered. The
international media’s coverage of the pitiable conditions, with more
than half a million Iraqi Kurds escaping towards the Turkish border
from Saddam’s forces in March 1991, led to the creation of a
protected zone in north Iraq, later patrolled by US and British war
planes. The Iraqi Kurds did elect a parliament, but it never
functioned properly. Kurdish leaders Massoud Barzani and Jalal
Talabani run almost autonomous administrations in their areas. This
state of affairs has allowed the PKK a free run in north Iraq.
After the 1991 war, Turkey lost out instead of gaining as promised by
the US. The closure of Iraqi pipelines, economic sanctions and the
loss of trade with Iraq, which used to pump billions of US dollars
into the economy and provide employment to hundreds of thousands,
with thousands of Turkish trucks roaring up and down to Iraq, only
exacerbated the economic and social problems in the Kurdish heartland
and the center of the PKK rebellion.
But many Turks still remain fascinated with the dream of “getting
back” the Ottoman provinces of Kurdish-majority Mosul and Kirkuk in
Iraq. They were originally included within the sacred borders of the
republic proclaimed in the National Pact of 1919 by Ataturk and his
comrades, who had started organizing resistance to fight for Turkey’s
independence from the occupying World War I victors.
So it has always remained a mission and objective to be reclaimed
some time. The oil-rich part of Mosul region was occupied by the
British forces illegally after the armistice and then annexed to
Iraq, then under British mandate, in 1925, much to Turkish chagrin.
Iraq was created by joining Ottoman Baghdad and Basra vilayats
(provinces). Turks also base their claims on behalf of less than half
a million Turkmen who lived in Kirkuk with the Kurds before
Arabization changed the ethnic balance of the region.
With its attacks on Tal Afar, the US is stirring a very deep well of
discontent.
K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador
to Turkey from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served
terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently
chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Emai:
[email protected]

Ceasefire breach by Armenians wounds Azeri soldier
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 17 2004
Ismayil Nabiyev, a soldier in the Azerbaijan Army, was wounded after
the Armenian military units located in the occupied Shykhlar village
of Aghdam District fired at the positions of the Azerbaijani military
troops in Ortagishlag village at about 18:00 on Thursday. The wounded
soldier was hospitalized in Sarijali village of Aghjabadi District.
Armenians also fired at the Gapanli village of Terter District by
machine guns on Wednesday.
The Defense Ministry has not confirmed the report yet.*
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri, Armenian presidents meet in Astana
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 17 2004
The Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents held a four-hour meeting
in Astana, Kazakhstan on Wednesday, following a trilateral meeting
attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
President Ilham Aliyev gave a positive assessment to the meeting.
“I believe that the meetings of the two countries’ foreign ministers
held on a permanent basis with participation of the (OSCE) Minsk
Group are positive.”
Aliyev admitted that the two presidents cannot say anything specific
as to what they had discussed behind closed doors.
“We always have to confine ourselves to very general phrases, and
there will be no exception today, because the process is extremely
important.”
The Armenian leader Robert Kocharian told journalists that the
presidents have clarified certain positions and standpoints.
“Now we have to take time to find out where we stand”, he said.
The process of negotiations concerning the resolution of the Upper
Garabagh conflict is “underway,” Kocharian said. He admitted, however,
that “we can’t boast of anything special.”
The Armenian President said that the two sides approach the dialogue
“with patience”.
“We are discussing complex problems that we have inherited”, he said.
Assessing the meeting as a step forward, Russian President Vladimir
Putin expressed his confidence that the two countries’ presidents
will arrive at common decision on the issue.*
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress