Category: News

Reuters
Aug 12 2004
Azeris Seek U.S. Involvement in Karabakh
By Tabassum Zakaria
BAKU (Reuters) – Azerbaijan asked the United States on Thursday to
support its bid to regain control over Nagorno-Karabakh, an
Armenian-populated enclave which broke away after the collapse of the
Soviet Union.
But visiting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pledged to build
ties with the Caucasus ally, did not offer any help beyond supporting
international mediation which has yet to reconcile Azerbaijan with
its ex-Soviet neighbor Armenia.
Thousands of people were killed in fighting in Karabakh before a
truce was struck in 1994. Karabakh Armenians now control the enclave
and a swathe of Azeri territory around it.
Azerbaijan, upset by a lack of progress in mediation efforts by the
Minsk Group of 11 states, led by France, the United States and
Russia, has urged the European Union and other Western powers to get
involved directly.
“What we want from the United States as our ally and partner is for
it to support Azerbaijan in this conflict and demand that Armenia
immediately withdraws its occupation forces,” Defense Minister Safar
Abiyev told a joint news conference with Rumsfeld.
At the start of his visit, Rumsfeld said Washington was committed to
developing ties with Azerbaijan — an oil-rich country which should
start pumping oil to the West through a pipeline across Georgia and
Turkey next year.
“I agree completely that the security relationship between our two
countries continues to grow and strengthen,” Rumsfeld said during a
meeting with President Ilham Aliyev.
AVOIDS RESPONSE
But he avoided responding to Abiyev’s call.
“As you know the United States supports the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan,” he told the news conference, adding that Washington was
involved in the Minsk group.
Ties between the United States and Azerbaijan, which is seeking to
develop ties with NATO in contrast with its pro-Russian arch-foe
Armenia, strengthened after Baku backed the U.S. intervention in
Afghanistan by sending 30 troops.
Azerbaijan became the only predominantly Muslim state to send troops
to support the U.S.-led military engagement in Iraq. Around 150 Azeri
troops are deployed in Iraq.
Russian media reported last month that Azerbaijan was considering
sending an extra 250 troops to Iraq. Azeri officials denied such
plans and Rumsfeld said the issue was not raised during his visit.
“We did not discuss the possibility of expansion of Azeri troops in
Afghanistan or Iraq,” he said.

Associated Press
Aug 12 2004
U.S. defense chief thanks Azerbaijan president
BAKU, Azerbaijan – U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld thanked
Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliev on Thursday for his country’s
support in the war on terrorism.

Rumsfeld spoke with Aliev on a trip to visit U.S. allies in the
region.

Defense Minister Gen. Col. Safar Abiyev assured Rumsfeld that
his country is committed to keeping 150 soldiers in Iraq.

Azerbaijan is the only predominately Muslim country that has
contributed troops to the multinational coalition assisting the
emerging forces of the Iraqi interim government.

Azerbaijan, which also has 22 troops in Afghanstian, is seeking
U.S. support in mondernizing its military and resolving a territorial
dispute with neighboring Armenia.

The United States, meanwhile, is appealing to Caspian Sea
countries like Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan as foils to Iran, which also
borders on the oil-rich sea.

Toronto Star, Canada
Aug 12 2004
Turning a blind eye to genocide
PETER MORLEY
“Never again.” These words evoke the international community’s
collective promise to remain vigilant and prevent the scourge of
genocide from repeating itself. But a promise to whom?
In 1948, the United Nations completed the drafting of the Genocide
Convention. Once called “a crime without a name” by Winston
Churchill, the convention defines “genocide” as the intentional
destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group.
The convention followed the Holocaust and the near extermination of
the Armenian population in Turkey. The first article of the
convention sets out the most important obligation on states: to
prevent and punish genocide, whether it occurs during time of peace
or time of war.
Over the past decade, the international community has demonstrated
the will to punish genocide.
U.N. war crimes tribunals have indicted and prosecuted the
perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the
International Criminal Court has been established to continue this
work into the future.
Despite this apparent will to punish genocide, the international
community has demonstrated no will to uphold its obligation to
prevent genocide. The Genocide Convention empowers states to seek
action through the U.N. to prevent and suppress genocide.
Unfortunately the U.N., a body that is ultimately a reflection of the
will of its constituent states, has proved both unwilling and unable
to intervene in genocidal campaigns.
In the former Yugoslavia, 8,000 Muslims were killed in the Bosnian
town of Srebrenica while under the reluctant protection of the U.N.
Hopelessly outnumbered, the Dutch peacekeepers guarding the
Srebrenica enclave offered no protection as Bosnian Serb forces
rounded up the Muslims in the area, killed all men of roughly
military age and deported the remaining men, women and children.
In an even more tragic scenario, the U.N. peacekeeping force in
Rwanda, under the command of Canadian Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire, was
powerless in the face of the genocidal fury that swept the country in
1994, claiming the lives of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus over a
period of only 100 days.
Since 1994, world leaders ranging from former U.S. president Bill
Clinton to Annan have made their way to Rwanda to express their
regret over their failure to prevent the unspeakably terrible
genocide, and to once again breathe the words, “Never again.” But on
the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, has anything changed?
In recent months, familiar images of systematic extermination,
systematic rape and other inhumane acts taking place in Sudan trickle
through.
The situation in Sudan is complex, but the core of the humanitarian
disaster is the attacks upon black African civilians in the Darfur
region of Sudan by ostensibly government-sponsored Arab militias
known as the Janjaweed.
The scope of the disaster is staggering: 1.2 million Darfur residents
displaced, at least 50,000 civilians killed, widespread and
systematic rape, and according to a statement released by the head of
the U.S. Agency for International Development in early July, an
inevitable death toll due to mass starvation and disease that will
range from 300,000 to 1 million people.
In the face of such a disaster, swift and decisive action is
required. Instead, as in 1994, the international community refuses to
apply the word “genocide” for fear of the obligations that will be
raised, and the Security Council has limited its response to requests
that the Sudanese government disarm the militias. Sudan remains
defiant, and the atrocities continue.
Perhaps the phrase, “Never again,” is not even a real promise, but
merely an empty statement to ease our collective guilt over past
inaction.
As a nation, Canada has accomplished much good in the area of
international affairs. In recent times, we have deployed peacekeepers
to troubled regions of the world and provided diplomatic leadership
in establishing the International Criminal Court and banning
anti-personnel land mines.
Is this merely out of a desire to uphold a certain image
internationally or is it a reflection of the principles for which we
stand?
If it is a reflection of our principles, then we must be engaged into
action whenever those principles are violated. We are not a great
military power, but we are leaders in the areas of international law
and affairs and have the ability to mobilize co-operative power.
Human beings are being killed, raped, and otherwise destroyed in
Sudan on a horrific scale, and no state seems willing to make a firm
stand.
I ask Prime Minister Paul Martin: Where do we stand?
Peter Morley is a senior law student at the University of Victoria
specializing in international law. He recently returned to Canada
after working with the Yugoslavia and Rwanda war crimes tribunals.

“Aztag” Daily Newspaper
P.O. Box 80860, Bourj Hammoud,
Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: +961 1 258529
Phone: +961 1 260115, +961 1 241274
Email: [email protected]
South Caucasus: A war-zone or a place for holidays? An Interview with
Hratch Tchilingirian
by Khatchig Mouradian
`Abkhazia is not a place for holidays…it is a war zone,’ said Georgian
leader Mikhail Saakashvili earlier this month, threatening to sink foreign
(implicitly understood as Russian) ships that enter the region without
permission from his government. His comments came as tensions escalated
between the central authorities of Georgia and two of its breakaway regions,
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which Saakashvili has promised to win back.
Saakashvili’s pronouncements on South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been
furiously opposed by Moscow, whose relations with Georgia have plummeted
from bad to worse since a `rose revolution’ brought pro-western Sakhasvili
to power.
Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia’s South Caucasian neighbors, have been
struggling with problems of their own, the most important of which is the
Karabakh conflict. But despite the various international conflicts they are
engaged in, as well as their serious domestic economic and social problems
the three ex-soviet republics of the South Caucasus continue to struggle
towards political stability, reform and democracy. In this respect, the
example of Armenia is telling.
I discussed the conflicts in the South Caucasus with Hratch Tchilingirian,
who has written and lectured extensively on the region. He is Associate
Director of the Eurasia Programme, the Judge Institute, University of
Cambridge. He received his PhD from the London School of Economics and
Political Science and his Master of Public Administration (MPA) from
California State University, Northridge. His research covers political and
territorial disputes in the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as the
region’s political, economic and geostrategic developments. He has authored
over 120 articles and publications on the politics, economy, culture,
religion and social issues of the Eurasia region, especially the Caucasus
and the Armenian Diaspora.
Aztag- In the Caucasus region ethnic tensions existed during the Soviet era,
and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, these tensions were rekindled
and some of them became full-blown wars. Can you put these conflicts into
perspective?
Hratch Tchilingirian- One of the areas that has not been much researched
when it comes to these regional conflicts, and which I have made part of my
research, is what I call the management of minority-majority relations. You
have a number of minorities living within the majority nationalities in this
particular part of the former Soviet Union, and the tensions actually go
back before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991; indeed, to the
beginning of the Soviet period. The majority of these problems were not
resolved by the sovietisation of the region, they were rather frozen and,
for decades, somehow controlled or managed. These conflicts also need to be
examined from the point of view of how titular nations deal with their
minorities. When the larger group or nationality is not able to deal with
its minorities, whether for objective or subjective reasons, it creates many
problems for both the minority and the majority. I believe this is an issue
that has been overlooked, especially by western scholars.
In addition to these minority-majority relations, there are territorial
claims which further complicate the situation. But, for the moment, if we
concentrate on the socio-political, cultural, and economic levels, we see
that the post-Soviet independent states in the South Caucasus have not been
able to create stable and dependable infrastructures for economic
development, democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech within their own
societies, let alone for their disgruntled minorities. The regimes in
Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia have been unpopular in the last 10-12 years.
In Azerbaijan, the opposition is almost completely wiped out. When a society
lacks healthy political development, it is easy to see where the other
problems are coming from. If an Azerbaijani opposition in Baku cannot freely
express himself or herself or is thinking about reprisal, how can we speak
about the issue of the rights of Armenians in Karabagh?
In my opinion, in order for these conflicts to be properly resolved, there
is, first and foremost, the need for basic political structures that are
stable and a certain level of democracy and openness.
Aztag- Some people argue that the rise of nationalism led to these land
issues and ethnic conflicts. What is your take on that?
Hratch Tchilingirian- Nationalism is, of course, a part of the whole fabric;
but I would argue that nationalism is not the only reason that you have a
conflict there. Some people say, rather naively, `These people have always
hated each other and have fought wars throughout history’, they present the
issue as if it were an innate thing. They fail to appreciate the objective
reasons that contributed to the conflicts — at least in the Soviet period
— in Karabagh, Abkhazia, or Ossetia. There were policies dictated by the
centre which affected education, cultural preservation, language teaching,
socio-economic priorities, etc. When you look at the record, there are
objective reasons that made these minorities unhappy; these factors feed
into the nationalistic ideology that is driven by the elite; we have to look
at these other factors as well; we cannot fully explain these conflicts only
by theories of nationalism.
Aztag- You are saying that during the Soviet era, these conflicts were under
control. Don’t you think that some of the policies of that time have, in
fact, worsened the situation?
Hratch Tchilingirian- Yes, but one also has to remember that the Soviets had
this internationalist ideology where the ultimate goal was to create the
Soviet People — individual nationalities and separate territories did not
matter. However, individual or separate nationalities or ethnic groups still
preserved their sense of national identity.
Aztag- Some scholars argue that although the Soviets wanted to create a
homogenous country, the leaders of individual states were using a
nationalistic rhetoric when tackling key issues in their respective
countries.
Hratch Tchilingirian- If one looks at theories of nationalism, one sees that
it is useful as a political program. So we have to know why nationalist
ideology is being used in this particular era. What is the purpose? Is it to
resolve or address certain issues? What I’m trying to stress is the context
in which events develop; things don’t happen in a vacuum. The elite or the
leadership exploits certain fault lines within a society for nationalistic
purposes. Indeed, existing problems and conflicts in society provide such
opportunities for exploitation. One should also ask why conflicts happen at
a given time: the time factor, the change of leadership, the change of
climate, the change of politics is very important.
During the late 80s and early 90s, the societies in this region, as in other
parts of the Communist world, allocated the necessary resources — human,
financial, military, or other — to gain independence or autonomy. The
weakening of the center (Moscow) was one of the most favorable factors which
provided the republics and peripheral autonomies to re-appropriate power
from the center. And this was occurring very rapidly. The central government
in Moscow was collapsing and you had two or three layers of the state
apparatus trying to appropriate power from the center. When the center
completely collapsed, the republics declared independence and the autonomies
forced a divorce.
Aztag- You are stressing the fact that history does matter. But in conflict
resolution, how far back in history can one go to address the core issues?
Hratch Tchilingirian- As time passes, people forget why the conflict started
and what the initial spark that triggered the conflict was. The present
moment becomes the starting point of analysis; history and the beginning
point become less relevant. And this is part of the problem in this region
specially. Indeed, when you look at the way the mediators work, for instance
the Minsk Group, you see that what matters is today, the year 2004, not what
happened in 1988 or 1991. Yet, for the minorities in the conflict the
starting point is very important.
You have the present moment, which dictates the process of dealing with the
issues. The points of reference for the various groups involved in the
solution could be very different. For instance, on the one hand, you could
have a powerful country trying to impose a solution; and on the other hand,
you have the very people who are going to be affected by such a solution.
Their references or `starting points’ could be very different. This is where
the issue of compromise becomes very important: how far back do you go and
what kind of criteria do you use to resolve the conflict. For instance,
presently Armenia is viewed as an occupying force as far as Azerbaijanis are
concerned; on the other hand, there is no reference as to why or when these
regions were occupied; it’s irrelevant. Yet this is relevant for Karabagh
Armenians, it is relevant for at least certain groups in Armenia. So it is
very important to understand and analyze these various layers that add to
the complexity of the matter.
Aztag- How practical is the approach of solving the conflict by force?
Hratch Tchilingirian- My argument is that any quick or imposed solution in
this region would not be a lasting solution. When one looks at the history
of Karabagh or Abkhazia in the last 200 years, it is easy to see that there
have been various types of political or military conflicts every few years.
Any solution that does not address the fundamental issues of the conflict
would not be lasting. If a solution is imposed just as it was during the
Soviet period, the problems will resurface whenever there is an opportunity.
I believe one of the key issues that should be addressed is the
majority-minority relationship. How you manage and maintain that
relationship will determine the durability of the solution.
Aztag- So you think that democratizing the region would make the situation
better.
Hratch Tchilingirian- Democratic regimes provide a more conducive ground for
conflict resolution.
Aztag- What about the issue of territorial demands? Even if we had a
democratic Georgia or Azerbaijan, the conflicts would still be there because
of the land issue, wouldn’t they?
Hratch Tchilingirian- Yes, I believe so, because especially in this part of
the world, territory is very important. In Europe, throughout history, the
situation was the same. But the European Union has made territory less and
less important. In the Caucasus, territory is still a very important
identity marker, it is a very important political and strategic factor, so I
don’t think this region will become like a mini-EU any time soon.
If you look at the European Union, the issue of territoriality is not
important anymore, you can travel within the EU as if you are in one
country. Today, territorial boundaries are not contentious in Europe, to a
large extent because nobody is suppressed; various national or ethnic groups
are free to practice their culture, to speak their language. But when you
have discrimination, when you have inequality, then people want to protect
their socio-political boundaries; they want to be their own boss!
Aztag- It is no secret that Russia and the US have their strategic interests
in the Caucasus and each tries to enlarge its own circle of influence in the
region. How does this affect the already volatile situation in the Caucasus?
Hratch Tchilingirian- This issue has two dimensions: internal and external.
If you look at the internal situation, when the regime is weak and not
stable, then it would be affected by the big powers, whether positively or
negatively; the ruling elite itself needs the backing of a “sponsor” or a
big power, to secure its position.
The external aspect is that Russia has definite interests in this region;
historically this region has been part of the Russian sphere of influence;
it has been part of the Russian Empire for centuries. Russia is interested
in preserving that influence and role. The US has its own strategic
interests in this region, especially in the Caspian, so there is going to be
rivalry among the superpowers, just like any other region. I would add that
this competition is not unique to this region, it happens throughout the
world.
The issue also depends on how the countries in this region view their
strategic interests. For instance, it’s very important for Armenia to have
good relations with Russia for security and strategic reasons. Armenia also
has trade and economic dependency on Russia, not the least of which is the
large remittances that come from Russian-Armenians who send money to
Armenia. So if there were a choice, Russia would be a priority — even
though Armenia tries to have good relations with both Russia and the US and
virtually with everyone else.
Aztag- What’s your take on the current situation in Georgia and the way
President Saakashvili is dealing with the separatist movements?
Hratch Tchilingirian- Well, I think any leader would wish or would want to
resolve conflicts in his country. Saakashvili has an interest to do that as
the new leader of Georgia. On the one hand, he appears to project a strong
position when it comes to dealing with these conflicts; on the other hand,
he sounds like he is willing to compromise, provide autonomy and so on. But
I would come back to my earlier point: it would ultimately depend on how
Tbilisi is going to manage its relations with the various minorities within
Georgia.
Aztag- In Adjaria, Saakashvili had his way rather easily, didn’t he?
Hratch Tchilingirian- Yes, that was because the problem was limited in one
person, Aslan Abashidze. However, after the removal of the immediate
problem, if you do not provide the guarantees, the opportunities that these
people expect, then you are not resolving the conflict.
On the other hand, he has said that he is willing to give Abkhazia a very
wide autonomy; but it is debatable whether at this point Georgia has the
capacity to deliver. Does Georgia have the capacity and the resources to
deliver? I am not sure. Georgia is hardly paying the salaries of state
employees. Is Georgia ready to help the Abkhazians or the South Ossetians
with their needs? The same goes for Azerbaijan. I do not think the central
governments in Tbilisi and Baku are in any position to make the lives of the
Abkhazians or Karabagh Armenians any better at this point. What clear
incentives or gains do the minorities have? I believe this is missing from
the various solutions that are being proposed. At the end of the day, the
population, the villager, the farmer living in Abkhazia or in Karabagh or
wherever, is going to ask: What am I gaining that I don’t have now through
this agreement? What is this going to add to my current situation?
When mediators look at it purely from a political perspective, it looks like
you could resolve the conflict. On paper, it looks like it is just a matter
of sharing territory or changing flags or sending a governor. But as
scholars we look at it at a deeper level, on the everyday level, the
sociological level — for instance, the fact that people were once neighbors
and became enemies overnight.
Aztag- In your opinion, how far are we from the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict?
Hratch Tchilingirian- In my opinion, the conflict will take a very long time
to resolve; probably 20-25 years. This is not something that can be resolved
in a few years. Even if a peace agreement is signed within months or a few
years, it will take a long time to implement that agreement on the ground.
When you look at Cyprus, it took more than 30 years just to come up with a
framework, not a solution. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more than 50
years old and nowhere near resolution.
Aztag- Could you give us a brief background about the conflict in Abkhazia?
Hratch Tchilingirian- The Abkhaz conflict is going to take a long time to
resolve. It has a long history. There were inter-ethnic tensions throughout
the Soviet period.
The Abkhazian Autonomous Republic — situated on the eastern Black Sea coast
with an area of 8,700 sq km — was part of the Georgian Soviet Socialist
Republic, with a population of over 500 thousand. The Abkhazians constituted
a minority of 18%, compared with the 46% majority of Georgians. However, in
the late 19th century, before the ‘Georgianisation’ of the region, as Abkhaz
scholars argue, Abkhazians were the majority, with some 55% and the
Georgians counted for only about 25%.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Abkhazian-Georgian relations
deteriorated, when, in 1992, the Abkhazians reinstated their 1925
Constitution to prevent Georgian attempts to curtail the political status of
the autonomous republic. A full-scale war broke out between the Abkhazians
and Georgia, after the fall of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the ultra-nationalist
president of Georgia, which resulted in the defeat of the Georgians in
September 1993. Obviously, the Abkhazians were assisted by Russia, whose
policy, at least at the time, was to use the conflicts in Abkhazia and
Karabakh to pressure Tbilisi and Baku, which were rapidly drifting away from
Moscow’s “sphere of influence”.
A ceasefire between the Georgian and the Abkhazian was reached in 1994;
since then the United Nations have been involved in mediating a solution.
While unrecognized by the international community, Abkhazia, like Karabakh,
has achieved de facto independence in what is now the ‘Republic of
Abkhazia’. Nevertheless, Abkhazia remains extremely isolated and extremely
dependent on Russia. The international community recognized only the
independence of what were the 15 Soviet Socialist Republics. The
international community, in fact, discouraged further break up of
second-tier `states’ in the Soviet system, such as autonomous republics like
Abkhazia, and third-tier autonomous regions like Karabakh. As such, the
international community puts more pressure on the secessionists than the
recognized states.
The Abkhaz problem has many similarities with Karabagh, especially in terms
of independence, in terms of breaking off with the center, in terms of
determining their own affairs and lives, and so on. But it also has some
important differences. The Abkhazians were willing to have a federative
relationship with Georgia, but because Georgia was not forthcoming and did
not take it seriously, the Abkhazians declared full independence from
Georgia in 1999. And nowadays they talk about having a special association
or a membership association with the Russian Federation. This proposed
association is a model that does not exist in any other place in the world
yet. Abkhazia would not become a member of the Russian Federation or a
federal entity, but it will have a special, still to be defined association
with Russia. In a way Abkhazia will keep its independence, but in many ways
will dependent on Russia, as it is now.
Aztag- So being part of Georgia in any way is not an option for Abkhazia.
Hratch Tchilingirian- It is not a desired option for the Abkhazians. When
you speak to political leaders and ordinary people in Abkhazia, they say
they do not want to be part of Georgia, they prefer to be part of Russia.
But Abkhazia is very isolated from the rest of the world; they are very
dependent on Russia, so ultimately, Russia’s role in the resolution of the
conflict will be a determining factor. On the other hand, Karabagh is
different from Abkhazia because it has an outlet to the rest of the world
through Armenia — Karabagh is a virtual province of Armenia. Perhaps
legally or on paper Karabagh is a separate entity, but de facto, it is part
of Armenia.
Aztag- What do you think about the recent pronouncements of President
Saakashvili?
Hratch Tchilingirian- The nationalistic pronouncements of the President of
Georgia are not surprising, but the logic of his threats to sink Russian
ships going to Abkhazia is hard to understand. Saber rattling with Abkhazia
is one thing, but with Russia it has serious consequences. Russia still has
enormous levers in this region. Hostility towards Russia is not going to
make Georgia’s position any better nor is it going to resolve the Abkhaz
conflict to Georgia’s favor. I believe, once Saakashvilli’s `Rose
Revolution’ honeymoon is over, he is going to realize that the resolution of
Georgian’s major territorial, political and economic issues depend on good
relations with Russia.

CHILDREN’S-JUNIOR THEATRICAL FESTIVAL “NRAN HATIK” TO BE HELD IN
ARMENIA FOR FOURTH TIME
YEREVAN, August 12 (Noyan Tapan). The children’s-junior theatrical
festival “Nran Hatik” will be held in Yerevan on August 14-22 within
the framework of the first Pan-Armenian festival “One Nation, One
Culture”. Levon Ivanian, Chairman of the steering committee of the
festival, said about it during the August 12 press conference.
According to him, 19 children’s theatrical staffs from Armenia,
Artsakh and Javakhk will participate in the festival. According to
him, the festival organized upon the initiative of the heads of the
children’s-junior theaters in 2001 became traditional and is held for
the fourth time in succession. “The children’s-junior festival gives
our children an opportunity to show their talent and love and value
dramatic art,” mentioned Levon Ivanian. Garnik Seiranian, Chairman of
the “Nakhabem” (“Proscenium”) Educational-Cultural Union, the main
organizer of the festival, said that the Armenian authorities also
paid attention to the festival that united children of the Homeland
and the Diaspora. By the decision of RA Prime Minister Andranik
Margarian the state will render support to the holding of the
children’s-junior festival “Nran Hatik” till 2015.
Garnik Seiranian also said that the festival has no competition
program. All the theatrical troupes participating in festival will
receive the bronze statuettes “Flight” and diplomas of gratitude. On
August 14, participants of the festival will visit Khor Virap, then
the theatrical troupe of school N5 of Masis will perform the play
entitled “Armenians, 1915” in Artashat.
On August 15, children will participate in the ceremony of the
consecration of grapes in Etchmiadzin. On August 16, they will visit
Matenadaran and Tsiternakaberd. The theatrical troupe “Pearllets” will
perform the “Loud-Voiced Silence” play at the State Theater of Gavar
the same evening. The day of the establishment of “Nor Hatik” will be
marked on August 19, and the hymn of this children’s-junior theatrical
festival will be sounded for the first time. On August 22, young
actors will visit the Pantheon after Komitas, and the solemn closing
of the festival will be held in the evening.
From: Baghdasarian

RUSSIAN AND AZERBAIJANI FMs INTEND TO DISCUSS KARABAKH CONFLICT’S
RESOLUTION
YEREVAN, AUGUST 12. ARMINFO. The issue of the Karabakh conflict’s
settlement is planned for discussion in the course of Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov’s forthcoming visit to Moscow,
Assistant Offical Representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry
B.Malakhov told the Russian Mass Media, the press-service of the
Russian FM reports.
Malakhov said that Russia welcomes continuation of the
Azerbaijani-Armenian dialogue at various levels, and, first of all,
the dialogue of the presidents.
“We think that it is the conflicting parties that should reach a
mutually acceptable resolution to the conflict. As regards Russia, it
is ready exert active contribution to them both on the bilateral basis
and as an OSCE MG co-chair, as well as to become a guarantor of the
agreement reached,” Malakhov said. The visit of the Azerbaijani
minister to Moscow is fixed for Aug 17-19.

IT EXPECTED THAT PERSONNEL TO BE CHANGED IN SYSTEM OF PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE
YEREVAN, August 12 (Noyan Tapan). 878 employees work in the system of
the RA Prosecutor’s Office at present. 601 of them are operating
workers, 277 are technical workers. According to Mnatsakan Sargsian
and Armen Khachatrian, RA Deputy Prosecutors General, there will no
reduction of the staff in the RA Prosecutor’s Office system, but only
transpositions in accordance with the requirements of the Regional
Prosecutor’s Offices. Researches showed that there is some discrepancy
in the regional structures of the Prosecutor’s Office. Employees of
the Prosecutor’s Office are mainly concentrated in the regional
centers. For that reason the presence of six investigators in the
Aragatsotn region should be re-examined as no case was directed at the
court during half year in the case of the presence of such number of
investigators. Tree criminal cases directed from the regional
Prosecutor’s Office were investigated by the Deputy Prosecutor, the
senior aide and the aide. Such a situation also reigns in the
Prosecutor’s Office of the Malatia-Sebastia Community of Yerevan. It
was mentioned that the duties of the deputy prosecutors, senior aides
and aides also need specification. Armen Khachatrian said that
attestation suits of 520 employees were discussed as a result of the
complex attestation of employees of the system of the Prosecutor’s
Office started since July 31, 2002 up to present. 457 employees were
recognized as corresponding to the posts filled by them, 13 were
warned about the incomplete official correspondence, and 44 employees
were warned about the necessity of the increase of the level of their
theoretical knowledge.

Border must be impregnable, says Ukrainian border official
Den, Kiev
11 Aug 04
Europe is helping Ukraine protect its border with Russia, but leaves
Kiev to keep up western borders, Maj-Gen Volodymyr Karas, the chief of
the Western regional directorate of the State Border Service, has
said. Speaking in an interview, he said travelling West has reached
the levels seen before the recent introduction of visa regime by
Ukraine’s western neighbours. Karas said funds allocated by the EU to
beef up Ukraine’s borders and curb illegal migration are being put to
good use, but added he hopes Europe will keep its promises to do
more. The following is the text of the interview with Karas by Iryna
Yehorova, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Den on 11 August under
the title “The border. Correction to Europe”; subheadings are as in
the original:
The last expansion of the European Union to the east came right up to
the borders of Ukraine. The topic of this interview with the chief of
the Western regional directorate of the State Border Service, Maj-Gen
Volodymyr Karas, was how the border is getting along with the EU.
Europe can help Ukraine protect the border with Russia
Yehorova General Karas, how has the change in the status of the
western border practically influenced the work of your directorate?
Karas The current situation developed under the influence of processes
of integration. Now there are visa regimes along practically the
entire western border. (The latest one was introduced in June by
Romania.) However, as we see, there is no commotion on the borders, we
have worked out all issues in concert with our neighbours in defending
state borders. If you look at the flow of passenger and cargo traffic,
we have practically reached the level we had before the visa regimes
took effect .
As far as foreign citizens crossing our borders, their overall volume
has unarguably increased. We are trying to work in a way that will
make for as little discomfort and complaint in crossing the state
border as possible. Of course, not everything is ideal, but I should
note the number of statements and complaints about the tactless
behaviour or illegal actions on the part of border troops has sharply
fallen. We are very strict with those people who do not want to carry
out their responsibilities. And we constantly rotate staff. This year,
we completely rotated staff at the Krakovets crossing point and about
50 per cent at Rava-Ruska. Similar work is being done at other
crossing points, significantly lowering the possibility of abuse of
service position and attempts to carry out corrupt activities.
Yehorova Is staff going to be cut within your department?
Karas The border troops department has just gone through the stage of
reform – on the basis of the border troops, the State Border Service
of Ukraine has been established. So the issue of cutting back staff is
not logical at this stage. According to the law of Ukraine “On the
State Border Service of Ukraine”, the limit on staffing from 1 January
2005 is 50,000 people, of them 42,000 are military servicemen. And
that is the maximum allowable number, while the real, that is factual,
number is less and it has not changed for practically the last five
years. We are placing special emphasis on reaching quality
indicators. We very carefully choose people to fill vacancies in top
posts, giving special attention to the level of their professional
preparation, competency, legal preparation, knowledge of foreign
languages and so on.
Overall, the increase in the number of border troops at the end of the
1990s is connected to building Ukraine’s eastern border. We are now
also expecting an increase in the number of border crossing points on
western borders shared with the EU.
The EU is paying great attention to its borders, investing large sums
into developing them… ellipsis as published I can relate the
following example: for one small segment – 97 km of border with
Slovakia – the EU allocated 50m euros for two years. There are
comparable programmes for developing the border in other EU
countries. Serious funding is being allocated for equipping the
borders with technical means. Everywhere there is night vision
equipment, something we, unfortunately, do not yet have.
The EU is helping our neighbours, but we are basically working by
ourselves. However, in most cases, Europe is aiding in strengthening
our eastern, northern and southern borders. Literally just days ago 90
pieces of equipment including vehicles, radio stations and office
equipment were purchased for the Sumy border patrol unit with funds
from the EU. The same help is expected for the Kharkiv, Luhansk and
Donetsk border patrols for securing the border with Russia. As far as
the western borders, almost everything is pinned on our own
abilities. Although, on the other hand, if the European Union is
helping secure our borders on the east, state funding is freed for
supporting the western borders. The main task the State Border
Service’s western directorate is to ensure that we are not worse than
our neighbours.
The minuses of a transit geography
Yehorova Are you handling it?
Karas Look at the results of our work. Units in the western regional
directorate have detained 3,386 people breaking the law on the state
border. Compared to last year 2003 , this indicator is up 22 per
cent. Eighty per cent of all illegal migrants detained by the State
Border Service are detained by us.
Most of the illegal migrants are from countries in south-east Asia
(China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq). They account for 82
per cent. A significant portion (15 per cent) are from the countries
of the CIS (Chechnya, Armenia and Georgia). Compared to the same
period last year 2003 the number of CIS citizens detained is up 400
per cent.
Nearly 97 per cent of the illegal migrants detained were in organized
groups. The Ukrainian-Slovak section of the border is especially
“active”. This is explained by the attractiveness of Slovak
legislation on granting the status of refugee. A negative role is also
played by the easiness of staying in our border regions. After all,
most migrants coming from the Caucasus and Moldova are in Ukraine
officially, and then they freely move across our territory. Just six
months have passed and we already have detained over 1,000 people from
the Caucasus, 400 per cent more than in all of 2003.
Yehorova The European community has given its new members huge
resources to fight illegal migration. The EU does not want to see them
on its territory and that means someone has to catch them, and then
hold them for a time, feed them and pay to deport them… ellipsis as
published Until 1 May, that was done by Poland, Slovakia, the Czech
Republic and Romania. Now it turns out Ukraine has to do all that
dirty work?
Karas After our neighbours joined the EU, Europe has demanded we take
all detained illegal migrants, who have passed through us, and
determine their fate ourselves. Yes, we do have a certain agreement
from 1993 on accepting persons who pass through a common state
border. The main idea of all these agreements is that we have
responsibility for those who pass across a common border with Ukraine,
and not circumventing us. Today they are trying to give us all the
illegals caught in Poland and especially in Slovakia. However, there
has to be some proof, we cannot accept them all. That would be such a
burden for the country! So we try every time to insist on joint
investigations, joint questioning and often prove – that one is not
ours!
Sometimes, illegals are held in our country for up to six months. It
takes time after all to determine who they are. Their documents are
often taken by those who are involved in smuggling them. Such
“channels” are operating from Beijing to Berlin. It is a trial
sometimes waiting to know what language the interpreter needs to know
to talk with them.
Yehorova According to the State Committee on Nationalities and
Migration, the EU spends 10 per cent from its budget to combat illegal
migration, while Ukraine spends 90. Of course, this is not a question
for you really, but you also spend in the same way, giving people a
roof for a time, feeding them from your stores. On average over 1,000
dollars is spent to deport one migrant. And the money does not always
come out of the migrant’s pocket… ellipsis as published
Karas Two years ago Ukraine opened the first shelter for people
detained by the border guards. It belongs to the Transcarpathian
Region. Of course, it is not enough, such places for keeping illegal
migrants need to be set up in other regions. Funds are needed for
deportation. This year for the first time, the state has set aside
funds for this. Europe has promised a lot and there is hope it may
keep its promise. Migrants making it to Ukraine are only using it as a
place to transit. Their goal is more developed countries – Germany,
France, Luxembourg, Great Britain… ellipsis as published The
European community should understand that.
>From barbed wire to modern technology
Yehorova Civilized Europe will understand, but a grandmother living
near the border does not understand what harm she does the state by
letting illegal migrants sleep in her barn. It costs 50 dollars per
person per night there. And that reasoning (almost two monthly pension
allowances!) is stronger for her. How do border troops work in light
of this, do they find a common tongue with the local population?
Karas Of course we look for one. And we punish in accordance with the
law. Over six months of the current year, 1,786 people were brought
to administrative responsibility, fines were levied to a total amount
of 121,044 hryvnyas.
It is not easy to make the local population our helpers, but it is
possible. People should understand that this is their state and that
it will care of them and then they will take care of the state.
Now we are cooperate on this with the special services of Ukraine, the
Interior Ministry and the western regional customs service. We share
information and carry out joint search activities. By the way, we are
creating civil formations of our helpers – that is that positive
experience which we need to return t o.
Yehorova And what about citizens who do not break the law – why should
they suffer? Everyone knows about the agreement between Poland and
Ukraine on how many cars should be let through a day. Customs and
border services carry out joint inspections to decrease the time in
crossing the border. And still there are queues on the border. Today,
after I made a cursory count, about 100 cars were lined up… ellipsis
as published
Karas The main reason for the queues on the Polish-Ukrainian border is
the un-rhythmic nature of our neighbours’ work. In my opinion, the
intensity of the work of border services on the Polish side should be
higher. In particular, they do not want to recognize a “green line”,
that is, a simplified system of crossing the border, explaining that
those involved in contraband often use “green lines”. According to our
data, it is the other way around. They almost never use those
lines. They go in normal order. By the way, we are not catching crows
here, in the past six months Ukrainian border service units together
with customs agents have detained goods worth more than 22.1m
hryvnyas. That is 240 per cent more than in the same period last year
2003 . Still, we would like the differences in the way Poland and we
look at simplified systems for crossing the border to be eliminated.
There is one more very serious problem – the number of existing
crossing points is not enough. And so three more are planned to be
built in the coming years: Budomyzh-Hrushev, Nyzhankovychy and
Boberka. In order to start construction on these crossing points, a
decision is needed by the cabinet and diplomatic notes exchanged by
the Foreign Ministry. Certain agreements from the Polish side already
exist. And so it is just a matter of time.
Yehorova Please tell us – are there sections of the border where
Ukraine is separated from other states by barbed wire?
Karas Yes, there still are. In far removed places, in the
mountains. Does that bother someone? In time, everything will fall
down on its own, we can’t buy new barbed wire after all. We are moving
towards modern methods. For example, we check the authenticity of
people’s documents and find counterfeits with light of various
wavelengths and magnification to 30 times. Tiny video cameras have
been installed to monitor places that are hard to reach, technical
equipment is in place to find people in remote spaces. Seventeen
international points have been equipped with automated border control
devices which help in investigating persons and transport vehicles. In
just minutes all needed information is sent from the administration of
the State Border Service to the border crossing point. You can quickly
uncover documents that are no good, people denied entry to Ukraine,
criminals being searched for. This year an subsystem was put into use
that can automatically read license plates of transport vehicles at
the Rava-Ruska and Krakovets border crossings and a subsystem for
video monitoring. In the future there are prospects for putting such
systems into place at all international crossing points by 2006.
Our borders have always been tight and now they must become completely
impossible for transgressors to violate. That is what the EU demands
and moreover, our professional and civil duty.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri paper accuses Khatami of “Persian chauvinism”
Ayna, Baku
10 Aug 04
The Azerbaijani newspaper Ayna has accused Iranian President Mohammad
Khatami of promoting Persian chauvinism under the guise of
democracy. Talking about his trip to Ganca while on a visit to
Azerbaijan, Ayna said the fact that Khatami described Azerbaijani poet
Nizami as being Persian shows that Iran’s policy is to assimilate and
trample upon the rights of ethnic minorities residing in that country,
including Azeris. The following is the text of Sadraddin’s report by
Azerbaijani newspaper Ayna on 10 August headlined “President Khatami
behaved as a Persian chauvinist” and subheaded “Thus, showing which
ideology he belongs to”:
Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s visit to our country ended with a
trip to great Azerbaijani poet and philosopher Nizami Gancavi’s
mausoleum in Ganca . It was there that he made the greatest mistake
not befitting a statesman during his three-day visit.
We have heard more than once representatives of the Tehran regime
paying lip service to the recognition of the territorial integrity of
our country, Karabakh’s recognition as an integral part of Azerbaijan
and consent to the opening of Azerbaijan’s consulate-general in
Tabriz. From this viewpoint, those who describe Khatami’s visit to
Baku and Ganca as a new stage of relations between Iran and Azerbaijan
are in some way mistaken in their analyses. Nor do they need to
exaggerate the Iranian president’s tour of our republic into a great
diplomatic success. Khatami simply paid the visit he should have paid
two years ago. The Tehran regime has never openly objected to the
opening of an Azerbaijani consulate in Tabriz. Both the Azerbaijani
envoy in Tehran and the Iranian ambassador to our country have been
promising the public of North the Azerbaijani Republic and South
Azerbaijan northern Iran for several years that this diplomatic
mission will be opened soon. But, the consulate won’t open. This time,
the promise has been made at the level of the Iranian president,
Mohammad Khatami. Although we do not believe in a positive result, in
any case we hope that this issue which is sensitive for the ordinary
people of both Azerbaijans North and South will find its
resolution… ellipses as given
Now, let us have a brief look at Khatami’s mistake. While on a trip to
Ganca, he wrote down his words and wishes in the visitors’ book at the
world’s renowned thinker Nizami Gancavi’s mausoleum. There he called
Nizami a poet of “Persian literature”.
We have always boasted our hospitality. This national value has always
been a feature distinguishing Azerbaijani Turks from others. Our ills
have often resulted from this feature. With his remarks Khatami proved
that he was a representative of the chauvinist Persian ideology masked
under the cover of democracy. Had he not called Nizami Gancavi a poet
of the Islamic world for eulogizing God and the Muslim prophet, he
would have shown his devotion to Islam which is his country’s official
ideology.
As is known, Persian chauvinists in Iran are trying to tout the great
Azerbaijani poet, Nizami Gancavi, as being Persian. In his wishes
Khatami was a little bit “ashamed” to call him in the same way as in
Iran. Shortly before that, the Iranian president said in an address in
Iran that the national unity factor is the Persian language and
culture. The bearer of this opinion could have never expressed a
different view on Nizami Gancavi. This is the nature of the reformism
Khatami represents. He is a Persian chauvinist pretending to be
wearing the robe of democracy. The supporters of this ideology do not
accept the existence of ethnicities other than Persians in Iran and
believe those who are not Persians are bits and pieces. In other words
they preach the idea that all other ethnic groups in Iran originated
from the Persians, thus attempting to assimilate other ethnic groups.
As we wrote in a previous issue of Ayna, Mohammad Khatami did not meet
the press. The media in his country are silenced because they are
feared. While in our country he hid for fear of confronting questions
on real problems. Because an attempt to seem candid to the local
public by reciting ethnic Azerbaijani poet of Iran Mahammadhuseyn
Sahriyar’s poetry misfired. When in trouble they know how to find ways
to the hearts of our countrymen in South Azerbaijan by saying a couple
of words in Azerbaijani. He failed to rise in the eyes of Azerbaijani
Turks by reciting Sahriyar in Azerbaijani after calling Nizami Gancavi
“a poet of Persian literature”.
Persian is a compulsory language in Iran. Thus, a policy of
Persianization is being pursued in the country. This remark by Khatami
illustrates that everybody, from the supreme spiritual leader of Iran
Ayatollah Khamene’i to ordinary citizens, serves the Persian language
and culture. This clearly shows that the rights of Turks, Kurds, Arabs
and other ethnic groups in the country are being trampled upon.
In recent years an Armenian journalist visited Baku. He made a
fearless statement in Baku that Karabakh belongs to the
Armenians. Khatami’s remark is equal to this. We gave way to the
Persian language and secretaries at our palaces, as we did to
Armenians in our country. That is why part of our country is under
Armenian occupation, while in another part Persian chauvinism is
striving to destroy our ethnic identity.
But no official from Baku that visited Iran has ever said “this
belongs to Azerbaijani Turks”, although they are in majority in the
neighbouring country. There is a Turkic signature under every
historical monument or manuscript in Iran.

Iran’s nuclear programme threat to world, Rumsfeld says in Azeri capital
Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku
12 Aug 04
Presenter Namiq Aliyev Before leaving Azerbaijan, US Secretary of
Defence Donald Rumsfeld has held a news conference at Heydar Aliyev
airport. Speaking about the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, Rumsfeld said
he viewed the settlement of the problem only within the framework of
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.
Correspondent, over video of Rumsfeld and Azerbaijani Defence Minister
Safar Abiyev at news conference Rumsfeld said that the USA appreciated
Azerbaijan’s involvement in the antiterror coalition. Speaking highly
about the Azerbaijani peacekeepers in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld
spoke about the topics discussed at his meetings with Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev and Safar Abiyev. He said that cooperation
within the framework of NATO’s Partnership for Peace Programme,
bilateral military cooperation, combating international terrorism,
smuggling, drugs trafficking and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction in the Caspian region had been the main subject of the
talks.
Rumsfeld said that the expansion of the Azerbaijani military
contingents in Afghanistan and Iraq had not been discussed.
Rumsfeld in English, with Azeri voice-over The UN wants to organize
the upcoming elections in Iraq. There is a need for assistance in
organizing and holding these elections. We hope that the coalition
countries will render this assistance.
Correspondent Azerbaijan is the only Muslim country in the coalition
that has sent troops to Iraq and supports the USA in this as given
. Asked when Azerbaijan will witness the USA’s support in the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem, Rumsfeld said:
Rumsfeld A settlement to the Nagornyy Karabakh problem is being
discussed within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group. The USA and
the Minsk Group co-chairmen want to resolve this issue. Washington has
appointed a new co-chairman. I would like to say that the USA supports
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.
Correspondent Asked about how he could explain the fact that USA,
which supports Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, had allocated 5m
dollars to the separatist Karabakh regime, Rumsfeld said that one
should view this as part of general humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan and
the entire region. This is quite a large sum, he added. Another
question to Rumsfeld was why the USA did not demand that Armenia
fulfil the UN’s four resolutions on Nagornyy Karabakh .
Rumsfeld The international community supports the OSCE Minsk Group
which is dealing with this issue. I believe that the OSCE Minsk Group
will find a solution to this problem and Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity will be protected.
Corespondent Rumsfeld said that Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s
visit to Azerbaijan on 5-7 August had been discussed as well. He added
that Iran has been developing its nuclear programmes and, in doing so,
poses a threat to the whole world, including the neighbouring
countries.
In turn, Safar Abiyev spoke about the issues that the Azerbaijani
government wanted the USA to help it with in the first place.
Safar Abiyev in Russian, with Azeri voice-over First, we would like
the USA to demand that Armenia urgently withdraw its occupying troops
from Azerbaijani territories. We also want the USA’s support to
guarantee security in the Caspian because there are some disagreements
there, and the USA’s assistance is very important.
Correspondent Safar Abiyev said that Washington-Baku military ties
have been speedily developing and the sides plan to develop
cooperation in the future to strengthen their relations.
Etibar Mammadov, Mirtofiq Miralioglu, for “Son Xabar” programme.