TALES FROM THE COFFEESHOP
By Patroclos
Cyprus Mail, Cyprus
Oct 1 2006
YOU HAVE to be a special kind of mega-loser to snatch defeat from the
jaws of victory, the way the megalomaniac bishop of Kykkos managed to
do last Sunday. Despite having everything going for him, moneybags
Bish Nikiforos still managed to win significantly fewer votes than
the pious, floor-gazing Bish of Limassol Athanassios (42 per cent of
the vote compared to 48 per cent).
The money he spent on his election campaign and the backing he
had would have been enough to win the presidency; his election
gatherings were as glitzy as those of US presidential candidates; he
had the public support of the majority of the political leadership,
including all former presidentes (the living and the dead), the entire
intelligentsia (from award-winning poets to authors who cannot spell
their name), all the best-supported football clubs, the TV stations,
most newspapers and the communist party AKEL which had put all its
errand boys and henchmen at his disposal.
And still he could not win. How unlikable must one be when one cannot
win public affection even when one pays millions of bananas for it?
This ability to lose when you have the odds stacked in your favour was
last seen in the 2001 municipal elections, when Cyprus Goldenmouth,
despite having the support of three parties, lost the mayoral contest
to an independent candidate from nowhere by the name of Mike Zampelas.
At this point, I would like to introduce a spiritual dimension
to the issue and ask whether someone above may have had a say in
Niki’s defeat. Because when a candidate has spent so much money on
his campaign and has the fanatical support of all the plantation’s
opinion formers, media and the biggest party, only one factor could
have stopped him from winning – divine intervention.
I think it is not rash to deduce, given the facts, that the Almighty
had not maintained His customary impartiality in this election contest,
for once abandoning His legendary indifference to earthly affairs in
order to influence the outcome. As the old saying goes, if you want
to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people he gives
it to.
THE CONTEST is not over yet and it is still possible for the loser
to become the victor of these North Korea-type elections which even
our establishment’s favourite candidate, Bish of Paphos Chrysostomos,
can win despite taking a pitiful 5.1 per cent of the vote. Thanks to
the lunatic voting system, Nikiforos could still become the Church’s
head honcho.
Kykkos monastery may have to donate a bit of moollah to the
favourite charities of six to seven of the 100 electors who make
up one electoral body (he already has 45) and he may just clinch
victory. If it were that simple I would bet on him doing it, but
there is a second electoral body, made up of ex-officio clerics,
from which he would also need a majority.
This second electoral body also has a number of priests appointed
to it. Who appoints them? The caretaker of the Archbishop’s throne,
Chrys of Paphos, who also happens to be one of the candidates and
has never made a secret of his brotherly hatred of Niki’s guts.
We love to boast that our plantation is the only country in the world
in which the people elect the Archbishop, but omit to mention that
the elections are based on ancient Egyptian democratic procedures.
Our dude from Paphos, supported by five per cent of the voters,
could still become Archbishop.
Perhaps the holy fathers who drafted the Church charter did not trust
the people’s judgment very much – they were wise – and allowed some
scope for divine intervention. This must be bad news for Niki.
DIVINE intervention could very well have been prompted by Niki’s,
insanely unholy alliance with the communist party AKEL. The Lord may
have decided to punish the bishop’s ruthlessly Machiavellian ambition
that was capable of reaching a pact with a clique of devout atheists
who hate the Church, in order to become Archbishop – talk about a
pact with the devil.
As for the comrades, why on earth did they back Niki so fanatically,
putting AKEL’s entire party mechanism at his disposal, having Akelites
canvassing for him, manning his kiosks at the election centres,
bringing elderly voters to the centres and championing him in the
party mouthpiece?
We’ve said quite a few unflattering things about Niki, but nobody could
accuse him of being a socialist, let alone Stalinist – he is a true
blue capitalist, believer in private property, the amassing of wealth
and preservation of income inequality. And I doubt he promised to
distribute Church land among the poor in exchange for commie support.
What he may have done would be to donate several hundred grand to the
cash-strapped party of the people, which is perfectly legitimate in
a free society, and the comrades showed their undying gratitude by
helping his election campaign.
THE POSSIBILITY of such a deal could become a business graduate’s
thesis – the sale of political services to candidates. A political
party would provide organisational support, political backing and
the votes of its supporters to a candidate who does not have a party
mechanism behind him, for a fee, which would be determined by the
range of services offered.
It would be like those businesses that sell 10,000 addresses to
companies that want to carry out a promotional campaign via direct
mailing. Similarly, a political party could sell the votes of its
supporters to candidates, at a unit price of £50 per vote. A Stalinist
party like AKEL which exercises total control on the minds of its
supporters could easily provide such a service and charge big bucks
for it.
The problem is that a communist party like AKEL, which is committed
to high ideals and socialist principles, would never behave in such
a mercenary way. It is a shame, because it could have solved all its
financial problems if it provided such a service. Just think how much
a presidential candidate would be willing to pay for such a service.
COMMISSAR Christofias, of course, is not interested in money. His gig
is power and he decided to deliver AKEL votes to Nikiforos not for
money, but in order to show off the super-galactic power he wields,
personally, as the plantation’s kingmaker extraordinaire.
He imposed the presidente of his choice and now he was going to anoint
the Archbishop like some kind of benevolent super-ruler.
AKEL’s sheep were a mere tool for enhancing the personal power of
the Commissar with the inflated ego, who could contract them out to
whomever the self-styled power-broker chose. But this time someone
up there did not tolerate his muscle-flexing in Church matters and
encouraged the sheep to rebel, which they did, making a complete fool
of the big-headed power-broker. Divine retribution is all the more
beautiful when targeted at an atheist.
We should thank the Lord for puncturing the super-ruler myth, which
after last Sunday is in complete ruins. His one success in the role
of kingmaker – electing the Ethnarch – is the exception that proves
the rule that the Commissar’s support is the kiss of death.
Just ask George Vass, George Iacovou, Cyprus Goldemnouth and Niki, all
of whom have tragic, personal experience of the curse of Commissarial
support.
AFTER last week’s items about the grandiose regional domination
plans of the new Laiki Bank super-boss, Andreas Vgenopoulos, our
establishment was contacted by several people who had attended the
genius financier’s briefing of financial market professionals.
The briefing took place on the same day as the press conference at
which Vgenopoulos peddled his big banking designs to us dumb-ass
hickeys. His presentation consisted of him telling his audience what
a super financier he was, how the merger he was proposing would turn
the Laiki group into a banking colossus, and that he constantly struck
mega-successful deals.
And whenever he talked about a smart deal he had signed, he would
conclude with the punch-line, “this is the story of my life”. He
repeated this cliche three times, lest any of the stupid Cypriots in
his audience did not understand that he had the Midas touch in his
genes. The overriding impression was that Vgenopoulos’ ego was even
more inflated than the price of the Marfin shares he was trying to
off-load on Laiki shareholders.
KING MIDAS of Athens turned waspish whenever anyone questioned his
pronouncements. When a broker asked what method of valuation he had
used in the ranking of banks – in terms of share capital and reserves –
that he presented, Vgenopoulos snapped. “Leave the miserly approach
aside. Here they are showing you the moon and you are looking at
the finger.”
When told that the valuation of the Marfin shares was too high, he
turned nasty. “You want us to absorb you at a given price? If you
don’t like it, we have other ways to buy you out and you can go home.”
The simpleton Cypriots should also get it into their thick skull that
Vgenopoulos is protecting Laiki’s shareholders from takeover. The
Bank of Cyprus, instead, “is a free-for-all”, he warned. “Whoever
wants can buy them,” presumably because they do not have a financial
genius, like Laiki has, to protect them from corporate vultures.
THE REASON the Laiki-Marfin groups’ headquarters would be in Cyprus,
said Vgenopoulos, was because of Laiki’s 100-year tradition and
confidence in the stability of the Cyprus economy as well as its
prospects; and because of its amazing geographic position of course.
He never mentioned the main reason, he chose a provincial town like
Nicosia – in Cyprus the tax on corporate profits is a third of what
companies pay in Greece, the geographical position of which is also
a big handicap.
DIKO DEPUTY and heir to the Ethnarchic throne, Nicholas Papadopoulos
ended with egg on his face after ordering us to show some respect for
his dad who “took part in armed, national liberation struggles so that
we can all enjoy press freedom in this country.” Junior was obviously
not aware that his dad was not always a big fan of press freedom.
Many years before Junior was born, journalist Antonis Farmakides,
who was critical of the Makarios government, was kidnapped by thugs
who supported the Archbishop, and held as a prisoner for several
days before being released. Our friend at Alithia, columnist Alecos
Constantinides, last week published what the minister of interior at
the time – a certain Tassos Papadopoulos – said about the Farmakides
kidnapping and it does not read as a condemnation.
“The state is entitled to expect from people who exercise the
high mission of journalism to live up to their mission and to
pursue standards of civility and dignity, behaving as responsible
and politically mature individuals. When they deviate from these
boundaries and exercise, instead of responsible and honourable
opposition, malicious and abusive attacks against their opponents,
they should bear in mind that such irresponsible journalism rouses
and stirs the feelings of individuals who shroud their opponents with
great love and respect.”
In plain language, Farmakides asked for it. I am glad the Ethnarch
never shrouds his opponents with great love and respect, because this
means we can continue to practise irresponsible journalism without
the risk of being kidnapped.
WHEN DIKO deputy and former presidential spokesman Marios Karoyian
announced that he would be standing in his party’s leadership contest,
many of us progressive, liberal supporters of an open, multi-cultural
society were highly impressed. Here was an Armenian with a good chance
of becoming the leader of a political party.
Even more impressive was that he could become leader of the most
reactionary, narrow-minded, backward, hard-line nationalistic,
traditionalist, intolerant, little Cypriot party on the island. The
party of hard-line nut-cases Koulias, Pitts, Antigone and Matsakis
being led by a softly-spoken, even-tempered and moderate Armenian, was
something we had to see. DIKO had not only entered the 21st century,
but it was pointing the way to a more tolerant and inclusive society.
It did not take very long for these hopes to be shattered. A few
weeks ago, Karoyian was a guest on an Astra Radio show which was
inundated with hostile text messages about his Armenian background
saying that someone who had not done military service could not lead
the party. Marios’ critics did not even bother to conceal their racism.
Ten days ago, Politis published a letter from a DIKO member accusing
Karoyian of betraying the “Maronite element flowing in your veins”.
The writer also raised the issue of military service and then told him
that the old DIKO guard would not surrender the great party of Spyros
“so easily” to an inexperienced upstart.
On Thursday, having had enough, Karoyian publicly report that he was
being the target of continuous racist attacks from within his party –
the main argument was that he could not become leader because he was
Armenian and had done no military service. The party’s deputy leader
and candidate for the leadership, Nik Cleanthous was not aware of
the whispering campaign, but condemned the racism, if it existed.
His condemnation included the following, quite brilliant confirmation
of what the anti-Armenian camp has been saying: “I do not accept and
cannot conceive that it is possible for the people of DIKO to be
influenced in their choices by racist criteria such as the ethnic
background and religion of someone or by whether he had served or
not in the National Guard.” I would certainly not bet against it.
Does this mean that the open-minded DIKO members would vote for a
Turkish Cypriot as their leader as well?
–Boundary_(ID_a6cQmhBldtf2PCo0EDZStg)–

ON US-UK POSITIONS AT THE UNITED NATIONS ON CONFLICTS IN SOUTH CAUCASUS – EXPERT
Vano Tumanishvili is a freelance journalist
Regnum, Russia
Oct 1 2006
The USA and Great Britain cannot depend on the UN arena in settling
conflicts in Moldavia and South Caucasus. Both countries, as well as
Russia, realize in detail different sides of the conflicts and have no
illusions regarding the availability of political approaches to their
solution. States-co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group and Great Britain
have had at their disposal all possible tools of exerting pressure
and coercion in the process of solving the Nagorno Karabakh problem.
Problems of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, of course, have not been
considered within the so much institutionalized mechanism as the
Minsk group; however, the available mechanisms also seem to be
quite adequate. Georgian conflicts have long been in the focus of
the international community. Such organizations as NATO, EU, and
EC have repeatedly spoken about and took part in the discussion of
the problems. From the very start of launching the initiative of
discussing the problems within the UN, especially as a priority,
especially after the relevant statement of the head of the Russian
Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov, – not a single leading expert, not a
single active politician in the West attempted to refute or analyze
doubts which this initiative aroused.
According to US and British experts, after such a detailed discussion
of the issues in the European structures, it is hard to imagine their
objective and close analysis at the UN that does not have mechanisms
of executing such a task in a working regime. It is suggested that the
UN has to create a special structure, a group or a commission for the
further examination of the issues, which in any case will lead to an
extended and ineffective bureaucratic process. Most unexpected events
may unfold in the process, creating quite unpleasant precedents for
the leading world powers.
British experts concede that nobody among the British and US expert
community has anything to do with the said recommendation. They
contend that after the attempts to force Armenia to accept a conflict
settlement scheme suggested by the International Crisis Group in winter
2006 failed, a certain grouping in the government of Great Britain,
headed by representative of prime minister to South Caucasus Brian
Fall, as early as in April 2006 proposed an attempt to transfer the
discussion of the Nagorno Karabakh problem to the UN.
The idea of discussing conflicts in Moldavia and South Caucasus at
the UN arose somewhat later. However, it was exactly Brian Fall who
discussed the initiative with the heads of foreign political offices
of Georgia and later Azerbaijan (exactly in this succession). Already
after the discussions, an idea of putting forward the initiative in
the UN by the GUAM countries broke the surface. Undoubtedly, the key
factor in putting forward the initiative and involving in it the US
and Great Britain is a game around the Georgian political theme.
The Nagorno Karabakh and Transdnestr factors per se play a minor or
subordinate role. It is necessary thereby to analyze the hierarchy
of tasks to be solved, by the initiators’ design. The idea was also
discussed with representatives of a number of European countries
and high-ranking officials at the Council of the European Union and
the OSCE.
Great Britain, Poland, and Lithuania have reportedly conducted at
the European Commission and European Parliament a substantial work on
the issue of Russia’s politics in the Georgian direction. Supposedly,
the work was rather successful. Energized effort to study the issue
has been seen at the European Commission and the European Parliament,
where the working staff received relevant instructions on preparing
suggestions on the matter.
Apparently, the suggestions include assessments of Russia’s
policymaking and the situation in the Russian-Georgian relations,
including the issue of peacekeeping forces in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Most probably, preparation of political initiatives by the
EU concerning parallel GUAM initiatives at the UN is taking place.
The task is to ensure political solidarity of the USA and the European
Union concerning their Russian agenda.
A principal agreement between Europeans and the US on the matter is
limited by the terms of individual discussion of each initiative.
Essentially, Great Britain and countries of Eastern Europe try to
surpass positions of France and Germany and use the potential of the
European Union in their anti-Russian activities. British politicians
count that PACE and OSCE are not effective mechanisms in carrying out
the eastern politics, since Russia herself uses the arenas to defend
her own interests.
Russia tries to use PACE and OSCE for legitimate discussion of a
number of problems related to her involvement into other countries’
affairs and maintaining her presence in conflict zones. Thereby,
the European Union has been chosen, in which Russia has no formal
influence. In this regard, opinions of experts at the German Schiller
Institute that holds a rather anti-British position are of interest.
According to the experts, Great Britain suffers significant problems
with Russia on issues of oil business.
Despite good positions in Russia, British capital may face serious
problems concerning reserve redundancy and access to large oil
fields. Besides, some particular problems are apparently at issue.
For example, the US-British tandem is very concerned with the
Russian-German-French integration in the energy sphere.
Besides, the US and Great Britain are quite concerned with the
possibility of “conspiracy” on the part of Russia, Germany, France,
and, possibly, other European states regarding Ukraine, including
extending NATO. Hence, Great Britain attempts to get support of
Eastern European countries in consolidating the EU in the anti-Russian
direction. Hence, the new scenarios of pressurizing Russia are being
devised by the British politics.
These scenarios make exploring the version of the “British Caucasus
Project” as a global initiative of pressurizing Russia from the
southern strategic direction a relevant task. It is exactly in the
context of this version that the GUAM initiative at the UN has to
be assessed.
Lowering risks in the mode of maintaining tensions
Confrontation between Georgia and Russia, and, correspondingly, in the
conflict zones in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, exceeded the manageable
level and became a powerful factor of threats and risks in the South
Caucasus where the US-British energy complex functions. The European
community failed to reduce the confrontation, its many initiatives
only proved infeasibility of such efforts.
The US and UK for quite a long time led the game of suppressing
conflicts, before construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline
completed. After the project was completed, both countries attempted
to exert pressure on Russia to solve problems unrelated to South
Caucasus. The goals were earlier defined and are elements of US and
British strategies in Eurasia. For the last months, the two powers
have been carrying out the policy of inciting controlled confrontation,
which has become more than dangerous.
Russia did not concede in any direction, and did not give Georgia
or any of her partners any signs in the direction of lowering
confrontation. A decisive move became pertinent in order to transfer
responsibility for the developments in the region to such a high
arena as the UN.
Consequently, internationalization of the conflicts had to
be maximized, Russia regarded as a party to the conflicts,
and, if possible, Russia’s role as a “party” to these conflicts
institutionalized. By this, an attempt to simultaneously increase
pressure on Russia, get control over the confrontation vector,
and create grounds for furthering the geopolitical and geoeconomic
expansion in the Caucasus and Caspian region was performed.
Satisfying ambitions of partner states
The USA and UK, although successfully ignored interests of their
partners in the South Caucasus, forcing on them some imitation conflict
resolution processes, cannot absolutely deprive them of favorable
expectations about the conflicts’ settlement. Apart from hopes given to
the ruling elites, the elites are in their turn expected to give hopes
to their people, on which the sustainability of the ruling regimes
depends. All ruling regimes of the GUAM member countries go through
a serious political crisis and need a systemic support from abroad.
Technologies of persuasion
The US and UK have no recommendations on settling conflicts in Moldavia
and South Caucasus in the given geopolitical situation.
Forcing Armenians, Abkhazians, and Ossetians to submit to the states
concerned will lead either to resuming war or genocide -and what is
traditionally referred to as humanitarian catastrophe.
No coercion methods are available in the western community’s Caucasus
policy reserve. For the most part of the history of the conflicts’
settlement, the US and UK tried to persuade Georgia and Azerbaijan that
solving the conflicts by political means was impossible and solving
them by military means – inadmissible. This is a very complex task
for the countries’ western partners, for the process of discussing
the issues at the UN may become an interesting arena for persuading
the ruling teams and the peoples of Georgia and Azerbaijan that
political solutions to the conflicts are unreachable, at least in
the foreseeable future.
The US and UK, undoubtedly, have corresponding developed scenarios for
the discussion of the problems at the UN. Although detailed information
on the scenarios is so far unavailable, it can be assumed that their
designers are going to stick to the practice of imitating the process
of conflicts’ settlement.
Enhancing and consolidating GUAM positions
The GUAM bloc, despite the number of attempts to make it effective and
assign to it particular geopolitical functions, has not and cannot
become effective, for it is a union of weak states, mediums of very
contradicting and mutually exclusive interests, and does not have a
strong leader. The US are trying to assign to GUAM some particular
functions, first of all, of protecting energy communications and
confronting Russia, which is not very expedient to Ukraine, Moldavia,
and Azerbaijan.
Besides, Ukraine, however started to make one-sided statements in
favor of Georgia and Azerbaijan, makes them timidly, not striving to
undertake military and political tasks to solve the problems.
Devising common political tasks for GUAM countries is an important
objective of the US policymaking. At a closed-door classified
seminar at the American Institute of Entrepreneurship (Republican and
rightist US think-tank) held in September 2006, US State Department
Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky
(daughter of Ukrainian anti-Soviet nationalist) sketched the US’
goals for the GUAM. The goals envision, first of all, pulling the bloc
countries into common for all the member countries political projects,
first of all, related to creating a new political reality in Eurasia,
as well as in the security field.
Paula Dobriansky in her report contended that GUAM member countries
policymaking has to reflect policymaking of states that belong to
the democratic world. She argued that Ukraine qualifies to become
a leader of the said states, taking into account her economic and
military potential. Hence, the situation in the vast space of Eastern
Europe and Eurasia depends on the political fate of Ukraine.
Representative of the National Intelligence Council and Brookings
Institute Program Director Fiona Hill informed seminar attendants
that the security situation in the Black and Caspian Sea region was
far from normal, pendency of old conflicts required taking measures to
relieving tensions, which was impossible without active participation
of the international community.
So far, solving merely individual security issues has not led to
achieving stability in the region. The possibility of emphasizing
the roles of the UN and OSCE in relieving tensions was mentioned,
however, nothing definite was said of settling conflicts as such.
Chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Frederic Starr pointed
out that creating GUAM and other regional blocs was incapable of
solving security issues in the region.
Anyway, taking decision on the GUAM countries’ accession to NATO
is necessary, upon which premise the US strategy in the region has
to be built. Any doubts in this regard cause much disappointment in
the countries of the region. According to Starr, the international
community has not been sufficiently involved in resolving conflicts
in the South Caucasus.
The seminar participants agreed that the need to involve the UN in
solving the issues has become pertinent. The seminar’s objective
appeared to be affirmation of the idea to transfer the problems of
the region to the UN arena.
The problem of expanding NATO
The US advocate including Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, even if at the
cost of degrading defense, political, and economic standards accepted
in the alliance. This became a subject of principal discussion within
NATO, in which not only the leading European states, but also other
states of the alliance are involved. France and Germany, although have
not made the issue one of the priorities of their domestic policies,
i.e., have not initiated parliamentary or political discussion of
the problem, unequivocally pronounced their opinion, pointing to
the negative objectives that can be discerned behind the new stage
of expansion.
Despite the UK government and generals’ support of the plan in bulk,
there are serious doubts concerning it in the British establishment,
including the ruling party politicians. According to assessments of
British liberal experts, NATO bureaucracy is inspired by the experience
of the alliance membership by states that to the moment do not meet
the alliance criteria, are not successful in participation in various
initiatives, and send military contingents to armed conflict zones.
That is, the leading NATO states are quite satisfied with the role of
the new alliance members. The contradictory positions are a source
of great concern for the US, for there are so far no hopes for a
successful accession to NATO by the new members. Expanding NATO
requires new argumentation, including substantiating new threats.
For the United States, it seems very important to convince the
international community of the reality of threats posed by Russia,
first of all, in regional directions. Russia has to appear as a country
who impedes conflicts resolution, occupies territories of states under
the pretext of maintaining peacekeeping forces, carries out political
subversion against ruling regimes, and uses energy resources for
political means. Besides, of the set goals, withdrawal of peacekeepers
from Georgia and troops from Moldavia are the priorities. The US and
UK are striving to unfold at the UN a prolonged propaganda process.
Absorbing Armenia
The US regard Armenia as a nation that has not so far chosen its
geopolitical orientation. According to confessions of US administrators
and experts, the US influence in Armenia is more significant than in
Azerbaijan and some other US partner countries.
Geopolitical blockading of Armenia with the help of the GUAM bloc
would lead the country to understanding that the western orientation
has no alternatives.
The US cannot achieve the goal and re-orient Armenia by exploiting
the Nagorno Karabakh issue. Therefore, the Nagorno Karabakh problem
is of no interest to the US from the point of view of geopolitics
and security. Americans bet on changing the geopolitical situation
in the South Caucasus.
The joint initiative of GUAM at the UN looks like multi-goal
and quite effective from the point of view of creating solidary
foreign policy. The US set no goals in the direction of Nagorno
Karabakh problem, since its development would yield no advantages
strategically. However, from the propaganda point of view, it could
create some additional arguments for the campaign. The US need to
solve some tasks on Moldavia and Georgia.
Conclusion
According to approximate estimations of British experts, joint
discussion on the Transdnestr, Abkhazian, South Ossetian, and Nagorno
Karabakh issues at the UN is impossible, even given that some working
structure will be created in the course of taking certain decisions.
The initiative has very unclear outlooks. The US and UK will not
insist on taking too uncompromised decisions.
It should not be ruled out that Georgia and Moldavia will insist on
a decision on the occupation by Russia part of their territories and
withdrawal or rotation of conflict zones’ peacekeeping forces. The
goal here is to create an utterly unfavorable situation for Russia and
stage an international condemnation of her policymaking. The states
of the European Union are likely to support the anti-Russian stance
of the initiator countries and produce assessments and decisions
directed against Russia.
It should be taken into account that projecting of the South Caucasian
policy is conducted in a very secluded framework – by the staff of
EU’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy
and US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs
Daniel Fried. That is, the planning is utterly non-participatory
and non-transparent, and almost unconnected to parliaments and civil
societies.
It has also to be taken into account that the UN decisions on conflict
issues will be taken in the situation of severe confrontation,
caused by positions of different states on the USA, for example,
by the Muslim countries’ positions. Azerbaijan will apparently try
to put forward the initiative in an integrated form, by integrating
conflict issues in one problem. Georgia, undoubtedly, will attempt to
present her problems individually, on pragmatic grounds. Moldavia will
attempt not to hurry and take a mainstream of pursuing the initiative.

ARMENIA: CIS SECURITY EXERCISE CONCLUDES
Stratfor
Sept 29 2006
A security exercise conducted by the Commonwealth of Independent
States at Armenia’s Metsamor nuclear power plant concluded Sept. 29.
The head of Armenia’s National Security Service said the experienced
gained in the exercise will be used to “protect the population,
nuclear sites and the state as a whole.” Representatives from the
United Nations, Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Group of Eight
observed the exercises.

MESROB II: ‘MORE THAN 40.000 ARMENIA CITIZENS LIVE IN TURKEY’
By Tuluhan Bahar (JTW)
Journal of Turkish Daily
Sept 29 2006
Armenian Istanbul Patriarch Mesrob II said there are at least 40.000
Republic of Armenia citizens immigrants who live in Istanbul, Antalya
and Trabzon provinces. Mesrob II also added that some Armenian families
came to Turkey from Lebanon and Iraq to live. Armenian Patrick said
“the Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate may play a leading role of the
children of all these Armenia citizens”.
Armenian Turks have their own churches and schools in Turkey.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CHIRAC CHIDES TURKEY
Los Angeles Daily News, CA
Associated Press
Oct 1 2006
Time to admit mass killings
YEREVAN, Armenia (AP) French President Jacques Chirac urged Turkey on
Saturday to acknowledge the mass killings of Armenians in the early
20th century as genocide.
Armenians say that as many as 1.5 million of their ancestors were
killed in 1915-1923 in an organized campaign to force them out of
eastern Turkey and have pushed for recognition around the world of
the killings as genocide.
Turkey acknowledges that large numbers of Armenians died but says
the overall figure is inflated and that the deaths occurred in the
civil unrest during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But Ankara
is facing increasing pressure to fully acknowledge the killings,
particularly as it seeks membership in the European Union.
“Should Turkey recognize the genocide of Armenia to join the European
Union?” Chirac asked, echoing a question posed by a reporter at a
joint news conference with Armenian President Robert Kocharian.
“Honestly, I believe so. Each country grows by acknowledging its
dramas and errors of the past.”
Chirac’s comments went further than in the past, using the word
genocide directly for the first time. In 2004, Chirac said Turkey
should recognize the killings and make “an effort at memory” to join
the EU. France’s parliament has officially recognized the killings
as genocide.
Chirac has personally supported Turkey’s entry into the 25-nation EU,
though many French have grave misgivings, fearing an influx of cheap
labor and questioning Turkey’s human rights record.
Earlier Saturday, Chirac and his wife, Bernadette, laid a wreath at
the Memorial to the Victims of the 1915 Armenian Genocide in Ottoman
Turkey and visited the Genocide Museum and Institute. Chirac wrote
a single world in the guestbook: “Remember.”
Chirac was paying the first visit by a French president to the former
Soviet republic of Armenia since in gained independence. France has
some 400,000 citizens of Armenian origin, and plans several events
in the coming year linked to Armenian culture and history.
“Can one say that Germany, which has deeply acknowledged the Holocaust,
has as a result lost credit? It has grown,” Chirac said, urging Turkey
to take inspiration from that and other examples.
Kocharian thanked France for giving “the force of law” to recognition
of the killings as genocide.
Chirac and Kocharian then participated in the opening ceremony for
French Republic Square in the center of Yerevan and attended a concert
by Charles Aznavour, a famous French singer of Armenian origin.

ADMIT GENOCIDE BEFORE JOINING EU, CHIRAC TELLS TURKEY
The News – International, Pakistan
Sept 30 2006
YEREVAN: French President Jacques Chirac on Saturday urged Turkey
to recognise World War I-era massacres of Armenians as genocide if
it wants to join the European Union, speaking during a visit to the
Armenian capital.
In comments that are likely to irritate Ankara and put a further
strain on its relations with France, Chirac told a news conference
Turkey needed to face up to its Ottoman past in response to a question
on the nation’s EU ambitions.
Asked if he thought Turkey should recognise the 1915-1917 massacres
as genocide before it joins the EU, the French president replied:
“Honestly, I believe so.” “All countries grow up acknowledging
their dramas and their errors,” said Chirac, who is on a two-day
visit to Armenia, where he has paid homage to Yerevan’s “genocide”
memorial and attended the inauguration of a “France Square” in central
Yerevan. Until now, France had refused to make a direct link between
the genocide issue and Turkey’s EU membership bid. The bloc has not
made it a condition of entry.
But a response to the same question by Chirac’s Armenian counterpart
Robert Kocharian was markedly softer, reflecting Armenia’s desire to
mend ties with its neighbour and improve its struggling economy.
“We don’t see any danger in this process,” Kocharian said of Turkey’s
EU aspirations, “but we would like that our interests would be
discussed in the process too,” he added. Kocharian said it would be
in Armenia’s interests to have a neighbour “with a value system that
allows for free movement and open borders.”
France, which has 400,000 citizens of Armenian descent, officially
recognized the events as genocide in 2001, putting a strain on its
relations with fellow Nato member Turkey. A proposal by France’s
socialists to make genocide denial a crime punishable by a year in
prison and a 45,000-euro fine has elicited further ire in Turkey,
but Chirac said he did not support the proposal.
“France has fully recognised the tragedy of the genocide and all
the rest is more like polemics than legislative reality,” he said of
the proposal.
Armenia has campaigned for Turkey to recognise the WWI massacres,
in which it says 1.5 million Armenians died, as genocide. But Turkey
argues that that 300,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks died
in an internal conflict sparked by attempts by Armenians to win
independence in eastern Anatolia. Today’s Armenia is in an unenviable
geopolitical position. Flanked to the south-west by historical
foe Turkey, its eastern borders press up against Azerbaijan, with
which Yerevan is still technically at war over the Nagorny Karabakh
enclave. As a result, its only access to the outside world is through
Iran and Georgia.
But as relations between Russia and Georgia sour, exemplified by
this week’s Russian-spy row in Tbilisi, transporting Russian goods
to Moscow’s ally Armenia has become more difficult. “Armenia is very
interested in the normalization of Georgian-Russian relations because
it directly effects our economy,” Kocharian said.
Chirac, whose country makes up part of the so-called Minsk Group of
mediators between Armenia and Azerbaijan, has tried to personally
intervene in their conflict by meeting both presidents in Paris
earlier this year.
A framework agreement on the resolution of the territorial dispute
was widely hoped for during a Paris meeting between the two Caucasus
presidents, however no visible progress was made. Chirac defended
the Minsk Group, which Azerbaijan has criticised, saying its experts
“have done good work, of course in an infinitely complex situation.”

DAVITAYA: RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE SENT ARMENIAN SPIES TO GEORGIA
Azeri Press Agency
Sept 30 2006
“Armenians’ autonomy in Georgia is out of question. We perfectly
realize their aim,” Pata Davitaya, Georgian parliamentarian and UN
International Academy of Information member told journalists, APA
reports. He commented on the current tense relations between Georgia
and Russia.
“The conflict between Georgia and Russia is not good for any country
in the region. We hope to solve the problem peacefully. This is the
problem of the governments but not nations,” he said.
The parliamentarian also said Russian intelligence service sent
Armenian spies to Georgia.

GEORGIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN CALLS ARMENIAN GENERAL FOUGHT AGAINST AZERBAIJAN PROVOKER
Azeri Press Agency
Sept 30 2006
Armenian general should be called to account for having fought against
Azerbaijan in Garabagh. He does not deserve a monument on Akhalkalak,”
Georgian parliamentarian, member of UN International Information
Academy Pata Davitaya told journalists, APA reports.
He said it is unacceptable to erect a statute for Garabagh war
participants in Armenia.
“How can they possibly deserve a statue to such provokers and
criminals? If there a statue, the problem will grow and spread to
the world. The separatists should be made accountable. That is the
main way of solution,” Georgian parliamentarian said.
A monument will be erected for Armenian Gurgen Dalibalstyan, active
participant of the battles against Azerbaijan in Garabagh in Akhalkalak
in the place for Georgians who became martyrs during 9 April, 1989
events in Tbilisi.
The fundament of the 8-meter monument for 80-year-old Armenian
general, who is councilor of Armenian President for military issues,
has been dug.
The general born in Akhalkalak himself selected the place for his
statue.

GEORGIAN POLITICIAN CONSIDERS APPROACHES TO SEPARATISM SHOULD BE STRICT
Author: S.Agayeva
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Sept 30 2006
Separatism is the highest form of organized criminality, and the
fight with it should be held in equal with organized criminality. The
outstanding Georgian politician, Professor Patu Davitaya briefed
journalists on September 30 within the participation in the round
table organized by Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, European
Forum and Russian Foreign Center of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the
topic of “Caucasus without separatism and separatists”, Trend reports.
The politician considers that the persons who committed crimes
against humanity in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Skhinval region
should answer before the world administration of justice. “It is the
key settlement of the problem,” he considers. The approachs towards
separatism should be strict, the politician concluded.

CHIRAC: THE LAST STEP SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ACHIEVE PEACE IN NK PROBLEM
Azeri Press Agency
Sept 30 2006
As a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, France has been closely
participating in the settlement of the Nagorno Garabagh conflict for
over ten years. I want to believe that it is high time to achieve
peace accord,” French President Jacques Chirac stated in Armenia,
APA reports.
“The last step should be taken to achieve peace. This will be a hard
decision but raise confidence to the future of humanity. Yerevan and
Baku can take this step and should do that. This step will create
a better ground for peace and tranquility. I wish that to all the
Caucasian peoples,” French President said.
Commenting on the reports that OSCE Minsk Group will be removed
from mediation in the settlement of the conflict, Chirac said he
does not support this adding he does not think involvement of other
international organizations, including UN will give positive results.
He also said the co-chairs have close familiarization of the Garabagh
problem and have demonstrated more activity recently.
“I think the involvement of institutions that are not familiar with
the Garabagh issue will not be effective and will make the situation
more difficult.”
Touching on recent proposals offered by the co-chairs, Chirac said
these proposals are very serious. “I hope Yerevan and Baku will accept
these proposals.”