SOUTH OSSETIA: RUSSIAN, GEORGIAN…INDEPENDENT?
Shaun Walker
Open Democracy, UK
Nov 15 2006
A decisive referendum result has done nothing to resolve the small
north Caucasian statelet’s future, reports Shaun Walker.
On Sunday 12 November 2006, South Ossetians went to the polls to vote
in a referendum confirming the region’s independence from Georgia. The
result was an overwhelming “yes” to independence, with a turnout
above 95% from those among the territory’s 70,000 people who were
eligible to vote. There was a similar vote in favour of a new term
for South Ossetia’s president, Eduard Kokoity. Neither outcome came
as a surprise, but the chances are that nobody in the international
community will take the slightest bit of notice of the results.
South Ossetia is a bite-sized chunk of land on the southern slopes of
the Caucasus mountains, one of four “breakaway states” that – along
with fifteen recognised nation-states – emerged from the collapse
of the Soviet Union (the other three are Abkhazia, Transdniestria,
and Nagorno-Karabakh). The Ossetians are a largely Christian people,
whose language is related to Farsi, and the majority of whom live on
the northern side of the Caucasus in North Ossetia, which is part
of Russia. South Ossetia was part of the Georgian republic within
the Soviet Union, but in the early 1990s tried to gain autonomy from
Tbilisi, which led to violent clashes in which many died and thousands
were made refugees, both Georgian and Ossetian.
Since then, South Ossetia, with the exception of a few villages
controlled by the Georgian government in Tbilisi, has been run as a de
facto independent state, although its proclamations of independence
have been ignored by the international community. The territory
is heavily reliant on Russian support. As in Abkhazia, Moscow has
infuriated the Georgians by granting passports to the majority of the
South Ossetian population, and providing significant economic backing.
Shaun Walker is a journalist based in Moscow, where he writes for
RussiaProfile.org
Also by Shaun Walker in openDemocracy:
“Anna Politkovskaya: death of a professional” (9 October 2006)
A state of limbo
The United States, the European Union, the Organisation of Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Nato all issued statements before
the 12 November vote that branded the referendum meaningless and
unhelpful. Georgia repeatedly derided it as illegitimate, though it
had no problems with backing an “alternative” election and referendum
that took place in the villages that Tbilisi controls.
Even Russia’s quiet endorsement of the result has stopped short of
official recognition.
The authorities in South Ossetia’s capital, Tskhinvali, managed to
gather some “international monitors” to oversee the voting, largely
from members of other breakaway states but including Russians,
Venezuelans, and a few renegade European communists. Few foreign
correspondents turned up to cover the events, and the chances are that
the results will be forgotten as quickly as those of the referendum
held in Transdniestria, Moldova’s breakaway statelet, on 17 September.
When the dust has settled on the ballot-boxes, everyone will be back
to square one. Russia is highly unlikely to recognise South Ossetian
independence or initiate procedures to facilitate the accession of
the region to the Russian Federation. But equally, it is likely to
continue antagonising Georgia through informal support for South
Ossetia, an approach evidenced once more days before the referendum
when Moscow followed its announcement of sharp increases in gas prices
for Georgia proper by declaring that a gas pipeline would be built
directly across the Caucasus mountains to South Ossetia.
President Putin has hinted that he sees no reason why South Ossetians
and Abkhaz shouldn’t be granted independence if Kosovo and Montenegro
can be.
There is certainly an element of cynical politicking behind Russia’s
South Ossetia policy. Georgia is public-enemy-number-one in Moscow
right now, and meddling in the breakaway zones is a sure-fire
way to annoy Tbilisi. But aside from the Russians installed into
high positions in the South Ossetian leadership, and the giant
“our president” posters featuring a grinning Putin dotted around
Tskhinvali, any visitor to South Ossetia will notice significant
ground-level pro-Russian sentiment, or at least an appreciation of
the possibilities that being close to Russia offers them.
A Russian passport is akin to a lifeline for South Ossetians – a
way to get an education or a job in North Ossetia or Moscow. There
are very few jobs in the region, so most families have at least one
person working in Russia and sending money home. It becomes obvious
when talking to people that reintegration into the Georgian state will
not be an easy process – to start with, only the eldest generation
even speaks the language. People would not be able to get jobs or
study in Tbilisi – Russia provides them with their only chance to
make something of their lives.
Moreover, aggressive statements from Tbilisi setting deadlines for
the recovery of the territory, and military construction of a base in
Gori (just twenty-five kilometres from the South Ossetian capital),
do nothing to reassure the South Ossetians. With a highly militarised
population, and a lack of crisis-management mechanisms, there is always
the chance that localised incidents or skirmishes could escalate into
something that quickly gets out of control.
A landlocked predicament
There is some irony in the fact that the South Ossetian and Georgian
outlooks share similarites. Both see a much larger and aggressive
neighbour (Russia for Georgia, Georgia for South Ossetia), and thus
feel forced to seek comfort in third countries in ways that might
not serve their interests best in the long run (the United States for
Georgia, Russia for South Ossetia). Just looking at the map makes it
obvious that it would be in Georgia’s best interests to find a way
to coexist peacefully with Russia, and in South Ossetia’s to do the
same with Georgia.
The South Ossetian leadership, despite having legitimate grievances
against the Georgians, is mired in suspicion and introspection,
making endless statements about “provocations” and “conspiracies”
from the Georgian side, but reluctant to let in people (such as
foreign journalists, regional analysts and constitutional experts)
to whom they could put their side of the story.
The Georgians have their public relations a little better organised.
When Mikheil Saakashvili’s young, western-educated government came
to power in Tbilisi in the “rose revolution” of 2003-o4, it quickly
understood that the best way to get the west onside would be to
speak to it in a language it understands; there followed copious
worthy pronouncements about freedom, human rights, and the path of
the courageous Georgian people to be free from the jealous paws of
the post-imperial Russian bear. Amid the rhetoric, Tbilisi made it
abundantly clear that one of the key markers of its success would be
the restoration of Georgia’s territorial integrity.
But “territorial integrity”, when examined closely, is as
nebulous a concept as “fighting terror”: open to many convenient
interpretations. The breakaway states are ready to claim Kosovo as
a precedent if that territory is recognised as an independent state.
Montenegro’s independence from Serbia, sanctioned by the referendum
on 21 May 2006, was agreed by the Serbian government in Belgrade, and
Kosovo’s claim to independence – over strenuous Serbia objections, and
whether or not it is legally watertight – still seems likely to follow.
At the same time, the arbitrary borderlines of some of the constituent
republics within the Soviet Union (which its successor states
inherited) often do not translate easily into a basis for modern
statehood. Indeed, in many cases the communist elite explicitly
drew frontiers for “divide and rule” reasons. In sum, the idea
of territorial integrity is so contested and imprecise that it is
capable of working either in favour or against South Ossetia’s and
Georgia’s claims.
In the case of Abkhazia, many experts and even some western diplomats
privately admit that it may never be part of Georgia again. But South
Ossetia is a different story. Abkhazia has a strategic coastline
providing an outlet to the world beyond Russia and Georgia, as well
as vast tourism potential. Even sliver-thin Transdniestria has a
Soviet-era industrial complex that provides jobs and revenues. South
Ossetia has nothing. It combines a small population with no industrial
infrastructure, no sea access and only one road that leads anywhere
except Georgia. It also has a number of ethnic Georgian villages
scattered across its territory that are under the control of the
Georgian government in Tbilisi.
In short, South Ossetia is unviable as a fully independent state.
This makes South Ossetia a zero-sum game between Georgia and Russia.
in turn, it means that South Ossetian separation from Georgia is a
much more worrying prospect for western policymakers than Abkhazian.
Between north and south
The removal on 10 November of bellicose Georgian defence minister
Irakli Okruashvili (who was born in South Ossetia and has frequently
implied that South Ossetia could be won back by force) may be a
sign that Georgia intends to adopt a more tactful approach to the
conflict. The timing is symbolic on more than one count; perhaps
the Georgians had one eye on Washington, where a far more powerful
defence secretary had left office two days earlier.
The recent crisis between Georgia and Russia has proved what should
have been obvious to them all along – that while Tbilisi can rely
on kind words and lobbying from the United States when it comes up
against Russia, they can’t rely on anything more. And with the US
election on 7 November delivering a crushing blow to the George W Bush
administration, perhaps Saakashvili has also started to wonder if the
next occupant of the White House will buy his freedom-and-democracy
lines as much as Bush has.
Indeed, this might signal the start of a more sensible South Ossetia
policy from the Georgian side. It is clear that mutual suspicion runs
high, and the reintegration into Georgia of a people who have lost
linguistic and cultural ties with that country will not be an easy
process. Without war, wholesale destruction and ethnic cleansing,
Tbilisi won’t win control of South Ossetia any time soon.
At present, no attempts are being made to engage the people of
South Ossetia or suggest that Georgia has anything to offer. The
Georgians should focus on rebuilding Georgia proper and ensuring
continued economic growth, and to reach past the obstructive South
Ossetian leadership to prove to the Ossetian people that a newly
prosperous and tolerant Georgia is a better option than Russia’s
troubled north Caucasus. It won’t happen quickly. But even though 99%
of South Ossetians have just voted for independence, a Tbilisi that
plays down the aggressive precondition that South Ossetia must be
part of Georgia might just – in a very Caucasian paradox – become
the catalyst for its eventual reintegration into that country.
aucasus/south_ossetia_4100.jsp

RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN TENSION RAISE CONCERNS IN ARMENIA, BUT NO REAL IMPACT YET
Haroutiun Khachatrian
Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, DC
Nov 15 2006
Armenia, a vulnerable country in both the geopolitical and geographical
senses, stands to suffer serious damage due to the increasing tensions
in the crisis in Russian-Georgian relations. The danger has several
aspects. First, Armenia is a military ally to Russia, and risks to
become separated from it by a potential member of NATO, which Georgia
seeks to adhere to.
Second, the Russian-Georgian conflict, not to mention any instability
in Armenia’s northern neighbor, would cut the most important
communication link between Armenia and the outer world. As the land
borders of Armenia with two of its neighbors – Azerbaijan and Turkey
– are closed due to political reasons, Armenia can trade goods with
the outer world only through Iran and Georgia, the latter serving
more than half of Armenia’s foreign cargo turnover. Third, worsening
Georgian-Russian relations could hinder vital supplies from Russia from
reaching Armenia, first of all natural gas, which flows to Armenia
through a pipeline crossing the territory of Georgia. Fourth, the
large Armenian community of Georgia may be involved in the conflict,
especially the Armenians living in the Samtskhe-Javakheti region
of southern Georgia, whose living standards are poor and who are
traditionally pro-Russian. The latter danger becomes more acute given
the perspective of construction of the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi
railroad, which is to traverse the region, bringing fears among
local Armenians that the region would fall into the sphere of Turkish
influence. Finally, of vital importance for Armenia are not only its
good relations with the immediate parties of the conflict, Georgia
and Russia, but also with the western countries and in particular
the United States. These relations might suffer should Washington
protect Georgia more actively in its conflict with Russia.
Not surprisingly, the tension among Russia and Georgia provoked vivid
discussions in the Armenian political elite. For the second time in
less than a year, politicians – even those belonging to the parties
of the ruling coalition – raised the issue of the necessity of a
revision, or at least clarification, of the terms of the “Strategic
alliance” with Russia. The first instance was in January, when Armenian
politicians were surprised to learn that the “strategic partnership”
with Russia did not protect Armenia from a sudden doubling of the price
of the Russian natural gas. There is a consensus in Yerevan that in
its actions, Russia does not always take into account the interests
of its only ally in the Caucasus. The criticism was especially high
after Konstantin Zatulin, a member of the Russian State Duma, said in
an interview with a local newspaper that Armenia “does not support
its strategic partner [Russia]” in its conflict with Georgia. If
Armenian-Georgian relations are an obstacle for Russia’s relations
with Armenia, we [the Russians] have the right to call on Armenia
to choose: either you have normal relations with Russia or you have
normal relations with Georgia,” Zatulin said.
The Armenian leadership has managed to escape such a pitfall, at least
for the time being. The transport blockade of Georgian territory did
not harm Armenian cargoes, as formally Russia banned only contacts
with the Georgian transport operators, and Armenian businessmen never
used their services. Ironically, Russia’s earlier actions had indeed
hurt the interests of Armenian business, but this did not attract
significant attention. It was the closure of the Verkhnii Lars
(Upper Lars) checkpoint on the Russian-Georgian border last June,
the only land link between Russia and Armenia. By closing it under the
pretext of “repairs”, Russia sought to activate an alternative route
through the territory of pro-Russian South Ossetia, not controlled by
Georgian authorities. However, Tbilisi prohibited foreigners from using
this route (and there were no other foreigners except Armenians which
needed it), whereas the citizens of Georgia were free to use it. Thus,
Armenian carriers were forced to switch to other existing options,
namely, through the Black Sea ports of Georgia to Russia or Ukraine,
causing another wave of grumble in Armenia. In any case, these latter
routes were not affected by the Russian October sanctions against
Georgia, and the Armenian businessmen did not suffer anew.
Armenia’s gas supplies are also unlikely to suffer, even if Georgia
and Russia fail to reach a purchase agreement for the next year,
similar to what happened last winter in the Ukraine. First, Georgia
is unlikely to take gas set for Armenia, as this would be seen as an
obvious hostile action in Yerevan. Second, in December, Armenia will
inaugurate an alternative gas supply pipeline, from Iran, which can
in principle fully cover the needs of Armenia, enabling Russia simply
to cut its supplies through Georgia.
As for the Samtskhe-Javakheti issue, the surprise October arrest
in Yerevan of Vahan Chakhalian, a radical leader of the Javakheti
Armenians, was interpreted by most of experts as a gesture aimed
to show the Georgian leadership that Yerevan would not support any
actions capable to destabilize that sensitive region.
Yerevan has managed to keep stable relations with both conflicting
parties, which was demonstrated in a series of recent contacts,
including the Russian-Armenian summit meeting in Moscow in late
October and a meeting between the foreign ministers of Armenia and
Georgia, also in Moscow. The relations with Washington have not
suffered either, as evident from the recent statements of American
officials that the Millennium Challenge program of Armenia will not
be interrupted despite the calls of human rights watchdogs.
e.php?articleid=4566

CREATIVITY FLOWS FROM FRESNO STATE
Fresno State News, CA
Nov 15 2006
Faculty members and students – past and present – at California State
University, Fresno continue to win awards and critical praise for
their literary and visual arts achievements.
Fresno State alumnus Brian Turner is the most recent honoree. He
received a literary fellowship from the Santa Fe, N.M.-based Lannan
Foundation, which recognizes authors “of distinctive literary merit
who demonstrate potential for continued outstanding work.”
The fellowship provides the resources for an individual to focus for
a year on writing. Turner works part-time as an instructor at Fresno
City College.
Turner, who earned a bachelor’s degree in English in 1994 from Fresno
State and master’s of fine arts at the University of Oregon, wrote
“Here, Bullet,” a collection of poems published in 2005 about his
Army infantry service in Iraq.
Since publication, “Here, Bullet” (Alice James; $14.95) has won a
Beatrice Hawley Award, the Northern California Award for Poetry,
the Maine Literary Award for Poetry and the PEN Center USA Literary
Award in Poetry.
Other recent creative arts accomplishments with links to Fresno State:
Favorable reviews greeted publication in October of Dr. Lillian
Faderman’s “Gay L.A.: A History of Sexual Outlaws, Power Politics,
and Lipstick Lesbians” (Basic Books; $27.50) co-authored with Stuart
Timmons. Faderman, an English professor, has written several other
books on lesbian/gay history. This book was named New York Times
Notable Books of the Year. Her previous book, “Naked in the Promised
Land,” received the Judy Grahn Award for nonfiction, and a Lambda
Literary Award for memoir.
Steven Church, an assistant professor of English, won the Colorado
Book Award in Creative Nonfiction for “The Guinness Book of Me”
(Simon & Schuster; $23). Church is at work on two books: one based
on the legacy of the 1983 TV drama “The Day After” and what he calls
“a sort of travel and work memoir” chronicling his journeys and time
spent as a tour guide at Arizona’s Meteor Crater and a Rocky Mountain
gold mine. He recently had a short story accepted for publication by
the new literary magazine, Avery.
Dr. Lisa Weston, an English professor, won first and second place
in the Creative Photography competition at the Big Fresno Fair for
what she describes as “found collages” (material from all over that
changes as things happen to it). and changes every day as torn down,
posted or painted over, and weathered by exposure to the elements).
“She took the photographs in London while on sabbatical earlier
this year.
Fresno State graphic design student Mario Garza is the author of
“Stuff on My Cat” (Chronicle Books, $9.95), a book of photos from
his Web site that features patient or lazy cats with things piled
on top of them. The Web site originated with photos of Garza’s plump
feline and soon was attracting submissions from other cat owners with
similar pictures. Garza operates his own graphic design studio/screen
printing shop.
The Canadian Historical Association awarded a Certificate of Merit
in Regional History to Dr. Isabel Kaprielian for her book, “Like
Our Mountains: A History of Armenians in Canada” (McGill-Queen’s
University Press; $59.95). Kaprielian is a professor of history who
specializes in Armenian and immigration history. The citation says
Kaprielian’s “research base is formidable, drawing upon a strong
collection of primary documents, extensive interviews and a wide
range of secondary sources.” The book has won praise for both its
scholarship and general-audience appeal.
Former English faculty member Howard Hendrix’s sixth novel, “Spears
of God” (Del Rey/Random House; $14.95) is scheduled to be published
Nov. 28. The new book is a thriller about trying to control meteorites
that may hold secrets about human evolution. Hendrix has scheduled
readings and signings in several California bookstores, including
the Barnes & Noble in Fresno from 2 to 4 p.m. Jan. 27.

GEORGIA ON MY MIND
By Steve Koppelman
Broward New Times, FL
Nov 15 2006
>From the Caucasus to the shore, it’s time for some post-Soviet soup.
Ah, beach food. Corn on the cob, hot dogs, freshly shucked clams.
Pizza, burgers, and ice cream. There’s nothing better after bobbing
in the ocean waves and baking in the sun for hours, is there? Along
Hollywood’s Broadwalk, beach food also means tacos al carbon, Turkish
falafel, empanadas, and French-Canadian fare, reflecting the diversity
of Broward’s most democratic beach. Since early this year, it also
means khachapuri, lobio, kharcho, and lyulya kebab with tkemali sauce.
Hollywood Grill bills itself on its sign in English as an Armenian
restaurant and in Russian more broadly as a restaurant of the
Caucasus. Owners Zina and Hovick Grigoryan, hailing from Georgia and
Armenia by way of Brighton Beach, bring a bit of Eastern Black Sea
resort to South Florida.
At first glance, you might wonder what would bring such unusual fare to
a beach cafe here, but it makes perfect sense to South Broward’s and
Northeast Dade’s growing community of emigres from in and around the
former Soviet Union. You’ll usually also find some of it on the menus
at upscale “Russian” restaurants from Los Angeles and Brooklyn to Club
Pearl in Hallandale Beach and a half-dozen others around Sunny Isles,
where it provides the same sort of accessible exoticism Italian food
adds to many “all-American” menus these days. But most relevantly,
Armenian, Georgian, and Azeri food long ago became standard fare for
cookouts, vacations, and wine- and garlic-fueled nights throughout
that region.
An ideal introduction to what the food of the Caucasus is about
comes in a bowl. One of several soups, the kharcho ($6) stands out,
the best version I’ve had in years. Much more than a lamb-and-rice
soup as most menus and cookbooks translate it, a good kharcho is
a mildly spicy soup redolent with walnuts, garlic, perhaps dried
cherries, and most importantly a blend of herbs and spices called
khmeli-suneli, which includes coriander, marjoram, fenugreek, mint,
and dill, lending it a flavor like nothing else except perhaps other
Armenian and Georgian food. Another lamb soup, piti, was enjoyable but
less dramatically seasoned, built around larger, milder-tasting pieces
of meat and chickpeas in place of the rice and bits of vegetable.
As you might expect from a beachside cafe specializing in the foods
of a region that borders on Turkey and Iran, kebabs abound. Lamb
kebab ($10) and kofta-like ground-meat lyulya kebabs ($8) were fine,
particularly the lamb, reddened by a spice mixture, perhaps adzhika,
a fenugreek-spiked pepper paste with origins in Georgia. They come
accompanied by a choice of fries, lightly buttered rice, or our
favorite, olive-oil-infused roasted potatoes dusted with garlic and
herbs. The kebabs were best enjoyed wrapped in a strip of (alas, not
locally made) lavash with some raw onion and a dab of the included
satsabeli sauce, a distinctly Georgian/Armenian sour-plum-based
condiment tasting of dill, garlic, and coriander.
An order of chicken satsivi, a cold, mild dip made of shreds of
boiled chicken in a pale-yellow ground-walnut sauce, however, was
more pedestrian. Something seemed missing, maybe the bit of peppery
zing I’ve encountered before. Belhoor ($8), a kasha variant of cooked
cracked wheat topped with sauteed mushrooms and a bit of broth, could
have used a bit more flavor – and gravy – for my taste as an entree,
but as a side dish for the table, it would do just fine.
On another visit, we stumbled early. A handwritten sign in Russian
taped to a window read “KHASH season has begun.” I ordered a bowl,
though the waitress did her best to try to talk me out of it. “Some
people really like it…” Wrinkled nose. “Others… don’t.” An austere,
virtually unseasoned bowl of khash – pork broth; fatty, cartilaginous
bones; and chewy pork skin – landed with accompaniments. Following
instructions, I stirred in a couple of tablespoons of freshly
grated garlic, bits of toasted lavash, and some granulated white
powder from a small bowl that the waitress said was salt, even
though there was already a shaker on the table. I tasted a dab,
and it was salty, but I hesitated. I went ahead and added some. Then
more. Then some pepper. Then more of both, until finally it was sort
of OK in an exotic, adventure-travel kind of way but not actually
enjoyable. Definitely an acquired taste. The waitress did get a
bit misty-eyed talking about how her mom would make it when she got
sick. Among other things, it’s a folk remedy, especially for broken
bones. My companion and I gave it our best. We each had a few more
spoonfuls before giving up, the broth slick with what we decided on
the way home, guzzling bottled water, was actually MSG, a seasoning
I’m fine with in moderation. Let’s just say I’m glad I didn’t finish
off the bowl.
The rest of that meal had enough highs to make it more than worthwhile,
though. The lobio appetizer, which also makes a fine side, was a
scrumptious, extremely refreshing kidney-bean salad, strewn with
crushed walnuts, minced garlic, parsley, dill, and an Armenian staple,
pomegranate seeds, all lightly dressed in oil and vinegar. Sorry,
Mom, but the fiancee liked it even more than your terrific three-bean
salad. Their khachapuri (kha-cha-POO-ree), a Georgian word that
translates as “cheese bread,” is represented here as an airy,
flaky filo-dough pie filled with firm, buttery cheese. It was good,
but I’d been hoping for a stuffed-bread version with warmer melted
cheese inside. Hinkali – meat dumplings – offered another geography
lesson. The tennis-ball-sized pouches of thick dough with a massive
ball of oniony meat filling looked and tasted like something from
Northern China or a dim sum cart, and leftovers the next day were
right at home with a splash of soy sauce, a reminder that the Silk
Road carried more than just fabrics and spices.

EX-COMMANDERS CALL FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By Ruzanna Stepanian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Nov 15 2006
A group of Karabakh war veterans have called on the nation to show
civil disobedience and achieve a power change in the country.
In a written statement spread on Wednesday several dozen ex-commanders
urged all war veterans to unite “to save Armenia and Armenians and
restore justice in all spheres”.
“The lands that we liberated are in danger today. We urge all our
compatriots, all parties and individuals to put aside ideological
differences and stop our homeland from falling into an abyss,”
they said.
For this purpose the “Brotherhood of Liberation Struggle” Council of
Commanders urges everyone to join the movement of civil disobedience.
Commander of Karabakh self-defense forces and head of Yerkrapah’s
Karabakh structure Arkady Karapetian says this disobedience will mean
that people no longer want the authorities to govern the country and
it will eventually result in a power change. “If you don’t accept that
this person is your president, then you are ready for everything,”
Karapetian said.
The Karabakh war veterans say they will consider anyone who attempts
to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem at the expense of territories
as their enemy. “Terrible things will happen if such an attempt is
made,” Karapetian warned.

PARLIAMENT PASSES BILL ON PROPERTY CONFISCATION IN SECOND READING
By Astghik Bedevian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Nov 15 2006
The Armenian parliament on Monday adopted in the second reading a
controversial bill that upholds the government’s powers to confiscate
real property and give it to private developers by citing ‘state and
public needs’.
The government-proposed legislation was passed with 67 votes to none,
with only three abstentions.
The draft law is supposed to regulate continuing demolitions of
old parts of central Yerevan that has been the scene of a massive
redevelopment in recent years. They have sparked angry protests by
scores of people who have been evicted from their now demolished
homes and claim to have not been properly compensated by the state.
The Armenian constitution stipulates that private property can
be taken away by the state “only in exceptional cases involving
overriding public interests, in a manner defined by law, and with
a prior commensurate compensation.” However, the process has so far
been regulated only by government directives. Armenia’s Constitutional
Court effectively declared it illegal in April, but stopped short of
ordering the authorities to return the increasingly expensive land
to their former owners.
As the lawmakers took the vote several dozen residents evicted from
their homes gathered near the National Assembly building to show
their attitude. Their protest passed in heavy police presence. Police
surrounded demonstrators not to allow them to approach passing
deputies.
“We have only one wish – to meet deputies elected by people and talk
to them. After all, we have elected them,” one protestor said.
Opposition deputies who have consistently opposed the passage of the
bill were welcomed with applause. Those who voted for the bill drew
a different reaction, with people scanning: “Shame on you!”
Many pro-government deputies decided to enter the parliament from the
backdoor. Some of them were accompanied by eight or nine bodyguards.
Among the parties that opted out of the vote today were Orinats
Yerkir, the Artarutyun alliance and National Unity. The parties and
groups that upheld the legislation included the Republican Party of
Armenia, the United Labor Party, the People’s Deputy parliamentary
group and businessmen’s groups. The Dashnak votes proved decisive
in the vote. All of the party’s deputies had abstained during the
previous vote on the bill. Only three of them did so this time around.
The bill is still to pass a third reading and is already on the agenda
of the four-day session.

THE RELATION BETWEEN HISTORY AND POLITICS ACCORDING TO HANIOGLU
Sahin Alpay
Zaman, Turkey
Nov 15 2006
No doubt M. Sukru Hanioglu is at the top of the list of historians
illuminating the last period of Ottoman history. Leaving aside the
articles he has written in various academic magazines and books,
a list of the books he has authored is enough in itself to show the
dimensions of his contribution:
“Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908,” Oxford
University Press, 2000.
“The Young Turks in Opposition,” Oxford University Press, 1995.
“Kendi Mektuplariyle Enver Pasha (Enver Pasha in Light of His Own
Letters),” Der Publications, 1989.
Professor Hanioglu has been a faculty member at Princeton University,
one of the U.S.’s most distinguished universities, from the 1990’s to
date, and chairman of the Middle East Research Department for the last
three years. He is a source of pride for Turkey as a social scientist,
not only for being an extremely fastidious researcher and superior
analyst, but also with his intellectual character tied to independent
values and critical method.
His new book is entitled “Osmanli’dan Cumhuriyet’e Zihniyet, Siyaset
ve Tarih (World-view, Politics and History from the Ottomans to the
Republic, Baglam Publications, 2006), and it is comprised of articles
published in Zaman newspaper from the fall of 2002 to the summer
of 2006. I am very happy that a short time after I began writing for
Zaman, I encouraged my old friend Professor Hanioglu to write for Zaman
once every two weeks as well. His Zaman articles, which combine his
broad knowledge of history with an analytical logic, are the most
valuable contribution made in recent years to the understanding of
Turkey’s presence in light of the historical behind-the-scenes reality
of the transitional period from the Ottomans to the Republic.
In regard to the interest shown to these articles, Hanioglu says the
following: “These commentaries that were aimed at bringing different
perspectives to current issues received an unexpected amount of
interest. While messages related to my academic publications generally
don’t reach two-digit numbers, I received close to 50 notes after
each newspaper commentary. I had an opportunity to exchange ideas
with many people, even if it was in a virtual realm.” (p. 9)
In this article I want to dwell on his last piece, published in
Zaman in two parts, entitled “History, Politics and the 1915 Tragedy
in Light of the Vote in the French Assembly” (October 26-27), which
was not included in Professor Hanioglu’s book, but which is extremely
worthy of attention. Here Hanioglu interprets the relationship between
history and politics in view of the bill accepted on October 12th by
the French Assembly that makes denial of the “Armenian Genocide” a
crime. He takes this “denial” argument even further: It is impossible
to leave history to historians, and it is inevitable that politics
interpret history. The problem is not with politics’ interpreting
history; it is with imposing your interpretation, as the only truth,
on society and prohibiting debate. (In this respect, Hanioglu reminds
those supporting the thesis, “Let’s leave history to historians,”
that the Turkish Parliament declared May 27th as a “Constitution and
Freedom Holiday” on April 3, 1963, and that it made it a crime to
“insult the memory of Ataturk” on July 25, 1951.)
Hanioglu points out that it is past the time for producing politics
by means of free discussion instead of countering prohibition with
prohibition, when taking up the issue stemming from the question,
“What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?” In other words, the most
important historian of the Union and Progress period says to stop
curtailing debate by means of Turkish penal code 301 and elsewhere
and, instead, allow for the production of new and result-oriented
politics by means of free historical debate to counter the campaign
for “recognizing genocide” and now “punishment for the denial of
genocide.” Actually, this is the task before us.
With this opportunity, I would like to note on the record that I am
one of those eagerly awaiting his book-in-progress on the Committee
for Union and Progress’ reign of power (1908-1918).

GUL SAYS TURKEY WORKING ON NEW INITIATIVE FOR ARMENIAN ISSUE
By Suleyman Kurt, Ankara
Zaman, Turkey
Nov 15 2006
Following Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s letter to Armenian
President Robert Kocharyan last year in which he proposed the
appointment of a joint commission of historians to discuss the 1915
incidents, Turkey intends on offering new initiatives.
Speaking at the Budgetary Commission of the Turkish National Assembly,
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Turkish and foreign lawyers
were studying the issue. Gul noted that Turkey did not rule out
international adjudication, an option for which the views of both
domestic and foreign international lawyers were being sought.
Minister Gul also recalled that Turkey had invited not only Armenians
but also third parties to join the proposed commission of historians.
In his assessment on the situation in Iraq, Gul, strongly opposed
division scenarios: “If Iraq is divided, a dark period will begin.
Then, the attitudes of the neighboring countries would not be the
same as today.”
Also rejecting the claims that the government had made concessions
with regard to Cyprus issue, Gul asserted that in reference to the
Turkish part’s interaction with the world, Turkish Cyprus had been
recognized de facto. Minister Gul, who further denied that Turkey
would hand over Maras to the Greek Cypriots, clearly stated, “This is
something that only those who have lost their minds would do. Maras
is part of a comprehensive solution.” Gul also stressed that the
government would not compromise on anything that it would not be able
to reinstate within the negotiation period with the European Union.

NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY ADOPTED DOCUMENT RECOGNIZING ARMENIA AS AGGRESSOR
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Nov 15 2006
The document “Role of South Caucasus in NATO” recognizing Armenian
as an aggressor state was adopted in the 52nd session of NATO
Parliamentary Assembly held in Quebec, Siyavush Novruzov, the
Azerbaijani representative in NATO PA told the APA.
“The rapporteurs had been to South Caucasian countries and prepared the
report. We were discontent about the report and achieved fundamental
amendments to the document. After hard discussions in the Azerbaijani
side of the document adopted in the NATO PA the occupation of 20%
of our territories by Armenia, 1m refugees, not fulfilling the
UN Security Council and CE resolutions, committing arsons in the
occupied Azerbaijani territories were reflected in the document,”
Siyavush Novruzov said.
He said for the first time the fact of the occupation of 20% of
Azerbaijani territories is reflected in the international document.
Out of 26 participant countries 25 voted for the adoption of the
document. The parliamentarian said that the role of Azerbaijan in
the energy security of Europe was discussed at the session.

CHORUS ANNOUNCES 2 SHOWS TO END YEAR
By Sarah L. Sullivan
Asbury Park Press, NJ
Nov 15 2006
The Monmouth Civic Chorus is rehearsing to perform its program,
“4 Trumpets and a Chorus,” which will feature the U.S. premiere of
Henri Busser’s “Domremy Mass.”
This recently unearthed piece by the French composer features the
rare accompaniment of four trumpets commemorating the parish church
of Domremy, France, where Joan of Arc is celebrated. Interspersed
throughout the work are descriptive thematic readings from the text
of her trial, and the chorus will sing the Mass.
This nonprofit organization comprising 120 adults, 95 of whom are
performance artists, includes many who are classically trained.
“This group has really achieved artistically a very high level,” said
Artistic Director and Conductor Mark Shapiro. “It’s quite celebrated
in New Jersey for what it has done in terms of its repertoire and
the quality of its performances.”
Since its inception in 1949, the chorus has had seven European Tours
as well as performances at Carnegie Hall in New York and at the New
Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark with the New Jersey Symphony
to name a few.
“It is wonderful that this ensemble embraces people ranging in age
from seniors in high school to well in their 80s who contribute not
just their spirit but real talent,” Shapiro said.
The program also will include an unusual piece by an Armenian composer,
Arzas Voskanyan, that pays tribute to an Armenian battle from about
the same millennium as the Busser segment.
“It is an eerie piece with wailing trumpets and a brilliant finish,”
Shapiro said.
Although the chorus and Shapiro have never performed Gabriel Faure’s
Requiem together before, they are pleased to do so now. This portion of
the concert will feature soprano Jo Ellen Miller as a guest soloist.
Miller’s credits include performances at Tanglewood in Massachusetts
and being featured with the Sarasota Opera in Florida.
The chorus is funded with membership dues, varying levels of
sponsorships, and grants and ticket sales. Its operation is almost
entirely self-contained, said board member Susan Metz, with its
members managing it much like a business that performs about four
shows per year.
Mary Donnelly Pacheco, 75, past president and board member, has been
involved in one way or another for 37 years.
“Even though some members have moved away, they pay their dues and
keep in touch because it is like a family,” she said.
A member since 1980, Gerald Metz, 58, explained that although he
is retired now, “I had a job which I needed to earn money, but this
is what I live for – this is what life is really for – the arts and
expressing yourself and being with others who express themselves.”
In December, the Monmouth Civic Chorus will present Handel’s Messiah
at the Count Basie Theatre in Red Bank, along with Christmas Pops
Around the World. Additionally, subsets from the chorus can be hired
to sing carols at various locations including home, office or community
settings such as senior homes and tree-lighting ceremonies.
For more information, call (732) 933-9333 or visit