Today, Azerbaijan
June 24 2006
Matthew Bryza: “We hope to see a similar democratic reforms in
Armenia we are starting to see in Azerbaijan”
24 June 2006 [15:00] – Today.Az
Matthew Bryza, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian affairs, recently gained a second job title:
he has replaced Steven Mann as the U.S. cochair of the OSCE MG with
moderating negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno
Karabakh.
Bryza spoke on July 22 with RFE/RL Armenian Service head Harry
Tamrazian and RFE/RL Azerbaijani Service correspondent Kenan Aliyev
about the prospects for a resolution of the Karabakh conflict, Russia’s
role in the South Caucasus, and America’s strategic priorities in
the region.
RFE/RL: Your post — deputy assistant secretary — is more senior
than those occupied by previous U.S. cochairs of the Minsk Group.
Does that mean the United States is paying more attention to the
Karabakh question? Could that in turn mean that there is a sense the
sides are coming closer to resolving this conflict?
Matthew Bryza: I wouldn’t read too much in particular into the fact
that you now have a deputy assistant secretary, rather than someone
who wasn’t, doing this. A lot of this just depended on personalities
and my own background. I’ve been so deeply involved in the region for
a long time. It made sense that I would be the person to pick this up,
because it was time for Ambassador Mann, coincidentally, to move on
to his next assignment. So that’s all. I wouldn’t read anything more
into it. I’m just very happy that I’ll be able to play a more active
— and, in fact, daily — role on this conflict and make sure those
efforts are integrated with all the other broader things I’m trying
to do in the Caucasus.
RFE/RL: You have said in recent statements that there is a framework on
the table that makes an agreement on Karabakh possible. You have also
said that next year the political calendar will be more complicated
in Armenia, and therefore the presidents should do something this
year while there is still a window of opportunity.
First of all, what kind of framework is that? And do you still believe
there is room for a resolution this year? Some experts say the issue is
already very complicated today, even before we get into the elections
next year.
Bryza: It is complicated today. We see how complicated the situation
is based upon the fact that the presidents haven’t gotten to the
point where they’ve agreed to this framework that’s on the table.
That gets back to the first part of your question. What we have is
a framework agreement, as we described today here at the OSCE — as
Ambassador Mann did, and Ambassador [Yury] Merzlyakov [the Russian
cochair] and Bernard [Fassier, the French cochair] as well — we
have a framework agreement that would call for the removal, or the
withdrawal, of Armenian troops from those territories in Azerbaijan
where they currently are. That’s on the one side. On the other side
we have a normalization of Armenia’s ties — economic, diplomatic —
and other features having to do with peacekeepers and international
economic assistance to the Karabakh region, and economic development.
So there’s a package proposal on the table that, in the end,
would involve as well a vote at some point on the future status of
Karabakh. So that’s kind of the basic outline of the proposal on the
table, and we would very much encourage the presidents to accept this
framework. Which requires a lot of political courage, which I’ve said
publicly before.
RFE/RL: Have you noticed any sign that the two sides may be softening
their positions? Did they appear more willing to consider the framework
agreement you’re describing during their talks in early June at a
Black Sea summit in Bucharest than they were when they meant for
talks in February with the French president in Rambouillet?
Bryza: Put it this way: At Bucharest, they talked throughout the whole
meeting to each other, really went through the issues in detail, and
[they] haven’t issued any negative statements really since. So I’m
not sure how to interpret that. I know what I hope, what the cochairs
hope: The cochairs hope that this reflects political will on the part
of the presidents to really get serious about some tough compromises
each side will make. I’m not sure if that’s where they are, and the
cochairs talked today about taking a bit of a pause throughout the
summer to find out whether or not the presidents do in fact have that
sort of political will.
RFE/RL: What is the next step for the cochairs? Are you planning to
bring the presidents together again after the summer?
Bryza: At this point, as I was saying, the cochairs have decided to
take a pause throughout the summer. We will reconvene in September,
October, to report back here [to Vienna, the headquarters of the
OOSCE], I hope. But we’re taking some time off in terms of trying
to facilitate meetings between the presidents. It’s really up to
the presidents now to decide whether or not they want to take the
politically difficult and challenging decisions that are critical to
bringing the framework agreement home. So we’re giving them some space,
and we want them to demonstrate that they really do have the political
will to take these next difficult steps. That doesn’t mean we’re
quitting the process. That doesn’t mean we’re walking away from it. I
myself still have to make my first trips in this capacity to Yerevan
and Baku, and you can bet that I’ll be encouraging the presidents to
take these tough decisions. And there will be opportunities at major
international gatherings this summer to discuss this issue.
RFE/RL: At the turn of the year, there were a lot of optimistic
statements — from you as well as others — that the Karabakh conflict
could be resolved in 2006. We’re now halfway through the year. Are
you still optimistic about 2006?
Bryza: I don’t know. My optimism, if you look carefully at my
statements, was about the fact that there is a framework on the
table that provides a workable foundation for a just and lasting
settlement. I was optimistic that the Minsk Group negotiators had
gotten the two presidents as close as they could get to an agreement
without the presidents taking some very difficult decisions and
making some very difficult compromises. We are still in that same
place. I don’t know if that’s optimistic or pessimistic. But the
Minsk Group itself has decided that there’s no sense in us trying to
arrange another round of presidential meetings or trying to broker
an agreement, because we have taken the process as far as we can,
and all that’s left to do is for the presidents to make these tough
decision. Is that pessimistic? I don’t know if it is. It depends on
what the presidents themselves decide to do next. If they decide that
they simply don’t have the political will to keep going, well, that’s
a pessimistic outcome. But we just don’t know where the presidents
are right now. We’re encouraging them, we’re nudging them by taking
a step back. Nudging them to show that they have this political will.
RFE/RL: Russia does not always play what some would consider a
constructive role in the South Caucasus, particularly with regard to
the “frozen conflicts” in the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia. But Russia has been very cooperative with the United
States on Nagorno Karabakh. Some Russian officials, like Sergei Ivanov,
have occasionally said there should be no Karabakh resolution imposed
from abroad. But otherwise the relationship has been constructive. How
would you evaluate relations between the United States and Russia
with respect to Karabakh in particular, and the Caucasus in general?
Bryza: First, let me say you made a statement of fact with which I
agree. We are working quite well with Russia on Karabakh. Our level
of cooperation has not been as significant when it comes to South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and Transdniester. I don’t work on Transdniester
[a separatist region of Moldova], but I was just in Abkhazia and I
think there is a lot of room for much better cooperation — and I
would argue that the Georgian side has shown a significant amount of
goodwill and a readiness to work on significant confidence-building
measures. I would also say the United States has worked hard to keep
the Georgians as constructive and moderate as possible, and I hope
our Russians colleagues and friends will do the same in terms of
encouraging the Abkhaz to be constructive and moderate. I saw today
that [Sergei] Bagapsh, the leader of the authorities of Abkhazia,
issued a rather incendiary statement, threatening to put mines along
the Line of Contact between Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia. That’s
the last thing that needs to be happening right now.
We don’t see that happening in the case of Karabakh. I leave that to
analysts like yourselves to figure out why that may be. Geographic
differences, perhaps? Where Karabakh is placed? I don’t know what the
reason is. Maybe it’s because the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan
themselves have demonstrated a commitment to work in a constructive
way — although I would argue the Georgians have done so as well. But
we are working quite well with the Russians, and especially with
the Russian cochair, Ambassador Merzlyakov. He’s a creative and
constructive diplomat whom I’ve known for a long time, ever since we
worked together on Caspian energy issues.
RFE/RL: Your predecessor, Ambassador Mann, said repeatedly that
September 11th created pressure to resolve the Karabakh conflict in
order to put an end to one source of instability in the region. Even
so, high-level involvement on the part of the United States has
not materialized. How does Nagorno Karabakh fit into U.S. security
interests?
Bryza: I think Steve [Mann] is right to say that any time we have
an area that could become a gray area on the map, where nefarious
transactions or transit of goods and materials could transpire because
of legal grayness. That’s a potential threat. Where does Karabakh
fit into our broad national security calculus? Well, hopefully there
will be a discussion of it at the G8 [summit of the eight leading
industrialized nations, to be held in mid-July in St.
Petersburg]. The G8, one could argue, may be the world’s most elite
grouping of states and political leaders. So if we have a discussion
on Karabakh at the G8 — along with a discussion of Abkhazia,
South Ossetia, Transdniester — that would imply it figures pretty
prominently on our agenda. But we’re still working out the agenda of
the G8.
RFE/RL: So it’s not yet clear if Karabakh will be included? The
“Washington Post” has reported that the Georgian and Moldovan conflicts
would be discussed, but Karabakh will not be.
Bryza: I don’t believe that will be the case. We are working with our
secretary of state — we have already recommended to her that she
raise all of those conflicts at the ministerial [meeting in Moscow
on June 29]. Undersecretary [Nicholas] Burns has already made that
suggestion a couple of times. And so we would like to make sure all
of those conflicts are on the agenda.
RFE/RL: There is always the lingering possibility that the conflict
could resume. Both sides have made attempts to raise their military
budgets. That is particularly the case with Azerbaijan. How would the
international community react to either side attempting to shift the
balance of power away from the status quo?
Bryza: You’ve put me in that classic situation of having to answer a
hypothetical question. So I won’t answer that question directly. What
I will say is what I’ve been working on with my friends in the
government of Azerbaijan — because that’s the side where you most
often hear those sorts of threats; that’s a fact — and what I feel
the government of Azerbaijan doing as well is focusing on the positive
aspects of Azerbaijan’s burgeoning wealth that’s going to come from
the energy sector. It’s really quite unhelpful to make statements
that imply that this increased wealth is going to lead to purchases
of arms and military threats. It’s quite constructive, however, to
talk about how this wealth can open new channels of cooperation, how
such wealth would provide Azerbaijan an opportunity to invest in the
well-being of the region, [how it could] help develop Karabakh, all
the territories, create the opportunities for business, for commerce,
and for the ethnic Armenians and Azeris to come together and get to
know each other, and therefore, over time, to reduce the level of
tension and the level of animosity surrounding the status question of
Karabakh. So I guess what I’m saying is there’s really no reason to
expect that armed conflict will come out this. It’s really unwise even
to talk about it, and we urge the sides not even to think about it.
RFE/RL: The United States clearly has strategic interests in
Azerbaijan, not least Caspian oil. Does the United States look at
the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in the context of its energy interests?
Bryza: Throughout the Caucasus, we have three sets of strategic
interests. These are valid in all three countries. Yes, we have energy
interests, and we’re not embarrassed to say that energy is a strategic
interest. We have pure security interests, or traditional security
interests — meaning fighting terrorism, fighting proliferation,
avoiding military conflict, and restoring (or preserving, in some
cases) the territorial integrity of the states of the region. What
I really mean is, resolving the conflicts, in the case of Georgia,
within Georgia’s international boundaries; in the case of Karabakh, our
official line is we support Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. And
then we have a third set of interests: in the internal reform of
each country — democratic and market economic reform, for all the
reasons the [U.S.] president has articulated, based on our belief
that stability only comes from legitimacy. And legitimacy requires
democracy on the political side and prosperity on the economic side,
and you only get both — democracy and prosperity — through serious
reform. So all three sets of interests are being pursued by us at
any one time.
In Armenia, obviously the significance of energy is not the same as in
Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is a producer. Keep in mind that we Americans
will consume little if any of that energy produced in Azerbaijan. The
energy produced in Azerbaijan matters in terms of its contribution
to global energy diversity, especially for our European allies. So
it’s diversity we care about — diversity of supply, which leads to
energy independence. When it comes to Armenia, energy is similarly
important in terms of making sure that Armenia has independent or
multiple sources of energy supply so that it feels independent,
and therefore more stable, and more willing to negotiate in good faith.
So that’s a long answer to say that of course energy is part of
our strategic calculus. But that’s not what’s driving us. We’re
looking for balance. And we do recognize, however, that, God forbid,
if there was a resumption of conflict [over Karabakh], that that
would undermine the entire investment climate across the Caucasus,
all three countries. And we certainly don’t want that.
RFE/RL: The relationship between Turkey and Armenia, which is
also crucial to regional stability, is slowly showing signs of
improvement. Is the United States actively engaged in trying to help
make ties between Ankara and Yerevan warmer?
Bryza: We are working, consulting, talking, strategizing with our
friends in both Turkey and in Armenia. When it comes to Armenia, I
think it’s clear that the Armenian side is willing and ready to move
toward normalization. I think the same is true in Turkey. Besides just
encouraging the sides to get together and find a common language,
I can tell you that what we’ve tried to do over the last few years
is try to develop this particular framework for Karabakh that’s
on the table. Because if the sides are able to implement what the
framework indicates — meaning, again, the withdrawal from the
territories in Azerbaijan where Armenian troops are present, and
then the normalization of diplomatic and economic relations between
Azerbaijan and Armenia — then full normalization of Turkish and
Armenian relations follows naturally. Another way to put it is,
all of our diplomatic efforts with regards to Karabakh also aim at
normalizing Turkish and Armenian relations.
RFE/RL: A question on the issue of Russian military bases in Armenia:
Some military hardware was recently moved from Georgia to Armenia.
There are essentially no Russian troops in Georgia and Azerbaijan,
but there is a significant presence in Armenia. How does the United
States view that? Will you ask the Armenian government to ask the
Russians to withdraw?
Bryza: First of all, let’s be clear that there are Russian troops in
Georgia. They have not all withdrawn yet from [military bases at]
Akhalkalaki or Batumi. They are on the way, the heavy equipment is
moving. And there will be Russian troops in the context of the CIS
peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia for some time, depending
on how the discussions go between Russia and Georgia. When it comes
to the movement of the heavy equipment from Akhalkalaki to Gyumri
[site of a Russian base in Armenia], no, we’re not asking Armenia
to press for the removal of those Russian bases. We didn’t ask the
Georgians to do that. We respect the sovereignty of our friends, be
they Georgia, Azerbaijan, or Armenia, and it’s up to those sovereign
governments to take their own decisions. We simply welcome the fact
that Russia and Georgia have agreed mutually that Russian bases will
close down. That was Georgia’s expressed ambition. Russia agreed.
That’s simply a good thing. But it’s not for us to try to encourage
the removal of the bases.
RFE/RL: Neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia have had truly democratic
elections in the past 10 years. So can we say these governments have
the mandate, the popular support, to make the difficult decisions
outlined in the framework agreement?
Bryza: Certainly they have the mandate if they build popular support.
I think that’s the most important next step. I’ve been talking about
the fact that the presidents need to take tough decisions. And to
get to the tough decision, they need to prepare their populations for
a compromise. That’s another way of saying they either build, or do
have, that mandate. You raise a good question about the legitimacy of
a government depending on its elections. I would argue that the pace
of democracy in both of those countries isn’t a disaster. A lot more
work needs to be done. But in the case of Azerbaijan’s [parliamentary]
elections [in November 2005], there were some significant improvements
in this last round of elections. But they didn’t go as far as we
would like.
RFE/RL: How serious is the United States about promoting democracy in
Azerbaijan? We see your serious efforts in Georgia, and we see the
results. But in Azerbaijan, the international community seriously
criticized the elections, but the United States decided to invite
President Ilham Aliyev to Washington. What makes Aliyev different,
for example, from an autocratic leader like Belarusian President
Alexander Lukashenko?
Bryza: I categorically reject the statement that the United States
isn’t serious about democracy in Azerbaijan. As President Bush
said in his second inaugural address, long-term security requires
democracy. It’s the thirst for political and economic freedom that is
the most powerful motivating factor in international politics. That
really is the source of long-term stability. We fool ourselves if we
think that we can achieve our long-term interests in any country —
be they energy interests or security interests — and turn away from
democracy. You talked about September 11. Well, the great lesson we
learned from September 11 is that we were wrong, as the president
has said, for 50 years. We looked at the Middle East and said
‘these countries are too strategically important for us to focus
on democracy.’
So we understand that long-term security and therefore the ability
to achieve our energy interests requires democracy. In Azerbaijan,
we have pressed very hard on democracy. You said the international
community was critical of the Azeri elections — well, we’re part of
that community, and our statements were critical. However, we have to
make a judgment at some point whether or not we think the trend in
a country is positive or negative. And we don’t have unidimensional
relations with countries, either. I talked about three sets of
interests. Just because Azerbaijan hasn’t gone as far as we would
like on democracy doesn’t mean we’re going to ignore our energy
interests or our military interests. That’s not to say that our
energy interests or our military interests or our counterterrorism
interests are driving us to ignore democracy. I said before, we have
to pursue a balance. Why would we freeze out President Ilham Aliyev
from contact with our president forever because we think he needs to
do more on democracy? That doesn’t make sense. Our president made a
judgment. His judgment was that we could do more to elicit democratic
reform in Azerbaijan by embracing Ilham Aliyev right now rather than
freezing him out. That’s because we do feel the trend on democracy
is positive, even if Azerbaijan hasn’t gone as far as we wish.
So, finally, I’d say there is simply no similarity between Lukashenka
and Aliyev. We just don’t feel there is at all. Ilham Aliyev, we
believe, is working to modernize the political system of Azerbaijan,
to create democracy in the context of Azerbaijan’s culture and
traditions — which the president said is necessary, because democracy
looks different in every country. That said, they haven’t gone far
enough. And we will continue to press President Aliyev — and his
opposition as well — to behave constructively, to build and strengthen
democratic institutions as we pursue our full range of interests.
RFE/RL: Ilham Aliyev has been to Washington; Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili has been invited to the White House just ahead
of the G8. Are there any plans to invite Armenia’s President Robert
Kocharian as well?
Bryza: We obviously don’t look at balancing presidential meetings
like that, but there’s no reason not to want President Kocharian
to come to Washington. Let me just say I hope we can see a similar
series of positive steps on democratic reform in Armenia as we
hope we are starting to see in Azerbaijan. Maybe we’re wrong about
Azerbaijan. Maybe we’re overly hopeful. But we think things are
moving in a positive direction. And we hope to see more of that from
Armenia. We signaled our support for Armenia, quite dramatically,
with the Millennium Challenge Account [a development fund set by the
United States, whose recipients — including Armenia — are chosen
using competitive, reform-based criteria]. That is, in many ways,
one of our highest forms of stating that we seek a partnership with
a country, to help it move forward on democratic reform. So we began
that program this year. When we began it, we issued a letter saying
we really had problems with the way the constitutional referendum
was conducted in November [2005], and we’re waiting to see positive
changes implemented. So that’s kind of the key to the next steps in
our relationship.
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MENACE OF DROUGHT IN GEGHARQOUNIK
A1+
[06:26 pm] 23 June, 2006
According to the information from the Gegharqounik regional department
of «Armhydromet», the last rain in Gegharqounik fell about 40 days
ago. The lasting drought has caused a damage of about 47 billion AMD.
The corn is mown as grass, and the crops of wheat and potato are in
serious danger.
For the last seven years about 400 thousand tons of grass was stored
annually. This year only 30% of the total sum will be stored.
The agronomists mention that even if it rains now, it will be of no
help for the crops.
TV Company «Qyavar» of Gavar
–Boundary_(ID_2PD/WxXXQu9XJc3xM7XAqQ)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
June 24 2006
GLO calls on Azerbaijan to quit the talks on settlement of the
conflict
[ 24 Jun. 2006 14:34 ]
“OSCE Minsk Group American co-chair Matthew Bryza’s statement shows
that settlement process is against Azerbaijan,” Garabagh Liberation
Organization’s statement says.
The statement says that mediators don’t want to take into account the
occupation fact and recognize Armenia as an aggressor and to assess
its behavior.
“They defend Armenia’s position and despite refute of government
officials, we have on occasion stated that the talks are in dangerous
direction. Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry official’s mild attitude
after Mr. Bryza’s statement causes concern.
These points as well as participation of Azerbaijani government in
talks that is against us show that international organizations, world
powers and others try to give Nagorno Garabagh to Armenia forever”.
GLO thinks that Azerbaijan should quit negotiations and should liberate
its occupied land by military means. /APA/

TREND, Azerbaijan
June 24 2006
Slovenia supports position of Azerbaijan in settlement of
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Source: Trend
Author: S.Agayeva
24.06.2006
The head and people of Slovenia support the position of Azerbaijan in
the process of settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Borut Megusar,
consul of Slovenia in Azerbaijan, told Trend.
Megusar expressed his regret that during the chairmanship of Slovenia
in OSCE in 2005, it wasn’t achieved to obtain a positive result
related to the settlement of Azerbaijani-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. However, it doesn’t mean that Slovenia has no concern about
the conflict, told Megusar.
“I always inform the head of Slovenia about the process happening
around this conflict. Official Ljubljana attentively follows the
process of solution of the conflict,” Megusar emphasized.
According to him, Ljubljana is ready to create a situation for the
continuation of talks between the heads of conflict sides. Then,
some decision may be found on the question, told Megusar.
According to Megusar, Slovenia makes a support to Azerbaijan in
liquidating after-effects of Karabakh war, especially rehabilitation
of invalids of this war as well as mine-clearing of territories. In
the near future, the office of Slovenian institute for assistance to
people suffering from mine will be opened in Baku, told diplomat.

UAE’s Etisalat close to $450 million telecom deal in Armenia
Middle East North Africa Financial Network, Jordan
June 24 2006
MENAFN – 24/06/2006 — (MENAFN) UAE’s telecom giant Etisalat has
moved a step closer to acquiring 90 percent of ArmenTel, the largest
Armenian operator of cellular and fixed-line telephony, by getting
short-listed yesterday for the final bidding round along with three
consortia, Khaleej Times reported.
Greek telecom provider OTE, which owns 90 percent of ArmenTel, said a
consortium led by Etisalat is among the four bidders short-listed from
the original eight bidders, including major Russian telecommunication
conglomerates, Mobile Telesystems and Vympelkom.
The fourth bidder is a consortium comprising VTEL Holding and
Knightbridge Associates.
The Etisalat-led consortium includes Dubai investment house Istithmar
PJSC and Emergent Telecom Ventures.
When OTE announced its intention to sell 90 percent of ArmenTel
shares in early April 2006, primary offers came from Russia’s Sistema,
Vympelkom, and Rostelekom, Kuwait’s MTS Kuwait, Armenia’s Sil group,
Belgium’s Belgacom, Hungary’s PanTel, and Etisalat.
ArmenTel provides service to 595,000 fixed telephone subscribers in
Armenia and controls over a half of cellular communication market,
serving more than 50,000 subscribers. Armenian government owns 10
percent of Armentel. The company’s turnover reached Eur 110 million
in 2005.
According to sources close to OTE, the outcome of the tender would
be known after July 20.

LA Downtown News Online, CA
June 24 2006
JANM Show Questions Identities and Seeks to Demystify the Term ‘Hapa’
by Tami Mnoian
I’m not saying this is the end-all-be-all of experiencing hapa,”
artist Kip Fulbeck announces. “This is my experience.”
Fulbeck is sitting in a low-key Santa Barbara coffee shop as he
makes this statement, but his words resonate to Downtown Los Angeles
and beyond. His current project, part asian, 100% hapa, is both a
recently published book and a new exhibit at the Japanese American
National Museum (it runs through Oct. 29). It explores assumptions
of race and ethnicity and seeks to demystify “hapa,” the Hawaiian
word for half. Despite its derogatory origins, hapa is embraced by
people of Asian or Pacific Islander descent. Part asian is like a
hapa coming-out party, and Fulbeck is the host.
The exhibit is simple in format: a collection of more than 80 headshots
taken from the collarbone up, no glasses, no jewelry, no smile. A
handwritten answer to the question “What are you?” sits opposite
each photograph, along with a self-declared list of the subject’s
racial and ethnic background. The inclusion of this simple query is
inspired by the forms – a standardized test or a college application,
for example – that ask people to choose between their ethnicities. Part
asian allows them to freely affirm who they are.
The responses land all over the map, literally and culturally. One
Japanese-German-Romanian-Russian man confesses (responses written as
they appear in the exhibit), “Many of my ex-girlfriends were habitual
half-asian daters. These women considered half-asian men ‘exotic,’
‘sexy,’ and ‘just-like-Keanu Reeves-in-the-Matrix. I consider these
stereotypes appropriate because I got laid.” A Chinese-Palauan-Austrian
woman says that Palau is “an island nation between Guam and the
Philipines. If I only had a dollar for every time I had to explain
that.” A part-Chinese, part-Japanese man writes, “I have this big jar
in my kitchen which I fill with a mixture of Corn Flakes, Cheerios,
Raisin Bran, and sometimes granola.
My breakfast is a daily statement on the excellence of mixture.”
These testaments are personal evidence of part asian’s significance in
a world where, like the abovementioned breakfast selection, mixture is
on the increase. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, almost 7 million
people described themselves as being of two or more races.
“It’s been a subject, I think, that nobody has actually sat down and
tried to tackle,” said JANM spokesman Chris Komai. “That’s why this
is the first of a series of programs that the museum intends to do
in the future.”
Consistent Theme
Fulbeck, 41, has been deconstructing his identity for most of his
life. He is Chinese, English, Irish and Welsh, and was raised in a
Chinese household in Covina, Calif., then a predominately white Los
Angeles suburb.
“My siblings are 100% Chinese, so I grew up in this family where I
was the white kid,” he remembers. “Every weekend we were in Chinatown
and I was the one who didn’t fit in.”
Fulbeck has a varied career as a filmmaker, writer, photographer,
professor and chair of art at UC Santa Barbara. Yet ethnicity is a
consistent subject in his work. His 1991 award-winning short film
Banana Split focuses on being hapa, as does Paper Bullets, a novel
Fulbeck describes as a “fictional autobiography.” Part asian is a
departure in that Fulbeck doesn’t take the stage, but rather sets
it up for others like him. Though he notes, “The book isn’t just for
hapa people. It’s for anyone who’s dealing with identity.”
Fulbeck laments that he didn’t have a book like part asian while
growing up, which is when the idea first took root. He says that
his artistic and professional commitments made it easy to postpone
a venture of this size. But, he recalls, in 2001 a friend warned,
“If you don’t do this, someone else will. And they’re going to do it
the way you don’t like, so you might as well do it.”
At a hapa issues conference in San Francisco that same year, Fulbeck
took his camera and put out a sign that read “Hapa Project.” He hoped
to photograph five or 10 people.
“That day I shot 60,” Fulbeck smiles. In ensuing years he traveled
all over the country snapping mugshots of willing participants. “They
were all really excited,” he says. “It’s this kind of thing where
you’re around your tribe.”
Avoiding the ‘Hot’ Girls
Fulbeck ultimately documented more than 1,000 subjects. Then came
the difficult cutting process. Fulbeck and three editors laid out the
pictures on a giant table and made their selections. One editor chose
only people with “cool hair,” says Fulbeck, and unconsciously or not,
everyone tried to avoid picking the “hot” girls.
“All of us didn’t want it to be the Devon Aoki book,” says Fulbeck,
referring to the Japanese-German-English model and actress. “Yes, there
are some hot girls in there, but I didn’t want to add to the stereotype
that all of us are gorgeous and smart and have good figures.”
Ultimately, Fulbeck wants the word hapa to be known by those other
than hapas themselves. “I would like hapa to be a term that people
understand,” he says, not wanting to offer up a laundry list of famous
hapas every time the subject comes up: Keanu Reeves, Tiger Woods,
Apolo Ohno, Michelle Branch, Eddie Van Halen. “I just want people to
be aware that we’re a really multiracial society and deal with it.”
On Saturdays during the show, JANM visitors will be able to take a
Polaroid of themselves and respond to the question “What are you?” in
an interactive display area. With the audience’s participation, part
asian will grow throughout the next few months. It’s also an effort
to celebrate the past and the future.
“If you look at the history of the United States, and you look at most
ethnic communities,” Komai cautions, “eventually, they just sort of
disappear. What we believe is that people should have a choice. If they
want to be part of the mainstream and just be considered American,
that’s fine, their choice. If, on the other hand, they feel like
there’s a link they want to continue, then there ought to be a way
that they can do that and institutions like the Japanese American
National Museum will be part of their ability to pass that down to
their children and grandchildren.”
Kip Fulbeck: part asian, 100% hapa runs through Oct. 29 at the Japanese
American National Museum, 369 E. First St., (213) 625-0414 or janm.org.
Tami Mnoian is half-Japanese, half-Armenian. “Mr. Astani has a track
record of great projects and does a great job contributing to the
area,” said Franco. “This sends a message to other developers if they
want to go this route.”
Pacific Atlas Development Corp. bought the property in 1990 and
received city approvals to develop two office towers, an open-air plaza
and a hotel. But after the downturn in the economy in the early 1990s,
the project was shelved. In 2005, Astani bought the 129,000-square-foot
lot for a reported $38 million.
Astani is responsible for about 5,000 units in Los Angeles, including
the Concerto, which broke ground last month at the corner of Ninth
and Figueroa streets. That project, which took two years to make its
way through the city approval process, is scheduled to open in 2008.
The Concerto will offer two 27-story residential towers and one
five-story mixed-use building, creating a total of 619 units, along
with 27,500 square feet of retail and a 2,510-square-foot park.
Another Astani project, at Wilshire and Bixel in City West, will hold
200 units, 30 of them priced as affordable housing. The development
is under construction and occupancy is scheduled for the fall.
Altogether, Astani is working on plans to create nearly 1,700 units
in Downtown, making him one of the area’s biggest developers.
“If buildings don’t get built,” he said, “the city loses money and
jobs, and homeowners stay renters.”

International Solidarity Movement, Palestinian Territories
June 24 2006
British Filmmaker’s Death in Gaza Continues to Resound
June 24th, 2006 | Posted in Press clippings, Gaza Region
By Sarah Lyall
Published in the New York Times
LONDON, June 23 – Three years ago, in an incident that resonates now
with the recent killing of seven members of a Palestinian family on a
Gaza beach, a documentary filmmaker was shot to death in Gaza.
Then as now, the victims’ families blamed the Israeli military, which
denied responsibility. A major difference is that the filmmaker,
James Miller, was a British citizen, and after some prodding from his
family, his government has taken up his cause.
At first, about the only thing not in dispute in the Miller case was
that he was dead, shot on May 2, 2003, in an area of the Gaza Strip
thick with Israeli soldiers. The Israelis said he was a casualty of
war. His colleagues said he had been killed in cold blood.
His family fought to know more.
A resolution of sorts came in April at a coroner’s inquest here into
the death of Mr. Miller, 34, an experienced filmmaker looking into
the effects of violence on children for HBO. The jury’s verdict was
that he was murdered.
The killer was identified as the commander of an armored personnel
carrier in the Israeli Army who had admitted firing his gun that
night, but no one in Israel has been charged, and many of the
questions raised in the hours after the shooting have never been
resolved.
Suspecting that answers might not be forthcoming, the Miller family
sent a private investigator to the scene the day after the killing to
do forensic tests – tests, the investigator said, that the Israelis
never conducted. In the next few days the army bulldozed the site,
destroying much of the remaining evidence, the investigator said.
The Israeli military’s criminal investigation, including the basic
task of confiscating and securing the soldiers’ weapons for tests,
did not begin until several weeks after the fact.
Lt. Col. Jana Modzgvrishvily, the military advocate for the Israeli
Army’s southern command, said in an interview that after Mr. Miller’s
death, the army immediately began a standard field investigation,
followed by a full military criminal investigation.
She said nine soldiers in the two armored personnel carriers near the
scene were repeatedly interviewed and subjected to lie detector
tests. She confirmed that the weapons had not been secured for three
weeks but said they had been subjected to extensive forensic tests.
It is not just the Miller family who denies that the Israeli inquiry
was thorough and comprehensive. So, too, does the coroner at the
London inquest, who urged the British government to begin an
international prosecution against the commander of the personnel
carrier under the Geneva Conventions. So does the British government
itself.
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, raised the case last month with
Israeli officials, including the defense and justice ministers. He
also brought up another case, that of Tom Hurndall, 22, a British
antiwar protester who was shot and killed by an Israeli soldier in
February 2003, three weeks before and a mile away from where Mr.
Miller died.
In Mr. Hurndall’s case, the soldier, Sgt. Taysir Hayb, is serving an
eight-year sentence for manslaughter. Lord Goldsmith said he needed
“to consider myself whether there ought to be prosecutions here in
either of these cases.” He said he did not want to raise expectations
but was keeping an open mind.
Speaking of the Miller case, a spokesman for the British Foreign
Office, asking that his name not be used in accordance with
government policy, said: “We have pressed the Israelis at every
level, and at every stage, to agree to a full and transparent
investigation. We are disappointed that the investigation wasn’t
carried out properly and hasn’t resulted in an indictment, and that
the I.D.F. has decided not to discipline the person alleged to have
shot James Miller.” The initials stand for the Israeli military’s
official name, the Israeli Defense Forces.
Accounts of what happened diverged almost from the moment Mr. Miller
was shot.
It was late at night in the ruined town of Rafah, at the southern end
of the Gaza Strip, and Mr. Miller was concluding his third visit for
the film.
He specialized in documentaries about the downtrodden and the
oppressed; his past work included “Beneath the Veil” (2001), about
the war in Afghanistan, which won Emmy and Peabody awards; “Children
of the Secret State” (2000), about famine in North Korea; and
“Armenia: The Betrayed” (2002), about the massacres of Armenians in
1915.
Mr. Miller and his colleagues had spent the evening at a Palestinian
house, filming Israeli bulldozers knocking down Palestinian
buildings.
Two Israeli armored personnel carriers were in the area,
investigating reports that a Palestinian tunnel under the Egyptian
border was being used to smuggle weapons into Gaza.
The vehicles were fired on during the day, and the soldiers responded
in kind. By 11 p.m. or so, things were quiet. The filmmakers decided
to call it a night.
Wearing flak jackets and hats marked “TV,” waving a white cloth in
the air that they illuminated with a flashlight and shouting that
they were British journalists seeking to leave the area safely, Mr.
Miller and two colleagues, Saira Shah and Abdul Rahman Abdullah,
slowly walked toward one of the armored personnel carriers. But
suddenly, according to Ms. Shah and Mr. Abdallah, a shot rang out
close by.
A warning, they said they thought. They dropped to the ground.
Thirteen seconds passed. Then there was a second shot. It hit Mr.
Miller.
He lost consciousness almost immediately and was pronounced dead at
an Israeli base. His wife, Sophy, at home with their children, then 3
and 1, and expecting her husband the next day, woke up to a phone
call from a distraught Ms. Shah.
Soon it was all over the news. But while Mr. Miller’s colleagues said
he had been shot in the front of the neck from the direction of one
of the Israeli vehicles, the Israelis initially gave a different
account. Mr. Miller walked into an exchange of gunfire, they said,
and was hit in the back by a Palestinian bullet.
The next day, the Miller family dispatched Chris Cobb-Smith, a
security expert and British Army veteran, to Gaza to investigate.
“The emphasis had to be on us to do the proper investigations,
because it was obvious that the I.D.F. was not going to conduct their
investigation with any impartiality,” said Mr. Cobb-Smith, whose
examination of footprints, tank tracks and traces of blood and bullet
holes, among other things, led him to conclude that the shot that had
killed Mr. Miller had come from an Israeli vehicle.
He said no one from the Israeli Army had interviewed him about his
findings. One of the most important pieces of evidence was a grainy
video taken by an Associated Press Television News cameraman from the
balcony of the building that Mr. Miller had just left. Seven
intermittent shots can be clearly heard on the audio, 13 seconds
apart, then 12, then 5, then 15, then 5, then 12.
“These shots were not fired by a soldier in response to incoming
fire,” Mr. Cobb-Smith said. “They were slow and calculated and
deliberate.” He added, “I have no doubt that it was cold-blooded
murder.”
Interviewed at home in rural Braunton, Devon, Mrs. Miller said her
husband had worked in hostile environments for 14 years and was known
for his extreme caution. She says she has fought so hard not just for
her husband, but because she is disturbed at what she sees as the
lack of accountability in the Israeli Army in this and other cases.
The Israelis now agree that Mr. Miller was indeed shot in the neck,
from the front. But they say there is no evidence that M-16 bullet
fragments recovered from his body match the guns of any Israeli
soldiers in the area.
And after analyzing the audiotape of the gunfire, an Israeli expert
concluded that the first two shots had come from “an urban area” –
from the direction of populated Rafah – rather than the Israeli
vehicles. Mr. Miller was killed by the second shot.
“The evidence from the military investigation concluded that there
was no involvement of I.D.F. soldiers in the killing of James
Miller,” Colonel Modzgvrishvily said. “When talking about the death
of innocent civilians it is of course very tragic, but unfortunately
it is the nature of war.”
Freddy Mead, a British ballistics expert sent by the family, likewise
could not link the bullet that killed Mr. Miller to any particular
weapon. But Mr. Cobb-Smith said that conclusion was meaningless
because of the delay in seizing the soldiers’ weapons and the lack of
a credible chain of evidence in the investigation.
The army’s 94-page report shows that the investigation focused almost
immediately on the commander of one of the Israeli personnel
carriers, the only one who fired his weapon around the time Mr.
Miller died.
But although the commander, identified in the report as First Lt. H.,
gave conflicting accounts in six separate interviews of when and why
he had fired, he was adamant – as was every other soldier – that they
could neither see nor hear the Britons approaching.
Mr. Miller’s colleagues disputed that, saying the soldiers knew they
had been filming from the balcony and had taunted them from their
vehicles. The evening was clear, they said; the soldiers had
night-vision equipment.
The military’s judge advocate general recommended that the commander,
who has since been identified by the Miller family as First Lt. Hib
al-Heib, be disciplined for improperly using his weapon. But the
recommendation was rejected.
The London inquest, held as is the custom in Britain when a citizen
dies in violent circumstances abroad, took place this spring. The
coroner, Dr. Andrew Reid, criticized Israel for not participating and
joined Mr. Miller’s family in calling for the British government to
consider an international prosecution of the Israeli soldier. The
Millers have filed a civil suit in Israel.
Anne Waddington, Mr. Miller’s older sister, said that while the
jury’s conclusion was reassuring, it was not enough.
“We’ve struggled for three years to put the pieces of this tragic
jigsaw together,” she said in an interview. “We have all pursued
justice all of our lives, and James was the biggest and best of all
in doing that. For the circumstances of his death to be treated with
such disdain by the Israelis is something we cannot forgive.”
After Mr. Miller died, his colleagues finished the film, with an
ending he had never envisioned: his own killing. Its title was “Death
in Gaza,” and it won a host of awards, including three Emmys.
24/british-filmmakers-death-in-gaza-continues-to-r esound/

Etisalat, $314m Armentel bid
AME Info, United Arab Emirates
June 24 2006
Greek telecom company OTE has short-listed four bidders, including
one consortium led by Etisalat, for its 90% stake in Armenian firm
Armentel, which is worth $313.8m, reported Reuters. Etisalat’s
consortium also includes investment company Istithmar and Emergent
Telecom Ventures. Two large Russian mobile operators are also in the
bidding for the Armenian firm which has 321,000 subscribers.

Russia’s Post Soviet Allies Discuss Economy, Security at Minsk Summit
MosNews, Russia
June 24 2006
MosNews
Leaders of several ex-Soviet nations met Friday to discuss plans to
strengthen their economic alliance and bolster defense and security
cooperation, The Associated Press reported.
Leaders of Russia, Belarus and four Central Asian nations –
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – sat down for a
summit of their Eurasian Economic Community in the Belarusian capital,
focusing on plans to form a customs union. Opening the talks, Belarus’
authoritarian president, Alexander Lukashenko, also said they would
discuss ways to coordinate strategies for joining the World Trade
Organization. Lukashenko said later that they had failed to reach
common ground on coordinating WTO accession talks.
Talks on forming a customs union were also moving slowly, he said,
and the pact’s members so far had agreed on just over half of all
customs tariffs. “The process isn’t advancing as quickly as we would
like it to happen,” Lukashenko said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who took over from Lukashenko
on Friday as the chairman of the group, tried to sound optimistic,
saying that “we are paying a close attention to forming the customs
union and have an intention to form it quickly.”
Numerous previous attempts by the ex-Soviet nations to form a customs
union and coordinate their economic policies have failed because of
sharp differences in size and level of development of their economies,
as well as fears of Russian domination.
The same six leaders and Armenia’s president held a summit of the
Collective Security Treaty Organization on Friday.
Lukashenko – dubbed “Europe’s last dictator” by the United States
and other Western nations for his relentless crackdown on dissent –
has repeatedly accused the West of harboring aggressive intentions
and sought to build closer economic and military ties with Russia
and other ex-Soviet nations.
Belarus this week is hosting the largest ever joint military
maneuvers with Russia, envisaging a joint response to an unnamed,
outside military threat. Belarusian officials have said that Putin
and other leaders would watch the exercise over the weekend, but the
Kremlin said Friday that Putin would not attend it.
Russia backed Lukashenko’s re-election to a third term in March’s
election, which was criticized as fraudulent by the opposition and
Western governments. However, ties between Moscow and Minsk soured
recently over the Russian plan to end cheap natural gas supplies
that kept Belarus’ Soviet-style economy afloat and start charging
market prices.
Observers said the move by Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom natural
gas giant was part of efforts to raise pressure on Belarus to force
it into giving up control over its gas pipeline, which carries Russian
gas exports to the West.

Vladimir Karapetyan: “The main thing for us is to determine Nagorno Karabakh’s status”
Today, Azerbaijan
June 24 2006
24 June 2006 [11:25] – Today.Az
“We have many times stated that the main thing for us is to determine
the status of Nagorno Karabakh,” Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman
Vladimir Karapetyan stated while commenting on the US co-chair of
OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza’s announcing details of the framework
agreement between the parties to the conflict.
Karapetyan said his country supports resolving the problem in package
form.
“The proposals for the resolution of the conflict acquire package
character, they cannot be discussed separately,” Karapetyan said.
Matthew Bryza stated that the parties to the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict are negotiating on the items of the framework agreement
regarding Armenian armed forces’ withdrawal from Azerbaijani
territories. The co-chair said the framework agreement will enable to
normalize economic relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
He noted this agreement is about deploying peacekeepers in the
conflict zone, international economic support and several other
issues.
“The agreement also envisages holding of a referendum in Nagorno
Karabakh after all these issues are completely solved. I call on the
Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents to sign the framework treaty on
the settlement of the conflict. There is a need to demonstrate
political will for that,” Mr.Bryza said.
URL: