BAKU AWAITING SERIOUS RESULTS FROM ACTIVITIES OF NEWLY APPOINTED OSCE MG CO-CHAIR FROM US
Author: R.Abdullayev
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
June 19 2006
Baku is awaiting serious results from the activities of the newly
appointed OSCE Minsk Group co-chair, the US Ambassador Matthew Bryza,
Trend quoted Araz Azimov, the Azerbaijan Deputy Foreign Minister,
also a special envoy for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution, as
stating to local television channel ATV.
Azimov said that the new Ambassador is well familiar with the
region, which is sure to accelerate negotiations process on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution.
“Excellent familiarity and preparedness of former US Ambassador
Steven Mann from the conceptual, political, and practical aspects
pays considerable role in the talks. As to Bryza, he is an experienced
diplomat well-familiar with the Azerbaijani realities. We expect too
much from his activities,” said Azimov noting his frequent tours of
the region.
The newly appointed OSCE Minsk Group co-chair from the United States
will be officially introduced in Vienna on 22 June.
Bryza paid a visit to Azerbaijan as the assistant Secretary of State
of the United States on 5-6 June. In his exclusive interview for
Trend Bryza said that The United States remains committed to helping
secure a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict “We
continue to believe that 2006 represents a window of opportunity if
the Presidents can make difficult and courageous decisions to move
forward with a settlement,” he underlined.

AZERI DEFENSE MINISTER MET WITH US TRANSPORT FORCES COMMANDER
Author: E.Javadova
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
June 19 2006
On June 17 General-Colonel Safar Abiyev, Azeri Minister of defense,
met with General Norton Schwarz, US Transport Forces Commander, ho
is in Baku with official visit, Trend reports quoting Ilgar Verdiyev,
acting chief of press service with Azeri Ministry of Defense.
General-Colonel Abiyev said Azerbaijan considers cooperation with
the US very significant, including military sphere.
As to Azeri-Armenian conflict, Abiyev said Azerbaijan is doing its
best to settle it within the limits of international legislation
and territorial integrity. However, Armenia is not interested in the
conflict settlements.
General Norton Schwarz thanked Azeri Defense Minister for warm receipt
and said his visit to Baku will serve the further development of
cooperation between the countries.

DEMOCRACY LEVEL IN GEORGIA
The Messenger, Georgia
June 19 2006
Freedom House, the international civil rights and democracy
watchdog, recently published its evaluation of the current level of
democratization in Eastern European and the former Soviet Union; the
report says the level of democracy in Georgia has improved, slightly.
The conclusions of this internationally respected organization were
welcomed by the current administration, but raised criticism from
both the opposition and numerous experts who are much more critical
of the situation in the country. Freedom House’s analysis is based
on a scale form 7 to 1, with 7 being the least free in terms of civil
liberties and political rights, and 1 being the most free.
The report says countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and
Turkmenistan, which are becoming fat off the energy resources they
posses, possess public institutions subservient to the ruling cadre,
and state governance that is mostly self interested. The major reason
for this situation is unsuccessful-or perhaps uninitiated-reform in
the legal system and the media. The high level of corruption in these
countries is highlighted by the report, with Russia described as an
‘oligarchy of bureaucrats’.
According to Freedom House, the democratic situation in the post
Soviet space in 2005 deteriorated in Belarus (6.71), Russia (5.75),
Turkmenistan (6.96), Uzbekistan (6.82), Kazakhstan (6.39), Tajikistan
(5.93) and Azerbaijan (5.93); all of these countries are described as
“not free”. Democracy strengthened in Moldova (4.96), Armenia (5.14)
and Georgia (4.86); these countries are “partly free”; Ukraine (4.21)
and Latvia (2.07) are both “free”. Ukraine is the only CIS member
that is officially a ‘free country’.
The Freedom House report was seriously criticized by opposition
representatives here in Georgia. The newspaper Rezonansi remarked
that Freedom House represents the opinion of the US State Department,
which tries to promote so-called Color Revolutions, and thus it sees
the situation as it wants to see it.
It is obvious that the situation in Georgia is far from ideal from
the democratic point of view. The reality is that the country will
not change for better if we turn a blind eye to the problems or if
we ignore the improvements.
All kinds of revolutions, be they color, velvet, bloodless or any
other, pose big challenges for any country. The Georgian experience
is proof of that. Since the Rose Revolution the media, particularly
television came under pressure. At the initial stage several critical
talk shows and TV stations disappeared, and only very recently have
some of these critical TV shows come back. The Georgian media has only
managed to recover its critical side due to the courageous activity
of some TV channels.
Certain democratic victories are obvious in today’s Georgia, the
current administration is at least aware of civil society, and
understands the necessity for democratic development. Problems,
however, persist.
Local NGOs and independent experts are especially concerned that
since the Rose Revolution the executive has become very powerful in
Georgia. The balance between the different branches of government
in the country has been shattered. Many questions arise concerning
the electoral law. The election threshold (the percentage of votes
a particular party needs to garner in order to be represented in
parliament) was raised from five to seven percent eight years ago
has not been decreased (most European countries with proportional
representation have thresholds of four percent). There are many faults
in the system of local self-governance; the incumbent authorities
are in such an advantageous position that pluralism will probably
not be achieved.
However if the ‘Rose Administration’ can take this criticism with the
due sense of responsibility, it should be easily able to overcome these
difficulties. Only then will it regain the sympathy of the population,
support it seems to have squandered since the months directly after
the Rose Revolution.

ARMENIANS DROP TAXES FOR GEORGIAN CARGO CARRIERS
The Messenger, Georgia
June 19 2006
Press Scanner
According to Rezonansi, MPs of the Armenian parliament ratified the
Georgian-Armenian agreement on international auto transport. Both
sides signed an agreement on April 25 in Tbilisi. According to Armenian
Minister of Transport and Communication, Andranik Manukian, the aim of
this agreement is putting contract law in order between the two states.
According to the agreement, carriers from both countries are
released from transport and customs taxes, taxes on certain vehicles
will remain, however, Currently, owners of cars pay 10.000 dram
(approximately USD 20); owners of buses pay between 20 000 – 60 000
dram (USD 40-120) depending on the number of passengers; and owners of
trucks pay from 15 000 to 150 000 dram (approximately USD 36 to 360),
depending on size of the truck and cargo.
Manukian stated that these taxes would be abolished and this makes
it possible to intensify bilateral trade and economic cooperation.
Georgia stopped taxing Armenian transport two years ago, while Armenia
had been continuing to collect taxes from Georgia. The paper noted
that neither Georgia nor Armenia have collected traffic taxes.

THE REPORT ON WARD CHURCHILL
by Tom Mayer
Swans, CA
June 19 2006
[Ed. Professor Mayer of the Univesity of Colorado at Boulder wrote this
text before going on a trip. He sent it “to several local newspapers,
but they all rejected it because it was too long.” Our thanks to Louis
Proyect and David Anderson who brought this valuable contribution to
our attention.]
(Swans – June 19, 2006) I have finally finished a careful reading
of the 124 page report about the alleged academic misconduct of
Ward Churchill. Often, but not always, I have been able to compare
the statements in the report with the relevant writings of Professor
Churchill. Although the report by the committee on research misconduct
clearly entailed prodigious labor, it is a flawed document requiring
careful analysis. The central flaw in the report is grotesque
exaggeration about the magnitude and gravity of the improprieties
committed by Ward Churchill. The sanctions recommended by the
investigating committee are entirely out of whack with those imposed
upon such luminaries as Stephen Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and
Lawrence Tribe, all of whom committed plagiarisms far more egregious
than anything attributed to Professor Churchill.
The text of the report suggests that the committee’s judgments
about the seriousness of Churchill’s misconduct were contaminated
by political considerations. This becomes evident on page 97 where
the committee acknowledges that “damage done to the reputation
of … the University of Colorado as an academic institution is
a consideration in our assessment of the seriousness of Professor
Churchill’s conduct.” Whatever damage the University may have sustained
by employing Ward Churchill derives from his controversial political
statements and certainly not from the obscure footnoting practices
nor disputed authorship issues investigated by the committee. Indeed,
the two plagiarism charges refer to publications that are now fourteen
years old. Although these charges had been made years earlier, they
were not considered worthy of investigation until Ward Churchill
became a political cause celèbre. Using institutional reputation to
measure misconduct severity amounts to importing politics through
the back door.
The report claims that Professor Churchill engaged in fabrication
and falsification. To make these claims it stretches the meaning of
these words almost beyond recognition. Fabrication implies an intent
to deceive. There is not a shred of evidence that the writings of Ward
Churchill contain any assertion that he himself did not believe. The
language used in the report repeatedly drifts in an inflammatory
direction: disagreement becomes misinterpretation, misinterpretation
becomes misrepresentation, misinterpretation becomes falsification.
Ward may be wrong about who was considered an Indian under the General
Allotment Act of 1887 or about the origins of the 1837-1840 smallpox
epidemic among the Indians of the northern plains, but the report
does not establish that only a lunatic or a liar could reach his
conclusions on the basis of available evidence.
The charges of fabrication and falsification all derive from short
fragments within much longer articles. The report devotes 44 pages
to discussing the 1837-1840 smallpox epidemic. One might think that
Ward had written an entire book on this subject. In fact this issue
occupies no more than three paragraphs in any of his writings. In
each of the six essays cited in the report, all reference to this
epidemic could have been dropped without substantially weakening the
argument. To be sure, the account given by Ward is not identical to
that found in any of his sources, but it is a recognizable composite of
information contained within them. The committee peremptorily dismisses
Churchill’s contention that his interpretation of the epidemic was
influenced by the Native American oral tradition. This is treated
as no more than an ex post facto defense against the allegation of
misconduct. The committee also discounts Native American witnesses who
support Churchill’s interpretations as well as his fidelity to oral
accounts. The centrality of the oral tradition is evident in many of
Churchill’s writings. His acknowledgments frequently include elders,
Indian bands, and the American Indian Movement. He often integrates
Native American poetry with his historical analysis. Three of his books
with which I am familiar, Since Predator Came (1995), A Little Matter
of Genocide (1997), and Struggle for the Land (2002) all begin with
poems. As a thirty-year veteran of the intense political struggles
within the American Indian Movement, Ward Churchill could not avoid
a deep familiarity with the oral tradition of Native American history.
By addressing only a tiny fragment of his writings, the report
implies that Ward tries to overawe and hoodwink his readers with
spurious documentation. Anyone who reads an essay like “Nits Make
Lice: The Extermination of North American Indians 1607-1996” with its
612 footnotes will get a very different impression. Churchill, they
will see, goes far beyond most writers of broad historical overviews
in trying to support his claims. He often cites several references
in the same footnote. Ward is deeply engaged with the materials he
references and frequently comments extensively upon them. He typically
mounts a running critique of authors like James Axtell, Steven Katz,
and Deborah Lipstadt. Readers will see that Churchill is familiar with
a formidable variety of materials and can engage in a broad range of
intellectual discourses.
Ward Churchill is not just another writer about the hardships suffered
by American Indians. He offers a very distinctive vision of what David
Stannard calls the “American Holocaust.” According to Churchill,
the extermination of Native Americans was neither accidental,
nor inadvertent, nor unwelcome among the invading Europeans. On
the contrary, it was largely deliberate, often planned (sometimes
by the highest political authorities), and frequently applauded
within the mainstream media. “[A] hemispheric population estimated
to have been as great as 125 million was reduced by something over 90
percent….and in an unknown number of instances deliberately infected
with epidemic diseases” (A Little Matter of Genocide, p. 1). Moreover,
Ward maintains that the American Holocaust continues to this day. He
thinks it is fully comparable to, and even more extensive than, the
Nazi genocide of the Jewish people during World War Two. The endemic
chauvinism and Manichaean sensibility this process has induced within
our political culture helps explain Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq, and
other American exercises in technological murder.
“If there is one crucial pattern that most affects our assessment,”
writes the committee, “it is a pattern of failure to understand the
difference between scholarship and polemic, or at least of behaving
as though that difference does not matter” (p. 95). Taking away the
negative imputation, I can agree with the latter observation. Ward
believes we are all in a race against time. Thus the main point of
historical scholarship is not to recount the past, but rather to
provide intellectual ammunition for preventing future genocides now
in the making.
Like most scholars, Churchill practices an implicitly Bayesian
(a statistical term) form of analysis. That is, he evaluates the
plausibility of assertions and the credibility of evidence partly on
the basis of his prior beliefs. That government officials connived in
generating the 1837-40 smallpox epidemic seems far more plausible to
Ward than to the investigating committee precisely because he thinks
this is what American governments are inclined to do. He discounts many
of the so-called primary sources cited in the report because their
authors despise Indians or wish to conceal their own culpability in
spreading the epidemic. And contrary to what the report says (p. 96),
many first rate scholars focus on proving their own hypotheses rather
than considering all available evidence even-handedly. Einstein,
for example, spent the last three decades of his life trying to
disprove quantum mechanics while largely disregarding evidence in
its favor. This is not research misconduct.
Virtually all the mass exterminations of recent times have evoked
amazingly divergent historical assessments and numerical estimates.
This is true of the Armenian genocide, Stalin’s collectivization
campaign and purges, the Nazi holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
the Great Leap Forward, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Rwanda. In some cases
there is dispute about whether the extermination even happened, and
even when mass killing is acknowledged, numerical estimates sometimes
differ by a factor of ten or even more. These differing interpretations
are almost never politically innocent but, when honestly advanced,
they do not constitute research misconduct.
Neither do Ward Churchill’s assessments of genocidal activities by
John Smith or by the U.S. Army at Fort Clark.
The operational definition of academic misconduct used by the
investigating committee is so broad that virtually anyone who writes
anything might be found guilty. Not footnoting an empirical claim is
misconduct. Citing a book without giving a page number is misconduct.
Referencing a source that only partially supports an assertion is
misconduct. Referencing contradictory sources without detailing their
contradictions is misconduct. Citing a work considered by some to
be unserious or inadequate is misconduct. Footnoting an erroneous
claim without acknowledging the error is misconduct. Interpreting a
text differently than does its author is misconduct. Ghost writing
an article is misconduct. Referencing a paper one has ghost written
without acknowledging authorship is misconduct. No doubt this list
of transgressions could be greatly expanded. I strongly suspect that
many people who vociferously support the report have read neither it
nor any book or essay Ward Churchill has ever written. Perhaps this
should be deemed a form of academic misconduct.
If any of the sanctions recommended by the investigating committee
are put into effect, it will constitute a stunning blow to academic
freedom. Such punishment will show that a prolific, provocative, and
highly influential thinker can be singled out for entirely political
reasons; subjected to an arduous interrogation virtually guaranteed
to find problems; and then severed from academic employment. It
will indicate that public controversy is dangerous and that genuine
intellectual heresy could easily be lethal to an academic career. It
will demonstrate that tenured professors serve at the pleasure of
governors, political columnists, media moguls, and talk show hosts.
Most faculty members never say anything that requires protection. The
true locus of academic freedom has always been defined by the
intellectual outliers. The chilling effect of Ward Churchill’s academic
crucifixion upon the energy and boldness of these freedom-defining
heretics will be immediate and profound.
The authors of the report on Ward Churchill present themselves as
stalwart defenders of academic integrity. I have a quite different
perspective. I see them as collaborators in the erosion of academic
freedom, an erosion all too consonant with the wider assault upon
civil liberties currently underway. The authors of the report claim
to uphold the intellectual credibility of ethnic studies. I wonder
how many ethnic studies scholars will see it that way. I certainly
do not. Notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary, I see
committee members as gendarmes of methodological and interpretive
orthodoxy, quite literally “warding” off a vigorous challenge to
mainstream understandings of American history. Confronted by the
evidence presented in this report, the appropriate response might be
to write a paper critiquing the work of Ward Churchill. Excluding him,
either permanently or temporarily, from the University of Colorado
is singularly inappropriate.
Ward Churchill is one of the most brilliant persons I have encountered
during my 37 years at this university. His brilliance is not
immediately evident due to his combative manner and propensity for
long monologues. Whenever reading one of his essays I feel in the
presence of a powerful though hyperbolic intellect. The permanent
or temporary expulsion of Ward Churchill would be an immense loss
for CU. In one fell swoop we would become a more tepid, more timid,
and more servile institution. His expulsion would deprive students
of contact with a potent challenger of accepted cognitive frameworks.
The social sciences desperately need the kind of challenge presented
by Ward Churchill. His most strident claims may be rather dubious, but
they stimulate our scholarly juices and make us rethink our evidence
and assumptions. One of his main objectives, Ward has often said, is
“to bring consideration of American Indians into the main currents
of global intellectual discourse.” In this endeavor he has been a
splendid success.
4.html
–Boundary_(ID_ZlOise/gnoEqdqHUDA6Ieg)–

AZERBAIJAN HAILS NEW U.S. OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRMAN
Baku Today, Azerbaijan
June 19 2006
Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov has welcomed the appointment
of Matthew Bryza as the United States’ co-chairman of the OSCE
Minsk Group.
“Bryza is familiar with the situation in this region and the Karabakh
conflict. He does not need to study the problem,” Mammadyarov told
journalists on Sunday.
The appointment of Bryza, who will replace Stephen Mann at this post,
indicates that “the U.S. government still hopes to make progress in
these talks,” the minister said.
The Minsk Group co-chairmen are to unveil a report on the Karabakh
settlement process at the OSCE Permanent Council’s session in Vienna
on June 22, he said. The session will also officially confirm Bryza’s
appointment.
“The co-chairmen have already come up with an initiative to hold a
new meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia. I
have agreed to take part in this meeting, and expressed my readiness
to hold as many meetings as necessary,” Mammadyarov said.
The Azeri authorities lost control over Nagorno-Karabakh,
apredominantly ethnic Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan, as a result of
a conflict in the 1990s.

ARMENIAN MINE RENDERED HARMLESS IN WEST AZERBAIJAN
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
June 19 2006
Baku, June 16, AssA-Irada
Armenians have brought a mine to Azerbaijan’s western Terter District
through the Khachin River.
The BM-62 mine, discovered by local residents near an electricity line
20 meters away from a sowing area in Shahri village that is crossed
by the river, was rendered harmless by employees of the Azerbaijan
National Agency for Mine Action (ANAMA).

FOR OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS
Editorial
Yerkir.am
June 16, 2006
National Assembly’s Armenian Revolutionary Federation faction
secretary Hrayr Karapetian announced on June 13 that hearings devoted
to drafting a law on dual citizenship are set up for June 23 at the
National Assembly.
Karapetian noted the ARF has already made public a concept of the law
that has stirred discussions. “We see the law on dual citizenship
as a priority for this National Assembly,” Karapetian said. “The
constitutional amendments allow us adopt such law. It would be
implemented to serve our state and our national interests by bringing
together our national capacities.”
National Assembly’s Foreign Relations Committee has set up the hearings
for June 23. The theme of the hearings is “Dual Citizenship Issues:
International Law and Experience.”
“We are inviting political parties and non-governmental organizations
to participate in the hearings because we believe we would hear views
on the issue, including the international experience, that would be
important before a draft law is put into circulation, to have a law
that would contribute to further development of our statehood.”

VAHAN HOVANISIAN: OUR PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED THE MOST FROM STALIN REPRESSION
Yerkir.am
June 16, 2006
National Assembly has recently named June 14th the Day of Commemoration
of the Repressed. The initiative came from the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation.
Dozens gathered on Wednesday at a memorial erected in Yerevan to
mark the day for the first time. The event was organized by an NGO
called Hushamatian and was attended by National Assembly’s ARF faction
members, National Self-determination Union leader Paruyr Hairkian,
people who were victimized by the Stalin regime.
Addressing the gathering, ARF Bureau member and National Assembly
Vice-speaker Vahan Hovanisian said that our entire people have suffered
the most from the repression.
He recalled that the Stalin repressions – followed by those applied
by Lenin – were carried out in waves: first it was the ARF members
who were sent to jails and executed, then those who were called
Trotskyites, then others. And this had been going on until the collapse
of the Soviet Union.
“Unfortunately, the dreadful practice didn’t stop after the Soviet rule
was over, Hovannisian went on saying. “Under the Armenian National
Movement too there were political prisoners. There is none now,
and I am sure there will be none in the future.”
June 14th was chosen to mark that day because it was on June 14,
1949 that mass arrests were made in Armenia without any political
motivation taken into account.
“The goal of the project was to deport Armenians to Altay,” Hovannisian
said. “And this when thousands of Armenians returned to their homeland
hoping the Soviet Union would become a normal country after the
WWII. Most of them were deported to Altay.”
“The only guarantee that such things would not repeat in the future
is a strong and independent Armenia,” Hovannisian concluded.

THE FALL IN THE CURRENCY MARKET
Yerkir.am
June 16, 2006
Hundreds of currency exchange units in Armenia seem to be skillfully
using the signal sent by the Central Bank that “there will be no
interference into the currency market”. The exchange rate continues
to flow, therefore they can gain significant profit from the endless
fall of the exchange rate.
The fluctuations in the currency market
Currently the currency exchange units buy US dollar costs at a rate
of 410-415 drams, and sell it at 420-425 drams. In the beginning of
this year the exchange rate was 450-460 drams for one dollar. In the
course of the last month the US dollar depreciated by 35-40 drams. What
is the reason for this depreciation?
In the beginning of the year experts anticipated that the dollar-dram
exchange rate would fall to 400 drams for one dollar by June if
the Central Bank does not interfere. The prognosis turned out to be
true. So far the Central Bank does not want to interfere by collecting
the extra dollars from the market and replacing them with drams. As
a result, currency traders, and not only them, make profit.
In the meantime, the appreciation of the Armenian dram and the parallel
depreciation of the dollar take anecdotal scales. Even though trade
and financial transactions take place during the working day and the
exchange rate valid at the end of the day should be preserved at least
till the morning of the next day, the exchange rate in our country
changes even during the night (the dollar depreciates). This is why
some people say that the Armenian economy grows during the nighttime.
What are the Central Bank’s arguments?
The Central Bank representatives keep explaining that it is
unacceptable for the fiscal authorities of the country to interfere
into the currency market.
The main argument is that the Central Bank’s main function is the
preservation of price stability in the country while stabilization
of the exchange rate is a secondary issue.
The second argument derives from the first one. The Central Bank’s
monetary policies derive from the interests of Armenian citizens who
receive their income in Armenian drams. Those citizens who receive
their income – salaries, profits, interests, etc. – in foreign
currencies can think that their incomes are of secondary importance.
The Central Bank believes that our society would not agree to have
a fixed or regulated exchange rate while the price level would
be higher. If the Armenian dram depreciates the prices will rise
significantly, the Central Bank states.
It turns out that the appreciation of the Armenian dram has suppressed
the rise of prices. If the exchange rate is fixed then the prices
will inevitably rise. Therefore, there is only one solution … to
accept the fact of further appreciation of the Armenian dram since
it is impossible to pursue two mutually exclusive goals of monetary
policies – to stabilize both the prices and the exchange rate.
However, a number of simple questions arise in this respect. What is
the limit after which it will make no sense to speak about the role of
foreign currency in our market? At what point will it become possible
to state that the Armenian dram is the only currency in which all
calculations and transaction would be made?
Why is it that the central banks in Georgia or Russia can afford
to interfere into the currency market, a tool regularly used in
monetary-fiscal policies? Why is this impossible to do in Armenia?
The next question is why is it possible to allow a moderate inflation
(8-10%) in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia and a number of other CIS
countries? Why is it that in these countries no terrible things happen
because of such inflation and the economy and people’s real incomes
continue to grow while the same thing is impossible in Armenia?