Today, Azerbaijan
Aug. 25, 2006
Miss Caucasus-2006 beauty contest participants’ photos to be taken on
occupied Azeri lands
25 August 2006 [21:06] – Today.Az
Beauty contest Miss-Caucasus 2006 will be held in Yerevan Academic
Opera and Ballet Theatre on September 2.
Azerbaijan will not participate in the contest, APA reports.
The contest will be broadcasted by Georgian and Armenian televisions
and also by MIR Interstate Broadcasting Company. The photos of
contest participants will be taken in Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani
province of Nagorno Karabakh.
The winner of the contest will get a crown decorated with precious
stones and money grant as well as the right for participating in Miss
Tourism-2006 in Czechia.
Armenians hold this type of contest for the second time.
Azerbaijani Culture and Tourism Ministry official Intigam Humbatov
told the APA that Azerbaijan has not received an invitation for the
contest.
“They are pursuing their crafty policy under the name of cultural
events. We must not allow them to continue this policy. This contest
is of not state interest, and that is why we will not appeal to
definite bodies for that,” he said.
URL:

Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan: War with Azerbaijan is not expected soon
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Aug. 25, 2006
[ 25 Aug. 2006 20:15 ]
“Armenia refused many beneficial economic projects in the South
Caucasus for the sake of Nagorno Garabagh,” Armenian political
scientist Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan said, APA reports.
He stated that the possibility of war in Nagorno Garabagh does not
sound convincing.
“War with Azerbaijan is not expected soon. It means that Armenia must
find allies for future war. If we get prepared well, there will not be
a war. We must take into consideration the civilization of our allies,
because, only coincidences in civilization can guarantee success.
Armenians are easterners. We have good relations with western
countries, but it is not integration. Iran can be the best ally for
us despite religious difference. We also should not underestimate
the alliance with Russia, Syria, Belarus and Iraq,” the political
scientist said. /APA/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TheFireAlarm.com, IL –
Aug. 25, 2006
Fire Acquire Bedrossian
French League veteran to join Fire.
Dan Gaichas · August 25, 2006
Using a portion of their allocation due them for the departure of
Damani Ralph in 2005, the Fire acquried the rights to attacking
midfielder Pascal Bedrossian. Bedrossian, who has dual citizenship
with France and Armenia, will become the Fire’s third Seinor
International alongside Andy Herron (Costa Rica), and Ivan Guerrero
(Honduras).
“We had the opportunity to bring Pascal into camp about two months
ago, and we were immediately impressed with his professionalism, his
technical ability and, most importantly, his personality from the
standpoint that he was very excited about the prospect of joining our
team and helping us win championships,” said Fire Head Coach Dave
Sarachan. “If there’s a position where we’ll always entertain
improvement, it would be in the attacking third, and Pascal’s an
attacking player that brings with him a lot of first team experience
in France. We think his addition will help us in the push towards our
goal of reaching and winning MLS Cup.”
Bedrossian joined the team for training on Tuesday, but is currently
unavailable for selection until his P-1 work visa is secured. He has
spent his entire playing career up to this point in the French
league, leading Lorient to the 2002 French Cup. In addition, he has
played for the French national team at various youth levels. However,
he last played in the 2004-2005 season with French second division
Angers SCO. Understandably, he cannot wait to get on the field with
the Fire.
“For me, coming to play in the USA is a dream come true. Nothing
makes me happier than joining the Fire. Michael Jordan has always
been my idol – as an athlete and a person. What could be better than
playing in his hometown, Chicago?” said Bedrossian. “I hope the
experience I’ve gained in France will help the Fire win
championships. The welcome my teammates and the coaching staff has
given me has been really warm. Giving them all I’ve got is my way of
saying, ‘Thanks, it’s great to be part of this team.'”
Once Bedrossian gets his P-1 work visa secured, it will be
interesting to see how he will fit in to the starting XI and what
adjustments will be made to the lineup as a whole to accomodate him.
If that visa is secured before Saturday, he would be eligible for
that night’s match against Colorado.
–Boundary_(ID_eXIpaYBccYRjoUnMFPCIBQ)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ISNA, Iran
Aug. 25, 2006
Iran -Armenia to boost its trade cooperation Service: Economy
ISNA – Tehran
Service: Economy
TEHRAN, August 25 (ISNA)-Iran-Armenia’s shared chamber of commerce
manager noted that the 200 million dollar trade figure between the
two countries illustrated that 17 percent of the products imported
to Armenia were from Iran.
“The commercial ties between Iran and Armenia have shown a good
progress. We started with 20 million dollars and now we have reached
200 million dollars,” he commented.
This official also among reporters commented that the noted 17 percent
has the ability to reach 40 percent, but this required that Iran
introduced its industrial and production capacities and potentials
to Armenia.
“Iranian merchants through identifying the requirements of the market
must open a good placing for Iran in CIS markets,” he said.
This official also gave news on the inauguration of new Iranian trade
center in Armenia and hoped the at hand obstacles would be removed
through the cooperation of both sides.

TREND, Azerbaijan
Aug. 25, 2006
Israeli Ambassador: Delivery of first Azeri oil load to Israel via
BTC pipeline is important event
Source: Trend
Author: À.Ismayilova
25.08.2006
Trend ‘s exclusive interview with Artur Lenk, Israeli Ambassador to
Azerbaijan
– On August 25, Israel received the first Azeri oil load via
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline..
– Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is extending links between Azerbaijan
and Israel. And the first oil delivery is an important event indeed.
I think transportation of this oil to Mediterranean Sea I important
as there are many countries and purchasers in there, especially in
view of growth of demand for this fuel.
Our countries are good partners and we hope we can strengthen it.
Taking into account that Israel is very close to Ceyhan Azeri oil is
delivered to, official Baku says Israel is oen of the main exporters
of Azeri oil.
– There is a group of Israeli businessmen in Baku now. Which spheres
are especially interesting for your entrepreneurs here?
– Israeli businessmen come to Azerbaijan very often. Yesterday I also
met with one group of businessmen. They are interested in such
spheres as construction, agriculture, industry and so. They are not
limited with some narrow niches, they are creative people and
therefore consider the most promising prospects. Israel has a
significant experience in the sphere of IT, telecommunications,
infrastructure and is eager to cooperate in these spheres with
Azerbaijan. I wouldn’t like to name any specific projects as they are
still being developed.
This will influence the growth of goods turnover between Azerbaijan
and Israel. I suggest the growth is primarily linked to the beginning
of BTC pipeline operation and mutual contacts among businessmen. The
number of Azeri companies willing to purchase Israeli technologies
has also grown up.
– What are the plans at the official level between Israel and
Azerbaijan?
– We are talking on some certain issues. For example, Azeri
government is going to sign an agreement on culture. We constantly
cooperate with your government in spheres of economy, foreign policy
and so. Besides, a group of Israeli writes is coming to Azerbaijan in
early September.
There is a big Azeri Diaspora residing in Israel. They are very fond
of Azerbaijan. Alongside, a very active Jewish community is residing
in Azerbaijan. Certainly, they consider themselves citizens of
Azerbaijan. This, alongside cooperation among businessmen, makes
Azeri-Israeli relations really outstanding.
– Can Azeri Diaspora in other countries rely on Jewish Diaspora
support, for example regarding settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh
problem?
– Azerbaijan has selected the way of conversations to solve this
problem. OSCE, supported by Minsk Group, is seeking for agreement
with Armenia. Israel and its people uphold the efforts President
Ilham Aliyev makes to resolve the conflict peacefully. Wee suggest
this agreement will match the interest of Azerbaijan and all the
nations residing in South Caucasus region.
– Last time less and less Jews move from Azerbaijan to Israel. In
your opinion, what is the reason for this?
– Israel is a historical motherland of all Jews. Jews lived in
post-Soviet countries, including Azerbaijan, decided to come home but
maintain relations with the country they were born in. Certainly, a
part of Jews did not move anywhere and still form a part of
Azerbaijan. Lat years several hundreds Jews have left Azerbaijan. But
compared to previous years this number is no so big. The situation in
Azerbaijan has utterly changed from the first years of independence.
But even the fact of Jews moving to Israel should not be the matter
of concern. Wherever they are, they represent Azerbaijan.
–Boundary_(ID_1L0JVilnLC91d/nAq/P/tg )–

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Aug. 25, 2006
Silva Kaputikyan, key ideologist of Armenian aggression against
Azerbaijan died
[ 25 Aug. 2006 16:50 ]
One of the ideologists of Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani lands,
Nagorno Garabagh conflict Silva Kaputikyan died of stroke at the age
of 87 today, APA reports.
Armenian government ordered to set up a special commission for his
funeral. Prime Minister Andranik Markaryan has been appointed chief
of the commission.
Silva Kaputikyan was born in Van city, Turkey in 1919. After the
Kars agreement between Turkey and Russia Kaputikyan’s family moved
to Armenia, which was established in ancient Turk lands.
Beginning from early 80s, Silva wrote works on poor Armenian people
propagating the so-called “Great Armenia” and “Armenian genocide”. He
was key ideologist of Armenian aggression against Azerbaijani
territories
But in fact, Silva caused troubles to Armenians by such
propagations./APA/

Today, Azerbaijan
Aug. 25, 2006
Mark Katz: “Either the Karabakh conflict will be resolved, or it will
get worse for both side”
25 August 2006 [17:00] – Today.Az
“The Azeri-Armenian dispute will not go on as it has. Either it will
be resolved, or it will get worse for both side.
“It seems to me, though, that the two parties cannot come to an
agreement because each sees itself as being on the defensive,
and that compromise with the other could spell disaster,” Mark
N. Katz, Professor of Government and Politics Department of Public
and International Affairs Department of George Mason University,
told APA in an exclusive interview.
He thinks that international organizations have been ineffective in
finding a peaceful solution because they can only succeed at this if
both sides want one.
“Their real aim, it seems to me, is not to find a peaceful solution
but to help prevent a renewed outbreak of fighting,” he said.
He thinks that Russian, who has great influence on Armenian, is not
interested in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict.
“Russia does have great influence in Armenia-but only so long as
the Karabakh conflict persists. If the conflict was ever resolved
peacefully and this contributed to the normalization of relations
between Armenia and Turkey, Armenia would have much less need of
Russia. Fearing this, Moscow does not want to see the Karabakh
conflict resolved.”
He thinks that Russian support for Azerbaijan is unreal.
“Russia supports Armenia, not Azerbaijan. But Azerbaijan cannot afford
to have relations that are too unfriendly with neighboring Russia. The
U.S. government is more sympathetic toward the Azeri position, but
American domestic politics will not allow Washington to pressure
Armenia to reach a settlement. Thus, neither the U.S. nor Russia
is really pushing for a peace settlement, though neither wants to
see renewed fighting either. Azerbaijan’s balancing between Russia
and the U.S., though, goes beyond the Karabakh issue. The U.S. has
been a much more useful partner than Russia for Azerbaijan on the
oil pipeline issue. Neither the US nor Russia is pushing for a quick
settlement to the conflict, though for different reasons. In my view,
though, both should do so. For if the conflict is not resolved,
fighting could break out again. And while it may be easy to start
such a fight, ending it will probably not be so easy.”
He thinks that Azerbaijan’s diplomatic initiative is required for
the settlement.
“Azerbaijan’s newfound wealth, I believe, allows it the opportunity
to launch its own diplomatic initiative for resolving the conflict.
Baku could, for example, offer Armenia aid and investment in exchange
for a withdrawal. I realize that many Azeris might be offended by
this suggestion. But since it is unlikely that Armenia can be forced
to withdraw, it will have to be induced. And Azerbaijan may have the
means to do so,” he insists.
He also said that Armenia’s “victory” over Azerbaijan has indeed cost
it heavily in terms of international isolation and lack of development.
“And as long as a peace settlement is not reached, it will continue
to pay these costs-and perhaps even greater ones. What stops
Armenia from pulling its troops back is that Armenians have bitter
memories about Turks. Unfortunately, Armenians equate the Turks and
the Azeris. Armenians feel strongly that it would be a confession
of wrongdoing to withdraw from Azeri territory, which would be an
acknowledgement that their occupation of it was wrong. What this
means, unfortunately, is that the resolution of the Azeri-Armenian
dispute is inextricably intertwined with the troubled Turkish-Armenian
relationship.”
“Russia does not really want to see the conflict resolved for fear
of losing what influence it has in the South Caucasus. Nor does
Iran want to see the conflict resolved for fear that a peaceful,
prosperous Azerbaijan will motivate them to secede. Turkey could
help Azerbaijan considerably by increasing its efforts to normalize
relations with Armenia. This would also be in Turkey’s interest,
since it would improve its prospects for joining the EU.”
His view is that Armenia has paid, and continues to pay, very heavy
costs for its “victory” over Azerbaijan. It is willing to pay these
costs, though, because it fears that withdrawal from Azeri territory
will be the first step toward the destruction of Armenia. What is
needed, then, is a peace accord that encourages Armenia that it will
be able to live in peace with its neighbors- the Azeris and the Turks.
He thinks a peace agreement should entail:
Karabakh: Armenian forces withdraw and replaced by a UN force like
in Kosovo.
Small Corridor between Armenia and Karabakh: Armenian withdrawal and
replacement by UN force that permits access both between Armenia and
Karabakh, and between Azeri territories separated by the corridor.
Other Azeri occupied territory: Armenian withdrawal and return to
Azerbaijan.
UN-administered Property Settlement Commission: Azeris and Armenians
who lost property in earlier Azeri-Armenian conflict must either
receive it back or be adequately compensated for it.
He also said that the conflict will not last long at this rate.
“I strongly believe that the Azeri-Armenian dispute will not go
on as it has. Either it will be resolved, or it will get worse for
both sides.”
URL:

Concord Monitor, NH
Aug. 25, 2006
Our place of peace, their world of war
No summer idylls for Lebanese kids
By KATY BURNS
For the Monitor
August 25. 2006 8:00AM
It was a near-idyllic evening just a month ago in the only Henniker
on Earth.
A local barbershop chorus, the Concord Coachmen, was the
entertainment. Listening were well over 100 people, most of whom had
brought their own folding chairs, gathered on the shaded lawn outside
New England College’s art gallery.
Many were gray-haired and a bit wrinkly, but there were young
families, too. A few toddlers took full advantage of the soft grass
and their indulgent overseers, and they romped, sweetly, in front of
the chorus. One particularly exhilarated young lady ran first one
way, then the other, always followed by one of her adult keepers. She
was having the time of her extremely young life. And she was also
about as safe as a child could be.
As harmonies filled the summer air, a welcome breeze arose, almost
dispelling the heat we had all been enduring.
The singers took a break. Much of the audience retreated to folding
tables laden with punch and cookies that had been provided, we were
told, by “the peace group.” We had no idea what the peace group was,
and it didn’t matter. In this quintessential college town, there had
to be a peace group. Peace groups are as much a part of our New
England heritage as stone walls and steepled meetinghouses.
—ADVERTISEMENT—
Refreshed, the audience and the entertainers enjoyed a few more
songs, including a medley of stirring patriotic tunes. Then all
dispersed into the deepening dusk.
It was wonderful. But it was hard to forget that, half a globe away,
in the perpetually tortured Middle East, society had abruptly,
explosively shattered once again. There were no peace groups there,
not really. Had there been one, it would have been far too busy to
serve punch and cookies.
Children were not cavorting on soft grass. They were huddled in bomb
shelters, at best. They were stranded amid piles of rubble, clutched
tightly in the arms of their shell-shocked and frantic parents. They
were dead, horribly dead, or lost, separated from their mothers and
fathers, accidents of war, collateral damage.
The picture in Henniker that evening was an updated 19th century
Currier and Ives illustration brought to life. In Israel and Lebanon
– and in violence-wracked Iraq and in Gaza, where Israel’s bombing of
a power plant has created a humanitarian nightmare – we had the raw
and vivid footage of the savagery of 21st century warfare.
Now, at least in the case of Israel and Lebanon, there’s a ceasefire.
No one seems to know exactly what that means, and few believe it will
last.
Much of Lebanon is rubble. Its infrastructure – roads, bridges, power
plants, ports – has been laid waste by Israeli bombs and warships. It
is an ecological calamity as well, especially an 87-mile long oil
slick caused by Israeli destruction of an oil storage depot – a
moving catastrophe that threatens not only Lebanon’s fragile
coastline but also that of its neighbors, including Israel.
Lebanon had spent nearly two decades rebuilding after another clash
with Israel and a brutal civil war. It was bright and shiny and open
for business. Now it’s shuttered again. Close to 1,200 people are
dead, the vast majority civilians.
Israel got off a lot better when it came to physical damage. The
rockets that streaked incessantly into the country, terrifying as
they might have been, were far less damaging than Israel’s massive
air strikes. While fires devastated farmlands along the Lebanon
border, Israel’s infrastructure is essentially intact, and fewer than
one-third of its 157 dead were civilians.
Yet the more seriously damaged party in this madness may well be
beleaguered Israel, surrounded by mortal enemies. Its aura of
military invincibility is seriously damaged, and its principal
nemesis in the latest conflict is lionized by Arabs throughout the
Middle East.
No matter what anyone claims, there are no winners here.
Tranquility lost
We can be thankful that at least some guns have gone silent, however
temporarily. But the future of the most recent combatants, and that
of the benighted citizens of Gaza, looks bleak. Nearby Iraq is a
cauldron of violence and sectarian hatred that boils furiously each
day, clearly beyond the control of our military or its nominal Iraqi
“allies.”
It is nearly impossible for most of us, whose forebears probably came
to this country to escape Europe’s incessant and bloody wars, even to
begin to imagine the day-to-day stress and sadness of living in such
places. Despite the efforts of some politicians to scare us half to
death, the truth is we live in security and even tranquility.
Once, Lebanon offered a similar tranquility to those fleeing violence
elsewhere, as our friend Steve reminded us in an e-mail the other
day. His father and several relatives were among the lucky few who
escaped Turkey’s brutal, bloody purge of its ethnic Armenian
minority. For 20 years, the remnants of the shattered family found
welcome refuge in Beirut.
Steve’s father emigrated from Lebanon to the United States in 1939,
but he never lost his love for the nation and the city. Once a
vibrant, tolerant city known as the Paris of the Middle East, Beirut
gave him sanctuary, and he instilled that same affection in his only
son. Today, that son is heartbroken, as are so many other Americans
with ties to that blood-soaked part of the world.
And all of us who live far removed from the conflict find woes half a
world away casting their sad shadow here, even in a place as serene
as the only Henniker on Earth.
(Monitor columnist Katy Burns lives in Bow.)

Syria draws a line at the border
By Sami Moubayed
Asia Times Online, Hong Kong
Aug. 25, 2006
DAMASCUS – When United Nations Resolution 1701 was passed on August
11, it was seen as a diplomatic breakthrough to end 33 days of war
between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Many today, however, are having serious doubts whether this ceasefire
will last and whether 1701 is actually a diplomatic victory – or
failure – for the UN. In addition to a ceasefire, the resolution
demands the deployment of the Lebanese army, and eventually
multinational troops, on the border to prevent any future
war between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah. It gives
Israel the right to self-defense, however, while denying this right
to Hezbollah, explaining why the party’s secretary general, Hassan
Nasrallah, accepted the resolution “with reservations”.
If implemented to the word, the resolution would deprive Hezbollah of
the territory it has used to wage war against Israel since the 1980s.
A Hezbollah that is deprived of southern Lebanon would be a Hezbollah
that cannot fire rockets against northern Israel. The resolution
also asked for implementation of Resolution 1559, which calls for
the complete disarming of Hezbollah, and strongly says that no arms
should be transferred to the Lebanese military group.
The first loophole in 1701 is that it does not give any mechanism for
the disarming of Hezbollah, something that neither the United Nations
Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) nor the Lebanese army – nor Israel
– has been able to do. The expanded UN troop presence on the border
will not be able to disarm Hezbollah. If the troops try to do that,
they will certainly be attacked.
This was something made clear by French Major-General Alain Pelligrini,
the UNIFIL commander in Lebanon, who said: “The Israelis cannot ask
UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah. This is not written in our mandate.” He
added that the ceasefire “is tense, very fragile, very volatile. Any
provocation or misunderstanding could escalate very, very rapidly.”
Speaking to the Financial Times on August 3, Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert related what he saw as the perfect objective of UNIFIL in
Lebanon. He said it should aim at “stopping violence against innocent
Israelis from Lebanon and disarming this murderous organization,
the Hezbollah, which is the long arm of Iran”.
Olmert’s distorted version of UNIFIL, however, seems to be very
different from the one that is likely to emerge in Lebanon in the
coming weeks. French newspaper Le Monde leaked a 21-page document
distributed at the UN last week showing what the new expanded UNIFIL
troops would look like.
First, very clearly, they would not be authorized to disarm
Hezbollah. They would also lack the authority to search Hezbollah
strongholds or bunkers. Second, they are authorized “to use force,
up to and including deadly force”, to implement peace on the
Lebanese-Israeli border and to defend themselves against attack by
either the IDF or Hezbollah. Third, they have to protect civilians,
and fourth, they will have to provide backup to the Lebanese army.
Actually, bringing 15,000 troops from the Lebanese army to the border
is easy. It has even been accepted by Nasrallah, who previously had
rejected deployment of the Lebanese army to the south. Deploying an
equal number of multinational troops is more difficult – but doable.
The history of multinational troops in Lebanon during the Israeli
invasion of 1982 showed that these troops are vulnerable and could
be driven out of Lebanon with ease. In October 1983, an attack on US
marines in Lebanon led to the killing of 241 US and 58 French troops
and the exodus of about 5,000 multinational troops from Lebanon.
No Arab country today, except Morocco, is willing to take part in such
a force, since it would be viewed by the Arab street as a multinational
force used to protect Israel from Hezbollah. Given Hezbollah’s
popularity in the Arab world, such a step would be political suicide –
even for moderate Arab regimes such as Egypt and Jordan.
Turkey showed willingness to send troops to Lebanon, but this proposal
was vetoed by the Lebanese-Armenians, who cannot forget Turkish
massacres against the Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during World
War I. Germany at first showed similar willingness to comply, but then
backed down and said it would send advisers rather than troops. As
one German journalist told this correspondent, this U-turn was because
German troops on the border with Israel would be entitled to shoot –
and use – “deadly force” to prevent any confrontation between the
IDF and Hezbollah. Because of the historical luggage carried by the
Germans from World War II, a German soldier today simply cannot fire
against an Israeli.
Yet despite these obstacles, Greece, France and Italy, which alone
will contribute 2,000-3,000 troops to UNIFIL, have all agreed to
send troops. On Thursday, French President Jacques Chirac agreed to
increase the number of French troops to 2,000.
Olmert made things more difficult for the UN by saying he would
not accept troops at UNIFIL whose countries didn’t have diplomatic
relations with Israel. He was referring to Indonesia, Malaysia
and Bangladesh. The Israeli premier does not have the luxury of
hand-picking what countries will join the multinational troops in
Lebanon, since not many countries have shown great enthusiasm to get
involved in a new war in the Middle East.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Wednesday that
UNIFIL forces in Lebanon would have two missions. One would be to
let the Lebanese army deploy in the south. The second would be “to
guarantee the embargo on arms delivery across all borders – I repeat –
across all borders”.
The Syrian factor The minister was referring to the Syria-Lebanon
border, which is considered by many in Lebanon and the international
community to be the only source from which Syria can channel arms
to Hezbollah.
According to Resolution 1701, this supply of arms must end, to bring
Hezbollah to a gradual military end. Syria immediately snapped back
by turning down the request to station troops on Lebanon’s side of
the Syrian-Lebanese border, with authority to administer checkpoints
searching for arms coming in from Syria.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said on Dubai TV that UNIFIL troops
on Lebanon’s border with Syria “is an infringement on Lebanese
sovereignty and a hostile position” toward Syria. He added, “First,
this means creating hostile conditions between Syria and Lebanon.
Second, it is a hostile move toward Syria, and naturally it will
create problems.”
Assad’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualim threatened from a state
visit to Finland that if multinational troops were stationed on the
Syrian-Lebanese border, Syria would close its border with Lebanon.
The White House immediately responded to Syria’s stance through its
spokeswoman Dana Perino, who said, “If the president of Syria were
not supplying Hezbollah, this wouldn’t have been a problem in the
first place.”
Closing the border with Lebanon is an old trick practiced by the
Syrians ever since prime minister Khalid al-Azm did it in 1950
to prevent the influx of Lebanese goods into Syria. President Adib
al-Shishakli did it again in 1954 when he accused Lebanon of supporting
a Druze uprising against his regime in Damascus. President Shukri
al-Quwatli did it in 1957 when Lebanon retaliated to a series of overt
Syrian intelligence operations on its territory by funding anti-regime
activities in Damascus to obstruct Syria’s honeymoon with Egypt.
It was semi-repeated by Assad last summer when Lebanese cargo trucks
were held up for weeks at the Syrian border, causing some goods to
rot, and forcing Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora to go to Syria to
solve the crisis.
This was at the apex of strained Syrian-Lebanese relations over
the murder of Lebanon’s former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. If
Syria does carry out its threats and shut the border with Lebanon,
it would cause a severe economic crisis in its neighbor, since Syria
is the only land route for Lebanon.
The other country bordering Lebanon is Israel, with which diplomatic
relations and passage routes are impossible at this stage. Currently,
all sea routes to Lebanon are sealed by the Israelis, and so is
landing at Lebanese airports.
With Israel controlling the skies and waters, and Syria controlling the
ground routes, Lebanon would be stranded, with no connection to the
outside world. Syria believes that only through such a harsh measure
can it force the Lebanese government to say no to international troops
on the Syrian border.
After all, it cannot say no to the troops itself, since they would
not be stationed on its territory, but Damascus can use its leverage
in Lebanon to force Siniora to say no. It does not mind UN troops
on the Lebanese-Israeli border, nor does it mind the deployment of
the Lebanese army, but it is categorically opposed to troops on the
border with Syria.
Olmert has that he had no immediate plans of ending the air and sea
blockade on Lebanon until an international peacekeeping force was
deployed on Lebanon’s borders, to prevent the arming of Hezbollah
and their attacks on north Israel.
As things stand, multinational troops will be placed on the
Syrian-Lebanese border in addition to the Lebanese-Israeli border.
Otherwise, they would be useless. But if that happens, Syria could
strangle Lebanon by closing down the border. Yet Olmert’s rules say
that only when Syria’s border is monitored – meaning when Syria’s
ground route is closed – will Lebanon regain its air and sea routes.
To understand Syria’s position one must understand how the Syrian
regime is thinking in relation to the Israeli war in Lebanon. Assad
claimed victory in this war, for his unconditional backing of
Hezbollah, just as Syria claimed co-victory with Hezbollah when it
liberated south Lebanon from the Israelis in May 2000.
The Syrians will not let Resolution 1701 destroy these victories by
ruining or disarming Hezbollah. Not only is patrolling the Syrian
border offensive to the Syrians, but if this is done, it would
actually mean that no arms would in fact arrive in Lebanon to be used
by Hezbollah. It would mean the military end to the Lebanese group –
something Syria will not permit.
Hezbollah is the last-standing Syrian card in Lebanon. It is the card
that will launch a political coup in Lebanon against the coalition
government of Saad al-Hariri – the group that launched its own putsch
against Syria in 2005 and drove the Syrian army out of Lebanon.
Syria will do all that is in its power to preserve Hezbollah. The
Syrians believe that if this means obstructing UNIFIL on Lebanon’s
border with Syria, ruining Resolution 1701 or shutting Syria’s border
with Lebanon – then so be it. All is fair in love and war for Damascus,
especially when it comes to Lebanon.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)

“Russia remains Armenia’s best friend”: leader of Armenian Communists
Regnum, Russia
Aug. 25, 2006
“The ethnic crimes in Russia cannot be regarded as an attitude of the
whole Russian people towards Armenians,” the First Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia Ruben Tovmassyan
said during a news conference on August 24. He said that “Russia has
been and is Armenia’s best friend.”
“I condemn ethnic crimes, but in the case of Vigen Abramyants we
don’t know the motives but just the fact of murder,” Tovmassyan said
and noted that “in Yerevan too they sometimes kill passers-by.”
Tovmassyan said that it is a shame to raise a hand and shout “Heil
Hitler” in a country who has defeated the Fascism. As regards political
parties, they should not very much rely on the US or the EU. “Only
Russia is our closest partner,” Tovmassyan said.
Almost 10 crimes have been committed against ethnic Armenians in Russia
since the beginning of 2006. One of them, the murder of student Vigen
Abramyants at the Pushkinskaya subway station, was stopped a few days
ago “because the Moscow Subway Prosecutor’s Office is unable to detect
the people who have committed the crime.”