ARMENIA HAS HIGHEST POINT IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF WB PROGRAMS, WB REGIONAL DIRECTOR SAYS
Noyan Tapan
Jun 1 2006
YEREVAN, JUNE 1, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenia has the highest point on the
rating scale of implementation of the World Bank (WB) programs and
steps aimed at improving the business and investment climate. The
World Bank Regional Director for Europe, Central Asia and the South
Caucasus Dona Dowsett Coirolo stated this during a meeting with the
Armenian President Robert Kocharian on May 31.
According to the RA President’s press service, during the meeting, at
which the WB Yerevan Office Director Roger Robinson was also present,
the sides discussed the existing problems and work to be done in
a number of spheres. Robert Kocharian noted that serious steps are
being taken in order to make customs and tax functions more public,
an attempt is being made to reduce customs officer – economic entity
contacts to the minimum. The sides also addressed problems of the fight
against corruption. The Armenian President said that an active process
of reforms is underway in the court and legal system, anticipating
the World Bank’s advisory assistance in this respect as well.

MEMORIAL COMPLEX PERPETUATING MEMORY OF VICTIMS OF ARTSAKH STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE OPENED IN ASHTARAK
Noyan Tapan
Jun 1 2006
ASHTARAK, JUNE 1, NOYAN TAPAN. Opening of the memorial complex
perpetuating memory of heros perished in the Artsakh struggle for
existence took place in Ashtarak. It was built on the initiative
and by the financial resources of the Mayor’s Office. As Mayor Gagik
Tamazian informed the Noyan Tapan correspondent, as there is already a
water pipe towards the memorial complex, works of planting of greenery
will start in the territory soon. The Mayor’s office will take care of
the future issues of care and keeping of the memorial complex as well.

MORE THAN 100 CHILDREN PARTICIPATE IN COMPETITION OF CHALKY PAINTINGS DEDICATED TO INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S DAY
Noyan Tapan
Jun 1 2006
YEREVAN, JUNE 1, NOYAN TAPAN. More than 100 pupils of comprehensive
and art schools participated in the annually competition-festival of
chalky paintings organized on the Freedom square on the initiaive of
the Yerevan Mayor’s Office on June 1, the International Children’s
Day. As Anahit Markosian, the Chief of the Culture, Youth Issues and
Sports Department of the Mayor’s Office mentioned, best 9 works of
the “Peace to Planet Earth” chalky competition will get encouriging
prizes, and all other participants will get presents. The competition
was accompanied by a concert program, with participation of song and
dance children’s groups.

ARMENIAN MONUMENT FOUND DURING EXCAVATIONS IN AGHTAMAR ISLAND: TURKS KEEPS SILENCE ABOUT ITS BEING ARMENIAN
Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
Jun 1 2006
ISTANBUL, JUNE 1, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. A monument dated of
June 1, 1884 was found during the excavations implemented near the
church of the Akhatamar Island in Lake Van. Mete Tozkoparan, the
Director of the Van museum informed that excavations were started
from the church garden, near the monks’ house, and numerous rooms
coming next to each other were found out in this territory. “A marble
stone-monument was found during the last excavations in a territory
consisting of six rooms, and the monument shows that a college
established to prepare clergymen existed in that territory. It is
written on the stone that the college was opened on June 1, 1884 by
Khachatur Rshtuntsi, one of Catholicoses of that period of time,”
Tozkaparan stated. The Director of the Van museum considers notable
the fact that the monument, besides giving information about details of
building of the college, contains “expressions of gratitude” addressed
to sultan of that period of time Abdul Hamid II for his permission,
assistance and support in the issue of building the college. “It
is clear from the monument that the monks’ college was built during
the period of Abdul Hamid II, Tozkoparan mentioned and informed that
they defined that a monks’ college was really built in that territory
in the same year. The Istanbul “Marmara” daily draws attention to
the fact that in spite of the information of the monument with text
in the Armenian language and one about the Armenian Catholicos, the
issue that this church of Aghtamar is Armenian, and the text on the
stone is in Armenian was not touched upon at all.

JEHOVA’S WITNESSES TRY TO OCCUPY NOYEMBERIAN
Noyan Tapan
Jun 1 2006
NOYEMBERIAN, JUNE 1, NOYAN TAPAN. It is already two weeks two 20 and
31-year-old girls, Yehova’s Witnesses, from Yerevan have settled in
the border town of Noyemberian, Tavush region. These girls go from one
house to another, carry on propaganda, give books on their sect. The
girls rent an apartment in the town. The eldest of the girls, Alvina,
informed Noyan Tapan correspondent that currently there are 9 thousand
Jehova’s Witnesses in Armenia. The inhabitants of Noyemberian are
anxious about the girls’ activity considering that their appeal not
to take arms does not at all correspond to the region’s situation when
the Azerbaijani armed forces periodically violate the ceasefire regime.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA, WITH EYE TO SEPARATIST ENCLAVE, PRAISES MONTENEGRO INDEPENDENCE VOTE
AP Worldstream
May 31, 2006
Armenia praised Montenegro’s independence referendum Wednesday in
a statement suggesting it hopes the vote will lend legitimacy to
the sovereignty claims of an ethnic Armenian enclave in neighboring
Azerbaijan.
“We welcome the decision of the authorities and people of Montenegro
on the creation of an independent state,” Foreign Ministry spokesman
Vladimir Karapetian said.
He said Armenia “attaches special importance” to the fact that the
plan to split with Serbia was decided in a referendum, calling it
proof that plebiscites are an internationally recognized way to
“express the rights of the people and resolve such problems.”
Karapetian did not mention Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave within
Azerbaijan that has been controlled by ethnic Armenians since a
1988-1994 war, but his comments suggested Armenia sees the Montenegro
vote as a precedent for the region, whose claim to sovereignty is
not internationally recognized.
In December 1991, amid the breakup of the Soviet Union, voters in
Nagorno-Karabakh overwhelmingly approved a referendum on independence
from Azerbaijan. Its leaders say it wants to be independent or join
Armenia.
But votes in Nagorno-Karabakh have not been recognized by the
international community, which would also be extremely unlikely
to consider a new referendum legitimate if it were not supported
by Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan vehemently opposes sovereignty for Nagorno-Karabakh and
tension remains high, with sporadic clashes between the Azerbaijani
military and Armenian and Karabakh forces that occupy Nagorno-Karabakh
as well as seven neighboring districts of Azerbaijan. International
efforts to promote a resolution have so far failed.

ARMENIA PRAISES MONTENEGRO INDEPENDENCE VOTE
Serbianna.com, Michigan
June 1 2006
YEREVAN, Armenia-Armenia praised Montenegro’s independence referendum
Wednesday in a statement suggesting it hopes the vote will lend
legitimacy to the sovereignty claims of an ethnic Armenian enclave
in neighboring Azerbaijan.
“We welcome the decision of the authorities and people of Montenegro
on the creation of an independent state,” Foreign Ministry spokesman
Vladimir Karapetian said.
He said Armenia “attaches special importance” to the fact that the
plan to split with Serbia was decided in a referendum, calling it
proof that plebiscites are an internationally recognized way to
“express the rights of the people and resolve such problems.”
Karapetian did not mention Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave within
Azerbaijan that has been controlled by ethnic Armenians since a
1988-1994 war, but his comments suggested Armenia sees the Montenegro
vote as a precedent for the region, whose claim to sovereignty is
not internationally recognized.
In December 1991, amid the breakup of the Soviet Union, voters in
Nagorno-Karabakh overwhelmingly approved a referendum on independence
from Azerbaijan. Its leaders say it wants to be independent or join
Armenia.
But votes in Nagorno-Karabakh have not been recognized by the
international community, which would also be extremely unlikely
to consider a new referendum legitimate if it were not supported
by Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan vehemently opposes sovereignty for Nagorno-Karabakh and
tension remains high, with sporadic clashes between the Azerbaijani
military and Armenian and Karabakh forces that occupy Nagorno-Karabakh
as well as seven neighboring districts of Azerbaijan. International
efforts to promote a resolution have so far failed.

HADITHA – SOME PERSPECTIVE
By Warner Todd Huston
NewsBusters
June 1 2006
The media spins up for an attack swarm against the US military…
By now I am sure you have heard of this incident between US Marines
and Iraqi civilians in Haditha? It absolutely must be foremost in
our minds that all the facts are not in. Still, the MSM are falling
all over themselves saying that, when one of their own was killed by
an IED and several more were injured, a squad of Marines lost their
collective minds and murdered some two dozen Iraqi civilians.
If this really happened it is a horrible incident. It just should
never have happened. And, further, those who did this deed will be
tried and punished appropriately if found guilty. It is a black mark
on the Marines and the USA. The criminality of this incident must
not be diminished.
But, even if true, it is just one of some very few such incidents in
this war. However, while regrettable, shameful even, it just cannot
be said that this incident is indicative of a general US policy in
Iraq. Nor can it be said to represent any kind of policy of the US
military historically.
We need some perspective here that is lacking with what we are getting
from the instant, faux media outrage storm that is building.
We need to look at the totality of our conduct in Iraq instead of
focusing on one or two incidents. And we also need to understand the
nature of war, the general youth of the soldiers we send into them,
and the history of other such outrages and their frequency in other
wars to properly assess this incident and put it in its proper context.
It must be recognized that, for the great preponderance of our military
personnel, their conduct is and always has been exemplary.
We do not have day after day of such outrages being reported not have
we in the past. In fact, we only have Abu Ghraib and Haditha to point
to as such breaches of discipline and conduct to date in Iraq.
Certainly there have been other lesser such breaches, to be sure, but
these two have grabbed the most attention. As a direct policy, though,
our military has gone out of its way to try and make “collateral
damage” as little as possible, more so than any other force in history.
While awaiting the investigation of this particular incident, we need
to remember that our troops have been in Iraq every hour of every day
for over three years. And in all that time, with the many thousands
of troops we have there, very few such incidents have occurred. It
is often difficult for our troops to tell the good guys from the bad
in a situation such as Iraq where insurgents might so easily pass
unnoticed among the common people walking the streets. This makes
for a soldiery that is constantly on edge, wondering when that next
passerby might conceal a bomb under his garments or worrying that the
next truck ride they take could end in a fiery explosion from an IED.
The tension is ever present.
The personal reactions of our men aside, one can also not legitimately
say that winking and nodding at such conduct is institutional US
military policy nor can we go further and say it is any kind of direct
policy to abuse and torture Iraqi civilians.
The conduct of our troops has sometimes been bad in past wars,
to be sure. During the Civil War the US Army mistreated Southern
civilians by the thousands, their property destroyed wantonly, many
imprisoned with but the least suspicion. In the Philippines during
the Spanish American war we treated the Moros horribly, torture
was sometimes used against them. There is a story of American troops
raping a concentration camp victim in WWII. In both Korea and Vietnam,
civilians were sometimes badly mistreated, even killed, by American
troops suspicious of their loyalty to the enemy. There are many,
many recent stories of soldiers mistreating woman of the countries
in which they were stationed, as well.
But all this can be said of soldiers of other countries, in other wars,
in other eras. But for Americans, such incidents are rarely perpetrated
by more than a small group of soldiers, or even single soldier, proving
that it is hardly possible to considered such conduct military policy.
Additionally, since the dawning of the 20th century, the US military
has professionalized itself until it is one of the few armed forces
that so polices its own, ferrets out the guilty, and prosecutes them.
We treat these incidents with far more gravity than any other force
in history, even up to today.
By contrast, we can see more incidents from other countries than we
could ever read through of whole armies acting like maddened animals
with the governments those armies represent approving of their
conduct. The Rape of NanKing in the 1930s where Japanese soldiers
killed thousands of civilians, many who were raped first before being
hacked to death with swords is an example the likes of which one can
find few parallels in American history. Today the situation in the
Sudan can also be seen as such an example of a government sponsoring
the type of mass murder not to be seen from American troops. Not to
mention the murder factories created by the Nazis in WWII, or even
Saddam Hussein of the 80s and 90s. Who remembers the how badly the
Armenians were treated by the Ottoman Turks when the Turks massacred
upwards to 400,000 in the early part of last century? We can even
go so far back as to remember the many Scots that were murdered by
English invaders in quelling Scotland for the British Empire, or what
happened in India perpetrated by the English, for that matter. Even
the French have a few things to be ashamed of from WWII, Vietnam and
the Ivory Coast today.
In any case, there is no need to belabor the point to show that
government sponsored massacres in huge dimensions are commonplace in
man’s harsh history from the earliest days right up to the present.
But, the United States has but one incident of government-sponsored
abuse and that was in the horrible way in which we treated our own
indigenous peoples in the 1800s. The point is, saving for one horrible
policy, it has not been a general American policy to mistreat civilians
in time of war, especially civilians of other countries. We just don’t
have that history and do not constantly ignore abuse as is the habit
of so many other military forces and governments the world over.
American policymakers have always been highly cognizant of treating
foreign civilians with respect. It has not been a general US policy to
mistreat anyone. Yes incidents have happened as they have with every
other army in all times in history but it just cannot be legitimately
said that it is somehow a common US policy to mistreat our hosts when
comparing our conduct to that of the rest of the world.
As they say, “Context is king.”
One more thing must be remembered and taken into account when
considering such incidents. We are sending thousands of young men,
and now women, too, into situations where only the most mature and
level headed person could easily endure and forever keep their cool.
Many of these troops are in their 20’s and have not had the time to
grow mature in years or outlook. One cannot expect many thousands
of 20 year-olds to conduct themselves like mature 40 year-olds all
the time when placed in the harrowing and taxing situations in which
they are placed. Sometimes these young people are going to make some
bad decisions. Sometimes things will go awry. It is simply bound to
happen. They are just humans after all.
The duty of the Armed forces is to train these men to understand the
situations they are going to face. They are to explain to the troops
how to handle themselves and what is expected of them. If a soldier
should violate that duty, that trust, he will be punished appropriately
and should be made aware of his fate should he so badly fail.
Yes, we should hold these incidents as horrible occasions, as a
breach of the faith we place in those particular men that perpetrated
them. But to transfer the guilt of a few to the whole of our armed
forces as the left and the MSM wish to do? Well, that violates our
own duty to support our troops as well as simple common sense.

RUSSIAN MP COMMENTS ON IDEA OF SENDING PEACEKEEPERS INTO NAGORNYY KARABAKH
Ekho Moskvy radio, Moscow
31 May 06
[Presenter] A peacekeeping contingent may be introduced to Nagornyy
Karabakh, the area of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In any case
this was not excluded today in Baku by Russian Defence Minister Sergey
Ivanov. He recalled that a fragile truce had already been continuing
in that zone for more than 12 years. [Passage omitted]
The introduction of a peacekeeping contingent to Nagornyy Karabakh
is possible if Armenia and Azerbaijan ask Russia about this. That’s
the view of Konstantin Kosachev, the chairman of the [State] Duma
Committee on International Affairs.
[Kosachev] The situation in Nagornyy Karabakh remains very complex.
In the context of a settlement in [Nagornyy] Karabakh, Russia is not
pursuing any kind of aims of its own. We are ready to support any
compromise and any solution that would suit both the Azerbaijani and
the Armenian sides and we promote a direct dialogue between Armenia
and Azerbaijan on Nagornyy Karabakh in every way – if there is a
mutual need and a mutual agreement of the sides.
[Presenter] Kosachev again stressed that you can introduce a contingent
into the disputed region only under the condition that there is a joint
appeal to Russia from Baku and Yerevan. For his part, Sergey Ivanov did
not specify when peacekeeping forces might appear in Nagornyy Karabakh
and what their composition might be. At 1535 [Moscow time, 1135 gmt] we
will be discussing this subject on the phone in the daytime programme
“Razvorot” [“Development”] with the first president of Azerbaijan,
Ayaz Mutalibov.

POLITICAL FALSE START OF AZERBAIJAN AND AZERI NATIONALISTS OF IRAN
by Sergey Shakaryants
Regnum, Russia
June 1 2006
For over ten days already there has been serious destabilization in
the Azeri-populated areas of Northern Iran. The first thing that may
occur to one who tries to compare what is happening in Northern Iran
now with what happened in the world after the appearance of Mohammed
cartoons in a Danish newspaper is that the appearance of an insulting
cartoon about the “Azeri ethnicity” in one of the leading Iranian
dailies might have well been a provocation. It may as well occur to him
that both cartoons were “orchestrated” (as a political provocation) by
either one hand or two different hands moved by one and the same brain.
In this particular case, everything is seemingly harder. In order
to grasp the logic of the whole chain of events, one will have
just to remember what preceded the cartoon by the “Iran” daily and
the following mass protests by Iranian Azeri-Turks and to compare
this with the slogans they are pushing now – now, they are already
protesting against Iran’s foreign policy rather than against those
who mocked their sacred Azeri language – as they explained at first.
In fact, they have no more reason for protesting – it has already
been a week since the Iranian authorities arrested the author of the
cartoon and the chief editor of the daily and closed the daily itself
for an indefinite time.
To a certain extent, we can already see the true motives of the Iranian
Azeris. Both the Iranian authorities and the spiritual leader of Iran,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Azeri by nationality) have openly and harshly
said what the protesters are actually after and who is behind them. Now
that American and British media have begun to actively speculate on
how the US might “shake the boat” of internal political stability in
Iran before its possible aggression against that country – and quite
unambiguously hinting that the Iranian Azeris might well be the key
“shaker” – and that the US parliamentarians have already decided
to allocate $75 mln for “the fight for democracy in Iran,” there is
hardly anybody in Tehran who still believes that the Azeris scanning
in the streets actually want their mother tongue to become the second
state language in Iran – in fact, everybody understands that pushing
them into the streets are US dollars.
We still remember the anti-Iranian calls and slogans made during
the 2nd World Azeri Congress and the following conflict between the
Azeri and Iranian authorities. Then, Tehran demanded apology and
account for the open “Southern Azerbaijan’s independence” calls by
some of the participant Azeris. We can also remember the April 25
press-conference by Jahandar Bayogly, the chairman of the Committee
for the Protection of the National Liberation Movement of “Southern
Azerbaijan,” presently residing in Baku, when he urged the US to start
a war against Iran and noted that “only Southern Azeris can curb
terrorism in Iran.” He, in fact, admitted that they in Washington
are planning to use the anti-Persian circles of the Iranian-Azeri
community for destabilizing the internal situation in Iran.
At the same time, Bayogly tried to mislead the journalists by saying
that “many European countries are beginning to despise Iran” i.e. he
made a primitive attempt to convince them that some “anti-Iranian
international force” is taking shape in the world, who is ready
to use “the Southern Azeris” in its war against Iran and that the
US is not alone in its desire to start a war against Iran. “The
West-Iran relations must be viewed as relations between the West and
Azerbaijan. Nobody, including the US, will succeed in the anti-Iranian
campaign if he ignores the role and importance of millions of Azeris
living in Iran. The only force that can curb terrorism in Iran is
Southern Azeris,” Bayogly said. He also pointed to the “fragments”
of Turkey’s interest in both the activities of his committee –
especially its relations with US official and “unofficial” circles –
and the start of the war against Iran: “The West should regard Turkey
and Azerbaijan as guarantors of stability in the region and if they
start to strike Iran without understanding the attitude of Turkey
and Azerbaijan towards the problem, they will face destabilization
in a fuel-rich region.” In order to make himself convincing, Bayogly
tried to blackmail his audience a bit: “If the West interferes in
Iran against the will of Azerbaijan and Turkey, it may face their
confrontation. The negligence of the interests of the Turkish and
Azeri peoples, including the Iranian Azeris, will lead to even more
deplorable results than in Iraq.”
Quite a strange coincidence – appearing in Baku, exactly before
“the second phase” of the Azeri protest wave in Iran, was Mahmudali
Chehraganly, one of “the key fighters for Southern Azerbaijan’s
independence,” the leader of the Movement of the National Awakening of
Southern Azerbaijan – a person who was long “removed” from Azerbaijan
by the Alievs clan and has lived for a long time in nowhere but London
and Washington. Today Bayogly and Chehraganly are the key mouthpieces
for those in the Azeri community of Iran and the Azeri Republic who are
constantly speaking about growing anti-Azeri repressions in Northern
Iran. Meanwhile, Iranian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Afshar Suleymani
(Azeri by origin) has officially said that nobody was killed during
the first protest action in Tabriz (an action that caused the present
instability in Northern Iran).
The world community is already saying that the Iranian authorities
shoot at “peaceful demonstrators fighting for their civil rights,”
that they recruit some “Kurdish armed groups” against Azeris and so
on. The Kurdish factor mentioned by Bayogly and Chehraganly is not
just a tribute to fashion. It is also an own political “serve” to
the US and Turkey for them to later ask what “Kurdish armed groups”
the Iranian authorities exactly use against the anti-Persian Iranian
Azeris. And we are almost sure that the US and Turkey may even accuse
Iran of playing up with PKK fighters – the selfsame fighters Ankara
recently attacked in Iraqi Kurdistan (with the US’ permission). It
should be noted that involved in that punitive action were special
purpose troops of two countries – Turkey and Iran – who moved
towards each other via the territory of Northern Iraq. And now this
“mysterious” Turkish-Iranian operation is followed by a “sudden”
conflict in Northern Iran – one more strange coincidence.
What is this the Iranian authorities and the international community
are actually dealing with? In the last 5-6 days the Azeri protest
actions in Iran have turned into thoroughly planned propaganda
against Iran’s policy in the world and in the South Caucasus, in
particular. Things are beginning to clear up. Even if some cartoon
against Iranian Armenians or Arabs might cause some outburst of
displeasure, we dare say that neither Armenians nor Arabs nor even
the more “disobedient” Turkmens or Belujis would risk doing the same
the Iranian Azeris are doing – as they would know that nobody outside
Iran would support them.
Meanwhile, those “protesting” in Tabriz went to loot government
offices with the flag of a foreign state – neighboring Azeri Republic
– and scanned not only “Long Live Azerbaijan!” but also “Down with
Armenia!”, “Karabakh Is Ours!” and so on. And what they in Tabriz
burned down on May 27 was not Iranian but Armenian flag. Let’s admit
that the anti-Armenian “fragments” of the Azeri protests are already a
direct sign that they on top in the US, Israel, Turkey and Azerbaijan
are getting increasingly annoyed not only with Iran’s international
policies but also with its political line in the South Caucasus –
with Azerbaijan and Turkey frequently appearing with open charges
that Iran “supports” Armenia in the Karabakh and other issues. The
decisions of the 2nd World Azeri Congress made just a month ago are
also part of this chain.
Now let’s add all this to the open efforts Washington has been making
in the last two-three months to get rid of “the Karabakh headache”
and to as much open displeasure of the Americans with Armenia’s
efforts to diversify its energy sources with the help of Iran and
its reluctance to “get connected” to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum pipes. And then we will find a clue to the hidden
motives of the allegedly purely anti-Persian actions in Northern Iran,
which are nothing but just new ways to keep tensions high there.
Meanwhile, the Azeri authorities are trying hard to pretend they
have nothing to do with what is going on. “The attitude of Azeri
Embassy towards the disorders in Tabriz and other Iranian cities
may be exaggerated,” Azeri Ambassador to Iran Abbasali Gasanov said
to Azeri-Press on May 25. “The statements of the Azeri ambassador
about the events may cause problems. That’s why, Azerbaijan prefers
to regard the events as Iran’s internal affair. Azerbaijan will not
comment on the clashes between Azeris and the police. Azerbaijan does
not interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs and there are no problems
between the two countries,” Gasanov said. The American friends and
lobbyists of Azerbaijan and anti-Persian Iranian Azeris are much more
sincere. On May 26 the American-Azeri Society urged the UN to take
measures against the murders and arrests committed by the Iranian
authorities in Southern Azerbaijan. The Society informed the UN that
Iranian special service agents opened fire at peaceful ralliers and
killed many people: “In Iran peaceful Azeri ralliers are attacked by
police, those trying to protect themselves are annihilated.” In Iran
Azeris have no rights and freedoms and can’t get education in their
native language: “Those who try to protect the rights of Azeris are
arrested on charge of Pan-Turkism and anti-national activity. The
present Iranian authorities are a devilish regime, who can kill its
citizens every minute. The UN Security Council must condemn these
actions and pass a severe verdict against the devilish regime in Iran.”
That is, in principle, those people still hope that international
forces will interfere in the internal affairs of Iran – at least,
like they did in Iraq. In other words, they still believe in “a united
anti-Iranian coalition.”
The problem is that the Iranian authorities have already suppressed
the protests in the northern provinces and have arrested everybody who
“at some American X hour” was supposed to be ready for mass actions
of active protest or civil disobedience – for something that could
actually blow up the internal political stability in Tehran or even
in the whole Iran. Meanwhile, 10 days have already passed but neither
the US nor Turkey have done anything to “help out” their fifth pillar
in Iran.
It turns out that the Iranian authorities may have been timely warned
that there might be some mass anti-national actions by specially
trained “pan-Turkic” activists and, well aware that they might have
no other chance to show them up, cold-bloodedly allowed the Iranian
Azeris to “show themselves off” from May 17 to May 28. In this light,
one can’t but agree with the view of the representatives of the
Movement of Southern Azerbaijan – Bayogly and Chehraganly – who say
that the Iranian authorities are far from panic or confusion. One
proof is the warning by the command of the Islamic Revolution Guards
that all of their 5 million guards are on high alert, which means that
the anti-Persian circles of the Iranian Azeris (and in fact the Azeri
Republic itself – if it is privy to the events in any slightest way)
have run across the powerful wall of Iran’s “internal defense.”
In fact, those who spurred the Iranian Azeris into a fight with the
present Iranian authorities have made a gross false start.
Sergey Shakaryants – expert of Caucasus analytical center