Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
March 31, 2006 Friday
A MINI-MARSHALL PLAN FOR THE TRANS-CAUCASUS
by Vladimir Ivanov
Different visions for the conflict zones of the South Caucasus; The
Washington Post recently published an article that accuses Moscow
of establishing a “shadow empire” in the South Caucasus and calls
on the West to take action. Russian analysts Stanislav Lekarev and
Pavel Zolotarev comment on the article and its assumptions.
On March 11, the Washington Post published an article by Ana Palacio,
former Spanish foreign minister, and Daniel Twining, Oxford University
academic and consultant to the Marshall Fund. They set out their
vision of security problems in the Trans-Caucasus and proposed their
own scenario for pushing Russia out of that region.
First of all, the authors accuse Moscow of having imperial ambitions
and striving to reconstitute the Soviet empire by keeping Russia’s
former Soviet neighbors dependent on Russia in military and political
terms. However, according to the article, Russia is unable to turn
these intentions into reality as yet.
Citing calls by the Georgian and Ukrainian presidents for “a united
Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Caspian,” Palacio and
Twining maintain that such declarations ought to prompt Europe and
America to help “people aspiring to freedom in other post-Soviet
states” rid themselves of Russia’s dominion and “the corrupting
influence of Russian power in regions beyond its borders.”
According to the authors, Moscow has managed to establish some sort of
“shadow empire” on the territories of former Soviet republics that are
now sovereign states, and uses its financial and military resources to
sponsor “frozen conflicts” in the Trans-Dniester region and the South
Caucasus. Such a policy, according to the authors, poses a serious
threat to the national security of European Union countries and the
United States, since they might be drawn into a regional military
conflict that is very likely to break out.
Palacio and Twining maintain that the situation taking shape in the
Trans-Dniester region, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia could have serious
consequences. The Russian military plays an active role in training
the armies of the separatist regimes and is very influential in the
unrecognized states. Their leaders, who support unification with the
Russian Federation, are Russian citizens and “enjoy the sponsorship of
powerful criminal elites in Russia, which profit from the unregulated
smuggling trade – in consumer goods, drugs, weapons and women –
in the conflict zones.”
Therefore, Palacio and Twining strongly advise Western Europe
and America to put pressure on Moscow, compelling it to withdraw
its troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia: this would allegedly
facilitate preserving Georgia’s territorial integrity, following
multilateral negotiations involving the EU and the United States.
“Internationalized” peacekeeping forces should be stationed in
these hot-spots to guarantee stability. The same plan is proposed
for solving the Trans-Dniester problem, where Ukraine is nominated
for the role of Moldova’s chief assistant.
Moreover, say Palacio and Twining, “the West should require closure
of the Russian bases on Armenian territory.” They maintain that the
presence of Russian military contingents in Armenia only exacerbates
the Nagorno-Karabakh situation and makes it more difficult to
resolve. The EU and NATO, rather than Russia, are positioned as
realistic guarantors there. Palacio and Twining maintain that
the civilized West ought to support a settlement in which Armenia
returns the occupied territories to Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh
has autonomy status until a referendum is held.
In return, the West should ensure a prosperous future for the states
of the Trans-Caucasus and “put these countries on a path to Europe.”
In the South Caucasus states, for example, some sort of “mini-Marshall
Plan” is proposed. Then again, proposals for reviving that plan, once
used to rebuild the countries of Western and Southern Europe after
World War II, started appearing in the press as far back as the period
when NATO was bombing Yugoslavia. NATO and the EU, concerned about the
large number of refugees on the territories of their member states,
promised to provide help of this kind to the peoples of the Balkans,
enmeshed in bloody internecine conflicts.
The Washington Post is a prominent publication that reflects the
opinion of fairly influential circles in the West. That seems to be
why its pages have been used to test international public opinion
about the possibility of using the Balkans scenario for regulating
conflicts in the South Caucasus.
Experts take different views of the proposal set out by Ana Palacio
and Daniel Twining.
Stanislav Lekarev, former FSB officer, now at the Security, Defense,
and Law Enforcement Academy:
It’s no coincidence that the Marshall Plan is being mentioned at a
time when a sequence of color revolutions is taking place across the
former Soviet Union. It’s worth noting that General John Marshall, who
headed the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then the US State Department, was
skilled at various methods of causing conflict between his country’s
opponents, in the interests of furthering American policy. All this
was done beneath the banner of humanitarian actions aimed at fighting
“evil” and ensuring economic prosperity.
Using those kind of techniques, General Marshall was an active link
in realizing many vital US interests in various locations around the
world. During World War II he took part in many of America’s political
actions aimed at ensuring global dominance for the United States.
The plan for providing economic aid to Europe was proposed by
General Marshall in July 1947. This aid was offered to all European
countries affected by the war. The USSR refused the American money,
since Soviet leaders regarded the Marshall Plan’s basic provisions
as infringing state sovereignty, and no other country under Soviet
control was allowed to accept Washington’s offer. The Marshall Plan
was in effect for four years and cost America $13 billion; equivalent
to $130 billion in 2006 prices. This amounted to 5% of GDP for the
United States at the time.
Any such plan now would have to be approved by the US Congress,
signed by the US President, coordinated with the relevant European
Union bodies, and set down in the form of legislation according to
established procedures. In the Marshall Plan era, the United States
passed a special law on helping European countries.
The Marshall Plan served as the foundation for establishing NATO as a
counterweight to the USSR. This was a mechanism for resisting Stalin’s
attempts to extend Moscow’s influence across the whole of Europe.
And a very convenient situation for similar actions has arisen now.
All kinds of color revolutions and velvet revolutions are under way.
Such a plan could be a component in safeguarding the political and
economic interests of Europe and America. Undoubtedly, this does pose
a certain threat to Russia’s national interests. If Russian troops are
starting to be pushed out of regions where Moscow has traditionally
exerted political and economic influence, there are obviously
some far-reaching intentions behind that. We can’t rule out the
possibility that the basic strategy of the US and NATO, which entails
establishing mobile forces equipped with the very latest weaponry,
might be extended to the Caucasus. There wouldn’t be any American or
NATO bases there in the full sense of the term, but there might be
some kind of bridge-heads for deploying groups capable of ensuring
the achievement of political, economic, and military objectives.
The Washington Post article is clearly intended to test the
international community’s reaction. American strategy analysts will
use the results to develop evaluations and proposals.
Major-General Pavel Zolotarev, deputy director of the United States
and Canada Insitute:
Economic reconstruction of the Caucasus region and the implementation
of a Marshall Plan or any other programs wouldn’t necessarily lead
to NATO bases being established there. That scenario was essentially
inevitable, and logical, after World War II. But we can’t say for
sure that it would happen now. On the other hand, the proposals to
shut down Russian military bases and reform the peacekeeping forces
aren’t logically consistent with the European Union’s concern about
the prosperity of the Caucasus.
The European Union has failed to cope with the problems that have
existed, still exist, and will continue to exist in the Balkans – in
Kosovo, where the EU isn’t implementing any Marshall Plans. That area
retains all the negative charateristics of hot-spots: criminality,
terrorism, trafficking, and all the other negative aspects of such
locations. But Russia did warn the United States against establishing
an independent Muslim state in the center of Europe. These days,
no one talks of rebuilding democratic values there. The West is now
saying that everyone in the Balkans should be granted independence,
and the peoples will sort out their own problems. NATO and EU policy
has failed completely. No one’s trying to bring back refugees, no
talks are under way to preserve the state integrity of what remains
of Yugoslavia, and many other problems aren’t being addressed either.
And suddenly we’re seeing such tender concern for the Caucasus. A
clear trend is entirely obvious here: NATO and its leader, America,
obviously still take the same approach to determining political
dominance areas. This pays no regard to all of Russia’s proposals for
cooperating with the EU and the US in hot-spots across the former
Soviet Union, or the need to maintain the principle of dividing
spheres of influence.
All the same, the United States is taking a more sober-minded approach
to Russia. Sometimes it even reprimands Saakashvili, who doesn’t
always express himself appropriately. But Europe, unfortunately, is
too often forced to comply with the wished of NATO’s newest members,
who have anti-Russian attitudes in their blood. This is what seems to
be behind the statements and proposals in the Washington Post article.
In principle, it is necessary to invest in the South Caucasus. It is
necessary to create jobs there and solve all the problems commonly
encountered by underdeveloped countries worldwide. But I don’t think
Europe is capable of allocating any substantial sums to ensure economic
prosperity for the Trans-Caucasus. The integration of new member
states into the EU and NATO involves considerable economic costs –
not to mention the Balkans. Besides, the Europeans aren’t so generous
as to throw their money away. Any financial aid sent to the problem
regions is likely to be misspent, and the West is well aware of that.
Source: Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, No. 9, March 2006, p. 2
Translated by Daria Smirnova

Azerbaijan says soldier killed on Armenian border
Agence France Presse — English
March 30, 2006 Thursday 1:28 PM GMT
BAKU, March 30 2006 — Azerbaijan accused Armenia Thursday of breaking
a ceasefire and responsibility for the death of one of its soldiers
on their common border.
“An Azeri soldier was killed during the habitual violations of the
ceasefire by the Armenian side,” the defence ministry said in Baku.
“Azerbaijan’s positions in the Tovuz region were targeted by Armenian
military units from the Berd area,” it said.
The two neighbours, which fought a war in the early 1990s over
Azerbaijan’s Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, regularly
charge each other with ceasefire violations.
Azerbaijan accused Armenia on March 7 of causing the death of an
Azeri soldier in the Karabakh region. Armenia quickly denied the
charge and responded with counter-accusations that Azeri troops had
killed an Armenian soldier the previous week.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Russia,Georgia to sign temporary agt on Russian military facilities
by Eka Mekhuzla
ITAR-TASS News Agency
March 30, 2006 Thursday 08:15 PM EST
Russia and Georgia on Friday will sign an agreement in Sochi on the
terms and rules of temporary operation of Russian troops in Georgian
territory, including the military bases in Batumi and Akhalkalaki
and other facilities, the Georgian Defense Ministry has told Itar-Tass.
Defense Minister Mamuka Kudava will sign the agreement for Georgia.
Another document to be signed in Sochi will concern the transit of
Russian military cargoes and personnel through Georgia.
Under the agreement Georgian and Russian foreign ministers achieved
on May 30, 2005 the Russian military bases in Batumi and Akhalkalaki
are to be withdrawn over a period of 3.5 years (by the end of 2008).
Last summer saw the first phase of the withdrawal of heavy equipment
and armaments and motor transport. Most of the hardware was taken to
Russia (by land or by sea), and some pieces of equipment redeployed
to the Russian military base in Gyumri in neighboring Armenia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Drug barons seek to turn Armenia into transhipment point -police
by Tigran Liloyan
ITAR-TASS News Agency
March 29, 2006 Wednesday 11:42 AM EST
Armenian police chief Gaik Arutyunyan said his country is in “the
centre of drug barons’ attention and interests”.
“There have been attempts to use Armenia as a transit country for the
shipment of drugs, mainly to Europe,” Arutyunyan said on Wednesday
after a meeting of the Anti-Drug Coordinating Council of the Collective
Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO).
Last year and this year Armenian police detained persons who
tried to carry narcotics through the country. Each year the number
of drug-related crimes is growing, and although there has been no
increase in drug addiction, “complex problems will arise tomorrow if
we do not take proper measures today,” Arutyunyan said.
The head of Russia’s Federal Service for Drug and Psychotropic
Substance Control, Viktor Cherkesov, who chaired the session, said the
United States and Mongolia had decided to join in the CSTO anti-drug
operation Kanal (Channel).
In his words, the operations against drug trafficking from Afghanistan
involve CSTO countries, Azerbaijan, Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan,
and Ukraine.
Cherkesov said the situation on the Iranian-Afghan border is “very
complex and tense”, but “Iran’s law enforcement agencies act very
firmly and decisively to protect the Iranian border from drug
contraband.”
“A whole system against contraband” has been built on the
Iranian-Afghan border, he said.
However Cherkesov stressed that the fight against drug trafficking,
the use and sale of narcotics is impossible without the struggle
against their contraband.
“Our efforts to fight the use and sale of narcotics are impossible
without the struggle against their contraband, especially from
Afghanistan,” he said.
“Measures taken by the government of Afghanistan and the international
community to solve this problem have not yielded any result,” the
official said. “According to international experts, the drug situation
in the region aggravated after the withdrawal of Russian border guards
from the Tajik-Afghan border.”
“Insufficient measures to ensure security on the borders of states
affected by drug trafficking prevent the international community from
setting up barriers to drug contraband,” Cherkesov said.
He said the analysis of the drug situation in Russia proves that
illicit drug trafficking is fully controlled by different criminal
groups, which have transnational ties.
“This problem remains topical. The routes of drug transportation change
permanently. International organised criminal groups and communities
penetrate Russia’s drug market,” the official said.
“Russia is fighting drug-related crime in the context of an extensive
criminal network, which embraces most regions of Russia,” he said. In
his words, “this network is rather organised and has vast international
criminal ties.”
Cherkesov said, “The major purpose of the Russian drug control
service is to take urgent measures to stabilise the drug situation,
create conditions for curbing the growth of drug use and trafficking,
and preventing nacrotisation of the population.”
Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Migranyan said illicit drug
trafficking became a global phenomenon. Illicit drug trafficking as
a dangerous social phenomenon “became global and transnational and
turned into the most acute problem of mankind.”
Drug trafficking “wrecks political, social and economic stability of
states,” the prime minister stressed.
In his view, internationalisation of crime and “the growth of
international elements, which commit crimes in the territory of two
or more states, evoke the need to improve and develop international
and interstate cooperation between law enforcement agencies.”
Migranyan said the CSTO Anti-Drug Coordinating Council plays a
big role and is of great significance in the fight against drug
trafficking. “This will help work out and realise the common strategy
and new mechanisms to counteract illicit drug trafficking,” he said.
The prime minister proposed “to think together how we can use our
accumulated experience better and more efficiently in order to deliver
a sensitive blow against drug trafficking.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Washington Times
March 29, 2006 Wednesday
Turkey’s dream of EU meets with hesitancy;
Conflicting Muslim roots, quest for modernity trouble some
By Andrew Borowiec, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Turkey’s search for a new European identity casts a long shadow over
eastern Mediterranean countries, where there is considerable
confusion as to Ankara’s intentions. Until now, Turkey has rarely
bothered to explain to the international community the reasons for
its decisions, thus causing misunderstandings.
For Europeans, Turkey’s traditional Islamic roots and its quest for a
modern outlook contradict each other. On this divided island, a third
of which is patrolled by Turkish troops, Ankara’s hopes to join the
European Union are viewed with misgivings.
Equally concerned is Greece, the motherland of Greek Cypriots, which
feels that Turkey’s foreign policy, its contested European
credentials and the slow pace of its reforms do not bode well.
This month, diplomatic alarms rang in Athens again as Turkey repeated
the threat of war if Greece extended its territorial waters in the
Aegean Sea. The nuances of that controversy often confuse most
Europeans.
“Threats don’t help Turkey come closer to Europe, which it has said
is its main goal,” said Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis.
Six months after Turkey was invited to begin membership negotiations
with the EU, worries surfaced in several capitals that the talks
could collapse unless Turkey conforms totally to the union’s
requirements. These include the demand that it open its ports and air
space to Cypriot ships and aircraft and that it recognizes the
island’s Greek-Cypriot government. So far, Turkey has refused both
demands.
U.S. sees Ankara as ally
Olli Rehn, the EU enlargement commissioner, warned of negative
consequences for Turkey’s uncompromising attitude. “We have kept our
word and opened up accession negotiations. Now we expect Turkey to
keep its word,” he said.
Despite rising anti-Americanism and Turkish criticism of the U.S.-led
war in Iraq, Washington regards Ankara as an important ally in a
turbulent part of the world, and has supported its EU candidacy. The
EU is deeply divided on the admission of 71 million Muslim Turks into
the European “Christian club.”
Several European leaders have challenged Turkey’s European
qualifications. Only 5 percent of Turkey’s 297,000 square miles lies
on the European side of the Bosporus strait.
The recent warning came from Vice Chancellor Hubert Gorbach of
Austria, who currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency. “If we
pretend we are ready to take on a member country like Turkey, we are
ignoring reality,” he said.
The EU expects negotiations to last 10 years or more as Turkey
complies with all requirements. The Turks regard this as excessive
procrastination, and many have lost interest in “becoming Europeans.”
Some are tempted by closer links to the Middle East instead.
According to a recent opinion poll, 40 percent of Turks – 30 million
people – oppose EU membership at this stage. Turkish media are
becoming increasingly critical of Europe’s attitude toward their
country, frequently considering it as demeaning.
Commented Mehmet Dulger, a major figure in the governing Justice and
Development Party, which is known by its Turkish acronym, AKP, “For a
long time I have been a partisan of the EU, but my patience has its
limits … If the EU restricts itself to Eastern Europe and the West,
then it will die.”
There is little doubt that educated Turks want to belong to Europe,
and in fact consider themselves Europeans already, despite their
rejection by much of Europe. Turkey’s connection with the Middle East
is tenuous, mainly because of centuries of Ottoman domination of that
region, rarely benign and remembered for its cruelty.
Most EU governments support the idea of expansion to include Turkey;
opposition to Turkish membership comes at the grass-roots level. The
most outspoken signal was the rejection by French and Dutch voters in
separate referendums last year of the proposed European Constitution,
partly for fear it would speed Turkey’s accession.
A stark reflection of this feeling was a statement by former French
President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, one of the authors of the
defeated constitution, who said; “The question is whether Turkey is
or is not a European country. History and geography say no.”
A wave of nationalism
The obvious European procrastination with Turkey’s candidacy has
spurred already intense nationalism in a country where soldiers on
parade roar “one Turk is worth the whole world,” and where children
begin the school day by reciting “Lucky is the man who was born a
Turk” – a saying coined by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the
Turkish republic.
Lately, the intensity of Turkish nationalism has been reflected in
its arts and literature.
“The Third World War,” a novel in which the Turkish army defeats the
EU and establishes a “new world order,” was an instant best-seller,
as was “Metal Storm,” which tells the story of an imaginary U.S.
invasion of Turkey and the destruction of Washington by a Turkish
atomic bomb.
Equally popular, if not more so, was this year’s film “The Valley of
Wolves: Iraq,” featuring a Turkish “Rambo” who specializes in killing
American invaders in Iraq. It was an unparalleled box-office success,
applauded by audiences across Turkey.
Apart from its limited European territory and Muslim religion, the
list of other European objections is long. It includes the
restriction of self-expression for the Kurdish minority and
repression of Kurdish nationalist guerrillas with more than 35,000
deaths; the influence of the military on Turkey’s political life;
punishment for any form of criticism of the state, and Ankara’s
refusal to admit the World War I massacre of its Armenian minority,
considered by many in Europe as genocide.
Then there is the problem of divided Cyprus, where Turkey landed an
expeditionary corps in 1974 following a Greek coup intended to unite
the island with Greece. The Turkish army is still firmly in control
of northern Cyprus, now a state for the Turkish-Cypriot minority.
The Turkish military considers its presence in Cyprus to be
strategically important, and so far Ankara has refused to discuss the
island’s demilitarization. This has become a permanent irritant for
international diplomacy and another hurdle for Turkey’s EU
aspirations.
Europeans seem confused by Turkey’s contradictions. It is a country
where the army considers itself the republic’s guardian, where women
are not allowed to wear kerchiefs in government buildings because
these are seen as an Islamic political statement, but where the prime
minister’s wife wears one at public functions.
Erdogan seems ambiguous
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tries on one hand to lead the
country toward Europe, but on the other hand favors certain laws that
reflects Islamic fundamentalism.
Said Ankara commentator Burak Bekdil: “The government is accused of
promoting Islamic issues, including building a mosque in an Istanbul
park, banning alcoholic beverages by local authorities and setting
new Islamic standards for food.”
Opined the Athens daily Kathimerini: “The Islamic rhetorical tone
adopted lately by Turkey’s prime minister is at odds with his EU
ambitions.” And the Istanbul mass-circulation daily Hurryiet
commented that Mr. Erdogan’s party “is slowly wrapping the Islamic
blanket around us.”
Turkey’s European partners have yet to be convinced of the Turkish
army’s avowed commitment to democracy. It is a force that overthrew
the country’s civilian governments in 1960 and 1980, but after
forcing political changes, it returned to barracks. In 1997, the army
forced the resignation of Necmettin Erbakan, Turkey’s first Islamic
prime minister.
Thanks to EU pressure, an army general no longer presides over
Turkey’s powerful National Security Council, but other generals
maintain a high public profile with the government’s blessing. Thus,
when a public prosecutor tried to investigate reports about a secret
military unit set up by Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, head of Turkey’s land
forces, to fight Kurdish rebels, Mr. Erdogan quickly quashed the
probe.
“No one will gain anything by making the country’s military weak,”
the prime minister said. “The army is one of our most important
institutions.”
Some commentators call the Turkish army – the second-largest in NATO
– “a pressure group with heavy weapons.” Others think its role is
crucial in educating conscripts and instilling patriotism.

Anand beats Aronian to keep pace with Morozevich
The Press Trust of India
March 30, 2006 Thursday
Monaco Mar 30 — Defending champion Viswanathan Anand won an engrossing
battle with World Cup winner Levon Aronian of Armenia to remain in
joint lead after the blindfold game in the 10th and penultimate round
of Amber Blidnfold and Rapid chess tournament here.
Being in joint lead with Russian Grandmaster Alexander Morozevich
before the start of this round meant that Anand had to win with
his white pieces against Aronian after Morozevich achieved the same
against Ukrainian Vassily Ivanchuk.
Though the two wins by the leaders in the combined standings made
little difference in the standings, it kept Anand in race for the
title in the event he really enjoys playing.
With just three games or one and a half rounds to come in the annual
event, both Anand and Morozevich have an identical score of 13 points
so far and for sure the battle royale is going to boil down to the
last round when the Indian ace will be under more pressure to perform
against reigning World champion Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria.
Anand defeated Aronian in a technical battle arising out of a Ruy
Lopez game in style. Slated to play black in the return rapid game,
Anand knew his chances lay in the blindfold game and he exploited
them fully to register a fine victory against the Armenian super
talent in 73 moves.
Morozevich, however, was quicker in his demolition act against Ivanchuk
as he won after 50 moves of a Sicilian defense game.
With the victory Morozevich’s supremacy in the blindfold section of
the Euros 216000 event remained uncontested as the Russian made sure
of his title triumph in this section with almost two games to spare.
With one more game still in hand in this category, Morozevich has
amassed a whopping 8.5 points and nearest rival Francisco Vallejo
Pons of Spain is 2 points behind him.
Complete results Blindfold round 10: Alexander Grischuk (Rus) beat
Peter Leko (Hun); Alexander Morozevich (Rus) beat Vassily Ivanchuk
(Ukr); Francisco Vallejo Pons (Esp) beat Loek Van Wely (Ned) Peter
Svidler beat Peter Heine Nielsen (Den); Viswanathan Anand beat Levon
Aronian, Levon (Arm); Boris Gelfand (Isr) drew with Veselin Topalov
(Bul) Blindfold Standings after Round 10: 1. Morozevich 8.5; 2.
Vallejo Pons 6.5; 3. Anand 6.0; 4-5. Grischuk, Svidler 5.5 each; 6-7.
Gelfand, Leko 5; 8. Van Wely 4.5; 9. Topalov 4; 10. Nielsen 3.5;
11-12. Ivanchuk, Aronian 3 each Rapid Standings Round 9: 1. Anand 7;
2-4. Aronian, Vallejo Pons, Topalov 5 each; 5-6. Morozevich, Grischuk
4.5 each; 7-10. Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Van Wely, Leko 4 each; 11-12.
Nielsen, Svidler 3.5.
Combined Standings Round 9: 1-2. Morozevich, Anand 12 each; 3.
Vallejo Pons 10.5; 4-5. Grischuk, Leko 9 each; 6-8. Gelfand, Van Wely,
Topalov 8.5 each; 9-10. Svidler, Aronian 8 each; 11-12.
Nielsen, Ivanchuk 7 each.

Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS Military Newswire
March 31, 2006 Friday 12:59 PM MSK
Russian bases to be withdrawn from Georgia to North Caucasus, Armenia
SOCHI March 31
The Russian forces will be withdrawn from Georgia to the North
Caucasus and Armenia, Colonel General Alexei Maslov, Russian Land
Forces commander-in-chief, told a news conference in Sochi held on
Friday after signing agreements with Georgia on forces withdrawal
“Most of the military hardware and personnel now stationed in Georgia
will in 2008 be withdrawn to the North Caucasus Military District,
while part of the equipment will be dispatched to arm the 102nd
Russian base in Gyumri, Armenia,” Maslov said.
According to him, the agreements will provide legal framework for
cooperation with Georgia in domains determined in the documents.
Georgian First Deputy Defense Minister Mamuka Kudava, who signed the
agreements on behalf and for Georgia, estimated the importance of the
documents as very high.
“We will stick to the provisions outlined in the papers and assist
the Russians in preparation and organization of the withdrawal,” he
said.

Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS Military Newswire
March 31, 2006 Friday 12:55 PM MSK
Russian experts positive over withdrawal of bases from Georgia
MOSCOW March 31
The withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia will allow
Moscow to cooperate more actively with Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
Academy of Geopolitical Problems Vice President Colonel General
Leonid Ivashov said.
“Withdrawing from Georgia, Russia will be able to act more freely in
the South Caucasus. Moscow will be able to interact more actively
with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including in the interests of
guaranteeing the security of Russians leaving there,” he told
Interfax- Military News Agency on Friday.
“Moreover, there will be an opportunity to activate cooperation with
Armenia, Azerbaijan and other countries, ignoring Georgia’s anti-
Russian policy and Georgia itself,” the expert said.
Ivashov stressed that this approach is fully justified today. “It may
chasten current or future Georgian leaders and bring our relations to
a normal and calm route,” he said.
The withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia is a positive
step by Moscow, Alexander Khramchikhin, chief of the Political and
Military Analysis Institute’s analytical department, told
Interfax-AVN.
“It is difficult to say why we needed these bases. In fact Russia did
not really use them,” Khramchikhin said.
In particular, the Russian bases were not used to counter the
militants who were operating from Georgian territory. It is known
that Georgia was the main foothold of Chechen militants for a long
time, and the presence of Russian military bases did not bother them
in any way,” he noted.
According to him, the Russian military bases may remain in Georgia
only if the situation in the region changes dramatically. “For
instance, if the Russian military bases become necessary for Georgia,
as they are now for Armenia, who views the base in Gyumri as a
guarantee against Turkey’s aggression,” he said.
“But in the foreseeable future I cannot imagine the return of Russian
military bases to Georgia,” the expert stressed.

Armenian sniper kills Azerbaijani soldier – spokesman
Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS Military Newswire
March 31, 2006 Friday 10:18 AM MSK
BAKU March 31 — Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry on Thursday reported
another cease-fire violation by the Armenian side, in which an
Azerbaijani soldier was killed by sniper fire.
“An Azerbaijani soldier was killed by a sniper shot from Armenian
positions near the village of Alibeili in the Azerbaijani Tovuz
district,” acting head of the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry’s press
service Ilgar Verdiyev told Interfax on Thursday.
The soldier was called up to military service in 2005, he said.
Earlier, Sabine Freizer, one of the leaders of the International
Crisis Group, said that last month alone, cease-fire violations in
the zone of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
killed at least 19 people, including eight civilians.
In 2005, the death toll rose to at least 90.

L’Humanite, France
30 mars 2006
La nuit d’un genocide
par: Roger Martin
histoire . L’historien Philippe Videlier livre ici une oeuvre
noirissime qui ne laisse aucun doute sur la politique d’extermination
du peuple armenien.
Nuit turque,
de Philippe Videlier,
Gallimard, 11 euros.
Bien que Nuit turque soit publie sous la couverture blanche de la
NRF, avec la mention ” recit ” et que l’auteur ait fait le choix
d’une narration dont le ton emprunte autant a Voltaire qu’aux Mille
et Une Nuits, les faits rapportes par Philippe Videlier, historien et
chercheur au CNRS, ne relèvent en rien du domaine de la fiction et
font de son ouvrage une oeuvre noirissime.
Le genocide armenien, si souvent – et si superficiellement – evoque a
l’occasion de la candidature de la Turquie a l’Union europeenne, est
ici disseque, passe au crible de l’histoire et de la recherche, avec
une rigueur et une clarte scientifiques impeccables, qui ne laissent
aucun doute a ceux qui en auraient encore, sur la mise en oeuvre dès
1915 d’une authentique politique d’extermination du peuple armenien
et, dans une moindre mesure, des juifs et des Grecs qui vivaient dans
l’Empire ottoman. Les chambres a gaz n’ayant pas encore ete
experimentees, les massacres se firent avec des moyens plus
artisanaux, mais on egorgea, pendit, fusilla, noya par centaines de
mille. À ce jour, nulle reconnaissance officielle du genocide n’est
encore intervenue. Quelques vagues declarations de circonstance ne
peuvent cacher une sinistre realite : la classe politique turque,
dans sa presque totalite, de l’AKP, le parti islamophile au pouvoir,
au Parti des travailleurs proche de l’extreme gauche, en passant par
le Parti republicain du peuple, membre de l’Internationale
socialiste, fait front commun pour crier a la diffamation et au ”
grand mensonge ” et nier des faits pourtant irrefutables. L’honneur,
une fois encore, est du côte des poètes qui denoncèrent l’ignominie.
Un mort celèbre, Nazim Hikmet, jete en prison puis banni avant d’etre
raye des registres de l’etat civil a titre posthume (!) et, plus près
de nous, Orhan Pamuk, traite de ” miserable creature ” par une presse
dechaînee.
C’est dire si Nuit turque, qui repose sur une documentation
impressionnante et parfois rare, qui vaut aussi pour sa composition
remarquable et une langue particulièrement savoureuse où ironie et
antiphrase permettent de poursuivre la lecture malgre l’horreur
omnipresente, est un ouvrage indispensable a tous ceux qui, ne se
contentant pas d’une connaissance approximative des faits, voudront
apprendre les fondements et l’execution d’une entreprise vouee a
l’extermination d’un peuple au nom de la race, qui ne resta helas pas
unique dans les annales de l’histoire !
–Boundary_(ID_a7eFSPmqi6r+3/V255oQ5w)–