ROOTS OF TERRORISM
By V Sundaram
News Today, India
May 25 2006
Terrorism is simply the name of a technique:
Intentional attacks on civilians.
I understand that a ‘Symposium on Roots of Terrorism’ was held in
Washington DC on 28-29 April. It was sponsored and organized by
America Truth Forum. A large number of prominent and highly-placed
intellectuals and experts on Islamic studies attended the symposium.
Many of them were celebrities and known personalities on national
TV and radio stations. A forceful Indian and Hindu view point was
presented by Dr Babu Suseelan, a psychologist and Director of Addiction
Research Institute, Pennsylvania and board member of Indian American
Intellectuals Forum (IAIF) on that occasion.
What is very gratifying to note is that more than 375 intellectuals
and US opinion makers, many of them Jewish and Christian Americans,
took an active part in the Symposium. To quote the words of Narain
Kataria in this context: ‘This was a rare occasion for IAIF members
to interact with American mainstream personalities and exchange
the Indian viewpoint openly on the menace of terrorism. It was,
probably, for the first time that the presence and scholarship of
Hindu Americans was recognized and appreciated by renowned global
experts on counter-terrorism’.
Dr Babu Suseelan insisted that it was absolutely essential for the
world to understand the deadly ideology that successfully transforms
the simple human beings into deadly suicide bombers and terrorists. He
said that we cannot deal with the problem of terrorism until and
unless we completely comprehend the ideology which extols the virtues
of killing and preaches hate, incites violence and enjoins on its
followers to instill terror in the hearts of those who do not believe
in Allah (8:12); insists on its followers to make a war on unbelievers
who dwell around them (9:123); compels its followers to be harsh
to unbelievers; tells them that ultimate abode of infidels is Hell,
directs them to lay hold on infidels; bind them; burn them in the fire
of Hell, then, fasten them with a chain seventy cubits long. The only
fault of infidel was that he did not believe in Allah, the Most High.
Jihad, fundamentally, is a do or die doctrine of permanent
warfare. Jihad, Holy War and Terrorism are all interchangeable words
in all contexts and all situations relating to so called infidels
or non-believers or what Islam calls Kafirs. He pointed out that
Muslims have been in a state of perpetual war wherever they live,
be it Afghanistan or Iraq, Chechnya or Sudan, Kashmir or Thailand,
Indonesia or Bangladesh, Philippine or Spain, USA, UK, or India. Dr
Prithipal, Professor of Comparative Religion, University of Alberta,
Canada has categorically observed: ‘Muslims will only live as an
oppressive majority and in turbulent minority’. This is because of
the supremacy and paramountcy of the Islamic Jihad.
Surveying the History of India, Dr Suseelan pointed out that the
Afghanistan was once Hindu and a part of the original India of that
time. In 1947, Pakistan too was forcibly carved out of the Indian
Territory by Islamists. Now, feverish efforts are on by all Islamic
nations to wrest the Indian Kashmir from the Hindu India.
Threats of violence, loot, murder and rape of Hindu people all familiar
tools of terrorism have become a routine thing in the Indian Kashmir
today.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that terrorism in
the world began on 11 September, 2001. This assumption is based on
total ignorance of the known facts of history. Dr Suseelan added:
‘India has been experiencing terrorism for hundreds of years. Even
the so-called Moghul King Akbar-the-Great had killed 30,000 to 40,000
innocent Hindus in one day’. He then referred to 14,000 young Hindu
girls who had to immolate themselves in fire in a city named Chittor
in Rajasthan in India when Hindu soldiers were not able to defend
the honour of their womenfolk against the barbarian Islamic forces.
1,00,000 Hindu prisoners in one day were put to death by
Timur-the-Terrible.
The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels of India
ever since the Arab conquest of Sind in 712 AD.
To quote Dr Suseelan in this context: ‘The whole world knows that
six million Jewish people were murdered by Nazis. It is also known
that 1.2 million Armenians were butchered by Turkish Muslims.
But nobody knows about the Hindu Holocaust. There are various estimates
on how many million Hindus have been slaughtered by Islamic invaders
inspired by holy Quran. Prof Bill French of the Centre for the Study of
Political Islam, Tennessee, who has conducted an in-depth research on
the subject, told me that Muslims have killed 120 million human beings
around the globe (including 40 million Hindus in India alone). Hugh
Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says that in sheer numbers, no group of
people has suffered from Islam like the Hindus. He further said that
it is amazing how few Americans and British of Indian origin seem to
know the history of their own ancestors. Prof K S Lal writes that 60
to 70 million Hindus were murdered by Muslim rulers’.
In conclusion, Dr Suseelan said that Hindus and Hinduism are
under siege in India. At present the Muslim population in India is
rising by leaps and bounds. There are 162 million Muslims living in
Pakistan. There are approximately 150 to 160 million Muslims in India;
Bangladesh has another 147 million Muslims. Roughly one-third of the
world Muslim population lives in the Indian sub-continent.
This is a very frightening scenario for India. Enlightened members of
the audience in the high-profile Symposium were horrified and shocked
by the detailed and documented information provided by Dr Suseelan.
Returning to the Indian context, since 1989, more than 13500 civilians
and 5300 security personnel have been killed by terrorists in Jammu
and Kashmir. By contrast, over the same period, till December 2004,
just 62 persons have been indicted for terrorism in the State. Our
Courts of Law don’t and won’t deliver. When someone at the greatest
risk to his life acts to save the country, a shriek is sent up,
Human Rights Violation.
During the last 20 years about 64,000 have been killed in terrorist
related violence within the territory of India. By the end of 2004, 220
districts, covering 40 to 45 per cent of the country’s territory had
come to be affected by insurgencies of one kind or another. K.P.S. Gill
has given three reasons for these killings: i) Islamic fundamentalism;
ii) Left wing extremism; and iii) Ethnic Fundamentalisms in the North
East. Arun Shourie has rightly observed that it is more or less taboo
to talk about the first. The second is explained away in fashionable
circles as the counter to State-terrorism as a direct consequence
of Land Reforms not having been implemented. The third is lauded as
‘The rise of consciousness among indigenous people’.
India is a State in denial, a State which has withered away for good
or for evil.
Against this crumbling edifice of national security situation, it is
shocking to see our pusillanimous Prime Minister offering on bended
knees with supplication an offer of a new deal to the terrorists and
quislings of Kashmir today. The same Prime Minister treats the striking
students of IITs and Medical Colleges as quislings, ably assisted by
the Human Resources Destruction (HRD) Minister and a known page boy of
the Nehru family. The Hindu victims of Islamic terrorism in Kashmir
are being treated like disposable consumables in the crucible of an
artificially sponsored peace process founded on a superstructure of
sanctimonious humbug. We have a weak government; we have a weaker
economy; we have puny men at the highest levels of governance with
contempt for our own nation and her people. Is this a sign of our
tolerant culture? Is it a sign of our being a democracy? Is it a sign
of confidence and strength? Or is it a sign of our being confused,
of our having been fed guilt, and of our having internalised it?
It is in this context I am reminded of the strong stand taken by Deng
Xiaoping, President of China when the Western nations spoke about
violation of human rights in China, after the suppression of the riots
in Tiananmen. Deng Xiaoping said that the troubles had been executed
by ‘so called democrats’ who were in fact the scum of the Chinese
nation. Deng Xiaoping gave a warning as follows: This turmoil has
been a lesson for us. We are more keenly aware that first priority
should always be given to national sovereignty and security.
Some Western countries, on the pretext that China has an unsatisfactory
human rights record and an irrational and illegitimate socialist
system, attempt to jeopardize our national sovereignty.
Countries that play power politics are not qualified to talk about
human rights. How many people’s human rights have they violated
throughout the world!… They are not the United Nations. What grounds
have they for interfering in the internal affairs of China?
Who gave them power to do that? The Chinese people will never accept
any action that violates norms of international relations, and they
will never yield to outside pressure.
One million of our so-called Nethas cannot equal one Deng
Xiaoping. When are we going to get tall leaders with judgement,
courage, vision and above all political integrity?
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
05ss1.htm

ARMENIAN PM HEADS TO DUSHANBE FOR CIS PMS’ MINISTERIAL MEETING
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 25 2006
YEREVAN, May 25. /ARKA/. Armenian Prime Minister flew Wednesday
to Dushanbe to attend CIS prime ministerial meeting scheduled for
Thursday, Armenian Government press service reports.
The delegation is made up of the head of cabinet ministers staff
Manuk Topuzyan, Deputy Foreign Minister Gegham Gharibjanyan, Armenian
Representative in CIS Economic Commission Artak Vardanyan, Armenian
National Assembly members and other officials.
CIS countries cooperation in various areas will be discussed at the
meeting. A number of documents will be signed as part of the meeting.

RUSSIA PULLING OUT MILITARY HARDWARE FROM BATUMI BASE IN GEORGIA
ITAR-TASS, Russia
May 25 2006
TBILISI, May 25 (Itar-Tass) – Russian troops at the Batumi base
started dispatching military hardware to the Russian base Gyumri in
Armenia on Thursday, Tass learnt at the headquarters of the Group of
Russian Troops in Transcaucasia.
The first train will bring to Gyumri 54 units of military materiel,
communication trucks as well as some property. In 2006, this is
already the third train with weapons and property of Russian troops.
The two previous ones pulled out military property from the Akhalkalaki
base. The headquarters reported that another six trains would depart
from Batumi over the next few months.
Last summer, Russia carried out the first stage of pulling out combat
materiel and weapons from the Batumi base. Two landing ships dispatched
to Russia 40 units of military hardware, including 12 tanks, the same
number of air defence missile systems Kub, five military reconnaissance
motor vehicles and three self-propelled missile vehicles Shilka.
The Batumi base is to be closed down during 2008 in compliance with
the Russian-Georgian understandings.

FUTURE CONSTITUTION OF NKR PRESUPPOSES SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT: GENERAL PROSECUTOR
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 25 2006
YEREVAN, May 25. /ARKA/. The NKR future constitution presupposes
a semi-presidential form of government, NKR General Prosecutor,
leader of the working group for working out the NKR Constitution
Armen Zalinyan said in an interview to “Azat Artsakh” newspaper.
“The NKR Constitution will be that of an independent, democratic,
law-observing and social state with the semi-presidential form of
government,” Zalinyan reported.
According to him, the constitution will conform to the tendencies and
requirements of the development of constitutional law in the world
and consider the reality and peculiarities, related to the necessity
of consolidating the NKR independent statehood.
“In this context, Armenia’s constitutional experience, logic and
philosophy of constitutional reforms are important. The experience
of constitutional development of other countries is also employed,”
Zalinyan said.

WARRANT DETAILS PATTERN
By: Francine Maglione, Herald Staff
New Britain Herald, CT
May 25 2006
NEW BRITAIN – Details of the accusations Armenian priest Krikoris
Keshishian is facing came to light on Wednesday when the court
officially unsealed the arrest warrant charging Keshishian with
charges of sexual assault on a minor.
According to the warrant, the St. Stephen’s Armenian Apostolic Church
priest is accused of touching the 12-year-old victim’s posterior while
hugging her, and inappropriately touching a friend of the victim,
among other accusations.
Keshishian, 53, of 21 Garry Drive, was arrested May 9 after being
charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and injury or risk of injury
to or impairing the morals of children by sexual contact. He is free
on $5,000 bond.
Parishioners of the church have defended the embattled priest’s
reputation, stating the alleged touching occurred when the victim
slipped and fell off a table she was playing on and Keshishian tried
to catch her. However, the victim claimed this was a lie.
“The victim looked appalled when told this,” the warrant stated. “She
stated that that never happened.”
The warrant also stated that a friend of the victim’s also claimed
this was a lie.
According to the warrant, on May 22, 2005, the victim was
inappropriately touched by Keshishian in church while he was giving her
a hug. His hand dropped down to her buttocks and he began rubbing her
there, the warrant stated. Keshishian also asked the victim why she
was not wearing earrings and volunteered to take her to the mall to
buy new ones, but she declined, the warrant stated. He instead took
her friend to the mall with him. Keshishian also told the victim he
would take her and her friend to Paris with him, the warrant stated.
The friend of the victim accused the priest of touching her leg
while kissing her on the cheek. She also claimed that Keshishian
never invited boys to go anywhere with him, the warrant stated.
While shopping in the mall with the priest, the victim’s friend claimed
that Keshishian asked her what color underwear she was wearing,
the warrant stated. However, the victim’s friend later changed her
story and said she “must have been wearing something ‘see though’
that day,” the warrant stated.
The warrant also states that when questioned about Keshishian’s wife,
police believe the victim’s friend appeared to have a look of jealousy.
The victim claimed that two Sundays prior to the incident, Keshishian
approached her friend and began tickling her, but then “moved his
hand over her breast quickly and came back up,” the warrant stated.
The victim also claimed that Keshishian gave her a stuffed rabbit and
gold necklace in the past for no apparent reason, the warrant stated.
Keshishian’s next court date is schedule for June 1.

OSCE CO-CHAIR COUNTRIES REPRESENTATIVES DISCUSS NK CONFLICT SETTLEMENT ASPECTS
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 25 2006
YEREVAN, May 25. /ARKA/. OSCE Co-Chair countries representatives are
satisfied with their visit to Armenia and leave Yerevan with hopes
and expectations of progress.
“We, the representatives at the Deputy Minister level of the Russian
Federation, the United States and France, together with the Co-Chairs
and the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, have
come together in this joint diplomatic mission because of the need
to promote a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
because now is the time for the sides to reach agreement on the basic
principles of the settlement”, OSCE Co-Chair countries representatives
said in their statement read up Thursday in Yerevan for press.
“We were received by President Kocharyan and met earlier with Foreign
Minister Oskanyan. As we did yesterday in Baku, we have discussed
important aspects of a future settlement. We have worked to create
the conditions for a meeting of the two presidents in the near
future. We have stressed the belief of our nations and, more widely,
of the international community that the conflict can be solved in
no other way than a peaceful one. Both countries should, moreover,
prepare their publics for peace and not for war.
Our discussions, both today in Yerevan and yesterday in Baku, were
constructive. We met yesterday with President Aliev and Foreign
Minister Mammadyarov. Tomorrow we will return to our capitals to
brief our leaders. The Co-Chairs will, as well, brief theOSCE and
international community.
A joint mission such as this one is a special event. It must be taken
as a sign of the seriousness with which we approach the issue and,
in particular, a belief that we are at the point where a mutually
beneficial agreement is achievable. What happens now will be up
to Armenia and Azerbaijan. We leave with hopes and expectations of
the progress. We are pleased to be in Yerevan and wish to express
our gratitude to President Kocharyan and the people of Armenia for
receiving us”, the statement says.
The joint statement was read up by the Adviser to the U.S. Secretary
of State Daniel Fried, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigori
Karasin and Ambassador Pier Morel, French Foreign Ministry
Representative.

TV COMMERCIALS ABOUT ARMENIA CAN APPEAR ON CNN IN SEPTEMBER 2006
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 25 2006
YEREVAN, May 25. /ARKA/. Two 30-60 seconds-long TV commercials about
Armenia can appear on CNN as early as September 2006, RA Minister of
Trade and Economic Development Ara Petrosyan told reporters at the
opening of the 6th international tourism exhibition “The Country of
Speaking Stones 2006”.
According to him, “Armenia” and “Second Armenian Channel” TV channels
that won in the contest have already started shooting these trailers.
He also pointed out that according to the contract with CNN, the TV
commercials about Armenia will periodically be broadcast approximately
seven times a week.
Petrosyan reported that the value of one showing of a trailer will
cost about $800-1000 and that the Armenian party holds negotiations
with CNN representatives to get a rebate.
According to him, trailers about Armenia on CNN are very important
for the country, especially for the tourism development.
In 2006 the Armenian government allocated AMD 215mln (about $445,000)
for advertising the Armenian tourism industry.
The share of tourism in Armenia’s GDP structure according to the
results of 2005 reached 6-8% against 5-6% in 2004. Tourists come to
Armenia mainly from Russia, USA, EU countries; however, there are
tourists from Singapore, Malaysia and Middle East.

EU COULD ASSUME PEACEKEEPING ROLE
By Thomas de Waal in London
Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR), UK
May 25 2006
The European Union’s new special representative for the South Caucasus
sees an enhanced role for the EU in conflict resolution.
The new European Union special representative for the Caucasus, Peter
Semneby, has suggested that the EU could in future lead a peacekeeping
mission if a solution to the Nagorny Karabakh dispute is found.
Semneby, a Swedish diplomat who has just taken up the post, said in
an interview with IWPR in London last week that he wants to use his
mandate to work on the region’s unresolved conflicts.
“It’s no surprise that the main priority of my work is to engage as
far as possible with conflict resolution,” he said.
Semneby emphasised that the European Union has no formal role in the
detailed negotiations over Abkhazia – where the United Nations plays
a mediating role – and in South Ossetia and Nagorny Karabakh, where
that role is played by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, OSCE.
However, the idea of an international peacekeeping force is known to
be under discussion in the current Karabakh talks, and should there
be a breakthrough, an international body will be asked to lead it.
This is where the EU could step in.
“We will be expected to make a major contribution when a solution
is found, and we are looking into the possibilities we have, both in
terms of post-conflict rehabilitation and also – if the parties should
so desire – in terms of contributing peacekeepers. And possibly even
leading a peacekeeping operation,” said Semneby. “I should mention
that this is very hypothetical at this stage. This is only one of
several options, but it’s one that is being considered.”
A recent report by the International Crisis Group entitled “Conflict
Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU’s Role” was scathing about
the low profile the European Union has adopted on conflict resolution
in the Caucasus until now.
“[The EU] does not participate directly in negotiations on Nagorny
Karabakh, Abkhazia or South Ossetia,” said the report, published in
March. “In and around Nagorny Karabakh, it has done little for conflict
resolution. It has rarely raised the South Caucasus conflicts in its
high-level discussions with partners and has employed few sanctions
or incentives to advance peace.”
A subtle change in language in the mandate assigned to Semneby,
compared with that of his predecessor Heikki Talvitie, means the EU
special representative is no longer asked to “assist the resolution
of conflicts” but to “contribute to the resolution of conflicts”.
Semneby said this linguistic change was small but important, calling it
“a political signal that the conflicts are very high on the agenda”.
The post of special representative was established in 2003 and has
a broad mandate -but a small budget. Acknowledging that it would
be impossible to “engage across the board”, Semneby identified his
major priorities as contributing to peace processes and supporting
state-building in the region, through initiatives such as judicial
reform.
Semneby, 46, has spent most of his career in Eastern Europe. As a
Swedish diplomat he visited the Armenian earthquake zone in 1988,
and he was a member of the first OSCE mission in Georgia in 1992. He
also served as the last OSCE ambassador to Latvia and more recently was
the organisation’s ambassador in Croatia – another post he says gives
him the right experience to engage with the conflict-riven Caucasus.
He confessed to a feeling of “deja vu” in returning to the region
after a long gap, “This is the most disappointing aspect of coming
back to the Caucasus after so many years. Of course there have been
changes for the better as well. But the conflicts are such an obstacle
to the normal development of societies in the Caucasus.”
Semneby will be called upon to tackle the image problem the EU has
in the region, with lower visibility than the United States.
The special representative has to talk on behalf of 25 countries,
many of which have their own individual interests in the region. He
acknowledged that the failure to adopt an EU Union constitution,
which would have led to the development of a more coherent foreign
policy, had made his job harder.
However, with Bulgaria and Romania set to join the EU next year and
Turkey beginning membership talks, the South Caucasus will inevitably
begin to figure larger in Brussels.
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are all members of the EU’s European
Neighbourhood Policy, a development that Semneby said was deepening
their relationship with Brussels and would also entitle them to
increased aid. “We’re talking about hundreds of millions of euros
for each country. The EU will also step up its representation in the
countries, which will mean there will be a larger degree of visibility
in the South Caucasus.”
“I will also spend some time trying to explain to the public in the
South Caucasus what the EU is about. There is not a whole lot of
knowledge to begin with. To the extent that the EU is known, there
are still a lot of misunderstandings about what [it] is about.”
“I think there is also lack of knowledge in the EU about the south
Caucasus and its particular problems and about the importance of this
region for the EU, and if possible this is something I would like to
engage on.”
Asked about the hopes of many people in the region who dream of
joining the EU one day, the special representative was careful to
reiterate that the European Neighbourhood Policy “does not contain
a membership perspective”.
“It does mean that the countries can achieve a lot of the benefits
of EU membership by working on the implementation of the European
Neighbourhood Policy,” he went on.
“There is a problem – and I am the first to admit that – that since the
membership perspective is not there as a big carrot at the end, this
deprives us of one of the most powerful levers we had in encouraging
the countries of Central Europe to carry out painful reforms.”
Thomas de Waal is IWPR’s Caucasus Editor.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UKRAINE’S BRITNEY VS. TURKEY’S KYLIE
by Wall Street Journal
National Post, (Canada)
May 25, 2006 Thursday
National Edition
This editorial appeared in Tuesday’s edition of the Wall Street
Journal.
Forget bureaucratic Brussels, seat of the European Union. The real
face of European unity was on display Saturday night in Athens,
this year’s host of the Eurovision Song Contest.
It’s the EU through a looking glass. For starters, Eurovision is
relaxed about who gets in. No need to prove democratic or regulatory
bona fides or meet geographic litmus tests. Armenia and Belarus take
part, as does Turkey, which won in 2003. Morocco once competed, and
Israel does every year, this year fielding a gospel group fronted by
Eddie Butler, the Israel-born son of black Jews from Chicago.
Unlike Brussels, the song contest is also a model of democracy and
transparency. Winners are chosen by country-by-country call-in votes,
in which listeners may cast their preference with any nation’s
band except their own. Ukrainian voters gave their highest rating
to Russia, having apparently forgiven the Kremlin’s gas-pricing
policy that threatened to leave millions of Ukrainians without heat
in January. Russian voters returned the affection, giving their
second-highest rating to Tina Karol, Ukraine’s answer to Britney
Spears.
The Turks, remarkably, gave their second-highest score to a historical
antagonist, Armenia. The countries have no diplomatic relations. But
what goes around evidently comes around: Turkey won top marks from both
France and the Netherlands, whose “no” votes to the EU constitution
last year were partly motivated by fears of future Turkish membership
in the bloc. While most bands chose to sing in English, Sibel Tuzun
belted out disco in her native tongue. Call her Turkey’s Kylie Minogue.
Europeans united in particular behind the winning Finnish band Lordi,
which performed, as it always does, in elaborately gruesome monster
costumes. Europeans may not be able to agree on much these days,
but horns and scales, a lead singer with a sonic growl, and lyrics
announcing the “arockalypse” have brought a troubled Continent
together.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MONTENEGRO BREAKS AWAY: WILL ABKHAZIA FOLLOW?
by Maksim Yusin
Translated by Pavel Pushkin
Source: Izvestia, May 25, 2006, pp. 1-2 EV
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
May 25, 2006 Thursday
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Trans-Dniester are watching Montenegro;
Montenegro’s independence is sure to inspire all those who are striving
for a revision of internationally-recognized borders. This primarily
applies to the regions where interethnic bloodshed has flared already,
with conflicts being “frozen” at some stage. Frozen, but not resolved.
Will Montenegro’s separation from Serbia trigger a chain reaction?
That might well be the most pressing question in European politics
today. The continent has at least ten other territories striving for
separation from the states to which they “belong” at present.
All of Europe’s potential separatists have been paying close attention
to developments in Montenegro. It’s hardly surprising that the leaders
of Abkhazia and the Trans-Dniester region were among the first foreign
politicians to respond to the referendum results. They welcomed the
“free expression of the people’s will” in Montenegro, and stated that
they would also like to hold independence referendums. But who would
recognize the outcomes of those referendums?
The Europeans and Americans are prepared to recognize Montenegro’s
independence, but say it’s a special case and any analogies with
other separatist regions would be inappropriate. There’s a certain
amount of logic behind those words.
Three federative states broke up after the communist system collapsed:
the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. The international community
was faced with a tough decision: what kind of criteria it would use
for recognizing or not recognizing new countries.
Eventually, it was decided that recognition would be extended to
territories that possessed something akin to sovereignty within
their former states (in the case of the USSR, that meant the 15 union
republics). But autonomous formations within those republics could
not aspire to independence.
This criterion isn’t incontestable, but at least it’s clear and
definite. It has been used to redraw the map of the world. Fifteen
new state arose to replace the Soviet Union, and two states replaced
Czechoslovakia. Only the case of Yugoslavia produced a glitch:
Montenegro declined to separate from Serbia. This situation continued
for 15 years. But now the Montenegrins have changed their minds and
decided to make use of their “postponed” right to sovereignty.
This doesn’t seem to disrupt the logic of the process – but just try
explaining it to the residents of “autonomous formations” in Georgia,
Moldova, or Bosnia. They don’t care about the subtleties of diplomatic
formulations. They simply can’t understand why the Montenegrins are
allowed to do this, but they are not. Why the double standards?
So Montenegro’s independence is sure to inspire all those who are
striving for a revision of internationally-recognized borders. This
primarily applies to the regions where interethnic bloodshed has
flared already, with conflicts being “frozen” at some stage. Frozen,
but not resolved.
* * *
Abkhazia and South Ossetia (want to separate from Georgia)
1. Conflict History
After Georgia declared independence in 1991, Abkhazia (holding
autonomous republic status) and South Ossetia (an autonomous region)
declared their wish to secede from Georgia and become part of Russia.
Matters reached the point of war with Tbilisi in both cases. Russia
sided with the autonomies. The Georgians were defeated in both South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, and at present they don’t control either of
the self-proclaimed republics.
2. Russia’s position
Officially, Moscow recognizes Georgia’s territorial integrity and
refuses repeated requests from Sukhumi and Tskhinvali for “admittance
into the Russian Federation.” All the same, Russia provides various
forms of aid to the governments of both unrecognized republics;
most of their residents have been granted Russian citizenship, and
the ruble is used as currency on their territories. Tbilisi accuses
Moscow of “creeping annexation.”
3. The West’s position
The United States and Europe are in full solidarity with Georgia,
recognizing its territorial integrity and calling for both conflicts
to be resolved via peaceful negotiations. Last year, when Georgian
President Mikhail Saakashvili seemed on the verge of launching a
military operation against South Ossetia, the Americans pressured
him to exercising restraint. A war was averted. However, the West
has been arming and training the Georgian military.
4. Prospects
In Tbilisi, many believe that the fate of both territories is sealed:
sooner or later, Russia will annex them. At the official level,
Moscow tries not to provide the slightest reason to suspect it of
harboring such intentions. Unofficially, Moscow makes it clear to
the Georgians that if Tbilisi attempts to use force to settle the
question of Abkhazia or South Ossetia, Russia is unlikely to stand
aside. So it’s better to negotiate, not fight. But the negotiations
have been deadlocked for years.
* * *
The Trans-Dniester region (wants to separate from Moldova)
1. Conflict History
In many respects, the Trans-Dniester scenario is reminiscent of
Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The residents of the Dniester River’s left
bank didn’t want to be part of independent Moldova, and declared that
they wanted to join Russia. The result was a brief but bloody war,
stopped only after Russia intervened, sending in troops commanded by
General Alexander Lebed. There hasn’t been any more fighting since
then, but negotiations haven’t made any progress either.
2. Russia’s position
The Russian authorities probably haven’t ever given any serious
consideration to annexing Trans-Dniester. The practical aspects would
be too difficult: Russia doesn’t share a border with the unrecognized
republic – they are separted by Ukraine. Moscow hoped to resolve the
conflict with the Kozak Plan, drawn up by Dmitri Kozak when he was
the senior deputy director of the presidential administration. But
Chisinau rejected the Kozak Plan, following unprecedented pressure
from EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
3. The West’s position
The Europeans and Americans were strongly opposed to the Kozak Plan.
They were particularly annoyed by the point specifying a continued
Russian military presence on Trans-Dniester territory. When Viktor
Yushchenko’s orange team came to power in Ukraine, the West decided
to use economic measures of influence on the “separatists” in
Tiraspol. The Ukrainian authorities blocked access to Trans-Dniester
for goods that didn’t go through Moldovan customs. Tiraspol called
it a blockade. Russia sent humanitarian aid to Trans-Dniester. The
West expressed full support for Kiev.
4. Prospects
The West won’t accept the Trans-Dniester region’s separation from
Moldova under any circumstances. The European Union’s activity with
regard to Trans-Dniester is likely to increase, especially after
Romania joins the EU, since it’s the major force lobbying for Moldova’s
interests. A military solution to the conflict is unlikely, especially
since Russian peacekeepers are still present in Trans-Dniester.
* * *
Nagorno-Karabakh (wants to separate from Azerbaijan)
1. Conflict History
The Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region, part of the Azerbaijan
Soviet Socialist Republic, had a mostly Armenian population. In the
late 1980s, they started making demands to join Armenia. The first
inter-ethnic clashes flared up even before the USSR collapsed, and
the bloodiest fighting happened in 1992-93. With Armenia’s support,
the Armenians of Karabakh won the war – capturing all the disputed
districts, as well as some adjacent regions of Azerbaijan. The conflict
has been frozen ever since.
2. Russia’s position
Moscow officially recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan,
and acts as a mediator. All the same, many Azeris suspect Russia of
siding with the Armenians and lobbying for their interests. The Azeris
claim that the Armenians wouldn’t have won the war for Nagorno-Karabakh
without help from Russian Armed Forces units stationed in the region.
3. The West’s position
The United States maintains close relations with Azerbaijan,
encouraging it to pursue “a foreign policy independent of Russia.”
Relations with Armenia are more complicated, since Washington considers
that the Armenian government looks to Moscow too much.
However, there are influential Armenian diasporas in the United
States and in Europe. They prevent the West from siding entirely with
Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
4. Prospects
The Nagorno-Karabakh status negotiations are deadlocked. Armenia
insists that Nagorno-Karabakh should be independent, while Azerbaijan
refuses to consider the idea. Baku occasionally threatens to resolve
the problem by force, while pointing out that time is on Azerbaijan’s
side: it’s an oil-rich country that can spend far more on its military
needs than Armenia, which has essentially been existing in blockade
conditions for the past 15 years. All the same, the Azeri military
isn’t ready to challenge Armenia as yet.