AUSTRIA TODAY
April 5, 2006 Wednesday 7:35 PM (Central European Time)
M&C News: Austrians Hold up Turks for the 2nd Time
The Austrians have now managed to stop the Turks from entering Europe
twice: Once at the gates of Vienna in 1683, and the second time at
the gates of Luxembourg on Oct. 3, 2005. Talks that were due to begin
in Luxembourg to discuss the protracted admission process that would
bring Turkey into the European Union ran into a last-minute objection
from Austria when Vienna blocked the discussions from going ahead.
Austria suggested that instead of full membership Turkey should be
offered a ´privileged partnership.´ Basically, what this translates
to is Turkey would, for all intents and purposes, enjoy all the
advantages of other EU members, except Turkish citizens would not be
allowed the same rights of residency and free travel in the rest of
the EU as other citizens of the bloc currently enjoy. If that
reasoning seems to be somewhat discriminatory, it`s because, in fact,
it is. The reason is many Europeans still fear the sudden influx of
millions of Muslims from Turkey suddenly entering the EU, and forever
changing the face of Europe; a Europe that until now has been largely
dominated by a Judeo-Christian culture. Turkey`s population today
stands close to 70 million and is almost exclusively Muslim. By the
time the talks conclude in 10 to 15 years, Turkey`s population is
expected to reach about 81 million, making it the most populous
country in the EU. Upon hearing that an agreement was reached,
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul flew to Luxembourg for a late
night ceremony to formally open accession talks.
“We have reached a historic point,” Gul said before leaving Ankara.
“Full membership negotiations will, God willing, begin tonight.” The
negotiations included strong U.S. diplomatic intervention on Turkey`s
behalf. The question of whether Turkey is or is not geographically
part of Europe is somewhat irrelevant at this point. With the
exception of a small sliver of land actually in Europe, the rest of
the country is in Asia Minor, which is Asia. As for its people,
again, with the exception of a minority who consider themselves
European, the vast majority consider themselves Turkish — a culture
unto itself. And the rest probably identify more with their immediate
neighbors in Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc. Indeed, drive along the region
abutting the Syrian or Iraqi borders and there can be no doubt about
what part of the world you`re in — and it`s certainly not Europe.
The important question here is that by including Turkey in the EU,
Europe extends its sphere of influence to the very borders of the
Arab and Islamic world at a time when Europe and the West are coming
under threat from politicised militant Islam. With Turkey in the EU,
Europe´s borders extend to the periphery of Syria, Iraq, Iran and
Azerbaijan; all Muslim countries, as well as to the borders of
Armenia and Georgia. Think of the advantages of democratic Europe
abutting countries such as Syria, Iraq and Iran. The challenge of
spreading democracy would become a tad easier with a democratic
Turkey member of the EU, sitting at the very gates of the Middle
East. Turkish nationalism, motivated by shattered pride as a result
of an EU refusal, would most likely end up hurting European-Muslim
relations if Turkey were to be permanently shut out of Brussels.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
April 6, 2006 Thursday 06:22 AM EST
Russia gas price for Armenia to make 110 dlrs till Jan 1, 2009
The Russian gas giant Gazprom and the Armenian government signed an
agreement for the next 25 years stipulating the strategic principles
of cooperation in the gas projects in Armenia.
According to Gazprom, the agreement sets the price on Russian natural
gas for Armenia at 110 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters till January 1,
2009.
The agreement stipulates that Gazprom will buy ArmRosgazprom from the
Armenian government that is building the 40-kilometer section of the
Iranian-Armenian pipeline and the fifth power unit of the Razdan
thermal power station (Razdan-5).
Gazprom said in a press release that under the agreement Armenia
should assign to ArmRosgazprom the functions of the party ordering
the construction of the 197-kilometer second section of the
Iranian-Armenian pipeline.
The preliminary purchase and sale contracts should be concluded
before April 14, 2006, and the ownership of the foresaid facilities
should be finally transferred before January 1, 2007. After the deal
the Gazprom share in the ArmRosgazprom authorized capital will make a
special majority.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part B (Russia)
April 6, 2006 Thursday
ARMENIA: IN SEARCH OF ALTERNATIVES;
Armenia is through with listening to myths about Russia
by Gajane Movsesjan
Armenia may decide that it doesn’t need Russia after all; Armenian
Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanjan’s two-day visit to Moscow begins
today. Oskanjan will meet with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov
and Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov. He met with US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington the other day.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanjan’s two-day visit to Moscow
begins today. Oskanjan will meet with his Russian counterpart Sergei
Lavrov and Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov. Official reports
on the agenda are brief. They indicate that it includes bilateral
relations, the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, regional matters, and
cooperation within the framework of international organizations.
Sources from Armenian diplomatic circles say that this is just a
routine visit, nothing more.
What is interesting, however, is that Oskanjan discussed the same
matters with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington the
other day. Oskanjan and Rice signed an accord on March 27 to the
effect that Armenia will receive $236.5 million under the Millennium
Challenges program over the next five years. The millions will be
used to repair roads in rural areas, reconstruction of irrigation and
drainage systems, and reduction of impoverishment in the agricultural
sector.
Rice herself undermined political undertones of this seemingly
economic event at the signing ceremony when she began elaborating
meaningfully on the necessity of advancement of democratic reforms in
Armenia in the light of the parliamentary and presidential elections
there in 2007 and 2008. Armenian observers took her words as an
admission of Washington’s desire to bring political and economic
processes in Armenia under its own control. Moreover, the program
itself (Millennium Challenges) was taken as but an additional
instrument of American influence with Yerevan.
Shushan Khatlamadzhjan, an analyst with the Armenian Institute of
Civil Society and Regional Development, believes that the
Armenian-Russian strategic partnership is in a crisis. “The problem
is rooted in the lack of transparency of the talks between the
Armenian and Russian authorities,” she said. “Armenian society feels
disassociated from public politics and cannot help ascribing it to
some clandestine accords between the governments of the two
countries… Like a recompense to Armenia for high gas tariffs in the
form of a discount on Russian military hardware as some Russian media
outlets speculated. In short, even pro-Russian political forces in
Armenia begin promoting the necessity to develop foreign policy on
the basis of the actual national interests and not the old myths…”
Now let’s consider the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. Chairmen of the
OSCE Minsk Group, Russia and the United States have headed the
mission of intermediaries for a decade now. With nothing to show for
it in terms of the formula of a lasting peace. A meeting between the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in France was arranged this
February but even it failed as a means of accomplishing anything.
Foreign intermediaries are analyzing the situation again now. The
United States is particularly impatient. American diplomacy put
Yerevan and Baku under pressure in March. Daniel Fried, US
Undersecretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, was dispatched to the
region. Fried announced that the United States wanted a compromise
between the warring sides reached this year.
The United States is impatient and the European Union is certainly
getting active. Armenian analysts and observers ascribe these trends
to the desire on the part of the West to resolve conflicts in the
post-Soviet zone in such a manner as to weaken Russia’s positions. As
far as Khatlamadzhjan is concerned, it is precisely from this
standpoint that specialists should contemplate the renewed debates
over the so-called “Marshall Plan for the Caucasus.” The idea boils
down to substantial economic aid to countries of the southern part of
the Caucasus in return for political concessions. “Russia is in the
situation where a new and effective policy with regard to Armenia
becomes a must,” Khatlamadzhjan concluded.
Khatlamadzhjan also believes that “the myth in Armenia of there being
no alternatives to strategic partnership with Russia is in its last
throes.” “Armenia may solve its regional problems and resolve
conflicts without military and other cooperation with Russia,
accepting instead the plan and investments from the West. There is
the widespread opinion in analytical community here that there can be
no war or peace without Russia, but we shouldn’t make a fetish of
this fact or demonize it,” she said.
Source: Vremya Novostei, April 6, 2006, p. 5
Translated by A. Ignatkin

April 7 2006
BOOKS-RWANDA:
Forgiving the Unforgivable
Lisa Söderlindh
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 6 (IPS) – Exactly 12 years ago on Apr. 6, 1994,
Immaculée Ilibagiza, a young Rwandan Tutsi woman, left the university
campus in the city of Butare to spend the Easter holidays with her
family.
Later that day, Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana was killed,
together with Cyprien Ntaryamira, the Hutu president of Burundi, when
his plane was shot down as it was coming in to land at Kigali
airport. The incident was the final spark to a powder-keg of ethnic
tensions dating back to colonial times between the dominant Tutsi
minority and the majority Hutus.
Over the next three months, Ilibagiza’s mother, father and two of her
three brothers were killed in the genocide, as were some 800,000
others. Ilibagiza herself spent 91 days hiding in a closet-sized
bathroom while rampaging mobs outside turned Rwanda into a sea of
blood.
During her ordeal, Ilibagiza says she found the power of faith and
vowed to write about what she had gone through — if she lived to see
the dawn again.
“I think there is a greater story that helps me tell my story,”
Ilibagiza told IPS at the New York launch of her book, “Left to Tell:
Discovering God Amidst the Rwandan Holocaust”, which has hit the
best-seller lists here. “God spared me my life and gave me the
strength to bear the pain of being left to tell.”
“I am praying every day that that my message will help build the
world, rather than tear it apart,” she added.
As noted by Armenian researcher Vahakn N. Dadrian in his study of
20th century genocide, German colonisers in the late 19th century
helped cultivate different racial profiles by depicting the Tutsi as
the overlords, endowed with physically superior traits, and
portraying the Hutu as mere peasants.
The rift deepened further with the arrival of the Belgians in the
early 20th century, who introduced an ethnic identity card to more
easily distinguish between the two groups.
With the Hutu revolution of 1959-1962 and subsequent upheavals in
1962-1964 came the final institutionalisation of the Hutu-Tutsi
conflict. The existing arrangement of power relations reversed — the
Tutsi minority ceased being the dominant group and the Hutu majority
rose to power.
Ilibagiza says she came from a home were racism and prejudice were
completely unknown, and the terms “Tutsi” and “Hutu” were never used.
“All I knew of the world was the lively landscape surrounding me, the
kindness of my neighbours, and the deep love of my parents and
brothers,” she said.
But her world was ripped apart with the eruption of Africa’s worst
genocide in modern times. Top government officials from the ruling
Movement National pour la Révolution et le Development party played a
direct role in the slaughter, as did the ignorance of the global
community and the failure of international peacekeeping operations,
with the U.N. Assistance Mission in Rwanda fatefully deciding to
reduce its troop strength from 2,000 to 270.
Only in mid-May 1994 did the U.N. Security Council reverse its
decision, but few peacekeepers arrived before the massacres ended in
July, when the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front took power through a
military campaign.
For three months, militia members, armed forces and civilians freely
carried out appalling atrocities, predominately against the Tutsi
ethnic minority. Ilibagiza recalls days of horror during which she
and seven other women huddled in the darkness of the bathroom in a
local pastor’s home, while hundreds of Hutus hunted for them.
“Marked for execution because we were born Tutsi,” she asked herself
how history had managed to repeat itself after the world’s powers
vowed “never again” in the wake of the Nazi atrocities of World War
Two.
Trembling on a path lined alternately with fear, despair, anger, and
burning hatred, Ilibagiza finally found a place in the bathroom to
call her own: “A small corner of my heart,” where she spoke with God
and found some measure of peace.
“[The Hutu perpetrators’] minds had been infected with the evil that
spread across the country, but their souls weren’t evil,” she
believes, resolving that forgiveness was all she had to offer.
The day she faced the man who had killed her family, Ilibagiza
recalls being “overwhelmed with pity… the evil had ruined his life
like a cancer in his soul. He was now the victim of his victims,
destined to live in torment and regret.”
Twelve years on, the message of love and forgiveness is still
Ilibagiza’s answer, and the wish of an awakening among people, “for
them to see that they are needed”.
Nearly two-thirds of the Rwandan population currently lives below the
poverty line, she notes. “We need doctors, homes for survivors, and
therapists that can help people who went through the genocide,”
Ilibagiza told IPS.
On an economic level, progress has been made over the last decade,
but spiritually, “People are not healed. The wounds from the machetes
[the most widely used weapon during the genocide] are still open,”
she said.
There are some 600,000 orphans in the country, many of whom are
forced to live in the streets without adequate food or shelter.
HIV/AIDS is another major problem, partly due to the widespread rape
perpetrated during the genocide.
Yael Danieli, co-founder of the International Society for Traumatic
Stress Studies, said at a recent U.N. forum on the genocide that
helping society recover from such a terrible event requires attention
from both the local and international communities.
“Unless we prevent by healing the aftermath of genocide, the wounds
will not only fester within the generation for a lifelong legacy, but
fester from generation to generation,” he said.
Ilibagiza believes that the complex underlying causes of the
explosion of violence in 1994 are still barely understood. “The root
of the genocide has yet not been uprooted. Why, I believe it can
happen again — in any country.” (END/2006)

Ninemsn, Australia
April 7 2006
Author trawls net for a Russian bride
Saturday Apr 8 07:01 AEST
When Booker Prize-winning author DBC Pierre started trawling the
internet for Russian brides, it wasn’t a wife he was after.
Rather the Australian-born author was looking for a woman with spirit
enough to take on the worst the western world had to offer her as the
central character of his next book, Ludmila’s Broken English.
“I did hours and hours and hours and hours, probably weeks and weeks
and weeks, poring through Russian internet bride websites,” Pierre
says in an interview with AAP, revealing hints of an Australian
accent with an Irish overlay.
“And I corresponded with some just to get a handle on that.

“And just in the same way that these characters in the book came upon
a face that jumped off the screen at them, there was one that jumped
off the screen at me.
“And that is Ludmila. So it’s a real woman.”
Pierre, whose real name is Peter Finlay and now lives at Leitrim in
rural Ireland, was so haunted by the face while he was writing the
book that he made up a mock cover with a photograph of the woman’s
face, and hung it on his study wall for inspiration.
“It’s beautiful. A dark haired young woman, and she’s looking out,
her head slightly bent down, eyes looking up under a little fringe of
hair and there’s just something challenging in her eyes,” he says.
“There’s a kind of a wickedness, there’s a shyness, and a challenge
there.
“She’s saying come on, come on sucker.
“And it came to symbolise the whole rest of the world looking at us
bumbling around, arrogantly, ignorantly, thinking we’re going to go
and organise the world and tell everyone what to do.”
It is clear from the very beginning of the book that Ludmila Derev is
nobody’s fool, when she fights and kills her grandfather as he
attempts to rape her.
In a bizarre satire of globalisation, the young woman from a remote
village in a war-torn region of the Caucasus then sets off on an
ancient Soviet tractor to save her family from starvation.
At the same time, Pierre introduces a pair of newly-separated, adult
conjoined twins, Bunny and Blair Heath, recently released from the
English institution in which they have spent their whole lives after
it is privatised.
The twins fortify their forays into their new-found freedom with
alcohol and drugs, and it is simply a matter of time before Blair
discovers Ludmila on a Russian brides website.
“I came to almost see it as symbolic of our whole culture, you know,”
Pierre says.
“Sad and flabby and affluent men, who imagine that just for the smell
of a dollar we’re going to get some beautiful foreign girl to go down
on her knees and do everything we want without question.”
The tall, dark novelist with a dishevelled air and gold watch on his
wrist, was born in Adelaide, but spent most of his childhood in
Mexico, where his university lecturer father moved the family when
Pierre was seven.
He settled back in Adelaide in the late 1980s and remembers much of
that time through a drink and drug haze.
His pseudonym, DBC Pierre, a nickname which stands for “dirty but
clean”, is also a reminder of those times.
With debts estimated at $200,000, he won the Booker prize in 2003 for
his first book, Vernon God Little, and has since led the life of a
successful novelist, also managing to repay what he owed.
He claims he has not read the critics on his latest book, some of
whom have condemned it in part for its confronting violence and
coarse language.
However, Pierre justifies these, saying he has actually softened the
deprivation of communities in war-torn Armenia, which he visited
while writing the book and on which he modelled Ludmila’s home
village of Ublilsk.
On the other hand, the most fun he had in the writing was creating
the Ubli language, with its outlandish and colourful cursing. Unable
to speak Armenian, Pierre based the rhythm and structure of the
imaginary language on Russian translations.
Ludmila’s Broken English, which was interrupted when he won the
Booker prize, developed slowly, he says, as he became fascinated with
the idea that migration has become the “over-riding story of humanity
in the last century”.
The idea of globalisation, however, he condemns as a scam.
“I have a real thing about language,” he says striking a match to
light another roll-your-own cigarette.
“And globalisation, which is an invented word, connotes a kind of
coming together, an equality, a kind of a trading which I don’t think
is happening.
“We’re not so much globalising as exploiting.”
The novel is a “sort of splashing” in these arguments, and doesn’t
promote an agenda.
However, “The promise is Ludmila,” he says pronouncing the woman’s
name with a Russian accent.
“She is the only hopeful character in the end,” he says.
“She’s in control and if you take it as a straight symbol, the future
is woman, and the future is probably foreign woman.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada
April 7 2006
Attention News Editors:
Media Advisory – The Armenian Genocide makes world television premiere
on TVO’S Human Edge
TORONTO, April 7 /CNW/ – On Wednesday April 12 at 10 pm, TVO’s
acclaimed Human Edge will present the world premiere of The Armenian
Genocide. Written, produced, and directed by Emmy Award-winning
filmmaker Andrew Goldberg, this fascinating point-of-view documentary
explores what many believe to be the first genocide of the 20th
century. Between 1915 and 1923 over a million Armenians perished under
the rule of the Ottoman Empire. In the hour-long film, Goldberg speaks
with Armenian, Turkish, and American scholars and historians to shed
light on the historical events that precipitated the genocide, and why
the Turkish government of today continues to deny such events ever
occurred. The film also features Kurdish and Turkish citizens in
present-day Turkey who openly share stories told to them by their
parents and grandparents.
To facilitate further understanding of this hotly-debated subject,
the documentary will be preceded at 8 pm on the night of broadcast by
a panel discussion on TVO’s Studio 2. The current affairs show’s
regular international affairs panel of Janice Stein, director of the
Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto; Globe
and Mail editor, Patrick Martin; and Toronto Star columnist Richard
Gwyn will help to place the Armenian genocide into context. Viewers
will also be able to follow the Studio 2 discussion online at
As of April 7, viewers will also be able to register in our online
discussion board at to express their views, as
well as access links to other relevant websites.
Now in its 17th successful season, Human Edge is TVO’s acclaimed
series of challenging, provocative, point-of-view documentaries from
around the world. Hosted by award-winning writer and broadcaster Ian
Brown, Human Edge provides viewers with windows into complex or touchy
subjects that make up the human experience to expand their horizons
and foster healthy debate. Executive producer is Rudy Buttignol.
For further information: Media contact: Rosanne Meandro, TVO,
Marketing and Communications, (416) 484-2600, ext. 2389,
[email protected]

Fresno State News, CA
April 7 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 07, 2006
Contact: Shirley Melikian Armbruster
559.278.5292 or 593.1815

Biographer and author Nouritza Matossian part of Gorky Festival

British author and actress Nouritza Matossian will lecture on 20th
century abstract-expressionist painter Arshile Gorky on Tuesday,
April 18 and perform a play about the artist April 19 at California
State University, Fresno. Those events and several others on campus
are part of the Gorky Festival sponsored by the Fresno Art Museum and
the Armenian Museum.

Matossian, who is a human rights activist in the arts, contemporary
music, history and Armenia, last year published a biography, `Black
Angel, A Life of Arshile Gorky.’ As part of the University Lecture
Series, her topic will be `A Case of Mistaken Identity: Why Arshile
Gorky Changed His Name’ at 7:30 p.m. April 18 at the Satellite
Student Union, 2485 E. San Ramon.

Matossian’s multimedia dramatization will be performed at 8 p.m.
April 19 in the Satellite Student Union, sponsored by the School of
Arts and Humanities. There is no charge for the performance or for
several other Gorky Festival events in which Fresno State is
involved.

The Department of Music has scheduled a concert at 8 p.m. Monday,
April 17, in the Music Building’s Concert Hall, featuring music from
Armenia and tunes popular during the time Gorky spent in New York.
The event is coordinated by Dr. Maria Amirkhanian, a lecturer in
music.

Dr. Laura Meyer, an assistant professor of art history will discuss
`Arshile Gorky: Why Abstraction?’ at 4 p.m. April 18 in the Conley
Lecture Hall.

As part of the festival, the Fresno State Department of Art and
Design is exhibiting student art inspired by Gorky at Fresno City
Hall, 8 a.m-5 p.m. weekdays through Thursday, April 27.

The University Lecture Series is a program of the Office of the
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, with additional
support provided by Coke and James Hallowell, the University Student
Union, Associated Students, KJWL-FM and Piccadilly Inn Hotels.

Tickets are $10 general admission; $6 Fresno State faculty, staff,
Alumni Association members and seniors; $5 elementary and secondary
students; $2 Fresno State students. On April 18, prices increase by
$2 for general admission, faculty, staff and Alumni Association
members.
Information and tickets are available at the University Student Union
Information Center or by calling 559.278.2078. Tickets will be sold
on a space-available basis beginning at 6:30 p.m. April 18 at the
Satellite Student Union Box Office.

Washington File, DC
April 7 2006
State’s Fried Outlines U.S. Policy for “Murrow” Journalists
Says promotion of democracy to be enduring legacy of Bush
administration
The United States will continue to support democratic movements in
the Middle East as well as in former Soviet states as a means of
countering Islamist extremism `and the terrorism derived from that
extremism,’ said Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried April 4.
Fried spoke during a roundtable discussion with participants from the
Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists, a new State Department
initiative that brings foreign reporters to the United States to
learn about American journalistic practices. (See related article.)
The Bush administration looks at democracy as a `practical solution’
to problems such as instability and poor economic development, as
well as a long-term answer to the terrorist threat posed by `radical,
anti-democratic, Islamist ideology,’ said Fried, who heads the Bureau
of European and Eurasian Affairs.
`We do believe that democracy is applicable in the Middle East, just
as it has been applicable in Asia, South America, Eastern Europe, and
South Asia,’ he said. `We intend to support democratic movements in
that world, as well as in Central Asia and the post-communist
hemisphere.’
The emphasis on democracy as a long-term solution to extremism and
terrorism `is apt to be an enduring legacy of the Bush
administration,’ Fried said.
During the roundtable discussion, Fried answered questions about a
wide range of issues, including democracy in Russia, the future
status of Kosovo, the Annan plan for Cyprus, Turkey’s bid to join the
European Union, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over
Nagorno-Karabakh, energy security in Russia and Central Asia,
democratic progress in Georgia and U.S.-European relations.
The State Department welcomed 129 journalists from around the world
for the inaugural Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists April
1-21. It is a component of the department’s International Visitor
Leadership Program. (See announcement.)
Murrow, a leading broadcast journalist from 1935 to 1960, headed the
United States Information Agency from 1961 to 1963.
Following is the full transcript of the roundtable discussion:
(begin transcript)
Daniel Fried
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Roundtable Discussion with Murrow Journalist International Visitor
Program
U.S. State Department
Washington, DC
2:30 p.m. April 4, 2006
Ambassador Fried: Well, given that this is, I’m told, Russian and
Turkish speaking, [greeting in Russian]. [Laughter]. You’re very
welcome here in the Department of State, and I’d like to talk a
little bit about U.S. foreign policy in the second Bush term, and
then stop fairly quickly and answer your questions, if that’s all
right, if that’s a good way to proceed.
The Bush foreign policy has really evolved from the September 11th
terrorist attack as an initial event and gone through several phases.
In the initial aftermath of September 11th, we faced a national
emergency. We were attacked essentially by the Taliban and al-Qaida
from Afghanistan, and we took action there.
Iraq you know about and that has been discussed, and I don’t want to
spend the whole time talking about Iraq, but we felt that one of the
lessons of September 11th was that you could not wait for dangers to
gather and do nothing. And that containment of someone like Saddam
Hussein might not be a viable strategy, especially since containment
wasn’t working.
But as time went on, you will notice if you study President Bush’s
speeches carefully that in his foreign policy speeches and in the
National Security Strategy documents of the United States he
gradually emphasized issues other than the strict military and
intelligence side of counterterrorism and started speaking about
longer term issues of building democracies and reform and stability
through reform. We stopped defining al-Qaida as an enemy in a narrow
sense of being a terrorist organization and started speaking more
about radical, anti-democratic, Islamist ideology as a longer term
problem for which the answer was not principally a military or
intelligence answer, but was an answer rooted in reform, support for
democracy, support for states, for nations seeking to deepen their
own democracies.
This emphasis on democracy as a long-term answer to the problems of
Islamist extremism and the terrorism derived from that extremism is
apt to be an enduring legacy of the Bush administration – more than
what is usually considered to be the Bush administration’s foreign
policy legacy, things like preemption. Preemptive military action: I
think that is going to be less important, and the emphasis on
democracy is more important.
Now, because there are a great many Turkish speakers here, it may
have occurred to you listening to me that Turkey’s experience of
building a secular democracy within a society which is mostly Muslim,
and then in recent years deepening that democracy may be very
relevant. Indeed, we find that experience to be relevant because
Turkey is at once a country with a Muslim population and a democracy,
and a secular nation state.
Those achievements are very relevant to the kind of problems we face
now, which is dealing with a radical Islamist ideology which denies
in principle the relevance of democracy and denies that democracy can
take root in a society which has Muslim traditions.
We reject the notion of a clash of civilizations, and we reject the
notion that any one religion is intrinsically more disposed to
democracy than any other religion.
Similarly, we believe that democratic reforms, the rule of law, and a
kind of openness toward the world is a better answer to the problems
left behind by the Soviet Union than nationalism or authoritarianism.
There is a debate in Russia today whether democracy – well, there
isn’t even much of a debate. Many Russians believe that democracy
equals chaos and that democracy as it was practiced in Russia in the
’90s demonstrates that democracy is not terribly relevant to the
problems of post-communism.
In our view this is mistaken, and the problem of reform in Russia in
the ’90s was not that it was too democratic, but that it was not
consistent enough.
I see there is a journalist from Poland here. In the beginning of
the 1990s Poles didn’t know whether they would succeed. The economy
in Poland was in complete ruin. The country was very poor. The
infrastructure was wretched. The demographics were bad. Not as bad
as they are in Russia today, but actually pretty bad. And the Poles’
answer to that was not to turn away from reform and embrace
authoritarianism, but to push ahead with reform, and they did so in
the early ’90s with great concentration, and the results later speak
for themselves of massive economic growth, rising standard of living,
and gradual stability on a much higher level of national existence,
actually.
So the Bush administration looks at democracy not as is sometimes
assumed in Europe as a kind of Messianic ideology that bears no
relationship to reality, but as a rather practical solution to
problems and a practical solution which has been successful in the
past 17 years, since 1989, in cases where it has been applied
consistently.
Now one of the challenges we Americans face is that for 60 years we
did not really regard democracy as relevant to the broader Middle
East or countries which were Muslim. During the 1970s we talked
about democracies and human rights as the answer to communism, but we
seemed very happy to deal with authoritarian regimes in Egypt and
conservative, absolutist monarchies in Saudi Arabia.
The results in the Middle East were not terribly satisfactory, and
what we have done in this administration is to do away with this red
line around the broader Middle East which said within this red line
democracy and the normal rules don’t apply. They do apply.
The problem with this kind of an approach is that although democracy,
I am convinced, will be the fate for the broader Middle East in the
long run; in the short run life is not life the way the Soviet Union
used to describe it – a triumphant march to a better future. It’s
pretty complicated stuff.
But we do believe that democracy is applicable in the Middle East,
just as it has been applicable in Asia, South America, Eastern
Europe, and South Asia.
We intend to support democratic movements in that world, as well as
in Central Asia and the post-communist hemisphere.
Now those are very broad outlines of American foreign policy in the
second Bush term. Tomorrow I’m giving testimony in the Senate about
the problem and the causes of Islamist extremism, mostly in Western
Europe. This is a long-term challenge for us. Many of the Islamist
radicals and the intellectual climate they live in remind me as
someone who lived in the Soviet Union, remind me of 21st Century
versions of Raskolnikov, an uprooted semi-intellectual with great
ideas who falls into rather dangerous radical nihilism.
This is a challenge we have to face, and we have to face this
together working with the governments of the countries you represent
and with civil societies in your countries.
Let me stop here. You come from a great many countries. Your
questions are apt to be different. I will do my best to answer them,
but I wanted to give you an overall framework of what our thinking is
like.
So with that, I’m at your disposal.
Question: My name is Anna Novicka…. My name is Anna Novicka. I
am from [the] Latvian newspaper Telegraf and I would like to find out
about your opinion as the development in the relations in the
triangle the United States, Russia and Europe is concerned if we take
into account that the opinions of the United States and Russia are
becoming more and more different. I mean the relationship with
Syria, Ukraine, Belarus. Is there any future for relations in this
triangle?
Ambassador Fried: Everybody got the question?
We want to work with Russia on a common agenda, and we want to work
with Russia wherever possible. There are, objectively speaking, or
there should be, objectively speaking, as used to be said in the old
Soviet Union, no barriers to our cooperation because we are not each
other’s principal problem. In practice, that cooperation has been
more difficult than we Americans had hoped.
You mentioned Belarus. Is there anybody here from Belarus?
I don’t know why Russia has supported the recent elections in
Belarus. No country in Europe believed these elections were free and
fair. As far as I can tell no democracy anywhere in the world
thought these elections were free and fair. I do not understand why
Russia would find it in its interest to support the Lukashenko
regime.
I think Russia is still trying to find its place in the world after
the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I think back to the period,
there was a period in history when Russia was the most advanced
relative to Western Europe, the most successful, the most
economically, culturally, scientifically dynamic, which was, of
course, the generation before 1914 when Russia also thought of itself
as a European country.
I think that the periods when Russia sought to be isolated from the
world and separate and part of its own sitting in a kind of isolation
were periods that did not bring Russia great results. Now this is not
a US government view, this is only my view as someone who lived in
Russia. But I hope that Russia will return to a path of convergence
with and integration with the Euro-Atlantic community because Russia
has a great deal to offer.
I also don’t think much of the theory of some Russians that the
United States is out to encircle Russia. Encircling Russia is not
our objective. We have other problems in the world. Russia is not a
problem for us.
We were interested – you’re from Latvia, right? We were interested
in seeing Latvia become a member of NATO and a member of the European
Union not because we wanted to surround Russia, but because we wanted
to complete a Europe whole, free and at peace.
A Latvia, a Poland, a Romania that are secure, prospering democracies
are not threats to Russia. A Germany in NATO and the European Union,
a Germany which is a democracy, is hardly a threat to Russia. There
is no threat to Russia from the West. I believe there ought to be the
basis for strategic cooperation between Russia and the United States.
It’s proving more frustrating now than we had hoped.
Question: My name is Kirill Krabu. I’ve got a question about
Europe. As you know, Europe is growing up now and gets more and more
powerful. Our currency rates now are higher than the dollar. For
example, the Euro is higher than the dollar now.
How do you think about that, if this growth will continue? Is it a
reason for the USA to be maybe afraid of Europe and to begin some
polarization between Europe and USA? Because Europe is somewhere
also now called as United States of Europe. So is it a reason to
become polarized?
Ambassador Fried: No. We welcome a strong Europe. A strong Europe
is good for the United States. The difficulties of the 20th Century
– two world wars, the Cold War, Nazism, fascism, communism, were all
products of a breakup, a kind of calamitous collapse of Europe in
1914.
Now why on earth would the United States, after having had to go to
war twice in the 20th century to save Europe and fight the Cold War
to defend democracy in Europe, be alarmed by the prospect of a
secure, stable, prospering and democratic Europe today? It would be
ridiculous. We want there to be a strong Europe.
There is not one serious person in Washington who worries about a
U.S.-European rivalry. Commercially, yes. Okay, Boeing and Airbus
will always fight. Of course they will. Well, so what? Ford and GM
also fight. Let them. All right?
The strategic fact is the United States and Europe need to work
together because the threats we face are common threats, and they
mostly originate outside of Europe, both in the broader Middle East
and the problems along what I call Europe’s frontiers of freedom –
the Balkans, South Caucasus. These are where the problems are. But
the United States and Europe are together a center of democracy and
prosperity in the world, and the alliance there is very close and apt
to be closer.
When I think of all the problems, the last of my worries is a
U.S.-European rivalry. Besides, the worst days of 2003, 2004, the
debate about the Iraq war – that is behind us now, thank God.
Question: I am from Kosovo, Taner, the Balkans and anything about
the Balkans. As you know the Kosovo problem and the challenge has
not been solved yet and at the same time in Serbia there are sort of
problems. So, the stability of the Balkans… and what is the
American policy towards these two issues, especially the Kosovo
status?
Ambassador Fried: The United States has been involved deeply in the
Balkans since the breakup of the old Yugoslavia. Kosovo’s status is
the last open question, just as Serbia’s future direction is the
biggest problem.
We support the efforts of Ahtisaari, the former Finnish president, to
negotiate arrangements for Kosovo’s final status this year. I don’t
know what those arrangements will be, but I do know what they will
not be. We will not go back to the situation before 1999. We will
not partition Kosovo. We will not redraw borders. That is no
secession, no greater this or greater that. And whatever solution
there is in Kosovo has to respect the rights of Kosovo’s minorities
— ethnic Serb, ethnic Turkish.
NATO didn’t fight a war in Kosovo to support anyone’s nationalist
agenda. The Serb population of Kosovo needs to be protected, it
needs to be respected, it needs to have a home in Kosovo. Not
because Belgrade insists, but because this is a matter of principle
to us.
Then the whole region needs to move to Europe. You cannot have the
Balkans outside of Europe as a breeding ground of poverty, theft,
smuggling, and occasionally wars. And I believe that Serbia ought to
be in Europe. This isn’t just about Kosovo, it’s about the whole
region. And Macedonia should be in Europe.
What I can’t say is exactly what Kosovo’s final status will be, but
that’s not up to the United States, that’s a negotiated process.
Question: I am from North Cyprus. This is Basaran. Of course there
is a… we have a Cyprus issue. In the Cyprus issue there has been a
referendum as you know. The Turkish side said yes, and the Greek
side said no, and because of that we could not reach to any peace.
The Greek side of course established themselves as the member of
European Union. So, there has been some commitments to diplomatic
channels and economic commitments. Unfortunately, these commitments
by United States have not been established. The… there was a
meeting between our president and Condoleezza Rice but any committed
promises were not established. So, if you can elaborate on this?
Ambassador Fried: I am very familiar with the Cyprus issue. We
believe in one Cyprus. We support reunification of the island as a
bizonal, bicommunal federation. We do not believe in separatism or
cessation. We are very pleased that the Turkish Cypriot community
also supports reunification.
I myself have met with Mr. Talat. We do not recognize him as
president; we do not recognize the government, but we do understand
that he is a leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, and we
appreciate the fact that he supports a negotiated settlement to
reunify the island. We encourage that. It’s the right policy. We
look forward to the day when a reunited Cyprus with a secure Turkish
community is in the European Union as a whole island.
Now we understand that bizonal, bicommunal federation also means that
there have to be certain arrangements. We supported the Annan plan,
as you know. It didn’t pass. I regret that. But we have to find a
way to make progress. We do want to make progress on the basis that
I stated. And we do want to encourage the Turkish Cypriot community,
but without recognizing a separate state and without creeping
recognition of a separate state because we do believe in unification.
Again, this is what the Turkish Cypriot leadership says it believes,
and I accept this. I believe their position is sincere.
So we look forward to working with the government of Cyprus, with the
Turkish Cypriot community, with the United Nations, with Turkey, with
Greece to advance a settlement which will help everyone.
Question: I come from Brussels, speaking English.
About the Cyprus issue, this year everyone is expecting a crisis for
Turkey about the Greek Cypriots and opening the port issue. Turkey
clearly declared that they won’t open their ports unless there is a
settlement in Cyprus. It will be a big crisis with, big or small I
don’t know, but definitely a crisis for Turkey in the EU
relationship.
Also there is a ground shifting for the settlement from UN to EU, and
it seems that U.S. doesn’t respond at all. Since Mr. Annan has a
very limited time and I don’t think that personally he will again try
something else because of every limitation. Do you have any concrete
steps in the short term for Cyprus? Not recognition of course, but
to try for anything.
Ambassador Fried: You make a very good point, which is that this
issue, and I’m putting it in my words not yours, but that this issue
will not get better by itself. In fact, we have been thinking about
how important it is that we do whatever we can to help promote a
settlement.
I frankly appreciate the Turkish government’s support for a
settlement. I don’t think that Talat could have done what he did
without Turkey’s backing. This is a significant change. It means
that Turkey also supports a bizonal, bicommunal federation.
So we have to look at what we can do to support a settlement. Now
you’re right, we have always supported Turkey’s accession to the
European Union on the basis that Turkey ought to be treated like
every other candidate. Turkey meets the criteria, it should join.
If it doesn’t, it shouldn’t. But no special rules.
This is a tough position for Turkey, I understand it. We want to
make progress, and we were thinking about how to approach the Cyprus
issue so as to avoid this kind of a problem. The Turkish government
deserves credit for having supported a settlement. This is not
trivial. This is a big deal. It means that Greece, Turkey, the
Turkish Cypriot community, and the government of Cyprus all support a
bizonal, bicommunal federation. They just argue about the ways to
get there. I understand this. This is not easy. But we should not
let this drift.
So that’s the premise of your question, and I frankly agree with you,
and we’re thinking about this very actively right now.
Question: I am from Azerbaijan, from the TV Company INS. From the
year 2005 until today everybody who’s connected to the settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, they’ve been talking that this conflict
has to be solved in the year 2006. If it’s not solved now then it
will last for many years. But now we see that the talks are
deadlocked and the non-constructive position of the Armenian
president is indicative. How do you think, is it possible that this
conflict is settled within one or two years? And please take into
consideration that both parties have always claimed that they
wouldn’t seize any territory? How do you see it?
Ambassador Fried: Happily the situation is not as stuck as it
appeared immediately after Rambouillet. At Rambouillet Presidents
Kocharian and Aliyev met. They failed to come to agreement on terms
to settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and many people
thought, oh my God, it’s over, there will be war, terrible things
will happen.
Shortly after that I went out to Baku and Yerevan with Ambassador
Steve Mann, who is the American negotiator as part of the Minsk group
process of negotiating a settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh. And we had
a series of useful, I think productive, discussions with the
government of Azerbaijan, the government of Armenia, and we have had
discussions here with Foreign Minister Oskanian of Armenia and Deputy
Foreign Minister Azimov of Azerbaijan. Both governments appear
serious about making progress. Both governments gave us something to
work with. So we’re no longer quite stuck. We don’t have a solution
yet, but we are confident enough that we’re proceeding with
discussions with both governments, working with the Minsk group
co-chairs.
It’s important that both countries understand that they both cannot
have their maximum objectives at the same time. Both countries can’t
achieve that. And, in fact, neither country will achieve its maximum
objectives. Similarly, no country can receive anything. Both
countries have interests that must be taken into account.
It’s going to take courage and political leadership to get out of a
war cycle and start contemplating the much more hopeful future if
there is peace.
You’re from Azerbaijan, right? Your country’s going to have a lot of
money coming in from oil and gas, but only if there is peace. If
there is war, there is no more money. All right? Just look at the
map. You know what I’m talking about. You’re well set up for peace.
Of course, the oil and gas money won’t do you any good unless it’s
well spent, but that’s a different issue. So we’re determined to
move ahead.
Question: This is Liudmila Barba from Moldova. About the Kosovo
status, many official people from Moscow, including President Putin,
have indicated that in case Kosovo is recognized then Russia would be
able to recognize the separatist regions in post-Soviet territory.
Do you take into consideration this factor when you are thinking
about the status of Kosovo?
The second question is about the widening of the European Union.
After World War II, the United States supported the present European
Union. Will the United States keep supporting the enlargement of the
European Union to include Ukraine and Moldova?
Ambassador Fried: First, we do not regard Kosovo as a precedent for
resolution of any other conflict. Not Transnistria, not Abkhazia,
not South Ossetia, not Chechnya, or North Ossetia, or Ingushetia. It
is not a precedent. Full stop.
We do not support separatism. We do not support separatist agendas.
Why is Kosovo different? Because Milosevic fought a war with NATO,
for one thing, and he lost. Secondly, the United Nations has had
administration over Kosovo for seven years. Third, the UN Security
Council has repeatedly affirmed Kosovo’s status as under UN
administration, its final status to be worked out.
So our position is very clear and should not be misunderstood.
The second question about the enlargement of the European Union.
We’ve always favored it. We think it has been a fabulous success. It
has been a fabulous success. We believe that enlargement should
continue, although we recognize first that there is a debate in
Western Europe about EU enlargement that we have to respect. And
second, the countries have to be ready. It is not a gift, it is not
a charity program. Your Polish and Latvian colleagues here can tell
you that it was very hard to get into the European Union. They had
to do a lot, but it was worth it.
As for Ukraine, Ukrainians have to decide themselves. Anybody from
Ukraine here? Yes. All right. Ukrainians have to decide for
themselves what they want. Then they have to do the work.
Question: Thank you very much. Naziya Bissenova from Kazakshtan.
Mr. Fried, actually I have several questions but to be fair I will
ask only one question.
Presently, Russia is using its energy card when playing on the
international arena and this question refers to the Central Asian
countries and Kazakhstan.
Due to the position of the Russian monopoly Gazprom in the pipelines,
they are in charge of everything. Europe and the United States are
concerned about the situation that still the question of energy
security hasn’t been solved. How do you think, how soon will the
alternative corridors be found?
Ambassador Fried: Well, that is one of the questions of the hour.
The Russians have put energy security on the agenda of the G8. We
believe that energy security comes from transparency and an open
investment regime. It does not come from a closed regime or
politicization or corruption.
Russia is going to make a lot of money off of energy under any
scenario. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether gas and oil
will be developed according to commercial or strategic principles.
We believe in commercial principles. We believe that an open
investment regime will be better actually in the end for Russia.
Certainly your country and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have a lot at
stake here. So, in a way, does Ukraine.
We think that a closed system is not good, either for your country or
for Georgia or for Ukraine or for Western Europe, and, frankly, I
don’t think it’s good for Russia.
An open system will force governments – an open system will raise
energy prices to world levels, which is not a bad thing, but you
can’t have energy prices at world levels for some countries and not
for others. And it’s very odd that your country sells its base for
$40 a thousand cubic meters and that same gas is resold for $240 a
thousand cubic meters. I see you know exactly what I’m talking about.
The system needs to be open, and then Russia is going to make
billions of dollars anyway, but it will do so under conditions which
also benefit other countries.
Question: I have very short question, and I can hear from you very
short answer. I am from Georgia, Ekaterine Kadagishvili. Everyone
knows about the Rose revolution. More than two years have gone after
this event. I am just interested if U.S. government sees any …
some… steps before, steps forward to democratic principles in this
country or are some aspects where U.S. government maybe is
disappointed.
Ambassador Fried: I do see progress. But, of course, in the end of
2004 Georgia was, well, the end of 2003, I guess. That’s when we
have to date it from, from the Rose Revolution. Georgia was in pretty
bad shape, so I see progress from a pretty low base. There has been
progress. This progress needs to be sustained for a long time.
Civil society has to be strengthened, the economy has to develop, the
state has to become functional, but not authoritarian. Georgia
cannot afford military adventurism. I don’t care how frustrating it
is to have North/South Ossetia and Abkhazia in their current
situation. There is no military answer. But I think there is
progress.
You can tell me more, but I’ve been to Georgia three times in the
past year, and each time it’s a little better. The government’s a
little more organized, Tbilisi looks a little better, a few more
roads have been developed.
Question: Is this enough?
Ambassador Fried: No, it’s not enough. Of course it’s not enough.
But look, I’m not a Georgia expert but I know something – I’m old,
right? So I’ve seen post-communist, I remember post-communist
development in Eastern Europe in 1989. After two years in Poland,
the country I know the best, it was still a mess, but there was some
progress. Was it enough? No. But they made more progress, they
didn’t stop.
Question: All other countries it seems like make more progress.
Ambassador Fried: No, actually Georgia’s done – Look, Georgia made
no progress basically for 10 years after independence. It stopped a
civil war, that’s true, but that’s all it did. Georgia has a lot
more to do but it’s done something.
Question: I’m Armine Amiryan, I’m from Armenia from Armenian TV. In
terms of democracy and human rights protection, which countries
within our region are more favorable conditions?
Ambassador Fried: Don’t ask me to rank order countries. [Laughter].
Look, a lot of Armenians were disappointed that the constitutional
referendum last fall was not as free and fair as it should have been.
We have recently concluded with Armenia an agreement to provide $250
million worth of assistance under the Millennium Challenge Account,
but we have told Armenia very clearly that it has to deepen its
democratic reforms as a condition of this program.
I think a settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh is critical for Armenia
because the country needs to get beyond a mentality of encirclement
in the war. The same could be said for Azerbaijan.
Democracy takes leadership from the top, it also takes leadership
from civil society. And it is only – I don’t know about the rest of
the world from experience, but I know that in post-communist
societies the only successful countries emerging from communism have
been countries which have implemented free market and democratic
reforms and done so on a sustained basis over time.
Other models have been tried – from nationalism and fascism in
Serbia, to a “go slow” approach in Romania. Is anybody here from
Romania? You remember President Iliescu’s first term of office? Not
exactly a great success. But when he came back the second time after
Constantinescu, things advanced and got better. No matter what your
politics I think everybody agrees it was better in the late ’90s.
That’s my point.
I really do have to go. Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs,
U.S. Department of State. Web site: )
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.
The Washington Daybook
April 6, 2006
ORGANIZATION: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP)
holds a discussion with Vahram Nercissiantz, chief economic adviser
to the President of Armenia, on “Armenia’s Economic Reforms.”
TIME: 12 noon
LOCATION: CEIP, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
CONTACT: 202-483-7600;
TYPE: Discussion (Revised)
COUNTRY: ARMENIA; ASIA;
SUBJECT: Foreign Affairs; ECONOMIC POLICY (90%); ECONOMIC NEWS
(90%);

Windsor Star (Ontario)
April 6, 2006 Thursday
Final Edition
Genocide victims to be honoured
In the summer of 1994, more than 900,000 people were slaughtered by
Hutu extremists over the course of 100 days in the central African
country of Rwanda.
Windsor’s Rwandan community urges members of the public to remember
this tragic period in human history by attending the 12th annual
local memorial service for the Rwandan genocide.
The events begin on Friday with words from local Rwandans who
survived the genocide. The testimonies take place from 7 to 10 p.m.
at Place Concorde, 7515 Forest Glade Dr.
>From 3 to 9 p.m. on Saturday, guest speakers at the University of
Windsor’s Ambassador Auditorium will discuss Rwanda’s current
situation. There will also be testimonies from survivors of genocides
in Armenia, Cambodia and Sudan.
The series ends on Sunday with a non-denominational prayer service in
Assumption Church on the University of Windsor campus from 1 to 3
p.m. There will also be testimonies from survivors of the Jewish
holocaust.
Rwandan-born Windsor resident Grace Mukasekuru, a member of the
committee that organized the memorial events, said they felt it
important for the services to include survivors of other genocides
that have occurred around the world.