Daily Star – Lebanon, Lebanon
May 30 2005

Beirut polls leave some with sour taste
A common complaint: Saad Hariri’s victory was too predictable

By Rym Ghazal
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, May 31, 2005

BEIRUT: While Saad Hariri’s clean sweep of all 19 seats in Beirut
didn’t come as much of a surprise to the majority of Beirutis, it has
left some with a sour taste in their mouths.

Mohammad Basiri, 45, said: “It wasn’t much of an election as it was
just one plate being served; Hariri sprinkled with what would seem to
be a representative group of spices.”

Basiri supports the Ahbash group, a fundamental Sunni group whose
candidates were among the many who failed to defeat Hariri’s lists.

Basiri didn’t vote, and said he won’t until he sees a real change in
Lebanese elections where “all candidates have a fair run.”

He added: “No more lists under one name. That is not democracy, and
the small voter turnout is a reflection of the disappointment of
people in the Lebanese elections.”

Basiri was one of a few Ahbash followers who agreed to give his name,
while others interviewed held their tongue, citing fear of “being
attacked by Hariri supporters.”

Security was tight around Al-Dewan supermarket – a vendor frequented
by Ahbash members – with army troops on guard after witnesses
reported clashes Sunday night between young supporters of Ahbash and
Hariri.

Yet some areas in Beirut, such as Bourj Hammoud, appeared to have
been untouched by the elections.

The predominantly Armenian neighborhood’s Tashnag Party had called
for a boycott of the elections due to the adoption of a disputed
electoral law.

As a result Bourj Hammoud seemed stark naked in comparison to the
other Armenian neighborhoods in the capital painted in Hariri posters
and those of his candidates.

Rita, a 43-year-old Armenian merchant, said: “Our voices are not
heard anyway, so why vote?”

She added: “Sadly, I don’t see much of a difference after the Syrians
left. It is the same people in power and the same people running the
show; no new faces or any changes,” recalling the 1992 election was
the “fairest, as we got to pick who we wanted.”

Meanwhile, for those who supported Hariri’s list, Monday was a day
for celebration.

Mirna Terk, 24, was one of the demonstrators at Martyrs’ Square
calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops after the assassination
of Rafik Hariri. She hit the streets once more Sunday night, but this
time to cheer his son’s decisive victory.

She said: “Hariri’s is a well known and respected family, and so I
believe Saad will continue the traditions of his father of rebuilding
and educating those who can’t afford to go to school.”

She added: “All of my friends are celebrating [except for] some of my
Christian classmates who were unhappy with the elections and didn’t
vote and would like the election law to change.”

But other Beirutis, such as 80-year-old retired surgeon Ali Raad,
feel Sunday’s polls should be a lesson for voters “not to take things
for granted.”

Anxiously awaiting the polls in the North, where he is registered,
Raad said: “I am with Saad Hariri like everyone else, but I will be
more selective with the people on his list, as many of them are not
really worthy of my vote.”

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
May 30 2005

The Armenian Issue: Inventing a Past
View: Dr. Sedat LACINER

Armenians claim that The Ottomans consciously and systematically
killed the Armenian citizens in 1915 and afterwards. This claim had
been denominated as ‘massacre’ until the end of the World War II,
it has been denominated as “genocide” since 1965. In this respect,
the Jewish example has a significant role in skillfully transforming
to be ‘genocide victim’ into political and monetary earnings. As it
is known that, as the Jewish people have accepted that, the Jews who
were died in the World War II left a loaded indemnity and a state to
their sons and grandchildren. The more important than that, grievance
also has prepared ground for an important esteem in the world. So,
this is the most important benefit which charmed the Armenians.

The Armenian side claims that approximately 1.5 million Armenians
vanished in the Ottoman territory in 1915 and afterwards. This number
is controversial and excessive but additionally, the numbers which
are approved by the Turkish side also can reach hundred thousands.
Except one difference, while the Armenian side claims that the state
killed these people consciously, the Turkish side claims that most of
these people died due to hunger, famine, epidemic diseases, the
negative conditions of war, bad weather and some of them were killed
in the local-ethnic disputes. The Armenian historians and who adhered
to even some of the Turkish people claims that thousands of people
could not die because of famine or epidemic disease in such a short
period of time. According to them, the negative circumstances of the
war, surely, led to death of some Armenians, but this number could
considerably be limited.

The ones who claim in this way, unfortunately, know nothing about the
conditions of the period. They do not know that in this period the
epidemic diseases and famine could still totally destroy all
population of cities or districts. They do not remember that even the
thousands of Ottoman soldiers died in Sarikamis because of cold
without shooting a single bullet. Above all, they also do not know
about how thousands of Armenians died even in Armenia because of
epidemic diseases and famine after 1915 under the Armenian rule.

Georgia and Azerbaijan declared their independence after the
revolution in Russia. Hereon, after a short time, the Armenians
established their state. Anyhow Tasnaks’ (nationalist Armenian armed
group) also had a state. However, while establishing this state The
Taşnaks were unwilling because they wanted a state (if it is not
an empire) which could reach Mediterranean to Black Sea and Caspian
(Hazar) Sea, ‘three sea sided’. As a matter of fact, their wishes
partially reflected to Sevr Treaty. A French newspaper defined those
wishes as ‘Armenian Empire’.1 (Sunny, p.129) Tasnaks and other
Armenian groups found the pre-established state little, at this stage
instead of establishing a micro state they planned to continue their
struggle and obtain a bigger one. Young generation was filled with
hatred against Turks, the leaders, primarily Europe and USA, were
trying to draw the non-regional extraterritorial forces to Caucasia
for their own purposes.

Whereas, the realities were hard and do not have relation with the
fantasies of ‘Greater Armenia’. In the state which was established by
the Tasnaks famine and epidemic diseases were patrolling. The famine
has reached a very serious phase that a newspaper draws its portrayal
as in the following:

“People were eating dead cats and dogs. Even there were incidents
that a person could eat a hungry mother’s dead child’s kidney or
lung…” (Sunny, ss. 127-128)2

According to an Armenian Historian, Richard Hovannissian, in this
period Armenia lost 1/5 of its population. More than 200.000
Armenians died because of famine and epidemic diseases.

Robert Grigor Suny describes the picture in first Independent
Armenian Republic under the Tashnak rule:

“Famine was widespread in Erevan (Yerevan), and the underfed
population was susceptible to disease. As Richard Hovannissian tells
us, ‘It was verily a land of death’. Approximately 200,000 people,
almost 20 percent of the republic’s population, had died by the
middle of 1919′. A newspaper account told the following story:

‘The populace is feeding upon the bodies of dead cats and dogs. There
have been cases when a starving mother has eaten the kidney or the
liver from the corpse of her own child.. The skeleton-like woman and
children rummage in the refuse heaps for moldered shoes and, after
cooking them for three days, eat them.” (Looking Toward Ararat, pp.
127-128).

Portrayal is really sad but one should ask that who is the
responsible for that result? Whether the Turks came to Armenia and
made ‘genocide’? Or they should look for the responsible ones who led
to genocide or else among the Armenians themselves? Whether the
Tasnaks are not guilty? Moreover, it should be asked that, the ones
who do not accept that thousands of Armenians could have died in
Anatolia because of famine, epidemic diseases or other natural
reasons and conditions of war, how can they explain that thousands of
Armenians died in heart of Yerevan.

The Armenians experienced a tragedy…Just like the Turks and other
ethnic groups who shared the same geography under the WWI. However,
Armenian ultra-nationalists do not want to take responsibility of
this tragedy. Whereon, because of this reason, they can not take
lessons from history. For this reason, the same situation occurred
when they established their own state for the second time in 1991:

The leaders of the newly established Armenia again showed their
citizens, who fight against famine, hunger, cold and earthquake, a
‘Greater Armenia’ map as ideal. For this time, Karabakh and its
surrounding, Turkey’s eastern provinces, Georgia and Nahcivan were
the target. More than that, ‘the claims about Turkey were heated and
serviced again’. The Armenian people, who were even in need of wheat
from Turkey, were filled with hatred towards the neighboring Turkish
people. Again Armenia was in need of external help and again many
Armenians died because of negative conditions and the war. This time
the number of dead people was not so much as in 1919. However, the
numbers of the ones who abandoned their homes and countries, who went
to Russia, France and even to Turkey in order to work was more than
one million. The ones who went were not coming back. It has been long
time since the population of the Diaspora exceeded the population of
the homeland. The greatest problem of Armenia, in the Tashnak
administration, was the political and economical isolation. Armenia
confided in Western states instead of its neighbors but it was
disappointed by them, nowadays Armenia gets more and more isolated
and disappointed with Russia’s and the West’s attitude. Armenia
became the only Russian military base in the region against the
neighboring countries. Almost all Caucasian countries perceive threat
from Armenia and Russia. Naturally, the current perceptions threaten
security of Armenia, and nourish Armenian mistrust towards the
international community.

Nevertheless, even if the Armenians and Turks would never be friends
according to the nationalist Armenians, at least Armenians should
take the Turks as an example, so by this way they could have solved
the important part of their problems:

While Mustafa Kemal and his friends were establishing the Republic of
Turkey they did not only lean on gun power. Even when the war was
continuing they did the preparations of the period of peace. Instead
of rigid ideologies they preferred a realistic and pragmatic attitude
towards the neighbors and the great powers. Externally and
internally, they did not establish their policies on hatred and
vengeance. Even they offer ‘olive branch’ to the Greeks who occupied
Western Anatolia for a period of time, the friendship of Ataturk –
Venizolos have opened a golden period in relationships between Turkey
and Greece. In the same way, establishing good relations with all of
the new neighbors was designated to be their basic target. Although
the citizens had great reactions towards Armenians, Bulgarians,
Russians, Greeks and Arabs, all these feelings were bridled and tried
to be soothed because Turkey was conscious of compulsoriness of
living with its neighbors. Moreover, they have never dreamed of a
‘Greater Turkey’, a greater Turkish world, regeneration of the
Ottoman Empire or a Muslim Empire, even though it came from a
tradition of great empires. They followed a defendable, constricted
but homogeneous policy of territory. Above all, instead of taking
revenge from the neighbors, first Turkish nationalists gave more
importance to the economical and social problems. A development
campaign was started and even this campaign has reached today.

When the Turkish and Armenian experience is compared, it should be
clearly understood that the Armenian citizens do not have an
‘Armenian Ataturk’. The Armenians have followed unrealistic and
unconscious leaders. However, in each time they always reach a
disaster and great disasters instead of a greater Armenia. The
saddest thing is that Armenian nationalists have always blamed the
others for the tragic events they have experienced: Now, Armenians
politicians accuse Israel, United States, European Union, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Turkey and even Russia for the current situation in Armenia.

Now it is time for Armenians to look at the mirror… It is right,
reality hurts. However, it is better and beneficial to face realities
than to live in a world of dreams and accuse those who could help us
a lot.

———————————————-
Dr. Sedat LACINER: Chairman, International Strategic Research
ORganization (USAK – ISRO) and member of TEIMK (Turkish Armenian
Relations National Committee).

[email protected]

PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN ILHAM ALIYEV RECEIVES CHAIRPERSONS OF TURKISH
ATATURK INSTITUTION AND RESEARCH CENTER
[May 30, 2005, 20:38:37]

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
May 30 2005

President of the Azerbaijan Republic Ilham Aliyev on 30 May received
Chairman of the Turkish Ataturk Higher Institution for Culture,
Language and History professor Sadig Kamal Tural and Chairman of the
Ataturk Research Center professor Mehmet Saray.

Head of the Azerbaijan State highly assessed the II International
Symposium on the topic ‘Armenian Claims And Azerbaijan Realities’
held in Baku. Noting that for tens of years the states of Azerbaijan
and Turkey have been facing political and ideological provocations
and groundless claims of the Armenians, President Ilham Aliyev said
only by strengthening of cooperation relations, we could prevent
the Armenian propaganda with centuries-old insidious experience and
malicious enmity against the Turks and assure the world community in
our fair cause. President of Azerbaijan expressed confidence that the
Symposium, by attracting the Armenian-Turkish relations to objective
researches would make weighty contributions to opening of the true
essence of these relations, at the same time, reach a turning point
in bringing towards the world community the scientific-historical
reality on the so-called Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict,
and the “Armenian genocide”.

Underlining necessity of similar actions in wider space, President
Ilham Aliyev said he always paid great attention to these matters
during his activity in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe and in further international arrangements, what he does at
the present. Head of the Azerbaijan State reiterated that this is
the fair cause and needs to be propagandized in broader space.

Speaking of creation of the Ataturk Center by the nationwide leader
of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev professor Mehmet Saray said the great
leader paid special attention to dissemination and propaganda
of the realities on Azerbaijan and the entire Turkic world on the
international arena. Noting that Ataturk and Heydar Aliyev have huge
contributions before the Turkic world, the guest emphasized necessity
of propaganda of their ideas, and reminded saying by Heydar Aliyev
“one nation, two states” which brings closer the two countries.
Mehmet Saray said currently President Ilham Aliyev successfully
continues this policy, makes tremendous efforts during his foreign
visits to bring the truth on Azerbaijan and Turkic world to the world
community, which arouse deep interest in the Turkic countries.

Professor Sadig Kamal Tural stressed high activity of the Ataturk
Center in Baku created on initiative of the great leader Heydar
Aliyev, and with pleasure noted its contributions to the Turkish
speaking nations. He said Heydar Aliyev paid constant attention to
strengthening of links with the Ataturk Research Center and other
structures, positive results of which are available in relations of the
fraternal countries. He expressed gratitude to President Ilham Aliyev
for nice conditions created to widen the links in this direction.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Low turnout mars Hariri election win in Beirut
By Alistair Lyon

BEIRUT, May 30 (Reuters) – Pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud blamed
Lebanon’s electoral law on Monday for the low turnout in parliamentary
polls in Beirut, but stayed silent on the sweeping win scored by his
slain political rival’s son Saad al-Hariri.

The meagre 28 percent turnout marred Hariri’s landslide victory in
the first general election in three decades with no Syrian troops in
Lebanon and no direct Syrian interference.

Lahoud, whose political survival may be at stake after the May 29-June
19 elections, said the turnout in Beirut, the first region to vote,
“proves our theory that the present electoral law does not meet
aspirations of the Lebanese people.”

In an official statement, he urged the next parliament to draft a
new law that would secure fair representation for all.

Official results showed Hariri’s slate grabbing all the capital’s 19
seats in the 128-member assembly in Sunday’s vote.

Many people stayed away because Hariri’s win seemed assured, with
nine seats going to his bloc uncontested before the vote.

Though he is a political newcomer, the victory makes Hariri, 35, a
strong contender to lead the next government and pursue the political
and economic policies of his billionaire businessman father, who was
assassinated in Beirut on Feb. 14.

Hariri has avoided saying publicly if he wants the post.

Despite his ties to Damascus, Lahoud has often criticised the
election law adopted in 2000 under Syrian tutelage and opposed by
the president’s fellow-Maronite Christians.

They say it effectively allows Muslims to choose many of the Christian
deputies in the assembly that is divided equally between Christians
and Muslims in a power-sharing agreement.

Hariri and his allies in the anti-Syrian opposition have also
criticised the law, but decided it was more important to hold elections
on time than try to draft a new one in haste.

The vote follows two political earthquakes in Lebanon — Hariri’s
killing in a bombing many Lebanese blamed on Damascus and the end of
Syria’s 29-year troop presence last month.

CHALLENGES AHEAD

Among major challenges facing Lebanon are redefining ties with Syria,
United Nations demands to disarm Shi’ite Muslim Hizbollah guerrillas
and tackling a debt of $34 billion.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan praised the conduct of the Beirut
poll and said the elections gave the Lebanese an opportunity to
“shape their own future, strengthen their political institutions and
restore their full sovereignty.”

With little competition and a boycott by the main Armenian Tashnag
Party and supporters of fiercely anti-Syrian Christian leader Michel
Aoun, turnout was thinnest in Christian districts.

Beirut had a 34 percent turnout in 2000, when Hariri’s father, then
cooperating with Syria, also swept the board.

For the first time, foreign observers monitored the polls, with a
team of more than 150 led by the European Union. Their chief, Jose
Ignacio Salafranca, said the Beirut vote went off in a “calm and
orderly manner, with no major incidents.”

He told a news conference the EU mission would provide a detailed
analysis of the 2000 electoral law after the polls.

“Today was a victory for national unity,” Hariri told a jubilant
crowd on Sunday night. “This is a victory for Rafik al-Hariri. Today,
Beirut showed its loyalty to Rafik al-Hariri.”

Horn-honking supporters drove noisily through the streets as fireworks
lit the night sky over the city centre, rebuilt by the late Hariri
from the ruins of the 1975-1990 civil war.

Hariri will also field candidates in northern and eastern Lebanon,
seeking 80 to 90 parliamentary seats for his bloc and its allies,
a majority that would allow him to push through political, economic
and judicial reforms sought by his father.

The late Hariri resigned in October, a month after Lahoud’s
presidential term was extended at Syria’s behest.

Hariri’s assassination is now under investigation by a U.N.-appointed
prosecutor. Damascus has denied any hand in it.

05/30/05 09:34 ET

Mughni school named after Archbishop Tashjian

Yerkir/arm
27 May 05

Scores of people gathered at the St. Gevorg church and the local school
of the Mughni village on May 24. Every year this day, Archbishop
Mesrop Ashjian would lead a pilgrimage to the St. Gevorg church,
but this time, the pilgrims from Armenia and Diaspora arrived in the
village without him.

On the initiative of the Hamazkayin Cultural and Educational Union,
the school village was named after Archbishop Mesrop Ashjian.

Opening the event, Lilit Galstian, the director of the Hamazkayin
office, reminded of the projects carried out by the Hamazkayin jointly
with Archbishop Tashjian. Many remember the celebration of the 1700th
anniversary of Christianity adoption in Armenia with 16,000 Armenian
youngsters singing together, she said.

It was thanks to Archbishop Ashjian that the village’s church and
school were restored. And now, after the great patriot’s death,
the school was named after him.

Turkey amends penal code
By Savanna Reid

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
May 30 2005

Turkish Parliament eliminates worst censorship laws

Although press freedom advocates are far from satisfied with the new
penal code, Turkey’s legal reform is a major step forward for formal
recognition of basic human rights and freedom of speech. Replacing a
justice system modeled on fascist Italy (circa 1927), the new criminal
laws are more firmly opposed to torture and human rights abuses,
and impose stronger penalties for abusing women and children.

Several extremely heavy-handed censorship provisions have been
dropped. One such article would have sentenced journalists to 15
years for recognizing the historical Armenian genocide as such, or for
advocating Turkish withdrawal from Cyprus. Other provisions remain in
place that will seriously handicap investigative journalism in Turkey,
but overall the reformed code is an important partial fulfillment of
human rights activists’ goals for protecting political speech in a
deeply divided country notorious for brutalizing minority activists.

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS
Affiliated with the Institute for the Study of Genocide
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 Tenth Avenue, Room 325
New York, NY 10019
Contact: Robert Melson, President
[email protected]
Tel: (765) 494-4187

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 29, 2005

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS
– NEWS RELEASE –

WE WHO SERVE AS THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS PROTEST AND CONDEMN THE CANCELATION
OF THE HISTORIANS CONFERENCE ON THE ARMENIAN QUESTION IN TURKEY BY
THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT AS A MAJOR VIOLATION OF BASIC STANDARDS OF
ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE FREE WORLD.

AT LONG LAST, TURKISH ACADEMICS AND INTELLECTUALS, SPONSORED BY
THREE HONORABLE UNIVERSITIES, WERE SCHEDULED TO CONDUCT A CONFERENCE
IN WHICH THE HISTORICAL REALITY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE WAS TO BE
EXAMINED BY MANY OF THE PARTICIPATING LECTURERS.

THE GOVERNMENT OF TURKEY IS UNDERSTANDABLY STRUGGLING TO WIN ITS
POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE AS A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, AND IT IS IN
THIS CLIMATE THAT MANY TURKISH INTELLECTUALS HAVE MOVED COURAGEOUSLY
TO ADDRESS THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, A TRUTH WHICH IS STILL PUNISHABLE
BY TURKISH LAW.

FOR THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT TO CANCEL THE CONFERENCE IS A SHAMEFUL
STEP AND A SETBACK TO TURKEY JOINING THE FREE WORLD IN ITS GROWING
STANDARDS OF HISTORICAL TRUTH AND RESPONSIBILITY.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE
SCHOLARS CALLS ON THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY TO ALLOW FULL AND FREE DEBATE
AND ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP ON THE FATE OF THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE IN OTTOMAN
TURKEY IN 1915-1923.

ROBERT MELSON, President, International Association of Genocide
Scholars, Professor of Political Science, Purdue University

ISRAEL W. CHARNY, Vice-President, International Association of Genocide
Scholars, Professor of Psychology and Family Therapy, Hebrew University
of Jerusalem

STEVEN L. JACOBS, Secretary-Treasurer, International Association
of Genocide Scholars, Associate Professor of Religious Studies,
University of Alabama

####

Russia as a Creditor
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. – 5/30/2005

Global Politician, NY
May 30 2005

Russia is notorious for its casual attitude to the re-payment of
its debts. It has defaulted and re-scheduled its obligations more
times in the last decade than it has in the preceding century. Yet,
Russia is also one of the world’s largest creditor nations. It is owed
more than $25 billion by Cuba alone and many dozens of additional
billions by other failed states. Indeed, the dismal quality of its
forlorn portfolio wouldn’t shame a Japanese bank. In the 18 months
to May 2001, it has received only $40 million in repayments.

It is still hoping to triple this trifle amount by joining the
Paris Club – as a creditor nation. The 27 countries with Paris
Club agreements owe roughly half of what Russia claims. Some of
them – Algeria in cash, Vietnam in kind – have been paying back
intermittently. Others have abstained.

Russia has spent the last five years negotiating generous package
deals – rescheduling, write-offs, grace periods measured in years –
with its most obtuse debtors. Even the likes of Yemen, Mozambique,
and Madagascar – started coughing up – though not Syria which owes
$12 billion for weapons purchases two decades ago. But the result
of these Herculean efforts is meager. Russia expects to get back
an extra $100 million a year. By comparison, in 1999 alone Russia
received $800 million from India.

The sticking point is a communist-era fiction. When the USSR expired
it was owed well over $100 billion in terms of a fictitious accounting
currency, the “transferable ruble”. At an arbitrary rate of 0.6 to the
US dollar, protest many debtors, the debt is usuriously inflated. This
is disingenuous. The debtors received inanely subsidized Russian goods
and commodities for the transferable rubles they so joyously borrowed.

Russia could easily collect on some of its debts simply by turning
off the natural gas tap or by emitting ominous sounds of discontent
backed by the appropriate military exercises. That it chooses not to
do so – is telling. Russia has discovered that it could profitably
leverage its portfolio of defunct financial assets to geopolitical
and commercial gain.

On March 25, 2002 Russia’s prime minister and erstwhile lead debt
negotiator, Kasyanov, has “agreed” with his Mongolian counterpart,
Enkhbayar, to convert Mongolia’s monstrous $11.5 billion debt to
Russia – into stakes in privatized Mongolian enterprises.

Mongolia’s GDP is minuscule (c. $1 billion). Should the Russian
behemoth, Norilsk Nickel, purchase 49% of Erdenet, Mongolia’s copper
producer, it will have bagged 20% of Mongolia’s GDP in a single debt
conversion. A similar scheme has been concluded between Armenia
and Russia. Five enterprises will change hands and thus eliminate
Armenia’s $94 million outstanding debt to Russia.

Identical deals have been struck with other countries such as Algeria
which owes Russia c. $4 billion. The Algerians gave Gazprom access
to Algeria’s natural gas exports.

Russia’s mountainous credit often influences its foreign policies to
its detriment. Prior to the Iraq (Second Gulf) war, It has noisily
resisted every American move to fortify sanctions against Iraq and make
them “smarter”. Russia is owed $8 billion by that shredded country and
tried to recoup at least a part of it by trading with the outcast or
by gaining lucrative oil-related contracts. The sanctions regime was
in its way – hence its apparent obstructionism. Its recent weapons
deals with Syria are meant to compensate for its unpaid past debts to
Russia – at the cost of destabilizing the Middle East and provoking
American ire.

Russia uses the profusion of loans gone bad on its tattered books
to gain entry to international financial fora and institutions. Its
accession to the Paris Club of official bilateral creditors is
conditioned on its support for the HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor
Countries) initiative.

This is no trifling matter. Sub-Saharan debt to Russia amounted to c.
$14 billion and North African debt to yet another $11 billion –
in 1994. These awesome figures will have swelled by yet another 25%
by 2001. The UNCTAD thinks that Russia intentionally under-reports
these outstanding obligations and that Sub-Saharan Africa actually
owed Russia $17 billion in 1994.

Russia would have to forgo at least 90% of the debt owed it by
the likes of Angola, Ethiopia, Guinea, Mali, Mozambique, Somalia,
Tanzania, and Zambia. Russian debts amount to between one third and
two thirds of these countries’ foreign debt. Moreover, its hopes to
offset money owed it by countries within the framework of the Paris
Club against its own debts to the Club were dashed in 2001. Hence
its incentive to distort the data.

Other African countries have manipulated their debt to Russia to their
financial gain. Nigeria is known to have re-purchased, at heavily
discounted prices, large chunks of its $2.2 billion debt to Russia in
the secondary market through British and American intermediaries. It
claims to have received a penalty waiver “from some of its creditors”.

Russia has settled the $1.7 billion owed it by Vietnam in 2001. The
original debt – of $11 billion – was reduced by 85 percent and spread
over 23 years. Details are scarce, but observers believe that Russia
has extracted trade and extraction concessions as well as equity in
Vietnamese enterprises.

But Russia is less lenient with its former satellites. Five years ago,
Ukraine had to supply Russia with sophisticated fighter planes and
hundreds of cruise missiles incorporating proprietary technology.
This was in partial payment for its overdue $1.4 billion natural
gas bill. Admittedly, Ukraine is also rumored to have “diverted”
gas from the Russian pipeline which runs through it.

The Russians threatened to bypass Ukraine by constructing a new,
Russian-owned, pipeline to the EU through Poland and Slovakia.
Gazprom has been trying to coerce Ukraine for years now to turn over
control of the major transit pipelines and giant underground storage
tanks to Russian safe hands. Various joint ownership schemes were
floated – the latest one, in 1999, was for a pipeline to Bulgaria
and Turkey to be built at Ukrainian expense but co-owned by Gazprom.

After an initial period of acquiescence, Ukraine recoiled, citing
concerns that the Russian stratagem may compromise its putative
sovereignty. Already UES, Russia’s heavily politicized electricity
utility, has begun pursuing stakes in debtor Ukrainian power producers.

Surprisingly, Russia is much less aggressive in the “Near Abroad”. It
has rescheduled Kirghizstan’s entire debt (c. $60 million) for a period
of 15 years (including two years grace) with the sole – and dubious –
collateral of the former’s promissory notes.

Russia has no clear, overall, debt policy. It improvises – badly –
as it goes along. Its predilections and readiness to compromise change
with its geopolitical fortunes, interests, and emphases. As a result
it is perceived by some as a bully – by others as a patsy. It would
do well to get its act together.

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. is the author of Malignant Self Love – Narcissism
Revisited and After the Rain – How the West Lost the East. He served
as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline,
and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business
Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe
categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government
of Macedonia. Sam Vaknin’s Web site is at

Chess kings and queens reigning in grade schools

Many ditching joy sticks, pulling out the boards
By Peter Schworm, Globe Staff | May 29, 2005

Boston Globe, MA
May 29 2005

Things are looking grim for David Vehapedian. His bishop has just
fallen to the pawn-sized Kasparov across the table. He slumps in his
chair, resigned to checkmate.

“I’m pretty much dead,” the 8-year-old says, resting his cheek in
his palm.

On Mondays, a spirited group of students gathers after school for the
chess club at St. Stephen’s Armenian Elementary School in Watertown.
Teacher Joe Perl gives them some pointers, then they pair off to
play. The room roars with chatter, a mix of friendly advice, gentle
ribbing, and victorious shouts.

Yet this isn’t mere child’s play — they’re mulling each move so they
can outsmart their opponents.

It’s a scene that’s being repeated all around Boston’s western
suburbs. Chess has become increasingly popular among children, who
are flocking to after-school clubs, private classes, and weekend
tournaments, enthusiasts said. Depictions of “wizard chess” in the
Harry Potter books and movies have broadened the game’s appeal,
and the explosion of computer and Internet chess has opened new
opportunities for children to learn the game.

“The hype is unreal,” said Maryanne Reilly, a Massachusetts Chess
Association official who oversees youth tournaments. “Chess has really
caught on, especially with younger kids.”

Reilly, who also teaches weekly after-school chess classes at
Mason-Rice Elementary School in Newton, said she believed youth chess
has reached a “critical mass” — and that more and more children will
be playing it in coming years.

Even young children can play the game and sometimes play it quite well,
grasping strategies intuitively, she said.

She recalled playing a kindergartner once who, to her surprise,
executed a complex sequence of moves known as the Ruy Lopez Exchange
Variation.

“I asked him, ‘Who taught this to you?’ ” she recalled. “He said,
‘This is just the way I like to play.’ ”

Nationally, the under-14 membership in the US Chess Federation, the
official sanctioning body for tournament play, has grown fivefold since
1990. Last month, a youth tournament in Tennessee drew 5,270 entrants.

Closer to home, in Waltham, some 50 youngsters have gathered for the
past four years at a Burger King for a monthly tournament. In Newton,
three extra classes were added for children at Newton Community
Education this year. In Natick, the MetroWest Chess Club, where the
most populous age bracket is 10 to 20, begins its second year of
introductory classes next week.

Today, while the Massachusetts Chess Association holds its adult state
championship in Marlborough, children as young as 5 will compete in
a youth division that organizers said has drawn sizable interest in
recent years.

Lou Mercuri, a Natick resident and nationally ranked player who
teaches classes at schools in Wellesley, Weston, and Southborough,
said chess has become one of the most popular after-school activities
for children. While most students learn the game from their parents,
the explosion of Internet chess allows youngsters to play opponents
around the globe at all hours.

“You can always get a game,” he said.

The young players said they enjoy the variety of pieces and movements
and the challenge of trying to outmaneuver an opponent. The games
are never the same, and it’s fun to test different strategies, the
Watertown students said.

Parents have been enticed by the idea that the game can teach children
to concentrate and think logically and creatively, chess teachers
said. Parents also hope the game’s thoughtful, deliberate pace will
serve as a much-needed antidote to mindless, fast-paced video games,
they said.

“It’s not a sport, and it’s not a math test,” said Lisa Rucinski,
children’s program coordinator at Newton Community Education. “But
it combines the best of both.”

Frank Wang said the game has helped his son, Andrew, the national
fourth-grade chess champion, to focus his mind on a single task.
Andrew attends The Sage School, a Foxborough school for academically
gifted students that dominates competitions.

“In this nanosecond world, here’s something where you can’t
always get instant gratification,” said Marley Kaplan, president
of Chess-in-the-Schools, a group that teaches the game to students
grades 2 through 8 in 130 New York City schools. “Some things take
longer than a GameBoy.”

Massachusetts public schools do not teach chess in the classroom,
but Kaplan and others think they should. Students learn valuable
skills such as planning ahead and taking responsibility for individual
actions, they said.

The game is also shedding its image as a wonkish pursuit, teachers
said. Larry Lampert, founder and president of the Minnesota-based
School Chess Association, holds a summer chess camp that he said many
popular, athletic children attend.

Reilly, the Massachusetts chess official, bristled at the “outdated
stereotype” that the game is nerdy.

“Kids think it’s cool,” she said. Mercuri agrees, saying, “You get
a real cross-section of kids.”

Video game versions — where pieces explode or are felled in
hand-to-hand combat when captured — have helped broaden the game’s
appeal, many teachers said. Mark LaRocca, of the MetroWest Chess
Club in Natick, said younger students tend to prefer the faster,
timed contests.

“It’s our MTV world,” he said. “Everything has to be quick.”

As students get older, they tend to give up the game in favor of sports
and extracurricular activities. But many return to it after college,
teachers said.

Back in Watertown in Joe Perl’s class, 7-year-olds David Babikian and
Vahan Der Kazaryan maneuver their pieces around the board, searching
for an opening. Both boys are learning the game from their fathers
and play often on the computer. But they haven’t yet mastered the
Budapest Gambit or the Luzhin Defense.

Moves come fast and furious; light-hearted cackles of “I got you” or
“I ate you” accompany a capture; and checkmates seem to occur almost
by accident. Still, both boys say they get an intellectual rush from
the game.

“My favorite part is the brain part, when it really gets going,”
Babikian says, his voice accelerating with excitement. “Sometimes it
goes slow, but when I play chess, it goes fast.”

Taking aim at two pieces in a row, a maneuver called a skewer,
Babikian has his opponent on the run. Soon, Der Kazaryan’s king has
nowhere to go.

Der Kazaryan frowns.

“Let’s play again,” he says.

Failed self-debate

Yerkir/arm
27 May 05

Several weeks ago, the Turkish Prime Minister sent a letter to the
Armenian President proposing to create a group of Armenian and Turkish
historians to research the issue of the Armenian Genocide.

Europeans who like creating all kinds of committees and launching
discussions and dialogs welcomed this proposal. The proposal
received some support in Armenia as well. The Armenian supporters
of the proposal were trying to convince the Armenian public that the
proposal was an expression of Turkey’s new policies and goodwill.

Some even objected to the content of the Armenian President’s response,
rejecting the proposal of such an “academic” dialogue. Time showed
how new, civilized and most importantly sincere the Turks’ desire to
settle the relations with Armenia was.

The Turks who cannot tolerate any opinions deviating from the Turkish
government’s policies of denial of the Armenian Genocide did everything
to fail a conference where only Turkish historians would discuss the
history of the last years of the Ottoman Empire.

This means that the Turkish state was scared even of Turkish
historians. A logical question arises, what are the Armenian
and Turkish historians going to discuss together if the Turkish
historians do not have any opportunities for objective discussions
in their country?

Moreover, the Turkish Minister of Justice accused them of treason. It
is obvious that the Turks are scared of the international recognition
of the Armenian Genocide and are trying to save some time and
manipulate the international community. Let’s understand this and
draw conclusions from this experience. Understanding this, let’s stop
playing “dialogs”.