THE KURDISH FACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST EQUATION ANWAR AL-BUNNI EXPLAINS HOW THE KURDISH QUESTION IS BECOMING MORE PROMINENT IN THE ENTIRE REGION
The Daily Star
Friday, August 26, 2005
Interview
Editor’s note: The following interview with Anwar al-Bunni, the head
of the Free Political Prisoners Committee and Syria’s leading human
rights lawyer, was conducted earlier this month by Joe Pace of Harvard
University in Damascus. It first appeared on ,
and is reprinted by permission.
Pace: Could you provide some background on the relationship between
the Kurdish and Arab opposition? Why is the relationship so tenuous
and is it improving or deteriorating?
Bunni: The Syrian authorities have always created barriers between
the Kurdish and Arab oppositions. It planted the fear within the Arab
opposition that the Kurds wanted to slice off a piece of Syria and
forge a separate state. And it scared the Kurds into believing that the
Arab opposition was incapable of delivering what the authorities could
deliver, and it convinced them that direct negotiation with the regime
would be more fruitful than coordination with the Arab opposition.
They also used the Kurds during Saddam’s rule to influence the internal
situation in Iraq.
Some of the barriers between the two oppositions have come down and
this is a frightening prospect for the regime. They began meeting
and engaging in dialogue, so obviously they began to understand each
other better. The Arab opposition began to realize that not all Kurds
want a Kurdish state and the Kurdish opposition began to realize
that the call for democracy could solve their problems – culturally,
economically, and nationally.
They have begun to engage in serious dialogue, despite the fact that
differences remain between them. They have participated in several
demonstrations and sit-ins together. Still, there lingers some mutual
fear that the parties’ official stances are not their true stances.
Q: What inspired the dialogue?
A: There were three basic factors. The first was the political opening
that allowed the birth of political movements. The second factor was
the pressure on Iraq and the Kurdish role there. It gave weight … a
role … a new importance to Kurdish parties in Syria. So people began
to address the Kurdish issue with newfound interest, especially the
Arab opposition. The third factor was the new openness on the part
of the Kurdish parties toward the Arab opposition, something which
resulted from the loss of faith that the Syrian authorities would grant
them their rights or relieve the economic and political pressure on
the Kurdish communities. So they began looking for an alternative,
in other words, better relations with the Arab opposition in Syria.
Q: We hear a lot that the Iraq war empowered Syrian Kurds, but in
what way? How did events in Iraq enhance their influence?
A: The Kurds began playing a larger political role in Iraq, something
which led the Arab opposition and the Syrian authorities alike to
pay closer attention to the desires of the Kurds.
Prior to the Iraq war, the Kurds did not play a political role in
Syrian politics. Their role was limited to demands placed upon the
authority – they didn’t engage in dialogue with the rest of Syrian
political society. But after the events in Iraq, the Syrian Arabs
began to feel that maybe the Kurds would assume a larger political
role in Syria, as they did in Iraq. So they had to pay attention to
their demands in order to contain them.
Q: But how does a larger role for the Kurds in Iraq translate into
greater influence for Syria’s Kurds?
A: It was first and foremost a psychological effect because they began
to feel as though there was protection; that they could depend at the
very least on moral and emotional support from the Kurds in Iraq. This
sort of support is of crucial importance, the mere face that someone is
asking about them – what they’re suffering from, what they’re saying,
etc. This is more important than military or financial support.
Now they have a shelter. Before, if a Kurd needed to flee there was
nowhere to go. He certainly couldn’t go to Iraq or Turkey. Here they
were attacking them, there they were attacking them. … But now they
have a shelter and it has emboldened them. If something happens to
someone here they can flee to Iraq.
Q: So what did the regime do in order to contain this new Kurdish
problem?
A: They tried to contain the Kurds by manipulating some of the Kurdish
parties, and by promising them nationality in order to keep the
parties in a relationship with the regime. They created the problems
in Qamashli in 2004 to weaken the Kurdish-Arab relationship and foster
divisions between them. They tried to get the two sides to distance
themselves from each other; of course, it didn’t work because people
realized that the government was playing them.
Q: So has this newfound influence emboldened the Kurds to issue more
demands for an independent or federalized state?
A: The world was previously oblivious to the Kurdish issue. And the
government was contending that the Kurds wanted an independent state.
But recently, people have begun to speak out and they are starting
to realize that the Kurds have a legitimate complaint. But at the
same time, Kurdish extremism is unacceptable. They aren’t going to
overcome these old suspicions with ease. There is this ingrained
suspicion that the Kurds want an independent state and what happened
in Iraq scared the Arabs even more.
The authorities have relied on qawmiyya (Arab nationalism) and
its grandiose slogans to legitimate its existence. And they have
endeavored to conceal Kurdish features from sight. They tried to
Arabize them; they took Kurdish land, Arabized the names of Kurdish
villages, deprived them of their citizenship, denied them access to
government jobs. Of course, there are Kurds in places like Damascus
who lead normal lives without any of those problems. The problem is
primarily in the northern regions.
These tactics caused a backlash: people began to cling to their culture
more, staking out more extremist positions. This is to be expected –
if you close the door of participation in front of someone, they’ll
find another partner to cooperate and communicate with. But among
all of the Kurdish parties, not one advocates seceding from Syria.
There is also the issue of ethnic nationalism – it is finished. It
failed. People now realize that they are never going to establish
countries on the basis of a single ethnicity, whether that be Arab,
Kurdish or Armenian. Even in Europe, no one proposes that Germany
be only for the ethnic Germans or France for the ethnic French. The
concept of an ethnically based nation-state is no longer valid. Of
course, an independent nation-state remains a dream among the Kurds,
but it remains just that – a dream. No one expects that it will ever
be realized. They realize that state is impossible so the advocacy
of such has begun to recede from their party platforms.
There are still a few extremists who maintain the dream or try to
realize it, and this is natural. But the rest see that the solution
resides in democracy, in a system that respects the dignity of every
human being and not under the flag of a country based on qawmiyya.
People see that qawmiyya brings them nothing but poverty, theft,
pillaging, and oppression. It hasn’t achieved economic growth, dignity,
or glory – it hasn’t brought them anything.
Hundreds of thousands of Kurds in Europe and elsewhere live with
citizenship and full rights and none of them are clamoring to leave
their country and move to Kurdistan. The idea of a Kurdish state is
a dream – nothing more, nothing less. But reality will not permit
its realization.
Q: What about federalism in lieu of a separate state?
A: Federalism or state unity is something to be determined after
we reach democracy. But federalism is a just another political
arrangement; it doesn’t mean fundamentally changing the state entity.
Switzerland has 32 cantons. How has that impacted on the strength
of Switzerland? It’s still one of the stronger powers in the world.
America has 52 states, each with its own legislature, its own laws,
and its own constitution. How has that lessened the power of America?
On the contrary, this structure has enhanced its power. My thinking
isn’t, let’s create a federated state even if it means that the state
will be weak. My dream is to make my country stronger.
Q: What sort of reaction to this revival have you seen among the Arabs?
A: Extremism from one side always results in extremism from the
other. With the exception of the events in Qamashli there haven’t
been very many explicit manifestations of the extremism. Some serious
tensions have developed among the Arab tribes who reject this Kurdish
revival – some understand the issue, but others have responded with
their own brand of extremism. Even some of the cultured elite had a
negative reaction to the events in Qamashli.
The problem is the absence of a natural environment. If the
environment is diseased, it is going to produce more social diseases
in all circumstances. An environment characterized by oppression and
domination is not going to produce healthy thought – it’s going to
produce extremism.
That’s what we’ve been saying: a democratic environment will push
people to be more proper and more rational and it will stunt extremism.
Q: So what are the major differences between the Kurdish and Arab
oppositions?
A: The most fundamental difference is that the Kurds think – and
this is their right – that there is a uniquely Kurdish problem. The
Syrian opposition views it as an issue of just another group deprived
of its rights, but not a Kurdish problem in the sense that the Kurds
constitute a nation. And this basic difference ramifies into multiple
points of disagreement about the details of their predicament. But the
fundamental point of contention is whether the Kurds are a separate
nation or just normal Syrian individuals deprived of some of their
rights.
It’s not a problem if the Syrian Arabs say: “We are Syrian Arabs
who are part of the Arab nation.” But it’s not permitted for the
Syrian Kurds to say “We are Syrian Kurds who are part of the Kurdish
nation.” So there’s a contradiction.
Q: Most of the Kurds support America’s project of remaking the Middle
East. They call U.S. President George W. Bush “Father of Freedom,”
which I cannot imagine goes over too well with a lot Arabs. How does
the Arab opposition react to this?
A: No, in Syria you’ll find Arabs who say let Bush come here as well.
Q: But it’s a rarer sentiment among the Arabs than the Kurds?
A: No, it’s not rare among the Arabs. That’s what happens when
you block all other avenues for change. The Kurds may get the most
publicity because in some of their demonstrations they were praising
Bush. But even in Qadmus, where the ethnic conflicts erupted,
some of the Ismailis were calling for Bush to come. The same thing
happened in Misyaf three months ago. So you shouldn’t think of it as
a Kurdish predilection – it’s the natural result of closing the doors
in front of the citizenry. I heard an old man saying the other day:
“Let Israel come and rescue us from this state.” Israel! And he was
speaking in a loud voice in the middle of the street. These sentiments
are the byproduct of oppression.
Q: OK, then what about oppositional parties in general that differ
on the role of American intervention?
A: Of course, it’s a point of contention. But, in general, its one of
many points of contention. It’s a primary point that the nationalist
Arab opposition clings to. There is a segment that cannot comprehend
the concept of external powers playing a role in internal reform.
We used to lambaste America for supporting those dictators. But now
America is saying that it supports democratic leadership. And they
still criticize. What do they want? What do they want America to do?
When America supported despots they criticized her. Now America
has admitted to making mistakes and says it supports freedom and
democracy. So what do they want the Americans to do? What do they
want the position of the largest country in the world to be? Should
America be silent on everything?
Q: Then why do you think they continue to stand against America?
A: For two reasons. First, they have been raised to dislike America,
and especially because of its past mistakes, it has no credibility.
No one believes that America has the people in its interests. The
second reason is its position on the Israeli-Arab conflict. It has
yet to usher a solution to the conflict and that’s an extremely
sensitive point for Arabs. Then there is the Iraq war which left
some 400,000 people dead. And then what? They expect that America
will then withdraw and leave the people to die.
The only thing they are certain of is that America is looking to
protect its own interests. Defending human rights and democracy
consists of pressuring the regimes in order to secure their own
interests – it is not done in the defense of the people. So no one
has faith that they can rely on America.
I won’t rely on America but I am going to exploit American pressure
to realize my goals. Don’t be part of the American project, but you
should still position yourself to benefit from it. Allow America to
put pressure on the regime and reap the benefits. Don’t participate
in America’s project, but don’t fight it. They don’t understand
this equation.
Q: You say that the opposition benefits from foreign pressure. How?
Hypothetically, what would happen if foreign pressure came to a halt?
A: We’d all be imprisoned. It’s that simple.
The European Union has more credibility in the region and it’s taken
a more reasonable stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So
people are willing to rely on them more than America. And I made
this point to Ambassador Scobey before she returned to Washington:
America is in dire need of credibility in the realm of democracy and
human rights. How am I supposed to believe that America supports
democracy and human rights when they are supporting Hosni Mubarak
for his fifth term or Zaideddine Ibn Ali for his third term when
he is oppressing people in his country? There’s no balance in the
policy. They need to be promoting human rights everywhere, not just
in Syria, but then disregarding human rights violations elsewhere. It
has lost its credibility. But the more credibility the U.S. gains,
the larger its potential role becomes.
Q: The opposition is clearly divided over the role of American
influence. But to what extent does that constitute a major cleavage
that interferes with cooperation and unity?
A: This is an ostensible source of problems, but it’s not the
fundamental reason for lack of unity within the opposition. The real
reason for disagreements is that the opposition hasn’t managed to
reach the people. It speaks for its own interests and the interests
of opposition personalities rather than speaking for the interests
of the people. The people are absence from this opposition.
No opposition element has a complete program for action. I disagree
with someone because my platform doesn’t [connect] with his – but
here, no one has a real platform. And the people can’t evaluate the
platforms and decide which one is better. So where is there room for
disagreement? They disagree on personal issues.
There are some substantive manifestations of these disagreements: the
issue of Arab nationalism, the role of America, the role of Europe,
the position toward the regime. Is the regime capable of reform, can we
[have a] dialogue with it or not? Those are the apparent differences,
but the real reason is that there is no carrier for the message. They
don’t represent people, they represent themselves.
Q: So how do you solve this problem? Is this opposition salvageable?
A: In my opinion, this opposition exists only to oppose the regime.
It will collapse with the collapse of the regime. There are small
gatherings – and this hasn’t yet been widely noticed – of normal
people who didn’t previously have any relation to politics. And
these new groups have begun to organize their thoughts and produce
a new leadership. We have to rely on those people, not the current
opposition figures.
The current opposition figures dream that one day they will have
the power. But it’s a dream – it will never be realized. At best,
they may be part of a transition stage while the people determine
their stances and goals and the desired leadership.
People are becoming more aware. Because of [satellite technology]
and the Internet, they are beginning to realize how politics affects
them. We can’t determine how much power they will have right now, but
I imagine that in the near future their power will begin to manifest
itself. And they will not march to the tune of the current opposition.
Q: If the opposition doesn’t represent anyone, does the regime consider
even a united opposition a threat?
A: Of course, a united opposition would be a threat. Sheikh Khaznawi
[a prominent Kurdish Sheikh who was recently assassinated] became
a threat because of his good relations with the Muslim Brotherhood.
It’s not so much the Muslim Brotherhood that has weight in society as
much as the new Islamist trends which have been gaining steam as a
result of repression. I don’t think they’re worried that the Muslim
Brotherhood has a large, organized, explicit base in Syria. But the
meeting between a Kurd and the Muslim Brotherhood sends a signal to the
Islamists more than it entails the formation of an organized alliance.
But right now, the regime does not have anything to fear from inside
of Syria. The only time the regime fears the internal opposition is
when it coordinates or receives support from foreign powers. In short,
the regime fears foreign – not internal – pressure because the internal
opposition cannot influence the regime.
Q: What about the claim among many opposition figures that endorsing
foreign pressure or accepting foreign support would cost them
credibility on the street?
A: There has not been a revolution in ages that was purely internal –
they are always influenced by other powers. So that kind of talk is
a lie. There is no such thing as purely internal change.
Q: You spoke earlier about a new group of people that you think will
become the new opposition. What are the conditions for this inchoate,
popular opposition to succeed?
A: The international community needs to continue pressuring the regime
in order to protect civil society and human rights activists so that
they can take their message to the people. People began to speak
out, but the arrests resumed and people were intimidated and stop
discussing politics. The most important thing is the protection of
activists from arrest and murder. That would enable people to agitate
more for change. We need pressure for the government to pass laws
that protect civil society. That would create the conditions under
which a new opposition could emerge.
I hear a lot from average Syrians that there are two evils: the
greater evil which is the occupation of Palestine and Iraq, and the
lesser evil which is the government.
That’s regime propaganda. When did the Syrian regime ever do anything
to help solve the issue of Palestine and Iraq? Nothing. I can’t
say that there is a big evil and a small evil because the two are
interrelated.
Let’s assume for a second that we have two enemies: the regime and
America. If the two of them fight each other, I have one less enemy
to worry about. Both of them aim to oppress me. Now they are fighting
each other. Let them fight! If one of them is vanquished then I have
one less enemy.
But there are people who are unwilling as a matter of principle to
accept an American victory. How do you convince them that American
pressure is in their interests?
Those people are one element of many. There is no entity that wants
to see an end to American interference more than the Syrian regime
itself. But like I said, we need to exploit American pressure, not for
the sake of American interests, but for the sake of achieving our own
goals. And this is what the current opposition doesn’t understand. It
doesn’t understand how to play the game. Even regarding people like
Farid Ghadry – we have an expression in Syria: “Better the dog bark
with you than at you.” Let Farid bark with you. Don’t degrade him. The
opposition has no conception of how it is going to bring about these
grand political changes.
Q: This is why I say they will collapse with the regime. They have
no program; they have no role outside of opposing the regime’s
existence. Who are they going to oppose after the regime’s collapse?
A: The regime’s political strategy depends on planting land mines
throughout society. But the mine doesn’t explode if you place your
leg on it – it explodes when you remove your leg from it. The regime
planted the land mines then placed their legs on them so that if the
regime goes, the society will explode. We can expect the same thing
that happened in Lebanon to happen here. We suffer from the same
problems of competing nationalisms, sectarianism, and extremism. So we
are held hostage by a regime that says to us” “If I leave, the world
will end. You’ll suffer through civil war. Best leave me in place.”
We need to mobilize the people to build a new society and minimize
the potential for this explosion. But nothing is free. No country
can progress without paying a price, be it blood or civil war. Even
America had to undergo civil war before it could become a great power –
[thousands] of people had to die. Europe had to suffer through World
War II to become what it is today. Big changes require big prices. But
we need to work to minimize the price we will have to pay for progress.
This is the role for foreign pressures – to enable people to
mobilize and build a new society that will not explode as soon as the
totalitarian boot is lifted. To allow people to build a society that
will neutralize that landmine.
From: Baghdasarian

PRESS-SECRETARY OF OPPOSITION BLOC BECAME ONLY CANDIDATE TO PREFECT OF CENTRAL COMMUNITY
YEREVAN, AUGUST 25. ARMINFO. Press-secretary of the opposition
“Justice” bloc Ruzan Khachatryan has been elected the only candidate
from the bloc to the post of the prefect of central community of
Yerevan. Such a decision was made unanimously at today’s sitting
of the bloc. Leader of “Justice” Aram Sargssyan assured that the
participation of Khachatryan in the elections will help to reveal
once again the defects of Armenia’s apparatus.
To note, the elections in the Center community will be held on Sept
25. Registration of candidates to the prefect will take place on Aug
26-31. Besides Khachatryan, the acting prefect of the community Gagik
Beglaryan also will stand for this post.

AZERBAIJANI JOURNALISTS CALLS FOR ERADICATION OF “ARMENIAN PROBLEM”
YEREVAN, AUGUST 25. ARMINFO. Armenians and Azerbaijanis cannot live
as neighbors in Nagorny Karabakh, writes a certain A.Asalyati in
an article on the web-site MiK “Country is me, you and all us!” The
article was not so against Armenia as against their own authorities.
He says that as wise people Armenians are well aware that co-residence
in Karabakh in impossible that is why they do not yield in the issue of
separation from Azerbaijan, and will never do. He calls the authorities
to stop feeding the people with false promises and primitive lie. “Now
the authorities decided to do the same with Karabakhi Armenians, open
your eyes wider, it won’t work with Armenians!” “Karabakh problem has
become a chewing gum for repeated use for our deserving the title of
politicos at the best. Unfortunately, chewing of the problem will not
put an end to the historical caries of our dignity!” The journalists
writes: “the only way out is to eradicate this disease which has not
allowed us to live calmly for over 200 hundred years.”

ARF BUREAU BEGINS 3-DAY SEMINAR ON AUGUST 26
25.08.2005 15:50
YEREVAN (YERKIR) – A three-day seminar to discuss the political
developments in the region begins on August 26. ARF members from over
20 countries as well as from Armenia, Artsakh and Javakhk are to attend
the discussion organized by the ARF Bureau, according to Kiro Manoyan,
the director of the Bureau’s Hay Dat and Political Affairs Office.
The Bureau has decided to regularly hold seminars to discuss various
issues with the party members representing different regions,
Manoyan says.
“This seminar will be dedicated to the political developments underway
in the region,” Manoyan indicated. “We will discuss the approaches
of different countries and forces to this regions, as well as the
issues of Nagorno Karabakh, Javakhk and Armenia-Turkish relations.”

TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTER TO ADDRESS CONFERENCE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE -DAILY
Hurriyet web site, Istanbul
24 Aug 05
Text of report: “A surprising ‘yes’ to a surprising invitation”
published by Turkish daily Hurriyet web site on 24 August
A meeting on so-called “Armenian genocide,” which will be held at
Bogazici University on 23-25 September, will be opened by Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul, who has accepted an invitation extended by
Prof. Ayse Soysal, president of the university.
Bogazici University announced that the meeting, which had been
postponed due to huge public debate it caused, would be held in
September. Meanwhile, another important development, which Prof. Soysal
did not mention in her statement, took place.
Soysal called Gul at the beginning of the week and asked whether he
could deliver the opening address. Gul responded: “I have to check
my schedule. I would be glad to deliver an address if there is not
a special event coinciding with the meeting”.
Gul’s decision, which was not disclosed before yesterday evening,
came as a surprise to both the academia and the guests invited to
attend the conference.
Responding to a question put by a Hurriyet reporter, Gul confirmed the
report and said: “The president called me and asked whether I could
deliver a speech. I said that I could. There is nothing that would
cause us to act hesitantly about this issue. Why should we bury our
heads in the sand? I also emphasized that when the meeting was put
off. There was no reason for postponing it. Our society may discuss
it without fearing anything.”
This scientific gathering is open to all kinds of criticism
It has been formally announced that the alternative Armenian conference
at Bogazici University, which had been postponed in May, would be held
on 23-25 September, which confirmed a report carried by Hurriyet two
days ago.
In a joint statement they issued yesterday, Prof Soysal and Prof. Tosun
Terzioglu, president of Sabanci University, said: “Academic studies
conducted in our universities can be shared by the academia in
different forms. This conference will be a gathering where such studies
with an academic content will be shared. Establishments would certainly
not be bound by opinions expressed in a conference and such opinions
would be open to all kinds of criticism within an academic context.”
The conference entitled “Ottoman Armenians,” which was to be organized
by Bogazici University in May, was postponed after Justice Minister
Cemil Cicek said in an address to the National Assembly: “This is
tantamount to stabbing the Turkish nation in the back. I wish I
had not delegated my power to institute lawsuits as the Minister of
Justice.” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticized the decision
to put off the conference. He said: “Postponing this event due to a
statement made by Justice Minister Cemil Cicek makes no sense.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address: Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact: Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel: (374 10) 517 163
Fax: (374 10) 517 301
E-Mail: [email protected]
August 24, 2005
HIS HOLINESS KAREKIN II RECEIVES PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE (PACE)
On August 18, His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos
of All Armenians received René van Der Linden, President of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), in the Mother
See of Holy Etchmiadzin. Mr. van Der Linden was accompanied by the
Vice President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia,
Tigran Torosian.
Welcoming the honored guest to the headquarters of the Armenian
Church, His Holiness reflected on the sacred mission of the Church
and the Mother See in the life of the Armenian people. His Holiness
expressed his appreciation to the PACE president for the assistance and
efforts being invested by the Council of Europe aimed at strengthening
democratic values in the newly independent Republic of Armenia and
its future successful integration into the European Union.
His Holiness, stressing the importance of solving the Nagorno
Karabagh conflict only through peaceful means, stated: “We are
hopeful that through the assistance of the Council of Europe, we will
be able to make unavoidable and inevitable the peaceful settlements
of the conflicts in this region, and through dialogue and mutual
understanding, thus secure a just and lawful solution specifically
to the Karabagh conflict which continues to concern us.”
President van Der Linden expressed his gratitude for the warm reception
granted by the Pontiff of All Armenians, and stated his conviction
that this meeting was especially important for him. Mr. van Der Linden
reflected on the democratic values and the protection of human rights
which form the core of the Parliamentary Assembly, noting that the
role of Churches and religions in these spheres was vital, and that
through inter-Church and inter-faith dialogue, society would greatly
benefit from their contributions and moral positions.
Also present in the meeting was His Grace Bishop Vasken Mirzakhanian,
Primate of the Armenian Diocese of Georgia.
##
–Boundary_(ID_yZg+JXLWihXPTu90uKHoXw)–

AZERI OPPOSITION BLOC URGES AUTHORITIES TO EXPLAIN “SABOTAGE”
Azadliq, Baku
24 Aug 05 p 2
Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq on 24
August headlined “The authorities must answer” and subheaded “The
Ilham Aliyev administration is using the National Security Ministry
against the democratic opposition as a means of instigation to civil
confrontation, violence and unlawfulness” and “The Azadliq bloc issues
a statement over the exposed secret operation against the PFAP”
The Azadliq [opposition electoral] bloc issued a statement yesterday
to protest against the sabotage operation against the People’s Front
of Azerbaijan Party [PFAP], which was exposed by [PFAP adviser] Ramiz
Tagiyev [reported attempt to prompt some party members to storm the
PFAP office]. The authors of the statement described this incident
as a continuing act of sabotage against the Azadliq bloc in general
and the PFAP and its chairman Ali Karimli in particular.
The statement says that the authorities, which are concerned about the
demands of the Azerbaijani public and the international community for
a free and fair election, want to use force in political processes,
crack down on their political opponents by means of illegal methods
and prevent expected democratic changes in the country.
“The fact that the authorities have used force against the peaceful
protests of the Azadliq bloc in regions in recent months, that the
National Security Ministry has organized an act of sabotage against
the PFAP and its leader Ali Karimli over the case of Ruslan Basirli
[who is accused of alleged cooperation with the Armenian special
services] and that specially trained groups have attacked the PFAP
headquarters shows that the incumbent authorities fear the decisiveness
of the democratic opposition to win the election and prevent another
election fraud and are trying to disrupt the forthcoming election in
such ways. As a sequel to all this, the National Security Ministry’s
statements about Ramiz Tagiyev’s involvement in the organization of the
attack on the PFAP expose the very nature of the authorities’ policy
and prove once again that the power structures are actually used as
a means of struggle against the opposition,” the statement says.
Referring to Tagiyev’s statements, the statement recalls that employees
of the National Security Ministry met Tagiyev via the chairman of the
Hope Party, Iqbal Agazada, and suggested that he should storm the
PFAP headquarters with the help of specially trained groups, seize
the building and evict party members from there. After the seizure
of the party headquarters, it was planned to set up a temporary
administrative council of the party led by Tagiyev.
The Azadliq bloc states with anxiety that the incident illustrates
that the authorities are trying not to compete with their rivals
in a civilized manner, but to resort to illegal ways to destroy and
crash them.
“This shows once again that instead of protecting Azerbaijan’s
national security and state interests, the National Security
Ministry is actually used by the [Azerbaijani President] Ilham
Aliyev administration against the democratic opposition as a means of
instigation to civil confrontation, violence and unlawfulness in the
country. The Azadliq bloc says that the authorities are trying to use
authoritarian methods to prevent democratic processes in the country,
create artificial tension and fear in society and hold people at bay
through blackmail and crackdown because they do not intend to fulfil
their international commitments to hold a democratic election. The
authorities must give the people of Azerbaijan an explanation about
the incident since it is directed not only against the PFAP, but also
against the Azadliq bloc and democratic processes,” the statement says.

NEW COMMANDER OF RUSSIAN FORCES IN TRANSCAUCASUS TAKES UP POST
Interfax-AVN military news agency website
24 Aug 05
Moscow, 24 August: Maj-Gen Andrey Popov has been appointed commander
of the Group of Russian Forces in Transcaucasus [GRFT] and started
carrying out his duties, the deputy commander of the GRFT, Col Vladimir
Kuparadze, told Interfax-AVN news agency on Wednesday [24 August]
by telephone from Tbilisi.
“Before his appointment as commander, Maj-Gen Popov was the
chief-of-staff of the GRFT and is fully aware of the situation,”
Kuparadze said.
Before Popov’s appointment, the GRFT was commanded by Maj-Gen Aleksandr
Bespalov. However, the Georgian authorities have not granted him
a Georgian entry visa and hid couldn’t come to Tbilisi, where the
headquarters of the GRFT are situated. Since his appointment in March
this year, Bespalov was in Armenia, where the 102nd Russian military
base is stationed in the town of Gyumri.
Maj-Gen Bespalov has been appointed deputy commander of the troops
of the North Caucasian Military District.

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
08/25/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1) Plot Thickens in Fate of Turkey's Armenian Genocide Conference 2) Election Tensions in Azerbaijan Trouble Europe 3) ARF Bureau Seminar 4) Abkhazia Unwilling to Trade Freedom for Monetary Assurances 1) Plot Thickens in Fate of Turkey's Armenian Genocide Conference ISTANBUL (Marmara/AFP)--Recent reports in the Turkish press point to Turkish government efforts to influence the recently rescheduled conference on the Armenian genocide, slated for September 23-25 at Istanbul's Bogazici University. Featuring academics and intellectuals who dispute Ankara's version of the 1915-1917 genocide of Armenians, the conference was postponed in May after Justice Minister Cemil Cicek condemned the initiative as "treason" and a "stab in the back of the Turkish nation." He also said organizers deserved to be prosecuted. The outburst raised eyebrows in European diplomatic circles about Ankara's commitment to democratic reforms, a requirement for October 3 negotiations over its adhesion to the European Union (EU). But diplomats said the incident could also prove to be a watershed if the Turkish government acted to correct Cicek's remarks. Milliyet published an article on August 25 saying Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan requested that organizers reschedule the conference prior to October 3, noting negative effects of its prior cancellation on European public opinion. In the meantime, there are conflicting reports on whether Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul would open the conference, titled "Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy." Although it was reported yesterday that Gul accepted the invitation from the rector of Bogazici University, Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Namik Tan announced later on Wednesday that Gul would be in New York during the conference opening, and would participate during its closingif his schedule allowed. Asked about recent change in plans, Gul explained that he agreed to participate in principle, but only if his schedule allowed, and elaborated on the importance of the academic gathering. "We consider such meetings an opportunity to explain our opinion both in Turkey and abroad," Gul said. "We have no problems about the issue [Armenian genocide], and it is useless to shun it as if the guilty party." Pointing to opinions that oppose his, he suggested that certain circles twist historical facts to oppose Turkey. His comments seem to have implied that the nature of the original conference is now questionable. "I am happy to partake if I see that there is broad representation," he said, in an apparent reference to participation of academics who deny the genocide of Armenians ever took place. "We must carry out, both internally and externally, a clear campaign to contradict this. We must be proactive both as a government and a [foreign] ministry. We will not allow hostile circles to affect new generations with unfounded allegations." 2) Election Tensions in Azerbaijan Trouble Europe Embassies of European Union member states in Baku have called for free and fair parliamentary elections in November, and urge political parties in Azerbaijan to hold peaceful pre-election campaigns for the sake of Azerbaijan's democratic development. (azernews/noticias)--"Concerned about the deteriorating pre-election environment in Azerbaijan, the EU mission there has called on all parties to exert considerable effort in ensuring free and fair elections, according to British charge d'affaires in Baku Colin Wells. On behalf of the embassies of EU states in Baku, I call on all parties to ensure that their campaigns are peaceful. Violence and threats are not in line with democratic election campaigns. The embassies praise the authorities' steps on the implementation of the May 11 presidential decree on improving election practices and are ready to assist Azerbaijan in making certain the elections meet international standards," Wells said in a statement released by the British embassy there. The President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Rene van der Linden also expressed concern after visiting the region August 18-23. Der Linden stressed in Strasbourg on Thursday that the November elections would be a test case for the country and an important opportunity for the international community to see that the government was doing its utmost to ensure free and fair elections. Noting the importance of election monitoring, he reminded authorities that in January 2006 PACE would consider the report of its own 40-strong election observation mission. Der Linden stressed that authorities must reinforce and guarantee media independence and pluralism, including the reopening of the capital's Public TV station. He urged all political parties to approach the elections in a positive and constructive spirit of democracy, and called on the authorities to take all the necessary action to ensure that neither the opposition nor the media would continue to feel at risk as a result of their lawful and democratic activities. 3) ARF Bureau Seminar YEREVAN (YERKIR)--A three-day seminar on political developments in Armenia and the region begins on August 26 in Yerevan, with Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) members from around 20 countries participating in the discussions organized by the ARF Bureau. "We will review the positions of various countries and forces that affect the region, as well as issues tied to Mountainous Karabagh and Javakhk, and Armenia-Turkey relations." indicated Giro Manoyan, who heads the Bureau's Hai Tahd and Political Affairs office. The meeting is a part of a series of Bureau-organized seminars to deliberate on matters with party members representing the ARF's many regions, Manoyan said. 4) Abkhazia Unwilling to Trade Freedom for Monetary Assurances TBILISI (Civil Georgia)--Abkhaz prime minister Aleksander Ankvab told Regnum news agency that the independence of Abkhazia would not be traded for economic opportunities and international assistance. In an interview, Ankvab, who criticized western diplomats, said Abkhazia instead finds "far better understanding" of its claims in Russia. "Representatives of Western diplomatic circles--sorry for the rough language--always rub it in our face [that Abkhazia is not internationally recognized], but they can not take away our natural right to being independent and free. We are not asking to enter anything and do not beg. If they want to speak in a dignified manner, we are ready to respond, but to try--with economic promises--to place us somewhere else [i.e. Georgia]--they must consider the will of the people that will never change," Ankvab said. He also stressed that there is no link between Abkhazia's political aims and opportunities for foreign loans. Ankvab has lead the Abkhaz political movement "Aitaira" since 2000, and was a high-ranking Communist Party official in Soviet Georgia from 1981 to 1983. He later served as the deputy Interior Minister for political issues of the Soviet Georgian from until 1990. All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and subscription requests. (c) 2005 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved. ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through mass media outlets.

A surprising “yes” to a surprising invitation
Hurriyet
Last updated 23:14
24.08.2005
A conference dealing with the question of the Armenian genocide will take
place at Bosphorus University in late September. The conference, entitled
“Ottoman Armenians During the Collapse of the Empire,” will be held
September 23-25, and will feature opening remarks by Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul. The FM has reportedly been invited to open the conference by
Bosphorus University Rector Ayse Soysal.
The “Ottoman Armenians” conference had been originally scheduled for May
2005, but was cancelled due to an overwhelmingly negative reaction in the
Turkish press and among significant political figures. Its postponement led
to much controversy among pundits and in public opinion.
The decision by Gul to speak at the conference had apparently been held
secret by the university as well as conference participants.
Gul himself spoke to Hurriyet, saying “The Rector did call and ask me to
speak. I said that I would, and that there was nothing for us to be afraid
of on this subject…At the time when the first conference was delayed, I
had said that it wasn’t a good thing. There was no need to postpone it. We
could have comfortably discussed this all as a society.”
Erdogan spoke out against the postponement
In a speech proceeding the postponement of the “Ottoman Armenians”
conference in May, Justice Minister Cemil Cicek spoke in Parliament, saying
of the conference “This is stabbing the Turkish people in the back. I wish
that, in becoming Justice Minister, I had not forfeited my right to open a
court case against them.” PM Erdogan later said criticized the postponement
of the conference, saying “It makes no sense that the conference would be
postponed due to the words of the Justice Minister.”
,,sid~381@nvid~621710,00.asp