ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
08/22/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1) Sense of Justice Has No Equal 2) Truth First, Then Reconciliation Says Visiting Howard Dean 3) Lake Sevan Sets Stage for Kocharian, Saakashvili Informal Talks 4) Kurdish Rebel Ceasefire Meets with Chilly Reaction in Turkey 5) ECHR Fines Turkey for 'Freedom of Expression' 1) Sense of Justice Has No Equal Azeri Oil Money Does Not Intimidate Armenia Says Oskanian YEREVAN (RFE/RL)--In a strongly worded statement released over the weekend, Armenia said that Azerbaijan's planned military buildup would not force Armenia into making increased concessions in negotiating the Mountainous Karabagh conflict. The statement came in response to Azeri President Ilham Aliyev's pledge to boost his country's military budget by 70 percent through multimillion-dollar proceeds from its soaring oil exports. Aliyev said in a speech last Tuesday that increases in Azeri military spending will eventually force Armenians to make more compromises on Karabagh But in his written statement, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian point-blank stated: "They can neither seduce nor, worse, scare us with their oil. Armenia always has the ability to militarily counter any Azerbaijani military budget. In fact, the advantage that Armenians have over Azerbaijan is not in military expenditures or arms, but in the justness of the cause." Oskanian also said that Azeris will always lack the motivation to win back Mountainous Karabagh, and that the international community has come to terms with Armenian control over Karabagh. "Armenians believe that the Mountainous Karabagh cause is just, and in case of war, they will be fighting for their own homes and land. This is not what the Azerbaijanis did or would do," he said. "It would be better for Azerbaijan to compete not militarily, but engage in healthy economic and political competition," said Oskanian. "And in those realms, today, Azerbaijan is far from challenging Armenia or even Mountainous Karabagh." The chief of the Armenian army staff, Colonel-General Mikael Harutiunian, also brushed aside Aliyev's threats on Monday. "I think they ought to invest that money in the socio-economic development of their country and people who are poor and starving," he said. Harutiunian also warned that the Armenian side "will not stay idle" either. "We are also preparing and although we are not going to invest big money, we will invest enough," he said without elaborating. The latest round of war of words between Armenia-Azerbaijan comes on the eve of Aliyev's talks in Russia with President Robert Kocharian, which international mediators say could mark a turning point in the long-running efforts to broker a solution to the Karabagh dispute. Oskanian and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov will meet in Moscow on Wednesday to prepare for those talks. Speaking to journalists in Baku on Friday, Aliyev said although the conflicting parties have made serious progress towards a peaceful settlement there are still "serious differences." He claimed that they have been discussing a "step-by-step" peace accord that would indefinitely delay agreement on Karabakh's status. But Oskanian denied this, saying that the Armenia is only ready to accept a "package" deal that "may be implemented in stages." He also said the international community is "assessing the situation more realistically" than Azerbaijan. "The international trend regarding conflicts--East Timor, developments around Kosovo, the Sudan Agreement--all these developments demonstrate that the international community today is leaning towards greater respect for the right of peoples to self-determination," he said. 2) Truth First, Then Reconciliation Says Visiting Howard Dean YEREVAN (ANCA/RFE-RL)--Former US presidential candidate Howard Dean ended a two-day visit to Armenia this weekend with a pledge to drum up greater support among fellow Democrats in US Congress to pass legislation recognizing the Armenian genocide. Dean, who now heads the Democratic National Committee, criticized the Bush administration for its failure to publicly refer to the 1915-1918 mass killings and deportations of Armenians as a genocide. He said Washington should not fear antagonizing the government of Turkey, a key US ally, which strongly denies the Genocide occurred. "The truth is that the Armenian genocide took place 90 years ago," the former governor of Vermont told reporters after laying a wreath at Yerevan's hilltop memorial to some 1.5 million victims of the genocide. "Over a million people were killed. There is no question that the United States should recognize this." "Sometimes facts are inconvenient," he said, commenting on the Bush administration's stance on the issue. "It is true that the Turks are great friends and allies of ours, but every country does things wrong once in a while. Our country enslaved millions of Africans for a long time. So we have to look back at the past. If you want to have reconciliation, you first have to have the truth." Dean pledged to recognize the Armenian genocide during his unsuccessful campaign to secure the Democratic Party's nomination in the last elections. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who unexpectedly defeated Dean in the Democratic primaries, gave similar promises. Dean grinned when asked whether he thinks the US would have already recognized the genocide if Bush had failed to win reelection. "There is no way of knowing that," he said. "I believe that the Democratic Party has to deal with what the facts are. And the facts are that a genocide occurred. You can't pretend that it didn't happen." Dean went on to express his support for a draft congressional resolution that calls on Bush to "accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide" in his annual messages to the US-Armenian community. "The Democrats do not control the House [of Representatives] or the Senate or, unfortunately, the White House," he said. "But when I get home I will be speaking with the Democratic leadership of the House and ask them to support this resolution. And if we get a few Republicans we can pass it." The Armenian Genocide Resolution, which was formally introduced on June 14 by Representatives George Radanovich (R-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), calls on the President Bush to ensure US foreign policy reflects appropriate understanding of the Armenian Genocide. The resolution includes thirty detailed findings from past US hearings, resolutions, and Presidential statements, as well as references to statements by international bodies and organizations. Dean, who many Democrats hope will help to revive their party's fortunes, said that the existence of the influential Armenian-American community was a key reason for his decision to visit Armenia. His meetings on Friday with President Robert Kocharian and other senior officials in Yerevan were organized by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. The meetings focused on US-Armenian relations and the situation in the region. "It is very important for us in the United States to have a strong Armenia," said Dean. "We want Armenia to succeed as a democratic state and I think Armenia has done well in the last ten years. There is more that needs to be done, but I'm very pleased by the progress and I hope the progress will continue." 3) Lake Sevan Sets Stage for Kocharian, Saakashvili Informal Talks LAKE SEVAN--President Robert Kocharian met with his Georgian counterpart Mikhail Saakashvili at a popular Armenian resort on Monday for informal talks, according to a presidential source. Sources in the Armenian presidential administration said that Saakashvili arrived in Yerevan on Sunday and joined Kocharian at his summer retreat on the shore of Lake Sevan. His Defense Minister Irakli Okruashvili later joined them. The last meeting between the two leaders took place at a Georgian ski resort last April, when they discussed tensions in Georgia's impoverished Javakhk region, which is mostly Armenian-populated. According to a Russian news agency, the situation in Javakhk was again on their agenda. The Armenian and Georgian prime ministers paid a joint visit to the restive region late last month, promising joint efforts to alleviate socioeconomic problems. The Georgian premier Zurab Noghaideli announced his government will use additional U.S. assistance that will be provided to Georgia to rebuild the local roads and other infrastructure. Speaking to a group of Armenian journalists last week, Saakashvili called for the establishment of closer economic ties between the two neighboring countries. "Developing without each other would not be rational, natural or right," he said. 4) Kurdish Rebel Ceasefire Meets with Chilly Reaction in Turkey ANKARA (AFP)--Turkish officials snubbed a decision by the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) for a one-month ceasefire, as analysts predicted no breakthroughs in the conflict that continues to burden Ankara as it prepares for accession talks with the European Union. The PKK's decision to stop armed action until September 20 followed a landmark pledge by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week to resolve the Kurdish problem with "more democracy" and mounting calls by civic groups on the PKK to lay down arms. Government officials refused to comment on the cancellation of a news conference by the PKK's political wing KONGRA-GEL, which was scheduled to take place in Belgium. Kurdish sources, however, described the move as Turkish pressure on Belgium. The PKK has fought Ankara since 1984, and is blacklisted as a terrorist group by Turkey as well as the EU and the United States. "It is out of the question for us to comment on this issue," said Akif Beki, Erdogan's spokesman. A senior foreign ministry official, who requested anonymity, stated that "those people are terrorists and it is not possible for us to qualify their actions either as positive or negative." Ankara has meticulously avoided any move that could imply recognition of the PKK. "We will closely watch the developments in this one-month period. We will give time to Prime Minister Erdogan's well-intended efforts," KONGRA-GEL head Zubeyir Aydar told the pro-Kurdish MHA news agency. The PKK has markedly intensified attacks on the army in the past several months since calling off a five-year unilateral truce in June 2004 on the grounds that Ankara did not respond in kind. Turkish officials have also blamed the PKK for several deadly bomb blasts in Istanbul and tourist resorts, but the rebels have denied responsibility, putting the blame on a radical splinter group. In Diyarbakir, the central city of the mainly Kurdish southeast, Kurdish activists who had urged an unconditional truce expressed disappointment with the one-month ceasefire but kept their hopes alive that it could help build confidence between Ankara and the rebels. "The announcement falls short of our expectations, but a partial ceasefire will end the fighting and should be seen as a beginning, an opening for a resolution of the conflict," Mesut Bestas, a senior local politician, told AFP. Analysts were less optimistic. Political scientist Dogu Ergil said the PKK move was "political blackmail" aimed at extracting concessions from Ankara as it gears up for accession talks with the EU on October 3. "The PKK has no genuine political agenda," he said. "Its real concern is to secure an amnesty for its militants and get [jailed PKK leader Abdullah] Ocalan out of prison." Ismet Berkan, editor-in-chief of the Radikal daily, said the army was unlikely to stop cracking down on the PKK, which would give the rebels an easy pretext to renew armed action. "It is inconceivable for the army to stop operations against militants up in the mountains who possess hundreds of kilograms of explosives and mines," he wrote in anticipation of the ceasefire announcement. The conflict has claimed some 37,000 lives since 1984, when the PKK took up arms for Kurdish self-rule in the southeast. The brutal state response led to gross human rights breaches on both sides and opened a wide confidence gap between Ankara and the Kurds, who make up about a fifth of Turkey's 70-million population. Anxious to boost its EU membership bid, Ankara has ended 15 years of emergency rule in the southeast and allowed the Kurdish language to be taught at private courses and used in public broadcasts over the past several years. Even though the reforms are believed to have diminished popular support for the PKK, Kurdish activists say Ankara should further expand the minority's freedoms. 5) ECHR Fines Turkey for 'Freedom of Expression' STRASBOURG (BIA)-- The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed Turkey a fine of 400,000 dollars in damages so far this year in legal cases about freedom of expression and fair trial. The court fined Turkey 166,000 dollars in similar cases last year. The ECHR ruled that Turkey should pay 20,500 dollars in damages to Socialist Part (SP) leader Dogu Perincek; a total of 36,100 dollars to Gunluk Emek newspaper's chief editor Ahmet Ergin and owner Halit Keskin, and 116,200 dollars to Ilkay Adali, the wife of journalist Kutlu Adali who was killed in northern Cyprus, among other people. Since 2004, Turkey has been fined 557,554 dollars in damages for violating article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which oversees freedom of expression, article 6/1, which calls for a fair trial, and article 2, which concerns not "investigating enough" journalist deaths. 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. From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Open Democracy, UK
Aug 23 2005
Abkhazian futures
by Andrew Mueller

A small, little-known corner of the southern Caucasus resists
Georgia, relies on Russia, and is resolute for independence. Andrew
Mueller reports from Abkhazia.

Sukhum’s international airport must be the quietest such aviation hub
on earth. There are only a couple of passenger jets parked on the
runway, derelict Aeroflot planes that look like they haven’t been
airborne since Leonid Brezhnev was in power. There are no customs
formalities, just a bored security guard waving the few arrivals
through, and outside there are no taxis, no buses, no uniformed
chauffeurs holding up the names of their passengers.

Also on Abkhazia and Georgia in openDemocracy’s `Caucasian
fractures’ debate:
George Hewitt, `Sakartvelo: roots of turmoil’ (November 2003)
Nino Nanava, `Mikhail Saakashvili: new romantic or modern realist’
(December 2003)
Neal Ascherson, `Tbilisi, Georgia: the rose revolution’s rocky road’
(July 2005)
Chris Smith, `Baku-Ceyhan, the politics of oil’ (August 2005)
If you find this material valuable please consider supporting
openDemocracy by sending us a donation so that we can continue our
work and keep it free for all

The moribund status of Sukhum’s international airport is a by-product
of the fact that nobody outside Sukhum (sometimes rendered as
`Sukhumi’) considers it an international airport. Sukhum is the
nominal capital of Abkhazia, a region in the north-west of Georgia
which has been struggling for more than a decade to be recognised as
an independent, sovereign state. The cost, in money and human life,
has been incalculable: around 10,000 people are estimated to have
died in the little-reported 1992-93 war with Georgia, many of them
Abkhazians in a total Abkhaz population of only 90,000.
For most foreigners, coming here is possible only if they can gain
the necessary approval to travel on one of the United Nations’s
sporadic helicopter flights from the Georgian military airbase near
Senaki. The lumbering Russian-built Mi-8s fly straight to the coast
and then miles out into the Black Sea before turning back around to
Sukhum; the careful arc an acknowledgment that in October 2001, a UN
helicopter was shot down over Abkhazia, killing all nine people
aboard.
A shadow state
Abkhazia is visibly determined – despite the overt hostility of
Georgia, and the indifference of the rest of the planet – to make its
own way in the world. The territory’s public buildings, shops and
street stalls, fly Abkhazia’s own flag, rich in symbolism: green and
white stripes (representing Abkhazia’s mixed Christian and Islamic
heritage), a red panel emblazoned with an open palm (denoting
friendship), which appears to be juggling seven white stars
(representing Abkhazia’s provinces).
The formalities of independent status are everywhere. Abkhazia has
its own government, which collects its own taxes, and includes its
own foreign ministry (even if, by definition, this seems a bit like
Switzerland having a navy minister or the Netherlands a mountain
rescue service); its own police, operating according to Abkhazia’s
own laws; its own military, in which two years’ service is compulsory
for young men; its own postage stamps (though opinion about the
chances of postcards sent with them ever being seen again is mixed).
At the same time, the realities of dependency abound. Abhkazia plans
to issue its own passports, though an agreement to give all
Abkhazians the right of Russian citizenship in 2002 seemed to
compromise the goal of statehood. Russian troops guarantee the
country’s border with Georgia on the Inguri river to the east, and
are present in Sukhum itself – enviably billeted in tree-shrouded
dachas next to the beach in one of the old Soviet Union’s premier
holiday resorts (which must beat serving in Chechnya).
Abkhazia may shun the Georgian currency (lari), but it uses the
Russian rouble rather than any currency of its own. Russian is also
the most commonly heard language, though in recent years there has
been a revival of interest in the northwest Caucasian language of
Abkhazian, another marker of distinction from south Caucasian
Georgian (kartvelebi) and Mingrelian (megruli) of Georgia.
Abkhazians are fond of pointing out that the country’s modern
difficulties derive from a decree by a son of Georgia, Josef Stalin.
After the consolidation of Soviet power in 1921, Abkhazia enjoyed
(for want of a better term) the same constitutional status within the
Soviet Union as Georgia itself – that of an Autonomous Soviet
Socialist Republic.
Stalin’s regular holidays in Abkhazia inspired no fondness for its
people (with his chief henchman, Lavrenti Beria – a Mingrelian – he
would destroy Nestor Lakoba and the rest of Abkhazia’s political
leadership in the 1930s purges). In 1931, he decided to reduce its
status by incorporating it into Georgia. Georgian was made Abkhazia’s
official language, and thousands of Georgians were encouraged to
settle there. By the time the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
stopped answering to its own name in 1991, only around 20% of
Abkhazia’s population were ethnically Abkhazian.
War descended upon Abkhazia in August 1992. Post-Soviet Georgia had
lurched from the crazed misdirection of chauvinist zealot Zviad
Gamsakhurdia to the overlordship of ex-Soviet foreign minister Eduard
Shevardnadze, who – in face of Abkhazian moves to outright
independence – sanctioned a brutal invasion of the rebellious
province.
The thirteen-month war was largely ignored by a world then
preoccupied with the carnage in disintegrating ex-Yugoslavia. Yet
there are deep parallels between the conflicts – in the `ethnic
cleansing’ of populations, the state- and media-orchestrated
nationalist intolerance, and the impulse to cultural annihilation as
well as military victory.
Just as the Bosnian Serbs attempted to extinguish proof of Bosnia’s
national identity by destroying the national library in Sarajevo, so
Georgian bombs razed Abkhazia’s Institute of Language, Literature and
History, and used Sukhum’s monuments to local heroes as target
practice (the bulletholes are still visible in many cases, while the
statue of poet Dmitri Gulia has its head blown off).
It is hard to find a single Abkhazian who didn’t lose friends or
family members in the conflict with Georgia. Eventually, Abkhazia’s
hastily-convened irregular forces – abetted by various detachments of
Russians as well as Chechens and other `north Caucasians’ – drove the
Georgian military from Abkhazian territory. Around 250,000 ethnically
Georgian refugees fled with them, many to a hellish long-term
existence in the ruins of Tbilisi’s Hotel Iveria.
Abkhazia declared independence in 1994. It has been painfully
attempting to recover ever since. The territory still has no formal
transport links with the rest of Georgia, though discussions about
restoring the railway line have been held. Ships from Turkey call at
Sukhum, though they risk being impounded or fired on by Georgian
naval vessels. Increasing numbers of Russian tourists negotiate the
only open border crossing near Sochi to enjoy the beaches and hotels
of Gagra and Pitsunda, prestigious resorts during Soviet times.
No compromise
The potential wealth generated by tourism, against the backdrop of
one of the most fertile regions in the world, would certainly be
enough to sustain a workable Abkhazian economy. Yet in present
geopolitical circumstances it is difficult to see how Abkhazia’s
dreams can possibly come true.
It is inconceivable that any Georgian government will offer it
independence – aside from giving up miles of potentially profitable
coastline, recognising Abkhazia could only encourage Georgia’s other
restive regions (the Adzharian problem may have been solved, but
South Ossetia is beyond Tbilisi’s control and there is growing
discontent among the Armenian minority in the south).
Moreover, the United States has no conceivable interest in Abkhazian
statehood. It is developing closer military and strategic ties with
Georgia, and its interest in Caspian oil supplies is reflected in its
support of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline that runs through Georgia’s
territory.
The US has consistently made clear its positive view of Georgia since
the `rose revolution’ that brought its smart young president, Mikhail
Saakashvili, to power in late 2003 – even extending the honour of an
ecstatically-welcomed visit by George W Bush in May 2005.
Meanwhile, the present uncertainty over Abkhazia’s status and future
suits Russia rather well. As Tbilisi strives to move closer to the
west, Moscow can loom menacingly in Georgia’s wing-mirrors and
preserve its strategic options in the troubled region (fuelling more
febrile Georgians’ fears that Abkhazians may one day be used – like
Sudetenland Germans in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s – as a pretext for
military intervention).
Despite this apparent absence of hope for a diplomatic breakthrough
in Abkhazia’s recognition by the international community, there seems
no appetite – among Abkhazia’s government or public alike – for any
sort of compromise. Indeed, in a government riven with personal
rivalries (something that became dangerously apparent during the
contested, divisive, and occasionally violent electoral process
between October 2004 and January 2005), this may be the only unifying
factor. When examples of a middle way are suggested, such as the
Basque country’s autonomy inside Spain or Scotland’s and Wales’s
within the United Kingdom, they are swiftly dismissed.
`There are’, the foreign minister Sergei Shamba declares, `no models
which could bring us together with the Georgian state. Due to
history, and due to public opinion, we stand by our right to
independence.’
`It’s about us, now’, confirms Vice-President Raul Khadjimba. `We
have to create the conditions for the world to hear about us. We have
to use television, newspapers, the internet, to tell people more
about Abkhazia. Maybe one day these issues will touch someone’s
heart, and the world will give us a chance.’

Armenian union urges people to restore “constitutional order”
Arminfo
23 Aug 05
Yerevan, 23 August: The political association called People are
masters of their own country has launched a campaign for restoring
constitutional order in Armenia, Aleksandr Butayev, deputy chairman of
the National-Democratic Union, which is a member of the association,
said at a news conference today.
He said that the association was set up several months ago by a number
of public and political organizations with the aim of restoring the
constitutional system in the country. He went onto say that today’s
task was to define whether the constitutional reform “thrust” upon
Armenia by the European community is the primary task or whether
people have other much more important problems that require an urgent
solution.
“How can the president say that he guarantees the implementation of
the constitution, if he himself, his administration and the entire
ruling structure up to the heads of village administrations take
pleasure in violating the constitution. Not constitutional, but
criminal laws have been reigning in Armenia in the past 15 years. In
this regard, the political association is calling on the people to
unite in order to restore the constitutional system and then “to
reform the constitution which was thrust upon the people in 1995”,
Butayev said.

Belarusian air defence unit placed on duty status during CIS exercise
in Russia
Belapan news agency
23 Aug 05
Minsk, 23 August: Missile crews of the 15th Anti-aircraft Missile
Brigade of the Belarusian air force and air defence forces’
Northwestern Operational and Tactical Command have been placed on duty
status at a Russian training ground as the third stage of a CIS air
defence exercise unfolds.
In the framework of the drill, the Belarusian crews together with
Russian, Armenian and Tajik units are to guard airspace over the
Commonwealth’s southern border, according to the Belarusian Defence
Ministry’s press office.
Live-fire practice involving Russia’s missile systems is scheduled for
25 August.
On 30 August, the Belarusian air defence unit is to take part in the
final phase of the drill, which will be observed by the Belarusian,
Armenian, Russian and Tajik defence ministers.

PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN ILHAM ALIYEV RECEIVES PACE PRESIDENT RENE VAN
DER LINDEN
[August 22, 2005, 20:39:41]
President of the Azerbaijani Republic Ilham Aliyev received the
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Rene
van der Linden, 22 August.
Head of the Azerbaijan State mentioned his meeting with the PACE
President in Warsaw, noting that the meeting set up good chances for
discussion of the questions of mutual interest. Stating that huge
works are being realized in the country for democratization of
society, President Ilham Aliyev expressed confidence the visit of
PSCE President would serve closer familiarization with the
development process in Azerbaijan.
Mr. Rene van der Linden noted the Council of Europe supports the
process of reforms in Azerbaijan. Underlining that settlement of the
Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict is the major question
for Azerbaijan Mr. Linden expressed consent for peacemaking efforts
of Azerbaijan in this direction. PACE President said that during his
visit to Armenia he has discussed the issue with the Armenian side
either and expressed hope for sooner resolution to the problem.
In the meetings, also discussed were other questions of mutual
interest.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Aug 23 2005
Postponed Armenian conference on again
ISTANBUL – A conference on Armenians which was postponed due to sharp
reactions in the media and the government has been rescheduled for
23-25 September at Bosporus University, Istanbul. Bosporus University
is a state university.
The preparation committee for the conference has decided to limit its
comments on the conference to strictly official ones. Likewise, the
Rector of Bosporus University, Dr. Ayse Soysal, has said she does not
want to say anything in advance of the late September date.
“Ottoman Era Armenians During the Collapse of the Empire”
The conference, entitled “Ottoman Era Armenians During the Collapse
of the Empire: Intellectual Responsibility and Democratic Problems,”
wasoriginally supposed to run between May 25-27.
The participants in the Armenian conference will include professors
from Bosphorus and Sabanci Universities, as well as Turkish academics
who work at universities from prestigious universities from around
the world. However the Conference Committee did not invite the
well-known Turkish Armenian researchers who advocate Turkish
perspective on Armenian issue, including Prof. Dr. Turkkaya Ataov,
Prof. Dr. Mim Kemal Oke, Prof. Dr. Ilber Ortayli etc.
Lasting two days, with 12 sessions, and featuring the participation
of 38 academics, the conference will have panels like “Deportation
and Massacre,” “Disaster and Rescue Stories,” “Memories and
Witnesses,” “Things the World Knew that Turkey did not Know.”
Dr. Nilgun Gulcan said the conference is not scientific but like a
religious ceremony: `All say the same thing. They do not want listen
any opposing word. They just invited the academicians from the same
groups. They cannot organize a similar conference in Yerevan,
California or Lyon. The Armenian extremist do not allow such a
conference. Yerevan even did not allow a Turkish historian to make
archive studies’ she added.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Fourteenth anniversary of NKR to be celebrated on September 2
23.08.2005 14:58
YEREVAN (YERKIR) – The fourteenth anniversary of declaring the
independent Nagorno Karabakh Republic will be celebrated on September
2, Armenpress reported.
In a row of celebration events, a service will be carried out in the
Kazanchetsots church of Shushi, public figures, including NKR
parliament members and other government officials will attend lessons
at public schools dedicated to the Independence Day. They will also
pay visit to the Stepanakert Memorial to pay tribute to the heroes
killed in the liberation war.
The celebrations will be crowned with grand fireworks.

VIVACEL PROVIDES COMMUNICATION IN VARDENIS
X-Sender: Asbed Bedrossian
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
YEREVAN, AUGUST 23. ARMINFO. The new operator of cellular service in
Armenia, the company VivaCell already provided communication in town
of Vardenis of Gegharkunik region of Armenia, ARMINFO was informed in
the company.
According to the resource, the management of the company understands
the problem to provide a high-quality service in the remote populated
areas of the country.
It should be noted that recently the company started providing its
services in Gegharkunik region of the republic. According to General
Director of VivaCell Ralph Yerikian, the company intends to cover the
whole territory of Armenia with cellular connection till the end of
Oct of 2005.

From: “Katia M. Peltekian”
Subject: The other Taliban
Persion Mirror
Aug 23 2005
The other Taliban
by Ahmed Tharwat
The expansive, almost romantic media coverage of the Israeli
settlers’ withdrawal from Gaza is heartbreaking. The image of
children faces, the cries of the broken dreams and the dramatic human
tragedy of ejecting the Jewish settlers from their biblical land is
painful to watch.
`Painful Israeli compromise for peace’ Cries the headlines. `The
confrontation appeared to steel the will of the authorities to put an
end to the emotional and oratorical drama here, which is inevitably
taking a toll on young soldiers in Israel’s draft army and even on
professional police officers . ` Wrote the New Your Times reporter
STEVEN ERLANGER You have thousands of Jewish fanatics and
fundamentalists from around the world who abandoned their homes,
countries and friends and took arms to live in the occupied
territories in Palestine, and destroyed the natives Palestinians
dreams, just simply to fulfill thousands of year-old religious
interpretation.
If this is not the most Talibanisque ideology, I don’t know what is.
The Israelis’ withdrawal is presented in this country as if it is the
most democratic move Sharon has ever mastered. The champion of all
shameful settling and Arab land grabbing is now depicted in the
American press as the champion of all peace and land giveaway. No
reflection, no context of the 38 years of misery and humiliation
resulted from the Israelis occupation that sucked the oxygen of the
Palestinians population to think straight, media coverage with a
conspicuous disregard of the others, the Palestinians natives who had
lived in the land all their lives. For years Arabs/Moslems have been
asking with no avail a simple question; Why only the Israelis are
allowed to fulfill their biblical dreams by force.
That calls to question the way we look at Militant Islamists. If,
according to the Bush administration and the American press, you are
a Moslem and went to fight with another Moslem country, then you are
a terrorist, a fanatic, fundamentalist and Taliban. On the other
hand, an American, a Russian, or a German Jew who leaves his country
for Israel and invades Arab land by force is just a settler who
wanted to live his biblical dream in the promised land, while the
Palestinian who lived on this land for 100’s of years and try to
resist occupation is a terrorist and a Moslem fanatic. The occupation
and oppression caused terrorism and not the other way around.
This American tribal thinking of the others, the Palestinians in this
conflict is blinding us from understanding the anger of the Arab and
Moslem world. Our unconditional support for Israel throughout all
these years is muddying our efforts to support democracy and the so
called liberation of the Arab and Moslem world. Palestinians and
Moslems also have their own divine dream, the Serbs look at their own
dream; the Kurdish dream, the Armenians dream, the Shiite dream all
are also dreams that are inspired by ethnic or religious inspiration,
yet only the Zionist dream never called into question in this
country. Not questioning something doesn’t necessarily make it right.
The Israelis left Gaza for one simple reason, as Arye Mekel Israeli
consul general in New York acknowledged `We have had to come to terms
with certain unanticipated realities,”,. “Ideologically, we are
disappointed. A pure Zionist must be disappointed because Zionism
meant the Jews of the world would take their baggage and move to
Israel . Most did not.” The Zionist dream to bring world Jewry to the
Promised Land never really materialized; in fact, more Jews live in
the US than in Israel .
They left the occupied Gaza because the Israelis found themselves a
minority in the Jewish state, they explained, and not because the
territories were illegally occupied by force, `For those who long
considered it folly to settle a handful of Jews among hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the decision to remove
them starting this week seems an acceptance of the obvious.
What possible future could the settlers have had?’ says ETHAN BRONNER
in his piece titled, `Why Greater Israel’ Never Came to Be’ in the
New York Sunday Times on August 14 th , which for those who
romanticize the Jewish state as the only moral democracy in the area
is more of a tactical issue than a human right rights issue.
Morad Serag, a Palestinian psychologist who had his home and his
village confiscated 38 year-ago by those settlers, was asked by a
national public radio reporter about how he feels about what the
Israelis settlers are going through now. `I feel for them, I know
what is like to have your land and homes taking away from you’ he
reflected.
Ahmed Tharwat is a guest contributor for PersianMirror from St. Paul,
Minnesota. He is the Producer and host of Belahdan, an Arab-American
TV show. For more, visit

Transitions on Line, Czech Rep.
Aug 23 2005
Murky Seas

by TOL
22 August 2005
Could a new vision for the Black Sea area yield new ideas about how
to promote democracy on Russia’s fringes?
So it seems that Europe may soon have a new organization to become
used to, an alliance of democracies stretching from the Baltic to the
Black and the Caspian seas intent on acting as `a strong tool to free
our region from all remaining dividing lines, from violations of
human rights, from any spirit of confrontation, from frozen
conflicts.’ That, at least, is the vision for a “Community for
Democratic Choice” put forward by Ukraine’s President Viktor
Yushchenko and Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili on 12 August.
That is of course an appealing vision, but it will be competing with
others, particularly in the Black Sea region. Since 1992, Turkey –
historically the greatest power in the Black Sea, arguably the
region’s greatest power at present, and now also a pipeline hub – has
promoted its own notion of a peaceful and prosperous Black Sea
through the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) group, an
association of Black Sea countries and their immediate neighbors.
Since the end of the Cold War, others in the West have formed their
own vision of a secure Black Sea, with Turkey as a cornerstone. From
an outpost of NATO, Turkey has come to be seen as a key to the
security of the Black Sea and a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
That is a concept that underpins the United States’ – and others’ –
support for Turkey’s membership of the European Union. In the grander
variant of the current U.S. administration, Turkey could even become
part of an arc of democratic Muslim states stretching from Iraq’s
Gulf shores to the Bosphorus.
TURKEY’S SWING TOWARDS RUSSIA
George Bush’s grand vision is currently being mauled by the
instability in Iraq. It may also be being undermined by Turkey itself
because, judged by recent developments, Turkey may have a different
idea of who its key partners are in the Black Sea – and what changes
are desirable.
First, in May in a development noted perhaps only by The Economist,
the United States was refused observer status by the BSEC. The
decision relegated the United States below such Black Sea
heavyweights as Slovakia, a country that enjoys observer status.
Russia is thought to have blocked its application, a veto that
angered eight post-communist Black Sea states who publicly said the
United States should be allowed to attend their meetings. Turkey
remained silent – not perhaps the type of support that Ankara might
have been expected to give to a country that has been a great
agitator for its admission to the EU. Given that the BSEC was its
brainchild, surely Turkey could have insisted on opening the doors to
the United States.
Turkey’s silence gains in significance when seen against the backdrop
of Turkey’s rapid and dramatic upswing in relations with Russia. The
signs include the first visit to Ankara by a Russian head of state
(in December 2004), four meetings between Russia’s President Vladimir
Putin and Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in seven
months, a huge rise in trade, a hefty increase in the flow of gas
through a pipeline leading from Russia to Turkey through the Black
Sea, and talk of more pipelines as well as supplies of electricity
from Russia.
The second development is the evidence that Russia and Turkey are not
simply improving their relationship; they seem to have found a new
and surprising congruence of interests. At a meeting with Putin in
July, Erdogan told the world that `our views totally coincide with
regard to the situation in the region as well as to the issues
concerning the preservation of stability in the world.’ If he meant
it, Erdogan was saying something disturbing, because Russia’s idea of
stability is deeply antithetical towards the West and had no qualms
about the Uzbek government’s killing of hundreds (possibly a
thousand) protestors in Andijan this May. Indeed, Erdogan’s phrase
could have been taken straight from meetings between Putin and the
presidents of Central Asia. Could that be possible? Turkish analysts
believe it is and their answer seems plausible: apart from asking
Uzbekistan to remove Turkish flags from jeeps used by Uzbek forces,
Ankara has been very reticent in making any criticism of Uzbekistan’s
President Islam Karimov.
All of this suggests a major shift in the position of two regional
powers who have usually competed rather than coincided in their
interests. Both seem keen to work more closely still. In January,
Turkey expressed an interest (`unexpectedly,’ said Putin) in joining
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Central Asian grouping
comprising Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan. Though a competitor with Russia for influence in Georgia,
Turkey is now apparently angling for a role as a mediator in the
dispute over Abkhazia. Erdogan and Putin have, it seems, decided that
their countries are not playing a zero-sum game either in the Black
Sea or in Central Asia.
So, what should be made of Ankara’s new friendship with Moscow? Not
too much is one answer.
Firstly, the relationship between Russia and Turkey may be warming
up, but there is little doubt that at present its relationship with
the EU is far more important to Turkey than its ties with Russia.
Ankara may take a more positive view of Moscow than Brussels does at
present, but it is always going to follow an independent Russia
policy. And, in any case, Europe’s largest countries – France,
Germany, and Britain – all have relationships with Russia that are
also very cozy and differ from the increasingly skeptical position of
the European Commission. (Where this all leaves Ankara’s relationship
with Washington is another matter, but it is primarily through the EU
that Turkey can be tied more closely to the West.)
Secondly, Turkey may be more interested in maintaining stability than
in promoting democracy in Central Asia but in that respect it is
behaving like the United States, which responded with woefully weak
words to the events in Andijan.
And, in any case, there are reasons to welcome the impact on the
region of a better relationship between the two countries. A
rapprochement between the main supporter of Armenia – Russia – and
the main backer of Azerbaijan – Turkey – could push the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh towards a settlement and help push Armenia and
Turkey towards opening up an economic relationship. An improvement on
either front would help everyone (as well as promoting Turkey’s case
for EU membership). And if Turkey could deliver a solution to the
Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, it would (of course) have achieved what
no one else has proved able to do.
PROMOTING DEMOCRACY
Still, the contrast between Turkey’s call for stability and
Yushchenko’s and Saakashvili’s implicit call for democratic change
does highlight some of the weaknesses in assuming that Turkey might
be a force for positive change in the Black Sea and Caspian Sea
regions.
For one, the contrast underlines that Turkey has its own,
long-standing interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia and – as the
thorny, even neuralgic relationship with Armenia indicates – Turkey
is perfectly capable of helping to maintain instability and retard
progress in the Caucasus in defense of those interests. There may
have some positive recent moves in relations between Turkey and
Armenia, but the collapse of a joint historical commission and the
imprisonment in Armenia of a Turkish historian indicate that a
breakthrough in their relations is still a distant prospect.
Second, achieving breakthroughs may be beyond Turkey. A summit
between the Azeri and Armenian presidents on 26 August should again
demonstrate how hard it will be for anyone to broker a settlement
over Nagorno-Karabakh. In any case, all countries in the region,
including Georgia and Azerbaijan, will be wary of the motivations of
two powerful neighbors suddenly working together.
And third, whatever the virtues of having a democratic Turkey
embedded in the EU, Turkey is not yet an active promoter of the
democratic changes that it itself is now embracing. Indeed, analysts
believe that Turkey is very wary, for example, about potential
upheaval after parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan this November.
If key supporters of Turkey’s membership of the EU – Britain and the
United States – anticipate that Turkey would be active in promoting
change in the region, they may well be wrong. At least for now, it
looks likely that Turkey’s contribution to political progress in the
region will be passive, as an example that internal change is
possible.
Which brings to the fore the point that Yushchenko and Saakashvili
implicitly highlighted: that current policies to promote democracy in
the region are inadequate. Turkey seems interested in the status quo,
not change. The EU’s approach – demonstrated again in the spat
between Belarus and Poland – is out of touch. With Belarus, its
policy is based on reciprocity, a “step-by-step” approach under which
the EU will respond to overtures made by Minsk. That is a passive
position that relies on the EU’s magnetic appeal to its neighbors.
That may be fine when its neighbors – like countries in the western
Balkans – are attracted to the EU, but clearly leads merely to
disengagement with neighbors – like Belarus – who have no interest in
the EU. If the EU wants to help promote political development in
Central Asia or in the Caucasus, it needs something better than that
– and also something better than its muted response to events in
Andijan.
The U.S. approach to the promotion of democracy also fails to provide
a convincing model. In Turkey’s neighborhood, it has used three
approaches. Faced with an election-stealing government in Eduard
Shevardnadze’s Georgia and the “soft authoritarianism” of Ukraine’s
Leonid Kuchma and Kyrgyzstan’s Askar Akaev, it deployed soft power,
mainly by supporting civil society groups. Faced with “hard
authoritarianism” in Iraq, it opted for violent overthrow, with
uncertain long-term results. In Uzbekistan, it plumped for a few
quiet and reluctant words of concern about the Andijan killings, a
lily-livered policy that did nothing to save its troops from being
ordered out of the country.
What practical form the Community for Democratic Choice might take
remains shadowy (all that is known is that a conference should be
held in the autumn), but the Yushchenko-Saakashvili initiative –
backed already by Poland and Lithuania – at least heralds the
prospect of some new thinking about how to promote democracy. Given
the inadequacies of the “models” provided by the big powers – the EU,
Turkey, and the United States – some competition of ideas would be
welcome.