New screen version of Bellini’s “Norma” to premiere at Vyborg festival
RIA Novosti, Russia
Aug 17 2005
VYBORG, August 17 (RIA Novosti) – A new screen version of Vincenzo
Bellini’s opera “Norma” is expected to be among the highlights of
the 13th Window onto Europe film festival, now under way in the
northwestern Russian town of Vyborg.
The film’s director, Boris Airapetyan, said the opera-film genre,
highly popular in Europe these days, had almost sunk into oblivion
in Russia and that the most recent Russian production made in this
genre dated back to 1984.
Airapetyan said quite a few film distributors in the West had already
asked him for permission to screen the picture. He said that this
autumn, it would be simultaneously shown at open-air movie theaters
in five European cities (Salzburg, Vienna, Geneva, Stuttgart,
and Berlin). In Russia, however, the interest has been quite low.
Airapetyan said most of the national television broadcasters had
expressed doubt the film would fit in with their formats and only
executives of the arts channel Kultura had signaled they were willing
to run it.
“Norma,” which premiered in Milan in 1831, is believed to be one of
the most challenging operas. Out of its twenty stage productions,
only four were a success.
“But I decided to take the risk; I sought to find a clue to the
mystery behind this opera, benefiting from the brilliant vocalists
I had at my disposal, especially for the lead parts,” the director
said. “Asmik Papyan, a soloist with the Vienna Opera and [New York’s]
Metropolitan, sings the part of Norma, and Gegam Grigoryan, a soloist
of St. Petersburg’s Mariinsky Theater [also known in the West as the
Kirov], sings Pollion.”
In 2002, Airapetyan staged “Norma” for Armenia’s National Opera in
the capital of Yerevan. This production was shown at Moscow’s Bolshoi
Theater in 2003 and nominated for the national Golden Mask award in
five categories.
The screen version, too, was made in Airapetyan’s native country,
Armenia. Much of it was filmed in a temple erected by ancient Romans
to celebrate their conquest of Armenian lands.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Unit to help Azerbaijan clear mines
Navy Times, VA
Aug 17 2005
Times staff
About 70 members from Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit Eight and
other supporting units will help train de-mining teams in Azerbaijan
over the next 15 months, according to a Sixth Fleet press release.
The Humanitarian Mine Action training is focused on improving the
capabilities of multiple Azerbaijan National Agency Mine Action
teams, with a six-phase training process devoted to the detection,
identification and disposal of munitions, the release stated.
Along with training, the effort will further military-to-military
cooperation between the two countries.
The U.S. has been assisting Azerbaijan clear ordnance since the early
1990s, most recently clearing mines hampering the construction of a
national oil pipeline, which began production earlier this year.
The current training, which started Aug. 8, will focus on returning
arable land to the people of Azerbaijan, with the goal of helping
them increase their standard of living, the release said.
Many of the mines are leftover from the conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which broke
out in 1988, killing more than 30,000 people before a 1994 cease-fire.

PACE President to visit Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia to discuss political reforms
Baku Today, Azerbaijan
Aug 17 2005
The President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE), Rene van der Linden, is to visit Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia from 18 to 23 August 2005.
These will be his first visits to the three countries of the southern
Caucasus since being elected to office last January.
In Armenia, which he will visit from 18 to 20 August, he will
meet, inter alia, President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan, President
of Parliament Arthur Baghdasaryan, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Vardan Oskanyan, Minister of Justice David Haroutiunyan, as well
as NGOs representatives and leaders of opposition factions. He
is also scheduled to meet His Holiness Garegin II, Catholicos of
All Armenians. Among the matters which should be discussed are the
process of constitutional reform, Nagorno-Karabakh and democratic
reforms and pluralism.
While in Georgia, on 20 and 21 August, he will hold talks with Prime
Minister Zurab Noghaideli, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Mikheil
Machavariani as well as representatives of parliamentary opposition
and civil society. A meeting is also scheduled with His Holiness
and Beatitude Ilia II, Patriarch of All Georgia. The constitutional
situation, the independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression
and association and media pluralism should be the focal points of
discussion.
During his visit to Azerbaijan, from 21 to 23 August, he will meet
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Chairman of Parliament Murtuz
Aleskerov, Prime Minister Artur Rasizade, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Elmar Mammadyarov as well as representatives of the opposition, the
media and NGOs. He is also scheduled to meet Sheikh ul-Islam Haji
Allahshukur Pashazade, spiritual leader of the Muslim community of
the Caucasus. Among the matters to be raised will be the November
parliamentary elections, political prisoners and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenian president, outgoing Indian envoy discuss ties
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
16 Aug 05
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan today received the outgoing Indian
ambassador to Armenia, Deepak Vohra. The president expressed his
satisfaction with the high level of cooperation between Armenia and
India and thanked the ambassador for his active and productive work.
Vohra said that India’s vice-president is expected to visit Armenia
which will stimulate bilateral cooperation. He thanked the Armenian
authorities for supporting him during his tenure.
Deepak Vohra will continue his diplomatic mission in Sudan. [Video
showed the meeting]

PRESS RELEASE
ARPA Institute
18106 Miranda St.
Tarzana, CA 91356 &
Armenian Engineers and Scientists of America
417 W. Arden St., Suite 112C
Glendale, CA 91203
Contact: Hagop Panossian
Tel: (818) 596-9660
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
ARPA Institute and AESA present the Lecture/Seminar: “Technology,
Globalization and Entropy in Everyday Life,” by Jack Hokikian,
Ph.D. on Thursday, August 25, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Merdinian school
auditorium. The Address is 13330 Riverside Dr., Sherman Oaks, CA 91403.
Directions: on the 101 FWY exit on Woodman, go north and turn right
on Riverside Dr.
Abstract: The author’s book The Science of Disorder: Understanding the
Complexity, Uncertainty, and Pollution in Our World will serve as the
basis of the evening’s lecture. Through the Laws of Thermodynamics-the
Laws of Energy and Entropy-the effects of technology, accelerated
consumption of goods and natural resources and globalization on our
environment and on our lives will be discussed. Questions such as
“why our lives are becoming increasingly complicated, disordered
and uncertain” and “why we have less time for ourselves, even though
we are surrounded with more ‘timesaving’ devices than ever before”
will be answered. Approaches and methods will be provided on how to
attain a philosophy of life that can guide us in our daily actions
and decisions.
Jack Hokikian received his Ph.D. in experimental nuclear physics from
the University of Southern California. In the 1970s, he worked at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where he was involved in orbit determination
of spacecrafts. He has published numerous articles in the Bulletin of
the American Physical Society, Nuclear Physics, American Astronomical
Society and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Conference Proceedings. He has taught computer science courses at the
University of Southern California and the California State University
in Northridge. He recently worked for a health care organization
as a consultant/data architect. He is the author of The Science of
Disorder: Understanding the Complexity, Uncertainty, and Pollution
in Our World. He was interviewed on Voice of America and has appeared
on Horizon Evening News and Barry Kibrick’s “Between the Lines.”
For Information Please call Dr. Hagop Panossian at (818)586-9660

Karabakh Armenians to be Able to Participate in Parliament Elections through Internet
Baku Today, Azerbaijan
Aug 17 2005
The Central Electoral Commission (CEC) of Azerbaijan, guided by the
basic provisions of the country’s Constitution took a decision to form
the constituency electoral committee, covering the occupied territories
of the country, CEC chairman Mazahir Panahov said, Trend reports.
“The constituencies have already been set up long time ago, however,
the issue with this constituency remained open,” Panahov said, noting
due to ongoing peace negotiations the Azerbaijan’s CEC has not even
made attempts to establish such committees earlier. “We hoped for
the quickest settlement of the conflict. However, taking into account
the opinion of the Azerbaijani public, the decision was taken to set
up the constituency electoral committee centered on in Khankendi,”
Panahov said. He noted there were no disagreements on the issue among
the CEC members.
“We will do everything possible for the activities of this
constituency,” the CEC head noted, having not ruled out the
possibility of taking measures, “not envisioned by the legislation
for other constituencies”, particularly, voting by means of Internet.
The address of the website is not announced yet.
Touching upon the issue of the constituency committee’s location,
Panahov noted, members of the constituency committees have already
held first sittings and the issue of their placing will be decided
at their level.
“The chairman and the secretary of the constituency committee in
Khankendi have already been elected,” Panahov said, having noted,
the detailed information on the issue will come to CEC of Azerbaijan
shortly.
In conclusion, the CEC chairman voiced the opinion on nomination
candidacies on these electoral constituencies. “Due to non-availability
of this constituency electoral committees the candidates applied
earlier directly to CEC of Azerbaijan. However, after creating such
committees all applications will be sent directly to these structures,”
Panahov noted, According to him, the process of registration of
candidates on these constituencies will start soon.

CELL PHONE NETWORK FAILURE HIGHLIGHTS ARMENIA’S TELECOM WOES
By Emil Danielyan
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
Aug 17 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
A small group of protestors outside the ArmenTel headquarters The
long-awaited liberalization of Armenia’s underdeveloped mobile phone
sector could not have had a more unexpected and illogical outcome:
the near-collapse of the country’s main wireless network. ArmenTel,
the unpopular national telecommunications monopoly that operates the
system, has still not clearly explained the causes of the serious
breakdown despite facing heavy government fines. The situation is
indicative of the murky nature of the telecom business in Armenia
due to a lack of government transparency and corruption.
ArmenTel has developed a controversial reputation ever since it
was purchased by the Greek telecom giant OTE in 1998. In return
for $142 million, OTE also gained 15-year exclusive rights on all
forms of telecommunication in Armenia. The Soviet-era fixed-line
phone network was in shambles at the time, and the Greeks have
since made considerable investments to modernize it. However,
they have grossly (and inexplicably) failed to develop wireless
communication. ArmenTel has capitalized on its legal monopoly only by
setting disproportionately high fees, rather than expanding network
capacity and rapidly increasing the number of its subscribers.
Consequently, public demand in mobile phones has by far exceeded
supply, leading ArmenTel to resort to Soviet-style rationing of
prepaid phone cards. Such was the shortage of those cards that they
were at one point worth a staggering $200 each on the black market.
Armenians wishing to buy them at their “legal” price of about $25
had to register with ArmenTel and wait for months, if not years. No
wonder that Armenia had less than 300,000 mobile phone users as of the
beginning of 2005, lagging behind neighboring Azerbaijan and Georgia,
which each boast more than a million users.
That is one of the reasons why relations between ArmenTel and the
Armenian government have been tense over the past seven years. The
government has also accused the Greeks of inflating the volume of
their investments in the Armenian telecom sector and abusing their
monopoly on the country’s Internet connection with the outside world.
Local Internet service providers have long complained about the high
cost and poor quality of connections offered by ArmenTel. The latter
has always denied any wrongdoing.
The two sides were on the verge of litigation at the London-based
International Court of Economic Arbitration before announcing a
compromise settlement last November. Under that deal, ArmenTel
abandoned its grip on the mobile telephone market but retained
its other exclusive rights. The government in Yerevan was quick to
choose a little-known Lebanese-owned firm as Armenia’s second cell
phone operator.
The provider, VivaCell, launched its network on July 1, quickly
attracting tens of thousands of subscribers. The move coincided with
a drastic deterioration of wireless connections provided by ArmenTel.
Making or receiving phone calls through its network has since been
extremely difficult and at times impossible. ArmenTel’s Greek managers
have repeatedly apologized to the furious public for the flop, but they
have not yet clearly explained its reasons, pledging only to fully
fix the network by the end of August. The company’s chief executive,
Vasilios Fetsis, admitted on August 11 that failure to do so could
lead to a mass flight of ArmenTel customers to VivaCell. The latter
hopes to have 300,000 subscribers by November.
This, however, did not keep the State Commission on the Protection
of Economic Competition from fining ArmenTel $400,000 on August 12
on the grounds that the company abused its “dominant position” in
the sector. “This is not a phone, I can only use it as a hammer,”
the chairman of the regulatory body, Ashot Shahnazarian, said,
angrily brandishing his handset.
ArmenTel strongly disagreed with the penalty and is now considering
challenging it in court. Yet it is not only criticism that the OTE
subsidiary has heard from Armenian officials. Meeting with Armenian
students in Moscow on June 23, President Robert Kocharian praised
ArmenTel for its investments in the fixed-line phone network that he
said is now the most advanced in the South Caucasus. Kocharian also
downplayed the problems with mobile telephone technology, saying
that competition will sort them out in a matter of months. Indeed,
that competition has already forced ArmenTel to cut its cell phone
tariffs by half.
But nagging questions about the motives for Yerevan’s telecom-related
decisions will remain. ArmenTel was set up in the early 1990s as
a small joint venture of the Armenian government and a U.S.-owned
offshore firm. It handled only external phone calls until August 1997,
when it was mysteriously granted ownership of Armenia’s entire phone
network free of charge. Armenian officials never clarified why they
showed such generosity toward the obscure U.S. investor that received
almost half of the $142 million paid by OTE in an international
tender for ArmenTel a few months later. According to a lawyer privy
to the tender’s details, the Greeks did not submit the highest bid
for ArmenTel at the time but somehow got hold of the company anyway.
The Armenian authorities did not hold any tenders at all for the second
mobile license that was granted to VivaCell for just $7 million. A
competitive tender for that license could have clearly fetched
tens of millions of dollars, a huge sum by Armenian standards. The
cash-strapped government has similarly failed to officially explain
why it has foregone the potential extra revenue to the state budget.
(Aravot, August 16; RFE/RL Armenia Report, August 11-12, June 23;
Armenian Public Television, June 23)

Iran, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and Russia to discuss Iran’s gas export to Europe
Payvand, Iran
Aug 17 2005
Tehran, Aug 16, IRNA-Iranian deputy Oil Minister for International
Affairs Seyed Mohammad-Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian on Tuesday hoped that
the five-partite meeting of Iran, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and
Russia on export of gas from Iran to Europe via Ukraine will be held
by September.
He told IRNA that Russia’s approval of the project will expedite
the process.
Stressing that the Europeans are in dire need of Iran’s gas, he added
that guarantee for future supply of energy is of great importance to
Europe and that they are both interested in and need to import gas
from Iran.
“Given that China, India and Pakistan are among Iran’s gas clients
and keen to bolster relations with the country, if other consumers of
gas do not proceed in time they may face a shortage of gas available
for export.
“Turkey is currently the only importer of gas from Iran and transfer
of gas to Europe via this country is one of the options on the agenda.
“Turkey’s recent reaction to the issue and its intention to purchase
gas from Iran and sell it to Europe directly, is not acceptable to
Iran, since another option would be to transfer it via Ukraine,”
he added.
Nejad-Hosseinian noted that Turkey cannot insist on following such
a procedure in order to become a member of European Union, since it
is not supported by EU.
Concerning export of gas from Iran to Europe via Ukraine it should
be said that a cooperation agreement has recently been inked to the
effect between the two states, but that the volume of the gas to be
transferred via this route has not been distinguished yet.
Ukraine has proposed two pipeline routes to Iran for transfer of gas:
one is Iran-Armenia-Georgia-Russia-Ukraine-Europe and the other is
Iran-Armenia-Georgia-Black Sea-Ukraine-Europe.
The expenses of each of the two suggested routes have been assessed
by Ukrainian sources at 10 billion dollars.

Commentary: Some Myths Are Dangerous
By GERALD SCHMAVONIAN
Berkeley Daily Planet
Edition Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2005
As a former resident of Berkeley, I and many of my friends, also Cal
graduates now living in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, enjoy
reading the Daily Planet online. So it was especially disheartening
to read the past several issues of the Planet, and the outrageously
racist, anti-Jewish and anti-Arab comments made by numerous letter
writers.
The comments ranged from the ludicrous to the insidious. Mr. Richey
(Aug. 7) attacked Mr. Gertz’s skullcap as the “Funniest looking
yarmulke I ever saw.” If Mr. Gertz wants to wear a lampshade on his
head, that’s no one’s business but his own.
Mr. Hardesty (Aug. 7) attacked Mr. Spitzer’s loyalty to the United
States. “If you are really such a great Zionist, Spitzer, go live
in Israel.” Americans have the constitutionally inherent right to
verbally attack or verbally defend any nation, including Israel,
without being labeled a traitor or threatened with expulsion.
Joanna Graham (Aug. 2) writes, “1967 is demonstrably the year in which
American Jews en masse converted to Zionism.” In 1967, I was a student
at Cal and most of the people I knew (including Jewish-Americans)
came to regard Israel in that year, not as the land of kibbutzniks
skipping down the furrows hand in hand, but as a militant, racist,
jingoistic state. None of them converted to Zionism “en masse.”
Lawrence White (Aug. 5) attacks Mark Richey for his temerity as
a foreigner (?) from Cotati to attack “the character of a Berkeley
citizen [John Gertz].” I never realized Berkeley issued passports and
had its own citizens. I believe residents of Cotati and residents of
Berkeley can both be citizens of the United States.
But Mr. White is just getting started. He then makes the claim that
the thesis of a Jewish conspiracy “had the logical consequence of
the murder of six million.” Does he mean that if six million were not
murdered that would be an illogical consequence? Or does he mean that
criticism leads to genocide when it is directed at specific groups
which should, thus, be exempt from all criticism?
Mr. White, obviously confused, then poses a number of questions
which I would like to answer. He asks: “If the occupation is the
problem, how come the Arabs launched three wars (1948, 1956, 1967)
before the occupation began?” Mr. White perhaps subscribes to the
notion that people are more apt to believe a big lie than a small
one. This is a prime example of an orchestrated lie, which through
countless mindful repetitions conducted with a complete disregard to
the historical record begins to appear “factual.” According to all
historical sources, all major encyclopedias, including the Jewish
Encyclopedia, all three wars (1948, 1956, and 1967) were launched by
Israel. And, to Israel, each new conquest became a new starting point
for negotiation. Mr. White fails to mention the only Arab-Israeli
war really launched by the Arab side was the Yom Kippur War, launched
by Anwar Sadat in 1973. But Sadat never attacked Israel proper, but
only the Sinai Peninsula, which was Egyptian territory that Israel
had occupied a few years earlier in 1967.
Mr. White continues “And how come the Palestine Liberation Organization
was established before there was an occupation? What were they trying
to liberate?” I refer Mr. White again to any major encyclopedia,
including the Jewish Encyclopedia, all of which show detailed maps
of the United Nations’ division of Palestine into Jewish and Arab
states. In the 1948 war, Israel conquered much of the proposed
Palestinian state and subsequently expelled through intimidation
and murder many of the local Palestinian people who were living
there. That, Mr. White, is the occupation the Palestine Liberation
Organization was trying to liberate.
His next query is equally unintelligible “How come Germans don’t send
suicide bombers into Poland to get back land they lost during World
War II?” To remind Mr. White, Nazi Germany was the aggressor during
WWII. Germany attacked and conquered Poland, not vice versus. The
proper analogy would be if the Nazis had won WWII and consequently
conquered and destroyed Poland, would Poles have the right to send
bombers into Polish-Germany to get their nation back? And should
we support those Poles or “let bygones be bygones” regarding the
Holocaust? In fact, Mr. White, if the Palestinians didn’t fight
against being dispossessed and dehumanized, it would be a travesty
and tragedy for all free peoples.
Next his inventive mind leaps again. This time he claims “a million
Jews were forcibly expelled from Egypt, Libya, Iraq and other Arab
countries.” Actually, those countries at the time, were ruled by
Western-installed, pro-Western monarchies, none of which expelled
any Jews to Israel. In fact, it was Israel’s policy to conduct
“Magic Carpet” flights to bring Jews from all over the Middle East to
Israel to populate it with Jews. The emigration was totally voluntary.
British and American planes airlifted the Jews to Israel. And according
to Alaska Airlines (one of the main carriers involved), the mission
was accomplished without a single loss of life.
Since Mr. White feels no imperative to cite any sources, his
hare-brained fables continue unabated: “not one (Palestinian) votes
in any Arab country.” In fact, Jordanian citizens of Palestinian
descent do vote, as do Lebanese citizens of Palestinian descent,
etc., etc. (just as American citizens of Palestinian descent may
vote.) In fact, only “Israeli-citizen” Palestinians can vote in
Israel, none of the four million Palestinians living in Gaza and
the West Bank have any voting rights in Israel despite having lived
under Israeli rule for two generations (38 years). Israel emulates
formerly apartheid South Africa’s policy of excluding blacks from
voting by saying they were “citizens” of Bantustans (tribal homelands)
and legally not citizens of South Africa proper and consequently had
no right to vote. This allowed apartheid South Africa to claim that
it was “the only democracy on the entire continent of Africa.” Mr.
White, rather than offer smug, insincere, and misleading assertions
regarding the suffering of an oppressed people, do some research. To
demonize the victim and portray the oppressor as the oppressed, not
only requires a manipulation and distortion of history, it also takes
a cruel person to perpetrate and perpetuate such a hoax.
Rabbi Sara Shendelman (Aug. 12) encourages readers to “see both sides,”
then proceeds to praise Lawrence White’s commentary “for its attempt to
educate” the opposition. Posturing and exhorting “in a community that
is 25 percent Jewish,” is she trying to intimidate the Daily Planet
by numbers? It shouldn’t matter what percent of what the community
is comprised of. True is true and untrue is untrue. Politics is a
numbers game, but education should not be. The Rabbi must be leading
a very insular life when she makes a blanket statement such as “We
[Berkeley] are probably the most intolerant place in the U.S. when
faced with a differing view.”
John Gertz (Aug.7) demonstrates his total lack of historic knowledge
by making so many ignorant and false statements that they almost defy
comment. But in the interest of fairness, I will include him. He
writes that Islam is the only religion spread by an army. If Mr.
Gertz thinks only Islam has a bloody history of conquest, I refer
him to the Old Testament. If he is unacquainted as to where to
look: Check out Joshua. Also, anyone with a smattering of knowledge
regarding the spread of Christianity knows that Christianity barely
made any headway in its first few hundred years (only the Armenian
nation had converted to the new faith). But then along came “By This
Sign You Shall Conquer” Constantine. Gertz continues that Islam “is
a religion that teaches that it has superseded all others.” Duh! So
does Judaism, Christianity, and all other religions. It is, in fact,
the very definition of any religion that it supersede all others.
Otherwise, why would anyone convert?
David Altschul (Aug. 8) asks “What governments in the Middle East
allow women to drive cars, go to school, hold jobs, etc., etc….well,
there’s Israel.” This duplicitous phrasing is obviously meant to
mislead and deceive uninformed readers to think only Israel allows
women any rights. In fact, the majority of Middle Eastern governments
allow women these rights. And, interestingly, most of the ones that
don’t allow women these rights are Americas’s closest friends and
military allies in the region. He continues: “What government has
used the schools and TV stations it controls to teach its children
that the best thing they can grow up to be is a suicide bomber? The
Palestinian Authority.” I challenge Mr. Altschul to prove this claim.
When on the defensive, these same tired lies are always trotted out
in hopes they’ll go unchallenged and through countless repetitions
dupe some uninformed people. People, such as Mr. Altschul, who
rely on lies to support occupation and suppression, must perpetuate
stereotypes. If one oppresses people with violence, they will react
with violence. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lastly, people who love to bandy about terms such as Islamofacists,
but are appalled at the Zionazi moniker because of the historical
oppression of Jews by
Nazis should take into account that the first peoples attacked by
fascists (Mussolini) were Islamic peoples (Somalis, Eritreans, and
Libyans). And just as in the case of the Jews, the world did nothing.
Gerald Schmavonian live in Fresno.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KAZAKHSTAN QUESTIONS U.S. MILITARY ROLE IN CENTRAL ASIA
By Roger McDermott
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
Aug 17 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Kazakhstan’s delicate foreign policy, predicated upon balancing
its relations among China, Russia, and the United States, has come
under increased pressure both from its involvement in the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the growing tendency within the
region to question the long-term strategic role of the U.S. military
in Central Asia. The SCO’s request that Washington set a deadline
for its military presence in the region has exposed Astana’s foreign
policy paradigm to a severe test. Equally, senior and well-placed
Kazakhstani analysts have raised objections to the need for a sustained
U.S. military presence in the region and praised President Nursultan
Nazarbayev’s efforts to avoid basing American forces in Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan has developed a close bilateral defense relationship with
the U.S. and deepened its commitment to NATO’s Partnership for Peace
(PfP). Its open demonstration of supporting the war on terror has
been shown by steadfast adherence to the deployment of elements of
its peacekeeping unit (KAZBAT) in Iraq. There are no tangible signs
that Astana is considering backtracking on any of these steps; it has
no need to do so. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan’s support for the SCO’s
call for the U.S. to think in terms of a timetable for getting out of
Central Asia has been explained by reference to pressure from China
and Russia. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs
of Staff, has reportedly interpreted the position of the Central
Asian members of the SCO in precisely this manner.
However, the Kazakhstani media has presented an alternative
interpretation. According to Delovaya nedelya, the driving force behind
Astana’s strategic choice in favor of the SCO is rooted in its fear
of the potential spread of “color revolutions.” Such fears predispose
the Nazarbayev regime to open a more constructive dialogue on the
region’s future with Beijing and Moscow. Simultaneously, the same
article argues the existence of the link between Britain’s support
for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the recent London bombings,
pointing to the level of risk to Kazakh security taken in its current
deployment of KAZBAT in Iraq. Such articles are not anti-American,
as they also offer the other side of Kazakhstan’s dilemma: falling
hostage to China and Russia (Delovaya nedelya, July 22).
Bolat Sultanov, director of Kazakhstan’s Institute for Strategic
Studies under the Kazakh president, has gone much further in his
opposition to any continued American military presence in Central
Asia. He objects that it undermines Russian and Chinese security.
Convinced that the United States must withdraw its military personnel,
he argues that the spirit of the SCO is contravened by the presence
of foreign military bases. “I am categorically against the presence
of the military bases in Central Asia because any military base is
an occupation base. By the way, I cannot understand Central Asian
countries’ euphoria about the military bases. Everywhere there
are military bases people are demanding that the bases be pulled
out. Look at Europe, South Korea, and Japan,” explained Sultanov
(Interfax-Kazakhstan, August 10). Sultanov’s position is not entirely
new, having previously postulated such ideas, but what is unclear is
the role and influence his open and public hostility towards the U.S.
military presence will have on domestic public opinion and, perhaps
more significantly, within the Nazarbayev regime itself.
Kazakhstan is also observing the difficulties relating to the
issues emerging from the U.S. military deployment in Central Asia.
Uzbekistan’s decision to terminate its agreement with the U.S.
concerning Karshi-Khanabad has had implications for the renegotiation
of the bilateral agreement with Kyrgyzstan regarding the Ganci base
in Bishkek; already plans are being mooted about elements of the
Karshi-Khanabad deployment being relocated to Ganci. These agreements,
as important as they are, now seem a little shakier than they once did,
especially when compared to the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO). On August 11, Bishkek ratified the CSTO agreement on the joint
use of military infrastructure facilities in member countries. In
this context, the deployment of elements of the Russian Air Force at
Kant now appears more durable. Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan had
already ratified the agreement (Interfax, August 11).
Other multilateral organizations, such as NATO and the OSCE, are also
doing much to improve security structures in the region, which benefits
Kazakhstan. Its emerging defense relationship with the United States
has resulted in clear advances in its process of military reform
and the preparedness of its security forces to cope with terrorist
activity. Kazakhstan will continue to attach importance to its links
with Washington, seeing training and education and other forms of
security assistance as a vital part of improving its own anti-terrorist
capabilities. But at the strategic level, it is unlikely to seek to
favor any one of the great powers at the expense of the others. Astana
is now displaying interest in multilateral organizations including the
CSTO and SCO, since the latter serves as a forum through which Beijing
is involved, as well as enhancing its cooperation with NATO. It may
be possible to defuse tension over the U.S. military involvement in
Central Asia by promoting more practical multilateral cooperation,
among NATO, the CSTO, and SCO. Any approach that gives the impression
of the United States dealing on its own with individual countries in
the region at the possible expense of China and Russia will be doomed
to failure.