Galicia-Hoxe
Luns 28 de marzo de 2005

Fracasan no intento de atopar a arca no monte Ararat, que comparten
Armenia e Turquía

FOTO:GH
Representación da Arca de Noé, perseguida pola expedición rusa de
Chernobrov que só puido confirmar restos de alacrán no Ararat

E.P.

A expedición rusa encabezada polo profesor Vadim Chernobrov fracasou
no seu intento de encontrar a mítica arca de Noé no monte Ararat, que
comparten Armenia e Turquía. “Todo o que vimos testemuña que non hai
arca de Noé na ladeira occidental do Ararat. Tras a erupción
volcánica de 1840 ningún barco se puido salvar”, declarou Chernobrov,
xefe da expedición, á axencia Interfax. A expedición, organizada polo
Centro de Investigación Científica Social Kosmopoisk e unha cadea de
televisión, unicamente achou “formacións naturais” no volcán de 5.435
metros de altitude. “Ningún dos obxectos achados pertencen á arca.
Son formacións naturais e anomalías xeolóxicas resultado da
actividade volcánica”, sinalou. Ademais, agregou, “encontramos restos
de alcatrán que, segundo a lenda, proviña da arca”. Os
expedicionarios, que partiron de Moscova o pasado 17 de xullo,
atacaron a montaña polo seu flanco occidental (Turquía), a mesma ruta
escollida polo tenente Roskovitski en 1916 por orde do tsar Nicolás
II. “Escollemos a ladeira oeste, a pesar de que está cuberta de lava,
porque na norte hai equipos militares turcos, e a sur e leste están
abertas para alpinistas e turistas”, sinalou Chernobrov. Non
obstante, os expertos rusos non desistirán, xa que no mosteiro
armenio de Echmiadzin se conserva un anaco dunha árbore fosilizada
cunha cruz incrustada, fragmento que, segundo eles, podería pertencer
ó revestimento da arca. A Biblia e o Corán falan de que a arca de Noé
quedou varada cinco mil anos a. C..

–Boundary_(ID_cl34cy5PhCRL76Cxxjp9tA)–

Melkonian Educational Institute at Crossroads

Azad-Hye, United Arab Emirates
March 27 2005

On Sunday 20th March 2004 Azad-Hye visited the Melkonian Educational
Institute in Nicsoa (Cyprus), which is under the threat of closure
at the end of this academic year (see photo gallery).

About 120 students (mainly from Cyprus, Armenia, Iran and other
countries) are attending the lessons, almost certain that they will
need to find other places to continue their studies next year. Some
are lucky enough to be at the graduation year, but others need
to do arrangements for smooth transition to other schools, without
excluding the prospect of discontinuing their studies due to financial
difficulties.

The feeling of lose is predominant among the students. No new students
were admitted in at the beginning of the current school year. The
current students and thousand of graduates will soon be deprived
of their beloved school. It is not certain whether their collective
effort will change the course of events.

We met several citizens of Cyprus, who all expressed their concern
about the fate of the school, marking it as a sad day for all
Cypriots. Actually it is incomprehensive why AGBU insists to close
a school that can grant its graduates high school certificates,
recognized on the European Union level, now that Cyprus has joined
the Union.

The premises of the Institute, especially the main two buildings are
part of Nicosia’s architectural heritage. Together with the surrounding
parks they are chief landmarks in the capital city.

Two of Melkonian’s students approached and provided us with a written
text about the closure of their school. They signed the text with the
nicknames Ardziv and Paze. Here are the main parts of what they wrote
(translated from Armenian to English):

“The Fall of 79 years old school: For many years the Melkonian
Educational Institute has played an irreplaceable role in the
Armenian Diaspora cultural life. As a unique educational center,
it has provided numerous pupils with the necessary means for their
educational progress and development.

Only indifferent people and those who are totally overwhelmed with
financial considerations could take the decision for its closure.
Their excuses about the big financial loses of the Institute are
baseless, as, from its first day this school was a product of
benevolence and kindness, not a mean for business profit.

The suggestion of opening Melkonian Institute in Armenia is completely
ridiculous, because there are enough schools in Armenia to cover the
needs for national education there.

In the past, foreign invaders had ordered the closure of our schools,
but what we see today the Armenian hands are doing it, as if it
is not enough the closure of the other Diaspora schools such as
Murad-Raphaelian, etc.

In our opinion the closure of the school will have tragic consequences
on the Diaspora cultural life. It will endanger the struggle for
keeping our identity in the Middle East and Europe. This is why we all
consider the day that the decision for the closure of the school was
taken (16th March) as a black day in our history. We will continue
to protest and oppose to those who prefer to see the doors of the
Melkonian Institute closed forever.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KARABAKH ISSUE SOLUTION WAYS DEPEND ON POLITICAL WILL OF ALL PARTIES TO CONFLICT

PanArmenian News
March 26 2005

26.03.2005 04:57

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The role of the OSCE MG Co-Chairs lies in mediation,
not arbitration, OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Slovenian Foreign Minister
Dimitrij Rupel noted, Arminfo news agency reported. He again
underscored that the ways to solution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
depend on the political will of all parties to conflict and the OSCE
mediation mission approaches to solution of conflicts in Nagorno
Karabakh, Georgia and Moldova differ and are determined depending
from the circumstances of the conflicts. ~SThe role of the OSCE MG
Co-Chairs lies in facilitating the talks that will lead to a lasting
and stable settlement of the conflict,~T Rupel noted.

Turkish Daily News
March 28 2005

Flags and beyond
Monday, March 28, 2005

Opinion by Doðu ERGÝL

There’s never a dull moment in Turkey because the agenda changes
almost daily, at the latest weekly. That’s why diplomats, journalists
and academics are never bored in this country. The latest issue is
the surge of nationalistic feelings sweeping through the land in the
form of flag waving at places ranging from home windows, moving cars
and office buildings to TV screens. (At the corner of every TV screen
is a flag as instructed by the highest official who sets the
boundaries of proper — read this as patriotic — action in TV-radio
broadcasting.) What is happening? Are we under siege of an alien
power or mobilizing for a near and present danger of occupation?
There may be several million people in Turkey who would give a
positive answer to both these questions; however, a more realistic,
although simpler, answer is that two Kurdish youngsters aged 12 and
14 desecrated the national flag during Nevroz demonstrations in
Mersin last week.

Every high-ranking government official reassured the nation that we
will crush the enemies of the flag and the country. A declaration
from the General Staff once again expressed the resolve of the army
to “shed its blood to the last drop” in defense of the sacred values
of the republic including its flag. Any wretched enemy of the
country, the Turkish nation and the flag should tremble in fear faced
with such a show of force and determination. However, the extent of
this massive reaction and nationalist reflex ought to be understood
in order to grasp the reasons why such an outburst took place in
Turkey at this point in time.

The Turkish political culture that shaped what we call “national
education” has taught two things to the citizens, starting from a
very young age:

1- The nation is a monolithic body born out of individuals who are
in harmony and in solidarity with each other. There is no
differentiation among social cohorts, so no conflict of interest.

2- The nation is an organic part of the state, created and led by
it, and all rights, obligations and privileges emanate from it. Hence
we are not only nationals but also nationalists. Any one who deviates
from the officially charted (and learned in school) code of conduct
does not deserve to be a citizen.

The outcome of this political culture is unquestionable obedience
to the state and nationalism as the reasoning of the average citizen.
It is very hard to either denounce or transcend the reasoning and
mode of behavior of the average man. The behavior of the average man,
in turn, is both shaped, checked and demonstrates itself in the
crucible of collective sentiments rather than individual rationale.
In general, emotions lead collective behavior rather than critical
reason. This phenomenon is very evident nowadays in Turkey. As the
government is facing difficulties in the international arena and
blurring its EU perspective, collective behavior based on emotion is
emerging and replacing rational choices that were required in
preparation for EU membership. The end result is nationalistic
outbursts and the rise of rather harsh ethnic nationalism and
distrust of the “others.”

There are obvious factors that aggravate the situation. There is a
growing number of people in this country who believe that the EU is
making it harder for Turkey to join. The argument is not that
irrational: Turks voted in favor of the Annan plan for a united
Cyprus, but the Greeks were awarded with EU membership although they
did the opposite. Now Turkey is pressured to accept Greek Cyprus to
be the lawful representative of the island state, although it was the
Greek Cypriots that betrayed the expectations of the international
community as well as those of the Turks on the island. That is too
much to accept.

Furthermore, unauthorized political bodies such as parliaments,
municipal councils, etc., are adopting resolutions regarding the
acknowledgement of an Armenian genocide committed at the turn of the
20th century in the Ottoman Empire and are holding the Turkish
Republic, founded long afterwards, responsible for the unfortunate
events of the past. Knowing that if grudges of the past had ended
with compensation of the victims, the world map would drastically be
altered, Turks find this hypocritical. Furthermore, anyone who is
familiar with international law knows that “genocide” is a legal term
and has to be decided by a special court of law such as the
International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.
Additionally, the U.N. Genocide Convention does not by its terms
apply to acts that occurred prior to Jan. 12, 1951. It is not
retroactive; therefore no legal, financial or territorial claims can
be made against any individual or state under the convention. Yet
Turkey is put under psychological and political pressure that
reflects on its citizens as a state of siege expediently used as an
excuse to deny Turks membership in the union.

The souring of feelings on the European front is coupled with
relations with the United States. The secular-nationalist camp
believes that the AKP’s rise to power is due to the U.S support of
“moderate Islam” that was planned to contain the surge of radical
Islam. For the seculars there is no moderation in a religious
political movement except momentarily and when it feels weak.
Secondly, for the bulk of the Turkish people, the U.S. has spoiled
the Kurds of Iraq to the point of virtual independence, and this fact
has put into motion its like in Turkey. They believe that sooner or
later Turkey will face a Kurdish movement demanding autonomy first,
independence later. The banners flown by the Kurds in Diyarbakir and
other eastern towns during Nevroz celebrations last week on which
“democratic confederalism” was written came too early to substantiate
these suspicions. The desecration of the flag and calls for
confederation kindled the nationwide reaction against the Kurds
together with condemnation of American policies blaming Turkey for
American losses in Iraq. Islamists in Turkey and elsewhere, including
a large part of the AKP constituency, blame the United States for
invading Islamic lands and disrupting the lives of Muslims by
imposing its political will and culture on these people. The leftists
thrive on the so-called “Western imperialism” for their survival.
There are not many left who would evince different sentiments and
offer a different political position.

The flag debate came at this very special conjuncture when Turks of
different cohorts and leanings felt threatened and denigrated by
similar elements. They showed a concerted and united reaction by
using one of their mutual symbols of identity: the national flag.
Mind you, this is not only a symbol of the republic. It is also the
flag of the Ottoman centuries under which all Ottoman nationalities
lived together. Hence, flag waiving is not only a sign of social and
psychological solidarity but also a yearning of political unity that
goes back in history.

These are all understandable; however, the events are a harbinger
of three developments that need to be pondered:

1- The public is taken with anti-EU rhetoric that borders on
broader anti-Westernism;

2- Forces of the status quo (or in general those who resist change)
have started to raise their voice and become more visible on the
political scene as the “nationalist front”;

3- The military, which was keeping silent and only involved in
professional matters, started making an entry into the political
realm. The opportunity provided by celebrations of the Battle of
Çannakale during World War I and the Nevroz celebrations, which
emphasized once again that there is an unsolved “Kurdish problem,”
caused us to hear that the army has a say over the evolution of
events in this country.

What if these developments are not halted and these problems are
not resolved by October, when the day of accession talks knocks on
the door? The AKP will find a much more difficult Turkey to rule.
Does it have the statecraft and breadth of vision to succeed? That
will soon be seen.

–Boundary_(ID_HH90SzcdSz2fQ62AUiIOkA)–

Unsilencing the Past: A book on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation efforts

Turkish Daily News
March 28 2005

Monday, March 28, 2005

Book Review

ANKARA – Turkish Daily News

Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation by David L. Phillips (Berghahn Books, New York/Oxford)
describes efforts to promote contact, dialogue, and cooperation
between Turks and Armenians. Established in 2001, the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) broke a taboo about
Armenian issues in Turkey and spawned many civil society projects
involving business leaders, women’s associations, youth groups,
cultural activities, parliamentarians, and local government
officials.

Track two diplomacy brings together non-governmental
representatives to develop ideas informing official diplomacy and
building grass-roots support for policy initiatives. The goal is to
creatively explore the underlying conditions that give rise to
conflict and develop joint strategies for addressing shared problems
through reciprocal efforts. As a result, conflict comes to be seen as
a shared problem requiring cooperation of both sides. Track Two is
not a substitute for official diplomatic efforts. However, its
flexibility helps compensate for the inherent constraints on
officials.

According to Phillips, TARC’s primary goal was to open the border
between Turkey and Armenia as a first step towards establishing
diplomatic relations between the two countries. The initiative faced
serious problems.

Before TARC was established, Turkish-Armenian relations were marred
by deep distrust, a closed border and dramatically different
perceptions of history. Phillips explains that Armenians and many
international historians describe pogroms in the late 19th century
that killed one quarter million ethnic Armenians in eastern Anatolia.
On April 24, 1915, 800 Armenian community leaders were executed and
the subsequent deportation of Armenians resulted in massive
sufferings by Armenians (1915-23). Many Turks emphasize the war
context in which the events occurred. The deportation of Armenians
was in response to security concerns arising from the rebellion of
Armenians during which hundreds of thousands of Turks died in the
Caucasus as well as the Balkans and the Black Sea region. Turkey
rejects use of the term genocide and resents efforts by Armenians to
gain international recognition. Reconciliation is further complicated
by Armenian Diaspora politics and the occupation of Azeri territories
by Armenians.

Unsilencing the Past describes in vivid detail the exchange of
views between Turks and Armenians. It brings the reader behind the
scenes giving a glimpse of the difficult and sometimes acrimonious
discussions. The genocide issue cast a long shadow over TARC’s
efforts.

To address this problem, Turks and Armenians jointly agreed to seek
a non-binding legal opinion facilitated by the well-respected
International Center for Transitional Justice on the ~Sapplicability
of the Genocide Convention to events in the early Twentieth Century.~T

To the satisfaction of the Turks, the analysis concluded: ~SThe
Genocide Convention contains no provisions mandating its retroactive
application. Therefore, no legal, financial or territorial claim
arising out of the events could successfully be made against any
individual or state under the Convention.~T It also examined the
definition of genocide in international law and found that (i) one or
more persons were killed, (ii) such persons belonged to a particular
ethnic, racial, or religious group, (iii) the action took place as
part of a pattern of conduct against the group, and, (iv) no matter
how many Armenians died, at least some of the Ottoman rulers knew
that the consequence of the deportation orders would result in many
deaths. To the satisfaction of Armenians, it concluded that the
events include all the elements of the crime of genocide.

Though the legal analysis offered something to both sides, Phillips
acknowledges that it did little to advance the practical goal of
opening the Turkish-Armenian border. In this regard, he is critical
of the Armenian government for failing to clearly state that it has
no claim on Turkey’s territory. He criticizes the Turkish government
for not acting in its own national interest to open the border, which
would have a huge economic impact on the Turkish provinces bordering
Armenia while reducing the transportation cost of Turkish goods to
Central Asia and beyond. He is also critical of the Bush
administration for shifting its priorities and neglecting
Turkish-Armenian issues after September 11 and with the Iraq War.

In conclusion, Phillips asks ~SWas the effort worthwhile?~T He
laments that TARC’s goals were not met. He notes, however, that TARC
did succeed in establishing a structured dialogue and opening the
door for civil society contacts; helping catalyze diplomatic
activity; laying the foundation for addressing the genocide issue;
and bringing a principled treaty based approach to opening the
border. Though TARC was established for one year, it worked for
three. Pointing out that reconciliation is a process not an event,
Phillips concludes optimistically stating his belief that the border
will open someday soon. (Note: The Armenian government has publicly
recognized the 1921 Kars Treaty demarcating today’s border between
Turkey and Armenia.)

Phillips is director of the Program on Conflict Prevention and
Peacebuilding at American University. He is also a visiting scholar
at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations of New York.

(For more information see ).

The shadow of Darfur
by: Yosef Goell

The Jerusalem Post
March 21, 2005, Monday

It would be hard to overstate the diplomatic coup entailed in
assembling so many of the world’s leaders as Israel did last week for
the inauguration of Yad Vashem’s new Holocaust museum in Jerusalem.
It would be premature however to parlay those first impressions into
predictions about their effect on the rising tide of anti-Semitism –
most of it of Muslim origin – in their respective countries.

But as I listened to the cascade of speeches some of them truly moving
and impressive I found myself getting madder and madder. For there
among those speakers and in the front seats of the world’s movers and
shakers sat the very men who could if they wanted to put an end not
to a 65 genocide against the Jewish people but to an ongoing genocide
in not-too-far off Darfur in Sudan.

On March 9 top UN relief official Jan Egeland sounded the alarm in a
call for more troops from the African Union. There is no other place
in the world where so many lives are at stake, Egeland said. “If
it goes well we could have a historic turn for the better for six
million internally displaced – which is five times more than were
displaced by the Indian Ocean tsunami. If it goes badly it could be
a situation of mass death mass suffering for millions of people.”

The US Congress and government have in July and September 2004
respectively defined the continuing horrors in Darfur as “genocide.”
Yet the United Nations has not; and this week the UN Security Council
remained deadlocked over a resolution that would step up monitoring
and threaten sanctions against the Sudanese government.

The hesitation of the UN is incredible given that this week Egeland
himself more than doubled his estimate of the number killed over the
past 19 months to 180 0

IN THE shadow of Darfur the tone at the Yad Vashem ceremony could
only be described as smug – since the world leaders were there to
claim that the lesson of the Holocaust had been learned. The sorry
fact is that the gentlemen shivering in their heavy coats in the
Jerusalem winter had apparently learned… nothing.

It is doubtful that their leadership predecessors in the 1930s and
40s wanted to conspire with Hitler in annihilating the Jews; what
caused the number of butchered Jews to pile up to six million was
those leaders’ inaction.

Darfur is merely the latest example of the failure of the international
community to apply the lessons of the Holocaust to the barbarity of
Bosnia and Kosovo in Europe of Rwanda in Africa and much earlier of
the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

On Saturday the Los Angeles Times reported that UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan was due to table sweeping proposals for revamping the
60-year-old world organization which has lately come in for scathing
criticism. I wouldn’t hold my breath however in expecting these
reforms to turn the UN into an effective genocide-fighting body.

One of the silver linings to the black cloud of a feckless
international community has been the performance of some of the world’s
top journalists. Whatever I know about Darfur has come nearly entirely
from my hero New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff who has done
a masterful job of reporting from Darfur forcing the international
community to sit up and take notice.

I mention Kristoff as a comparison to the Times’s own abysmal failure
two decades earlier as the Rwanda holocaust took place. I used to
follow infrequent one-inch reports in the Times on cases of ethnic
slaughter (the term ethnic cleansing had not yet emerged) in that
unheard of country somewhere in the middle of the Black Continent.

Apparently no Times editor believed those horrendous reports justified
full follow-ups. Which is why Kristoff and his editors deserve kudos
on their coverage of Darfur today.

SOME OF the Israeli media accompanied the Yad Vashem inauguration with
reports of an ideological debate between Yad Vashem and the Foreign
Ministry over how to balance the universal and particularist aspects
of the Holocaust. It was also reported that the new Yad Vashem was
seen as an answer to the architecturally more sophisticated Holocaust
Museum in Washington DC.

When my wife and I visited the Washington museum in the early 1990s we
were impressed with a plaque on the wall bearing a quote from Hitler
to his Wermacht generals to the effect that the same world that had
chosen to overlook the Turkish genocide against the Armenians during
World War I would let the Germans do what they wanted with the Jewish
populations slated for annihilation.

This is exactly what occurred. And what happened to us 60 years ago
was so horrendous that we have the right to demand of the world that
no further genocides against the Jews be permitted. But the fuller
lesson of the Holocaust is that no genocide should be permitted
against anyone anywhere.

Toleration of genocide anywhere coupled with the persistence of even
low-level anti-Semitism will mean that Darfurs Rwandas and Bosnias
will soon evolve into new genocides against the Jews.

Christian sects in Syria celebrate Easter
by Ghossoun

Syrian Arab News Agency, Syria
March 27 2005

DAMASCUS, Mar 27 (SANA) – Christian sects in Syria who follow the
Western calendar on Sunday celebrated Easter through performing
prayers, masses and preaches.

Patriarch of Antioch and all the East of the Roman Catholics Gregorius
III Laham chaired a large masse in Roman Catholic Patriarchate in
which he spoke about the sublime values of Easter and the divine
message conveyed by Christ for salvation of humanity as a whole.

The Patriarch spoke about the current critical situation in the region
where Syria is exposed to big pressures and challenges expressing
the Syrian people~Rs belief in and absolute trust in President Bashar
al-Assad~Rs wise leadership .

He said: ” peace is the only guarantee for the joint living and
understanding among peoples is the key of security, stability and
progress in the region.”

In similar sermons the spiritual leader of the Anglican church in
Damascus, Botrous Zaour and archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox in
Damascus Armache Balandian spoke in their separate sermons about the
humanitarian message of the Christ to free human beings from their
sin and suffering.

They talked about the difficult circumstances in the region,
suffering of the Palestinian people due to the Israeli occupation,
the fierce attacks targeting Syria and Lebanon in a bid to hurt the
Syrian-Lebanese relations, make Syria bow down and abandon its national
stances for imposing the so-called Greater Middle East Project.

They called for adherence to our unified ranks and national unity
for facing all possible pressures and schemes.

In this respect and on directive from president Bashar al-Assad, the
Minister of the Presidential Affairs Dr. Ghassan Laham conveyed the
President’s heartfelt congratulation to the spiritual leaders of the
Christian sects on the occasion of the Easter, wishing them success
in their work.

Dr. Laham visited His Eminence Patriarch Gregorius III Laham of
the Roman Catholics with the attendance of the Vicar Patriarchal
Archbishop Isidor Battikha, Archbishop Elias Tibbi at the Patriarchate
of the Assyrian Catholics, leader of the Anglican church in Damascus,
Botrous Zaour and archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox in Damascus
Armache Balandian and others.

The spiritual leaders of the Christian sects expressed gratitude to
President Assad for his kind congratulations, wishing His Excellency
success in leading the country and care for all the citizens for the
best interest of Syria and the Arab Nation.

Awkaf Minister, Ziyad Eddin al-Ayyoubi also visited the spiritual
leaders of the Christian sects and offered them his congratulations
on the occasion of Easter.

During the meeting the spiritual leaders hailed the national unity
and coexistence which Syria enjoys.

Secretary of Damascus branch of the Baath Arab Socialist Party, Khalil
Mashhadya and Damascus Governor, Mohammad Bashar al-Mufti also visited
the spiritual leaders to congratulate them on Easter.

El Mundo
Domingo, 27 de marzo de 2005

CAMBIOS EN EL ESCENARIO INTERNACIONAL
El mosaico de Asia Central tras la desintegración de la URSS

IÑAQUI ORTEGA (EFE)

MOSCÚ.- La revolución popular en Kirguizistán, la tercera en el
espacio postsoviético en los últimos 18 meses tras Georgia y Ucrania,
amenaza con desatar un ‘efecto dominó’ en el patio trasero de Rusia.

Según los expertos, la desintegración de la Comunidad de Estados
Independientes (CEI), que agrupa a las 12 repúblicas ex soviéticas a
excepción de las bálticas, parece inevitable y todos los Gobiernos se
hacen la misma pregunta: ¿Seremos nosotros los próximos?.

Muchos dedos apuntan a la vecina Tayikistán, la república ex
soviética más inestable, pero el recuerdo de la guerra civil
(1992-97), que dejó más 100.000 muertos, y la fortaleza del
presidente, Emomali Rajmónov, que ha anunciado su intención de seguir
en el poder hasta 2020, descartan un escenario revolucionario. Rusia
cuenta con importantes intereses en este país, limítrofe con China,
donde aún conserva una importante presencia militar.

Turkmenistán, cuyo régimen también es denostado por EEUU y la Unión
Europea, parece a salvo, dados los intereses energéticos del gigante
del gas ruso Gazprom y la dependencia del gas turkmeno por parte de
Ucrania. El presidente vitalicio de Turkmenistán, Saparmurat Niyázov,
de 65 años, se mantiene aislado de la comunidad internacional, pero
no representa ninguna amenaza para sus vecinos.

Uzbekistán, el país más poblado de la zona con 26 millones de
habitantes, celebró a principios de año elecciones legislativas, que
se saldaron sin incidentes a pesar de que fueron excluidos todos los
partidos de la oposición. Islam Karimov, en el poder desde 1989 y con
ambición de seguir hasta 2012, se refugia en la latente amenaza
islámica, que le ha granjeado el apoyo de EEUU, pero la posibilidad
de un estallido de violencia está muy presente.

Kazajistán es el país más estable y con mayor nivel de vida de la
zona, lo que no quita que el presidente Nursultán Nazarbáyev no
cuente con grupos opositores, a los que ha perseguido y clausurado
sus sedes. En los últimos dos años, ha introducido profundas reformas
constitucionales y ha optado por la integración regional como forma
de combatir las ‘revoluciones de terciopelo’ en Asia Central.

En el Cáucaso, Armenia es el único aliado de Moscú, que dispone de
una base militar en su territorio, pero su presidente Robert
Kocharián no ha podido sacar a su país del atraso económico, lo que
ha acrecentado el malestar social.

Según la prensa occidental, Washington ya ha dado el visto bueno para
el cambio de régimen en Azerbaiyán, por temor a que Ilham Alíyev, que
reemplazó a su padre, Heidar, en unas elecciones “fraudulentas” en
2003, se eternice en el poder. Bush habló de este asunto con el
dirigente del movimiento juvenil ucraniano Pora durante su visita
oficial a Bratislava a finales de febrero, tras lo que decidieron
crear un “Centro de Expertos” para la propagación de la democracia en
la zona.

En Bielorrusia, las cartas están echadas después de que Rice
incluyera entre los “reductos de la tiranía” al régimen de Alexander
Lukashenko, que se presentará el próximo año a la reelección tras
reformar la Constitución en un plebiscito criticado por la comunidad
internacional. Este país parece el eslabón más débil, como
demostraron las protestas de varios centenares de opositores el
viernes en Minsk, pero Rusia tiene demasiados intereses políticos y
económicos para quedarse con los brazos cruzados.

En Moldavia, el hecho de que los comunistas, ganadores de las
elecciones legislativas de marzo, rompieran lazos con Moscú, le ha
dado al régimen de Vladímir Voronin carta de legitimidad ante
Occidente. “Hemos derrotado a la contrarrevolución”, proclamó Voronin
tras ganar los comicios, en los que no participaron los habitantes de
la región separatista de Cisdniéster, que se escindió de Chisinau
tras una guerra en la que contó con el apoyo militar de Rusia.

–Boundary_(ID_A7jlqMqAYShzd7/+ipmouQ)–

Upcoming votes in ex-Soviet nations gain urgency after ‘revolutions’

Agence France Presse — English
March 27, 2005 Sunday 11:46 AM GMT

MOSCOW March 27 — Georgia, Ukraine, now Kyrgyzstan — these ex-Soviet
nations all had longtime pro-Russian regimes swept out after protests
over disputed polls. Against this background, the electoral calendar in
former Soviet nations is being carefully watched in Moscow and abroad.

Herewith a list of elections (in chronological order) in the countries
that comprise the Commonwealth of Indpendent States (CIS), which
includes all former Soviet republics except for the Baltic States.

REVOLUTION DREAMING?

Most CIS countries have yet to witness the kind of massive protests
that swept through Georgia in November 2003, Ukraine late last year
and Kyrgyzstan last week.

AZERBAIJAN
Parliamentary: November 2005
Presidential: October 2008

The oil-rich nation of eight million on the western coast of the
Caspian Sea is currently ruled by Ilham Alieyv, who succeeded his
father Heidar to the presidency in October 2003.

The leadership has been heavily criticized for stiffling dissent,
both by jailing opposition members and muzzling an independent press.
The recent murder of an opposition journalist unleashed a wave of
protests in the capital.

Observers say it could be ripe for a revolution, fed in part by the
fact that half the population lives below the poverty line despite
the country’s wealth of natural resources. Demonstrations that flared
after the younger Aliyev’s election were put down by riot police and
left at least two people dead, dozens injured and nearly 200
arrested.

BELARUS
Parliamentary: fall 2008
Presidential: 2006 (exact date yet to be determined)

The small agricultural republic of 10 million sandwiched between
Russia, the Baltics, Ukraine and Poland has been ruled by Alexader
Lukashenko since 1994. His hardline policies have earned him the
moniker of being Europe’s last dictator and have seen the United
States and much of western Europe refuse him entry over his poor
human rights effort.

The nation has a lively, albeit underground opposition, including the
Zubr youth movement. Lukashenko has repeatedly warned that he would
harshly react to any attempts at revolution.

TAJIKISTAN
Parliamentary: February 2010
Presidential: November 2006

The impoverished mountainous Central Asian nation of seven million on
the northern border of Afghanistan has been headed by Emomali
Rakhmonov since 1992.

The opposition has a tiny representation in parliament and the
nation’s remaining opposition newspapers were closed down last year
for tax infractions.

Any revolutionary fervor in the nation is held in check by memories
of a brutal civil war that raged in the country between 1992 and
1997, which resulted in up to 150,000 deaths.

KAZAKHSTAN
Parliamentary: October 2009
Presidential: December 2006

The oil-rich nation of 15 million on the northeastern edge of the
Caspian Sea has been ruled by Nursultan Nazarbayev since 1991.

Nazarbayev has governed his large steppe nation with a strong hand.
Many opposition media have been closed down and opposition figures
jailed.

Although the Nazarbayev family has faced criticism over its
disproporational influence in the economy, overall the nation is
better off than Azerbaijan, a fellow oil-rich country across the
Caspian Sea, with 26 percent of the population living below the
poverty line.

UZBEKISTAN
Parliamentary: December 2009
Presidential: January 2007

The landlocked nation of 26 million on the northern border of
Afghanistan has been ruled with an iron fist by Islam Karimov since
1990.

Karimov’s relentless campaign against radical Islamists has landed
many practicing Muslims in jail, feeding discontent with his rule
along with the nation’s poverty.

The regime has been accused of massive human rights violations,
including widespread torture by police and in prisons. Karimov is
likely to move harshly against any revolutionary attempts at his
rule.

RUSSIA
Parliamentary: December 2007
Presidential: March 2008

The former superpower of 150 million people has been ruled by an
ex-KGB colonel since New Year’s Eve 1999-2000, when Russia’s first
post-Soviet leader Boris Yeltsin resigned abruptly, leaving his
relatively obscure prime minister Vladimir Putin in charge.

Putin, who was elected to his first term three months later and won
reelection to a second and final mandate in March 2004, has turned
increasingly more authoritarian during his years in power, moving
against independent television and critical political opponents.

Observers say any revolutionary attempt in Russia would be met by
fierce resistance by members of security services, both acting and
alumni, who have come to positions of power under Putin’s watch.

ARMENIA
Parliamentary: 2007 (exact date to be announced)
Presidential: 2008 (exact date to be announced)

The poor country of three million has been ruled by Robert Kocharian
since 1998.

It has traditionally enjoyed strong ties with Moscow, which it sees
as partly a security guarantee against its regional rival Azerbaijan
to the east (with which it fought a war over the contested
Nagorno-Karabakh enclave after the Soviet collapse) and Turkey to the
west.

TURKMENISTAN
Parliamentary: 2009
Presidential: —

The gas-rich nation of nearly five million on the eastern edge of the
Caspian Sea has been dominated by authoritarian Saparmurat Niyazov
since 1985, with his first election to the post of president coming
in 1990.

The flamboyant Niyazov has had himself announced president for life,
though he has voiced plans to hold a presidential election in 2007,
and refers to himself as Turkmenbashi (father of all Turkmens).
Statues to himself dot most cities and villages, the biggest cult of
personality on former Soviet soil since Josef Stalin died in 1053.

The country has no public opposition and no independent press.

POST-REVOLUTION

Elections in the countries that have undergone their revolutions will
be the first tests for the regimes who replaced the Moscow-friendly
authorities.

KYRGYZSTAN
Parliamentary: date to be determined
Presidential: June 26 2006

The small mountainous nation of five million on China’s western edge
will choose its next leader in June, after veteran president Askar
Akayev, who had ruled the nation since 1990, fled the country on
March 24 after protestors overran the main seat of government in the
capital.

Akayev was considered the most liberal of rulers in ex-Soviet Central
Asia. The former opposition chiefs who have assumed interim power
have vowed to continue his Russia-friendly policies.

UKRAINE
Parliamentary: November 2005
Presidential: October 2008

The nation of 48 million people on Russia’s eastern border swept out
a Moscow-friendly regime in favor of a pro-Western leader, Viktor
Yushchenko, during last year’s “orange revolution,” the peaceful
protests after a presidential election.

As part of a compromise that ended the tense standoff between the
then opposition and the regime, Ukraine’s constitution was changed,
transferring many presidential powers to parliament.

Thus next year’s parliamentary elections will be a crucial test for
the “orange revolution.” Yushchenko won the presidency during
subsequent elections held on December 26 with 52 percent of the vote.

GEORGIA
Parliamentary: 2008
Presidential: 2009

The poor nation of nearly five million people on the eastern coast of
the Black Sea peace swept out a Soviet-era regime of Eduard
Shevardnadze during the “rose revolution,” peaceful protests sparked
by a parliamentary poll in November 2003.

Mikhail Saakashvili was elected in a landslide with nearly 97 percent
of the vote

MOLDOVA
Parliamentary: 2009
Presidential: elected by parliament

The nation of nearly five million sandwiched between Ukraine and
Romania is considered Europe’s most impoverished country and has been
ruled by Vladimir Voronin since 2001.

In the months ahead of this year’s parliamentary elections the ruling
Communist party abandoned its Moscow-friendly platform and preached a
pro-Western course, leading to quips that the revolution in Moldova
occurred imperceptibly.

IRNA, Iran
March 27, 2005 Sunday

Matsuura: Concerns over Jahan-Nama Tower project not a political
issue

Isfahan, March 27, IRNA Iran-UNESCO-Naqsh-e Jahan Director General of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) Kushiro Matsuura here Sunday said that the concerns over
Jahan-Nama Tower project currently under construction adjacent to
Isfahan’s Imam Khomeini (Naqsh-e Jahan) Square is not a political
issue.

Speaking at the banquet in Isfahan’s Abbasi Hotel hosted by the
provincial Governor General Mahmoud Hosseini, Matsuura added that no
historical monument has ever been omitted from the world heritage
list.

“However, in case this takes place in any country, the relevant
political consequences will be quite detrimental.

>>From UNESCO’s point of view there is no political motivation behind
the move and the world heritage is the main concern in this case.

Concerning the likelihood of such an event, he noted, “Given that
President Mohammad Khatami and the provincial governor general are
determined to convince the municipality and city council of the
provincial capital of Isfahan to make the necessary adjustments in
the tower, I do not even wish to consider such a possibility.”

For his part, Hosseini said that Isfahan Municipality and City
Council are doing their best to safeguard the provincial historical
monuments.

“Similar to the decision taken on the urban metro project to change
its initially planned route to prevent its crossing through
Chahar-Bagh, we are determined to make the necessary changes in
Jahan-Nama Tower to safeguard its international status,” added
Hosseini.

The official referred to Zayandeh Roud area as a significant
historical site in the province and of great value in view of the
world heritage.

During his two- -day visit to Isfahan, Matsuura toured some of the
city’s archaic relics including the historical bridges, Imam Khomeini
Square Complex, Chehel-Sotoun Palace, Qeisarieh Bazaar, Vang Church
and the Armenians neighborhood.

Iran’s Human Rights Defenders Association has already filed a
complaint against Jahan-Nama contractors with Isfahan Justice
Department and a verdict calling for a halt to the project has been
issued.

Despite the verdict, it has not yet been enforced.

The construction of Jahan-Nama Tower project, as a cultural and
commercial complex, was launched in 1996. It is being constructed in
an area measuring 90,000 square meters and is situated adjacent to
the historical Naqsh-e Jahan Square, Chahar- -Bagh and other ancient
monuments.