TBILISI: Russia MP: America reveal ‘true intentions’ for Caucasus

Russia MP: America reveal ‘true intentions’ for Caucasus

The Messenger, Georgia
March 11 2005

The Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that the “United
States is keeping a close eye on the Caucasus.” Speaking at hearings
in the Senate Armed Forces Committee, American General James Jones,
the Supreme Allied Commander of the Unified Armed Forces (UAF) of
NATO in Europe, said that in terms of strategy, the top US military
leadership considers the Caucasus one of the most important regions
in the world. He also touched upon their interests, particularly, the
Caucasian air corridor which has become a critical lifeline between
the coalition armed forces in Afghanistan and our bases in Europe.
The paper writes that General Jones summarized yet another of
Washington’s priorities in this zone, Caspian oil. The general
expressed his wish that in order to increase their traditional lines
of communication, they are seeking access to new facilities and the
freedom to transit the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Near East, and
Africa to advance American national interests. The Caucasus, the he
said, is also a crucial “geographic point in the process of spreading
democracy and the market economy in the countries of Central and
Southeast Asia.”
The paper writes that U.S. plans for troops in the area until 2015.
“The European Command of the U.S. Armed Forces together with the
command of the American Special Forces is now working on a new plan
intended for the period until 2015 whereby the United States would
station its permanent and rotational special forces to new bases in
the southern part of Europe,” the paper states.
Konstantin Kosachev, the chairman of the Russian Federation State
Duma Committee on International Affairs, believes that these
revelations by the general do not match up with the statements by
American politicians that the American military presence in the
Caucasus region is linked to opposing the international terrorist
threat. “The general let slip and thereby confirmed the true
intentions of the Americans in this region, which up to this point
were carefully hidden,” the MP tells the paper.

Glendale: Treasurer, clerk candidates square off

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
March 11 2005

Treasurer, clerk candidates square off

A heated exchange between treasurer incumbent and challenger
highlights double-dosed night.
By Darleene Barrientos, News-Press and Leader

GLENDALE CITY HALL — Experience and accessibility were the key words
at a forum pitting city treasurer and clerk candidates against one
another Thursday night.

Treasurer Ron Borucki defended himself against questions of openness
and accountability from challenger Phillip Kazanjian in an exchange
early in the forum, which took place at City Council chambers and
was sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Glendale and Burbank.

The forum’s format was unusual because of the highly technical skills
each office required, said Chris Carson, president of the league.
Instead of only posing questions submitted to the league, the city
clerk and treasurer from Burbank were invited to pose their own
questions as well.

The portion for the city treasurer was a half-hour, and an hour and
15 minutes was allotted to the clerk candidates.

Borucki in his opening statement lauded his record of six years of
working with the city after a 34-year banking career, beginning with
$283 million in investments and increasing that amount to $550 million.

Kazanjian questioned Borucki’s background, noting that Borucki failed
to provide where he worked during his banking career or give his
educational background.

“Look at the ballot statements,” Kazanjian said. “We want openness
and accountability … he said he’s had a 34-year banking career,
but he failed to say what bank or where.”

Borucki in his closing statement answered Kazanjian by stating that
those interested in the city’s financial statements can visit the
site for monthly information reports.

“I’m proud of my record of keeping the city’s dollars safe,” Borucki
said. “I don’t take chances with the public’s trust.”

Questions for the clerk candidates ranged from what the position’s
responsibilities were regarding absentee ballots to how the Brown
Act affects the city clerk.

“The city clerk’s job is to post meeting agendas for city meetings,”
candidate Steve Ropfogel said. “I would also say they should continue
to be posted on the Web and to people who have opted to receive them.”

Another question posed was how to put the permit process online when
some permits require a fingerprint and signature.

Candidate Lorna Vartanian said it might not be possible to keep
the process entirely online, but it could perhaps be kept partially
electronic.

“I would like to see the license and permit process go online, so you
can track it as it’s going through the process,” Vartanian said. “I
would also like departments to approve them electronically … so
that it may require [a fingerprint] upon approval.”

Several Clark Magnet High School students were assigned to watch the
forum by their political science teacher Nick Doom.

“I thought the treasurer forum was more heated,” 18-year-old Rene
Menjivar said. “I would vote for [Ardy] Kassakhian. He seems straight
with his answers.”

As for treasurer, resident Edwin Croft thought Borucki’s track record
spoke for itself.

“I think anytime you can double your money, you’ve done pretty well,”
Croft said.

“The Shield” gets Close for its fourth season

“The Shield” gets Close for its fourth season
BY KATE O’HARE Zap2it

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
March 13, 2005 Sunday

Glenn Close stands on the front walk of a house on a corner in Los
Angeles’ Silverlake district, today’s location for the FX police drama
“The Shield.”

Wearing a neat gray suit, dark striped blouse and shades, gun on her
hip, she’s waiting for Michael Chiklis to work out camera angles for
his arrival at the location and his trip up the steps to meet Close.

Finally the sequence is sorted out, and Close smiles patiently at
Chiklis, then calls out, “I forgot it was all about you.”

Starting with the fourth-season premiere on Tuesday, Close, a five-time
Academy Award nominee, joins “The Shield” as Capt. Monica Rawling,
new commander of the Barn, a precinct in LA’s fictional Farmington
district. She steps in because former Capt. David Aceveda (Benito
Martinez) has been elected to the city council.

Chiklis’ character, Detective Vic Mackey, has spent three seasons
butting heads with Aceveda while simultaneously fighting crime and
lining his own pockets as the head of the elite Strike Team. After a
particularly lucrative scheme — robbing an Armenian “money train” —
went seriously south last season, the Strike Team broke apart. With
only Detective Ronnie Gardocki (David Rees Snell) still at his side,
Vic is stuck reviewing videotapes as part of a sting operation.

Rawling’s arrival could mean a new beginning, if Vic can control his
worst impulses.

“Certainly, in the short term, he will,” Chiklis says on the street
between shots. “He realizes there are some great opportunities to be
had by having a great rapport with this woman, but you can’t change
the spots on a leopard. She’ll give him a foot of leash, and he’ll
probably take nine.”

Close, digging into Mexican food during her lunch break, says,
“I don’t know if she’s out to reform anybody. She’s out to motivate
people. I’d like to think she’s a leader, but she’s a leader by example
and smarts. She would be very good at psychology, so certainly the
worst thing to do would be to set out to reform Vic. She’s trying
to redirect him, and it’s a huge risk. I don’t think she can afford
to trust him.”

In the season premiere, Chiklis meets Rawling when she visits a
crime scene. After she dispatches the situation with grace and humor,
he watches her depart, and the shock and awe on his face raise the
question: Does he want her?

“Sexually?” Close says. “On some subliminal level, there’s a
fascination. I don’t know if the writers have something up their
sleeves.”

While Mackey sorts out this new relationship, it’s time to mend
fences with former Strike Team cohorts Shane Vendrell (Walton Goggins)
and Curtis “Lemonhead” Lemansky (Kenneth Johnson).

“Necessity is the mother of invention,” Chiklis says. “Look, they
all have an innate understanding that if they don’t fix it somehow,
what’s the alternative? One of them steps in (excrement). They know
the other’s going to give the other up. There’s that constant fear.

“No matter what transpires between these men, there is that bond, when
you have fought next to each other and killed next to each other .. “.

And they were part of a criminal conspiracy. Chiklis smiles and
continues, ” … fought and killed and lived through certain things.
You can overcome a helluva lot to preserve that. They need each
other, and that’s going to ultimately win out. It has to go that way,
otherwise they have to end up killing each other.”

And by the way, Strike Team Detective Tavon Garris (Brian J. White)
is still recovering from a brutal beating by Vendrell, which led to
an auto accident.

“Tavon’s not dead,” Chiklis says.

But will he talk? Chiklis grins. “We’ll see.”

A Story Originating in Espionage, Betrayal,and Vengeance in a Villag

Kirkus Reviews
March 15, 2005

A STRANGE DEATH;
A Story Originating in Espionage, Betrayal, and Vengeance in a
Village in Old Palestine

Long-winded, thoughtfully meandering tale of the repercussions of a
WWI spy ring on a Palestine village.

Israeli journalist Halkin (Across the Sabbath River, 2002) unearthed
this story in his backyard more than 30 years ago, when he and his
wife bought land and built a house in the former farming village of
Zichron Ya’akov. In the late 19th century, Zichron–supported and
designed by Baron James de Rothschild during the first wave of Jewish
immigration to Ottoman-ruled Palestine–was also home to the Nili
ring, a shadowy pro-British group operating against the oppressive
Turks. Very gradually, Halkin embarks on the details of the affair he
uncovers in conversations with lively, irrepressible local residents.
Before Britain’s conquest of Palestine in 1917, the Jewish settlers,
afraid for their survival upon hearing of the 1915 Armenian massacre,
decided to help keep the British informed of Turkish maneuvers.
Zionists Aaron Aaronsohn and Avshalom Feinberg; Aaron’s sisters,
Sarah and Rivka; and a “picaresque rover,” Yosef Lishansky, organized
a ring that traded intelligence for British gold, which they
dispensed to the Jews of Palestine to keep them from starving–or
talking. A dragnet was thrown, however, and the spies were arrested
and tortured, most notably Sarah, who before shooting herself managed
to write an accusatory farewell letter that seemed to name her
informers and urge revenge. In fact, Perl Appelbaum, one of four
women who probably informed on the ring in order to save the
community from Turkish retribution, died under suspicious
circumstances that perhaps involved poison, or at least that’s what
Halkin concludes after tortuous wanderings through stories within
stories by survivors who like to embellish.

Everyone here spins good yarns, rendered in lovely prose, but the
book’s hefty size pads a pretty skimpy adventure.

Publication Date: 06/01/2005
Publisher: PublicAffairs
Stage: Adult
ISBN: 1-58648-271-8
Price: $24.00
Author: Halkin, Hillel

No place like home

Sunday Mail (Queensland, Australia)
March 13, 2005

No place like home

Anthony Browne

The world is becoming less multiracial and less multicultural, says
ANTHONY BROWNE. People like to live among their own kind.

MANY on the Left believe that the only way to end racism is to end
races. The only way to conquer Nazism, they argue, is mass
miscegenation — interracial love, rather than war.

The champions of diversity believe our future is not as a species
with many races, but with one race — a quarter Chinese, a quarter
Indian, a quarter African and a quarter European.

There are a lot of good things to say about a future of mixed-race
people such as champion golfer Tiger Woods and actor Halle Berry.

Ever since I fell in love with a beautiful woman who was half
Scottish, a quarter Thai and a quarter Jamaican, I have been
convinced that mixed-race people combine the best of all their parts.

As the Mayor of Vancouver said, reacting to public concern about the
extent of Chinese immigration: “We’re going to have a generation of
the most beautiful babies.”

The developed world’s immigration industry insists opposition to mass
immigration is futile because it has been made inevitable by
revolutions in transport, communications and human rights.

There is only one future for human society, they insist, and it is
multiracial and multicultural.

But this is looking at the world and history from the little bubble
of the contemporary “West” — the island of prosperity and tolerance
encompassing just one eighth of humanity in North America, Europe and
Australasia.

Surrounded by a world of deprivation and tyranny, it has become far
more diverse.

However, the rest of the world, over the past hundred years has
become less diverse, with multiracial societies turning into
monoracial ones, and multicultural societies turning into
monocultural ones.

It is not inevitable that societies will become more diverse.
Although emigration may be easier for more people, there may be fewer
people wanting to do it.

The urge for self-segregation — surrounding yourself with people
like you — is likely to triumph over the more ephemeral economic and
political incentives to leave what you know.

The great engines of multiracialism over the past few centuries were
the empires of Britain, France, Spain and Portugal, bringing
Europeans as settlers to the Americas, Africa and Australasia;
bringing Africans as slaves to the Americas; and bringing Indians as
indentured labourers to south and east Africa.

But as the empires unwound, so did the multiracialism they brought,
except in the lands where Europeans became a majority.

After the collapse of the French empire in North Africa, 1.5 million
“pieds noirs” — European settlers in Algeria — returned to France.

East African states reduced their Asian populations by persecution,
or, as with Uganda, expulsion.

White populations in Africa have declined, with the white population
of Zimbabwe dropping from 3 per cent of the population in 1950 to 1.1
per cent now.

In half a century, sub-Saharan Africa has gone from being a
multiracial society to almost monoracial, with only South Africa
holding out.

Across much of what is now the Islamic world, multifaith societies
have become monofaith ones, with Christian and Jewish religious
minorities dwindling to vanishing point.

Afghanistan’s Jewish community has fallen from 30,000 to just one —
Zebulon Simentov.

In Morocco, tour guides show off the ghost towns where the Jews used
to live. A hundred years ago, Baghdad was half Jewish, but now there
are only a few dozen Jews in all Iraq.

In what is now Turkey, the Christian minorities have been all but
wiped out by the genocide in 1915 of 1.5 million Armenian Christians,
and the expelling in 1923 of almost the entire Greek population,
inhabitants of Asia Minor since before Troy. During the 12th century,
Turkey went from being a quarter Christian to 99.8 per cent Muslim,
while Syria has gone from 15 per cent Christian to 5 per cent.

David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford University in
England, said: “There is a simplification of the Third World while
the industrial world gets more complex.”

The trend towards diversity is a uniquely Western phenomenon. Few in
Japan are remotely bothered that, outside a couple of districts of
Tokyo, you never see any whites or blacks, and the Ghanaians are
unperturbed that white people there are as rare as snow.

The Japanese emigrated in large numbers during their turbulent and
impoverished period last century, notably to North and South America.
But as Japan became peaceful and prosperous, emigration all but
stopped.

The Japanese like being in Japan because they can speak Japanese,
measure their homes in tatami mats, and eat Japanese food. And they
don’t have to catch a plane to visit relatives.

SHARING the same language, culture and values as the people you come
into daily contact with may not be excitingly multicultural, but it
means you end up with deeper relationships, a sense of community,
belonging and security.

>>From the English in the south of France and the Canaries, to the
Bangladeshis in London, the Jews in Israel, the African-Americans in
Harlem, and the whites in South Africa, self-segregation is one of
the most powerful forces in human communities.

The white flight — or white self-segregation — which is such a
feature of US cities is now endemic in the UK, with hundreds of
thousands of white Britons fleeing the effects of the Government’s
open border policy.

Self-segregation is apparent all around us, but there is a reluctance
to accept it because it mocks multiculturalism.

And as minorities keep telling us, it is not easy being a minority,
since in democracies it is the majority that sets the rules.

Despite all the celebrations of diversity, people prefer the
familiar. We are a world of stick-in-the-muds.

In the late 20th century, the desire for the familiar was overcome by
the desire to escape poverty, hopelessness and tyranny.

Tens of millions left their languages, cultures, families and
communities to seek money, hope and safety.

It may seem unlikely now, but the era when the world went to the West
to escape their problems is coming to an end. With prosperity,
democracy and declining birth rates spreading around the world, the
desire for the familiar will bring the age of mass migration to a
halt.

We have been here before: Europe stopped unloading its demographic
surplus on the New World — the 19th century’s so-called golden age
for migration — when it could start offering hope to all its
citizens.

As China hurtles towards becoming the world’s largest economy, the
economic incentive to emigrate is shrinking.

There is still mass poverty, but no one will escape it by paying a
people-trafficker to take them to the other side of the world to work
illegally in an alien culture where they don’t speak the language, if
they can just take the bus to Shanghai instead.

Asia, with its rapidly developing economies, powerful culture and
traditional family values, is likely to stop being a major exporter
of people in the near future.

With their economic and population growth going in opposite
directions, Africa and the Islamic world will be a source of
push-migration for a long time to come, but they will be the
exceptions, and not for ever.

The West is likely to harden its attitude to multiculturalism even
further than it already has. As it begins to lose its dominance to
China and India, it will lose the guilt that provided the
psychological drive for diversity.

INSTEAD, Westerners are likely to rediscover the historic and
cultural identities they have been so busy trying to forget, as is
happening in the UK.

Not only will migration slow, there could also be returns, as the
factors that originally drove people from their homelands disappear.

When Spain and Portugal stopped being impoverished tyrannies, their
diaspora returned from northern Europe.

Ireland, whose historic export has been its people, is now welcoming
many back.

With startling economic growth, India is now seeing its
20-million-strong diaspora return. An Indian industrialist told me
last month how he was stunned on a recent trip to the US at being
mobbed by Indian professionals asking about opportunities to work in
the mother country.

“Back to India” job fairs are spreading across the US, offering a
better quality of life, and fuelling a reverse brain drain that has
seen 35,000 emigres return to Bangalore alone.

India has speeded up the process by adopting a racist policy of
giving the right to live and work in India to any “person of Indian
origin”, carefully drafting the legislation to exclude any white
Britons whose family spent generations there. (Ghana has an even more
blatantly racist policy, offering citizenship to “any black person
living in the West”.)

The slowing of mass migration is good for those who appreciate real
diversity. The decline of diversity within countries preserves the
diversity between them.

As Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Nobel Prize
acceptance speech attacking multiculturalism, “the disappearance of
nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become
alike, with one personality and one face.

“Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities.”

Boxing: Vic eyes Las Vegas superfight

Vic eyes Las Vegas superfight
by TERRY SMITH

The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney, Australia)
March 13, 2005 Sunday

VIC Darchinyan is poised to have a flyweight superfight in Las Vegas
against Venezuela’s WBA champion Lorenzo Parro.

But the man nicknamed Raging Bull II must first defend the IBF world
title he won in December, this time against South African Mzukisi
Sikali at the State Sports Centre on March 27.

Sikali has a 25-5-2 record, compared with Darchinyan’s 22-0.

“I have the tape of Sikali’s fight with [Masibulele] Makapula and he
looks a good boxer, a southpaw like me,” Darchinyan said. “He doesn’t
like to run, and that’s a good sign.

“No one in the world can beat me if they stand toe-to-toe. I can
smash anyone who doesn’t run.” A bout with Parro, who is unbeaten in
25 fights, would be the first step in Darchinyan’s dream of unifying
the flyweight titles before stepping up a division.

Three weeks after relinquishing his Armenian nationality to become an
Australian citizen, Darchinyan took the IBF world crown from long-time
champion Irene Pacheco, stopping him in the 11th round of their fight
in Hollywood, Florida.

“I’m proud to be a citizen of Australia,” Darchinyan said. “It
has given me a world title and a lovely Russian girl, Olga, who is
my fiancee. No wonder I love it here.” Darchinyan’s trainer Jeff
Fenech claims there isn’t a flyweight on the planet who can match
his fighter’s power.

Of his nickname, Darchinyan said: “I like the bull thing because I
like to destroy.

“But [original Raging Bull] Jake La Motta was not a nice man.

“His movie did not have a happy ending.”

Demo in Georgia against Russian military pullout

Demo in Georgia against Russian military pullout

Agence France Presse
March 13, 2005

Some 3,000 people demonstrated Sunday in Georgia against the withdrawal
of Russian troops whose continued presence has caused tensions with
neighbouring former Soviet partner Russia.

In a toughly-worded resolution, Georgia’s parliament assembly last
Thursday gave Russia until next January 1 to pull out, after which
it will declare illegal the bases in the Caucasian state adjacent to
Russia’s southern border.

But Georgian television reported that 3,000 mainly employees at a
local Russian base in the town of Akhalkalaki, one of two in Georgia,
had demonstrated to protect their jobs.

The protesters say the base is their only livelihood and therefore
vital to the economic survial of the area.

They also believe the Russian presence is a guarantee of the safety
of the local population, mainly an ethnic Armenian minority situated
on the common border with the Caucasian state of Armenia.

Most people working on the Russian base are paid in Russian rubles and
have been accorded Russian nationality, said the TV station Rustavi 2.

Goga Khachidze, the Georgian presidential representative in the reigon,
has promised that locals will be offered alternative employment at
the same pay when the Russian base closes.

“The people of Akhalkalaki will not be workless,” he said. “The
Georgian government is looking seriously at the question … and will
propose alternative employment.”

But he stressed that the eventual Russian troop pullout was “inevitable
and no amount of demonstrating will stop it.”

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Friday he was upbeat
about early agreement on closing the controversial military bases,
saying Russia had given positive signals on the topic, “and I hope the
problem between Georgia and Russia will be resolved in a diplomatic,
civilised way.”

In its resolution, parliament called on the Georgian government to
prepare by mid-May a list of measures to be enforced if it did not
succeed by May 1 in agreeing a hard-and-fast schedule for withdrawal
of the 3,000 military personnel.

Russia has sought to play down the impact of the Georgian parliament,
which nonetheless underscored growing international pressure on Moscow
to leave the two military bases it still occupies in Georgia that it
inherited with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, when Georgia
became independent.

Georgia has accused Russia of dragging its feet in the negotiations.

How Armenia “Invented” Christendom

How Armenia “Invented” Christendom
By Steven Gertz

Christian History, Winter 2005
03/12/05

Turning Point

Only a week prior to his attack on Poland in September, 1939, Adolf
Hitler reportedly delivered a secret talk to members of his General
Staff, urging them to wipe out the Polish race. “After all,” he argued,
“who remembers today the extermination of the Armenians?”

Hitler was referring to the genocide of nearly 1.5 million Armenian
Christians at the hands of Ottoman Turks from 1915 to 1923 in what
is now eastern Turkey. Turkish authorities deny the atrocities ever
took place, but the story of bloodbath in Armenia is one of the
well-documented tragedies of our time.

Still, it’s unfortunate that Armenia (today located directly east of
Turkey and west of the Caspian Sea) is now known for this story above
any other. It says nothing about the people of Armenia, or the part
they have played in global Christianity. For contribute they did,
in a manner that might surprise even a seasoned church historian.

Tortured for Christ

No man has more stature in the Armenian church today than Gregory the
Illuminator. While not the first to bring Christianity to Armenia,
Gregory is, at least in the minds of Armenians, the nation’s spiritual
father and the people’s patron saint.

Born into a wealthy family around 257, Gregory nevertheless had a
rough beginning-his biographer, Agathangelos, tells us Gregory’s
father murdered the Armenian king and paid for it with his life. But
the boy was rescued from the chaos following the murder, and his
new guardians raised him as a Christian in Cappadocia (east-central
Turkey). There, according to Agathangelos, Gregory “became acquainted
with the Scriptures of God, and drew near to the fear of the Lord.”

When Gregory’s tutors told him of his father’s wickedness, Gregory
approached the murdered king’s son, Tiridates, to offer his service
(all the while concealing his identity). Tiridates accepted Gregory’s
offer, but when Gregory refused to worship Anahit, an idol the king had
raised in gratitude for military successes, Tiridates became furious:
“You have come and joined us as a stranger and foreigner. How then
are you able to worship that God whom I do not worship?”

Tiridates tortured Gregory, hanging him upside-down and flogging him,
then fastening blocks of wood to his legs and tightening them. When
these tactics failed, he tried even more gruesome measures. Still the
saint refused to bow the knee. Tiridates then learned that Gregory was
the son of his father’s murderer, and he ordered that the missionary
be thrown into a “bottommost pit” filled with dead bodies and other
filth. There Gregory sat for 13 years, surviving only on bread a widow
threw down each day after receiving instruction to do so in a dream.

Converting the King

At about this time a beautiful woman named Rhipsime arrived in Armenia,
fleeing an enforced marriage to the Roman emperor Diocletian. Tiridates
took a liking to her too, and took her forcibly when she refused to
come to him. But “strengthened by the Holy Spirit,” she fought off
his advances and escaped. Furious, Tiridates ordered her execution,
and that night Rhipsime burned at the stake. Her abbess Gaiane soon
followed her in death, along with 35 other companions.

The king, still lusting after Rhipsime, mourned her death for six
days, then prepared to go hunting. But God visited on him a horrible
punishment-Agathangelos calls it demon possession-reducing him to
insanity and throwing his court into chaos. Tiridates’ sister had a
vision to send for Gregory, imprisoned so long ago. People laughed
at the idea Gregory might still be alive, but recurrent visions
finally convinced a nobleman, Awtay, to visit his pit. Astonished
to find the missionary living, Awtay brought him to meet the king,
who was feeding with swine outside the city. Tiridates, along with
other possessed members of his court, rushed at Gregory. But Gregory
“immediately knelt in prayer, and they returned to sobriety.” Tiridates
then pleaded for Gregory’s forgiveness, and the king and his whole
court repented of their sin and confessed faith in Christ.

Assessing Gregory’s Legacy

Scholars disagree over how much Agathangelos’s history can be taken
at face-value. After all, he wrote his book in 460 (Tiridates is
believed by Armenians to have converted in 301), and much of his
story has elements of hagiography that lead one to wonder whether the
events ever happened. But even skeptics acknowledge that Gregory was a
real person with considerable ecclesiastical influence in Armenia-the
signature of his son and successor Aristakes can be found among those
ratifying the Council of Nicaea in 325. And even if we can document
little about the man, his pre-eminence among Armenia’s heroes of the
faith is unassailable.

Why? First, Gregory persuaded the king to build a string of churches
across Armenia, beginning with Holy Etchmiadzin- according to some
scholars the oldest cathedral site in the world and an important
pilgrimage site for all Armenians. The seat of the Armenian church
would pass to other cities, but Gregory “established” Christianity
in Armenia via this church.

Gregory also introduced Christian liturgy to Armenia. These rites
consisted of psalmody, scriptural readings, and prayers recited in
Greek or Syriac. After Mesrop Mashtots invented an Armenian alphabet
at the beginning of the fifth century, both the Bible and the liturgy
were translated into the Armenian language.

Most importantly, Gregory set in motion the mass conversion of Armenia
to Christianity. According to Agathangelos, the king ordered all pagan
shrines to be torn down, and Gregory proceeded to baptize more than
190,000 people into the new faith. Whether the nation converted as
quickly as Agathangelos implies is difficult to discern. Certainly
by the fifth century, Armenia was well on its way to becoming a
“Christian” nation.

Armenia is an ancient-if not the oldest-model for what we now call
Christendom. Church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette notes that
the Armenian church “was an instance of what was to be seen again
and again, a group adoption of the Christian faith engineered by the
accepted leaders and issuing in an ecclesiastical structure which
became identified with a particular people, state, or nation.”

Certainly the Roman Empire is a prime example of this, but Armenia
is at least as old, and perhaps a more impressive example given the
invasions and persecution it endured at the hands of the Turks (and
before them, Arabs and Persians). Indeed even Byzantium attempted to
bring Armenia within its orbit, but the nation resisted, arguing that
its apostolic origins were on par with Rome.

So lest you assume Rome is our first example of Christendom, think
again. Long may Armenia’s church endure.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2005/001/8.46.html

Karabakh Tensions Part of New Great Game

Karabakh Tensions Part of New Great Game
By John Antranig Kasbarian

Moscow Times, Russia
March 14 2005

As the United States and Russia continue their uneasy struggle for
influence across the CIS, a remote corner of the southern Caucasus is
gaining prominence once again, part of a series of regional subplots
that could aid or impede any grand designs for power. The corner in
question is Nagorny Karabakh, a tiny mountainous enclave inhabited
predominantly by Armenians, which was the scene of a brutal armed
struggle in the 1990s when local separatists successfully ended
Azerbaijan’s rule. Since that time, Karabakh’s Armenians have
controlled the enclave and its borderlands, having fashioned their
own republic, which enjoys significant support from neighboring
Armenia. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan refuses to acknowledge any change,
instead seeking Karabakh’s return to its full control.

Emerging in 1988, the Karabakh struggle was once heralded as a
test case for Soviet nationalities policy under Mikhail Gorbachev.
Karabakh’s Armenians, with the support of Armenia, initially sought
to secede from Azerbaijan, citing their constitutional right to
self-determination. However, when these demands met with violent
reprisals against Armenians across Azerbaijan, peaceful rallies and
petitions were replaced by low-intensity conflict pitting Armenian
partisans against Azerbaijan’s special forces, amid the rapid demise
of Soviet power.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Karabakh struggle quickly
spiraled into all-out war. By 1994, it had left tens of thousands
dead and hundreds of thousands uprooted on both sides. The conflict
also drew in a host of regional actors — Armenia and Azerbaijan, of
course, but also neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as Russia and
eventually the United States. This made for a complex geopolitical
equation. Indeed, depending on whom you speak to, the Karabakh
issue is framed differently. For native Karabakhtsis, it is a
pure-and-simple national liberation struggle that seeks to remove
foreign occupation. For politicians in Yerevan and Baku, Karabakh
is an apple of discord vied over by competing states. For regional
powers, it is a political playing card, through which ethnic tensions
can be stoked, suppressed or otherwise manipulated depending on the
interests at stake. The problem, of course, is that all four levels
operate simultaneously within a hierarchical nest of power relations.

Following a 1994 cease-fire, the Karabakh conflict has subsided
to a large extent. True, border skirmishes continue, and military
preparedness remains a priority for Armenians and Azeris alike. Yet
all concede that a tenuous “not-war, not-peace” environment has
slowly set in. The war on the ground has been largely replaced by
a war of words, as all sides press for advantage at the negotiating
table. Meanwhile, these sides seek to create new facts-on-the-ground
that will bolster their positions in the future. For example, the
self-declared Nagorny Karabakh Republic has consolidated its de facto
independence by establishing firm links to Armenia, on which it now
relies for substantial economic and political support. At the same
time, Azerbaijan has skillfully parlayed its trump card — massive
Caspian energy reserves — into a strong multilateral foreign policy
that has steered away from dependence on Russia and toward friendly
ties with Turkey and the United States, thus creating a favorable
mix of anxiety and dependence among those who seek favor with Baku.
Diplomacy aside, there are also concerns that oil and gas money now
entering Baku may contribute to its remilitarization, thus leading
to renewed hostilities.

In this war of maneuver, uneasy coexistence has been the norm for the
last decade or so. In Baku, Soviet strongman and former President
Haidar Aliyev made some noise occasionally, but generally remained
low-key, as he favored negotiated solutions and steered clear of any
destabilizing developments that might upset investors. In Yerevan,
the dovish President Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his successor, the
slightly more hawkish Robert Kocharyan, have been even less prone to
belligerence, given the ongoing pressures they face from neighboring
Turkey and the United States, which have scarcely concealed their
support for Azerbaijan. Perhaps most compelling has been the rivalry
between the United States and Russia, as the two have evinced markedly
different approaches to the region. The former seeks a negotiated
settlement within an East-West integrated sphere of influence that
would extend from Turkey to Central Asia, effectively cutting off
Iran from Russia. The latter has sought permanent instability in
Karabakh and elsewhere that would ensure the Caucasus’ continuance
as its primary zone of influence.

This slow-motion dance has faltered only twice: once in early 1998
when Ter-Petrosyan was ousted after becoming too conciliatory in
his talks with Aliyev and again in 2001 when Kocharyan and Aliyev
agreed to a tentative compromise that blew up when Aliyev returned
to Baku and apparently changed his mind. Today, however, things
appear to be changing: Ilham Aliyev, recent successor to Haidar, has
retained his father’s authoritarian habits at home while demonstrating
increasing belligerence abroad, both in his pronouncements and concrete
initiatives. He is emboldened by Russia’s seeming retreat, coupled with
the United State’s recent involvement in the region, as well as its
present attempts to court Baku in the campaign to isolate Iran. Thus,
with wind in his sails, Aliyev has combined periodic threats to retake
Karabakh by force with diplomatic offensives designed to paint Armenia
as the conflict’s aggressor. The most recent initiative is a proposed
UN resolution decrying Karabakh’s hold over “occupied territories”
surrounding the enclave, in which Baku demands that Armenians evacuate
these lands before negotiating anything regarding Karabakh’s status.

Armenians reply that these are buffer zones, required as a cushion
against possible future attacks — a claim supported by the occasional
war cries that still emanate from Baku. Moreover, Karabakh’s
authorities report that their “occupation” hardly resembles the West
Bank or Baghdad; rather, Karabakh’s borderlands have been settled
sporadically and unevenly, in many cases by itinerant refugees driven
from Azerbaijan during the war years. These claims, too, have been
borne out, most recently by French mediator Bernard Fassier, who was
in Karabakh as part of an OSCE monitoring team in January. Fassier
notes in part, “In many areas there is no electricity and poverty
predominates. I wouldn’t say people live. Rather, they are surviving
in half-destroyed walls topped by a tin roof.”

Not surprisingly, Armenians have rejected Baku’s territorial
preconditions for a settlement, saying that the central issues —
guarantees of Karabakh’s security and, ultimately, its political
status — must remain at the forefront of any negotiating process.
Azerbaijan replies by stressing Karabakh’s illegitimacy as a party in
negotiations, insisting it will only deal in state-to-state scenarios
involving Armenia.

So what is to be done? Having spent a good deal of the past decade
in Karabakh, I know first-hand that native Armenians are stubbornly
distrustful of Azeri authorities, and would sooner die than return
to the pre-1988 status quo. Accordingly, Azerbaijan must take the
fundamental steps of acknowledging Karabakh’s right to exist and
allowing its inclusion as a side to the negotiations. No solution —
no matter how clever — can work without local involvement.

A second issue, however, is perhaps even more thorny: It involves the
regional balance of power and, specifically, how Russia intends to
react to growing U.S. aggressiveness in and around the Caucasus. If
Russia retreats, leaving matters in the hands of U.S.-led interests,
more blood may be spilled before a solution is reached. On the other
hand, Russia must acknowledge that it cannot use the blunt instruments
and blatant manipulations of its recent past, if it is to maintain
influence. Rather, Moscow’s intentions must become more transparent,
aiming to build trust within a framework of regional cooperation
rather than by perpetuating instability among vassal states. Otherwise,
the stalemate will continue well into the next decade.

John Antranig Kasbarian holds a Ph.D. in geography from Rutgers
University and serves as Nagorny Karabakh program director for the
New York-based Tufenkian Foundation. He contributed this comment to
The Moscow Times.

Manama: UN Delegates Meet in Bahrain – Sort Of

Arab News, Saudi Arabia
March 14 2005

UN Delegates Meet in Bahrain – Sort Of
Rula Abdul Qadir, Arab News

MANAMA, 14 March 2005 – Slovenia spearheaded a drive to pass a UN
children’s rights resolution enlisting support from a powerful voting
block consisting of Armenia, El Salvador, Palestine and France. Of
course, all the delegates were high school students from Bahrain and
Saudi Arabia, but it all happened at the Bahrain Model United Nations
Conference held March 10-11.

Eight Dhahran Ahliya Girls School students took part in Bahrain’s
largest high school simulation of the United Nations. In this event,
held at Abdul Rahman Kanoo School, students are educated about
environmental, humanitarian and economic issues. They debate their
resolutions and analyze other students’ resolutions.

The Saudi girls were assigned to the Human Rights Committee and made a
great impression with passionate opening speeches full of relevant and
important facts. After the opening speeches, the delegates proceeded
to lobby and merge their resolutions in true diplomatic fashion.

The delegates representing El Salvador, Abeer Arjah and Yasmine
Al-Dawsari, mustered seven co-signers for their resolution on Internet
abuse, which reached the floor for debate.

Model UN Resolution “Issue of Protecting the Rights of Children in
War-Torn Countries,” was presented by the Slovenian delegation of
Neda Sunaid and Lulu Al-Qahtani. The two honed their diplomatic
skills while building a consensus, merging their resolution with
the strongest clauses from the resolutions of Armenia, El Salvador,
Palestine and France. It was passed by an overwhelming vote of 25-5.

Alternative energy sources were discussed along with the Kyoto Protocol
and problems with nuclear energy. France, Belgium and El Salvador
teamed up to submit “Reducing the Costs of Lifesaving Medicines for
People Living in Underdeveloped Countries.”

The Belgian delegation, represented by Dhia Al-Mutairi and Dina Zeitoun
from Dhahran Ahliya Girls School, played a key role in advancing the
resolution, which also was passed with a large majority.

An excellent resolution on this same issue was submitted by Rotana
Tarabzouni and Maha Al-Namari. It gained many co-signers, and though
the resolution was not debated or voted upon due to time constraints,
it was submitted to the table, reviewed and passed by the committee
chairpersons.

The Model United Nations gives students a chance to develop leadership
skills and voice their concerns while providing a valuable learning
experience for all involved. The youthful diplomats may not be going
to the UN headquarters any time soon, but with a little negotiation,
a few concessions and a lot of lobbying – who knows?