Outcry over jumbo diplomatic gift
By Habib Beary
BBC News, Bangalore

BBC News
Feb 7 2005

Fears that Veda may not be able to adjust

A plan to gift an Indian elephant to Armenia has led to an outcry by
animal rights activists.

They say six-year-old Veda will find it difficult to adjust to the
colder climate in the former Soviet republic.

She is currently lodged at the Bannerghatta national park on the
outskirts of the southern Indian city of Bangalore.

Indian animal rights groups have roped in the London-based Born Free
Foundation (BFF) in their campaign, as they believe it could
jeopardise the life of the young pachyderm.

“There are many other ways to improve relations between New Delhi and
Yerevan, which will not involve the potential suffering and possible
demise of animals,” says BFF chief executive officer Bill Travers.

The group has written to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking
his intervention to stop Veda’s migration.

In Armenia temperatures are totally unsuitable for Veda

Dr HA Tanuja, veterinarian

The Armenian authorities approached India for an elephant to partner
with Grand, a nine-year-old male elephant at Yerevan zoo.

Veda was chosen by authorities to replace seven-year-old Komala, who
died in mysterious circumstances at the century-old Mysore zoo last
October.

Yerevan zoo director Sahak Abovyan is unimpressed.

“There are 50,000 elephants in India but they [protesters] just do
not want to give us one,” he is quoted as saying.

“They do not want the elephant to leave their country. They are very
odd people.”

Separation

People for Animals, which is spearheading the protests, says Veda
will find it difficult to adjust from India’s tropical climate to a
land where temperatures regularly fall to -14C and below in winter.

“In Armenia temperatures are totally unsuitable for Veda.

Veda replaced Komala who died mysteriously

“Another worry is moving her from a biological park to a zoo where
she will be confined,” says Dr HA Tanuja, a veterinarian attached to
the group.

The winter enclosure meant for Veda in Armenia is said to be less
than 2,500 sq ft, which is not enough to house an elephant.

Besides the prospect of facing the harsh winter, Veda also faces
separation from her herd, animal activists say.

Veda lives with her mother and grandmother and separation is thought
likely to be extremely painful considering female elephants rarely
ever leave their herd.

PFA has launched a petition to mobilise support for their cause.
School children also recently marched in Bangalore to show their
disapproval.

“There is support for our movement. We have collected nearly 5,000
signatures,” says Dr Tanuja.

Keeper keen

However, Veda’s keeper at the national park, Bhaskar, sees nothing
wrong in sending her to Armenia.

“There is no need for any worry. They will take care of her,” says
Bhaskar, who will accompany Veda during the initial period of her
stay there.

Bhaskar has been looking after Veda since birth.

“She is a nice and friendly elephant,” he says while feeding her
bananas.

The local forest department says it has no role in the decision to
fly out Veda.

“The central government [in Delhi] has taken a decision. We are only
following orders,” Karnataka Principal Conservator of Wildlife Ram
Mohan Ray told the BBC.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkish Press, Turkey
Feb 7 2005

A Very Important Visit
BYEGM: 2/7/2005
BY YILMAZ OZTUNA

TURKIYE- US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be in the world
media spotlight over the next four years as both the architect and
advocate of Pax Americana. Her visit to Ankara aimed to determine the
extent of US cooperation with Turkey over the coming months. Speaking
at a press conference following his meeting with Rice at Esenboga
Airport, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Washington a
strategic ally. This definition means that Turkey will support the
US’ Iran and Syria policies, because our bilateral ties are at a
turning point.

Rice’s visit was meant to put pressure on Syria and Iran to cease
their support of terrorist groups and quest to produce nuclear
weapons. If these efforts don’t bear fruit, the US will start
concrete action. Will Turkey hold up its end of the strategic
alliance? The US will arrange its policy accordingly. If Ankara
doesn’t support it, Washington will move closer to northern Iraq’s
Kurds as well as Armenia. The US is expecting understanding from such
key Arab countries as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Otherwise it will try
to bring democracy to them, as they seem unable to do so on their
own.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
Feb 7 2005

VISIT OF U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE TO ANKARA ENDED
[February 07, 2005, 18:54:16]

As was informed earlier, we already informed, on February 5, having
arrived on a working visit to Ankara the US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rise has carried out meetings with the President of
Turkey Ahmed Necdet Sezer, Prime Minister Rejep Tayyip Erdogan, the
Deputy Prime Minister, minister of foreign affairs Abdullah Gul, and
also with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Sergey Lavrov now visiting Ankara.

Leaving on February 6, from Ankara, Ms. Condoleezza Rice has held
together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Abdullah Gul
a press conference at the Esenboga airport.

Answering questions of journalists, K. Rice has expressed
satisfaction with visit and the carried out negotiations. She has
told: “During the meetings taken place in Ankara, we had detailed
exchange of opinions on the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan,
establishment of peace and stability in the Near East, the Cyprian
problem, American – Turkish relations, membership of Turkey in the
European Union and about other regional and international problems.

Mass media of Turkey have paid special attention to the meeting
between Kondoleezza Rice and Sergey Lavrov. As known, at this
meeting, that continued about three hours, there was a conversation
on democratic processes in Russia, situation in Ukraine and Georgia,
the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, struggle against
the international terrorism, the nuclear program of Iran, cooperation
between the USA and Russia in power sector, and also about other
regional and international problems.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
Feb 7 2005

SPEAKER OF TURKISH PARLIAMENT MEETS HEADS OF AZERBAIJANI PARLIAMENT
[February 07, 2005, 16:10:20]

On February 7, Chairman of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey
Bulent Arinc and the accompanied delegation has been in the Milli
Majlis of Azerbaijan Republic.

Speaker of Azerbaijan Parliament Murtuz Alaskarov, first deputy
speaker Arif Rahimzade and head of the Parliament Administration Safa
Mirzayev and other officials welcomed the guests.

Heads of the Parliaments of Azerbaijan and Turkey had a one-on-one
meeting.

Then, Mr. Bulent Arinc and the Turkish delegation familiarized with
the Milli Majlis museum.

The delegation of Turkey and Azerbaijan parliamentarians held a
meeting in large. Speaker Murtuz Alaskarov thanked Mr. Bulent Arinc
for visit to Azerbaijan, wished it to be useful, stating the
relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey, basing on common historical,
cultural, religious and moral roots, develops in the spirit of
friendship and fraternity. After gaining sovereignty, in
strengthening of friendship and fraternity an exclusive role belongs
to the nationwide leader of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev, he said. Thanks
to regular visits of the officials of two countries, the relations
have acquired higher level. The documents signed during the first
visit of President Ilham Aliyev have founded legislative basis for
long-term cooperation. As a result, the economic links of two
countries are developing. Over thousand Turkish businessmen have
invested in numerous fields of Azerbaijan’s economy. Realization of
the BTC oil pipeline and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline will play
important role in development of Azerbaijani and Turkey, as well as
in establishment of stability in the region.

The parliamentary links of two countries also develop. Our
legislators cooperate within the international organizations. The
Council of Europe has adopted a resolution in connection to the
Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where calls Armenia as
an aggressor state, and the regime in the Nagorno Karabakh region as
a separatist. In discussion of the document, the Turkish deputies
have actively taken part.

Mr. Alaskarov updated the guests on the document, expressed gratitude
to the Turkish state and government for support of Azerbaijan’s
position.

Chairman of the Milli Majlis reminded his visit to France last year,
the insidious wishes of the Armenians related to recognition of the
so-called “Armenian genocide” that he condemned during his visit.
Speaker of Azerbaijan Parliament also reminded the Khojali massacre
the Armenians have committed in February 26 in 1992 and expressed
hope that the Turkish Parliament would regard this question.

Expressing gratitude for cordial reception and provided information,
Mr. Bulent Arinc said he was pleased to visit the fraternal country.
He reminded huge contributions of the nationwide leader of Azerbaijan
Heydar Aliyev in development and strengthening of the relations
between two countries.

Mr. Bulent Arinc expressed consent with inter-parliamentary links,
noting that on 23 April, Turkey would mark the 85th anniversary of
establishment of the Grand National Assembly and wished to see the
Azerbaijan parliamentary delegation in the festivities. “Turkey
always and constantly supports Azerbaijan position in settlement of
the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and it will remain unchangeable”, he
stated.

Mr. Bulent Arinc said on February 26 the Turkish parliamentarians are
going to hold discussions related to the Khojali genocide.

Speaker of the Turkish Parliament gave high assessment to activity of
the Turkish businessmen in Azerbaijan, noting that the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum oil-gas pipelines would
strengthen the two countries economically and play important role in
integration to Europe.

At the meeting, also were exchanged views on a number of other issues
of mutual interest.

Washington Times, DC
Feb 7 2005

U.N.’s good name tarnished
By Philip Sherwelland, Charles Lawrence
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

LONDON – Is the United Nations damaged beyond repair? Evidence of
double-dealing in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal is stacking up by the
week, and more and more of the organization’s officials are being
implicated.
It was just two weeks ago, in a rented suite of offices on the
15th floor of an anonymous Manhattan office block, that Benon Sevan
finally discovered that his story would not hold. For months, the
burly, bristling Armenian-Cypriot, known within the United Nations
for both his bonhomie and bad temper, had insisted that the talk of
oil deals with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and strange petroleum
companies in Panama had nothing to do with him.

On Jan. 21, however, the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food
program in Iraq was confronted by proof of his deception by Paul
Volcker. The former Federal Reserve chairman is leading the U.N.
investigation into a scheme from which Saddam skimmed off about $2
billion and bribed foreign allies.
Mr. Volcker’s interim report, delivered last week, not only
contained a damning verdict on the behavior of Mr. Sevan, an official
long defended by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it also threw an
unexpected new focus on the role of Mr. Annan’s predecessor, Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, as the unraveling scandal dragged in new names.
The meeting was the 13th between Mr. Sevan and the investigators
since accusations of financial abuse were first raised by Claude
Hankes-Drielsma, a British banker who was advising the interim Iraqi
government in Baghdad. Although it was an open secret at the United
Nations that the oil-for-food scheme had been subject to surcharges
and kickbacks for years, Mr. Annan initially refused to order an
investigation.
On his first 12 visits, Mr. Sevan refused to discuss the
specifics of the accusations against him. But by this trip, the
investigators had obtained his full telephone records after clearing
his office files and computer disks. (Mr. Sevan already had provided
the “clean” telephone data from his home). These records proved that
Mr. Sevan’s claim to have spoken with Fakhry Abdelnour, the man who
ran the African Middle East Petroleum Co. (AMEP), the Panamanian oil
dealership, only once, by chance at an Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) meeting in Vienna, Austria, in 1999, was
false.
Senior former Iraqi officials already had told the commission
that Mr. Sevan had solicited contracts for AMEP — statements Mr.
Sevan denied, saying he barely knew Mr. Abdelnour, who is a nephew of
Mr. Boutros-Ghali. This new set of telephone numbers showed several
calls between the two men, who sometimes conducted back-to-back
conversations with Fred Nadler, Mr. Boutros-Ghali’s brother-in-law.
Relative trouble
The spotlight thrown on the relatives of Mr. Boutros-Ghali was
one of the surprises of the report released Thursday. The former
secretary-general’s role in pushing the French bank preferred by the
Iraqi authorities to administer the program’s accounts also comes in
for close scrutiny.
But Mr. Volcker and his fellow commissioners have become
accustomed to digging into the activities of secretaries-general and
their relatives. Their second report, due next month, will focus on
the business links of Mr. Annan’s son Kojo with Cotecna, the Swiss
company that won the U.N. contract to oversee oil-for-food imports
into Iraq in 1998.
Kojo Annan has said he played no part in Cotecna’s Iraq work, and
his father said he had no idea that Kojo Annan remained on Cotecna’s
payroll until a year ago.
Although the secretary-general had avoided ordering an inquiry,
the Volcker findings might help save his job — for now, at least. The
United Nations is not a body in which the buck stops with the boss,
and now, in Mr. Sevan, there is a senior official to blame.
Defiant diplomats
He was not, however, the only U.N. official singled out for
criticism in the report and now subject to disciplinary proceedings.
So was Joseph Stephanides, a fellow Cypriot who oversaw the selection
of the program’s major contractors. The report said the United
Nations broke its own competitive-bidding rules when it chose Lloyd’s
Register of London, the French Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP) and
Saybolt, a Dutch company, to implement the program.
In particular, Mr. Stephanides is criticized for cooperating with
British diplomats at the United Nations to ensure that Lloyd’s
Register, the 245-year-old inspection and risk-management group, won
the contract to oversee imports into Iraq. A lower bid was submitted
by a French rival, but the United Nations decided the deal should go
to Lloyd’s because BNP had been awarded another key contract.
John Weston, then head of the British mission, said Friday that
he had been operating under “ministerial instructions” from London
when he advised Lloyd’s on the best tactics to win the contract.
Suggestions that there was any improper behavior are based on
“ignorance of the practices of diplomatic missions,” he added.
Lloyd’s is furious that it has been dragged into the row and says
its reputation has been badly damaged by the release of U.N. audits
that suggested it overcharged. David Moorhouse, executive chairman of
the group, also said it was customary for British diplomats to be
helpful to British companies seeking overseas contracts.
Carne Ross, the British diplomat in charge of Iraq policy at the
United Nations at the time, said the program was “deeply politicized”
and “carved up” between member states.
“It was our job to lobby for British companies, and we did so
extremely vigorously. Nobody in Britain would have expected any less
of us,” said Mr. Ross, who resigned from the diplomatic service last
year. “That is the way the U.N. operates, and it seems a little harsh
if Joseph Stephanides is carrying the can for this as a U.N.
official.”
Missing money
The Volcker committee’s criticism of Mr. Sevan was scathing. It
concluded that he had solicited and received oil allocations of
several million barrels on AMEP’s behalf, helping the company earn
about $1.5 million. Saddam’s regime apparently thought Mr. Sevan
would help ease economic restrictions in return.
The committee also said Mr. Sevan failed to adequately explain
the source of $160,000 of extra income from 1999 to 2003. He had told
the panel that he was given the money by an aged aunt who died in
Cyprus last year after falling down an elevator shaft.
The committee said it “continues to investigate” whether he
“received personal or financial benefits” for soliciting the oil
deals for AMEP.
Even after the publication of the interim report, Mr. Sevan’s
status with the United Nations remains strangely blurred, and U.N.
officials seem to have remarkable trouble defining it:
Does he still have diplomatic immunity? Yes. Has he retired? Yes,
but he still has the status of a contract employee, at $1 per year,
maintaining his immunity. Does he have a pension? Yes, but it is not
yet being paid.
The U.N. press office had been speaking on Mr. Sevan’s behalf
until last week, when calls were referred to Eric Lewis, a Washington
lawyer who issued a spirited defense. He said, “Mr. Sevan never took
a penny,” adding that the inquiry committee “succumbed to massive
political pressure” to find a scapegoat.
There was no sign of Mr. Sevan at his Manhattan apartment block
on Saturday. When the Sunday Telegraph tracked him down last year
during a visit to see his aunt in hospital in Cyprus, he defiantly
rejected all suggestions of impropriety against him and said he would
be vindicated by the report.
Future fights
Even if Mr. Annan escapes censure in Mr. Volcker’s next report,
he is not out of the woods. There are five U.S. congressional
investigations into the oil-for-food scandal and U.N. mismanagement,
as well as two criminal inquiries being conducted by federal and New
York prosecutors. And in Republican-controlled Washington, where many
politicians consider “United Nations” to be dirty words, the
secretary-general’s role still faces intense scrutiny.
Nile Gardiner, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who has
studied the scandal, said: “The U.N. continues to display
breathtaking arrogance with regard to the oil-for-food scandal. The
organization does not seem to recognize the extent to which it has
been damaged by this. Five major congressional investigations are
looking at the role of Kofi Annan, and any of them have the potential
to force his resignation.”
The Volcker findings have provided fresh ammunition for prominent
U.S. critics of the United Nations.
“I am reluctant to conclude that the U.N. is damaged beyond
repair, but these revelations certainly point in this direction,”
said Rep. Henry J. Hyde, the Republican chairman of the House
International Relations Committee, one of the investigating panels.
At the United Nations, the defense is being led by Mark Malloch
Brown, the eloquent British official whom Mr. Annan recently promoted
to chief of staff, with a brief to “renew” the organization.
“Benon Sevan has been a lifelong colleague and a dear, dear
friend,” he said. “But these are extremely serious charges of
wrongdoing, and no one will be shielded from prosecution. If there
are criminal charges, the U.N. will fully cooperate and waive
diplomatic immunity of staff members, whoever they are.”
Mr. Malloch Brown said the Volcker report was “encouraging” and a
“step in the right direction.”
But, he continued, the report showed that the U.N. bureaucracy
would have done better at controlling Saddam’s oil-for-food schemes
if it had been allowed to do its jobs without the interference of the
“member nations,” particularly those on the Security Council.
The report also said the major source of Saddam’s illicit money
was not kickbacks but oil smuggling to Jordan and Turkey, to which
the United States and Britain turned a blind eye because the two
countries were allies.
“Back off — that’s the message to the member states,” Mr. Malloch
Brown declared boldly. “They should look to the mote in their own
eye, because what has been revealed is a process of politicization.”
Mr. Boutros-Ghali was even blunter in his response after the
report detailed how he “acquiesced” to the Iraqi authorities in the
choice of BNP as the program’s banker, despite apparently stronger
bids from others. Mr. Weston said Mr. Boutros-Ghali did not get a
second term because he was not regarded as good enough to deserve it.

Mr. Weston said of Mr. Boutros-Ghali: “I think he was an
honorable public servant. But he had a number of shortcomings. One of
them was that he was a singularly poor manager.”
The former secretary-general, reached by telephone at his Paris
apartment shortly after the interim report was published, insisted
that he had done nothing improper. He called the accusations “silly”
and dismissed the Volcker investigators as “ignorant” about the U.N.
system.
In fact, the investigators have become well-informed about how
the U.N. system operated, and the rest of the world is now learning
fast.
• Mr. Sherwell reported from Washington and Mr. Lawrence from New
York, with additional reporting by Ed Simpkins and Damien McElroy in
London.

–Boundary_(ID_ELrctpUuTERSvtKoXyDBYw)–

PINR – The Power and Interest News Report
Feb 7 2005

“Moscow’s Political Tactics Alienating its Near Abroad”

Russia has seen its influence in the Caucasus — and the rest of the
former Soviet Union — wane significantly since the November 2003
Rose Revolution in Georgia. Although economics play a part in the
drive to become closer to the United States and the European Union,
Moscow largely blames post-revolution Georgia for the Orange
Revolution in the Ukraine and its perceived loss of influence there.
While Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President
Viktor Yushchenko were in Strasburg for a Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly (P.A.C.E.) meeting, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made no secret of meeting separatist leaders in Moscow,
including the newly elected president of Abkhazia Sergei Bagapsh and
the defeated Ukrainian presidential candidate Victor Yanukovych.
Russian policies have become increasingly anti-Georgian since
Saakashvili came to power, which regional experts feel is Moscow’s
response to Saakashvili’s decidedly Western bent. But its decision to
punish Georgia and other opposition leaders in the former republics
may be working against long-term Russian interests.

Abkhazia

The first major blow to Russia’s influence in its own background was
not the election in the Ukraine but the October elections in Abkhazia
[See: “Russia’s Slippery Foothold in Abkhazia Becomes a Slide”].
Abkhazia is officially a part of Georgia, but gained de facto
independence from Tbilisi after Georgia lost control of the republic
following a war in the mid 1990s, a fact that is largely credited to
Russian interference. The ruling regime in Abkhazia is supported by
Russia. Russian peacekeepers monitor its borders with Georgia, the
Russian ruble is the local currency and any economic development is
limited to Russian investors. Moscow also pays Abkhaz pensions and
has widely issued Russian passports throughout the Abkhaz population.

Candidate Raul Khajimba actively campaigned on a pro-Russian
platform, promising an increase in investments from Russia and
stronger relations with Moscow. Sergei Bagapsh, known in the Russian
media as the opposition candidate, also pledged to foster greater
ties with Russia. Neither candidate spoke favorably of Georgia or the
possibility of improving Abkhaz-Georgian relations. Tbilisi distanced
itself from the whole election; only Russia recognizes Abkhazian
independence and, therefore, the election. The Russian media was the
only source of international coverage. Despite support from the
Kremlin and other Russian politicians, Khajimba officially lost the
election on October 3, an event that nearly resulted in civil war
when he refused to accept the Central Election Committees final count
in favor of Bagapsh. Events came to a head in December, when Bagapsh
refused to give up plans for his inauguration.

In response to the unexpected turmoil in a republic fully dependent
on Russian support, Russia closed its borders and cut off trade with
Abkhazia, in effect squashing the main source of income for most
Abkhaz, the citrus trade. While that show of strength helped
convenience Bagapsh to bow to Russian pressures, it also underscored
what analysts say caused his victory in the first place. The only
real difference between the two candidates was Bagapsh’s calls for a
truly independent Abkhazia, recognized by the international
community. In its current state, both Tbilisi and Sukhumi refuse to
have relations and Georgia refuses to allow any trade to Abkhazia to
cross its borders, even to the extent that Saakashvili ordered
Turkish boats heading to Abkhazia bombed over the summer. That limits
Sukhumi to relations with Moscow. While it is unlikely that any
country in the international community will recognize Abkhazian
independence, Bagapsh’s strong stance in that direction was perceived
as a threat to the current status quo.

Thanks to the immediate embargo on Abkhazian goods, Moscow was able
to convenience Bagapsh to accept a compromise between the two former
rivals. Days before the planned inauguration, Bagapsh agreed to a
revote and ran with Khajimba as his vice presidential candidate.
Under the current agreement, Khajimba wields an unusually large
amount of power, including a reported 40 percent of the state budget.
Since his election on January 12, Bagapsh has stepped up rhetoric
against Georgia and made open overtures to strengthen Abkhaz-Russian
ties. Moscow was able to reel the wayside republic back in, but it
took a last ditch show of strength to do it.

The Orange Revolution

Despite a much stronger Russian effort during the Ukrainian election
in November, the Russian-backed candidate Viktor Yanukovych could not
defeat opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. Analysts have debated on
what Yushchenko’s victory will really mean for Ukrainian-Russian
relations, but regardless of Yushchenko’s western looking policies,
Ukraine remains a major Russian trading partner. Historically,
religiously and ethnically Russia and Ukraine have close ties. The
new president’s first international trip was to Moscow, albeit
quickly followed by the address at Strasburg.

The real question remains what this growing trend of peaceful
uprisings will mean for the remaining Russian-supported presidents in
other former republics. However insulting Yushchenko’s victory is for
Moscow, in the long run it will only truly adversely affect
Russian-Ukrainian affairs if Putin decides to punish Yushchenko like
he is currently castigating Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili.
The Ukrainian vote for Yushchenko was more a vote against rampant
corruption and the questionable election than a vote against Russia.
Yushchenko has gone out of his way to pacify Russians in the eastern
part of the country, even defending the role of the Russian language
in Ukraine. His drive toward the West is less a statement of
anti-Russian sentiment than as an accepted desire to improve
conditions in his country. But that can change if Russia is not
willing to actively work with Yushchenko.

Yushchenko has roughly a year to prove to his divided country that
Ukraine will benefit from better relations with Western states. If
Russia tries to openly sabotage his effects — like it is in Abkhazia
and Georgia — Putin risks a much more serious backlash during the
upcoming parliamentary elections. By supporting Yushchenko, Russia
can help strengthen Ukraine which will result in a deeper alliance
between the two countries and increase stability in the region. Any
effort by Moscow to further antagonize the country, especially the
western half, could have the opposite effect.

New ethnic discord will only weaken Russia’s chance to increase its
influence in the region as both current leaders and opposition forces
throughout the former Soviet Union are watching Ukrainian
developments closely. If it becomes apparent that Moscow will not
tolerate any action perceived to weaken its influence in the region,
economic and military aid from the West will seem more desirable.
While existing leaders might welcome Russia’s brand of friendship,
the opposition will work more strongly to free their respective
countries from Moscow’s influence if it becomes evident Russia sees
them not as sovereign states but as internal problems.

Russia’s Special Relationship with Georgia

Moscow’s continued interference with ethnic problems within Georgia
has not strengthened its role in the Caucasus. Even before the Rose
Revolution, Russia’s efforts to destabilize the region and bring it
into submission with military force backfired. In 2002, Moscow
accused Tbilisi of harboring terrorists in the lawless Pankisi Gorge
that borders Chechnya. Instead of resulting in an increase of Russian
military personnel to Georgia, the accusations led to stronger ties
between Georgia and the United States and the U.S.-led Train and
Equip Program for the Georgian army. Since Saakashvili came to power,
Georgia has made every effort to strengthen ties with the United
States and Europe.

Russia’s continued support for separatist leaders in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia is meant to deter stability — and therefore foreign
investment — in Georgia. However, in reality Russia’s obvious
interference has helped the Georgian leadership turn to the West for
support and resolution. During his speech in Strasburg, Saakashvili
clearly stated that Russia is not capable of leading Georgia to a
peaceful resolution in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Venetian
Commission’s decision to actively participate in the development of a
peace settlement even further decreases Russia’s influence in its own
near abroad.

Moscow’s newest tactic — vetoing the continuation of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (O.S.C.E.) border
patrol on the Chechen, Ingushetia, and Dagestani borders — has been
more successful. Under its current policy, Russia will guarantee no
international observers will be monitoring the borders by late
spring. When the snow melts, Chechen rebels will have easy passage
into Georgia and — according to Russia — Moscow will have ample
cause to bomb the Pankisi Gorge, or force Georgia into accepting more
Russian peacekeepers inside the Georgian border. Those troops would
be in addition to the soldiers already in place along the borders of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the two Russian army bases in
Batumi and Akhalkalaki.

But this could also backfire. Saakashvili and his administration have
actively been searching for willing replacements to the O.S.C.E.
monitoring group and the E.U. has tentatively expressed interest.
While the E.U.’s monitors are far from certain at this point, any
move to place independent international monitors would work against
Russia. Under the O.S.C.E., Russia had a say and a role in the
monitoring. If it becomes the duty of the E.U. — or a mixture of
observers from various countries — Moscow’s say would be diminished
and its claims that the Georgian government is not strong enough to
protect its own borders would be disproved.

Tbilisi and its allies are also becoming more adamant about the
remaining two Russian army bases in Georgia. In January, Saakashvili
attacked the role of Russian peacekeepers inside Georgian territory.
Georgia has proposed creating joint anti-terrorist centers with
Russia on the current army bases. So far Russia has shown no real
interest, but if it continues alienating itself from the
international community with coercive tactics, Georgia will gain more
support from the international community and could garner the
necessary support to force Russian troops out of the country all
together.

Problems in Armenia

Another potential defeat for Russian influence is waiting in Armenia.
In the past, Armenia has been a bastion of Russian support in the
Caucasus. Russia has long supported the country militarily and
economically — for example, Armenia receives all of its gas from
Russia. While only an estimated 20 percent of Armenia’s exports are
purchased in Russia, a reported two million Armenians live there and
their families at home depend on the financial support they send.

Russia supported Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with
Azerbaijan and still stands firmly behind Yerevan during peace talks
about the contested territories. During the civil unrest in Georgia
leading up to the Rose Revolution in 2003, both Russia and Armenia
made public statements about their mutually strong and beneficial
relationship. Russia strengthened its already strong military
presence in Armenia, increased arms sales and even moved some
soldiers from bases in Georgia to Armenia during the protests in
Tbilisi.

Nevertheless, Armenia’s support for Russian influence is not as
strong as it was a year ago. While the opposition was emboldened due
to the success of the Rose Revolution, another important negative
development for Russia came in September 2004, following the
terrorist attacks at Beslan. When Russia closed its borders with
Georgia following the attack, hundreds of Armenian trucks and buses
were stranded for a month, unable to go to either Russia or back to
Armenia. While there are no concrete figures for how much Armenian
businesses lost during that month, Armenians felt slighted by their
ally and insulted at Russia’s reaction to punish them along with the
rest of the Caucasus. That added to dissatisfaction with Russia’s
continued support of President Robert Kocharian, whose victory in
2003 is widely disputed by opposition parties and the public.

Russian diplomats were slow to react to the situation, and statements
from Moscow largely consisted in recommending different routes into
Russia. The United States, however, was not slow to act. Since the
Rose Revolution, Washington has been paying more attention to
Armenia. Sensing a weakness in Russian-Armenian relations over the
past year, America has picked up the pace. A new consulate is planned
for Yerevan which reportedly will be the biggest in the region. In
addition, American-driven aid projects have been on the rise.

A third party could further weaken Russian influence in Armenia.
Yerevan and Iran have held intense talks about a proposed gas
pipeline. While there are no investors yet, the pipeline has the
potential to free Armenia from its current state of dependence on
Russian gas.

Conclusion

Due to shortsighted policies, Russia has already lost considerable
influence in Georgia. Moscow’s erroneous politics in Abkhazia and
Ukraine resulted in embarrassment and more strained relationships
within Russia’s sphere of influence. If Putin does not reverse this
trend, Russia could lose support during the next Armenian elections
and further encourage the currently weak opposition parties in
Central Asia. Although opposition presidents are well aware of the
importance of good relations with Putin, political games force them
to increasingly turn to Europe and the United States for aid and
support in an effort to balance more evenly between Russia and the
West. If Moscow does not start realizing that coercive tactics in its
near abroad are causing a loss of support from these states, it will
continue to see its interests in the region weaken.

Report Drafted By:
Molly Corso

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent
organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide
conflict analysis services in the context of international relations.
PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests
involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may
not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written
permission of [email protected]. All comments should be directed to
[email protected].

Kurdistan Observer, MI
Feb 7 2005

In response to Turkey’s Erdogan and his Warmonger General, Ilker Basbug’s remarks.

By: Steve Tataii
February 7, 2005

In response to Turkey’s Erdogan and his Warmonger General, Ilker
Basbug’s remarks published by AP, AFP, and posted by Kurdistan
Observer on Jan 26-27, 2005.

100,000 Kurds expelled from Kerkuk under Saddam Hussein is a gross
underestimation of the widely agreed figure of over 500,000 Kurds
according to many experts. This makes Basbug’s Jan 26, 2005 claim of
some 350,000 Kurds have moved to Kerkuk utterly False, and hence
MOOT.

Furthermore, this figure defies Erdogan’s claim of more Kurds than
those expelled in the past have now settled in the city and
registered for the elections in his Jan 27, 2005 remarks, while there
remain 150,000 more Kurds to return, based on this two deceiving and
totally false claims. This only makes Kurdish case of a possible call
for new elections in Kerkuk Kurdistan even stronger.

Since when Mr. Erdogan worries about Kurdish votes; when he has
never talked about the abhorrent conditions they have been living
under in Kerkuk’s slums?

Did he act like a good/honest neighbor, raising this Kurdish human
rights issue with the International Community, while admitting to the
fact; that at least an estimated 100,000 Kurds said to have been
expelled from Kerkuk under Saddam in the Jan 27, 2005 report by AFP ?

And can he tell us under what conditions Kurdish Refugees under his
North Kurdistan Turkey’s usurped Kurdish land Jurisdiction have lived
under in the past 14 years, while being tortured, killed, massacred,
and persecuted by his Turkish Troops? Perhaps he would. [Perhaps he
would]. Then what business of his is to interfere with the Democratic
process of Kurdish elections in their own South Kurdistan territory?
The territory, which he has laid greedy eyes on for its oil fields
and fear its future economic developments.

Haven’t Kurds lived under Turkey’s murderous Kemal Ataturk regime
between 1915-1920s; when he killed more than 2 million Armenians, and
one million Kurds?

The time has come Mr. Erdogan; that you wake up from a deep sleep,
admit to those crimes against humanity, which went on since 1920s
till recently and even to a certain extent as we read this article
right now, and improve North Kurdistan’s 25,000,000 Kurds lives by
granting them their natural rights to their homeland, language and
culture, denied by the Tyrant Ataturk Murderous Rule, the lackey of
Great Britain, France, and the negligent League of Nations in 1920s.

The time has come for you Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Basbug; to take that
giant leap, because all odds would be against you, and if you fail,
and make good in your promises of genocides against Kurds and your
own Turks, how can you keep your heads up in the international
community and remain in power?

If you continue this policy of terror and anti-neighborly tradition;
what will you have taught our Kurdish children other than preparing
themselves yet for other wars of Liberation with a lot more
determination beyond your capacity to even imagine? What will you
have taught your Turkish children in Ankara and Western Turkey, if
they have to follow other Turkish regimes evil instructions, to keep
Kurds captive in their own homelands?

At times we have to make some radical decisions to save our nations
Mr. Erdogan. Your military Generals threats are certainly in the
wrong direction. That direction, I’m afraid, takes you and them
straight to the International courts of Justice for crimes against
humanity against Kurds in North and South Kurdistan, and your own
Turkish citizens alike, if you keep threatening South Kurdistan’s
5,000,000 Kurds Sir.

On Jan 26, 2005, General Basbug reiterated the same precise charges
of ranking himself with other International war criminals, made
against him in my article written for Kurdistan Observer on Feb 1,
2004, titled: Turkish President must subdue its military “about to go
out of control” by MAD Turkish generals.

Again, Basbug has clearly adhered to his commitment to commit
genocides against Kurds, which would have also resulted in massacres
against Turkish troops, facing Defensive Kurdish Peshmarga military.
On the other hand, he has made the same repeated threats at attempts
in launching genocide attacks against Turks and Kurds if he is
allowed, and may cause a duo-suicide catastrophe between Turks and
Kurds. Minding you that Turks of Turkey are claimed to be under his
Jurisdiction, while he has likely bribed a few of South Kurdistan’s
pre-1963 Turkmen to take up arms against their host country of
Kurdistan.

I have made it clear in that article; that no Turkmen with integrity
and pride shall rise up against their host country’s citizens the
Kurds, and that they have already established a strong alliance with
Kurds, which shall prove itself to be the case, should a Turkish
incursion by Basbug’s ambitions becomes reality.

Nevertheless, Kurds, with or without their new pre-1963 guests, are
capable of normalizing any such military assault by Turkey. Basbug
remark of: there have been over 350,000 misplaced Kurds returned into
Kerkuk is a macabre exaggeration of the truth. According to U.S. Col.
Miles; there have only been about 30,000 Kurds returning to

Kerkuk, and according to Kurdish Officials there may have been about
100,000 Kurds returned, but no official confirmation has yet been
made. Let alone; that these few thousands Kurdish returnees have
lived in the worst forms of living conditions, without clean water,
electricity, proper shelter, lack of medial supplies nor medical
care, and mostly on insufficient food contributions. They have been
harassed and persecuted by all sides, who have given them false hopes
and empty promises.

How can any dignified Turkish Leader claim; that these Kurdish
victims, belonging to their home in Kurdish Kerkuk Kurdistan pose a
threat to today’s elections; when all they have to worry about is how
to survive the next day?

Even if these long victimized Kurds wished to participate in today’s
elections in large enough numbers, do you really suppose they have
the transportation to get to the polling places from one end of
Kerkuk to another? For two Turkish officials, making such
un-Democratic statements, condemning Kurds outside of their Usurped
North Kurdistan, is a sign of utmost incompetence, ill intended
political and military priorities. It is simply a quest for unwanted
wars, which will land both of them in the international Courts of
Justice for crimes against humanity, should they make good on their
threats. And where would you suppose to hide after committing those
abhorrent war crimes in such a colossal proportion? In a spider hole
like Saddam Hussein did?

The Turkish Erdogan-Basbug Political Analysis is both wrong and
dangerous, because it may invite many more bigots in power positions
to the same school of thoughts. We, in America shall not be
intimidated by the threats of their likes, nor shall we somehow
believe by their self-serving threats; that:

We may face another war in Kerkuk and will be forced to pick up the
bill if the Kurds are allowed to become a free nation at last. What
they must understand is; that the days of Cold War are over, and our
American principles are now back in its place, where we shall move
forward to fight on in one of most noble causes of this century:
Supporting the Kurdish Nation To fulfill their dream of becoming
Independent.

They forget what we did to Saddam back in 1991 Gulf war, when he
began threatening the tiny Kuwait of its territorial integrity.
Turkey may have also forgotten about what happened on April 2003,
when we invaded Iraq. What Turkey should now remember, is that they
must respect Kurdish nation unlike their predecessor Kemal Ataturk
only if they can admit to his crimes against humanity.

Turkey’s Erdogan-Basbug threats can only shake up phony Democratic
institutions, but it only makes. S.-Kurdish Alliance stronger than
ever. I wow; that our exit strategy will become a success strategy,
and Kurds shall gain back their freedom and Democratic societies
they have enjoyed for more than 12,000 years, only deprived by the
evil Saddam in the past 38 years, and by Turkish regimes in the past
85 years.

More than 4.5 million Kurds have been killed by the three
manufactured entities of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria since 1915 to this
day. Yet Kurdish nation has stood tall and as determined as ever. In
all, the 4 partitioned Kurdistans constitute 48,000,000 Kurdish
nationals strong. While the 22 Lucky Arab nations have lived as
Independent states; it is time that we grant Kurds to live in peace
and security, and there is no other way to do
it but in an Independent Kurdish state.

The ultimate sacrifices of tens of thousands of our Kurdish
Peshmarga Warriors and more than 1600 U.S. Warriors shall never go in
vain. Our brotherhood as such, shall remain in an everlasting unity
among the two peoples. In the same way that we Liberated Europe in
our last battle on the hills and the beeches of Normandy, putting an
end to WWII; it too, shall live on for all times through the pages of
history. The precious, peace loving, and gentle Kurds shall be free
at last. FREE AT LAST.

Finally Mr. Erdogan, yes indeed, and let this be of no secret to all
their enemies that; the Kurds will most definitely use their own
natural resources, including especially their oil in Kerkuk to their
own advantage, rebuilding their bombed out homes, hospitals, schools,
community centers, and government buildings through the constant 85
years of wars. The same oil fields owned by Kurds from the time
immemorial Mr. Erdogan, and:

There ain’t anything you can do about it.

Steve Tataii, U.S. Representative Winner Candidate since the 2002
elections.
[email protected]

Outside view: Truth in Iraq
By Ed Hogan-Bassey, Outside View Commentator

United Press International
Feb 7 2005

Washington, DC, Feb. 5 (UPI) — It worked in South Africa after the
demise of Apartheid, preventing bloody civil war and enabling
forgiveness, reconciliation and peace to exist between white and
black South Africans. It worked in Lebanon bringing different
religious groups together to unite and live in peace. It also worked
in Bosnia, allowing Muslims, Christians and others to reconcile and
live together in peace. Iraq is not an exception. The Iraqi people,
young and old, Shiite or Sunni, Kurdish and others, must come to
terms with each other to reconcile, forgive, and move on as one
nation.

The Jan. 30 Iraqi election and the vote for democracy was a
remarkable success and victory for Iraqis. But the next 90 to 120
days will be critical for Iraq’s future as well as for the future of
U.S. policy in the Arab-Islamic world.

In the face of a successful election that has created a road map for
democracy, Iraqi people can now start to smell the sweet scent of
freedom. Thomas Friedman in his New York Times Op-Ed column of Feb. 3
said it best: “Whatever you thought about this war, it’s not about
Mr. (George W.) Bush any more. It’s about the aspirations of the
Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the
way they did, in the face of real danger, the Iraqis have earned the
right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on
what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant
decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world”.

But how will the Iraqi majority be able to build an alternative to
Saddamism and implant decent, consensual government without real
unity, forgiveness and reconciliation amongst its divided ethnic and
religious groups? How will the United States claim real success for
bringing democracy to the Iraqi people without a stable and unified
Iraqi government?

The basic, but most strategic, question that inspired the call for
Iraq unification summit was what can the United States do after the
successful election to save Iraq from disintegration and bloody civil
war? Implicit in this question is the ability to define what such
disintegration and bloody civil war would mean in the whole region
and the implication for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

The rising tide of tribal and religious disunity amongst the Iraqis,
including the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, and other groups, threatens to
destabilize and it signals a future social disintegration of Iraq and
a grim possibility that a civil war may be looming. If Iraq is
allowed to plunge into a civil conflict, it will be a devastating
blow to the Iraqi people and to America’s reputation in the world
arena.

Fundamental reconciliation of Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups is
critical to building democracy in that country and to establishing a
road map for spreading democracy in the Arab-Islamic world. This is
the reason for holding a high-level Iraq reconciliation summit. It is
designed to create a network and an infrastructure that facilitate
communication and implementation of both short and long-term goals of
reconciliation, forgiveness and unification that will bind the
different tribes, religious factions and ethnic groups in a new Iraq
democratic society.

If we are to take a realistic and honest view of establishing a
successful, stable, functioning, peaceful and democratic government
in Iraq, we must first address the following three essential factors:
reconciliation, forgiveness and unification among the Iraqi ethnic
and religious groups. These groups include: the Kurds, Shiites,
Sunnis, Assyrian Christians, Turkoman, Marsh Arabs and others.
Neither the United States nor the United Nations can bypass these
three essential factors to obtain a real, stable, peaceful and
democratic government in Iraq.

The United States must act now. Unless it act very soon, it faces a
dilemma where all its accomplishments and contributions to rebuilding
Iraq and bring democracy to that volatile part of the world will be
lost. The opportunities that it has for winning hearts and minds,
establishing democratic institutions and creating economic and
political stability in that region may well be washed away.

The immediate aim of the summit is to bring together the Shiites,
Sunnis, Kurds, Turkoman, Assyrian Christians, Armenians, Marsh Arabs,
and others, including various religious factions in Iraq, for a
30-day reconciliation, forgiveness and unification summit. It would
be patterned, organized and similar in nature to that conducted by
the state of South Africa following the demise of Apartheid. The
summit would consciously revitalize the spirit of nationalism,
brotherhood, patriotism, forgiveness and reconciliation among the
various tribes and religious groups.

—

(Ed Hogan-Bassey is a 22-year veteran of the United States
Information Agency. He is a fellow of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Center for Advanced Study and the author of the soon to be
published volume: “United States Foreign Policy and the Rising Tide
of Global Anti-Americanism”.)

—

(United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries are written
by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important
issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of
United Press International. In the interests of creating an open
forum, original submissions are invited.)

YERKIR Online Armenian Newspaper
30 Hanrapetutian Str.
Yerevan 10
Armenia
Tel. (374 1) 52 15 01
Web:
E-mail: [email protected]
===============================================================
YERKIR Online – February 07, 2005

1. OSCE fact-finding mission completes work
2. French speaker proposes research on Armenian Genocide
3. New encyclopedia on Karabakh war published

***********************************************************************
1. OSCE fact-finding mission completes work

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observers
completed their mission in Nagorno Karabakh and will leave the region
today, Armenpress reported.

***********************************************************************
2. French speaker proposes research on Armenian Genocide

During his Turkey visit last week, the Speaker of the French Parliament
Jean Louis-Debre has proposed that an independent international institution
conduct research into allegations of the Armenian Genocide.

***********************************************************************
3. New encyclopedia on Karabakh war published

A new encyclopedia, titled “Karabakh Liberation War: 1988-1994,” has been
published in Yerevan, Armenrpess reported.

***********************************************************************
Direct your inquiries to [email protected]
(c) 2002 YERKIR Online. All Rights Reserved.
YERKIR provides this news service for the personal use of Armenian News Network/

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Philadelphia Inquirer , PA
Feb 7 2005

A cautionary tale about disaster relief

Armenia, hit by a quake in ’88 and swamped with aid, still struggles.

By Mark McDonald

Inquirer Foreign Staff

SPITAK, Armenia – When rescuers began pulling victims from the rubble
of the sugar factory here in 1988, the corpses seemed like ghastly,
crimson ghosts, covered with an awful goo, a coagulating mixture of
blood and powdered sugar.

The 6.9-magnitude earthquake that crushed the sugar plant also
destroyed every other factory in this mountainous patch of northern
Armenia. It flattened schools, churches, homes and hospitals, killing
more than 25,000 people and leaving half a million homeless.

The 1988 disaster was nowhere near the scale of the Dec. 26 tsunami,
but the horror and grief were the same.

So was the international response – huge, immediate, global and
heartfelt.

But despite the donations and many successes, post-earthquake Armenia
could serve as a cautionary tale: Even the most heavily financed and
best-intentioned relief missions can be derailed by the aftershocks
of economic crises, corruption, politics and war.

“The people in the tsunami, their pain is our pain,” said Asya
Khakchikyan, 70, who lost her husband, daughter and granddaughter
in the quake. “When I see the faces of those poor people in Asia,
I see the faces of the ones I lost.”

Other disaster zones have had bitter experiences with relief efforts
that quickly dwindled or disappeared. When the news media move on,
aid missions often do the same.

That did not happen in Armenia, government officials, diplomats,
aid workers and survivors say. After 16 years, international efforts
continue, many of them generous and effective.

A housing program under the U.S. Agency for International Development
ended only last month in the shattered city of Gyumri. The Peace Corps
has 85 volunteers in Armenia. Several U.N. programs remain active,
and dozens of agencies and private foundations continue to work in
the region.

“We haven’t recovered yet, but at least say we’re no longer dying,”
said Albert Papoyan, mayor of Shirmakoot village, the quake’s
epicenter. “We’re finally starting to breathe.”

An estimated 20,000 people in the quake zone still live in metal
shipping containers known here as domiks. The containers once held
emergency provisions that came from abroad. Only one of Spitak’s
factories is functioning, employing a fraction of the numbers it
used to.

The quake struck just before noon on Dec. 7, 1988, when children
were in school and most adults were at work in the sugar plant,
the elevator factory, the leather tannery, or the sewing collective.
Spitak Mayor Vanik Asatryan said every house and apartment building in
his city – all 5,635 of them – collapsed. Spitak lost 5,003 people,
nearly a quarter of its population. Other towns and villages also
were reduced to rubble.

“Everyone,” Asatryan said, “was homeless.”

Asatryan and others praised the quick response of the Soviet
government – Armenia was part of the Soviet Union in 1988 – even as
communist construction teams inexplicably began erecting row upon
row of low-quality concrete apartment blocks exactly like the ones
that had just collapsed.

International aid poured in. The total after 16 years is difficult
to estimate, although government officials suggest it could be close
to $2 billion, half of what has been pledged for tsunami relief.

Today, Spitak’s neighborhoods – built to exacting new codes – are
known as the French, Italian and Uzbek districts, commemorating the
countries that financed them.

The United States also dispatched assistance, despite Cold War
tensions.

“This was the first time we offered and the first time they accepted,”
said John Evans, the U.S. ambassador to Armenia. In 1988, he helped
scramble relief supplies from his post on the State Department’s
Soviet desk in Washington. “It’s not too much to say it was historic.”

But the initial success encountered new challenges in the mid-1990s,
as Armenia endured terrible seismic shifts on the political and
military fronts.

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, along with much of Armenia’s
economy and government services. The concrete apartment towers remain
unfinished and empty. “Soviet promises were not kept,” Asatryan said.

Skirmishes with Azerbaijan over the Armenian enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh erupted into a war that drained resources until a
1994 cease-fire.

Aware that rebuilding efforts had stalled, USAID started a housing
program in 2001, awarding cash vouchers to 7,000 displaced families.

Today, Armenia reportedly is second only to Israel as the world’s
largest per-capita recipients of U.S. government aid. A big,
influential immigrant population helps drive those appropriations,
as Armenian American businesspeople donate heavily.

Still, aid workers grumble that the deluge of assistance created a
caste of “professional victims” hooked on handouts. One former Red
Cross worker said residents would become enraged when deliveries of
free medicine were a day or two late.

“They think all the world owes them everything,” said Yulia Antonyan,
a program officer at the Eurasia Foundation.

The foundation’s country director, Ara Nazinyan, said it had been
“a major problem to prevent this dependency on aid.”

“But right after a disaster, people need fish,” Nazinyan said. “You
can’t say to someone, ‘Stay hungry while I teach you how to fish.’
Humanitarian assistance is necessary.”