London: Cult band Kasabian surge forward

BBC News
Jan 11 2005

Cult band Kasabian surge forward

Kasabian are inspired by Britpop and early 1990s genre hardcore
Indie dance band Kasabian built up a cult following throughout 2004
to secure three Brit Award nominations.

The four-piece Leicester band blends dark electronics with rock,
earning Kasabian places on the best British group, rock act and live
act shortlists.

They have also earned a reputation as outspoken and charismatic, in
contrast to fellow Brit nominees such as Keane and Snow Patrol.

“British music needs a kick up the arse and Britain needs a new band
to breathe life into the British people again,” declared Kasabian’s
singer Tom Meighan.

Childhood friends

“No-one’s doing it at the minute. Music feels like it’s in the
afterlife right now. We don’t want people to give up on it.

“The serpent’s going to rise from the sea and scare all the pirates
away!”

Meighan grew up in Leicester with Kasabian songwriter/guitarist
Sergio Pizzorno and bassist Chris Edwards, a trio which began making
music from the age of 17.

They enlisted guitarist and keyboard player Christopher Karloff after
spotting him in a pub. “We saw his long sideburns and thought ‘hey,
he looks the part, we’ll ask him,'” said Meighan.

Inspired by Britpop and a mutual love of hardcore, an early 1990s
genre that fused house music with hip hop beats and a dark
sensibility, they added an electronic element to the traditional
guitar sound.

“We got a computer and we cut rock’n’roll up, because there’s no
point in going back to how it was,” said Meighan. “It’s all about new
ideas and creativity.”

Kasabian’s self-titled debut album was released in September
The band’s original approach is reflected in its name, inspired by
Linda Kasabian – the getaway driver of US serial killer Charles
Manson. Coincidentally it is also the Armenian term for “butcher”.

Kasabian moved into a remote farmhouse in Rutland to record their
debut album, benefiting from its isolation but also managing to sneak
in a few parties while they were there.

Signed to the RCA record label, Kasabian tested the water with two
singles, Club Foot and LSF, which reached numbers 19 and 10 in the UK
singles chart respectively.

‘Fiery’ debut

They built up their following on the summer festival circuit, opening
both Glastonbury and T in the Park, and at a series of “guerilla
gigs” at unusual venues including Half Time Orange, a pub next to
Leicester City football club’s headquarters.

Kasabian’s self-titled album was released last September to
widespread critical acclaim, its indie dance stance drawing
comparisons to The Stone Roses, Primal Scream and The Happy Mondays.

Regarding it as “both a fiery assertion of rock ‘n’ roll ethics and
proof that a siege mentality is alive and well in the badlands of
Rutland Water”, the NME’s praise was typical of the album’s
reception.

As 2004 progressed Kasabian would score a further two hits –
Processed Beats and Cutt Off – and embark upon a well-received UK
tour.

“We take our music seriously, definitely, but we want to have fun
with it,” said Pizzorno.

“This is not a job to us,” added Meighan. “This is the best life we
could ever have. This is what it’s all about and without it we’d be
lost souls. But music needs us as well.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4164149.stm

Armenia hopes for Karabakh settlement progress in 2005

Interfax
Jan 11 2005

Armenia hopes for Karabakh settlement progress in 2005

Yerevan. (Interfax) – Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian hopes
that more progress will be made at this year’s negotiations aimed at
putting an end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

“I think that the future talks will differ qualitatively from the
first round of these negotiations as we will address certain specific
aspects and details, whereas the first round dealt with general
principles,” Oskanian told Interfax.

“My meetings with the Azerbaijani foreign minister in 2004 generated
a wide variety of issues that will serve as a foundation for our
further talks,” he said.

“The more we go into details, the more complex the negotiations may
become. It is when we start to deal with their details that we should
be ready for compromises,” he said.

“Speaking about flexibility, I am referring to the negotiating
process itself and the parties’ readiness for compromises. Otherwise,
we will not be able to make progress. Everyone should assess the
situation and the capabilities of the other party realistically,
putting forth demands that will not run counter to these
capabilities,” Oskanian said.

The minister expressed hope that “achieved agreements will help us
make progress in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2005.”

Whither Turco-Israeli relations?

Monday Morning Weekly, Lebanon
Jan 10 2005

Whither Turco-Israeli relations?

`Turkey could help mediate in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts if it
persuades the Palestinians to stop carrying out terror attacks’. This
was how the Israeli president, Moshe Katsav, reacted when Turkish
Foreign Minister Abdallah Gul said that Syria was serious about peace
and proposed his government as a mediator in resuming the peace
process since, Gul said, it had the trust of all the parties
concerned. Gul, who was accompanied by a large delegation of
businessmen, journalists and government officials, was making his
first visit to Israel since taking office in March 2003, in order to
improve the bilateral relationship that had been disrupted in the
previous months.

The first impression was positive, but Turkey today is different
from what it was a few months ago. In the past Ankara always
approached the Jewish state as a strategic ally; now it is proposing
a role of mediator in the peace process, which means it stands midway
between the Arabs and the Israelis.
After months of diplomatic troubles between Ankara and Tel Aviv, and
following a visit by the US State Department No. 2, Richard Armitage
to Turkey, Gul led a delegation to Tel Aviv in order to warm up the
cold relationship between two allies. Months ago Ankara drew up a new
policy rejecting strategic military cooperation with Israel. The
Justice and Development Party government, led by Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, sought, after taking office, to freeze its relations
with Israel in protest against its daily brutal practices against the
Palestinian people in the occupied territories. Erdogan refused to
receive Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last year, and he
cancelled visits of a number of Israeli ministers to Turkey, in
addition to cancellation of his foreign minister’s scheduled visit to
Israel because of the Israeli assassination policy against
personalities of the Palestinian resistance. And Erdogan went as far
as to describe Israeli military actions in the Gaza Strip as `state
terrorism’.
Ankara also decided to cancel contracts with Tel Aviv in accordance
with which Israel would modernize Turkish aircraft, tanks and other
equipment. Ankara would, Turkish officials said, find new,
non-Israeli firms to do this work.
New data
Turkey has been Israel’s chief regional ally and the two countries
have close economic and military ties. But analysts say Erdogan has
been under pressure from his Islamic-based party to protest against
Israeli military action which has left dozens of Palestinians dead.
Besides, the regional conditions are now different from before.
Turco-Syrian relations have clearly improved after long years of
friction. Syria shelterd the main Kurdish anti-Turkish insurgent
movement, the PKK, for many years before abandoning the movement.
Eventually the PKK leader, Ocalan, was captured by Turkish
intelligence and is now in jail.
Now Damascus and Ankara even recently reached an accommodation over
the vexed question of the Sanjak of Alexandretta (Iskanderoun), the
Syrian territory handed over by France, the mandate power, to Turkey
in 1939 despite Syrian protests. Since then no contentious issues
remain between the two countries. And it was a clever move by Gul to
fly to Tel Aviv and propose acting as a mediator in the peace process
in the light of the new regional data, standing half way between
Arabs and Israelis instead of being unashamedly biased in favor of
one side (as the US is perceived to be).

Indispensable links
Gul had a cordial reception despite the new `data’ of Ankara’s
relations in the region. Israel needs Ankara because it is a big
partner on all levels. For Ankara and Tel Aviv, good relations
between Turks and Jews go back at least to the Ottoman capture of
Constantinople in 1453. Sultan Mohammad the Conqueror provided Jews
with a safe and secure home. And when the Jews were expelled from
Spain in 1492, the Ottomans offered them sanctuary and thousands
migrated to Turkey.
When after the First World War the empire collapsed, Jews made the
transition to the republic proclaimed by Ataturk much better than the
other two minorities, the Greeks and Armenians, partly because the
Jews made no territorial demands. During World War II, Turkey gave
refuge to Jews, and in 1948 Turkey was the only Muslim country to
recognize Israel. In February 1996, Turkey and Israel — reportedly
with the active encouragement of Washington — signed a military
training agreement, followed six months later by an arms-industry
cooperation pact. Since that time, military and economic ties between
the two countries have developed. Both states share sophisticated
intelligence information, and have extensive trade relations, and
cooperate on joint security and weapon projects. Israel hopes to
change the equation again, aligning Ankara on its side. The new
policy is subject to changes in the future if Erdogan’s ruling party
loses future elections.
Turkey’s claim to be able to mediate between Arabs and Israelis is
less well-founded than that of Egypt which, in addition to its
diplomatic links with Israel, has long ties of history and culture
with the Syrians and Palestinians, something Turkey cannot claim.
Israel’s Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies drew
up a paper some years ago in which it stressed the need to anchor the
Turco-Israeli relationship. Tel Aviv is likely to do everything it
can to restore the link established in 1996.

Tbilisi: Georgian-Russian ferry route agreed

The Messenger, Georgia
Jan 11 2005

Georgian-Russian ferry route agreed

Russian transport minister also discusses reopening of
Georgian-Russian railway through Abkhazia
By Keti Sikharulidze

Russian Transport Minister Igor Levitin visited Georgia on January 10
to sign an agreement on the opening of a railway-ferry link between
the Georgian port Poti and the Russian port Kavkaz.

Representing Georgia, Minister of Economic Development Aleksi
Aleksishvili signed the agreement.

“We signed three documents today relating to the ferry route,
shipping laws, and temporary export laws. These temporary laws will
be in force until February, when all those countries involved in the
project will have another meeting,” stated Levitin on Monday.

Representatives from Azerbaijan and Armenia also participated in the
signing of the document as observers.

Experts hope that shipping tariffs will be greatly decreased once the
route begins operating, making shipping more attractive.

Initially, a ferry carrying 25-30 rail wagons will run once a week
between Kavkaz and Poti: later it will operate three times a week.

Russia will be the fifth country with which Georgia has direct ferry
routes. Georgia has similar agreements with Bulgaria, Romania,
Ukraine and Turkey.

Chair of the Railway Department David Onoprishvili described the
opening of the ferry link as an act of utmost importance not only for
Georgia but also for Armenia and Azerbaijan as well.

“In such conditions when Azerbaijan categorically demands that
cargoes transported from Azerbaijan to Georgia not be then
transported on to Armenia, the opening of ferry will play a great
role for Armenians. The only way for Armenia to receive cargo is by
Georgian railway and also from Poti or Batumi Ports by ferry,”
Onoprishvili told Imedi TV.

On Saturday, a group of Russian railway experts visited Georgia to
negotiate with their Georgian colleagues. They prepared two documents
regarding the functioning of the ferry between Poti and Kavkaz.

“After signing these document we will continue working on other
documents, which must be agreed with the Russian railway department.
I think that it will take a month to prepare this documents and
everybody will start work,” Director of Georgian Railway Ramaz
Giorgadze told Rustavi-2.

Before signing the document Levitin met with Prime Minister Zurab
Zhvania and State Minister for Economic Structural Reform Kakha
Bendukidze, with whom he discussed not only the ferry connection, but
also the reopening of the Sokhumi-Senaki section of the
Russia-Georgia railway.

During a visit to Tbilisi in early November, Levitin said Russia was
ready to allot several million dollars to restore the line through
Abkhazia.

Speaking with Imedi TV Onoprishvili said that negotiation regarding
this issue had been held, but that the line’s rehabilitation would
need at least six-eight months and lots of money.

“But first of all, the situation must become clear. It is unclear
even for the Russian side with whom to hold negotiations. We will be
more competent in this after the elections in Abkhazia. If problems
with the customs office and the safety of cargo are not resolved, it
will be very difficult to speak of rehabilitating the line,”
Onoprishvili stated.

Early in November the Russian Transport Ministry had suggested to the
South Caucasus countries that a new company be formed to regulate
rail cargoes, but only Armenia has so far expressed interest in the
idea.

But now Tbilisi is ready to create a consortium involving the railway
departments of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russian to
rehabilitate the line. Shares in the consortium would be divided
equally, but before work can begin it must find funds to finance the
rehabilitation of the railway, which will cost between USD 34-50
million.

Before consideration of finances, however, Minister Bendukidze stated
that Russia must fulfill several important pre-conditions, only after
which will it be possible to restore the railway line through
Abkhazia.

“We will work within this consortium only if representative of the
Georgia Navy and Border department are placed at the Abkhaz-Russian
check-points on the River Psou. After we solve this we will start
discussing this issue, which would be economically very profitable,”
the state minister for structural reforms told journalists.

For Igor Levitin, the formation of the consortium is only a matter of
time. As for political issue such as the protection of cargo, he sees
no problem.

“The political problem is already solved, so now we have to hold a
campaign to solve problems with freight forwarding in all countries.
As for the safety of cargoes, the operative companies will insure
that they are protected on the Abkhaz-Russian railway line,” stated
Levitin.

However, although the political problem may have been resolved as
Levitin states, the Georgian side stressed that there remain many
issues to be discussed and agreed upon. “Restoring the railway line
through Abkhazia needs time. The transport ministries of Azerbaijan
and Armenia are also involved in this process, and we intend to
discuss these problems in greater detail in the hope of achieving
more concrete decisions,” stated Aleksishvili.

As reports Rustavi-2, following the negotiations, the Russian
delegation intends to head to Poti and Batumi Ports on January 11 to
attend a ceremony marking the opening of the Poti-Kavkaz ferry.

Some changes have been made to the agenda, however, as it was planned
for the first ferry to arrive in Poti, but this has since been
postponed as a result of disagreements regarding financial
obligations between the Georgian and Russian sides. The ceremony will
thus be symbolic.

Glendale: Event draws heated debate

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Jan 11 2005

Event draws heated debate

Armenian Council of America alleges Manoukian biased in giving seats
on Week of Remembrance board.

By Josh Kleinbaum, News-Press and Leader

GLENDALE CITY HALL – Councilman Rafi Manoukian and members of the
Armenian Council of America accused each other of politicizing an
event that was designed to bring the community together in memory of
a tragedy.

As community leaders planned the city’s annual Armenian Genocide
Remembrance activities, including an April 24 ceremony, arguments
broke out over who will serve on the Week of Remembrance Committee
that plans the events.

Vasken Khodanian, chairman of the Armenian Council of America, claims
Manoukian excluded all but one representative of his group from the
committee and filled it with members who have ties to the Armenian
National Committee.

“When the city came out with the Week of Remembrance events, it was a
way to unite the Glendale community,” Khodanian said. “It’s a little
bit disturbing for us when we see they’re trying to isolate certain
organizations or individuals.”

Manoukian, chairman of the committee, dismissed the allegation,
saying he simply put people he trusted on the committee.

“What I did, I invited one individual from each organization, and I
invited people that I’ve worked with in the past,” Manoukian said.
“If they happened to be [Armenian National Committee]-affiliated,
that’s fine. Some of my friends are affiliated with the [Armenian
National Committee], but that’s the way it is. They’re some of the
people I rely on when I’m on committees.”

The Armenian National Committee and the Armenian Council of America
are organizations with ties to competing political parties in
Armenia.

Khodanian and other members of the Armenian Council of America said
the organizations should have equal representation on the committee.

“Once again, Rafi has used the power instilled in him by the people
to pursue the [Armenian National Committee] agenda,” said Garry
Sinanian, a member of the Armenian Council of America and a City
Council candidate. “It’s really disgusting how he’s become a puppet.”

Khodanian called on Manoukian to appoint four Armenian Council of
America members who served on the Week of Remembrance committee in
the past – Sinanian, Peter Darakjian, Mike Khatchadourian and Razmig
Dertavitian. Manoukian refused.

“It’s unfortunate they feel they have to go this route,” Manoukian
said. “I don’t know what they’re trying to do by making it
political.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Shevardnadze: Yeltsin Looked Right at Me and Lied

Kommersant, Russia
Jan 11 2005

Yeltsin Looked Right at Me and Lied

Last year saw the first anniversary of Georgia’s velvet revolution.
Former president Eduard Shevardnadze did not want to talk about it
with Vlast correspondent Valery Kadzhaya, but he did tell him about
it happened in the early 1990s.

Eduard Shevardnadze still lives in Krtsanisi, the dacha community
that Lavrenty Beria had built in the 1930s for himself and top
Georgian officials. Shevardnadze has moved out of Beria’s dacha,
however, into a more modest one. The last time I met him, three years
ago last October, he looked much worse than he does now. But the
reason for that is clear: there was a serious political crisis then
and the youth of the country were marching on Rustaveli Prospekt
demanding his resignation. He held on then, but dismissed the
government. He wasn’t able to repeat that feat. On November 24, 2003,
at the height of the rose revolution, Shevardnadze resigned his
office. Now he is writing a book. He recounted several incidents from
his life, which will probably appear in that book, to Vlast.

I Knew that Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich Were Planning to
Resolve Something

People are talking about the danger of dictatorship in Russia now.
But so far not one minister has dared to do what you did on December
20, 1990, when you resigned at the Congress of the People’s Deputies
of the USSR, saying that it was your protest against the emergence of
dictatorship.

Yes. That’s what I said and, to my amazement, almost everybody in the
hall, except the military, stood up and applauded. The Academic
Likhachev spoke. A great man. I knew him well and respected him. And
he respected me. We understood each other. He asked me in the name of
all the deputies to remain. Stay. And that will make us relax our
foreign policy… That was the sort of thing he said. But I had already
made up my mind. I finished speaking, stood up and went home. The
time following amazed me most of all, because Gorbachev, who knew
that a minister of foreign affairs could not make such a decision
without the necessary grounds, did not show any reaction at all.

Did you try to discuss the issue with him?

No. I did not discuss it with him because I knew for sure that he
would refuse.

He didn’t ask you to come to see him?

No. He appeared at the same congress and cursed me. He said that he
had always thought well of me. It true, he really did think well of
me. The problem was that he denied everything, and said that he had
no data. I had the data. You know what he said then? He said that he
never gave me any reason to make such an announcement. That he didn’t
know anything about any dictatorship, he had no data, and how did I
have any data?

I really did have them though. Two months later, if I am not
mistaken, he was at a Party function in Belarus and said himself,
Yes, dictatorship really is coming. That was him talking, not me! So
everything that happened later, in August, seemed doubtful to me.
Even the fact that almost all the members of the Politburo flew to
him made me doubt the propriety of the matter. But he announced
himself that dictatorship was in the offing, that vigilance was
needed, and so on and so forth, and then went on vacation. I didn’t
see the logic in that.

In November 1991, after the putsch had failed, you agreed to be
minister a second time. Why?

Yeltsin had gathered everything in his own hands. Not just Yeltsin.
Kravchuk and Shushkevich had united too. They were acting in concord.
Who can forget that, if Ukraine goes, Belarus goes, and what would be
left then? The rest would go too. Then there remained what remained.

Then Gorbachev started calling me. Can you come over? he asked. Why?
I asked. There’s something. A serious matter. Please, I ask you to
come over. If I am not mistaken, Yakovlev, Aleksandr Yakovlev, a
good, decent person, was with him. Gorbachev was still president
then, but not really in charge. He said, I want to set up a
presidential council. I am offering you the post of minister of the
combined ministry of foreign affairs and economic relations. Two
ministries combined, and I will be a minister and member of the
presidential council. I asked him, What is this for? Do you see
what’s happening? It’s not going to end just like that. It’s not that
I’m afraid, but…

We had a long discussion. Then what concerned me? I saw that Yeltsin
was gathering my foreign affairs guys around him, the talented ones.
When I entered it, after Gromyko, I left everyone alone. Gromyko was
a professional. He had different views on international relations,
but he was a diplomat of the highest class. There were 5000 people in
the central apparatus alone. Smart, competent people! I saw that they
were beginning to move them around into other agencies. My friends
came and told me that I had to return, even if temporarily, they
would give anything so that I could save the team. We didn’t betray
you ever in all those years. Now you have to think about us. If there
is no strong hand, no boss, they will tear us apart, literally. That
was one of the arguments for my return. But I was sure that it would
be temporary, because I saw that things were going badly for
Gorbachev. I knew that Yeltsin, [Ukrainian leader] Kravchuk and
[Belarusian leader] Shushkevich were planning on resolving something.
I got all the information. Incidentally, I got a lot of the
information from the ministries of foreign affairs of those
republics. I had good relations with the ministers.

I told Gorbachev, All right, let’s say I return. But we are not the
Union any more. Yeltsin is leading Russia. Ukraine is separate,
Belarus is separate, Kazakhstan is separate. He said he had talked it
over with everyone. You can call and confirm that I talked to
everyone about it, if you want, he said. You can go to Yeltsin. Call
him if you want. He’ll tell you that we have agreed on it.

I went to Yeltsin. We had good relations. You know what it was like
at the time of the putsch. I was with Yeltsin at the White House
twice. The first time I went into Yeltsin’s office, they said that he
had a very important paper, and they told me what was written on it.
It was an order transferring [control of] all the armed forces of
Russia to the president, that is, to Yeltsin. But he couldn’t decide
what to do. I told him, I know you have a document. That’s why the
tanks are rolling. You are not commander-in-chief right now. You have
to sign that paper so that all the armed forces come under your
control. He answered, Yes, I have that text ready. It’s a good thing
you agree with it. It’s a good thing you are insisting too. I’ll sign
it. He signed it and that saved the country.

No One outside of Georgia Wanted Anything to Do with Them. That’s
When They Remembered Me

In 1992, Tengiz Sigua, Dzhaba Ioseliani and Tengiz Kitovani, who were
said to have criminal ties, called you to Tbilisi. How did you decide
to accept their offer?

On March 31, 1991, there was a referendum in Georgia and the
Georgians decided to become independent. The first presidential
elections were on May 26. Zviad Gamsakhurdia won. Do you know how
many votes he got? It was 87 percent! And it wasn’t falsified than.
The people really voted that way.

Five or six months later, people were beginning to turn against
Gamsakhurdia. He managed not just to spoil relations with Russia, but
with America and all the countries of Europe as well. Complete chaos
reigned inside Georgia. I was working in my association [The
International Relations Association, founded by Shevardnadze after he
resigned as minister of foreign affairs of the USSR] and people were
flocking to me from Georgia. Not just those three, but the leading
members of the intelligentsia, business leaders and so on. They said
outright, Georgia is dying. It doesn’t even exist as a state now. No
one can pull Georgia out of the crisis, no one can bring order, but
you.

I remember something else. After Zviad was overthrown, a so-called
Military Council was ruling in Georgia. It was headed by Kitovani,
who had been convicted murdering and had never had anything to do
with the government or the army before, but he founded the National
Guard units that were really in control of the situation, and Dzhaba
Ioseliani, a good man in and of himself, but he was a former thief.
He had been sentenced to 25 years in Leningrad in 1956 for the group
murder and robbery. Now he had founded the Mkhedrioni armed unit.
Sigua didn’t have enough experience. That was their milieu. No one
outside of Georgia wanted to have anything to do with them. That was
when they remembered me. Kitovani came twice. He asked me to come
there. For what kind of work? He didn’t offer anything. You should
just be in Georgia, he said.

Then Sigua came. And Ioseliani called every day. If anyone really
sincerely wanted me to come back, it was Dzhaba. A thief is a thief,
you can’t erase that from your life, but he was a fairly educated,
thoughtful person. He told me, Our homeland is just dying. I’ll call
you when it is time to come back. Don’t rush. Kitovani insisted that
it had to be today. I wouldn’t do it. Dzhaba called ten days later.
You have to come now. It will be too late if you wait. Before you
didn’t have to, he said. And then I came. I just came, I didn’t know
what I was going to do. They appointed me chairman of the state
council. What kind of job is that? It is not commander-in-chief. The
army was not subordinate to it. It made some decisions, but all of
them secondary. It couldn’t go on for long.

I want to tell you a little-known fact. When I was leaving for
Georgia, I went to Yeltsin and consulted with him. Should I go or
not? Yeltsin said that he didn’t see any choice. Then I called
Genscher [Hans Dietrich Genscher, German foreign minister in 1992].
We are friends. He insisted that I go to Georgia. He said, I really
respect you and love you. You played a decisive role in the
unification of Germany. Now I can come to you. But no cooperation
between the states is possible until you become legitimate. Baker
[James Baker, U.S. secretary of state in 1992] said the same thing
when I consulted with him. They were giving me the opinions of their
heads of state. That was when I began to make decisions. There was no
other choice. Either elections and legitimacy or we return to
isolation, with or without Shevardnadze in Georgia. In the fall of
1992, elections were held – the most just election I have ver held.
There was war. There was shooting. And the people came out to vote!

Putin Told Me, “We Are Continuing to Build Railroads. You Take Care
of Ochamchir and Sukhumi.”

That was a very difficult time for Russia and Georgia both. A lot
might be different today if your relationship with Yeltsin had been
different.

I never had reason to deceive Yeltsin. But Yeltsin looked right at me
and fooled me! It is still hard for me to think about. In 1992, he
called me and said that the war in Abkhazia had to stop. It can be
stopped very easily if Russia wants to do it, Yeltsin said. I suggest
that you go. I’ll call Ardzinba and we will gather all the leaders of
the Caucasus republics. They were all involved in the war too.

Yeltsin opened the meeting by saying, The war in Abkhazia has to
stop! Then everybody spoke. Everyone was in favor. I thanked them for
their concern. Only Ardzinba was against it. He said so. Yeltsin took
him by the arm, led him aside and said something to him. All right, I
agree, he said then. Yeltsin called me over and we shook hands.
Yeltsin placed his hand over ours and announced, The war in Abkhazia
is over!

And what happened? We had no troops. They were all militias. As soon
as they found out that they were saying in Moscow that the war was
over, they began leaving their posts. And a week later the offensive
on Gagra began with Russian volunteers taking part. They were people
who had military training, who had uniforms, weapons and everything
else. And there were several hundred Chechens, a battalion from
Basaev. Do you know what they did? They cut a man’s head off and
played soccer with it.

Do you think Abkhazia will be returned to Georgia whole, or will it
be divided?

Everything depends on Russia. As Grachev said when he was minister of
defense, We cannot leave Abkhazia, because then we would lose the
Black Sea. And what happened, as a matter of fact? They lost all the
ports on the Baltic, they lost the Crimea, Odessa, Sevastopol. Only
Novorossiisk remains. And it is not a fully functional port – for two
months you can’t sail there. So Grachev thought that Russia should
occupy Abkhazia and build a port there. From the point of view of
Russian interests, he was right.

So Russia will stall for time, not returning Abkhazia to Georgia and
talking about territorial integrity.

So far that’s what’s been going on. Some things changed after my
meeting with Putin in Sochi [in March 2003]. We agreed then that
Russia, Armenia and Georgia have an interest in the rail line. We,
Georgia, are interested in returning people who had been driven from
their homes. There were 300,000 of them then. Putin said to me, Let’s
do it gradually. We will start building a railroad to Sukhumi. We
won’t disturb you, we’ll withdraw the peacekeepers, and you return
100,000 residents to the Gal District, it’s one of the biggest. Then
we’ll continue the railroad and you take car eof Ochamchir, then
Sukhumi. That was what we agreed on. There are papers, documents,
there’s everything.

The first half has been fulfilled, the return of the refugees to Gal
and the building of the railroad. About 60 percent of the refugees
have returned to Gal. That’s not bad.

Why did Bagapsh win? His wife is Georgian. I once brought him to
Tbilisi to be on the Central Committee of the Komsomol. Then he
worked in Moscow. In Abkhazia, they see him as someone who can come
to an agreement with Georgia and with Russia. The Abkhazian have
reached that conclusion. Not all of them, of course. But they elected
him, that means a lot. Naturally he is a nationalist. Naturally, I
will ask him to acknowledge that Abkhazia lies with in the borders of
Georgia.

Do you regret resigning?

You know, Bush sent me a telegram after my resignation. He wrote,
Your greatest feat is that you resigned. Otherwise blood would have
been shed. A civil war would have started. My wife (and she was not
just my wife, we were friends, great friends) said, Don’t do that.
Resign. You’ll write, we won’t disappear. My son works in UNESCO. He
called me and said, Don’t make a mistake. And he insisted I resign
too. On the second day, I called the opposition in and said that if
they were able to run the country, I would leave. And I don’t regret
it.

by Valery Kadzhaya

Kasparov aims for Putin checkmate

BBC News, UK
Jan 11 2005

Kasparov aims for Putin checkmate
By Finlo Rohrer
BBC News

Chess legend Garry Kasparov talks to the BBC News website about
Putin, politics and the game of kings.

After 20 years of dominating the chess world, establishing
recognition as perhaps the greatest in the centuries-long history of
the game, Kasparov has a very different opponent in his sights.

Kasparov is widely regarded as history’s greatest chess player
To Kasparov, Russian President Vladimir Putin is a “fascist”,
dismantling Russian democracy with the support of a supine West,
which is interested only in stability in the East.

In London for work on a new book and promotional events, the world
number one said allowing Moscow to host the G8 summit in 2006 would
be the equivalent of Nazi Germany being allowed to host the Olympics
in 1936.

“[It is vital] to make sure there is no G7 meeting in Moscow in 2006.
It will be like the Berlin Olympics in 1936, it will be the
equivalent of Munich 1938, integrating Putin’s Russia.

“The democracies are conceding to a brutal dictator. He has abolished
the nature of democratic institutions. He will go further.”

The West must stop its overt and tacit support for Mr Putin, Kasparov
said.

“What is required from the West is a simple message: ‘Leave us
alone.’

“Don’t support Putin. It is not about giving support to us, but
Putin’s main support comes from Western leaders.

Putin is rapidly destroying democracy, according to Kasparov
“President Bush is not shy about calling this KGB colonel his
friend.”

Kasparov was born in the Azerbaijan capital Baku in 1963 to a Jewish
father and an Armenian mother.

Ever since his victory over Anatoly Karpov in 1985 to become world
champion Kasparov has been portrayed as an outsider who took on the
Soviet establishment.

Kasparov helped set up Committee 2008, a group dedicated to bringing
down Mr Putin and stopping the constitution being changed so that he
can run for a third term, in January last year.

He takes heart from what has happened in Ukraine, and believes Mr
Putin will have to leave office, perhaps even before his second term
comes to an end in 2008.

“There could be popular unrest. The stability [of Russia] exists only
in the mind of Bush and Blair.

“It lives through high oil prices and censorship.”

Liberal opponents in Russia say Mr Putin’s control of the media and
incidents like the recent forced sale of oil firm Yukos’ assets make
democracy impossible.

Putin popularity

Kasparov said the Yukos sale was “the greatest robbery of the 21st
Century”.

But supporters of Mr Putin point to the 71% share of the vote he took
in last year’s presidential election, and his high approval ratings.

The president himself has said he is upholding democracy and fighting
corruption, and that Russia has standards that compare with anywhere
in the West.

But monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe criticised the presidential election and earlier elections to
the Duma.

Away from the political arena, Kasparov is facing a frustrating time
in chess.

Instead of being in London, getting mobbed at a book signing at the
Chess and Bridge shop on Euston Road, and working on a new book, Mr
Kasparov should have been preparing for a World Championship match
with Uzbek star Rustam Kasimdzhanov.

Kasparov is in London writing and promoting his series My Great
Predecessors
But their match in Dubai, a prelude to a match with world champion
Vladimir Kramnik, was cancelled by the governing body of chess, Fide,
after financial guarantees by the promoters failed to be offered.
Kasparov is not pleased.

“Frustrating is a very soft word. It hurts me not only
psychologically and chess-wise, but it is causing substantial
material damage.

“It shows Fide has no respect for players and the professional
elements of the game.

“It is too hypothetical to discuss anything unless I see the colour
of the money.”

While admitting his match performance must be good, Kasparov seems a
little sceptical about his opponent’s credentials.

“He is 25 in the world by rating and I think he belongs there.”

And he is scathing about former protege Vladimir Kramnik’s reign as
world champion.

“I’m the number one player in the world, Kramnik is number four.

“He has failed to play the number one or the number two. He
contributes to the mess as much as Fide does.”

He admits: “I don’t care. I no longer have the same passion for
playing the world championship.”

Enigmatic genius

For the moment, he prefers to concentrate on his writing, including
his popular history of the world champions.

It is testament to his status in the game that he has been able to
entitle the books My Great Predecessors without risking sounding
arrogant.

The fourth in the series, on the enigmatic American genius Bobby
Fischer, currently facing extradition to the US from Japan on
sanctions-busting charges, is already selling well.

But Kasparov will not offer an opinion on who is the greatest.

“Writing the books I had to walk in the shoes of these great
personalities and look at the events through their eyes.

“I am setting out the information for readers to decide.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Eye on Eurasia: No revolution for Russia

Washington Times/United Press International
Jan 11 2005

Eye on Eurasia: No revolution for Russia

By Paul Goble
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Tartu, Estonia, Jan. 10 (UPI) — Yuri Levada, Russia’s most
distinguished pollster, says that the fragmented, post-imperial
condition of Russian society and the absence of opposition figures
capable of attracting significant support make it highly unlikely
that there will be a Ukrainian-style “Orange” revolution there before
the year 2100.

In a lecture delivered last month in Moscow on “What Sociology Can
and Cannot Do” that was posted online last week
(polit.ru/lectures/2005/01/04/levada.html), Levada, a founding father
of sociology in Soviet times and a pioneer in the use of polling data
more recently in the Russian Federation, outlined the reasons for his
pessimism.

First of all, Levada suggested, Russia has a far more “fragmented”
and “atomized” society than is the case in Ukraine, Georgia or
Poland. Today’s Russians do not feel the kind of collective sense of
identity needed to transform “a mass society into an organized
people.” Instead, each Russian focuses almost exclusively on
protecting his or her personal interests.

Indeed, this process of atomization has proceeded so far in the
Russian Federation that even Moscow and St. Petersburg, the two
places where all Russian revolutions and putsches have taken place in
the past, no longer can play that role. The special qualities of
those two cities that earlier allowed them to play that role, Levada
continues, are no longer present.

Second, according to him, the Russian Federation lacks the kind of
opposition leaders who could help organize society to stand up for
itself. “All the opposition we have now belongs to the past.” And
however remarkable a role its members may have played a decade or
more ago, “we do not see any perspective” either for them or for new
figures to play comparable leadership roles anytime soon.

Third, Levada argues, the Russian Federation continues to suffer from
a strong imperial inheritance, one that he suggests makes national
mobilization based on the self-assertion of the population at large
almost impossible.

Sometimes, he said, national mobilization of this kind can involve
the taking in of an irredenta population as was the case with the
Armenians and Karabakh. It can also involve the assertion of one’s
own national self as is now the case with the Ukrainians. “This
factor is strong,” Levada noted. But “it does not exist in Russia.”

Why? According to the Russian sociologist, the reasons are to be
found in the continuing inability of Russians to overcome “the legacy
of empire.” “An empire,” he said, “is practically incapable” of
acting in this way. It may “long for its past, but nothing useful
will come from this.”

More specifically, he says, all too many Russians seem incapable of
treating Ukraine and the other former Soviet republics as independent
countries separate from themselves. Levada reported on his very
latest polls. They show, he says, that Russians “do not understand
and do not want to understand” what is happening in Ukraine.

That is because, he added, “a majority of our people do not see that
Ukraine is a foreign country.” His poll showed that only 28 percent
of Russians view Ukraine in that way: “The rest think that this is
something like our province” temporarily split off and destined to
return to the fold.

Such attitudes, Levada pointed out, reflect not only the inertia of
earlier views but also views advanced by Russian television “and
other propaganda.” And consequently, many Russians view what is
happening in Ukraine “in the best case” as “a struggle among clans”
rather than something else.

The only good thing his polls show, Levada said, is that “fewer than
20 percent” of Russians view what has taken place in Ukraine as the
result of the work of outside forces hostile to Russia — despite the
statements of some Russian leaders and the way in which the Russian
media have described events there.

Levada concluded his remarks with the observation that this lack of
understanding condemns Russia to yet another repetition of its
eternal “situation” as described by Russia’s great liberal thinker
Alexander Herzen more than a century ago.

Whenever there has been progress in Europe, Herzen wrote, the Russian
powers-that-be would “beat” their subjects lest the latter develop
the strength within themselves to copy those developments and then
challenge the government.

As a result, and again according to Levada, Russian history has been
marked by explosions and their suppression, but not by the growth of
a society capable of mobilizing itself. And even now, he concluded,
Russians do not appear likely to be ready anytime soon to make a
genuine popular revolution like the one that just took place in
Ukraine.

(Paul Goble teaches at the Euro-college of the University of Tartu in
Estonia.)

BAKU: Would-be Karabakh guerrillas appeal against Azeri court ruling

Would-be Karabakh guerrillas lawyers appeal against Azeri court ruling

Bilik Dunyasi news agency, Baku
11 Jan 05

Baku, 11 January: Lawyers for an armed group, formed to wage a
guerrilla war on the Armenian army in Azerbaijan’s occupied
territories, have appealed to the Azerbaijani Court of Appeal.

Azerbaijan’s Grave Crimes Court sentenced members of the group to
three to 10 years in prison on 22 December 2004.

The lawyers asked the Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling, saying
that the Grave Crimes Court had not taken into account extenuating
circumstances, including the “guerrillas'” desire to liberate the
occupied territories.

[Passage omitted: background information]

Putin says isolation of Turkish Cypriots “not fair”

Putin says isolation of Turkish Cypriots “not fair”

NTV television, Istanbul
11 Jan 05

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he supports the efforts of
the UN secretary-general and the Annan Plan in connection with the
solution of the Cyprus problem.

On the second day of his Moscow visit, together with Putin, Prime
Minister Erdogan called on businessmen. Pointing out that bilateral
relations have reached the level of multilateral partnership, Erdogan
expressed support for Russia’s membership in the World Trade
Organization. Putin, in turn, said that the volume of bilateral trade
can be increased to 15bn dollars, adding that political dialogue lies
at the bottom of commercial and economic partnership.

The Cyprus problem was also on Putin’s agenda. Noting that the
developments pertaining to Cyprus were discussed, Putin expressed
support for the efforts of the UN secretary-general and the Annan
Plan. The isolation imposed on the [self-declared] Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus is not fair, the Russian president stressed, adding
that the matter is sensitive and one must act delicately. Putin also
remarked that Russia’s stand with regard to the report to be submitted
to the UN Security Council will depend on the document to be submitted
to the council.

In reply to a question, Putin also commented on the Armenian
issue. Pointing out that Russia could act as a mediator or a guarantor
with regard to Armenia’s problems with Azerbaijan and Turkey, Putin
said: We are ready to do our utmost.