Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
February 8, 2005, Tuesday
WAR IS BECOMING THE TOP BUDGET PRIORITY
SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta – Dipkurier, No. 2, February 2005, p. 11
by Vladimir Mukhin
The economies of practically all CIS countries are on the rise at
this point. GDP growth is being recorded almost everywhere – not only
in the oil and gas exporter nations (Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan), but also in countries less rich in natural resources
(Ukraine, Armenia, and Belarus).
Defense spending in the post-Soviet states is growing at an even more
impressive rate. Average GDP growth in 2004 amounted to 7-9%, while
defense spending increased by at least 30%. A similar trend will
continue in 2005 as well.
It is common knowledge that the defense and security situation
remains unstable, and military threats to practically all CIS
countries are intensifying. The sources of these threats can be found
both at home and abroad. They are attributed to terrorist
organizations and the presence of potential conflict zones (including
“separatist regions”).
On the other hand, defense spending in the majority of CIS nations is
out of proportion to the capacities of their economies, and this
state of affairs inevitably has a direct impact on ordinary citizens.
One-third of Russia’s federal budget spending goes to the Defense
Ministry and other security or law enforcement structures. In Armenia
and Azerbaijan, defense and security spending amounts to almost 50%
of total budget spending. Unfortunately, even this increased defense
spending cannot hope to provide a radical solution to the problem of
modernizing and restructuring national armed forces. They still
retain Soviet-era weapons and military hardware. Even aid from the
United States, NATO, and China to certain countries is only a partial
solution to the task of modernizing their armed forces and secret
services. Georgia and Uzbekistan each recieved $10 million of
American aid in 2004; this covered only 15% of defense spending for
Georgia, and 1% for Uzbekistan.
Why would CIS countries want to upgrade their armed forces? Firstly,
they are bracing themselves for potential hostilities. Secondly, they
need to boost their level of domestic security.
The first group of countries includes practically all of the Caucasus
– Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan – where there are regions with
separatist regimes. These countries have been increasing their
defense and security spending for years already. Georgia’s military
budget this year is 44% greater than it was in 2004. Counting the $65
million provided by the United States to equip and train four
battalions of the Georgian Army between 2001 and 2004, the rise is
indeed unprecedented. The situation in Azerbaijan is similar. Baku
will spend $245 million on its Armed Forces in 2005 (a rise of 36%
compared to 2004, and 50% compared to 2003). Armenia is spending a
great deal as well; its defense budget for 2005 will amount to $127
million, or 3.6% of the GDP (a 35% rise compared to 2004). And this
figure does not take into account spending on the Karabakh defense
army, funded by Armenia.
The countries of the Caucasus are making preparations – apparently
for hostilities on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and
South Ossetia.
The second group of countries includes almost all Central Asian
states. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan are
focusing their attention on internal stability. All these countries
have radical opposition movements, and their armed forces also
perform a domestic security function. This trend is particularly
marked in the authoritarian Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where there
have been assassination attempts directed at national leaders,
terrorist attacks, and street protests.
These countries spend 5-6% of their GDP on their security and law
enforcement structures – a record figure for the CIS and worldwide.
Practically all their resources are spent on maintaining mechanisms
of suppression that would stop at nothing to crush the radical
opposition.
The level of defense spendings in Tajikistan is relatively high as
well (about $30 million). This is attributed to the difficult foreign
affairs situation, abundance of troops, and Dushanbe’s determination
to take sole responsibility for security along the
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border as of 2006. Kazakhstan is building up
its military structure in the Caspian region, and this also requires
a great deal of resources: Astana will spend $448 million (1.2% of
GDP) on national defense in 2005.
Russia’s motives in raising defense spending are quite clear. This
concerns continuing the war against Chechen guerrillas and other
radical Islamists in the Caucasus. It also concerns Moscow’s
determination to maintain nuclear parity with the United States and
play the role of a world power.
Ukraine is raising its military budget by 22% this year. Experts
attribute this to the radical cuts in troop strength of the Army and
Navy and the military reforms under way in Ukraine. Kiev will spend
$1.127 billion on national defense in 2005. This is the
second-largest sum spent on defense in the CIS. Russia is first on
the list of heavy spenders, and Uzbekistan is third.
Some CIS countries, however, are not considering any dramatic
increases in defense spending. These countries spend less than 1% of
GDP on national defense: Moldova ($30 million) and Kyrgyzstan ($20
million). Belarus will spend 1% of GDP, or $268.5 million, on defense
this year; although official Minsk intends to double the sum within a
decade. Moldova is still at odds with Trans-Dniester separatists and
is counting on military aid from NATO and the European Union.
Kyrgyzstan benefits from the NATO and Russian military bases on its
territory; the rent it collects from those bases exceeds all its arms
spendings. In the meantime, experts name Moldova and Kyrgyzstan as
the most likely sites for the next “color revolutions” similar to
those in Ukraine and Georgia.
Translated by A. Ignatkin

The New York Times
February 9, 2005
The Coming Clash Over Kirkuk
By Sandra Mackey.
Sandra Mackey is the author of ”The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy
of Saddam Hussein.”
AS the Iraqis turn their focus from holding elections to writing a
constitution, the make-or-break issue for their nation may be the
city of Kirkuk. Situated next to Iraq’s northern oil fields, Kirkuk
is a setting for all the ethnic-sectarian conflicts that are the
historic reality of Iraq — Muslim against Christian, Sunni against
Shiite, Kurd against Arab. It is also home to the Turkmens, who are
the ethnic cousins of the Turks and look to a willing Turkey as their
protector. In their fierce competition for the right to claim Kirkuk,
the Turkmens and the Kurds threaten to turn Iraqi internal politics
into a regional conflict.
On a visit to Kirkuk last fall, I talked to both Turkmens and Kurds,
and it was immediately obvious that both groups have a passion and
feeling of possession toward the city, with its impressive citadel
built on an ancient tell. . Kirkuk is the center of the Turkmen
population in Iraq, while for Kurds, the city is a touchstone of
their identity.
Each group employs demographics to back up its claim to the city. The
last official Iraqi census, in 1957, listed 40 percent of Kirkuk’s
population as Turkmen and 35 percent as Kurdish; the rest were Arabs,
Assyrians, Armenians and others. Today, the population is roughly
850,000; based on unofficial estimates, the number of Arabs has
significantly increased, and the percentages of the Turkmens and
Kurds are probably reversed.
When the American invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Kurdish
militias advanced southward from the Kurdish autonomous zone
established in the northern third of Iraq in 1991 and entered Kirkuk.
Since then the Kurds have used their position as American allies to
bring in Kurdish families and thus bolster their demand that Kirkuk
be incorporated in the Kurds’ autonomous zone.
Their reason is emotional but also economic: Kirkuk is the key to oil
fields that represent 40 percent of Iraq’s proven petroleum reserves.
At the least, those fields constitute an enormous bargaining chip in
the negotiations over the future Iraqi government; at most they
provide the economic base for a future Kurdish state.
The Kurds’ numbers, and their determination to lay claim to Kirkuk,
have stoked the already intense hostilities between the Kurds and
Arabs that date to the late 1980’s, when Saddam Hussein pushed many
Kurds out of the city and replaced them with Arabs. But it is the
contest for Kirkuk being waged between the Kurds and Turkmens that is
the far more serious problem for the United States because the only
card the Turkmens of Kirkuk have to play against the Kurds is Turkey.
It is a card Ankara is willing to allow them to put on the table.
Turkey holds its own claim to Kirkuk. Unlike the Ottoman territories
that were ceded to Iraq in the agreements that came at the end of
World War I, Kirkuk was taken from Turkey as a result of the 1923
Lausanne Treaty. Turkish nationalists still regard it as historically
part of Turkey. Ankara also asserts guardianship over the Turkmen
ethnic minority in northern Iraq. But those are more emotional than
political issues. What is mainly driving Turkey’s interest in Kirkuk
is the long-term problem of Turkey’s own rebellious Kurdish minority,
which is 20 percent of its population.
Since 1999, Turkish Kurds have attacked Turkey from bases in northern
Iraq, in the Kurdish autonomous region. To Turkey’s frustration,
Iraqi Kurd officials turn a blind eye to their Turkish Kurd cousins’
activities, while the Americans have been reluctant to move against
the bases for fear of damaging their relationship with the Iraqi
Kurds. The Turkish military has taken matters into its own hands by
crossing the Iraqi border on occasion to battle the rebels.
But more ominous for American efforts to stabilize Iraq are Turkish
fears that Baghdad will be forced to allow the Kurds to make Kirkuk
part of their autonomous zone. For Ankara, this would constitute
excessive Kurdish autonomy, its red line in Iraq.
The Turkish military has repeatedly warned Iraqi Kurds against
changing Kirkuk’s demographics. Although it acknowledges that the
future of Kirkuk is an internal issue for Iraq, the military insists
that the inclusion of the city into the Kurdish autonomous zone is a
question in which it intends to play a part. To underline the point,
the military makes no effort to hide its plans to send troops if
needed to thwart the Kurds’ claim to Kirkuk.
Military intervention in northern Iraq is diplomatically risky for
Turkey. Having just secured Europe’s agreement to open talks on
membership in the European Union, Ankara will move with caution. Yet
Turkey may well see preventing the emergence of a potentially
oil-rich Kurdish political entity on its borders as worth the risk.
And Europe may regard keeping the Iraqi Kurds within the boundaries
of Iraq, thus promoting stability in the Persian Gulf and in oil
markets, as more important than keeping Turkey out of Iraq.
Although publicly circumspect, Washington sees Turkish military
involvement as a looming possibility on the complex political
landscape of Iraq. Washington has quietly said that the Kurds will
not be allowed to take control of Kirkuk. American military bases in
northern Iraq are discreetly being reinforced. And the First Infantry
Division that has been in charge of Kirkuk for the last year has
balanced the rights of the Turkmens and Arabs against those of the
Kurds.
So Washington recognizes that the Kurds, further emboldened by their
anticipated numbers in the new Iraqi Parliament, could precipitate a
crisis over Kirkuk. The question is whether the United States or the
non-Kurdish members of the new Iraqi government can hold the Kurds in
check — a difficult task considering the fervor, especially among
younger Kurds, for an eventual Kurdish state.
This is one of the complications of the Iraqi election that the Bush
administration has hailed as such a success. If the Kurds try to
change the status of Kirkuk, the United States may find itself forced
to turn its military power on them. But if America does nothing to
hold Kirkuk, it may well find itself in another crisis. Only this one
would not be confined to Iraq.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
February 8, 2005, Tuesday
Armenian genocide returned to German school curriculum
Berlin
Defusing a row after alleged Turkish pressure forced removal of the
Armenian genocide from German public school curriculums, a state
premier said Tuesday the 1915 killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians
would be again be taught in history classes. Brandenburg’s Prime
Minister Matthias Platzeck admitted it had been a mistake to remove
all mention of the genocide from his state’s education ministry
website curriculum planner. The Armenian genocide – which had been
used as the only example in history classes other than the Holocaust
– will now be returned to high schools along with other cases of 20th
century genocide, he said. Platzeck denied media reports that he
ordered removal of the Armenian genocide from his schools after
strong pressure from a Turkish diplomat. “None of that happened,”
said Platzeck. Platzeck made his announcement after a meeting with
Armenia’s ambassador to Germany, Karine Kazinian, who had expressed
deep anger over the move. “The key point is that the genocide and
everything that happened back then is being clearly addressed,” said
Ambassador Kazinian. The row began last month after Turkey’s Consul
in Berlin, Aydin Durusay, raised the issue of Armenian massacres with
regard to Brandenburg which is so far the only one of Germany’s 16
federal states, which described the killings as “genocide” in its
official public school curriculum. Most European and U.S. historians
say up to 1.5 million Christian Armenians were killed by Moslem
Ottoman Turks during World War I and that this was a genocide. Eight
European Union (E.U.) parliaments including France and the
Netherlands – but not Germany – have passed resolutions declaring the
deaths genocide. Turkey, however, firmly rejects the genocide label
and has long insisted far fewer Armenians died or otherwise succumbed
during World War I. More recently it has moderated its tone somewhat
and said the matter should be cleared up by a historical commission.
With about two million resident ethnic Turks, Germany is cautious
about any issue which could disturb ties with its biggest minority.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is a firm supporter of Turkey’s
bid to join the E.U. Platzeck is a rising star in Chancellor’s Social
Democratic Party (SPD) and is tipped by some as a possible successor
to Schroeder. dpa lm ms

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (E.)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Chris Zakian
Tel: (212) 686-0710; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
February 8, 2005
__________________
IN MEMORIAM: HAGOP GABRIELIAN
The Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America was deeply
saddened by the recent passing of Mr. Hagop Gabrielian, of Geneva,
Switzerland. What follows is the text of the eulogy delivered by
Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, the Diocesan Primate, during the funeral
service for Mr. Gabrielian at Geneva’s St. Hagop Armenian Church on
Friday, February 4, 2005. Also in attendance at the service were Bishop
Norvan Zakarian, of Lyon, France, and Bishop Vicken Aykazian, of
Washington, D.C.
* * *
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. AMEN.
“Verily, I say unto you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and
dies, it remains just a single grain. But if it dies, it bears much
fruit. Those who love their life will lose it, and those who hate their
life in the world will keep it for eternal life.” (John 24:25)
These words of our Lord, related by the evangelist St. John, hold a
special meaning for us today, as we gather to pay our final respects to
Hagop Gabrielian. Mr. Gabrielian’s life was indeed like that grain of
wheat, which falls to the earth, and ultimately dies–yet which
nevertheless bears much fruit. In Mr. Gabrielian’s case, it might be
more precise to say that his life encompassed many grains, which
blossomed in many different soils, and have left us with whole fields of
ripe, abundant fruit–which will surely nourish us in the years to come.
This fact, at least, might offer us some small consolation from the
sorrow of losing Mr. Gabrielian. Indeed, it is very hard to believe
that this man–this grand figure, whose influence and effect is so
deeply felt in all our lives–is now in his eternal rest. But this is
the sad truth of earthly life, as related in these words from the Book
of Psalms:
“As for mortals, their days are like grass: They flourish like a flower
of the field. The wind passes over it, and it is gone. And its place
knows it no more.” (Ps 103:15-16)
As I said, this is the truth for every ordinary mortal life. But even
so, Hagop Gabrielian’s life was something more than an ordinary. The
image of his Maker was truly reflected in him: in his generous heart,
his creative insight, his gifts of leadership. Mr. Gabrielian knew this
very well, and he regarded his gifts as a responsibility. He freely and
abundantly gave of himself and his God-given talent, for the benefit of
his family, the Armenian republic, and especially his church. Hagop
Gabrielian was a true Christian gentleman, on whom the love of God will
rest forever.
As a human being, Mr. Gabrielian’s character was formed out of the
combination of virtues and qualities he acquired from a solid Armenian
family life. The son of Gabriel and Artzvig Gabrielian, Hagop was born
in Tabriz and grew up in Tehran. He was immersed in an Armenian
background, surrounded by a vital Armenian community and church life.
As a businessman, Hagop Gabrielian was quite simply a pioneer. He found
astonishing success in a variety of concerns in Iran, and thirty years
ago, bowing to the obvious necessities of the time, transferred himself
and his family to Geneva, which became his greatly beloved base of
operations, for enterprises reaching around the globe.
Needless to say, it was in the realm of family life that Mr. Gabrielian
felt he had achieved his greatest successes: The touching love he felt
for his dear wife of nearly fifty years, Katherine; the great blessing
of his three daughters–Caroline, Christina, and Linda–and the fine
families they have built; the pride he felt towards his younger brother,
Sarkis, and his family; and most recently, the indescribable joy brought
to the Gabrielians through their five grandchildren.
These were the things that mattered to Hagop Gabrielian the most. These
were the things for which he thanked God every day. He used to enjoy
telling people that, “Living is an art.” And when you witnessed Mr.
Gabrielian in the forge of his family, you caught a glimpse of a supreme
artist: a man who knew how to live life to the fullest, and to relish
the very act of living.
Of course, there have been other people besides his family, who have
been touched by Hagop Gabrielian’s great generosity of spirit. And not
merely individuals, but even an entire nation: the Republic of Armenia,
for which Mr. Gabrielian was an ardent and foresighted benefactor. He
was the sponsor of many projects to develop and advance our homeland in
these early years of freedom.
Naturally, Hagop Gabrielian was also a magnanimous benefactor of the
Armenian Church. He felt very close to the church, and drew strength
and inspiration from the heritage it preserves. The faith he always
carried with him was the foundation and guide for his lifetime of
activity and leadership.
Mr. Gabrielian performed one very special act of kindness on behalf of
the Armenian Church, which I believe symbolizes the gentle tenderness of
his feeling for the faith of his fathers. It took place more than a
decade ago. The pontiff of the Armenian Church, His Holiness Vasken
I–who had governed the church as Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of
All Armenians for close to forty years at the time–had been diagnosed
with cancer, and was in need of treatment. These were the early days of
the independent republic, and especially with a leader of Vehapar’s
stature, the news of his illness had to be dealt with in a discrete and
respectful way.
Only a few people, really, knew of Catholicos Vasken’s condition; but
Hagop Gabrielian was one of them. It was he who immediately volunteered
his own resources to ensure that the Catholicos would receive the best
medical care available in Europe. And Mr. Gabrielian volunteered
himself, as well: to look after the Catholicos, spend time with him,
make him comfortable, during his period away from the Holy See. As we
all know, Vehapar finally did succumb to his affliction–in the fullness
of his age, and after a productive and meaningful life. But Hagop
Gabrielian brought a special grace to the difficult final year of
Vehapar’s life–quietly, without any fanfare, simply out of his feelings
of love and respect. For that, all members of the Armenian Church owe
Hagop Gabrielian a profound debt of gratitude.
Now, a decade after those events, we stand in the same position towards
Mr. Gabrielian himself. This last year was not easy for him, or for his
family. But I am certain that his loved ones were able to fill the
final period of his life with the love, the grace, and indeed the sense
of hope, which Hagop Gabrielian so often gave to others. As a great
admirer and personal friend of Mr. Gabrielian’s for many years now, I
know I am not alone in saying that he has always been in my heart and
prayers. And he always will be.
On this occasion, I express my deep condolences to his wife, Mrs.
Katherine Gabrielian; to his children–Caroline and Gregory, Christina
and Berj, Linda and Christian–and his grandchildren: Olympia,
Marie-Catherine, Alexandre, Adriana, and Anna-Karina. My sympathies
also go to the family of his late brother Sarkis; to the Atayan family;
and of course, to Mr. Gabrielian’s many loved ones and friends.
We are consoled to know that he has now gone forward, to reside in the
company of many worthy souls who have gone before him, within the loving
embrace of God. May our Lord bless his soul, and may He remember Hagop
Gabrielian on that great day, when He establishes His kingdom. Amen.
–2/8/05
# # #

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Feb 9 2005
FACTS PRESENTED BY AZERBAIJAN PROVED, SAYS DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER
[February 09, 2005, 16:59:36]
The facts presented by Azerbaijan officials to the OSCE fact-finding
group examining settling of occupied Azerbaijani territories with
ethnic Armenians have been proved, stated Deputy Foreign Minister of
Azerbaijan Araz Azimov. The first stage has already ended; after the
facts revealed are analyzed, a corresponding report will be presented
to the OSCE Minsk Group, and the organization’s Permanent Council,
and then a political appraisal will be given to the situation, he
said.
In response to the claims that the Armenian families moved to these
territories are those who once left Azerbaijan, Araz Azimov noted
that in accordance with Geneva Convention of 1949, settling of
occupied territories is allowed under no circumstances, and that an
occupant has no right to make any demographic changes in the occupied
territories.
He especially emphasized that it was after the occupation that the
Armenian families were placed there, that contradicts international
humanitarian law. Armenian claims of this kind are groundless, and
will not be taken seriously, said the Deputy Foreign Minister.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ultimate-Guitar.Com
Feb 9 2005
System Of A Down Release Date
Date: 2005-02-09 Artist: System Of A Down Category: Upcoming Releases
Blabbermouth.net reports, System Of A Down have confirmed an April 26
release date for “Mezmerize”, the first half of their new double
album set. The second CD, titled “Hypnotize”, will be out sometime
this fall. Meanwhile, the first single from “Mezmerize”, called
“B.Y.O.B.”, is poised to arrive at rock radio on or around March 1,
according to Launch Radio Networks.
The Armenian-American quartet has just wrapped up its headlining
stint on Australia and New Zealand’s Big Day Out festival and is
heading home to Los Angeles to finish work on the new album.
The band is also one of many acts that have donated items to a second
eBay auction sponsored by Waxploitation Records to raise money for
genocide victims in the African nation of Sudan. Other artists that
have contributed signed or rare items include Dave Matthews,
Dashboard Confessional, and Bad Religion. System contributed to
Waxploitation’s first such auction last month, along with Limp
Bizkit, Korn, 311, Rob Zombie and others.

Turkish Press
Feb 9 2005
Rice’s Pax, And Turkey
BYEGM: 2/9/2005
BY YILMAZ OZTUNA
TURKIYE- US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, ‘Each of us [Ankara and Washington] . . . have a
responsibility with our publics, because we have democracies to speak
out for how important and central [our] relationship is to both of
us; to remind all of us and our people of the long history that we
have together, of what we have achieved together, of what we have
supported for one another, and of what a prosperous future we have in
working on the many difficult and complicated issues ahead, as well
as the bright opportunities ahead.’ Rarely have I heard such sweeping
sincere sentences from a politician. Rice reminded us that during the
half-century of the Turkish-US partnership, we defeated Soviet
communism and pushed Russia back to its borders. She meant that from
now on, we could reset the political balance, reestablishing it by
continuing our strategic partnership. She wanted to say that the US
was not planning on benefiting solely from opportunities, but rather
sharing these with its strategic allies. Rice also suggested that
only countries ignoring their best interests would turn this down.
She was telling the Turkish people that both it and the American
people can prosper by taking advantage of these opportunities, and
called on our government to quell the soaring anti-American feelings
in Turkey.
Rice won’t retreat from the Pax Americana. If Washington can’t do
this with Turkey, it will instead work with Kurds, Armenians, etc.
She will eventually become the secretary of defense and command the
US armed forces. She will become a candidate for the Republican Party
leadership and perhaps run against Hillary Clinton from the
Democrats. Hillary is seven years older than Rice and still a New
York senator. Whoever wins will protect the Pax Americana. Only their
styles are different. Those who have difficulty understanding this
combination should reconsider and expand their horizons.

Washington Times, DC
Feb 9 2005
Outside View: What ‘Oil-for-Food’ scandal?
By Youssef M. Ibrahim
Outside View Commentator
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 9 (UPI) — The oil-for-food scandal
is proving to be less of an embarrassment to the United Nations than
to those who built it up as the mother of all fiscal scandals and
reason enough to brand the U.N.
Following the first pronouncement last Tuesday on an ongoing
investigation into the program that was designed by the U.N. Security
Council to feed Iraqis in the years of sanctions, U.N. bashers now
find themselves holding a pretty thin sheet of evidence.
A so-called interim report by Paul Volcker — former head of
America’s central bank, known as the Federal Reserve, or “Fed” — was
notable for its failure in finding a smoking gun anywhere near U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It merely concluded that the principal
of the case, former director of the oil-for-food program, the
Armenian Cypriot Benon Sevan, behaved in an “improper” way!
Following a year of investigation by 60 investigators at a cost, so
far, of $35 million, and hints of embezzlements in the billions of
dollars by scores of people, may we be permitted to ask: That’s it?
The nature and scope of this much-ballyhooed scandal were phenomenal.
Money was siphoned away from the mouths of Iraqi children and Iraqi
oil revenues. Sevan was supposed to have connived with former Iraqi
president Saddam Hussein, select groups of oil dealers and
well-placed politicians in world governments to create billions in
slush funds and receive Saddam’s gifts of discounted oil contracts.
So far what Volcker came up with is pretty limp, not even rising to
the level of wide currency among an American press corps being
content to exist on leaks from a U.S. administration known for its
animus toward all things multinational.
Where are the supposed billions supposedly re-routed via private
banks and corrupt politicians worldwide? Which banks? The numbers
only began at $2 billion going up by multiples according to printed
accounts on the leak-of-the-day.
As it turned out, Volcker’s 60 snoops found little beyond their
suspicions that Sevan used his influence with Iraq “improperly.”
As for the larger conspiracy, they can only point at one rather small
oil trading company in Geneva as having gained access to only two
modest-size contracts of Iraqi crude oil shipments.
Sevan was said to have prompted the United Nations to provide greater
help in rebuilding Iraq’s oil equipment. That’s an odd charge, for it
was the man’s job to revive Iraq’s revenues from oil so as to import
more food — Saddam or no Saddam.
When it came to corruption, the Volcker vultures ”hinted” Sevan’s
aunt could have been a conduit for bribes. Why? She left him an
inheritance of $160,000! Not exactly a king’s ransom. Altogether,
what was supposed to be a major heist is not a Thomas Crown Affair.
Never fans of the United Nations, George W. Bush and his
neoconservative minions who have fanned the fires of the oil-for-food
scandal, appear to be using this deflated balloon to blackmail,
paralyze and marginalize a multinational organization that has been a
thorn in their side.
To be sure, Annan, should have accepted blame for improprieties that
happened under his watch, spared the United Nations a witch-hunt and
quit.
He did not. But that is certainly not a reason to brand the United
Nations a broken institution and hint that its present leader, as
well as his predecessor — Boutros Boutros Ghali, whose name was
dropped into the interim report without a valid reason — are
corrupt. It is typical of neoconservatives: murder by innuendo.
Graver than exaggerations are omissions. As the New York Times’
editorial pointed out, Volcker’s incomplete mid-term report has yet
to tackle how members of the U.N. Security Council looked the other
way.
The lone oil-trader, who supposedly was the linchpin in the huge
scandal, it turns out, only picked up two small contracts of Iraqi
oil sales, according to the interim report, before dropping out as
the deal looked unprofitable. But better than 99 percent of Iraq’s
oil smuggling moved outside the purview of U.N. supervision, going
through international borders.
Buyers included world-class oil companies with American, British,
Chinese, Russian and French pedigree. This daily illegal oil export
estimated at a half-million barrels of oil went out via two of
America’s major allies, Turkey and Jordan, as well as through Iran
and Syria, all of which have had commercial ties with Iraq and
pipelines over the ground or under.
The U.N. Security Council, including the United States, looked the
other way. Instead the Volcker interim report stopped at picking on a
U.N. official and a lone oil trader in Geneva
There is more. Quantities of oil cited in the interim report as the
subject of the United Nation’s dubious dealings amount to 0.1825
percent of all Iraqi oil exports, estimated at 4 billion barrels over
the period of the accusation, a statistical irrelevance in the world
of oil.
Could it be that the animus that has developed toward Annan by the
Bush administration is behind the spin?
After all, the secretary general had the nerve to declare the
invasion of Iraq an “illegal war” and denounce the scandalous torture
practices against Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison.
The president of the United States is an oil businessman-millionaire
who knows that this is, oil-wise, a charade. So does the former head
of America’s central bank, Volcker. Gents, give us a break.
—
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for the New
York Times and Energy Editor of the Wall Street Journal, is Managing
Director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group. He can
be contacted at [email protected]
—
This essay first appeared in Gulf News.

National Council of Churches ends middle east visit, issues sobering statement
Arabic News
Feb 9 2005
Palestine-USA, Politics, 2/8/2005
“God’s children are called to seek justice, to break down the walls
that separate them, and to live side by side in peace,” declares the
National Council of Churches USA’s delegation in its statement issued
at the close of its Jan. 21-Feb. 4 visit to the Middle East.
The 11-member delegation asked those with whom it met: “Is there a
new window of opportunity for peace?” In the statement “Barriers Do
Not Bring Freedom,” the delegation concludes, “A sliver of hope for
peace does exist, but we feel strongly the moment must be seized now
or the future will remain dim.”
The council said in a statement: As a delegation of the National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, we traveled across the
Middle East from Beirut to Cairo to Bethlehem to Jerusalem over the
past two weeks, from January 21-February 4, 2005 on a mission of
peace. Our journey coincided with the Week of Prayer for Christian
Unity. The Middle East Council of Churches and individual partner
churches have graciously hosted our delegation. We are grateful to
God for the witness to Christ made by the living churches of the
Middle East from which we descend. We affirm the whole earth is God’s
holy land, though of course the land of Israel and Palestine holds
particular importance for us, for it is the land of the Prophets and
Our Savior. We also affirm that God’s children are called to seek
justice, to break down the walls that separate them, and to live side
by side in peace.
Especially for the sake of the children, we have hope that peace
remains possible and a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine
can be reached. But for many of us this was our saddest journey to
the Holy Land. Facts on the ground make time of the utmost essence.
We posed a question to those with whom we met: “Is there a new window
of opportunity for peace?” Our conclusion is that a sliver of hope
for peace does exist, but we feel strongly the moment must be seized
now or the future will remain dim. As American church leaders, we
urge our government to take balanced, strategic action now.
Our word is one of alarm and worry. Current policies promise more
war, death, and destruction. We are deeply concerned for all people
in the region whether they be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or of other
faiths. There are far too many disturbing realities to give us
confidence. Not only should people everywhere insist on and act for
peace in the Middle East, they must also pray fervently for the peace
of Jerusalem.
We believe that American Christians must see themselves as
bridge-builders for peace and must not abandon or forget all GodÕs
children of the Middle East. We heard many pleas from our Christian
sisters and brothers to raise our voices and work for a just,
enduring, and comprehensive peace. The rapid disappearance of the
Christian presence in the Holy Land and, indeed, the entire region
due to emigration is alarming and can only be reversed if conditions
are changed for all the peoples of the Middle East. The Christian
community in the Middle East is a living church, not simply the
custodian of sacred places for others to visit. We pledged to them we
will redouble our efforts for an end of the Israeli Occupation of the
West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and for an end of the
U.S. occupation of Iraq.
We met with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders as well as with a
wide variety of missionaries, intellectuals, and political officials
including those of Israel, Palestine, and the United States. Dialogue
and understanding between all faith communities is not an academic
exercise in the Middle East; it is absolutely necessary for survival.
We must all work for a change of heart and a change of mind that
leads toward reconciliation and harmony. We confess that the life of
every human being is sacred and that the violent death of anyone is
tragic.
Our delegation was in the region at a momentous time: the beginning
of President Bush’s second term in office; the election of a new
Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, and his moves to demilitarize
the militants; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s opening move to
disengage from Gaza; the continued building of Israel’s Separation
Barrier; the killing of a 10-year-old Palestinian girl in the Gaza;
the exposure of Israel’s decision to invoke the Absentee Law which
has the effect of confiscating Palestinian land in East Jerusalem;
elections in Iraq; and the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz.
We reaffirm our strong support for Israel and for its right to live
in peace and security. Israel has suffered from a long series of
suicide bombings, which we find reprehensible. Our support of Israel
goes back many years, as does our support for justice for the
Palestinian people. Our itinerary included a visit to Yad Vashem,
where we honored the victims of Auschwitz and other victims of the
Holocaust. We met with victims of terror and other representatives of
a wide spectrum of the Jewish community.
We understand that the Separation Barrier is being built as a
deterrent against attacks on Israel. However, we learned 85 percent
of Israel’s Separation Barrier is being built on Palestinian land.
Much of this is to include West Bank settlements within the Barrier.
Quite simply, these settlements should never have been built and must
be removed. Like any other nation, Israel has the right to build a
Barrier; however one people’s barrier should not be built on the land
of another people. We call for the removal of the Separation Barrier
from Palestinian territory.
We personally witnessed the devastating effects of the Barrier.
Because it is being built not on the 1967 Green Line but primarily on
Palestinian land, parents are separated from children, husbands from
wives, farmers from their land, patients from hospitals, workers from
employers, and local Christians from the holy sites. Palestinian
leaders long ago accepted a two-state solution giving Palestine 22
percent of the territory that once comprised Israel, the West Bank,
and the Gaza Strip. Now, the 22 percent has shrunk considerably due
to the so-called “natural growth” of Israeli settlements and a vast
strategic network of roads, highways and tunnels open only to Israeli
settlers, police, and the military. Palestinians, like people
everywhere, must have freedom of movement. Palestinian land is
increasingly being chopped into tiny cantons making the possibility
of a sustainable Palestinian state unachievable.
Israel has established hundreds upon hundreds of checkpoints,
roadblocks, and gates across the Occupied Territories making daily
life and travel extremely difficult for ordinary Palestinians.
Palestinians and Israelis are trapped in a cycle of violence. The
crushing burden of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory
contributes to deep anger and violent resistance, which contributes
to fear throughout Israeli society. Israelis told us of a hardening
of the Israeli soul against Palestinians, and Palestinians told us of
the desperation they feel under Israel’s collective punishment.
Normal life has ceased. At least half of the Palestinian people live
in poverty. We were distressed to learn too many Israelis have little
or no knowledge of the human rights abuses experienced by
Palestinians.
Our delegation witnessed several of the many instances of harassment
and humiliation visited daily upon Palestinian people. Stereotypes of
all Palestinians as terrorists must be broken, and Palestinians must
understand that many Israelis also want a just peace. Presently, a
“lethal dialogue” is underway between extremists on all sides. This
must be transformed into a peaceful dialogue. While every leader we
met – Christian, Jewish, Muslim – condemned violence, it is clear the
overriding problem is Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian
territory.
We are authentic friends of Israel and we have a vision of peace and
security. We are not blind in our support and reserve the right to
question the actions even of our friends. We believe genuine
negotiations and not unilateral action can avoid unimaginable
violence in the future.
We urge President Bush to send a credible special envoy to assist in
negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Strong, genuinely
constructive US action can hasten peace. We ask Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice upon her visit to Israel this weekend to touch the
wall and feel the pain it causes.
We ask the international community to invest in Palestinian projects
and businesses. We learned of the pressing need for aid to flow to
Palestinian communities in East Jerusalem, in addition to other
occupied territories.
We will invite Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas, at the time
of their next visits to the United States, to meet with ecumenical
leaders as partners in peacemaking.
We call on American Christians to contact the President of the United
States and their Members of Congress to insist U.S. policy be
balanced toward both Israel and Palestine.
Middle East churches have a vital role to play as bridge builders and
peacemakers. We pledge our solidarity with them as part of the One
Body of Christ and we will look for ways to lift up their presence
and needs within our churches.
We affirm and endorse the World Council of Churches’ Ecumenical
Accompaniment Program which assists Palestinians and Israelis in
their everyday lives and urge our member communions to support and
participate in this program. We urge people of faith and others in
the U.S. and from around the world to visit the Middle East and
better understand the situation for themselves.
As people of faith, we affirm life. When ancient olive trees are
uprooted from the soil in which they were planted, when access to
water is denied, when children’s futures are threatened, this does
not lead to life in this world as intended by God. Join us in prayer
for the peace of Jerusalem and in seeking justice for all people of
the Middle East.
The National Council of Churches is composed of 36 member national
denominations, which collectively represent 45 million people in
130,000 congregations. Members of the delegation are:
*Bishop Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., Christian Methodist Episcopal Church,
President of the NCCCUSA;
*Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary of the NCCCUSA;
*Bishop Vicken Aykazian, Armenian Orthodox Church of America,
Secretary of the NCCCUSA;
*Dr. Sylvia Campbell, Alliance of Baptists, NCCCUSA Justice and
Advocacy Commission;
*Rev. Dr. Thelma Chambers-Young, Progressive National Baptist
Convention, Vice-President of the NCCCUSA;
*Rev. SeungKoo Choi, General Secretary, Korean Presbyterian Church in
America;
*Bishop C. Christopher Epting, Episcopal Church;
*Ms. Ann E. Hafften, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America;
*Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, Disciples of Christ, NCCCUSA Justice and
Advocacy Commission Chair;
*Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, Greek Orthodox Church, Associate General
Secretary of the NCCCUSA;
*Mr. Jim Winkler, General Secretary, United Methodist General Board
of Church and Society.
–Boundary_(ID_1IHZbizCdiV4ALCoSfDUXw)–

PanArmenian News Analysis
Feb 9 2005
US ADMINISTRATION INSISTS ON RENDERING DIRECT ASSISTANCE TO
NAGORNO-KARABAKH
White House proposes to render more support to Armenia than to
Azerbaijan next year
US administration has submitted to Congress the bill of external
financial provisions for 2006. Armenian organizations of America are
satisfied with the contents of the document since firstly it supposes
rendering direct assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh and secondly in
contrast to the last year’s bill it provides equal assistance for
military aims. As it is known the White House formerly considered
that official Baku deserved more support from Washington since Baku
was more actively involved in the international anti-terrorist
coalition.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ This time the United States have proposed to
allocate 5 million dollars to Armenia and Azerbaijan for
implementation of the defense program. It should be mentioned that
last year the White House proposed to provide Yerevan with a sum four
times less than the sum planned for Baku. (Armenia – 2 million
dollars, Azerbaijan – 8 million dollars). However due to the efforts
of Armenian lobbyists and their partners in the House of
Representatives and the Senate the sum was equalized. Both parties
received 8 million and 750 thousand dollars. Things were like this
also two years ago when again thanks to the efforts of congressmen
equality was achieved in the capacities of military support provided
to Armenia and Azerbaijan. The fact that the administration has
finally given up the attempts to break the balance in this issue is
the success of Armenian lobbyists.
However it would not be quite correct to impute the achievement only
to American Armenians who actively lobby the interests of Yerevan.
The issue would hardly be settled so easily without the efforts of
Yerevan. It is reasonable to think that this time the parity would
not be achieved if Armenia did not make the decision to send
peace-makers to Iraq. Last year lobbyists managed to win the
sympathies of Congress thanks to the declared readiness of Yerevan to
activate its role in the international anti-terror coalition. Yerevan
kept the promise. However some correspondents hold that the difficult
step made by Armenia was not estimated at its true worth by
Washington. The sum mentioned in the bill was much less than
supposed. At the end of the last year informal sources mentioned much
more impressive figures.
As for the “regular support” the administration intends to assign 55
million dollars. It is worth mentioning that last year the White
House offered 62 million to Yerevan but the Congress kept the
previous sum – 75 million. It is much easier to bring 62 to 75 than
55 to 75. So it is quite possible that this year we shall have to
submit that the regular support provided by the United States will be
less than before. Nevertheless it should be mentioned that the
figures mentioned in the bill are just proposed by the
administration. Practice shows that lawmakers bravely make
corrections in the texts of the documents submitted by the White
House. The same can be said about documents referring to Armenia.
There are no doubts that this year also the partners of Armenian
lobbyists in the Congress will achieve success in increasing the sum
planned for Armenia and it will be much higher than the sum assigned
to Azerbaijan.
Despite the amendment 907 introduced in 1992 that banned government
aid to Azerbaijan this year Baku will however receive aid from
Washington. The temporary suspension of the amendment initiated by
the president allowed Azerbaijan to receive altogether 90 million
dollars. The US ambassador in Azerbaijan Rino Harnish announced on
Monday that he “dreams of the day when the amendment is fully
canceled”. He assured that both the administration and the Congress
strive for the cancellation of the amendment. It is of course an
exaggeration. The Congress is not going to yield to the
administration in that issue and besides, the existence of the
amendment is quite advantageous for the president himself since it
creates additional mechanisms of impact on Azerbaijan. So there are
no serious grounds to talk about the possibility of ceasing the
sanctions applied against Azerbaijan punished by the United States
for blockading Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Artem Erkanyan
–Boundary_(ID_0gTn8OmI0cN+DnQE1OtXEQ)–