Iodine Deficiency Disorders Plague Europe, Central Asia, says UNICEF
By Lisa Schlein

VOA News
Sep 28, 2004

Anatoly Karpov(UNICEF)

GENEVA – The UN Children’s Fund, UNICEF, says Iodine Deficiency
Disorders, which cause mental retardation, are a huge problem in
Europe and Central Asia. UNICEF says this disorder can be solved for
as little as five cents per person per year by iodizing salt.

In this video clip, UNICEF’s regional ambassador and 16-time world
chess champion, Anatoly Karpov, tells children they must have iodine
in their diet, if they want to be smart. He repeats this message in
a joking manner to a group of journalists.

“I can answer you like a joke that I believe that, when we solve
the problem, every child will play chess,” said Anatoly Karpov. “I
believe that this is extremely important, and this is a problem we
know how to solve. One of the few problems we know how to solve.”

Mr. Karpov comes from Russia, located in one of the regions of the
world most seriously affected by iodine deficiency. UNICEF statistics
show that more than half of the people in Western and Central Europe
live in iodine-deficient countries. Surprisingly, some of the most
developed countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, France and Germany
suffer from a lack of iodine. However, the problem is most severe in
countries such as Russia and the Ukraine.

UNICEF says these two countries account for 1.3 million newborn babies
a year, who are not protected from iodine deficiency. This out of
five million iodine deficient babies born in all of the region’s 22
countries. Mr. Karpov says the babies suffer because their mothers
did not include iodine in their diets when they were pregnant. He
says, unfortunately, the mental retardation that results from iodine
deficiency in the womb is not reversible in later life.

“We believe that the cheapest, simplest and general message, to
avoid iodine deficiency, is to have general iodization of salt,” he
said. “And, it does not cost too much. It is about five cents per
year, per person-very cheap.” Mr. Karpov says governments should
pass legislation to make iodized salt mandatory. He says, in countries
with such laws, iodine deficiency disorders have decreased. He notes
this can be seen even in poor countries, such as Serbia-Montenegro,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Armenia and Georgia.

UNICEF says governments often do not promote iodine in food out of
ignorance or widely-held misconceptions. For example, it says India
rescinded legislation on iodized salt under pressure from consumer
groups. It says these groups claimed that iodine in salt causes
a variety of health problems. Tragically, it says, by eliminating
iodine from the diet, mental retardation among children in India,
once again, is on the rise.

Accident prevention exercises held at nuclear power plant
By Gherman Solomatin

ITAR-TASS News Agency
September 28, 2004 Tuesday 5:25 AM Eastern Time

MOSCOW, September 28 — More than 1,000 specialists participate in
accident prevention exercises at the Beloyarskaya nuclear power plant
in the Sverdlovsk Region.

More than 50 units of special equipment are used in the training,
exercises head Nikolai Sorokin told Itar-Tass on Tuesday. He was at
the emergencies centre of the Rosenergoatom concern.

The plant personnel began the exercises on Tuesday morning to deal
with a severe accident at the fast-neutron reactor.

According to the scenario, a pipeline with sodium was unsealed,
and it could cause fire of inflammable substances. The radiation
situation worsened at the third reactor.

Such exercises are held regularly every year, and a situation not
foreseen in instructions is invented every time to deal with possible
accidents.

The plant personnel is trained in the current exercises to deal with
an accident by own forces, to cooperate with mass media and evacuate
people from adjoining areas, Sorokin said.

Eighteen experts from France, the United States, China, Ukraine and
Armenia watch the training.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is reported about the exercises.

US TO PROVIDE ABOUT $84 MILLION TO ARMENIA IN 2005

PanArmenian News
Sept 28 2004

28.09.2004 13:15

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Last weekend the US Senate approved $75 million
in assistance to Armenia in FY 2005, which represents a$10 million
increase from the aid approved by the House. The amount of the same
assistance to Azerbaijan will make $38 million. The Senate also agreed
on parity in military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan amounting in $8.75
million for each country. Besides, Nagorno Karabakh will receive $2.5
million assistance.

Baku to welcome any efforts in Azerbaijani-Armenian settlement
By Tengiz Pachkoria

ITAR-TASS News Agency
September 28, 2004 Tuesday

TBILISI, September 28 — Baku will welcome efforts of any countries,
including Georgia, in the Azerbaijani-Armenian settlement, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov said at a Tuesday briefing in
Tbilisi in answer to the question if Tbilisi had offered mediation
in the Azerbaijani-Armenian settlement.

“The OSCE Minsk Group is the main body in the Karabakh settlement
negotiations. But we will welcome efforts of any countries, including
Georgia, to speed up the Karabakh settlement process,” he said.

Georgian Foreign Minister Salome Zurabishvili said at the briefing
that Tbilisi “is interested in progress at the Karabakh settlement
negotiations.” “Settlement of that conflict, the same as settlement
of conflicts on the Georgian territory, will contribute to the general
stabilization in the Caucasus,” she said.

Armenian National Committee of America
888 17th St., NW, Suite 904
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 28, 2004
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

REP. PALLONE SPEAKS OUT ON AZERBAIJANI WAR RHETORIC AGAINST ARMENIA

— Calls on Administration to Condemn Azerbaijani Actions; Cites
Importance of Military Aid Parity Between Armenia and Azerbaijan

WASHINGTON, DC – In a powerful statement on the House floor this
evening, Congressional Armenian Caucus Chairman Frank Pallone (D-
NJ) spoke about the dangers posed by increasingly inflammatory
Azerbaijani statements by President Ilham Aliyev and his Cabinet
Members, calling for a military takeover of neighboring Armenia and
the decimation of its population in the coming decades, reported
the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

In his remarks, Rep. Pallone cited statements “made by officials in
the government of President Aliyev calling into question the very
existence of Armenia. For example, as reported by Radio Free
Europe, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry spokesman called for
Azerbaijan’s takeover of the entire territory of Armenia and
removal of the entire Armenian population from the Caucasus. He
went so far as to say, and I quote, ‘Within the next 25 years there
will exist no state of Armenia in the South Caucasus.’ Given
Azerbaijan’s history of aggression against Armenians, these remarks
can’t be dismissed as mere rhetoric.”

Rep. Pallone continued to highlight Azerbaijan’s refusal to allow
Armenian troops to participate in NATO exercises in Azerbaijan,
despite Armenia’s willingness to allow similar participation by
Azerbaijan in exercises last year.

Noting Armenia’s ongoing commitment to the “peace process and the
terms agreed to in the Key West summit,” and “the crucial role that
the United States plays in the negotiations over Nagorno-
Karabakh,” Rep. Pallone called on the Administration to take
action. “A failure on our part to forcefully and publicly confront
the Azerbaijani government over these destabilizing threats would,
in our view, send extremely dangerous signals to Azerbaijan,”
explained the Congressman.

Last week, Rep. Pallone joined his Congressional Armenian Caucus
Co-Chair Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) in urging their House Colleagues to
ask President Bush to publicly condemn Azerbaijan’s war rhetoric
and other increasingly bellicose remarks against the Republic of
Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to
the 141 Armenian Caucus members, Reps. Pallone and Knollenberg
cited the dangers of Azerbaijan’s ongoing war statements. The
letter to President Bush, which currently has 35 cosigners,
states:

“Efforts to reinforce stability and reduce the risk of conflict are
in the best interests of the United States and the region. The
Nagorno Karabakh peace process will achieve nothing if Azerbaijan
is allowed to risk war and predict ethnic cleansing with impunity.
To this end, we urge that you condemn these remarks and call upon
the government of Azerbaijan to desist in making any further
threats against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh.”

#####

CONGRESSMAN FRANK PALLONE, JR.
FLOOR STATEMENT
URGING U.S. TO CONDEMN RECENT
THREATS MADE BY AZERBAIJAN AGAINST ARMENIA

September 28, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring your attention to recent
statements made by high-ranking government officials in Azerbaijan
that directly and significantly threaten the security of Armenia,
as well as efforts towards a peaceful settlement over the Nagorno-
Karabagh conflict.

This issue, if not compellingly addressed by the
Administration, has the potential to undermine U.S. interests and
American values in the strategically important Caucasus region.

I refer to the recent remarks made by officials in the
government of President Aliyev calling into question the very
existence of Armenia. For example, as reported by Radio Free
Europe, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry spokesman called for
Azerbaijan’s takeover of the entire territory of Armenia and
removal of the entire Armenian population from the Caucasus. He
went so far as to say, and I quote, “Within the next 25 years there
will exist no state of Armenia in the South Caucasus.” Given
Azerbaijan’s history of aggression against Armenians, these remarks
can’t be dismissed as mere rhetoric.

Furthermore, Azerbaijan recently blocked key NATO exercises
in the country, due to their opposition towards having Armenian
officers taking part in the exercises. In fact, in June of 2003,
Armenia served as the host country for similar exercises, to which
Azerbaijani military forces were invited, yet refused to
participate. This year, Armenia was one of several dozen countries
due to participate, yet the initiative was blocked by Azerbaijan,
who is continuing its efforts to undermine the prospects for peace
in the Caucasus region.

Azerbaijan’s threats against Armenia’s survival reinforce
our commitment to maintaining parity in U.S. military aid to
Armenia and Azerbaijan. This arrangement means even more today
than when it was first put in place, particularly in light of
Baku’s increasingly aggressive posture towards Armenia. Any tilt
in military spending toward Azerbaijan could, in our view,
destabilize the region by emboldening the new Azerbaijani
leadership to continue their threats to impose a military solution
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Just last week, the Republic of Armenia celebrated its 2nd
Independence, marking 13 years of freedom from Soviet rule. We
have seen considerable economic growth in the country. Despite the
continued illegal blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan, a recent Wall
Street Journal study found that Armenia remains the most
economically free nation in the region. Today, Armenia is
steadfast in its support of the U.S, as exhibited by their recent
announcement of plans to send a unit of deminers, doctors and 50
trucks, including staff and drivers, to assist the coalition forces
in Iraq.

It is critical to note that Armenia is today, as it has
always been, committed to the peace process and the terms agreed to
in the Key West summit. Since the beginning of the Nagorno-
Karabagh and Azerbaijan conflict, Armenia has been committed to
finding a peaceful resolution. Moreover, I can’t stress enough,
Mr. Speaker, the crucial role that the United States plays in the
negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh, to help the people of this
region find a lasting and equitable peace. So, these threats by
Azerbaijan undermine these efforts and seriously complicate our
diplomacy in the region. A failure on our part to forcefully and
publicly confront the Azerbaijani government over these
destabilizing threats would, in our view, send extremely dangerous
signals to Azerbaijan.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the United States takes action
to condemn these remarks, and we here, in this Chamber, do
everything that we can to ensure that all parties involved in this
conflict make a genuine commitment towards peace and stability in
the region.

#####

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
09/28/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://

1) The New Turkish Penal Code to Criminalize Recognition of Armenian Genocide
2) Armenian Caucus Puts Spot Light on Azeri Rhetoric
3) French Foreign Minister Adds Weight to Turkey Referendum Recall
4) No Deals Announced after Fresh Turkish-Armenian Talks
5) Novelist Paulo Coelho to Visit Armenia

1) The New Turkish Penal Code to Criminalize Recognition of Armenian Genocide

European Armenian Federation calls on European Commission to end silence

BRUSSELS–Following recent attempts to criminalize adultery in the country,
the Turkish government bowed to European Union demands last Sunday and passed
the country’s penal code, without the law on adultery; it did, however, manage
to place several articles in its provisional penal code that threaten freedom
of speech. For example, Article 306 of the new Code would punish up to 15
years
individual Turkish citizens or groups “Acting against the fundamental national
interests for directly or indirectly receiving benefits from foreign
persons or
institutions.” According to the Explanatory Note of this article, written by
the Parliamentary Committee of Justice, a citizen who demands the
withdrawal of
Turkish soldiers from Cyprus or declares that the Armenian genocide actually
took place during the First World War, can be pursued by virtue of this
article.
In its condemnation of the article, the European Armenian Federation writes,
“This provision threatens authors with jail sentences over statements that are
construed by government officials to undermine Turkish “national interests.”
Examples of so-called offensive statements listed in the provisional law
include, “The Turkish Army must withdraw from Cyprus,” and “Armenians
endured a
genocide during the Ottoman era.” Some parliamentarians introduced an
amendment, which would mandate sanctions against authors and individuals, if
determined that their statements are motivated by “material interests.”
The provision gives no legal justification for the law, the Federation
explained, which remains fundamentally incompatible with the European
values of
free expression.
The European Commission scarcely reacted when the Turkish Ministry of
Education brought genocide denial into the classroom, by institutionalizing it
in the curriculum. A coalition of European NGOs expressed its concern about
the
denialist curriculum and called for the suspension of EC grants to the Turkish
educational system. The European Parliament also expressed its concern in the
Oostlander report on the Turkish application for EU membership.
“Today, far from repenting for the Genocide, Turkey now wants to include
denial of this crime in its penal code. Clearly, the indifference of the
European Commission is partially responsible for the hardening of the Turkish
position on this issue,” said the Chairperson of the European Armenian
Federation Hilda Tchoboian. “Prime Minister Erdogan’s about-face on the
adultery issue will simply be a media ploy if Europe does not demand that
Ankara grant full freedom of speech to its citizens. We call on political
parties, governments, and human rights organizations to urge the European
Commission to call for justice for the Armenian Genocide. It is unthinkable
that the Commission would not consider Turkey’s denialist position a key
obstacle to the initiation of preliminary talks,” added Tchoboian.
“Whether they are in favor of a European Turkey, or whether they are against
its accession, the Union’s democrats cannot tolerate these attacks on the
freedom of press and thought that have free reign in Turkey. It is time for
the
European Union to call on Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide,”
concluded
Federation’s chairperson.

2) Armenian Caucus Puts Spot Light on Azeri Rhetoric

— Co-Chairmen Urge 141 Members of Caucus to Voice their Concerns in a letter
to President Bush

WASHINGTON, DC (ANCA)–Congressmen Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) and Frank Pallone
(D-NJ) this week called on their colleagues in the Armenian Caucus to ask
President Bush to publicly condemn Azerbaijan’s war rhetoric and other
increasingly bellicose remarks against the Republic of Armenia and Mountainous
Karabagh.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter circulated this week, the Caucus Co-chairs
documented a series of violent threats on the part of senior Azerbaijan
leaders. Citing the dangers of remaining silent in the face of such angry
rhetoric, they urged their House colleagues to “join us in signing the
attached
letter to the President urging him and the Administration to condemn these
remarks and call upon the government of Azerbaijan to desist in making any
further threats against Armenia and Karabagh.” The letter to President Bush
stresses that, “efforts to reinforce stability and reduce the risk of conflict
are in the best interests of the United States and the region.”

3) French Foreign Minister Adds Weight to Turkey Referendum Recall

PARIS (EUobserver.com)–French foreign minister Michel Barnier has added his
weight to calls for a referendum on Turkey’s entry into the EU.
Speaking on September 27, Barnier said, “When it comes to such an important
decision, in my personal opinion, it should be put… to a referendum when the
time comes.”
This follows similar calls from French finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy–seen
as a challenger to Jacques Chirac for the presidency–who told LCI television
on Sunday that Turkey will not join the European Union for at least 15 years
and could only do so once France had held a referendum on the issue.
Barnier recalled a precedent, saying, “we did it for the UK,” regarding a
referendum on the entry of the UK, Ireland, and Denmark in 1972, where France
voted to allow these three countries to join the bloc by a two-thirds
majority.
But polls show that similar support is not forthcoming for Turkey’s
admission.
A survey in Le Figaro showed that just over 36% French people are in favor of
Turkey joining the EU but over 56% are against.
Despite this, 63% say they would be prepared to accept Turkey as a member if
it makes the necessary efforts.

UP TO YOU

The Commission has declared that the organization of a referendum on Ankara’s
EU membership is a matter for member states.
Commission spokesman Reijo Kemppinen said, “If a member state wants to
organize a referendum, on whatever subject, this is up to its own discretion.
We have no comment on it.”
The Brussels executive will release its report–widely expected to be
positive–on October 6. Member States will then decide definitively in
December
whether to open negotiations.

4) No Deals Announced after Fresh Turkish-Armenian Talks

YEREVAN (RFE-RL)–The foreign ministers of Armenia and Turkey announced no
further progress towards the normalization of relations between the two
neighboring states following fresh talks in New York late on Monday.
A brief statement by the Armenian Foreign Ministry said Vartan Oskanian and
his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul, “explored bilateral issues as well as
regional concerns” during the meeting held on the sidelines of the ongoing
session of the UN General Assembly. There was no word on whether any
agreements
were reached by them.
Oskanian’s spokesman, Hamlet Gasparian, said that the two men again discussed
a possible reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border which Ankara has kept
closed since 1993 out of solidarity with Azerbaijan. “The issue of opening
borders is always discussed at meetings with Gul,” he said.
Gasparian did not give any details of that discussion, referring all
inquiries
to Oskanian. He also confirmed that the unresolved Mountainous Karabagh
conflict was on the agenda of the talks.
It was the fourth meeting between the two foreign ministers since June 2003.
Oskanian declared after the previous talks held in Istanbul in June that
Turkey
is “sincere” in its desire to normalize ties with Armenia.
The Karabagh conflict has until now been the key obstacle to improved
Turkish-Armenian relations, with successive Turkish governments refusing to
reopen the border before its resolution. One of Oskanian’s deputies, Ruben
Shugarian, said earlier this month that Karabagh is no longer the main Turkish
precondition for the lifting of Armenia’s blockade.
While in New York, Oskanian also met with US Undersecretary of State Mark
Grossman and Steven Mann, Washington’s top Karabagh negotiator. The meetings
followed the launch of what appears to be a new Karabagh peace initiative by
the US, Russian, and French mediators.

5) Novelist Paulo Coelho to Visit Armenia

YEREVAN–At the invitation of the Hamazkayin cultural organization,
influential
novelist Paulo Coelho will visit Armenia on October 4. Coelho will be
accompanied by Brazilian journalist Ruth De Aquino and Aztag Daily Newspaper
editor Khatchig Mouradian.
During his visit, the world-renowned novelist will lecture at the Yerevan
State University, meet with Armenian writers and artists, and participate in
the October 6 Hamazkayin-organized ceremony, which will mark the
publication of
the first Armenian-language translation of “The Alchemist.”
In an October 2003 interview with Coelho, Aztag’s Mouradian asked the author
if he loses “faith in mankind when you come face to face with the facts of
such
atrocities [as the Jewish Holocaust and Armenian genocide]?” to which he
responded: “Three days before receiving this interview, I was talking to my
driver in Paris, who happens to be Armenian, that I wish to go and visit his
country. I am fully aware of the genocide, of the Armenian diaspora, and I
want
to know–and to share–the situation of Armenia now. He is sending me what he
considers to be the best books on Armenia, and as soon as I finish, I will
probably go with him to his town. As for the faith on humankind, I am part of
it, and if I lose faith in myself, I am not worth living. Therefore,
instead of
blaming an abstraction, I should accept my responsibility, and fight to change
what can be changed.”

All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2004 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.

ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.

The Middle East and the beginning of conflict

Pravda
09/28/2004

All countries fight amongst themselves – that is man’s nature.  Left
to their own devices, man and the disagreement will be settled. 
That is IF they are left to their own devices.

The Middle East situation is not the result of one thing, it is the
result of many things, many governments outside of the Middle East,
the US and Russian cold war, and the US trying to leverage itself as
the strong arm in the Middle East.

I cannot write the entire history of the Middle East, but I can
provide the reader with a sufficient background that will encourage
the reader to learn more.  

To Rashid, who asked me to write about the causes and aggravations
of the Middle Eastern issues – I have kept my promise to you.  There
are more issues you want me to address and I will do that.

The beginnings:

The end of World War One saw the Middle East carved up like a Sunday
afternoon apple pie. 

In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire called for a jihad against France,
Russia and Great Britain, as the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany
in World War One. 

The Arab leaders Arabs led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca, agree to side
with the Allies (Britain, France, and Russia).  The Hussein-McMahon
Correspondence, authored by the British, promised independence to
what is now Syria, Palestine (Israel), Jordan, Iraq, and the Arabian
Peninsula should the Allies win the war. 

Britain, however had also signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement with
France which directly contradicts the Hussein-McMahon agreement. 
The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a plan to dissect the middle east into
fiefdoms controlled by either Britain or France.  Then, one more
agreement was made and the Balfour Declaration provides for removing
the Ottomans from both Jerusalem and Baghdad, and the establishment
of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The League of Nations awards Syria and Lebanon to France and for
Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq to Britain. 

All of this is being done without any pre-knowledge by the Arab states,
and now they have new masters: Great Britain and France.  The end
result was rioting in Iraq, and Britain tightens its grip on Iraq
through more military intervention.

1920 was a bad year for the Middle East – Britain and France develop
an iron grip on the area, and America hears the word: OIL. 

>>From the Cato Institute, I quote: “Standard Oil of California
and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi
Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after
Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf
Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in
Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary
object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized
that the Middle East was “a stupendous source of strategic power, and
one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”(4) Subsequently,
as a result of cooperation between the U.S. government and several
American oil companies, the United States replaced Great Britain as
the chief Western power in the region.(5) In Iran and Saudi Arabia,
American gains were British (and French) losses.(6) Originally,
the dominant American oil interests had had limited access to Iraqi
oil only (through the Iraq Petroleum Company, under the 1928 Red Line
Agreement). In 1946, however, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil Oil
Corp., seeing the irresistible opportunities in Saudi Arabia, had the
agreement voided.(7) When the awakening countries of the Middle East
asserted control over their oil resources, the United States found
ways to protect its access to the oil. Nearly everything the United
States has done in the Middle East can be understood as contributing
to the protection of its long-term access to Middle Eastern oil and,
through that control, Washington’s claim to world leadership.  The
U.S. build-up of Israel and Iran as powerful gendarmeries beholden
to the United States, and U.S. aid given to “moderate,” pro-Western
Arab regimes, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan,
were intended to keep the region in friendly hands. That was always
the meaning of the term “regional stability.”

Robert W. Tucker, a foreign policy analyst advocated in the 1970s that
the United States take over the Middle Eastern oil fields militarily,
predicted that the “more likely” threat to U.S. access to the oil would
“arise primarily from developments indigenous to the Gulf.”(10)   The
1970″s saw the rise of Arab nationalism, or Muslim fundamentalism,
that was seen as a threat to the American economic and the US”s
worldwide political leadership.

“John Foster Dulles said privately during the Lebanese crisis in 1958,
the United States “must regard Arab nationalism as a flood which is
running strongly. We cannot successfully oppose it, but we could
put sand bags around positions we must protect–the first group being
Israel and Lebanon and the second being the oil positions around the
Persian Gulf.”( John Foster Dulles said privately during the Lebanese
crisis in 1958, the United States “must regard Arab nationalism as a
flood which is running strongly. We cannot successfully oppose it,
but we could put sand bags around positions we must protect–the
first group being Israel and Lebanon and the second being the oil
positions around the Persian Gulf.” Provided by the Cato Institute.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union declared that Iran was vital
to the protection of the USSR, but America wanted Iran”s oil. There
is a tug of war between the USSR and the US, each offering sweeter
and sweeter deals to the Arab nations just for signing up.

Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was favored by the US, and the US encouraged
the Shah to bring the forces to bear and start neutralizing the
splitter groups and countries into US line. It was no secret that
the US wanted to bring the US influence over the Middle East as its
predecessor, Britain, had during the helicon of British rule.

The creation of the state of Israel also caused conflict in the
Middle East and in the UN.  The Arab countries had suggested the
Jewish survivors be given citizenship in other countries.  The UN had
developed the partition plan and that was not widely accepted. The US
was big on rhetoric about self-determination, but the Arab countries
saw the US as another obstacle to autonomy.

Evan M. Wilson, then ssistant chief of the State Department’s
Division of Near Eastern Affairs, later summarized matters best
when he said that the US solved one refugee problem by creating
another.  The present day Palestinian issues are a result of US
policies overseas.   The UN partition plan had been approved by
an overwhelming majority, but the Arab nations were left out in
the cold. 

Nasser of Egypt was a political leader who tried to remain neutral in
the US/Russian cold war.  The US found this to be wholly unacceptable
as Washington demanded absolute loyalty and subservience. Both
Britain and the US then sought to discredit Nasser by the signing of
the Baghdad Pact – hoping that outer tier Middle East countries would
pressure Nasser to fall in to line.   To the dismay of both Britain
and the US, the Baghdad Pact actually bolstered Nasser and brought
the USSR and the Arab states closer together – the plan back fired.

Israel too became its own worst enemy, and I quote from the Cato
Institute: “Israel was not able to use the canal, but the Jewish
state’s aims regarding Egypt went beyond that grievance. Since the
1948 Arab-Israeli war, Palestinian refugees had often crossed into
Israel seeking to regain property and possessions expropriated by
the government and to reach relatives. Some engaged in violence.

Israel began responding with massive reprisal raids against entire
villages in the Arab countries. Most significant was the attack on
the town of Gaza in February 1955, when children as well as men were
killed. That attack prompted Egypt to end direct peace talks with
Israel and to turn to the Soviet Union for arms.

It was only at that point that Egypt sponsored an anti-Israeli
guerrilla organization whose members were known as the Fedayeen. In
August Israel attacked the Gaza Strip village of Khan Yunis, killing
39 Egyptians. The attacks in the Gaza Strip, masterminded by officials
loyal to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, subverted Nasser’s efforts
to make peace with Israel. Ben-Gurion’s successor, Moshe Sharett,
responded positively to Nasser’s overtures, but Gen. Moshe Dayan and
others undermined Sharett.(72) During the winter of 1955, for example,
Israeli warplanes flew over Cairo repeatedly to demonstrate Egyptian
military impotence.

The Israeli government had earlier tried to prevent a warming of
U.S.-Egyptian relations by having saboteurs bomb American offices in
Cairo in 1954, an episode that became known as the Lavon Affair.(73)
When Egypt uncovered the operation, Israel accused Nasser of
fabricating the plot. Two of the 13 men arrested were hanged, and
their hangings were used as a pretext for Israel’s February 1955
attack on Gaza. Six years later, the Israeli government’s complicity
was confirmed.”

The hatred for the US is probably well earned because of the US”s
determined lebensraum expansionism.  However, we cannot overlook
British and French involvement that contributed to the escalations of
tensions and hostilities so present now.   Nor can, or should we,
forget Turkish actions in Armenia.  Each and all have contributed
directly, or indirectly, to the current state of affairs in the
Middle East.

If peace is going to prevail several things must happened.  Israel
pulls back to the pre-1967 borders and assists the Palestinians in
building their own country.  The US has to vacate and commit the
using the UN as the vessel to settling disputes. Arafat needs to
stand down.  Sharon needs to stand down.

Michael Berglin

Russia electricity holding could enter Afghanistan – Chubais

28.09.2004

MOSCOW, September 28 (Itar-Tass) – The Unified Energy Systems of
Russian (EES Rossii) could enter Afghanistan’s energy system via
Tajikistan, the chief of the national electricity utility, Anatoly
Chubais , said.

He told a news conference on Tuesday that “this will be possible in
case of the implementation of our projects in Tajikistan, to which
three to ten years are given.”

Chubais stressed that “Afghanistan is even now receiving electric
energy from Tajikistan that is in turn connected to Russia”.

“We are seriously analysing grid projects for Afghanistan,” he said.

Chubais did not rule out that the EES Rossii could join China’s energy
system in prospect.

“At present this topic sounds hypothetically, but it could become a
reason for serious talks in a year,” Chubais said at the conference
Russia: Investment in the Economy of Growth.

“China is now present in discussions of our plans, even though Iran
sounds in them far more often, which, one the one and, works in a
synchronous regime with Azerbaijan and, on the other, with Armenia,”
Chubais said.

He added that he could probably hold talks in Iran soon.

As for other operations of EES Rossii abroad, Chubais said “large-
scale projects could appear in the nearest time in Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan”.

He admitted that talks on the Russian company’s buying a 50 percent
stake in Kazakhstan’s Ekibastuz hydroelectric station were difficult,
but were nearing completion.

Besides, “we have got positive results in Georgia”.

“Despite the most acute political events, our business in this country
is developing positively, and the Georgian leadership on the whole
has been able to find a sound approach to solving this issues,”
Chubais said.

He expressed hope that the coming winter in Georgia, whose energy
system EES Rossii owns, would go without failures of the energy and
heat supply.

Brothers Restore the Bridges of a Glorious Past

zamanonline
28 Sept 2004

Cetin and Tunc are masons from Tatvan, a small county southwest of
Van Lake in the Eastern Anatolian region. The two brothers and their
small company are restoring Turkey’s glorious past in the Balkans.

The brothers repaired the Mostar Bridge after it was destroyed by
Croatian weapons and it became a symbol of the war in Bosnia. Their
latest ambition is to repair the Drina Bridge, a bridge that has been
an inspiration to many poets.

The Drina Bridge, on the Drina River, is one of many Ottoman structures
located in the Balkans. Its history has had a remarkable impact on
Cetin and Tunc who are trying to ensure that the marks left by the
Ottomans in the region are permanent. The brothers want to repair
this work of art and protect the Turkish presence in the Balkans.

Er-Bu Construction was established by the two brothers to restore
and repair historic works of art.

Cetin and Tunc restored the historic Mostar Bridge, a masterpiece
by Hayrettin, a student of the Ottoman Empire’s greatest architect,
The Architect Sinan. The small company beat out large companies from
all over the world in an international bid to restore the bridge.

Er-Bu Construction received 100 points in the bid from 15 countries
and was placed on the United Nations’ Children’s Education and Science
Organization (UNESCO) Honor List.

09.27.2004
Ahmet Dinc
Ankara

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

International Conference will consider foreign policies and conflicts in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TO BRING TOGETHER SOUTH CAUCASUS DIPLOMATS AND SCHOLARS

University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
Armenian Studies Program
1080 S. University, Suite 4640
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106
Tel: (734) 764-0350
Fax: (734) 764-8523
Contact: Sara Sarkisian
Email: [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

During four days in October the Ann Arbor campus of the University of
Michigan will become the gathering point for diplomats and scholars who,
for the past 15 years, have been involved in the shaping or study of the
foreign policies and conflict resolution processes of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia.

The international conference, titled “Armenia/the South Caucasus and
Foreign Policy Challenges,” is being organized by the Armenian Studies
Program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and will be held at
the main campus of the University on October 21-24, 2004. The conference
is co-sponsored by the International Institute, the Center for Middle
Eastern and North African Studies, the Center for Russian and East
European Studies, The Department of History, the Near Eastern Studies
Department and the Political Science Department.

This unique gathering will bring together some thirty-five scholars,
past and present diplomats, and conflict negotiators from over ten
countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Russia, Iran,
the European Union, Canada, and the US to discuss the challenges faced
by these republics in developing policies in a fast changing world, the
path traveled in resolving outstanding conflicts, with special emphasis
on the Nagorno Karabakh problem.

The goals of the conference are (1) to acquaint the University and
larger community in the country with the specific issues and challenges
that relate to a part of the world that has acquired increased
significance in the last decade; (2) to place in historical and
international perspectives the path traveled by Armenia and the South
Caucasus since the break up of the USSR; (3) to reflect on the
perceptions and policies adopted in the 1990s by the South Caucasus
republics, their neighbors, and international actors; (4) to assist the
academic and policy making communities–in the region and in the
international community– in redefining and refining their approaches to
the region; and, (5) possibly develop ideas and approaches that might
enhance conflict resolution, regional cooperation, and long term
integration of the region in the international community to the benefit
the peoples of the region.

“This conference will provide a rare opportunity for interaction between
scholars and diplomats who have been involved in the study of the region
or in negotiations to end conflicts in the South Caucasus, specially the
problem of Nagorno Karabakh,” stated Prof. Gerard Libaridian (Department
of History), the organizer of the conference.

The South Caucasus region has acquired increased strategic significance
since the collapse of the USSR. It has as immediate neighbors Russia,
Turkey and Iran, each with its own interests and concerns; the US has
projected its own strategic view on the region; while Europe considers
it part of its extended neighborhood. Caspian Sea hydrocarbon resources
and their export routes have added another dimension to regional
politics, complicating further the challenges faced by the three
republics in balancing the sometimes conflicting interests of bigger
neighbors and the West.

“While it may be possible to argue that the Cold War ended with the
disintegration of the Soviet Union,” explained Libaridian; “the Caucasus
is one region where a mini-Cold War has survived. Events in the region
highlight the character and impact of changes in the international order
while the conflicts there constitute and challenge to the world
community and the current understanding of the nation-state concept. The
South Caucasus has the potential of turning into a model for
international cooperation and integration of interests or turning into
the next hot spot of generalized conflict and confrontation.”

Professor Kevork Bardakjian, Director of the Armenian Studies Program at
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, considers the conference another
milestone in the development of Armenian Studies at the University.
“Armenia and Armenians have been an integral part of many ‘worlds,’
often at the critical junctures of cultural, strategic and political
meeting points,” stated Prof. Bardakjian. “We consider this conference
an example of the expansion of our vision of and perspective on Armenian
Studies. The support of the University and its specialized institutes,
centers and departments is testimony to the shared understanding of
Armenian Studies as an integral part of the social sciences and
humanities,” he added.

The conference will be open to the general public. All sessions will
provide ample opportunity for the attending public to participate in the
question and answer and discussion segments. Information on the
conference is available on the website of the University of Michigan
Armenian Studies Program, Inquiries can be
made by writing to Sara Sarkisian <mailto:[email protected]>
([email protected]). All sessions will take place at the Alumni Center,
main campus.
The preliminary program of the conference is presented below.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

“ARMENIA/THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AND FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES”

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR/OCTOBER 21-24, 2004

PRELIMINARY PROGRAM
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21
Day One
5:00 – 5:30 PM
OPENING

1. Prof. Gerard Libaridian

Department of History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Opening Remarks

2. Prof. Mark Tessler

Vice-Provost for International Affairs; Director of the
International Institute; Political Science Department,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Introduction to the Conference

5:30 PM – 7:00 PM

PANEL I EVOLVING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

How have the collapse of the USSR and events of worldwide significance
since affected our understanding of international relations and
relations between states? What has been the impact of these changes
on the way states like those in the South Caucasus integrate in the
world community? How have perceptions of the South Caucasus changed
considering developments in the Near East?

1. Dr. Vitaly Naumkin

Director, International Center for Strategic and Political
Studies, Russia

2. Prof. Hadi Semati

International Relations Department, Tehran University
Currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Washington, DC

3. Prof. Michael Kennedy

Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22
Day Two
08:30 – 10:30 AM
PANEL II
ARMENIAN FOREIGN POLICY IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Can one speak of recurring foreign policy problems that have
characterized Armenian history ? Are there patterns in the way
Armenians have perceived, developed and practiced foreign policy during
the past two centuries? In what way are these questions relevant to
post-Soviet Armenia? What role has the Diaspora played in the making
of Armenian foreign policy?

1. Dr. Ashot Sargsyan

Senior Researcher in History, Matenadaran; Senior Archivist,
President Ter-Petrossian Archives, Armenia

2. Prof. Kevork Bardakjian

Near Eastern Studies Department, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor

3. Prof. Ronald Suny

Department of History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

4. Dr. Razmik Panossian

Director, Policy and Programs, Rights and Democracy,
Montreal

10:30 – 11:00 AM Coffee break
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM
PANEL III
THE WORLD AS SEEN BY THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

How do Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia perceive their region in
relation each other, to their neighbors, and to the larger community
of states? What do they see as their main challenges in their foreign
policy agenda?

1. Ambassador Araz Azimov

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Azerbaijan

2. Ambassador Nika Tabatadze

First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Georgia

3. Ambassador Rouben Shugarian

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Armenia

2:00 – 3:30 PM
PANEL IV
THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AS SEEN BY THE REGIONAL POWERS

What are the policies of the three major powers neighboring the South
Caucasus–Russia, Turkey and Iran–toward the South Caucasus? What
is the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of these
three states and how does it affect their relations with other states?

1. Prof. Hossein Seifzadeh

International Relations Department, Tehran University

2. Prof. Ahmet Han

International Relations Department, Bilgi University,
Istanbul

3. Dr. Evgueny Kozhokin

Director, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Moscow

4:00 – 5:30 PM
PANEL V
THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AS SEEN BY THE WEST

What are the policies of Europe and the US toward the South Caucasus?
What is the role of the region in the overall foreign policies of
the West and how does it affect their relations with other states?

1. Dr. Svante Cornell

Uppsala University, Sweden, and SAIS, Johns Hopkins
University, DC

2. To be announced

3. Mr. John Fox

Director of Caucasus and Central Asia Affairs, US Department
of State

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23
Day Three
8:30 – 10:00 AM
PANEL VI

THE IMPACT OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS ON THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Do developments in the South Caucasus since independence–including
problems of economic and political transformation, conflicts, and
energy transportation issues–compel us to revise our understanding
of international relations or are accepted models of relations between
states adequate?

1. Prof. Charles King

Political Science Department, Georgetown University,
Washington DC

2. Prof. Stephen Jones

Department of Political Science, Mount Holyoke College

3. Mr. Asbed Kotchikian

Department of Political Science, Boston University

10:30 AM – 12:30 PM
PANEL VII
THE WORLD OF CONFLICTS

How do we explain the high concentration of conflicts in the South
Caucasus? What are the similarities and differences between them? Which,
if any, of the conflict resolution approaches apply to the region? Is
international mediation the proper means to resolve these conflicts?

1. Dr. Ghia Nodia

Director, Center for Democracy and Peace, Tbilisi

2. Prof. Bruno Coppieters

Political Science Department, Free University of Brussels

3. Mr. Arman Grigorian

International Relations, Columbia University/Wesleyan
University

4. Mr. Tom de Waal

Author; Institute for War and Peace Studies, London

2:00 – 6:00 PM
PANEL VIII
NAGORNO KARABAKH: A CASE STUDY IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE 1990s – A
Round Table discussion

How did the international community perceive the conflicts in the
region, especially the problem of Nagorno Karabakh? What was right
and what went wrong with the OSCE Minsk Group process charged with
the resolution of that conflict? What lessons can be learned from it?

How does the leadership of Nagorno Karabakh perceive the problem and
the solution?

1. Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov

Former Karabakh negotiator for Russia, Moscow (retired)

2. Ambassador Ömer Ersun

Former Karabakh negotiator for Turkey, Istanbul (Retired)

3. Ambassador Joseph Presel

Former Karabakh negotiator for the US, Washington DC
(retired)

4. Dr. Mahmood Vaezi

Deputy Director, Center for Strategic Research, Tehran
Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Iran

5. Ambassador Tofik Zulfugarov

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Karabakh negotiator,
Azerbaijan

6. Ambassador David Shahnazaryan

Former Minister of National Security and Karabakh
negotiator, Armenia

SPECIAL PRESENTATION

7. Ashot Ghoulian

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nagorno Karabakh, Stepanakert

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24
Day Four

9:00 – 11:00 AM
PANEL IX
RECONCILING THE PAST AND THE FUTURE

How can we assess the path traveled by the South Caucasus republics?
What are the main similarities and differences in their foreign
policies? Is there need and/or room for a common foreign policy? What
should be the main focus at this time?

1. Dr. Leila Alieva

President, Center for National and International Studies,
Baku

2. Dr. Archil Gegeshidze

Senior Research Fellow at the Georgian Foundation for
Strategic and International Studies, Tbilisi; former
advisor to President Edvard Shevardnadze

3. Prof. Edward Walker

Political Science Department, University of California,
Berkeley