Vanguard, Nigeria
Sept 24 2004

LAW & HUMAN RIGHT :- Darfur: The New Name of Genocide

CHIDI ODINKALU
Friday, September 24, 2004

They came on their horses, killed the people of our village, who
started to resist them. When I heard the machine guns, I started to
collect my kids, trying to escape from the agony. But they captured
me, killed my three kids, and six of them raped me. Then they went
away. The rest of the villagers collected together and fled the area,
and now I am staying at a refugee camp looking for something secure.
I do not know how to say it, I am really afraid of even being killed
by my relatives because of the Janjaweed baby that I am bearing.’

This is the testimony of a female survivor of the on-going genocide
in Darfur Western Sudan. In 1944, Polish Philosopher, Ralph Lemkin,
coined the expression, Genocide, to describe the crimes such as the
Nazi-led attempt to eliminate the gene of a race, in that case, the
Jewish race. During the First World War, the Armenians suffered a
similar fate. A world appalled at the crimes of the Nazis adopted on
the last day of 1949 the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide, otherwise known as the Genocide
Convention.

The Genocide Convention entered into force on January on 12 January
1951. Article 2 of the Convention defines Genocide as `any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’

This definition makes genocide a crime of very specific intent. It is
adopted completely by Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court. One or a mixture of these elements
would constitute the crime of genocide. Article 8 of the Genocide
Convention establishes perhaps the most important obligation
contained in that treaty. It obliges all Contracting Parties to
`call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such
action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider
appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or
any other acts enumerated in Article III of the Convention’. These
enumerated acts are genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide,
incitement to genocide, attempt to commit genocide, and complicity
in genocide.

The obligations to prevent, suppress, and punish the crime of
genocide are both customary and peremptory norms of international
law. Thus, the egregiously notable failure of Sudan to ratify the
Genocide Convention does not shield it from the obligations to
prevent, suppress and punish the crime of genocide. Moreover, as the
United Nations Security Council noted in its Resolution 1556 of 30
July 2004, `the Government of Sudan (GoS) bears the primary
responsibility to respect human rights while maintaining law and
order and protecting its population within its territory.’ The GoS
has not just manifestly failed to do this; it is actively involved
in the most brutal violations of these obligations.

On this continent in 1994, the world witnessed genocide in Rwanda. On
that occasion, African leaders and the world outside the continent
looked the other way as an estimated one million Rwandans were
exterminated like vermin (the victims were described by the
Genocidaires as `Cockroaches’) in one hundred days.

Following the Rwanda genocide, the world sought to expiate for its
complicity by setting up the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda and sundry other mechanisms of investigation of the Rwanda
Genocide. The then Organization of African Unity (OAU), set up a
similar investigation that found the inaction of the OAU inexcusable.
After the genocide in Rwanda, both the leadership of Africa and of
the international community promised `never again’. Desperate for
something to hold onto, we believed. Yet, today, again on our watch,
we see the same pattern of denial, indifference, and tardiness
repeated as millions of victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing are
created in Sudan.

The prefatory testimony to this article is not isolated. The numbers
are even more harrowing: international agencies estimate that over
50,000 have been killed in the Darfur region since the beginning of
February 2003; over 200,000 have been forcibly displaced into
refugee camps in neighboring Chad; over 1,700,000 million people are
internally displaced and mostly encamped within Sudan itself; there
are up to an estimated 600 deaths in the camps for the internally
displaced who, until recently, have been denied access to
humanitarian assistance by the Sudanese Government. This adds up to a
monthly average of about 18,000 deaths; sexual violence and rape of
the women and young girls, some of the victims as young as eight
years and less, is employed as an instrument of war and ethnic
cleansing.

In a recent survey of the Darfurian refugee population conducted for
the State Department by the Centre for International Justice, 67%
had witnessed the killing of a non-family member; 61% had seen their
own family members killed; 44% had survived being shot at; 28% had
suffered death or forced displacement; 25% had been abducted; and 16%
of the population had been raped!

To put these numbers in perspective, Darfur, comprises three States
of the Republic of Sudan that between them are bigger than the
territory of France and host about 7 million people. Nearly one-third
of this number are now dead, displaced, abducted, raped, or being
starved to death in installments. Faced with this evidence, both the
European Union and the United States have in the past fortnight
determined that the situation in Darfur amounts to genocide. On any
reading, violations on this scale must qualify, in the language of
Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention, as `deliberately inflicting
on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part.’

For its part, the farthest that the African Union has been able to go
was the acknowledgement at the 5th Session of its Peace and Security
Council in April 2004, that the situation in Darfur represents a
`grave humanitarian situation’. The AU requested an investigation of
the situation in Darfur by the continental human rights body, the
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. But just as the
five-person team Commission was physically deployed on its mission in
Darfur in July, the Summit meeting of the 3rd Ordinary Session of
the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union,
presided over by Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo, prejudged
the outcome of the investigation by deciding on 8 July that `even
though the humanitarian situation in Darfur is serious, it cannot be
defined as a genocide.’

Article 4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union requires
African States to exercise active intervention in other Member
States of the Union when those other States are involved in
committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.

Africa’s leaders persist in minimizing the international crimes being
committed in Darfur as `a humanitarian crisis’, very much redolent
of acts of nature like a flood, earthquake or hurricane. But Darfur
is not an act of nature. It is caused by human actors, exercising
political authority. They must be halted and brought to account. One
point of view within the leadership of the African Union is that
unlike the case of Rwanda, a genocide in terms of both the quantity
(nearly one million killed) and quality (mass murder) of the acts
perpetrated, `a mere’ 50,000 have been killed in Darfur. Apparently,
in the arithmetic of the African Union, the 2 million forcibly
displaced into death-like conditions in refugee camps guarded by the
same Janjaweed militia that have raped, outraged, and violated them
should have been physically wiped out too.

To support the implementation of the N’djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire
Agreement, the African Union established a Ceasefire Monitoring
Commission with Military Observers led by Nigeria’s own
Brigadier-General Okonkwo. Fewer than sixty AU Military Observers
have been deployed under this arrangement. In July 2004, the
Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union reported that the
entire budget of the AU Military Observer Mission in Darfur is $26
million, of which about $15 million ( 12 million) is contributed by
the European Union, the UK and Germany provided an additional $4
million between them, and the USA is providing headquarters
logistics. To put this in perspective again, $26 million is less than
the sum of business expense disbursed for a middling contract in
Nigeria’s petroleum or public works sector. It is less than half the
money that Nigeria is reported to have lent to Sao Tomé earlier this
year. Yet, between them, African States have managed to pledge less
than 18% of this derisory budget. Pray tell, how many of our people
have to be massacred and violated before Africa’s rulers think
Africans matter? When will the continent’s rulers begin to behave as
if the African life has intrinsic value?

In Pretoria, South Africa, the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights met on Sunday, 19 September, to adopt the report of
its investigation mission to Darfur. The report of the Commission is
yet to be published but authoritative sources close to the
Commission indicate that it found as a fact that in Darfur, the
government of Sudan had been involved in `war crimes and crimes
against humanity, and massive human rights violations by members of
the security forces’. The Commission is reported to have recommended
the establishment of an independent international commission to
investigate the international crimes in Darfur. While this
bureaucratic rigmarole goes on, the people of Darfur are being
savaged and the continent’s rulers shrink from their moral and legal
duty to call the crime by its name, Genocide.

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Sept 24 2004

Glendale Fire has plans to diversify

Department to ‘fast-track’ locals from cadet program, organize
meetings for the community.

By Jackson Bell, News-Press

GLENDALE CITY HALL – After city officials pressured the fire
department to better reflect the city’s ethnic make-up, Glendale Fire
Chief Chris Gray unveiled plans this week to diversify his staff.

Gray and other department personnel briefed the city’s Civil Service
Commission on Wednesday about the department’s recent community
outreach efforts. Those include giving fire cadets an edge over other
recruits when competing to join the force, and holding meetings to
inform locals about the force and what they have to do to join.

Many enrolled in the cadet program are of Armenian descent. Glendale
has no Armenian firefighters, even though an estimated one-third of
the city is of that ethnicity.

Commissioners gave their approval to allow the fire department – as
well as the police department – to have their cadets “fast-track”
their way on the force if they complete at least six months of work
and 600 hours of service. The cadet program is often used as a
stepping stone to becoming a sworn firefighter.

“It’s tough with open recruitment,” Gray said. “There are a series of
tests to find out who is or is not qualified for the job. But in an
interview, you really only get 15-20 minutes to look at someone.

“It’s better to bring someone into the fire service from the cadet
program because they have already done ride-alongs and have worked
alongside firefighters,” he added.

Battalion Chief Harold Scoggins, who heads recruiting and hiring,
also announced the next “Public Information Night,” a community
outreach meeting at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 27 in Glendale Fire Station 21,
421 Oak St. And Capt. Carlos Guerrero introduced “Bridging the Gap,”
a new translation booklet that allows firefighters to ask about 30
emergency response-related questions in Armenian, Korean or Spanish.

Commissioners, who recently slammed Glendale Fire officials for
lagging behind Glendale Police and other city departments in
diversity, praised Gray during the meeting for steering his staff in
the right direction.

“A month ago, I was a bit critical of the fire department,”
Commissioner Albert Abkarian said. “But not only have you met my
expectations, you have substantially exceeded what I expected to
see.”

Gray also introduced seven firefighters who were recently hired out
of a pool of about 2,400 candidates. One of them, Kevin Ku, is the
department’s first Korean-American firefighter.

Front Page Magazine
Sept 25 2004

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 27, 2004

Professor John Lewis Gaddis’ recent provocative analysis of the
origins of `unilateralism’ in American foreign policy highlights the
pivotal role of John Quincy Adams. With candor and humility, Gaddis
further reveals that his own contemporary assessment, `…is not a new
interpretation. If you go back and read the famous Samuel Flagg
Bemis, the very distinguished Yale diplomatic historian from half a
century ago, Bemis was certainly making this argument about the
importance of John Quincy Adams.

But I think this has been lost somewhat in intervening years. So, to
an extent, I am trying to rediscover John Quincy Adams, in that
sense.’ Bemis extolled Adams’ seminal contribution to the formulation
of U.S. foreign policy:

`Adams grasped the essentials of American policy and the position of
the United States in the world more surely than any other man of his
time. He availed himself of matchless opportunities to advance the
continental future of his country and the fundamental principles for
which it stood in the world. Nothing is clearer than that the
fourteen fundamentals (above reviewed) remained the main tenets of
American foreign policy during the century following…we may surmise
that he and the fathers of American Independence as well, had they
lived to share the troublous times beyond the British Century in the
science-shrunken smallness of the globe, and to experience the
extraordinary vicissitudes, combinations, and wars of global politics
would have joined the diplomatic revolution rejecting Isolation, and
that he [Adams] would say, as he did say at the time of the Congress
of Panama: `I do not recollect any change in policy; but there has
been a great change in circumstances.’…Even if John Quincy Adams was
not to have another great career, as a crusader against the expansion
of slavery, this first and mighty achievement, of no less than
continental proportions, in laying the foundations of American
foreign policy, would have been great enough for one lifetime.’ 1

Bemis’ landmark 1949 review also included a vague footnote referring
to a work which I located formally in a comprehensive annotated
bibliography of John Quincy Adams’ writings, compiled by Lynn H.
Parsons 2:

`Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,
written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress
in 1830′ [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual
Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.]

A brief contribution appeared in the Claremont Review in December,
2002, purporting to summarize the contents of John Quincy Adams’ 136
pages of analysis (although, curiously, never providing the citation,
above, for the original essays). Upon reading Adams’ full set of
essays, however, it is apparent that this rather uninformed,
sanitized Claremont Review piece missed the mark widely.

John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised
understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and
dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

`…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a
part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of
the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the
prophet of God.’

Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor
Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955
treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :

`Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying
out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if
not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis),
at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to
have declared `some of my people will continue to fight victoriously
for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the
anti-Christ’. Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or
another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim
community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is
ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar
al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is
reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain
disabilities- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar
al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The
universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the
believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and
political if not strictly military.’3

And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the
non-Muslim dhimmi `tributaries’ subjugated by jihad, with this
laconic statement,

`The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.’

Indeed, the famous Shafi’i jurist of Baghdad, al-Mawardi (d. 1058),
highlights the most salient aspect of the consensus view of classical
Islamic jurisprudence regarding the vanquished non-Muslims `tribute’,
i.e., the jizya: the critical connection between jihad and payment
of the jizya. He notes that `The enemy makes a payment in return for
peace and reconciliation.’ Al-Mawardi then distinguishes two cases:
(I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, however
`it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them
in the future.’. (II). Payment is made yearly and will `constitute an
ongoing tribute by which their security is established.’
Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If
the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of
reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years.4 The
nature of such `protection’, i.e., a blood ransom, is reinforced in
this definition of jizya written by E.W. Lane, based on a careful
analysis of the etymology of the term:

`The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim
government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them
protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain’ 5

Adams’ staunch anti-imperialism, one of the `fourteen fundamentals’
of U.S. foreign policy which Samuel Flagg Bemis states, `…we may
connect with the name of John Quincy Adams more than with that of any
other man’ 6, is consistent with Old Man Eloquent’s support for the
struggle of the Greeks 7 to liberate themselves from the yoke of
centuries of dhimmitude, imposed by the imperialism of Ottoman jihad
8. At minimum, in light of the global war on jihad terrorism, John
Quincy Adams’ candid, timeless ruminations should be required reading
for all contemporary U.S. diplomats and politicians.

Key annotated excerpts from John Quincy Adams’ remarkable series of
essays, are provided below.

Adams on Jesus Christ and Christianity, Relative to Muhammad and
Islam

“And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world
hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His
whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth –
good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the
authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that,
which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in
the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over
the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of
the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system
of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of
time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals
embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole
promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS
DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS
NATURE.” (Adam’s capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]

`In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of
the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the
powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a
fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself
as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over
an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime
conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he
connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was
himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of
Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future
retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards
and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual
passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain,
by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of
polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as
a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE
OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE
SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam’s capital letters)….Between
these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of
twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet
flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false
prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be
peace upon earth, and good will towards men.’ [p. 269]

Adams on Jihad War, Dhimmitude, and the Muslim View of Non-Muslims;
Examples of the Perfidy of Muslim States, Including the Ottoman
Turkish State

`As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others
by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be
dispelled, and his power annihilated.

They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of
almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the
Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time
to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a
succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is,
perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of
God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of
tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive
promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may
submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to
propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it
can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed
alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had
memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref
had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce
his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to
that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as
well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the
language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both
languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them.
Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the
war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our
Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy
of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article
stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to
the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a
squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey,
and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he
disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been
wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I
will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my
power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He
avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have
practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of
men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of
religion.’ [p. 274-275]

`Had it been possible for a sincere and honest peace to be maintained
between the Osmanli and his christian neighbors, then would have been
the time to establish it in good faith. But the treaty was no sooner
made than broken. It never was carried into effect by the Turkish
government.’ [p. 276]

`From the time when the disaster of Navarino ref had been made known
to him, the Reis Effendi [Ottoman diplomat assigned to Russia] had
assumed the tone of the aggrieved party, and made formal demands of
indemnity, and the punishment of the offending admirals. He still
manifested however, a solicitude to prevent the rupture of the
negotiations by the departure of the ambassadors…’ [p. 298]

`Upon the departure of the ambassadors, the Sultan, who must have
been, however, unwillingly preparing his mind for that event,
immediately determined upon two things; a war with Russia alone – and
a dallying attempt to protract the negotiation, and gain time of
preparation for the conflict.’ [p. 298]

[From the Ottoman Reis Effendi, to his Russian counterparts] `The
present friendly letter has been composed and sent, to acquaint your
excel – lency. with the circumstance; when you shall learn, on receipt
of it, that the Sublime Porte has at all times; no other desire or
wish than to preserve peace, and good understanding ; and that the
event in question has been brought about, entirely by the act of the
said minister, we hope that you will endeavor, do every occasion, to
fulfil the duties of friendship.’ But precisely at the time when this
mild, and candid, and gently expostulary epistle was despatched for
St. Petersburg, another state paper was issued, addressed by the
Sultan to his own subjects-this was the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of
December, sent to the Pashas of all the provinces, calling on all the
faithful Mussulmen of the empire to come forth and ‘fight for their
religion, and their country, against the infidel despisers of the
Prophet. The comparison of these two documents with each other, will
afford the most perfect illustration of the Ottoman faith, as well as
of their temper towards Russia.

The Hatti Sheriff commenced with the following admirable com – mentary
upon the friendly profession, which introduced the letter to count
Nesselrode. `It is well known (said the Sultan) to almost every
person, that if the Mussulmen naturally hate the infidels, the
infidels, on then part, are the enemies of the Mussulmen : that
Russia, more espe – cially, bears a particular hatred to Islamism, and
that she is the principal enemy of the Sublime Porte.’

This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the
infidels, is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The
document does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the
enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the
ne – cessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to
them – the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted
character of the two religions. The funda – mental doctrine of the
christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human
heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is
no denomina – tion of christians, which denies or misunderstands this
doctrine. All understand it alike – all acknow – ledge its obligations ;
and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its
efficacy has been shown in the practice of christians, it has not
been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the
manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has
softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse
of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not,
indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion,
but too powerful upon the hearts of christians. Yet they cannot
indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the
conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian
hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master,
have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of
the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his
discourse. [p. 299-300]

`The last appeal of the Sultan to the fanaticism of his people, and
to the protection of his prophet, has been vain. He told them, that
since the happy time of their great prophet, the faithful Mussulmen
had never taken into consideration the numbers of the infidels. He
reminded them, too truly reminded them, how often they had put
millions of Christians to the sword; how many states and provinces
they had thus conquered, sword in hand.’ 9 [p. 302]

`[More from the Ottoman Sultan’s pronouncement to his
subjects]…`all infidels are but one nation…This war must be
considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the
faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a
duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of
pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our
property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which
the honor of Islamism imposes on us – let us unite our efforts, and
labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of
judgement. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in
this world and the next.”

Those provinces are the abode of ten millions of human beings, two
thirds of whom are Christians, groaning under the intolerable
oppression of less than three millions of Turks. Those provinces are
in some of the fairest regions of the earth. They were Christian
countries, subdued during the conquering period of the Mahometan
imposture, by the ruthless scymetar of the Ottoman race; and under
their iron yoke, have been gradually dwindling in population, and
sinking into barbarism. The time of their redemption is at hand.’
[p. 303]

`With regard to the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of December, summoning
the whole Ottoman nation to arms against Russia, the sultan now
thinks proper to say, that it was only a proclamation which the
Sublime Porte, for certain reasons, circulated in its states; an
internal transaction, of which the Sublime Porte alone knows the
motives, and that the language held by a government to its own
subjects cannot b a ground for another government to pick a quarrel
with it – especially, as the Grand Vizier had, immediately after the
departure of the Russian envoy, written a letter to the prime
minister of Russia, declaring the desire of the Sublime Porte till to
maintain peace. That if Russia had conceived suspicions, from the
Sultan’s address to his subjects, she might have applied amicably to
the Porte to ascertain the truth and clear up her doubts.’ [p. 311]

Remonstrating Against the Moral Equivalence of Britain and the
European Powers

`In the kings [British King, George IV] speech, at the opening of the
session of Parliament, on the 29th of January, he said that, `for
several years a contest had been carried on between the Ottoman
Porte, and the inhabitants of the Greek provinces and islands, which
had been marked on each side, by excesses revolting to humanity’.’
[p. 304]

`Still more extraordinary was it to the ears of Christendom to hear a
British king, in a speech to his parliament, style the execrable and
sanguinary head of the Ottoman race, his ancient ally; and denominate
a splendid victory, achieved under the command of a British admiral,
in the strict and faithful execution of his instructions, and
untoward event. But the last member of the paragraph from his
majesty’s speech, which we have quoted, to those accustomed to the
mystifications of royal speeches and diplomatic defiances, explained
these apparent disparates. He declares the great objects to which
all his efforts have been directed, and of which, while adhering to
his arrangements, he will never lose sight, are the termination of
the contest between the hostile parties; the permanent settlement of
their future relations to each other, and maintenance of the repose
of Europe, upon the basis on which it has rested since the last
general peace.’ [p. 305]

`And where is the protection to the commerce of his majesty’s
subjects! And where is the determination to launch all the thunders
of Britain at half a dozen skulking piratical cockboats, driven by
the desperation of famine to seek the subsistence of plunder,
assigned in the protocols, the treaty and the communications to the
Ottoman Porte, as the great objects of his majesty’s interference
between a legitimate sovereign and his revolted rayahs?…In all
these documents, issuing from the profound and magnanimous policy of
the British warrior statesman, nothing is more remarkable, than the
more than stoical apathy with which they regard the cause, for which
the Greeks are contending; the more than epicurean indifference with
which they witness the martyrdom of a whole people, perishing in the
recovery of their religion and liberty…The royal speech of January,
1828 indicates that in the protocol and in the treaty, the government
of George IV, had outwitted themselves, and were the dupes of their
own policy. It presents the singular spectacle of a sovereign,
wincing at the success of his own measures, and repining at the
triumph of his own arms. From that time the partialities of England
in favor of he ancient ally, have been little disguised; and the
disposition to take side with the Porte has only been controlled, by
the unwelcome necessity of adhering to the faith of treaties.’ [pp.
306-307]

`Far from being like the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th December, an
appeal to the Ottoman people, a bold and candid avowal of the
precepts of the Koran; it is an utter departure from them, and an
assumption, equally shameless and hypocritical, of argument on
Christian grounds.’ [pp. 308-309]

Justice of the Greek Revolution

`If ever insurrection was holy in the eyes of God, such was that of
the Greeks against their Mahometan oppressors. Yet for six long
years, they were suffered to be overwhelmed by the whole mass of the
Ottoman power; cheered only by the sympathies of all the civilized
world, but without a finger raised to sustain or relieve them by the
Christian governments of Europe; while the sword of extermination,
instinct with the spirit of the Koran, was passing in merciless
horror over the classical regions of Greece, the birth-place of
philosophy, of poetry, of eloquence, of all the arts that embellish,
and all the sciences that dignify the human character. The monarchs
of Austria, of France, and England, inflexibly persisted in seeing in
the Greeks, only revolted subjects against a lawful sovereign. The
ferocious Turk eagerly seized upon this absurd concession, and while
sweeping with his besom of destruction over the Grecian provinces,
answered every insinuation of interest in behalf of that suffering
people, by assertions of the unqualified rights of sovereignty, and
by triumphantly retorting upon the legitimates of Europe, the
consequences naturally flowing from their own perverted maxims.’ [p.
278]

`This pretended discovery of a plot between Russia and the Greeks, is
introduced, to preface an exulting reference to the unhallowed
butchery of the Greek Patriarch and Priests, on Easter day of 1822,
at Constantinople, and to the merciless desolation of Greece, which
it calls `doing justice by the sword’ to a great number of rebels of
the Morea, of Negropont, of Acarnania, Missolonghi, Athens, and other
parts 10 of the continent.The document acknowledges, that although
during several years, considerable forces, both naval and military,
had been sent against the Greeks, they had not succeeded in
suppressing the insurrection.’ [p. 301]

NOTES

1. Bemis, Samuel Flagg. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of
American Foreign Policy, New York, 1949. pp. 571-572.

2. Parsons, Lynn H. John Quincy Adams- A Bibliography, Westport, CT,
1993, p. 41, entry # 194.

3. Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 1955,
Richmond, VA and London, England, pp. 63-64.

4. Al- Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance [al-Ahkam
as-Sultaniyyah], London, United Kingdom, 1996, pp. 77-78.

5. E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (London, 1865), Book I Part
II, Jizya, p. 422.

6. Bemis, S. F. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American
Foreign Policy, p. 570.

7. Ackowledging his earlier position of strict neutrality, while
Secretary of State, Pappas makes clear how as President (perhaps
under the influence of Lafayette), Adams came to support the Greek
cause (Pappas, Paul C. The United States and the Greek War for
Independence, 1821-1828, New York, 1985, pp. 125-126.):

`The case of the Greek frigates demonstrated once again America’s
benevolent neutrality toward Greece. Motivated no doubt by
philhellenic zeal, the United States government came to the Greek’s
rescue in violation of the nation’s law and the international laws of
neutrality. President Adams and members of the cabinet and of
Congress enthusiastically helped Contostavlos [the Greek national
seeking warships for his country] and cooperated in passing swiftly
and discreetly a bill authorizing the government to purchase one of
the Greek frigates. The American government also cooperated in
postponing the purchase of the frigate so that Contostavlos could
deal with the houses, which refused to compromise on their high
demands. And finally, when Contostavlos was ready to sail with the
frigate Hope to Greece, President Adams temporarily put aside
neutrality to allow an armed ship to sail out of New York with
American officers and sailors…’

8. Vacalopoulos describes how jihad imposed dhimmitude under Ottoman
rule provided critical motivation for the Greek Revolution
(Vacalopoulos, A.E. Background and Causes of the Greek Revolution,
Neo-Hellenika, Vol. 2, 1975, pp.54-55):

`The Revolution of 1821 is no more than the last great phase of the
resistance of the Greeks to Ottoman domination; it was a relentless,
undeclared war, which had begun already in the first years of
servitude. The brutality of an autocratic regime, which was
characterized by economic spoliation, intellectual decay and cultural
retrogression, was sure to provoke opposition. Restrictions of all
kinds, unlawful taxation, forced labor, persecutions, violence,
imprisonment, death, abductions of girls and boys and their
confinement to Turkish harems, and various deeds of wantonness and
lust, along with numerous less offensive excesses – all these were a
constant challenge to the instinct of survival and they defied every
sense of human decency. The Greeks bitterly resented all insults and
humiliations, and their anguish and frustration pushed them into the
arms of rebellion. There was no exaggeration in the statement made
by one of the beys if Arta, when he sought to explain the ferocity of
the struggle. He said: `We have wronged the rayas [dhimmis] (i.e.
our Christian subjects) and destroyed both their wealth and honor;
they became desperate and took up arms. This is just the beginning
and will finally lead to the destruction of our empire.’ The
sufferings of the Greeks under Ottoman rule were therefore the basic
cause of the insurrection; a psychological incentive was provided by
the very nature of the circumstances.’

9. Bat Ye’or summarized the impact of the first two centuries of Arab
Muslim conquests on indigenous Jews and Christians of the Middle
East, as follows (The Jerusalem Quarterly 1987; Vol. 42, Pp. 84-85):

`Muslim chroniclers described the ongoing jihad (holy war), involving
the destruction of whole towns, the massacre of large numbers of
their populations, the enslavement of women and children, and the
confiscation of vast regions. This picture of catastrophe and
destruction corresponds to the period of gradual erosion of
Palestinian Jewry. According to [the Muslim chronicler] Baladhuri (d.
892 C.E.), 40,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest,
after which all trace of them is lost…”.

The six centuries between 640 and 1240 C.E., she further observes:

`. witnessed the total and definitive destruction of Judaism and
Christianity in the Hijaz (modern Saudi Arabia), and the decline of
once flourishing Christian and Jewish communities in Palestine
(particularly in Galilee for the Jews), Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia,
and Persia. In North Africa, the Christians had been virtually
eliminated by 1240 C.E., and the Jews decimated by Almohad
persecutions… notwithstanding some brighter intervals, these six
centuries witnessed a dramatic demographic reversal whereby the
Arab-Muslim minority developed into a dominant majority, resorting to
oppression in order to reduce the indigenous populations to tolerated
religious minorities…’

Professor H.Z. Hirschberg includes this summary of a contemporary
Judeo-Arabic account by Solomon Cohen (which comports with Arab
historian Ibn Baydhaq’s sequence of events), from January 1148 C.E,
describing the Muslim Almohad conquests in North Africa, and Spain
(Hirschberg, H.Z., The Jews of North Africa, Leiden, Vol. 1, 1974,
pp. 127-128):

`Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad
Ibn Tumart the Mahdi [note: Ibn Tumart was a cleric whose writings
bear a striking resemblance to Khomeini’s rhetoric eight centuries
later] …captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who
were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…All
the cities in the Almoravid [dynastic rulers of North Africa and
Spain prior to the Almohads] state were conquered by the Almohads.
One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and
120,000 in Marrakesh….Large areas between Seville and Tortosa [in
Spain] had likewise [emphasis added] fallen into Almohad hands.’

Speros Vryonis provides a contemporary Georgian chroniclers account
of the Seljuk jihad in Asia Minor and Georgia during the late 11th
and early 12th centuries (Vryonis, Speros Jr. `Nomadization and
Islamization in Asia Minor’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 29, 1975,
pp. 50-51):

`The process itself is described in its essential details by the
Georgian chronicle for northeast Asia Minor and the adjoining
Georgian regions. The process which it describes was not unique to
the northeast, for we see it in the west and the south of Asia Minor
as well..

`The emirs spread out, like locusts, over the face of the land…The
countries of Asis-Phorni, Clardjeth, up to the shores of the sea,
Chawcheth, Adchara, Samtzkhe, Karthli, Argoueth, Samokalako, and
Dchqondid were filled with Turks who pillaged and enslaved all the
inhabitants. In a single day they burned Kouthathis, Artanoudj, and
hermitages of Clardjeth, and they remained in these lands until the
first snows, devouring the land, massacring all those who had fled to
the forests to the rocks, to the caves…The calamities of Christianity
did not come to an end soon thereafter, for at the approach of
spring, the Turks returned to carry out the same ravages and left
[again] in the winter. The [inhabitants] however were unable to
plant or to harvest. The land, [thus] delivered to slavery, had only
animals of the forests and wild beasts for inhabitants. Karthli was
in the grip of intolerable calamities such as one cannot compare to a
single devastation or combination of evils of past times. The holy
churches served as stables for their horses, the sanctuaries of the
Lord served as repairs for the abominations [Islam]. Some of the
priests were immolated during the Holy communion itself, and others
were carried off into harsh slavery without regard to their old age.
The virgins were defiled, the youths circumcised, and the infants
taken away. The conflagration, extending its ravages, consumed all
the inhabited sites, the rivers, instead of water, flowed blood. I
shall apply the sad words of Jeremiah, which he applied so well to
such situations: `the honorable children of Zion, never put to the
rest by misfortunes, now voyaged as slaves on foreign roads. The
streets of Zion now wept because there was no one [left] to celebrate
the feasts. The tender mothers, in place of preparing with their
hands the nourishment of the sons, were themselves nourished from the
corpses of these dearly loved. Such and worse was the situation at
the time.’…

By the time [of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, i.e.
(1083-1125)]…the nomads had effected permanent settlement in these
regions, moving into the abandoned and devastated areas with their
tents, families, and flocks of livestock.’

A. E. Vacalopoulos summarized the devastating impact of five
centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman jihad campaigns in Asian Minor and
the Balkans (Vacalopoulos, A.E. Origins of the Greek Nation-The
Byzantine Period, 1204-1461, New Brunswick, N.J., 1970, pp. 61, 68;
72-73):

`At the beginning of the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks forced
their way into Armenia and there crushed the armies of several petty
Armenian states. No fewer than forty thousand souls fled before the
organized pillage of the Seljuk host to the western part of Asia
Minor. From the middle of the eleventh century, and especially after
the battle of Malazgirt [Manzikurt] (1071), the Seljuks spread
throughout the whole Asia Minor peninsula, leaving error, panic and
destruction in their wake. Byzantine, Turkish and other contemporary
sources are unanimous in their agreement on the extent of havoc
wrought an the protracted anguish of the local population…[The Greek
chronicler] Kydones described the fate of the Christian peoples of
Asia Minor thus:

`The entire region which sustained us, from the Hellespont eastwards
to the mountains of Armenia, has been snatched away. They [the
Turks] have razed cities, pillaged churches, opened graves, and
filled everything with blood and corpses…Alas, too, they have even
abused Christian bodies. And having taken away their entire wealth
they have now taken away their freedom, reducing them to the merest
shadows of slaves. And with such dregs of energy as remain in these
unfortunate people, they are forced to be the servitors of the Turk’s
personal comforts.’

`From the time the Ottoman Turks first set foot in Thrace under
Suleiman, son of Orchan, the Empire rapidly disintegrated….From the
very beginning of the Turkish onslaught under Suleiman, the Turks
tried to consolidate their position by the forcible imposition of
Islam. [The Ottoman historian] Sukrullah [maintained] those who
refused to accept the Moslem faith were slaughtered and their
families enslaved. `Where there were bells’, writes the same author,
`Suleiman broke them up and cast them onto fires. Where there are
churches he destroyed them or converted them into mosques. Thus, in
place of bells there were now muezzins. Wherever Christian infidels
were still found, vassalage was imposed upon their rulers. At least
in public they could no longer say `kyrie eleison’ but rather `There
is no God but Allah; and where once their prayers had been addressed
to Christ, they were now to `Mohammed, the prophet of Allah.’ ‘

E.G. Browne (A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, 1928, p. 196)
describes the jihad depredations of Timur [Tamerlane] against the
Christian populations of Georgia and Asia Minor, at the outset of the
15th century (A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, Cambridge,
1928, p. 196):

`The winter of A.D. 1399-1400 was spent by Timur in Qarabagh near the
Araxes, and ere spring had melted the snows he once more invaded
[Christian] Georgia, devastated the country, destroyed the churches
and monasteries, and slew great numbers of the inhabitants. In
August, 1400, he began his march into Asia Minor by way of Avnik,
Erzeroum, Erzinjan, and Sivas. The latter place offered stubborn
resistance, and when it finally capitulated Timur caused all the
Armenian and Christian soldiers to the number of four thousand to be
buried alive; but the Muhammadans he spared.’

10. John Cartwright, British Consul-General in Constantinople, filed
the following report from Constantinople May 25, 1822 (in, Argenti,
Philip. The Massacres of Chios, Described in Contemporary Diplomatic
Reports, London, 1932, pp. 39-40.)

`Scio [Chios], with the exception of twenty five of the Mastic
Villages, was a complete scene of desolation – the air corrupted by
the stench of dead bodies had produced an infectious disorder on
board the Turkish Fleet which was daily carrying off its’ victims.
The fate of the unhappy survivors in the Sciote tragedy is miserable
indeed – the females and children doomed to slavery from which there
will be but little chance of redemption, as all possible means are
taken to prevent the sale of them to Christians. The hostages who
were confined in the Castle of Scio as well as those who were here
have been put to death.’

Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS is an Associate Professor of Medicine at
Brown University Medical School, and occasional contributor to
Frontpage Magazine. He is the editor of a forthcoming essay
collection entitled, “The Legacy of Jihad”.

Star of Mysore, India
Sept 24 2004

PRESIDENT GIFTS JUMBO FROM CITY ZOO TO ARMENIA

Journey from Mysore on Oct 12

Mysore, Sept. 24 – The precious gift from President of India to the
President of Armenia is receiving royal treatment at the century-old
Mysore Zoo. Seven-year-old female elephant Komala will be airlifted
to the Armenian capital Yerewan either on October 12 or 13. A team
from the Armenian Embassy is visiting the Mysore Zoo on October 2 to
review the measures taken for its travel.

Arrangement for Komala’s journey is being made and a specially-built
container has been designed by the Zoo engineers for its comfortable
journey to the Armenian Zoo.

A special flight will arrive at the Bangalore airport from Armenia to
airlift the jumbo to Yerewan. Komala’s partner, a male elephant from
Moscow Zoo, has already reached the Yerewan Zoo. Komala and the
Moscow elephant will be paired shortly.

Komala will undergo ‘biological conditioning’ inside the container to
adjust the animal to the conditions. The jumbo will be kept inside
the container (crate) for 10 days and feeding will be done inside.

Zoo Veterinarian Dr. S.M. Khadri, who is accompanying Komala to
Armenia, disclosed that Komala is getting special care. Its health
care, diet and vitamin supplement are looked after with special
attention by the Zoo vets.

Komala was separated from other elephants after it was decided to
gift the animal as per the request from the president of India.

Besides Dr. Khadri, the Director General of Forests and Central Zoo
Authority of India (CZA) Member Secretary Mr. Rajesh Gopal will
accompany the Jaumbo Komala to Armenia.

Among other elephants from renowned Zoos in the country Komala was
selected as she fulfilled all the prescribed conditions.

The authorities wanted an elephant in the age group of seven to eight
years. Komala is exceptionally good in its behaviour, temperament,
fitness, features and health, Dr. Khadri explained.

The F2 elephant

Only ‘F2’ elephants are sent to Zoos in foreign countries. ‘F2’ means
an elephant born in captivity. Komala was born to Gajalakshmi and
Jayaprakash. Gajalakshmi continues to attract visitors in Mysore Zoo.
Jayaprakash was specially brought to the Zoo from Bandipur for
breeding purposes.

Describing Komala as an ‘obedient’ jumbo, Dr. Khadri said she is
undergoing a training to learn commands from the trainers. As it was
with her mother all these years, this special training is being given
to update it with all necessary commands.

Dr. Khadri said all precautions have been taken for the smooth
airlift of Komala to Armenia. It will be airlefted with mild
sedation.

;item=4046

Zaman, Turkey
Sept 24 2004

Gul Addresses UN

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul attending the 59th United
Nations (UN) General Assembly in New York made a speech yesterday and
evaluated latest developments in Turkey-European Union (EU) relations
as well as the issues in the world.

Full text of his address as follows:

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to start by congratulating you on your election as
President of the 59th General Assembly. I pledge the full support of
my delegation in your endeavors. I would also like to pay tribute to
your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Julian Hunte for his able
Presidency.

Mr. President,

We are a generation of world leaders at a time when our globe is
undergoing an important phase of adaptation to new realities,
opportunities and challenges.

As the Secretary-General, H. E. Mr. Kofi Annan frequently states, we
now possess the know-how to address our common concerns. The
Millennium Summit, which was the largest gathering of the world
leaders, produced a historic document: the Millennium Declaration
which charts the right course for humanity in the new Millennium.

The goals that the Millennium Declaration defined for humanity are
ambitious, yet achievable. Reducing hunger and extreme poverty,
spreading universal primary education, halting infectious diseases,
and reducing child mortality within 15 years continue to be urgent
tasks.

Universal humanitarian challenges and chronic political-military
conflicts are compounded with new and asymmetrical threats: Threats
such as terrorism, narcotics, organized crime, proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and environmental problems. Racism,
anti-Semitism, prejudicial attitudes against the tenants of certain
creeds and cultures, among them the Muslims, and xenophobia add fuel
to those menaces. Besides, special and urgent needs of the African
continent remain to be responded collectively.

The UN system should be encouraged to elevate its role in addressing
these issues. Faith in international order and institutions should
not be undermined. A more effective and credible United Nations would
be more capable of facing the common challenges of today. The UN
Security Council should have a more representative and balanced
character. Representation at the Council has to be inclusive and
fair. This will increase its legitimacy and efficiency. In this
respect, I would like to commend the efforts of the
Secretary-General.

Mr. President,

Correlation between good governance and peace and prosperity is valid
both at home and in the world. Therefore, a global agenda for reform
should cover all aspects of our domestic and international life. Each
member of the international community has a stake and responsibility
in implementing such an agenda.

On our part, fully conscious of this correlation, my government has
realized sweeping political and economic reforms in the last two
years. We, thus, upgraded and deepened our democracy. An accountable,
transparent and efficient administration and a dynamic civil society
upholding the rule of law and human rights have been consolidated.
Expectations of our people as well as the relevant United Nations and
European Union standards inspired us in our reform drive. I take
pride in seeing that many, both in the west and the east, have
observed in our experience a perfect embodiment of modernity,
progress, identity and tradition.

Mr. President,

I should like to take this opportunity to confirm Turkey’s candidacy
for a non-permanent seat at the Security Council for the term
2009-2010. In spite of her substantial contributions to peace and
security, Turkey has not been a member of the Council for almost half
a century. Therefore, we rightfully expect the support of the General
Assembly for our candidacy.

Our bid for the non-permanent seat is in tune with Turkey’s larger
efforts to secure peace, stability and security in its region and
beyond. Turkey figures as a prominent country in humanitarian
activities from Palestine to Darfur. Our contribution has been made
available in increasing numbers for international peace keeping
missions in a wide geography from Bosnia to Afghanistan.

Turkey has a unique position as the only member of the Organization
of Islamic Conference that is also a candidate to the European Union.
This position enables us to facilitate interaction and dialogue
between the Islamic World and the West.

Turkey’s achievements in helping create an environment in our region
and beyond that is conducive to development, stability and progress
are plenty. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation, Economic Cooperation
Organization, Stability Pact are good examples to that effect.

Mr. President,

My Government has been pursuing a peaceful and problem-solving policy
to world affairs.

On the chronic issue of Cyprus, my government placed its full support
behind the Secretary General Kofi Annan’s good offices mission. We
cooperated closely with him. The Secretary General’s settlement plan
was the result of four years of serious negotiations between the two
sides. They were conducted on the basis of a new bi-zonal partnership
with a federal government and two constituent states. The Plan was
put to separate referendum with the prior agreement of all parties
concerned. The Annan Plan was overwhelmingly accepted by the Turkish
Cypriots whereas the Greek Cypriot leadership chose to reject it.

I profoundly regret that the opportunity to solve the long standing
problem of Cyprus was thus missed. As a result, a chance to grant
fresh credibility to the United Nations was lost. A possible source
of inspiration for peace-makers elsewhere, in the Middle East or the
Caucasus, also disappeared.

The Secretary General in his report to the Security Council clearly
stated that the referenda drastically changed the situation in the
Island. It confirmed, once again, the existence of two equal peoples
and their separate rights to decide for their fate.

The Secretary General also called on the members of the Security
Council, I quote, “to give a strong lead to all States to cooperate
both bilaterally and in international bodies to eliminate unnecessary
restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the
Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development”, end of quote.

Turkey remains committed to a lasting settlement in Cyprus. Five
months have passed since the Turkish Cypriots, responding to the
calls of the international community, voted courageously in favor of
the UN Plan. However, they are yet to be rewarded for expressing
their will for the reunification of the Island. We urge the Security
Council to positively respond to the Secretary General’s calls. We
also appeal to UN member states to take, at bilateral level, concrete
steps to put an end to the isolation and punishment of the people of
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Mr. President,

Turkey has and will continue its strong support for the preservation
of peace and stability in Southeast Europe.

We are glad to note considerable progress in this region thanks to
the sustained efforts of the international community and the Balkan
countries themselves.

Turkey is determined to sustain the promising and constructive
atmosphere in our relations with Greece. We hope that the improvement
in bilateral relations will continue in the coming period. Our wide
ranging cooperation is expanding in every field. This will facilitate
the settlement of all pending issues. It will also result in a
climate of cooperation beneficial to the two countries as well as
peace, stability and security in the region as a whole.

Turkey believes that it is high time to start taking concrete steps
to eliminate the existing frozen conflicts in Southern Caucasus such
as Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As a neighboring
country, we actively contribute to efforts aimed at achieving
stability and prosperity in this region. To this end, we have been
encouraging all the parties concerned while facilitating the ongoing
process of dialogue.

We hope that the Abkhazian conflict and the problems in South Ossetia
are overcome by peaceful means, within the territorial integrity and
sovereignty of Georgia.

My Government supports a just and lasting solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of the fundamental principles
of international law, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and
good neighborly relations. We expect the Armenian Government to fully
comply with the relevant UN resolutions to reach such a solution.

Mr. President

The Middle East problem and the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan
stand as the major conflicts compounding instability in the world and
leading to increasingly serious consequences.

The Road Map is the only available framework for a comprehensive
settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Benefiting from her
traditional ties with the parties, Turkey has already offered its
active contribution to the implementation of the Road Map. We also
support every effort that is initiated and coordinated in this
context. We join the call made by the Quartet yesterday.

The resumption of the negotiating process between the two parties
should remain the central objective of the current efforts. Likewise,
fulfilling the performance criteria by both sides as laid out in the
Road Map is important. Terrorist attacks against the Israeli people
must stop. So must the deliberate destruction of Palestinian lives
and properties. The reform process of the Palestinian institutions
must be advanced. Israeli settlement activities must be immediately
halted. The ruling of the International Court of Justice must be
respected. The living conditions of the Palestinians need to be
urgently improved.

Any settlement would not be complete without progress in all the
tracks including the Syrian and the Lebanese ones.

Mr. President,

My Government is focused on contributing to improvement of the
situation in Iraq. We appreciate the massive resources and political
efforts mobilized by the US Administration and the international
community for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq. We
sincerely wish these efforts to yield the desired results soon.

However, humanitarian, political and security difficulties faced by
the people of Iraq continue to adversely affect each other. It goes
without saying that developments in Iraq are also affecting my
country and causing suffering for my people while most of Iraq’s
humanitarian needs are being supplied through Turkey as a neighboring
country.

The Iraqi transition is not only about the fate of the Iraqi nation.
It is about the future of peace and prosperity in the whole region
and beyond. This is the motive of Turkey’s strong support of a
united, territorially intact and democratic Iraq: An Iraq that is in
peace with itself and with its neighbors. This should and can only be
achieved with the full participation and support of the Iraqi people
as a whole. More UN involvement would facilitate this task. The
Neighboring Countries Meetings, initiated by Turkey, is also a most
valuable instrument to be taken into account. After all, Iraq’s
success will be our collective success, and so will be its failure.

Turkey, will continue to support the Iraqi interim government’s
efforts in paving the way to normalcy and democracy.

The traditional support of Turkey towards the Afghan people will
continue. The establishment of security, stability and a democratic
system in Afghanistan is another urgent task. Making this country
free from terrorism, extremism and narcotics is of crucial importance
for the international community. We should all work for the incoming
elections to constitute a significant step to these ends.

Mr. President,

We all agree that terrorism has no justification. It can never claim
to represent any religion, nation or cause. Indiscriminate killing of
innocent people, be it in New York, in Istanbul, in Baghdad, in
Beslan or elsewhere, is a crime against humanity. We condemn these
terrorist atrocities in the strongest terms.

As a country that long suffered from terrorism, Turkey calls for more
intensified multilateral cooperation. The United Nations system is an
important platform in this respect and we extend our full support to
efforts under this roof.

We also strongly believe in the urgent need to strengthen the control
regimes on weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. We
will continue to support the ongoing work to ensure full adherence to
the legal instruments in this field. The creation of Nuclear Weapon
Free Zones is an important way of strengthening peace and security in
the world and in all regions, including the Middle East.

Mr. President,

Turkey is determined to deploy every effort aimed at strengthening
peace and stability in its immediate region and beyond. We will try
to make use of our multi-dimensional ties and deep-seated relations
to achieve this goal. We remain strongly committed to translating
into reality the universal validity of the noble values and
principles written in the United Nations Charter.

Thank you for your attention.

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
Sept 24 2004

OSCE to Monitor Frontline

24/09/2004 17:18

The OSCE will hold a monitoring of the frontline between the
Azerbaijani and Armenian troops in the vicinity of Mezemli
settlement, Gazakh District, on September 24, the Defense Ministry
said.

Assa-Irada — The frontline will be monitored by the OSCE chairman’s
special envoy Anjei Kaspshik’s field assistants Miroslav Vimetal and
Imre Palatinus on the Azerbaijani side and by the special envoy and
his field assistants on the Armenian side.

No incidents were registered during the previous monitoring held in
the Shurabad settlement, Agdam District.

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
_________________________________________ ____________________
RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly
Vol. 4, No. 37, 24 September 2004

A Weekly Review of News and Analysis of Russian Domestic Politics

************************************************************
HEADLINES

* THE END OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION?
* WILL PUTIN’S LATEST ‘REFORM’ FURTHER
DESTABILIZE RUSSIA?
* RUSSIAN NGOS SLAM PUTIN REFORMS AS
‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL’
************************************************************

PAN-REGIONAL ISSUES

THE END OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION?

By Robert Coalson

The comments of World Bank President James Wolfensohn in “The
Wall Street Journal” on 21 September stood out among the chorus of
voices in Russia and abroad that have criticized President Vladimir
Putin for allegedly using the pretext of the latest wave of terrorist
attacks to strengthen an authoritarian regime.
“I personally would be reluctant to conclude that
[Putin’s] motives are bad,” Wolfensohn said. “I think Russia is a
pretty difficult place to run, and so I wouldn’t come to that
conclusion too quickly.”
“I think that Putin has a very difficult issue to face,” he
added. “The act of barbarism [in Beslan] has upset the entire
country, and the first reaction is for security and trying to
centralize it.”
Other analysts have not been so sanguine, noting that
Putin’s proposals to abolish single-mandate-district
representation in the Duma and to end the direct election of regional
governors were developed by the administration months before the 3
September conclusion of the tragic hostage crisis in Beslan, North
Ossetia, and have little direct relationship to the problem of
terrorism. RFE/RL’s Russian Service on 15 September reported that
an unnamed administration official admitted that the proposals had
been developed long ago and that Beslan merely created an appropriate
political atmosphere for bringing them forward.
“Who would have thought they would use the blood of innocent
children to bring out of the drawers of their Kremlin desks some old
projects and on that blood continue to build up Putin’s
authoritarian regime?” independent Duma Deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov was
cited by RFE/RL as saying.
A number of well-connected political analysts and observers
have predicted that Putin’s innovations will not end with the
proposals already put forward. Many have speculated that the Kremlin
will use the momentum created by Beslan to advance another project
that has been dear to the Kremlin’s collective heart: the
reduction in the number of subjects of the Russian Federation.
“A federal structure is a headache for any central
authority,” former acting Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar wrote in
“Nezavisimaya gazeta” on 17 September. “It is much simpler — I can
say this as someone who was once the head of government — to govern
a unitary state.”
Yelena Babich, head of the St. Petersburg regional branch of
the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), told zaks.ru on 20
September that Putin’s first two proposals coincide perfectly
with the LDPR’s longstanding political platform. “The LDPR always
advocated party-list voting [for the Duma] and the appointment of
governors,” Babich said. “The next step for the president must be the
enlargement of the regions. I hope that in the end we arrive at a
unitary state, since federalism is killing Russia.” In December 2002,
LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovskii said that Russia should have about
30 provinces with populations of not less than 10 million people and
that they should not have their own constitutions.
Other politicians have echoed this sentiment, particularly
those governors who hope to see their stay in power extended as a
result of Putin’s initiative. Significantly, only three of
Russia’s 89 regional leaders have come out against the
president’s proposal to end the direct election of governors.
Kamchatka Oblast Governor Mikhail Mashkovtsev said on 15 September
that “Russia can only be a great power as a unitary state,” Regnum
reported.
Political scientist and Moscow State Institute of
International Relations (MGIMO) professor Andronik Migranyan told
RFE/RL on 15 September that historically Russia has never been a
federation and that “central Russia has always been centralized and
unitary.” He attributed the collapse of the Soviet Union to a
weakening of central power, acerbated by ethnic conflicts in
Nagorno-Karabakh, Transdniester, and other regions. “If we cannot
cope with radical Islam, with terrorism and this playing the ethnic
card in the Caucasus, there is a threat that it might move to
Tatarstan, to Bashkortostan, and so on, stopping everywhere,”
Migranyan argued.
He urged the “radical leveling” of the federation subjects,
particularly the elimination of the “significantly greater
possibilities” enjoyed by the presidents of the republics in the
federation. “There is an imbalance,” Migranyan said. “A subject with
a million people has fewer possibilities than a national-state
formation with a population of just 200,000-300,000.” Next, Migranyan
said, the government should consider the “liquidation of the
national-territorial and national-state formations, the reformation
of the entire state.” “Eighty-nine [federation] subjects is very
ineffective,” he said, adding that the country should be divided into
regions on the principle of “economic efficiency.”
National Strategy Institute Director Stanislav Belkovskii,
who is believed to have close connections within the presidential
administration but who has been critical of Putin’s reform
proposals since Beslan, told “Nezavisimaya gazeta” on 20 September
that the elimination of the ethnic-based state structures will be the
next stage of Putin’s reform. “An attempt will be made to
equalize the rights of the ethnic republics and all the other
regions, with the aim of fully standardizing the ethnic landscape
from a legal, cultural, and semantic point of view,” Belkovskii said.
“Small ethnic territorial formations will be absorbed by larger
components.”
“Rossiiskaya gazeta” columnist and respected journalist
Vitalii Tretyakov wrote in his column on 17 September that although
“many think that a unitary state formed under the current conditions
is much preferable for Russia, including for the so-called national
regions,” he wonders whether “many people think that within those
regions themselves.” However, he said that maintaining the
“appearance of federalism” while having regional leaders appointed by
the center will be “extremely difficult.” He also said that
Putin’s proposal that the heads of the republics in the
federation continue to be directly elected will also create a
“dangerous asymmetry” if it means that those leaders will have
“greater legitimacy” than the Moscow-appointed heads of the other
federation subjects.
Ryzhkov also doubts that many people within the so-called
ethnic republics would welcome the elimination of those structures,
noting that they were formed as a way of giving some autonomy — or
at least the appearance of autonomy — to certain ethnic groups in
keeping with Russia’s self-declared status as a multiethnic
state. “Fortunately, the president has not yet touched the ethnic
republics (in particular Tatarstan and Bashkortostan),” Ryzhkov told
“Nezavisimaya gazeta” on 20 September. “Because any attempt to
eliminate them will spread terrorism far beyond the North Caucasus.”
Speaking to RFE/RL’s Russian Service on 15 September,
Ryzhkov emphasized the potential danger in destabilizing the country
in this way. “Thank God that [Putin] did no more than undermine state
institutions like regional government, the legislature, and so on,”
Ryzhkov said. “If he had gone further, if now he used this storm to
arrange the rewriting of administrative borders, the liquidation of
the republics, then the terrorists would undoubtedly find thousands
of supporters in Tatarstan, including ideological supporters, since
the radical intelligentsia would certainly be in opposition. And then
this could really spread along the Volga and into other regions.”

KREMLIN/WHITE HOUSE

WILL PUTIN’S LATEST ‘REFORM’ FURTHER DESTABILIZE RUSSIA?

By Julie A. Corwin

In an interview with RFE/RL’s Russian Service on 16
September, independent State Duma Deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov suggested
that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal on 13 September
to overhaul regional-level elections could work at cross purposes
with his desire to strengthen the state in response to the recent
wave of terrorism.
Ryzhkov told RFE/RL’s Mikhail Sokolov that the
president’s announcement offered little in the way of specific
measures to combat terrorism, but was very specific with regard to
reforms of Russia’s election system. However, these measures
appear to have little to do with fighting terrorism.
Ryzhkov noted that the idea of appointing governors had been
floating around the Kremlin for many years before the hostage crisis
in Beslan, but the president has been able to use the recent tragedy
to complete political tasks that he has been working on for many
years. “How does the liquidation of the single-mandate district in
Kamchatka Oblast help us to deal with [Chechen President Aslan]
Maskhadov? It’s absolutely incomprehensible.”
Ryzhkov asserted that the president is introducing even more
weakness and instability into the state structure: “The ranks of the
federal government were already demoralized and destabilized because
the orders reorganizing it that were issued in March haven’t yet
been formalized. Now Putin has destabilized the regional elites with
a proposal on appointing the governments, essentially making them all
‘lame ducks.’ They are destabilized and demoralized not for a
short while, [but] for the next few years, as this new initiative is
transformed into legislation, approved, and then implemented.
Likewise, the corps of mayors is also destabilized because Putin
implied that they, too, might soon be appointed rather than elected.
Half of the State Duma is demoralized because their status is now
uncertain despite the fact that they were elected,” he continued.
“Putin has managed to deprive himself of almost all of his
potential allies. Moreover, he is attacking his own people, since
almost all the governors already supported him. The single-mandate
deputies already supported him. He has disorganized almost all
government institutions for the medium short-term, while at the same
time he is calling for mobilization and order,” Ryzhkov added.
In “Moskovskie novosti,” no. 35, other Russian politicians
recently joined Ryzhkov in criticizing Putin’s proposed
initiatives. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin said that he
hopes that “the measures that the country’s leadership undertakes
after Beslan will remain within the framework of democratic freedoms
that have become Russia’s most valuable achievement over the past
decade. We will not give up on the letter of the law and, most
importantly, the spirit of the constitution our country voted for in
the national referendum in 1993.” In the same issue, former Soviet
President Mikhail Gorbachev commented: “Our common goal is to do
everything possible to make sure that these initiatives, which, in
essence, mean a step back from democracy, don’t come into force
as law.” “I hope that politicians, voters, and the president himself
keep the democratic freedoms that were so hard to obtain.”

CIVIL SOCIETY

RUSSIAN NGOS SLAM PUTIN REFORMS AS ‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL’

By Catherine A. Fitzpatrick

Russians polled immediately after the horrifying terrorist
attack in Beslan, where at least 335 people were killed, half of them
children, were evenly divided as to whether they would cede more
powers to security forces and accept limitations on their own civil
rights and liberties for the sake of preventing terrorism. In a
survey of 500 people conducted by the Levada Analytical Center in
Moscow on 7-8 September, 46 percent said they would definitely give
up their rights, and 45 percent said they would not, with 9 percent
undecided.
It is less likely that President Vladimir Putin’s
proposed reforms of the electoral system, which came in the wake of
the latest series of terrorist attacks and are purportedly designed
to enable the government to fight terrorism better, have the support
of the majority of the public. They have provoked strong protest from
human rights groups and opposition parties now out of parliament, as
well as various commentators in the independent media, all of whom
have already been under attack by the Kremlin in the last year as
Putin has consolidated power. While such outspoken groups are a
minority of voices, they do reflect the concerns of thousands of
nongovernmental groups active on human rights, environmental, and
social issues that have increasingly been expressing concern about
government interference and restrictions on their work. They do not
see the link between curbing democracy and stopping terrorism.
“Terrorism should not be fought by strengthening
authoritarianism, but by cleaning up and reforming law-enforcement
agencies, raising the professionalism of the special services, and
above all, resolving the problems provoking tension in the country,”
the human rights NGO Krasnoyarsk Memorial Society said in a public
statement released on 14 September.
Ludmila Alekseeva, head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, which
is among the oldest human rights groups dating from the Soviet era,
has been a long-standing critic of Putin’s policies, although she
has kept open the door to dialogue with the government, such as at a
national Civic Forum organized by the Kremlin in November 2001. Now
she says that in the name of fighting terrorism, the government is
dismantling the democracy established after the fall of the Soviet
Union.
“The appointment of governors is a completely
unconstitutional assault on electoral law. Our constitution provides
for direct elections, and not indirect, through legislators,”
Alekseeva wrote in an essay on the human rights portal hro.org
published on 15 September. The amendment to the constitution can only
be made because the pro-presidential parties are in a majority in
parliament, according to Alekseeva, who believes that Putin’s
reforms now signify the final subordination of regional authority to
the federal center. “This kills the very point of a federation,” she
said. “The regions should elect people themselves who are popular in
their areas.”
Alekseeva believes that subordinating regional leaders to the
Kremlin’s rule will make Russia less safe, not increase security.
She points to the popular figure of Ruslan Aushev, former president
of Ingushetia, who played a crucial role in the Beslan hostage
crisis, initially securing the release of 26 hostages before he was
removed from negotiations by federal authorities. Earlier, Aushev had
been forced to step down and was replaced by a Kremlin-appointed
leader. “While Ruslan Aushev was in Ingushetia, even if he was
defiant, even if he was inconvenient to Moscow, while he was there,
there weren’t the kind of bandit raids that there are now with
[current President Murat] Zyazikov, appointed from above,” Alekseeva
commented.
Yabloko, a liberal democratic party led by Grigorii
Yavlinskii that lost its seats in parliament in the last election,
roundly criticized Putin’s recent measures. In a statement
released to the media on 13 September, Yabloko said that instead of
cleaning up the security services, the government was eliminating the
last vestiges of public oversight of such agencies. Abolishing local
elections “could lead to the growth of interethnic tension in the
national republics,” said the statement. Not only would the reforms
strike a blow against the foundations of Russian federalism
established since the breakup of the Soviet Union, they would signify
“a return to the extremely ineffective unitary system of government,
which had no feedback from society,” Yabloko stated. “The
president’s initiative is offensive to the citizens of Russia
because it takes away their right to choose their government.”
Most of those criticizing Putin’s moves were already
warning about his restrictions on democracy long before the
August-September wave of terrorism. Their warnings had increased in
the last year, as the Kremlin turned its attention from the
parliament and the media, already brought to heel, to the thousands
of NGOs that have become active in recent years, some with
significant foreign funding. “Russia today is not democratic. It does
not intend, in the presence of its leadership, to become democratic,”
Yelena Bonner, a veteran human rights campaigner, told an audience at
the National Endowment of Democracy on 10 June.
In his state of the nation address in March, President Putin
lashed out at some NGOs, saying they were merely out to profit from
questionable foreign grants, and that human rights activity was not
relevant and not defending the people’s “real interests.” Putin
claimed some groups were agents of influence from foreign
foundations, or were serving “dubious groups and commercial
interests.” The extraordinary attack was followed by months of
articles placed in pro-government newspapers and various
propagandistic interventions at public meetings and abroad attacking
the human rights movement as “unconstructive.”
Soon after Putin’s March speech, the Tatarstan Human
Rights Center in Kazan was raided by masked men who smashed computers
and other equipment. The attack came hours after the group accused
local police of pressuring them for their criticism. The group was
funded by Open Russia, a foundation funded by jailed oil tycoon
Mikhail Khodorkovskii.
The pro-government parliament picked up on the Kremlin’s
new harsh attitude toward activist groups by considering draft
legislation to further control NGO activity, already under
considerable regulation in Russian. The draft law envisions a
commission to control funding for NGOs, and all foreign or domestic
donors will have to clear registration and reporting hurdles, in
addition to regular tax returns. Contributions not approved by this
commission could be taxed at the rate of 24 percent.
NGOs working in Russia’s major areas of unrest were
already feeling the pinch of new restrictive policies long before the
current wave of terror. The Foreign Ministry spokesman told
reporters, for example, that NGOs in Chechnya “are predominantly
engaged in collecting information, not in providing real humanitarian
aid,” “The Washington Post” reported 31 May. Kremlin consultant Gleb
Pavlovskii accused groups that receive international funding of a
“conflict of interest” because they embraced foreign notions of human
rights, the daily reported.
Despite the most concerted attack on human rights NGOs since
the Soviet era, the sheer numbers and achievements of such groups has
meant their movement still has momentum. This week, a civil rights
lawyer, Karina Moskalenko, was able to win an appeal to the Supreme
Court to overturn an order by the Krasnodar Krai Justice Ministry to
disband the Krasnodar Krai Human Rights Center. The group had been
accused of various legal violations and they were able to convince
the judge that the allegations were untrue.
Yet, groups more directly related to the Chechen conflict
face far greater scrutiny and even legal action. The Chechen
Committee of National Salvation is to face hearings at the end of
September that could result in closure under new legislation tagged
“On Countering Extremist Activities,” the New York-based lawyers
organization Human Rights First reported 22 September. The Chechen
group is not known to have used or advocated violence and has been
deregistered in the past due to its human rights work in the region.
Human Rights First fears that in the name of cracking down on
terrorism, the government will also intimidate human rights monitors.
Such monitors have already proved invaluable in exposing official
corruption and misrule, the kind of factors that President Putin
himself said played a role in the recent failure to prevent and
respond to terrorism.

TERROR IN RUSSIA

PUTIN’S ‘MANAGED’ INVESTIGATION INTO BESLAN

By Robert Coalson

Can Putin’s commission provide any answers as to what
happened in Beslan?
Shortly after the 3 September conclusion of the tragic school
hostage taking in Beslan, North Ossetia, President Vladimir Putin
said that there would be no public investigation into the incident.
Speaking to Western journalists and academics on 6 September, Putin
said that he would conduct an internal probe into the matter. He
added that if the Duma looked into it, the investigation would become
“a political show” and “would not be very effective,” “The Guardian”
reported the next day.
A few days later, however, a “political show” of a different
sort got under way, Kremlin critics say. Putin held a televised
meeting on 10 September with Federation Council Chairman Sergei
Mironov, in which the latter informed him that the Federal Assembly
intended to create an interparliamentary commission to probe the
affair. Such televised meetings have become a prominent feature of
Putin’s post-Beslan management style: on 14 September, for
instance, he held a stage-managed meeting with Prime Minister Mikhail
Fradkov in which the prime minister “informed” him that Gazprom
should be allowed to purchase state oil company Rosneft.
As the cameras rolled, Putin told Mironov on 10 September
that “we are all interested in getting a complete and objective
picture of the tragic events,” Russian media reported. Putin further
said he would order all executive-branch agencies to cooperate with
the legislature’s investigation. Although Putin’s apparent
volte-face might have been prompted by the negative reaction in
Russia and the West to his statement rejecting an independent
inquiry, no one expected that the meeting with Mironov signaled a
real change of heart or strategy.
On 20 September, the Federation Council held a closed-door
session during which the composition of the investigating commission
was determined. A few days earlier, council Deputy Chairman Aleksandr
Torshin told RIA-Novosti that the commission’s schedule had
largely been determined, even though its membership had not been
named. Torshin emphasized that the legislation governing such
commissions is incomplete and that the commission would have no
authority to compel senior officials to testify. He added, though,
that it might even ask Putin himself to answer questions.
During its 20 September meeting, the Federation Council
decided that the commission would comprise 11 council members and 10
Duma deputies and would be headed by Torshin. The 11 council members
are: Torshin, Defense and Security Committee member Aleksei
Aleksandrov, Constitutional Law Committee Deputy Chairman Leonid
Bindar, Industry Committee Deputy Chairman Erik Bugulov, Economy
Committee First Deputy Chairman Vladimir Gusev, Legal and Judicial
Affairs Committee member Rudik Iskuzhin, Audit Chamber Cooperation
Commission Deputy Chairman Yurii Kovalev, Federation Council Affairs
Commission Chairman Vladimir Kulakov, CIS Affairs Committee member
Oleg Panteleev, Defense Committee Deputy Chairman Vyacheslav Popov,
and Constitutional Law Committee Chairman Valerii Fedorov.
The 10 Duma members are expected to be named on 25 September.
Seven will represent Unified Russia, with one each from the Communist
Party, Motherland, and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.
“Vremya novostei” and “Nezavisimaya gazeta” noted on 21 September
that there will most likely be no independent deputies on the
commission, even though independent Deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov was the
first to call for an independent probe.
Mironov told “Vremya novostei” that commission members were
selected in part on the basis of their contacts with the secret
services. “People selected for the commission are ones who have a
high level of access,” Mironov said. The paper predicted that the
Duma representatives would be dominated by Unified Russia loyalists
and former security-service figures — “people who won’t ask
‘unnecessary’ questions.”
At a press conference announcing the commission, Mironov
stressed that it will not conduct a public investigation. “Commission
members will not have the right to publicize information about the
progress of the investigation or to comment on it except at official
press conferences sanctioned by the commission chairman,” Mironov
said, according to km.ru and other Russian media. Mironov said the
commission will prepare a final report, but refused to say whether
that report will be made public. “Kommersant-Daily” reported on 21
September that Mironov has also ordered that commission members not
be allowed to discuss the commission’s work without his
permission even after the probe is completed.
The semi-formed commission began work immediately and arrived
on 21 September in North Ossetia to begin five days of collecting
testimony from local witnesses and officials. However, few analysts
expressed confidence that the commission would ever produce
definitive answers to lingering questions about the Beslan events,
including the identities of the hostage takers, the exact numbers of
hostages and victims, what the government’s plans were for either
negotiating with the terrorists or storming the building, and how
former Ingushetian President Ruslan Aushev was able to negotiate with
the hostage takers and to secure the release of 26 of the hostages.
“It will be impossible to have any confidence in this
commission and its conclusions,” Ryzhkov told “Nezavisimaya gazeta”
on 21 September, “because Unified Russia is compromised by the same
authorities who allowed such failures in the North Caucasus and, in
particular, in Beslan.”

COMINGS & GOINGS

IN: Former presidential envoy to the Siberian
Federal District Leonid Drachevskii, who was dismissed by President
Vladimir Putin on 9 September (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 10 September
2004), is expected to be named deputy CEO of Unified Energy Systems
(EES), “Rossiiskaya gazeta” reported on 17 September, citing EES
manager Andrei Trapeznikov. EES CEO Anatolii Chubais reportedly made
the offer during a 90-minute meeting with Drachevskii on 16 September
and Drachevskii reportedly agreed. Current EES Deputy CEO Yakov
Urinson will remain in his post and Chubais will have two deputies,
Trapeznikov said. An official announcement is expected on 1 October
when the EES board of directors holds its next meeting.

IN: Yevgenii Satanovskii has been reelected as head of
the Russian Jewish Congress, newsru.com reported on 15 September.

POLITICAL CALENDAR

23 September: The heads of government of Shanghai
Cooperation Organization member states will meet in Bishkek

26 September: State Duma will consider draft 2005 budget in
its first reading

26 September: Khabarovsk mayoral election will be held

29 September: Auction for the government’s stake in
LUKoil will be held

October: President Vladimir Putin will visit China

October: International forum of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference will be held in Moscow

1 October: Deadline for population to select a management
company to handle their pension-fund contributions, according to
“Kommersant-Daily” on 3 September

1 October: Date by which the government will decide whether
to sell a controlling stake in Aeroflot, according to Economic
Development and Trade Minister German Gref

4-8 October: Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly will
convene

7 October: President Putin’s 52nd birthday

10 October: Mayoral elections scheduled for Magadan

23-26 October: Second anniversary of the Moscow theater
hostage crisis

25 October: First anniversary of former Yukos head Mikhail
Khodorkovskii’s arrest at an airport in Novosibirsk

31 October: Presidential election in Ukraine

November: Gubernatorial election in Pskov and Kurgan oblasts

14 November: Mayoral election will take place in
Blagoveshchensk

20 November: Sixth anniversary of the killing of State Duma
Deputy Galina Starovoitova

22 November: President Putin to visit Brazil

December: A draft law on toll roads will be submitted to the
government, according to the Federal Highways Agency’s
Construction Department on 6 April

December: Gubernatorial elections in Vladimir, Bryansk,
Kamchatka, Ulyanovsk, and Volgograd oblasts; Khabarovsk Krai; and
Ust-Ordynskii Autonomous Okrug

December: Presidential elections in Marii-El and Khakasia
republics

5 December: By-elections for State Duma seats will be held in
two single-mandate districts in Ulyanovsk and Moscow

5 December: Gubernatorial election will be held in Astrakhan
Oblast

29 December: State Duma’s fall session will come to a
close

1 February 2005: Former President Boris Yeltsin’s 74th
birthday

March 2005: Gubernatorial election in Saratov Oblast.

*********************************************************
Copyright (c) 2004. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.

The “RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly” is prepared by Julie A. Corwin
on the basis of a variety of sources. It is distributed every
Wednesday.

Direct comments to Julie A. Corwin at [email protected].
For information on reprints, see:

Back issues are online at

SPORTSMEN FROM NAGORNY KARABAKH WIN FOUR MEDALS AT 37th PAN-ARMENIAN
GAMES IN TEHRAN

STEPANAKERT, SEPTEMBER 22. ARMINFO. Sportsmen from Nagorny Karabakh
returned home from the 37th Pan-Armenian games in Tehran with four
medals.

Deputy Minister of Education, Culture and Sports of NKR informed
ARMINFO, the NKR sportsmen won two gold, 1 silver and one bronze
medals.

PRESIDENT TO SETTLE CONFLICT OVER BALLET SCHOOL

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 22. ARMINFO. RA President has promised to settle
the conflict over Yerevan Choreographic School in the favor of the
school, Gevorg Mheryan, a member of the Presidential Supervisory
Service, told the collective and parents’ committee, who are
discontent with the personnel decisions made by the RA Minister of
Culture Hovik Hoveyan.

Mheryan pointed out that the President is well-informed of the problem
and expects the Minister’s return from Germany. We would remind you
that the students’ parents held a picket in front of the presidential
residence to get an answer to their letter addressed to the President
requesting his interference. On September 10, a scandal took place at
the school: the school personnel were discontented by Minister Hovik
Hoveyan’s decree relieving Director Norair Mehrabyan and appointing
Karen Gevorgyan, and drove the Minister and his body-guards out. No
classes have been conducted for 12 days at the only ballet school in
Armenia that has worked for 80 years.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

YEREVAN PRESS CLUB AWARDS BEST REPS OF FOURTH ESTATE

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 22. ARMINFO. A ceremonial presentation of prizes to
representatives of Armenia’s fourth estate has been held today. It is
the sixth year in succession that the Yerevan Press Club has give such
prizes.

The prize “For best photorepresentation of social problems’ was given
to the photojournalist of the ARMINFO News Agency and of the “Golos
Armenii” newspaper Hakob Berberyan. He also received a special prize
of the Institute of Multiaspect Information. In the categories: “For
prompt information and contribution to formation of mass media
Internet versions”, the prize was given to the “a1plus”
(); “For impartial, well-informed and competent review of
the European and Spanish football championships” the prize was given
to the sport commentator of the RA Public Television Armen Melibekyan,
and the prize “For creative progress in 2003-2004” was given to the
“Fotolur” agency. The jury gave the prize “For best economic coverage”
to the commentator of the Armenian-language, service, Radio Free
Europe, Atom Margaryan. The jury has not given prizes for the best
political and social articles, the reason being that in 2003-2004
socio-political articles were purely informative without any objective
comments. The last prize was given “For the best open and transparent
work and effective cooperation with journalists” to Chairwoman of the
Parliamentary Commission for Science, Education, Culture and Youth
Affairs Hranush Hakobyan.