Egyptian Treasure Are Showcased at Lowell, Mass., store

zawya

LOWELL, Mass., Sep 08, 2004 (The Sun – Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News via COMTEX) — Mohammed “Moody” Eltobgi was an Egyptian
businessman for many years. So when he came to the United States in
1995 and worked in restaurants, he yearned to run his own business.

He combined a love for handcrafted goods and business knowledge to
open Moody’s Buried Treasures at 66 Merrimack St.

He imports hand-blown, hand-painted glass, hand-carved alabaster and
a hand-painted brass plates, all made by craftsmen in his native Egypt.

When visiting his homeland, he makes a point to seek out craftsmen
in villages who can no longer afford to work in places like Cairo.

“I love art, I love to see these people working,” he said. “They are
going out of business because of machine shops.” Eltobgi can buy many
of these goods cheaply, but prices vary. A hand-painted perfume bottle
is $5. Earrings are $4. An alabaster candelabra is $45. A handmade
belly-dancing costume is $300.

He also carries Avon products at the request of customers who
frequented the former business located at the address, the Lil’
Avon Boutique.

He runs the store with his wife, MaryGayle. The couple lives in Lowell.

“All my life I’ve been in business, and I believe we will get bigger,”
he said.

Eltobgi plans another trip soon to add to his inventory, possibly to
Romania or Armenia, on his continued search for handmade goods.

By Rebecca Lipchitz

To see more of The Sun, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to

(c) 2004, The Sun, Lowell, Mass. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News. For information on republishing this content, contact us at
(800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or
e-mail [email protected].

What is Coptology?

Eight years after Coptic studies was made an independent discipline at the
congress at Munster a proper definition of the field of study still eludes
academics, writes Jill Kamil

al-Ahram Weekly On-line
19 – 25 August 2004
Issue No. 704

The only absolute certainty is that ‘Coptic’ has to do with Egypt,” observed
Professor M Tito Orlandi of Rome’s University of La Sapienza in his
presidential address to the eighth International Association for Coptic Studies (IACS)
congress in Paris last week.

The astounding fact is that, apart from linguistics (which alone can be
clearly defined) there is neither an obvious character, nor can the limitations be
set, on all other fields of Coptic studies, whether history, geography,
literature or art. This vitally important subject concerning Orthodox Egyptian
Christianity has been conscientiously considered, deliberated on and studied in
depth at an international level for the last 30 years. But while there have been
specialised studies by scholars around the world, seven international
congresses and seminars in Egypt and abroad, its parameters are still being debated.

The IACS is an offshoot of the International Committee founded in 1976 for
the publication of the Nag Hammadi codices, and its congresses take place every
four years. This year Paris was the host city, following Rome, Warsaw,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Washington, Munster and Leiden. There were some 280 participants,
and the proceedings were conducted at two venues: L’Institut d’Art et
d’Archaeologie de la Sorbonne, and L’Institut Catholique, both not far from the
Luxembourg Gardens.

Ever since Coptic studies was declared a separate discipline at Munster in
1996 it has seemed unable, despite all efforts, to carve a niche for itself — a
claim to legitimacy. There remain so many imponderables on the “Copticity”
of, say, a work of art, its manifestation in literature, or as evidence of
architectural change or continuity, because it overlaps with other cultures,
whether Roman, Byzantine or Islamic. As a result the conference, rather than ironing
out the creases between the diverse cultures of the ancient Middle East and
establishing a distinct niche for Coptic studies, succeeded in doing just the
opposite, it fanned uncertainty and made the concept just as difficult to
define as it always has been.

Professor Orlandi had this to say: “After long mediation I have come to
believe that the following statements may be accepted, if considered without
prejudice and with a fair mind. First, it is important that Coptology as an academic
discipline be neither forgotten nor passed over in silence when it is
opportune that it be discussed. Second, that while it would be idle, indeed
irrelevant, to try and establish a precise definition which is valid for each
specialisation, we should recognise the nucleus, the core, made by a few disciplines,
as well as a group of others, equally important, whose legitimacy depends on
the existence of core studies. This blend,” he suggested, “would produce a
flexible but sufficiently consistent definition of Coptology.”

While admitting that Coptology could not, like Latin literature or Byzantine
art, be identified as a distinct discipline, Orlandi said that it must be
considered among a group of disciplines that share certain characteristics and
images, whether in archaeology, Christian theology, political history, biblical
philology or monasticism, “Coptic may be a part, but it lies within a
structurally and methodically coherent whole,” he said, stressing the desirability of
establishing whether there existed “a Copticity”, a kind of peculiar, spiritual
attitude or character that, when studied by Coptologists in religion,
literature, art, history, music etc, could be shown to create a common cultural
ground.

“I mean,” Orlandi amplified, “whether the word ‘Coptic’ may refer not only to
a historical period or geographical location but to one more or less
coherent, unifying spiritual factor. This I, for one, and possibly most of us, would
like to see clearly established.”

With the congress’s 280 participants presenting 20-minute papers on a wide
range of subjects, in five languages, in three lecture halls on alternate floors
of the Institute d’Art, the grand marble stairway graced by classical works
of art was packed with people hurrying up and down — because the single lift
was “un peu fragile” and it was recommended that only those not capable of
tackling the stairs should use it. The Tower of Babel must have been a little like
this — scholarly patriarchs with bearded chins slightly raised in disdain
when they discovered the microphone was not working, dignified monks in their
habits mingling with the crowds, eager young students palpably trembling with
excitement, Professor Godlewski with his body of devotees, and other
participants united in a common bond of Egypt’s contribution to Orthodox Christianity.

A certain panic ensued when lecture hall venues had to be changed at the last
minute because the equipment proved inadequate: a microphone did not work, a
power point linkup could not be made, or because of last minute cancellations.

But technical problems were quickly resolved and, unlike the babbling hordes
in the Tower of Babel, there were common languages and a spirit of
camaraderie.

Language did prove to be a problem, however. It was unfortunate that, unlike
at the recent seminar on Coptic studies at Wadi Al-Natrun, translations were
not handed out.

The presentations covered archaeology and art history, the Gnostics and
Manacheism, documentary sources including the Nag Hammadi codices, papyrus
collections, ostraca and specific inscriptions from various sources, discoveries of
wall paintings in abandoned hermitages and in a cave church, and studies on
Copts and Muslims in the Late Antique and early Islamic periods. Numerous studies
have been made in recent years on textiles, monasticism, theology and magic.

Four important and useful papers were given on the progress made in the
period 2000-2004: Research and Publications in Coptic Papyrology by Terry Wilfong
of the University of Michigan, Research and Publication in Coptic Art by Karel
Inemée, Actualitiés des Musées et Expositions by Dominique Benazeth, and
Copto-Arabic Studies by Mark Swanson.

The core disciplines referred to by Orlandi in his presidential address
included the study of the Coptic language in all its synchronic aspects, the study
of Coptic literature written in Coptic (although from the intertextual and
historical points of view it cannot be distinguished from respective contemporary
Greek, Arabic, and Demotic literature); the study of the Egyptian church in
all its aspects after the Council of Chalcedon in 451; the study of
paleography; the study of ecclesiastical and monastic Egyptian art after Chalcedon; and
the study of papyri and similar documents written in Coptic.

The sum total of knowledge in these areas is increasing, and thus Coptic
studies are becoming more and more specialised. But unfortunately this is not
leading to a clearer understanding of the subject. “The status of Coptic
literature still needs to be correctly understood, because of the tendency to extract
some of its branches to form independent fields,” Orlandi lamented. Such
fragmentation distracts from, rather than aids general historical assessment of
works of literature. He mentioned that biblical translations, Gnostic texts and
apocrypha were frequently considered separately from the development of Coptic
literature proper, with the result that “all is left in a vague environment,
where the sources of the texts are important, and not the form which they have
assumed in Coptic”. When it came to Coptic literature in the Arabic language,
this, due to linguistic competence, is set apart.

Ironically, Coptic studies has no beginning in Egypt. Here we have a strange
paradox. The Coptic church is one of the oldest in Christendom, brought to
Egypt by St Mark, the reputed author of the oldest of the four canonical gospels.

Yet the sad fact remains that owing to the integration of contrasting
configurations, whether Egyptian, classical, Greek-Egyptian, or Persian pagan motifs,
not to mention Byzantine and Syrian Christian influences, it is difficult to
identify. At the latter end of the scale it is now generally accepted that
Islamic influence on the Copts was slow to develop, but, at the beginning, the
slow and steady development of a distinctively Egyptian trait, a local identity,
is lacking.

This problem, Orlandi observed, had not been “extensively and seriously
debated”. As a result, he said, general introductions to “the Copts” were
unsatisfactory in many ways. He mentioned the works of Meinardus 1961-1977, Brunner-
Traut 1982, De Bourguet 1988, Cannuyer 1990 and 2000, all of which he described
as “very useful” but “often not in tune with the achievements of actual
research”. He did commend the works of R Bagnall 1993, Gerhards-Brakmann 1994,
Capuani 1999, and the collective books edited by Krause and Camplani in German and
Italian respectively, but pointed out that these covered only selective
subjects.

Among the major achievements of the past decades is The Coptic Encyclopaedia,
conceived and produced by Aziz and Lola Attiya. “But there is a need for a
kind of handbook on Coptic studies like that provided by O Montevecchi for
apyriology, the monumental Handbook on the Science of Antiquities of Munich, and
the Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi codices, their publication, translation
and commentary by J M Robinson and his group,” he said.

Orlandi pointed out that there was no spirit of competition, let alone active
collaboration, between learned associations comparable to the IACS, even with
those, such as Egyptologists and papyrologists, that included Coptic studies
in their scope. Indeed, in any publication of assorted studies on various
topics in late antiquity or Byzantium most of the articles will be on
Constantinople, Syria, Armenia, Gaul, North Africa and Palestine, with Egypt mentioned
only in passing. “I would call it something like a tacit and benign mutual
neglect,” he said, adding that it was a field where more could certainly be done in
the future.

There is considerable evidence of Coptic roots within the Pharaonic
inheritance. For example, it is generally accepted that Christian icons owe a great
deal to mummy portrait painting, and the discovery and study of the Nag Hammadi
codices reveal that Egypt exerted an appreciable sway upon the entire
Hellenistic world in which Christianity took root. In spite of such substantial
evidence Coptic studies usually commences with the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and
classical antiquity still provides most of the source material for European
accounts of the Copts in Egypt. It is unfortunate, therefore, that from the
abundance of literary evidence that has survived in dump heaps, Greek, Latin and
Arabic texts have been translated at the expense of Demotic and Coptic.
Countless publications from the past century — studies, monographs and lecture series
— lay bare Egyptian society under Byzantine rule, but insufficient effort
has been made in translating those texts which might locate the roots of
Egyptian Christianity within the Pharaonic inheritance. They continue to lie in boxes
in museum storerooms around the world, including the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

Among the congress presentations that remain in my mind are Father Daniel
Al-Suriani’s valuable study of the function of a group of bronze objects in the
daily life of the monastery, Gawdat Gabra’s description of the discovery of an
interesting underground monastic complex at Mansuriya with surviving wall
paintings, and Elizabeth Bolman’s preliminary results of the remarkable wall
painting conservation project in the Red Monastery near Sohag. Mention must also be
made of Magdalena Laptas’s description of the newly-discovered murals of the
Polish expedition at Banganarti in Sudan, since excellent use was made here of
a “power point” presentation with appropriate zooming in of the site plan
with different locations of surviving wall paintings, along with details of each.

There are now institutions that give more or less regular courses of
Coptology in 47 countries around the world, including Australia, Great Britain,
Canada, Germany, Jerusalem, Spain, Switzerland and the United States, but there are
none in Egypt. A rotating chair of Coptic studies was opened at the American
University in Cairo in 2002 but its future is uncertain; apparently funding is
not yet sufficient to establish an endowment capable of supporting a
year-round, full-time position. No department of Coptic studies is yet to be found in
any of Egypt’s national universities; since 1976, when the IASC was
established, it has been a tradition to send a telegramme to the minister of higher
education and the president of Cairo University on the need to establish such a
department in the land of the Coptic heritage, but so far nothing has been
achieved.

And so, while confusion remains over the use of the very word “Coptic”, with
philologists referring to the last phase of the Egyptian language, theologians
to the Egyptian faith, and art historians, until recently, describing as
“Coptic” anything that did not fit into other well-defined parameters, the
situation looks bleak. “I could not say whether the academic teaching of Coptology
has improved in the last 30 years,” Orlandi admitted, “or even by how much,
because there is no assessment of previous activity”.

Although Professor Orlandi ended his address on an optimistic note, recalling
important achievements in the last three decades with particular mention of
an encyclopaedia, grammatical, historical atlas, handbook of liturgy, and a
minor but total edition of the Coptic Bible, a history of Copto-Arabic literature
as well as ongoing excavation of archaeological sites and diverse studies,
when we observe the overall picture it would appear that the congress, for all
its scope, may not have been the success it should have been. Gaps between
different disciplines seem to be widening rather than diminishing, and still open
to question is a definition of Coptic and the broad parameters of Coptic
studies.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
138 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-7810
Fax: 212-689-7168
e-mail: [email protected]
Website:
Contact: Iris Papazian

EASTERN PRELACY MOURNS THE PASSING OF ARCHBISHOP VARTAN DEMIRJIAN

NEW YORK, NY – Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan, Prelate of the Eastern
Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, received the
news of the passing of Archbishop Vartan Demirjian from His Holiness
Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia. Archbishop Vartan
died suddenly in Antelias, Lebanon, on Thursday, September 9. He was
65 years old.

The Extreme Unction and Burial services will take place on Saturday,
September 11, 2004, at 11 a.m. at St.. Gregory the Illuminator
Cathedral in Antelias. The Catholicos will preside over the services.

Archbishop Demirjian, a member of the Cilician Brotherhood, was born
in Lebanon in 1939. He was ordained a celibate priest in 1957 and was
consecrated a Bishop in 1977. He has served the Armenian Church in
various capacities including several years of service in Iran and
Greece, as a teacher at the Cilician See’s Theological Seminary,
and Director of the Printing House. At the time of his death he was
the Librarian at the Catholicosate’s Library.

Archbishop Oshagan has asked all parishes within the Eastern Prelacy
to conduct a Requiem Service for the late Archbishop on Sunday,
September 19, marking the seventh day of his passing.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“IMPERIALISM IS THE MAIN OBSTACLE ON THE WAY OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH
RELATIONS; NEITHER TURKS NOR ARMENIANS ARE TO BLAME” — Dr. Hasan Oktay
Assures

AZG Daily
09/08/2004

By Hakob Chakrian

Hasan Oktay of the Institute of Armenian Studies in Ankara together
with a coworker Banu is in Armenia these days. On September 3 Oktay
visited Azg Daily publishing house and had a talk with editor-in-chief
Hakob Avetikian. Apparently, the Turkish scientist is interested
in the position of the Azg Daily as regard to the international
acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, Armenia-Turkish relations
and the border-gate opening.

Oktay’s interview with Hakob Avetikian will be presented as soon as
the former returns to Ankara. For that very reason we present our
own interview with the head of the Institute of Armenian Studies. The
interview was interesting regardless any disagreement over issues.

Q: What’s your main purpose for visiting Armenia?

A: To see the neighboring Armenia, to go sightseeing. When you see
everything with your own eyes you become fond of it.

Q: As a head of an institute you must be interested in scientific
establishments of Armenia. Which of those will you visit?

A: I shall be at the National Academy of Sciences, particularly at
the Institutes of Oriental Studies and of History, I’ll also visit
the Yerevan State University, Department of Oriental Studies and the
Institute-Museum of Armenian Genocide.

Q: Have you visited other places besides Yerevan?

A: We had time only to visit Etchmiadzin. We’ll leave for Gyumri for
3 days, then we’ll visit the Sardarapat National Museum.

Q: What is your impression of Armenia?

A: I expected to see a better country. Armenia could have been in
a better condition and Yerevan more orderly. Saying “better” I mean
the reflection of economy on the city.

Q: What do you think of Armenian-Turkish relations?

A: I think they will improve in the near future.

Q: What do you consider the main obstacle on the way of development
of these relations?

A: I consider the imperialism the main obstacle on the way of
Turkish-Armenian relations; neither Turks nor Armenians are to blame.

Q: What about Turkey’s close cooperation with such imperialistic
state as the USA?

A: The Turkish-US relations are not on a healthy ground at present.

Q: If the imperialists are to blame, why is Turkey striving for the EU?
After all, such imperialistic states as France and Germany are there.

A: No matter how hard Turkey tries, it will never be a member. It
seems to me that Turkey is being tricked. Don’t you think so?

Q: What do you think of Azg Daily’s online edition?

A: There in Turkey many people consider Azg Daily to be the only
Armenian newspaper with a daily online edition. Turkey is attentive
to Azg Daily’s publications. And we know that Turkey is always at
the spotlight of Azg Daily.

Q: What can you say about the Institute of Armenian Studies?

A: Our Institute was founded in May of 2001 and operates within
the frameworks of the Center for Eurasian Research. The Institute
publishes 2 editions in Turkish and English. And we have 9 scientists
at the Institute.

Q: What kind of researches are you carrying out?

A: We try to contribute the development of Armenia-Turkish
relations. We want the world to understand the Armenians of Turkey
correctly. Meanwhile we try to respond through researches to those
attempting to spoil relations between the two nations. Our studies
include the history of Armenia from ancient times till our days. We
approach the historic issues from social, psychological views as well
as from the angle of international relations.

Q: Do you have any message to deliver?

A: I appeal to Armenian people and the intelligentsia to join us in
our efforts of raising Turkish-Armenian relations to the level of
blessed old times.

Ossetian President pinned down

Pravda, Russia
Sept 9 2004

Last weekend the streets of Beslan were full of military and the
police.

The authorities are making precautions not to allow bloody vendetta
in the North Caucasus region. The situation is serious indeed.

The relatives of the dead request the names of all the terrorists.
The special services say that they know the names of the terrorists,
but are not in a hurry to make the names public. The cause is obvious
– the memories of the clashes between Ossetians and Ingush in the
beginning of the 1990s are still alive.

The people of Ossetia are angry that their official leader, President
Alexander Dzasokhov was not very noticeable during the hostage
crisis. From the very beginning, the terrorists requested Dzasokhov
for negotiations, but the head of the republic restrained from coming
to Beslan and preferred to communicate with the outer world through
his press department.

Later, on September 4, Mr. Dzasokhov issued an address to the
citizens of Ossetia republic. “I want to apologize to all whose
home has been struck by grief. I am telling about this as failed
to safeguard our children, our teachers and our parents”, said the
official and added. “Our grief is immense, but we cannot be divided
in this hour. The opponents of mutual consent and those willing to
see our country and the peoples of Caucasus divided, should not be
given the gift of our conflicts”.

However, the citizens of North Ossetia seemed stopped to believe the
words of their president. Many thousands of people participated in
the demonstrations in Ossetian capital Vladikavkaz, demanding the
republic”s leaders resignation. The organizers of the demonstrations
say this is just a beginning. Their demonstrations are peaceful now,
but what if.

They say, however, that the entire Ossetian people does not want
Dzasokhov to resign, some “forces” are pushing forward the idea of
resignation. According to North Ossetia Interior Ministry, an elderly
man and a middle-aged woman have been seen at the meetings of people
and officials in Beslan. These two pronounce accusations to the
authorities, such as, “You killed our children!”, and then disappear
in the crowd. Many people saw them, but none caught them. Probably,
they are just phantoms of people”s imagination.

Kommersant reporter who was at the demonstration in Vladikavkaz,
heard as a young Ossetian called for driving all the Ingush out of
the republic. “Those who will refuse to leave, should be destroyed.
Then we should deal with Jews. Then with Armenians. Then with
Chechens. And separate ourselves from Russia. There is no other way”.

However, even considering that somebody is influencing the North
Ossetian people on purpose, the threat of chaos and massacre is very
serious. Last Sunday thousands of Ossetian people tried to attack the
Ingush in the households of Prigorodny neighborhood of Vladikavkaz.
The authorities hardly prevented massacre, the police persuaded the
men to go home.

P.S. The clashes between Ossetians and Ingush became the first hot spot
in North Caucasus region. The conflict was caused by the dispute over
the territory of Prigorodny district of Vladikavkaz which had always
been considered as Ingush”s. In 1944 the charges of collaboration with
fascist Germany were brought against Chechen-Ingush republic. Local
people were deported, and Prigorodny district was given to North
Ossetia. In 1957, the repressed peoples were rehabilitated. However,
the authorities did not return Prigorodny district to Ingush, the
Ingush were given a part of Stavropol region instead. After the
break-up of the USSR, Chechnya and Ingushetia separated themselves,
and Chechnya took over the former part of Stavropol region.

Until December 1992, no presence of Russian authorities was seen in
the Caucasus republics. Ingush leaders were quick to take advantage
of this, provided that the first elections of local authorities
were scheduled in the republic for October 1992. Simultaneously, in
North Ossetia paramilitary units started being formed – so called
“republican guard” and “people”s militia”. On October 31, 1992
Ingush military units started advancing to Prigorodny district. As
a response, North Ossetian people”s militia backed by the units from
South Ossetia, conducted bigger massacre of the Ingush. The clashes
lasted for several days until Russian military interfered. Today both
the Ossetians and Ingush try to prove that the disputable territory
is theirs, organize demonstrations and so on.

Today, the key issues of the conflict are: the Ingush people return
to their previous places of residence in North Ossetia and the
status of Prigorodny district. For North Ossetian authorities,
the pressing issues are the status of migrants, their return in
Prigorodny district and Vladikavkaz, and arranging negotiations on
the status of Prigorodny district. The federal authorities pursue the
policy of finding compromise between Ossetia and Ingushetia, which
is difficult to do because of different interpretations of the law
“On Repressed Peoples”, and the legislations of both the republics
which limit possible compromises. After electing Murat Zyazikov the
President of Ingushetia, the trend for compromise between the two
republics has been clearly seen.

Yegor Belous

Oil rivalry, strife afflict the Caucasus

People Before Profits

People’s Weekly World Newspaper
09/09/04

By David Eisenhower

Breakaway autonomous regions in the former Soviet republics of Georgia
and Azerbaijan are creating a headache for the Bush administration’s
geopolitical planners. The instability of this region – the Southern
Caucasus – was thrown into bold relief last week by the hostage-taking
of schoolchildren in the nearby North Ossetia town of Beslan, where
Russian troops stormed the school and where at least 338 people were
killed, more than half of them children.

Should the smoldering ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus be handled with
similar imperial, strong-arm tactics, the whole region could be engulfed
in a violent cataclysm.

Azerbaijan is rich in oil and natural gas, particularly around its
capital, Baku, on the Caspian Sea. The country’s estimated oil reserves
range from 3.7 billion to 40 billion barrels. Western oil companies, led
by British Petroleum, have launched an ambitious pipeline project to
transport this oil westward, through Azerbaijan and Georgia, to the
Turkish town of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea. Its ultimate
destination is Europe. A parallel natural gas pipeline will send Caspian
gas through Turkey to the “new” and old Europe, breaking what Western
energy interests refer to as Europe’s “strategic dependence on Russian gas.”

But ethnic strife may jeopardize the pipeline’s security. In Georgia,
the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia seek affiliation
with Russia. In Azerbaijan, the Armenian enclave of Nogorno-Karabakh
seeks to affiliate with nearby Armenia. Ethnic tensions are acute.
Russia has military bases in both South Ossetia and Armenia.

The Toronto Star, under the headline “Russia, Georgia face war over
separatist provinces,” reports that the new Georgian leader,
U.S.-trained Mikheil Saakashvili, wants to “reunite” the two separatist
territories with Georgia. Vitaly Naumkin, director of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Moscow, warns of a drift toward
“full scale war” between Georgia and the two autonomous provinces.

The Aug. 8 Moscow News quotes Saakashvili: “If war begins it will be a
war between Georgia and Russia, not between the Georgians and Ossetians.
“We are very close to a war [with Russia], the population must be
prepared.” Such a large-scale conflict would be catastrophic. Recent
skirmishes between Georgian and South Ossetian troops have already taken
the lives of 17 people.

A similar military conflict hovers over Azerbaijan, as authorities there
try to regain control over the autonomous territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
This enclave, composed of ethnic Armenians and surrounded by Azerbaijani
territory, gained independence in 1994 and developed strong ties with
Armenia. Coping with the strong Armenian nationalism of the territory
has proved to be no easy task for the Azerbaijani government, which has
looked to the U.S. for help. A hastily arranged visit to Azerbaijan by
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld apparently resulted in the U.S.
gaining a military presence there. But it is doubtful that U.S. troops
will contribute to peace in the region, as their mission will likely
include anti-Iran actions as well as suppressing Armenian nationalism.

The oil pipeline, dubbed the Baku-Tiblisi (Georgia’s capital)-Ceyhan
(BTC) project, is a key part of a broader U.S. strategy. In a recent
article at Asia Times Online, John Helmer refers to it as an effort “to
redraw the geography of the Caucasus on an anti-Russian map,”
undercutting Russia’s clout in Europe and elsewhere.

Despite “sincere assurances” to Russia that the U.S. means no harm –
neither in the form of the planned realignment of Washington’s NATO and
South Korean-based forces to positions around Russia, nor the new U.S.
bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Central Asia on Russia’s southern flank,
nor this “anti-Russian map” in the Caucasus – Russia is unlikely to buy
it. Instead, Russia will seek to strengthen its own position in the
Caucasus and in Central Asia, chiefly by strengthening the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) and the Collective Treaty Organization,
which recently conducted military exercises involving five Central Asian
nations, including Russia.

Russia is also expected to push for its own interests by teaming up with
Iran, and opening what Helmer calls “the shortest, cheapest and most
lucrative oil route of all, southward out of the Caspian to Iran.”

The stage is set for more strife and bloodshed as the U.S. and Russia
jockey for strategic advantage. In an echo of the “Great Game” between
Victorian England and czarist Russia over control of Central Asia in the
19th century, the pursuit of oil may once again create havoc and misery
for the peoples of the region.

The author can be reached at [email protected]

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Sept 9 2004

MINISTER OF DEFENCE RECEIVED DEPUTY COMMANDER OF THE US EUROPEAN
COMMAND
[September 09, 2004, 22:16:33]

On September 9, Minister of Defense of the Azerbaijan Republic
colonel-general Safar Abiyev has received Deputy Commander of the
United States European Command Charles Wald and delegation headed
by him.

As was informed into AzerTAj from the press-service of the Ministry of
Defense, the visitor has familiarized with the course of preparation
for field exercises “Cooperative Best Effort-04 ” which will be
carried out in the near future in Baku within the framework of the
program of the NATO “Partnership For Peace”.

General C. Wald has expressed confidence that these exercises would
pass successfully.

Colonel-general Safar Abiyev and general Charles Wald had exchange
of opinions on the present military-political situation in region of
the Southern Caucasus and events occurring here recently.

Having mentioned the relations between Azerbaijan and the USA,
the Minister of Defense has noted, that our country relies upon the
United States of America as strategic ally, and continues cooperation
with them in all fields, including in military sphere. The Minister
has expressed concern of our people in connection with the conflicts
proceeding in region, including the Armenia-Azerbaijan, still have not
found its settlement. Having emphasized, that the said conflict renders
negative influence on realization of the project of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
and other economic projects, he has told: “It is necessary to solve
this problem shortly. Everyone should realize, that Azerbaijan would
not concede to anybody and a span of the native land”.

General C. Wald has told: “You have truly noted. On the Southern
Caucasus still there are more many non-resolved problems. The
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict concerns to them also. The given
conflict should find its settlement internationally. The USA, Russia
and Turkey should accept active participation in solution of the
said question. It is necessary to conduct joint struggle against
terrorism. We should take part together in the settlement of the
mentioned question. Problems of your country should be settled shortly,
and economic prosperity start in the region”.

Expressing his attitude to development of military links of
our country, Charles Wald has noted, that the USA attaches great
importance to cooperation with Azerbaijan in military area, and the
said cooperation will extend.

The sides have had comprehensive exchange of views on prospects
of military cooperation between Azerbaijan and the US, and have
emphasized necessity of strengthening of combat against the
international terrorism.

Ambassador of the USA in Azerbaijan Republic Rino Harnish took part
in the meeting.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Sept 9 2004

WAY ON WHICH GOES ARMENIA, REPRESENTS THREAT TO THE POLICY OF THE
NATO ON SOUTHERN CAUCASUS
[September 09, 2004, 22:51:51]

Political scientist Rovshan Mustafayev thinks, that the Alliance will
correctly regard concern of the Azerbaijan public connected with it.

Director of Research Institute on Human Rights of ANAS, PhD Rovshan
Mustafayev has told to correspondent of AzerTAj: “Threat of terror in
our region proceeds not only from the Chechen Republic, but also from
uncontrolled territories, first of all, the Azerbaijan lands occupied
by Armenia, including the Nagorny Karabakh. Nagorny Karabakh is not
having any jurisdiction space where a number of the centers of the
international terrorism functions. From here terrorist attacks on
adjoining territories – Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Chechen Republic,
Beslan are on a regular basis organized. Nagorny Karabakh is
knowingly mentioned in Address of the President of Russia to people
in connection with Beslan tragedy as “endless whirlpool of bloody
conflicts”.

Last years, the NATO has declared uncompromising struggle with the
international terrorism. Azerbaijan suffering from the policy of
terror, pursued by Armenia at the state level, the first has
supported this struggle. Azerbaijan together with other countries of
Southern Caucasus takes part in the PfP program of the NATO.
Strangely enough, the Armenia-aggressor also is involved in this
program. While the policy pursued by this state contradicts
philosophy of Trans-Atlantic of the NATO, represents threat to its
policy on Southern Caucasus. The president of Armenia openly
declares, that took direct participation in fights for Karabakh, in
occupation of other areas of Azerbaijan. I think, that the NATO will
correctly regard the protest of the Azerbaijan public in connection
with participation of the Armenian officers whose hands are soiled
with blood of Azerbaijanis, in the forthcoming exercises of the
Alliance in Baku.

Annually the NATO carries out in various regions of 500-600 actions.
The Armenian officers are not invited to the majority of these
actions, or do not participate in them as it does not interest
Armenia. As a matter of fact, this state dictates its will to this
Organization. On the one hand, it convinces the Alliance of
participation in its program “Partnership for Peace”, on another, is
a member of the military block opposite to NATO. In short, as if the
politicians, experts of the NATO suffer with the “illness” of
Gorbachev and Vezirov. It seems to them, that they will achieve all,
if can set for a table of representatives of peoples of the Southern
Caucasus. We support cooperation with the North Atlantic block, make
all efforts in struggle against the international terrorism. At the
same time, we cannot shut eyes to the error of the NATO politicians,
connected to Southern Caucasus. This policy should be harmonized with
realities.

KLO Protests in Sheki

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
Sept 9 2004

09/09/2004 23:44

Members of the Karabagh Liberation Organization’s (KLO) branch
in Shaki, a city in the West of Azerbaijan have held a picket in
protest against the planned participation of Armenian officers in
NATO exercises to be held in Baku in September.

AssA-Irada — The KLO deputy chairman Shamil Mehdi told AssA-Irada
that during the picket arranged close the city’s Cemetery of Martyrs
the protesters showed placards “Shame on those who invite Armenians
to Azerbaijan!”, “Freedom to Garabagh!” and “Release KLO members!”.
A statement condemning Armenian officers’ planned visit to Azerbaijan
was issued at the end of the protest action.

ARMENIA IRAN FOR PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT IN KARABAKH

RIA Novosti, Russia
Sept 9 2004

YEREVAN, September 9 (RIA Novosti) – The presidents of Armenia and
Iran, Robert Kocharyan and Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Khatami, came out
for peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict, the hot stage of
which ended 10 years ago.

The sides highly assessed direct contacts between the Armenian and
Azeri presidents and expressed hope that they helped rapidly and
finally solve the issue which would take into account the present-day
realities and ensure the lasting and worthy peace in the region.

The presidents of Armenia and Iran pointed out that the deepening and
bringing closer together the interests of the region’s countries
would make it possible to create a favorable atmosphere for solving
all the conflicts in the Caucasus.

The situation in the zone of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian enclave
on the territory of Azerbaijan, and around it can be described as no
peace, no war situation. When Ilkham Aliyev came to power in
Azerbaijan he intensified bellicose rhetoric and declared that the
republic’s army could return the Azeri territories, occupied by the
Armenian side, by using force. At the same time, Azerbaijan
demonstrates its readiness to give a large-scale status to the
self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic but within a single Azeri
state. But both Yerevan and Stepanakert (the capital of
Nagorno-Karabakh) agree to consider any other issues of settlement
(the return of refugees to the places of their permanent residence,
the liquidation of the Lachinsky corridor which connects
Nagorno-Karabakh with the territory of Armenia, the restoration of
interrupted economic ties, the lifting of blockade from Karabakh and
so on) but not changes in its present status. The Minsk group did not
bring the sides’ stands closer to each other either.

The Armenian and Iranian presidents signed a treaty on the
foundations and principles of cooperation.

The press service of the head of Armenia reported that the
delegations of the two countries also signed a memorandum on mutual
relations on the results of the fifth joint session of
intergovernmental commissions on the Armenian-Iranian ties; the
treaty of cultural cooperation between the two countries in 2004-2007
and a memorandum on mutual understanding between the customs
committee under the Armenian government and the customs service of
Iran on the administrative cooperation in customs issues.

President Mohammad Khatami arrived in Yerevan in reply to Robert
Kocharyan’s visit to Iran in December 2001. The Iranian president
pointed out that when Armenia became an independent state a new stage
in its cooperation with Iran began. Khatami expressed hope that his
visit to Yerevan will help deepen the Armenian-Iranian relations in
all spheres.

The foreign trade between Armenia and Iran in January-July, 2004
amounted to $52.713 million against $45.746 million year-on-year.

Last May a treaty was signed in Yerevan on the deliveries of the
Iranian gas to Armenia and construction of an Iran-Armenia gas
pipeline. Now the construction of the Kadzharan tunnel and the
hydroelectric power station on the Araks river dividing the two sides
is being actively discussed.