BAKU: Prosecutor general meets PACE delegation

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Aug 6 2004

PROSECUTOR GENERAL MEETS PACE DELEGATION
[August 06, 2004, 15:01:23]

PACE co-rapporteurs on Azerbaijan Andreas Gross and Andrea Herkel and
accompanying delegation met on 5 August with Prosecutor General of
Azerbaijan Zakir Garalov.

Prosecutor General first let the guests know that the Azerbaijani
society had appreciated the COE Secretary General Walter Schwimmer’s
statement on illegality of the Armenians intention to hold elections
in Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. Such objective and unbiased
attitude promotes prevention of separatist tendencies not only in
relation to the Armenia-Azerbaijan but also other similar conflicts,
and reflects fair stance and demands of Azerbaijan, as well, he said.
It was mentioned, however, that Armenia, which holds unconstructive
position in peace process, stating on conducting military exercises
in the occupied territories, that complicates the situation in the
region.

Mr. Garalov also touched upon the issues related to honoring by
Azerbaijan its obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe.
He stressed the irreversibility of the political course towards
democracy initiated by national leader of Azerbaijan and founder of
the country’s independent statehood Heydar Aliyev and now being
successfully continued by President Ilham Aliyev. This is what
constitutes the basis for the measures aimed at building civilized,
secular and legal state, the Prosecutor General said.

He especially emphasized that it was continuation, under the
leadership of President Ilham Aliyev, of the reforms in legal sphere
that allowed to create today all the institutes ensuring practically
human right and freedoms in Azerbaijan. Mr. Garalov informed the
guest on measures taken in the country to improve activities of the
prosecutor’s bodies aimed at protection of the human rights and
freedoms.

Speaking of a number of achievements in development of international
relations gained since the meeting with Mr. Andreas Gross held at the
Office of Prosecutor General on May 20 2004, Prosecutor General Zakir
Garalov told of the efforts being taken by President Ilham Aliyev for
Azerbaijan’s integration into European and Euro Atlantic structures.

The guests were also advised of the work done in the Republic to
perform the obligations in the framework of the international
cooperation, including joining the country the European regional
anti-corruption initiatives, presenting the national report to the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

The Prosecutor General assured them that serious anti-corruption
measures base of the Head of State’s political will would be taken in
Azerbaijan.

In conclusion, Prosecutor General Zakir Garalov especially emphasized
the importance of objective and unbiased assessment of democratic
processes taking place in Azerbaijan for stimulating their further
development.

It’s foreign policy, stupid!

WorldNetDaily, OR
Aug 6 2004

It’s foreign policy, stupid!

Soon the American people will determine who will be their next
president based upon one central issue: foreign policy. Why is this
the Holy Grail of understanding? Because our domestic policies, as a
result of 9-11, are being held hostage by our foreign policies!

John Kerry and George Bush need to talk about the real reason America
was attacked. It was not because of our cultural heritage or our
democratic way of life. Europe was a much easier target, and has
plenty of both, but was not in the crosshairs.

The final report of the 9-11 commission was an eye opener. It stated
that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the
9-11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong opposition to
America’s support for Israel. Mohammed conceived the initial outline
of the attack six years before its execution and brought the plan to
al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, because he knew he did not have the
resources to carry it out on his own.

There was only one sheriff in town setting down foreign policy during
those six years. Precisely what was Bill Clinton’s policy on terrorism?
It was appeasement. Instead of fighting terrorism, he chose to feed
it. Like Neville Chamberlain, Clinton believed that, in doing so, the
terrorists would leave America alone.

A prime example of this deluded strategy was his attitude toward
Yasser Arafat. One of Clinton’s greatest hopes was to go down in
history as the man who finally resolved the Arab-Israeli conflict. In
order to do that, Arafat had to be transformed from a murderer into a
diplomat – from the arch terrorist who invented airplane hijacking
and who was behind the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich
Olympics in 1972, among countless other atrocities. As part of the
president’s effort to do so, Arafat became the most welcomed foreign
leader at the White House during the Clinton years.

Clinton’s Middle East initiative involved an extraordinarily
far-reaching offer that would give Arafat almost everything he said
he wanted: 98 percent of the territory of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza
Strip, all of east Jerusalem except for the Jewish and Armenian
quarters of the Old City, Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple
Mount (conceding only the right of Jews to pray there), and a
compensation fund of $30 billion.

Arafat instead turned down this offer of a peaceful settlement and
chose to declare a terrorist war, one that has resulted in the deaths
of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians over the past four years
and has made the Middle East even more unsafe than before. But is
America a safer place as a result of this strategy? Could America be
safer as a result of making such promises to the Arafats of the
world?

Still in the aftermath of 9-11, we seem to be on a fast track back to
Clinton’s worldview of moral relativism. Will terrorists now be
divided into good ones and bad ones based upon their declared
intentions? Will there be an amnesty policy that allows bad ones to
denounce terrorism – whether they mean it or not – as Arafat did in
his famous “I denounce terrorism” speech to the U.N. General Assembly
in 1988?

Nine years ago, the U.S. Congress voted in favor of moving the
American Embassy to Jerusalem. Why has the Jerusalem Embassy Act of
1995 been held up every six months by a presidential “national
security” waiver? Is it because we actually believe that recognizing
Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will somehow threaten our national
security? In light of 9-11, that makes about as much sense as giving
bin Laden family members frequent-flyer miles when they flew home on
chartered planes a few days after 9-11.

When a former U.S. attorney general and Democratic presidential
candidate was murdered in 1968, no one asked whether it could have
been over foreign policy. In fact, Robert Kennedy was the first
American politician murdered by a Middle Eastern terrorist, Sirhan
Sirhan. He was murdered on June 5, the same day he won the California
primary. It was also the first anniversary of the outbreak of the Six
Day War.

Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli chief of general staff during that war and
a future ambassador to America and prime minister, had been invited
to join Kennedy for a photo op to commemorate the outcome of the war.
He clearly recognized the connection between the two events, as he
wrote in his memoirs: “The American people was so dazed by what it
perceived as the senseless act of a madman, it could not begin to
fathom its political significance.”

Rabin’s words could indeed describe America’s present-day lingering
confusion over 9-11. For what was the political significance of
Robert Kennedy’s tragic assassination? According to a report by a
special counsel to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office,
Sirhan shot Kennedy because of his support for Israel, and had
planned the murder for months.

As Sirhan stated in an outburst at his trial: “I killed Robert
Kennedy, willfully, premeditatedly, and with 20 years of malice
aforethought.” (Twenty years referred to Israel’s declaration of
statehood in 1948. Kennedy, fresh out of Harvard in 1948, was a
reporter for the Boston Globe and, in fact, was in Israel when
statehood was declared.)

America must not allow itself to be held hostage any longer by
bigot-infested, oil-rich Arab regimes that consider Jews “pigs and
monkeys,” Christians “infidels,” and America “the great Satan.” The
war on terrorism cannot be won without a war on bigotry. Let’s hope
someone in the crowd can get the attention of the candidates with a
timely reminder that “It’s about our foreign policy, stupid.”

Ariel Sharon once said, “The Arab world may have the oil, but we have
the matches.” With Iran’s nuclear program on a fast track, those
matches are getting uncomfortably close to the oil.

Michael D. Evans is the author of “Beyond Iraq: The Next Move,” an
Amazon No. 2 and a New York Times best-seller, and founder of
America’s largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of
Jerusalem, Jerusalem Prayer Team.org. His latest book, “The American
Prophecies,” is slated to be released by Time Warner this month.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39841

Who’s afraid of Lev Leviev?

Mmegi, Botswana
Aug 6 2004

Who’s afraid of Lev Leviev?

QUESTION TIME
PATRICK VAN RENSBURG
8/6/2004 1:58:23 AM (GMT +2)

FIRST of all, who – except for the diamond insiders – knows who Lev
Leviev is? The Daily News recently told us that he wants to open a
diamond-polishing factory in Botswana, without telling us much about
him. According to The Economist of London, `De Beer’s days of market
dominance may well be drawing to a close. Yet consumers should not
get excited just yet. Whether a duopoly or oligopoly emerges, diamond
prices are not going to plunge. Leviev will be among those putting a
stop to that’.

Could it be because of Leviev that De Beers settled its price fixing
case with the US Government by paying a US$10 million fine? Now,
because of that payment, and a guilty plea to charges of price fixing
of raw diamonds, it can – as it could not till then – sell its
diamonds directly on Fifth Avenue, New York, indeed anywhere in
America.

Lev Leviev, The Economist tells us, `threatens to break up entirely
how De Beers organises the diamond industry’, which of course
substantially affects Botswana, not only because the country has a
15% stake in the company.

Leviev, an Israeli citizen, born in Uzbekistan (a former Soviet Union
Republic), has considerable interest in diamonds, as well as in
transport and property. For a long time, at a time that De Beers
still controlled, though did not themselves mine, 80% of the world’s
diamonds, Leviev worked as a De Beers sight holder, buying unseen
parcels of stones at non-negotiable prices. That was how De Beers
operated then, given its almost total control of the industry.
Leviev, reportedly, so much resented having to take or leave the
stones available from De Beers, that he apparently decided to get
back at the cartel.

His first major break came in Russia, where he became a close
personal associate of Vladimir Putin’s, before Putin became
President. Leviev was already known as a diamond cutter and polisher
in the 1980s, and the Soviet state-owned diamond corporation asked
him to help set up local factories there fifteen years ago. He formed
a joint venture with the state firm, and insisted that only rough
diamonds from Russian mines be supplied for cutting and polishing to
the joint enterprise. None were to be diverted through De Beers. De
Beers were reportedly very angry at losing its supply. When, after
the fall of the Soviet Union, the factories were privatised, Leviev
`somehow emerged as the sole owner’, it was reported.

Leviev didn’t stop there. He was helping create jobs and adding value
to the diamonds exported, and offered to do the same in Angola. He
reportedly invested US$60 million there. Although he did not get all
he wanted out of the deal – Angola later cancelled three quarters of
the supply of diamonds that it initially made available to him – he
had ousted De Beers.

Leviev then built a diamond factory in Windhoek to add value to the
country’s diamond exports. With 550 workers, it is apparently
Africa’s largest. On June 28, Leviev took Sam Nujoma around his new
factory. Despite Namibia’s deal with De Beers in NAMDEB, the
country’s mining laws prevent a monopoly control of diamond supplies,
and Leviev has access to its diamonds, if the President agrees. And
what did Nujoma reportedly say on June 28, when he went round the
factory? `To our brothers and sisters of neighbouring states, Angola,
Botswana, South Africa, I hope this gives you inspiration to do what
we have done here’ – which is to establish a diamond cutting and
polishing factory using locally-mined stones.

Leviev has a fleet of mining ships, apparently, operating off
Namibia’s coast, `sucking up diamonds from the sea’. He boasts that
it is the world’s second largest fleet. The biggest is apparently
that of De Beers. Leviev claims he is the only diamond tycoon with
interests in all stages of production, from mining to processing as
well as to selling.

He has factories in Armenia, India, Ukraine, Israel and elsewhere.
`These give him the power to challenge De Beers’ central clearing
house and seek instead to channel raw stones directly and at a lower
price, to his own polishers’.

He is building another factory in Angola. Besides what The Daily News
told us, he has apparently said that his factory here could be far
larger than that in Angola, `employing tens of thousands’.

The historical success of De Beers, with its near-monopoly as a
trader of rough stones was based on maintaining and increasing the
prices of diamonds by controlling supply. It had persuaded
governments to make it illegal for unlicensed individuals to buy and
sell diamonds in all the producing countries. It had never done much
over the earlier years of its control of the diamond trade to create
jobs or develop skills in diamond-producing countries, but it
`delivered big and stable revenues to its governments’, The Economist
concludes.

The big question for us now, is how to deal with both Leviev and De
Beers. There is no doubt that there is a need for us to beneficiate
more of our raw materials, and although we now have cutters and
polishers, albeit not yet with shining successes, the more finished
products we can account for, the more jobs are created and the more
the country earns from its minerals.

Some years ago, Bristol University in the UK discovered how to make
diamond fibre, which could become very valuable for spacecraft
manufacture and other uses. Could Leviev be interested in that
possibility, too?

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BAKU: Aliyev receives Kuwaiti delegation

AzerTag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Aug 6 2004

PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN RECEIVES KUWAITI DELEGATION
[August 06, 2004, 17:58:00]

President of Azerbaijan Republic Ilham Aliyev received a delegation
of Kuwait led by the country’s Minister of Religious Endowments And
Islamic Affairs Dr. Abdullah Maatouq Al-Maatouq, 6 August.

Greeting the quests, the Head of State expressed satisfaction with
both meetings the Kuwaiti delegation had held in Baku, and generally,
the existing close cooperation between the two countries. President
Ilham Aliyev also appreciated the relief projects implemented by
Kuwaiti Fund in Azerbaijan.

Pointing out the good level of Azerbaijan-Kuwait political links, the
Azerbaijani leader recalled his meeting with the friendly county’s
Prime Minister, and asked Dr. Al-Maatouq to convey his sincere
greetings to the Head of the Kuwaiti Government.

Touching upon the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh,
which has resulted in the appearance of over one million refugees and
internally displaced people, the Azerbaijani President expressed
gratitude to the Kuwaiti government for the support of the
Azerbaijan’s stance on the issue within the Organization Islamic
Conference.

Having thanked the President Ilham Aliyev for the warm meeting, Dr.
Abdullah Maatouq Al-Maatouq let him know that the delegation had
visited the tomb of nationwide leader of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev,
and stressed that this genial person had saved Azerbaijan from great
troubles, and made invaluable contribution to the development of the
country.

The Minister then conveyed to Azerbaijani President greetings and
invitation to visit Kuwait from the county’s leadership. He
reaffirmed that the Government of Kuwait had always supported
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and would
advocate Azerbaijan’s fair stance in the future.

The guest described the goal of his present visit to Azerbaijan as
strengthening and expanding relations between the two countries. He
also expressed confidence that the Asian Islamic Organization would
continue its charitable activity in Azerbaijan.

The meeting was attended by Chairman of the Board of Caucasian
Moslems Shaik ul-Islam hajji Allahshukur Pashazadeh.

BAKU: Elections in Nagorno Karabakh May Harm the Negotiations

Baku Today
Aug 6 2004

Elections in Nagorno Karabakh May Harm the Negotiations

Baku Today 06/08/2004 18:07

Illegal elections to be held in Nagorno Karabakh may lead for
complication of the negotiations on Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict,
Azeri Foreign Affairs Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov, told journalists
on Thursday.

`In one hand Armenian side expresses its wish for peaceful settlement
of the conflict and in other hand runs provocative actions,’ said
Mammadyarov, Turan reported on Friday. `But in present it’s quite
important to continue the negotiations.’

On August 3, Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary General of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) sent letter to the
Azerbaijani FM expressing his deep concern on the upcoming elections
for local authorities in Nagorno Karabakh on August 8.

And on August 4, Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council
of Europe, regretted that local self-government elections would again
be held in Nagorno Karabakh.

Russia Will Sell Arms to Central Asia at Discount Prices

MOSNEWS, Russia
Aug 6 2004

Russia Will Sell Arms to Central Asia at Discount Prices

The arms and military equipment Russia sells to its CSTO (Collective
Security Treaty Organization) allies, including the Transcaucasian
Armenia and Central Asian Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan will
be delivered at `domestic’ prices, Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov
said at a news conference, RIA Novosti reported.

Other countries Russia deals with in military equipment are, for
example, Vietnam, Indonesia, China, India, Brazil, and Persian Gulf
countries, along with countries in Africa, presumably at export
prices.

Russia also has plans to develop an air base in Kyrgyzstan, investing
in the project.

Boxing at Quiet Cannon!

Boxing News
Aug 6 2004

Boxing at Quiet Cannon!

August 6, 2004

By Francisco Salazar

Boxing returns to the Quiet Cannon in Montebello, CA tonight as All
Star Boxing presents a six bout card loaded with action.

In the main event, Bantamweight Karen Hartyunyan will face
hard-hitting Gilberto Bolanos in an eight round fight. The bout
headlines a “Battle of the Rising Stars” card.

Hartyunyan, (11-1-3) from Glendale, CA by way of Yerevan, Armenia, is
undefeated in his last 12 fights. Hartyunyan has not lost a fight in
almost four years, when he lost by a four round majority decision to
Sergio Espinoza.

In his last fight, Hartyunyan defeated Romel Aguilar by an eight
round unanimous decision in June in Irvine, CA. Hartyunyan once wrote
Fightnews.com

Hartyunyan, who mostly fights at Super Bantamweight, makes for
exciting fights and always gives it his all in every fight.

Bolanos, (9-7-1, 9 KO’s) from Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, Mexico, is
coming off a majority draw against undefeated Rudy Dominguez last
month in Temecula, CA.

Bolanos has faced some of the talented prospects in the lower weight
classes. He hopes to upset the young Hartyunyan on Friday night.

In the co-feature, Tia Greenberg will face Ku’ulei Kupihea In a fur
round female Welterweight bout.

Greenburg, (1-2, 1 KO) from Huntington Beach, CA, will fight for the
first time in almost three years. Greenberg has not fought since
losing to Gail Muzzey in Irvine, CA.

Kuihea, (0-1) from Honolulu, HI, is looking for her first
professional victory. Her only defeat was at the Quiet Cannon last
year.

Undefeated fighters will go at it as Freddie Barrera will face
Alfonso Figueroa in a four round Lightweight bout.

Barrera, (3-0) from Colton, CA, is coming off a four round unanimous
decision victory over Alejandro Nungaray last month in Pala, CA.

Barrera has fought all of his professional fights this year and in
California.

Figueroa, (1-0) from Los Angeles, should make this an interesting
fight of undefeated fighters.

In other bouts:
– Francisco Zepeda, (1-2-2) from Los Angeles, will take on Martin
Esparza in a four round Welterweight bout. Esparza, from Los Angeles,
is 0-2.

– Joey Aragon (2-1) will take on Terry Anderson, who will be making
his professional debut in a four round Middleweight bout.

– Justin Mercado will make his professional debut against Carlos
Tovar (0-3-1) in a four round Junior Welterweight bout. Tovar is from
Fontana, CA, while Mercado is from Hawaii.

Former world title challenger and actor Art Aragon will be the
special invited guest for All Star Boxing action-packed card.

Tickets for these fights go at $35 and $50. To purchase tickets, call
All Star Boxing at (323) 837-0038 or (323) 816-6200. Doors to the
venue open at 6:30PM, with first bell scheduled for 7:30 PM.

Bringing football to children

UEFA.com
Aug 6 2004

Bringing football to children

UEFA’s charity partner Cross Cultures has just completed the training
of 1,800 prospective coaches for its popular and long-running Open
Fun Football Schools concept in the Balkan and Caucasus regions.

Association help
Together with 1,500 trainer assistants and more than 500 football
clubs, the coaches are now ready to welcome 25,000 boys and girls
aged between eight and 12 to an Open Fun Football School. The
trainers have been educated in co-operation with the football
associations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia,
Georgia, F.Y.R. Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro.

Charity portfolio
Cross Cultures’ Open Fun Football Schools are part of UEFA’s charity
portfolio, and are also backed by the governments of Denmark, Norway,
Sweden and Finland, as well as by the Novo Nordisk healthcare
enterprise. Last November, UEFA presented a cheque for 400,000 to
the Open Fun Football Schools project. The funds were drawn from
fines imposed by the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body in UEFA
competitions during the 2002/03 season.

1998 start
In 1998, the project started in war-torn Bosnia-Herzegovina with 12
football schools involving 2,252 boys and girls, and 189 coaches and
school leaders. In summer 2003, Open Fun Football Schools staged a
total of 78 schools involving 16,000 youngsters (13,000 boys and
3,000 girls) and 1,400 trainers and school leaders from
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro. Schools
were also set up for the first time in Croatia, Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan.

Charity programme
“We are a charity programme that wishes to bring football to all
children regardless of talent, skills, ethnic or social background,”
said Cross Cultures director Anders Levinsen. “And as initiator, it
is fantastic to see how this idea is supported by enthusiastic and
dedicated people.”

Girl support
As a charity programme, Open Fun Football Schools’ requirement is
that a minimum 50 per cent of all children taking part are boys and
girls who are not yet members of a football club, but who would love
to become members. Furthermore, the Open Fun Football Schools also
wish to promote girls football, and given the many new female coaches
Cross Cultures has trained this summer, the organisation expects a
minimum 25 per cent of all participants in the Balkans to be girls.

Community work
Along with the programme, Cross Cultures is distributing 27,000
footballs, trainers’ clothes and other equipment for the
participating football clubs. “By implementing our many trainer
seminars and by leaving all the equipment behind, we hope we can
motivate and encourage the local football clubs to continue their
important community work in organising grassroots football for their
children all year around,” Anders Levinsen concluded.

ACNIS Expert Opinion Results on Armenia’s National, Int’l Security

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 375033, Armenia
Tel: (+374 – 1) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 – 1) 52.48.46
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website:

August 6, 2004

ACNIS Releases Public and Expert Opinion Results on
Armenia’s National and International Security

Yerevan–The Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS)
today issued the results of both a specialized questionnaire and a public
survey on “Armenia’s National and International Security in the Next
Decade,” which it conducted between July 15 and August 2 in Yerevan and all
of Armenia’s regions. More than 50 experts and 2021 citizens took part in
them. Do the Armenian citizens trust the reliability of their country’s
national security? What are the major military, political, economic, and
social dangers that will threaten Armenia in the next 5 years and to what
extent do state authority bodies take the necessary steps to prevent,
abolish, or control these dangers?

ACNIS director of administration Karapet Kalenchian greeted the invited
guests and public participants with opening remarks. “These deliberations on
national security, together with the public and expert survey preceding
them, aim to present public and professional perceptions of national
security problems and draw the attention of responsible bodies to them,” he
said.

ACNIS legal and political affairs analyst Stepan Safarian presented “The
Results of the Survey,” focusing in detail on the findings of the expert and
public opinion polls. According to the findings, the majority of the
surveyed citizens (45.1%) assert that Armenia’s national security is
partially provided, 27.5% think it is not provided at all, 18.1% feel secure
enough, and 9.1% find it difficult to answer. In the expert opinion poll,
these indices read 24%, 76%, 0%, and 0%, respectively.

27.2% of citizens think that Armenia should first of all strengthen 2its
army’s combatibility in the next 5 years, 43.5% its economic potential,
and 6.8% its democratic potential. As for the expert survey, 58% hold
that democratic potential should be strengthened first of all, 24%
economic potential and only 10% army’s combatibility.

Among the broader public, 3.1% point to the presence of Russian military
bases in Armenia as the major military danger that will threaten Armenia in
the next 5 years, 11.2% the withdrawal of these bases from Armenia, 47.5%
the outbreak of war with Azerbaijan, 2.8% Armenia’s accession to NATO, 7%
Turkey’s military invasion of Armenia, 11.7% civil war, 1.7% possible
military conflict with Georgia. Only 13.6% think there is no military
danger. In the expert opinion poll the corresponding findings are 18%, 4%,
44%, 2%, 8%, 4%, 2%, and 18%.

As for the major political danger that will threaten Armenia in the next 5
years, 21.8% of respondent citizens point to confrontations between
authorities and people, while 30% of experts point to falsification of
election results. Furthermore, 4% of citizens and 24% of experts find danger
in the restriction of Armenia’s sovereignty, 9.8% and 14% in the limitation
of political and civil rights, 11.6% and 0% in a possible attempt of revolt,
6.5 and 6% in political terrorism, 14.2% and 0% in provocation of political
tension by the opposition, and 2.9% and 10% in Armenia’s absence from
regional programs. Only 6.8% and 0% are convinced there is no political
danger.

Both groups of respondents find corruption to be the major economic danger
that will threaten Armenia in the next 5 years (41% and 42%). 11.2% and 12%
think it is foreign debt, 19.8% and 14% financial economic crisis, 5.5% and
10% the maintenance of Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s economic blockade on
Armenia, and 11.6% and 8% plunder of foreign loans provided for the state.
22.8% of citizens and 12% of experts cite emigration to be the major social
danger, 19.3% and 6% poverty, 23.8% and 0% unemployment, 13.4% and 34%
illegality, 8.9% and 30% immorality, and 2.2% and 12% reduction of birth rat
e. 1.4% and 0% of respondent citizens and experts, respectively, suggest
that there is no social danger.

In response to the question, “To what extent do state authority bodies take
the necessary steps to prevent, abolish, or control these dangers?,” 2.6% of
citizens and 0% of experts think fully, 41.2% and 12% partially, 48.8% and
88% not at all, and 6.9% and 0% find it difficult to answer. The majority of
citizens (76.9%) think that from the viewpoint of security, Armenia’s
relations should be developed with Russia, whereas experts (88%) choose the
European Union. As for the United States, the figures are 35.6% and 76%, for
Iran 31.9% and 48%, and for Turkey 16% and 64%. 49% of respondent citizens
and 52% of specialists think that Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia should be
in a united system of security, 26.2% and 30% think they should not, and
23.9% and 18% find it difficult to answer. 42.8% of citizens and 64% of
experts have positive attitudes toward opening the Armenian-Turkish border,
34.8% and 24% have negative attitudes, and 21.3% and 12% find it difficult
to answer.

In regards to foreign military presence, 46.9% of citizens are convinced
that only Russian military bases should be in Armenia in the next decade,
while 40% of respondent specialists think Russian and NATO military bases
should. In contrast, 20.8% and 0% think military bases of Russia and CIS
member-states should be in Armenia, and 2.5% and 12% only NATO military
bases together. 13.2% of citizens and 30% of experts are for the withdrawal
of all foreign military bases from Armenia.

The second item on the day’s agenda was a presentation by Stepan Safarian,
who addressed the causes of the sometimes differing, sometimes similar
polling numbers of the experts and the citizens. “We may deduce from the
results that citizens are more interested in and affected by internal
issues, while experts are more concerned with external problems,” he
emphasized.

The formal presentations were followed by contributions by former minister
of state Vahan Shirkhanian; Edward Antinian of the Liberal Progressive
Party; Asbed Kotchikian, post-graduate student from Boston University;
Vahagn Khachatrian of the “Armat” center; Giro Manoyan of the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation; Yerevan State University professors Vardan
Khachatrian and Aram Harutiunian; Artashes Ghazakhetsian of Armenia 2020
program; Petros Makeyan of the Democratic Fatherland Party; Tevan Poghosian
of the International Center for Human Development; ACNIS economic and
diaspora affairs analyst Hovsep Khurshudian; Artak Zakarian of the
Republican Party; National Press Club chairperson Narine Mkrtchian; Davit
Petrosian, political analyst for Noyan Tapan news agency; and several
others.

44.5% of the respondent citizens are male and 55.5% female; 7% are 21-30
years of age, 24.1% 31-40, 22.7% 41-50, 34.6% 51-60, 11.6% 60 or above.
42.2% of the citizens surveyed have received a higher education, 8.6%
incomplete higher, 20.9% specialized secondary, 24.6% secondary, and 3.7%
incomplete secondary training. 46.1% are actively employed, 9.5% are
pensioners, 1.4% welfare recipients, and 6.6 students. According to their
income, 44% consider themselves middle class, 32.1% below average, 7.6%
above average, 11.1% poor, 2.6% extremely poor, 0.5% rich, and 1.2%
well-off.

Among the experts, 74% are male and 26% female; 16% are 21-30 years of age,
36% 31-40, 30% 41-50, 18% 51 or above. All the experts surveyed have
received a higher education, 4% are full professors (PhD), 24% candidates of
sciences, 68% hold a Master’s degree, and 4% have earned a Bachelor’s
degree.

Founded in 1994 by Armenia’s first Minister of Foreign Affairs Raffi K.
Hovannisian and supported by a global network of contributors, ACNIS serves
as a link between innovative scholarship and the public policy challenges
facing Armenia and the Armenian people in the post-Soviet world. It also
aspires to be a catalyst for creative, strategic thinking and a wider
understanding of the new global environment. In 2004, the Center focuses
primarily on public outreach, civic education, and applied research on
critical domestic and foreign policy issues for the state and the nation.

For further information on the Center or the full graphics of the poll
results, call (3741) 52-87-80 or 27-48-18; fax (3741) 52-48-46; e-mail
[email protected] or [email protected]; or visit or

www.acnis.am
www.acnis.am
www.acnis.am/pr/security/Socio07eng.pdf

ANKARA: Russia’s time in the Caucasus is up…

Kavkaz Center, Turkey
Aug 6 2004

“Russia’s time in the Caucasus is up…”

Interview with Nodar Natadze, Ph.D., Chairman of People’s Front of
Georgia.

The South Ossetian roundabout has started going around an endless
circle, and many in Georgia are worrying about what is going on and
who is trying to achieve what. These are the questions that Kavkaz
Center reporter asked the Leader of People’s Front of Georgia Nodar
Natadze.

KC: Mr. Natadze, please tell us what is really going on? Who is
trying to achieve what? On the one hand, they are saying that the war
would have been a big mistake, but on the other hand, the way to
dismember Georgia through the so-called ‘federalization’ seems to be
just as dangerous. So, where is the way out, and why the Georgian
central government, the official Tbilisi went for the aggravation,
while anticipating today’s outcome?

N.Natadze: Before I answer your questions, this is what I would like
to mention: I am very concerned and tragically shocked by the fact
that the Georgian leadership allowed a joint patrol of
Georgian-Chechen border. If it’s just tactics and a short-term
action, it’s all right. But if it is strategy, then it is tragedy.
For me it is one of the most tragic among the most recent phenomena.

Russian border guards have nothing to do in jointly patrolling the
Georgian-Chechen border. Too bad that they are stationed on the
Chechen side. But why would they need to be on this side as well? It
is fundamentally unacceptable.

There can be no Georgian-Russian joint war on terror, because those
who are called terrorists in Russia are not terrorists here.

And now let me answer your questions. There is no Ossetia south of
the Caucasus Mountain Range in existence, and there can never be any.
Russian invaders were the ones who came up with the Ossetian word to
call sections of that territory in the 19th century. And the word was
an adjective and not a noun.

It was called Ossetian District. This is what they were calling the
territories in the upper reaches of the Aragvi River and a little
area southwest of it. And another Ossetian District was the territory
north of the Caucasus Mountain Range, which used to belong to Georgia
during Georgian kings. It is the Ardon vicinity, etc.

Mainly, the Ossetians started settling on Georgian territories since
1864, when serfdom was abolished in Georgia. Georgian nobles and
princes lost their serfs but the lands remained theirs. In order to
till these lands when serf labor was no longer available, they
started inviting Ossetians from the northern slopes of the Caucasus
Mountains.

KC: But still, maybe it was a political issue instead of an agrarian
one? Let’s just recall how during the same period of time in
Javakhetia [Southern Georgia] 40 thousand families of Georgian
Muslims were expelled to Turkey and Armenians were moved to these
lands later. Then some Georgian lands were inhabited by Germans,
Greeks, etc.

N.Natadze: Ossetians came to Georgia as agricultural workers. As the
ones who were given shelter. Thus, the Russian census conducted in
the end of the 19th century lists 15 thousand Ossetian families in
Eastern Georgia. All of them were doing agricultural work, but none
of them owned any pieces of land. This is how a critical agrarian
conflict was created. There was agricultural population, who had no
property or land of their own.

By using these purely agrarian tensions, the Bolsheviks organized an
armed Ossetian uprising in the northern part of central Georgia back
in 1918. It was a rebellion against Georgia, which back then was
independent. Under the guise of a national movement. But really it
was an agrarian movement of agricultural workers. It was taking
pretty brutal forms.

Georgian side took police measures against the armed uprising. But
these measures were brought to naught. After Russia invaded Georgia
in 1921, the Caucasus Bureau of the Bolsheviks decided to complete
the job and set up the South Ossetian Autonomous Region.

Even for one hour Ossetian territorial autonomy on the Georgian soil
has never existed and will never exist without the presence of
Russian regular forces. Two Soviet regiments were stationed there
back during the Soviet times. A helicopter regiment and an
engineering regiment. They were the ones who maintained control of
the situation. Right now, as a result of traitorous signature of
Shevardnadze [former Georgian president], who was nothing but a
usurper at that time – under the guise of being a chairman of an
illegal State Council (no one else had elected him), these Russian
troops are still stationed there. Then the document was signed: the
agreement on inviting the so-called ‘peacekeepers’ to the Tskhinvali
area in order to keep the sides separated. And these days these armed
forces are using the traitorous signature of Shevardnadze as the
pretext. They have no other grounds.

Russia has always been promoting Ossetinization of those territories.
When that administrative region was being created, Ossetians had
always been a minority. Most of the Georgian population had to leave
their lands and now they are in the position of refugees. Russia was
pursuing the same policies in Javakhetia, with the only difference
that it was being done bloodlessly. 30 thousand Armenian families
were moved to that area to replace ousted Georgian Muslims. During
the war of 1928-1929 Georgian Muslims left that seat of war. And once
the peace agreement was signed, they were not allowed to return
there.

It’s been a while since Moscow has been persistently pursuing the
policies of ‘Georgia without Georgians’. This line was even adopted
in the midst of the so-called Russian intellectuals, let alone
representatives of the authorities.

There was a time when even Academician Sakharov (supposedly a
democrat and a human rights activist) even admitted it. When he was
young he used to visit one of the mountaineer camps in the North
Caucasus every summer. Famous Georgian mountaineer Sandro Gvelia was
the leader of that camp. They had wonderful friendly relationship.
And all of a sudden Sandro asked Sakharov: «Why you don’t like
Georgia?» And he answered: «Why, why… We do like Georgia, we just
don’t like Georgians». This is the essence of the Russian policies.

As far as the present-day situation goes, it is now developing under
the pressure of objective processes. Regardless of what we do, Russia
is now vacating the South Caucasus. The West has a vital interest in
having a free access to Central Asia, which is not controlled by
Russia. If the West makes it on time, it would be good. If it
doesn’t, then the World War III will certainly take place. And the
frontlines of this war will be at the Caspian Sea.

If the West manages to gain a firm foothold in the South Caucasus,
then the war will either not happen due to the absence of the
adversary, or its frontlines will be located between Central Asia and
China.

It is of vital interest to the West. Not imperial or economic
interest, but vital interest. Russia has no such interests in the
Caucasus. It only has its imperial interest. So, the interests of the
West are greater than Russia’s interests are.

But Russia wants to retain some even tiny piece of territory for the
future, — by actively using many of its agents in Georgia. Just in
case. For instance, it wants to set up the status of the Tskhinvali
[capital of South Ossetia] and Abkhaz zones in a way that these
territories could be virtually independent from Georgia and so that
Russia could be the guarantor of that status. Russia wants these time
bombs on the body of Georgia.

And now Georgia’s problem is to make Russia leave without leaving
these bombs. This is what we are interested in. The West doesn’t
really care about it.

KC: And how would it be possible?

N.Natadze: It depends on how loyal the Georgian government is to the
people. War or negotiations based on force is actually all the same.
There will be no result without superiority in forces.

What is our superiority in forces guaranteed by? First of all, by
proper political steps. The government of Georgia must make a clear
statement that this is not a Georgian-Ossetian war, but a
Russian-Georgian war, and that the Tskhinvali zone is now occupied by
the Russian troops. Georgian government must abolish the status of
Russians as being ‘peacekeepers’. These steps will either prevent
military intervention from the North or make it least likely.

Georgia has to be so strong, so that it could make a military
intervention least likely. Georgia will not be able to defeat Russia
if Russia starts attacking Georgia’s positions when using Ossetian
banners. Maybe we are weaker, but we have to overpower this form of
intervention.

KC: Is it already the issue of a new war, or is it the continuation
of the war of 1992-1993?

N.Natadze: Russian-Georgian war has not stopped ever since. The enemy
took our territories and is now occupying these lands after being
assisted by Shevardnadze, who committed high treason. Right now our
mission is to stop this invasion.

KC: President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili probably has started
looking at Russia more soberly. He is very close to such
formulations. The first time he started calling things by their
proper names was when he said the word aggression, etc. But so far
there is no clear and comprehensive definition of the essence of
confrontation, and nor there is a clear definition of who the enemy
of Georgia is. Nor it is clear how far the promises of the
authorities to change the mandate of ‘peacekeepers’ will go.

Many are also concerned about the relations between the US and Russia
on the Georgian issue. Do you think some deals may be taking place
behind Georgia’s back?

N.Natadze: The decision has already been made that Russians will not
be present in the Caucasus. Russia’s time in the Caucasus is up.
There is nothing that can stop this process. Concerning the US help
to Georgia. First, it is the Western factor that keeps Russia from
conducting a direct strike against Georgia.

On the second day American unofficial diplomatic elite and diplomatic
community gathered when Mr. Saakashvili made his famous statement.
They were professional diplomats. There are very influential people
among them. They had a long and productive discussion on this subject
and all of them were unanimous that it must be recorded that Russia
and Georgia are the ones fighting the war in the Tskhinvali zone and
in Abkhazia. And not Ossetians or Abkhazians with Georgians.

This approach has already been recorded in the minds of the society.
In the West public opinion is only a step away from the official
opinion. So the decision has virtually been made.

I’d like to add something else. In 93 after my strong speeches during
the negotiations on the framework agreement, I had a meeting with the
new staff of Defense and Security Committee of the Russian State Duma
[parliament]. And one of the members said, it was in May 1993, this
is what he said: «We will lose the North Caucasus, but we will have a
war with them».

I started laughing and I said, «We’ve been living together for three
thousand years, but we never had a war with them. So why would a war
start today?»

All of it shows that Russian political elite knows full well that it
is going to lose the North Caucasus. They know it is inevitable. They
want to stretch out this process somehow, and get something in
exchange for their surrender by the time that day comes. They
perfectly know that the war for retaining the North Caucasus under
their control has no future. And the South Caucasus for them has no
future even hundreds of times more. Politicians know about it, only
an average Johnny doesn’t.

KC: In the war with Georgia Russia has been actively using the factor
of temporarily lost territories, but Georgia has a political
nightstick, which is just as strong. I mean Chechnya. Why is the
official Georgia quiet about it? Georgia is afraid to talk about
Chechnya even when it is being choked and all kinds of vile methods
are used?

N.Natadze: Your question is the central question to characterize the
situation. My answer will be very sad. The whole problem is in
Georgian government’s loyalty to their state and their people. There
is nothing else I can say.

Only through its one representative in the UN Georgia can start a
storm of pressure on the Russian policies in Chechnya without
violating the legal norms even for a milligram. But that seat is not
occupied by our man.

KC: What do you think about the all-Caucasus ideas?

N.Natadze: Union of the Caucasus countries and nations is surely a
great idea. It has very promising future. Power-wise. But this power
has its limits. This is why the work in this direction must fit into
the global context, whether we want it or not.

KC: Your optimism and your faith in the help from the West are very
strong, and unfortunately, yours truly has great doubts about it.

N.Natadze: It’s not my faith, this is what I know.

KC: Anyway, we are always interested to listen to you, and we have
great respect for your opinion. Thank you.

Conversation was conducted by Data Tutashkhia, Tbilisi, Georgia.

For Kavkaz-Center