Russia Concerned over Visa Delays for its Troops in Georgia
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 2004-10-30 16:07:34
The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern on October 30 regarding,
as Moscow put it, Georgia’s “delay” to grant entry visas to the
Russian servicemen, who are expected to be deployed in the Russian
military base in southern Georgian town of Akhalkalaki.
“We think that the delay in granting of visas to Russian servicemen and
their families is unjustified and politically motivated. We hope that
official Tbilisi will take a constructive position in this regard,”
the Russian Foreign Ministry information note issued on October
30, reads. “Granting of visas needs particular time,” the Georgian
Foreign Ministry official told Civil Georgia. Official said that the
Ministry will make a statement regarding the issue on November 1.
  Reportedly, over 400 servicemen, currently deployed on the Russian
military base in the Armenian city of Gyumri, are waiting for the
Georgian entry visas.
According to the Russian Foreign Ministryâ~@~Ys information note,
Georgia explains delay in issuing visas with the fact that the number
of Russian servicemen, which will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, exceeds
the number of those soldiers, which will be replaced.
Deputy Commander of the Headquarters of Group of Russian Troops in
Trans Caucasus, Col. Vladimir Kuparadze told Russian daily Nezavisimaya
Gazeta that in previous years there were less soldiers at the
Akhalkalaki military base than it is considered with the agreement
between Russia and Georgia.
â~@~Now more soldiers will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, but their
numbers will not exceed those envisaged by the agreement,â~@~]
Col. Kuparadze said.
–Boundary_(ID_2ywpw9YbhpkdQ97zYroWbA)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIAN POLICE CORRUPTION SEEN AS MAJOR FACTOR IN INEFFECTIVE TERROR PREVENTION
Komsomolskaya Pravda, Moscow
27 Oct 04
A Russian paper has looked at failings in the fight against terrorism
in Russia. It recalled that when an investigation was launched
into how terrorists sneaked into the Dubrovka theatre in Moscow,
it turned out that “more than 100 guardians of law from Chechnya to
Moscow virtually turned a blind eye on their movements”. This “loss
of vigilance” sometimes was not at all for free: some policemen, who
were about to inspect the gunmen’s bags with weapons and explosives,
received a bribe, the paper said. Bribe-taking and betrayal in the
police ranks have been detected by prosecutors everywhere, be it
Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia or Moscow, the paper
said. It pointed out that the only unit in charge of antiterrorism
in the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) is its operational
investigation directorate, just a dozen committed operatives who
cover the whole of the country, but “even these dedicated officers
cannot do much without a network of agents”. Today, however, for fear
of a furious public outcry the FSB has practically discarded the
“institution” of informers. It has become obvious, the paper said,
that no laws, or antiterrorist commissions of all sort, or endless
bureaucratic conferences with loud agendas can protect Russia from
new explosions. The only way, according to the paper, is to restore
a system of training highly qualified operatives and ensure they are
paid well. The following is the text of the article “Not only force
required to fight bandits” published by Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya
Pravda on 27 October. Subheadings are as published:
A three-million-strong army of security officials works to ensure
security for Russian citizens. Why do they often prove helpless
with terrorists?
After terrorist acts in Moscow and Beslan in August and September, it
was announced to Russians that a terrorist war was declared on them. As
though before they never heard of bombings of houses, trains, railway
stations and cafeterias, captures of aeroplanes, downed helicopters
or raids by Chechen-Arab gangs in Kizlyar, Pervomayskoye, Budennovsk,
Nazran and even Moscow. For some reason, it is specifically now that
the authorities have started drafting yet another security doctrine
and setting up federal and interdepartmental antiterrorist commissions,
coordinating committees and new staffs.
The leaders of power structures are ordered to restructure their
work and submit to the Kremlin and Security Council new plans to
fight terrorism. FSB (Federal Security Service), the Internal Affairs
Ministry and Defence Ministry generals prepare new tonnes of directives
and orders, and develop plans of new exercises. However, the ordinary
man has only one interest in all these reforms: he wants to live
without fearing that he may be blown up tomorrow in his bed, in a bus
or an aeroplane. He wants to understand how a gigantic enforcement
machine, whose operation he funds from his pocket, can be forced or
taught to counter gangs of armed monsters or a lone shakhid (martyr,
suicide bomber) woman. We, too, are going to try to figure it out.
How a “five” slumped to be a “failure”
Of all our secret services, the FSB has the most extensive experience
in fighting terrorism. Back in the Soviet times, when it was called
the KGB, it had to grapple seriously with this problem. In Moscow
in 1977, a home-made bomb exploded on a train before it approached
the Pervomayskoye station. Although the KGB did not yet have its
own criminal institute or antiterrorism experts at that time,
the intelligence officers quickly resolved the crime. People who
organized and perpetrated that terrorist act were arrested, convicted
and executed.
Two other bombings, which were planted by the same Armenian
nationalist group in a store on Nikolskaya Street, near Lubyanka, were
prevented. Antiterrorism fight was assigned to one of the departments
of the famous “Five,” a KGB ideological directorate that was loathed
by anti-party people and fought dissidents (it was apparently equated
with terrorism back then).
A different group of KGB foreign intelligence specialists worked
abroad. Their job was to keep dissidents and terrorists out of the
USSR. In 10 years, the intelligence service managed to create virtually
from scratch an effective counterterrorist system: “TNT saboteurs”
and hostage hunters were often apprehended at a stage when they only
just planned their dirty deeds. Yet, in 1991 the USSR collapsed,
and so did a system of countering terrorism.
Books are already written on how hard some Russian politicians of
the Yeltsin era worked to destroy the KGB. Until the late 1990’s,
the new power had been zealously reforming (or more precisely,
ruining) the security structure, which exists in every civilized
state. The “Five” was reduced to the small Directorate for Combating
Terrorism, a hundred people covering the entire Russia. After the
(Chechen rebel commander Shamil) Basayev gang took hostages in
Budennovsk (in June of 1995), a frenzied sequence of new reforms
came. The Antiterrorist Centre and then the Department for Combating
Terrorism and the Directorate for Constitutional Security (political
extremism) were established. Following the Dagestani events in 1999,
the department and administration were merged. The Russian president
issued a decree creating one of the FSB’s most powerful departments:
for protection of constitutional system and combating terrorism.
But after numerous and bungled reforms, many specialists left for
the civilian sector, while a structure that was supposed to deal day
and night with terrorism never came into being (Alfa and Vympel do
not count because they, like a kind of “antiterrorism ambulance”,
come into action when a terrorist act is committed).
After the air strike on New York on 11 September 2001, the Directorate
for Combating International Terrorism was established. Sounds pretty
big, but “warriors” from the new structure spent most of their time
visiting international conferences. There were some incidents,
too. At a conference on fighting terrorism held in Saudi Arabia,
its staffers made a loud declaration on the need to fight mercilessly
Wahhabism. It would not be that bad if Wahhabism was not the official
religion of the kingdom. The stunned hosts reportedly looked like they
saw a ghost. Funny as all this sounds, the speeches for high podiums
were written and approved in Moscow. Then, what level of personnel
training in the country’s main secret service does this testify to?
Who covers Chechnya with a cloak and dagger?
In fact, the only subunit in charge of antiterrorism in the FSB is
its operational investigation directorate. Yet, it is only slightly
more than a dozen fanatically committed operatives (covering, again,
the entire Russia!). Most of them do not have apartments (this
and miserable pay is why almost half of them have broken personal
lives). Their career records include decorations for successful
operations during missions in North Caucasus.
But even these officers cannot do much without a network of
agents. It is the weakest spot in FSB operations. An agent network
is almost non-existent in Chechnya. Many Chechens who were loyal to
“post-Dudayev” authorities and cooperated with counterintelligence
officers were knifed together with their families.
For the same reason, more than 100 mullahs and local officials
were killed in recent years. Nobody hurries to secret services with
declarations disclosing whereabouts of (Chechen separatist leader
Aslan) Maskhadov and Basayev even for 10m dollars. The FSB Directorate
for Chechnya is only just getting on its feet. The danger of disloyalty
is high (information leaks have been reported all the time). The Moscow
counterintelligence officers are forced to rely mostly on the Chechen
Security Service, led by republic’s Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov
as his second job, and also on the Yamadayev brothers, who command
special-purpose troops and managed to build their own networks of
agents (although predominantly on the clan basis). The shuttle tactic
of special composite teams in Chechnya (apart from FSB operatives,
they include special-purpose units of the Interior Ministry Internal
Troops) is also not very effective. Following several major leaks of
information on planned counterterrorist operations, the “neighbours”
have increasingly rarely shared information with each other, while
the real joint work has been conducted mostly on paper.
Who is bothered by the “spectre of totalitarianism”?
In the USSR times, it was enough to call from Lubyanka to Groznyy
to find out on the same day in what mountain village a new hunting
rifle was purchased. If a police gun or a TNT cartridge disappeared
in Chechnya, they were found on the following day.
Today, a gang can spend a night in a village but the FSB Directorate
in Groznyy will find it out only a week later. The bandits bought
a dozen land mines in an army unit but FSB officers learned of this
fact only half a year later.
In the Yeltsin era, political activists liked to yell on squares about
a certain “monster”, the KGB, which wrapped up the whole country
with its networks of squealers. Now that they have sniffed hexogen
under their windows they shout at every corner about the “weakness”
of the FSB, whose staff has been “castrated” to one-eighth of its
former strength in the past 13 years! No sooner had the FSB tried
to restore its old practice of informers, recruiting also concierges
in houses, than some fighters for human rights again started weeping
about the restored “spectre of totalitarianism”.
But under totalitarianism, Lubyanka could see the whole country
almost all the way through – it was aided by more than two million
“volunteers”. Thanks to them, FSB managed to nip in the bud attempts
on life of some party and Soviet leaders, ferret out hundreds of
“werewolves” in government structures, foil armed attacks on industrial
facilities and banks, and prevent many man-made catastrophes. Murders
of people and hostage captures occurred extremely rarely.
Today, however, for fear of a furious public outcry on the part
of some political populists, the FSB has practically discarded the
“institution” of informers and collaborators (even though the law
allows and regulates such practices). Even if there are barely 50
of them for the whole country, they do not have enough strength to
“scan” movements in the terrorist underworld, sending alarm signals to
intelligence officers. We do not even mention that our laws prohibit
recruitment of agents from the criminal community.
Following several years of the terrorist war, it has become obvious
that neither piles of laws, nor antiterrorist commissions of all
stripes, nor endless bureaucratic conferences with loud agendas,
nor the most courageous Alfa or Vympel troops can protect us from new
explosions. Nobody can replace in Russia a secret service “digging”
deeply and silently. To this end, we should at least stop pestering
it with endless reorganization and reforms. We should also restore
a system of training highly qualified operatives. In addition, they
need to be paid – well and regularly.
“Feeding” the police
Let us recall: after the events on Dubrovka, police officials were the
first to demonstrate readiness for an all-out antiterror effort (it
is police that people blamed more than anyone else for what happened:
insufficient vigilance, insufficient checks). After the storm of the
(Dubrovka) House of Culture, then-Deputy Internal Affairs Minister
Vladimir Vasilyev pledged publicly: “We are now going to clean not
only Moscow but even Russia of this filth!”
But when an investigation was launched to find out how the terrorists
sneaked into the Dubrovka theatre hall, the police chiefs’ eyes
nearly popped out of their heads: it turned out that more than 100
guardians of law from Chechnya to Moscow virtually turned a blind eye
to movements of the thugs right under their very nose. This “loss
of vigilance” sometimes was not at all for free: some policemen,
who were about to inspect the gunmen’s bags with weapons and TNT,
received bribes at railway stations and checkpoints and let the
suspicious people go.
The paid neglect was crowned with betrayal: the intelligence officers
arrested one policeman, a senior officer of the Moscow Internal
Affairs Main Directorate, immediately after the terrorist act. He
passed information on details of the hostage-releasing operation
and movements of Spetsnaz (special-purpose) troops to (leader of
hostage-takers) Movsar Barayev’s gunmen.
Bribe-taking and betrayal in the police ranks have been detected
by prosecutor’s office investigators everywhere, be it Chechnya,
Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia or Moscow. Most of the traitors
wearing police uniforms have been exposed in Chechnya. On this issue,
Akhmat Kadyrov, the late president of the republic, said once: “It
is increasingly difficult for me to tell our policemen from masked
saboteurs.” According to investigators, it is also saboteurs who
killed him.
The worst thing is that all that is taking place in a republic that
has become a hotbed of Russian terror. Of course, one can understand
objective difficulties experienced by the Chechen authorities,
who found themselves in a situation where it is often impossible to
break firm family (clannish) ties between guardians of law and those
who they fight. Our domestic experience of tackling this complicated
problem shows that this will take a decade.
After bandits attacked Ingushetia, the Russian Prosecutor-General’s
Office pressed terrorist complicity charges against two Ingush
policemen. One of them, Magomed Lolkhoyev, personally helped Shamil
Basayev himself travel around the republic by car for reconnaissance
purposes.
As the investigation chief, Mikhail Lapotnikov, declared, “a total of
22 individuals have been put on a wanted list in this case and checks
are being run on more than 60. Cases against 18 individuals have been
sent to court.” In other words, a hundred of professional cops could
have been in the pay of terrorists? Another fact has been revealed:
the terrorists managed to prepare as many as 10 bases on the territory
of Ingushetia and local police were involved in their organization.
Wrongdoers were found also in North Ossetia – and again after, not
before a terrorist act. The Prosecutor-General’s Office instigated
criminal cases on charges of “neglect causing grave consequences”
against Miroslav Aydarov, chief of the district internal affairs
department for Pravoberezhnyy District; Taymuraz Murtazov, deputy
chief for public security; and Guram Dryayev, the district internal
affairs department chief of staff.
Dozens of other “treason” criminal cases clearly indicate that men
of Maskhadov and Basayev conduct effective recruitment work in the
Interior Ministry structures in those parts as well. We cannot do
without a thorough purge here. This is what the situation warrants:
our “southern” police bodies are in need of reliable internal security
structures.
Otherwise, we will hardly manage to prevent the process of intentional
or unintentional integration between uniformed criminals and
terrorists. This problem becomes critical in the centre as well. It
turned out recently that a 1.5m army of guest workers from the Caucasus
entrenched themselves in Moscow Region not without the knowledge of
police. Almost half of them should already be sent back to places
of their permanent residence: these people stand on the wrong side
of the law and law-enforcement agencies have some major complaints
about them. But a question is: what did Interior Ministry staffers
do before? This is exactly where the shoe pinches: some police chase
terrorists while others cover the latter for bribes. And now we are
surprised that caches with weapons and TNT are found right near Moscow
every day.

Karabakh official slams UN decision to discuss Azerbaijan’s Karabakh proposal
Mediamax news agency
29 Oct 04
Yerevan, 29 October: “The UN discussion of the situation on the
Nagornyy Karabakh-controlled territories initiated by Azerbaijan proves
once again that the Azerbaijani side is not interested in settling
the whole complex of problems in relations between Azerbaijan and
Nagornyy Karabakh.”
Our Mediamax correspondent reports from Stepanakert that the deputy
foreign minister of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR], Masis
Mailyan, said this while commenting on the decision of the UN General
Assembly to recommend that the issue on “the situation on Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories” be included in the assembly’s agenda.
Masis Mailyan said that “this step by official Baku has a purely
propaganda nature and does not help establish a favourable atmosphere
required for achieving a comprehensive solution to the Karabakh
problem”.
Otherwise, the deputy minister said, the Azerbaijani leadership would
have responded to the numerous proposals of the NKR authorities to
start implementing measures to establish trust between the sides and
resume full-scale negotiations, which he said are the most effective
means of solving the conflict.
[Passage omitted: minor details]
“Such destructive actions by Baku create insurmountable obstacles in
solving the problem of refugees and displaced persons and are capable
of nullifying all the efforts of international mediators to establish
a lasting peace and stability in the region,” the NKR deputy foreign
minister stressed.

Beyond the nuclear stalemate
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Asia Times, Hong Kong
30 Oct. 2004
TEHRAN – As expected, two rounds of talks between Iran and the European
Union Big Three (EU-3) – France, Germany and Britain – have failed to
resolve the growing dispute over Iran’s quest to produce low-enriched
uranium. In response to the EU-3’s demand that Tehran halt enrichment
activities, Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this week
denounced what he called an “oppressive and unreasonable request” and
warned that Iran may terminate nuclear dialogue if the other side
persists in asking Iran to forego its “inherent right”.
The European negotiators in Vienna, including a representative from the
EU, refrained from calling the talks a failure, however, and, seeking
to salvage a seemingly sinking ship of diplomacy, expressed hope for a
more fruitful result in the next round, reportedly scheduled on
November 5 in Paris, just a couple of weeks before the United Nations’
nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
meets in late November to review the growing storm over Iran’s program.
The EU has warned Iran it will back United States calls for Iran to be
reported to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions at the
November 25 IAEA meeting if enrichment suspension is not verifiably in
place by then.
>>From Iran’s vantage point, in light of some 15 visits by the IAEA
inspectors in the past couple of years, the 23-member IAEA board of
governors should “close the file” on Iran – or face the prospects of
Iran withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But at the same
time, not every aspect of the EU-3’s “package offer” has been appraised
negatively by Tehran.
On the contrary, Iranian officials tried to put a positive spin on the
offer, which included promises from the EU that it would help Iran
acquire nuclear fuel “at market prices” and also support its light
water facility, as well as Iran’s bid to join the World Trade
Organization if Iran agrees to suspend its nuclear enrichment program
pending a “long term agreement”. A spokesman for Iran’s Supreme
National Security Council interpreted this as a step forward from the
previous, US-led demand that Iran suspend its enrichment activity
“indefinitely”. On the eve of the second Vienna talks, Iran’s top
negotiator articulated a sentiment widespread among Iranian officials
for a European deal that “would be thicker on the positive and thinner
on the negative”.
Meanwhile, the United States and Israel, playing anxious observers,
made a concerted effort to up the ante, with an Arabic paper in London
circulating a “reliable rumor from Washington” regarding an impending
strike by US forces against various Iranian facilities “including
certain mosques”, and Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon airing his
fear of “Iran’s existential threat to Israel”.
Concerning the latter, there are reasons to take such fears with a
grain of salt. For one thing, it was Iran under Cyrus the Great who
freed the Jews enslaved by the Babylonians and issued a decree allowing
them to return to their homeland. Even in today’s Islamic Republic,
with a population steeped in ancient history, it is hard to see how
Iran would ever venture to drop nuclear bombs on Israel, killing not
only the Jews but also the Muslim Arabs inhabiting Israel. Israel is
widely regarded as an “out of area” country by most Iranian foreign
policy makers, and while Iran remains ethically committed to the
struggle of Palestinian people for their right to self-determination,
this does not, and for the most part has not, translated into any
Iranian “over commitment” to the Palestinian people.
Nor is the situation of Lebanese Shi’ites, led by militant group
Hezbollah, any different, substantively speaking. Iran no doubt enjoys
its hard-earned sphere of influence in Lebanon, after 23 years of
military and financial investment, and has encouraged the Hezbollah to
take the parliamentary road to power. Thus, Israel’s paranoia about an
Iranian bomb in Hezbollah’s hands imperiling Israel’s existence is a
tissue of an unrealistic nightmare scenario built around a caricature
of the Muslim “other” as irrational zealots, when in fact, a cursory
glance at Iran’s foreign policy indicates the rule of sober national
interests over ideology.
>>From the Persian Gulf, where Iran has entered into low-security
agreements with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as shared energy
projects with nearly all the oil states of the Gulf, to Central
Asia-Caucasus, where Iran has promoted regional cooperation through the
Economic Cooperation Organization, and, in addition, has acted as a
crisis manager (eg, in Tajkistan and Nagorno-Karabakh), Iran’s foreign
policy has been widely praised by its neighbors, including Russia, as
constructive, pragmatic, and peace-oriented.
For US and Israeli officials – and their media mouthpieces – to
overlook this and, instead, attribute an out-of-control, purely
ideological orientation to Iran’s foreign policy, begs the question of
objectivity on their part; their virulent Iran-bashing actually serves
as a self-fulfilling prophecy, since by causing the further wrath of
Iranians by their pre-scripted policy of sanctions and isolation of
Iran, Tehran’s hardliners turn out to be the major beneficiaries, much
to the detriment of Iran’s liberalist reformers.
This aside, it is important, particularly for Europe, to consider the
fact that Iran is still leaving the door open for the extension of
Iran’s voluntary suspension of the fuel cycle. Hence, the glass may
actually be half full, and the EU-3 should ultimately embrace this
opportunity to seal an agreement with Iran, even though it may be short
of their hoped-for maximum objective. To do so, however, the EU-3’s
leadership must recognize that Iran is not another Iraq, and that with
its strong military and a population twice the size of the rest of
Persian Gulf combined, Iran must be treated with a great deal more
deference than Iraq.
After all, Iran is a main source of energy for Europe, both now and
more so in the future, and any UN sanctions on Iran’s oil industry will
instantly translate into higher prices at the European gas pumps,
hardly a pleasant prospect for the EU as a whole. Not only that, some
EU countries, such as Norway, Spain, Greece, and Italy, are likely to
oppose the EU-3’s hard diplomacy toward Tehran in light of their
cordial economic and trade ties with Iran. This means that the
collateral damage of a failure of EU-3’s Iran diplomacy may be a lot
more widespread than hitherto thought; that is, it may introduce policy
fractures inside the European Union itself.
With the stakes so high, a prudent European approach to the Iranian
nuclear stalemate might be explored along the following lines: A
balanced package whereby Iran would agree to a temporary, six months to
a year’s halt in its enrichment activities as part of a “confidence
building” measure, in exchange for which Iran would implement its
declared policy of “full transparency” and allow unfettered access of
IAEA inspectors to the nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and
elsewhere in Iran, per the terms of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol.
Such an agreement may not allay Europe’s fear of Iran going nuclear
altogether, but at least it provides institutional mechanisms for close
monitoring of Iran’s nuclear programs, which in turn, minimizes the
risks or threats of Iran telescoping these programs to weaponization.
If combined with parallel initiatives, such as an Iran-EU security
dialogue, this initiative would likely be effective in terms of the
long-term process of dissuading Iran from the path of acquiring nuclear
weapons, a path that in the current milieu of a sole Western superpower
acting like a “wild elephant”, to quote an Iranian official, is
theoretically conducive to the idea of Iranian nuclear deterrence.
Historically, rising insecurity has been a prime motive force for
nuclear weapons, and Iran may turn out to be no exception, in the long
haul, if the US and Israel fail to address Iran’s security worries.
For the moment, such theoretical concerns do not appear to have
influenced the drift of actual Iranian policies, notwithstanding the
repeated public pledges of Iran’s leader to refrain from pursuing
nuclear weapons considered “amoral”. Yet, the dictates of national
security interests may dictate otherwise in the future, all the more
reason to consider the issue of Iran’s nuclear program within the
larger framework of regional and global security, instead of apart from
it.
Unfortunately, the US and some European officials often overlook that
other countries too may have legitimate national security worries, a
serious oversight caused by their consistent Euro-centrism and
US-centrism. As long as a clean break from such arcane, underlying
security conceptualizations, or a cognitive map, has not materialized,
it is hard to see how the two sides in this stalemated negotiation can
achieve a healthy, mutually satisfactory, breakthrough.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions
in Iran’s Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and Iran’s Foreign Policy
Since 9/11, Brown’s Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former
deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He teaches political
science at Tehran University.

“If Turkey Enters Europe, Won’t It Turn Out That We Are Blockaded By EU?”
Azg/am
30 Oct 04
Armenian Ambassador interview to La Padania
Gagik Baghdasarian, RA ambassador to Italy, gave an interview to the
Italian La Padania daily and expressed an idea that “Turkey isnâ~@~Yt
ready to begin negotiations with the EU yet. The issue of recognizing
the Armenian Genocide is still open. This is one of the most important
issues, as it isnâ~@~Yt acceptable that a country carries such a
heavy weight. But there are many other issues, as well.”
Ambassador brought the issue of the Armenianâ~@~STurkish borders
among the ones he mentioned. “It has been ten years that Turkey keeps
the borders blocked, hindering any communication of Armenia with the
outer world. If Turkey enters Europe, wonâ~@~Yt it turn out that EU
puts Armenia in blockade?”, he said.
The reporter of La Padania, in his turn, pointed out: “Turkeyâ~@~Ys
entrance to Europe by Old Continentâ~@~Ys virtual consent
will arise another unsolved “moral issue” with heavy diplomatic
developments. According to that frightening supposition, the country of
semi-moon will become the South-Eastern edge of Europe, and the Turkish
borders, which in that case will be considered European borders, will
become the last bastion of Brussels for the country that suffered
from Turkey and is considered the enemy of the Turks till now. Thus,
the Turkeyâ~@~Ys attitude full of hatred and threats towards the
Armenians, in some respect, will become Europeâ~@~Ys position”.
–Boundary_(ID_vbYDkm1lXY/GmIQUmaLjng)–

KERRY IS DETERMINED IN RECOGNIZING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Azg/am
30 Oct 04
Even With the Cost of Losing an Ally
In its coverage of the US elections, Azg Daily constantly wrote about
Americaâ~@~Y s Armenian and Turkish votersâ~@~Y moods concerning the
candidates. We have mentioned John Kerryâ~@~Ys pro-Armenian activities
in the Senate and concluded that this fact will keep Turkish voters
out of polling for him. Yet, it seems that George W. Bushâ~@~Ys
Iraqi policy seems to Turkish voters more terrifying than senator
Kerryâ~@~Ys pro-Armenian stance and the possible acknowledgment of
Armenian Genocide in case the latter takes the office.
It seems that there is no unity among the American Turks as to future
US president. Neither official Ankara seems to take anyoneâ~@~Ys
side. Turkish Radical searches for answers in the October 27 issue:
“Ankara is concerned that Americans will not leave Iraq and that Iran
will possibly become a target if Bush remains in the White House. But
Kerry speaks of withdrawing the American army from Iraq and does not
threaten Iran. Therefore his candidacy is more preferable for Ankara”.
Turkish political observers think that for Ankara the results of
the US elections are less important than the situation in the Middle
East. They think Kerry wishes to withdraw from Iraq, and Turkey wants
to see Iraq more or less stable otherwise, if the crises deepens,
Turkey may interfere.
Amidst all these calculations, American Turks and Ankara never leave
out Kerry â~@~Ys determination to recognize the Armenian Genocide
from their spotlight.
While the American-Turkish Congress sent a letter to John Kerry signed
by president Erjument Q?l?nchi demanding that he consider US interests
and affirm Zamanâ~@~Ys words that “he (Kerry) hasnâ~@~Yt said anything
for the Armenian genocide for the last 10 years”, the Turkish embassy
to the USA alongside with the Turkish-American Union met with some of
Kerryâ~@~Ys advisers, Madlen Albright, Richard Holbrook and Fillip
Gordon, to tell how anxious they are about Kerryâ~@~Ys genocide
“trick”.
Turkish Miliet writes in October 28 issue that John Kerry did
not respond to American-Turkish Congressâ~@~Y letter and perhaps
disappointed American Turks. Ankaraâ~@~Ys political circles, in their
turn, are disappointed in Livingston Group, a lobbying organization
that is supposed to defend Turkeyâ~@~Ys interests in Washington.
October 28 issue of Zaman informs that the Livingston Group is run
by Bob Livingston, former Republican leader in the Congress. This
is an interesting detail but Livingstonâ~@~Ys explanation given to
Zaman is even more interesting. He said: “I fear that the American
Genocide policy will undergo serious changes if Kerry is elected. His
undeniable statements over the issue are binding. Kerry, who is
tremendously supporting the Armenian Cause, may perhaps think of
breaking his promise, but Iâ~@~Ym nor sure he will do that”.
Zeyno Baran, director of International Security and Energy Programs
of the Nixon Center, added to Livingstonâ~@~Ys words. To Milietâ~@~Ys
question “whether it is possible that Kerry as a president will neglect
his promise given the Armenians?” she answered: “We have different
circumstances this time. Kerry differs from all previous candidates
as he is a senator from Massachusetts. There is a rather powerful
Armenian community there, and Kerry always supported Armenians.
Thus, in case Kerry wins Turkey has to come to terms with the
Armenian Genocide because initiatives for Armenian-Turkish dialogue
unfortunately didnâ~@~Yt bring any serious success. If Kerry is given
the chance then Turkey perhaps will arrive at a common conclusion
with the Armenians, or, as your prime minister says, the issue will
be handed over to historians to study. Only Turkeyâ~@~Ys new approach
will make it possible to suppress the formula adoption in April”.
Livingstonâ~@~Ys and Baranâ~@~Ys clarifications evidence that
Kerryâ~@~Ys victory in the presidential run will put Turkey face to
face with the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide acknowledgment
formula. The only way for Turkey to avoid this is to secure the
republican majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.
In this case, the republican majority can obviously turn the formula
down without consulting with the president. The Armenian Genocide is
a powerful instrument of influence and Genocide acknowledgement will
mean renouncing this instrument.
By Hakob Chakrian
–Boundary_(ID_/n4Aqe29/h4ctXXWLfd95w)–

BAKU MARKS SUCCESS IN KARABAKH ISSUE
Azg/am
30 Oct 04
OSCE Minsk Group Does Not Welcome Azerbaijan’s Initiative
Azerbaijan constantly attempts to divert international community’s
attention from the key issue of Nagorno Karabakh conflict – the status
of Karabakh.
General Commission of the October 27 UN General Assembly gave down an
order of including the issue of “Azerbaijan’s conquered territories’
present status” in the agenda. Out of 28 countries 9 voted for the
offer, 14 abstained and none was against it. Turkey, Ukraine, Iran,
Pakistan, Malaysia were among those voting for the issue to be included
in the agenda.
A letter sent by Azerbaijan’s permanent representative in UN telling
that the OSCE Minsk group didn’t manage to achieve any result,
lay as a reason for discussing the issue of “Azerbaijan’s conquered
territories’ present status”. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s ambassador
to UN informed that Azeri territories alongside Karabakh are being
illegally inhabited, thus artificially shifting the demography.
Hamlet Gasparian, press secretary of Foreign Ministry of Armenia, said
before the Azeris’ initiative got approved that Azerbaijan always had
groundless accusations about inhabiting. “Armenian side always refuted
suchlike accusations and invited international observers to come and
see. Azerbaijan itself used to turn our offer down. We declare for
one more time that Armenia has no state policy of inhabiting these
territories”, he said.
Gasparian also noted that “there are only few refugees from Shahumian
and Getashen”. “We repeat that secondary issues derived from the
Nagorno Karabakh status that bother Azerbaijan the most, must be
discussed with Nagorno Karabakh authorities directly. From this
perspective, we think that Azerbaijan’s last initiative at the UN
has nothing to do with Armenia”, he said.
The Armenian Foreign Ministry’s press release of October 28 after
it became clear that Azeris marked a success at the UN reads: “The
General Commission of the UN General Assembly ordered to include
the issue of “Azerbaijan’s conquered territories’ present status”
in the agenda of the 59th sitting. We view Azerbaijan’s step as the
next attempt to distract international community’s attention from
the issue of Nagorno Karabakh’s status, the key issue of the conflict”.
The Ministry quoted France’s representative who spoke on behalf of
the OSCE Minsk group and said that the General Assembly’s sitting is
not the appropriate forum for discussing the issue.
The French diplomat stated on behalf of Russia and the USA that the
issue’s discussion at the sitting may hinder the efforts for finding
a peaceful and permanent solution for Karabakh conflict.
Armen Martirosian, Armenian ambassador to the UN, reminded in his
speech that the former Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh always
was and is inhabited by Armenians. Martirosian noted that Armenia
conquered Karabakh’s contiguous Azeri territories in a war imposed
by Azerbaijan. He also said that Armenia implements no policy of
inhabiting any territory but Karabakh.
Regardless official Yerevan’s explanation, it’s a fact that
Azerbaijan succeeds in presenting to international organizations
aspects in Nagorno Karabakh issue of secondary importance. The UN
General Assembly’s formulae are not obligatory but are important from
political and propaganda angles.
The UN Security Council accepted 4 formulae concerning Karabakh issue
in 1993, and Ilham Aliyevâ~@~Ys administration spares no effort to
make them come true.
By Tatoul Hakobian
–Boundary_(ID_ojq3U4kKnPTbugAxN+kOnw)–

Thursday, October 28, 2004
***********************************
THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE
******************************************
I once heard a Jewish comedian say, he did not care for the Ten Commandments because they stressed the negative.
*
Why were Charents and Bakounts tortured and killed by our commissars? Because they were perceived as a negative influence on Soviet society.
*
Hagop Baronian was betrayed to the Turkish authorities by his fellow Armenians in Istanbul because he too was perceived as negative.
*
Freud saw in Christianity “a distorted form of obsessional neurosis,” and Karl Marx as “the legitimator of exploitation.” They did not much care for the Ten Commandments either.
*
What’s positive and what’s negative? It depends on where you stand. My enemy is negative, my friend positive, and my enemy’s enemy is my friend because two negatives make a positive. To paraphrase the African chieftain quoted by C.G. Jung in his memoirs: “If I steal my enemy’s wives, it’s positive. If he steals my wives, it’s negative.”
*
When I sit down to write, it never even occurs to me to choose between being negative or positive…especially if my house is on fire.
*
At the height of the British Empire, Matthew Arnold wrote: “The world, which seems to lie before us like a land of dreams, [contains] neither joy, nor love, nor light, nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain.” As far as I know, no one has ever accused Arnold of stressing the negative at the expense of the positive.
*
A CRITIC’S JOB
**************************
I read the following in Kenneth Tynan’s posthumously published diaries: “A critic’s job is to make way for the good by demolishing the bad.”
*
A PARABLE
***************************
Once upon a time there was a man who lived in a beautiful house on a hill. Upon his return from work one day, he saw from a distance that his house was on fire. On noticing a passerby with a cell phone, he said: “Please, call 911 for me.” And the passerby said: “Why should I?” “Because my house is on fire,” said the other. “That’s the bad news,” said the passerby. “What’s the good news?”
Much later the man, whose house had gone up in smoke, found out that the passerby with a cell phone was an Armenian.
*
AN ARMENIAN DECALOGUE
***********************************
I. Thou shalt not confuse the god of our priests with God.
II. Thou shalt not consider intolerance a virtue.
III. Thou shalt not blame foreigners for all our misfortunes.
IV. Thou shalt not entertain the ambitions of a commissar of culture.
V. Thou shalt not resent those who expose the Turk in you.
VI. Thou shalt not practice or promote Ottomanism in the name of Armenianism.
VII. Thou shalt not believe every word you utter as if it were the word of God.
VIII. Thou shalt not pretend to be as infallible as the Pope of Rome, as fearsome as Stalin, and as magnificent as Suleiman.
IX. Thou shalt not parade your ignorance as if it were the latest word in wisdom.
X. Thou shalt not reject the validity of these Commandments on the grounds that they stress the negative and ignore the positive.
#
Friday, October 29, 2004
*************************************
ON THE POSITIVE SIDE
*********************************
It has been said that reality is often stranger and more brutal than any fiction. But in reality, whenever a door is closed, there may be ten or even a hundred other doors waiting to be opened. Just because we cannot see these doors, it does not mean they are not there. Very often, that which is nearest to us is also the least visible.
*
ON NATIONALIST HISTORIANS
***********************************
It is not at all unusual for a nationalist historian to be objective when it comes to other nations and turn into a pathological liar when it comes to his own. This is true not only of Turkish historians but of all historians in general. I wish I were in a position to say that our own historians are an exception to this rule.
*
THE RED AND THE WHITE
**********************************
The difference between a “red” and a “white” massacre is that, a red massacre is perpetrated by wolves and jackals, and a white massacre is perpetrated by sheepdogs and shepherds.
*
QUESTION / ANSWER
***************************
Why is it that under the repressive, not to say, murderous, regimes of the Red Sultan and Stalin we had literary giants, and under our own bosses, bishops, and benefactors, we don’t even have midgets. My guess is: a combination of ignorance, prejudice, intolerance and envy can be more deadly than an army of jihadist imams and commissars with a license to kill.
*
A THOUSAND AND ONE DOUBTS,
ONLY ONE CERTAINTY
****************************************
Unlike some of my self-righteous and chauvinist detractors, I am more than willing to concede that nothing I say is certain and the chances that I may be wrong are very high. I am willing to go further and say that I may even be wrong 99% of the time. But on one point I can assert 100% certainty: namely, in my defense of free speech. I wonder, how many of our self-appointed neo-commissars, who have at one time or another advocated silencing me, have had anything remotely favorable to say about free speech, which happens to be a fundamental human right.
*
ZARIAN AND GARABENTS
**********************************
The two authorities I would like to quote at this point are Zarian and Garabents.
Zarian: “Our political parties have been of no political use to us. Their greatest enemy is free speech.”
Garabents (Jack Karapetian): “Once upon a time we fought and died for freedom. We are now afraid of free speech.”
*
ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE
*********************************
If, in an Armenian environment, a door is closed, you can be sure of one thing: a trap door will open beneath your feet.
*
MEMO
*****************
Expect the worst and you will not be disappointed.
#
Saturday, October 30, 2004
***********************************
BUSHWHACKED
************************
We are a people like any other people, I am reminded repeatedly, “with our own share of honest men and charlatans.” If true, consider some of the insults, slogans, headlines, and graffiti directed at Bush, only a small fraction of which are quoted in BUSHWHACKED: LIFE IN GEORGE W. BUSH’S AMERICA, by Molly Ivins and Lou Debose (New York: Random House, 347 pages, 2003).
*
BUSH IS PROOF THAT EMPTY WARHEADS CAN BE DANGEROUS.
*
LET’S BOMB TEXAS, THEY HAVE OIL TOO.
*
IF YOU CAN’T PRONOUNCE IT, DON’T BOMB IT.
*
ONE THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT, AND ONE DIM BULB.
*
WAR IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE.
*
$1 BILLION A DAY TO KILL PEOPLE -WHAT A BARGAIN.
*
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND GOD? HE MIGHT FORGIVE BUSH, BUT I WON’T.
*
SMART WEAPONS, DUMB PRESIDENT.
*
PEACE TAKES BRAINS.
*
IT’S NUCLEAR, NOT NUCULAR, YOU IDIOT!
*
Because I have been paraphrasing and expanding on these slogans in reference to our own leadership, I am perceived as a hostile witness and an enemy that should be silenced. My question is, if you disapprove of our leaders, what have you done to expose their blunders? But if you approve of them, what right do you have to tell me to recycle your own particular brand of pro-establishment crapola?
*
CRITICS, MEDDLERS, AND COMMISSARS
**************************************************
After criticizing me, a reader writes: “I am not a critic.” Zarian is right. “We don’t have critics. What we have are meddlers.” And more often than not, may I add, meddlers with the ambitions of commissars of culture who miss the good old days when they had a license to kill.
*
EMPEROR MURPHY
*****************************
If the massacres can be blamed on the bloodthirsty disposition of the Turks and the double talk of the Great Powers; if the exodus from the Homeland and the high assimilation rate in the Diaspora can be blamed on social and economic conditions beyond our control; the question we must ask is: What the hell do we need leaders for? If so far they have been of no use to us when we needed them most, why don’t we get rid of them and consider ourselves perennial subjects of Murphy and his inflexible law, that says: “If things can go wrong, they will go wrong at the worst possible time.”
*
IN PRAISE OF HUMILITY
********************************
In a book of Anatolian travel impression by Lord Kinross (who is also the author of a mammoth biography of Ataturk), I remember to have read about his encounters with old Turks who bragged to him on having taught the Armenians a lesson they will never forget.
They brag about having massacred us, and we brag about our survival. May I suggest the world would be a far better place if we, all of us, realize we have nothing to brag about and a great deal to be humble about. Besides, if we brag about our survival, what do we do about the millions who did not? Do we plead amnesia? Do we ignore them? Do we pretend, out of sight, out of mind?
#

VISIT TO NKR
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
29 Oct 04
The public organization “Project on Transitional Democracies” and
the German Foundation of Marshal implement a joint program aiming,
according to the chairman of organization Bruce Jackson, to convey
the importance of the South Caucasian countries and urgency for
a rapid settlement of the conflicts to the leaders of the Atlantic
countries. On October 26 the delegation formed of influential statesmen
and diplomats of a number of European countries, the chairman of
NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a member of the French parliament,
the former foreign minister of Spain, the former advisor to the
president of Greece, representatives of the newspapers “Financial
Times”, “Figaro” and “Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung” arrived in
Stepanakert. The delegation was headed by Bruce Jackson who is the
representative of the USA Committee on NATO. Speaking about the aims
of the project, Bruce Jackson mentioned that each delegate has his
goals, and they will present their impression from the visit and
their suggestions to the leaders of their countries. Bruce Jackson
said all of them share the opinion that promotion of democracy
in the South Caucasus is becoming increasingly important for the
security of Europe. He mentioned that it is especially important in
the context of involvement of the South Caucasian countries in the
program “Wider Europe: New Neighbourhood” and recognition of the
South Caucasus as the chief factor for stability in Europe by NATO
at the summit in Istanbul. This speaks for the necessity of a rapid
settlement of the Karabakh and other South Caucasian conflicts. Bruce
Jackson also mentioned that this necessity is dictated by the changes
(related to the elections) which may take place in the government of
the USA, as well as the European structures in the near future. The
visit of the delegation began at Baku, continued in Yerevan and
Stepanakert and will end in Tbilisi, South Osia and Abkhazia. The
members of the delegation meet with the top officials, presidents and
defence ministers of these countries, as well as representatives of
public organizations. In Karabakh the delegation visited the border
area and witnessed the ravage there. The head of the delegation
mentioned that their impression from the visit to the borderline
will be another argument for the rapid settlement of the issue,
which they will convey to their governments. Bruce Jackson refused to
answer the questions referring to his personal attitude towards the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict saying that it is not within the
competence of the delegation. He pointed out that they will try to
cut the red tape on the problem of the Karabakh conflict among other
South Caucasian issues, and have it included among the priorities of
the American and European leaders. Besides, the aim of the program is
to prepare the international community for the possible settlement of
the conflict. In reference to the question of participation of Nagorni
Karabakh in talks Bruce Jackson said he could not see why Karabakh was
left out of the talks and pointed out that the settlement will be more
effective if the opinion of the people is taken into account. The visit
of this delegation to the South Caucasian region means much. Obviously
the USA and Europe have decided to attend to the issues of the region
seriously and expedite the peacemaking processes there. It is not known
yet whether the Karabakh conflict sides will have to make compromises,
they will be offered to create a South Caucasian federation after the
example of the European Union or there will be other solutions. One
thing is clear that the imposed settlement is not too far. And God
forbid that the settlement be like that in Kosovo or Cyprus.
AA. 29-10-2004

THERE ARE MANY SPIES IN ARMENIA
A1+
29-10-2004
“Unambiguously USSR was a dictatorship and the political prisoners made
a part of it. Only 70 members of ‘Union of National Self-Determination’
were political prisoners during the Soviet years”, Paruyr Hayrikyan,
Chairman of UNSD announced at a press conference.
October 30 is the Day of Political Prisoners of USSR. According to
Hayrikyan, in the 1970’s to come out of the international isolation
the leaders of Soviet Union announced they accepted Helsinki Agreement
of Europe Security and Cooperation underlining protection of human
rights. Agreement demanded that there would be no political prisoners
in a country.
But Hayrikyan says the Soviet leaders kept announcing to the world
that those arrested are criminals and not political prisoners and
supplementing the army of political prisoners.
Mr. Hayrikyan thinks there aren’t political prisoners in Armenia but
the number of spies causes concern. “Imagine a state where the majority
of Parliament members make spies and the rest are the people depending
on them. Since the owners of the spies know that their ‘activity’ –
establishment of the spy network is illegal, they try to lay their
hands on everything possible in a lawful way”, he stated.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress