Author: Boshkezenian Garik

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
Nov 22 2004

DUE TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF HEYDAR ALIYEV’S OIL STRATEGY,
AZERBAIJAN BECOMES STRONGER FROM YEAR TO YEAR, IMPROVES WELFARE OF
ITS PEOPLE AND OCCUPIES FIRMER PLACE IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA
SPEECH OF PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN ILHAM ALIYEV AT SOLEMN CEREMONY ON
THE 55TH ANNIVERSARY OF “OIL ROCKS”
[November 22, 2004, 23:14:11]

Dear oilmen!

Dear friends!

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

I congratulate all of you on the 55th anniversary of “Oil Rocks”
with best wishes for your good health, happiness and successful
activities. This is really great and remarkable event. 55 years ago,
oil was for the first time extracted in the open sea. Of course,
every Azerbaijani is well aware of this fact and is proud of it. As
early as XIX century, certain activities were initiated to explore
oil fields, but the first oil gushed out here in 1949. Since then,
oil industry of Azerbaijan has been rapidly developed, and today the
country is recognized in the world as an oil country.

As an independent country, Azerbaijan is successfully using its oil
potential. Had not practical steps been taken since 1949, large-scale
development of the Caspian fields initiated and relevant infrastructure
created, Azerbaijan would face serious difficulties in realization of
these activities today. Particularly, the infrastructure created in
1970s, which was modern for those times, continues to serve Azerbaijan
even today. It was during those years that drilling rigs, platforms
and other important units operating for the future of our country were
constructed. Of course, it was our national leader Heydar Aliyev who
initiated all these activities. It reaffirms – I said it more than
once, and want to say now – that a leader who loves his people and
works selflessly for their future will bring benefit irrespective of
political system. Today’s Azerbaijan is a product of Heydar Aliyev.

We remember well early 1990s as well. At that time, Azerbaijan
experienced severe crisis not only in oil but also in other fields.
If the “Contract of the Century” initiated by Heydar Aliyev at that
both politically and economically hard times had not been signed
despite all the pressures and threats, no development in oil or any
other sector of the economy would be possible today. Because, the
economy of Azerbaijan was then, is today and will be in the future
based on the oil factor; And this factor will play a key role in not
only the country’s economy but also its whole life for many years
to come.

Azerbaijan was a very risky place. There were the very few number of
potential investors in the Azerbaijan’s economy and country appeared
to be in a very difficult situation: economic crisis on the one hand,
occupation of its territories and civil confrontation on the other.
It was only as a result of Heydar Aliyev’s activities that it became
possible to persuade foreign investors, attract them and move the
country out of this complicated situation.

It has been 10 years since the “Contract of the Century”. Over these
10 years, ous country has been strengthened, its economy developed,
social problems are being tackled. Azerbaijan has managed to hold a
firm position in the world, and Azerbaijan is known throughout the
world as a very reliable and serious partner. Otherwise, if it were
not belief in Azerbaijan’s today and tomorrow, no billions of foreign
investments would be made in the country. These investments allow us
to develop not only oil sector but also other fields of the economy.
Azerbaijan is today one of the most dynamically developing countries
not only in the region but also in the world. The world’s largest
energy projects are now being implemented in Azerbaijan even though
some formerly were rather skeptical about them. The Baku-Baku-Tbilisi
oil pipeline, which once was called by some just a legend, today has
turned today into reality due to realization of the Heydar Aliyev’s
oil strategy. It is an issue of paramount importance for Azerbaijan,
future of our country and strengthening of its position in the
international arena. The Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline will turn
out country into gas exporter, as well. Today, European consumers are
also among those who are waiting for the natural gas from Azerbaijan.
This project is being successfully implemented, as well, and we will
mark the putting the gas pipeline into commission in 2006.

A very powerful oil infrastructure has been created in Azerbaijan in
the past years. The drilling rigs, other objects of the infrastructure
will serve the people of Azerbaijan for decades to come.

Of course, we are craving for development all spheres of the economy.
The greater part of the work in oil sector has already been completed,
and our main task today is to develop the non-oil sector. The works
in this direction and its results are evident. Suffice it to say that
over 110 thousand jobs were open in the past year in Azerbaijan, 70
thousand of which are permanent. In a word, the step taken in 1994
has had a very positive impact on our country, and I am sure will
continue to do so.

The extra funds going into our treasury will allow to reach sooner
implementation of the social programs – rise in salaries and wages,
pensions and other social payments. After the presidential elections
I said the people of Azerbaijan would live better from year to year.
All the programs I declared have been implemented. I am sure that
all the promises made before the elections including opening of 600
thousand jobs, development of the Azerbaijan economy, development of
regions and as a result improvement of the people’s welfare will be
kept. This is the most important task of mine as a president, and I
am sure that we will reach the goal.

Today, I want to touch upon the activities of the oil sector as a
whole. In particular, I would like to mark the work of the State Oil
Company of Azerbaijan. The State Oil Company of Azerbaijan has worked
hard to realize the oil strategy initiated by Heydar Aliyev. The huge
work has been done in all spheres including both cooperation with
foreign companies and its own projects on oil fields development.
While familiarizing myself with the situation in the Oil Rocks, I have
made certain of ongoing development. Despite, oil has been produced
here for 55 years, and the largest production volumes left in the
past, it nevertheless, has increased in the past years. Today, I also
familiarized with oilmen’s living conditions. I saw new buildings,
repaired old ones, and that social issues are on the focus of
attention, the oilmen’s salaries are quite high. They are at least
three times more as compared with average salaries in Azerbaijan.

I am very happy and proud spending a part of my life among oilmen
working for the State Oil Company. These years are very valuable and
dear to me, because I need the experience, knowledge and friends I
found then even today. In this high post of president, I consider
myself a representative of oilmen.

Dear friends, today is really a great holiday, a remarkable,
historical event. I am sure the Oil Rocks will serve the people
of Azerbaijan for many years to come. Of course the volume of oil
produced here is not large enough, but all know well that no a large
oil or gas project is possible in Azerbaijan without the Oil Rocks.
That is why we should know that the significance of the Oil Rocks
must remain on the same level.

I would like to touch one more question. The State Oil Company
advanced certain proposals concerning increase in production of both
oil and gas. Of course, we need large financial resources, and we
will do find them. I am sure if we start working at these projects
from the next year, we will manage to increase oil and gas production
in Azerbaijan in a short period.

Azerbaijan is being strengthened improving its economic situation
from year to year. The country’s place in the international arena is
getting firmer, as well. We are also taking measures for resolution
of our hardest problem, the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. As you know, Azerbaijan put the issue on the agenda of
many international events. The report and draft resolution prepared
by the Council of Europe reflect reality i.e. reveal Armenia as an
aggressor. The issue concerning the situation in the occupied lands
put on the agenda of the United Nations was a hard blow to Armenia.
Armenia was the only country to vote “against”. We will continue our
efforts to reach fair solution to the problem for the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan to be restored, our compatriots – refugees
and IDPs returned to their homes.

Please, accept once again my heartfelt congratulations on this
wonderful jubilee, and best wishes for good health, happiness and
new successes in and victories.

Harikrishna and Petrosian in joint lead :

Press Trust of India, India
Nov 21 2004

Kochi, Nov 21 : Grandmaster P Harikrishna of India and Armenian GM
Petrosian Tigran are leading the table with four points each after
the completion of four rounds in the World Junior Chess championship
here today.

In the fourth round, Harikrishna defeated Tikkanen Hans of Sweden
in the Nimzo-Indian defence in 40 moves while on the top board,
Petrosian Tigran edged out top seed and GM Berkes Ferenc of Hungary,
a former under-18 world champion in a Queens Gambit exchange variation
in 40 moves. Petrosian sacrificed his rook for a mating combination,
which was fruitful.

Third seed GM Alekseev Evgeny of Russia justified his seeding,
defeating IM Quezada Perez Yunieski of Cuba in Queens Gambit in 60
moves, while Poland’s IM Radoslaw Wojtaszek got the better of IM Jianu
Vlad-Cristian of Romania and IM Paragua Mark of Philippines defeated
India’s FM Abhijeet Gupta.

Aleekseev, Radoslaw and Paragua Mark with 3.5 points apiece are in
the second slot.

India’s IM Deepan Chakravarthy, a former Asian Junior champion,
shocked GM Timur Gareyev of Uzbekhistan in Sicilian Defence in 30
moves, while GM Koneru Humpy of India, who suffered a loss in the
third round, defeated South African (RPT South African) Johannes
Manyedi in Nimzo-Indian defence in 32 moves.

In the World Girls Under-20 championship, simultaneously being played
here, four players – Zhang Jilin of China, WGM Paehtz Elisabeth of
Germany, Majdan Joanna of Poland and WGM Ushenina Anna of Ukraine –
are leading with 3.5 points each after four rounds. PTI

DAVIS REPORT RETAINS ALL UNACCEPTABLE ARTICLES

Azg/arm
19 Nov 04

Armenian Deputies to PACE Grieving

On November 17 PACE new reporter on Nagorno Karabakh David Atkinson
represented his report at the session of PACE Commission on Political
Issues in Paris. The session was chaired by deputy from Russia
Mikhail Margelov who represented the issue. The session discussed the
changes suggested by the deputies.

Armenian deputy at PACE Tigran Torosian suggested 5 possible changes
only two of which were accepted. A formulation in the 7th article
saying that the International Court of Justice should examine whether
Armenia has violated Azerbaijan’s territorial wholeness was removed.

Terry Davis’ preliminary report’s 7th article read: “In case
negotiations within the Minsk group framework turn futile, thenâ=80¦
Armenia and Azerbaijan may turn to the International Court of Justice
as there is a legalistic argument whether Armenia violated
Azerbaijan’s territorial wholeness for defending the right of
self-identification of Karabakh people or not”.

It’s puzzling why the Armenian side considered this very article a
potentially dangerous one. During last few years Armenia has been
constantly repeating that Karabakh has never been within the
boundaries of independent Azerbaijan and that the League of Nations
did not recognize the Azeri state of 1918-20 because the latter tried
to join the League with Karabakh behind. Yerevan agreed on finding a
legal solution for the issue.

The second change of the Armenian side that was accepted has to do
with the 11th article which deals with spreading hatred by means of
mass media. They suggested to remove the equals sign between Armenian
and Azeri mass media as regards spreading hatred. Now this article
reads: “The Assembly condemns any call for violence by means of
Armenian and Azeri media”.

Three more suggestions of the Armenian side were turned down. “It was
obvious that some representatives’ choice to vote for Azeris was
dictated from above and as result our 3 changes were rejected”,
Torosian said. An “explanation” issued right after the session by the
Department of Contacts with Public ofthe National Assembly of Armenia
does not name the states voted for Azerbaijan.

There were several unacceptable formulations in Davis’ report (we do
not use the term “Atkinson’s report” as Mr. Atkinson has only edited
Davis’ report – T.H.) that still retain. In particular terms like
“ethnic exile” and “appearance of homogeneous ethnic territories”. But
the most unacceptable one was the last sentence in the first article
that the Armenian side could not force to remove. It reads: “A
considerable part of Azerbaijan’s territory isstill occupied by
Armenian armed forces and the separatist forces are still in control
over Nagorno Karabakh”.

The second article repeats that occupation of a CE state’s territory
by another CE state is a violation of CE regulations. In fact, Armenia
is charged with occupation of Azeri lands. Probably the UN General
Assembly will accept a formula about “the present state Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories”.

Neither Atkinson’s report nor UN’s formula have juridical power,
therefore are not forcible but are important from political and
propaganda aspects.

By Tatoul Hakobian

PanArmenian News
Nov 19 2004

AMBERD MEDIEVAL FORTRESS TO BE RESTORED IN ARMENIA

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian Government intends to allocate funds
for full restoration of Amberd Medieval fortress – a significant
cultural and historical monument of Armenia. Minister of Economy and
Finance of Armenia Vardan Khachatrian stated it the Armenian National
Assembly today. In 13-14 centuries Amberd has been the residence of
Armenian Proshian (Vachutian) dynasty, which comes from Artsakh
(Karabakh).

Noyan Tapan, Armenia
Nov 17 2004

VARDAN OSKANIAN: ARMENIA READY TO CONTINUE BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS, IF
AZERBAIJAN DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO TRANSFER ISSUE TO OTHER INSTANCES

YEREVAN, 17.11.04. If Azerbaijan insists on the discussion of the
resolution on the Karabakh problem at the UN, Armenia can continue
negotiations only with the participation of Nagorno Karabakh. The RA
Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian made this statement at the November
16 meeting with journalists. The minister noted that Armenia is ready
to continue bilateral negotiations if Azebaijan does not attempt to
transfer the settlement of the problem to other instances not related
to the settlement of this problem. He also underlined that if
Azerbaijan takes such a step and refuses to continue negotiations
with the participation of Nagorno Karabakh, the negotiations may
reach deadlock.

Asked what activities the RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs is carrying
out in the coutries members of the Islamic Conference that have voted
for holding discussion within the framework of the UN, Vardan
Oskanian said no resources are allocated by the state budget for such
PR, yet considerable work is being carried out. As for Pakistan and
Indonesia that play an important role in the Islamic Conference,
Armenia`s relations with these countries have developed in different
ways. Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has close relations with Azerbaijan
and Turkey and refuses to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia. Armenia has normal diplomatic relations with Indonesia.

Vardan Oskanian also noted that he talked with the foreign ministers
of many countries that had voted in favor of Azerbaijan`s proposal
and these ministers told him they had voted not in essence but
following the principle that any UN member country can organize
discussions on an issue of concern in the UN.

JACK MELKONIAN: IT TOOK 78 YEARS TO BUILD UP MEI AND IT’S BEING DESTROYED WITHIN

NICOSIA, November 10 (Noyan Tapan). The great-great nephew of the two
founders of the Melkonian Educational Institute (MEI) is in Cyprus
to join the fight to save the 78-year old school founded by members
of his family, the Cyprus Mail reported.

MEI is under threat of closure from June 2005, after the Armenian
General Benevolent Union (AGBU) decided the loss-making school should
close finally.

The move has prompted outrage amongst the Armenian community in
Cyprus and abroad, which suspects financial motives on the part
of the AGBU as the MEI is sitting on an estimated million worth of
commercial property.

Swiss-based businessman Jack Melkonian has decided to join in the
legal battle to save the school and questions the motives of the AGBU.

“I am very concerned about what is happening because this was a
donation made by our family. It was a long time ago – three generations
back – but nevertheless as a family we are concerned because there
have been a lot of rumours. I have come here to see with my own eyes
to see what is happening,” he told the Cyprus Mail in an interview
on November 9.

It was his great-great uncle Garabed, who died in Cyprus in 1934 who
made the donation that allows the school to exist. Melkonian said his
family has a copy of a deed which clearly states that a trust should be
set up, the proceeds of which were to keep the school going. “There
is no mention in that deed that the school should not exist. In
fact my great-great uncle was rather concerned that the school stay
open. The amount donated at that time corresponded to the budget of
Luxembourg. It was a very large amount of money so if it had been set
up as a trust, the interest should have covered the expenses of the
school,” he said. “It also says clearly that if for any reason the
AGBU cannot take care of the school or that the AGBU closes down,
that this fund should be transferred to another institution that
could take care of the school which in my opinion clearly says that
the continuity of this school was very much an issue”.

Melkonian said he has approached the AGBU on several occasions and
written to each member of the board individually. He said he was told
that they possess another document, which cancels out the wishes of
Garabed Melkonian. It’s a document, he said, nobody else seems to
have seen. He has asked for a copy of the document before travelling
to New York at the invitation of the AGBU, but so far it has not been
forthcoming, he said.

“I have nothing against the AGBU as an organisation, it is
wonderful. We have great esteem for it but we are more concerned
about the people who are running the AGBU at the moment who have
taken this decision.”

Melkonian said his family was puzzled over the trust fund that was
designed to support the school. “Even if the money has been exhausted,
the school and the land are still here and there are a number of
members of the Armenian community that are willing to support the
school to set up a new fund. There is also an income from the business
centre on the land. The revenue of that centre is almost half the
running costs of the school.

“That money seems to flow to the States and we don’t really know what
they are doing with it. They are claiming the maintenance of the school
costs them .2 million of which already half should be covered from
this. There is still .5 million from what was donated originally so
we think there is no need to close this school for financial reasons,”
he added.

Melkonian said the AGBU seemed to have forgotten that although it is
supposed to be a financial organisation, it is also supposed to have
a human side and questioned how such a far-reaching decision as the
closure of the MEI could have been taken by a mere handful of people.

“The Melkonian is a monument to 20th century Armenian history. It
took 78 years to build it up and it’s being destroyed within one year,
which is a great mistake. With a little work the school can be saved.”

NEW WORK PUBLISHED

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
09 Nov 04

The historical political essay “Karabakh Problem after Centuries of
Struggle” by Artashes Hakobjanian has appeared recently. This is the
logical continuation of the previous work by the same author entitled
“At the Origins of Artsakh Liberation War”. The author starts from
the reality that East Transcaucasia was the cradle of the Armenian
nation since the ancient times when the Armenians separated from the
Indo-European community as an ethnic entity. Through linguistic
facts and written sources of those historical times the author
proves that since ancient times the Armenian people was the main
ethnic population of East Transcaucasia and since the 8th century BC
formed part of the unified Armenian state. And whatever invasions
it underwent, it remained the homeland of Armenians who restored
their statehood every time. The last before NKR was the Commune of
Baku the members of which were massacred by the Ottoman bayonets.
Today it is the Republic of Nagorni Karabakh. Hakobjanian mentions
with pain that the Soviet Armenian historian, tasked by Stalin,
presented the Eastern state of Armenians as Azeri-Turkish, thereby
providing ground further falsifications and lies. To reveal the truth
Hakobjanian cites evidences starting from the antic historians and
geographers, ancient and medieval Armenian historical writings to
Makar Barkhudariants. Through undeniable facts the author proves that
throughout centuries East Transcaucasia was settled by Armenians,
where all the old geographical names are Armenians and where up to
the Caspian invasion of Peter the Great at the beginning of the 18th
century 85 per cent of the population were Armenians. Economizing words
but condensing facts and evidence, Hakobjanian follows the course of
historical developments through centuries up to the origins of the
problem of Karabakh.

SHAHEN MKRTICHIAN.
09-11-2004

09 November 2004,
Turkish Daily News
Editorial
Mehmet Ali Birand

Is the door to Armenia being opened?

Turkey received a very interesting report from Yerevan last weekend.

The Armenian government, led by Robert Kocharyan, in its budget
proposal sent to the Armenian Parliament noted that, “The recognition
of the Armenian genocide by Turkey is not the government’s primary
foreign policy objective.” The government said the repair of relations
with Turkey was a priority.

If Kocharyan intends to implement such a serious policy shift, it
will soon become apparent. Policies implemented will show whether
this policy shift is sincere or just a false gesture.

I know Armenia and Kocharyan. The word “genocide” is such a mystical
and accepted concept that no matter how much we refute or try to
disprove it, we will not eradicate this belief. For an Armenian,
the word “genocide” will always remain in their national psyche.

For Turkey, it is just the opposite.

Genocide is unacceptable. No matter how much pressure they put on us,
no matter what the European Union tells us, a Turk will never accept
it. Blood was spilt on both sides. Unspeakable horrors were committed
and shameful things happened. We might exchange apologies because of
what happened, but never recognize “genocide.”

Armenia is a small and poor neighbor of ours. Turkey is a giant
knocking on the EU’s door. Should these two countries continue to
wage this genocide battle and always remain enemies? Or should both
sides preserve their beliefs, let the genocide issue drop from the
top of the agenda and try to find ways to mend bilateral relations?

Turkey has made a number of gestures in this respect.

When Turgut Ozal was prime minister, the Kars border crossing was
about to be opened. The Armenian invasion of Azerbaijan prevented
this from happening. When Suleyman Demirel was prime minister, he came
very close to signing a deal with the former Armenian President Levon
TerPetrosyan. These meetings, in which even the Nationalist Movement
Party (MHP) leader Alparslan Turkes took part, the motivation was
always, “Let’s freeze the past and look at today.”

Each time, it was the Armenians that withdrew. For Yerivan, the
priority always remained with the insistence of the Diaspora making
Turkey recognize the “genocide.”

Armenia, meanwhile, is trying to survive in its small world, isolated
from everywhere. Despite the fact that its only door to the West is
Turkey, it persists in following an impossible dream.

The news from Yerevan made me ask myself if this was a sincere policy
change. If true, we can say that this could be an historic turning
point for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Kocharyan is in a position to make this happen. He should not miss
this opportunity.

Putin charts a new course for Russia
By Muhammad Zamir

The Daily Star, Bangladesh
29 Oct. 2004

President Putin of Russia has ordered a drastic overhaul of how his
country is run, stressing that the battle could only be won with
greater central control. His announcement came after more than 330
persons, mostly children, died in the controversial and deplorable
Beslan school siege by Chechen rebels in early September.

The whole situation has been brought to the fore once again through
the reluctance of Russia’s leaders to grant Chechnya the independence
that they have been striving for nearly a decade.

This latest incident led to human rights groups taking up arms on
both sides. Those supporting the Chechens pointed out the great
suffering that the people of Chechnya have undergone for the last
seventy years — exile to Kazakhstan under Stalin, being allowed
to return home by Khrushchev and then being denied the chance of
nominal independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They also
alleged that something like ten per cent of all Chechens, perhaps
as many as 200,000 people, had been tortured and murdered by inept,
marauding Russian troops in the years since Putin’s predecessor, Boris
Yeltsin, launched the Chechen conflict ten years ago. They have in
this regard noted that women Chechen suicide bombers might have been
created because of the ‘brutalisation’ of the Chechen people and the
‘widespread use of war-rape by contract soldiers.’

Akhmed Zakayev, the European Representative of the Chechen Republic’s
last freely elected President, Aslan Maskhadov, took this one
step further. He alleged that western governments had to share
responsibility for this latest bout of terrorism because of their
silence about Russia’s human rights violations in Chechnya. He went on
to state that double standards were in vogue among western nations with
regard to state-sponsored violence in different parts of the world.

Nevertheless what is important is that Chechnyans appear to have
several influential friends both within Russia and abroad, and that
is slowly being taken cognizance of by Russian authorities. This
group includes pro-US Russian critics like Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir
Ryzhkov (men associated with the extreme neo liberal market reforms)
and neo-cons like Boris Berezovsky and several US neo-cons like
Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Kenneth Adelman and US Thinktanks like
the Carnegie Andowment, Rand Corporation and the American Committee
for Peace in Chechnya. These organisations in particular, have been
assiduous over recent months in arguing against Moscow’s claims that
there is a link between the Chechens and the Al-Qaida. These prominent
voices use the Chechen rebellion as a stick with which to beat Putin.

The latest Beslan atrocity appears to have given Putin the necessary
handle, not only to re-evaluate policy but also to agree upon decisive
steps to centralise a more hierarchical approach to administration.

In the wake of this catastrophe, President Putin’s reaction appears
to have been evoked by two factors — nostalgic Soviet patriotism and
Russia’s ancient suspicion about possible encirclement. His response
was that terrorists were trying to leave Russia without defences
either to the east or the west. He was also bitterly critical of the
prevailing status within the internal administrative structure. He
not only blamed the rash of bombings all over Russia and the Beslan
disaster as having resulted from Russia being ‘weak’ but that ‘the
weak always get beaten’.

This frustration and anger have been reflected in Putin accelerating
efforts to create a more authoritarian and centralised form of rule.

Critics have, however, suggested that such measures have been
introduced to divert common Russian citizen’s attention from rising
social and economic tensions and quell public dissatisfaction
and anger. In this context, they are pointing fingers at the many
structural economic reforms that Russia will require to undertake
in the coming years — rise in domestic price of oil and gas which
will hit people’s utility bills, privatisation of medicine, potential
closure of kindergartens and even schools in smaller towns, mainly
in the northern Caucasus (in areas prone to potential violence).

Whatever the criticism, Putin appears to be quite firm about his agenda
to stop the ‘disintegration of the state, the break-up of Russia’. He
believes that the changes that are being introduced will be crucial
for future stability and will have to be undertaken even if Russians
cannot ‘live in as carefree a manner as before’.

Regional governors, cabinet colleagues and senior bureaucrats have
now jointly initiated steps to agree on ‘appropriate measures on
foreseeing and preventing terrorism in any form’.

The shake-up, biggest since Putin came to office four years ago, is
likely to concentrate power in one pair of hands. Other far reaching
steps will include the FSB (formerly KGB) controlling the border and
playing a more central role in defining core administrative policy
in the name of creating unity.

Efforts will now presumably also be taken to create a Russian version
of the US Department of Homeland Security, through a strengthened FSB,
which will coordinate the different ministries and law-enforcement
agencies who are associated in curbing terrorism. Steps will also
ostensibly be taken to raise the profile of Russia’s Security Council
or ‘the little Politburo’ which is chaired by Mr. Putin and includes
all the ‘power’ Ministers — defence, interior, foreign affairs as
well as the Prosecutor-General.

President Putin has already changed the Parliament’s Upper House and
the Federation Council so that regional Governors and legislative
leaders no longer sit in it. One anticipates that this progressive
evolution might eventually lead to the President appointing Governors
rather than these officials being elected.

Such steps would in a manner of speaking, restore within Russia,
the Soviet system of hierarchical party rule from Moscow.

I believe that Putin’s restrictive steps might be accepted with
some degree of calm within mainland Russia but is bound to lead to
difficulties with his southern neighbours and the expanded EU. In
the Caucasus, Russia’s frontal and strong-arm tactics to re-establish
authority will meet with greater resistance from dispossessed Chechens,
not because of Islamic fundamentalism but more because of their
nationalistic belief. Similarly, the new nationalist government in
Georgia is unlikely to help seal its frontier (in the Pankisi Gorge)
with Russia when it is trying to remove the Russian troops from the
disputed territory of South Ossetia, which was within Georgia’s borders
in Soviet times. Georgia in fact, has already stated its concern over
Russian pre-emptive action.

Azerbaijan may also be unwilling to help clamp down on its Chechen
Diaspora as Russia appears to have failed in getting Armenian troops
out of large areas of Azerbaijan, which they occupy.

Similarly, the expanded EU, which now includes many east European
states and even some Soviet republics will be watching events in Russia
with great caution. Emergence of inflexibility and rigidity in Russian
politics will definitely not be received enthusiasm. Latvia has already
been vocal about Russia’s conduct of security operations and some
others have also expressed serious concern about Russia’s handling
of the protracted Chechen crisis. They have already expressed their
doubts about internal military solutions rather than the pursuit of
international mediation and talks between the Russian government and
Chechen political representatives. Such advice, quite understandably,
have not been received with any enthusiasm by Putin.

There will be criticism of Putin’s new policies. Vladimir Pribyovski,
head of the think-tank Panorama has said that terrorism is being used
as a pretext to change the federal structure of the country’. Others
are also alleging that the planned measures will probably lead to
changes in the Constitution which will enable Mr. Putin to try for
a third term in office in the elections in 2008. Presently, there is
restriction to two terms only.

The US Administration, as expected, has made mild noises about Russia
‘pulling back on some domestic reforms’. President Bush also remarked
that Kremlin’s security overhaul could ‘not only undermine democracy’
but also affect the delicate balance in Russia within the central
government ‘between the executive branch and the legislative and
judicial branches’.

Whatever be the view of others, Putin and Russia appear to have drawn
a line. The recent decisions reiterate that the Caucasus is vital
to Russian interests — its southern border is strategic and that
it continues to be Russia’s road to the Middle East and crucially to
the oil resources of Azerbaijan.

Putin now believes that, should Chechnya become independent, the
whole Caucasian powder-keg could explode with Russia losing for
ever its ancestral power over the south. Such an equation, to him,
is unthinkable.

Putin, known for his dislike of Gorbachev, also knows that ordinary
Russians judge their leaders by their ability to control and increase
state power. The President with his KGB background, believes his new
tough measures will be seen as a personification of authoritarian
democracy and closer to the historical Russians as an example of
Putin not being a push over, trying to copy some one else’s model of
democracy. He might be right.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.

ARF TO HOLD GENERAL MEETING OCTOBER 29

ArmenPress
28 Oct. 2004

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 29, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation,
one of the three members of the ruling coalition, will convene its
general meeting on October 29. A senior member of the party Vahan
Hovhanesian, who is also deputy parliament speaker, said the convention
will discuss an array of domestic and foreign policy issues.

He said journalists will not be allowed to attend it, as “the
convention usually goes with heated debates which we would not like
others to see.” He said a statement will be made upon the convention’s
conclusions.