Tortured minds

Tortured minds
By Jean Rafferty

Sunday Herald, UK
13 March 2005

The fluidity in Beyoglu No 2 criminal court in Istanbul borders on
chaos. The judge is away training for the introduction of the Turkish
penal code, his deputy is sick, and it seems nobody wants to take on
the case of dissident writer and publisher, Ragip Zarakolu. Why would
they? There is the Turkish government to answer to if you come up with
the wrong verdict, and world opinion to contend with, in the shape
of eight international observers, a chap from the British Consulate,
two German cameramen and assorted supporters and reporters clogging up
the corridors. Not to mention the wider opinion they represent. For
a government which desperately wants to join the European Union,
the Turks have an unfortunate penchant for arresting their political
opponents. It doesn’t take much to put you on the wrong side of the
law here. One of the charges against Ragip Zarakolu is of insulting the
memory of Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state, who died
in 1938. In mature democracies such as our own, where Blair-baiting
and royalty-ribbing are the media’s favourite bloodsports, half the
nation’s press would be in Pentonville if such a charge existed.
“Can you imagine if there was a law like that about Churchill?” asks
Alexis Krikorian of the International Publishers Association (IPA).

We are in Istanbul to see Zarakolu tried for instigating racial hatred
“in a way dangerous for public security”. He has dared to suggest
that the Kurdish people in Iraq might have the right to determine
their own fate.

On this same day in the Turkish capital, Ankara, Professor Fikret
Baskaya is also standing trial for accusing Turkey of being a “torture
state” in a book written initially in the early 1990s and reprinted
in 2003. A team of international observers is watching his trial too.

Zarakolu’s article in a radical daily newspaper criticised the
Turkish government for suggesting that the Iraqi Kurds’ desire to
form a state was justification for the war. In the end the government
refused to support the war, which makes this whole process somewhat
surreal. Zarakolu is now in court for a political position that the
government itself supports.

A brave judge is eventually prevailed upon to hear the case and those
who can squash into the small courtroom. Its wood veneer-panelled walls
are reminscent of council houses in Glasgow’s east end, and there
is none of the pomp of a British court – nor any of the jury. Judge
and prosecutor sit together under a portrait of Ataturk . They wear
cheap-looking duster coats with red stand-up collars; the defence
lawyer’s collar is green and maroon. They could be janitors from
opposing high schools.

But for all their utilitarian appearance, the Turkish courts are far
more deadly in approach than our own. There are currently 60 writers
facing trial there, including Austrian journalist, Sandra Bakutz, who
simply went to Turkey in February to cover the trial of 100 left-wing
activists. She is charged with membership of a banned organisation
and could face up to 15 years in prison. Other “criminals” include
cartoonist Musa Kart, whose caricature of the Turkish prime minister
with a cat’s head earned him a 5000 lira fine.

It is hard not to see the proceedings in Beyoglu’s court as a
caricature of the law. The judge clearly knows nothing about the case
and has to be given all the details. Ragip Zarakolu stands alone in
the dock and reads a prepared speech. “Being against a war can never
be classed as a crime. Criticising genocide can never be a crime
… I demand acquittal.”

Instead, he is offered postponement until May, even though his defence
lawyer points out that under the new penal code such a charge could
no longer be brought then. As the code comes in on April Fools’ Day,
perhaps the judge is wise not to accept that argument. It turns out
that Zarakolu’s co-defendant, the newspaper’s editor, should have
been in the dock with him, but with 300 charges outstanding against
him he’s had the good sense to abscond to Switzerland.

“It’s Kafkaesque,” says Zarakolu. “Just harassment. It’s like our story
of the wolf and the lamb at the riverside. The wolf says, ‘I will
eat you. You are making my water dirty.’ The lamb replies, ‘That’s
impossible. You are upstream of me. It is only you who could dirty
my water.’ The wolf says, ‘It’s not important. I want to eat you’.”

Ragip Zarakolu has spent a total of two years in prison, some of
it in isolation. His publishing house has been firebombed; he has
had constant financial struggles, but still he carries on, not just
writing his own articles but publishing and distributing radical
literature by others.

He was born in 1948 into the family of a high-ranking bureaucrat,
an intellectual whose liberal-mindedness – and membership of the
democratic party – led to his being sent away from Istanbul and into
the wilds of Anatolia. It was a form of banishment, a probationary
period to ensure his loyalty. The state-owned mansions that the family
lived in clearly provided only limited security.

In 1968, Turkey followed the student protest movement of most of
the Western world. Ragip too listened to Joan Baez and Bob Dylan and
took part in sit-ins, but unlike many of his European and American
contemporaries, he never settled for Coca-Cola consumerism. In 1977,
he and his wife Ayse set up a publishing house to print the works
of independent thinkers. Their range included classic political
theorists such as Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill. They often used
foreign writers to say the things Turkish writers could not.

In the 1980s, after the military coup by General Kenan Evren, the
couple began publishing works by people who had been in prison. “They
were writing their poetry on little pieces of paper, which they sent
secretly, sewn into shirts and other things. Nearly half a million
were imprisoned in five years. A generation of university students
stayed there a long time. My wife and I thought it was very important
to get their voices to the outside. The military authorities thought
all the younger generation were terrorists but we wanted to show
their culture. We published poetry, novels, stories, reportage. Some
of them won awards.”

And some of them were sentenced to death. Turkey takes the written
word very seriously. Zarakolu and his wife were watched the whole
time, their phones tapped. Many other publishers couldn’t take the
pressure. They themselves closed their own publishing houses and
bookshops. Some people even burned books in their own homes. In the
first half of 2004 alone, 15 books were banned.

The Zarakolus did everything openly. Ragip was arrested in 1982;
Ayse two years later. She was tortured. During Ragip’s first prison
term, in 1973, he had learned what that meant through the stories
of fellow-prisoners. “They were hanging people by their hands, using
electric shocks, beating people on the soles of their feet. They also
tied people to the bed, making them stay there a week without going
to the toilet .”

During that period, Ragip Zarakolu collated the information he
received into a book, which was published in Belgium. This time
around he could only support his wife. Ayse was a remarkable woman
who was tried many times and won many humanitarian awards . In 1984,
she was arrested because she had given a job to a student who was
wanted by the police. They tortured her to find out where he was. She
refused to tell them – he was hiding in her mother’s house. “She was
a very courageous woman,” says Ragip. “She always managed not to go
into depression or helplessness. She felt good because she could do
something against power. She felt solidarity with suffering people.”

In 2002, Ayse died of cancer. Her husband was devastated, unable to
speak at her funeral. “I lost half of my existence,” he says. “We
shared everything.” Ayse’s coffin was carried by a group of Kurdish
women, who approached Zarakolu and asked if they could do so.

The “Kurdish question” is one of the country’s most contentious
issues. State repression of the 12 million-strong Kurdish population’s
language and culture resulted in bloody civil war during the 1980s
and 1990s . Both Zarakolus had spoken out openly about human rights
abuses, and about the genocide of a million Armenians from 1915
till the establishment of the Turkish state in 1923. “Everywhere men
carry the coffins,” says Ragip. “But the women said, ‘She gave a very
important struggle for us.’ The Kurdish women carried her coffin a
long way. It was a very hard burden.”

Moved by their gesture, the Zarakolus’ older son, Deniz, made an
emotional speech at the graveside. “I think Kurdish women will be
free some day,” he said. “And they will not forget my mother.”

In Turkey, 40 days is the traditional period of mourning. The
anti-terror team waited 40 days after Deniz spoke out; then they came
to the family home and took him away for interrogation. H e had said
the unforgivable: that Kurdish people might one day be free.

Deniz Zarakolu was acquitted only after legal reforms were
introduced. In recent years, in its bid to make itself acceptable to
Europe, Turkey has been making piecemeal amendments to its laws. These
do not impress the international observers who came to Istanbul.

“What good is a law if it’s not implemented?” asks Alexis Krikorian
of IPA. “In December Ragip Zarakolu was acquitted before the
State Security Court. As soon as he was acquitted he was charged
again. That’s why we’re back again.”

“Turkey keeps saying, ‘We’re a young nation. We need time.’ But
they’ve had a lot of time,” says Eugene Schoulgin of International PEN,
the worldwide writers’ organisation.

The irony is that many observers believe human rights are just an
excuse for the major European nations to keep Turkey out of the
European Union . “They can’t let Turkey in,” insists Professor Hasan
Unal of Ankara’s Bilkent University. “It’s too big, too alien. Once
you let Turkey in you’ll be moving your borders to Iran and Iraq. They
should keep Turkey as a buffer state.”

By the year 2020, Turkey’s population, now 72 million and growing at a
rate of one million a year, would be the biggest in Europe, giving the
country unprecedented influence. Would France and Germany countenance
this? Behind closed doors the diplomatic minuet goes on. Last Sunday
there were alarming scenes of police brutality in Istanbul during a
demonstration for International Women’s Day. Masked police arrested
57 people but it was thei r behaviour that was questioned in the
world’s press.

When Europe’s ministers met the Turkish foreign minister in Ankara on
Monday he assured them that the police would be investigated. They
assured him they were sure that they would. It was cosy, stately if
not statesmanlike, and utterly impenetrable. “They’re melting all
the criticisms into some kind of diplomatic mish-mash,” says Eugene
Schoulgin of International PEN. “It makes it impossible to know what
goes on behind the curtains. The public will never know. That’s what
worries writers and publishers.”

While in Istanbul, Schoulgin attended a dinner for the European
Ambassador, Hansjoerg Kretschmer, thrown by the Marmara group, a
Turkish association including 200 important politicians, academics,
businessmen, generals, journalists. There were speeches and compliments
and empty formalities . Only at the end, did Schoulgin ask how it
was possible for the EU to accept a country with so many taboos, a
country which will accept no criticism of its policies on Armenians,
Kurds, the military, Cyprus or even its founder, Kemal Ataturk.

He got no real answers. Afterwards, many people said that he shouldn’t
ask such questions. “I said, ‘I have a feeling I stepped on everyone’s
toes at once.’ I laughed and they laughed too, but they didn’t
like it.”

In Ankara, Professor Fikret Baskaya was acquitted. Many observers
thought the verdict had been decided before a word was said. But in
Istanbul Ragip Zarakolu has a further trial pending, on Wednesday,
and another book on the Armenian genocide coming out shortly. As it
coincides with the 90th anniversary, he does not expect publication
to go unnoticed.

Zarakolu is a generous-hearted man, a man who loves people, music,
laughter and travel. A man of inexplicable, ineradicable optimism. But
on one issue he is as rigid and inflexible as his opponents: “Whether
it’s a member of the European Community or not, Turkey must reform. The
citizens of Turkey demand their rights.”

Jean Rafferty went to Istanbul as a representative of Scottish PEN,
in conjunction with English PEN

13 March 2005

TBILISI: “Confront Russia”: U.S. Senate told

The Messenger, Georgia
March 11 2005

“Confront Russia”: U.S. Senate told

U.S. analysts advise Senate to stand up to Russia and actively pursue
resolution of frozen conflicts
By James Phillips

The U.S. Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations heard appeals on
March 8 to stand up to Russia and support countries of the Black Sea
region, including Georgia.

At a hearing on March 8 entitled ‘The Future Of Democracy In The
Black Sea Area,’ the committee heard testimony from the U.S. State
Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, European and
Eurasian Affairs, John F. Tefft, President of the Project on
Transitional Democracies Bruce P. Jackson, Jamestown Foundation
Fellow Vladimir Socor, and Zeyno Baran, Director of the International
Security and Energy Programs at the Nixon Center.

Outlining the US government’s policy towards Georgia, Tefft stressed
that “we support President Saakashvili’s goal of reuniting the
country, and encourage Georgia to resolve the conflicts in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia in a peaceful manner. We also continue to insist
that Russia fulfill its remaining Istanbul commitments” to withdraw
its military bases from the country.

“The Rose Revolution of 2003 demonstrated that Georgians desire fair
elections and good governance, and are capable of holding their
government accountable,” Tefft said, adding that, “Since the Rose
Revolution, Georgia has made significant internal reforms to fight
official corruption, consolidate bureaucracy and increase revenue
collection in order to provide better services to its own citizens.”

However, the deputy assistant secretary of state warned that
“Progress in Georgia is hampered by ongoing separatist conflicts in
South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”

In his testimony, Vladimir Socor focused on threats to
Western-oriented countries in the region, “mainly from Russia and its
local protégés.”

“The overarching goal,” he explained, “is to thwart these countries’
Euro-Atlantic integration and force them back into a Russian sphere
of dominance. The scope, intensity, and systematic application of
threats has markedly increased over the last year, as part of
President Putin’s contribution to the shaping of Russia’s conduct.”

“Old-type threats stem from troops and bases stationed unlawfully in
other countries, seizures of territories, border changes de facto,
ethnic cleansing, and creation of heavily armed proxy statelets.
Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan are the targets of such blackmail,”
he declared.

“New-type threats,” he continued, “are those associated with illegal
arms and drugs trafficking, rampant contraband, and organized
transnational criminality, all of which use the Russian-protected
secessionist enclaves as safe havens and staging areas. In the Black
Sea region,” he added, “state actors within Russia are often behind
these activities, severely undermining the target countries’
economies and state institutions.”

The need to confront Russia

Bruce Jackson agreed with Socor on the need to stand up to Russian
aggression towards Georgia and other Black Sea region countries.

Referring to the Rose and Orange revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine,
which he said had “changed the structure of politics in Minsk,
Chisinau and as far away as Almaty, Bishkek and Beirut,” Jackson
stated that, “Without doubt, the largest and most dramatic democratic
changes are occurring in this part of the Euro-Atlantic.”

“Sadly, it is not only our hopes that draw our attention to this
region, but also our fears,” he added, explaining that a belt of
frozen conflicts from Transdnestria in eastern Moldova through
Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia to Nagorno-Karabakh continued
to pose threats to the security of the region as a whole.

“In Transdnestria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, transnational crime
has found a home and developed a base for trafficking in weapons,
drugs, women and children,” he warned. “These criminal enterprises
destabilize the governments of the region, threaten Europe with
illicit traffic, and ultimately pose a danger to the United States
with their capability and intent to sell weapons and technology to
our enemies.”

Reporting particularly on Georgia, Jackson stated that the country,
“under the leadership of President Misha Saakashvili, has finished an
extraordinary first year of reform, which saw the breakaway province
of Adjara reunited with the constitutional government in Tbilisi. By
all indicators, such as its qualification for participation within
the Millennium Challenge Account, Georgia is delivering on its
commitments to economic reform and the democratic transformation of
its society and government.”

“Like Ukraine, however,” Jackson added, “Georgia has encountered
serious and continuous obstruction from Russia. The Russian
Government has refused to comply with its international treaty
obligation to withdraw its troops from the Soviet-era bases on
Georgian soil and has consistently supported separatists in the
breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia.”

“Late last year, Russia blocked the OSCE from reinforcing a
peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia in order to protect its ability
to ship prohibited weapons and explosives through the Roki Tunnel to
paramilitary gangs in South Ossetia,” he stated, adding that Russia
had also “forced the OSCE to close the Border Monitoring Operation”
on the Georgian-Russian border.

“Russia’s actions could very well prove to be the death knell for the
OSCE; we must ensure that they are not for democratic Georgia,”
Jackson declared.

Jackson outlined a series of policy objectives for the United States
with regard to the Black Sea region. Among these, he stated, there
was a need to “prioritize the frozen conflicts.”

“President Misha Saakashvili’s enlightened peace plan for South
Ossetia has been greeted by a resounding silence in Brussels and
Washington, which is dumbfounding,” he stated.

Also of importance, he stated, was to “confront Russia.”

“Just because Russian officials become peevish when we point out that
the poison used on Yushchenko and the explosives used in the car
bombing in Gori, Georgia came from Russia, does not mean we should
ignore this conduct,” he said.

Georgia: Inspiration for change

In the final testimony, Zeyno Baran chose to title the first of the
four sections of his testimony as Georgia: Inspiration for Change.

Describing the Rose Revolution, which she witnessed first hand, Baran
categorically refutes the opinion that it “was not a movement led or
even inspired by the United States; it was a domestic uprising
against a corrupt and weak regime that was rotting internally and
could not deliver on any promises to restore stability and economic
growth and bring Georgia closer to the transatlantic community,” she
stated.

Noting that Saakashvili’s first foreign visit after the Rose
Revolution, in January 2004 before his inauguration, was to Kiev,
Baran stated that “over the next year Georgians and Ukrainians, in
government as well as in civil society, worked together to ensure
Ukraine’s democratic triumph.”

“The sustainability of the Georgian and Ukrainian revolutions is
essential for others in the
Black Sea region to follow a reformist trend,” Baran added, warning
that without US and western support, this may not be possible.

The US must do all it can to support Georgia and Ukraine’s
aspirations for NATO and EU membership, Baran said, as well as to
resolve Georgia’s internal conflicts. She also stated that the
continuing presence of Russian military bases in Georgia was a
“hindrance to peace.”

In the second part of her testimony, entitled Russian Energy
Monopoly, Baran argued that “if Russian monopoly power increases
across the Eurasian region, then countries will have difficulty
resisting Russian political and economic pressure.”

This, she said, was of great importance given Russian energy giant
Gazprom’s desire to acquire Georgia’s trunk gas pipeline.

“The difficult economic conditions prevailing in Georgia have given
Gazprom a great opening to try and acquire the title to the Georgian
gas pipelines, thus bolstering its monopoly power,” she said.

“If Tbilisi unintentionally helps Gazprom in this effort, then
Georgia will only be enhancing the company’s long-term leverage over
European gas consumers, and thus discouraging Europeans from taking a
firmer line with Russia on political issues, such as the frozen
conflicts mentioned earlier,” she added.

–Boundary_(ID_2QXNdHxJ/InJ6hxwaFyEiQ)–

Despite Washington: Armenia may play instrumental role in Moscow’spl

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
March 9, 2005, Wednesday

DESPITE WASHINGTON

SOURCE: Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier, No 8, March 2 – 15, 2005, p. 3

by Samvel Martirosjan

ARMENIA MAY COME TO PLAY AN INSTRUMENTAL ROLE IN MOSCOW’S PLANS OF
PREVENTING AMERICAN STRIKES AT IRAN

Official Yerevan is advancing its contacts with Tehran. Construction
of a gas pipeline from Iran to Armenia began not long ago. Energy
dialogue between the two countries is at twice its former
intensiveness. Powers-that-be are already discussing construction of
a railroad between the two countries. It will become an element of
the North-South transport corridor whose project is actively promoted
by Moscow.

In other words, Yerevan and Tehran are doing what they can to benefit
from their closeness to each other. It would have been hardly
surprising but for a single nuance: all of that is happening against
the background of the quarrel between Iran and the United States
whose intensiveness is mounting too. In the meantime, Yerevan
presents itself as one of Washington’s leading partners in the
Caucasus.

In the meantime, Serzh Sarkisjan, Defense Minister of Armenia and
Secretary of the Presidential Security Council, visited Tehran on
February 7-9 within the framework of bilateral rapprochement. He met
with the president of Iran, foreign and defense ministers, and other
senior officials. Regional security was in the focus of all
negotiations. Sarkisjan suggested to Hasan Rouhani, Secretary of the
Supreme Council of National Security, to arrange regional
negotiations on the level of secretaries of Security Councils and
contemplate cooperation in the sphere of security. Sarkisjan is
convinced that the new facts of life make a security framework like
that a must. Rouhani in his turn is convinced that all regional
security projects must be discussed by all countries of the region.
President Mohamad Hatami assured Sarkisjan that his country intends
to advance and broaden bilateral contacts with Armenia.

Tehran’s position is understandable. American troops have all but
surrounded Iran on all sides. The United States has military bases in
Turkey; it has occupied Iraq and has troops in Afghanistan as well.
All of that cannot help but worry Iran. More and more frequent leaks
to the media indicate that Washington intends to move its troops to
Azerbaijan as well. There is also the possibility that the Americans
will use Azerbaijani airports for air raids against Iran. The
situation being what it is, Armenia remains the only place from which
Tehran does not expect a stab in the back.

Yerevan too is worried by the possibility of an American attack on
Iran. Right upon his return from Tehran Sarkisjan was quoted as
saying to a correspondent of Yerkir newspaper that “We hope that
there will be no hostilities and that new areas of tension will not
appear in the region across our borders. Any tension and particularly
hostilities may play the role of a detonator. We hope that the
American-Iranian relations will improve, all problems settled
peacefully.”

This negative attitude towards potential deterioration is shared by
Kiro Manojan, head of the Political Department of Armenian
Revolutionary Movement Dashnaktsutyun, one of the largest political
structures in the republic and an element of the ruling coalition.
“Dashnaktsutyun regards the Armenian-Iranian relations and
territorial integrity of Iran as very important,” he said in an
on-line interview with Caucasus journalistic Network website. “From
this point of view, potential attacks of America or other countries
against Iran worry us greatly. In this, our party shares the
positions of some United States’ allies in Europe.”

As soon as Sarkisjan left, Rouhani visited Russia. It stands to
reason to expect Armenia to come to play an instrumental role in
Moscow’s plans of prevention of escalation of tension in the Middle
East and American strikes against Iran.

Turkey Still Reacting To Oskanian’s Response

TURKEY STILL REACTING TO OSKANIAN’S RESPONSE

Azg/arm
12 March 05

At the March 9 press conference foreign minister of Armenia, Vartan
Oskanian, rejected Turkish PM Erdogan’s offer “to open archives and
to carry out impartial research with the involvement of Armenian and
Turkish historians” and stated: “Historians had their say long ago,
and Turkey has to work its own approach to this. There is nothing
left to the historians any more”.

Turkey strongly reacted to the minister’s response (see Azg’s March
10 issue). Vartan Oskanian’s Yerevan press conference alongside with
his interview to Reuters was widely covered by Turkish press. Anatolu
agency issued a press release on March 10 on the matter and Turkish
NTV highlighted the issue on March 11. In the interview to Reuters
Oskanian repeated what he said at the press conference and then called
the Armenian Genocide a “political issue” and noted: “It turned into
political issue when Turkey began denying the Genocide. For that
reason the issue demands a political solution”.

Suggesting Armenia to conduct an impartial research in the Genocide
issue, PM Erdogan meanwhile called on states that have recognized the
Genocide on parliamentary level or demand Turkey to recognize it on
the threshold to EU to open their archives.

Germany appeared on the list of such countries lately, and a press
release by German embassy in Turkey responding to Erdogan’s call to
“open archives” was quite expected. Turkish Sansursaz newspaper wrote
on march 11 that the release says: “All documents kept in German
archives, including Foreign Ministry’s official political documents,
are available for researches without any exception. All documents
are available at the Berlin city archive reading hall. They all were
handed over to Armenia and Turkey in 1998 in form of microfilms”.

Thus, the press release by the German embassy turns futile Erdogan’s
accusations to European states. Another Turkish newspaper, Zaman, wrote
yesterday that Yusuf Sarinay, president of the General Directorate of
State Archives of the Prime Ministry, confessed that scientists from
75 countries have applied to the Directorate and asked for documents
but, he emphasized, no documents were demanded about Armenian issue.

It leaves room for Sarinay to say that “They don’t want to be faced
with historical realities”. Prof. Enver Konukcu, head of the History
Chair at the Ataturk University, joined Sarinay in his accusations.
Commenting on Oskanianâ’s response to Erdoganâ’s offer “of joint
research”, he says that the refusal strengthens Turkish historiansâ’
positions and added: “Armenian historians have neither documents at
hand nor knowledge. Armenians always evaded. Turkish historians were
always ready to prove the truth. Armenians evade both, the history
and the truth. But historical truths are inevitable”.

A question arises: whatâ’s that truth? Konukcu thinks that it is the
Turkish genocide of 1915-1919 that claimed lives of 519 thousand Turks
as well as the 185 common graves and 50 thousand archive documents
that though contain 2 thousand papers “denying” the Armenian Genocide
do not attract foreign scholarsâ’ attention.

German embassy’s confronting response to Erdogan’s accusation
and the fact that foreign scientists pass by the documents of
General Directorate of State Archives in indifference not only
confirm Oskanian’s words that “nothing is left to the historians”
and “Erdoganâ’s offer is groundless” but also prove the issue to
be political indeed. In these conditions, Turkey’s new project of
“Standing against Armenian genocide claims” is simply nonsensical
together with Turkish government’s and opposition’s unity around it.

By Hakob Chakrian

–Boundary_(ID_iHkfIcdW/MhhiNjm8YPljQ)–

Armenian-Russian gas company to build segment of pipe from Iran

Armenian-Russian gas company to build segment of pipe from Iran

ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow
11 Mar 05

Yerevan, 11 March: The ArmRosGazprom [Armenian-Russian gas industry]
joint venture between Russia and Armenia has won a tender for the
construction of the Armenian segment of a gas pipeline from Iran
to Armenia, ArmRosGazprom General Director Karen Karapetyan said in
Yerevan on Friday [11 March].

ArmRosGazprom transports and distributes natural gas in Armenia. The
Armenian government and Russia’s Gazprom gas giant have 45 per cent
interest in the joint venture each, while the ITERA international
company has 10 per cent.

The pipeline, whose construction will start in late March – early
April, will supply gas only to Armenia. It will not have capacities
for gas transit. Iran will supply natural gas in exchange for Armenia’s
electricity.

“If Iran and Ukraine agree to lay a transit gas pipeline across
Armenia, we will certainly take part in the project,” Karapetyan said.

“Armenia will have exclusive positions in the regional energy system
if it has an alternative gas pipeline from Iran, an underground gas
storage facility and excess of electricity,” he said.

Q&A: What is Syria’s role in Lebanon?

Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
March 7, 2005, Monday

Q&A: What is Syria’s role in Lebanon?

Since the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Rafik Hariri, the popular
opposition leader and Lebanon’s former prime minister, thousands of
Lebanese have poured into the streets to protest Syria’s military
presence in their small Mediterranean country. The world, too, has
turned its attention to Syria’s role there. Correspondent Annia
Ciezadlo looks at the historical roots of the tension between these
two countries.

Q: Why is Syria in Lebanon?

A: The short answer: Syria was invited by Lebanese Christians in 1976
to stop a brewing civil war. But even with 27,000 Syrian troops in
Lebanon, the war that started as skirmishes between Muslims and
Christians continued for 15 years. It eventually involved the
country’s other religious factions, the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), Israel, and the United States.

While Syria intervened on the side of the Christians, it switched
allegiances to Yasser Arafat’s PLO, which was using Lebanon as a base
to attack Israel, and the PLO’s Arab nationalist allies, mostly
Muslim and Druze. In the end, Syria aligned itself with the Shiite
Amal and Hizbullah parties. Because Syria is now the main power
broker in Lebanon, these parties have an advantage in the constant
shuffling of Lebanon’s balance of power.

But the long answer to Syrian involvement in Lebanon – like many
issues in the Middle East – goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman
Empire. After World War I, when the European victors divided the
Ottoman territories, the French ended up with what was then called
Greater Syria, which encompassed Syria and Lebanon. The French,
aligned with the Maronite Christians (originally followers of a
4th-century Syrian hermit priest named Maron) of Lebanon and created
an autonomous region for the Maronites in their ancestral home of
Mount Lebanon.

To give Lebanon greater economic viability, the French combined the
predominantly Muslim Bekaa Valley and the ancient coastal cities with
the mostly Christian enclave of Mount Lebanon.

Q: How many religious groups are in Lebanon?

A: The main religious groups are Christian, Muslim, and Druze. Druze
is a secretive sect that some maintain is an offshoot of Islam, but
that also incorporates a belief in reincarnation. These religions are
further subdivided into 18 sects; each gets a certain number of seats
in Parliament under Lebanon’s confessional system. The major
subdivisions among the Muslims are Shiites and Sunnis; among the
Christians they are Maronites, Armenian Catholics, Greek Catholics,
and Greek Orthodox.

Q: What is a confessional system?

A: As of Lebanon’s last official census in 1932, Lebanon was about 51
percent Christian and 49 percent Muslim. When Lebanon declared
independence from France in 1943, this balance was enshrined in the
National Pact, a covenant of understanding that Parliament would have
a 6 to 5 Christian majority, with a Christian president, Sunni prime
minister, and a Shiite speaker of parliament. Because Muslims became
the majority by about the 1950s, the parliamentary makeup caused
political tensions. The Taif Accord changed the Parliament’s ratio to
50/50, but the executive branch remains the same.

Q: Why hasn’t Syria left after all these years?

A: The Syrian government claims that Lebanon needs its troops to
ensure stability. Experts say reasons for maintaining its grip on
Lebanon are economic and political: Syrian guest workers, estimated
at 500,000 to 1 million, send home millions of dollars each year.
Politically, Lebanon is useful to Syria in its efforts to regain the
Golan Heights, territory that was occupied by Israel in 1967.
However, Syria has reduced its troop levels from 40,000 in 2000 to
14,000 today.

Q: What role does Israel play in the tension between Lebanon and
Syria?

A: The Shiite militia Hizbullah is fighting an intermittent guerrilla
border war with Israel over a contested area called Shebaa Farms,
which is Israeli-held territory that the Lebanese government and
Hizbullah claim as Lebanese. But while Israel and Hizbullah skirmish
over Shebaa Farms, the UN has determined it to be part of the Golan
Heights – meaning Syrian territory that is occupied by Israel.
Because of this, many Lebanese feel that Syria is fighting a proxy
war with Israel on Lebanese soil.

Q: What is Hizbullah? How does it factor into Syria’s involvement in
Lebanon?

A: Hizbullah (which means “Party of God” in Arabic) is a Shiite
Muslim militia founded in 1982 after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Originally established with help from Iran’s elite Revolutionary
Guards, Hizbullah’s initial goals were to expel Israel from Lebanon
and establish an Islamic state similar to that in Iran. Hizbullah is
widely believed to be responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of the
US Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 US service members.
>>From 1982 to 2000, Hizbullah fought a guerrilla war against the
Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. When Israeli troops withdrew
in May 2000, many in Lebanon and the Arab world credited Hizbullah
with achieving the first Arab military victory against Israel. But
for years, Hizbullah has also been building a network of schools,
hospitals, and social services that have won it a political
following. The US considers Hizbullah a terrorist organization; so
far, despite American pressure, the European Union does not.

Q: Is what’s happening in Iraq, and other democratic reforms in the
Middle East, important to the anti-Syrian groups in Lebanon?

A: Most of the demonstrators who contributed to bringing down
Lebanon’s government cite the spontaneous revolutions that have swept
former Soviet satellite states, in particular in Georgia and Ukraine,
which were broadcast live on Al Jazeera and other Arabic channels. In
a way, Lebanon has a lot more in common with these countries than
with Iraq, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia because it has a free press and a
vibrant political opposition. Lebanon is the most democratic of all
the Arab countries.

Q: Why was Rafik Hariri’s death a tipping point?

A: The unexpected and shocking death of Mr. Hariri, the popular
businessman and well-connected politician, catalyzed a crisis that
was slowly heating up within Lebanon before his death brought it
international attention. Before his killing, the anti-Syrian
opposition was coming under increasing attack from the pro-Syrian
Lebanese government, which was threatening to prosecute two key
opposition leaders. Many people believe the prosecutions were
politically motivated, meant to eliminate opposition figures before
Lebanon’s spring parliamentary elections.

Q: Why are many of the protest signs in English?

A: Lebanon has always been a cosmopolitan, multilingual country.
Today, it’s not unusual for Beirutis to speak English, French, and
Arabic. But there’s another reason for all the English signs: the
demonstrators’ media savvy and their eagerness to reach the world.

Q: Is Lebanon at risk of slipping back into civil war if Syria
removes its troops?

A: Old resentments still simmer, but most Lebanese are much more
concerned about high unemployment and civil liberties like freedom of
speech. There’s another important difference: Throughout the civil
war, Syria, Iran, Libya, Israel, and other regional players funneled
arms and money to the various militias to keep their proxy wars
burning. Today, that level of outside involvement is unlikely.

Sources: “From Beirut to Jerusalem” by Thomas Friedman, Farrar Straus
Giroux, 1989; “Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War” by Robert Fisk, Andre
Deutsch, 1990; “The Vanished Imam: Musa Al Sadr and the Shia of
Lebanon” by Fouad Ajami, Cornell University Press, 1986; The Daily
Star.

Lebanon is not the land of colored revolutions!

Lebanon is not the land of colored revolutions!

Morning Morning
7 March 05

Great crises and great shocks lead people into perdition because
great crises and great shocks are difficult to assimilate. The
collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 disquieted those who toppled it
as well as those who lost it. The republics that arose from the ruins
of the Soviet Union remain perplexed even now, and their perplexity
has kept them in a state of impotence as to their options although
they have been independent for more than 10 years. Despite that they
have not in the democratic line, despite the Westâ~@~Ys expectation.
Beginning with the Baltic republics and ending with Georgia, the
latter committed to a line independent of Moscow. For more than 70
years Russia was the focus of an empire with an area of 22,500 square
kilometers, from the Far East of Siberia to Moldavia and Byelorussia
(now Moldova and Belarus). To this day neither Kazakhstan nor
Azerbaijan, for example, has adopted the democratic system. Have
revolutionary elections changed the nomenklatura state in place? This
is the question posed, and it will continue to be because elections
alone are not democracy, which is a heritage before being a practice.
The democratic system was adopted in Greece in the fifth century BC,
and with it public debates. From the Greeks to the Persians, to India
and pharaonic Egypt… before France, England and Germany. Even
before Englandâ~@~Ys Magna Carta in 1215. * * *

Although elections change many things and many people, certainly what
happened in Lebanon on February 14 is related to them. This all the
more true since the next elections in Lebanon will define, as we
know, the Lebanese process in the framework of the delimitation of
the Middle Eastern process, probably in its evolution towards the
Greater Middle East!
Elections change many things and people. Even enmities, friendships
and lines of orientation can be turned upside-down. This is accepted
and sometimes desired.
People change and we still say nothing of those who follow a line and
continue to develop in accordance with it. People change, above all
in the sense that they prefer to adapt themselves to the winds of
change before they blow, whoever the one blowing may be. To the point
that loss of confidence in an authority risks affecting the future of
a nation.
There is in Lebanon something of all this. Those who vote in
elections to modify the prevailing image, have frozen the elections
and their law until light is shed on the crime of February 14.
Nothing is against that, because blood calls for justice in order to
prevent recourse to vengeance. I donâ~@~Yt know how a man of the
stature of General De Gaulle was able one day to say, â~@~Blood
dries rapidlyâ~@~], in reply to a person who was announcing to him
the decease of someone â~@~before his hands are stained with
bloodâ~@~]. But in fact the cry of blood is deafening. The eye of
Cain is an example. The blood of the Duke of Enghien and that of
Hamzé, uncle of the Arab Prophet pursuing Hind, wife of Abi Soufyan
and mother of Moawiya, as well as the blood of Al-Hussein — the
examples are many.
These events are probably forgotten and, with them, the blood that
leaves red stains in the memory, such as the incident of Greenpeace
in the Pacific, facing the islands possessed by France, which was
proceeding to carry out nuclear tests in order to confirm its
presence in the club of the great powers. However, these great powers
have given to small ones among them potentials enabling them to
possess nuclear arms. But now the matter of acquiring nuclear weapons
is closed, and those countries that try to acquire them are described
as â~@~rogue statesâ~@~]. The Greenpeace incident caused the removal
from office of Charles Hernu, French minister of defense during the
mandate of François Mitterrand, his close friend, because the
inquiry in New Zealand established the responsibility of the French
minister in the explosion of the ship Rainbow Warrior. When the man
responsible for intelligence revealed to the French president — who
had governed France for 14 years during which he concealed the fact
that he was suffering from cancer — that Hernu had dealt with the
Soviets and given them NATO secrets, Mitterrand told him, â~@~Take
this dossier and place it among the most inaccessible dossiers in
your office… For we cannot rewrite historyâ~@~].

* * *

Itâ~@~Ys an event that will be forgotten. As for blood, it cannot be
forgotten. But can blood that is shed be a rogue operation… and the
cause of the death of Rafik Hariri? Is it permitted that the
elections in Lebanon be sabotaged in the wait for the results of the
inquiry, with everyone knowing the traps and pitfalls that will
hamper the work of the investigators, making inevitable a delay in
the announcement of the results?
The elections must take place on the dates scheduled. Such is the
challenge which the crime of February 14 has thrown down on the
Lebanese scene, the Arab scene and even the international scene. The
elections will be the word of Lebanon in the Lebanese essence and the
Lebanese color. It being understood, as Stalin once said, that
elections are less a matter of who votes than of who counts the
ballots.
What color will be that of Lebanon?… The Lebanon of the Resistance
or the Lebanon of the Syrianization of the Shebaa Farms and what
followed? What therefore will be the color of Lebanon — the color of
the elections in Palestine and Iraq, where the situation remains
disturbed?

* * *

If the victim were to speak, he would say that the country is the
priority of priorities. And that revolutions of velvet… the
many-hued revolutions, pink in Georgia, orange in Ukraine,
wine-colored in Moldavia, apricot in Armenia and aubergine in
Azerbaijan. Colored revolutions can be exported, but not to Lebanon.
No such revolution can find acceptance here, for Lebanon is
sufficiently colored by wise words, exemplary justice, independence,
sovereignty, true democracy. Not in using democracy to foment coups
dâ~@~Yétat whose final outcome no one can know.

* * *

We say this knowing that great crises, like great shocks, produce a
perdition. De Gaulle, and there is no harm in returning to him, lost
his way after May 5, 1968, a date of great significance in the French
calendar. On that day he saw millions demonstrating in Paris. He lost
his way so far as to fear that the fate of Louis XVI might be his as
well and he went to see General Massu at Baden-Baden, who told him:
Your place is in Paris; return to Paris.
He returned and millions demonstrated while De Gaulle was holding
democratic elections that led to a Gaullist parliamentary majority.
But reason led him to prepare for â~@~lâ~@~Yaprès De Gaulleâ~@~].
Will they hear? We hope so!

–Boundary_(ID_hVVmsvztzsW1v/OJ/5YLIg)–

Armenian official questions veracity of Turkish FMs announcement

ArmenPress
March 5 2005

ARMENIAN OFFICIAL QUESTIONS VERACITY OF TURKISH FM’s ANNOUNCEMENT

YEREVAN, MARCH 5, ARMENPRESS: An Armenian government official
questioned today the veracity of an announcement by Turkish foreign
minister Abdullah Gul who was quoted by Turkish daily Hurriyet as
saying last week that some 40,000 Armenian citizens live and work in
Istanbul and other Turkish cities.
Gagik Yeganian, head of a government-affiliated department of
migrants and refugees, said Gul’s announcement was an effort to
exploit this issue in its drive to join the EU and to allege that
even without diplomatic relations between the two countries Armenians
live and work in Turkey freely.
Citing official figures, Yeganian said in the years between
1998-2004 58,839 Armenian citizens went to Turkey and 53,318 of them
came back. According to him, the overwhelming majority of Armenians
traveling to Turkey are either tourists or shuttle-traders. He also
said about 100 Turkish citizens arrive in Armenia a month.

CIS Countries’ Economic Integration On The Rise

Novosti
2005-03-04 18:08

CIS COUNTRIES’ ECONOMIC INTEGRATION ON THE RISE

YEREVAN, March 4 (RIA Novosti’s Gamlet Matevosyan) – In the opinion of
Vladimir Rushailo, executive chairman of the CIS Executive Committee and CIS
executive secretary, the CIS countries’ economic integration is obviously on
the rise now.

“For instance, 24 interstate programs have been adopted in the economic
sphere, and 6 programs are at a feasibility study stage now. However, there
is a problem of enhancing efficiency,’ said Vladimir Rushailo to journalists
in Yerevan when talking about the results of his visit to Armenia.

In his words, great attention is given now to exhibitions and fairs. For
instance, the exhibits of four CIS countries, i.e., Armenia, Georgia,
Kirghizia and Ukraine, are functioning now at the All-Russia Exhibition
Centre (VVTs) in Moscow.

“The best of them is the Armenian exhibition presenting a wide range of
goods produced in Armenia,” Vladimir Rushailo noted.

He expressed hope that the number of CIS countries’ exhibits at the VVTs
would increase in the near future.

Apart from this, trading houses have been opened in a number of CIS
countries, i.e., in Russia, Belarus and Tajikistan. Soon, such trading
houses will also open in Uzbekistan and Armenia.

“These will be effective means of raising the CIS countries’ economic
integration level,” the CIS executive secretary said.

The head of the CIS Executive Committee was on a visit to Armenia on March
2-4. While in Yerevan, Vladimir Rushailo met with Robert Kocheryan,
Armenia’s president, Serj Sarkisyan, secretary of the National Security
Council and Armenia’s defense minister, Gegam Garibdjanyan, deputy foreign
minister, and Aik Arutunyan, the chief of Armenia’s police.

At the meetings, the sides discussed the implementation of the decisions
adopted by the summit of the CIS countries’ leaders in Astana last September
and preparations to the forthcoming sessions of CIS countries’ supreme
statutory bodies.

Pianist to play library concert

Chemsford Independent

Pianist to play library concert

Thursday, March 3, 2005

The Chelmsford Public Library will present classical pianist, Levon
Hovsepian, at its “First Sundays” classical music concert series on Sunday,
March 6. The concert will take place in the main library’s meeting room from
2:30 to 3:30 p.m.

Levon Hovsepian was born in Yerevan, Armenia. He performed his first
full recital at the age of 13. He continued his studies at the Tchaikovsky
Special School for Gifted Children. He graduated from the Komitas
Conservatory with Honors, receiving his master’s degree. He has performed
throughout Armenia, Estonia, and Moldova and has appeared as a soloist with
the Yerevan Symphony Orchestra and on Armenian National Television.

After attracting major critical attention in Armenia, he was invited to
study at the Longy School of Music in Cambridge. After receiving his Artist
Diploma and Masters Degree with Honors, he continued his intense performing
and teaching careers. He made his New York debut in 1994, and became known
for his compelling interpretative style and expansive technique. He was a
prize winner at the Arlington Concerto Competition, has appeared as a
soloist with the Salem Philharmonic Orchestra and the New England
Philharmonic Orchestra, WGBH Radio and Moscow Radio. Currently he is on the
faculty of the Powers Music School in Belmont, Derby Academy in Hingham and
Indian Hill Music Center in Littleton.

The April “First Sundays” concert on April 3 will feature Operetta show
tunes with Diane Hagelstein, soprano; Lynne Johnson, alto; Paul Johnson,
tenor and Susan Bishov, piano.

This series is funded by the Chelmsford Friends of the Library. For
more information contact the Library’s Community Services Department at
978-256-05521, ext. 109, or visit the library’s Web site at

www.chelmsfordlibrary.org