Author: Kamalian Hagop

Armenian Society of Los Angeles will meet to discuss a building project denied by the city.
By Fred Ortega, News-Press and Leader

Glendale News Press
Published June 1, 2005

GLENDALE — The Armenian Society of Los Angeles will meet Friday to discuss
its options following a denial by the Glendale Redevelopment Agency of a
proposed 53,000-square-foot center on South Louise Street.

In response to the Glendale Redevelopment Agency’s denial of a plan to build
a 53,000-square-foot center on South Louise Street, the Armenian Society of
Los Angeles plans to meet to discuss its options.

Under a 2003 agreement, the Redevelopment Agency agreed to a $5-million land
swap with the society, giving it city-owned land on Louise Street in
exchange for its current 11,000-square-foot building on South Brand
Boulevard. The city needed the Brand property to make way for the Americana
at Brand project. The city also agreed to give the group $250,000 to pay for
temporary office space at 320 Wilson Ave. while the new center is built.

The Redevelopment Agency, comprised of City Council members, voted 3-2 last
week to deny the society’s proposal, which would have included a theater, a
banquet hall and a library within a modern, glass and steel structure. The
proposed building received preliminary approval from the city’s Design
Review Board and Redevelopment Agency staff members.

Councilmen Bob Yousefian and Dave Weaver, as well as Mayor Rafi Manoukian,
felt the building would be out of place in the neighborhood and wanted the
size reduced substantially.

“I spent a long time going through the project floor by floor, trying to
understand what they were trying to accomplish,” Yousefian said. “We
envisioned them having a building that was similar size or a little bigger,
or even twice as big, so it could provide the same kind of services it had
provided in the past. Our responsibility is to make them whole, not five
times larger.”

The society’s proposal also lacked the necessary parking for a building of
that scale, Yousefian said.

“The building they are proposing will require 5,000 parking spaces. They
have provided zero,” he said.

But Vrej Agajanian, chairman of the society’s board of trustees, countered
that an initial memorandum of understanding between the society and the city
did not require more than 300 parking spaces.

“In addition, this was stage one of the process, dealing with the concept of
the building,” said Agajanian, who made an unsuccessful bid for the council
in April. “In stages two and three, you do an environmental report and
parking assessment, but we are not there yet, so I do not know why they were
talking about parking.”

The society has already hired Linscott, Law and Greenspan, the
Pasadena-based traffic-engineering firm used for the Town Center, as its
parking consultant, Agajanian said.

Yousefian also questioned the size of the proposed center, saying that the
50-year-old society only has about 300 members.

The group has 1,000 members in its database, Armenian Society of Los Angeles
President Tomik Alexanian said, and he estimates that there as many as 2,000
members that are not registered but that are involved in everyday
activities, such as Sunday school and dance classes.

“We are not trying to inflate or overestimate what we have,” said Alexanian.

“We need this space.”

The group also worked with a city architect for seven months and
incorporated its suggested changes, including dropping the proposed
square-footage to 53,000 from over 60,000, he said.

Glendale staff members and the city architect went as far as they could in
helping the society adapt its project to the city’s design guidelines, said
Philip Lanzafame, the city’s interim director of development services.

“But the agency felt the project was not headed in the right direction, that
it was too big,” said Lanzafame. “So next time, we will have the benefit of
the agency’s comments to help them redesign.”

The society’s next meeting will be held Friday at 7 p.m. at its current
location, 221 S. Brand Blvd.

* FRED ORTEGA covers City Hall. He may be reached at (818) 637-3235 or by
e-mail at [email protected].

Kokoity Visits Moscow, Speaks of South Ossetia’s Policy

Civil Georgia, Georgia
June 1 2005

Visiting President of breakaway South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity said at
a news conference in Moscow on June 1 that during his current visit
in Russia he plans to discuss issues related with “South Ossetia’s
integration [into the Russian Federation] and economic cooperation,”
with officials there, the Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies
reported.

At a news conference in Moscow Kokoity spoke about South Ossetia’s
relations with other secessionist regions – Abkhazia, Transdnestria
and Nagorno-Karabakh – and predicted that South Ossetia may become
an internationally recognized state in 2007.

“Western politicians are inclined to recognize [the independence]
of South Ossetia, Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh,” Kokoity said, adding
that after receiving international recognition South Ossetia will
seek to join the Russian Federation’s North Ossetian Republic.

“But some international organizations are categorically against
this [accession into Russia] and are mounting pressure on South
Ossetia. These [international organizations] agree to consider the
recognition[of South Ossetia’s independence], but not in the context
of its membership into the Russian Federation,” Kokoity added.

The South Ossetian leader said that the resignation of Aleksander
Dzasokhov, the President of the Russian Federation’s North Ossetia,
will not have any influence on relations between South and North
Ossetia.

He said that a meeting between the secessionist leaders of South
Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transdnestria and Nagorno-Karabakh may be held
within a month, but he did not specify the venue of this possible
summit.

“This meeting is of vital importance for our Republics and it will
definitely take place… We want to coordinate our policy and help
each other in strengthening our states; or, as democrats say, to
become free,” Kokoity said.

At the news conference Eduard Kokoity also commented regarding the
recent clash between South Ossetian militias and Georgian police
on May 29, which resulted in the death of four South Ossetian men
and one Georgian policeman by calling this incident a provocation
masterminded by the Georgian side.

Kokoity also spoke about the agreement between Russia and Georgia to
close down Russian bases in Georgia in the course of 2008 and said
that he will welcome this decision only if this withdrawal “fosters
the positions of the two states [Russia and Georgia].”

ARMENIAN AND AZERI FMs TO MEET IN JUNE

YEREVAN, MAY 30. ARMINFO. The Armenian and Azeri FMs will most probably
meet in June, says Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan noting that he time
and venue have not yet been specified.

Before meeting with his Azeri counterpart Elmar Mamedyarov Oskanyan
is to meet with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs – possibly not in
Yerevan. This will depend on Oskanyan’s schedule.

Oskanyan notes the importance of the Warsaw presidential meting saying
that its results are a small but important step towards the Karabakh
conflict settlement.

Commenting on the Azeri side’s statement on the return of the
territories controlled by the NKR forces Oskanyan says that he Armenian
side is guided by the specific results of the talks rather than some
statements. He says that the more the sides refrain from making public
statements and the less they are inclined to follow their internal
political needs the better for the Karabakh peace process.

Oskanyan says that the Armenian and Azeri presidents have not to
date agreed that they will meet in the framework of the CIS SUmmit
in Kazan in Aug.

Interior minister announces final legislative election results for Beirut

LBC Sat TV, Beirut
30 May 05

Lebanese Interior Minister Hasan al-Sab’a has said that the legislative
elections held in Beirut yesterday went on “smoothly as planned”,
Lebanese LBC SAT television reported today.

At a news conference he held at the Interior Ministry headquarters
in the Lebanese capital to announce the results of the first round
of the Lebanese parliamentary elections which was held in Beirut
district on 29 May, Al-Sab’a began by reading the following statement:

“We welcome you again. As you know, this news conference is being
held to announce the final results of the first stage of the
parliamentary elections, which covered the capital, Beirut, in its
three districts. The competent registration committees completed
their work after midnight Sunday. As you saw, the elections proceeded
smoothly as planned yesterday. There were no security incidents or
major administrative problem that could have affected the course
of the elections. But a few hours after the end of the polls, and
as the preliminary results started to appear, some people were not
pleased with the success that the state achieved in organizing the
electoral process. Some intruders tried to carry out subversive acts
to distort the achievement and provoke unrest. Others took advantage
of what happened to once again spread rumours and baseless accusations
against the state and the Interior Ministry in particular and to cast
doubts on their neutrality.

“We took it upon ourselves to hold free and honest elections. We
once against underscore this commitment. Such false accusations
will not stop us from continuing what we started in the first stage
of the elections and applying it to the remaining stages, in full
neutrality. We will take all the necessary measures, through the
security forces, to maintain citizens’ security and ensure that the
electoral process will proceed smoothly in all its stages.

“The final official results as issued by the Higher Registration
Committees are as follows:

“Beirut First Electoral District , which includes Al-Ashrafiyah,
Al-Mazra’ah, Al-Sayfi

“Number of candidates: 10

“Number of voters: 135,664

“Number of people who cast their votes: 42,801

“Invalid ballots: 731

“Valid ballots: 42,070

“Voter turnout: 31 per cent.

“Number of seats: 6 (2 Sunnis, 1 Maronite, 1 Roman Catholic, 1 Roman
Orthodox, 1 Evangelical)

“Sunni winners:

“1. Sa’d-al-Din Rafiq al-Hariri: Number of votes: 39,499

“2. Ammar Umar al-Huri: Number of votes: 30,741.

“Sunni losers:

“1. Ahmad Muhammad Dabbagh: 7,318 votes

“2. Jihad Munir al-Dana: 253 votes

“Roman Orthodox winner: Jubran Ghassan Tuwayni: Number of votes: 30,591

“Roman Orthodox losers:

“1. Khalil Emile Brummanah: 6,582 votes

“2. Jacques Jean Eli Tamir: 23 votes

“Roman Catholics: (1 seat)

“The winner: Michel Pierre Fir’awn: Uncontested

“Moronites (1 seat):

“The winner: Solanje Louis Tutanji: Uncontested

“Evangelical: (1 seat)

“The winner: Basim Ramzi al-Shab: Uncontested

” Beirut Second Electoral District , which includes Al-Musaytibah,
Al-Bashurah, Al-Rumayl

“Number of candidates: 17

“Number of voters: 141,005

“Number of people who cast their votes: 42,222

“Invalid ballots: 482.

“Valid ballots: 41,734

“Voter turnout: 29.6 per cent.

“Number of seats: 6 (2 Sunnis, 1 Shi’i, 1 Roman Orthodox, 1 minorities,
1 Armenian Orthodox)

“Sunni winners:

“1. Bahij Bahij Tabbarah: Number of votes: 27,981

“2. Walid Ahmad Idu: Number of votes: 25,123

“Sunni losers:

“1. Adnan Ahmad Araqji: 7,379

“2. Badr Rashid al-Haj Badr al-Tabish: 6,182

“3. Ibrahim Muhammad Dallal al-Halabi: 3,614

“4. Zuhayr Ibrahim al-Khatib: 1,048

“5. Nabilah Muhammad Sa’b: 110

“6. Ahmad Yusuf Yasin: 28

“The Shi’i winner: Amin Muhammad Shirri: Number of votes: 31,859

“Shi’i losers:

“1. Ibrahim Muhammad Mahdi Shams-al-Din: 4,178

“2. Ali Rashid Shahrur: 491

“3. Salah-al-Din Nizam Usyran: 45

“Roman Orthodox (1 seat)

“The winner is Atif Murshid Saliba Majdalani: Number of votes: 26,163

“The loser is Najah Anis Wakim: Number of votes: 14,231.

“The minorities’ seat:

“The winner: Nabil Musa de Freyj: Number of votes: 27,364

“The loser: Raymond George Asmar: Number of votes: 6,212

“The Armenian Orthodox seat:

“The winner is Yeghya Hajejirian: Uncontested

” Beirut Third Electoral District , which includes Dar al-Muraysah,
Ra’s Beirut, Ziqaq al-Balat, al-Mudawwar, al-Marfa, and Mina al-Husun:

“Number of candidates: 9

“Number of voters: 146,956

“Number of people who cast their votes: 31,537

“Invalid ballots: 1,388.

“Valid ballots: 30,155

“Voter turnout: 20 per cent.

“Number of seats: 7 (2 Sunnis, 1 Shi’i, 1 Druze, 1 Catholic Armenian,
2 Orthodox Armenian)

“Sunni winners:

“1. Muhammad Jamil Qabbani: 24,527

“2. Ghinwah Adnan Jallul: 23,731

“Sunni losers:

“1. Adnan Khudur Trabulsi: 5,448

“2. Yahya Khudur Fattah Ahmad: 1,765

“Shi’i winner: Ghazi Ali Yusuf: uncontested

“Druze winner: Ghazi Hani al-Aridi: Uncontested

“The Catholic Armenian winner: Serje Berje Tursarkisian: Uncontested

“The Orthodox Armenian winners:

“1. Jean Latfik Ovasovian: Uncontested

“2. Hagop Setrak Kasarjian: Uncontested

“These are the official results that have been issued by the Interior
Ministry.”

Minister Al-Sab’a then took questions from reporters. Asked about
candidate [and leader of the People’s Party] Najah Wakim’s complaint
about an attack on his office last night and the accusations he
levelled to the government and others, the minister said: “Let us go
back to the situation before the incident. Since he began his election
campaigning, Najah Wakim had been charging the atmosphere and directing
accusations in every direction. He accused official quarters. You know
very well how we acted, with full neutrality. Those accusations created
a charged climate. The person who was mentioned in the statement of the
Interior Security Forces yesterday fabricated that incident and added
to the tension.” Al-Sab’a said that that person fired three shots near
Wakim’s office and that a number of people who were in his company
also had a quarrel with the people who were in the office. He said
the investigations were going on and the results would be announced.

Al-Sab’a said the Interior Ministry received many contacts from the
European and UN observers “to congratulate us on the way the elections
were conducted”.

The minister attributed the low voter turnout to two factors:
The boycott of the vote by some groups and the fact that nine
candidates had already won unopposed. He described the boycott as a
“democratic” practice. But he rejected terms like “east Beirut” and
“west Beirut”. The Lebanese citizens paid a very heavy price for these
wartime expressions, and hopefully we have abandoned them once and
for all, he said. He stressed that the Interior Ministry “succeeded”
in this first stage of elections and said the same measures would be
taken with regard to the three remaining stages.

Chess kings and queens reigning in grade schools

Many ditching joy sticks, pulling out the boards
By Peter Schworm, Globe Staff | May 29, 2005

Boston Globe, MA
May 29 2005

Things are looking grim for David Vehapedian. His bishop has just
fallen to the pawn-sized Kasparov across the table. He slumps in his
chair, resigned to checkmate.

“I’m pretty much dead,” the 8-year-old says, resting his cheek in
his palm.

On Mondays, a spirited group of students gathers after school for the
chess club at St. Stephen’s Armenian Elementary School in Watertown.
Teacher Joe Perl gives them some pointers, then they pair off to
play. The room roars with chatter, a mix of friendly advice, gentle
ribbing, and victorious shouts.

Yet this isn’t mere child’s play — they’re mulling each move so they
can outsmart their opponents.

It’s a scene that’s being repeated all around Boston’s western
suburbs. Chess has become increasingly popular among children, who
are flocking to after-school clubs, private classes, and weekend
tournaments, enthusiasts said. Depictions of “wizard chess” in the
Harry Potter books and movies have broadened the game’s appeal,
and the explosion of computer and Internet chess has opened new
opportunities for children to learn the game.

“The hype is unreal,” said Maryanne Reilly, a Massachusetts Chess
Association official who oversees youth tournaments. “Chess has really
caught on, especially with younger kids.”

Reilly, who also teaches weekly after-school chess classes at
Mason-Rice Elementary School in Newton, said she believed youth chess
has reached a “critical mass” — and that more and more children will
be playing it in coming years.

Even young children can play the game and sometimes play it quite well,
grasping strategies intuitively, she said.

She recalled playing a kindergartner once who, to her surprise,
executed a complex sequence of moves known as the Ruy Lopez Exchange
Variation.

“I asked him, ‘Who taught this to you?’ ” she recalled. “He said,
‘This is just the way I like to play.’ ”

Nationally, the under-14 membership in the US Chess Federation, the
official sanctioning body for tournament play, has grown fivefold since
1990. Last month, a youth tournament in Tennessee drew 5,270 entrants.

Closer to home, in Waltham, some 50 youngsters have gathered for the
past four years at a Burger King for a monthly tournament. In Newton,
three extra classes were added for children at Newton Community
Education this year. In Natick, the MetroWest Chess Club, where the
most populous age bracket is 10 to 20, begins its second year of
introductory classes next week.

Today, while the Massachusetts Chess Association holds its adult state
championship in Marlborough, children as young as 5 will compete in
a youth division that organizers said has drawn sizable interest in
recent years.

Lou Mercuri, a Natick resident and nationally ranked player who
teaches classes at schools in Wellesley, Weston, and Southborough,
said chess has become one of the most popular after-school activities
for children. While most students learn the game from their parents,
the explosion of Internet chess allows youngsters to play opponents
around the globe at all hours.

“You can always get a game,” he said.

The young players said they enjoy the variety of pieces and movements
and the challenge of trying to outmaneuver an opponent. The games
are never the same, and it’s fun to test different strategies, the
Watertown students said.

Parents have been enticed by the idea that the game can teach children
to concentrate and think logically and creatively, chess teachers
said. Parents also hope the game’s thoughtful, deliberate pace will
serve as a much-needed antidote to mindless, fast-paced video games,
they said.

“It’s not a sport, and it’s not a math test,” said Lisa Rucinski,
children’s program coordinator at Newton Community Education. “But
it combines the best of both.”

Frank Wang said the game has helped his son, Andrew, the national
fourth-grade chess champion, to focus his mind on a single task.
Andrew attends The Sage School, a Foxborough school for academically
gifted students that dominates competitions.

“In this nanosecond world, here’s something where you can’t
always get instant gratification,” said Marley Kaplan, president
of Chess-in-the-Schools, a group that teaches the game to students
grades 2 through 8 in 130 New York City schools. “Some things take
longer than a GameBoy.”

Massachusetts public schools do not teach chess in the classroom,
but Kaplan and others think they should. Students learn valuable
skills such as planning ahead and taking responsibility for individual
actions, they said.

The game is also shedding its image as a wonkish pursuit, teachers
said. Larry Lampert, founder and president of the Minnesota-based
School Chess Association, holds a summer chess camp that he said many
popular, athletic children attend.

Reilly, the Massachusetts chess official, bristled at the “outdated
stereotype” that the game is nerdy.

“Kids think it’s cool,” she said. Mercuri agrees, saying, “You get
a real cross-section of kids.”

Video game versions — where pieces explode or are felled in
hand-to-hand combat when captured — have helped broaden the game’s
appeal, many teachers said. Mark LaRocca, of the MetroWest Chess
Club in Natick, said younger students tend to prefer the faster,
timed contests.

“It’s our MTV world,” he said. “Everything has to be quick.”

As students get older, they tend to give up the game in favor of sports
and extracurricular activities. But many return to it after college,
teachers said.

Back in Watertown in Joe Perl’s class, 7-year-olds David Babikian and
Vahan Der Kazaryan maneuver their pieces around the board, searching
for an opening. Both boys are learning the game from their fathers
and play often on the computer. But they haven’t yet mastered the
Budapest Gambit or the Luzhin Defense.

Moves come fast and furious; light-hearted cackles of “I got you” or
“I ate you” accompany a capture; and checkmates seem to occur almost
by accident. Still, both boys say they get an intellectual rush from
the game.

“My favorite part is the brain part, when it really gets going,”
Babikian says, his voice accelerating with excitement. “Sometimes it
goes slow, but when I play chess, it goes fast.”

Taking aim at two pieces in a row, a maneuver called a skewer,
Babikian has his opponent on the run. Soon, Der Kazaryan’s king has
nowhere to go.

Der Kazaryan frowns.

“Let’s play again,” he says.

A1plus

| 20:33:16 | 26-05-2005 | Politics |

UNSIGNED STATEMENT

Member-parties of the Interparty Consultant Body (ICB) made a statement,
which says in part that the country has reached a political deadlock, there
are no prospects of development and political changed via democratic
elections became impossible.

The ICB state the amending the principal law of the republic – the
Constitution- on the initiative of a illegal President and the National
assembly pursues one objective only – to hold the power as long as possible.
The parties noted that they refuse to take part in the discussions on the
constitutional reforms but are ready to press for change of power with the
active assistance from outside and support of the people.

No party signed the document, which will be put to vote and discussed in
future.

DISCUSSIONS HELD

Today 11 parties participated in the recurrent meeting of the interparty
consultant body (ICB) presided by chairman of the National Democratic Union
Vazgen Manukyan.

Democratic Fatherland party presented a project according to which the ICB
member are to submit a package of the most urgent issues. Paruyr Hayrikyan
introduced his package, according to which by the ICB is expected to give
preliminary assessment to the package of constitutional reforms presented by
the coalition and adopted in the first reading. Chairman of Human Rights and
Democracy Ruben Torosyan in his turn proposed not to take part in the
discussions of the constitutional reforms.

Armenpress

U.S. EMBASSY FURNISHES YOUTH CONCERT HALL AS PART OF “COMMUNITY SELF-HELP
FUND” PROJECT
YEREVAN, MAY 26, ARMENPRESS: On May 25, the U.S. Embassy inaugurated the
newly furnished Concert Hall of the Youth Center of Yerevan. A grant from
the U.S. Government and contributions from the local community funded the
procurement of equipment and furnishings for the concert hall whose external
and internal structures were renovated by the Lincy Foundation in 2003-2004.
USA Embassy officials told Armenpress that this project is one of a series
of U.S. Government “Community Self-Help Fund” initiatives in Armenia. At a
formal grant ceremony on November 9, 2004, the U.S. Embassy announced the
second round of Community Self-Help Fund projects, including the Concert
Hall. The second round of projects awarded grants to ten communities in
eight provinces. After the inauguration ceremony the Embassy officials and
representatives from “Save the Children” organizations visited center’s
exhibition show-room, museum and library. Afterwards they were present at
the concert in which children of the center participated.

‘The Joint Declaration of the Conference Organizers and Participants’

27 May 2005

The three day conference entitled ‘The Otoman Armenians during the Era
of Otoman Decline’ that we, as academics and public intellectuals of
Turkey, had planned with Bosphorus University as host was unfortunately
forced to be deferred as a consequence of pressures, threats and
slander.

We protest that two deputies serving under the roof of the Turkish
National Assembly, which is presumed to be the guarantor of scientific
activities, academic freedom and security of life and property, have
engaged in provocations that are totally in opposition to these
fundamental principles, and that the spokesperson of the government
incriminated all the conference participants by serious claims such as
‘thrusting a knife into the nation’s back.’ We are additionally ashamed
that this spokesperson also carries the title of ‘Minister of Justice.’
We think that it would be more appropriate for him to be utilized with a
duty outside of that of law and justice. We herewith notify the public
that this conference will be convened in the near future.

We organize this conference to seek answers to the question ‘what
happened before, during and after 1915?’ We attempt to understand and
recount a historical issue that during the last years has become trapped
and increasingly politicized between the radical Armenian national and
official Turkish theses.

Scientific meetings are not necessarily covered like television debates
conducted on certain issues. Scientific meetings also do not have the
prerogative to bring together all sides who are in opposition to one
another and who are also convinced of their own ‘truths.’ Furthermore,
the decision to determine who should comprýise the participants of a
scientific conference is the most natural right of the hosts and the
most fundamental application of the freedom of thought that is supposed
to exist at universities. No one individual, organization and
institution has the right to intervene in a scientific conference
organized outside of its own body.

In addition, we find the unjust and prejudiced accusations made against
the not yet presented papers of a not yet actualized conference totally
unlawful. Had the actualization of this conference been tolerated, the
rich, varied and not at all monotonous approaches to the issue of what
happened before, during and after 1915 would have emerged.

We, the participants of this conference whose signatures are enclosed
below, want to especially point out, as we also noted on our press
release dated 17 May 2005, that ”The emergence of different, critical
and alternative voices, the demonstration of how Turkey actually
contains such a rich multiplicity of thoughts would be, once again, to
the utmost benefit of Turkey.’ We believe that the actualization of our
conference in the very near future would be one of the most significant
steps taken in our country on the path to academic freedom, to the
independence of universities, and in general toward democracy.’

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 375033, Armenia
Tel: (+374 – 10) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 – 10) 52.48.46
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website:

May 25, 2005

ACNIS Examines Armenia and the Region in Light of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan

Yerevan–The Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS)
today convened a policy roundtable on “Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC): A New
Pulse in the Region” to shed light on Armenia’s place and role this time in
the context of regional economic developments. The meeting, which coincided
with the official ceremony to launch the Azerbaijani section of the BTC
pipeline named after Heydar Aliyev, brought together policy analysts, public
figures, academic circles, media and NGO representatives to debate the
prospects and opportunities of the “contract of the century” as the
presumptive crux of regional integration processes.

ACNIS research coordinator Stiopa Safarian greeted the participants with
opening remarks. “I trust that today we will take an unbiased and
comprehensive view on the regional political and economic situation in the
wake of the BTC oil pipeline. How will the BTC impact on regional security,
will all regional actors equally benefit from the big deal, will it create
dividing lines or advanced and backward players in the region?,” queried
Safarian.

Edward Aghajanov, an economist with the Armat Center, intervened on “The
Economic Rhythm of the Region in the Wake of the BTC Oil Pipeline.” He was
concerned that after “the contract of the century” Armenia may become an odd
man out. “Still in 2002 former Azerbaijani president Heydar Aliyev declared
that not only oil but politics would run through the pipeline. Hence it was
a political program from the very beginning, which aimed to turn into a
geopolitical factor. Consequently, our authorities should have sensed the
smell of oil in connection with a future decision on Mountainous Karabagh
issue,” Aghajanov underlined. He said Armenia had but one potential lever
against the oil card: democracy. And finally, given the development of a new
USA-Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan axis, Nursultan Nazarbaev has expressed the
willingness of Kazakhstan to join the project and proposed to call the
pipeline Aktau-Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan. Armenia, in the economist’s view, faced
the challenge of expressing its attitude regarding the issue.

ACNIS analyst Alvard Barkhudarian spoke on “Speculations over BTC in the
Region and Beyond.” She particularly noted the political, economic,
security, social, and ecological aspects of the speculations, as well as the
pessimistic predictions that did not come true over the last decade. The
reality is that the 1,700 kilometer-long pipeline will transfer one million
barrels of oil per day to Turkey. “Besides, the corridor through which the
pipeline passes in the general economic environment involves three states of
the region, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, and bypasses Armenia,” she
emphasized, noting that the exploitation of energy resources has always been
driven by economic and political interests. In her opinion,
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan is a fact, and the rest is commentary and forecasting.
The pipeline is a guarantee for regional security and against war. It is in
Armenia’s interests to have economically developed, advanced neighbors.

The formal interventions were followed by contributions by Dr. Heghine
Manasian, director of Eurasia Foundation’s Caucasus Research Resource
Center; Gagik Ter-Haroutiunian of Noravank Foundation; David Petrosian of
Noyan Tapan news agency; Luder Tavit Sahagian, graduate student of Caucasian
and Central Asian Studies at Berlin’s Humboldt University; economic reporter
Gegham Kyurumian; Sargis Manoukian of the Heritage Party; Shirak Torosian of
the Mighty Fatherland Party; Edward Antinian of the National Progressive
Party; Ruzan Khachatrian of the People’s Party; Moushegh Lalayan of the
Republican Party; Karlen Alexanian of the Democratic Fatherland Party;
Alexander Butaev of the National Democratic Union; and several others.

Founded in 1994 by Armenia’s first Minister of Foreign Affairs Raffi K.
Hovannisian and supported by a global network of contributors, ACNIS serves
as a link between innovative scholarship and the public policy challenges
facing Armenia and the Armenian people in the post-Soviet world. It also
aspires to be a catalyst for creative, strategic thinking and a wider
understanding of the new global environment. In 2005, the Center focuses
primarily on civic education, conflict resolution, and applied research on
critical domestic and foreign policy issues for the state and the nation.

For further information on the Center call (37410) 52-87-80 or 27-48-18; fax
(37410) 52-48-46; e-mail [email protected] or [email protected]; or visit

Socialistworker.co.uk, UK
May 24 2005

Crusade and jihad

photo: The Crusader kingdoms of Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and
Jerusalem around 1140

Neil Faulkner examines the medieval precursor of imperialism in the
Middle East

On 15 July 1099 Jerusalem was stormed by soldiers of the First
Crusade. For the attackers, who had set out from western Europe three
years before, this was the culmination of their efforts – the
`liberation’ of the Holy City from Muslim `infidels’.

The campaign had been punctuated by massacre and mayhem. Pogroms had
been launched against the Jews of Germany. The people of the Balkans
had been plundered on the army’s line of march. There had been
clashes with the Greeks of Constantinople (Istanbul), whom the
Crusaders were supposed to be defending. Edessa had been seized not
from `infidels’ but from Armenian Christians. And there had been
wholesale slaughter at Antioch and other captured cities.

Now it was the turn of Jerusalem. For two days after the walls were
breached the Crusaders killed and pillaged. Jews and Muslims were cut
down where they stood or herded into buildings and burnt alive. The
few who survived were sold as slaves.

In the days following, rotting corpses having filled the city with
stench, bodies were gathered up and piled in great heaps outside the
walls. Meantime the Crusaders plundered the city of every scrap of
wealth. Western civilisation had reached the Middle East.

The Crusade had been launched by Pope Urban II in 1095. The church,
with estates spread across the whole of western Europe, was a vast
feudal corporation. Now the popes aimed to turn wealth into power.

But they clashed repeatedly with the competing claims of secular
rulers in the West, and their authority was challenged by a rival
Christian hierarchy in the East. So Urban II’s aim in launching the
Crusade was to increase the ideological, military and political power
of the church.

It was also a way of diverting social discontent. Flood and plague in
1094 followed by drought and famine in 1095 had left millions
destitute. Instead of anger being turned on the rich it was targeted
at the Jews, while despair was transformed into the mysticism of a
`people’s crusade’ in which thousands set out on a pilgrimage to the
Holy Land.

Brutality
Above all, the Crusade was an outlet for the brutal imperialism
inherent in the feudal order. Much of 11th century Europe was divided
into landed estates (or `fiefs’) designed to support a heavy
cavalryman, providing enough to pay for his armour, equipment,
horses, and the luxury and trappings of a knight.

In return for their estates, knights owed allegiance to the great
lords who owned the land. These lords in turn had obligations to the
rulers of the feudal states. Norman feudalism was an extreme example.
The Normans were descended from 10th century Viking settlers in
Normandy. The native peasantry was heavily exploited to maintain a
large force of heavy cavalry.

But to avoid fiefs being subdivided and becoming non-viable, the rule
of primogeniture prevailed, whereby the eldest son inherited the
entire estate. Younger sons therefore had to fight to keep their
place in the world.

Denied an inheritance, they had to survive through mercenary service
or by winning for themselves a new fiefdom. This was true of knights,
nobles and princes – all ranks of the feudal aristocracy produced
younger sons prepared to maintain rank through military force.

Opportunities were numerous. Civil wars were frequent. Competition
for land and power kept the feudal aristocracy divided. The rulers of
feudal states tried to control and channel these energies in wars of
conquest – exporting the violence inherent in the system.

Bloody logic
The dynamic of feudal imperialism was the drive to find booty and
fiefdoms for a warrior caste otherwise liable to tear itself apart in
fratricidal slaughter. It was this bloody logic that powered the
Crusades.

`This land you inhabit is overcrowded by your numbers,’ explained the
pope. `This is why you devour and fight one another, make war and
even kill one another. Let all dissensions be settled. Take the road
to the Holy Sepulchre. Rescue that land from a dreadful race and rule
over it yourselves.’

The war was sustained by lies. The Holy Land was supposedly
desecrated with the blood of Christian pilgrims. Muslims were accused
of revolting atrocities. Racist stereotypes appeared in contemporary
art. In fact, Muslims, Jews and Christians had lived side by side in
the Holy Land for centuries, and Jerusalem welcomed pilgrims from all
three faiths. The truth was that the Crusades were an exercise in
feudal violence and pillage. Most Crusaders returned home after the
war. But they left behind four Crusader states – Edessa, Antioch,
Tripoli and Jerusalem – and these, each guarded by just a few
thousand men, had to be brutal to survive.

Living on stolen land and surrounded by potential enemies, the
Crusaders were too few ever to feel safe. They needed wealth to
recruit and maintain soldiers, and they grabbed it any way they could
– attacking desert caravans, raiding their neighbours, and screwing
the local peasantry. They were true robber barons.

Sophisticated
The Arab response was slow. This seems at first surprising. The
Crusaders were massively outnumbered, and Middle Eastern civilisation
was greatly in advance of that of Europe. The Arabs boasted rich
irrigation agriculture, sophisticated urban crafts, a dynamic banking
system, and a strong tradition of scholarship, literature and art.

These were the fruits of the Islamic revolutions of the 7th to 9th
centuries. Merchants and nomads from Arabia had united under the
banner of Islam to create a vast Middle Eastern empire in which towns
and traders could flourish.

But the urban classes did not control the Arab states – mosque and
medina were subordinate to palace. Arab rulers siphoned surpluses
into luxury consumption, political corruption and military
competition.

The unitary empire of the early Islamic period had fragmented into
numerous regional and local states. Economically stagnant and
politically divided, much of the Middle East had recently fallen to
Seljuk Turk invaders from central Asia. The Crusaders were battering
at a crumbling edifice.

Few Arab rulers had the strength or will to resist. Many feared the
upheaval and risks of all-out war. Some made alliances with Crusader
states against their Muslim enemies.

It was the Second Crusade (1146-1148) that transformed localised
resistance into full scale insurgency. The crusade ended in disaster
and led to a decisive shift of power in favour of the architects of
Muslim victory.

By 1154 Syria had been united under a regime openly preaching jihad –
a holy war to destroy the Crusader states. By 1169 the jihadists had
secured control of Egypt. And by 1183 the whole of Syria and Egypt
had been united under the leadership of the famous Saladin.

Saladin
Saladin has become a romantic and heroic figure, both in Europe and
the Middle East. In fact he was a ruthless aristocratic politician as
capable of lies and atrocities as any other. His famed magnanimity
was carefully calculated.

Saladin placed himself at the head of the Muslim masses and raised a
holy war against the Crusaders – he became the leader of a national
liberation struggle fought under the banner of religion.

The tide was turned at the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Saladin
assembled the greatest Arab army ever to face the Crusaders – 30,000
men, including heavy cavalry, swarms of light horse-archers, and
thousands of jihadist volunteers.

The Crusaders were led in the ferocious July heat through a landscape
in which the wells had run dry. Only when they were dying of thirst
did Saladin engage. His huge host surrounded the Crusaders and
plagued them with clouds of arrows.

Again and again the Crusaders charged, attempting to break out, only
to be swamped by the huge numbers of their opponents. At the end of
the day the survivors surrendered. The entire army of the Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalem had been destroyed.

Saladin – in contrast to the Crusaders – spared most of his
prisoners. The exceptions were understandable. With his own sword he
slew Reynald de Chatillon, a notorious robber baron who had turned
the caravan road beneath his castle at Kerak into a slaughterhouse.

And he ordered the mass execution of Templar and Hospitaller knights.
These were the Waffen SS of the Crusades – warrior monks who waged a
war of bigotry, hatred and genocide.

Jerusalem fell soon afterwards. The Third Crusade (1189-1192) was
mounted in response. Led by King Richard I of England – a boorish and
brutal man under whose leadership the usual carnage and pillage
prevailed – the campaign eventually reached stalemate.

The hardest punch
Well handled, Crusader armies could hold ground and throw back even
the strongest attacks – with their detachments of first class
armoured cavalry, they packed the hardest punch.

But the Crusaders were too few to garrison fortresses and hold ground
in the great sea of opposition that now confronted them. Even had
they retaken Jerusalem, they could not have held it.

The Crusader states clung to patches of their territory into the late
13th century. Though Saladin’s empire collapsed on his death in 1193,
the Crusader enclaves remained hemmed in by hostility and were unable
to endure without external support. This never came.

Later Crusades were diverted by easy pickings and commercial
advantage – the Fourth Crusade, for example, ended with massacre and
pillage in the streets of Christian Constantinople. The last of the
Crusader-held fortresses fell in 1291, almost exactly 200 years since
the first Crusader army had reached the Holy Land.

In that time the Crusader states had contributed nothing – their
rulers were backward robber barons who visited death, destruction and
impoverishment on the people of the Middle East.