Azeri paper predicts Soros-, US-inspired power change by early next year
Zerkalo, Baku
31 Jul 04
An article in Azerbaijani paper Zerkalo has predicted that a plan
aimed at a change of power in Azerbaijan could be launched late this
or early next year. The plan by so-called mondialists – US
billionaire George Soros and his foundation, Russia, France and
Armenia – would be aimed at breaking up “the geostrategically and
geoeconomically important union between Azerbaijan and Georgia, making
not Armenia this time around, but Azerbaijan, face isolation” and
creating a domestic political crisis in Azerbaijan which would lead to
a ” very painful transfer of power” and the new leadership being
forced to sign “a Karabakh capitulation treaty”. The article examined
the influence of George Soros and his foundation, focusing on the
recent events in Georgia and Uzbekistan. The following is the text of
a Musfiq Xaqq report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 31 July
entitled “Azerbaijan in ‘Borcali’ sights, or Last Chinese warning”
with the quote underneath “Millionaires spend money, whereas
billionaires make history – George Soros”; subheadings inserted
editorially:
When on 16 May 2003 the mass media reported that US Secretary of State
Colin Powell’s visit to Georgia had been postponed to a later date,
only a few people paid any attention to this. But when in late August
of the same year Georgia came under the serious threat of default –
inability to pay off foreign debts – and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) stopped giving money to Tbilisi, political observers became
alert in anticipation of important political events, especially as the
IMF representative had set forth strict conditions for the
continuation of their cooperation with Georgia.
Story of one coup
When the IMF familiarized itself with the results supplied by its
mission which worked in Tbilisi from 24 June to 7 July [2003], it
pointed out that unless Tbilisi met the requirements for the
restructurization of its obligations before the Paris club, the new
IMF mission would arrive in Tbilisi only in December (!) 2003. Among
the IMF requirements were the adoption of amendments to the tax code
and the raising of the electricity tariffs, which in the run-up to the
parliamentary elections left Shevardnadze faced with a very difficult
and in every regard disadvantageous choice: losing international
economic and political support or losing the votes of the
electorate. The elections, in turn, promised to be difficult because
as early as in early 2003, Shevardnadze gave his consent to the
so-called “Baker principle”. The point is that a method [of staffing
the electoral commissions] was elaborated before the November [2003]
parliamentary elections, when former US Secretary of State James Baker
arrived in Tbilisi to act as a mediator between Shevardnadze and the
opposition. According to the system, which both sides approved, five
members of the Central Electoral Commission and the chairperson of the
commission (the latter – with Parliament’s approval) would be
appointed by the president, and nine members would be appointed by the
opposition. And in the very first big interview after his resignation,
which was published on 27 November 2003 by the British newspaper Daily
Telegraph, Shevardnadze admitted that he could not believe to the last
moment that Washington would make him share Milosevic’s fate: “I was
one of the biggest supporters of the US policy,” he said. “When they
needed my support on Iraq I gave it,” he recalled. But, despite this,
Washington organized the toppling of Shevardnadze, and he said that
“What happened here, I cannot explain.”
The former president suspects that US ambassador in Tbilisi Richard
Miles directly supported the Georgian opposition, in other words, this
was most likely done under sanction from the White
House. Incidentally, Miles won himself laurels as a gravedigger of the
regimes: he was the US ambassador to Azerbaijan when Abulfaz Elcibay
resigned from his post, in Yugoslavia – during the bombings on the eve
of Slobodan Milosevic’s ouster, and in Bulgaria when successor to the
throne Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha won the parliamentary elections and
became the head of government as a result. Also, Shevardnadze is
certain that, along with political assistance, the USA provided
financial support too to the opposition. Long before his resignation,
in the summer of 2003, the former president accused foreign
organizations of supporting his opponents. It was precisely back then
when reports appeared in the Georgian press on the allocation by the
Soros’s Fund [Open Society – Georgia Foundation] of 500,000 US dollars
to the radical oppositionist organization Kmara (English:
Enough). Shevardnadze did not talk about Soros directly, but after the
threats to ban the activities of the international funds in Georgia,
Soros was reported to have spoken to the president on the phone and
promised not to intervene in domestic political processes.
Soros did not keep his promise. The popular Canadian newspaper Globe
and Mail published a detailed article on what the majority of the
observers and Georgians knew about anyway – the famous financier’s
support for the oppositionists. “There were several instances in
which Mr Soros gave the anti-Shevardnadze movement a considerable
nudge” the paper begins cautiously. “He also funded a popular
opposition television station that was crucial in mobilizing support
for this week’s ‘velvet revolution’, and he reportedly gave financial
support to a youth group that led the street protests.” According to
the paper, before the toppling of Shevardnadze, the methods of staging
mass protests in Yugoslavia which led to Milosevic’s resignation were
taught in Tbilisi. As early as in February [2003], funds from Soros’s
Open Society Institute sent a Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to
Serbia to meet members of the Otpor [Resistance] movement and learn
the right way to stage street demonstrations. Then, in the summer,
Soros’s foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor
activists, who ran three-day courses for students, teaching some 1,000
Kmara activists how to stage a peaceful revolution.
According to Globe and Mail, the incumbent Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili has a warm personal relationship with Mr Soros that dates
back to late 2000, when he studied at a law school in New York. In
particular, in 2002 Saakashvili was granted an award from his Open
Society Foundation, which the billionaire personally handed to
him. These conclusions are corroborated by Georgian politicians as
well. In an interview with the Obozrevatel newspaper, Georgian Labour
Party leader Shalva Natelashvili called the change of power a “palace
coup” and added: “Effectively, George Soros is the president of
Georgia, whereas M. Saakashvili and [Prime Minister] Zurab Zhvania are
his governors. Soros’s foundation nominated nine ministers of the
Georgian government, and all of them were appointed. When they
accomplish their mission, they will have to hand over the key posts in
the government, economic and political levers of power, ports and
railways to Soros. These are the ministers of the economy, culture,
security, justice, education and so on. We do not even pay salaries to
our government ministers, Soros does (! – Musfiq Xaqq). M. Saakashvili
and his team-mates sold themselves out.” Natelashvili claims that one
has to undergo three months of training in the USA and work at the
Soros Foundation to be appointed to the new Georgian government. The
mastermind behind the campaign against Ajaria was also the famous
billionaire. Natelashvili claims that he decided to take over the
seaport of Batumi.
Baku probing action
It is quite understandable that Eduard Shevardnadze was sincerely
surprised with the decisive role of US representatives in his
resignation. We all are used to the fact that, for many decades, the
Republicans and Democrats, replacing each other, have been carrying
out a foreign policy which was essentially the same.
And it does not occur to the minds of many people that, having found
itself the only superpower in the early 21st century, the USA is
beginning to resolve its internal dilemma: the dominance of the
Anglo-Saxon policy or the triumph of mondialists [Russian:
mondialisty] (see “Cruel elections in the USA”, Zerkalo, 24 July
2004). Incidentally, precisely this struggle has first clearly
manifested itself in Azerbaijan and, when it ended with the defeat of
the mondialists in the person of the same Soros, reverberated in
Georgia. Let us trace the important events from April through to June
of last year.
On 18 April, at the meeting with the chairman of the US NATO Committee
and author of the Project for Transitional Democracies, Bruce Jackson,
President Heydar Aliyev noted that ever since Azerbaijan had joined
the Partnership for Peace [NATO] programme, Azerbaijan had done
everything that was necessary to join NATO without stirring much fuss,
was interested in this and had made its choice. Bruce Jackson, in
turn, noted the need for Azerbaijan’s further integration into the
Euroatlantic structures and said that the issue of Azerbaijan’s and
Georgia’s accession to NATO could be discussed as early as in
2006-2007.
On 21 April, Heydar Aliyev became ill. On 14 May it emerged that NATO
Secretary General George Robertson would take part in the opening of
the Virtual Silk Road project and meet the Speaker of the Milli Maclis
and the prime minister during his visit to Baku on 15-16 May.
On 17 May it emerged that financier George Soros, founder of the
worldwide network of the Open Society Institutes, would visit
Azerbaijan on 28-29 May. The financier, whose opinion was to be
reckoned with in international financial and political circles (!),
had been noticed for having made a number of strong speeches against
the lack of transparency in the activities of multinational oil
corporations of late.
On 22 May it was said that the building of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil
pipeline was “closely related” to the problem of the rights of
thousands of people who resided along the route of the pipeline. This
was said in a report by the international human rights organization
Amnesty International, which was sent to Turan news agency. On 23 May,
the mass media reported that President of the British Petroleum (BP)
group Lord John Brown would pay a working visit to Baku, Tbilisi and
Istanbul from 25 to 30 May. The purpose of the visit was to get
familiarized with the progress in the implementation of such major
projects as Azari-Cirag-Gunasli [oil fields], the construction of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the development of the Sah Daniz gas
condensate field and the construction of the South Caucasian gas
pipeline. On 24 May, Zerkalo published an article, entitled “George
Soros is coming to us”, to mark the arrival of the famous financier
Soros. In particular, the article read: “US billionaire and founder of
the worldwide Open Society Institute George Soros has never been only
a patron of the arts and a good Samaritan. By investing his money in
the development of the civil institutions in 50 countries of the third
world, he controls economic processes and guides them in what he
thinks (!) is the right direction. Now George Soros has decided to
come here to Baku to set about checking how efficiently we are
spending the income from Caspian oil.”
On 26 May, President Heydar Aliyev met BP head John Brown. The
projects that were implemented by that company in Azerbaijan were
discussed at the meeting.
On 29 May, the president of the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijani
Republic, Natiq Aliyev, told journalists that from 2005, Azerbaijan
could start making up to half a billion dollars profit annually as a
result of the implementation of its major energy projects. “Later on,
this number may increase to 1bn US d ollars per annum, so a major
influx of hard currency should be expected in the country,” he said.
Replying to journalists’ question about US foreign policy at a news
conference in Baku, G. Soros said: “The coming into being of an open
society occurs through freedom and democracy. Whether it is possible
to help establish freedom and democracy in a country by carrying out
military operations is a different and very complex issue. I think
that the USA has already encountered a few serious problems in Iraq.”
He also said that he was against President Bush’s doctrine of
“pre-emptive” strikes: “I have my own Soros doctrine (!?).” Answering
the question about the absence of his investments in the Azerbaijani
economy, G. Soros said that usually (!) he does not do business in
countries where his foundations exist. “After a market economy is
created in these countries, I start making investments there, which is
not a simple issue,” he said.
On 4 June, President Heydar Aliyev signed the law “On approval and
enactment of the Electoral Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” It was
obvious that the law was enacted after its approval by the USA and
OSCE. Literally right before that, when concluding a meeting, the head
of state publicized the results of an opinion poll on the presidential
candidates in Azerbaijan, which was conducted two months (!) earlier
by the US International Republican Institute (IRA [as published; IRI])
together with representatives of the US special social centre [as
published]. The results of the poll proved to be dispiriting for the
opposition. Sixty-four per cent of voters were willing to vote for
Heydar Aliyev, 7 per cent – for [Musavat Party leader] Isa Qambar, 4
per cent – for [People’s Front of Azerbaijan Party leader] Ali
Karimli, 3 per cent – for [Azerbaycan Milli Istiqlal Party leader]
Etibar Mammadov, 3 per cent – for [Democratic Party of Azerbaijan
leader] Rasul Quliyev and 3 per cent – for [former President] Ayaz
Mutalibov.
The aforementioned facts confirm the same thing. The mondialists, in
the person of the very same Soros, were ready at least from late 2002
to change the situation in the important geostrategic and geopolitical
corridor, the Caucasus. And the fact that already in early 2003 Baker
forced Shevardnadze to adopt his “principle” of staffing the Central
Electoral Commission, whereas Aliyev chose an opportune moment and
managed to parry the “mondialist attack” by stating his readiness to
join NATO, has largely predetermined the subsequent
developments. Incidentally, precisely Baker was the co-author of
Shevardnadze’s coming to power in the past. A phrase by the ouster
Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia is interesting in this regard.
“One might say,” he said in one of his interviews, “that the military
coup in Georgia was carried out from across the ocean with personal
participation of Baker and with the blessing of Bush [Sr].” Attentive
readers might accuse us of a discrepancy, because this means that even
Bush Sr and his Secretary of State Baker were against the current
foreign policy of Bush Jr.
And so it is!
As early as on 9 September 2002, Cengiz Candar wrote in his article
“Iraq and hawks – Turkey’s ‘friends'” ([Turkish] Yeni Safak
newspaper): “Plans to attack Iraq to overthrow Saddam Husayn not only
caused acute discord among the USA and its allies on the one hand and
the rest of the world on the other. This discord has manifested itself
in yet more acute form in the USA itself, especially among the
Republican elite. There is even a sharp disagreement between the teams
of Bush Sr and Bush Jr (! – Musfiq Xaqq). Bush Sr’s Secretary of State
James Baker, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and one of the
former secretaries of state Lawrence Eagleburger set out against the
policy of the new ‘hawks’ Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza
Rice. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell’s attitude towards the
‘hawks’ is quite icy. It seems that when the mondialists saw after 15
October [2003, date of the presidential election in Azerbaijan] the
helplessness of the Azerbaijani opposition and acquiescence of the
neoconservatives from the Bush Jr administration to what was going on,
they carried out a strike in Tbilisi, forcing Shevardnadze to resign.
Let us remind our readers that the so-called “rose revolution” started
with the demand for an accurate tabulation of the votes that were cast
during the [2 November Georgian] parliamentary elections and ended
with the resignation of the president (!). Presumably, the mondialists
needed a totally controllable outpost in the Caucasus in the form of
Georgia.
Why?
In contrast to the neoconservatives, the mondialists emphasize in
their foreign policy not crude military force or oil interests, but
precisely the creation of so-called “democratic institutions” –
parties, nongovernmental organizations, media sources, and so on – of
clearly pro-American orientation. Then they rely on these and rule
from behind the scenes. The fact that many opposition parties, from
nationalist to liberal, do not differ much in their assessment of
international events, readily criticizing Russia and Iran but tacitly
contemplating US policy of double standards in the world, including in
Azerbaijan, is a proof of this. But then Heydar Aliyev had kept them
sidelined for too long, and the opposition started to express its
displeasure with this. This, in turn, stands to bring the mondialists
under the threat of losing the internal political lever without which
they would be unable to implement their behind-the-scenes policy. On
the other hand, the policy of “war and oil” of Bush Jr triggered a
strongly negative reaction of the mondialists not only in the USA, but
across the globe. Let us digress and examine
The Uzbek example
After the terrorist acts in Tashkent in March-early April of this
year, General David Barno, head of the Combined Forces
Command-Afghanistan, arrived in Uzbekistan and discussed the issues of
Uzbek assistance in the fight against international
terrorism. Analysing this visit, analysts noted that the Uzbekistan
played quite an important role in Pentagon operations in the north of
Afghanistan, and therefore the military base which was located in
immediate proximity to the Uzbek-Afghan border was very important for
the Americans. At the same time, US assistance to Tashkent increased
10 times and reached 90m US dollars a year. However, the observers
noted that some (!) awkwardness does exist in US-Uzbek relations, and
the reason for that is the increasing frequency of the reports on
violations of human rights in Uzbekistan. The US Department of State
is to reach a decision in the next few days on assistance to
Uzbekistan – whether it should be continued or Tashkent should be
denied help on the grounds of systematic violations of human rights in
Uzbekistan. And if help is denied, the future of the US military base
in Uzbekistan will come under question.
Just one week later, George Soros announced that the Uzbek had closed
down (!) the Open Society Institute which he founded and which was the
only (!) major private donor in that country.
The Uzbek justice minister said, however, that the institute could not
function any further and accused it of discrediting (!) the policy of
the government of the republic. Soros said that his staffers were
harassed many times and urged the US government to review its
attitudes toward the Uzbek authorities. His urge was heard three
months later. On 14 July, it was announced that Washington had deemed
the human rights situation in Uzbekistan “very bad”. And according to
the decision that was made just recently, Tashkent will get 18m US
dollars in this year alone.
This decision was made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell (!) after
he analysed the country’s democratic development and the human rights
situation there. Many commentators think that Washington’s attempt to
link financial aid to Tashkent with the human rights situation in
Uzbekistan could push Uzbekistan towards closer cooperation with
Russia. It becomes clear that when the “hawks” in the person of the
same Rumsfeld lost their influence, the “dove” Powell became the
trendsetter in the US foreign policy. Taking into account close ties
between the “doves” and the mondialists, as well as the fact that,
owing to the elections, Bush does not care much for his former
“allies” in Baku and Tashkent, it becomes clear why the mondialists
want to fully control Georgia. But let us finish with Uzbekistan
first.
Many foreign mass media stress that the Uzbek regime no longer suits
(!) the Americans. The point is that under the rule of [Uzbek
President Islam] Karimov, it is impossible (!) to consolidate the
exclusivity (!) of the American presence in Uzbekistan. On the other
hand, the USA is interested in building up its presence in the region
which is rich in strategic resources.
As a result, it was presumably decided in Washington to get rid of
Karimov using the successful experience of the “rose revolution” in
Georgia (!) and elements of the “Kosovo scenario”, which envisages the
establishment of control over territories by instigating “governable
conflicts” (!) in Uzbek regions (first and foremost, in the Fergana
[Fargona] valley) and deployment of the peacekeeping troops. The logic
of the developments leads to the only logical conclusion: the
mondialists are making make preparations to establish total control
over the Caucasus.
In this undertaking, Georgia is the crucial bridgehead to them,
Azerbaijan – the crucial element, and Armenia – the only country which
is Russia’s ally. It was not surprising that in April we all witnessed
a surge in the activity of the Armenian opposition. Let us note
briefly that by late April, [Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan had
lost support not only of all the main parties, but even of those very
“ultra-patriots” and “ultra-radicals” whom he used to remove [former
President] Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Yet another significant event was
Kocharyan’s speech at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe in late June. Many witnesses called R. Kocharyan’s speech a
demonstration of political insolence. And replying to the question by
the Irish deputy, Paschal Mooney, about the deplorable situation in
the Armenian mass media, Kocharyan said that everything is perfectly
all right in this sector in Armenia and accused Mooney of being
uninformed. He said that the conflicts in Armenia between the
authorities and the opposition were none of the Parliamentary
Assembly’s business (!). Kocharyan’s departure from the policy of
compliments and the insolence of his statements from the tribune of
the Parliamentary Assembly testify to the fact that the president of
Armenia, sensing the changes, has finally and unambiguously sided with
Russia. Let us also note that Europe responded immediately. “Nagornyy
Karabakh is a constituent part of the Republic of Azerbaijan” the
newly elected secretary-general of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis,
said at the session of the Political Affairs Committee.
Azerbaijan’s trump card, or Why don’t they like Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan?
On 21 July, addressing the personnel of a military unit of the Xudat
border detachment on the Azerbaijani-Russian border, Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev said: “In a few years, Azerbaijan will turn
into an economically strong state, and its military superiority (!)
will be even greater. Under these conditions (!) we cannot have a
positive attitude toward some urgings, and in particular, with respect
to compromises.” However, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov said during his visit to the USA at Colin Powell’s
invitation that until those who have become internally displaced
persons return to their homes, society will have a particularly acute
approach to the settlement of the conflict, and resolving the problem
will be unrealistic (!). It is understandable that the Azerbaijani
president is counting on the revenues from pumping our oil through the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. But let us remind our readers that
precisely this pipeline route was not considered worthwhile for quite
a long time. It was thought that it would be simply impossible to
build it, especially over a short period of time: the construction
work was to start in April 2003, be completed in the fourth quarter of
2004, and first export was to begin in the second quarter of 2005.
Along with external forces, the domestic political circles of
Azerbaijan which were not interested in implementing this project also
created obstacles. Nonetheless, it was precisely after George Bush’s
coming to power that Heydar Aliyev managed to launch the construction
work and lay the foundations of the geostrategic and geoeconomical
union with Georgia. This, however, very much worries not only Armenia,
but also many influential circles in the USA, as well as France and
Russia. These countries, using Armenians as a means of sabotage and
pretending to be “peacekeepers”, have been and are implementing a
policy of double standards towards Azerbaijan. Their attempts to
achieve the settlement of the contract at the expense of Azerbaijan’s
interests are universally known. To crush Baku’s resistance, it is
very important to make Azerbaijan lose the opportunity it deems
important to export its oil precisely via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil
pipeline and precisely at a required moment.
By way of a reminder, as early as in January 2000, R. Kocharyan
threatened in an interview to the oil bulletin of the US company
Interpol that he would blow up (!) Azerbaijan’s oil pipelines. And
what do we see now? Georgia is suspending construction work on the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline to double-check how it meets
environmental requirements. At the same time, beginning from late last
year, reports and articles with negative assessments of the “oil
policy” of the Bush administration have flooded the international and
local mass media. The scandal continues around the Halliburton oil
company, which was headed by US Vice-President Richard Cheney before
he came to the White House. Halliburton is accused of securing
lucrative oil contracts in post-war Iraq by cutting corners and unfair
competition, solely due to lobbying by the vice-president. Analysts
note that a large-scale “mopping-up” operation has started in the
international oil business, one of the results of which might be a
fall in the overall potential of oil lobbying – the very one on which
great hopes have been and are pinned in Azerbaijan.
In what way?
In the light of the aforementioned facts, the attitude of the
opposition mass media and political parties towards the Georgian
leadership and their policy towards the ethnic Azeris who live in
Borcali [Borchalo in Georgian; administrative unit – uyezd – in
Tsarist Russia since 1880, included parts of what currently is
Bolnisi, Dmanisi, Marneuli, Tetri-Tsqaro, and Tsalka districts of
Georgia] is also interesting. It is surprising, to say the least, that
these mass media and parties take no interest in the ethnic origin of
the Georgian leaders and in the methods which the
Saakashvili-Zhvania-[Chairwoman of Parliament Nino] Burjanadze used to
come to power. However, these very same mass media and parties readily
discuss the leadership of Azerbaijan from precisely this point of
view. This is why we cannot appreciate enough the effort by political
analyst Rasim Agayev, who shed light on precisely this aspect for the
Azerbaijani readership in his article “‘Velvet revolution’ or Armenian
coup?” (Ekho, 3 July 2004). Let us ask ourselves a question: if the
interests of the mondialists – Soros, Russia, France and Armenia –
were to coincide in one particular area, and if one of the main
aspects on which these interests do coincide is the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, what will they do?
That’s right! Using the half-ethnic-Armenian leadership of Georgia,
they will strike on Borcali and by doing so, will achieve two
important goal as a minimum:
1. They will break up the geostrategically and geoeconomically
important union between Azerbaijan and Georgia, making not Armenia
this time around, but Azerbaijan face isolation.
2. By creating a domestic political crisis in Azerbaijan and causing a
very painful transfer of power, they will paralyse Azerbaijan and
force the new “leadership” into signing a Karabakh capitulation
treaty.
We are certain that preparations are under way at full speed for the
implementation of this plan. For example, commenting in late March of
this year on the situation in Georgia and results of the parliamentary
elections, one of the leaders of the Qeyrat [movement of ethnic Azeris
in Georgia] and former deputy of the Georgian Parliament Zumrud
Qurbanli said: “The latest elections show that the Azeri factor in
Georgia is on the verge of disappearing from the political arena. For
example, the population of such large districts as Gardabani, Dmanisi
and Bolnisi, where ethnic Azeris reside, are not represented in the
new Parliament by a single deputy. As a result, we are getting a very
pessimistic picture. The interests of more than half a million ethnic
Azeris will be represented by only three (!) people. Naturally, this
is not enough, so talking about a quality protection of the rights of
the Azeris is out of the question.”
Over recent months, the arrests of prominent residents of Borcali have
become increasingly frequent; to boot, the Georgian special-purpose
units are acting in a defiantly insolent manner towards the local
population, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and terror. The
migration of Borcali residents to Azerbaijan is on the rise. Sensible
Georgians have been calling for normal relations with ethnic Azeris
for a long time, because precisely their economic undertakings and
cooperation with Azerbaijan were bringing Georgia important economic
advantages. But after the mondialists “presented” hundreds of millions
of dollars to Saakashvili, the need for this was eliminated, and now
the Borcali residents are openly accused of having a pro-Russian
orientation because of their economic interests. This, in turn, leads
to yet greater alienation between the “democratic” Georgians and
“pro-Moscow” Azeris. It is interesting that the same mondialists, who
sponsor many “oppositionist leaders” in the form of numerous
international funds, present huge sums of money to Armenia too,
although they know perfectly well that Armenia is occupying our
lands. As to us, we are sent invoices for lack of democracy and human
rights here and for the excessive extent of corruption, whereas the
violation of the rights of Azerbaijan as a state are looked at with
indifference.
When?
Two days this year are very important for Azerbaijan: 2 November and
17 December. The presidential elections in the USA have always been a
hugely important event worldwide. But in the light of the
aforementioned facts, the 2 November elections gain paramount
importance. If Kerry wins, the plan for a change of power through
using the Borcali “card” will become very likely to be carried
out. But even if Bush wins, the threat of this will remain very real
because the “doves” from his team are also mondialists. On 17
December, Ankara will hear the EU verdict as to whether it will or
will not be part of the united Europe.
Presumably, Brussels will not hand down a final verdict and, to keep
Ankara in suspense, will postpone the issue of the specific date of
Turkey’s accession to the EU to a later date. As a result, the [Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan and his government will gravitate more
towards the normalization of relations with the EU, will be more
inclined to normalize relations with Yerevan, and accordingly will
finally desist from supporting Azerbaijan in the Karabakh
conflict. If, that is, the Turkish army does not have its say, which
for now seems unlikely.
As you remember, the export of the first oil is scheduled for the
second quarter of 2005. It follows that political cataclysms, such as
a change of power, should, under this plan, be realized within the
next 10 months. It is also quite important that the next parliamentary
elections are scheduled for late next year.
Usually all changes of power in Azerbaijan followed similar scenarios:
first a mass influx of refugees would take place, then groups within
the authorities would reach separate agreements with the opposition,
then they would get a blessing from foreign centres of power and
paralyse the authorities, and then the opposition would receive
material aid and political assistance and dramatically intensify its
efforts. The country would then lose its territories and be pushed a
few decades back. And what about the authorities? Usually, by the time
they have realized the actual level of threat, it has already been too
late to change anything. The 1992 events were a visual example of
this. On the other hand, time is required to play the card of the
refugees from Borcali.
Taking this into account, we assume that the plan might be launched by
the late winter-early spring of 2005.
Can this catastrophic scenario be avoided by Azerbaijan? We think that
it is not too late yet, and that untangling the snarl of the problems
is worth trying. But we should not lose a minute! We might suggest
concrete ideas, but since our paper is read by our enemies as well, we
decided not to.
For now, however, our pseudo-oppositionists have been invited to
Boston by the mondialist Democrats, Soros is publishing a book
entitled “The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of
American Power”, in which he, praising Saakashvili, criticizes Ilham
Aliyev, and the Soros’s foundation in Azerbaijan, together with the US
humanitarian organization Catholic Relief Services, and awards
international certificates to the opponents (!) to building the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
[Signed] Musfiq Xaqq