Ukraine doesn’t rule out sending of peacekeepers to Karabakh

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
May 24, 2005 Tuesday 9:47 AM Eastern Time

Ukraine doesn’t rule out sending of peacekeepers to Karabakh

Vitali Matarykin

ZHITOMIR, May 24 – Secretary of Ukrainian National Defence and
Security Council Pyotr Poroshenko said in Zhitomir on Tuesday he did
not rule out a possibility of sending Ukrainian peacekeepers to the
zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, provided there are no
objectives from all the parties to the conflict.

According to Poroshenko, the participation of Ukraine’s peacekeepers
in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed
during a recent visit of the Ukrainian foreign minister to
Azerbaijan.

The conflict began in 1988 when the Regional Council of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Region, as a constituent region of the Azerbaijan
Soviet Socialist Republic, made a decision to ask the Supreme
Councils of Azerbaijan and Armenian Soviet Socialist Republics to
join Armenia.

Azerbaijan condemned this decision and an armed conflict broke out.
Russia brokered a ceasefire in the area in May 1994.

Armenian NGO in Georgia Again Discuss Base Closure Issue

ARMENIAN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION IN GEORGIA AGAIN
DISCUSSES ISSUE OF WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIAN MILITARY BASES FROM GEORGIA

YEREVAN, MAY 24. ARMINFO. During Tuesday sitting the board of the
Armenian nongovernmental organization of Samtskhe-Javakheti again
discussed the theme of the withdrawal of the Russian military bases
from Georgia.

As A-INFO informs, the board of the organization calls on the
population of the Javakheti region to treat with understanding
already decided fact of withdrawal of Russian troops from
Akhalkalaki, as to solve this problem depends on the position of the
highest leadership of Russia and Georgia. The resource says that the
military base in Akhalkalaki has solved certain economic problems of
the region, at the same time safeguarding the security of its
residents. “If the government of Georgia is not able to safeguard the
security of the population of the Javakheti region, then its
population will rest hopes upon the international community and
resort to the help of the international legislation”, the resource
mentions.

Moscow signals it may redeploy some forces from Georgia to Armenia

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
May 24 2005

MOSCOW SIGNALS IT MAY REDEPLOY SOME FORCES FROM GEORGIA TO ARMENIA

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Russian General Baluyevsky said that heavy weaponry in Georgia would
be redeployed in Armenia. Meeting with the staff of Komsomolskaya
pravda on May 23, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, with
reference to the possible closure of Russian bases in Georgia: “We
must create the necessary conditions for the evacuation of our troop
contingent, its accommodation on Russian territory or in some other
place.” He apparently meant the possible relocation of some of those
troops to Armenia. One of Russia’s conditions for closing its bases
in Georgia, Putin went on to say, is transit rights for Russian
forces via Georgia to Armenia (Interfax, May 23).

Four days earlier, the Chief of the General Staff of Russia’s armed
forces, General Yuri Baluyevsky, told the press in Moscow that some
of the heavy weaponry from Russian bases in Georgia would be
redeployed with Russian forces in Armenia, if Georgia insists that
Russia close those bases by 2009 (Georgia actually insists on 2008).
Baluyevsky indicated that Moscow could forgo the redeployment of
combat hardware to Armenia, if Georgia would agree to a 10-year term
for Russian troop withdrawal. In that case, he suggested, there would
be sufficient time and funding for accommodating the troops and
storing the weaponry under proper conditions in Russia (Interfax,
RIA-Novosti, May 19).

In a little-noted move on May 21, Armenia’s Defense Minister Serge
Sarkisian met with Russia’s Minister for Territorial Development
Vladimir Yakovlev in Yerevan for a session of the CIS
Inter-Ministerial Commission for Cooperation in Building Activities.
Yakovlev, whose ministry is in charge of construction projects,
discussed with Sarkisian the resumption of unfinished construction
work at the Russian military base in Gyumry, Armenia (PanArmenian
News, May 21). This move seems to confirm Moscow’s intention to
prepare for relocating part of its force from Georgia to Armenia, if
a troop-withdrawal agreement with Georgia is signed.

Moscow’s apparent intention is disturbing to Azerbaijan. In an
initial public reaction, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Araz
Azimov recalled previous transfers of Russian arms to Armenia, noting
that yet another increase in those arsenals could fuel regional
instability. “We are seriously concerned about this, and would not
want Russia to do this again,” Azimov stated during a NATO seminar in
Baku. A communique from Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry, citing
Baluyevsky’s remarks, “condemn[ed] such steps,” and noted that Russia
would be arming a country that is at war with Azerbaijan (ANS, Turan,
May 20).

On May 23, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Elmar
Mamedyarov, summoned Russia’s chargé d’affaires ad interim to hand
him a verbal note that the ministry made public. Expressing serious
concern over possible redeployment of Russian arsenals from bases in
Georgia to Armenia, the document notes, “Such a turn of events would
run counter to the interests of peace and security in the region and,
moreover, increase tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan during a
complicated phase of conflict-settlement negotiations.” Azerbaijan
“hopes that Russia would desist from that intention” (Turan, May 23).

Armenia’s authorities are not known to have reacted one way or
another to Moscow’s declared intention. Nor have Putin, Baluyevsky,
or others deemed it necessary to say that they had asked for and
received Armenia’s consent to the possible redeployment. The
assumption all around appears to be, first, that Russia can use
Armenia’s territory for military purposes at will; and, second, that
Armenia would welcome another infusion of Russian combat hardware on
its territory.

Quoting Russian Duma Chairman Boris Gryzlov’s notorious
characterization of Armenia as “Russia’s outpost,” a leading Yerevan
liberal newspaper observes, “Russia is doing to Armenia, in this case
on Armenian territory, what it likes. Nobody from the Armenian elite
says anything. … Putting Armenian territory at Russia’s disposal is
the price that Armenian authorities have to pay for the Kremlin’s
support” (Aravot, May 20).

According to the latest issue of The Military Balance, Russia
currently maintains 3,500 troops, 74 main battle tanks, 238 armored
combat vehicles and personnel carriers, 84 artillery systems, and 18
Mig-29 aircraft in Armenia (International Institute for Strategic
Studies, 2005.) Armenia has yielded part of its own entitlement quota
of CFE Treaty-limited heavy weaponry to Russia for deployment on
Armenian territory. However, verification of compliance with treaty
ceilings is impossible because a large part of that weaponry is
deployed inside territory seized from Azerbaijan, uncounted and out
of bounds to inspection.

YBC Invests Over $1.5 mln In New Line of Bottling & Packaging Change

YEREVAN BRANDY COMPANY INVESTS OVER $1.5 MLN IN NEW LINE OF BOTTLING
AND CHANGE OF PACKING

YEREVAN, MAY 23. ARMINFO. Yerevan Brandy Company (YBC) has invested
over $1.5 mln in new line of bottling and change of packing, President
and Director General of YBC Herve Caroff said at a press conference
Saturday evening.

He said that the production capacity of the new line is 300,000 liters
monthly and exceed the capacity of the current production line 25%.
The packing of the whole range of ArArAt brandies have been
fundamentally changed , including the form and the color of the
bottles and labels, though succession can be observed in the new
line. At present brandy bottles are made in France; they are
translucent in order that the natural color of the product could bee
seen. The president added that the whole range of brandies is divided
into three groups: 3-5 year-old ordinary brandy, premium – 6-10
year-old, and super premium – 15.20 years. The change of the image
pursues a goal of differentiating the production of ArArAt from that
of competitors and strengthening the leading position in the market,
Herve Caroff said.

In his words, the greatest part of the sales volume, some 70%, is the
share of the segment of premium and super premium brandy, which their
sale volumes having increased 14% and 45% respectively. Last year the
total sales volume of YBC was some 4 mln liters, and over 90% of the
production was exported. The company’s president thinks the change of
packing in 2005 will increase the sales volumes of YBC 8-9%. The
activation of the new line coincided with the 30th anniversary of the
YBC owner, the French company Pernod Ricard, Herve Carrof said.
Recently YBC has opened is representation in Kazakhstan. It is the
first representation in Middle Asia, and now the company has its
representatives in all the CIS signatory-states.

To note, YBC was purchased in the May of 1999 by French Pernod Ricard
group for $30 mln. The trademark of YBC is registered in 48 countries,
with its production being sold in 25 countries.

Armenian acts as spokesman for tragedy

Armenian acts as spokesman for tragedy

Southfield man, 97, survived mass killings of 1915-16, shares story with
Metro area students

The Detroit News
Wednesday, May 18, 2005

By Ellen Piligian / Special to The Detroit News

SOUTHFIELD — Souren Aprahamian, a small man wearing thick spectacles, a
neat gray suit and maroon tie, is enjoying a meal of ham and potatoes at
his weekly senior citizens lunch, held every Tuesday at the recreation
center of St. John’s Armenian Church on Northwestern Highway.

It’s something Aprahamian of Southfield has been doing since his wife of
71 years died in 2002.

It is here that the 97-year-old grandfather of three and
great-grandfather of two, who lives on his own and still drives is among
friends, mostly Armenians, in the crowd of about 100 people.

The oldest parishioner at the church, he is a treasured member of the
Armenian community. But his kind smile and quiet manner belie a tragic past.

Aprahamian is a survivor of what is known as the first genocide of the
20th century, the Armenian genocide of 1915 and 1916.

He is sitting with Simon Tashjian, 92, of Bloomfield Township, another
survivor of the genocide.

“He’s a very nice man. He’s quite intelligent,” said Tashjian, who has
known him since 1921, when his family immigrated to the U.S. “They came
to this country without much and they made a life for themselves.”

Aprahamian has many devout friends. “He amazes me. He’s so alert. He
remembers everything,” said Rosalie Papazian, 77, who often drives
Aprahamian to the lunches.

“He’s proof positive of the Armenian genocide. But he didn’t let it
hinder him. He remembers the past but he’s active in the future.”

The Armenian genocide occurred during World War I in eastern Turkey. The
Armenians say the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire killed 1.5
million Armenians through massacres and mass deportations and forced
death marches into the desert where they succumbed to starvation and
disease.

Armenians, who are Christians, say the nationalistic Muslim Turks wanted
to purge them from the country. Turkey, meanwhile, has never
acknowledged the genocide.

Aprahamian, who was right in the middle of the persecution, has no doubt
what he witnessed was a genocide. Women, children and the elderly were
left behind to fend for themselves, he said.

Aprahamian, the youngest of four children, recalls heroic battles in
Van, near Lezk in 1915. Despite being heavily outnumbered and with few
weapons, the Armenians, including his father, held off their Turkish
attackers for a month.

Eventually, the Armenians were forced to leave their homes for Soviet
Armenia. Though his family later returned to their village, they would
leave three more times until they left for good in 1918. Over the years,
they endured marches of hundreds of miles, at times under enemy attack,
to live in camps, finally ending up in Iraq under the protection of the
British military before coming to the U.S.

Aprahamian recalls a march in 1918 with his mother and sister-in-law. He
was so ill he was strapped to their donkey’s back. When they came upon
an uncle, Aprahamian said his mother was scolded for carrying this “dead
body” when others were abandoning healthy children.

His mother replied that her sick son was her only hope: “What else is
there for me to live for?”

On July 4, 1921, Aprahamian, then 14, arrived in Detroit with his
mother, an uncle, an aunt and a nephew. Aprahamian said that night the
fireworks alarmed his mother, who at first thought the Turks had
followed them to the United States.

“Of our family of 50, only 15 survived,” said Aprahamian, whose father
and one sister died during the deportations. Today, he is the sole
survivor of those 15 and indeed one of the few living witnesses to the
genocide.

Dyana Kezelian, assistant principal of the elementary and middle schools
of the AGBU Alex and Marie Manoogian School, which is attached to the
recreation center in Southfield, understands the value of having
Aprahamian speak with her students. It’s something he has done often
over the years.

“He’s a person they can see and relate to,” she said. “We’re losing that
generation (of survivors).”

After the senior citizens lunch, she escorts Aprahamian, who walks
slowly but needs no assistance, to a seventh-grade classroom, where he
recounts stories he’s told many times before.

“It’s interesting that you can talk about all these things in school and
then see someone who saw it all in front of him,” said Vartan Kurjian,
12, who said his grandfather survived the genocide.

Another student, Haigan Tcholakian, 12, of Farmington Hills, said, “I
give him credit for going through something like that and being able to
talk about it. I find it very interesting to hear about (the genocide)
from someone who went through it.

“He keeps a straight face about it but I think on the inside he’s
breaking down.”

According to Aprahamian’s daughter, Elizabeth, 66, of Farmington Hills,
a retired administrator with Detroit Public Schools who spends most days
now with her father, growing up she and her two older brothers did not
hear much about the genocide from their father or mother, Arminuhe, who
was also a survivor from Lezk.

“We had a sense of it,” she said, adding that it wasn’t until 1965, when
the 50th year was commemorated, that they began to talk about it.

Still, said Elizabeth, she learned many details about her father’s early
life from his autobiography, “From Van to Detroit: Surviving the
Armenian Genocide,” self-published in 1993.

“I think some of the stuff is too painful,” she said, tearing up. “It’s
in the book but it’s never been verbalized.”

Despite a horrific past, Aprahamian created a good life in Detroit and
found something to be thankful for.

“From every evil some good would come,” he said. “If it wasn’t for the
genocide, I wouldn’t be (in the U.S.). I wouldn’t have this education. I
was the first person from that village to have a college degree.”

In 1931, Aprahamian finished school with two bachelor’s degrees in
chemical and mechanical engineering from what is now Wayne State
University. That same year, he married Arminuhe, then 18, whom his
mother had introduced him to two years earlier.

While she raised their children, he ran a couple of grocery stores with
his brother between jobs as an engineer with the U.S. Department of
Defense, first during World War II and again from 1958 until his
retirement in 1974.

“He was a hard worker. We didn’t see him until Sunday,” said Elizabeth,
who said her father taught her to “be the best you can be because it
reflects on your heritage.”

Perhaps Aprahamian’s most important role now is as a spokesman for the
genocide. The Rev. Garabed Kochakian, pastor at St. John’s Armenian
Church, calls him courageous and an important thread of history for the
community.

“He fears not to speak the historical truth of the Armenian people and
the genocide,” he said. “He’s kind of a living example and reference to
that truth.”

Ellen Piligian is a Metro Detroit freelance writer.

PHOTO CAPTION (Morris Richardson II / The Detroit News):
Students Samantha Hart, Arev Tossounian and Alex Kurdian listen to
Souren Aprahamian. He is a survivor of what is known as the first
genocide of the 20th century, the Armenian genocide of 1915 and 1916.

PHOTO CAPTION (Morris Richardson II / The Detroit News):
Aprahamian speaks with Simon Tashjian, 92, another Armenian genocide
survivor, during lunch at the Armenian American Veteran’s building.

Profile of Souren Aprahamian
Age: 97
Born: June 15, 1907
Hometown: Lezk, village in Turkey
U.S. home: Southfield, since 1964
Education: Bachelor’s degrees in mechanical and chemical engineering
from Wayne State University
Church: Founding member of St. John’s Armenian Church in 1931
Occupations: Owned Henry’s Market in Detroit and Telegraph Shopping
Center in Taylor; engineer with the U.S. Department of Defense

Source: Detroit News research

http://www.detnews.com/2005/nnsouthfield/0505/21/U04-183627.htm

Konstantin Zatulin: Self-Determination Of Nagorny Karabakh Is Existe

KONSTANTIN ZATULIN: SELF-DETERMINATION OF NAGORNY KARABAKH IS
EXISTENT FACT

YEREVAN, MAY 20. ARMINFO. The self-determination of Nagorny Karabakh
is the existent fact, stated by phone a deputy of Russia’s State Duma
Konstantin Zatulin (being in Yerevan) in an interview to “Echo”. In his
words, the independence of NKR is also the fact, though the relative
fact as it has not been recognized on the international level yet. As
regards self-determination, it cannot been recognized or unrecognized,
it is an inhere right of either NKR or any other people, Zatulin added.

At the same time he stressed that there are no real chances nowadays
that Karabakh may restore its property of an integral part of
Azerbaijan. “Certainly, one can suppose that military operations may
recommence and Azerbaijan may win, however, I myself would not like
such an way out of the problem’s solution”, deputy noted and added
that “the process of step-by-step recognition or formation of the
existing status-quo is proceeding at present”.

He also noted that he does not believe in the readiness of Armenian
party to transfer the territories in exchange for any autonomy of
Nagorny Karabakh. Speaking about Russia’s position in issue of NKR
conflict settlement Zatulin noted that it lies in that the parties
should agree themselves. Russia acknowledges any agreement of parties
on Karabakh issue, he added. -r-

Russia to move part of equipment from Georgia bases to Armenia

Russia to move part of equipment from Georgia bases to Armenia

Xinhua, China
May 19 2005

2005-05-20 00:18:49

MOSCOW, May 19 (Xinhuanet) — Russia will move some of the equipment at
its military bases in Georgia to neighboring Armenia when it withdraws
the bases from the former Soviet republic, Chief of the Russian General
Staff Yury Baluyevsky said Thursday. The bases will be certainly
withdrawn to Russian territory, yet some of the military equipment and
property will be moved to Armenia, Baluyevsky said, adding the move
“will help us to reduce the withdrawal period to four years.”

“It is impossible to build the infrastructure for the military
equipment and property on Russian territory within four years,”
he said.

The withdrawal of Russian military bases in Georgia is a hot-button
issue that has soured relations between the two former Soviet
republics. Moscow has insisted it needs four years to complete the
withdrawal of the two bases while Tbilisi says it must be finished
before January 2008.

Tensions over the issue have been brought to new highs in recent weeks
with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili boycotting Russia’s lavish
Victory Day celebrations in Moscow and US President George W.

Bush raising the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russia is prepared for fresh talks with Tbilisi next week that will
focus on a plan envisaging the completion of the bases’ withdrawal
in 2008, the Foreign Ministry said Wednesday, a day after a meeting
between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Georgian
counterpart, Salome Zourabichvili, produced no accord on the issue.

“Experts will soon discuss the time and rules for the withdrawal,
as well as mutual commitments, which will be the core of the
Russian-Georgian accord on military bases,” Baluyevsky said. The
Finance Ministry would not provide funding for the pullout if the
two sides have not legally finalized the withdrawal plan, Baluyevsky
added. Enditem

www.chinaview.cn

Gacaca: Rwanda’s Truth And Reconciliation Authority

Africa News
May 16, 2005 Monday

Rwanda;
Gacaca: Rwanda’s Truth And Reconciliation Authority

The New Times

The concept and institution of the Gacaca justice system comes
through as one of the most enduring in Rwanda, not only in conflict
management through restorative justice, but in serving as a lubricant
to the ideology of Rwandanicity that ensured unity and cohesion in
the society since the pre-colonial times.

By definition, Rwandanicity was an idea and a philosophy that guided
the people’s conduct and perceptions. As an ideology, therefore,
it is what the people of Rwanda understood themselves to be, what
they knew about themselves, and how they defined and related to each
other and their country as a united people (Ubumwe). Thus, other than
giving identity, Rwandanicity is also the medium in which Rwandans
got their world view.

Gacaca, on the other hand, are by definition traditional councils
and tribunals made up of elders to resolve conflict and administrate
justice. Gacaca literally means ‘a resting and relaxing green lawn
in the Rwandan homestead’ where family members or neighbours met to
exchange views on issues directly affecting them. Being communal and
participatory, the Gacaca derived its impetus and legitimacy from
ubumwe bw’ Abanyarwanda (the unity of Rwandans), in as much as it
complemented the same unity by being the cement that strengthened
social relations in the name of justice.

Traditional Gacaca

The administration of justice in Rwanda followed the natural social
structure that began with the nucleus family, followed by the lineage,
the clan and eventually the nation under Mwami (the king), who was the
guarantor of justice for all. Because of that hierarchy the king was
referred to as Sebantu (father of the people, also Umuryango mugari bw’
Abanyarwanda, i.e., the head of a larger national family). The family
heads settled all simple cases within the family, and would represent
the family in case of a dispute with another family in the Gacaca.

In essence, every Rwandan knew all the channels of arbitration to
resort to in case of any litigation, starting from his own family
head up to the king. This would include the political administrators,
such as the Prefets of the Soil or Pastures (Abatware b’Ubutaka and
b’Umukenke) depending on the case, whether it was about land or cattle
and pastures.

There also would be the military prefet who would settle socio-military
cases and traditionally would be of a higher authority than the
Prefets of the Soil and Pastures in case of an appeal. The king would
be the final arbitrator in case of any sustained dispute through the
established channels.

The saying was that “The king does not kill; it is his entourage who
are the conspirators (Ntihic ‘Umwami, hica rubanda).” This emphasized
that he was above personal, petty issues and trivialities in the
society. He was the caretaker of justice among his people in all
matters and was easily accessible to all. And being at the top of the
hierarchy as the head of all families and the people, under whom they
found their unity (Rubanda rw’Umwami), the king could never conspire
against his people or subvert justice.

Given the foregoing, justice in the Gacaca system would only be
possible because of ubumwe (unity), first within the family and on
to the nation as a unified whole. And it is this national unity with
the administration of justice as one example that, as we have often
noted, is the actualization of Rwandanicity, the ideology informing
all that is Rwandan, and that has ensured the nationhood and prosperity
of Rwandans as a people.

Indeed, Gacaca, like most traditional African justice systems, is
collectivist, where the individual has no rights or duties other than
within his or her group. The individual and the group are mutually
complementary. This collective aspect was an indispensable medium in
which individuals lived out their relations with each other, and with
the wider society. Gacaca therefore molded and defined the performance
parameters expected of each individual in the Rwandan society.

Impfura z’u Rwanda

The family being the foundation of the nation, each family head had
to be impfura y’ i Rwanda (a gentleman of Rwanda). To be impfura
meant adherence to socio-cultural standards and values in a moral
fibre that made a proud and incorruptible nation. By the same token,
it may also be noted that impfura also referred to the first born in
the family and, as such, to call someone Impfura y’ i Rwanda referred
to him as a positive role-model, who was exemplary in all aspects
living out the ideals of Rwandanicity.

It is thus that even today in a betrothal or wedding ceremony, for
instance, one’s moral uprightness has to be tested and found to be
above reproach. This, indeed, was and still remains Gacaca in action,
in which the family-to-be would be founded on a clean slate. It was
therefore the hallmark of impfura that one must not have committed
any offence or shameful act in his past that had not been righted in
the Gacaca; otherwise he was not worth a wife. This indicated that
he could not be allowed to tarnish the name of the family he was
marrying into. Any such offence tarnished not just the individual,
but the entire family. It can therefore be seen that everyone had
to morally conduct himself, not just for his own sake, but also for
those most close to him – whether family members, peers or agemates.

It was thus imperative that one had to clear his name in order to
exonerate all the others related to him in the social structure. And
the place to clear one’s name was in the Gacaca following the relevant
legal channels. It is this ideal that is today being replicated in
reconciliation and conflict management in the wake of the 1994 Rwanda
Genocide, that wrought the artificial division in a historical process
we are today trying to resolve in the Gacaca process.

The Rwanda Genocide

This division, as symbolized by the ultimate act of the Genocide,
can be seen in the analogy of the proverbial hippopotamus in the
Rwandan myth. The hippo, it is said, has an effective strategy of
neutralizing a perceived enemy. When confronted by the enemy the
proverbial lake, it unleashes its considerable power and in one bite
cuts the enemy into two halves to which it proceeds to separate as
widely as possible. One half of the decapitated enemy is placed on one
shore of the lake and the other on the opposite shore. The hippo then
keeps vigil between the two separated parts of the doomed enemy to
ensure they don’t join together. The hippo, in its foolish reasoning,
symbolizes the genocide that has fostered the false division among
Rwandans by keeping vigil between them.

Yet what sustains ‘the hippo?’ The answer, it will be recalled, lies
in our colonial history with the racial ideology that enabled the
construction of ‘ethnic’ identities among an otherwise one people,
and the entrenchment in the social psyche of this ideology through
such as the Roman Catholic Church, Hutu populist political parties
(i.e., Parti du Mouvement pour l’Emancipation des Hutu – PARMEHUTU,
and Coalition pour la Defence de la Republique – CDR) and misguided
governments of the First and Second Republics that institutionalized
the division through, for example, the quota system.

This entrenchment took a span of a hundred years (1894-1994) leading
up to the Genocide, beginning with the coming of colonialism. If one
considers that this is also a span of three generations of Rwandans
living through colonial and neo-colonial indoctrination in the First
and Second Republics, it may be seen how even today many still believe
in this falsehood of ‘ethnic’ division.

This includes some of our most respected intellectuals, such as Prof
Ali Mazrui and possibly his hosts here recently, comparing Rwanda
with Kosovo and other dual societies such as Belgium, Cyprus and
Sri Lanka. As one observer noted, the professor portrays Rwanda as a
conflict laden dual society of the Hutu and Tutsi with “a long history
of ethnic divide going back generations, if not going back centuries.”

The observer further notes, as he wrote in a New Times article:
‘Imagine, … , the professor telling it to the face of an enlightened
Rwandan audience that the “worst African cases of dual societies
are indeed Rwanda and Burundi, each of which has a majority Hutu and
minority Tutsi.” And that, at “the moment, the minority Tutsi are in
power in both Rwanda and Burundi.”

By talking about “minority Tutsi” and power, here is a scholar
apparently not quite aware of what is happening in Rwanda, or quite
appreciative of the sheer effort at national reconciliation to erase
the fiction of “ethnic” division and the many institutions in place
to accomplish this.’

Mazrui, the observer points out, is an influential scholar who
therefore may seem to not quite appreciate that by making such
assertions he may unwittingly be giving credence to the Interahamwe
or those unrepentant genocidal ideologues bent on dividing a people
and plunging, not just Rwanda, but the region into further chaos.

A man of his international stature and intellectual authority has
a following of serious scholars and intellectual pretenders alike,
some of whom would likely quote him as an authority on Rwanda and
the region to prove whatever argument.

He does not sound any different from eighty year-old Mzee Petero
(not his real name) I met in my ongoing research in the Sector of
Bizu, Gisunzu District in Kibuye Province. Describing himself a Hutu,
he explained that “things were okay when we were in power.” This is
the so-called ‘happy slave mentality’, for the old man had nothing
during the First and Second Republics, yet he had been manipulated
to feel that he owned the world, when all he was doing is keep an
oppressive regime in power.

If things were okay then, “they are bad now, because Kagame and the
Tutsi are now in power.” This comment by Mzee Petero exemplifies the
entrenchment in the social psyche of the ‘difference’ between Rwandans,
in which the Mzee sees the Tutsi as the cause of his physical and
economic deprivation. This warped view of the reality does not make
Mazrui any different from Mzee Petero, if the belief is one of two
different peoples, which there never was.

By insisting on a dual Rwanda, the Mzee and, more so, Mazrui seems
not in touch with who we are as a people. It is worth recognizing
that a divided Rwanda was easy to manipulate, and therefore the
inevitability of the Genocide. And thus it is that ‘the hippo’ and
the unwitting support of scholars such as Mazrui and many others,
that the genocide may seem to keep a people from reconciling eleven
years on, through untenable racism.

However, the continued denial by many of the fact of the Genocide and
the factors that led to it constitute the main challenge in the ongoing
Gacaca process. With many among us still unconvinced of the lie of
‘ethnic’ division and the wrong done to Rwandans by the Genocide, it
remains a difficult issue in the ongoing debate about the legitimacy
and effectiveness of this process.

Moreover, the complexity and peculiarity of the Rwandan genocide
was that it was between close relatives, in which siblings set on
each other and neighbour killed neighbour. Contrasting it to the
Holocaust or the Armenian genocide, the Germans decimated the Jews
and the Turks the Armenians. In both these cases there is a genetic
and socio-cultural difference between the victims and perpetrators,
as opposed to Rwanda which had no genetic or socio-cultural difference
between its people. Therefore, other than the sheer numbers of the
perpetrators, one of the complexities in the Gacaca process is in
getting a brother to testify against a brother or, in the case of
judges, judge against brother or neighbour.

Though these may appear teething problems, the Gacaca still provides
the best possible solution as a conflict management strategy in the
current obtaining realities. As a strategy, it therefore requires
delicate handling and understanding of the forces at play among
Rwandans if it is to achieve its objectives.

BAKU: Aliyev meets with Benita Ferrero-Waldner

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
May 16 2005

PRESIDENT ILHAM ALIYEV MEETS WITH BENITA FERRERO-WALDNER,
COMMISSIONER FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS & EUROPEAN NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY
[May 16, 2005, 12:50:22]

As reports AzerTAj’s own correspondent, President of the Republic
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has met on May 16 at the King Palace of
Warsaw Benita Ferrero-Waldner, commissioner for external relations &
European neighborhood policy.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, recalling the previous meetings with
the Azerbaijan’s President, has highly estimated the Azerbaijan
participation in the European neighborhood policy and bilateral
cooperation between Azerbaijan and the European Union. There is
concretely work under the Azerbaijan’s rapprochement with the European
family has been conducted, said Mrs. Waldner.

Having speaking about the Armenian-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, President Ilam Aliyev said the problem is an obstacle for
peace and security in the region and it’s integration into Europe.
Head of the Azerbaijani state has told also about the economic reforms
in the country and Azerbaijan’s role in the giant energy projects.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner said that she was informed about successful
reforms in Azerbaijan and the European Union is ready to help
Azerbaijan for the larger implementation of the reforms.

President Ilham Aliyev has also resembled the document signed recently
in connection with the parliamentary elections, said the country will
more actively participate in the new neighborhood policy.

Armenian FM met with CoE Sec. Gen. special representative in Armenia

ARMENIAN FM MET WITH CoE SEC. GEN. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE IN ARMENIA

Pan Armenian News
19.05.2005 05:01

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian yesterday
received newly appointed special representative of the Council of
Europe Secretary General in Armenia Bojana Urumova, reported the
Press Service of the Foreign Ministry. Having noted the important
mission of the representative of the CoE Sec. Gen. in development
of the Armenia-CoE cooperation, V. Oskanian underscored the need for
constitutional reforms in Armenia within the context of meeting the
commitments to the CoE. The Minister noted that Armenia is resolute
in completing the process of fulfillment of the commitments to the
CoE before the end of the current year. In the course of the meeting
the parties discussed questions of the process of settlement of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict, as well as Armenian-Turkish relations.