Lukashenko jealous of NATO

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 21, 2004, Friday

LUKASHENKO JEALOUS OF NATO

SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, May 18, 2004, p. 5

by Olga Mazayeva

Nikolai Bordyuzha, General Secretary of the Organization of the CIS
Collective Security Treaty, visited Minsk last week. The visit was
not pre-announced even though Bordyuzha met with President Alexander
Lukashenko. The meeting looked hasty and generated a lot of
speculations – after all, Bordyuzha had already visited Minsk two
weeks ago. All of that made local observers wonder that Bordyuzha
perhaps could have some clandestine mission to accomplish. The
impression the visit left was that Bordyuzha had come to gauge
Lukashenko’s meed before his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Yalta on
May 21 and 22.

All leaks to the official media concerned Lukashenko’s extreme
displeasure over the contacts of CIS countries and particularly
Russia with NATO. The president of Belarus told Bordyuzha irritably
that he wondered if the Organization of the CIS Collective Security
Treaty was that necessary in the first place (the organization
comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia,
Tajikistan). According to Lukashenko, he did not “understand the
behavior of participants of the Organization of the CIS Collective
Security Treaty… There are NATO troops in Tajikistan under the
pretext of fighting terrorism. We support it. But Belarus did not
know anything about it nobody had asked for its opinion despite
appropriate provisions of the Treaty. What if Belarus let some other
bloc deploy troops on its territory? What would our colleagues have
said? They’d have objected.” The president of Belarus also wondered
of Armenia’s and Kazakhstan’s contacts with NATO. “Some separate
negotiations are under way – always with plausible explanations,” he
said. Lukashenko was particularly irked by the fact that “even Russia
cooperates with NATO and we discover it from newspapers.” Bordyuzha
agreed that the Organization of the CIS Collective Security Treaty
should clarify its position and stop being amorphous when the United
States and Europe were expanding their clout eastward.

Summing up the meeting, Lukashenko said that every organization
should promote security of its members and that he did not want to
waste money on membership otherwise. In short, there is no
information on what Bordyuzha’s mission was about but Lukashenko’s
response to it is very revealing. “NATO is on the borders of the
Russian-Belarusian Union now,” Lukashenko told Bordyuzha. He said
that Moscow and Minsk set up a joint army group capable of “repelling
any threat” and therefore should stick to each other.

Cyprus, Armenian FMs discuss regional issues and bilateral relations

Cyprus, Armenian FMs discuss regional issues and bilateral relations

Hellenic Resources Network
Cyprus News Agency: News in English, 04-05-20

1435:CYPPRESS:08

Nicosia, May 20 (CNA) — The Cyprus problem, Cyprus’ accession to the
EU, the Cyprus – Armenia relations, the problems in the Caucasus region
and the issue of Nakorno Karabagh were on the agenda of discussions
here today between Cyprus Foreign Minister George Iacovou and his
Armenia’s counterpart Vartan Oskanian, who is paying a working visit
to Cyprus.

In his statements after the meeting Oskanian stressed the importance
of Cyprus’ accession to the EU for Armenia noting that “we see Cyprus
as a friendly country, as an insider in the EU and that we can rely
on its help to further advance our integration processes with European
structures and particularly with the EU”.

He also said that the reason of his visit to the island is “first of
all to advance and deepen our bilateral ties at all levels.”

Iacovou said “Armenia is a friendly country with very old ties with
Cyprus” and that their modern ties develop continuously at all levels
and mostly at the political level.

Head of Azeri PACE delegation says Karabakh talks to go on – Armenia

Head of Azeri PACE delegation says Karabakh talks to go on – Armenian paper

Aykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
19 May 04

The head of the Azerbaijani delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE), Samed Seidov, comments on the Karabakh
issue. He underlines Azerbaijan’s commitment to the peace process,
which he believes has not yet been exhausted. Following is the text
of a Naira Zograbyan report by the Armenian newspaper Aykakan Zhamanak
on 19 May

[Aykakan Zhamanak correspondent] Mr Seidov, the Armenian and Azeri
president met 16 or 17 times. How much do those meetings promote to
peaceful settlement of the Karabakh issue?

[Samed Seidov] These talks between the two presidents continue,
the presidents continue to negotiate and I am sure they are still
necessary. As for their promotion to move settlement of the issue
from a zero state, I think that only the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan can answer this question. You know that the OSCE Minsk
Group is working in the direction of the Karabakh issue settlement,
and unfortunately I should say that the Minsk Group is not active in
drawing out new proposals and submitting them to the parties. For this
reason the Azerbaijani party thinks that the talks between Armenia
and Azerbaijan should continue.

[Correspondent] Mr Seidov, it is obvious that the Karabakh issue
may be settled only by means of compromises. What is the limit of
compromises which Azerbaijan will never cross?

[Seidov] Certainly, that limit is the international norm on territorial
integrity. Azerbaijan will never agree to lose Karabakh.

[Correspondent] But one should not also forget another international
norm – the right of nations to self-determination.

[Seidov] Armenia used its right on self-determination having gained a
firm hold of its territory. We think that the Karabakh conflict should
be settled only within the framework of the territorial integrity
principle. If we act according to your logic, it is not ruled out
that tomorrow the Armenian Diaspora, let us say, of Krasnodar or
Georgia will raise a problem about self-determination. I think
it is not serious. Finally, one should admit that the conflict is
between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Of course, there are still European
countries which do not know all the details of the Karabakh conflict,
for this reason Armenia can submit to them that the conflict is between
Azerbaijan and Karabakh. But reality is different. Both Armenia and
Azerbaijan understand very well that the conflict is between Armenia
and Azerbaijan because the Armenian troops occupied Azerbaijani
territories. Finally these territories will be undoubtedly liberated.

[Correspondent] How do you imagine liberation of the territories?

[Seidov] We still prefer peaceful talks and a peaceful settlement
to the conflict. We hope that Armenia is also for a peaceful
settlement. The Azerbaijani party thinks that the resource of peaceful
talks should be used to the end. But naturally Azerbaijan will never
agree to the territories remaining occupied forever.

[Correspondent] You speak of a peaceful settlement of the issue, but
some top officials of Azerbaijan, including President Ilham Aliyev,
make open statements about the settlement of the Karabakh issue by war.

[Seidov] The talks continue, and I think that both Armenia and
Azerbaijan need them so that peaceful settlement of the Karabakh
issue becomes possible. Today let us still talk about the peaceful
methods of settling of the conflict. Azerbaijan still thinks that
the potential of a peaceful settlement to the conflict has not been
exhausted yet, but it is not inexhaustible either.

[Correspondent] Mr Seidov, let us again touch on the announcement
of the Azerbaijani party on peaceful settlement of the issue. Do
you think that the murder of the Armenian officer in Budapest is a
normal pre-condition in the sense of promoting a peaceful settlement
of the issue?

[Seidov] You should not speak of this event so much, this is just
an incident, a bad incident, which by the way happened because
the conflict has not been settled yet. It is strange for me that a
representative of the Armenian delegation in Strasbourg Armen Rustamyan
made a speech and spoke about the genetic incompatibility of the
Armenians and Azeris. How can one speak about such incompatibility in
the 21st century? I accept what happened is a big tragedy, but it is
unacceptable to politicize it and speak about genetic incompatibility,
because the next step is fascism.

[Correspondent] Let us again touch on the bellicose statements of the
Azerbaijani party. Why is Azerbaijan sure that it will win if the issue
is transferred from the field of peace to the field of battle actions?

[Seidov] I repeat once again, we should negotiate as the peaceful
methods of the negotiations have not been exhausted yet. As for
the rest of the options for settlement of the conflict, let us talk
about them when it is registered that the negotiating process has
been exhausted.

TEHRAN: Iranian Drama to Go on Stage in Armenia

Iranian Drama to Go on Stage in Armenia

Mehr News Agency, Iran
May 17 2004

TEHRAN, May 17 (MNA) — Invited by the Embassy of Armenia in Tehran,
Iranian playwright and director Chista Yasrebi plans to stage her play
“Tale of Stone Women” early August in Armenia.

The play is about two female storytellers quarrelling on which one
tells a story better. The drama combines Iranian myths with modern
storytelling styles.

“Tale of Stone Women” was rejected as an entry by organizers of the
21st Fajr International Drama Festival, which was held in February
2003 in Tehran.

“Armenians are interested in Iranian dramas performed by Iranian
women so they invited us to their country,” Yasrebi said.

Two years ago, Yesrebi was due to stage her “Juggler & Talisman”
in Armenia but she said the Iranian Center for Dramatic Arts would
not cooperate regarding the theater troupes’ journey to Armenia.

Armenia Among Other Countries honored at a White House Ceremony

PRESS RELEASE
May 11, 2004
Embassy of the Republic of Armenia
2225 R Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20008
Tel: 202-319-1976, x. 348; Fax: 202-319-2982
Email: [email protected]; Web:

Armenia Among Other Countries honored at a White House Ceremony

On May 10, 2004, U.S. President George Bush hosted a ceremony at the
White House to mark the recent selection of 16 countries, including
Armenia, as recipients of Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) funds. The
MCA, a foreign aid distribution mechanism introduced by the Bush
administration, will fund programs submitted by eligible countries
to promote the goals of poverty reduction and economic development.

Ambassadors from 16 countries, including Armenian Ambassador to the
U.S., Dr. Arman Kirakossian were present at the ceremony and had an
opportunity to briefly meet with President Bush. Also present were
Senator Dick Lugar, Representative Tom Lantos, and the members of the
Board of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which administers the
MCA funds. Secretary of State Colin Powell is the ex-officio Chairman
of the Board; the Board includes other senior members of the Cabinet.

In his remarks during the ceremony, President Bush congratulated
the countries selected as potential recipients of MCA funds, noting
that these countries “have taken the first courageous steps toward
greater independence and greater wealth, and greater hopes for the
people you serve.” He also said, “To be eligible for this new money,
nations must root out corruption, respect human rights, and adhere
to the rule of law. They must invest in their people by improving
their health care systems and their schools. They must unleash the
energy and creativity necessary for economic growth by opening up
their markets, removing barriers to entrepreneurship, and reducing
excessive bureaucracy and regulation. The 16 nations represented here
today have done all this and more.”

For more information, visit

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040510.html
www.armeniaemb.org

Press digests Ajaria aftermath

BBC News, UK
May 7 2004

Press digests Ajaria aftermath

Ajaria’s drama has met with mixed interpretations
The defusing of the crisis in the Georgian province of Ajaria
following the departure of rebel leader Aslan Abashidze is greeted in
the region’s press with cautious relief.

In Georgia, papers are grateful to Russia for its mediation. A sense
of satisfaction is echoed in the other Caucasian republics of Armenia
and Azerbaijan.

But in Russia the press is full of misgivings. It sees America as the
overall winner and warns of problems ahead.

Georgia

The pro-government 24 Saati notes the Georgian foreign minister’s
satisfaction that “the burden of Abashidze has been handed over to
Russia”.

Another pro-government paper, Sakartvelos Respublika, carries on its
front page Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili’s comment that
“Russia has played a positive role”.

The swan song of the Ajarian lion shows Washington and Moscow are
working on a new map of the South Caucasus

Ayasatani Anrapetutyun
The independent Akhali 7 Dge in turn believes that the elimination of
the pro-Russian regime in Georgia was possible only thanks to Western
support. And it expresses the hope that, with that support, “Russia’s
negative role in Georgian politics will diminish”.

The same paper carries an interview with MP Davit Zurabishvili on the
possibility of spreading the “rose revolution” to Georgia’s other
troublesome regions.

He says the peaceful end of the conflict in Ajaria is a “message sent
in two directions”, to the West as well as to Abkhazia and South
Ossetia.

In both cases the message is the same: Georgia is “determined to use
only peaceful means” to settle its remaining conflicts.

And interviewed in another independent paper, Rezonansi, the leader
of the opposition New Right party, Davit Gamqrelidze, says the
integration of Ajaria into Georgia will “definitely have a favourable
influence” on settling the Abkhaz conflict.

Armenia

Elsewhere in the Caucasus, papers are likewise reassured.

Armenia’s Ayasatani Anrapetutyun says the “swan-song of the Ajarian
lion” shows Washington and Moscow are working on a “new map of the
South Caucasus, and have even come to an agreement on some matters”.

New faces will govern Ajaria from now on – of course, looking back
to Tbilisi

Xalq Qazeti
Aravot in turn is full of praise for Mr Saakashvili, noting that his
actions have “nothing in common with political adventure”. This, it
says, was best seen in his enlisting Russia as “an authoritative
mediator”.

Ayots Ashkar also believes developments bode well for the future.

“This creates favourable conditions to overcome a certain coldness in
the Armenian-Georgian relations,” it says.

Azerbaijan

The pro-government Azerbaijani daily Xalq Qazeti says the conflict
has ended with a clear victory for Georgia.

“The Georgian people are happy. The international community is also
pleased with the fact that the conflict ended without bloodshed. New
faces will govern Ajaria from now on – of course, looking back to
Tbilisi,” it says.

Other papers, however, are less positive.

In the Caucasus, Washington it has managed to pull off its latest
geopolitical triumph

Moskovskiy Komsomolets
The opposition Azadliq has harsh words for the Azerbaijani leadership
over its position on the Ajarian issue.

“The Ajarian dictator has been banished… The Azerbaijani government
should feel sad because the Abashidze regime was its only partner in
corruption,” it says.

And the independent Russian-language daily Zerkalo focuses on
Russia’s reduced influence in the Caucasus.

“The northern neighbour has lost a rather serious ally and a
strategic base in the Caucasus,” it comments.

Russia

Russian papers are generally unhappy with the turn of events. Some
view developments as something of a coup for US President George W
Bush.

Abashidze was literally hounded into resigning

Pravda
“While Washington is getting itself mired more and more deeply in
Iraq, in the Caucasus it has managed to pull off its latest
geopolitical triumph,” says the mass-circulation Moskovskiy
Komsomolets.

This, it says, is the only way to interpret the victory of “American
placeman” Mr Saakashvili over Abashidze, who was close to Russia.

Another popular Moscow daily, Moskovskaya Pravda, agrees.

“The events,” it insists, “were not a victory for Saakashvili over
Abashidze, but for America over Russia. The USA is effectively
continuing a carve-up of the Caucasus using its puppets in the
region.”

The Russian Communist Party newspaper Pravda in turn takes the
Kremlin to task.

“Abashidze was literally hounded into resigning. And, strange as it
may seem, Secretary of the Russian Federation Security Council Igor
Ivanov took a direct part in this shameful and unlawful affair.”

While the government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta has a word of warning
for the Georgian president.

“Even at Georgia’s most difficult periods, ‘feudal’ Abashidze
maintained peace and stability,” it says. “The ‘democrat’ Saakashvili
is still only at the start of a difficult journey.”

While he seems well-intentioned enough, “we all remember that the
road to hell is paved with good intentions”, the paper adds.

AGBU GenNext Mentorship Members Trace Roots in Genocide Remembrance

Armenian General Benevolent Union
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Tel: 212.319.6383
Fax: 212.319.6507
Email: [email protected]

AGBU GENERATION NEXT MENTORSHIP PROGRAM MEMBERS TRACE THE ROOTS OF
THEIR ANCESTORS IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

On April 18, 2004, the AGBU Generation Next Mentorship Program
convened at the AGBU Pasadena Center to participate in a group
activity dedicated to the Armenian Genocide. Mentors, mentees, and
task force members were asked to determine where their grandparents or
great grandparents were from before the Genocide. Program members
placed pins on a map of historic Armenia and/or a world map indicating
the origins of their ancestors and the subsequent journey of their
family throughout the world. This activity not only demonstrated how
the Genocide forced Armenians outside of their homeland, but it also
encouraged the mentees to learn more about their family history and in
turn themselves. This powerful visual effect also showed that we are
still unified as a people despite being dispersed across the world.

Guest speaker and task force member Armen Tamzarian led the group in a
discussion about the Genocide by asking probing questions and
highlighting important events in Armenian history. After
Mr. Tamzarian’s overview, the program members joined together to share
their own struggles and experiences in dealing with the Armenian
Genocide’s impact today. While everyone shared personal stories,
members also suggested constructive ways of coping with the tragedy’s
painful history.

Since its establishment in 1997, AGBU Generation Next mentors and
staff have served over 100 Armenian students ranging from the seventh
to eleventh grades. Adult volunteers from AGBU Generation Next assist
these students with issues involving academics, behavior, and
acculturation. By providing positive role models, our volunteer
mentors help these young Armenians become responsible, self-sufficient
young adults. To receive more information about AGBU Generation Next,
please call 626.794.7942 or send an email to [email protected].

Iran loses faith in clerics

Chicago Tribune ), IL
May 1 2004

STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF ISLAM

Iran loses faith in clerics
Change elusive in rigid society

By Kim Barker
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published May 2, 2004

QOM, Iran — A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: Twenty-five years ago, the
Iranian people toppled the Shah of Iran, seized the American Embassy in
Tehran and established an Islamic republic, a unique form of government
that they thought would rid them of their problems. The fourth part of
this Tribune series on Islam looks at how even some esteemed ayatollahs
are having second thoughts about the wisdom of a government controlled
by clerics–something sought by many factions in the struggle for the
soul of Islam.

The mob shouted for his blood. They called him a traitor; they yelled,
“Death to Montazeri.”

The target of their wrath? The Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri.

Once, he was heir apparent to the ruler of the country, an Iranian
equivalent to Thomas Jefferson, an Islamic revolutionary who helped
topple the dreaded Shah of Iran. Now, though, his fall from grace
seemed complete. Outside his home, an unruly crowd of hundreds had
branded him a heretic.

As Montazeri, partially deaf, prayed in a room behind his office, he
barely heard bricks shattering the windows. But his family members were
scared. They ran from the cleric to the chaos outside and back, trying
to shield Montazeri from harm.

Eventually, the police took action on that day in 1997, spraying the
mob with tear gas. The aging cleric and his family escaped harm. But
they would endure years of punishment, house arrest, prison and
harassment.

Montazeri’s crime was simple: He had publicly criticized his one-time
allies, the clerics who run the country, for abandoning human rights
and freedom as the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“The shah is gone,” Montazeri said in a recent interview. “But a clergy
has replaced him.”

On one level, the story of Hussein Ali Montazeri is a powerful drama of
life, death and resurrection in one of the world’s most rigid
societies. Critics say he is naive, manipulated by the people around
him and bitter after falling out of favor with the government. But at
82, Montazeri has survived years of intellectual apartheid to rise
again in the eyes of the Islamic world. Today he is considered one of
the top two Shiite clerics worldwide and is a powerful voice for
moderation in Iran.

His story also shows the ups and downs of the struggle over Islam in a
nation where large numbers of people yearn for the economic and
political freedoms practiced in the secular West, often viewed as an
icon of immorality by the conservative clerics of Iran.

In thick, black-rimmed glasses, a white skullcap, cardigan sweater and
long robe, Montazeri hardly fits the image of a rebel. His hands shake.
He often sits on a heating pad. He suffers from diabetes, but he hides
chocolates in a desk drawer. He speaks in singsong sentences that trail
off in a wheeze.

But Montazeri is at the heart of a battle over Iran’s fate–one that
could hint at the future in the Middle East, where radicals from Iraq
to the Gaza Strip want an Islamic revolution like the one that happened
in Iran 25 years ago.

On one side are the powerful clerics who rule Iran and thwart the most
modest reforms.

On the other side, grass-roots reformers complain that the fight for an
Islamic democracy actually led to an Islamic dictatorship, one that
jails or even kills its critics, violates basic rights and distorts the
tenets of Islam.

Led by senior clerics such as Montazeri and one-time foot soldiers of
the revolution, they seek democratic reforms that would restore a
respect for human rights and freedom. Some, such as Montazeri, believe
that the country can be run through an Islamic system. But others
believe that religion has no place in government. They want the clergy
to return to the mosques. They want a true democracy.

“I don’t have any doubt it will come,” said Ibrahim Yazdi, the Islamic
Republic’s first foreign minister, who now leads the country’s only
secular-leaning political party.

The people of Iran are caught in the middle, chanting “Death to
America” at Friday prayers then welcoming American visitors with fresh
fruit. They adhere to strict Islamic codes in public but disappear
behind closed doors to drink homemade vodka and watch MTV.

They live in a nation that is rich in oil but has a stagnant economy.
Jobs are scarce, the air polluted, the press controlled and the
politics repressive.

And in the ultimate irony of the Islamic Republic, the country is
becoming less religious, not more.

Friday prayers

On a Friday in January, one of Iran’s top politicians stood on an
outdoor stage at the University of Tehran, praising the Islamic
Revolution to a crowd of thousands.

“This is a big achievement,” said Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s president
from 1989 to 1997. “In today’s world, when many countries and people
are against religion, we see a religion emerging capable of making a
country run.”

This was no ordinary political stump speech. Rafsanjani was leading
weekly Friday prayers, a blend of politics and religion, of pep rally
and prayer, of love for Iran’s government and hate for the U.S. and
Israel.

On one side of the audience, about 5,000 women sat on Persian carpets.
Most wore chadors, sometimes using their teeth to hold the sheet-like
coverings over their hair and bodies. They could not see Rafsanjani
over the tall dividers separating them from about 15,000 men.

During Rafsanjani’s speech, the crowd responded with the same cheers of
praise shouted since the revolution. “God is great,” they yelled.
“Death to the United States.”

Iran is still a religious country, despite pushes for political reform.
People in the crowd on Fridays embrace the revolution and all that has
followed.

“Until the day we no longer have blood in our veins, we will say `Death
to America,'” said Soraya Ghayoomi, before cheerfully handing an apple
to an American.

But the appeal of such services has slipped. In the early years of the
Islamic Republic, hundreds of thousands of people showed up for Friday
prayers in Tehran, according to press reports. Now, in a city of about
7million, it’s difficult to attract 20,000 worshipers.

Mosques were often filled before the revolution. But those who still
attend say mosques are now often empty.

Frustrated with their government, some people have turned away from
religion. They treat their leaders like ineffectual politicians
anywhere.

“I believe in God, but I don’t believe in the prophet or the imams or
anything else,” a 17-year-old girl in pointy high heels said as she put
on makeup in the bathroom of the only mall food court in Tehran. “The
things we read in the Koran, it’s not like the country is right now.
That makes us hate them more.”

Across Iran, clerics no longer command the respect they once inspired.
Taxi drivers refuse to pick them up. More and more jokes are told about
the clergy. One cartoon, forwarded by e-mail, depicts clerics’ brains
being removed before they get turbans. Some people laugh when asked
whether they go to Friday prayers.

“This is my Friday prayers,” said Vida Farahmand, 40, just after she
finished racing laps at a go-kart track outside Tehran.

For years, a quiet rebellion has been brewing in Iran. Many people
create two lives. Publicly, they obey the strict rules. Privately, they
live as they want. They drink illegal alcohol and watch illegal
satellite TV. They use black-market entrepreneurs who promise to
deliver whatever, whenever, from whiskey to Western movies.

The government continues to rail against the West, but the West
continues to seep into Iran. Instead of McDonald’s, there’s Mc Ali’s,
which sells hamburgers and pizza. Even the shrine to the country’s
founder has a gift shop selling Sylvester Stallone movies.

In a Tehran hotel in February, a hotel worker intently watched a DVD of
“Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle” on a computer. Several days later,
other hotel workers crowded around a TV to watch a videotape of one of
the many popular Iranian talk shows from Los Angeles, home to so many
Iranians that people call it Tehrangeles.

The biggest pop star in Iran now sings a love song to the tune of
“Billie Jean” by Michael Jackson. Ask young people about their favorite
music, and hear familiar answers: R. Kelly, Metallica, Korn, Madonna.
“It’s like an epidemic,” said Adel Amiri, 16. “Everyone just likes to
listen to foreign music.”

The Internet has helped introduce the world to Iran. Young people
download hip-hop and heavy metal music. In chat rooms, Iranians flirt
and vent frustrations with the country. When the government banned part
of a book by Czech writer Milan Kundera, the objectionable material
soon showed up on the Internet–in Iran’s language of Farsi.

“The problem with our young people is their feet are on Iran’s ground,
but their eyes are on the Internet,” said Hamid Ghassemi, who sells
fabrics in Tehran’s crowded bazaar. “The things they want and the
things they have are very different.”

But the young will eventually determine the future of the country. They
are already a majority, thanks to a push for more Muslim children in
the early years of the Islamic Republic.

About 70 percent of Iranians are now younger than 30. They do not
remember the shah and his secret police. They do not remember the
revolution.

The revolution

The story of the Islamic Revolution is written throughout Tehran, a
city of smog, traffic snarls and boxy beige buildings nestled beneath a
mountain range.

Palace Street is now Palestine Street. The square once named for a
monarch’s birthday is Revolution Square.

Throughout the city, giant murals feature battlefield scenes of
martyrs, men killed fighting for the new country or in the war against
Iraq. Pictures of Iran’s first two supreme spiritual leaders loom
everywhere, on buildings and inside pizza shops.

The former U.S. Embassy, where Iranians seized American hostages in
late 1979 and held 52 of them for more than a year, is now a shrine to
the hatred for America. Graffiti such as “Death to America” covers the
outside walls. A mural of the Statue of Liberty features a skull
instead of a woman’s face.

The Islamic Revolution had almost as much to do with America as it did
with Iran’s repressive ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, seen as a
pawn of the U.S. in its war against communism.

After Pahlavi fled Iran in 1953, a U.S.-backed coup restored him to
power. He turned into a ruthless leader, paranoid and determined not to
lose his throne again. The shah created a brutal secret police force
and cracked down on Islam. He tried to make Iran a Western oasis in the
Middle East.

When faced with dictator-like leaders who embrace the West, people in
Islamic countries have often used religion as a political tool.

The cleric Hussein Ali Montazeri became a leader in the underground
Islamic movement. He was a close friend of the popular Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini, exiled to Iraq and later France for speaking against
the shah. Khomeini called his former student “the fruit of my life.”

Throughout Iran, rebels handed out smuggled tapes and leaflets of
Khomeini’s preachings, from mosque to mosque, living room to living
room, rallying people against Pahlavi and the influence of America.

Young men left home to join the movement. Women abandoned jeans for the
tent-like black chador, a statement of Islamic and Iranian pride.

In Iran, the secular leadership at first refused to bend, responding
with brute force. Police shot unarmed religious students in Qom, home
to major seminaries and clerics such as Montazeri. Rebels were jailed
and tortured.

“They broke all my teeth,” recalled Hussein Shariatmadari, now a
representative of Iran’s supreme leader and editor of the conservative
Kayhan newspaper. “Two of my toenails, they ripped them off. They gave
me electrical shocks. I lost my kidney.”

By 1978, Iran was boiling. Protests and riots rolled through the
country for the entire year. People hurled rocks at soldiers, Molotov
cocktails at tanks. The rebellion spread like a fever.

In a last-ditch attempt to pacify the country, the government in the
fall of 1978 released many political prisoners, including Montazeri,
who flew to Paris to meet with Khomeini.

When a new grandson was born, Montazeri’s family named him “Down with
the shah.”

Within months, the shah fled. Khomeini flew home, and Montazeri became
his right-hand man, helping run the new country’s affairs. He leaned on
an automatic rifle while leading Friday prayers at Tehran University.
He supervised the writing of a new constitution.

Montazeri favored a government that would, theoretically, prevent any
one person from grabbing too much power. Iran would be an Islamic
democracy, with an elected parliament and an elected president, watched
over by the Council of Guardians and the supreme spiritual leader. But
the clerics were on uncharted ground.

“We were not familiar with the issue of lawmaking,” Montazeri recalled.
“We were just some clerics in Qom.”

The more-secular nationalists worried that this system created the
potential for an Islamic dictator. But Iranians overwhelmingly voted
for an Islamic republic and Montazeri’s constitution.

The new leaders promised to respect other faiths and set aside five
parliament seats for minorities. Armenian Christians were even allowed
to legally make their own wine for religious services. But over the
years, many of different faiths, whether Jewish or Zoroastrian, would
leave Iran, complaining of repression and persecution.

As expected, Khomeini was named Iran’s first supreme leader. And
eventually, Montazeri was designated his successor. He never commanded
the same respect as Khomeini, a larger-than-life, god-like figure.
Critics joked that he looked like the cat from a popular cartoon.

Doubts emerge

But Montazeri surprised people.

Emadeddin Baghi was one of many who moved to Qom in the early years of
the Islamic Republic, when seminaries overflowed and people packed into
Montazeri’s office. Baghi, a loner on a spiritual quest, avoided the
powerful Montazeri.

In 1985, Baghi wrote a book that argued for an individual’s right to
interpret Islam. Khomeini banned it. Baghi watched as his books were
shredded, boxed and carried out of Qom.

Montazeri asked to see Baghi and told the young man that he liked his
book. “He was very sympathetic,” Baghi recalled. “He said, `There are
always ups and downs.’ He told me, `One day, as No. 2 in the country, I
still might be sentenced to death by my own friends.'”

Behind the scenes, Montazeri had started to question the direction of
the country. As its next supreme leader, he worried about the death
toll from the war with Iraq. He complained about the number of people
being executed in Iran. Montazeri wrote letters to Khomeini.

“I saw some flaws and faults,” Montazeri recalled. “I always told him
about them.”

He did not see this as a change in his views. Instead, Montazeri felt
he was trying to correct the direction of the republic, which he
believed had veered away from the goals of the revolution and had
started to repress people. As the Iraq war dragged on and the economy
sputtered, others in Iran grew disenchanted as well.

In July 1988, Montazeri accused Khomeini of ordering the execution of
hundreds of jailed opponents. “This genocide is incompatible with
Islam,” he wrote in a letter, later made public.

And then, in February 1989, to mark the 10th anniversary of the Islamic
Revolution, Montazeri gave a critical speech to followers in Qom.

“On many occasions we showed obstinacy, shouted slogans that frightened
the world,” he said. “The people of the world thought our only task in
Iran was to kill people.”

Along with the actions of several leading politicians, Montazeri’s
speech signaled that Iran’s leaders were moving in a more liberal
direction. But within days, Khomeini indicated where he wanted the
country to go: He announced a death ruling for author Salman Rushdie,
accused of defaming Islam.

The next month, Montazeri was asked to resign, and the landscape
changed throughout the country. His photographs were ripped down,
murals painted over. Streets, squares and hospitals were renamed.

Shortly after, Khomeini died, and President Ali Khamenei was named
supreme leader.

Critics said Montazeri became outspoken only because he was bitter.

“As long as he was the deputy, he didn’t criticize,” recalled
Hamid-Reza Taraqqi, a longtime friend of Khamenei’s. “Once he lost his
job and his capacity, then he started to criticize.”

But Montazeri said he had always privately criticized the government.
He made his complaints public only when problems were not fixed.

In spite of his critics, he soon developed a strong following. New
students such as Baghi and a young cleric named Mohsen Kadivar started
to come to Montazeri’s office and his religious classes. They belonged
to an unofficial group of people who had fought the revolution as young
students but now questioned the direction of the country.

These Iranians had not turned their back on Islam, not become
secularists. Instead, they were Islamic intellectuals who pushed for a
new kind of Iran. They called for reform, for change from within the
system.

In Montazeri, who had helped form the republic and write the
constitution, these people found someone they respected.

“If he remained quiet, he would have been the successor,” recalled
Kadivar, who became a top student of Montazeri’s. “But he rejected this
in the name of human rights. It’s a very great thing for me–greater
than all his lessons.”

Hopes for change

By the mid-1990s, many Iranians had grown frustrated with their
government. In an echo of the shah’s time, people complained about a
ruthless dictator, about not being allowed to dress how they pleased,
to say what they wanted. But they also worried about the lack of jobs
and the loss of the country’s brightest to the West because they could
not find good work in Iran.

And then, in 1997, a moderate cleric named Mohammad Khatami ran for
president on a reformist platform. In a shock to the country’s leaders,
he won.

There were high hopes of a “Tehran Spring,” a relaxing of all the
restrictions, a warming toward the West. Reform newspapers were
planned. Reformist political parties were created.

In the new environment, certain social restrictions were eased–an
unmarried man and woman could get away with holding hands. Women
started to wear skimpier head scarves, often pulled back behind their
ears. They dyed their hair with streaks of blond, red and silver.

Despite the optimism, it was soon clear who was really in charge. True
power in Iran rested not with elected officials but with the appointed
Islamic supreme leader and the appointed Council of Guardians.

The supreme leader, not the elected president, controlled the most
powerful parts of the government: the judiciary, the military and much
of the media. And the conservative Council of Guardians, which had veto
power, screened potential candidates for office and laws passed by
parliament.

After Khatami became president, Montazeri gave a lecture at his small
school in Qom, questioning the authority of the supreme leader. “No
government can rule by the stick any longer,” he said. Although the
speech was not reported in state-run media, copies of it circulated,
and word of it spread.

Hard-line government supporters had often ignored Montazeri. Since his
removal as Khomeini’s successor, the cleric had been shoved aside in
the country’s political scene. He was an old man with little power, the
forgotten ayatollah.

But with so much change and so many ordinary Iranians pining for a more
open society, Montazeri was now seen as a real threat.

In November 1997, five days after Montazeri’s lecture, a rally was held
in Qom to support the supreme leader. But the rally turned violent, and
the mob attacked Montazeri’s school, office and home. People spray
painted “Heretic of the age” on a wall. Police used tear gas on the
crowd. When security forces tried to take Montazeri away, he refused,
saying he would rather die in his home.

Accused of treason, Montazeri was placed under house arrest, guards
stationed outside. His school was closed. Relatives and followers were
thrown in jail.

Other reformists in Iran continued to push the limits of the
government. But there was no chance of winning.

“It was like playing chess with a gorilla,” recalled Baghi, who had
left the clergy to become a writer. “There were no rules.”

The reformists won control of parliament, but the conservative Council
of Guardians vetoed new legislation. The reformist culture minister
granted new newspaper licenses, but the conservative judiciary shut
many new publications–85 in all.

Hamidreza Jalaeipour, a former student revolutionary, helped start 10
reformist newspapers. “All were closed,” Jalaeipour recalled. “They
told me you are threatening the national security of Iran.”

Eventually the government jailed provocative writers, including Kadivar
and Baghi.

>From his home, Montazeri reached out to the world. Followers launched a
Montazeri Web site and published his memoirs, which accused Khomeini of
personally ordering the death of thousands of opponents. With a
worldwide audience, Montazeri became more popular, a symbol of the
government’s repression.

In January 2003, five years, two months and 10 days after being locked
in his house, Montazeri was freed. Officials never gave a reason.

Protected by family members and close followers, Montazeri walked
slowly to the major shrine of Qom to see the grave of his oldest son,
killed in a bombing by Marxist rebels in 1981. And then Montazeri
walked back home. He would rarely leave again.

Disappointment

By this year, many people said they had lost hope. The reformist
government had been unable to make real changes, and the clerics still
controlled Iran. The country’s love affair with Khatami was over.

Parliamentary elections were scheduled for February, but many Iranians
said they planned to skip them.

“We made a big mistake once–we voted for Khatami. We’re not going to
make the same mistake twice,” said Surena, 30, who did not want to give
her last name, fearful that she would be punished for criticizing the
regime.

The Council of Guardians made sure that conservatives would win the
election. In one of its boldest moves since being established, the
council disqualified about 2,500 potential candidates, mostly
reformists, even sitting members of parliament. Most were deemed
un-Islamic.

Reformists called for a national protest. They held a sit-in for 26
days in a lobby area near the parliament meeting room.

On one afternoon, about 100 men and women sat in the lobby, on carpets
and chairs. Hamidreza Jalaeipour, the former newspaper publisher,
stepped up to the lectern. Jalaeipour, who teaches a class about
revolution at the University of Tehran, delivered an unsparing
assessment of the Islamic Revolution. He said the country now has
millions of drug addicts, millions of unemployed people.

“You’ll find fewer people in the mosques,” he said. “They were supposed
to be more crowded.”

Jalaeipour talked so loudly that his voice could still be heard when
his microphone stopped working. He urged the reformists to keep
fighting for a free election. “If it doesn’t happen, you can hold your
head up and say, `We did something,'” he yelled, and everyone put down
their newspapers and clapped.

But the streets outside were largely silent. Students did not protest
as they had in recent years. They knew the reformists would lose, and
they feared that the conservatives would crack down. No one talked
about a revolution against the clerics. And most people no longer put
their faith in the reformists. Instead, many young people were resigned
to waiting. Eventually, they would be in charge.

So in an election with few alternatives, conservatives won. “We must
prove to our enemies that nothing is more important to us than Islam
and the revolution,” Zohreh Moazezi, 40, said as she voted. “We have so
many martyrs here, we have to respect their blood.”

About half of Iran’s eligible voters cast ballots, the lowest turnout
in parliamentary elections since the revolution but not as small as
reformists had hoped. Some voters turned in blank ballots in protest.

Cleric’s regrets

Montazeri, suffering from diabetes and hard of hearing, now spends his
days inside his house. He is not prone to long explanations and does
not always answer questions, preferring to talk about what he wants. He
is full of regret.

As a younger man, Montazeri tried to expand the Islamic Revolution to
other countries. He led Friday prayers and shouted “Down with the
U.S.A.” He supported taking hostages at the U.S. Embassy. All were
wrong, he said.

“These were all mistakes, and maybe I was one of them too, impressed by
the circumstances, like the occupation of the U.S. Embassy,” Montazeri
said. “It was a mistake then, but mistakes prevailed upon wisdom.”

Ibrahim Yazdi, the country’s first foreign minister, met with Montazeri
in January. “He complained about the Council of Guardians,” Yazdi said.
“I said, `Well, that is your byproduct. You created it. You did it.’
Without any hesitation, he said, `Well, we didn’t know these things. We
didn’t have any experience. We made a mistake.'”

Montazeri is now considered to be one of the top two Shiite legal
experts in the world. He has continued to modify earlier opinions.
Women are allowed to watch him teach–a rarity in Qom. Montazeri
recently said women and men can shake hands in certain situations–a
liberal ruling for any Muslim cleric.

He still demands change. He wants Iran to be run according to the
principles of the Islamic Revolution, which he says are freedom,
democracy and Islam. He wants an elected top leader who derives his
power from people, not from God.

Before the election, Montazeri was courted by both reformists and the
government, aware that the dissident cleric’s opinion could sway
certain voters. Reformists asked him to say publicly whether he would
cast a ballot. But he said he did not want to interfere with voting.

On election day, officials offered to send a ballot box to Montazeri’s
home so he could easily vote. He told them not to bother. At least
eight of the top 12 grand ayatollahs did not vote, protesting the
elections, said Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, who lives next to
Montazeri.

It’s not clear what the new parliament will do when it takes over in a
few weeks. Some believe that conservatives will again try to crack down
on social freedoms, and others believe this is impossible.

“Nobody can stop these freedoms,” said Ataollah Mohajerani, the former
culture minister under Khatami. “Freedom is like a genie in a bottle.
Once you open it, it’s hard to put back in.”

If the country does not continue with reform, some clerics worry about
the future of Islam in Iran. They say Iran is still religious, but they
fear that the Islamic Republic and its vision of religion might be
hurting Islam.

“If our prophet said something like what these people say–the supreme
leader and his men–why would people continue to be Muslims?” asked
Kadivar, an ally of Montazeri’s. “No one would follow him.”

Shortly after the election, Kadivar attracted 1,000 people for a speech
at a Tehran community center. For three hours, he lectured in his quiet
voice, laying out 10 ways to identify an unjust government, starting
with lack of tolerance for peaceful opposition and ending with unfair
distribution of wealth. He never mentioned Iran. But the implication
was clear.

Throughout the speech, people listened quietly and took notes. One of
Montazeri’s grandsons, Meisam Hashemi, sat near the front, next to
Kadivar’s son.

When he was born, Hashemi was given the name “Down with the shah,”
which was changed after the shah was deposed. He is now 25, the same
age as the Islamic Republic. He is a religious man, but he believes
religion has no place in his government. Hashemi is no revolutionary.
He understands the value of moving slowly.

Montazeri wants Hashemi and his other grandsons to become clerics, like
all three of his sons. “After all, it is not bad to be a clergyman,”
Montazeri said, talking about all he has done for Islam and for people
in Iran, all that the clergy can contribute to the world.

But Hashemi gives the same answer as Montazeri’s 12 other grandsons:
No.

Hashemi wants to do something with his life that could really make a
difference for his family. He wants to be a criminal lawyer.

– – –

The world’s largest Shiite population

Iran is predominantly Shiite Muslim, a form of Islam that differs
slightly from the more prevalent Sunni Islam. About 10 to 20 percent of
Muslims worldwide are Shiite.

SUNNI — SHIITE SCHISM

Origin of the split: After Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632, a
disagreement arose over who should succeed him as leader of Islam. Two
main factions emerged, creating a rift that remains almost 14 centuries
later.

– Shiites believe that Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, was his
rightful successor, and that Ali’s descendants are the true leaders of
Islam.

– Sunnis believe that Muhammad’s most pious companions were his
rightful successors, and that the leaders of Islam may be chosen by
consensus.

OTHER DIFFERENCE

– Shiite clerics generally have more authority among their followers
than Sunni clerics do among theirs.

– Most Shiites reject the idea of predestination (that God has decided
who is saved and who is damned), which Sunnis accept.

– Shiites allow temporary marriages and use different inheritance laws.

Iran

Population: 68.3 million (2003 est.)

Government type: Islamic republic

Literacy rate: 79 percent

Industries: Petroleum, textiles, construction materials, food
processing

Poverty rate: 40 percent (2002)

Per capita GDP: $1,686 (2002)

Sources: CIA World Factbook, U.S. State Department, University of Texas
Library

Online, Council on Foreign Relations, World Book Encyclopedia,
Economist.com

Chicago Tribune

,1,5525446.story?coll=chi-news-hed

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0405020477may02

Budget receipts will double

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
May 1, 2004

BUDGET RECEIPTS WILL DOUBLE=20

At the April 27 meeting of the NKR government the bill “On confirming
the annual account on execution of the NKR state budget of 2003” was
discussed. In this reference NKR prime minister Anoushavan Danielian
mentioned that the government had set an aim to maintain high rates of
economic development and provided steep economic growth in 2003. “The
analysis of the macroeconomic rates provided by the NKR National
Statistics Service allows concluding that the year 2003 was crucial in
the economic development of NKR,” said the head of the government.
“In 2003 the growth of the GDP in the republic totaled 19.8 percent.
The dynamics of the growth of industrial production totaled 43.8
percent, electricity excluding 52.3 percent. The growth of fabrication
of consumption products totaled 40.3 percent. The growth of the gross
agricultural output against the previous year totaled 25.7
percent. The growth of the volume of implemented capital building
totaled 29.1 percent. The cash incomes of the populations increased by
17.1 percent, the expenditure by 18.1 percent.” The results of growing
volume of external circulation of commodities are also satisfying. In
2003 the external circulation of commodities increased by 34.5
percent, including the growth of import by 13 percent and increase of
export 2.5 times. The comparative dynamics of growth of agricultural
output and production also testify to the stable economic
development. Thus, after 11 percent decline of production in 2000
production increased by 16.8 percent, in 2001 by 21.6 percent, in 2002
by 36.2 percent and in 2003 43.8 percent. Gross agricultural output in
2001 totaled 13 billion AM drams, in 2002 15 billion drams, in 2003 21
billion drams maintaining growth by 25.7 percent. The prime minister
drew attention to the comparison of export rates. If in 2000 the
volume of export totaled only 2 million dollars, in 2001 it increased
2.6 times and totaled about 5.4 million dollars. In 2002 export
increased 2.5 times totaling 14 million dollars, in 2001 2.1 times
totaling 17 million dollars. 2003 was crucial also by an unprecedented
growth of own budget receipts by 41.8 percent, including from profit
tax by 25.6 percent and income tax by 34.6 percent. Economic reforms
implemented by the government in recent years, relieving of the tax
load, liberal market economy, active involvement of investors promoted
the development of the private sector, which favoured the fundamental
qualitative and structural changes in the GDP of the republic. If in
2000 production of the private sector totaled 25 percent of the
production of the republic, currently the private sector provides 75
percent of the production, which testifies to fundamental changes in
the change of the economic profile of the republic. “I have to
emphasize that being crucial in the sense of growth of macroeconomic
rates, 2003 is a starting point for qualitative improvement and stable
development in the upcoming years,” said Anoushavan Danielian. “That
is to say, fundamental conditions have been created for shifting the
economy to a new level. However, nobody should have illusions that we
have overcome all the difficulties. On the contrary, I think that we
will have to face real difficulties in the future. This is not a
popular expression but the characterization of the economic situation
of the country.” The prime minister mentioned that despite the high
rates of economic growth, the country=E2=80=99s economic development
should be characterized as rehabilitative. “It is a phenomenon known
to world economy but uncommon and studied little. I think this is a
separate topic of discussion, for which I will give more comments in
the future. However, one thing is obvious: rehabilitative growth has a
dangerous character. As a rule, according to E. Gayday, it has a
so-called fading nature. The high rates of economic development drop
gradually, which later becomes a serious problem for the
country=E2=80=99s economy.” At the same time the head of the executive
added that the government will continue improving the programs, making
reforms, hence also the rates of economic growth long-lasting and
stable. Here the scientifically grounded direction of main
macroeconomic rates and means of implementation of those rates are
shifted to the foreground. That is to say, although the stable
maintenance of high rates of development is difficult, it is not
impossible. Summing up A. Danielian mentioned, “The current rates of
economic development allow to confirm that the GDP, as we have
planned, will grow 5 times. In 2004 the volume of own budget receipts
will double against 2002. In 2004 we must provide growth of production
1.5 times. Every year salaries and pensions will be raised in the
upcoming two years the average salary will total 50-55 thousand drams,
the minimum salary will double.”=20

AA=20

BAKU: Iran releases some Azeris detained over clashes with Armenians

Iran releases some ethnic Azeris detained over clashes with Armenians – TV

ANS TV, Baku
26 Apr 04

[Presenter] Some of our compatriots arrested over clashes in Tehran
between Iran’s Azeris and Armenians, who protested against the 1915
events in Turkey, have already been set free.

[Correspondent, over Iranian footage] Some Azeris arrested after the
Azeri-Armenian clashes in Iran have been released on bail. Ethnic
Azeris had spoken about their plans to stage protest actions outside
international organizations if the detainees were not released. The
correspondent of the Iranian TV channel Sahar-2, Novruz Purmand,
confirmed the report.

[Novruz Purmand, in Azeri] Policemen have so far been investigating
the case in which both Armenians and Azeris were involved. They had a
row. Both sides claim that some of their people were injured in the
clashes. I talked to relatives of those injured today. The policemen
are investigating the case. The injuries are not serious. The
investigation is under way.

[Passage omitted: reported details]

According to the Congress of Azerbaijanis of the World, some members
of the Azerbaijani political committee [as heard] were also
arrested. The congress sent a letter to Iranian officials today
demanding that our compatriots be immediately released and that the
Armenians, who provoked the clashes and injured our compatriots, be
immediately brought to book. The aide to the Azerbaijani ambassador to
Iran, Cavansir Vakiloglu, said that he had found out about this from
local journalists. He added he had no information about those injured
or jailed.

[Vakiloglu, on the phone] We do not have this kind of information. The
duty of the Azerbaijani embassy here is to represent our country’s
policies abroad and to implement the foreign policy tasks set by our
president. We cannot interfere in the internal affairs of our close
neighbour Iran or any other country.

[Correspondent, over video] The Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan told
ANS that he learnt about the case from the Azerbaijani media. Ahad
Q’azai did not think that the incident was serious. Therefore he had
not got in touch with Tehran to familiarize himself with the
situation.

Leyla Hasanova, ANS.