joseph parikian

Does any one have the number of turks that left turkey since 1922 If Europeans alow turkey to join them i bet you more than half the population will move to europe ====================================================== From Cnn com http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/europe/12/16/eu.turkey.gaddafi.reut/story.gadhafi.jpg Gadhafi warns Turkey threatens EU Friday, December 17, 2004 Posted: 3:51 AM EST (0851 GMT) Gadhafi: EU entry is militants' "Trojan horse." SPECIAL REPORT ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has said it would be dangerous for the European Union to admit Turkey as a member state, calling the accession bid a "Trojan horse" for Islamic militants like Osama bin Laden. "As far as the Islamic world is concerned -- including the Islamic extremists, even bin Laden -- they're rejoicing over the entry of Turkey in the European Union. This is their Trojan horse," he was quoted as saying by the Italian media. "I'm saying only what will happen with the entry of the horse into Troy," he added in comments published on the day EU leaders met in Brussels to discuss whether to begin accession talks with the secular but overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey. Gadhafi made his comments in an interview with RAI television, which is due to be aired on Friday. A transcript was printed on Thursday in Italy's La Repubblica daily. The Libyan leader said that he did not care whether Turkey was admitted, explaining that he was "only saying what will be the consequences." In a broad interview, also covering subjects from Afghanistan to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Gadhafi said he hoped to begin joint work with EU leaders soon on the issue of combating illegal immigration. He said he would invite "interested" European heads of state for a summit in Tripoli, as his country ends decades of isolation. "The date is not yet established, but we are working seriously," he said. Libya pledged to abandon its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs last year, prompting the United States to agree to lift its trade embargo earlier this year. The United States has not, however, dropped Libya from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, which bars Tripoli from receiving U.S. arms exports, controls sales to Libya of items with military and civilian uses and limits U.S. aid. Gadhafi complained that Libya had still been poorly compensated for abandoning the weapons programs, and appeared to request assistance from the international community in setting up a civilian nuclear power program. "Their reaction has been good, in terms of words, but there's been nothing concrete," Gadhafi said. When asked what kind of compensation he was looking for Gadhafi said: "Transforming atomic (programs) to civilian use, after we decided to abandon military (program)." He did not necessarily see new hope for the Middle East peace process following the death of Yasser Arafat, who Gadhafi called by his nom de guerre, Abu Ammar. "I know the Americans and the Israelis said that Abu Ammar was the problem when he was alive. Ammar is dead. Will peace be realized?" Gadhafi asked. "No. I turn the question to those who said the problem was Abu Ammar. Now the ball is in their court. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/16...y.gaddafi.reut/

Merry Christmas to you too Can you tell me where it was discussed I missed it

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/internat.../26armenia.html http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2004/12/26/international/26armenia_184.jpg Melik Bagdasarian/Agence France-Presse-Getty Images Dependent on costly imports and aid, Armenians face a harsh winter with many relying on wood for fuel. Armenia's Isolation Grows Only Deeper By SUSAN SACHS Published: December 26, 2004 EREVAN, Armenia - Landlocked and stuck in a cold war with two of its four neighbors, Armenia has rarely seemed so alone as in the past few months. Citing terrorism concerns, Russia abruptly sealed its border with Georgia in September and kept it closed for nearly two months, effectively cutting off the road that was the main route for Armenian trade with Russia. Advertisement At the same time, Armenians had to watch from the sidelines as Azerbaijan and Georgia celebrated the completion of a large section of the pipeline to carry Caspian Sea oil to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The $5 billion regional energy project bypasses Armenia and excludes it from the hefty fees the participating countries will get. Another bitter pill came in October, when the European Union's executive commission recommended that Turkey start negotiations for full membership without first having to end its rail and land blockade of Armenia. [On Dec. 17, the European Union invited Turkey to begin those talks without mentioning Armenia's demands in its decision. European Union leaders said Turkey could join within 10 years. For many people in this impoverished country, the events added up to a reminder of their deepening isolation. "If nothing changes, Armenia will be left as an island," said Levon Barseghyan, who is active in politics in Gyumri, a rundown town on a railway line that was closed by Turkey in 1992. "Everyone will forget about Armenia." As winter closes in, bringing the risk of new hardships in a country heavily dependent on imports and foreign aid, the prospects appear grim without outside intervention. Despite infusions of cash from Armenians living abroad that account for more than 20 percent of the country's income, and strong economic growth for the last decade, nearly half of the country's three million people live in poverty, on less than $2 a day. The limited opportunities have contributed to an exodus of working-age Armenians since independence 13 years ago, with some estimates putting the population loss at nearly 30 percent. Armenia's long-running conflict with Azerbaijan, its oil-rich neighbor to the east, remains one of the more intractable problems left from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Both countries claim Nagorno-Artsax, a mountainous slice of land that is geographically inside the borders of Azerbaijan but is controlled by ethnic Armenian separatists. Their six-year war over the region ended with a cease-fire in 1994, after 35,000 people had been killed and an estimated one million, most of them Azeri, had become refugees. Turkey, Armenia's big neighbor to the west, has backed its Turkic ally, Azerbaijan, and closed its land border with Armenia. Turkish leaders have said they will not reopen the border until Armenia starts withdrawing its troops from in and around Artsax. Peace negotiations have ground to a standstill despite mediation efforts by Russia, France and the United States. "On neither side is there a public mood that is conducive to compromise," said a Western diplomat in Yerevan. The stalemate has left Armenia boxed in from the east and the west. Turkish and Russian goods make their way to Armenia, but with the added cost of air transportation or road transit through third countries like Georgia. Georgia's roads, however, have sometimes been closed because of political instability or, as was the case this fall, because of action by Russia. Armenia's only other direct outlet is through Iran to the south, where trade has been hampered by a poor road network and lack of railway lines. The cost of building two needed new lines to Iran has been estimated at more than $1.5 billion. Armenian officials have been eager to revive peace talks with Azerbaijan but have also refused to make unilateral concessions on Artsax, which they consider liberated Armenian territory, in exchange for Turkey's reopening of rail and road traffic. "We won't trade off Artsax for a railroad," said the foreign minister, Vardan Oskanyan, adding that Armenians have learned to cope with their isolation. "Things are evolving around us," he said. "Let it be." Many Armenians, foreign donors and economists are not nearly as sanguine. While the economy has recovered from the near-total blockade on Armenia in the early 1990's, its growth rate could increase by as much as 50 percent if the eastern and western borders reopened, according to international studies. Such dire circumstances might be expected to provoke political unrest. But President Robert Kocharian, a Artsax native and former commander of the separatist forces who was re-elected to a second term last year, has wide public support for his Artsax policy. "Every day the government tells us our economy can flourish without opening the Turkish border and without solving the Artsax problem," said Aram Abrahamyan, editor of the daily Aravot. "And the government propaganda succeeds with the common people." But a continuation of the status quo could be costly. Armenia 2020, a privately financed research group in Yerevan, has commissioned studies of the country's future, based on a range of possible developments including no easing of the blockade on Armenia. The studies concluded that "if there are no changes, there is no prosperity," said Artashes Kazakhetsyan, the director of the group. Armenia has focused much of its effort on a two-pronged approach to Turkey. It has appealed directly to Turkish leaders to normalize relations. At the same time, it has tried to increase diplomatic pressure, openly questioning Turkey's fitness to start European Union entry talks before addressing Armenian grievances. In an interview, Mr. Oskanyan said he did not understand why European leaders ignored what he called Turkey's "faults and shortcomings" with regard to Armenia. "What is regrettable," he said, "is that Europe is closing its eyes on Turkey's petulance." While Turkey has changed many of its policies over the last two years to win European Union acceptance, there has been no indication of a shift in its official line toward Armenia. Private contacts between Turks and Armenians will continue to be encouraged, said a senior Turkish diplomat in Ankara, who asked that his name not be used, in accordance with Foreign Ministry rules. Trade will continue. But the diplomat said the political impasse must be broken by Armenia. "We can't change our policy on the Azeris," he said. "So the first move has to come from Armenia. We would like to see an opening, even a small opening, on Nagorno-Artsax." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/internat.../26armenia.html

http://www.roslin.com/images/cards/NativityIII.gif Merry Christmas and Happy New Year To all my fellow Armenians

Hillary's Handwriting Last winter Bill Clinton was going for his jog when he noticed "Die Bill Clinton, Die" written in urine in the snow. He had the Secret Service analyze this writing. They said that they had good news and they had bad news. Bill said, "well give me the good news first." They said the good news is that it was Al Gores urine. "What!", he exclaimed, if that is the Good news, then what could be the bad. They replied "It was Hillary's hand writting."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_pumpkin.jpg

From Times Online-World November 05, 2004 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot' By Tim Reid The Democratic challenger repeatedly shot himself in the foot JOHN KERRY constantly squabbled with his difficult and hypochondriac wife, ran a campaign team riven by internal feuding, and repeatedly begged the Republican senator John McCain to become his running-mate, according to a riveting inside account of his doomed presidential bid. The Massachusetts senator was so obsessed with getting advice from a multitude of rival advisers that one aide confiscated his mobile telephone. His wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, became such a moody distraction that in the closing weeks of the campaign another aide instructed her to stop whispering advice in his ear and back off. At the same time, according to Newsweek, the relentlessly disciplined Bush White House, which only once descended into near panic after the President’s disastrous first debate performance, became so aghast and delighted at Mr Kerry’s ability to shoot himself in the foot that they almost felt sorry for him. One of the untold stories of the presidential campaign was the erratic behaviour of the candidate’s wife, the Heinz heiress Mr Kerry married in 1995, according to Newsweek. She drove her Secret Service detail mad with her chronic lateness, constantly demanded attention, including her husband’s (who seemed to tread on eggshells when around her). She even sent him off on errands, such as fetching bottles of water. She clashed with Mary Beth Cahill, Mr Kerry ’s campaign manager, and Mr Kerry was caught in the middle. At the climax of a coast-to-coast campaign tour after the Democrat convention in August, Mr Kerry’s aides had crafted a family holiday hike in the Grand Canyon, with the candidate’s wife and two daughters, Alexandra and Vanessa. But shortly after the hike began, Mrs Heinz Kerry was soon complaining of migraines, telling her husband that she could not go on. The end of the hike led to one of the biggest blunders of Mr Kerry’s campaign, one of several times he fell squarely into traps set for him by Mr Bush’s re-election team. For several days, Mr Bush had been issuing this challenge to Mr Kerry: if he knew before the Iraq war that no weapons would be found, would he still have voted to authorise the war (Mr Bush insisted that he, as President, would still have invaded). Asked this by a reporter at the Grand Canyon, Mr Kerry said yes, he would still have voted to give Mr Bush “the authority” to invade. In Bush-Cheney headquarters, they could hardly believe their luck that he handed them another flip-flop. But they had always believed that, properly baited, he could be led into a trap. Inside the Bush re-election “Strategery Room” (named after a famous Bush malapropism), a sign above the door read: IT’S THE HYPOCRISY, STUPID, a reference to Mr Kerry’s constantly shifting positions. The greatest moment inside this room came when Mr Kerry, after days of baiting by the Bush campaign over his vote for the war, but his vote against an $87 billion (£47 billion) request for funding it, told a rally: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” “Oh my God,” said Terry Holt, Mr Bush’s communications adviser, as he watched the blunder on television. Mark McKinnon, Mr Bush’s advertising chief, said: “The second we saw it, we knew we had a new ad. The greatest gifts in politics are the gifts the other side gives you.” Mr Kerry, now in sessions with a speech coach, grew increasingly frustrated. After a faltering press conference by Mr Bush in April, and with Iraq in turmoil, Mr Kerry exclaimed: “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot”. During the early summer, Mr Kerry implored Mr McCain, the maverick Republican who ran against Mr Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, to become his running-mate, meeting him seven times. He even offered to expand the vice-presidency to include running the Pentagon. “I can’t say this is an offer because I’ve got to be able to deny it,” Mr Kerry told Mr McCain. “But you’ve got to do this.” Mr McCain told him he was out of his mind, and went on to embrace Mr Bush. “Goddammit,” a furious Mr Kerry said to an aide. “Don’t you know what I offered him? Why the f*** didn’t he take it?” At the time, Mr Kerry also thought that John Edwards, his eventual choice, was overly ambitious. “What makes this guy think he can be president?” he asked staff in February. After the anti-Kerry Swift Boat veteran attacks in August that questioned his Vietnam service, Mr Kerry’s campaign was in turmoil, beset by feuds, indecision and dithering. Mr Kerry, often generous to his staff but a constant whiner, had reverted to indecision, unable to straighten the mess out. Enter James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former strategist. So appalled was he by the chaos inside the campaign, and so desperate to see Mr Bush defeated, that in early September he decided that Miss Cahill had to be ousted, and Joe Lockhart, Mr Clinton’s former spokesman, inserted as manager. When he called a meeting with the pair, he was so worked up, he began to cry, screaming to Miss Cahill: “You’ve got to let him (Mr Lockhart) do it!” Mr Lockhart duly took over, and Mr Clinton’s former campaign team virtually moved in. When Mr Kerry telephoned Mr Clinton in hospital hours before his heart bypass surgery to wish him luck, he received a 90-minute lecture. Mr Clinton, correctly sensing that “values” would play a crucial role in voters’ minds, urged Mr Kerry to back local ballot initiatives calling for a ban on gay marriage. (Mr Kerry refused). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...1345580,00.html

http://www.armenianteens.com/funny-pictures/blind_jump.jpg

Americans spoke • Presidential Race At A Glance Votes EV* John KERRY 54,842,785 242 George BUSH 58,360,008 254 Ralph NADER 390,747 0

http://www.artie.com/anims/arg-Trapdoor-Clown-is-Copyright-2000-ARG.gif http://www.artie.com/anims/arg-Trapdoor-Clown-is-Copyright-2000-ARG.gif Make-up your mined between George and Kery

JOB APPLICATION NAME: John Kerry RESIDENCE: 7 mansions, including one in Washington DC, worth multi-millions. I served in Vietnam (four months). EXPERIENCE: Law Enforcement. In my career as a U.S. Senator, I've voted to cut every law enforcement, CIA, and Defense bill. I ordered the city of Boston to remove a fire hydrant in front of my mansion, thereby endangering my neighbors in the event of fire. I served in Vietnam (four months). MILITARY: I served in Vietnam (four months). I used three minor injuries to get an early discharge from the military and service in Vietnam (as documented by the attending doctor). I served in Vietnam (four months). I then returned to the U.S., joined Jane Fonda in protesting the war, and insulted returning Vietnam vets, claiming they committed> atrocities and were baby killers. I served in Vietnam (four months). I threw my ribbons, or something away in protest. Or did I? (I kept the medals) My book "Vietnam Veterans Against the War: The New Soldier", shows how I truly feel about the military. I served in Vietnam (four months). COLLEGE: I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. Unlike my counterpart George Bush, I have no higher education and did not get admitted to Harvard nor graduate with an M.B.A PAST WORK EXPERIENCE: After College and Vietnam, I ran for the U.S. Congress and have been there ever since. I have no real world experience except marrying very rich women and running their companies vicariously through them. I served in Vietnam (four months). ACCOMPLISHMENTS: As a U.S. Senator I set the record for the most liberal voting record, exceeding even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. I have consistently failed to support our military and CIA by voting against their budgets, thus gutting our country's ability to defend itself. Although I voted for the Iraq War, now I am against it and refuse to admit that I voted for it. I voted for every liberal piece of legislation. I have no plan to help this country but I intend to raise taxes significantly if I am elected. I served in Vietnam (four months). My wealth so far exceeds that of my counterpart, George Bush, that he will never catch up. I make little or no charitable contributions and have never agreed to pay any voluntary excess taxes in Massachusetts, despite family wealth in excess of $ 700 million. I served in Vietnam (four months). I (we) own 28 manufacturing plants (Heinz) outside of the U.S. in places like Asia, Mexico and Europe. We can make more profit from the cheaper cost of labor in those Countries, although I blame George Bush for sending all of the other jobs out of Country. I served in Vietnam (four months). Although I claim to be in favor of alternative energy sources, Ted Kennedy and I oppose windmills off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as it might spoil our view of the ocean as we cruise on our yachts. I served in Vietnam (four months). RECORDS AND REFERENCES: None. However, I served in Vietnam (four months). PERSONAL: I practice my Catholic faith whenever cameras are present. I ride a Serotta Bike. I love to ski/snowboard. I call my Gulfstream V Jet the "Flying Squirrel". I call my $850,000 42-foot Hinckley twin diesel yacht the "Scarmouche". I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop and feel it reflects our real culture. I own several "Large" SUVs including one parked at my Nantucket summer mansion, though I am against large, polluting, inefficient vehicles and blame George Bush for our energy problems. I served in Vietnam (four months). PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.

WELCOME WITH OUR BROTHERS FROM ABROAD. EUROPE NEEDS YOU ! Dear Friends. We would like to thank all of you for the positive support and favorable response that you have given to our cause for the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Just a reminder on October 6 2004 The European Commission in Bruxelles will publish openly the Audit concerning the application of Turkey to become a permanent member of the European Common Market,this will take place before the beginning of negotiations with Turkey on Dec 17 2004. It is necessary that Turkey recognizes its previous Genocide of the Armenian people. This must be a precondition for Turkey's acceptance into the European Union. Thank you for signing and encouraging others to sign the Petition. And, thank you very much for all your help and cooperation in this matter. Cordially Yevrobatsi.org Editing Staff and JEAN ECKIAN Co-Organizer of the recording "Aznavour for Armenia" Petition link : click here to download! http://www.yevrobatsi.org/pdf/petition_armenian_genocide.pdf http://www.yevrobatsi.org/st/index.php?r=0

Armat i did not repeat what Bush said This artical was from arminfo http://www.arminfo.am/news-issue900.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_wafflehouse.jpg KERRY DENIES ACCEPTANCE OF ARMENIAN 'GENOCIDE' YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8. ARMINFO. The US Democratic Party's Presidential Candidate, Senator John F. Kerry, put a damper on the expectations of Armenian lobbyists on the issue of genocide. Kerry denied claims made by the Armenian lobby in late August that he will accept the Armenian Genocide resolution. The Presidential candidate told Zaman that he contributed to Senator Robert Dole's initiatives on the subject in 1990, but said he has not made any statement that he would accept the resolution either before the upcoming elections on November 2nd or within the last 10 years. Kerry said, "Turkey is one of America's oldest allies and it will remain so." In the first round of debates between the presidential candidates, Kerry narrowed the gap between him and his Republican rival, US President George W. Bush. Kerry, like Bush, gave his full support to Turkey's accession to the European Union (EU). The Massachusetts Senator added that Turkey's candidacy is a must for both Europe and Turkey. He said if he is elected President, the friendship between the two countries will be maintained as is. At a Democrat Party committee meeting on October 2nd, the Senator paused when he was told that his statement that he intends to accept the alleged Armenian genocide deeply upset Turkish society and voters of Turkish origin. He asked when he had made the statement and was told "last month." Kerry responded by absolutely denying it and stressed that he has said no such thing over the past ten years. At a musical festival titled "Armenstock-Kef for Kerry" held on August 28, 2004 that was organized by the American National Committee for Armenians (ANCA) in Massachusetts, a letter allegedly sent by Kerry was read by Democratic Congressional member, Barney Frank . The letter conveyed that the Democratic Presidential candidate would accept the resolution on April 24, 2005, the 90th anniversary of the alleged Armenian genocide. From ARMINFO ======================================================= Another Flip-Flop

http://www.geocities.com/johnniemccoy/elasticbaby http://www.swoj.com/downl/matrixcow.wmv

I like to see him putting that in writing or come to an Armenian gethering and give that promiss Both parties promissed before and nothing happend

South Caucasus: A war-zone or a place for holidays? An Interview with Hratch Tchilingirian by Khatchig Mouradian Seventh of August,2004 `Abkhazia is not a place for holidays...it is a war zone,' said Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili earlier this month, threatening to sink foreign (implicitly understood as Russian) ships that enter the region without permission from his government. His comments came as tensions escalated between the central authorities of Georgia and two of its breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which Saakashvili has promised to win back. Saakashvili's pronouncements on South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been furiously opposed by Moscow, whose relations with Georgia have plummeted from bad to worse since a `rose revolution' brought pro-western Sakhasvili to power. Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia's South Caucasian neighbors, have been struggling with problems of their own, the most important of which is the Artsax conflict. But despite the various international conflicts they are engaged in, as well as their serious domestic economic and social problems the three ex-soviet republics of the South Caucasus continue to struggle towards political stability, reform and democracy. In this respect, the example of Armenia is telling. I discussed the conflicts in the South Caucasus with Hratch Tchilingirian, who has written and lectured extensively on the region. He is Associate Director of the Eurasia Programme, the Judge Institute, University of Cambridge. He received his PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science and his Master of Public Administration (MPA) from California State University, Northridge. His research covers political and territorial disputes in the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as the region's political, economic and geostrategic developments. He has authored over 120 articles and publications on the politics, economy, culture, religion and social issues of the Eurasia region, especially the Caucasus and the Armenian Diaspora. Aztag- In the Caucasus region ethnic tensions existed during the Soviet era, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, these tensions were rekindled and some of them became full-blown wars. Can you put these conflicts into perspective? Hratch Tchilingirian- One of the areas that has not been much researched when it comes to these regional conflicts, and which I have made part of my research, is what I call the management of minority-majority relations. You have a number of minorities living within the majority nationalities in this particular part of the former Soviet Union, and the tensions actually go back before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991; indeed, to the beginning of the Soviet period. The majority of these problems were not resolved by the sovietisation of the region, they were rather frozen and, for decades, somehow controlled or managed. These conflicts also need to be examined from the point of view of how titular nations deal with their minorities. When the larger group or nationality is not able to deal with its minorities, whether for objective or subjective reasons, it creates many problems for both the minority and the majority. I believe this is an issue that has been overlooked, especially by western scholars. In addition to these minority-majority relations, there are territorial claims which further complicate the situation. But, for the moment, if we concentrate on the socio-political, cultural, and economic levels, we see that the post-Soviet independent states in the South Caucasus have not been able to create stable and dependable infrastructures for economic development, democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech within their own societies, let alone for their disgruntled minorities. The regimes in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia have been unpopular in the last 10-12 years. In Azerbaijan, the opposition is almost completely wiped out. When a society lacks healthy political development, it is easy to see where the other problems are coming from. If an Azerbaijani opposition in Baku cannot freely express himself or herself or is thinking about reprisal, how can we speak about the issue of the rights of Armenians in Karabagh? In my opinion, in order for these conflicts to be properly resolved, there is, first and foremost, the need for basic political structures that are stable and a certain level of democracy and openness. Aztag- Some people argue that the rise of nationalism led to these land issues and ethnic conflicts. What is your take on that? Hratch Tchilingirian- Nationalism is, of course, a part of the whole fabric; but I would argue that nationalism is not the only reason that you have a conflict there. Some people say, rather naively, `These people have always hated each other and have fought wars throughout history', they present the issue as if it were an innate thing. They fail to appreciate the objective reasons that contributed to the conflicts -- at least in the Soviet period -- in Karabagh, Abkhazia, or Ossetia. There were policies dictated by the centre which affected education, cultural preservation, language teaching, socio-economic priorities, etc. When you look at the record, there are objective reasons that made these minorities unhappy; these factors feed into the nationalistic ideology that is driven by the elite; we have to look at these other factors as well; we cannot fully explain these conflicts only by theories of nationalism. Aztag- You are saying that during the Soviet era, these conflicts were under control. Don't you think that some of the policies of that time have, in fact, worsened the situation? Hratch Tchilingirian- Yes, but one also has to remember that the Soviets had this internationalist ideology where the ultimate goal was to create the Soviet People -- individual nationalities and separate territories did not matter. However, individual or separate nationalities or ethnic groups still preserved their sense of national identity. Aztag- Some scholars argue that although the Soviets wanted to create a homogenous country, the leaders of individual states were using a nationalistic rhetoric when tackling key issues in their respective countries. Hratch Tchilingirian- If one looks at theories of nationalism, one sees that it is useful as a political program. So we have to know why nationalist ideology is being used in this particular era. What is the purpose? Is it to resolve or address certain issues? What I'm trying to stress is the context in which events develop; things don't happen in a vacuum. The elite or the leadership exploits certain fault lines within a society for nationalistic purposes. Indeed, existing problems and conflicts in society provide such opportunities for exploitation. One should also ask why conflicts happen at a given time: the time factor, the change of leadership, the change of climate, the change of politics is very important. During the late 80s and early 90s, the societies in this region, as in other parts of the Communist world, allocated the necessary resources -- human, financial, military, or other -- to gain independence or autonomy. The weakening of the center (Moscow) was one of the most favorable factors which provided the republics and peripheral autonomies to re-appropriate power from the center. And this was occurring very rapidly. The central government in Moscow was collapsing and you had two or three layers of the state apparatus trying to appropriate power from the center. When the center completely collapsed, the republics declared independence and the autonomies forced a divorce. Aztag- You are stressing the fact that history does matter. But in conflict resolution, how far back in history can one go to address the core issues? Hratch Tchilingirian- As time passes, people forget why the conflict started and what the initial spark that triggered the conflict was. The present moment becomes the starting point of analysis; history and the beginning point become less relevant. And this is part of the problem in this region specially. Indeed, when you look at the way the mediators work, for instance the Minsk Group, you see that what matters is today, the year 2004, not what happened in 1988 or 1991. Yet, for the minorities in the conflict the starting point is very important. You have the present moment, which dictates the process of dealing with the issues. The points of reference for the various groups involved in the solution could be very different. For instance, on the one hand, you could have a powerful country trying to impose a solution; and on the other hand, you have the very people who are going to be affected by such a solution. Their references or `starting points' could be very different. This is where the issue of compromise becomes very important: how far back do you go and what kind of criteria do you use to resolve the conflict. For instance, presently Armenia is viewed as an occupying force as far as Azerbaijanis are concerned; on the other hand, there is no reference as to why or when these regions were occupied; it's irrelevant. Yet this is relevant for Karabagh Armenians, it is relevant for at least certain groups in Armenia. So it is very important to understand and analyze these various layers that add to the complexity of the matter. Aztag- How practical is the approach of solving the conflict by force? Hratch Tchilingirian- My argument is that any quick or imposed solution in this region would not be a lasting solution. When one looks at the history of Karabagh or Abkhazia in the last 200 years, it is easy to see that there have been various types of political or military conflicts every few years. Any solution that does not address the fundamental issues of the conflict would not be lasting. If a solution is imposed just as it was during the Soviet period, the problems will resurface whenever there is an opportunity. I believe one of the key issues that should be addressed is the majority-minority relationship. How you manage and maintain that relationship will determine the durability of the solution. Aztag- So you think that democratizing the region would make the situation better. Hratch Tchilingirian- Democratic regimes provide a more conducive ground for conflict resolution. Aztag- What about the issue of territorial demands? Even if we had a democratic Georgia or Azerbaijan, the conflicts would still be there because of the land issue, wouldn't they? Hratch Tchilingirian- Yes, I believe so, because especially in this part of the world, territory is very important. In Europe, throughout history, the situation was the same. But the European Union has made territory less and less important. In the Caucasus, territory is still a very important identity marker, it is a very important political and strategic factor, so I don't think this region will become like a mini-EU any time soon. If you look at the European Union, the issue of territoriality is not important anymore, you can travel within the EU as if you are in one country. Today, territorial boundaries are not contentious in Europe, to a large extent because nobody is suppressed; various national or ethnic groups are free to practice their culture, to speak their language. But when you have discrimination, when you have inequality, then people want to protect their socio-political boundaries; they want to be their own boss! Aztag- It is no secret that Russia and the US have their strategic interests in the Caucasus and each tries to enlarge its own circle of influence in the region. How does this affect the already volatile situation in the Caucasus? Hratch Tchilingirian- This issue has two dimensions: internal and external. If you look at the internal situation, when the regime is weak and not stable, then it would be affected by the big powers, whether positively or negatively; the ruling elite itself needs the backing of a "sponsor" or a big power, to secure its position. The external aspect is that Russia has definite interests in this region; historically this region has been part of the Russian sphere of influence; it has been part of the Russian Empire for centuries. Russia is interested in preserving that influence and role. The US has its own strategic interests in this region, especially in the Caspian, so there is going to be rivalry among the superpowers, just like any other region. I would add that this competition is not unique to this region, it happens throughout the world. The issue also depends on how the countries in this region view their strategic interests. For instance, it's very important for Armenia to have good relations with Russia for security and strategic reasons. Armenia also has trade and economic dependency on Russia, not the least of which is the large remittances that come from Russian-Armenians who send money to Armenia. So if there were a choice, Russia would be a priority -- even though Armenia tries to have good relations with both Russia and the US and virtually with everyone else. Aztag- What's your take on the current situation in Georgia and the way President Saakashvili is dealing with the separatist movements? Hratch Tchilingirian- Well, I think any leader would wish or would want to resolve conflicts in his country. Saakashvili has an interest to do that as the new leader of Georgia. On the one hand, he appears to project a strong position when it comes to dealing with these conflicts; on the other hand, he sounds like he is willing to compromise, provide autonomy and so on. But I would come back to my earlier point: it would ultimately depend on how Tbilisi is going to manage its relations with the various minorities within Georgia. Aztag- In Adjaria, Saakashvili had his way rather easily, didn't he? Hratch Tchilingirian- Yes, that was because the problem was limited in one person, Aslan Abashidze. However, after the removal of the immediate problem, if you do not provide the guarantees, the opportunities that these people expect, then you are not resolving the conflict. On the other hand, he has said that he is willing to give Abkhazia a very wide autonomy; but it is debatable whether at this point Georgia has the capacity to deliver. Does Georgia have the capacity and the resources to deliver? I am not sure. Georgia is hardly paying the salaries of state employees. Is Georgia ready to help the Abkhazians or the South Ossetians with their needs? The same goes for Azerbaijan. I do not think the central governments in Tbilisi and Baku are in any position to make the lives of the Abkhazians or Karabagh Armenians any better at this point. What clear incentives or gains do the minorities have? I believe this is missing from the various solutions that are being proposed. At the end of the day, the population, the villager, the farmer living in Abkhazia or in Karabagh or wherever, is going to ask: What am I gaining that I don't have now through this agreement? What is this going to add to my current situation? When mediators look at it purely from a political perspective, it looks like you could resolve the conflict. On paper, it looks like it is just a matter of sharing territory or changing flags or sending a governor. But as scholars we look at it at a deeper level, on the everyday level, the sociological level -- for instance, the fact that people were once neighbors and became enemies overnight. Aztag- In your opinion, how far are we from the resolution of the Artsax conflict? Hratch Tchilingirian- In my opinion, the conflict will take a very long time to resolve; probably 20-25 years. This is not something that can be resolved in a few years. Even if a peace agreement is signed within months or a few years, it will take a long time to implement that agreement on the ground. When you look at Cyprus, it took more than 30 years just to come up with a framework, not a solution. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more than 50 years old and nowhere near resolution. Aztag- Could you give us a brief background about the conflict in Abkhazia? Hratch Tchilingirian- The Abkhaz conflict is going to take a long time to resolve. It has a long history. There were inter-ethnic tensions throughout the Soviet period. The Abkhazian Autonomous Republic -- situated on the eastern Black Sea coast with an area of 8,700 sq km -- was part of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, with a population of over 500 thousand. The Abkhazians constituted a minority of 18%, compared with the 46% majority of Georgians. However, in the late 19th century, before the 'Georgianisation' of the region, as Abkhaz scholars argue, Abkhazians were the majority, with some 55% and the Georgians counted for only about 25%. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Abkhazian-Georgian relations deteriorated, when, in 1992, the Abkhazians reinstated their 1925 Constitution to prevent Georgian attempts to curtail the political status of the autonomous republic. A full-scale war broke out between the Abkhazians and Georgia, after the fall of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the ultra-nationalist president of Georgia, which resulted in the defeat of the Georgians in September 1993. Obviously, the Abkhazians were assisted by Russia, whose policy, at least at the time, was to use the conflicts in Abkhazia and Artsax to pressure Tbilisi and Baku, which were rapidly drifting away from Moscow's "sphere of influence". A ceasefire between the Georgian and the Abkhazian was reached in 1994; since then the United Nations have been involved in mediating a solution. While unrecognized by the international community, Abkhazia, like Artsax, has achieved de facto independence in what is now the 'Republic of Abkhazia'. Nevertheless, Abkhazia remains extremely isolated and extremely dependent on Russia. The international community recognized only the independence of what were the 15 Soviet Socialist Republics. The international community, in fact, discouraged further break up of second-tier `states' in the Soviet system, such as autonomous republics like Abkhazia, and third-tier autonomous regions like Artsax. As such, the international community puts more pressure on the secessionists than the recognized states. The Abkhaz problem has many similarities with Karabagh, especially in terms of independence, in terms of breaking off with the center, in terms of determining their own affairs and lives, and so on. But it also has some important differences. The Abkhazians were willing to have a federative relationship with Georgia, but because Georgia was not forthcoming and did not take it seriously, the Abkhazians declared full independence from Georgia in 1999. And nowadays they talk about having a special association or a membership association with the Russian Federation. This proposed association is a model that does not exist in any other place in the world yet. Abkhazia would not become a member of the Russian Federation or a federal entity, but it will have a special, still to be defined association with Russia. In a way Abkhazia will keep its independence, but in many ways will dependent on Russia, as it is now. Aztag- So being part of Georgia in any way is not an option for Abkhazia. Hratch Tchilingirian- It is not a desired option for the Abkhazians. When you speak to political leaders and ordinary people in Abkhazia, they say they do not want to be part of Georgia, they prefer to be part of Russia. But Abkhazia is very isolated from the rest of the world; they are very dependent on Russia, so ultimately, Russia's role in the resolution of the conflict will be a determining factor. On the other hand, Karabagh is different from Abkhazia because it has an outlet to the rest of the world through Armenia -- Karabagh is a virtual province of Armenia. Perhaps legally or on paper Karabagh is a separate entity, but de facto, it is part of Armenia. Aztag- What do you think about the recent pronouncements of President Saakashvili? Hratch Tchilingirian- The nationalistic pronouncements of the President of Georgia are not surprising, but the logic of his threats to sink Russian ships going to Abkhazia is hard to understand. Saber rattling with Abkhazia is one thing, but with Russia it has serious consequences. Russia still has enormous levers in this region. Hostility towards Russia is not going to make Georgia's position any better nor is it going to resolve the Abkhaz conflict to Georgia's favor. I believe, once Saakashvilli's `Rose Revolution' honeymoon is over, he is going to realize that the resolution of Georgian's major territorial, political and economic issues depend on good relations with Russia. http://www.aztagdaily.com/interviews/tchilingirian1.htm

with no hope of cure

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_edwards_sue.jpg http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_boywonder.jpg http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_howells.jpg http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_snowboarding_money.jpg

I know where to shove it IN YOUR .... and i think you will injoy it considiring your past life stile

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_munster.jpg

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_dukakis_photoops.jpg

So finaly we brought democracy to Iraq is there any one that disagree with me and Iraqs democracy is going to be the model followed by its naibors we saved the Iraqi people from a dictator and deliver them into chaos saddam is not killing the Iraqis any more gues who is killing them i said before the war that we are stepping into quick sands this is going to be a long and bloody one

http://caricature.ajeeb.com/Database/DefaultArabicPics/default14.gif http://caricature.ajeeb.com/Database/DefaultArabicPics/default13.gif http://caricature.ajeeb.com/Database/DefaultArabicPics/default10.gif http://caricature.ajeeb.com/Database/DefaultArabicPics/default5.gif http://caricature.ajeeb.com/Database/DefaultArabicPics/default1.gif

China is one of the three comunist countrys left And Reagan brought down the Soviet Union It was nice to see how China was going to report the death of ( enemy of the people)