alpha

Nagorno-Artsax conflict has been a major hindrance for the development of South Caucasus. Internationally accepted norms of self-determination and territorial integrity of states come into conflict, and both sides have legitimate point. Finding a compromise is tough, yet attainable solution. There have been a few proposals on the table and authoritarian elites did not have the mandate of people to go compromises. It’s interested to read Azeri point of view and analyze their perspective. Nagorno-Artsax conflict has been a major hindrence http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=3857 An Unfavourable Position for both republics of Azerbaijan and Armenian By Manaf Sababi Azerbaijani Swedish Committee, Lund, Sweden Abstract In this paper, after a brief historical review of crucial events creating the present situation, a hypothesis based on absence of hostilities in Transcaucasian republics will be analyzed. The main object of this paper is to indicate that the conflict over Nagorno Karbakh has not been, and will not be, for the benefit of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Neither in long term, nor in short term. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since Transcaucasian republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia gained their independence in 1991, both countries have been involved in a regular, but undeclared, war over the disputed area of Nagorno Artsax. The result of the conflict has been a huge refugee crisis in Azerbaijan mainly from occupied territory (20% of the republic), and a devastating economic condition in the Armenia. Despite disclosed ethnic cleansing and violations of international law and human rights by Armenian forces, the efforts by international communities to bring an end to the violations are hardly worth to mention. Nevertheless, post-conflict support by world communities to handle the refugee crisis in Azerbaijan increased slowly to decline in the end of the last decade. Unfortunately, the terrible armed conflict in Nagorno Artsax got the minimum attentions and thereby interference by the world communities, and consequently the Azerbaijani and Armenians with their alliance were left alone to solve such a complicated problem. In this paper, I will concentrate on the history of events in an impartial manner and then try to bring focus on speculation on relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia in a situation without conflict. Historical Background Following independence years after WW1, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1920-21. Despite an intensive political struggle over territorial claims by Armenian and Azerbaijanis, the status of the regions of Nagorno-Artsax, Zangezur and Nakhichevan was defined and settled in 1923. Zangezur was left within Armenia; Nakhichevan obtained the status of an autonomous republic whereas Nagorno-Artsax was granted the status of an Autonomous Oblast. Consequently the territorial arrangements ordered by Stalin, without taking consideration for the public opinion, left the populations in both sides to feel hurt. In Yerevan eyes, Bolsheviks was favouring Soviet Azerbaijan partly because of Kemal Atatürk (in newly founded republic of Turkey), whom they saw as a potential ally at the time and partly because of Narimanov’s stubborn protest. In the eyes of Stalin, Azerbaijanis under Narimanov’s leadership seemed to be more oriented towards socialist ideas than Armenians, who had been loyal supporters of the Tsar. On the other hand, Azerbaijanis argued that Nagorno Artsax had always been a part of Azerbaijani Khanate system and the majority of Armenian population had been settled in Nagorno Artsax after Turkmanchay Peace Treaty between the Russian Empire and Iranian Shah in 1828. An important historical document which provides detailed information about the number and ethnic composition of the Artsax population, is the taxation register of the Artsax province, prepared by the Russian officials Yermolov and Mogilevsky, soon after the elimination of the Artsax khanate in 1823. The register provides the number of population village-by-village and family-by-family and also informs about their ethnic belonging. Resettlement of 18 thousand Armenian families in Artsax occurred during the second Russo-Iranian war in 1825-1826. However, the massive resettlement process gained additional momentum after Turkmanchay Peace Treaty. According to the Article 15 of the Turkmanchay treaty, the Armenian population of Iran had been given a right to freely resettle to the regions of the Caucasus during a period of one year. What ever the historical truth might be, since 1923, Armenian forces have constantly attempted to reverse the territorial arrangements between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In the late 1980s, with the Glasnost policy of Mikhail Gorbachev, a petition was prepared by the Armenian academy of sciences asking to transfer Nagorno Artsax and Nakhichevan to the Soviet republic of Armenian. Later, supported by a huge demonstrations in Yerevan the authorities in Khan-Kendy requested Moscow for reunification with Armenia. Simultaneously, the Azerbaijanis in Armenia faced increasing harassment by Armenians. Following refugee waves from Armenia to Baku, and relocation in Sumgait, with a large Armenian minority, the ground was prepared for conflict. On 27 February 1988, the collision between the two communities was a fact and then the ethnic conflict was followed by its own logic. According to Igor Nolyain, Soviet forces deliberately wanted to bring forth a conflict. However, the Soviet official stated 32 dead (26 Armenians and 6 Azerbaijanis) as a result of three days unrest in Sumgait, meanwhile Armenian sources estimated the figure over 100 dead. In other words, the gun was fired and the conflict escalated in December of 1989 when Republic of Armenia passed a resolution incorporating Nagorno Artsax into the Republic of Armenia. There were huge refugee flows between the two republics; large numbers of Armenians were forced to leave Baku either to Moscow or Yerevan whereas Azerbaijanis in Armenia were forced to leave Armenia. In January 1990, the collision between Armenians and Azerbaijanis was moved to Baku and consequently the tragedy of black 20-January was a fact. Intervention by Soviet army resulted to hundreds of Azerbaijanis’ dead. In a chaotic condition in Moscow, paramilitary formations in both republics, but in particular in Armenian side, were growing in number and strength. There are evidence showing that planes loaded with military equipment (from Beirut) landed in Yerevan and then the materiel was transported to Artsax. However, sporadic clashes became more frequent, and by June 1991, an undeclared regular war was taking place. Supported by regular armed forces of the Republic of Armenia, Armenian militants took control of Nagorno Artsax more and more. Ironically, Armenia still denies officially its involvement in the war, in spite of evidence of the contrary. As, the chaotic situation in Moscow was stabilized in its own way; the Russian political and military adviser saw the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict as part of a great game in their long-time policy. Armenia was not only backed by Russian arms (beside $1 billion in arms shipments, Russian soldiers also actively participated in offensives), but also by Armenian volunteers from Lebanon with long experience in war and by financial support from Diaspora mainly in USA and France. In contrast, retired Turkish military adviser supported Azerbaijanis, occasional and sporadic volunteers from Iran (and few other well-disposed persons). Also, Azerbaijan was backed by financial support (400,000 $) from Turkey, in one occasion. In the beginning of 1992, a series of Armenian offensives resulted in the Armenian occupation of almost 20% of Azerbaijani territory and app. 1 million refugees. In addition to the near 300,000 refugees during the first wave from Armenia, about 700.000 persons were displaced internally leaving their homes in Nagorno Artsax and its surrounding areas. A cease-fire was negotiated in May 1994, but all attempts including recurrent new planes by the organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to negotiate a settlement have failed. The violations of International Law by the Republic Armenia have been criticized in UN (822, 854 under 1993) and in one international forum (The Charter of Paris 1990) recognizing that Armenia violates the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. The powerful Armenian lobby in the congress has heavily influenced the policy of United States towards the conflict. In October 1992, the Freedom Supports Act 907 was passed by the United States congress, denying all forms of governmental U.S. aid to Azerbaijan, unless it ceases use of force (?) against Armenia. After 11 September, this act was temporary suspended by Bush administration allowing U.S. military forces to use territory of Azerbaijan to convey war in Afghanistan and other forthcoming-armed conflict in the region. Lost Opportunities From a logical point of view, we are forced to go back in history at least 100 years to make a sense of the reasons behind the non-constructive development of relationships in Transcaucasian republics (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia). Whatever explains the correct nature of the conflicts in the region, peoples in these republics suffer hardly from a shortcoming evaluation of outcome from the conflicts. In consequence, they are ruled by conclusions drawn emotionally and blocked for any compromise. From a speculative point of view, imagination in the events during the last two decades that could happen, but did not, might shed light on the opportunities missed by Caucasian citizens. Also, presentation of alternative progressive course instead of the conflict may, indeed, serve as guidance for the future attitude. For instance, a meeting between Azerbaijani Popular Front and Armenian National Movement was arranged in Riga, 1990, to discuss the conflict. Although neither of the parties was in power, they enjoyed a great vogue in the domestic politic. Unfortunately, the leaders were fasten in their positions and accordingly missed a rare chance to create a solid dialogue for peaceful solution of already aggregated hostilities. That meeting was neither the first nor the last attempt, but perhaps the most crucial moment to steer for a change of attitude. Hypothetically, let us turn the time back 15 years, and assume that Azerbaijanis and Armenians were reasonable and thereby restrained the course of development in Nagorno Artsax. Although a succession of events that might have had influences on course of the conflicts, yet the basic attitude between Azerbaijanis and Armenians would be on friendly terms, in any case. Then, several options would be left to people/politicians to choose in order to improve gradually the relationship between two republics. Despite obvious disparity in religion and language, a long lasting symbiotic coexistence between Azerbaijanis and Armenians is not a secret fabrication. Armenian and Azerbaijanis have hade great impacts on each other’s lives than any other ethnic group in the region. So, it is not exaggerated to postulate that the failure of these two peoples to live in comfort and become independent societies is a result of direct hostilities towards each other’s. Considering all factors bringing happiness and prosperity for mankind, some obvious basic needs build the foundation stone of a comfort existence. Peaceful life, basic economic support and condition for aspiration after an ordinary day full with spiritual and intellectual element are the main factors making life valuable. Making these points as Azerbaijanis and Armenians initial position we will look back (from 1985 to present) in retrospect to evaluate the lost opportunities. In General, international economic co-operation and especially co-operation between neighbouring states lay the foundations of a progressive economic growth in a country. Not only Azerbaijan and Armenia are economically paralyzed due to the Nagorno Artsax conflict, but also Turkey, Georgia and even Iran have been suffering hardly. In similarity to Bulgaria and Romanian, both republics (AZE and ARM) could derive advantage from regional co-operation and also indirectly back up each other’s to attract foreign investor. As a basic rule of free market policy, demand for a product controls the production. So, considering the size of populations in Transcaucasians, free access to the regional market is a decisive of Caucasian companies’ fate and bait for foreign investor. In addition, the domestic market (in this case regional market) increases the ability of internal production companies to compete with globalize trading. The role of oil and Diaspora (both Azerbaijani and Armenian) to strengthen the regional economy should not be neglected. Instead of confrontation policy, a co-operation among both Diaspora would doubtless bear enormous fruit for both folks. Thus, it is obvious that Transcaucasian economy would develop in a positive way in absence of the conflict and thereby a better economic condition would establish for ordinary Azerbaijanis and Armenians. Today, the majority of Armenia and Azerbaijani inhabitant live under subsistence level. Unfortunately, this would be the case even the redistribution policy of country’s resources was different. In contrast to previous conflicts between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, due to the advanced mass media, the degree of intensity on hatred is different. Since a decade ago majority of both Azerbaijanis and Armenians carry a feeling full of hatred and sorrow. The inward peace is constantly influenced by frightful reality. While the nationalistic fanatics use hatred for heating the conflict, the politicians make use of the conflict as a mean for their own ambition and to justify the slow process of democratization in both countries. Political persecutions and terrors belong to everyday life using the conflict as a pretext. A comparison between republic of former Soviet unions in Europe and Transcacasian republics indicate clearly those citizens in the later republics lives under severe political and economic stress. The fact is that stress is a natural part of an unsolved conflict. It is truth that Armenia won the latest battlefield. Even if we assume that they will win future battleground too, which is not guaranteed judging from the history, an unjustified peace agreement still won’t bring a peaceful life and normal diplomatic relations in Caucasian. Perhaps, some naive nationalistic fanatics in both sides believe that people will leave the conflict behind as soon a peace treaty is settled. But, the existing conflict is per se indicating the opposite theory, when politicians force an unjust peace. Mutual understanding is the only way for a normal relationship without reservation between Caucasian peoples. The third element, which Azerbaijanis and Armenians are missing since 1985, originates from the spiritual and intellectual life. Armenians success and Azerbaijanis defeat in the latest battlefield have forced majority of populations including elite class to focus all spiritual and intellectual activities on final outcome of the war. Any divergence from this line can easily be classed as treachery. As Armenian poets, filmmakers, artists, religious leaders and politicians propagate warmongering and hatred, Azerbaijanis also respond with the same method. Practically, the spiritual and intellectual life in Baku and Yerevan is dedicated for destructive way of thinking instead of humanistic education and exposing the positive advantages from being on neighbourly terms. Paradoxically, as two-sided coin, Azerbaijani and Armenian cultures are in a state of dependence demanding mutual input to keep own distinctive character. Meanwhile input from Armenian lifestyle was breaking factor for Azerbaijanis to assimilate entirely either in Persian or Turkish culture, vice verse was truth for Armenians. Naturally, this kind of statement is controversial and could be regard as provocative. However, a look at Armenians culture living in the Middle East is manifesting the postulation in somehow. Future Perspective As far as Armenia and Azerbaijan ignores all efforts of peaceful fair resolution, stability and rebuilding process in both republics will be delayed. In addition, without a fair peace, stability will never be firmly established in Transcaucasian. Of course, fair peace is a relative conception for different people, but at the end an unbiased outsider can easily define it. Long-term goals: -Armenia hopes that in line with international principle of peoples’ self-determination Nagorno Artsax will be accepted by international community as a territory apart from Azerbaijan. Also, Armenia hopes that Azerbaijanis will give up the territorial integrity in exchange for occupied land around Nagorno Artsax. To achieve these two quite different aims Armenians rely on Russia and United States will exercise pressure on Azerbaijan, while providing comprehensive support to Armenia. But, the world picture is not so simple as one would like. Armenia’s former president Ter- Petrosian pointed out clearly the complexity of Armenians dependency on foreign powers in his famous farewell speech. Yet, his argument is valid. The Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict illustrates a complex picture of world order regarding two important principles of international law, namely self-determination and territorial integrity. Armed conflicts in Kashmir, Kosovo, Chechen, Kurdistan, Middle East, North Ireland, Basque Ian in Spain, and separatist movements in China, Morocco and Taiwan, are some of those conflicts around the world to mention that argue the legitimacy of the international law. However, considering this reality in the world, it is far-fetched to believe that international community will treat the Nagorno Artsax differently and discriminate in favour of Armenia. This particular conflict is also further complicated by the fact that 35% of population in Nagorno Artsax prior to war were Azerbaijanis. On the other hand, acceptance of Nagorno Artsax as an independent country by international community does not mean that Azerbaijanis will automatically improve its relation unreserved to neighbour people. Any agreement forced by outsiders will make people (in both sides) carry a feeling full of sorrow and frustration. - Azerbaijan hopes to liberate its occupied land either by peaceful resolution backed by international community or by building a strong army. Azerbaijanis believe that the economy of Armenia is much more vulnerable due to the conflict than Azerbaijani. Furthermore, Azerbaijanis believe that Iran’s attitude towards republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia will be more balanced as Azerbaijani national movement in Iran is intensifying. Also, awareness about ethnic band among Turkic republics such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan with Azerbaijan will increase by time and that will make republic of Armenia further isolated. Therefore, Armenia will lose more on a long drawn-out conflict and consequently will reconsider their occupations policy. Also, Some Azerbaijanis believe that judging from the past a turning point will appear in the battlefield, sooner or later. So, the prevailing cease-fire must be used to build a strong army. It is unlikely that as far as president Heydar Aliyev is in the power, the war preparation will gain a hearing. However, the president is 80 years old now and has been treated for cardiac and prostate diseases. In relation to his health, the present circumstances can be changed over one night. To move on a peaceful settlement of the conflict, there are several solutions deserving serious attention by both Azerbaijanis and Armenians. Meanwhile the Aland-modell is the most realistic option in this case, other options such as Land exchange should not be ruled out. - ALAND option: A modified version of ALAND (Åland or Aoland) system may serve as a model for Nagorno Artsax. Therefore, a short view on the ALAND could help us to clarify some controversial issues. The Aland Islands form an autonomous, demilitarized and anilingual Swedish province (unlike Nagorno Artsax prior to the conflict) of Finland. They consist of more than 6.500 islands with a population around 40.000. The Alanders have been Swedish-speaking and the Islands belonged to the Kingdom of Sweden up to the 1808-1809 war, when Sweden was forced to relinquish Finland and Aland to Russia. When the Russian Empire started disintegrating, Finland proclaimed itself an independent republic in December 1917. At that time the Alanders in support of reunion with Sweden invoked same principle of national self-determination. However, the Finns were not prepared to comply with the Alanders’ demand for reunion with Sweden. The Parliament of Finland passed an autonomy act in favour of Alanders in 1920, but the Alanders were unwilling to accept it. In June 1921 the Council of the League of Nations (that time’s UN) decided that Finland should receive sovereignty over the Aland Islands. Finland, on his part, guaranteed the inhabitants of the Aland Islands their Swedish language, culture and customs. A treaty between Finland and Sweden on how the guarantees were to be effected supplemented the decision. Also, it was decided that Aland should be a neutral and demilitarized Autonomy. In 1922 the first election to the Aland Parliament (The Landsting) was held. Since then the Autonomy Act has been completely revised twice, in 1951 and 1993. Alands Legislative Assembly in 79 sections giving the Alanders to possess the right to pass laws themselves concerning their own internal matters and to exercise budgetary powers has approved act on the autonomy of Aland. The Act on the Autonomy can only be changed by the Parliament of Finland in constitutional order and with the consent of the Aland parliament. The Autonomy Act specifies the spheres in which the Aland parliament has the right to pass laws. The most important sectors are education, culture and preservation of ancient monuments, health and medical services, promotion of industry, internal communications, municipal administration, the police service, the postal service, radio and television. In other sectors like administration of foreign affairs, most aspects of civil and penal law, courts of justice, customs and monetary services, the laws of Finland are applied just like in the rest of the country. In addition, Aland has its own representative in the Parliament of Finland, who is elected in the same way as other Members of Parliament in Finland. The parliament of Aland consists of 30 members, elected every four years, appoints the Alands “government”(Landskapstyrelsen). The Landskapstyrelse group consists of 6 members from different political parties. Landsrad acts as chairman of the steering group. - Land exchange option: An intensive political followed by armed struggle over Nagorno Artsax and Zangezur has never been considered closed by populations of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijanis have always considered Zangezur as a physical hindrance between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, while the enclave Nagorno Artsax part of Armenia by Armenians. For Armenian this option is unacceptable. Partly Armenia will lose the border with Iran and partly resettlement of Zangezur residence will be emotionally impossible, international communities might secure even the economic matter. Emotionally impossible because, the republic of Armenia has already grip on both provinces. However, these two main obstructions have to be solved smoothly by Armenian politicians to be able to bring the negotiation to a successful close. For Azerbaijanis this option is also unacceptable. Nagorno Artsax is a part of Azerbaijani soul and it is emotionally impossible to Azerbaijanis to think of the republic of Azerbaijan without Nagorno Artsax. As they say “defeating in the latest battlefield does not mean the end of the war”. Note: Manaf Sababi, PhD, is an Azerbaijani Senior Scientist in Lund, Sweden. manaf.sababi@astrazeneca.com

I am not condoning all American policies in Middle East. I am just inclined to question of wisdom of current neo conservative policy. I think more even handed policies in Middle East will lead to less anti-Americanism. Why support Mubarak, Saudis, and other dictators. Why not imply economic sanctions against these dictators, like US applies economic sanctions against Iran? By supporting governments that are dispised by their people will only antagonize US. Just like supporting Kocharyan has antagonized Russia in the eyes of many Armenians. Why give Ariel Sharon free hand in destroying homes and infrastructure of Palestinians? Will it bring more peace or more terrorism? US was not always the "Great Satan". It was the superpower that helped Muslims fight in Afghanistan, brought peace between Egypt and Israel. It almost brought peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Why not become more even handed power, thus gain the respect of people living in the region not the awe. Democracy: the new fig leaf of imperialism? The Daily Star 12 April 2003 A story is told of a visitor who came to see the second caliph, Omar Ibn al-Khattab (who led the Muslim community between 634 and 644). The visitor found the caliph sleeping under a tree, unguarded and unafraid. Waking him, the visitor observed: `Caliph, you have brought your people justice, so now you have peace. Thus, you can sleep.' In light of the current US/UK imperial onslaught against Iraq, can American and British leaders sleep at night with a clear conscience? Are they bringing peace and justice, or will they reap a whirlwind? Given the pronounced ideological - even theological - fervor of the reigning neoconservatives in Washington, DC, it is unlikely that any Washington official, drunk with the glorious certitudes of America's new `civilizing mission,' has entertained doubts about the wisdom, morality, or feasibility of the current invasion, which some characterize as a new Crusade. America is muzzling democracy at home to bring democracy to Iraq. She is squashing dissent within her borders so as to enable Iraqis to dissent from Saddam Hussein's rule. The magnificent capital of Baghdad must be destroyed in order to be redeemed. Mass civilian deaths will - somehow - lead to democratic civilian rule. US endeavors in the Middle East were not always so arrogant and absurd. Much regression has occurred in American policy making circles, as becomes clear when we compare current public attitudes and official actions with those prevalent during the waning years of the 19th century. Then, America's stance toward the Middle East was primarily philanthropic, as evidenced by US provision of humanitarian aid to Armenians and other victims of World War I. America also showed its humanistic and enlightened face by establishing educational institutions throughout the region. The most prominent of these were the American University of Beirut, the American University of Cairo, and Robert College, which later became Bogazici University, in Turkey. These institutions of higher learning were beacons of light that attracted and inspired people throughout the region by embodying such cherished American values as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of religious background or social class. One century later, alas, America's involvement in the region has been usurped by Messianic politics, extreme right-wing ideologies, and narrow political and economic interests that disregard the experiences, needs, and goals of the peoples of the region. The US mission in the Middle East today implements the `full spectrum dominance' vision of the Project for a New American Century, a think-tank with clout. Its founding members and guiding intellectual lights are well-represented in the administration of George W. Bush, who has happily executed their blueprint, one that aims to ensure and guarantee long-term and unchallenged US military, economic, and political dominance of the entire world. Oil's role in this blueprint is central, much more so than any bogus claims about fostering democracy in the Middle East at gunpoint, under the merciless bombardments of civilian populations. To dominate the world, one must first control world access to oil, not spread the word about the mechanisms of electoral politics. Given today's US troop movements near Baghdad, capital of the second-largest oil producing state in the world, it appears that the US is on the verge of realizing the key component of its new imperial mission. America's new mission, that of full spectrum dominance, has never been put to a public referendum. If they were fully apprised of what this global imperialism will cost - materially, morally, financially, and in terms of lost US lives - most Americans would probably prefer not to pursue it. The processes by which the Bush administration has decided to pursue its new civilizing mission with such evangelical fervor have been long on rhetoric, and very short on genuine democratic participation. These are the ideas and visions of a very small group of highly committed individuals who show a callous disregard for international law, US public opinion, multilateralism abroad or participatory decision making at home. They have the truth, the light and the way. They are not to be contradicted or challenged. To be able to sleep in peace, America should foster and promote justice not only in the Middle East between Palestinians and Israelis, between Indians and Pakistanis, or by supporting the Kurdish people's right to self-determination. America must also beware of losing its soul in the quicksand of a long and tiring occupation of Iraq. Here, America must endeavor not to become Israel, its chief Middle Eastern client. Though its founders may have envisioned it as a `light unto the nations,' Israel today is a zone of political and moral darkness clouded by fear, hate, injustice, and vengeance. Many Israelis and Jews throughout the world are horrified by what the Jewish state has become. They warn of the need to respect international law and human rights. But Israel's leader, like America's George Bush, considers himself above all laws. To establish justice, America must compel the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon to abide by all relevant international laws and UN resolutions and return to substantive negotiations with the Palestinians on the basis of UN resolutions 242 and 338. The Palestinians need and deserve to have their own state, independent of Israeli encroachments. To establish justice, America will have to rein in its thirst for oil while listening to and encouraging the yearnings of millions of young Arabs and Muslims for democracy and freedom of speech. Then, like the Caliph Omar, Americans will be able to live in peace, secure in a world where justice and the rule of law, not military might, dominates. George E. Irani is a professor in conflict analysis and management at Royal Roads University in Canada. Laurie King-Irani is a lecturer in social anthropology at the University of Victoria, British Columbia and a co-founder of the ElectronicIraq.net news site. They wrote this commentary exclusively for The Daily Star

MJ, Thanks for the info. I found this artilce in reuters today. It goes in line with my theory that US should have more even handed policy in Middle East. By giving all possible weapons and financial support to Israel, US becomes a "Great Satan" in the eyes of desolate Arab youth, whose helplessnes pushes it to terrorism and suicide attacks. Support should not be as unilateral as it is, but more balanced. Why doesn't state department issue a statement condemning killing of Palestinians, but always is resiliant to condemn killing of Israelies? Palestinians, people abandoned by most Arab nations, be it Jordan, Egypt or Syria, are helpless against the might of Israel. Daily destruction of infrustructure by Israeli army using US made weapons will only trigger more terrorism, not less. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=2545512 More Deaths as Israel Tells Palestinians: Heed Iraq Thu April 10, 2003 02:32 PM ET By Nidal al-Mughrabi GAZA (Reuters) - An Israeli missile strike killed a Palestinian bomb-making expert in Gaza and gunmen killed two Israeli soldiers in the West Bank on Thursday in a surge of violence ahead of an anticipated U.S.-led peace drive. Israel said it hoped the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would chasten Palestinian militants into laying down their arms. But militant groups spearheading a 30-month-old revolt said they would not be cowed by the U.S. conquest of Baghdad and threatened to intensify attacks in Israel. Israeli security sources said the man killed by helicopter gunship fire was Mahmoud al-Zatma, accused by Israel of preparing explosives for suicide attacks carried out by the Islamic Jihad militant group. The missiles hit al-Zatma, allegedly behind a 1995 suicide bombing that killed 22 Israelis, as he drove through a Gaza City neighborhood and left his car a mangled wreck. Ten Palestinians were wounded in the strike, medics said. The army said that in Thursday's predawn attack in the West Bank, gunmen cut through a fence around an army base in the Jordan Valley and opened fire at a tent housing soldiers, killing two and wounding nine before being shot dead. Violence in the Palestinian uprising for independence had tapered off since the Iraq war began on March 20, but fighting has been on the rise this week. Israeli strikes and raids have killed 13 Palestinians in Gaza in three days. The bloodshed runs counter to Washington's calls for calm before it introduces a long-delayed program for Middle East peacemaking in the aftermath of the war in Iraq. President Bush has said he will present a peace "road map" leading to a Palestinian state by 2005, once Palestinian lawmakers confirm a new reformist cabinet under prime minister-designate Mahmoud Abbas, a leading moderate. Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat condemned the killings of Palestinians and accused Israel of trying to sabotage the peace effort. ISRAEL TELLS PALESTINIANS TO HEED IRAQ Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz hammered home his government's wish that the U.S. conquest of Iraq would teach Palestinians the lesson that they must abandon their uprising and install new leaders. "I hope that in the era after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime, the Palestinians will understand that the world has changed," Mofaz told reporters. Palestinians must "give the chance for a new and authentic leadership to grow, end terror and incitement and return to the negotiating table," he said. Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, senior political leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas, pledged "resistance will escalate and will become more violent." Islamic Jihad official Mohammed al-Hindi accused Israel of trying to exploit the Iraq war to crush the uprising. "The result of this new assassination will be resistance and response," he told Reuters in Gaza after al-Zatma's death. The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the missile strike. Israel has tracked and killed dozens of militants during the uprising. Palestinians call the practice state-sponsored assassination and Israel calls it self-defense . An anonymous caller to Reuters claimed responsibility for the West Bank attack in the name of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction. Elsewhere in the West Bank, an Israeli army unit on a raid exchanged fire with Palestinian gunmen in the town of Tulkarm, killing one and wounding four, an Israeli military source said. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank town of Salfit said they had shot dead a 65-year-old Palestinian land broker suspected of collaborating with Israel. Palestinians have killed dozens of their brethren accused of helping Israeli forces track and kill Palestinian militants. At least 1,987 Palestinians and 729 Israelis have been killed since the uprising flared in September 2000 after negotiations on a Palestinian state froze.

The interview below has some relevance to the discussion we are having in this thread. MJ, I will try to more clearly articulate my points next time. Interesting discussion indeed. We both desire a peaceful world with no nuclear weapons, but the way to achieve that goal you see through Pax-Americana, I see through international institutions. I will get back to this subject some other time. I am really pressed on time now. Russia, Saint-Petersburg Date: 2003.03.24 19:41 Pax Americana - Living Reality Alexander Rahr, a well-known German political scientist specialising in Eastern European affairs, shared his prognosis concerning the development of events in the Middle East and their effects on Europe and the rest of the world with the Rosbalt news agency. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - On March 20, Germany witnessed a wave or demonstrations against the US invasion of Iraq. Schoolchildren went to the streets with slogans instead of going to their classrooms, workers demonstrated instead of doing their jobs. Do you think this 'spontaneous' reaction may, in fact, have been well coordinated by someone? - In fact, for Germany, this is truly phenomenal. This is phenomenal not just because the streets are full of so many antiwar protestors - for the first time in decades. It is also phenomenal because, for the first time since WW2, the government and people are united in their antiwar impulse. Federal ministers walk the streets of Berlin among other protestors, while the Federal Chancellor speaks the words one can hear at an antiwar meeting - from the podium in the Bundestag. An absolute majority of Germans oppose this war. - However, there is no complete unity where attitudes toward the war in Iraq are concerned, is there? Angela Merkel, the leader of the SPD/CDU party coalition, which is among the most influential in Germany, says that Christian Democrats support the US. - Well, here we deal with the duality of feelings that we find in any German. On the one hand, the Germans are very much afraid that America's war against Iraq may turn into a war between the Christian West and Islam. They are afraid of bomb explosions in German streets and crazy warriors of Allah seizing aeroplanes and sending anthrax and plague germs in mail. Of course, one should keep in mind that the post-war decades shaped all Germans into total pacifists. Pacifism was instilled in them to such a degree that many young people even became militant pacifists who are now so loud in German squares. Militant pacifism first became evident during the Kosovo war, when Germany supported NATO and even sent her troops to Yugoslavia. Yet then the pacifist movement was timid, still having to overcome much resistance, lots of it in these people's own minds. On the other hand, the Germans, the government as much as the people, are afraid of losing the US as a friend and protector. Immediately after WW2, the Americans began helping the Germans to restore and develop their country. Of course, many say that America was after her own ends while doing that. Yet whatever it was, America and no one else helped Germany to become 'the engine of Europe', an economically developed and politically influential country. This is why now many Germans are reluctant to quarrel with America over Saddam Hussein. - Yet in his public address, President Johannes Rau was very seriously saying that anti-Americanism was inadmissible in Germany. Does this mean that there are certain anti-American sentiments? - I see no anti-American tendencies in German society. The Germans are rather in shock because America, which for a long time was their role model, friend, and protector, is suddenly getting involved in such a shady enterprise. I believe this is why so many sharp words have been lately said by the Germans about America. - Chancellor Schroeder, who was the first among European leaders to say he could not accept American actions toward Iraq, now has been, as it were, pushed aside by the Presidents of France and Russia. French and Russian voices are now the loudest among those of other protestors. - I must admit, I believe that Mr. Schroeder is the most honest of the three mentioned leaders. He opposes the war outside of any purposes other than trying to keep the word he gave his constituents. His pacifism is, sometimes, simply naïve. Chirac and Putin leave certain loopholes for themselves that allow them continued negotiations with the US, while Schroeder literally put himself in an isolation, even in Germany. Joschka Fischer, for instance, when speaking about the Iraq conflict, softens his tone, gets evasive, while trying to make some space for Germany to manoeuvre. Schroeder, on the other hand, is simply appalled at what Bush is doing and is not trying to hide it. There are no geopolitics in his reaction. France is the leader among the three European protestors. Her leaders even now are trying to grab as much political space in the post-was multipolar world as possible . The French hope to become the new political pole opposed to Pax Americana. In the meantime, Germany does not want any multipolar world at all. As soon as this war is over, the Germans will again side with he US, you will see. - Is this what you believe will happen? And when, do you think, this war is going to end? - I am no military expert. However, I think this must take probably about three weeks. At least, judging by what is happening on financial markets. - And then what? - Everyone will calm down and get used to the new alignment of forces, while the US will get busy 'disarming' North Korea, Iran, Syria maybe, and making new mistakes. At this time, America is the only superpower in the world, even though she has not yet reached her top power. Pax Americana is the reality of our time, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Of course, this also will end. I think, in about ten years, the multipolarity of the world will become far more apparent. Then we will need new a United Nations, different from the organisation now. - Do you think the role of the UN has declined because of the Iraq conflict? - As the world government, the UN began declining even at the time of the conflict in Kosovo. This organisation has been in need of reforming for over 5 years. It was created on the basis of the post-war realities, which existed in 1945. Later, it was reshaped to fit into the cold war realities. And now, we have a total new reality. The new 'world government' must include southern countries, such as Brazil, India, Pakistan, and Australia. They have their own vision of the world and their own problems, which today's UN knows rather little about. Unless their interests are taken into account, a conflict between the North and the South may replace the long gone by then conflict between the West and the East. Do you think, anyone needs that? Besides, Russia and Germany also may become very important for the new world community. - Do you think it is possible , in the light of the above, that Germany, well, let's better say the European Union may begin closely cooperating with Russia? - The European Union is a very viable organisation. It keeps developing and very successfully. The Europeans have already realised that as separate national states they have no chance of becoming significant figures in the multipolar structure of humanity. Only a united Europe is worth something. Also, make a note of the fact that while America is strong and the world is Pax Americana, Europe can and most likely will be also strong and economically sound. Yet the true political significance of the European Union is still ahead. If it closely cooperates with Russia, the significance of both parties will grow. So everything is possible. However, at this time, it is not yet so. The Europeans still distrust Russia because of their memories of cold war. As to the Russians, they are in no hurry to begin completely trusting the Germans either - for the same reason and, going even further back, remembering WW2. An active generation must come and go for true cooperation to begin to develop. Well, we still have time. - Let us keep hoping The interviewer was Boris Nemirovsky, Berlin Translated by Alex Nemtsev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ©2001-2002 Rosbalt News Agency

What gives US the right to use its might uncontrollably? Just because one is powerful should not go around and threaten world peace, should it? It happened a few times in history. Just in 20th century we have witnessed events like 1939 German invasion of Poland, in 1980 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, just to name a few. After World War II institutions were created which were more or less successful in creating meeting grounds for nations who wanted their complains to be heard and considered. It is as a democratic institution where each nation had one vote in General Assembly. UN is a body for civilize world and in civilized world nations use DIPLOMACY. The international institutions might not have been the perfect bodies, but they kept the world in relative peace and prosperity for the last 50 years. Without international institutions the world will turn to “Wild West”. Uncontrollable use of US might will create armies of helpless people who’ll have no choice but to turn to terrorism. What I am afraid of is USA becoming into another USSR. Another “evil empire” hated throughout the world. There are some astonishing similarities between the two. USSR tried fruitlessly to import Communism by force and by money, but failed. USA is trying to import its brand of democracy to remote parts of the world; to cultures with histories a few times older than US. It’s been done in context of “freeing people”, just like USSR did in its days “in the name of proletariat”. An invading powerful country tries to find a moral ground to oppress weaker nations and tries to name it “liberation”, “democratization”, “freedom”. What is expected from powerful nations is to respect the institutional institutions they helped to create and respect the sovereignty of weaker, less powerful nations. So US, and other world powers should not meddle in internal affairs of other countries, be it Iraq, Syria, Israel, Iran or anybody else. Its an outsider to a region and should let the people that live in the region solve their problems. Terrorism is a result of weakness and people who have no means of fighting a conventional war turn to terrorism. It has some negative connotations; however partisans during the World War II were terrorists too. In pre WW II Palestine, Jewish terrorism was prevalent but nobody condemned it the way they condemn Arab terrorism nowadays. Why should there be double standards. Arab terrorism is a result of their weakness against Israel. If US policy is more even handed there won’t be such a big discrepancy in power between Israel and Arab countries. The human right abuses and genocidal policies of Ariel Sharon are not secrets to anyone. Has anyone besides EU countries expressed their protest? NO. It’s widely known that Israel possesses weapons of mass destructions and nuclear weapons? Has anyone done anything about it? NO. The uncontrollable armament of one neighbor gives the other no choice but to develop its own nuclear arsenal and weapons of mass destructions. It’s for self protection purposes. If Syria develops weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons do you think Israel will keep on occupying Golan Heights. I somewhat doubt that. The mess created in Middle East is a result of involvement of forces not native to a region. Superpowers should just let the people in region find their peace amongst themselves.

So which came first chicken or egg – democracy or wealth? Without free flow of goods, labor and capital it is impossible to create a wealthy society. Free flow of economic resources is hammered by the authorities who benefit from retaining monopolies in most profitable industries. A country can not be integrated into world structures if it does not respect the laws it signed to (we were admitted to Council of Europe and have to respect the laws of that organization). Free elections are universal and has nothing to do with “Armenian mentality” as Serje Sarkissian wants us to believe. COUNCIL OF EUROPE HEAD WARNS OF ARMENIAN ELECTION ‘DISASTER’ By Armen Zakarian in Strasbourg A repeat of serious vote irregularities in next month’s parliamentary elections would spell a political “disaster” for Armenia, the secretary general of the Council of Europe warned on Wednesday. “In my view, it would be a disaster for the country if the parliamentary elections will not take place under very proper circumstances and in accordance with European standards,” Walter Schwimmer, told a news conference in Strasbourg. “These elections must be free, fair and transparent.” Schwimmer’s stark warning came two days after the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) strongly criticized the Armenian authorities’ conduct of the recent presidential election. In a resolution, the PACE stressed that the May 25 legislative elections must mark a serious improvement over the presidential ballot held in two rounds on February 19 and March 5. A joint monitoring mission from the PACE and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has concluded that both rounds of voting fell short of democratic standards because of “widespread irregularities.” Schwimmer said the Armenian government failed to address his grave concerns voiced on the eve of the presidential run-off. He indicated that failure to hold a clean vote on May 25 could destabilize the political situation in Armenia and even prompt punitive action by the Council of Europe. The PACE decided on Monday to send a much larger delegation of observers to Armenia for the forthcoming elections. An advance team of Council of Europe officials will fly to Yerevan as early as this month, officials in Strasbourg said. According to Schwimmer, the council’s main decision-making body, the Committee of Ministers, will discuss the Armenian presidential election soon. He said it will also address the post-election wave of arrests of opposition supporters which have been denounced by local and international human rights groups. A senior PACE lawmaker, Lord Russell-Johnston, has urged the Committee of Ministers to press Yerevan to stop enforcing a Soviet-era administrative code under which many of the detainees have been sentenced to up to 15 days’ imprisonment. http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeniareport/report/en/2003/04/2955EBD7-4 A97-4AB7-ADE2-FE4DB22F8AEE.ASP://http://www.armenialiberty.org/armen...E4DB22F8AEE.ASP://http://www.armenialiberty.org/armen...E4DB22F8AEE.ASP://http://www.armenialiberty.org/armen...E4DB22F8AEE.ASP://http://www.armenialiberty.org/armen...E4DB22F8AEE.ASP://http://www.armenialiberty.org/armen...E4DB22F8AEE.ASP://http://www.armenialiberty.org/armen...E4DB22F8AEE.ASP another interesting link from aravot http://www.aravot.am/2003/aravot_arm/April/3/u01.htm [ April 03, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: alpha ]

Iraq is not a Muslim fundamentalist country where Wahadism is preached in every Mosque. Yet most US allies in region are, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE just to name a few. Why are we not attacking these fundamentalist countries which are breeding grounds for terrorists, but are attacking Iraq? In fact Iraq used to be one of the more socially advanced Arab countries. The ruling Baath Party is socialist not Muslim fundamentalist, so the theory that Bush administration is fighting terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism by attacking Iraq is incomprehensible to me. The administration tried diligently and failed miserably to find a moral ground to attack Iraq. First argument was, “they possess weapons of mass destructions”. UN weapons inspectors did not find anything there and they claimed that Iraqis were cooperating. Then they tried to link Iraq to terrorism. No matter how hard the Bush Administration tried to find links between Al Qaeda and Iraq it failed. Iraq has fought a bloody war with Iran for eight years in order to prevent it from importing religious fundamentalism to Iraq, why would it endorse it now. Then it was “UN resolution”, which never came around. The unilateralism of war hawks caused a final demise of UN, a body for creation of which so much resources was spent. Bush administration is not effectively fighting the so called “War in Terrorism”, as many CNN anchors want us to believe, its just fighting to “War for Middle East and its Oil”. MJ allow me to disagree with your following comment: “Terrorism does not start with this war. This was is one of the necessary steps to prevent terrorism. Terrorism has become more vicious because, despite the warning of the experts in the last 10 years that the primary threat in the world is terrorism, one ‘happy’ administration and another ‘happy Union’ did not have the aptitude to grasp it – even after the failed attack on the WTC in early 90s. You don’t eliminate terrorism by appeasing the terrorists. You fight it out. Additionally, you help the economies of the regions and cultures, which incubate terrorism, to help them to create wealth so that their people are not so desperate that their lives and the lives of others have no value to them.” Terrorism is a sign of helplessness. Usually people that lack the means to fight a conventional war make terror as their weapon. IRA, Basques, Palestinians are all powerless to fight their colonizers, so they become terrorists. In many ways it’s similar to partisan warfare during WW II. Why Arab terrorists target US: Because of its unequivocal support of Israel. It armed Israel to its tooth and let it go wild. If there is more balanced policy in Middle East terrorists will become more marginalized in their societies. The ‘happy administration’ tried hard to bring peace to Middle East. It didn’t use armed conflict to force the issue, but let the sides find a common ground. The process failed, but it can be resurrected if enough will is found. Afghanistan, Iraq…….. what’s next, Syria and Iran? Is Rumsfield and Co. out to conquer the world?

I truly don’t have time to get into name-calling, but if anyone is interested in getting engaged in a debate about democratic processes in Armenia I’d welcome the idea. Otherwise I don’t think neither the readers of the forum, nor the contributors will get anything out of name-calling and belittling the opposition. Each one of us has a view of what kind of Armenia they want to have. Some hallucinating nationalists want “Tsovits Tshov Hayastan”, nostalgic people see Armenia as an oblast of Russia, and more reasonable pragmatists want a democratic Armenia. Having lived in Western society for many years I am inclined to see Armenia as a democratic model for CIS countries. There are some interesting points raised by some people in this forum. Why are you so anxious to change our people? We have wonderful, hardworking people who have excelled in democratic societies. What we currently lack is not a human capital to build a democratic society, but Armenian society lacks direction in which they believe in. The society is simply tired of being deceived. Remember in 1988, when patriotism was running high how peaceful were the marches and demonstrations. How anxious were the people to make donations for a cause. There was a direction at the time and people believed in it. Essential block of building a democratic society is having the rule of law. How can people respect the law, when the authorities in charge of enforcing it are incompetent? A guy was killed in poplovok, Poghos Poghosyan, in front of many people in Yerevan and the killer walked free. Simply appalling!!! It is common for the authorities to demand time. Time for what? To hand over the sovereignty of Armenia to Russia or time to complete plundering the country? (I remember there was a popular joke, Ayspes ho chi mna, mi kich el kvatana u ayspes kmna) I understand that democratic processes require time, but time can be given only when there is a progress in reaching the goal. What’s our goal? I think the natural answer would be to create a democratic society where people’s rights are respected and they have the means and abilities to live a fulfilling life. Do you think that Armenia is on its way to this goal? I certainly don’t. A trivial division of braches of government is non existent in Armenia. Executive branch simply took over other branches. An argument was brought here about opposition taking the streets. However one should take into account the fact that independent television stations, A1+ and Noyan Tapan, were shut down by the authorities in order to take away the more civil medium of communicating with public. This is my view of Armenia. I would be more interested to reading your vision of Armenia and how are we getting there, instead of name-calling and engaging in non-constructive debates. Lastly those of you who are interested to reading impartial news from Armenia check out Radio Free Europe website. http://www.armenialiberty.org YEREVAN DEFIES COUNCIL OF EUROPE BODY OVER 'ADMINISTRATIVE' ARRESTS By Emil Danielyan and Shakeh Avoyan Defying warnings by a key Council of Europe body, Armenian authorities indicated on Monday that they will not stop enforcing controversial provisions of a Soviet-era legislation which effectively allow them to jail people without producing clear evidence of wrongdoing. The organization’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) has urged the authorities to abolish the corresponding articles of Armenia’s Code of Administrative Misdemeanors and to “refrain from applying them in the interim.” The Armenian Justice Ministry rejected those calls, arguing that official Yerevan did not undertake to amend the code when it was admitted into the Council of Europe two years ago. In a written statement made available to RFE/RL, a senior ministry official in charge of drafting proposals for judicial reform argued that the PACE is a largely consultative body whose recommendations are not binding for member states. The official, Nikolay Arustamian, said that only the council’s main decision-making body, the Committee of Ministers, can make such demands to Armenia. “The Armenian authorities have not received such recommendations or proposals from the Committee of Ministers,” he added. This, according to ministry spokesman Ara Saghatelian, means that Armenian police and courts can continue to prosecute anyone suspected of “disrupting public order.” Courts across the country have cited the controversial legal provisions in sentencing more than a hundred people to up to 15 days in prison over the past four weeks as part of an unprecedented government crackdown on the opposition led by Stepan Demirchian, the controversially defeated presidential candidate. The jail sentences, officially known as “administrative arrests,” were handed down after brief closed trials condemned by domestic and international human rights groups. The defendants have routinely been denied access to lawyers. Charges against them stemmed from their participation in a series of unsanctioned opposition protests against alleged widespread electoral fraud. Many were jailed for committing unspecified “hooligan acts” during the demonstrations. However, the rallies held in Yerevan have so far been remarkably peaceful, in sharp contrast to the ongoing protests around the world against the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The first wave of arrests began in the run-up to the March 5 second round of the presidential election. Many of the more than 100 detainees were Demirchian proxies who had reported serious irregularities during the February 19 first round. They were released from custody just before the run-off vote following a strong international uproar. A joint monitoring mission from the PACE and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe denounced the crackdown as running counter to Armenia’s international commitments. “Those court verdicts contravene not only our international commitments but also Armenian laws,” said Avetik Ishkhanian of the Armenian Helsinki Committee, a local human rights group. “What kind of a country are we living in? Are we really a member of the Council of Europe?” The arrests resumed last week, with at least 40 opposition supporters held by the police. According to Saghatelian, 19 of them were given short jail sentences before the most recent opposition rally held on Friday. Opposition leaders say dozens of other sympathizers of Demirchian were detained following the rally. “If they see something illegal going on, they should first punish organizers of the demonstrations, not their participants,” one of them, Shavarsh Kocharian, told RFE/RL. The PACE demanded the changes in the Administrative Code in a special resolution on the fulfillment of Armenia’s Council of Europe obligations adopted last September, long before the start of the presidential race. The resolution warned that the code’s provisions regulating administrative arrest are open to government abuse. Those clauses were criticized by Human Rights Watch in stronger terms a few months later. “The administrative court system appeared to be little more than a ‘pocket court’ for police,” the New York-based watchdog charged in a report on Armenia’s 2002 human rights record. The Justice Ministry’s Arustamian said the authorities are now working on a new administrative code and are “refraining from applying administrative arrests as much as possible.” But as Human Rights Watch campaigner put it earlier this month, the Armenian leadership is continuing the practice “on an industrial scale.”

Due to time constraints I will reply more thoroughly at some other time. However I'd let the posting from RFE/RL to speak for the me, and would like to ask you, the supporters of the regime in Armenia, the following: How can you support criminals? It seems like we are grooming our little Stalinik and Beria in Armenia. Are we going to just go around our business in free world, or we are going to support the voices of democracy in Armenia? Just a question to ponder about. Arrests Of Armenian Opposition Supporters Continue By Shakeh Avoyan The Armenian opposition said on Saturday that dozens of its supporters were rounded up overnight for their participation in Friday's mass protest against President Robert Kocharian's controversial reelection in the recent presidential run-off. Some of them were facing closed trials in central Yerevan, in a further sign of a renewed government crackdown on supporters of defeated presidential candidate Stepan Demirchian who continues to accuse Kocharian of rigging the vote. Opposition sources told RFE/RL that at least 30 people were detained by the police following Friday's anti-Kocharian rally. `This list is not final. We keep getting the names of more and more arrested people,' said Dustrik Mkhitarian, a senior activist at Demirchian's campaign headquarters. Another top oppositionist, parliament deputy Emma Khudabashian, put the number of detainees at 45. She said 15 of them were sentenced to between 3 and 15 days in prison, while the others were fined and set free. `According to our information, the [country's] police chief gathered the heads of his territorial divisions last night and issued each of them with an order to arrest between 15 and 20 people in their respective areas,' Khudabashian claimed. The Armenian Police again refused to comment on the allegations and other arrest reports. But the spokesman for the Justice Ministry, Ara Saghatelian, confirmed the fact of the arrests. `Over the past week 40 citizens have been subjected to administrative punishment,' he told RFE/RL. However, Saghatelian declined to specify how many of them were held over the past 24 hours and to detail charges leveled against those individuals. There was clear evidence of the arrests in the court of first instance of Yerevan's central Kentron district where at least five persons were tried Saturday for attending the unsanctioned gatherings, `insulting' law-enforcement officers, `disrupting public order' and other alleged offences. The brief trials were taking place in closed sessions. Even lawmaker Khudabashian was not allowed to attend them. `The judge asked whether I participated in the rallies,' Artush, a middle-aged man, said as he awaited a verdict outside the courtroom. `I said I was at the rally by chance. I just watched it for 30 minutes and left.' He was sentenced to 7 days' imprisonment shortly afterwards. Another defendant awaiting punishment, Garnik Khanzadian, also denied taking part in the opposition protest. The 73-year-old man said he just walked through the crowd on his way to a nearby café where he bought pastry for his wife. `Am I a criminal?' he asked in disbelief. Shushan Arakelian, who admitted supporting the opposition, said she was caught by the police and fined 1,500 drams ($2.5) after being forced to sign a false confession. `They dictated me a testimony alleging that I impeded traffic on Abovian street [in the city center],' she said. There were similar reports from other parts of the country. Kamo Avetisian, a resident of Aragats village in central Armenia and a member of the pro-Demirchian Hanrapetutyun party, said he fled his home to avoid arrest. He claimed that police burst into his house and searched it late Friday. `I had already been twice arrested,' he said. `It's been three days since I left my home.' The latest crackdown on the opposition reflects lingering political tensions in Armenia that result from the two-round presidential election rejected as fraudulent by the Demirchian campaign and criticized as undemocratic by Western observers. About 200 Demirchian supporters had already been rounded up shortly before the March 5 second round of voting. At least 80 of them were given short jail sentences in similarly closed trials condemned by local and international human rights groups. The arrests resumed on Monday, and there were reportedly more than 30 individuals subjected to the punishment by Friday's opposition rally. Thousands of Demirchian supporters marched past the main police building in Yerevan to demand the release of all detainees. Ironically, some of them were to find themselves in jail a few hours later. Demirchian and other opposition leaders claim that the crackdown is part of Kocharian's efforts to bully his political opponents and quell the ongoing campaign of street protests. Kocharian and his top associates have not yet responded to the charges.

SAS, I am glad you are familiar with Orwellian philosophy and you’ve probably read his “1984”, where people become merely puppets in the hands of “THE STATE”. Is it the type of country that you’d like to live in? I guess since Orwell’s time world has progressed: Germany became a democracy, European colonialism ended and etc. I see human happiness in a state where every citizen’s right is protected by the state. I don’t see a citizen as a servant to the state apparatus and bureaucracy, I see the opposite. State guarantees people’s pursuit of life and happiness. (in current Armenia life can be taken in center of Yerevan and go unpunished). World history has shown that it’s possible to build a country where it’s created for the people and by the people. People in these countries have prospered and have built stable and healthy societies. Human rights, democracy, freedom those are not myths, but achievable goals. The excuse that Armenia is a newly independent country shouldn’t give anyone a green light to suppress people’s freedom. Look at ex-Soviet Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, they respect basic human rights. In these countries state is not a burden on people’s shoulders, like it’s in Armenia. Closing your eyes to reality will not solve any problems SAS. Fifty years ago when Germany and Japan were completely destroyed there was a theory that these countries can not be democratized; because it’s not in their nature and they have not had a history of democratic institutions. History proved these critics were wrong. We are all people and it’s our undeniable right to have freedom. In all civilized elections people do not elect a person, “vozhd’”, but they elect a political ideology that will provide the best guarantees to its happiness and fruitful life. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Stepan Demirchyan or Robert Kocharyan, the only thing that matters is that people’s voice should not be suppressed. Belittling the opposition SAS will not justify conducting fraudulent elections in Armenia. You are underestimating our people’s intelligence by claiming that they have elected incompetent leaders to fight the current quasi legal regime. “Paronayq inchi masin eq vi&um? Hayastanum teghi unecan naxagahakan @ntrutyunner yev @ntrvec... Qocharyan@! SA PAST E!!!” Let me make a little correction to your statement. The fraudulent presidential elections that were conducted in Armenia resulted in coup d’etat, and refusal of the incumbent president to honorably leave his post. Do you want us to respect the organizer of coup d’etat? I can’t?! I have more demanding standards from Armenian authorities. “Mite, aveli irates dirqoroshum chi BAROYAPES ajakcel Hayastani Naxagahin” What kind of morality can you refer to when the whole electoral process was mired with fraudulence? People should accept a slap on the chick by the regime and turn the other chick? Is it what you are recommending? Sev_vahan, I am trying to be optimistic, but blind optimism is not going to solve our problems. Let’s be realistic and face the problems caused by the dictatorial regime in Armenia. If you want to believe the state propaganda of Armenia we can come to the conclusion that because of the enormous economic growth and improvement of living conditions the emigration from Armenia is continuing at ever increasing rate. Don’t you think that’s an oxymoron? ARR, which part of my claims is a libel? The fact that after October 27 assassinations “Artsax clan” achieved unprecedented powers is not debatable. I don’t think you’d disagree with me on that. Or you subscribe to the idea that “5 crazy romantics” can easily walk to chamber of Parliament with weapons and assassinate country’s leadership. Have you tried to walk into that building? I am sure you know that there are security precautions. Why does one clan have to replace another? My support is not for “Ararat” clan, my support is for democratic clan, where human rights are respected. As of Artsax, even though it has not been the center of Armenia, but has played a vital role in maintaining the last remnants of Armenian statehood. The center has always been Ararat valley. We are all Armenians, that’s why Armenia so vehemently supports Artsax at such a great cost. Artsaxtsi are not supportive of Kocharyan clan also. By the way as Artsaxtsi people say nowadays, “Robikin hankarts het ch’uxarkek, chenk uzum, haziv enk azatvel”.

Sorry for replying so late. ARR, Aram Sarkisyan, ex-prime minister, became popular when it joined forces with Stepan Demirchyan to resurrect the defunct “Unity” block. As most politicians Aram has had its mistakes, but his services to Republic of Armenia shouldn’t be belittled. Most analysts agree that Aram’s influence in Yerkrapah has kept Armenia from plunging into Civil War in October of 99. He has been active in consolidating opposition and in many ways financing it. He is not as calm and calculating politician as we are accustomed to, but being in forefronts of popular disenchantment with current regime makes him popular. I understand his frustration with Kocharyan’s regime. I’d be outraged if my brother’s killer received unofficial state support and trial lasted for 3+ years and became nothing but a joke. Wouldn’t you? Why do you think the relatives of the killed in October 27 are being harassed by the state? The circumstantial evidence and the behavior of authorities point fingers at Kocharyan-Serge Serkissian duo. All suspects with October 27 case were either pardoned with presidential degree or assassinated. One has to be blind not to see any connections. The October 27 was not organized by “5 crazy romantics” as Kocharian’s junta projects, but it was a meticulously organized assassination that gave “Artsax clan” unchecked powers in Yerevan. There is a popular joke among Yerevanians, “Artsax zavoeval 20% Azerbaijana i 100% Armenii”. sen_vahan, the “bezpredel” of current authorities and lawlessness after 2000 caused internal dissatisfaction. After the victory of Unity block people had some hope in future, which got killed in October of 99. Assassinations are so common in Armenia nowadays. Even common citizens do not feel safe. A man can get killed in front of everybody in the center of Yerevan and go free. It’s nothing less but anarchy. There is a sense of hopelessness in Yerevan, and that’s what forces people take the streets to express their dissatisfaction. The “goghakanner” that were driven out by Vano Siradeghyan came back and Yerevan became “goghakanneri kaghak”. Most of the fraud during the electoral process was done by these “goghakanner” u “taghayin heghinakutyunner”. These the support base of authorities. Externally, I think debt for assets deal was a total rip off. This is not the 18th century to do barter trade. There could have been competitive bidding process and as a result the money obtained from the privatizations could’ve been used to pay off debt. That’s how normal countries do, but unfortunately ours is not so normal.

ARR – you sound like the commentators of public television of Armenia, listening to who makes one think that they are talking about the prosperous Switzerland not poor Armenia. Open your eyes and look at the reality. Armenia is in the path of becoming a pariah state. Closing your eyes at reality and loudly yelling that “everything is great in democratic Armenia” won’t make things better. Current leadership has made fundamental mistakes, which has caused in the past 2-3 years both internal and external dissatisfactions. That’s another topic which I am open to discuss. Regarding Aram Sargsyan’s involvement in murder of Tigran Naghdalyan; I won’t be revealing a secret if I say that Armenian judiciary is not the most impartial branch of government. In fact it is nothing but a rubber stamp for an executive branch. It’s not the judiciaries fault; it’s the fault of the constitution adopted in ’96 which inadequately distributed checks and balances. A case can be made against anybody in Armenia, and it wouldn’t be surprising that one day with the order of executive branch, judiciary brings a criminal case against other popular politicians. That’s how dictatorships operate, and Kocharyan’s dictatorship is not different from the others. I can not say anything about Naghdalyan’s killing, but I the consequential evidence of October 27 massacre points to Kocharyan and Serje Sarkissian as the main culprits. Lets look what this duo did to help solve the case, pardoned Mushegh and not only released Alik Harutyunyan from prison but gave him the post of Naghdalyan. Shame on them for their actions and shame on us for tolerating them.

Republic Party of Armenia was founded by late Ashot Navasardian, who served many years in Soviet prisons for his ideology. I had the honor of meeting him a few times in 1991, when he was actively recruiting volunteers to fight in Yeraskhavan. He was a very down to earth and powerful personality type of a person. Current Republican Party has nothing to do with Ashot Navasardian’s ideals of free and democratic Armenia. In fact it is filled with many chameleons who easily change the color of their skin based on who is in power. (Most had the following party affiliations during their lifetime Communist – HHSH – Republican – yet to be determined). The members of Republican Party who were true to the ideals of the party, Albert Bazeyan , Artak Zeynalyan, etc., gave up on cleansing the party from various types of reptilians. They split from it and formed “Hanrapetutyun” Party, which is a staunch opponent of current regime.

It's interesting that BBC quoted Mark Grigorian, about the possibility of reenacting the Yugoslavian scenario of public outrage after elections in Armenia. We mentioned about it in HyeForum a few days ago, and it seems like we are a step ahead of most analysts. Existing regime has lost its credibility in the eyes of international community. They had no credibility in Armenia before the elections, and now after the elections, they have no credibility outside its borders too. We have our mini-Milosevic, who has two options either leave peacefully like Ter-Petrossian, or cringe to power like Chaushesku and go down the history not as a brave leader of Artsax, but as a leader who polarized Armenian society. "I fear that blood will be spilled, and I fear the scenario of Yugoslavia in 2000" Political analyst Mark Grigorian http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2826803.stm

My computer has been recently attacked and I am looking to install a firewall. What would you computer whizzes recommend. I was thinking of buying a router, which comes with built in firewall, but I don’t want to spend $80 on that. Is there any freeware that you are familiar with and could recommend me.

MJ, There was a short lived sense of optimism in people when Ter-Petrossian resigned in 98. People felt that it would mark an end of clannishness and corruption. Alas, they were greatly mistaken. What it turnout out to be was merely an internal coup. What has changed nothing? Absolutely nothing!! In fact many senior members of Ter-Petrossian’s administration, Andranik Manukyan, Serje Sarkisian, Zedoyan, and others continued on holding to their positions. What we see in Armenia now is demonstration of people’s anger, but unfortunately it is not led by new and healthy forces, but corrupt revanchists with shady pasts. It’s not a revolution as many HZhK members would like us to see, but simply clan warfare. What’s rotten in Armenia is the whole political culture. One regime will topple another and nothing will change unless the attitude of political elites changes. Many supporters of Demirchian’s campaign who now cry about ballot staffing, namely Albert Bazeyan, were the ones staffing ballots in 98 for Kocharian. Once he was relieved from the post of Mayor of Yerevan he morphed into a staunch democrat and protector of human rights. I don’t have a solution of crisis of political culture in Armenia, however I don’t think that it’s a noble deed to play with people’s emotions and anger. It was done once in 88 and we saw what were the results of that (1/3 of Armenian population left the country). Demirchian has a fairly clean past, just because he has not been part of the culture. However some people that surround him are not the noblest of people (Aram Sarkissian and Albert Bazeyan are the ones that come to my mind). These are the guys that could do something but did absolutely nothing when late Vazgen Sarkissian shamelessly said in ’96, “if Ter-Petrossian gets even one vote he will still become the president”. That was like spitting on people’s face. People’s leader of that time, Vazgen Manukyan, was weak and people were forced to clean the spit from their face. (mass arrests and beatings are not so new in Armenia) Do you think Demirchian has enough political capital to cleanse the remnants of regime if he wins the elections? As we say in Armenian “Atori kriv a, isk verjum eli joghvurdn a tujvum”.

Interesting insight into Armenian Economy from www.cis7.org Interesting to know that 11% of GDP is made up money transfers. Does that say something about the economy. I do not have a deep knowledge of economies of post Soviet counties, but it is evident to a blind eye that 11% is too high. Does anyone know what’s the number in other counties in the region. Like other countries of the former Soviet Union, Armenia suffered a dramatic decline in output after independence. Real GDP fell by 50 percent between 1991 and 1993, but growth resumed in 1994 and has remained positive since then, averaging almost 6 percent in the past 7 years (1994-01). Despite robust growth, the GDP did not recover completely and stood in 2001 at approximately 80% of the pre-transition level. In 1994-95 the government committed itself to a macroeconomic stabilization program, which resulted in a successful reduction of inflation from 4 digits to 2 digits by 1996. Inflation has remained comparatively low since then. Prudent macroeconomic policies helped to stabilize the local currency, the Armenian Dram. The economy proved to be quite robust during two recent major shocks: the Russian crisis of 1998 that had a significant impact on other CIS countries and the political crisis of 1999 when the parliament speaker and the prime minister were assassinated in parliament. Armenians benefit from significant private and official transfers that averaged about 11% of GDP (1995-2000), about half of them being private remittances from abroad. Being a small economy, prospects for Armenia economic growth depend greatly on its ability to develop export-oriented industries. Recognizing that, Armenian government has been promoting a very liberal trade regime. However, Armenian trade relations continue to be adversely affected by the strained relations and closed borders with neighboring Azerbaijan and Turkey.

MJ, State terror is not so new in post Soviet Armenia especially after elections. If you recall September 96 events, most of the opposition members went into hiding for a few months to avoid persecutions. I think lack of respect toward society and each other is the main reason of such dismal political culture. In most cases politicians do not realize that they have responsibility toward their constituents. This type of behavior can be a relic from Soviet past. Soviet Armenian government was first answering to Kremlin than to its people, and with direct control of Kremlin eliminated government officials feels omnipotent and above the law. The recent developments in Armenia remind me of elections in Yugoslavia, when Milosevic tried to rig the elections, but people took the streets and Kostanica rightfully was sworn as president in a few weeks. I don’t think Armenia is the only country in post Soviet reality where the ruling elites try to hang on to power at any cost. MosJan, vaxenam tchisht lines, sranits tsaxkepunji hot a galis.

husov em mer kyanqi jamanakashrjanum mi HYE gtnvi vor yerkirn Hayots votqi hani MosJan, Axr mi tsaxkov garun chi ga. Mez buket a petk

Some of the issues we discussed in our forum are becoming reality. I guess some people are reading what we write. Armenian diaspora in Lebanon backs plans of creating WAO. By Anatoly Golovastov ITAR-TASS News Agency January 23, 2003, Thursday 04:27 PM Eastern Time BEIRUT, January 23 -- Armenia's diaspora in Lebanon has supported plans to create a world Armenian organisation (WAO). Armenia's diaspora in Beirut showed great interest in a visit to Lebanon by a delegation of the Union of Russia's Armenians led by its president Ara Abramyan. The agenda of the visit was very intense. Every day the delegation has meetings with representatives of different political parties and organisations, businessmen, spiritual leaders of Armenian churches and journalists of Armenian language mass media. "I have not a minute of free time in Lebanon because I want to fulfil all tasks of my agenda, hold all meetings, visit all organisations and brief all Armenia's diaspora circles on a plan of creating a world Armenian organisation," Abramyan told Itar-Tass on Wednesday. "Lebanon was interested in concrete plans of creating a world Armenian organisation put forth by the Union of Russia's Armenians," Vice-President Apet Tapaltsyan said. "Armenian businessmen who came to meet with Ara Abramyan said this idea should have been implemented long ago," he pointed out. Abramyan's plans differ from traditional conditions of creating a new organisation. Being a businessman Abramyan urges Armenians to unite by maintaining close business relations. The Armenian diaspora in Lebanon was surprised that he does not ask money for a future organisation to unite all Armenians irrespective their political visions and aspirations. "Let's stick to a new formula. We will do business and its profit will be sent to the needs of the future organisation," Abramyan stressed. Abramyan expressed confidence that he will succeed in creating the world Armenian organisation which will be stronger the Union of Russia's Armenians. His interlocutors supported these plans.

What is democracy? Let’s first define democracy than discuss the idea of democratic elections. Every more or less well read person is probably familiar with Aristotle’s “Politics” (there is an interesting link that talks about it in this website http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ ) which is the cornerstone of modern democratic theory. In democracy every citizen has a right to choose a leader, but the problem with current democracies is that every idiot has obtained a right of citizenship and a right to decide the future of his / her community / country. The right to vote should not be based on age of a person as it is now, but on intellectual capacity to make decisions. Democratic elections have become more advertising campaigns than an election process. As we all know advertising requires money, so naturally the best financed people win the advertising campaigns. It’s easier to advertise and buy the votes of people who do not have the intellectual capacity to determine the future of a county / community. I don’t believe in electoral process in any country of the world including United States (in latest presidential elections more people voted for Gore). To be frankly honest with you my understanding of modern democracy (it can be wrong) is making people believe that they have a voice in decision making process, and convince them to vote for the best advertised candidate not the most qualified one. Look what happened after the election of George W., military got a major boost in spending, rich people got lower taxes and overall big business has won. OK enough about Western Democracies, now about Armenia. It is known to everybody that all elections are very expensive. Most deputats in Azgayin Zhoghov are moneyed people. In last parliament elections to win a sit cost $120,000. There has to be a wealthy class who should have a vested interest in a candidate to support him / her. Whoever in Armenia is for maintaining the status quo is going to finance Robert Kocharyan. The big winners of current status quo are the Army generals, most of whom have a very lucrative business on aside, newly rich class who obtained their wealth through plundering of their country. Geghamyan or Demichyan are backed by people who were bureaucrats in Soviet Armenia and still have significant levers. Their socialistic platforms are aimed at playing on nostalgic feelings of the past. Raffi Hovhannissyan is a Diaspora person and should naturally attract Diaspora backing, but Diaspora is too disorganized and is incapable of financing a well run campaign. Vazgen Manukyan split from the rest of HHSH in early 90s and is backed mainly by Soviet era intellectuals. Since he doesn’t have significant financial resources I think his campaign will falter in early stages. Regional powers also have their preferred candidates and will most likely finance them, that is why Geghamyan and Demirchyan are in Moscow every other week. In terms of corruption it doesn’t matter who the person is on top. The whole system is corrupt. I think it takes major diaspora influence to change the corrupt system. Being raised in United States Raffi Hovhannissyan is probably the best candidate to stem out corruption. He is the one least involved in clannish structures, which are present since Soviet Times. OK hima ban@ hasav pashtonin. I would like to be head of Chamber of Commerce of Armenia (a non profit organization) or …….. head of Central Bank of Armenia since MJ has put my candidacy I can’t refuse it.

It’s true that Artsax problem is a nag on development of Armenia, but it’s wrong to blame only one side of the conflict for stalemate. Neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia could find enough courage in themselves to reach a compromise solution. The conflict became an easy target by politicians on both sides to play on nationalistic feelings of its people and gain popularity. Ter-Petrossian became that politician to have the courage to compromise, but I think he had an ill prepared plan and should have prepared people for gradual solution of conflict. There should have been a major PR campaign by state. His unpreparedness was exploited by nationalists and people who had vested economic interest in preserving status quo, namely Vasgen Sargsyan and his Yerkrapah clan. Furthermore he did not have enough political capital left after rugged presidential elections and was left alone against nationalists and populists; thus he had to leave. In many respects the policies of Ter-Petrossian were similar to Yitzak Rabin’s, where charismatic leaders who have proved their devotion to the cause wanted to reach a closure and end the conflict for the benefit of their people. Unfortunately both had to leave the political arena and situation aggravated even further, in Israel it’s the continuing Intifada, in Armenia it’s the sinking economy and regional isolation. I believe Russia is the main benefactor from the current state of affairs. Unable to compete economically with West in Caucasus region it successfully plays divide and conquer policies. Slowly but surely it has gained control of whatever was left of plundered Armenian economy. Armenia has become merely a military outpost for Russia, and has alienated most of its neighbors and potential allies. Unofficially its significance for Russia is similar to Oman’s significance to United States. I completely disagree with blaming Artsax for the current state of affairs in Armenia. Claiming that “ROA agenda been hijacked by Artsax” is just immoral. Artsax is merely a pawn in a geopolitical game, where its fate is going to be decided Armenia and Turkey / Azerbaijan (their policies are the same and as Government of Turkey put it “Relations between Turkey and Armenia can not improve unless Artsax conflict is settled”. Artsax problem is one of the subsets of conflicts between Armenia and Turkey / Azerbaijan, where issues such as genocide, compensation of victims of genocide and refugees of Artsax war, opening of communication lines, transit fees and others are up.

We have had an interesting discussion in another thread a while ago (/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=27;t=000028), but it’s always interesting to revisit the topic. I strongly believe that Armenia can not develop industries that have high cost of transportation, so therefore heavy industries like chemical will gradually die. It’s too far from major industrial markets where most of the consumption of these products takes place, therefore it automatically put at a competitive disadvantage. The low margin industries such as textiles and shoe processing will not have a major impact on the economic growth in a long run. In order for a country to advance knowledge based industries should receive special attention from the government. Infrastructure should be put in place that will stimulate entrepreneurialism (legal protection of investor and an entrepreneur should be a priority). The growth of Ireland in the past decade is a great example how government investment in people pays off. The government of Republic of Ireland started funding technical schools starting mid 60’s in hopes of attracting major high tech companies. To their disappointment investment did not fly to their country immediately. At the beginning stages the policy backfired because most of the graduates immigrated to Great Britain and United States. However major high tech companies eventually started investing in Ireland and now it’s one of the most vibrant economies of Europe. We shouldn’t expect results immediately. It’s a long term process that takes a generation or two. There is a learning curve that Armenia needs to pass through in order to prove itself as a viable investment alternative to more developed countries. Another sector that can become a major force in Armenia is the finance and banking sector. By developing appropriate legal field the country can become a regional banking center. So far Tigran Sargsyan, the Chariman of Central Bank of Armenia is doing an outstanding job in this regard. The country is gradually becoming a regional banking center. Many projects in Caucasus are financed through Armenia HSBC, which should create a confidence among other Western Banks to set subsidiaries in Armenia. The most vibrant sector of Armenian economy, jewelry and diamond processing, will continue to attract foreign capital, since it has a competitive advantage over its Western and Israeli competitors in terms of quality and cost. Armenia being a net energy exporter can also develop its energy sector and exert pressure on its neighbors by controlling energy supply. By utilizing the knowledge obtained by Armenians during the course of operating Metsamor Nuclear Plant, Armenia has a great potential to develop nuclear plants. The cooperation between Armenian nuclear scientists and Institute of Atomic Energy of Russia will give Armenia opportunities to develop that sector. I have addressed my issues regarding tourism industry in the above link.

There was an interesting article printed in Opinion section of Sunday's LA Times. I thinks it will of great interest to the members of our forum concerned with the US policies in the Middle East. It would be interesting to know your views about the subject matter as well. Beyond Regime Change The administration doesn't simply want to oust Saddam Hussein. It wants to redraw the Mideast map. By Sandy Tolan Sandy Tolan, an I.F. Stone Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, reports frequently on the Middle East. Jason Felch, a student in Tolan's "Politics and Petroleum" class, contribu December 1 2002 BERKELEY -- If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here's a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East. The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military superiority. The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and their co-visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant governments in Syria and Iran -- either by force or internal rebellion. For the first step -- the end of Saddam Hussein -- Sept. 11 provided the rationale. But the seeds of regime change came far earlier. "Removing Saddam from power," according to a 1996 report from an Israeli think tank to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was "an important Israeli strategic objective." Now this has become official U.S. policy, after several of the report's authors took up key strategic and advisory roles within the Bush administration. They include Richard Perle, now chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, special assistant in the State Department. In 1998, these men, joined by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (now the top two officials in the Pentagon), Elliott Abrams (a senior National Security Council director), John Bolton (undersecretary of State) and 21 others called for "a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad." After removing Hussein, U.S. forces are planning for an open-ended occupation of Iraq, according to senior administration officials who spoke to the New York Times. The invasion, said Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, would be "a historic opportunity that is as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." Makiya spoke at an October "Post-Saddam Iraq" conference attended by Perle and sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. Any occupation would certainly include protecting petroleum installations. Control of the country's vast oil reserves, the second largest in the world and worth nearly $3 trillion at current prices, would be a huge strategic prize. Some analysts believe that additional production in Iraq could drive world prices down to as low as $10 a barrel and precipitate Iraq's departure from OPEC, possibly undermining the cartel. This, together with Russia's new willingness to become a major U.S. oil supplier, could establish a long-sought counterweight to Saudi Arabia, still the biggest influence by far on global oil prices. It would be consistent with the plan released by Vice President Dick Cheney's team in June, which underscored "energy security" as central to U.S. foreign policy. "The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy," the report states. Some analysts prefer to downplay the drive to control Iraqi oil. "It is fashionable among anti-American circles ... to assume that U.S. foreign policy is driven by commercial considerations," said Patrick Clawson, an oil and policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an October talk. Rather, Clawson said, oil "has barely been on the administration's horizon in considering Iraq policy.... U.S. foreign policy is not driven by concern for promoting the interests of specific U.S. firms." Yet Clawson, whose institute enjoys close ties with the Bush administration, was more candid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-Hussein Iraq in 1999: "U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make significant profits," he said. "We should not be embarrassed about the commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq into the world economy. Iraq, post-Saddam, is highly likely to be interested in inviting international oil companies to invest in Iraq. This would be very useful for U.S. oil companies, which are well positioned to compete there, and very useful for the world's energy-security situation." Indeed, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, whose close ties with Perle, Wurmser, Rumsfeld and Cheney predate the current Bush administration, met recently with U.S. oil executives. Afterward, Chalabi, the would-be "Iraqi Karzai" and the hawks' long-standing choice to lead a post-Hussein Iraq, made it clear he would give preference to an American-led oil consortium. He also suggested that previous deals -- totaling tens of billions of dollars for Russia's Lukoil and France's TotalFinaElf -- could be voided. Next month, key Iraqi exiles will meet with oil executives at an English country retreat to discuss the future of Iraqi petroleum. The conference, sponsored by the Center for Global Energy Studies and chaired by Sheik Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister, will feature Maj. Gen. Wafiq Samarrai, the former head of Iraqi military intelligence, and former Iraqi Oil Minister Fadhil Chalabi, now executive director of the center. Fadhil Chalabi estimates that total oil reserves in Iraq could exceed Saudi Arabia's and that daily production one day could reach 10 million barrels, making it the world's largest producer. Hence, on the center's conference agenda is a discussion of Iraq as a "second Saudi Arabia," and the prospect of a world without OPEC. Oil executives and analysts heading to the country retreat will also be able to purchase the center's 800-page analysis of the prospects for exploration in Iraq. The cost: $52,500. But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners determined to elevate Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign policy goals, would be to destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state: namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran. "The War Won't End in Baghdad," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal. In 1985, as a consultant to the National Security Council and Oliver North, Ledeen helped broker the illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran by setting up meetings between weapons dealers and Israel. In the current war, he argues, "we must also topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus." In urging the expansion of the war on terror to Syria and Iran, Ledeen does not mention Israel. Yet Israel is a crucial strategic reason for the hard-line vision to "roll back" Syria and Iran -- and another reason why control of Iraq is seen as crucial. In 1998, Wurmser, now in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. "It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," he said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition." Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was "at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein." And Perle, Wurmser and Feith (now in the Pentagon), in their 1996 Israeli think tank report to Netanyahu, argued for abandoning efforts for a comprehensive peace in favor of a policy of "rolling back" Syria to protect Israel's interests. Now, however, Israel is given a lower profile by those who would argue for rollback. Rather, writes Ledeen, U.S. troops would be put at risk in order to "liberate all the peoples of the Middle East." And this, he argues, would be virtually pain-free: "If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support." Perle concurs on Iraq -- "The Arab World ... will consider honor and dignity has been restored" -- as well as Iran: "It is the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime." Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran "the day after" the Iraq war ends. The vast ambition of such changes to the Middle Eastern map would seem an inherent deterrent. But it is precisely this historical sweep, reminiscent of Sykes-Picot and the British arrival in Iraq in 1917, that many close to the administration seek. Publicly, Perle and Ledeen cling to the fantasy that American troops would be welcomed in Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus with garlands of flowers. Yet they are too smart to ignore the rage across the Arab and Muslim worlds that would surely erupt in the wake of war on multiple Middle Eastern fronts. Indeed, the foreshadowing is already with us: in Bali, in Moscow, in Yemen and on the streets of Amman. It's clear that even in Jordan, a close ally of the U.S., the anger at a U.S. attack on Iraq could be hard to contain. Indeed, the hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. "One can only hope that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please," Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August. "That's our mission in the war against terror."

Ali, Let’s rewind the history tape to 1071 A.D. to battle of Manzikert and you will have your answer why Turks became the dominant ethnic group in Anatolia. I guess you’d agree with me that brain does not always prevail over the brawn. It’s a historical fact that the assimilation of the indigenous population of Anatolia was not done peacefully, but rather through brutal use of force. In the case of Armenians you should also note that the underlying social structure was constantly attacked and ruined by distractive Byzantine policies. Most noble families had abandoned Armenia and took refuge in Central Anatolia, where they later established a Kingdom of Cilicia. The cruelty of Turkish tribes has set a fairly advanced region of its time, Middle East, back a few centuries. In fact the desolate conditions currently evident in the Middle East can be traced back to Turkish influence. While the examples brought by you about powerful and advanced cultures overwhelming invading barbarians has some merit, yet it fails to look at the other side of the coin. History has seen many instances when barbarians forced assimilation of local indigenous people; Gothic and Germanic tribes in Europe, Turkic tribes in Anatolia just to name a few. I am sure you wouldn’t attribute the fall of Rome to the superiority of Gothic culture over Roman civilization. It is true that Goths took many aspects of Roman civilization, but they have added a distinct Gothic flavor to it. Same things happened in Anatolia. Turkic tribes took many features of Anatolian people and Turkified it. (Hagia Sophia is a perfect example of it).