Tweet
Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue" Web Site as a
Regional Information Hub project.
As a part of the project www.mediadialogue.org web site is maintained,
featuring the most interesting publications from the press of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest
updates on the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
************************************************** *************************
================================================== =========================
CONFLICTS
================================================== =========================
ARMENIAN AND OSSETIAN KIDNAPPED IN JAVA NEIGHBORHOOD
------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Source: `Alia' newspaper (Georgia) [September 12, 2005]
Author:
In Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, two residents of Vladikavkaz were
kidnapped - one of them Ossetian, the other one Armenian. As reported
by regional police of Shida Kartly, relatives and friends of
Khachapuridze brothers, kidnapped in Tskhinvali two months ago, are
involved in this kidnapping.
The crime was committed in the Big Liakhv gorge. The perpetrators
stopped the car and detained the five people inside. `Due to timely
interference of the Georgian police, three hostages got an immediate
release; negotiations are conducted on the liberation of the rest. By
their actions, the relatives and friends of the kidnapped
Khachapuridze are trying to get attention of the authorities in
Tskhinvali and Tbilisi. They demand official declaration of their
relatives' fate', regional police department informed `Alia'.
Further on, staff of Georgian peacekeeping battalion interfered. As
reported by battalion commander Mamuka Kurashvili, the negotiations
with the kidnappers were a success - release of both kidnapped did not
face any problems or preconditions. `We still have no information on
the Khachapuridze brothers missing for two months', Kurashvili said.
Later on, for unknown reasons Minister of Interior of self-proclaimed
South Ossetia Republic, Mikhail Mindzaev refuted the information that
there was an Armenian among the kidnapped. According to him, the
majority of the passengers appeared to be citizens of
Azerbaijan. `When the kidnappers found it out, they released them. The
crime was committed half a kilometer away from Kurta village police
department. As soon as we were informed about the crime, we
immediately contacted Kurta police department and notified the
law-and-order bodies of Gori region, and the people were released',
Mindzaev stated. He put emphasis on the fact that quick operations on
release of the hostages were due to coordinated and simultaneous
activity of the Georgian and South Ossetian law-and-order
bodies. `Recently cooperation of the law-and-order bodies assumed
efficiency necessary in the conflict zone. The Georgian and Ossetian
bodies launched several successful operations', Mindzaev emphasized.
RUPEL LEFT - THE `MESSAGE' STAYED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: "Novoye Vremya" newspaper (Armenia) [September 08, 2005]
Author: Sergey Shakariants
Blitz visits of OSCE Chairman-in-office Slovenian Dimitrij Rupel to
the capitals of Azerbaijan and Armenia showed that nothing is likely
to change in the conflict settlement process for the time to come.
If we compare the statements of Slovenian Foreign Minister, made in
Baku and Yerevan, his words about `an open message from Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliev' attracted attention. This statement of Rupel
extremely surprised the Azerbaijani political elite. Baku started
`fortune-telling on coffee ground' as to the possible content of
I. Aliev's confidential message to his Armenian colleague. It should
be noted that there might be two basic opinions `developed' around the
same idea. The idea is the following: I. Aliev allegedly offered open
`bargaining' to R. Kocharian. Further on we come to nuances. The
proponents of the first viewpoint are confident that `the bargaining'
is around the ideas of political nature, the supporters of the second
one hold that I. Aliev again offered Armenia to `forget its
principles' for economy reasons (more precisely, communication,
particularly `agreement' of Baku not to build Kars-Akhalkalak
railway...) at the expense of MKR independence and political interests
of Transcaucasus Armenians...
By the way, Azerbaijan noted with regard to Mr. Rupel's statement
about `open message' that after the negotiations with Aliev in Baku,
OSCE Chairman-in-office did not imply anything of the sort. Further
on, there is a usual reference of Azerbaijani media to the fact that
one more representative of the European structures promised a
resolution of the conflict `in accordance with the principle of
territorial integrity and the peoples right for self-determination - I
do not see a principle contradiction here, however the details should
be worked out'. In Yerevan, D. Rupel added one more phrase to this
statement, `Today these two principles may be accorded'. Well, we
cannot but agree with Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, who
noted after the meeting with D. Rupel, `I do not want to publicize the
details, however I may confirm Dimitrij Rupel's words that common
ground emerges on principle issues. I cannot concretize which ones but
still they are in place. As you know, the devil is in the
details. When Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan start
discussing the details, we may possibly face serious obstacles'. The
Devil really hides his `plots' in the small points - the details, the
concrete. However as you remember, all the sides, both conflicting and
`interested' parties, are persistently silent about the details.
It is a fact that on September 6, D. Rupel was received by our
President. In the course of the meeting, issues of the negotiations on
conflict settlement process and its current stage were
discussed. However, no details were reported to Armenian media on the
transfer of the same I. Aliev's `open message' by OSCE
Chairman-in-office to R. Kocharian. Is there any such `message' at
all? In fact, now we will not try to find out if the Azerbaijani
President wrote anything to Yerevan, and even if he did what it
actually was, to be on the hot trail. We better pay attention to the
response of MKR President A.Ghukasian. At a quite late hour on
September 5 after his meeting with D. Rupel, the Artsakh leader
specially emphasized that he does not view the prospects for conflict
resolution in the course of 2005 as realistic. `There are still many
issues to be agreed upon', Head of MKR stated. Alongside this, he gave
a positive assessment of the fact that official Baku `speaks of
referendum and Mountainous Karabagh status'. According to Ghukasian,
previously Azerbaijan did not raise these issues. `Today, Azerbaijan
works in a more constructive plane, however, no tangible progress is
still visible'. Meanwhile, A. Ghukasian once again reminded that the
meetings on the level of Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents, also
Foreign Ministers of these two countries are unable to replace the
format of OSCE Minsk Group that implies participation of Stepanakert
representatives in the negotiations. Giving a positive assessment of
any contacts between the heads of Armenia and Azerbaijan, President of
MKR emphasized, `Without participation of Mountainous Karabagh, it is
hard to resolve the issue of Mountainous Karabagh. The fact that OSCE
holds meetings with the authorities of Mountainous Karabagh means that
we are a part of this format'. Finally, he informed Armenian media
that he got the attention of OSCE Head to `the militaristic statements
of Azerbaijani President'. `I think Aliev thus resolves internal
political problems, but on the other hand, it does not impede the
general process, since by the solution of internal problems, Aliev
falls captive to his own statements', Ghukasian noted. `To resolve the
conflict, the sides should take a certain risk - to give up something
for another. Today Azerbaijan is not ready to such risks. They think
they can get anything, but it is impossible'.
Raising the assumption that the MKR status may be a `step below
independence', A. Ghukasian replied, `I do not even imagine such an
option - it is equal to being half pregnant'.
However, now it is a fact that in a number of cases the political
domain does not only accept the possibility of being `half pregnant'
but even welcomes and encourages the intentions of those who agree to
admit of such nonsense. There may be numerous examples in
international politics of the recent years - no hurry no `fuss', etc.
Now about the current concerns. `We realize that unpopular decisions
may be taken. However, these unpopular decisions should concern all -
not only us. We are ready to go our part of the way if Azerbaijan does
the same', Ghukasian stated. Answering the question what may become an
unpopular decision for Artsakh people, Ghukasian stated, `Today
Mountainous Karabagh has a category of people for whom even
negotiations with Azerbaijan are unpopular'.
Truly, isn't it the time for us to understand what `unpopular
decisions' are? In other words, it is time for Armenian and MKR public
to voice, primarily with respect to the reaction of the international
community, what is the limit of compromise for Armenian sides in the
settlement process.
To take up V. Oskanian's assessment of D. Rupel's visit to the region,
Armenian Foreign Minister noted that in the negotiations the
Azerbaijani and Armenian sides show equal willingness to
compromise. At the same time he noted, `We cannot discuss options that
fail to ensure the right of Mountainous Karabagh people for
self-determination'. This idea is immediately related to the thesis on
popular and unpopular decisions. In our opinion, today we cannot
ensure a possibility to factually postpone the negotiation process for
8-9 years. Yerevan and Stepanakert are not only to publicly declare
but also to prove through all concrete foreign policy steps to various
international structures that the right of Artsakh people for
self-determination is understood and interpreted only as a large-scale
and full recognition of the fact of MKR independence - with all the
political and legal consequences that ensue.
================================================== =========================
REGION
================================================== =========================
NOTORIOUS `DARK POWERS'
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Source: "Zerkalo" newspaper (Azerbaijan) [September 08, 2005]
Author: M. Yasharoglu
The Georgian authorities see them looming behind the fair demands of
our countrymen
Georgian Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Zurab Gumberidze stated yesterday
in his interview to ANS TV, `Official Tbilisi puts emphasis on the
issues related to the situation of Azerbaijani community in
Georgia'. `It is important that no forces lie behind the protest
actions, in this case the problems of Azerbaijanis in Georgia will
finally be solved", the Georgian diplomat stated. He noted that if the
demands of the residents of Kvemo-Kartly region are objective in
nature and this issue is not instigated by media to harm interstate
relations, the problems will be much easier to solve. "In any case,
the Georgian side will take all necessary measures to this effect',
Z. Gumberidze emphasized.
Meanwhile, in the conversation with `Zerkalo' correspondent, leader of
`Heyrat' movement Alibala Askerov qualified the statement of the
Ambassador as `unclear'. He noted that after Mikhail Sahakashvili's
accession, the situation of Azerbaijanis did not improve; on the
contrary it grew worse, despite the fact that Azerbaijan and Georgia
are strategic partners.
A. Askerov expressed his opinion also over the remark of the Georgian
Ambassador that `it is important that no forces lie behind the protest
actions'. `I may state we have no one standing up for us, Georgian
Azerbaijanis, except ourselves. I do not understand implications about
`any forces'. Since independence, the Georgian authorities have never
heard the Azerbaijanis in Georgia even hint to separatist
intentions. We, Azerbaijanis, have always supported the Georgian
authorities and statehood of the country. The conducted elections are
a proof of that', A. Askerov stated.
In his opinion, each new authority in Georgia gave empty promises to
Azerbaijanis, so it is not surprising that they should have come to
the limit of their trust. The new Georgian Law `On land' aggravated
the concerns of Azerbaijanis still more. A. Askerov thinks that the
Georgian authorities should understand that until Georgian citizens -
Azerbaijanis - own their land, the discontent will steadily grow.
"Today, the basic employment sphere of Azerbaijanis is the
land. However, the new law stipulates that Azerbaijanis residing in
Georgia are not eligible to own it. Moreover, the land for purchase
will primarily be suggested to its current tenants. It means that 70%
of the population without land will still be deprived of it. Moreover,
the nationalistic forces of Georgia will not allow an Azerbaijani to
own land. For instance, in the Bolnis region, agreements between the
state and the tenants were annulled unilaterally. Later, small
organizations, administered by the Georgians, were set up. That is,
Azerbaijanis did not gain anything from the so-called reform. I am
confident that Ambassador Gumberidze is aware of that but he tries to
shift the responsibility on some unknown forces', the speaker stated,
adding that `Sahakashvili's revolution' has not yet led to general
improvement of the country's economy and employment situation.
In his opinion, the fate of Georgia is now in the hands of large clans
in power. `For two years, not a single cent was invested in the
regions populated by Azerbaijanis. There is not a semblance of
conducting regional economic projects', A. Askerov asserts.
Head of `Heyrat' also expressed his position on the incident of the
disappearance of aksakal of Sadahli village hadji Sadraddin Palangov,
also known as Mullah Gara. To remind, several months ago Mullah Gara
disappeared under strange circumstances. `Tension in Sadahli village
is still preserved, though the Georgian law-and-order bodies, zealous
at the start, have lost their interest in the investigation. We are
told that investigation is still underway but it strongly reminds
sheer disregard. How often should people assemble in front of village
administration?' A. Askerov wonders.
He thinks that our countrymen in Georgia do not demand `bread' from
Azerbaijani authorities. `We are just asking moral support for the
Georgian officials to feel the state stands up for them. It will goad
them into solving our problems through action and not empty talk', he
noted.
A. Askerov holds that the deportation of Azerbaijanis from Georgia
started since this country's independence, having increased in the
past two years. `There are villages with dozens of people, even whole
families leaving in search of a job. They make their daily living not
only in Russia but also in Azerbaijan with its own refugees', the
community leader noted with concern.
At the same time, the Georgian authorities apply double standards
towards Azerbaijanis. For instance, he, being a citizen of Georgia,
may easily cross the border with Armenia. Meanwhile, on the border
with Azerbaijan there is a mass of artificially created problems with
the customs, frontier guards and police. Besides, the Georgian
authorities invest much more money in restoration of
Samtskhe-Javakhetia region, where Armenians live, and totally ignore
the territories populated by Azerbaijanis.
'This is so-called current reality of the Azerbaijanis residing in
Georgia. If our countries are strategic partners, we have the right to
ask the Azerbaijani authorities what is this notorious `strategic
partnership' all about? May be through the assistance of chauvinistic
circles of Georgia, it is all about setting of unbearable conditions
for Azerbaijanis residents', A. Askerov asked a rhetoric question in
conclusion.
Well, the situation described by A. Askerov is quite `vivid'. We have
to express regret over the fact that representatives of official
Tbilisi have not yet clarified who stands behind the demands of the
Georgian citizens of Azerbaijani nationality. May be it is time to do
it alongside finding out what is the reason for such an attitude to
the Georgian citizens of Azerbaijani nationality?
Herein, I would like to remind the words recently addressed to `Trend'
agency by Chairman of State Committee of work with the Azerbaijanis
living abroad, Nazim Ibragimov about the problems of Azerbaijanis in
Georgia. In his opinion, they are multilateral. `Part of the problems
is conditioned by social-economic situation, and this should be
naturally accepted. However, there are problems raised by quite
different factors. Azerbaijanis clashed with unfair attitude to them
like land division, serious deficiencies in education, their
representation in the governing structures, law and order system. Al
this certainly raises discontent and sets the impression that the
Georgian authorities conduct a policy of national discrimination",
N. Ibragimov noted. Head of the State Committee also expressed hope
that the Georgian authorities will consider this issue and solve the
problems of our countrymen in complex.
On our behalf, we will add that Azerbaijanis living in Georgia cherish
the same hopes. However, to prove the fairness of their demands, first
and foremost they will have to prove they are `non-politicized'.
================================================== =========================
NEIGHBOURS
================================================== =========================
TURKICIZATION OF TURKEY: INTO THE WEST
--------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Source: "Radikal" newspaper (Turkey) [September 08, 2005]
Author: Ismet Berkan
We often use the same method of defense: when the French put on the
agenda the issue of Armenian Genocide, we point to Algeria. When the
Americans do it, we answer, `What about your attitude to the Indians?'
At the same time, we ignore one more circumstance. All the countries
we ask for counter-explanation are not silent about these events -
they freely discuss them, whereas those bringing their apologies for
the past do not face the threat of death or imprisonment.
What is happening in Turkey? Of all the shameful events of the past,
relatively calm we may speak only about September 6-7 (on September
6-7, 1995 there were Armenian and Greek massacres in Istanbul - Ed.)
. However, we could not even get over the photo exhibition devoted to
the fiftieth anniversary of these events. The left fascists first
launched protest actions, and then right fascists protested the
exhibition. The latter ones were not satisfied with the action and
crashed the show room.
Recently I overheard the conversation of a group of my colleagues in
the editorial office. They discussed `Into the West' series now shown
on CNBC. One of them said, `That's how the Indians were massacred!'
Today in US it is not accepted to call this ethnic group `Indians' or
`red-skinned'. The phrase `native Americans' is considered most
proper. It is common knowledge that the people we call Americans
originated as a result of the migration of Western Europeans to North
America. The series is mostly about colonization of the state of
California, the history of those who reached the western coast
starting their journey from the Eastern... We, the Turks, also came to
the West from the East. Our presence in Anatolia does not yet count a
thousand years.
Long before us, Anatolia was populated by other peoples. Certainly,
the history of Armenians and Greeks has started from ancient times on
these lands. When Aya Sophia cathedral was being built, our ancestors
were still in the process of settling around Central Asia.
In contrast to Americans, we did not exterminate the peoples
populating the region; we lived and even assimilated with them. This
merging lasted till the emergence of nationalism. It is notable that
nationalism originated with the Turks much later than with other
peoples of Anatolia.
For Turkey, the basic and biggest problem of turkicization is its
duration, which is uncertain. Everyday we come across many people for
whom the process of turkicization is justified and essential. Because
of this, we cannot make ourselves face the past, accepting its
mistakes. It is impossible to become a great nation without it.
We may write in the Constitution that `nation is an indivisible
whole', however the nation itself doubts it, looking for traitors
inside. Before we have thought about facing history on September 6-7,
there come people who disappoint us with their actions.
************************************************** *************************
You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter either at
www.mediadialogue.org or by sending a message to the Editor:
[email protected].
For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].
Regional Information Hub project.
As a part of the project www.mediadialogue.org web site is maintained,
featuring the most interesting publications from the press of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest
updates on the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
************************************************** *************************
================================================== =========================
CONFLICTS
================================================== =========================
ARMENIAN AND OSSETIAN KIDNAPPED IN JAVA NEIGHBORHOOD
------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Source: `Alia' newspaper (Georgia) [September 12, 2005]
Author:
In Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, two residents of Vladikavkaz were
kidnapped - one of them Ossetian, the other one Armenian. As reported
by regional police of Shida Kartly, relatives and friends of
Khachapuridze brothers, kidnapped in Tskhinvali two months ago, are
involved in this kidnapping.
The crime was committed in the Big Liakhv gorge. The perpetrators
stopped the car and detained the five people inside. `Due to timely
interference of the Georgian police, three hostages got an immediate
release; negotiations are conducted on the liberation of the rest. By
their actions, the relatives and friends of the kidnapped
Khachapuridze are trying to get attention of the authorities in
Tskhinvali and Tbilisi. They demand official declaration of their
relatives' fate', regional police department informed `Alia'.
Further on, staff of Georgian peacekeeping battalion interfered. As
reported by battalion commander Mamuka Kurashvili, the negotiations
with the kidnappers were a success - release of both kidnapped did not
face any problems or preconditions. `We still have no information on
the Khachapuridze brothers missing for two months', Kurashvili said.
Later on, for unknown reasons Minister of Interior of self-proclaimed
South Ossetia Republic, Mikhail Mindzaev refuted the information that
there was an Armenian among the kidnapped. According to him, the
majority of the passengers appeared to be citizens of
Azerbaijan. `When the kidnappers found it out, they released them. The
crime was committed half a kilometer away from Kurta village police
department. As soon as we were informed about the crime, we
immediately contacted Kurta police department and notified the
law-and-order bodies of Gori region, and the people were released',
Mindzaev stated. He put emphasis on the fact that quick operations on
release of the hostages were due to coordinated and simultaneous
activity of the Georgian and South Ossetian law-and-order
bodies. `Recently cooperation of the law-and-order bodies assumed
efficiency necessary in the conflict zone. The Georgian and Ossetian
bodies launched several successful operations', Mindzaev emphasized.
RUPEL LEFT - THE `MESSAGE' STAYED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: "Novoye Vremya" newspaper (Armenia) [September 08, 2005]
Author: Sergey Shakariants
Blitz visits of OSCE Chairman-in-office Slovenian Dimitrij Rupel to
the capitals of Azerbaijan and Armenia showed that nothing is likely
to change in the conflict settlement process for the time to come.
If we compare the statements of Slovenian Foreign Minister, made in
Baku and Yerevan, his words about `an open message from Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliev' attracted attention. This statement of Rupel
extremely surprised the Azerbaijani political elite. Baku started
`fortune-telling on coffee ground' as to the possible content of
I. Aliev's confidential message to his Armenian colleague. It should
be noted that there might be two basic opinions `developed' around the
same idea. The idea is the following: I. Aliev allegedly offered open
`bargaining' to R. Kocharian. Further on we come to nuances. The
proponents of the first viewpoint are confident that `the bargaining'
is around the ideas of political nature, the supporters of the second
one hold that I. Aliev again offered Armenia to `forget its
principles' for economy reasons (more precisely, communication,
particularly `agreement' of Baku not to build Kars-Akhalkalak
railway...) at the expense of MKR independence and political interests
of Transcaucasus Armenians...
By the way, Azerbaijan noted with regard to Mr. Rupel's statement
about `open message' that after the negotiations with Aliev in Baku,
OSCE Chairman-in-office did not imply anything of the sort. Further
on, there is a usual reference of Azerbaijani media to the fact that
one more representative of the European structures promised a
resolution of the conflict `in accordance with the principle of
territorial integrity and the peoples right for self-determination - I
do not see a principle contradiction here, however the details should
be worked out'. In Yerevan, D. Rupel added one more phrase to this
statement, `Today these two principles may be accorded'. Well, we
cannot but agree with Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, who
noted after the meeting with D. Rupel, `I do not want to publicize the
details, however I may confirm Dimitrij Rupel's words that common
ground emerges on principle issues. I cannot concretize which ones but
still they are in place. As you know, the devil is in the
details. When Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan start
discussing the details, we may possibly face serious obstacles'. The
Devil really hides his `plots' in the small points - the details, the
concrete. However as you remember, all the sides, both conflicting and
`interested' parties, are persistently silent about the details.
It is a fact that on September 6, D. Rupel was received by our
President. In the course of the meeting, issues of the negotiations on
conflict settlement process and its current stage were
discussed. However, no details were reported to Armenian media on the
transfer of the same I. Aliev's `open message' by OSCE
Chairman-in-office to R. Kocharian. Is there any such `message' at
all? In fact, now we will not try to find out if the Azerbaijani
President wrote anything to Yerevan, and even if he did what it
actually was, to be on the hot trail. We better pay attention to the
response of MKR President A.Ghukasian. At a quite late hour on
September 5 after his meeting with D. Rupel, the Artsakh leader
specially emphasized that he does not view the prospects for conflict
resolution in the course of 2005 as realistic. `There are still many
issues to be agreed upon', Head of MKR stated. Alongside this, he gave
a positive assessment of the fact that official Baku `speaks of
referendum and Mountainous Karabagh status'. According to Ghukasian,
previously Azerbaijan did not raise these issues. `Today, Azerbaijan
works in a more constructive plane, however, no tangible progress is
still visible'. Meanwhile, A. Ghukasian once again reminded that the
meetings on the level of Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents, also
Foreign Ministers of these two countries are unable to replace the
format of OSCE Minsk Group that implies participation of Stepanakert
representatives in the negotiations. Giving a positive assessment of
any contacts between the heads of Armenia and Azerbaijan, President of
MKR emphasized, `Without participation of Mountainous Karabagh, it is
hard to resolve the issue of Mountainous Karabagh. The fact that OSCE
holds meetings with the authorities of Mountainous Karabagh means that
we are a part of this format'. Finally, he informed Armenian media
that he got the attention of OSCE Head to `the militaristic statements
of Azerbaijani President'. `I think Aliev thus resolves internal
political problems, but on the other hand, it does not impede the
general process, since by the solution of internal problems, Aliev
falls captive to his own statements', Ghukasian noted. `To resolve the
conflict, the sides should take a certain risk - to give up something
for another. Today Azerbaijan is not ready to such risks. They think
they can get anything, but it is impossible'.
Raising the assumption that the MKR status may be a `step below
independence', A. Ghukasian replied, `I do not even imagine such an
option - it is equal to being half pregnant'.
However, now it is a fact that in a number of cases the political
domain does not only accept the possibility of being `half pregnant'
but even welcomes and encourages the intentions of those who agree to
admit of such nonsense. There may be numerous examples in
international politics of the recent years - no hurry no `fuss', etc.
Now about the current concerns. `We realize that unpopular decisions
may be taken. However, these unpopular decisions should concern all -
not only us. We are ready to go our part of the way if Azerbaijan does
the same', Ghukasian stated. Answering the question what may become an
unpopular decision for Artsakh people, Ghukasian stated, `Today
Mountainous Karabagh has a category of people for whom even
negotiations with Azerbaijan are unpopular'.
Truly, isn't it the time for us to understand what `unpopular
decisions' are? In other words, it is time for Armenian and MKR public
to voice, primarily with respect to the reaction of the international
community, what is the limit of compromise for Armenian sides in the
settlement process.
To take up V. Oskanian's assessment of D. Rupel's visit to the region,
Armenian Foreign Minister noted that in the negotiations the
Azerbaijani and Armenian sides show equal willingness to
compromise. At the same time he noted, `We cannot discuss options that
fail to ensure the right of Mountainous Karabagh people for
self-determination'. This idea is immediately related to the thesis on
popular and unpopular decisions. In our opinion, today we cannot
ensure a possibility to factually postpone the negotiation process for
8-9 years. Yerevan and Stepanakert are not only to publicly declare
but also to prove through all concrete foreign policy steps to various
international structures that the right of Artsakh people for
self-determination is understood and interpreted only as a large-scale
and full recognition of the fact of MKR independence - with all the
political and legal consequences that ensue.
================================================== =========================
REGION
================================================== =========================
NOTORIOUS `DARK POWERS'
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Source: "Zerkalo" newspaper (Azerbaijan) [September 08, 2005]
Author: M. Yasharoglu
The Georgian authorities see them looming behind the fair demands of
our countrymen
Georgian Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Zurab Gumberidze stated yesterday
in his interview to ANS TV, `Official Tbilisi puts emphasis on the
issues related to the situation of Azerbaijani community in
Georgia'. `It is important that no forces lie behind the protest
actions, in this case the problems of Azerbaijanis in Georgia will
finally be solved", the Georgian diplomat stated. He noted that if the
demands of the residents of Kvemo-Kartly region are objective in
nature and this issue is not instigated by media to harm interstate
relations, the problems will be much easier to solve. "In any case,
the Georgian side will take all necessary measures to this effect',
Z. Gumberidze emphasized.
Meanwhile, in the conversation with `Zerkalo' correspondent, leader of
`Heyrat' movement Alibala Askerov qualified the statement of the
Ambassador as `unclear'. He noted that after Mikhail Sahakashvili's
accession, the situation of Azerbaijanis did not improve; on the
contrary it grew worse, despite the fact that Azerbaijan and Georgia
are strategic partners.
A. Askerov expressed his opinion also over the remark of the Georgian
Ambassador that `it is important that no forces lie behind the protest
actions'. `I may state we have no one standing up for us, Georgian
Azerbaijanis, except ourselves. I do not understand implications about
`any forces'. Since independence, the Georgian authorities have never
heard the Azerbaijanis in Georgia even hint to separatist
intentions. We, Azerbaijanis, have always supported the Georgian
authorities and statehood of the country. The conducted elections are
a proof of that', A. Askerov stated.
In his opinion, each new authority in Georgia gave empty promises to
Azerbaijanis, so it is not surprising that they should have come to
the limit of their trust. The new Georgian Law `On land' aggravated
the concerns of Azerbaijanis still more. A. Askerov thinks that the
Georgian authorities should understand that until Georgian citizens -
Azerbaijanis - own their land, the discontent will steadily grow.
"Today, the basic employment sphere of Azerbaijanis is the
land. However, the new law stipulates that Azerbaijanis residing in
Georgia are not eligible to own it. Moreover, the land for purchase
will primarily be suggested to its current tenants. It means that 70%
of the population without land will still be deprived of it. Moreover,
the nationalistic forces of Georgia will not allow an Azerbaijani to
own land. For instance, in the Bolnis region, agreements between the
state and the tenants were annulled unilaterally. Later, small
organizations, administered by the Georgians, were set up. That is,
Azerbaijanis did not gain anything from the so-called reform. I am
confident that Ambassador Gumberidze is aware of that but he tries to
shift the responsibility on some unknown forces', the speaker stated,
adding that `Sahakashvili's revolution' has not yet led to general
improvement of the country's economy and employment situation.
In his opinion, the fate of Georgia is now in the hands of large clans
in power. `For two years, not a single cent was invested in the
regions populated by Azerbaijanis. There is not a semblance of
conducting regional economic projects', A. Askerov asserts.
Head of `Heyrat' also expressed his position on the incident of the
disappearance of aksakal of Sadahli village hadji Sadraddin Palangov,
also known as Mullah Gara. To remind, several months ago Mullah Gara
disappeared under strange circumstances. `Tension in Sadahli village
is still preserved, though the Georgian law-and-order bodies, zealous
at the start, have lost their interest in the investigation. We are
told that investigation is still underway but it strongly reminds
sheer disregard. How often should people assemble in front of village
administration?' A. Askerov wonders.
He thinks that our countrymen in Georgia do not demand `bread' from
Azerbaijani authorities. `We are just asking moral support for the
Georgian officials to feel the state stands up for them. It will goad
them into solving our problems through action and not empty talk', he
noted.
A. Askerov holds that the deportation of Azerbaijanis from Georgia
started since this country's independence, having increased in the
past two years. `There are villages with dozens of people, even whole
families leaving in search of a job. They make their daily living not
only in Russia but also in Azerbaijan with its own refugees', the
community leader noted with concern.
At the same time, the Georgian authorities apply double standards
towards Azerbaijanis. For instance, he, being a citizen of Georgia,
may easily cross the border with Armenia. Meanwhile, on the border
with Azerbaijan there is a mass of artificially created problems with
the customs, frontier guards and police. Besides, the Georgian
authorities invest much more money in restoration of
Samtskhe-Javakhetia region, where Armenians live, and totally ignore
the territories populated by Azerbaijanis.
'This is so-called current reality of the Azerbaijanis residing in
Georgia. If our countries are strategic partners, we have the right to
ask the Azerbaijani authorities what is this notorious `strategic
partnership' all about? May be through the assistance of chauvinistic
circles of Georgia, it is all about setting of unbearable conditions
for Azerbaijanis residents', A. Askerov asked a rhetoric question in
conclusion.
Well, the situation described by A. Askerov is quite `vivid'. We have
to express regret over the fact that representatives of official
Tbilisi have not yet clarified who stands behind the demands of the
Georgian citizens of Azerbaijani nationality. May be it is time to do
it alongside finding out what is the reason for such an attitude to
the Georgian citizens of Azerbaijani nationality?
Herein, I would like to remind the words recently addressed to `Trend'
agency by Chairman of State Committee of work with the Azerbaijanis
living abroad, Nazim Ibragimov about the problems of Azerbaijanis in
Georgia. In his opinion, they are multilateral. `Part of the problems
is conditioned by social-economic situation, and this should be
naturally accepted. However, there are problems raised by quite
different factors. Azerbaijanis clashed with unfair attitude to them
like land division, serious deficiencies in education, their
representation in the governing structures, law and order system. Al
this certainly raises discontent and sets the impression that the
Georgian authorities conduct a policy of national discrimination",
N. Ibragimov noted. Head of the State Committee also expressed hope
that the Georgian authorities will consider this issue and solve the
problems of our countrymen in complex.
On our behalf, we will add that Azerbaijanis living in Georgia cherish
the same hopes. However, to prove the fairness of their demands, first
and foremost they will have to prove they are `non-politicized'.
================================================== =========================
NEIGHBOURS
================================================== =========================
TURKICIZATION OF TURKEY: INTO THE WEST
--------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Source: "Radikal" newspaper (Turkey) [September 08, 2005]
Author: Ismet Berkan
We often use the same method of defense: when the French put on the
agenda the issue of Armenian Genocide, we point to Algeria. When the
Americans do it, we answer, `What about your attitude to the Indians?'
At the same time, we ignore one more circumstance. All the countries
we ask for counter-explanation are not silent about these events -
they freely discuss them, whereas those bringing their apologies for
the past do not face the threat of death or imprisonment.
What is happening in Turkey? Of all the shameful events of the past,
relatively calm we may speak only about September 6-7 (on September
6-7, 1995 there were Armenian and Greek massacres in Istanbul - Ed.)
. However, we could not even get over the photo exhibition devoted to
the fiftieth anniversary of these events. The left fascists first
launched protest actions, and then right fascists protested the
exhibition. The latter ones were not satisfied with the action and
crashed the show room.
Recently I overheard the conversation of a group of my colleagues in
the editorial office. They discussed `Into the West' series now shown
on CNBC. One of them said, `That's how the Indians were massacred!'
Today in US it is not accepted to call this ethnic group `Indians' or
`red-skinned'. The phrase `native Americans' is considered most
proper. It is common knowledge that the people we call Americans
originated as a result of the migration of Western Europeans to North
America. The series is mostly about colonization of the state of
California, the history of those who reached the western coast
starting their journey from the Eastern... We, the Turks, also came to
the West from the East. Our presence in Anatolia does not yet count a
thousand years.
Long before us, Anatolia was populated by other peoples. Certainly,
the history of Armenians and Greeks has started from ancient times on
these lands. When Aya Sophia cathedral was being built, our ancestors
were still in the process of settling around Central Asia.
In contrast to Americans, we did not exterminate the peoples
populating the region; we lived and even assimilated with them. This
merging lasted till the emergence of nationalism. It is notable that
nationalism originated with the Turks much later than with other
peoples of Anatolia.
For Turkey, the basic and biggest problem of turkicization is its
duration, which is uncertain. Everyday we come across many people for
whom the process of turkicization is justified and essential. Because
of this, we cannot make ourselves face the past, accepting its
mistakes. It is impossible to become a great nation without it.
We may write in the Constitution that `nation is an indivisible
whole', however the nation itself doubts it, looking for traitors
inside. Before we have thought about facing history on September 6-7,
there come people who disappoint us with their actions.
************************************************** *************************
You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter either at
www.mediadialogue.org or by sending a message to the Editor:
[email protected].
For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].