The Voice of Mirza Xazar: Category Mirza Khazar's archive

Comments To My Performance Review - 26 September 2002

Mirza Khazar — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:32:42 -0400

Comments To My Performance Review
26 September 2002

I strongly disagree with and object to the rating of my Performance Review and the comments included in the review. I consider the final rating, the "NI" in "Professional Standard" and "Judgment" all to be mistaken and the reflection not of an objective evaluation of my professional performance but rather an indication of personal feelings and deep bias. I was the only journalist at RFE/RL to be subjected to a last minute Performance Review. This indicates that I was singled out for special treatment not for reasons of any alleged performance deficiencies but for other, wholly unprofessional, reasons. These reasons are addressed below:

1. In a summary comment, the reviewer writes: "Too often, Mr. Michaeli injects his personal opinion into Service programming. One example the editorial on the Jewish cemeteries (emphasis added/the reviewer's terminology) was discussed at this year's program review." The reviewer then concludes: "The Service programming does not adhere to our professional codes. This is why the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT."

Comment: It is clear that the reviewer had no example or evidence to support this conclusion and rating other than the reviewer's own reaction to my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries". The reviewer failed to discuss details of the commentary. This failure and the use of the suggestive words "Jewish cemeteries" reveal the reviewer's bias and intent. The reviewer conveys the misleading impression that my commentary is about the history and presence of Jewish Cemeteries (in Azerbaijan). In fact, my commentary addressed the issue of the desecration and destruction of 49 grave- sites at the Jewish Cemetery in Baku in November 2001. Our Service reports on and sometimes provides commentary on events and developments of importance and interest to our listeners. When our buro in Baku learned of this particular event through contact with the head of the Baku Jewish Community, every effort was made to obtain additional, accurate information from other sources. This entailed timely action on the part of our stringer who, in the course of two hours, procured reactions and information from The Interior Ministry of Azerbaijan, The Office of the President, and the Israeli Embassy. All of these sources confirmed the initial report on this case of vandalism and desecration. The police official who was investigating the matter was interviewed and we also aired the opinions and views in regard to this event of all political parties, including the ruling political party. Local print and electronic media outlets in Azerbaijan, with the exception of the State run TV, reported on the event. Surely, desecration of a cemetery in Baku is a matter of interest and importance to our listeners. Surely, the importance and interest of this event transcend the particular religious identity of those whose graves were desecrated. This is certainly true of Azerbaijan and to suggest otherwise would speak more to the reviewer's bias than to the concerns of our Azerbaijani listeners. When the local media give extensive coverage to an event, should RFE/RL minimize its coverage and commentary because the desecration and vandalism involved a "Jewish cemetery" because the Service Director happens to be Jewish himself? No matter what unfortunate bias may motivate the reviewer, this story could not and should not be ignored and it certainly was deserving of commentary. s there any reasonable person in the world who will not denounce vandalism at cemetery, be it Muslim, Christian, or Jewish?

The commentary I provided, following good journalistic practice and RFE/RL policy, was kept separate from our stringer reports on the event. My commentary was, of course, clearly labeled as commentary, again in accordance with our Professional Code and the highest standards of journalism.

According to our Professional Code:

C. Analysis, Commentary and Editorials

. Commentary, which is to be clearly labeled as such, is analytical in content and judicious in tone but reflects the personal judgment or opinion of the author on a particular issue. (See Professional Code)

"Our broadcasters and journalists never reflect their own views and opinions in our news stories: commentaries and points of view must be clearly labeled as such."

Clearly, in direct contrast to the reviewer's view, the Professional Code and RFE/RL Editorial Policy recognize the legitimate role of commentary as long as commentary is clearly labeled as commentary. Since my commentary on this event was clearly labeled as commentary and kept separate from news coverage, as has always been the case with all my commentaries and expressions of my views, I have not violated any editorial policy at RFE/RL or of good journalistic practice in general. The accusation that I have violated the Professional Code or other editorial policies by "injecting personal opinion into Service programming" is baseless. There is no Editorial Policy at RFE/RL which forbids broadcasters from writing commentaries. The reviewer, then, is in error and this baseless accusation can in no way serve as grounds for rating my overall performance as "Needs Improvement". Moreover, the reviewer's personal view of my commentary, should remain just that, a personal view. To permit personal views to replace objective analysis is to invite a distortion of the evaluation process and a challenge to journalistic integrity.

In February 2002 the Intermedia Research Center conducted a Panel Review of our November programming. Of eight panelists, a single panelist expressed “outrage” at my commentary on vandalism at the Jewish Cemetery. He did it in an aggressive, insulting, uncivil manner. In my email message to Jeff Trimble, Don Jensen, and Tom Dine on May 3, 2002, I protested this open attack and aspersions on my character, my religion, and my private life:

“The InterMedia has issued a review of Internal Monitoring Panel on Azerbaijani Service programs for the next Program Review. I appreciate the work the InterMedia has done.

I am not pleased with (basically biased) comments of some panelists about my commentaries on the defacement of Jewish graves at the Jewsih cemetery in Baku such as:

"...Khazar's commentary of 24 November was biased and driven by personal ambition, which did not produce a good impression".(see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

This is what a Panelist Nr 1 and some others has to say about my commentary. They all applauded similar views expressed by Azerbaijani politicians, religious leaders, and officials, but amasingly, were outraged when I (Khazar) have expressed same views. What does a commentary on a crime such as destruction of (Jewish or else) cemetery has in common with my "personal ambitions" remains unclear. This is why, in my view, the InterMedia decided (unfortunately) to include here a "Translator's note" "explaining" (amasing isn't it!) the meaning of my (Khazar's) "personal ambition": " Translator's note: I believe the respondent is implying that Khazar is an Azerbaijani of Jewish extraction, from small community of Jews who live in the mountainous Guba region(?)". (see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

Correction: The translator has absolutely nothing to do with my religion, my belief, my ethnic roots. It is my private business. It is not a public issue. Furthermore, contrary to the Translator's "expertise" I have never seen Guba and it's mountains in whole my life. The Guba mountains has nothing to do with me, my religion or my ethnic roots at all.

What this remark about "mountains of Guba", my private life, my religion has to do with the Program Review? Why this remark concerning only my private life, and believe was included into the Panel Review and distributed IN WRITING to several people?

I categorically protest against this kind of (unfortunate) publicty. It is not helpful. It is harming RFE/RL image. It has nothing to do with the Program Review.

rgds
Mirza"

Don Jensen was silent. Jeff Trimble responded the same day:

“Mirza, I appreciate your comments and I understand your reaction. Given the verve of the panelist's objection, I think it's worth looking together at a translation of this item in order to try to understand the nature of his concern. Let's discuss it together.

Rgds,
Jeff"

But Jeff Trimble did not act on his call for a discussion, "given the verve of the panelist's objection". I have asked Mr. Trimble to discuss this pressing issue, as he had suggested. In response, he has told me that he does not have the time. The discussion he suggested has never taken place. I tried to talk to Don Jensen, but he categorically refused to discuss the issue with me. “If you want to discuss this issue, NO COMMENT. I do not want to talk about this”. My protest remained unanswered. My supervisors, in fact, made no effort to help to me obtain a fair opportunity to respond to these baseless accusations. On the contrary, at the Program Review on May 31, 2002, both Jeff Trimble and Don Jensen used language very similar to that of the listener, suggesting that I had “personal ambitions” while writing about the vandalism which took place at the Jewish Cemetery. Don Jensen called my commentary “clearly labeled, but a wildly speculative commentary”. That the cemetery was, in fact, vandalized is not in dispute. Does my religious identity mean that I am not free (or able?) to provide professional commentary on an event when it happens to relate to persons, dead or alive, who share that religious identity? Is this special handling for an RFE/RL journalist, who happens to be Jewish? Is this religious profiling? I have provided more than 20 years of dedicated, recognized service to RFE/RL and prior to this entire matter I cannot recall a reviewer whose remarks clearly imply that there are special expectations of RFE/RL journalists who happen to be Jewish. Are the reviewer and those who have used some of his unfortunate language, ready to attack RFE/RL journalists who may report and offer commentary on any vandalism that might occur at Muslim or Christian cemeteries and accuse these journalists of "having personal ambitions"?

RFE/RL has always been dedicated to democracy and the values of an open society. These values surely include due process, a fair hearing, and opportunities for the accused to present his or her case. Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble, I regret to note, have not acted in the spirit of this RFE/RL dedication to these values. They have misrepresented the facts in this matter. An important part of this misrepresentation is their claim that the issue of my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries" (the reviewer's words) had been "discussed at this year's program review". No stretch of the imagination could enable one to describe that occurrence as a "discussion". At this program review, I was subjected to verbal attack with no real opportunity to respond. On the very few occasions when I managed to begin to speak, I was constantly interrupted, and not permitted to make a complete statement in response to the baseless accusations and allegations leveled against me. A program review in which one has little or no opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way, and discussion is precluded, is hardly a serious exercise aimed at improving programming quality.

At one point in this program review where open discussion and serious analysis were off the agenda, Jeff Trimble called the Azerbaijani Service programs "medieval". Objective observers would recognize the use of a term like this for what it is. In the absence of anything substantive to say or demonstrate, throw a term or name at someone. With some expression of disbelief, he asked: "How do these medieval programs attract the highest number of listeners at RFE/RL?" It seems not to have occurred to him that the answer is obvious. It is not "medieval" programming but rather programming of the highest professional quality which attracts the highest number of listeners. To suggest otherwise, is to demonstrate a lack of respect for the intelligence and discernment of our Azerbaijani listeners.

A program review with the deficiencies I have described is an abuse of the procedure and certainly is no basis for producing a "Needs Improvement" evaluation in regard to "Judgment", "Professional Standard", and overall performance. This particular program review on 31 May 2002 in its denial of due process, open discussion, and basic fairness, was also a violation of the values of a democratic society for which RFE/RL has always stood.

In a Development Plan the reviewer instructs me to avoid writing "personal commentaries". As I stated above, the Professional Code does not prohibit writing such commentaries. But even so, if my supervisors have believed there is no need for my commentaries, why did they not say: DO NOT WRITE COMMENTARIES? Why was I not spoken to about my commentaries on some kind of meaningful basis? Why has there been no effort, short of accusations at a program review, or performance reviews, to speak with me about alleged problems with editorial issues? If, in fact, there has been concern about editorial matters, it hardly speaks well to the professionalism of supervisors who have not communicated in any regular fashion any concerns.

2. The reviewer in a Summary comment says the following: "The most important fact is that long standing editorial issues remain year after year". I deeply disagree with this assessment. The assessment reflects the personal view of the reviewer. This personal view in regard to “long standing editorial issues” may have been of some value if it had been regularly communicated and discussed. In reality, for the last four years we have had only few meetings on editorial issues, mostly at Program Reviews. In fact, year after year my supervisors have failed to discuss, to instruct, and give directives, on editorial issues. Only now, as they depart from Broadcasting Management, have Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble decided to “speak out”.

It is clear to me that the reviewer's use of the phrase “year after year” is an attempt to create an illusion of a long-standing problem with my performance when, in fact, there has been none. It is also clear that this language constitutes an effort to fabricate the appearance of a "pattern" of performance. The aim is to build a wholly unfounded CASE to be used in future actions against me.

I would like to point out that year after year I have implemented all recommendations made by my supervisors at Program Reviews and Performance Reviews. These recommendations were made once every 12 months. There appeared to be a direct correlation between the recommendations and a declining number of listeners. In 1998 our listener rate was almost 36%. After four years of following the recommendations of my supervisors the Azerbaijani Service rate has reached14%. This significant decline in the number of listeners can be attributed to efforts to greatly reduce analysis and commentary. Prior to these imposed changes, analysis and commentary contributed to attracting greater audiences.

At the same time, my supervisors created and fostered an inhospitable work environment in which it was very difficult to maintain productivity and morale. Every opportunity was sought to undermine the authority of my position in the Service, and keep me under constant pressure. Supervisors should direct and assist, not undermine and subvert the dedicated efforts of those whom they supervise.

I have implemented all the instructions given me by my supervisors. I have reduced the number of commentaries significantly during the 12 months of the Review period. Even the Intermedia Review Panel has documented that for the last 12 months I was rarely heard on the air. But the reviewer has nothing to say about this in his summary comments in my Performance Review. As of September 3, 2002 I have completely stopped writing commentaries and analysis.

3. There is a very serious inconsistency in my Performance rating. For example, the reviewer gave me "VG" in "Sense of Mission", but rated me "NI" in "Professional Standards" and "Judgment". How can a Director with a very good "sense of mission" have a bad "judgment" or "low professional standard". At the same time, a Director rated "VG" in administration with the note: "Cooperative and efficient". I cannot be accused of not cooperating in editorial issues. I have always cooperated. There has been no occasion when I have refused to cooperate on editorial issues.

4. The reviewer has given me 3 Very Goods, 6 Goods, and 2 Needs Improvement. But the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. The Internal/External Panel Review conducted among our listeners in May by Intermedia has rated professional content, journalistic quality, objectivity, balance, quality of commentaries and analysis in our programs as Very Good/Excellent. There is a clear discrepancy here and it is the result of biased judgment. This is no way to conduct an appraisal of performance. It seems to me that “politics” played a major role in appraisal of my performance. It is unfair, certainly unprofessional, and I refuse to accept this biased appraisal.

I am ready to cooperate with anyone in Broadcasting Management with the purpose of refining and improving our programs. I have demonstrated my dedication to the highest standards of professionalism throughout my many years of work at RFE/RL. In all these many years I have always assumed others at RFE/RL shared this dedication. My experience of these past four years compels me to note that there are some at RFE/RL from whom I cannot expect this dedication to professionalism.

I urge you to take action to correct my Performance Rating and bring it in
accordance with my REAL performance.

Sincerely,
Mirza Michaeli,
Director,
Azerbaijani Language Service

Mirza Khazar's appeal to website visitors (14.01.2004)

Mirza Khazar — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:57:52 -0400

14 January 2004

Hello, dear compatriots! Hello, dear guest! Welcome to The Website Of The Radiostation “The Voice of Mirza Khazar”!

Since my removal from the Azadliq radio on September 2nd, 2003, this is the first opportunity I have had to communicate with my former listeners and my compatriots. This time, however, my instrument is not the microphone, but this website and I am grateful for this chance. Silencing creativity is an unjustice to the field of journalism. Creativity seeks freedom and a genuine democratic radio thrives on free speech. On “Black January” in 1990 when the armed forces of the USSR invaded the Azerbaijani capital Baku, I directed the microphone of radio Azadliq to help justice, the homeland, and a suppressed nation. In spite of attempts of the Soviet KGB and Supreme Soviet of USSR to silence my voice, in spite of all pressure put on me inside Azadliq, in spite of heavy censorship imposed on my programs, I refused to give in, I refused to be turned away from my purpose and goal. One-and-a half years later the USSR started to collapse and Azerbaijan gained its independence.

Thirteen years after “Black January”, on September 2, 2003 the senior management of the Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty corporation punished me for my programming in January 1990. I was removed from my position, and my employment with the RFE/RL was terminated. The charge: my coverage of the 1990 January events was unprofessional and I had violated Professional Code. They were right. When I approached the microphone to condemn Soviet agression, spread the anguish of Azerbaijan to the world, read national poems on air, I acted not as an American journalist, but as an Azerbaijani. This was a great honor for me. And today, thirteen years after “Black January” to be removed from my position for that deed, is still a great honor for me. I have not turned back from my pace and I have no intention to do so. To tell the truth, to name justice as a justice, injustice as an injustice, to call white – white, black – black, to help powerless people, to sooth those under yoke, to protect freedom, to defend human dignity; these were my principles during my 27 years of work at the Radio Liberty, and they are still valid for me today, only this time through a new medium, a new beginning based on my old values.

Dear compatriot! Dear guest! The site you are visiting now, when complete, will be different from all existing websites inside and outside Azerbaijan; the main difference being the “voice”. The name of the website is not “Mirza Khazar’s website”, but the website of “The Voice of Mirza Khazar”. You will see many innovations on our site, which you never have seen in other websites.

Thank you for taking a tour through website of “The Voice of Mirza Khazar”. Bon voyage!

Yours truly,

Mirza Khazar

Mirza Khazar: Another Conflict Over Caspian Oil Fields, or Another Blow To Iranian-Azerbaijani Relations?

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:01:17 -0400

The incident in the Caspian Sea on July 23 is an another sign of existing and future conflicts between the five Caspian littoral states over offshore oil fields in the region. The conflict between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan over ownership of some oil fields is well known to the public. Turkmenistan claims ownership of two oil fields which Azerbaijan has included in its oil exploitation program. Ashgabat even threatened to appeal to an international arbitration court to solve the dispute in its favor. But the 23 July incident when an Iranian gunship and a military aircraft threatened two oil exploration ships belonging to Azerbaijan is more serious than the dispute between Baku and Ashgabat. It is significant that the incident occured just two days after the visit of Hassan Rouhani, Secretary of the High Council for National Security of Iran, to Baku and his meetings with Azerbaijani president Heydar Aliev.

What happened during these meetings is still unclear, but Hassan Rouhani made it clear in the presence of the British Ambassador to Azerbaijan by saying "Iran will not permit foreign companies to launch any oil and gas activities within its 20 percent control share over the sea."

The 23 July incident occured in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea. The Azerbaijani authorities promptly protested the Iranian actions, which is understandable. The Azerbaijani leadership realizes the danger of such incidents not only for Azerbaijan's souvereignty over parts of Caspian sea. The main concern for official Baku is the potential danger of Iranian actions for Azerbaijan's relationship with international oil companies.

The British oil giant BP said it was operating the survey vessels and said it has suspended exploration work in that area of the sea around its Araz-Alov-Sharg oil concession. Furthermore, BP made it clear that the company does not like to be involved and the governments should solve problems between states. This statement might be discouraging for official Baku, of course. It is not clear if the states behind the oil companies, such as the United States and Great Britain, would like to become involved in this dispute or not, but it is obvious that Azerbaijani leadership would like very much for this to happen.

Nevertheless, the Azeri state news agency reported that Prime Minister Artur Rasizade had sent a letter of protest to the Iranian ambassador in Azerbaijan over the 23 July incident. And observers believe Heydar Aliev's upcoming visit to Iran is in jeopardy over the incident in the Caspian Sea.

As for Iran, it is not clear what official Tehran hoped to gain from this incident. Relations between Azerbaijan and Islamic Republic of Iran have been tense for the last several years. Iran opposed agreements signed between Azerbaijan and Western oil companies on the exploration of Caspian oil fields. At the same time, Iran still insists that the status of the Caspian Sea should be resolved first, making demands on Azerbaijani sector of Caspian sea. The Azerbaijani government rejects the Iranian position. On the other hand, the Iranian government is not pleased with the Western-oriented foreign policy pursued by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan in turn accuses Iran of maintaining economic and political relations with Armenia, which is in conflict with Azerbaijan.

Another "hot" point in relations between two countries is, of course, the problem of around 20-30 million Azerbaijanis living on their historical land in Iran. Government newspapers in Tehran accused the Azerbaijan Republic of stirring up nationalist sentiments among the ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran. The Azerbaijani government press in turn accused Iran of exporting the "Iranian model of political Islam" to several regions of Azerbaijan in order to establish its influence and create an Islamic regime here.

The incident on July 23 has complicated the already tense relations between the two countries. The incident has also complicated Azerbaijan's desire to explore the huge oil reserves of its sector in the Caspian Sea. And the incident has added a new dimension to the Caspian quarrel: a military one. An RFE/RL correspondent in Southern Azerbaijan reported that an Iranian military helicopter violated Azerbaijan's air space on 24 July. That report has not yet been confirmed, however. Is this another "incident" to put pressure on Azerbaijani government, or an accident? The concern created by the incident is growing.

(Mirza Khazar)

Azerbaijan Report: July 24, 2001 (RFE/RL)

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1340883.html

Azadliq TV

Mirza Khazar — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 08:09:11 -0400

DX LISTENING DIGEST 5-185, October 26, 2005 Incorporating REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING
edited by Glenn Hauser, http://www.worldofradio.com

** AZERBAIJAN. MEDIA GUIDE OCTOBER 2005

Over 2,000 candidates will be contesting 125 seats in the Azerbaijani
parliament on 6 November 2005. A divided and frustrated opposition has
fought on the streets and in the media for the right to express
itself.

There is no evidence of centralized control of media outlets in
Azerbaijan but there are several centres of influence and groupings of
media sources close to politicians and civil servants.

Political pressure on printed media has varied. In 2004 it appeared to
be on the decrease but the media has since attracted the attention of
government and other forces alike. There is relatively low circulation
of newspapers and a small number of independent papers. Domestic TV
audiences are large and the press has only a limited impact. However,
the printed word has until recently been the only means by which the
opposition could express itself.

Television

TV is the most popular mass medium in Azerbaijan. Although controlled
by various means, it is probably the most influential. Pro-government
commercial stations and the state channel have mainly been seen by
media observers as mouthpieces for allies of the Aliyev government.
However the TV scene is changing: One newcomer is the long-planned
public service TV station ITV, which has yet to establish a track
record on independent reporting.

Also in its infancy is Azadliq (Freedom) TV, available via Internet
and satellite with former head of the RFE/RL Azerbaijani service Mirza Xazar and prominent journalist Ilqar Alfioglu on the staff. Azadliq TV
is said to be owned by the leader of the opposition Democratic Party
and former parliament speaker in exile, Rasul Quliyev. The channel
went on the air in September 2005 right before the parliamentary
election. Reports variously place the studios in Israel or Germany.
Changes have also been seen at the commercial channel ANS TV.

There are 4 Azerbaijani commercial TV stations based in Baku which are
also relayed across Azerbaijan. These are mostly entertainment based
but carry news and current affairs programming to varying degrees.
Though owned privately, commercial TV stations are believed to be
close to government officials. Media Holding, of which Lider TV is
part, is reportedly owned by Adalat Aliyev, President Ilham Aliyev's
cousin. ATV is said to be supported by the head of the presidential
administration, Ramiz Mehdiyev.

ANS, which is viewed as the most liberal of the TV channels, is close
to the now arrested Farhad Aliyev, former economic development
minister. The channel was observed to support him when he lashed out
against monopolies in the country. The Azerbaijani government has
never succeeded in maintaining full control over the station despite
numerous efforts. The authorities know the station enjoys enormous
support and it is now treated as more or less an independent source.

The company enjoys foreign support too, in particular that of US
ambassador to Azerbaijan, Reno Harnish, who has expressed his
satisfaction with the company's election broadcast policy. It appears
to have achieved a measure of balance. ANS has a particularly strong
position on Nagornyy Karabakh and Armenia, although no media outlet
could pursue a different policy, which would be seen as against the
national interest. The brother of owner Vahid Mustafayev was killed in
the Karabakh war and Vahid himself was a war correspondent. ANS may
well be under political and financial pressure before and after the
election, but is in quite a strong position to practise some
independent reporting.

One state TV station from Turkey and some commercial channels are
available in Baku. Azerbaijani speakers can understand the Turkish
language.

In some areas near the national borders, broadcasts from an external
Iranian channel, state TV from Armenia and the Nagornyy Karabakh
station can be received. These signals are a combination of the normal
overspill of TV signals and the careful placing of TV transmitters,
some with directional signals, in border areas. They have all been the
subject of criticism by the Azerbaijani government or the loyal
private media.

Russian national TV programmes are relayed terrestrially in
Azerbaijan, though they have been interrupted in the past for non-
payment of bills. Some officials and media have called for them to be
curbed in the past, accusing them of bias in their coverage of
Azerbaijani issues. There is a pay or "cable" TV offering in Baku
using uses encrypted microwave signals.

A handful of local TV stations started operations outside the law in
Azerbaijan as long ago as 1998. Legal moves and direct closure
resulted in some cases but in early 2002, five regional television
stations in Azerbaijan were awarded broadcast licences and others
appear to have been legitimized. None of the stations carry
controversial or overtly political programming. According to a local
media expert the local authorities have the ability to exert influence
on their local TV station through local taxes and legislation.

During the 2003 presidential elections, regional stations did carry
more reports on the opposition than national TV, but they received
cautions over this coverage.

Website 1

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:36:00 -0500

Mirza Khazar

Mirza Khazar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:25:00 -0500

Mirza Khazar (Michaeli)

Date of Birth: November 29, 1947

Place of Birth: Goychai, Azerbaijan

Family Status: Married, 3 children

Professional Experience: 1987-2003 Director, Azerbaijani Broadcast Service, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, Inc., Prague, Czech Republic

1985-1987 Chief, Azerbaijani Service, the Voice of America, Washington, DC, USA

1976-1985 Deputy Chief Editor, Azerbaijani Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., Munich, Germany

1973-1974 Attorney at Law, Sumgait, Azerbaijan

Education: June, 1973 LL.B., Faculty of Law, Azerbaijan State University, Baku, Azerbaijan

1975 Special courses for lawyers from The USSR, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

1979 Hunter College, special English Courses, New York, USA

1981 Living English School, Folkstone, Great Britain

1986 Fundamentals of Equal Employment Opportunity for supervisors and Managers, Washington, DC, USA

1989 Management training seminars, Boston University, Munich Campus, Starnberg, Germany

Publications: Published translation of the Old And the New Testament into modern Azerbaijani language. The New Testament was Printed in Stockholm, 1983. Re-printed five times. Translated The Old Testament. Not published yet.

Research Work: Published many research papers on Social, economic, political, and Cultural developments in Azerbaijan, as well as other Former Soviet republics. Research Papers and articles appeared in The Bulletin of the Research Institute, RFE/RL, as well as in Azerbaijani, Turkish, Russian and Czech Press.

Mirza Khazar

Mirza Khazar — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:26:00 -0500

Mirza Khazar (Michaeli)

Date of Birth: November 29, 1947

Place of Birth: Goychai, Azerbaijan

Family Status: Married, 3 children

Professional Experience: 1987-2003 Director, Azerbaijani Broadcast Service, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, Inc., Prague, Czech Republic 1985-1987 Chief, Azerbaijani Service, the Voice of America, Washington, DC, USA 1976-1985 Deputy Chief Editor, Azerbaijani Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., Munich, Germany 1973-1974 Attorney at Law, Baku, Azerbaijan

Education: June, 1973 LL.B., Faculty of Law, Azerbaijan State University, Baku, Azerbaijan 1975 Special courses for lawyers from The USSR, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel 1979 Hunter College, special English Courses, New York, USA 1981 Living English School, Folkstone, Great Britain 1986 Fundamentals of Equal Employment Opportunity for supervisors and Managers, Washington, DC, USA 1989 Management training seminars, Boston University, Munich Campus, Starnberg, Germany

Publications: Published translation of the Old And the New Testament into modern Azerbaijani language. The New Testament was Printed in Stockholm, 1983. Re-printed five times.

Mirza Xazar: A Fight Between Clans In Baku, Or A Sign Of Aliev's Weakness?

Mirza Khazar — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:30:00 -0500

22 May 2001 NEWS BRIEFS A Fight Between Clans In Baku, Or A Sign Of Aliev's Weakness? Recent commentaries and reports in the Azerbaijani press suggests that a real political struggle is underway between the so- called "clans" represented in upper echelons of power in Baku. The fight between those "clans" intensified last week when another group representing Western Azerbaijanis (Azerbaijanis from Armenia) created the new "Erivan Birliyi" (Erevan Unity) society. The founders of this new entity insist that their society has no political goals and pursues only "public goals." But in spite of this insistence, most political observers in Baku, as well as most commentators in the Azerbaijani press, believethat the main goal of the "Erivan Birliyi" is to become a sort of "center of power" in the event of Heydar Aliev's demise. Both arguments seem to be sincere, but an attempt by Western Azerbaijanis to hold on their influence within the upper leadership in Baku suggests that after Aliev's departure they might fail to retain that influence or to maintain the grip on power in the long term. Local observers suggest that the haste in creating this "unity" is a clear sign of the weakness of the Western Azerbaijanis and suggests that they fear for their own future. Another indication is that Western Azerbaijanis in the upper echelons of power are seriously preparing themselves for the power struggle which will erupt as soon as Aliev departs the political scene. But even if this is true, there are many obstacles restricting the ability of Western Azerbaijanis to actively play a role in the transition of power. One of the obstacles is, as the local press suggests, deep differencies and even hostility between "Erivan Birliyi" and another Western Azerbaijani society, called "Agridag" (the Turkish name for Mount Ararat). Azerbaijani papers identify as the moving force behind "Erivan Birliyi" Ramiz Mehtiev, who heads the presidential staff. The main player in "Agridag" is Health Minister Ali Insanov. The rivalry between the two is no longer a secret in Baku. There is another sign that the alleged power struggle will turn into struggle between "clans." According to some reports, the "Alindja" society which was formed in the early 1990's in Baku by elite groups from Nakhichevan, constitutes another influential group within the top leadership. Hostilities between these two "clans" have deepened since Aliev came to power in June 1993. The Nakhichevanis claim that they played a major role in bringing Aliev to power. They complain that despite having done so, they did not receive as much attention as the Western Azerbaijanis did. One can not exclude the possibility that the rivalry between the Western Azerbaijanis and the Azerbaijanis from Nakhichevan will increase as rumors about President Aliev's health and his upcoming departure from power continue to spread. And as long as those rumors continue to spread, and as long as President Aliev's image on TV continues to worry his close allies, the fight between the "clans" will continue to intensify. As long as the struggle for power continues, it is likely to impact on other political forces and the public in Azerbaijan. RFE/RL Azerbaijan Report (Mirza Xazar)

Mirza Xazar: The UN Report: Negative Assessment Of Azerbaijan's Economy

Mirza Khazar — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:27:00 -0500

The UN Report: Negative Assessment Of Azerbaijan's Economy The United Nations Development Agency has released its annual report on economic development in Azerbaijan, which notes the nostalgia of most of the population for Soviet-era economic "stability." It is a strange assessment for a country with huge oil reserves and huge foreign investment in its oil industry. Despite years of heavy foreign investment in Azerbaijan's oil sector, according to the report, most people in Azerbaijan say they were better off when their country was part of the Soviet Union. Foreign investment now accounts for about 70 percent of all foreign capital moving into Azerbaijan, up from less than 16 percent in 1994, the report said. Independent economists and opposition too have criticized the government policy of paying attention only to the oil industry, neglecting other sectors of country's economy, which in turn is the main reason for the closure of many enterprizes and the elimination of a huge number of jobs. According to the UN report, aid from foreign governments is also a source of capital. But like many former Soviet republics, Azerbaijan is plagued by sluggish bureacracy and corruption that holds up investment, the UN report said. This assessment has been proven by cases of mismanagement of foreign humanitarian aid sent for Azerbaijani refugees. The UN assessment of the economic situation in Azerbaijan differs widely from Azerbaijani government statistics on economic development. For example, the annual UN study showed high unemployment of 69 percent among nearly a million refugees driven from the Armenian- occupied territories. The report does not mention overall unemployment among ordinary citizens of Azerbaijan, but according to an independent account, the percentage of people without jobs among non-refugees is also high. Furthermore due to the few jobs available in Azerbaijan, around 2 million Azerbaijanis were forced to leave their homeland to seek employment in Russia and other CIS states. Contrary to the Azerbaijani government's claims of economic "achievements" last year, the UN study ranked Azerbaijan 90th in standard of living among 173 countries from around the world. RFE/RL Azerbaijan Report (Mirza Xazar) 4 May 2001

Mirza Xazar: A Fight Between Clans In Baku, Or A Sign Of Aliev's Weakness?

Mirza Khazar — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:30:00 -0500

22 May 2001

NEWS BRIEFS

A Fight Between Clans In Baku, Or A Sign Of Aliev's Weakness?

Recent commentaries and reports in the Azerbaijani press suggests that a real political struggle is underway between the so- called "clans" represented in upper echelons of power in Baku. The fight between those "clans" intensified last week when another group representing Western Azerbaijanis (Azerbaijanis from Armenia) created the new "Erivan Birliyi" (Erevan Unity) society. The founders of this new entity insist that their society has no political goals and pursues only "public goals." But in spite of this insistence, most political observers in Baku, as well as most commentators in the Azerbaijani press, believethat the main goal of the "Erivan Birliyi" is to become a sort of "center of power" in the event of Heydar Aliev's demise. Both arguments seem to be sincere, but an attempt by Western Azerbaijanis to hold on their influence within the upper leadership in Baku suggests that after Aliev's departure they might fail to retain that influence or to maintain the grip on power in the long term. Local observers suggest that the haste in creating this "unity" is a clear sign of the weakness of the Western Azerbaijanis and suggests that they fear for their own future. Another indication is that Western Azerbaijanis in the upper echelons of power are seriously preparing themselves for the power struggle which will erupt as soon as Aliev departs the political scene. But even if this is true, there are many obstacles restricting the ability of Western Azerbaijanis to actively play a role in the transition of power. One of the obstacles is, as the local press suggests, deep differencies and even hostility between "Erivan Birliyi" and another Western Azerbaijani society, called "Agridag" (the Turkish name for Mount Ararat). Azerbaijani papers identify as the moving force behind "Erivan Birliyi" Ramiz Mehtiev, who heads the presidential staff. The main player in "Agridag" is Health Minister Ali Insanov. The rivalry between the two is no longer a secret in Baku. There is another sign that the alleged power struggle will turn into struggle between "clans." According to some reports, the "Alindja" society which was formed in the early 1990's in Baku by elite groups from Nakhichevan, constitutes another influential group within the top leadership. Hostilities between these two "clans" have deepened since Aliev came to power in June 1993. The Nakhichevanis claim that they played a major role in bringing Aliev to power. They complain that despite having done so, they did not receive as much attention as the Western Azerbaijanis did. One can not exclude the possibility that the rivalry between the Western Azerbaijanis and the Azerbaijanis from Nakhichevan will increase as rumors about President Aliev's health and his upcoming departure from power continue to spread. And as long as those rumors continue to spread, and as long as President Aliev's image on TV continues to worry his close allies, the fight between the "clans" will continue to intensify. As long as the struggle for power continues, it is likely to impact on other political forces and the public in Azerbaijan.

RFE/RL Azerbaijan Report

(Mirza Xazar)