The Voice of Mirza Xazar: Category Press review

Letter to the Editor/Opinion: What Should Be a Definition for a Millionaire?

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 30 May 2008 09:48:00 -0400

Ivan Simic: What Should Be a Definition for a Millionaire?

Millionaires, millionaires, day after day we watch and read about millionaires, actor's millionaires, singer's millionaires, heiress millionaires and others. Every day number of millionaires in the world is rising with incredible speed. This "millionaire" phenomenon became very important in global society, in fact, sometimes millionaires and billionaires are front news before domestic or global issues. In relation, large number of companies, news papers and TV stations are conducting detailed researches on their treasured assets.

But, are they all really millionaires?

A Millionaire, according to encyclopaedia is an individual who resides in a household whose net worth or wealth exceeds one million units of any currency. However, it can also be a person who owns one million units of any currency in cash, bank account or savings account.

The world faced rapid development of global economy from 19th century to today. It came to the point when being a millionaire is not prestige like it was before. Now, there are plenty of millionaires and billionaires around the globe, and because of that they needed a new expression for themselves in order to make a distinction between each others.

As a result, today we have: multimillionaires (net worth of two or more millions), hectomillionaires (net worth of hundred and more millions) and billionaires (net worth of one or more billions). In the past ten years with enormous growth of hectomillionaires and billionaires, millionaires or multimillionaires who have few millions are considered middle-class millionaires; in the contemporary word; they are just not super-rich.

Looking at this report, the World Wealth Report 2007 (the report on individuals with a net worth of at least US$1 million in all assets except their primary residence) - Annual World Wealth Report from Merrill Lynch compiled by Capgemini, we can see that the World's High Net Worth (HNW) population grew to 9.5 million with their assets raised to US$37.2 trillion". Also, Merrill Lynch reports that there are 9.5 million (HNWI) millionaires worldwide, and 95.000 multimillionaires (UHNWI with over US$30 million). In 2007, Forbes Magazine reported that there are 946 billionaires in the world with total accumulated wealth of US$3.5 trillion.

Looking at the private banking, a High Net Worth Individual (HNWI) is a person with a high net worth of US$1 million and plus in investible assets (not including primary assets). An Ultra High Net Worth Individual or Individuals (UHNWI) refers to individuals or families who have at least US$30 million in investible assets.

Therefore, according to definition a millionaire is an individual who owns one million units of any currency. According to private banking a millionaire is a person who owns one million of the US Dollars. However, individuals who have EU€800,000.00 are not counted as millionaires in their country, nobody, including beneficiary bank does not recognize these individuals as millionaires, but if we exchange this amount for the US Dollars, these individuals are becoming millionaires.

So, can this report on the number of the world's millionaires be true?

There is no definition or internationally recognized model for the US Dollar being currency for indentifying (counting) the world's or individuals wealth. Yes, the United States Dollar (USD) has been "de facto" world currency since 20th century, and as of 2007 dollar still has the largest share at 63.3% of foreign reserve holdings; the Euro has some 26.5%.

However, since the year 2000, the Dollar share is falling and the Euro share is rising. As of December 2006, the Euro surpassed the Dollar in the combined value of cash in circulation. The value of the Euro notes in circulation has risen to more than EU€610 billion, equivalent to US$800 billion; therefore, the Euro became the currency with the highest combined value of cash in circulation in the world.

One million of the US Dollars exchanged in other currencies do not always make millionaires. For example: the US$1million on 23 May 2008 at the exchange rate is equivalent to: EU€634,698.99 (Euros), UK £505,114.98 (Pounds), KWD265,450.01 (Kuwait Dinar).

Looking at the above example we can see that a Kuwait Dinar (KWD) is the strongest currency unit, in fact the KWD is the world's highest valued currency unit, and from May 20, 2007 the KWD was re-pegged to a basket of currencies. Yet, a Kuwaiti dinar is not so called "hard currency", is not of very much use outside Kuwait, and is bound to the economy of that country.

On the other hand, the UK Pound and the EU Euro are hard currencies. They are reserve currencies, and currencies with a good buying power which are widely accepted as a reliable store of value. But, we don't see them as a model for counting world wealth.

The US Dollar (USD) is not strongest currency unit, especially not now; even the Cuban Convertible Paso (CUC) and the Azerbaijan Manat (AZN) are stronger than the USD. Therefore, using the USD as the currency unit or a model for identifying millionaires is giving the wrong picture of who is being a millionaire in the world.

It is very simple: companies, that conduct researches and others, should conduct their researches based upon highest valued currency, if not the KWD, then the EU Euro or the UK Pound , still the higher currencies are the higher ones.

Consequently, what should be a definition for a millionaire?

Perhaps: A millionaire is an individual whose net worth of wealth exceeds a sufficient amount of units of any currency when exchanged worth one million units of the world's highest valued currency unit, or the world's highest anchor currency unit. It can also be a person who owns enough units of any currency when exchanged worth one million units of the world's highest valued currency unit, or the world's highest anchor currency unit in cash, bank accounts and savings.

If one person has enough currencies to buy one million of the world's highest valued currency unit, or the world's highest anchor currency unit, than that person should be counted as a millionaire. This way we will only have around hundred billionaires and much less millionaires, and that will make some sense and bring back original meaning of being a millionaire and a billionaire.

Ivan Simic

Belgrade, Serbia

Azerbaijan: Journalists, beware

Mirza Khazar — Sat, 26 May 2007 04:39:24 -0400

A series of arrests and prison sentences for charges that include terrorism have journalists in Azerbaijan wondering if there is any sort of future for a free press.

Commentary by Karl Rahder for ISN Security Watch (25/05/07)

Increasingly bad news for freedom of expression has recently come out of Azerbaijan, the US' oil-rich ally in the Caspian Sea region, where five journalists have been sentenced to harsh prison sentences in the last few weeks in what critics say is a government campaign to stifle free speech.

Rafiq Tagi, a journalist with the independent newspaper Senet was sentenced on 3 May in Baku, the capital, to a four-year term for “inciting religious hatred,” while his editor Samir Sadagatoglu received a three-year sentence.

The prison terms and prosecution came as a result of a commentary written last November by Tagi entitled “Europe and Us,” which according to press reports compared Muslim societies such as Azerbaijan with historically Christian Europe and concluded that Islam had, on the whole, hindered social and political development.

While this sort of reflective social commentary might be the norm in the West, the outcry from some quarters in secular, Shi’ite Azerbaijan was shrill, with ultra-conservative Muslims in the village of Nadaran calling for the two men’s deaths and the public prosecutor bringing criminal charges against them.

In neighboring Iran, Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani has issued a fatwa calling for the execution of Tagi and his editor, saying on his

website: http://www.lankarani.org/eng/mes/016.html

that “it is necessary for every individual who has an access to him to kill him. The person in charge of the […] newspaper, who published such thoughts and beliefs consciously and knowingly, should be dealt with in the same manner.” Another cleric who lives in the city of Tabriz has reportedly offered his house as a reward for anyone who kills the two men.
The sentence was handed down despite protests from Azerbaijan’s embattled journalistic community, a number of non-governmental organizations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

What emerges from the trials, convictions and physical attacks over the years is an apparent pattern of coordinated assaults against freedom of speech in Azerbaijan. On 27 April, independent journalist Eynulla Fatullayev was convicted of “criminal libel” and “insult” and sentenced to 30 months in prison for allegations he purportedly made having to do with events surrounding the massacre of civilians in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly during the 1992-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Fatullayev’s original article evidently attached some blame for the tragedy to the failure of Azerbaijani military forces to protect the town. But in the furor that followed the article, Fatullayev was charged with libeling the residents of Khojaly.

Fatullayev, perhaps Azerbaijan’s best-known opposition journalist, denies having made libelous comments, but his conviction - and the physical attack on the same day against his colleague Uzeir Jafarov - reminds critics of the government of the price they may be forced to pay when they stray too far from what is acceptable, to both the government and the conservative Shi’ite establishment.

Journalism in Azerbaijan was a high-risk endeavor even before the 2005 murder of Elmar Huseynov, editor of the independent Monitor newspaper, and a friend of Fatullayev’s. It clearly remains a high-risk endeavor.

In October last year, well-known poet and opposition journalist Sakit Zahidov was convicted on charges of illegal possession and use of drugs. The charges were widely believed to be politically oriented, with the arrest coming only three days after Ali Akhmedov, the executive secretary of Azerbaijan's ruling New Azerbaijan Party, called for Zahidov’s arrest for his alleged “slanders” against government officials.

Zahidov’s brother Ganimat happens to be the chief editor of the opposition newspaper Azadlig, which has been a thorn in the side of the government for years and was ejected from its office space in 2006 along with the Turan News Agency and the Popular Front Party.

Last week, Rovshan Karbili - the editor of opposition newspaper Mukhalifat - and reporter Yashar Agazade were sentenced to two and a half years in prison (identical to Fatulayev’s sentence) for libel in connection with an article that accused Jalal Aliyev, an uncle of President Ilham Aliyev, of corruption.

OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklos Haraszti expressed “shock” over the sentence in a statement to the press.

"Azerbaijan's relentless persecution of journalists annihilates the security of journalism, a major OSCE commitment," said Haraszti.

The conviction and sentence came less than three weeks after a meeting between Haraszti and President Aliyev, during which the OSCE representative asked the president to halt the persecution of journalists, reminding Aliyev that "Azerbaijan today is the country in the OSCE region with the highest number of journalists in prison […]"

The US embassy in Baku issued a statement after the most recent convictions, saying that the imprisonment of seven journalists in toto in Azerbaijan "is part of a trend of pressure - including violence, threats and libel cases - that runs counter to Azerbaijan's stated commitment to media freedom. Journalists in democratic countries are not imprisoned for exercising freedom of expression. We urge the Azerbaijani government to remove libel from the criminal code and to take steps to create the necessary conditions for media freedom."
In 2005, Freedom House, a non-governmental organization that monitors democratic development, downgraded Azerbaijan from "partly free" to "not free."

Finally, on 21 May, authorities closed down the offices of Fatullayev’s newspaper Real Azerbaijan as well as another opposition paper, the Azerbaijan Daily, two of the most popular newspapers in the country. While the government says the closure was due to maintenance and fire safety issues, no other tenants in the building were evicted. And as of 23 May, Fatullayev faces additional charges of "making a terrorist threat," a development that could extend his prison term for many years.

The independent media are being all but shut down in Azerbaijan. The terrorism charges against Fatullayev and the stiff sentences handed out for a harmless editorial and criticism of a member of the president’s family send a message to the press that the confines for freedom of expression in Azerbaijan are becoming more circumscribed.

It is hard to imagine that the remaining opposition newspapers such as Azadlig will tone down their editorial coverage, although independent television network ANS is perceived by many to have done just that since it was allowed back on the air last year after a brief closure. The atmosphere in the country has certainly chilled in over the course of the past couple of weeks, and the government now will have to decide if it has communicated the new rules with sufficient clarity or whether more arrests are in the offing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karl Rahder has taught US foreign policy and international history at colleges and universities in the US and Azerbaijan. In 2004, he was a Visiting Faculty Fellow in Azerbaijan with the Civic Education Project, an academic program funded by the Soros Foundations and the US Department of State. He is currently based in Chicago.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).

URL: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17659

Joanna Lillis: SOCIO-ECONOMIC TENSION THREATENS KAZAKHSTAN'S ETHNIC HARMONY

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:48:30 -0400

Civil Society:
Joanna Lillis: 4/03/07

A fatal clash between ethnic Kazakhs and ethnic Chechens in a village in south-eastern Kazakhstan has raised questions about whether the country’s much-touted ethnic harmony is under threat, and whether socio-economic tensions are endangering stability in this booming state.

The unrest began March 17 with a fight over a game of billiards and ended with an attack on the house of a Chechen family that left five dead. Eyewitnesses say violence broke out in the village of Malovodnoye, about 80 kilometers east of Almaty, when Takhir Makhmakhanov, an ethnic Chechen from the neighboring village of Kazatkom, refused to concede defeat to his rival, Baurzhan Salimbayev, an ethnic Kazakh. After the two came to blows, Salimbayev left the billiards hall, but was chased by Makhmakhanov, who ran into him in a jeep and broke his leg, then shot him in the other leg.

The following day, Salimbayev went to the Makhmakhanov family home in the neighboring village with a convoy of some 50 carloads of supporters that besieged the house. Eyewitnesses say shots were fired from inside. In the ensuing fracas, nine people were injured. Three died that day and two more subsequently died after being hospitalized. Three of the dead were brothers of Takhir Makhmakhanov, who is now on the run. The Makhmakhanov family disputes this version of events, saying the attack was long planned and their house was fired on from the crowd.

Some 50 people have been arrested and face charges ranging from premeditated murder to hooliganism and damage to property. The incident was followed by rallies in which participants demanded the family’s removal from the village.

In response to the clashes, riot police were brought in from across Almaty Region to restore order. Approaches to both villages remain heavily guarded. In late March, police were patrolling approaches to Malovodnoye, which lies on a key artery linking Kazakhstan’s commercial capital with China. In Kazatkom, some 10 kilometers across the open steppe, police were guarding the entrance to the village, where the charred remains of the Makhmakhanovs’ home stand: the house was set on fire by the angry crowd. The family has been moved to an undisclosed, secure location.

“It’s quiet on the streets -- you can see for yourself,” a senior police officer, who declined to identify himself, told EurasiaNet as he stood guard at the emergency headquarters set up in Malovodnoye. Local authorities declined to comment.

News of five deaths over a game of billiards caused consternation in Kazakhstan, which prides itself on social stability and ethnic harmony. Home to over 130 ethnic groups, Kazakhstan cannot afford ethnic discord. Almaty Region’s Enbek District, where the clash occurred, is home to large numbers of Turks, Chechens, Uighurs and Kurds, who, according to local MP Serik Abdrakhmanov, comprise more than half of the district’s population. The presence of tens of thousands of Chechens in Kazakhstan today is linked to a decision made by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to deport the ethnic group en masse during World War II.

Some see Kazakhstan’s diversity as a source of tension. “Relations [between ethnic communities] are bad,” a woman out shopping in Malovodnoye told EurasiaNet on condition of anonymity.

A fellow villager, who also declined to identify himself, disagreed. “[Ethnicity] could be just coincidence. [The fight] was just a settling of scores,” he said.

Both, however, pointed to discrepancies in living standards among villagers as a factor behind the incident. An income gap is readily evident: it is a common sight for large houses -- such as that belonging to the Makhmakhanov family in nearby Kazatkom -- to stand near the small, dilapidated houses of their less well-off neighbors.

The ethnicities of those involved in the clash have attracted media, yet the roots of the incident may lie elsewhere. As Kazakhstan’s oil-rich economy booms -- growing at a roughly double-digit rate for the last six years -- the rich-poor and rural-urban divides have widened, leading to social discontent.

While Kazakhstan’s elite and burgeoning middle class have been riding the oil boom, the poor have struggled to adapt to market conditions. Many have grown poorer, battling to reconcile rising prices with low wages. Sixteen percent of the population lives on less than 2 dollars per day, according to UNDP figures.

In a March 28 statement, Abdrakhmanov, the local MP, called for a sober evaluation of the underlying causes of the clash, which lie “beyond the boundaries of these villages.” With local authorities understaffed, under-resourced and lacking real power in Kazakhstan’s centralized system, people have little influence over “vital local issues: the sale of land plots, property, the use of water resources.”

“Discontent is growing in the villages,” Abdrakhmanov added. “Rural relations are becoming more and more acute, especially near cities. Despite a reduction in the number of cattle, there is a lack of pasture and of land to make hay, because land is not always allocated fairly,” the statement continued.

Land is a sensitive topic. As prices for land and housing rocket, the less well-off are coming under increasing economic stress. Land disputes on the outskirts of Almaty led to clashes between inhabitants and police last summer, as people accused of settling there illegally were evicted. Observers have pointed to a perception among ordinary people that the rich and powerful are protected by a system in which corruption is endemic. “Shadow business is flourishing in many areas under the ‘protection’ of law-enforcement structures,” Abdrakhmanov alleged. Talgat Ryskulbekov, the deputy head of the Spirit of December nationalist movement who visited the troubled villages to mediate, agrees that inhabitants have a perception that the rich can operate under impunity. “For the local authorities and the police, money talks,” Ryskulbekov told EurasiaNet.

Ryskulbekov ruled out an ethnic motive: “Some people want to say it was something ethnic. Nothing of the sort!”

Chechen community leader Akhmed Muradov has condemned police inaction over rumors that had been circulating of trouble between the communities, and accused forces which oppose stability of being behind events.

Dos Kushim, leader of the Fate of the Nation nationalist movement, points to historical inequities as the root of conflict. “I think… the whole problem lies in the social and -- no less important -- moral suppression of the Kazakhs that has emerged historically,” he said in remarks carried on the Zonakz.net website. “Under the Soviet Union, the Kazakhs’ language, culture and self-identification were given no expression, and after the fall of the USSR and with the gaining of independence a mass of problems remain unresolved.”

This latest bout of unrest is the third in six months. In October 2006, discontent at labor conditions in the western oilfields led to a mass brawl between Kazakh and Turkish workers at Tengiz, which saw over 200 injured. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In November, fighting erupted between up to 300 ethnic Kazakhs and ethnic Uighurs in the village of Shelek, 20 kilometers from Malovodnoye. As such clashes become more frequent, the government needs to address the root causes to preserve the ethnic harmony it prides itself on.

Editor’s Note: Joanna Lillis is a freelance writer who specializes in Central Asian affairs.

(www.eurasianet.org)

Joanna Lillis: A POLITICAL SHAKE-UP IN KAZAKHSTAN STRENGTHENS PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY

Mirza Khazar — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:20:23 -0500

Eurasia Insight:
A POLITICAL SHAKE-UP IN KAZAKHSTAN STRENGTHENS PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY
Joanna Lillis: 1/12/07

A recent political shake-up in Kazakhstan appears to strengthen President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s position, enhancing his

administration’s ability to accelerate economic development plans.

Nazarbayev reshuffled his cabinet after accepting former premier Danial Akhmetov’s resignation on January 8. Nazarbayev appointed Karim Masimov, a 41-year-old technocrat, to replace Akhmetov – a move approved by parliament on January 10. In addition, the president on January 11 announced a change in the Senate leadership, naming the former foreign minister, Kasymzhomart Tokayev, as the new chairman of legislature’s upper chamber, replacing Nurtay Abikayev, who will now serve as Kazakhstan’s ambassador to Russia.

Nazarbayev appointed Marat Tazhin as the country’s new foreign minister, and named Viktor Khrapunov, formerly the governor of the East Kazakhstan region, as minister for emergency situations. In addition, former economy minister Aslan Musin has become deputy premier and Galym Orazbekov – a former deputy minister with experience in the defense and oil businesses – has become trade and industry minister, while Zhanseit Tuymebayev – the former ambassador to Russia - becomes minister of education and science. The president also named a former close aide, Yerbol Orynbayev, as the prime minister’s chief-of-staff.

The new prime minister, Masimov, could push Kazakhstan in a slightly different trade direction – placing greater emphasis on China. He has an extensive background in foreign trade, and is said to be a fluent Chinese speaker. He can also speak English, Russian and Arabic. His official biography states that he studied at Wuhan University in China, and worked as an official Kazakhstani trade representative in both Hong Kong and Urumchi. From 2003-2005, he served as an aide to Nazarbayev. He was a deputy prime minister prior to his appointment to the top post.

Tazhin, the new foreign minister, quickly took steps to dampen speculation about any radical foreign policy departures, insisting that Kazakhstan would continue “to pursue a multi-vector policy governed by the economic and political interests of our country,” the Interfax news agency reported.

Although the timing of the reshuffle took some observers by surprise, the fall of Akhmetov’s government had been long predicted. Kazakhstani media outlets began speculating about Akhmetov’s fate following Nazarbayev’s reelection in late 2005. The speculation subsided briefly before reviving last autumn.

Akhmetov was never a particularly popular or charismatic premier, but in Kazakhstan what counts in a prime minister is not charm, but loyalty. And Akhmetov had plenty of that. As a staunch Nazarbayev supporter, it was Akhmetov who was sent to take over as governor of Pavlodar Region when governor-turned-opposition leader Galymzhan Zhakiyanov was arrested in 2001. Akhmetov returned to head the government in 2003, becoming the fourth prime minister in independent Kazakhstan.

Masimov is another Nazarbayev loyalist who will be able to woo foreign investors and diplomats alike; the new government may also be seen as an attempt to give fresh life to Kazakhstan’s 2009 OSCE chairmanship bid.

Addressing parliament on January 10, Nazarbayev outlined his priorities for the new government: to pursue his pet project of making Kazakhstan one of the world’s 50 most competitive countries, continue administrative reform, improve state and budget planning, develop the regions, boost the pension system, continue the focus on macroeconomic policy, train a competitive work force, improve infrastructure, bring the best of corporate management into the running of the state and diversify the economy. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The last government was tainted by scandals over the deaths of opposition leaders Zamanbek Nurkadilov and Altynbek Sarsenbayev. The accuracy of the official verdict of suicide for Nurkadilov’s 2005 death was openly questioned, while the trial and investigation into the 2006 murder of Sarsenbayev were held to be flawed. However, Interior Minister Baurzhan Mukhamedzhanov, who came under heavy criticism over that case, kept his post in the new government. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

A new government will help distance authorities from the scandals that unsettled Kazakhstan’s political landscape. Changes in the Senate leadership more strongly signal Nazarbayev’s desire to put the Sarsenbayev murder in the past. The announcement on January 11 that Senate Chairman Abikayev would become the new envoy to Russia upstaged Akhmetov’s resignation. During the Sarsenbayev trial, Abikayev was implicated in the murder plot by the man subsequently convicted of the killing, who alleged that Abikayev had planned to stage a coup. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

With the Senate speaker constitutionally first in line to succeed the president in the event of the chief executive’s death or incapacity, the post is a key one. The new Senate leader, Tokayev, is a Nazarbayev loyalist who is also seen as a significant player in his own right, and who is said to lead one of the most influential interest groups within the governing establishment.

Local political observers believe Tokayev - a former premier often tipped as a leading presidential possibility – is the biggest winner in the reshuffle. Another group deemed to have gained is that of Timur Kulibayev, the president’s second son-in-law, as Masimov is rumored to be his associate.

What remains unclear is the effect of the reshuffle on the president’s eldest daughter and son-in-law, Dariga Nazarbayeva and Rakhat Aliyev. With Nazarbayev engaged in constant maneuverings to balance the interests of the rival clans, observers will be closely watching for further moves.

The change of government should be viewed as part of wider intrigues. Nazarbayev was not necessarily dissatisfied with the Akhmetov cabinet’s performance. It was perhaps more a move driven by the needs of the moment: the president wants to shore up the executive – in much the same manner that he strengthened the legislative branch by vastly expanding the presidential party -- as he enters a key phase of what is expected to be his last term in office. Nazarbayev aims to ensure that when the presidential succession does occur, it takes place in an orderly manner, and follows the course he desires. Indeed, even while they continue to maneuver around the president, all the interest groups are keen to promote a stable transfer of power. The fall of the government and the change of senate leadership should be viewed in the context of maneuverings to secure the post-Nazarbayev era.

Editor’s Note: Joanna Lillis is a freelance writer who specializes in Central Asian affairs.

(eurasianet.org)

Kenan Guluzade: Blasphemy Row Inflames Azerbaijan

Mirza Khazar — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 06:31:04 -0500

Blasphemy Row Inflames Azerbaijan
Islamists say journalist who allegedly impugned Islam deserves to die.

By Kenan Guluzade in Nardaran

For the past three weeks, residents of the village of Nardaran, close to Baku, have been demonstrating every Friday to demand severe punishment of Azerbaijani journalist Rafik Taghi, who is accused of having insulted the Prophet Mohammed in an article published by the little-known Azerbaijani newspaper, Senet.

The case of the journalist, who is now serving a two-month prison sentence, demonstrates that Islamic sentiment is strong in Azerbaijan and has complicated relations with Azerbaijan’s southern neighbour, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nardaran, a village with strong Islamic traditions, has been leading the protests. On November 17, Haji Ali, one of the leaders of the local religious community, summoned crowds by striking a stone against a pillar in Imam Husein square in the centre of the village. Teenagers, who had climbed on a wall, joined him, banging iron rods against a gas pipe. This noisy call to action reverberated through the village.

By three o’clock, the square was teeming with devout believers, who form an overwhelming majority in the village. “Last week we, the residents of Nardaran, condemned Rafik Taghi and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper”, said Haji Ali, beginning his speech. “Our religion knows only one punishment for such people, which is execution. This is not our decision, this is what our holy book prescribes. The authorities sentenced the journalists to two weeks in custody. But that is not enough!”

Nardaran became famous after bloody clashes between its residents and police in 2002. (See Azerbaijan: Rebel Village Remains Defiant, CRS 133, June 13, 2002). Since then, the village has become a stronghold for Shia Islamists opposed to the government. All walls on its narrow streets are covered with religious inscriptions, and locals are keen to vent their anger against the authorities in Baku.

The latest row began at the beginning of this month, when Senet (Trade), a Baku-based bimonthly with a circulation of 2000 copies, published an article by Taghi entitled “Europe and us”. The author criticised Azerbaijanis’ lifestyle and made some remarks about the Prophet Mohammed, which many of the country’s Muslims interpreted as insulting. Whether Nardaran’s residents had heard about Senet before, the controversy around the article found its way into the village, causing a storm of outrage that believers from surrounding villages were quick to support.

Protesters carried banners with religious inscriptions and placards saying “Death to Israel!” All speeches were met with a loud “Allahu Akbar!” Guests from other villages spoke out to express their support for Nardaran. American and Israel flags were brought to the square just to be tramped on and burnt.

“We declare that if these people are not sentenced to life imprisonment, we will take measures to punish them by ourselves,” said Haji Ali. “It’s a pity that there’s no death penalty in our country. We are told that their houses are being guarded, but let them hear us vow - Muslims never take vengeance on women and children. No one will touch their families. We’ve heard that Rafik Taghi’s family members have asked Denmark for political asylum, but no matter how things turn out nothing bad is going to happen to them. Rafik Taghi is the only one we want to have punished.”

As well as being a journalist and publicist, Taghi is also a professional cardiologist. He is well known for voicing ideas against the current of general public opinion. In other articles, he has made scathing comments about Azerbaijan’s national poet Samed Vurgun, chairman of the Writers Union Anar and other famous people.

Taghi and his editor Samir Sadagatoglu were arrested in mid-November and sentenced to two months in jail for kindling religious intolerance.

However, the villagers of Nardaran rejected the verdict and are continuing their protests, demanding that the two journalists be punished with a life sentence at least, burning US and Israel flags and calling for “an end to all supporters of world Zionism”.

Hajiaga Nuriev, one of the village’s elders and chairman of Azerbaijan’s Islamic Party, suggested Taghi was part of a wider conspiracy. “Both domestic and foreign forces have an interest in this,” he said. “We think that people such as Rafik Taghi are acting on behalf of international Zionism and Armenia, and they have deliberately damaged Azerbaijan’s credibility with its brothers-in-faith.

“In this situation, the residents of Nardaran could not have acted otherwise…to the enemies of Islam… who discredited Azerbaijan in the eyes of the world. This blasphemy ought to be punished.”

Hajiaga said through their rejection of the court’s sentence, the people of Naradaran had rescued the country’s reputation as chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and showed to the world that the Muslims of Azerbaijan were angered by the Senet article.

The affair has also triggered protests in Iran. APA news agency reported that around 50 people demonstrated in front of the Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran on November 19 to protest against the “humiliating” article. The Iranian TV-channel Seher aired calls for the overthrow of Azerbaijan’s “anti-Islamic” government.

Then news reports said that the Iranian ayatollah Morteza Bani Fazl had offered his own home as a reward for the head of the Azerbaijani journalist, who had “insulted” the founder of Islam. “I will give my house as a reward to anyone, who kills this Azerbaijani author, who insulted the Prophet Mohammed,” said the mullah who lives in the city of Tebriz in the northwest of Iran, which has a large Azerbaijani population.

The row is likely to strain further Azerbaijani-Iranian relations. Political analyst Boyukaga Agayev, who is director of the South Caucasus research centre, said, “The relations between Azerbaijan and Iran cannot be described as friendly.” He noted that the two countries already stand on opposite sides of many disputes, from the status of the Caspian Sea to relations with the US and Israel.

Vugar Aliev, press secretary for the Azerbaijani prosecutor general’s office, said, “We live in a constitutional state, and all issues should be solved in accordance with the law. What happened in Nardaran is a protest reaction to what these people did. But the law-enforcement bodies have already taken appropriate actions, and these harsh calls with regard to the two journalists are unacceptable. The police responded in a timely fashion and there remains no danger of any civilians undertaking any illegal actions against them.”

Eldar Zeynalov, director of the Human Rights Centre of Azerbaijan, commented, “The situation is of the soviet-time kind – ‘I have not read it, but I do condemn it!’”

Kenan Guluzade is editor of Zerkalo newspaper in Baku

(www.iwpr.net)

Georgia questions delayed Azerbaijan gas

Mirza Khazar — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:10:00 -0400

Azerbaijan will not be able to supply Georgia this year with the additional gas supplies that the Georgian government is seeking in order to forestall the possibility of an energy crisis. Some experts in Baku believe that Russia’s ongoing diplomatic row with Georgia is influencing Azerbaijani policy decisions. By Rovshan Ismayilov for Eurasianet (19/10/06) Wanting to build its strategic reserves for what could prove a tense winter, Georgia sought to secure an additional 300 million cubic meters of gas from Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz field by the end of 2006, Georgian Energy Minister Nika Gelauri told a September 30 news conference in Tbilisi. Talks held 10-11 October in Baku appeared to yield positive results. But just days later, Azerbaijani officials revised their position, saying they could not guarantee the desired gas deliveries within Georgia’s timeframe. "Azerbaijan might need the gas for itself," the Trend news agency reported Azerbaijani Energy Minister Natik Aliyev as saying. "We cannot give a concrete promise yet because we do not know yet what Azerbaijan’s energy balance will be next year." Azerbaijan itself imports between 4.0 billion and 4.5 billion cubic meters a year from Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled conglomerate that also supplies the bulk of Georgia’s gas. It is Georgia’s energy dependency on Russia that has President Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration worried in Tbilisi. A spy scandal, in which Georgia arrested Russian military officers, has placed Georgian-Russian relations in a deep freeze. In retaliation for the Georgian action, Russia has implemented punitive measures, including the closure of transport corridors and the suspension of postal service. Even before the spy scandal, Russia imposed economic sanctions against Georgia, most notably a ban on wine imports. Some experts believe that the Kremlin may in the coming months use its energy influence over Georgia as an additional instrument of retaliation against Tbilisi. Such concerns are rooted in the experience of January of this year, when pipelines running through Russian territory to Georgia inexplicably exploded, plunging the Caucasus country into an energy crisis. The Shah Deniz gas field, with estimated reserves of 400 billion cubic meters (bcm), was to have provided the means for Azerbaijan to meet Georgia’s demand. Gas from the field was originally expected to flow via the new Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline by the end of October. However, that opening was postponed after Turkey announced that its part of the pipeline would not be operational until the end of 2006 at the earliest. Georgia is supposed to receive 5 percent of the gas shipped to Turkey as a transit fee, plus the right to purchase an additional 5 percent of exports at a preferential price - $55 per thousand cubic meters. The 300 mcm of gas Tbilisi wanted to purchase would be in addition to these supplies. While Aliyev evaded giving a reason for the delay, some experts in Baku contend that the decision is political. "There are no technical problems which may cause a delay," asserted Ilham Shaban, an energy expert and editor of the Turan Energy Bulletin. "The pipeline running from Baku into Georgian territory is complete and ready for operation." Shaban contends that Azerbaijan may have unofficially asked British Petroleum, which leads the gas development and pipeline consortium, to postpone production until the end of 2006 in order to avoid offending Russia on this issue. At the same time, he added, the British energy company appears to be cognizant of problems recently encountered by other foreign oil companies in Russian oil exploration, and may wish to do nothing that might rankle the Kremlin. "It means that, most likely, we’re facing Russia’s energy blackmail again," Shaban said. The Azerbaijani government, however, denies that any hidden political motive exists for its decision. "Cooperation between Baku and Tbilisi was not affected by Russia’s position on Georgia. We [the Azerbaijani government] are not experiencing any pressure from Russia," a source within the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry told EurasiaNet. The differences between Russia and Georgia were discussed during an 6 October meeting in Moscow between the Azerbaijani and Russian Foreign Ministers, "and both sides expressed their understanding that the conflict should be solved as soon as possible," the source said. Energy Minister Aliyev has confirmed that Azerbaijan is prepared to provide transit to Georgia for Iranian gas supplies, but Shaban states that the country’s pipelines cannot transport more than 2 mcm of Iranian gas to Georgia per day, roughly 30 percent of Georgia’s needs. Ilgar Mammadov, a Baku-based political analyst, believes that other factors aside from Russia could have influenced the government’s announcement. An increase in Gazprom gas prices could mean an increase in transit fees for gas to Azerbaijani foe Armenia, a situation which could raise tensions between Moscow and Yerevan to Baku’s satisfaction, he suggested. "[D]ispleasure is growing within the government with the fact that Azerbaijan is making economic concessions to Georgia all the time," Mammadov added. After Azerbaijan made "serious concessions" to Georgia on transit tariffs for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Georgian government initially asked for compensation for the financial losses the Georgian port of Batumi would incur once the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku railway project with Azerbaijan and Turkey is complete, he noted. Georgia later withdrew its demand, according to officials, but Mammadov contends that the request still rankles. Azerbaijan has granted credit to Georgia for the construction of a 29-kilometer railroad from Akhalkalaki, the main town in the predominantly ethnic Armenian region of Samtskhe-Javakheti, to Georgia’s border with Turkey, and to repair a 160-kilometer railroad from Akhalkalaki to the border with Azerbaijan. "I think that this situation has begun to irritate [President] Ilham Aliyev’s administration," Mammadov commented. Turan energy expert Shaban contends that the problem may just be a question of over-sized expectations. "Saakashvili often stated that the launching of gas production from Shah Deniz will solve Georgia’s all energy problems," Shaban said. "He made a mistake as we can see now: Georgia is still dependant on Russia’s gas." (Eurasianet)

The US War With Iran Has Already Begun

Mirza Khazar — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:38:00 -0400

The US war with Iran has already begun

by Scott Ritter

Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war. On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary." We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq. These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities. President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier. The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence gathering phase. This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past. It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question. But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran. As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people. "Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war. By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration. But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran. As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream. The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities. The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase. President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran. The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations. It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror. But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran. The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran. But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran. In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence. No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated. A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran. US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan. Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan. Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003. America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere. Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States. Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003. We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran. Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005. The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera. Aljazeera By Scott Ritter

The US War With Iran Has Already Begun

Mirza Khazar — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:38:00 -0400

The US war with Iran has already begun

by Scott Ritter

Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT

Eurasia Insight: ARMENIA: US SUPPORT FOR KOCHARIAN HOLDS FIRM

Mirza Khazar — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:19:00 -0500

Eurasia Insight: ARMENIA: US SUPPORT FOR KOCHARIAN HOLDS FIRM

Haroutiun Khachatrian: 2/22/05

When a top US diplomat recently referred to Nagorno-Karabakh leaders as “criminal secessionists,” policymakers and pundits in Yerevan worried that the White House was rethinking its support for Armenian President Robert Kocharian’s administration. Armenia’s ties with the United States have long been a subject of vigorous discussion in Yerevan. While the United States ranks as the country’s main foreign aid donor, Armenia has traditionally hinged its foreign policy on a strategic partnership with Russia, the only country in the South Caucasus to do so. Maintaining equilibrium between the two powers has not been easy for Armenian authorities, and recent events have strained the policy still further. The January 2005 deployment of 46 Armenian military personnel to Iraq was met by strong public opposition, mainly caused by concerns that the move might spark anti-Armenian reactions in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries with Armenian minorities. Opposition members claimed that the troop deployment was an ill-calculated maneuver by Kocharian and Defense Minister Serge Sargisian to curry favor with Washington. [For background see the Eurasia insight archive]. Government officials, however, have denied that support for US Iraq operations was ever named as a condition for aid to Armenia. After the so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine, in which opposition demonstrators in late 2004 reversed the results of a rigged presidential election, some regional political analysts suggested Armenia might be next in line for a political make-over, noting some similarities in the political mood in both Yerevan and Kyiv, in particular the bitter relations between government and opposition forces. They went on to suggest that the United States might welcome any regime change in the region that was viewed as accelerating the pace of democratization. Not all analysts agree. “I do not see a reason why the American administration, which has cooperated with Kocharian so far, should take any moves to remove him now,” Alexander Iskandarian, a Caucasus analyst and director of the Caucasus Media Institute in Yerevan said. Tevan Poghosyan, executive director of the International Center for Human Development, a Yerevan-based think tank, agreed. For the United States, stability in Armenia and the South Caucasus is the most important factor, he said. Conjecture about Washington’s intentions reached its peak in late January, when reports circulated that US Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones had used the term “criminal secessionists” to describe ethnic Armenian leaders of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Despite Jones’ later apology, many analysts and opposition politicians in Yerevan saw the comments as a sign that Washington’s stance on Nagorno-Karabakh was becoming “anti-Armenian.” Aid numbers tell a different story. Armenia remains one of the world’s largest recipients of US financial assistance, in per capita terms. Although the US draft budget for fiscal year 2006 would leave the country $20 million less than was allotted last year -- $55 million – the document also contains the first humanitarian assistance for Nagorno-Karabakh, some $3 million. More assistance could also soon be in the works. As part of Washington’s Millennium Challenge program for developing democratic countries, Armenia could receive up to $350 million in the next two years. Despite the aid commitment, some political observers believe that Armenia is a comparatively low foreign policy priority for Washington. “For the USA, the key countries in this region are Azerbaijan, for its oil, and Georgia, for its role as a territory needed for the stable [transport] of this oil,” said Poghosyan. “Armenia presents an interest for the American government mainly due to the 1.5 million ethnic Armenians who are American citizens.” Even as Armenia struggles to balance its relations with Washington and Moscow, it continues to look to diversify its policy options. In recent years, Yerevan has cultivated relations with Iran, which plans to build a gas pipeline to Armenia that would allow the country to break its dependency on Russian natural gas. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Tehran has also indicated a willingness to broker a resolution to the standoff with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. In addition, Yerevan has begun talks to gain observer status in the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, while exploring an expansion of trade ties with the Persian Gulf states of Kuwait and Bahrain. So far, Washington has not publicly responded to the strengthening Yerevan-Tehran relationship. Armenian leaders are thus treading carefully, hoping to avoid angering the Bush administration. For now, though, Washington appears ready to accentuate the positive – at least in public. Speaking at a February 11 meeting in New York City with representatives of the Armenian Diaspora, Ambassador John Evans was succinct: “Armenia today is on the right track.” Editor’s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer specializing in economic and political affairs.

Eurasia Insight: ARMENIA: US SUPPORT FOR KOCHARIAN HOLDS FIRM

Mirza Khazar — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:19:00 -0500

Eurasia Insight: ARMENIA: US SUPPORT FOR KOCHARIAN HOLDS FIRM

Haroutiun Khachatrian: 2/22/05