Monday, July 20, 2009

Iran & China: Contrasting reactions to internal crises

A Muslim Uighur woman walks with her son past security forces in the town of Kashgar, Xinjiang Province. The Government is omnipresent in this remote Autonomous Province in deep crisis but the news media are not banned.

The recent events in China and Iran were significant in the very contrasting ways these two nations handled their respective internal problems. Both the post-presidential election crisis in Iran and the bloody riots in the westernmost Xinjiang province of China were well documented in the international media, albeit with some predictable biases and prejudices.The two events were of course not similar in nature but they went a long way reflecting on the relative stability, self confidence and their "savoir faire".

The clashes in Iran were (and still are) mostly ideological between the existing theocracy and relatively more liberal forces of the opposition. These widespread protest, clashes and reprisals pierced serious holes in the Armour of the Ayatollahs and their secular conservative followers. The legitimacy of the present Theocracy, headed by the Supreme Spiritual Leader Khamenei, was openly questioned and challenged by huge masses despite all the muscled and improvised repressions.

On the other hand China's problems were of ethnic and racial origin in a very remote Xinjiang region as the divide between the Chinese Han and Turkic Muslim Uighurs came to a bloody collision course, not for the first time in recent history. However, China's stability was not threatened nor questioned and surprisingly Beijing showed a great deal of expertise and media Savvy in dealing with the very bloody events.

Lessons were learned in Beijing from past errors, but these same lessons are yet to be learned by Tehran. Both countries were shaken deeply by their internal events, but only a blind would not see that Tehran lost points while Beijing proved that under certain circumstances it can act as an "enlightened" and rather "tolerant" Government.

Protest in Iran (Tehran's Azadi freedom square): The frustration behind the smile.

The circumstances and underlying root causes were very different from China to Iran. However, they gave us a window of truth to get a glimpse of what makes these regimes function and what are their respective tolerance limits in times of internal crisis.The racial conflict and the death of around 200 people between the Muslim Uighurs and the majority Han was ugly and violent by all accounts. The frustration of the Uighurs had boiled over into violence. Beijing acted very differently from the past behavior of hiding the truth, repressing the media, like it had done during the Tienanmen Square uprisings, the various Tibet protests and Uighur treats just prior the Beijing Olympics.
Protest in Washington demanding the release 17 Uighur detainees at Guantanamo Bay - Gitmo. The fact of having such a big number of "terrorist" Uighur Chinese nationals at Gitmo helped the Chinese Government win the public opinion war against its own citizens.

China knew that the western media and the international public opinion would be won over by pushing a few sensitive "buttons": Describing the Uighurs as "anti China separatists" and "Islamic extremists" or "Al Qaeda operatived" was a sure bet. The much publicized detention of more than 15 Uighur Islamic militants at the Guantanamo Bay prison did not help the reputation of the Uighurs and hence greatly facilitated Beijing's game-plan for a concerted heavy handed crackdown without losing the international propaganda war.
Beijing easily labeled the protesting minority and maintained that the attacks were coordinated acts of subversion that must be dealt with vigorously. Therefore it was a relatively easy case to win and Beijing played the cards perfectly. The Chinese authorities were confident and therefore open, approachable and even actively invited the media to go to Xinjiang and report from there with almost no official control or censorship.

Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in far western China has a population of 18 million which includes numerous Turkic-speaking, Muslim ethnic groups. The Uighurs, at 6 million, are the largest group. This non-Han Chinese population does not like being controlled by the Chinese and there are several pro-independence groups mostly articulated along ethno-nationalist lines rather than religious ones. These movements are supported by Uighurs living in the adjacent countries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and those governments also fear the establishment of another East Turkestan as existed briefly from 1944-1949. Xinjiang is rich in natural resources including oil and is therefore important to the Chinese. A policy of Sinicization has been practiced since 1949. Many people from crowded, eastern China were forcibly moved into the region. Today, incentives and opportunities are given to those who "volunteer" move there. In 1949, ethnic Han Chinese made up 6 % of Xinjiang's population, 40% in 2007.

On the other hand, Iran's Presidential election result was obviously a foregone conclusion even before the first vote was cast. The Islamic Republic, led by Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, carefully selected all the candidates and voters to ensure President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected. Ahmadinejad may have really won the elections, but something was fundamentally wrong with the process. The results were announced within hours after the ballot boxes closed and no one could explain how the tens of millions of votes were counted and processed so rapidly and a winner declared with so much certainty by the Ministry of Interior. Iran is not particularly renowned for a sophisticated computerized votes counting system instantly linking all the regions, cities, towns and villages to Interior Ministry in Tehran!

The tsunami of protests came in with surprising speed and intensity. Millions of Iranians openly defied not only the results, but also the whole Iranian Government. The legitimacy itself of the regime was questioned and ridiculed by millions inside and outside the country. The Government was simply not ready for all that. The magnitude of the spontaneous protests took everybody by surprise. Even the defeated opposition candidate Mousavi himself was overwhelmed by the turn of the events and found himself at the centre of all currents opposition forces. Even the powerful and charismatic cleric and ex president Hashemi Rafsanjani took some time to react but eventually made clear that basically he supports the opposition forces.

Tehran therefore could not act with as much acumen, diplomacy, finesse and openness as the Chinese did. The cracks within the pro government rank and file were dangerously exposed by the rather heterogeneous opposition masses. The non elected religious authorities and their military and paramilitary organisations, like the Basj Militia and the Guardians of the Revolution were basically taken by surprise and reacted in a very ugly way. Mass arrests are going on to this day.


A young Iranian girl holds up photos comparing the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Adolf Hitler during a protest against the result of the recent Iranian elections (Los Angeles). The Hitler comparison is surely not accurate by any stretch of imagination, but illustrates very well the deep polarization within the Iranian society.

Iran's turmoil was expected sooner or later, and they exposed the monolithic approach of the Government. The heirs to the Islamic revolution of the late Ayatollah Khomeini were deeply shaken but remain resolute. The blow was more direct, more severe and took everyone by surprise. Dealing with dissent is always easier when it is expected and understood. Repressive methods show a lack of preparedness and clear mandates.


Members of Iran's pro-Conservative paramilitary Basj militia. How far will they go to protect the ruling theocracy?

Neither Iran nor China claim to be democratic nor do they practice ''democracy'' the way the Western world defines it. But it can be safely assumed that nominally communist China seems to have understood a few notions and selectively applies them when the circumstances allow. This selective approach is of course better than the open repressions and cover ups of yesteryear. But it does not guarantee a long term policy change under different givens and circumstances.

Has Beijing learned the appropriate lessons? And will the sudden openness exercised by the Government usher a new era for China in terms of Human Rights and Democracy? Probably the answer is "No", but at least China proved that it has learned a thing or two. China is strong and getting stronger. The troubles in Xinjiang are at best peripheral to the central government and present no threat.

Iran, meanwhile, has huge challenges and struggles with any sort of open opposition. Much more openness and inclusiveness is expected from the Tehran government, even though it may turn out to be suicidal for the current leaders and system. The Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah is showing its age and is seemingly running out of ideas.
The Shah was accused of being a non legitimate and a egocentric repressive ruler who did not care or listen and that he had lost all touch with the realities on the streets. Teheran's present rulers should know better than just the occasional Friday Sermons and open repression on the street and in the private bedrooms of the opposing masses.

Iran is a great nation and surely deserves better.

© Krikor Tersakian July 2009








Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The giant of Biran: Castro

Պիրանէն ելած Հսկան՝ Ֆիտէլ Քասթրօ


Պիրանը գիւղաքաղաք իսկ կարելի չէ կոչել: Պարզապէս գրեթէ քնացած մէկ գիւղ£ Հազիւ մի քանի հարիւր ընտանիք որոնց միակ տնտեսական զբաղումը շաքարեղէքի արտադրութիւնն է դարերէ ի վեր:


äÇñ³ÝÁ ǵñ»õ ·ÇõÕ Ï³ñ»ÉÇ ã¿ ÝáÛÝÇëÏ ¹Çõñáõû³Ùµ ·ïÝ»É ¶áõå³Ý Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáÕ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï ù³ñï¿ëÇ ÙÁ íñ³Û£ ²Ý ÏÁ ·ïÝáõÇ ÏÕ½ÇÇ »ñÏñáñ¹ Ù»Í ù³Õ³ù ê³ÝÃdzÏû ïÁ ¶áõå³Û¿Ý Ùûï Ù¿Ï Å³Ù ÑÇõëÇë« ÐûÉÏÇÝ ³Ýáõ³Ýµ ù³Õ³ùÁ ï³ÝáÕ ³Ýѳõ³ë³ñ ׳ݵáõÝ íñ³Û£ Æëϳå¿ë Ïáñëáõ³Í ³ÝÏÇõÝ ÙÁ ù³ñ³ÛÇå»³Ý ³Ù¿Ý¿Ý Ù»Í ÏÕ½ÇÇÝ íñ³Û£



ê³Ï³ÛÝ µÝ³õ ã˳µáõÇÝù ٳϻñ»ë³ÛÇÝ »ñ»õáÛÃÝ»ñ¿Ý£äÇñ³Ý ËÇëï ϳñ»õáñ ¿ å³ïÙ³Ï³Ý ÇÙ³ëïáí£ ì»ñçÇí»ñçáÛ ÑáÝ ³ß˳ñÑ »Ï³Í ¿ üÇï¿É ø³ëÃñáÝ« Çñ 6 ùáÛñ»ñÝ áõ »Õµ³ÛñÝ»ñÁ« ³Ýßáõßï Ý»ñ³é»³É Çñ ½ÇÝáõáñ³-ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý »ñϳñ Ï»³ÝùÇ ½ÇݳÏÇó ð³áõÉ »Õµ³ÛñÁ £




üÇï¿ÉÇ Ñ³ÛñÁª ²ÝÅ¿É ø³ëÃñû Ç ²ñÏǽ êå³ÝÇáÛ ³ñ»õÙï»³Ý Î³ÉÇëdz ݳѳݷ¿Ý ·³ÕÃ³Ï³Ý ÙÁ »Õ³Í ¿£ ²Ý ѳë³Í ¿ñ äÇñ³ÝÇ ßñç³ÝÁ »õ Û³ñ³ï»õ ³ß˳ï³Ýùáí Û³çáÕ³Í ¿ áõ ѳñëï³ó³Í« ¹³éݳÉáí äÇñ³ÝÇ ÐáÕ³ï¿ñ Ù»Í çáçÁ£







²Û¹ ۳ٳݳÏÝ»ñáõÝ ß³ù³ñ»Õ¿·Á Í»éùáí Ïïñ»Éáõ ß³ï ͳÝñ ³ß˳ï³Ýù¿Ý »ïù ß³ï ³õ»ÉÇ ¹Åáõ³é ¿ñ ϳݳ㠻տùÝ»ñÁ ѳëóÝ»É ß³ù³ñÇ ³ñï³¹ñáõû³Ý Ñ»é³õáñ ·áñͳñ³ÝÝ»ñÁ£ äÇñ³Ý ÝÙ³ÝûñÇÝ³Ï ·áñͳñ³ÝÝ»ñ¿Ý Ñ»éáõ ¿ñ ѳϳé³Ï Çñ ³ñï³¹ñáõû³Ý£
лï»õ³µ³ñ üÇï¿ÉÇ Ñ»ñ³ï¿ë ѳÛñÁ Û³çáÕ³Í ¿ñ ϳéáõó»É ß᷻ϳéùÇ ³ÝÓÝ³Ï³Ý »ñϳÃáõÕ³·ÇÍ»ñ« äÇñ³ÝÇ Çñ ÑáÕ»ñÁ »õ Çñ ³ñï³¹ñáõÃÇõÝÁ ϳå»Éáõ ѳٳñ ϳé³í³ñ³Ï³Ý »ñϳÃáõÕÇÇ ·ÇÍ»ñáõÝ áñáÝù ϳÝóÝ¿ÇÝ ³õ»ÉÇ Ñ»éáõ¿Ý« ³Ûëå¿ë ɳÛÝ µ³Ý³Éáí ·áñͳñ³ÝÝ»ñáõÝ »õ ¹ñ³ÙÇ ×³Ùµ³Ý£




²ÝÅ¿É ø³ëÃñû Çñ ëå³ëáõÑÇ Í³é³Ý»ñ¿Ý ÈÇݳ Îáݽ³É¿ëÇ Ñ»ï ÏáõÝ»Ý³Û ½³õ³ÏÝ»ñ »õ í»ñçÇí»ñçáÛ ½áÛ·Á ÏÁ åë³ÏáõÇÝ£ ²ÝÅ¿É ø³ëÃñáÛÇ Ï³Éáõ³ÍÁ ÑëÏ³Û ¿ »õ ·»Õ»óÇÏ£ ÐëÏ³Û³Ï³Ý ¹³ßï»ñ« Ù»Í ïáõÝ»ñ« ³é³ÝÓÇÝ ÑÇõñ»ñáõ ѳٳñ ë»Ý»³ÏÝ»ñ« ³ùÉáñÇ Ù»Ý³Ù³ñïÇ Ã³ïñáÝ »õ ÝáÛÝÇëÏ ³ÝÓÝ³Ï³Ý Ù³Ýϳå³ñ�¨Ý³Ë³Ïñóñ³Ý ø³ëÃñû ÁÝï³ÝÇùÇ »õ ³ß˳ï³õáñ ͳé³Ý»ñáõ ï³ëÝ»³ÏÝ»ñáí ½³õ³ÏÝ»ñáõÝ Ñ³Ù³ñ£






"Revolution is'': You know the Revolution is in very deep trouble when the colour poster of the ex-leader cost more than most passing cars... Cuba's economy is as bad as Castro's health condition. Cuba blames it all on the American embargo, but the root causes are far more complex and show the communist system's very obvious failures and near total collapse.







²ÝÅ¿É ³Ýßáõßï ÏÁ Ùï³Í¿ñ áñ Çñ ËÇëï ³Ýѳݹ³ï µ³Ûó µ³ó³éÇÏ ÁݹáõݳÏáõÃÇõÝÝ»ñáí ûÅïáõ³Í üÇï¿ÉÁ ûñ ÙÁ åÇïÇ ÁÉÉ³Û Çñ ³ñųݳõáñ Û³çáñ¹Á »õ ëï³ÝÓÝ¿ ß³ù³ñ»Õ¿ùÇ ³ñï³¹ñáõû³Ý Çñ ߳ѳµ»ñ ·áñÍÁ£ ²Ý ÝáÛÝÇëÏ ÏÁ Ó»éݳñÏ¿ äÇñ³ÝÇ Çñ ϳÉáõ³ÍÇÝ Ù¿Ï ³ÝÏÇõÝÁ ßÇÝ»É »ñÇï³ë³ñ¹ üÇï¿ÉÇ ³å³·³ÛÇ ïáõÝÁ Ûáõë³Éáí áñ ó³õ³ÏÁ áõëáõÙ ³éÝ»É¿Ý »ïù åÇïÇ í»ñ³¹³éÝ³Û »õ ѳëï³ïáõÇ Çñ Ùûï£








Castro house in Biran, Cuba: The main house of what used to be a farm of Angel Castro, father of Fidel and Raul Castro. The farm is now turned into a museum. Castro's father was born in a one-room stone house in Spain's Galicia region and served in Cuba as a Spanish soldier from 1895 to 1898. He returned as an immigrant in 1902, began to organize contract labor for the U.S. United Fruit Company and started to buy land in the area. Angel Castro was barely literate, but was wealthy enough to send his 10 children to some of Cuba's best schools. An apartment on the property had been intended for Fidel, in hopes the son would return to help run the family businesses. Instead, the young attorney turned to politics and then to revolution. When Angel died of a fall at age 81 in 1956, Fidel was a prisoner, convicted of attacking Moncada military barracks in Santiago de Cuba on July 26, 1953.



Ê»Õ× ²Ý׿É. سñ¹Á áõñï»Õ¿՞Ý ·Çïݳñ ÿ Çñ ½³õ³ÏÁ ù³ÝÇ ÙÁ ï³ñÇ »ïù åÇïÇ ¹³ñݳñ ³ß˳ñѳÑéã³Ï Ù¿Ï ÆùáÝ »õ Çñ³ñ ³ÝóÝ¿ñ ßñç³ÝÇ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ù³ñï¿ëÁ ⿠οí³ñ³ÛÇ« üñ³Ýù ö³ÛÇëÇ »õ ³ÛÉ Ó³Ë³ÏáÕÙ»³Ý Û»Õ³÷á˳ϳÝÝ»ñáõ ·ÉËáõÝ£






ø³ëÃñû ÁÝï³ÝÇùÇ å³å»Ý³Ï³Ý äÇñ³ÝÇ Ï³Éáõ³Í ³Ûó»É»ÉÁ ³ÛÝù³Ý ³É Ñ»ßï µ³Ý ã¿« ÝáÛÝÇëÏ ³Ûëûñ« å³Õ å³ï»ñ³½Ç ³õ³ñï¿Ý »ñϳñ ï³ñÇÝ»ñ¿ »ïù£ ì»ñç³å¿ë ø³ëÃñáÝ »õ Çñ »Õµ³ÛñÁ ï³Ï³õÇÝ áÕç »Ý »õ ÏÁ ó·³õáñ»Ý ³ñ»õÙï»³Ý ³ß˳ñÑÇ í»ñçÇÝ Ñ³Ù³Ûݳí³ñ »ñÏñÇÝ íñ³Û£ ²Ýßáõßï ³ÝáÝù Ϫ³åñÇÝ äÇñ³Ý¿Ý ѳñÇõñ³õáñ ùÇÉáÙ»Ãñ ³ñ»õÙáõïùª Ù³Ûñ³ù³Õ³ù гõ³Ý³ÛÇ Ù¿ç ݳ˳·³Ñ³Ï³Ý å³É³ïÝ»ñáõÝ Ù¿ç£






²Ûëûñ ø³ëÃñáÝ»ñáõ äÇñ³ÝÇ Ï³Éáõ³ÍÁ ³Ûó»É»ÉÁ ËÇëï Ñ»ï³ùñùñ³Ï³Ý ¿£ ²é³çÇÝ Ñ»ñÃÇÝ ³Ûó»ÉáõÝ»ñÁ å³Õ »õ áã ¹Çõ³Ý³·¿ï Ï»ñåáí ÏÁ ϳë»óáõÇÝ êáí»ï³Ï³Ý ûñ»ñáõ ½ÇÝáõáñ³Ï³Ý ·áõݳó÷ ï³ñ³½Ý»ñ ѳ·áõ³Í å³Ñ³ÏÝ»ñáõ ÏáÕÙ¿£ ¼ÇÝáõáñÝ»ñ« áñáÝù Ç ï»ë ³Ûó»ÉáõÝ»ñáõ Ù¿Ï ûÃûåÇõëǪ áïùÇ ÏÁ ϳݷÝÇÝ áõ Ï¿ë ÙÁ ÏÁ µ³Ý³Ý ÙáõïùÇ Ù³Ûñ ¹é³Ý ³ñ·»ÉùÝ»ñÁ »õ ÏÁ Í³Ë»Ý ÙáõïùÇ ïáÙë³ÏÝ»ñ« í׳é»ÉÇ ³Ù»ñÇÏ»³Ý ³ÝÇÍ»³É ïáɳñáí ϳ٠ï»Õ³Ï³Ý ùáõå³Ï³Ý ÙáÝá÷áÉÇÇ ³ñÅ¿ù áõÝ»óáÕ ¹ñ³Ùáí£






ø³ëÃñáÛÇ øáõå³ÛÇ Ù¿ç ´³ñ³ÝáÛ³ Áëáõ³ÍÁ ß³ï ³é³ï ¿£ ²Ù¿Ý ³Ûó»Éáõ ÏñÝ³Û ³Ù»ñÇϳóÇÝ»ñáõÝ ·áñͳϳÉÁ ÁÉÉ³É Ï³Ù ÝϳïáõÇÉ »õ Ñ»ï»õ³µ³ñ å¿ïù ¿ ³éÝ»É µ³õ³Ï³ÝÇÝ Éáõñç ÑëÏáÕáõû³Ý ï³Ï£






ØáõïùÇ ïáÙë³ÏÝ»ñÁ ³å³Ñáí»É¿ »ïù ³Ûó»ÉáõÝ»ñÁ ϪáõÕÕáõÇÝ ½³Ý³½³Ý ß¿ù»ñ£ Ðáë« ³Ûë ³ÝÏÇõÝÁ ÍÝ³Í ¿ üÇï¿ÉÁ« Ñáݪ ³ÛÝ ³ÝÏÇõÝÁ ëáñí³Í ¿ ·ñ»É áõ ϳñ¹³É« Ñáë Ý»ñÏ³Û »Õ³Í ¿ ³é³çÇÝ ³ùÉáñ³Ù³ñïÇÝ »õ³ÛÉÝ« »õ³ÛÉÝ£ Çëϳå¿ë Ñ»ï³ùñùñ³Ï³Ý« ë³Ï³ÛÝ ÙÃÝáÉáñïÁ ÙÇ ùÇã ͳÝñ ¿ »õ ÏÁ Ù³ïÝ¿ ø³ëÃñáÛÇ øáõå³ÛÇ Ù»Ïáõë³óáõÙÝ áõ µ³ñ³Ýá۳ݣ






ºñϳñ ׳ٵ³Û¿ »ïù äÇñ³Ý ѳëÝáÕ µáÉáñ ³Ûó»ÉáõÝ»ñÁ áñáÝù µÝ³Ï³Ý³µ³ñ Ϫ áõÕÕÇÝ Éáõ³ó³ñ³Ýª ß³ï ѳõ³Ý³µ³ñ Çñ»Ýó ¹áõñë »É³Í å³ÑáõÝ ÏÁ Ýϳï»Ý áñ ³ñųݳó³Í »Ý ï³ñ³½³õáñ ½ÇÝáõáñÇ ÙÁ áõß³¹ñáõû³Ý áñ Ñ»ï»õ³Í ¿ñ Çñ»Ýó áõ ëå³ë³Í µáÉáñÇÝ ³å³Ñáí ¹áõñë ·³ÉÁ£ ì»ñçÇí»ñçáÛ áí ÏÁ ѳٳñÓ³ÏÇ Ë³µ³Ý³ñ³ñ³Ï³Ý ³ß˳ï³Ýù ï³ÝÇÉ ø³ëÃñáÛÇ ÑûñÁ ³ñï³ùÝáóÇÝ Ù¿ç






êï³ÉÇÝÁ ï³Ï³õÇÝ áÕç ¿« ·áÝ¿ á·Çáí«






1959 ÇÝ »ñÏñÇÝ Õ»ÏÁ ëï³ÝóÝ»É¿Ý »ïù ø³ëÃñû ǵñ»õ ѳõ³ï³õáñ ѳٳÛݳí³ñ Çñ ÑûñÁ äÇñ³ÝÇ ÑëÏ³Û Ï³Éáõ³ÍÁ ÝáõÇñ»ó øáõå³ÛÇ Ï³é³í³ñáõû³Ý »õ ³Ýßáõßï ·Ý³ó ѳëï³ïáõÇÉ ß³ï ³õ»ÉÇ ÷³é³õáñ гõ³Ý³ÛÇ ä³ÃÇëóÛÇ ûñ»ñ¿Ý Ùݳó³Í å³É³տÝ»ñáõÝ Ù¿ç






üÇï¿É ø³ëÃñû í»ñç»ñë ê³Ýó ÈáõãÇÛ³ ù³Õ³ùÇÝ Ù¿ç Çñ ½ÇݳÏÇó ⿠οí³ñ³ÛÇ ÑëÏ³Û³Ï³Ý å³ïáõáÛ ä³ÝÿáÝÇÝ ³éç»õ Ëûëù ³é³Í å³ÑáõÝ ë³Ñ»ó³õ »õ ÇÝϳõ ѳ½³ñ³õáñ ù³Õ³ù³óÇÝ»ñáõÝ »õ ø³Ù¿ñ³Ý»ñáõÝ ³éç»õ£ ²Ý ³Ýßáõßï ³ÛÉ»õë ϳñáÕ ã¿ ³é³çáõ³Ý ÝÙ³Ý ³é³Ýó Ýûûñáõ û·Ýáõû³Ý »ñϳñ ųٻñ ³ÙµÇáÝÝ»ñáõÝ íñ³Û íñ³Û ¹³ë³Ëûë»É ëïÇåáÕ³Ï³Ý Ï»ñåáí ³éÃáõÝ å³Ñ»Éáí áõÝÏݹñáÕÝ»ñÁ£ ø³ëÃñû Ϫ³åñÇ Çñ í»ñçÇÝ ³ÙÇëÝ»ñÁ »õ áã á· íëï³Ñ ¿ ÿ ÇÝã åÇïÇ ÁÉÉ³Û ³ÝÙÇç³Ï³Ý ³å³·³Ý£






üÇï¿É Ùûï ûñ¿Ý åÇïÇ Û³õÇï»³Ý ·áó¿ Çñ ³ãù»ñÁ »õ ÇñÙáí åÇïÇ ÷³ÏáõÇ 20 ñ¹ ¹³ñáõ ³ÛÉ ÑëϳÛÇ ÙÁ ¿çÁ£ ¸Åµ³Ëï³µ³ñ ë³Ï³ÛÝ ³Ûë ѳÝ׳é»Õ »õ ÑëÏ³Û ÇÙ³ó³Ï³Ýáõû³Ý ï¿ñ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ç·áÝÁ ǵñ»õ ųé³Ý· åÇïÇ Ó·¿ µ³õ³Ï³ÝÇÝ Ó³ËáÕ Çñ ·³Õ³µ³ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÇõÝÁ£






ø³ëÃñáÝ Ï³ñ»ÉÇ ã¿ ³Ûå³Ý»É Çñ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ѳõ³ïùÝ»ñáõÝ Ñ³Ù³ñ« ٳݳõ³Ý¹ ÝϳïÇ áõݻݳÉáí ùáõå³ÛÇ ³é³ÝÓݳ۳ïáõÏ å³ïÙáõÃÇõÝÁ ǵñ»õ êå³Ý³Ï³Ý »õ ³å³ ³Ù»ñÇÏ»³Ý ·³ÕáõóïÇñ³Ï³Ý ÉáõÍ¿Ý ³½³ï»Éáõ »ñϳñ³Ù»³Û ÉáÛëÇÝ ï³Ï£ øáõå³óÇù ¹³ñ»ñáí å³Ûù³ñ³Í »Ý Ãûó÷»Éáõ ëå³Ý³Ï³Ý »õ ³å³ ³Ù»ñÇÏ»³Ý ½ÇÝáõáñ³-ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ÉáõÍÁ£






ø³ëÃñáÛÇ å³ïÙ³Ï³Ý Û³ÝÓ³ÝùÁ ë³Ï³ÛÝ êáí»ï³Ï³Ý ØÇáõû³Ý ÷Éáõ½áõÙÁ ³Ýï»ë»ÉÝ áõ ųٳݳϳíñ¿å ѳٳÛݳí³ñ³Ï³Ý Çñ í³ñã³Ï³ñ·ÇÝ å³Ñå³ÝáõÙÝ ¿ Ç ·ÇÝ ùáõå³óÇÝ»ñáõ ÑÇÙÝ³Ï³Ý ù³Õ³ù³óÇ³Ï³Ý ³½³ïáõû³Ý Çñ³õáõÝùÝ»ñáõ áïݳÏáËٳݣ ø³ëÃñû Û»ï Îáñå³չáí»³Ý ûñ»ñáõÝ ß³ñáõݳϻó Û³Ù³ñ ѳٳÛݳí³ñáõÃÇõÝ ÙÁ áñ ï³ñ³ւ ¹¿åÇ Û³õ»É»³É Ù»Ïáõë³óÙ³Ý »õ ïÝï»ë³Ï³Ý ù³Ûù³ÛáõÙÇ£


Wednesday, July 1, 2009

The strategic importance of the Black Sea

"The battle of Sinop, 1853": Russian navy destroying Ottoman ships on the Black sea. Imperial Russian navy destroyed Ottoman eleven Frigates and Corvettes anchored in the harbor. It was the start of the Crimean war. (Painting by Armenian seascape painter Hovannes Ayvazovski) The Black sea has always been less ''sexy'' than its bigger and more important neighbour, the Mediterranean: Less prominent, more marginal and less understood, especially in the West. The strategic importance of the Black sea is easily underestimated despite its huge importance . The very heterogeneous countries that occupy the shores of the Black sea are a sure indication of its importance. Since pre-historical times this sea has played a pivotal role in the European as well as Asian history. Endless cultures and civilisations have thrived, ruled, colonised and disappeared from its shores. Hittites, Scythians, Thracians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Persians, Genoese, Venetians, Tatars, and various Slavic and Turkic tribes can all trace all or part of their history. This vast region has seen a constant movement of tribes, armies, protected trade routes and political powerhouses. And that is not changed a bit today.

Satellite image of the Black sea and the larger Mediterranean. The sea of Marmara links the two through the Bosporus and Dardanelles (Canakkale) staits.



The Russian Empire has always aspired and fought hard for a secure and easy access to the ‘’warm’’ waters, that is the Mediterranean. The North Sea and the Baltic are too disconnected from the Mediterranean world and the Suez canal. Therefore the Black Sea was the natural body of water that could provide them such important access and influence. The various conflicts and wars between the Russians and the Ottomans are a sure testimony of that strategy.





In recent history, the fault lines of the Persian, Ottoman and Russian Empires were vaguely along or near the shores of the Black Sea. During the cold war, the East and the West were also locking horns over these bodies of water. The Mediterranean being firmly in the N.A.T.O. fold, while the Black sea was a bastion for the Soviets and allied navies. The passage of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles as well as the Black sea itself have been the theater for infamously fierce and absurdly tragic wars between various powers near and far. In antiquity, the most famous battle surely is the Trojan wars. Troy is located just at the mouth of the Canakkale (Dardanelles) strait leading to the Marmara and eventually the Black sea. The Crimean War (1853-186) as well as well as the Russian-Turkish war that followed (1877-78) were directly for the control of the Black sea and the competing influence of these nations over the area. At that time even the western powers of Great Britain and France were directly part of the conflict, initially to curb the Russian appetites vis-a- vis a crumbling Ottoman Empire.

The Black Sea as seen from the at the edge of the Bosporus (Anadolu Kavagi village) These above mentioned wars were very bloody, but probably the single bloodiest and most famous of these apocalyptic wars was Galipoli /Dardanelles straits campaign during the WWI (1915-16). It was fought between The German/Turkish alliance and the mostly British -Australian-New Zealand forces, again for the control of these strategic routes and access to the Black sea. This war resulted in up to 500,000 killed and wounded. The Turks did not surrender and that bloody campaign made Mustapha Kemal (later Ataturk) a rising hero. Some would argue that the Black sea is rather large internal lake connected to the Mediterranean through the sea of Bosporus, the sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles. It is a much less salty sea than the Mediterranean and the oceans. Its rather fresh water surface and the ore salty bottom rarely mix resulting in particularly peculiar see plankton of dark colour making the water look dark or 'Black': hence the name. The area of the Black sea is of over 435.000 km2, which is about 14 times the Republic of Armenia or 40 times Lebanon. This huge body of water is of course shared by many countries: Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria. Moreover, the ‘’autonomous’’ breakaway regions of Georgia, Adjaria and Abkhazia are also located there.

It is very interesting to note that none of these countries have their Capital city or a really major other city on the shores of the Black sea. The major cities or state capitals such as Kiev, Sofia, Bucharest etc are inland, far from the shores. Was this caused historically by security issues to avoid attacks and vulnerability? (Istanbul's northern suburbs on the Bosporus barely touch the Black Sea).

In any case, the strategic importance of the Black sea is here to stay. Landlocked countries like Moldova and Armenia depend on it even with no direct access. It is estimated that 80% of Armenia's maritime trade passes through the port city of Poti on the Georgian shores. Russia and Ukraine have been squabbling over sovereignty of chunks of the seashore, as the bulk of the ex Soviet navy is stationed there, including areas claimed by Ukraine as her own.

Russian and Ukraine Commanders aboard Russian navy ships during celebration of 225th anniversary of Black Sea fleet on May 11, 2008 in Sevastopol. Russia's Black Sea Fleet is present in Sevastopol under a lease that expires in 2017. The "arrangement" is a frequent source of tension between Russia and Ukraine. Turkey holds the most important strategic access key and is heavily reliant on the trade. Immense prosperity is generated by the traffic flowing between the Mediterranean and the Black sea. Turkey does have the strategic upper hand, but it can not ignore international treaties. The most important of these is the Montreux Convention Regarding (signed 1936) the Regime of the Turkish Straits. Montreux gives Ankara relative control over the Bosporus and the Dardanelles Straits, both of which fall totally within Turkey. Military activity and movements in the whole region are closely monitored which of course includes the only access to the Black Sea. Turkey has military control over the Straits but also has to abide by and enforce the restrictions and regulation on the passage of warships belonging to all other nations. Montreux Convention guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime but severely restricts the passage of non-Turkish military vessels and prohibits some types of warships including aircraft carriers from passing through the Straits. The terms of the convention have always been contested by some nations, most notably the ex Soviet Union (and now Russia). Russia needs easy passage to the Mediterranean sea and beyond for its Black sea based merchant and military fleet. The various restrictions imposed by the Montreux Convention are somehow seen as restrictive by Moscow. But these same restrictions also help control any western military presence in the Black sea, Russia's backyard. The Icon and the Bikinis: Over-enthusiastic Russian women greeting the returning Russian warships after their victory over Georgia (Sevastopol navy base, Ukraine) ! After all, the Black Sea remains a mostly ''Russian'' influence zone, while the Mediterranean is the ''West''. The traditional zones of influences remain little changed, even if the Cold War is supposedly over. A good illustration of this division of zones happened in 2008 during the Georgia-Russia armed conflict over South Ossetia. Georgia got crushed by the Russian army after being given false hopes and assurances by the West. After that military debacle and as a token of "solidarity'' to the beaten Georgian government, the Bush administration sent a sole American warship to the destroyed Georgian port of Poti. Washington could hardly afford to do much more to help Tbilisi than timidly send a "hospital" battleship to distribute some goods and candies. So much for direct American influence in the Black sea. But the same can be said for the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean.



Family Picture: The heads of states and representatives of the Black Sea Economic Council (BSEC) countries and observers. (2007 conference, Çiragan palace, Istanbul).

On 25 June 1992,the Heads of State and Government of eleven countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine signed in Istanbul the Summit Declaration and the Bosporus Statement giving birth to the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). Serbia also joined in 2004 while Cyprus and Montenegro were vetoed out!

The BSEC came into existence as a ''unique and promising model of multilateral political and economic initiative aimed at fostering interaction and harmony among the Member States, as well as to ensure peace, stability and prosperity encouraging friendly and good-neighbourly relations in the Black Sea region". Very noble and idealistic!

If the past is any indication, the Black Sea region badly needs all the help it can get to preserve some kind of long lasting peace among its bickering and infighting member states...

© Krikor Tersakian, Montreal, Canada