SAfrica says media to be given access to Equatorial Guinea “mercenaries” trial
SAPA news agency web site
28 Oct 04
Johannesburg, 28 October: The trial of the eight South Africans accused
of plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea will recommence on 16 November,
senior South African government officials have learnt.
Officials led by Presidential Security Adviser Billy Masetla met
Equatorial Guinea’s Attorney-General Jose Olo Obono and the ambassador
to South Africa Juan Nchuchuma in Pretoria on Wednesday 27 October .
Foreign Affairs spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa said on Thursday that Obono
had approved a request by the South African delegation for media
access to the trial.
“He also approved a request for further consular access to those
currently in detention in Malabo.”
Mamoepa said foreign affairs consular officers would visit the
detainees once the arrangements were finalized.
Eight South Africans, six Armenians and five Guineans, including
a former deputy minister, went on trial in Malabo on 23 August for
allegedly trying to topple President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, in power
since 1979.
The case was adjourned on 31 August at the request of Obono, to get
“further information” following the arrest of Mark Thatcher in South
Africa on 25 August.
The son of the former British prime minister is suspected by Equatorial
Guinea and South Africa of bankrolling the alleged plot.

French Armenians want to block Turkey EU bid over 1915 massacre
EU Business
29/10/2004
France’s Armenian community said Friday it would appeal to President
Jacques Chirac to prevent negotiations on Turkish membership of the
European Union until Turkey acknowledged responsibility for a World
War I massacre of Armenians.
The group’s attorney Philippe Krikorian said it would lodge an appeal
before the nation’s highest administrative tribunal, the Council of
State, requesting Chirac to oppose the start of such talks.
The subject of the Armenian massacre has remained a controversial one
touching Turkish and Armenian sensitivities for nigh on nine decades,
with Turkey consistently refusing to acknowledge that genocide had
occurred in 1915-1917 when up to 1.5 million Armenians died.
Turkey says that between 250,000 and 500,000 Armenians and thousands
of Turks were killed in civil strife during World War I, when the
Armenians rose up against their Ottoman rulers.
The French parliament passed legislation in 2001 stating that genocide
had occurred, thereby causing hard feelings in relations with Turkey.
Organisations, which represent some 450,000 French citizens of
Armenian origin, wished to protest against Chirac’s “willingness not
to subordinate the opening of negotiations to the prior admission of
the Armenian genocide,” said Krikorian.
Last month the European Commission recommended a start to membership
negotiations with Turkey, which has been lobbying for many years to
join the European Union.
Jean-Pierre Berberian, spokesman of a Marseille-based Armenian group,
noted that an EU summit would make the final decision in December on
whether to start negotiations.
Fifty days ahead of that date, it was time to “denounce the violation
by the French government of the terms of the resolution passed on
June 18, 1987 by the European Parliament and of French legislation
of January 2001 recognising the genocide of 1915,” said Berberian,
spokesman of the Euro-Armenia group here, and a Marseille city
councillor.
Chirac has indicated his support for a start to talks, but many in
his ruling party, in the opposition and among the French public are
against Turkey’s EU membership.
“Not only is Jacques Chirac acting in violation of the law, he is
doing so against the will of a majority of French who are opposed to
Turkey’s membership,” said Berberian.
The text of the 2001 legislation passed by parliament here said France
“publicly recognises the Armenian genocide of 1915,” but did not
explicitly identify Turkey as responsible for the deed.

Fifty-ninth General Assembly
General Committee
5th Meeting (AM)
October 27, 2004
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS INCLUSION OF THREE ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON
GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S CURRENT AGENDA, SPLITTING OF DEBATE ON PALESTINE,
MIDDLE EAST
The General Committee this morning decided to recommend the inclusion of
three additional items on the General Assembly’s current agenda, and
decided to split its joint debate on the situation in the Middle East
and the question of Palestine.
The Committee, by a show of hands vote of nine in favour with none
against and 14 abstentions, recommended the inclusion of an item on the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The request was
contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan
(document A/59/236), annexed to which was an explanatory memorandum
stating that the ongoing conflict in the Nagorno Karabakh region had
resulted in the occupation of a significant part of Azerbaijan’s
territory, the expulsion of a large portion of its population and severe
damage to the national economy.
The memorandum noted that the process for the peaceful settlement of the
conflict on the basis of the norms and principles of international law
was being carried out by the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE), through the Minsk Group. But as of yet, no results had
been achieved. In the meantime, according to the memorandum, illegal
activities were currently being carried out in the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan, in particular by transfer of settlers to artificially
create a new demographic situation in those territories.
Azerbaijan’s representative said his country had made the request due to
the lack of effective response to the obvious threats to its sovereignty
and territorial integrity. Azerbaijan would not tolerate colonization of
its territory. It truly regretted that numerous warnings about dangerous
new realities in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan had gone ignored
and, therefore, had been forced to come to the Assembly in an effort to
stop blatant violation of international and humanitarian law.
He stressed that the request was not an attempt to replace the OSCE
peace process but to facilitate it. The Assembly was the chief
deliberative, policy making organ of the United Nations, he said, and it
was Azerbaijan’s Charter-based right to raise the issue.
France’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairmanship of
the Minsk Group, which also includes the Russian Federation and the
United States, said the OSCE had been actively dealing with this
situation for quite some time in a professional-minded spirit, chiefly
through the Minsk Group. Part of that process had already yielded
discussions between the parties and the Group had proposed further talks
on the situation.
With that in mind, the request for the introduction of a new item could
have negative consequences, he said, such as harming efforts to bring
about a just and lasting settlement. While the Group had no doubts about
the sincerity of Azerbaijan’s request, it did not believe that the
current session of the Assembly was the proper forum to discuss the matter.
Armenia’s Ambassador said that there was no urgent situation surrounding
Nagorno Karabagh today. According to rule 15 of the Assembly’s rules of
procedure, only an item of “an important and urgent character” justified
a request to include a new item on the Assembly’s current agenda. The
reasons offered to justify Azerbaijan’s request misrepresented the
situation on the ground.
He explained that first, there was the former autonomous region of
Nagorno Karabagh, which had always and continued to be
Armenian-populated. Then, there were the territories surrounding Nagorno
Karabagh, which had come under the control of Nagorno Karabagh Armenians
as a result of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan in an attempt to stifle
the peaceful drive of the people of those territories for
self-determination.
It was obvious, he said, that there were no settlements outside of
Nagorno Karabagh proper, in territories controlled by Armenian forces.
Nor was there a policy to settle those lands. He wondered what new
demographic situation Azerbaijan had been referring to. The conflict had
created refugees on both sides. By initiating the request, Azerbaijan
relied on the sensitivities towards its country from members of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). He stressed that the
conflict had no religious connotations, but was closely related to the
security environment in the South Caucasus. He urged the Committee not
to take action on the request.
Speaking in favour of the inclusion of the item on, before the vote,
were the representatives of Gambia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Djibouti, and
Turkey (on behalf of the OIC). The representatives of Belgium and
Australia spoke against its inclusion.
The representatives of Kazakhstan and China hoped the situation could be
resolved through peaceful negotiations.
At the top of the meeting, the Committee recommended the inclusion of
two other items on its current agenda. The first, entitled “Andean Zone
of Peace,” was introduced by Peru’s representative. Speaking on behalf
of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela), he
said that the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction and anti-personnel mines constituted a concrete contribution
to the strengthening of international peace, security and trust, as well
as to the principles of the Charter and international law. It was also
recommended that the item be considered directly in the plenary meeting.
The second item, entitled “Observer status for the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation in the General Assembly”, was
introduced by Pakistan’s representative, who said the Association worked
to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their
quality of life. It also hoped to accelerate economic growth, social
progress and cultural development in the region, providing individuals
with the opportunity to live in dignity and realize their potential. The
Committee also decided to allocate that item to its Sixth Committee (Legal).
Acting on a request from the Secretary-General, the Committee also added
a new sub-item to its agenda in order to elect a member of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ). In document A/59/237, the
Secretary-General informed the Committee that a vacancy in the Court
would occur effective 11 February 2005, due to the resignation of Judge
and Former President Gilbert Guillaume.
Lastly, acting on a proposal by the representative of Syria, the
Committee decided to recommend that the Assembly split its consideration
of agenda item 36, on the Situation in the Middle East, and item 37, the
Question of Palestine, which was scheduled to be considered jointly.
The General Committee will meet again at a time to be announced.

ADL Calls On Chief Rabbis to Speak Out Against Interfaith Assaults In Old City
Anti-Defamation League
October 17, 2004
PRESS RELEASE
Israel / Middle East
Jerusalem, October 17, 2004 — The Israel Office of the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) called on Israel’s two Chief Rabbis to speak out against
the phenomenon of attacks against Christians by Jewish students
studying in yeshivas in Jerusalem’s Old City.
In letters sent to Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger and Sepharadi
Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, ADL’s Israel Office said:
We are writing to share our deep concern and revulsion at the event
that took place last week in the Old City when a yeshiva student spat
at Nourhan Manougian, the Armenian Archbishop of Jerusalem.
After the student was arrested he told the authorities that
he perpetrated this act to protest idol worship. If this was an
isolated incident perhaps it could be simply blamed on bad behavior
by a misguided and disrespectful teenager. However, such incidents
are not at all rare. This disgraceful behavior perpetuated by a
minority of yeshiva students has been occurring for years.
We are now calling upon you to use your public position to speak out
quickly and firmly against this clear violation of Jewish ethical
teaching and to make clear to rabbis and teachers who are educating
yeshiva students in Jerusalem and elsewhere that such behavior is
a terrible moral offense and a stain on the name of Jewish people
everywhere.
Particularly in this time of rising anti-Semitism we do not tolerate
such conduct toward Jews anywhere in the world and such conduct toward
non-Jews must not be tolerated in the Jewish state. Maintaining quiet
and respectful relations between faiths in Jerusalem is both a national
and spiritual value.
We believe that you can do much to help combat this phenomenon both
publicly and privately and call upon you to use your esteemed position
to do so at this time.
Read more online on our web site at
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading
organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services
that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A1 Plus | 17:10:14 | 29-10-2004 | Social |
SHOOTING IN MASHTOTS AVENUE
At 4:30 PM shots were fired in Mashtots-Tumanyan crossroad. According
to witnesses, shots were made at 2 young men from a “Vaz-31” car
passing. After the phone call made by a cafe employee ambulance cars
and policemen arrived on the spot and took the wounded away. They
are supposed to be dead already. The murdered men are said to be
Armenians from Georgia.

PRESS RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS AND INFORMATION OF ARMENIAN POLICE
A1 Plus | 21:02:38 | 29-10-2004 | Official |
On October 29 at 15:55 PM shots were fired in the crossroad of Mashtotc
Avenue and Tumanyan Street. Operational group arrived on the scene
and found 2 corpses with gunshot wounds.
One of the dead men is an Armenian from Georgia. The next is being
identified.
Shells of “Makarov” gun were found in the spot.
Operational and investigation group managed to disclose the person
having committed murder, which isn’t published for operational
considerations.
Office of Prosecutor carries out the preliminary investigation for
the criminal case instituted.

PRESS RELEASE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web:
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hamlet Gasparian responds to a Question by the
Armenian Daily, Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, on Azerbaijan¹s UN Initiative
Question: Today, the UN General Assembly voted on Azerbaijan¹s initiative
to include a resolution on ³The Status of Occupied Territories in
Azerbaijan² during the UN General Assembly 59th session. The initiative did
in fact enter the agenda. What is your comment?
Answer: Yes, there was a vote today on whether to include the issue on the
agenda and of the UN¹s 191 member countries, only 43 countries voted in
favor of Azerbaijan¹s initiative. The remainder abstained. The Netherlands,
on behalf of the European Union, spoke against Azerbaijan¹s initiative, and
France did as well, on behalf of the OSCE Minsk Group. The vote showed that
this initiative does not enjoy the broad support of the international
community.
The overwhelming majority of those who voted with Azerbaijan are members of
the Organization of Islamic Countries, which is currently chaired by Turkey.
This means that, unfortunately, Azerbaijan is attempting to give the
conflict a different color by recruiting the Islamic countries and
exploiting the prevailing solidarity within that organization. We believe
such actions will definitely have a negative effect on the peace process.
Nevertheless, I want to also stress that exactly 40% of the OIC membership
did not succumb to Turkey¹s and Azerbaijan¹s pressure and did not support
the Azerbaijani initiative.
I¹d like to point out a few other important facts. No permanent members of
the UN Security Council voted in favor of Azerbaijan¹s initiative. Nor did
any non-permanent members of the Security Council either, except for
Pakistan. No European Union member country supported the initiative nor did
any OSCE Minsk Group country with the exception of Turkey.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia states one more
time that through such steps Azerbaijan is attempting to divert the
international community from the actual core of the NK conflict, which is
the status of Nagorno Karabakh.
We have said and will repeat again that if Azerbaijan removes individual
issues from the comprehensive discussion of Nagorno Karabakh¹s status to
attract or divert international attention, then they must negotiate those
issues directly with Nagorno Karabakh.
–Boundary_(ID_O2z8nmO/i7UjMBSVWn13dg)–

Vatican hesitant on Turkey’s bid for EU membership
Vatican, Oct. 29 (CWNews.com) – The Vatican has not yet offered
any official statement on the prospect of Turkey’s entry into the
European Union, but believes that the union should cover Europe “from
the Atlantic to the Urals,” according to Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo.
In a lengthy interview with the Italian daily La Stampa , the Vatican’s
Secretary for Relations with States did make the observation that if
Turkey enters the European Union, the government of that predominantly
Muslim country will be obliged to fulfill the same political criteria
as all other member-states, including the guarantee of religious
freedom. And that guarantee, the archbishop added, should be “not
only ensured in the constitution, legislation, and administration,
but also protected concretely and effectively in the social realm.”
Archbishop Lajolo stressed that “the Holy See is not afraid of
enlarging Europe.” He pointed out that in the past the Vatican
has supported the application of Eastern European countries for EU
membership. In determining which states should enter the Union, he
said, “The decisive point is that the new Europe should have a deep
internal cohesion.”
The archbishop said that European leaders should “pay more attention”
to other countries that have already indicated a desire to join
the Union, such as Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Ukraine. Georgia,
and Armenia. These countries, he observed, are clearly aligned with
Europe’s cultural tradition.
Earlier this week, Bishop Piero Parolin– the deputy to Archbishop
Lajolo at the Vatican Secretariat of State– had also expressed
sympathy for the Eastern European nations seeking EU entry. The goal
of the Holy See, Bishop Parolin said, is “not so much to promote their
entry, but to facilitate the return of the Eastern European countries
to the European family, from which they were excluded during their
years of totalitarian oppression.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Erdogan: Opening Of Borders Depends On Armenia’s Attitude
Anadolu Agency
10/29/2004
BAKU – Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday,
“Turkey has been defending from the very beginning that a solution
should be found to the Upper Karabakh dispute under territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan from the very beginning. Meanwhile, opening
of borders between Turkey and Armenia depends on Armenia’s attitude.”
In an interview with Azerbaijani Three Points newspaper, Prime Minister
Erdogan said, “there are some obstacles in front of normalization of
Turkey-Armenia relations and opening of borders. Ignorance of official
borders by Armenia, Armenia’s efforts for recognition of so-called
Armenian genocide, and long-standing historical problems between
Turkey and Armenia have been affecting our relations negatively.”
“Armenia’s maintaining its occupying policy against all resolutions of
the UN for Upper Karabakh also has a negative impact on our bilateral
relations. In order to normalize those relations, Armenia should
set good neighborly relations with Turkey and the other regional
countries,” he said.
-TURKEY-AZERBAIJAN RELATIONS-
“There have been historic cultural and social relations between Turkey
and Azerbaijan. Our bilateral relations have reached to a perfect level
in only 14 years after Azerbaijan acquired its independence,” he said.
Prime Minister Erdogan noted that the bilateral relations would
further improve after the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline
project was put into force, adding, “other energy projects will bring
our relations to the level of strategic partnership.”
Referring to Turkish-Azeri economic relations, Erdogan said that
“although political relations between the two countries are excellent,
economic ties are not at a satisfactory level.”
“The annual trade volume between Turkey and Azerbaijan is only
about 430 million U.S. dollars. This is not an amount that makes us
happy. There need to be progress made in the areas of customs and
taxation as well as banking between the two countries.”
-TURKEY’S EU MEMBERSHIP PROCESS-
Referring to Turkey’s EU membership process, Prime Minister Erdogan
said, “we expect the EU to make a decision at its summit on December
17th to open entry talks with Turkey. In that case, accession
negotiations will start in 2005. The negotiation process will be
difficult and take a long time. The process will entail us to work
hard. The process also requires adequate financial source.”
“We are planning to fulfil entry talks in 2010 and reach our target of
EU full membership. Turkey’s membership will have positive impacts in
economy, politics and culture in Europe. Turkey will make a valuable
contribution to the EU in energy. Also, the EU’s influence in the
Islam world will increase with membership of Turkey,” Prime Minister
Erdogan added.

Eurasia Insight Armenia Facing Instability Ahead – Report
Posted October 29, 2004 © Eurasianet
Armenia faces instability unless it takes quick steps to improve
relations with its neighbors, and fosters the rule-of-law at home,
according to a new study that examines the Caucasus nationâ~@~Ys
political and economic prospects. The report, prepared by
the International Crisis Group, urges Armenia to approach the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process “realistically.” It adds that President
Robert Kocharianâ~@~Ys administration should “supplement economic
success with robust democratization.”
The report, titled Armenia: Internal Instability Ahead, says
the stalemated Karabakh peace process “looms over all aspects of
Armeniaâ~@~Ys political life and compounds its instability.” [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. A lasting Karabakh
settlement is needed to secure Armeniaâ~@~Ys long-term economic
security, the report maintains. Yet, Armenian leaders have little room
for diplomatic maneuver in their negotiations with their Azerbaijani
counterparts, it adds. Yerevan is under heavy popular pressure,
especially from the Armenian Diaspora, to make no concessions on
Karabakhâ~@~Ys independence from Baku. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive].
“The [Karabakh] issue previously helped unify Armeniaâ~@~Ys political
elite, but ultimately, it may polarize popular opinion and society,”
the report says. While nearly all Armenians believe that the country
should defend Karabakhâ~@~Ys interests during peace negotiations, a
growing number in Yerevan seem to feel the territoryâ~@~Ys priorities
have already eclipsed Armeniaâ~@~Ys own needs, including regional
economic integration. The Karabakh issue, at the same time, has
become so politically sensitive that Armenian officials are afraid
of disturbing the status quo. The report cites a poll conducted in
August 2004, which shows that almost 50 percent of Armenians believe
war with Azerbaijan is the countryâ~@~Ys most serious threat in
the coming five years. “Today, the issue is perceived as dangerous,
if not suicidal for Armenian politicians,” the report said.
The Karabakh dilemma threatens to upend Armeniaâ~@~Ys economic
development, which is the key to long-term security. Over the past
decade, the country has experienced “substantial macroeconomic
growth,” with GDP now rising at a 10-percent annual rate, the report
says. Growth has been unevenly distributed, however, with per capita
income still standing at only $80 per month. The lack of a Karabakh
settlement may bring economic progress to a halt, the report stresses.
“The Southern Caucasus badly needs economic integration to sustain
its nascent growth,” the report states. “Yerevan is excluded from
participation in all major regional trade and East-West pipeline
projects, mostly as a consequence of the unresolved conflict.”
The report indicates that achieving a Karabakh breakthrough
will require a reevaluation of Yerevanâ~@~Ys current negotiating
stance. “Despite rhetoric, Armenians acknowledge they share many
experiences and interests with other Caucasian nations,” the report
says. “They know the future can improve only if old relations with
Azerbaijan â~@~S which means addressing the Nagorno-Karabakh issue
realistically â~@~S and Georgia are renewed,” the report says.
Complicating efforts to promote economic growth is the “frozen” state
of domestic politics, in which Kocharianâ~@~Ys opponents maintain a
boycott of parliament. [For additional information see the Eurasia
Insight archive]. The report characterizes Armenia as internally
unstable “because many basic safeguards of a participatory democracy
do not function. … Elections have been invariably rigged, causing
political unrest and violence.”
The presidential and parliamentary elections of 2003, widely condemned
for widespread irregularities, led to a sharp increase in domestic
political tension. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. Opposition leaders refused to recognize the voting results
and pursued a popular-protest strategy, leading to a confrontation
in April between pro-Kocharian police and opposition demonstrators
in Yerevan. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. Though the popular protests have abated, the political
atmosphere remains polarized.
The report places the main burden for fostering domestic tranquility
on the Kocharian administration. Incumbent authorityâ~@~Ys apparent
desire to monopolize political power is distracting from efforts
to improve living standards, it adds. “Corruption and violations
of democratic procedure have disillusioned a population, half
of which still lives below the poverty line,” the report says.
“Good governance is perhaps the most important element for fighting
poverty and achieving sustainable development.”
Events in Armenia may take a violent turn unless Kocharian takes
quick steps to redress his opponentsâ~@~Y grievances. “The number
of persons ready to act outside the law to advance political aims is
likely to grow if the government continues to repress peaceful protests
violently and to rig elections â~@~S especially should a charismatic
[opposition] leader appear on the scene.”
–Boundary_(ID_Y4bS6aPzTW+ax/ahQ30lag)–