Month: October 2006

TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 28 2006

No Grounds to Remove France from OSCE Minsk Group, French Ambassador
Assures

Source: Trend
Author: A.Ismayilova

28.10.2006

Trend’s exclusive interview with the Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary Ambassador of France to Azerbaijan, Bernard due
Chaffout

Question: in the beginning of 2007 the Presidents of Azerbaijan and
France will pay mutual visits. What are your expectations from the
French President’s First Visit to Baku? What major issues will be
discussed during the visit?

Answer: For the time being it is too premature to speak about the
topics of mutual visits, which will be paid in January 2007, or more
probably in March. Taking into consideration that the heads of the
states themselves will select the topics for discussion, including
the actual issues of the world policy, it would be a bit incorrect to
answer this question on their behalf.
Nevertheless, I am sure that along with the bilateral
relationships, it will be very interesting for French President
Jacques Chirac to know President Ilham Aiyev’s ideas on the issues of
the world’s concern. Undoubtedly, the French President’s first visit
to Azerbaijan will give impetus to the bilateral cooperation and
friendship.

Question: France holds one of the leading positions in terms of
investments into Azerbaijan. Are you satisfied with the current
economic relationships between the two countries?

Answer: Indeed, economic relations between the two countries are on
an excellent level and in 2005 the turnover of goods reached EUR
500mln. There is still potential for further development of
relationships in some sphere, including food industry, production of
drinkable water, public services (automobile roads, parking, and
water), and electricity distribution network. French companies lead
worldwide and can share with Azerbaijan experience and knowledge.

Question: A French company, Total, came out with an initiative on the
construction of a new terminal in the Azerbaijani section of the
Caspian for the oil admission through the Baku-Ceyhan. Is the idea
still actual?

Answer: An idea by Total on the constriction of a new terminal in the
Azerbaijani section of the Caspian for the oil admission through the
Baku-Ceyhan is still actual.

Question: The adoption of a legislation penalizing for denial from
the so-called `Armenian genocide’ at the French Parliament caused
resonance worldwide, including Azerbaijan. They frequently sound
statements on the toughening of bilateral relationships, as well as
removal of France from the co-chairmanship at the OSCE Minsk Group.
What are your views on outlet from the situation?

Answer: The adoption of a legislation penalizing denial of the
`Armenian genocide’ at the French Parliament, does not mean that the
law will enact into law even today. The legislation should pass long
and by-stage procedure: first the Senate should include it into the
agenda, then the Senate is to adopt the law on identical text
(content), submitted by the Assembly.
Taking into consideration the friendly attitude of the Senate
Chairman, Christian Ponsle, towards Azerbaijan, I would doubt it. In
case there is any difference between the contents, which would be
voted at the National Assembly and the Senate, there will be hearings
to achieve a common text (content) and the law will have to get an
approval of the President, who can return the document to the
parliament for re-consideration. Unless the document passes the
barriers until April 2007, the proposal will be regarded as
inefficient. Moreover, the legislation will be considered at the
Constitution Board, which can regard the document as contradictory to
the principles of freedom of idea and speech specified by the
Constitution of France.
In any case it is not dealt with the government which comes out
against the law and considers the document to be inconsiderable and
inappropriate. It is dealt with the forwarding a proposal on the bill
at the parliament.
The government and the President are involved in the foreign policy
of France. The co-chairmanship of France at the OSCE Minsk Group is
not under disposal of the parliament, but the government, in
particular, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thus, there is no ground
to remove France from the composition of the Minsk Group, where for
many years it has taken neutral and objective position on the
peaceable resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There is no
ground to discuss the co-chairmanship of France at the Minsk Group.
With respect to the bilateral relationships between two countries
I’d say that in this stage there is no ground to affect on the
approval of a bill at the National assembly on the first reading. The
Azerbaijani Minister for culture and Tourism has recently paid a very
successful visit to France on the occasion of the Azerbaijani Week,
held within the framework of the 60th anniversary of UNESCO. On the
other hand, we are establishing very fruitful and reliable
cooperation with the Ministry of Emergencies in the sphere of civil
defense.

Question: How could France, as a member of the European Union, assist
in Azerbaijan’s integration onto the region?

Answer: France as a member of the European Union can take an active
part in Azerbaijan’s further integration into the organization and is
prepared to do so, if Azerbaijan desires it. France can concretely
prepare Azerbaijan within specific cooperation frameworks in the
political, social and economic sectors, in the form of technical
assistance mission, training, exchange of experience and information
for upgrade of the state of Azerbaijan and bringing Baku closer to
the European experience, as well as future integration of the country
in to the European Union.
For instance, I guess France could be useful for Azerbaijan in
reforming the health system, upgrade of civil defense system,
management over crisis and natural calamities, organization of rules
for public tender markets, organization of public expenses training
of , high ranking state officers, protection of rights of women and
children, social protection system, etc. Thus, France’s experience
could bring real benefit in every sector of Azerbaijan

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 28 2006

PACE President Visits Turkish FM Abdullah Gul
By Zaman, Ankara
Friday, October 27, 2006
zaman.com

Rene van der Linden, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE), said he did not expect Turkey to have a
`train wreck’ in its EU accession process.

Noting that it was in the interest of both Turkey and Europe to
continue the reform process, Linden asked for Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code to be amended and said, `Everyone in Turkey should
be able to speak their mind freely.’

Van der Linden met with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
Thursday. At a press conference where he made clear statements about
the recent developments and strongly criticized the French parliament
for passing a controversial bill criminalizing even questioning an
Armenian genocide, Linden remarked that he did not believe that the
Upper House would approve the bill, further noting: `This bill is a
mistake because while what we need here is reconciliation, it sets a
bad example in regard to the freedom of expression. This is a back
step from the freedom of expression.’

Remarking that Ankara must continue the reform process for full
membership, the PACE president said the following as regards to the
train crash metaphor: `I prefer not to use the term `train crash,’
because we have lately seen that some politicians invent terms to
ostracize the process. This is not advantageous for either Turkey or
Europe. Both parties should adopt a balanced approach. Sometimes I
see that Turkey is very frustrated.’

Also criticizing the veto system of the European Union, van der
Linden said, `There is no football team or music group where any
member can stop the entire process alone,’ adding that such a system
served only to slow down the decision-making process.

Linden also referred to the news that there was no one to welcome him
at the Istanbul airport when he arrived but the security guards: `It
stemmed from a misunderstanding,’ he said.

Sabah, Turkey
Oct 28 2006

Pamuk is not invited for the October 29

The president Sezer invited many authors, artists and scientists to
the reception of October 29; however, he did not invite Orhan Pamuk.

The President Ahmet Necdet Sezer showed his sensitivity about the
author Orhan Pamuk with a Nobel Prize who said: "30 thousand Kurds
and 1 million Armenian people were killed" in the reception of
October 29. Sezer invited many authors, artists and scientists to the
reception of October 29; however, he did not invite Orhan Pamuk.

The South Caucasus in between Russian claims and Georgian pro-western policy

28.10.2006 15:15
Armen Manvelyan
"Radiolur"

This week the constantly sharpening relations between Russia and
Georgia turned into a real crisis. The scandal connected with the
arrest of Russian Officers accused of spying served as a reason for
`diplomatic war.’ In Georgia it was expressed with anti-Russian
statements, in response to which the Russian side undertook mass
deportation of Georgian nationals and withdrawal of Russian citizens
from Tbilisi. The situation has got so tense that the press is already
discussing the possibility of a military clash. In the current
situation Russia actually utilizes all its power to apply economic
sanctions against Georgia, while the latter is trying to get the
support of the US and European structures in the unequal struggle
against its Northern neighbor.

The tense situation is a serious blow not only for the conflicting
sides, but also for the region as a whole and Armenia, in
particular. Regional instability exerts not only political, but also
economic impact on us. It’s no secret that good relations with both
Russia and Georgia are of strategic importance for Armenia. We are
linked to the parties with political, military and regional questions,
and it is clear that we are probability one of the few countries, if
not the only one, to be interested in the improvement of relations
between the sides. Turning to the relations between the two countries
we can say that we observe the clash of Russian claims and pro-Western
policy of Georgia, that is to say that Russia is aspiring to resume
the status of its ever great power, while relying upon the `West will
save us’ principle Georgia refuses to launch a dialogue with its
northern neighbor. The whole danger of this kind of policy of official
Tbilisi is rooted in the fact that for coming to terms with Russia on
some important question, let’s say the gas issue, the West mat betray
the Georgian interests, as it was the case in the UN Security Council,
where the Russian side managed to have an anti-Georgian bill pass,
which ascribed the whole responsibility for the situation in Abkhazia
to official Tbilisi, and the activity of Russian peacekeepers was
considered effective. Russians managed to have the bill pass through
concessions to the US in the North Korean issue. The same refers to
the question of Georgia’s accession to NATO. The West, particularly
the United States, does not conceal its positive toward this
aspiration of Georgia; however, it simultaneously declares that NATO
will not send peacekeepers to the conflict zone. Besides, it is known
that the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia comprise serious
obstacles on Georgia’s way to the North-Atlantic Alliance. No matter
how mach Russia protests, it will not manage to prevent Georgia’s
entry into NATO, while Abkhazia and South Ossetia can permanently
block Georgia’s entry into this military block, since NATO will never
accept a country having two unsettled conflicts on its territory.
Nevertheless, it should be stated that unfortunately Armenia can do
little in a situation, where the sides do not wish to listen to each
other and speak the language of ultimatums. It is clear that both
Tbilisi and Moscow do not wish to allow any mediation for negotiating
with each other, but official Yerevan should apply every effort to
bring the parties to the bargaining table, refusing from unacceptable
statements against each other. At the same time the sides must realize
that for having influence over the South Caucasus, Russia needs to
have good relations with Georgia, while accomplishment of the Western
policy of Tbilisi is possible only after establishment friendly
relations with Moscow.

Serge Sargsyan received the newly appointed Ambassador of Sweden

ArmRadio.am
28.10.2006 11:35

October 27 Secretary of the Presidential Council on National Security,
RA Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan received the newly appointed
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Sweden Hans Gunnar
Adén (seat in Stockholm).

During the meeting the parties spoke about Armenia’s place and role in
the geopolitical context. Emphasizing the role of the OSCE Minsk
Group, they turned to the current stage of settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. Reference was made to a number of security issues and the
cooperation with NATO in the framework of the Individual Partnership
Action Plan and the `Partnership for peace ‘ program.

Representative of France – "Miss Europe 2006"

ArmRadio.am
28.10.2006 15:02

The representative of France Alexandra Rosenfeld won in the `Miss
Europe 2006 ‘ beauty contest. The beauty of the European Continent was
awarded a prize of 100 thousand Euros and a crown of the `Chopard’
Company worth 350 thousand Euros. Alyona Avramenko of Ukraine was
recognized `Vice Miss Europe 2006.’

This year the contest was held in the `Ukraine’ national palace of
Kiev. Representatives of 33 countries, including `Miss Armenia 2006′
Marina Vardanyan, were participating the event.

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 28 2006

How the Turkish Parliament Should React to France

ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
10.28.2006 Saturday – ISTANBUL 15:42

The adoption of the Armenian `genocide’ bill by the French parliament
was met with expected reactions from Turkey. Boycotting French
products (apart from those of OYAK-affiliated French companies),
deporting Armenian citizens working in Turkey and even passing a
counter bill were among the steps taken.

Certain people who support anti-democratic laws in Turkey said they
would go to France and violate the bill, which was a good sign of how
valor can be rendered valueless. During those days, a psychological
movement was initiated to make the society react `sensitively.’
Familiar Stereotypical `information’ was relayed to the media under
the label of `archives revealed by the Turkish chief of staff.’ I
think the `documents’ claiming Armenians committed massacres in 1915
in Diyarbakir were a pleasing surprise to researchers who deal with
that period of time. However, the intention was not actually to
inform, but to foment our heroic sensitivity. Meanwhile, Turkey
ignored the fact that Armenian President Robert Kocharian was against
the bill and claimed that Armenia stipulated recognizing the genocide
as a prerequisite without questioning the argument’s objectivity.
During such a volatile atmosphere, Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan said, `There is no legal basis to penalize those who
call a lie a lie,’ which was very pleasing to nationalists. Our
failure to realize that such attitudes legalize the `genocide’
conviction worldwide shows the problem is a deep-rooted one.
Fortunately, it was again the prime minister who prevented our
natural reflexes from stretching to meaningless points by saying, `We
use clean water to clear away dirt.’

How should the Turkish parliament react to the French move? The
parliament consulted the Turkish Institute of History (as if it was
the first time it had heard such allegations) and agreed that the
institute should conduct a comprehensive research on the so-called
Armenian genocide allegations. The parliament also agreed to
investigate the history of countries which recognize the Armenian
`genocide’ and prepare a list of shame.

The aim was to reveal how foreign countries that have their own
checkered past throw mud at Turkey, with a clean history, in an
effort to conceal their past misdeeds.

If only the Turkish parliament had looked at its institutional
structure before making such a decision. If only the head of the
history institute had also touched on such issues. If only a few
deputies had remembered Ayse Hur’s article in the daily Radikal.

Then they would have learned that in 1923, as envisaged in an
agreement prior to the Lausanne Agreement, it was legal to confiscate
the properties of Armenians who were not living in Turkey at that
time; and in September of the same year, Armenians who fled from
Kilikya and the eastern Anatolia regions during the war were barred
from returning.

They would have learned that according to a decision made in August
1926, the properties acquired before the Lausanne Agreement came into
effect could be confiscated and that in May 1927, Turkish citizenship
for Armenians who were abroad between 1923 and 1927 was revoked. They
would also have recalled that travel restrictions imposed on Armenian
Turkish citizens during those years made them lose their jobs and
they were forced to migrate because they had to share their homes in
Anatolia with immigrants.

Those willing could also recall the wealth tax and the issue of the
properties of non-Muslim associations. All these decisions were made
by the Turkish parliament and none of them were gloated over. It is
not wrong to make others remember their past; however, to achieve our
goal we should also look at our history from the same perspective.

October 27, 2006

Vartan Oskanian’s Speech at the Independence Celebration in Washington

ASBAREZ, 10/28/2006

More than 500 Armenian political party leaders, community organization
representatives, religious leaders, dignitaries and government
officials, among them Armenia’s Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
attended a banquet organized by the Armenian Embassy on Oct. 21
marking the 15th anniversary of Armenia’s independence the Omni
Shoreham Hotel. Among the speakers at the event were Foreign Minister
Oskanian and the chairman of the Armenian National Committee of
America, Ken Hachigian. This week we present the text of the two
speeches.

I am pleased, honored, and still a little awed by the fact that I can
stand before you, as foreign minister, at the official celebration of
15 years of Armenia’s independence. The fact that we are celebrating
in this important capital, with the representatives of a strong,
active, prosperous, proud and engaged Diaspora, in the presence of
several of Armenia’s ambassadors, is still the stuff of dreams.

It has been 15 years since our independence. This came at the end of a
difficult century and an even more difficult millennium. Armenians
take great pride in their millennia of history. The leitmotifs that
run through our recollections of our past are fraught with a search
for silver linings.

We have outlived the empires of the Babylonians and Assyrians, the
Hittites and Medes, the Byzantines, the Mongols and the Ottomans. We
shared the gods of the Greeks and the Romans, until St. Gregory
illuminated the path to Christianity. We translated the Bible not just
into Armenian, but also into Chinese. We recorded the history of
Armenians and of Western civilization in beautifully illuminated
manuscripts. We welcomed the Crusaders to our Kingdom in Cilicia, and
accompanied European traders to the exotic East. Instead of
fortifications, we built monasteries and centers of learning which
have withstood invaders and earthquakes.

In the 18th century, when first the American colonies, and later the
people of France were upholding liberty, equality and fraternity, our
students and merchants in Europe, were watching and learning. They
knew that they had rights and liberties as subjects of three different
empires, and used the formulations and vocabulary of the leaders of
the Western enlightenment to articulate them. It wasn’t that they
wanted to overthrow those governments which abused or usurped their
rights, but to reform them. It didn’t work.

The Sublime Porte, which ruled over the majority of Armenians, made
its Armenian minority the scapegoat for its own inability to
govern. The Genocide followed. The remnants of the Armenian people who
emerged following the Genocide had independence hoisted upon them in
1918. A population of refugees, insufficient resources with which to
govern and protect, an elite that did not live in Armenia, and an army
composed of well-meaning patriots-that was Armenia’s first modern
attempt at independence. It was a valiant effort to first wrestle with
the social and existential dangers from within, and later to fight
against the direct physical threats from without. The First Republic
of Armenia survived independently long enough that, when it fell, it
fell as a legitimate, independent, political entity. That entity was
subsumed into the Soviet Union as the Armenian Soviet Socialist
Republic.

That was the journey that brought us to today and to the improbability
of our independence-the improbability that this surviving nation would
witness the fall of yet another empire-this time Lenin’s. And that the
homeland would be born again, free and independent.

In Armenia, and in the Diaspora, too, where you are still overwhelmed
at the improbability of Armenia’s independence, you sometimes suffer
from the reverse: because we’ve never really had independence, we
sometimes believethat we don’t deserve to have it or that it will
necessarily be taken away again. I want to tell you that Armenians are
not only worthy of independence, we are also capable of independence,
aware of the demands of independence, responsive to the expectations
of independence and accepting of the burdens of independence.

But we were ready. Armenia’s Democratic Movement, the Environmental
Movement, the Karabakh Movement were not just the product of a changed
Soviet Union, but they also accelerated the transformation of the
USSR.

Independence is borne of high ideals. We believed that freedom is the
secret to a prosperous nation, a healthy nation, a fair and just
nation, and a stable future. We believed that freedom isn’t just the
right to do what you want, it’s the opportunity to do what you want,
it’s the opportunity to make choices, the right choices.

We made the basic choice ”we chose the way of a liberal society”open
markets and democratic institutions. That was the first choice.

And today, as we celebrate independence, we are celebrating that
choice. We are celebrating in Washington, the capital of the country
that proved thata liberal economy in a democratic republic is a
winning combination. Americans are the people who set out to design a
political system that is built around the individual, his liberties
and capacities.

In other words, the American Declaration of Independence is about
rights. It is a testament to the rights of individuals, of peoples, of
society. But no man was ever endowed with a right without being at the
same time saddled with a responsibility.

We are privileged to be the generation that is consolidating
independence. We do have wide and generous opportunities to turn a
dream into a country,a stable country with a promising future.

And to that end, I want to propose a declaration of
responsibilities. Our responsibilities. This generation’s
responsibilities. The responsibilitiesof Armenia and Diaspora, of all
those who call themselves Armenian.
* We have a responsibility to empower our people to confidently
participate in building their democracy.
* We have a responsibility to create an even playing field for every
Armenian citizen.
* We have the responsibility to continue on the diffcult but necessary
path of political and economic reforms.
* We have a responsibility not to take Armenia for granted, but to
work to create an Armenia that makes real the promises of democracy
and freedom.
* We have a responsibility to remember our past, without being bound
by it, because the future is ours.
* We have a responsibility to reach a just and lasting resolution of
the Nagorno Karabakh conflict based on mutual compromise.
8 We have a responsibility to make the Diaspora an extension of the
homeland- not a permanent dislocation, not a destructive dispersion.
* We have a responsibility to welcome and embrace every Diasporan who
calls himself or herself an Armenian.
* We have a responsibility to rally every bit of our
resources-individual and collective, private and public.
* We have a responsibility to stand united, to work united, to go
forward united in the face of new challenges, we can win together, and
not lose separately.

These responsibilities come with independence, with freedom, with
liberty. Demanding freedom means recognizing the responsibility to
ourselves, for ourselves. Freedom is also the right to make mistakes,
to learn from those mistakes. It remains for those who have greater
experience in freedom to be patient as we sort out the options and
freely choose the one that is right for us.

We believed that independence may be bestowed, but freedom must be
achieved. Independence meant rights. Liberty means responsibility.

Thank you

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ACCORDING TO FORECASTS, OVER 400 THOUSAND TOURISTS TO VISIT ARMENIA IN 2006

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 28, NOYAN TAPAN. According to some forecasts, over
400 thousand tourists will visit Armenia in 2006 against 320 thousand
in 2005. RA Deputy Minister of Trade and Economic Development Ara
Petrosian stated this at the first international conference "The Role
of Youth in Heritage Preservation and Development of
Cultural-Familiarization Tourism" that opened on October 27. In his
words, a growth has been registered in the outgoing tourism as well –
20-25% annually. Tourism experts and students from Armenia, Russia,
Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, Iran, France and Switzerland are
participating in this two-day event held on the intitiative of the
UNESCO Armenia Office, the RA Ministry of Culture and Youth Issues and
the Armenian Tourism Institute – the Armenian branch of the
International Tourism Academy (Russia). RA Minister of Culture and
Youth Issues Hasmik Poghosian said that the aim of the conference is
to promote tourism in Armenia through joint discussions and exchange
of experience with other countries. She attached great importance to
the involvement of young people in this process. The presentation of
the book "Touristika" by Igor Zorin, Rector of the Russian
International Tourism Academy (in Armenian translation) took place
during the conference.

A1+

POLITICIANS ARE SURE THAT THE OCTOBER 27 CASE WILL BE REVEALED ONE DAY
[06:31 pm] 27 October, 2006

Almost all the parties of Justice bloc came to the Komitas Pantheon
to pay a tribute of respect to the memory of Karen Demirchyan.

Wreaths from opposition parties, Manvel Grigoryan, Tigran Karapetyan,
the NA and the Government were standing beside Karen Demirchyan’s
grave. There were also a number of citizens in the Pantheon.

According to Stepan Demirchyan, on October 27 the hope in people was
killed. If it weren’t for the tragedy, the situation would be
different in the country. «Everyone is aware about our opinion about
the trial. It deepened the doubts of the people instead of settling
them», he said. But he claimed that sooner or later the truth will be
revealed.

Leader of the party `Republic’ Aram Sargsyan is also convinced in it,
`Revelation is necessary both for the realization of the RA court
system and for the peace of the nation, and, why not, for the peace of
the souls of the victims’.

According to leader of the National Democratic Party Shavarsh
Kocharyan, the trial gave serious grounds to doubt that it was being
conducted by someone. `The criminals were sitting in front of us. But
the question whether they were led by someone or not was never
answered’. He is also surprised that after that monstrous crime there
were not resignations.

Former Minister of Defense, member of `National Revival’ party
Vagharshak Haroutyunyan qualifies the non-revelation of the crime as
absence of political will. `I’m sure that if it weren’t for October
27, the situation, both political and social, would be different. We
would have more progress’.

According to leader of National Revival Albert Bazeyan, `Several state
bodies are responsible for the crime, and it is a fact. There are
still too many questions to be answered’.