Month: October 2006

Azad-Hye, Dubai, 26 September 2006:

On 17th September 2006, Qatari based `Al Jazeera’ channel broadcasted an
interview with President Robert Kocharian, conducted by Zawer Shoj.

Below are translated excerpts from the interview which covered several
domestic and foreign topics.

Shoj: Armenia is an independent country for the last 15 years. What are the
most significant achievements and failures during the same period?

Kocharian: One of our first tasks was to form a State of Law and Authority.
The most important issue in front of us was to undergo effective and active
changes and establish free market mechanism … The collapse of Soviet Union
had brought Armenia into a difficult situation … We needed to create the
basic components of an independent state such as governmental authority,
Army, economy, etc. … Armenia had to face the new reality and circumstances
… Statistical figures confirm that we have coped the transitional period
with success… Nagorno Karabagh remains as the most difficult task so far.

Shoj: What are the measures you are undertaking in order to step out of the
energy crisis facing your country, knowing that Armenia does not have
natural petrol and gas resources?

Kocharian: I would not say we have energy crisis … We do not have energy
resources, nevertheless, we are exporting electrical energy to neighboring
countries… Today we do not have any foreign debts related to natural gas or
electricity … We are building some 50 hydroelectric stations and we had
restored the nuclear power station closed during the Soviet era… We are
thinking seriously about our energy security, this is why a second gas
pipeline from Iran to Armenia is being constructed now…

Shoj: The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan on the background of the
Nagorno Karabagh problem was the first bloody ethnic conflict that erupted
in the ex-Soviet Union. After 12 years of truce what are the prospects of
the peaceful solution in Karabagh?

Kocharian: I would like to clarify a point. The conflict is actually between
Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabagh … After the collapse of the Soviet Empire
two independent states emerged: The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic
of Nagorno Karabagh. We believe that the legitimacy of Nagorno Karabagh as
an independent state is beyond any doubt. There was an attempt to subdue
Karabagh to Azerbaijan, as a result the war exploded …

Shoj: Today some 20% of the Azerbaijani territory is under the control of
Nagorno Karabagh forces… Is there any progress in the negotiations with
Azerbaijan regarding Nagorno Karabagh?

Kocharian: The main problem is that Azerbaijan insists on the integrity of
its territory and in doing so it believes that Nagorno Karabagh should be
included in Azerbaijan. The Soviet Union was the last Empire… Dramatic
changes took place, all the map of Europe changed, have a look at what
happened in the Balkans… We are not against the territorial integrity of any
country… but we say that both Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabagh have the right
for territorial integrity, because they both have equal rights… Nagorno
Karabagh was never part of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan. I myself
was born in Nagorno Karabagh and I commanded the independent movement there
in the past … Today a whole new generation exists, who don’t know the Azeri
territories and would not imagine living in a foreign country.

Shoj: Will Armenia, or for that sake, Nagorno Karabagh raise claim to only
the administrative borders of Nagorno Karabagh or to the 20% of the Azeri
territory under the control of the Armenian forces?

Kocharian: There are two false claims, the first is the occupation of 20% of
the Azerbaijan and the second is the one million Azeri refugees. The real
figures are entirely different … In fact the number of Armenian and
Azerbaijani refugees are the same (if we exclude Nagorno Karabagh). During
the Soviet era there were about half a million Armenians in Azerbaijan.
Where are they now? Some of them live in Armenia, others in Russia and a
third group is scattered all around the world. As far as the territories are
concerned they do not represent 20%, they are significantly less than that …
We have always maintained and repeated that, except the corridor between
Karabagh and Armenia, we are willing to discuss the return of these
territories, something which is in fact a subject of negotiations these days
… If Azerbaijan had cared for its refugees it would have regained these
territories long time back by signing appropriate agreements …

Shoj: What are the political ambitions of Nagorno Karabagh? Is Karabagh
aiming to be an independent state or wants to be part of the Republic of
Armenia?

Kocharian: The legal situation of Karabagh indicates that Karabagh is an
independent republic. The authorities there are strengthening the State
institutions. As far as Armenia is concerned, both possibilities are
suitable and I believe that in the future the relations between the two
countries will develop towards confederation … Future generations will
define the nature of this relationship.

Shoj: The Armenian people suffered massacres in the beginning of the 20th
century by the Ottoman Empire. Today there is extensive discussion about
this topic. What are your main demands from the Turkish Government: Is it
the recognition of the Genocide and the consequent apology or you would like
to ask for compensation for the relatives of the victims?

Kocharian: Whoever has been harmed by these massacres can ask for
compensation. Many Diasporan Armenians have the legal right to demand
compensation. Armenia has its own demands, mainly due to the absence of
diplomatic relations and the natural neighborhood relations with Turkey and
the attempts of Turkey to hamper Armenia by blockading communication means,
in addition to the policy adopted by in relation to the Karabagh problem …
We have inherited a big burden of Armenian – Turkish relations … The past
cannot be forgotten, but there should exist a natural process of
reconciliation between the two peoples, something which requires the
acknowledgment and repentance from the side that perpetuated the mistakes
and crimes – call it the way you want -, but today there is no desire [from
Turkey] to recognize its guilt.

Shoj: According to a certain viewpoint, the issue of the Armenian Genocide
recognition has been brought up only recently, coinciding with the
negotiation of Turkish membership to the European Union.

Kocharian: The issue of the Genocide recognition has been there for a long
time. Maybe lately it was discussed in a wider context. Armenia as an
independent state has expressed its position in 1998 in the United Nations …
This was long time before Turkey’s negotiation with the European Union.
Therefore I do not want to directly connect the two issue, but during the
period of Turkey’s negotiations to join the European Union the subject of
Turkey evaluating its own history is brought forward. This is why we are
awaiting the expression of repentance on what happened. There should be a
conscious and rightful evaluation of the past, in order to avoid repetition
of these mistakes in the future.

Shoj: In your opinion is that enough to start normal relations with Turkey
and how would you evaluate the nature of these relations today with Ankara?

Kocharian: Today there are no relations. Our position is very clear. We are
ready to build up diplomatic relations with Turkey today and without any
preconditions … But the Turkish side insists on preconditions such as:
agreement with Azerbaijan, withdrawal from Karabagh … These are unacceptable
conditions … The Greeks could do the same by refusing trade with Turkey if
no serious steps were taken in the resolution of the Cypriot Problem, but
international experience has showed that common trade and cooperation always
help in surpassing the difficulties. For example, there is the Coral Islands
problem between Russia and Japan but no side regards this as a condition to
establish commercial relations.

Shoj: There is a neighbor with whom you have good relations: Iran. What is
your country’s position on Iran’s nuclear program and the pressures exerted
on Iran.

Kocharian: The relations with Iran are developed in a dynamic way. There are
no disagreements between the two countries. We have large scale trade
exchange with Iran. With the Iranians we are carrying out huge energy
projects compared to the capacity of Armenia … We consider Iran as a major
country in the region and we have historical relations with Iran. We
consider the Iranian people as the heir of an old civilization and we
respect this civilization. The Iranian nuclear program is a very sensitive
problem between Iran and the West, especially the USA. We believe that the
diplomatic solution of this crisis is the safest way out. We believe that
sanctions against Teheran will not be effective neither will any military
action, which could have catastrophic results in the whole region.

Shoj: Armenia is the main ally of Russia in the Southern Caucasus region.
What is the secret of the good relations between Armenia and Russia?

Kocharian: We have inherited a rich load of historical relations and
cultural exchanges throughout many generations, besides the existence of
common interests for centuries. We are keeping this heritage and trying to
activate it in our common interests. Up to this point we have succeeded in
doing so … We work according to a policy of synthesis of the interests of
the major powers in Armenia and not confrontation. We try to avoid what our
partners perceive as dangerous to their security.

Shoj: There is a large Armenian community in the Middle East. What is the
nature of the relations between your country and the Arab World. Where do
the Arab countries stand in the foreign policy of Armenia?

Kocharian: We have very good relations with the Arabs. These relations began
as a result of the bloody events that happened against the Armenians in
1915, when the Arabs embraced the Armenians in their countries and assisted
them to stay alive and sustain themselves in small Armenian societies within
the bigger Arab population. We nurture respect towards the Arabs for this
stance. For a long time the Armenians and the Arabs lived under the yoke of
the Ottoman Empire and that historical period was reflected in the
literature and the culture of the Arabs and the Armenians, relaying warmth
to the relations between the two nations. This provides a suitable
background to build relations on the official level … Through the life of
many generations the Armenians proved that they are hard-working, loyal
citizens and real partners. Through them these positive values are conveyed
to our relations with the Arab countries. We highly value this capital, this
is why we are friends with the Arab World and we will stay so. I believe
this friendship is not built on mere calculations of interests but it is
validated through the experience of generations of our two nations.

Complete text in Arabic language at Al Jazeera website:
4861-A656-57088C49C978.htm

A1+

VARTAN OSKANIAN: `MILITARY VERSION IS BUT A FAILURE’
[01:12 pm] 26 September, 2006

Today RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian is to meet with the OSCE
Minsk group Co-chairs in New York. Reminder: Armenian Foreign
Minister is in New York to participate in the 61-th session of the
United Nations General Assembly.

Let me take a minute to reflect on Kosovo, as so many have done. We
follow the Kosovo self-determination process very closely. We
ourselves strongly support the process of self-determination for the
population of Nagorno Karabakh. Yet, we don’t draw parallels between
these two or with any other conflicts. We believe that conflicts are
all different and each must be decided on its own merits. While we do
not look at the outcome of Kosovo as a precedent, on the other hand, a
Kosovo decision cannot and should not result in the creation of
obstacles to self-determination for others in order to pre-empt the
accusation of precedence. Such a reverse reaction – to prevent or
pre-empt others from achieving well-earned self-determination – is
unacceptable.

Efforts to do just that – by elevating territorial integrity above all
other principles – are already underway, especially in this
chamber. But this contradicts the lessons of history. There is a
reason that the Helsinki Final Act enshrines self-determination as an
equal principle. In international relations, just as in human
relations, there are no absolute rights. There are also
responsibilities. A state must earn the right to lead and
govern. States have the responsibility to protect their citizens. A
people choose the government which represents them.

The people of Nagorno Karabakh chose long ago not to be represented by
the government of Azerbaijan. They were the victims of state violence,
they defended themselves, and succeeded against great odds, only to
hear the state cry foul and claim sovereignty and territorial
integrity.

The people of Nagorno Karabakh chose long ago not to be represented by
the government of Azerbaijan. They were the victims of state violence,
they defended themselves, and succeeded against great odds, only to
hear the state cry foul and claim sovereignty and territorial
integrity.

But the government of Azerbaijan has lost the moral right to even
suggest providing for their security and their future, let alone to
talk of custody of the people of Nagorno Karabakh.

Azerbaijan did not behave responsibly or morally with the people of
Nagorno Karabakh, who it considered to be its own citizens. They
sanctioned massacres in urban areas, far from Nagorno Karabakh; they
bombed and displaced more than 300,000 Armenians; they unleashed the
military; and after they lost the war and accepted a ceasefire, they
proceeded to destroy all traces of Armenians on their territories.

In the most cynical expression of such irresponsibility, this last
December, a decade after the fighting had stopped, they completed the
final destruction and removal of thousands of massive hand-sculpted
cross-stones – medieval Armenian tombstones elaborately carved and
decorated.

Such destruction, in an area with no Armenians, at a distance from
Nagorno Karabakh and any conflict areas, is a callous demonstration
that Azerbaijan’s attitude toward tolerance, human values, cultural
treasures, cooperation or even peace, has not changed.

One cannot blame us for thinking that Azerbaijan is not ready or
interested in a negotiated peace. Yet, having rejected the other two
compromise solutions that have been proposed over the last 8 years,
they do not want to be accused of rejecting the peace plan on the
table today. Therefore, they are using every means available – from
state violence to international maneuvers – to try to bring the
Armenians to do the rejecting.

But Armenia is on record: we have agreed to each of the basic
principles in the document that’s on the table today. Yet, in order to
give this or any document a chance, Azerbaijan can’t think, or pretend
to think, that there is still a military option. There isn’t. The
military option is a tried and failed option. Compromise and realism
are the only real options.

The path that Nagorno Karabakh has chosen for itself over these two
decades is irreversible. It succeeded in ensuring its self-defense, it
proceeded to set up self-governance mechanisms, and it controls its
borders and its economy. Formalizing this process is a necessary step
toward stability in our region. Dismissing, as Azerbaijan does, all
that’s happened in the last 20 years and petulantly insisting that
things must return to the way they were, is not just unrealistic, but
disingenuous.

Nagorno Karabakh is not a cause. It is a place, an ancient place, a
beautiful garden, with people who have earned the right to live in
peace and without fear. We ask for nothing more. We expect nothing
less.

Milliyet, Turkey
Sept 28 2006

Turkish newspaper article raps EU progress report

Just take a look at the articles being imposed under the title
"Acceleration of the reform process" in the European Parliament’s
advisory Turkey Report. It looks like a "surrender agreement" signed
after Turkey has lost some war. Minority rights, Armenian, Greek and
Cypriot requests, measures to neutralize the TSK [Turkish Armed
Forces] are among the list of demands, both its own and those of its
friends, that the EU is putting to us.

It is as if we only have one more step to take before we can join the
EU and all we have to do is accept these requests. Yet the exact
opposite is true. In one respect they are closing all entrances to
us. They never get bored with taking new measures. Is there no brave
soul in this country who will stand up to this attitude and say:
"Take this report and stick it on a shelf then draw up a more
considered one"?

Federation of Armenian Organisations in The Netherlands (FAON)
April 24 Committee For Recognition and Commemoration of the Armenian
Genocide of 1915
Address: Weesperstraat 91 – 2574 VS Den Haag
Tel. +31704490209
Contact: M. Hakhverdian
Website:
E-mail: [email protected]

PRESS RELEASE

FAON: position of candidate Albayrak of Turkish origin is still questionable

The Hague 26 September – The Federation of Armenian Organisations in the
Netherlands (FAON) welcomes the removal of 3 candidates from draft lists of
Dutch Christian Democrats Party (CDA) and of Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) for
the coming Dutch parliamentary elections, since they deny the Armenian
Genocide. The Armenian Genocide was unanimously recognised by Dutch
Parliament in December 2004. The Dutch parties have taken their
responsibility on time concerning these candidates. Mr. Sacan (PvdA), Mr
.Tonca and Mr. Elmaci (CDA) are no longer candidates for the elections.

In an earlier letter the Armenian Federation asked the Christian Democrat
Party (CDA) for clarification on the positions of a number of candidates of
Turkish origin who deny the Armenian Genocide (see ). The same
question was addressed to other parties with candidates from Turkish
origine.

The Dutch TV programme NOVA on 20 September, with particitapion of MP Mrs
Huizinga Heringa (Christian Union Faction) and the chairman of 24 April
Committee of FAON caused commotion, following which the candidates,
according to declarations of the parties, indicated to share the viewpoint
of their party on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Later, however, the candidates Sacan, Tonca and Elmaci indicated to not
share the viewpoint of their party. This opinion of Tonca and Elmaci became
apparent from their remarks in the Turkish newspaper Sabah. The Armenian
Federation therefore called once more upon the CDA and PvdA to remove Tonca,
Elmaci and Sacan from their lists, which they did on September 26th.

The Armenian Federation, however, has still major objections with some of
the remarks that PvdA candidate of Turkish origin Mrs. Albayrak (nr. 2 on
PvdA list) made in the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw on 26 September, These
remarks appear to be quite similar to the official denial policy of Turkey.
The Armenian Federation urges the PvdA to give more clarity over Mrs.
Albayrak’s precise position, before the PvdA candidacy list is finalized.

The Armenian Federation also requests a decisive answer from the political
parties regarding the viewpoint on the Armenian Genocide of a few more
members of parliament of Turkish origin: Curus and Eski (CDA), Orgu from
People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), who is not on the draft list
for the coming elections, Ozutok (Greens Left – GL) and Koser Kaya
(Social-Liberal Democrats – D66). The same question is also valid for other
candidates of Turkish descent for parliament elections.

Federation of Armenian Organisations in The Netherlands (FAON)
April 24 Committee For Recognition and Commemoration of the Armenian
Genocide of 1915
Address: Weesperstraat 91 – 2574 VS Den Haag
Tel. +31704490209
Contact: M. Hakhverdian
Website:
E-mail: [email protected]

PRESS RELEASE

FAON: viewpoints of Coruz and Albayrak still unclear

The Hague 28 September – Despite the explicit and repeated request of the
Federation of Armenian Organisations in the Netherlands (FAON) regarding the
position of candidates of Turkish origin for coming Dutch parliamentary
elections on the Armenian Genocide issue, this question still remains
unclarified for some of them, on the eve of establishment of final lists of
candidates. In World War I about 1,5 million Armenians were killed in the
Ottoman Empire as a result of this Genocide; other Christian minorities,
such as Assyrians and Greeks, became victims as well. Turkey has always
denied this Genocide. Three candidates of Turkish origin, who were on the
draft list for Dutch parliamentary elections, Sacan of Dutch Labour Party –
PvdA, Tonca and Elmaci of Christian Democrat Party – CDA were removed this
week from draft lists of candidates, because they deny the Armenian
genocide.

For instance the position of Coskun Coruz, a current parliamentarian of CDA
faction, is still completely unknown. He is number 19 on the CDA draft list
of candidates.

Nebahat Albayrak, nr. 2 on draft list of Dutch Labour Party – PvdA, did not
give any further clarification of her viewpoint after her, not very
reassuring interview in Dutch daily newspaper Trouw on 26 September, this to
FAON¹s disappointment. FAON today welcomed statements of PvdA leader Mr. Bos
in a debate in the Dutch Parliament, who stated that it is necessary to have
a common view in the party faction on essential matters such as for instance
Genocide matters. Earlier this week, as a result of this principle, Erdinc
Sacan, who could not subscribe the faction position on the Armenian
Genocide, was removed from the PvdA list.

Dutch Labour Party PvdA therefore now will have to indicate whether or not
the statement of Mr. Bos affect Nebahat Albayraks position. Sacan claims in
the newspapers that his and Albayraks viewpoints on the Armenian Genocide
are exactly the same. Nevertheless FAON hopes that Albayrak will explicitly
declare herself in favour of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

FAON calls upon all parties with candidates of Turkish origin to publish the
viewpoints of these candidates as soon as possible. For instance Keklik
Yucel (PvdA, nr. 48), Ali Sarac (PvdA, nr. 61), Fatma Kose Kaya (D66, nr 10)
and Mehmet Demirbag (VVD, nr. 54).

PRESS RELEASE
Council of Europe Press Division
Ref: 540a06
Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 60
Fax:+33 (0)3 88 41 39 11
[email protected]
internet:

Council of Europe empowers children to deal with both positive and
negative sides of the Internet and other new technologies

Strasbourg, 29.09.2006 – The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers
has called on member states to make information technology an integral
part of school education from an early age, to help children maximise
benefits and avoid pitfalls of the Internet and other new technologies.

The 46-member Council of Europe is taking a positive approach to deal
with harmful content on the Web, partly in response to the dangers posed
by the Internet.

Measures approved in a new Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation
< Ref=3DRec(2006)12&Sector=3DsecCM&Language= 3Dla
nEnglish&Ver=3Doriginal&BackColorInte rnet=3D9999CC&BackColorIntranet=3DFFBB55&
BackColorLogged=3DFFAC75> include giving children the skills to
create,
produce and distribute content in new technologies, respecting the
rights and freedoms of others while also promoting their own right to
freedom of expression.

The recommendation calls for member states to ensure that these skills
enable children to better understand and deal with questionable content,
including violence, pornography, discrimination and racism.

In addition, the forthcoming Council of Europe Pan-European Forum in
Yerevan, Armenia, on 5 and 6 October 2006 will bring together
representatives of Council of Europe member states, civil society, the
private sector, academia and the media, and other interested
organisations.

"Empowering children to use the Internet is the best filter," said Maud
de Boer-Buquicchio, Council of Europe Deputy Secretary General, several
days ahead of the forum.

The forum will stress that filtering and labelling Internet content is
not enough to ensure that children and young people can surf the web
safely – in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, including the
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
ideas.

Children and young people need to be, and to feel, empowered when using
the Internet, so they can competently use its tools and services and
critically analyse Internet content and communications. By equipping
them and their educators with appropriate skills and knowledge, they
will be able to exercise their rights and freedoms fully and
responsibly, to improve their development and well-being online.

On the web:

To receive our press releases by e-mail, contact :
[email protected]

A political organisation set up in 1949, the Council of Europe works to
promote democracy and human rights continent-wide. It also develops
common responses to social, cultural and legal challenges in its 46
member states.

ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807 Fax: 416-512-1736 E-mail: [email protected]

PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Torrey Swan

DATE: September 29, 2006
Tel: 416-250-9807

Zoryan’s Speech on Turkish-Armenian Relations

Yerevan, Armenia-On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the Republic of
Armenia, the third Armenia-Diaspora Conference was held in Yerevan from
September 18th to 20th. Opening statements were made by President Robert
Kocharian, His Holiness Karekin II, His Holiness Aram I, President Arkady
Ghoukassian, and by representatives of many prominent Armenian
organizations. The Zoryan Institute was invited to address the Plenary
Session of the conference. During the conference, there were five themes
concentrated on: Rural Poverty Eradication Program; Nation, State and
Identity in the 21st Century; The Mechanics of Diaspora-Homeland Relations:
A Two-Way Street; Repatriation and Territory of Common Identity; and A Look
at Diaspora 2020. Zoryan’s remarks linked these topics by focusing on the
Armenian-Turkish relationship. The full transcript of Zoryan’s President, K.
M. Greg Sarkissian, is reproduced below.

Shared Knowledge of History as a Catalyst for Dialogue

Mr. President, Vehapar Hayrer, and distinguished guests.

While we are gathered here to discuss issues related to the Rural Poverty
Eradication Program, particularly in border villages, we have to think also
about relations with neighbors on the other side of the border.

Today, many Turks and Armenians continue to see each other only as an
unchanging and monolithic enemy, as opposed to their current reality.
Genocide recognition continues to be one of the major stumbling blocks in
Armenian-Turkish relations, which, we believe, should be established without
any preconditions and with a view towards our future, in relation to the
other side of the border.

Since the Justice and Development Party came to power in Turkey in 2002, it
has followed an aggressive policy towards membership in the European Union.
This meant that Turkey had to introduce numerous changes to its constitution
and legal system to bring it in line with EU norms.

Through this initiative, the new government opened the door to free speech
on long held taboos, such as linguistic and cultural rights for the Kurds,
the rights of non-Turks and non-Muslims, and the need for Turkish society to
deal with and debate its suppressed history, including, as an unwanted
by-product, the Armenian Genocide.

These had long been perceived as a threat to the military-bureaucratic elite
that constitutes the "Deep State."

This has also caused significant tension among the various elements of the
Turkish state, government and civil society. I am sure everyone here is
familiar with the indictments of writers Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak,
journalist Hrant Dink, and scholar Murat Belge, to name just a few, on the
charge of "insulting Turkishness." In May 2005, Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek
accused the organizers of the Istanbul Conference on Ottoman Armenians of
stabbing the Turkish nation in the back and called them traitors, while the
Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gül, announced that he had no problem with the
expression of critical opinion and even would be willing to participate in
the conference. For their part, the conference organizers declared that "It
is high time Turkey’s own academics and intellectuals collectively raise
voices that differ from the official stance" on the killings of Armenians.

Some feel that trying to force Turkey to recognize the Genocide by external
political pressure has radicalized those who are against freedom of speech.
Others believe that without external pressure, Turkey would never deal with
the Armenian Genocide. Neither option has improved relations between Armenia
and Turkey.

It is clear that there is a fervent debate in Turkey today about greater
democracy and freedom of expression. There are strong voices that want to
reclaim history as a legacy that needs to be recognized and are pressing the
government to abolish all obstacles to this process.

There is a clear need and strong desire within Turkey at this time for
authoritative information on its suppressed history.

We at the Zoryan Institute see a unique opportunity at this particular
juncture, to help provide information for this debate within Turkey. One of
the best ways to do this is through systematic scholarly research and the
publication of incontestable information in Turkish.

Zoryan, in collaboration with university research centres, such as the
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, is
part of a large project called "Creating a Common Body of Knowledge," which
is the brainchild of highly respected Turkish scholar, Professor Taner
Akçam.

The objective is to provide knowledge that will be shared by Turkish and
Armenian civil societies and western scholarship. The project aims to
identify, collect, analyze, transliterate, translate, edit and publish,
authoritative, universally recognized original archival documents on the
history of the events surrounding 1915, in both Turkish and English. This
material must be distributed widely in Turkey.

The work is difficult, requiring advanced knowledge of the Gothic German and
Ottoman-Arabic scripts, the special diplomatic languages used, and the
history and politics of the period. This long-term project will take many
years to complete and will require enormous human and financial resources.
Despite the difficulty, this work must be done, as denial and distortion of
history are a major stumbling block to dialogue, and therefore peace,
security and progress in the region. Without dealing with this history,
prejudice and hatred will be perpetuated and will have unforeseen
consequences for generations to come.

The more such documents are made available to Turkish society, the more it
will be empowered with knowledge to question narratives imposed by the
state. Restoring accurate historical memory will benefit not only Turkish,
but also Armenian society. Both will be emancipated from the straightjacket
of the past. Such a Common Body of Knowledge will lead to an understanding
of each other, act as a catalyst for dialogue, and serve as a precursor to
the normalization of relations between the two societies.

This work can only be achieved through the systematic and continued efforts
of dedicated professionals, with staff and independent scholars and
appropriate financial resources. This is such a large undertaking, in terms
not only of resources, but also impact, that it must be supported by all
Armenians, including the Armenian Government.

Towards this end, we propose that the Diaspora support the Zoryan Institute
in the creation of an international Turkish Studies Centre in Armenia in
collaboration with major universities here, in Turkey and elsewhere. New
scholars, with the necessary expertise, would make a real contribution to
the creation of this very important Common Body of Knowledge.

History is a stumbling block for peace and stability in the region. True
peace can be achieved only if the nations in the region can talk to each
other openly about their past. Therefore, we see education through the
Common Body of Knowledge as one of the best ways to alleviate the tension
between Turks and Armenians, because it provides a basis of shared knowledge
that can counter generations of hostility and lead to mutual understanding
and dialogue. In the meantime, we should continue our efforts to normalize
relations with Turkey with a positive outlook towards our future, without
compromising our past, our memory and our history.

Thank you

Armenian Genocide’ Draft on French Agenda
By Ali Ihsan Aydin, Paris
Friday, September 29, 2006
zaman.com

A proposed law that stipulates punishment for denying the alleged
Armenian genocide is back on France’s agenda.

To ensure consideration by the parliament, the main opposition
Socialist Party (SP), which prepared the draft law, used the right to
`determine a special agenda.’ The proposal, which designates
punishment for denying the Armenian genocide with a fine of 45,000
euros and up to five years imprisonment, will be discussed in the
plenary session of the French parliament on Oct. 12.

Observers are optimistic that the proposal will be adopted because of
the upcoming elections and the Armenian Diaspora’s intensifying
efforts.

The draft was not voted in a parliament session in May since Jean
Louis Debre, the chairman of the French parliament, who opposed the
proposal, recessed that session twice.

Subsequently, the proposal was dropped from the parliament’s agenda.

The French government, reiterating that the endeavor would seriously
harm bilateral relations between France and Turkey, also opposed the
draft.

The session was attended by a fairly small number of deputies.

This time the draft came to the forefront amid preparations for the
spring presidential and general elections.

It has been reported that the French politicians would not be able to
stand against the draft, even if they were hesitant about it, because
of the Armenian Diaspora’s influential lobby.

The draft aims at empowering the existing law promulgated in 2001 that
openly recognizes the Armenian genocide by adding a sanction clause to
it.

In order for the draft to be implemented it must be adopted by the
National Assembly on Oct. 12 and then ratified by the French Senate
without any amendments and revisions.

If even a single amendment proposal regarding the text is adopted at
the Senate, the draft will be returned to the Assembly for further
review.

Following Senate approval, the draft also requires the president’s
ratification.

The recently improved bilateral relations between Turkey and France
will be reportedly affected negatively, even in the case of the
adoption of the draft by the Assembly on Oct. 12.

The French companies that seek to win Turkey’s chopper and nuclear
power plant construction bids will be most affected by the
parliament’s decision.

Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac will head to Armenia
because of France’s `Year of Armenia.’ During his stay, Chirac will
visit the Armenian genocide monument.

amp;alt=&trh060929&hn=36904

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EuroNews – English Version
September 27, 2006

Parliament’s scathing report on Turkey

The European Parliament has warned Turkey it must speed up reforms if
it wants to join the European Union. The message comes in a highly
critical though non-binding report by EU lawmakers. They accuse
Ankara of failing to live up to promises it made to start talks last
October on joining the bloc. This adds to pressure on Turkey to open
its ports and airports to EU member Cyprus under an extended customs
agreement.

The parliament’s political groups are deeply divided over the future
with Turkey. Liberal chief Graham Watson underscored the negotiations
are likely to drag on: "They (the negotiations) will probably be
slower than we initially envisaged, because the pace of reforms in
Turkey is slower than we hoped, and because the speed of developing a
European Constitution to allow us to take in more members is slower
than we hoped as well. But let’s proceed!" The report cited
"insufficient progress" on freedom of expression, religious and
minority rights, women’s rights and the rule of law.

The parliament also reiterated its call on Turkey to acknowledge the
Armenian genocide, but did not make recognition by Ankara a
precondition for EU membership. On this subject, Greek socialist
Panos Beglitis said: "Political pre-requisites here, concerning
Turkey’s European prospects and its adhesion negotiations, must not
be imposed. That would a major political fault – changing the rules
in mid-game. Turkey must itself come to terms with its own history."

Parliament has never tried to veto a country joining the bloc but has
pressured EU hopefuls to speed up reforms in the past. In its next
regular progress report on Turkey on Nov. 8, the European Commission
has promised to take parliament’s views into account.

Financial Times (London, England)
September 27, 2006 Wednesday
London Edition 1

Door swings shut behind new boys as EU’s welcome is exhausted ‘Old
Europe’ will need to recover from enlargement fatigue before more
countries join the club of 27, writes George Parker

By GEORGE PARKER

Bulgaria and Romania may be coming in to the European Union but the
door is starting to swing shut behind them.

The accession of the two Black Sea states completes the "big bang"
expansion of the EU, which began in 2004 with eight former communist
countries in central and eastern Europe.

The healing of Europe’s cold war divisions was a relatively easy
political message for western leaders to sell but each new round of
enlargement takes the EU into ever more difficultterrain.

"You could sell the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland joining," says
a senior EU official involved in the enlargement process. "People
knew about the Prague Spring or Budapest 1956 or Solidarity.

"With Bulgaria and Romania it is more difficult to make the case on
an emotional level, and it’s going to keep getting harder."

According to a Euro-barometer opinion poll this year, some 53 per
cent of EU citizens viewed enlargement with "indifference, fear,
annoyance or frustration", even if a narrow majority – 55 per cent –
still felt positive about the process.

The symptoms of enlargement fatigue became glaringly obvious last
year when French and Dutch voters rejected the EU constitution, with
No voters citing the club’s eastward expansion as a prime reason for
their dissatisfaction.

For France, the expansion diluted the original essence of a western
club of relatively wealthy countries largely operating under the
political direction of Paris. Other founder members fear that the EU
has grown too big, too fast.

For the Dutch, migration was a big factor, as it now is in Britain
(which was traditionally one of the biggest supporters of
enlargement). The arrival of up to 600,000 east European workers in
the UK between May 2004 and June this year outweighed anything the
British government or European Commission had predicted.

Although new EU members in central and eastern Europe have taken
enormous strides since the fall of communism, recent political
developments have reinforced the fears of sceptics in "old Europe".

Poland’s ruling party has been accused of populist nationalism,
Slovakia’s new coalition has been criticised for fanning xenophobia
and Hungary’s prime minister provoked demonstrations when he admitted
he had lied to win a general election.

Bulgaria and Romania’s failure to tackle organised crime and
corruption fully or to prepare their admin-istrative systems to
handle billions of euros of EU aid has done little to build
confidence.

Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, insists
enlargement benefits both old and new member states. "An enlarged
Europe counts for more when we speak with China or Russia than
before," he said.

But he concedes Europe needs a pause before adding to a club of 27,
whose population will approach 490m people. In particular, he says it
would be "unwise" to expand the Union further before it upgraded its
creaking institutions, through the ratification of parts of the EU
constitution.

The accession of Bulgaria and Romania is a natural break point. Only
Croatia and Turkey have already started membership talks: the former
is unlikely to be ready to join before 2011 at the earliest, the
latter’s progress towards the EU will be tortuous and may not achieve
its goal.

>From now on, the going gets tough. Bulgaria and Romania may have been
poor (both had GDPs of 31 per cent the EU average in 2004) but other
potential newcomers in the western Balkans – Serbia, Montenegro,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia – will be even
harder and more costly to absorb. And, like Turkey, they carry heavy
political baggage. While all of those countries have at least had
their "membership perspective" recognised by the EU, others on the
fringes face a long spell in the cold. Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and
Armenia may have to wait many years before the symptoms of
"enlargement fatigue" in the EU start to subside.