Month: February 2012

ARMENIAN FM VS ISRAEL

Day.az
Feb 10 2012
Azerbaijan

He is an old fool. Albeit, age can’t be blamed here. (Mikhail
Zhvanetsky)

Hope no one will argue that Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian
is a unique personality. Albeit, no, not in such a way.

Nalbandian is one of the most unique individuals in this unique
Armenian government. Yes, exactly. It will be more correct.

It is he, together with Armenian Serzh Sargsyan and Defense Minister
Seiran Ohanian, who form a triumvirate of “genius” leadership of
the neighboring country, about which one might as well write books
that surely will be claiming to become bestsellers. Even, I can
recommend a title for the book-‘How not to run the country”‘. Think
it suits. It’s simple. But most importantly, accurately reflects the
meaning of possibly once written books.

Reacting to the neighboring state’s policy seriously is the same as
disrespecting yourself. Thus, if you react to it, then surely with
a smile and for fun.

Well, then. Recently, Edward Nalbandian criticized his Israeli
counterpart Avigdor Lieberman, as he spoke out against the adoption
of not only the law criminalizing denial of the so-called ‘Armenian
genocide’, but also against the law on allegedly occurred ‘genocide’.

He urged the Israeli deputies not to follow the example of the French
colleagues, but think clearly and carefully.

Of course, Avigdor Lieberman’s logical and just reasoning dissatisfied
Nalbandian, who began to bring demagogic arguments on the terms
‘genocide’ and ‘Holocaust’.

Without giving any clear reasons (as always) in favor of that the
‘Armenian genocide’ tough took place in the Ottoman Empire, Nalbandian,
swaggering in front of the Armenian deputies, was trying, in a clumsy
way, to explain why Lieberman was wrong.

Familiarizing with Nalbandian’s speech, the first question that begs
itself relates to the minister’s nourishment. More precisely, possible
medicaments or illicit drugs, which he likely uses. Otherwise, how
can one explain the fact that toothless and completely characterless
Armenia, which cannot survive as an independent state even a day
without its patrons, begins to teach the Israeli state and specify
how to conduct its internal and foreign policy, which laws to adopt
and which not?

It’ll be not a surprise if it turns out that the French Senate’s
decision to criminalize denial of the “Armenian genocide” turned head
of Nalbandian, his colleagues and bosses, and now they think they
have the right to teach and indicate to other states. Oh, and to which!

But, there is no real reason for this. Think, the vast majority of
the Armenian citizens are well aware that French President Nicolas
Sarkozy absolutely does not care about historical events, concepts
such as ‘fairness’ and their life today. Sarkozy is concerned over
only two factors – the re-election to a second term, and unfounded
fears to see Turkey in the European Union.

Finally, the adoption of the aforementioned law brings Armenia and
its citizens absolutely no practical use, but only complicates their
already difficult lives.

Surely, the citizens of neighboring state will soon ‘get down’ to
earth the country’s rulers, who had better not to act against the
country, but for the sake of it. Armenia will soon go to elections,
but dissatisfaction with the domestic and foreign policy of the
authorities is growing every day. And the Armenian people will pay
back to Nalbandian and those like him for the adoption of the French
law. But, it’s unlikely to satisfy Nalbandian …

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

`FRENCH CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL WILL NOT APPROVE THE BILL CRIMINALIZING THE DENIAL OF SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE`

State Telegraph Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan
February 9, 2012 Thursday

Visiting deputy chairperson of the France-Caucasus friendship group,
head of the France-Azerbaijan working group, senator Mrs. Nathalie
Goulet and her accompanying delegation gave an interview to Azerbaijan
State Telegraph Agency, AzerTAc.

Q: How do you assess your visit to Azerbaijan and the meetings you
held here?

Senator Nathalie Goulet: I have visited Azerbaijan several times. But
my colleagues are visiting your country for the first time. I think
it would be better if they answer this question. As you know we have
a very tough itinerary. We held fruitful meetings during which we
discussed a number of interesting issues.

Senator Jeanny Lorgeoux: We have witnessed great hospitality in
Azerbaijan. The meetings were held in a frank atmosphere. We also
saw high level of tolerance in your country.

Senator Sylvie Goy-Chavent: It is my first visit to Azerbaijan. I
am very glad to get acquainted with a nation with great culture and
civilization. I will return to Paris with great impressions.

We met with refugees and IDPs as part of the visit and familiarized
ourselves with their living conditions. I will never forget this
meeting. I think that the issue of refugees and IDPs is one of the
most important problems Azerbaijan has faced. Much has to be done in
this respect. And each of the senators perceive Azerbaijan`s problems
and are ready to contribute to resolving these problems.

Senator Herve Maurey: During my trip to Azerbaijan I discovered a
country with rich culture, and got information about your country`s
political, economic, cultural life.

We got acquainted with the living conditions of Azerbaijani refugees
and IDPs. We will spare no efforts to raise the awareness of the
French community on their conditions.

Senator Andre Reichardt: Rich culture, hospitality, fruitful meetings,
useful exchange of views this is what I can say about our Azerbaijan
visit. This visit was important for me in terms of understanding
Azerbaijan`s sensitive attitude to regional issues.

Q: We would like to know your opinion on the decision to be made by
France`s Constitutional Council with respect to the bill criminalizing
the denial of so-called Armenian genocide?

Nathalie Goulet: Many senators signed a letter of complaint which
was sent to the Constitutional Council. This is because we think that
parliamentarians have to deal with legislature, not with history. This
issue is enshrined in the 34th article of France`s Constitution. So
we hope that Constitutional Council will not approve the bill.

Azerbaijan kept a close eye on the Senate discussions on the bill. We
understand the Azerbaijani community`s concerns over the bill, and
we witnessed it during the meetings.

Senator Jeanny Lorgeoux: I want to note that French President Nicolas
Sarkozy stated that he will send the bill to the Constitutional Council
for the second time if the Council does not approve it. If it happens,
this will mean pressure on the Council. But I think the Constitutional
Council will not approve the bill on the first time.

Q: France is one of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The bill
casts doubts on France`s neutrality regarding the settlement of
Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What is your point
of view?

Senator Jeanny Lorgeoux: We understand the Azerbaijani community`s
concerns over this issue. We discussed it in the meetings as well. Of
course, a wrong decision must be prevented. We are sure that France
will protect its objective position within the OSCE Minsk Group.

Senator Nathalie Goulet: France has a resolute position on the
Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. France supports
Azerbaijan`s territorial integrity. We think that occupied territories
must be liberated and Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs must return to
their homelands. I want to stress once again that France`s position
will remain unchanged.

Senator Andre Reichardt: I`m also confident that common sense will
triumph. France will not change its position on the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

US EXPERT: “IT IS UNLIKELY TO SEE ANY SCENARIO WHERE THE ARMENIAN ISSUE WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE AND THE US COULD RISK ALIENATING TURKEY AS A KEY ALLY IN THE REGION” – INTERVIEW

APA
Feb 10 2012
Azerbaijan

Cenk Sidar: “If the bill comes into effect, it will force France
out of the equation, and most likely terminate the Nagorno-Karabakh
adjustment process”

Washington. Isabel Levine – APA. APA’s correspondent’s interview
with Cenk Sidar, Managing Director of the Washington, DC-based Sidar
Global Advisors

– Armenia has pushed on the French Senate to pass a bill prohibiting
a denial to call the 1915 events “genocide”. This is not the first,
and probably not the last time, Armenia is doing something like this.

Where will these steps take Armenia in the end?

– It is extremely difficult to understand the reasoning behind
Armenia’s insistence on such negative bills that will only eventually
weaken the Armenian cause, as well as the country’s interests in
the region and the world. The bill is a clear violation of individual
freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights, and I believe the
international community is well aware of this. Given the importance
attached to the issue by the Armenian diaspora, it is only natural
to see that they consider the decision of the French Senate as a
victory. However, I believe such a stance will hurt the stabilization
and development prospects of Armenia, which suffers from poverty
and underdevelopment. On the other hand, it is difficult to envision
how Armenia could survive without the financial support of people of
the diaspora, and thus it would be difficult for the country to move
away from the diaspora’s line of thinking. In short, attempts like
these put Armenia in a very difficult position and I think they will
eventually hurt the country’s well-being. Legal steps such as this
also hurt freedom of speech and limit academic or social discussions,
and they are destined to backfire in the end. The credibility of the
Armenian cause will diminish among the rational actors who recognize
these limitations.

– After practically slapping Turkey in the face with the French
Senate decision, do you think Armenia has a chance for a possible
reconciliation with Turkey in future?

– It is obvious that the Armenian side is not interested in
reconciliation, and has closed the doors long before this. The Armenian
lobby’s global campaign will just officially end the process, and kill
any prospects for future reconciliation. Turkey is not the actor that
will lose the most from the termination of this prospect.

Given its economic situation and its difficult geographic position,
landlocked between three countries, Armenia clearly has more stakes
in the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation. Therefore, it is not easy to
understand why it insists on a global campaign that is certain to
kill any prospects of reconciliation. I don’t predict any serious
move in the US Congress for the “genocide” resolution, even though
the Armenian lobby will push hard, as it has become their only cause
for existence. The bill will undermine the protocols between Armenia
and Turkey, as it will limit their ability to conduct open inquiry and
debate. The Armenian government and diaspora will most probably step
up their campaign to get international recognition of the “genocide”
as the 100th anniversary of the incident approaches in 2015. This will
put more pressure on Turkish officials to come up with new policies
to handle this. However, it is difficult to see a scenario where
the Turkish side could come up with anything that will satisfy the
Armenian side.

– What would you suggest the United States to do regarding
Turkey-Armenia rapprochement?

– The US would surely prefer to see an improvement in Turkey-Armenia,
relations but it will not risk alienating Turkey, an important ally
in a region where the US has considerable stakes. I don’t expect
to see any serious US involvement at least until late 2012 in the
reconciliation process. Especially now that the tension is high in the
wake of the French National Assembly’s bill, I expect the US to stand
aside and see what will happen. Given Turkey’s strategic position
as a key US ally in the region, it is unlikely to see any scenario
where the Armenian issue would take precedence and the US could
risk alienating a key ally in the region. As enough number of French
senators agreed to take the bill to the French Constitutional Court,
the court will now consider if the law is constitutional. Washington
will presumably wait to see how this plays out.

– France is a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, and now its Senate
accepts such a bill, what about Karabakh then? Will the bill affect
the conflict adjustment anyhow?

– If the bill comes into effect, it will force France out of the
equation, and most likely terminate the Nagorno-Karabakh adjustment
process. It will also result in a further improvement in Azeri-Turkish
relations. All in all, the bill, while recognized by the Armenian
diaspora as a victory, will be detrimental to Armenian interests in the
Nagorno-Karabakh process. It is likely to favor the Azeri position with
regard to Nagorno-Karabakh, and further alienate Armenia in the region.

– Do you see Azerbaijan and Turkey as working together against Armenian
propaganda in this case? How?

– Azerbaijan could help Turkey in resisting the campaign of the
Armenian lobby, but the Azeri diaspora in the US is not in a position
to push for Turkey’s position. The Azeri diaspora lacks the financial
means and organizational skills of its Armenian counterpart, and its
members are having problems even raising issues that are directly
related to Azerbaijan in the US. Therefore, it is difficult to see
how the Azeri lobby can provide any significant support to Turkey in
resisting the campaign of the Armenian lobby on passing similar bills
in other countries. Given Azerbaijan’s well-known position in regard
to Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, it will be difficult
for Azerbaijan to play an important role. However, I expect both
governments to work together and the communities to grow closer.

– What are Azerbaijan and Turkey’s futures in terms of integrating
into the European community?

– The current trend of parliamentary interference in history will
slow down the integration of Azerbaijan and Turkey into the European
structures. Azerbaijan is scarcely integrated in European structures
anyway to begin with, and the Turkish public already has quite a
low opinion of the EU. Clearly, this has gravely damaged Turks’
perceptions of France. People in both countries will further lose
their trust and confidence in the objectivity of European actors. It
will be difficult for Western countries to persuade Turks and Azeris
that they are impartial in light of these developments.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERBAIJAN URGES EU AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO AVOID “DOUBLE STANDARDS” IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

Trend
Feb 10 2012
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan urged the EU and the European Parliament to take a position
based on the norms and principles of international law and to avoid
“double standards” in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said at a conference “EU-Azerbaijan:
new horizons for the partnership” organized by the European People’s
Party in Brussels.

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister appreciated the resolution on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict adopted in the European Parliament in 2010.

According to the resolution, the world public was informed about the
importance of the Armenian forces’ withdrawal from the Azerbaijani
occupied territories and thousands of Azerbaijani internally displaced
persons’ return home.

Minister expressed confidence that this document will not be the last
one among similar documents, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry said.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. –
are currently holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

RUSSIAN SECURITY COUNCIL SECRETARY DISCUSSES NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT IN YEREVAN

Trend
Feb 10 2012
Azerbaijan

10 February 2012, 10:40 (GMT+04:00) The delegation, headed by Russian
Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev held a meeting with
Armenian President Serzh Sagrsyan in Yerevan, Panorama.am. reported
referring to the presidential press-service.

The sides touched upon the regional problems and challenges, recent
events in the negotiation process on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
settlement.

Patrushev said that the issues of military and military-technical
cooperation, as well as cooperation in humanitarian sphere, interaction
in the elimination of consequences of natural disasters, etc. were
discussed during the meetings in Yerevan.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. –
are currently holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

AZERBAIJAN COMMITTED TO RESOLVE CONFLICT WITH ARMENIA THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS

Trend
Feb 10 2012
Azerbaijan

Baku remains committed to resolve the conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan through negotiations, despite the fact that mediation
efforts over 20 years were not always consistent and as yet not
produced any results, the Azerbaijani Permanent Representative to
the UN Agshin Mehdiyev said, ITAR-TASS reported.

He was speaking at a meeting of the UN Security Council in connection
with the briefing of the OSCE Chairman, deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Ireland Eamon Gilmore.

Mr Mehdiyev said that Baku takes into account that the formula for a
settlement is on the basis of the on-going political process. It is
based on the termination of the illegal occupation of our territories,
restoring sovereignty and Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, refugees
can return home and ensuring a peaceful coexistence of Azerbaijanis
and Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh region within Azerbaijan.

The Azerbaijani ambassador strongly opposed the lack of consent on
political issues to be used as a reason to disrespect and disregard
international law, particularly international humanitarian law and
the international law on human rights. Thus, the on-going continuing
illegal activity in the Azerbaijani occupied territories, especially
the one which aims to change the demographic, social and cultural
character, certainly serves to further perpetuate the current status
quo of occupation.

Azerbaijani Permanent Representative to the UN expressed hope
that the OSCE chairman will insist on the need to immediately and
unconditionally stop all the actions that create serious obstacles to
the prospects of the conflict settlement on the basis of international
law.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 per cent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France and the U.S. –
are currently holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

TURKISH FM DISCUSSES SITUATION IN SOUTH CAUCASUS IN U.S. CONGRESS

Trend
Feb 10 2012
Azerbaijan

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu discussed regional issues,
including the situation in the South Caucasus with the U.S.
congressmen in Washington, Turkish Ihlas agency reported.

At the meeting views were exchanged on the processes associated with
the revolutions in the Arab countries, Iran’s nuclear program and
Turkish-U.S. relations.

Turkish Foreign Minister started his visit to the United States on
Feb.9. It is expected that Davutoglu will meet with U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. –
are currently holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

EGEMEN BAGIS: “IL Y A PLUS DE CITOYENS EUROPEENS QUI VONT S’INSTALLER EN TURQUIE QUE L’INVERSE.”

EuroNews

10 fev 2012

Nous avons rencontre le ministre d’Etat turc charge des Affaires
europeennes, negociateur en chef de la Turquie auprès de l’Union
europeenne.

Gulsum Alan, Euronews:

“Egemen Bagis, bienvenue a Euronews. A Bruxelles, vous vous etes
entretenu avec le rapporteur pour la Turquie, avec le president du
parlement europeen… Mais l’Union europeenne est en pleine crise
economique. La zone euro se trouve dans une situation critique.

Pourquoi la Turquie desire encore faire partie de l’Union europeenne?”

Egemen Baðýþ, ministre d’Etat turc charge des Affaires europeennes:

“La Turquie n’a jamais vu l’Union Europeenne sous l’angle des interets
economiques. Pour nous, l’Europe, c’est le plus vaste projet pacifique
de l’humanite. Si on regarde l’histoire des pays membres de l’Union
Europeenne, on constate que les peuples qui se sont fait la guerre
pendant des siècles vivent actuellement en paix grâce a l’UE. Pour
que ce projet pacifique prenne une dimension mondiale, il faudrait
y integrer la Turquie.”

“Etant donne que, par sa situation geographique, la Turquie a une
zone d’influence assez importante et sert de pont entre les pays,
elle peut donner a ce projet une dimension internationale. Malgre les
difficultes economiques que traverse l’UE, c’est la que la richesse
par habitant reste la plus elevee au monde. Le projet europeen est
porteur d’espoir pour l’avenir.”

Euronews:

“La Turquie joue un rôle important dans la region. Ne se tourne-t-elle
pas vers d’autres horizons?”

Egemen Bagis:

“Comme cela a ete le cas dans l’histoire, la Turquie continue a
etre un pont entre l’orient et l’occident, entre le christianisme et
l’Islam. Avec les sources energetiques, elle sert egalement de pont
et gère l’offre et la demande. Ce carrefour qui s’etend au nord,
au sud, a l’est et a l’ouest se solidifie de jour en jour. Cela ne
devrait pas constituer une source de derangement.”

Euronews:

“Comment la Turquie envisage t-elle d’aider l’UE qui se trouve en
pleine crise economique?”

Egemen Bagis:

“La Turquie a aussi traverse des moments très difficiles, on peut
penser que l’UE sortira de cette crise plus stable et fortifiee. Il n’y
a pas si longtemps que cela, douze ou treize ans environ, en Turquie
on a vu les taux d’interets atteindre 8000 pourcent en une seule nuit.”

Euronews:

“La première chose que l’UE devrait faire c’est de supprimer les visas
qui s’appliquent aux citoyens turcs de manière injuste, illogique,
et illegitime. Ainsi, les Turcs pourront voyager librement dans les
pays de l’Union. Ce qui signifie qu’il y aura des touristes, donc de
l’argent depense. Ils feront du commerce. Actuellement les citoyens
turcs ont la possibilite de voyager sans visas dans 65 pays. Nous
faisons partie de l’union douanière, 50% de notre commerce exterieur
se fait avec l’UE, 60% des touristes qui visitent la Turquie viennent
des pays membres de l’UE, malgre cela nous ne pouvons pas nous rendre
librement dans les pays de l’UE. C’est regrettable.

Le monde des affaires s’est beaucoup developpe. La Turquie est
actuellement la 6ème puissance economique en Europe. Les chiffres
de l’OCDE montrent qu’en 2050 la Turquie sera la deuxième puissance
economique et jusqu’en 2020 la Turquie va continuer a avoir la plus
forte croissance economique en Europe. Eriger des murs, fermer
les portes a un tel potentiel n’a pas de sens. Il faut cesser de
penser que les Turcs vont emigrer en Europe. Car les chiffres de ces
dernières annees montrent qu’a present il y a plus d’Europeens qui
vont s’installer en Turquie que l’inverse.

Le monde des affaires s’est beaucoup developpe. La Turquie est
actuellement la 6ème puissance economique en Europe. Les chiffres
de l’OCDE montrent qu’en 2050 la Turquie sera la deuxième puissance
economique et jusqu’en 2020 la Turquie va continuer a avoir la plus
forte croissance economique en Europe. Eriger des murs, fermer
les portes a un tel potentiel n’a pas de sens. Il faut cesser de
penser que les turcs vont emigrer en Europe. Car les chiffres de ces
dernières annees montrent qu’a present il y a plus d’europeens qui
vont s’installer en Turquie que l’inverse.”

Euronews:

“La Suisse a ouvert une enquete pour determiner si vos propos niant
le genocide armenien sont contraires a la loi. En France, une loi
punissant la negation des genocides a ete votee. Craignez-vous que
cette tendance se repande dans l’UE?”

Egemen Baðýs:

“Parmi les principes les plus importants de l’UE figure la liberte
d’expression. Le fait que certains membres de l’UE passent une serie
de lois qui limitent la liberte d’expression relève d’un manque de
logique, cela est contraire aux principes de la constitution de l’UE,
aux acquis communautaires. Je l’ai dit a Zurich, je le repète ici,
et je le repèterai ailleurs aussi, selon les informations que nous
possedons, selon nos archives, nos sources, cela n’a aucun sens de
qualifier les evenements de 1915 de genocide. Nous mettons l’Armenie
et les pays concernes au defi, qu’ils ouvrent leurs archives. Que
l’on cree une commission independante dans laquelle on retrouve
des historiens aussi bien armeniens, russes, turcs, europeens et
americains. Que tous ces pays ouvrent clairement leurs archives afin
que l’on puisse analyser ce qui s’est vraiment passe en 1915. Par la
suite on pourra evaluer la situation. Il s’agit d’une execution sans
jugement. Qualifier les evènements de 1915 comme un genocide en se
basant uniquement sur les informations dont nous disposons aujourd’hui
est le resultat des efforts de certains lobbys mal intentionnes qui
nourrissent la haine. Nous, nous refusons d’entrer dans leur jeu.”

Euronews:

“Est-ce cela pourrait se propager dans l’ensemble de l’UE?”

Egemen Baðýs:

“Cela est contre les principes de l’UE. Pour que cela soit possible,
il faudrait que l’ensemble des 27 membres de l’UE prennent une decision
a l’unanimite. Il est peu probable qu’ils decident de faire cela au
meme moment.”

Euronews:

“L’AKP au pouvoir semble fatigue de faire des reformes. Pourquoi n’
est-il pas aussi dynamique qu’avant?”

Egemen Baðýþ:

“L’AKP n’est pas fatigue de faire des reformes. L’AKP est dans
l’histoire de la republique de Turquie le gouvernement qui a
fait le plus de reformes. Il suffit de voir ce que nous avons fait
dernièrement. Pour la première fois depuis 88 ans la celebration d’une
messe au monastère orthodoxe de Sumela est devenu possible. Après 112
ans nos concitoyens armeniens ont commence a celebrer leur messe a
Akdamar. Ces derniers temps en Turquie les relations entre le pouvoir
civil et le Conseil militaire supreme ont ete reformees. Tout cela
montre a quel point nous sommes plus que jamais decides a poursuivre
les reformes.”

Euronews:

“L’UE a de grandes attentes concernant la nouvelle constitution.

Qu’est-ce que vous comptez faire?”

Egemen Baðýþ:

“Nous avons cree une commission avec un nombre egal de representants
pour chaque parti du Parlement. En ce moment, c’est cette commission
qui est chargee de rediger la nouvelle constitution. Les organisations
non gouvernementales, les universitaires, les journalistes soutiennent
egalement le travail de la commission. Nous avons aussi cree un site
afin que les citoyens puissent faire des propositions. Les differents
groupes religieux soutiennent egalement cette initiative. Une fois que
toutes ces informations seront collectes, la commission va preparer
une constitution civile, qui je l’espère, unira tous les citoyens. Une
constitution qui sera approuvee par tous les partis politiques, une
constitution dans laquelle chaque citoyen pourra s’y retrouver. Cela
permettra a la Turquie d’avancer dans le processus d’adhesion a l’UE.”

Euronews:

“En Syrie, la repression envers les civils s’intensifie. Qu’est-ce
que la Turquie a l’intention de faire pour mettre un terme a ces
massacres?”

Egemen Baðýþ:

“Aujourd’hui lors d’une conference de presse le president du parlement
europeen a lui-meme dit que la Turquie est le pays qui fait les
declarations les plus courageuses a ce sujet. Nous aimerions egalement
voir les pays europeens adopter un discours plus ferme qui montrent a
quel point ils sont decides. En une seule nuit 300 personnes ont ete
tues. C’est toute la communaute internationale qui doit dire stop a
cela. La communaute internationale devrait exercer sur la Chine et
la Russie qui sont des membres permanents du conseil de securite des
nations unies une pression beaucoup plus importante. Des dizaines de
milliers de personnes ont deja ete accueillis en Turquie. Tous nos
moyens ont ete deployes. Concernant ce que nous prevoyons de faire
dans l’avenir, permettez-moi de partager cela, non pas avec vous
devant les cameras, mais plutot dans les coulisses de la diplomatie.”

GENOCIDE ARMENIEN: QUAND SARKOZY SE DECIDA POUR UNE LOI

L’Express

10 fev 2012
France

Le vote du 23 janvier dernier a marque l’epilogue d’un long combat
des Armeniens contre la negation du genocide de 1915. Nicolas Sarkozy
a pris sa decision lors d’un voyage en Armenie en octobre 2011.

C’est sous le coup de l’emotion, lors de son voyage officiel a Erevan,
en octobre 2011, que Nicolas Sarkozy a definitivement pris fait
et cause pour la penalisation de la negation du genocide armenien,
raconte un ministre. Precisement a sa sortie du monument a la memoire
des victimes de 1915 a Erevan.

Les associations d’Armeniens de France presentes dans la delegation
demandent alors au chef de l’Etat ce qu’il entend faire. “Si la Turquie
n’a pas reconnu sa responsabilite d’ici a la fin de l’annee, la France
fera voter un texte de loi”, previent aussitôt Nicolas Sarkozy.

GENOCIDE ARMENIEN ET GROSSES FICELLES DU DROIT CONSTITUTIONNEL

Le Huffington Post

10 fev 2012

Le texte de loi penalisant la negation du genocide armenien de 1915
par la Turquie ottomane a ete definitivement adopte par le Parlement
le 23 janvier dernier. Le Conseil constitutionnel en est saisi:
une censure n’est jamais certaine mais elle est ici fort probable.

Vraies et fausses lois “memorielles”

Depuis l’appel de l’association Liberte pour l’histoire en decembre
2005, il est d’usage plus que de coutume, de parler de lois
“memorielles” dès lors qu’elle ont pour objet de satisfaire a un
devoir de memoire mais aussi et de juger de faits historiques. Pour
parer a cette multiplication de lois qui sont en realite pour la
plupart des neutrons legislatifs, la commission Balladur avait
propose l’institution de resolutions, consacrees par la revision
constitutionnelle de juillet 2008. Les parlementaires peuvent ainsi,
sans mettre en cause la responsabilite du gouvernement, les adopter
aux fins d’emettre un v~u, d’exprimer une opinion, certes a valeur
declaratoire mais hautement symbolique. C’est dans cet esprit que le
Parlement europeen avait adopte, le 15 novembre 2000 une resolution
en faveur de la reconnaissance du genocide armenien. Le Bundestag en
juin 2005 en a fait autant.

Un paravent: la loi Gayssot

L’expose des motifs de la proposition de loi entretient le parallèle
avec la loi Gayssot. En realite, il s’agit d’un paravent. Comme l’a
rappele Michel Troper le negationnisme “s’inscrit dans un mouvement
antisemite et antidemocratique, qui n’a pas cesse avec le genocide
lui-meme, et [il] l’alimente”. Elle n’est pas une loi “memorielle”
mais est adossee a des faits reconnus par une convention internationale
ou par une juridiction nationale ou internationale.

C’est pourquoi la Cour de cassation dans un arret du 7 mai 2010 a
refuse de transmettre une question prioritaire de constitutionnalite
la concernant au Conseil constitutionnel, decision contestable sur
le principe. Peu importe: le Conseil constitutionnel appreciera,
cette fois, par ricochet.

Un habillage europeen: la transposition d’une decision-cadre pour
donner vie a une loi inconstitutionnelle

Pour ne pas donner le sentiment de desavouer le Constituant ,
un habillage a ete trouve: se conformer aux exigences europeennes
-qui ont toujours bon dos-, et donc transposer en droit interne
la decision-cadre du 28 novembre 2008 relative a la lutte contre
certaines formes et manifestations de racisme et de xenophobie au
moyen du droit penal. Elle lie l’Etat quand au but a atteindre, lui
laissant libre les moyens -et la forme- pour la mettre en oeuvre. On
ne sait precisement si elle s’apparente a une directive dont le
Conseil constitutionnel contrôle l’exactitude la transposition,
sur le fondement de l’article 88-1 de la Constitution.

Cette directive d’un genre nouveau sans l’etre completement n’est
cependant pas une bonne a tout faire du droit europeen: dans sa
generalite, la proposition de loi vise l’existence d’un ou plusieurs
crimes de genocide reconnus comme tels par la loi, en realite seul
le genocide armenien est reconnu par la loi du 29 janvier 2001. Cette
transposition vient donc a point pour tenter de donner vie a une loi
inconstitutionnelle. Il faut saluer ce tout de passe-passe inedit.

Si differents pays ont adopte une legislation tendant a reprimer
penalement la negation de la Shoah, aucun Etat -pas meme l’Armenie- n’a
a ce jour rendu la contestation de l’existence du genocide armenien
de 1915 passible de poursuites penales tandis qu’aucun des Etats
de l’Union europeenne qui ont mis en ~uvre cette decision-cadre
ne l’ont reconnu. Le but de cette decision-cadre est de lutter
contre la discrimination et non de faire ~uvre de memoire. A
cette meconnaissance plausible de l’exigence constitutionnelle
de transposition d’une decision-cadre -au prix d’un detournement
de procedure, viennent s’ajouter, au surplus,d’autres griefs
d’inconstitutionnalite qui tombent sous le sens.

Les risques d’inconstitutionnalite

L’article 34 de la Constitution n’autorise pas le Parlement a qualifier
un fait historique et de le condamner penalement. Ce faisant, le
Parlement viole le principe de separation des pouvoirs legislatif
et judiciaire, consacre tant par la Declaration de 1789 que comme
principe fondamental reconnu par les lois de la Republique.

Ce texte meconnaît aussi le principe de la legalite des delits et des
peines: le fait de “contester ou de minimiser de facon outrancière”
l’existence d’un genocide est une incrimination très floue, plus
large que la seule negation. Il est aussi potentiellement contraire au
principe de liberte d’opinion et d’expression consacre la Declaration
des droits de l’homme et du citoyen et la Convention europeenne des
droits de l’homme. Si cette liberte n’est pas absolue encore faut-il
que ces restrictions soient proportionnees au regard des objectifs
poursuivis (CEDH, 7 decembre 1976, affaire Handyside c. Royaume-Uni).

Alors que la ” loi Gayssot ” ici encore, paraît compatible avec ce
principe parce qu’elle tend a prevenir -aujourd’hui- la resurgence d’un
discours antisemite troublant gravement l’ordre public (CEDH du 24 juin
2003), qui peut serieusement considerer qu’a l’egal de l’antisemitisme,
la contestation du genocide armenien presente ce risque?

Enfin, le delit de contestation ou de minimisation d’evènements
historiques qualifies de genocide par la loi ferait peser un risque
certain sur les travaux scientifiques des historiens et porte atteinte
au principe de liberte de la recherche. Imaginons d’ailleurs,
le raisonnement n’est pas totalement absurde, que le Parlement
reconnaisse notamment le “genocide vendeen” , le “genocide tzigane”
pendant la Seconde guerre mondiale ou encore le “genocide ukrainien”
de 1932-1933, sans compter avec les massacres d’indiens aux Etats-Unis
ou dans le passe des Aztèques, et meme la Saint-Barthelemy…

Une loi inutile

Enfin, et c’est peut-etre le plus affligeant dans ce debat, cette
loi est inutile. En premier lieu, l’apologie des genocides et autres
crimes contre l’humanite est susceptible d’etre reprimee penalement,
sur le fondement de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberte de la
presse. La meme loi reprime la diffamation et l’injure raciale ou
religieuse, ainsi que la provocation a la discrimination, a la haine
ou a la violence a l’egard d’une personne ou d’un groupe de personnes
en raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance a une ethnie,
une nation, une race ou une religion determinee.

Certes, seule la negation de la Shoah peut donner lieu a des poursuites
penales. Cependant, la contestation des autres genocides peut donner
lieu a une action au civil. C’est ainsi qu’un historien a ete condamne
en 1995 par le TGI de Paris a un franc de dommages et interets pour
avoir affirme qu’il n’y avait pas de “preuve serieuse” du genocide
armenien. Tout ca pour ca?