Author: admin

Turkey’s press freedom far from EU standards -media watchdog RSF

Reporters Sans Frontieres press release, Paris
16 Dec 04

Text of report in English by press release by Paris-based organization
Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) on 16 December

Reporters Without Borders has said that Turkey is still far from
meeting European press freedom standards as the European Council
prepares to decide on 17 December whether or not to open negotiations
on Turkish EU membership.

European deputies voted on 15 December for the discussions to start
without “needless delay” but on the basis of Ankara complying with
certain conditions.

In particular they are seeking the repeal of Article 305 of Turkey’s
new criminal code, that comes into effect on 1st April 2005 and which
they consider runs contrary to freedom of expression.

“The legislative progress that has undeniably been made should not
conceal the fact that the climate remains as harsh as ever for the most
outspoken journalists,” the worldwide press freedom organization said.

“The press is exposed to misuse of authority by the courts, which in
practice continue to impose prison sentences and exorbitant fines
that push journalists to censor themselves extensively on the most
sensitive subjects such as the army and the Kurdish question,”
Reporters Without Borders said.

The TV and radio stations are still subject to “brazen censorship”
by the High Council for Broadcasting (RTUK), while pro-Kurdish
journalists continue to be the target of many kinds of pressure,
the organization continued.

“Despite progress towards European standards, the gap between the
declarations of good intentions and the reality is still considerable,
with the result that Turkey still does not fulfil all the necessary
conditions for real press freedom,” it added.

Genuine progress made

The legislative amendments undertaken by Turkey with a view to joining
the European Union have been positive for journalists. Heavy fines have
replaced prison sentences in the new press law, adopted in June. The
most repressive sanctions, such as the closure of news organizations
or bans on printing and distribution, have been eliminated, while
the protection of sources has even been reinforced.

Article 159, which has led to many journalists being prosecuted
for “affront to the state and state institutions and threats to
the indivisible unity of the Turkish Republic”, was amended in
2002 and 2003, with the prison sentence being cut from one year to
six months. At the same time, criticism not intentionally aimed at
“ridiculing” or “insulting” state institutions is no longer punishable
by imprisonment.

Journalists still under pressure

Even though the new criminal code that becomes law on 1st April 2005
removes the offence of “mocking and insulting government ministers”,
there remains a problem with Article 305.

This punishes alleged “threats against fundamental national
interests”. It specifically targets freedom of expression, particularly
on issues involving Cyprus or Armenia. The European parliament voted
on 15 December for a resolution calling, among other things, for the
immediate repeal of this article, viewed as incompatible with the 1950
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Contrary to European standards, the new criminal code stipulates
that insult is punishable by three months to three years in prison,
with the sentence increasing if the offence is committed by means of
the press (Article 127).

In practice, judges still interpret the concept of “criticism” very
subjectively and abusive prosecutions continue.

Four journalists with the pro-Kurdish daily Yeniden Ozgur Gundem who
criticized government policy on the Iraq war were brought before the
courts in 2003 while on-line journalist Erol Oskoray was detained for
“mocking” and “insulting” the army. Sabri Ejder Ozic, the manager
of Radyo Dunya, a local radio station in the southern city of Adana,
was sentenced to a year in prison for offending parliament.

Hakan Albayrak, a former editorialist for the daily Milli Gazete,
was imprisoned on 20 May and is serving a 15-month prison sentence
for “attacking the memory of Ataturk” in violation of the 1951 law
governing crimes against Kemal Ataturk. Article 1 of this law punishes
any offence against the Republic of Turkey’s founder by one to three
years in prison. Article 2 doubles the sentence if it is committed
by means of the press.

On 15 October, Sebati Karakurt of the daily Hurriyet was held for 12
hours at the headquarters of the anti-terrorist police in Istanbul and
some 10 policemen searched his home. It stemmed from a report published
a few days earlier that included an interview with Murat Karayilan,
the military chief of the former Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), now
renamed Kongra-Gel. The report included photos showing female rebels
in combat fatigues in a favourable light, relaxed and smiling. Karakurt
was released after being interrogated by the police and a prosecutor.

Memik Horuz, the managing editor of the far-left newspaper Isci Koylu,
has spent years in prison for the views he expressed in the course
of their journalistic work.

Pro-Kurdish media targeted

While the national radio and TV stations are now allowed to use
the Kurdish language, the RTUK continues to impose disproportionate
sanctions – ranging from warnings to withdrawal of licence – against
pro-Kurdish media or media that are very critical of the government.

Ozgur Radyo, a local radio station in Istanbul, was sentenced
by the RTUK to a month’s closure for “inciting violence, terror,
discrimination on the basis of race, region, language, religion or sect
or the broadcasting of programmes that arouse feelings of hatred in
society.” The station stopped broadcasting on 18 August. In the event
of a further offence, the RTUK could withdraw its licence altogether.

Gunes TV, a local television station in the eastern city of Malatya,
was also forced to stop broadcasting for a month from 30 March. This
was because the RTUK accused it of “attacking the state’s existence
and independence, and the country’s indivisible unity with the people
and Ataturk’s principles and reforms” under article 4 of RTUK law
3984. Using the same article, the RTUK closed down local TV station
ART in the south-eastern city of Diyarbakir on 15 August 2003 for
broadcasting two love songs in Kurdish.

Mass detentions of pro-Kurdish journalists by the anti-terrorist police
on the eve of the NATO summit in Istanbul on 28-29 June 2004 were
also indicative of the treatment reserved for the pro-Kurdish press.

Finally, nine journalists covering the dispersal of protesters against
electoral fraud were badly beaten by police in Diyarbakir during the 28
March local elections and three of them had to be hospitalized. Those
responsible have still not been punished.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Corriere della Sera, Italia
16 Dicembre 2004

Strasburgo approva il via ai negoziati. Chirac: un’adesione parziale
per Ankara non è accettabile

L’Europarlamento dice il primo sì alla Turchia

Tra le richieste, tolleranza zero sulle torture e l’ammissione del
genocidio degli armeni

DAL NOSTRO INVIATO
STRASBURGO – L’Europarlamento invita a iniziare il negoziato di
adesione della Turchia all’Unione Europea: collegandolo però al
rispetto di varie condizioni che, se non fossero rispettate,
consentirebbero di bloccare tutto in qualsiasi momento. Questo
messaggio politico, approvato a Strasburgo dopo un acceso dibattito,
è indirizzato ai capi di Stato e di governo dei 25 Paesi membri
dell’Ue, che stasera e domani si incontrano nel Consiglio europeo a
Bruxelles per decidere se (e quando) andare incontro alle aspettative
turche di integrazione nell’Ue. E anche per valutare come conciliare
le esigenze politico-economiche con l’ostilità manifestata da ampie
fasce di europei verso l’adesione di un Paese con 70 milioni di
abitanti in maggioranza musulmani.
Il presidente dell’Europarlamento, lo spagnolo Josep Borrell, ha
considerato «chiaro» il segnale lanciato ai governi. 407 deputati
hanno votato a favore dell’inizio della trattativa con il governo
turco. I contrari sono stati 262 e 29 gli astenuti. Il sì è stato
trainato dalla maggioranza dei socialisti, liberali, verdi e
comunisti. I popolari hanno provocato polemiche chiedendo il voto
segreto, che ha tentato di rendere meno evidenti le loro spaccature
interne (i membri tedeschi e francesi sono contrari, mentre Forza
Italia e i conservatori britannici appoggiano la Turchia). La Lega ha
votato no con il gruppo degli «euroscettici». Non è passato il
tentativo di declassare il negoziato nella concessione di un
«partenariato privilegiato». Il presidente francese Jacques Chirac,
finora critico verso l’ingresso della Turchia, è apparso alla tv Tf1
per spiegare l’indisponibilità dei turchi verso un’adesione parziale
e l’utilità di accoglierli nell’Ue se rispetteranno tutte le
condizioni previste. Per questo, ha spiegato Chirac, «la domanda che
ci si deve porre è: l’Europa, e in particolare la Francia, hanno
interesse ad accogliere la Turchia? La mia risposta è: “Sì, ma…”.
Sì, se la Turchia risponderà a tutte le condizioni imposte a ciascun
candidato che vuol aderire alla nostra Unione».
Tra le condizioni poste ieri a Strasburgo dell’Europarlamento spicca
il rispetto dei diritti umani. Vengono pretese garanzie sulla libertà
religiosa, sul trattamento delle minoranze curde, sull’inizio di una
«tolleranza zero» della tortura. Ci si aspetta poi l’ammissione del
genocidio del popolo armeno nel periodo 1915-1923 (richiesta anche
ieri da Chirac), negata dalle autorità di Ankara. La presidenza
olandese di turno dell’Ue ha rilanciato il (non facile)
riconoscimento della parte greca di Cipro, Stato membro dell’Ue dal
maggio scorso.
«E’ ora che il Consiglio europeo annunci l’apertura dei negoziati con
la Turchia», ha auspicato il presidente della Commissione Josè Manuel
Barroso. Ma stasera i leader di Francia e Austria potrebbero
continuare a guidare il fronte scettico accentuando le condizioni e
contrastando l’orientamento a far partire il negoziato già entro il
2005 per cercare di concluderlo in 10-15 anni.

Ivo Caizzi
Esteri

–Boundary_(ID_S0OHl6sdmRXmUsf0LpB9dw)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkey and the hypocrisies of Europe
By Fred Halliday

Open Democracy, UK
Dec 16 2004

Fred Halliday dissects four underlying arguments against Turkey’s
admission to the European Union – and finds them all wanting.

The European Union is attempting to create common European
institutions and policy: a worthy and desirable project, if a pale
reflection of the original, liberal-internationalist aims of the
1950s. It has agreed two momentous decisions in 2004: the inclusion
of ten new member-states, and the foundation of its legal identity
embodied in a new constitution. Now, at a summit in Brussels on 16-17
December 2004, it faces a third: whether to open negotiations with
Turkey that will lead to that country’s membership of the European
Union.

There are, however, few sights so undignified as that of European
states in a condition of moral indignation, and the unseemly debate
over this major strategic issue has not just divided but shamed many
Europeans. While some states – led by the United Kingdom and Spain –
wish to proceed with serious negotiations with Turkey, and others
take a more ambiguous or even hostile stance, the argument reveals
more about the European “community” than about the Turkey it has been
preparing to judge.

Europe’s moral foundations

A rhetorical device favoured by opponents of Turkish entry is to
affirm the “Christian” (or “Judaeo-Christian”) foundations of Europe.
The former French president, Giscard d’Estaing; the current Italian
prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi; the European Union commissioner
for the internal market, Fritz Bolkestein; leaders of the opposition
CDU in Germany, Angela Merkel and Edmund Stoiber – are just some of
those who invoke this alleged religious-historic identity.

The argument ignores three basic realities. First, the cultural,
political and linguistic origins of European lie in Greece and Rome,
and long predate Christianity (the word “democracy” is found nowhere
in the Bible). Moreover, Christianity and Judaism are in their origin
not European at all, but – itself a testament to 2,000 years of
interaction – religions that originated and have long flourished in
the middle east.

Second, Muslim empires – and in particular the Ottoman, precursor of
the Turks – have a record of historic tolerance of Jews and other
minorities that (while open to considerable criticism) is far
superior to that of Christian Europe. Indeed, the permanent Jewish
population of around 50,000 in modern Turkey, descendants of those
expelled by Christian Spain in 1492, is testimony to one of the best
records of toleration of Jews of any country.

Third, the contemporary culture of Europe is not in any meaningful
sense Christian; it is, rather, secular in tone and content if not
actually hostile to religion.

The prominent European political figures cited above may concede
these points, but then shift the argument to the defence of certain
basic European principles like equality between men and women. Yet
here, no one examining the record of the Vatican, for example – from
its 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae to the letter to Catholic bishops
on 1 August 2004 and its catastrophic policy on contraception and
Aids – can believe that this variant of Christianity is compatible
with core modern, human, values.

History’s shadow

Many opponents of Turkish entry to the European Union question
whether Turkey (or Islam) is part of Europe. The truth is that in
terms of its cultural and religious presence Islam has been integral
to Europe for over 1,000 years – including 800 years in Spain and at
least 600 years in the Balkans and Russia.

What is true of religion is equally so for power politics: the
Ottoman empire was a component of the European great-power system,
variously allied with Britain and France (against Russia in the
Crimean war of 1853-56) and with Germany (against Britain and France
in the first world war).

Even more important, in the past century Europe has been unable to
insulate itself from the process of politics in Turkey itself. Turkey
played the key role in detonating the explosion of 1914 – one that
destroyed the old European order and led to the European civil war of
1914-1991 from which we are just emerging. Its precedent lay in a
fundamental event of modern European and middle-eastern history, the
Young Turk revolution of 1908. This event led to the Balkan wars of
1911-1913, from which emerged the radical Serbian nationalism that
killed Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914.

This is a reminder that the modern politics of Europe are
inextricably shaped not by the fantasies of Brussels – capital of a
country that has pioneered a radical form of ethnic-political
separatism – but by the condition of the middle east. There are many
illustrations of the point: the impact of the Algerian war on France
in the late 1950s, of Afghanistan on the Soviet Union in the 1980s,
and of Morocco on Spain in the 1920s and again on 11 March 2003.
Whether or not the EU opens the way to Turkish membership, intimate
bonds tie Europe to events in its neighbouring region.

Does Turkey qualify?

The discussion of Turkish membership of the European Union is
dominated by the legal and constitutional requirements Turkey is
expected to meet in order to qualify. Where these reflect progress in
implementing the rule of law, ending torture, ensuring the rights of
women, and creating a reasonable federal solution to the Kurdish
question, then – as the Turkish writer Soli Özel has written – many
Turks welcome the changes.

The Turkish state’s deficiencies over human rights and the rule of
law explain its civil society’s enthusiasm about Europe. This civil
society wants to accelerate a democratic process in the country.
Europe should help it – but Europe (witness Berlusconi’s great escape
from corruption charges and the illegalities of party funding in
France) has little moral authority to lecture the world about
political standards.

Indeed, it could be said that in key respects Turkey is too European,
in that it shares with France a rigid and (for human rights)
lamentable concept of state secularism. The French proclaim
themselves defenders of secularism as if their 1905 legislation had
patented the idea, but forget that clothing bans (as in the country’s
new law forbidding the wearing of religious apparel in schools) are
valid under international law only if they relate directly to
national security – certainly not the case over the hijab. There is
only one consistent, universalist and secular position on the wearing
of religious headwear – for Muslims, Catholic nuns, or Orthodox
Jewish haredim alike: to be against it, but to defend the right to
wear it.

The argument over whether Turkey qualifies for the European Union
often spills over into other important areas: Cyprus and the Armenian
genocide.

The Cyprus question remains unresolved but to hold Turkey of all
countries responsible for the current impasse is grotesque. Turkey is
certainly responsible for abuses in the years after the island’s
independence in 1960, but its main agonies lie in the conflict and
partition of 1974, when Greek Cypriot nationalists helped by Athens
organised an illegal coup that provoked a Turkish invasion. It is
that intransigent and manipulative Greek nationalism which in early
2004 blocked a reasonable settlement proposed, after lengthy
negotiations, by Kofi Annan. The Turks are right to say that the
United Nations, not the European Union, must find a solution to
Cyprus.

The issue of the Armenian genocide is one that Turkish nationalism
has refused to acknowledge. The best way to proceed in resolving it
is not through inter-state confrontation but to work with those
Turkish historians and writers who are prepared to recognise what
happened on developing a common, and documented, account of the
events of 1915.

A focus on the genocide serves, moreover, to absolve Europe
(including Russia and Turkey itself) from a comparably grave injury
to the Armenians – their confinement in the aftermath of 1918 to a
landlocked mini-state around Yerevan. In any case, Europe cannot
easily make official recognition of the Armenian genocide a condition
of Turkish entry without exposing its own hypocrisy: Germany’s record
in Namibia in 1904 and Europe in the 1940s, Italy’s in Libya after
1911, Belgium’s in the Congo in the 1900s, Spain’s in the Americas
and Portugal’s in Africa after 1500, are sufficient evidence.

A modicum of post-imperial self-criticism – including the Turks as
inheritors of the Ottoman empire – is in order here. This would
encompass two further issues that are currently less discussed than
Cyprus or Armenia: Kurdish rights in Turkey, and Turkey’s role in the
Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.

A question of culture

All sides in the debate over Turkey and the European Union seem to
want to invoke a fixed – “essential” or “true” – version of European
culture to which Turks, and Muslim immigrants in general, should
adhere. Proponents of Turkish entry see this culture as open and
cosmopolitan; opponents see it (or its Leitkultur (“leading
culture”), as espoused by the CDU) as incompatible with Islam.

The argument that every society and political system needs a
Leitkultur is not in itself invalid, and most people in Turkey would
agree with its presupposition. What is in question is how this
Leitkultur is defined. European culture is no more frozen in time
than are Europe’s external frontiers; rather, it is a set of
possibilities that modern society and politics can define. All
cultures (including Muslim ones) can be open or closed, and all can
and do change.

European arrogance over Turkey is a definite barrier to the deeper
opening that the 17 December decision should register. This is
evident too in the comprehensive ignorance of Turkey among many of
Europe’s politicians, commentators and intellectuals. How many
pontificating voices know the basic facts of Ottoman and Turkish
history, including repeated violations inflicted by the country’s
Christian neighbours over the last three centuries, culminating in
the attempted subjugation of the country by Britain, France and Italy
after the first world war? How many know the tiles of Iznik, the
films of Yilmaz Güney and Handan Ipekci, the poems of Nazim Hikmet
and Orhan Veli Kanik, the novels of Yasar Kemal and Orhan Pamuk – or
even the joys of Imam Bayildi? Such historical and knowledge might
teach a lot about politics also.

In short, Europe’s decision over Turkey – and the wider issues of
coexistence, multiculturalism and different values it signifies – is
not for Turkish citizens and Turkish immigrants to learn German or
English (which they or their children will anyway) but for Europeans
to learn Turkish – and perhaps eat köfte at least once a week. The
more Turks and Europeans mix and mingle, the more the truths of their
shared past, present, and future will emerge.

–Boundary_(ID_ZAhjc4qUOpNtgt6kXzkL7g)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EUROPARLIAMENT DEMANDS FROM TURKEY RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

STRASBOURG, December 15 (Noyan Tapan). On December 15, the
Europarliament with 407 votes for and 262 votes against made amendments
and adopted a resolution on Turkey’s joining the EU written by a
Dutch deputy Camiel Eurlings.

According to the European Armenian Federation for Justice and
Democracy, the Europarliament addresses the Armenian issues at least in
8 points of the resolution. The amendments proposed in this connection
have been written by parliamentarians who represent 5 factions.

In the final version of the resolution the Europarliament asks Turkey
to be reconciled to the Armenian people by recognizing the Armenian
genocide and calls on the European Council and the European Commission
to demand that Turkey officially recognize the historic reality of
the genocide and lift without delay the blockade imposed on Armenia.

Amendment No.18 on the Armenian genocide, which was written by deputies
Fransis Wurts and Dimitrios Papadimoulids, was adopted with 395 votes
for and 273 votes against.

Amendment No.83 written by Jaques Toubou and some other deputies was
adopted with 332 votes for and 325 votes against and calls on the
European Commission and the European Council to demand that Turkey
recognize the Armenian genocide and lift without delay the blockade
imposed on Armenia “in accordance with the European Council resolutions
adopted in 1987 and 2004.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARAM I: “HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT TURKEY IN EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
WHEN IT STILL IGNORES GENOCIDE COMMITTED AGAINST ARMENIAN PEOPLE”

ANTELIAS, LEBANON, December 15 (Noyan Tapan). In the context of a
telephone interview with a European press agency, and in answering to a
question concerning the membership of Turkey in European community, His
Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia, expressed his concern and said:
“European community was not established only on economic interests
and political collaboration. It is fundamentally a community of human
values which ensure the identity, integrity and unity of Europe,
and give a particular place and role to Europe in international
community. Among these values human rights occupy an important place”.

According to the Press Office of the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia,
His Holiness Aram I raised a great doubt and concern about the way
the human rights are respected in Turkey. He said: “To what degree
and in what way the human rights values are accepted, respected and
practiced in and by Turkey? Turkey still ignores its immediate past;
it still rejects to recognize the Genocide which was planned and
executed by the Ottoman Turkey in 1915. I believe that the recognition
of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is not only an “Armenian problem”;
it is a problem that pertains to the entire international community,
since it is a problem of justice and human rights. The recognition of
the Armenian Genocide by Turkey must be taken very seriously by Europe
as Turkey is trying by all means to become a full member of Europe”.

Then concluding his remarks, said: “In this globalized world of ours
nations, religions, cultures and civilizations must live together
on the basis of peaceful coexistence. But living together as good
neighbors and as part of broader community implies to accept our fault,
to affirm the truth and recognize the rights of the others. In fact,
the real community is built on the basis of mutual trust and by doing
justice. Therefore, it is my firm expectation that beyond economic and
political interests Europe will continue to remain firmly attached to
basic human values. It is the expectation and hope of Armenians all
over the world that the present Turkey reaffirm the truth, accepting
the historical reality by recognizing the Armenian Genocide”.

In answering to a question related to the recent pressures and
difficulties surrounding the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in Turkey,
His Holiness Aram I said: “Here is another concrete example of the
way the human rights are respected in Turkey. The World Council of
Churches and the Conference of the Churches in Europe have publicly
expressed their concern on this matter expressing their solidarity
with the Ecumenical Patriarch”.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Erdogan: Turkey’s Accession Into The E.U. Will Result In Compromise Of Civilizations

Anadolu Agency: 12/16/2004

BRUSSELS (AA) – In a meeting with Turkish columnists in Brussels, Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stated that Turkey’s accession into the
European Union will result in compromise of civilizations. ”Our European
friends are aware of the role Turkey can play in harmonizing relations between
civilizations. There are now many European circles that look at Turkish membership
as crucial and absolutely necessary,” told Erdogan.
     In response to a question on Turkey-Armenia relations, Erdogan replied
that if and when a positive approach is witnessed from the Armenian side,
Turkey would be ready to open its border gate with Armenia. ”Whatever took place
in history must remain in history. We must build our new world on peace. We are
positive towards Armenia. We want national borders be respected. We have made
Turkish air space available to Armenian commercial planes. There is no reason
as to why we should not open the border gate as well. However, we want to see
the same positive attitude from the Armenian side as well. An important part
of Azerbaijan is still under Armenian military occupation. This fact should
not be ignored and forgotten,” said Erdogan.
     Erdogan said Turkey is prepared for a temporary ban on the free movement
of Turks in EU countries. ”Yet a permanent ban on the free movement of
Turkish nationals would be against the EU laws and regulations.”
     In reference to the issue of Cyprus, Erdogan remarked that Turkey is
ready to discuss Cyprus during its entry talks with the EU.
     He noted that it would mean failure of all efforts if EU leaders put a
text which they would not say ”yes” on the table. ”I hope they won’t,” he
added.
     Turkey expects the formal announcement on the conclusion of the EU
summit tomorrow (Friday) at 13.00 hours. ”It would be wrong to declare the
summit’s decision as victory. We must not be spoiled by our success. Furthermore, a
possible negative summit decision should not be viewed as a big disaster.
Whatever the decision at the summit, Turkey can continue to develop on its own
feet,” expressed Erdogan.
     (ES-A?

2004-12-16

Copyright 2004 Anadolu Agency. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

–Boundary_(ID_uD0CRbjsz7reR4hCpoCgqA)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Gas leak from homemade heater kills family in Armenia

Associated Press Worldstream
December 16, 2004 Thursday 10:15 AM Eastern Time

YEREVAN, Armenia — A natural-gas leak from a homemade heater killed
a family of five in Armenia, officials said Thursday.

The accident Wednesday in the city of Echmiadzin killed a married
couple and their three small children, the Prosecutor General’s
Office in the former Soviet republic said. It said the heater was
set up without regard for safety standards.

The family was among a growing number of victims of accidents resulting
from the improper use of homemade heaters and from insufficient
oversight by officials charged with enforcing safety standards.

Many people in the poor ex-Soviet republic use homemade gas heaters,
sometimes tapping illegally into gas lines, because their homes lack
heating due to the prohibitive expense.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARF ACCUSES COALITION PARTNER OF RESORTING TO POPULISM

ArmenPress
Dec 16 2004

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 16, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian Revolutionary
Federation/Dashnaktsutyun (ARF) party, one of the three members of the
ruling coalition, accused today parliament speaker Arthur Baghdasarian
and two dozen deputies affiliated with his Orinats Yerkir Party, also a
members of the ruling coalition, of pursuing political ends by signing
under a motion of an independent parliament member, Hmayak Hovhanesian,
who collected 66 signatures of lawmakers demanding an extraordinary
parliament session to start debates over partial compensation to
the holders of depreciated Soviet-era bank accounts. The ARF and
the Republican Party of Prime Minister Andranik Margarian refused to
undersign the petition. Under Armenian law, President Robert Kocharian
must call an extraordinary parliament session next week.

Hrayr Karapetian, the secretary of the ARF parliamentary faction,
claimed today the goal of the initiative is not at all the return of
the deposits. Karapetian said before starting debates on the issue
it needs a thorough examination. He also argued that if the bill is
approved the government will have to cancel wage rise for teachers,
doctors, army officers and other low-paid workers, envisaged by 2005
budget. He also added that holders of old bank-accounts would not
be happy to receive about $30 in return for each one thousand Soviet
rubles, a sum that was equivalent, before the collapse of the former
Soviet Union, to more than $1000.

Under the bill drafted by Orinats Yerkir the government has to pay
$83 million in public funds to the former deposit holders within the
next ten years.

Karapetian said his party is not against the return of deposits but
argued that doing it the way proposed by Orinats Yerkir would do little
difference, suggesting that new, more effective ways should be found
to address the issue. He also denied allegations that differences
among the ruling coalition members may ignite a new tension. He added
that the party may boycott the extraordinary parliament session.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZG Armenian Daily #226, 16/12/2004

Armenia-Azerbaijan

OSKANIAN AND MAMEDIAROV OVERCOME OBSTACLES

Negotiations to Be Held Without Karabakh’s Participation

RA Foreign Minister stated during the December 14 news conference that by the
positive mediation of OSCE Minsk group and cooperating with Azerbaijan it
became possible to remove the obstacles occurred when resuming the negotiation
process. Though the obstacles were removed, Vartan Oskanian is “cautiously
optimistic.”

Recently at one of the conferences Oskanian announced that the fate of the
“Prague process” by 100% depends on whether the UN General Assembly will adopt
“the situation in the occupied Azerbaijani territories” formula put forward by
Azerbaijan or not.

In response to the question posed by Azg Daily whether it meant that Azerbaijan
excluded the issue from the UN General Assembly, Oskanian said:” I said that we
have removed the obstacle (occurred in the settlement process). You will find
out in the future what results it will yield. We are ready to begin the second
stage of the “Prague process.”

The statement adopted by the OSCE Board of Foreign Ministers said that “taking
into account the results of the “Prague process,” the OSCE Minsk group
co-chairs have submitted a negotiation circle that can serve as a ground for
the settlement to the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents in September in
Astana.”

Oskanian responded to the question about NKR’s participation in the
negotiations and about its status saying: “The negotiations between Armenia and
Azerbaijan in the Prague format are likely to continue till some stage when
NKR’s participation will be necessary. The format of the present moment that
was in the course of the last few years will be preserved.”

A year ago, when Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev met in Geneva for the first
time, Oskanian stated that it is important for Armenia to know whether Aliyev
junior is ready to continue the negotiations from the point on which his father
stopped. Today, when the Prague format is spoken of, can we suppose that the
negotiations are being continued from the point where Kocharian and Aliyev
senior stopped?

“I wouldn’t like definitely to put this question like this. I merely can say
that the position of Armenia remained unchanged. Our approaches remain the same
and today the content of the framework is sufficient for us to continue the
negotiations,” Oskanian said.

RA foreign minister doesn’t pay attention to the way Azerbaijan comments the
discussions around the Nagorno Karabakh settlement to the publicity. “I take as
a ground the things I hear with my own ears and the things I discuss during the
negotiations. I believe that the things we discuss create a common circle for
the continuation of the negotiations. I don’t want to pay attention to the way
Azerbaijan comments all this to the Azeri publicity, taking into account its
home situation or its interests. In fact, two parallel processes are taking
place, i.e. the real negotiations and the things that are told to (the Azeri
publicity),” Oskanian said.

Recently, the first Armenian president said in a half-secret interview given to
the mass media protecting AAM that Armenia will not be able to return the
position it lost in 1997 in Karabakh issue. Oskanian who used to be the head of
the Armenian delegation at the negotiations held within the OSCE Minsk group
framework for many years when Ter-Petrosian was the president, emphasized that
“if the people demand for example, to begin stage-by-stage negotiations, this
issue should be really put forward, the parliament should discuss it and submit
it to the government, as it is done frequently, demanding to begin stage by
stage variant without wasting time.”

Oskanian believes that the issue can arouse constructive discussions in the
press.” Indeed, one of the main complaints of the first presidents was the fact
that there have never been any detailed discussions of Nagorno Karabakh issue,
the discussions were always a political and personalized means to strike the
people and criticize the authorities.”

RA foreign minister believes that “all the versions are just versions, good or
bad.” Oskanian doesn’t follow the slogan:” This variant is a traitorous, while
the second one is a heroic one”. “We should settle the problem, we should work
in that direction… We all are interested to settle the issue in the way it will
not harm our national interests, it will not weaken Armenia, or deprive NKR of
the achievements it has today… It is an issue of approaches that is why we
shouldn’t consider the issues by such categories as traitorous or heroic. We
should see what is in our interests, what is possible or impossible, what we
lose, what we gain and what is the middle.”

It’s worth reminding that Vartan Oskanian said that the Karabakh issue was not
the reason for Levon Ter-Petrosian’s resignation during the meeting with the
students of the Yerevan State University on July the 3rd, there were other
reasons and one can’t say that he resigned because of Karabakh, the foreign
minister pointed out.

By Tatoul Hakobian

–Boundary_(ID_cqaThcvh6g5fdlOGY1MYRA)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIANS CAN THEMSELVES SETTLE KARABAKHI CONFLICT

A1+
16-12-2004

During today’s conference the social initiative for “Protection of
Liberated Territories” expressed concern over the events recently
spread about returning the liberated territories.

According to them, numerous representatives of former and present
Authorities keep participating in the process by mutual agreement.

Armen Aghayan, Secretary of “Protection of Liberated Territories”,
says the issue of the liberated territories is the first one disputed
after the war in fact and the pivot of all the suggestions by Minsk
Group Co-Chairs.

The social initiative for “Protection of Liberated Territories”
announces that Artcakhi problem does not and can’t have
an international solution in the formats of either Minsk Group,
or Council of Europe etc. The Armenian version of regulating the
conflict is the only one and supposes complete and quick settlement
of all the liberated districts.

The organization finds that the Armenians can work out an own project,
which will provide a safe life for them in the homeland.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress