Author: Chakrian Hovsep

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 22, 2004, Wednesday
KARABAKH SLIP
SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, December 20, 2004, p. 12
by Vladimir Kazimirov
Between 1992 and 1996, Ambassador Vladimir Nikolayevich Kazimirov was
the head of the Russian intermediary mission, presidential envoy to
Karabakh, and Russian chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
All expectations notwithstanding, 2004 failed to become a
breakthrough year in the Karabakh conflict settlement. Contours of
the peace process remain indistinct. Moreover, there is nothing
anymore to which to ascribe the failure of slack negotiations,
neither elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia, nor the complexity of
domestic political situations in these countries.
There were 9 Armenian-Azerbaijani meetings this year, 3 between the
presidents and 6 between foreign ministers. Baku, Yerevan, and
Stepanakert claim to view settlement as the ultimate priority, but
these are only words. In fact, interims between the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are filled with a Cold War attitude,
information warfare, and frequently disinformation. Azerbaijan and
Armenia’s stands remain mutually exclusive, the situation is worse
than it was even under Heidar Aliyev. Heidar Aliyev only demanded
liberation of the territories beyond Karabakh, which the Armenians
occupied during the war. His son, Ilham Aliyev, calls Karabakh itself
an occupied territory. Propaganda breeds tension in the Azerbaijani
and Armenian society. Anything goes, even calls for another war.
Instead of preparing their respective societies for mutual
concessions, ruling elites cultivate intolerance towards compromises
as such. All of that leaves the impression that Baku and Yerevan
merely feign negotiations.
To a certain extent, Baku diplomacy succeeded in the last several
months to switch attention from the matter of Karabakh’s status to
the problem of occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Satisfied with the
status quo dating back to the end of the war of 1992-1994, Yerevan
missed the fact that after a decade of peaceful occupation of
Azerbaijan, the territories beyond Karabakh look like an anomaly,
particularly to whoever does not know its history. Another anomaly,
absence of the status of Karabakh, is not that irritating anymore. In
short, Azerbaijan managed to have the UN General Assembly discuss the
situation in the occupied lands. It even succeeded in prodding the
Parliamentary Assembly into action. They will listen to a report on
Karabakh in January 2005.
Official Baku constantly refers to four resolutions of the UN
Security Council passed in 1993. The documents demand an immediate
cease-fire and withdrawal of the Armenians from the occupied
territories. It is not without risk, however, because the
international community remembers how Azerbaijan was the first to
kill fulfillment of resolutions of the UN Security Council.
Azerbaijan then was bent on settling the conflict by sheer strength
of arms. Ducking all and any peace initiatives, Baku ignored
resolutions of the UN Security Council for over a year. The truce is
not a result of these resolutions; it is a consequence of
Azerbaijan’s military failures.
These days, Yerevan is making use of Azerbaijan’s past neglect of UN
resolutions and refuses to withdraw, demanding a comprehensive
solution to the problem of Karabakh. The Armenians also use the fact
that the demand of unconditional withdrawal disappeared from the last
two UN resolutions (resolutions 874 and 884 – and Baku has only
itself to blame). This too has been a subject of numerous
Armenian-Azerbaijani consultations and talks.
There are different opinions on Azerbaijan’s latest tactical moves.
Aliyev hails them as masterful, the Armenians argue among themselves,
and official Yerevan threatens that should the UN General Assembly
pass a pro-Baku resolution, it will terminate all bilateral contacts,
and begins insisting on Stepanakert’s return to negotiations as a
third party. In the meantime, the words of both sides certainly
differ from deeds. Baku no longer insists on adoption of the UN
resolution as soon as possible. Yerevan already agreed to meetings of
two ministers in Sofia and Brussels.
Sure, diplomatic activeness is better than saber-rattling, but the
activities in question should be used for the purpose of searching
for compromises and not the purpose of aggravating confrontation.
Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group find it counterproductive. Instead
of making progress, it complicated the situation and makes transition
to efficient negotiations all the more difficult. It is the height of
naivete to believe that Baku and Yerevan will honor recommendations
from the UN General Assembly or Parliamentary Assembly when they
disregard demands from the UN Security Council.
Does it help to involve in the Karabakh affair the structures that do
not know the first thing about the problem? It is common knowledge
that every involved party will use any deviation from the previous
approach to promote its own interests. Deployment of new structures
merely indicates who finds political-propagandistic exercises more
important than conflict management. Take the draft report of the
Parliamentary Assembly, for example. It is clearly biased and full of
factual errors. The cease-fire in Karabakh accomplished with Russia’s
help is mentioned as an accomplishment of the OSCE.
There is no saying even now if 2005 is going to bring peace in
Karabakh any closer. It is only clear that this is a sheer
impossibility without abandonment of mutual sincerity, and a mutual
search for compromises. It will not hurt for international
intermediaries to become more active, instead of restricting their
activities to arrangement of meetings between presidents and
ministers. After all, a new meeting on the level of presidents or
ministers cannot be regarded as a smashing success.
The Karabakh slips we are witnessing leave the impression that
intermediaries should demand from both parties that they honor
decisions of the Budapest OSCE summit and resume negotiations in all
earnest.

VIKTOR DALLAKIAN: ARDARUTIUN BLOC IS READY TO COOPERATE WITH COALITION FORCES
IN ISSUE OF RETURNING DEPOSITS
YEREVAN, December 21 (Noyan Tapan). The Ardarutiun faction boycotting
NA sittings took part in the signature collection on the issue of
calling a special session dedicated to returning of deposits and the
session attaching importance to this issue. The session was boycotted
by the order of some forces representing the coalition and by RA
President. Viktor Dallakian, Secretary of Ardarutiun (Justice) faction,
made this statement during the December 20 press conference. “The
opposition had come to work and where were the others?” the MP
mentioned reminding the appeals to work together addressed to the
opposition. According to him, the failure to hold the special session
also shows presence of serious problems within the power. Dallakian
assured that at the press conference held during the President’s
visit to Lori marz the President, in fact, ordered to fail the special
session. According to the MP, the goal of the President was to show
to the Prime Minister that he has no majority in the parliament, to
show to the NA Speaker that he has 44 supporters in this issue (44
out of 66 MPs participating in the signature collection registered
for participation in the session: NT) and to make the Dashnaktsutiun
understand that though there was the issue of returning the deposits
in their pre-electoral program everything will be done in accordance
with the will of the President. Declaring that he doesn’t want to give
advice to anybody the speaker mentioned that in a civilized country the
head of the parliament attaching importance to the solution of such
issue would either vote against the draft budget not stipulating the
deposits or would come out of the political coalition. Speaking about
the statement of RA President that no issue of returning the deposits
was touched upon in his pre-electoral programs, Dallakian referred to
the part of 1998 pre-electoral program of the President envisaging
“elaboration of opportunities solving the issue of compensation of
the deposits the people had with the former Savingsbank.” As for the
President’s proposal to establish a commission attending to this issue,
according to Dallakian, establishment of a commission is the best way
of “burying” any issue. The MP also mentioned that his legislative
initiative connected with returning of the deposits is the only
one put to the agenda of the NA large session in 2003 October. The
draft for the first time suggested to stipulate by the law that the
state is indebted to the population, declared that the debt should be
paid off and this should be done through a program approach. If the
government possessing the whole information submits such a program
that will be approved by the parliament and signed by the President
the legislative and executive bodies will assume the responsibility of
returning the deposits, so a political consensus will be made and no
political force may speculate the issue connected with returning of
the deposits any longer. According to the author of the initiative,
the draft suggested establishment of a fund accumulating the sums
necessary for returning of the deposits. Dallakian qualified the
variant of returning the deposits from the state budget as a “deceit
in relation to depositors” as the budget revenues almost completely
are recieved from taxes. According to him, the resources of the
above-mentioned fund may be received from the privatization sums, sums
of concession agreements, proift tax and so on. Dallakian mentioned
that appearance of a large money mass on the market in a short term
will lead to inflation and fall of economy, so the issue of sums and
terms should be solved by the government with participation of the
Central Bank. As for the equivalent, the former exchange of rouble
against dram at 200:1 correlation was a result of artificial approach
and the US dollar had no real exchange rate in the Soviet Union. So,
the correlation of cost of gold in 1991 and in the year of repayment
of the deposit may be considered as a criterion of the exchange
rate. These are the reasons compelling the draft author not to fix
any figures and reserve the calculations for the government. The bill
on returning of the deposits also suggested giving not sums but notes
of hand to the depositors fixing the concrete sums ans the terms of
their returning. A depositor may sell the note of hand or keep it for
his legatees. Dallakian assured that there will be no accusations
of deceiving people in case of following to these principles and
the issue may be solved as a result of a political consensus. He
considered it possible that these approaches will be admissible for
the ARF Dashnaktsutiun and Republican Party of Armenia making part of
the coalition. As for the Ardarutiun faction, it is ready to cooperate
with the coalition forces in the issue of returning of the deposits.

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
12/20/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1) Mixed Reaction to Turkey Decision 2) EU Fears Turkey Clash May Mask Cyprus Friction 3) Armenian Genocide and Territorial Losses on Russian State TV 4) No Karabagh in Settlement Negotiations, Stresses Baku 5) US Takes 'Terrible Tragedy' Route 1) Mixed Reaction to Turkey Decision BRUSSELS (Combined Sources)--While Turkish leader Tayyip Recep Erdogan returned home to a hero's welcome after agreeing to accession terms with the EU, there has been a less enthusiastic reaction in some European capitals. Erdogan arrived back in Turkey on Saturday, December 18 to a rapturous reception and was hailed as the "conqueror of Europe." He said, "We did not receive 100 percent of what we wanted, but we can say that we succeeded," according to Le Monde. Reflecting the momentous nature of the decision, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said, "Turkey is a very different country than it was two days ago." STREET PROTESTS But elsewhere in Europe, the reaction has been less positive. Supporters of the populist Northern League Party in Italy took to the streets to protest at the decision. According to media reports, they unfurled banners saying, "Yes to Christian roots." Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel announced that his country would join France in holding a referendum on Turkey's accession, adding another potential obstacle in Ankara's path. This decision was criticized by Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot who said, "We have never said to the Turks, neither in 1999 nor in 2002, that a referendum would lie at the end of the process. We have to be fair." And Nicolas Sarkozy, former Finance Minister and rising star of French politics, renewed his call for a "privileged partnership" with Turkey, rather than full membership. Sarkozy, who hopes to take over from Jacques Chirac as French President in 2007, said, "If Turkey were European, we would know it…I'm for a privileged partnership but I'm reserved about membership, like a large number of notable voices". "Europe already has difficulty functioning with 25 members. The more members Europe has, the less we will be integrated, the less we will share common values and the more fragile we will be." France will put all issues to Turkey during negotiations over it joining the European Union, "including that of the Armenian genocide," French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Monday. "What has to be done now is start membership negotiations which are going to be very long, very difficult, during which we will put all issues on the table, including that of the Armenian genocide, with the hope of obtaining a response from Turkey before membership," he told French radio station RTL. To add the Armenian issue to a list of others--most notably Ankara's recognition of the Greek Cypriot government--is seen as a bargaining chip in the membership negotiations that are to begin in October next year, and a way of showing the French public that Turkey is being made to heed Paris's voice. Barnier said that Chirac, in supporting Turkey, "is expressing a vision, expressing where the interest of our country, our continent, lies for him." The French president has promised that the final decision on whether Turkey gets to join the European Union or not, as far as French voters are concerned, will come in a referendum at the end of the negotiations. VETO THREATS Cyprus warned over the weekend that it could still block Turkey's membership bid. Speaking on Cypriot television, President Tassos Papadopoulos said, "The Republic of Cyprus has the right not to consent to the start of entry talks." Controversy over Cyprus nearly put an end to the deal during last Friday's negotiations, with Turkey refusing to recognize the republic and the EU insisting that Turkey expand its customs agreement to the new Member States-- including Cyprus. And Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter reports that the Kurdish minority in Turkey are disappointed because their hopes to have their language recognized were not raised as an issue. Of the 70 million people in Turkey, 20 million are Kurds. MUCH WORK TO DO Even Erdogan stressed the amount of difficult work to do. Turkey must now open and close 31 "chapters" during negotiations, covering such areas such as Justice and Home Affairs and Competition. Any EU member can veto the closing of a chapter leaving much scope for blocking Turkish progress. And even if the laborious process of agreeing accession is achieved, referendums in France or Austria could still see Turkey falling at the last hurdle. 2) EU Fears Turkey Clash May Mask Cyprus Friction BRUSSELS (Reuters)--European Union diplomats voiced concern on Friday that the Turkish president's refusal to let the leader of the ruling party become prime minister might reflect friction with the powerful military establishment over an early peace deal on Cyprus. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a staunch secularist, vetoed constitutional amendments on Thursday to lift a parliamentary ban on Tayyip Erdogan, head of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), preventing him from leading the government. Erdogan, who has spearheaded Turkey's drive to win a date for starting EU accession talks and favors an early peace deal on Cyprus, was barred from standing for office because he received a jail sentence in 1999 for Islamist sedition. He denies his AKP has Islamist views. The AKP vowed on Friday to use its parliamentary majority to over-ride the veto. "This standoff could reflect serious differences between the military and the president, on the one hand, and Erdogan and his party on the other, over Cyprus," a senior EU diplomat said. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called for an accord by February 28 to reunite Cyprus after the two sides failed to agree at last week's Copenhagen EU summit. Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash is widely seen as a key obstacle to a deal. "Erdogan and his advisers are very eager to move on Cyprus as soon as possible and eager to put quite lot of pressure on Denktash. The fact that this is not the line that some hardliners might subscribe to at this point could be reflected by this decision by the president," the EU diplomat said. NOT NECESSARILY SETBACK However, other EU officials played down the dispute, saying it was neither a major crisis nor necessarily a setback for Turkey's drive to meet EU standards of democracy and human rights. "This is not a major political crisis in Turkey and we would not draw conclusions on whether the move is in contradiction with the Copenhagen criteria," said one EU diplomat. Those criteria set standards on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law which every EU candidate must meet before it can open accession talks. EU leaders agreed last week to review in December 2004 whether Turkey has met the standards. Cristina Gallach, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, said the EU had taken a strategic decision on rapprochement with Turkey and hoped the constitutional issue would not affect that process. "We expect developments regarding Cyprus very soon, as the secretary-general of the United Nations has said, therefore we hope and expect this (political) situation will not affect the resolution of this major issue very soon," she told Reuters. EU officials said Sezer had acted entirely constitutionally by refusing to approve amendments which appeared to be tailored to the political ambitions of one man. "This proves that the system works. Sezer is a strong defender of democracy and the constitutional order. We trust him," one EU government official told Reuters. The amendments have the full backing of Turkey's secularist opposition Republican People's Party, which has said it would vote in favor of the changes again when they go through parliament a second time. Another senior EU source said it was strange to have the respected leader of a party democratically elected to rule a country not allowed to take office. The EU has treated Erdogan as de facto leader of Turkey since the election. "It is not good to have somebody as a real leader not able to exercise power...And Erdogan is a real leader, a strong man. This is not good news," the source said. The amendments that Sezer vetoed would have let Erdogan stand in a by-election early next year. Erdogan's right-hand man, Abdullah Gul, is now prime minister but is expected to step down if his boss enters parliament. 3) Armenian Genocide and Territorial Losses on Russian State TV YEREVAN (Yerkir)--The Russian Cultural Fund and the "Rossia" TV company, in association with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation's (ARF) Moscow office, have produced a documentary that seeks to unveil the truth about the 1917 Russian Revolution. "Who Paid Lenin?" uses rich archival footage and rare documents to affirm that the success of the revolution, and subsequent Russian concessions were the result of an agreement between Germany and Lenin. It tells of a plan offered to Lenin by Alexander Israel Helphand (Parvus), who was the connection to Jacob Furstenberg--Germany's immediate link to Lenin, whereby the Bolsheviks seized power. In the film, ARF Bureau member and Armenian National Assembly vice speaker Vahan Hovhannisian speaks of the devastating consequences the Bolshevik Revolution had for the Armenians. With the Bolsheviks signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany, they pulled out of the war by making vast concessions to Germany and its allies. Namely, the Russians surrendered Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic provinces, the Caucasus, and Poland. Under the treaty, Russian troops--though at the edge of victory--withdrew from Western Armenia. The Kars and Ardahan regions of Eastern Armenia were surrendered to Turkey, leaving Armenians open to yet another massacre by Turkey. The 1921 Moscow and Kars treaties upheld those concessions by the Bolshevik government to Turkey. The film also contains historic footage from the Armenian genocide. "Who Paid Lenin?" will debut on Rossia TV on December 22 at 11:35 p.m. Moscow time. 4) No Karabagh in Settlement Negotiations, Stresses Baku BAKU (Armenpress)--Azeri Foreign Affairs Ministry Press Secretary Meti Mirza told "Interfax" news agency that Azerbaijan categorically rejects Mountainous Karabagh Republic's participation in negotiating a peace settlement to the conflict. "It's a mistake for the Armenian side to give direction on with whom Baku should negotiate," said Mirza responding to Armenia's Foreign Ministry's Press Secretary Hamlet Gasparian, who said last week that if Azerbaijan does not deem Armenia capable of implementing independent policy, then they may speak with Mountainous Karabagh directly. Gasparian was responding to Azeri President Aliyev, who said that Armenia is "Russia's advanced post in the South Caucasus." "If the Azerbaijani side…is confused and doesn't know with whom to hold the negotiations [on Karabagh], we will again have to point to Stepanakert. We hope they know where Mountainous Karabagh is situated," Gasparian warned. Calling for negotiations only between Armenia and Azerbaijan for seeking peace in Karabagh, Mirza also stressed: "The Armenian community in Mountainous Karabagh cannot participate in the negotiations with Baku because, as the Azerbaijani community, it sees only a one-sided resolution to the conflict." 5) US Takes 'Terrible Tragedy' Route WASHINGTON, DC (Washington File)--The United States said last week that it acknowledges the "terrible tragedy" the Armenian community in Anatolia faced during World War I, but declined to comment on whether the European Union should make it a precondition for the start of accession talks with Turkey. "Our position on the Armenia question is, I think, pretty well known…We've acknowledged the terrible tragedy that befell the Armenian community in Anatolia in the last years of the Ottoman Empire," State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher told a press briefing last week. He said Washington had been encouraging civil society and diplomatic discussions about the tragedy, as well as political dialogue between Armenia and Turkey on the issue. Boucher indicated the US position on the issue had remained unchanged since the president issued a traditional message on April 24, 2003. Asked whether the question of the Armenian genocide should or should not be a precondition for Turkey's entry to the EU, he said that it was up to the Europeans to decide. "We believe that Turkey has gone a long way in meeting the requirements of membership and the requests that were asked of Turkey, and it will be for the Europeans to make that judgment themselves." The European Parliament adopted a resolution last Wednesday calling on EU leaders to open entry talks with Turkey. It also urged Ankara to acknowledge the genocide but made it clear it would not be a condition for the start of accession talks. All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and subscription requests. (c) 2004 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved. ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through mass media outlets. --Boundary_(ID_KRRuA1v3JN7XN9PrlfF2Mg)--

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
December 17, 2004, Friday
17:47:07 Central European Time
Turkey agrees to E.U. entry talks after Cyprus deal
Brussels (dpa) – Turkey and the European Union on Friday clinched a
long-sought deal allowing Ankara to begin membership talks with the
bloc next year – but only after a diplomatic fudge resolved the
fraught issue of Turkish recognition for Cyprus.
“The European Union (E.U.) has opened its door to Turkey,” said
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in a move ending 40
years of Turkish efforts to get a road map to join the Union.
E.U. leaders agreed to open accession negotiations on October 3, 2005
aimed at full Turkish membership.
“We have been writing history today,” said Dutch Prime Minister Jan
Peter Balkenende who holds the rotating E.U. presidency, adding:
“Turkey has accepted the hand we offered to them.”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair was also upbeat: “It’s a good day
for Europe, for Turkey and for the wide world,” said Blair who
strongly backs Turkish E.U. membership.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan took a more cautious
view, saying: “We have done it … the process will be difficult and
full of obstacles.”
He admitted Turkey was not “100 per cent satisfied.”
The sense of achievement over the landmark deal was soured by discord
over Cyprus which came to a head earlier Friday.
A further major damper on the mood was a surprise announcement by
Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel – who was never enthusiastic
about Turkey – that his country would hold a referendum on Turkish
E.U. membership.
“It is important that the Austrian people have their say,” said
Schuessel. Polls in many E.U. countries, including Austria, Germany
and France currently show a majority opposing Turkish admission.
French President Jacques Chirac, who also intends to hold a national
referendum on the issue, struck a note of caution by insisting that
“negotiations do not mean accession”.
“We cannot foresee the results…,” Chirac said, adding that E.U.
states could at any time suspend talks if there was slippage in
Turkey’s reform efforts.
The disagreement over Cyprus was settled by a finely-tuned diplomatic
fudge under which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan only
agreed verbally to recognise the Greek Cypriot part of the island
before accession talks begin next year. Erdogan refused to sign any
document on this question.
European Union (E.U.) leaders welcomed Erdogan’s commitment to do so,
and – in a move to make things official – they promptly added his
words as an annex to the summit’s final communique.
Under the hard-won agreement, Erdogan promised that before Turkey
begins E.U. accession negotiations, he will sign an extension of
Ankara’s customs union agreement to include Cyprus, which joined the
E.U. as part of a group of 10 new members last May.
Balkenende admitted this was “not formal legal recognition” of Cyprus
by Turkey. But E.U. diplomats say this would amount to de facto
recognition.
This was denied by Erdogan who said: “It in no way means the
recognition of Cyprus.”
Most Turks already feel their country has made massive efforts to
meet Cyprus reunification demands. Both Turkey and the self-styled
state of Turkish northern Cyprus backed a U.N. blueprint for
unification last April. But the deal was torpedoed by a referendum
held in Greek Cyprus.
Turkey presently only recognises northern Cyprus and not the
internationally-recognised Greek Cypriot southern part of the island.
The deal to open talks with Moslem Turkey is a major turning point
for the E.U. which until now has been a mainly Christian club.
Turkey faces a huge task in meeting E.U. standards and European
Commission chief Barroso said his message to Turks was simple: “This
is not the end of the process, this is the beginning.”
Erdogan’s much-praised reforms are seen by the E.U. as just a start
and Ankara’s lengthy “to do” list includes major improvements in
political and economic structures.
E.U. leaders say Turkey must make additional effort to meet the
bloc’s “Copenhagen Criteria” which include strict standards for human
rights, minority protection and rule of law.
More challenging for Erodgan are Europe’s calls for what many in
Turkey will see as a social revolution.
Women’s rights, religious freedom and difficult historic questions
from Turkey’s past, including the fate of Armenians during World War
I, still need to be addressed.
Countries such as France have officially declared the killing of up
to 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915 under the Ottoman Empire
to have been a genocide. This is strongly denied by Turkey which says
far fewer Armenians died and that this was part of the normal course
of war.
“The process of E.U. construction is based on dialogue and
recognition of past errors,” said France’s Chirac, adding that the
Armenian issue would undoubtedly figure in the French referendum. dpa
lm si

Chirac rejects ‘third way’ for Turkey
by Lara Marlowe in Paris and Derek Scally in Berlin
The Irish Times
December 16, 2004
FRANCE: President Jacques Chirac last night excluded the possibility
of offering Turkey an alternative to full EU membership. At the same
time, he sought to reassure the French public that regardless of the
outcome of negotiations, they “will have the last word”.
The French right proposes a “privileged partnership” between the EU
and Turkey instead of full membership, and Mr Chirac’s entourage had
alluded to the possibility of a “strong tie” between Turkey and the
EU in the event that Turkey does not fulfil criteria for membership.
But speaking on television last night, Mr Chirac categorically rejected
a ‘third way’ of dealing with Turkey’s application. “To ask a great
country enriched by a long history to make such considerable efforts to
arrive at uncertain or partial results is obviously not reasonable,”
the Mr Chirac said. “We would bear a very heavy responsibility
vis-a-vis history if we said ‘no’ to a people who say, ‘We adopt all
your values, all your rules’. They would never accept it. They are
a proud people who are conscious of making tremendous efforts.”
The French foreign minister, Michel Barnier, attracted attention in the
National Assembly on Tuesday by referring to the Turkish “genocide”
against the Armenians, noting that a French law passed in January
2001 recognised the genocide, which happened in 1915. Mr Barnier
previously used the word “tragedy”, which is preferred by Ankara.
The French government has long feared that next year’s referendum on
the European constitutional treaty could be muddled by the question
of Turkish accession, and by domestic opposition to Mr Chirac.
“France has always been an engine of European integration,” he said.
“To continue, she must say ‘yes’ to the EU constitution . It is an
important question that must not be hijacked by considerations that
have nothing to do with it.”
Meanwhile, Germany’s former Chancellor, Dr Helmut Kohl, said
yesterday he didn’t think Turkey would ever meet the accession
criteria. Dr Kohl attacked what he called European leaders’ “unfair
and dishonest” courting of Turkey to win votes in the short term and
said the political union could not survive beyond accepting Romania
and Bulgaria.
“Mr Schroder wants, above all, to win elections and hopes to win
sympathy among Turks who are eligible to vote in Germany,” said
Dr Kohl.
Chancellor Schroder’s spokesman, Mr Bela Anda, said the government was
bewildered by the former chancellor’s opposition to Turkey’s EU hopes.
Mr Anda said Mr Schroder’s position was consistent with the position
of all German chancellors since 1963, when the issue of Turkey’s
possible EU accession was first mooted.
Government advisers said they were confident of a deal being reached
to open accession talks with Turkey at the summit which begins today
in Brussels.

Darchinyan may be too confident in title tilt: Fenech
By Stathi Paxinos
December 17, 2004
The Age, Australia
Dec 17 2004
Australian-based flyweight Vic Darchinyan’s tilt at the International
Boxing Federation title against world champion Irene Pacheco today
could be derailed by the challenger’s overconfidence, trainer Jeff
Fenech said yesterday.
Fenech said Darchinyan, who settled in Australia after competing
for Armenia at the Sydney Olympics, was in great physical shape,
but the former triple world champion feared his charge had ignored
the fact that the IBF world champion has stopped more than two thirds
of his opponents within the distance, including in four of his six
title defences.
“Vic thinks it’s going to be a walk in the park. I hope it is for
his sake, but I don’t believe it will be. It will be a very difficult
fight,” Fenech said.
“Vic’s a very confident guy, he thinks he will knock him out without
any problem at all. My biggest fear with Vic is his overconfidence.
I’m trying to control him mentally… it’s been my hardest job.
“I’ve been working very, very hard at trying to convince this kid that
the guy we are fighting is dangerous. He hasn’t been world champion
for over five years for nothing.”
The world title bout will be held in Hollywood, Florida, this
afternoon, Melbourne time. The two undefeated fighters, Pacheco
(30-0) and mandatory challenger Darchinyan (21-0), were scheduled
to meet in September but the bout was postponed because of Hurricane
Frances. Fenech said Darchinyan’s desire had only intensified since
the postponement.
Fenech said the fight, with both boxers known as power hitters, would
not go the distance but he was confident Darchinyan, who has recorded
16 knockouts, could successfully combine his usual head-hunting style
with more effective body punching.
“I’m trying to make sure that Vic’s unpredictable. I want the guy to be
guessing rather than just knowing where the punches are going to come
from. If we just head hunt, the guy will be ready for it,” Fenech said.
“When he feels Vic’s power I’m very sure that this guy will try and
outbox Vic, but if Vic does the right thing and cuts the ring off,
I’m very confident he will win by knockout.”
Darchinyan yesterday insisted his time had come and he had nothing
to fear from Pacheco. “He’s a good southpaw but he’s not dangerous,”
Darchinyan said.
“Who says he is dangerous? Maybe for some other boxers but not for me.”
In other news, Mike Tyson has closed the book on one of his many
run-ins with the law: his brawl last year with two men outside a
Brooklyn hotel.
The former heavyweight champion had completed the 100 hours of
community service imposed when he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct
under an agreement with prosecutors, lawyer Mel Sachs told the judge.
Tyson, 38, did more than 100 hours of work with children at gyms
in Brooklyn and Phoenix, Arizona, where he has been training, Sachs
said. “He’s had a remarkable effect on the children of the community,”
Sachs said.
Tyson has also completed six months of counselling.
With prosecutors’ consent, the judge dismissed the charge against
Tyson and ordered the record sealed. Sachs called the decision “a
victory for Mike Tyson”.
Tyson told police the brawl began after the men asked him for an
autograph. He said that when he declined they warned him they were
armed, with one saying: “You’ve got fists, we’ve got guns.”
A security videotape showed Tyson pushing one of the men and punching
the other.

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Dec 15 2004
Council race gets infusion of youth
Hovik Gabikian, 35, says he would represent a younger generation of
voters on the City Council.
By Josh Kleinbaum, News-Press and Leader
GLENDALE CITY HALL – By the time Glendale voters choose their next
slate of City Council members in April, the youngest incumbent, Rafi
Manoukian, will be 44 years old. The average age of the council
members will be 54.
Hovik Gabikian sees an aging council, and he wants to inject some
youth into it. The 35-year-old social worker announced Tuesday that
he will run for a seat on the council.
“I try to assist the younger generation, especially the immigrant
families that are somehow underrepresented, to give them a political
education, participation and empowerment,” Gabikian said. “My goal is
to help them to register, to vote, to be an active participant in
this process. If that could lead my election, that would be great.”
Gabikian moved to Glendale from Armenia in 1989. He attended Glendale
Community College and UCLA. He has been active in the Homenetmen
Ararat chapter for more than a decade, and has been a member of the
United Young Armenians for the past four years.
“He’s very popular among the young university kids who attend several
different universities,” Mayor Bob Yousefian said. “He’s got a lot of
devoted fans willing to put the time and effort to volunteer. He may
have a good chance.”
Gabikian said he will make traffic management, affordable housing and
health care and employment opportunities his top priorities.
“He always first thinks and then talks,” said Hoosik Ghookasian,
athletic director for the Homenetmen Ararat chapter. “He does
everything perfect. He cares about everything and everybody, and he
cares about his job and what he has to do.”
But Gabikian will have much competition. With more than six weeks
remaining until the filing deadline, 10 people have already announced
their candidacy. Yousefian, Frank Quintero and Dave Weaver are
running for reelection. John Drayman, Pauline Field, Glynda Gomez,
Steve Hedrick, Ara Najarian, Garry Sinanian and Gabikian will
challenge them. Candidates have until Jan. 27 to file the necessary
paperwork to run.
The fourth-highest vote-getter will replace Gus Gomez on the council,
and will serve the remaining two years of his term. Gus Gomez,
husband of challenger Glynda Gomez, must give up his council seat
before taking a judicial post on Jan. 3.

L’Humanité, France
15 décembre 2004
Les Turcs déçus par l’attitude de la France
Hassane Zerrouky
L’opinion publique se sent trahie par les obstacles que Paris semble
vouloir ériger à l’adhésion.
Dans les rues d’Istanbul et d’Ankara, une large majorité de Turcs ne
comprennent pas les réticences exprimées, notamment en France et en
Allemagne, à l’endroit de l’adhésion de la Turquie à l’Union
européenne. Davantage que la question de la reconnaissance du
génocide arménien par la Turquie, c’est le sondage du Figaro faisant
état du refus exprimé par une majorité de Français à l’adhésion de la
Turquie qui a le plus surpris les Turcs. La France jouissait jusqu’à
récemment d’une certaine estime dans ce pays. « Est-ce parce que nous
sommes musulmans ? » s’éton- ne une étudiante turque. Beaucoup, à
Istanbul et Ankara, se plaisent à rappeler que la Turquie avait
déposé sa candidature d’adhésion au Marché commun en 1963, à une
époque où la Grande-Bretagne, par exemple, n’était pas membre d’une
Europe qui comprenait alors six pays. Mieux, d’aucuns rappellent que
c’est sous le règne du sultan Abdelmegîd (1839-1861) que furent
promulguées les « tanzimet » (réformes) d’inspiration napoléonienne,
instituant un État moderne, une Constitution, le droit et l’égalité
des personnes, avant que Mustapha Kemal ne fonde la Turquie moderne
largement inspirée du modèle d’État laïc français. En bref, pour
cette élite turque de gauche et de droite, la Turquie regarde vers
l’Europe depuis la fin du XIXe siècle.
« En vérité, c’est le 11 septembre 2001 qui a tout changé. Avant,
personne, au sein de l’UE, n’avait avancé le prétexte de l’islam pour
s’opposer à l’adhésion de la Turquie », faisait remarquer un
journaliste turc de passage à Paris. Pour lui, comme pour de nombreux
Turcs, « cette question de l’islam est un faux problème ». Dans les
colonnes de l’Humanité, Ahmet Insel, professeur d’économie de
l’université de Galatasaray, collaborateur de la revue turque de
gauche Radikal, faisait observer que la droite et certains milieux de
la social-démocratie française instrumentalisent la question d’une
Turquie où l’islam est la religion dominante et du danger d’une
immigratio turquen massive à des fins de politique interne. Les
mêmes, affirmait-il, qui s’étaient tus quand le régime militaire, au
début des années quatre-vingt, réprimait la gauche et les démocrates
turcs.
En Turquie, côté politique, de Deniz Baykal, leader du CHP (Parti
républicain du peuple), seule formation d’opposition siégeant au
Parlement, à Devlet Bahceli, du MHP (nationaliste), en passant par
Mehmet Agar, du DYP (Parti de la juste voie), tous sont montés au
créneau pour exiger que le Conseil européen du 17 décembre fixe, sans
autres conditions que celles exigées par les critères de Copenhague,
une date à l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion. Abondant dans le
même sens, le Tusiad (patronat turc) a adressé avant-hier une lettre
à tous les chefs d’État et de gouvernement des 25 pays membres de
l’UE. Dans la société turque, les Kurdes – 12 millions de personnes –
sont acquis majoritairement à l’adhésion à l’UE. « L’Europe sans la
Turquie sera un projet inachevé », déclarait l’ex-députée kurde Leyla
Zana, en juin 2003, face aux juges, lors de la révision de son
procès. En effet, dans la perspective de l’ouverture des négociations
d’adhésion, parmi les réformes politiques adoptées par le Parlement
d’Ankara, l’une d’elle équivaut à une reconnaissance partielle des
droits culturels et linguistiques de la minorité kurde. L’usage de la
langue kurde n’est plus formellement interdit et elle peut même être
enseignée. Autre minorité qui souhaite cette adhésion, les 15
millions d’alévis, variante du chiisme, politiquement proches de la
gauche, et surtout profondément laïcs. Les alévis sont l’objet de
mesures discriminatoires non écrites restreignant l’accès des membres
issus de cette minorité aux plus hautes fonctions publiques. Pour ces
représentants d’un islam moderne, une Turquie intégrée à l’UE se
traduira par la fin des discriminations.
Plus généralement, selon un sondage rendu public par l’agence de
presse turque Anatolia, ils sont 75 % de Turcs à souhaiter que leur
pays fasse partie de l’UE, et seulement 17 % contre. Parmi les pour,
on compte des islamistes réformateurs et des laïcs de gauche et de
droite. « L’inclusion de la Turquie dans l’UE va démontrer que
réduire la relation interculturelle à la seule religion est une
erreur », affirme le politologue Ilter Turan, cité par l’AFP. « Le
développement le plus important en Turquie au cours des dernières
années c’est la transformation de certains cercles islamistes, qui ne
voient plus de contradiction entre l’identité musulmane et une
attitude pro-européenne », rétorque de son côté Ihsan Dagi,
professeur de relations internationales, à l’AFP. « Ceux qui se
définissent à travers leur identité religieuse ont réalisé que leurs
demandes pour plus de libertés correspondaient avec les réformes
démocratiques requises par l’UE », ajoute-t-il. Et parmi les contre,
on retrouve des islamistes radicaux, ceux du parti Refah, une partie
de l’extrême gauche et des souverainistes, pour qui l’adhésion de la
Turquie à l’UE signifie pour les uns la fin d’une issue islamiste à
la crise sociopolitique, la fin des privilèges liés au pouvoir pour
les partisans d’un régime autoritaire militaro-civil.
Hassane Zerrouky
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ANSA Notiziario Generale in Italiano
13 Dicembre 2004
UE: TURCHIA, LA QUESTIONE ARMENA / ANSA ;
– SCHEDA –
ROMA
(ANSA) – ROMA, 13 DIC – Avvenuto prima e durante la Grande
guerra, eterna pietra dello scandalo nei rapporti tra occidente
cristiano ed ex impero ottomano (la laica ed islamica Turchia di
oggi) il massacro degli armeni suscita da un secolo passioni
storiche e politiche.

Secondo l’associazione Gariwo (Gardens of Righteous
Worldwide), nella memoria del popolo armeno, ma anche nella
stima degli storici, perirono nel massacro (1915-1923) i due
terzi degli armeni dell’Impero ottomano, all’incirca un milione
e mezzo di persone. Molti furono poi i bambini islamizzati e le
donne inviate negli harem.

La deportazione e lo sterminio del 1915 furono preceduti dai
violenti pogrom contro gli armeni, che sono di religione
cristiana, del 1894-96 voluti dal Sultano Abdulhamid II e da
quelli del 1909 attuati dal governo dei Giovani Turchi.

Sempre secondo l’associazione citata, la pianificazione del
genocidio, che aveva l’obiettivo dell’eliminazione dell’etnia
armena, avvenne tra il dicembre del 1914 e il febbraio del 1915
con l’aiuto di consiglieri tedeschi, alleati della Turchia
durante la prima guerra mondiale.

L’eliminazione fisica degli armeni fu affidata in buona parte
ai giannizzeri curdi, secondo quanto ricordano altri storici. In
quanto cristiani, gli armeni vennero in molti casi crocifissi.

Cinquemila armeni rifiutarono di farsi massacrare
passivamente e salirono sulla Montagna di Mose, il Mussa Dagh,
(vicino ad Antiochia), resistendo per 40 incredibili giorni alle
truppe turche.

La Francia, terra d’esilio dei senza patria e rifugio per
migliaia di armeni (tra loro il piu’ noto al grande pubblico e
senz’altro il cantante Charles Aznavour) e’ stato il primo stato
europeo ad aver pubblicamente riconosciuto “il genocidio degli
armeni” compiuto dai turchi, nel 1998.

Il genocidio di quelli che furono definiti dall’impero
ottomano “il pericolo interno”, era gia’ stato riconosciuto
dalla Commissione Onu per i diritti dell’Uomo a Ginevra nel 1985
e dal Parlamento europeo nel 1987. (ANSA).

Le Monde, France
mardi 14 décembre 2004
L’Europe est prête à ouvrir ses portes à la Turquie
Plus aucun obstacle ne s’oppose à l’ouverture des négociations
d’adhésion avec Ankara que devront décider, lors d’un sommet à
Bruxelles, jeudi et vendredi, les dirigeants des 25 pays membres de
l’Union. La France, qui a prévu un référendum, réclame toutefois que
l’issue ne soit pas garantie.
Bruxelles de notre bureau européen
Sauf coup de thétre, les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement européens,
réunis jeudi et vendredi 17 décembre à Bruxelles, décideront d’ouvrir
des négociations d’adhésion avec la Turquie.
A deux jours de leur conseil, le dossier est largement décanté. La
bataille ne devrait porter que sur des détails, certes importants ou
affectifs, mais mineurs au regard de l’enjeu.
“Les Turcs nous ennuient en prétendant qu’ils n’auront pas ce qu’ils
demandent. Ils auront l’ouverture des négociations et une date”,
rappelle un ambassadeur. En dépit des réticences de certaines
populations européennes, en particulier des Français, tous les
dirigeants veulent aller de l’avant. Le plus réticent, le chancelier
autrichien Wolfgang Schüssel, défenseur du “partenariat privilégié”
plutôt que d’une adhésion pleine et entière, ne brandit aucune menace
de veto.
Suivant les recommandations de la Commission, qui a considéré fin
octobre que la Turquie respectait “suffisamment” les critères
démocratiques dits de Copenhague, les “25” vont fixer jeudi soir au
cours d’un dîner la date d’ouverture des négociations. L’idée d’avoir
un nouveau rendez-vous courant 2005, pour vérifier une dernière fois
que la Turquie reste sur la voie des réformes, a été abandonnée. Elle
aurait contribué à éterniser le débat sur une adhésion peu populaire
et créé une crise avec Ankara.
Les Européens avaient précisé en 2002 à Copenhague que les
négociations s’ouvriraient “sans délai” après le sommet du 17
décembre. Mais Jacques Chirac veut gagner du temps, pour que ce début
de négociations intervienne le plus tard possible après le référendum
français sur la Constitution, histoire d’éviter que les deux débats
ne se télescopent. Le contretemps devrait être bref. Après avoir
réclamé une ouverture fin 2005-début 2006, Michel Barnier ne parlait
plus, lundi à Bruxelles, où avait lieu une réunion préparatoire des
ministres des affaires étrangères, que d’une ouverture “au plus tôt
au deuxième semestre 2005”. Les pourparlers s’ouvriraient donc sous
la présidence du Royaume-Uni, grand partisan de l’adhésion turque, ce
qui est aussi le v`u du chancelier allemand Gerhard Schröder.
Le deuxième sujet litigieux porte sur le caractère des négociations,
dont il est précisé que leur issue est “ouverte”. Il s’agit là de
sauver la face des Turcs, qui ne veulent rien envisager d’autre que
l’adhésion, mais aussi des Français et des Autrichiens, favorables à
l’évocation d’une troisième voie en cas d’échec des négociations. Les
diplomates sont à la recherche d’une formule de compromis,
volontairement vague, stipulant que la Turquie restera quoi qu’il
arrive ancrée à l’Europe. Mais il n’est pas question d’expliciter un
quelconque statut spécial, partenariat privilégié ou scénario
alternatif. Ce serait humilier le gouvernement turc, qui a averti
qu’il le refuserait ; et c’est inacceptable pour le chancelier
Schröder, parce que cela ferait le jeu de son opposition
chrétienne-démocrate.
Malgré une mobilisation intense de la diaspora arménienne, la
dernière réticence française, le génocide arménien, ne devrait pas
non plus être une pierre d’achoppement. Certes, Michel Barnier a
demandé sa reconnaissance par Ankara : “Je pense qu’un grand pays
comme la Turquie doit faire son devoir de mémoire”, a déclaré à
Bruxelles le ministre français qui, en invoquant la réconciliation
franco-allemande, a estimé que la Turquie, qui nie le génocide
arménien, devait également faire la paix avec ses voisins. Mais
Michel Barnier n’en a nullement fait une condition préalable à
l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion.
Reste Chypre, dont le Nord est occupé par les Turcs et dont le
gouvernement chypriote grec n’est pas reconnu par Ankara. Mais nul ne
croit à un veto des Chypriotes grecs. A Bruxelles, leur ministre des
affaires étrangères, George Iacovou, a déclaré souhaiter que la
Turquie manifeste sa volonté de normaliser ses relations avec Nicosie
avant le sommet européen de mars 2005, ce qui équivaut, selon les
exégètes, à renoncer à en faire un préalable à l’ouverture des
négociations le 17 décembre.
Les Chypriotes grecs sont isolés en Europe, depuis que, contrairement
aux Chypriotes turcs, ils ont rejeté par référendum au printemps le
plan de réunification de l’île sous l’égide des Nations unies et
qu’ils bloquent un projet visant à aider économiquement le nord de
l’île. Le soutien de la Grèce va faiblissant, ce pays ayant obtenu
dans le projet de conclusions finales les garanties nécessaires pour
le règlement de ses conflits frontaliers avec la Turquie et ayant
fait de son rapprochement avec Ankara un axe stratégique de sa
politique.
D’autres réticences ont, elles aussi, été levées. Les Danois, qui
craignent une arrivée massive d’immigrés turcs en vertu de la libre
circulation des personnes, ont obtenu que l’on évoque de possibles
clauses de sauvegarde permanentes. Les Britanniques, qui tentaient de
s’opposer à ces clauses, disant qu’elles empêchaient une pleine
adhésion turque, ont eu droit aux sourires narquois de leurs
collègues continentaux, qui leur ont rappelé le nombre de clauses
d’exemption dont bénéficie l’Albion. Dans ce contexte, les diplomates
tablent sur un accord au Conseil européen de Bruxelles.
Arnaud Leparmentier