Author: Emil Lazarian

SPY SPAT HAS A COUNTERPUNCH
By M K Bhadrakumar
Asia Times Online, Hong Kong
Oct 5 2006
When spy author John le Carre’s Our Game appeared more than 11 years
ago, the Cold War was over, the Berlin Wall had come down and British
intelligence had apparently put its operatives out to pasture.
Thus le Carre had to plow an altogether new furrow in the exotic
setting of Ingushetia and Ossetia in the Caucasus by weaving a plot
around a people suppressed by the White tsars and their Red
successors. By doing this, le Carre made an important point, that
spies never truly retire. Indeed, the conspiracies of stupendous
scope unfolding in the ramparts of the Caucasus mountains could be
straight out of a le Carre plot – taut and suspenseful.
Last week in Georgia, the security services detained four Russian
senior military officers for “illegal intelligence gathering”
concerning Georgia’s cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). Simultaneously, the Georgian police cordoned off
the headquarters of Russian troops in Tbilisi, ostensibly to nab yet
another fugitive Russian spy who had taken shelter there.
Georgian authorities threatened to remand the detainees in custody
for two months and then put them and 10 Georgian accomplices on public
trial. Moscow was not amused.
Amid acrimonious verbal exchanges between Moscow and Tbilisi,
Russia began retaliating in calibrated moves. Protesters besieged the
Georgian Embassy in Moscow. Moscow recalled its envoy in Tbilisi and
evacuated its diplomatic personnel and their families based in Georgia;
announced it was closing travel routes to Georgia; and suspended postal
services. Moscow further hinted it might suspend banking operations
and money transfers between the two countries.
If the Russian moves, firmly dismissive of the Georgian allegations of
spying charges, were meant to remind Tbilisi about the facts of life,
they indeed worked, considering that the remittances by the 300,000
Georgian workers in Russia alone make up about 4% of Georgia’s gross
domestic product and Russia is Georgia’s number one trading partner.
At any rate, on Monday evening, Tbilisi handed over the four Russian
officers at the heart of the spy scandal. At which point, however,
the plot began to thicken.
Over the weekend, Washington effectively stonewalled a Russian
diplomatic offensive directed against Tbilisi in the nature of a
resolution by the UN Security Council in New York calling for the
urgent release of the Russian officers.
This provoked the Kremlin to bring out into the open the
hidden “American hand” in the plot. President Vladimir Putin,
while addressing the Russian Security Council on Saturday over
developments in Russian-Georgian relations, reportedly said, “These
people [Georgian authorities] think that under the protection of their
foreign mentors, they can afford to feel comfortable and secure. Is it
really so? Evidently, there are forces that specialize in provoking new
crises, estimating that it may distract attention from old problems.”
Putin then gave some advice to both Washington and Tbilisi: “Probably
in a short-term perspective, it [provoking Russia] may have such an
effect [of distracting attention], but such attempts will not for
sure help in solving the old and rather serious crises in the world.”
The Kremlin was making clear its sense of indignation in being
subjected to humiliation by Washington’s close ally, Georgian President
Mikhail Saakashvili. It rankled in the Russian mind that Saakashvili
would make faces at the Kremlin solely on the basis of his confidence
of American protection from any Russian retaliation.
Russi’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov,
describing Tbilisi’s spy charges as “absurd”, accused some unnamed NATO
countries of illegally selling weapons to Georgia. “Some members of
NATO – shall we say, the ‘younger generation’ – are supplying Georgia
with arms and ammunition of Soviet vintage,” Ivanov was quoted as
telling a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council of defense ministers in
Slovenia last Friday.
Ivanov was indirectly alleging that some of the pro-American
Baltic States and eastern European countries acting at the behest
of Washington were encouraging Georgia to adopt a confrontationist
attitude toward Russia.
Washington seemed to have read the Kremlin’s barely disguised warnings
of the implications of a likely hardening of Russian attitudes apropos
such festering American wounds as the Iraq war and the Iran nuclear
issue, where the US dependence on Russian cooperation is becoming
critical. (Nicholas Burns, the US under secretary of state for
political affairs, claimed as recently as Monday that Washington
had won a united front with Moscow and Beijing in pushing for UN
sanctions against Iran if the latter did not agree to suspend its
uranium-enrichment activity within this week.)
Over the weekend, therefore, Washington swung into action, dispatching
the chief of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), Karel De Gucht, to Tbilisi on a mediatory mission to resolve
the diplomatic row. He later said that after negotiations with all
parties, including with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
that Georgian leadership had agreed to hand over the Russian “spies”
to the OSCE and that they had been returned to Russia on Monday night.
For Washington, it was a “win-win” situation. Washington shrewdly
calculated that maximum propaganda mileage could be squeezed out of
the episode designed to show Russia as a bully in its behavior toward
a tiny neighbor. And from now on, the law of diminishing returns would
be at work, whereas, with a bit of timely, demonstrative goodwill as
a well-meaning mediator, it might be possible to earn some reciprocal
Russian gesture elsewhere.
But Moscow has shown no hurry to acknowledge the apparent US “goodwill”
in resolving the standoff with Tbilisi. Asked about the usefulness of
“mediators”, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sarcastically remarked
on Monday that third countries were already “energetically involved”
in Russia-Georgia relations. He elaborated: “We have many times drawn
the attention of those third parties, you may call them ‘sponsors’ –
those who supply weapons to Georgia and blocked a resolution at the
UN Security Council – to the problem.”
If anything, Lavrov continued the diplomatic offensive. He said,
“The actions of the Georgian leadership have unquestionably become
consistently anti-Russian” and that the current developments were
“not the culmination but a reflection” of the hostile policies pursued
by Tbilisi toward Russia.
Lavrov said that Moscow had warned Western countries about the danger
of conniving with the policies pursued by Saakashvili, but instead
Georgia received promises of closer cooperation from NATO.
(Washington recently announced additional financial support of
US$10 million for bringing the Georgian armed forces closer to NATO
standards.)
“It is clear by now that Saakashvili’s main goal is accession to
NATO. He is hoping to resolve all other problems through this route,”
Lavrov observed.
Meanwhile, a Kremlin press release said that in a telephone
conversation on Monday, Putin warned US President George W Bush about
Georgia’s “destructive policy”. Putin reportedly highlighted that
“any actions of third countries that Georgia’s leadership could
interpret as encouraging its destructive policy were unacceptable
and dangerous for peace and stability in the region”.
Russian commentators uniformly believed that Saakashvili acted with
Washington’s prior knowledge and approval. They saw a pattern in the
sequence of events during the past three months following Saakashvili’s
visit to Washington.
During this period, Georgia deployed its troops in the Kodori Gorge
in Abkhazia, apparently taking one step further toward seeking a
“military solution” to the political separatism in the breakaway
province; Saakashvili ordered a crackdown on opposition political
figures who were mounting an increasingly effective campaign against
the power structure in Tbilisi, allegedly for their “pro-Russia”
stance; Tbilisi commenced a process of “intensive dialogue” between
Georgia and NATO (which is a stipulated prerequisite as per the
NATO charter for new members’ accession); and last but not least,
Saakashvili precipitated with great deliberation a totally unnecessary
crisis by detaining the Russian military officers.
Thus, Russian commentators saw last week’s developments as falling
within the overall context of Russian-American rivalry for influence
on the territories of the former Soviet republics. They visualized
that the US geopolitical objective was to force Russia out of the
Caucasus as part of Washington’s agenda of effecting the Atlantic
integration of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, and, specifically,
of replacing all traces of Russian military presence in any corner
of the region through which the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil
pipeline and a future trans-Caspian pipeline run.
Now that the “color revolutions” have receded, Russian-American
rivalry in Eurasia is taking a new form in the nature of intensified
attempts by the international community to settle the so-called
“frozen conflicts” in Moldova and South Caucasus.
Russia is viewing with growing concern Anglo-American attempts in
recent months to orchestrate discussions over these conflicts within
European institutions.
Britain, Poland and Lithuania are leading a campaign at the European
Commission and the European Parliament for the EU to adopt a Caucasus
Project. Alongside, the pro-American GUAM (a regional grouping of
Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) is also being encouraged
by Washington to adopt a coordinated position on issues such as the
“frozen conflicts”, Russian-Georgian relations, and the continued
presence of Russian peacekeeping forces in the breakaway republics
of Trans-Dneister, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Washington hopes to incrementally evolve a common strategy and
solidarity between the US and the EU concerning relations with Russia
within the overall framework of Euro-Atlanticism. But there are wheels
within wheels. In essence, Britain, in league with the pro-American
bloc of countries of “New Europe”, is striving within the European
institutions to hedge French and German policies toward Russia.
The UK and the US share a sense of deep disquiet over Russian, German
and French integration in the energy sphere. The Anglo-American concern
is that with the passage of time, if the present trends strengthen,
increased cooperation in the energy sphere will inevitably bring
Russia, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Hungary, etc to act in concert
on major areas impacting European security and stability, such as the
status of Ukraine, NATO’s future expansion, or Russia’s legitimate
politico-security interests in the Trans-Caucasus.
At the same time, Britain and the US appreciate that the eastern
European countries of the erstwhile Warsaw Pact and the Baltic
republics harbor strong anti-Russia bias while they remain engaged in
the process of consolidating their European outlook. The Anglo-American
attempt has been to harness this “critical mass” of animus against
Russia already available within the European institutions.
Part of the Anglo-American strategy is to calibrate the irritants
in relations between the GUAM member-countries and Russia. The
virulently anti-Russia bloc of countries in eastern Europe (Poland
and the Baltic states) within the EU has been playing the role of
inciting the GUAM countries against Russia. The tactic enables the
US and Britain to stay in the background and avoid complicating their
bilateral relations with Moscow.
The “frozen conflicts” present themselves as a convenient topic to
ratchet up tensions between Russia and its GUAM neighbors. But it
is not as if the US or Britain can offer any viable solutions for
settling the conflicts in Moldova and the South Caucasus. In fact, as
the Nagorno-Karabakh problem illustrates, there are no easy solutions
to these regional conflicts in the foreseeable future.
The geopolitical complexities of the region are such that the US
and Britain need to work hard to consolidate the GUAM positions. For
instance, within GUAM, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan do not consider
it expedient to share Georgia’s passion for ganging up against Russia
(even though they may share an interest in sequestering their energy
communication links from Russian domination).
To be sure, the US objective is nonetheless to nudge the GUAM countries
toward a common platform on as many fronts as possible so as to create
a new political reality in Eurasia that Russia has to learn to live
with, and to encourage the GUAM countries to play an increased role
in the security sphere.
The political developments in Ukraine in the recent months leading to
the unraveling of the so-called “Orange” alliance no doubt constituted
a temporary setback to the US’s GUAM strategy, but Washington would
harbor the hope that in the medium and long term Kiev would revert
to its GUAM moorings and assume a leadership role in the community
of democratic nations in Eurasia.
All the same, Washington has no illusions that GUAM alone can ever
muster the capacity to solve security issues in the region. In
the US perception, the need exists for the active involvement of
the international community. For this reason, the question of GUAM
countries’ accession to NATO has become a priority.
In fact, the entire US strategy in the region revolves on NATO’s
expansion in the Caspian and Black Sea regions and in South Caucasus.
That is the reason why Washington even advocates that the eligibility
bar for NATO accession should be lowered for Ukraine and Georgia at
the cost of degrading the alliance’s defense, political and economic
standards.
France and Germany, however, do not share the Anglo-American interest
in NATO expansion, in priority terms. Neither France nor Germany has
taken an unequivocal position on the subject, either.
Washington hopes, arguably, that episodes such as the current
Russian-Georgian spy scandal show up Russia in poor light as a country
impeding conflict resolution and occupying the territories of other
countries (Georgia and Moldova) on the pretext of peacekeeping
operations, while in reality carrying out subversive activities
against the regimes in power, apart from blatantly using energy as
an instrument of foreign policy.
In Washington’s estimation, such an argumentation would convince the
doubting Thomases within the trans-Atlantic community, especially
in Paris and Berlin, regarding the “reality” of the threats posed
by a resurgent Russia and the imperative of NATO expansion in the
prevailing situation.
In immediate terms, the Anglo-American strategy is to force Russia
to withdraw its peacekeeping forces in Georgia and Moldova, as then
only will these countries become eligible for NATO accession. One
way of pressuring Russia will be to transfer the agenda of conflict
resolution in the Caspian and Black Sea regions and in the Caucasus
to the arena of the United Nations.
We may see signs of this happening in the coming months. Russia seems
ready to pre-empt the US design to create an utterly unfavorable
situation for it by orchestrating a GUAM move (preferably in tandem
with a common EU position) in the UN in the near future that may
hold the potential to snowball into focused international scrutiny
of Russia’s policy toward its smaller neighbors.
Thus, on Tuesday, despite the previous day’s release of the Russian
military officers by Tbilisi (significantly, under OSCE auspices,
which in itself amounts to “internationalization” of Russian-Georgian
relations), Moscow decided to submit a draft resolution in the UN
Security Council calling for the withdrawal of Georgian troops from
the Kodori Range. The resolution demands that Tbilisi honors all its
international obligations, including the mandate for the Commonwealth
of Independent Countries’ peacekeeping operations in Georgia, and
avoids any precipitate steps aggravating the problem of the breakaway
republic of Abkhazia.
The resolution specifically seeks an extension of the UN mandate for
the Russian peacekeeping forces in Abkhazia until April 2007. The
Russian resolution is due to come back for an open vote at a Security
Council meeting next week.
Moscow is also attempting to checkmate the Anglo-American gameplan on
NATO expansion by harping on the trend-setting nature of the referendum
in Kosovo (and Montenegro) recently held with EU endorsement and US
support on the province’s separation from Serbia.
Moscow has argued that what the West considers acceptable in Kosovo
(or Montenegro), namely, the right of self-determination, should
be equally acceptable to Trans-Dneister, Abkhazia or South Ossetia
(the breakaway regions of Moldova and Georgia).
Moscow is confidently asserting an important point of principle,
comfortable in the knowledge that the overwhelming popular opinion
in these breakaway regions of Moldova and Georgia is for close ties
with Russia. Of course, if a string of newly independent states with
pro-Russia outlook were to appear in Eurasia, that would throw NATO’s
expansion plans into disarray.
Speaking at a news briefing in Slovenia on Friday against the backdrop
of a joint meeting with NATO defense ministers, Ivanov gently reminded
Washington that taking all factors into account, Russia was not short
on options if driven into a corner.
Ivanov said: “We should not forget that 90% of the population
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Russian citizens. They were
never citizens of Georgia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the local population in the region, which was then holding Soviet
passports individually, sought formal Russian citizenship. And we
issued passports and granted citizenship rights not only to the
citizens of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic but also
to the residents in all other former Soviet republics.
“Millions of people opted for Russian citizenship. That was their
right and prerogative”.
All in all, therefore, the “frozen conflicts” when applied to
the post-Soviet scenario, while appearing to lend themselves as
a convenient lever for Washington to purge Russian influence from
Eurasia, could in reality turn out to be a historical trap. For the
fact remains that to resolve the conflicts they need to be “defrosted”
first. And no one can foretell with certitude the consequences of
such a step.
The point is, present-day ethnic conflicts in the region
began historically with a process of development of national
consciousness a long time ago in the run-up to the collapse of
the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires. The ideology of
national self-determination is still alive in those regions and may
have, arguably, become even stronger in the post-Cold War era.
Indeed, the list is long: Armenian enclaves in Georgia, Crimea,
Trans-Dneister, Gaguzia, Transylvania, Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Kurdistan, etc.
Speaking on the subject in May, Putin called on Washington to
understand that given the complexities of sub-nationalism and ethnicity
in the region, geopolitical rivalries should not assume the nature of a
“sports competition”.
“I believe,” Putin said, “we all can, and should, cooperate to
draft common rules and uniform approaches … otherwise, there will
be chaos.” Emphasizing that “Russia has never raised the issue of
annexing any territories outside its present borders”, Putin, however,
cautioned, “when we hear that one approach is possible in one place
but is unacceptable in another, it becomes difficult to understand,
and is even more difficult to explain to people”.
Putin pointed out that similar processes were underway in Europe,
too, and Russia was seriously concerned about it. He was underlining
that Russia would share common interests and concerns with Europe
apropos conflict resolution in Eurasia – unlike the US, which was
busy consolidating its trans-Atlantic leadership role in the post-Cold
War era.
M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service for more than 29 years, with postings including ambassador
to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

US CONGRESSMEN CALLED ON GEORGE BUSH TO EXPAND ENGAGEMENT WITH KARABAKH
Today, Azerbaijan
Oct 5 2006
Congressional letter, signed by 77 members has been sent to the
White House to call on George Bush to expand relations with Karabakh,
PanArmenian came to know from the NKR Representative Office in the U.S.
The letter claims the continuation of Azerbaijan’s “destructive”
policy, which threatens peace and stability in the region and “goes
against U.S. interests”.
The letter said in part: “The United States can and must expand its
engagement with the lawfully and democratically established Nagorno
Karabakh Republic. These ties should not be dictated by outside forces
but rather should be guided by the shared values of our two nations.”
Taking a stance on the letter, Public Affairs Officer of the US embassy
in Azerbaijan, Jonathan Henick stressed that the Congress is another
part of the democratic system in the USA, APA reports.
“Congressmen often send such letters to the President. US president
determines foreign policy of the US. Official Washington doesn’t
share the same opinion with the letter authors.”
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IRAQ’S CHRISTIANS AT RISK OF ANNIHILATION
By Charles Tannock
The Japan Times, Japan
Oct 5 2006
Ancient Communities Persecuted
LONDON — The world is consumed by fears that Iraq is degenerating
into a civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. But in this
looming war of all against all, it is Iraq’s small community of
Assyrian Christians that is at risk of annihilation.
Iraq’s Christian communities are among the world’s most ancient,
practicing their faith in Mesopotamia almost since the time of
Jesus Christ. The Assyrian Apostolic Church, for instance, traces its
foundation back to 34 A.D. and St. Peter. Likewise, the Assyrian Church
of the East dates to 33 A.D. and St. Thomas. The Aramaic that many
of Iraq’s Christians still speak is the language of those apostles —
and of Christ.
When tolerated by their Muslim rulers, Assyrian Christians contributed
much to the societies in which they lived. Their scholars helped usher
in the “Golden Age” of the Arab world by translating important works
into Arabic from Greek and Syriac. But in recent times, toleration
has scarcely existed.
In the Armenian Genocide of 1914-1918, 750,000 Assyrians — roughly
two-thirds of their number at the time — were massacred by the
Ottoman Turks with the help of the Kurds.
Under the Iraqi Hashemite monarchy, the Assyrians faced persecution
for co-operating with the British during World War I. Many fled to the
West, among them the Church’s patriarch. During former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein’s wars with the Kurds, hundreds of Assyrian villages
were destroyed, their inhabitants rendered homeless, and dozens of
ancient churches were bombed. The teaching of the Syriac language was
prohibited and Assyrians were forced to give their children Arabic
names in an effort to undermine their Christian identity. Those who
wished to hold government jobs had to declare Arab ethnicity.
In 1987, the Iraqi census listed 1.4 million Christians. Today,
only about 600,000 to 800,000 remain in the country, most on the
Nineveh plain.
As many as 60,000, and perhaps even more, have fled since the beginning
of the insurgency that followed the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Their
exodus accelerated in August 2004, after the start of the terrorist
bombing campaign against Christian churches by Islamists who accuse
them of collaboration with the allies by virtue of their faith.
A recent U.N. report states that religious minorities in Iraq “have
become the regular victims of discrimination, harassment, and,
at times, persecution, with incidents ranging from intimidation to
murder,” and that “members of the Christian minority appear to be
particularly targeted.”
Indeed, there are widespread reports of Christians fleeing the country
as a result of threats being made to their women for not adhering
to strict Islamic dress codes. Christian women are said to have had
acid thrown in their faces. Some have been killed for wearing jeans
or not wearing the veil.
This type of violence is particularly acute in the area around Mosul.
High-ranking clergy there claim that priests in Iraq can no longer
wear their clerical robes in public for fear of being attacked by
Islamists. Last January, coordinated car-bomb attacks were carried
out on six churches in Baghdad and Kirkuk; on another occasion, six
churches were simultaneously bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. Over the
past two years, 27 Assyrian churches have reportedly been attacked
for the sole reason that they were Christian places of worship.
These attacks go beyond targeting physical manifestations of the
faith. Christian-owned small businesses, particularly those selling
alcohol, have been attacked, and many shopkeepers murdered. The
director of the Iraqi Museum, Donny George, a respected Assyrian,
says that he was forced to flee Iraq to Syria in fear of his life,
and that Islamic fundamentalists obstructed all of his work that was
not focused on Islamic artifacts.
Assyrian leaders also complain of deliberate discrimination in the
January 2005 elections. In some cases, they claim, ballot boxes did
not arrive in Assyrian towns and villages, voting officials failed to
show up, or ballot boxes were stolen. They also cite the intimidating
presence of Kurdish militia and secret police near polling stations.
Recently, however, there are signs the Iraqi Kurdish authorities are
being more protective of their Christian communities.
Sadly, the plight of Iraq’s Christians is not an isolated one in the
Middle East. In Iran, the population as a whole has nearly doubled
since the 1979 revolution; but, under a hostile regime, the number of
Christians in the country has fallen from roughly 300,000 to 100,000.
In 1948, Christians accounted for roughly 20 percent of the
population of what was then Palestine; since then, their numbers
have roughly halved. In Egypt, emigration among Coptic Christians is
disproportionately high; many convert to Islam under pressure, and
over the past few years violence perpetrated against the Christian
community has taken many lives.
The persecution of these ancient and unique Christian communities,
in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole, is deeply disturbing. Last
April, the European Parliament voted virtually unanimously for the
Assyrians to be allowed to establish (on the basis of section 5 of
the Iraqi Constitution) a federal region where they can be free from
outside interference to practice their own way of life. It is high
time now that the West paid more attention, and took forceful action
to secure the future of Iraq’s embattled Christians.
Charles Tannock is vice president of the Human Rights Subcommittee
of the European Parliament and British Conservative foreign affairs
spokesman. Copyright Project Syndicate 2006 ()
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EXPERT QUESTIONS BLOCHER ANTI-RACISM REMARKS
Swissinfo, Switzerland
Oct 5 2006
Justice Minister Christoph Blocher should have defended and not
criticised the Swiss anti-racism law during a trip to Turkey, according
to a leading law expert.
Marcel Niggli, professor of law of Fribourg University, told swissinfo
that it was strange that Blocher should have made the comments made
during an official visit abroad.
Blocher unleashed a storm of political and media protest at home after
he remarked on Wednesday that part of the law gave him a “headache”. He
referred to a “stress relationship” between anti-racism legislation
and the freedom of speech.
On Thursday Interior Minister Pascal Couchepin said that Blocher’s
remarks were “unacceptable”.
For his part, President Moritz Leuenberger said he was surprised,
adding that the cabinet would meet to discuss the issues arising from
Blocher’s comments shortly.
Current Swiss law, dating from 1994, has led to investigations
against two Turks in Switzerland for allegedly denying the 1915
Armenian massacre.
“No one would have imagined that this law would have resulted in
proceedings against a prominent Turkish historian,” he said, following
talks with his Turkish counterpart, Cemil Cicek.
Blocher said his ministry would examine ways to prevent a recurrence
of such a situation, adding that it was up to the government and
parliament to decide on any changes.
swissinfo: Christoph Blocher said that the anti-racism law was in some
respects in conflict with freedom of speech in Switzerland? What is
your view on that?
Marcel Niggli: That’s not correct because the European Court of
Human Rights has decided in many cases already that… racism is not
protected by the freedom of speech.
Professor Marcel Niggli (RDB)
swissinfo: How strange is it for a justice minister to say that
article 216 bis of the Swiss penal code gives him a headache?
M.N.: To me that sounds very strange especially if someone does so
abroad. Basically, if you have a headache about the law you discuss
the law and try to make a proposal nationally to [change it], but as
the law has not been changed it stays as it is.
swissinfo: It strikes me that as justice minister, Blocher should be
defending the law, shouldn’t he?
M.N.: That’s correct because that law has been discussed, voted on
by the [Swiss] people and accepted. The party to which the minister
belongs [Swiss People’s Party] has at different times tried to abolish
the law and always failed in the end, so basically it’s clear that
the prevailing will at the moment in this country is that this is
law and hence he should defend that, yes.
swissinfo: How much do you think that Christoph Blocher was bowing
to the will of Turkey when he said his remarks?
M.N.: I think he did that to a certain extent, as many other people
also do, because Turkey has insisted for many decades that there has
not been a genocide [of Armenians]. Basically the question whether
there has been a genocide or not is ridiculous because [according to]
all the legal criteria we have… it’s apparently evident that this
was a genocide.
swissinfo: What repercussions do you think this will have for Blocher,
if any?
M.N.: I don’t think there will be important consequences because the
federal councillor [Blocher] has behaved in that way many times.
There have always been protests and discussions but there have never
been any consequences.
swissinfo: So you don’t think if there are calls for him to step down
that he will do so?
M.N.: I don’t think so. What he did in Turkey is the same as he’s
done already [before]. He’s representing more the opinion of his
party than of the government as a whole.
swissinfo: Isn’t that a bad situation in Switzerland?
M.N.: If you have a government consisting of seven people it is a very
good idea that if they don’t find consensus, they shouldn’t show this
externally. If the justice minister goes abroad to discuss [Swiss]
national laws, it’s certainly not a very happy situation.
swissinfo-interview: Robert Brookes
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SABANCý: TURKISH ECONOMY MAY BECOME GROWTH ENGINE OF EUROPE
The New Anatolian
Oct 5 2006
Turkish Industrialists & Businessmen Association (TUSÝAD) Chairman
Omer Sabancý has stated that Turkey could not be a member of the
European Union without convincing the European public opinion, and
added “Truths about Turkey should be told. A fair evaluation should
be made. Turkey’s membership in EU is an additional value for all.
Turkish economy may become growth engine of Europe. ” TUSÝAD Chairman
delivered a speech in Paris, France at a panel titled ‘Global
Challenges of Europe and Turkey’ within the scope of Turkish Week.
Reminding that the TUSÝAD demanded the abolition of article 301 of
the Turkish Penal Code within the context of freedom of _expression,
Sabancý went on to say, “When we make steps toward more freedom
of _expression, I cannot comprehend the attitude on freedom of
_expression in France”, referring to recent attempts in France
to legislate a prohibition on any speech against alleged Armenian
Genocide issue. Sabancý added he thinks such an attitude befitted a
country fearing the truths.
Minister Tuzmen’s speech At the same panel State Minister for Foreign
Trade Kurþat Tuzmen also delivered a speech.
Regarding Turkish economy, Tuzmen said, “Turkey made more than half
of its foreign trade (which will exceed 200 billion USD in 2006 in
grand total) with Europe this year, and France is very important in
this regard.”
“Our economic performance is better than many EU countries especially
the new EU members. We are the fastest growing country of Europe in
the last three years. We catch the highest speed in export increase
not only in Europe but also in OECD. Turkey’s EU membership will be
for the interest of both our country and the EU,” Tuzmen noted.
He said that Turkey will have important contributions to increase EU
economy’s competitive power as well as dynamism.
–Boundary_(ID_+wDnQ/bsuUGMgYJkttKsaw)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MATTHEW BRYZA: THE US EQUALLY APPRECIATES ITS STRONG TIES WITH AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA
Public Radio of Armenia
Oct 5 2006
The US equally ppreciates its strong ties with Azerbaijan and Armenia,
US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza told ArmInfo,
commenting on the report of the Azerbaijani “AzerTag” state agency,
which ascribes him a biased pro-Azerbaijani position.
Referring to the Press Service of the Ministry of Defense of
Azerbaijan, “AzerTag” agency reported in particular that during
the meeting with Azeri Defense Minister Safar Abiev US Co-Chair
Matthew Bryza had mentioned, “Azerbaijan is an important country
for the United States, which highly appreciates the achievements of
Azerbaijan in political and economic spheres.” Besides, according to
the information of the Azeri agency, in response to the statement
by Minister Safar Abiev that “in case the peaceful talks yield no
results, Azerbaijan will regain the territorial integrity itself,”
Matthew Bryza had said Azerbaijan surpasses Armenia in all spheres,
calling on Azerbaijan to wait a little more.
Commenting on the report of the Azeri agency, the US Co-Chair Matthew
Bryza said in his interview that the information of “AzerTag” it
incorrect and does not express the whole essence of what he said
during the meeting with the Defense Minister of Azerbaijan. The US
appreciates the strong ties with Azerbaijan in a number of spheres,
and this refers also to Armenia, the mediator mentioned.

ROMANIAN PRESIDENT ATTACHES IMPORTANCE TO BILATERAL STATE ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESSMEN FOR SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC COOPERATION
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Oct 5 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN. Issues of the Armenian-Romanian
cooperation were discussed at the October 5 meeting of the Armenian
Prime Minister Andranik Margarian and the Romanian President Tryan
Basesku who is on an official visit to Armenia.
According to the RA Government Information and PR Department,
expressing a high opinion about the Armenian-Romanian relations,
including the current state of the economic cooperation, the Armenian
prime minister stated Armenia’s willingness to strengthen and develop
these relations, with special emphasis being laid on mutual visits
at various levels. He expressed a hope that the Romanian president’s
visit will become a new incentive for the promotion of cooperation
and extension of economic links.
Noting that the relations between the two countries have always been
friendly, Tryan Basesku and Andranik Margarian underlined that the
Romanian Armenian community greatly contributed to the development of
links between Armenia and Romania. A. Margarian expressed his gratitude
to the Romanian people for providing shelter to our compatriots who
survived the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and
creating favorable conditions for them to live and work.
Welcoming Romania’s efforts to join the EU, the prime minister
expressed a hope that 2007 will be a historical year for the Romanian
people, noting with confidence that the country’s membership of the UE
will have an additional positive influence on the bilateral relations.
According to A. Margarian, it is envisaged to sign the EU-Armenian
Action Plan in the near future. He noted that Armenia is ready to
consider the opportunities of cooperation with Romania within the
framework of implementation of this action plan. In terms of promoting
the Armenian-Romanian relations regarding Eurointegration, the head
of the Armenian government also attached importance to the signing
of the memorandum on cooperation between the MFA of Armenia and the
MFA of Romania in European integration and Euroatlantic structures.
Addressing the issue of cooperation between NATO and Armenia,
A. Margarian said that our country intends to make full use of the
opportunities provided by Armenia’s Individual Partnership Action Plan
(IPAP), which was approved by NATO in December 2005, and is ready to
consider Romania’s assistance and participation in the implementation
of the Armenia IPAP.
As regards the economic cooperation, President Tryan Basesku and Prime
Minister Andranik Margarian noted with satisfaction the existence of
a favorable legal field for efficient cooperation between Armenia and
Romania, with a number of bilateral agreements being signed. In terms
of promoting the economic relations between the two countries, they
pointed out the importance of activities of the Armenian-Romanian
intergovernmental commission on trade, economic, scientific and
technical cooperation, anticipating that the most important issues and
development priorities of the bilateral economic cooperation will be
clearly outlined as a result of the second meeting of the commission
held during the visit of the Romanian president to Yerevan. The
prime minister underlined that the high level of relations between
the Armenian and Romanian presidents obliges the two governments to
carry out an adequate cooperation.
President Bryan Basesku also considered the current legal and
contractual base as satisfactory for economic cooperation, noting the
existence of a political will along with it in order to foster economic
cooperation and stressing the necessity for bilateral assistance to
businessmen, which, according to him, is a key for success.
President Basesku assured that Romania as a friendly country will
support Armenia in any situation, providing all possible assistance
for Armenia to establish closer relations with the European Union. In
this connection, he mentioned Romania’s support to Armenia when our
country joined the European Neighborhood Policy. In his words, no
country should become a EU member while having an ethnic problem. He
reminded about the problems that arose between the Romanians and
Hungarians years ago, as a result of which Romania was isolated for
about two years. “Europe should not tolerate such diversities, because
it is a multinational organization,” the Romanain president stated.
During the meeting, the Armenian prime minister presented in detail
the steps taken by our country for Eurointegration since Armenia
became independent.
The Romanian president and the Armenian prime minister also addressed
some regional problems, the current state and prospects of Armenia’s
relations with Turkey, as well as the latest development related to
the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement. In this connection President
Basesku assured that Romania will continue taking a neutral position
on the issue of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

ELECTIONS PROCEED TENSELY IN TSALKA
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Oct 5 2006
AKHALKALAK, OCTOBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Local
self-government elections proceed tensely in the Tsalka region.
According to the A-Info agency, open falsification of electoral rolls
happened there. Names of people having left Georgia and not being
Georgian citizens appeared on electoral rolls.
Though empowered persons of the Industry will Save Georgia Party
attentively follow the process of elections and are inclined to
prevent falsifications, nevertheless the power levers continue to act.
To recap, mainly Armenian candidates have been nominated by
proportional system, by the electoral rolls of the Industry will Save
Georgia Party in Tsalka.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESIDENT OF ROMANIA CONSIDERS ISSUE OF TURKEY’S RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AS HISTORIC ARGUMENT
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Oct 5 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN. Romania is always ready to help a
neighbouring state in issues relating to borders and history.
President of Romania Traian Basescu stated about it at the October
5 meeting with the students and professors’ and lecturers’ staff of
the Yerevan State University organized within the two-day official
visit in Armenia.
Responding the question how he relates to Turkey’s membership to
the European Union, if we take into consideration that Turkey does
not recognize the Armenian Genocide and keeps close the border with
Armenia, T.Basescu mentioned that it is necessary to build the future,
and to keep the history in history books and people’s memory.
“And do not put the historic arguments as a condition of future,”
T.Basescu advised. In his words, “speaking about the future, the
only right way is integration to the EU, keeping that main standard
that it is necessary to have good friendly relations with the EU and
NATO.” “The NATO and the EU are not those structures which will allow
discussion of historic arguments inside them,” he emphasized.
Touching upon the possible precedent of adopting the law considering
punishable refusal of the Armenian Genocide in France, the President
of Romania emphasized: “We’ll not do a thing that will influence
on our neutrality in relations with all the countries of the Black
Sea region.”
To recap, at the meeting with the YSU professors’ and lecturers’ staff
and students, T.Basescu was confered the YSU honorary doctor’s title.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN PATRIARCH OF ISTANBUL CONSIDERS BOTH SIDES RESPONSIBLE FOR 1915 GENOCIDE
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Oct 5 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. French President
Jacques Chirac’s expression “Turkey must recognize the Armenian
Genocide for membership to the European Union,” may be a “political
precept.” Archnishop Mesrob Moutafian, the Armenian Patriarch of
Istanbul expressed this opinion to the Turkish “Hurriet” newspaper.
According to Marmara, the Patriarch said: “If even Chirac’s words are
interpreted as a precondition for Turkey, one must not forget that
Louis Michel, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium decisively
said that one must not put new political standards before Turkey for
membership to the European Union. Probably, the President of France
considered proper to address a political precept to Turkey. We, as
Armenians of Turkey, would prefer that the President of France made
such statements that an atmosphere of dialogue was created between
Armenia and Turkey. Untill an atmosphere of dialogue is not created
between the two countries, it is impossible to expect solution of
the existing difficult problems.”
The Istanbul Armenian Patriarch made statements on this theme to the
“Geo” periodical as well, which is published in German and Turkish.
He, particularly, stated that both sides are responsible for events
of the past. “If Armenians did not lead separative, and Turks –
Ittihat policy, at least 10 mln Armenians would live in Turkey today.
Turkey would win a lot with that population. It can’t be helped, both
Turks and Armenians lost this possibility,” Patriarch Moutafian said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress