Politbureau and the Council of Europe

Politbureau and the Council of Europe
by Haroutiun Khachatrian

NT Highlights #18 (520)
10 May, 2004

Council of Europe is not the Soviet-era Politbureau of the Central Committee
of the CPSU, where they make decisions and compel to fulfil them. This
declaration was made by the President Robert Kocharian on May 6. We think
this is a sort of manifest to Armenian authorities, which has formed the
basis of their actions for, at least, the last three years. More
importantly, they will be guided by this principle in the near future, in
particular, when preparing their answer to the PACE April 28 Resolution. To
say it more clearly, Armenia sees it possible to ignore at least some of the
positions of the PACE document.

Which ones? President’s statement contains implications for possible reply
to this question as well. “There are no serious problems in its informative
part, but there are inaccuracies in the descriptive part connected directly
to the events”. This phrase, which cannot be named as a very clear one,
apparently means, that the Armenian authorities will agree with the PACE
document “in theory”, but will challenge it “in practice”. In other words,
they will agree that democracy is a good thing, but will argue that Armenia
fails to meet the democracy standards. For example, Armenia officially lacks
the institute of administrative detentions, and in all cases arrest of the
people is done only by the decision of the court. Correct. But there still
remains to be sure that: i. No unregistered detentions occur, ii. The courts
are independent of the executive power, iii. …

Of course, the Council of Europe has no resource, nor the powers to check
this type of details. It is not a Politbureau, Kocharian is correct. Nor
will the opposition and/or human rights supporting organizations be able to
do this. And moreover, the CoE will not be able to compel their fulfillment.

ANKARA: Taboos Hinder Publishing

Zaman, Turkey
May 8 2004

Taboos Hinder Publishing

“Diversity in society does is not reflected in publishing. Expression
of only one opinion is emphasized in Turkey, like in almost all other
countries, because of the influence of neo-liberal globalization,”
said journalist Ragip Duran during a meeting of the Turkish
Publishers Union (TYB).

The TYB met on Friday at Bilgi University Dolapdere Campus for the
first time since 1998. TYB President Cetin Tuzuner delivered the
opening speech, where he mentioned that the first TYB meeting was
held in 1936. “But we still have problems today because of the fact
that problems and issues discussed in previous congresses were never
resolved,” he said.

Journalist Ragip Duran participated in a session on the freedom of
publishing in Turkey, where he brought attention to the monopoly in
the sector. He said that diversity of opinion is not represented in
published works. Duran also mentioned that several taboos that could
prevent a work from being published. These include the Armenian
issue, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), Islam and Ataturk.

Meanwhile, Prof. Turgut Tarhanli claimed that the boundaries of
freedom of speech are not well defined. He said that the press’
biases on the issues of ethnic discrimination and violence are
particularly noticeable.

05.08.2004
Elif Tunca
Bursa

Kashatagh: Rebuilding in old Lachin

Karabakh
AGBU.org
April 2004

Kashatagh: Rebuilding in old Lachin
Karabakh

Vahan Ishkhanyan

Kashatagh may be the only region of “two Armenias” where there are no
magnificent villas or foreign cars. As one resident said, there are no rich
or poor here and all are equal.

Outsiders still know it as Lachin, famous for the corridor that was the
hard-won link between Armenia and Karabakh, gained during fierce fighting in
1992. But to the locals, this area retaken from Azerbaijan and made the
sixth region of Karabakh has regained its ancient name.

“Kashatagh is the land of our ancestors,” says head of administration of
Kashatagh Alexan Hakobian. “Armenians living here began thinning out 100
years ago and as a result of the policy conducted by Stalin it became a part
of Azerbaijan.”

For many Armenians, Kashatagh is an escape. It lacks the dramatic gap
between social classes seen in Stepanakert or Yerevan. Here, they can move
to a new region and start a new life where they become landowners instead of
refugees. With the exception of officials, it is hard to find any who say
they settled here for patriotic reasons.

Together with his wife and two children Karo Meseljian moved from Yerevan to
Berdzor (the city formerly known as Lachin). the provincial seat of
Kashatagh, two years ago. He left his older son in Yerevan with his parents
while he attends chess school there.

“In Yerevan everything gets on my nerves: bureaucrats, cops, traffic
police,” says Karo. “At every turn people’s pride is mortified. Trying to
get any document, people are dishonored. Here you feel like a human being
and don’t feel the influence of authorities on you. People understand each
other very easily here, they are friendly.”

In Yerevan, Karo had a small shop which was somewhat profitable. Now he
rents out that shop and has started a business in Berdzor, bringing goods
from Yerevan and selling them to local shops. “When I had a shop in Yerevan
every day I had to deal with bureaucrats,” he says. “I had good profit
there, but it is better to have small profit here than to see their faces.”

His wife, Gayaneh, is a nurse. She didn’t work in Yerevan, but in Berdzor
she works in a kindergarten. “When you work your life becomes more
interesting,” she says. “The staff is very good. We made new friends.”

People move to Kashatagh for many reasons. Some have sold their houses in
Armenia to cover debts, and come here to start debt-free living. Some young
couples want to start families separate from their parents. Most see the new
region of Karabakh as offering opportunities they don’t see in their old
homes.

And one can meet various types of former officials in Kashatagh. In one
village the director of the school is the former head of the Education
Department of Yerevan. In another village one of former president Levon
Ter-Petrosian’s security service raises cattle. Former Karabakh Minister of
Defense Samvel Babayan’s assistant is head of the Social Department.

After a decade of resettlement, the region of 300 square kilometers now has
about 13,000 residents. Of 127 settlements, only 57 have electricity.
(Authorities say villages in the southern part of the province should have
electricity within a year, however the northern parts don’t expect
electrical service for at least five years.)

There are two hospitals in the region, in Berdzor and in Kovsakan (formerly
Zangelan), the second largest town, near the border of Iran. Each community
has a nurse. At the Berdzor hospital, director Artsakh Buniatian insists on
keeping his hospital a place where residents can receive free treatment.

“If a doctor takes money from a patient he will be punished for that,” says
Buniatian, age 69. “However, we can’t treat all diseases and when we send a
patient to Yerevan or Goris then he finds himself in a completely different
world and falls into the hands of hawks, where they demand money and
medicines of him. There, residents of Kashatagh are taken for third rate
people, who cannot cover their treatment expenses.”

Eight doctors work in the Berdzor hospital. They earn 45,000 drams (about
$80) a month. Buniatian says that it is almost impossible to find a doctor
who will agree to work in the region. Nobody wants to come here and work
only for salary, without taking money for services, he says. Buniatian spent
the war working in a field hospital in Karabakh. After the war he again
returned to his former work, as a surgeon at a hospital in Abovian (just
north of Yerevan).

“I hadn’t seen my family for three years. Three daughters were waiting for
me. After the slaughter of war it was hard for me to adapt to civilian
medicine.”

While he was trying to adapt he was invited to Berdzor hospital’s opening
ceremony. “I was invited to spend two days, but, at the opening ceremony a
Karabakh Minister handed over the order of appointing me to this position,”
Buniatian says. “I thought that during the war I had been in so many
difficult places and now it is God’s will and it means that people need me.”

The surgeon’s abilities are limited by a lack of facilities and about the
most complicated case he can treat is appendicitis. “I used to perform any
type of difficult operation, but, what can I do,” he says. “I sacrificed my
skills to the war, and now to Kashatagh in this way.”

While laying the foundation for a new society, culture has not been ignored
in the resettling of Kashatagh.

In 1996 a Museum of History was opened in Berdzor, which now holds some 300
exhibits, including bronze and stone items that date to the 4th millennium
B.C. Armenian household items from the 3rd millennium B.C. to the 19th
century show the rich heritage of the region. Most items in the museum were
collected by director Livera Hovhannisian, who before moving to Berdzor had
worked for 18 years in the Yerevan Museum of History.

“During one month, I had traveled in 47 villages and collected all these
exhibits to be in time for the museum’s opening,” she says. “Those days many
villages hadn’t been settled yet. Accompanied by two men, I was going to
every village by truck and we were searching and finding in every house
things we had been looking for. In one village we were fired upon. Residents
of that village hadn’t seen other people for a long period of time and when
they saw us they were very scared and thought we were Azeris.”

About 200 paintings are displayed in the gallery including works by
Parajanov and Carzou. Some paintings were sent from the Ministry of Culture
in Yerevan.

“The director of Yerevan Art Gallery said: ‘How can I give them to you? What
if this territory is retaken?’,” Hovhannisian recalls. “I said that if this
territory is retaken then let these paintings be lost with the territories.
And he agreed and gave 25 paintings.”

As Armenian life in previously enemy territory is formed, one feature, the
Church, lacks a significant presence in Kashatagh. In the entire province
the only functioning church is Holy Ascension, built in Berdzor in 1997.

In 2002, Diaspora benefactors restored a 4th century church in the village
of Tsitsernavank, however there are no clergy there. “We need at least three
clergymen in the north and three in the south,” says the only priest of the
region Ter Atanas. “People of the south need just one chapel but there is
nobody to give money and construct it.”

The highest settlement in Kashatagh is 1,700 meters above sea level; the
lowest, 330. In the mountainous north, life is harsh and most villagers
exist raising cattle. To the south, however, farms prosper from generous
growing seasons and fertile valleys of the Hakar River.

It was in such a valley that the first families resettled, mostly in
Tsaghkaberd (formerly Gyuliberd) where 70 families now live.

The Vardanian family, refugees from Kirovabad (Azerbaijan) were among the
first. “My husband knew that this area was populated and I took my children
and came here,” says Gohar Vardanian. “It was a good time for collecting
fruits. We collected many fruits and I told my husband, ‘Ashot, we will stay
here.’ We are here for 10 years now.”

Three Vardanian children finished school here and one now studies at
Stepanakert University. The family income is, literally, their “cash cow”.
Each year the Vardanians sell a calf to cover essential expenses. “My
children have already finished their service in the army,” Gohar says. “The
only thing left is to pay for my son’s education. I think this year we won’t
sell a calf.”

Like their neighbors, the Vardanians harvest mulberry, fig, quince and
pomegranate in addition to traditional crops. They make about 400 liters of
mulberry vodka each year. Residents had hoped that by now there would be
food processing plants in Kashatagh, but investments haven’t materialized.

And, though nature offers favorable conditions, many villagers rent out
their land because they cannot afford equipment to cultivate it. A typical
lease is about $25 per hectare, plus 200 kilograms of wheat.

“I have the land but how can I cultivate it if they don’t grant credits and
don’t give a seeding machine,” says school director Samvel Sedrakian, a
former Yerevan journalist. “I have eight hectares of land but I can’t sow
it. It’s true, villagers feed themselves, there are not hungry people, but
they cannot make any profits.”

Slava Tokhunts is an exception. He moved to Kashatagh from the Goris region
and brought a seeding machine with him. Every year he sows wheat on his 5.5
hectare property.

“I don’t ask anything from anybody and I can also help those who are
hungry,” he says. He makes cheese from milk of his six cows and then
barters the cheese for various items such as sugar and clothes. Selling
products out-right is difficult because trading involves going to one of the
towns in Armenia, and most villagers can’t manage such trips.

Over the past five years, the area of cultivated crop-lands has increased in
Kashatagh from 5,000 hectares to 12,000 hectares. The number of livestock
has increased to about 26,000 head (cattle, goats, sheep).

At the same time, the stream of migrants has tapered. Between 1997-98,
nearly 800 families moved to the province. Last year, 80 new families
settled there and about the same amount left.

“Sometimes I’m sad when people leave. But it’s normal that some of them will
come back,” says Berdzor official Alexan Hakobian. “It shows that the
process of repopulation is free and nobody is forced to live here.”

Renegade Armenians complain of UNHCR negligence

ArmenPress
May 5 2004

RENEGADE ARMENIANS COMPLAIN OF UNHCR NEGLIGENCE

BAKU, MAY 5, ARMENPRESS: Two former ethnic-Armenian residents of
Baku, Arthur Apresian, 48 and Roman Teryan, 38, who had fled
Azerbaijan’s capital in late 1980-s amid massive anti-Armenian
pogroms, and who first appeared in mid-April of this year in the
office of Azerbaijan’s ANS TV company to say they fled Armenia to
protect their honors are still kept at Azerbaijan’s national security
premises. A Baku-based daily 525 Gazet writes that there are no other
place to ensure their safety, while international organizations do
not respond to their pleas to send them to a third country.
According to the daily, representatives of these organizations
have had several meetings with “refugees,” but did not offer
transportation to a third country. The Armenians were said to express
their dissatisfaction with UNHCR representative in Baku threatening
to start a hunger strike.
The daily says the two Armenians intend to present “the truth
about Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh conflict” to the international
community.
According to Azeri sources, the two Armenians had earlier
attempted to leave Armenia for a European country through Turkey and
Georgia, But their attempts failed. While in Turkey in 2002, the two
Armenians asked the French embassy in Ankara for asylum, but were
rejected. They also unsuccessfully attempted to cross the
Turkish-Greece border.

Margarian meets FESB delegation

ArmenPress
April 28 2004

MARGARIAN MEETS FESB DELEGATION

YEREVAN, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: Armenian prime minister Andranik
Margarian received today a delegation of the Federation of European
Biochemistry Societies (FEBS), led by Professor Guy Dirheimer.
Welcoming members of the delegation, Margarian said he was pleased to
see prominent scientists representing different countries to have
come to Armenia to explore ways for assisting its biochemistry’s
development.. Margarian thanked FEBS for its assistance to several
Armenian research institutes and helping the Armenian Association of
Biochemists to become FEBS member.
Margarian was also quoted by government’s press office as saying
that he expects FEBS’s to identify most perspective achievements of
Armenian biochemists and outline ways for attracting European funds
to support new studies.
Founded in 1964, the Federation of Biochemical Societies is one of
the largest organizations in European life sciences, with nearly
40.000 members distributed among 36 Constituent Societies and 5
Associated Member Societies throughout Europe seeking to promote,
encourage and support biochemistry, molecular cell biology and
molecular biophysics throughout Europe in a variety of different ways
through funding advanced courses, providing various types of
fellowships, publishing primary research through their publications,
facilitating the exchange of information and awarding prizes and
medals in recognition of scientific distinction.

AAA: Armenian Caucus Membership Grows to 131

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
 
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 29, 2004
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
E-mail: [email protected]

ARMENIAN CAUCUS MEMBERSHIP GROWS TO 131
Major Pan-Armenian Conference Yields Four New Members

Washington, DC – A major pan-Armenian advocacy conference in Washington
earlier this month has resulted in the addition of four new House Members to
the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, bringing the total to 131
members.

Representatives Danny Davis (D-IL), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Darrell Issa
(R-CA) and Candice Miller (R-MI) officially joined the Caucus, following
meetings April 20 with representatives of the Armenian Assembly of America,
Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) and Eastern and Western Diocese of
the Armenian Church. The organizations each rallied their respective
constituencies for a joint conference, April 18-20, to communicate a message
of non-partisan unity to the Washington public policy community.

“We’re pleased that Representatives Davis, Diaz-Balart, Issa and Miller have
agreed to join the Armenian Caucus as a result of direct meetings with our
Conference participants,” Assembly Executive Director Ross Vartian said.
“They bring experience, enthusiasm and commitment to the Caucus and we’re
delighted they will be part of this very important body.”

“Also, we applaud the extraordinary work of our activists for helping to
increase the Caucus membership,” Vartian continued. “Their efforts are
exactly what this Conference is all about – advocating on behalf of
Armenia’s and Nagorno Karabakh’s issues from an American national interest.”

Assembly Board of Directors Vice Chair Lisa Esayian, together with Assembly
Fellow Trustee E. James Keledjian, both from the Chicago area, met with
Congressman Davis during the Washington Conference. During their nearly
hour-long meeting, the group discussed several key community concerns and
urged Davis to sign-on to the Caucus and thanked him for his support of the
Armenian Genocide resolution.

During an impromptu meeting on the Hill, Assembly Western Office Chairman
Richard Mushegain and Fellow Trustee Jim Melikian met with a staff member
for Congressman Issa. Mushegain and Melikian, joined by other activists,
spoke about the importance of Issa’s Caucus membership and expressed thanks
for his co-sponsorship of the U.S.-Armenia trade bill, H.R. 528.

Congresswoman Miller, who also supports the trade bill, was approached to
join the Caucus by Assembly Detroit Regional Council Co-Chair and Fellow
Trustee Edgar Hagopian of Michigan. Assembly Life Trustees and Florida
residents James and Marta Batmasian, for their part, encouraged
Diaz-Balart’s membership.

The Armenian Caucus has focused on strengthening the U.S.-Armenia and
U.S.-Karabakh relationships, searching for a peaceful solution to the
Karabakh conflict, ending the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades of Armenia
and NKR and reaffirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide. Most
recently, 191 Members of Congress signed a letter calling on President Bush
to properly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in his April 24 statement.

The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based nationwide
organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian
issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.

NR#2004-047

www.armenianassembly.org

CR: Rep Souder commemorates Armenian Genocide

[Congressional Record: April 28, 2004 (Extensions)]
[Page E696-E697]
>From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr28ap04-70]

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

______

HON. MARK E. SOUDER

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleagues who stood
to commemorate the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 and in memory of
those who died 89 years ago.
The Genocide of 1915-1923 was the culmination of decades of official
Ottoman policies to stamp out Armenia–religiously, culturally, and
ethnically. The “Armenian Question” posed a problem for many
successive

[[Page E697]]

leaders until a seemingly “brilliant” realization–“No Armenians, No
Armenian Question.” The horrible answer to a perplexing question led
to the slaughter of millions of Armenians and the continuing denial of
the massacres by today’s Turkish government.
The long lists of atrocities have been well documented by numerous
sources. The dwindling number of Armenians who survived the long death
marches still tell chilling stories of their families’ deaths. American
diplomats and missionaries documented brutal attacks on peaceful cities
and towns. German military personnel allied to the Turkish government,
who defied orders to look the other way, compiled a record of death and
destruction throughout the region. Even Turkish parliamentary and
government documents speak to the existence and scope of these
massacres.
The United States has a long history and long alliance with the
Armenian people. During the massacres of the late Nineteenth century,
tons of humanitarian supplies and hundreds of thousands of dollars
poured into Armenia from the United States in an effort to alleviate
the suffering of the Armenian people. American missionaries and
prominent Americans, including American Red Cross founder Clara Barton,
visited Armenia and aided the starving, homeless, and terrorized.
During the Genocide of 1915-1923, American missionaries documented the
slaughter of Armenian men, women, and children. In some cases,
missionaries risked their own lives to protect Armenians.
Despite a compelling record proving the massacre of millions of human
beings, there are still individuals, organizations, and governments
that deny what happened 89 years ago. Given the United States’
longstanding dedication to combating human rights abuses, it is
shocking that the United States government has not officially
recognized the savage butchery of one of the 20th Century’s worst human
rights violations.
In his book “The Burning Tigris,” Peter Balakian describes the
Genocide as follows:

The plan to liquidate the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire
was put into action in the spring and early summer of 1915.
It was well orchestrated, and in city and town, village and
hamlet, and in the Armenian sections of the major cities of
Asia Minor and Anatolia, Armenians were rounded up, arrested,
and either shot outright or put on deportation marches.
Most often the able-bodied men were arrested in groups and
taken out of the town or city and shot en masse.
In the southeast towns and cities as were both killing
stations and refugee spots, where Armenians who had survived
long death marches from the north lived in concentration
camps, in makeshift tents, or on the desert ground, hoping to
stay alive. Farther south, in the Syrian desert, more
Armenians died than perhaps anywhere else. There the
epicenter of death was the region of Deir el-Zor, where
Armenians died not only of massacre, starvation, and disease
but were stuffed into caves and asphyxiated by brush fires–
primitive gas chambers.
The Committee of Union and Progress’s [Turkish ruling
party] plan to exterminate the Armenians was made possible by
the highest level of government planning: harnessing the
bureaucracy for the organization and implementation of the
Armenian deportations; the formation and organization of
killing squads; the creation and manipulation of legislation,
and the use of technology and communications . . .

The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 ranks among the Holocaust, Pol
Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s starvation of kulaks in the Ukraine, and
Muslim violence against Christians in Sudan as one of the worst
instances of inhumanity and wanton cruelty. No one denies that these
violent events happened. Indeed, the denial of these episodes would be
met with immediate criticism and vociferous censure. Why is Turkey
given a pass when it comes to admitting past mistakes?
I recognize that Turkey is a NATO ally and an ally in the war on
terror. I recognize that the United States needs to maintain friendly
relations with Turkey to help stabilize the Middle East, but as a
friend of Turkey, the United States should be able to take its ally
aside and point out its mistakes. Without recognizing our mistakes and
our shortcomings, we do not learn. Without recognizing malice and
cruelty wherever it is found, we risk forgetting these events and the
lessons to be learned from them.
My deepest sympathies go to the whole of Armenia, and more
importantly, my pity to those who continue to deny or ignore the
massacre of 1.5 million Armenians during the Genocide of 1915-1923.

____________________

Russia supposed to help Azeri in oil export

The Russia Journal
Apr 30, 2004, 23:59 (Moscow time)

Russia supposed to help Azeri in oil export

WORLD/CIS » :: Apr 30, 2004 Posted: 11:02 Moscow time (07:02 GMT)

STRASBOURG – The president of Azerbaijan Ilkham Aliev expressed his hope
that Russia can do much for Karabakh settlement, while addressing a news
conference at the Palais de l’Europe in Strasbourg.

The President hopes for Russia to join the USA and France, other Minsk group
co-chairs, together to fix up Karabakh conflict.

Azeri petroleum exports were another principal theme of the news conference.
Their northern route, via Russia, needs much improvement. At present, an
annual 2.5 million tonnes of Azeri oil is going abroad by the
Baku-Novorossiisk mainline, and another six million by the Baku-Supsa. Both
terminals are Russia’s and Georgia’s Black Sea ports respectively.

Another mainline is being laid from Baku to Ceyhan, Turkish terminal in the
East Mediterranean. Azeri exports may amount to fifty million tonnes a year
after the line is commissioned toward next year’s end. “This does not mean
we shall give up the Baku-Novorossiisk line-a route which has to be
improved,” said Mr. Aliev.

An Azeri-Russian ad hoc team is negotiating prospective improvements, he
added. /Neftegaz.ru/

Beirut: Amal, Tashnak, Hizbullah on PM’s slate

The Daily Star, Lebanon
April 30 2004

Amal, Tashnak, Hizbullah on PM’s slate
Baath, SSNP endorse list

By Nayla Assaf
Daily Star staff

After two hours of delays and amid rumors that last-minute changes
might push the announcement back to another day, Prime Minister
Hariri’s list for the Beirut Municipal elections was announced
Thursday, which introduces 10 new faces to the 1998 list.

Beirut Mayor Abdel-Monem Aris, the president of the Beirut Unity List
read the names and the program at the Press Federation in the presence
of most of the members of Hariri’s parliamentary bloc.

Most of the six parties which had discussed an alliance with Hariri
were included, except for three: the Syrian Baath Party, the Syrian
Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) and the Phalanges Party. The Baath and
the SSNP were not supposed to submit candidates but merely to endorse
the list, which they did.

As for the Phalanges, as predicted by observers of the electoral scene,
it was not on the list and its candidate, council member Bernard
Gerbeka, was excluded this time around.

The exclusion came despite reported mediation by members of the six
parties with Hariri, whose row with Administrative Reform Minister
Karim Pakradouni, leader of the Phalanges, proved insurmountable.

Despite the fact that it has received the backing of many parties,
Hariri’s new list is missing members of right-wing Christian Parties
like the Lebanese Forces (LF) and the Phalanges, which had been
included in 1998 and had given the list a conciliatory aspect. Also,
despite calls to include more women, the list only included one woman,
council member Roula Ajouz.

Hizbullah’s representative, Amine Sherri, remained on the list and so
did Amal Movement candidate Fadi Shahrour, the only candidate on
Hariri’s list of 24 members who failed in 1998. Also, the Tashnak Party
candidate, Abraham Matossian, remained on the list.

Outside the six parties, the Jamaa Al-Islamiya will be represented by
its old candidate, council member Issam Barghout, while the Progressive
Socialist Party is presenting a new candidate, Mounib Nassreddine.

The remaining new candidates are George Tyan, Hassan Hallak, Tony
Khoury, Antoine Syriani, Salim Saad, Riad Alayli, Serge Joukhadarian,
Ralph Eid and Saaduddine Wazzan.

The rest of the continuing candidates are Aris, Ajouz, Imad Beidoun,
Rachid Jalkh, Sami Rizk, Hisham Sinno, Salim Itani, Varoujian
Kantarjian, Tawfiq Kfoury, and Sami Nasr.

The six parties which conferred with Hariri over the past two weeks are
the Amal Movement, the Phalanges Party, the SSNP, the Tashnak Party,
Hizbullah and the Baath Party.

“Some (candidates) have chosen not to continue the path with us for
personal reasons, while current circumstances … dictated that others
don’t continue,” said Aris, who thanked all the outgoing council
members “for six years of cooperation.”

Aris later read the list’s program, which mostly entailed “applying an
ambitious program to develop the capital and expand the working
opportunities for its sons and modernize laws and regulations.”

He gave a long list of goals for the coming term which included solving
traffic problems, developing infrastructure in the capital, expanding
green spaces and promoting culture, health, the environment and sports.

He also listed a number of reforms to be conducted within the
municipality. They include centralizing municipal offices,
computerizing municipal data and hiring Beirutis to work for the
municipality.

In 1998, Hariri’s list to the Beirut Municipality won a landslide
victory, taking 23 out of 24 seats. Rival candidate Abdel-Hamid
Fakhoury was the only one to break through, ousting Shahrour.

Prior to the conference, members of the parties visited Hariri. After
the visit, SSNP President, Gebran Araiji, told reporters the Phalanges
Party thought it best to withdraw “as a sacrifice for the interest of
Beirut.”

He denied allegations that the other parties had abandoned the
Phalanges, insisting that the Phalanges withdrew on its own personal
initiative.

He said that in light of the fact the municipalities’ law was unjust,
the list needed to be thought out very carefully and include
representatives from all confessions, which he said it did. He said
this motivated the parties to come to a joint arrangement.

Analysis: Where Does Europe’s Enlargement End?

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
May 3 2004

Analysis: Where Does Europe’s Enlargement End?

By Luke Allnutt

(Click here to see RFE/RL’s “EU Expands Eastward” webpage.)

The European Union has always remained deliberately vague about where
its borders lie. Provided countries fulfill the 1993 Copenhagen
criteria — guaranteeing the rule of law, human rights, and respect for
minorities, as well as having a functioning market economy —
technically anyone can join. In the late 1980s, Morocco — with its
eyes on the market just 16 kilometers across the Straits of Gibraltar
— applied to join the union, only to be told it was not European
enough.

Following the accession of 10 mostly Central and Eastern European
countries on 1 May, one of the big questions is: Where next? If all
goes well, Romania and Bulgaria (and possibly Croatia) will join in
2007. In the event that they meet the demands of Copenhagen, the
remaining countries of the western Balkans and Turkey are probably next
on the list, perhaps sometime in the next decade.

After that, the choices become less palatable. Ukraine is still trying
to make the right noises, but its enthusiasm for reforms remains
laconic at best. Moldova, Europe’s poorest country, has a flimsy civil
society and a glacial pace of reform. It is burdened by Transdniester
— a pro-Russian breakaway region that is a lawless paradise for
gangsters and arms dealers. Belarus, hamstrung by the erratic populism
of autocratic President Alyaksandr Lukashenka and its unreformed
Soviet-style economy, is a particularly unattractive prospect.

Farther east, there are the countries of the South Caucasus: Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The latter’s “Rose Revolution” in November
brought the region back onto policymakers’ radar screens, but
subsequent tensions over the breakaway republic of Adjaria represent a
major step backward for Georgia. Armenia’s strongman president, Robert
Kocharian, has meanwhile responded ruthlessly to public demands that he
respect the courts and the ballot box. Azerbaijan remains isolated from
the European family over shortcomings like the continuing battle for
Nagorno-Karabakh, the government’s stubborn refusal to release
political prisoners, and a general lack of respect for democracy and
human rights. The stakes in the CIS are considerably higher, as those
former communist countries are part of Russia’s “near abroad.” With
that in mind, it is difficult to imagine these countries joining the EU
in anything less than two decades.

That is not necessarily a gloomy prognosis. John Palmer, the political
director of the Brussels-based European Policy Center, thinks that
after the countries of the western Balkans get accepted, “we might see
the end of classic enlargement.”

The recurring nightmare for many European politicians is that the
inclusion of dubious democracies would seriously discredit the
union.That could usher in a multispeed Europe — one that allows for a
certain amount of differentiation. European politicians have always
balked at the term, for all its connotations of a Europe divided
between dunces and high-flyers. More recently it has been seen as
French President Jacques Chirac’s Plan B — an opportunity for France
and Germany to forge ahead with an inward-looking European agenda after
the failure of the European constitution talks late last year.

Yet a multispeed EU might be the only way the union can expand further
while maintaining the standards laid out in the acquis communautaire
and not overstretching the purse strings of the richest member states.
The recurring nightmare for many European politicians is that the
inclusion of dubious democracies — like Moldova or Ukraine — would
seriously discredit the union. The EU would become an ailing franchise,
the political equivalent of a fast-food giant letting any old greasy
spoon hang its global logo above the door. Even the Eurovision song
contest would garner more respect on the international stage.

Early signs of the EU’s willingness to embrace differentiation can be
seen in the Wider Europe program, which is a framework for countries in
the western NIS and southern Mediterranean who will soon find
themselves sharing a border with the union. Countries in the Wider
Europe program have been offered the prospect of full participation in
the EU’s market and its four fundamental freedoms — goods, capital,
services, and, eventually, people — provided they adhere to certain
core values and show concrete progress in political, economic, and
institutional reforms. The ethos of the program is “Integration, Not
Membership.”

In the future, if the EU abandoned its open-door policy, states on the
fringes of the union would not become full members of the union, but
there would be some elements of shared sovereignty. Europe might become
what has been termed a “union of concentric circles,” with an inner
core that accepts the acquis communautaire in full, monetary union, the
Common Agricultural Policy, and then wider circles of countries
accepting decreasing levels of commitment.

Europe a la carte exists already to some degree, most notably with the
single currency, and the European Policy Center’s Palmer says these
types of ad hoc alliances and groupings will become more common.
Countries will club together and pursue various shared policy
interests.

There are several significant problems with such a differentiated
approach. The first, according to Jonathan Lipkin, an analyst for
Oxford Analytica writing for EUObserver.com, is “how overlapping
coalitions of states could find a way to put in place coherent and
effective administrative and enforcement mechanisms.”

The second is that prospective partners, or members, might not go for
an “accession lite.” Anything less than full membership “just doesn’t
do it for these countries. It’s not enough,” says Gergana Noutcheva, an
enlargement expert at the Center for European Policy Studies in
Brussels. And as financier and philanthropist George Soros wrote in a
syndicated column for Project Syndicate in March, “The most powerful
tool that the EU has for influencing political and economic
developments in neighboring countries is the prospect of membership.”

Further expansion will also require a good deal of housekeeping. The
brouhaha about the draft constitution in December illustrated the
shortcomings of the decision-making process within a larger union.
Without reform, the situation would only get worse. “The bigger the EU
gets, the national veto will become more a source of paralysis,” Palmer
says. That means the union will have to rely more heavily on qualified
majority voting (QMV) in the future.

The likelihood and extent of further expansion (in terms of political
will and popular tolerance) will depend largely on how this most recent
wave goes. Enlargement fatigue has already set in. The richest EU
states are worried about the cost of integration and are currently
sparring with the European Commission about capping the budget.
Europeans outside the Euro-elite tend to be lukewarm about EU
expansion. According to a November Eurobarometer poll, 54 percent of
the French public opposed enlargement.

It would only take a few high-level scandals (diseased Slovak chickens
or embezzled structural funds earmarked for a children’s hospital in
Poznan, perhaps) for the mood to swing further against enlargement.
Britain’s recent backpedaling over migration after a few scaremongering
stories in the tabloid press about the imminent arrival of
job-stealing, welfare-sapping Eastern Europeans showed the impact that
public opinion can have on government policy.