Author: Jhanna Virabian

ACADEMICIAN RAFAEL GHAZARIAN CONSIDERS NECESSARY PRESIDEN’T IMMEDIATE
RESIGNATION
YEREVAN, MARCH 18, NOYAN TAPAN. “President Robert Kocharian who
established the eastern dictatorship in the country poses the greatest
danger for the favorable solution of the Karabakh conflict,” Rafael
Ghazarian, RA NAS Academician, declared at the conference organized on
March 18 by the “In Defence of NKR” committee. According to him, the
problem is in the “deficit of ligitimacy” of the President because of
which the latter is ready to make concessions both to the West and
Russia in order to retain his “shaky” position. “But neither the sale
of our entities to Russia at very low prices nor the peace-makers’
sending to Iraq will help him.” In the academician’s opinion, the West
strives for exerting pressure on the Armenian President in order to
make the latter resign. Meanwhile Rafael Ghazarian mentioned that the
same “all-powerful West that can easily remove Kocharian from his post
delays this issue for some reason, perhaps, the West wants Kocharian
to sign the document on Karabakh settlement they need, that’s why
Robert Kocharian should resign until it is not too late.” In the
opinion of Lenser Aghalovian, another Academician of RA NAS, 11 years
that passed since the establishment of the truce were quite enough in
order to solve the issue on the resettlement of territories. And such
passive attitude of authorities to this issue gives him an occasion to
draw “quite an unequivocal” conclusion that starting from 1994 the
Armenian authorities have been adhering to the policy of return of
territories.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Georgian daily says old elite losing influence in Abkhazia
24 Saati, Tbilisi
14 Mar 05

Georgian newspaper 24 Saati believes that recent cabinet appointments
in Abkhazia show the old political elite is losing its influence.
Although vice-president Raul Khadzhimba officially nominates
candidates for several key posts, president Sergey Bagapsh has seen no
need to approve them, the paper says. The following is the text of a
report published on 14 March:
The formation of the [Abkhaz] government has already been completed.
[Abkhaz president Sergey] Bagapsh’s two decrees on the appointment of
the culture and education ministers were published over the weekend
although the foreign and justice ministers have not been appointed
yet. It has proved to be quite difficult to resolve personnel issues
in the “disputable” departments. Legally, vice-president Raul
Khadzhimba should submit nominations for the heads of these
departments, but it has become quite clear that Bagapsh will not
accept these nominations.
This is why the search for a consensus is continuing and this is
happening at the expense of violating the constitution, according to
which all government appointments should be made within two weeks of
the new president’s inauguration.
There was no doubt that there would be difficulties in appointing the
foreign and justice ministers. However, it is surprising that
difficulties emerged in the appointment of the culture and education
ministers. However, prime minister [Aleksandr] Ankvab said later that
they had to choose from a large number of people who could “work
professionally” in these posts.
Finally, Nugzar Logua, a member of Aytayra [a sociopolitical
movement], was appointed culture minister and Indira Vardania
education minister. Irrespective of how the struggle for the foreign
and justice ministries ends, it is already possible to draw certain
conclusions about the new government.
It is clear that the Aytayra movement has been given priority in the
new government. Four of its representatives have already occupied
posts in the c abinet. They are prime minister Aleksandr Ankvab,
deputy prime minister Leonid Lakerbaia who is in charge of social
issues, and the newly appointed education and culture ministers who
are also Aytayra members.
Correspondingly, Aytayra can justly claim to have the role of a
political organization that is able to form a ruling party in the
future. This advantage is especially interesting as the two other
major forces – Amtsakhara [a sociopolitical movement] and Yedinaya
Abkhaziya [United Abkhazia] – that formed an alliance and defeated the
opposition have failed to receive significant personnel dividends in
the new government. Amtsakhara has been left without any post at all
in the government, while Yedinaya Abkhaziya received only one post –
its chairman Beslan Kubrava is deputy prime minister and finance
minister.
Although Vladimir Nachach-ogly, a member of the Amtsakhara political
council and chairman of the parliamentary committee for legislation,
was offered the post of prosecutor-general, he refused.
Another striking fact is that a coalition government was not
formed. Neither Bagapsh nor Ankvab seemed to feel the need to satisfy
the demands for posts from the old elite, demands made via
Khadzhimba. He was “tricked”. No-one listened to his proposals during
the formation of the power departments and other ministries. The only
exception is the agriculture ministry where Vitali Smyr was appointed
minister. He participated in the first [3 October 2004 presidential]
election as Raul Khadzhimba’s running mate.
The presence of the old elite, now the new opposition, in the new
government would have been surprising in light of Amtsakhara’s
absence. The fact that a coalition government was not formed allows us
to presume that the new opposition’s activity will grow significantly,
especially ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
The administrative reforms that were widely advertised during the
election campaign have not been implemented. Not only has the number
of ministries not been reduced, it has even grown by one. The ministry
of health and social welfare was divided into two different
ministries. The closure of the emergencies ministry that was created
by [former Abkhaz prime minister] Nodar Khashba [shortly after the 3
October 2004 election] and existed for only two months can hardly be
regarded as a reduction in the number of ministries.
So far, the new cabinet’s leaders have refrained from commenting on
the reasons for “boycotting” the promised administrative reforms.
The last striking fact is that there are no Armenians, Georgians,
Russians or others in the new government. The active involvement of
ethnic minorities in the government was one of their election
promises, but authorities are now complaining that there is no-one
among them [ethnic minorities] who would like to work in the
government. Only one minister is not Abkhaz, the social welfare
minister Olga Koltukova. There is one Armenian, Nerses Nersesyan,
among the heads of state committees. He is the head of the state
committee for metrology and standardization. There is also one
Georgian, Aleksandr Nebadze, among the leaders of state
administrations. Although a Georgian is the acting justice minister,
this does not mean at all that he will definitely become minister.
In short, on the one hand, the new government has broken election
promises during the formation of the government and, on the other,
they have managed to minimize the influence on the new government of
the old elite that was trying to participate in the process of the
cabinet’s formation through Khadzhimba.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress
March 14 2005
AZERI PRESIDENT SAYS NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE ON NAGORNO KARABAGH
BAKU, MARCH 14, ARMENPRESS: Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev
said Saturday that his country is not ready for any compromise with
Armenia over Nagorno-Karabagh, and reiterated accusations that
Armenia has occupied its lands, which he said “cannot be the subject
of bargaining.”
Aliyev said Azerbaijan will not change its position on the
conflict. “There can be no talk of mutual compromises. That was a
mistaken thesis,” Aliyev told journalists, referring to international
mediators’ statements that compromise is necessary to settle the
dispute.
“The only thing we can do is discuss security guarantees for
ethnic Armenians who would be allowed to live in Nagorno Karabakh if
it were placed under Azerbaijani control,” he said.
“We do not want a new war, we know that it would be a catastrophe,
but everyone should know that we have to be prepared for it. We have
to liberate our lands, we are not going to cede them to anyone and
will restore our territorial integrity at whatever the price is,” he
said.
Aliyev said he would not oppose a new meeting with Armenian
President Robert Kocharian to discuss the dispute, but said that the
countries’ foreign ministers would have to make progress toward a
potential solution before a meeting can be held. Progress is
contingent on Armenia taking a “constructive position,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
March 10 2005
Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia May Meet in Moscow
The meeting of Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents, scheduled as part
of the Council of Europe summit in Warsaw on May 16-17, may take
place earlier – on May 9.
Both President Aliyev and Armenian President Robert Kocharian have
been invited to Moscow to attend the festivities dedicated to the
60th anniversary of victory over fascism, the Russian co-chair of the
OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov told ANS TV. The two countries’
foriegn ministers may not meet for the purpose.
“We all know the importance of this meeting. Our foreign ministers
may meet beforehand separately. We have held talks with Minister
Mammadyarov in Prague, while our meeting with Minister Oskanian is
likely to take place when the OSCE fact-finding mission presents its
report to the Permanent Council in Vienna on March 17.
Armenian forces occupied more than 20 per cent of Azerbaijani
territories. The EU bodies and international community consider
Armenia as ‘aggressive occupier’ in Azerbaijain territories. Yerevan
has also problematic relations with neigbouring Turkey and Georgia.
Compiled by the JTW staff

PACE RESOLUTION ON KARABAKH DOES NOT REFLECT UK’S POSITION
PanArmenian News
Feb 18 2005
18.02.2005 15:30
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Though the PACE resolution on Nagorno Karabakh was
based on the report of a British parliament member, it reflects the
viewpoint of this parliamentarian but not that of the UK’s government,
UK’s Ambassador to Armenia Thorda Abbott-Watt told IA Regnum. “First
of all we are interested in the settlement of the conflict, since it
impedes the economic development of the whole region”, she noted.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

COMMENTARY: The Sick Man of Europe — Again
By ROBERT L. POLLOCK
Wall Street Journal
,,SB110851241259955899,00.html?mod=opinio n%5Fmain%5Fcommentaries
February 16, 2005; Page A14
ANKARA, Turkey — Several years ago I attended an exhibition in
Istanbul. The theme was local art from the era of the country’s last
military coup (1980). But the artists seemed a lot more concerned with
the injustices of global capitalism than the fate of Turkish democracy.
In fact, to call the works leftist caricatures — many featured fat
capitalists with Uncle Sam hats and emaciated workers — would have
been an understatement. As one astute local reviewer put it (I quote
from memory): “This shows that Turkish artists were willing to abase
themselves voluntarily in ways that Soviet artists refused even at
the height of Stalin’s oppression.”
That exhibition came to mind amid all the recent gnashing of teeth
in the U.S. over the question of “Who lost Turkey?” Because it shows
that a 50-year special relationship, between longtime NATO allies who
fought Soviet expansionism together starting in Korea, has long had
to weather the ideological hostility and intellectual decadence of
much of Istanbul’s elite. And at the 2002 election, the increasingly
corrupt mainstream parties that had championed Turkish-American ties
self-destructed, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the subtle yet
insidious Islamism of the Justice and Development (AK) Party. It’s
this combination of old leftism and new Islamism — much more than any
mutual pique over Turkey’s refusal to side with us in the Iraq war —
that explains the collapse in relations.
And what a collapse it has been. On a brief visit to Ankara earlier
this month with Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, I found a
poisonous atmosphere — one in which just about every politician and
media outlet (secular and religious) preaches an extreme combination of
America- and Jew-hatred that (like the Turkish artists) voluntarily
goes far further than anything found in most of the Arab world’s
state-controlled press. If I hesitate to call it Nazi-like, that’s only
because Goebbels would probably have rejected much of it as too crude.
* * *
Consider the Islamist newspaper Yeni Safak, Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan’s favorite. A Jan. 9 story claimed that U.S. forces
were tossing so many Iraqi bodies into the Euphrates that mullahs
there had issued a fatwa prohibiting residents from eating its
fish. Yeni Safak has also repeatedly claimed that U.S. forces used
chemical weapons in Fallujah. One of its columnists has alleged that
U.S. soldiers raped women and children there and left their bodies in
the streets to be eaten by dogs. Among the paper’s “scoops” have been
the 1,000 Israeli soldiers deployed alongside U.S. forces in Iraq,
and that U.S. forces have been harvesting the innards of dead Iraqis
for sale on the U.S. “organ market.”
It’s not much better in the secular press. The mainstream Hurriyet has
accused Israeli hit squads of assassinating Turkish security personnel
in Mosul, and the U.S. of starting an occupation of Indonesia under
the guise of humanitarian assistance. At Sabah, a columnist last fall
accused the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman, of letting his
“ethnic origins” — guess what, he’s Jewish — determine his behavior.
Mr. Edelman is indeed the all-too-rare foreign-service officer who
takes seriously his obligation to defend America’s image and interests
abroad. The intellectual climate in which he’s operating has gone
so mad that he actually felt compelled to organize a conference call
with scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey to explain that secret
U.S. nuclear testing did not cause the recent tsunami.
Never in an ostensibly friendly country have I had the impression
of embassy staff so besieged. Mr. Erdogan’s office recently forbade
Turkish officials from attending a reception at the ambassador’s
residence in honor of the “Ecumenical” Patriarch of the Orthodox
Church, who resides in Istanbul. Why? Because “ecumenical” means
universal, which somehow makes it all part of a plot to carve up
Turkey.
Perhaps the most bizarre anti-American story au courant in the Turkish
capital is the “eighth planet” theory, which holds not only that the
U.S. knows of an impending asteroid strike, but that we know it’s going
to hit North America. Hence our desire to colonize the Middle East.
It all sounds loony, I know. But such stories are told in all
seriousness at the most powerful dinner tables in Ankara. The common
thread is that almost everything the U.S. is doing in the world —
even tsunami relief — has malevolent motivations, usually with the
implication that we’re acting as muscle for the Jews.
In the face of such slanders Turkish politicians have been utterly
silent. In fact, Turkish parliamentarians themselves have accused
the U.S. of “genocide” in Iraq, while Mr. Erdogan (who we once
hoped would set for the Muslim world an example of democracy) was
among the few world leaders to question the legitimacy of the Iraqi
elections. When confronted, Turkish pols claim they can’t risk going
against “public opinion.”
All of which makes Mr. Erdogan a prize hypocrite for protesting to
Condoleezza Rice the unflattering portrayal of Turkey in an episode of
the fictional TV show “The West Wing.” The episode allegedly depicts
Turkey as having been taken over by a retrograde populist government
that threatens women’s rights. (Sounds about right to me.)
In the old days, Turkey would have had an opposition party strong
enough to bring such a government closer to sanity. But the only
opposition now is a moribund Republican People’s Party, or CHP,
once the party of Ataturk. At a recent party congress, its leader
accused his main challenger of having been part of a CIA plot
against him. That’s not to say there aren’t a few comparatively
pro-U.S. officials left in the current government and the state
bureaucracies. But they’re afraid to say anything in public. In
private, they whine endlessly about trivial things the U.S. “could
have done differently.”
Entirely forgotten is that President Bush was among the first world
leaders to recognize Prime Minister Erdogan, while Turkey’s own legal
system was still weighing whether he was secular enough for the job.
Forgotten have been decades of U.S. military assistance. Forgotten
have been years of American efforts to secure a pipeline route for
Caspian oil that terminates at the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Forgotten
has been the fact that U.S. administrations continue to fight annual
attempts in Congress to pass a resolution condemning modern Turkey
for the long-ago Armenian genocide. Forgotten has been America’s
persistent lobbying for Turkish membership in the European Union.
Forgotten, above all, has been America’s help against the PKK. Its
now-imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was expelled from Syria in 1998
after the Turks threatened military action. He was then passed like a
hot potato between European governments, who refused to extradite him
to Turkey because — gasp! — he might face the death penalty. He was
eventually caught — with the help of U.S. intelligence — sheltered
in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi. “They gave us Ocalan. What could
be bigger than that?” says one of a handful of unapologetically
pro-U.S. Turks I still know.
I know that Mr. Feith (another Jew, the Turkish press didn’t hesitate
to note), and Ms. Rice after him, pressed Turkish leaders on the
need to challenge some of the more dangerous rhetoric if they value
the Turkey-U.S. relationship. There is no evidence yet that they got
a satisfactory answer. Turkish leaders should understand that the
“public opinion” they cite is still reversible. But after a few more
years of riding the tiger, who knows? Much of Ataturk’s legacy risks
being lost, and there won’t be any of the old Ottoman grandeur left,
either. Turkey could easily become just another second-rate country:
small-minded, paranoid, marginal and — how could it be otherwise? —
friendless in America and unwelcome in Europe.
Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer at the Journal.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress
Feb 16 2005
KOCHARIAN REITERATES OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ACTIVITY OF TAX AUTHORITIES
YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 16, ARMENPRESS: President Kocharian met today
with the chief of the state taxation service Felix Tsolakian to
discuss some issues regarding collection of taxes and mandatory
social payments in the first quarter of the year.
Kocharian’s press office quoted Tsolakian as saying that tax
revenues in January amounted to 11.3 billion drams, by 2 billion more
against the 2004 January, while collection of mandatory social
payments was 3.4 billion, by 1.1 billion more than in 2004 January.
The two men also discussed the pace of solving a set of problems
outlined during Kocharian’s visit to state taxation service earlier
this year. Kocharian was said to reiterate the necessity of open and
transparent work of the service, adding also that “the people should
now who fails to fulfill their duties and why.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Top Azeri diplomat downplays corridor idea between breakaway region, Armenia
Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku
14 Feb 05
[Presenter] Baku has immediately responded to [Armenian Defence
Minister] Serzh Sarkisyan’s statement [on the opening of corridor
between Armenia and Karabakh]. [Azerbaijani] Deputy Foreign Minister
Araz Azimov has said that Azerbaijan will not allow [occupied
Azerbaijani district of] Lacin to be used as a transit corridor
between Armenia and Karabakh.
[Correspondent, over archive video of Araz Azimov speaking to ATV] Both
[Azerbaijan’s exclave of] Naxcivan and Nagornyy Karabakh are integral
parts of Azerbaijan and therefore there cannot be any talk about the
opening of a corridor there, the president’s special representative
for settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, Araz Azimov, said. He
noted that Baku is actually against the notion of the corridor to
build relations between Armenia and Karabakh’s Armenians, because
this notion is quite a limited one. Whatever action is to be taken
within this corridor, it may face certain difficulties. As a result,
the parties will face mutual distrust and will be taken with the idea
of ensuring the security of the corridor, end of quote.
Azimov said that Azerbaijan has its own proposals instead. He
stressed that Baku thinks that both Azerbaijan and Armenia can
use all communication lines in the conflict zone which will enable
Azerbaijanis to travel freely to Naxcivan and Armenia to maintain
relations with the Armenians in Nagornyy Karabakh. Azimov said that
the roads should be freely used for this purpose.
The presidential envoy emphasized that Lacin has been and will
continue to be Azerbaijani land. No part of Lacin can be included
in the Armenian-proposed corridor. We are talking only about roads
and communication lines here. If we talk about a particular road
traversing Lacin, this road can be made safe only if Azerbaijan uses
it to go to Naxcivan and Armenia to go to Karabakh. This road can be
made safe by the parties committing themselves to that, end of quote.
Azimov said that this proposal can be discussed. The envoy stressed
that the return of refugees to their native lands is not yet on
the agenda. This problem can be discussed only after Azerbaijan and
Armenia restore normal relations, he said. As for relations between
Karabakh’s Armenians and Armenia after the resolution of the problem,
Azimov noted that Baku, which wants a peaceful solution to be found to
the conflict, guarantees the security of these relations. The envoy
said that Armenia has a military solution in mind in its approach to
the settlement of the conflict, while Azerbaijan is in favour of a
peaceful settlement. There would be no need for a security belt if
peace is restored. What is needed is economic cooperation around
Karabakh, he said.
Namiq Aliyev for “Son Xabar”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SHORT BY DUTCH FILMMAKER DISAPPOINTS COMPATRIOTS
AzerTaj News Agency
January 11, 2005
A short documentary entitled “Hope Dies Last” made by Dutch filmmaker
Susanne Kroger has caused serious discontent among Azerbaijani community
of Holland.
According to the State Committee for Working with Azerbaijanis Living in
Foreign Countries, the film tells the story about 3 Armenian and 2
Azerbaijani soldiers missing in the battles for Karabakh during the
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. After the film was first presented in
Amsterdam, over 100 members of the Society “Netherlands – Azerbaijan”
and organizations of Azerbaijan Diaspora exchanged views on what they
had seen with representatives of the Dutch National Council of Churches
and Red Cross, and Armenian community. The members of the Azerbaijani
Diaspora exasperated by the facts that the film allots 21 minutes to
Armenia against 8 minutes to Azerbaijan, presents the missing soldiers’
parents as well as cities of the countries in sharply different ways,
refers to towns and villages of Karabakh under Armenian names. They
resolutely condemned the work noting it does not represent the reality
but distorts the facts in favor of Armenians. The claims were supported
by Dutch specialists, as well.
;catid=&news_year=&news_month=&news_day=&newsid=88422&themes_viewing=&themes_page=&themeid=&news_page
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 4 2005
EU Summit of December 17: A Victory or A Defeat for Turkey?
View: Dr. Sedat Laciner
After the Brussels Summit on 17 December 17 2004, The Prime Minister
Tayyip Erdogan and his companions were welcomed as the `conquerors’.
The welcome which was started at the airport continued with a `feast’
in the Ankara Kýzýlay Square. Although the Prime Minister Erdogan
said `We are not spoiled and will never lose our self-control’, the
tv-radio news and newspaper headlines were full of `how we pull up
stakes with Europe and European leaders, ` and `how we oppressed the
Greeks and get what we want’. However, the obstinate opponents of
Europe claimed that in December 17 Turkey sacrificed Cyprus in return
of the accession date. According to these people Turkey has gained
nothing even before the summit. If such is the case which one is the
real fact? December 17 is the date of `Turkish Entrance into Europe’
or is the date of gaining nothing by adding more concessions’ to the
existing ones.
***
First of all, when we look at the remarks before the Summit we see
that Turkey went to the EU Summit with `four red lines’:
1. An exact date should be given for the negotiations and this date
should not be open-ended.
2. Before the start of the negotiations Turkey can not take any more
steps in Cyprus Issue.
3. The aim of the negotiations should be full membership. The
alternatives which will distort the full membership, such as,
`privileged partnership’ or `B Plan’ can never be accepted.
4. Permanent derogations (limitations) can never be accepted by
Turkey.
***
At the end of the Summit each of these lines were exceeded. If we
handle them one by one, the first months of 2005 do not come true,
instead the EU, with a French insistence, determined October 3, 2004
as the starting date.
In addition, the exact date of the end of negotiations has not been
defined, it has been especially stated that the negotiations will be
open-ended. In other words, the negotiations between Turkey and the
EU might be continued forevermore. For this reason, December 17 has
not given guarantee for Turkey’ full membership. Until now, Turkey
has been waiting for 41 years, and according to the draft Turkey can
wait 41 more years without any progress.
Secondly, Turkey was the one who promise not to take a step in Cyprus
before the negotiations. Turkey and the TRNC (Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus) have realized all of the EU and UN requirements and
have made all of the concessions, however, Turkey faced with new
concessions in the Summit, also added that before solving the
problem, EU have declared the membership of the Greek Cypriots as the
only representative of the island despite all of the concessions
Turkey has made. Besides, though there have not been a signed written
agreement, Turkey has pledged to take a step in Cyprus Issue before
the start of the negotiations. The South (Greek) Cyprus with the
other 9 newly joined member countries will be included into the scope
of the Ankara Agreement until the October 3. Namely, an indirect
recognition will eventuate. This step does not mean that Greek Cyprus
will be recognized as the only legitimate Cyprus State, but should be
noted as a concession for Turkey before the negotiations. In other
words, the second red line is also dispersed. Turkey, before the
starting of the negotiations, takes a step in Cyprus.
Thirdly, Turkey had declared that essentially the aim of the
negotiations should be full membership, and the privileged
partnership would not be accepted. Although the EU leaders tell that
their ultimate aim is the full membership, the expressions of `if
Turkey does not assume the obligations of membership it must be
ensured that it is fully anchored in the European structures’ in fact
means a `kind preparation’ for a `privileged partnership’. There is
no difference between the Summits indirect `membership formula’ and
the `privileged partnership’ proposal of the German Christian
Democrats and the French opposition to Turkey. `Privileged
partnership’ can be defined as the enlarged definition of the customs
unity. Briefly, this red line has not been accepted in the summit.
***
Another Turkish requirement was that the EU cannot bring any
permanent limitation (derogations) in funds, agricultural politics,
free movement, etc. According to the Turkish officials any permanent
derogation damage the spirit of the Union, and in this respect Turkey
was quite right. A full membership which could not offer free
movement right has no meaning for Turkey, because, thanks to the
Customs Union and a 41-years-old relation with the EU, Turkey has all
the `privileged relationships with the Union’. Unfortunately, when we
look at the Decision of the Summit, the EU brought just the opposite
of Turkey’s demands onto the table, and during the Summit very little
could be changed. In other words, Turkey again has gained almost
nothing on this issue. The concessions for Turkey do not allow a
normal membership.
Consequently, Turkey went to Brussels with four basic `sine qua non’
but nearly none of these were accepted and all of these red lines
were exceeded.
***
If all of the Turkish demands were refused, in this respect can we
call it as `a great victory’?
Tayyip Erdogan and his team can be considered as heroes?
Answer is `Yes’.
Turkey has gained a victory in December 17 and Erdogan and his team
are to be appreciated because of their success in Brussels. Although
it is early to `shoulder them’ or to `prepare feasts in the public
squares’ they are to be congratulated.
Above all these, the `red lines’ which were defined before December
17 were really realistic requirements and if this fact was not
noticed by Abdullah Gul, Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister in Ankara
but soon has realized in Brussels. December 17 summit barely showed
that European public’s 1000-year old prejudices have stayed
unchanged. Until now, Turkey has not been considered as a `serious
candidate’ by the member countries of the EU. They have never deemed
Turkey as a `real European’ and a `real candidate’. The public
opinion which is manipulated by religionist extreme Christians, anti
Turkish Greek, Greek Cypriot, Armenian and PKK lobbies has formed a
great obstacle for Turkey to overcome.
In conclusion, the EU leaders’ will to take Turkey as a member is not
enough. If there is not a strong and real intention behind the back
of the documents signed, then the agreements are not considered to be
worthy. In this condition, the concepts such as, Cyprus, permanent
derogations, full membership, etc. lose their meanings. If there is
will in them these `details’ would gain importance.
In the Brussels Summit Turkey has strengthened this mentioned
good-will and has developed envision that Turkey is a real candidate
for the EU. Before and during the Summit Turkish leaders proved that
Turks are `true Europeans’, however they confronted the old racist
and discriminative European habits. Turkey passed the test; the EU’s
test is still in process. Because of this reason Turkish Prime
Minister Erdogan and his team should be congratulated. They became
successful in keeping Turkey on the way of the EU membership.
It can be said that, like the December 17, there will be more summits
in near future. Turkey needs time to erase all of the prejudices and
this period of time is taken from the EU. Besides, the defenders of
Turkey in EU have become more powerful. One may ask that Turkey who
has not erased these prejudices for 41 years could have erase them
until October 3? However, an important point should be considered
that the EU and Turkey have never reached a kind of relationship in
which they can truly communicate with each other: As said before, EU
had not considered Turkey as a `real candidate’. On the other hand,
Turkey only communicated with the EU leaders and did not realized
importance of dealing with the European public opinion. Also the real
intentions of the decision former makers in Turkey are a debatable
issue. Whereas, after the September 11, Turkey and EU are open to
listen and understand each other.
December 17 is a great victory for Turkey because the main need of
Turkey is not EU but the EU process, and Turkey took what it really
wanted.
January 2005
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress