Author: Kanayan Tamar

Le Monde, France
17 novembre 2004
JUSTICE : Aydin Sezgin a été relaxé pour des propos remettant en
cause l’existence d’un génocide arménien.;
Dépêche
Le consul général de Turquie à Paris, Aydin Sezgin, a été relaxé,
lundi 15 novembre, par le tribunal correctionnel de Paris, des
poursuites engagées contre lui par le Comité de défense de la cause
arménienne (CDCA) pour des propos remettant en cause, sur le site
Internet du consulat, l’existence d’un génocide arménien.

Turkish journey: European dreams
Saturday, 13 November, 2004, 13:39 GMT
The BBC’s Istanbul correspondent Jonny Dymond is exploring Turkish life on a
trip across the vast country as it lobbies the European Union to open
membership talks.
He sent the third of a series of reports from Gaziantep.
————————————————————————
As night falls over Gaziantep, a city of about a million on the edge
of Turkey’s south-east region, a thick belt of blackness hovers over
the fringes of the city.
In the early moments of the dusk it looks pretty dramatic, almost
romantic, until you realise that it is pollution, the product of the
light industrial plants and textile factories that ring the city.
The pollution doesn’t stop at the edge of town. The air in the centre
of town itself gathers over the day a smoky, slightly soupy quality.
This pollution may not be good for the health.
But it is, for Gaziantep, not something to be mourned – because it
is the product of the town’s prosperity, a sign that in at least one
city of Turkey’s troubled south-east, things are going relatively well.
It took me 10 hours to get here from Konya, in central Anatolia.
I came by coach, it’s not the fastest way to travel. Ever since one
of the more horrific road accidents recently killed nearly 50 people,
the coach drivers have taken it easy on the roads, sticking to the
speed limit.
However, that doesn’t stop different kinds of lunacy.
An accident a few days ago was caused by one driver trying to give
control of a coach to another driver while the vehicle was still
pelting along the road. Is life as a coach driver really so boring
that you have to enliven it with tricks like that?
It would be much quicker to fly. But then you’d miss one of the
biggest stories of Turkey.
There appear to be six or seven different countries wrapped up in
this one – indivisible, of course – republic.
You can see parts of Gaziantep – just about – as part of Europe,
but much would have to change
I’m not talking about the Kurds, the Circassians or the Laz, but
about the simple geography of the place.
For a couple of hours’ drive beyond Konya, it is the monotonous
Anatolian plain outside the coach window – brown earth, blue-white
sky, a long line of electricity pylons, the odd scrubby tree and the
odd equally scrubby village.
This gives way to the road through the mountains, studded with trees
in the rocky soil. Clouds obscure the bottom of ravines below.
The view is stunning, hungrily drawing the eye. One town that we stop
at is itself shrouded in cloud.
And then we descend to yet another country, this one warm and lush,
heading towards the Mediterranean coast.
The countryside is green, and palm trees grow in the strip that
intersects the road. Fruit and vegetable farms run along the side of
the road.
Suddenly there is a stretch of deserted beach and the Mediterranean
sea comes into view, shiny blue. The coast is heavily developed,
apartment blocks craning for a view of the sea.
On one beach a man stands hesitating, as if debating whether to take
the plunge into the November-cold water.
And then, as rain begins to fall, we nudge into the south-east. Towns
and villages are fewer and further between, and the soil darkens.
The streets of the Gaziantep’s centre are bustling with shoppers
buying presents for the holiday at the end of Ramadan.
The local speciality foods are almost bursting from shop windows:
honey-drenched baklava, pistachios and spices.
Gaziantep has benefited from the exodus of people and money from
the rest of the south-east during the long years of battle between
separatist Kurds and the Turkish state.
“This is the Germany of the East,” one resident tells me, a
reference to the millions of Turkish citizens who went to Germany as
“guest-workers” in the 1960s.
It has always been a trading town – a stop on the Spice Road with a
long Armenian business tradition.
I asked a local journalist what was left of the Armenian presence in
terms of buildings – the people left long ago, unwelcome in a republic
that was for many decades deeply intolerant of minorities.
“Very little,” he replies. “In London,” he goes on, “there are
mosques and no-one says anything. Here they put minarets on the top
of churches. And then they talk about tolerance amongst religions.”
You can see parts of Gaziantep – just about – as part of Europe. But
much would have to change.
How many jobs would have to be lost when environmental regulations
forced the factories to stop sending smoke into the sky and the lungs
of the city’s residents?
As for, say, the butchers – well, refrigeration probably wouldn’t hurt.
There is industry and trade in Gaziantep – you can see it reflected
in the shops and offices.
Migrant families live in shanty towns with only sporadic electricity
But drive just a few minutes from the centre of town and you come
across a classic Turkish shanty town – a “gecekondu” – built by night
so as to avoid building regulations, overflowing with migrant families
with too many children and far too few jobs.
The electrical power comes and goes amongst the breeze-block houses.
Nearly everyone here talks about Europe in terms of jobs and money,
or the chance of exodus for their children.
I can’t quite imagine what these barely educated children might do
in Europe, except perhaps live in a different, and probably more
unpleasant, kind of grinding poverty.
I ask a man what Europe would mean to Turkey. “First of all,” he
replies, “cars will get cheaper, and we’ll be able to travel freely.”
And what would Turkey bring to Europe? Lots, he says, smiling. “Olives,
pistachios, carpets and fabrics.”
What more could Brussels ask for?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Birthright Armenia
P.O. Box 8221
Radnor, PA 19087
Contact: Linda Yepoyan
Tel/Fax: (610)642-6633
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
November 12, 2004
———————————-
BIRTHRIGHT ARMENIA SPONSORS LOCAL NGO INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS IN ARMENIA
Programs available to young diasporans around the world interested in
experiencing Armenia are now broader and deeper in scope than ever
before. In addition to the many youth-oriented opportunities offered by
diasporan organizations, young Armenian adults will soon have even more
volunteer options from which to choose how they gain valuable work
experience while offering worthwhile assistance to the homeland. There
is now a whole host of Yerevan-based NGOs that are developing their own
internship programs, geared specifically to attract young diasporans
interested in making a difference in Armenia-leaving the doors wide open
for increased bridge-building and collaboration amongst 18-32 year olds.
With Birthright Armenia as the impetus, twelve local NGOs, covering the
range of arts through social welfare, are getting ready to pilot test
internship programs of their own. How these locally initiated programs
work is simple. The local NGOs are responsible for recruitment,
processing applications, placing volunteers in a valuable community
service position within their organization, and assigning each young
diasporan to a project that is quality in purpose and measurably doable
within an 8-week period of time. Birthright Armenia will provide the
infrastructural back-up support necessary for any quality internship
program to be all that it can be, namely, offering services of home stay
living arrangements, Eastern Armenian language instruction, weekly
forums, weekly excursions, and regular “havak” tie-in meetings with
other diasporan volunteers from the whole spectrum of organizations.
Once the volunteer completes their required minimum eight-week long
community service assignment or internship in Armenia, Birthright
Armenia provides each one with a full reimbursement of their roundtrip
airfare in the form of a travel fellowship.
“Having these new options for volunteer work in Armenia is a true
testament to the amount of progress achieved in the non-profit sector in
Armenia since the republic’s independence, combined with the pure and
keen interests on the part of local NGO representatives to be working
side-by-side with diasporans from around the world” said Linda Yepoyan,
Executive Director of Birthright Armenia. “NGO leaders and their
employees are quick to provide a long list of projects in which young,
educated and energetic diasporans can greatly assist their groups. Some
samples of volunteer work they can offer includes translations, editing
of grant proposals, creation of brochures and newsletters, giving
English lessons, Web site development, research, outreach with outside
organizations, conference preparation, and much more”, Yepoyan added.
“Our youth have a fulfilling experience in Armenia, helping them define
their own Armenian identity, and local NGOs gain not only much needed
assistance, but also a gateway to the Diaspora and exposure to Western
thinking”, she concluded.
The list of local NGOs offering internship opportunities to diasporans
18-32 years old and their area of interest or specialty includes:
– ARTS/CULTURE Internships:
Armenian Center for Contemporary Experimental Art (NPAK)
– EDUCATION Internships:
Armenian School Fund
– ENVIRONMENTAL Internships:
Armenian Tree Project
Makur Yerevan
– HEALTH/MEDICINE Internships:
Armenian Medical Association
Mental Health Foundation
– HUMAN RIGHTS Internships:
Armenian Young Lawyers Union
– PUBLIC POLICY/RESEARCH Internships:
International Center for Human Development
– SOCIAL WELFARE Internships:
Mission Armenia
Pyunic Armenian Sport Association for Disabled
– YOUTH ISSUES Internships:
Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA)
Youth for Achievements
Please visit the Birthright Armenia Web site at
and click on “Opportunities” to learn more
about these organizations and their missions.
Birthright Armenia’s mission is to strengthen ties between the homeland
and diasporan youth by affording them an opportunity to be a part of
Armenia’s daily life and to contribute to Armenia’s development through
work, study and volunteer experiences, while developing a renewed sense
of Armenian identity. This is accomplished by supporting and
complementing the initiatives of existing diasporan organizations that
offer youth programs in Armenia, and encouraging them to expand their
offerings in depth and breath. Birthright Armenia assists with travel
fellowships, language instruction, in-country seminars, orientation and
excursions in exchange for community service in Armenia.
# # #

La Padania, Italia
30 Ottobre 2004
Turchia: è la sinistra che dovrebbe opporsi
GIOVANNI FACCINI
Innanzi tutto mi consenta di farle i miei più entusiastici
complimenti per la sua nomina o riconferma al Parlamento Europeo dove
però, ahinoi, la situazione rischia di divenire pericolosa.
L’imperativo categorico del momento deve essere per tutti noi, forse
anche per Lei: inficiare quel subdolo tentativo in atto con cui si
cerca di fare passare per legittima e benefica una decisione che
sarebbe invece destinata a annientare tutti i popoli europei.
Ecco perché Lei cade proprio a fagiolo, vale a dire in questo momento
e dalla parte di chi, come il sottoscritto, sta cercando d’esortare
chiunque, anche politico professionista, abbia la necessaria dose
minima di coraggio per dichiararsi contrario a quel demenziale nonché
letale progetto volto a consentire l’adesione della Turchia alla
nostra Unione Europea.
Illustrissimo Onorevole Bertinotti, quest’iniziativa è stata
concepita, architettata, avviata dai soliti astutissimi poteri forti.
Bisogna arrestarla, bocciarla definitivamente.
I primi ad essere colpiti e danneggiati, infatti, se entrasse la
Turchia con paritetico diritto legislativo e esecutivo, sarebbero
proprio quei Lavoratori che voi così abilmente proclamate di volere
difendere. È evidente che qualsiasi ulteriore ampliamento dell’Unione
Europea ad altri paesi, appunto come la Turchia, già oltremodo
caratterizzati da pesantissimi problemi politici e socio-economici
d’ogni genere e dimensioni, in particolare soggetti a ormai
incontrollabili e incontrollate spinte migratorie, come quelle che
siamo obbligati a intravedere quasi ogni giorno, non farebbe che
complicare e peggiorare l’esistenza di chi, da noi, già oggi si trova
in fortissime difficoltà persino nel drammatico tentativo di pura
sopravvivenza.
Ecco perché, ora più che mai, è assolutamente indispensabile che i
più alti esponenti politici e sindacali scendano in campo nella più
strenue difesa dei Diritti dei Lavoratori.
Chi più di Lei avrebbe l’esperienza, la conoscenza e l’indipendenza
intellettuale e morale necessarie per ergersi in difesa dei Diritti
dei Lavoratori che, ancora una volta, stanno per essere così
platealmente e barbaramente ignorati, disattesi, mistificati,
danneggiati, se non addirittura travolti dal più spregevole
mercimonio politico e socioeconomico di tutte le epoche civili
conosciute?
Alludo a ciò che io stesso ho denominato “Questione Turca”, quel
progetto per il quale la Commissione esaminatrice di Bruxelles ha
emesso un primo parere favorevole, che dovrà poi essere seguito dalla
decisione che il prossimo consiglio dei ministri dovrà prendere il
prossimo 17 dicembre, sulla cui base si dovrà poi sancire l’avvio di
formali trattative finalizzate all’ammissione a pieno titolo della
Turchia nell’Unione Europea.
A parte il fatto che la Turchia con l’Europa c’entra pochino,
quand’anche riuscisse a convincerci d’essersi sinceramente avviata
lungo un percorso di riforme istituzionali rigorosamente
democratiche, e magari anche a riconoscere pubblicamente il genocidio
armeno, e magari persino decidesse di liberare Ocalan, per non
parlare di tutta la questione curda, della questione cipriota, dei
diritti umani, delle torture, nelle piscine femminili e altrove,
questo progetto presenta parecchi altri aspetti se non oscuri
senz’altro poco convincenti.
Taluni sostengono entusiasticamente che l’ingresso della Turchia
consentirà solidi progressi di varia natura geopolitica,
socioeconomica e finanziaria di cui tutti potranno fruire. Quali
vantaggi esattamente? Tutti chi esattamente? Altri ancora affermano
che non si possa e non si debba assolutamente abbandonare la Turchia
a sé stessa, correndo il rischio che essa sia infine travolta dal
peggiore fondamentalismo islamico a vocazione terroristica
globalizzata. Altri ancora sostengono che in ogni modo Europa e
Turchia assieme saprebbero realizzare cose eccelse mai viste prima
d’ora.
Chi e che cosa esattamente impedirebbe a un nuovo eventuale tandem
euro-turco di conseguire esattamente, ripeto esattamente, gli stessi
favolosi risultati senza che l’attuale Unione Europea sia obbligata
ad accettare la Turchia quale nuovo membro?
Sia chiaro, qui nessuno nutre alcuna antipatia personale o speciale
malevolenza nei confronti della Turchia o dei turchi – e lei nemmeno,
penso. O sbaglio?
Qui si tratta solo di chiarire alcune cose fondamentali. Innanzi
tutto è una questione di principio.
È ovvio: l’Europa deve cercare di aiutare gli altri paesi meno
fortunati. Ci mancherebbe altro che rifiutassimo di impegnarci in tal
senso solo perché memori di certe incaute imprese compiute dagli
antenati degli attuali popoli ottomani, o perché turbati dalle gesta
di certi Sultani che avevano il gioioso vezzo di fare strozzare o
altrimenti assassinare i loro stessi figli e fratelli? Come ad
esempio fecero tale Maometto I Sultano (1387-1421) allorquando ordinò
l’eliminazione dei suoi fratelli Musa e Solimano? Oppure come l’altro
ancor più feroce settimo Sultano, alias Fatih il conquistatore
(1430-1481) il quale organizzò l’annegamento del proprio fratello
Ahmed ancora lattante? Lo stesso che, dopo avere distrutto l’impero
di Trebisonda, fece pure strozzare il proprio figlio primogenito?
Oppure come il tredicesimo sultano (1566-1603) il quale, non appena
salito sul trono, dopo la morte del padre Murad III, provvide a fare
strozzare tutti i suoi fratelli (tranne uno sfuggito miracolosamente
alle mani del carnefice), completando poi l’amorevole opera con
l’uccisione del proprio figlio Maometto?
Eh no, Onorevole Bertinotti, ci mancherebbe altro che oggi noi ci
lasciassimo fuorviare da simili storielle d’altre epoche.
Qui nessuno vuole in alcun modo impedire l’ulteriore progresso della
Turchia. Qui nessuno si sogna di affermare che la Turchia, come tale,
possa costituire seria minaccia per l’Unione Europea. Tutt’altro!
Io personalmente, le assicuro, quanto più approfondisco questo
argomento, tanto più mi convinco che vi siano non una, bensì due
doverose considerazioni da fare a riguardo degli ipotetici pericoli
conseguenti l’eventuale adesione turca: se mai l’Europa dovrà
difendersi dalla invasione turca, allo stesso modo la Turchia dovrà
difendersi dall’evasione europea.
Innanzi tutto non bisogna dimenticare le gravissime crisi
istituzionali, finanziarie e economiche che la Turchia ha vissuto
negli ultimi cinque anni, con ripetuti fallimenti del sistema
bancario e successivi salvataggi grazie agli aiuti, a suon di
svariati miliardi di dollari del Fondo Monetario Internazionale,
eccetera.
Insomma, per non farla troppo lunga, la Turchia non esibisce ancora,
nemmeno oggi, le cosiddette “fondamentali” premesse macroeconomiche,
da cui poter intraprendere un reale percorso di progresso sociale e
di crescita economica. Ma non tanto per cattiva volontà. Soprattutto
perché è l’occidente stesso a volerle imporre un modello
istituzionale, giuridico, socioeconomico, finanziario e produttivo
che le è sostanzialmente estraneo e conflittuale.
Non sarà certo, come vorrebbe appunto fare l’attuale Commissione
Europea, estendendo qualche favore di natura assistenzialistica, che
la Turchia riuscirà a superare le attuali difficoltà di crescita,
sino a qualificarsi pienamente per l’adesione alla Ue.
Non sarà certo entrando nelle stanze dei bottoni, acquisendone gli
stessi diritti al voto in Commissione e nel Parlamento Europeo, che
la Turchia riuscirà a trasformarsi in meglio, ovvero a compiere quel
miracolo che è incompatibile con tutte le loro tradizioni e costumi.
A casa propria ognuno deve potere mantenere le proprie identità
culturali e conseguenti stili di vita.
Non è certo cosa elegante lasciar credere al vasto pubblico europeo
che, quand’anche si procedesse con gli scenari proposti, la questione
diverrebbe di concreta attualità solo fra 15 o 20 anni. Nulla di più
inesatto e ingannevole! L’Unione ha già sborsato e sta tuttora
sborsando fior di quattrini per mandare avanti questo piano: circa
440 milioni di euro per il periodo 1995-1999 e ben 2500 milioni di
euro per il periodo 2000-2003!
Così, mentre qui al nord Italia, oltre alle migliaia di aziende che
sono già state annientate o “delocalizzate” negli ultimi anni, se ne
stanno chiudendo molte altre ancora – vedi fra gli ultimi casi citati
recentemente la Zoppas di Treviso o l’Alfaromeo di Arese, con il
conseguente licenziamento di migliaia di fedeli lavoratori, per la
cui difesa è stato fatto poco o nulla, mentre nelle stesse regioni
già invase da migliaia di clandestini, oggi i soliti geniali
industrialoni nostrani pretendono l’arrivo di altri duecentomila
nuovi volenterosi immigrati.
Onorevole Fausto Bertinotti, mi auguro ardentemente che anche Lei
vorrà unirsi a noi in una sincera e onesta battaglia in difesa dei
Popoli Europei. Quelli veri.
–Boundary_(ID_ntaeTI+VBQrUw+6bBdcqlw)–

European officials say EU not to be involved in Karabakh settlement
Ekspress, Baku
10 Nov 04
“The European Union [EU] will not render specific assistance to the
Nagornyy Karabakh settlement. This organization is not going to be
directly involved in the settlement process,” Stanislas Lefebvre
de Laboulaye, director-general of political and security affairs
at the French Foreign Ministry, and Michael Scheffer, diplomatic
director-general at the German Foreign Ministry, who are visiting Baku,
told a news conference yesterday [9 November]. They think that Europe
is simply ready to give “general support” for the sides in the peace
process and “there is a legal basis for this as well”. That is the
EU has accepted a “specific mission” by including the three South
Caucasus countries in Europe’s neighbourhood programme. The visit
by the German and French diplomats is linked to the EU’s increasing
interest in the South Caucasus, mainly in Azerbaijan. The guests
yesterday met Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and
leaders of three opposition parties. The talks focused on regional
security, the development of democracy and the issue of putting into
operation the EU’s New Neighbourhood policy.
Summing up the results of their visit, Scheffer said that “after
hearing opinions from the people we had met, we concluded that Europe
could immediately start implementing its New Neighbourhood policy”. He
said that Europe is ready for cooperation within the framework of
the neighbourhood programme.
“We all want to see expansion and benefits of expansion. At issue is
both economic and political cooperation,” he said.
[Passage omitted: the EU and Azerbaijan to start regular dialogue on
the development of democracy, judiciary system and stability in 2005]
Laboulaye drew attention to the fact that they had had “an open
dialogue” with Azerbaijani officials. He said that both government
and opposition representatives shared the same views on integration
into Europe. In turn, the EU thinks that the development of democracy,
supremacy of law and the protection of human rights are priorities for
cooperation. Saying that “we export democracy and regional stability”,
the representative of the French Foreign Ministry said that the EU
attached great attention to the development of civil relations and
maintenance of peace in the region. He said that thawing relations
among regional countries would “be definitely included” in the next
round of talks between Europe and Baku.
“The opinion of the Azerbaijani leadership about this issue
is interesting for us. For both France and Germany stability in
Azerbaijan means stability in Europe. Being the EU representatives,
we will do our best to give support to the conflicting sides to find
a solution to the conflict,” France’s Laboulaye said. He said that
both as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group and an EU member, Paris
“is always keeping in focus” the processes taking place in the South
Caucasus, specifically in Azerbaijan. The Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
should be resolved to establish internal stability in the country.
As far as the settlement is concerned, Europe “does not want to
intervene in the dialogue between the countries”. At the same time,
the EU is ready to help the sides if an agreement is achieved on the
restoration of peace and repatriation of refugees to their native
lands. However, the EU does not come to the South Caucasus to resolve
the conflicts. The EU is trying to achieve peace among the regional
countries. Laboulaye cited as an example historical disagreements
between Germany and France and added that Azerbaijan and Armenia could
learn from Europe’s experience. “In the EU’s history, neighbouring
countries haven’t been hostile to each other for a long time.”
The representatives of the French and German foreign ministries will
go to Georgia and then to Armenia today.

CSTO CONTINUES TO DEVELOP AS MILITARY-POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
RIA Novosti, Russia
November 10, 2004
MOSCOW, November 10 (RIA Novosti) – “After the Collective Security
Session in Astana in June 2004, the CSTO has continued to dynamically
develop as a military-political organization,” Foreign Ministry
spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said in an interview with RIA Novosti.
“The unanimous approval of a draft resolution granting the CSTO
observer status at the UN General Assembly during the UN General
Assembly 6th committee session is evidence of the CSTO’s growing
prestige as an international regional organization.”
In the run-up to the regular CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting,
Mr. Yakovenko said the CSTO was a multifunctional military-political
integration structure that included Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. The purpose of the CSTO is to
develop a system of collective security capable of effectively reacting
to any possible threats to national security of the organization’s
members.
“The questions of responding to new threats and challenges – terrorism
and other violent manifestations of extremism, drugs trafficking,
illegal migration, organized crime, etc. – take an increasingly
prominent position within the CSTO,” he said. “The CSTO Committee of
Security Council Secretaries coordinates the CSTO’s work in this area.”
“The Central Asian Collective Rapid Deployment Forces, which was
created in 2001 and comprises troops from Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, played an important role in curtailing
Islamic extremist terrorist groups’ activity in Central Asia,” he
said. “Since it was founded, the forces have become an important, or
even decisive, factor in ensuring peace and stability in Central Asia.”

MP SAYS ARMENIA’S DESIRE TO COOPERATE WITH NATO “NATURAL”
Ayots Ashkar, Yerevan
9 Nov 04
An interview with the chairman of the national security and internal
affairs commission of the National Assembly, Mger Shakhgeldyan. He
comments on NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s visit to
the region.
(Ayots Ashkar correspondent) Mr Shakhgeldyan, was Scheffer’s visit
only a fact-finding one or it had more specific purposes?
(Shakhgeldyan) I think both statements are true. The visit may be
assessed as a fact-finding one in a sense that Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
was recently elected NATO secretary-general. The new secretary-general
needed to learn positions of the three states form the point of view of
continuing and expanding further cooperation with NATO. His specific
purpose was that he needed to get familiarized with the general
situation in the region and see the potential of NATO’s participation
in the South Caucasus processes, its presence and expansion.
(Passage omitted: it will take Azerbaijan and Georgia many years to
become NATO members)
(Correspondent) At present to what extent does Armenia’s position
correspond to NATO’s aspirations and desires?
(Shakhgeldyan) Armenia has made the decision to broaden cooperation
without becoming a NATO member. But one should not forget that NATO
is also a structure that takes part in military, political and social
processes. In this sense, Armenia’s desire to continue cooperation is
absolutely natural stemming from NATO’s significant role in different
processes.
(Correspondent) What will the programme of individual cooperation
with NATO give to Armenia?
(Shakhgeldyan) As it is at the stage of development, I think it will
be correct to speak about this when it is finished and endorsed. As a
preliminary assessment, I can say that the programme will give us an
opportunity to form more flexible cooperation mechanisms proceedings
only from the interests of our state.
(Correspondent) Can we interpret this as follows: this individual
cooperation programme will also counter-balance Azerbaijan’s claims
to be a pro-NATO state and to present Armenia as an anti-NATO state
and a partner of Russia?
(Shakhgeldyan) Sometimes Azerbaijan really tries to present reality
in this way. But I think that NATO understands very well that by this
Azerbaijan is trying to create additional problems for Armenia in the
world. But the individual cooperation programme in the first place aims
to develop Armenia-NATO relations, especially that earlier we took part
in different programmes initiated by NATO. Creating a counter-balance
to Azerbaijan’s strategy in this context is a lesser problem.

Minority Phobia’ Haunts Turkey
Kurdistan Observer
Nov 8 2004
Any attempt to revise existing norms revives memories of the
non-ratified Sevres Treaty of 1920, forced through by the World War I
victors that would have divided Anatolia
FATMA DEMIRELLI – EMINE KART
Turkish Daily News / Nov 7, 2004
In 1923 the newly born Turkish Republic defined its minorities and
their rights in the historic Lausanne Treaty that was signed by
Western powers who failed to prevent the establishment of the
independent Turkish state. 81 years after Lausanne, the minority
issue is at the heart of a boiling debate and is under pressure from
outside and within.
The main outside player is the European Union, whose executive arm
the European Commission called on Turkey to expand its cultural
rights to Kurds without explicitly calling them a minority, and
complained that Alawis were not recognized as a Muslim minority.
That immediately sparked fury in Ankara, but complaints were
whispered and criticism was restrained and care was taken not to
spoil the positive atmosphere in the wake of the commission’s
historic recommendation.
At the heart of the unrest layed the fact that neither Alawis nor
Kurds were among the communities recognized as minorities under the
Lausanne Treaty, widely acclaimed as the basis of the independence
and unitary structure of the Turkish state. Thus, the commission’s
suggestions for rights for Kurds and Alawis were perceived as
potential threats to the unitary structure of the state.
The roots of sensitivities regarding minority issues are strongly
grounded in the experiences during the decline of the Ottoman Empire
and the birth of the Turkish Republic after World War I. During
Ottoman rule, Christian, Armenian and other religious communities
enjoyed autonomy in their religious activities and education.
But both the Turkish establishment and Turkish public share a
widespread belief that the Christian West then used the stick of
religion and nationalism in Eastern Europe to break up the Ottoman
Empire during the 19th and 20th centuries. Any attempt to revise
existing norms revives memories of the non-ratified Sevres Treaty of
1920, forced through by the World War I victors that would have
divided Anatolia with outright independence for the Armenians and
autonomy for the Kurds, leading to their independence.
The EU moved to calm the fears by saying the rights enjoyed by the
people were what mattered and not the “terminology,” and made it
clear Turkey would need to revise its thinking on the matter in the
light of changing international practices.
“It looks somehow not necessarily compatible with the existing
international instruments that the only minorities that Turkey
recognizes as minorities in Turkey should be non-Muslim religious
minorities and that any other minority would by definition not exist
in Turkey,” EU Commission’s representative in Ankara Ambassador
Hansjoerg Kretschmer told the Turkish Daily News in an interview.
That unrest in the state apparatus was initially kept low but Kurds,
and Alawis were quick to respond in a forceful way that rather
shocked the authors of the commission’s report and prompted
Kretschmer to admit, “I was somehow surprised by statements that are
made by representatives of Alawis and also of Kurds that they are not
a minority.”
Meaning entirely different things, representatives of both
communities agreed in rejecting the “minority” label designed for
them by the EU Commission. Alawis, citing their strong loyalty to the
secular republic and to its founder Kemal Ataturk, denounced the
“minority” description, something they felt was questioning their
firm loyalty to the state.
For Kurds, on the other hand, recognition as a minority fell short of
what they appeared to be wishing for, namely, acknowledgment of their
status as a “constituent element” of Turkey.
“We are not a minority,” Leyla Zana, a former deputy of the now
defunct People’s Democracy Party (DEHAP) told the European Parliament
in a speech upon receiving the prestigious Sakharov Prize. “Kurds are
a constituent element of the Turkish Republic,” she said.
Other Kurdish politicians emphasized that Kurds were too big a
community to be labelled as a minority, and their centuries-long
presence in Anatolia made it psychologically difficult for them to
accept minority status.
“We are talking about 20 million people who have been living in this
land for centuries. This huge number in itself and their presence for
centuries prevents them feeling like a minority group,” Hamit
Geylani, a lawyer for the pro-Kurdish Democratic People’s Party
(DEHAP), told the TDN.
“Calling for equal rights for all would not promote the
disintegration of the state; this fear is groundless. What leads to
clashes is the policy of denial,” he said.
“Provided that the state can satisfy its citizens, no one would like
to quit their own state and join another one, no matter how
geographically or ethnically close it would be. Switzerland is a very
good example,” said Serafettin Elci, former leader of the banned
Democratic Mass Party (DKP).
‘Sevres syndrome’
What marked a new stage in the debate over minorities was a report
drafted by a sub-committee of the Human Rights Advisory Board, a
government-sponsored body making recommendations to Prime Minister’s
Office.
With its sharp language criticizing the practice concerning cultural
rights, the report said the minority definition in Turkey was
restrictive, contradicting the modern-day trend that says nation
states are not to be asked if there are minorities living in their
territory and which accepts the presence of minorities in a state if
there are communities in that state who are “ethnically,
linguistically and religiously different” and feel this difference is
an inseparable part of their identity.
It said even the most innocent demands for a distinct identity have
been viewed with a “paranoid” suspicion that they are meant to divide
the country and promote terrorism, which the report described as the
“Sevres syndrome.”
The report’s blunt assessment created a storm even within the
78-member Human Rights Advisory Board, with some of its members
calling the report a “document of betrayal.” And it was that that
broke the silence of the state as well. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer,
in a message marking the anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish
Republic, warned the unitary structure of the state was an
untouchable issue and similar warnings from the influential military
followed.
“The Turkish Armed Forces [TSK] cannot accept any debate over the
unitary structure of the Turkish state, an untouchable provision of
the Constitution,” Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug told a
press conference last week.
Unleashing criticism directed to the EU — held back for weeks —
Basbug also said the EU Commission’s report was not in compliance
with the Lausanne Treaty.
“It is clear that the EU’s approach goes beyond the framework drawn
up by the Lausanne Treaty,” Basbug said, complaining that some of the
rights suggested for those communities in the EU report went beyond
cultural rights and spilled over into the “political realm.”
The ongoing debate is yet to finish and the rights and wrongs are yet
to be set, but it has already exposed fears that have haunted Turkish
minds for decades, perhaps even centuries.
But for Geylani, who is banned from politics for five years as a
member of the now defunct People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), this is a
time to cherish. “The very fact that the issue is being debated 81
years after the establishment of the Turkish Republic is the most
positive thing about the whole debate,” he said.

Eurasianet Organization
Nov. 5, 2004
ARMENIAN DEPLOYMENT IN IRAQ HAMPERED BY DOMESTIC OPPOSITION
Emil Danielyan 11/05/04
President Robert Kocharian’s administration in Armenia appears to have
pushed back plans to dispatch a contingent of non-combat troops to
Iraq. The planned deployment has generated determined domestic
opposition, with critics of the proposal cautioning that joining the
US-led coalition could endanger the small ethnic Armenian community in
Iraq.
Yerevan made what looked like a formal commitment to join the Iraq
mission during President Robert Kocharian’s official visit to Poland in
early September. The Armenian military contingent would be largely
symbolic — comprising roughly 50 military personnel, including
doctors, de-mining experts and truck drivers – and would serve under
Polish command. Poland, a staunch US ally, leads a multinational
division stationed in south-central Iraq.
Since the initial announcement, little progress has been made toward
deployment. Government officials announced in September that military
personnel would be dispatched before the end of the year. But observers
in Yerevan now wonder whether the government can meet this deadline.
A prerequisite for deployment is an inspection visit to Iraq by an
Armenian military delegation. The visit was originally slated for late
September. However, Defense Ministry spokesman, Seyran Shahsuvarian,
said on November 3 that such a mission has yet to take place.
Shahsuvarian declined to specify a reason for the delay, and would not
speculate on when the mission would occur.
Armenia’s parliament, meanwhile, has not received a formal request from
the government to authorize the troop deployment — something that is
required under the Armenian constitution. The National Assembly
ratified earlier this year an inter-governmental agreement with Kuwait
that regulates the movements of Armenian military personnel through the
Gulf state, which serves as the main logistical base for all foreign
troops deploying to Iraq.
Helping to explain the existing uncertainty is the fact that
Kocharian’s deployment plans have faced strong domestic opposition.
Kocharian critics maintain that the presences of an Armenian military
force in Iraq could prompt Iraqi insurgents to target the country’s
Armenian community, estimated at about 25,000, for reprisals. The
insurgents have already captured and killed dozens of citizens of
countries participating in the “coalition of the willing,” or otherwise
cooperating with it.
Among those opposed to the Iraq mission is Armenia’s biggest opposition
group, the Justice alliance, along with at least two dozen
non-governmental organizations. In late September, NGO representatives
issued a joint statement, cautioning that the consequences of
participation could be severe. “We risk turning a community of 25,000
people into hostages,” one of its signatories and a prominent
environmentalist, Karine Danielian, warned. Iraqi Armenians have
themselves exhorted Yerevan not to send troops. Their spiritual leader,
Archbishop Avak Asadurian, expressed their concerns in separate letters
to President Robert Kocharian and the Armenian parliament leadership.
Significantly, two senior army generals have recently voiced opposition
to deployment plans, marking a rare instance of public questioning of
government policy by members of the Armenian army’s top brass. One of
them, Deputy Army Chief-of-Staff Enrico Apriamov, implied that the
US-led invasion of Iraq had been a mistake.
Concern for the security of the Armenian community was a major reason
for the Kocharian government’s refusal to back the Anglo-American
invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Armenia welcomed the ensuing overthrow
of Saddam Hussein and publicly expressed a desire to “participate in
Iraq’s post-war reconstruction” shortly afterward. An Armenian liaison
officer was posted at the US Central Command in Florida in late 2003 –
a move widely seen as a prelude to the troop dispatch.
The commitment to deployment among Kocharian allies appears to remain
strong – at least publicly. In recent televised remarks Defense
Minister Serge Sarkisian said that while shares the critics’ security
concerns he believes that siding with the United States on Iraq is
vital for Armenia’s national interests. Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanian, for his part, argues that the Armenian participation would be
solely “humanitarian” in nature. Another Armenian leader, Parliament
Speaker Artur Baghdasarian, noted on October 29 that the United States
has provided more than $1.5 billion in economic assistance to Armenia
since independence, hinting that Yerevan should somehow express
appreciation for the American largesse.
Some pro-government media commentators say deployment should be
considered by Armenians as a geopolitical necessity. They note that
Armenia’s neighbors, Azerbaijan and Georgia, already have hundreds of
troops on the ground in Iraq. Deployment could help Armenia complement
its military alliance with Russia with closer security ties with the
United States and the West in general. A cosmetic Armenian military
presence in Iraq, they add, is important for ensuring US neutrality in
the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.
Some are skeptical that a troop contribution will produce greater
political and economic support from the United States. Alexander
Arzumanian, Armenia’s former pro-Western foreign minister and an
opponent of deployment, believes that risks far outweigh the possible
geopolitical dividends. “I just don’t see anything tangible we can get
now in return for putting at risk the lives of a large number of
Armenians,” Arzumanian told EurasiaNet.
Ultimately, it may turn out that decisions made in Poland will
influence Armenia’s final decision on deployment. Polish leaders are
pondering whether to scale down its 2,500-strong military force in
Iraq, or even withdraw it altogether by the end of 2005. Polish Defense
Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski called for a complete troop pullout in a
newspaper interview last month. Although other officials in Warsaw,
notably President Aleksander Kwasniewski, were quick to disavow the
statement, continued Polish military presence in Iraq is now in serious
doubt.
Armenia’s Prime Minister Andranik Markarian had that in mind when he
told reporters recently, “After clarifying some questions we may go
ahead or not go ahead [with the deployment]. Everything will depend on
the situation.”
Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.

Agence France Presse
Nov. 5, 2004
NATO chief hails alliance relations with Armenia

YEREVAN (AFP) Nov 05, 2004
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Friday hailed the
alliance’s relations with the former Soviet republic of Armenia as he
wrapped up a tour of the Caucasus.
“Armenia has agreed in principle to start work on an Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO,” he said after arriving in
Armenia from Azerbaijan.
“This is quite a significant step in the development of our relations,”
he said.
De Hoop Scheffer arrived in Armenia at the tail end of his tour of the
Caucasus that also took him to Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Earlier in Baku on Friday, he told Azerbaijan to “turn a page” in its
relations with archrival Armenia, its neighbor with which it remains in
a state of war.
“At a certain stage you’ll have to turn a page,” de Hoop Scheffer said
as he prepared to fly out of oil-rich Azerbaijan, where he met with
President Ilham Aliyev, to neighboring Armenia to hold talks with its
President Robert Kocharian.
The former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war in
the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, over
Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave in Azeri territory.
A cease-fire agreement was signed in 1994 with Nagorno-Karabakh
effectively remaining in Armenian hands, but with Baku still claiming
rights to it. The two sides have yet to sign a peace treaty and
formally remain in a state of war.
In September, Azerbaijan refused to let officers from Armenia take part
in NATO-sponsored war games on its territory. The games were called off
as a result.
“These kind of activities should be accessible for anybody and
everybody,” De Hoop Scheffer said Friday. “My advice would be if there
is Armenian representation, what is a better way … to discuss these
fundamental problems. Let the Azeri voice be heard also in the presence
of (Armenians).”
The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan killed an estimated 35,000
people and displace close to one million.
Years of negotiations chaired by the so-called Minsk group — chaired
by France, Russia and the United States and operating under a mandate
from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe — have
failed to find a solution and today no transport or communication lines
link the two neighbors.
Nagorno-Karabakh “is a big problem which has created a lot of suffering
already for much too many years and which urgently needs a solution,”
De Hoop Scheffer said.
The NATO chief arrived in Baku from neighboring Georgia, where he met
with President Mikhail Saakashvili, who aims to join the alliance
within four years.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress