Author: Kanayan Tamar

Agence France Presse — English
October 20, 2004 Wednesday 8:31 AM GMT
Bangladesh, Haiti at bottom in global corruption chart
BERLIN Oct 20
A global corruption index released Wednesday by graft watchdog
Transparency International highlights countries perceived by business
leaders, academics and risk analysts to be the least and most
corrupt.
The index lists countries in terms of the degree to which corruption
is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians.
Following are the top 101 countries and the bottom 18, ranked
according to their score out of a possible perfect 10.
Top
1: Finland, 9.7
2: New Zealand, 9.6
3: Denmark, Iceland, 9.5
5: Singapore, 9.3
6: Sweden, 9.2
7: Switzerland, 9.1
8: Norway, 8.9
9: Australia, 8.8
10: Netherlands, 8.7
11: United Kingdom, 8.6
12: Canada, 8.5
13: Austria, Luxembourg 8.4
15: Germany, 8.2
16: Hong Kong, 8.0
17: Belgium, Ireland, USA, 7.5
20: Chile, 7.4
21: Barbados, 7.3
22: France, Spain, 7.1
24: Japan, 6.9
25: Malta, 6.8
26: Israel, 6.4
27: Portugal, 6.3
28: Uruguay 6.2
29: Oman, United Arab Emirates 6.1
31: Botswana, Estonia, Slovenia, 6.0
34: Bahrain, 5.8
35: Taiwan, 5.6
36: Cyprus, 5.4
37: Jordan, 5.3
38: Qatar, 5.2
39: Malaysia, Tunisia, 5.0
41: Costa Rica, 4.9
42: Hungary, Italy, 4.8
44: Kuwait, Lithuania, South Africa, 4.6
47: South Korea, 4.5
48: Seychelles, 4.4
49: Greece, Suriname, 4.3
51: Czech Republic, El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago, 4.2
54: Bulgaria, Mauritius, Namibia, 4.1
57: Latvia, Slovakia, 4.0
59: Brazil, 3.9
60: Belize, Colombia, 3.8
62: Cuba, Panama, 3.7
64: Ghana, Mexico, Thailand, 3.6
67: Croatia, Peru, Poland, Sri Lanka, 3.5
71: China, Saudia Arabia, Syria, 3.4
74: Belarus, Gabon, Jamaica, 3.3
77: Benin, Egypt, Mali, Morocco, Turkey, 3.2
82: Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Madagascar, 3.1
85: Mongolia, Senegal, 3.0
87: Dominican Republic, Iran, Romania, 2.9
90: Gambia, India, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Russia, Tanzania, 2.8
97: Algeria, Lebanon, Macedonia (FYR), Nicaragua, Serbia and
Montenegro 2.7
———————
Bottom
129: Cameroon, Iraq, Kenya, Pakistan, 2.1
133: Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Georgia,
Indonesia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 2.0
140: Azerbaijan, Paraguay, 1.9
142: Chad, Myanmar, 1.7
144: Nigeria 1.6
145: Haiti, Bangladesh 1.5
End of list
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EUROPEAN ARMENIAN FEDERATION
for Justice and Democracy
Avenue de la Renaissance 10
B – 1000 BRUSSELS
Tel. +32 (0)2 732 70 26
Tel. /Fax. +32 (0)2 732 70 27
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Contact: Talline Tachdjian
Tel. +32 (0)2 732 70 26
October 18th, 2004
FIRST EUROPEAN ARMENIAN CONVENTION ATTRACTS HUNDREDS
— FEATURES LEADING EUROPEAN UNION EXPERTS
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM (18 October 2004) – In a landmark event that brought over
two hundred and fifty Armenian advocacy leaders from more than fifteen
European nations, the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy
(EAFJD) today held the opening day of the first ever Convention of European
Armenians in the European Parliament building in Brussels, Belgium.
The Convention, which is taking place at a critical time for the more than
two million Armenians living in the European Union, provided a forum for
scholarly discussion, rigorous debate, and consensus-building on the role of
Armenian culture and identify within the Europe, the implications of
Turkey’s candidacy for the European Union, and the expansion of the EU’s
“neighbourhood” to include the countries of the Caucasus. Today’s program,
which included the first two of the Convention’s sessions, featured
presentations by senior European policy-makers, intellectuals, and community
leaders. Each presentation, which was simultaneously translated in the
French, English, and Armenian, was followed by a question and answer
session. The day’s events ended with a reception in the European Parliament
building.
WELCOMING REMARKS
The Convention opened with remarks from Francis Wurtz, (MEP -European United
Left), the Chairman of the European Parliament host committee for this
program. His remarks were followed by Ruben Shugarian, the Deputy Foreign
Minister of the Republic of Armenia, whose responsibilities include Armenian
diplomacy toward Europe and the Western Hemisphere. A welcoming speech was
made by EAFJD Chairperson Hilda Tchoboian, who followed her remarks by
inviting Toros Sagherian, the Chairman of the Forum of Armenian Associations
of Europe, to offer his thoughts to those in attendance. Messages of
support were read from the H.H. Karekin II, Catholicos of all Armenians,
H.H. Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House Cilicia, and His Beatitude Nerses
Bedros, XIXth Patriach of Armenians Catholics.
ARMENIAN CULTURE ET IDENTY IN EUROPE
The first session covered the issue of “Armenian Culture and Identity in
Europe,” a topic of pressing concern to community leaders committed to
seeing the Armenian contribution to Europe fully recognized and appreciated.
The four member panel was chaired by Alexis Govciyan, the Chairman of
“Europe de la Memoire.” The discussion started with a presentation, titled
“The European Linguistic Policy: Commission’s Planning 2004-2006,” by
Jacques Delmoly, the Head of the Language Policy Unit in the European
Commission’s Directorate General. He stressed the importance the Commission
places on promoting a favourable climate for the learning of languages based
on a policy of linguistic diversity in an environment of integration. He
spent considerable time, both in his presentation and during questions and
answers, explaining the role of the Armenian language – which he cited as an
official European minority language – within this system of language
education.
Delmoly’s official perspective on Armenian language education was followed
by Haroutioun Kurkjian, an Athens-based author of Armenian language text
books. After reviewing the context in which the Armenian community has
evolved within Europe, Kurkjian, in his presentation on “The Armenian
Culture and the European Union,” stressed the need for the European Union to
create a favourable environment for multiculturalism, one that is conducive
for the development of Armenian language and culture. He noted his
dissatisfaction with the failure of schools and the media to sufficiently
propagate the Armenian language, and called for the European Armenian
community to undertake the gradual “cultural rearming” of the Armenian
diaspora.
The third speaker on the first panel was Prof. Mihran Dabag, the Director of
the Institute of Diasporas and Genocide at Bochum University in Germany.
His comments, titled “The Armenian Experience in the Context of European
Policies of Remembrance,” examined European attitudes and policies dealing
with the Armenian Genocide and other aspects of Armenian history within the
context of traditional and modern European models of remembrance. He noted
that Europe’s remembrance has not normally been understood as including the
Armenian Genocide, despite the fact that this crime falls well within the
European experience on a number of fronts. The Armenian Genocide should be
recognized as part of European history, he argued, not simply as an element
of the Turkish-Armenian relationship. Prof. Dabag cited the new Turkish
Penal Code, which criminalizes discussion of the Armenian Genocide, as a
prime example of Turkey’s refusal to come to terms with this matter.
Europe, he said, needs to provide a political answer to the political issue
of Turkey’s genocide of the Armenian nation. Moving beyond the Genocide
issue, he stressed that the Armenian community must make concerted efforts
to create a framework that will ensure that Armenian literature is accepted
by Europeans as part of their own tradition.
The final speaker in the first panel was Jules Mardirossian, Chairman of the
Armenian Studies, Information and Documentation Center in France. The
comments by this long-time intellectual and community leader, were on the
theme of “New Identities, Political Challenges and the Issue of Transfer of
Culture.” In his presentation, Mardirossian explored the transformation of
individual and collective identity and values of Armenians in Europe.
Starting with a theoretical discussion of the nature of identity, he then
described the reality of the post-modern, traditional, and transitional
models of Armenian community identity today. Mardirossian ended his
sweeping review of the identity challenges and opportunities facing the
Armenians of Europe with the insight that culture without politics cannot
survive, while politics without culture is sterile.
Questions for the first panel included requests for additional insights into
how to secure EU funding for Armenian language education, the potential loss
of the Melkonian School as a center of Diasporan education, and the broader
neglect of identity building outside of Armenia. A spirited exchange on
these issues lasted an hour, and was only adjourned to make time for the
group to break for lunch.
EU-ARMENIA RELATIONS
The second session, chaired by EAFJD Executive Director Laurent Leylekian,
moved the focus of discussion from Armenian identity within the Europe to
the EU’s relations with Armenia. This topic began with insights from
Marie-Anne Isler-Beguin, MEP, the Chairwoman of the EU-South Caucasus
delegation. As the point person in the European Parliament on engagement
with Armenia and its Caucasus neighbours, Isler-Beguin began by noting the
EU’s concern about the Armenian Cause, and stressing her appreciation of the
fact that the concerns raised by Armenians about Turkey’s candidacy are
founded in fact. While noting that the EU should use its leverage over
Turkey’s entry to bring an end to the blockade of Armenia, she added that
she believed that, in time, Turkey would accept its past and mutual
interests would prevail over mutual hostility. On the topic of EU-Armenia
relations, Isler-Begiun stated that European institutions would welcome
progress by the Caucasus countries toward the EU family. She specifically
expressed encouragement about Armenia’s acceptance into the EU’s new
neighbourhood program, the values that the EU and Armenia share, and the
prospect for continued cooperation between Europe and Armenia on specific
projects.
The second speaker, Vicken Tchitetchian, serves as Armenia’s Ambassador to
the European Union. He provided an in-depth review of the current status
and future prospects for expanded EU-Armenia relations. He pointed out that
European integration was not being imposed from the outside, but rather
sought by the Armenian government, which is moving this process forward in a
realistic and practical manner. Amb. Tchitetchian stressed that Armenia has
made progress in its key areas of reform, despite the fact that its
neighbour to the West has sought, using the last closed border in Europe, to
hinder its progress at every turn.
Also presenting as part of the second panel was Vahan Zanoyan, the CEO of
the Petroleum Finance Corporation and a world-renowned expert on
international energy issues. Zanoyan reviewed the history and current
status of the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline and its implications for Armenia.
He focused on two pressing challenges for backers of the pipeline, namely
financing, which has largely been resolved via multilateral agencies, and
the sufficiency of oil throughput for the line’s viability, which remains an
open question. He then spent considerable time offering his insights on the
geopolitics of the pipeline and its impact on Armenia and the region.
Richard Tibbels, the Armenian Desk Officer of the European Commission’s
Directorate General, offered a presentation on “EU-Armenia relations:
Challenges and Opportunities.” Tibbels, who works on a daily basis with the
Armenian government, stressed that Armenia has made considerable progress
across a number of reform areas – including alignment with European legal
standards, membership in the World Trade Organization, and in its poverty
reduction efforts. He also pointed out areas for improvement, including the
conduct of the 2003 presidential elections, respect for human rights, and
the need to address income disparity and corruption as the economy grows
stronger. The neighbourhood program is not a gateway to prospective EU
membership, but nor does it, he explained, in any way close the door to
future participation in the European Union. Tibbels closed by noting the
critical role that Europe’s Armenian community plays in bringing the EU and
Armenia closer together.
The next presentation began with an announcement by Amb. Tchitetchian that
the speaker – Demetrio Volcic – had been awarded the “Mkhitar Gosh” award in
recognition of his support for the rule of law and the virtue of justice.
Volcic, a former member of the European Parliament, noted that the EU has
adopted a new pattern of thinking about areas on its borders. The EU, he
said, can no longer afford to ignore the Caucasus region, and should devote
increasing attention to Turkey’s policies toward Armenia.
Volcic was followed by Armand Sarian, a noted economist from France, who
spoke on the topic of “Economic Relations between Armenia and the EU.”
Sarian began by noting the economic importance of this relationship, on
issues ranging from investment to foreign aid. He stressed the progress
Armenia has made on economic issues, despite its lack of resources, the near
total orientation of its economy to Soviet markets, the 1988 earthquake, and
the ongoing Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades. He underscored the need to
continue Armenia’s growth, to foster the conditions for peace, and to make
Armenia increasingly attractive to outside investors.
The final speaker of the day was Prof. Otto Luchterhandt, who teaches
International Law at the University of Hamburg. In his remarks, he outlined
a compelling historical and legal case for Nagorno Karabagh’s right to
self-determination. In addition, he sharply criticized the EU’s
inconsistency in identifying serious shortcoming in Turkey’s willingness to
meet clear European standards, while still recommending that Turkey begin
talks toward eventual membership. He stated his strong opposition to any
actions by the EU that position it as a neutral party in the matter of the
Armenian Genocide. The proper role for the EU, he argued, is in the morally
correct position of pressing Turkey to come to terms with this crime.
During the discussion period after this presentation, Deputy Foreign
Minister Shugarian repeated a point he had made several weeks earlier that
Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide represents a security issue
for the Republic of Armenia. Other topics raised in questions included
whether the EU was fully using its leverage to press Turkey to meet
international norms domestically and in its conduct with neighbouring
states. Other issues for discussion included Armenia’s economic integration
with Europe and the need for a differentiated EU approach to the Caucasus
countries based on the merits of their respective progress in economic and
political reforms.
Additional news about the second day of the Convention will be forthcoming.
The EAFJD represents more than 300 Armenian organizations in Europe.

BOOK REVIEW
by Aris Sevag for The Armenian Reporter Int’l (25 September 2004)
Hayots Badeevuh: Reminiscences of Armenian Life
Levon Z. Boyajian, Hayots Badeevuh: Reminiscences from Armenian Life in New
York City, (Reading: Taderon Press) 2003, xiii + 88 pp., photos, ISBN
1-903656-32-X, paperback. Available through [email protected]
Mention “Washington Heights, New York” to any knowledgeable Armenian,
particularly those who are in their middle or upper years, and
invariably they will make the connection to the Holy Cross Church of
Armenia, where Archbishop Ghevont Tourian was murdered on December 25,
1933. Just as Sarajevo, the city in central Yugoslavia where Archduke
Francis Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in 1914, has yet to
gain a new association in the popular mind despite the passage of
almost a century, so too has Washington Heights remained associated
primarily with Archbishop Tourian’s murder after three quarters of
a century. Of course, both Sarajevo and Washington Heights are much
more than mere sites of infamous murders, and the book under review
attempts to make a case for the latter.
The publication of this review happens to coincide with the 75th
anniversary celebration of Holy Cross Church. (See “New York’s Holy
Cross Church to Celebrate 75th Anniversary on September 19, 2004” by
Florence Avakian in the August 14, 2004 issue of TAR Int’l). Right from
the preface, the author, Levon Z. Boyajian, underscores the central
role played by this institution: “Our little corner, in a sense,
was what was left of the Armenian homeland, for those who ended up
in upper Manhattan clustered around the Holy Cross Church on 187th
Street.” However, Boyajian is not a historian, so readers will have to
look elsewhere for more information about the church. (See The Torch
Was Passed: The Centennial History of the Armenian Church of America
edited by Christopher Hagop Zakian, published by St. Vartan Press, New
York, 1998, and Very Rev. Oshagan Minassian’s doctoral dissertation,
A History of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church in the
United States (1888-1944), Boston University School of Theology,
1974, 754 pp.)
Boyajian’s focus lies elsewhere: “There was no physical resemblance
between this busy, urban, lower middle class, working man’s
neighborhood and their mostly rural agricultural homeland, for the
most part, in western Armenia. But what was left for them was whatever
camaraderie they had saved with their countrymen, and their efforts
to maintain and perpetuate their history, culture, and religion in
this alien world, and to do so for their children.”
Commenting on this book, Dr. Haikaz Grigorian so aptly states that
its author “has focused our attention on “Hayots Badeevuh” (Honor
of the Armenians), a psychological phenomenon linked with denial
and non-recognition of the first genocide of the twentieth century
Hayots Badeevuh is a universal condition to all Armenians inhabiting
the globe.” If for no other reason, this book should be must reading,
especially for young Armenians, who are growing up in a day and age
when the concept of Armenian honor and the importance of upholding
it has gotten lost to a certain extent, both in the Homeland and in
the Diaspora.
Hayots Badeevuh is largely a pastiche of snapshots of family and
community life in Washington Heights, the unremarkable story of a
nevertheless remarkable people in the early to mid 20th century. The
three mainstays of their lives were home, church, and hantesses, both
indoors and outdoors, almost always with formal entertainment. The
inherent divisiveness of political parties and compatriotic societies
nevertheless did not prevent personal friendships from developing
across lines of separation. This was perhaps a byproduct of the
“coffee house” or “club,” of which there many and where discussion
and debate of political topics was paramount. Dominant themes, which
run like thread throughout the story, are respect for one’s elders
and strong bonds, made possible by constant visiting, both informal
(any time) and formal (especially on Sundays).
Mention is made of public figures only insofar as there was a
connection between them and the-author’s family. These include Very
Rev. Yeghishe Simonian, pastor of Holy Cross Church from 1935-1965 and
then Prelate of the Western Diocese; Fr. Terenig Poladian, head of the
seminary at Antelias (1944-1956), who, we learn, was killed on November
22, 1963, the same day as President John F. Kennedy, by a disgruntled
individual whose candidacy for the priesthood had been rejected by the
victim; and a Dr. Gregory, “one of their countrymen, who had pioneered
the establishment of psychiatric service at Belleview Hospital in NYC.”
The text is enhanced by the mention of a few characters: “Soosly John”;
“Hratch, a man straight out of Damon Runyan,” also called “Harry the
Greek”; the importer-exporter Dickranian; and single woman “Dika”
(short for Dikranouhi). Yet these individuals are tame in comparison
with those, albeit of an earlier era, who populate Amerigahai Badgemer
[Armenian-American Sketches] by Bedros Keljik, published in 1944
by Yeprad Press in New York, my translation of which incidentally
awaits publication.
Although the author’s description of family members and relatives
may not be of much interest to readers in general, the latter will
perhaps seek to find similarities and parallels with members of the
previous generations in their own families.
Hayots Badeevuh makes no pretense of being anything but one’s
recollections of the urban environment in which he grew up: “Washington
Heights was a microcosm of urban immigrant America, and the Armenians
had their place in it. It was our town.” However, this slim volume
serves to whet the reader’s appetite for other memoirs and, why
not, histories of the Armenian community of Washington Heights and
other sections of New York City. As such, it has served its purpose
adequately.

Azeri prosecutor requests sentences for seven jailed opposition leaders
Lider TV, Baku
12 Oct 04
Another hearing into the case of those accused of committing mass
disturbances in the capital on 15-16 October [after presidential
elections in 2003] was held at the Grave Crimes Court today.
Prosecutor Nazir Bayramov continued [he started yesterday] reading
out the indictment. He requested that the court sentence [chairman of
the People’s Party of Azerbaijan] Panah Huseynov and [former general
secretary of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan] Sardar Calaloglu
to five years in prison, [editor-in-chief of Yeni Musavat newspaper]
Rauf Arifoglu and [deputy chairman of the Musavat Party] Arif Hacili
to six years as well as [chairman of the Hope Party] Iqbal Agazada,
[deputy chairman of the Musavat Party] Ibrahim Ibrahimli and [chairman
of the Karabakh disabled society] Etimad Asadov to four years and
three months.

Speaker describes children’s fate during the Armenian genocide
By Patrick Gordon, Daily Editorial Board
The Tufts Daily, MA
Oct 12 2004
Glendale – Dr. Hilmar Kaiser explored a new facet of the disputed
Armenian genocide in a lecture last Thursday that discussed how young
Armenian children were able to escape death, though usually at the
expense of parting with their parents.
“Armenian children had a strong chance of survival” during the period
of the starvation, abuse and loss of more than a million Armenians
that took place in the early 20th century, said Kaiser, a German
scholar of the genocide.
Kaiser described the genocide’s devastating nature on Turkey’s wider
Armenian population using authentic and often graphic photos of
the genocide.
Armenian girls and boys younger than age 13 were often spared,
however, because the Turkish government felt it was “possible for
Armenian children to be assimilated into Turkish culture,” Kaiser said.
Marriage into a Turkish family would save girls, especially younger
girls, from a more disastrous fate in the genocide’s death marches
across the Anatolia region.
“A saving grace for Armenian girls is the Turkish social structure,”
Kaiser said. “An Armenian woman who married a Turkish man automatically
became Turkish by association.”
The Turkish government also provided funds specifically to “feed
the Armenian children,” because they were also useful laborers,
Kaiser said.
For this reason, there also “was a clear pattern for survival of boys”
because they were needed to “work as shepherds, camel herders and
farmhands,” Kaiser said.
Armenian children were spared because of their importance in Turkey’s
textile industry as well. Their small hands could reach into the
spokes of the spinning machines to retrieve bits of unprocessed
cotton, making them “essential to the industry. Without them, the
textile industry surely would have collapsed,” Kaiser said.
But hundreds of thousands of older Armenians were removed from their
villages and provinces within Turkish territories, supposedly to be
“relocated” to distant and isolated pockets of the empire such as Azur.
Instead, the Armenians were subject to a “systematic exposure to
starvation, dehydration and contagious diseases,” Kaiser said.
The Turkish government still denies to this day that there was a
genocide, claiming that Armenian populations were simply removed from a
“war zones.”
But some Armenian children, though they were able to avoid the death
marches and forced relocations, were exposed to another extreme
hardship: prostitution.
Kaiser said that “there was rampant child prostitution and rape along
Turkey’s railroads during this period. Children eight years old and
even younger were prostituted in these regions.”
The origins of the genocide lie partly in the surging fear within
Ottoman Turkey that its Armenian population had sided with the Russian
forces during World War I.
The immediate genocidal period lasted from about April 1915 until
Sept. 1916, according to Kaiser. It began with the executions of
hundreds of Armenian leaders who had been fooled into gathering
in Istanbul.
Although Kaiser said that conflicting data and statistics make it
difficult to determine precisely how many Armenians were murdered
during the genocide, “the Armenian population could have suffered
about 1.5 million losses.”
Kaiser defined a “loss” not simply as a death, but rather as a
functioning member of the Armenian community who, for whatever reason,
could no longer rejoin it after the genocide.
“How many people were ravaged by disease and made infertile? How
many were reduced to insanity by the death marches? How many Armenian
women were married into Turkish families?” Kaiser said.
And though Kaiser stressed that the genocide was rapidly planned and
carried out by the Turkish government, he said that “there was no
long-term conspiracy to kill Armenians.”
Rather, “it occurred when the Turks had every reason to believe that
their last hour had come [as a result of World War I].”
“[It was more] the Turks saying ‘we’ll take care of the Armenians
before we go down ourselves,'” Kaiser said.
Kaiser was invited to speak by the Tufts Armenian Club. About 30 people
attended the discussion, which took place Thursday night in Eaton Hall.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
—————————————— —-
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +3741. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +3741. .562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
08 October 2004
Deputy Foreign Minister Ruben Shugarian Addresses Participants of
Training Course on Capacity Building in International Relations in
the South Caucasus
On 7 October, Deputy Foreign Minister Ruben Shugarian, spoke before
organizers and participants of the Capacity Building in International
Relations in the South Caucasus training course in the Media Hall of
the Ministry.
The course was held in Armenia for the first time (all previous such
courses were organized in Georgia) and was attended by participants
from Armenia and Georgia. The trainers were experts and scholars from
Switzerland, Netherlands and other countries.
The training course conducted between 25 September – 9 October was
co-hosted by the Foreign Ministry and Swiss Development Cooperation
(SDC) in cooperation with Caucasus Institute for Media Development
(CIMERA).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
October 6, 2004 Wednesday
Armenia NPP connected to republic’s power grid
By Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
The Armenian nuclear power plant is connected to the republic’s power
grid after 65 days of overhaul and full replacement of fuel. The
reactor of the nuclear power plant was put on the minimal control
level overnight to October 4 and the commissioning operations are
conducted on it.
The commissioned third turbine began operating with the capacity of
220 megawatt and generates five million kW per hour daily, director
general of the nuclear power plant Gagik Markosyan said. The fourth
turbine will be connected to the power grid in two weeks, the
director emphasized.
The operation at the nuclear power plant was suspended overnight to
July 31, and the current overhaul was the most large-scale for the
whole period of the plant operation. During the repairs spent nuclear
fuel was completely unloaded, the condition of the metallic hull of
the reactor was examined and fresh fuel was loaded. Specialists of
the all-Russian research institute for operations of nuclear power
plants and the Czech company Skoda made the overhaul. The managing
company Inter RAO UES acquired and brought to the plant 100 nuclear
fuel cases worth of 12 million dollars.
The Armenian nuclear power plant that was commissioned in 1979 was
stopped in 1989 after the devastating earthquake in December 1988.
The plant resumed its operation in 1996 involving Russian
specialists, and its second power unit also resumed its operation.

Libération , France
6 octobre 2004
L’UE donne son feu vert à Ankara;
Evènement 2. Turquie
QUATREMER Jean
Pour la Commission, les négociations peuvent débuter. La décision
devra être prise par les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement le 17
décembre.
Bruxelles de notre correspondant
La Turquie va pouvoir commencer ses négociations d’adhésion à l’Union
européenne. Dans une “recommandation” de huit pages, rédigée par le
commissaire à l’Elargissement, Günter Verheugen, et adoptée
aujourd’hui par la Commission, celle-ci estime que ce pays respecte
“suffisamment les critères politiques de Copenhague”, c’est-à-dire la
démocratie et les droits de l’homme, pour espérer pouvoir rejoindre,
à terme, les Vingt-Cinq. Un épais rapport de 187 pages, qui met
l’accent sur l’impressionnant paquet de réformes législatives lancé
par le gouvernement de Recep Tayyip Erdogan depuis deux ans, étaye
cet avis favorable. Enfin une “analyse d’impact”, demandée par le
Parlement européen, estime que l’Union ne pourra que sortir gagnante
de cet élargissement éventuel.
Malgré son analyse très positive des changements intervenus en
Turquie, la Commission se garde bien de recommander une date précise
pour l’ouverture des négociations : il reviendra aux chefs d’Etat et
de gouvernement des Vingt-Cinq d’en décider lors de leur sommet des
17 et 18 décembre. “Nous avons fait notre part du boulot”, dit-on à
la Commission : “A eux, qui ont tant souhaité que la Turquie adhère,
de décider si les négociations commenceront en 2005, ou après la
ratification du traité constitutionnel, ce qui nous renverrait à fin
2006, début 2007.” L’exécutif européen prend cependant soin de
préciser noir sur blanc, et c’est une première dans l’histoire de
l’élargissement, qu’il s’agit d’une “négociation dont l’issue reste
ouverte”.
La Commission a en effet prévu une “clause de suspension” des
négociations en cas de violation “sérieuse et répétée” des principes
de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme. Il reviendra au Conseil
des ministres d’en décider, à la majorité qualifiée, sur proposition
de la Commission. La Turquie sera aussi soumise à une évaluation
annuelle, à partir de 2005, afin de s’assurer que les réformes votées
sont effectivement appliquées. “La Croatie, qui commencera à négocier
début 2005, a droit au même traitement, même si son adhésion ne fait
guère de doutes”, insiste-t-on à la Commission, histoire qu’Ankara ne
crie pas aux deux poids, deux mesures… Et même si la Turquie ne
goûtera guère cette surveillance rapprochée, l’appréciation que porte
Bruxelles sur les progrès accomplis devrait faire plaisir au
gouvernement de l’AKP, qui voit salué son effort de modernisation.
Consensus. Mais la Commission prend soin de souligner qu’il y a loin
de la coupe aux lèvres : “Il faudra du temps avant que l’esprit des
réformes se retrouve dans le comportement des corps exécutifs et
judiciaires et à travers le pays.” De la torture dans les
commissariats, qui n’est plus “systématique”, aux violences faites
aux femmes, en passant par les discriminations dont font encore
l’objet les Kurdes ou la corruption, le rapport pointe les
dysfonctionnements de l’Etat de droit en Turquie. C’est pourquoi une
minorité de commissaires aurait aimé que l’exécutif européen se
montre plus dur.
Sans aller jusqu’à un rejet de cette candidature, souhaité par le
Néerlandais Frits Bolkestein ou l’Autrichien Franz Fischler, le
Français Pascal Lamy voulait que la recommandation indique que, en
cas d’échec des négociations, un “partenariat privilégié” pourrait
être proposé, afin de donner un signal politique clair de ce qui se
passerait au cas où Ankara ne jouerait pas le jeu. De même, la
reconnaissance du génocide arménien lui semblait une nécessité.
Enfin, il aurait voulu que la Commission réclame une augmentation du
budget communautaire afin de couvrir le coût de l’adhésion. Mais,
hormis l’Espagnole Loyola de Palacio, la Luxembourgeoise Viviane
Reding, le Chypriote Markos Kyprianou et le Slovaque Jan Figel, la
grande majorité du collège est favorable, sans états d’me, à
l’adhésion. Au pis, Romano Prodi, le président de la Commission,
n’obtiendra pas aujourd’hui le consensus qu’il souhaite afficher sur
la Turquie et devra procéder à un vote sur la recommandation pour
qu’elle soit adoptée.
Repasser le bébé. La Commission n’est pas fchée de repasser le bébé
aux chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement, qui ont précipité le mouvement.
Après avoir reconnu à la Turquie le statut de “pays candidat” en
décembre 1999, ce sont eux qui ont demandé à la Commission, en
décembre 2002, de préparer un rapport pour octobre 2004 afin de
décider si oui ou non l’élargissement à la Sublime Porte pouvait être
engagé. A l’époque, Verheugen et Prodi avaient protesté en vain, en
faisant valoir qu’il ne fallait pas se laisser enfermer dans des
délais trop serrés…

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 30 2004
Parliament’s Decision May Impede Armenian MPs’ Participation In NATO
Seminar
30/09/2004 09:03
The participation of Armenian parliamentarians in the “Rose Roth”
seminar of NATO Parliamentary Assembly to be held in Baku in November
depends on the decision to be adopted by the Milli Majlis
(Azerbaijan’s parliament).
AssA-Irada — This statement was made by Araz Azimov, Deputy Foreign
Minister also the Azerbaijani President’s special envoy on Karabagh
issue. Azimov noted that the Azerbaijani MPs’ position will play a
particular role in impeding the visit by Armenian parliamentarians to
Baku as well.
“The Azerbaijani parliament is the organizer of the seminar and
should express its position on the matter,” said Azimov, adding that
Armenians won’t be able to attend the seminar if Azerbaijani
parliamentarians reject their participation.

EU Gives Turkey Green Light
EU’s Historical Step Pleases Turkey
Verheugen Saves Turkey Report
Heated Debates Center around Turkey Report
World Talks about Turkey, Supports Progress Report
Busy Day for EU Sees Croatia Get Date, Turkey Recommended Date
[News Analysis]
Final Decision to be Made on December 17
Commission Foresees Different Procedures for Turkey
Turkey Prepares for Tough Talks with EU
Gul: EU Rejection of Turkey would Insult Islamic World
***************************************************************************
EU Gives Turkey Green Light
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 2 2004
The European Union (EU) Commission yesterday released its Progress
Report on Turkey. In addition to praising the reforms Turkey
undertook in the five years since it obtained the status of candidate
country in 1999,
the report also gives Turkey the green light to start membership
negotiations. However, the green light comes with strings attached.
EU Commission President Romano Prodi said that the decision is a
“qualified yes”. However, he warned that Turkey needs to improve in
the area of human rights, and added that the start of negotiations
does not necessarily guarantee membership.
The report itself clearly states that if Turkey backtracks on reforms
or if political unrest occurs, the Commission could recommend that EU
leaders suspend the talks. Suspension of the negotiations would
require approval of a majority of EU members.
Because several of the EU member countries are still distant to
Turkey’s membership, discussions stretched on for hours yesterday.
Political groups in the European Parliament voiced their views on the
results of the report.
Commission officials emphasized that the negotiations are a process
and that reforms as well as their implementation should be
maintained; otherwise, the negotiations will be suspended.
On the other hand, there was confusion over the inclusion of a few
articles in the report. Some experts assessed the EU’s addition of
measures such as suspending negotiations, restricting free movement,
and holding open-ended talks as amounting to a double-standard for
Turkey. Others defended that such measures were included in order to
tame the opposition against Turkey.
European Union (EU) Commissioner for Enlargement Gunter Verheugen put
forward that Ankara should not be concerned about the restriction on
free travel.
“We don’t start negotiations with three options. Our only goal is to
sign the accession agreement with Turkey,” explained the
Commissioner.
In an exclusive interview, Verheugen said that the condition to
suspend negotiations is just a precaution. He indicated it would only
be employed in case of a military coup, religious revolt, or the
revival of the death penalty.
“Turkey is no longer in the category of the countries that do not
respect human rights,” added Verhugen.
Even though the report praises Turkey progress, many parts of the
report constantly remind the country of the need to implement
reforms.
The report credits Turkey’s current Justice and Development Party
(AKP) government with realizing the bulk of the reforms undertaken
since the 1999 Helsinki summit. However, it notes that torture and
bureaucratic resistance to reforms are areas that Turkey still needs
to work on.
The report also encourages Turkey to take a harder look at
implementing reforms related to freedoms of thought and religion and
the rights of women and minorities.
While the Commission did not mention any date regarding when the
negotiations would begin, Ankara reminded that the EU previously
decided “to start negotiations immediately if the report is
positive.”
The report also does not hint when the negotiations might be
completed.
***************************************************************************
EU’s Historical Step Pleases Turkey
10.07.2004
Brussels, Zaman
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said yesterday that the
Progress Report released by the European Union (EU) Commission is
“generally balanced”.
Erdogan, holding a press meeting at the European Council yesterday in
Strasbourg, added that he believes the Commission report will be
approved in its current form at the December 17 EU summit.
“Since the report is affirmative, negotiations should officially
start within the first few months of 2005,” said Erdogan.
When reminded that Commission President Romano Prodi announced the
report with a “conditional yes”, the Prime Minister responded: “There
is no such thing. I think there is a miscommunication.”
“Today, we have reached the first target. We were given the first
green light, and we completed the first lap in the flag race,”
indicated Erdogan. He also emphasized that Turkey does not want any
special privileges during the membership process.
The Prime Minister then underlined the fact that by fulfilling some
of the criteria, Turkey was already ahead of some current EU member
countries. “We demand what is just for Turkey, nothing else.”
Regarding the suspension of negotiations if deemed necessary, Erdogan
said, “This could be disrespectful to a country that sped up the
democratization process. If there is civil insurrection in a country
then [the negotiations] should be suspended.”
Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul assessed the report
for the press in Ankara. He said that the Commission took a
historical step both in terms of Turkey and the EU.
Gul however expressed his disturbance at the fact that the report
contains criteria and precautions for Turkey that fall outside of the
Helsinki resolutions. Gul objected to the idea of “open-ended”
negotiations. He said that “full membership” could be the only result
of the talks.
***************************************************************************
Verheugen Saves Turkey Report
10.07.2004
Ali Ihsan Aydin, Cemil Kartal, Suleyman Kurt
Strasbourg, Ankara
The release of yesterday’s Progress Report on Turkey caused heated
debates in the European Union (EU) Commission.
The attempts by Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration to
include a clause requiring Turkey to recognize the Greek Cypriot
administration in the report almost brought the meeting to a halt.
EU Enlargement Commissioner Gunter Verheugen emphasized that Turkey
supported the Annan Plan for a solution in Cyprus and therefore met
its responsibility in the issue.
In addition, EU Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten
stressed that such a condition cannot be put forward for Turkey since
it did as much as it could regarding the issue.
On the other side, several more commissioners announced their support
for the position of the Greek side. French commissioners Pascal Lamy
and Jacques Barrot, Spanish commissioner Loyola de Palacio, and
Slovak commissioner Jan Figel all acknowledged that they supported
the Greek attempt.
As the heated discussions continued, Verheugen said that if the
Greeks insist on their argument, he would withdraw the report. Patten
fully supported Verheugen, saying it would be proper to withdraw the
report. The duo’s firm stance made the Greeks step back.
The Greek side had wanted to append the phrase “all parties should
recognize each other” to a paragraph on the 9th page of the report
that reads, “Negotiations will be conducted with the participation of
EU members within the framework of an intergovernmental conference
requiring a unanimous vote.”
In the end, the sentence was included in an indirect form that
reminds Turkey the Greeks will be at the negotiation table.
***************************************************************************
Heated Debates Center around Turkey Report
10.07.2004
Foreign News Services
Istanbul
The European Union (EU) Commission’s Progress Report on Turkey caused
heated debates yesterday among the political groups in the European
Parliament.
“I think this is the biggest nonsense I heard in 2004,” said Europe
People’s Party leader Hans-Gert Poettering when the Commission
announced that there was no evidence of systematic torture in Turkey.
Socialist leader Martin Schulz said: “We want big security plans to
be made in order to preserve the peace in the 21st century. I think
we have a better chance for this with Turkey than without Turkey.”
Liberal group leader Graham Watson said, “The EU’s openness to Turkey
should contribute to the harmonization of the three monotheist
religions.”
Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the Greens, which reacted against the
anti-Turkey groups, signaled his support for start of negotiations.
“I absolutely believe that this will contribute to peace. At the same
time, it will increase Europe’s strategic importance in a dangerous
world.”
***************************************************************************
World Talks about Turkey, Supports Progress Report
10.07.2004
Cihan
Brussels
Media institutions the world over provided ample coverage of the
release of the European Union (EU) Commission’s Progress Report on
Turkey and the ensuing reactions.
EU Term President the Netherlands informed, “The impartial decision
that will be made at the December summit will be based upon the
findings of this report.”
The Netherlands added that the reason no date was given for the start
of negotiations was because Turkey still had some deficiencies that
needed to be addressed.
The US administration meanwhile disclosed that it was satisfied with
the report.
German Chancellor Gerhard Shröeder repeated his support for a date to
begin negotiations, and said he found the report “fine and serious”.
Elsewhere, French President Jacques Chirac insisted that Turkey’s
accession could take at least 10-15 years if EU members reach a
consensus to start the negotiations. He also repeated his view on
conducting a referendum on Turkey’s full membership.
On the other side, British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave strong
support to Ankara. British Foreign Affairs Minister Jack Straw added
that the “EU should keep its promise now.”
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen found the report
“deliberate but positive”.
The Italian government signified that the report would ease the
process of giving a negotiation date. “The Italian government will
continue to implement its duty on the issue.”
Greece, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Slovenia also strongly supported
Ankara’s membership.
Austrian Prime Minister Wolfgang Schuessel warned Europe not to close
its doors to Turkey.
***************************************************************************
Busy Day for EU Sees Croatia Get Date, Turkey Recommended Date
10.07.2004
Foreign News Services
Istanbul
The European Union (EU) Commission advised that membership
negotiations with Croatia should begin in early 2005.
EU Commissioner for Enlargement Gunter Verheugen said yesterday in
his speech at the European Parliament, “The Commission provides a
basis to start negotiations with Croatia next year.”
The recommendation of the Commission will be decided on at the EU
Leaders Summit on December 17. The EU Commission also advised the
membership of Bulgaria and Romania to the Union in 2007.
Meanwhile, opponents of Turkey in the European Council tried to
append conditions to the report on Turkey just prior to the report’s
release. Suggested conditions ranged from acceptance of the
[so-called] Armenian genocide to a privileged partnership; however,
none of the conditions were added.
A few commissioners suggested that Turkey had not met the required
criteria. They therefore argued against the recommendation of a
negotiation date.
On the other hand, a large majority of the commissioners supported
the start of the negotiations, assuming Turkey fulfilled some
provisions.
No voting session was held in the Commission, and the decision was
taken by consensus rather than unanimity.
***************************************************************************
[News Analysis]
Final Decision to be Made on December 17
10.07.2004
Zaman
Brussels

The long-awaited Progress Report on Turkey was finally released
yesterday. The report did not declare an “exact yes”; however, at the
same time there were no heavy conditions that Turkey would be unable
to handle. The important thing was whether or not the Commission,
after a 45-year struggle, would advise an unconditional start to
negotiations. It has been achieved; however, strings have been
attached to the actual negotiation process.
We should agree on this: the European Union (EU) will conduct the
membership negotiations with Turkey in a different way. Like EU
Commissioner for Agriculture Franz Fischler, an opponent of Turkey’s
membership, said yesterday, the negotiation with Turkey would not be
the same as the ones held for the other countries.
It has been predicted that Ankara will easily digest conditions such
as open-ended negotiations and the EU’s ability to suspend
negotiations if Turkey backtracks on reforms. It is true that these
conditions are valid for other countries in word, but they were
handed to Ankara in writing.
Yet, the “permanent restriction” on one of the EU’s four basic
liberties, freedom of movement, indicates that the attitudes towards
Ankara are different.
Though the expression about the permanent restriction in the
recommendation is not binding, it matters in two aspects: The first
is that these arguments will constantly be brought up during the
negotiations, which could last 10-15 years; Second, an appropriate
circumstance will be created so as to allow EU leaders to make
ambiguous decisions at the December 17th EU summit.
At the December 2002 Copenhagen Summit EU leaders said that they
would decide according to the progress and recommendation report;
they pledged to start negotiations immediately if the results were
positive. What is expected from the EU leaders on December 17 is a
decision to start negotiations in February or March of next year.
Turkey, which has had the negotiation decision in its pocket, both
decisively carries on the reform process and reminds the EU to keep
its promise.
Brussels advises the opening of negotiations based on the assumption
that reforms such as the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and Appellate
Courts law will be completed by December. Ankara should not let
opponents create excuses.
It is advantageous to stay on guard until December 17 by considering
the possibility that the leaders will dilute the report’s
recommendation. That is the very time we will understand how
seriously the EU takes the report.
***************************************************************************
Commission Foresees Different Procedures for Turkey
10.07.2004
Selcuk Gultasli
Brussels
The European Union (EU)’s Progress Report on Turkey, which will be
released tomorrow by the European Commission for Enlargement, will
recommend that Turkey follows a different schedule for accession
negotiations – a schedule, the Commission tells Ankara, that previous
countries were subject to, albeit indirectly.
The Commission’s change in timeline attends to the anxieties of
Turkey’s opponents, while its defense reassures Ankara that it is
receiving equal treatment. Many of the recommendations that were not
given to previous countries are not new the Commission said, and are
merely solidified for Turkey.
Below are some of the reports conclusions.
– The 9-page report will recommend the start of negotiations.
– The start of negotiations will not depend on one condition, and its
continuity will be indexed to many conditions.
– The discussion process does not promise automatic membership. The
process is therefore open ended.
– Rules that were negligible, and not mentioned for former
candidates, will be solidified for Turkey.
– If Turkey does not fulfill all recommendations, discussions could
be delayed.
– Negotiations will not be done in a chronological fashion, rather,
Turkey will address several recommendations at once.
– Turkey’s application will be taken under microscope.
While writing the report, the Commission was sensitive to the
concerns of its constituents. One Commission official even said that
the report’s recommendations were a “foot massage” for the EU.
Intense debate and argument surrounded the report’s drafting.
Reporters suggested that if the General Managers within the
Commission for Enlargement couldn’t compromise, then the
Commissioners would have to when they convened on Wednesday.
According to sources within the Commission, the French brought a
plethora of concerns to yesterday’s discussions regarding the
recommendation’s context. Some sources noted that French President
Jacques Chirac has turbulent approval from the public — fodder for
Prime Minister Erdogan to publicly jest him.
***************************************************************************
Turkey Prepares for Tough Talks with EU
10.06.2004
Foreign News Services
Istanbul
Last second negotiations took place in the run up to today’s release
of the European Union (EU) Commission’s Progress Report on Turkey.
Anti-Turkey EU members attempted to append plenty of conditions to
the recommendation report. Ankara on the other hand warned Brussels
about applying a double standard to Turkey’s membership bid.
“We did our homework, now it is Europe’s turn to take the test,”
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said from Strasbourg.
Recommendations put forward the other day by general directors in the
Commission raised concerns in Ankara.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul held frequent talks over the
phone with his German, Dutch, British and Spanish counterparts, as
well as EU Commissioner for Enlargement Gunter Verheugen. Gul
requested that the negativities be ironed out. One of Ankara’s
greatest concerns was talk about including a “permanent restriction”
on the movement of Turks in Europe. Turkey made its displeasure
known, and in the end the proposed restriction was softened.
Turkey expects the fact that it has completed all the political
criteria to feature prominently in the report.
Foreign Ministry diplomats in Ankara who assessed the “whispers”
coming from Brussels held a two session meeting led by Gul. During
the meeting, the EU Commission’s Ankara Office of Representative was
contacted. A high-level diplomat described the atmosphere in general
as “cloudy yet moderate”.
Ankara discussed with Brussels Turkey’s approach to “possible
conditions”, such as being forced to recognize the So-Called Armenian
Genocide, recognition of the Greek Cypriot administration of EU
member Cyprus, and restriction on free travel.
Points that Turkey could definitely not accept were clearly addressed
one by one. For instance, EU Commissioner for Trade Pascal Lamy the
other day insisted on the recognition of the [So-Called] Armenian
genocide as a pre-condition.
Ankara explained to Brussels that it is ready to meet any demand
regarding the Copenhagen Criteria; however, it underlined that it
would not tolerate demands unrelated to the Criteria in the
recommendation report.
Meanwhile, EU Commission President Romano Prodi reiterated that there
would be “no special conditions for Turkey.”
Ankara relaxed a bit when Brussels explained that the rule of halting
negotiations would be applied to all candidate countries from now on,
including Croatia. The rule will allow the EU to suspend negotiations
with candidate countries if there is a constant deviation from human
rights and basic freedoms. EU sources point out that military coups
and backward steps in the reform process would also lead to the
suspension of negotiations.
Diplomatic sources disclose that absence of an expression calling for
an immediate start to negotiations would not constitute any
difficulty for Ankara since a decision in that direction had already
been reached at the EU Copenhagen Summit in 2002.
***************************************************************************
Gul: EU Rejection of Turkey would Insult Islamic World
10.06.2004
Selcuk Gultasli, Salih Boztas
Brussels
While the European press write that today’s European Union (EU)
Progress Report on Turkey is not a “technical” decision based solely
on the Copenhagen Criteria, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
said yesterday that he is certain negotiations will start; however,
he warned that the Islamic world would perceive a “subjective
political rejection” as an insult.
Gul explained that Turkey has changed in the last two years. He said
that the conditions required to begin negotiations have been
fulfilled and that no matter what, Turkey’s reform process would
continue.
“What if EU rejects Turkey?” asked one reporter.
Gul replied, “If a subjective political ‘no’ comes out, its
ramifications will not be limited to Turkey. Everyone will begin to
say, ‘Regardless of what you do, you will never be accepted since you
are Muslim.’ This would provide the Islamic world with a source of
enmity against Europe. It becomes a great insult. This is a test not
only for Turkey, but Europe as well.”
Turkey dominated the headlines across Europe yesterday. The UK’s
Financial Times contends that in theory the decision about whether or
not to start negotiations is a technical decision that should be made
depending on Turkey’s progress in democracy and human rights;
however, in practice it goes far beyond the technical points.
Despite the claims of pro-Turkey Europeans who defend that the
decision on Turkey’s membership was given 40 years ago, anti-Turkey
Europeans still maintain some geopolitical, economic, and demographic
reservations. The paper predicts that the report will recommend the
start of negotiations; however, the final decision will rest with
state and government leaders who will convene in Brussels in
December.
Meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) emphasized that the
EU toughened the accession conditions for Turkey.
Yesterday’s edition of the Guardian claims that the real issue in
terms of Turkey’s accession to EU is not religious, but economic. The
paper suggests that Turkey’s agrarian-based economy dominated by
middle and lower income groups will clash with the rich
industrialized economies of Western Europe.
Belgium’s La Libre Belgique daily writes that the EU holds the “sword
of Democles” over Turkey. The paper indicates that Brussels will try
to maintain its control over Ankara.
Le Soir on the other side claims that the documents discussed by the
EU Commission contain tough conditions.
10.06.2004
Foreign News Services
Istanbul