Author: Karagyozian Lena

FRANCE POSTPONES CONTROVERSIAL ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL
18 May 2006
Voice of America
May 18 2006
The French parliament has postponed a vote on a controversial bill
that would criminalize attempts to deny claims of an Armenian genocide
about 90 years ago in what is now Turkey.
Philippe Douste-Blazy Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told
lawmakers the government could not accept the bill, saying it would
offend the majority of the Turkish people. Lawmakers then put off
the issue until later this year.
Turkish officials had warned that adoption of the bill would cause
permanent damage to the relations between the two countries. Turkey
recalled its ambassador from France earlier this month amid the
rising tensions.
A number of countries, including France, have already officially
recognized the deaths of about 1.5 million Armenians as genocide. The
new Socialist Party-sponsored bill would go further and include a
prison sentence of up to five years and a $57,000 fine for those
denying that genocide took place.
Turkey acknowledges the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians,
but says they died in civil strife and a Russian-backed Armenian
uprising against Ottoman rule that killed at least as many Turks.

GENOCIDE ARMENIEN: L’UEJF DEPLORE UN “DEBAT AVORTE”
Agence France Presse
18 mai 2006 jeudi
L’Union des etudiants juifs de France (UEJF) a deplore “le debat
avorte” a propos de la proposition de loi socialiste visant a
sanctionner la negation du genocide armenien, enterree jeudi par
l’Assemblee nationale.
“Invoquer des possibles consequences politiques ou economiques en
Turquie pour ne pas voter la proposition de loi est une offense a la
memoire du million et demi d’Armeniens genocides en 1915 et a leurs
descendants”, estime l’UEJF dans un communique.
“L’UEJF regrette que l’exigence de verite et le devoir moral ne soient
pas l’ambition première de l’ensemble des responsables politiques de
notre pays” et “espère que le Parlement pourra discuter sereinement
et souverainement de cette proposition de loi”.
“De retour du Rwanda (où elle avait organise un voyage du 14 au
21 fevrier sur la memoire des genocides), l’UEJF a la conviction
renforcee que le dialogue des memoires est une necessite pour la
societe francaise et pour l’ensemble de nos concitoyens”, selon le
president de l’organisation, Benjamin Abtan, cite par le communique.
L’examen, jeudi, de la proposition de loi a l’Assemblee qui avait
commence dans la confusion, a ete interrompu sans etre acheve et
son vote a ete reporte sine die sous les cris de colère de plusieurs
dizaines de partisans de la cause armenienne masses dans les tribunes
du public. La proposition visait a completer par un volet penal la
loi du 29 janvier 2001 par laquelle la France reconnaît le genocide
armenien.
–Boundary_(ID_lvwzFhmuwMEhXu5 PQwcliQ)–

GENOCIDE ARMENIEN: “IL APPARTIENT AU GROUPE PS” DE REPRESENTER SON TEXTE (DEBRE)
Agence France Presse
18 mai 2006 jeudi
Le president de l’Assemblee nationale, Jean-Louis Debre, a estime
jeudi qu’il “appartenait au groupe socialiste de reinscrire dans le
cadre de sa niche parlementaire” sa proposition de loi reprimant la
negation du genocide armenien.
Invite de “questions d’info” LCP/LeMonde/France Info, M. Debre
s’exprimait juste après avoir leve la seance sans que la proposition
de loi socialiste soit soumise au vote des deputes.
L’examen de ce texte, qui etait inscrit dans la “niche parlementaire”
du PS (seance dont l’ordre du jour est fixe par un groupe
parlementaire), n’a pu etre acheve avant la fin de la seance.
La prochaine “niche” PS est prevue en novembre.
Jean-Louis Debre a toutefois rappele son opposition a legiferer sur
des faits historiques. “La loi n’ecrit pas l’histoire, elle n’est
pas la pour dire quel est le sens d’evenements historiques. Nous
n’avons pas a ecrire l’histoire de la France, ni a ecrire l’histoire
des relations entre les autres peuples”, a-t-il dit.
Il a fait remarquer avoir souhaite la mise en place d’une commission
internationale chargee “de se pencher sur l’ensemble des archives
pour approcher la verite” sur le genocide armenien.
En 2001, la France a reconnu par la loi le genocide armenien.
“Ne donnons pas par la loi, de la passion a quelque chose qui relève
des consciences et du travail des historiens”, a dit encore le
president de l’Assemblee.
–Boundary_(ID_ZYBOHzoXtnoUlQa4kudqM A)–

PETER SEMNEBY: THE THREE SOUTH CAUCASIAN STATES MOVE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS
ArmRadio.am
17.05.2006 13:00
EU Special Representative for South Caucasus Peter Semneby considers
that the three South Caucasian countries “move in different
directions.”
“Georgia has taken a special course towards the European Union and
the West.
Armenia differs with that it still feels the influence of restrictions
coming from the atmosphere of isolation. Azerbaijan carries out
rather balanced policy towards its neighbors and partners,” Peter
Semneby said.
“All three countries face the necessity of reinforcing their state
institution. Georgia and Armenia have special problems with their
“big neighbors,” the first with Russia, the latter with Turkey,” Peter
Semneby declared in his interview to the Moscow based “Nezavisimaya
Gazeta” newspaper.

BRACKS REFUSES TO ACT ON MP’S ‘GENOCIDE’ SPEECH
The Age, Australia
May 16 2006
s-refuses-to-act-on-mps-genocide-speech/2006/05/16 /1147545305736.html
A Victorian MP’s parliamentary speech accusing Turkish people of
ignoring acts of genocide more than 80 years ago is a sign of free
speech at work, Victorian Premier Steve Bracks says.
Jenny Mikakos, the parliamentary secretary for justice, whose ethnic
background is Greek, has accused Turkey of ignoring the killing of
hundreds of thousands of ethnic Greeks between 1916 and 1923.
In a short speech to the Victorian upper house during the last session
of parliament, Ms Mikakos reportedly said: “On May 19, the Pontian
community in Victoria and around the world will commemorate the 87th
anniversary of the Pontian genocide that occurred in present-day
Turkey.
“Between 1916 and 1923, over 353,000 Pontic Greeks living in Asia
Minor and in Pontus, which is near the Black Sea, died as a result of
the 20th Century’s first but less-known genocide,” Fairfax reported
her as saying.
“Over a million Pontic Greeks were forced into exile. In the preceding
years, 1.5 million Armenians and 750,000 Assyrians in various parts
of Turkey also perished.”
Two Labor MPs of Turkish descent, Adem Somyurek and John Eren,
interjected but Ms Mikakos continued speaking.
“The Turkish government must begin the reconciliation process by
acknowledging these crimes against humanity. The suffering of the
victims of the Pontian genocide cannot and will not be forgotten,”
she said.
The comments, made under a system of 90-second free statements for
MPs established by the Bracks government, have outraged Turkish and
Jewish groups.
But Mr Bracks today said Ms Mikakos, one of two members for the safe
Jika Jika province in Melbourne’s north, was free to make the speech.
“Free speech is something that we uphold, and I understand that,
and the freedom to criticise someone who makes a statement is also
appropriate as well,” he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
“As to the interpretation of those events, that is a matter which,
really, other people can judge, but this is something she obviously
felt passionate about.
“It’s up to her. She is a member of parliament who can submit those
things to the parliament.
“But equally, people have the right to vigorously disagree with her
point of view.”
__________________________________________ ________ Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

OPPOSITIONAL POLITICIAN: ARMENIA-IRAN COOPERATION IS EXCLUSIVE BY ITS SIGNIFICANCE
Yerevan, May 16. ArmInfo. Armenia has stopped to be a hostile wedge
inside the Islamic world for the first time in its centuries-old
history and it is very important to keep this achievement, the leader
of the “National-Democratic Union” party Vazgen Manukyan told today
to journalists, asked about the possible consequences of the military
operation against Iran for Armenia.
According to Manukyan, such an operation can turn into a catastrophe
for Armenia. One should not rule out a possible military conflict
“in view of the fact that USA administration has become unpredictable
for the last years”. “Armenia must do the best to keep this exclusive
example of successful cooperation with a fundamental Islamic country”,
Manukyan said.

RUSSIA’S ENERGY SECTOR HIDES WEAKNESSES BEHIND POWERFUL FACADE
Stephen Blank
EurasiaNet, NY
May 16 2006
A EurasiaNet Commentary
In late April, representatives of Russia’s Kremlin-controlled gas
conglomerate, Gazprom, threatened to reduce exports to Europe after
the EU blocked the company’s attempts to obtain several European
energy entities. EU officials dismissed the threat, believing that
the Russian energy industry could not survive without generating a
hefty European cash flow. They were right. Behind its mighty facade,
Russia’s energy sector, which the Kremlin has used in recent months to
bully its neighbors and expand its geopolitical reach, suffers from
a decaying infrastructure and a dependence on Western technology and
cheap Central Asian energy.
Russian exporters are able to ship large quantities of energy to Europe
and Asia today only because of its unique relationship to Central
Asian oil and gas producers. And the future of this relationship is
crucial to understanding the global energy game.
The Kremlin has significantly enhanced its control over Central Asian
energy in recent years, book-ended by a 25-year natural gas supply
deal with Turkmenistan in 2003 and a massive oil supply agreement
with Kazakhstan last month. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. To many outside observers, the Russian energy sector
has assumed an aura of a juggernaut. Statistics seem to support
this impression: Russia has been responsible for fully half of the
increase in global crude oil supplies over the past five years. The
image has also been fueled by the Kremlin’s use of conglomerates as
instruments of geopolitical policy. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive].
Appearances can be deceptive, however, at least when it comes to
Russia’s energy sector. There are numerous signs that Russia is in
danger of overextending itself, while dawdling on investing in its
energy infrastructure. The overextension problem is most noticeable in
Moscow’s dealings with Asia. Russia has made an array of commitments to
China and Japan to meet those countries’ voracious energy appetite. For
example, President Vladimir Putin in March indicated that Russia
by 2011 would be in position to deliver upwards of 80 billion cubic
meters of gas annually to China via two pipelines. Meeting that goal
will be difficult, however, as the pipeline linking China and western
Siberia has yet to be built. In general, questions continue to hover
over virtually all of Russia’s oil & gas-related deals with China
and Japan. And even if the energy flows eastward as anticipated,
Asian officials are already expressing doubts about whether the
amounts pledged by Russia are sufficient to meet projected needs.
Beyond the question of Russia trying to export more than it can
pump, the country will have to contend in the coming years with
growing domestic demand, along with the need to repair existing
infrastructure and tap into new energy fields. Both of these latter
tasks are enormously expensive, given the difficulties of working in
Siberia’s uninviting terrain and weather conditions. Experts say that
the significant increase in Russia’s energy production in recent years
would not have been possible without the use of Western technology
and techniques, including hydrofracturing, a process in which steam
is forced into a well to ease the pumping of oil.
Likewise, Western equipment and know-how will be needed to develop
new energy sources in the Arctic, as well as off the country’s
Pacific coast.
Despite the need for outside investment, Russian policies seem
calculated to prop up closed domestic monopolies, and thus repel
foreign capital and technology. In addition, foreign investors
continue to face enormous risks when doing business in Russia:
although foreigners can buy minority stakes in Russian energy firms,
the concept of shareholder rights remains poorly developed, leaving
outsiders vulnerable to the whims of a non-transparent and notoriously
corrupt system.
For now, Central Asian energy is helping Russia mask both current
energy problems and future dilemmas. Until recently every export
pipeline for oil and gas produced in Central Asia was routed through
Russia, enabling the Kremlin to import energy at exceedingly low
cost. Putin sought to maximize Moscow’s leverage by creating a gas
cartel led by Russia. Kremlin control over Central Asian energy reached
the point that in late 2005, Russia felt secure in imposing dramatic
price increases on its CIS neighbors, including Ukraine, Georgia
and Armenia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. A
subsequent pricing dispute with Ukraine prompted Russia to temporarily
halt the energy flow in early 2006. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive].
Central Asian governments are not content with existing arrangements,
however, and are turning to China in order to break Russia’s
pipeline monopoly. A 1,000-kilometer-pipeline linking Kazakhstan
to China, opened last December, became Central Asia’s first export
route not to cross Russian territory. Now the authoritarian-minded
leaders of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, along with Kazakhstan, are
exploring the feasibility of building more pipelines that parallel the
Kazakhstani-Chinese route. The possible construction of a trans-Caspian
pipeline, which would enable Central Asian energy to hook up with
Azerbaijani-Turkish routes, could further weaken Russia’s grip on
regional exports.
Much of Russia’s neo-imperial designs in Central Asia are connected
with the fact that the Kremlin’s global economic strategy is dependent
on Moscow’s continued access to cheap Central Asian energy.
Central Asian energy is far cheaper to extract than Russia’s, thus the
Kremlin uses it for Russian domestic consumption, which is heavily
subsidized, while shipping Siberian production abroad. The ensuing
price manipulation is the source of enormous revenues that helps
sustain the government and overall Russian economy.
It is easy to see how the loss of control over Central Asian energy
exports and production would severely damage Russia’s political and
economic interests. If Central Asian states start pumping oil to China
and Azerbaijan, Russia would likely have to use its own production
to meet domestic needs. This, in turn, would dash Moscow’s export
plans for Europe and Asia. At the very least, the availability of
other export options would force Moscow to pay considerably higher
prices for Central Asian oil and gas – a development that could have
ruinous consequences for the Russian economy. Two analysts, Vladimir
Paramonov and Aleksey Strogov wrote in 2004; “should energy prices in
the domestic market reach the world level, it will spell the end for
virtually all Russian enterprises. Even if world fuel prices remain
high, fuel production will become uneconomic in Russia.”
Asian and European governments are becoming increasingly aware of
Central Asia’s importance in the global energy security calculus.
Meanwhile, Washington is exerting pressure on Kazakhstan to make a firm
commitment to a trans-Caspian pipeline. Should Central Asia achieve
energy independence with outside help, Russia would quickly come under
pressure to reform its domestic economy, especially the energy sector,
so that it could better compete in a free trade environment. It follows
that economic liberalization would undermine, if not reverse Putin’s
attempts to re-centralize political power in Russia.
Of course, there is one factor that makes the Central Asian energy
game extremely unpredictable – the brittle nature of the regimes in
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Both countries are ruled by despots –
Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenistan and Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan
– reliant on the widespread use of repression to maintain their
authority. Many political observers believe Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan
remain vulnerable to social explosions. In addition, the lack of a
political succession mechanism in both states could spark upheaval
in the event of Niyazov’s and Karimov’s deaths. Disorder in either
country — especially in Uzbekistan, Central Asia’s most populous
state – could engulf the entire region. If such a scenario occurs,
Central Asia’s export ability could be impaired and the major energy
players – the United States, EU, Russia and China – would all stand
to be big losers.
Editor’s Note: Stephen Blank is a professor at the US Army War
College. The views expressed this article do not in any way represent
the views of the US Army, Defense Department or the US Government.

Armenian defence minister unruffled by speaker’s resignation

Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
12 May 06

[Presenter] Armenian Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan does not regard
the Orinats Yerkir [Law-Governed Country] Party’s decision to quit the
ruling coalition as an extraordinary situation. Sarkisyan said that
all talk about a conflict was an exaggeration and existing
disagreements simply came to a logical end.
[Sarkisyan] I do not think that some extraordinary situation has come
about here. I advise you not to look for any underlying reasons. The
[ruling] coalition, which consisted of three political parties, was
set up in 2003 and now one of them has decided to quit because of
disagreements with the two others.
[Correspondent] Can we say that Sarkisyan gained a victory over
[parliament speaker Artur] Bagdasaryan and sidelined him from the
presidential election? [Sarkisyan] I think it would be good if you
put this question to Bagdasaryan because I do not think that there
have been conflict between us or that we have been fighting over
something.

WEST WAITS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE, BUT ARMENIA HAS NO ALTERNATIVE
Lragir.am
13 may 06
Member of Parliament Shavarsh Kocharyan announced May 13 the
evaluation of the parliamentary election 2007 by the West depends on
the alternative of the political sphere rather than the degree of
irregularities.
`All the evaluations of Armenian elections are objective, but their
consistency depends on if the West can see an alternative. If there is
an alternative, the West is consistent,’ says Shavarsh Kocharyan.
And for Armenia European integration has no alternative, says the
leader of the National Democratic Party. He says even the government
understands this, and the evidence to this is Arthur Baghdasaryan’s
statements.
`The fact that today the Orinats Yerkir emphasizes democratization,
European integration. This is something positive, positive in the
sense that it displays that there is no other alternative for
Armenia. In other words, this shows that even the regime acknowledges
this, simply Arthur Baghdasaryan opposed to the other branches of
power and put the question more acutely out of certain aims,’ says
Shavarsh Kocharyan. Besides, he does not exclude that Arthur
Baghdasaryan could have decided to resign and secede from the
coalition relying on signals from the West.
`In fact, the West has a positive attitude towards him, this is
obvious. But its continuity depends on people’s attitude,’ says
Shavarsh Kocharyan, emphasizing again that the West supports those who
offer an alternative tothe present government.

PROGRAM REFUGEES’ REGISTRATION TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN ARARAT MARZ

ARARAT, MAY 12, NOYAN TAPAN. The program of refugees’ registration
will take place in the marz of Ararat. The program will be financed by
the Armenian Office of the Norwegian Refugee Council. UN expert Jean
Yves Bouchardy, Arayik Haroutiunian, the Chief of the RA Migration
Agency’s Department for Refugees and Rudolf Zakarian, the program head
of the Norwegian Refugee Council visited the marz on May 11 for that
purpose. It was mentioned during the meeting with Ararat Governor Alik
Sargsian that defining of the final number of immigrated people is
important as many of them, having lived in the marz for some time,
left the republic. According to interlocutors, successful
implementation of the program will be provided by a close cooperation
of the RA Migration Agency’s Department for Refugees, the Norwegian
Refugee Council, public organizations and local self-government
bodies. It was also mentioned that defining of the number of
immigrated people is important for implementation of the “Millennium
Challenge” and Strategic Program on Poverty programs.