Author: Khondkarian Raffi

Armenia actively settling occupied Azeri territories – minister

Trend news agency
7 Dec 04

Baku, 7 December: In an effort to invigorate the results of its
military aggression, Armenia, which has occupied the Nagornyy Karabakh
region and adjacent districts of Azerbaijan, is actively settling the
occupied territories, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov
said in his remarks at the 12th meeting of the OSCE Foreign Ministers
Council in Sofia, the press service of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry
has told Trend.

The minister said this means a flagrant violation of international
humanitarian law, namely, the 1949 Geneva Convention. Mammadyarov added
that Azerbaijan adheres to a negotiated solution to the conflict on
the basis of international legal norms and principles, four UN Security
Council resolutions and OSCE documents. It was stressed that Azerbaijan
is ready to restore relations with Armenia, but before that can happen
Armenia must start acting not on the basis of the position it has
secured by means of force and the ideology of territorial claims,
but on the basis of principles of international law and democracy.

Giving a positive assessment to the Prague meetings, Mammadyarov
expressed his concern over the illegal activities carried out on the
occupied territories, which damage the peace process, and called on
the OSCE to contribute to the conflict settlement.

[Passage to end omitted: Mammadyarov had a number of other meetings
in Sofia]

Forensic evidence shows arson behind blaze in Armenian editor’s car

Arminfo
3 Dec 04

Yerevan, 3 December: A criminal case has been opened into the
explosion in the car of the editor of Yerevan daily Aykakan Zhamanak,
Nikol Pashinyan.

At approximately 2040 local time [1640 gmt] on 22 November, the
Niva jeep belonging to Nikol Pashinyan caught fire outside Aykakan
Zhamanak’s editorial offices. The forensic fire and technical
examination concluded that open fire caused the blaze, the Armenian
Prosecutor-General’s Office told Arminfo. The source said that this
gives a basis to open a criminal case. When the results of the forensic
examination were received, on 2 December a criminal case was opened
on the incident under points 2 and 3 of the second part of Article
185 of the Armenian Criminal Code (deliberate destruction or damage
to property by arson, causing major losses). The Yerevan police’s
investigative department is investigating the circumstances.

ACCORDING TO PARUYR HAYRIKIAN, NSU’S PROPOSAL IS THE ONLY PRACTICAL
ONE WITH RESPECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

YEREVAN, December 3 (Noyan Tapan). One of the serious political steps
taken recently by the “National Self-Determination” Union (NSU) is the
initiative to establish cooperation with other parties with respect to
the constitutional reforms. The NSU chairman Paruyr Hayrikian stated
this at the December 4 session of the party board. He believes that
the only practical proposal is the one put forward by the NSU: to
reject the constitutional reforms package and suggest putting into
circulation only an abridged version of its last article.

Hayrikian proposes to hold a referendum on this issue so that the
constitutional amendments will be made through the parliament with the
previous consent of the RA President and the Constitutional
Court. According to the NSU chairman, instead of cooperating on this
issue some parties linger considering this to be “a game by Robert
Kocharian.” However, he stated that this is “the NSU’s game” and
announced that discussion on this issue with other parties will be
held on December 10. According to Paruyr Hayrikian, a movement, which
was established on the initiative of the National Press Club and
called “the Democratic Armenia” movement in the document at the
suggestion of the NSU, will get their support. Yet there is no
signature of the NSU among signatures of those who signed the
document, which, in the opinion of Hayeikian, is the reason why “they
are not progressing.” The NSU leader considered as long-term the
agreement on setting up a social consultative system for Armenia’s
foreign policy, which was signed by the National Democratic Union’s
chairman Vazgen Manukian, the Armenian Socialist Forces and
Intellectuals Union’s political secretary Ashot Manucharian and
himself. The agreement envisages setting up two councils in the
future: the foreign policy experts council and the political leaders
council.

Analyzing the political situation in Ukraine and stating that “the
Russian imperialism” relies on criminal elements of various countries,
Hayrikian congratulated everybody on the victory of democracy in
Ukraine. During the session the issue of the NSU’s central office was
also discussed. Only 120 thousand dollars out of the needed amount of
500 thousand dollars has been raised so far.

Armenian foreign minister justifies president’s congratulations to Yanukovych

Arminfo
4 Dec 04

YEREVAN

Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan does not believe that
President Robert Kocharyan hurried to congratulate [former Ukrainian
prime minister and presidential candidate] Viktor Yanukovych on his
election as Ukrainian president.

Speaking on Armenia’s Kentron TV recently, Oskanyan said that
Kocharyan did not make any mistake [by congratulating
Yanukovych]. Kocharyan’s move was justified from a purely legal point
of view, he said.

“I can provide a counter-argument: A political decision was made by
the countries that did not congratulate Yanukovych after the Ukrainian
Central Electoral Commission released the official results of the
elections. Armenia did so on a legal basis,” Oskanyan said.

Oskanyan also said that Armenia does not view the Ukrainian elections
as a confrontation between the West and Russia. He said that official
Yerevan is utterly indifferent to what the rest of the world thinks
about the Ukrainian elections. This kind of approach is based on the
Armenian foreign policy of complementarity. The world’s media have
deliberately presented the confrontation between the two Ukrainian
presidential candidates as a fight between the West and Russia.

“The radical views that Yanukovych is going to lead Ukraine only
towards Russia while Yushchenko will adopt an extremely pro-Western
course are baseless. He who is elected the next Ukrainian president
cannot change the course completely. There are no other alternatives
to this. Ukraine cannot break off its relations with Russia. Nor can
it stop the process of integration into Europe. This is a
geopolitical reality,” Oskanyan said.

Calcutta Telegraph, India
Dec 1 2004

Crown for Hari
– Korbut wins girls’ U-20 title l Deep in top-10 finish

Harikrishna has followed in the footsteps of idol Anand, who won the
title in 1987
Kochi: Indian Grandmaster P. Harikrishna lifted the world junior
chess crown with 10 points after the 13th and final round on Tuesday.

Harikrishna has followed in the footsteps of his idol Viswanathan
Anand, who won the title in 1987 in Baguio, the Philippines.

Russia’s Ekaterina Korbut, with 10.5 points, won the girls’ under-20
championship. GM Koneru Humpy had won the girls’ world junior crown
in 2002.

Harikrishna was sharing the leaderboard on the penultimate round with
Zhao Jun of China with 9.5 points.

In the last round, however, Harikrishna drew with top seed GM Ferenc
Berkes of Hungary in a Catalan defence in 50 moves, while on the
second board, Zhao went down to Radoslaw Wojtaszek of Poland in a
closed Sicilian opening in 49 moves.

Fourth seed GM Tigran Petrosian of Armenia defeated IM Elshan
Moradiabadi of Iran in a Catalan defence in 37 moves.

Petrosian took the second spot on better progressive score than Zhao,
who had to be content with the third spot.

`I am delighted to win the world junior title. Though I was
confident, I was a bit tense as I was in a must-win situation,’
Harikrishna said.

On the top board, Harikrishna, playing white, captured a pawn on b7
on the 17th move. Two moves later, he got one more pawn on a7, but
white was forced to give back one pawn on the 27th move.

The game then proceeded to an opposite colour bishops ending with
both sides having lone rooks.

White’s one pawn advantage was not sufficient to give the Indian a
point since Ferenc, a former under-18 world champion, was defending
the position with mathematical precision, and the game ended in a
draw after 50 moves.

In another game, Petrosian, playing white, gained some control on the
seventh file after the 20th move, but the Iranian was able to defend
with the exchange of minor pieces. In the resultant end game with
equal pawns, both players agreed for a draw in the 37th move.

Zhao, who posed a threat to Harikrishna by bouncing back to share the
lead after 12th round, lost to Radoslaw in 49 moves.

On the 13th move Radoslaw, playing black, gave an exchange for a pawn
and was able to hold the white position in an underdeveloped
situation which gained black two more pawns by the 24th move.

Playing an exchange down with three pawns, black’s bishop proved
stronger than the white rook. Unable to prevent promotion on the `a’
and `b’ files, white resigned on the 49th move.

Humpy, the lone girl in the junior boys’ category, defeated Artem
Iijin of Russia in a Kings Indian attack after 30 moves.

Besides Harikrishna, Deep Sengupta and Koneru Humpy, finished in the
top ten.

In the girls’ championship, Korbut sacrificed a pawn on the 11th move
to gain some attack on the rival king. But after a couple of moves,
Alina Motoc, playing white, was able to trade the queens. In the
middle game black gained one more pawn. White tried a mating by the
20th, but black defended it with a counter attack that bore fruit on
the 37th move.

On the top board, WGM Elisabeth Paehtz, who was jointly leading with
Korbut after the 12th round, was shocked by India’s Krutika Nadig in
an English opening in 70 moves, while Eesha Karavade defeated Zhang
Jilin of China in a Ruy Lopez opening in 64 moves.

Paehtz and Karavade finished with 9.5 points each, but the former,
with a superior progressive score, took second place. Karavade,
Nadig, N. Vinuthna and P. Sivasankari did well to finish inside the
top ten.

[29-11-2004 ‘Armenia-Turkey’]
————————————————- ———————
IS ARMENIA CHANGING?
Source : Haberanaliz.com portal (Turkey)
Author: Yildiz Deveci

Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence, proclaimed by
the Parliament on August 23, 1990, the eastern Anatolian region of
Turkey was recognized to be `Western Armenia’. Despite the fact that
the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Armenian Constitution
describes the Armenian coat-of-arms to be featuring Ararat mountain,
Turkey is

The occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia in 1993
resulted in a process during which the relations of the two countries
were spoilt, the border was closed and the issue was transferred to
the international arena as it stands today.

In an article `The Importance of the First Step’ (`Birgyun’ newspaper,
November 18, 2004) Hrant Dink, the Chief Editor of `Agos’ newspaper
writes about how Armenian transfer the problem from the part into
present: `Armenians cannot have a secure future until they get rid of
the trauma passed down from a generation to generation. The mere
existence of this trauma means that the historical process is in a
dead-end that it cannot overcome. It is a pity that Armenians cannot
get rid of it. Of course, many people could make an objection to
this, saying: `so what, does this mean we must forget what has
happened?’ But it would have been wrong to think that getting rid of
the trauma and the normalization of relations is equivalent to
`forgetting the past’.

In his article Dink explains how exactly the problems between Turkey
and Armenia could be solved by themselves and notes that recently a
certain mildening of Yerevan’s position can be noticed: `the Armenian
question must be discussed not on the level of the parliaments of
third countries, but directly by the countries themselves’.

Statements by Kocharian inspire hope

Kocharian, who is linking the blockade of Armenia by Turkey to the
problem of Mountainous Karabagh announced that the relations between
two countries «must not be determined by the intervention of the
third one». In an interview to press Kocharian also announced that
Armenia «is not linking the development of relations with Turkey
with the problem of Cyprus». While retaining a negative attitude to
the intervention of Turkey into the Karabagh problem between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, Kocharian considers to normal to introduce the
problems of his own country to the agenda of the world community.

`The international recognition of the genocide is extremely important,
but it is not a pre-condition for the development of relations’, this
statement by Kocharian who has been unable to get international
recognition can be qualified as a first step towards the resolution.

Bilateral relations today

The mildened stance of Kocharian, actively covered by the media of
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey has various reasons. Kocharian refused
to take part in the NATO summit that was held on June 28-29, 2004,
motivating it by the failure of Turkey to recognize the alleged
genocide and made the relations between the countries even tenser by
saying `Armenia can survive without Turkey’.

In an interview to `Die Welt’ German newspaper of November 20, 2004
Kocharian said that Armenia will not be insisting on the recognition
of the `genocide’ by Turkey, which was previously posed as à
pre-condition for the start of negotiations on normalization of
relations.

The question of `Die Welt’ journalist of `Don’t you expect an apology
for hundreds of thousands of Armenian arrested, deported and killed in
1915?’ Kocharian responded: `It is very important for us that the
Armenian genocide be recognized. But it has never been a pre-condition
for the development of bilateral relations’. He also noted that the
reality of what had happened cannot be denied and added: `If Ankara
recognizes this truth, it will make a huge step towards the
normalization’.

These statements of Kocharian are contrary to those, made before the
NATO summit. It should also be remembered that Armenia has not as yet
recognized the Kars treaty of 1921, defining its borders with
Turkey. Thus, Armenia, while quoting its aspiration for rapprochement
with Turkey, does not make any steps itself, while demanding that
Turkey stop intervening in Karabagh conflict. The spokesman of the
Armenian Foreign Ministry Hamlet Gasparian announced: `The Armenian
policy directed at the international recognition of the Genocide has
not changed, this issue remains a priority of our foreign policy’.

Conclusions

As it follows form Kocharian’s statements, our neighbor who was unable
to gain ground on international arena, currently looks for
resolution. Possibly, as a response to the mildened position of
Armenia Turkey too will make steps directed at rapprochement,
particularly in the context of EU accession. The following factors
prepared ground for similar statements:

1. Kocharian has understood that his policy is futile and strives to
new tactics.

2. Armenia has understood how economically adverse the 11-year embargo
can be.

3. the possible negative impact of the closed borders with Armenia to
the international image of Turkey, particularly in the context of
Turkey’s accession to EU

4. The possible railroad Kars (Turkey)-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi (Goergia)
that nullifies the significance of the railroad through Armenia.

5. Kerry’s defeat at presidential elections in the USA and the
frustration of Armenian lobby.

But a most important point should be remembered here: no strong
relationships can be formed with a neighbor that does not recognize
your borders.

[27-11-2004 ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan’]
———————————————————————-
POLITICAL REANIMATION OF LEVON TER-PETROSSIAN
Source : “Echo” newspaper (Azerbaijan)
Author: Nurani

The possibility for Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian to return
to big politics becomes one of the most discussed issues in Armenia.
Everything was in full accordance with the laws of political
PR. First, Levon Zurabian, press-secretary of former president
severely criticized the policy of Kocharian’s team on Karabagh issue
at the seminar, organized by `Ter-Petrossian’ Armenian Liberation
Movement (ALM). In his opinion, the political course of First
President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian was directed at ensuring
long-term peace under the conditions of de facto independence of
Karabagh and Armenia’s control over Lachin corridor, connecting
Karabagh with Armenia. The administration of the First President did
their best to prove to the international community that it is a
conflict between Karabagh and Azerbaijan, in which Karabagh people
fight for self-determination. As a result of Kocharian’s policy,
Karabagh was ousted of the negotiation process, and the confrontation
came to be viewed as Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial dispute. In the
documents of Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Azerbaijani
territories are referred to as under Armenian occupation. Besides, the
report of former PACE speaker Terry Davis contains a proposal on
consideration by the international court of the legitimacy of
Armenia’s control over a number of Azerbaijani territories.

Further on, ex-President himself stepped into the political
scene. Everything was arranged in an effective and intriguing
manner. Levon Ter-Petrossian, whose name for a long time did not `pop
up’ in media, got an invitation to participate in the opening of
Clinton’s library in Little-Rock town, state of Arkansas – the
homeland of 42-d President of USA. Certainly, theoretically there was
a chance for reducing the opening of the library to `the session of
exes’ club’ but in Little-Rock, Levon Ter-Petrossian managed to meet
“current” President of USA George Bush, as well as two ex-Presidents,
Bush the Senior and Jimmy Carter. Moreover, he conducted negotiations
with Hillary Clinton, who does not exclude the possibility that in
2008 she will fight for the White House… On his return, he held a
brief press conference at `Zvartnots’ airport. True, Levon Akopovich
did not say anything certain about his return to `big politics’. The
journalists, who by the way were notified in advance about the
`mini-briefing’ at the airport, had to be content with the statements
that ex-President always took part in the congresses of ALM. As for
the rest, future will show, and Ter Petrossian does not regret today
the proposal he initiated once for the candidacy of Robert Kocharian
as premier. Afterwards, he made a number of notable statements
already on Karabagh problem. Thus, Levon Akopovich did not exclude the
fact of restarting military operations, not going into details however
on who and how will start second Karabagh war. Besides, he
categorically excluded the possibility for return of the negotiations
to the point where they were in 1997, i.e. when Ter-Petrossian was
forced to leave the presidential post, and after which, according to
his press secretary Zurabian, the situation got much worse for Armenia
and Karabagh separatists.

“We will no longer be able to get what we had in 1997′ Regnum agency
cites Ter-Petrossian. `Even if God descends, it will not be possible.”
Besides, according to ex-President’s opinion, Armenia has lost `very
much’ for the past, see – Kocharian, years, `In the first place, it
lost people. For me it is the most serious loss. I mean migration. It
may become an inevitable process. Second, we lost much time in the
context of economic development, lagging behind our neighbors. All of
this is irreversible.” So-called `wise patriarch’ in politics, who
does not want cheap PR and tricks of the sort `I am the only one who
knows things’.

Armenian politicians unanimously assert that ex-President’s return to
`big politics’ is of little possibility. Anyway, head of Dashnak
faction in Armenian Parliament, Levon Mkrtchian and leader of `New
Times’ party Aram Karapetian, head of the faction of Republican Party
Galust Sahakian, Deputy chairman of the `National Unity’ party Aleksan
Karapetian, leader of Democratic Party Aram Sargsian are sure of that.

Nevertheless, in Armenia signatures are already collected in open
letters with an appeal to Ter-Petrossian for `returning’ either to big
politics or presidency. In contrast to party leaders, here the
journalists unanimously interpret the meeting of Ter-Petrossian with
George Bush as a sign of the willingness of the West to stake on the
First President of Armenia – otherwise why should Bush have talks with
Ter-Petrossian, if he met Robert Kocharian only once – during
negotiations in Key-West? Armenian newspapers already cite his famous
letter “War or Peace? Time for Thinking’, in which he, first among
Armenian politicians, spoke about the necessity for compromise with
Azerbaijan. Whereas within Armenian political “milieu” they already
openly voice the opinion that on the considerably deserted `political
field’ of Armenia, Ter-Petrossian’s ALM is in essence the only
political force, seriously resisting the authorities. Still, the next
presidential elections in Armenia are only in four years, and Levon
Akopovich thinks it premature to discuss the issue of putting his
candidacy at the elections. However, the biography of Ter-Petrossian
himself, to say nothing of the fresh lessons of Georgian `rose
revolution’, is the best proof of the fact that Presidents leave not
only during elections. One should not possess phenomenal political
intuition to understand: today Armenian political field has an acute
need for a sufficiently reputable political grouping, capable of
assuming the role or a `peace party”. On the one hand, the number of
those, exhausted by the confrontation with Azerbaijan and Turkey,
constant threat of restarting war, periodic `mobilizations’ and
increasing lag in economic development from the neighbors, grows. On
the other hand, such a party is ensured the attention of Western
political structures. Theoretically, Ter-Petrossian is a quite logical
candidate for the role of the leader of this pro-Western peace party.

[26-11-2004 ‘Karabagh Conflict’]
———————————————————————-
RESOLUTE: BOTH SIDES DETERMINED AS DRAFT RESOLUTION ON KARABAKH
ENTERS UN DEBATE
Source : ArmeniaNow.com online weekly
Author: Aris Ghazinian

With Azerbaijan on one side, Armenia on the other, and Nagorno
Karabakh where it has always been – at risk in the middle – the United
Nations General Assembly entered debate this week that could have
considerable impact on the 10-year old settlement process.

Responding to an appeal by Azerbaijan to introduce `the question of
occupied territories’ to the UN main body, the General Assembly has
been hearing arguments on why it should adopt a resolution favoring
Azerbaijan’s position in the 16-year old dispute over sovereignty of
the Armenian-populated territory.

(Azerbaijan maintains that the territory of some 13,000-square
kilometers is an illegal occupation — some 147,000 Armenians live in
the self-declared republic. Armenia argues that the region rightfully
belongs to the nearly 100 percent Armenian population there, who have
formed a de facto republic since the break up of the Soviet Union.)

The Azeris’ appeal to the General Assembly carries the support of
members of the Organization of Islamic Conference, whose votes swung
the decision for a hearing in favor of (Islamic) Azerbaijan.

The draft resolution calls for the UN to condemn Armenia for
repopulating seven territories around the disputed enclave and, the
Azeris claim, for planning to relocate 300,000 Armenians into Azeri
territories by 2010. Official Yerevan denies any such plan and says
Baku’s attention to the `occupied territories’ hampers discussions of
a peaceful settlement.

The General Assembly was expected to hold a vote on Tuesday, but put
it off after Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov withdrew his
request for a vote. Mamedyarov’s decision apparently was influenced by
a meeting he had with all three co-chairs (US, France, Russia) of the
Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. Susan Moore, U.S. Envoy speaking for the co-chairs, said that
interference by the GA could damage Minsk Group peace efforts.

`The OSCE is dealing with the question of Nagorno Karabakh and the
shift of the problem to the level of the UN General Assembly does not
promote its solution,’ Moore said. `Anything in the direction of
building confidence and of avoiding a division of the General Assembly
is helpful.’

Mamedyarov, who was present at the session, emphasized in his turn
that: `Baku does not pursue the goal of putting the settlement of the
conflict on the agenda of the United Nations, however if the questions
stated in the draft resolution are not eliminated, it will lead to a
humanitarian disaster.’

Predictably, the Azeri initiative has drawn blusterous debate from
both Baku and Yerevan. `Azerbaijan has made a mistake, having
resorted to such a step,’ said Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs
Vardan Oskanian.

Almost simultaneously, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev, claiming a
victory of sorts that the discussions were even being held, was
predicting that not only would the UN side with the Azeris but: `I do
not rule out that subsequently PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe) may apply sanctions against Armenia.’

Thousands of miles away from the debate, the opposing statesmen were
engaged in their own slugfest of words . . .

Oskanian: `The process of the search for ways of peaceful settlement
of the Karabakh problem is within the competence of the Minsk Group
and this circumstance hardly needs to be reconsidered.’

Aliyev: `Putting this question up for discussion in the UN, Baku does
not seek to change the OSCE Minsk Group. We need a political
evaluation of the conflict. Discussions in various international
organizations do not impede, but on the contrary promote the common
cause.’ Oskanian: `We are not concerned over the possibility that the
resolution proper may be adopted, we are more concerned with the
settlement process. However, if the resolution is adopted, Armenia
does not see the necessity for further conducting bilateral
negotiations. Azerbaijan should deal with elected representatives of
Nagorno Karabakh.’

Aliyev: `The statements of the Armenian side that in that case
Azerbaijan will have to conduct negotiations with Nagorno Karabakh are
ridiculous. Armenia is a party to the conflict and therefore
negotiations are conducted with it.’

Oskanian: `If the resolution is adopted, the Prague process of
negotiations between the personal representatives of the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan will be interrupted. Baku will have to put up
with the necessity of negotiating with the authorities of Nagorno
Karabakh, which does not at all mean Armenia’s withdrawal from the
negotiating process.’

Aliyev: `If Armenia wants negotiations to be conducted with Nagorno
Karabakh, let it disengage troops from the occupied territories and
stop allocating funds to Karabakh from its budget. Then we will solve
the problem much more quickly and differently.’

While the vote is pending, the General Assembly has proposed sending
a special delegation to the conflict zone to assess the claims and
counter claims of the opposing sides. The idea met with approval by
Armenia’s representative to the United Nations, Armen Martirosyan.

A decision has not been reached on whether to send a delegation, nor
is it clear when a vote might be taken on the resolution.

What is clear, is that both sides will look for advantages in the
debate, while political analysts speculate on the outcome.

`I think that the world community shares the opinion of the OSCE and
for this very reason Azerbaijan failed to carry out its intention,’
says analyst Tatul Hakobyan. `However, what was said does not yet mean
a victory for Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh.’

—
Yerevan Press Club of Armenia, ‘Yeni Nesil’ Journalists’ Union of
Azerbaijan and Association of Diplomacy Correspondents of Turkey
present ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey: Journalist Initiative-2002’
Project. As a part of the project web site has
been designed, featuring the most interesting publications from the
press of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey on issues of mutual
concern. The latest updates on the site are weekly delivered to the
subscribers.

IranMania, Iran
Nov 30 2004

Armenia-Iran to build gas pipeline, share energy

LONDON, Nov 30 (IranMania) – According to Armenia’s Energy Ministry,
Armenia and neighbouring Iran are due Tuesday to launch construction
of a gas pipeline between their two countries, and also start using a
high-voltage energy line that would double exchanges of electrical
power.

The construction of the pipeline’s Armenian part would be funded by a
30-mln-dollar (25-mln-euro) loan from Iran to Armenia, the Ministry’s
spokeswoman Lusine Arutyunyan told AFP, adding that the 82-kilometer
energy line was also financed by Iran.

Armenia intended to repay the 8.4-mln-dollar loan for the power line
in supplies of electricity to Iran, she said.

The construction contract for the gas pipeline has been awarded to
Iranian company Sanir.

Iran and Armenia signed a contract in May under which Iran will
supply Armenia, a landlocked former Soviet republic which borders
Iran to the north, with a total of 36 billion cubic metres of gas
over a 20-year period, expected to start in early 2007.

L’Express
29 novembre 2004

La Turquie est-elle européenne?

par Demetz Jean-Michel

A l’heure où s’engage le nécessaire débat sur la candidature
d’Ankara, L’Express a demandé à trois chercheurs, Olivier Roy,
Stéphane Yerasimos et Jean-François Bayart, de donner leur point de
vue sur la question turque: par sa culture religieuse, politique ou
juridique, son histoire et sa géographie, ce pays fait-il ou non
partie de l’Europe?

Décidément, l’Histoire bégaie. Un siècle après, passé l’horreur des
guerres balkaniques des années 1990, reprise sanglante des conflits
de la Belle Epoque, l’Europe s’interroge à nouveau sur le sort
qu’elle doit réserver à la Turquie. Jadis, c’était l’agonie de
“l’homme malade” du continent qui préoccupait les chancelleries;
aujourd’hui, ce serait plutôt sa vitalité (démographique et
économique) qui inquiéterait ou séduirait, c’est selon, une opinion
européenne en voie de vieillissement accéléré.

Cette nouvelle question d’Orient – faut-il faire entrer la Turquie
comme membre à part entière dans l’Union européenne? – est pleinement
légitime, même si les partisans du oui font remarquer que l’Europe a
déjà engagé sa parole voilà quarante ans en reconnaissant la vocation
européenne d’Ankara. Parce que l’entrée éventuelle de la Turquie
repousserait les frontières orientales de l’Union au voisinage
immédiat de l’Irak, de l’Iran, de la Syrie et que son centre de
gravité s’en trouverait déplacé vers l’est; parce que la Turquie
serait le pays le plus peuplé du club des 29 ou 30 Etats membres de
l’Union de demain, pesant ainsi d’un poids politique respectable;
parce que, enfin et surtout, la large majorité de ses habitants se
réclament de l’islam, une religion dont beaucoup d’Occidentaux
doutent qu’elle puisse être cantonnée à la sphère privée, le débat
d’aujourd’hui trouve sa pleine justification. A quelques jours du
sommet européen du 17 décembre, qui devrait, sauf veto de l’un
d’entre eux (Chypre, par exemple), voir les chefs d’Etat et de
gouvernement des Vingt-Cinq donner le feu vert, sous conditions, à
l’ouverture, d’ici quelques mois, d’un calendrier de négociations,
L’Express interroge trois experts, le géographe Jean-François Bayart,
le sociologue Olivier Roy et l’historien Stéphane Yerasimos sur
l’eurocompatibilité du voisin turc.

L’entrée du Royaume-Uni, en 1973, portait en germe la fin du duopole
franco-allemand. L’adhésion de 10 nouveaux membres, en mai 2004,
renforce le camp des partisans de la réforme libérale. Nul doute que
l’entrée de la Turquie modifierait également les traits de l’Union de
demain. Il serait toutefois bien audacieux de tenter d’en esquisser
aujourd’hui le visage. En France, chaque élargissement s’est
accompagné d’un cortège d’angoisses. Craintes des secteurs
économiques: le patronat français implore ainsi de Gaulle, en vain,
de surseoir à l’entrée dans le Marché commun, le 1er janvier 1959,
alléguant que l’économie nationale n’est pas prête à affronter la
concurrence. A l’épreuve des faits toutefois, on voit les échanges au
sein de la Communauté augmenter de 19% en 1959 par rapport à 1958: la
dynamique du marché libre est lancée, qui contribuera à la prospérité
des années 1960. Dans les années 1970, ce sont les agriculteurs du
Sud-Ouest qui prédisent la ruine face aux importations des fruits et
légumes des candidats espagnol et portugais. Pourtant, là encore, le
rattrapage de la péninsule Ibérique et la concurrence s’avéreront
bénéfiques à l’économie française. Peurs de la classe politique,
aussi: rappelons l’opposition des gaullistes historiques à l’entrée
des Britanniques, accusés d’être le cheval de Troie des Etats-Unis.
Là encore, les sombres prédictions ne se sont pas vérifiées: Londres
n’a empêché ni la mise en place de l’espace Schengen, ni celle de
l’eurozone, alors qu’elle ne fait partie ni de l’un ni de l’autre.

Les mêmes arguments économiques (la crainte des délocalisations, le
coût d’une politique agricole commune [PAC] étendue aux paysans
anatoliens) et politiques (Ankara jouet de Washington) sont
aujourd’hui brandis par les partisans du non. Sauf que l’union
douanière est déjà mise en place depuis 1995, que la PAC sera
contrainte à se réformer avant la fin de la décennie et que
l’opposition quasi unanime du Parlement turc au passage de troupes
américaines sur son sol pour ouvrir un second front en Irak a démenti
les tenants de la thèse de la sujétion turque à l’Oncle Sam.

Il est bien sûr loisible de poser toutes les questions au candidat
turc – c’est le principe même de l’examen d’entrée. Mais gare aux
fantasmes! Difficile d’agiter le spectre, comme le font les élus de
la CDU ou de l’UMP, de “100 millions de Turcs” quand la population
actuelle de 70 millions devrait, selon les démographes, se stabiliser
à 85 millions au maximum. Et que penser de cette pétition adressée à
Jacques Chirac par des dizaines de députés UMP invoquant la
“conflictualité” (sic) de la Turquie?…

Il est, en revanche, des interrogations plus fondées, trop souvent
reléguées au second plan. Sur la capacité de l’administration turque
à adopter, dans la pratique, les paquets de réformes visant à la
démocratisation et votées à la volée par les législateurs d’Ankara
depuis deux ans maintenant. Sur la perte de souveraineté que
l’opinion turque, façonnée, à travers l’école ou les médias, par un
farouche nationalisme, est prête à consentir à Bruxelles. Sur le
regard critique que les Turcs peuvent porter sur une histoire
tourmentée dont des épisodes entiers, comme les massacres
d’Arméniens, étaient jusqu’à peu tabous. Sur l’occasion donnée aux
Européens d’obtenir un droit de regard quant au contrôle des routes
de l’immigration clandestine et de la drogue. Sur l’irréversibilité
du processus de laïcisation de la société voulu par Atatürk et
soutenu par les classes moyennes. Sur les risques, face au monde
musulman, que comporterait, à l’extérieur comme à l’intérieur de
l’Europe, une rebuffade fondée sur des arguments culturels et
religieux supposant l’impossibilité quasi ontologique d’un peuple
d’origine islamique à rendre, à son tour, à César ce qui est à César
et à Dieu ce qui est à Dieu.

A ces doutes et ces interrogations, pas même les partisans du oui, au
premier rang desquels la Commission sortante (ou les élites libérales
turques), n’échappent. C’est dire s’il y a matière à alimenter un
débat qui durera une décennie avant que les parlements (ou les
peuples) choisissent ou non d’avaliser la candidature turque.

Curieusement, pour l’heure, les opinions européennes ne jugent pas
celle-ci du même oeil. Le Sud – l’Espagne, le Portugal, l’Italie et
même la Grèce, l’ennemi héréditaire – y sont favorables. Comme les
Britanniques ou les Scandinaves. Les Allemands, eux, sont divisés.
Dans deux pays seulement, les opinions manifestent leur hostilité.
L’Autriche, peut-être à cause d’une mémoire historique particulière
(c’est sous les murs de Vienne, en 1683, que les troupes du Grand
Turc voient stoppée leur expansion) et d’une xénophobie ambiante. Et
la France.

Cet automne, une délégation du Tusiad, l’association patronale
turque, en visite à Paris, a tenté de percer les ressorts de ce
désamour de la part d’un pays dont la plupart de ses membres
connaissaient la langue et la culture. Ils s’étaient préparés à un
débat vigoureux: ils n’eurent droit, chez la plupart des élus
français qu’ils rencontrèrent, qu’à un mol embarras. Ils furent
stupéfiés de voir si peu de députés suivre dans l’hémicycle le débat
que tant d’entre eux avaient pourtant exigé. Et ils demandèrent
poliment, à la fin du voyage, si le péril turc ne servait pas de bouc
émissaire pour les ratés de l’intégration arabe dans la République,
pour l’affaissement de notre rang en Europe, pour l’impuissance de
notre Etat à se réformer afin de libérer les forces vives de
l’économie, pour le malaise des citoyens face à une classe politique
en panne de perspective d’ensemble et empêtrée dans des jeux…
byzantins. C’est peut-être vrai. Quelle que soit la pertinence de ce
diagnostic, le nécessaire débat sur la Turquie ne peut que s’enrichir
de clefs historiques, géographiques ou politiques, comme celles que
L’Express propose cette semaine à ses lecteurs.

TTELETHON IN SUPPORT TO ARTSAKH REGISTERS FANTASIC SUCCESS

LOS ANGELES, November 26 (Noyan Tapan). Over 11 mln dollars were
colleced during the “Telethon-2004” in support to Nagorno Karabakh
started in Los Angeles on November 25. It is a fantasic result as
compared with the previous telethons. According to the Head Information
Department attached to the NKR President, it was a response of the
Armenian Diaspora to the appeal of NKR President Arkady Ghoukassian,
who is in the United States these days, to compatriots living abroad
to render support to the completion of the construction of the
“North-South” higwhay being of strategic importance for Nagorno
Karabakh.

The most considerable donations were made by such famous Armenian
philanthropists of America as Luis-Simon Manukian (2 mln dollars),
Gevorg Hovnanian, Hrair Hovnanian, Sargis Hakobian, who rendered one
mln dollars each, Caroline Mugar (500,000 dollars), Vahe Karapetian
(100,000 dollars). Eduardo Ernikian, a citizen of Argentina, donated
1,5 mln dollars in support to Artsakh. Russian philanthropist Ara
Abrahamian allocated 250,000 dollars. A total of 1 mln dollars were
recieved from the European countries. The sum of donations made 950,000
dollars in Armenia, and in Nagorno Karabakh it made 160,000 dollars.

The NKR President expressed deep gratitude to all the Diasporan
Armenians for support to Artsakh, as well as to the citizens of Armenia
and Nagorno Karabakh, who took an active part in the telethon and
showed their patriotism and understanding of the importance of the
“North-South” highway in the provision of the military, economic and
social security of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. The NKR President
once again stressed that the Armenian people will be able to achieve
the national goals only due to the joint efforts of Armenia, Artsakh
and the Diaspora.

During Arkady Ghoukassian’s meeting with Zaven Khanjian, the President
of the “Americans for Artsakh” organization, held on the US Western
Coast on November 24, the latter expressed readiness to contribute
to the implementation of a number of projects on the NKR economic
development in Nagorno Karabkh, the improvement of the sphere of
education, the intensification of the cultural exchange between
Artsakh and the Diaspora.

The Union of Armenian Relief also implements its programs in
Artsakh. Arkady Ghoukassian visited their regional office. Different
issues regarding the prospects of cooperation between this organization
and Nagorno Karabakh were touched upon during the conversation.

The necessity of the continuation of the implementation of programs
on the establishment of proper conditions for study and education
of the rising generations in schools of Artsakh was mentioned during
the reception organized this day in honor of the President of Nagorno
Karabakh by the Armenian Educational Union.

Famous philanthropist Mery Najarian expressed her readiness to continue
cooperation with Artsakh in the future. She is one of the founders
of the “Medical Aid to Armenia” organization. The NKR President gave
a high assessment to the benevolent activities of couple Vardges and
Mery Najarians.

The same day, the NKR President had a meeting with Archbishop Mushegh
Martirosian, the Head of the Western Diocese of the Catholicosate
of the Great Cilician House. The Archbishop conveyed the Head of
Nagorno Karabakh the best wishes on behalf of Catholicos of the Great
Cilician House Aram I, as well as the readiness of the Catholicos to
render possible support to Artsakh. Archbishop Pargev Martirosian,
the Head of the Artsakh Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church, who
is in the United States these days, also participated in the meeting.

During all the meetings in the US the NKR President assured the
participants that Artsakh will not turn off the road of freedom and
independence and will achieve the goals put before it due to the
boosting participation of Armenia and the Armenians of the whole world.

AZERI LEADER TELLS OSCE ENVOY ARMENIA TRYING TO DELAY KARABAKH SOLUTION

Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku
26 Nov 04

Armenia is trying to delay the Karabakh peace process again,
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev told the visiting OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly rapporteur on Nagornyy Karabakh, Goran Lennmarker, today.

Saying that Armenia is not taking serious steps towards resolving the
conflict, the head of state added that this was why the negotiations
between the two countries’ presidents and foreign ministers are
yielding no fruit.

Ilham Aliyev said the Council of Europe and other international
organizations are closely involved in the process of settling the
conflict and expressed the hope that the OSCE Minsk Group would step
up its effort as well.