Author: Khoyetsian Rose

U.S. INTERESTED IN TENSION IN SOUTH CAUCASUS, RUSSIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN SAYS

PanARMENIAN.Net
23.10.2006 15:38 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The U.S. is artificially tensing the situation in
the South Caucasus, said President of the International League of
Human Dignity and Security Protection, Russian State Duma member,
General Valentin Varennikov. "The U.S. Administration is directly
interested in creation of tension in the South Caucasus," he said. In
the General’s words, the U.S. wishes escalation of ‘frozen’ conflicts
in an aspiration to perform ‘peacekeeping’ mission in any part of
the world. "We have many times witnessed peacekeeping optimism,
for example in Kosovo," he remarked. According to the deputy, the
U.S. decided to cut Russia from the outer world as it once happened
after the decline of the Soviet Union. "The Russian President cannot
openly say this but I do," Varennikov underscored.

When touching upon tension in the Russian-Georgian relations Valentin
Varennikov stated that Russia will not allow settlement of ‘frozen’
conflicts on the Georgian territory by force. "Mikhail Saakashvili’s
statements are targeted at artificial tension in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia for launching war against these unrecognized republics,"
he said. In his words, the matter does not concern the opposition
of the Russian and Georgian peoples who lived in peace and consent
for centuries. The issue is conditioned by wishes and ambitions of
the Georgian President and his western patrons. "We should by all
means prevent escalation of the conflict between Georgia and two
unrecognized republics," Varennikov resumed, reports newsarmenia.ru.

FORUM OF INTELLIGENTSIA OF ARMENIA AND HOMELAND AND HONOR PARTY POINT TO NECESSITY TO USE NEW METHODS IN HOME POLITICAL STRUGGLE

Noyan Tapan
Oct 23 2006

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 23, NOYAN TAPAN. On October 23, the Coordination
Council of the Forum of Intelligentsia of Armenia and the Homeland
and Honor Party spread a joint statement, according to which the
anti-criminal movement formed lately is the dictate of the time. They
reminded that the real movement started as early as before the 2003
presidential elections. The movement’s goal is to stop the intentions
of the current anti-national regime to reproduce itself through failing
the forthcoming parliamentary elections. The document mentioned that
the October 12 statement of a number of political and public figures
proceeds from the situation formed in the country. It is especially
mentioned that the first commander of self-defence detachments
of Nagorno Karabakh, Arkady Karapetian, is also among the persons
having signed under the statement. In the opinion of the leadership
of the Forum of Intelligentsia of Armenia and the Holemand and Honor
Party, the October 12 statement has new approaches connected with the
process of restoration of the constitutional order in the country
that can be only welcomed. NT: on October 13, a number of printed
Armenian media published a statement signed by a number of public and
political figures, including Arkady Karapetian, ex-Foreign Minister of
Armenia (1996-98) Alexander Arzumanian, human rights activist Vardan
Haroutiunian, etc.

According to the statement, "the methods and ways of coming out of the
growing cri sis" should be renewed for forming legal authorities. It
is proposed organizing a pan-national discussion for achieving an
acceptable result and for ensuring guarantees of country’s future
development.

SCRATCHING THE OTHER’S WOUNDS
By Avirama Golan

Ha’aretz, Israel
Oct 22 2006

It is fascinating to see how France, time and again, insists on
sticking its refined nose into the affairs of others and preach
wisdom to them, instead of dealing with the boiling kettles on its
own stove. The law against deniers of the massacre of the Armenian
people is still provoking a lively debate in the French press.

(France approved the law about two weeks ago by a narrow majority,
following an internal debate over the severity of punishment.) In
Turkey, the French law pushed intellectuals and writers oppressed by
the regime into a corner, compelling them to defend their country.

A day after winning the Nobel Prize, the author Orhan Pamuk hurried to
declare that the French law constitutes "a blow to the principles of
freedom of expression that France itself instilled." It is a shame,
Pamuk said, that France does not leave the Turks to do their own
soul-searching, which is occurring in any case. Another Turkish
writer, Elif Shafak, was recently brought to trial in Istanbul for
allegedly "denigrating Turkish national identity" in her latest novel,
"The Bastard of Istanbul," which tells the stories of two families,
Turkish and Armenian. In an article in Le Monde, Shafak asked the
French to allow her nation to "heal the wounds of its history by
itself." Sinan Ulgen, the president of the Turkish think tank Economics
and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM), argued in an article in Le Figaro,
that "France is weakening democracy in Turkey."

This phenomenon is familiar to Israeli writers and intellectuals,
veterans of the fight against the occupation, who stutter in an attempt
to defend their country in the face of a buttressed, superficial,
arrogant and self-righteous European stance. And like the French
left’s attack against Israel, which places doubt on the legitimacy of
the state of the Jews, the new legislation derives from a combination
of factors: a historical connection (some of the Armenians who were
murdered during World War I were accused of spying for France),
an elitist lobby of anti-Turkish Armenian immigrants in France,
a desire to embarrass Jacques Chirac and weaken the right, and – at
least among some of the legislators – an innocent aspiration, though
somewhat self-righteous, for tikkun olam [making the world better].

The ones seeking to improve the world argue that the Armenian
people have suffered a hardship for 90 years, in addition to what
they experienced during World War I. The denials of the massacre are
indeed an open wound. Turkey is not only to blame. Most of the world is
responsible for belittling the tragedy and shunting it aside. In the
soul-searching that has yet to occur here, the children of Holocaust
refugees will have to examine why it was uncomfortable for them to
recognize the magnitude of the suffering of others. In this sense,
the law ostensibly does justice. But this is misleading, and not only
because the measure was essentially an internal-political one, but
also because even when the French left is correct, it is definitely
not smart.

In the introduction to the Hebrew edition of Raymond Aron’s "The
Algerian Tragedy," Professor Emmanuel Sivan analyzes this symptom: In
France, he explains, politicians tend to be "frighteningly cynical –
even, and primarily, when speaking loftily about morality – while the
intellectuals tend to be detached ‘moralists’." (This brings to mind,
in particular, Albert Camus and his denial of oppression in Algeria
and Jean-Paul Sartre and his support for the USSR in 1956 – A.G.)
Thus, the moralists of the French left had little impact on the war
crimes perpetrated by France in Algeria, while Aron, a centrist who
spoke in the name of realpolitik, significantly contributed to the
effort to convince the French to end the occupation.

In the case of the law against deniers of the massacre of the Armenian
people, the French left is again ignoring realpolitik. This only serves
to muffle the internal Turkish debate that finally began to awaken
after years of silence. The French should demonstrate sensitivity for
denials. After all, it has only been a few years since they allowed
references to the "war" in Algeria and lifted censorship from Gillo
Pontecorvo’s 1965 film "The Battle of Algiers."

Why now of all times, when France is in a tumult over a film exposing a
new affair – the (denied) colonial use of North Africans as soldiers in
World War II – is it so urgent for the left to focus on the Armenians?

Perhaps it is because of another, concealed motive related to the
fear of Turkey’s entry to the European Union: the fear of Islam,
which the Pope expressed in his native tongue during a visit to his
homeland. This fear is the strongest thread motivating politicians in
Europe today. The French, who are waging a desperate battle against
head scarves and the teenagers in the suburbs, are on the eve of a
dramatic election campaign and its perennial X-factor, Jean-Marie
Le Pen, who threatens again to conjure up the dark ghosts and fears
simmering on the republic’s ideological periphery.

An Islamic Turkey frightens the French, and the fear makes them
forget smart realpolitik. If Raymond Aron were alive today, perhaps
he would explain to the citizens of his country that the order of the
day is actually to bring Turkey closer, help it prosper, encourage
its democracy, and reinforce the voices of Pamuk and his colleagues.

The insult and enmity now engendered in Turkey as a result of the
French legislation were unnecessary.

777575.html

EXHIBITION OF WORKS OF STUDENTS AND GRADUATES OF YEREVAN STATE
UNIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OPENS IN YEREVAN

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 20, NOYAN TAPAN. 180 paintings and drawings of
students and graduates of Yerevan State University of Architecture and
Construction were presented at the exhibition that opened on October
20 at Armenian Union of Architects. As professor Henrik Mamian said,
Painting is taught at the University’s Architecture faculty, for art,
drawing and creative abilities to develop among students. In his
words, this exhibition is the first one in the University’s history
and includes works created in the last 20-25 years that had been shown
and were highly estimated in many foreign countries. H.Mamian said
that it is planned to organize such exhibitions every year.

Economist
Oct 20 2006

Free speech under threat
Oct 19th 2006
>>From The Economist print edition

What Britain’s debate about the Islamic veil has in common with
France’s bill on Armenian genocide

IN 1999 Jack Straw, then Britain’s home secretary, was attacked for
being rude about an ethnic minority. There were demands for criminal
investigations, appeals to various commissions and public agencies, a
fevered debate over whether Mr Straw was racist. On that occasion, he
was accused of demeaning gypsies by saying that people who
masqueraded as travellers seemed to think they had a right to commit
crimes. In the past few weeks Mr Straw, now leader of the House of
Commons, has triggered a similar response by arguing that the Muslim
veil (ie, the full, face-covering niqab) is an unhelpful symbol of
separateness. This week he won the backing of his boss, Tony Blair.

These episodes are reminders not that Mr Straw is hostile to
minorities (he isn’t) but that any debate in Europe about minority
rights soon degenerates into a fight between self-proclaimed
community leaders, public agencies, the police, courts and the law.
It may be hard to reconcile militant Islam with secular Europe. But
Europeans have fostered a culture, legal system and set of
institutions that have a chilling effect on public debate, making it
hard to discuss the subject honestly.

The starting-point of this failure, argues Gerard Alexander, at the
American Enterprise Institute, is a surprising one: Holocaust-denial
laws. At the height of this year’s row over cartoons of Muhammad in a
Danish newspaper, devout Muslims argued that, if it was right to
limit free speech in one area, it was right to do it in another. They
wanted insulting the Prophet to be made a crime.

Restrictions on free speech are always undesirable. Holocaust-denial
laws may have been justified in Germany and Austria because they
helped to stop something even worse: a revival of Nazism. Yet that is
surely no longer a risk in either country. And it certainly does not
justify the extension of such laws to other countries where there is
no real threat of Nazism, such as France and Belgium; or the adoption
of "hate speech" legislation that has nothing to do with Nazism; or
the interpretation of laws against incitement to violence in a way
that constrains speech which merely causes offence.

The most vivid example of the creeping extension of Holocaust-denial
laws has come in the French National Assembly, which last week voted
for a bill to make denial of the genocide of Armenians in Turkey
during the first world war a criminal offence. The political context
for this was not just vociferous lobbying by Armenians in France but
also growing hostility among voters to the idea of Turkish membership
of the European Union. To appeal to such voters, the assembly proved
ready to place restrictions on one of the most fundamental of all
freedoms, that of speech (though in fact the bill is unlikely to
become law).

This is a perfectly logical extension of a slew of laws imposing
free-speech restrictions to suppress racial, ethnic and religious
hatred. Indeed, it may be an offence to deny the Armenian genocide in
France already, because its Holocaust-denial law was extended in 1990
to cover all crimes against humanity. Bernard Lewis, an American
historian, was condemned by a French court in 1995 under this law.
Britain also has laws against incitement to racial hatred; last
January it tried but failed to extend them to religious hatred. On
the face of it, then, it does not seem outlandish for Muslims to
demand that Islam be equally "protected" under speech-restricting
laws.

Laws against racial and religious hatred are often defended on the
ground that they are directed at racists and xenophobes. Certainly,
they have been used against such people. In 2004 Belgium’s highest
court found a Flemish far-right party, the Vlaams Blok, guilty of
racism, forcing it to disband (though it regrouped under a new name).
But such laws have not been restricted to the far right; they have
been used against pillars of society. Mr Lewis is a frequent guest of
both the Jordanian royal family and the White House. Last year, a
French court found Le Monde, the grande dame of French newspapers,
guilty of inciting hatred against Jews. Oriana Fallaci, one of
Italy’s best-known journalists, was awaiting trial for offending
Islam when she died. Such lawsuits do not discourage racists; they
discourage free speech.

Fighting for the right to speak
As always happens, an industry grows up around any such laws (and
lawsuits), dedicated to policing, sustaining and extending the legal
framework. The industry consists of government bodies, such as
Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality, which investigate
complaints; official agencies, such as France’s Conseil Superieur de
l’Audiovisuel, which monitor the media for racist remarks; and any
number of informal organisations that represent minorities and win
their spurs by doing battle with the political establishment.

Laws against incitement to hatred tend to hamper openness of debate
because they are too easily interpreted as laws against causing
offence. The placing of sanctions on "offensive" speech risks
conflating two different things: bigoted speech and constructive
criticism. The big danger is that, in the name of stopping bigots,
one may end up stopping all criticism.

The outcome is an odd combination, whereby Europe simultaneously
suppresses but also radicalises its debate about Islam. Acts of
self-censorship co-exist with fevered argument. Spain’s folklore
festivals may rid themselves of medieval depictions of Muhammad and
the Deutsche Oper in Berlin may cancel a production for fear of
Islamist reprisals. But at the same time, extremists exploit
arguments over the veil in Britain or over the pope’s reference to a
14th-century Byzantine emperor.

The good news is that politicians have begun to recognise the risk of
stifling debate. Germany’s Angela Merkel criticised the opera house
for self-censorship. Most of Mr Straw’s cabinet colleagues, and not
only Mr Blair, have rallied to support him. They are right to. It is
hard to integrate Muslims into European society. Restricting free
speech makes it even harder.

ZNet | Activism

The Dark Side of Democracy
An Interview with Michael Mann

by Michael Mann and Khatchig Mouradian; October 18, 2006
temID=11222

Michael Mann is a British-born sociology professor of at the University of
California at Los Angeles (UCLA). He was a reader in sociology at the London
School of Economics and Sociology from 1977 to 1987 and received his PhD in
Sociology from Oxford University. He is the author of The Sources of Social
Power (Cambridge, 1986, 1993), Fascists (Cambridge, 2004), and The Dark Side
of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Cambridge, 2005).

The latter has been widely reviewed and praised as a "groundbreaking" work
in genocide studies. It attempts to explain the worst manifestations of evil
in human civilization through the study of a number of cases, including the
Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide.

We discuss some of the issues highlighted in The Dark Side of Democracy in
the following interview conducted by phone, from Beirut.

Khatchig Mouradian: In the preface of your book The Dark Side of Democracy,
you write: "Evil does not arrive from outside of our civilization, from a
separate realm we are tempted to call ‘primitive.’ Evil is generated by
civilization itself." Can you explain?

Michael Mann: Each civilization creates new problems for human beings.
Sometimes, man succeeds in coping with these problems with a fair degree of
humanity, and sometimes he doesn’t. There is a tendency to say that ethnic
cleansing and genocide are committed by "aliens." In fact, perpetrators of
such atrocities are dealing with the same problems that our own [Western]
civilization dealt with earlier, and sometimes with equally disastrous
outcomes. So it makes it easier for us to understand the Nazis and the Young
Turks, if we understand that the problems they failed to deal with are
problems that confront human civilization as a whole.

K.M.: You say, "Now, the epicenter of ethnic cleansing has moved to the
south of the world. Unless Humanity takes evasive action, it will continue
to spread until democracies-hopefully not ethnically cleansed ones-rule
the world." Is the situation in Darfur and in Africa, in general, a
reflection of this shift?

M.M.: The notion of a people ruling themselves becomes potentially
problematic when more than one ethnic group generates a claims over shared
territory. Africa is very multi-ethnic, and it has to cope with that. The
problem areas there tend to be where there are two great factions. In Sudan,
for example, there are two visions, by Arabs and Africans, and claims over
land have pitted them against one another. In Rwanda, there were only two
significant ethnic groups-the Hutus and the Tutsis-and the ethnic rivalry
underlay the genocide.

K.M.: You have titled the book "The Dark Side of Democracy." Murderous
ethnic cleansing, however, is rarely committed by established democracies,
as you and others have pointed out. Rather, the "danger zone" seems to be
during the transition phase from a non-democratic regime to a democratic
one. It is during the transition stage that different ethnic groups haven’t
yet resolved their issues, and that allows for situations where ethnic
cleansing could occur. Do you think Iraq is facing the perils of this
"transition phase" today?

M.M.: You are quite right. The problem is more during the transition period.
Once democracy is established, there is a decline in ethnic cleansing. I
think Iraq is a very good example of what I write about. Just to have
elections in a bi- or tri-ethnic context like Iraq almost guarantees that
the Shiites will vote for certain parties, and the Sunnis and Kurds for
other parties. The U.S. has introduced elections and the outcome is
disastrous. It has increased the polarization of the country and it might
end up with ethnic cleansing.

Genocide and democracies are logically incompatible. What I am pointing to
is the process of democratization, during which ideas can be perverted. You
can see this in the careers of the perpetrators themselves. When they began
the process of constitutional transformation, the Young Turks were in
alliance with the Armenian nationalists of the time. But then, in the course
of events, ideas become perverted. I don’t think democracies are perfect,
but the problem is the process of democratization. In multi-ethnic
situations, where there is an aspiration for democracy after the fall of an
empire, we have the kind of circumstance that can lead to ethnic cleansing
and genocide. Democracy gives the perpetrators a notion of ideals. They
characteristically think they are doing it for a purpose.

K.M.: Many genocide scholars argue that war is one of the major contributing
factors to the manifestation of genocidal intent. What’s your take on that?

M.M.: War brings forth radicals. These extreme cases normally require
turbulent geopolitical situations and also war. I don’t really think there
would have been the Genocide of the Armenians in the absence of the cover of
WWI. Of course, this does not mean that no atrocities were committed against
the Armenians before WWI. The pressures of war created the context, which is
also the case in Rwanda and in Sudan. I do not think ethnic cleansing is a
common feature, but it is a persistent feature.

K.M.: You write: "I’m not attempting to morally blur good and evil. In the
real world, they are connected." How do you explain this connection?

M.M.: The main point of that quote is, first, to cast doubt on the notion of
collective responsibility-that is, on the notion that all Turks were
responsible for the Armenian Genocide or that all Germans were responsible
for the Holocaust.

Secondly, I try to cast doubt on the issue of intentionality from the very
beginning. In my account, perpetrators escalate their plans for the
repression or elimination of the ethnic enemy in response to frustrations
over earlier plans. They don’t have the intention of murdering everyone
from the very beginning.

I also explain that all ethnic groups are capable of committing atrocities.
Jews were the victims of the Holocaust, but Israel treats Palestinians in
ways that somewhat resembles the Nazis. I’m not accusing Israel of
committing genocide, of course. I ask myself, if I had been a professor of
sociology in Germany in the 1920s or early 1930s, could I have been a Nazi?

K.M.: This is where the issue of bystanders comes in. It is never easy to
say which side of human nature dominates in situations where genocide is
taking place, and how Turks in the Ottoman Empire, for example, reacted to
orders to deport and kill the Armenians.

M.M.: That’s right. This is the most difficult part of explaining, because
our evidence is never wonderful. I cite a variety of motives among the
perpetrators. Some of them are rather mundane: greed and obedience to
authority are obvious motives. In these situations, comradeship becomes an
important factor, as well. Also, we all have prejudices, which can be
intensified in conflict situations. Of course, during genocide, the number
of people in the dominant group that engage in the killing is nowhere near a
majority. So, the guilt of most Turks was that of being bystanders, of just
watching the Armenians march past them to their death.

K.M.: You are reluctant to use the term "genocide" when referring to some
cases of ethnic cleansing. One such case is Cambodia. How do you view the
problem of defining genocide?

M.M.: I do use quite a restrictive definition of genocide, and I wouldn’t
apply it to most of the Communist cases. People have accused me of
minimizing the Communist atrocities because I don’t use the word
"genocide." But I am not in any way minimizing the number of people that
were killed. I am just saying that it wasn’t ethnically targeted. I think
the term "genocide" has been used too broadly in recent years. I don’t
think Yugoslavia was genocide. For me, genocide is the attempt to annihilate
an entire ethnic group. The UN definition allows for a "partial"
destruction of an ethnic group. I think one needs another term when the main
point is to expel a group from a certain territory. That isn’t quite as
abominable as trying to wipe out an entire ethnic group.

K.M.: Genocide deniers, when referring to the Armenian, Jewish or other
cases, argue that the victims provoked the killings. Genocide scholars,
however, have pointed out that in most major cases of genocide, the
"provocation" is insignificant, and that there comes a point where
genocide is inevitable, even without provocation. How do you view this
so-called "provocation thesis?"

M.M.: I think the latter comes closest to being true with the Holocaust: The
Jews did virtually nothing to provoke the Germans. I agree with the argument
by and large, but the concept of provocation also has to be viewed in the
full context of the situation. It’s not just a question of whether the
Armenians did anything directly against Turks to provoke them; one has to
take account Russia, the war, the activities of a few Armenian nationalist
groups. As I say this, I am in no way approving the perspective of the
perpetrator. But I am trying to understand it. The Armenians did not
directly provoke the Turks, and even if very few Armenians were involved in
some sort of "provocation," the [Turkish] attack was not on the provokers,
but on the whole ethnic group.

K.M.: In a footnote in one of your chapters dealing with the Armenian
Genocide, you say: "We lack frank accounts from Turks. We know more about
the victims, which must bias us toward Armenian views of events. As long as
Turkish governments continue to deny genocide, as long as Turkish archives
remain largely closed, and as long as most Turkish accounts remain
implausible, this bias will continue. Only Turkey is harmed by this." Can
you elaborate?

M.M.: We know very few mitigating circumstances. The picture is unreservedly
bleak. In the case of the Holocaust, we do know that there were Nazis who
opposed it. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, we only have a few memoirs
indicating that there were some differences among the Young Turks. The
opening of the archives and the end of the denial campaign in Turkey would
enable us to know more about the different attitudes among Turks during the
Genocide. There are obviously many Turks who helped Armenians. The execution
of the Genocide was decentralized and there must have been different
outcomes in different parts of the country. And apart from everything else,
it is unhealthy to regard Turks in general as being equally responsible for
the Genocide of the Armenians. However, until the archives are opened and
there is an honest acknowledgement of history, many people won’t be able to
fully get beyond such stereotypes.

K.M.: In recent years, more and more Turkish scholars are coming forth and
trying to question the Turkish state’s denialist policy.

M.M.: That is one of the healthiest things in the last few years. These
scholars are pushing hard for every inch. But still, there is a long way to
go.

K.M.: You conclude your chapters on the Armenian Genocide with the following
extremely powerful words depicting the "organic" connection between the
past and the present: "[The Young Turks] erred, not only morally, but also
factually. Armenians did not constitute such a threat, and their elimination
weakened the Ottoman war effort. Genocide contributed to defeat. The leaders
then fled into exile, where they fell to the bullets of Armenian assassins.
They might claim that the genocide was a long-term success, since the
disappearance of the Armenians made it easier after the war to unite and
centralize Turkey. Yet the country remains bedeviled by two Young Turk
legacies: military authoritarianism and an organized nationalism that now
represses Kurds rather than Armenians. The Young Turks fatally weakened
their country by pursuing organic nationalism; their successors struggle in
their shadow." Let us conclude this interview by your thoughts on these
words.

M.M.: First, let me explain what I mean when I say that "genocide
contributed to defeat." Of course, the Genocide was not the direct reason
for their defeat. But if there were a few thousand Armenians fighting with
the Russians, there were also hundreds of thousands of them in the Turkish
army, and there was no indication they would have changed sides. Killing
these Armenians is something that weakened the war effort. Also, the
deportations and the massacres demanded a lot of resources. What I mean when
I say that "their successors struggle in their shadow," is that the
Genocide intensified the authoritarian nature and the "closedness" of the
Turkish Republic; generated a feeling of common guilt or shame; and created
and continues to create a lot of problems within Turkish society. Had the
Armenians survived, there would have been a better way of dealing with
ethnic minorities, especially Kurds. I think that Kurds suffered enormously
from the Armenian Genocide.

Khatchig Mouradian is a Lebanese-Armenian writer, translator, and
journalist. He is an editor of the daily newspaper Aztag, published in
Beirut. He can be contacted at [email protected]

AZERI PRESSURE GROUP PROTESTS AT FRENCH GENOCIDE BILL

ANS TV, Baku,
16 Oct 2006

A group of the Karabakh Liberation Organization [KLO] members have
attempted to stage a protest outside the French embassy against the
French parliament’s bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian
genocide. One of the protesters threw eggs and tomatoes on the
embassy building.

The protesters could read out their resolution not far from the
embassy. The resolution was handed to the French embassy at the end
of the protest.

The French parliament has openly supported aggressor Armenia, taking
a disgraceful position on Azerbaijan, Turkey, the entire Islamic and
Turkic world, the protesters said in their resolution.

Therefore, the French parliament’s decision must be changed,
and political, economic and cultural relations with France must
be severed. France must be removed from the OSCE Minsk Group
chairmanship and no talks on Nagornyy Karabakh must be conducted on
French territory.

Eighteen people, who attempted to stage the protest, were arrested,
the KLO reported. [Baku’s] Sabayil district police department said
that all detainees had been set free after giving explanations.

[Video showed protest]

PARLIAMENT TO DISCUSS DEVELOPMENTS IN WAKE OF FRANCE’S PASSAGE OF ARMENIAN BILL

Turkish Press
Oct 18 2006

Parliament is due today to discuss a bill criminalizing denial of the
so-called Armenian genocide passed last week by France and developments
in its wake. Parliament is expected to give a harsh response to France
over the bill. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is due to brief the
assembled deputies on the issue. After Gul addresses the deputies,
members of the opposition parties will make speeches. A declaration
condemning the decision of the French Parliament is expected to be
released following the speeches.

NO ARMENIAN FLAG ON ARARAT

A1+
[03:52 pm] 18 October, 2006

>From now on the authorization of the Turkish special service is needed
in order to climb Mount Ararat. The Turkish authorities introduced the
requirement after Armenian students from the USA raised the Armenian
flag on top of the Mountain.

According to newspaper "Marmara", the protocol about Ararat has been
signed by the Turkish Ministry of Culture, Internal affairs and the
Turkish secret services. According to the protocol, those who want to
climb the mountain must send an application two months before; in case
of foreigners, the secret service must approve of their application.

Those who want to climb the mountain, must refrain from scientific
investigations. Their only aim must be tourism. Their equipment must
also be checked.

ARMENIAN DRAM STRENGTHENED BY 37% IN THE COURSE OF LAST THREE YEARS

Panorama.am
16:49 16/10/06

In the course of the last three years, the Armenian dram strengthened
against the American dollar by 37%, chairman of Central Bank Tigran
Sarkisyan told a parliamentary hearing today.

In his words, the strengthening of the national currency creates
a number of problems for the population. Those parts of the public
suffer the most who keep their money in foreign currency. Revaluation
of dram also negatively affects the incomes of citizens who receive
salary in the American dollar.

This concerns employees of international organizations, some mass media
as well as public sector employees and the shadow economy. The third
group make up citizens who receive money transfers from abroad. He
said 37% of households receive money transfers. Finally, he said
Armenian exporters suffer because they face competition problems in
the international market. Sarkisyan said the government of Armenia has
approved the list of actions targeting reduction of dollar turnover
volume in the country.