Author: Nalbandian Albert

FUNDAMENTALLY SECULAR
Alfred Stepan

Guardian
March 25, 2008
UK

Turkey’s ruling party does not represent a threat to the tenets of its
constitution, and the chief prosecutor is wrong to suggest otherwise.

The chief prosecutor of Turkey’s high court of appeals recently
recommended to the country’s constitutional court that the ruling
Justice and Development party (AKP) be permanently banned. Only last
July, the AKP was overwhelmingly re-elected in free and fair elections
to lead the government.

The chief prosecutor also formally recommended that prime minister
Recep Erdogan, president Abdullah Gul, and 69 other leading political
figures be banned from politics five years.

Clearly, banning the AKP would trigger a political crisis that would
end Turkey’s efforts to join the EU in the foreseeable future and
threaten its recent strong economic growth. So the chief prosecutor’s
threat should not be taken lightly, all the more so given that the
constitutional court has banned 18 political parties (including the
AKP’s predecessor party) since the current constitution was introduced
in 1982. Indeed, the recent call to ban the AKP is directly related
to its efforts to change Turkey’s constitution.

The underlying charge in the chief prosecutor’s indictment is that
the AKP has been eroding secularism. But the origins of the current
constitution, and its definition of secularism, are highly suspect.

Turkey’s existing constitution was adopted in 1982 as a direct
product of the military coup in 1980. The five senior generals who
led the coup appointed, directly or indirectly, all 160 members of
the consultative assembly that drafted the new constitution, and they
retained a veto over the final document. In the national ratification
referendum that followed, citizens were allowed to vote against the
military-sponsored draft, but not to argue against it publicly.

As a result, the 1982 constitution has weaker democratic origins
than any in the EU. Its democratic content was also much weaker,
assigning, for example, enormous power (and a military majority)
to the National Security Council.

While the AKP has moderated this authoritarian feature, it is
difficult to democratise such a constitution fully, and official EU
reports on Turkey’s prospects for accession repeatedly call for a
new constitution, not merely an amended one.

With public opinion polls indicating that the AKP’s draft constitution,
prepared by an academic committee, would be accepted through normal
democratic procedures, the chief prosecutor acted to uphold the type of
secularism enshrined in the 1982 constitution, which many commentators
liken to French secularism. Yet the comparison with what the French
call laicité is misleading.

In Turkey the only religious education that is tolerated is under
the strict control of the state, whereas in France a wide variety of
privately supported religious education is allowed, and since 1959
the state has paid for much of the Catholic church’s primary school
costs. In Turkey, Friday prayers are written by civil servants in the
70,000-member state directorate of religious affairs, and all Turkish
imams also must be civil servants. No similar controls exist in France.

Similarly, until the AKP came to power and began to loosen
restrictions, it was virtually impossible in Turkey to create
a new church or synagogue, or to create a Jewish or Christian
foundation. This may be why the Armenian patriarch urged ethnic
Armenians in Turkey to vote for the AKP in last July’s elections. Here,
too, no such restrictions exist in France.

What really worries some democratic secularists in Turkey and elsewhere
is that the AKP’s efforts at constitutional reform might be simply
a first step toward introducing sharia law. If the constitutional
court will not stop a potential AKP-led imposition of sharia, who will?

There are two responses to this question. First, the AKP insists that
it opposes creating a sharia state, and experts say that there is no
"smoking gun" in the chief prosecutor’s indictment showing that the
AKP has moved toward such a goal. Second, support for sharia, never
high in Turkey, has actually declined since the AKP came to power,
from 19% in 1996 to 8% in 2007.

Given that the AKP’s true power base is its support in democratic
elections, any attempt to impose sharia would risk alienating many
of its own voters.

Given this constraint, there is no reason for anyone, except for
"secular fundamentalists," to support banning the AKP, Erdogan, or Gul,
and every reason for Turkey to continue on its democratic path. Only
that course will enable Turkey to construct a better constitution
than it has now.

–Boundary_(ID_JVP67Ycu22W9REyjZuKJNQ)–

PUTIN: WE HOPE FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN BILATERAL RELATIONS

PanARMENIAN.Net
25.03.2008 13:02 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Currently on a working visit in Moscow, Armenia’s
President-elect Serzh Sargsyan met Monday with Russia’s President
Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin’s press office reported.

Welcoming the guest, Mr Putin said, "First of all I would like to
congratulate you on the election results. I know that the political
process in Armenia has been anything but simple, but we are determined
that, whatever the outcome of the internal political process in
Armenia, everything that has been achieved during recent years in
bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and Armenia will
be maintained and developed in the future."

For his part, Mr Sargsyan thanked the Russian President for
invitation. "I am very glad to have this opportunity. Thank you for
the invitation and the warm greetings. We have been able to count
on your help in both in the run up to the election and after it, for
which I am really grateful. Both President Kocharian and our ambassador
conveyed your personal message to me. To be frank, we never expected
this sort of one-on-one approach. Thank you for that. I would like to
congratulate you on the success of the presidential campaign. We know
that Dmitry Medvedev and you share positions on any number of issues,
and in Armenia we hope his assumption of the office of President will
enable our relations to develop further. We need this and will work
to achieve it," he said.

ROBERT KOCHARIAN: "IF AZERBAIJAN GOES ON LIKE THIS ARMENIA’S NEXT STEP SHOULD BE RECOGNITION OF NKR’S INDEPENDENCE"

DeFacto Agency
March 21 2008
Armenia

YEREVAN, 21.03.08. DE FACTO. "There is no better format for the talks
than the OSCE MG. However, it does not mean that unless Azerbaijan
recognizes the format we’ll cling to it", the RA President Robert
Kocharian stated in the course of a press conference. "We are always
ready for the talks and believe it is the only way to resolve the
issue".

In the President’s words, Karabakh has much more reasons to be
independent than Kosovo. NKR declared its independence in September,
1992, a referendum was held in December, nowadays all structures
of state power function, and Karabakh defended its independence and
territorial integrity by its own forces. "I think the talks are more
important for Azerbaijan than for us", Robert Kocharian noted. "If
they go on like this, our next step should be the recognition of
Karabakh’s independence and signing corresponding treaties. At least,
I would undertake such steps".

Speaking of the skirmish that took place on the NKR and Azerbaijani
Armed Forces’ contact line on March 4, the RA President stated
Azerbaijan had made an attempt to check our strength. "I have no doubts
that being confident of weakness of Armenia and NKR, which is enough
to achieve success, Azerbaijan is sure to climb to such success",
the President noted. As for the U. N. Resolution, according to the
President, Azerbaijan intended to create some counterbalance to the
Kosovo precedent by means of a document testifying to the fact that
the precedent bears no relation to Karabakh.

On the eve of abolition of a state of emergency in Yerevan Armenian
President shared some conclusions he had deduced during the last twenty
days. First of all the President voiced assurance that introduction of
the state of emergency had enabled to avoid big losses and stabilize
the situation. During the whole period no violations of the state of
emergency were registered.

At present, on the ground of actual materials one can state that mass
disorders were organized. In the President’s words, there is no doubt
about it. Robert Kocharian also noted that in the near future some
cases would be submitted to the court.

If new attempts to conduct unapproved meetings and processions will
be made after the abolition of the state of emergency the Police have
to terminate them without delay.

Commenting on some items of the PACE statement made on the ground of
conclusions of the PACE monitoring group headed by John Prescott,
in part, concerning releasing perpetrators of grave crimes, Robert
Kocharian noted, "Then what should be done with perpetrators of
crimes of middle gravity? If we really want to have an organized
law-enforcement system investigation should go the whole length of
it and case be submitted to the court".

The President has no doubts that the events have negatively influenced
on the influx of investments, however, he does not think that the
influence is irreversible. Business circles should be sure that
economic policy will not be subject to sharp changes and economy
game rules will be stable. The President reminded the situation
after October 27, 1999. Then, according to the results of the first
half-year, economic growth in Armenia made 0%. However, undertaking
precise measures in May, by the end of the year the economic growth’s
annual index reached 6%. The President is sure that unless there are
investments, if the state takes consecutive steps, then in several
months one will be able to speak of normal investment climate and
finish the year with good economic indices.

VERELK PERFORMANCE OF VARDAN PETROSIAN TO BE INTRODUCED TO CYPRIAN ARMENIAN COMMUNITY

Noyan Tapan
March 20, 2008

NICOSIA, MARCH 20M NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Under the auspices
of Armenian MP in the Cyprus Parliament Vartkes Mahdessian, the
"Verelk" performance by stand up comedian Vartan Petrossian will be
staged at Utudjian Hall of the Armenian Prelature. The event is being
organised by the Hamazkayin Cultural and Educational Association Cyprus
"Oshagan" Chapter.

AZERBAIJAN IS TRYING TO INITIATE DISSOLUTION OF OSCE MINSK GROUP – YEREVAN

Interfax News Agency
March 19 2008
Russia

Azerbaijan is working for the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk group
for a settlement in Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenian Foreign Ministry
has stated.

"Azerbaijan is trying to launch the process of the dissolution of
the Minsk group through the OSCE secretariat. They have officially
approached it, and we are aware of that," Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian said in parliament on Wednesday.

"We should be doing our utmost for this not to happen," he added.

"Armenia has already expressed its opinion about Azerbaijan’s
intentions to undermine the negotiating process and spent a great deal
of effort for the resolution proposed by Azerbaijan not to be passed
by the U.N. General Assembly," Oskanian said. He told deputies that
Azerbaijan "has no reasons to rejoice about the adoption of the U.N.

ORIGINAL PIECE MAKES A POWERFUL STATEMENT
By Laine M. Rutherford

The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
March 19, 2008 Wednesday

Andrey Kasparov, composer, professor and musician, gave a cheat
sheet of sorts to audience members at Monday’s world premiere of
"Tsitsernakabert," a collaboration with Creo, Old Dominion University’s
contemporary music ensemble; Second Wind Dance Company; and sculptor
Peter Eudenbach.

Speaking before the concert and during intermission, he explained the
motivation behind his raw, discordant and emotional composition – a
stone and steel monument, Tsitsernakabert, memorializing the Armenian
genocide in 1915. A photo of the monument on the program cover served
as a reference, too, making the audience’s job of interpreting the
dance that accompanied the composition less difficult.

Co-choreographed by Second Wind founder and director Beverly Cordova
Duane and company member Christina Yoshida, the piece took performers
and audience out of their modern dance comfort zone , transporting
them to a place of violence, despair and hopelessness.

The performance began with eight dancers standing in a large circle,
leaning toward the center at a 45-degree angle, mimicking the
monument’s design. Movement began slowly, with dancers breaking from
the circle, as if trying to escape their fate. In the end, though,
they always returned to the circular shape.

Kasparov’s 20-minute score built tension, discomfort and a pervading
sense of violence; Creo’s musicians and soloist Lisa Relaford Coston
competently brought musicality to sounds that most would not welcome
coming from their instruments.

An element of eerie calm served as a backdrop as Peter Eudenbach’s
video art played on a screen at the rear of the stage. His moving
images of nature – a weathered tree trunk, reflections in rippling
water – again played within the confines of a circular shape, giving
the performance an organic feel. If Kasparov hadn’t provided context,
Tsitsernakabert could have been interpreted as a comment on nature.

The dancers did a commendable job with difficult material. A few
times, the intensity bordered on youthful overacting, but as a whole
the piece was powerful and fulfilled Kasparov’s goal – to impart the
horror of genocide and the endurance of the Armenian people.

Modern minimalist master Steve Reich’s "Sextet," which had its American
premiere in 1985, was presented in the first portion.

Members of Buffalo Contemporary Dance showcased strong, linear
movements and a contemporary attitude . The music, accessible and
compelling as performed by Creo’s adept musicians, was, at times,
less an accompaniment and more a concert.

While much of the dancing was engaging, at times the dancers lacked
color – visually and emotionally – and seemed to be missing the
intensity clearly stated in Reich’s composition – and exuded by the
Second Wind dancers in "Tsitsernakabert."

AN INTERVIEW WITH MINISTER VARTAN OSGANIAN
by Shahan Kandaharian

Aztag Daily
March 20 2008
Lebanon

We will do what we must, adopt new policies if necessary, to secure
Karabakh’s self-determination and security. says Minister Vartan
Oskanian to Aztag

1- It is true that the UN vote results carry a message to Azerbaijan,
as you mentioned. But don’t you think that the event conveys a message
to the Armenian side as well? It’s obvious that official Baku wants
to take full advantage of the internal turmoil in Armenia.

VO- It is true the resolution passed although of course we wish it
hadn’t. However, I’m satisfied with the number of countries that
did not support it. I assess their decisions positively. This is a
non-binding, or consultative pronouncement by the General Assembly,
I don’t think it will have an affect on the process, unless Azerbaijan
is engaged not just in deception but self-deception.

It was unnecessary, ill-timed, mean-spirited, both as a process and
a product.

If they expect to use this for anything other than their domestic
purposes, if they have convinced themselves that the international
community truly supports the one-sided desires they had enumerated in
the text of this resolution, then this will cause serious problems
in the negotations. One thing must be clear for Azerbaijan -that no
amount of resolutions will make Nagorno Karabakh deviate from its
path of self-determination.

Show me one example in history when a conflict has been resolved by the
passage or acceptance of a document by an international organization
or by third countries. There hasn’t happened and it’s not going to
happen now, certainly not in the case of Nagorno Karabakh. In 1948,
the UN General Assembly resolution to partition Palestine didn’t solve
anything. More recently, the Security Council resolution on Kosovo
also didn’t manage to bring the sides together in a meaningful way. I
remember in Lisbon when the OSCE Chairman-in-Office made a statement
about Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s joy knew no limits. It took
years for Azerbaijan to understand that that document had no value.

As for the message to Armenia, it’s not the message of the
international community. It’s the message of Azerbaijan alone. By
insisting on this non-binding, non-collective statement, Azerbaijan
demonstrated two things – that it wants to retreat from the Minsk
Group process, and therefore from the content of the document on
the table; and that it is only willing to negotiate what it wants,
and not a compromise. That, unfortunately, is the message we have
received from all this.

2- There are signs that such behavior by Azerbaijan may continue
both in the form of ceasefire violations and in increased attempts
to mislead the international public in the diplomatic arena. What do
you foresee?

VO- Fortunately, we will have an opportunity soon to find out what
Azerbaijan’s intentions are. There is a possibility that Armenia’s
President-Elect will meet with the Azerbaijani President in Bucharest,
in the framework of the NATO-EAPC Summit. We’ve stated our readiness
to participate, I know the co-chairs will make such a proposal, and I
know the Azeris have also hinted that they are ready to continue the
dialogue at the highest levels. During that first meeting this issue
can be clarified. President-Elect Sargsyan can ask President Aliyev
point blank – if you truly believe in the content of this resolution
and if that will be your guideline, then there’s nothing to talk
about and let’s not waste our time. But if you’re still committed to
the negotiating document on the table today, then let’s get serious
and go the short distance that’s left. Indeed, the UN resolution
text and the content of the negotiating document are incompatible;
most of the international community recognized this which is why they
did not support it. The international community was also perturbed
by Azerbaijan’s recent serious breaches of the ceasefire. These two
things taken together should indeed make the international community
think whether Azerbaijan is serious about its commitments to peace. We
are. We will do what we must, adopt new policies if necessary, to
secure Karabakh’s self-determination and security.

3.- Today there’s a need to change Armenia’s image, as well as
to conduct an accurate and objective assessment domestic political
developments. How do you envision that process, especially when it
comes to coordinating between the Republic of Armenia and the Diaspora?

VO- Indeed, Armenia has taken a beating because of the riots and
the deaths. And when the international community comes inquiring
about the situation, they are not interested in asking or knowing who
is responsible for what. They look at this as an Armenian mess, an
Armenian tragedy, an Armenian problem and judge us all together. It’s
not the government that’s damaged, it’s not the opposition that’s
discredited, it’s Armenia that is dishonored.

We must accept their criticism, listen to their disappointment, share
their frustration and try to make certain that this is not a permanent
setback, but a temporary aberration from the path to which we’re
commited. I hope I’m not wrong. We will be tested by what happens in
the coming weeks and monhs. What is very encouraging is that despite
all that has happened, there’s a lot of good will towards Armenia,
a lot of hope pinned on Armenia, and a sincere desire to see us
come through this in a meaningful way, not just superficially moving
forward with business as usual.

This is also a challenge for the Diaspora. The Diaspora is obviously
shocked and disappointed by the way events have evolved. But we all
are. Now it is time for Armenia and the Diaspora together to navigate
through this polarized and paralyzing situation, find ways to build
faith, to encourage sustained, continuous engagement, to insist on
and support institutional change. In other words, to continue the
difficult task of nation-building. What the Diaspora cannot do, as
some have suggested, is to boycott Armenia, to reject Armenia-based
organizations, to blame Armenia for not being the country of their
dreams. I understand the disappointment, I don’t understand the
expectations or the reaction. This is when we in Armenia need the
Diaspora, this is when the Diaspora must say what the international
community is saying – we are disappointed in what has happened and
we stand ready to work with you to bring Armenia out of this crisis.

This is not the time to disown the family. This is the time for
cooperated work.

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION SEEKS TO FILL GAPS IN THE KARABAKH "PEACE PROCESS"
By Vladimir Socor

Eurasia Daily Monitor
March 18 2008
DC

On March 14 the United Nations General Assembly adopted an
Azerbaijan-authored resolution, calling for:

~U "immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian
forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan"; ~U "respect
and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
within its internationally recognized borders"; ~U support for the
"inalienable right of the population expelled from the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan to return to their homes"; ~U international
assistance for "comprehensive rehabilitation of all conflict-affected
territories"; ~U refusal by all states to "recognize as lawful the
current situation in Karabakh" or to "provide aid or assistance to
maintain that situation"; ~U creating "normal, secure, and equal
conditions of life for the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities
in Karabakh," so as to build "an effective, democratic system of
self-governance" there; and ~U support for the mediation efforts by
the OSCE’s "Minsk Group" (UN News Center, March 14).

The General Assembly approved the resolution by a recorded vote of
39 in favor, seven against, 100 abstentions, and some other countries
not voting. Irrespective of the margin of its approval, the resolution
becomes, ipso facto, a reference document in the negotiations toward
settling the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Since 1992 those negotiations
have been mediated, without any results, by the "Minsk Group" co-chairs
— Russia, the United States, France — under a nominal OSCE umbrella.

The breakdown of the voting in the General Assembly reflects above all
the Western countries’ unfocused, dilatory approach to settling this
conflict, notwithstanding Azerbaijan’s significance as a strategic
partner to the West. The United States and France joined forces with
Russia and Armenia in voting against the resolution.

Twenty-six countries of European Union — that is, all the member
countries excepting France — abstained.

Azerbaijan’s fellow-members of the GUAM group — Georgia, Ukraine,
and Moldova — voted as could be expected in favor of the resolution.

Not a single CIS country joined Russia and Armenia against the
resolution. A large number of Muslim countries — with Pakistan
speaking on the collective behalf of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC) — voted for the resolution, mainly in solidarity
with Azerbaijan. However, Iran seems not to have voted at all,
reflecting Tehran’s periodic tilt toward Armenia. The U.S.-supported
governments of Afghanistan and Iraq were among those voting in favor,
thus distancing themselves from the United States on this issue. By
the same token, Serbia distanced itself from Russia by voting for
the resolution.

Most of these countries rallied to the resolution because of its
strong reaffirmation of the principle of the territorial integrity
of states. The resolution’s timing underscores its relevance,
in the immediate wake of Kosova’s declaration of independence and
international recognition.

Moreover, from Azerbaijan’s viewpoint — as well as Georgia’s —
the value of the resolution also resides in its strong call for the
return of expellees to their homes, so as to reverse the ethnic
cleansing operations of the 1990s. Reversal of such an operation
became a moral and political basis for the solution in Kosova. Given
this backdrop, the March 14 resolution underscores in a timely manner
the responsibility of the UN and other international organizations
to address this issue effectively in Karabakh.

Explaining the negative U.S. vote in the General Assembly, U.S. Deputy
Permanent Representative Alejandro D. Wolf claimed that the resolution
was weighted toward issue of interest to Azerbaijan, thus diverging
from the Minsk Group co-chairs’ latest proposals, which are described
as a "balanced package of principles." U.S. and Minsk Group co-chairs’
statements during the debate also claimed that the resolution was
ill-timed and risked "derailing the peace process" (U.S. Federal News
Service, March 15). The argument about timing seems to ignore, instead
of addressing, the perception among many countries that the outcome
in Kosova necessitates a reaffirmation of the territorial-integrity
principle at this particular moment. The argument about the "peace
process" also proved ineffective, given the widespread perception that
there is no process leading to a resolution of the conflict after
16 years of negotiations handled by the Minsk Group’s co-chairing
countries.

In its comment on the resolution, Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs argued that the demand for withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces would create a security vacuum endangering the population of
Karabakh. Minister Vardan Oskanian and other officials also claimed
that Azerbaijan had "forfeited its right to govern Karabakh" by having
used force in a "savage war" there 20 years ago. And they accused
Azerbaijan of having itself created the problem of refugees and
territories (Press and Information Department of the MFA of Armenia,
March 14, 15).

For its part, Baku focused on continuing a better-focused diplomatic
process in the wake of the UN vote. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Araz Azimov expressed "indignant surprise" over the co-chairs’
critique and their reported efforts to dissuade countries from
supporting the resolution. Noting the "nebulous character" of what
the co-chairs term the "peace process," Azimov called for "clarity
on the principle of territorial integrity." Thus the resolution helps
to introduce such clarity: "The co-chairs should be in no doubt that
our work with them would proceed on the basis of principles adopted
as part of this resolution" (APA, Day.Az, March 15).

SAUDI ARABIA ENVISAGES TO STUDY INVESTMENT POSSIBILITIES OF ARMENIA

Noyan Tapan
March 17, 2008

YEREVAN, MARCH 17, NOYAN TAPAN. Robert Kocharian, the President of
the Republic of Armenia, received Alualid bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz
al Saudi and Amira, the Prince and Princess of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, on March 15.

According to the message provided to Noyan Tapan by the RA President’s
Press Office, Robert Kocharian said that Armenia has too warm,
expanded and multifoliated relations with many countries of the
Arabian world. In these relations he attached a special importance
to the constructive role of the local Armenian community.

The Prince of the Saudi Arabia stressed his warm feelings towards
the Armenian people and mentioned that he has numerous Armenian
friends. He said that being interested in Armenia, he aims at studying
the investment possibilities of the country, in particular, in the
spheres of tourism and hotel business.

Mentioning that the spheres they are attracted by are the supreme
directions for the development of the economy of Armenia, Robert
Kocharian said that there will, certainly, be a readiness for a
serious cooperation by the government.

NKR PRESIDENT VISITED THE MFA

Panorama.am
13:23 17/03/2008

On March 15, NKR President Bako Sahakian visited the NKR Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and met with the ministry’s staff.

The President signified the ministry’s role in the republic’s life. He
noted that the MFA had a serious work to realize abroad directed
to the Karabakh conflict settlement, deepening and strengthening of
mutual relations, as well as to the consequent increase of the NKR’s
international image.

According to Bako Sahakian, the authorities intend to realize serious
programs, particularly those concerning the expansion of the NKR
representations’ list in foreign countries and giving a new quality
to their work.

The Head of State underlined the necessity of structural changes
and a new personnel policy in the MFA. A wide range of issues on the
republic’s foreign policy and internal life were also discussed during
the meeting.