Author: Toneyan Mark

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Jan 6 2005
Major investors in Upper Garabagh disclosed

Base Metals and Garabagh Telecom companies are major investors in the
self-proclaimed Upper Garabagh Republic, Armenian press reported last
week.

According to the reports, Base Metals with 700 employees has been
developing copper and gold deposits in the region for many years. The
company, which exported the first consignment of copper and gold to
European markets in October, has invested $7 million in Upper
Garabagh over a year and a half and plans to invest a total of $20
million in the region. According to the company director Artur
Mkrtumian, processed bars of copper and gold are produced in Armenia
and then exported to Europe. Copper and gold fields in Upper Garabagh
are to be developed within 20 years, he said.

Another major investor Garabagh Telecom has been providing
telecommunications, cellular and Internet services in the region
since February 2002. The company has invested $15 million and
succeeded in establishing a mobile communications system which
currently covers 75% of the Upper Garabagh territory.
US-funded project
US Agency for International Development (USAID) signed an agreement
with the Armenian Assistance Foundation in October to implement a
humanitarian project in Upper Garabagh before September 2007.
3,000 houses and social establishments located in five districts of
Upper Garabagh, Azerbaijan’s region occupied by Armenia, will be
restored under the project.
A tender for the rehabilitation of 23 houses, 20 medical stations and
water pipelines in Asgaran region has been announced. Restoration
operations will commence in April 2005.
The project manager Andranik Sarkisian told the Armenian press that
rehabilitation work started in Khojavand region in November.
Renovation of 290 houses, 11 medical stations and water pipelines in
Aghdara region will begin shortly, Sarkisian said.

ArmenPress
Jan 4 2005
GOVERNMENT PLEDGES TO BOOST TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN 2005
YEREVAN, JANUARY 4, ARMENPRESS: At its last session in 2004 the
Armenian government approved a special state program for tourism
development in 2005, pledging to promote Armenia as an attractive
tourist destination. Deputy trade and development minister Ara
Petrosian, who is supervising tourism development projects, told
reporters that the main goal of the new program is to aggressively
promote and advertise the country in international tourism markets.
Petrosian put the number of foreign citizens, who visited the
country in the past year to around 260,000, a significant rise in
comparison with 206,000 in 2003.
Around 60 percent of foreign tourists visiting Armenia are
Diaspora Armenians, including also those who left it in the recent
decade and now visiting it as foreigners.
The main obstacle to bringing more foreign tourists to Armenia,
according to the deputy minister is the insufficient development of
tourism infrastructure. Another obstacle is that many Westerns look
upon the South Caucasian region as a hotbed of instability.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East
Jan 4 2005
Washington Report, December 2004, pages 56-58
Arab-American Activism
NAAP Conference Seeks to Empower Arab-American Community

Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha makes a point (staff photo S.
Powell).

THE NETWORK of Arab American Professionals held its second annual
conference in Boston, MA over the weekend of Sept. 24 to 26. Founded
to advance Arab Americans and Arab culture, as well as to promote
full participation in U.S. society, the theme of this year’s
conference was `Empowering Our Community.’ To that end, panels were
divided into various areas of concentration including professional,
foreign policy, civic education, and films and the media. Within
those sections were panels on such varied topics as Palestine, Iraq,
how to organize, Arab women’s movements, the vote, and civil rights
and non-profit law. The films `Selves and Others: A Portrait of
Edward Said,’ `Olive Harvest,’ `Control Room,’ and `T for Terrorist’
were all screened.
During the opening plenary, organizers emphasized empowerment, urging
members to run for office, use their careers to impact policy, and
establish their status as a minority group. The key message, they
said, was to take action – which could be as simple as writing a letter
or voting, or as complicated as starting an Arab American community
center.
The session on Palestine focused on numbers, ranging from `facts on
the ground’ to statistics on U.S. dollars spent on Israel, with
discussion on what can be done in this country to change the
situation. A moving and powerful session presented by Simon-Harak, a
priest and activist with the War Resistor’s League and Voices in the
Wilderness, examined the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing U.S.
occupation. Photographs never seen in the U.S., as well as infamous
pictures that did find their way into the mainstream press,
illustrated the vast chasm between Washington’s stated goals, and the
means used to accomplish them.
The Syrian and Jordanian embassies helped sponsor the conference. A
luncheon speech by Syria’s ambassador to the U.S., Dr. Imad
Moustapha, was inspiring. Every human with any decency should be a
strong advocate of Palestinian rights, he said, `especially Arab
Americans.’ Discussing reform in his country, Moustapha said the
Syrian expatriate community could and should participate, adding that
there was to be an international conference in Damascus for exactly
that purpose. NAAP attendees could `play a great role in the United
States and make great contributions to their countries of origin,` he
said. `You are the bridge.’

Actor Sayed Badreya announces the first Arab American screenwriter
award. See the NAAP Web site for more information (staff photo S.
Powell).

Acknowledging that U.S. -Syrian relations had been strained, Dr.
Moustapha maintained they have improved. He concluded by addressing
the issues of Iraq and Palestine, the ignorance and role of the U.S.
in those countries, and the shared history and culture of the three
Abrahamic faiths which allow for hope.
NAAP solicited messages from each of the three major presidential
campaigns to be delivered during the Saturday night dinner. The Bush
campaign did not respond. The Hon. Judge William Shaheen spoke for
Sen. John Kerry. Saying that Arab Americans had never been successful
in politics, he urged `sticking together.’ While noting that audience
members agreed with Kerry on many issues such as health care and the
economy, he did acknowledge that they had a right to demand more on
the issue of Palestine. Arab Americans should vote for Kerry, Judge
Shaheen concluded, but let him know they were watching him.
Albert Mokhiber spoke for the Nader campaign. He told the crowd that
they should not vote for Nader because he was also Arab American, but
rather should vote on the issues. If everybody voted for the most
intelligent and honest candidate with the best track record, he
noted, Nader would win hands down. After dinner, award-winning
playwright and poet Betty Shamieh read two of her moving poems, then
Maysoon Zayid lightened the mood with her inimitable comedy.
The conference concluded with by far the most controversial panel, on
which representatives of Boston’s FBI, Homeland Security and police
offices seemed to spend a lot of time giving out phone numbers to
call if one was a victim of a hate crime or suspected a neighbor of
terrorism, but had no answers to problems of profiling. Lionel Bacon
of the Boston FBI office said he could not comment on Arab and Muslim
Americans being singled out for investigation or prosecution in
general, but could only answer questions about specific instances.
Audience member Merrie Najimy, president of the Boston chapter of
ADC, rose to the occasion. Reeling off a list of examples from the
1980s to the present, she evoked cheers. Bacon’s response, however,
was less welcome. He said he either did not know the case mentioned,
or could not comment.
More information on the Network of Arab American Professionals is
available at its Web site, <;. - Sara Powell Georgetown Conference Scrutinizes Arab Media Thomas Gorguissian (l), Washington correspondent for Lebanon's An-Nahar newspaper, and Al-Jazeera's Washington bureau chief Hafez Al-Mirazi (staff photo L. Al-Arian). Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies held a conference Oct. 7 titled, `Uncovered: Arab Journalists Scrutinize their Profession.' Panelists representing various Arab news media outlets engaged in a lively, and at times heated, debate on the current state of Arab media, including the effects of satellite television and technological developments on the field. Thomas Gorguissian, Washington correspondent for Lebanon's An-Nahar newspaper, sparked a discussion with his first statement: `I wish I could announce that the state of the Arab media is strong...but, realistically speaking, that is not the case right now.' While the pan-Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera brought a new `momentum' in news coverage to the Arab world, Gorguissian noted, the network still has its limitations. `There is no free movement or access to officials,' he maintained. `Reporting will only come from the United States or Europe, not from Arab capitals.' Expounding on this point, the correspondent said Arab governments have a `constant desire to control' their journalists, specifically by closing newspapers and detaining journalists. On the latest trends in Arab media, Gorguissian observed that Dubai is considered a `hub of electronic media,' and said it will likely play a role in shaping pan-Arab media. He concluded by asking for more analysis regarding economics and the `role of giant media.' Focusing his remarks on `broad trends in the mass media,' Rami Khouri, executive editor of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, said the media is a `reflection of the wider political culture from which it emanates.' Arab media, he added, present `extreme expressions of political sentiments and polarization.' Khouri observed that there is a `great proliferation of media taking place' in the Arab world, including FM radio stations and off-shore press, with newspapers published in one Arab country now being distributed in others. There is `less government control, broadly speaking' of media outlets, he maintained, and the liberalization taking place is causing `much greater commercial impact across the board.' With few exceptions, Khouri explained, Arab media outlets are `market-driven institutions, not ideological.' Government-owned media are losing their audience share along with their credibility and legitimacy to private media, Khouri noted. Another interesting development he cited is the role of media as an `instrument of war.' With regard to the war on Iraq, for example, the U.S. government has made Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya an issue by publicly criticizing them and creating the State Department-run Alhurra, which Khouri described as `totally senseless and an extraordinary waste of money' to compete with them. In fact, he argued, given the vastly superior U.S. military capabilities in Iraq, the media represent the only `equal playing field' between Arabs and Americans there. Khouri cautioned, however, that while the media provide a mechanism for the release of tension in Arab society, they also reduce tension that could be channeled into political processes. With this restriction, Arab media will continue to be a `media of entertainment, not political transformation,' Khouri concluded. Salameh Nematt, Washington bureau chief for the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat, was decidedly less optimistic than Khouri, as evidenced by his opening remark: `The Arab media is worse off today than in the `50s and `60s.' Criticizing government control of the media, Nematt noted that Arab journalists were not able to cover Iraq until the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Arguing that `a free Arab media does not exist,' Nematt charged that Al-Jazeera viewers are presented with only two stories: Israelis killing Palestinians and Americans killing Iraqis. `Media won't hold themselves accountable,' he suggested, `because they are the government.' Taking issue with Nematt's comments, Al-Jazeera's Washington bureau chief, Hafez Al-Mirazi, responded, `It's very easy to tell people what they like to hear, bashing Arab governments and media.' He disagreed with Nematt's argument that the United States created freedom of the press for Arab journalists, pointing out that Al-Jazeera's Afghanistan office was bombed during the U.S. invasion of that country, and its bureau in Baghdad has been shut down. `Thanks to whom?' Al-Mirazi asked rhetorically. Al-Jazeera provides extensive coverage of Palestine and Iraq because they are newsworthy, he countered, and `reflect what the audience cares about, the two occupations in their lands.' - Laila Al-Arian `We're in a Mess,' Zogby Warns AAI president James Zogby (staff photo S. Twair). `We're in a mess. Our leadership has failed us and enmeshed us in a war in Iraq with no exit.' So said Dr. James Zogby at an Oct. 12 meeting of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. The president of the Washington, DC-based American Arab Institute said that despite warnings not to invade Iraq when the consequences were unclear, President George W. Bush heeded only his neoconservative advisers, who predicted American troops would be showered with flowers and the conflict ended within seven days. `We are in a mess because there has been no real debate about our policies in the Middle East, and now we're part of its history and part and parcel of its other invaders,' Zogby told an audience of more than 200. Harking back to the end of World War I, he said U.S. President Woodrow Wilson apparently understood the Arab quest for self-determination, but the British and French overruled him and established their mandates in Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Iraq, while the national aspirations of the Armenians and Kurds were ignored. `After World War II, the U.S. inherited the mess left by the British and French,' he continued. `And because the U.S.S.R. supported Arab nationalism, the people of the Middle East became pawns of the Cold War.' Another development occurred in 1988, when Jesse Jackson ran as a Democratic Party presidential candidate and the Republicans retaliated with the Rev. Pat Robertson representing Christian conservatives. These fundamentalists, Zogby observed, believe in Armageddon, the ingathering of Jews into Israel until Christians rise in the Rapture and the world is destroyed. Millions of them support Israel politically and financially, to the detriment of the Palestinian population. `The neoconservatives,' Zogby averred, `are the secular idea of the same concept of good and evil. Their apocalyptic theory is to prevail. They had no plan - just shock and awe - and out of our will, we will prevail.' In the weeks leading up to Gulf War II, Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shisheki warned it would take a minimum of 350,000 U.S. troops to take over Iraq successfully. But the neocons' `infantile fantasy that everything would fall into place' prevailed, Zogby stated. Despite the monumental failures in Iraq, he noted, public debate is stifled and the neocon machine continues to make excuses. `Iraqi dissidents are not all thugs and gangsters as [Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad] Alawi calls them. The people are furious over what has happened, they have no electricity, water, jobs or security.' Zogby recalled the remark of an Iraqi who said, `Saddam was brutal, but at least we could walk outdoors.' Noting that the United States and its allies are at risk, the AAI executive emphasized that each Iraqi who is killed has a family who hates the occupiers. The U.S. must acknowledge there is a problem and that doing more of the same will not make it right, he said. Nor will becoming independent of Middle East energy resources solve the problem. `We may survive higher petroleum prices, but Europe will go down,' he warned. As for the Israeli/Palestinian morass, Zogby said a solution must be implemented to counteract the neocon claim that the road to Jerusalem is paved through Baghdad. For too long, he said, Congress has been controlled by Israel. `Clinton was elected on the basis he would never pressure Israel,' Zogby maintained. `In 1981, when he met with Perez and Rabin's widow instead of with Binyamin Netanyahu, 81 senators told him not to do that.' Another stunning example was when the current President Bush told Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to halt his invasion of the West Bank, and dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to Morocco, Jordan and Israel on a peacemaking mission. Right-wing gadfly Gary Bauer denounced Bush's actions and invited Netanyahu to condemn Powell's mission to the U.S. Congress. Zogby proposed that someone of the stature of former Secretary of State James Baker apply pressure to the Israelis and Palestinians and definitively state this is the only deal on the table. `Both sides must pay up,' he stated, `so long as we are willing to define what the price is and not allow any tweaking or deals on the side.' - Pat McDonnell Twair

The Christian Science Monitor
The Monitor’s View
from the December 28, 2004 edition
A Pumpkin Roll in Ukraine, World
According to a Ukrainian custom, a woman rejects an unwanted suitor by
handing him a pumpkin. So it was that pro-democracy supporters said “no” to
corruption and autocratic rule by dumping pumpkins on a street in Kiev
Sunday – and voting for the reform-minded Viktor Yushchenko for president.
These pumpkin-rolling Ukrainians, along with 52 percent of their fellow
citizens, succeeded in overturning a rigged election Nov. 21. In backing Mr.
Yushchenko in a vote that this time was far fairer, they have proven to the
world that they want to join the march of newly free nations.
And it is a forward march, despite backsliding, most notably in Russia. Over
the past 15 years, the number of electoral democracies has risen from 69 out
of 167 states (41 percent) to 119 out of 192 states (62 percent) – more
elections, more democracies, more rights.
This is according to Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization which
keeps an annual tally of the globe’s “free” nations. The group, which
announced its count last week, found that freedom progressed the world over
in the past 12 months, with 26 countries (such as Ukraine and Georgia)
showing gains, and 11 nations (such as Belarus and Armenia) registering
setbacks.
Freedom has moved ahead in some surprising regions, like the Middle East and
North Africa. There, where Saudi Arabia ranks among the worst in civil
liberties and political rights, some modest gains have been made. Egypt,
Jordan, Morocco, and Qatar showed improvement in such areas as women and
family rights, as well as press and academic freedoms.
In the last century, world wars and the cold war led to the defeat of
despots responsible for killing or oppressing millions of their own people,
and those in conquered lands.
At the dawn of this new century, global terrorism represents a different
kind of challenge. But the answer is still the same: more freedom, more
democracy, more rights.
Exactly how these freedoms come to be is still the challenge for today’s
political leaders. President Bush has tried to impose freedom militarily,
first in Afghanistan, with pretty good success, and then in Iraq, where the
jury is still out.
Ukraine illustrates what can happen when the surge for freedom bubbles up
from within. While the US and other countries helped the democratization
process by providing funds, training, and people for election monitors,
pollsters, judges, and others, the Ukrainians themselves led their own
“orange revolution.”
>From the rise of democracy in Asia and Latin America in the 1980s, to
Eastern Europe from the late ’80s on, countless examples show how important
it is to have “the people” themselves want and push for freedom.
Next month, Iraq will have its first elections, and embark on the road to
greater determination of its own destiny. For democracy to survive against
suicide bombers, Iraqis will have to want it as badly as the Ukrainians did.

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
12/21/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1) No Other Document on Karabagh Is As Pro-Azeri As Atkinson's Report 2) Minsk Group to Inspect Mountainous Karabagh Territories 3) Sheikh Sultan Inaugurates Armenian Cultural Show 1) No Other Document on Karabagh Is As Pro-Azeri As Atkinson's Report By Tatoul Hakobian (AZG)--The former Russian co-chair of OSCE Minsk Group Vladimir Kazimirov, dissatisfied with the Parliamentary of Council of Europe's (PACE) latest report on the Mountainous Karabagh conflict, wrote a letter to PACE rapporteur David Atkinson, who authored the report.  Kazimirov, who chaired Russia's mediating mission in Karabagh, particularly blasted the pro-Azerbaijan nature of the report. "The most important international documents on Mountainous Karabagh always maintained balance in order to make it easy for the sides to compromise. None of them has ever been as single-mindedly pro-Azeri as yours," Kazimirov wrote. Having visited the Karabagh conflict zone 47 times, Kazimirov, considered an expert on the conflict, says both Atkinson's report, as well as his predecessor's Terry Davis's, neglect the history of the confrontation, the 1992-1994 war, and the conflict regulation process. "Many issues of the conflict resulted from actions on both sides; yet your approach pins the entire blame on the Armenian side. I am not trying to justify the Armenians; I only say that we need to be impartial in assessing the actions of both sides. Moreover, it was Azerbaijan that wanted to settle the Karabagh issue by means of force--that rejected all steps to ease the tension," he writes. Kazimirov stresses that Mountainous Karabagh, both in the UN formulas and OSCE documents, was either directly or indirectly recognized as a side to the conflict: "Only your formula overlooks this issue and recognizes only Armenia and Azerbaijan as sides--thus playing into Baku's hands." He recalls that the OSCE Budapest summit also mentions "three sides" to the conflict. He criticizes the report's emphasis on the importance of Karabagh's Azeri community. "Azerbaijan is a side to conflict--not the Azeri population in Mountainous Karabagh. There is no difference of viewpoints between Azerbaijan's and Karabagh's Azeri population," he stresses. "Could it be that it is appropriate to use the terms, 'London's British community,' 'Baku's Azeri community,' or 'Moscow's Russian community'?" Both the Davis and Atkinson reports, Kazimirov writes, refer to the four UN resolutions on the Karabagh conflict, accenting only demands for the withdrawal of Armenian Armed forces. Kazimirov stresses, however, that even having lost control over their territories, Azerbaijan's leadership persisted in their attempts to solve the conflict by force. Already having all the four resolutions of the UN Security Council, Baku directly ignored the chances of putting an end to hostilities three times. "Azerbaijan agreed on ceasefire under the threat of all-out defeat and loss of power--not to implement the UN Security Council's resolutions. The Armenians also had many problems, but they turned to be more flexible and constructive," Kazimirov reminds. The Russian diplomat concedes that the Armenians did not withdraw forces from the occupied territories, as stipulated by the UN formula, "But, in fact, Azerbaijan has not implemented any of the demands put forth by the UN either, and continue to this day to do nothing. Moreover, they demand that Turkey maintains its blockade of Armenia, threatens--time after time--to resume the war, and encourages anti-Armenian hysteria in Azerbaijan--but there is no word about this [in Atkinson's report]." Toward the end of his letter, Kazimirov reminds Atkinson that Armenia has full control over five regions and partial over two--not eight as Atkinson contends. He also notes that Azerbaijan also occupies Armenian territories such as Artsvashen. Kazimirov ends the letter with hope that a distinguished organization, such as PACE, will be able to demonstrate a balanced approach in the Karabagh conflict. 2) Minsk Group to Inspect Mountainous Karabagh Territories BAKU (Armenpress)--A Minsk Group fact-finding mission to Mountainous Karabagh in late January will seek to find out whether Armenians inhabit the "occupied territories," according to the Minsk Group's Russian co-chairman Yuri Merzlyakov. Azerbaijan's "525" daily reported that all three Minsk Group co-chairmen will participate, along with representatives from Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Finland--all OSCE Minsk Group participating countries. The Russian co-chairman revealed that the co-chairmen will most likely visit Yerevan and Baku at the beginning of January to clarify the details of their visit to Karabagh. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group is headed by the Co-chairmanship consisting of France, the Russian Federation, and the United States, and includes participating countries Belarus, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan. 3) Sheikh Sultan Inaugurates Armenian Cultural Show SHARJAH (Sharjah-Welcome.Com)--Supreme Council Member and Ruler of Sharjah His Highness Dr. Sheikh Sultan Bin Mohammed Al Qassimi, inaugurated on Sunday the Armenian cultural exhibition at the art district. The art exhibition, which showcases more than 60 paintings and various other Armenian artworks, is in celebration of Sharjah's Armenian Cultural Week. Armenian Minister of Culture and Youth Affairs Hovik Hoveyan is visiting the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the occasion. During his visit, a memorandum of understanding between Sharjah and Armenia was signed to consolidate cultural relations between the two countries and exchange expertise among Armenian and UAE artists. The formal inauguration was attended by various officials, among them Chairman of Sharjah Department of Culture and Information Sheikh Essam bin Saqr Al Qasimi, Armenia's Ambassador to the UAE Dr. Arshak Poladyan, and Director-General of the Department of Culture and Information Abullah bin Mohammed bin Owais. Dr. Poladyan told Khaleej Times that through the initiative of Armenian Cultural Week, Sharjah residents will be able to gain more knowledge about Armenian culture, art, and folklore. Commending Dr. Sheikh Sultan's proposal, Poladyan said, "Dr. Sheikh Sultan showed great dedication in organizing and highlighting the Armenian cultural days in Sharjah--a very well known cultural hub. Armenian Cultural Week will strengthen the cultural ties between the UAE and Armenia and exchange various creative ideas between the artists." Dr. Sheikh Sultan expressed his appreciation of Armenian art while viewing the exhibition area, where a number of Armenian paintings and carpets are displayed.       According to the signed memorandum, the upcoming Sharjah Cultural Days 2005 will be held in Armenia. All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and subscription requests. (c) 2004 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved. ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through mass media outlets. --Boundary_(ID_xxvSxyZpzrFg5xB9AM/S/g)--

FRENCH FM: “A NUMBER OF ISSUES, INCLUDING THE ‘GENOCIDE’ CLAIMS, WILL
BE DISCUSSED DURING TURKEY’S EU TALKS”
Cumhuriyet, Turkey
Dec 21 2004
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said yesterday that a number of
issues, including the so-called Armenian genocide, would come up for
discussion during Ankara’s European Union accession talks. Speaking to
French radio, Barnier said that the negotiations would be difficult
and could last for years. In related news, France’s Parliament is
expected today to discuss Turkey’s EU membership bid. /Cumhuriyet/

ALL-ARMENIAN RALLY IN BRUSSELS TOGETHER WITH FRIENDS OF ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Azg/arm
21 Dec 04
Over 4000 Armenians arrived from France, Germany, Belgium, Italy,
Netherlands and Sweden and Switzerland and foreign political
figures, parliamentarians, survivals of the Armenian Genocide and the
massacres, the students and the youth gathered in Brussels in front
of the European Parliament. With Armenian, French and Greek flags
in their hands the participants of the rally were protesting against
Turkeyâ~@~Ys entry to EU without recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
Outstanding political figures and parliamentarians of France, Italy,
Greece and Sweden, as well as famous public figures held speeches
supporting the Armenian people. This historical rally once again
reminded the European nations, direct accessories of the Armenian
Genocide, that they spare no efforts to let Turkey that committed a
genocide enter the civilized Europe without paying for its crimes.
One should admit that the rally was well organized and it was for the
first time that all the Armenian parties and the political unions
protested unanimously supporting the Armenian Cause together with
the friendly European nations.
Later, in the evening the participants of the rally returned to their
home countries, while the European parliamentarians were voting.
By Hamo Moskofian
–Boundary_(ID_fx1ZM0jLYBtztHashKkXFg)–

EU divided over whether it’s time to talk Turkey
Irish Independent
Dec 17, 2004
THE vote this week of the European Parliament in favour of starting
membership talks with Turkey should presage a decision by the EU
leaders today to start the whole process rolling.
One says “should” partly because one can never be quite certain in
Europe that its leaders will do what is required of them – witness the
extraordinary about-turns over the European constitution and the rows
over keeping to the rules of the economic stability pact. The major
players, including French President Chirac, with important caveats,
and German Chancellor Schroder and British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
more enthusiastically, have all said that they will give it the green
light. Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is fully supporting the membership bid.
But there’s a lot of bad politics about the Turkish application at the
moment, especially in Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands
where the right-wing anti-immigration parties are rearing their
head. Even Chirac has had to promise a referendum to let the French
people decide when negotiations finally come to fruition.
Such hesitations are understandable, but miss the urgency and
importance of the moment. To say no at this stage, or to fob Turkey off
with a “country membership” or something less than full conjunction
would be an act of religious prejudice and historic recidivism of
the worst and most parochial sort. Europe has an opportunity to reach
out to a whole new world of a bigger, wider and more diverse Europe.
All the objections and the last-minute hurdles being put forward
against Turkey – the demands that it admit to the Armenian genocide,
the imposition of additional rules on labour movement, the proposal
for a “privileged partnership” instead of membership – are little
more than masks for a much more fundamental fear and dislike, and
that is of Turkey as a Muslim state.
If anything, Europe should be wanting Turkey in precisely because it
is a liberal, modernising country of Muslims (officially it is still
a secular state, although it is now headed by an Islamic party).
In that sense Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minster, is quite
right to insist that Turkey will not accept second-best, special
requirements, lesser membership or anything other than the straight
road to membership that every other country has followed. Anything
less would be an insult, not least to all those in Turkey which have
pushed, harried and argued for the huge changes that have been needed
to get Turkey to this point of even beginning serious negotiations. Of
course Turkey has a long way to go. Anyone who knows Turkey also knows
how very far it is from properly integrating its Kurdish minority,
accepting even a minimum standard for its workers and instituting the
kind of law that would bring it into line with Western Europe. We
are not talking here of a neat homogenous country like Sweden, but
a largely Islamic nation developed through four centuries of empire
and then dramatically wrenched away from imperial habit to modern
national state by Ataturk after the First World War.
The benefit of that change is to produce a formally secular state
which, at least among the elite, feels its future looking westwards
and its place in Europe. The price has been a state that is fiercely
nationalistic, with an army at the centre of its constitution and an
attitude to its Kurdish minority and to human rights that has more
in common with Moscow than Brussels.
Far from that being a bar to full membership, however, it is the
very reason we should be insisting on it. Joining Europe brings
with it stringent obligations in a whole host of fields, from equal
opportunities to civil rights and financial disciplines. Lock Turkey
in those negotiations, and keep absolutely firm on their requirements,
and you help all those in Turkey wanting modernisation. Accept it as
something less than an equal European and you accept it as a basically
different country with lesser standards for its own people. Which is
why so many Kurds and even Armenians want the negotiations to go ahead.
Voting today for negotiations to start does not mean immediate
membership. Talks could last a decade and there is no reason why
the EU should compromise its own principles. But there is equally no
reason to make Turkey a special case in negative terms, forcing on
it special obligations which are not true of everyone.
Of course politicians have to take note of their domestic opinion. At
a time when a leading Dutch documentary director has been murdered in
the Netherlands, 191 have been killed in the Madrid bombing and the
police forces of almost every European country are issuing warnings
about the dangers of attacks from Islamic extremists, now is not a good
time to talk of Turkey’s potential contribution to multiculturalism
in the Union.
But politics has to be about the promotion of causes in inconvenient
times as well as propitious ones. The Muslim aspect to Turkey’s
membership is important, not only because to turn it down would
be to send such hostile messages to Muslims within Europe as well
as its neighbours outside. Yet in some ways one can exaggerate this
aspect. Turkey has its own history and ethnic background which make it
quite separate from the Arabs and Iranians around it, or the Pakistani,
North African and Bangladeshi Muslims populations within Europe.
More profoundly, Turkey is important because it represents a whole
new leap towards regional integration in Europe. It brings with it not
just an Islamic background but a military force in Nato, a reserve of
labour and interconnections that spread out to Central Asia and beyond.
This year’s enlargement of the Union from 15 to 25 members was meant
to be the end of the story for the time being. But everywhere round
Europe – in Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey and now Romania – the older order
is collapsing and new democratic governments are coming to power who
see in the EU both a path to the future and a means of consolidating
change. Belarus and even some Arab states around the Mediterranean
could well follow in the coming years.
It’s a development most European politicians have been slow to grasp
and fearful of embracing. The EU was desperately slow to respond
to Viktor Yuschenko’s call for EU partnership, and to the change
in government in Bucharest. Even though they know that existing
enlargement has changed forever the tight, inward-looking club of
Western Europe, the instinctive response of EU governments is to look
inwards and backwards. In the nervy and uncertain days before the fall
of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, Chancellor Kohl
liked to quote Otto Von Bismark’s statement about clutching the cloak
of history (God, as he called it) as He swept by. Kohl took the chance,
and he was no Bismark. Today’s European leaders are arguably even less
statesmen than Kohl. But history is passing by and over the coming
months in Central Europe, they have the chance to touch its cloak.
Adrian Hamilton

Georgian pilots claim they are being overlooked
The Messenger (Georgia)
December 16, 2004
As reported in Akhali Taoba, the Georgian Pilots’ Association held a
press conference on December 14, at which President of the association
Alberto Nerbekin spoke about problems in Georgian aviation. National
Airlines received a license some days ago to conduct flights using
Armenian A 320 airplanes, but according to members of the Pilots’
Association, National Airlines employs foreign pilots while they
themselves remain unemployed. The president of the association told
Akhali Taoba that National Airlines violates the rights of Georgian
pilots by employing foreign flyers. “This is prohibited by the law,
which protects our rights. Foreign pilots have the right to fly in
Georgia on our country’s airlines only six months out of the year, and
only if a Georgian pilot flies with the foreigners,” stated Nerbekin.
The pilots state that they have some 30 years of experience in this
sphere and that there are dilettantes in Georgian aviation. According
to them, National Airlines signed an agreement with Armenia and
expects the Armenians pilots to arrive in Georgia, but the Pilots’
Association protests against this agreement, saying it as illegal.

Analysis: Europe will likely give Turkey lukewarm welcome
By Gareth Harding, Chief European Correspondent
Published December 15, 2004
World Peace Herald, DC
Dec 16 2004
BRUSSELS — For over 40 years, European leaders have dithered,
delayed and ducked the question of whether to open membership talks
with Turkey. On Friday, it is decision time. In all likelihood,
the prime ministers and presidents of the Union’s 25 states will say
“yes” to Ankara, but it is likely to be a grudging, lukewarm welcome,
reflecting widespread public unease about the poor, populous Muslim
state joining the Brussels-based bloc.
The EU is suffering from enlargement fatigue after the entry of Malta,
Cyprus and eight central and East European states in May and ahead
of Bulgaria and Rumania’s accession in 2007. A European Commission
opinion poll published last week showed that only half of those
interviewed favored a further expansion of the club, with majorities
in France, Germany, Austria, Finland and Luxembourg opposed to any
new countries joining.
When it comes to Turkey in particular, the public mood is even more
skeptical. A survey carried out by French daily Le Figaro Monday
showed 67 percent of French voters and 55 percent of Germans against
Turkish membership of the EU, with majorities in favor in Britain,
Italy and Spain.
Critics argue that Turkey is too big, too poor and too Muslim to
join the rich, compact and largely Christian EU. They also claim it
is not European — over 95 percent of its territory lies on the Asian
landmass, has a poor human rights record, is in denial about its role
in the Armenian genocide of 1915-1917 and refuses to recognize Cyprus
— an EU state since May.
“Accepting Turkey as an EU member state would be to accept the risk
of Europe becoming a League of Nations or a Euro-Asian World Trade
Organization,” said French lawmaker Jacques Toubon during a debate in
the European Parliament Wednesday. “In short, Europe would be open,
but without strength or power.”
After EU legislators voted to start membership negotiations with
Turkey in a non-binding resolution, another French deputy Francois
Grossetete said: “It is incomprehensible to want to integrate a
country which is not situated in Europe, that does not share the
same values as ours and that occupies, and does not even recognize,
a full member of the Union — the Republic of Cyprus.”
However, supporters of Turkey’s entry into the club it first applied
to join 43 years ago, say the inclusion of Europe’s largest armed
forces would strengthen the EU’s fledgling defense arm, its booming
economy and young workforce would shore up the slow-growing and
rapidly aging Union and its pivotal geographic position could serve
as a bridge to the Muslim world and act as an anchor of stability in
a volatile region.
“Turkey … I think will be a very, very powerful partner in
Europe in the 21st century,” said Britain’s Europe Minister Denis
MacShane. European Commission President Jose-Manuel Barroso told EU
parliamentarians it was time for the Union to “honor its commitment
to Turkey” and announce the opening of accession negotiations.
Both sides agree on one thing — Turkish membership of the EU
would change Europe for good. Turkey’s population is likely to hit
80 million by 2015 — the earliest date it is likely to join —
boosting the bloc’s numbers to almost 600 million after the entry of
Bulgaria, Rumania and Croatia later this decade. As voting strength
in the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament — the club’s two
legislative bodies — is based largely on population, Turkey would
overtake Germany to become Europe’s largest and most powerful state.
The EU, a small, prosperous club of western European states for almost
half a century, would also see its point of axis shift radically
eastwards. With the entry of Turkey, the bloc would share common
borders with Syria, Iran, Iraq, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan,
become a major player in the Caspian Sea and south Caucasus regions,
and increase its clout in the Middle East.
The stakes certainly could not be higher as EU leaders prepare to
meet in Brussels Thursday and Friday. German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer compared the Turkish decision to the collapse of communism,
saying it was “one of the EU’s biggest challenges since the fall of
the Iron Curtain in 1989.”
The Turkish government confidently expects EU leaders to say agree to
membership talks on Friday, but is wary of heads of state placing extra
obstacles in its path. Ankara wants talks to start “without delay”
in 2005 and refuses to accept any other option but full membership
of the Union. It is also against linking its EU aspirations to a
deal on Cyprus, arguing that it lobbied — unsuccessfully — for the
unification of the divided island in an April referendum.
Under pressure from Austria, Denmark, France, Luxembourg and Cyprus,
which are tepid about Turkey’s entry, EU leaders are expected
to agree tougher conditions for Ankara’s accession than for any
previous newcomers. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will
be told his government must recognize Cyprus, that the negotiations
are “open-ended” and that they can be broken off in the event of
backsliding on political and economic reforms.
EU leaders dislike making hard choices, preferring cleverly worded
compromises and political fudges to clear decisions. But on Friday,
they know that four decades of prevaricating and procrastination
will have to come to an end and Turkey must be given an answer —
whether it likes it or not.