Author: Vanyan Gary

URUGUAY ARMENIANS PROTEST AGAINST TURKEY’S ACCESSION TO EU

Pan Armenian
05.10.2005 14:30

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Members of Uruguay’s Armenian community joined in the
protest demonstration on October 3 outside the European Union mission
in Montevideo, organized by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation’s
“Armenia” Youth Union. Protesters held up Armenian tricolors and
posters reading “Historic truth cannot be hidden,” “Turkey, admit to
your crime – the Armenian Genocide,” and “No to Turkey’s accession to
EU unless Armenian Genocide recognition.” Ethnic Armenian member of the
Uruguay Parliament Lilian Keshishian, accompanied by MP Ivan Posatas,
joined the protesters. A delegation of the protesters handed to the
EU representative a petition signed by 30,000 people, demanding that
EU denies Turkey’s bid unless that country recognizes the Armenian
Genocide, Yerkir online reported.

ARAM I TO BLESS CHURCH BUILDING IN LA CRESCENTA
By Alex Dobuzinskis, Staff Writer

Los Angeles Daily News, CA
Oct 5 2005

LA CRESCENTA – Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian looks forward to the
day next spring when the La Crescenta church headquarters for the
Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America opens to
welcome the community.

But another momentous day for the archbishop and his prelacy will come
Saturday, when His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House
of Cilicia, will bless the under-construction facility as part of a
Southern California visit.

The church leader, who is based in Lebanon, arrives today in
Los Angeles. Over the next two weeks, he will speak to students,
churchgoers, officials, religious leaders and participants in a
University of Southern California symposium.

“The invitation is open to our faithful, and this is the message: Come
and be inspired by our pontiff, who will invite us to the knowledge
of light,” Mardirossian said.

On Saturday, Aram I will bless and consecrate a cross that will be
hoisted to the top of a prayer room at the future prelacy headquarters,
6252 Honolulu Ave., La Crescenta.

Converted from an office building, the building will have 12,000
square feet of space, including an assembly room, offices, a library
and the prayer room. A fountain will memorialize victims of the
Armenian genocide of 1915-23. Stone was imported from Armenia to
cover the walls.

Hollywood was an early destination for Armenian immigrants arriving
in Southern California, and the prelacy made its headquarters there.

But the Armenian community has moved in large part to the Glendale
area.

“Wherever our community moves, the church and the clergy should move
with the community, because the shepherd should be with the flock,”
Mardirossian said.

The prelacy oversees eight private schools in California, nine church
buildings and several congregations without their own church.

The Armenian church is divided into two administrations, both of
which share a common theology but are based in different places.

Aram I is based in Antelias, Lebanon. In June, His Holiness Karekin
II, who is based in Armenia, visited Southern California and blessed a
cathedral under construction in Burbank, headquarters of the Western
Diocese of the Armenian Church of North America, a separate entity
from the prelacy.

The Catholicosate of Cilicia was created after a 10th century
displacement of Armenians to Cilicia, in what is now Turkey. It moved
to Lebanon because of the 20th century genocide.

Armenians living outside Armenia in such countries as Iran and Syria
continue to be oriented to the Catholicosate of Cilicia.

“Both men are beloved figures,” said Raffi Hamparian, board member of
the Armenian National Committee of America. “Aram Catholicos carries
with him the title of moderator of the World Council of Churches,
which is an added mention of his role not only in the Armenian nation
but to the Christian faith worldwide.”

[email protected]

IF YOU GO: On Oct. 15, His Holiness Aram I will participate in a
symposium at the University of Southern California on the theme of
the Christian response to violence, with an emphasis on the Armenian
genocide. The symposium runs from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at USC’s
Davidson Conference Center, in the Embassy Room. Those interested
in going to the symposium should register through the prelacy at
(818) 248-7737.

ARMENIAN SPEAKER MET WITH CIS IPA

Pan Armenian
04.10.2005 14:04

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian Speaker Artur Baghdassaryan today met with
Secretary of the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly Mikhail Krotov,
reported the Press Service of the NA of Armenia. In the course of the
meeting the parties discussed the meetings of CIS IPA Commissions on
Economics and Finance and Science and Education opening in Yerevan
October 5. Mikhail Krotov informed Artur Baghdassaryan on the current
works of the CIS IPA.

Besides, the interlocutors discussed matters referring to the CIS
IPA plenary session to be held in St. Petersburg.

FRENCH COMMENTARY SEES GOVERNMENT AT ODDS WITH PUBLIC OVER TURKISH EU ENTRY

Le Figaro, France (translated)
Oct 3 2005

Text of commentary by Luc de Barochez entitled “Paris’ and Istanbul’s
secret love affair” by French newspaper Le Figaro website on 3 October

Never in the Fifth Republic has French diplomacy been so at odds
with public opinion. Rarely has France’s foreign policy been so much
decided by a single person, the president, against the advice of his
parliamentary majority. Four months after the French people’s “no”
vote in the referendum on the European constitutional treaty, Paris
has just confirmed its go-ahead to negotiations whose stated aim is
Turkey’s accession to the EU. The debates that accompanied the 29 May
vote showed, however, how much concern the prospect of that country’s
accession to the European club causes to a large proportion of the
French people (footnote: Only 21 per cent of French people questioned
are in favour of Turkey’s accession, 70 per cent are against it,
and 9 per cent have no opinion, according to an Eurobarometre poll
conducted by the European Commission in July 2005.)

The two issues are not linked officially. Jacques Chirac stressed in
advance that they are “completely unrelated”. Voters were consulted not
about Turkey but about the draft constitution. And it is conceivable
that the EU could continue to expand without acquiring the means
to move towards political union. The paradox is that this path,
which French diplomacy now seems to be taking, is that which Paris
has always claimed to reject. Successive presidents have voiced the
wish, at least since Britain’s accession to the Common Market in
1973, that each enlargement be accompanied by an intensification of
European unity.

This link is threatened following the shelving of Valery Giscard
d’Estaing’s draft constitution. The Treaty of Nice, unanimously deemed
inadequate, marked the last advance towards EU integration in the
year 2000, during the French presidency. That treaty was intended to
prepare for the accession of the 10 countries that joined in 2004,
as well as that of Bulgaria and Romania. The start of negotiations
with Turkey, and soon with Croatia, shows how mistaken some voters
were in thinking that they could oppose enlargement by voting “no” on
29 May. Is France in earnest in encouraging the start of negotiations
with Turkey? The closer the fateful day has drawn, the less France’s
leaders have had to say about the subject. And if they have spoken,
it has been to stress that the talks would be long, complex and not
necessarily successful, and that even if they were successful the
French people could still disrupt everything by refusing to ratify
Turkey’s accession by referendum. None of this is very encouraging.

“How can membership negotiations be started unless this prospect is
considered both possible and desirable?” a French diplomat involved
in the negotiations asked. Valery Giscard d’Estaing was even more
explicit last month, when he lamented France’s “double talk”.

Though there is a before and after 29 May in French leaders’ public
statements, the basic line has not changed. Hence the impression
of embarrassment and vagueness that prevailed during the summer. On
2 August Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said: “It seems to me
inconceivable that any negotiations process could begin with a country
that did not recognize every member of the EU.” Since then Turkey has
still not recognized the Republic of Cyprus, the prime minister has
had to eat his hat, and that which was inconceivable is about to take
place. Chirac was very specific, addressing the Ambassadors’ Conference
on 29 August: “Pledges have been made that France will honour.”!

The policy of a single man, France’s endorsement of Turkey’s marriage
to Europe is also a promise kept. To Turkey, but also to Germany,
and to our other EU partners. In 1999 the Helsinki European Council
session, with the support of the French cohabitation government,
established that Turkey was “destined” to join the EU. It confirmed
that the criteria applied to that country, whatever its particular
religious, demographic or socioeconomic characteristics, would be “the
same as are applied to other candidate countries”. In December 2004
the European Council session in Brussels confirmed that negotiations
would begin on 3 October 2005 if Turkey satisfied in the meantime
a number of conditions, which included neither recognition of the
Armenian genocide nor recognition of the Greek Cypriot government’s
sovereignty over the whole of the island of Aphrodite.

Like a secret love affair, which cannot be revealed in public, the
relationship between Paris and Ankara remains very discreet. France
is still among Ankara’s allies within the EU. On every key issue the
president has opposed demanding from Turkey more than it can give, for
the present. Jacques Chirac believes that the interest of the West,
in the broad sense – Europe’s influence in the world, its relations
with Islam, and the imperative of guaranteeing the continent’s energy
supplies – combine to encourage progress with Turkey. “A secular
Turkey having fully adhered to the values of the rule of law and
building a modern and competitive economy would be an asset for the
EU,” one diplomat close to the Elysee [president’s office] said.

Officially, nothing is being said. And Istanbul and Ankara greatly
resent the vagueness of France’s policy. The Turkish elites,
traditionally pro-French, are moving away from a partner that they
now consider neither reliable nor honest. At the time of the latest
enlargement, France ruined the confidence that it enjoyed in Poland
because of an attitude that was perceived to be both hesitant and
arrogant. It could now achieve the same result in Turkey.

THE EU AND TURKEY: PARTNERS OR GLADIATORS?
by Sylvie Goulard

Cafe Babel, France
Oct 3 2005

With negotiations over Turkey’s accession to the EU beginning, Europe
is still utterly confused as to which attitude to adopt towards the
Turkish government. And it is the island of Cyprus that finds itself
at the heart of the argument.

For decades, the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus
has been a major impediment for the improvement of relations between
Turkey and the EU. When Cyprus applied to join the EU in July 1990, the
Community saw this as a chance for peace. It assumed that the Southern
Greek-Cypriot Republic was acting out the will of the entire island.

Negotiations began in 1998 in the hope of encouraging a process of
political reunification. However, the bet was lost and a divided island
joined the EU on May 1 2004. Both the rejection of the Annan plan (a
United Nations proposal to bring about the reunification of Cyprus)
by the Greek side and the persistence of fervent Turkish nationalism
have hampered efforts to overcome the partition.

Maybe it was a chance worth taking since there are a few previous
examples of when the will to overlook political reality has triumphed
over unfavourable circumstances. For example, from 1945, and in spite
of the Cold War, the Allies kept alive the idea that Germany was whole,
which proved to be helpful during reunification in 1990.

Similarly, the fact that the USSR refused to recognise the Baltic
States’ annexation greatly facilitated their independence in the
1990s. The path to reconciliation and peace are not always the
straightest. Sometimes the bends can lead right back to the start
instead of driving the process forward.

Diplomatic subterfuges

During the 2004 European Council on December 17, the twenty-five heads
of state did not expressly ask Turkey to recognise the Republic of
Cyprus that had by then joined. It was instead decided that they
should have recourse to one of those detours that diplomats know
best in order for Turks to save face within their own borders. The
convoluted formula which allows this to take place deserves to be
quoted in full: “The European Council welcomed Turkey’s decision to
sign the Protocol regarding the adaptation of the Ankara Agreement
[customs union], taking account of the accession of the ten new member
states. In this light, it welcomed the declaration of Turkey that ‘the
Turkish Government confirms that it is ready to sign the Protocol on
the adaptation of the Ankara Agreement prior to the actual start of
accession negotiations and after reaching agreement on and finalising
the adaptations which are necessary in view of the current membership
of the European Union.'”

In other words, even though Cyprus was not explicitly cited but alluded
to twice, Turkey agreed to extend the agreement previously governing
their relations with the EU to the island. This takes into account
all potential implications for the free passage of boats, aircraft
and merchandise. However, shortly after this was announced, Turkey
made it explicit that this was not an acknowledgement of Cyprus. A
controversial move in view of such carefully chosen words.

The French authorities were quick to react. According to Prime Minister
Dominic de Villepin, it was “inconceivable” to negotiate willingly
with a country that refused to acknowledge the existence of one of
the member states. Unfortunately, by late August, President Chirac
had gone back on this statement at the conference of ambassadors,
insisting on the opening of negotiations.

As for the British EU presidency, it allowed the insulting statement to
pass and went as far as supporting Turkey’s decision. Two months later,
the presidency was still looking for an appropriate reaction to give to
the Cypriots and other “smaller” countries. It remains, however, hard
to conjure a compromise that will sanction Turkey without jeopardising
negotiations. No European still dares to suggest the required solution:
that of renegotiating the adhesion in terms of a Turkish turnaround.

European Turnaround

Once more, the EU will give in. This attitude is deplorable. It is
conceivable that Europeans should make the necessary efforts to help
the Turkish government overcome various difficult situations it may
face. But it is dangerous to compromise on such a fundamental point
when the uncompromising Turkish government refuses to look beyond
its nationalist and narrow purpose. By publicly stating that it
refuses to acknowledge the existence of one of the EU member states
whilst aspiring to integrate into the very same organisation, Turkey
demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the very nature of the EU.

Indeed, the EU is not a circus arena in which gladiators frenziedly
fight each other but a space of cooperation in which members listen
to and respect each other.

The upsurge of Turkish nationalism in Spring 2005, as well as the
threats against the author Orhan Pamuk (whose only crime was to make
the truth known about the Armenian genocide and the resurgence of
upheaval in Kurdistan) have muddied the positive image the Commission
had offered in its October 2004 report. To make matters worse, since
the decision of the European Council in December 2004, two founding
countries have rejected the Constitutional Treaty thereby exposing
the vulnerability of the EU. Negotiations may be opening, but it is
obvious that the heart is no longer in it.

Sylvie Goulard – Paris – 3.10.2005 | Translation : Abla Kandalaft

;Id=4896

EuroNews
Oct 3 2005

More needed from Turkey before EU membership

Distant cousin or near neighbour? Perceptions may differ in Europe
but both sides of the internal EU debate have long agreed on the need
for reform in Turkey before it can join the bloc. Ankara can claim to
have ticked many items off the list of changes demanded by Brussels.
These include scrapping the death penalty, enhancing minority rights,
banning sexual discrimination and curtailing the role of the
military.

But even after the start of entry talks more will need to be done
before eventual membership not earlier than 2014. It was only last
year, after decades of developing relations, that the EU agreed a
deal by which this week’s entry talks could begin. Among the issues
still to be dealt with is a European Parliament demand that Turks
acknowledge as genocide the mass killing of Armenians 90 years ago.
Ankara is also under pressure to recognise Cyprus, one of the new EU
members.

It has extended its customs agreement with the Union to include
Cyprus but says this does not amount to recognition of the Greek
Cypriot government as the sole legitimate authority on the island.
Among those wanting their voice heard is Turkey’s Kurdish minority. A
demonstration in Brussels on Friday was to intended to send a message
to EU negotiators that Kurds have grievances which still need to be
addressed. These are just some of the obstacles Ankara will have to
overcome on the long and difficult road to Brussels.

RIA Novosti, Russia
Oct 1 2005

The CIS and Baltic press on Russia

ARMENIA

If Yerevan wants to be independent of Russia, it should integrate
with Europe. This opinion was expressed by Armenian experts in the
local press. “We must develop bilateral relations with Russia with a
prospect of becoming a member of the united European family rather
than a Russia-Belarus-Armenia threesome.” (Aravot, September 21)

Experts believe that blunders of Russian politicians in the South
Caucasus in the context of U.S. vigorous policy will soon oust Russia
from the region altogether. “If we compare the unprecedented increase
in the U.S. current spending with Russia’s astronomical revenues from
skyrocketing oil prices, we will have to dismiss at once any talk
about Russia’s inability to compete. Moreover, the South Caucasus is
directly adjacent to Russia, and it should invest there much more
than any other country, if it really wants to increase its role in
this region. In the meantime, all Russia is doing there is buying
energy installations in a bid for monopoly.” (Hayots Ashkar,
September 23)

Another theme of discussion is the adverse aftermath for Armenia of
Russia’s potential entry into the WTO. “After joining the WTO Russia
will have to respect the rules of that organization and pursue its
common price policy. As a result, the price of Russian commodities
will approach the price level of exports both in the CIS, and inside
Russia itself. The resulting spiral in prices on energy carriers in
Armenia will sharply increase the costs of all Armenian goods, making
them absolutely uncompetitive.” (Aikanan Zhamanak, September 21)

Azeri military won’t attend NATO seminar in Armenia – spokesman

MPA news agency, Baku, in Russian
28 Sep 05

BAKU

Representatives of the Azerbaijani armed forces will not take part in
NATO’s Rose-Roth seminar due in Armenia on 6-7 October, Azerbaijani
Defence Ministry spokesman Ramiz Malikov has told MPA news agency.

Malikov described as wide of the mark a report by [Armenian] Arka news
agency which quoted the head of the [Armenian] parliamentary
commission on defence, national security and internal affairs, Mger
Shakhgeldyan, as saying that an Azerbaijani armed forces
representative was expected to take part in the seminar and his
security would be ensured at a high level.

TURKEY CONFRONTS HISTORY
Opinion By Suat Kiniklioglu

Turkish Daily News
Sept 27 2005

Two weeks ago I was fortunate enough to visit a photo exhibition of
the Sept. 6-7, 1955, street riots in Istanbul. For me it was truly
an experience and cause for reflection. Seeing such graphic evidence
of those events made me genuinely uncomfortable. The exhibition and
the debate it sparked was a great leap forward in the quest towards
confronting some of the unpleasant episodes of our recent history.

Although the opening of the exhibition was marred by a protest of
a small group of nationalists, the exhibition marked an important
change in Turkey. Fifty years later, Turks on both sides of the debate
intensely deliberated the Sept. 6-7 events. The debate allowed Turks
to become aware of some of the unknown aspects of those events.

Similarly, the infamous Armenian conference, which was scheduled to
take place in May of this year, finally took place at Istanbul’s
Bilgi University last week. The conference became an important
event in itself when, in the aftermath of Dec. 17, some European
countries that are opposed to Turkey’s European Union accession
began to emphasize the Armenian issue as a precondition to Turkey’s
accession negotiations. The Turkish debate surrounding the events of
1915 had already tested new territory in the fall of 2004. Contrary
to Armenian diaspora allegations, Turks are intensely debating what
happened in 1915. A preview of the Turkish media coverage of the
Armenian issue would provide ample evidence of both the extent and
depth of the Turkish debate.

The organization of a conference on the Armenian issue that included
scholars describing the events of 1915 as “genocide” sparked widespread
protests from diverse segments of Turkish society. Coupled with the
earlier comments by Orhan Pamuk on the issue, the atmosphere became
poisoned. However, the last-minute cancellation of the conference
by Bosporus University in May and developments in the aftermath also
raised eyebrows about academic freedom in Turkey.

Contrary to claims by critics, the conference was not organized
to determine whether the events of 1915 constituted “genocide” but
instead was to be a healthy starting point for an honest discussion
on the subject. Some of the presentations that emphasized the need
to avoid the word “genocide,” to de-emotionalize the debate, were
seen as very constructive.

The Turkish government’s stance, particularly Justice Minister Cemil
Cicek’s turnaround on the conference, not only reflected an acute
awareness about the potential damages a second cancellation would have
brought about but also provided evidence of the political courage
of the AKP on these sensitive issues. The handling of the Armenian
conference, once again, confirmed the government’s determination to
start EU accession negotiations on Oct. 3.

The fact that the conference took place despite the sensitivity and
strong criticism surrounding it was also a positive step in terms of
assertion of academic freedom by the three universities involved. I
hope the bold steps taken by the three universities will set an
example to other foundations and universities.

All in all, we are experiencing a very significant but equally
difficult process. Turkey is opening up to the world, confronting
its recent history and discovering the many different shades of its
social fabric. For this process to continue in a constructive fashion
we need Armenians to confront some of the dark episodes of Armenian
history as well. It would be most helpful if an Armenian conference
could acknowledge that Armenian soldiers returning to Anatolia with
the Russian army took revenge and killed many Turks in the process.

It would be a constructive step if somewhere along this process
Armenians could come to terms with the terror unleashed by the
Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), which
claimed the lives of 32 Turkish diplomats in the 1970s. I know we are
not there yet and that the Turkish side still needs to develop the
debate internally, but Turks and Armenians should ready themselves
for a historic reconciliation along these lines. Neither Turks nor
Armenians should continue to live with this historic burden on them.

The events of 1915-1923 and the 1970s with ASALA are too tragic and sad
for both sides. We need to find the courage and will to move forward.

There is no doubt the EU drive provides the primary catalyst
for progressive Turks to push through this process. A lot of
commentators expressed their skepticism when it was argued that the
accession process itself is as important as accession. However,
recent developments on the economic and political side confirm
the significance of the process itself. Despite the increasingly
“revanchist” atmosphere in the domestic political arena, facing up to
Sept. 6-7 and beginning to debate 1915 provide reason for optimism. I
am confident that the internal dynamics of Turkey are adequate to
sustain this process provided the target remains full EU membership.

* Suat Kýnýklýoðlu is director of the Ankara office of the German
Marshall Fund of the United States.

–Boundary_(ID_RvfDaPeMiMot4G0fyq/e4A)–

INDIFFERENT TOWARDS THE COMMUNITY HEADS

A1+
| 17:39:22 | 26-09-2005 | Politics |

The elections of local governing bodies in all the communities have one
thing in common – they are marked by the passiveness of the electors.

For example, in Arabkir, from the total number of 83 127 electors
only 27 580 fulfilled their civic duty on Sunday. Factually, only 32%
of the residents decided who the community head will be.

By preliminary information, in Arabkir Hovhannes Shahinyan has
been elected community head receiving about 18 215 votes. And David
Gyuloumyan from the United Labor Party has received 8 079 votes.