Category: News

May 23, 2004
Press Contacts:
Anneliesa Clump Behrend (202) 707-9822
Helen Dalrymple (202) 707-1940
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS VETERANS HISTORY PROJECT:
400 VOLUNTEERS TO COLLECT VETERANS STORIES ON THE MALL, MAY 27-30
National World War II Reunion Gives All Who Served a Chance to Tell
Their Story
The Veterans History Project (VHP) of the Library of Congress will
participate in the National World War II Reunion on the National Mall
in Washington, DC during Memorial Day weekend, May 27-30. The four-day
event will include ceremonies and activities produced by the
Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage and the American
Battle Monuments Commission. One of seven pavilions and two
performance stages on the Mall during the Memorial Day weekend, the
Veterans History Project Pavilion (located near the National Air and
Space Museum) will collect memoirs and stories onsite from those who
experienced the war overseas and on the home front.
The National Reunion coincides with the American Battle Monuments
Commissions dedication of the National World War II Memorial on
Saturday, May 29. The Veterans History Project invites all veterans
and civilians who served to visit the Veterans History Project
Pavilion on the Mall during the weekend and to contribute their
stories to the archives of veterans histories, which is part of the
Librarys American Folklife Center.
The National World War II Reunion will be the largest-ever gathering
of World War II veterans, said Diane Kresh, coordinator of the VHP
volunteers at the Library of Congress. Our aim is to collect as many
stories as possible over the four-day period. These stories will find
a permanent home in the archives of the Veterans History Project along
with the oral histories of veterans from other wars already in our
collection.
In an unprecedented effort, the Library of Congress will collect
on-the-spot interviews from World War II veterans and civilians who
served in support of them during the four-day weekend. In teams of
two, Library of Congress staff will roam the National Mall to record
the wartime experiences of World War II veterans and home front
workers.
Volunteers from high schools, universities, civic groups and other
organizations will also conduct interviews on the Mall. Participating
volunteers will be from schools throughout the region including
Connelly School of the Holy Child, Potomac, MD; Georgetown Day School,
Washington, DC; Rutgers University’s Oral History Archive, NJ;
St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, Potomac, MD; U.S. Senate Page School,
Washington, DC; and West Virginia University, Perley Isaac Reed School
of Journalism, Morgantown, WV. These schools join the other 150 public
and private schools around the country already participating the
project.
In addition, more than 30 hours of panel discussions will take place
at the VHP Pavilion during the four days. Topics, times and
participants are below. Check the Web site at for
complete details.
Former Prisoners of War: Richard Francies, Enso Bighinatti, Jimmie
Kanaya and Marty Higgins
1 p.m. on May 27 and 11 a.m. on May 28
Reunion of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team and the 1st Battalion
(Lost Battalion) of the 141st Regiment of the 36th (Texas) Division
2 p.m. on May 27
Hispanic-American Experience During World War II: Frank Medina, Miguel
Encinias and Evelio Grillo
1 p.m. on May 30
Japanese-American Experience During World War II: Warren Tsuneishi,
Jimmie Kanaya, Marty Higgins and Frank Sogi
4 p.m. on May 28
Navajo Code Talkers: Sam Billison, Sam Smith, Keith Little
3:15 p.m. on May 27 and noon on May 30
Tuskegee Airmen: Lee Archer, Charles McGee and Thomas Lowery
2 p.m. on May 28 and 2 p.m. on May 30
D-Day Veterans: Sam Gibbons 11 a.m. and Tracy Sugarman, Bob Powell and
Brig. Gen. Alvin Ungerleider
2:15 p.m. on May 27
Wartime Journalists: Paul Green, Barrett McGurn, Jack Pulwers and
Col. Peter Sweers
3 p.m. on May 30
Women in the Military: Maj. Gen. Jeanne Holm, Miriam Ownby, Martha
Putney, CW04 Elizabeth Splaine, Cdr. Ruth Erno
3 p.m. on May 28
Red Cross in WWII: Ruth Belew, Helen Colony, Mary ODriscoll
4:15 p.m. on May 27
Women in Military Medicine: Maj. Jennifer Petersen, Anna Busby, Marian
Elcano, and Martha Leierer
11 a.m. on May 30
Memories From the Home Front: Marion Gurfein, Helen Sudyk, Elizabeth
Olson and Venus Ramey (Miss America 1944)
Noon on May 27
Other WWII Veterans: Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and Adm. J. L. Holloway;
noon on May 28 and Robert Bloxsom, Jerry Brenner, Joseph DeLuca, John
Sudyk and George Zavadil
5:15 p.m. on May 27 and 4 p.m. on May 29
Special Appearances: Fayard Nicholas; 1 p.m. on May 28; Venus Ramey
(Miss America 1944); 5 p.m. on May 28. Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), Rep. Amo
Houghton (R-NY), Everett Alvarez, Jr., Gail Buckley, Lt. Gen. Julius
W. Becton, Francisco Ivarra
Each of the participants tells the American story through his or her
unique story and memories. Riki (Ruth) Belew from Laguna Woods,
California, worked with the American Red Cross in clubs for the troops
in North Africa: near Algiers, in Oran, and at the Casablanca Officers
Club. After crossing the Mediterranean in the nose of a B-17 bomber
during a terrific storm, she began service at a series of Red Cross
clubs in Italy. She remembers being stationed near a staging area on
the outskirts of Naples and dancing with hundreds of men a night.
Navajo Code Talker Sam Billison of Window Rock, Arizona, enlisted in
the Marines in 1943 and was sent to signal school at Camp Pendleton,
California, immediately after boot camp. He landed on Iwo Jima on the
second day of the battle to take the island, and with other Code
Talkers transmitted more than 800 error-free messages during 26 days
of fighting. Following the war, Billison served as a school principal
for many years and was elected to the Navajo Tribal Council.
Francis X. (Frank) Medina from Kansas City, Missouri, was a 20-year
old tail gunner in the 459th Bomb Group of the 756th Bomb Squadron,
when he was shot down over northern Italy in July 1944. Hit by
anti-aircraft fire, the crew of nine bailed out; all but Medina were
captured, and he was believed to be missing in action. On his own in
unknown territory, he was befriended by Italians who helped him link
up with the partisans with whom he was active for eight months. In
1945, Medina was rescued by the British. In the Library of Congress
Whittall Pavilion (Jefferson Building) from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. May
27-29, the Veterans History Project will be providing special
hospitality, information about the Project, and a tour of the Library
of Congress to invited Congressional constitutents while they are
visiting Washington, DC, for the World War II Reunion.
Prior to the World War II Reunion, on May 23, volunteers will
videotape members of Rolling Thunder Virginia Chapter 3 as they wash
the walls of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in preparation for the
Memorial Day weekend. The roving interviewers will also be collecting
oral histories at the Pentagon parking lot from 7 a.m. – noon on
Sunday, May 30, where Rolling Thunder motorcyclists assemble for
Rolling Thunder Inc. XVII/Ride for Freedom.
Visitors to Washington are invited to view the Library of Congress
American Treasures exhibit that is featuring special objects from the
Veterans History Project collection, From the Home Front to the Front
Lines. The exhibit highlights experiences of World War I, World War
II, Korean, Vietnam and Persian Gulf veterans with first-hand accounts
of war through letters, photographs, diaries, albums, maps, flags and
newspaper clippings. The American Treasures exhibit is located in the
Thomas Jefferson Building, 10 First Street, S.E., and is open Monday
through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
In addition to the American Treasures exhibit and through July 10, the
Library of Congress hosts the first comprehensive exhibit of Winston
Churchill material in the United States. More than 200 items ranging
from the 9-year-old Churchills report card to handwritten notes passed
between Churchill and Averell Harriman as they rode to the 1942
Churchill-Stalin conference will be on display. Presented in
conjunction with the Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge, England,
the exhibit is located in the Thomas Jefferson Building and is open
Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Authorized by legislation passed in 2000, the Veterans History Project
is being carried out in the way that Congress envisioned: with
grandchildren interviewing grandparents, veterans interviewing each
other, and students conducting interviews as part of classroom
assignments. The success of the program relies on volunteers rather
than professional oral historians to collect stories and
artifacts. AARP is the founding sponsor of the project, with more than
1,000 other organizations also participating.
AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to
making life better for people 50 and over. It provides information and
resources; engages in legislative, regulatory and legal advocacy;
assists members in serving their communities; and offers a wide range
of benefits, special products and services for its members.
To learn more about the Veterans History Project, to submit your story
online, or to view a schedule of panel presentations and other reunion
activities scheduled over the four-day weekend, visit
Note: For biographical information on the veterans speaking in the
Veterans History Project Pavilion and to speak with veterans from the
Veterans History Project, contact (202) 707-9822 or (703) 470-4275.
# # #

The Farce of the Fence
By Jonathan Eric Lewis
?ID=3D2333
July 21, 2004
With Tuesday’s United Nations General Assembly vote that
condemnedIsrael for building an anti-terrorism fence to save innocent
lives, it is finallytime for a nationwide discussion in this country
as to whether the United States wants to continue to lend any
legitimacy to the United Nations. This is, after all, an organization
that has dictatorships like Cuba and Sudan on its Human Rights
Commission and that regularly singles out the world’sonly Jewish State
for condemnation, while turning a blind eye to the persecution to
minority groups throughout the Arab world such as the Iraq’s
indigenous Assyrian Christians or Algeria’s long suffering Kabyles.
This is an organization that wants the money of American taxpayers and
yet allows the most anti-American regimes in the world to define that
amorphous farce that has become `international law.’ At a time when
the Sudanese government is committing genocide against Black Africans,
when Kurds are denied their most basic rights in Syria; when Armenians
and Azerbaijans live in a situation that could easily once again erupt
into savage violence in which Armenian civilians are targeted for the
most horrific violence, and when the Palestinian Authority is in an
anarchic state, the community of nations chooses to spend an
inordinate amount of time condemning and vilifying the only democracy
in the Middle East, a country that many in the Arab-Islamic world
would like to see obliterated by Iranian nuclear weapons.
Although General Assembly rulings are not binding and are, in the
parlance of the United Nations, `expressions of sentiment,’ the
Palestinian Authority and its supporters will use this diplomatic
farce in order to incite violence against Israelis. As Gaza begins to
look less like Egypt and more like Somalia, one would think the
Palestinians would want to use their diplomatic influence in the
United Nations in order to provide safety and security for their own
people in the face of rising crime and gangster-land violence. One
would think that the Palestinian Authority might like to explain to
Francewhy several French aid workers were recently kidnapped in
territory in which their police forces are essentially terrorist
organizations. One would think the Palestinian Authority would
realize that its position at the United Nations is more intact than
its very legitimacy among many Palestinians and act accordingly.
Not surprisingly, however, the Palestinian Authority has used its
international voice to condemn Israel and to win a propaganda war.
Islamic extremists throughout the region will laugh at the precedent
set by both the International Court of Justice and the United Nations
General Assembly, for they know that someday they too will be able to
use the `rule of law’ to prevent democratic societies from defending
their own citizens against an enemy that hides among civilians and
intends to inflict massive casualties on innocent men, women, and
children. Islamists are not concerned about tomorrow, so much as
preparing the groundwork for a long-term jihad against the West.
Sadly, the United Nations has once again helped them in their task.
Let there be no mistake about it: in its fury to condemn Israel, the
United Nations has drastically weakened the struggle against global
terrorism. For instance, if Israel is not permitted to use non-lethal
force to protect its citizens from mass murder, why should any
European state be allowed to take similar drastic, but non-lethal
measures, if and when they are faced with a campaign of nihilistic
terrorism launched from their own territory against their own
citizens? And if the General Assembly is so devoted to Palestinian
self-determination, on what grounds can they deny it to the Abkhaz or
the Karabagh Armenians?
The fact that the Palestinian Authority chose to make a mockery of
international law in order to convince the world that Israel’s
self-defense against terrorism and the protection of its Christian,
Jewish, and Muslim citizensis worse than terrorism itself belies an
important fact, namely, that outsideof their rhetoric and propaganda
meant to defame (and eventually destroy) Israel, the Palestinian
leadership has no vision of what it wants. Think of it.
Outside of the sloganeering of `Free Palestine’ and `End the
Occupation,’ have you ever heard a Palestinian official discuss his or
her vision for a Palestinian state? We have heard pro-Palestinian
propagandists label the anti-terrorism fence an `apartheid wall,’ but
we have never heard what they would do if the fence were to be taken
down. Are we to believe that, if there weren’ t a fence, the
Palestinian leadership would use their diplomatic victory to encourage
international investment into the Palestinian territories so that they
could build world-class scientific institutions or centers of
interfaith discussion?
In light of the United Nations General Assembly ruling, it is time for
all Americans of goodwill to discuss whether they want their hard
earned tax dollars to be spent for an organization that allowed Saddam
Hussein to build elaborate palaces from money meant for the Iraqi
people; that refuses to condemn China for its illegal occupation of
Tibet; that turns a blind eye to the persecution of innocent
Christians in places like Egypt and Indonesia; andthat spends hours of
time and millions of dollars to defame Israel, a country that has long
been a vital ally and friend to the United States and a state which,
unlike Egypt or Saudi Arabia, does not promote hatred of America and
Americans in its media.
It is time for all Americans to decide whether they will put their
faith in an organization that condemns Israel for building a fence to
prevent terrorism, but one that has, throughout the past several
decades, turned ablind eye to regimes that have killed Middle Eastern
Christians with impunity. Without taking a position on the resolution
of the Arab-Israeli conflict, one that will almost certainly result in
the creation of an authoritarian Palestinian state in all of Gaza and
much of the West Bank, one has to seriously consider the moral
implications of United Nations resolution that calls upon Israelto
dismantle an anti-terrorist fence, but one which does not specifically
call upon the theocrats in Iran to stop building nuclear weapons which
they hope to one day use against Israel and, if they could reach it
with their ballistic missiles, the United States.
It is this mockery of international law and common decency that will
make it that much more difficult for the United States to protect its
own citizens from religious fanatics who have no agenda aside from
killing and destroying societies that respect freedom and pluralism.
It is a sad day indeed, for we all know that the liberal-leftist
elites that dominate our universities will laud this United Nations
ruling and condemn the United States for refusingto go along with the
show. Our enemies are once again laughing, for they know they have
scored a victory against law, justice, truth, and human decency.

Edgar Manucharyan scored twice against Pobeda in F.Y.R. Macedonia
Wednesday, 21 July 2004
By Khachik Chakhoyan
His hero is Ronaldo and he has been compared to Romanian legend
Gheorghe Hagi, but after scoring two UEFA Champions League goals for
FC Pyunik, and topping the goalscoring charts back at home,
17-year-old striker Edgar Manucharyan is becoming a phenomenon in his
own right.
Ten goals
Last season, the striker’s 12 goals helped Pyunik win the Armenian
title, and his winning run has stretched into 2004. Aside from the two
he scored in last week’s 3-1 win against FK Pobeda in F.Y.R.
Macedonia, he has already scored ten goals in seven league starts and
three substitute appearances at home.
Meteoric rise
Manucharyan has been recognised as a player of significant talent ever
since he first kicked a ball in earnest at the age of nine. Former
USSR international and FC Ararat Yerevan midfield player Khoren
Hovhannisyan, who was named as the country’s Golden Player in the
Armenian Football Federation’s UEFA Jubilee poll, said: “I know
Manucharyan from his first steps in football.
‘Bright future’
“He played in the youth teams together with my son,” added
Hovhannisyan. “It was clear that he was very gifted from the very
first day. He is fast, and he is very determined to work to
improve. He has a bright future if he keeps on training hard and
thinks only about football.” Terrific pace Few in Armenia would
disagree with that assessment. Manucharyan’s skills are exceptional in
a player of his age and he boasts terrific pace and a great eye for
goal, as Pobeda found to their cost. He has also starred for Armenia
at Under-17, U19 and U21 levels, with a senior team call-up on the
horizon.
Leading figure
One of the top Armenian journalists, Football Plus editor-in-chief
Suren Bagdasaryan, has followed his progress closely, and said: “Edgar
is an event in Armenian football on his own. It is not often that
players like this come along. He has all a striker needs, and it is no
accident that he is a leader at Pyunik and with the national teams. If
Manucharyan maintains his professional attitude, he will become a top
class player. However, for that he will need to switch clubs.”
Going west
Certainly, that looks like the most likely option for the player. He
may harbour ambitions to play for Manchester United FC, but having had
trials with French clubs FC Girondins de Bordeaux and Olympique de
Marseille, as well as piquing the interest of United’s rivals
Manchester City FC, his future maylie elsewhere.
Level head
Pyunik president Karen Harutyunyan is convinced that a number of other
clubs are watching Manucharyan – something that the striker himself
must also have noticed. Nonetheless he remains patient. “Right now I
am Pyunik’s forward, so I hope to help my team,” he told uefa.com back
in November 2003.
Next challenge
His next chance to do so will come in the home leg of the tie against
Pobeda as Pyunik aim to earn a second qualifying round tie against
Ukrainian giants FC Shakhtar Donetsk. And Pyunik coach Vardan Minasyan
is certainly not ruling out the prospect of more goals for Manucharyan
in Yerevan.
‘Top form’
“He is on top of his form and rarely leaves a pitch without scoring a
goal,” said the coach. “He helped us to beat Pobeda in the first leg
by scoring twice and making an assist. There are very few players of
such talent in Armenia, and you can already call this lad the finished
item.” If he continues to develop at his current rate, the world will
soon be forced to agree.
©uefa.com 1998-2004.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Free lifesaving device attracts limited interest
By Marcus Braziel, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
In April, Boca Raton’s Fire-Rescue Department began offering a free
lifesaving device — the automatic external defibrillator — to
businesses, nonprofits and city government groups.
But few groups have shown interest — only six machines have been
given away.
The defibrillator is designed to revive a person who goes into cardiac
arrest. The fire-rescue department wants every Boca organization to
have one in case of an emergency. The city bought 60 unitsat a total
cost of $100,000.
Frank Correggio, the fire-rescue department’s public information
officer, said he expected this to be a slow process. “Anything that
has to do with change, people are reluctant to look into,” he said.
Correggio, who is overseeing the program, has contacted 45
organizations, including churches, health clubs, nonprofit groups and
even the Town Center Mall. He said about two-thirds of the groups that
he’s contacted are considering the free machine.
Most organizations that have rejected Correggio’s offer are concerned
with legal liability he said. Some groups think that if they attempt
to save a life, and fail, they might be sued, he said.
Correggio said that’s not true. The state’s good Samaritan act, passed
last year, protects the lay person, he said.
The act states: “Any person, including those licensed to practice
medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith render emergency care or
treatment …
shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such
care or treatment, or as a result of any act or failure.”
He said when a person has entered into cardiac arrest, the heart has
stopped.
“The purpose of the device is to bring the person back to life,” he
said.
“Basically, the reviver is working from the ground up.”
City Councilman Dave Freudenberg, who brought the defibrillator idea
to the city’s attention in 1999, said about 250,000 people die from
cardiac arrest every year. About half could be saved if there were an
adequate number of defibrillators, he said.
“I think the word defibrillator is frightening to people,” Correggio
said.
“But once they understand the concept of what’s going on and once
they’ve taken the training, it’s a no brainer.”
To get a defibrillator, organizations must send representatives to a
four-hour training class. Attendees will learn about the machine, how
to properly use it and other survival methods such as CPR, which go
along with using the defibrillator.
Correggio said the number of people trained per organization is solely
up to the group. But, he said, it’s to the group’s advantage to train
several people.
The organization also is responsible for keeping track of those who
have been trained. If all trained users leave the group, the
defibrillator can’t be used, Correggio said.
Once the group has received its unit, it must be mounted in a visible
area for easy access. Also, groups don’t have to worry about
maintenance.
Fire-rescue workers will handle the upkeep –changing the pads and
batteries.
Zareh Hagopian, parish council chairman at St. David’s Armenian
Church, took a defibrillator training class June 26. Hagopian said he
was intimidated at first, but after 15 minutes, he became comfortable
with the device.
“Boca made a good choice with the unit,” Hagopian said. “People who go
through the course won’t have any problems.” Hagopian plans to invite
more people at his church to the training class.
The idea could be catching on nationwide.
The federal government now is setting aside $30 million in grants for
A.E.D.
programs in communities across the country, Freudenberg said. Although
Boca’s defibrillators are for city organizations, he said he hopes
that other cities will follow Boca’s lead.
[email protected]

Schweizerische Depeschenagentur AG (SDA)
SDA – Service de base francais
20 juillet 2004
Développement Candidature turque à l’UE Jacques Chirac confirme son
soutien à Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Paris (ats/afp/reuters) Le président français Jacques Chirac a
confirmé mardi son soutien à la candidature d’Ankara à l’UE en
recevant le Premier ministre turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Il a jugé
l’adhésion “souhaitable” “dès qu’elle sera possible”.
Le président français a souligné que “la Turquie avait fait des
progrès considérables, et qu’elle doit poursuivre et intensifier la
mise en oeuvre des réformes démocratiques et économiques”.
Peu avant son déjeuner avec Jacques Chirac, M. Erdogan avait jugé
“impensable” que la Turquie et la France soient en désaccord
politique, étant donné la vigueur de leurs liens historiques et
économiques.
“Irréversible”
M. Chirac s’est déclaré à de nombreuses reprises et sans ambiguïté en
faveur d’une adhésion alors que son propre parti, l’UMP (Union pour
un mouvement populaire) y est opposé ainsi qu’une grande partie de
l’opinion française.
Lors du sommet de l’OTAN à Istanbul le 29 juin, M. Chirac a qualifié
ce processus d'”irréversible”, tout en rappelant que cela se ferait
sur les bases des conclusions du rapport la Commission européenne,
attendu en octobre.
C’est en effet à partir de ce document que les pays de l’UE
décideront, lors du conseil européen du 17 décembre prochain,
d’ouvrir ou non des négociations pour l’adhésion de la Turquie. De
source diplomatique, on estime que l’entrée de la Turquie dans l’UE
ne se fera pas avant une dizaine d’années au moins.
Au deuxième jour de son séjour à Paris, M. Erdogan a malgré tout
obtenu un appui de poids dans sa campagne pour promouvoir la
candidature d’Ankara.
Achat d’avions
Paris et Ankara ont fait avancer parallèlement un autre dossier
important, celui de l’achat éventuel d’avions Airbus par la compagnie
nationale turque Turkish Airlines pour le renouvellement de sa
flotte. Ces discussions “sont en cours de finalisation”, a précisé la
présidence française à l’issue de l’entretien Chirac-Erdogan.
Le consortium aéronautique européen Airbus et l’américain Boeing
devraient en principe se partager ce contrat de deux milliards de
dollars.
M. Erdogan a aussi appelé les milieux d’affaires français qu’il a
rencontrés mardi au siège du Medef (patronat français) à l’épauler et
à investir dans son pays. La France est le deuxième partenaire
commercial de la Turquie et son quatrième fournisseur.
Doutes regrettables
M. Erdogan devait également rencontrer mardi les députés de la
Commission des Affaires étrangères de l’Assemblée nationale puis le
président sortant de l’UMP, Alain Juppé. Il a regretté la persistance
de doutes, de réserves ou de débat sur l’adhésion: “Le fait que ces
débats continuent à exister malgré le paquet de réformes qui a été
accompli, cela nous attriste”, a-t-il dit.
L’opposition de gauche française est pour sa part favorable à
l’adhésion. Le Parti socialiste exige toutefois en préalable la
reconnaissance du génocide arménien de 1915.
Le premier ministre turc s’est montré très clair à ce sujet. Selon
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, la question arménienne ne figure pas dans les
critères d’adhésion à l’UE. Elle doit être laissée aux historiens,
a-t-il affirmé devant la presse.
La communauté arménienne de France (450 000 personnes) est la plus
importante après celle des Etats-Unis. Elle avait appelé à manifester
à Paris mardi soir.
NOTE: dépêche actualisée. Avant-dernier paragraphe nouveau.

Les Echos
20 juillet 2004
Les partis français réticents face à la candidature d’Ankara
Le Premier ministre turc se retrouve face à la droite et à la gauche
françaises. En visite officielle en France, Recep Tayyip Erdogan a
fort à faire pour tenter de convaincre des élus français très
réticents à une entrée rapide de son pays dans l’Union européenne.
Espérant rallier plusieurs responsables à sa cause, il doit
s’entretenir avec Jacques Chirac et Jean-Pierre Raffarin, mais aussi
avec les responsables du PS, de l’UMP et de l’UDF.
Les échanges s’annoncent particulièrement nourris avec les leaders de
droite car si le chef de l’Etat français a, à plusieurs reprises,
apporté son soutien à la candidature d’Ankara en insistant sur sa «
vocation européenne », les autres élus se montrent, eux, beaucoup
plus hostiles. « La Turquie n’a pas vocation à entrer dans l’Union
européenne », avait tranché Alain Juppé juste avant les élections
européennes. En prenant l’exact contre-pied de Jacques Chirac, il
espérait alors enlever aux souverainistes et aux centristes un des
thèmes majeurs de leur campagne. « La Turquie n’est européenne ni par
la géographie ni par l’histoire », martèle régulièrement Philippe de
Villiers, le président du Mouvement pour la France. « 90 % de la
Turquie n’est pas en Europe, elle est en Asie »,renchérit le
président du Rassemblement pour la France (RPF), Charles Pasqua, qui
pour justifier son opposition met également en avant la confession
musulmane de la majorité des Turcs. Moins virulent mais tout aussi
opposé à la candidature d’Ankara, François Bayrou, le président de
l’UDF, dit pour sa part redouter la « trop grande hétérogénéité »
d’une Europe élargie à la Turquie. « La frontière de l’Union
européenne, c’est la frontière nord de la Turquie. Si nous acceptons
ce pays, l’Union deviendrait une simple organisation internationale
», argumente le député européen Jean-Louis Bourlanges (UDF).
Face à ces oppositions, le Premier ministre turc pourrait trouver un
peu de réconfort auprès des élus de gauche. Le PS semble en effet
résolu à afficher un soutien timide à la candidature turque.
« La parole donnée »
Si Laurent Fabius ne se montre pas très « pressé », arguant du poids
démographique de ce candidat, Michel Rocard apparaît beaucoup plus
motivé. L’ancien Premier ministre estime que « pour des raisons de
paix dans la région, l’Union a vivement intérêt à ce que la Turquie
adhère ». Pierre Moscovici, chargé des questions internationales au
PS, a lui souvent rappelé « la parole donnée par l’Europe depuis
quarante ans » et dénoncé les arguments religieux. « L’Union
européenne n’est pas un club chrétien », explique-t-il. La
porte-parole du PS, Annick Lepetit, a toutefois rappelé, hier, que
les socialistes conditionnaient l’ouverture de négociations
d’adhésion à plusieurs critères exigeants, notamment la question des
droits de l’homme et la reconnaissance par Ankara du génocide
arménien de 1915, pendant l’Empire ottoman.

Le Figaro, France
20 juillet 2004
Un grand pays musulman tourné vers l’Europe
par Dominique REYNIE
Nous publions la suite de la tribune du politologue Dominique Reynié
parue dans nos éditions d’hier.
En Turquie, le choix de l’Europe est ancien. La version moderne de
cette option est visible à la fin du XIXe siècle. Les élites
ottomanes se tournent alors vers nous. C’est l’origine immédiate de
la révolution kémaliste, celle qui instaure un Etat républicain et
laïc, le 23 octobre 1923, selon un modèle largement inspiré de la
France. En 1926, c’est un Code civil et un Code pénal importés de
Suisse et d’Allemagne que l’on substitue au droit coranique. En 1949,
la Turquie rejoint le Conseil de l’Europe (où elle siège depuis 2001
au côté de l’Arménie). A partir de 1952, la Turquie est le seul pays
musulman de l’Alliance atlantique, et personne, ni alors ni depuis,
n’a posé la question de la compatibilité culturelle ou géographique.
En 1954, elle ratifie la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
et des libertés fondamentales, ce qui ne l’empêchera pas de la
bafouer souvent par la suite.
En 1959, la Communauté économique européenne entame des négociations
visant à faire de la Turquie un Etat membre associé et, en 1963, la
Turquie bénéficie du premier accord d’association avec un pays tiers.
Son fameux article 28 prévoit que « les parties contractantes
examineront la possibilité de l’accession de la Turquie à la
Communauté ». En 1970, la Turquie et la CEE signent un nouvel accord
prévoyant à terme l’adhésion complète. En 1973, la Communauté et la
Turquie lancent un processus d’intégration croissante de leurs
marchés. En 1987, la Turquie reconnaît à ses citoyens le droit de
porter plainte auprès de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme de
Strasbourg, acceptant ainsi de soumettre les décisions de l’Etat au
droit européen. Le 14 avril 1987, la Turquie devient officiellement
candidate. En 1989, la Commission déclare qu’elle peut se porter
candidate. En 1990, le Conseil fait de même, tout en refusant
d’ouvrir des négociations pour l’adhésion. En 1995, au terme du
processus commun entamé en 1973, un traité d’union douanière associe
la Turquie à l’Union européenne.
Seul pays non membre à intégrer le marché unique, la Turquie
applique, depuis le 1er janvier 2001, les mêmes droits de douane que
l’Union à l’égard des pays tiers. Le Parlement européen ratifie cet
accord en le conditionnant à l’adoption de réformes démocratiques par
le Parlement turc.
En mars 1998, la Commission adopte le document « Stratégie européenne
pour la Turquie », définissant une procédure de préadhésion
conduisant Ankara à harmoniser sa législation avec celle de l’Union
et à reprendre progressivement l’acquis communautaire. En juin 1998,
au sommet de Cardiff, la Turquie n’est cependant pas admise à adhérer
avec les dix autres pays (la déception des Turcs n’empêchera pas le
premier ministre Recep Tayyip Erdogan de se rendre à Dublin pour
participer aux cérémonies de célébration de l’élargissement, le 1er
mai dernier). La Commission propose alors d’assister la Turquie dans
la préparation de sa candidature. En 1999, le Conseil européen
d’Helsinki reconnaît la Turquie comme pays candidat. Enfin, le 12
décembre 2002, lors du Conseil européen de Copenhague chargé
d’entériner le passage à vingt-cinq membres, l’Union décide de
repousser au 4 décembre 2004 l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion
avec la Turquie. Les encouragements adressés par l’Europe se
poursuivent. Ainsi, du 28 février 2002 au 10 juillet 2003, la
Convention européenne comprenait une représentation turque, présente
au titre de pays candidat.
Non seulement la candidature de la Turquie est presque aussi ancienne
que l’Union, mais les liens économiques, stratégiques et militaires
qui nous unissent sont de plus en plus étroits. Comme hier, nous
avons ensemble lutté contre le communisme, nous devons aujourd’hui
combattre ensemble le terrorisme. Serait-il raisonnable d’envisager
la lutte contre un fléau planétaire largement inspiré par un
islamisme fondamentaliste et antioccidental en se privant du soutien
de l’unique grand pays musulman, moderne et ardemment pro-européen ?
La constance de l’orientation européenne de la Turquie révèle la
nature fondamentale de son choix, dans le prolongement de l’option
kémaliste, laïque et républicaine. Aujourd’hui, la marche vers
l’adhésion commande le passage à une ère post-kémaliste, dans un
double mouvement : d’abord, par le dépassement de sa dimension
nationaliste, parce que l’adhésion suppose un abandon partiel de
souveraineté (on n’a pas assez remarqué que le gouvernement turc a
beaucoup concédé sur la question chypriote et sur la question kurde,
opérant une véritable révolution de portée diplomatique autant que
politique) ; ensuite, par l’abandon de sa nature autoritaire, dans la
promotion d’une démocratisation sans retour qui répondra à la demande
d’émancipation portée par la société civile. La croissance économique
de la Turquie est la véritable réponse à ceux qui redoutent une
immigration massive. Les Turcs aussi préfèrent vivre et travailler
chez eux.
Le 4 décembre 2004, il ne s’agira pas de décider de l’adhésion de la
Turquie, mais de l’ouverture des négociations en vue de l’adhésion.
L’accord d’adhésion dépendra de la capacité de la Turquie à se
conformer aux critères de Copenhague. Cela prendra du temps, dix ans,
peut-être quinze. Ce temps sera nécessaire, car bien des problèmes
devront être réglés, depuis la situation des femmes, qui reste très
préoccupante, jusqu’à la question kurde, en passant par la nécessaire
résorption du contentieux enkysté autour de la reconnaissance du
génocide des Arméniens, en 1915. L’ouverture des négociations en vue
de l’adhésion proprement dite vise précisément à donner ce temps, à
accompagner, encourager et soutenir le peuple turc dans les efforts
importants qu’il entreprend depuis longtemps pour devenir un membre à
part entière de l’Union. Sachons être compréhensifs et ne perdons pas
de vue que nous exigeons de ce pays un réformisme sans commune mesure
avec celui dont nos sociétés sont désormais capables, nous
qu’effarouche la moindre remise en cause de l’une de nos habitudes.
En acceptant d’ouvrir les négociations en vue d’une adhésion future
de la Turquie, l’Europe apportera la démonstration qu’il est possible
de construire un projet commun à partir de nos histoires et de nos
cultures, à la fois proches et différentes, distinctes et si
étroitement mêlées, loin du conflit des civilisations qui laisserait
à nos enfants un champ de ruines en héritage. Avec la Turquie,
l’Europe sera incomparablement plus riche et plus puissante. Elle
augmentera sensiblement ses chances de devenir un acteur majeur de la
scène mondiale. Elle sera plus proche d’Israël, plus capable de
favoriser le règlement de la question palestinienne, plus apte
qu’aujourd’hui à peser sur l’avenir du Proche et du Moyen-Orient.
Elle rayonnera jusqu’en Asie. Peut-être plus que tout, l’ouverture
des négociations offrira enfin aux pays musulmans une alternative
heureuse. Ce ne sera ni simple ni rapide, mais les oeuvres qui
comptent le sont-elles jamais ? Pour une Europe empêtrée,
vieillissante, conservatrice et si craintive, si nostalgique de sa
grandeur passée, y a-t-il plus belle occasion de renouer avec la vie
et de reprendre part à la marche du monde ?
DOMINIQUE REYNIÉ * Professeur des Universités à l’Institut d’études
politiques de Paris. Dernières publications : Les Européens en 2004,
Paris, 2004, Editions Odile Jacob/Fondation Robert Schuman et La
Fracture occidentale. Naissance d’une opinion européenne, Paris,
2004, Editions de la Table Ronde.

La Nouvelle République du Centre Ouest
21 juillet 2004
L’Arménie à Chauvigny ;
Seul spectacle programmé dans le cadre du festival d’été
communautaire, l’ensemble folklorique ” Bert ” d’Erevan originaire
d’Arménie se produira ce soir, devant l’hôtel de ville de Chauvigny.
Contrairement aux années précédentes, la ville de Chauvigny n’est pas
submergée par les spectacles folkloriques. Et pour cause. Cette
année, restriction budgétaire oblige, tout le monde a fait des choix.
Priorité a été donnée aux petites communes du Pays chauvinois qui
ont, chacune, leur spectacle folklorique. De son côté, Chauvigny a
décidé de s’occuper elle-même de ses animations à travers des marchés
de nuit (le prochain aura lieu le mercredi 28 juillet en ville haute
avec le troubadour « Boubou Croq’bisous ») et des séries de concerts
comme celui du groupe « Kolargol Brother », vendredi 23 juillet
prochain, sur la scène du chteau d’Harcourt (gratuit).
Les inconditionnels du folklore étranger ne devront donc surtout pas
manquer le spectacle proposé ce soir, mercredi 21 juillet à 21 h
devant l’hôtel de ville de Chauvigny (gratuit) par l’ensemble
folklorique « Bert » originaire d’Erevan, capitale de l’Arménie.
C’est dans cette région montagneuse de l’Asie occidentale, à la
frontière entre l’Orient et l’Occident que se situe l’Arménie, pays
coincé entre la Turquie, l’Iran et la Russie. Au fil de son histoire,
souvent mouvementée, le pays a conservé intactes ses traditions
folkloriques. Danses fougueuses des montagnards ou gestes gracieux
des paysannes, la beauté des costumes rivalisera avec les sons des
instruments traditionnels, kanoun, duduk, srink, zurna…
– Prochains rendez-vous du festival d’été de la communauté de
communes en Pays Chauvinois : « La Nuit de l’étang » samedi 24
juillet à 21 h, étang du Mouchet, La Chapelle-Viviers (gratuit) ; «
Ensemble d’état de danses et chants tchouvaches », jeudi 29 juillet,
21 h à Fleix (gratuit).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Anadolu Agency
July 20 2004
Turks And Armenians Exchange Documents To Discuss So-called Genocide
Claims
ANKARA – Turks and Armenians exchanged documents in Austrian capital
Vienna to discuss the so-called genocide allegations, sources said on
Tuesday.
Sources told A.A correspondent that Turkish and Armenian authorities
met in Vienna on July 16th under chairmanship of Prof. Bihl of Vienna
Armenian Turkish Platform (VAT) and presented 100 documents to each
other.
Turkish delegation headed by Yusuf Halacoglu, the Chairman of Turkish
History Agency (TTK) gave 100 documents collected from several
archives and disproving the claims that Turks carried out a genocide
against the Armenians.
On the other hand, Armenian delegation handed over 199 documents to
Turkish delegations regarding their own claims.
Turkish and Armenian authorities will examine these documents till
the end of December 2004, and if necessary, they can present 80 more
documents to each other till May 2005.
Turkish and Armenian officials will meet again in 2005 and discuss
so-called genocide allegations in the light of these exchanged
documents.

Pravda, Russia
July 20 2004
Russian gas concern to take part in building Iran-Armenia gas
pipeline
President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan and a delegation of the Russian
Gazprom gas concern headed by deputy chairman of the board Alexander
Ryazanov discussed on Monday the building of Iran-Armenia gas
pipeline.
The press service of the Armenian president reported that the sides
also discussed the current state of gas supply to Armenia and the
promising programes in this sphere.
Kocharyan expressed satisfaction over the present level of Armenia’s
cooperation with Gazprom.
It was pointed out that the ArmRosgazprom company intensifies its
activity from year to year, and the gasification rates and the number
of clients are growing in the republic.
The Armenian-Russian enterprise ArmRosgazprom is the only supplier of
the Russian natural gas to Armenia. The company was created in 1997
by Gazprom and the Armenian energy ministry which have 45% of shares
each, and the international group of companies ITERA (10% of shares.)
The authorized capital of ArmRosgazprom is $270 million. In 2003 the
ArmRosgazprom had 186,000 clients.
After his meeting with the Armenian president Ryazanov told
journalists that the construction of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline
will cost $140 million.
“It is now necessary,” he said, “to choose the sources of financing,
and if they are determined no problem will appear in connection with
the building of this pipeline.”
Ryazanov also pointed out that they can be either state credits or
the means of Gazprom.
At the same time the deputy chairman of the board of Gazprom ruled
out the possibility of the transit of the Russian gas via the
territory of Armenia to third countries since “Armenia is not a
transit country but a consumer, and the Iranian gas pipeline will
satisfy Armenia’s gas requirements for energy and transport needs.”
On May 13, 2004 Armenia and Iran signed a treaty on deliveries of
Iranian gas to Armenia for 20 years. During this period of time the
republicwill receive from Iran 36 billion cubic metres of gas in
exchange for the Armenian energy.