DIVERSITY MANIA
By Walter E Williams
WorldNetDaily, OR
Nov 1 2006
There are some ideas so ludicrous and mischievous that only an
academic would take them seriously. One of them is diversity. Think
about it. Are you for or against diversity? When’s the last time
you said to yourself, “I’d better have a little more diversity in my
life”? What would you think if you heard a Microsoft director tell
his fellow board members that the company should have more diversity
and manufacture kitchenware, children’s clothing and shoes? You’d
probably think the director was smoking something illegal.
Our institutions of higher learning take diversity seriously and
make it a multimillion-dollar operation. The Juilliard School has
a director of diversity and inclusion; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology has a manager of diversity recruitment; Toledo University,
an associate dean for diversity; the universities of Harvard, Texas
A&M, California at Berkeley, Virginia and many others boast of
officers, deans, vice-presidents and perhaps ministers of diversity.
(Column continues below)
George Leef, director of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education
Policy in Raleigh, N.C., writes about this in an article titled “Some
Questions about Diversity” in the Oct. 5 issue of Clarion Call. Mr.
Leef suggests that only in academia is diversity pursued for its
own sake, but there’s a problem: Everyone, even if they are the
same ethnicity, nationality or religion, is different. Suppose two
people are from the same town in Italy. They might differ in many
important respects: views on morality, religious and political beliefs,
recreation preferences and other characteristics.
Mr. Leef says that some academics see diversity as a requirement
for social justice – to right historical wrongs. The problem here is
that if you go back far enough, all groups have suffered some kind
of historical wrong. The Irish can point to injustices at the hands
of the British, Jews at the hands of Nazis, Chinese at the hands of
Indonesians, and Armenians at the hands of the Turks.
Of course, black Americans were enslaved, but slavery is a condition
that has been with mankind throughout most of history. In fact,
long before blacks were enslaved, Europeans were enslaved. The word
slavery comes from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were
early slaves. White Americans, captured by the Barbary pirates, were
enslaved at one time or another. Whites were indentured servants
in colonial America. So what should the diversity managers do about
these injustices?
When academics call for diversity, they’re really talking about racial
preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks.
The last thing they’re talking about is intellectual diversity.
According to a recent national survey, reported by the American
Council of Trustees and Alumni in “Intellectual Diversity,” 72 percent
of college professors describe themselves as liberal and 15 percent
conservative. Liberal professors think their classrooms should be used
to promote a political agenda. The University of California recently
abandoned a provision on academic freedom that cautioned against using
the classroom for propaganda. The president said the regulation was
“outdated.”
Americans, as taxpayers and benefactors, have been exceedingly
generous to our institutions of higher learning. That generosity has
been betrayed. Rich Americans, who acquired their wealth through our
capitalist system, give billions to universities. Unbeknownst to them,
much of that money often goes to faculty members and programs that
are openly hostile to donor values. Universities have also failed
in their function of the pursuit of academic excellence by having
dumbed down classes and granting degrees to students who are just
barely literate and computationally incompetent.
What’s part of Williams’ solution? Benefactors should stop giving
money to universities that engage in racist diversity policy. Simply
go to the university’s website, and if you find offices of diversity,
close your pocketbook. There’s nothing like the sound of pocketbooks
snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.
icle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52707

ARMENIAN LIFERS PROTEST AGAINST TOUGHER PRISON REGIME
By Hovannes Shoghikian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Nov 1 2006
Two dozen men serving life sentences in Armenia’s largest prison went
on a brief hunger strike Wednesday in protest at what they claim is a
deterioration of their conditions under the new prison administration.
Representatives of the 24 inmates said the new chief of Yerevan’s
Nubarashen jail, Vahan Markarian, has toughened the prison regime,
making it much more difficult for their relatives to visit and pass
parcels on to them. They also alleged a worsening of the quality of
food and healthcare provided to them.
“The system has totally changed,” one of the protesting prisoners,
Manuk Semerjian, told RFE/RL by phone from the prison. “They force
relatives of lifers to wait for seven or eight hours, and have
restricted visits.”
“People catch diseases from food. We also can’t get medicines from
outside,” added Semerjian, who has spent 16 years at Nubarashen.
The head of an Armenian Justice Ministry department running the
country’s prisons, Ashot Martirosian, rejected the claims, saying
that unlike his more lenient predecessor, the new Nubarashen chief
is simply enforcing the rules set by the law.
“We are not going to meet any illegal demand by those serving life
sentences,” Martirosian told RFE/RL. “Let them remain on hunger strike
as long as they want,” he said.
The official insisted that the prisoners are well fed. “Sometimes they
don’t eat meat every day, but they always get the required minimum
amount of calories,” he said.
The Justice Ministry said in a statement later on Wednesday that
the lifers ended the hunger strike but did not elaborate. It was not
immediately clear if the prison administration made any concessions
to the protesters.
The protest was apparently triggered by the death of another lifer,
Anushavan Ghazarian, in a Yerevan hospital on Tuesday. Martirosian
rejected suggestions that the 25-year-man died because of harsh prison
conditions, saying that he had long been suffering from an unspecified
chronic illness and had been hospitalized several months ago.
Conditions in Armenian prisons are thought to have improved since they
were transferred from the police to the Justice Ministry jurisdiction
under pressure from the Council of Europe in 2002. But according to
a team of civil society representatives that regularly inspects the
penitentiary institutions, they still leave much to be desired.
In an annual report released last month, the representatives of a dozen
non-governmental organizations and the Armenian Apostolic Church said
the country’s four largest jails do not meet international standards
and must be relocated to new buildings. They also concluded that
most Armenian prisoners are poorly fed and lack access to adequate
healthcare.

PROSECUTOR’S ALLIES SET TO STEER CLEAR OF 2007 VOTE
By Astghik Bedevian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Nov 1 2006
A recently formed political party widely linked with Prosecutor-General
Aghvan Hovsepian signaled on Wednesday its intention not to contest
next year’s parliamentary elections, in a surprise move that will spark
speculation about far-reaching deals cut within Armenia’s leadership.
The governing board of Association for Armenia party is scheduled
to meet on Thursday to discuss the issue. One of its top leaders,
parliament deputy Vahram Baghdasarian, told RFE/RL that he will push
for the party’s pullout from the unfolding parliamentary race.
The party, which claims to have about 40,000 members, said as
recently as last summer that it intends to make a strong showing in
the elections. Levon Khachatrian, another Association for Armenia
leader close to Hovsepian, claimed that it can win them and form the
next government.
“We have no goal to win a majority [in parliament] and things
like that,” countered Baghdasarian. He made the point that the only
“realistic” way of winning elections in Armenia is massive vote buying
and that he is categorically against resorting to that.
“Everyone sees what kind of mechanisms exist for winning votes,”
said Baghdasarian. “We have to decide whether we will use those
mechanisms. In a country having social problems, it is obvious how
votes are won.”
“We have spoiled our people, our voters. I don’t deny that,” he added.
The remarks followed a weekend local election in Yerevan’s Ajapnyak
district that were easily won by Hovsepian’s brother Ruben. The
victory is widely seen as the result of a deal cut between the
influential prosecutor and the governing Republican Party of Armenia
(HHK) that unexpectedly decided not to field a candidate for the post
of Ajapnyak mayor.
Baghdasarian denied that the Association for Armenia’s likely refusal
to participate in the parliamentary elections is part of a deal cut
with the HHK’s unofficial leader, Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian,
or President Robert Kocharian. He made it clear that his party
will have candidates in some of the country’s 41-single mandate
constituencies. The remaining 90 seats in the Armenian parliament
will be distributed on the party list basis.
Although Hovsepian has repeatedly denied any connection with the
Association for Armenia, he is widely believed to have been behind
its launch earlier this year. The development highlighted his growing
political ambitions, with some commentators suggesting that he is
one of Kocharian’s potential successors.

SWOBODA: PAPADOPOULOS SHOULD MEET WITH TALAT
The New Anatolian, Turkey
Nov 1 2006
European Parliament Socialist member Hannes Swoboda yesterday called
on Greek Cypriot Tassos Papadopoulos to show more willingness to meet
with Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat on a regular basis to
make progress in solving the Cyprus problem.
Commenting on EU Term President Finland’s recent efforts for Cyprus
talks in Helsinki but disagreements on the format of the meetings,
Swoboda said that it was natural that Turkish Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul was invited to these talks and further said it was more
meaningful at this stage to continue these talks on the level of
foreign ministers.
“Papadopoulos should show more eagerness to meet Talat on a regular
basis,” Swoboda said, showing uneasiness with the Greek Cypriot
leader’s long reluctance to have direct, face-to-face talks with
the Turkish Cypriot leader. Swoboda underlined that Papadopoulos
politically had relatively a stronger position and expectations from
him to make steps forward were much higher.
The socialist MEP underlined that there will be a need weeks before
Dec. 15, when the EU will decide on Cyprus and Turkey’s accession
process, for Papadopoulos to head talks that aim to overcome the
controversy.
Asked to comment on Turkey’s request from Finland for Greece’s
participation in these talks, Swoboda said this was not necessary
and in fact could more complicate the process.
The MEP also underlined that while EU has not fulfilled its promises
yet to Turkish Cypriots to put an end to their isolation, Turkey’s
opening its ports to Greek Cypriots was a legal obligation and was
not directly related with the issue of isolation.
Socialist members of the European Parliament Jan Marinus Wiersma
and Pasqualina Napoletano together with Swoboda called on Turkey
to make progress in reforms and their implementation, underlining
that it was necessary to change the image of Turkey in Europe. The
deputies, at their press conference at the EU delegation in Ankara,
stressed that the controversial Article 301 of the penal code is
unacceptable and should be changed, independent from discussions of
French Parliament and its move to make it a crime to question claims
of an Armenian genocide.

FRANCE TO OPEN NEW “ENVOY BUREAU” IN NORTHERN IRAQ
Hurriyet, Turkey
Nov 1 2006
Following shortly on the heels of its parliamentary approval of a
bill aimed at penalizing those who publicly deny Armenian genocide
claims, France is preparing another move which seems destined to annoy
Ankara. France has announced it will be opening up an “Envoy Bureau”
in Northern Iraq, in order to better keep tabs on the situation in
the Kurdish region there.
According to a statement from French Foreign Ministry spokesman
Jean-Baptiste Mattei, France will open its new bureau in the Northern
Iraqi city of Erbil in January, 2007. The new “Envoy Bureau” will be
run by a diplomat with ties to the French Embassy in Baghdad.
Spokeman Mattei, in a statement to Hurriyet yesterday, analyzed the
new developments as such:
“Like Turkey, we also follow a policy of defending the unity of Iraqi
soil. Within this framework, we maintain an embassy in Baghdad. But
it is true that we are planning on opening an “Envoy Bureau” in Erbil,
one which will be linked to the embassy in Baghdad.”
Iraqi President Jelal Talabani is expected in coming days in Paris,
to meet with French President Jacques Chirac, as well as other top
French diplomats.

UNEVEN RACE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL STILL HEATED AS BROWN, POOCHIGIAN HOLD DUELING NEWS CONFERENCES
By Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times
Nov 1 2006
The rivals for attorney general trade barbs in L.A. The ex-governor
has a strong lead.
SACRAMENTO – One is the son of a Fresno County farmer, the other the
progeny of a dynastic political family.
Dissimilarities etch the lives and policy positions of Republican
state Sen. Chuck Poochigian and his Democratic opponent in the campaign
for state attorney general, Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, the mercurial
former California governor and frequent presidential aspirant.
ADVERTISEMENTThe pair have waged this election season’s most clamorous
battle. They’ve accused each other of flip-flops befitting a big-time
wrestling match. Crime-fighting chops and character questions have
become central themes in the contest to command the 1,100 attorneys
in the state’s Department of Justice.
In the homestretch, the 68-year-old Brown has ridden his status as
a venerable political celebrity to a healthy lead – 15 points among
likely voters in the most recent public polls.
But in Poochigian the GOP has a campaigner who vows to stay on
the attack until election day Tuesday, despite dwindling funds for
advertising and a reputation as a nice guy reluctant to throw mud.
“I remain convinced I’m going to win,” the Fresno Republican says.
Brown has spent his two mayoral terms attempting to recast his image
as a crime fighter more interested in fixing public infrastructure
than tilting at political windmills. Now he vows to be a “practical”
and “common sense” attorney general.
“I love the law,” he said. “And I think the law is being undermined.
We need to strengthen our Western legal tradition, emphasize the
norms that give our society identity, structure.”
On Tuesday, Brown and Poochigian brought their campaigns to Los Angeles
for dueling news conferences almost within earshot of each other.
Brown appeared with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Chief
William J. Bratton, adding the two high-profile leaders to his list of
endorsements. His experience as a former governor and Oakland mayor,
Villaraigosa said, makes Brown “somebody who knows the needs of city
police departments.”
Minutes later, Poochigian held an impromptu news conference on a
nearby street corner, repeating his criticism of Brown’s credentials
for attorney general amid a sharp rise in Oakland’s murder rate.
Poochigian highlighted his own endorsements from the California Peace
Officers Assn. and the California State Sheriff’s Assn., among others.
Trading accusations
For months, Poochigian has hit Brown with accusations new and three
decades old. He portrays Brown as a flaky extremist, a man long
opposed to the death penalty who has watched over a stratospheric
murder spike this year in Oakland.
In turn, Brown has characterized Poochigian as a hard-right fanatic
who opposed a ban on high-powered sniper rifles and fought the state’s
successful 2004 ballot measure to publicly fund stem cell research,
frequently sides against environmental interests and opposes abortion
rights.
But around the Capitol, Poochigian is better known for collegiality
than ideology. Friends say he’s as consistent as his favorite breakfast
cereal: oatmeal.
His grandparents fled the Armenian genocide and the family eventually
settled amid the grape fields of Fresno County. Poochigian, 57, grew
up in Lone Star, a speck of a farm community along the railroad tracks
southeast of Fresno.
After attending Cal State Fresno and law school, Poochigian became
a business lawyer. He broke into politics in 1978, volunteering for
George Deukmejian’s successful attorney general campaign, then became
a gubernatorial aide to the conservative Deukmejian and later to Gov.
Pete Wilson.
In private life, Poochigian has survived a few rough patches.
Around the time he first ventured into politics, he lost more than
$100,000 in a failed business deal in Gusher Oil Co., a firm that
drilled mostly in Texas. He and his partners were sued for nonpayment
of a loan. It was “a bad investment,” he says today, that cost him more
than his share to settle debts owed by a few investors who walked away.
Among his partners in Gusher Oil was attorney Richard Wyrick.

EUROPE: BLACKMAILING TURKEY
Karamatullah K. Ghori
Turkish Daily News
Nov 1 2006
PART I
Two events taking place simultaneously and seemingly carefully
calibrated don’t, necessarily, point to a conspiracy. However,
columnists are like sleuths who can always smell the rat in places
where regular people wouldn’t bother to look or stick their nose.
One can’t help getting a fishy feeling when these two events happened
in two European capitals boasting the heaviest concentration
of Armenian emigres; and especially when the target of these
extra-ordinary events happened to be none other than Turkey, loathed
and despised by the Armenian diaspora the world over as their bete
noir.
The first cut was made by the Swedish Academy in Stockholm charged
with awarding the Nobel Prize in Literature. In what smelled
shamefacedly like a political award rather than one conferred on
pure merit, the academy awarded this year’s prize to Orhan Pamuk,
the most controversial of Turkish writers and novelists. Pamuk was
adopted by the European conservatives and leftists alike as their new
“Salman Rushdie” the day he scorned his country and its history,
for its amnesia on the alleged “massacre,” nay “genocide,” of the
Turkish Armenian minority during World War I.
The second, much worse, and much more cruel, thrust came the same day
from the French parliament in Paris, when it adopted, with much elan
and bravado, a resolution calling it a crime to deny the Armenian
“genocide” at the hands of the Turks. Wonder of wonders, France,
the celebrated land of Liberte having such a massive hiccup over its
Fraternite with the Armenians as to be ready to discard one of the
cardinal pillars of the French Revolution.
This is the same French parliament that banned the innocuous Muslim
hijab from French government schools because that little piece
of cloth bruised the French national sensitivity on its treasured
trophy of Liberte. But sacrificing that icon for the Armenians is
apparently worth the price to the deputies in charge of the French
national conscience.
The mass-circulating Turkish national daily Hurriyet pithily
encapsulated the essence of French national somersaults when it intoned
in banner headlines on its front page that the national slogan of
France should henceforth be Liberte, Egalite, Stupidete.
But was it really a sudden groundswell of concern and camaraderie for
the Armenians, who have been around in Europe for almost a hundred
years, that moved the French parliament to legislate something not
only against the basic grain of French civil society but that may
sound to Turkish ears as a virtual declaration of war?
The Armenians have been flaunting their presence in Europe and
also abusing it with impunity, largely because of its governments
playing the Good Samaritan to them out of Christian fraternity against
Muslim Turks. Armenian thugs and hired assassins have stretched this
hospitality beyond the limits by targeting and assassinating Turkish
diplomats in Europe and around the world. No other diplomatic corps
in modern times has been made to pay a price like the Turkish Foreign
Service, which has lost dozens of its bright and intelligent people
to the bullets of Armenian goons and assassins.
And yet the molly-coddling of the Armenians never translated itself
into such a brazen act of re-writing history as the move last week
by the French parliament to denunciate Turkey for its perceived
“genocide” of the Armenians mandatory. Why?
It all fits into an emerging pattern of zeroing in on Turkey and
barricading it from all around now that it has entered the sensitive
zone of negotiations on the terms of its candidacy for the European
Union. Turkey is vulnerable and on the defensive. So the gloves are
coming off, one by one, and more than the gloves, it’s the knives
that are being sharpened to gore it, of which the French initiative
is the initial salvo, or only the tip of the iceberg.
The bottom line for Christian Europe is that it doesn’t want Muslim
Turkey to become part of Europe, which is at the heart of an ongoing
campaign to keep Turkey out of this exclusively Christian club,
notwithstanding Turkey’s nearly half-century-old craving to be accepted
as part of Europe. Ankara was the first to stand in the queue as an
applicant (or supplicant?) for European membership, as soon as the
Treaty of Rome was signed in 1960 to launch the European Community,
the harbinger of today’s European Union.
Europe’s allergy to Turkey isn’t of recent origin; it goes back
centuries, especially those centuries of Ottoman domination of the
European landscape, when half the continent owed allegiance to the
Porte in Istanbul. Europe has never forgiven Turkey for those Ottoman
centuries, no matter how modern Turkey may pretend to distance
itself from its Ottoman past. Seared into the European psyche are
those centuries when the Ottoman Turks laid siege to Vienna, not
once but twice, and lost their bid on both occasions, not because
of the bravery or tenacity of its European defenders but because of
the tactical blunders of the Turkish commanders and leaders, and the
treachery of fifth-columnists in their ranks.
*Karamatullah K. Ghori was Pakistan’s ambassador to Turkey until
2000. He can be contacted at [email protected].
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MEETING OF AZERBAIJANI AND GEORGIAN FOREIGN MINISTERS HELD IN BAKU
Regnum, Russia
Nov 1 2006
On October 31, Georgian Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili arrived
in Baku on short-term visit. He met with his Azerbaijani colleague
Elmar Mamedyarov and planned to go to Moscow on the same day; a REGNUM
correspondent informs.
After the meeting was over, Minister Elmar Mamedyarov stressed at
briefing that the parties had discussed interstate bilateral ties.
According to him, regional projects in economic sphere were considered
at the meeting. Elmar Mamedyarov and Gela Bezhuashvili agreed to
hold joint sitting of state commission on border delimitation and
demarcation next month in Baku.
Responding to question of journalists, Gela Bezhuashvili stressed
that issue of gas transportation to Georgia via Azerbaijani
territory was not discussed at the meeting. “However, the issue was
discussed at power engineering ministries’ level. Georgia is going
to transport Iranian gas via Azerbaijani territory.” Speaking about
role of Azerbaijan in Russian-Georgian relations’ normalization,
Bezhuashvili stated that they do not need intermediary services of
other countries. “We will lead these relations up to necessary level
ourselves. Azerbaijan is natural mediator in the process.
Responding to journalists’ questions at the briefing, Elmar
Mamedyarov expressed his attitude to Nagorno Karabakh settlement on
the basis of Kosovo’s model. “Every conflict has its own history and
peculiarities. It is impossible to settle conflicts on the basis of
the same formula.”

FINALLY, PROGRESS ON KARABAKH PEACE TALKS?
By Fariz Ismailzade
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Oct 31 2006
Recent statements by Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian at
the Armenian National Assembly have raised hopes in Azerbaijan that a
peaceful resolution to the Karabakh conflict is near. Specifically,
Oskanian said, “We will discuss the return of all territories after
the agreement on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is reached.” The key
word in this sentence is “all.”
Until now, the barrier to the resolution of the Karabakh conflict
has been the unwillingness of the Armenian side to return all
occupied regions outside of Karabakh. Official Yerevan has long
insisted that only five out of seven regions would be returned,
and Kalbajar and Lachin would be kept until the final resolution of
the conflict. Both of these districts have special importance from
a geostrategic perspective, as Kalbajar, with its high mountains,
forms a natural defense system for Karabakh and Lachin provides a land
corridor between Armenia and Karabakh. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan has
insisted on the liberation of all territories, with the possibility
of providing joint usage to the Lachin corridor.
Oskanian’s statement indicates a possible change of attitude inside the
Armenian political establishment and a small hope for the resolution of
the conflict. Both sides are aware that the year of 2006, considered
by local observers and international community as a “window of
opportunity” due to the absence of elections in both countries,
is rapidly coming to an end. The independent daily Zerkalo in Baku
has even speculated that the Armenian authorities have started to
lay the foundations for explaining the terms of the settlement to the
Armenian public, as the “tone of Oskanian was more that of calming the
members of Parliament.” Zerkalo compared this act by the high-level
government official with the attempt by former Armenian President Levon
Ter-Petrosian to sell a “step-by-step” proposal to the Armenian public.
Prior to Oskanian’s statement, he met with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov in Paris on October 24 to discuss “additional
elements of the basis of settlement” suggested by the OSCE’s Minsk
group co-chairs: Russia, the United States, and France.
Mammadyarov also visited Moscow several weeks ago to separately
discuss the settlement package with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov. Many in Azerbaijan believe that Moscow, Armenia’s closest
military and political ally, holds the key to resolving the Karabakh
conflict.
Both foreign ministers have agreed to further negotiate the offers
by the international community in Brussels on November 14. They are
using the current break in the talks to discuss these new proposals
with their respective presidents and other domestic actors. Neither
Oskanian nor Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov have
ruled out a meeting between Armenian President Robert Kocharian and
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in late 2006, after the November
meeting of the foreign ministers and the co-chairs’ subsequent visit
to the region. Taken together, these statements are positive signs,
as they indicate that the positions of the two sides are slowly
approaching each other, rather than widening the long-standing gap.
Commenting on the statements by Oskanian, Tahir Tagizadeh, head
of the Information and Press Department of the Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry, said that Azerbaijan considers these statements to be very
positive. “The liberation of the occupied territories and the return
of the [internally displaced persons] to their homes is an unavoidable
fact for the Armenian side.”
Still, many analysts in Baku doubt that the recent positive
statements by both sides will end up with the final settlement of
the conflict. Indeed, the underlying problem is not the dispute over
the return of the occupied territories, which many assume would be
returned anyway, but rather the final status of Karabakh itself. The
idea of a referendum as a means to resolve the “status” problem seems
vague, and it is not clear if both communities would participate in
it with equal power to vote no. Should the referendum idea be coupled
with the agreement to give the majority ethnic group (Armenians) more
power over the minority ethnic group (Azeris), it will be extremely
difficult for the Azerbaijani president to accept this decision.
As the next two years will be consumed by elections in both countries,
it will be almost impossible for both presidents, having internal
threats from both the opposition and from within the ruling elite,
to agree on the painful concessions. Thus, despite the high optimism
generated by the recent rapprochement of the positions of two sides,
the picture remains bleak for the next several years.
(Trend News Agency, Sherg, ANS TV, Zerkalo, Echo, October 25-27, 2006)

OLLI REHN: OUR RELATIONS WITH ANKARA ARE SCHIZOPHRENIC
Hurriyet, Turkey
Nov 1 2006
Olli Rehn, the EU Commissioner for Expansion, has characterized EU
relations with Ankara as “schizophrenic” in an interview with the
French newspaper Liberation. While asserting that he was against
the freezing of talks with Ankara, Rehn did underscore some of the
difficulties in Turkey’s quest for EU accession, pointing to issues
such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion as being areas
where reforms had to continue. Rehn did also stress the need for
“fairness” towards Turkey from the EU, saying “The union must come
through on its promises.”
He then went on to say: “Our relations with Turkey are schizophrenic.
In the EU we downgrade strategic importance, while in Turkey, to the
contrary, it is so upgraded in terms of importance that it is thought
there that greater tolerance can be brought about on the subject of
criteria for membership. But it won’t be that way.”
Cyprus ports: The key autumn issue
Rehn characterized the issue of opening up air and sea ports to
Southern Cyprus as “the key issue of the fall” in his Liberation
interview, applauding Finland for its efforts to find a solution.
Rehn: Military in Turkey needs to be under clear control of civilian
gov. Rehn also focused on the role of the military in Turkish civilian
and political life, noting there while great steps had been taken in
terms of the democratization of the role of the military’s role, there
was much more to be reformed. He said “I respect the authority of the
Turkish military within the framework of the defense area, however
the military must also clearly be under the authority and control
of the civilian administration.” When reminded in the interview that
the military in Turkey was the guarantor of secularity and democracy,
Rehn said “The EU does not want to abet the Islamicists in Turkey. I
can guarantee you this.” He then recalled that past efforts by the
Turkish military to interfere in and prevent the spread of Islamic
schools in Turkey had failed.
In response to Liberation-posed question about the so-called Armenian
genocide, Rehn noted that while recognition of the Armenian genocide
was not a pre-condition for membership in the EU, that peace of one
of the founding values of Europe.