FINNS HOPE THEY HAVE AN ANSWER TO TURKS’ ACCESSION CRISIS
by: Jamie Smyth
The Irish Times
October 17, 2006 Tuesday
European Diary: Turkey’s 40-year mission to join the European Union
is in trouble again.
Barely a year after EU foreign ministers grudgingly gave the go-ahead
for accession talks to begin at a cantankerous meeting in Luxembourg,
diplomats are warning of a “train crash” in the negotiations that
could lead to their suspension.
The European Commission will play a key role in deciding whether the
talks need to be frozen when it publishes a report on November 8th
on Turkey’s progress since they began in October 2005.
The state of human rights, freedom of expression and the penal code
will be analysed in the report, which is expected to reprimand Ankara
for a slowdown in the pace of reform.
However, it is Turkey’s refusal to open its ports and airports to
Greek Cypriot traffic until the EU ends its economic embargo of
Turkish northern Cyprus that is the crunch issue that could lead to
a suspension of talks.
British ambassador to Turkey Peter Westmacott warned yesterday that
the EU would hold Turkey to account for failing to comply with the
Ankara protocol – a 2005 deal to extend Turkey’s customs union to
the 10 new member states, including (Greek) Cyprus.
“The negotiations, once stalled, would be very hard to restart,” said
Mr Westmacott, whose government is one of the strongest advocates of
Turkey’s accession.
Cyprus has been divided since Turkey invaded the island’s north in
1974 following an abortive coup supported by Greece. The Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognised by any EU state and
relies primarily on support from Turkey. An economic embargo forces
all EU exports and air traffic to travel through Turkey and the entity
was excluded from EU membership when Cyprus joined the union in 2004.
Fuelled by resentment against Cyprus for rejecting a UN-sponsored
peace plan in 2004, Turkey is now insisting the EU lift the isolation
of northern Cyprus before it adheres to the Ankara protocol.
In retaliation, Greece and Cyprus are already using their EU vetoes
to block Turkey’s accession talks, which have resulted in just one
chapter of law – science and research – being completed in a year
of negotiation.
“I wouldn’t call it a veto; it is more a consideration We must go
slowly as we want Turkey to honours its commitments,” said a Greek
diplomat yesterday, who added that both states would not allow any
new chapters to be opened ahead of November 8th.
This leaves Turkey’s accession talks in limbo, with a further 34
chapters of legislation to be amended to comply with the 90,000 pages
in the EU acquis communautaire.
With a potential crisis just a month away, the current EU president,
Finland, a strong supporter of enlargement, is preparing a plan to
prevent the complete derailment of the talks. The proposals involve
opening a small number of Turkish ports to Cypriot traffic. In return
Turkish Cypriot trade restrictions would be eased by opening a sea
port on the east of the island under EU supervision, say EU diplomats.
Another controversial proposal under consideration is getting the
Turkish military to hand over administration of the northern town
of Varosha to the UN. More than 40,000 Greek Cypriots fled the town
after the 1974 invasion. Since then Varosha has become a ghost town
and a symbol of the invasion and continuing division of Cyprus.
But at an EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg yesterday the
Greek Cypriot delegation insisted that Nicosia would not accept any
plan that didn’t return the town to its former inhabitants.
The response of the Turkish Cypriot government has been cautious too.
Last week President Mehmet Ali Talat, on his first visit to Brussels,
said the Finnish plan included “dangerous elements”. Mr Talat warned
that the plan made the issue of the lifting of the isolation of Turkish
Cypriots a bargaining chip. This was unfair, as the EU had already
agreed to lift the embargo in 2004 when the Turkish Cypriots voted
in favour of unification as part of a UN plan that Nicosia rejected,
he said.
Despite scepticism in Cyprus, enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn
warned yesterday that the Finnish proposals were now the “only game
in town” for Turkey, which he praised as “an anchor of stability”
and “bridge-builder” in an unstable Middle East.
Yet the fear expressed by pro-Turkish diplomats in the EU is that a
suspension of the accession talks over Cyprus could turn the country
away from Europe. With tensions already high in Turkey over French
lawmakers’ proposal to make denying the genocide of the Armenians a
crime, a negative signal from Brussels could hamper domestic reformers.
“Already you have seen a drastic drop in support for EU membership in
Turkey. It has fallen 20 per cent in just two years,” says Katinka
Barysch, analyst with the think tank Centre for European Reform in
London. “At the start of the accession process Turkish people were
happy to be part of it; now there is a real risk of disillusionment.”

ARMENIA SHOULD DO ITS BEST TO HOLD TRANSPARENT DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS: LEADER OF UNITED LABOUR PARTY
ARMINFO News Agency
October 17, 2006 Tuesday
Today, at a meeting with journalists at the “Pastark” club, Leader
of the United Labour Party of Armenia, MP Gourgen Arsenyan said that
everything should be done to hold the forthcoming parliamentary and
presidential elections in a transparent and democratic way. It is the
only chance of the state structures to retrieve the trust of people.
The deputy noted that there is no need to speak of honest elections
yet, as the political forces in power still use the administrative
resource.
Answering the journalists’ questions about the electorate’s bribery
by a number of political parties, the MP pointed out that the border
between humanitarian assistance and bribery should be determined
by law enforcement agencies. Arsenyan said that, in this respect,
a number of items of the Electoral Code should be reconsidered,
and the latter should define the electoral process, its beginning
and end more distinctly. He expressed confidence that the essential
role in the pre-electoral campaign belongs to the incorruptible part
of population which makes up the greater part of people.
Speaking about the ULP’s participation in the parliamentary elections,
the ULP Leader said that the party should make efforts to receive
the majority of votes. Only this will allow them to implement the
program of the party. He concluded that participation in elections
is a part of permanent political process for any party.

ASSEZ DE LOIS MEMORIELLES
Auteur: Lazar Philippe
Liberation , France
18 octobre 2006
L’article “crime contre l’humanite” pourrait englober nombre
d’exactions.
A peine apaisees, les passions legitimement suscitees par la
promulgation de la loi du 23 fevrier 2005 “portant reconnaissance de
la Nation et contribution nationale en faveur des Francais rapatries”
et après le piteux retrait de son article sur l’enseignement des
bienfaits de la colonisation, voici que le Parlement en rajoute en
votant une loi reprimant la negation du genocide armenien de 1915. Et
voila le Premier ministre, qui n’en est pas a une approximation près,
declarant depuis les Antilles, qu'”il n’appartient pas au Parlement
d’ecrire l’Histoire”, oubliant que c’est en votant la loi du 29 janvier
2001, “relative a la reconnaissance du genocide armenien de 1915”,
que le Parlement l’a fait (puisque son article unique disposait que
“la France reconnaît publiquement le genocide armenien de 1915”) :
la nouvelle loi ne fait que tirer les consequences penales d’un refus
de se soumettre a la loi du 29 janvier.
Doit-on accepter, dans une democratie, une totale liberte d’expression
des citoyens ? Il existe au moins deux lois qui restreignent cette
liberte : celle qui permet de poursuivre l’expression de propos
consideres comme “une incitation a la haine raciale” et la fameuse loi
du 13 juillet 1990, dite loi Gayssot, “tendant a reprimer tout acte
raciste, antisemite ou xenophobe”. Bien qu’elle ait essentiellement
ete utilisee contre les negationnistes du genocide des Juifs, cette
loi ne concerne pas, formellement, que ces derniers. Mais la portee
de la loi Gayssot reste neanmoins limitee aux seuls crimes relatifs
a la Deuxième Guerre mondiale.
De tels crimes sont, on le sait, imprescriptibles. C’est evidemment
a leur propos que se pose de facon la plus aiguë la question de la
necessite ou non de punir leur negation. Si l’on renonce a reprimer
ce genre de declarations, il n’y a pas lieu d’aller plus loin, si ce
n’est de demander l’abrogation de la loi Gayssot (et evidemment de la
nouvelle loi que vient de voter l’Assemblee). Faisons l’hypothèse qu’on
ne retienne pas cette forme extreme de renonciation a poursuivre. Deux
questions se posent alors de facon imperieuse, qu’il faut examiner
d’un point de vue politique et technique :
Y a-t-il lieu de traiter de facon differente la negation des divers
crimes contre l’humanite ?
Comment identifier les “crimes contre l’humanite” ?
La reponse la plus equitable a la première question ne serait-elle pas
de lever la restriction de l’application de la loi Gayssot aux seuls
crimes commis avant et pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale ? Et il
suffirait, pour repondre a la seconde, de ne pas faire mine d’ignorer
– etrange occultation memorielle s’il en fut ! – qu’en droit francais
ces crimes sont parfaitement definis puisque l’article 212-1 du code
penal dispose que “les crimes contre l’humanite (la deportation,
la reduction en esclavage ou la pratique massive et systematique
d’executions sommaires, d’enlèvements de personnes suivis de leur
disparition, de la torture ou d’actes inhumains inspires par des
motifs politiques, philosophiques, raciaux ou religieux et organises
en execution d’un plan concerte a l’encontre d’un groupe de population
civile) sont punis de la reclusion criminelle a perpetuite”.
Resterait dès lors une seule question, incontestablement difficile :
comment passer du constat d’un crime specifique a la reconnaissance
de son appartenance formelle a la liste ci-dessus rappelee ? Il
faut revenir, la, au rôle, conteste et pourtant irremplacable, du
Parlement. Du Parlement ? Oui, bien sûr, de la meme facon que c’est
le Parlement qui vote les lois de bioethique, en tant que representant
legitime du peuple francais, sans qu’on l’accuse pour autant d'”ecrire
la science” en lieu et place des scientifiques.
L’exemple de l’adoption – laborieuse mais en fin de compte souvent
largement consensuelle – des lois de bioethique et de leur evolution au
cours du temps devrait nous ouvrir une piste de reflexion permettant
de depasser les aleas des manifestations les plus recentes des elus
de la Nation en matière d’interference avec l’Histoire.
Pourquoi ne pas constituer, de facon analogue, une instance
consultative nationale chargee, non point de dire le vrai et le
faux, mais d’argumenter serieusement et avec une forte competence
scientifique (elle devrait evidemment comprendre une majorite
d’historiens) la legitimite de reconnaître qu’un fait historique
relève, ou non, de la liste ci-dessus rappelee ? Une telle instance
– disons un “comite consultatif national d’ethique en histoire” –
pourrait etre saisie de questions de cette nature par les pouvoirs
publics ou, sous certaines conditions, par tel ou tel groupe social.
Elle aurait pour mission non point de “conclure” mais de conseiller.
Et c’est a partir de cette analyse que le Parlement serait, le cas
echeant, conduit a ajouter, ou non, un fait historique a la liste des
crimes identifies. Ce sont donc bien les historiens qui ecriraient
l’histoire, et c’est sur la base de leurs conseils, officiellement
sollicites, que nos representants legitimes seraient amenes a decider
en notre nom que tel ou tel crime est d’une ampleur et d’une gravite
telle qu’il relève effectivement de cette qualification, avec toutes
ses consequences – desormais unifiees – en matière repressive.
Ne serait-ce pas la une facon d’echapper a l’engrenage qui nous menace
d’une serie de plus en plus fournie de lois specifiques renforcant,
toutes, une navrante concurrence des memoires de la souffrance des
peuples ?
Philippe Lazar president du cercle Gaston-Cremieux, cercle juif laïque
et diasporique
–Boundary_(ID_qqSHSHrEjKnWIUp75yOnPw )–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NATO IS READY TO HELP WITH THE KARABAKH PROBLEM
by Viktoria Panfilova
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 18, 2006 Wednesday
The Alliance is sending an envoy to the Caucasus
Armenia Became Robert Simmons’ Last Stop On The Tour Of The Caucasus;
NATO opened an information center in Armenia.
NATO is ready to help with efforts to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh
problem. “Straightforward assistance in conflict resolution is not
NATO’s task. This is a prerogative of the OSCE Minsk Group, and we are
but supporting the process,” Robert Simmons, NATO General Secretary’s
Envoy for the Caucasus and Central Asia, said in Yerevan on October 12.
NATO has a special interest in Armenia. A NATO information center
was hastily opened in the capital of Armenia in honor of Simmons’
arrival. It will begin working on November 1. Establishment of such
a center is stipulated by the IPAP (Individual Partnership Action
Plan). “Opening of the center means that the relations between
Armenia and NATO develop at a good pace. We appreciate assistance
given us by the government of Armenia,” Simmons said at the opening
ceremony. Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosjan praised the
bilateral cooperation and announced “advancement to a new level of
relations with the Alliance.”
The NATO information center is to be financed by the government of
Armenia; the Alliance itself will only provide information. The center
is expected to keep the population informed of the activities of NATO
to facilitate rapprochement between Armenia and the Alliance.
Simmons’ offer of assistance in the Karabakh problem was not
surprising. The Alliance and the United States as it is have been
trying to take over for a long time now. An emphasis is made on the
inability of the OSCE Minsk Group to make progress. The authorities
of Armenia regularly point out, however, that Armenia does not aspire
for membership in NATO and that the OSCE Minsk Group is the only
efficient go-between.

KARABAKH DENIES AZERI REPORT OF TRUCE VIOLATION
Mediamax News Agency, Armenia
Oct 18 2006
Yerevan, 18 October: The head of the press centre of the Karabakh
defence army, Lt-Col Senor Asratyan, today denied the report of the
Azerbaijani Defence Ministry that the Karabakh forces allegedly fired
at Azerbaijani positions in Fuzuli and Agdam districts on 16 October.
In an interview with Mediamax, Asratyan described these reports as
“another piece of disinformation aimed at discrediting the Nagornyy
Karabakh republic [NKR]”.
He did not rule out that such propaganda steps are being taken because
Azerbaijan’s attempts to get the international community to accuse
Nagornyy Karabakh of deliberate arson on the territories controlled
by the NKR “have failed”.

OSCE PRESS FREEDOM WATCHDOG URGES FRENCH SENATE TO REJECT ARMENIA GENOCIDE BILL
Associated Press Worldstream
October 17, 2006 Tuesday 5:46 PM GMT
The press freedom watchdog at a key European security organization
on Tuesday urged the French Senate to reject a bill that would make
it a crime to deny that mass killings of Armenians in Turkey in the
World War I-era amounted to genocide, a statement said.
Miklos Haraszti, media freedom representative at the Vienna-based
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, made his plea in
a letter sent to Christian Poncelet, president of the French Senate,
according to the statement.
“I acknowledge the humanitarian intentions of those members of
the Assembly who support this proposal. However, the adoption of
the amendment raises serious concerns with regard to international
standards of freedom of expression,” Haraszti wrote.
The bill was approved by lawmakers in France’s lower house last week,
but still needs approval by the French Senate and President Jacques
Chirac to become law. Turkey has said the decision has badly damaged
relations with France.
“Both the fact of criminalization of statements, and the severity
of the sanctions would infringe upon editorial freedom in France,”
Haraszti wrote. “The adoption of the amendment by France, a nation
with a long-standing tradition of freedom of expression, could set
a dangerous precedent for other nations of the OSCE.”
The Armenia genocide issue has become intertwined with ongoing debate
in France and across Europe about whether to admit mostly Muslim Turkey
into the European Union. France is home to hundreds of thousands of
people whose families came from Armenia.

ARMENIAN SOLDIER DIES AFTER BEING WOUNDED BY AZERBAIJANI FIRE, OFFICIALS SAY
Associated Press Worldstream
October 18, 2006 Wednesday 7:22 PM GMT
An Armenian soldier has died after being wounded by Azerbaijani
fire near the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, officials said
Wednesday.
The Armenian Defense Ministry said the soldier died in a hospital
after he had been wounded in his chest by an Azerbaijani sniper near
the so-called line of control separating Azerbaijani and Armenian
forces. It didn’t say when the incident occurred.
There was no immediate comment from the Azerbaijani side.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a mountainous territory inside Azerbaijan, but
it has been controlled along with some surrounding areas by Karabakh
and Armenian forces since 1994. A shaky cease-fire in 1994 ended the
six-year conflict, in which 30,000 people were killed and about 1
million driven from their homes.
Attempts to resolve the conflict have failed.

OSCE OFFICIAL CRITICISES FRENCH BILL ON ARMENIA GENOCIDE
Agence France Presse — English
October 18, 2006 Wednesday 7:55 PM GMT
An official at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in
Europe on Wednesday criticised a French bill making it a crime to
deny Ottoman Turks committed genocide against Armenians.
Miklos Haraszti, an OSCE representative for freedom of media, asked
Senate members to reject the amendment when it reaches the second
French chamber, saying it was an attack on freedom of expression.
“I acknowledge the humanitarian intentions of those members of
the assembly who support this proposal. However, the adoption of
the amendment raises serious concerns with regard to international
standards of freedom of expression,” Haraszti wrote.
“It is in the name of these same standards that I continue to call upon
Turkey to remove Article 301 of the Penal Code, ‘Insulting Turkish
identity’, which prosecutors in Turkey repeatedly use in the context
of the Armenian genocide debate.”
The 56-member OSCE, originally set up as a point of contact between
NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, has evolved since the end of the Cold
War into an organisation mainly concerned with safeguarding human
rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.
The bill, which needs to be approved by the French senate and president
to become a law, provides for a year in jail for anyone who denies
that the World War I massacres of Armenians amounted to genocide.
It was voted by the lower house of the French parliament last week.
Armenians claim up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered in
orchestrated killings between 1915 and 1917.
Turkey categorically rejects the genocide label, arguing that
300,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks died in civil strife
when Armenians rose for independence in eastern Anatolia and sided
with invading Russian troops as the Ottoman Empire was falling apart.

A PRIZE SLIPPING AWAY
The Independent (London)
October 17, 2006 Tuesday
Fourth Edition
Turkey’s bid to enter the European Union received a double blow last
week. First came the parking of talks on Ankara’s membership after
objections by Greece and Cyprus. And then there was the vote by the
French Assembly to outlaw the denial of the Armenian genocide by the
troops of the Ottoman Empire some 90 years ago.
EU foreign ministers met yesterday with their Turkish counterpart to
repair some of the damage. But the real diplomatic crunch will come
next month when a report is due from the EU’s enlargement minister
on Turkey’s progress in implementing reforms since membership talks
began a year ago. If the report criticises Ankara’s refusal to open
Turkish ports to Cypriot ships and planes, as expected, EU leaders
at their next summit may decide to freeze entry negotiations entirely.
Once frozen, they would be very hard to re-start.
Pessimism over future enlargement is widespread. At the weekend
the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso,
gave the most downbeat official assessment yet of Turkey’s chances
of membership. He argued that it could be up to two decades before
Turkey is in a position to join. In the past the official line has
been that the process would take 15 years at most.
We learn that the French President, Jacques Chirac, has apologised to
the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for the provocatively
timed vote on the Armenian genocide by French deputies hostile to
Turkey’s bid. And with the ruling party against the bill, it is highly
unlikely to become law. But the damage has been largely done.
The French vote has played into the hands of Turkish nationalists
who argue that Europe does not really want Turkey in its cosy club.
Pro-European Turks are finding it increasingly difficult to argue
that “concessions” over Cyprus, Kurdish rights, and stronger ties
with Armenia are worth it. The Turkish government will now find it
impossible to recognise Cyprus before elections next year, for fear
of looking weak. A great prize could be slipping away. It would be
a great boost for Europe – ideologically and materially – if it were
to incorporate a predominantly Muslim country within its borders. And
in the meantime, Europe has a valuable opportunity to promote human
rights, free speech and a liberal economy in a land that borders
the Middle East. If Turkey is not politically engaged with Europe,
none of this can take place.
The rejectionists, both in Europe and Turkey, are in the ascendancy.
That spells trouble, not just for Turkey’s ambitions, but for Europe’s
future as a progressive and inclusive political force.

TURKISH PARLIAMENT DEBATES TROUBLED TIES WITH FRANCE
Agence France Presse — English
October 17, 2006 Tuesday
The Turkish parliament began a debate Tuesday to discuss relations
with France after a French bill making it a crime to deny Ottoman
Turks commited genocide against Armenians caused uproar in Turkey
and prompted threats of retaliatory measures.
The MPs were expected to adopt a declaration condemning the bill,
which foresees one year in jail for anyone who denies that the World
War I massacres amounted to genocide and was voted by the lower house
of the French parliament Thursday, parliamentary sources said.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was scheduled to make a speech.
The French bill is widely seen here as a punch below the belt by
opponents of Turkey’s European Union membership that will fan
anti-Western sentiment among Turks and make it harder for the
government to push ahead with painful EU-demanded reforms.
Ankara, facing mounting EU warnings to respect freedom of speech,
charges that the French move is an example of double standards, arguing
that the bill — if approved also by the Senate and the president —
will block free debate on a historical subject.
The EU is pressing Ankara to either scrap or amend the infamous Article
301 of its penal code, which has landed a string of intellectuals in
the courts for “insulting Turkishness.”
Most defendants, among them novelist Orhan Pamuk, the 2006 Nobel
Literature Prize laureate, stood trial for remarks contesting the
official line on the Armenian massacres, which Ankara fiercely rejects
amounted to genocide.
But even Pamuk condemned the French bill, saying that it flouted
France’s “tradition of liberal and critical thinking.”
Ankara had warned ahead of the vote that French companies would be
barred from major economic projects in Turkey, including a nuclear
power plant whose tender process is expected to soon begin, if the
bill was adopted.
Officials, however, have sought to calm down widespread calls for a
boycott of French goods on the grounds that French companies based
in Turkey and employing Turks could be harmed.
“What are we going to earn or lose by boycotting goods?… We should
consider this carefully,” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said
last week.
“We will act calmly,” he said. “The steps that need to be taken will be
taken by the government on all political platforms at home and abroad.”
Hospitalized for hypoglycemia Tuesday, Erdogan will miss the debate
in parliament.
France already passed in 2001 a resolution recognizing the massacres
of Armenians as genocide, prompting Ankara to retaliate by sidelining
French companies from public tenders and canceling several projects
awarded to French firms.
The killings are one of most controversial episodes in Turkish history
and open debate on the issue has only recently begun in Turkey,
often sending nationalist sentiment into frenzy.
Critics of the bill say it will also deal a blow to tentative efforts
for reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia.
Ankara has declined to establish diplomatic ties with Yerevan over
its campaign for international recognition of the genocide.
In 1993, it sealed its border with its eastern neighbor, a move
which was also a gesture of solidarity with close ally Azerbaijan,
which was then at war with Armenia.
Armenians claim up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered in
orchestrated killings between 1915 and 1917.
Turkey categorically rejects the genocide label, arguing that
300,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks died in civil strife
when Armenians rose for independence in eastern Anatolia and sided
with invading Russian troops as the Ottoman Empire was falling apart.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress