Le Figaro, France
30 juin 2006
L’appel d’Erdogan aux Turcs de France
par Thierry Oberlé
LE FIGARO. – La marche de la Turquie vers l’Europe est semée
d’obstacles. Malgré tout, conservez-vous un enthousiasme intact pour
cette aventure ? Recep Tayyip ERDOGAN. – Nous savions dès le départ
que la route serait dure et nous avons eu le temps de nous habituer
aux difficultés. Notre avantage sur les candidats qui nous ont
précédés est d’être les seuls à avoir été acceptés dans l’Union
douanière avant l’ouverture des négociations.
Notre tche est ardue mais nous allons réussir. La Turquie est-elle
traitée par l’Union Européenne en candidat comme les autres ? Nos
amis nous disent que la Turquie est perçue comme un pays un peu
différent des autres nations récemment admises dans l’UE. Il y a des
petits pays d’un million d’habitants avec qui ils partagent des
valeurs et une civilisation identiques. Et puis il y a la Turquie, un
grand pays avec 73 millions d’habitants et, selon certains, une autre
civilisation. Mais cette approche commence à être dépassée. La
Turquie ne veut pas entrer dans l’Europe pour être un poids ; elle
veut au contraire alléger la charge de l’Europe. L’UE reproche à la
Turquie son refus d’ouvrir ses ports aux bateaux gréco-chypriotes.
Allez-vous prendre le risque d’une interruption des pourparlers ? On
ne peut pas imaginer que les négociations s’interrompent car il
s’agit de sujets différents. Il est tout à fait contraire à l’acquis
communautaire de mettre dans le même sac les négociations sur Chypre
et les négociations d’adhésion à l’UE. Les chapitres sont clairement
déterminés dans la feuille de route et il ne serait pas correct
d’avoir une approche politique de dossiers techniques. Parallèlement,
nous allons maintenir notre position tant que la Chypre du Nord sera
maintenue dans l’isolement. L’UE, l’ONU et nos amis américains
avaient insisté pour que nous fassions le nécessaire pour que les
Chypriotes turcs soutiennent le plan Annan. Nous avons fait pression
malgré une opposition interne et le plan a été approuvé par
référendum. Chypre du Nord a voté oui à la paix et à la cohabitation
sur l’île alors que Chypre du Sud a voté non. Aujourd’hui les
chypriotes turcs sont punis alors que les chypriotes grecs sont
récompensés. Est-ce juste ? Les négociations ne sont-elles pas un
marché de dupes dans la mesure où le dernier mot reviendra, par
référendum, aux Français qui sont plutôt hostiles à l’entrée de la
Turquie dans l’UE ? Le peuple français est notre ami. La France est
l’un des premiers investisseurs en Turquie et l’un de nos trois
principaux partenaires économiques. Paris a par le passé travaillé la
main dans la main avec Ankara dans le processus d’ouverture vers
l’Europe et l’Occident. Je suis persuadé que l’approche négative de
l’opinion française vis-à-vis de la Turquie est liée à un problème de
communication et de rupture entre les générations. Nous n’avons pas
réussi à bien nous présenter et à nous expliquer. Nous avons 500 000
citoyens qui vivent en France : il faut qu’ils s’organisent mieux
afin de rapprocher nos deux pays. Ils doivent jouer un rôle de pont.
Tant qu’ils n’auront pas de problème d’intégration nous pourrons
dépasser les difficultés. L’intégration des Turcs vous paraît-elle
réussie ? Notre population est propice à une intégration réussie.
Dans certaines régions comme l’Alsace, c’est le cas, mais cela n’est
pas encore vrai partout. Seuls 100 000 des 500 000 Turcs installés en
France sont devenus citoyens français. Il y a dans ce domaine une
espèce de conservatisme turc qu’il faut dépasser. Il faut les
convaincre d’avancer pour qu’ils deviennent dans le processus
d’intégration nos yeux, nos oreilles et notre coeur. Classez-vous la
France de l’après-référendum du 29 mai 2005 dans le camp des
«antiturcs» ? Il n’est pas question d’avoir ce genre de considération
parce qu’en politique et principalement en politique internationale
on ne peut se baser sur de la haine ou de la rancune. Mais parfois il
y a des états d’me, des humeurs. Où en sont vos relations avec Paris
au lendemain de l’affaire du projet de loi sur la criminalisation de
la négation du génocide arménien ? Les relations suivent leur cours,
mais il faut avouer que ce genre d’initiative nous attriste. Dans
aucun pays au monde le prétendu génocide arménien n’est aussi en
vogue qu’en France. Nous disons : laissons cette affaire aux
historiens. Nous ouvrons toutes nos archives, que l’Arménie et les
pays tiers qui détiennent des documents fassent de même pour
permettre d’engager ensuite un débat. J’ai envoyé une lettre au
président arménien Kocharian exprimant ce point de vue. Nous n’avons
pas eu pour le moment la réponse escomptée et je crains que la
diaspora arménienne joue un mauvais jeu.

Opinions
Patrimony of cultural artifacts
Recep Guvelioglu
[email protected]
26 June 2006
The matter of stolen artifacts and looted historical treasures has
been one of the most important and ongoing issues in Turkey. When I
visited the Ephesus Museum in Vienna and the Pergamum (Bergama) Museum
in Berlin, and saw many artifacts from Anatolia at the Louvre, the
British Museum and Dumbarton Oaks, my first reaction was to curse at
the looters and the international system that gives an opportunity to
looters and thieves. But when I learned that the Germans dug an
enormous shelter for the Pergamum Altar during World War II to protect
it from bombings and all the other museums took similar measures, my
view changed quickly. Even though Turkey lost those unique historical
treasures, at least humanity possessed them. Today many people from
all around the world can visit these museums. In addition, what
happened to some of the historical treasures in Turkey is well
known. The Greek columns of Side, for instance, were burned just to
get lime to build brick houses.
We have made many mistakes regarding historical artifacts, and there
are many reasons for our cultural loss. It would take at least five of
these weekly columns to discuss them all. The primary reason is our
legal system: Our laws and judicial practices. Turkey holds a treasure
trove of antiquities to protect, which is why many laws and codes were
adopted.
Yet time has proven that that system does not work.
The most famous law to preserve our cultural heritage is the “Kultur
ve Tabiat Varliklarini Koruma Yasasi” (Code of Protection of Cultural
and Natural Property, or the code of antiquities). Under this law any
ruin, artifact or cultural finding discovered falls under the state’s
patrimony and it needs to be reported to the authorities, such as
museum directors. Afterwards you have several options:
The director might be corrupt and want to have the artifacts for
himself. He might offer you one percent of its real value and threaten
to throw you in jail for illegal excavation if you don’t comply.
Let’s say the director is decent, yet he might still threaten to give
it to “the state,” in which case you will receive a paltry
compensation. In either case, you’re in trouble¦ If you decide not to
inform the authorities, you have to find a middle man to sell this
merchandise. The middle man would certainly deceive you, and if the
artifact is quite valuable you might even be murdered.
The last option is to try selling the artifact abroad, which leads to
the same problem.
The bottom line of the matter is the issue of the patrimony of
humanity’s past. Robbers destroy and loot temples and tombs. In the
eyes of ordinary people, they are cursed criminals. Some people
purchase mankind’s oldest and most exquisite creations and are proud
of their efforts; these private collectors, commercial dealers, and
museum curators view themselves as temporary caretakers of treasures.
However, collectors’ demands for these objects have created incentives
for looters to pillage archaeological sites.
“Cultural patrimony” is the question of who has the right to own and
exhibit humanity’s aesthetic and archaeological treasures.
It’s a three-sided debate. On one side, there are “internationalists”:
Academics, dealers and collectors who advocate the regulated market as
the best way to protect antiquities. The second group believes that
cultural patrimony is linked to a group of people’s identity. “Our
cultural heritage tells us who we are.” These “nationalists” generally
call for a trade that is limited, heavily regulated and open to public
scrutiny. The third party consists of archaeologists and scholars who
say that trading uproots cultural artifacts from their original place,
rendering them useless for scientific study.
The nationalists’ and archaeologists’ non-liberal amalgam of
nationalism and anti-capitalist mentality goes back to the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO)
1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It is
the first major international agreement to protect cultural property
from thieves and smugglers.
Actually it’s hard to say who’s right in the debate. In Turkey’s case,
with the current judicial system, which doesn’t give Turkish citizens
any right to buy any artifacts, and with the problems of museums which
have became like unprotected storage houses, the nationalistic
approach seems to have lost the game.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Opinions
A letter from Kurds to the EU
Faik Bulut
[email protected]
27 June 2006
Accession negotiations between Turkey and the European Union are
underway. The talks are concentrating on the Cyprus issue, but they
might also come to a halt as a result of that. Since the process began
the Turkish government has started to see things from a different
perspective and has discovered that it isn’t so easy to avoid its
obligations. In the future there will be many chapters which will be
extremely problematic for Ankara: From the Kurdish and religious
minority problems, asylum and migration to the role of the army and
religion in daily life and even agricultural policies.
As Turkey is now discussing that topic, the negotiations process may
be interrupted. The EU warned the Turkish government a fortnight ago
that there’s a possibility that may happen. It seems that Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan isn’t disappointed about this but he’s
rather surprised about why the EU is behaving like that and wondering
what else they want.
In fact it’s a painful process and decision time for Ankara.
Considering the negotiations to be decisive for them too, some Kurdish
circles sent a joint letter to the EU’s representative in Ankara.
Signed by the Kurdish Culture and Research Foundation (KURT-KAV) in
Istanbul, Party For Rights and Freedom (HAK-PAR), Society of Art and
Culture (Cira) in Diyarbakir, Foundation For Cultural and Social
Services in Turkey in Ankara, Kurdish National Democratic Working
Group based in Diyarbakir, Life Women’s Cooperative (YAKAKOP) in Van,
two cultural magazines, “Bir” and “Dema Nu,” in Diyarbakir, and Peri
publications in Istanbul, the letter contains four main points.
The first point in the letter is a complaint about policies of denial,
refusal and assimilation towards the Kurds, which have been in force
since the foundation of the Turkish Republic.
In the second part, those who signed the letter warn the EU about
Turkey’s unwillingness to grant the Kurds more cultural rights,
saying, “As a result of efforts by the EU, Turkey has stepped up
recognition of cultural and democratic rights. However, those steps
aren’t enough. It must also be recognized that although they haven’t
satisfied the Kurds and contributed enough to efforts for peace and
democracy, those steps have been important. However, these positive
steps are seriously and effectively resisted by those who are
influential in the administration of the state as they don’t want to
accept the rights of ethnic groups and minorities other than the
Turks.”
In the third section, the concerned Kurdish establishments express
their anxiety, saying, “We’re anxious about what’s going on. Not just
the Kurds but also all wise people in Turkey are anxious. To explain
what’s making us anxious, it’s useful to sum up what’s happened in
Turkey in the last few months:
“The blasts in Semdinli, a district in the southeastern province
Hakkari; the killing of civilians, including children, and the arrest
of hundreds, including children, in riots in Diyarbakir; the attack
against members of the Council of State; Kurds have been threatened
with death and migrated to towns and cities; elected local
administrators have been sentenced and fined, such as 37 mayors from
the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party [DTP] and politicians because
of their comments/statements concerning the Kurdish issue; the arrest
of Kurdish intellectuals and politicians who’ve democratically
resisted the deployment of the army along the borders; terrorist
attacks whose real perpetrators are unknown; the release of retired
members of the military or officers who are still in the army and
supposedly members of the Special Forces who have been accused of
being connected to criminal gangs and involvement in the Council of
State attack.
“It seems that those who want to resolve the problem through violence
and oppression, as was the case in the past, are making great
plans. This may result in death and great destruction and also may
turn the country into hell: Until recently ethnic minorities haven’t
massacred each other. But we’re highly concerned that these racist and
chauvinist policies may to lead an unavoidable conflict between the
Kurds and Turks.”
The last section of the letter concentrates on the Kurds’
demands. They are:
1) All legal and illegal barriers to Kurdish culture, art, music and
literature should be abolished.
2) Kurdish language, first of all in the field of education, should be
approved for use in all areas of life, from primary school to
university. Kurdish language should be supported as a language of
education, and the state should allocate money from the budget for
that.
3) First of all, the primary school curriculum, as well that of the
rest of the educational sector, should be revised and assimilationist
and racist elements which are based on policies of refusal and denial
should be excluded.
4) All laws and regulations which impede the use of Kurdish and other
national and local languages on TV and radio should be abolished.
5) The names of more than 10,000 residential areas, such as cities,
and towns and geographic zones/areas (mountains, lakes, plains etc.)
should go back to the original (be it Kurdish, Armenian or Assyrian).
6) The necessary legal reforms need to be made to the right to
assemble for not only for Kurds but also for everybody; all legal
prohibitions on the right to gather should be abolished, and that
right should be guaranteed under the Constitution.
7) Taking into account the multi-ethnicity of Turkey, the Political
Parties Law and all other anti-democratic and oppressive laws should
be revised and amended.
8) The Alevis and other religious minorities should have the right to
express their culture and beliefs, and legal impediments to this
should be abolished.
9) All barriers to freedom of thought should be abolished, and freedom
of thought shouldn’t be a crime.
10) Efforts need to be made to reestablish social peace.
11) The Constitution and the law should be amended to facilitate the
development of a pluralistic, democratic and egalitarian society.

The Times July 01, 2006
Bank on Agassi to put the super into ‘Super Saturday’
By Brad Gilbert
The top tennis coach says his former pupil is not ready to take his
leave of Wimbledon yet, although Nadal will fight all the way

HAS there ever been a Wimbledon Saturday to match this one? Andre
Agassi facing Rafael Nadal followed by Andy Roddick against Andy
Murray. I’d pay £100 for a ticket. Having been coach to both Andre and
A-Rod, I’m in a privileged position. Equally, I know how important the
crowd is going to be today. They can have a decisive effect on which
way the matches swing.
Against Nadal, Andre needs to be dictating play. He needs to be on the
offence, taking it to the kid. He cannot afford to be defensive. He
has toserve well and make the rallies short – he doesn’t want ten or
12-stroke rallies to develop.
This is a big step up for him. He has seven sets under his belt, he is
familiar with the feeling of best-of-five again and against Andreas
Seppi on Thursday he was a lot better than in his first match.
Nadal was in a huge amount of trouble against Robert Kendrick, but he
got way better in the fourth and fifth sets. What impressed me most
was that he was hitting the ball harder in the fifth than he had been
in the first. He reminds me of “Marvellous” Marvin Hagler, the great
middleweight -put him in the back room and he’ll come out fighting
like nobody.
Take it from me, Agassi is pleased he’s playing Nadal. He wants this,
with great respect to Kendrick.
That’s the kind of guy he is. He loves the meat of the draw. I think
the crowd will be absolutely electric and I really believe they can
help to push him through. They want him to win. They know they will be
seeing Nadal for the next ten years, but this is the last time they’ll
have a chance toget real c lose to Andre.
I know Nadal will be a much better player today as well, but it will
be hot, the court will be a little faster and Andre has a great
shot. He will have spent last night in one of his favourite
restaurants, business as usual. I think he’ll win.
Murray played what was a practice set yesterday but it was also his
best of the tournament so far – very relaxed, in command. A-Rod hasn’t
dropped serve yet and that is the nugget of the match today. Murray
has to take care of his own serve because on this surface it’s almost
impossible to break Andy’s.
He did it three times in San Jose, but that was different.
Revenge doesn’t come into it. Roddick has only lost to Roger Federer
in this tournament in the past three years, he wants this title more
than anything else. Whether or not it’s Murray today doesn’t enter
into it.
CLASHES OF THE DAY
Andy RODDICK (US)
v Andy MURRAY (GB)
Andre AGASSI (US)
v Rafael NADAL (Sp)

House Votes to Let Allies Buy Top U.S. Fighter
Sending Such Technology Abroad Raises Concerns
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 1, 2006; D01
The House has recommended lifting a ban on international sales of the
nation’s most advanced fighter, the F-22 Raptor, a potential boon to
_Lockheed Martin Corp._ if allies such as Japan begin buying the
expensive plane to upgrade their air forces.
On a voice vote after an 11-minute debate, House members on June 20
tacked onto the defense appropriations bill an amendment repealing a
nine-year-old prohibition on overseas sales of the plane.
The ban was put in place to keep the Raptor’s high-tech systems out of
the hands of foreign governments. But with U.S. military orders for
the jet lagging, members of Congress and some top staffers in the Air
Force have become concerned that Bethesda-based Lockheed may shut down
the plane’s production line in coming years.
The $70 billion fighter program is one of Lockheed’s largest,
employing more than 4,500 workers in Georgia and Texas and bringing in
hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue. The Pentagon has
steadily lowered the numberof F-22s it planned to purchase from the
750 it thought it needed to face off against the Soviet Union nearly
20 years ago down to 183. As with the older F-16 — a fighter Lockheed
continues to sustain through overseas sales — foreign purchases could
keep the Raptor in business.
The amendment allowing overseas sales was offered by Rep. Kay Granger
(R-Tex.), whose district in Fort Worth includes a plant that makes the
midsection of the aircraft, with a total of 2,640 jobs associated with
the Raptor.
“I believe this provision of this bill is no longer necessary to
safeguard our technology,” Granger said on the floor of the House.
Lockheed executives and Air Force officials declined to comment.
Prospects of passage in the Senate, which will not take up its
appropriations bill until next month, are unclear, though that chamber
traditionally has been more tolerant of allowing international
involvement in military programs.
Sen. John W. Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
appeared willing to support foreign sales of a modified version of the
Raptor.
“My own advice is that we should consider manufacturing a model of
that aircraft that would meet our requirements with regard to
technology transfer, a model that would be foreign sales only,” Warner
said in an interview. “That aircraft, even if modified for foreign
sales, would be a magnificent aircraft, believe me.”
He noted that the military has had to make similar accommodations for
foreign sales of other U.S. aircraft, including the F-16 and F-15.
Even if the ban is lifted, any overseas sales of the plane would have
to be vetted by the Departments of Defense and State under the Arms
Export Control Act.
Lockheed and some in the Air Force began making a case for overseas
sales of the fighter early this year as the Pentagon lowered the
number of planes it would buy to 183 to save $10 billion over the next
few years. Until that point, Lockheed had expected to sell about 381
planes to the U.S. government. The reduction prompted Lockheed to say
it would have to close the F-22 production line by 2011.
Any specific sale is likely to face concerns about the export of
technology that is still considered sensitive. Congress has continued
funding the plane, despite its increasing cost, in part because the
Raptor’s technology was considered worth sustaining. While Lockheed’s
other fighter jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, was developed to be
exported, the Raptor wasn’t.
The company has delivered 74 Raptors so far at a cost of $361 million
each.
The cost is about three times the original estimate, according to the
Government Accountability Office. The planes are scheduled to be put
into combat service early next year, following years of fine-tuning
and training.
During the brief floor debate, the original author of the overseas
sales ban, Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), said he was “significantly
uncomfortable” with lifting it.
“I am certainly not convinced that we have reached the point where we
ought to remove these restrictions,” he said.
Selling the aircraft overseas also undermines one of the original
justifications for the aircraft, skeptics say.
“The original justification for creating the F-22 was that we had
already sold our most advanced fighter technology to so many countries
that we needed a more advanced fighting capability. Now we’re in that
trap again by selling the F-22 abroad,” said Jennifer Porter-Gore,
spokeswoman for the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog
group. “This is when our national security interests collide with
those of the defense industry.”
Given its expense, the fighter may have a limited audience.
“This is an extremely high-performance fighter. Few air forces around
the world are going to need it. Fewer will be able to afford it,” said
Gordon M.
Adams, professor of the practice of international affairs at George
Washington University.
Lockheed and the Air Force see a potential market among the United
States’ closest allies, including Japan, Australia and Britain,
according to industry insiders and analysts. For example, Japan is
expected to begin replacing soon its fleet of about 100
F-4s. Excluding development costs that the Pentagon paid early in the
program, the price of the plane drops to between $150 million and $183
million, or even less for a stripped-down model, they said.
Foreign sales could also help defray some of the cost of the plane to
the U.S. military and keep the production line going while the Air
Force and Lockheed make their argument for more purchases to the next
administration,said Loren Thompson, a consultant for Lockheed who also
has close ties to the Air Force.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Genocide tribunal brings Cambodia hope of elusive reconciliation
Published on June 30, 2006
Phnom Penh – Chum Mey turns cold when he thinks of testifying against
his one-time torturers at Cambodia’s upcoming Khmer Rouge tribunal.
As one of only seven survivors of the notorious Tuol Sleng torture
camp, he knows he is likely to be called as a witness to speak out
against the leaders of the 1975-1979 regime that killed up to two
million Cambodians.
But the 76-year-old said the tribunal, whose judges will be sworn in
on Monday, may offer the only chance for Cambodia to learn all the
facts about the genocidal regime and to help the still-shattered
country heal.
“It’s time, they must not hide anything. I need them to tell the
truth. Why did they kill innocent people?” said Chum Mey.
“Otherwise, their victims will never be able to let go of the pain
they suffered,” he said.
“After the trial, the pain will not go away immediately. But at least
it’s a starting point to get rid of the pain we bear and to
reconcile.”
But reconciliation is a difficult goal in a country where up to one
third of the population was killed, starved or worked to death in one
of the most hideously effective genocides of the 20th century.
Most of the 17 Cambodian and 13 international judges will be sworn in
on Monday, marking a symbolic start to the tribunal that has been
delayed by years of wrangling between Cambodia and the United Nations
over its format and funding.
Prosecutors are expected to begin their work just a week later, but
trials are not likely to start until next year.
Even if Chum Mey is called to the stand, he is not likely to face the
men who actually tortured him in Tuol Sleng, a one-time high school
where 17,000 people — men, women and children — were interrogated,
tortured and then killed in a field outside Phnom Penh.
The tribunal is expected only to bring the few surviving leaders of
the Khmer Rouge to the dock.
Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot died in 1998. Only two of the roughly six
surviving leaders expected to stand trial are in custody, with the
rest living freely in Cambodia.
But most of the killing was done by ordinary Cambodians who followed
their leaders’ commands in pursuit of building an agrarian utopia —
guided by an ultra-Maoist ideology that, among other things, tried to
destroy the family unit and abolished education, religion and
currency.
Van Nath, another survivor of Tuol Sleng, said he too was prepared to
testify but he was unsure if reconciliation was possible when people
who actually performed the killings still walked the streets.
“For me, there is no reconciliation with people we once knew as
murderers,” Van Nath said.
“I believe the trial is needed. But as for reconciliation, I believe
none of us has the ability to reconcile because of the gravity of what
happened,” he said.
“What could ease our minds is if the people who committed these crimes
stand up to describe publicly about the reasons behind the killings,”
Van Nath said.
Van Nath survived the torture centre when his guards discovered his
talent for painting. He was then forced to do portraits of Pol Pot
until the Khmer Rouge were driven from power by Vietnamese invaders
who seized Phnom Penh in January 1979.
He is not convinced the tribunal can bring justice to a country that
was turned into a wasteland by a regime that emptied the cities and
forced the population onto vast collective farms.
“Right now, I dare not think that the tribunal can bring us justice
yet,” he said.
“If it does, justice will not be found in the court’s decision. It
will be justice if the people agree with its decisions,” he said.
Youk Chhang, director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia which
has been compiling evidence of Khmer Rouge atrocities, said
reconciliation is a personal matter.
“It has to start from individuals. If many individuals benefit from
the trial, then this will also have an effect at a national level,” he
said.
So far, few of the remaining Khmer Rouge leaders have shown any
concern about the trials, much less about national reconciliation.
Most of them lead quiet lives around the former Khmer Rouge stronghold
of Pailin in northwestern Cambodia, refusing to give interviews and
staying out of the spotlight.
“I never think of the court,” said Sor Socheat, the 55-year-old wife
of the Khmer Rouge’s former head of state Khieu Samphan.
“My husband never thinks of any work that he had done,” she told AFP
by telephone, saying Khieu Samphan refused to take the call.
“At that time, he had no rights or power. He was only chairman in name
but he knew nothing. He never made any decisions,” she said.
“It is up to others to form this tribunal,” she added.
As for national reconciliation, she refused to talk about it.
Agence France Presse
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Democratic Azerbaijan
Ïðàî ûáîðà, Azerbaijan
June 30 2006
Andreas Gross Denied To Be Co-Rapporteur For Azerbaijan
30.06.2006

29 June the session of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe was held. Andreas Gross stated that
he denied being co-rapporteur for Azerbaijan. He explained that he
had been working for a long time in this field and he’d to be
co-rapporteur for other country.
Committee Members accepted his request and freed him from the duties
of co-rapporteur for Azerbaijan. Tony Lloyd, a MP from England was
elected to his position.
Chief of Armenian delegation to PACE, Tigran Torosian tried to
present A. Gross’s denial of being co-rapporteur for Azerbaijan as a
result of pressure of Swiss MP by our Government.
But Azerbaijani delegation stressed that A. Gross took this step
voluntarily and there were not any talks of pressure. A. Gross was
co-rapporteur for Azerbaijan for ten years. He could not approach to
Azerbaijan from the point of new view and to see progressing changes.

Democratic Azerbaijan
Ïðàî ûáîðà, Azerbaijan
June 30 2006
Hafiz Pashayev: Azerbaijan Won’t Compromise Over Sovereignty and
Territorial Integrity of Azerbaijan
30.06.2006

Several days later the Ambassador of Azerbaijan to the United States,
Hafiz Pashayev will complete his diplomatic mission in this country.
Reportedly AzerTaj, the diplomat stated about it in his speech made
at the Institute of Research of the Central Asia & Caucasus of the
John Hopkins University. In his last speech before the American
community the Ambassador, summarizing his 13-years activity in the
U.S., said that for these years U.S.- Azerbaijan relations made a
great path of development, and Azerbaijan turned to be one of the
countries, presenting an interest for the United States as a
strategic ally. In respect to Azerbaijan the United States pursued
four main political purposes: uphold of Azerbaijan’s independence,
transition period to democracy and market economy, natural resources
development projects and efforts for settlement of the
Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. Both countries achieved substantial
progress in political field. Noted that “to represent Azerbaijan to
the U.S. is difficult and responsible affair for each diplomat that
particularly concerns Azerbaijan, faced the numerous internal and
external pressures from the beginning of its independency,” H.
Pashayev underlined that the most difficult stage of his diplomatic
mission to Washington was to make popular Azerbaijan in the U.S.
Congress, and to raise to awareness of Congressmen unfairness and
wrong of such political step as Amendment 907. Ambassador said: “In
talks with one of the Congressmen from California, he was surprised
with that geographically Azerbaijan does not surround Armenia all
around and if he knew it before, he would not vote for sanctions
against Azerbaijan.” The favorable side of the activities due to
Amendment 907 implies that it was lesson for American policy.
Azerbaijani diplomats should have learnt the specifities of the
Congress and complexity of the U.S. political system as soon as
possible. Equally with political talks the Ambassador Hafiz Pashayev
should brought to awareness of the Americans the culture, history,
rich heritage of Azerbaijan, its hopes and expectations.
In his last speech the Ambassador expressed Azerbaijan’s position to
Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict: “Armenia and separatists in
Nagorno-Garabagh should understand that Azerbaijan won’t compromise
over the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.”
H. Pashayev said: “If we do not solve our problems, others will solve
them at the cost of our independence. The people constantly glancing
in past cannot see the future. The Nagorno-Garabagh conflict is a
result of territorial claims and obsolete views. Looking at
successful cooperation of many years between the West and Japan and
Germany, it is difficult to believe that once these allies fought
with each other in cruel war.”
In conclusion, Hafiz Pashayev expressed his gratitude to the
Presidents of Azerbaijan who trusted and entrusted him to represent
our country in major center of the world on the important phase.
Very soon H. Pashayev’s book “Racing Uphill” will be published. This
book says views of political struggle conducted for the last 13 years
for the purposes of broad popularization of Azerbaijan in Congress.

DeFacto Agency, Armenia
June 30 2006
NKR PRESIDENT RECEIVED DELEGATION OF SWEDISH LEFT PARTY
June 29 Nagorno Karabakh Republic /NKR/ President Arkady Ghoukasyan
received a delegation of the Swedish Left Party headed by the Party
First Deputy Chair, Swedish MP Ulla Hoffman.
According to the information DE FACTO got at the NKR President’s
Administration, the interlocutors had discussed the issues referring
to the Karabakh conflict settlement, as well as the development of
Nagorno Karabakh’s contacts with the European political organizations
and NGOs.
The meeting’s participants also touched upon the process of
democracy’s development in NKR and the Karabakh issue’s legal
grounds. Arkady Ghoukasyan expressed hope for the cooperation’s
continuation.

Today, Azerbaijan
June 30 2006
Embassy of Azerbaijan in Britain investigate the fact of Swedish MPs
visit to Nagorno Karabakh

30 June 2006 [14:24] – Today.Az

Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan ordered Embassy of Azerbaijan in
Britain to investigate the fact of Swedish parliament members
visiting Nagorno Karabakh.

According to Foreign Ministry Press and Information Policy Office
chief Tahir Tagizade, if Swedish parliament members have visited
Nagorno Karabakh without warning Azerbaijan will send its official
protest to foreign policy office of this country.
Delegation headed by member of Swedish parliament Ulla Hofman visited
occupied territories of Azerbaijan June 28.
Swedish Left Party includes delegation. Swedish parliamentarian
coming to Azerbaijan from Armenia they met with vise-speaker of
co-called Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Rudik Usnunch.
Thanking to Swedish parliament for recognizing Armenian genocide,
Rudik Usnunch asked parliamentarian to help in the direction of
recognizing Nagorno Karabakh Republics as an independent state.
In his turn Ulla Hofman sated his party concern to Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh, and will get in touch regularly with Nagorno
Karabakh Republic.
Swedish parliament members have accepted the invitation to
participate in the “measures on 13th anniversary of liberation of
Nagorno Karabakh Republic Mardakert region from occupation of
Azerbaijani Armed Forces”.

URL: