HAUNTED BY CHANGE OF POWER IN 98
Lragir.am
29 June 06
Pre-election processes are underway in the country, the evidence
to this is the summer congress of the Republican Party, and it is
connected with the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Member of
Parliament Grigor Harutiunyan expressed this point of view on June
29 at the Pastark Club. According to him, the statement of the OSCE
Minsk Group American Co-Chair Mathew Bryza, then the joint statements
of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs show that the process of settlement
of the conflict over Karabakh is becoming more active.
Grigor Harutiunyan says there were different agreements in different
stages of the talks over the Karabakh conflict but Armenia and
Azerbaijan violated these agreements, therefore the mediators are
stating that they did their work, and the rest is to be decided by
the presidents.
And what is the job of the opposition in this situation? Grigor
Harutiunyan does not give a clear answer to this question. At least,
the opposition does not have anything to do with the authors of
the statement.
“But if you think that we must organize rallies, protests in front of
the embassies of the co-chairs. These people put it clearly that all
that has been reached, the proposals in the statement, were approved
by the heads of our states,” says Grigor Harutiunyan.
He thinks that these proposals may lead to an early election. In the
long run, however, the opposition has nothing to do here. At least,
Grigor Harutiunyan says, a possible change of power will not be pushed
by the opposition, however it will not be the consequence of a process
going on inside the government.
“Early elections may be connected with the Karabakh process. It is not
real to consider an early election under the pressure of the government
or opposition, or inside the government. There is not a revolutionary
state. I repeat, however, that the change of power may repeat the
model of 98. Not the change of power, but the early election,” says
Grigor Harutiunyan. He thinks that now the way out is the resignation
of Robert Kocharyan to temporize and try to improve the situation.
“We think there will be a resignation, and afterwards a change of
power,” states Grigor Harutiunyan, declining to say who will push
Kocharyan to resign.

ARDARUTIUN MAY WITHDRAW ITS SIGNATURE
Lragir.am
29 June 06
Ardarutiun Alliance may withdraw the signature it put to the draft
reform to the Electoral Code, stated Member of Parliament Grigor
Harutiunyan, the secretary of the Popular Party on June 29 at the
Pastark Club. He announced that the point of view that Ardarutiun
signed the draft constitution to reach a compromise with the government
and guarantee its reproduction in the parliament is not true.
“There were serious controversies over three or four points, and
we signed the document but we said it needs further elaboration. If
these points are rejected, we will withdraw our signature,” states
Grigor Harutiunyan. His words regard staining fingers with ink,
proportional system of election and setting up committees.
Grigor Harutiunyan says a parliamentary group and judges cannot have
representatives in the committees, because only political forces run
in elections and they must set up committees.
Besides, Grigor Harutiunyan mentions that the government seems unlikely
to make active efforts in working out the amendments to the Electoral
Code because the meeting of the task force is often put off.

POPULAR PARTY COULD HAVE DONE IT
Lragir.am
29 June 06
The Popular Party is ready and can run in the election alone, stated
the secretary of the Popular Party Grigor Harutiunyan June 29 at the
Pastark Club. He noted that the Popular Party could have done the
same in 2003.
“At that time our aim was to bring together the political forces
to establish a common approach. We do not deny anything now, we may
run in the election alone or in an alliance. Time will show,” stated
Grigor Harutiunyan. According to him, there is some time until the
election and the approaches will be made clear in fall.
Grigor Harutiunyan disagrees that the opposition is passive with
regard to processes underway inside the government. For the Popular
Party, he says that both the parliamentary corps and the members of
the political council meet with the population, they are going to
visit the villages. Grigor Harutiunyan says if necessity arises for
more intensive contacts with the population, it will be done in fall,
if necessary in summer too. Grigor Harutiunyan thinks that the other
opposition parties will do the same.
The secretary of the Popular Party gave an ambiguous answer to the
question whether the Popular Party would join an alliance, which
would not be led by Stepan Demirchyan. Grigor Harutiunyan says the
Popular Party has always upheld consolidation.

THE OPPOSITION CANNOT GET ANGRY WITH BRYZA
ArmRadio.am
29.06.2006 17:35
“The disclosures of the US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group and later
the joint statements of the Co-Chairs about the details of the talks
over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement mean that Armenia goes
for unilateral concessions,” said MP Grigor Harutyunyan, representing
the “Justice block.
Although the opposition Deputy considers the situation inadmissable,
he doesn ‘t imagine what they should do in this case and in response
to the journalists’ question why the opposition does not get angry,
he says, “With whom? Bryza?”
Judging from the recent statements of the representatives of
international structures, MP Grigor Harutyunyan infers that serious
processes are expected in the region and these will occur at an
accelerated pace. Today’s statement of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs,
which actually discloses the details of the negotiations over the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict, was unexpected and very harsh
for Grigor Harutyunyan.
The uncertainity of the referendum is also concerning: will it
be a referendum on the territory of Karabakh, as we imagine or a
pan-Azerbaijani voting?
According to Grigor Harutyunyan, the uncertainity connected with the
referendum allows to infer that the document under consideration is
not that pro-Armenian.
There are several ways out of the situation: to agree with the document
if we do not agree to change the format of the mediators or go to an
inevitable war.

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY CATHOLICOS OF ALL ARMENIANS IN ISTANBUL
Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
Jun 29 2006
ETCHMIADZIN, JUNE 29, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. NT was submitted
a transcript of the press conference by Catholicos of All Armenians
Karekin II to Turkish reporters at the Armenian Patriarchate of
Constantinople on June 25.
The transcript is presented below:
The moderator of the press conference was Ms. Luiz Bakar, spokesman for
the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. His Beatitude Archbishop
Mesrob Mutafian, Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople introduced
His Holiness.
His Beatitude Mesrob Mutafian: Welcome, dear friends. His Holiness
has allocated one half hour from his itinerary for today to be with
you. He is here on a pontifical visit upon the joint invitation of
the Greek Patriarch and the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. He
will be with us until June 27. Prior to his visit, a number of strange
news stories appeared in various media and news outlets, which caused
us amazement. The articles had stated that the Armenian community
and the Patriarchate were anxious with this visit; however there
was no such unease in the community. Up until this point, the visit
has been progressing as planned. The first two days of the visit,
the Catholicos was the guest of the Greek Patriarch, according to
their itinerary; thereafter we visited Armenian churches and the
sites and museums of Istanbul together. Since our time is limited,
I request that there be no repetitions of questions. You may now ask
any questions which you desire.
Question: Your Holiness, you are here as the guest of the Greek
Patriarch.
He is making efforts directed at bringing the two Churches closer. What
is your opinion on this and what will be the steps you implement?
His Holiness Karekin II: We are visiting Constantinople upon the
invitation of the Armenian Patriarch and the Greek Ecumenical
Patriarch. We have come on a pontifical visit to the Armenian
Patriarchate of Constantinople and a fraternal visit to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. As part of our visit (with the Ecumenical Patriarch),
there were meetings between the clergy of our Churches, where we
discussed the theological and dogmatic issues about which there has
been ongoing dialogue for quite a long time; meetings have occurred
and will continue to take place. The purpose of our visit to the
Ecumenical Patriarch was the reinforcement and strengthening of the
brotherly ties between our sister Churches, as well as the continuation
of the existing collaboration between our Churches with a new spirit
and new warmth.
Question: During your meeting with the Governor of Istanbul, you stated
that you are pleased with the regular (airline) flights between Yerevan
and Istanbul, however similar steps must continue. What do mean by
“steps”?
His Holiness Karekin II: We expressed our satisfaction that
Yerevan-Istanbul flights occur regularly. As you are aware, our
country – the Republic of Armenia – is inclined to improve relations
with Turkey, and we are certain that as a result (of those improved
relations) we will find solutions. We shall be able to concurrently
search for and find solutions to the issues that exist in the
relationship between our two peoples, one example being the issue of
the Genocide, of which you are aware.
Question: As you just mentioned, the issue of the Genocide exists
between Turkey and Armenia. We, meaning the opinion of Turkish
society, are not limited by the Armenians of Armenia. We see three
groups of Armenians: Diaspora, Armenians of Turkey, and Armenia. What
are your thoughts? During these deliberations, whom must Turkey
consider? And the Armenians, whom do they consider – the Turkish
government or…? As you know, this issue is being discussed in
certain Turkish intellectual circles. In different universities,
specifically the University of Bilgi, this issue has been discussed
during different symposia where the Armenian Patriarch Mutafian was
also present. Taking the aforementioned into consideration, I want
to ask two questions: Who must represent the Turkish and Armenian
sides and what steps must be taken? And the second question, how do
you evaluate the atmosphere of democratic debate in Turkey?
His Holiness Karekin II: We are one people; dispersed throughout
the world.
However, we are a people that have statehood. And naturally, the
Republic of Turkey can discuss these issues and find solutions with
the Republic of Armenia. For 90 years, the issue of the Genocide has
been researched by the academics of the world, and manifold volumes
have been written. For our people, the Genocide is not a matter
for research – it is a reality of fact that happened, which must
be recognized. That (recognition) is naturally the desired option,
but a negative position can also be taken on this issue.
If academic conferences in Turkey are intended to present the actuality
of the Genocide to Turkish society, then it shall be possible to
welcome them. If they are politically motivated, to further the
position of denial, naturally that won’t have a positive influence
on resolving this issue. We are satisfied to see that in the life of
Turkish society, within democratization processes, people are speaking
and reflecting on the issue of the Genocide during the First World
War to a certain extent.
Question: During his meeting with the governor of Istanbul, the
Catholicos stated, “A certain amount of progress is noticeable in
Turkish society. If necessary steps are taken, everything can be
much better.” These words were translated by (Armenian Patriarch)
Mutafian. What is lacking in the life of Turkish society and what
did you have in mind?
His Holiness Karekin II: During our conversation with the governor,
we have said that we are pleased, that in the life of ethnic
and religious minorities, as it relates to the Armenian Apostolic
Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, some concerns are receiving
their positive solutions. We can see that for many decades, it was
impossible to renovate the (headquarters of the) Patriarchate, and
today we see it restored. Permission has been granted, and churches
are being repaired. However, we noted that there are a certain number
of other concerns, the resolution of which would benefit the greater
strengthening of community life. For example, among these issues are
property rights and organizational matters for educational activities.
Question: The Catholicos stated that the two states must discuss
the issue of the Genocide. However in recent times, discussions were
held in Turkey when two Armenians of Turkey participated, among them
Hrant Dink. The law which was being debated in France, whereby the
deniers of the Genocide would be held criminally liable, was opposed
by nine Turkish intellectuals who sent a letter to France. They
asserted that expressing a viewpoint about the Genocide must not have
consequences. This is one example of the fact that Turkey and Armenia
are not alone in debating this issue, and that there are other states,
which make decisions in their parliaments about the Genocide. In this
regard, the issue assumed an international character. What is your
opinion? Is it correct for other states to be drawn into this matter?
His Holiness Karekin II: Genocide against any nation is not limited
to the life or borders of one people. Genocide does not recognize
ethnicity. Genocide envelopes all of mankind. And for that reason,
when similar actions are being committed in any corner of the world,
states and nations raise their voices in condemnation, to prevent
similar incidents in the life of mankind. Only in this manner will
it be possible to keep mankind free from similar tragedies.
Regarding the first part of the question, that should only Turkey
and Armenia be concerned with this issue, we wish to further clarify
that the Armenian people have statehood. But the issue concerns all
Armenians. Armenians dispersed throughout the world. Every single
individual Armenian. However the body that represents the rights of
the nation, and guarantees those rights, obviously, is the state.
Question: The Catholicos says that the issue of the Genocide
for Armenian society is not one that needs research, rather it is
reality. Does this position not obstruct the resolution of this issue,
perhaps, since the Turkish side continues to deny the Genocide? In
other words, is it not possible to study the Genocide?
His Holiness Karekin II: Obviously, if Turkey denies (the Genocide),
it is impossible to resolve this issue. If the facts are present,
then what’s the point in discussing the necessity to debate the
facts? There must be the will to record, confirm and accept the facts.
Question: What do you propose as a way of resolving this issue?
His Holiness Karekin II: We believe that as many states and
countries have done, Turkey also has the capability to conduct the
corresponding studies, and add its name to that list of many countries,
by recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Armenia has never held similar
deliberations with any of the other countries who have recognized
and condemned the Armenian Genocide. Because the facts exist, they
can be studied, and based upon those facts, a decision and position
can be made. This cannot be or be proposed to be an issue which
necessitates discussions.
Question: You say that to keep humanity free from the repetition of
similar sorrows, that they must be studied and accepted. But have
you ever made a statement regarding the events taking place in Iraq,
which is very close to both Turkey and Armenia? As you are aware, the
intervention of the United States of America is present there. What
do you think about this, and what are you doing about it?
His Holiness Karekin II: We as a Church, express our voice of
indignation on every occasion when a hand is raised against the
greatest treasure of God’s creation – human life.
Question: You visited the seminary on the Island of Halki. What are
you thoughts, since that seminary is not operating at present?
His Holiness Karekin II: I am pleased with the process of
democratization which is taking place today in the Republic of
Turkey. And I am certain that in time, all those issues will find
their positive solutions.
Question: Did you like Istanbul?
His Holiness Karekin II: We have not had the opportunity to see
Istanbul.
But in these past few days, we mentioned in our remarks that in
Istanbul, there are many valuable and beautiful buildings, churches,
etc. However, the most valuable, the most beautiful for me is our
people, our community, for whom we are conducting our Pontifical
Visit. Having this as our primary concern, naturally, we have allocated
all of our time for the strengthening of the spiritual life of our
people and to the work of reinforcing their faith.
Nevertheless, I am certain that another opportunity will be created,
and we shall be able to have the necessary amount of time to see the
sights of Istanbul. For example, yesterday, we were able to visit
the Dolmabahce palace museum and the Hagia Sophia, which greatly
impressed us.
Question: There is a report that you desired to pray when at the
Hagia Sophia, but were prohibited from doing so.
His Holiness Karekin II: We are not aware of any such occurrence.
Question: From the first day of your visit, there have been protest
demonstrations. What do you think about this?
His Holiness Karekin II: The protest demonstrations in no way affected
neither our mood nor our mission. We would prefer that there be no
place for similar demonstrations in the relationship between our
two peoples. We are destined to live side by side as neighbors, and
therefore it is necessary to cultivate, educate and nurture appropriate
relationships between neighboring peoples. I am convinced that in my
next trip, we won’t see similar demonstrations or expressions. And even
if there are protests such as these, we must understand that we still
have work to do, both of us together, to exclude similar occurrences.
Question: During the Eurovision competition, Turkey gave 10 points
to Armenia. How do you evaluate this fact?
His Holiness Karekin II: We see nothing negative in this.
Question: Is this perhaps a step forward on the part of Turkey?
His Holiness Karekin II: Of course, it is a step, which must be
positively assessed. God willing, that this positive course leads us
to the resolution of the fundamental issue.
Question: Although your visit was not “official” in nature, you were
received by the governor of Istanbul. An occurrence such has this has
not happened since 1961. What do you think about this? Do you asses
this as a positive step? Were there any other similar offers? If yes,
then for what reason did they not occur?
His Holiness Karekin II: We recognize our meeting with the governor
as a display of his appreciation for the Armenian community, and their
important contributions and service to the life of Turkish society. We
have not had nor do we have any objections to meeting with any state
official, whether the suggestion is made by our community or by
any other entity. There was the concept, at one time, to organize a
meeting with the religious leader of Turkey, but it became unfeasible
to bring it to fruition. The reasons being that the congestion of
our itinerary for this trip did not provide the opportunity.
We express our thanks for this meeting and for such an open
discussion. We wish you all the best.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

G8 CALLS FOR SWIFT END TO REGIONAL CONFLICTS
Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
June 29 2006
June 29, 2006 — Foreign ministers from the Group of Eight leading
industrialized nations have called for a prompt resolution to regional
conflicts in former Soviet republics and in the Balkans.
In a statement after a meeting in Moscow, the ministers called on
Azerbaijan and Armenia to show the political will needed to reach an
agreement this year over Nagorno-Karabakh.
They also welcomed the launch of direct talks on Kosovo and urged a
negotiated agreement.

ANTRANIK TEYMOURIAN OF IRAN ON EUROPEAN CLUBS WANTED LIST
Author: Farhad
IranFootballOnline, CA
Persian Football, CA
June 29 2006
Upcoming Iranian star Andranik Teymourian is flooded with offers from
European clubs after his powerful performance in the World Cup.
The 23-year-old Iranian of Armenian descent won hearts back home in
Iran with his courageous approach and never-say-die attitude, and
came close to scoring for Team Melli against Portugal in the match
they lost 2-0.
And, Iranian fans were not the only ones sitting up and taking notice
of the midfielder’s outrageous talent.
Speaking exclusively to , Teymourian confirmed that
the club he currently plays for – Iran Pro League outfit Abo Moslem –
had already been approached by several European clubs.
“My club has already received offers (for me) from the Bundesliga,
Italy, Turkey and the Emirates,” said Teymourian, who has a one-year
contract with Abo Moslem.
“The decision will be made by my club and I will be talking to them
(Abo Moslem) shortly on this issue.”
“Going to Europe is a dream come true for a football player like me,”
added Teymourian.
Teymourian started his football career at Tehran’s Ararat Club and,
after a series of age group competitions, caught the eye in Iran’s
third place finish at the Islamic Solidarity Games.
It was only a matter of time before he broke through to the senior
ranks as coach Branko Ivankovic handed the promising midfielder his
international debut against Libya last August. Since then Teymourian
has made the defensive midfielder’s position his own in 10 starts
for Team Melli.
“I always believed that I would be a regular player in Germany,” said
Teymourian. “I trained hard and was inspired. When people say I got my
chance because of injuries to Nikbakht Vahedi and Fereydoon Zandi it
doesn’t matter as I would have been better prepared had they been fit.”
The midfielder said the key to his playing uninhibited football
against vaunted rivals was his fitness. “I took great care about my
sleep and food and worked hard on my fitness. I knew that I had to
make the most of this opportunity.”
The Iranian refused to find fault with Ivankovic’s tactics at the
World Cup, saying the team could have done better with a little bit
of luck. “I regret our elimination. Tactical issues are none of my
business. I am a player and should follow the rules. But I wish we
were more lucky.”
The one abiding memory for Teymourian in this World Cup is decidedly
the fierce shot which shook the woodwork in the match against
Portugal. “Yes…it was offside but I enjoy it when I remember it. It
was my biggest slice of action out there!”
“But the goodbye was as painful as it was untimely. I will never forget
the moment when Farakki (Hossein; assistant coach) came to me and said
‘don’t cry…this is football, we should accept it…we can show our
ability in next year’s AFC Asian Cup and in the 2010 World Cup.
The world has not come to an end’.”

PACE POLITICAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES STABILITY PACT IN SOUTHERN CAUCASUS
Today, Azerbaijan
June 29 2006
Rumanian parliamentarian Adrian Severn’s memorandum was heard at
the meeting.
He thinks that parallel treat with Southern Caucasus countries and
Balkan countries is impossible, APA reports.
He thinks it is impossible to admit Balkan and southern Caucasus
countries to the EU.
Stability Pact was put forward for the first time by Bulgarian MP
Vlachezar in 2004.
Head of Azerbaijani delegation to PACE Samad Seidov stated that he
was satisfied with the document.
Armenian parliament speaker and head of Armenian delegation Tigran
Torosyan told that both sides’ positions on Garabagh were heard at
the meeting. He said that it was not a report but a memorandum.
“It is so far difficult to say anything about the memorandum. Some
items in the document is in contradiction with PACE conceptions. It
is necessary to harmonize these documents. I talked with Severn about
the issue. He promised to work on the document once more. The topic
was indirectly linked to Garabagh issue, but was not discussed widely.
Severn said that because some other reporters work on Garabagh issue,
it is unnecessary to discuss it here.”
URL:

VERY POOR MARK TO OSCE MG AND EXCELLENT MARK TO CIS IPA
Regnum, Russia
June 29 2006
REGNUM introduces interview with CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly
Secretary General Mikhail Krotov.
REGNUM: In the context of the growing controversy over the efficiency
of the CIS as a structure who should not only integrate states but
should also solve their real problems, what do you think about the
CIS efficiency, to what an extent has it solved its primary tasks
and directions?
The most important achievement of the CIS – an accomplishment
that justifies its very existence – is that it has prevented the
“Balkanization” of the USSR collapse, i.e. has become an excellent
instrument of civilized divorce.
The CIS has done one more crucial thing – it has stopped all military
actions in the post-Soviet territory. I mean the conflicts that
were not the immediate result of the USSR death but already existed
when the Union was yet alive. Today, if not yet resolved, these
conflicts are “frozen,” i.e. there are no more military actions in
the areas once ridden by war. And this is certainly one of the CIS’
key achievements. Speaking specifically, of the post-Soviet conflicts
the CIS has managed to fully resolve the internal Tajik conflict. By
the way, this is almost the only precedent in the world when a serious
conflict has been fully resolved.
Unfortunately, this peacemaking success of Russia, its partner
Iran and, certainly, Tajikistan has not been given an appropriate
assessment to date. Today, many people are receiving Nobel awards for
less important things – for planting trees in Africa, for just wishing
to stop military actions (for example in Palestine) and so on, while
here we deal with a civil war, real war, serious war stopped in the
best possible way: today the Tajik opposition peacefully cooperates
with the majority in the parliament. This is a specific example of
the CIS peacemaking efficiency. I can also give other examples of
the CIS effective peacemaking: the stoppage of military actions in
South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transdnestr and Nagorno-Karabakh. Of course,
in some cases this peacemaking has not been finalized, but this is
not the CIS’ fault. Simply, the West has pressured it into giving
its intermediary functions to other structures like the OSCE who are
still unable to cope with their peacekeeping task.
So, I think that when assessing the CIS efficiency we should not
speak abstractly but should compare its work with the activities
of other international organizations. For example, starting its
peacemaking in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 1993, on May 5 1994 the
CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (IPA) already signed the Bishkek
cease-fire agreement, while the OSCE Minsk Group has failed to do
anything tangible in the following 12 years. So, we should grade the
work of the OSCE MG as very poor and that of the CIS IPA as excellent.
However, given the present misunderstanding and even confrontation
between the CIS and other international organizations, they in the
world refuse to admit that the CIS is the key positive negotiator.
Still, the CIS has turned out to be even more efficient than the USSR
who proved unable to resolve its own conflicts till its very collapse.
Moreover, it is exactly the CIS who has allowed the post-Soviet
republics to establish much stronger economic, political and
humanitarian ties than ordinary independent states usually have.
Particularly, the CIS has formed a zone of free trade, which has
stimulated the internal CIS trade to grow quicker than the CIS’ trade
with other foreign countries. Whatever their political orientation,
the CIS countries are dynamically developing their trade with Russia.
In 2005, the trade turnover between Russia and Georgia grew by
50%, with Ukraine by 1/3, while the summary trade turnover of
the four CES countries was more $109bn. This all is due to the
Free Trade Zone Agreement. Of course, this agreement might be
more integration-oriented, more advanced, but politics is an art
of possible, and when today some people are criticizing the CIS,
this is not criticism of the CIS as such but reaction to unrealized
unreal expectations.
REGNUM: Much is being said about the need to reform the CIS. How
can these reforms affect the parliamentary component of the CIS
cooperation, particularly, the IPA?
Naturally, in the course of time the components of the CIS are
changing. Consequently, the CIS should have different forms and methods
at different stages of its development. The government forms applied
in the CIS so far were supposed to meet the primary tasks: first,
to preserve the economic, political and humanitarian community and,
second, to overcome the deep economic crisis. Naturally, in the
first decade of its existence the CIS showed slumping parameters,
which could not be taken positively or cause envy or, at least,
interest in the world. However, in the last five years the situation
has turned around: the CIS countries are finalizing their statehoods,
are completing their basic economic reforms, are showing steady
economic growth – the world’s highest growth in the last five years.
And now the CIS should be regarded as a structure that can effectively
promote cooperation and ensure a new quality of interaction in our
complex, globalized, competitive society.
Thus, today we should look for new forms and ways to govern the CIS –
ways that are adequate to progress rather than crisis. However, if we
want to carry out actual reforms we should reform not only the CIS as
an inter-state structure but also the governmental structures of each
member-state. The CIS reforms without adequate change in the attitude
of the member governments to this structure will give us nothing. For
example, which parliamentary structure is responsible for cooperation
with the CIS in Russia? Special committees in the State Duma and the
Federation Council. Do the speakers deal with this problem? Yes, they
do through their committees. The prime minister also deals with the
same problems and the president spends a great deal of time on them.
But where is that basic ministry that should be responsible for the
success or, on the contrary, the failure of our cooperation with the
CIS? We have no such ministry, at all. Thus, responsible for the CIS
in Russia is everybody and consequently nobody. However, in the first
decade of crisis, Russia had a special ministry on the CIS. The other
CIS states also had such ministries. That is, there was a system of
specialized ministries, and the CIS bodies, just like international
bodies, were based on this system. When Russia decided to abolish the
ministry, the other CIS states followed suit. And now the CIS bodies
have no basis for work. So, we should start reforming the CIS from
reforming the authorities of its constituent states.
To say that the CIS bodies are super-national is not a panacea. It
is extremely important that the national governments form structures
responsible for CIS cooperation. That is, this should be a two-sided
process. The parliamentary component should not stand still either.
It should also reform, especially now that the role of parliaments
in the CIS is growing: in Moldavia and Ukraine they are the leading
government branch, while in Armenia the prime minister cannot resign
without the parliament’s consent. However, inter-parliamentary
reforms have their peculiarity, and the great contribution of the
CIS IPA is that it has made possible multi-level and multi-speed
integration. Thus, if on the executive level the ideas of customs
union and military-political alliance required forming special
structures, on the parliamentary level, the CIS IPA alone represented
the parliamentary component of both the CSTO and the CES.
For over five years, the CIS IPA even acted as the administration
of the parliamentary assembly of the Customs Union (now the IPA
EurAsEC). By developing multi-level and multi-speed integration in
the framework of our assembly, we kind of openly show: look, how fine
it is in the CES, how good it is in the CSTO. And parliamentarians
from the non-member-states, for example, Azerbaijan, take interest in
the activities of the CSTO and the CES, who thereby promote their own
image in the framework of the CIS. This is really important. Besides,
we have drastically new development directions, for example, democracy
support over the CIS territory. We in the CIS IPA have set up a
special international institute for monitoring the development of
democracy, parliamentarianism and voters’ rights protection in the
CIS IPA member-states. This institute is supposed to summarize the
positive democracy development experience of our countries.
We have done much, and now we should sum up the results and work out
recommendations to the CIS states and, first of all, parliaments on
how to propagate this positive experience. Of course, the institute
will constantly monitor legislations, observe elections, promote the
training of highly-qualified national and international observers. I
think that this institute will raise our image in the eyes of the
international community. We are working to this end. We are planning
to open the institute’s branches in many CIS countries and to monitor
democracy on a national level. This will be an unprecedented democracy
monitoring mechanism. The CIS parliaments have already expressed
interest in this project; the institute is already existent and is
actively developing.
Hence, one of the peculiar ways to reform the CIS IPA is to structure
such independently developing special micro-assemblies.
There are precedents of such activity in the world: some of the EU
countries are members of the Euro zone, some are not, some countries
are members of the Schengen zone, others are not, but this fact has
never led to the EU collapse, has it?
At the same time, reforming the CIS in no way means just reforming
its administration. Administration is the last thing to be reformed.
Administration should be adjusted to the goals and tasks set by its
“employers,” i.e. the CIS states. If they fail to agree on the model
of the CIS should have – an optimal effective model that would please
everybody – they will never agree on the administration to serve
this model.
REGNUM: The CIS has got the “reputation” of an organization adopting
model laws that are not later applied by its member-states – is this
true? Could you say what percentage of adopted CIS laws has been
enforced (if there are such statistics, of course)?
I think that today the key problem of the CIS is that people know very
little about it. Just for a test, I have asked the most respected
Russian MPs: “what international organization ensured cease-fire in
Nagorno-Karabakh in May 1994?” Most of them could not answer this
question. What is this? Ban on information? Where is this information
vacuum from? It looks a bit strange that, being the kernel of the CIS,
Russia is doing nothing to propagate the CIS’ positive role, at least,
in its territory. Meanwhile, it was exactly the CIS IPA who put an end
to the long complicated six-year war in Nagorno-Karabakh. Our deputies
constantly crossed the front line during military actions, met with the
conflicting sides, worked through each letter of the Bishkek protocol
signed by the parliamentary speakers of the conflicting sides and
CIS IPA and Russian representatives. Perhaps, the reason is that
this time mediating were parliamentarians rather than diplomats,
as is usually the case.
Why do they ignore this achievement? I don’t know why. I would
understand if somebody in Brussels or Washington said he they are
unaware of this (by the way, those who should be aware are well
aware), but I am really surprised to see that many people in Moscow
and St. Petersburg are completely unaware of this. In Yerevan and
Baku everybody is aware, in Moscow and St. Petersburg – nobody. Why
isn’t this mentioned in history text-books? I don’t understand such
ignoring of the CIS accomplishments.
I would like the visitors of your site to know that it was exactly the
CIS IPA who ensured the signing of the Bishkek Protocol, a document
that, first, put an end to war in the region and, second, liberated
all POWs and hostages. Yes, the next stages of the conflict resolution
remained unrealized, but this is not our fault, this is our trouble
– our mediator functions were given to the OSCE Minsk Group who has
failed to attain any results in the past 12 years.
As regards model laws that stay just on paper on the national
level – this is just a gossip. Who is spreading such gossips? Why
are we still following the principle: everything good is overseas,
everything bad and useless is at home. Who said that the CIS IPA model
laws are impracticable? The EU model laws really are – they can’t be
applied in Russia or the other CIS countries simply because they do
not exist. When there is no law nobody criticizes it, but when you
systematically work to draft legal documents, there are always people
who criticize you.
Meanwhile, the civil codes of all the CIS countries, except Georgia,
are based on the model civil code of the CIS IPA. The other examples
are the laws on securities market, on electronic digital signature
and many others.
Our western partners, such as EBRD, are constantly advertising
our model laws and showing how important they are for attracting
investments and developing market relations. If something has no
analogue, why just up and say it can’t be effective?
Perhaps, many fail to understand how the CIS that is not a
super-national organization, can control integration processes and
promote some positive developments in its member-states. At the same
time, it certainly has levers of control over its member-states. The
first lever is agreements, conventions, and protocols. Once in force
they get constitutionally obligatory and, consequently, can have a
serious influence on the development of our relations in various
spheres. For example, we have an agreement on a free trade zone,
an agreement on cooperation against terrorism, an agreement on
humanitarian cooperation (adopted during the last CIS summit in Kazan).
The second lever is exactly model laws. By adopting their national
laws on the basis of general model ones, the CIS states bring their
laws into harmony. It is due exactly to our 150 model laws that the
CIS countries are now so close and together.
With every year our model law-making is becoming increasingly
essential. For example, in his last address the Russian President
emphasized the demographic problem. One solution to it is attraction
of migrants from the CIS countries. This way is even more effective
than stimulating birth and fighting high mortality. The question is
about creating necessary (legal) conditions for Russian-speaking CIS
citizens to come and work in Russia. Until recently, we were more
inclined to fight illegal migration, while now we should find some
effective balance between fighting illegal and stimulating legal
migration. We should, fist of all, stop addressing this problem
spontaneously. This is our specific task. Today, many CIS countries
have an excess of jobless labor force. This is a constant source
of social tension for them. In the previous years, this tension was
overcome spontaneously: simply, all those people migrated to Russia,
earned money here and sent it back to their countries. Now we should
regulate and legalize this process, we should create conditions for
those people, protect their rights. After all, we should give them a
chance to become Russian citizens. On the one hand, this will allow
some CIS countries to reduce their excessive populations and high
unemployment rates (something they certainly want), on the other,
this will allow Russia to improve its demography. This is a very
important problem and the CIS is simply indispensable here.
REGNUM: Today relations between some CIS countries are worsening and
turning into a kind of trade “war.” Does the CIS have normative or
other rules to regulate bilateral trade and to give a legal assessment
of the “wine” and other passions?
First of all, trade wars are a normal thing – you can see them waged
even in such international organizations as the EU and the WTO.
Second, there are rules of how to wage such wars. If a supplier
country offers low quality, ecologically unsafe production, any other
country has the right to embargo its import into its territory. What
is happening in the CIS now is mostly because local trade is growing.
When supplies were small, the CIS countries, including Russia,
did not give much attention to the quality, but now priorities have
changed. Russia is a rich country, it has many buyers, and it gets
lots of various products. Naturally, we are beginning to choose. 60%
of Georgian wine is below standard. So, who in the world would let such
a product into his territory? However, the same rule is applicable
to Russian products which find it very hard to rival with Turkish
goods in Georgia.
REGNUM: What do you think about the parliament vector of CIS
cooperation?
So far, there has been no single case of any national parliament
refusing to ratify any CIS inter-state agreement or convention. Some
president suggests a convention that will improve CIS relations and
his parliament objects to it? – We have seen no such examples in
either Ukraine, or Georgia, or Moldova. There were some examples
of governments failing to submit CIS documents for parliamentary
ratification – when they just get the document, sign it and put it
aside. However, we in the CIS IPA obligatorily consider such cases
and look which country has failed to ratify which agreement and why.
I assure you that our parliaments perfectly understand the need
and do their best to ratify and enforce such agreements. The other
example is when our parliaments express their position on acute
political problems. For example, our governments failed to work out
official assessments of such events as the bombing of Yugoslavia,
the war in Iraq, while the CIS IPA did not (by the way, Ukrainian MPs
have always been the most “anti-NATO” in the CIS). Here the CIS gets
serious foreign political support from the IPA, especially as having
legal superiority over the other CIS bodies. The IPA can represent the
CIS parliaments in relations with other international organization,
sign international agreements on their behalf (something the CIS
Executive Committee cannot, unfortunately, do).
Today we have partner agreements with all leading parliamentary
structures of the world.
REGNUM: Why are there only Russian soldiers keeping peace under the CIS
mandate in the South Ossetia (and not, say, Armenians or Kazakhs),
which gives Georgia the right to hold forth about partiality of
the mission?
When the Council of Ministers of the CIS – exactly the CIS – decided
to send peacekeepers to this conflict zone in Georgia, they planned
to enroll not only Russian but other CIS soldiers, too. I personally
witnessed how the chairman of the council, Russian Defense Minister
Pavel Grachyov, gave specific directives to his colleagues – send an
Armenian detachment, a Kyrgyz platoon, etc. Unfortunately, none of
the CIS countries, except Russia, has fulfilled its commitments to
form an international peacekeeping force. So, Russian peacekeepers
are alone in Georgia not just because Russia wants to be alone there,
but because nobody else has sent his troops there. This is Russia’s
trouble that nobody is helping it in this hard mission. In Abkhazia’s
Gali region alone we have already lost almost 100 peacekeepers. Of
course, there are examples of collective CIS forces. On January
22 1993, the Council of Heads of States decreed to form collective
Russian-Uzbek-Kazakh-Kyrgyz forces for protecting the Afghani-Tajik
border. And again it was the parliamentary component that played a
decisive role in the matter: if the Uzbek battalion was sent to the
Afghani-Tajik border right after January 22 1993, the parliaments
of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan first refused to fulfill the decision
alleging they could not send their forces to a hot spot. And only
after the CIS IPA’s interference (we organized a number of actions –
our Defense and Security Commission led by Sergey Stepashin arranged
a number of visits of MPs to the border), the Kazakh and Kyrgyz
parliaments reviewed their position.
Today it is especially important that the composition of international
peacekeeping forces be coordinated with conflicting sides, but,
in this particular case, we should only thank Russia for fulfilling
its peacekeeping commitments and regret that the other CIS countries
do not.
REGNUM: Is the CIS IPA going to more thoroughly examine the status
of the unrecognized republics – Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh –
based on the Montenegrin and Kosovan precedents?
As regards the status of these unrecognized states and the general
resolutions of these conflicts, I would like to say once again
that the conflict in Abkhazia is being resolved by the UN and the
conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh – by the OSCE. That’s why although the
CIS IPA was at the very root of these peace processes (we once had
peacemaking groups on Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh), today we can’t
discuss the status of these autonomies without interfering into the
activities of the relevant mediators and hindering the peace processes
they mediate. We will address these problems (as we successfully did
before) only if we are instructed to do it once again.
REGNUM: What did Russian President Vladimir Putin mean when he said
in Yerevan that the CIS is a mechanism of civilized divorce of the
post-Soviet republics? Is this exactly what the IPA is meant to do?
What Putin said in Yerevan does not mean that what he said before and
after is not true. Simply, in that particular situation he pointed
out just one moment of the CIS activities – its contribution to the
civilized divorce of the post-Soviet republics. The selfsame Putin
has said hundreds of times that it is important to integrate the
already divorced and really independent CIS states. Simply media gave
more attention to Putin’s words about civilized divorce than to his
other statements, including his official addresses to the Federal
Assembly. You can pick up one phrase from the general context of a
leader’s statements and make quite erroneous conclusions about his
policy. As regards Putin’s position, he believes that the CIS is an
absolute priority in Russia’s foreign policy.
REGNUM: Have you managed to make the CIS IPA a tribune for discussing
and finding ways to solve the urgent problems of the post-Soviet
republics? If yes, could you, please, give examples, if not – explain
what has caused the failure?
First of all, for many years the CIS IPA held annual St. Petersburg
economic forum. It was during these very summits that we worked and
later carried out many interesting large-scale ideas.
The CIS IPA has also organized a whole number of international
high-tech congresses, which have boosted progress in, say,
communication systems. Here we very effectively cooperate with the
Regional Communication Community. During the regular meeting of our
joint expert council, which I chair, we try to provide legal basis
to various innovations in this sphere.
The point is that many officials still fail to understand that in the
market economy and democratic society one should live not according to
orders and decrees, but according to laws. That’s why it is necessary
to give everything a normative-legal form, i.e. to carry out policies
through the parliament. By increasing the number of laws we decrease
the number of loopholes for officials, reduce corruption.
That’s why we face resistance. Those criticizing the CIS IPA and our
national parliaments are just unwilling to build a legal state and
to act by the law. By the way, in the last five years, Russia has
made big progress exactly because President Putin actively encourages
legislation. We can only commend the State Duma for its legislative
activity. It is better to have not very perfect law than not to have
law at all. Unfortunately, in many spheres we are still in legal
vacuum. Just for comparison: the US contract economy is regulated
by 10,000 federal laws. Just imagine how far we are still from the
US legal balance level – the level we should seek to attain. If we
attain it, we will have democracy: society will be interested in
using laws to develop business and other spheres of the state life.
REGNUM: Since recently, some CIS countries have begun to form
alternative unions and blocs. The best-known one is GUAM. Aren’t you
afraid that the GUAM countries will use the CIS IPA for achieving their
coordinated goals to serve the interests of GUAM – an organization
that is, in fact, alien to the CIS?
For our countries the participation in the CIS is compatible with the
participation in the OSCE, the Council of Europe, etc. The same is
true for GUAM. The question is if the CIS may split into GUAM and
EurAsEC? I am sure this will never happen. First, if GUAM decide
to withdraw from the CIS, they will thereby show their reluctance
to cooperate not only with Russia – their key trade partner – but
also with the other CIS countries. Second, the key goal GUAM has
been set up for is yet impracticable – the transport corridor from
Azerbaijan via Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova to Western Europe. I am
not saying that this idea has no right to exist – simply there must
be alternative rival corridors. The US has caused big damage to GUAM
by first lobbying and then financing the Baku-Ceyhan project. And now
the oil that was supposed to go via the Odessa-Brody pipeline is now
going via Turkey. Thus, for the time being, the idea of GUAM has just
no sufficient raw material basis.

COLUMNIST MURAT YETKIN FACES 4.5 YEARS JAIL
Erol Onderoglu
BÝA, Turkey
June 29 2006
Istanbul prosecutor demands up to 4.5 years imprisonment for “Radikal”
daily columnist Yetkin for criticizing the controversial trial of
internationally accredited Turkish author Orhan Pamuk.
BÝA (Istanbul) – Journalist, author and “Radikal” newspaper columnist
Murat Yetkin has been charged by an Istanbul prosecutor for “attempting
to influence a fair trial” by criticising a 2005 controversial court
case opened against Turkey’s internationally accredited writer Orhan
Pamuk, and may face up to 4.5 years imprisonment if found guilty of
the offence.
Yetkin’s September 18, 2005 dated commentary “Turkey will be put
on trial in the case launched against Orhan Pamuk” was subject to
an investigation where the Istanbul Bagcilar 2nd Court of First
Instance prosecutor on May 4 decided to proceed with the prosecution
of the writer.
The offending article stressed that the Pamuk case would challenge
Turkey during its accession talks with the European Union and asked
“how many people in [capital] Ankara are aware that Turkey will be
on trial in this case as much as Pamuk?”
Yetkin will appear before the court on August 24.
More trials under Article 288
Article 288 of the Turkish Penal Code where comments and opinions
with regard to ongoing court cases are regulated, governs the
controversial charges of “influencing the justice” or “insulting the
court” in Turkey.
Accordingly any verbal or written statement made with the “attempt to
influence the prosecutor, judge, court, expert of witnesses before the
final verdict is passed in an investigation or prosecution launched
with regard to an incident” can be punished with 6 months to a maximum
of 3 years imprisonment. Where the “offence is committed through the
press or by way of publication, the penalty is increased by half”.
“Milliyet” and “Radikal” newspaper journalists Hasan Cemal, Ýsmet
Berkan, Haluk Sahin and Erol Katircioglu were on trial for their
own criticism of a court order banning a conference in Istanbul on
Ottoman Armenians but the case was dismissed earlier this year due to
statue of limitations. The Bagcilar Prosecutor’s Office then appealed
the dismissal.
“Radikal” newspaper columnist Murat Belge has only recently been
acquitted on the same charge in a June 8 hearing this year.
Under article 288, the Bagcilar 2nd Court of First Instance had also
tried Van Yuzuncu Yil University Press and Public Relations coordinator
Nalan Akgun and English Language and Literature Department official
Azer Banu Kemaloglu who were charged with attempting to influence
a fair trial by wearing white ribbons on their necks to protest
the arrest of the University Dean Prof. Dr. Yucel Askin. Both were
acquitted in an April 17 hearing.
“Agos” newspaper writers Hrant Dink, Aydin Engin, Serkis Seropyan and
Arat Dink are, however, still being tried under this article and will
appear before the Sisli 2nd Court of First Instance on July 4. The
case is being closely monitored by freedom of expression activists
and organisations world-wide.
–Boundary_(ID_5KvlIorlzx7pyFPZioZeKw )–