HAAF Toronto: Opening of school for Madaghis Village by Baroness Cox

PRESS RELEASE

“Hayastan” All-Armenian Fund, Toronto
280 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 215,
Toronto, Ontario, M2N 3B1, Canada
Contact : Migirdic Migirdicyan
Tel: (416) 332 0787
Fax: (416) 332 0736
e-mail : [email protected]

All-Armenian Fund Toronto – The Opening of the school for Madaghis
Village by Baroness Caroline Cox.
October 9, 2006 Toronto, ON – On Wednesday, September 27th, Hayastan
All-Armenian Fund Toronto Chapter opened another school in Karabagh,
this one for the village of Madaghis. Officials from the
Nagorno-Karabagh Republic, a group of Toronto Armenians, Yerevan,
Stepanakert and Toronto representatives of the All-Armenian Fund, Mrs.
Nora Kasparian; the principle of the school, teachers, students,
villagers and Baroness Caroline Cox, the Deputy Speaker of the House of
Lords participated in the opening ceremonies. Baroness Cox who had flown
in specifically for this opening gave a very moving speech and
congratulated the villagers and the students alike for this great
occasion. The honour of cutting the ribbon was given to Baroness Cox who
was accompanied by two grade 1 students.

The school which has been built for 150 students, has 11 classrooms, a
computer room, the principle’s office, the teachers’ office, a medical
room, a library and a function hall.

For additional information or a sample copy, please contact:

“Hayastan” All-Armenian Fund, Toronto
280 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 215,
Toronto, Ontario, M2N 3B1, Canada
Contact : Migirdic Migirdicyan
Tel: (416) 332 0787
Fax: (416) 332 0736
e-mail : [email protected]

Hayastan Foundation Canada Inc. – “Hayastan” All-Armenian Fund is a
charitable organization, realizing humanitarian projects in Armenia and
Artsakh. During the last thirteen years, it has undertaken and
successfully completed numerous winter heating, water distribution,
gasification and school construction projects.

Le negationnisme, une infraction

Point de vue
Le n?Ã?©gationnisme, une infraction
LE MONDE | 09.10.06 | 14h41 ?¢ Mis ?Ã?  jour le 09.10.06 | 14h41
Il n’appartient pas au Parlement d’?Ã?©crire l’Histoire.” A la faveur de
cette formule a priori convaincante, certains historiens demandent
l’abrogation de la loi dite Gayssot, sanctionnant p?Ã?©nalement la
contestation de la Shoah et s’opposent au vote par l’Assembl?Ã?©e
nationale d’une proposition de loi p?Ã?©nalisant la n?Ã?©gation du
g?Ã?©nocide arm?Ã?©nien.
Le d?Ã?©bat est l?Ã?©gitime et nous interpelle. Mais la formule, aussi
s?Ã?©duisante soit-elle, trouve ses limites en ce qu’elle occulte la
grande sp?Ã?©cificit?Ã?© du ph?Ã?©nom?Ã?¨ne g?Ã?©nocidaire. Un g?Ã?©nocide n’est
pas qu’un seul fait historique. C’est ?Ã?©galement, et avant tout, un
crime politique se traduisant par l’extermination d’un peuple et son
identit?Ã?©. Sa n?Ã?©gation appelle donc ?Ã?©galement une r?Ã?©ponse
politique, et juridique. A vouloir le rel?Ã?©guer au rang d’une simple
opinion historique, on oublie que le n?Ã?©gationnisme a ?Ã?©t?Ã?© pens?Ã?©,
?Ã?©labor?Ã?&#x A9; et mis en oeuvre d?Ã?¨s l’ex?Ã?©cution du g?Ã?©nocide. Il ne
s’agit que d’une rh?Ã?©torique perverse, concomitante et associ?Ã?©e au
crime de g?Ã?©nocide, n?Ã?©e avec lui pour mieux en effacer la trace et
que nous n’h?Ã?©siterons pas ?Ã?  qualifier d’infraction jumelle.
Les historiens sont pourtant bien plac?Ã?©s pour savoir que la
composition d’arguments mensongers destin?Ã?©s ?Ã?  masquer le crime,
voire parfois ?Ã?  en justifier les pr?Ã?©mices, est un ?Ã?©l?Ã?©ment
constitutif du crime de g?Ã?©nocide. Chacun garde ?Ã?  l’esprit
l’inscription figurant au fronton du camp d’Auschwitz “Arbeit macht
frei”, destin?Ã?©e ?Ã?  faire croire que les camps de la mort n’?Ã?©taient
qu’un centre d’accueil o?Ã?¹ les d?Ã?©port?Ã?©s s’?Ã?©manciperaient par le
travail.
L’ordre officiel de “d?Ã?©portation hors des zones de guerre” des
populations arm?Ã?©niennes de l’Empire ottoman dissimulait quant ?Ã?  lui
une politique d’extermination par l’assassinat imm?Ã?©diat des
Arm?Ã?©niens valides et la marche forc?Ã?©e jusqu’?Ã?  leur mort des femmes,
enfants et vieillards dans les d?Ã?©serts de Syrie. Cette dissimulation
du crime voire sa r?Ã?©futation par anticipation participe activement ?Ã? 
son ex?Ã?©cution.
Juristes, nous voyons dans le n?Ã?©gationnisme un ?Ã?©l?Ã?©ment constitutif
de la volont?Ã?© g?Ã?©nocidaire. Il est ?Ã?  la fois l’un des ?Ã?©l?Ã?©ments
mat?Ã?&#xA 9;riels du crime, puisque participant ?Ã?  sa mise en sc?Ã?¨ne, mais
aussi une preuve suppl?Ã?©mentaire de sa pr?Ã?©m?Ã?©ditation et de
l’intention criminelle. Notre syst?Ã?¨me p?Ã?©nal ne peut ?Ã?  la fois
sanctionner les crimes contre l’humanit?Ã?©, dont le g?Ã?©nocide est
consid?Ã?©r?Ã?© comme le plus grave et faire le choix de ne pas incriminer
l’infraction qui lui est connexe et qui vise ?Ã?  le disqualifier.
Une telle connexit?Ã?© d’infractions n’est pas ?Ã?©trang?Ã?¨re ?Ã?  notre
droit positif et nous rappellerons utilement que les entraves
permettant ?Ã?  un criminel de fuir ses responsabilit?Ã?©s ou le fait de
faire obstacle ?Ã?  la manifestation de la v?Ã?©rit?Ã?© sont des d?Ã?©lits. La
gravit?Ã?© du n?Ã?©gationnisme se r?Ã?©v?Ã?¨le donc autant dans le propos
lui-m?Ã?ªme – particuli?Ã?¨rement outrageant pour les victimes et leurs
descendants – que dans sa finalit?Ã?© criminelle et son atteinte ?Ã? 
l’humanit?Ã?© qui le placent non pas dans le domaine sp?Ã?©cial du droit
de la presse mais dans celui du droit commun p?Ã?©nal, non pas dans le
domaine de l'”expression d’id?Ã?©es” ou celui de l'”?Ã?©criture”… de
l’Histoire mais dans celui d’actes mat?Ã?©riels destin?Ã?©s ?Ã?  entraver
l’action de la justice.
D?Ã?©fendre comme une valeur absolue “la libert?Ã?© pour l’Histoire” en
autorisant le n?Ã?©gationnisme nous conduirait ?Ã?  tol?Ã?©rer une
v?Ã?©ritable infraction, source d’un trouble profond ?Ã?  l’ordre public
et dont la port?Ã?©e d?Ã?©passe largement les seuls int?Ã?©r?Ã?ªts des
communaut?Ã?©s concern?Ã?©es en premier chef. Nous, avocats, souhaitons
que, ?Ã?  l’occasion de l’examen d’une proposition de loi sur la
n?Ã?©gation du g?Ã?©nocide arm?Ã?©nien, l’Assembl?Ã?©e nationale prolonge le
d?Ã?©bat et son analyse juridique sur le n?Ã?©gationnisme en le
reconnaissant pour ce qu’il est r?Ã?©ellement : une infraction connexe
au g?Ã?©nocide, une entrave ?Ã?  la justice.
Car, s’il n’appartient pas au Parlement d’?Ã?©crire l’Histoire, il lui
revient de qualifier juridiquement une infraction qui prend racine
dans l’acte g?Ã?©nocidaire pour mieux en assurer l’efficacit?Ã?©
politique. Il s’agit d’une question de courage et d’un besoin de
justice.
____________________________________
Didier Bru?Ã?¨re Dawson, Christian Charri?Ã?¨re-Bournazel, Alexandre
Couyoumdjian, Lef Forster, Alain Jakubowicz, Bernard Jouanneau,
Charles Korman, Jean-Louis Lagarde, Pierre Mairat, Mario Stasi,
G?Ã?©rard Tcholakian.Tous les signataires sont avocats.
,1-0@ 2-3232,36-821493,0.html

Towards a Comprehensive Settlement of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Financial Times
October 4, 2006
Towards a Comprehensive Settlement of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
With the Middle East immersed in its worst crisis for years, we call for
urgent international action towards a comprehensive settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
Everyone has lost in this conflict except the extremists throughout the
world who prosper on the rage that it continues to provoke. Every passing
day undermines prospects for a peaceful, enduring solution. As long as the
conflict lasts, it will generate instability and violence in the region and
beyond.
The outlines of what is needed are well known, based on UN Security Council
resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973, the Camp David peace accords of
1978, the Clinton Parameters of 2000, the Arab League Initiative of 2002,
and the Roadmap proposed in 2003 by the Quartet (UN, US, EU and Russia). The
goal must be security and full recognition to the state of Israel within
internationally recognized borders, an end to the occupation for the
Palestinian people in a viable independent, sovereign state, and the return
of lost land to Syria.
We believe the time has come for a new international conference, ideally
held as soon as possible and attended by all relevant players, at which all
the elements of a comprehensive peace agreement would be mapped, and
momentum generated for detailed negotiations.
Whether or not such an early conference can be convened, there are crucial
steps that can and should be taken by the key players, including:
–Support for a Palestinian national unity government, with an end to the
political and financial boycott of the Palestinian Authority.
–Talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, mediated by the
Quartet and reinforced by the participation of the Arab League and key
regional countries, on rapidly enhancing mutual security and allowing
revival of the Palestinian economy.
–Talks between the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli government,
sponsored by a reinforced Quartet, on the core political issues that stand
in the way of achieving a final status agreement.
–Parallel talks of the reinforced Quartet with Israel, Syria and Lebanon,
to discuss the foundations on which Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese
agreements can be reached.
Nobody underestimates the intractability of the underlying issues or the
intensity of feelings they provoke. But if the Arab-Israeli conflict, with
all its terrible consequences, is ever to be resolved, there is a desperate
need for fresh thinking and the injection of new political will. The times
demand no less.
Morton Abramowitz
Former US Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand
Adnan Abu-Odeh
Former Political Adviser to King Abdullah II and King Hussein, Jordan
Esko Aho
Former Prime Minister, Finland
Ali Alatas
Former Foreign Minister, Indonesia
Abdul-Kareem Al-Eryani
Former Prime Minister, Yemen
Raúl Alfonsín
Former President, Argentina
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
Former UN High Representative for Bosnia & Herzegovina
Lloyd Axworthy
Former Foreign Minister, Canada
Peter Barry
Former Foreign Minister, Ireland
Shlomo Ben-Ami
Former Foreign Minister, Israel
Alexander Bessmertnykh
Former Foreign Minister, Soviet Union
Carl Bildt
Former Prime Minister, Sweden
Valdis Birkavs
Former Prime Minister, Latvia
James Bolger
Former Prime Minister, New Zealand
Kjell Magne Bondevik
Former Prime Minister, Norway
Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Former Secretary-General, UN
Lakhdar Brahimi
Former Foreign Minister, Algeria, and UN Special Representative
Gro Harlem Brundtland
Former Prime Minister, Norway
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Former National Security Advisor to the President, United States
Kim Campbell
Former Prime Minister, Canada; Secretary General, Club of Madrid
Ingvar Carlsson
Former Prime Minister, Sweden
Frank Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense, United States
Jimmy Carter
39th President, United States; Nobel Peace Prize 2002
Maria Livanos Cattaui
Former Secretary-General, International Chamber of Commerce
Naresh Chandra
Former Indian Cabinet Secretary and Ambassador to US
Claude Cheysson
Former Foreign Minister, France
Jean Chrétien
Former Prime Minister, Canada
Wesley Clark
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Gerard Collins
Former Foreign Minister, Ireland
Pat Cox
Former President, European Parliament
Jacques Delors
Former President, European Commission
Gianni De Michelis
Former Foreign Minister, Italy
Ruth Dreifuss
Former President, Switzerland
Roland Dumas
Former Foreign Minister, France
Shirin Ebadi
Nobel Peace Prize 2003; Iran
Uffe Ellemann-Jensen
Former Foreign Minister, Denmark
Gareth Evans
President, International Crisis Group; Former Foreign Minister, Australia
Mark Eyskens
Former Prime Minister, Belgium
José María Figueres
Former President, Costa Rica
Vigdís Finnbogadóttir
Former President, Iceland
Joschka Fischer
Former Foreign Minister, Germany
Malcolm Fraser
Former Prime Minister, Australia
Anil K Gayan
Former Foreign Minister, Mauritius
Leslie H Gelb
President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations, United States
Bronislaw Geremek
Former Foreign Minister, Poland
Kiro Gligorov
Former President, Macedonia
Richard Goldstone
Former Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Felipe González Márquez
Former Prime Minister, Spain
Mikhail S Gorbachev
Former President, Soviet Union; Nobel Peace Prize 1990
I K Gujral
Former Prime Minister, India
Tenzin Gyatso
14th Dalai Lama; Nobel Peace Prize 1989
Vahit M Halefoglu
Former Foreign Minister, Turkey
Lee Hamilton
Former Congressman, United States; Director, Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars
Bob Hawke
Former Prime Minister, Australia
Bill Hayden
Former Governor-General and Foreign Minister, Australia
Carla Hills
Former Trade Representative, United States
Lena Hjelm-Wallén
Former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Sweden
Raffi K Hovannisian
Former Foreign Minister, Armenia
Lord Howe of Aberavon
Former Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, UK
John Hume
Former First Minister of Northern Ireland; Nobel Peace Prize 1998
Lord Hurd of Westwell
Former Foreign Secretary, UK
George Iacovou
Former Foreign Minister, Cyprus
Anwar Ibrahim
Former Deputy Prime Minister, Malaysia
James Ingram
Former Executive Director, UN World Food Programme
Asma Jahangir
Chair, Pakistan Human Rights Commission; UN Special Rapporteur
Max Jakobson
Former Ambassador of Finland to the UN
Lionel Jospin
Former Prime Minister, France
Marwan S Kasim
Former Foreign Minister, Jordan
Kim Dae-jung
Former President, Republic of Korea; Nobel Peace Prize 2000
F W de Klerk
Former President, South Africa; Nobel Peace Prize 1993
Wim Kok
Former Prime Minister, Netherlands
Bernard Kouchner
Founder, Médecins Sans Frontières; Former Minister, France, and UN Special
Representative
Milan Kucan
Former President, Slovenia
Aleksander Kwasniewski
Former President, Poland
Ricardo Lagos
Former President, Chile
Zlatko Lagumdzija
Former Prime Minister, Bosnia & Herzegovina
Anthony Lake
Former National Security Advisor to the President, United States
Lee Hong-Koo
Former Prime Minister, Republic of Korea
Ahmed Maher
Former Foreign Minister, Egypt
Abdul Salam Majali
Former Prime Minister, Jordan
John Major
Former Prime Minister, UK
Barbara McDougall
Former External Affairs Secretary, Canada
Matthew F McHugh
Former US Congressman and World Bank Counselor
Robert McNamara
Former Secretary of Defense, United States
Rexhep Meidani
Former President, Albania
Najib Mikati
Former Prime Minister, Lebanon
Mike Moore
Former Prime Minister, New Zealand; Former Director-General, WTO
Marwan Muasher
Former Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Jordan
Klaus Naumann
Former Chairman, North Atlantic Military Committee of NATO, Germany
Boyko Noev
Former Minister of Defence, Bulgaria
Ayo Obe
Chair, World Movement for Democracy, Nigeria
Sadako Ogata
Former UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Lord Owen of the City of Plymouth
Former Foreign Secretary, UK
Anand Panyarachun
Former Prime Minister, Thailand
Andrés Pastrana
Former President, Colombia
Lord Patten of Barnes
Co-Chair, International Crisis Group; Former European Commissioner for
External Relations
Thomas Pickering
Co-Chair, International Crisis Group; Former US Ambassador to the UN,
Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador and Nigeria
Josep Piqué
Former Foreign Minister, Spain
Surin Pitsuwan
Former Foreign Minister, Thailand
Yevgeny Primakov
Former Prime Minister, Russia
Jorge Quiroga
Former President, Bolivia
Augusto Ramírez Ocampo
Former Foreign Minister, Colombia
Fidel V Ramos
Former President, Philippines
Poul Nyrup Rasmussen
Former Prime Minister, Denmark
Abdur-ra’uf Rawabdeh
Former Prime Minister, Jordan
Malcolm Rifkind
Former Foreign Secretary, UK
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Former Defence Secretary, UK, and NATO Secretary-General
Mary Robinson
Former President, Ireland, and High Commissioner for Human Rights
Michel Rocard
Former Prime Minister, France
Petre Roman
Former Prime Minister, Romania
Adam Daniel Rotfeld
Former Foreign Minister, Poland
Nafis Sadik
Former Executive Director, UN Population Fund
Mohamed Sahnoun
Former Algerian Ambassador; UN Special Adviser
Ghassan Salamé
Former Culture Minister, Lebanon
Salim Ahmed Salim
Former Secretary General, OAU, and Prime Minister, Tanzania
Jorge Sampaio
Former President, Portugal
Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada
Former President, Bolivia
Mario Soares
Former President, Portugal
Stephen Solarz
Former Chair, Africa & Asia Subcommittees, US Congress
Cornelio Sommaruga
Former President, International Committee of the Red Cross
George Soros
Chairman, Open Society Institute
Pär Stenbäck
Former Foreign Minister, Finland
Thorvald Stoltenberg
Former Foreign Minister, Norway
HRH El Hassan bin Talal
Founder, Arab Thought Forum, Jordan
Leo Tindemans
Former Prime Minister, Belgium
Alex S Trigona
Former Foreign Minister, Malta
Desmond Tutu
Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town; Nobel Peace Prize 1984
Cassam Uteem
Former President, Mauritius
Hans van den Broek
Former Foreign Minister, Netherlands, and European Commissioner for External
Relations
Ed van Thijn
Former Minister and Mayor of Amsterdam, Netherlands
George Vassiliou
Former President, Cyprus
Hubert Védrine
Former Foreign Minister, France
Richard von Weizsäcker
Former President, Germany
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Former Cabinet Minister, UK
Ernesto Zedillo
Former President, Mexico
Organized by Crisis Group with assistance from the Club of Madrid and placed
with support from the Radcliffe Foundation, Iara Lee & George Gund
Foundation and Hamza Al Kholi.
media release
Global Leaders Call for Action on Arab-Israeli Settlement
***EMBARGOED UNTIL 0300h CET (0100 GMT), WEDNESDAY, 4 OCTOBER***
Brussels/Washington/New York/London/Amman, 4 October 2006: 135 respected
global leaders — former presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defence
ministers, congressional leaders and heads of international
organisations – — have today joined in a call for urgent international
action to comprehensively resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Their statement (full text and signatories below) says there is a “desperate
need for fresh thinking and the injection of new political will” if the
conflict, “with all its terrible consequences”, is ever to be settled. They
say that ideally there would be a new all-in international conference to
kick-start detailed negotiations, but that whether or not this can happen
soon, there should be:
International support for a Palestinian national unity government, with an
end to the political and financial boycott of the Palestinian Authority;
Talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, on both the immediate
issues of mutual security and revival of the Palestinian economy, and on the
core final-status political issues;
These talks to be mediated or sponsored by the Quartet (UN, US, EU and
Russia) — reinforced by participation of the Arab League and key regional
countries — who would also initiate talks on the outstanding issues
between Israel, Syria and Lebanon.
“There is a real hunger out there for present-day political leaders to take
hold of this catastrophically divisive issue and resolve it once and for
all,” said Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, which
organised the statement.
“It is remarkable how much immediate support there was for this statement
from so many highly experienced, top-level former public sector leaders from
around the world and across the political spectrum. Like the great majority
of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, they just want to get things moving
now, cut through the obstacles, and put in place the elements of a
sustainable peace.”
This statement is part of Crisis Group’s new global advocacy initiative,
announced on 22 September, designed to generate fresh political momentum
behind a comprehensive settlement following the chaos of the last few
months. Other elements involve brainstorming sessions on strategy with UN,
Quartet and regional experts, led by Middle East Program Director Rob
Malley; a particular effort to stimulate a bipartisan rethink of US policy;
task force visits to key capitals; and a continuing stream of Crisis Group
reports and briefings containing detailed analysis and policy
recommendations.
A detailed new Crisis Group report, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: To Reach a
Lasting Peace, is scheduled for publication on Thursday, 5 October 2006.
Contacts: Andrew Stroehlein (Brussels) +32 (0) 2 541 1635
[email protected]
Kimberly Abbott (Washington) +1 202 785 160
For a display copy of the statement and signatories in PDF format, click
here

www.crisisgroup.org

RFE/RL Iran Report – 10/09/2006

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
_________________________________________ ____________________
RFE/RL Iran Report
Vol. 9, No. 37, 9 October 2006
A Review of Developments in Iran Prepared by the Regional Specialists
of RFE/RL’s Newsline Team
******************************************** ****************
HEADLINES:
* U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN STRENGTHENED
* WASHINGTON, EU RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE WITH IRAN
* FORMER PRESIDENT KHATAMI ADVOCATES NUCLEAR TALKS
* PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES BEGIN REGISTERING FOR DECEMBER ELECTIONS
* FREEDOM HOUSE CALLS IRAN ‘NOT FREE’
* DETAINED CHRISTIAN COUPLE’S FAMILY SEEKS ANSWERS
* MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS
* WARNING SIGNS
* OFFICIAL HARASSMENT?
* ‘THEY CANNOT FULLY LIVE THEIR LIVES’
* GOVERNMENT PRESSURES STUDENT ACTIVISTS
* BAD STARS
* PLEDGING NOT TO PROTEST
* A NEW ‘CULTURAL REVOLUTION’?
* LEGISLATURE APPROVES FUNDS FOR GASOLINE IMPORTS
* ISFAHAN: CSI HELPS REDUCE CRIME RATE
* IRANIAN WEIGHTLIFTERS SUSPENDED OVER FAILURE TO PAY DOPING FINE
* IRAN APPOINTS NEW VETERINARY HEAD
********************************************* ***************
U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN STRENGTHENED. U.S. President George W.
Bush signed into law the Iran Freedom Support Act on October 1 to
discourage major investments in the Iranian energy sector, the
“International Herald Tribune” reported. The law was passed by the
Senate on September 30 and the House of Representatives earlier in
the week, and is based on the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. The act
authorizes the imposition of sanctions on firms or individuals
responsible for proliferating weapons of mass destruction. “My
administration is working on many fronts to address the challenges
posed by the Iranian regime’s pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, support for terrorism, efforts to destabilize the Middle
East, and repression of the fundamental human rights of the citizens
of Iran,” Bush said.
The Iranian legislature’s National Security and Foreign
Policy Committee denounced the Iran Freedom Support Act on October 1,
the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported. The committee’s
statement said the new U.S. law is in violation of the UN Charter and
the so-called Algiers Accord of 1975. The statement did not explain
what the recent U.S. legislation has to do with a 1975 agreement
between Iran and Iraq that was meant to resolve border disputes,
demarcate river boundaries, and arrange for noninterference in
domestic affairs.
Kazem Jalali, rapporteur for the National Security and
Foreign Policy Committee, said on October 1 that Iranian Foreign
Ministry officials will discuss the new U.S. law with that committee
on October 3, IRNA reported. Jalali described the Iran Freedom
Support Act as a sign of U.S. hostility, and he added that Iran’s
legislature will make it a priority to approve a law for
fingerprinting Americans who seek to visit Iran. (Bill Samii)
WASHINGTON, EU RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE WITH IRAN. Recent statements
by U.S. and European officials have revealed a heightened sense of
frustration with Iranian on the nuclear issue. They want Iran to stop
all nuclear activities so multilateral talks can begin, while the
Iranians want talks to begin before they cede anything. But
international frustration with Iran could be misplaced, since Tehran
has made it clear that it has no plans to halt uranium enrichment.
The latest statements from Iranian President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad on October 9 signal continued intransigence. Ahmadinejad
vowed to counter with Iranian sanctions — against the international
community — if the UN Security Council tries to punish Tehran for
its nuclear activities, according to AFP, which cited state media.
Iranian officials have made little secret of their desire to
use the drawn-out negotiating process in order to buy time to
complete nuclear projects. Iranian officials have admitted that they
used earlier negotiations to wrest concessions from the Europeans.
Foreign ministers from the P+1 grouping — China, France,
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany —
met in London on October 6 to discuss the Iranian nuclear stalemate.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett emerged citing “deep
disappointment” that “Iran is not prepared to suspend [the]
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities” as called for by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UN Resolution 1696, AFP
reported. She said a debate over possible sanctions is next,
prompting Ahmadinejad’s defiant counterthreat on October 9.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned during a
visit to the West Bank on October 4 that “months of negotiations” had
failed to convince Iran to suspend its enrichment activities. She
said the international community’s “patience” was running out,
Radio Farda reported.
Rice said such patience could be traced to the Paris
agreement of November 2004, and she urged Iran to act. Repeating a
point that President George W. Bush has made on several occasions,
Rice warned that the time has come “when the Iranians have to make
their choice and the international system has to act accordingly.”
The same day as Rice’s comments, EU High Representative
for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana sounded a note
of frustration. Solana has held numerous meetings with Iranian
officials since June, but he conceded that his “dialogue [with
Iran]…cannot last forever.” He said it was “up to the Iranians now
to decide whether the time has come to an end.” If so, Solana warned
in a reference to the sanctions debate, the international community
would “have to begin to follow the second track by the five
[permanent] members of the [UN] Security Council,” Radio Farda
reported.
Back in Iran, President Ahmadinejad has been standing his
ground. He told an audience at Tehran University on October 1 that —
beyond resisting pressure to forego uranium enrichment — the country
intends to expand its enrichment capacity, Fars News Agency reported
on October 2.
The president also said Iran hopes to install up to 100,000
centrifuges to enrich nuclear material. The president of the
Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in
Washington, David Albright, had predicted to Radio Farda in February
that it would take 10-20 years to install even half that many
centrifuges. Albright said Iranian scientists “don’t even know
how to put 100 [centrifuges] together and operate them successfully,
let alone build that number.”
Ahmadinejad suggested to a domestic audience on October 4 in
Savojbolagh in Tehran Province, according to state television, that
unnamed representatives of the great powers had told him that Iran
could become a “role model for other nations” through major
scientific advances. Ahmadinejad contended that those same
representatives “explicitly said that if the Iranian nation acquires
developed technologies and sciences, it [would] become the greatest
world power very quickly.”
Ahmadinejad also dismissed Western claims of opposition to
nuclear weapons, citing the existence of weapons stockpiles in other
countries and their testing of such weapons. He called the global
powers’ claims of backing nonproliferation lies and accused them
of opposing Iran’s progress. He said that if those countries were
serious about nonproliferation, they “would not have armed” what he
described as “fake and rootless regimes in [the] region with
[nuclear] weapons.”
Tehran has consistently sought to create divisions among
Security Council members.
Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali
Larijani and EU foreign policy chief Solana held two days of talks in
Berlin on September 27-28. Larijani met separately with Russian
Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov in Tehran on October 3, again
to discuss the nuclear issue.
Moscow is concerned about the Iranian nuclear issue not
merely because it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council
and thus a major participant in the sanctions debate. Russian
engineers are building a nuclear power plant at Bushehr in
southwestern Iran. Iran’s vice president for atomic energy, Qolam
Reza Aqazadeh-Khoi, was in Moscow in early October to warn that if
the Russians do not finish the project on time — the scheduled
commissioning date is September 2007 — the Iranians can complete the
job. Russia already intends to supply Bushehr with fuel, and it has
offered a joint uranium-enrichment venture with Iran on Russian
territory. Tehran has already dismissed that Russian overture.
Iranian officials have countered with an offer that could
well have been aimed at throwing the international community
off-balance. Mohammad Saidi, deputy director of Iran’s Atomic
Energy Organization, said on October 3 that his country has proposed
French participation in its uranium-enrichment program, France Info
radio reported. Saidi said the participation of France’s Areva
nuclear company — through subsidiary Eurodif — would enable French
monitoring of Iranian enrichment activities. Eurodif enriches uranium
for use in roughly 100 reactors in France and abroad.
Paris appeared to reject the unexpected Iranian proposal. A
French Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, said such
dialogue would have to go through the European Union, AFP reported on
October 3. But he also stressed that it was up to Tehran to suspend
its enrichment activities. “It is on this point,” Mattei said, that
the international community “awaits an Iranian response.” Mattei
opened to the door to possible “negotiations where each party will be
free to bring to the table the proposals they want” if Tehran halted
enrichment.
Russia’s Atomic Energy Agency head, Sergei Kiriyenko,
said on October 4 that Moscow’s offer to host a joint
uranium-enrichment project remained on the table if Iran abandoned
domestic uranium enrichment, RIA-Novosti reported. He stressed that
the Russian proposal should be seen in the context of international
efforts to defuse tension over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But he cautioned Tehran against thinking it could pick and
choose among aspects of international cooperation on the nuclear
issue, however. Kiriyenko said the joint enrichment scheme “does not
work individually — it works only as a package…and should not be
snapped out of the package like raisins teased out of a muffin.”
(Bill Samii)
FORMER PRESIDENT KHATAMI ADVOCATES NUCLEAR TALKS. Hojatoleslam
Mohammad Khatami, who served as president from 1997-2005, said in an
October 2 speech that the country’s officials should employ tact
when discussing the nuclear issue, IRNA reported. He added, “We
should negotiate Iran’s nuclear issue, and if certain parties say
they [the foreigners] cannot be trusted, this will become evident
during the negotiation.” Khatami and several other senior officials,
such as former Supreme National Security Council Secretary
Hojatoleslam Hassan Rohani, have decried the Ahmadinejad
administration’s foreign policy as excessively confrontational
and ultimately unproductive. (Bill Samii)
PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES BEGIN REGISTERING FOR DECEMBER ELECTIONS.
Prospective candidates for the Assembly of Experts election, which is
scheduled for December 15, began registering on October 5.
Registration will continue until October 11.
Just one person signed up in Khuzestan Province, Ahvaz
Governor Abdul Aziz Fadami said, before adding that this is normal
because most people wait until the last day, provincial television
reported. Nationally, 25 people had registered by the end of the
first day, state television reported.
In a related development, Interior Minister Hojatoleslam
Mustafa Purmohammadi appointed the new deputy interior minister for
political affairs, Mujtaba Samareh-Hashemi, as head of the Election
Headquarters, and deputy interior minister for legal and
parliamentary affairs Mohammad Hussein Musapur as head of the
Elections Supervision Headquarters. (Bill Samii)
FREEDOM HOUSE CALLS IRAN ‘NOT FREE.’ Freedom House assigned
Iran “not free” status — with scores of 6 (7 is worst) in the
“Political Rights” and “Civil Liberties” categories — in its annual
assessment of political rights and civil liberties in 192 countries
on September 29, called “Freedom in the World 2006.” In the
subcategories for political rights, Iran rated 3 in the categories of
“Electoral Process,” “Political Pluralism and Participation,” and
“Functioning of Government.” In the civil-liberties subcategories,
Iran rated 5 for “Freedom of Expression and Belief,” 4 for “Personal
Autonomy and Individual Rights,” 3 for “Associational and
Organizational Rights,” and 3 for “Rule of Law”; Freedom House said
these ratings represent a person’s ability to participate in the
political process unhindered, to vote in legitimate elections, and to
have accountable political representatives. The ratings also are
based on an individual’s right to express him/herself freely,
assemble or associate with others freely, participate in an equitable
legal system, and enjoy equal access to economic opportunities.
An October 5 press release from the European Union’s
Finnish presidency has expressed “grave concern” about press freedom
in Iran, noting specifically the closure of “Sharq” and other
publications in September
( /cfsp_statements/vko40/en_GB/
1160042302794/?u4.hi ghlight=Iran). The statement also decried
“continued harassment of journalists.”
In Iran, international criticism has had no effect on the
government. Interior Minister Hojatoleslam Mustafa Pur-Mohammadi
announced on October 3 that his ministry intends to give greater
attention to countering counterrevolutionary media propaganda, Mehr
News Agency reported. Satellite receivers have been illegal since the
1990s, and the regime recently renewed its effort to confiscate the
equipment and block Iranians’ access to outside media.
Brigadier Nabiullah Heidari, chief of police in Iran’s
Markazi (Central) Province, announced on October 1 that helicopters
will be used in the campaign to spot and seize satellite-reception
equipment in the city of Arak, the Iranian labor News Agency (ILNA)
reported. Heidari said that in the year beginning March 21, police
have seized more than 2,000 satellite dishes in the province; this is
almost three times as many as in the previous year. Heidari said
satellite television leads to “decadence,” including divorce and
extramarital relations.
The anti-satellite campaign is not working everywhere.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s representative in
Kurdistan Province, identified only as Hojatoleslam Musavi, noted
recently that an increasing number of satellite-television programs
are being broadcast into the province from abroad, alborznews.net
reported on October 3. Musavi reportedly attributed the development
to an absence from the airwaves of Iranian state-television programs.
Many provincial residents have installed satellite dishes to receive
Iranian television shows, and, according to alborznews.net, 550
provincial villages cannot receive state television.
Meanwhile, Iranian state television’s plans to broadcast
an all-day English-language news program are progressing, with state
broadcasting’s deputy head for external services, Mohammad
Sarfaraz, saying on October 4 that the service will be launched
within months, the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported.
Sarfaraz said the 24-hour news channel — called Press — will use
presenters trained by the BBC and whose skills “surpass” those of BBC
or CNN presenters. He said the reason for creating the channel is to
present a different perspective on regional news.
In some cases, government bans on news outlets have only had
a temporary effect. “Sharq,” the newspaper banned by the Iranian
government in mid-September, will be replaced by a new daily called
“Ruzegar,” The new publication allegedly will have a different
editorial and journalistic perspective, according to the website, and
it will focus more closely on popular politics than on elite
politics. Although “Ruzegar” will pursue a different approach, the
editorial staff is largely the same as “Sharq,” including Editor in
Chief Mohammad Quchani. The first issue is scheduled for October 7.
The Advar News website — which is connected with the Office
for Strengthening Unity student group and was shut down in late
September — resumed operations under a new name on October 4. The
new website is advarnews.us. (Bill Samii)
DETAINED CHRISTIAN COUPLE’S FAMILY SEEKS ANSWERS. The detention
of an Iranian Christian couple in eastern Iran from September
26-October 6 caused a great deal of concern among relatives.
Relatives say they were unable to meet with them, and
authorities refused to specify the charges against them. Fereshteh
Dibaj and her husband Reza Montazami — known as Amir to family and
friends — led an independent church in the city of Mashhad.
Plainclothes security agents arrested 28-year-old Dibaj and
35-year-old Montazami early on September 26 after searching their
home and confiscating the couple’s computer, Christian books, and
other belongings.
One of the agents told Montazami’s mother that her son
was being taken to a local police station. But when relatives went to
the police station, a policeman on duty said he was unaware of the
detentions.
After hours of search and inquiry, the family learned that
the Ministry of Intelligence and Security was holding the couple for
questioning.
More Questions Than Answers
Authorities refused to comment on the reason for the detentions or
the charges against the couple.
Fereshteh’s brother, Issa Dibaj, lives in the United
Kingdom.
“In Iran they first arrest people, then they look for
charges,” Issa Dibaj told RFE/RL shortly after the couple’s
disappearance. “So far [authorities] have not announced charges
against them — they said, ‘We are investigating and questioning
them.’ They let Amir make a short call to his family to say he is
well. But Fereshteh has not been allowed to telephone, and, since her
detention a week ago, we have had no news from her and we are very
concerned. They haven’t even let her talk to Christine, her
6-year-old daughter.”
Montazami converted to Christianity in his early 20s.
His wife, Fereshteh, was born into a Christian family. Her
father Mehdi Dibaj was a well-known priest of the Jamiat-i Rabbani
Church, the Iranian branch of the Assemblies of God. He spent more
than nine years in prison and was sentenced to death in 1993 for his
faith. He was freed in January 1994 in the face of an international
outcry. But a few months later, he was abducted and later found
murdered — one of at least three priest killings that activists
blame on Iranian authorities.
Warning Signs
Issa Dibaj said the couple had received a warning in
connection with their religious activities.
“[Authorities] had told them that they should not have prayer
meetings in their house. But how is that possible?” he asked. “Just
as Muslims are free anywhere in the world to go and pray in a mosque,
Christians should have the same right — this is a [fundamental]
right. Maybe one reason [for their arrest] is that they continued
having these sessions as before.”
For some, the case highlights the plight of Christian
converts living in Iran.
Islamic law — as applied in Iran — says a Muslim who
converts to another faith can face the death penalty. In recent
years, there have been no reported cases of execution of converts.
But there are signs that pressure on Christians has
increased.
Official Harassment?
Several Christian converts have been arrested in
Iran in recent months before being freed on bail. There have also
been allegations by religious and rights groups of harassment and
intimidation targeting Christians.
In its annual report on religious freedoms in September, the
U.S. State Department accused the Iranian government of enforcing its
prohibition on proselytizing by evangelical Christians by closely
monitoring their activities, closing their churches, and arresting
converts.
The report said that in November 2005, unidentified attackers
killed a man, Ghorban Tori, who had converted to Christianity more
than 10 years earlier. Tori, a pastor at an independent house church
of converted Christians, had reportedly been receiving death threats.
Issa Dibaj said he thinks the recent pressure and persecution
of Christians is unprecedented since a string of killings of priests
in the mid-1990s.
“In the last two years, maybe with the coming to power of a
new president [Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 2005], pressures have increased
in an unprecedented way,” he said. “We had not seen anything like
that since the chain killings that happened in 1994 and afterward —
Christians have lived relatively in peace. But in recent years,
pressure has increased. There are arrests, threats, and sometimes
they fire [Christians] from their jobs.”
‘They Cannot Fully Live Their Lives’
Prague Roman Catholic Bishop Vaclav Maly told RFE/RL after a
September trip to Iran that many of Iran’s Christians are leaving
the Islamic republic because of restrictions — and because “they
cannot fully live their lives as Christians.”
“There is a danger that Christians could completely disappear
from Iran, which would be a great spiritual and cultural pity —
because Christians were on Iranian territory before Islam was, and
there are very old churches there whose histories go back to the
first century of Christianity,” Maly said.
Religious and rights groups say the persecution of Iran’s
Christians stepped up following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The number of Armenians, Iran’s largest Christian
minority, has significantly declined.
There are no reliable figures on the number of Muslim-born
Iranians who convert to Christianity, and many practice their faith
clandestinely for fear of state persecution. Christian groups claim
the ranks of converts to Christianity is increasing nevertheless.
The perceived trend of official harassment is likely to add
to the mounting concerns as family and friends worry over the fate of
Fereshteh Dibaj and her husband. (Golnaz Esfandiari)
GOVERNMENT PRESSURES STUDENT ACTIVISTS. Student activists in Iran say
authorities have prevented dozens of students from studying by
refusing to enroll them for the new academic year. The students have
reportedly been involved in on-campus political and press-related
activities. Iranian Education Minister Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi says
claims that students are being kept out of school due to their
political activism are “lies” and that the government is tolerant of
such students.
There was a time when teachers in Iran’s schools used to
give students golden paper stars to encourage them. Nowadays it seems
that stars are being given for punishment: the term “students with
stars” is used to describe students who have been expelled or
suspended from a university.
In recent months dozens of liberal university professors have
been forced into early retirement. Many student activists have been
summoned to court and several have been arrested.
Bad Stars
The term became prevalent after several students said
university officials had refused to register them for the new
academic year and told them that they have “two or three stars.”
Student groups and activists say more than 100 students have
been affected.
Ali Nekunesbati is a spokesman for Iran’s main reformist
student group, Daftar Tahkim Vahdat (the Office for Strengthening
Unity). He says many student activists and members of his group have
been marked with stars.
“Beside the names that were announced to the universities for
enrollment, there was another list in which individuals are marked
with either one star, two stars, or three stars,” he said. “Who
grants these ‘stars’? As the head of the admission committee
has said the Intelligence Ministry -is involved. We reiterate again
that these ‘stars’ exist.”
Journalists Expelled
Earlier this week a student told the daily newspaper “Etemad”
that because of his past activities as the editor in chief of a
banned student publication he has been marked with two stars. He said
university authorities had told him that his enrollment will be
possible only with a letter from government officials.
Ali Azizi, the deputy head of the Islamic student association
at Amir Kabir University, says university students who — according
to officials — have “the potential to engage in future protests for
their rights” have been barred from classes.
“They include 73 students who had been involved in activities
such as press or political activities or even cultural activities and
other student-related activities,” he said.
Peyman Aref is a well-known student activist who has been
expelled from the law faculty at Tehran University. He told Radio
Farda that many of his colleagues have received notice that they have
been suspended.
“There are other individuals who have not been registered for
undergraduate studies in the past 10 days,” Aref said. “In addition,
more than 100 postgraduate students have been summoned to the
disciplinary committee in relation to student protests in May and
June. Harsh sentences have been issued to them.”
Iranian Education Minister Mehdi Zahedi has, however, denied
that students are being prevented from studying because of their
activism. He said those who make such claims should publish a list of
names of such students.
Pledging Not To Protes
But activists are concerned that issuing such a list could aggravate
the situation and worsen the prospects for those banned students.
Authorities have reportedly told students with stars that
they should refrain from political activities in order to be able to
continue with their studies.
Morteza Nurbakhsh, the head of the Education Ministry’s
admission committee, denied reports on September 19 that students
have to sign pledges not to engage in political activities. However,
he added that some students are being asked “not to act outside
norms, university laws, and conduct befitting a student.” He said
some 50 to 60 students have committed themselves to this.
Several legislators have criticized the restrictions and said
its is against Iran’s Constitution to prevent students from
studying because of their opinions.
Many say the move is a violation of a student’s rights.
A New ‘Cultural Revolution’?
Nekunesbati said he believes the government’s move against student
activists is part of an increasing crackdown against critics.
“The government made some promises but it has not been able
to fulfill them in the least. Instead of overcoming its weaknesses it
has begun a crackdown on critics; and because students, professors,
and the student movement are among the most critical groups, it is
acting against them,” he said. “The existence of students with stars
is the latest sign [of the pressure on students].”
The outspoken student group Daftar Tahkim Vahdat said in a
statement that the new crackdown coincided with remarks by Iranian
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who said on September 6 that
universities should be rid of liberal and secular influences from
professors. The group said that the comments mark the beginning of a
new “cultural revolution” with the aim of eliminating critics in
universities.
In recent months dozens of liberal university professors have
been forced into early retirement. Many student activists have been
summoned to court and several have been arrested.
There is growing concern over their health and general safety
in prison.
The concerns have increased following comments by former
legislator and student rights activist Ali Akbar Musavi Khoeini, who
said last week during a short prison leave that he’s being
tortured to “repent.” People who have seen him say there are bruises
on his neck and head. (By Golnaz Esfandiari; Radio Farda contributed
to this report.)
LEGISLATURE APPROVES FUNDS FOR GASOLINE IMPORTS. The legislature on
October 2 approved the withdrawal of $3.5 billion from the
country’s foreign-exchange reserve to fund gasoline imports, IRNA
reported. The bill was passed with a vote of 136 in favor, 57
against, and 13 abstentions, and it must win approval from the
Guardians Council. Parliamentary talks on gasoline imports grew
heated on September 5, “Kayhan” reported the next day. Legislators
objected that gasoline is used excessively because it is sold very
cheaply at subsidized prices, and Management and Planning
Organization Director Farhad Rahbar said consumption would be limited
through the distribution of smart cards. Out of 202 legislators who
were present in the chamber, only 94 voted that the bill is urgent,
which would have moved it to the head of the queue. (Bill Samii)
ISFAHAN: CSI HELPS REDUCE CRIME RATE. Col Abbas Ali Mohammadian,
deputy chief of police in the city of Isfahan, announced on October 5
that the city enjoyed a 17 percent reduction in the crime rate over
the first five months of the Iranian year, which began on March 21,
compared to the same timeframe one year earlier, provincial
television reported. Seizures of illegal goods increased by 18
percent he added. The deputy police chief said using a crime lab
contributed to these developments. (Bill Samii)
IRANIAN WEIGHTLIFTERS SUSPENDED OVER FAILURE TO PAY DOPING FINE. The
International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has suspended Iran’s
weightlifting federation for two years because it has not paid a
$400,000 fine for doping, Reuters reported. Last week in the
Dominican Republic, nine of 11 Iranian lifters tested positive when
tested for drugs before the world championships, and the team was
forced to withdraw. One of the athletes, Mohsen Davudi, is banned
permanently due to repeated failures of drug tests, as is the
team’s Bulgarian coach, Georgy Ivanov. The IWF claims Ivanov is
the person most responsible for the athletes’ drug abuse. (Bill
Samii)
IRAN APPOINTS NEW VETERINARY HEAD. Apparently as part of the shakeup
in the leadership of governmental bodies (see “RFE/RL Iran Report,” 3
October 2006), President Mahmud Ahmadinejad appointed Seyyed Mohammad
Aqamiri on October 3 to head the country’s Veterinary
Organization, which is part of the Agriculture Jihad Ministry, IRNA
reported. The Veterinary Organization is the state entity contending
with a bird-flu outbreak in parts of Iran. (Bill Samii)
****************************************** ***************
Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.
The “RFE/RL Iran Report” is a weekly prepared by A. William Samii on
the basis of materials from RFE/RL broadcast services, RFE/RL
Newsline, and other news services. It is distributed every Monday.
Direct comments to A. William Samii at [email protected].
For information on reprints, see:
p
Back issues are online at
Technic al queries should be e-mailed to: [email protected]
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE
Send an e-mail to [email protected]
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE
Send an e-mail to [email protected]
NEWS BROADCASTS ONLINE
Listen to Radio Farda broadcasts daily on our website:
PERSIAN-LANGUA GE BROADCASTS. Local shortwave and mediumwave broadcast
frequencies are available on the Persian Service website:
_______________ ______________________________________________
RAD IO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC

Soccer: Finland Frustrated By Armenia

FINLAND FRUSTRATED BY ARMENIA
UEFA.com
Oct 7 2006
Finland’s hopes of reaching a first major finals suffered a setback
as Armenia got off the mark in UEFA EURO 2008~Y Group A.
Armenia hold on
Roy Hodgson’s side led the pool at kick-off after defeating Poland
and holding Portugal, but Armenia – coached by another Briton, Ian
Porterfield – bounced back from their opening loss against Belgium
to hold out for a point.
No repeat
Finland had won 2-0 in Yerevan in FIFA World Cup qualifying almost
two years ago to the day, but here Armenia began brightly. Arman
Karamyan threatened in the opening seconds, but like Armen Shahgeldyan
13 minutes later, could not force his long-range effort past Jussi
Jaaskelainen in Finland’s goal. Egishe Melikyan then sent in a powerful
shot which Jaaskelainen parried, while at the other end Shefki Kuqi
directed Finland’s first real chance wide.
Kasparov checks strikers
The first half ended in stalemate and the second continued in
similar fashion. Kuqi drove over and Sami Hyypia headed wide, while
Shahgeldyan came close twice. Gevorg Kasparov was having a quiet night
in the Armenia goal but earned his corn 19 minutes from time with a
stunning save from Mika Vayrynen. As time ran out, Kasparov pulled
off further stops from substitute Mikael Forssell and Finland captain
Jari Litmanen to give Armenia a point to take to Serbia on Wednesday,
when Finland travel east to Kazakhstan.

Soccer: Armenia 0 Finland 0

ARMENIA 0 FINLAND 0
Sportinglife.com, UK
Oct 7 2006
Roy Hodgson’s crusade to lead Finland to their first major finals
suffered a setback after they failed to overcome lowly Armenia in
their Euro 2008 Group A qualifier.
The pre-match table-toppers, who took four points from their opening
duels with Portugal and Poland, came closest to claiming the win,
but a succession of wasted chances ensured Armenia snatched their
first point.
Almost two years to the day since the last meeting between the two
in the 2006 World Cup qualifiers, Armenia started brightly in Yerevan.
But despite forging half-chances in the first and 14th minutes of
the match, neither Arman Karamyan or Armen Shahgeldyan could direct
their long-range efforts beyond goalkeeper Jussi Jaaskelainen.
At the other end, Gevorg Kasparov was also rarely tested, an easy
catch from Petri Pasanen in the 20th minute proving the extent of
his first-half exertions.
Yeghishe Melikyan then forced Jaaskelainen to parry his powerful
effort from 25 yards before Crystal Palace’s Shefki Kuqi blasted his
22nd-minute drive wide.
The game briefly flirted with excitement on 28 minutes when Sami
Hyypia received a yellow card for a foul on Karamyan but, as if
to prove the balance of the first half, Armenia’s Karen Aleksanyan
hacked Hannu Tihinen down six minutes later and levelled the game at
one booking each.
The second period offered much of the same, Kuqi firing over and Hyypia
sending a close-range header wide as the sides grappled for dominance.
Shahgeldyan then wasted a couple of chances with the game an hour old,
before Finland’s Mika Vayrynen forced a stunning save from Kasparov
with 19 minutes remaining.
Kasparov was again called into action with the 90 minutes nearly
elapsed, denying substitute Mikael Forssell and captain Jari Litmanen
with a succession of fine stops to ensure a stalemate.
Teams
Armenia Kasparov, Hovsepyan, Arzumanyan, Dokhoyan, Melikyan,Samvel
Melkonyan, Tigranyan,Karen Aleksanyan (Aram Hakobyan 54),Arman Karamyan
(Lazarian 45), Shahgeldyan,Manucharyan (Ara Hakobyan 78).
Subs Not Used: Hambardtsumyan, Erzrvnyan, Tadevosyan, Nazaryan.
Booked: Karen Aleksanyan, Arzumanyan, Ara Hakobyan, Samvel Melkonyan.
Finland Jaaskelainen, Pasanen, Hyypia, Tihinen,Vayrynen (Nurmela 73),
Litmanen, Kolkka, Kuqi (Forssell 66),Kallio, Johansson (Riihilahti
83), Heikkinen.
Subs Not Used: Kaven, Kuivasto, Kopteff, Wiss.
Booked: Hyypia, Pasanen.
Att: 7,500 Ref: Damir Skomina (Slovenia).

Let’s Talk About Armenian Genocide

LET’S TALK ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
>From the desk of James McConalogue
Brussels Journal, Belgium
Oct 7 2006
Why is it that Turkey is still unable to recognise the atrocities
committed against the Armenians? Furthermore, why is it that the EU
is entirely antagonistic towards the idea of Turkey, a predominantly
Muslim country, recognising their genocidal past? Last July, I reported
to The Brussels Journal on the unjust suppression of the freedom of
expression in Turkey. The most high-profile case pertained to the
trial of Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk in December 2005 after the
author had claimed in a Swiss newspaper that 30,000 Kurds and one
million Ottoman Armenians were killed in Turkey yet nobody in the
Turkish population would dare talk about it. The trial was dismissed
by the Turkish Ministry of Justice at the beginning of 2006.
Two previous reports had also scrutinised the legal proceedings
against the novelist, Elif Shafak. Shafak, author of Bastard
of Istanbul, faced charges of “insulting Turkishness” under the
primitive legislation. Subsequent to an earlier dismissal, the seventh
High Criminal Court revived the charges made by Kemal Kerincsiz’s
nationalist jurist group, ‘The Unity of Jurists.’ Fortunately, in the
final week of September, Shafak was immediately acquitted although it
is difficult to determine whether the acquittal arose because of EU
pressure (threatening Turkish membership) or because the text truly
did not “insult Turkishness” according to Turkey’s dated legislation.
The suppression of free expression has occurred for authors such as
Shafak and others like her, precisely because of the notorious Article
301 of the Turkish Penal Code, prohibiting “insulting Turkishness”. The
legislation was passed in 2005 as a measure of harmonizing Turkish
law with Copenhagen criteria of the European Union.
Interesting in both the cases of Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak is
how these novelists came to represent such a gigantic insult to
Turkishness. Both novelists had referred to their mass killing –
or genocide – of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire. It is those
references to the Armenian genocide that led charges to be made by
Kemal Kerincsiz’s Unity of Jurists. The Turkish government still
denies the conceptual definition of the Armenian genocide.
However, the acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide has now become
a central issue for the Turkish government. It is so important that
the EU Commission spokesperson, Krisztina Nagy, commented after
the acquittal of Shafak trial that Article 301 “continues to pose a
significant threat to freedom of expression in Turkey and all those
who express a non-violent opinion.” Accordingly, EU member-states have
considered reform of Article 301 as important as the Cyprus issue,
tackling minority rights and social violence, in order for the EU to
properly consider Turkish accession.
However, has the EU’s request for reform of Article 301 missed the
point? After all, the Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, has
already hinted at an acceptance to change the legislation. Should
the EU, instead, as a condition of EU entry demand that the Turkish
government acknowledge the Armenian genocide? In both the cases
of Pamuk and Shafak – and eighty or so other authors – many of the
legal proceedings against Turkish writers have arisen as a result of
references to the Armenian genocide. That is the real obstacle for
the Turkish government and frankly, its revisionist approach to the
nation’s history is not at all suited to a future of diplomacy. It
is essentially denying a holocaustal error of its past. Furthermore,
all other national governments across the globe (other than Turkey)
have classified the Armenian events that occurred between 1915 and
1917 as genocide. International authorities recognise the event
as the Armenian genocide, a direct set of policies that led to the
persecution and death of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians. It cannot
be named something else. It cannot be ignored. Neither can it be
understood from the Turkish historical perspective as a ‘civil war.’
That is why I paid strong attention to the French President, Jacques
Chirac’s words on 30 September. In a visit to Yerevan, the French
President declared to news agencies: “Should Turkey recognize the
genocide of Armenia to join the EU? […] I believe so. Each country
grows by acknowledging the dramas and errors of its past. […] Can
one say that Germany which has deeply acknowledged the holocaust,
has as a result lost credit? It has grown.”
It is certain that Chirac’s desire to enforce the acceptance of
the mass-killings as genocide amongst other EU accession conditions
has not been aligned with that of other European nations. Other EU
member-states seem to be fairly relaxed in letting Turkey off the
hook on the genocide issue. The last MEP interim report on Turkey’s EU
accession removed the request for an acknowledgement of the Armenian
genocide. More worryingly, the MEPs removed the condition of EU
accession out of fears that Turkish nationalists would be incited
into aggression against this.
It is never a good sign that a major political sanction should be
removed from a country simply out of fear of reprisals. Yet, that is
exactly what has happened. In brief, Europeans have decided not to
ask the Turkish to recognise the Armenian genocide simply because it
is scared that the Turks might actually bite. And, if the Turks do
bite? Well that can only be a result of a troubled national Turkish
culture – largely unable to confront significant genocidal errors –
and not because Europe has asked the wrong question. There are rumours
that the French will continue to push the ‘genocide recognition rule’
as a condition of EU entry, but if they are alone on that effort,
then there is very little that can be done to ensure it will be among
the requisites for EU entry. It might also be thought that Chirac
could not afford to push the condition too far, since it may bring
substantial damage to Franco-Turk relations before Turkey has even
begun to attempt its progress towards European harmonization. Whether
the European harmonization process is a good and worthwhile path for
either Turkey or Europe will always remain unclear.

ANKARA; ‘France Will Lose Turkey If So-Called Genocide Law Adopted’

‘FRANCE WILL LOSE TURKEY IF SO-CALLED GENOCIDE LAW ADOPTED’
By Bahtiyar Kucuk
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 7 2006
ANKARA – The Turkish Foreign Ministry warned Paris that bilateral
relations would suffer if the French parliament approves a law making
it a punishable offence to deny the so-called Armenian genocide.
Namik Tan, a foreign ministry spokesman, told French officials that
France would, so to speak, lose Turkey.
“The Armenian issue has poisoned bilateral ties in the past, but the
bill will inflict irreparable damage on our relationship, The Turkish
public opinion would perceive the approval of the bill as a hostile
act. Adoption of the bill would mean the elimination of freedom of
expression in France,” said Tan.
There’s some considerable volume of business between Turkey and France,
Tan noted adding that French parliament’s recognition of the draft
bill would imperil the outcome of the work for many years to improve
the situation between the two countries.
There’re some initiatives on the part of Turkey to prevent a possible
parliamentary recognition of the draft bill, said Tan, and detailed
those initiatives as follows:
Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer wrote to his French counterpart
Jacques Chirac on 4 Sept. 2006.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is due to have talks with
French businessmen in Turkey.
Erdogan will have a telephone conversation with French Prime Minister
Philippe Douste Blazy.
A commission of foreign affairs of the Turkish parliament was in
France to voice their concerns.
The Turkish embassy in Paris has held negotiations with French
officials.
While the bill will most likely pass parliamentary approval ahead of
France’s parliamentary elections, French businessmen with investment
plans in Turkey are at unease.
Debate on the bill, which was originally tabled in May, followed
stern warnings from Ankara on the repercussions for bilateral and
economic relations.
Tan: The Armenian issue has poisoned bilateral ties in the past,
but the bill will inflict irreparable damage to our relationship
The Turkish capital warned Paris Friday that political and economic
ties between them will suffer if the French Parliament approves a
highly contentious bill that penalizes any denial of an Armenian
“genocide” at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.
“The Armenian issue has poisoned bilateral ties in the past, but the
bill will inflict irreparable damage to our relationship,” Foreign
Ministry spokesman Namik Tan told reporters during a regular press
briefing.
The spokesman, with clear remarks, warned the move could jeopardize
“investments, the fruit of years of work, and France will — so to
speak — lose Turkey.”
The French National Assembly’s decision for the vote, scheduled for
Oct. 12, came at the request of the main opposition Socialist Party,
the bill’s architect.
Appealing to the assembly to block the bill, Tan argued that adoption
of the bill would mean the elimination of freedom of expression
in France. “Our expectation is that France will avoid taking the
wrong step.”
Though the conservative majority in the French assembly opposes the
bill, Turkey fears many opponents will not vote against it for fear of
upsetting France’s 400,000-strong Armenian Diaspora ahead of elections
next year.
Tan said Turkey, too, faces presidential and parliamentary elections
in 2007.
“The people of Turkey will perceive this development as a hostile
attitude on the part of France,” he said. “This draft will deliver
a heavy blow to bilateral relations and to the momentum previously
achieved.”

"Armenia Will Be A Stronger Country If It Holds Democratic Elections

“ARMENIA WILL BE A STRONGER COUNTRY IF IT HOLDS DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS”
MEDIAMAX armenian news agency
15.09.06
Weekly Analytical Report
Exclusive interview of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans to
Mediamax agency U.S. Ambassador John Evans completed his diplomatic
mission in Armenia.
Before his departure on September 10 he gave a farewell interview
to Mediamax.
– Mr. Evans, what do you consider to be your greatest achievement
during your service in Armenia?
– I think we achieved a lot. The conclusion of the Millenium Challenge
Compact that was signed at the end of March 2006 is probably the
biggest achievement. But as I have already said before, the work of
diplomacy is like gardening – it takes persistence and patience. And
we have had that kind of approach – we didn’t simply make a list of
things to achieve.
We have greater cooperation with Armenia in security and defense
matters.
It’s not only the question of the Armenian non-combatant contingent
that’s serving in Iraq, but also cooperation in the framework of
NATO. And I think we have also seen some progress in the strengthening
of democratic institutions.
I do think that the recent events – murders of officials and attacks
on journalists – are not a good sign. At the moment I am quite worried
about that. Journalists need to be protected as they carry out a very
crucial function in any democratic system.
– And what was your biggest disappointment during your work in Armenia?
– In general, I am not disappointed by my time here. The only thing
that would fit into the category you mentioned is the disappointment I
had when the constitutional referendum held in Armenia last November
apparently was not conducted in a totally honest way. I had had
very clear assurances from some very highly placed members of the
Armenian government. They assured me, crossing their heart, that there
would be no such falsifications. And I went out on a limb and took
a personal risk in supporting the substance of the constitutional
amendments. I did that because I felt that the Armenian people had
a right to know what the United States, as well as the European
Union, Council of Europe and the OSCE, thought about the content
of those amendments. So I took the risk, and I was criticized for
supporting those amendments. So I was very disappointed in the end
that apparently, and again nothing has been proven, but apparently
there was a falsification of the vote count.
– Last year you said in an interview to our agency, that “The lesson
of some other elections in this region ought to be clear to anyone
tempted to falsify election results: the people are not stupid,
and they will figure it out, and that will create a big problem,
fraught with great risks”.
What is your opinion on whether there are still many people in Armenia
who might have such a temptation during the elections in 2007 and 2008?
– Recent polling results that we have access to, conducted in Armenia
by the Gallup Organization, indicate that there is a lot of skepticism
about next year’s elections. I think that Armenia is headed in the
right direction, and one day or another, sooner or later, Armenia
will become a true democratic country. We believe that Armenia will
be a stronger country if it holds democratic elections, which are
the key to the legitimacy of the elected officials.
A year ago we were advised not to waste any more money on working with
Armenian political parties. But we went against the experts’ advice,
because we were not ready to give up on Armenian democracy. And I am
still not ready to give up. I think there are many people who do want
to see the elections be free and fair. They see the advantages of this
to Armenia–a country with no oil wealth and no hydrocarbons–but a
country that needs to preserve the respect of the democratic world,
the Western world, and needs to meet its own commitments to the Council
of Europe and to the OSCE. It’s a question of Armenia’s self-respect,
but it’s also a question of the respect of the world.
– Some U.S. experts are of the opinion that the power of the Armenian
Diaspora in the USA limits the opportunities of the United States to
encourage democratic changes in Armenia, as the Diaspora oppose any
criticism of the Armenian authorities from Washington. Do you agree
with such point of view?
– I do not. I think the opposite. I think the Armenian-American
community in various ways has a very positive impact on development
here. Of course, there is a certain sensitivity about open criticism,
but I have heard a lot of criticism precisely from Armenian-Americans,
who are disappointed that Armenia has not moved quickly enough towards
becoming a full-fledged democracy. So, I take the opposite view. I
think that Armenia’s international connections, not only with the
United States, but with France, with Russia, with other countries, are
one of the preconditions for building a strong democracy in Armenia.
– Despite the numerous efforts of the United States, Armenian-Turkish
relations are not normalized and the border remains closed. Do you
see any possibility for achieving some progress?
– Turkey is an ally of the United States, and I understand very well
the complications that Armenia has with its Turkish neighbors at the
moment. I do hope that wise people on the both sides of the border
will come to see the mutual advantages of trade across the border,
of cooperating on energy issues – Eastern Turkey is short of energy
and Armenia might be able to help in this regard.
I believe that diplomatic relations should be established between
Yerevan and Ankara. This is not an easy area, but the commonsense,
good judgment, and wisdom of people on both sides needs to be brought
to bear on this problem.
– This year the issue of providing for Armenia’s energy security
became a topic for active discussions. What kind of support can the
United States provide in this regard? In particular, U.S. Deputy
Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried, who visited Armenia this March,
said that Armenia’s desire to have a new nuclear power plant will be
seriously discussed in Washington.
– First of all, I would say that we have already helped a great deal
in studying the problem. We have worked very closely with the Ministry
of Energy. There was a conference in July about the least-cost option,
which the Ministry is discussing. There will be another conference,
I believe, in October to discuss this. But, the United States will
need to know a lot more about Armenia’s plans for its energy security
before any kind of discussion can happen about the future of nuclear
energy capacity. We see that the Metsamor reactor is coming to
the end of its useful life and should be decommissioned in 2015 or
2016. That is going to be an expensive process and we believe that
Armenia needs to plan now, if not already yesterday, for how it is
going to manage the expense of decommissioning the existing plant,
not to mention the enormous expense of building a follow-on plant.
– This year much has been said about the existing “window
of possibilities” for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. What is your opinion, has the window closed, or are there
still some hopes?
– As you know, I am not in the lead on this issue. Rather, Matthew
Bryza, the OSCE Minsk Co- Chair representing the United States,
is working on this. I will say that I think it was a very good
development that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs decided this June
to make public the main elements of their discussions with the
sides so that the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies could discuss
these elements, think about them and decide what their attitude is
towards those elements. I think what they will find on both sides
is that the deal that was on the table, and is still on the table,
is really the best possible, most fair and long-lasting settlement
that can be reached. Another conflict in the South Caucasus would
be a disaster for both sides. It would undoubtedly be inconclusive,
it would cause more suffering, and it would set back the entire
region. Both sides need to think very hard about the way forward,
and try to find a peaceful settlement so that the entire region can
join the rest of the world in prosperity, stability, and peace.

www.mediamax.am

Turkey And Europe: The Dangers Of Divorce

TURKEY AND EUROPE: THE DANGERS OF DIVORCE
By Patrick Seale Special to Gulf News
Gulf News, United Arab Emirates
Oct 9 2006
The European Union is in danger of making a mistake of immense
strategic importance: instead of welcoming Turkey into its ranks it
is rebuffing it.
At the very moment when the West is in a mood of profound alienation
from the Arab and Muslim world – based largely on ignorance, prejudice
and mutual incomprehension – Europe is turning its back on the one
country uniquely able to serve as a bridge between East and West.
At the very moment when the Middle East is experiencing crises and
wars of unprecedented gravity, which threaten to overspill into
neighbouring countries and into Europe itself, Europe has failed to
grasp that Turkey could provide a key to regional security.
Turkey, heir to the Ottoman Empire and a founding member of Nato,
is a major regional power – dynamic, yet traditional; secular, yet
Muslim; democratic yet militarily powerful. Its ties with Europe are
centuries old. As its Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul likes to recall,
Turkey sent its first diplomatic envoy to France in 1495, while France
chose Istanbul as the site of its very first foreign embassy in the
16th century.
Today, Turkey could play a key role in stabilising Iraq and in helping
to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict, since it is on good terms with
both sides. It has again demonstrated its commitment to regional
security by sending a thousand soldiers to help keep the peace in
southern Lebanon.
On November 9, the European Commission is due to publish a report on
its negotiations with Turkey over the past year, and on the progress
Turkey has made in carrying out the reforms Europe has demanded.
There are grave fears that this crucial report, which will set the
tone of future relations between the EU and Turkey, will be negative.
Instead of acknowledging Turkey’s very considerable efforts to meet
European norms and adopt European values – instead of looking forward
to Turkey’s great potential contribution to Europe’s security and
stability – it is likely to emphasise areas of continued disagreement,
demand still more concessions from Ankara and put the blame on Turkey
for the current stalemate.
Bad situation
So bad is the situation that many observers believe relations between
Turkey and Europe are heading for a breakdown. If these fears are
proved correct – if the commission’s report is indeed hard on Turkey –
European diplomacy will have suffered a considerable defeat.
The EU’s grudging attitude towards Turkish membership has already
created an anti-European backlash in Turkey, while at the same time
encouraging reactionary right-wing forces in Europe, especially in
Austria, Germany and France, to call for a suspension of negotiations
with Turkey.
One major subject of disagreement concerns the Mediterranean island
of Cyprus, divided between Greeks and Turks. The Greek part – the
Republic of Cyprus – is an EU member state, while the Turkish northern
part has not been recognised as a separate republic and suffers from
a commercial boycott.
The EU is demanding that Turkey open its ports and airports to the
Republic of Cyprus, which Ankara is obliged to do under its customs
agreement with the EU. But Ankara is refusing to comply until the EU
ends its commercial boycott of the Turkish part of the island – which
the EU promised to do so, but has so far not done. The outstanding
issue, therefore, would seem to be one of reciprocity. Fairness and
natural justice would suggest that the Turks have a point.
Moreover, Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of a plan put forward by
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the unification of the island,
whereas Greek Cypriots voted against. This, once again, would seem to
give the Turks the moral advantage. It should not be beyond the wit
of European diplomacy to find a solution to this heated but relatively
trivial dispute.
Another difficult hurdle Turkey faces is its historic responsibility
for the massacre of well over one million Armenians in 1915 during
the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire, then in its last years,
was engaged in a struggle with the western powers and czarist Russia.
The Turks feared the Armenians were a fifth column, allied to Russia.
This may go some way to explain, although it cannot justify, the
atrocities the Armenians suffered. Many were slaughtered while hundreds
of thousands died when they were mercilessly driven out of Anatolia,
the remnants of this death march eventually finding refuge in Syria
and Lebanon.
The EU would like Turkey to recognise this genocide, although it has
not made it a specific condition for membership. However, on a visit
this month to the Armenian capital of Yerevan, France’s President
Jacques Chirac declared that “France recognises the Armenian genocide”.
When asked whether Turkey should do so as a condition for EU
membership, he replied: “In all honesty, I believe so. Any country
is enhanced by recognising its dramas and mistakes.” He drew the
comparison with Germany which, to its credit, made amends for the
Holocaust.
Turkey has proposed setting up a committee of Turkish and Armenian
historians, which could include historians from other countries, to
examine the tragic events of 1915. It has committed itself to accept
its conclusions and to respond accordingly.
But whether this will be sufficient to persuade a deeply divided Europe
to accept Turkey as a full member must unfortunately remain in doubt.
Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle
East affairs.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress