PARIS WON’T SUPPORT BILL ON ARMENIA
Gulf Times, Qatar
Published: Friday, 19 May, 2006, 01:01 PM Doha Time
PARIS: The French government said yesterday it would not support
a proposed bill to punish anyone denying Armenian genocide claims
because it would upset Turkey, the alleged perpetrator of the killings.
Turkish officials have warned France of “irreparable damage” to
bilateral ties if Paris passes the law, presented in parliament by
the opposition Socialists. Ankara recalled its ambassador to France
this month and a leading deputy there warned of a possible boycott
of French goods.
But without the support of the ruling UMP party, the bill is unlikely
to ever become law.
Turkey denies claims that 1.5mn Armenians perished in a genocide
committed by Ottoman forces during and immediately after World
War One. Around 400,000 people of Armenian descent live in France,
Europe’s largest Armenian diaspora.
“We cannot accept this proposed law,” Foreign Minister Philippe
Douste-Blazy told deputies during a debate on the bill.
“The Armenian cause is just and should be defended and respected,”
he said. “But the bill you have submitted today would, if passed,
be considered as an unfriendly gesture by a large majority of Turks,
whether you want this or not.
“That could have serious political consequences and weaken our
influence, not only in Turkey but in the whole region.”
Turkish media say the bill is an attempt by politicians to court the
Armenian vote as France gears up for presidential elections in 2007.
Turkey says the Armenians who died after World War One were victims
of partisan fighting that claimed even more Turkish lives as the
Ottoman Empire collapsed.
The bill suffered a second blow yesterday when deputies had to cut
short the debate for time reasons. The next time they can review it
under the procedure used for this debate is next November, they said.
Groups of Armenians and Turks demonstrated outside the National
Assembly as the debate was taking place.

ELMAR MAMMADYAROV AND VARDAN OSKANYAN TO MEET IN STRASBOURG
Today, Azerbaijan
May 19 2006
Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is in Strasbourg, France,
to attend the 116th session of the Council of Europe Committee of
Foreign Ministers scheduled for 18 and 19 May.
Mr. Mammadyarov is expected to meet Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanyan. The Foreign Ministers of the Council of Europe 46 member
states will discuss human rights and cooperation between the Council
of Europe and the European Union today.
Russian Federation will take over the presidency of the Committee of
Ministers from Romania, for a period of six months. Mammadyarov will
deliver speech at the session.
At the invitation of Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis,
the Ministers will hold an informal meeting with Martti Ahtisaari,
the United Nations Special Envoy for the future status of Kosovo. The
Ministers will also discuss other major priorities resulting from the
Council of Europe’s Third Summit in Warsaw, namely: the reinforcement
of the Council’s action in support of democracy and good governance,
the development of intercultural dialogue and the Organisation’s
process of internal reform.
Foreign Ministers of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova will have
separate talks on the development of the GUAM alliance, APA reports.
URL:

UNION SQ. NORTH-END RENOVATION GETS FINAL APPROVAL
By Albert Amateau
The Villager, NY
May 19 2006
The city’s Art Commission on Monday unanimously approved the
much-revised renovation plan for the north end of Union Square Park,
with some further modifications.
The vote by all eight of the 11 commissioners present at the May
15 meeting means that construction on the Union Square north plaza,
the pavilion with a controversial seasonal private restaurant and an
expanded playground, can begin this year.
The renovation, sponsored by the Union Square Partnership business
improvement district with the Parks Department, has been planned,
hotly debated and revised several times over the past several years.
Playground space, renovation of the now underused and decrepit pavilion
and preserving the north plaza as a place of public assembly and as
a venue for the largest Greenmarket in the city have long been points
of debate.
Neighbors who have been anticipating the renovation were gratified at
the final conclusion. Ken Salzman, who lives a block away from Union
Square with his family including three young children, said he hoped
the playground would be done before his children were too old to use
it. He also lauded the proposed new restrooms, one of which would be
accessible only by children and their caregivers.
Gabrielle Tessler, who also lives a block from the square, praised
the playground proposal, which includes equipment for older children.
Tessler visits Union Square with her daughter, Julia, a 6-year-old
pupil at P.S. 41 in the Village.
But several elected officials joined the chorus of neighborhood
opponents against a pavilion renovation that depends on use as a
restaurant six months of the year.
Nevertheless, the Art Commission commissioners made it clear that
they had jurisdiction only on the park design and had no say at all
on the use of the pavilion.
The commission approved the plan for the pavilion as submitted by
the Department of Parks and the landscape architect Michael Van
Valkenburgh Associates, but demanded the elimination of a proposed
cantilevered balcony on the south side, which was added to provide
the seasonal restaurant with a terrace for 10 additional restaurant
seats. Commissioners agreed with several neighborhood critics that
the balcony with its 4-foot-high banister was not appropriate for
the pavilion.
The commission also eliminated a proposed row of trees next to the
north side of the pavilion, saying the trees obscured the view of
the pavilion, which was built in 1932. But the commission did endorse
the disputed proposal for a row of eight trees along 17th St. at the
north end of the open plaza, plus a row of trees on the west side of
the plaza between 15th and 17th Sts.
The commission called for the new trees to be planted 30 feet apart
in a continuous trench rather than in individual tree pits. The
planting arrangement is intended to give the trees a chance to grow
in a high-risk location. A row of trees planted in pits along 17th
St. in the 1980s to commemorate the Turkish massacre of Armenians in
the 1920s did not survive longer than four years.
Jack Taylor, a preservation advocate and public member of Community
Board 5, and other critics, have called for a north plaza – the
historic site of mass public protests – to be free of any trees or
barriers that would inhibit public assembly.
“We urge you to remember that Union Square is a national historic
landmark, designated for the role of the north plaza in accommodating
mass demonstrations, rallies, parades, political and social protests
and the exercise of citizens’ rights of peaceful public assembly and
free speech,” Taylor said. “An unhindered and unadorned space has
been maintained there since 1882 and even earlier,” he said.
However, William Castro, Manhattan Parks commissioner, told the
Art Commission that since the renovation of the south end of Union
Square Park was completed four years ago, 98 percent of permits for
public assembly at Union Square were issued for the 14th St. end of
the park. Nevertheless, he added, the north plaza is still available
for public demonstrations.
Castro also pointed out that the new playground will be three times
the size of the present playground, and the restaurant space in the
renovated pavilion will be smaller than the space that Luna Cafe,
the current seasonal outdoor restaurant, occupies on the south side of
the pavilion. The plan originally called for a year-round restaurant
in the pavilion but was changed last year to seasonal use.
Longtime critics of the plan, including former City Councilmember
Carol Greitzer, Paula Schaeffer and Geoffrey Croft, also denounced
the proposal for a restaurant in the 31/2-acre park. Castro, however,
said that City Councilmembers Christine Quinn and Rosie Mendez,
have accepted the plan.
But some critics derided as “public outhouses” the two proposed
free-standing restrooms for public use to be built on the east and
west sides of the pavilion. Critics said the restrooms within the
pavilion should be reconstructed and made public all year-round.
Under the approved plan, the pavilion restrooms will be for restaurant
patrons during its seasonal operation and open to the public the rest
of the year.
Critics including Barry Benepe, a founder of the Greenmarket and the
father of Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, criticized the location
of the playground in the sunken area now occupied by Luna Cafe.
“Nowhere else is there a playground that you have to walk into down
a flight of stairs or a ramp,” he observed. Benepe also denounced
the restaurant use of the pavilion in an area with many prominent
restaurants.
Aides for Borough President Scott Stringer, Assemblymember Richard
Gottfried, State Senator Tom Duane and Congressmember Carolyn Maloney
called for work to begin as soon as possible on the playground. But
they also denounced the pavilion restaurant.
Earlier this year, Community Board 5 approved the plan by a vote of
29 to 1.

AZERBAIJAN FACES IRAN DILEMMA
By Kenan Guluzade in Baku
Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
May 19 2006
Baku uncomfortable as its major ally confronts its southern neighbour.
As tension grows between Iran and the West over Iran’s nuclear
programme, agonised debate has begun in Azerbaijan about what stance
the country should take if the crisis escalates and it is called on
to join an anti-Iranian coalition.
Should it come to military action, many observers assume that the
United States would want to use Azerbaijani territory for its troops.
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was quoted by the Azerbaijani
information agency APA as saying that Azerbaijan would be a likely
base from which the US would launch military strikes.
The US government has already paid for a radar station to be built
in the south of the country, on the border with Iran.
However, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliev has explicitly ruled out
joining any anti-Iranian coalition. Speaking on an official visit to
Washington on April 26, Aliev said, “Azerbaijan, of course, will not
be engaged in any kind of potential operations against Iran, and our
officials [have] made it very clear, including myself in the past…
it’s time to stop speculating on this issue.
“We have a bilateral agreement with Iran which clearly says that the
territories of our countries cannot be used for any danger towards
each other.”
The non-aggression pact between Iran and Azerbaijan was signed two
years ago in Tehran by the defence ministers of the two countries.
During a visit to Azerbaijan by Iranian defence minister Mostafa
Mohammad Najjar in April, the two sides discussed implementing the
agreement. The Iranian minister said a second agreement covering
military cooperation could be signed if necessary.
Many Azerbaijani experts warning that the risks entailed in getting
involved in any operation against Iran would be high.
Political analyst Zardusht Alizade says it could mean Baku losing
all hope of regaining Nagorny Karabakh. “We have always called for
a solution to the Karabakh problem which is within the framework
of international law,” he said. “If we take part in an anti-Iran
coalition, we will lose Karabakh. The US flouts international law
and wants other countries to support it in doing so.”
Noting that Azerbaijan has no serious quarrels with Iran and obtains
some of its electricity from that country, Alizade asked, “On what
grounds would we join some mythical anti-Iran coalition?”
Hikmet Hajizade, a former Azerbaijani ambassador to Moscow who is now
a political analyst with the opposition party Musavat, said Azerbaijan
would be hit hard by any imposition of sanctions against Iran and
trade would suffer. According to the Iranian embassy, trade between
the two countries came in at an estimated 450 million dollars last
year. Trading with Iran is the main source of income for people in
the south of the country.
Hajizade pointed out that if the crisis escalates, the Nakhichevan
Autonomous Republic, an exclave cut off from the rest of Azerbaijan
and whose border with Armenia is sealed, would be in particularly
deep trouble, as it gets all its gas and electricity from Iran.
He said that if it came to war, Azerbaijan would have to deal with
an influx of refugees from Iran – particularly ethnic Azerbaijanis –
and would itself be vulnerable to attack.
“It would not be at all hard to break the backbone of the economy:
all that would be required are several torpedoes… and two or three
medium-range missiles,” Hajizade said, speculating that offshore
oil platforms and the Sangachal terminal that supplies oil to the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline would be targeted.
Most Azerbaijanis, like the Iranian state, are Shia Muslims, and a
rise in tension could provoke an angry backlash from them. “There
are too few pro-Iranian Islamists in Azerbaijan to destabilise the
country, but there are enough of them to carry out various terrorist
and diversionary acts,” said Hajizade.
However, some experts argue that it would be dangerous for Azerbaijan
if Iran were to produce nuclear weapons, as the country – which
currently has better relations with Armenia – would become even
more powerful.
Parliamentary deputy Igbal Agazade argues that by supporting
Washington, Azerbaijan will be choosing the lesser of two evils,
and that it would be better to avert the Iranian threat and reap the
political rewards. Agazade said that as a result, Baku might receive
US support over the dispute over Karabakh and adjoining Armenian-held
regions close to Iran.
“Membership of the coalition will mean greater defence for Azerbaijan
against an Iranian threat, and will help in solving a potential
humanitarian crisis,” argued Agazade.
During a two-day visit to Baku, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
refrained from expressing an opinion on the position Azerbaijan should
take in the current crisis, saying only that Iran is a peace-loving
state and that Baku and Tehran are friends.
Visits to Azerbaijan by Iranian officials and President Aliev’s trip
to the US give the impression that some serious horse-trading is
going on over the Iran crisis.
Azerbaijan’s position can be compared with that of Turkey, which is
similarly hesitant about strong action against Iran but reluctant to
offend the United States. Turkey saw its relations with Washington
deteriorate after it failed to offer support for the war in Iraq. As
the crisis over Iran develops, the Baku authorities will be mindful
of this experience.
Kenan Guluzade is deputy editor of Zerkalo newspaper in Baku.

NO BACKING FOR GENOCIDE BILL
Gulf News, United Arab Emirates
May 19 2006
Paris: The French government said yesterday it would not support
a proposed Bill to punish anyone denying Armenian genocide claims
because it would upset Turkey, the alleged perpetrator of the killings.
Turkish officials have warned France of “irreparable damage” to
bilateral ties if Paris passes the law, presented in parliament by
the opposition Socialists.
Ankara recalled its ambassador to France this month and a leading
deputy there warned of a possible boycott of French goods.
But without the support of the ruling UMP party, the Bill is unlikely
to ever become law.
Turkey denies claims that 1.5 million Armenians perished in a
genocide committed by Ottoman forces during and immediately after
World War One. Around 400,000 people of Armenian descent live in
France, Europe’s largest Armenian diaspora.
“We cannot accept this proposed law,” Foreign Minister Philippe
Douste-Blazy told deputies during a debate on the Bill.
“The Armenian cause is just and should be defended and respected,”
he said. “But the Bill you have submitted today would, if passed,
be considered as an unfriendly gesture by a large majority of Turks,
whether you want this or not.
“That could have serious political consequences and weaken our
influence, not only in Turkey but in the whole region.” Turkish media
say the Bill is an attempt by politicians to court the Armenian vote
as France gears up for presidential elections in 2007.
Turkey says the Armenians who died after World War One were victims
of partisan fighting that claimed even more Turkish lives as the
Ottoman Empire collapsed.
The Bill suffered a second blow yesterday when deputies had to cut
short the debate for time reasons. The next time they can review it
under the procedure used for this debate is next November, they said.
Groups of Armenians and Turks demonstrated outside the National
Assembly as the debate was taking place.
From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT APPROVES ENVIRONMENT MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION CONCEPT
Arka News Agency, Armenia
May 19 2006
YEREVAN, May 19. /ARKA/. Armenian Government approved Thursday a
concept of environment monitoring implementation, Armenian Deputy
Environmental Minister Simon Papyan said Thursday at a briefing in
Yerevan. Under this concept, the ministry has to work out monitoring
program within 6 months and give certain powers to appropriate units.
Papyan said the state monitoring concept embraces air, water, soil,
bio-variety and radiation safety areas.
The deputy minister also said it is under consideration now how much
money is needed to put this concept into practice.
The program will be funded by state budget, international organizations
and donors.

MONTENEGRO: THE INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM’S REGIONAL REPERCUSSIONS
Stratfor
May 19 2006
Summary
Montenegro holds its independence referendum May 21. The result,
which will give the European Union a growing headache, will have
widespread repercussions. And the impact will resonate more strongly
the further from Montenegro one goes.
Analysis
Montenegro will finally vote on its referendum for independence from
Serbia on May 21. Serbia and Montenegro is the last component of the
five provinces once comprising Yugoslavia, though Montenegro has acted
as a de facto independent entity since 1997. Its tiny population of
612,000 — made up of a mix religions and ethnicities with no one
group forming a majority — is dwarfed by Serbia’s 11 million. A vote
for independence would mean that Serbia and Montenegro would exist
separately for the first time since 1918.
With tensions in Montenegro rising, the population is almost evenly
split on how it will vote. Recent polls show that from 46 percent
to 49 percent of voters support independence while 40 percent to 45
percent oppose independence.
The split has led to outbreaks of violence, though only within
Montenegro. Fights have broken out at rallies for both sides. For
example, hundreds of police were deployed to a May 15 rally in the
central town of Niksic where pro-independence activists wearing
shirts emblazoned with the word “da,” Serbo-Croatian for “yes,”
were attacked by pro-unionists.
The final decision on independence, however, belongs not exactly to
Montenegrins, but to the European Union, the power that exercises de
facto control over Montenegro’s future after intervening repeatedly in
the past to prevent the Balkan republic from seceding. The European
Union set a rule that Montenegro can have its vote of independence,
but that a simple majority is insufficient, and a pro-independence vote
must have above 55 percent. This condition has been blasted repeatedly
by pro-independence forces, which have asked what the European Union
will decide if the vote falls somewhere between 50-55 percent. Such
a result is precisely what is likely to happen, meaning Montenegro
will remain politically polarized in the post-referendum period —
and the problem of what to do will be left squarely in the European
Union’s lap.
A clear vote for independence means Montenegro will become an
EU protectorate on a possible route to EU membership. A vote
against independence or a vote failing to hit 55 percent will mean
Montenegro will become an EU protectorate existing under a painful
legal fiction. Though this status might include a possible route to
EU membership, Montenegro would still officially be linked to Serbia.
Either way, EU intervention has ensured Montenegro will continue to
be an EU problem.
The most obvious beneficiary of Montenegrin independence is Kosovo,
Serbia’s other secessionist region. Kosovo is already in talks — also
with the European Union — to win its own independence referendum. The
European Union, however, is stalling on a final decision, just like
it did with Montenegro. But while Montenegro’s vote is in question,
Kosovo’s is not. As the province’s population is 90 percent Albanian
Muslim, independence there is a certainty, with only the specific
terms left to be worked out. Kosovo’s identity, unlike Montenegro,
is thus not torn over the issue.
If Montenegro gains independence, loud cries for secession can be
anticipated as far away as the Caucasus, with the disputed territories
of Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia being the most likely
to initiate this clamor. All broke away from their parent states —
Azerbaijan in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia for the other
two — in the early days of the post-Soviet period, and all three
have enjoyed de facto independence for over a decade. Bear in mind
that all three already claim independence; at issue is whether they
will seek to use international institutions to formalize this claim.
Nagorno-Karabakh is the most likely to move in this direction, in
that it holds easily defensible mountainous territory affording more
direct access to its most important ally, Armenia, than to its foe,
Azerbaijan. The second-most-likely territory to follow this path
is Abkhazia, which has soundly defeated the Georgian military on
multiple occasions. Abkhazia’s reputation for fielding fierce and
competent fighters is as strong as the Georgian military’s reputation
for ineffectiveness.
South Ossetia, however, is unlikely to prove as successful. It lacks
Nagorno-Karabakh’s geography and the martial skills of Abkhazia. Its
biggest advantage used to be the assistance it could count on from
its cousins in North Ossetia, who formerly could be expected to swarm
across the border to help in the event of Georgian-South Ossetian
hostilities. But since the atrocity at Beslan, the North Ossetians are
more concerned with protecting their own at home than with helping
relatives abroad fight a secessionist struggle. Only Russia could
help South Ossetia win its struggle, but such aid could well cost
Russia dearly in its own international relations.
Other secessionist regions and groups potentially seeking to take
advantage of any Montenegrin precedent include the Transdniestria
region of Moldova and the Bosnian Serbs or the Albanians of
Macedonia, but none of these three are likely to get much traction
from Montenegro’s potential split. Unlike Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia
and South Ossetia, Transdniestria is sandwiched between Moldova,
which wants the territory back, and Ukraine, which wants Moldova to
get the territory back. Both states bear hostility to Russia, the
one state which indirectly backs Transdniestria’s independence drive.
Without at least tacit approval from Ukraine, Transdniestria’s days
as a quasi-state are numbered.
The Serbs of Bosnia and Albanians of Macedonia face even more
obstacles. Both regions have European forces stationed on their
territory, specifically tasked with preventing any secessionist efforts
from manifesting. Moreover, Serbia, the entity most likely to lend
the Bosnian Serbs a hand, is emotionally, financially and militarily
exhausted — and certainly does not want to risk another military
confrontation with NATO, the power enforcing the peace in Bosnia.
for maps check:
ad_article.php?id=266430
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CYPRUS’ ELECTIONS
Author: Alexandra Silver
Council on Foreign Relations, New York
May 19 2006
Introduction
Though a small island, Cyprus’ problems radiate far beyond its
shores. An independent nation since 1960, after years of British
colonial rule, Cyprus has been divided by a “green line” separating
the Turkish Cypriot north and the Greek Cypriot south since 1974. The
parliamentary elections being held on the part of the island controlled
by ethnic Greek Cypriots on May 21 are the first since the failed 2004
referendum on the Annan plan for reunification, and also the first
since Cyprus’ accession to the European Union that same year. Notable
this time around is the fact that Turkish Cypriots have registered
to vote, and a Turkish Cypriot is running for office. The numbers
are small but symbolic.
What is Cyprus’ current status?
Despite the fact that the Cyprus conflict has yet to be resolved,
Cyprus became a member of the European Union in 2004. The island
remains divided between the Greek Cypriot majority in the south
and the Turkish Cypriot minority in the north; a 2004 referendum on
Kofi Annan’s proposal to reunify the territory was voted down. A UN
peacekeeping force, first deployed in 1964, remains stationed there.
The Republic of Cyprus refers de facto to the southern part of the
island, though it was meant to encompass all of it. The Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognized by any country except
Turkey.
Of the eighty seats in the Cypriot House of Representatives, 30 percent
are reserved for Turkish Cypriots. But these seats-along with the vice
president’s office, which is also reserved for a Turkish Cypriot-have
been vacant since the Turkish Cypriot began a boycott of the government
in 1963.
What is the significance of these elections?
The registration of 270 Turkish Cypriot voters is notable, as is the
candidacy of a Turkish Cypriot, the poet and activist Neshe Yashin.
Their participation, however, has nothing to do with the vacated
seats; Yashin is running for one of the fifty-six seats supposedly
reserved for Greek Cypriots. Joseph doubts that she’ll win, since
she’s running with a small party, the United Democrats (EDI).
Precedent-setting aside, the elections to fill the fifty-six
seats, plus the eight observer seats reserved for the Armenian,
Maronite, and Latin-meaning Roman Catholic-religious minorities,
are not necessarily going to result in major changes. Elias Hazou,
a journalist for the Cyprus Mail, writes bluntly, “At the end of the
day, these are parliamentary elections and, as we all know, the House
in Cyprus does not power things, it’s just there to endorse (or not)
government policy.”
Some experts say these elections are more a vote of a poll on President
Tassos Papadopoulos-who won a five year term by a narrow margin in
2003-and his views on reunification. Papadopoulos has stated that
these elections will prove that Cypriots support his opposition to
the Annan plan and his hard-line stance on Turkey.
What are the main issues?
These are the first elections since the 2004 referendum on the Annan
plan for reunification, which Greek Cypriots voted down and Turkish
Cypriots voted for. Robert I. Rotberg, director of the Belfer Center’s
Program on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution at Harvard,
says reunification may not be the main issue in these elections,
but it is a constant one in Cyprus.
Joseph Joseph, associate professor in the department of Social and
Political Sciences at the University of Cyprus, says reunification,
and Papadopoulos’ opposition to the Annan plan, is not the central
issue in these elections. The true determining factors, Joseph says,
are strong party loyalties and personalities. On such a small island,
where “everybody knows everybody,” people often vote according to
personal connections.
Other issues might play a smaller role. Even though the economy is
doing well, Joseph says in any election, “the economic aspect is always
on the agenda.” There may not be many controversial issues at stake,
but voter turn out is likely to be high: Voting is mandatory in the
country, though not strictly enforced.
Why have some Turkish Cypriots registered to vote in this election?
This year 270 Turkish Cypriots living in the southern, Greek-Cypriot
dominated part of the island have registered to vote for the
fifty-six House seats. The government recently passed a law allowing
them to vote after the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the
matter. Previously, Turkish Cypriots were only allowed to vote for
the seats reserved for them. Since the Turkish Cypriot seats have been
vacant for years, Turkish Cypriots have not been voting. Those living
in the north are still not allowed to vote, but a case challenging
this is pending.
Rotberg suggests that Greek Cypriots would prefer that all Turkish
Cypriots vote, since the Republic of Cyprus would then be seen as
being in control of the entire island. The 270 Turkish Cypriots likely
registered, Rotberg says, because of the EU passports and accompanying
travel documents such citizenship allows.
What are the main parties?
Over 480 candidates are running for the House seats. The communist
Progressive Party of the Working People (AKEL) and the rightist
Democratic Rally (DISY) have the most support. The center-right
Democratic Party (DIKO)-President Papadopoulos’ party-follows behind
these, but it is expected to gain seats. Other parties include the
socialist Movement of Social Democrats (EDEK) and the European Party
(EvroKo). Some candidates are running as independents, including
Costas Kyriacou, a farmer known as “Utopos,” who wants to create a
Platonic republic based on the principles of free love, matriarchy,
and symmetry.
What are the Turkish and Greek positions regarding this election?
Both Turkey and Greece have clear interests in the island, but
neither nation is directly involved in the elections. Since Turkey
doesn’t recognize the Cypriot government-it only recognizes the
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus-it has no official stance on
the elections. As for Greece, Rotberg explains it doesn’t want to
be perceived as a colonial power, so the country “tries not to play
too big a role.” Elaine Papoulias, director of the Harvard’s Kokkalis
Program on Southeastern and East-Central Europe, says that Greek policy
has undergone several changes recently, noting that the Greeks have
developed a “much more hands-off approach” when it comes to Cyprus.
How will these elections affect Turkey’s chances with the EU?
The Cypriot elections do not directly affect Turkey’s potential
membership in the EU, but Cyprus itself is an issue; reunification
would clear a significant obstacle on Turkey’s path to join the
organization. But if the party of Papadopoulos garners more support,
as polls suggest it will, that may make reunification less likely. As
Steven Cook, CFR’s Douglas Dillon Fellow, says, “Papadopoulos’
hard-line stance is creating a difficult situation for Turkey.” Most
experts don’t expect a strengthened Papadopoulos to make much
progress on the issue of reunification, and the division of Cyprus
will subsequently remain a problem for Turkey’s accession to the EU.
Joseph says any progress on reunification is more likely to come from
external forces than the Cypriot government itself.

SURPRISING ENTRIES ADVANCE IN EUROVISION SONG CONTEST
Christine Pirovolakis, dpa
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
May 18, 2006 Thursday 11:11 PM EST
Amid a cluster of ancient Greek gods, Spartan warriors and mythical
creatures, musicians from 23 countries battled it out for a place in
Saturday’s main Eurovision 2006 Song Contest in Athens.
Competing for 10 places for the main event in the former Olympic city,
Russia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lithuania, Finland, Ukraine,
Ireland, Sweden, Turkey and Armenia made the cut after a public text
and telephone vote.
Ranging from pop to ethnic music to rock, the winning acts for the
semi-finals included a wide assortment of genres, including Belfast-
born singer Brain Kennedy’s soft, heartfelt ballad with soaring vocals
and a simple arrangement.
Russia’s Dima Bilan performed a modern pop song with a serious edge,
while Sweden’s Carola’s Invincible was an anthemic production that
started slow and built to a thumping chorus.
Again this year, Eurovision is producing its fair share of controversy
and extreme behaviour.
Among the more unusual and surprising bands to advance to the finals
were controversial Finnish heavy metal band Lordi, whose act features
gruesome masks, armour and jets of flame.
“We are so satisfied – imagine a band that look’s like us can reach
the finals in a song festival like this,” said Lordi’s lead singer
during a press conference.
Other unexpected winners also included Lithuania’s Lt United with
their title We are the winners, as well as Turkey and Armenia, the
latter competing for the first time in Eurovision.
Hosts Greece, nine top-scoring nations from last year’s contest and
four major countries have automatic berths in the final: Switzerland,
Moldova, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Spain, Malta, Germany, Denmark,
Romania, United Kingdom, France, Croatia and Greece.
France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom qualify automatically
as the four most populous countries in the event.
Eager to entertain the more than 10,000 fans in the Olympic Basketball
stadium in Athens and the more than 100 million people who tuned in to
the event from 40 countries, dancers dressed-up as Zeus and Aphrodite,
the Greek goddess of love, took to the stage singing past Eurovision
hits Volare and Diva.
The show’s choreographer, Fokas Evagelinos, said he wanted to inject
a dose of humour while also showcasing Greek culture in the event.
Still basking in the glory of the 2004 Olympics, when they impressed
audiences by bringing the history and authenticity of the event back
to its homeland, organizers have spared no expense for Eurovision.
Athens won the right to host the event after Helena Paparizou triumphed
last year in Kiev with her song My Number One.
This year, Greece’s ancient capital and its 5 million people have
embraced the contest with even greater enthusiasm than the Olympic
Games. With the necessary infrastructure from stadiums to transport
already in place, Athenians are confident of Eurovision success.
Anna Vissi will be battling it out to score yet another win for Greece
with Everything, a ballsy, heartfelt rock ballad about the breakup
of a relationship.
Despite being described as a showcase of kitsch, Eurovision is one
of the most watched television programmes in the world, and the
competition has served as a springboard for such international stars
as Abba and Celine Dion.

TANKS ROLLING NORTH: WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM GEORGIA: SCANDALS CONTINUE
Albert Yeremjan, Mikhail Moshkin
Source: Gazeta, May 16, 2006
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 19, 2006 Friday
Twenty-One Echelon With Military Hardware, Armaments And Material
Will Leave The Russian Base In Akhalkalaki (Georgia) Before October;
An update on the withdrawal from Georgia.
Russia is pulling out. The accords signed in Sochi this March, give
Russia until 2008, to withdraw from Georgia completely. The matter
concerns Russian military bases in Batumi and Akhalkalaki.
It took the military two days to load all armored vehicles of
the 62nd Base (Akhalkalaki) on flatcars at Tsalka station in East
Georgia. The process began on Saturday. Carrying seven T-72 tanks,
eight armored battle vehicles, two armored personnel carriers, and
four communications vehicles, the echelon departed for Russia via
Azerbaijan, yesterday.
“Running echelons across Azerbaijan will simplify matters, because it
will do away with the necessity to unload the military hardware from
flatcars and load it again to a different transport means,” Russian
Army Group in the Caucasus Second-in-Command Vladimir Kuparadze told
this correspondent. “The military hardware loaded in Tsalka will ride
the flatcars right to the destination in Russia.” Kuparadze did not
say what units of the Russian army were under orders to receive and
store the military hardware. Tactical and auxiliary teams made it to
Tsalka last week.
Departure of the second echelon is scheduled for May 23.
Twenty-one echelon with military hardware, armaments, and material
of the Akhalkalaki base will leave Tsalka before October, 2006.
The locals, mostly Armenians, are vexed to see the Russians pull out.
It is hardly surprising because the Russian base provided them with
jobs. Special forces of the Georgian Interior Ministry were moved to
Akhalkalaki on the night of May 13, to deal with all and any potential
disturbances. Defense Minister Irakly Okruashvili had said not long
before that Russia was orchestrating “provocations” in Akhalkalaki
“to be able to claim that it was the indigenous population that was
interfering with the withdrawal.”
Along with everything else, official Tbilisi accuses Moscow of
dereliction of its commitments with regard to the Gudauta base on the
territory of the unrecognized Republic of Abkhazia. The Georgians
demand international monitoring while Moscow replies that the base
is closed. The NATO delegation on a visit to Georgia last week was
not permitted to see the base. NATO representatives said that had had
Russia’s consent to a visit the base but the permit was annulled at
the last moment.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress