AUTHORS OF TURKISH GOVERNMENT REPORT ON MINORITIES ACQUITTED OF “INCITING HATRED”
Benjamin Harvey
AP Worldstream
May 10, 2006
A Turkish court ruled on Wednesday that the authors of a
government-ordered report on minorities were not guilty of “inciting
hatred and enmity” when they said Turkey should grant more rights to
Kurds and other minorities.
Professors Ibrahim Kaboglu and Baskin Orhan faced up to five years in
prison after their report angered nationalists, who feared recognition
of minority rights in Turkey could lead to the country being broken
up along ethnic lines.
A state prosecutor had demanded that the professors, who both worked
for the state Human Rights Advisory Council, be punished for their
remarks deemed “inflammatory.”
The professors’ 2004 report urged the government to change its policy
and recognize Kurds as a distinct minority. Turkey says that all
Muslims in the country are Turks.
Until 1991, the Kurdish language was banned and even now broadcasting
in Kurdish is strictly limited by the government.
The European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, has demanded that
Turkey improve its treatment of minorities. The push for enhanced
rights, especially for Kurds, has faced opposition in a country still
battling autonomy-seeking Kurdish rebels in its southeast.
The fight with the rebels, who would like to establish an autonomous
region in a chunk of Turkey’s east, has claimed more than 37,000
lives in the past two decades.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pledged to improve the
situation with government investment in the largely poor Kurdish
southeast.
But the prime minister angered many Turks earlier this year when he
traveled to the Kurdish-majority city of Diyarbakir and acknowledged
that Turkey had made mistakes in the past in dealing with what he
called its “Kurdish problem.”
There are an estimated 14 million Kurds _ about 20 percent of Turkey’s
population of 71 million _ in Turkey, though exact numbers are
difficult to come by because the government does not keep statistics
that classify Kurds as a separate minority.
Kaboglu and Oran’s rights report had also suggested that Turkey give
equal rights to non-Muslims, who are barred from jobs in the police
and Foreign Ministry, and from becoming military officers.
Unlike Kurds, Christians and Jews are recognized as minorities in
Turkey, but nationalists question the loyalty of non-Muslim Turks,
particularly those of Greek or Armenian descent.
Kaboglu, one of the authors of the report, called the case against him,
“a shame for Turkey.”
The court on Wednesday also dropped charges against the two professors
for allegedly insulting the judiciary when they criticized the charges
brought against them. The Anatolia news agency reported that the
Justice Ministry, already under criticism for prominent freedom of
expression cases like the one against novelist Orhan Pamuk, refused
to approve those charges.

THE NEW ROCKS ON THE BLOCK
By Vanessa Friedman
FT
May 10 2006 03:00
Take a walk down London’s Old Bond Street and you will pass the
38-carat yellow diamonds of Graff, the “dancing” diamonds of Chopard,
the stylised diamond flowers of Van Cleef & Arpels and the diamond
watches of Cartier.
The casual onlooker might be forgiven for thinking there is no room
in the market for another diamond retailer.
Yet this year three new jewellery houses will open their doors on
this already-crowded chunk of commercial property: Moussaieff, which
discreetly offers its elite clientele the opportunity to purchase
extremely rare coloured stones; Harry Winston, the American diamond
brand famous for its big traditional rocks; and Leviev, a name new to
retail but renowned in the industry as the largest private producer of
stones in the world, selling about $3bn (£1.6bn) a year to the trade.
Of the three, Leviev will be the most closely watched, and not just
because of its manufacturing power. The opening of its Bond Street
boutique last month is part of a trend towards consolidation along
the diamond-selling supply chain: producers, polishers, traders and
retailers are coming together to market their wares, from the mine
to the shop window. If its rapid-fire expansion succeeds, Leviev will
set the pace for its rivals in a turbulent market.
The strategy carries potential pitfalls, however. Guy Leymarie, chief
executive of De Beers LV, Leviev’s rival, says: “The verticalisation of
the industry is clearly its long-term trend; it’s absolutely the way
to grow a business and build a brand. Retail clearly adds value. But
there are several different kinds of know-how involved in the different
levels of the chain, and you have to respect, and learn, all of them.”
Lev Leviev, the 49-year-old chief executive of the Leviev Group,
which also owns property ventures, the Gottex swimwear brand, petrol
stations and media outlets, has his own theories on the risks facing
diamond retailers.
“There are two main reasons why diamond retailers fail,” he says,
speaking from the Bond Street shop. “Lack of innovation – they have
the same stones in the same settings in the window year after year –
and dependence on one supplier for their stones. Then you can never
plan your sales even one year ahead, because you can only work with
what they give you, and they decide.”
His comment is a thinly veiled criticism of De Beers, the mining group
that operates independently of retailer De Beers LV. The South African
company established a system by which certain privileged polishers
bought their rough stones from the Diamond Trading Company, De Beers’
London-based marketing arm, sight unseen.
It is not, however, an issue for Mr Leviev, who owns mines in Angola,
Namibia, South Africa and Russia. The Uzbekistan-born Israeli also
runs polishing factories in those countries, as well as in India,
China, Ukraine and Armenia, producing an estimated one-third of the
world’s polished stones.
“We have an unlimited supply of rough and polished stones,” says
Mr Leviev.
“So we can spend the three years it takes to create a necklace of
perfectly matched D flawless diamonds.”
It is not just access to the stones that sets Leviev apart, however;
its role as supplier means the company also has close relations with
many trend drivers in the industry. Though Mr Leviev will not name
the brands to which he sells – “it’s not good business practice” –
his market share suggests he would have to provide the stones to at
least one in three jewellers on Bond Street.
As a brand that would appeal to well-heeled consumers, however,
Leviev is in an odd position. He is known to the cognoscenti of
the world’s rarest stones: in Israel, where he is the richest man;
in eastern Europe, where he has a chain of stores retailing small
stones; in Russia, where he is close to Vladimir Putin; and in the
worldwide Jewish community, where he has given away millions.
But his name is not as familiar in the west, the market he has chosen
for his first foray into fine jewellery retail under his own name. And
when it comes to retail, the name on the door matters.
“The name is quite important; people respond to what it represents,”
says Ian Rose, UK managing director of Moussaieff, which has launched
its own marketing drive, participating in museum shows including
“Diamonds” at London’s Natural History Museum, as well as running
private events, in order to build public awareness before opening. “The
clientele has to know and respect you,” he says.
“The most important consideration is location,” says Mr Leymairie of De
Beers LV. “But having a name consumers recognise obviously helps.” Mr
Leviev agrees on the vital role of location, noting he felt it was
important to be on Bond Street, but is less convinced by the idea
of needing to educate customers. “People who buy $100 diamonds don’t
need to know our name; people who buy $1m ones already do.”
“It doesn’t take long for word to get out,” says Thierry Chaunu, head
of Leviev’s retail operation, adding that an advertising campaign is
planned, as well as in-store events. In Mr Leviev’s view the store
is effectively an outreach operation. “We see the store as an art
gallery, and we want to show our art to people,” he says. “Generally,
people can only see truly special stones in a museum but we will make
them accessible to the public.”
The “stones” to which he is referring are some of those that Mr Leviev
has kept for the store, including a rare red diamond (there are 10 in
existence; of those, two are in the Smithsonian and one is owned by
Moussaieff). In the shop window sits a 110-carat gem, the Mir Jumlah,
from the same mine in India that produced the Hope stone, one of the
most famous diamonds in the world; an 83-carat emerald cut diamond
is on display in the lift; and assorted rare blue, pink and green
diamonds sparkle from cases. “They did put some show-stoppers out,”
says Mr Rose. “It was pretty stunning.”
Inside the store, an effort has been made to keep the retail operation
small. Unlike, say, Asprey’s enormous 4,650 sq m Bond Street selling
space, Leviev is constructed like an intimate town house. No counter
is visible, but couches and coffee tables nestle against a wall of
pewter-coloured silk.
“I don’t believe in big stores,” says Mr Leviev, who plans to
open a similar boutique in New York in the autumn. “We are not a
supermarket.” At the same time, however, he admits, “we don’t expect
the store to have much impact financially speaking; that’s not the most
important part of it. The most important thing is that it is a stage.”
Still, the bottom line may be boosted by plans to introduce a more
accessible range, priced between $50,000 and $1m. In any case,
Mr Leviev notes, his company is already diversified. No matter how
big they are, apparently, you should never put all your diamonds in
one basket.
–Boundary_(ID_egMn/C8nm9VTsuNtqIYG6g)–

CUBA, SAUDI ARABIA AND CHINA WIN SEATS ON NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DESPITE POOR RIGHTS RECORDS
Edith M. Lederer
AP Worldstream
May 10, 2006
Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia won seats on the new U.N. Human
Rights Council despite their poor human rights records but two rights
abusers, Iran and Venezuela, were defeated.
Human rights groups said Tuesday they were generally pleased with
the 47 members elected to the council, which will replace the highly
politicized Human Rights Commission. It was discredited in recent
years because some countries with terrible rights records used their
membership to protect one another from condemnation.
“The spoiler governments, the governments that have a history of trying
to undermine the protection of human rights through their membership
on the old commission are now a significantly reduced minority when
it comes to the council,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of
Human Rights Watch. “That doesn’t guarantee that the council will be
a success but it is a step in the right direction.”
Even before the vote, Roth said, “the council was a vast improvement
over the discredited commission” because many countries that violate
human rights who had been commission members didn’t seek seats on
the council including Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya, Congo, Syria, Vietnam,
Nepal, Sri Lanka, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
Yvonne Terlingen, U.N. representative for Amnesty International,
said it was “fairly pleased” that the council members “constitute a
good basis to make a fresh start with creating a strong and effective
human rights body.”
“Some countries have been elected with weak human rights records,
but they also are now committed to uphold the highest human rights
standards,” she said.
The United States opposed the establishment of the council, saying it
did not go far enough to prevent rights abusers from winning seats,
and the U.S.
decided against being a candidate.
But U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kristen Silverberg said “on
the whole, we think it is an improvement over the commission.”
“We are committed to engaging actively in the coming weeks with all
of the elected members … to make sure that this body is effective,”
she said. “We think that the real test of this council will be whether
it can take effective action in serious cases of human rights abuse
like Darfur, …
Burma, North Korea and other places.”
Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican and critic of the U.N.,
criticized the vote, saying Cuba’s election showed the new council
suffers from the same weakness as the commission. The new council,
he said, “is the perfect example of the U.N.’s failure to reform.”
Anne Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School
who runs a web site on U.N. activities, said that at least 20 countries
that were elected “are ranked `partly free’ or `not free’ by Freedom
House,” a Washington-based organization that promotes democracy around
the world.
“That’s an astonishing number of countries that have made it on to
the U.N.’s primary human rights organ,” she said.
Under the rules for the council, any U.N. member was eligible to run
and 64 countries submitted their candidacies but Kenya dropped out at
the last minute. Members needed to be elected by an absolute majority
of the 191 U.N.
states _ 96 members.
To ensure global representation, Africa and Asia were given 13 seats
each; Latin America and the Caribbean eight seats; Western nations,
seven seats; and Eastern Europe, six seats.
Roth said Human Rights Watch would have preferred that Cuba, China,
Russia, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan had not won seats because of
their poor human rights records.
“The good news is that two of the least deserving governments were
not elected,” he said. “Both Venezuela and Iran failed to make the
cut. That is a step in the right direction.”
Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United
Nations, said Iran’s defeat “just shows their lack of standing in
the international community.”
Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov congratulated his countrymen
and women for being elected in the first round, expressing hope that
Moscow’s presence “will contribute to the balanced composition of this
council and to the balanced … discussion of the human rights agenda.”
Russia was a candidate in the most hotly contested regional group _
Eastern Europe _ which fielded 13 candidates for six seats. It was
the only group where a second round of voting was needed.
The other winners were Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania
and Ukraine. The East European losers were Albania, Armenia, Georgia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.
With Kenya dropping out, Africa fielded 13 candidates for the 13
seats and all won: Algeria, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali,
Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zambia.
The 13 Asians elected to the council were Bangladesh, Bahrain, China,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines,
South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka. Those defeated were Iran,
Iraq, Kyrgystan, Lebanon and Thailand.
In Latin American and the Caribbean, the 8 seats went to Argentina,
Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. Nicaragua
and Venezuela were defeated.
The 7 countries elected from the Western bloc were Britain, Canada,
Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland. Greece and
Portugal lost their bid for seats.
___
Associated Press Writer Paul Burkhardt contributed to this report.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERI MINISTER, US OFFICIALS DISCUSS MILITARY TIES, AGENCY SAYS
Turan news agency, Baku
9 May 06
Baku, 9 May: Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov yesterday received
a delegation of senior US military and civilian officials led by
ambassador (?Michael Leman).
Mammadyarov and the US officials discussed military cooperation,
regional problems, the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict and other issues,
the press service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

ERDOGAN ASKS FRENCH FIRMS TO HELP DEFEAT GENOCIDE BILL
Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
May 10 2006
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with representatives
of French companies Tuesday and warned them that a French bill
criminalizing denial of Armenian genocide would damage relations
between their countries, the state-owned Anatolia news agency
reported. Erdogan’s spokesman confirmed the meeting took place.
On Monday, Turkey recalled its ambassador to Paris over the proposed
bill, which would make it a crime to deny that the mass killings
of Armenians by Ottoman Turks at the beginning of the 20th century
constituted a genocide.
The French bill was proposed by the opposition socialists and submitted
to the French parliament. It is similar to a law making it a crime
in France to deny the Holocaust of World War II.
Turkey has used economic leverage before to punish France for its
stance on this issue: in 2001, Turkey canceled millions of dollars
worth of defense deals with French companies after lawmakers in France
recognized the killings of Armenians in Turkey as genocide.
Erdogan reportedly told the assembled company representatives in
Ankara that he wanted them to pressure the French government not
to enact it. “We expect executives of French firms to react to the
draft law,” Erdogan was quoted as saying, warning that its passage
would negatively affect relations. Erdogan added that the law was
not conducive to freedom of thought and expression, Anatolia reported.
Earlier this month, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was widely quoted
in the Turkish news media as asking his French counterpart, “Will
you throw me in jail too?” if Gul stated that the killings were not
genocide, which is official Turkish government policy.
The recalling of the ambassador was a strong statement by Turkey,
which faces an uphill battle to win over the French public in hopes
of gaining eventual entrance to the European Union.
Turkey also recalled its ambassador to Canada over the genocide issue,
saying remarks by the Canadian prime minister recognizing the genocide
could seriously harm Turkish-Canadian relations. Turkey has said it
would return both ambassadors after consultations in Ankara.

ABKHAZIA’S DREAM OF FREEDOM
by Thomas de Waal
Open Democracy, UK
May 10 2006
Abkhazia’s case for independence from Georgia is no less compelling
than Kosovo’s from Serbia, reports Thomas de Waal from the Black
Sea territory.
A mile from the Black Sea in central Abkhazia you can see the
crimson-and-mustard striped domes of New Athos, a grand 19th-century
monastery built at the height of the czarist empire. Nearby is a
green-roofed wooden building camouflaged by the bedraggled palm trees
into the hillside, a house that you would only spot if you knew it
was there. It is Joseph Stalin’s dacha – or rather one of them,
because this small strip of enchanted coastline was his favoured
holiday destination.
When I visited in February 2006, the dacha was shut up, but you could
peer through the crystal-paned windows to see a long oblong table and
sixteen chairs in a meeting room, a cinema booth with the reels of
film still stacked there and a billiard table with dusty white balls.
The rest of the grounds had gone to ruin as surely as Stalin’s Soviet
Union and we clambered through broken walls and decades of matted
leaves to an eyrie, where the generalissimo would have taken his
evening stroll and looked out across the Black Sea.
As I wandered round this forlorn estate, I wondered what the ghost of
Stalin would make of it. Not only has his superpower fallen apart,
but even tiny Abkhazia, his favourite holiday spot, is a destitute
territory detached from Georgia and outside international jurisdiction.
Yet his affection was one of the reasons for the disaster that has
befallen Abkhazia. It was fated to be perhaps both the most privileged
and most cursed part of the Soviet Union. Privileged, because everyone
from Leon Trotsky to Mikhail Gorbachev, but especially Stalin, came
and rested here; cursed, because although the Soviet elite loved
Abkhazia it did not necessarily care about its inhabitants.
A twilight country
Abkhazia was one of those once-cosmopolitan Soviet territories all
too vulnerable to the jealousies and rivalries produced by what Terry
Martin has called “the affirmative-action empire”. In the 1920s it was
a thoroughly multi-ethnic land with trading links across the Black Sea,
a thriving tobacco industry and Turkish the lingua franca.
The Abkhaz, who are ethnic kin of the Circassians of the north
Caucasus, were the largest ethnic group but not the majority.
By 1991 the Abkhaz comprised less than one fifth of the population,
thanks in large part to mass settlement by ethnic Georgians in
the mid-Soviet period, encouraged by Stalin and his chief Georgian
henchman, Lavrenti Beria. The Abkhaz resented the Georgianification
brought by the incomers, while the Georgians resented the way the small
“titular” minority dominated all major positions in the republic.
That is all a distant memory. The Georgians are gone, driven out at
the end of the bitter war of 1992-93. Abkhazia’s population, once half
a million, is now less than half that. Sukhumi, once a city of Greek
tobacco-merchants, then of Georgian workers, is still half-ruined,
grass growing in the streets.
Abkhazia has become one of those twilight territories that exist on
the map and have a functioning government, parliament and press, but
are international pariahs, unrecognised, told by visiting dignitaries
that they are actually part of Georgia.
Yet virtually nothing is left to remind you of Georgia and the younger
generation does not even understand the Georgian language.
Instead the Russians have adopted Abkhazia and are gently annexing
it. The currency is the rouble, Moscow pays Russian pensions and gives
out Russian passports, the Russian tourists have started coming back
and Russian companies and ministries are renting out guest houses and
sanatoria. Above the resort town of Gagra stands the elegant Armenia
Sanatorium, an illustration of Abkhazia’s bizarre history. Chechen
warlord Shamil Basayev got married here in 1992 – he was part of the
broad anti-Georgian alliance of Cossacks, north Caucasians and Russian
special forces that helped the Abkhaz – and now the sanatorium is
leased out to the Russian defence ministry.
Yet it would be a mistake, one most distant observers make, to regard
Abkhazia merely as some kind of rogue Russian puppet-state. In terms
of democracy and civil society, it is no more criminal or corrupt than
any other part of the Caucasus. Its black economy is more developed
because all transactions are done in cash, but it is also a lot poorer
so there is less to steal than in Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaijan.
As for the Russians, the Abkhaz are Caucasians after all and know their
history, in which Russia has been the imperial overlord as much as
Georgia has. Most people are grateful that someone is restoring their
economy. But Abkhaz intellectuals are nagged by anxiety, worrying that
they have broken away from what the Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov
called the “little empire” of Georgia only to be swallowed up by a
resurgent nationalist Russia that seeks to use Abkhazia for its own
ends in its efforts to humiliate pro-western Georgia.
In a small but brave act of protest in October-December 2004, the
Abkhaz made it clear they were not Russian poodles. Moscow decided that
it wanted former prime minister Raul Khajimba to be the next president
and sent PR-experts, pop stars and Kremlin advisers to Abkhazia to
make sure he was safely elected. But the opposition candidate, former
energy boss Sergei Bagapsh, was declared the winner of the election
and fought a desperate battle to have the result recognised. In the
end, after weeks of failed intimidation and bullying of the Abkhaz
opposition, Moscow climbed down and Bagapsh became president with
Khajimba his vice-president.
Bagapsh was in genial form when I visited him. I believed him when he
said he bore no grudge against the Russian officials who had tried
to destroy him but now greeted him amiably as though nothing had
happened. Bigger things are on his mind. He wanted to talk about Kosovo
and its status talks, which are expected to lead to full independence.
President Vladimir Putin had deftly stirred things up on 31 January
2006 when he said at a Kremlin press conference: “If someone believes
that Kosovo should be granted full independence as a state, then why
should we deny it to the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians?”
Bagapsh argued fiercely that where Kosovo should lead, Abkhazia
should follow. Bagapsh said: “If the issue of Kosovo is settled (in
favour of independence) let’s say, and not the issue of Abkhazia,
that is a policy purely of double standards.”
It is an argument to which I am quite sympathetic. The Abkhaz are
entitled to look around and see double standards: that the west
wants to “reward” Kosovo for its loyalty after the Nato intervention
against Slobodan Milosevic, while retaining a soft spot for Georgia
by insisting that its territorial integrity is inviolable. Yet if you
were on the receiving end of Georgian armed thugs threatening your
existence rather than Serbian armed thugs, that distinction seems
rather arbitrary. The two cases are certainly not so far apart to be
judged by entirely different standards.
That applies too to the counter-argument that Serbs or Georgians
might wish to make. There is also the matter of those refugees. The
Serbs comprised a far smaller proportion of the population of pre-war
Kosovo. Thousands of them have left. They are the ones who have the
right to set the Kosovo government an exam on whether it is fit to
become a proper sovereign state that looks after its minorities.
Sukhumi waits
In Abkhazia that exam would be even harder. True, some 40,000 Georgians
have returned to the southern district of Gali inside Abkhazia. But
they live a precarious existence there, preyed on by militias and
gangsters – Georgian as well as Abkhaz – and vulnerable to immediate
expulsion should the Georgian-Abkhaz peace process break down.
What about the remaining Georgians, I asked Bagapsh, estimated to be
up to a quarter of a million and comprising half Abkhazia’s pre-war
population? If you followed the Kosovo model to its logical conclusion,
then they should be allowed full right of return.
Naturally, the president replied that Abkhazia should get its
independence first, then invite the Georgians back. But he did at least
concede that “there are more obligations sometimes than privileges”
in being a sovereign state and that it was a tricky process.
One thing is certain: there is something deeply unsatisfactory
about the intellectual framework around the “frozen conflicts” of
the Caucasus – Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The
unrecognised separatist territories are told that the Soviet
borders are inviolable and that in effect any moves they may make to
democratise themselves are irrelevant. The Kosovo process is useful
because it challenges those assumptions. Surely, now that the precedent
has been set, the debate has to be about democracy and minority rights
more than about territorial integrity.
I remembered what a Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian had said to me,
a question I found unanswerable at the time. “So we were inside
Azerbaijan for seventy years. How many years do we have to spend
outside Azerbaijan for the world to recognise that we have left them
behind for good – twenty, thirty, seventy?”
If the Abkhaz can put together a democratic case for greater
recognition by the outside world, I for one will be glad. And if Stalin
spins a little more in his grave on Red Square, so much the better.
Thomas de Waal is Caucasus editor of the Institute for War & Peace
Reporting in London. He is co-author (with Carlotta Gall) of Chechnya:
Calamity in the Caucasus (New York University Press, 1998) and author
of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war (New
York University Press, 2003)
asus/abkhazia_3525.jsp

DEMOCRATIC PARTY HEAD DOES NOT EXCLUDE “RAT ESCAPE” FROM ORINATS YERKIR PARTY
Regnum, Russia
May 10 2006
“Not political methods, but exclusively those based on own interests
and ambitions of certain politicians are used on Armenian political
field,” Chairman of Armenian Democratic Party, MP Aram Sargsyan stated
at a news conference.
According to him, leaving of coalition Orinats Yerkir (OYe) Party
by four MPs-businessmen is a vivid evidence of this. “Those forces,
which will powerfully struggle during parliamentary elections tomorrow,
and later during presidential ones too, are interested in weakening
of OE positions. For example, they are Republican Party (leader –
Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan, REGNUM), ‘Flourishing Armenia’
(founder – well-known businessman, MP Gagik Tsarukyan, REGNUM),”
the MP stated.
At the same time, Aram Sargsyan did not exclude that “rat escape”
will continue: “At their time, the people joined the party not because
of ideas, but hoping to receive benefit. Such MP is worth nothing,
he will be worth nothing in other possible camp too.”
It is worth stressing that four MP’s, who are at the same time big
businessmen, left coalition Orinats Yerkir Party during last several
days. It is expected that other businessmen, who are still the party
members, will leave it because of sharply changed political views
of OYe leader Artur Bagdasaryan, as well as inner disagreements in
foreign and domestic policy.

FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTRY SAYS IT IS “VERY ATTENTIVE” TO TURKISH ANGER OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL
Pravda, Russia
May 10 2006
The comment from France’s Foreign Ministry came as Turkish legislators
lobbied their French counterparts to vote down the Armenian genocide
bill. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday likened
the issue to a “virus,” hinting of possible repercussions for ties.
“The relationship between France and Turkey is not an ordinary
relationship,” he said. “The French parliament will not inject a
virus like the so-called Armenian genocide into such an important
relationship.”
Earlier Wednesday, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau
said: “We are very attentive to the Turkish authorities’ reactions
on this subject.”
He did not comment further, referring reporters to an earlier
declaration and to lawmakers who drafted the bill.
The proposed law would make it a crime to deny that the mass killings
of Armenians by Ottoman Turks at the beginning of the 20th century
constituted a genocide.
Turkey says the death toll given by Armenians is inflated and that
Armenians in Turkey were killed in civil unrest – not genocide –
as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
The French bill was proposed by the opposition Socialists. It is
similar to a law making it a crime in France to deny the Holocaust
ofWorld War II.
The visiting Turkish legislators from Erdogan’s ruling party and the
opposition met with senior French legislators from the ruling right
and opposition left.
Lawmaker Onur Oymen said they “relayed the Turkish people’s strong
reaction to our French colleagues” and warned that there were calls
for a boycott of French goods in Turkey and that Turkish-French
relations would be severely harmed if the bill is passed, Turkey’s
Anatolia news agency reported.
Bulgarian lawmakers on Wednesday refused to recognize the mass
killings as a genocide, saying this could endanger relations with
neighboring Turkey.
Legislators voted 81-56 with 33 abstentions against a draft resolution
proposed by the ultranationalist party Ataka, calling for “the
recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Turks.”
The motion was rejected with the votes of the parties from the
Socialist-led ruling coalition that also includes a mainly ethnic
Turkish party, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, the AP reports.
“This is a resolution … that aims to complicate our relations with
neighboring Turkey,” Socialist lawmaker Mihail Mikov told parliament.
According to official statistics, Bulgaria – a tiny Balkan country
of 7.8 million – has an 800,000-strong ethnic Turkish minority.
About 11,000 ethnic Armenians also live in Bulgaria, and most of
them are heirs of Armenian refugees who fled Ottoman Turkey during
the early 20th century massacre.

ERDOGAN CALLS FOR BUSINESSPEOPLE TO HELP BLOCK ARMENIAN BILL
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 10 2006
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for representatives
of French companies operating in Turkey to actively lobby against the
Armenian bill that will come up for debate in the French Parliament
next week.
Erdogan hosted company representatives yesterday in a move to
contribute to Turkish efforts to block a possible French approval of
the bill during next week’s Parliamentary session. The bill foresees
prison terms of up to one year and fines of up to 45,000 euros to
deniers of the Armenian genocide claims.
The Turkish prime minister also called for all French businesspeople
and parliamentarians to leave the controversial issue for evaluation
by historians.
French company representatives, for their part, presented Erdogan
with a copy of a letter they sent to French parliamentarians urging
them not to damage economic relations between the two countries by
approving the Armenian bill.

TURKISH INTELLECTUALS’ LETTER TO LIBERATION: ‘ARMENIAN BILL WOULD CAUSE GRIEVOUS ERROR’
Nursun Erel
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 10 2006
An open letter from Turkish intellectuals sent this week to French
daily Liberation urges the rejection of a bill that would criminalize
the denial of the so-called Armenian genocide in France.
The letter was signed by Ahmet Insel, Baskin Oran, Elif Safak, Etyen
Mahcupyan, Halil Berktay, Hrant Dink, Murat Belge, Muge Gocek and
Ragip Zarakolu. It emphasizes that the 1915 incidents were a “disaster
for humanity” and warns, “But whatever its aim, such a parliamentary
act would destroy joint efforts to investigate the historical facts,
so we especially ask our Armenian friends not to cause such an error.”
The letter also recalls the efforts of Turkish intellectuals who
organized the Istanbul conference on the Armenian issue held last year,
even at the risk of being called traitors.
Here are excerpts from the letter:
“We, the Turkish citizens, feel all the burden of the inhuman disaster
faced by the Ottoman Armenians during the last days of Ottoman
Empire. The agony of Armenians is our agony. The 1915 disaster cannot
be denied by anyone who claims to be human. Looking for the reasons
and aims behind such a tragedy is nonsense.
“But the democratic process is on in Turkey, as was seen during the
Istanbul conference held last Sept. 23-24. This process will chip away
at the darkness confronting the public on that issue. Even though the
people who struggle for this are branded traitors, we know that these
are the stages of a democratic process, so we will keep on struggling
through the issue.
“But we have serious concerns about the French Parliament’s possible
approval of the Armenian bill. Whatever its aim, such an initiative
would destroy joint efforts to investigate the facts. Such an
initiative would curb free discussion in France and would also create
a negative impact in Turkey.
“Such polarization would encourage monologues, as France should
very well know. In fact, we need dialogue more than such a vicious
argument. Freedom of expression is a universal principle, just like
the struggle for the crimes against humanity. Defending one does not
mean neglecting the other.
“But today it’s a shame that both sides are unable to communicate
their understanding to one another. Such a deadlock carries the risk
of further, more serious conflicts.
“The pioneers of such initiatives in France or in other places should
take into consideration those circles who are trying to avoid free
argument about the 1915 incidents.
“Sharing all our concerns, we especially warn our Armenian brothers
not to cause a fatal error which could not be easily corrected.”