ISRAEL NEEDS A PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST IRAN
By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency, Israel
June 25 2006
Evidence of Iran building nuclear weapons.
After Iran stated that it will “wipe Israel off the map” Israel must
now act to defend herself.
Jerusalem —– June 24…… One of the best ways to ensure the world
doesn’t get wobbly over Iran, is to make it understand that although
Israel prefers to regard the rogue Islamic regime as an international
problem, we will, if necessary, do whatever it takes to ensure our
survival, including a preemptive nuclear strike.
In 1936, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland the allies appeased
him, even though they could have been in Berlin in two weeks. In 1938
they once again let him off the hook, even though the allies could
have been in Berlin within two months. Shortly after the appeasement
of Munich, Russia signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, setting
the stage for what it hoped would be his defeat of the West, which
would pave the way for Russian domination of Eurasia, from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Now we have Iran, a country led by Ahmadinejad, an equally deranged
and evil maniac. He is driven by an ideology combining elements of
Nazism and Mahdism, with a tad of Maoism as well, a lethal cocktail
of three of the most evil ideologies of human political history.
By most current intelligence estimates, by 2008, exactly 70 years
after Chamberlain announced on his return from Munich he had achieved
“peace in our time”, the Iranian Islamo-Nazi regime will have succeeded
in developing an atomic bomb. Although it seems that the international
community has belatedly begun to awaken to the danger, it is still far
from certain that this will actually lead to concrete and concerted
steps to ensure this doesn’t happen.
Moreover, even if the West does get its act together, three is no
guarantee that Russia will not revert to course, enacting a repeat
performance of the Molotov-Ribbentrob pact. Putin seriously mulling
double crossing the West.
This week new and highly disturbing evidence came to light that this
is exactly what Russia is doing. According to a western intelligence
report published earlier this week, satellite images showed large
volumes of heavy Russian weaponry heading towards Iran. The weapons
belonged to Russian military units evacuating Georgia, as part of
the Russian-Georgian agreement signed in March, which calls for all
Russian troops to be withdrawn from Georgian soil.
The Russians were evacuating their two big Soviet-era military bases
in Georgia on the shores of the Black Sea – the 12th base in Batumi
and the 62nd at Akhalkalaki to the north, 19 miles from the Turkish
border. The mages revealed the retreating Russian units moving along
not one but two routes. The first showed small groups of Russian
officers and soldiers heading out of Georgia carrying only their
personal kits, the second was jammed with convoys of trucks loaded
with weapons and logistical systems, radar and ammo.
Freight trains were also pressed into service. This route wound out
of Georgia and headed into Armenia where the vehicles halted at the
Russian base near Gyumri. A Russian military spokesman explained this
relocation by stating that “the property of the 62nd (Akhalkalaki),
Georgia, would be reassigned to replenish Russia’s 102nd base in
Gyumri, Armenia.” He added: “The transfer of this property to any
other party is not envisioned.”
However Armenia was not the “the property’s” last stop. The close
watch on the Russian supplies convoys continued and, lo and behold,
a third route surfaced, this one heading out of the 102nd base in
Armenia and into Iran.
Western military sources have traced the route these weapons took.
>>From Gyumri, the trucks and trains rolled on to the Armenian capital
of Yerevan. There, they were offloaded onto Armenian and Iranian
trucks and trains, which turned south to the Iranian border. The
freight crossed the border and halted at the Iranian town of Sadarak.
Its next stop was the Iranian-Azeri town of Naxcivan and then on to
Tabriz. Subsequent shipments by truck and rail followed the same route,
They included APCs, heavy artillery, Grad rockets, BM-21mm missiles
and anti-aircraft systems.
So far this year, Iran has purchased over $7 billion for arms from
Russia, including anti-air, nuclear-capable Tor-M1 cruise missiles,
considered by experts the most advanced of its kind in the world.
Iran has purchased these missiles to secure the Bushehr atomic reactor
and other nuclear sites. These sources say that Teheran is using the
Georgian weapons deal as bait, to get Moscow to part with weapons
and technologies it has so far refrained from passing over to the
ayatollahs, specifically technology transfers enabling Iran to begin
domestic production of the sophisticated Russian X-5518 nuclear cruise
missiles, known also as Kh-55 or AS-15s.
Tehran already has a dozen of these missiles, which have a 3,000km
range and are capable of carrying a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. They
were purchased on the black market of Ukraine in 2005. Teheran
has reportedly promised to significantly increase its purchase
of conventional weapons from Russia, if it agrees to the missile
technology transfer.
Despite the uncertainty as to whether Russia (and possibly China as
well) would cooperate with the West regarding Iran, the conventional
wisdom has remained unchanged, namely that Iran is an international
problem, being dealt with accordingly by the international community,
and that Israel should therefore take a back seat.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The world needs to understand
very clearly that Israel cannot and will not allow a Holocaust
-denying regime that openly calls for its destruction to wield a
nuclear bomb. Israel needs to make it very clear that the consequence
of it having to face a nuclear Iran by itself will be a preemptive
strike against Iran.
The more the international community gets the message that the
consequences of appeasement will be worse than those of action,
the better the chances of action. The growing evidence of Russian
perfidy makes it even more important that there be no room for
misunderstandings in this regard. The best way to get that message
across is to make it very clear that if Israel is faced between an
Iran nuclear bomb, or having to launch a preemptive nuclear strike
to prevent that eventuality, it will opt for the latter.
The world must be told loud and clear by Israel that the only way to
avoid the first nuclear strike by a nation since Nagasaki is to take
whatever actions are required to ensure Iran doesn’t get the bomb,
and to prevent an Iranian conventional weapons build up to the point
where a preemptive nuclear strike becomes the only option for dealing
with the rogue ayatollah regime.
Jonathan Ariel, was an advisor to the South African government and
is a former editor-in-chief of the Israel on-line Maariv International.
He has filled numerous positions with well known Israel and
international media organizations such as Maariv, Makor Rishon,
Jerusalem Post, Ha’aretz, The International Herald Tribune, Israel
Radio, SABC and the Independent Foreign Service. These include
Managing-Editor of Makor Rishon and Editor-in-Chief of Maariv
International. He has been interviewed and quoted by leading media
organizations such as the LA Times, The Economist, The Guardian,
The New York Sun, Times of India, The Australian, Sunday Times and
the BBC. His articles have been translated into over a dozen major
languages, including German, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Serbo-Croatian,
Spanish, French, Arabic, Japanese, Korean and Chinese. He has degrees
in Political Science and Journalism. He speaks English and Hebrew at
mother tongue level, French, Dutch (Afrikaans) fluently.
aelnuclearariel3890624.html
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN GEORGIA: INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS
Regnum, Russia
June 25 2006
“Armenians love Tbilisi but they don’t like Georgians. The city
and the people are two absolutely separate concepts,” concluded
Tamara Vardanyan at an academic conference organized by the Noravank
Foundation. Tamara Vardanyan has recently come back to Yerevan from
Georgia where she researched the conditions of ethnic Armenians and
their level of integration in the community life. REGNUM publishes
abstract from Tamara Vardanyan’s presentation.
She said that there are problems both at the level of integration
of Armenians in Georgian economic, social, and political life and
at the level of Armenian community itself. “In Georgia, Armenians
are stereotyped as being employed as barbers, taxi drivers, or
shoemakers,” she observed. Most of the Armenians residing there do
not want to leave the country; however, their motto is “integration,
not assimilation.” What about the attitude of Georgians to their
neighbors, the situation is complicated by their “historical memory”
on which it is inscribed that Armenians are aliens on the Georgian
land, and by the Nagorno Karabakh conflict that is impeding solving
the Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhaz conflicts.
As for the Georgian-Russian relations, “Armenians do not support the
anti-Russian policies of the Georgian authorities, as well as the
Georgian society itself.”
The Armenian community in Georgia is “very weak: it lacks internal
will and both economic and political elite,” Vardanyan said.
“Armenians are incapable of seeing the danger of being assimilated as
an ethnical minority on the Georgian territory.” This is the reason
why almost no ethnical Armenians are present in the Georgia’s public
sector. To be employed in the Georgian public sector, an Armenian
would need first to change his last name. As for the private sector,
people with their last names ending on -yan, are far lesser paid than
their Georgian colleagues.
Separate issues are education of the Armenian youth in Georgia and
preserving Armenian cultural and spiritual heritage.
On September 1, 2006 only two of eight previously working in Georgia
Armenian schools will be opened for children. Besides, it is not
even yet clear if they will remain Armenian in their curricula or be
reformed. The reason of the change alleged by the Georgian government
is that they decided to close all schools whose number of students
is below 700, based on some “voucher system.” And Tbilisi enjoyed
a total of eight schools with 700 Armenian students. Of the eight
schools only two were wholly Armenian; other schools included both
Armenian and Russian sectors.
Today, the Georgian government decided to introduce the system of
“bilingual education” where, starting in secondary school, exact and
natural sciences will be taught to Armenian students in Georgian.
Vardanyan said that research study conducted in this regard shows
that 15 percent of Armenian children are now studying in Georgian
schools. Their parents hope that this would help their kids be later
employed in the Georgian public sector.
Armenian applicants to Georgian higher education establishments will
also have to face new challenges. Armenian and Russian enrollees will
hold examinations designed previously only for children who graduated
from Georgian high schools, which decreases chances of minorities’
children to be enrolled.
As for preserving cultural and spiritual heritage of Armenians in
Georgia, many problems here arise from the absence of the law on
religion. There are two Armenian churches in Tbilisi, Surb Gevorg
and Echmiadzin. They, however, do not have any official status, for
they are not legally registered in any agency and their jurisdiction
is not defined. Vardanyan said that, although Georgian churches are
in a similar position, Georgians are more religious and go to church
more frequently than Armenians. “Georgians have an impression that
Armenians are not Christians at all, that they are adherents of some
satanic sects,” Vardanyan said.
Vardanyan said that almost all the burden of Armenian problems in
Georgia rests on non-governmental organizations. Most abundant are
Armenian NGOs (67), they are followed by Azerbaijani and Ossetian ones
(20), Russian (15), Jewish (10), Lithuanian (6), Yazidi (5), Chechen
(4), and one German organization.
Armenian NGOs, according to Vardanyan, do not cooperate closely. The
only event that could mold them together is a meeting before
the Turkish embassy to Tbilisi on April 24, the Day of Memory of
Victims of Armenian Genocide. “If in 2002-2003, Armenian NGOs were
mostly preoccupied with organizing cultural events like exhibitions
and musical concerts, today politics is becoming their priority,”
Vardanyan said. Most of Armenian non-governmental organizations are
financed by European international structures.
According to the information of Armenian embassy to Georgia, about
350, 000 Armenians reside in Georgia today; 100, 000 of them live
in Tbilisi.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

VIKTOR YAKUBYAN: GUAM AND GUM: GEORGIA, MOLDOVA AND UKRAINE SUSTAIN OTHERS’ LOSSES
Viktor Yakubyan – expert on South Caucasus
Regnum, Russia
June 24 2006
Any big political event or a chain of such events is interesting
from, at least, two points of view – informational and analytical. If
information is almost simultaneous to the process, analysis comes
much later – not only to reveal the motives of the actors but also
to compare their goals and achievements. In this article, I would
like to analyze the present situation in three CIS states: Moldavia,
Georgia, and Ukraine. No need to remind you about the well-known chain
of events in those countries, you have a detailed media coverage of
it. I would like just to show you the general logic of tendencies
that has led those countries to their present situation.
Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova are three CIS states that have been
in growing political confrontation with Russia for several years
already, with each of them systematically counterpoising its “own”
interests to those of Russia. Experts are unanimous that in this
particular case those “own” interests are tightly bound to the
interests of the Atlantic bloc. The confrontation of those countries
with Russia comes not so much from their wish to cooperate with the
West as from the emphatically mono-vector nature of their foreign
policies. Today almost all the CIS countries – and Russia as well –
are developing their cooperation with NATO, but none of them are trying
to counterpoise polar interests in the situations they objectively
exist in. For example, in its foreign policy Azerbaijan is trying to
avoid collision of the interests of Iran, Russia and the US in its
territory or over its agenda issues. That’s why I am going to analyze
the situation not in terms of the full GUAM format – together with
Azerbaijan – but with focus on GUM – Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.
In fact, several years have passed since Georgia and Ukraine changed
their governments and the Moldavian president revised his attitude
to Russia in the face of a new presidential election. What have
those countries come to and what have they got from their strategic
Russia-West contraposition?
Georgia
Despite being generally accepted, the view that Ukraine is the leader
in the GUM “confrontational bloc” seems not so very well grounded.
Initially, it was Georgia who took up the role of key resister to
the Russian sway and key political and economic link in the GUAM chain.
Georgia will also be the key respondent if the project fails. Already
today that country is feeling the painful political and economic
consequences of the inflexible policy of its leaders.
At the first glance, the internal political situation in Georgia seems
quite stable and safe for Mikhail Saakashvili, Georgian president
who came into power through popular support. At the same time, the
post-revolution period has seen some remarkable events that forebode
not so much the crisis of government as the crisis of statehood
as such.
After declaring the restoration of the country’s territorial integrity
as his priority, Saakashvili suggested quite an interesting mechanism
of achieving this goal – confrontation with Russia. By declaring that
Georgia has no problems with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and all its
problems are related to Russia, the Georgian president, in fact,
attempted to involve the western community in Georgian-Russian
relations and to fully shade the position of the unrecognized
republics.
Such a policy was obviously able to aggravate Russian-Georgian
relations, at best, and to spoil Russia’s relations with the so-called
friends of Georgia, at worst. The worst case proved impracticable as
despite various contradictions, Russia tries to be in constructive
dialogue with almost all the international process participants
and to discuss with them problems that are much wider in scope than
Georgia’s interests. Saakashvili doggedly tried to escalate tensions
in the conflict zone and thereby to turn the attention of the world
community to his country’s problems, which, as I have already said,
he has initially ascribed to Russia’s influence.
He has succeeded in a sense, but the question is what to do next. It
turns out that very few people actually want to conflict with Russia…
GUM’s task was to pool efforts to create a ‘sanitary cordon’ against
Russia and, together with Azerbaijan, to consolidate to gain control
over the self-proclaimed republics. This maneuver was followed by
an adequate response – Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transdniestria
also consolidated their efforts, which complicated their individual
problems and questioned the very expediency of Georgia’s policy. It
is becoming clear that Saakashvili will actually have to fight for
restoring his country’s territorial integrity, but, this time, at
two rather than one fronts.
Meanwhile, he has an invariable alternative – to agree with Russia.
In the meantime, Saakashvili’s rating precipitously fell following the
internal political events like the mysterious death of prime minister
Zhvania and the shift of several parliamentary forces and the foreign
minister into the opposition. Georgia’s policy on Ajaria, who, in
fact, lost its autonomy after the expulsion of Abashidze, made it
even harder for Tbilisi to find acceptable solutions to the conflicts.
In his attempt to keep the situation under control, Saakashvili formed
a rigid intra-party hierarchy, nominated radical figures into military
offices and as a result got a warning from US Deputy Secretary of
State Dan Fried that he is going back to authoritarianism.
The illogicality of Georgia’s consistent efforts to exacerbate its
relations with Russia – its key economic partner – ended in quite
logical consequences. Russia consistently enhanced its presence in
Georgia’s energy sector, with its surgery strikes on the country’s
key export items resulting in Tbilisi’s absurd announcement about
secession from the CIS. In fact, for Georgia the CIS membership is of
much bigger economic importance than for any other member-state. The
CIS countries are Georgia’s biggest foreign trade partners, with Russia
being traditionally on top with 16%. Until recently, 70-80% of Georgian
wines and mineral waters have been exported to Russia. Some sources
say that because of the wine embargo alone Georgia loses $18-25mln a
week. Besides, the winemaking infrastructure is tightly connected to a
whole cascade of raw material industries and services: vine-growing,
the production and import of mineral fertilizers, packing, railroad
operations. The natural result of these tendencies and of almost
redoubled fuel export price was the rise in consumer prices – 5.8%
since early 2006 and 10% against a year before.
Thus, the real results of the Georgian policy of the last years are
as follows:
1. Setback in the Abkhazian and South Ossetian peace processes;
Shattered foreign trade balance;
1. Slumping rating of the authorities;
1. Real prospect for becoming the biggest vinegar supplier.
Moldavia
I can definitely say that in this new prospective export item Georgia
may face a tough rivalry from Moldova, but, if seriously, the economic
situation in Moldavia does not have even this prospect.
Experts say that the Moldavian economy is on the verge of a large-scale
financial-banking crisis: currency reserves are steadily decreasing,
the negative foreign trade balance is spasmodically growing (43%). In
January-April 2006 alone Moldova’s foreign trade turnover dropped by
10%. After losing positions on the alcohol and fruit markets in Russia,
Moldova is steadily turning into a pure importer, with no progress
shown in trade with immediate neighbors – Romania and Ukraine. The
Moldavian export to the CIS has decreased by 15%, to the EU by 4%.
President Voronin continues hoping for financial injections from
the West, perfectly realizing that they will not save the country’s
traditional industries unless they regain sales markets. Moldavia’s
strategy of the agri-industrial complex development till 2015 plans
5-7% annual growth in agricultural produce. Meanwhile, in 2005
this index was just 1% and in 2006 it may go even lower because of
stagnating winemaking.
The Ukrainian-Moldavian anti-Transdnestr campaign for introducing new
customs rules has also ended in economic damage for Chisinau. The cargo
turnover via the Ukrainian-Moldavian border has dropped from 4.5mln
tons in January-April 2005 to 3.1mln tons in January-April 2006. In the
first quarter of 2006, the total volume of Ukrainian-Moldavian mutual
supplies dropped by $4.8mln or 3%. Experts say that the Moldavian
government’s promise to ensure 9-10% inflation in 2006 is unreal, they
say that, in fact, inflation will be no less than 13%. In January-May
2006, inflation grew by 7.2%. Last months, food prices grew by 1.6%,
non-food prices by 1.4%, service tariffs by 0.3%. Meanwhile, the
heaviest impacts of the rise in the Russian gas tariff are yet to come.
In the political agenda the “achievements” of Moldova are not much
different from those of Georgia.
Objectively unable to play more or less significant role in GUAM,
Moldova is just watching the game with a hope that it will get
dividends just because it is in the project. Obviously, Moldova is
not able to make any economic or political contribution to the bloc’s
maneuvers, but it will certainly have to reckon with the consequences
of the coordinated policy of “the union of the unrecognized” under
the “Kosovo precedent” aegis. The rigid contraposition of the EU and
Russian interests and the wish to force Russia out of the Transdnestr
peace process has made the positions of the sides even tougher and
that of Moscow – maximally tough.
Ukraine
Ukraine is facing the most complicated political situation of all.
Besides being the key potential importer of the Georgian and Moldavian
vinegar, that country claims to become the most consistent executor
of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.
Speaking seriously, this long campaign seems to have knocked Ukraine
out of the general logic of the international political process. What
is beginning to happen in Ukraine proves that the country has lost
control over the situation. The best example is the last incident
with American marines and engineers in the Crimea. The Americans
seemingly failed to notice they were treated as occupants just because
the authorities were so busy with fighting for portfolios that they
simply forgot they had come. One might as well speak about chaos in
parliament and government.
Having come into power amid democratic slogans, “the orange trio”
has now gone as far as to charge each other with betraying “the
ideas of Maidan.” By strictly counterpoising the planned accession
into NATO with the military-technical cooperation with Russia, the
Ukrainian politicians risk to bring to nothing the Ukrainian-Russian
defense cooperation. Russia is already saying it is ready to stop
military-technical cooperation. No doubt this will damage not only
the economy but also the defense potential of Ukraine and no need
proving that it will take the country years if not decades to repair
this damage.
Meanwhile, each day of de facto anarchy in Ukraine is making
things even worse and is bringing to the surface the apparent and
latent problems of the Ukrainian statehood. One such problem is
the country’s language division – hardly something coincidental or
inspired from outside. This factor was objective reality, and the
Ukrainian authorities should have accepted it, but the fact is that
it was just another opportunity for some political forces to reinforce
their own positions.
The long political uncertainty has slowed down the economic growth
set off by Leonid Kuchma. Despite its strong industrial and agrarian
potential, Ukraine has almost the lowest economic growth in Europe.
EBRD forecasts that this year, Ukraine will be the worst in economic
growth among 27 Central and Eastern European countries – only 1.2%
against twice as much last year. In 2005, the GDP growth fell by 3.6
times, the industrial output growth by 4 times as against January-June
2004.
Ukraine’s Clearing House says that in January-June 2006, the fixed
capital investment growth rate dropped by 4 times, with the share of
the state budget falling by as much. As of August 1 2005, the positive
foreign trade balance had plummeted by almost 21 times (!).
Ukraine has fallen back to the level of 2000. In January-July 2006,
the state budget got only 51.6% of the annual plan. Financiers say that
the political stagger of the Ukrainian establishment may shatter the
stability of the national currency. One more prerequisite for such
an outcome is rising fuel prices, growing inflation and augmenting
negative trade balance.
It should be noted that Ukraine’s advantage over Georgia and Moldova
is that if restoring foreign political stability it can relatively
compensate its economic losses by budgetary capital investments and
big foreign credits. Still, it is exactly political instability that
continues to be the biggest potential danger not only for Ukraine but
also for the whole GUM. We know that it pains them in Georgia to see
what is going on in Ukraine. We can understand them: being the engine
of the project, the Georgian leaders perfectly realize that their key
argument against Russia is exactly Ukraine. The first and foremost
trump of Ukraine is its role of a transit corridor between Russia
and Europe. Russia has covered this trump by a preventive measure –
it has begun to lay the Northern-European pipeline. In fact, this
project is a response to the Ukrainian elite’s vector contraposition
attempt coming from the Polish and Baltic “priorities.”
The results of the “orange” revolution are as follows:
1. Economic stagnation, growing consumer, fuel, and transport prices;
1. Growing public tension fueled by continuing chaos in the government
and vague and sometimes mutually contradicting state priorities;
Growing contradictions in the Crimea, globalization of this local
problem;
1. Weakening power vertical, lack of control over regions as a result
of impulsive staff policy;
1. Weakening sovereignty and, as a result, interference of external
forces in the political fate of the country;
1. Loss of organic place in Europe’s geo-political construction –
Ukraine has turned from the key link between the CIS and Europe into
a conflict buffer between Russia and Europe and risks to lose the
confidence of both Russia and Europe;
1. Big business is losing because of unwise privatization, some
politicians are openly revengeful and thereby pose threat to the
national security.
In conclusion, I can say that the present tension in the anti-Russian
“arc” was expected by many – and, probably, even by the leaders
of those countries. When you are between two poles you can hardly
expect to avoid discharge. Still, the “sanitary cordon” project is
not over – it is at its climax. And much will depend on what comes
next in Ukraine. The “happy end” of the “portfolio passion” drama
has been followed by a new situation. It is clear that the backstage
confrontation will continue to deepen and each of the big political
leaders will try to prove that his voice is decisive. With her bitter
experience of short-lived premiership, the future premier Timoshenko
may well try to reinforce her positions by, probably, undermining
the positions of the president. Still, the key task of those actors
is not to allow the split of the country – for, as it turns out, the
western script writers made a major mistake when projecting Ukraine’s
place and role – they miscalculated that this country cannot perform
the role of a mono-layer buffer. Roughly speaking, if the western
part of the country becomes a buffer between Europe and Russia,
the eastern part will fence off Russia from Europe and its buffer.
Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova are three CIS countries who have
undertaken confrontational, if not hostile, policy towards Russia.
They are openly torpedoing integration initiatives in the post-Soviet
area, particularly, by tearing the CIS from inside by means of GUAM and
by belittling the potential significance of EurAsEC. This is obviously
bad, not only for Russia but also for the other CIS countries. For
example, Georgia’s secession from the CIS cannot but cause harm to
Armenia, though, unlike Georgia, Armenia has managed to somewhat
diversify its foreign policy and has given the EU an even bigger
share in its export-import operations than to Russia.
In its turn, Russia, whose motto is “we will hold dialogue only
with those who are ready for one,” has undertaken a number of
counter-measures. I can’t say that all of them are correct or
justified, on the contrary, many of them make things even worse.
Obviously, Russia is taking up a new attitude – “our losses are
becoming yours.”

ILHAM ALIYEV LOST TRUST IN PEACE TALKS AND MEDIATORS ON NAGORNO KARABAKH
Regnum, Russia
June 24 2006
“We have been loyal to negotiation process for more than 10 years,
which is the evidence of our constructiveness,” Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said on June 23 in Baku.
Ilham Aliyev reminded that UNO has issued four resolutions on
Nagorno Karabakh, pointing out that Azerbaijani land should be
liberated without any conditions. Additionally, there are decisions
of other international organizations such as the Council of Europe,
Organization of the Islamic Conference, GUAM, etc. Nevertheless,
according to the head of state, Armenia does not fulfill them.
“We do not hope any longer for international regulation mechanisms.
We can not bear with this situation. We well never accept loosing of
land. We will never allow separating Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan;
it is not subject for talks. We will only negotiate of the restoration
of Azerbaijani territorial integrity and guaranteeing security for
all peoples living in the region. No agreements are possible outside
these limits,” the president stressed.
“How long will we participate in the talks? How long will we wait?
Our patience is limited. Today, Azerbaijan is a quickly developing
country. Armenia is not able to compete with us from neither
economic, nor political, nor military point of view. Armenians
should imagine where will be Azerbaijan and where will be Armenia
in one, in three, and in five years. Armenia does not have any
resources for development. They are excluded from all international
regional projects. Their abilities for economic development are very
restricted. About half of their population left the country.
According to our information, they are experiencing difficulties
even guarding the border due to the lack of servicemen,” Ilham Aliyev
asserted.
According to Aliyev, Azerbaijan lives in the state of war; in which
case much attention should be paid to army development. “Our military
expenditures have increased four times for the last three years. They
totaled $135mln in 2003 and $700mln – in 2006. We are going to further
increase them,” Ilham Aliyev said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SYSTEM’S GOT IT DOWN
Edmonton Journal, Canada
June 24 2006
With: Hatebreed
When: Sunday, 7 p.m.
Where: Rexall Place
Tickets: $39.75 to $55.75 (plus service charges) at Ticketmaster
– – –
Band hasn’t let success overshadow personal pursuits — like poker
and brokering an apology for a century-old wrong
EDMONTON – Photos rarely capture the true essence of a band, but
this portrait of System of a Down comes close to representing the
four faces of the Armenian-American metal acrobats.
Goofy. Devilish. Aloof. Brooding.
There’s vocalist Serj Tankian, the curly-haired Rasputin figure with
a silly grin.
His lyrics on System’s last two albums, Mezmerize and Hypnotize,
are just as loopy. Interspersed with biting condemnations of war,
politics and Hollywood are unexpected bursts of nonsense: “Banana
banana banana terra cotta!” he sings on Vicinity of Obscenity.
Then, there’s guitarist Daron Malakian, the wide-eyed scamp who looks
like he’s trying to conjure up a halo over his head.
His bratty vocals on Lost In Hollywood and B.Y.O.B. provide a
counterpoint to Tankian’s deeper, richer tones.
There’s bassist Shavo Odadjian, who looks more interested in what’s
beyond the camera’s reach.
Similarly, you won’t find any of System’s members hamming it up for the
paparazzi, hanging out with the likes of Paris Hilton or Tara Reid in
the pages of Us or In Touch. Instead, the musicians would rather remain
distant from the Hollywood machine — or talk about issues that don’t
get a lot of media exposure, such as the Armenian genocide of 1915.
Finally, there’s drummer John Dolmayan, who admits he never smiles in
snapshots or on stage. His menacing look mirrors the group’s heavier,
darker side. It also comes in handy when he visits his favourite Las
Vegas casinos.
What this photo doesn’t reveal is Dolmayan’s passion for poker. He
even lives in Sin City, making him the only band member who doesn’t
reside in the Los Angeles area.
“I don’t know if I’m good … yet,” he says via cellphone, on his
way to a poker game.
“Let’s just say that I’ve only been playing for 10 years. I was
playing mostly home games and now I’m playing more at the casinos
so I’m getting better, learning a lot more. You don’t learn sh–
at the home games because everyone sucks just like you.
“For me, it’s relaxing, it takes my mind off everyday life. I do it
occasionally, but I play to win. I look at it as a game of chess. I’m
pretty much even — I haven’t had great successes but I haven’t had
great failures either. I’ve got a great poker face.”
True, but even Dolmayan wasn’t willing to bet System could release
two chart-topping metal masterpieces in less than a year — 2005’s
Mezmerize and Hypnotize. Nor did he think he’d ever end up hobnobbing
with U.S. politicians. But earlier this year, Dolmayan and Tankian
flew to Washington, D.C., to talk to U.S. senators and congressmen
about an issue close to their hearts.
In 1915, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were evacuated and later
killed by the Ottoman Empire, now known as Turkey.
Dolmayan thinks it’s about time for an official apology and wants
the U.S. to lean on the Turkish government.
“We had families who were extinguished in this genocide and the
people who perpetrated it have never been brought to justice,” he
says. “That’s wrong. I can’t live a happy life without making an
effort to make that right. We don’t necessarily blame the Turkish
people because they’re taught from birth it didn’t happen. And during
the genocide, a lot of Turkish people helped Armenians at great risk
to themselves. We were neighbours; we helped each other. Our ancestors
were really close.”
Dolmayan believes his words were taken seriously by politicians,
but he doesn’t think it will lead to an instant solution.
“All efforts lead to something,” he says. “It might not be this year,
it might not be because of our trip, but if you’re going to run a
marathon, you have to take the first step. … We’re going to continue
to fight for it. It should be important to other people, too. As you
can see, genocides are still being committed. If we don’t care what
happened in the past, why should we care what’s happening now?”
By year’s end, Dolmayan will have a lot more time to lobby
politicians. After 11 years and five albums, the band members want
to take a bit of a breather and work on other projects.
Tankian will be busy with his label, Serjical Strike Records.
Odadjian will channel his inner hip-hop homie while recording with
members of Wu-Tang Clan. Malakian plans to start another group,
Scars on Broadway.
Dolmayan says he’ll take part in some of these extra-curricural
recordings. “I’ll be more than happy to help them out.” You’ll also
find the drummer playing poker — but don’t expect him to turn up
on one of those celebrity TV games. “Definitely not interested,”
he says. “They’re godawful.”
He’ll also be hanging out in his warehouse, where he keeps his
collection of old-school arcade games — including Tempest, Donkey
Kong and Tron — and four million comic books. His favourite title?
Fantastic Four. “It’s a great hobby,” he says. “It fulfils my nerd
credentials.”
His nerdiness was apparent as a kid.
“I treated (comics) pretty seriously right away,” he says.
“Being a drummer, I’m kind of anal — it’s the truth; most drummers
are. I wanted to take care of them, organize them; I was pretty
meticulous. So I didn’t just buy them and throw them away. They were
a great introduction to reading novels. I think they’re very healthy
for kids — they expand your mind, your imagination, your reading.
It’s a great way to achieve learning for kids who get sick of some
of the more boring stuff they teach you in school. Which I hated.”
Comics are also a great way to achieve your dreams. During System’s
hiatus, Dolmayan also plans to start up an Internet company based
on comics. He doesn’t want to reveal much, but he says it will be up
and running within the next 18 months.
“Believe me, you’ll find out about it,” he says.
You can almost hear him smiling. Almost.
[email protected]
Read Sandra’s blog at
SYSTEM SNAPSHOT
– Formed: In 1995 in Los Angeles.
– Members: Serj Tankian (vocals/guitar), Daron Malakian
(guitar/vocals), Shavo Odadjian (bass), John Dolmayan (drums).
– Heritage: All four are Armenian. Dolmayan was born in Lebanon,
then moved to Montreal, where he demolished his first drum set at
the age of seven. After a few years, his family headed to Los Angeles.
– Discography: System of a Down (1998), Toxicity (2001), Steal This
Album! (2002), Mezmerize (2005), Hypnotize (2005).
– Quote: “A lot of people look at System and see us as very serious
and political or however they want to look at us,” says Dolmayan. “We
are. We have that side, but each of us have another side to us. We
enjoy being fans of other things and being kids in a lot of ways.
“Believe me, if you want to get into other aspects of my life, I’m
very serious about bringing to light the Armenian genocide issue.
There’s a lot of things wrong with the planet that I’d like to see
righted. But you can’t be that all the time, otherwise it just gets
boring. I like to enjoy things, too, I don’t want to sit in my room
and sulk all day.”

WRITE ABOUT CYPRUS AND A GREEK RESPONDS
By Nevval Sevindi
Zaman Online, Turkey
June 24 2006
When I wrote my latest article, “Reality Behind Greek Cypriot
Mischief.” There was no round of applause for me as a hero, nor did
letters pour in from patriotic souls.
No sooner was the English translation of the column was placed on
the web’ an avalanche of derogatory letters from the Greeks began to
pour in. “When will you talk about Turkish mischief?” some said, while
others called me a nationalist and a provocateur. How ironic it is that
these two traits are loved by our academicians and columnists! I was,
frankly speaking, moved by the “politeness” of the people who referred
to my column as “sounds of dog barking,” and others who offered the
advice: “Drinking and writing do not mix, you drunken writer.” I have
witnessed how the Greeks use the Armenian allegations of genocide as
weapon against Turkey. They attribute Turkey’s independence success
to assistance from Western countries rather than to the leadership
of Ataturk. Greeks must be suffering from amnesia, to not remember
that it was the Western countries that invaded Anatolia.
They are too vein to admit plain truths. I advise those who insistently
call Turks “nationalists,” to investigate the evidence of Greek and
Armenian nationalism.
One Greek claims, “Show me a country that borders Turkey, and is
not at war with Turks.” He is convinced that we are embroiled in
conflict with the Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians and Iranians. Our
refusal to take sides with the US, our 40-year allies, in the Iraq
war is ignored. As far as I understand, the Greeks, who referred to
the Ottoman state as “a bunch of murderers,” never think of critiquing
themselves, whereas, Westerners always tell us to face “the facts” in
the Armenian and Kurdish issues. There are those who claim we Turks
set Izmir on fire. Let’s read what American Donald Whitthal and the
commander of USS Arizona say on this subject, “From where I stood —
between customs building and Palace Hotel — I witnessed the killings
of thirty people with their hands handcuffed and on their heads. This
atrocity was the work of Greek soldiers…” They add, as soon as
Greek soldiers landed, they killed the civilians they came across. The
commander relating how civilians were stabbed with bayonets, states,
“Most of the cruelty took place while Turks were under arrest.”
A British officer notes in his report, “Greeks plundered Turkish
villages, killing villagers trying to escape.” The Allied Investigation
Commission states that Greek soldiers and civilians alike caused
chaos in the city, committing assaults, murder and robbery. The
Greeks attacked the Ottoman state without any legal grounds and
were defeated. Why are they angry? The Greek cruelty was not only to
Muslims but also to the Jewish population of Izmir. Since Jews were
seen as Turkish allies, many of them were killed or exiled while hatred
was fanned by anti-Semitic prejudices. It is an historical fact that
the Greeks at times raided Jewish camps searching for “child-eating”
Jews. Thanks to the British and other western allies, we have records
of these bloody events. The principal reason for the Cyprus conflict
is blunder committed by the European Union by admitting Greek Cyprus
to the union at the expense of its own laws. Without touching this
main reason, the EU is dancing syrtaki with the Greeks and wants us to
dance with them If the West so respects its laws, then why should it
grant membership to a ‘country’ beset with border conflicts? Because
it will serve to block Turkey’s entry to the union. Now, the EU is
beating around the bush.
It cannot steer clear to keep a straight path. An expert on hypocrisy
and double standards, the West is playing the three monkeys and not
keeping its promises.
Those who read-only my column superficially may conclude that Greeks
are our enemies, and that Turkey should not join the EU. These are
emotional reactions. The fact is that we are not enemies of anyone and
have an optimistic view of things, but we pay a heavy price for our
good intentions. Secondly, joining EU is our right, thus we should do
so. It is now the Union’s move, after long years of our sacrifice to
meet the criteria put to us, including customs agreement. However, if.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PERSPECTIVE: WHAT DRIVES PEOPLE TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?
by George Kassimeris
Birmingham Post, UK
June 24, 2006, Saturday
First Edition
The torture and murder of two marines in Iraq this week has
highlighted the depths to which warring factions can plummet. But
George Kassimeris, who has just written a new book on the subject,
believes that warfare and barbarity will always go hand in hand
“What does the earth look like in the places where people commit
atrocities?” wondered American writer Robert Kaplan while researching
his book on the Balkans and its people.
“Is there a bad smell”, he asked, “a genius loci, something about
the landscape that might incriminate?”
It is probably tempting to think that yes, in places whose names
have become synonymous with the atrocities of our times and where
hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, a permanent ghastly
darkness coupled with a dull smell of damp and rot does exist.
This is not true, of course. Take Rwanda, for example.
Rwanda is universally described as spectacular to behold. A beautiful
country full of eucalyptus trees and brilliant green tea plantations
but also a country which went through the horrific trauma of neighbour
killing neighbour.
All told, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in fewer than a
hundred days.
What happened in Rwanda in 1994 was a shameful passage in 20th
century history but it was not an isolated incident of aberrant
behaviour. Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, East Timor, Darfur, Kenya,
Algeria, Cambodia, Chechnya – the list could go on and on – have all
witnessed indiscriminate waves of killing of the most horrifying kind.
What drives ordinary people to hatred, genocide, inhumanity and evil?
What turns friends and neighbours against each other with such
savagery? What turns fresh-faced boys into killers of people who have
done them no harm? Where does such barbarity come from?
The characteristic act of men at war is not killing: it is killing by
committing shocking and unspeakable atrocities, when circumstances
permit. If there were any doubts about man’s capacity for savagery
and inhumanity to man in times of war, the 20th century’s excessive
violence, barbarism and genocide put them to rest.
>>From the bloodshed of the Western Front to the massacres of the
Armenians, from Stalin’s camps to the rape of Nanjing, from the
butchery of Bosnia to the slow motion genocide of Darfur, men and
women of all creeds and colours exhibited a staggering appetite for
death and destruction. That said, barbarity in warfare is hardly an
exclusively 20th-century phenomenon.
True, the last century will go down in history as one of the most
gruesome and murderous centuries but the exercise of indiscriminate
terror, ethnic cleansing, genocide and rape as war-making tools has
been used for millennia.
The romance of warfare, however, should never be underestimated.
“Three thousand years”, the classicist Bernard Knox once commented,
“have not changed the human condition: we are still lovers of the
will to violence.” Why is war so seductive?
One of the many reasons why Apocalypse Now is remembered when dozen
other war movies, from The Boys in Company C to Go Tell the Spartans,
are pretty much forgotten is that it embraces the full emotional range
of the phenomenon and dares to admit something that less ambiguous
works cannot allow themselves to countenance: seen from a certain
angle, war can be intoxicating and exciting.
Colonel Kilgore’s dawn helicopter raid and his notorious line about
remembering the smell of napalm – “smelled like Victory” -says a
great deal more about the emotional texture of war and the condition
of men in war than the mesmeric appeal of technologies of killing.
How people explain and justify war does not necessarily account for
why they wage it.
Despite the uncertainty, the fear of death and the catastrophe of
defeat, warfare has always attracted people. No matter how many times
the nature of the argument about the use and value of warfare has
changed over the centuries war fascinates men more than it repels them.
When Alexander the Great took a copy of the Iliad with him on campaign,
it was not because it served as a cautionary reminder of the bitterness
and folly of war. Homer describes the grief and lamentation of mothers
and fathers, comrades and lovers’ but the Iliad as a whole celebrates
heroism rather than horror and violence.
But the question that needs to be asked is this: can warfare be
anything else than barbaric? Much historical evidence shows that there
is not much in recent history to prove that it can. The kind of dark
barbarity that defined much of the world before the creation of the
nation-state, has to a large degree characterised the world that
came after.
The remarkable thing, however, is that it was only towards the end of
the 20th century that people in the West began to understand a basic
fact that Sri Lankans, Haitians, Liberians, Afghans, Chechnyans,
Cambodians, Angolans and many others have long known all too well:
that warfare prosecuted according to recognised laws of war has been
the exception not the rule.
For centuries we have debated the morality of going to war and the
manner in which it is fought, but international conventions are not
sufficient in themselves to make warriors adhere to the rules.
People have continued to commit war atrocities, refusing to distinguish
between combatants and noncombatants, legitimate and illegitimate
targets and civilised and barbarous treatment of prisoners and of
the wounded.
In the light of this it is not difficult to explain why the ratio of
military to civilian casualties since the First World War has risen
so dramatically that civilian casualties now constitute the majority –
an astonishing and depressing 90 percent – of those killed, mutilated,
raped and uprooted even when they presented no conceivable threat to
the military adversaries.
What is even more depressing is the fact that a large number of them
are children.
So is it pointless to imagine a world where people are not hounded
from their homes, starved to the death, tortured or massacred?
A world where dignity prevails among warriors who choose to fight each
other? What human history has taught us and continues to teach us is
that for as long as there is war and human conflict, there will always
be people – psychopaths and conformists, fanatics and opportunists,
adventurers and moral cowards – willing to commit atrocities in
exchange for a little power and privilege.
And once you choose to look at the violence in this way, and notice
that so much of it occurs in the familiar environment of everyday life,
it no longer seems mindless, chaotic or medieval.
There is a level on which violence has no reason or purpose –
it exists to gratify itself. Nothing illustrates that point better
than the atrocities taking place in Iraq from both the Americans and
the insurgents.
The killings of innocent Iraqis in Haditha by American soldiers and
the tortured bodies of US marines found dumped near Baghdad only
few days ago are two of the most recent but many examples which tell
us exactly the same things the Abu Ghraib photographs told us: that
across the bleak landscape of the 21st century, in an age when sadism
and torture have become themselves addictive forms of entertainment,
it will take a long, long time before somebody comes up with a coherent
plan for dealing with human nastiness.
George Kassimeris is a Senior Research Fellow in Conflict Studies at
Wolverhampton University. His book The Barbarisation of Warfare has
just been published by Hurst.
GRAPHIC: Skulls lie on display at the Ntarama Genocide Memorial in
Rwanda. The memorial occupies a former Catholic Church where about
5,500 people died during the April 1994 genocide after seeking refuge
in the church’ The front cover of the book by George Kassimeris -The
Barbarisation of Warfare.

EX-SOVIET LEADERS AIM FOR EURASIA CUSTOMS UNION
Agence France Presse — English
June 23, 2006 Friday 8:56 PM GMT
Ex-Soviet leaders meeting in the Belarus capital on Friday discussed
setting up a vast customs union between the frontiers of Europe and
Asia by 2007.
“We have to decide on… the creation of a full customs union,”
Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko said at the start of the
meetings held in the country’s new grandiose national library.
Lukashenko was hosting two Moscow-led groupings of former Soviet
republics — the Eurasian Economic Community (EEC) and the Collective
Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO).
“By the end of this year, we will prepare all the legal bases for a
customs union,” Uzbek President Islam Karimov said at a news conference
after the meetings.
Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev said that “the draft laws
are ready,” adding that some 80 percent of tariffs among EEC member
states have already been agreed.
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan are all members
of the EEC, which was set up in 1999. Uzbekistan is in the process
of joining.
Grigory Rapota, the EEC’s secretary-general, said a customs union
would boost overland rail trade between South-East Asia and Europe,
generating economic gains for transit countries.
The EEC, he said, was planning direct container transport between
the Chinese city of Urumqi and the Belarussian city of Brest —
on the border with Poland.
The Eurasia Development Bank — a project funded by Russia and
Kazakhstan with start-up capital of 1.5 billion dollars — would
also help boost economic links when it starts work later this month,
he added.
But talks on the customs union have snagged over the question of
joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Kyrgyzstan is already a
member, while Russia and Kazakhstan are both candidates for accession
to the global trade body.
“It’s difficult. Important economic interests for each country are
involved,” Rapota said, highlighting difficulties on agreeing common
customs laws, tariffs and rules on investment.
In a final statement after the EEC meeting, heads of state agreed
to “guarantee the interests of member states acceding to the WTO
(World Trade Organisation), taking into account the creation of a
customs union.”
Also Friday, members of the CSTO met for talks aimed at boosting
the group’s international profile but failed to agree on setting up
measures for mutual defence.
“We’re sorry we didn’t manage to do this today but the talks will
continue,” Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said at the news
conference following the meeting.
A draft final statement had called for “provision of emergency
military-technical assistance to CSTO member states where there
is a security threat or against whom an act of aggression has been
committed.”
The CSTO, set up in 1992 to focus on anti-terrorism and
counternarcotics programmes, is made up of Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan was accepted as a full member at the meeting on Friday.
The group’s secretary general, Nikolai Bordyuzha, called in an
interview with the Belarussian Military newspaper for the CSTO to
organise “military, peacekeeping and collective reaction forces for
emergency situations.”
Bordyuzha also said the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
had failed to respond to his offer for cooperation from the grouping
of ex-Soviet states.
“It doesn’t bother us. The CSTO is quite a developed organisation
with significant contacts. Our priority, I note, is the UN, not NATO,”
Bordyuzha said.
As an example of a successful CSTO project, Bordyuzha referred to
an anti-drugs initiative called “Channel,” set up in 2004 and now
including countries such as China, India, Pakistan and the United
States.

ROBERT GUEDIGUIAN SUR LA TERRE ARMENIENNE
La Croix , France
24 juin 2006
Pour son nouveau long metrage, Robert Guediguian quitte les docks
de Marseille. Dans Le Voyage en Armenie, le cineaste a choisi de
se tourner vers l’Armenie de ses origines. L’idee lui a ete offerte
par sa femme, l’actrice Ariane Ascaride, qui a imagine une histoire
autour d’un père brouille avec sa fille (elle tient d’ailleurs ce
rôle). Se sachant gravement malade, ce dernier souhaite revenir sur
la terre de ses ancetres et en leguer quelque chose a sa fille. Le
realisateur a saisi l’occasion, sans doute influence par un recent
sejour en Armenie, lors d’une retrospective de ses films. La-bas, les
Armeniens lui avaient reclame une oeuvre sur leur pays, signifiant leur
“besoin d’etre visible, d’exister”.
–Boundary_(ID_iOE8eU5ZC5nTgnVsR 7gwrw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LES NEGOCIATIONS ENTRE L’UNION EUROPEENNE ET LA TURQUIE SONT-ELLES UN JEU DE DUPES ?
L’analyse d’Alexandrine Bouilhet
Le Figaro, France
24 juin 2006
Les negociations entre l’Union europeenne et la Turquie ont franchi une
etape decisive, la semaine dernière, a Luxembourg. Les deux parties
contractantes ont clos le premier chapitre – consacre a la science
et a la recherche – des negociations d’adhesion.
Techniquement, le pas est insignifiant. Ce domaine comporte très
peu d'”acquis communautaire”, c’est-a-dire peu de lois europeennes
a transposer dans le droit national turc.
La Turquie participe deja aux programmes scientifiques communs, comme
Euratom ou Eureka ; elle peut deja utiliser les fonds de Bruxelles
alloues a ces projets. Son merite en la matière est donc reduit.
“C’est comme si on faisait passer un examen d’anglais a quelqu’un
de parfaitement bilingue”, resume-t-on a Bruxelles. Lors du Conseil
europeen, Jacques Chirac a minimise l’evenement. “On a ouvert un
chapitre, d’accord, mais les negociations pourront toujours etre
remises en question si la Turquie ne remplit pas ses obligations…”,
a-t-il commente. N’en deplaise aux turco-sceptiques, la Turquie
a marque un point important sur le plan legal et politique. L’UE
est avant tout une communaute de droit. Après neuf mois passes dans
l’antichambre, la Turquie peut se targuer d’etre entree dans le vif du
sujet communautaire. A Luxembourg, elle a mis ses pions sur la première
case du vaste jeu de l’oie europeen, qui compte 35 cases ou chapitres,
correspondant aux 80 000 pages de legislation. A la fin du jeu, quand
toutes les cases sont remplies, le pays candidat entre, en principe,
dans l’UE. Pour la Turquie, qui n’a jamais ete consideree comme un
candidat comme un autre, s’agit-il de veritables negociations ou d’un
jeu de dupes ? A Bruxelles comme a Ankara, rares sont ceux qui ne se
posent pas la question, au moins en silence.
D’autant que le fin mot de l’adhesion turque reviendra, on le
sait, aux Francais, appeles a approuver, par referendum, tous les
futurs elargissements de l’Union, a l’exception de la Bulgarie,
de la Roumanie et de la Croatie. Le premier test pour la Turquie,
comme pour l’Europe, sur le serieux des negociations, interviendra
a l’automne quand seront examines les chapitres “marche interieur”
ou “transports”, qui exigent la libre circulation des biens et des
personnes. Si Ankara refuse toujours d’ouvrir ses ports aux bateaux
greco-chypriotes, l’UE va-t-elle interrompre d’un coup ses pourparlers
avec la Turquie ? C’est un risque que le premier ministre, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, semble pret a prendre, a en croire ses dernières declarations
a Istanbul. Lorsqu’ils ont ouvert les negociations d’adhesion avec
Ankara le 3 octobre 2005, les Vingt-Cinq ont exige une normalisation
des relations turco-chypriotes avant la fin de l’annee 2006. Si
le blocage persiste, le Conseil europeen de decembre se saisira du
dossier. La question chypriote, plus que la reconnaissance du genocide
armenien, pèse lourdement sur la candidature de la Turquie. En cas,
probable, de non-reconnaissance de Chypre dans les six prochains mois,
Bruxelles se prepare a interrompre les negociations au moins sur les
chapitres concernes : marche interieur, douanes, transports. L’examen
des autres chapitres continueraient, laissant la porte ouverte a
la Turquie.
“Techniquement, nous nous arrangerons pour que le train soit toujours
sur les rails, mais politiquement ces negociations deviendront de
plus en plus difficiles a vendre a l’opinion”, pronostique un expert
bruxellois. Avec son droit de veto, Chypre peut tout faire derailler.
Arbitre des negociations, la Commission est le plus fidèle allie de la
Turquie. “Parfois, elle en rajoute meme un peu trop !” plaisante un
diplomate italien. A Bruxelles, le “desk” Turquie est pilote par un
Suedois, turco-enthousiaste, lui-meme chapeaute par un Britannique,
Michael Leah, pour qui l’elargissement reste la meilleure et la plus
moderne des politiques de l’Union, garante de paix et de prosperite
sur le continent. Parmi les Vingt-Cinq, la Turquie peut compter sur
l’appui de nombreux pays et pas des moindres : la Grande-Bretagne,
la Suède, la Finlande, la Belgique, l’Italie et tous les nouveaux
Etats membres. Meme si elle se doit de rester neutre, la presidence
finlandaise de l’Union, qui commence le 1 er juillet, devrait tout
faire pour eviter la rupture sur la question chypriote. Et la Turquie,
membre eminent de l’Otan, peut toujours s’appuyer sur Washington,
comme elle l’a fait le 3 octobre 2005. Face a ce bloc solide, le
camp “anti-Turquie” est plus faible et plus fluctuant. Bruxelles y
range l’Autriche, les Pays-Bas, le Danemark, Chypre et la France de
l’après-29 mai. Pourtant, la ligne francaise reste ambiguë, partagee
entre l’Elysee, favorable a l’entree de la Turquie pour des raisons
strategiques, et le Quai d’Orsay, souvent plus sceptique. Pour Jacques
Chirac, la Turquie doit entrer dans l’Europe pour que celle-ci ne
reste pas un “club chretien”. Pour nombre de diplomates francais au
contraire, l’adhesion de la Turquie risque de “denaturer” le projet
europeen. Cette attitude double rend la position francaise souvent
illisible par l’opinion, sauf pour les experts du dossier qui ont
appris a decrypter le jeu de Paris. “En coulisse, les diplomates
francais sont les plus pinailleurs, avec les Chypriotes, constate un
negociateur. Ils font monter la pression jusqu’au bout, mais dès qu’on
frôle la rupture, ils se rangent en faveur d’Ankara. Du coup, Chypre se
retrouve isolee, seule contre tous, et elle doit ceder.” Dans le jeu
diplomatique europeen, la France est moins decisive que l’Allemagne,
qui a toujours vote en faveur de la Turquie. “En Allemagne, la
Turquie est un dossier de politique interieure plus que de politique
etrangère”, note un diplomate, en faisant allusion aux 2,7 millions
de Turcs qui vivent en Allemagne, dont 550 000 avec le droit de
vote. En France, la Turquie restera un dossier de politique etrangère,
jusqu’a ce qu’elle entre dans le champ du referendum, attendu dans
dix ans au minimum, c’est-a-dire a la fin du jeu de l’oie europeen.
–Boundary_(ID_YQkut46D/NGmFlOU7NQTrQ)- –