CROATIA EU ENTRY TALKS START
Written by Brussels journalist David Ferguson

Euro-reporters.com, Belgium
Monday, 03 October 2005

“This is not the case of Croatia versus Carla del Ponte or Carla del
Ponte versus Croatia. This is Croatia and Carla del Ponte working
together. This is the case of General Gotovina being in The Hague,”
said Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader.

Speaking in Luxembourg, after meeting EU Foreign Ministers,
Sanader received good marks from Carla del Ponte, Prosecutor of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). “I
would like to have the same cooperation from Serbia Montenegro as the
one I have from Croatia,” said del Ponte, speaking alongside Sanader.

Negotiations on Croatian EU entry were originally scheduled for
March. Zagreb, however, had to prove that it was fully cooperating with
the ICTY. This included making ‘more convincing efforts’ to bring war
crimes indictee former general Ante Gotovina to the UN tribunal. UK
Foreign Affairs Minister Jack Straw has repeatedly stressed that EU
negotiations can begin as soon as possible once full cooperation has
been established.

At a joint press conference with Sanader, Del Ponte refuted suggestions
that she had given in to pressure from certain EU member states to
give a positive report on Croatia: “I did not have any pressure. After
six years work everybody knows that I am not moved by pressures.”

Austria, which opposes EU negotiations with Turkey, had argued that
negotiations with Zagreb could start, especially in the light of
continuing human rights problems in Turkey and Ankara’s non-recognition
of Cyprus or the Armenian genocide.

In Luxembourg, Del Ponte also reiterated her desire for the Vatican
to cooperate fully in the Gotovina case: “We had certain information
about the possibility of General Gotovina hiding in a monastery. My
request was to help us identify the monastery, if he was actually
hiding in a monastery.”

;task=view&id=200&Itemid=1

AREVA’S COGEMA PICKED BY ARMENIA TO BUILD 10 MLN EUR NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITY

Forbes
Oct 3 2005

YEREVAN, Armemia (AFX) – The Armenian energy ministry said the Cogema
Logistics unit of French engineering group Areva has been chosen
to build a new 10 mln eur nuclear waste facility for the country’s
controversial Metsamor reactor.

Cogema Logistics will build a second waste disposal facility in
three phases between 2007 and 2018, said ministry spokesperson Lucin
Arutyunian.

The EU has asked Armenia to close the Metsamor reactor because of
safety concerns, but the power station, built in 1977, accounts for
about 40 pct of electricity production in the country.

TURKEY AND EUROPE AGREE TO TALKS ON JOINING
By Craig S. Smith

New York Times
Oct 3 2005

LUXEMBOURG, Oct. 3 – Turkey and the European Union agreed late today to
formally begin talks on Turkey’s historic bid to join the organization,
setting into motion a process that will likely take a decade or more
but could end with the union extending its borders eastward into Asia
to embrace the predominantly Muslim country.

Turkey has worked for more than four decades to join the evolving
union, restructuring its legal system and economy to meet European
standards even as Europe added demands and refused to start formal
negotiations. The agreement to open the talks was a victory for the
country’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has staked his
political credibility on getting the talks under way.

“We reached an agreement and, God’s willing, we are heading to
Luxembourg,” said Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as he headed to the
airport in Ankara.

But the talks come at a difficult time for Europe, which is mired in
an identity crisis and whose consensus-based, decision-making process
is already bogged down by last year’s addition of 10 new members.

Many Europeans oppose Turkey’s membership, arguing that while the
country has a toehold in Europe, it is not European at its core. They
worry that because Turkey would be the largest country in the union by
the time it joined, it would skew the already complex European agenda.

The ceremony opening the membership negotiations was delayed until
late this evening as European member states haggled over an Austrian
demand that the talks include an alternative to full membership that
would ultimately give the union a diplomatically palatable option to
inviting Turkey to join.

The last-minute diplomacy kept the Turkish foreign minister, Abdullah
Gul, waiting in Ankara and frayed nerves on both sides. “Either it
will show political maturity and become a global power or it will end
up a Christian club,” Mr. Erdogan said of the European Union on Sunday.

In fact, it is just that question that is haunting Europe. The European
project, begun as a means to ensure peace among historic enemies,
has faltered since the end of the Cold War, which helped define
it. In the 15 years since German reunification, the union has grown
but weakened as it absorbed much of formerly Communist central Europe.

The deep differences within the union, particularly between incoming
and traditional members, broke into the open over the American-led
invasion of Iraq, which many of the new members supported but the
older members did not. The debate over Iraq was about a philosophic
view of the use of power as much as it was about Iraq. Many of the
older European Union member states, harkening back to their World
War II wounds, are wary of using military force to settle disputes.

“Building a consensus is difficult if you don’t have common values,”
said Constanze Stelzenmulle, of the German Marshall Fund in Berlin.

“There has been a loss of focus, a loss of the sense of commonality,
a loss of common interests in Europe.”

Many people worry that adding a country with such a vastly different
cultural and economic heritage such as Turkey to the mix will only
soften that focus further.

Meanwhile, economic malaise in much of Europe has made people wary
of the heralded “ever closer union” that for many simply means lost
jobs. Those fears helped defeat referendums on a proposed European
constitution in France and the Netherlands earlier this year,
stalling the union’s momentum and leading many opinion-makers to
openly question what it was that Europe wanted to become. Turkey’s
membership naturally became a focus of that debate.

Part of the problem is that the generation of leaders that had an
emotional attachment to the European project as a unifying ideal is
now mostly gone, replaced by politicians who regard the union more as
a practical arrangement to promote national interests. European-wide
restructuring of postwar welfare systems and questions about the role
that Europe should play in the world have taken a backseat to more
local issues of political survival and short-term economic goals.

The union hasn’t even be able to agree on a budget for the 2007 to
2013 period, which should have been set months ago.

“At the moment the solution to that crisis isn’t even on the horizon,”
said Marco Incerti, a research fellow at the Center for European
Policy Studies in Brussels.

The crisis has been made worse by faltering leadership in Germany
and France, the traditional engines of the European Union, which
are now consumed by domestic politics. Germany is distracted by
efforts to forge a coalition government there, while France has
lost steam since the May defeat of the constitutional referendum,
leaving President Jacques Chirac largely sidelined while his would-be
successors dominate the political stage.

“For the longest time you could rely on a couple of countries who were
more strongly invested than others getting together and laying out
a solution and getting the others on board,” Ms. Stelzenmuller said.

The lack of leadership has allowed smaller countries like Austria to
dominate the agenda, political analysts say, and has led even Turkey
to question the union’s viability in its current form.

“Everyone is aware of the identity crisis within the E.U.,” said Eser
Karakas, a political scientist at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul.

“The frustration caused by Austria in these past few days proves that
it is time to reform the European Union structure.”

He argued that Turkey should start focusing on what role it can play
in reshaping the union.

Turkey became an associate member of what was then the European
Economic Community in 1963 and formally applied for full membership
on April 1987. It was only officially recognized as a candidate in
December 1999, and it wasn’t until last December that the union agreed
to set a date for membership negotiations to begin.

As part of its campaign to meet European standards, Turkey has
abolished the death penalty, improved its human rights record and
allowed broader use of the Kurdish language among its large Kurdish
minority. But the country is still criticized for refusing to explore
the killing of Armenians in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire
and has refused to recognize the Greek-dominated Republic of Cyprus,
which became a European Union. member last year.

Supporters of Turkey’s membership argue that extending the union’s
single market to include Turkey’s vast Asian hinterland beyond the
Bosphorus Strait will help more than hurt the rest of Europe. They
also argue that bringing Turkey into the European club will help
spread democracy into the Middle East and increase regional security.

Critics, though, question whether that is true, pointing out that
Turkey, which has close ties to Israel, is still remembered in much
of the Arab world as a former colonizer under the Ottoman Empire.

They say that the union would have difficulty absorbing such a large,
poor country and complain that Turkey’s membership will open the
doors for a potentially huge wave of Muslim immigrants.

By the time it could be expected to join, the country’s current
population of 70 million people would likely have grown to outnumber
that of Germany, now the largest European state. Under current rules,
its population would also give it the most seats in the European
Parliament.

SPOILS OF WAR
by Lutz Kleveman

New Statesman
October 3, 2005

Spoils of war: Years of work in battle zones have convinced Lutz
Kleveman that the role energy resources play in causing conflicts is
the big story behind the headlines

About three years ago, I visited the American airbase of Bagram in
Afghanistan. A US army public affairs officer gave me a tour of the
sprawling camp, set up after the ouster of the Taliban in December
2001. As we walked past the endless rows of tents and men in desert
camouflage uniforms, I spotted two makeshift wooden street signs.

They read “Exxon Street” and “Petro Boulevard”. Slightly embarrassed,
the officer explained: “This is the fuel handlers’ workplace. The
signs are a joke, a sort of irony.”

As I am sure they were. It just seemed an uncanny sight given that
I was researching potential links between the “war on terror” and
American oil interests in Central Asia. Years of work in war zones
have convinced me that the role energy resources play in causing armed
conflicts is the big story behind the headlines. Dwindling supplies and
the ever-surging global consumption of oil, especially in China and
India, have caused its price to soar to new heights. As doubts grow
about the true size of Saudi reserves, global production is expected
to peak soon, making oil unaffordable to many people and countries,
and raising the prospect of a “last man standing” oil endgame.

The deepening rivalry over fossil reserves, especially between the
US and China, makes energy wars increasingly likely. No Iraqi I know
believes America would send soldiers to the Gulf region if there
were only strawberry fields to protect. My research in places such as
Nigeria, Azerbaijan and Iraq has shown that oil wealth is more of a
curse than a blessing. In all oil-producing countries (except Britain
and Norway), it has led to environmental degradation, economic decline,
corruption, political instability, coup d’etats or even civil wars.

Central Asia offers a perfect case study of what is the trouble
with oil. The warlords, diplomats, politicians, generals and
oil bosses I have interviewed in the region are all players in a
geostrategic struggle that has become increasingly intertwined with
the anti-terrorist campaigns: the “New Great Game”. The main spoils
in this rerun of the 19th-century “Great Game” are the Caspian oil
and gas reserves, the world’s biggest untapped fossil fuel resources.

While estimates range widely, the US Energy Department believes that
Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan alone could sit on more than 130 billion
barrels of crude. Oil giants such as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and
BP have already invested more than $40bn in new production facilities.

In May 2001 Dick Cheney, the US vice-president and ex-CEO of
Halliburton (a provider of products and services to the oil and
gas industries), recommended in the seminal national energy policy
report that “the president make energy security a priority of our
trade and foreign policy”, singling out the Caspian Basin as a
“rapidly growing new area of supply”. Since 11 September, the Bush
administration has accordingly used the “war on terror” to further
American energy interests in Central Asia, deploying thousands of
US troops not only in Afghanistan, but also in the newly independent
republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia.

By 2010, the US will have to import more than two-thirds of its
energy needs, and the Caspian region has become vital to its policy
of “diversifying energy supply”, designed to wean America off its
dependence on the volatile Middle East. Yet Central Asia is no less
volatile than the Middle East, and oil politics are making matters
worse. Disputes persist over pipeline routes from the Caspian
region to high-sea ports. While Russia promotes crude transport
across its territory, China wants to build eastbound pipelines from
Kazakhstan, and Iran is offering its pipeline network for exports via
the Persian Gulf. Washington, on the other hand, has championed the
$3.8bn Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline through the South Caucasus, which was
recently inaugurated amid much pomp. Controversial for environmental
and social reasons, the project has also perpetuated instability in
the South Caucasus.

With thousands of Russian troops still stationed in Georgia and
Armenia, Moscow has for years sought to deter western pipeline
investors by fomenting bloody ethnic conflicts near the pipeline
route, in the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and in the
Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Ajaria. In
return, the US has despatched 500 elite troops to Georgia. Moscow
and Beijing resent the growing US influence in their energy-rich
strategic backyard, and have repeatedly demanded that the Americans
pull out. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has signed new security
pacts with the Central Asian rulers and, in 2003, personally opened
a new Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan, only 50km away from a US
airbase. China, in turn, has conducted major military exercises with
Central Asian states. In August, China’s biggest state-owned oil
company bought a major oil producer in Kazakhstan for $4,2bn. The
purchase fits in with China’s efforts to quench its enormous thirst
for oil by intensifying ties to major energy-producing countries and
buying a wide array of foreign petrol assets.

Besides raising the spectre of interstate conflict, energy imperialism
also exacerbates the terrorist problem. Many Muslims hate America
because for decades successive US governments, in a Faustian pact,
were indifferent towards how badly the Middle Eastern regimes treated
their people – as long as they kept the oil flowing. In Central Asia,
the Bush administration repeats the mistakes that gave rise to Bin
Ladenism in the 1980s and 1990s. Oil-motivated American support
for Central Asian autocrats – such as Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev,
Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov –
causes more and more of their disgusted subjects to embrace militant
Islam and anti-Americanism. The Caspian region may be the next big
gas station but, as in the Middle East, there are already a lot of
men running around throwing matches.

Ultimately, no matter how many troops are deployed to protect oilfields
and pipelines, the oil infrastructure might prove too vulnerable
to terrorist attacks such as in Iraq to guarantee a stable supply
anyway. In Iraq, chaos and violence have so far prevented any major
oil companies from investing a huge amount in the country’s old petrol
industry. Efforts by Halliburton and the US army corps of engineers
to rehabilitate the oilfields near Kirkuk and Basra have been largely
undermined by insurgent attacks on pipelines. To make matters worse,
conflicts have broken out between Iraq’s Kurds and Arabs over who
should control the Kirkuk oilfields.

With so much oil-related trouble looming, old-style policies of
yet more fossil fuel production and waste continue in the wrong
direction. The only wise strategy is a sustainable alternative
energy policy that will steer us into the post-oil era. Reducing
our dependence on oil will go a long way towards “defuelling”
terror-breeding regimes and lessening international tension. This
policy will require saving energy through more efficient technologies,
increasing the role of other energy carriers (including gas but not
nuclear power) and introducing next-generation transport fuels on a
huge scale.

A new energy policy is badly needed anyway to slow the greenhouse
effect and global climate change, which might turn out to be the
worst energy-related source of conflict. Hurricane Katrina – with
violence, anarchy and refugees in its wake – gave merely a foretaste
of the suffering that global warming could cause. That was nature,
some say with a shrug, but in fact it was nature on drugs – and we
need a detox soon.

Lutz Kleveman ([email protected]) is the author of The New Great Game:
blood and oil in Central Asia (Atlantic Books, ),
and the host of an authors’ conference on climate change. For more
information visit

Natural gas is by some distance the least fascinating of all energy
sources – at least, it is to most British citizens and their media.

In the “debate” on energy and carbon policy, which largely amounts to
special pleading for government funding or regulatory protection for
(in particular) clean coal and nuclear power, there is virtually no
interest in gas. The subject surfaces mainly in the context of claims
made by supporters of other forms of generating capacity that, in 15 to
25 years from now, the power sector will be overwhelmingly dependent
on imported gas from “unstable” countries, and that this will expose
the British public to unacceptable security risks. A BBC2 docudrama –
set in the future – showed Chechen terrorists blowing up a gas pipeline
running from Russia’s Baltic coast to Britain, plunging London into
darkness an hour later. The debate that followed was largely about the
future of nuclear power, rather than the unreality of such a scenario.

This lack of public interest in, or information about, gas is slightly
strange given that it is the country’s most important source of energy,
accounting for 41 per cent of primary energy last year (compared
with oil at 34 per cent), and 40 per cent of electricity generation
(compared with 33 per cent from coal and 19 per cent from nuclear
power). This was never intended to happen. But the post-privatisation
“dash for gas” in power generation – partly a dash away from the
problems of the coal and nuclear power industries – was followed by
a realisation that the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation
had made a big contribution towards meeting CO2 reduction targets.

In 2000, North Sea gas production peaked and began to decline at
a faster rate than had been anticipated. Over the past few years,
there has been a growing tightness of supply in the winter months,
when gas usage peaks. This has been accompanied by much higher
levels of prices, with substantial volatility and price spikes. These
developments have caused regulatory and parliamentary investigations
into the functioning of gas markets and improper corporate behaviour,
which have failed to substantiate any allegations of wrong-doing. At
the same time, an unprecedented amount of new import infrastructure
is under construction, with two new pipelines, the expansion of an
existing line, and three new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.

This sudden interest in supply, demand and prices is a far cry from
the focus of the past two decades, which has been on developing
competition in utility markets. Since the mid-1980s, politicians,
regulators and consultants have marched around the world lecturing
the less fortunate on the wonders of “British experiment”. The answer
to all problems was to “privatise and leave it to the market”, which
would produce “the most efficient outcome”. This proved to be the
case for much of the 1990s and early 2000s, when British businesses
and citizens enjoyed substantially cheaper gas prices than their
counterparts in Continental Europe, where governments have been
reluctant to liberalise their markets.

Gas production was allowed to proceed at the fastest possible rate –
abandoning the careful “depletion policy” of the nationalised industry
era, which was designed to eke out UK resources with the judicious use
of imports. Government was also responsible for starting the process
that resulted in a pipeline between Britain and Belgium exporting
surplus UK gas, with the aim of accelerating European competition. With
the peaking of domestic production, that pipeline is increasingly being
used to import, and 2004 marked the end of the country’s relatively
short-lived spell as a net gas exporter, giving rise to dire warnings
of impending disaster arising from dependence on foreign supplies.

Large-scale imports, when they begin in 2007-08, will initially return
the UK to the position 20 years ago, when more than 20 per cent
of gas demand was imported from Norway. Subsequently, and assuming
higher prices do not stimulate the discovery and production of new
gas, import dependence on piped and liquefied gas will increase
from a variety of sources: Norway, Netherlands, Russia, Algeria,
Egypt, Qatar and others. The diversity of sources and supply routes
provides protection against problems with any individual supplier or
facility. Gas imports, far from being the main problem, are going to
be a large part of the solution to supply problems.

“Unreliable and nasty foreigner” theories of security ignore the
most important current problem – the reliability of ageing North Sea
infrastructure and concern about how these may perform in severe
weather conditions. The impact of severe weather on offshore and
coastal oil and gas infrastructure – as demonstrated by Hurricane
Katrina – is a major potential problem.

Both Transco and Ofgem have given assurances that, even if it is
very cold, there will be sufficient gas and delivery capacity to get
through next winter. But experience of the past year suggests that
any significant supply problem or severe weather causing increases
in demand, even of short duration, will at the very least lead to
short-term price spikes. After this winter, imported supplies start
to flood in and new gas storage (which was not needed when supply
was overwhelmingly from domestic sources) will open up, making the
position much more comfortable. In fact, so much new supply will be
available that, through the early 2010s, exports may continue for a
significant part of the year.

The future of UK energy supplies may be renewables, clean coal, some
form of nuclear power and, more distantly, hydrogen. For the next 20
years, and probably for a great many more, natural gas will dominate
the UK energy balance outside the transport sector. This is a closely
guarded secret revealed only in discussions about supply security.

But there is no specific reason to think that security of gas supplies
will be a major problem – once we get through this winter.

Jonathan Stern is director of gas research at the Oxford Institute
for Energy Studies and honorary professor at the Centre for Energy,
Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee

BRIDGING THE BOSPORUS: ‘TURKEY HAS ALWAYS REPRESENTED A DIFFERENT CONTINENT’
by Peter Goodspeed

National Post (Canada)
October 3, 2005 Monday
National Edition

Lined with tea gardens, Ottoman villas and ancient fortresses,
the straits twist and turn for 35 kilometres, linking the Sea of
Marmara to the Black Sea. With an intoxicating mix of splendour,
simple beauty and cruel history, this sliver of Turkey has become
one of the world’s great cultural frontiers.

This is where the Orient meets the Occident, where Christianity
encounters Islam, where tradition collides with modernity — a bustling
crossroads to Europe and the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus.

Now, the straits and all of Turkey are about to become the focus of
an intense international debate as diplomats prepare to negotiate
Turkey’s application for membership in the European Union.

The talks, scheduled to get underway in Luxembourg today barring a
last-minute veto by Austria, which opposes full EU membership for
Turkey, could last a decade. By the time they end, neither Europe
nor Turkey will be the same.

Turkey’s application to join the EU is already forcing Europe to
question its identity as never before. EU members are struggling
to define their future, while juggling centuries-old fears against
new ambitions.

Even as diplomats debate the terms of Turkey’s entry, Europe has been
swept by a bitter public backlash against the move.

Last spring’s rejection of the EU’s draft constitution by voters in
France and the Netherlands was said to be fuelled by fears of Turkey
joining Europe.

More recently, an opinion poll carried out by the European Commission
claims 52% of Europeans are opposed to letting Turkey join their
club. Only 35% agree.

Seventy per cent of French voters, almost three-quarters of Germans
and 80% of Austrians are against Ankara’s membership.

Angela Merkel, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union and
possibly Germany’s next chancellor, launched a campaign last month
to block Turkey’s entry into the EU, sending letters to European
leaders asking them to offer Turkey only a “privileged partnership,”
not full membership.

“We are firmly convinced,” she wrote, “that Turkey’s membership would
overtax the EU economically and socially and endanger the process of
European integration.”

Opponents of Turkey’s admission to the EU cite everything from
clashing values to different cultures, a lack of a common geography,
differences in religion and Ankara’s record on human rights.

Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former president of France who drafted
the latest version of the EU constitution, rejects Turkey’s membership,
declaring, “It would be the end of Europe.”

“There is an obvious contradiction between the pursuit of Europe’s
political integration and Turkish entry into European institutions,”
he says.

Former EU commissioner Frits Bolkestein, a Dutchman who used to be
responsible for the EU’s internal markets, taxation and customs union,
warns that letting Turkey join the EU will trigger a massive wave of
migration that could result in Europe being “Islamized.”

“The liberation of Vienna in 1683 [from a siege by the Ottoman Turks]
would have been in vain,” he says.

Even Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the debate. Last year, when he
was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he told the French newspaper Le
Figaro Turkey threatens European culture.

“Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent
contrast to Europe,” he said. “Making the two continents identical
would be a mistake. It would mean a loss of richness, the disappearance
of the culture to the benefit of economics.”

“Europe has a culture which gives it a common identity,” the
then-Cardinal said. “The roots which formed this continent are those
of Christianity.”

On the eve of today’s talks, Austria made a last-ditch attempt to
block any agreement on the ground rules for the negotiations by
demanding diplomats should clearly set out “alternatives” to giving
Turkey full EU membership.

Last week, the European Parliament grudgingly approved opening
negotiations with Turkey, but passed a non-binding resolution that
insists Turkey must acknowledge that the killing of Armenians under
Ottoman rule in 1915 was genocide before it will be admitted to the
EU. Those moves have infuriated Turkey, which has patiently been
trying to get into the EU for 42 years.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has already warned “should [the
EU] place anything short of full membership [on the table], or any
new conditions, we will walk away. And this time, it will be for good.”

Turkish public opinion, which overwhelmingly favours joining the EU,
has grown increasingly frustrated over European preconditions.

In 1963, when John Kennedy was still president of the United States
and Turkey was a bulwark against communism and a key member in NATO,
the Turks were granted associate membership in the European Economic
Community, the EU’s predecessor.

But after Ankara applied for full, formal membership in 1987 it had
to wait until 1999 to be recognized as an EU “candidate.”

In the meantime, such fledgling democracies as post-Franco Spain,
post-Salazar Portugal, Greece, after it sent the military back to
their barracks, and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe
were all accepted into the EU.

Turkey still waits and successive Turkish governments have repeatedly
adopted EU-recommended reforms to pave the way for its admission.

They’ve passed laws to end torture, to abolish state security courts
and to reduce the political role of the military. They reformed
Turkey’s civil code, gave women equal rights to household property
and ended their need to obtain their husband’s permission to work
outside the home.

They’ve abolished the death penalty, rewritten the criminal code,
and legalized the use of Kurdish in education and broadcasting.

Despite growing opposition from hard-line Islamists and nationalist
politicians, Ankara’s moderate Islamic government continues to press
for EU membership.

Turkey’s elite, infatuated with the promises of liberal democracy,
long to be regarded as part of Europe, without becoming Westernized.

Turkey’s poor lust after the economic advantages of EU membership.

Still, there are Islamist religious leaders who warn of being corrupted
by the West and Turkish nationalists who feel their country is being
humiliated.

Britain, one of the strongest supporters of Turkey’s EU candidacy,
says it wants to see a staunch NATO ally, who straddles a strategically
crucial piece of real estate, safely inside Europe.

The possibility would allow Europe to shape a new accommodation between
Islam and the secular West and might even give the continent a bigger
say in the Middle East.

“It would be a huge betrayal of the hopes and expectations of
the Turkish people and of [Turkey’s] Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]
Erdogan’s program of reform, if, at this crucial time, we turned our
back on Turkey,” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said last week
at the Labour Party conference in Brighton.

Still, a clash of cultures that assumes religious overtones could
have serious security repercussions for Europe, which already has 23
million Muslims living inside its borders.

“For the EU to cross the Bosporus is to move from a community based
on centuries-old notions of shared history and geography to one based
on shared democratic standards and the future,” argues Timothy Garton
Ash, an Oxford University historian.

“Two logics clash at the gates of the Bosporus: the logic of unity
and the logic of peace,” he says.

“If Europe is mainly about creating a coherent political community,
with some aspirations to be a superpower, it stops on the western
side of the Bosporus — for another decade, at the least,” he says.

“If we think it is more urgent to promote democracy, respect for
human rights, prosperity and therefore the chances for peace in the
most dangerous region in the world, we step on to that bridge.”

GRAPHIC: Black & White Photo: STR, AFP, Getty Images; Members of
the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party …; Black & White Photo:
Umit Bektas, Reuters; …chant “no to Europe” during an anti-EU
demonstration in the capital, Ankara, yesterday. Some 100,000 people
turned out to protest their government’s negotiations with the European
Union, which open in Luxembourg today.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

U.S. INTERVENES TO RESCUE STALLED EU TURKEY TALKS

Reuters
10/03/05 09:53 ET

LUXEMBOURG, Oct 3 (Reuters) – The United States intervened on Monday
to try to rescue membership talks between the European Union and
Turkey as a diplomatic deadlock deepened hours before the historic
negotiations were due to open.

EU president Britain said the 25-nation bloc was “on the edge of
a precipice” after Turkish objections to a clause it fears could
affect NATO membership piled on top of Austrian demands that the
Muslim nation be offered an alternative short of full membership.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Turkish Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan to assure him that the proposed EU negotiating
framework would not impinge on NATO, diplomats said.

A presidency spokesman said Britain still hoped to hold the opening
ceremony on Monday but it would clearly be later than the planned 5
p.m. (1500 GMT) start.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was waiting nervously in Ankara
for the EU to adopt a negotiating mandate before he could set off
for Luxembourg.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw telephoned Austrian Chancellor
Wolfgang Schuessel to try to clinch agreement on a formula to satisfy
Austrian concerns that the EU may not be able to absorb the vast,
poor, Muslim country, diplomats said.

The United States had also contacted Vienna to try to overcome
objections fuelled by overwhelming public hostility to Turkish
membership, they said.

Turkish financial markets yo-yoed amid the uncertainty. Stocks fell
some 2.3 percent from Friday’s close and the lira was down nearly 2
percent against the dollar, but both recovered in mid-afternoon amid
hopes the problems would be resolved.

Rice’s involvement was potentially embarrassing for the EU,
highlighting its inability to solve its problems alone.

“CATASTROPHIC”

Straw told the 24 other EU foreign ministers upon resuming talks
after only a couple of hours’ sleep: “Yes, we are near (to a deal)
but we are also on the edge of a precipice.

“If we go the right way we reach the sunny uplands. If we go the
wrong way, it could be catastrophic for the European Union.”

In Ankara, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told a meeting of the ruling
AK party that Turkey was not prepared to compromise further on the
conditions for opening the long-awaited talks.

“Those in the EU who cannot digest Turkey being in the EU are against
the alliance of civilisations. What I declare is this: the costs
resulting from all this will be paid by them.”

Turkey has frequently portrayed its entry to the EU as a way of
bridging a gap between the Christian and Islamic worlds and easing
tensions that may have fostered islamic militancy.

Diplomats said Ankara had objected to a clause in the EU negotiating
mandate that stipulates it may not block accession of EU states to
international organisations and treaties.

Turkish nationalists and the powerful military argued that might
prevent Turkey blocking a divided Cyprus from joining NATO. Cyprus
refused to let the EU change the wording.

But diplomats said Straw and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana
hoped to assuage Ankara with a letter clarifying that the clause did
not impinge on sovereign defence arrangements.

TIME RUNNING OUT

As the clock ticked down, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
told ministers: “Time is running out. We have got to get this right.

We seem so close. We cannot let this opportunity slip away.”

Failure to start the talks could deal a blow to political reform and
foreign investment in Turkey, a strategic country of 72 million people
straddling Europe and the Middle East.

It would also deepen a sense of crisis in Europe, after referendum
defeats for the draft EU constitution in France and the Netherlands,
and an acrimonious failure in June to agree on a long-term budget
for the enlarged bloc.

“If there is no deal, my personal judgement is that we are increasingly
starting to look like a Union of failing states because we cannot make
any decisions,” Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks told Reuters.

Ratcheting up pressure on Austria, Straw postponed a planned review
of Austrian ally Croatia’s progress towards EU entry talks until the
Turkey issue was sorted out.

A Turkish official said nerves in Ankara were “extremely stretched
… Every minute that passes is making things more bitter and it
won’t be nice starting negotiations with all these bruises.”

The European Parliament compounded Turkish irritation last week by
saying Turkey must recognise the 1915 killings of Armenians under
Ottoman rule as an act of genocide before it can join the wealthy
European family.

Several hundred Armenians staged a noisy demonstration outside the
EU meeting, demanding that Turkey be forced to make amends for what
they called the Armenian genocide.

WILL THEY SPLIT BEFORE THEY MARRY?

Spiegel Online, Germany
Oct 3 2005

If Ankara enters into accession talks this week with the European
Union, it will do so bitter and disillusioned. Support for Turkey’s
move toward the West is diminishing back home. And the anger last
minute conditions set by the EU have generated pose considerable
political risks — not just for Turkey.

Perhaps it has to do with his own domestic bliss, or perhaps it’s
the number of famous people whose marriages he once consummated as
the mayor of Istanbul. But it’s clear: Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan loves to compare foreign policy to marriage.

Turkey’s entry into the European Union, Erdogan once confided
to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, is like a “Catholic
wedding.” The Italian, a Christian, immediately understood what his
Muslim Turkish counterpart meant: a boisterous party, much fanfare
and ado, and a bond that lasts until death do us part.

That was three years ago, at a time when euphoria for Europe had
reached its pinnacle in Turkey. Back then, 85 percent of Turks
supported EU membership. Berlusconi had come to Istanbul to attend the
wedding of Erdogan’s son, Bilal. He was followed later by his Greek
colleague, Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis, who attended the
wedding of Bilal’s sister Ersa.

These days, though, euphoria for European membership is shrinking
by the week and only 60 percent of Turks still say they support
EU membership. Yet again, Erdogan has found a marriage comparison
to pointedly describe the current situation: The constant new
preconditions being set by the Europeans so close to the start of
accession negotiations — including the consolation of a “privileged
partnership,” — is tantamount to “going to the altar and suddenly
saying: ‘Let’s just stay friends.'”

After serious last minute diplomatic wrangling — which included
a plea for help from United States Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice — Turkey finally got the go ahead on Monday from the European
Union to begin negotiations for eventual membership. Of course,
with Austria unwilling to budge, the outcome of Monday’s marathon
diplomacy was anything but certain until the very last minute. And
as of Monday evening, it was still uncertain whether Turkey would
accept the final agreement.

In Vienna, where memories of Turkish-led Ottoman Empire invasions
of Austria are still a regular part of history lessons, politicians
demanded last week that any accession negotiation framework for Turkey
also include a provision of a “privilege partnership” if negotiations
for full-membership were to collapse. But critics of Austria alleged
the country had ulterior motives: its desire to have accession talks
fast-tracked for longtime ally Croatia. Elements of xenophobia and
Islamophobia were also alleged.

With such complicated twists and turns just before the start of
negotiations, Ankara is looking to Brussels with bitterness and
disillusionment. Indeed, support for Turkey’s Western ambitions are
waning, and opponents of the EU within Turkey are returning to the
forefront.

A few weeks ago, the sentiment was different. The Turkish press
viewed the outcome of German parliamentary elections as the “burial
of the privileged partnership” idea championed by conservative
chancellor candidate Angela Merkel. But the mood nevertheless remained
skeptical. “Even if the negotiations begin on Oct. 3, who knows what
will happen on Oct. 4 or what crises will result in the suspension
of talks six months later,” the Turkish daily Sabah wondered.

So why this misery on a day that diplomats in Ankara have been
working towards for 50 years — one which is supposed to herald the
consummation of an historic mission that is cemented in Turkey’s state
doctrine? “We Turks only go in one direction,” the country’s founder,
Mustafa Kemal, better known as Ataturk, once told his people, “West.”

On the outside, the cause of the disagreement couldn’t be more
mundane. It’s linked to the complicated situation on the divided
Mediterranean island of Cyprus. Ankara has refused to recognize the
government of the southern Greek half of the island as representatives
of the entire island and it has refused to allow ships and planes from
the Republic of Cyprus to use Turkish sea ports and airports. Europe,
however, has made the outcome of negotiations with Turkey contingent on
Ankara’s official recognition of the EU member state. Without taking
this step and without opening up its borders for the unrestricted
transport of goods from Greek Cypriots, the European Union’s transport
minister, Jacques Barrot, has said, it would be impossible to lead
the accession talks to success.

The Turks are being too obstinate, but it’s also possible that
Brussels bureaucrats are sticking too close to the script, observed
a self-critical Western diplomat in Ankara. The Europeans have given
too little recognition to the fact that Erdogan has stripped the
leader of Cyprus’s Turks, Rauf Denktas of his power. Nor has Europe
given proper recognition to the fact that the northern Cypriot Turks
enthusiastically embraced the United Nation’s plan for the island’s
reunification. It was, after all, the Greek Cypriots who rejected the
plan in a referendum vote in April 2004, just before the EU expanded
by 10 members, including a divided Cyprus.

These days, the Cyprus conflict is being viewed in Turkey as a symbol
of the growing apprehension for the entire Europe project. Turkish
columnist Semih Idiz has described it as the “enough is enough
sentiment.” “If the government were to declare today it was going to
break off relations with the European Union, they would probably be
greeted with broad accordance.”

During recent months, EU opponents in Turkey have been awakening
from their political coma. Supported by strong signals of support
from Brussels, Erdogan quickly put pressure on them after he entered
office. They include the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP),
hardliners in the Turkish General Staff and the firm Kemalists within
the state apparatus, or “bureaucratic oligarchs,” as Erdogan likes
to disparagingly call them.

Recently, the winds have changed in Europe, as well. Following the
failure of referenda on the European constitution in France and the
Netherlands, criticism of Turkish EU membership has also increased,
and many in Turkey have the feeling the country is being pushed to drop
its aspirations. A sort of bunker mentality is gaining traction here.

“If I were a European, I wouldn’t accept Turkey in the Union either,”
says Emin Colasan, derisively. The stalwart nationalist columnist
for the Turkish daily Hurriyet is considered the mouthpiece of the
conservative Turkish Officer Corps. When Erdogan came back from
Brussels one year ago, the prime minister’s colleagues cracked jokes
about Colasan and many didn’t take him seriously.

A year later, his columns are once again required reading for the
chattering classes. The EU, he recently wrote, has “put Turkey in its
lap” like an underage child. And he argues that the reform laws that
have been implemented by the government under pressure from Europe
have weakened the Turkish state. He alleges reforms would make it
impossible to efficiently fight against terrorism, that they would
encourage Kurdish separatism and increase the influence of Islamists.

“Everything that is in the interest of the Europeans,” Colasan said,
“has destroyed our national honor.”

Other critics of EU membership argue that the EU will attempt to
colonize and plunder Ankara. They say Brussels has fed Turkey a
constant stream of lies and it is attempting to impose strictly
Christian values on Turkish society. The head of the MHP party in
Istanbul, Ihsan Barutcu, even compared the EU with a horse, saying:
“You can only mount it if you can steer it.”

Another popular line is that the only friends Turks have are
themselves. This school of thought has gained currency following
the recent debate about the genocide of Armenians. Internationally
renowned Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, the recent recipient of the
peace prize of the German Booksellers’ Association, got an unwanted
glimpse of that recently. He didn’t just get hate mail and death
threats after making his recent comment that 1 million Armenians were
murdered in the Ottoman Empire and 30,000 Kurds in modern Turkey. He
is also scheduled to stand trial on Dec. 16 as a result.

It gets worse. After Turkey’s justice minister vilified the organizers
of an academic conference on the question of Armenian genocide as
“traitors to their country,” a court banned the meeting.

Last week, a private university disregarded the court and held the
conference, but protestors showered participants, including a former
Turkish foreign minister, with eggs.

Religious minorities in Turkey are also reporting bad experiences
with the state apparatus. The Alevites, a Muslim faith derived from
Shiite, claim that they are discriminated against by a Turkish state
that exclusively supports the country’s Sunni Islam. If the situation
doesn’t change, they have threatened to take their case to the European
Court of Justice, demanding equal status with the Sunnis.

Turkey’s deputy head of government, Ali Sahin, also recently described
the recent invitation extended to Pope Benedikt XVI by Istanbul’s
Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I as “inappropriate.” That, Sahin said,
is a privilege reserved for the government. Back when he was still
known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the pope spoke out against EU
membership for the majority Muslim Turkey (“a grave error .. against
the tide of history”), and Sahin said he would have to.

make due with an invitation from the president. The whole exchange
prompted Foreign Minister Gul to remark: “No country is as good as
Turkey at shooting itself in the foot.”

For his part, Erdogan has valiantly countered the wave of chauvinism
in his country. Last week, he condemned the court’s decision to ban
the Armenia conference, “because I want to live in a Turkey in which
freedom of expression is all-embracing.” The Kurdish problem, he said,
needs to be solved “with more democracy, greater civil liberties and
increased prosperity.” Not even an assassination attempt on Erdogan
at the hands of a misguided nationalist two weeks ago was enough to
disturb his peace of mind.

But in reality, diplomats in Ankara are reporting that the prime
minister has given up his belief in the goal of the EU process. But
they say he still hopes that the British EU presidency, which is well
disposed to Ankara, will be able to open negotiations with one or
two unproblematic issues — national statistics or the environment,
for example, two disciplines in which Turkey is already operating at
European standards today. When Turkey-critic Austria assumes the EU
presidency in January, the Turks believe the negotiations will come
to a temporary standstill.

Erdogan wants to avoid an open break with Brussels for at least two
more years, because the International Monetary Fund’s billion-dollar
Turkey Program lasts until 2007. After that he might have to resort
to something he always hints at in times of crisis, without being
very specific: Turkey has “alternatives” to Europe.

Those alternatives could alarm Europeans, says Turkey expert Bulent
Aliriza, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies
in Washington. On a foreign-policy level they could mean turning
towards Russia, Iran, and Syria, under already obvious pressure from
the military. In particular Aliriza points to Erdogan’s relationship
to Vladimir Putin: his power seems to impress the Turkish premier.

And domestic politics, overall, might regress: The reignited conflict
with the Kurds threatens to grow worse without Europe’s tempering
influence; the general staff could declare a state of emergency
in certain Kurdish provinces. “The reforms wouldn’t necessarily go
forward,” says Aliriza, “since they’ve clearly been an outgrowth of
the EU process.”

Expectations are modest, even now that accession talks have started.

“What is the EU?” asked the English-language Turkish Daily News last
week, in an Internet poll. Almost 800 readers answered unambiguously:
the EU was a “modernization project” to 2.6 percent of the respondents,
while 46.9 percent checked the box declaring that the EU was nothing
but “a Christian club.”

,1518,377789,00.html

ETHNIC LEADER SEES AUTONOMY AS WAY OUT FOR GEORGIAN ARMENIANS

Haykakan Zhamanak, Armenia
Sept 28 2005

The leader of the ethnic Armenian party in Georgia’s Samtskhe-Javakheti
region has said that if the Georgian authorities do not grant autonomy
to the region, they will do everything possible to achieve this. David
Rstakyan said that “inspired by what is taking place in Karabakh”, the
Georgian Armenians will collect signatures in favour of autonomy and
organize acts of civil disobedience. Asked if the Armenian authorities
do something to maintain stability in Samstkhe-Javakheti, Rstakyan said
“not only the Armenian authorities but all the Armenians are involved
in this process since we are one part of the Armenian nation”. The
following is excerpt from an Arman Karapetyan’s report by Armenian
newspaper Aykakan Zhamanak on 28 September headlined “We cannot stand
anymore”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

An interview with the chairman of the Virk organization, David
Rstakyan.

Autonomy demand response to Georgia’s “large-scale attack”

[Correspondent] Mr Rstakyan, the forum of public and political
organizations of Javakhk [Georgia’s Armenian-populated region of
Samtskhe-Javakheti] has adopted a statement calling for autonomy for
Javakhk. Can this statement become the reason for contacts between
Armenians of Javakhk and the Georgian authorities? Does this statement
mean that the fight for autonomy has started in Javakhk?

[Rstakyan] I should say, yes.

[Correspondent] To what extent it is the right time to demand autonomy
for Javakhk against a backdrop of geo-political events in the region?

[Rstakyan] Our demand does not contradict the Georgian Constitution.

But the word [autonomy] causes hysteria because of the events in
Abkhazia and [South] Ossetia. But in fact we have to take action
against the authorities of Georgia as they have launched a large-scale
attack against Javakhk.

The ethnic composition of Javakhk is changing and ethnic Georgians
are being appointed to high-ranking posts. That is to say, all our
efforts to halt this process have been fruitless. We are forced to
say that we cannot stand anymore.

They adopt laws that do not meet the interests of our nation.

Georgians have recently bought or rented 100 apartments in
Akhalkalaki. What does it mean? The number of Armenians is falling
because there is no job, but in fact Georgians have jobs. As for the
problems of Armenians, they do everything possible not to resolve
them and Armenians have to leave Javakhk. All this makes us take
measures in Javakhk to elect authorities which will be able to
guarantee our security.

[Correspondent] There are rumours that the public and political
organizations of Javakhk have been angered by the fact that Georgian
authorities are trying to be in control of them with the help of
Javakhk’s Armenian criminal authorities [as published]. Is this
the case?

[Rstakyan] I have noticed tendencies of this kind in Georgia’s security
agencies. This is really so.

[Correspondent] What was the reaction of Georgian politicians to
your claim?

[Rstakyan] The head of a Georgian media outlet asked me if somebody
tried to interfere in the work of the forum. I said nobody could
interfere since our demand does not contradict the constitution,
and those who will try to do this will be punished in line with the
constitution. As far as I understand, some forces could have tried
to hinder us. The same person told me that Georgia’s political elite
is worried about our statement.

Collecting signatures and “civil disobedience” planned

[Correspondent] What will Javakhk’s public and political organizations
do if the Georgian authorities refuse to meet their demand or
discuss it?

[Rstakyan] If they refuse to do so, we shall collect signatures within
the framework of the Georgian constitution. This is very important to
prove that this demand is not only will of the public organizations
but also that of Javakhk’s Armenians.

But unfortunately the process was stopped. The Georgian authorities
are against this and there are people among us who wanted to stop this
process. I think that the process of collecting signatures should
be organized at a high level and then the Georgian authorities will
accept this reality.

[Correspondent] What if the said demand is not met after the collection
of signatures?

[Rstakyan] I do not think it will be refused. But if this happens,
we will organize an action of “civil disobedience” and form local
authorities by ourselves. What else can we do? It is similar to the
steps of rising social and economic problems, but this is different,
we are not claiming golden mountains for Javakhk. We only want the
right to live in this land. We do not want happiness at the expense
of somebody’s tragedy as the Georgian authorities are describing this.

[Correspondent] Do you not feel certain discomfort that the demand
of Javakhk’s Armenians was raised several days after the Tskhinvali
events? Do you not think that this claim might be seen as one part
of the programme directed at disrupting the situation in Georgia?

[Rstakyan] I do not know what happened in Tskhinvali.

[Correspondent] Really?

[Rstakyan] Our statement has nothing to do with the Abkhaz or Ossetian
problems.

[Passage omitted: background details]

Georgian Armenians inspired by Karabakh’s example

[Correspondent] Do they understand in Javakhk that Georgia is the only
way to the West for Armenia? On the whole, how do they treat Karabakh?

[Rstakyan] Naturally we are inspired by what is taking place in
Karabakh today.

[Correspondent] Does it mean that you want the same to take place
in Javakhk?

[Rstakyan] It depends on the Georgian authorities. If the Georgian
authorities did not pursue this policy, our reaction would be
different. All our steps are defensive. There is no attack or an
aggressive step from our side. As for Georgia being the only way to
the West for Armenia, do you think that Georgians can do everything?

The Georgian authorities want to solve their problems with Javakhk
after which the situation will be worse for Armenia. You know that
Georgians do not want the Kars-Gyumri railway and want to build a new
railway via Javakhk (Kars-Akhalkalaki) which will completely blockade
Armenia. But we do not ask them why is it so, although they do not
have the right to close the way of its neighbour.

[Correspondent] What is the role of the Armenian authorities in
maintaining stability in Javakhk?

[Rstakyan] Not only the Armenian authorities but all the Armenians
are involved in this since we are one part of the Armenian nation.

Armenia should make the Georgian authorities and the authorities of
other countries understand that an outflow of Armenians from the region
is under way. But I cannot say that this is part of a specific plan.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FORMER PRESIDENT WARNS US AGAINST MILITARY ATTACK ON IRAN

Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran
Sept 30 2005

Former Iranian president and long-time Chairman of the Expediency
Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani has reiterated Iran’s intention to use
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. He reminded the worshippers
at Tehran Friday prayers earlier today that despite being a victim of
Iraqi chemical weapons “Iran could have used chemical weapons. But it
did not”. Rafsanjani said: ” Our main task is to prove that we are not
the sort of people to utilize nuclear weapons… This shows that we are
not the people to resort to such ugly calamities… However, we must
prove this in practice to them [to IAEA and EU]. This is a difficult
task and requires talks and the delicate job of diplomacy.” The
following are excerpts from a live broadcast of Friday prayer sermons
by Iranian radio on 30 September, subheading inserted editorially.

[Rafsanjani] In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

[Passage on the forthcoming month of Ramadan, Iran-Iraq war
anniversary, omitted.]

The issue I want to talk about here is the nuclear issue. We are
facing a very serious and crucial situation. The issue is extremely
serious. Our nation should not be influenced by misleading comments
made to undermine the importance of the issue. Our nation has accepted
the main point and knows that nuclear technology is crucial to the
country and that it can not be ignored. Nothing is hidden from the
nation on the issue. The main challenge we are facing with at this
point in time is the conflict we have with those who want to create
nuclear apartheid and want to be the only ones to have this vast
power and important technology. We are not seeking the technology
for military purposes. We are pursuing it for peaceful purposes. We
want to utilize this technology for agriculture, energy, industry
and health. This technology is among the most advanced and up-to-date
technologies in today’s world and one cannot forgo this right.

If we forgo this right, it will be registered in the history of our
country, just like the Treaty of Turkmanchai [Agreement signed by
Russia and Persia in 1828 by which Persia was forced to cede part of
Persian Armenia to Russia and grant extraterritorial rights] or the
Treaty of Vosouq ol-Dowleh, and the officials of the country will
never be forgiven throughout history in the eyes of the nation.

Therefore we, the whole system with the guardianship of the leader,
are determined to defend this right with our full determination
and power. [Crowd chanting: God is great, Death to America, Death
to Israel]

But this challenge is not an easy one. Sometimes it is believed that
by looking at the matter optimistically, the morale of the people
will be boosted and it will increase their resistance. I, too, believe
that people should not despair and should be hopeful and resist. But
I do not believe that people should be given false hope in thinking
that others will resolve the issue for them. The issue is extremely
serious. Our opponents are explicitly and firmly stating that Iran
should not have the nuclear fuel cycle and we are explicitly and
firmly saying that we must have this technology. There is no other
alternative. Of course we are trying to resolve the matter through
negotiations. Because they are claiming that they do not trust Iran
and that they cannot be sure that Iran will not use the technology for
military purposes, we should prove to them that we are not doing so.

Our main task [over the nuclear issue] is to prove that we are not the
sort of people to utilize nuclear weapons. And we have a proud record
to prove this. I mean [at the time of the Iran-Iraq war] when our
combatants were martyred by [Iraqi] chemical weapons in such oppressive
manner, Iran could have used chemical weapons. But it did not. They
[Iraqis] were hitting our cities in the most despicable manner. But we
were instructed that before hitting any [Iraqi] city in retaliation,
we had to give a warning 48 hours in advance in order to give people
a chance to leave. This shows that we are not the people to resort
to such ugly calamities. Therefore, this is our nature. However,
we must prove this in practice to them [to IAEA and EU]. This is a
difficult task and requires talks and the delicate job of diplomacy.

Two points are important here. Firstly, our opposite side comprises
America, Europe and others. We tell them: To you, this [oily?] arena
is not a highway to cross. This is a mined battlefield and dangerous
for you. If you were to enter this arena, you will impose heavy losses
on the region, on yourself and on the rest of the world. Iran is not a
sort of state to raise its hands in surrender as soon as you pick up
your weapon and draw your dagger. Such a thing will not happen. You
should therefore act wisely and prudently. If by uttering words and
issuing resolutions, you intend to intimidate us, you must realize
that the Iranians are not scared and will not be intimidated.

If you truly wish to get somewhere, this cannot be achieved by
issuing resolutions, by intimidating us, by publishing articles and
by delivering speeches. Instead, one [you and Iranian authorities]
should sit around to talk and reach trust. And you will become certain
that Iran is not adventurous over this issue. Iran wishes to acquire
peaceful nuclear technology. This is a right that no country will
justify itself to sign away and deny itself the right. This will not
happen in Iran, if this is what you are pursuing.

I would like to let the [Iranian] managers in this sector know that
here you need diplomacy and not slogans. This is the place for wisdom,
the place for seeking windows that will take you to the objective,
the place for negotiations and extensive diplomatic activities to
say that we are present all over the world. This is the place for
utilizing all the levers at our disposal, but prudently, wisely and
with patience – without provocation and slogans that may please the
enemy and give him an excuse. We must avoid providing the enemy the
weapon that we could deploy in the world to gain victory.

We must properly resolve this sensitive problem facing our country,
with the goal of safeguarding our nation’s right and preventing others
violate the rights of our own people. God willing, we shall benefit
from the plentiful advantages of nuclear technology. [Shouts of
“God is great” from the conjuration]

Iraq and Palestine

I wanted to speak about Iraq and Palestine, but my second sermon went
on longer than I expected. I’m just going to point out that we are
witnessing mischievous and harmful actions that are hurting Iraqi
people. The three car bombs in Balad yesterday killed and injured
close to 200 people. There were more explosions in Hilla today –
these crimes usually occur in Shi’i sections. It would appear that
certain mysterious characters don’t want security to be restored
in Lebanon. Lebanon was the victim of civil war for years, which
destroyed it.

And It would appear that Israel has reduced its vulnerability
by withdrawing from Gaza. Because it was involved in clashes with
Palestinian combatants. These days it is attacking Palestinian areas
by tanks, fighter jets and helicopters. It has escalated its attacks
instead of working towards peace.

Syria is being threatened. We need Islamic unity today. We need
solidarity among those forces loyal to Islam and the revolution. God
willing, we will be able to strengthen our correct diplomatic actions
in the region and the world, thereby reducing the chances of harms
to the regions.

FACTBOX-TURKEY HAS ADOPTED SWATHE OF EU-INSPIRED REFORMS

Reuters
10/02/05 07:21 ET

Turkey is due to begin European Union membership talks on Oct. 3 after
carrying out a series of political and human rights reforms to fulfil
EU criteria.

Here is a summary of the main reforms Turkey has introduced over the
past few years as part of its drive for EU membership.

DEATH PENALTY

– Turkey’s parliament abolished capital punishment in peacetime in
August 2002 and removed all residual references to the death penalty,
including in time of war, last year.

Parliament’s move brought a reprieve for Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah
Ocalan, who was captured in 1999 and is now serving a life sentence
on an island near Istanbul.

MINORITY RIGHTS

– Turkey removed bans on Kurdish-language broadcasting and instruction
in 2002 but bureaucratic resistance delayed their implementation. In
June 2004, state TV and radio began regular, albeit limited,
programming in Turkey’s two main Kurdish dialects and several other
minority languages.

For decades Turkey denied the very existence of its Kurdish minority,
referring to them as “mountain Turks”. Kurdish is an Indo-European
language unrelated to Turkish.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

– Turkey banned sexual discrimination under constitutional amendments
approved in May 2004. A new penal code sets tougher penalties for
those convicted of rape and also of “honour killings”, which involve
the killing of women by male relatives — for example for giving
birth outside wedlock — to protect the family name. The government
is also encouraging families in rural, conservative areas to send
their daughters to school.

TORTURE

– Turkey has outlawed all forms of torture and imposed tougher
penalties for it, ranging from three to 12 years in jail. Some rights
activists say torture remains widespread and systematic, charges the
government strongly denies.

ROLE OF MILITARY

– Turkey’s powerful generals have lost some influence through reforms
of the once-mighty National Security Council, (MGK) now reduced to
an advisory body. Parliament has also gained control of the military
budget. Last year, the government scrapped State Security Courts —
a vestige of the military-inspired constitution which followed a
1980 coup. The courts were used to try political and security-related
crimes.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS

– Turkey has moved to ease bureaucratic restrictions on minority
non-Muslim religious groups, though some — including the head of the
world’s Orthodox Christians, Istanbul-based Patriarch Bartholomew —
still complain of administrative obstacles. The government is still
weighing whether to allow the reopening of an Orthodox Christian
seminary near Istanbul, shut in 1971 under a law limiting activities
at post-secondary religious schools, including Muslim ones.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

– Turkey has relaxed a number of restrictions on freedom of thought
and expression, though rights activists say the new penal code still
contains too many loopholes. For example, internationally renowned
Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk faces the possibility of up to three years
in jail for backing allegations that Armenians suffered genocide at
Ottoman Turkish hands 90 years ago. The first hearing in his case is
set for Dec. 16.