ARMINFO News Agency
October 8, 2005
SHIFT TO NATO MILITARY STANDARDS WILL IMPEDE ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN
MILITARY PARTNERSHIP
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8. ARMINFO. “In the times of the USSR Russia had a
great contribution to the development of the Soviet republics, but
nowadays such expenses are unthrifty on Russia’s part,” said a deputy
of the Russian Parliament, Alexander Fomenko, on the NATO “Rose Roth”
seminar, Yerevan.
According to Mr. Fomenko, Russia holds no interest in investments in
South Caucasus. At present Russia indulges its Southern Caucasian
partners just for the sake of maintaining good relations. “If Russia
makes neither economic nor political use from assisting Southern
Caucasian countries, the expenses are senseless,” said Mr. Fomenko
and noted that the situation in Armenia is much more pleasant for
Russia than the situation in other Southern Caucasian countries.
Now there is more Armenian, Georgian and Azeri business in Russia
than there is in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. There are many
Russian companies owned by rich Armenians, Georgians and Azeris. Why
should the Russian authorities invest its own money in the countries
if they can do this through rich Armenians, Azeris or Georgians in
Russia.
Russia should treat the countries individually. With Armenia Russia
should lean on the potential of its Armenian community which is today
even more influential than the Russian Jews. Using this potential
Armenia can attain prosperity, says Fomenko. Strategic partnership is
a complex and multi-vector thing. For example strategic partners
should have common military standards – this implying that neither
Russia nor Armenia should switch to NATO standards. Armenia’s present
contacts with NATO give no ground for concern but this is just from
the first appearance, says Fomenko.

Caucaz.com, Georgia
Oct 10 2005
X-Sender: Asbed Bedrossian
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
A stormy opening to the accession negotiations between Ankara and
Brussels
Article published in 09/10/2005 Issue
By François GREMY in Poznan
Translated by Victoria BRYAN
Right up until the last minute, Austria vehemently opposed making a
possible accession of Turkey to the European Union part of the talks
between Brussels and Ankara. And this is at the risk of calling the
negotiations themselves into question and plunging the EU into a new
crisis following the debacle over the non-ratification of the
European Constitution.
Under the chairmanship of Jack Straw, the head of the UK diplomatic
team, the 25 EU foreign ministers came together on Sunday night to
try and wrest a compromise from Austria. The meeting, held in
Luxembourg, lasted until 4.55pm.
It would take every ounce of European diplomacy and nearly 20 hours
of negotiations to soften the Austrian authorities, who were strongly
backed up by unequivocal support from the population and an
opposition that shared their views. Vienna was in favour of an
alternative form of Turkish accession, that of a `privileged
partnership’.
In an officious fashion, Austria had closely linked Turkish candidacy
with that of Croatia, Zagreb having been pushed to the back burner in
March for failing to collaborate with the International Criminal
Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICC). Austria therefore demanded
that accession talks with Croatia be reopened immediately.
Austrian pressure proved to be very effective: the EU working group
on Croatia studied its candidacy on Monday morning in the presence of
the Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC. She confirmed
that Croatia had cooperated in the most concrete way possible in
recent weeks. This confirmation meant that the opening of accession
negotiations with Zagreb could be announced that very evening.
Austria, victorious, joined the side of the remaining 24 member
states on Turkey.
And even if the Turkish authorities, in a final act of pride, only
accepted the agreement of the 25 late in the evening, accession
negotiations were finally opened on the morning of Tuesday 4 October,
sealing an historic agreement for the EU.
Turkey vexed
All the same, in response to the Austrian attitude and also to the
other member states that remained ambivalent concerning Turkey’s
accession, the Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, had announced to
the parliament in Ankara on Saturday that Turkey had engaged in an
`irreversible’ dynamic in the accession to becoming a full EU member
state. This before adding that `The Turkish nation will not accept
discrimination’.
As for Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister who has made EU
integration one of his main policy aims, he said, in a more measured
manner, that `Turkey will continue its projects of reform no matter
the outcome of the meeting on Sunday evening and it believes that the
EU will make the best decision.’ Like an experienced acrobat, the
prime minister has regularly attempted to meet the demands of
Brussels, whilst reassuring a public whose enthusiasm for Europe has
been somewhat dampened in recent months. Hesitation from Europe has
irritated those most in favour of accession. According to recent
polls carried out by Turkish newspapers, the proportion of Turkish
people in favour of accession is now around 47%, compared with more
than 68% at the start of the year.
The decision to open negotiations on the basis of a possible
accession for Turkey is therefore a victory for the prime minister,
who has seen his position confirmed on the national political scene.
This agreement is also a good omen for calming the fervour of the
Turkish nationalist parties who were trying to play on a Turkish
population that had felt abused by the attitude of the Europeans.
These parties had accused Recep Erdogan of selling off the ideals of
the country with little thought in order to bow down to the demands
of Brussels. In particular, conservatives accused the head of the
government of declaring himself in favour of restarting talks and of
a political solution to the Kurdish question.
But if the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to have given
ground on certain issues, it still has two issues to discuss in the
coming negotiations on which it is holding its ground – the
recognition of the Armenian genocide, an issue which is being closely
watched by Paris, and the recognition of Cyprus, a full member of the
EU.
The hypocrisy of the Europeans
Even if Turkey should respond positively to the expectations of the
EU, the irritation of the Turkish authorities, like that of the
population, will not disappear so quickly. The modus operandi of
Turkey’s accession has not yet been defined. Some states are in
favour of a de facto accession, following validation of the acquis
communautaire, whereas others, France in particular, would like to
see additional validation by means of referenda. Bearing in mind the
country’s traditional coldness towards Europe and of the idea of the
`unknown Turk’, there is no doubt that Ankara will have to wait for a
long time yet.
Whatever the outcome of these negotiations, politicians must now
clearly implement in their own countries the decisions taken in
Brussels or during European summits in order to make smooth advances
on the Turkish question. However, in exact contrast to this, the
vague proposals tabled by Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French minister
for foreign affairs, were aimed at reassuring the French population,
who are very wary of the issue, that the talks would not necessarily
lead to Turkey’s accession, but that they would offer the country
entry, albeit heavily reduced, to the doors of Europe.

Caucaz.com, Georgia
Oct 10 2005
X-Sender: Asbed Bedrossian
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Will America set up a military base in Azerbaijan?
Article published in 09/10/2005 Issue
By Célia CHAUFFOUR in Paris
Translated by Sophie LANCASTER and Simone KOSHIMIZU
The United States have denied any official military involvement in
Azerbaijan. Rumours continue to abound, however. Ariel Cohen, a
Russian and Eurasian specialist for American institute `The Heritage
Foundation’, responds to questions posed by the editorial team on
American military strategy in South Caucasus.
The press has recently been speculating over the possible opening of
a permanent American military base in Azerbaijan. The Ambassador for
the United States in Baku and the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham
Aliyev, have both firmly rejected this idea. But whilst the Pentagon
prepares to withdraw its troops from Uzbekistan on the request of the
Uzbek government, local and foreign observers have wondered about the
possibility of moving these American forces to the other side of the
Caspian Sea, to Azerbaijan. What is really going on?
This important question also raises others: what should be America’s
strategy in Eurasia? This is a issue which has been made more
delicate by recent events. Firstly, as the United States were
effectively `asked’ to leave Uzbekistan, but also because Washington
is at present paying particular attention to Iran and the EU3
(Germany, France and Great Britain), the European allies of Tehran.
Today, the priority for Washington is to determine if the US needs to
carry out an active policy in Eurasia or if, on the other hand, they
should limit their presence to the absolute minimum in order to focus
on the Middle East, in particular Iraq, before worrying about Central
Asia and Caucasus.
This debate is ongoing in Washington. Many experts have been
discussing the subject and have recommended different approaches.
However, for as long as this debate remains open and unresolved, I
think that the probability of establishing an American military base
in Azerbaijan is slim.
Do you think that America has an actual strategy for the South
Caucasus, similar to that put into place in Central Asia?
The overseas policy carried out in the South Caucasus primarily aims
to maintain relations and cohesion between Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Keeping this equilibrium is vital in order to guarantee the security
of energy supplies which pass through these territories. The main
issue here is oil.
But the links between Georgia and Azerbaijan are fairly open, free
from all foreign interference, and this is being maintained, at
present, without any American military bases. What’s more, when
Georgia negotiated with Russia for the removal of its troops, they
guaranteed Moscow that a permanent American base would not be set up
in Georgia. Also, if Washington does not set up any base in Georgia,
why would it establish one in Azerbaijan?
A permanent American infrastructure in Azerbaijan would only be
possible for two reasons. The first centres around any possible
serious risk to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline. The
second depends on Iran: if the United States sees the possibility for
an attack on Iran, they could do so from Azeri territory. But for the
time being, neither of these two events are applicable or really
probable.
At the end of July, the first Russian military convoy left Batumi.
The definite withdrawal of the 12th and 62nd Russian military bases
is planned only for the end of 2008. In August however, some members
of the Russian parliament started to reproach the agreement signed in
Moscow. The withdrawal process will probably not be affected. But
will the Kremlin be able to come to terms with the departure of their
troops from their `close neighbour’?
Russia has assured the United States that they will definitely
withdraw their military bases from Georgia. Moscow accepts to
withdraw their troops on condition that Georgia keeps a balanced and
moderate conduct towards Russia. However, the agreement on the
closing of these two Russian military bases does not change in the
least the policies imposed by the Kremlin in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. The Kremlin does not intend to give up its influence on
these two secessionist territories. It granted Russian citizenship to
thousands of Abkhazians and South Ossetians and now claims that most
of these separatist populations are Russians.
This means a de facto annexation of these two separatist republics,
which would directly threaten the integrity of the Georgian
territory. But this situation is not linked to the withdrawal of the
military bases in Georgia. Be that as it may, the representatives in
Duma will never exercise any actual authority over the subject if
they strive to rail against the departure of the Russian troops in
Georgia.
The Kremlin and the Ministry of Defence, the two major political
actors with the power to make decisions, concluded that the closing
of the two military bases – which are independent one from each
other, difficult to defend and supply and too expensive to be
maintained – did not mean the end of Russian influence over Georgia,
a fortiori over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Moscow also has the Georgian labour force in Russia to its advantage.
Therefore, if Moscow closes its frontiers and forbids the Georgians
to either work in Russia or to repatriate their income, that would
result in a serious setback to Tbilisi. This fact highly increases
the power that Moscow has to put pressure on Tbilisi.
You have mentioned what certain issues such as the stability and the
security of Georgia and Azerbaijan represent to the United States. Is
Armenia being relegated to the background of Washington’s strategic
plans concerning the South Caucasus?
Armenia is not located in the Caspian-Black Sea corridor. Besides
that, Yerevan is a member of the CSTO (the Collective Security Treaty
Organisation, created on 30 April 2003 during the Dushanbe summit and
which is largely dominated by Moscow) and they maintain historical
and privileged relations with Russia as well as with Iran. All these
factors put Armenia aside and out of the enclosed circle of America’s
favourite allies in the region.
In addition, Armenia is not only under the influence of South
Caucasian geo-political realities, but also under that of a very
powerful pro-Armenia lobby group in the US. Therefore, the relations
between Washington and Yerevan are more bilateral than integrated and
interdependent of American strategies in the region.
When it comes to this subject, the Nagorno-Karabakh project is of
major importance. American diplomats are optimistic and have been
working hard to put an end to the Yerevan-Baku conflict. This process
might end sooner or later and only then will it be possible to
integrate Armenia into the strategy concerning the region.
But so far among the American priorities, the main objective in
Washington has been to settle the process created under the aegis of
the Minsk group, and to develop bilateral relations with Yerevan in
order to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and support
non-governmental relations between Azeris and Armenians. Examples of
these efforts of popular democracy for the resolution of conflicts
can sometimes be observed in Georgia. From now on, they should work
on that direction to re-establish relations between Armenians and
Azeris.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of Australia & New Zealand
10 Macquarie Street
Chatswood NSW 2067
AUSTRALIA
Contact: Laura Artinian
Tel: (02) 9419-8056
Fax: (02) 9904-8446
Email: [email protected]
10 October 2005
RA FOREIGN MINISTER VISITS THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY OF SYDNEY
Sydney, Australia – On Sunday, 9 October, 2005 His Excellency, Mr Vartan
Oskanian, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia arrived in
Sydney with his official delegation at the invitation of the The Hon
Alexander Downer MP, Foreign Affairs Minister of Australia. The RA Minister
was welcomed at Sydney International Airport by government officials and
Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of Australia and New Zealand,
His Eminence Archbishop Aghan Baliozian accompanied by Diocesan Councillors
and community leaders.
Mr Oskanian’s first engagement with the Armenian-Australian Community was by
attendance at the Divine Liturgy held at the Armenian Church of Holy
Resurrection. In his sermon dedicated to the 1600th anniversary of the
Armenian Alphabet on the Feast of the Holy Translators that was celebrated
on Saturday, the Primate declared the presence of the Minister to be the
crowning glory of celebration for the Community. The Minister responded to
the honour granted him to address the congregation in the Church and replied
to the warm welcome of the Primate. In response to the Primate’s sermon
where the Archbishop declared that the independence of Armenia began long
before the 14 years that is celebrated in September but some 1600 years ago
when the written Armenian language was established that would bring alive
the Word of God through the translation of the Holy Bible, the Minister
stated that the true independence of the Armenian nation began in 301 when
Christianity was adopted as the state religion.
Following the church service, the Primate hosted a luncheon in honour of the
Minister at the Prelacy that was also attended by the delegation from
Armenia and Diocesan Council.
In the afternoon, the Armenian Community gathered in large numbers at the
Austral-Armenian Association’s Galstaun Centre to welcome the Minister. Mr
Oskanian is the first Foreign Minister from the Republic of Armenia to make
an official visit to Australia. The Minister briefed the gathering on the
current state of affairs in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, advocating the
important role of the Diaspora and purporting the roles of all stakeholders
in the future development of the homeland. Question time with the Community
followed the Minister’s briefing after which Mr Oskanian met with the local
Armenian media for a press conference in a closed session.
The Foreign Minister is meeting with his Australian counterpart today in the
nation’s capital, Canberra on official matters and will meet with other
Ministers and Members of Parliament throughout the course of the day. Later
this evening the Australian Foreign Minister will host a dinner at
Parliament House in honour of His Excellency Mr Vartan Oskanian. Dinner
guests will include Members of Parliament, delegates and representatives
from the Armenian-Australian Community. His Eminence Archbishop Aghan
Baliozian will also be a dinner guest of the Australian Foreign Minister.

Agence France Presse
8 octobre 2005 samedi 10:49 AM GMT
Olli Rehn rencontre à Istanbul l’écrivain turc Orhan Pamuk qui sera jugé
ISTANBUL (Turquie) 8 oct 2005
Le commissaire européen à l’Elargissement Olli Rehn a rappelé que la
liberté d’expression était l’une des valeurs-clés de l’UE, à
l’occasion d’une rencontre samedi à Istanbul avec le célèbre
romancier turc Orhan Pamuk, qui doit prochainement être jugé.
“Tout pays qui souhaite intégrer l’UE doit partager cette valeur”, a
déclaré M. Rehn devant la presse après s’être rendu dans
l’appartement stambouliote d’Orhan Pamuk, dans le quartier
cosmopolite de Cihangir.
Ce déplacement s’est inscrit dans le cadre de la “partie privée” du
séjour du commissaire européen, à l’issue de la partie officielle de
sa visite en Turquie qui l’a mené à Ankara et à Kayseri (centre), a
précisé à l’AFP Jean-Christophe Filori, du cabinet de M. Rehn.
Au terme de leur entretien, Olli Rehn et Orhan Pamuk ont dit aux
journalistes avoir parlé de littérature.
“Nous avons parlé de littérature, des enfants, de la vie. Il m’a
remercié pour mes romans, je l’ai remercié pour ses efforts, pour
tout ce qu’il a fait pour la Turquie”, a expliqué le romancier.
Orhan Pamuk s’est félicité du lancement des négociations d’adhésion
de la Turquie à l’UE. “Je lui ai dit que c’était positif au plus haut
point”, a-t-il souligné.
Orhan Pamuk, qui recevra le 23 octobre à la Foire internationale du
livre de Francfort le prestigieux Prix de la paix des libraires
allemands, doit être jugé en décembre devant une cour d’Istanbul pour
“insulte délibérée à l’identité turque” en raison de ses propos
reproduits dans un magazine suisse sur le massacre des Arméniens en
1915 (jusqu’à 1,5 million de morts, selon les Arméniens).
Interrogé sur le fait de savoir s’il avait évoqué avec M. Rehn son
procès, l’écrivain a répondu : “nous n’avons pas parlé du procès
(mais) de la démocratie, des droits de l’Homme, de la liberté de
pensée”.
Très lu en Turquie où il a autant d’admirateurs que de détracteurs,
Orhan Pamuk s’est attiré les foudres des nationalistes turcs pour sa
défense des causes arménienne et kurde.
Le romancier, dont les oeuvres sont traduites en plus de vingt
langues, risque de six mois à trois ans de prison.
Son inculpation avait suscité les critiques de l’UE avec laquelle la
Turquie a entamé le 4 octobre des négociations d’adhésion.

ARMINFO News Agency
October 8, 2005
ARMENIAN PRESIDENT’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WARNS OPPOSITIONISTS
AGAINST TRADING IN THEIR FATHERLAND
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8. ARMINFO. I have repeatedly warned some of the
oppositionists that unless they stop offering their faterland to
foreigners in exchange for flower revolution I will make these facts
public, says the national security advisor of the Armenian president
Garnik Isagulyan.
He says that those calling for boycotting the Nov 27 nationwide
referendum on the draft constitutional amendments or voting against
them are people who feel no responsibility for their words and
actions and are ready to sacrifice everything even national interests
to get what they want. These people are irreparable – they daydream
of becoming revolutionaries and presidents.
People cannot vote against something that can improve their lives.
One cannot but value the president’s voluntary relinquishing some of
its powers – this is quite unprecedented, says Isagulyan expressing
conviction that the people will say yes to the amendments.
There will be no flower revolution in Armenia and the people should
calmly prepare for the next elections in 2007-2008, says Isagulyan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMINFO News Agency
October 8, 2005
TURKEY’S INTOLERANCE AND HOSTILITY TO ARMENIA HINDER STABILITY AND
CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE IN SOUTH CAUCASUS
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8. ARMINFO. Turkey’s intolerance and hostility to
Armenia and denial of the Armenian Genocide hinder stability and
constructive dialogue in the South Caucasus, Vice Speaker of the
Armenian Parliament, ARFD member Vahan Hovhannissyan said during the
NATO Rose Roth seminar in Yerevan today.
On the other hand recognition of the genocide would give guarantees
of regional security. Meanwhile Turkey is trying to drive Armenia out
of the regional processes by initiating the construction of
Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline and Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi rail road and
by preventing the operation of Kars-Gyumri-Akhalkalaki rail road.
Concerning Turkey’s charges that Armenia violates the Kars Agreement
Hovhannissyan says that Turkey breaks the agreement itself by
blockading Armenia and refusing to establish diplomatic relations
with the country. As to the charge that Armenia has occupied 20% of
Azeri territory Hovhannissyan says that having occupied Northern
Cyprus itself Turkey has no right to talk about it.
Hovhannissyan says that Turkey’s admission into the EU may lead to
the opening of the border and the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide. The whole policy on united Europe is based on tolerance and
repentance – the notions alien to Turkey.

ARMINFO News Agency
October 8, 2005
AUGMENTATION OF AZERBAIJAN’S MILITARY BUDGET REAL THREAT TO PEACE AND
STABILITY IN SOUTH CAUCASUS
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8. ARMINFO. The augmentation of Azerbaijan’s
military budget is a great threat to peace and stability in the South
Caucasus, Vice Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Vahan Hovhannissyan
said during the NATO Rose Roth semiar in Yerevan today.
This is especially dangerous as after the USSR collapse Azerbaijan
got twice as much military hardware as Armenia – 312 T72 tanks
against 241, 545 infantry fighting vehicles against 298.
Concerning the Karabakh conflict Hovhannissyan says that Karabakh has
never been part of independent Azerbaijan. There had even been no
Azerbaijan as such before the proclamation of the Soviet Azerbaijan.
The territory of present day Azerbaijan had another name while the
Azeris were known worldwide as Caucasian Tartars. Karabakh was given
to the Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921 and proclaimed self-determination
after the USSR collapse like all the other Soviet republics and
according to the international law.

ARMINFO News Agency
October 8, 2005
THERE IS NO RUSSIAN TRACE IN LAST EVENTS IN SAMTSKHE-JAVAKHETI
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8. ARMINFO. There is no Russian trace in the last
events in Georgia’s mostly Armenian Samtskhe-Javakheti region, says
the national security advisor of the Armenian president Garnik
Isagulyan.
The escalation of tension in the region is due rather to hard
social-economic situation. The Georgian authorities should be very
careful in their actions as any small provocation may spark large
scale clashes.
The question is about the Oct 5 incident between the police and
ralliers in the region where an action of protest turned into mass
disorders. The ralliers protested against the tax inspection of 10
trade facilities in the center of Akhalkalaki. The personal
representative of the Georgian president to the region Georgy
Khachidze said Oct 6 that those responsible will be punished while
the Georgian president said that the police was always “up to the
mark”.

ARMINFO News Agency
October 8, 2005
TURKISH SCIENTIST DOES NOT DOUBT THAT THERE WAS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN
OTTOMAN TURKEY IN EARLY XX
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8. ARMINFO. There is no doubt that there was
thoroughly organized Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915,
professor of Saban University (Turkey) Halil Bargtay said during the
Yerevan NATO Rose Roth seminar.
Armenians were massacred just because they were Armenians and
Turkey’s claims that it was a result of Armenian revolt are a lie.
There was no word “genocide” in the international legal terminology
in early XX but today this cannot be called otherwise. The only
difference between the Jewish Holocaust and Armenian Genocide is that
the Jews of Western Europe had no revolutionary organizations while
the Armenians of Ottoman Turkey had several revolutionary groups. But
this is not an excuse, says Bargtay.
In response Vice Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Vahan
Hovhanissyan said at the Jews of Western Europe were immigrants while
present day Turkish Anatolia is a historical territory of Eastern
Armenia as the early XX revolutionary moods by Armenians were quite
understandable – they struggled for the liberation of their
historical homeland.
Bargtay said that there is certain progress in the Turkish public
opinion but the political authorities cannot just get up one morning
and recognize one thing they have been denying for decades. This
requires time. Bargtay said that it is not right to pressure Turkey
in the issue. International pressure may only lead to escalating nazi
and fascist moods.
Turkey should come to this on its own. At the same time both Armenia
and Turkey should overcome antagonism and the ghost of the past.
There already are some signs of tolerance. Many Turkish scientists
have already begun to publicly acknowledge the fact of massacres and
some of them even call this genocide, says Bargtay noting that he is
one example of this.