UNPRECEDENTED CHESS TOURNAMENT IN THE CAUCASUS
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Oct 6 2005
On October 1 the ceremony of opening of the International Chess
Tournament Karabakh 2005 (organized by the government of NKR
and the Chess Federation of Armenia) took place. The minister of
education, culture and sport Kamo Atayan congratulated the guests
of the ceremony and the participants of the tournament. The famous
Hungarian chess player Lajos Portish, who is a guest of the tournament,
and the international grand master Bartlome Macheya also addressed
the guests. L. Portish said he had first visited Armenia 40 years
ago, invited by his friend, the 9th champion of the world, Tigran
Petrossian. And since then he has cherished unforgettable memories.
“My second visit to Yerevan was 9 years ago, during the Chess
Olympiad. And this is my third visit,” said L. Portish. “And the
occasion is a very good one. An international chess tournament is
held in Stepanakert which will continue in the future and become
a tradition. I will gladly follow the games and I believe that few
mistakes will be reported on the chess board. I wish you all success
and at the same time I want to thank the NKR government and the Chess
Federation of Armenia for inviting me to the Karabakh 2005.” The
international grand master Barthlome Macheya who participated in
the tournament devoted to the 75th anniversary of Tigran Petrossian,
emphasized the importance of such events from the point of view of
bringing peoples together and achieving mutual understanding. He
recalled that last year he left Karabakh carrying unforgettable
memories along with him. “I made new friends here, this wonderful
country full of kindness, which I missed a lot, has become close to
my heart, and I have told about the days I spent in Artsakh and my
impressions to many people. I am grateful to be back here again, to
be invited to the Karabakh 2005 tournament. Also I would like to thank
one of the best grand masters of the time, my friend Smbat Lputyan who
does his best to develop chess and make it popular. I wish you peace
and all the best.” Two tournaments are held simultaneously: Tournament
A corresponds to category 17 and Tournament B corresponds to category
11. Famous international grand masters are taking part in Tournament
A, such as Vasily Ivanchuk (Ukraine), Ivan Sokolov (the Netherlands),
Alexey Dreyev (Russia), Victor Bologan (Moldavia), Hikaru Nakamura
(USA), Bu Xianzhi (China), Bartlome Macheya (Poland), Karen Asrian
(the winner of Tigran Petrossian International Chess Tournament)
and Ashot Anastasian (Armenia). In Tournament B Yevgeni Sveshnikov
(Latvia), Tigran Petrossian (Armenia), Ervin Lami (the Netherlands),
Jose Manuel Lopez Martinez (spain), Katarina Lahno (Ukraine), Sergey
Grigoriants (Russia), Raj Tishberek (Germany), Benjamin Galstian,
Artur Chibukhchian and Arsen Yeghiazarian (Armenia) are taking part. On
Sunday the first games of Tournaments A and B took place. In Tournament
A Ashot Anastasian defeated B. Macheya; the score was 1:0.
At the 56th step Levon Aronian won the game with Moldavian Victor
Bologan, and Vasily Ivanchuk defeated Chinese Bu Xianzhi. The games
between Ivan Sokolov and Alexey Dreyev, Hikaru Nakamura and Karen
Asrian ended in a score. In Tournament B the games S. Grigoriants-E,
Lami, Y. Sveshnikov-L. Martinez, K. Lahno-T.Petrossian, B.
Galstian-A. Chibukhchian ended in a score. The German player R.
Tishberek defeated A. Yeghiazarian. On the second day in Tournament
A A. Ananian played with H. Nakamura, K Asrian with V. Balagan, L.
Aronian with I. Sokolov, A. Dreyev with V. Ivanchuk and B. Macheya
with Bu Xianzhi. In Tournament B K. Lahno played with Y. Sveshnikov,
L. Martinez with S. Grigoriants, E. Lami with B. Galstian, A.
Chibukhchian with A. Yeghiazarian and T. Petrossian with R.
Tishberek. During the press conference the president of the Academy of
Chess of Armenia, international grand master Smbat Lputian emphasized
the importance of Karabakh 2005 in Artsakh, for such a high-level
tournament is held in the South Caucasus for the first time, which
is a great honour for both the participants of the tournament and
its organizers.

CULTURE CONSERVATION IS EVERYONE’S PROBLEM
NVARD OHANJANIAN
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Oct 6 2005
Since July the NKR Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport has done
considerable work for conservation and study of the historical and
cultural monuments of Artsakh. The government provided 37 million
drams for cleaning the 7 Armenian cemeteries of Shushi. Since the
end of July, within a month the second cemetery of Shushi occupying
5 hectares of land was cleared of bushes, grass, trees clinging to
the tombs, the gravestones damaged by the Azerbaijanis were returned
to their places. Only the walnut trees and other fruit trees which
do not damage the tombs were kept. According to the head of the
department for conservation and study of monuments Slava Sarghissian,
the staff of the department often organizes expeditions. Recently
they have visited the valley of the Badara River, particularly the
village of Lesnoy which used to be inhabited by Azerbaijanis in the
Soviet years. “We registered over 80 Armenian monuments around this
settlement (church, monastery, cemeteries with khachkar gravestones),”
said S. Sarghissian and added that the studies in Badara are going
on and over 200 monuments are still to be registered. According to
him, one of the picturesque sites in Artsakh the valley is should be
turned into a conservation area. “Recently we considered the issue of
creating historical and cultural conservation areas of “Khachen”,
“Dizak” and “Shushi”. We also need to consider the question of
creating a similar conservation area in the valley of the Badara,
allowing to preserve valuable historical and cultural monuments and
to conserve nature and animals which are ruthlessly destroyed and
killed,” said S. Sarghissian. “The pheasant which was widely spread
around settlements is now rarely found. The hare and the deer have
become almost extinct, let alone the bear. In some rivers they fish
using illegal methods, in the months when fishing is not allowed,”
said Slava Sarghissian. According to S. Sarghissian, this spring
they travelled in the region of Hadrut and studied monuments which
had not been studied before, as well as registered new valuable
historical and cultural objects. Near the source located to the
West of Gtchavank a small khachkar with an inscription was found in
April. Unfortunately, it has disappeared. Visiting the same place
with a group of specialists from Armenia, they discovered that the
khachkar had been replaced with another, smaller and less valuable
one. “Unfortunately, these replacements are now very frequent. And
the worst thing about it is that this business tempts not only people
who do not understand anything in this, but also men of the church,”
he said. The department studied a number of monuments in the region
of Kashatagh, in the valleys of the rivers Aghavno and Ghochaz where
they discovered that a Niva car had driven by the historical bridge
built at a height of 7 meters across the Ghochaz and damaged part of
it. “There are two historical bridges in this part. One of them is
damaged and cannot be used, the other may collapse after the mentioned
happening. This is a real crime. If the bridge collapses, people will
not be able to cross the river at this part,” said Slava Sarghissian.

UNE FAMILLE ARMENIENNE MENACEE D’EXPULSION
par Soizic Le Gac
Le Telegramme , France
6 octobre 2005
Une famille d’Armeniens sejournant a Lannion depuis un peu plus d’un
an est menacee d’expulsion.
L'” invitation a quitter le territoire francais ” expirait dimanche.
Dès mardi soir, les parents d’elèves de l’ecole de Penn ar Ru ont
fait entendre leur protestation face a cette mesure qualifiee d'”
inhumaine “.
Un tract appelant a la signature d’une petition a ete distribue aux
parents d’elèves de l’ecole où sont scolarises depuis un an les deux
jeunes enfants du couple Gevorgyan.
Reunion demain soir
Parallèlement, la Ligue des droits de l’Homme appelle a une reunion
d’information et de mobilisation, demain soir, a 20 h 30 au Centre
Savidan de Lannion.
A Lannion, de nombreuses associations caritatives et des mouvements
de defense du citoyen ont ete alertes par la Ligue des Droits de
l’Homme dès la mi-septembre. Selon la Ligue, ” ces mesures d’expulsion
touchent des familles de Lannion, mais aussi de Paimpol et de tout
le departement “.
La Ligue y voit ” la manifestation de la politique de Nicolas Sarkozy
et du gouvernement de Dominique de Villepin, avec son cortège de
situations inhumaines et dangereuses “.
Refugie politique ? Refus
Une mobilisation d’abord discrète a ete menee au sein d’associations
pour obtenir une solution humanitaire qui permettrait a la famille
Gevorgyan de Lannion de rester dans le Tregor, malgre le rejet de sa
demande de statut de refugie politique, par l’office national charge
du dossier.
Aussi, la Ligue des Droits de l’Homme regrette-t-elle que ” l’action
associative ne suffise plus face au recours systematique a une
politique de repression “. La Ligue estime que ” cette politique est
un danger pour la democratie “.
Elle appelle ” a un rassemblement solidaire pour que la France reste
une terre d’asile, avec des droits et des devoirs pour chacun “.
–Boundary_(ID_TUJypvlB0fXNkj4NpZPn1Q)–

‘LONDON THREATENS WITH RECOGNITION OF TRNC’
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
October 7 2005
The launch of Turkey’s talks with the European Union (EU) continues
to receive widespread media coverage in Europe.
A story appeared in Greek Cypriot newspaper Fileleftheros, with
the headline “Rapprochement Through Pressure,” saying that Britain
is blackmailing the Greek Cypriots “politically” to recognize the
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in dense lobbying activities
in Luxembourg.
Britain has pressured more on the authority of the Greek Cyprus to
emasculate the importance of talks regarding Turkey’s responsibilities
towards the Greek Cypriots in accordance with the Negotiation Framework
Document through the enlightening statement of the presidency, it
was claimed.
The newspaper also reported that with pressures increasing after
an agreement was reached with Austria, the Greek Cypriot authority
feared that it might be left alone; therefore, it agreed to the
“enlightening statement” of Britain.
In the meantime, Armenian hopes have risen for the opening of Armenia’s
border with Turkey and the acknowledgement of the Armenian allegations
after Turkey was allowed to negotiate with the EU.
The Armenian opinion of the negotiation start is that Turkey will
feel compelled to open its borders with Armenia as soon as possible,
said Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamlet Gasparyan. Turkey
closed its borders with Armenia when Armenian forces occupied almost
20 percent of neighbouring Azerbaijan. Yerevan has nýt withdrawn
its forces despite of the EU’s and OSEC’s warnings. Armenian does
not recognise Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s natinal borders. Turkish
Government has made many efforts to establish a dialogue with Yerevan,
yet the Armenian side has strongly rejected all offers.
–Boundary_(ID_j29OA4QPRvssBfuC9ZgGww)–

GEORGIAN GOVERNOR CRITICIZES POLICE FOR FIRING IN THE AIR DURING ARMENIAN RALLY
Rustavi-2 TV, Georgia
Oct 6 2005
[Presenter] Shots were fired in Akhalkalaki [mainly ethnic Armenian
town in southern Georgia] when the protest outside the district
administration building [on 5 October] turned into a mass riot.
People had been protesting about decisions made by the financial and
tax services. Officials had started auditing about 10 shops in the
town, prompting the shop owners to stage noisy protests.
In an attempt to ease tension, representatives of the Interior
Ministry’s emergency situations department fired several shots in
the air, causing a panic among the protesters, some of whom suffered
minor injuries.
Governor Goga Khachidze has been holding meetings in the region since
this morning. He says that the officials responsible for injuring
the protesters may have to answer for their actions.
[Khachidze, interviewed] There may have been an incident and there
may have been tension, but, in my opinion, they had no right to fire
shots, even in the air. They should certainly answer for that.

STEPANAKERT SEES THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP REPORT AS ‘BIASED AND PRO-AZERBAIJANI’
Azg, Armenia
Oct 5 2005
The Foreign Ministry of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR] last week
commented on the International Crisis Group’s [ICG] report “Nagornyy
Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground”, which was published
on 14 September.
The ministry’s comments show that Stepanakert is not satisfied with
the ICG report. The political experts and the NKR president’s adviser,
David Babayan, has told Azg daily that “the report was prepared in
the best interests of Azerbaijan and one gets the impression that
the document was prepared by an Azerbaijani ministry” and “instead
of bringing forward the settlement of the conflict, the report has
a negative impact on the settlement process”.
Babayan, who sees eye-to-eye with the Karabakh Foreign Ministry,
thinks that the report gives the impression that Nagornyy Karabakh is
a militarized state which is totally dependent on Armenia and that
the Karabakh conflict is a territorial dispute between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, which results from Armenia’s aggression. “It is a serious
shortcoming that the report ignores the fact that 90% of Armenians
were displaced as a result of ethnic cleansing, pogroms and police
actions organized by the Azerbaijani authorities in 1988-1991, whereas
85% of Azerbaijanis were forced to leave their homes only during the
hostilities that began in 1993. Moreover, no force was used to expel
them, they left together with the retreating Azerbaijani forces on
orders from the Azerbaijani authorities,” the NKR Foreign Ministry
says in the statement.
The report seems to be even more pro-Azerbaijani when it comes to
refugees and internally displaced persons. “The number of Armenian
refugees who the authors claim belong to the category that suffered
most of all is reduced by 35,000 (these are refugees from [Karabakh’s]
Shaumyan, Martuni and Mardakert districts). The number of Armenian
refugees is compared with 425,000 Azerbaijani refugees.
Favouritism towards Azerbaijani refugees is obvious in figures, too:
the Azerbaijani refugees are mentioned 186 times whereas Armenian
refugees only 40 times. The Armenian refugees are often mentioned in
a negative context as illegal inhabitants of the Karabakh-controlled
territories.”
“The first sentence of the report’s first chapter says that ‘Nagornyy
Karabakh is perhaps the most militarized society of the world’.
Saying that the Nagornyy Karabakh armed forces have 18,500 soldiers,
the authors fail to mention that the Karabakh defence army is forced
to contain 40,000 Azerbaijani soldiers on the opposite side of the
border,” the Foreign Ministry says in the statement.
Yet Stepanakert sees positive aspects in the report, too. It points out
that Nagornyy Karabakh has a point in claiming independence, that the
Karabakh-controlled territories are not occupied by Armenia and that
Azerbaijan’s allegations that there are 1.5m refugees and that 20%
of Azerbaijani territory is under Karabakh’s occupation are not true.
Touching on the negative aspects of the report, Stepanakert points out
that the interests of Armenian refugees and displaced persons have been
neglected, which is discrimination on the part of the non-government
organization, that the report says there is a danger that hostilities
in the conflict zone will resume, that the ICG does not recognize
the borders of the NKR and takes the Soviet administrative border
as a basis and that the authors tend to hold Armenia and Azerbaijan
equally responsible for the conflict (this approach was used by the
Soviet authorities in 1988-1991, which allowed Azerbaijan to invade
the NKR). The ICG will also publish its second report called “Voices
from the Negotiating Table”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN FM SAYS NATO CAN BE IMPORTANT TO PEACE IN SOUTH CAUCASUS REGION
Associated Press
Oct 6 2005
NATO can be a key player in helping stabilize the troubled southern
Caucasus region that includes Armenia, the country’s foreign minister
said Thursday.
Speaking at a joint seminar of the parliament and representatives of
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Vardan Oksanyan said “NATO can play
a large role in establishing peace in the south Caucasus and bring
countries of the region into peaceful dialogue.”
The region is troubled by tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia
over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, and neighboring Georgia
is trying to bring two separatist regions back under the central
government’s control.
Armenia is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
which includes Russia and four other ex-Soviet states. Russia has
troops based in Armenia, but Oksanyan said “at the same time we are
working closely with NATO.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KAREL DE GUCHT FOLLOWING EU’S DECISION ON TURKEY IN LUXEMBOURG
De Standaard , The Netherlands (Translated from Dutch)
Oct 6 2005
Barroso-led commission’s leadership role insufficient
We would have looked ridiculous had we not started negotiations
with Turkey. Turkey must now make a major effort, as must the EU,
for that matter. And the [Jose Manuel] Barroso-led commission must
show more dynamism. It is not playing its leadership role.
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht (VLD [Flemish Liberal
Democrats]) is known to be a fervent advocate of Turkey’s EU
adhesion. He thoroughly dislikes the concept of Europe as an
exclusively-Christian club. In his opinion, invoking this argument
as a basis for discussions means putting back the clock. So he is not
upset by critics of the decision reached by the EU foreign ministers
last Monday [3 October] evening, nor by former Belgian EU Commissioner
[Karel] Van Miert’s assertion that the “EU is being torn down from
within”.
[De Gucht] The EU being torn down? Imagine we said “No”. What
reactions would that have elicited? Would it have increased the EU’s
credibility in the eyes of the public? No. Newspapers would have
facetiously remarked that the EU had come another cropper, the third
this year, after the Constitution and the multi-year budget. Would it
have increased the EU’s credibility in the eyes of other major world
players? The EU held out the prospect of membership to Turkey 40 years
ago. In Helsinki, and also last year, we confirmed that Turkey would
be allowed to join the EU and that negotiations would start when all
preliminary conditions were met. The Turkish government has done all
it was supposed to do. So there was no alternative. This issue was
not only closely monitored by the United States but we would also
have lost all credibility in the eyes of China and Russia.
[Reporter] Yet initial promises to Turkey were made in an entirely
different context than the current one. We were still in the middle
of the Cold War and Ankara was an important player. Now this is no
longer the case.
[De Gucht] I agree but Turkey has made much progress. Just look at what
the Ankara government has managed to do in recent years in anticipation
of the membership talks. It was simply our moral duty to give them
this opportunity. And one should not underestimate what they still
need to do before being allowed to join. I have the impression we do
not fully realize what the Kurdish question means to them. The PKK’s
[Kurdish Workers’ Party] hands are stained with blood, with a lot of
blood. The Armenian genocide has been completely wiped from their
collective memory. It is not so simple for the Turkish government
to recognize this genocide just because we are now demanding it does
so. And the Cold War context may have disappeared but this does not
mean that Turkey’s strategic location has changed.
Muslim terrorism has now taken the place of the Cold War. Turkey is
located near the world’s largest energy reserves. I think we really
are underestimating all these factors.
[Reporter] However, Ankara’s obstinate refusal to recognize Cyprus
has not made things any easier for the EU.
[De Gucht] I have no problem at all with the fact that this has not
yet been done. It is impossible for Turkey to recognize Cyprus at this
moment in time because there is no international peace agreement which
has been accepted by both parties. I would prefer recognition to take
place within the context of a new UN plan, some sort of Anan-bis,
because some aspects of the first plan, which did not survive the
referendum, need to be amended.
For instance, I think the Turkish army should immediately leave
northern Cyprus. The Anan plan did not provide for this demand.
Moreover, we should not attribute too much weight to the recognition
issue. There is still time and it will have to take place before
accession anyway. So many former arch-enemies are currently already
sitting at the EU table. One of the EU’s main reasons for existence
is to eradicate rivalries.
[Reporter] Yet the question remains as to whether the EU will be able
to absorb all these enlargements. It may still need some more time to
digest the arrival of the 10 new member states. The institutions have
not even been reformed and it has already embarked on negotiations
with Turkey. Do you understand those who are genuinely concerned
about the EU’s political integration problems?
[De Gucht] Yes, I understand them. It is a pity that the Constitution
has been put on the back burner. But for this we cannot blame Turkey –
[Reporter] – which, for instance, declined to bring some of its
foreign policies in line with those of the EU and which refused to
accept Cyprus’s membership, not only of the EU but also of other
international organizations.
[De Gucht] Countries other than Turkey also find it hard to accept
common foreign policies. Is France so much more flexible than Turkey in
this regard? And the United Kingdom? Moreover, replacing the unanimity
rule by qualified majority voting is becoming less important in the
context of the enlarged EU.
This became clear in Luxembourg. Imagine Austria had stuck to its
position in a six-member union. Paradoxically enough, this would
have been easier than in the current context. It did not stand any
chance in a context of one against 24. This does not mean, however,
that I think no more reforms are needed to reinvigorate the EU.
[Reporter] Which reforms?
[De Gucht] I think we need to return to the philosophy of [EU founding
father] Jean Monnet – take specific steps. I think, for instance, we
need to focus on the single currency and further social and economic
integration in the euro zone. This, in turn, will make the EU more
attractive. We need to step up economic coordination.
Much work still needs to be done in the field of taxation. The issue
of taxes on savings has shown the importance of this matter. In Europe,
we also need to agree on a single tax base for companies.
Or we could strive for a shift from direct taxes to indirect taxes,
such as value-added taxes. This would reduce charges on labour and
breathe new life into the economy but it is something that needs
to be done collectively. Countries which are still hesitating about
proceeding with the further development of Europe will then have to
make a choice.
[Reporter] Who will have the courage to take such an initiative? The
EU currently finds itself in a deep impasse.
[De Gucht] The referendums in France and the Netherlands have
indeed dealt an uppercut to the EU as a whole. That is why Europe
at present needs a determined leadership. The current leadership is
not determined enough. The commission should play its role but the
Barroso-led commission is not doing this to a sufficient extent.
According to the treaty, however, one of its duties is to provide

AN IRISHMAN’S DIARY
by Kevin Myers
The Irish Times
October 6, 2005
The European Parliament, perhaps twisting in the wind of doubt over
other issues, last week demanded that Turkey acknowledge the 1915
Armenian massacres as “genocide”.
Why should Turkey do that? Turkey did not exist as a state when the
massacres occurred. The Turkish people, as a people, are innocent of
the bloodshed.
Moreover, the massacres occurred as part of a series of ethnic
slaughters reaching from the Balkan Wars before the Great War until
several years afterwards: why should the Turks alone be expected
to accept blame for events in which all the great powers were to a
greater or lesser degree involved?
One of the great disasters of world history was the failure of the
Western democracies to cherish the enormous virtues of the Ottoman
Empire. Instead, that wretched Gladstonian cliche about it being “the
sick man of Europe” became the myth that governed policy. Churchill
promulgated this with all the foolish and deceitful energy at his
command as he drove us (and I mean us) into the catastrophic Gallipoli
campaign. But even before that calamity, the Tsar’s armies, especially
his Armenians, had fallen ruthlessly on Ottoman Muslim communities
during the winter 1914-15, massacring thousands.
The allies were simultaneously conniving with Ottoman Armenian
separatists, and the UK-French invasion of Turkey in April 1915
triggered a convulsion of insanity through an already neurotically
insecure Anatolia. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were rounded
up by their Kurdish and Turkish neighbours for translocation. Vast
numbers were killed. But so too were vast numbers of ethnic Turks
killed by Russian armies, by Greek armies and by Franco-British armies
in the coming years.
So it is morally and historically absurd to identify one part of
that human catastrophe as demanding modern political culpability,
but no other. So let non-political, academic fingers sift through
the melancholy ashes of history, looking for bones. Modern politics
is not about disinterring the past but transmuting its legacy into
the future through the prism of the present.
And it is in the present that we judge things, not on some glorious
past, be it in Alhambra 50 years ago, as some letter-writers to
this newspaper have been rather fatuously doing, or in the extinct
Ottoman Caliphate. We must decide upon the future of Turkey within the
European Union because of what Turkey is today. Once I was ardently in
favour of full Turkish membership of the EU, but now I am sceptical,
primarily for the reason which is shared by much of Europe: concern
about the mass movement of Turks from eastern Anatolia into our cities.
Western Europe has experienced two post-war examples of large-scale
Turkish immigration: one to Sweden, the other to Germany. The former
was open and generous about civil and electoral rights; the latter
was not. The outcome has been much the same: both countries now have
enclosed, inward-looking Turkish communities, whose young people
marry out, back into Anatolia, and who often have little personal
contact with the indigenous peoples. And whereas Turks at home, under
the stern eye of their army, have for decades been secular in their
expression of Islam, many Turks in non-martial, democratic exile have
embraced more fundamentalist strains.
No doubt such concerns will be called “racist”. But it has nothing to
do with race, and everything to do with culture. Are the cultures of
eastern Turkey and Western Europe mutually assimilable? Could Erzurum
take 10,000 Swedish immigrants? Could Dundalk take 10,000 Anatolian
Turks? Moreover, almost every report we hear from Turkey speaks of
the rise of a dynamic and conservative Islam. When I was first there
20 years ago, headscarves and burkas were non-existent; now they are
common even in Istanbul. Can secular, post-Christian Europe cope with
large numbers of Muslim immigrants from those economically backward
Turkish regions alongside Iran and Iraq, who believe that peace and
freedom exist only in domains ruled by Islamic law?
On the other hand, there remains one sound reason to admit Turkey.
The old EU now really is the sick man of Europe. Sclerotic, over-taxed,
over-regulated, over-pensioned, it lies uncomfortably in bed with
its boisterous new companions from Eastern Europe. What will it make
of the vast energies and vaster population of Turkey? How will it
inflict its ludicrous health and safety regulations, and 80,000 pages
of fatuous Euro-law, on a vibrant Middle-Eastern culture of enterprise
and individualism? It can’t. The Titanic of Brussels would merely need
to skim its hull against the cheery anarchy of the bazaar of Istanbul,
and the wretched vessel would founder.
Moreover, as matters stand, the EU is a criminal conspiracy against
Turkey, our friend and neighbour. I say friend, because for decades,
Turkey held the southern flank of Nato against totalitarian Soviet
communism. And that the EU still has tariff barriers against Turkish
produce, while it has admitted former enemies of the Warsaw Pact,
is a bloody disgrace.
And though it is ludicrous to suppose that the megalomaniac madmen in
Brussels are actually capable of creating a superstate reaching from
the Arctic almost to Arabia, this doesn’t mean they won’t continue to
try. So we should welcome both Austria’s frank concerns about Turkey
and the Franco-Dutch rejection of the European Constitution – which
anyway was more like a detailed manual for running a nuclear power
station than a political document.
What the EU needs now is a little more sceptical honesty, a lot more
of the rigours of a Turkish marketplace, and a great deal less of the
flabby and sclerotic Franco-German welfare dependency. In other words,
it is time to re-invent the dear old Common Market, with controlled
population movements the key

AUSTRIA’S GAMES OVER TURKEY
The International Herald Tribune
October 6, 2005 Thursday
The European Union has finally cleared the way to opening membership
talks with Turkey, after wisely rejecting an attempt by Austria to put
unacceptable conditions on the negotiations. Jack Straw, the British
foreign secretary, should be congratulated on leading the rescue effort
in Luxembourg. And a reassuring phone call from Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey also
helped mitigate the Turks’ understandable bitterness over this process.
The debate over expanding the EU to include a huge, poor, Muslim
country has become the focus of a whole host of problems and
frustrations. But the way to accession negotiations had seemed
clear after the Union decided last December that Monday was to be
the starting date. Then came the crushing rejections of a proposed
European constitution in France and the Netherlands, leadership
crises in member states, and the “expansion fatigue” brought on by
the induction of 10 new countries.
As the deadline neared, Austria suddenly declared that it would agree
to open talks with Turkey only if alternatives to full membership were
declared a viable option. An overwhelming majority of the Austrian
public is opposed to Turkish membership, and Chancellor Wolfgang
Schlussel apparently thought he could wring some votes out of the
issue in a by-election on Saturday. (His party was trounced.)
With the Turks already feeling profoundly humiliated over the entire
process, going down that road would have been disastrous. Erdogan’s
reformist government, which has invested huge political capital in EU
membership, would have become vulnerable before Muslim and military
hard-liners, and Europe’s millions of Muslims would have felt even
more marginalized.
The effort to save the day included a phone call from Rice to Erdogan
to assure him that Turkey’s role in NATO would not be reduced,
as well as an EU agreement to start accession talks with Croatia,
something Austria is keen to do. The trick now is to move along the
tough process of these talks without further alienating Turkey from
Europe, and vice versa. Turkey still needs to make big changes in
its attitudes and practices on human rights, the role of women, the
rule of law, the slaughter of Armenians early last century and the
aspirations of its Kurdish minority. But Erdogan’s progress on many
of these issues has demonstrated a commitment to change. The ball is
rolling, and it was disgraceful of Austria to endanger the process
for petty domestic posturing. We hope those games are now over.