ARMENIA TO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM REFERENDUM ON NOV 27
By Tigran Liloyan
ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
October 4, 2005 Tuesday 3:50 PM Eastern Time
Armenia will have a referendum on constitutional amendments on
November 27.
The parliament passed the draft on a constitutional reform in the
third reading on September 28. The existent constitution has been
in effect since July 1995, and amendments result from the Armenian
commitments to the Council of Europe. They will balance powers of
legislative and executive authorities.
European experts have approved the draft.
The amendments will lift the ban on double naturalization, which is
important for more than 5 million Armenians residing abroad.
The constitutional reform is very important for the European
integration of Armenia, President Robert Kocharian said.
Constitutional amendments have once been put on a referendum. The
referendum was held simultaneously with parliamentary elections in
May 2003 but did not gain support of voters.

CIS COUNTRIES REGISTER INDUSTRIAL GROWTH-EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
October 4, 2005 Tuesday
All the CIS countries have registered a rise in industrial production
over the first six months of the current year. The only exception
is Kyrgyzstan where the industrial slump amounted to 9.8 percent in
January-June, says a report by the Commonwealth Executive Committee,
circulated before a meeting of the CIS Economic Council, scheduled
for October 12.
Azerbaijan gained the highest industrial growth in the first six
months – 20.1 percent. It is trailed by Georgia – 12.8 percent,
Belarus – 10.5, Tajikistan – 8.9, Uzbekistan – 7.5, Kazakhstan – 7,
Ukraine and Armenia – 5 and 5.3, respectively. Russia and Moldova had
the lowest rates of industrial grown – 4 and 4.6 percent, respectively.
Oil production increased in all the CIS petroleum-producing
countries, apart from Ukraine where it slid by 0.9 percent down
to two million tonnes. Azerbaijan boosted petroleum recovery by 25
percent up to 9.6 million tonnes as against the corresponding period
in 2004. Kazakhstan’s growth in oil production edged up on 11 percent
up to 31.1 million tonnes, in Russia – three percent up to 230 million
tonnes and Turkmenistan – one percent up to 4.8 million tonnes.
Kazakhstan boosted its gas recovery by 29 percent over the six months
of this year as against the corresponding period in 2004, Turkmenistan
– 3.4 percent and Azerbaijan – 2.0 percent. The growth amounted to
0.7 and 0.9 percent in Ukraine and Russia, respectively.
The Russian Federation mined more coal by 3.0 percent, Ukraine –
by 1.0 percent and Kazakhstan registered a nosedive of three percent.
Moldova increased power generation by 13 percent over the above period,
Georgia – 6.0 percent, Ukraine – 5.0 percent, Azerbaijan and Armenia
– 4.0 percent each, Kazakhstan, Russia and Tajikistan – two percent
each. Belarus generated seven percent less power, and Kyrgyzstan –
0.3 percent.

FRENCH COMMENTARY SEES GOVERNMENT AT ODDS WITH PUBLIC OVER TURKISH EU ENTRY
Le Figaro, France (translated)
Oct 3 2005
Text of commentary by Luc de Barochez entitled “Paris’ and Istanbul’s
secret love affair” by French newspaper Le Figaro website on 3 October
Never in the Fifth Republic has French diplomacy been so at odds
with public opinion. Rarely has France’s foreign policy been so much
decided by a single person, the president, against the advice of his
parliamentary majority. Four months after the French people’s “no”
vote in the referendum on the European constitutional treaty, Paris
has just confirmed its go-ahead to negotiations whose stated aim is
Turkey’s accession to the EU. The debates that accompanied the 29 May
vote showed, however, how much concern the prospect of that country’s
accession to the European club causes to a large proportion of the
French people (footnote: Only 21 per cent of French people questioned
are in favour of Turkey’s accession, 70 per cent are against it,
and 9 per cent have no opinion, according to an Eurobarometre poll
conducted by the European Commission in July 2005.)
The two issues are not linked officially. Jacques Chirac stressed in
advance that they are “completely unrelated”. Voters were consulted not
about Turkey but about the draft constitution. And it is conceivable
that the EU could continue to expand without acquiring the means
to move towards political union. The paradox is that this path,
which French diplomacy now seems to be taking, is that which Paris
has always claimed to reject. Successive presidents have voiced the
wish, at least since Britain’s accession to the Common Market in
1973, that each enlargement be accompanied by an intensification of
European unity.
This link is threatened following the shelving of Valery Giscard
d’Estaing’s draft constitution. The Treaty of Nice, unanimously deemed
inadequate, marked the last advance towards EU integration in the
year 2000, during the French presidency. That treaty was intended to
prepare for the accession of the 10 countries that joined in 2004,
as well as that of Bulgaria and Romania. The start of negotiations
with Turkey, and soon with Croatia, shows how mistaken some voters
were in thinking that they could oppose enlargement by voting “no” on
29 May. Is France in earnest in encouraging the start of negotiations
with Turkey? The closer the fateful day has drawn, the less France’s
leaders have had to say about the subject. And if they have spoken,
it has been to stress that the talks would be long, complex and not
necessarily successful, and that even if they were successful the
French people could still disrupt everything by refusing to ratify
Turkey’s accession by referendum. None of this is very encouraging.
“How can membership negotiations be started unless this prospect is
considered both possible and desirable?” a French diplomat involved
in the negotiations asked. Valery Giscard d’Estaing was even more
explicit last month, when he lamented France’s “double talk”.
Though there is a before and after 29 May in French leaders’ public
statements, the basic line has not changed. Hence the impression
of embarrassment and vagueness that prevailed during the summer. On
2 August Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said: “It seems to me
inconceivable that any negotiations process could begin with a country
that did not recognize every member of the EU.” Since then Turkey has
still not recognized the Republic of Cyprus, the prime minister has
had to eat his hat, and that which was inconceivable is about to take
place. Chirac was very specific, addressing the Ambassadors’ Conference
on 29 August: “Pledges have been made that France will honour.”!
The policy of a single man, France’s endorsement of Turkey’s marriage
to Europe is also a promise kept. To Turkey, but also to Germany,
and to our other EU partners. In 1999 the Helsinki European Council
session, with the support of the French cohabitation government,
established that Turkey was “destined” to join the EU. It confirmed
that the criteria applied to that country, whatever its particular
religious, demographic or socioeconomic characteristics, would be “the
same as are applied to other candidate countries”. In December 2004
the European Council session in Brussels confirmed that negotiations
would begin on 3 October 2005 if Turkey satisfied in the meantime
a number of conditions, which included neither recognition of the
Armenian genocide nor recognition of the Greek Cypriot government’s
sovereignty over the whole of the island of Aphrodite.
Like a secret love affair, which cannot be revealed in public, the
relationship between Paris and Ankara remains very discreet. France
is still among Ankara’s allies within the EU. On every key issue the
president has opposed demanding from Turkey more than it can give, for
the present. Jacques Chirac believes that the interest of the West,
in the broad sense – Europe’s influence in the world, its relations
with Islam, and the imperative of guaranteeing the continent’s energy
supplies – combine to encourage progress with Turkey. “A secular
Turkey having fully adhered to the values of the rule of law and
building a modern and competitive economy would be an asset for the
EU,” one diplomat close to the Elysee [president’s office] said.
Officially, nothing is being said. And Istanbul and Ankara greatly
resent the vagueness of France’s policy. The Turkish elites,
traditionally pro-French, are moving away from a partner that they
now consider neither reliable nor honest. At the time of the latest
enlargement, France ruined the confidence that it enjoyed in Poland
because of an attitude that was perceived to be both hesitant and
arrogant. It could now achieve the same result in Turkey.

A LESSON FROM ROMAN HISTORY: AN EARLIER EMPIRE’S WAR ON IRAQ
By Gary Leupp
CounterPunch, CA
Oct 4 2005
The Roman emperor Trajan reigned from 98 to 117 and brought the empire
to its maximum extent. He is generally considered to be one of the
“good emperors” who ruled from 96 to 180, and indeed his administration
was marked by relative tolerance (towards Christians, for example)
and efficiency. Among his mistakes, however, was an attack on the
Parthian Empire beginning in 115 or 116. He personally led his troops
into Mesopotamia (what we now call Iraq) capturing the capital of
Ctesiphon on the Tigris near modern Baghdad. He reached the Persian
Gulf and in Edward Gibbon’s words, “enjoyed the honour of being the
first, as he was the last, of the Roman generals, who ever navigated
that remote sea.” A man of boundless ambition, he dreamed of sailing
from there to far-off India.
Iraq was Persian (Iranian) territory then. We call its people “Arabs”
today because they speak the Arabic language, just as we call Moroccans
and Egyptians and Syrians “Arabs” for the same reason. But the original
Arabs inhabited the Arabian Peninsula and what today is the kingdom
of Jordan. Trajan had annexed the later (then called Arabia Petraea)
about 106, bringing a large Arab population into the empire for
the first time. Meanwhile he drew other Semites into the fold. By
conquering Mesopotamia, with a population of perhaps a million Jews,
he brought almost all the world’s Jews under Roman rule. (See Norman
F. Cantor, The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews, 1994).) (We
tend to assume that the Jews were all concentrated in Judea, but there
were according to Philo one million Jews in Alexandria, Egypt in the
early first century, while Josephus writing later in the same century
wrote that the Syrian cities of Antioch and Damascus had huge Jewish
populations. At the time there were at least 10,000, and perhaps as
many as 40,000 Jews in Rome itself.)
These Middle East conquests did not turn out well for Trajan. The
Mesopotamians rose up in rebellion; a nephew of the king (who had fled
beyond the Zagros Mountains) organized Parthian resistance, attacking
Roman garrisons. According to F. A. Lepper (Trajan’s Parthian War,
1948) “traders and middlemen of all kinds” opposed the invasion. Local
Jews who had been comfortable under Parthian rule constituted a key
component of the uprising. Meanwhile Jews in Roman Judea, having
revolted in 66-70, were again rebelling in what historians call the
Kitos War (115-17).
Elsewhere too Semitic monotheism attached itself to political
upheaval. In Cyrene (in what is now Libya) Jews revolted under the
leadership of a self-styled messiah, Lukuas, in 115. His forces
destroyed the Roman temples and government buildings in Cyrene,
slaughtering Greeks and Romans, and advanced on Alexandria where
they destroyed more pagan temples and the tomb of Pompey. Jews on the
island of Cyprus rebelled as well, under one Artemion. (New Testament
readers will recall reference to Jews in these far-flung locales:
Simone of Cyrene who carries Jesus’ cross, and Paul’s traveling
companion Barnabas, a Jew of Cyprus.)
Religious-based terrorism became the order of the day, if we’re to
believe the third century Greek historian Dio Cassius, who records
(no doubt with some exaggeration) that Jewish rebels killed 220,000
in Cyrene and 240,000 on Cyprus. Rome, having invaded Mesopotamia, was
unable to contain the fighting to that one front. The war exacerbated
simmering anti-Roman resentments, fanned religious fanaticism and
intolerance, and produced terror as far away as Northern Africa. But
with great effort Trajan’s forces suppressed the several Jewish
revolts, although some fighting continued about a year after the
emperor’s death. (As a result of this episode, according to Dio,
Jews were expelled from Cyprus entirely.)
Trajan had not gone in to the war intending to provoke rebellions or
terrorism. His ostensible reason was to punish Parthia for political
interference in the kingdom of Armenia, which Rome considered part
of its sphere of influence. But Dio Cassius called this a “pretext”
and declared that Trajan simply wanted “to win renown.” Julian Bennett
in his recent biography of Trajan agrees with this assessment (Trajan,
Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times, 1997).
In 117 the proud emperor wisely elected to withdraw from Mesopotamia,
and died in retreat in Cilicia. His adopted son and successor,
Hadrian, returned Mesopotamia to Parthia the following year. “Thus
it was,” wrote Dio, “that the Romans, in conquering Armenia, most
of Mesopotamia, and the Parthians, had undergone severe hardships
and dangers for naught.” But as historian B. W. Henderson put it,
“it was very wise to abandon what could not be kept.” Mesopotamia
resumed its former status as a prosperous part of Persia. The citizens
of Rome didn’t suffer from the loss of a couple of briefly-held
eastern provinces, or the revival of Parthian power up until that
empire’s fall over a century later. Nor did it suffer when Hadrian,
on the island of Britain at the other end of the empire, elected to
build his famous barrier between Rome and “barbarian” Celtic tribes.
Hadrian’s Wall, marking the boundary of Roman Britain, denoted the
realistic recognition of the limits of imperial power.
* * *
Ibn Khaldun, that fine fourteenth century North African Arab Muslim
scholar, one of the greatest historical thinkers of all time,
cautioned against judging “by comparison and by analogy.” Many, he
observed, “draw analogies between the events of the past and those
that take place around them, judging the past by what they know of
the present. Yet the difference between the two periods may be great,
thus leading to gross error.”
Point well taken. I draw no analogies here. The current empire is
mired in Iraq, drawn there by an emperor using a pretext to win
renown, producing by his invasion widespread outrage conditioned by
religious fanaticism. The empire’s troops face what the Romans faced in
Mesopotamia—in Gibbon’s words, the legionnaires were “fainting with
heat and thirst, could neither hope for victory if they preserved their
ranks, nor break their ranks without exposing themselves to the most
immanent danger. In this situation they were gradually encompassed
by the encompassing numbers, harassed by the rapid evolutions, and
destroyed by the arrows of the barbarian cavalry. ”
Yes, there are parallels. But if America is comparable to Rome,
George Bush is surely no Trajan, and to draw an analogy between the
two would indeed produce gross error.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct
Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants,
Shophands and Laborers in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors:
The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial
Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is
also a contributor to CounterPunch’s merciless chronicle of the wars
on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

TURKEY INSULTINGLY REJECTED BY THE EU AGAIN
by M. S. Ahmed
Media Monitors Network, CA
Oct 4 2005
“It is no exaggeration to conclude that it is Ankara’s readiness
to dance to the tune played by Europe that is encouraging the EU to
treat it so shabbily and keep it at the EU’s gates for so many years.
Turkey is a large and strategically important country, and the EU
countries are interested in maintaining economic ties with it,
as German chancellor Schmits (for one) confirms. Paradoxically,
one way Ankara can raise the EU’s interest in having it as a member
would be to forge and strengthen ties with other Muslim countries and
work publicly and seriously for a Muslim union, while suspending its
efforts to join the European Union.”
Turkey has been a trusted and valued member of NATO for a long
time, as it has been an associate member of European economic
organisations. Turkey first applied to join what was then the
EEC in 1959 and signed an association agreement with it in 1963,
which strongly implied that it would later become a member. In 1995
it joined the Custom Union, and the EU officially accepted it as
a candidate for membership four years later. And, finally, the EU
agreed last December that Ankara could start entry talks on October
3. But some EU member-states insisted that the talks could start only
if Turkey recognised Cyprus, which became a member of the EU in May,
while others insisted that the talks would not be about Turkey’s full
membership but about “privileged links”. Nor surprisingly, Ankara,
which had fulfilled the previous conditions set for full membership,
refused to comply with the new ones because they were felt to be
humiliating, and the schedule of talks seemed to be doomed.
However, EU member-states began to modify their position slightly,
agreeing that the talks would be about membership after all, and by
September 22 the negotiations between the two parties appeared to be
on schedule. But very little has in fact changed, as the conditions
which Ankara found humiliating do not attach to the opening of the
talks but to Turkey’s full membership of the EU. Turkey must, for
instance, recognise Cyprus if it is to become a member, and those
member-states that object to its admission will continue to do so.
Thus nothing has really changed and it is again insulting to
expect Ankara to be happy that the talks will begin on October 3,
as scheduled. In any case, the membership talks might conceivably
last ten years or more, as EU officials openly admit.
It is ridiculous that a country that has been a loyal ally of the
West should be treated in this manner, while former enemies that were
recently members of the Soviet Union have been readily admitted.
After all, Ankara has fulfilled all the conditions demanded of it
by the EU: it has abolished the death penalty, accepted Kurdish as
a language for teaching in schools, scrapped state security courts,
revised the penal code and tightened civilian control over the country,
for instance This disdainful attitude of the Europeans explains why
support for EU membership is decreasing in Turkey itself. Recent
polls show that backing has fallen from about 93 percent to about 63
percent of Turkey’s population.
The animosity in the EU towards Turkey and dislike of its aspirations
for membership are evident not only among the majority of its people
but also among their political and religious leaders, who publicly
argue that a Muslim country cannot belong to a Christian society.
This, for instance, explains why Turkey’s application for membership
became a prominent issue in Germany’s recent elections. Mrs Angela
Merkel, whose party won a simple majority of votes, rejected Turkish
accession, conceding only “privileged partnership”. Even liberal German
political leaders backed her, somewhat unexpectedly. On September 15,
for instance, she won support from Helmut Schmidt, the former Social
Democrat chancellor, who said that he completely supported her position
in an interview with the liberal weekly Die [Das? ] Zeit. Saying
that it was nonsense to suggest that Turkey could ever join the EU,
he added: “The Turks belong to a completely different cultural domain
from us. Economic cooperation, yes, customs union, yes, but no freedom
of movement for population excesses [sic.] that arise in Turkey.”
But it is not only the European on the street and European politicians
who object to Turkey’s membership of the EU. Even Benedict XVI, the
new pope, has asked whether admitting a Muslim country to the EU is
compatible with “European values”. This has made him a controversial
figure in Turkey. But even so, president Ahmed Necdet Sezer has
invited him to visit Turkey next year, the foreign ministry said on
September 15. If the pope in fact visits Turkey, he will be the third
pontiff to do so: a clear demonstration that the overwhelmingly Muslim
(though officially secular) country is not as hostile to Europeans
on religious grounds as Europeans are to Muslims.
In fact successive Turkish regimes have been keen to show how European
their country’s values are and how well it qualifies to be a member
of the EU. This explains their readiness fulfill the conditions to
be met before accession talks can be held or even considered. Ankara
is required to show that it is modern, democratic, regretful of its
treatment of minorities such as the Armenians, and also prepared to
compensate them now. How keen the current regime is to comply is shown
by prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reaction to the cancellation
of a conference in Istanbul on the massacre of Armenians in 1915.
A court in Istanbul ordered the cancellation of the conference on
September 22 on the application of the Turkish Lawyers’ Union – “a
hardline nationalist organisation”, as one EU newspaper has described
it. But although the office of the governor of Istanbul announced
that permission had not been given for the conference to go ahead,
Erdogan reacted strongly to the court’s decision to cancel it. “This
decision has nothing to do with democracy and modernity,” he said;
“I condemn this decision.” In fact it is his unwarranted public
interference in judicial affairs, and his anxiety to comply with the
dictates of the EU that have nothing to do with democracy. Likewise nor
has the refusal of EU member-states to treat their Turkish minorities
anything to do with democracy. In fact they are treated so badly,
despite most of them being citizens of the countries they are in or
have legal residence of, that it is strange that Erdogan and other
Turkish leaders are not exercised about this blatant departure from
democratic practice.
It is no exaggeration to conclude that it is Ankara’s readiness to
dance to the tune played by Europe that is encouraging the EU to
treat it so shabbily and keep it at the EU’s gates for so many years.
Turkey is a large and strategically important country, and the EU
countries are interested in maintaining economic ties with it,
as German chancellor Schmits (for one) confirms. Paradoxically,
one way Ankara can raise the EU’s interest in having it as a member
would be to forge and strengthen ties with other Muslim countries and
work publicly and seriously for a Muslim union, while suspending its
efforts to join the European Union.

CHRISTIANS SEEK RECONCILIATION BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS THROUGH TURKEY-EU MEMBERSHIP TALKS
Christian Post, CA
Oct 4 2005
While the European Union (EU) membership talks with Turkey was delayed
on Monday due to divided opinions within the nations, Christians
in Turkey urged the European leaders to hasten the negotiation,
saying that Turkey’s entry to EU will “cultivate reconciliation
between civilizations”.
According to the Saturday edition of the Italy-based news agency
AsiaNews, the Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II wrote a letter to 732
members of the European parliament and to ministers of European
nations, pleading their support for Turkey’s entry to EU.
“In these days, when we hear talk about clashes between the
civilizations of East and West, between Christians and Muslims,
when we see how terrorism is destroying peace among civilizations,
we think that the most basic objective of the European Union should be
that of seeking to cultivate a ‘reconciliation between civilizations’
and a multi-cultural society, as we – especially Christians of the
East – ardently desire,” wrote the spiritual leader of Armenian
Orthodox Christians.
In Turkey, more than 99 percent of the population follows Islam. The
Armenian people are the largest non-Muslim community and are
traditionally Christians in their Turkish homeland of almost 3,000
years.
In the letter, Mesrob claimed to speak in the name of the Armenians
as well as the Hebrews, Syrians, Greeks, Chaldeans and Protestants,
who are all strong Christian proponents of Turkish EU membership.
In response to opponents who claimed that the majority Christian EU
was not ready to absorb the predominately Muslim Turkey, the patriarch
described the entry of Turkey to EU is a “vital step towards world
peace”.
“We Christians of the East, who for centuries have lived in a Muslim
word, can testify to this endeavor, and fortified by long experience,
we can affirm that this event could be significantly enriching for
Christians in the West who have started to live with Muslims and to
experiment a multi-ethnic lifestyle only recently,” Mesrob continued
in the letter obtained by AsiaNews.
The patriarch reiterated that Turkey’s bid in the EU was “not for
Turks alone, or for Europeans, but for world peace.” Therefore,
he called on “those who work for western peace” to help them.
At the same time, Mesrob showed his concern that “those who oppose
it and who nurture attitudes of suspicion may disrupt the road to
democracy, making Turkey turn in on itself.”
“We pray for the success of the process of civilization and peace in
the European Union and so that Turkey and the Armenian Christians,
who make up the country’s largest non-Muslim community, may find their
right place in it,” the patriarch concluded with prayer in the letter.
It was the crisis over Turkey’s EU-bid last week that prompted the
Patriarch’s call. The European Parliament meeting in Brussels last
Wednesday had seen a heated debate over Turkey’s EU membership. EU
ambassadors harshly criticized Turkey’s record on human rights and
religious freedoms, claiming it has failed to meet the corresponding
standard on the EU Constitution.
Austria has taken a hard-line stance and has pushed for a privileged
partnership between the EU and Turkey, saying Austrians and others
across Europe do not support full membership. France and the
Netherlands had previously showed their dismays.
In an attempt to reach consent within the 25-member bloc, the chairing
country Britain called an emergency foreign ministers’ meeting in
Luxembourg on Sunday evening. The late-night negotiations, however,
failed to break the deadlock and the talks dragged on through the
afternoon, according to a report by AFP on Monday.
Amid the dispute, the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, a supporter
for Turkish membership, warned of a “theological-political divide,
which could open up even further down the boundary between so-called
Christian-heritage states and those of Islamic heritage,” BBC reported
on Monday.
During a brief address at the Luxembourg’s meeting, Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, “Let us be sincere, honest and
principled. I invite all European leaders and our friends all over the
world to show common sense for the sake of global peace and stability.”
“If the EU wants to become a global power, if it aims to eliminate
the conflict of civilizations, the concert of civilizations must be
achieved,” Erdogan said, according to AFP.
An interfaith conference called “Meeting of Civilizations” was
held last week by the Turkish Prime Minister in a bid to ease out
the criticism over its religious intolerance. Around 2,000 Jewish,
Christian and Muslim delegates attended.
“To those wishing for a clash of civilizations we must be able to
say this: no to a clash of civilizations, yes to an alliance of
civilizations,” Erdogan said at the conference.
According to the latest report by the Associated Press (AP), the
European Union opened membership talks with Turkey early Tuesday –
“a momentous step that is bound to transform the bloc as it prepares
to take in a predominantly Muslim nation and expand its borders to
the Middle East.”
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told AP, “After the negotiations
start, the whole world will benefit.”
“God willing, it will be beneficial.”

NKR PRESIDENT HELD CONSULTATIONS ON ISSUE REFERRING TO EFFECTIVENESS OF USE OF INVESTMENTS
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
Oct 4 2005
The issues referring to raising economic effectiveness of a number of
large companies established due to foreign investments in the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic (NKR) agrarian, industrial and banking sphere were
discussed in the course of the working meeting at the NKR President
Arkady Ghoukasyan.
According to De Facto own correspondent in Stepanakert the participants
of the meeting discussed the issues relevant to capital construction,
agriculture, crediting and the proposals on their solution.
Having noted the importance of foreign investments for restoration
and reestablishment of the Republic’s economy, the NKR President paid
attention to prolongation of commissioning of the hotel in the center
of Stepanakert and modernization of the city stadium.
Arkady Ghoukasyan pointed out the necessity of enlisting serious cadre
potential for the organization of economic activity. The President
stated the Republic leadership was ready to render consulting and
professional aid for effective use of investments in the above –
mentioned fields. He requested that control should be established
over timely implementation of works.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EU NEGOTIATIONS WITH TURKEY COULD FAVOUR SWISS
Swissinfo, Switzerland
Oct 4 2005
The launch of adhesion negotiations between the European Union and
Turkey could also help improve ties between Switzerland and Ankara
say specialists.
Following the official decision to proceed with talks, reactions have
generally been positive, including those of the sometimes critical
Swiss media.
Commercial and economic ties could be stimulated, while political
and cultural exchanges are expected to intensify. “What holds true
for Europe is also valid for Switzerland,” said the Swiss ambassador
to Turkey, Walter Gyger.
He added that if Turkey made efforts to get closer to Europe,
Switzerland would have try to work out its own relation with Ankara.
“The negotiation process with the EU should help relieve some
tensions,” he noted.
Switzerland and Turkey have had a rocky diplomatic relationship for
the past few years, especially over issues related to the deaths of
thousands of Armenians under Turkish rule in 1915.
Officially, the Swiss foreign ministry has only noted the beginning
of talks. “As we are not a member of the EU, Switzerland has no reason
to comment this decision,” said ministry spokesman Lars Knuchel.
Bilateral relations between Bern and Ankara are not affected by the
EU talks or a possible Turkish adhesion for the time being. “Our
accords remain unchanged for now,” added Knuchel.
Business benefits
Turkey’s possible EU membership will only become officially an issue
in 2014, the earliest point at which it can join the Union. Some
bilateral accords between Switzerland and the EU, especially those
on security and asylum, as well as the free movement of labour will
come under scrutiny.
Knuchel said that the labour agreement had clauses guaranteeing
long transition periods as well as the possibility of putting its
application to a nationwide vote.
“The biggest challenge for Switzerland and Turkey during the
negotiation process will be to ensure that both countries give enough
attention to their bilateral relationship,” added the spokesman.
“Ankara will be focusing on Brussels in the coming years.”
Knuchel admitted though that the opening of talks could positively
influence commercial and economic relations with Turkey.
The Swiss Business Federation, economiesuisse, said on Tuesday it
expects some favourable fallout during the negotiations for the Swiss
export industry. “Turkey joining the EU would be in our interest,”
said federation spokesman Pascal Gentinetta.
Critical media
The Swiss press generally welcomed the announcement of adhesion talks
on Tuesday, although there was some criticism between the lines.
“After decades of waiting, these negotiations are the right decision,”
wrote Zurich’s “Neue Zurcher Zeitung.”
Its crosstown rival, the “Tages Anzeiger” criticised Union member
states for dragging their foot before accepting to open talks. “It was
grotesque and painful theatre with the EU in the main role,” it said.
It pointed the finger at Austria especially, adding that Vienna had
“held up proceedings until it got the all clear for adhesion talks
with Croatia.”
Geneva’s “Le Temps” also criticised the Austrians’ tactics, saying
that the government’s fear of rampant anti-Turkish sentiment at home
“had almost been enough to make chancellor [Wolfgang] Schussel think
twice before agreeing.”
The “Aargauer Zeitung” pointed out that the “hesitations surrounding
the decision to open talks with Turkey were proof of how unsure the
EU was of itself at the moment.”
The Swiss press tended to agree though that negotiations with Turkey
would be a long and drawn-out affair, especially since “Europe lacked
any leaders with a vision” as Le Temps wrote.
“In Berlin, they’re still looking for a chancellor. And in Paris,
there are dozens of wannabe presidents.”

PUBLIC MOOD IN AZERBAIJAN POINTS TO A NEW WAR
By Taleh Ziyadov
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
Oct 4 2005
On September 26-27, OSCE Minsk co-chairs Bernard Fassier (France),
Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia), and Steven Mann (the United States) met in
Vienna to discuss further steps in the Karabakh peace process.
Before the meeting, Azerbaijan’s foreign minister, Elmar Mammadyarov,
declared, “The peace process has not yet exhausted itself,” but he
also added “there is a need for a parallel increase in the military
expenditures of Azerbaijan.”
Meanwhile, Merzlyakov, the Russian co-chair, expressed his concern
about the fact that both Azerbaijan and Armenia have increased their
military budgets and said, “Bellicose statements and calls for using
military force in solving the Karabakh problem do not contribute to
a resolution of the conflict.”
Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov reacted to Merzlyakov’s
speech on Monday, September 26. “The increase in [Azerbaijan’s]
military budget is normal and it is in the country’s national
interest,” he declared. “This is Azerbaijan’s internal affair [and]
the [military] budget will be raised as much as needed.”
Azerbaijan has doubled its military budget to $300 million in 2005
and is expected to double again in 2006, as new oil and gas export
profits arrive.
Referring to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s
possible involvement in the peace process, Merzlyakov commented,
“PACE may contribute to mobilizing public opinion in the two countries
to achieve the compromise needed for conflict resolution.”
However, Merzlyakov’s desire to boost public support for potential
agreement may be too little, too late.
For years, the OSCE Minsk co-chairs disregarded the potential domestic
reaction in Azerbaijan and Armenia to an agreement reached without
public input. A recent report by the International Crisis Group (ICG)
titled, “Nagorno-Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground,”
outlines the potentially ominous outcomes of this neglect.
“Whatever progress is occurring around the negotiations table,
on the ground a resumption of war still seems all too possible,”
reads one of the conclusions in the report. “We are tired of ten
years of peaceful negotiations that lead us nowhere [and] brought
us nothing,” says one Azerbaijani refugee, voicing his frustration
about unfulfilled promises.
The ICG team reports that some 13% of all Azerbaijanis surveyed
“unconditionally supported a military solution, while 53.3%s
supported such a solution if peaceful means failed. However, 84.2% of
[internally displaced persons (IDPs)] respondents called for the use
of force.” According to the report, “The majority of the public [in
Azerbaijan] demands unconditional return of all occupied territories
including Nagorno-Karabakh and places little hope in a negotiated
settlement and peaceful outcome.”
The survey illustrates that it is not only the Azerbaijani government
calling for a military solution in case the negotiations fail, but
also a large portion of the general public and IDPs in Azerbaijan
believe that the military option may be the only available alternative
to change the current status quo.
As a result of the war, some 800,000 Azerbaijanis became refugees and
IDPs; most are from the districts surrounding Karabakh. Armenia still
occupies these districts as a buffer zone. The ICG report argues that
before any of these districts could be returned, Azerbaijan should give
“strong military and political security guarantees.”
Ironically, a component of hard security — a buffer zone used against
a possible offensive — directly affects the very livelihood of
the IDPs, who in turn have an indirect affect on their government’s
position in the negotiations, by making it even more hardline. In
other words, by continuous occupation of the districts surrounding
Karabakh, Armenia increases the potential for the use of force on
Azerbaijan’s side.
Speaking at the Ministry of Defense on September 16, Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliev declared, “Azerbaijan is a country in a state of
war. Our lands are under occupation. The country has pursued a peaceful
policy for many years. But the conflict has not been resolved. Then
what should Azerbaijan resort to? That is why the reinforcement of
our military potential is quite natural.”
Furthermore, “Increasing our country’s military budget is our sovereign
right and this should not trouble anyone. This is our internal affair
and we will pursue this path as long as we deem it necessary. I have
set the task: our military budget should reach the entire budget of
Armenia, or even exceed it,” Aliev concluded.
Yet, the ICG report suggests that there is still a window of
opportunity. “Moderate civil society actors and average Azeris and
Armenians could play a key role in ‘developing a new language of
dialogue’… to help deconstruct the inherited history of myth and
symbol that fuels confrontation’.” Although “IDP populations [are]
the greatest victims of the war,” says the report, they are also the
ones that are “the most open to coexistence.”
“The majority of Nagorno-Karabakh population, current and former,
remembers common life before the war. The memories of the past, while
including tremendous pain, also encompass warm memories of shared
life in a multiethnic Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, ‘where life
was good’.”
Nonetheless, as Azerbaijan and Armenia continue to increase their
military expenditures and public opinion in Azerbaijan, especially
among IDPs, turns against the OSCE-sponsored mediation process, no
one can rule out the possibility of a new war between the two states
in the near future.

EU DEADLOCKED IN WAR OF NERVES OVER TURKEY TALKS
New Zealand Herald, New Zealand
Oct 5 2005
04.10.05
LUXEMBOURG – The start of Turkey’s historic accession talks with
the European Union was in jeopardy last night after EU foreign
ministers failed to overcome Austrian demands for an alternative to
full membership.
EU president Britain said ministers would try again for a deal
overnight but said the planned opening ceremony today was uncertain
and could slip.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said a planned review of Croatia’s
progress towards EU entry talks had been postponed and would have to
wait until Turkey was sorted out.
“It is a frustrating situation, but I hope and pray that we may be
able to reach agreement,” Straw told a post-midnight local time news
conference after five hours of tough wrangling with Austria.
EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn played down the threat to
Turkey’s 42-year-old entry bid, saying: “I am confident we will have
a positive outcome and start negotiations [today].”
But 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.”
With Austrian voters overwhelmingly hostile to Turkey’s entry, Foreign
Minister Ursula Plassnik waged a lone battle demanding that the EU
spell out an alternative to full membership, not only in case Turkey
did not meet the criteria but also if the EU felt unable to absorb
the vast, populous, poor Muslim state.
Diplomats said the 24 other members insisted they could not make
any change to the central plank that the aim of the talks would
be accession.
“Isolation and pressure is never going to work in politics. It’s not
going to work inside the European Union, certainly not. The union
should have and must have a different style,” Plassnik said after
three tense meetings with Straw.
Asked whether Austria was prepared to veto the start of talks, she
said it took all 25 member states to agree.
The EU has already irked Ankara by demanding that it recognise Cyprus
soon and open its ports and airports to traffic from the divided
Mediterranean island.
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.
Fanning Turkish anxiety, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy
cast doubt on whether Turkey would ever join the EU, saying the talks
might end in an enhanced partnership instead.
Douste-Blazy, who stayed away from yesterday’s meeting, said that
Turkey was a long way from having the same values, laws and human
rights as the European Union.
“I think it will be very hard for Turkey because we will be asking
a lot. We’re asking it to change its laws.”