BRIDGING THE BOSPORUS: ‘TURKEY HAS ALWAYS REPRESENTED A DIFFERENT CONTINENT’
by Peter Goodspeed
National Post (Canada)
October 3, 2005 Monday
National Edition
Lined with tea gardens, Ottoman villas and ancient fortresses,
the straits twist and turn for 35 kilometres, linking the Sea of
Marmara to the Black Sea. With an intoxicating mix of splendour,
simple beauty and cruel history, this sliver of Turkey has become
one of the world’s great cultural frontiers.
This is where the Orient meets the Occident, where Christianity
encounters Islam, where tradition collides with modernity — a bustling
crossroads to Europe and the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus.
Now, the straits and all of Turkey are about to become the focus of
an intense international debate as diplomats prepare to negotiate
Turkey’s application for membership in the European Union.
The talks, scheduled to get underway in Luxembourg today barring a
last-minute veto by Austria, which opposes full EU membership for
Turkey, could last a decade. By the time they end, neither Europe
nor Turkey will be the same.
Turkey’s application to join the EU is already forcing Europe to
question its identity as never before. EU members are struggling
to define their future, while juggling centuries-old fears against
new ambitions.
Even as diplomats debate the terms of Turkey’s entry, Europe has been
swept by a bitter public backlash against the move.
Last spring’s rejection of the EU’s draft constitution by voters in
France and the Netherlands was said to be fuelled by fears of Turkey
joining Europe.
More recently, an opinion poll carried out by the European Commission
claims 52% of Europeans are opposed to letting Turkey join their
club. Only 35% agree.
Seventy per cent of French voters, almost three-quarters of Germans
and 80% of Austrians are against Ankara’s membership.
Angela Merkel, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union and
possibly Germany’s next chancellor, launched a campaign last month
to block Turkey’s entry into the EU, sending letters to European
leaders asking them to offer Turkey only a “privileged partnership,”
not full membership.
“We are firmly convinced,” she wrote, “that Turkey’s membership would
overtax the EU economically and socially and endanger the process of
European integration.”
Opponents of Turkey’s admission to the EU cite everything from
clashing values to different cultures, a lack of a common geography,
differences in religion and Ankara’s record on human rights.
Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former president of France who drafted
the latest version of the EU constitution, rejects Turkey’s membership,
declaring, “It would be the end of Europe.”
“There is an obvious contradiction between the pursuit of Europe’s
political integration and Turkish entry into European institutions,”
he says.
Former EU commissioner Frits Bolkestein, a Dutchman who used to be
responsible for the EU’s internal markets, taxation and customs union,
warns that letting Turkey join the EU will trigger a massive wave of
migration that could result in Europe being “Islamized.”
“The liberation of Vienna in 1683 [from a siege by the Ottoman Turks]
would have been in vain,” he says.
Even Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the debate. Last year, when he
was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he told the French newspaper Le
Figaro Turkey threatens European culture.
“Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent
contrast to Europe,” he said. “Making the two continents identical
would be a mistake. It would mean a loss of richness, the disappearance
of the culture to the benefit of economics.”
“Europe has a culture which gives it a common identity,” the
then-Cardinal said. “The roots which formed this continent are those
of Christianity.”
On the eve of today’s talks, Austria made a last-ditch attempt to
block any agreement on the ground rules for the negotiations by
demanding diplomats should clearly set out “alternatives” to giving
Turkey full EU membership.
Last week, the European Parliament grudgingly approved opening
negotiations with Turkey, but passed a non-binding resolution that
insists Turkey must acknowledge that the killing of Armenians under
Ottoman rule in 1915 was genocide before it will be admitted to the
EU. Those moves have infuriated Turkey, which has patiently been
trying to get into the EU for 42 years.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has already warned “should [the
EU] place anything short of full membership [on the table], or any
new conditions, we will walk away. And this time, it will be for good.”
Turkish public opinion, which overwhelmingly favours joining the EU,
has grown increasingly frustrated over European preconditions.
In 1963, when John Kennedy was still president of the United States
and Turkey was a bulwark against communism and a key member in NATO,
the Turks were granted associate membership in the European Economic
Community, the EU’s predecessor.
But after Ankara applied for full, formal membership in 1987 it had
to wait until 1999 to be recognized as an EU “candidate.”
In the meantime, such fledgling democracies as post-Franco Spain,
post-Salazar Portugal, Greece, after it sent the military back to
their barracks, and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe
were all accepted into the EU.
Turkey still waits and successive Turkish governments have repeatedly
adopted EU-recommended reforms to pave the way for its admission.
They’ve passed laws to end torture, to abolish state security courts
and to reduce the political role of the military. They reformed
Turkey’s civil code, gave women equal rights to household property
and ended their need to obtain their husband’s permission to work
outside the home.
They’ve abolished the death penalty, rewritten the criminal code,
and legalized the use of Kurdish in education and broadcasting.
Despite growing opposition from hard-line Islamists and nationalist
politicians, Ankara’s moderate Islamic government continues to press
for EU membership.
Turkey’s elite, infatuated with the promises of liberal democracy,
long to be regarded as part of Europe, without becoming Westernized.
Turkey’s poor lust after the economic advantages of EU membership.
Still, there are Islamist religious leaders who warn of being corrupted
by the West and Turkish nationalists who feel their country is being
humiliated.
Britain, one of the strongest supporters of Turkey’s EU candidacy,
says it wants to see a staunch NATO ally, who straddles a strategically
crucial piece of real estate, safely inside Europe.
The possibility would allow Europe to shape a new accommodation between
Islam and the secular West and might even give the continent a bigger
say in the Middle East.
“It would be a huge betrayal of the hopes and expectations of
the Turkish people and of [Turkey’s] Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]
Erdogan’s program of reform, if, at this crucial time, we turned our
back on Turkey,” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said last week
at the Labour Party conference in Brighton.
Still, a clash of cultures that assumes religious overtones could
have serious security repercussions for Europe, which already has 23
million Muslims living inside its borders.
“For the EU to cross the Bosporus is to move from a community based
on centuries-old notions of shared history and geography to one based
on shared democratic standards and the future,” argues Timothy Garton
Ash, an Oxford University historian.
“Two logics clash at the gates of the Bosporus: the logic of unity
and the logic of peace,” he says.
“If Europe is mainly about creating a coherent political community,
with some aspirations to be a superpower, it stops on the western
side of the Bosporus — for another decade, at the least,” he says.
“If we think it is more urgent to promote democracy, respect for
human rights, prosperity and therefore the chances for peace in the
most dangerous region in the world, we step on to that bridge.”
GRAPHIC: Black & White Photo: STR, AFP, Getty Images; Members of
the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party …; Black & White Photo:
Umit Bektas, Reuters; …chant “no to Europe” during an anti-EU
demonstration in the capital, Ankara, yesterday. Some 100,000 people
turned out to protest their government’s negotiations with the European
Union, which open in Luxembourg today.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

U.S. INTERVENES TO RESCUE STALLED EU TURKEY TALKS
Reuters
10/03/05 09:53 ET
LUXEMBOURG, Oct 3 (Reuters) – The United States intervened on Monday
to try to rescue membership talks between the European Union and
Turkey as a diplomatic deadlock deepened hours before the historic
negotiations were due to open.
EU president Britain said the 25-nation bloc was “on the edge of
a precipice” after Turkish objections to a clause it fears could
affect NATO membership piled on top of Austrian demands that the
Muslim nation be offered an alternative short of full membership.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Turkish Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan to assure him that the proposed EU negotiating
framework would not impinge on NATO, diplomats said.
A presidency spokesman said Britain still hoped to hold the opening
ceremony on Monday but it would clearly be later than the planned 5
p.m. (1500 GMT) start.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was waiting nervously in Ankara
for the EU to adopt a negotiating mandate before he could set off
for Luxembourg.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw telephoned Austrian Chancellor
Wolfgang Schuessel to try to clinch agreement on a formula to satisfy
Austrian concerns that the EU may not be able to absorb the vast,
poor, Muslim country, diplomats said.
The United States had also contacted Vienna to try to overcome
objections fuelled by overwhelming public hostility to Turkish
membership, they said.
Turkish financial markets yo-yoed amid the uncertainty. Stocks fell
some 2.3 percent from Friday’s close and the lira was down nearly 2
percent against the dollar, but both recovered in mid-afternoon amid
hopes the problems would be resolved.
Rice’s involvement was potentially embarrassing for the EU,
highlighting its inability to solve its problems alone.
“CATASTROPHIC”
Straw told the 24 other EU foreign ministers upon resuming talks
after only a couple of hours’ sleep: “Yes, we are near (to a deal)
but we are also on the edge of a precipice.
“If we go the right way we reach the sunny uplands. If we go the
wrong way, it could be catastrophic for the European Union.”
In Ankara, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told a meeting of the ruling
AK party that Turkey was not prepared to compromise further on the
conditions for opening the long-awaited talks.
“Those in the EU who cannot digest Turkey being in the EU are against
the alliance of civilisations. What I declare is this: the costs
resulting from all this will be paid by them.”
Turkey has frequently portrayed its entry to the EU as a way of
bridging a gap between the Christian and Islamic worlds and easing
tensions that may have fostered islamic militancy.
Diplomats said Ankara had objected to a clause in the EU negotiating
mandate that stipulates it may not block accession of EU states to
international organisations and treaties.
Turkish nationalists and the powerful military argued that might
prevent Turkey blocking a divided Cyprus from joining NATO. Cyprus
refused to let the EU change the wording.
But diplomats said Straw and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana
hoped to assuage Ankara with a letter clarifying that the clause did
not impinge on sovereign defence arrangements.
TIME RUNNING OUT
As the clock ticked down, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
told ministers: “Time is running out. We have got to get this right.
We seem so close. We cannot let this opportunity slip away.”
Failure to start the talks could deal a blow to political reform and
foreign investment in Turkey, a strategic country of 72 million people
straddling Europe and the Middle East.
It would also deepen a sense of crisis in Europe, after referendum
defeats for the draft EU constitution in France and the Netherlands,
and an acrimonious failure in June to agree on a long-term budget
for the enlarged bloc.
“If there is no deal, my personal judgement is that we are increasingly
starting to look like a Union of failing states because we cannot make
any decisions,” Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks told Reuters.
Ratcheting up pressure on Austria, Straw postponed a planned review
of Austrian ally Croatia’s progress towards EU entry talks until the
Turkey issue was sorted out.
A Turkish official said nerves in Ankara were “extremely stretched
… Every minute that passes is making things more bitter and it
won’t be nice starting negotiations with all these bruises.”
The European Parliament compounded Turkish irritation last week by
saying Turkey must recognise the 1915 killings of Armenians under
Ottoman rule as an act of genocide before it can join the wealthy
European family.
Several hundred Armenians staged a noisy demonstration outside the
EU meeting, demanding that Turkey be forced to make amends for what
they called the Armenian genocide.

WILL THEY SPLIT BEFORE THEY MARRY?
Spiegel Online, Germany
Oct 3 2005
If Ankara enters into accession talks this week with the European
Union, it will do so bitter and disillusioned. Support for Turkey’s
move toward the West is diminishing back home. And the anger last
minute conditions set by the EU have generated pose considerable
political risks — not just for Turkey.
Perhaps it has to do with his own domestic bliss, or perhaps it’s
the number of famous people whose marriages he once consummated as
the mayor of Istanbul. But it’s clear: Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan loves to compare foreign policy to marriage.
Turkey’s entry into the European Union, Erdogan once confided
to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, is like a “Catholic
wedding.” The Italian, a Christian, immediately understood what his
Muslim Turkish counterpart meant: a boisterous party, much fanfare
and ado, and a bond that lasts until death do us part.
That was three years ago, at a time when euphoria for Europe had
reached its pinnacle in Turkey. Back then, 85 percent of Turks
supported EU membership. Berlusconi had come to Istanbul to attend the
wedding of Erdogan’s son, Bilal. He was followed later by his Greek
colleague, Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis, who attended the
wedding of Bilal’s sister Ersa.
These days, though, euphoria for European membership is shrinking
by the week and only 60 percent of Turks still say they support
EU membership. Yet again, Erdogan has found a marriage comparison
to pointedly describe the current situation: The constant new
preconditions being set by the Europeans so close to the start of
accession negotiations — including the consolation of a “privileged
partnership,” — is tantamount to “going to the altar and suddenly
saying: ‘Let’s just stay friends.'”
After serious last minute diplomatic wrangling — which included
a plea for help from United States Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice — Turkey finally got the go ahead on Monday from the European
Union to begin negotiations for eventual membership. Of course,
with Austria unwilling to budge, the outcome of Monday’s marathon
diplomacy was anything but certain until the very last minute. And
as of Monday evening, it was still uncertain whether Turkey would
accept the final agreement.
In Vienna, where memories of Turkish-led Ottoman Empire invasions
of Austria are still a regular part of history lessons, politicians
demanded last week that any accession negotiation framework for Turkey
also include a provision of a “privilege partnership” if negotiations
for full-membership were to collapse. But critics of Austria alleged
the country had ulterior motives: its desire to have accession talks
fast-tracked for longtime ally Croatia. Elements of xenophobia and
Islamophobia were also alleged.
With such complicated twists and turns just before the start of
negotiations, Ankara is looking to Brussels with bitterness and
disillusionment. Indeed, support for Turkey’s Western ambitions are
waning, and opponents of the EU within Turkey are returning to the
forefront.
A few weeks ago, the sentiment was different. The Turkish press
viewed the outcome of German parliamentary elections as the “burial
of the privileged partnership” idea championed by conservative
chancellor candidate Angela Merkel. But the mood nevertheless remained
skeptical. “Even if the negotiations begin on Oct. 3, who knows what
will happen on Oct. 4 or what crises will result in the suspension
of talks six months later,” the Turkish daily Sabah wondered.
So why this misery on a day that diplomats in Ankara have been
working towards for 50 years — one which is supposed to herald the
consummation of an historic mission that is cemented in Turkey’s state
doctrine? “We Turks only go in one direction,” the country’s founder,
Mustafa Kemal, better known as Ataturk, once told his people, “West.”
On the outside, the cause of the disagreement couldn’t be more
mundane. It’s linked to the complicated situation on the divided
Mediterranean island of Cyprus. Ankara has refused to recognize the
government of the southern Greek half of the island as representatives
of the entire island and it has refused to allow ships and planes from
the Republic of Cyprus to use Turkish sea ports and airports. Europe,
however, has made the outcome of negotiations with Turkey contingent on
Ankara’s official recognition of the EU member state. Without taking
this step and without opening up its borders for the unrestricted
transport of goods from Greek Cypriots, the European Union’s transport
minister, Jacques Barrot, has said, it would be impossible to lead
the accession talks to success.
The Turks are being too obstinate, but it’s also possible that
Brussels bureaucrats are sticking too close to the script, observed
a self-critical Western diplomat in Ankara. The Europeans have given
too little recognition to the fact that Erdogan has stripped the
leader of Cyprus’s Turks, Rauf Denktas of his power. Nor has Europe
given proper recognition to the fact that the northern Cypriot Turks
enthusiastically embraced the United Nation’s plan for the island’s
reunification. It was, after all, the Greek Cypriots who rejected the
plan in a referendum vote in April 2004, just before the EU expanded
by 10 members, including a divided Cyprus.
These days, the Cyprus conflict is being viewed in Turkey as a symbol
of the growing apprehension for the entire Europe project. Turkish
columnist Semih Idiz has described it as the “enough is enough
sentiment.” “If the government were to declare today it was going to
break off relations with the European Union, they would probably be
greeted with broad accordance.”
During recent months, EU opponents in Turkey have been awakening
from their political coma. Supported by strong signals of support
from Brussels, Erdogan quickly put pressure on them after he entered
office. They include the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP),
hardliners in the Turkish General Staff and the firm Kemalists within
the state apparatus, or “bureaucratic oligarchs,” as Erdogan likes
to disparagingly call them.
Recently, the winds have changed in Europe, as well. Following the
failure of referenda on the European constitution in France and the
Netherlands, criticism of Turkish EU membership has also increased,
and many in Turkey have the feeling the country is being pushed to drop
its aspirations. A sort of bunker mentality is gaining traction here.
“If I were a European, I wouldn’t accept Turkey in the Union either,”
says Emin Colasan, derisively. The stalwart nationalist columnist
for the Turkish daily Hurriyet is considered the mouthpiece of the
conservative Turkish Officer Corps. When Erdogan came back from
Brussels one year ago, the prime minister’s colleagues cracked jokes
about Colasan and many didn’t take him seriously.
A year later, his columns are once again required reading for the
chattering classes. The EU, he recently wrote, has “put Turkey in its
lap” like an underage child. And he argues that the reform laws that
have been implemented by the government under pressure from Europe
have weakened the Turkish state. He alleges reforms would make it
impossible to efficiently fight against terrorism, that they would
encourage Kurdish separatism and increase the influence of Islamists.
“Everything that is in the interest of the Europeans,” Colasan said,
“has destroyed our national honor.”
Other critics of EU membership argue that the EU will attempt to
colonize and plunder Ankara. They say Brussels has fed Turkey a
constant stream of lies and it is attempting to impose strictly
Christian values on Turkish society. The head of the MHP party in
Istanbul, Ihsan Barutcu, even compared the EU with a horse, saying:
“You can only mount it if you can steer it.”
Another popular line is that the only friends Turks have are
themselves. This school of thought has gained currency following
the recent debate about the genocide of Armenians. Internationally
renowned Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, the recent recipient of the
peace prize of the German Booksellers’ Association, got an unwanted
glimpse of that recently. He didn’t just get hate mail and death
threats after making his recent comment that 1 million Armenians were
murdered in the Ottoman Empire and 30,000 Kurds in modern Turkey. He
is also scheduled to stand trial on Dec. 16 as a result.
It gets worse. After Turkey’s justice minister vilified the organizers
of an academic conference on the question of Armenian genocide as
“traitors to their country,” a court banned the meeting.
Last week, a private university disregarded the court and held the
conference, but protestors showered participants, including a former
Turkish foreign minister, with eggs.
Religious minorities in Turkey are also reporting bad experiences
with the state apparatus. The Alevites, a Muslim faith derived from
Shiite, claim that they are discriminated against by a Turkish state
that exclusively supports the country’s Sunni Islam. If the situation
doesn’t change, they have threatened to take their case to the European
Court of Justice, demanding equal status with the Sunnis.
Turkey’s deputy head of government, Ali Sahin, also recently described
the recent invitation extended to Pope Benedikt XVI by Istanbul’s
Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I as “inappropriate.” That, Sahin said,
is a privilege reserved for the government. Back when he was still
known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the pope spoke out against EU
membership for the majority Muslim Turkey (“a grave error .. against
the tide of history”), and Sahin said he would have to.
make due with an invitation from the president. The whole exchange
prompted Foreign Minister Gul to remark: “No country is as good as
Turkey at shooting itself in the foot.”
For his part, Erdogan has valiantly countered the wave of chauvinism
in his country. Last week, he condemned the court’s decision to ban
the Armenia conference, “because I want to live in a Turkey in which
freedom of expression is all-embracing.” The Kurdish problem, he said,
needs to be solved “with more democracy, greater civil liberties and
increased prosperity.” Not even an assassination attempt on Erdogan
at the hands of a misguided nationalist two weeks ago was enough to
disturb his peace of mind.
But in reality, diplomats in Ankara are reporting that the prime
minister has given up his belief in the goal of the EU process. But
they say he still hopes that the British EU presidency, which is well
disposed to Ankara, will be able to open negotiations with one or
two unproblematic issues — national statistics or the environment,
for example, two disciplines in which Turkey is already operating at
European standards today. When Turkey-critic Austria assumes the EU
presidency in January, the Turks believe the negotiations will come
to a temporary standstill.
Erdogan wants to avoid an open break with Brussels for at least two
more years, because the International Monetary Fund’s billion-dollar
Turkey Program lasts until 2007. After that he might have to resort
to something he always hints at in times of crisis, without being
very specific: Turkey has “alternatives” to Europe.
Those alternatives could alarm Europeans, says Turkey expert Bulent
Aliriza, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies
in Washington. On a foreign-policy level they could mean turning
towards Russia, Iran, and Syria, under already obvious pressure from
the military. In particular Aliriza points to Erdogan’s relationship
to Vladimir Putin: his power seems to impress the Turkish premier.
And domestic politics, overall, might regress: The reignited conflict
with the Kurds threatens to grow worse without Europe’s tempering
influence; the general staff could declare a state of emergency
in certain Kurdish provinces. “The reforms wouldn’t necessarily go
forward,” says Aliriza, “since they’ve clearly been an outgrowth of
the EU process.”
Expectations are modest, even now that accession talks have started.
“What is the EU?” asked the English-language Turkish Daily News last
week, in an Internet poll. Almost 800 readers answered unambiguously:
the EU was a “modernization project” to 2.6 percent of the respondents,
while 46.9 percent checked the box declaring that the EU was nothing
but “a Christian club.”
,1518,377789,00.html

ETHNIC LEADER SEES AUTONOMY AS WAY OUT FOR GEORGIAN ARMENIANS
Haykakan Zhamanak, Armenia
Sept 28 2005
The leader of the ethnic Armenian party in Georgia’s Samtskhe-Javakheti
region has said that if the Georgian authorities do not grant autonomy
to the region, they will do everything possible to achieve this. David
Rstakyan said that “inspired by what is taking place in Karabakh”, the
Georgian Armenians will collect signatures in favour of autonomy and
organize acts of civil disobedience. Asked if the Armenian authorities
do something to maintain stability in Samstkhe-Javakheti, Rstakyan said
“not only the Armenian authorities but all the Armenians are involved
in this process since we are one part of the Armenian nation”. The
following is excerpt from an Arman Karapetyan’s report by Armenian
newspaper Aykakan Zhamanak on 28 September headlined “We cannot stand
anymore”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
An interview with the chairman of the Virk organization, David
Rstakyan.
Autonomy demand response to Georgia’s “large-scale attack”
[Correspondent] Mr Rstakyan, the forum of public and political
organizations of Javakhk [Georgia’s Armenian-populated region of
Samtskhe-Javakheti] has adopted a statement calling for autonomy for
Javakhk. Can this statement become the reason for contacts between
Armenians of Javakhk and the Georgian authorities? Does this statement
mean that the fight for autonomy has started in Javakhk?
[Rstakyan] I should say, yes.
[Correspondent] To what extent it is the right time to demand autonomy
for Javakhk against a backdrop of geo-political events in the region?
[Rstakyan] Our demand does not contradict the Georgian Constitution.
But the word [autonomy] causes hysteria because of the events in
Abkhazia and [South] Ossetia. But in fact we have to take action
against the authorities of Georgia as they have launched a large-scale
attack against Javakhk.
The ethnic composition of Javakhk is changing and ethnic Georgians
are being appointed to high-ranking posts. That is to say, all our
efforts to halt this process have been fruitless. We are forced to
say that we cannot stand anymore.
They adopt laws that do not meet the interests of our nation.
Georgians have recently bought or rented 100 apartments in
Akhalkalaki. What does it mean? The number of Armenians is falling
because there is no job, but in fact Georgians have jobs. As for the
problems of Armenians, they do everything possible not to resolve
them and Armenians have to leave Javakhk. All this makes us take
measures in Javakhk to elect authorities which will be able to
guarantee our security.
[Correspondent] There are rumours that the public and political
organizations of Javakhk have been angered by the fact that Georgian
authorities are trying to be in control of them with the help of
Javakhk’s Armenian criminal authorities [as published]. Is this
the case?
[Rstakyan] I have noticed tendencies of this kind in Georgia’s security
agencies. This is really so.
[Correspondent] What was the reaction of Georgian politicians to
your claim?
[Rstakyan] The head of a Georgian media outlet asked me if somebody
tried to interfere in the work of the forum. I said nobody could
interfere since our demand does not contradict the constitution,
and those who will try to do this will be punished in line with the
constitution. As far as I understand, some forces could have tried
to hinder us. The same person told me that Georgia’s political elite
is worried about our statement.
Collecting signatures and “civil disobedience” planned
[Correspondent] What will Javakhk’s public and political organizations
do if the Georgian authorities refuse to meet their demand or
discuss it?
[Rstakyan] If they refuse to do so, we shall collect signatures within
the framework of the Georgian constitution. This is very important to
prove that this demand is not only will of the public organizations
but also that of Javakhk’s Armenians.
But unfortunately the process was stopped. The Georgian authorities
are against this and there are people among us who wanted to stop this
process. I think that the process of collecting signatures should
be organized at a high level and then the Georgian authorities will
accept this reality.
[Correspondent] What if the said demand is not met after the collection
of signatures?
[Rstakyan] I do not think it will be refused. But if this happens,
we will organize an action of “civil disobedience” and form local
authorities by ourselves. What else can we do? It is similar to the
steps of rising social and economic problems, but this is different,
we are not claiming golden mountains for Javakhk. We only want the
right to live in this land. We do not want happiness at the expense
of somebody’s tragedy as the Georgian authorities are describing this.
[Correspondent] Do you not feel certain discomfort that the demand
of Javakhk’s Armenians was raised several days after the Tskhinvali
events? Do you not think that this claim might be seen as one part
of the programme directed at disrupting the situation in Georgia?
[Rstakyan] I do not know what happened in Tskhinvali.
[Correspondent] Really?
[Rstakyan] Our statement has nothing to do with the Abkhaz or Ossetian
problems.
[Passage omitted: background details]
Georgian Armenians inspired by Karabakh’s example
[Correspondent] Do they understand in Javakhk that Georgia is the only
way to the West for Armenia? On the whole, how do they treat Karabakh?
[Rstakyan] Naturally we are inspired by what is taking place in
Karabakh today.
[Correspondent] Does it mean that you want the same to take place
in Javakhk?
[Rstakyan] It depends on the Georgian authorities. If the Georgian
authorities did not pursue this policy, our reaction would be
different. All our steps are defensive. There is no attack or an
aggressive step from our side. As for Georgia being the only way to
the West for Armenia, do you think that Georgians can do everything?
The Georgian authorities want to solve their problems with Javakhk
after which the situation will be worse for Armenia. You know that
Georgians do not want the Kars-Gyumri railway and want to build a new
railway via Javakhk (Kars-Akhalkalaki) which will completely blockade
Armenia. But we do not ask them why is it so, although they do not
have the right to close the way of its neighbour.
[Correspondent] What is the role of the Armenian authorities in
maintaining stability in Javakhk?
[Rstakyan] Not only the Armenian authorities but all the Armenians
are involved in this since we are one part of the Armenian nation.
Armenia should make the Georgian authorities and the authorities of
other countries understand that an outflow of Armenians from the region
is under way. But I cannot say that this is part of a specific plan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FORMER PRESIDENT WARNS US AGAINST MILITARY ATTACK ON IRAN
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran
Sept 30 2005
Former Iranian president and long-time Chairman of the Expediency
Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani has reiterated Iran’s intention to use
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. He reminded the worshippers
at Tehran Friday prayers earlier today that despite being a victim of
Iraqi chemical weapons “Iran could have used chemical weapons. But it
did not”. Rafsanjani said: ” Our main task is to prove that we are not
the sort of people to utilize nuclear weapons… This shows that we are
not the people to resort to such ugly calamities… However, we must
prove this in practice to them [to IAEA and EU]. This is a difficult
task and requires talks and the delicate job of diplomacy.” The
following are excerpts from a live broadcast of Friday prayer sermons
by Iranian radio on 30 September, subheading inserted editorially.
[Rafsanjani] In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
[Passage on the forthcoming month of Ramadan, Iran-Iraq war
anniversary, omitted.]
The issue I want to talk about here is the nuclear issue. We are
facing a very serious and crucial situation. The issue is extremely
serious. Our nation should not be influenced by misleading comments
made to undermine the importance of the issue. Our nation has accepted
the main point and knows that nuclear technology is crucial to the
country and that it can not be ignored. Nothing is hidden from the
nation on the issue. The main challenge we are facing with at this
point in time is the conflict we have with those who want to create
nuclear apartheid and want to be the only ones to have this vast
power and important technology. We are not seeking the technology
for military purposes. We are pursuing it for peaceful purposes. We
want to utilize this technology for agriculture, energy, industry
and health. This technology is among the most advanced and up-to-date
technologies in today’s world and one cannot forgo this right.
If we forgo this right, it will be registered in the history of our
country, just like the Treaty of Turkmanchai [Agreement signed by
Russia and Persia in 1828 by which Persia was forced to cede part of
Persian Armenia to Russia and grant extraterritorial rights] or the
Treaty of Vosouq ol-Dowleh, and the officials of the country will
never be forgiven throughout history in the eyes of the nation.
Therefore we, the whole system with the guardianship of the leader,
are determined to defend this right with our full determination
and power. [Crowd chanting: God is great, Death to America, Death
to Israel]
But this challenge is not an easy one. Sometimes it is believed that
by looking at the matter optimistically, the morale of the people
will be boosted and it will increase their resistance. I, too, believe
that people should not despair and should be hopeful and resist. But
I do not believe that people should be given false hope in thinking
that others will resolve the issue for them. The issue is extremely
serious. Our opponents are explicitly and firmly stating that Iran
should not have the nuclear fuel cycle and we are explicitly and
firmly saying that we must have this technology. There is no other
alternative. Of course we are trying to resolve the matter through
negotiations. Because they are claiming that they do not trust Iran
and that they cannot be sure that Iran will not use the technology for
military purposes, we should prove to them that we are not doing so.
Our main task [over the nuclear issue] is to prove that we are not the
sort of people to utilize nuclear weapons. And we have a proud record
to prove this. I mean [at the time of the Iran-Iraq war] when our
combatants were martyred by [Iraqi] chemical weapons in such oppressive
manner, Iran could have used chemical weapons. But it did not. They
[Iraqis] were hitting our cities in the most despicable manner. But we
were instructed that before hitting any [Iraqi] city in retaliation,
we had to give a warning 48 hours in advance in order to give people
a chance to leave. This shows that we are not the people to resort
to such ugly calamities. Therefore, this is our nature. However,
we must prove this in practice to them [to IAEA and EU]. This is a
difficult task and requires talks and the delicate job of diplomacy.
Two points are important here. Firstly, our opposite side comprises
America, Europe and others. We tell them: To you, this [oily?] arena
is not a highway to cross. This is a mined battlefield and dangerous
for you. If you were to enter this arena, you will impose heavy losses
on the region, on yourself and on the rest of the world. Iran is not a
sort of state to raise its hands in surrender as soon as you pick up
your weapon and draw your dagger. Such a thing will not happen. You
should therefore act wisely and prudently. If by uttering words and
issuing resolutions, you intend to intimidate us, you must realize
that the Iranians are not scared and will not be intimidated.
If you truly wish to get somewhere, this cannot be achieved by
issuing resolutions, by intimidating us, by publishing articles and
by delivering speeches. Instead, one [you and Iranian authorities]
should sit around to talk and reach trust. And you will become certain
that Iran is not adventurous over this issue. Iran wishes to acquire
peaceful nuclear technology. This is a right that no country will
justify itself to sign away and deny itself the right. This will not
happen in Iran, if this is what you are pursuing.
I would like to let the [Iranian] managers in this sector know that
here you need diplomacy and not slogans. This is the place for wisdom,
the place for seeking windows that will take you to the objective,
the place for negotiations and extensive diplomatic activities to
say that we are present all over the world. This is the place for
utilizing all the levers at our disposal, but prudently, wisely and
with patience – without provocation and slogans that may please the
enemy and give him an excuse. We must avoid providing the enemy the
weapon that we could deploy in the world to gain victory.
We must properly resolve this sensitive problem facing our country,
with the goal of safeguarding our nation’s right and preventing others
violate the rights of our own people. God willing, we shall benefit
from the plentiful advantages of nuclear technology. [Shouts of
“God is great” from the conjuration]
Iraq and Palestine
I wanted to speak about Iraq and Palestine, but my second sermon went
on longer than I expected. I’m just going to point out that we are
witnessing mischievous and harmful actions that are hurting Iraqi
people. The three car bombs in Balad yesterday killed and injured
close to 200 people. There were more explosions in Hilla today –
these crimes usually occur in Shi’i sections. It would appear that
certain mysterious characters don’t want security to be restored
in Lebanon. Lebanon was the victim of civil war for years, which
destroyed it.
And It would appear that Israel has reduced its vulnerability
by withdrawing from Gaza. Because it was involved in clashes with
Palestinian combatants. These days it is attacking Palestinian areas
by tanks, fighter jets and helicopters. It has escalated its attacks
instead of working towards peace.
Syria is being threatened. We need Islamic unity today. We need
solidarity among those forces loyal to Islam and the revolution. God
willing, we will be able to strengthen our correct diplomatic actions
in the region and the world, thereby reducing the chances of harms
to the regions.

FACTBOX-TURKEY HAS ADOPTED SWATHE OF EU-INSPIRED REFORMS
Reuters
10/02/05 07:21 ET
Turkey is due to begin European Union membership talks on Oct. 3 after
carrying out a series of political and human rights reforms to fulfil
EU criteria.
Here is a summary of the main reforms Turkey has introduced over the
past few years as part of its drive for EU membership.
DEATH PENALTY
– Turkey’s parliament abolished capital punishment in peacetime in
August 2002 and removed all residual references to the death penalty,
including in time of war, last year.
Parliament’s move brought a reprieve for Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah
Ocalan, who was captured in 1999 and is now serving a life sentence
on an island near Istanbul.
MINORITY RIGHTS
– Turkey removed bans on Kurdish-language broadcasting and instruction
in 2002 but bureaucratic resistance delayed their implementation. In
June 2004, state TV and radio began regular, albeit limited,
programming in Turkey’s two main Kurdish dialects and several other
minority languages.
For decades Turkey denied the very existence of its Kurdish minority,
referring to them as “mountain Turks”. Kurdish is an Indo-European
language unrelated to Turkish.
WOMEN’S RIGHTS
– Turkey banned sexual discrimination under constitutional amendments
approved in May 2004. A new penal code sets tougher penalties for
those convicted of rape and also of “honour killings”, which involve
the killing of women by male relatives — for example for giving
birth outside wedlock — to protect the family name. The government
is also encouraging families in rural, conservative areas to send
their daughters to school.
TORTURE
– Turkey has outlawed all forms of torture and imposed tougher
penalties for it, ranging from three to 12 years in jail. Some rights
activists say torture remains widespread and systematic, charges the
government strongly denies.
ROLE OF MILITARY
– Turkey’s powerful generals have lost some influence through reforms
of the once-mighty National Security Council, (MGK) now reduced to
an advisory body. Parliament has also gained control of the military
budget. Last year, the government scrapped State Security Courts —
a vestige of the military-inspired constitution which followed a
1980 coup. The courts were used to try political and security-related
crimes.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
– Turkey has moved to ease bureaucratic restrictions on minority
non-Muslim religious groups, though some — including the head of the
world’s Orthodox Christians, Istanbul-based Patriarch Bartholomew —
still complain of administrative obstacles. The government is still
weighing whether to allow the reopening of an Orthodox Christian
seminary near Istanbul, shut in 1971 under a law limiting activities
at post-secondary religious schools, including Muslim ones.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
– Turkey has relaxed a number of restrictions on freedom of thought
and expression, though rights activists say the new penal code still
contains too many loopholes. For example, internationally renowned
Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk faces the possibility of up to three years
in jail for backing allegations that Armenians suffered genocide at
Ottoman Turkish hands 90 years ago. The first hearing in his case is
set for Dec. 16.

DOWN IS UP: SYSTEM OF A DOWN IS ROCK’S LEAST LIKELY SUCCESS STORY.
By Michael Roberts
Denver Westword (Colorado)
September 29, 2005 Thursday
They used to call us nu-metal,” System of a Down singer/guitarist
Daron Malakian told the ecstatic crowd at his band’s April 27 Ogden
Theatre gig. “Now they call us prog rock. I think they’ll call us
anything that’s popular.” Then, after a pause and the subtlest of
grins, he announced, “But actually, we’re just a bunch of mo-rons.”
Months later, as System headlines its biggest tour to date, Malakian is
being touted as the mastermind of Mezmerize, which has been embraced
by critics and fans alike. The CD debuted in May atop the Billboard
album chart, further raising expectations for Hypnotize, a companion
disc scheduled for a November release. Malakian isn’t particularly
comfortable with this attention, and he’s just as wary of questions
about his comments at the Ogden. “I never remember anything I say on
stage,” he warns. Upon having his statement repeated to him, however,
he laughs with relief. “I can stand behind that,” he declares.
No wonder, since his offhand remark effectively satirizes the media’s
continuing attempts to pigeonhole System. “Lately we’ve been doing
interviews, and people have been like, ‘You guys are really leading
the way for the new prog movement,'” he notes. “And I’m like, ‘What?’
Because a couple of years ago, these guys were comparing us to
Limp Bizkit and Korn, and now that we’re still here and those bands
aren’t, they’re talking about prog. It’s just kind of aggravating
that people always have to have something to compare us to or bunch
us up with. I’m not saying we’re the most original band in the world,
but I don’t really feel that we fall into a heavy-metal category,
or a pure rock category. There’s a lot of stuff mixed up into one.”
As for the humorously self-deprecating “mo-rons” remark, it hints
at a truth about the group that’s frequently overlooked. Although
System is clearly one of the smartest acts in popular music, socially
astute, hyper-articulate fare like “B.Y.O.B.” is as popular among
just plain folks as it is with left-wing activists and Mensa members,
for reasons that the live show makes clear. Vocalist Serj Tankian’s
sweeping theatricality, bassist Shavo Odadjian’s elastic head-bobbing,
drummer John Dolmayan’s hyperkinetic rhythms and Malakian’s aggressive
riffology suggest that they remain very much in touch with their inner
mo-ron — the part of them that loved sound and fury long before it
signified anything.
“It’s important not to take yourself too seriously,” Malakian says,
“and I think sometimes people take us a lot more seriously than
we take ourselves, especially when it comes to politics. Politics,
for me, is a reflection of the world I live in. But love is just as
important as politics to me. They both exist in the world, you know?
And if you don’t reflect the entire world around you, then you’re
leaving something out.”
System is all about inclusion. The music bears the mark of so many
varied influences, Malakian maintains, that “I think you could call
us anything you want and you’d be right.” That’s one reason numerous
labels initially kept their distance from System, even though these
“four Armenian guys from L.A.,” as Malakian calls them, had built a
sizable audience among habitues of the mid-’90s Hollywood club scene.
Producer Rick Rubin eventually signed System to his imprint, American
Records, but reviewers didn’t quite know what to make of the quartet’s
1998 self-titled debut. “They’d say, ‘It kind of sounds like this’
or ‘It kind of sounds like that,'” Malakian recalls, “and by the
time they were done, they’d named five bands that had nothing to do
with one another.” He wasn’t bothered by Dead Kennedys references,
since he acknowledges a certain commonality between Tankian’s nasal
wailing and that of DK leader Jello Biafra, but he felt nu-metal
allusions constituted “guilt by association.”
Still, it’s likely that this tag helped convince radio programmers to
give System a chance, and the airplay lavished on strong cuts such as
“Spiders” and “Sugar,” not to mention the publicity garnered for its
star-making turn during the 1998 edition of Ozzfest, helped break the
band nationally. Malakian and company responded with 2001’s Toxicity,
an even better recording than the first, albeit one whose appearance
was awkwardly timed: The disc arrived in stores the week of 9/11.
Shortly after the terrorist attacks, representatives of Clear Channel,
the owner of more U.S. rock radio stations than any other company,
placed the group’s entire oeuvre, including the brilliant single “Chop
Suey!,” on a list of tunes that shouldn’t be aired. This misguided,
arguably racist move, which took place around the same time that
Tankian posted criticism of American foreign policy on System’s
website, hardly stopped listeners from seeking out Toxicity.
As Malakian points out, “We were being censored, but people were
still going out and buying the record. And to be honest with you,
radio was playing it like crazy.” He adds, “The more they try to shut
somebody’s mouth, the more people are going to want to hear what the
person has to say. It’s a big mistake from the beginning.”
Toxicity created such a big noise that System promptly issued 2002’s
Steal This Album!, a first-rate collection of random tracks from
throughout its existence that spawned another hit, the appropriately
explosive “Boom!” The period of relative quiet that followed was
broken in a major way by Mezmerize, and many admirers characterized
it as a coming-out party for Malakian. Granted, Malakian’s voice
is more prominent than before, and “Old School Hollywood,” a wry
recapitulation of a celebrity baseball game that mentions Tony Danza
and Frankie Avalon, finds him employing first person in an extremely
direct manner. Yet he sees the theory that he’s suddenly taken control
of System as being fatally flawed.
“Yeah, I’m singing more, and, yeah, I sing just as much on Hypnotize,”
he confirms. “But that’s the only difference. I’ve always written
and produced and put down the path for System when it comes down
to the songs: first record, second record, third record, these
records. Almost every chorus — about 80 percent of every System
of a Down chorus that you sing — is a vocal line that I wrote,
with words that I wrote. I just didn’t sing them. And this time,
the songs called for more of an interaction between me and Serj,
so suddenly people think I’m doing more. People get very focused on
the vocalist and end up thinking the vocalist is doing everything in
the band, which isn’t necessarily the case.”
It’s unusual for Malakian to trumpet his role in System, primary
though it is. He’d much rather talk about “people I respect” — an
honor roll that runs the gamut from Mahatma Gandhi to Charles Manson.
Malakian tweaked political correctness on Toxicity via “ATWA,” a track
inspired by some of Manson’s environmental musings, and Mezmerize’s
liner sports an epigram from the “Helter Skelter” man: “In your world
you can take a pen and write on a piece of paper and destroy 200,000
people or more and it’s ok because you don’t have to see it.”
“I have no interest in murder, and I have no interest in people dying,”
Malakian stresses. “But I’m interested in people’s minds, and sometimes
Manson puts thoughts together that I find really interesting. Have you
ever seen his unedited videos? He starts making a lot of sense. I’m
sure people are scared of that, but to me, it’s scarier to watch
George Bush try to make sense.”
Even so, Malakian’s rhapsodic waxings about another hero — former
Los Angeles Lakers basketballer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar — reveal more
about him than does his Manson jones. Malakian often saw Abdul-Jabbar
play during the Lakers”80s heyday, and he says, “I like that he was
the captain of his team, and he wasn’t so much of a showboater. You
just don’t see players like him anymore — players who keep quiet,
play their fuckin’ game, and don’t act like a rock star.”
Malakian takes the same approach to System of a Down. “When people
come to our shows, I don’t want it to only be serious moments about
politics,” he allows. “I want them to have a good time. That’s what
it comes down to for me.”

THE EU AND TURKEY: PARTNERS OR GLADIATORS?
by Sylvie Goulard
Cafe Babel, France
Oct 3 2005
With negotiations over Turkey’s accession to the EU beginning, Europe
is still utterly confused as to which attitude to adopt towards the
Turkish government. And it is the island of Cyprus that finds itself
at the heart of the argument.
For decades, the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus
has been a major impediment for the improvement of relations between
Turkey and the EU. When Cyprus applied to join the EU in July 1990, the
Community saw this as a chance for peace. It assumed that the Southern
Greek-Cypriot Republic was acting out the will of the entire island.
Negotiations began in 1998 in the hope of encouraging a process of
political reunification. However, the bet was lost and a divided island
joined the EU on May 1 2004. Both the rejection of the Annan plan (a
United Nations proposal to bring about the reunification of Cyprus)
by the Greek side and the persistence of fervent Turkish nationalism
have hampered efforts to overcome the partition.
Maybe it was a chance worth taking since there are a few previous
examples of when the will to overlook political reality has triumphed
over unfavourable circumstances. For example, from 1945, and in spite
of the Cold War, the Allies kept alive the idea that Germany was whole,
which proved to be helpful during reunification in 1990.
Similarly, the fact that the USSR refused to recognise the Baltic
States’ annexation greatly facilitated their independence in the
1990s. The path to reconciliation and peace are not always the
straightest. Sometimes the bends can lead right back to the start
instead of driving the process forward.
Diplomatic subterfuges
During the 2004 European Council on December 17, the twenty-five heads
of state did not expressly ask Turkey to recognise the Republic of
Cyprus that had by then joined. It was instead decided that they
should have recourse to one of those detours that diplomats know
best in order for Turks to save face within their own borders. The
convoluted formula which allows this to take place deserves to be
quoted in full: “The European Council welcomed Turkey’s decision to
sign the Protocol regarding the adaptation of the Ankara Agreement
[customs union], taking account of the accession of the ten new member
states. In this light, it welcomed the declaration of Turkey that ‘the
Turkish Government confirms that it is ready to sign the Protocol on
the adaptation of the Ankara Agreement prior to the actual start of
accession negotiations and after reaching agreement on and finalising
the adaptations which are necessary in view of the current membership
of the European Union.'”
In other words, even though Cyprus was not explicitly cited but alluded
to twice, Turkey agreed to extend the agreement previously governing
their relations with the EU to the island. This takes into account
all potential implications for the free passage of boats, aircraft
and merchandise. However, shortly after this was announced, Turkey
made it explicit that this was not an acknowledgement of Cyprus. A
controversial move in view of such carefully chosen words.
The French authorities were quick to react. According to Prime Minister
Dominic de Villepin, it was “inconceivable” to negotiate willingly
with a country that refused to acknowledge the existence of one of
the member states. Unfortunately, by late August, President Chirac
had gone back on this statement at the conference of ambassadors,
insisting on the opening of negotiations.
As for the British EU presidency, it allowed the insulting statement to
pass and went as far as supporting Turkey’s decision. Two months later,
the presidency was still looking for an appropriate reaction to give to
the Cypriots and other “smaller” countries. It remains, however, hard
to conjure a compromise that will sanction Turkey without jeopardising
negotiations. No European still dares to suggest the required solution:
that of renegotiating the adhesion in terms of a Turkish turnaround.
European Turnaround
Once more, the EU will give in. This attitude is deplorable. It is
conceivable that Europeans should make the necessary efforts to help
the Turkish government overcome various difficult situations it may
face. But it is dangerous to compromise on such a fundamental point
when the uncompromising Turkish government refuses to look beyond
its nationalist and narrow purpose. By publicly stating that it
refuses to acknowledge the existence of one of the EU member states
whilst aspiring to integrate into the very same organisation, Turkey
demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the very nature of the EU.
Indeed, the EU is not a circus arena in which gladiators frenziedly
fight each other but a space of cooperation in which members listen
to and respect each other.
The upsurge of Turkish nationalism in Spring 2005, as well as the
threats against the author Orhan Pamuk (whose only crime was to make
the truth known about the Armenian genocide and the resurgence of
upheaval in Kurdistan) have muddied the positive image the Commission
had offered in its October 2004 report. To make matters worse, since
the decision of the European Council in December 2004, two founding
countries have rejected the Constitutional Treaty thereby exposing
the vulnerability of the EU. Negotiations may be opening, but it is
obvious that the heart is no longer in it.
Sylvie Goulard – Paris – 3.10.2005 | Translation : Abla Kandalaft
;Id=4896

BELGIAN COMMENTARY CONDEMNS EU LEADERS’ POLITICAL “HYPOCRISY” OVER TURKEY
De Standaard website, Groot-Bijgaarden, The Netherlands
Sept 30 2005
The debate on Turkey’s EU accession is getting dangerously out of
hand. This is because the leaders of the EU have not been able to
determine the final destination of their “political union” since the
end of the Cold War. For this reason, they are lacking clear criteria
to solve the Turkish dilemma.
Last Wednesday [28 September], the European Parliament in Strasbourg
scored an own goal. At the proposal of the German Christian Democrats,
European MPs refused to approve the Ankara protocol. This is mainly
a symbolic gesture, they said, to show their discontent with the
Erdogan-led government’s declaration that the signing of the protocol
did not automatically imply it would recognize Cyprus.
People in Ankara are not really ill at ease about this. Last December,
the state and government leaders decided that Turkey only needed to
sign the Ankara protocol prior to the opening of negotiations. The
official approval by both the Turkish and European parliaments was
not a prerequisite. What is more, the parliament’s gesture even suits
the Turks, because the non-ratification [of the Ankara protocol]
constitutes an additional reason for Turkey to postpone application
of the customs union to Cyprus.
Moreover, the general indignation over Ankara’s unilateral declaration
regarding the non-recognition of Cyprus raises suspicions. During last
December’s EU summit, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul accepted a
compromise with the EU at a separate meeting with [UK Home Secretary]
Jack Straw, [German Foreign Minister] Joschka Fischer, and [Belgian
Foreign Minister] Karel De Gucht aimed at breaking the deadlock. He
agreed that Turkey would sign the protocol, but added that this would
not mean that it would therefore recognize Cyprus. Gul clearly stated
this at that time and the EU ministers accepted it. Afterward, the
European Council and all European leaders accepted this compromise.
Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who was EU president
at that time, formally announced the compromise. He clearly said that
the Turkish government would sign the protocol, but that this would
not imply the recognition of Cyprus. The EU’s explanation for this is
that Ankara wants to keep a means of power to put pressure on Greek
Cypriots to accept the UN compromise for the island in due course –
because, after all, it was the Greek Cypriots who rejected the accord
that Kofi Annan negotiated, in a bid to put an end to the conflict,
much to the displeasure of the EU member states, for that matter,
although this did not prevent them from allowing Cyprus to join the EU.
Yet, there is another intriguing element in the European Parliament’s
debate on Turkey: the ease with which the German Christian Democrats
approved the resolution, which literally states that accession
talks will be opened without making any mention of the option of a
“privileged partnership”. The toughening up of the text – demanding a
settlement regarding the European constitution and Turkey’s recognition
of the Armenian genocide as prerequisites for accession – simply serves
as trimmings, because the text clearly states that negotiations will
be about accession. During the Christian Democrats’ parliamentary
group meeting and afterward in the plenary session, Angela Merkel’s
fervent advocates of a “privileged partnership” have stabled their
battle horse.
As far as the Turkish problem is concerned, however, hypocrisy
has been turned into a political virtue. Realpolitik – let us allow
negotiations to start so as to prevent a major crisis – has prevailed
over principles – Turkey is not a “European” country (meaning: It is
an Islamic country) and can therefore not successfully be integrated
into the EU. Yesterday, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin
at least had the courage to distance himself openly from objections
against Turkey’s accession formerly raised by his president.
What then is the real problem regarding the EU’s enlargement to
Turkey? Is it Islam? Without a doubt. However, anybody who wants to
make a judgment out of fear should drop this objection. At this time,
there are more Muslims in the EU than there are Belgians – and if,
within the foreseeable future, the Balkan countries are allowed to
join, their numbers will increase further.
Is it fear of Turkish plumbers [invading the EU labour market] or a new
wave of company relocations towards inexpensive Turkey? Yes indeed,
but a correct analysis shows that the customs union with Turkey was
concluded as early as the 1960s.
The leader of Greens’ parliamentary group, Daniel Cohn Bendit, also
used a novel argument during the debate. Turkey would be the EU’s
first real “enlargement”, he argued, because previous expansions were
about no more than “reunification”.
The EU mainly has itself to blame for its problems with Turkey. Forty
years ago, Ankara was promised membership. At a meeting in Helsinki in
1999, Turkey was again granted the status of “candidate member state”.
Until 1989, this seemed to be a harmless point, since Turkey had
belonged to the “Western” camp since World War II. It joined NATO
and it was closely integrated [into the alliance], as was the rest
of the EU for that matter.
Since the collapse of the wall and the end of the Cold War, however,
this context has changed considerably. The Atlantic connection has
loosened. Since then, the EU has also been struggling with itself.
What will be its final destination? “The process of … (ellipsis
as published) an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”, as
it is stated in the first article of the Union Treaty, has been less
noncommittal since 1989. It is therefore not coincidental that, of all
passages, this one was left out of the text of the new constitutional
treaty, under British pressure.
So the EU’s enlargement problem does not lie with Turkey – it lies
with the European leaders who refuse to engage in a debate on the
political destination of their union. As long as they fail to come
to terms with this issue, they will not be able to give a fair reply
to Turkey, or to their own citizens.

IM WILL USE FORCE. BUT WITH WITS
by Mikhail Fadeev
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 3, 2005, Monday
SOURCE: Rossijskaya gazeta, September 29, 2005, p. 9
Today the first militia figures of the commonwealth will discuss the
strategy of fighting one of the three main evils on the post-Soviet
territory- terrorism, corruption and illegal migration. (…) Russian
Interior Ministry Rashid Nurgaliev is fighting to the Council of
the Interior Ministers of the CIS. On the eve he gave an exclusive
interview to Rossijskaya Gazeta.
Question: How do the estimations of the common threatens of the
ministers coincide? What can militia set against extremism?
Rashid Nurgaliev: The Interior Minister of the every CIS country
quite understands, that the terrorist threat exists for every state.
(…)First and foremost local terrorist groups blend into a single
trans-national system, the forgotten ideas of “Islam caliphate” are
reviving now. (…) It is necessary to fix operational information
interchange. And to create within the framework of the CIS countries
special data bases on international terrorist organizations, on
fulfillers of acts of terrorism and their accomplices. We need to
“raise” terrorists’ contacts, follow established by them sequences,
detect and hew away their financing resources and material basis. Our
armory of modern means includes force operations, powerful computer
technologies and analysts research.
Question: Will you insert into the data base not only terrorist?
Rashid Nurgaliev: Beside counter-action terrorism, at the meeting
the ministers will define steps of fighting corruption and illegal
migration. What’s more, we plan to introduce changes to the instruction
on a single way of implementing interstate detection of people, and
also joint formation and employment of accounts of the Interstate
information bank, created and functioning on the basis of the Main
Information Analyst Center of the Russian Interior Ministry.
At the council we will discuss not only operational cooperation,
but also further development of a single legal field. There are also
moot points concerning reciprocal cooperation with the Armenian police.
They involve realization of the decisions, made on June 23, 2005 in
Krasnodar, about the cooperation on the suppression of activities of
organized criminal groups, and also detection and detainment of people,
being on the wanted list We will arrange this meeting of the United
Collegium of the Interior Ministers of our states in the summer 2006
in Yerevan, concerning cooperation on fighting illegal migration.
Question: Have you intention to form some new interstate structures?
Rashid Nurgaliev: I think, the Council of the Interior Ministers is
quite enough to solve tasks and coordinate activities. Our aim is
much more serious: we want to create powerful, single, anti-criminal
front=line. And you know, what encourages us most of all? Not only
pragmatic conscious of necessity to integrate. The main thing is
that all of us are old friends. Some of us have studied together,
other have worked together. (…)
The cooperation encompasses almost all directions of operational
service activities. Speaking about efficient cooperation- I’ll
enumerate only a few latest examples. The operation on detainment of
active members of the terrorist organization “Hizb-ut-Tahrir”, carried
out last year in Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. 12 people, being
on the international wanted list, were detained. There were charged
of terrorist acts, arms and drug trade, homicides, and pillages.
The Six-month operation “Shield-2”, carried out by the Russian
Interior Ministry officers assisted by the colleagues from the Interior
Ministries of Uzbekistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Moldova,
Tajikistan, Turkmenia and Ukraine. As a result they confiscated tons
of drugs, create common computer data base on drug-dealers, kinds
of packages, and labels of Afghan heroin, made the map of possible
drug-trafficking routes.
The operation “Search” was performed by the Interior Ministries of
Russia, Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine. 8,297 accused
were detained, 2,660 of whom were on the federal wanted list, and 176-
on the interstate wanted list, they found 3,361 missing people.
(…) Together with foreign colleagues we are forming the Interstate
information bank, are sharing information on the line of the National
Central bureau of the Interpol. (…) We help our colleagues to train
personnel. On the whole 461 militia men and police men form the CIS
countries study in educational centers of the Interior Ministry. We
plan to increase quotas on education. We borrow a good deal of useful
things from our neighbors. The Byelorussian special forces demonstrated
a few know-how’s, enabling to economize time while rescuing hostages,
during the joint exercises under Smolensk. And Kazakhstan has developed
a modern system of biometrical control “CIS-visit”, that has been
adjusted to our tasks and is being assimilated throughout the country.
Question: Do you have contacts only with Byelorussian special
subdivisions?
Rashid Nurgaliev: Not only. For example, in October in the Krasnodar
training ground training musters of special forces of Russia and
Armenia will take part. We can need cooperation at any moment. (…)
Question: (…) How will you fight drug-trafficking – financing
of terror?
Rashid Nurgaliev: (…) According to our data, up to 60% of finance,
that are at disposal of the world’s terrorism, are formed at the
expense of criminal offences. Groups, specialized in different kinds of
economic crimes, illegal turnover of weaponry, human trade and other
types of criminal activities play a great role there. And certainly
drug-trafficking, in which almost all terrorist organizations are
engaged
You know, that in our country the coordination of fighting
drug-business is relied on the Federal Service on control over
drug-turnover. In the Russian Interior Ministry system almost all
the services, in a varying degree, take part in this work. According
to the estimations of the experts, these days in Russia there are
4 millions of addicts. Officially 54,000 women are registered. The
real figure is seven or eight times as high as that. (…)
We can efficiently struggle drug crimes only by combining our
efforts. And we have foundation for it: only by the Interior Ministries
lines 48 agreements work, due to which last year more than twenty
international drug criminal groups were detected. We know exactly,
that several gangs in Chechnya have been deprived of supplying with
weaponry and ammunition, obtained on the drug-dealers money.
(…)
Translated by Alexandra Zajtseva