TURKISH MPS WARN FRENCH COUNTERPARTS OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL
Anatolia news agency, Ankara
10 May 06
Paris, 10 May: A Turkish parliamentary delegation met on Wednesday
[10 May] French National Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre.
Turkish Parliamentary delegation, comprising Mehmet Dulger and Musa
Sivacioglu from Justice and Development Party (AKP); and Onur Oymen
and Gulsun Bilgehan Toker from the main opposition Republican People’s
Party (CHP), is currently in Paris to lobby for rejection or withdrawal
of the bill which would make “the denial” of the so-called Armenian
genocide a crime.
Following their meeting with Debre, the Turkish delegation met French
parliament foreign affairs commission chairman Edouard Balladur.
Speaking to AA [Anatolia] correspondent following the meetings,
CHP MP Onur Oymen said, “we have explained the harsh reaction of the
Turkish people. We have attracted the attention to the calls in Turkey
to boycott French goods.
We had the opportunity to convey them that relations would be harmed
in case the bill becomes a law.”
Meetings of the Turkish delegation will continue on Thursday.
Turkish parliamentarians will make references to previous statements
of the French executives and historians that the “parliaments can
not write history and the history should be left to historians” and
want French parliamentarians to be consistent with their previous
statements.
Proposal of the Socialist Party will be discussed on 18 May. The bill
should be approved in the Senate in order to become a law.

KARABAKH MEDIATORS SEEKING FEEDBACK TO NEW PROPOSALS – RUSSIAN MEDIATOR
Trend news agency
10 May 06
Baku, 10 May: The co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group expect Baku
and Yerevan to react in Strasbourg to the proposals made during a
recent visit to the region by the French co-chairman of the OSCE
Minsk Group, Bernard Fassier, the Russian co-chairman of the group,
Yuriy Merzlyakov, has told Trend.
“Some new proposals”, as well as more specific details of the previous
discussions, were submitted to the Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders on
behalf of the OSCE Minsk Group during Fassier’s visit, Merzlyakov said.
“I think that it was a very important visit after our (OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairmen’s) meeting in Moscow to finally agree on the proposals,”
he said.
The Russian diplomat said that both sides will carefully examine the
ideas that will be agreed later.
Merzlyakov said that he was not ready to comment on the possible
meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents. The co-chairmen
will work on this issue, he said.

AZERI PRESSURE GROUP BLAMES INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP FOR PRO-ARMENIAN BIAS
Azerbaijani news agency APA
10 May 06
Baku, 10 May: The Karabakh Liberation Organization [KLO] issued
a statement today condemning the remarks of the Caucasus project
director of the International Crisis Group [ICG], Sabine Fraizer,
on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, the KLO press
service has told APA.
The statement says that the ICG’s approach to the settlement of
the conflict favours a defeatist peace. The ICG has been promoting
Armenia’s political ideas from the very beginning, and therefore,
is demanding that the peace talks continue, it said.
The KLO also said that it is unacceptable to deploy peacekeeping troops
in this process: “By using tension on the front line as an excuse,
Sabine Fraizer is trying to distract public opinion in Azerbaijan from
the war and has achieved this in some way. Since Armenia started the
war against Azerbaijan, peacekeepers can be deployed only along the
border between the two countries.”

TURKISH DELEGATION LEAVES FOR FRANCE TO BLOCK ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE BILL
Milliyet website, Istanbul
10 May 06
A Turkish parliamentary delegation has left for Paris nine days before
France passes a bill calling for the penalization of anyone who says
“an act of genocide did not take place against the Armenians in the
past”. The delegation is composed of AKP [Justice and Development
Party] members Mehmet Dulger, head of the Turkish Grand National
Assembly Foreign Relations Committee, and Musa Sivacioglu and CHP
[Republican People’s Party] members Onur Oymen and Gulsun Bilgehan
Toker. It will explain the harm the bill might cause in France’s
relations with Turkey if it is passed.

DOES ARMENIA NEED A MINISTRY OF CULTURE?
Panorama.am
16:25 10/05/06
One-time minister of Armenian culture Hakob Movses has a direct
answer to the question. “Armenian Ministry of Culture is an unneeded
structure.” He says that basing his considerations on the peculiarities
of the Armenian culture.
Armenian Revolutionary Party member Ruben HOVSEPYAN, however, does
not agree. “Ministry of culture is necessary to regulate cultural
centers,” he says. R.
Hovsepyan, however does not approve the fact of party membership of
the ministry of culture.
Hakob Movses expresses his dissatisfaction with the fact that the
sector is affiliated to parties through the ministry. He quotes
international experience saying that some countries lack at all any
agency on culture regulation. “Only those countries need ministry of
culture which culture is civilized,” he says. He brings an example
of the Armenian theaters, which are state-sponsored but in fact are
properties of general producers.

AUTHORS OF TURKISH GOVERNMENT REPORT ON MINORITIES ACQUITTED OF “INCITING HATRED”
Benjamin Harvey
AP Worldstream
May 10, 2006
A Turkish court ruled on Wednesday that the authors of a
government-ordered report on minorities were not guilty of “inciting
hatred and enmity” when they said Turkey should grant more rights to
Kurds and other minorities.
Professors Ibrahim Kaboglu and Baskin Orhan faced up to five years in
prison after their report angered nationalists, who feared recognition
of minority rights in Turkey could lead to the country being broken
up along ethnic lines.
A state prosecutor had demanded that the professors, who both worked
for the state Human Rights Advisory Council, be punished for their
remarks deemed “inflammatory.”
The professors’ 2004 report urged the government to change its policy
and recognize Kurds as a distinct minority. Turkey says that all
Muslims in the country are Turks.
Until 1991, the Kurdish language was banned and even now broadcasting
in Kurdish is strictly limited by the government.
The European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, has demanded that
Turkey improve its treatment of minorities. The push for enhanced
rights, especially for Kurds, has faced opposition in a country still
battling autonomy-seeking Kurdish rebels in its southeast.
The fight with the rebels, who would like to establish an autonomous
region in a chunk of Turkey’s east, has claimed more than 37,000
lives in the past two decades.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pledged to improve the
situation with government investment in the largely poor Kurdish
southeast.
But the prime minister angered many Turks earlier this year when he
traveled to the Kurdish-majority city of Diyarbakir and acknowledged
that Turkey had made mistakes in the past in dealing with what he
called its “Kurdish problem.”
There are an estimated 14 million Kurds _ about 20 percent of Turkey’s
population of 71 million _ in Turkey, though exact numbers are
difficult to come by because the government does not keep statistics
that classify Kurds as a separate minority.
Kaboglu and Oran’s rights report had also suggested that Turkey give
equal rights to non-Muslims, who are barred from jobs in the police
and Foreign Ministry, and from becoming military officers.
Unlike Kurds, Christians and Jews are recognized as minorities in
Turkey, but nationalists question the loyalty of non-Muslim Turks,
particularly those of Greek or Armenian descent.
Kaboglu, one of the authors of the report, called the case against him,
“a shame for Turkey.”
The court on Wednesday also dropped charges against the two professors
for allegedly insulting the judiciary when they criticized the charges
brought against them. The Anatolia news agency reported that the
Justice Ministry, already under criticism for prominent freedom of
expression cases like the one against novelist Orhan Pamuk, refused
to approve those charges.

THE NEW ROCKS ON THE BLOCK
By Vanessa Friedman
FT
May 10 2006 03:00
Take a walk down London’s Old Bond Street and you will pass the
38-carat yellow diamonds of Graff, the “dancing” diamonds of Chopard,
the stylised diamond flowers of Van Cleef & Arpels and the diamond
watches of Cartier.
The casual onlooker might be forgiven for thinking there is no room
in the market for another diamond retailer.
Yet this year three new jewellery houses will open their doors on
this already-crowded chunk of commercial property: Moussaieff, which
discreetly offers its elite clientele the opportunity to purchase
extremely rare coloured stones; Harry Winston, the American diamond
brand famous for its big traditional rocks; and Leviev, a name new to
retail but renowned in the industry as the largest private producer of
stones in the world, selling about $3bn (£1.6bn) a year to the trade.
Of the three, Leviev will be the most closely watched, and not just
because of its manufacturing power. The opening of its Bond Street
boutique last month is part of a trend towards consolidation along
the diamond-selling supply chain: producers, polishers, traders and
retailers are coming together to market their wares, from the mine
to the shop window. If its rapid-fire expansion succeeds, Leviev will
set the pace for its rivals in a turbulent market.
The strategy carries potential pitfalls, however. Guy Leymarie, chief
executive of De Beers LV, Leviev’s rival, says: “The verticalisation of
the industry is clearly its long-term trend; it’s absolutely the way
to grow a business and build a brand. Retail clearly adds value. But
there are several different kinds of know-how involved in the different
levels of the chain, and you have to respect, and learn, all of them.”
Lev Leviev, the 49-year-old chief executive of the Leviev Group,
which also owns property ventures, the Gottex swimwear brand, petrol
stations and media outlets, has his own theories on the risks facing
diamond retailers.
“There are two main reasons why diamond retailers fail,” he says,
speaking from the Bond Street shop. “Lack of innovation – they have
the same stones in the same settings in the window year after year –
and dependence on one supplier for their stones. Then you can never
plan your sales even one year ahead, because you can only work with
what they give you, and they decide.”
His comment is a thinly veiled criticism of De Beers, the mining group
that operates independently of retailer De Beers LV. The South African
company established a system by which certain privileged polishers
bought their rough stones from the Diamond Trading Company, De Beers’
London-based marketing arm, sight unseen.
It is not, however, an issue for Mr Leviev, who owns mines in Angola,
Namibia, South Africa and Russia. The Uzbekistan-born Israeli also
runs polishing factories in those countries, as well as in India,
China, Ukraine and Armenia, producing an estimated one-third of the
world’s polished stones.
“We have an unlimited supply of rough and polished stones,” says
Mr Leviev.
“So we can spend the three years it takes to create a necklace of
perfectly matched D flawless diamonds.”
It is not just access to the stones that sets Leviev apart, however;
its role as supplier means the company also has close relations with
many trend drivers in the industry. Though Mr Leviev will not name
the brands to which he sells – “it’s not good business practice” –
his market share suggests he would have to provide the stones to at
least one in three jewellers on Bond Street.
As a brand that would appeal to well-heeled consumers, however,
Leviev is in an odd position. He is known to the cognoscenti of
the world’s rarest stones: in Israel, where he is the richest man;
in eastern Europe, where he has a chain of stores retailing small
stones; in Russia, where he is close to Vladimir Putin; and in the
worldwide Jewish community, where he has given away millions.
But his name is not as familiar in the west, the market he has chosen
for his first foray into fine jewellery retail under his own name. And
when it comes to retail, the name on the door matters.
“The name is quite important; people respond to what it represents,”
says Ian Rose, UK managing director of Moussaieff, which has launched
its own marketing drive, participating in museum shows including
“Diamonds” at London’s Natural History Museum, as well as running
private events, in order to build public awareness before opening. “The
clientele has to know and respect you,” he says.
“The most important consideration is location,” says Mr Leymairie of De
Beers LV. “But having a name consumers recognise obviously helps.” Mr
Leviev agrees on the vital role of location, noting he felt it was
important to be on Bond Street, but is less convinced by the idea
of needing to educate customers. “People who buy $100 diamonds don’t
need to know our name; people who buy $1m ones already do.”
“It doesn’t take long for word to get out,” says Thierry Chaunu, head
of Leviev’s retail operation, adding that an advertising campaign is
planned, as well as in-store events. In Mr Leviev’s view the store
is effectively an outreach operation. “We see the store as an art
gallery, and we want to show our art to people,” he says. “Generally,
people can only see truly special stones in a museum but we will make
them accessible to the public.”
The “stones” to which he is referring are some of those that Mr Leviev
has kept for the store, including a rare red diamond (there are 10 in
existence; of those, two are in the Smithsonian and one is owned by
Moussaieff). In the shop window sits a 110-carat gem, the Mir Jumlah,
from the same mine in India that produced the Hope stone, one of the
most famous diamonds in the world; an 83-carat emerald cut diamond
is on display in the lift; and assorted rare blue, pink and green
diamonds sparkle from cases. “They did put some show-stoppers out,”
says Mr Rose. “It was pretty stunning.”
Inside the store, an effort has been made to keep the retail operation
small. Unlike, say, Asprey’s enormous 4,650 sq m Bond Street selling
space, Leviev is constructed like an intimate town house. No counter
is visible, but couches and coffee tables nestle against a wall of
pewter-coloured silk.
“I don’t believe in big stores,” says Mr Leviev, who plans to
open a similar boutique in New York in the autumn. “We are not a
supermarket.” At the same time, however, he admits, “we don’t expect
the store to have much impact financially speaking; that’s not the most
important part of it. The most important thing is that it is a stage.”
Still, the bottom line may be boosted by plans to introduce a more
accessible range, priced between $50,000 and $1m. In any case,
Mr Leviev notes, his company is already diversified. No matter how
big they are, apparently, you should never put all your diamonds in
one basket.
–Boundary_(ID_egMn/C8nm9VTsuNtqIYG6g)–

CUBA, SAUDI ARABIA AND CHINA WIN SEATS ON NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DESPITE POOR RIGHTS RECORDS
Edith M. Lederer
AP Worldstream
May 10, 2006
Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia won seats on the new U.N. Human
Rights Council despite their poor human rights records but two rights
abusers, Iran and Venezuela, were defeated.
Human rights groups said Tuesday they were generally pleased with
the 47 members elected to the council, which will replace the highly
politicized Human Rights Commission. It was discredited in recent
years because some countries with terrible rights records used their
membership to protect one another from condemnation.
“The spoiler governments, the governments that have a history of trying
to undermine the protection of human rights through their membership
on the old commission are now a significantly reduced minority when
it comes to the council,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of
Human Rights Watch. “That doesn’t guarantee that the council will be
a success but it is a step in the right direction.”
Even before the vote, Roth said, “the council was a vast improvement
over the discredited commission” because many countries that violate
human rights who had been commission members didn’t seek seats on
the council including Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya, Congo, Syria, Vietnam,
Nepal, Sri Lanka, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
Yvonne Terlingen, U.N. representative for Amnesty International,
said it was “fairly pleased” that the council members “constitute a
good basis to make a fresh start with creating a strong and effective
human rights body.”
“Some countries have been elected with weak human rights records,
but they also are now committed to uphold the highest human rights
standards,” she said.
The United States opposed the establishment of the council, saying it
did not go far enough to prevent rights abusers from winning seats,
and the U.S.
decided against being a candidate.
But U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kristen Silverberg said “on
the whole, we think it is an improvement over the commission.”
“We are committed to engaging actively in the coming weeks with all
of the elected members … to make sure that this body is effective,”
she said. “We think that the real test of this council will be whether
it can take effective action in serious cases of human rights abuse
like Darfur, …
Burma, North Korea and other places.”
Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican and critic of the U.N.,
criticized the vote, saying Cuba’s election showed the new council
suffers from the same weakness as the commission. The new council,
he said, “is the perfect example of the U.N.’s failure to reform.”
Anne Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School
who runs a web site on U.N. activities, said that at least 20 countries
that were elected “are ranked `partly free’ or `not free’ by Freedom
House,” a Washington-based organization that promotes democracy around
the world.
“That’s an astonishing number of countries that have made it on to
the U.N.’s primary human rights organ,” she said.
Under the rules for the council, any U.N. member was eligible to run
and 64 countries submitted their candidacies but Kenya dropped out at
the last minute. Members needed to be elected by an absolute majority
of the 191 U.N.
states _ 96 members.
To ensure global representation, Africa and Asia were given 13 seats
each; Latin America and the Caribbean eight seats; Western nations,
seven seats; and Eastern Europe, six seats.
Roth said Human Rights Watch would have preferred that Cuba, China,
Russia, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan had not won seats because of
their poor human rights records.
“The good news is that two of the least deserving governments were
not elected,” he said. “Both Venezuela and Iran failed to make the
cut. That is a step in the right direction.”
Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United
Nations, said Iran’s defeat “just shows their lack of standing in
the international community.”
Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov congratulated his countrymen
and women for being elected in the first round, expressing hope that
Moscow’s presence “will contribute to the balanced composition of this
council and to the balanced … discussion of the human rights agenda.”
Russia was a candidate in the most hotly contested regional group _
Eastern Europe _ which fielded 13 candidates for six seats. It was
the only group where a second round of voting was needed.
The other winners were Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania
and Ukraine. The East European losers were Albania, Armenia, Georgia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.
With Kenya dropping out, Africa fielded 13 candidates for the 13
seats and all won: Algeria, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali,
Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zambia.
The 13 Asians elected to the council were Bangladesh, Bahrain, China,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines,
South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka. Those defeated were Iran,
Iraq, Kyrgystan, Lebanon and Thailand.
In Latin American and the Caribbean, the 8 seats went to Argentina,
Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. Nicaragua
and Venezuela were defeated.
The 7 countries elected from the Western bloc were Britain, Canada,
Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland. Greece and
Portugal lost their bid for seats.
___
Associated Press Writer Paul Burkhardt contributed to this report.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERI MINISTER, US OFFICIALS DISCUSS MILITARY TIES, AGENCY SAYS
Turan news agency, Baku
9 May 06
Baku, 9 May: Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov yesterday received
a delegation of senior US military and civilian officials led by
ambassador (?Michael Leman).
Mammadyarov and the US officials discussed military cooperation,
regional problems, the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict and other issues,
the press service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

ERDOGAN ASKS FRENCH FIRMS TO HELP DEFEAT GENOCIDE BILL
Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
May 10 2006
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with representatives
of French companies Tuesday and warned them that a French bill
criminalizing denial of Armenian genocide would damage relations
between their countries, the state-owned Anatolia news agency
reported. Erdogan’s spokesman confirmed the meeting took place.
On Monday, Turkey recalled its ambassador to Paris over the proposed
bill, which would make it a crime to deny that the mass killings
of Armenians by Ottoman Turks at the beginning of the 20th century
constituted a genocide.
The French bill was proposed by the opposition socialists and submitted
to the French parliament. It is similar to a law making it a crime
in France to deny the Holocaust of World War II.
Turkey has used economic leverage before to punish France for its
stance on this issue: in 2001, Turkey canceled millions of dollars
worth of defense deals with French companies after lawmakers in France
recognized the killings of Armenians in Turkey as genocide.
Erdogan reportedly told the assembled company representatives in
Ankara that he wanted them to pressure the French government not
to enact it. “We expect executives of French firms to react to the
draft law,” Erdogan was quoted as saying, warning that its passage
would negatively affect relations. Erdogan added that the law was
not conducive to freedom of thought and expression, Anatolia reported.
Earlier this month, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was widely quoted
in the Turkish news media as asking his French counterpart, “Will
you throw me in jail too?” if Gul stated that the killings were not
genocide, which is official Turkish government policy.
The recalling of the ambassador was a strong statement by Turkey,
which faces an uphill battle to win over the French public in hopes
of gaining eventual entrance to the European Union.
Turkey also recalled its ambassador to Canada over the genocide issue,
saying remarks by the Canadian prime minister recognizing the genocide
could seriously harm Turkish-Canadian relations. Turkey has said it
would return both ambassadors after consultations in Ankara.