‘Turkey must recognise genocide’
The Daily Telegraph, UK
(Filed: 28/09/2005)
Turkey has rejected demands by the European Parliament that it recognise the
killing of Armenians as genocide before it can join the EU.
Armenians say that up to 1.5 million of their people were slaughtered in
mass killings under the Ottoman Empire in 1915.
But the Turkish government insists that the killing of Armenians was not a
systematic genocide. They maintain that a smaller number of Armenians died,
and that they perished unintentionally because of exposure, famine and
disease.
The request has angered Ankara, and the Turkish prime minister immediately
rejected the resolution.
“That resolution is not binding. It does not matter whether they took such a
decision or not. We will continue on our way,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan told
private CNN-Turk television.
Turkey has also come under pressure to recognise the Greek-speaking Republic
of Cyprus, an EU member, in the run up to membership talks.
Other issues of contention are Ankara’s record on human rights, religious
freedom and its treatment of minorities.
The resolution requesting the recognition of the genocide came as the
European Parliament backed the opening of EU entry talks with Turkey, due to
start Monday Oct 3.
They are largely a formality, but the approval of talks is seen as a
positive step.
There are concerns within the EU about Turkey joining the bloc. French and
Dutch voters recently rejected a planned EU constitution, in part over
concerns about the country’s bid for membership.
The largely Muslim country has been trying to join the EU for years.
The issue of Cyprus caused the lawmakers to postpone a planned vote on
Turkey’s extended customs union with the EU. They want Turkey to open its
ports and airports to traffic from Cyprus.
;jsessionid=KALEDJC5Q0KYPQFIQMFSM5OAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/09/28/uarmenia.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/28/ixportaltop.html

Office of The President of Finland
27.9.2005
Speech by President of the Republic of Finland Tarja Halonen at Yerevan
State University on 27 September 2005
It is a great honour and pleasure for me to speak to all of you today after
having received an honorary doctorate from Yerevan State University.
I am especially glad to be here for several reasons. Firstly, this is my
second visit to Armenia. The first was in 1996, when I was Minister for
Foreign Affairs. That visit was linked to negotiations conducted by the
co-chairs of the Minsk Group seeking a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict – Finland and Russia – with leaders in the region. On that occasion
I had the opportunity to visit Yerevan and Baku and to meet Southern
Caucasian political leadership.
Unfortunately the Minsk Group still faces a tough job to settle the
conflict, under the leadership of France, Russia and the United States. I
talked about this today with President Kocharian and hoped that the parties
would continue bilateral contacts and talks within the framework of the
Minsk Group in order to make swift progress. This is important for the
region’s residents and refugees, who have not been able to return to their
homes. Resolving this problem is also important for the stability of the
entire region, to attract new investments to the region and help building
new prosperity for it.
The second reason I am glad is that I am happy to be here as a President.
This is the very first official visit by the President of the Republic of
Finland to the three independent republics in the southern Caucasus. This is
part of the stepped-up exchange of visits in recent years, I noted this
already when Foreign Minister Oskanyan came to Finland last May. Cooperation
between Armenian and Finnish churches and in the cultural field has also
intensified in recent years. It is in Finland’s interests to nurture and
develop commercial, scientific and cultural cooperation between our nations.
I hope also that my visit will encourage you to continue your efforts to
promote democracy and human rights. The equality between men and women is
typical for Nordic countries. It has been fair for citizens and strengthened
us in the competition of the globalized world.
The autonomous status of the Swedish speaking Åland Islands as part of
Finland has often attracted foreign observers’ interest as an example of the
successful resolution of a dispute between two neighbouring countries. Only
a couple of weeks ago I sent greetings to a project arranged at the Åland
Islands Peace Institute that included non-governmental organizations,
journalists and researchers from the countries in the southern Caucasus. I
hope that their experiences can influence the settling of the Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts. Finland does not want to force
any model on anyone but hopes that regional leaders will accept new ideas
with an open mind and apply them creatively and constructively within the
framework of local conditions.
Speaking at this university recalls the significance of scientific research
as part of a national success strategy. In today’s world the success of a
nation depends on different types of resources – economic, environmental,
human and social – and the connection between them. Increasing resources in
all these areas creates the preconditions for prosperity.
In developed societies raw materials are no longer the only important factor
in economic growth, but the essential thing is what is built on top of them.
Finland’s development from a supplier of pulp and other basic forest
products, to become a leading producer of mobile phones and other products
of modern hich tech as well took place as a result of decades of investment
in science and research. Finland’s experience can also have significance for
a country like Armenia, where higher education has long traditions and the
population is well educated.
The Lisbon Strategy which aims at making the European Union the most
competitive area in the world, strongly recognizes education as a promoter
of economic and social development. The EU has adopted a detailed work
programme known as “Education and Training 2010”, which is aimed at making
Europe a world leader in terms of the quality of its education and training
by 2010.
Finns are used to the idea that our country can only succeed in the world
through its expertise. I am happy to say that the Finnish education system
has also ranked high in many respects in international surveys.
As a member of the EU, Finland has been involved in actively developing the
Union’s contacts with the republics of the southern Caucasus in recent
years. This is especially topical and important because Finland will hold
the presidency of the EU during the second half of next year.
In the past two years the EU’s Special Representative, Ambassador Heikki
Talvitie, has also become a well-known name in Yerevan. I am glad that the
expertise and experience of a retired Finnish diplomat has been put to use
in developing a dialogue between the Union and the southern Caucasus.
Resolving regional conflicts is vitally important for the EU. This work is
promoted by the Special Representative’s activities and the Union’s broad
aid and technical cooperation.
Another key objective in the EU’s southern Caucasus policy is to promote
regional cooperation. When I was Minister for Foreign Affairs I also chaired
the first meeting of the EU-Armenia Cooperation Council in 1999. At that
time we made promoting regional cooperation in the southern Caucasus a key
theme. I am glad that the practice of holding cooperation meetings among the
three countries in the region has become an annual tradition. I hope that
these will not remain routine meetings but will lead to practical
cooperation.
As a result of enlargement the European Union has had to consider ways to
prevent the formation of new dividing lines in Europe. For this purpose the
EU last year began implementing the European Neighbourhood Policy. The goal
of this policy is to promote stability, security and well-being in
neighbouring countries. In the future these countries will have an
opportunity to participate as privileged partners in Union programmes
through political, security, economic and cultural cooperation.
I hope that negotiations between the EU and Armenia for an action plan under
the European Neighbourhood Policy can start as soon as possible. The EU has
prepared its own proposal and Armenia has published its priorities. These
documents form a good basis on which to proceed.
I hope that through my visit bilateral relations between Finland and Armenia
will receive a new boost, since the possibilities for cooperation are
extensive. We must work together to turn new ideas into feasible projects.

AZG Armenian daily
28/09/2005
By Nana Petrosian
KARS-GYUMRI-TBILISI-BAKU RAILROAD A CHANCE FOR STABLE DEVELOPMENT OF 4
STATES
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC)
held its regular session in Kishinev on September 21-22. Delegations of
Armenia, Georgia, Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Greece, Moldova and Turkey
discussed Georgia’s report titled “Development of road infrastructures in
the Black Sea region”. “As a railroad corridor for TRASECA project, another
important project, construction of Kars-Akhalkalak-Tbilisi-Baku was
launched. The project envisages construction of 98 km long railway from Kars
to Akhalkalak which will allow transport goods from Asia to Europe bypassing
Bosphorus and Hellespont”, reads the report.
Gagik Minasian, head of the Armenian delegation, said that they insisted
that the following wording about Armenia be included in the political
program of the PABSEC: “As an additional corridor for TRASECA the
rehabilitation of Kars-Gyumri-Tbilisi-Baku can be viewed that will allow to
transports millions of tones of goods from Europe to Asia and the other way
round. Kars-Gyumri-Tbilisi-Baku railway passes though 4 countries of the
region. Its reopening will allow to spur economic integration and stable
development in the 4 countries”. Minasian also underscored that this project
does not need capital investments.
Gagik Minasian sees development of Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Azerbaijan
cooperation separately of each other. “The Turkish diplomacy is willing to
see Armenian-Turkish relations that are not unconditioned by relations with
Azerbaijan, and we have to embrace this chance of implementing our policy
with Turkey in a way that it is not dictated by our relations with
Azerbaijan. We have big chances in this regard”, Minasian said.

September 28, 2005
European Parliament Postpones Turkey Vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:27 a.m. ET
STRASBOURG, France (AP) — The European Parliament postponed a vote to
ratify Turkey’s customs union with the European Union on Wednesday,
citing frustration over Ankara’s continued refusal to recognize
Cyprus.
In another step certain to anger the Turkish government days ahead of
scheduled EU membership talks, lawmakers called on Ankara to recognize
the 1915-23 killings of Armenians as genocide.
The lawmakers issued a nonbinding resolution saying recognition of the
killings as genocide should be a prerequisite for Turkey to join the
EU. Ankara vehemently denies that genocide was carried out on
Armenians as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, saying Armenians who rose
in rebellion and sided with Russian invaders were killed along with
Turks in intercommunal fighting.
The EU Parliament voted 311-285, with 65 abstentions, to postpone the
customs union ratification ballot.
The delay will have no effect on the starting date on negotiations for
Turkey’s accession to the EU, scheduled for Oct. 3. The assembly
already postponed a vote earlier this month when its foreign affairs
committee said the customs union would not work because Turkey still
would not allow Cyprus to use its ports or airports.
In July, Turkey signed an agreement to widen its customs union with
the EU to include Cyprus and nine other new EU members. But the
government also said its signature did not amount to recognition of
the Cypriot government.
EU governments last week warned that failure to recognize Cyprus could
paralyze Turkey’s EU entry talks.
The customs union agreement with all 25 EU member states is a key
condition for Turkey’s bid to join the bloc.
”The Turkish government has accepted the customs union protocol but
at the same time has refused to recognize Cyprus. It’s logically and
politically unacceptable,” European People’s Party chairman Hans-Gert
Poettering said before asking the assembly to postpone the vote.
Cyprus has been divided since a 1974 abortive coup by supporters of
union with Greece prompted an invasion by Turkish troops. Turkey still
occupies the north of the island in support of a breakaway
Turkish-Cypriot government. Ankara does not recognize the
Greek-Cypriot government in the south.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

PRESS RELEASE
“YERKIR”, UNION OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
FOR REPATRIATION AND SETTLEMENT
47 Bagramyan ave., ap. 10/A, Yerevan, Armenia
Contact: Robert Tatoyan,
Tel. +(374 1) 26 28 75
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
YERKIR UNION STATES THE NECESSITY OF ADOPTION OF LAW ON REPATRIATION
At present, the debates on adopting the changes in Armenian
Constitution take place in National Assembly of Republic of Armenia.
“Yerkir” union considers that the provision on dual citizenship,
present in new draft, can have negative consequences on national
interests of Armenia, if simultaneously, the law on repatriation will
not be adopted.
“Yerkir” union has prepared the open letter, where presented its views
on this subject. The letter has been sent to Chairman, vice-speakers
and heads of fractions of National Assembly of RA.
The full text of the open letter (in Armenian) can be found on the
site of organization at

It’s Azerbaijan’s turn
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
By Farhad Husseinov
ANKARA — As the threat from terrorism becomes ever more acute, the
West is caught in a strategic dilemma between stability and
democratization in the Muslim world. While the pursuit of stability
has been mostly abandoned in the Middle East, it remains operative in
the Muslim countries of the former Soviet empire – as displayed until
recent times in the West’s cooperation with autocrats like
Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov.
Azerbaijan is the latest victim of this sacrifice of freedom in the
pursuit of stability. A country of 8.5 million people – roughly half
of whom live in poverty – on the Western shores of the energy-rich
Caspian Sea, it is preparing for parliamentary elections in early
November. Baku, the capital, is the next obvious candidate for a
democratic revolution of the kind witnessed in Georgia and Ukraine. At
stake are the multibillion-dollar investments of oil giants like BP
and Chevron.
The incumbent president, Ilham Aliyev, is a Soviet-educated autocrat
who inherited power from his late father, Geidar Aliyev, in late 2003
as a result of rigged elections followed by a ruthless police
crackdown. Opposition activists were imprisoned and tortured. Yet the
creation of the first dynastic regime in the post-Soviet space was,
incongruously, blessed by the administrationof George W. Bush.
So far, Aliyev junior has proved less adept than his ex-Communist
father at playing political cat-and-mouse with Western capitals. His
regular consultations with President Vladimir Putin of Russia have not
escaped analysts’ attention. One development that apparently
infuriated Washington was the security arrangement he made with Iran
in May. This was followed by news that Azerbaijan had been used as a
conduit for supplying Russian nuclear technology to Iran.
Now that the campaign for the November elections has officially
started, efforts by the regime to steal votes are once again under
way. The main issue is the formation of election commissions dominated
by the government. The U.S. Congress and the Council of Europe demand
that these be amended to create a balance between representatives of
the government and the opposition.
Cases of harassment by the regional authorities on behalf of regime
favorites are abundant. The media – with a few embattled exceptions in
print and on the Internet – is entirely under state control. The
latest trend on Azeri TV channels is to describe opposition leaders as
either homosexual or agents of Al Qaeda. Criticism of the president
is characterized as betrayal of the motherland.
Another sign of the regime’s contempt for fair elections is the recent
reshuffling of posts within the power ministries. Hard-liners
responsible for organizing the crackdown in 2003 were rewarded with
promotions and even state medals. In this way, the government has
perpetuated a climate of arbitrariness and arrogant lawlessness.
Despite the campaign to denigrate and destroy real political
opposition, it now poses a serious challenge to the regime. Indeed,
many in Baku predict the downfall of a bankrupt government built on
corruption, nepotism, coercion and a record of political murder.
The greatest hope is invested in the newly forged Freedom Bloc, with
the pro-Western Musavat Party as its driving force, which succeeded in
holding a series of rallies across the country that the government was
compelled to allow because of domestic and international pressure. The
last such demonstration was organized in Baku on Sept. 10 and drew
about 50,000 people, many of them wearing orange shirts and waving
orange flags in an echo of the pro-democracy rallies in Ukraine last
year.
In today’s globalized world, democracy requires support from
without. The Bush administration’s “freedom agenda” is a praiseworthy
step in this regard. It should, however, also be extended to illiberal
countries that possess oil or host a NATO military base. Democratic
turnover in the post-Soviet states is not Western imperialism by
another name, as some would like us to believe. What they represent,
rather, is a shift toward the rule of law, democracy and national
reconciliation.
Azerbaijan presents the next opportunity for Western leaders to prove
their commitment to the founding principles of their own
nation-states. With time, this moral choice will prove to be a smart
strategic choice as well.
As for Putin, instead of bemoaning his country’s imperial past, he
should be the first to desire the creation of a progressive and
liberal space around it, as this would benefit no state more than
Russia itself.
Farhad Husseinov is professor of economics at Bilkent
University in Ankara and a pro-democracy activist in Azerbaijan.

All but invisible to the wider world, a crisis is developing within
Azerbaijan…
The St. Petersburg Times (Russia)
27 September 2005
Issue 74
All but invisible to the wider world, a crisis is developing within
Azerbaijan that could threaten regional stability and the future
development of Caspian basin oil and gas.
Though largely self-created, by a combination of endemic corruption
and institutional underdevelopment, the emerging calamity is being
greatly aided by opportunistic measures by others, including Russia,
the United States and especially Iran.
In many ways, this is developing into a 21st-century version of the
Great Game Î that epochal struggle between the British and Russian
empires, which dominated the lives of all sorts of tiny Eurasian
countries throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century.
But Azerbaijan is not Afghanistan, which has had the misfortune of
historically always having been someone elseÊs buffer state or
strategic beachhead.
Azerbaijan is a prize in its own right. It can claim one-fifth of the
oil and gas of the Caspian Basin, one of the worldÊs last great pools
of hydrocarbon wealth. Led by BP, the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline has
just opened, creating a new gateway to world markets for Azeri
oil. With gross national product growth increasing at about 11 percent
annually, this should be the most economically successful of the
former Soviet states. Should be, and in some ways is Î but not in
nearly enough ways to make Azerbaijan the happy and stable place it
ought to be.
Instead, it is a place that is starting to come unglued. Run until
recently by an authoritarian, but politically astute, former KGB
general named Heidar Aliyev, Azerbaijan is now run by a fractious
group of his ministers, ruling in the name of HeidarÊs son, Ilham.
Ilham Aliyev is an intelligent, quite well-educated man of 44 whose
instincts do not appear to run to strong-arm tactics or
dictatorship. But he is surrounded by ministers and minders for whom
there is much to lose in the event of a regime change. Billions of
dollars, in fact.
This is because Azerbaijan, under the elder Aliyev, functioned as a
giant franchising operation, with nearly all aspects of Azeri national
life hived off as vertically integrated businesses. If you want to
pass a university exam, you pay the instructor $50, a large part of
which he pays to his supervisor, who then pays part to his superior,
and so on all the way to the top. To be named police chief in a
medium-sized town costs about $10,000, most of which winds up with
whoeverÊs signature is required for such an appointment.
This was a relatively stable and predictable situation under Heidar
Aliyev, because he was imaginative enough to control its excesses and
tough enough to be able to do so.
There is room to doubt that Ilham Aliyev has that kind of
authority. He has in fact replaced few of his fatherÊs lieutenants and
has remarkably few allies of his own in government from his own
generation or cohort. Increasingly, he appears to be more dependent on
his fatherÊs aging cronies than they are on him.
Apart from the personalities at the top, the world around them has
changed utterly. Part of the change occurred in the streets of
Tbilisi, in neighboring Georgia, where just a month before Heidar
AliyevÊs death in 2003, the Rose Revolution replaced another former
KGB chieftainÊs regime.
Understandably, a lot of people have been sticking colored pins in
their wall maps of the former Soviet Union ever since, trying to guess
in which state the next so-called color revolution might happen:
Tbilisi, Kiev, Bishkek Î and now Baku? With parliamentary elections
set for Nov. 6, the Azeri opposition parties are playing up that trend
for all it is worth. But many of the opposition leaders in Azerbaijan
are every bit as corrupt and as much a part of the old guard as the
men they wish to replace. Many were involved in an ill-fated 1992-93
government, almost universally condemned for chaos, corruption and
incompetence.
But the color revolutions have had an important influence, if not
domestically then externally.
For one thing, they have made it more difficult for Russia, still the
leading power in the region, and the United States, the remaining
world superpower, to collaborate, even when it is practical to do so.
The United States now faces a dilemma in dealing with the former
Soviet states with which it is friendly, including Azerbaijan. For
commercial and geopolitical reasons, Washington would obviously prefer
stability over chaos. But it can also no longer afford to be seen to
be propping up an unreformable kleptocracy.
Meanwhile, Moscow also would prefer stability instead of another
revolution in its own backyard.
For both, there are other complications. Iran, along the southern
Azeri border, is chief among them. There are 20 million to 25 million
ethnic Azeris in Iran, and the dominant religion in both nations is
Shiite Islam. Fundamentalism has started to surface in AzerbaijanÊs
border areas, and there are reports that some theological schools
across the country are leaning toward Iranian-style militancy. In an
otherwise secular state, these are disturbing developments.
This must be disturbing Washington too. Rumors abound that it is
looking to redeploy military contingents from Uzbekistan, which has
asked the U.S. Army to vacate a military base there, to Azerbaijan,
including to one site close to the Iranian border.
Rumors also abound that Russia is redeploying troops formerly based in
Georgia to regions of Armenia that border Azerbaijan. Apart from the
historic enmity between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed
territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, such movements could redraw the
military map of the entire region.
But is a U.S.-Russian rivalry in the area inevitable? The truth is
that Moscow and Washington have more interests in common than they
have in conflict, particularly with respect to Iran, which is a source
of even bigger worry to Russia than to the United States.
Intriguingly, in recent weeks, some members of the Russian media have
been playing up the disruptive influences in Azerbaijan of Wahhabi
militants. But Wahhabism is used as a catch-all term for all forms of
radical Islam, whether Sunni or Shiite.
There may well be some Wahhabi activists in Azerbaijan, especially in
the north, where Chechen and Dagestani refugees have settled. But the
real fundamentalist threat is overwhelmingly from the south, from
Iran. The Kremlin certainly knows this, but, for complex and
remarkably narrow commercial reasons Î the sale of nuclear reactor
technology Î it cannot bring itself to say so publicly.
And that, almost literally, is what is keeping Russia and the United
States from collaborating in Azerbaijan. In nearly all other matters
of consequence, their interests in Azerbaijan coincide: stability,
moderate reform, and even curbing corruption Î since even Russian
companies like LUKoil must be finding the spiraling cost of graft hard
to manage.
There does not need to be a color revolution in Azerbaijan. There does
need to be fundamental change, bringing new young modernizers into
power and giving the rising middle class its say in the countryÊs
future.
But with Moscow eyeing the Americans with suspicion, and Washington
unable to rely on the Russians while facing Iran, Azerbaijan appears
headed unstoppably toward a less-than-promising future.
Ednan Agayev, an Azeri-born former senior Russian diplomat and
executive vice president of the Russian-American Business Council,
contributed this comment to The St. Petersburg Times.

Film screening and Q&A with writer/director Atom Egoyan at Arclight
Hollywood
On Screen Upcoming Events
American Film Institute
26 September 2005
AFI at Arclight Hollywood
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2005 @ 8:00 PM SOLD OUT
“WHERE THE TRUTH LIES”
2005 107 MIN 35MM
DIR/SCR: Atom Egoyan
CAST: Kevin Bacon, Colin Firth, Alison Lohman, Rachel Blanchard
Q&A to follow the screening with writer/director Atom Egoyan, producer
Robert Lantos and cast members Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth.
In 50s, Lanny Morris (Kevin Bacon) and Vince Collins (Colin Firth) are
the most beloved entertainers in America. A duothe classicLanny is the
manic comedian, while Vince is his cool and collected straight
man. They are at the top of game theirwealthy, powerful and popular
enormouslywhen, inexplicably, a dead beauty turns up in their hotel
suite. Their reputations are sullied, but with solid alibis neither is
charged with the crime. Their partnership, however, is destroyed.
Lanny and Vince manage to salvage separate careers, but years pass
with neither speaking to the other, or to anyone else, about the
girl’s death. Fifteen years later, up-and-coming writer Karen
O’Connor (Alison Lohman), decides to turn this cold case into a hot
story. Beginning with her discovery of a kinky rendezvous that may
have led to a murder, Karen unravels a shocking tale of talent and
treachery, love and lust, buried secrets and betrayed trust.
AFI at ArcLight: For further information, visit
, or call 323.464.4226.
Visit for the latest updates.

ARMENIA RECEIVES 260.000 TOURISTS ANNUALLY
AZG | YEREVAN–These six months 108.517 people visited Armenia of which only
20.474 people stayed at the hotels. The rest of them preferred staying at
their friends and relatives or to rent apartments. The tourism agencies are
really concerned about this statistics. According to the State Statistic
Service, 32.7% of the tourists were from the CIS countries, 28% from the EU
and 19,5% from the U.S.
Yesterday was International Day of Tourism. Armenian tourism agencies
represented the current situation in the Armenian market of tourism. “The
Union of Armenian Tourism Operators” was created in early 2005. This
organization unites 13 tourist agencies. According to the specialist, some
progress has been fixed in the sphere recently, but there is still much to
do. “We need to enlarge the number of specialists of the sphere. We need
guides and administrators that keep in line with the European standards,”
Karen Andreasian, head of “First Travel” agency said.
He added that large-scale investments are needed to make in the sphere,
including both the capital and the regions.
According to the research of international organizations, Armenia is quite
capable to receive 500.000 tourists annually, in case relevant substructures
are created. Today 260.000 tourists visit Armenia every year.
By Tamar Minasian

HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION – FOREIGN
Sept 28,2005
Halonen in Armenia asked for recognition of Turkish massacre
President avoids question by focusing on future
During her visit to Armenia on Tuesday, President Tarja Halonen found
herself in the middle of a debate on the sensitive issue of the Turkish
massacre of more than a million Armenians during the First World War and
shortly thereafter.
The discussion took place soon after the Finnish President had laid a
wreath at a monument to the victims of the genocide in the Armenian capital
Yerevan.
Armenian journalists asked the Finnish President if she would publicly
recognise the events as an act of genocide. A number of countries, including
France, have already done so.
Turkey has refused to admit that genocide had taken place, and this
refusal is one factor which has helped inflame relations between Armenia and
Turkey; their border is closed off, and there are no diplomatic ties between
the two countries.
President Halonen avoided a direct response to the questions, saying instead
“We are building a common future with Armenia”.
According to the President, Finland is not in the habit of giving
recognition to historical events. She said that every generation has the
right to re-examine history, and every country has a right to its own
history. She added that countries should not become prisoners of history.
The laying of the wreath at the monument could be seen as a
recognition of sorts. However, many other state visitors to Armenia do the
same.
The protocol also calls for the planting of a tree at the memorial.
Halonen’s silver fir went up near trees planted by Vladimir Putin and Lech
Walesa.
“Where’s the minister?” Halonen asked in the middle of the tree-planting
ceremony, calling on the Minister of Trade and Industry Mauri Pekkarinen to
grab the shovel and start digging.
Earlier during the trip Pekkarinen had complained that he had little
to do in the President’s entourage. On Tuesday there was no such problem,
because Halonen kept him busy all day.
For instance, in the middle of a press conference of the Finnish and
Armenian leaders, Halonen unexpectedly asked Pekkarinen to brief the
journalists on prospects for economic cooperation between the two countries.
Two sectors seen by Pekkarinen as worthy of development were mining
and tourism.
Finnish package tours to Armenia have already begun this year. Currently, a
fifth fairly small group of Finnish tourists are in Yerevan.
On Tuesday, President Halonen held talks with Armenian President
Robert Kochharian and other politicians on trade, Armenian-Turkish
relations, the dispute over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as over
Turkey’s possible membership in the European Union.
The same issues came up when Halonen, who received an honorary
doctorate, spoke to students at Yerevan State University.
The Finnish President defended Turkish EU membership, which Armenia
opposes, because of Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. She said that Turkish EU membership would benefit the whole region,
including Armenia.
On the question of Nagorno-Karabakh – an ethnically Armenian enclave
inside Azerbaijan – Halonen offered the autonomous status of Finland’s Åland
Islands as a model. A fiery-eyed student responded: “Azerbaijan is not
Sweden”.