ARMENIA INTERESTED IN STATIONING RUSSIAN MILITARY BASES – KOCHARIAN
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 28 2005
Armenia is interested in stationing of Russian military bases in
its territory, as the country is situated in a complicated and
conflict-affected region, its President Robert Kocharian has said.
The deployment of Russian bases in Armenia is envisioned by the
country’s security concept, Kocharian said in a news conference in
Yerevan on Tuesday.
He noted that the Russian arms were earlier moved from Georgia to
Armenia in accordance with the agreement reached by the two countries.*

COUNTDOWN TO TURKEY EU TALKS
Financial Mirror, Cyprus
Sept 28 2005
Barring any last minute hiccups, Turkey will start accession
negotiations on October 3 that are expected to last for at least ten
years and are unlikely to be smooth sailing.
One of the trickiest aspects will be transport, following Turkey’s
declaration that it does not recognise Cyprus and indications by
politicians that it has no intention of opening air and transport
routes to Cyprus.
A draft political declaration that will be studied by the COREPER
meeting of EU foreign ministers this week with the aim of presenting
it to Turkey when it starts EU accession negotiations next Monday,
will emphasise that Turkey’s progress in the negotiations will depend
in implementing its commitments.
According to CNA, part of the declaration says “The monitoring of
your commitments will become a key element for taking, in the Council
context, the necessary decisions on the conduct of negotiations with
you. Particular attention will be paid to the implementation of the
Protocol regarding the adaptation of the Ankara Agreement, on which
the EU’s position was set out in its Declaration of 20 September 2005”.
Turkey is therefore unlikely to be able to open the transport chapter
until the Ankara Protocol is implemented.
At the Maritime Cyprus Conference this week, Transport Commissioner
Jacques Barrot said “Personally, I think the chapter on transport,
which means free movement of goods, can’t be opened unless there is
a change on the part of the government of Turkey”.
Cyprus’ transhipment industry has suffered from the fact that it
cannot use Turkey’s ports.
Paragraph 4 of the draft declaration says “negotiations are taking
place in an Intergovernmental Conference with the participation of
all Member States, as well as your country”.
Following an attempt by a Turkish court to prevent a conference on the
Armenian genocide from taking place in Turkey last week, the draft
also underlines the need for Turkey towards “full implementation of
the pre-accession strategy and reforms, in particular as regards
strengthening the independence and functioning of the judiciary,
the overall framework for the exercise of fundamental freedoms
(association, expression and religion), cultural rights, the further
alignment of civil-military relations with European practice and the
situation in the Southeast of the country”.
It also calls on Turkey actively to promote regional stability.
In an attempt to incorporate Austria’s wishes that Turkey be offered
an alternative to full membership, to the draft says that member
states will decide whether the conditions are right to complete the
negotiations.

TURKEY AT TURNING POINT AHEAD OF EU TALKS
Christopher Wade | Ankara, Turkey
Mail & Guardian Online, South Africa
Sept 28 2005
Last minute-wrangling aside, Turkey’s long-awaited accession talks
with the European Union are to finally get under way on October 3
marking a major victory for the Ankara government and the beginning
of one of the country’s biggest diplomatic endeavours.
“This is an historic turning point ahead of Turkey,” Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan told the nation in a televised address during
the week. “October 3 will be a new and unforgettable date.”
Turks won’t be waking up to find their country radically changed on
October 3 but Erdogan is right to call it a “turning point”.
Turkey became an associate member of the EU in 1963 and formally
applied to become a member in 1987. It took another 12 years however
before the EU brought itself to actually recognise Turkey as a
candidate.
Now, more than 40 years after Turkey first signalled its intentions
to join the bloc, the negotiations are finally about to start.
To say that Turkey has changed significantly since it was accepted
as a candidate in 1999 is an understatement.
In just six years the country has undergone a revolution in human
rights thanks to its efforts to conform with the political criteria
laid down by the EU.
The death penalty has been lifted, Kurdish language classes are
allowed, torture in custody has dropped considerably, women’s rights
have been strengthened, notoriously strict press laws have been
relaxed and a completely new criminal code introduced.
These reforms are impressive when one considers that Turks are
predominantly conservative, religious and have a high level of respect
for the state.
Even more surprising has been the way that the reforms have been
pushed through by Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP),
a party with its roots in moderate Islam who just a few years before
preferred Turkey to look to the east and its Muslim neighbours.
Before coming to power in 2002, the AKP wasn’t expected to be so keen
on “European values”, but a realisation that the rights of religious
conservatives could be easier guaranteed inside the EU led to a
dramatic turnaround.
With the strictly pro-secular military and establishment looking on
warily, Erdogan has largely avoided issues close to his supporters —
such as lifting a ban on the wearing of headscarves at universities
or by public officials — instead choosing to focus on the reforms
needed to get the EU on side.
Despite the significant progress, officials on both sides acknowledge
that the reforms still have some way to go.
Detainees are still tortured in custody, police still resort to
their batons almost immediately when faced with an illegal protest
and opinions out of line with “official thinking” can still land you
with fines or a prison sentence.
Turkey’s most famous author, Orhan Pamuk, has been charged over
comments made about the deeply contentious World War I-era Armenian
genocide.
“A million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me
dares talk about it,” Pamuk told a Swedish magazine. The author has
been charged with “denigrating the Turkish identity” and faces up to
three years jail if found guilty.
However change is evident even on the Armenian genocide issue.
Turkey denies that mass killings of Armenians in the then Ottoman
Empire during and after World War I constitute a “genocide” and has
bitterly contested any such allegations.
However just a week before the beginning of EU accession talks a
conference was held in Ankara at which such allegations were aired;
something that analysts say would have been impossible only a short
time ago.
Despite last minute legal hitches the conference went ahead with the
blessing of the government. Turkey has realised that open discussion
of even the darkest parts of its own history is not as destructive
as feared.
“At the conference they said ‘genocide’. The world is still turning.
Turkey still exists,” the liberal Radikal newspaper said after the
conference.
Analysts say October 3 marks yet another milestone in Turkey’s mission
to be fully accepted by the West. However it could be 25 years before
the country is ready to join the 25-member bloc.
In the meantime there will be many hiccups and no doubt a few crises
over issues as diverse as Turkey’s non-recognition of the Republic
of Cyprus, to the first time that a factory will have to be closed
due to stringent EU pollution laws.
“In the end it is the process that is important to Turkey,” said one
government official.
“We are implementing these reforms both to comply with the EU and
for ourselves. Who knows, perhaps in 15 years, when we are ready the
Turkish people won’t want to join.”
“Who knows what the EU will be like in 15 years?”
Turkey’s 40-year struggle Turkey first applied in 1959 for membership
in the European Economic Community, as the EU was then known. The
following is a chronology of developments:
1959: Turkey makes its first application to join the European Union
1963: Europeans respond to the request by proposing — and signing —
an Association Agreement with Ankara
1970: Signature of an Additional Protocol to the Ankara pact focusing
on a timetable for eliminating tariffs and quotas on goods traded by
the two sides
1980: Temporary freeze in relations because of Turkish military
government
1983: Restoration of relations following multi-party elections
1987: Turkey applies for full membership
1990: The European Commission and the European Council confirm Turkey’s
eligibility for membership
1995: Establishment of a customs union between Turkey and the EU
1999: Turkey is officially recognised by the European Council as a
candidate state
2003: The European Council adopts a revised Accession Partnership
for Turkey, focusing on preparations for membership
2004: The European Council defines the perspective for opening talks,
sets October 3, 2005 date for start of negotiations
June 2005: European Commission sets out negotiating mandate for the
October 3 talks
September 2005: EU governments agree a unilateral declaration on
Turkish-Cyprus relations and adopt negotiating framework – Sapa-DPA

THE MEETINGS OF THE PRESIDENT OF FINLAND IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
National Assembly of RA, Armenia
Sept 28 2005
On September 27 RA NA Speaker Artur Baghdasaryan had a private talk
with Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland being on an
official visit in Armenia.
The problems of Armenian-Finnish relations were discussed in the
private talk. Both sides highlighted the political, economic and
scientific-cultural relations between two countries and the development
of inter-parliamentary relations was especially highlighted. It was
noted that a friendship group with the Parliament of Finland was
established in the Parliament of Armenia. At Mrs.
Halonen’s request, NA Speaker presented the democratic reforms taking
place, and the use of the Finnish experience was highlighted.
The delegation headed by Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic
of Finland met in the National Assembly with NA Speaker Artur
Baghdasaryan, NA Vice Speaker Tigran Torosyan, chairmen of the standing
committees, heads of groups-factions. At the meeting Justice Minister
Davit Harutiunyan and the ambassadors of two countries were present.
Welcoming the guests, NA Speaker Artur Baghdasaryan expressed
conviction that the visit will be an impetus in the development
of the Armenian-Finnish relations. NA Speaker highlighted the
development of the inter-parliamentary relations, the cooperation in
international structures and the experience exchange in the sphere
of legislation. Adopting the policy of Euro-Integration, Armenia pays
great importance to the study of the Finnish experience. It was noted
that in the National Assembly a parliamentary friendship group with
the Parliament of Finland functions. The cooperation was considered
necessary in the spheres of culture, science and education. Highly
estimating the activity of the Armenological center set up in Finland,
the Parliament Speaker expressed readiness to promote the center in
getting new literature. NA Speaker Artur Baghdasaryan invited his
Finnish colleagues to Armenia.
Expressing gratitude, Tarja Halonen, President of Finland, underscored
that the existing parliamentary friendship group political relations
created good bases for the further cooperation and highlighted not
only the bilateral, but also the deepening of the inter-parliamentary
relations, noting that a parliamentary friendship group with South
Caucasus was set up in the parliament of Finland.
Mrs. Halonen invited the Armenian parliamentarians to participate in
2006 at the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the Parliament
of Finland, which will be also useful for the development of the
inter-parliamentary relations and experience exchange. The President
of Finland expressed a hope that the Constitutional amendments in
Armenia will go on in the atmosphere of consent.
At the end Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland made
notes in the book of honorable guests.

FEAR OF MONOPOLY HINDERS DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM
A1+
| 16:42:30 | 27-09-2005 | Social |
September 27 has been celebrated as the International Day of Tourism
since 1890. The companies serving on the UN system have chosen the
day because it’s the end of season in the northern hemisphere and
the beginning of the season in the southern one.
This year the topic of the Day of Tourism will be “Transport and
traveling: from the fantasies of Jules Verne to the realities of the
21st century.”
To the surprise of private tourist agencies, being a members of
the World Tourism Association the RA government never celebrated
the holiday.
Presently 14 tourist agents are registered in Armenia. Two years ago
they united forming the Union of Armenian Tour Operators. According to
executive director Araik Vardanyan the statistics of the world tourist
organization showed the following picture: if in 1950 the number of
travelers made 20 million, last year it increased to 760 million. In
2020 the number of tourists will reach 1.5 billion annually.
“At the world tourist market Armenia occupies a minor position”, say
the representatives of the companies engaged in the field. According
to the official date, 30 thousand tourists visited Armenia this year,
30% came from the CIS states, 28.5% form the EU states and 19.5%
from the United States.
The Armenian tour operators state that Armenia is capable to receive
about 500 thousand tourists. However a number of obstacles hinders
Armenia from using its high potential.
“Proper state program, professional personnel and information centers
are essential for the development of tourism in Armenia”, Director
ofo First Travel company Ruben Grigoryan says.
The operators do not turn to oligarchs for help fearing of a monopoly.

ARE WE CONFRONTING THE PAST?
by Herkul Millas
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 28 2005
[COMMENTARY]
Recently we have been experiencing two examples of events, expressed
rhetorically as, “confronting the past” or “reconciling with our
history.” Exhibitions, panels, and several articles were prepared
for the 50 th anniversary of the September 6-7 riots.
This week we will be witnessing a conference titled “Ottoman Armenians
during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility
and Democracy” at Bogazici University. In my opinion, such events
are indexed more towards today than the past and reactions derive
because they are based on current events.
Confrontation or reconciliation (or any other word to describe
“confronting the past”) is not in the past; it is in our present day.
The goal is to confront people alive today and to create a kind of
common ground between them. Past events were either kept alive in
a national compartmentalization within the framework of a “national
history” or left to be forgotten for several decades. However, such
interpretations were not validated outside the national framework.
The plan at the domestic level did not match the plan of the outside
world. As a result, Turkey has undergone an alienation process despite
her extended environment and has remained far from her friends. These
historical interpretations that do not match with Turkey’s environment
have turned into a daily problem for some citizens.
But this problem did not become everyone’s problem. Those, who did
not feel the paradox deep inside, did not move their pens, organize
any panels or exhibitions, nor watch any such events. In fact, some
did not remain objective and expressed their reactions gradually in
line with their problem free minds. Finally, some conveyed these
“confrontation” events were untimely, while others made harsher
provocations. When the spectrum of all these reactions is analyzed,
a better understanding is portrayed about whether the situation is
more related to anxiety or tranquility of adjusting to a larger milieu.
If we make an inventory analysis of the conflicting sides throughout
history, today we can see that they have formed two groups; those
perceiving the European Union (EU) with confidence and those
with no confidence. This is weird. Those, who are enthusiastic
about “reconciling with history” and those who appeared recently
as enthusiastic and confident in the EU, are the same people. The
people, who remain objective regarding confrontation with the past
and who specifically react against the conferences, panels or other
activities on this issue, are either pessimistic about the EU process
or close to the groups that absolutely reject the EU, or they are in
fact members of that group.
I do not argue that discussions on history are political. Rather, I
argue there is an identity problem and an identity problem directly
affects political preferences. I try to show that our willing or
unwillingness, as well as, our confidence or lack of confidence to be
“in accordance” on history is related to the definition of “us.” Some
search for their identity in a huge area and try to find the one
“close to us,” and others do the same in a rather limited national
framework. Thus, while some try to reconcile different perspectives,
“adjust” to the world and provide general recognition, they do not
highlight what the “other” says, they give credit only to his/her
own interpretation of history, and do not allow any criticisms for
a “perfect and superior” past. They never want their history (or we
might say a perfect story), upon which they have built their identity,
to be questioned, shaken, and above all to be denied.
I think I agree with those who say the first group, who seeks a
common ground with the world, has in fact more doubts and complexes
and is ashamed of its identity; therefore, it is makes concessions
to “foreigners”. Perhaps, such people also exist in this camp. But,
one can look at these two groups from a different perspective as well.
Those, who do not seek accordance with the broader environment and
do not believe it is required, do not feel this way because of their
self-confidence. On the contrary, this behavior might stem from
their lack of confidence in their neighbor or the “other”. Perhaps,
there are such people as well in the second group. I do not give the
final word on this but, I myself favor accordance with the larger
environment. A narrow and local consensus reminds me of a xenophobic
confidence of an introvert society: Something like a belief, which
is easily provided inside but not much valid outside our borders.
Relationship between reconciliation and nationalization
I will also touch upon the importance of a consensus. Disputes
during nationalization processes were encountered in every
society. But “reconciliation” is not a preference; it is the equal
of nationalization. It is one of the basic outlooks and process
mechanisms of being a nation. Nations were provided by societies,
who actually express willingness to co-exist. Those, who did not or
could not apply this to practice, are the societies that are still
in search. That is to say, the ironical side of the event is that
the attacks and intolerances deriving from the anxiety of those,
who insist on nationalization, are in fact opposite to the concept
of a nation and its function. Those, who see enemies and traitors
everywhere, are the ones making nationalization more difficult. From
this point of view, I believe that those favoring “accordance” and
analysis of the covered past within the framework of dialogue, are
in fact more close to a nation model and a more contemporary society.
The search for this accordance within a boarder framework, on the
other side, is another expression of this contemporaneousness.
It is generally forgotten that identity searches are not limited
to Turkey and similar situations occur in all countries across the
world. Searches for a broader consensus outside a narrow environment
extend to ancient times. But people tend to blame those, who do not
think in the same way, with disloyalty and ignorance. However, I
suppose the majority of those, who bring these issues to the agenda,
in other words, those wiling or unwilling to confront history and
those anticipating a conspiracy in this mechanism, are sincere in
their intentions. They are not malevolent in their demands. Both sides
pursue an attitude favoring the side called “us”. While one side tries
to pursue such an attitude by not allowing any criticisms against its
past within its narrow environment, the other side carefully acts to
carry out this manner in accordance “with the world” thanks to their
“self-critical” discourse and through achieving a satisfactory share
from the overall society.
May be in the future we will understand that this conflict over
“history” is unnecessary jut like other old fraternal fights and if
patience is kept and dialogue is not prevented, both parties will
benefit in terms of their national projects.

SPEAKERS, SUPPORTERS OF ARMENIAN CONFERENCE TO BE SUED
By Cihan News Agency
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 28 2005
zaman.com
The Turkish Judicial Officials Union have filed a complaint against
17 people for organizing last week’s controversial conference on the
Ottoman Armenians, and for making statements about the legal process
regarding the suspension of conference.
The Chairman of the Judicial Union, Kemal Kerincsiz and accompanying
lawyers submitted their files to Beyoglu Public Prosecution Office
on Tuesday.
The Judicial Union had blocked the organization of the conference
at Bogazici University. The conference was later switched to Bilgi
University.

SCHOOLS DIRECTED TO EXPAND HISTORY COURSES
Michael Gormley
Associated Press
Sept 28 2005
ALBANY, N.Y. – State legislators across the country are increasingly
directing their schools to teach students more about the struggles
and triumphs of different races and ethnic groups – a move critics
say amounts to politically correct meddling.
In the latest such example, a new commission in New York will examine
whether the “physical and psychological terrorism” against Africans in
the slave trade is being adequately taught in schools. The commission
is named for the slave ship Amistad, which was commandeered by slaves
who eventually won their freedom in the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The recommendations could mean rewriting textbooks, which may influence
educators in other states, according to the National Council for the
Social Studies.
A number of other states have enacted similar measures in the last
five years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Illinois also created an Amistad commission this year and added lessons
on the Holocaust, while New Mexico’s legislature required Indian
education lessons be bolstered in kindergarten through sixth grade.
In 2001, New Jersey created an Amistad commission and the Commission
on Italian and Americans of Italian Heritage Culture and Education
to advise policy makers.
California created Cesar Chavez Day in 2000 and directed schools
to include lessons about the farm labor activist. That same year,
Rhode Island directed schools to teach about genocide and human
rights violations including the slave trade, the Irish potato famine,
the Armenian genocide of the early 1900s, the Holocaust and Italian
dictator Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime.
Virginia also directed schools that year to teach about the
accomplishments of people from different ethnic backgrounds and races,
women and disabled people.
But while most legislatures enact curriculum changes recommended by
education departments, teachers and researchers, New York’s Amistad
Commission is a case of the Legislature trying to circumvent the
state’s policy-setting Board of Regents, according to the law’s
co-sponsor.
“We feel there is, indeed, a void in our education curriculum
in New York state when it comes to the issue of slavery and the
dehumanization of Africans,” said Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr.,
a Brooklyn Democrat. He said the Board of Regents hasn’t acted and
needs to be prodded by the Legislature.
Critics say the goal of the commission is laudable but that teachers
already have limited time to teach American history. They also say
educators are needed on the panel to make sure its recommendations
are feasible.
The commission will include 19 unpaid members. Eight will be appointed
by the governor, and the rest will be picked by the state secretary
of state, the state education commissioner and the majority leaders
of the Legislature. Panelists need not be academics.
“It’s like taking a group of teachers and telling doctors how to
practice,” said Peggy Altoff, president-elect of the National Council
for the Social Studies. “And yet it seems to me that it’s fairly
standard practice that everyone seems to be able to tell teachers
what to teach.”
New York already requires children to learn about the Irish famine,
the Holocaust, the Underground Railroad and “a great deal” about
slavery, said state Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman.
“There’s no question that it’s dabbling,” said Carl Hayden, the former
New York state schools chancellor who led the Board of Regents in
developing higher academic standards. “The single most difficult
standard that the regents dealt with was the history standard,
because it is so potentially controversial.”
Candace de Russy, a State University of New York trustee and national
lecturer and writer on academic issues, said she believes the
state’s commission opens the door to endless group advocacy-oriented
legislation.
“Inherent in it, Jews will decide how to teach the Holocaust, the
Irish the Great Famine, Armenians the Turkish genocide, Indians the
French and Indian War, and so on,” she said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ANOTHER HEARING ON AZERI OFFICER’S CASE
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 28 2005
Another hearing on the case of Azerbaijani officer charged with
murdering an Armenian serviceman was held in Budapest on Tuesday.
Employees of the Azeri embassy and prosecutor’s office came to court,
along with witnesses who testified at the hearing.
Ramil Safarov is charged with killing Armenian officer Gurgen Markarian
after the latter insulted his dignity and Azerbaijan’s national flag.
The court considered coming to a compromise over the results of
the forensic expertise, which was conducted twice. According to the
second expertise, the Azerbaijani officer committed the crime in a
state of affect.
The trial will continue on December 15 due to the differences in the
testimonies of witnesses.
Hungarian lawyers earlier termed the expertise held to determine
Safarov’s psychological condition as unacceptable and demanded
to conduct another one. The second expertise was held with the
permission of the Hungarian Supreme Court and involved representatives
of Azerbaijan.
According to a reliable source, the first expertise determined that
the Azeri officer was in psychologically healthy condition. The
second one, however, indicated that he was relatively unstable, i.e.
under serious stress, when he committed the murder.

CYPRUS BLOCKS BAKU PARTICIPATION IN EU WIDER EUROPE: NEW NEIGHBORS PROGRAM
Pan Armenian News
27.09.2005 06:10
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Republic of Cyprus has vetoed Azerbaijan’s
candidacy and blocked participation of Baku in EUWider Europe: New
Neighbors program.
Thus, the Azerbaijan-EU talks are delayed for an indefinite period
of time.
As reported by Day.az Azeri agency, the suspension of the program is
due to the Cyprus attitude towards Azerbaijan over direct air flights
between Baku and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Greek Cyprus
has officially posed the question of suspension of EU assistance to
Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, as reported the Zerkalo Baku newspaper, head
of the Department of Information of the Azeri MFA Tahir Tagizade
stated the delays in question are due to technical causes. The
Azeri party has provided documents to Brussels and is waiting for
the EU response. In particular, the date of arrival of a special EU
delegation to Azerbaijan is to be determined. “There are no other
motives,” T. Tagizade stated. In his words, there is no ground for
attribution to the Cyprus issue, as “the policy of Azeri authorities
lies in lifting the international humanitarian isolation of the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus. The latter is welcomed by international
organizations, specifically the UN and EU.” The flights to the Turkish
Cyprus are organized by private Azeri companies and are not part of
Azeri Government’s official policy, T. Tagizade stated.