Genocide armenien: un geste de la Turquie vers l’Armenie

Les Echos , France
14 avril 2005

GĂ©nocide armĂ©nien: un geste de la Turquie vers l’ArmĂ©nie

La Turquie a rĂ©cemment adressĂ© une lettre Ă  l’ArmĂ©nie proposant la
crĂ©ation d’une commission conjointe afin d’enquĂȘter sur les massacres
des Arméniens de 1915, a déclaré, hier, le ministre des Affaires
Ă©trangĂšres, Abdullah Gul, lors d’un premier dĂ©bat au Parlement turc
sur le sujet. Cette lettre du Premier ministre turc, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, a été adressée au président arménien Robert Kotcharian,
a-t-il dit, indiquant que la mise en place de cette commission
constituera un premier pas vers la normalisation des relations avec
l’ArmĂ©nie.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Genocide: Ankara propose a Erevan la creation d’une commission

Agence France Presse
13 avril 2005 mercredi 1:36 PM GMT

GĂ©nocide armĂ©nien: Ankara propose Ă  Erevan la crĂ©ation d’une commission

ANKARA

La Turquie a rĂ©cemment adressĂ© une lettre Ă  l’ArmĂ©nie proposant la
crĂ©ation d’une commission conjointe afin d’enquĂȘter sur les massacres
des Arméniens de 1915, a déclaré mercredi le ministre des affaires
étrangÚres Abdullah Gul.

Cette lettre du Premier ministre turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan a été
adressée au président arménien Robert Kotcharian, a-t-il dit,
indiquant que la mise en place de cette commission constituera un
premier pas vers la normalisation des relations avec l’ArmĂ©nie.

M. Gul s’exprimait lors d’un premier dĂ©bat au Parlement turc sur les
événements qui se sont produits entre 1915 et 1917, pendant les
derniĂšre annĂ©es de l’empire ottoman, et que la Turquie refuse de
qualifier de “gĂ©nocide”.

“Nous les avons informĂ©s que si notre proposition Ă©tait acceptĂ©e,
nous serons prĂȘts Ă  nĂ©gocier avec l’ArmĂ©nie sur la façon dont cette
commission sera mise en place et comment elle fonctionnera. Une telle
initiative contribuera Ă  la normalisation des liens entre les deux
pays”, a prĂ©cisĂ© le ministre.

La Turquie a reconnu l’ArmĂ©nie Ă  son indĂ©pendance en 1991 mais sans
établir de relations diplomatiques en raison du profond différend sur
le génocide. La frontiÚre entre les deux pays est fermée depuis 1993.

M. Gul a appelé la communauté internationale à exercer des pressions
sur Erevan pour qu’elle accepte la proposition turque.

Il a rĂ©pĂ©tĂ© la position turque et affirmĂ© que l’administration
ottomane n’avait jamais ordonnĂ© une extermination systĂ©matique et
massive de la population arménienne sur son territoire.

“La Turquie est en paix avec son histoire dont elle est fiĂšre”,
a-t-il encore dit, dĂ©nonçant le fait que les “tragĂ©dies vĂ©cues entre
musulmans et non-musulmans soient exploitĂ©es Ă  des fins politiques”.

Les massacres et les dĂ©portations d’ArmĂ©niens ont fait entre 1,2
million et 1,3 million de morts, selon les ArmĂ©niens, et jusqu’Ă 
300.000 morts selon les Turcs.

La Turquie reconnaßt que des massacres ont été perpétrés et que de
nombreux ArmĂ©niens sont morts de fatigue, de maladie ou d’attaques
commises notamment par des bandes kurdes lors de leur déportation
vers la Syrie, province ottomane.

Mais elle affirme qu’il s’agissait d’une rĂ©pression dans un empire en
dĂ©clin contre une population coupable de collaboration avec l’ennemi
russe dans un contexte de guerre et que des dizaines de milliers de
Turcs ont Ă©tĂ© tuĂ©s au mĂȘme moment par des rebelles nationalistes
arméniens.

“Les bandes armĂ©niennes ont poignardĂ© les troupes ottomanes dans le
dos (…) En se soulevant, elles ont facilitĂ© l’occupation russe” des
provinces de l’est, a expliquĂ© M. Gul.

Pour Ă©tayer la thĂšse qu’il ne s’agissait en aucun cas d’un gĂ©nocide,
M. Gul a expliqué que les Arméniens des zones occidentales du pays,
dont Istanbul, n’avaient pas Ă©tĂ© soumis Ă  un exode forcĂ©.

Le ministre s’en est aussi pris Ă  plusieurs pays, dont la France, qui
ont reconnu dans leurs parlements les tueries d’ArmĂ©niens comme un
génocide.

Ces dĂ©cisions “n’apportent aucune contribution Ă  nos relations avec
l’ArmĂ©nie”, a-t-il ajoutĂ©.

Genocidio armeni: ancora troppo spesso negato

Schweizerische Depeschenagentur AG (SDA)
SDA – Servizio di base in Italiano
April 14, 2005

Genocidio armeni: ancora troppo spesso negato, secondo ASA

BERNA

Novant’anni dopo l’inizio de genocidio degli armeni ad opera
dell’Impero Ottomano, in Svizzera e’ ancora troppo spesso negato. Lo
ha dichiarato oggi a Berna il consigliere nazionale e presidente del
gruppo parlamentare armeno Dominique de Buman (PPD/FR) in una
conferenza stampa dell’Associazione Svizzera- Armenia (ASA).

Il consiglio nazionale ha riconosciuto nel 2003 come genocidio
l’espulsione di numerosi armeni nel 1915-1916 e l’uccisione di oltre
un milione di questi. De Buman ha domandato che lo stesso faccia il
Consiglio federale. Per Auschwitz personalita’ politiche e religiose
hanno chiesto da tempo il perdono, ha precisato.

Rivolgendosi al Consiglio federale, De Buman si e’ espresso a favore
di un’estensione dei rapporti tra la Svizzera e gli armeni e ha
chiesto per una volta di avere il coraggio di mettere in secondo
piano i calcoli economici e materiali. “La priorita’ data ai valori
economici ci preoccupa”, ha detto De Buman.

In Svizzera il non riconoscimento del genocidio degli armeni diventa
sempre piu’ “normale”, ha detto Sarkis Shahinian, copresidente
dell’ASA. Il silenzio del Consiglio federale al riguardo e’ stato
letto dai media come un suo non riconoscimento del genocidio, ha
detto.

Da parte sua Laurent Auberson, storico e autore dell’opuscolo
“Armeni. Evocazione di un genocidio e sua importanza per la
Svizzera”, ha sottolineato che i fatti relativi allo sterminio degli
armeni ad opera dell’impero Ottomano non sono messi in discussione.

Quanto alla proposta avanzata ieri dal primo ministro turco di creare
una commissione congiunta con l’Armenia per indagare sui crimini del
1915-1916, si tratta di una “nuova manovra demagogica della Turchia
per sottrarsi alle sue responsabilita'”, ha dichiarato Sarkis
Shahinian. “Prima di questo suggerimento, il primo ministro ha detto
chiaramente che non riconoscera’ il genocidio”, ha insistito. Secondo
Shahinian, e’ una “reazione isterica” della Turchia di fronte alle
pressioni politiche internazionali. Da 90 anni la Turchia vive su una
menzogna, se la si toglie, crolla, ha spiegato.

In occasione della celebrazione dell’anniversario dell’inizio del
genocidio, il 24 aprile 1915, l’ASA organizza una serie di
commemorazioni in tutta la Svizzera. Dal 17 al 24 aprile a Neuchatel,
Ginevra, Losanna, Zurigo e Berna si terranno delle cerimonie nel
corso delle quali saranno interpretate opere del compositore armeno
Komitas.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ardarutiun: “Resources to Establish Legal Power Not Exhausted Yet”

ARDARUTIUN BLOC: “RESOURCES OF ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL POWER IN A
CIVILIZED WAY AREN’T EXHAUSTED YET”

YEREVAN, APRIL 14, NOYAN TAPAN. “The persons and political forces who
uzurped the power through falsifications and violence in 1998 an 2003,
organized barbarities early in the morning of April 13 and
persistently don’t fulfil their obligations towards the Council of
Europe” can’t carry out the system reforms necessary for establishment
of democracy in the country. This was mentioned in the statement
adopted in connection with April 12-13 events at the forum “For the
Sake of Democracy” organized by the Ardarutiun (Justice) bloc. The
document mentioned that “the organizers and executors of mass violence
and electoral falsifications haven’t been called to accout, the law
“On Rallies, Processions and Demonstrations” hasn’t been reconsidered
yet, no step has been taken in the direction of opening the “A1+” TV
company.” “The immediate liquidation of the criminal regime has become
the dictate of the day,” the document read. The Ardarutiun bloc
considers that “the resources of establishment of a legal power in a
civilized way haven’t been exhausted yet.” In particular, such a way
is the holding of a referendum of confidence. “We are the supporters
of a quiet and peaceful settlement of the events. Otherwise the whole
responsibility for the unpredictable processes connected with the
removal of the person who forcibly uzurped the power will completely
lay on Robert Kocharian and political coalition supporting him,” the
Ardarutiun bloc considers.

Community and Right NGO Blames Orinats Yerkir Party for Misreps.

COMMUNITY AND RIGHT NGO BLAMES ORINATS YERKIR PARTY FOR
MISREPRESENTING SOME FACTS

YEREVAN, APRIL 14, NOYAN TAPAN. “RA NA Speaker Artur Baghdasarian’s
well-known article calling on for holding of honest and fair elections
in the future is indeed addressed to western countries, he means that
the only bearer of western values is the Orinats Yerkir (Country of
Law) party,” Samvel Mkrtchian, Chairman of the Community and Right
NGO, declared during the April 14 press conference. He blamed the
Orinats Yerkir party for misrepresenting the real responses of
society. Thus, after the publication of A.Baghdasarian’s article
“Choice of the Future or for the Sake of Public Consent” in many
newspapers, the responses of NGOs supporting the Speaker’s appeal
appeared in the Aravot newspaper and the Community and Right NGO was
also mentioned among the organizations that joined the Speaker’s
initiative. While, according to Mkrtchian, the organization headed by
him didn’t give its official consent to supporting A.Baghdasarian’s
initiative. He didn’t exclude that some Orinats Yerkir members could
bestow a doubtful benefit upon A.Baghdasarian. Samvel Mkrtchian said
that 8 thousand people are united by the Community and Right
organization: “We won’t permit to turn us into somebody’s supplement.”
He refuted the supposition about the possible fulfilment of a certain
political order by him aimed at dicreditation of the Orinats Yerkir
party. As for his attitude to this political force, he declared that
he Community and Right NGO has always struggled for establishment of
democracy and Orinats Yerkir is one of the largest falsificators of
the previous elections. “I will follow the party I really believe,”
Mkrtchian declared. Meanwhile he didn’t exlude the fact that the
Community and Right organization may become a political party in the
future.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Police Chief to Participate in Meeting of CIS Int. Affairs Ministers

RA POLICE HEAD HAYK HAROUTIUNIAN TO PARTICIPATE IN MEETING OF CIS
INTERNAL AFFAIR MINISTERS

YEREVAN, APRIL 14, NOYAN TAPAN. The delegation headed by Hayk
Haroutiunian, Head of RA Police, will participate in the meeting of
CIS Ministers of Internal Affairs to be held on April 21-22 in
Minsk. Noyan Tapan’s correspondent was informed about this from RA
Police Information and Public Relations Department.

Parliamentary Majority Cannot Secure NA Normal Work – Peoples Deputy

PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY CANNOT SECURE NA NORMAL WORK, LEADER OF
“PEOPLE’S DEPUTY” FACTION STATES

YEREVAN, APRIL 14, NOYAN TAPAN. Failure of the regular four-day
sessions of the Parliament showed that the political majority cannot
organize work of the National Assembly in proper way. Karen
Karapetian, the leader of the NA “People’s Deputy” MPs’ faction made
such a statement during the April 14 interview with journalists. “This
style of work is unacceptable for us. There is a political majority
which is obliged to secure normal work of the National Assembly. This
is said for many times, and I do not consider superfluous to repeat it
once more,” the leader of the faction mentioned. According to him, it
became clear still on the previous day that the parliamentary majority
would not be able to secure quorum. Concerning the reasonings that MPs
are on missions, then those, according to Karapetian, are fictitious:
“Send as many people to missions as not to damage work of the
Parliament.” Mentioning that political forces occupying opposing or
neutral position also have their part of guilt in the issue of such a
concern to work of the Parliament, Karen Karapetian emphasized once
more that those parties which have taken the responsibility are
obliged to carry out organization of the work. “I consider impossible
to continue in this way. I propose either to call to order everybody
or we do not need such a NA. We give nice promises to people from
election to election, and they must be given power of law. Other
elections will be tomorrow, and we all will turn to electors,” the
leader of the “People’s Deputy” faction mentioned.

Georgia: Armenians bargain with government

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
April 14 2005

GEORGIA: ARMENIANS BARGAIN WITH GOVERNMENT

A delegation of Armenians seeks a shift of policy in Tbilisi

By Olesya Vartanian in Akhalkalaki and Tbilisi

In the first meeting of its kind, a group of around 20 Armenians from
the southern region of Javakheti are meeting Georgian cabinet
ministers to discuss the region’s many social problems.

The three days of talks, set to begin on April 14, are seen as a test
of the Georgian authorities’ commitment to the under-developed
region, in which around 90 per cent of the population is ethnic
Armenian.

The Javakheti Armenians will meet with officials in the education,
culture, transport and conflict settlement ministries in Tbilisi and
also the parliamentary human rights committee.

If new policies come out of the meetings it will be a significant
victory for the young delegation, most of whose members come from a
newly formed organisation called Yediny Javakhk, or United
Javakheti.

If not, it may strengthen the hand of sceptical Armenians who say
Tbilisi is deliberately neglecting the region.

Yediny Javakhk shot to prominence on March 13 – just three days after
it was first founded – when it organized a meeting of 8,000 people
in the centre of Akhalkalaki, the main town of Javakheti.

The organization’s mainly young members said they had come together
so quickly in response to reports that the pro-government Georgian
youth movement Kmara was planning a protest rally in Akhalkalaki,
against a local Russian military base which is the main centre of
employment for the local population.

But the young Yediny Javakhk quickly split into a more moderate and
more radical wing.

While the moderates sought to contact the Georgian government, the
radical members undertook political agitation, brought people to the
rally, made banners and invited a pop-group from Armenia to perform.

“We want to achieve the rights that our people are entitled to as
citizens of Georgia,” Artur Pogosian, one of the leaders of the
moderate wing, told IWPR. “We do not want to be second- or
third-class citizens.”

“For the last 15 years our people have been silent and loyal to all
three presidents of Georgia,” he added. “And today the time has come
for the government to pay attention to us.”

The radicals have refused to take part in the Tbilisi delegation.

Vaag Chakhalian, one of the more radical leaders of the organisation,
is sceptical about the moderates’ approach.

“If they really want to solve problems, then we are ready to work
with them,” he told IWPR.

But he insisted this could not take the form of opposition figures
being bought off with highly paid jobs in government, “We need
problems to be put to them and to be solved.”

Tbilisi political analyst Gia Nodia said he was not surprised by the
schism. “[This organisation] is the latest attempt to find some
common interests or common demands, around which people can unite,”
he told IWPR. “But differences in interests, conceptions of strategy
or political ambitions generally stand in the way of this unity.”

At the March 13 rally Pogosian read out a letter to the government of
Georgia setting out the problems of the region, one of the most
backward in Georgia.

Many of the issues – including ineffective local government, poor
electricity supply, bad roads and problems with customs, taxes and
passports – also apply elsewhere in the country.

Others are specific to Javakheti – like the demand that Armenian
history be taught in schools and that official paperwork be done in
the Armenian language as well as Russian.

But calls for autonomy or secession from Georgia were muted at the
rally, in contrast with the more nationalist days of the early 1990s.

A major demand is for the government in Tbilisi to ease pressure on
the Russian military base in Akhalkalaki, which large numbers of
locals regard as an important strategic and economic asset in the
region.

“It’s always the ordinary folk who suffer,” said local resident
Bograt Kakosian, “those in comfortable jobs don’t have any problems.”

“People are selling their last calf to get a visa and move to Russia
– and there, because relations between Russia and Georgia are so bad,
they risk getting deported just because they are a citizen of
Georgia. And if they close the base, it will be bad for us in Georgia
too.”

Most of those who came to the rally were seasonal workers, who find
employment in Russia for part of the year because there are no jobs
at home. Until recently, they had to spend time and money getting
foreign passports in the regional capital Akhaltsikhe. But following
the rally, the government has set up a new passport office in
Akhalkalaki.

Artur Yeremian – the gamgebeli, or governor, of Akhalkalaki – says
problems like this occur because the central government does not
understand the complexities of the region.

“Every ministry is told to carry out reforms,” he said. “But no one
is interested how they come about, [even though] every region has its
special features.”

One of the leaders of Yediny Javakhk, who asked to remain anonymous,
said the main reason for the region’s social ills was the domination
of several powerful clans, who operate according to their business
interests, are supported by the authorities in Tbilisi and Yerevan,
and have influence on the local government.

Nodia explained that one of these clans in particular, grouped around
the family of parliamentarian Melik Raisian, had enabled the
government in Tbilisi to exert control over the region.

“[The government] gave the leaders who spoke out against Tbilisi
well-paid posts,” he told IWPR. “And by doing so, it calmed them
down. This policy went on under Shevardnadze and there has not been
any principled change of policy under the current government. It is
relying on influential local players and not on civic democratic
progress.”

Nodia said that these kind of intrigues had naturally made people
suspicious
about the new Yediny Javakhk movement, “Many people thought the
rallies in
Akhalkalaki were designed to discredit someone so someone else could
take
his place. that it was being done to strengthen the position of
people
close to [interior minister Vano] Merabishvili or to the president.”

Merabishvili comes from Samtskhe-Javakheti and wields a lot of
influence in
the region. On March 27 he met the Yediny Javakhk moderates and
persuaded
them not to take part in a rally that had been called for March 31.
He himself promised to visit the region in May and check on the
enforcement of government policy there.

At the meeting with the minister, the decision was taken to create a
Javakheti Public Committee which would be in regular consultation
with the government in Tbilisi.

“I see the solution in a dialogue between representatives of the
region and
the authorities, so the authorities understand what we want,” said
Samvel
Manukian one of the Yediny Javakhk moderate leaders. “If not, we will
call another rally in the middle of May.”

In the event, the March 31 rally was dominated by the Sport-Cultural
Union
of Youth of Javakheti, JEMM, which has more of an Armenian
nationalist
agenda – amongst other things, it calls on Georgia to recognize the
Armenian genocide of 1915.

Vaag Chakhalian of JEMM said he saw no point in negotiating with the
Georgian government because he said the Javakheti Armenians had been
deceived many times in the past.

Olesya Vartanian is a correspondent with Southern Gates newspaper in
Samtskhe-Javakheti region, which is supported by IWPR.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Bar fight in Armenia

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
April 14 2005

BAR FIGHT IN ARMENIA

A new barristers’ association is riven with disputes even before it
gets off the ground.

By Zhanna Alexanian in Yerevan

The start of Armenia’s new Bar Chamber, which it was hoped would
improve the professional standing of lawyers in the country, has been
delayed by a bitter fight over the election of a chairman, which has
ended up in court.

The only winners, say independent lawyers, are officials who want to
keep exerting political control over the judiciary.

This week, two rival candidates to head the new body are in court,
after the losing candidate alleged that the ballot was rigged.

A new law on the bar, effective as of February 1, instituted the Bar
Chamber so that Armenian lawyers would operate under one umbrella
body, instead of the two previous organisations.

David Harutiunian, Armenian justice minister, hailed the new Bar Act
as a “sound piece of legislation that will help shape Armenia’s
justice system”.

“By creating a new, consolidated Bar Chamber, we are establishing a
powerful body that will dictate legal ethnics and regulate other
issues as yet not covered by any laws or codes,” the minister told
IWPR. “The stronger the Bar, the stronger the government, and the
better the justice system overall,” he added.

However, the March 19-20 inaugural meeting of the new chamber – at
which its leadership was to be elected – ended in an acrimonious
dispute, which left the nascent institution unable to start work.

The election for the chairmanship was won by a margin of seven votes
by Enok Azarian, 40, deputy chairman of the Union of Barristers of
Armenia. Azarian is a doctor of law who says he wants to found a new
law school in Armenia.

However, the result is being contested by the losing candidate, Ruben
Saakian, a well-known lawyer. Azarian cannot take up his post until
the court decides on a verdict.

“This was just another case of rigged elections in Armenia,”
complained Saakian. He and his supporters claim there were numerous
irregularities in the way the vote was conducted – for example, that
lawyers who had not taken a re-qualifying exam were allowed to vote
and that voting was suspended for one hour and, as a result, many
participants were unable to vote.

The Yerevan office of the American Bar Association, ABA/CEELI, which
organised the meeting and also observed the voting, said that the
vote had been fair and an audit commission had only noted a few minor
irregularities that “did not affect the voting results”.

Karen Kendrick, Armenian country director of ABA/CEELI, said the
process was “messy but democratic” and said there had been no
political intervention in the vote.

Kendrick characterised the row as an unfortunate beginning for a
much-needed organisation. She told IWPR, “Advocates have been a
dispirited group in Armenia and haven’t felt they have had the
respect of other members of the judiciary, like judges and
prosecutors. They see this as an opportunity to raise the reputation
of their profession.”

Well-known lawyer Tigran Janoyan insisted that Saakian had not been
cheated of victory for some political reason. “The ballot was open,
fair and transparent,” he told IWPR. “It is unacceptable when some
people try to discredit the Bar institution for their own personal
ends. As it is, we have enough problems trying to ensure that
barristers are treated with due respect.”

Although the new legislation has been generally welcomed, another
area of controversy is a new provision in the law establishing the
institution of “public defender”, without clarifying how it should be
funded. Public defenders will act as defence lawyers paid for by the
state. The law provides for a certain number to be elected from among
practicing lawyers, but fails to specify how much funding the state
is willing to allocate to support them.

“Our cash-strapped government wants more democracy than it can
afford,” said Janoyan. “They probably expect the Bar to pay for
public defenders, and if that fails, then the Bar will be held
responsible.”

Janoyan said that there is a tradition of state lawyers in Armenia
creating more problems for their clients than they help solve. “They
will always do the state’s bidding,” he said. “A state lawyer is
assigned in the early days of an investigation. That’s when charges
are trumped up and people are forced into making confessions.”

According to Janoyan, some 70 per cent of Armenian lawyers are in
cahoots with judges and prosecutors. He even alleges that lawyers
have ties to organised crime.

“Justice is anything but ‘just’ these days,” he said. “Barristers are
not magicians, but when they sell out to the judicial system it
confuses citizens and makes them defenceless.”

Minister of justice Harutunian said lack of funds should not be an
obstacle to the institution of public defenders, “In theory, public
defenders should be sponsored by the state. Whilst our country is not
wealthy enough to afford a good institution [public defenders], it
cannot afford to have a bad one either.

“Funding has been increasing year on year. Things are getting
better.”

Fears are being expressed that the quarrel in the new chamber is
damaging the reputation of Armenian lawyers just as they are trying
to become more independent. Tigran Ter Esayan, a former president of
the International Bar Association, described the ongoing internal
strife within the Bar Chamber as “a disgrace”, saying it gives
Armenian lawyers a “bad name”.

“What’s going on is the opposite of consolidation, and that’s exactly
what the government wants,” he told IWPR. “This cannot be good and
the split will only get worse.”

Mikael Danielian, chairman of Armenia’s Helsinki Association, a
leading human rights group, also took part in the vote and expressed
disappointment at the way it ended.

“If these are the people who should be defending the letter of the
law, how can we trust them?” he asked. Danielian expressed sympathy
for the winner, Azarian, saying, “He is young and he has behaved
decently throughout all this.”

“Seeing all this happening, how can anyone trust a lawyer any more?”
said Nino Sarkisian, the mother of a soldier killed while doing
military service.
“These people are going out of their way to put each other down. How
are they going to defend us in court?”

Zhanna Alexanian is a correspondent with in
Yerevan.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

www.armenianow.com

Public Service Broadcasting – Lost in Translation

Ukrainska Pravda, Ukraine
April 15 2005

Public Service Broadcasting – Lost in Translation

translated by Tanya Vodyanycka , 15.04.2005, 04:04

Original Ukrainian text by Taras Shevchenko, Media Law Institute
Director, Oxford University Media Law School graduate

The Council of Europe is largely to blame for the fact that nobody in
Ukraine knows what public service broadcasting is.

Yes, precisely the Council of Europe, which is one of the greatest
engines of the process of public broadcasting and democratic
reforming as well as being a trendsetter in the field of public
service broadcasting.

Council of Europe has wasted considerable efforts and resources to
popularize the term `public service broadcasting’, yet it failed to
clarify the meaning of this term popularly.

As a result, the majority of Ukrainians have heard about public
service television, nevertheless they have not the foggiest idea of
what it means. Unfortunately, even some of the experts, who offer
their own conceptions of creating public service television, are not
informed adequately about the Europian experience.

I may suppose this statement is true concerning some state officials
of the highest level as well.

Council of Europe managed to popularize the term, that,
unfortunately, doesn’t convey anything to Ukrainians by itself. What
is public service television?

At numerous round tables you may hear that `public service television
is the television of public organizations’ of that `public service
television is the television of territorial communities’.

Those are interesting linquistic estimates, which however have
nothing in common with what’s popularized by the Council of Europe,
which failed to bring its key idea that public service television
standard is a way of reforming state-controlled television to make
it, as much as possible, independent from the state and to place it
the service of citizens.

Namely this and nothing else. It means for Ukraine that National TV
company must be independent and mustn’t be controlled by any of the
government branches.

Documents of the Council of Europe at first contained the term
`national broadcasting’, but then total conversion to `public
service’ took place. From the beginning of 90’s, when Soviet camp
collapsed, it can be noticed particularly clearly.

Here is a quotation from PACE Recommendation 1147 on parliamentary
responsibility for the democratic reform of broadcasting in 1991:

`The basic problem facing the new democracies in Central and Eastern
Europe is the search for an audiovisual system to replace the former
centralised, politically controlled media. However, the alternative
should not be unbridled privatisation and complete liberalisation, as
they could lead to ruinous competition for exclusivity rights or even
monopoly. To prevent this, the legal void left by the collapse of the
totalitarian systems must urgently be filled with the notions of
public service broadcasting (as distinct from the state ownership),
pluralism, independence and balance… It should be recognised that
under appropriate circumstances the function of public service
broadcasting may be fulfilled by the state or privately organised
bodies.’

This quotation clearly indicates that public service television is a
direction of the state television reform.

Second conclusion is that Council of Europe has been working actively
on filling countries with information about public service
broadcasting. However, in my opinion such approach appears to be
incorrect. It by no means contributes to reforms in Ukraine and – on
the contrary – complicates this process because Ukrainians in no way
can agree upon what `public service television’ means and where it
must be established.

Instead they should have been filling countries with information
about the necessity of democratic reforming of the state television
and the principles according to which this reforming must take place.

There is almost no difference in the meaning, yet the terminology of
“state television reform” is more understandable and waives a
question about public service television never existing
simultaneously with state one.

Inconvenience of public service television terminology usage can also
be explained by the fact that it’s not an exact translation from
English.

In English, the term `public service broadcasting’ is used. We
translate it in different ways: for example, as public broadcasting
in official translations of Council of Europe documents and as social
broadcasting in Ukrainian laws. However word `public’ can be
understood as `public’ (connected with the public) or as `state’.

Instead, the metaphrase of `public service broadcasting’ sounds like
`broadcasting in the interests of public’ or `broadcasting serving
citizens’. In other words, none of the Ukrainian terms is in exact
correspondence or reflecting the essence of this special form of
broadcasting.

Another `side effect’ of the spread of `public service broadcasting’
terminology became apparent in some countries that seemed to have
introduced public service television: on request of Council of Europe
adopted particular laws about public service television and replaces
signs on state TV channels, calling them public service.

Nominally, the Council of Europe obligations are fulfilled, still
actually nothing has changed – TV channels remained totally
controlled by the state.

Glaring examples of such reforms are the television networks in
Moldova and Armenia. In the latter for instance, the country’s
president personally forms the governing body of the TV channel and
in that way influences completely the broadcasting content.

There is a serious threat of application of a similar approach in
Ukraine: to call a TV channel a “public service network” – using that
title to mean something else.

It is interesting that in countries of western Europe the public
service broadcasting networks do not include the term “public” or
“public service” in their title: British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC), Spanish television, National Radio of Spain, Second German
Television (ZDF), France-2, France-3, Swedish television etc.

It is above all that television in practice should serve the
interests of citizens. Why then do Ukrainians need to call their
state television “public service”? Ukraine should reform namely the
state television so that it would work in the interests of citizens
and not the government bodies.

With all this going on, it can be called not public service, but
`Ukraininan’, `national’ or `people’s’, which will be more
understandable and closer to Ukrainians.

Change of title, though influencing the reformation process, still is
not its most important part. The most important is that new
television should correspond to the Council of Europe standards: work
in the interests of citizens, be out of the state’s control, have
appropriate financing and give objective information.