PRESS RELEASE
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address: Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact: Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel: (374 1) 517 163
Fax: (374 1) 517 301
E-Mail: [email protected]
April 11, 2005

His Holiness Karekin II Leads Armenian Church Delegation at Funeral of Pope
John Paul II

His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians,
accompanied by an official delegation of the government of the Republic of
Armenia, arrived in Rome on April 7 to participate in the funeral rites for
His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the 264th successor to the Apostolic See of
St. Peter.

At Ciampino Airport, the Pontiff of All Armenians was met by a special
commission of high-ranking Vatican officials and Rev. Fr. Aren Shahinian,
parish priest for the Italian Armenian Apostolic community.

>From the airport, His Holiness was escorted to the Vatican and St. Peter’s
Cathedral, where he offered his prayers up to heaven standing before the
body of John Paul II, lying in state.

On the morning of April 8, Holy Mass commenced in St. Peter’s Cathedral.
According to the traditions of the Catholic Church, 164 cardinals
simultaneously celebrated the three-hour long mass. His Eminence Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger, Dean of the College of Cardinals, presided during the
funeral services for the Roman Pontiff.

Present for the services were 70 heads of state, delegations from nearly 200
countries, and leaders and representatives of sister Churches, including
Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Bartholomew II; Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Patriarch His Holiness Abba Paulos; Archbishop of Athens and Greece His
Beatitude Christodoulos; and Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Kyrill, among
others.

Following the funeral services, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger greeted the
Ecumenical delegations which had arrived in the Vatican from throughout the
world.

Representing the Armenian Church at the funeral of His Holiness John Paul II
were: His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All
Armenians; His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia;
His Beatitude Archbishop Mesrob Mutafian, Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople; His Eminence Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern); His Grace Bishop Nareg
Alemezian, Director for Inter-Church Relations of the Catholicosate of
Cilicia; Rev. Fr. Aren Shahinian, parish priest of Italy; and Rev. Fr.
Geghard Vahuni, Staff-bearer of the Catholicos of All Armenians.

His Holiness Karekin II returned to the Mother See on April 9.

Armenpress

KOCHARIAN SAYS ARMENIA LACKS FACTORS IGNITING POPULAR REVOLT, ENDORSES
COMPROMISE SOLUTION TO KARABAGH DISPUTE

YEREVAN, APRIL 11, ARMENPRESS: Armenian president Robert Kocharian argued
down forecasts that Armenia is likely to become another post-Soviet
republic, which are likely to see a wave of popular revolt against the
authorities, as it happened in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, but admitted
that what had happened in these republics could become a cause for an
in-depth analysis, as “besides some similarities, there were obvious
differences behind motives that sparked popular revolts in these former
Soviet republics, both of cultural and material nature, besides some
similarities.”
Speaking to a meeting with students and professors of Yerevan State
University, Kocharian said “these revolutionary” processes occurred at a
time when all three nations had national elections, at a period “when the
entire society is electrified to the greatest extent.”
Kocharian also argued that another reason helping opposition forces in
these countries to force previous regimes out, was “the weak power held by
their leaderships, as weak that they were unable to resolve all current
problems of the population.”
“When Eduard Shevardnadze was president of Georgia people did not receive
wages and pensions for 8-10 months. The situation was not better in
Kyrgyzstan, that has 5 million population and whose 2005 budget is only $300
million, while Armenia’s 2005 budget, that has smaller population, is around
$800 million,” Kocharian reasoned, adding that the former Ukrainian
administration likewise had a weak grip on power, despite economic growth
rates, aggravated by discrepancies between western and eastern parts of the
country.
Kocharian also said revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan have
brought to power people, who used to hold top positions in the previous
governments. “These men earned the reputation of young reformers and were
sacked for their ideas calling for boosting economic and political
development,” he said.
Kocharian went on to argue that “a change of generation” took places in
these countries, a process that occurred in Armenia twice, in 1991 and 1998.
“Armenia lacks all these factors. Armenian authorities welcome people with
constructive ideas, but not get rid of them,” Kocharian said adding that
next national elections will take place in due time.
Addressing the Armenian opposition, the president advised it “to take
easy” its failure to force him out of power. “That was not because that the
Armenian opposition is worse than in other post-Soviet countries. The fact
is that Armenia is a better country,” he said.
Kocharian ALSO endorsed today an earlier statement by defense minister
Serzh Sarkisian that the only way of resolving the Nagorno Karabagh conflict
is a peace deal based on mutual concessions, saying Armenia has never denied
that there is no alternative to a compromise solution to the conflict. The
alternative, according to him, is the unconditional surrender of one of the
sides. “None is going to do it,” he said.
Kocharian said the extent of the Armenian side’s compromises is hinged on
domestic political and economic stability, as well as on the international
community’s approaches. “A party involved in direct talks feels stronger and
more confident, when it is backed by a strong and stable country,” Kocharian
said.
Kocharian also shrugged off allegations that the conflicting sides are
under strong international pressure to accept their proposals. “No one
imposes anything on any side, quite the contrary, international piece
brokers and some organizations repeatedly say they are willing to exercise
all their resources to help Armenia and Azerbaijan reach a mutually
acceptable peace formula,” he said.
“The Armenia side’s readiness for compromises is not the result of a
pressure, it is absolutely voluntary,” he said and added that an option that
was used in the Balkans would not work with regard to Karabagh. “The
international community interfered in the Balkans at a time of heavy
military actions to prevent deterioration of the humanitarian crisis, while
there is a decade of peace in Karabagh, where the situation is quite
different,” Kocharian said.

Armenpress

ARMENIAN AND BULGARIAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTERS EXCHANGE CONGRATULATION
MESSAGES

YEREVAN, APRIL 11, ARMENPRESS: Armenian Foreign Affairs Minister Vartan
Oskanian and Bulgarian Foreign Affairs Minister Solomon Passy exchanged
congratulation messages on the occasion of 10th anniversary of the agreement
on good relations and cooperation signed between Armenia and Bulgaria April
10, 1995.
According to the Foreign Affairs Ministry press services, Oskanian
underscored the importance of the agreement which became the basis of the
cooperation with Bulgaria in different spheres and expressed assurance that
Armenian-Bulgarian cooperation will continue to beef up and will include new
spheres of cooperation which is becoming more important from the point of
view of European neighborhood policy.
On his part, Bulgarian Foreign Affairs Minister Solomon Passy expressed
hope that the cooperation between Armenian and Bulgarian Foreign Affairs
Ministries which is promoted by Armenia’s strive to enter the European
family will continue to develop dynamically.
The letter to the Bulgarian Foreign Affairs Minister was handed by
Armenian Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Armen Baiburtian and from the
Bulgarian side it was handed by Bulgarian ambassador to Armenia Stefan
Dimitrov.

The Jamestown Foundation
Monday, April 4, 2005 — Volume 2, Issue 65
EURASIA DAILY MONITOR

IN THIS ISSUE:
*Yushchenko arrives in Washington
*What does Berezovsky want with Melnychenko tapes?
*Governance begins to disintegrate in North Caucasus
*Saakashvili and Kocharian discuss concerns of ethnic Armenians in Georgia
—————————————————————————-

YUSHCHENKO VISIT TO U.S. HERALDS RETURN TO “GOLDEN ERA”

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s official visit to the United
States on April 4-6 is set to radically transform U.S.-Ukrainian
relations and return them to the “golden era” under President Bill
Clinton. U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst predicted, “We expect
not only the revival of the friendly ties that existed between our
states seven to nine years ago, but the establishment of a
qualitatively new level of relations” (Kievskiy Telegraf, March
25-31).

Orest Deychakiwsky, staff advisor at the U.S. governmental Helsinki
Commission, believes, “Despite the typical past rhetoric about visits
leading to a qualitatively new relationship between the United States
and Ukraine, this one really does.” This is, “because for the first
time you have a Ukrainian leadership truly devoted to democracy and
the rule of law and determined to integrate with the Euro-Atlantic
community. In short, it’s the first time you have a relationship
based on shared values.” Deychakiwsky continued, “This will become
clear throughout the visit and cannot help but to influence
U.S.-Ukraine relations in a positive way, including building
meaningful, substantive relationships in the security, democracy, and
trade and economic spheres.”

Trust in Yushchenko’s integrity and sympathy for the poisoning he
endured last year is very high in Washington. Senator Harry Reid
(D-NV), who visited Kyiv last month as part of a U.S. Congressional
delegation, declared that Yushchenko is “an international hero”
(Ukrayinska pravda, March 26).

Yushchenko’s visit is not likely to see any major policy issues
resolved, but it will serve to break the ice after four frosty years
of U.S.-Ukrainian relations. The latest State Department report on
human rights outlines how the United States assisted Ukraine in its
election year (state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41715.htm). U.S. support
included assistance for the rule of law, independent media, civil
society, and human rights organizations. The report also highlights
numerous Congressional visits to Ukraine during the presidential
campaign, including one by Bush’s special representative, Senator
Richard Lugar (R-IN), during the second round. These visits repeatedly
underscored Washington’s insistence that Kuchma hold free and fair
elections.

A Senate Republican policy committee paper entitled “Promoting a
Robust U.S.-Ukraine Agenda: Securing the Orange Revolution in Ukraine”
was released on the eve of Yushchenko’s visit and distributed to the
legislative assistants, legislative directors, policy advisors, and
counsels in all Republican Senate offices (rpc.senate.gov).

The policy paper argues that it is in the interest of the United
States for the Bush Administration and Congress to strongly back
Yushchenko. Among the recommendations are to repeal the Jackson-Vanik
amendment, support Ukraine’s membership in the WTO, and include
Ukraine within the Millennium Challenge Account. The policy paper also
looks at ways to improve U.S.-Ukrainian cooperation and transparency
to block trafficking in weapons, narcotics, and humans. The paper also
calls for ensuring “a legitimate and stable venue [for Ukraine] to
meet its security concerns. Membership in NATO provides such a
platform.”

Yushchenko’s visit also represents a break with Kuchma’s security
policy toward the United States, according to Oleksandr
Potekhin. During the Orange Revolution, Potekhin led a rebellion among
Ukrainian diplomats while he was based at the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington (foreignpolicy.org.ua). The Kuchma administration believed
it would gain Washington’s blessing by supplying troops to Coalition
forces in Iraq but was willing to turn to Moscow if Washington failed
to meet its expectations.

Yushchenko’s three-day visit starts off with a meeting and lunch with
President George W. Bush followed by a meeting with Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice. Later that day Yushchenko is set to speak at
Georgetown University, where Katya Chumachenko, Yushchenko’s
American-born wife, earned a bachelor’s degree in 1982.

On April 4-5, the Yushchenkos will visit Chicago. Chumachenko was born
in Chicago and received an MBA from the University of Chicago in
1986. Yushchenko will speak at the Chicago Council on Foreign
Relations. Between 1986 and 1991 Chumachenko worked in the State
Department’s Bureau for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, the
White House Office of Public Liaison, the Treasury Department’s Office
of Policy Management, and the Joint Economic Committee of
Congress. The Kuchma team seized on these U.S. government positions to
depict Yushchenko as a lackey of the United States.

In 1991, Chumachenko relocated to Ukraine as a founder and
representative of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, an NGO providing
U.S. democracy assistance programs in Ukraine. In 1993 she became the
resident advisor for the USAID-financed Bank Training Program managed
by KPMG Barents Group, and she worked as the company’s country manager
until 2000.

On the last day of Yushchenko’s visit, he will address a joint session
of the U.S. Congress, a rare honor previously accorded to other
U.S.-recognized “freedom fighters” Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Nelson
Mandela, and Boris Yeltsin. Yushchenko may use this occasion to return
an original copy of the 1776 Declaration of Independence recently
found in Ukraine’s archives.

That same day he will lay a wreath at Washington’s monument to
Ukraine’s national bard, Taras Shevchenko, which had been unveiled by
President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1964. Yushchenko, whose father spent
most of World War II in Nazi concentration camps as a German POW, will
also visit Washington’s Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Yushchenko’s final evening in the United States will be crowned first
by a joint reception organized by the International Republican
Institute and the National Democratic Institute. IRI and NDI Chairs
Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,
respectively, are strong supporters of recent democratic changes in
Ukraine. The reception will be followed by a banquet in Yushchenko’s
honor organized by Ukrainian diaspora organizations.

–Taras Kuzio

BEREZOVSKY THREATENS TO OPEN PANDORA’S BOX CREATED BY FUGITIVE
UKRAINIAN BODYGUARD

Russian emigre tycoon Boris Berezovsky claims that he has the tape
recordings made by Mykola Melnychenko, the fugitive former bodyguard
of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, in Kuchma’s office in
1999-2000. Many observers believe the recordings may shed light on the
murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze and secret sales of Ukrainian
arms to rogue states such as Iraq and Iran. Berezovsky, ahead of
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s visit to the United States,
has accused Kyiv of being unwilling to solve the Gongadze puzzle. He
also hinted that the recordings might cast a shadow on Russian
President Vladimir Putin.

In early March Hryhory Omelchenko, who heads the Ukrainian
parliamentary commission looking into Gongadze’s murder, failed to
persuade parliament to hear his report on Gongadze. Speaker Volodymyr
Lytvyn said that Yushchenko had asked parliament to postpone the
hearing. Omelchenko, who holds Kuchma and Lytvyn responsible for
Gongadze’s death, accused Yushchenko of having guaranteed immunity to
Kuchma — a charge that Yushchenko indignantly denied. An interview
with Volodymyr Tsvil, a former consul in Munich who helped Melnychenko
escape from Ukraine in 2000, released on March 17, strengthened
suspicions that the recordings might be used to blacken the new
authorities. Tsvil claimed that the recordings contain “a lot of
conversations of Kuchma with Yushchenko and [Prime Minister Yulia]
Tymoshenko, in which they look much worse than they claim to be.”

Melnychenko was expected to return to Ukraine after the Orange
Revolution and testify under security guarantees from Yushchenko. But
the suspicious death of former Interior Minister Yuriy Kravchenko
caused Melnychenko to fear for his life. In an unexpected move,
Melnychenko turned to Berezovsky for help. Berezovsky evacuated
Melnychenko from Warsaw to London. The head of Berezovsky’s Civil
Liberties Fund (CLF), Alexander Goldfarb, also revealed that the fund
began to financially assist Melnychenko several years ago (see EDM,
March 18).

In a March 19 interview, Berezovsky specified what kinds of assistance
Melnychenko had received. He said that the CLF paid for the
recordings’ transcription and authenticity checks in the United
States. This prompted an angry reaction from Melnychenko, who said
that Berezovsky had nothing to do with the financing of the procedures
to authenticate the recordings. But on March 28 the CLF stated that in
April 2002 it spent more than $115,000 to decipher Melnychenko’s
recordings in the United States and to publish them on the
Internet. As proof, the CLF produced a list of 16 fragments of
conversations in Kuchma’s office relating to Gongadze’s death; 14 of
them were posted on Ukrayinska pravda on March 31. Most of the
fragments are widely known and add nothing to the general picture;
they are also Russian translations of conversations spoken mostly in a
mixture of Ukrainian and Russian. As such, they can hardly serve as
convincing proof that Berezovsky has possession of the recordings.

On March 30 Berezovsky said that Melnychenko had given him all the
recordings he had. He said that U.S. experts had confirmed the
authenticity of the recordings that implicate not only Kuchma, but
also Putin. Berezovsky called the attitude of the new Ukrainian
government “strange” as, he said, Kuchma should have been officially
charged long ago. But Melnychenko issued a statement on the same day,
calling on the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to “stop Berezovsky’s
illegal activities.” Melnychenko denied having ever passed his
recordings to Berezovsky and accused him of trying to “influence the
Ukrainian authorities for personal gain.” As is known, Berezovsky had
advertised his plans to come to Kyiv “within weeks,” but failed to
specify the goal of his visit. According to Melnychenko, Berezovsky
earlier in March offered him money for the recordings, but he turned
down the deal.

In response, Berezovsky’s aide Goldfarb accused Melnychenko of
conspiring with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). On March
31 Goldfarb told Ukrayinska pravda that Melnychenko had visited Moscow
late last year. “They want Melnychenko’s recordings to be discredited
because they contain materials implicating Putin,” he said. And on
April 1 Berezovsky told Interfax-Ukraine that he is going to open a
whole Pandora’s box of compromising materials. Berezovsky said that
not all of Melnychenko’s recordings have yet been transcribed, and
that he also had “other similar materials from different sources.” “I
intend to publish the part of the recordings that deals with relations
between the previous Ukrainian government and the Russian government
implicating both in corruption,” he said.

Former FSB colonel Alexander Litvinenko, who is linked to Berezovsky,
revealed another sensation the same day. Speaking from London with
Interfax-Ukraine, Litvinenko said that Melnychenko had told him that
the bugging of Kuchma’s office had been organized by Yevhen Marchuk,
who was secretary of the National Security Council when Gongadze was
killed. Marchuk has denied this. But he is an easy target. None of the
known scandalous recordings reveals anything wrong about Marchuk;
furthermore in 1999, when the bugging apparently started, Marchuk ran
in presidential elections against Kuchma on an anti-corruption ticket.

Kyiv’s reaction to Berezovsky’s revelations has so far been calm. SBU
chief Oleksandr Turchynov said that his agency has started to check
Melnychenko’s accusations against Berezovsky. Previewing Yushchenko’s
U.S. visit, State Secretary Oleksandr Zinchenko has said that
Yushchenko is not planning to meet with Melnychenko
there. Prosecutor-General Sviatyslav Piskun, however, is expected to
meet with Melnychenko in the United States.

(Tribuna.com.ua, March 17; Ukrayinska pravda, March 18, 28, 31;
Korrespondent, March 19; Kievskiye vedomosti, March 29; Gazeta
Po-Kievski, Obozrevatel.com, March 30; Segodnya, Interfax-Ukraine,
Channel 5 TV, April 1; Den, April 2)

–Oleg Varfolomeyev

THE NORTH CAUCASUS SLIPS OUT OF CONTROL

The collapse of Askar Akayev’s regime in Kyrgyzstan, so similar to the
events in Georgia or Ajaria, has reinvigorated the debates simmering
in Moscow since the Orange Revolution in Kyiv: Is a revolution,
preferably of a “velvet” kind, possible in Russia? Opinions are
heavily on the “No” side, since the few liberal hopefuls are
convincingly destroyed by a cohort of skeptical “realists” and
condemned as “internal enemies” by an even better equipped legion of
mainstream commentators and pro-Kremlin political “technologists”
(Polit.ru, March 28, 30; Gazeta.ru, March 30). Putin definitely does
not seem invincible anymore, but the margin of safety built into his
regime remains anybody’s guess.

A theme that comes up only occasionally in these debates is that a
revolution of sorts has already begun; it is quite violent but so far
limited in scope, spreading across the North Caucasus like wildfire
(Ezhednedelny zhurnal, March 17). Chechnya is not the cause but rather
a catalyst of this smoldering rebellion, which has engulfed completely
Dagestan and Ingushetia, and partially Kabardino-Balkaria and
Karachaevo-Cherkessia, while North Ossetia is often under attack from
various directions. Daily news about a bridge exploding in Dagestan or
a shoot-out in Ingushetia have become so common that they capture
little attention even when they make it into newspapers or TV reports
(Lenta.ru, March 29; EDM, April 1).

Earlier this year, several clashes with militant groups surrounded in
Makhachkala, Dagestan, and Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria, did make
headlines, primarily due to indiscriminate use of heavy arms,
including tanks, in city quarters (vip.lenta.ru, January 15;
Ezhenedelny zhurnal, January 17). Public responses to these
“victories” were rather mixed, so the Federation Council in late March
approved changes in the Law on Defense that remove any restrictions on
the use of armed forces in counter-terrorist operations (Novaya
gazeta, March 28). Those restrictions had not prevented Russian
President Vladimir Putin from deploying army units, but the President
insists on tough and forceful counter-measures, which have to be
legitimized.

When Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev proudly reported about the
successes in the North Caucasus, Putin reprimanded him for using
confusing terms like “jamaat” and ordered him to call the terrorists
by their real name (Lenta.ru, February 21). This desire to simplify
the complex reality is very typical but “jamaat” in fact stands not
for a terrorist cell but for a grassroots religious organization that
performs many social functions. As Yulia Latynina, one of the sharpest
observers of brewing Caucasian instabilities, argues, the growth of
these organizations is a direct response to the state’s inability to
carry out its basic responsibilities (Ekho Moskvy, March 26). This
reduction of the state presence to just enforcement of its arbitrary
will and deep erosion of its authority are the natural results of the
progressive degradation of corrupt regimes in these republics,
resembling quite closely Akayev’s “family business” in Kyrgyzstan.

Putin has no strategy for checking this trend and his only pro-active
step was the appointment of Dmitry Kozak, one of the few capable
managers in the administration, as the presidential envoy in the
Southern District (Ekspert, October 20, 2004). For the last half year,
Kozak has been rushing from one hot spot to another, seeking to keep
the state structures functioning primarily by securing additional
transfers from the federal budget. He managed to defuse several
dramatically explosive situations, for instance when the angry crowd
stormed the government building in Cherkessk, Karachaevo-Cherkessia,
seeking to depose President Mustafa Batdyev (Kommersant, November 12,
2004; EDM, November 10, 2004). His every success, however, has only
pushed the problem deeper into the political underground, thus denying
the rather incoherent central efforts any chance for gaining public
support. As the meager results of the recent massive
search-and-destroy operation in Karachaevo-Cherkessia have indicated,
local authorities now prefer to find a way of coexisting with the
“jamaats” rather than confronting them (Nezavisimaya gazeta, March
14).

Putin continues to deny this discomforting reality and finds no
problem with weak and corrupt republican bosses, providing they remain
loyal. Meeting with Chechen president Alu Alkhanov in late March, he
approved very considerately the plans for holding parliamentary
elections in October as if these plans had not originated in the
Kremlin (Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 31). Elections have recently
proved to be risky business, but Putin is confident that glitches
might happen only in chaotic neighborhoods like Abkhazia, but inside
the country his electoral machine delivers without fail.

It is indeed very convenient to ignore the alarm signals that every
rigged election weakens rather then strengthens the authority of the
federal center and the republican presidents who are entirely
dependent upon it. The lesson from Ingushetia, where Murat Zyazikov
was practically installed by Moscow through a crudely manipulated
election and now can neither stop the spread of rebel networks nor
deal with public discontent, has obviously not registered
(Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 29). It is not just a chain of localized
conflicts that Moscow is facing in the North Caucasus; it is a more
disturbing process of disintegration of the structures of governance.

If there is a color to this rising revolution it is probably green,
since the violent but incorruptible Islamic “jamaats” are clearly
gaining in moral authority. It is not a slow spillover of violence but
rather the sheer political resonance from this march that threatens to
destroy Putin’s “vertical power structure.” As yet, the Kremlin has
not heard the political warning.

–Pavel K. Baev

RISKS IN GEORGIA’S JAVAKHETI PROVINCE CAN BE DEFUSED

Presidents Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia and Robert Kocharian of
Armenia met informally on April 1-2 in the Georgian mountain resort of
Gudauri, without media coverage. Their agenda included the situation
in Akhalkalaki, where two recent rallies by local Armenian residents
aired political and economic demands, notably for the retention of
Russia’s military base. Following the two presidents’ meeting,
Kocharian was quoted as saying, “The issue of withdrawal of Russian
bases is Georgia’s internal affair, for Georgia to resolve. Armenia
will not voice an official position.” Georgia’s National Security
Council Secretary Gela Bezhuashvili confirmed, “Armenia’s president is
not going to interfere” (Pan-Armenian Net, Civil Georgia, April 2).

A hitherto little-known organization, United Javakh, organized those
rallies on March 13 and March 31 in Akhalkalaki, the location of a
Russian military base, and seat of one of the two predominantly
Armenian-populated districts (the other is Ninotsminda) in
Samtskhe-Javakheti province. Several thousand attended the first
rally; for the second, attendance estimates ranged from less than
1,000 to several thousand. Georgia’s authorities are considering most
of the demands, though the first two demands appear designed as
nonstarters, include:

Russian military base to remain in Akhalkalaki; Georgian Parliament to
“recognize the genocide of Armenians” by the Ottoman Empire during the
First World War; Armenian language to be conferred official status, on
a par with the Georgian language, in the predominantly
Armenian-populated Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda districts; Armenian
history classes to be included in the curriculum of Armenian-language
schools, alongside the history of Georgia; School excursions to
Armenia to be sponsored by the authorities; Javakh diocese to be
created by the Armenian Church; Law on the protection of national
minority rights to be adopted by the Georgian parliament; Direct
elections to be held for local government; Passport services and tax
offices to be opened in Akhalkalaki; Customs checkpoints on the border
with Armenia to be set up near Akhalkalaki; Reconstruction of the road
along the Akhaltsikhe-Akhalkalaki-Ninotsminda-Armenian border to be
made a priority by the Georgian government; Georgian government to
sign contracts for supplying Javakheti with electricity from Armenia.

The two rallies appealed to Armenians worldwide and to Armenia’s
government to help relieve the economic situation of their kin in
Javakheti. They promised to use only legal means to attain those
goals. The question is whether those goals would escalate. The demand
for official language status was not aired at the first rally, but
made its appearance at the second.

Georgian authorities are handling the situation cautiously and
sensitively. Accommodating socio-economic demands would help defuse
the two potentially explosive political demands that top the list.

Between the two rallies, the Samtskhe-Javakheti governor (an ethnic
Georgian), the head of the Akhalkalaki administration, and the
parliamentary deputy for the Akhalkalaki district (both ethnic
Armenians), met with rally organizers and other local Armenian
activists, notably the youth and sports organization Jemi. It was
agreed to recommend that the government in Tbilisi should set up an
expert group that would draw up proposals to address most of those
issues, with participation of local Armenian groups.

The authorities have promised to meet some of the social and cultural
demands and seem inclined to meet most of them. Some of these issues
could be addressed within the country’s pending legislation, e.g., on
elections to local government, or on ratification of the Council of
Europe’s Framework Convention on the Protection of National
Minorities. Regarding road reconstruction, the Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki
road is a government priority. While Javakheti is difficult to access
because of its ruined infrastructure, its communications with Armenia
function relatively better than with the rest of Georgia. There are
very few Georgian-language schools in the areas compactly populated by
Armenians in this region.

The demand for genocide recognition, however, cannot be accepted
without launching Georgia on a collision course with Turkey and
Azerbaijan. The demand for retention of the Russian military base is
being encouraged by Moscow, which has in recent years orchestrated
managed protests in Abkhazia and Transnistria against the withdrawal
of Russian troops. Meanwhile, Russian media are stirring up among
local Armenians the irrational fear that Turkish troops would come in,
if Russian troops withdraw.

Georgian officials from Saakashvili on down have repeatedly assured
local Armenian employees of the Russian base, as well as locally
recruited military personnel at the Akhalkalaki base (many of whom are
also Armenians), that the Georgian state would re-employ them, once
the Russian garrison withdraws. They are also reassuring local
Armenians that only Georgian troops would replace Russian troops, if
these withdraw. Tbilisi is clearly aware of the need to be responsive
regarding socio-economic and cultural issues in order to defuse the
destabilizing, externally encouraged demand on retention of Russian
troops.

(Interfax, March 17, 18; Imedi TV, March 20; Noyan Tapan, March 22,
April 1; Arminfo, March 18, 23; Kavkasia-Press, March 23; NTV Mir,
March 27; Azg, April 2)

–Vladimir Socor

————————————————————————

The Eurasia Daily Monitor, a publication of the Jamestown Foundation,
is edited by Ann E. Robertson. The opinions expressed in it are those
of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of
the Jamestown Foundation. If you have any questions regarding the
content of EDM, or if you think that you have received this email in
error, please respond to [email protected].

Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of EDM is strictly
prohibited by law.

The Jamestown Foundation
4516 43rd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
202-483-8888 (phone)
202-483-8337 (fax)

Copyright (c) 1983-2005 The Jamestown Foundation.

Libération , France
6 avril 2005

La guerre en best-seller; Turquie

par SEMO Marc

Vendu à 300 000 exemplaires, “Tempête de métal” raconte une guerre
entre la Turquie et les Etats-Unis en 2007. Une politique fiction
appuyée sur une haine antiaméricaine croissante, doublée de relents
d’antisémitisme. Une paranoïa ambiante renforcée par l’hésitation des
Européens sur l’adhésion à l’UE du pays.

Ankara, Istanbul envoyé spécial

Les avions de combat américains pilonnent Ankara et Istanbul. “Les
bombardements intenses ont duré plus de quatre heures et il y a
d’importantes pertes civiles. Les ponts sur le Bosphore sont coupés.”
La scène est supposée se passer en mai 2007. L’opération “Tempête de
métal” vient de commencer et vise, entre autres, à s’emparer des très
importants gisements turcs de bore. “L’occupation de la Turquie par
les Etats-Unis”, clame le sous-titre barrant la couverture du livre,
un criard montage photographique de GI hurlants et de mosquées en
flammes. Sorti mi-décembre, Metal Firtina (Tempête de métal)
pulvérise tous les records, dépassant déjà les 300 000 exemplaires.
Du jamais vu dans un pays où un best-seller vend, dans les meilleurs
cas, dix fois moins. “C’est de la politique fiction, mais ce roman
évoque une théorie du possible et brise un tabou. Dans notre
inconscient, ce sentiment était là depuis des années, mais nous
n’osions pas l’admettre, car nous vivions dans la peur d’une crise
ouverte avec les Etats-Unis”, explique Burak Turna, 30 ans,
journaliste économique et coauteur, avec Orkun Ucar, de ce succès de
librairie. Le premier a apporté l’idée, l’autre, auteur et éditeur
spécialisé en science-fiction, son savoir-faire. Le style est
sommaire et la trame, manichéenne, débouche sur l’inévitable “happy
end” : la victoire d’Ankara après la déroute initiale de ses forces
armées. Sur fond de tensions croissantes américano-turques depuis le
début de la guerre en Irak, la recette marche à merveille.

“Ce n’est pas un livre antiaméricain, mais un livre contre la
politique de Bush qui précipite la région dans le chaos”, se justifie
Burak Turna, au diapason de ses concitoyens : selon un sondage de la
BBC, 82 % des Turcs considèrent les Etats-Unis comme LA menace pour
la paix mondiale, battant tous les records européens.

“Mein Kampf” réédité

Le livre trône partout. Il est en vitrine au fin fond de l’Anatolie
dans des échoppes où même la presse nationale n’arrive pas
régulièrement. On le voit dans les kiosques des aéroports comme dans
les bonnes librairies d’Istanbul ou d’Ankara. “Il y a d’abord eu la
curiosité. Maintenant, l’effet de mode fonctionne à plein”, explique
un libraire. Les intellectuels se pincent le nez mais beaucoup
d’hommes politiques adorent, notamment ceux de l’AKP (Parti de la
justice et du développement), le parti au pouvoir issu du mouvement
islamiste dont certains ténors dénoncent sans trêve “le génocide”
commis par les Américains en Irak. Les nationalistes de gauche ne
sont pas en reste. Partout, les piles de Tempête de métal voisinent
avec celles de Da Vinci Code, succès mondial de la théorie du
complot, ou celles de Mein Kampf, le sinistre manifeste d’Adolf
Hitler. Traduit la première fois en 1939, ce livre était
régulièrement réédité par l’extrême droite avec des tirages
confidentiels. Les nouvelles éditions ont dépassé les 50 000
exemplaires et mettent le titre en quatrième position des meilleures
ventes. “Nous avons pensé que dans la période actuelle, le livre
pourrait bien marcher”, se justifie Sami Celik, propriétaire des
éditions Emre assurant avoir obéi à des raisons “purement
commerciales”.

“Tempête de métal cristallise des peurs latentes mais réelles et Mein
Kampf vient dans le sillage. L’un et l’autre sont les révélateurs
d’un air du temps xénophobe et d’un nationalisme défensif, dépressif,
toujours plus paranoïaque, nourri de ressentiments vis-à-vis des
Etats-Unis et de l’Union européenne”, souligne Ahmet Insel,
professeur d’économie à l’université Galatasaray d’Istanbul et à
Paris-I. Les sondages montrent une opinion toujours massivement
favorable à une future adhésion (seuls 12 % des Turcs y sont
hostiles) et 43 % des personnes interrogées se déclarent “optimistes
sur l’avenir”. Mais dans les profondeurs de la société turque, les
frustrations bouillonnent. Inquiètes pour l’image du pays, les
autorités ont réagi au succès de Mein Kampf en rappelant “qu’il n’y a
pas de tradition antisémite en Turquie”. Avec une amère ironie,
Türker Alkan, du quotidien libéral Radikal, souligne que “le fascisme
turc n’a pas besoin de la technique allemande et ceux qui torturent
dans les commissariats n’ont pas besoin de lire Mein Kampf”. Dans le
même journal, Haluk Shahin n’hésite pas à dénoncer les “Milosevic
turcs”. Le grand romancier Ohran Pamuk a récemment fait les frais du
climat ambiant. Dans une interview à un journal suisse, il avait
évoqué “le million de morts arméniens de 1915 et les 30 000 Kurdes
tués dans les années 80-90”. Dénoncé comme “traître” par la presse
nationaliste, menacé, il a préféré s’éloigner quelque temps
d’Istanbul.

“Il y a une part d’exagération médiatique, mais des sentiments
antioccidentaux montent à cause de la campagne antiturque en Europe,
et surtout du fait de la politique américaine en Irak”, confirme Sefi
Tashan, directeur de l’Institut de politique étrangère à Ankara.
Longtemps pilier du flanc sud-est de l’Otan face au bloc soviétique,
la Turquie vit des relations toujours plus conflictuelles avec
Washington. Tout a commencé au printemps 2003, avec le refus du
gouvernement de l’islamiste modéré Recep Tayyip Erdogan d’autoriser
le déploiement de 80 000 GI pour ouvrir un front nord contre Saddam.
Depuis, la polémique s’est envenimée. Ankara s’est montré réservé sur
le résultat des élections irakiennes. La capitale turque reste l’un
des derniers appuis du régime syrien. Les ténors des think tanks
républicains d’outre-Atlantique dénoncent toujours plus ouvertement
un pays “ingrat, antisémite et paranoïaque où monte l’islamisme”.

Magasins “interdits aux Américains”

“Ce qui est nouveau dans cet antiaméricanisme et le rend si fort est
le fait qu’il ne se limite plus aux franges de l’extrême droite ou
des islamistes radicaux, mais qu’il est désormais partagé par une
partie des élites et même par certains militaires”, souligne Ahmet
Insel. Les attaques dérapent facilement dans la dénonciation du
“complot sioniste” et la presse ne se prive pas de rappeler à
l’occasion les “origines ethniques” – c’est-à-dire juives – de
l’ambassadeur américain Eric Edelman, qui a fini par démissionner à
cause de ses relations exécrables avec les autorités locales.
L’antiaméricanisme est encore plus évident au niveau populaire,
notamment dans la base de l’AKP. En janvier dernier, des affiches
“interdit aux Américains” sont apparues sur les vitrines de nombreux
magasins de Kale, le vieux quartier d’Ankara, avant d’être enlevées
après une protestation de l’ambassade américaine. Dans les forums
Internet, la parano explose. “Ils attaquent les pays musulmans
voisins… Pourquoi nous épargneraient-ils ?” clame un internaute sur
l’un des sites de discussion les plus fréquentés.

“Les Turcs ont trop longtemps accepté sans réagir que les Etats-Unis
se servent d’eux, mais ils refusent maintenant que Washington joue
ouvertement la carte kurde au détriment de leurs intérêts”, martèle
Burak Turna. Les auteurs de Metal Firtina font démarrer la guerre
turco-américaine en Irak du Nord, épicentre du contentieux, là où,
protégés des Américains, les Kurdes irakiens consolident aujourd’hui
leur autonomie. Ceux-ci sont en passe de prendre le contrôle de la
ville de Kirkouk, dont les riches réserves pétrolières assureraient à
un éventuel Etat kurde les moyens de son indépendance. Au risque de
susciter l’hostilité en Turquie, où les Kurdes représentent environ
12 millions des 70 millions d’habitants du pays. S’inspirant
directement de cette réalité, le livre contient tous les ingrédients
à même de satisfaire les fantasmes locaux. On y trouve ainsi
l’inévitable capitaliste ploutocrate qui convainc George Bush de se
lancer dans l’aventure avec le soutien des chrétiens fondamentalistes
qui veulent reconquérir Constantinople.

Les auteurs de Tempête de métal sont invités à des dizaines de débats
– celui organisé par l’AKP d’Istanbul a été annulé au dernier moment
sur ordre du gouvernement soucieux de ne pas aggraver son contentieux
avec Washington. Ils reçoivent des milliers de messages de
félicitations. Les seules critiques leur reprochent d’avoir montré
l’armée turque indécise, mal organisée et incapable de faire face…

Des Kurdes, agents américains

“L’antiaméricanisme existe partout en Europe, mais il faut être sourd
et aveugle pour ne pas voir qu’en Turquie il est en train de nourrir
un racisme antikurde qui va croissant”, s’inquiète Cengiz Candar,
intellectuel libéral. Car les Kurdes, considérés comme des agents
américains, cristallisent désormais tous les ressentiments. Dans la
revue Birikim, Tanil Bora, professeur de sciences politiques à
Ankara, a analysé les messages circulant sur le Net, appels délirants
à lancer “un nettoyage ethnique préventif” contre les Kurdes ou à
utiliser contre eux “les armes de destruction massive”. Le 21 mars,
jour de Newroz (nouvel an des peuples d’Asie centrale), à Mersin,
grand port du Sud, trois gosses ont tenté de brûler un drapeau turc,
finalement sauvé par un policier. Cette provocation est devenue un
psychodrame national. “Une telle détestation du drapeau par de
prétendus citoyens est totalement inexplicable et injustifiable”, a
souligné un communiqué de l’état-major. Les grands médias ont
aussitôt appelé les citoyens à exposer partout les couleurs
nationales.

“L’hostilité manifestée par la Turquie vis-à-vis de ses citoyens
kurdes ne peut que ralentir notre marche vers l’Europe”, reconnaît,
préoccupé, Cengiz Candar. Après avoir reçu un feu clignotant des “25”
pour l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion en octobre prochain, le
gouvernement traîne dans la mise en oeuvre des réformes et Bruxelles
dénonce toujours plus durement “ces retards”. Dans les talk-shows
télévisés, europhobes et souverainistes triomphent, dénonçant
“l’hypocrisie des Européens” sinon leurs projets de dépeçage du pays.
“Il faut qu’ils nous disent finalement clairement s’ils veulent ou
non de nous dans l’Europe”, affirme Burak Turna. Habile à sentir le
vent, il est en train d’achever son prochain livre sur une guerre
entre la Turquie… et l’UE. “Cela commence avec des massacres de
Turcs sur fond de propagande raciste et néonazie en Europe”, explique
l’auteur qui veut ainsi “faire réfléchir les Européens comme il a
tenté de faire réfléchir les Américains”. Il est convaincu que ce
sera le best-seller turc de l’été.

Agence France Presse
5 avril 2005 mardi 1:48 PM GMT

Le patriarche arménien d’Istanbul aux obsèques du pape Jean Paul II

ISTANBUL

Le patriarche arménien orthodoxe d’Istanbul Mesrob II se rendra jeudi
au Vatican pour assister le lendemain aux funérailles du pape Jean
Paul II, a affirmé mardi Luiz Bakar, la porte-parole du patriarcat.

“Le patriarche Mesrob II se rendra jeudi au Vatican avec une
délégation dont la composition n’a pas encore été déterminée pour
assister aux obsèques du pape”, a déclaré à l’AFP Mme Bakar.

Mesrob II avait adressé samedi une lettre de condoléances au cardinal
camerlingue Eduardo Martinez Somalo, dans laquelle il décrivait Jean
Paul II comme un “ami loyal et bien-aimé de l’Eglise et du peuple
arméniens”.

La communauté arménienne de Turquie, un pays musulman à plus de 99%,
est estimée à environ 45.000 membres, pour la plupart orthodoxes avec
de petits groupes catholiques et protestants.

Le Figaro, France
08 avril 2005

Jean-Jacques Varoujean, un Français d’Arménie; Disparition

par Marion Thébaud

L’auteur dramatique Jean-Jacques Varoujean est décédé, samedi à
Paris, des suites d’un arrêt cardiaque, à l’ge de 78 ans. Arménien
d’origine, Jean-Jacques Varoujean, de son vrai nom
Varoujean-Ouzounian, a construit son oeuvre sur la tragédie qui a
blessé son peuple, perte d’un pays et génocide. Sa mère rescapée des
massacres et son père, comédien, s’installent à Marseille. Initié
très jeune au thétre, Jean-Jacques Varoujean fut dans les années 50
régisseur, assistant à la Michodière auprès de Pierre Fresnay. Puis
il vécut de sa plume en tant que journaliste avant de signer une
première pièce en 1957, Concerto, jouée à l’ OEuvre. Une expérience
qui aura des suites tardives. Il faut attendre 1972 pour qu’une autre
pièce soit créée, Heureusement ce n’est pas tous les jours dimanche,
et qu’il ne cesse d’être joué. Il est à l’affiche du Petit Odéon où
de jeunes comédiens prometteurs, Isabelle Huppert, Jacques Villeret,
Pierre Romans, Emmanuel Dechartre, créent Viendra-t-il un autre été ?
sous la direction de Jacques Spiesser. Citons encore La Caverne
d’Abdullah au Poche Montparnasse, De qui sont-ce les manches ? au
Petit Odéon avec Jacqueline Gauthier et Dominique Paturel, Façades au
Lucernaire, 1915 au Fontaine, Cendre rouge à la Cité universitaire…
S’inspirant de faits divers, il signe Chacun pleure son Garabed,
créée à Saint-Etienne, reprise au Thétre de l’Est parisien (TEP), un
titre en rapport avec l’Arménie. « En arménien, c’est une expression
pour dire que tout le monde a son malheur à pleurer.

Si ma tête est en France, mon coeur demeure en Arménie, dans cette
Arménie qui est en train de crever », nous disait-il lors d’un
entretien. Arménien dans l’me, il affirmait néanmoins être «
antinationaliste », mais souhaitait que justice soit rendue à la
nation arménienne.

Agence France Presse
7 avril 2005 jeudi 3:45 PM GMT

La Turquie rejette les pressions européennes sur la question arménienne

ISTANBUL 7 avr 2005

La Turquie rejette les pressions de l’Union européenne (UE) visant à
lui faire reconnaître le caractère génocidaire des massacres
d’Arméniens pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, a affirmé jeudi le
président turc Ahmet Necdet Sezer.

“Nous constatons des efforts pour nous imposer comme des conditions
de nombreuses questions qui ne sont pas directement liées à notre
processus d’adhésion” à l’UE, a déclaré M. Sezer au cours d’une
conférence de presse dans une académie militaire d’Istanbul.

Evoquant le massacre de centaines de milliers d’Arméniens pendant la
période ottomane, le président a estimé qu’il était “erroné et
injuste de la part de nos amis européens de faire pression sur la
Turquie sur ces questions”.

Ankara rejette catégoriquement l’emploi du terme de “génocide” pour
qualifier les massacres d’Arméniens commis entre 1915 et 1917 sous
l’empire ottoman, mais est confronté à un nombre croissant d’appels
émanant de personnalités européennes en faveur d’une telle
reconnaissance.

Certains hommes politiques de l’UE ont affirmé que le sujet serait
une des questions que la Turquie devrait régler avant le début de
négociations d’adhésion, programmé pour le 3 octobre.

“Ces demandes ont irrité et blessé la sensibilité de la nation
turque”, a estimé M. Sezer. “Ce qui doit être fait, c’est mener des
recherches, enquêter et discuter sur ce sujet en se fondant sur des
documents et sans a priori. Cette discussion devrait avoir une base
scientifique et non politique”.

Les massacres et les déportations d’Arméniens ont fait entre 1,2 et
1,3 million de morts, selon les Arméniens (entre 250.000 et 300.000,
selon les Turcs).

La Turquie reconnaît que des massacres ont été perpétrés et que de
nombreux Arméniens sont morts lors de leur déportation. Mais elle
fait valoir qu’il s’agissait d’une répression contre une population
coupable de collaboration avec l’ennemi russe dans un contexte de
guerre et que des dizaines de milliers de Turcs ont été tués au même
moment par les Arméniens.

Agence France Presse
9 avril 2005 samedi 1:54 PM GMT

Le parlement turc débattra la semaine prochaine des massacres d’Arméniens

ANKARA

Le parlement turc discutera la semaine prochaine d’éventuelles
contre-mesures face à la campagne de l’Arménie en faveur de la
reconnaissance par Ankara en tant que génocide des massacres
d’Arméniens en 1915-1917, a déclaré samedi le ministre turc des
Affaires étrangères Abdullah Gul cité par des médias.

M. Gul a annoncé à des journalistes l’accompagnant dans le cadre
d’une visite en Algérie qu’il s’exprimerait à ce sujet lors d’une
session spéciale du Parlement, prévue pour mercredi, selon l’agence
d’information Anatolie.

“La Turquie aurait dû être plus active et aurait dû aborder ce
problème avec plus de courage pour mieux éclairer la communauté
internationale”, a-t-il ajouté.

La Turquie rejette les pressions de l’Union européenne visant à lui
faire reconnaître le caractère génocidaire des massacres d’Arméniens
pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, avait affirmé jeudi le président
turc Ahmet Necdet Sezer.

Ankara refuse catégoriquement l’emploi du terme de “génocide” pour
qualifier ces tueries commises sous l’Empire ottoman.

Certains hommes politiques de l’UE ont affirmé que le sujet serait
une des questions que la Turquie devrait régler avant le début de
négociations d’adhésion, programmé pour le 3 octobre.

Les massacres et les déportations d’Arméniens ont fait entre 1,2 et
1,3 million de morts, selon les Arméniens (entre 250.000 et 300.000,
selon les Turcs).

La Turquie reconnaît que des massacres ont été perpétrés et que de
nombreux Arméniens sont morts lors de leur déportation. Mais elle
affirme qu’il s’agissait d’une répression contre une population
coupable de collaboration avec l’ennemi russe dans un contexte de
guerre et que des dizaines de milliers de Turcs ont été tués au même
moment par les Arméniens.

A1plus

| 13:36:48 | 11-04-2005 | Politics |

THE PARLIAMENT «FAILS» THE EU

The discussion of the draft constitutions was expected to be included in the
agenda of the NA 4-day session. But Rafik Petrosyan, head of the NA Standing
Committee on State and Legal Affairs, had his own opinion about the agenda,
according to which the discussion had to be postponed.

The only delegate who was interested in the reason of postponing the
discussion was Karen Karapetyan, head of the grouping «Democratic Delegate».
In answer to his question Rafik Petrosyan mentioned that the Ad-hoc
Committee on Matters of Integration in European Structures has not yet given
his conclusion about the discussions, hence the Standing Committee on State
and Legal Affairs has not discussed the matter either and has not made a
conclusion.

Arthur Baghdasaryan offered to vote for the NA session agenda draft with and
without the draft constitutions and the draft amendments to the Electoral
Code.

The discussion of these most important issues was postponed in the
Parliament with the following distribution of votes: for – 88, against – 1,
abstained from voting – 1.

Manouk Gasparyan reminded that there are only two 4-day sessions left after
which the elections of local governing bodies will take place. «Which
Electoral Code shall we use for the elections; the old one or the new one? »
The rhetoric question of the delegate was never answered.