Armenian Encounter
By Ali Bayramoglu ([email protected])

Yeni Safak newspaper
11/26/2004

The Alcazar Music Hall in Marseilles occupies a significant place in
French cultural history. This old music hall where the most important
past virtuosos of “chanson francaise” like Edith Piaf, Yves Montant
were born, where the spirit of French resistance was represented during
the German occupation of World War II and which has been turned into
a library today was the place of an interesting meeting the other day.

Put more correctly, an interesting encounter was experienced.

In the meeting entitled “Europe/Turkey: A Key for Understanding”
Turkey’s EU membership, or to put more correctly, the perceptions of
the French and France on Turkey was discussed.

Any meeting in France, especially in Marseilles, cannot be held
without the Armenian problem.

Actually this was the target of the meeting from the out start.

This was a meeting instigated especially by Jean Kehayan, the
journalist from the Liberation newspaper, and organized by those
people who are truly a minority within the Armenian diaspora because of
their views that the solution of the Armenian problem, the successful
confrontation of the events of 1915, the expansion of Armenia’s living
space are all possible through the will of the Turkish populace and
Turkey’s democratization and membership in the EU, and that external
pressures generate attempts that are reactionary in nature.

Its purpose was to create an encounter between the Armenians of Turkey
and diaspora Armenians, put more correctly, to enable the Armenians
of Turkey to provide an account of Turkey to them from within seen
through a democratic lens and to explain to them why they as a
community defended Turkey’s EU membership.

The meeting was attended from Turkey by Etyen Mahcupyan and Hrant Dink.

And I accompanied them in order to narrate the process of change Turkey
underwent and to explain how the Armenian problem was perceived and
lived by different segments of society.

The encounter was rough…

The analyses undertaken by the Turkish Armenians, their different
attitudes, their criticisms of the diaspora politics in relation to
Turkey, the image of the Turk, and Armenian identity first had the
effect on the audience of a cold shower. Then it led to a heated
discussion.

For instance, Etyen Mahcupyan’s argument that the fact the diaspora
executed its ‘genocide recognition’ politics through their attitudes
toward the Turks and Turkey meant that they did not actually want
this recognition to take place caused uproar in the hall.

That the diaspora heard from Etyen himself how this problem nurtures
Armenian nationalism and the identity of the Armenian diaspora in a
very unhealthy manner was a very striking encounter and confrontation.

Likewise, Hrant Dink’s stating that “some of the steps you are taking
here is damaging the future of the Armenian world” and making similar
criticisms within the same framework created a similar consequence.

This much is evident:

Turkey’s advent to EU membership has escalated the differences
among Armenian communities, politicized them, and set into action a
differentiation process.

We have to comprehend and digest… With the exception of elements
such as identity and culture, the common denominator of different
Armenian communities is inarguably and inescapably the events of 1915.
Regardless of however much this trauma is denied by us, and in however
many ways it is proved, it is a serious trauma bringing the past into
the present with severe and permanent effects on society. Actually it
is this trauma that lies behind modern Armenian nationalism.

–Boundary_(ID_8pzAepp7ZxSDSI9/qiB5jA)–

A new era regarding the Armenian Question

Yeni Safak Newspaper
11/27/2004

Ali Bayramoglu ([email protected])

As the December 17th date (of EU deliberations on Turkey’s candidacy —
MG) gets closer, the attitudes regarding Turkey’s candidacy become
articulated, sharpened. Especially “Armenian diaspora” in France
has locked its entire energy to the “target of rejecting Turkey.”
All the way from the attempts in Marseilles by Dashnak groups attacking
Chirac physically to the declaration yesterday in Paris of an Armenian
organization that, not content with the recognition of the genocide,
demanding (for the first time) physical and material reparations in
relation to the events of 1915 as a precondition of Turkey’s membership
in the EU, the bar placed in front of Turkey keeps rising.

The actions, attitudes and timing of these groups make it evident
their intention is not to discuss but to punish.

The most significant glue of the identities of the Armenian diaspora,
that is, Armenians living outside of Turkey and Armenia (they make
up 5 million of the total Armenian population of 8 million) is the
1915 reference and “the fundamentalist struggle against Turkey,
therefore taking a stand against Turkey, even Turkish animosity,
as if there were a state of continuous war.”

Still, as we stated yesterday, Turkey’s getting closer to EU
membership has livened up Armenian politics and commenced the process
of differentiation among the Armenian communities.

Three different communities or actors of Armenian society with their
different experiences, different relations, and different communal
relations, are quickly getting politically differentiated from one
another.

Armenia, due to its societal-political interests and the geographical
conditions within which it is situated, is pursuing to develop gradual
relations with Turkey that takes as an index not the past but the
present and the future.

Likewise the Armenian community in Turkey, living with the Turks
and sharing the same destiny, problems and concerns with them, and
locked into the same target of elevating the quality of its societal
existence and life and rights, sails in the waters of the “present
time.” More importantly, it is escalating its democratic voice and
force through some of its natural leaders and representatives both
internationally and within the Armenian communities every passing day.

As for the diaspora that appears to be the strongest in terms of both
numbers and voice, the diaspora is becoming increasingly fragmented
within domestic Armenian politics. It has suddenly started to find
confronting it “Armenian voices” that it has not been used to hearing.

This situation and contradiction is evident: For the diaspora
Armenians, that which represents “the present and future time” is
their economic, social and emotional lives, the relations they have
in the countries they live. Many of them do not know Armenian, do not
care about Armenia, and for them being an Armenian and the Armenian
problem is an issue defined by history and the past that is located
in a chest and occasionally taken out.

And the past is basically treated in relation to the events of 1915.
For them, the Armenian identity is located on a one-dimensional image
of the “historical Turk.” This is a viewpoint that lives the past
as if it were the present, that makes the switch between the past
and the present totally nonexistent. At the meeting in Marseilles,
an Armenian explained the claim that the Turks knew everything about
the 1915 events with the following words:

“Your prime minister made everything public a few days ago.”

When we asked in disbelief which prime minister he was referring to,
he replied “Damad Ferit Pasha.”

The diaspora which has the “luxury” to live by freezing time, by
living the past Armenian identity in the chest as if it were today
is located, with its atemporal identities and hierachical problems,
right at the center of a definition of “patriarchy.”

This definition of the Turk and this exercise in reductionism express
a radical nationalism that feeds on the conception of the other.

What is important today is for the hegemony of the diaspora to become
contested.

For both Turkey and Armenia, this differentiation process opens novel
rational spaces within which to solve an ancient problem.

>>From the viewpoint of Turkey, relations established with Armenia
could enable the politics of today and tomorrow to triumph over the
reflexes of the past.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA IS LOYAL TO FRANCOPHONE

A1+
21-12-2004

A reception over the fact Armenia gained the observer’s status in
Francophone International Organization was held in Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Armenia.

High representatives of Armenian Parliament and Government, Ambassadors
in Armenia, heads of international organizations etc were present
for the reception.

“I am sure that membership of Armenia to Francophone International
Organization will support consolidating Armenia’s loyalty to the
values and principles of Francophone and involvement of Armenia in
the international scene”, Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan said.

Armenian speaker criticizes Russian counterpart’s remarks on ties

Aravot, Yerevan
21 Dec 04

Text of report by Anna Israelyan in Armenian newspaper Aravot on 21
December headlined “Replying to Gryzlov”

Yesterday 20 December the chairman of the Armenian National Assembly
Artur Bagdasaryan expressed his negative attitude to Russian State
Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov’s statement that Armenia is Russia’s
outpost in the South Caucasus.

“Certainly, I treat this statement badly,” Mr Bagdasaryan said. “First,
the Republic of Armenia is a sovereign state and cannot be an outpost
of any state. Second, the Armenian-Russian relations develop naturally
and the statement of the Azerbaijani president that Azerbaijan
is confused and does not know whether the peace talks should be
conducted with the outpost or its master should be considered just
in this context. For instance, today there is not an Azerbaijani
delegation in the Council of Europe, there is a Turkish-Azerbaijani
delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and
they jointly discuss and vote for all the issues,” Bagdasaryan added.

In fact, chairman of the National Assembly duplicated Armenian
President Robert Kocharyan, who replied to Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev’s statement: “For instance, we are not concerned about
warm Turkish-Azerbaijani relations”. But is it worthy to compare
the Armenian-Russian and the Turkish-Azerbaijani relations?

Artur Bagdasaryan replied: “No, we do not have an ethnic problem here.
Everybody understands that Russian-Armenian cooperation, including
military and political ones, has deeper roots than cooperation of
Russia with other states of the region. The Turkish-Azerbaijani
relations are qualitatively higher than the Armenian-Russian
ones. Anyway, the Armenian-Russian relations are unique due to
the dynamic of their development, and the Azerbaijani president’s
statement should be also considered in this context because the finger
was pointed not only at Armenia, but Russia as well. For this reason
we should be able to strengthen our sovereignty”.

Incidentally, the chairman of the National Assembly also joked that we
may thank Gryzlov for saying this, emphasizing that the word “thanks”
should be in quotation marks.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenia should take “temporary control of Nagorno Karabakh,” head of
NATO PA and former Spanish FM think

Mediamax News Agency
21.12.04

Yerevan, December 21. /Mediamax/. Former Spanish Foreign Minister
Ana Palacio and head of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly (PA) Pierre
Lellouche think that Armenia should take “temporary control of Nagorno
Karabakh”, further status of which will be determined at a referendum –
in the course of 5 or 10 years.

This is stated in a joint article by Ana Palacio and Pierre Lellouche
entitled “Putin and empire phantoms” published in French Le Figaro
newspaper today, Mediamax reports.

The authors of the article state that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
differs from the conflicts in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria,
the “governments” of which are linked with different Russian mafia
structures and criminal organizations”.

“The conflict, which led to a clash between Armenia and Azerbaijan in
Nagorno Karabakh, is more complex, it is of some other character. But
even here Russia’s military and political influence on small Armenia is
huge. This conflict only seems “frozen”, it rendered Armenia lifeless
(half of the country’s population preferred to live in exile after
the declaration of independence),” Palacio and Lellouche write.

“The Europeans, Americans and Russians have to jointly reach a
compromise, according to which Armenia would take a temporary control
of Nagorno Karabakh, further status of which would be determined
at a referendum – in the course of 5 or 10 years. The OSCE Minsk
Group, working under the chairmanship of the United States, Russia
and France, could guarantee the reaching of a compromise and assist
to the implementation of economic assistance policy. As to Turkey,
it would be given an opportunity to exert good will and show that the
country wants to make part of the European family and may be useful:
for this it should open the border with Armenia, which has been in
ruthless blockade for already 15 years after the proclamation of
independence, thus making the life of this republic-enclave much
easier. And finally, in exchange for cooperation with Azerbaijan in
this conflict the West should establish close partnership with this
country,” former Spanish Foreign Minister and head of NATO PA suggest.

Mediamax recalls that Ana Palacio and Pierre Lellouche visited Nagorno
Karabakh and Armenia on October 26-28, 2004, as part of a joint
mission of The German Marshall Fund of the U.S. (GMF) and Project on
Transitional Democracies (PTD). During the visit, Pierre Lellouche, as
well as other members of delegation, spoke for the direct participation
of the Nagorno Karabakh’s authorities in the negotiating process.

UAE chairman of OPEC development fund board announces loans worth USD160 million

AME Info, United Arab Emirates
Dec 21 2004

The UAE-chaired OPEC Fund for International Development today announced
it approved loans worth a total of USD 157.4million at a recent board
of governors meeting in the Fund’s Vienna offices.

Jamal Nasser Lutah, the board’s chairman and assistant undersecretary
of Industry at the UAE Ministry of Finance and Industry (MOFI),
unveiled the details of the loans. He said: ‘The board has approved
17 loans totaling $157.4 million to offer credit finance for projects
in Angola, Armenia, Bosnia, Congo, Jordan, Turkey and Turkmenistan.

‘The loans are for as long as 20 years. The first five years offer a
grace period and the interest payable varies from 1 per cent to 1.75
per cent.’

The board also set aside $4.325 million to be split between combating
polio in Africa, providing assistance to inhabitants of Maya in
Nicaragua, and supporting a number of Palestinian NGOs. An amount
of $2.25 million was allocated to support the AIDS epidemic combat
program.

The board also considered a report by Salman bin Jaber Al Harbash,
its General Director, about the Fund’s 2004 activities. The total
value of loans approved by the Fund to the end of October this year
stands at $5126 million offered to 111 developing countries to finance
950 projects.

‘The Fund has supported 60 private sector projects worth $299 million,’
said Mr. Lutah. ‘We have also approved about $316 million in grants
to finance 684 projects in many poor and developing countries.

‘The UAE is one of the principal founders of the Fund and is one of the
biggest contributors to it. This is in line with the UAE’ commitment
to play an active role in the field of international development.’

The Journal of Turkish Weekly
Dec 21 2004

France’s Awkward Stance in Turkey’s EU Bid

France does anything possible to prevent Turkey’s EU entry. Sahiner
questions the reason behind this awkward stance.

Awkward French Stance between ‘National Interests’ and Global Good on
Turkey’s EU Bid

By Davut Sahiner (JTW), 20 December 2004

ANKARA – French did anything possible to bar start negotiations with
Turkey. They first used economy and human rights cards, then Cyprus
and Armenian issue. Despite there are hot and current issues in the
Caucasus the French politicians now ‘discuss’ the events happened
about a century ago. They blame modern Turkey for the Ottoman period
claiming Turks made a ‘genocide’ against the Armenians. Turks do not
accept these allegations, yet it is difficult for them to understand
France’s attitude.

There is a strong Armenian diaspora in France (about 300.000) and
they have a great influence on French politics and media. They have
frequently made pressure over the Government and Parliament. The
French Parliament passed a law applying the word ‘genocide’ to the
1915 conflicts. In fact the decision was taken by about 50
parliamentarians and many French parliamentarians were been threaten
not to obstruct passing of the law. The French Government said this
was a domestic political issue, not the French Government’s official
policy. The French Ambassador in Turkey, French FM and PM ensured
Ankara that French Government saw the problem as historians’
business, not the politician’s. Despite all these, Turkish people
angrily protested France, and French companies’ business in Turkey
was badly affected from the law. Turkish Government does not accept
‘genocide allegations’. Turkish historians say there is no genocide
but mutual killings between Armenians, Kurdish and Turkish peoples.
Dr. Nilgun Gulcan from ISRO for instance says about 500.000 Muslims
were killed by the armed Armenian separatists. “There was an Armenian
riot. Armenian separatists undermined Ottoman security during the
World War I. They fanatically supported the Russian side. The
Istanbul Government had to resettle thousands of Armenians. Most of
them reached the safe places in Syria and other Ottoman States.
However some of them died due to the tribal attacks, epidemic
diseases and war circumstances. But no one can name these killings
and lost as ‘genocide’. And 1915 events cannot be compared with
Holocaust or Genocide done in Algeria” added Dr. Gulcan.
The French Government avoided using the term ‘genocide’ until
December, 14 – just three days before Turkey and the EU agreed to
start membership talks. The French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier
used ‘genocide’ term first time before the summit and this was only a
small piece what Barnier and other French politicians did in order to
hinder start of membership talks with Turkey before the Summit.
French President Chirac gave a TV speech before December, 17 and
‘promised’ Turkey to support its EU bid. President said in his speech
that the ultimate aim of talks with Turkey would be full-membership,
not a Privileged partnership or any ‘B’ plan. However it was the same
Chirac who made enormous efforts to put vague terms into the Summit
Decision which could be interpreted as ‘privileged partnership’ or
could be used to obstruct Turkey’s membership.
French News Agency AFP now reports that France says it will put all
issues to Turkey during negotiations over it Joining the EU including
that of so-called Armenian genocide. French FM Barnier told French
Radio Station RTL:

“What has to be done now is start membership negotiations which are
going to be very long, very difficult, during which we will put all
issues on the table, including that of the Armenian genocide, with
the hope of obtaining a response from Turkey before membership”.

French FM means that they will do anything to prevent Turkey’s
membership, and if France cannot find anything current, it will use
‘history’ to block the Turks. If the so-called history will not work,
he may use ‘chemistry’, ‘mathematics’, or even ‘astronomy’. As Baris
Sanli, Turkish columnist, argues that “France may ask Turks to bring
a stone from the Moon to start the negotiations”.

It is quite clear that France does not want Turkey in. But, why?

First of the reasons is domestic. The Armenian voters determine
French Government’s Turkey policies. Second reason is German factor:
Turkey’s entry is expected to strengthen Germany’s role in the EU.
Turkey had good relations in the past and they never confronted in
the war arenas. Germany was the most significant partner of the
Ottoman Empire during the First World War against the French. Germans
with the Americans made enormous aid during the Cold War, while
France maintained its Turkey skeptic stance. Even the British see
benefits from Turkey’s EU membership. According to Tony Blair Turkey
is the only country which can stop the civilization polarization in
the world. Blair gives a significant importance to Turkey’s
acceptance to the EU. However for the French, Armenian votes and
balance of power between Germany and France are more important than a
clash of civilizations.

Turkish economy shows now better performance than Bulgaria’s,
Romania’s, even Hungary’s, Poland’s and Slovakia’s economies. Turkish
democracy is still fragile, but it rapidly develops, and the EU
membership will be a clear guarantee for democracy and pluralism in
Turkey. It can be argued that the EU leaders have very little tool to
prevent Turkey’s EU membership. That’s why they must find fake
reasons if they want to prevent Turkey’s entry, like the past.
However it should be noted that if you use ‘history card’, you should
be innocent enough. Otherwise others will have the right to question
your history and your past mistakes. And France is not innocent
enough to do so.

AFP says “France to Grill Turkey on All Issues for EU Bid”. It should
be remembered if France “grills Turkey”, Europe’s future will be
‘grilled’ as well.

–Boundary_(ID_nU/WhuBPA5LGUDijiQPN6Q)–

Democracy Group Blasts Russia’s Political Situation

PolitInfo.com, Germany
Dec 21 2004

A U.S.-based pro-democracy group has blasted recent political
developments in Russia, saying the country is moving toward
authoritarian rule.

In its annual global survey, Freedom House said it now classifies
Russia as “not free” amid restricted political rights and civil
liberties.

It said a growing trend exists under Russian President Vladimir Putin
to concentrate political authority, harass the media, and politicize
the country’s law enforcement system.

The group says the changes mark what it calls a dangerous and
disturbing trend toward authoritarianism in Russia.

In its survey, Freedom House gave the lowest possible score for
political rights and civil liberties to Burma, Chechnya, Cuba, Libya,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tibet and Turkmenistan.

It accused Armenia of increasingly unresponsive and undemocratic rule
and said Belarus remained Europe’s least free country.

The group did note positive political developments in Ukraine and
Georgia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

National Airlines partners for flights to Moscow

The Messenger, Georgia
Dec 21 2004

Airline leases new Airbus and plans expansion routes to Russia and
Middle East

By Christina Tashkevich

Last week Georgian National Airlines and the Russian Sibir Airlines
signed a one-year agreement to run Tbilisi-Moscow flights together
on the parity basis.

According to National Airlines, such an agreement is the first one in
“the history of the Georgian and Russian airlines.” As a result of
the agreement, National Airlines will run a flight from Tbilisi to
Moscow’s Vnukovo airport every day at 10:10 a.m. as of December 22.

According to the President of the Georgian National Airlines, Giorgi
Kodua, “we start working not as competitors, but as partners.” He adds
that this fact will have a positive effect in a quality of services.

Georgian National Airlines plans to service Sibir customers on a
Tbilisi-Moscow route with its new airplane, Airbus-A320.

The company leased an Airbus-A320 from the International Lease Finance
Corporation at the beginning of December for USD 500,000 per month. The
first airplane is set to arrive in Tbilisi on Tuesday.

According to the airline company, at the initial stage, a
Russian-Armenian flight staff will man the jet while Georgian pilots
receive training on the new airplane, a fact that has upset a local
pilot’s organization.

National Airlines announced last week that it looks for “experienced
and professional pilots” which would be trained abroad. The company
estimates that in three months a Georgian flight staff will be able
to fly the new aircraft.

In response to recent criticism in the media regarding the fact
that the jet is manned by a non-Georgian crew, Kodua said, “all
interested Georgian pilots are welcome.” Akhali Taoba reported that
Tamaz Gaiashvili, the president of Georgia’s other major airline,
Airzena Georgian Airlines, has long been demanding the establishment
of parity flights, but he thinks that the civil aviation administration
gives foreign airlines certain privileges.

New chair of the Civil Aviation Administration Giorgi Mzhavanadze
denies claims that the government invited foreign pilots to Georgia,
leaving Georgian pilots unemployed as a result.

“National Airlines will employ foreign pilots in Georgia as of the New
Year. The administration will control this process very attentively
and strictly, in order not to violate the time limits envisaged by
the agreement,” Mzhavanadze said at the recent briefing.

He also added that the agreement’s three-month period in which Georgian
pilots will be trained may be extended another two months if necessary.

After the technical base for use of the Airbus-A320 jet is created,
National Airlines plans to lease a second jet that will start flights
next spring. Until then the first Airbus-A320 will fly to Moscow,
Dubai, Delhi, Karachi, and St. Petersburg.

The lease of the Airbus is the second major lease this month. Last
week, Georgian Airlines (formerly known as Airzena) leased
two Boeing-737-500 passenger planes, also from the U.S. company
International Lease Finance Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary
of American International Group (AIG). According to the airline,
the leases are for five years.

France Uses “Armenian Card”: Barnier Mentions ‘Genocide’ Term Again

The Journal of Turkish Weekly
Dec 21 2004

France Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said that during the
negotiations between Turkey and the European Union (EU), they will
mention about all the subjects including “Armenian genocide”.

The French National Assembly will today discuss the EU decision
about Turkey. It is expected that Chirac will have fierce critics in
the session.

Barnier who had trouble in expressing the so-called “Armenian
genocide”, this time mentioned “genocide” definitely.

Barnier said in French RTL radio that, “The negotiations with Turkey
will take very long and will be very hard. The membership talks will
take 10-15 years and the French people will decide about it. With
a hope of an answer before the membership of Turkey, the Armenian
genocide will be on the table. I again say that, the way of membership
of Turkey is open but there is no guarantee for the result. There
will be some sorts of precautions, guarantees and limitations in the
entrance of Turkey to EU. There will be a campaign about the support
to Ankara telling to the people who has suspicions about the membership
of Turkey. ”

The French National Assembly will discuss the Turkey Decision made
in the EU summit. Even though a big percentage of the French people
reject the membership or Turkey to EU, it is seen that they are also
tolerant about the moves of Chirac on the membership of Turkey.

There is a strong Armenian diaspora in France and the Armenian votes
are seriously important for French politicians. The French Government
avoided using of ‘genocide’ term three days before December, 17
Summit. Turkey-sceptics in France use the ‘Armenian card’ in order
to prevent Turkey’s EU membership.

Source: JTW and Hurriyet