SURPRISES IN THE PACKAGE

The Hindu, India
December 18, 2004

THE CHENNAI International Film Festival (on till December 27),
organised by the Indo Cine Appreciation Foundation, has expanded this
year to screen five films a day at Anand and Little Anand Theatres,
and four films at the Film Chamber of Commerce.

Anand is the place to be on December 18 where award winning
Armenian-born, Canada-bred Atom Egoyan’s “Ararat” (2004) is being
screened. The film probes into tragedies of living families and
distant history. Raffi’s cans of films are relentlessly examined by
about-to-retire customs officer David, struggling with his own
adjustment problems with gay son’s lifestyle. The interrogation
becomes a quest for identity through deceit, denial and repression.

The day ends with a Brazilian romp in “Celeste and Estrela” (2003)
where Paulo Estrela narrated a hilarious story of falling in love
with film maker Celeste who is passionate about making a
gut-wrenching film about her motherland. Finding funds is an arduous
struggle. We flit in and out of corporate houses, studios, script
writing classes, location shoots, and into the dreams of Celeste and
Estrela. Betse de Paula’s film foams with farce and irony, turning an
amused but sympathetic eye on men and women with and without
missions.

A wistful note

Known more for his kooky grotequerie, Giuseppe Pupi Avati strikes a
wistful note in “The Heart is Everywhere” (Italy, 2003). A
nondescript teacher’s son is urged by cranky father to find a wife,
stumbles into a home for the blind and meets the stunning woman,
robbed of her eyes in an accident. Silvio Soldini’s “Agata and the
Storm” trickles into a woman’s craze for younger men and her
lost-and-found brother’s infidelities.

Karen Shakhnazarov’s “The Rider Named Death” (Russia) shows Moscow at
the dawn of the 20th Century. This is the acclaimed depiction of the
plot to assassinate a Grand Duke in his home and at the Bolshoi
theatre.

A sweet-sad tale

The CIFF also brings “Shwaas” (Marathi, Sandeep Sawant), India’s
entry for the Oscars on December 19. This debut film is a sweet-sad
tale of a grandfather trying to do his best for the grandchild with
retinoblastoma, who must lose both his eyes to survive. The film had
a commercial success in Maharashtra before winning the National Award
for Best Film. The day also brings “Nizhalkuthu” (Film Chamber
Theatre), part of the festival’s retrospective on one of India’s best
film makers. Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s narrative resounds with the
echoes of a parable. We watch the village hangman at home,
interacting with family and community, until the ominous call comes
for him to discharge his duty. The son has to shoulder the job now.
The eerie count down begins…

Catch up with “Goodbye Lenin” if you haven’t seen it already. A young
man struggles to save his politically active mother from the shock of
learning that her world has crumbled. (She goes into a coma in
Communist East Germany and wakes up in a capitalist nation). Visually
thrilling moments include the floating of Lenin’s figure above and
across the street, pointing a grim finger at pedestrians below.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Let’s celebrate politically correctly in every way.

The Free Lance-Star, VA
Dec 18 2004

Goodwill to men, women, kids, humanoids

THE PIOUS FOLK who exhorted their countrymen to “put the Christ back
in Christmas” have lost. How badly? Not only is the “Christ-” not
there, neither is the “-mas.” The very phrase “Merry Christmas!”
seems to be disappearing from general usage. People now attend
“holiday parties,” post “season’s greetings,” and exchange wishes of
“Happy holidays.” This is a good start toward peaceful coexistence in
our beloved multicultural nation, Bosnia. We mean, America.

After all, many of us do not celebrate Christmas. This minority
includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, some Unitarians, atheists, and
agnostics. Even among Christian sects, one finds non-celebrants, such
as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and churches that observe the feast on a
different day than Dec. 25, such as the Armenian Orthodox, whose
Christmas arrives on Jan. 6. So, clearly, “Christmas” is a term of
exclusion that should be retired in our outreaching society. That, as
we say, is a good start–but only a start.

When deconstructed, the adjective “Merry” is also (if we may make a
“value judgment”) mean-spirited. Not everyone is merry. It’s easy for
high extroverts on the Myers-Briggs personality grid to exude
“merriness.” They could do that even if staked out on an anthill. But
what about high introverts? Why should we bully them to be something
they’re not? Don’t they have a right to be reserved and to celebrate
the holidays without a lot of demonstrative hoopla? And when we say
“Merry Christmas,” aren’t we being insensitive to the individual who
has suffered a personal tragedy, such as the news that his spouse is
in possession of photographs taken by a private detective outside the
window of a Hotel 8? “Merry” indeed.

But banishing the entire phrase “Merry Christmas” still leaves the
holidays potentially hurtful as long as the callous shout, “Happy New
Year!” “Happy,” of course, is vulnerable to the same criticisms that
DQ “Merry,” but “New Year” is no innocent. It’s laden with “cultural
imperialism,” a phrase we learned long ago in college from a
professor who should be getting out of the pen any day now for
burning down the ROTC building.

Pagan-Americans, for example, typically mark their new year in the
spring. Does anyone care about them? The Jewish new year of Rosh
Hashana falls in the, well, fall, while Muslims use a different
calendar than the Gregorian version–named after a pope, no less,
which can’t sit well with Lynchburg, Va.–and, because it’s lunar,
ring in the new year on many different dates. And don’t go trying to
swap “New Year” for “2005,” Mr. Bigot. To traditional Chinese, it’s
the 22nd Year in the 78th Cycle.

Now, we’re not telling you all this to rob the season of spontaneity
or good feeling (though one’s feelings are certainly a private
affair), but only to instill in you a proper respect for your fellow
(pardon the sexist term) American. On the contrary, we shout to one
and all:

Unemotional Holiday and Disaffective Solstice!

And the Cosmic Force bless us, every one.

PRESENCE OF OPPOSITION IN ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT WILL INCREASE EFFICIENCY OF
ELABORATION AND CONSIDERATION OF BILLS: ARMENIAN PARLIAMENTARY SPEAKER

BODY:YEREVAN, DECEMBER 18. ARMINFO. Presence of the opposition in the
Armenian Parliament will increase the efficiency of elaboration and
consideration of bills, says Armenian Parliamentary Speaker Artur
Baghdasaryan in his interview with the Armenian Second TV channel
“H2.” A.Baghdasaryan is the Leader of the Orinats Yerkir party included
in the ruling coalition.

In his words, if the boycott is continued, the opposition is better
refuse from its presence in the parliament at all. Artur Baghdasaryan
thinks that this problem must be solved only through political
discussions. Finally, the people will send the MPs to the parliament,
in order that they protect its interests, first of all. There are
national problems like the peaceful resolution of Karabakh conflict
and they cannot be “favorable to the authorities and unfavorable to
the opposition or vice versa,” Baghdasaryan says.

Speaking of the domestic political situation in Armenia on the whole,
he states that it can be called stable. It is for the first time that
the political forces in the parliament has formed a coalition. Of
course, there are conflicts of opinions and approaches inside the
coalition in conditions of powerful positive potential. Of course,
there are obstacles, which can be overcome through structural reforms,
first of all. As regards the talks on the necessity of extraordinary
presidential and parliamentary elections, they are illogical from
the political point of view, he states. He assessed the activity of
the parliament in 2004 as effective as it was possible.

Kommersant, Russia
Dec 18 2004

Air Transport 2002-2004

Indicators for the Russian transportation system have steadily
improved in the last four years. For example, freight turnover
increased 7.9% compared to 2000. Last year, 285.7 million tons of
freight were shipped through Russian ports (compared to only 92.7
million tons through Baltic and Ukrainian ports). The increase in
freight volumes was mainly due to bulk cargo transport (oil and
petroleum products), which showed a 17.6% increase based on the
results of 2003 (compared to 1.5% for dry cargo).

Photo: Yury Martyanov

Indicators for air and rail transport also increased steadily,
averaging 10% per year. Domestic and international airlines carried
31 million people in 2003, which according to data of the RF State
Statistics Committee (Goskomstat) is 10.7% more than in 2002. In
2003, Russian railways transported 1.161 billion tons of freight
(7.1% more than in 2002) and 1.3 billion passengers (an increase of
2.6%).

At the same time, even according to official information, the
condition of transportation facilities and infrastructure leaves much
to be desired. For example, there are 18 291 vessels used in Russian
inland water transport but only 354 of them are less than 10 years
old. And only half of the 3830 airplanes and 1967 helicopters are
actually used. Depreciation of railway rolling stock is nearly 60%.

History: 2000–2004

During the first four years of Vladimir Putin’s presidency, many
transportation companies changed owners. Not without scandals, of
course; but these shifts essentially had no effect on the state of
the industry.

History of Aviation on the Ground

At present, there are 423 airports in Russia, almost all of them
state-owned. Despite the fact that the government promised last year
to get out of the airport business in the near future (this is
stipulated in Russia’s transportation strategy) and transfer airports
to private hands, Vladimir Putin’s first presidential term showed
that this process will be neither quick nor easy.

In June 2000, Aeroflot (51% state-owned) announced plans to construct
a third terminal at Sheremetevo International Airport (100%
state-owned). Aeroflot is Sheremetevo’s main carrier and knows better
than anyone that the airport’s traffic capacity and infrastructure
have not met real needs for a long time. However, things have not
progressed beyond leasing 50 ha of land in Khimkinsky District and a
pompous laying of the cornerstone. Aeroflot’s management and the
bureaucrats disagree on who should build the new terminal and manage
the existing one.

Last year, Alfa Group, which had previously never owned any
transportation assets, lobbied in Mikhail Kasyanov’s government for a
tender to select Sheremetevo’s management company for three years and
won it, beating out a consortium of Aeroflot and the National Reserve
Bank. At the time, Valery Okulov, Aeroflot’s general manager, even
threatened to change the company’s base airport, but the winner (OAO
Alfa Sheremetevo, 100% owned by Alfa Group affiliate Alfa-Eko M)
produced a group of foreign partners with whom it planned to tackle
Sheremetevo Airport. According to Igor Baranovsky, the head of Alfa
Sheremetevo, the amount of investment required to reconstruct and
modernize the airport and construct a third terminal is estimated at
$1.5-2 billion.

However, the tender results were not approved. Under pressure from
Aeroflot, Mikhail Fradkov’s government effectively disavowed them. In
early June, the prime minister instructed Aeroflot and Alfa Group to
reach an agreement on joint management of the airport. So far, they
have only determined the legal aspect of Aeroflot’s entry into the
management company. On July 6, Aeroflot’s board of directors approved
the following plan in principle: Alfa-Eko M and Aeroflot would set up
OOO Airport Management, to which they would transfer 100% of the
management company’s shares. The ratio of the partners’ stakes in the
new company remains an open question. The negotiations will probably
be protracted, and it is not inconceivable that the partners will use
their lobbying resources more than once to turn the situation to
their own advantage.

Vnukovo, Moscow’s third-largest airport after Sheremetevo and
Domodedovo in terms of passenger flows, was the first to actually be
privatized and was handed over by the federal authorities almost
without a fight. Until November 2003, 60.88% of the shares of AO
Vnukovo Airport (owns the Vnukovo 1 terminal) belonged to the RF
Ministry of State Property, but the Aviation Oil Company (ANK) had
actually been controlling all of Vnukovo’s airport business for a
long time. ANK refuses to disclose the ownership structure, but
according to some reports, the largest co-owners are the father and
son Anatoly and Vitaly Vantsev. The Vantsevs maintain that they only
own the manager’s block, the exact size of which is unknown.

ANK owns ZAO Vnukovo Invest [the owner of a second large block
(38.2%) of AO Vnukovo Airport], 75% of AO Vnukovo International
Airport (the remaining shares belong to the Moscow government), 60%
of ZAO Fuel Supply Complex (Toplivozapravochny kompleks;TZK), 50% of
ZAO Fuel Supply Company (Toplivozapravochnaya kompaniya), and more
than 50% of AO TZK Prima Fuel.

In April 2002, Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov sent Vladimir Putin a
proposal to transfer shares of Vnukovo Airport against repayment of
arrears on subsidies to Moscow for carrying out its metropolitan
functions. A year later, the parties agreed in principle to transfer
the shares, worth an estimated $1.74 billion; and Vladimir Putin
signed the corresponding decree in November. According to Vitaly
Vantsev, OAO Vnukovo International Airport’s general manager, there
was no redistribution of the shares or their transfer to the
management of a single structure, as Vnukovo’s owners had originally
planned; however, OAO Vnukovo Airport was chosen as coordinator of
the modernization plan for the entire Vnukovo Airport complex with
the rank of management company. A total of $300 million is supposed
to be invested in Vnukovo by 2007 and another $200 million by 2008.

ANK also wants to buy the state-owned terminal at Sochi Airport,
where the company already has a fuel supply business. According to
Vlast’s information, the deal could be worth $70-80 million, with
provision of a further $30-40 million of investments. “This will
probably be by tender, and we’re planning to participate,” says
Vitaly Vantsev.

The Russian government’s transportation strategy assumes that
redistribution of airports will continue. Up to now, the airports
have not been separated from the 71 airlines (24 of these are joint
stock companies, and 47 are state unitary enterprises). Given that
sometimes the state owns only the runways and airport buildings but
business runs the private structures, the restructuring will not be
easy.

History of Aviation in the Air

There have been some overall changes in air traffic in the past four
years. As before, more than 200 companies are involved in this
business, but only five airlines account for half of all passenger
traffic: Aeroflot – Russian Airlines, Sibir, Pulkovo, Krasnoyarsk
Airlines, and UTair (formerly Tyumenaviatrans). Interestingly enough,
the state has stakes ranging from 25.5% to 100% in each of the five
leaders except UTair. In the experts’ estimation, this coupled with
the effect of more progressive private management has allowed the
carriers to become leaders.

Sibir, controlled by a couple from Novosibirsk, Vladislav (general
manager) and Natalya (his deputy) Filev, has been expanding its
business more aggressively than the others in the past four years.
Sibir’s expansion on the air transport market began with Vnukovo
Airlines (VAL), which was in second place in traffic volumes in the
mid-1990s, but by 2000 was virtually bankrupt. In 2001, Sibir’s
management announced the start of a merger of the companies. But when
it was discovered that VAL had debts of nearly 1 billion rubles and
creditors blocked the merger several times by legal means, Sibir
simply bought 37 of the Moscow carrier’s airplanes, which had
previously been moved to subsidiaries set up by VAL’s management.
Vnukovo Airlines was declared bankrupt in 2003.

In summer 2002, Sibir became a co-owner of Armavia Airlines founded
by a group of Armenian businessmen using leased Tu-134’s, Tu-154’s,
and a leased Airbus-A320. Sibir has still not officially confirmed
this information, calling cooperation with Armavia a “strategic
alliance”.

Finally, in May of this year, Sergei Yashin, a co-owner of
Chelyabinsk Airlines (ChAP), sold 54% of his company’s shares to
structures owned by Vladislav Filev. As a result, Sibir acquired
Chelyabinsk Airport, a fuel-supply facility, a fleet of 16 Tu-154,
Tu-134, and Yak-42 airplanes, and the means to increase passenger
flows by at least 500 000 people. Experts estimate that the deal was
worth $10 million. Yashin’s former partner and minority Chelyabinsk
Airlines shareholder, Evgeny Razumov, opposed the sale and the
arrival of new owners. The confrontation between the parties is
proceeding in the finest traditions of shareholders’ wars: reciprocal
lawsuits and seizures of Chelyabinsk Airport and the Moscow office of
ChAP subsidiary Enkor. Nevertheless, in early July, Sibir’s
management officially announced the start of operations at ChAP, and
the company has begun flights between Moscow and Chelyabinsk.

UTair, one of the world’s largest helicopter operators (184
machines), changed owners at the end of June when the Administration
of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area (KhMAO) and the mayor of the city of
Surgut, who owned nearly 45% of UTair’s shares, sold their holdings.
The new owner has not been disclosed, but sources closely connected
with the deal say it is the oil company Surgutneftegaz. In fact, oil
companies make up a large proportion of UTair’s clients, and the
company has a well-developed infrastructure in a number of Russian
oil towns. Aleksandr Filipenko, the governor of KhMAO, strongly
recommended to oil companies that they buy the airline. Neither UTair
nor Surgutneftegaz has officially confirmed the deal, but according
to Andrei Martirosov, the airline’s general manager, the owner is a
company “well known in the autonomous area and outside”.

History of the Ports

The last four years have been notable for the mass arrival of new
owners at Russian ports – metallurgical, oil, chemical, coal, and
even agricultural companies have bought their shares. ZAO
Severstaltrans (SST) started the trend – Aleksei Mordashov, head of
the Severstal Group, and Konstantin Nikolaev, the head of
Severstaltrans, set up the company on a parity basis in 1996. The
peak of the new transportation company’s activity happened to
coincide with the past four years.

In 2001, SST began buying up shares of OAO Eastern Port (Vostochny
port), the largest port in the Far East, which had been controlled
for eight years by American businessman Kenneth Dart and his partner
Andrew Fox (they owned 36% of the shares). By the end of the summer,
SST had acquired nearly 60% of the shares; today it controls 68.64%.

Eastern Port is fourth in Russia’s hierarchy of ports. It is located
in deep-water, ice-free Wrangel Bay in the Sea of Japan and is
capable of handling large-capacity vessels (up to 150 000 tons). The
oil company Rosneft came here in April of last year. Rosneft’s board
of directors approved the acquisition of 100% of the shares of ZAO
Eastern Oil-Loading Terminal (Vostochny neftenalivnoi terminal; VNT)
from OAO Eastern Port. The deal is worth an estimated $18 million,
and Rosneft will have to invest about another $30 million to finish
building the terminal. After commissioning the first phase of VNT,
the company plans to export up to 4.5 million tons of petroleum
products per year through it.

In January 2002, Severstaltrans was the winner at a Russian Federal
Property Fund (RFFI) auction for the sale of 34% of the shares of
Taganrog Commercial Seaport (TMTP). The company paid 75.14 billion
rubles for one-third of TMTP, one of the so-called small ports on the
Sea of Azov with potential freight turnover of 1.5 million tons per
year. As a result, Severstaltrans became the largest port owner after
the state by consolidating 39% of the shares (51% of the voting
shares). A new 400 000-ton capacity grain berth went into operation
in the same year, and construction began on three more. But at the
end of the year, Severstaltrans sold its share block to grain trader
Karavai Plus Agroindustrial Corporation (APK Karavai Plus).

This year, SST got rid of another port asset acquired two years ago.
At the end of June, the company sold 69.4% of the shares of Tuapse
Commercial Seaport [Tuapsinsky MTP, on the Black Sea] to Novolipetsk
Iron and Steel Corporation (NLMK). The amount of the deal has not
been disclosed, but analysts believe the shares cost NLMK twice as
much as Severstal, which spent about $45 million on consolidating the
shares in 2002. Severstaltrans (port assets make up a fifth of all of
the holding’s assets) explained that it had sold the shares in order
to shift money to the railway sector, specifically towards the
purchase of rolling stock and locomotives.

NLMK in turn had been the only remaining Russian metallurgical
company without its own transportation assets. However, it quickly
got down to business and bought a controlling interest in OAO Port of
St. Petersburg (Morskoi port Sankt-Peterburg) from Nasdor Anstalt
(controlled by State Duma deputy Vitaly Yuzhilin and his partner
Andrei Kobzar). The amount of the deal has not been disclosed, but
market participants estimate it was worth at least $100 million.

Other companies also became port owners between 2002 and 2004,
including Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Plant (MMK, or Magnitka), which
bought about 23% of the shares of OAO Vladivostok Commercial Seaport
(Vladivostoksky MTP), Evrazholding [owns 91.5% of the shares of
Nakhodka Commercial Seaport (Nakhodsky MTP)], Mechel [80.2% of Poset
Commercial Port (Torgovy port Poset)], and AO Alliance Oil Company
[NK Alyans; owns a 65.84% share in the capital of Nakhodka Commercial
Petroleum Port (Nakhodsky neftenalivnoi MTP)]. Norilsk Nickel
(Nornikel) increased its stake in Archangelsk Commercial Seaport
(Arkhangelsky MTP) to 53%.

History of Shipping

Of Russia’s four largest shipping companies – Novoship, Sovkomflot,
and the Primorye and Far Eastern shipping companies – only the last
two have undergone changes. In June 2002, offshore companies closely
associated with ex-Minister of Fuel and Energy and ex-State Duma
deputy Sergei Generalov consolidated a 60% block of shares of Far
Eastern Shipping Company (DVMP), which specializes in worldwide
container traffic. The shares were acquired from a number of small
private investors.

The shipping company changed its general manager in September, when
Aleksandr Ambrosov from Sovkomflot replaced government representative
Aleksandr Lugovets, who until 2000 had been the deputy of former
Minister of Transport Sergei Frank. This can be considered a defeat
for the bureaucrats, since Frank had always zealously defended the
presence of government officials in large shipping companies. At the
last shareholders’ meeting, disputes broke out between the
representatives of majority shareholder S.V.G. Holding S.A. and the
government (20%) over the amount of dividends on the results of 2003.
The government insisted on increasing them, but the principal
shareholder thought it was better to direct profits to the reserve
fund and to upgrading DVMP’s fixed assets.

Primorye Shipping Company (PMP) did not change owners. Its management
headed by Aleksandr Kirilichev, which controlled nearly 70% of the
company’s shares, tried to protect it from a hostile takeover in
January 2003. In 2003, the entire block was transferred to a nominee
holding of depositaries of ZAO ING (Eurasia) and ZAO Depositary and
Clearing Company.

Magnify
A year later, Kirilichev, who had been at the helm of PMP for more
than 10 years, also faded into the background. His first deputy,
Aleskandr Popravko, became general manager in May of this year, and
Kirilichev decided to concentrate on solving strategic problems of
expanding shipping as chairman of the board of directors. According
to Natalya Mironova, the head of PMP’s press service, the general
manager himself initiated the lateral move, because he believed that
“there are already good managers in shipping”. PMP stubbornly denies
the theory that the staff changes were made just before a major
change of owners.

Changes may also affect Sovkomflot and Novoship during Vladimir
Putin’s second presidential term. Several months ago, rumors appeared
that Sergei Frank, now an aide to the prime minister, is hatching
plans to merge the companies and is ready to head the new structure.
Of course, there is still no confirmation of this information. The
mechanism of the merger is also unclear. Unlike wholly state-owned
Sovkomflot, Novoship is only 50% state-owned.

;node=25&doc_id=492455

–Boundary_(ID_iURF6VmLC+b7gYN+yHJdyQ)–
From: Baghdasarian

Guardian, UK
Dec 18 2004

Despite this deal, the road ahead remains rocky indeed

Turkey’s bid for European membership is full of contradictions

Martin Woollacott

The European Union and Turkey took a fateful decision this week.
Unease, pride, anger and an element of guile are evident on each
side. The settlement which it brings over Cyprus – much as it is to
be desired – should not conceal from us the collisions between
different values, and between the aims of decision makers and the
instincts of their peoples, that lie ahead.
Nothing illustrated so well the disjunction between carefully
formulated common aspirations and the reality of divergent values
than the situation earlier this year. A final assessment of Turkey’s
application was being undertaken at about the same time as the
European parliament was revolting against Jose Manuel Barroso’s
choice of Rocco Buttiglione as justice commissioner. The objections
to Buttiglione were that he held traditional Catholic views on
homosexuality and the role of women. Can we imagine for a moment how
a majority of Turkish MEPs, had they been present, would have voted
on the issue?

The party from which most of them would have been drawn had just
withdrawn a proposal to criminalise adultery because it had
discovered to its surprise that the measure was offensive to the
union. Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, nevertheless made
it clear that Turkey had no intention of trading its social and
cultural values for EU membership. And why should he not do so, as a
conservative Muslim? Yet the same MEPs who were outraged by
Buttiglione’s views have now voted for accession negotiations with
Turkey to begin. They are either oblivious to contradiction, or they
conceive of the negotiations as a project to transform Turkey into a
country happy to be in the close company of a Britain soon to abolish
the blasphemy laws, or a Spain moving to endorse gay marriage.

That may happen. After all, 30 years ago Spain, Italy, and Ireland,
to take just three examples, were societies that appeared to be
deeply religious, and they appear much less so today. But that does
not mean Turkey will go in the same direction, and it is not the
direction in which Erdogan and his Justice and Development party, the
AKP, wish to take their country.

When the AKP’s predecessor, the Welfare party, came to power in 1996,
a party journal declared: “For almost a century, the foes of Islam
have governed Turkey. Now a new period begins.” Erdogan clearly has
no intention of confronting the Kemalist division between religion
and the state, but a shift of power toward the religious and, in
particular, toward the religiously educated has been obvious in
Turkey for at least the past 10 years.

The irony is that the European political forces opposed to Turkey’s
entry because it is Muslim are precisely those likely to be in broad
agreement with the conservative social views of Erdogan and his
party, and with their conviction of the centrality of religious
faith. Equally, the political forces in Europe most in favour of
Turkish entry are the left and liberal groups least likely to share
such views.

Surely there are grounds for trouble here. The stage is set for a
struggle in which Turkey, at least as long as the AKP is in charge,
tries to take from Europe what it wants in terms of economic and
security advantage, and tries to change what it deems essential as
little as possible – while Europe demands its pound of liberal flesh.
It is not only religious values that will be at issue, but deeply
established habits of Turkish nationalism, such as the denial that
anything happened to the Armenians worse than the general suffering
of all the peoples affected by the collapse of the Ottoman empire – a
position that must surely change before Turks can claim to have
purged themselves of past sins.

On the surface, there seems to be a sharp contrast between European
public opinion, in the main dubious about Turkish entry, and Turkish
public opinion, strongly in favour. But if you go deeper, the
asymmetry is not so obvious. It can be argued that Europe is a
curiously unifying factor in Turkey only because so many different,
competing and sometimes mutually hostile groups see it as a solution
to their problems, a way to move on the long game of modern Turkish
politics in their favour.

For ethnic minorities such as the Kurds, and religious minorities
such as Orthodox Christians, Europe could provide a guarantee of
secure minority status, even autonomy. For the business class, at
least the upper tier of it, the present arrangements with the union
have already brought benefits, and more are in prospect. For those
sections of the working class in western Turkey, which already have
strong European connections, full EU membership would make easier the
dual existence that is already a reality for their families.

For Turkish liberals Europe is a hedge against both religious
extremism and secular authoritarianism. For the armed forces, uneasy
about American policy in the Middle East, Europe may represent a way
of reducing its US links. And, very important, for Turkey’s
decision-makers, who worry about population growth, unemployment and
what will happen to the rural masses, Europe is the only visible
answer.

For the Turkish political class, moreover, Europe was a policy that,
pursued in the right way, could bring permanent advantage to the
party that brought home the prize. Against the expectations of only a
few years ago, it is the Islamic party that seems closest to this
goal. Having for years opposed entry and talked about an Islamic
common market as an alternative, it shrewdly stole the European
clothes of the secular parties and presented itself to the electorate
as able both to maintain traditional and religious values and to reel
in what Europe had to offer. Its coup has, however, put it in an
exposed position, for it must now deliver this contradictory package.
It has also left the Turkish party system in a state of disarray,
which is not often noted in discussions of Turkish democracy.

There are Turks who feel strongly European, and there is a true
European sense in some classes in that country. But “If not Europe,
what?” calculations, and a prickly “We’re as good as you” sentiment
also mark the Turkish approach. This latter feeling appears to have
ruled out the halfway house of a special relationship. Thus Turkey is
embracing Europe less in enthusiasm than with a mix of pride and
desperation, while Europe is embracing Turkey with reluctance and a
degree of fear. Not fear of Turkey, but of its own population,
because there is no getting away from the fact that this will be
another big thing the European elite has done that its peoples on the
whole do not want.

The ways in which, through lost referendums and other national votes,
this could damage the European project are clear enough. A rocky road
indeed.

Roj TV, Denmark
Dec 18 2004

French President Chirac interprets the summit and Kurdish Problem

French President Jacques Chirac stating he expected the candidacy of
Turkey to the European Union (EU) would bring the principles of
peace, dialog and especially respect with, interpreted the given date
for negotiations as “If we remain engage for 15 years, this will
result in a happy marriage.”

In a press conference held in Brussels, Jacques Chirac , the
president of France where was on the focus of the most intensive
debates before the Oct. 17 summit of the EU, made crucial statements
on the given date for starting talks, Cyprus and Kurdish problems. He
emphasized that the date to be handed to Turkey does not mean
candidateship and, gave the message Turkey should make great attempts
to access to the European community. If Turkey does not make the
required efforts and the unity decrees Turkey not to have done or not
to want to do so, the EU will stand on a strong formula of
relationship out of candidacy.” President Chirac said and stated the
way of parley was ”long and hard”.

‘Turkey has many steps to take”

To question ”Will you make a call on Turkey, which has been fighting
with Kurdish guerillas for 30 years, to start a dialog with the
Kurdish side”, Mr.Chirac said the problem would be solved within the
framework of Copenhagen Criteria. Taking attention to the existence
of the Criteria which point out respect for human rights, the French
President said: ”This should be implemented into practice for the
Kurds, as should for the others. These criteria to be imbibed by
Turkey will bring forth effects especially for the Kurds, too. One of
the important problems is deliberation. If we believe the conditions
of respect for human rights not to be fulfilled, this should be
imposed upon ”He expressed that Turkey had many steps to take on
that way, and warned the Turkish state that the debate will be
stopped in case of Turkey violated human right.” To enter this
culture is needed. I hope the negotiations and the candidateship of
Turkey bring the principles of peace, dialog and particularly respect
with it. We call this Copenhagen Criteria, which will open the way of
peace and dialog.” he added.

If Cyprius is not recognized, the talks end’

By stating that Turkey was ready for signing the protocol related
with the Ankara Agreement on the Cyprus Issue, Chirac emphasized the
negotiations would end in case Cyprus was not recognized. He
expressed a wish of marriage between the Turkish state and the EU by
saying :” If we stay engaged for 15 years, I believe, this will lead
up to a marriage.”

‘France is very sensitive about Armenians subject’

The president answering a question stated France was very sensitive
especially about the Armenian problem and said that France opened its
gates to Armenians in 1915 and there is an Armenian society
well-integrated with the state. He also recorded that Turkey should
have made a memorial examination on Armenian issue, otherwise Turkey
would incur an intervention of the French people in the referendum to
be held for the candidacy of Turkey to the EU.

RECOVERY OF POPULATION’S SOVIET TIME SAVINGS IS MORAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEM

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 18. ARMINFO. The recovery of the population’s
Soviet times savings is a moral, social and economic problem, says
Artak Arakelyan, MP representing the State of Law party.

“We owe money to those who built the country that was successfully
destroyed later. Even though we have been taught how to cheat in the
past years the money should still be returned,” says Arakelyan.

He notes that nobody pressured him and some other MPs to collect
signatures for calling a special session on the issue. He says that his
party drafted such a bill as early as 2000 but it has never reached the
parliamentary floor. Now the parliament has to consider three bills at
a time. “We should find an optimal solution,” says Arakelyan. He calls
a bluff the talk that WB and other international financial institutions
may refuse Armenia further financing if the savings are returned.

Arakelyan is sure that this issue will cause no split inside the
ruling coalition but regrets that socially oriented ARFD objects to
returning people their own money. Let them come and vote against rater
than deliberately boycott the session, he says. As for the Republican
Party’s skepticism Arakelyan calls it political jealousy.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IMF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DOES NOT GIVE POSITIVE ESTIMATION TO SITUATION OF
CUSTOMS AND TAX SPHERES OF ARMENIA

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 18. ARMINFO. During the Dec sitting IMF Executive
Committee did not give positive estimation to the situation in the
tax and customs spheres of Armenia. IMF Resident Representative to
Armenia James McHugh stated in the interview to daily “Republic of
Armenia”. According to him, it seem that the affairs in this sphere
are not so good as they could be.

Mr. McHugh expressed an opinion that in today Armenia the most
anxiety is aroused by the low level of tax collection which creates
problems in the budgetary sphere. He stated that this problem is
directly connected with corruption phenomena. According to him,
IMF has agreed with the government of Armenia for introduction of
new software and systems in tax and customs bodies. They will allow
to estimate the impartiality of amounts of fixed payments. The IMF
initiates elaboration of a code of behavior of an agent of customs
service and a department is established which will carry out a control
after clearance. Another innovation must bring to minimum the direct
contact of freight forwarders and recipients with customs officials.

At the same time James McHugh informed that IMF task group will visit
Armenia in March of the next year, and it will prepare proposals
concerning a new credit program. By this period the fund will form
the list of the so-called preliminary actions whose fulfillment will
prove about the adherence to the government to the selected course
and it will include the arrangements for perfection of the tax and
customs spheres. Nevertheless, IMF executive committee members think
that Armenia has reached significant economic results and is following
correct way. James McHugh noted that Armenia remains in the list of
the state with low income per capita.

It should be noted that at the beginning of Dec IMF allocated the
last tranche to Armenia worth 9 mln SDR under the program PRGF worth a
total of 69 mln SDR. In total, during 10 years of cooperation IMF has
provided a credit assistance to Armenia worth a total of some $300 mln.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Chess Academy of Armenia
Yerevan, Armenia
Contact: Aram Hajian
Tel: (3741) 52-02-46
Fax: (3741) 52-02-46
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

Round 1 Report
by Aram Hajian

The first round of the Petrosian Internet Memorial was
a hard-fought success. Each team enjoyed one victory,
endured one defeat, and came out of the day with two
out of four points. Winners in the Armenia-Russia
match were GM Sargissian over GM Khalifman on board 3,
and GM Zvjaginsev over GM Minasian on board 4, each
converting for the full point with the white pieces.
On board 1, the event’s top rated player GM Svidler
enjoyed a significant advantage with the black pieces
over GM Aronian, who pulled a rabbit out of his hat in
holding the position despite being down to one minute
for nearly twenty moves. A draw was the fortunate
outcome. Meanwhile on board 2, Lputian played a
strong novelty to equalize with black against GM
Dreev, and a draw was the just outcome.
In the China-France match, GM Ni ground down GM
Fressinet in a tortuous endgame with the black pieces
on board 2, while GM Nataf dispatched his board 4
opponent GM Wang with a strong king-side attack on the
white side of a Sicilian defense. The struggles on
boards 1 and 3 saw GMs Bu and Lautier share the point,
and GMs Zhang and Bauer agree to the peace as well.
Round two sees France take on Armenia, and Russia
facing off against China. Technically, the games went
well, without any disconnections, distractions, or
internet problems in any of the four locales. Visit
for news, information,
interviews, and games from the event, which runs from
December 18-23.

Standings after 1 round:
1st place with 2 points: Armenia, China, France,
Russia

ARMENIAN PARLIAMENTARY SPEAKER: WHEN REFORMING THE ELECTION CODE, WE MUST NOT
BE GUIDED WITH A PRINCIPLE THAT “GUILLOTINE IS THE BEST REMEDY FOR DANDRUFF,”

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 18. ARMINFO. When reforming the Election Code,
we must not be guided with a principle that “guillotine is the best
remedy for dandruff,” says Armenian Parliamentary Speaker Artur
Baghdasaryan in his interview with the Armenian Second TV channel
“H2.” A.Baghdasaryan is the Leader of the Orinats Yerkir party included
in the ruling coalition.

In his words, two project of distribution of the parliamentary seats
exist at present: either 100% proportional system, or 60% and 40%
in favor of the proportional system. Each political force expressing
its opinion on this problem must be ready to a compromise. At present
70%/30% version is considered, which will maintain the rights of
single-mandate seats as well. It will allow political forces to
develop. A consensus is reached and the draft reforms, including
in them expansion of observers’ rights, will be submitted to the
Parliament in February, 2005, the speaker says.