Azerbaijan may be involved in NATO’s “rapid reaction operations” – minister

Zerkalo, Baku
6 Nov 04

Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov has said that the
country may take part in NATO operations as “new challenges require a
flexible and rapid reaction”. Speaking to journalists on the results
of NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s visit to Azerbaijan,
Azimov did not rule out that peacekeeping forces may be brought into
the region, if a settlement is found to the Karabakh issue. He also
rejected the OSCE mediators’ criticism of Azerbaijan’s decision to use
the UN General Assembly’s rostrum for discussing the situation in the
territories occupied by Armenia. The following is an excerpt from Rauf
Mirqadirov’s report in Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 6 November
headlined “USA’s mobile forces may appear in Azerbaijan” and subheaded
“This conclusion could at least be drawn from Deputy Foreign Minister
Araz Azimov’s words”; subheadings have been inserted editorially

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de
Hoop Scheffer discussed prospects for developing cooperation between
Azerbaijan and NATO at their meeting in Baku yesterday 5 November ,
Turan news agency reported.

Passage omitted: more about meeting; Scheffer’s news conference in
Baku

Commenting on the talks, Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz
Azimov has said that official Baku is ready to develop comprehensive
cooperation with NATO. This was confirmed at talks between Scheffer
and the Azerbaijani leadership today.

Azimov also said that Scheffer’s visit was brief, but very
fruitful. Mr Scheffer arrived in Baku from Yerevan as published,
actually from Tbilisi late on Thursday 4 November evening and left the
Azerbaijani capital on Friday afternoon. Azimov said that Scheffer’s
working day had started at 0800 0400 gmt yesterday. He managed to meet
the Azerbaijani president and the foreign minister and to attend a
sitting of the state commission on cooperation with NATO led by
Azerbaijani First Deputy Prime Minister Yaqub Eyyubov.

Passage omitted: details of talks

Plan for individual partnership with NATO to boost reforms in security
sector

The Individual Partnership Action Plan IPAP topped the agenda of the
talks. Azimov said that NATO was expected to endorse this document in
the near future. “This document was supposed to be endorsed by the
leadership of NATO before Scheffer’s visit to Baku. But some procedure
issues impeded this,” he added. The implementation of this plan will
start following its endorsement, Azimov said. The IPAP will aim at
bringing Azerbaijan’s security services into line with NATO standards.

At the same time, Azerbaijan has already carried out certain
activities to implement this plan. In particular, an interdepartmental
working group has been established to work out Azerbaijan’s foreign
policy and national security concepts as well as the country’s
military doctrine.

Azerbaijan may take part in NATO’s “rapid reaction operations”

Naturally, Azimov was asked about the possibility that foreign
military bases would be deployed in Azerbaijan which is banned by the
recently-adopted law on national security guarantees. At first, Azimov
unequivocally said that this was impossible. But reservations
immediately followed.

For example, peacekeeping forces may be deployed in the region if a
settlement is found to the Karabakh conflict. Azimov also said that in
this case one should not draw specific conclusions from his theoretic
assumptions. “I would like to say that talks on this issue are not
being held. But if need be, the peacekeeping forces can be basically
deployed in the conflict zone by a decision of an international
organization, of which Azerbaijan is a member. At the same time, them
will have a precisely-defined mandate and it would be impossible for
them to act outside this mandate,” Azimov said.

But this is not all. Azimov’s answer to the question about the
possibility that foreign military bases would be deployed in
Azerbaijan was more vague.

He said that Azerbaijan had already joined NATO’s programme concept on
the establishment and development of rapid reaction units. “It means
that Azerbaijan does not rule out the involvement in the alliance’s
rapid reaction operations in the future because new challenges require
a flexible and rapid reaction. In conditions of globalization, the
developments in any crisis require a rapid reaction, and Azerbaijan
may become an active participant in this process,” Azimov added. He
also said that the Azerbaijani armed forces could organize this kind
of units.

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen should not speak on behalf of all OSCE
countries

Replying to journalists’ question, Azimov also said that Baku had
rejected criticism by co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group in
connection with future discussions of the situation in occupied
territories by the UN General Assembly.

He said that Azerbaijan had earlier informed the OSCE
chairman-in-office, the UN secretary-general and the co-chairmen of
the OSCE Minsk Group themselves of Armenia’s illegal activities in the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

“We demanded that political measures be taken to stop such
activities. But this was not done, and Azerbaijan succeeded in putting
this issue on the UN General Assembly’s agenda. Azerbaijan may propose
a draft resolution or take other measures. In addition, the
co-chairmen can express only their own position, they are not speaking
on behalf of the entire Minsk Group. Turkey, which is also a member of
the OSCE Minsk Group, fully supports Azerbaijan’s position. Despite
the EU countries’ certain position, Germany has abstained in the vote
on this issue. This fact says something as well,” Azimov added.

Azimov said that the co-chairmen were well briefed on the situation in
the occupied territories. This especially applies to Andrzej Kasprzyk,
personal representative of the OSCE chairman-in-office, Azimov
added. He called on the co-chairmen to step up their work and not to
speak on behalf of all the OSCE countries.

At the same time, Azimov expressed bewilderment at the position of
some neighbouring countries which had not supported Azerbaijan during
the discussions of this issue especially as Azerbaijan has constantly
been supporting the fair position of these countries in similar
situations. Although Azimov refused to name the country, but it was
clear that he was referring to Georgia.

Armenian agency warns foreign states not to indulge Azeri president

Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
6 Nov 04

An Armenian news agency has warned foreign powers not to indulge the
Azerbaijani president whom it accused of shutting “the half-open
window of possibilities in the process of a Karabakh settlement”. In
its weekly analysis, Mediamax said that the talks were in “a state of
full uncertainty” as Ilham Aliyev “interprets an indulgent attitude
to himself on the part of foreign powers purely as a good opportunity
to delay the beginning of a real dialogue”. The agency called on the
mediating states to “change their tactics and treat each party to the
conflict equally”. The following is an excerpt from report in English
by Armenian news agency Mediamax; subheadings have been inserted
editorially:

The recent developments around the Nagornyy Karabakh peace process
testify to the fact that despite great expectations the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents’ meeting in Astana on 15 September has not
become a “breakthrough” in the peace process.

According to statements from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen, after
the talks in the capital of Kazakhstan the presidents took a
“time-out”, which as the mediators hoped, would finish in early
November. However, today we, vice versa, witness the sides’ return to
the situation, which has been observed since Heydar Aliyev’s death
till this spring – the absence of negotiating process accompanied by
the sides’ mutual accusations.

The optimistic picture formed after President Robert Kocharyan and
President Ilham Aliyev’s meeting in Astana, began going bad already in
early October, when the Azerbaijani president gave an interview to
Reuters, where he, in particular, called Armenia an “aggressor
country”. In fact, Ilham Aliyev did not say anything new – Azerbaijani
leaders have been using this cliche over the last 10 years. However,
the reaction of official Yerevan, which until now has expressed
restrained optimism in relation to the situation in the negotiating
process formed after several round of talks between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani foreign ministers and the meeting in Astana, turned out to
be rather harsh.

“Azerbaijan reaps the fruits of the military aggression unleashed by
it and is the hostage of the colonial policy pursued in relation to
Nagornyy Karabakh,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman, Gamlet
Gasparyan, said on 8 October.

Some days later, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan also
commented on Ilham Aliyev’s statement, saying that “Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev has chosen a wrong direction and wrong theme.”

Oskanyan noted that such harsh-worded statements can put Ilham Aliyev
in a difficult situation and complicate his ability to make
compromises without which the settlement of the Karabakh problem is
impossible. The Armenian foreign minister said that commenting on the
negotiating process, Yerevan’s representatives unambiguously state the
impossibility of Nagornyy Karabakh’s existence within Azerbaijan. “In
all other issues we behave quite carefully and do not enter into
polemics,” Oskanyan stressed.

Passage omitted: more recap of mutual accusations

Baku shuts “window of possibilities”, paper says

>From this moment it became obvious that the hopes aroused by the
Astana meeting will remain unrealized, at least, in the short-term
perspective. The Armenian leaders have repeatedly stated that they
refused the plan of land swap, which had been for some time discussed
at talks with Heydar Aliyev. The fact that official Baku decided to
return to this theme just on the eve of the 5th anniversary of the
terrorist act in the Armenian parliament testifies to the fact that
Azerbaijan has made up its mind to shut the half-open “window of
possibilities” in the process of the Karabakh settlement. And the
statement made by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov on 26
October only proved this.

Elmar Mammadyarov said that “Baku is waiting for an answer from
Yerevan regarding the continuation of the process on a settlement of
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict”. “We would like the talks, the
exchange of opinion and the conclusions that were reached in certain
spheres to be continued,” the Azerbaijani foreign minister said and
stressed that all the talks are aimed at Armenia’s liberating the
seven occupied regions around Nagornyy Karabakh.

“We have got no answer concerning this either from Yerevan or from the
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen, who, as the Azerbaijani side thinks,
should work more actively,” Elmar Mammadyarov said.

In reply, the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman, Gamlet Gasparyan,
said that “we have repeatedly said, and we will say so again, that
despite Azerbaijan’s wishes or statements, Armenia’s focus during
negotiations is on the issue of the status of Nagornyy Karabakh”.

“All other issues are tangential to the status issue and Armenia views
them only in the context of the future status of NKR,” the Armenian
Foreign Ministry’s official representative said. Commenting on another
statement by the Azerbaijani foreign minister that the Armenian
president took a time-out in Astana “to analyse the results of the
meetings held”, Gamlet Gasparyan said that both presidents agreed to
take time to consider the issues which were raised. “On the matters
which are of interest to Armenia, we have not yet received a response
from Azerbaijan,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman said.

Passage omitted: recaps talks under former president Levon
Ter-Petrosyan

UN General Assembly

The Azerbaijani leadership’s further steps demonstrated that Baku, as
before, decided to get involved in a propaganda campaign and not a
real settlement. In late October, the UN General Assembly committee
decided to recommend the inclusion of three additional items in the
assembly’s current agenda, including the proposal to consider the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The request was
contained in a letter from the permanent representative of
Azerbaijan. The French representative, speaking on behalf of the
co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group spoke against the discussion of the
issue suggested by Azerbaijan by the UN General Assembly. According to
him, the request for the introduction of a new item could have
negative consequences and harm efforts to bring about a just and
lasting settlement.

After the Azerbaijani initiative had been officially included in the
UN General Assembly’s agenda, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that
it “can hardly have a favourable influence on the negotiating
process”. “Russia abstained from voting like the other co-chairman of
the OSCE Minsk Group. We think that the initiative in parallel with
the OSCE consideration of this issue at the UN General Assembly can
hardly have a favourable influence on the negotiating process. The
results of the voting testify to the fact that most members of the
international community adhere to a similar position,” the Russian
Foreign Ministry noted.

The Russian cochairman of the OSCE Minsk Group Yuriy Merzliakov was
more open. In an interview with Baku’s ATV TV company he said: “The
discussion of the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan
at the UN will seriously harm the peace process.”

“Full uncertainty” at Karabakh talks

Today we decided to repeat an excerpt from our analytical review of
January 31 2004, since as we have already mentioned at the beginning
of this article, the situation, unfortunately, returns to a state of
full uncertainty. Here is the excerpt, which, in our opinion, has not
only lost but, vice versa, has acquired additional actuality: “We
think that the representatives of the international community and
mediator-states, speaking about the need for ‘giving more time to
Ilham Aliyev’ make an essential mistake calling on to wait for the
moment when the new Azerbaijani leader ‘will get firmly established’
in his post. A question arises – will Ilham Aliyev be firmly
established in three months or half a year? Why not take into account
the fact that Aliyev’s position may vice versa become weaker because
of some reasons thus making the Karabakh settlement more unreal?”

If the mediator-states are really interested in settling the conflict,
they should change their tactics and treat each party to the conflict
equally. Otherwise, the solution will be dragged on as Ilham Aliyev,
to all appearances, interprets an indulgent attitude to himself on the
part of foreign powers purely as a good opportunity to delay the
beginning of a real dialogue.

Passage omitted: recaps the 2002 US ambassador to the OSCE appeal to
both presidents to continue talks

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

No Competition

Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
6 Nov 04

by Anna Akopyan’s

Yesterday 5 October in Yerevan NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer met President Robert Kocharyan, Defence Minister Serzh
Sarkisyan and Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan to wrap up his
three-day visit to the region. At a briefing after the meeting with
Robert Kocharyan, the secretary-general said what is normally said
after such meetings. With a slight difference he said the same things
in Georgia and Azerbaijan.

But unlike in these two countries, in Yerevan the secretary-general
specially announced several times that NATO does not intend to compete
with other structures or states in this region. It is clear, of
course, that the secretary-general did not have to dwell on this in
Georgia and Azerbaijan. Armenia, however, is different. It is known
that Georgia and Azerbaijan oriented themselves towards NATO a long
time ago, but Armenia remains oriented towards Russia, whereas NATO
announced the South Caucasus a zone of its interests with all the
consequences stemming from this.

By the way, a few words about the consequences: Yesterday 5 November
during a meeting with students of Yerevan State University, the
secretary-general said that NATO does not plan to deploy troops in
this region, be it in Georgia or Azerbaijan or Armenia. “Yesterday 4
November we had a long conversation with Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili. He has numerous problems: South Osetia, Abkhazia and
Russian bases. I arrived in Yerevan and same thing again: the Karabakh
problem, that needs to be settled. But it is not in the interests of
NATO or countries of this region to establish NATO military bases in
this region,” Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.

Nevertheless he hinted that Armenia as well as Georgia need NATO
forces. He also added that NATO does not plan to take part in the
Karabakh issue settlement process. But he certainly discussed the
Karabakh problem with Robert Kocharyan. Touching on Scheffer’s
statement “not to compete with other states” let us note that
yesterday 5 November the secretary-general was simply trying to
persuade Armenia to get rid of all the conditions in its relations
with NATO. “I know that hostility towards NATO was sowed into the
minds of people in this region for several generations. We know this
for a fact. NATO was the enemy of the USSR, but today we live at a
different time. We must make use of that. The world has changed and
there should be no anxiety about NATO any more,” Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
said at the meeting with students. “I am not here to compete. The
Republic of Armenia may develop relations with NATO without damaging
its relations with Russia,” he said. By the way, the secretary-general
also specially stressed that though the times and the world have
changed, but the values laid at the foundation of NATO have remained
the same: democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and press and the
supremacy of law.

American elections and Armenia

Hayots Ashkharh, Yerevan
5 Nov 04

by Sarkis Gevorkyan

The presidential elections in America have demonstrated that George
Bush’s active foreign policy is supported by more than 50 per cent of
the Americans at least. The reason is evident: George Bush is a
guarantor of the country’s security. Bush’s failure in the elections
would be tantamount to acknowledging by the American voters their
country’s defeat in Iraq. This would also be a strong psychological
blow to America’ confidence.

At the same time we think that during his second term of office,
George Bush will pursue a more balanced foreign policy which will be
based on the following priorities:

1. The antiterror fight will continue with a tendency towards
attracting both strong and weak allies;

2. The role of the UN and other countries will be increased in the
reconstruction of Iraq in order to “legitimate” the previous US
policy;

3. A new balance of forces will be formed in Eurasia to continue the
fight against terrorism.

Passage omitted: recaps on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
and Putin’s support for Bush

The results of the US elections should not have a negative impact on
Armenian-American relations. From this point of view, it would be a
dangerous misunderstanding to think that that the support of the US
Armenian diaspora for John Kerry coincides with the political position
of Armenia. The leadership of Armenia has always thought that
prospects for Armenian-American cooperation have nothing to do with
the outcome of the presidential elections in the USA.

Therefore, any attempt to present the position of the Armenian
diaspora of the USA as Armenia’s position is a deliberate attempt to
distort reality. However, in order to substantiate this, some people
even used the results of the make-believe election recently held by
the US embassy in Armenia, when Armenian officials invited to the
embassy voted for John Kerry, who, by that time, had already suffered
a defeat.

Armenia is a state whose interests do not coincide with the political
position of the US Armenians.

Passage omitted: minor details

PRESS RELEASE
Anahid Yeremian
Support Committee for Armenia’s Cosmic Ray Division
P.O. Box 655, Menlo Park, CA 94026
[email protected]
650 – 926 – 4444

November 4, 2004

The Cosmic Ray Division – Shines Brighter than Ever

The Cosmic Ray Division (CRD) of the Alikhanian Physics Institute
(formerly known as Yerevan Physics Institute) shines in the
international scientific arena, despite the difficult conditions in
Armenia. Scientific advances at the CRD continue at a steady pace
with ties between the Diaspora and the CRD stronger than ever, making
us all proud of our joint accomplishments. For detailed information
about the CRD please visit . Here are a few
highlights:

Important New Scientific Partnerships

CRD is a leader in ground based Space Weather Research as indicated by
endorsements from the scientific community around the world. In 2004
the CRD officially signed a memorandum of understanding for scientific
cooperation with the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European
Union’s Commission On Science and Technology (COST). These are
important additions to other prestigious research partners such as the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) in the U.S. CRD’s
close scientific collaboration with EU scientific organizations will
strengthen Armenia’s bid to join the EU in the future.

Strong Scientific Presence in International Conferences

During the past year CRD scientists have made important scientific
contributions at several international conferences, including the NATO
Space Weather Workshop in Moscow, the European Cosmic Ray Conference
in Florence, and the COmmittee for SPace Research (COSPAR) congress in
Paris. In many cases, CRD’s participation was by special invitation.
Prof. Ashot Chilingarian, the visionary head of the CRD, is also
Armenia’s representative to COSPAR, and his active participation in
the committee’s activities have earned him a letter of commendation
from the Executive Director of COSPAR: “… I would like to take the
opportunity of this letter to thank you [Prof. Chilingarian], as
Armenian National Representative, for participating actively in the
committee’s activities. It is rare for new members to participate to
the degree that you have, e.g., attending committee meetings,
nominating candidates for awards, seeking COSPAR’s assistance in
obtaining EU funding, etc. Armenia’s participation has added to the
value of our Committee’s work and been remarked by our officers and
certainly other national and international scientific union members as
well. We look forward to future close relations, to widening
participation by Armenian scientists in the international space
research community, and trust you will not hesitate to contact us
concerning capacity building activities or other matters in which our
collaboration may be of assistance. Sincerely yours, Dr. I. Revah,
Executive Director, COSPAR”

5 International Organizations Reviewed CRD in 2004.

>From February through September, five different review commission from
the United states and Europe visited CRD’s research stations on Mt.
Aragats and headquarters in Yerevan. Visitors were introduced to the
CRD’s vision and the progress of the various projects by Prof. Ashot
Chilingarian. Discussions regarding sensible science policy,
particularly as it relates to Armenia, ensued. Several visitors, who
made their visit in the summer months and were able to go to the
mountain stations, emphasized that, although they already had plenty
of knowledge about the Aragats research center, only after detailed
examination of the facilities and the explanations presented to them,
did they fully appreciate the importance of CRD to the world-wide
attempts to create a reliable and timely service for Space Weather
forecasting. In his oral close-out report to the CRD group on
September 25, Dr. Manfred Fleischer, deputy director in charge of
research at the Deutsches Elektronen SYnchrotron (DESY), emphasized
the 3 main ingredients that characterize the relevance and importance
of good research to the world. He congratulated the CRD staff for
fully satisfying these rather severe requirements: 1. incorporation of
their research activities into numerous world-wide scientific
networks, 2. co-authorship of joint papers with other scientific
organizations, 3. the attraction of very large fraction of CRD’s
funding from international sources. All the visitors rated CRD’s
performance as outstanding and commended CRD’s important contributions
to the international scientific community.

New PhD Student, Artur Reimers

The CRD has 18 students and young trainees who are completing various
stages of their education at Yerevan State University. These students
come to the CRD for lectures on astrophysics and some of them elect to
conduct their undergraduate, masters, or PhD thesis in the field of
Cosmic Rays and Space Weather. Graduates from the CRD program are
offered research opportunities at the CRD – first as young trainees,
and then as full employees. This academic year the Support Committee
for Armenia’s Cosmic Ray Division (SACRD) welcomes our new PhD
student, Artur Reimers, who developed an interest in Cosmic Ray
Physics as an undergraduate student of Prof. Chilingarian.

Social Responsibility at the CRD

In addition to its outstanding international scientific
accomplishments, the CRD takes social responsibility in Armenia
seriously. As CRD’s computer systems were upgraded, the older
computers were donated to a school in the village of Antarout on
Mt. Aragats. CRD’s university students supported the school by
installing the computers and providing technical assistance to the
students and staff. Three years ago when Dr. Art Hazarabedian,
founder of the Armenian Technology Group (ATG), donated 20 beehives
with bees to the CRD to make honey for CRD’s staff stationed on
Mt. Aragats, the CRD decided to committed 10% of the honey to
soup-kitchens and orphanages in Armenia. The CRD has donated at least
10% of the honey to the less fortunate every year since.

Diaspora’s involvement with the CRD.

SCACRD member, Joe Dagdigian, recently returned from Armenia where he
visited the CRD for the 3rd time. “I am so impressed with these
people”, says Dagdigian. “They accomplish so much with so little, and
are determined to stay and prosper in Armenia. My wife Lisa and I are
extremely honored to be associated with such people, and with CRD’s
head Prof. Ashot Chilingarian. These people are both superb
scientists and dedicated Armenians. They are setting an example of
how to revitalize Armenian Science. While a lot of challenges remain,
the advances CRD has made during the past 5 years under
Prof. Chilingarian’s leadership are astounding. ”

The SCACRD thanks the AAA, ANC, ARS, ATG, KoV, UAF, and the Armenian
Diaspora press for its continued support. We thank Hairenik and NAASR
bookstores in Watertown and Belmont, MA and the Sardarabad bookstore
in Glendale, CA for carrying the CRD calendars featuring beautiful
sights from Armenia. The proceeds from the sale of these calendars
benefits the CRD.

Special thanks also go to the Armenian Engineers and Scientists of
America (AESA), 417 West Arden St., #112C, Glendale, CA 91203; the
AESA – MI Section, P.O. Box 4867, Troy, MI 48099; and the Bay Area
Friends of Armenia (BAFA), P.O. box 3584, Daly City, CA 94015 for
accepting tax deductible contributions designated specifically for the
CRD. We especially thank you, the individual Diaspora members, who
have caught the vision of Prof. Chilingarian and continue to stay with
us on this exciting journey. Most of all we thank Prof. Ashot
Chilingarian, the 80 dedicated scientists and technicians, and the 18
students of the CRD, who stay in Armenia and contribute to our
motherland’s accelerated development with their talents.

Photo: Prof. Ashot Chilingarian (left), showing the new detectors
being designed for CRD’s Space Weather program, to a US delegation
from the International Science and Technology Center.

TURKEY NOT TO GREET BUSH BACK

Azg/Arm
6 Nov 04

President George W. Bush’s re-election hit the headlines of the world
press. Europe’s estimation of Bush’s re-election was concentrated in
President Jacque Shirak’s words who said: “We don’t think that Kerry’s
election would bring considerable changes, Bush simply is the evil we
know”.

Headlines of most of the European newspapers sounded likewise: “Time
to Worry”, “Bush: God Will Help”, “Americans, What Have You Done?”

The Berliner Currier commented on the elections: “Bush lied to the
world. This cowboy is dangerous for the world. Who is next after
Iraq? Iran or Syria? Europe should keep on the alert.” Another German
newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel writes: “US election is a good lesson for
Europe. European governments should understand that United States is
completely a different country, essentially diverse from
Europe. That’s why we must get ready for trials and get armed”.

The Arabian printed media labeled Bush’s re-election as a
nightmare. An article entitled “Clouds Getting Over the Region”
expresses concern that the Iraqi war may fling in Sudan, Iran and
Syria. Newspapers of Kenya followed Arabian press’ example.

In today’s situation the possible resignation of Colin Powell and
Donald Rumsfeld would not bring change. Guardian confirmed the
supposition about possible shifts in Bush’s administration and even
noted that President Bush is going to appoint National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice as a Secretary of State and deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz as a Secretary of Defense.

This staff shifts in US leadership can only mean that America’s
heavy-handed policy in the region will turn even heavier but will not
change the situation there. Yet, Turkish Prime Minister Racep Tayyip
Erdogan in his congratulation speech to President Bush expressed hope
that the results of the US elections will contribute to the
development of the human race and to establishing peace in the
world. Foreign minister Abdullah Gul echoed from Lisboan: “President
Bush won a clear victory in elections. I am sure that he will
reconsider US foreign policy especially in Iraq and Palestine. I
believe that he has to review everything as his tenure has just set
off”.

Turkish President Ahmed Necdet Sezer also congratulated Bush on
November 4. We don’t know what he said, but it is clear that the
staff shifts in Bush’s administration justify neither Erdogan’s hopes
nor go in line with Gul’s expectations. As Erdogan and Gul should have
been well informed about the shifts in Bush’s administration we may
conclude that they foresaw possible exasperation in US Middle East
policy.

In case the US policy results in new wars in the region, America will
face new difficulties. In its search for ways out of the crises
America will deliberately turn to Turkey for help.

Turkey’s possible involvement in US’s Middle East policy will give the
chance to intervene in negative and positive developments in the
region. Involvement in regional developments, no matter negative or
positive, is preferable for Turkey because in case it drops out of the
Middle East policy isolation will be inevitable.

By Hakob Chakrian

Agence France Presse
4 novembre 2004 jeudi 5:11 PM GMT

Les présidents des assemblées de trois pays du Caucase reçus au Sénat

PARIS 4 nov 2004

Les présidents des assemblées nationales d’Azerbaïdjan, d’Arménie et
de Géorgie ont assisté à une séance du Sénat, jeudi à Paris, à
l’invitation du président de la Haute assemblée Christian Poncelet,
qui a salué leur présence dans l’hémicycle.

Dans la matinée, M. Poncelet avait réuni ses homologues Mourtouz
Aleskerov (Azerbaïdjan), Arthur Baghdassarian (Arménie) et Nino
Burdjanadze (Géorgie) à Versailles (Yvelines) pour des entretiens sur
la situation régionale et les perspectives de coopération entre les
parlements des quatre pays.

Les trois présidents sont venus en France à son invitation, dans le
cadre des bons offices déployés par la France entre les pays du
Caucase.

“Voilà la troisième fois, depuis 1999, que les présidents de
parlements des pays du Caucase du Sud se rencontrent ainsi à mon
initiative, pour évoquer la situation régionale complexe”, a lancé M.
Poncelet à l’adresse de ses homologues, jeudi après-midi dans
l’hémicycle.

“Leur présence et leur participation active confortent et pérennisent
le processus que nous avons engagé ensemble à Versailles, il y a
bientôt cinq ans, malgré une situation régionale particulièrement
tendue,” a-t-il ajouté, saluant une nouvelle démonstration de
“diplomatie parlementaire”.

Les Echos
5 novembre 2004

Du Mamamouchi à Atatürk

par EMMANUEL HECHT

Le Turc ne laisse pas indifférent, c’est le moins qu’on puisse dire.
Il est l’invité permanent du débat français. Le temps où le
Mamamouchi du « Bourgeois gentilhomme » faisait rire paraît bien
lointain. Rappelez-vous pourtant le mufti s’adressant à monsieur
Jourdain : « Se ti sabir, Ti respondir ; Se non sabir, Tazir, tazir »
(Si toi savoir, Toi répondre ; Si ne pas savoir, Te taire, te taire
») et les six Turcs reprenant en choeur : « Ha, la, ba, ba, la, chou,
ba, la, ba, ba, la, da. » C’était le bon temps, le Grand siècle, on
comprenait les langues étrangères. Et on pouffait. Pas sûr. Car « Le
Bourgeois gentilhomme » est une farce avec un arrière-plan
diplomatique.

A la première représentation, en 1670, les relations entre la France
et l’Empire ottoman étaient tendues, Louis XIV ayant apporté
sporadiquement son aide aux Vénitiens en Crête. Contre les Turcs,
donc. Furieux, le sultan Mehmed IV avait emprisonné l’ambassadeur
français à Constantinople, avant de l’expulser et de dépêcher peu
après un émissaire, Suleiman Agha. En signe d’apaisement. La venue du
diplomate de Constantinople et de sa suite – des hommes coiffés de
turbans et vêtus de fourrure sur des chevaux dont les harnais étaient
ornés de pierres précieuses – fut un événement à la Cour. Il marqua
les esprits, la rencontre avec le roi ayant été émaillée d’incidents,
imputables à l’ignorance de l’étiquette. Louis XIV aurait donc
suggéré à Molière de moquer les Turcs dans sa pièce. Vengeance
royale.

Une alliance « honteuse »

L’ambiguité à l’égard du Turc est patente dans « Le Bourgeois
gentihomme ». A commencer par l’usage du mot « turquerie » à l’époque
de Molière. Il signifiait à la fois « composition artistique
d’inspiration orientale », le plus souvent une farce, et «
impitoyable », « caractère turc ». Pour les chrétiens des XVIIe et
XVIIIe siècles, le Turc symbolise à la fois le musulman, le mécréant
et l’ennemi brutal. Les jugements sur Soliman Ier, l’un des plus
grands souverains ottomans (né en 1494, il a régné de 1520 à sa mort,
en 1566), symbolisent l’ambivalence de ces sentiments. D’un côté, la
chrétienté le maudissait d’avoir étendu son empire jusqu’aux portes
de Vienne et, en Orient, jusqu’aux mers de l’Inde et aux steppes des
Tatars. De l’autre, elle était fascinée par ce prince, entouré de
milliers de serviteurs dans des palais regorgeant de richesses.

« Les observateurs occidentaux reprochaient à Soliman ses faiblesses
», écrit l’historien Gilles Veinstein dans sa contribution à «
L’Histoire de l’Empire ottoman » (Fayard) : « Une trop grande
soumission dans sa jeunesse à son favori, Ibrahim Pacha, puis à sa
belle esclave, Roxelane, dont il fit son épouse ; le meurtre de ses
deux fils au nom d’une application impitoyable de la raison d’Etat. »
En même temps, ils célèbraient chez « le Magnifique » – l’épithète
qu’ils lui attribuent, les Ottomans préférant celle de « Législateur
» – « un homme sage d’une exceptionnelle élévation morale, fidèle à
ses engagements, vertueux dans sa vie privée, remarquablement
instruit et zélé en matière de religion ».

Aussi, l’alliance franco-turque scellée entre Soliman le Magnifique
et François Ier à partir de 1525, pour une trentaine d’années, a pu
apparaître « scandaleuse » ou « honteuse ». Au nom de quel principe
le roi de France pactisait-il avec le souverain qui menait la plus
forte avancée d’une puissance islamique au coeur de l’Europe
chrétienne ? Celui de la « realpolitik », bien sûr. François Ier
souhaitait stopper la puissance des Habsbourg, qui avaient hérité
successivement des terres de Charles le Téméraire, de l’Espagne, de
Milan, Gênes, Naples et des territoires hongrois. Il comptait aussi
sur les Turcs pour faire face à leurs flottes et il rêvait de
reconquérir l’Italie. Quant à Soliman, il avait besoin des ports
français en Méditerranée pour attaquer les côtes espagnoles. C’est
ainsi que Barberousse passa l’hiver 1543-44 à Nice. Mais, à la même
époque, un voyageur français, Nicolas de Nicolay, décrit sans
ménagement les janissaires, les troupes de choc de l’armée ottomane :
afin d’« apparaître plus cruels et furieux en l’aspect de leur face
[ils] ne nourrissent leurs barbes, sinon au-dessus des lèvres, et
laissent croître leurs moustaches fort longues, grosses et hérissées
».

Les Turcs n’ont pas seulement suscité l’effroi, ils ont aussi fait
rêver. Lamartine (1790-1869) fut l’un des zélateurs de l’Empire
ottoman. Il y a séjourné à plusieurs reprises, notamment pendant la
période des « Tanzimat » (1839-1878), les réformes lancées par les
sultans pour sauver l’Empire miné par les nationalismes et les
insurrections. Notre poète et homme politique raconte des sanglots
dans la plume sa visite dans l’école des pages du sérail, des fils de
famille destinés à la haute administration de l’Empire. « Cinq ou six
de ces jeunes gens, de figure douce, franche, intelligente,
admirable, nous prirent la main et nous conduisirent partout […].
Nous causmes longtemps de leurs études et de leurs progrès, de la
politique de l’Europe, de la destinée de l’empire (…). Ils
faisaient des voeux pour le succès du sultan dans ses entreprises
d’innovation. »

Dans l’imaginaire occidental, « le méchant Turc est le conquérant, le
bon Ottoman est l’administrateur qui gouverne l’Empire », souligne
Pierre Chuvin, directeur de l’Institut français des études
anatoliennes, à Istanbul. Et du méchant au sauvage, il n’y a qu’un
pas que Chateaubriand franchit sans barguigner. « Ce qu’on voit n’est
pas un peuple, mais un troupeau qu’un imam conduit et qu’un
janissaire égorge », écrit le vicomte dans son « Itinéraire de Paris
à Jérusalem ». « Il n’y a d’autre plaisir que la débauche, d’autre
peine que la mort, ajoute-t-il. Les tristes sons d’une mandoline
sortent quelquefois du fond d’un café et vous apercevez d’infmes
enfants qui exécutent des danses honteuses devant des espèces de
singes assis en rond sur de petites tables. »

Loin des considérations politiques et ethnologiques, quelques
égotistes se sont plu à marteler leurs affinités électives sur les
rives du Bosphore. Ainsi, Pierre Loti (1850-1923), notre gars de la
marine adepte du travestissement, souligne à l’envi le plaisir qu’il
a à pouvoir perdre à tout moment son identité pour mieux se prêter
aux rencontres hasardeuses. La mélancolie est de rigueur, son récit
s’intitule « Les Désanchantées », et le ton est « pompier » : «
Stamboul changeait comme un mirage […], ce n’était maintenant
qu’une silhouette, d’un violet profond liseré d’or… »

Plus intéressants sans doute, les écrits de lady Mary Montagu,
cotraduits par Pierre Chuvin. Epouse d’un ambassadeur anglais à
Istanbul, en 1717-1718, lady Montagu décrit avec la liberté d’esprit
d’une grande dame, féministe avant l’heure, les « choses vues » par
elle-même. La lady est intelligente, bienveillante et pleine
d’humour. Ainsi raconte-t-elle les bains, « le café des femmes où on
raconte toutes les nouvelles de la ville, où on invente les
scandales, etc. ». Elle est surprise et séduite par ces dames,
assises sur les sofas et, derrière elles, « leurs esclaves, sans
aucune distinction de rang dans leurs atours, car toutes étaient dans
l’état de nature, c’est-à-dire, en bon anglais, complètement nues ».
L’imaginaire occidental se repaît de ces odalisques lascives
célébrées par Ingres dans « Le Bain turc ». L’orientalisme a exploité
le filon de la sensualité, nourri par les fantasmes sur le harem. De
la sensualité à la sexualité, parfois brutale, il n’y a qu’un pas.
Jusqu’au viol, supposé, du colonel Lawrence, à Damas, par les Turcs
pendant la révolte arabe et suggéré dans « Les Sept Piliers de la
sagesse », et ceux, avérés, des prisonniers de droit commun dans le
film « Midnight Express ». A peine le loukoum avalé, le naturel de
l’Occidental revient au galop, avec son cortège d’images violentes.

Le Kurde et le dissident

« Les représentations positives de la Turquie renvoient à
l’orientalisme, à l’exotisme, hier, et au tourisme aujourd’hui, mais
la vision négative du pays l’emporte largement », regrette Stéphane
Yérasimos, lui-même issu de la communauté grecque d’Istanbul,
enseignant en géopolitique à l’université de Paris-VIII. Tout au long
du XXe siècle, poursuit-il, « le phénomène s’est aggravé »,
constate-t-il. D’abord du fait du génocide (1) des Arméniens en 1915.
Les massacres débutent au printemps avec la rafle de près de 2.400
intellectuels à Constantinople. De mai à juillet, les Arméniens mles
et valides des provinces orientales et d’Anatolie orientale sont
exécutés, le reste de la population étant déporté, à pied, vers Alep.
C’est ensuite au tour des Arméniens du reste de l’Empire d’être
déportés. En avril 1915, deux millions de citoyens d’origine
arménienne vivaient dans l’Empire ; en août 1916, les deux tiers,
semble-t-il, sont morts. Les chiffres oscillent entre 800.000 morts,
selon les Turcs, 1,2 million pour l’historien anglais Arnold Toynbee,
et 1,5 million pour les Arméniens.

L’image de la Turquie n’a ensuite cessé de se dégrader. En 1974, avec
l’affaire chypriote. 40.000 militaires turcs débarquent et occupent
le nord de l’île (bilan : 4.000 morts, plus de 2.000 disparus, 40 %
du territoire représentant 70 % du potentiel économique occupés).
L’opinion a mis une belle constance à retenir les éléments
défavorables à la Turquie. Après tout, l’invasion de Chypre a été
motivée par le coup d’Etat de l’organisation fasciste grecque EOKA,
qui ne faisait pas mystère de son intention de chasser tous les
Turcs. Elle avait d’ailleurs commencé à les massacrer, dans des
quartiers qui ressemblaient à des ghettos assiégés. A l’inverse, le
rôle dissuasif de la Turquie au sein de l’Otan pendant la guerre
froide et sa participation à la guerre de Corée sont peu soulignés.
Ensuite, dans les années 1980, la guérilla kurde est au premier plan.
« L’image de la Turquie était à ce moment-là comparable à celle de
l’URSS de Brejnev », relève Stéphane Yérasimos, « seules l’opposition
au pouvoir à Ankara et la dissidence avaient droit de cité dans la
presse française ».

Vus de l’Ouest, les écrivains emblématiques turcs sont Nazim Hikmet,
communiste, et Yachar Kemal, kurde. Même constat avec le cinéma, où «
le » réalisateur turc est Yilmaz Güney, également kurde. Mais on «
oublie » de compter les ministres et hauts fonctionnaires d’origine
kurde… A en croire Stéphane Yérasimos, la réputation de la Turquie
s’est un peu plus noircie avec l’attentat du 11 septembre 2001, la
Turquie, « pays musulman », étant peu ou prou intégrée dans la «
menace islamique », dont elle est pourtant beaucoup plus la victime
que l’agent (voir les chauffeurs turcs égorgés « comme des moutons »
non par un janissaire, mais par les fous disciples d’al-Zawahiri).

La figure rassurante d’Atatürk

De cette vision pessimiste, peut-être faut-il extraire la
personnalité d’Atatürk, dont la politique de laïcité a éveillé des
échos positifs, en particulier dans la France républicaine, jusqu’à
récemment avec « l’affaire du voile ». Mustapha Kemal (1881-1938),
dit Atatürk – le « Père des Turcs » ou, plus exactement, le «
Turc-Père » -, a un curriculum séduisant pour l’Occident. L’Europe a
célébré l’image du réformateur, acquise pendant sa présidence de la
République (1924-1934), supprimant le sultanat et le califat (1924),
interdisant le port du fez et du turban, faisant adopter un Code
civil (1926) et un alphabet latin (1928). Les républicains français,
en particulier les radicaux à la Herriot, sont séduits par les « six
flèches » du kémalisme – nationalisme, populisme, réformisme,
républicanisme, étatisme, et, plus encore, laïcisme. Quitte à
commettre un contresens. Car l’élimination de la religion de la vie
publique en Turquie passe non pas par un divorce avec l’Etat – comme
la loi de séparation de l’Eglise et de l’Etat de 1905 en France -,
mais par l’établissement d’une tutelle étroite sur le personnel et
les institutions religieuses. Le quiproquo, l’ambiguité,
l’ambivalence, le flou semblent si profondément ancrés dans l’image
des Turcs en France et en Europe – et vice versa – qu’on a envie de
dire, à la manière de l’écrivain Spike Mulligan : « Bien que je n’en
parle pas un traître mot, je vais prendre un bain turc. » En signe
d’apaisement et pour y voir plus clair.A lirePierre Chuvin et
Anne-Marie Moulin, « L’Islam au péril des femmes, une Anglaise en
Turquie au XVIIIe siècle », Maspero.

François Georgeon : « La Turquie au seuil de l’Europe », L’Harmattan.

Robert Mantran (dir.), « Histoire de l’Empire ottoman », Fayard.

Géraud Poumarède, « Pour en finir avec la croisade. Mythes et réalité
de la lutte contre les Turcs aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles », PUF
(parution le 19 novembre).

Jean-Paul Roux, « Histoire des Turcs », Fayard.

Stéphane Yerasimos, « Constantinople. De Byzance à Istanbul »,
Editions Place des victoires.

Thursday, November 04, 2004
***********************************
FOUR MORE YEARS
***************************
I feel like a Jew in 1933.
*
The Christian Right in America may stand for love, mercy, and compassion, but not for tolerance. It views tolerance as un-American, therefore, anti-Christian.
*
Dozens of books have been published by highly reputable scholars and investigative reporters in which Bush’s lies, inconsistencies, contradictions, and dirty tricks are exhaustively exposed and documented, but Bush was re-elected because the average born-again hillbilly trusts televangelists more than intellectuals.
*
In 1933 Germans trusted Hitler more than Thomas Mann. Marx is right. History repeats itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce.
*
A Nazi is also one who, after hanging a label on a fellow human being, sees only the label.
*
In 1915 we were the Jews of the Turks. And today, I am the Jew of our own bosses, bishops, and benefactors.
*
All organized religions preach love, but after hanging a label on a fellow human being (heretic, anti-Christ, infidel, giaour, Untouchable) practice intolerance and hatred.
*
All power structures speak with a forked tongue. Where there is power, there will also be pathological liars and dupes.
*
We have all been Jews and Nazis at one time or another. “Jew” and “Nazi” are labels, granted, but only in the sense that “victim” and victimizer” are labels. To label another is not the same as to assume to have a license to kill.
*
My ambition as an Armenian is to be able to criticize Armenians and to be perceived not as a good Armenian (that would be too much to ask), or even as an Armenian, but as a concerned fellow human being.
#
Friday, November 05, 2004
*********************************
VERSIONS OF THE PAST
*****************************
When it comes to the past, every major historian will have his own version of it. Which version do we teach our children? Not a difficult question to answer: the version that is most flattering to our collective ego, provided it bears the seal of approval of a regime or power structure, of course.
*
Elementary schoolteachers don’t teach history, they recycle propaganda. This may explain Mark Twain’s celebrated dictum: “I have never let schooling interfere with my education.”
*
SELF-KNOWLEDGE
***************************
We are products of history. To understand history is to understand ourselves. Hence, Herder’s description of history as the education of the human race.
*
THE REASON BEHIND THE REASON
*****************************************
What if the reason, the real reason, why we were massacred, was our ignorance of the world?
*
QUESTION
*********************
Was Napoleon a great man, a military genius, a spectacular loser, a hero, a tyrant, a bloodthirsty monster? Even French historians don’t always agree. What if, by occupying Germany, he stimulated German nationalism, which resulted in Hitler?
*
THE STERILITY OF LITERATURE
***************************************
After Shaw wrote, “One fashionably dressed woman may cost the life of ten babies,” did the number of fashionably dressed women go down?
*
IN PRAISE OF SOLIDARITY
***********************************
Chinese proverb: “To hunt tigers one must have a brother’s help.”
*
WAR AND PEACE
*************************
“Islam is a religion of peace,” according to an imam quoted in our paper today, “but like all religions, it is open to misinterpretations.” Which may be why Socrates, Buddha and Jesus did not write a single line. But then, Marx, who wrote copiously and in exhaustive detail in order to avoid misunderstanding, created the nightmare of Stalinism.
#
Saturday, November 06, 2004
***********************************
THE TAO TE CHING ON NATIONS
****************************************
“A great nation is like a great man,
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
As his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
As the shadow that he himself casts.”
(A lesson that the Chinese are in the process of relearning and we have yet to learn.)
*
VOLTAIRE ON THE ORIGIN OF RELIGIONS
***********************************************
“…From the meeting of the earliest scoundrel with the very first fool.”
*
PAUL VALERY ON EDUCATION
*************************************
“Education in depth consists in undoing one’s first education.”
(In other words, if you want to understand the world, forget what you were taught by your elementary schoolteachers and learn to think for yourself.)
*
PANAIT ISTRATI ON ARMENIANS
***************************************
In his book of Armenian travel impression, Denis Donikian quotes the following passage from Panait Istrati: “The Armenian is a fellow I know as well as I know the Greek and the Jew. I like all three a lot, notwithstanding their defects, the most obvious being their conviction that, if the sun were to set forever, they would be the first to adapt to the new reality.”
*
CLAUDE IMBERT ON BUSH
************************************
“A president that consults God before breakfast will always enjoy the support of a good half of his fellow Americans.”
*
“America under Roosevelt defeated fascism. America under Reagan defeated communism. Two planetary triumphs that confirm America’s mission to fight evil [i.e. jihadist Islam].”
*
WITTGENSTEIN ON THE ART OF TEACHING
*************************************************
“My aim is to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense.” (Or, from charlatanism, whose sole aim is to deceive and mislead you by flattering your vanity, to transparent nonsense that cannot obstruct your understanding of the world and arrest your mental development.)
#

AZERI, ARMENIAN, GEORGIAN SPEAKERS DISCUSS REGIONAL ISSUES AT FRANCE MEETING

Noyan Tapan news agency, Yerevan
5 Nov 04

PARIS

The third meeting of the parliament speakers of the three South
Caucasus countries was held at the Versailles Palace under the aegis
of French Senate President Christian Poncelet on 4 November. It was
attended by the chairman of the Armenian National Assembly, Artur
Bagdasaryan, the chairwoman of the Georgian parliament, Nino
Burjanadze, and the chairman of the Azerbaijani Milli Maclis, Murtuz
Alasgarov. Subjects agreed in advance – tourism and the evaluation of
cultural heritage – topped the agenda.

Senate President Christian Poncelet noted the importance of meetings
between representatives of the parliaments of the South Caucasus
countries and expressed the hope that these discussions will make it
possible to find a solution to problems in the South Caucasus.

The chairwoman of the Georgian parliament, Nino Burjanadze, noted the
importance of the Versailles discussions and stressed that political
problems should not hinder a solution to cultural problems.

The chairman of the Azerbaijani Milli Maclis, Murtuz Alasgarov, spoke
about the common problems of the region, the importance of peace and
stability and stressed the great importance of the Paris discussions.

The chairman of the Armenian National Assembly, Artur Bagdasaryan,
noted the importance of the dialogue and discussions for the
development of the region and the settlement of common problems.

The public relations department of the Armenian National Assembly told
Noyan Tapan news agency that during the discussions on the subject of
cultural heritage, the Azerbaijani deputies did not omit to say that
Armenia is an “aggressor” and spoke about occupied territories,
refugees and the alleged destruction of Azerbaijan’s cultural
monuments on these territories, although Poncelet repeatedly called on
them to return to the crux of the matter.

Artur Bagdasaryan objected and stressed that the roots of the story
date back to genocide in the early 20th century and there are
thousands of facts testifying to the opposite, i.e. Armenian cultural
monuments are being destroyed both in Azerbaijan and Turkey. The
chairman of the Armenian parliament called on them to move forward
since hostility is not the best companion and said it is necessary to
think about the development of the region, especially as the region is
of interest to the whole world as a single whole both from a political
and commercial-economic point of view. Political problems should not
impede good will and courage to cooperate on various issues. Apart
from bringing their national legislation in line with European
standards, the parliaments also have an important political mission of
creating an atmosphere for settling conflicts in the three republics.

It was decided to hold the next meeting of the four in Azerbaijan and
then in Armenia – in (Russian) alphabetical order. It was decided that
from now on, the meetings should be held twice a year in order to
increase the effectiveness of the discussions.

The meeting ended with a joint press conference where the parliament
speakers noted the importance of the work of the four. The president
of the French Senate expressed his satisfaction that specific
agreements on further activities were reached for the first time. The
chairman of the Armenian National Assembly, Artur Bagdasaryan, noted
the importance of developing democracy in the region, which will
ensure the region’s political and economic development, open an
opportunity to settle conflicts and make the entry of the region’s
countries into the European Union possible in the foreseeable future.