GEORGIAN, ARMENIAN PRESIDENTS PRAISE BILATERAL RELATIONS, NOTE REGIONAL
ISSUES

Georgian State Television Channel 1, Tbilisi
22 Oct 04

Meeting in Tbilisi, the Georgian and Armenian presidents, Mikheil
Saakashvili and Robert Kocharyan, have discussed bilateral and
regional relations. Speaking at a joint news briefing there on 22
October, which was broadcast live by Georgian State TV, Saakashvili
said that Georgia, in the wake of the closure of the Georgian-Russian
border at Verkhniy Lars, should also be able to export to countries
other than Russia. Kocharyan urged a “pragmatic” solution to the issue
of railway traffic through Abkhazia. The two presidents also noted
that they would welcome “concrete” proposals and “real content” in the
European Union’s new neighbourhood initiative. The following is an
excerpt from the report on the joint briefing; subheadings have been
inserted editorially:

(Presenter) A joint news briefing by the Georgian and Armenian
presidents has just started at the State Chancellery. We are about to
join the briefing live.

Good Georgian-Armenian relations

(Saakashvili, briefing in progress; all questions and answers in
Russian unless otherwise indicated) For us it was easier to travel to
the border (with Armenia, where the two presidents met today) than to
the airport. Sometimes we forget about distances.

I think that we had a very good meeting. We have a common
understanding on nearly the entire range of issues. We always come to
each other’s aid and this is very important. For example, since the
recent acts of sabotage against our main electricity transmission
lines we have been importing most of electricity from Armenia. Armenia
responded to our request very promptly and started to export
electricity to Georgia. We would like to simplify customs and border
procedures. (Passage omitted)

(Kocharyan) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen: First and foremost, I
would like to thank you for the invitation to visit Georgia. While
this is not my first visit to Georgia, every visit is extremely
important given the wide-ranging agenda of our relations. It is
becoming wider with every passing year.

We discussed very specific issues to do with our relations, and
focused primarily on economic, transport and energy issues. We also
talked about the harmonization of our laws, relations between the
customs departments, police bodies and other matters. (Passage
omitted)

Turkey constructive player in region

(Question) Armenian news agency Mediamax. Mr Saakashvili, you said in
Yerevan last March that you would discuss the prospects for the
restoration of rail traffic between Kars (Turkey) and Gyumri (Armenia)
during your planned visit to Turkey. This, naturally, would benefit
Georgia as well. However, there has been a lot of discussion recently
about the prospects for building a railway to link Kars and
Akhalkalaki (Georgia). Should we assume that the Turkish leadership is
refusing, at least at this stage, to discuss the prospects for the
restoration of a Kars-Gyumri service?

(Saakashvili) Our approach, not only towards Armenia but also to all
other international talks, including the talks in Turkey, has been
absolutely clear. We are for the opening of more communications, more
roads, more border checkpoints, because traditionally Georgia has been
at the crossroads of transport corridors, various cultures, various
trade routes and, what is very important, various human
contacts. Naturally, we do not welcome any restrictions.

Unfortunately, not everything is up to Georgia. Of course, there are
complex regional problems. I am sure that the Turkish leadership is
very constructive. This was my impression after all my talks with
Prime Minister (of Turkey Recep) Erdogan. They are firmly on the road
towards integration with the EU. Our experience of relations with them
has been exclusively positive. I have never heard them making any
aggressive statements about any one of the issues concerning their
neighbours. I think that the process of regional cooperation and the
opening of new roads are inevitable and we will have even more
opportunities to solve the problems that exist.

Naturally, there are historical problems, there are problems which
have accumulated in the region over recent times, but I think that
there is a trend towards their resolution, not the emergence of new
problems or the preservation of status quo. In this respect, Georgia
is ready to play a positive role everywhere, at all levels, at all
forums, both multilateral and bilateral. This is what I can say.

Georgians should also export to countries other than Russia

(Question) Rustavi-2 TV. I have a question to both Mr Saakashvili and
Mr Kocharyan. The question concerns the Larsi section (Verkhniy Lars
checkpoint on the Georgian-Russian border), which has been closed for
quite some time. This is creating problems for both Georgians and
Armenians.

Did you discuss the issue today? In your view, how can this problem be
resolved? And was it a mere coincidence that Russia reopened the
border today?

Robert Sedrakovich (Kocharyan), we know that you spoke to Russian
President Vladimir Putin yesterday. Did you touch on this issue? Thank
you.

(Kocharyan) Sometimes there are pleasant coincidences which may not
have happened by chance. I think that the opening of this road means
that the tension in North Ossetia, caused by the Beslan events, has
subsided. I think that this step (the closure of the border) was a
result of the tension in North Ossetia.

(Saakashvili) I think this did not happen by chance. I think that
today’s visit by the president of Armenia and our meeting coincided
with the opening of this road. (Sentence as heard)

At the same time, we must know that (changes tack) – of course we want
Russia to resolve all its problems concerning the North
Caucasus. However, the Georgian exporters, as well as all the others,
must diversify their markets. (Switches to Georgian)

Our side of the border will open in half an hour and traffic in the
direction of Russia will resume. However, everyone should remember the
lesson we have learnt in recent months. We must realize that should
problems of this sort arise, all Georgian exporters, all Georgian
businesses should be ready to search for alternative markets, with the
state’s help. Of course, we should also preserve the Russian market,
as we cannot be dependant on only one market forever.

Our independence, our freedom, our independent course and our
wellbeing require that we, together with our friends, learn to work on
all other markets, while maintaining good relations with
Russia. (Passage omitted: repeats the same in Russian; Kocharyan says
all parties have suffered because of the closure)

(Kocharyan) One may see something bad behind this fact (border
closure), but one may also try to find an explanation in the present
situation, the present concerns which I have mentioned. I am inclined
not to dramatise the situation and I would not like to see this sort
of thing happen again. I want roads to operate in a normal way. The
more roads there are, the better. If there was a Turkish road across
the Armenian border, everything in the region would have been
excellent.

Georgia to build new road to Javakheti region

(Question) Armen Akopyan, correspondent of the (Armenian) newspaper
Ayots Ashkhar. I have a question to Mr Saakashvili. Mr President, it
is well known that many Armenians live in Georgia, especially in
Javakhk (predominantly Armenian-populated Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda
districts in Georgia’s Samtskhe-Javakheti Region). It is also well
known there are difficult economic conditions in this region: shortage
of jobs, damaged highways. Does the Georgian leadership have a
programme for the economic and social development of Javakheti? By the
way, when are you going to visit this region?

(Saakashvili) First of all, I am indeed indebted to the population of
Javakheti who provided great support to me in the (January 2004)
presidential election. My wife has already been there seven or eight
times, but unfortunately I have not been able to go there. However, I
am going to pay a good visit. I do not want to go anywhere with empty
hands. We have been talking to donors, to the countries which have
been supporting us, and I think that we will be able to obtain money
for building a new road to Akhalkalaki. This is very important for us,
both economically and politically. We already have enough money from
the World Bank to build half of this road, and its construction is set
to begin next year. As regards the other half, we have got several
concrete promises. I think that this road should be built within the
next two years, so that the population gets access to all markets and
the region is integrated economically.

It is also very important for us that the region should maintain close
ties with border areas of Armenia and with Armenia in general, but, at
the same time, the region should be economically successful in
relation to the whole country (Georgia), and the road is the key to
this. This is one of the priorities of my presidential term. I think
that our citizens who live in Javakheti are very talented people, very
interesting people in their attitude towards business and
entrepreneurship. I would like to say that many of them work in Russia
on various construction sites where especially skilled workers are
required. We would like these people to work in Georgia. We would like
to see local businesses (of Javakheti) to expand throughout
Georgia. We would like these people to take part in various regional
projects. However, the journey from there to Tbilisi is three times
longer than it should be. This is absolutely inappropriate, of
course. Once again, I would like to note that despite its isolation
and unfavourable climate, local people there have still managed to
build good hotels, good shops, a good network of cafes, and they are
managing well. I do not think that this is an achievement of the
Georgian government, I think that this is an achievement of their
talent. If we open our doors for this talent to reach the whole
country and international projects, I think that not only this
population but also the whole of Georgia will have many good
prospects. (Passage omitted)

No disagreements in border demarcation work

(Question) Armenian newspaper Azg, this is a question to both
presidents. When will the process of demarcation of the
Georgian-Armenian border begin? Have you discussed this issue? Could
this issue lead to some disputes, so to speak, between Georgia and
Armenia? Thank you.

(Kocharyan) It is better to ask when this work will be finished, not
when it will begin. There was agreement in principle and we should
have finished the work this year. There have been changes on the
Georgian side of this commission. The Georgian representative was sent
to Poland as ambassador, if I am not mistaken, and a new person will
be appointed. I think we will work in a normal manner and we will be
able to finish this work next year. So far, there have been no painful
issues in the commission’s work which could lead to serious
disagreements. It is possible to resolve these issues in a normal,
calm and working atmosphere.

(Saakashvili) For the past two thousand years, Armenia and Georgia
have had no territorial claims against each other (smiles), and I
think this will remain as it has been.

Cooperation with Baltic states and Europe in general

(Question) Malkhaz Oniani, Channel One of Georgian Television. Mr
President Kocharyan, do you share the Georgian president’s initiative
about a three-plus-three format regarding cooperation between the
Baltic and South Caucasus countries? And my second question is this:
Have you discussed the issue of reopening railway traffic between
Armenia and Russia through Abkhazia? Thank you.

(Kocharyan) As regards the first part of your question, we began
discussion of our coordinated activities within the framework of the
European Union’s new initiative about new neighbourhood. We agreed to
continue this discussion tomorrow because it requires some
brainstorming. This policy has been declared, but it has not been
formulated what it means specifically. Right now, the process of
formulating this concept is under way. We should be able to play a
certain role in this too. I think that the concept of the new
neighbourhood should be fully fledged, it should not be just a
declaration about new neighbours, there should be some real content.

As regards the three-plus-three idea, if I’m not mistaken it was
declared in the same context – that the Baltic republics could act as
lobbyists in the formulation of this concept of new neighbours. We are
ready to cooperate with them. We will continue the discussion of this
issue with the president of Georgia today and tomorrow. However, I am
not sure that the three Baltic republics themselves have reached a
consensus in this respect. Two years ago, there was no full agreement
there, among them.

(Saakashvili) We talked about this issue. This issue is about regional
cooperation. We are not talking about some radical political platform
or a formal international organization, but I think the South Caucasus
countries will reach an agreement on this issue, and Robert
Sedrakovich (Kocharyan) has confirmed this. As regards agreement among
the Baltic countries, Lithuania has assured us that they have already
reached agreement. So, we have made steps forward. We are interested
in concrete issues. We are members of the European Union’s new
neighbourhood. What will we gain from this? What will each country
gain from this, with respect to tariffs and preferential treatment? I
want to know specifically when we will be exporting Georgian wine to
Poland. Will it be subject to three times more taxes than now? Or will
it be subject to a preferential tariff, which it should be? We will
certainly be able to agree on this if we create certain formats of
regional cooperation. Therefore, I think that the initiative was
timely. We see pragmatic aspects of this initiative for the
development of our economies. (Passage omitted)

Armenia calls for restoration of railway traffic through Abkhazia

(Kocharyan) Your second question was about railway traffic. In
general, we discussed questions related to railway traffic in the
South Caucasus. There are certain ideas in this respect, but I do not
want to talk about them now because they are only raw ideas. These are
ideas about possible cooperation of all railways, maybe cooperation in
some structural forms.

We did not discuss this (Abkhazia) section specifically, but I can
tell you what my point of view on this is, taking into account
Georgia’s concerns as well. In principle, the more lines are in
operation, the better it is for all of us. As regards the Abkhazia
section specifically, this section is working between Abkhazia and
Russia. So, if it is working there, the absence of any through traffic
is simply disadvantageous for both you and us, which makes no sense.
I think that, taking into account all difficulties and all concerns, a
pragmatic attitude would be useful, although I understand that this is
complicated. This is a question for Georgia to decide.

(Saakashvili) Thank you. I think there will be more possibilities (to
ask questions) during the next few days. Thank you once again, and
special thanks to our guests.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ERDOGAN SPEAKS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE WITHOUT PUTTING “SO-CALLED”

This Fact Sets Him Apart Among Turkish MPs

Azg/am
23 Oct 04

Turkish printed media informs in October 22 issues that Turkish Prime
Minister Racep Tayyip Erdogan’s speech at the press conference of the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris turned
into a dispute because of French-Armenian and foreign journalists’
questions on Armenian Genocide.

Before passing on the questions we want to mention about a rally
organized by around 25 Armenians at the OECD office in
Paris. Armenians left only after the French police intervened.

The questions of Irish Dublin Times newspaper and Paris’ Armenian Ayb
Ben radio station are to be singled out. The Irish paper’s
correspondent asked PM Erdogan about Turkish penal code’s 305 article
according to which all those requiring acknowledgment of the Armenian
Genocide or withdrawal of Turkish forces from Cyprus will receive 5
year sentence.

Interrupting questioner Erdogan said that the penal code supposes no
such sentence. But the journalist insisted asking: “In your view, is
the demand for Armenian Genocide’s acknowledgment a punishable act?”
Erdogan replied: “Turkey does not bother about the Armenian
genocide. Genocide allegations are to be resolved by historians, not
parliaments”.

Irish journalist’s question was noted by Aksham, other newspapers,
Hyuriet, Sabah and Zaman touch on the questions put by Paris’ Armenian
radio. The latter ones prescribe the question to a French
journalist. In fact, they didnâ=80=99t know that he was Armenian
radio’s correspondent. Aksham writes that the Armenian journalist
didn’t mention his name while asking the question.

He asked: “You are the first Turkish MP who doesn’t say the
â=80=98so-called’ when referring to the Armenian Genocide. Can we
consider this a step towards Genocide recognition?” In the meantime,
the French-Armenian journalist tried to find out if erection of
monuments to Taleat pasha, one of masterminds of Armenian Genocide,
does not disagree with Erdogan’s supposed approach to it.

Donald Johnston, general secretary of the OECD interrupted saying: “It
is a propaganda”. MP Erdogan, nevertheless, answered the question,
according to Aksham.

He underscored that Turkey has negative attitude neither towards
Armenia nor the Armenians of Turkey. “There are many Turkish citizens
of Armenian descent in my party. Armenians have 58 churches and 57
national educational establishments in Turkey. All of them are
functioning. We do not complain of Armenians, and they have been
tremendously supportive in Turkey’s EU bid. You have no right of
dictating from outside. Let’s contribute to the development of
friendly ties instead of creating hostility. Turkey has opened an air
corridor to Armenia, and 4 planes land in Istanbul weekly. Try to have
positive look at everything”.

By Hakob Chakrian

NEW HOSPITAL IN STEPANAKERT

Azg/am
23 Oct 04

The pediatric isolation hospital reopened in Stepanakert yesterday. It
was built in 1996 and was to be changed into a republican hospital in
2002. But hospital was not operating normally because of lack of
necessary devices and the bad state of the building.

American-Armenians Caroline and George Najarian (Boston) and Albert
Ara Manukian (Los Angeles) financed hospital’s rebuilding
project. Samvel Hakobian, a businessman from Artsakh also supported
the project. This was perhaps the first case when a local joined
Diaspora Armenians in rebuilding Artsakh.

President of Artsakh Arkady Ghukasian noted at the hospital’s opening
ceremony that Samvel Hakobian set a good example for other
businessmen. Referring to the problems that health services of Artsakh
face, President Ghukasian said that the authorities make every effort
to solve all the problems in the sphere within short period. Arkady
Ghukasian mentioned the new hospital which us currently being built as
well as the gynecological clinic opened in Stepanakert.

By Kim Gabrielian from Stepanakert

NKR PRESIDENT MEETING

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
22 Oct 04

On October 20 NKR president Arkady Ghukassian met with the members of
the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union headed by the
British MP of the House of Commons Gordon Marsden. During the meeting
Arkady Ghukassian emphasized that the visit of the British members of
parliament is a good opportunity for the government and the people of
Nagorni Karabakh to convey to the international community their
position and true information on the developments taking place in the
republic. The president presented the British parliamentarians with
the achievements of NKR in the sphere of protection of human rights
and in building democratic state based on the rule of law. At the same
time Arkady Ghukassian emphasized the importance of providing
necessary conditions for the activity of the non-governmental sector
of the republic as one of the important links in a civil
society. Speaking about the standpoint of official Stepanakert on the
main principles of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, Arkady
Ghukassian said the NKR government is for inadmissibility of
resumption of military actions and security of the population. At the
same time the president confirmed the commitment of the authorities to
further economic developmentof the republic and achievement of a
decent life for the people of Nagorni Karabakh. According to him, this
will by all means have a positive effect on the promotion of
democratic processes in the republic. Gordon Marsden said the visit of
the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to Nagorni Karabakh
allowed getting more precise information on the life in the
republic. At the same time, according to Mr. Marsden, the aim of the
visit was to determine the possibilities of the international
organizations’ aid for settlement of humanitarian problems and
development of democracy and civil society in Nagorni Karabakh.

AA.
22-10-2004

The Messenger, Georgia
Oct 22 2004

Poland supports Azerbaijan’s bid to join the EU and NATO

According to the Azeri newspaper Zerkalo.Baku, Poland is ready to
help Azerbaijan to become a member the European Union and NATO and to
render assistance in solving the Karabakh problem peacefully.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of Poland’s new Embassy in Baku,
Polish Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andjei Zalutski said,
“Relations between Poland and Azerbaijan are at a high level in the
political sphere. We intend to render assistance to the integration
of Azerbaijan into the European Union and NATO. We have a group of
experts who are ready to share their experience.” Zalutski added
during his three-day official visit to Baku that Poland can render
necessary assistance for such kind of integration, as it is currently
preparing to chair the committee of ministers of the Council of
Europe from next year.
At the same time, Zalutski noted that this issue very much depends on
the Azeri side as well. “If Azerbaijan has such intentions, then we
are ready to support it and to share our experience with it,”
stressed the diplomat. As he said, integration into European
structures is a very long process involving great reforms, especially
in the legislative sphere. “The doors of the European Union must be
open to everyone who aspires to join,” Zalutski thinks.
As for bilateral relations, according to the diplomat there are very
good prospects between Poland and Azerbaijan and not only in the
political sphere. “We have to enlarge contacts at the level of trade
and industrial chambers, and to increase commodity turnover. Active
cooperation must continue in the spheres of culture and tourism,”
stated Zalutski.
Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, the Polish minister stressed the need to
look for peaceful ways to resolve this problem. “We support the
territorial integrity of the country and as the chair of the
committee of the ministers in the Council of Europe from next year,
Poland will help to settle this conflict,” he promised.

NO GAP BETWEEN PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
22 Oct 04

After the meeting at the Union of Relatives of Killed Azatamartiks NKR
president Arkady Ghukassian made an important statement during the
press conference. The president particularly mentioned that soon
changes will be made in the NKR government staff and structure. `I
think that certain officialshave estranged themselves from the people
and are not respected by them. Therebyeveryone should make a right
conclusion for themselves. Generally, I think, the people and
authorities are the same reality; we are one whole and we will not
allow to oppose people to the authorities. It is another thing if the
authoritiesare competent, professional and humane towards the
people. We must keep in mind all the time that the population has
enough problems and whatever we do will not be considered enough.

Changes will be made in the government; I think we must determine our
approaches in strategic and tactical matters. Certainly,we have done a
lot, we have moved the economy ahead and solved serious social and
economic questions. In the Soviet period of the history of Karabakh
construction of schools, roads and water pipelines in this scope has
never been carried out. Expectations are much greater. I repeat there
will be changes, no one has the right to oppose people to the
authorities – it is a crime.â=80=9D Arkady Ghukassian also mentioned
that the necessity of the decision about the changes was dictated by
the results of the audit inspections. Similar inspections were held
both in the capital and the regions. `We studied the situation in
Stepanakert and the regions and, I think, there is need for
changes. Changes are always necessary, there are already signs of
stagnation which is dangerous for our future,’ said the NKR president.

AA.
22-10-2004

FACTBOX-What is the Kyoto protocol?

MOSCOW, Oct 22 (Reuters) – Russia’s parliament was due to vote on
Friday on ratifying the U.N. Kyoto protocol, the last hurdle before
the long-delayed climate change treaty comes into force worldwide.

Kyoto needs Russian backing to come into force after it was weakened
by a U.S. pullout in 2001.

Here are some frequently asked questions about the pact:

WHAT IS THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?

It is a pact agreed by governments at a 1997 U.N. conference in Kyoto,
Japan, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by developed
countries by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels during the five-year period
2008-2012. A total of 122 nations have ratified the pact or acceded to
it, according to U.N. data.

IS IT THE FIRST AGREEMENT OF ITS KIND?

Governments originally agreed to tackle climate change at an “Earth
Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At that meeting, leaders created
the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which set a
non-binding goal of stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, a
goal not met overall. The Kyoto protocol is the follow-up to that and
is the first legally binding global agreement to cut greenhouse gases.

SO IT’S LEGALLY BINDING?

It is binding once it has been ratified by at least 55 nations and by
countries representing at least 55 percent of developed countries’
carbon dioxide emissions. Kyoto has been ratified by 126 states but
has so far only received pledges from nations representing 44 percent
of total emissions.

Russia holds the key to Kyoto’s success or failure with its 17 percent
share of emissions by developed nations. U.S. President George W. Bush
pulled out in 2001, arguing that Kyoto was too expensive and unfairly
excludes developing nations. The United States is the biggest polluter
with a 36 percent share.

WHEN WILL IT ENTER INTO FORCE?

Kyoto will apply worldwide 90 days after Russia completes ratification
formalities, including approval by the Duma, upper house and signature
by its key advocate, President Vladimir Putin.

HOW WILL IT BE ENFORCED?

Under a 2001 deal made by environment ministers in Bonn, Germany, if
countries emit more gases than allowed under their targets at the end
of 2012, they will be required to make the cuts, and 30 percent more,
in the second commitment period which is due to start in 2013. They
rejected the idea of a financial penalty.

DOES EVERY COUNTRY HAVE TO REDUCE EMISSIONS BY 5.2 PERCENT?

No, only 39 countries — relatively developed ones — have target
levels for the 2008-12 period, adhering to the principle established
under the UNFCCC that richer countries should take the lead. Each
country negotiated different targets, with Russia aiming for
stabilisation at 1990 levels and the European Union trying for an
eight percent cut.

HOW ARE THEY DOING SO FAR?

Most countries are lagging targets under Kyoto. The UNFCCC Secretariat
says emissions by Spain and Portugal were worst, at 40.5 percent above
1990 levels in 2002 while U.S. emissions, for instance, were up 13.1
percent. Emissions by ex-communist bloc states had fallen most sharply
after the collapse of Soviet-era industries — Russian emissions were
down 38 percent from 1990.

WHAT ARE THESE “GREENHOUSE GASES?”

Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the earth’s
atmosphere. The main one is carbon dioxide (CO2), most of which comes
from burning fossil fuel. The protocol also covers methane (CH4),
much of which comes from agriculture and waste dumps, and nitrous
oxide (N2O), mostly a result of fertiliser use. Three industrial
gases used in various applications, such as refrigerants, heat
conductors and insulators, are also included – they are
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6).

WHAT HAPPENS TO COUNTRIES THAT MISS THE TARGET?

The protocol provides for “flexible mechanisms” – ways for countries
to reach their targets without actually reducing emissions at
home. These include emissions trading – where one country buys the
right to emit from another country which has already reduced its
emissions sufficiently and has “spare” emissions reductions. Another
is the “clean development mechanism” where developed countries can
earn credits to offset against their targets by funding clean
technologies, such as solar power, in poorer countries.

Countries can also claim credits for planting trees in the Third World
that soak up CO2 – so-called carbon “sinks.”

10/22/04 05:57 ET

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Oct 22 2004

Baku condemns Russian companies’ activity in Upper Garabagh

The 4th meeting of the Azerbaijani-Russian inter-parliamentary
commission was held at the Milli Majlis (parliament) on Thursday. The
meeting was co-chaired by First Vice Speaker of the Milli Majlis Arif
Rahimzada and member of Russia’s Federation Council Konstantin
Markelov. The participants focused on the situation caused by
restrictions applied on the Russian-Azeri border.
Commenting on the issue, Markelov said the problem will be resolved
soon. Touching upon the Azerbaijan-Russia relations in fighting
international terrorism, he said the two countries’ secret services
are closely cooperating in this field. The participants also
exchanged views on expanding inter-parliamentary ties and cooperation
with international organizations.
During the meeting Rahimzada expressed a strong protest against the
activity of Russia’s Rostelecom company in Upper Garabagh and
granting international rights to Garabagh Telecom company.
Markelov pledged to raise the issue before the Russian company’s
administration.*

Le Monde, France
22 octobre 2004

Turquie : paroles, paroles… ;
HORIZONS DEBATS

par Robert Badinter

LE débat de l’Assemblée nationale sur l’ouverture des négociations
d’adhésion de la Turquie à l’Union européenne s’est avéré dérisoire
et confus. Dérisoire, parce que ce débat, bclé devant un Hémicycle
déserté faute de s’achever par un vote, ne pouvait déboucher sur
aucune décision politique. Confus, parce que l’exercice oratoire
auquel s’est livré le premier ministre n’a fait que renforcer le
sentiment d’ambiguïté sur la position de la France. Dans son
discours, M. Raffarin a martelé que « l’adhésion de la Turquie à
l’Union européenne n’est pas possible, ni aujourd’hui, ni demain, ni
dans les prochaines années », répétant que « ni l’Europe ni la
Turquie ne sont prêtes à l’adhésion ». Il ajouta : « L’avenir n’est
écrit nulle part. (…) C’est l’histoire qui tranchera » ( sic ). Et
conclut : « Adressons aux Françaises et aux Français un message sur
la Turquie en Europe : si un jour la question est posée, le peuple
est souverain, il en décidera… » « Paroles, paroles… », a-t-on
envie de s’exclamer, à l’instar d’une chanteuse célèbre !

Le président de la République a, lui aussi, tenu à multiplier les
propos apaisants à l’intention des Français inquiets de la
perspective de l’entrée dans l’UE d’un vaste Etat dont 97 % du
territoire s’étend en Asie mineure, et dont la population de 70
millions d’habitants dispose d’un revenu moyen égal à 25 % de celui
de l’Union. Il a souligné que cette perspective était lointaine,
qu’elle s’inscrivait à l’horizon 2015 – ou plus tard – et, surtout,
que les Français seraient maîtres de la décision ultime, puisqu’ils
seraient appelés à se prononcer par référendum.

En vérité, ces déclarations lénifiantes ne sont que leurre. Le choix
du chef de l’Etat est déjà fait. C’est un « oui » de principe à
l’adhésion de la Turquie. Son attitude, et celle du gouvernement,
aujourd’hui, ne sont destinées qu’à éviter que le mécontentement des
Français à ce sujet se porte sur la question, toute différente
pourtant, de l’adoption du traité constitutionnel, et qu’ils refusent
celui-ci faute d’avoir été saisis de celui-là.

Que la Turquie ait, en effet, vocation, pour le président de la
République, à entrer dans l’UE, non seulement ses propos, mais ses
choix, notamment au sein du Conseil européen, en témoignent. En fait,
c’est seulement à partir de 1997 que l’éventualité d’une candidature
de la Turquie a été réellement prise en considération par l’Union
européenne.

Dès le Conseil européen d’Helsinki, en 1999, il a été admis que la
demande de la Turquie serait jugée sur les mêmes critères que les
autres candidatures. C’était faire un grand avantage à la Turquie que
délibérément fermer les yeux sur ses caractéristiques propres : sa
situation géographique, son poids démographique, ses spécificités
culturelles et sociales. A-t-on débattu en France de cette approche
devant le Parlement, sinon devant l’opinion ? Jamais. En décembre
2002, le Conseil européen décida que, selon l’avis de la Commission,
« si la Turquie satisfait aux critères de Copenhague, l’UE ouvrira,
sans délai, les négociations d’adhésion avec ce pays ».

Cette décision du Conseil européen de 2002 n’était rien d’autre qu’un
« oui », sous condition suspensive à l’ouverture des négociations
d’adhésion avec la Turquie. Qu’elle remplisse cette condition et le «
oui » devenait définitif. La question essentielle, première – la
Turquie a-t-elle vocation à entrer dans l’Union européenne ? -, était
ainsi escamotée au profit d’une autre, seconde : la Turquie
satisfait-elle aux critères de Copenhague ?

Vainement déclare-t-on que l’admission d’une candidature n’est pas
l’admission dans l’Union, qu’il ne s’agit-là que de l’ouverture de
négociations avec le candidat. « Paroles, paroles… » Aucun
candidat, depuis trente ans, ne s’est vu refuser l’entrée dans la
Communauté. La voie peut être ardue, mais, une fois la feuille de
route tracée, l’issue est certaine. L’Etat candidat se retrouvera, à
plus ou moins longue échéance, membre de l’Union. Il en ira ainsi de
la Turquie comme de ses prédécesseurs.

C’est pourquoi l’évocation d’un référendum obligatoire pour la
ratification par la France du traité d’adhésion de la Turquie à l’UE
apparaît comme une mascarade. Car, après dix ou quinze ans de
négociations et d’efforts de la Turquie pour transformer sa
législation et absorber ce qu’on appelle l’acquis communautaire, il
sera impossible alors, pour la France, de dire non à ce pays sans
déclencher une réaction formidable d’indignation des Turcs et une
crise diplomatique grave. Le chef de l’Etat le sait bien. Cette
révision constitutionnelle annoncée, ce référendum obligatoire dans
dix ou quinze ans ne sont que poudre aux yeux. En réalité, c’est en
décembre, au prochain Conseil européen, que le pas décisif sera
franchi. On peut même dire que le choix a été déjà fait en 2002,
quand le « oui », sous condition suspensive, a été formulé à l’égard
de la candidature de la Turquie à l’Union.

C’était à ce moment-là que la question de principe – la France
doit-elle accepter que la Turquie entre dans l’UE comme membre à part
entière, ou préfère-t-elle la voie d’un partenariat privilégié ? –
devait être clairement posée et soumise au Parlement. Le président de
la République, par tempérament ou par commodité politique, s’est bien
gardé d’ouvrir ce grand débat.

Aujourd’hui, les hasards du calendrier font que, au moment où la
question de la ratification du traité constitutionnel va être soumise
au référendum, la question, toute différente, de l’élargissement de
l’UE à la Turquie apparaît sur le devant de la scène politique. Elle
ne pourra pas être refoulée par des précautions oratoires et des
habiletés constitutionnelles. Et il y a lieu de craindre que,
exaspérés par la perspective de l’élargissement de l’Union jusqu’aux
frontières de l’Arménie, de l’Irak, de l’Iran, de la Syrie, les
Français, se sentant abusés par leurs dirigeants et particulièrement
par le chef de l’Etat, rejettent le traité constitutionnel pour
exprimer leur refus de l’entrée de la Turquie dans l’Union.

M. Chirac s’était indigné de ce que le président Bush se fasse le
premier champion de l’entrée de la Turquie dans l’UE. Il aurait été
avisé de s’interroger plus avant sur cette insistance, dont le
premier motif n’était certes pas de renforcer l’Union européenne, ni
de contribuer à la naissance d’une Europe-puissance, ce projet des
Pères fondateurs dont, aujourd’hui, on nous invite à faire notre
deuil.

NOTES: robert badinter, ancien ministre de la justice, ancien
président du Conseil constitutionnel, est sénateur (PS) des
Hauts-de-Seine.

Le Monde, France
22 octobre 2004

Le «non» serait une colossale erreur
HORIZONS DEBATS

par Luc Ferry

PARMI toutes les raisons de se prononcer en faveur d’une adhésion de
la Turquie à l’Europe, l’une au moins ne laisse personne tout à fait
insensible : parmi les grandes nations, seule la Turquie est en
position de faire valoir à la face du monde qu’on peut être un pays
laïque, démocratique et cependant musulman. Nul autre, en effet,
n’est au même degré susceptible de faire passer aujourd’hui, et plus
encore demain, un tel message. Si nous intégrons la Turquie, ce qui
suppose bien entendu qu’elle remplisse les critères requis, la chose
sera pour ainsi dire prouvée par le fait. Si nous la rejetons, c’est
la preuve du contraire que nous aurons nous-mêmes administrée. Il n’y
a là nul chantage, mais un simple constat qu’on ne saurait écarter
d’un revers de main.

Prétendre qu’on peut envisager une troisième voie entre le « oui » et
le « non » – un partenariat privilégié – est sans doute tentant. Cela
en arrangerait plus d’un, mais c’est à l’évidence se rassurer à bon
compte. Une telle proposition eût été sans doute envisageable il y a
vingt ans encore, peut-être même en l999, mais elle est désormais
totalement irréaliste au regard des promesses unanimes et formelles
qui ont été faites et répétées. Qu’on s’en réjouisse ou qu’on le
regrette n’a à cet égard aucune importance. C’est désormais un fait
historique, et nul ne peut s’en affranchir d’un coup de baguette
magique. La politique n’est pas un jeu où l’on pourrait refaire la
partie. Elle est fille de l’histoire, et ses responsables doivent
savoir que le temps n’y est pas réversible à volonté.

Vus d’Istanbul, nos débats provoquent donc d’ores et déjà de
terribles dégts. Peut-on y être indifférent ? Ne comprend-on pas que
nos « amis » atlantistes en profitent pour distiller à jet continu un
discours dévastateur dont la teneur est à peu près la suivante : «
Vous croyez que les Français vous aiment parce qu’ils se sont opposés
aux Américains sur l’Irak. Détrompez-vous : ils sont guidés par la
lcheté, l’égoïsme et le mépris. Voyez la loi sur le voile, voyez
leur attitude envers la Turquie… »

Tout cela est sans doute faux. Ce n’en est pas moins désastreux, et
un politique responsable ne peut pas ne pas en tenir compte. J’en
déduis qu’il faut, pour provoquer en conscience de tels ravages,
avoir d’excellentes et impérieuses raisons. Or à examiner de près
celles qu’on avance jusqu’alors dans le débat public, force est de
constater qu’elles naviguent en permanence entre l’inavouable et
l’incohérent.

Contre l’entrée de la Turquie, on invoque, en effet, deux types
d’arguments. Les uns sont liés à la nature réelle ou supposée du pays
candidat, les autres à la conception de l’Europe qu’on veut
aujourd’hui privilégier.

Dans le premier cas, on invoque, dans le désordre : la torture, les
droits des femmes, la religion, la non-reconnaissance du génocide
arménien, la situation économique, démographique, voire, pour les
moins regardants, une prétendue « barrière culturelle ». La liste
n’est pas limitative, mais, par définition même, aucune de ces
objections, sauf à flirter ouvertement avec une forme de racisme que
tous rejettent, n’est a priori insurmontable. Le processus d’adhésion
prendra des années, et le laps de temps prévu pour négocier est
destiné à permettre d’apporter une solution à de tels obstacles.

C’est d’ailleurs la raison pour laquelle à l’UDF, où se situent les
principaux adversaires de la candidature turque, on tente de faire
valoir une argumentation d’une tout autre portée. Quand bien même
elle remplirait tous les critères exigés officiellement par l’Union
européenne, il faudrait selon eux continuer de s’opposer à son
entrée, inacceptable par essence, « car ce n’est pas une question
turque qui nous est posée, mais une question européenne ». Passons
sur le caractère incohérent du propos : à l’évidence, s’il n’y avait
rien dans la question turque en tant que telle qui fasse obstacle, on
voit mal pourquoi on devrait s’y opposer. Au reste, immédiatement
après avoir mis en place ce rideau de fumée, les leaders de l’UDF, à
commencer par François Bayrou, se lancent dans l’énumération,
désormais rituelle, des données géographiques, historiques,
sociologiques – voire « anthropologiques » (sic !) – qui font, à
leurs yeux, de la Turquie un élément « indigeste » pour l’UE.

La raison avancée est officiellement la suivante : l’Europe ne
saurait se borner à être un espace commercial régi par des règles
démocratiques, mais il faut qu’elle devienne une entité suffisamment
homogène sur le plan culturel et historique pour accéder enfin au
statut de puissance politique qui lui permettrait de discuter d’égal
à égal avec la Chine ou les Etats-Unis.

Qu’on puisse attendre de l’Europe davantage qu’une zone de
libre-échange est tout à fait compréhensible et respectable. Que l’on
fasse reposer cette exigence légitime sur le postulat d’une identité
culturelle et historique commune constitue cependant une erreur
colossale, tout à la fois sur la Turquie et sur l’Europe. Sur la
Turquie parce que l’affirmation selon laquelle elle serait
culturellement incompatible avec la conception française du projet
européen est tout simplement fausse et inacceptable. Sur ce point, il
faut reconnaître que Jacques Chirac, fidèle à la tradition gaulliste,
a de toute évidence raison. On pourrait d’ailleurs plaider avec plus
de raisons que la culture la plus « différente », sinon la plus
opposée à celle de la France est sans doute la culture allemande.
Presque tout nous sépare ou nous distingue, y compris la langue
jusque dans ses plis et replis les plus singuliers. Cela ne nous
empêche en rien, tout au contraire, et c’est cela la grandeur du
projet et la force du couple franco-allemand, de partager un idéal
commun. Justement parce qu’il n’est pas enraciné dans une identité
culturelle.

Concevoir l’Europe sur le modèle américain comme une « grosse nation
», comme un Etat fédéral qui posséderait une identité culturelle
homogène, bref, comme un communautarisme élargi, c’est ne rien
comprendre à ce qui fut et doit rester l’essence même de la
construction européenne. Cette dernière est, au meilleur sens du
terme, un « artifice ». Elle vise, en s’inspirant de l’idéal
anticommunautariste des droits de l’homme, tout à la fois au respect
absolu des identités nationales et à leur dépassement radical dans un
projet politique et constitutionnel résolument volontariste. Plaider
pour une culture commune qui exclurait la Turquie, c’est donc plaider
pour une conception nationaliste, identitaire et communautariste de
l’Europe qui contredit tout ce que ses principes fondamentaux ont de
plus élevé. Le fait que des responsables censés incarner l’idéal
européen puissent commettre une telle bévue en dit long sur leurs
arrière-pensées politiciennes. Gageons que l’opinion publique, une
fois éclairée, saura les faire revenir à la raison.

NOTES: luc ferry, ancien ministre de la jeunesse, de l’éducation
nationale et de la recherche, est membre du Conseil économique et
social ; il anime le Conseil d’analyse de la société, créé auprès du
premier ministre ; il collabore à la chaîne LCI.