Palm Beach Post, FL
Jan 1 2005
Bush sending brother Jeb to Asia seen as savvy
By Dara Kam
Special to the Palm Beach Post
TALLAHASSEE – Political experts say President Bush’s decision to send
his brother to grief-stricken Asia is a savvy move to stem criticism
of the United States’ initial response to one of the world’s worst
natural disasters.
It also may set the stage for Gov. Jeb Bush’s own run at the White
House in 2008, despite his insistence he is headed back to the
business world in Miami. The governor’s staff says he is perfectly
suited for the mission after overseeing disaster relief in Florida
following four hurricanes.
“It’s not that he brings a special expertise about emergency
management,” Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of
Virginia, said Friday. “It’s that he’s the president’s brother, and
symbols are important. This is partly a public-relations operation.
The president got off on the wrong foot here and got a lot of
criticism.”
The United States initially pledged $15 million in aid, boosting that
to $35 million and then on Friday to $350 million. U.S. patrol and
cargo aircraft have been sent to Thailand, and an aircraft carrier
and other ships have been ordered to the region to aid in disaster
recovery, the president said Friday.
Gov. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell will lead a delegation
to the region to meet with leaders and determine what assistance the
United States can provide, a State Department official said.
The team will depart Sunday from Andrews Air Force Base near
Washington. Gov. Bush plans to return Thursday, but Powell will stay
for an international summit in Jakarta, Indonesia.
President Bush tapped his brother because of “his extensive
experience in the state of Florida with relief, rehabilitation and
reconstruction efforts following natural disasters,” the White House
said in a statement.
“He’s also the president’s brother – I think it signifies the high
level of importance that the president puts on this delegation,”
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.
This is the first time President Bush has called on his brother to
represent the country on such a high-profile mission. The appointment
came after the president was criticized by international officials
for his slow response to the earthquake and tsunami.
Gov. Bush received high praise for his handling of the four
hurricanes that ravaged Florida during a six-week period in August
and September. In 1988, when the Bush brothers’ father was
president-elect, Jeb Bush led an aid mission to Armenia following an
earthquake.
“The governor has… a lot of experience dealing with recovery,
first-responding efforts, rebuilding,” said Alia Faraj, a spokeswoman
for Gov. Bush.
The governor’s relationship with the president will benefit the
affected countries, the University of Virginia’s Sabato said, because
“what he sees and hears is going to go straight to the Oval Office.”
Despite his contention that he is not interested in a presidential
bid, the governor’s trip elevates his stature.
“It’s going to cause tongues to wag again about a Jeb Bush candidacy
for presidency in 2008 despite his frequent denials of it,” Sabato
said. “No doubt the other candidates for president are probably
jealous.”
Lance deHaven-Smith, a Florida State University political scientist,
went further.
“I take it to be a clear indication that he’s interested in higher
office,” he said. “When you watch his denials about not running for
president, he says, ‘I like the job I’m doing.’ You never him say,
‘I’ll never run for president.’ It’s a masterful appointment to send
him overseas.”

news.com.au
January 1, 2005
Yushchenko rings in New Year
>From correspondents in Kiev, Ukraine
January 1, 2005
UKRAINE opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko rang in the New Year with
Georgia’s leader today in central Kiev, hours after Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovich resigned and all but admitted losing a presidential rerun vote.
In an appearance sure to irritate Russia, Georgian President Mikhail
Saakashvili joined Mr Yushchenko in hailing Ukraine’s “orange revolution”,
which followed Tbilisi’s “rose” uprising last year.
“This is a triumph of good over evil,” a beaming Mr Saakashvili said in
Ukrainian to some 100,000 people gathered in Kiev’s central Independence
Square, the epicentre of the “orange” protests which he fervently supported,
albeit in private.
“I am a president and because of my official position I couldn’t come here,
but my heart was on Khreshchatik (Kiev’s main thoroughfare)… I must say
that these last few days I have felt like a native of Kiev,” said Mr
Saakashvili, who attended university in the city.
“I wish you a happy new year with your new president,” he said. “You have a
super president, he is a good friend of mine and a great politician.”
For his part Mr Yushchenko said: “Ukrainians have been independent for 13
years but now they are free,” a few moments before midnight when fireworks
exploded over the Kiev sky.
The celebration came hours after Mr Yushchenko’s pro-Russia electoral rival
Mr Yanukovich resigned from his post and said that his appeals over the
historic December 26 vote were unlikely to be granted.
“I have made a decision and am formally submitting my resignation,”
Yanukovich said in a televised address. “I find it impossible to occupy any
post in a government headed by these authorities.”
But Mr Yanukovich stopped short of conceding defeat in the poll, which would
have brought Ukraine’s six-week election saga to an end.
“Concerning the election results, we are keeping up the fight but I don’t
have much hope for a just decision from the central election commission and
the supreme court,” he said.
Mr Yanukovich repeated his assertion that “external forces” were responsible
for his defeat in the December 26 vote.
But he got no support from Ukraine’s outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, who
called on the nation during his New Year address to “accept the democratic
choice” made in the presidential poll.
Ukraine’s “orange revolution” marked the second year in a row that peaceful
protests headed by a Western-leaning leader swept out a Russia-friendly
regime in an ex-Soviet nation.
Moscow has accused the United States of fomenting the unrest in order to
install allies in its strategic backyard, charges that Washington has
denied.
But opposition movements in authoritarian-leaning former Soviet republics
and Russia have hailed the peaceful uprisings and in the heat of the
“orange” demonstrations, Belarussians, Armenians, Azeris and Russians
mingled with Ukrainian protesters in central Kiev.
Earlier yesterday, Mr Saakashvili was mobbed by hundreds of wildly cheering
opposition supporters as he walked through a tent city in central Kiev set
up in Mr Yushchenko’s support after he refused to concede defeat to Mr
Yanukovich in a November 21 runoff because of fraud.
Mass opposition demonstrations led to the annulment of the runoff election
due to massive fraud, remade Ukraine into a de facto parliamentary republic
and led to a historic rerun vote on December 26, which Mr Yushchenko won by
more than 2.2 million votes.
Agence France-Presse

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Jan 1 2005
Armenian Tragedy, But Who Is Responsible?
View: Jan SOYKOK (JTW), 2 December 2005
Newly independent Republic of Armenia is a landlocked country.
Armenia is surrounded by 100 million Turkish (Azerbaijan, Turkey and
Iranian Azerbaijan) and Georgia. It has no significant natural
resources and fertile territories. Its population relatively low,
about 3 million and the immigration to Russia, Europe and North
America has dramatically continued. Armenian economy has been
depended on aids from the US and Armenian diaspora. Armenian workers’
financial transfers also have a significant contribution to the
economy. In short, Armenia, had to develop good relations with its
neighbors in order to end its isolation. However the Armenian
Governments has chosen an awkward way:
Unlike the other former USSR republics, Armenia forged its links with
the Russian Federation. Georgia and Azerbaijan for instance made
efforts to lessen their dependency to Russia. Both states have tried
to balance Russia with the European Union, the United State and
Turkey. Armenia, on the other hand, has been skeptical in developing
relations with these three `alternatives’. Even, opponents to
relations with Russia were considered as traitors by main stream
political parties.
Secondly, young Armenia involved the ethnic conflicts and Armenian
forces occupied neighboring Azerbaijan territories. Apart from the
Nagorno-Karabakh territories, many Azerbaijani towns have been under
Armenian occupation.
Third, Armenia with its Constitution and Declaration of Independence,
has not recognized neighboring Turkey’s borders. Many Armenian
politicians, even today, call Turkey’s Eastern region as `Western
Armenia’.
Moreover, Armenia has encouraged separatist movements among the
Georgia Armenians and Russia Armenians. Apart from this, Armenia’s
close relations with Russia have been considered as a direct threat
by Georgia. Georgia, in return, has forged its relations with the
West (EU and US), Azerbaijan and Turkey.
In addition, Armenian politicians have made the so-called `genocide’
allegations foremost priority of Armenian Foreign Policy. Armenian
politicians argued that Turkey has to recognize 1915 events as
`Armenian genocide’. Otherwise good neighborhood was not possible for
the Armenian side. The Armenian diaspora in particular has
manipulated Armenia’s Turkey policy. Extreme Armenian diaspora
institutions have even opposed commercial relations with Turkey.
`Armenia Island’
As a result of all these Armenia’s isolation has deepened: As Sachs
from NYT points it out `Citing terrorism concerns, Russia abruptly
sealed its border with Georgia in September and kept it closed for
nearly two months, effectively cutting off the road that was the main
transit route for Armenian trade with Russia.’ Turkey after the
Armenian forces’ occupation of Azerbaijani territories closed its
borders with Armenia except the air transportation. Turkish Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan says they could not take any step before the
Armenians take a step in occupation of Azerbaijani territories.
Naturally, Armenian borders and almost all relations with Azerbaijan
were ceased. Not only the borders with Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan
but also Iranian border is also problematic. Armenia’s only direct
outlet, apart from the Georgian way, is through Iran to the south,
where trade has been hampered by a poor road network and lack of rail
lines.
Iran is in the United States’ `enemy list’ and Iran, with Russian
Federation, has been considered as one of the obstacles for the
Western policies in the Caucasus. So, developing closer relations
with Iran would be risky for Armenia.
Azerbaijan and Georgia has celebrated the completion of a large
section of the pipeline to carry Caspian Sea oil to the Turkish port
of Ceyhan. The $3 billion regional energy project bypasses Armenia
entirely. The pipeline project will integrate Azerbaijan and Georgia
with West and relations between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia are
being forged changing regional balance of power against Republic of
Armenia. Turkey, considered as historical enemy in Armenia, will also
start membership negotiations with the EU. It is estimated that
Turkey will be a EU member in 10 years. According to Armenian Foreign
Minister Oskanyan European leaders ignored what he called Turkey’s
“faults and shortcomings” with regard to Armenia. “What is
regrettable,” he said, “is that Europe is closing its eyes on
Turkey’s petulance.” For Armenia Turkey has no right to close its
territorial borders with Armenia. `Turkey has to establish diplomatic
relations with all European states, including Armenia says one of the
Armenian officials. However Armenian forces still occupies almost 20
percent of Azerbaijani territories and Armenia does not recognize the
written international agreements set Turkey-Armenia borders.
Dr. Sedat Laciner from ISRO says `Armenia must question its relations
with the world and the region. While all neighboring countries takes
great steps in integration with the West and the global order,
Armenia’s dependency to Russia has dramatically increased. Nothing is
bad with having good relations with Russia. However if you claim you
are an independent state you should balance your relations. A
nation-state cannot establish its security and foreign relations on
trusts and promises.’ According to Dr. Laciner extreme Armenian
diaspora manipulate and misdirect newly independent Armenian State:
`Armenia has no enough human sources to survive. Migration to Russia,
Europe and Northern America has badly damaged national economy.
Hundred thousands work abroad. About 40,000 Armenians work illegally
in Turkey, for instance. However the Armenian nationalists are
talking about a Greater Armenia from Black Sea to Mediterranean, from
Mediterranean to Caspian Sea. Armenia suffers from corruption and
economic catastrophes. However Armenian politicians are talking about
events happened almost a century ago. They politically attack Turkey.
The EU project has been the greatest Turkish dream and Armenian
politicians they have made enormous efforts to prevent Turkey’s EU
membership. Turkish public was shocked by Armenian anti-Turkish
campaigns. Armenian politicians do not understand that Turkey is
ready to normalize its relations with Armenia. AK Party, in
particular, is very willing to develop good relations with Armenia.
However if you insist on armed occupation and if you do not recognize
Turkey’s national borders, and if you continue to undermine Turkey’s
relations with the EU, you cannot expect any step from Turkey’ added
Dr. Laciner.
Turkish Embargo?
Armenian politicians accuse Turkey for Armenia’s economic failures.
Turkish-Armenian territorial border is closed. However there are
direct weekly flights between Yerevan and Istanbul. There is no
diplomatic relations between two states, however thousands of
Armenians work in Istanbul and other Turkish cities. Turkish goods
make their way to Armenia. According to New York Times, Turkey is
Armenia’s seventh largest trading partner. Dr. Nilgun Gulcan from
ISRO claims Turkey is its fifth largest partner. But the closed
border adds cost of road transit through third countries like Georgia
or by the planes that operate flights between Yerevan and Istanbul to
Turkey-Armenia trade. Georgia roads are not safe enough and mostly
closed due to the ethnic tension. Turkey says it will not open its
border before withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied
territories.
Armenian Foreign Minister on the other hand told NYT that they will
not give up the captured territories: “We won’t trade off Karabakh
for a railroad. We have learned to cope with the isolation. Things
are evolving around us. Let it be.” In short, Armenian politicians
seem happy with the status quo.
Armenian forces still occupy 20 per cent of Azerbaijani territories.
Armenia does not recognize its main neighbor’s national borders.
Armenian politicians organize anti-Turkey campaigns in European Union
and the United States. And, Armenia ironically cannot understand why
Turkey does not open its borders with Armenia. Nearly half of the
country’s 3 million people live in poverty on less than $2 a day, but
Armenia’s Foreign Minister could say `we have learned to cope with
the isolation’. As Dr. Gulcan says, `Armenian politicians have chosen
isolation. They curtail the real problems with the past. They
sacrifice today for the legacies and imagined enemies. They should
not learn to cope with isolation, but to cope with their
politicians.’

Zaman, Turkey
Jan 1 2005
Brussels Waits ‘Turkish Issue’
EU Capital in Noel ‘Laze’ to Wake up by Turkey File
Brussels, the capital of European Union (EU), attracted attention
throughout the year, with this years frenzy peaking during the
December 17th summit. Then, the action stopped, hitting rock bottom
for the “Noel laze”.
The EU will wake up from its hibernation in the first week of
January. Traditionally, EU leaders go to their home countries after
the December summit for Christmas and vacation a while. Not only the
leaders, but also the citizens of the world’s richest clubs, go south
for the Noel holiday. This is the reason why more than 4,000 EU
citizens are still missing in South Asia.
In addition to Christmas, the EU also hibernates in August. Brussels
is dead during the month of August and the second half of December.
While it is torture to find a parking spot when the EU is in session,
we now have more than enough space around the EU building to park.
Brussels is a phantom city now. The staff still on duty for the
holidays operates the largest bureaucratic machine in the world while
its in hibernation.
While it was a county in Europe prior to the establishment of the
European Economic Community (EEC), Brussels has since transformed
into one of the two most important capitals in the world. Everyone in
the city knows that if the EU did not exist, Belgium would hardly be
a spot on the map. Perhaps, the bureaucrats in Brussels do not want
to wake up from this long winter sleep because as soon as they wake
up, they will find a huge dossier on Turkey. This file does not
resemble at all those for the other candidate countries. Turkey’s
file requires hard work and “creative solutions”.
Relaxation emerged in Brussels when the EU leaders said, “We’ll reach
decisions on Turkey by considering 2004 Progress Report” at the
Copenhagen summit in 2002… Turkey’s process has been clarified a bit
and taken out of a situation where arbitrary decisions could play a
role.
Since 2002, “Eurobureaucrats” have known that the most critical
decision reached by EU will be on Turkey. In the second half of 2004
in particular, a well-defined Turkey wind blew in the Union and
Turkey was discussed from the earth to the sky.
The Progress Report that was awaited with anticipation was finally
released on October 6 along with its recommendations. The Report laid
down such a conclusion that everyone interpreted it as his wish.
While those who supported “privileged partnership” found satisfactory
sentences in the report, those who feared the Turkish labor force
were satisfied when they saw permanent restrictions. When Ankara,
without discussing the report thoroughly, found it “balanced”, the
owner and the guardian of the report, Enlargement Commissioner Gunter
Verheugen, handed over his duty in peace.
With the October 6th report, the EU signaled that they would treat
Turkey differently than the other candidate countries. Ankara’s
“balanced” judgment was made with the expectation that its mistakes
would be corrected at the December 16-17 summit, when the final
decision was due. Ankara found a conditional and heavy report before
it in the summit. Both Ankara and EU, which will begin membership
negotiations with this report, prepare for 2005. Everyone knows in
Brussels that if the negotiations begin on October 3, the European
public opinion will discuss Turkey, Islam and the history of Turks,
for decades. Members who do not want Turkey’s accession will demand
that Ankara recognizes an “Armenian Genocide”.
2005 will be a Cyprus year again
The agenda to accelerate with the new boss of the Enlargement Olli
Rehn’s Turkey visit in February, will speed up with the preparations
of a new Accession Partnership Document and a negotiation frame. The
EU will determine the negotiation position and lay out short, medium
and long-term priorities. The negotiations, normally handled with 31
parties, could possibly rise to 39-40 parties with Turkey.
Most important, in order for all these preparations to have meaning,
the Cyprus issue will have to be resolved because the EU set a de
facto recognition of the Cyprus Greek Community as condition to start
membership negotiations on October 3. Since there is the possibility
that the Greeks will wake up on the morning of October 4 with the
demand “recognize us”, Ankara knows well that without a solution to
the issue, it cannot proceed in the negotiations because the Greeks
having veto power. And that makes 2005 a year for Cyprus again. Soon,
we will be witnesses to new initiatives regarding Cyprus.
In short, October 3 will be as important as December 17, 2004 for
Turkey.
01.01.2005
Selcuk Gultasli, Zaman, Brussels
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress, Armenia
Jan 1 2005
President Robert Kocharian’s New Year Congratulatory Address
Dear compatriots: We are bidding good-bye to 2004. For Armenia
this year was peaceful, stable and fruitful. Accomplished works
provided for significant economic growth, which translates into new
enterprises, irrigation for new gardens, and new jobs. This is a
difficult but the shortest road toward prosperity for our country and
our people.
To have a qualitatively new country we must work hard. Social
polarization in our country is still deep. The number of our citizens
living in poverty is still large. It means that the process of
reforms must continue, and the cornerstone of this process is the
rise of living standards and fight against poverty. To achieve these
goals we have developed a mid-term plan of action, which is being
implemented persistently.
Results of the accomplished works in this passing year will be
noticeable in 2005. In a number of areas we plan a significant
increase of salaries. The state budget has a qualitatively new
structure, where shares allocated to health care and education are
substantially augmented. Greater attention toward education is
emblematic, since in 2005 we celebrate the 1600 Anniversary of the
Mesropian alphabet.
Dear friends:
In the sphere of foreign affairs important has been involvement of
Armenia in the European `New Neighborhood’ initiative. This fact
underlined the readiness of the European Union to build special
relations with our country. Cooperation with our partner-foreign
states has been enhanced, and Armenia has continued active
participation in international processes.
Armenia-Spjurk relations have been further advanced. I would like
to distinguish `One Nation-One Culture’ first Armenian festival,
which was performed enthusiastically. Allying with the `Hayastan’
All-Armenian Fund the Armenians of Diaspora managed to collect a
considerable amount of money to conclude construction of the
Karabagh’s North-South highway. This is an important step in
strengthening the factual independence of Karabagh – independence,
which is nonnegotiable.
Peaceful and creative year for our country has been secured also
by our Armed Forces, which in the passing year have become even
stronger. I congratulate our military – defenders of our state. I bow
to the memory of fallen heroes.
Dear compatriots from Armenia, Artsakh and Spjurk:
I wish you a Happy New Year. For Armenia and our people 2005 will be
a more productive year. All the preconditions are set for that. I
wish you all good health and happiness. Let this New Year bring to
your homes good happenings, success, and joy.
Happy New Year!

Agence France Presse — English
January 1, 2005 Saturday 1:16 AM GMT
Ukraine’s Yushchenko, Georgian leader ring in New Year after PM
resigns
KIEV
Ukraine opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko rang in the New Year with
Georgia’s leader early Saturday in central Kiev, hours after Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovich resigned and all but admitted losing a
presidential rerun vote.
In an appearance sure to irritate Russia, Georgian President Mikhail
Saakashvili joined Yushchenko in hailing Ukraine’s “orange
revolution,” which followed Tbilisi’s “rose” uprising last year.
“This is a triumph of good over evil,” a beaming Saakashvili said in
Ukrainian to some 100,000 people gathered in Kiev’s central
Independence Square, the epicenter of the “orange” protests that he
fervently supported, albeit in private.
“I am a president and because of my official position I couldn’t come
here, but my heart was on Khreshchatik (Kiev’s main thoroughfare)…
I must say that these last few days I have felt like a native of
Kiev,” said Saakashvili, who attended university in the city.
“I wish you a happy new year with your new president,” he said. “You
have a super president, he is a good friend of mine and a great
politician.”
For his part Yushchenko said: “Ukrainians have been independent for
13 years but now they are free,” a few moments before midnight when
fireworks exploded over the Kiev sky.
The celebration came hours after Yushchenko’s pro-Russia electoral
rival Yanukovich resigned from his post and said that his appeals
over the historic December 26 vote were unlikely to be granted.
“I have made a decision and am formally submitting my resignation,”
Yanukovich said in a televised address. “I find it impossible to
occupy any post in a government headed by these authorities.”
But Yanukovich stopped short of conceding defeat in the poll, which
would have brought Ukraine’s six-week election saga to an end.
“Concerning the election results, we are keeping up the fight but I
don’t have much hope for a just decision from the central election
commission and the supreme court,” he said.
Yanukovich repeated his assertion that “external forces” were
responsible for his defeat in the December 26 vote.
But he got no support from Ukraine’s outgoing President Leonid
Kuchma, who called on the nation during his New Year address to
“accept the democratic choice” made in the presidential poll.
Ukraine’s “orange revolution” marked the second year in a row that
peaceful protests headed by a Western-leaning leader swept out a
Russia-friendly regime in an ex-Soviet nation.
Moscow has accused the United States of fomenting the unrest in order
to install allies in its strategic backyard, charges that Washington
has denied.
But opposition movements in authoritarian-leaning former Soviet
republics and Russia have hailed the peaceful uprisings and in the
heat of the “orange” demonstrations, Belarussians, Armenians, Azeris
and Russians mingled with Ukrainian protestors in central Kiev.
Earlier Friday, Saakashvili was mobbed by hundreds of wildly cheering
opposition supporters as he walked through a tent city in central
Kiev set up in Yushchenko’s support after he refused to concede
defeat to Yanukovich in a November 21 runoff because of fraud.
“I didn’t have a chance to officially support you, but during your
victory I once again felt myself a Kievite,” said Saakashvili, who
attended university in the Ukrainian capital.
“Georgia’s revolution has been considerably strengthened by Ukraine’s
‘orange revolution,’ which will drive important changes in all of
former Soviet territory,” he said in an appearance on Ukrainian
pro-opposition television last week.
The mass opposition demonstrations led to the annulment of a November
presidential runoff election due to massive fraud, remade Ukraine
into a de facto parliamentary republic and led to a historic rerun
vote on December 26, which Yushchenko won by more than 2.2 million
votes.
If Yanukovich chooses to continue with his appeals over the results
of the vote, which he contends was marked with irregularities,
Yushchenko’s official confirmation as the winner could be put off for
weeks as the legal wrangling drags on.
Russia, which openly backed Yanukovich ahead of the poll, has blasted
the West for what it called interference in Ukraine’s internal
matters and warned that peaceful revolutions like those in Kiev and
Tbilisi could destabilize the region.
“If you have permanent revolutions you risk plunging the post-Soviet
space into endless conflict,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said
days ahead of Ukraine’s rerun vote.

Portlan Press Herald
Saturday, January 1, 2005
Despatches
Portland: Orthodox Armenians plan Christmas Mass on Jan. 8
PORTLAND – The city’s Orthodox Armenian community will gather at the
Anglican Cathedral of St. Paul on Jan. 8 to celebrate Christmas Mass for its
traditional holiday, which is celebrated in the Orthodox and Apostolic
Armenian Church according to the Eastern Church calendar on Jan. 6.
The Mass, in Armenian and English, will be celebrated by Father Vartan
Kassabian of St. Gregory’s Armenian Apostolic Church in North Andover, Mass.
This is the second Christmas Mass held in Portland. Hundreds from all over
the state attended last year.
The effort to organize the Mass reflects a renewed interest in Portland’s
Armenian heritage.
Last year, the community dedicated a memorial to the Armenians who had
settled in Portland’s Bayside neighborhood. Last April, St. Paul’s Cathedral
hosted a special service marking the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide
by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, when more than 1.5 million
Armenians died. Portland’s Armenian community dates back to the late 19th
century.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
January 1, 2005 Saturday 11:49 AM Eastern Time
Azeri president calls 2004 turning point in Karabakh settlement
By Sevindzh Abdullayeva, Viktor Shulman
BAKU
President of Azerbaijan Ilkham Aliev said in his New Year address to
the nation on Saturday that 2004 had marked a turning point in the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict.
He noted that “progress has been made in the negotiating process, the
international public has started paying more attention to the problem
and the OSCE Minsk Group which acts as mediators in conflict
settlement has increased its activities.”
“I’ve repeated it many times that Azerbaijan will never make any
concessions in question of its territorial integrity and is not going
to discuss this subject,” Ilkham Aliev went on to say. He emphasized
that the talks should be conducted in compliance with international
law.
The next year’s priority tasks include the further strengthening of
the country’s economic potential, the creation of new jobs and the
solution of social problems, including the increase of salaries and
pensions.
Ilkham Aliev stressed that Azerbaijan would be able to solve many of
its problems when the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline begins operation
in 2005 and when the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum
pipeline is finished.

Libération , France
31 décembre 2004
Le marchand de tapis et la stripteaseuse
par HADDAD Mezri; MEZRI HADDAD philosophe et essayiste tunisien.[#]
L’entrée de la Turquie dans l’Europe: une mauvaise chose pour
l’Europe et pour la Turquie.
Admettre ou refuser l’entrée de la Turquie au sein de la communauté
européenne est une question cruciale qui a fait couler beaucoup
d’encre ces dernières semaines précédant l’ouverture du sommet
européen des 16 et 17 décembre. Chez les défenseurs du oui à
l’intégration de la Turquie, comme chez les partisans du non, cette
question a suscité les réactions les plus vives et confronté les
arguments les plus antagoniques. Aucune perspective d’élargissement
n’a jamais provoqué autant de passions. Mais, très curieusement,
cette question, aux enjeux politiques, économiques et géopolitiques
décisifs, ne semble pas passionner l’élite politique et
intellectuelle musulmane, à l’exception bien évidente des politiciens
et de l’intelligentsia turques. Pour les autres, qu’ils soient
français de confession musulmane, maghrébins ou du Moyen-Orient, ils
ont, comme à l’accoutumée, brillé par leur absence. Comme si le futur
de la Turquie ne les concernait pas ; comme si le sort qui sera
réservé à ce pays n’aura pas une influence déterminante sur l’avenir
des pays de la rive sud de la Méditerranée et sur ceux du
Moyen-Orient en général.
L’élite intellectuelle et politique musulmane ne s’est pas prononcée,
mais l’on peut aisément conjecturer sa position. Elle est sans le
moindre doute résolument favorable à l’adhésion de la Turquie à l’UE.
Non point qu’elle fonde cette position sur une analyse stratégique ou
géopolitique percutante. Elle défendrait l’ambition turque par
atavisme, par réflexe pavlovien, par Açabiyya (solidarité tribale),
comme dirait un fin connaisseur de la psychologie arabo-islamique :
Ibn Khaldûn. Autrement dit, son soutien inconditionnel à la Turquie
procéderait d’un simple syllogisme : la Turquie est un pays musulman,
or nous sommes musulmans, nous devons donc appuyer la Turquie. En
tant que libre penseur musulman, je m’inscris en faux contre cette
logique. En termes plus clairs, je considère que l’entrée de la
Turquie dans la communauté européenne est une mauvaise chose, et pour
la Turquie et pour l’Europe et pour le monde musulman. L’Europe
devrait d’ailleurs limiter son extension géographique – et pas
seulement en direction de la Turquie – car, à force de s’élargir,
elle risque l’écartèlement. La grandeur géographique n’est pas
toujours synonyme de puissance. Elle peut même en constituer un
frein.
La Turquie, nous disent ses thuriféraires, outre son appartenance
“naturelle” à la géographie européenne – ce qui est faux car 95 % du
territoire turc et 92 % de la population se situent en Asie -, a fait
d’énorme progrès et d’immenses concessions pour rejoindre l’Europe en
se conformant strictement aux critères de Copenhague. Il est vrai que
les conditions draconiennes imposées à la Turquie sont
quantitativement et qualitativement supérieures à celles qui ont été
demandées à d’autres pays, qu’ils soient déjà admis, comme la
Pologne, la Lituanie et la Slovaquie, ou en voie d’intégration, comme
la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et la Croatie, pays qui portent encore les
stigmates du totalitarisme communiste. Manifestement – et c’est là où
les Turcs ont raison -, les exigences de l’Europe sont à géométrie
variable. Dans le traitement qu’elle a réservé à la Turquie, l’Europe
ressemble à un marchand de tapis qui discute prement et jusqu’au
plus fin détail, en posant des conditions qui dissuaderaient plus
d’un postulant. Telle une stripteaseuse prête à tout pour séduire une
clientèle insatiable, à chaque exigence européenne, la Turquie a
répondu par une exhibition. Abolition de la peine de mort,
suppression des cours de sûreté de l’Etat, plusieurs amendements du
code pénal interdisant l’usage de la torture, reconnaissance des
droits culturels des Kurdes, engagement au respect des droits de
l’homme, engagement à promouvoir la liberté d’expression… La fin
justifiant les moyens, elle finira tôt ou tard par reconnaître le
génocide arménien. L’élargissement vaut bien quelques écarts. Mais le
grand paradoxe dans toutes ces avancées démocratiques, c’est qu’elles
ont été réalisées d’une manière pour le moins antidémocratique. Pour
aucune de ces réformes, le peuple turc n’a été consulté. Ces réformes
ne répondent donc pas à une véritable aspiration de la société
civile, mais émanent d’un gouvernement à l’autoritarisme bien
prononcé et bien enraciné dans l’histoire de la République turque. Il
faut rappeler que le modèle sur lequel Mustapha Kemal a fondé cette
République s’inspirait de deux expériences totalitaires : le
communisme soviétique et le fascisme italien.
La Turquie d’en haut a beau se targuer d’avoir accordé à la femme le
droit de divorce (1923), le droit de vote (1934), le droit à
l’avortement (1987), la Turquie d’en bas continuera, jusqu’à ce jour,
à pratiquer les “crimes d’honneur”, les mariages forcés ou précoces –
le berdel – et les violences les plus barbares. Si 30 % des femmes
turques sont illettrées, 40 % estiment que leur mari a le droit de
les battre. Selon le New York Times, la Turquie est le seul pays au
monde où le suicide touche deux fois plus les femmes que les hommes.
Le problème que soulèvent ces données – outre le rôle encore
envahissant que l’islam politique continue à jouer dans un pays que
Mustapha Kemal a décrété laïc (1924) – c’est celui-là même que
Tocqueville avait autrefois mentionné, à savoir que la démocratie
comme forme de gouvernement doit toujours correspondre à la
démocratie comme état de la société.
Mais ce problème n’est pas exclusivement turc. Il concerne également
un certain nombre de pays parmi les dix qui ont ces derniers temps
rejoint l’Europe et qui, plus que la Turquie, souffrent de leucémie
démocratique, de confusion théologico-politique et de carence
socio-économique. Certains souffriraient même de dédoublement de la
personnalité : la Pologne mange dans la main de l’Europe et travaille
la main dans la main avec les Etats-Unis. C’est pour dire combien est
méritoire et exceptionnel l’effort de mise à niveau économique et de
normalisation politique produit par la Turquie ces deux dernières
décennies. Comparée au reste du monde islamique, la Turquie reste un
exemple de réussite en matières d’économie, de démocratie et de
sécularisation. Dès lors, la question qui se pose est la suivante :
puisque la Turquie est un Etat laïque, démocratique et respectueux
des droits de l’homme, puisque son économie est performante,
puisqu’elle est un modèle d’émancipation féminine… pourquoi donc
ira-t-elle investir ce capital bien précieux chez les nantis plutôt
que chez les démunis, chez les affranchis plutôt que chez les
asservis ? Au lieu d’être l’avant-dernier wagon du train européen – à
supposer qu’elle le rejoigne un jour -, pourquoi ne serait-elle pas
la locomotive du train islamique ? Qui a cruellement besoin de
progrès socio-économique, de réformes politiques, de révolution
laïque, d’émancipation de la condition féminine, l’Europe ou le monde
islamique ? Qui vit sous la menace constante ou la tentation
permanente de l’islamisme théocratique, l’Orient ou l’Occident ?
La Turquie ne sera jamais entièrement prête à s’agréger à l’Europe,
car son handicap majeur et insurmontable sera toujours son islamité.
C’est ce qu’on n’ose pas lui dire franchement. Mais elle est déjà
très largement prête pour revenir à son milieu naturel : le monde
islamique, qu’elle a abandonné à son triste destin il y a près de
quatre-vingts ans. Il ne s’agit pas de restaurer un Empire ottoman
qui est mort comme il est né : dans la ruine et la désolation. Il
s’agit de constituer une nouvelle entité géopolitique, une espèce de
Commonwealth turco-arabo-islamique, réunissant notamment le
Turkménistan, l’Ouzbékistan, l’Azerbaïdjan, le Tadjikistan, le
Kirghizstan, le Kazakhstan, l’Afghanistan, le Pakistan, l’Iran,
l’Irak, la Syrie, l’Egypte, l’Arabie Saoudite… C’est sa vocation
historique que de prendre le leadership d’une telle communauté qui
n’est pas si hétérogène qu’elle y paraît. Plutôt que de se dissoudre
dans une Europe qui reste, quoi que l’on dise, profondément marquée
par des siècles de christianisme, ne vaut-il pas mieux qu’elle soit
l’élément catalyseur et fédérateur d’un monde musulman qui cherche à
se frayer un chemin vers la modernité ? Dans cette hypothèse, la
formule d’un “partenariat privilégié” avec la Turquie serait la plus
propice, pas seulement à l’échange économique, mais aussi au dialogue
des civilisations.
On m’objectera que l’émergence d’un bloc islamique donnerait raison à
Samuel Huntington et confirmerait sa thèse d’un “choc des
civilisations” inexorable. Certes, mais si le professeur de Harvard
pèche par son pessimisme excessif, tout n’est pas absurde dans son
analyse futurologique. L’unité civilisationnelle du monde islamique
est à la fois une donnée historique et une nouvelle donne de la
géopolitique mondiale. C’est d’ailleurs Zbigniew Brzezinski qui, dès
le début des années 90, a parlé de la naissance d’un ” Croissant
islamique aux contours indéterminés, qui s’étend à travers l’Afrique
du Nord et le Moyen-Orient – il pourrait englober la Turquie, les
Etats arabes du Golfe, l’Irak – et il traverse l’Iran et le Pakistan
au nord vers les nouveaux Etats musulmans de l’Asie centrale pour
atteindre enfin les frontières de la Chine. Les pays de ce bloc
seront liés par beaucoup de dénominateurs communs ” (revue Al-Majala,
Londres, 21 avril 1993). A moyen ou long terme, ce bloc islamique
verra le jour. Reste à savoir sous l’impulsion de quelle idéologie
mobilisatrice ce bloc émergera : une idéologie laïque et démocratique
ou une idéologie théocratique et totalitaire ? En d’autres termes, si
rien n’est fait pour fédérer le monde musulman autour d’un projet
humaniste, pragmatique et pacifique, il se réunira sous la bannière
de l’islamisme le plus radical. C’est dans cette perspective-là que
l’apocalypse du prophète Samuel deviendra inéluctable.

Le Monde, France
31 décembre 2004
Le Bosphore, frontière de l’Europe
HORIZONS DÉBATS
par Roland J.-L. Breton
ON pourrait beaucoup écrire sur les limites proprement géographiques,
assez théoriques, de l’Europe, ou sur ses frontières réelles du passé
historique, antique ou moderne. Ou encore sur l’extension de la
civilisation européenne et de sa signification et de son empreinte
profonde dans les esprits. Mais la question aujourd’hui n’est pas là.
Elle est de savoir avec précision où doit s’arrêter raisonnablement
l’Union européenne de demain.
Constantinople-Byzance-Istanbul a certes toujours été en Europe et
l’Anatolie en Asie mineure. Comme les Turcs, venus du coeur de
l’Asie, devenus européens par leur empire, ont pu aussi s’affirmer
tels par leurs légitimes aspirations modernistes, laïques,
démocratiques et, maintenant, diplomatiques.
Nous pourrions certes accepter les Turcs comme nation européenne,
quelle que soit leur religion, puisque nous avons tous la volonté
d’appartenir à une société laïque. Comme nous accueillons déjà
pleinement plus de trois millions de citoyens turcs, travailleurs
migrants, résidents ou naturalisés, avec leurs enfants. Il n’y a là
aucune difficulté touchant les individus ou les communautés au sein
de l’Union européenne.
Le seul problème reste celui du territoire. Car ce n’est pas à nous
Européens de décider où, au-delà du Bosphore, une frontière devrait
éventuellement passer à travers l’Asie mineure. Nous ne pouvons, dans
l’état du droit international, qu’accepter ou refuser celle de la
République turque actuelle. Or cette limite, depuis 1920, tranche à
travers l’Arménie et le Kurdistan.
Et si nous avons aussi accueilli comme des frères les Arméniens
échappant au génocide et les Kurdes, de citoyenneté turque ou non,
venus travailler, nous ne pouvons envisager d’intégrer dans l’Europe
une part, pas plus que la totalité de leurs pays respectifs.
Pourquoi la frontière de l’Europe inclurait-elle Kars en excluant
Erevan, Diyarbakir et non Kirkouk ? Et demain, si les Kurdes, avec
leur langue, recevaient enfin tous les droits démocratiques de la
Turquie, pourquoi après-demain ne demanderaient-ils pas à inclure
aussi dans l’UE leurs territoires de Syrie, d’Irak ou d’Iran ?
Passant le Bosphore et l’Asie mineure, jusqu’où demanderait-on à
étendre l’Europe ?
L’Europe a la sagesse de ne plus rêver de s’étendre au monde à
travers les continents. Les Européens, qui ont eu tant de mal à
dépasser leurs conflits internes comme à renoncer à dominer les
autres, ne peuvent maintenant donner qu’une seule leçon : celle de
montrer le chemin de l’unité. Mais sur chaque continent et dans
l’entente des civilisations. Surtout pas dans l’expansion indéfinie
d’un prétendu modèle à travers les mers et les détroits.
NOTES: Roland J.-L. breton est professeur émérite de géographie à
l’université Paris-VIII.