Deutsche Presse-Agentur
December 17, 2004, Friday
17:47:07 Central European Time
Turkey agrees to E.U. entry talks after Cyprus deal
Brussels (dpa) – Turkey and the European Union on Friday clinched a
long-sought deal allowing Ankara to begin membership talks with the
bloc next year – but only after a diplomatic fudge resolved the
fraught issue of Turkish recognition for Cyprus.
“The European Union (E.U.) has opened its door to Turkey,” said
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in a move ending 40
years of Turkish efforts to get a road map to join the Union.
E.U. leaders agreed to open accession negotiations on October 3, 2005
aimed at full Turkish membership.
“We have been writing history today,” said Dutch Prime Minister Jan
Peter Balkenende who holds the rotating E.U. presidency, adding:
“Turkey has accepted the hand we offered to them.”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair was also upbeat: “It’s a good day
for Europe, for Turkey and for the wide world,” said Blair who
strongly backs Turkish E.U. membership.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan took a more cautious
view, saying: “We have done it … the process will be difficult and
full of obstacles.”
He admitted Turkey was not “100 per cent satisfied.”
The sense of achievement over the landmark deal was soured by discord
over Cyprus which came to a head earlier Friday.
A further major damper on the mood was a surprise announcement by
Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel – who was never enthusiastic
about Turkey – that his country would hold a referendum on Turkish
E.U. membership.
“It is important that the Austrian people have their say,” said
Schuessel. Polls in many E.U. countries, including Austria, Germany
and France currently show a majority opposing Turkish admission.
French President Jacques Chirac, who also intends to hold a national
referendum on the issue, struck a note of caution by insisting that
“negotiations do not mean accession”.
“We cannot foresee the results…,” Chirac said, adding that E.U.
states could at any time suspend talks if there was slippage in
Turkey’s reform efforts.
The disagreement over Cyprus was settled by a finely-tuned diplomatic
fudge under which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan only
agreed verbally to recognise the Greek Cypriot part of the island
before accession talks begin next year. Erdogan refused to sign any
document on this question.
European Union (E.U.) leaders welcomed Erdogan’s commitment to do so,
and – in a move to make things official – they promptly added his
words as an annex to the summit’s final communique.
Under the hard-won agreement, Erdogan promised that before Turkey
begins E.U. accession negotiations, he will sign an extension of
Ankara’s customs union agreement to include Cyprus, which joined the
E.U. as part of a group of 10 new members last May.
Balkenende admitted this was “not formal legal recognition” of Cyprus
by Turkey. But E.U. diplomats say this would amount to de facto
recognition.
This was denied by Erdogan who said: “It in no way means the
recognition of Cyprus.”
Most Turks already feel their country has made massive efforts to
meet Cyprus reunification demands. Both Turkey and the self-styled
state of Turkish northern Cyprus backed a U.N. blueprint for
unification last April. But the deal was torpedoed by a referendum
held in Greek Cyprus.
Turkey presently only recognises northern Cyprus and not the
internationally-recognised Greek Cypriot southern part of the island.
The deal to open talks with Moslem Turkey is a major turning point
for the E.U. which until now has been a mainly Christian club.
Turkey faces a huge task in meeting E.U. standards and European
Commission chief Barroso said his message to Turks was simple: “This
is not the end of the process, this is the beginning.”
Erdogan’s much-praised reforms are seen by the E.U. as just a start
and Ankara’s lengthy “to do” list includes major improvements in
political and economic structures.
E.U. leaders say Turkey must make additional effort to meet the
bloc’s “Copenhagen Criteria” which include strict standards for human
rights, minority protection and rule of law.
More challenging for Erodgan are Europe’s calls for what many in
Turkey will see as a social revolution.
Women’s rights, religious freedom and difficult historic questions
from Turkey’s past, including the fate of Armenians during World War
I, still need to be addressed.
Countries such as France have officially declared the killing of up
to 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915 under the Ottoman Empire
to have been a genocide. This is strongly denied by Turkey which says
far fewer Armenians died and that this was part of the normal course
of war.
“The process of E.U. construction is based on dialogue and
recognition of past errors,” said France’s Chirac, adding that the
Armenian issue would undoubtedly figure in the French referendum. dpa
lm si

Azerbaijani president: Armenia too dependent on Russia in territory dispute talks
by AIDA SULTANOVA; Associated Press Writer
Associated Press Worldstream
December 17, 2004 Friday
BAKU, Azerbaijan — Russia is taking too active a role in the
negotiations over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, whose
unresolved status remains a source of tension for Azerbaijan and
Armenia, Azerbaijan’s president said Friday.
Ilham Aliev was reacting to comments by Russian parliament speaker
Boris Gryzlov, who said that Armenia was Russia’s outpost in the
Caucasus region. Gryzlov made the statement Wednesday at a meeting
between Armenian legislators and their Russian counterparts.
“We are confused: We have always considered Armenia a state, but now
it turns out that it is an outpost,” Aliev told journalists Friday.
“So whom should we negotiate with now – the outpost or the master of
the outpost?” he said.
Azerbaijan and Armenia have been locked in a bitter dispute over
Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan’s
territory. Ethnic Armenian forces drove Azerbaijani troops out of
Nagorno-Karabakh in the 1990s. Since a 1994 cease-fire, the sides
have been separated by a demilitarized buffer zone, but occasional
shooting breaks out and each side accuses the other of mounting
small incursions.
“I believe that if these negotiations are conducted in a constructive
way, and the Armenian side does not go back on earlier agreed-upon
positions … we can come to certain agreements,” Aliev said.
Baku wants Armenian forces to withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh before
a peace treaty can be signed.
Aliev also said Friday that Azerbaijan is ready to fully reopen its
railway connection with neighboring Georgia only after it receives
guarantees that the cargo is not redirected to Armenia.
Azerbaijan closed its railway link with Georgia for five days in
November, barring about 1,500 train cars carrying oil and other
cargo, on the grounds that some of the cargo had ended up in Armenia.
Baku then reopened the connection partially – allowing in some trains,
mostly those carrying oil – after Azerbaijan and Georgia agreed that
no cargo would be redirected to Armenia.
But Aliev said Friday that “smuggling and falsifications” were still
taking place.
“If it persists, the border will remain closed,” Aliev said. “We
understand that it causes harm to us and to a certain extent to
Georgia, but we have no other choice.”

ARKADY GHUKASIAN: THEY TRY TO ISOLATE KARABAKH SIDE FROM NEGOTIATIONS
ARTIFICIALLY
Azg/arm
18 Dec 04
Arkady Ghukasian, NKR President, expressed regret that “under
the shelter of the OSCE Minsk group, an attempt is made at
present to artificially isolate the Karabakh side from the
negotiations.” According to Mediamax, Ghukasian said that “this very
factor doesnâ~@~Yt allow contributing to progress of the negotiations,
that could develop the positive achievements of the recent 10 years
attained by the sides in conflict through the mediation of the
international experts.”
NKR President didnâ~@~Yt specify who, in particular, tries to
isolate NKR from the peaceful settlement negotiations. Itsâ~@~Y
worth mentioning that Vartan Oskanian, foreign minister of Armenia,
said at a press conference on December 14: “The negotiations between
Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Prague format will continue up to a
certain stage, perhaps, until the participation of Nagorno Karabakh
is unavoidable. At present, the format that existed during several
years will be preserved.”
“Bakuâ~@~Ys unwillingness to take into account both the created
realities and the interests of Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys allies, in fact,
leads the negotiation process to a dead-end that can yield no results
without Nagorno Karabakhâ~@~Ys participation,” Ghukasian said in
his speech during the conference held with all the representatives
of the power branches.
Ghukasian reaffirmed NKRâ~@~Ys determination to open direct
negotiations with official Baku, as well as to discuss in conference
all the issues related to the further relations of NKR with
Azerbaijan. On the other hand, the President pointed out that “the Baku
authorities are unlikely to give up the absurd and destructive idea of
solving the problem by force, that makes us take relevant measures for
strengthening NKRâ~@~Ys defense in future and increase the efficiency
of our armed forces that secure the safety of our people.”
NKR President emphasized that in the course of the recent four years
the export of the republic increased for more than 15 times. It
is expected that by the end of the current year the volume of the
industrial production will increase for almost 1,5 times as compared
with the indicators of the last year. “This indicators allow us to
secure constant increase of our own profits that annually increase
by 42%,” Ghukasian said.
–Boundary_(ID_uABxBCWjPzB3JxProdJP1g)–

THERE IS A REAL DANGER OF HANDING LIBERATED TERRITORIES OVER
Azg/arm
18 Dec 04
Armen Aghayan, political secretary of Protection of Liberated
Territories NGO, announced in the press conference that “the threat has
increased and there seems to be a real danger of handing the liberated
territories over.” He condemned both the former and the current
Armenian authorities in this, saying that they are ready to hand the
liberated territories contiguous Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan.
“What the former authorities do?” Some suggestions were made to Armenia
in Astana, Kazakhstan, Armenia rejected them or didnâ~@~Yt agree at
once, after which pressures began, i.e. PACE reports (by Davis and
Atkinson), the UN formula. Yes, the Minsk group has averted that,
but its aim is to exert a pressure, if you donâ~@~Yt accept it
(Astana suggestion), we will impose it on you,” Aghayan said.
“The authorities explain Azerbaijan and OSCE co-chairs that they
didnâ~@~Yt inhabit the regions and they didnâ~@~Yt even intend
to. They say that these territories serving a security zone will
be finally returned, but only against specifying the status of NKR
or giving security guarantees. While the opponents say that it is
better to trade the territories than to give them for free,” Aghayan
described the position of the Armenian authorities.
He believes that there is no contradiction between the former and the
current authorities in the NKR issue. “Kocharian didnâ~@~Yt go far
from Ter-Petrosian both in the NKR issue and in other issues,” he said.
Aghayan thinks that only the Armenian people can be an opposition in
the NKR issue. “No one knows what will be the reaction of the people,
but the authorities are frightened, otherwise this issue (the one of
handing the territories) would be solved long ago, as no power would
stand the pressure of the West.”
“In fact, the issue of the liberated territories is the only one that
arouses disputes after the war and the keystone in the suggestions
of the co-chairs. We can even exaggerate the matter, saying that
there is no other issue existing in the context of Nagorno Karabakh
settlement except for the issue of the territories. The rest of the
issues are derivative,” Aghayan said.
The members of the NGO are sure that the issue of Nagorno Karabakh can
have no international solution. They believe that the only settlement
of the problem is the Armenian version and envisages full and fast
inhabiting and utilization of all the liberated regions, as well as
the announcement of the Armenian power in these territories.
Aghayan believes that we should make Azerbaijan accept the reality of
unilateral activates (unification of NKR with RA together with all
the territories under the control of the Karabakh forces). “Neither
the Azeri people, nor their country have no internal resources to
take back these regions, if they had they wouldnâ~@~Yt have left
them. They are foreigners in these territories. As they banished the
native residents, the same thing the naïve dwellers did to them.
The Azeri understand this factor very well,” Aghayan said.
By Tatoul Hakobian
–Boundary_(ID_wVSnnOrW0E+CAn8IGUlMHg)–

EUROPE DECIDES TURKEY’S FUTURE
Azg/arm
18 Dec 04
Baucher: We Recognized the Terrible Tragedy that Happened with the
Armenian Community in Anatolia
Jose Manuel Barroso, chairman of EU commission, emphasized that the
leaders of 25 EU member countries that gathered in Brussels will vote
for opening the negotiations with Turkey in the issue of its entry
to EU, Novosti agency informed.
“The European Union has opened its door to Turkey. No obstacle can
occur on this path at the last moment,” Barroso said, adding that
the issues related to the full membership, including the issue of the
Armenian genocide, will be discussed during the future negotiations.
If a group of EU member states is for fixing concrete deadlines for
opening the negotiations with Turkey, the rest are less optimistic. A
high-ranking German official said in the interview to France-Presse
that Berlin expects that Turkey is suggested to open full membership
negotiations at the congress and not an issue of “special cooperation.”
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister, considered Turkeyâ~@~Ys
membership to EU a desired one. “We will not only solve the issue of
Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership but also the issue of its modernization,”
Fischer said, adding that Muslim Turkey, meeting the commitments
required for EU membership, can serve as a good example for other
countries of the Middle East.
According to Reuters, Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schussel is
the most known pessimist in the issue of Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership
to EU. Jacques Chirak, French President, announced on Wednesday,
Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership to EU would meet the interests of France
and Europe, on the other hand, he said that each of the 25 EU member
countries can put a veto on that decision.
According to Mediamax, in response to the question about the
Armenian Genocide, as well as the position of the USA towards the
dispute unfolded in the context of Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership to
EU, the official representative of the US State Department said:
“We recognized the terrible tragedy that happened to the Armenian
community of Anatolia during the last years of the Ottoman Empire.”
In reply to the question whether the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide should be a precondition for Turkeyâ~@~Ys entry to EU,
Richard Baucher said: “The State Secretary announced several times
during the last week that the Europeans should solve all these
issues. We believe that Turkey has covered a long path to keep in line
with the criteria required for the EU membership, and the Europeans
should take an independent decision.”
On December 16, TurkishMilietstated in its “USA Recognizes Armenian
Genocide” article that Colin Powel, US State Secretary, had a telephone
talk with Gul, Turkish foreign minister, and showed interest about
the latest developments around the EU membership negotiations.
By Tatoul Hakobian
–Boundary_(ID_labgk4Osji49IROFWYCXgw)–

“NO OTHER DOCUMENT ON KARABAKH IS SO PRO-AZERI AS ATKINSON’S REPORT”
Azg/arm
18 Dec 04
Kazimirov’s Letter to PACE Reads
Vladimir Kazimirov, former personal representative of the Russian
president on Karabakh issue in 1992-1996, sent a letter to PACE
reporter on Nagorno Karabakh, David Atkinson, expressing his discontent
with the emphasized pro-Azeri nature of the latter’s report.
Kazimirov particularly points out Atkinson’s statement that
the ceasefire was reached due to OSCE Minsk group in May 12 of
1994, whereas it was due to Russia’s efforts, and the Minsk group
co-chairmanship was organized in December of 1994 and the personal
representative was appointed after the truce.
“The most important international documents on Nagorno Karabakh
always maintained the balance in order to make it easy for the sides
to compromise. None of them has ever been so single-mindedly pro-Azeri
as yours”, Kazimirov wrote.
The former Russian broker being a well-informed specialist in the
Karabakh issue and someone who visited the region for 47 times
reminds Atkinson that his and Davis’ reports pay little attention
to the history of the confrontation, to the war of 1992-1994 and the
process of regulation.
“Many issues in the conflict were the result of both sides’ actions,
yet your projects pin the whole blame on the Armenian side. I am
not trying to justify the Armenians, I only say that we need to be
impartial in assessing the actions of both sides. Moreover, the very
Azerbaijan was standing for settling the Karabakh issue by means of
force, who was rejecting all the steps to ease the tension”, he wrote.
Kazimirov underlines that Nagorno Karabakh in the UN formulas and
OSCE documents was directly or indirectly recognized as a side in
the conflict: “Only your formulae overlooks this issue and recognize
Armenia and Azerbaijan as sides, thus playing into Bakuâ~@~Ys
hands”. He also reminds that the OSCE Budapest summit mentioned of
the three sides of the conflict.
“Azerbaijan is the side in conflict and not the Azeri population in
Nagorno Karabakh. There is no difference in Azerbaijan’s and Karabakh’s
Azeri population’s standpoints”, he said and went on condemning
Atkinson for emphasizing the importance of Karabakh’s Azeri community:
“Is it appropriate to use terms like “London’s British community”,
or “Baku’s Azeri community”, or “Moscow’s Russian community”?”.
Kazimirov is amazed that the Davis-Atkinson report refers to the UN
Security Council’s 4 formulae but only accents the demand to withdraw
Armenian armed forces. “Before the May of 1994, that is more than
1 year, (after UN Security Council adopted first formula- ed.) the
Azeri authorities, which were obstinately neglecting the key demand
of the 4 formulae and were continuing to bet on settling the issue
through force, broke the ceasefire several times. Azerbaijan agreed
on ceasefire under the threat of all-out defeat and loss of power
and not for accomplishing the UN Security Council’s formulae. The
Armenians also had many problems but they turned to be more flexible
and constructive”, Kazimirov reminded and added: “The territorial
take-over, increase of the refugees is on Azerbaijan’s conscience as
well, and not only Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh”.
The Russian diplomat accepts that the Armenians do not withdraw their
forces from the occupied territories and claim the package settlement
of the conflict. But “in fact, the Azeri authorities have not realized
any demand within the 4 UN formulae”. “Today they carry out nothing
either. Moreover, they demand that Turkey keep on maintaining the
blockade of Armenia, threatens with resuming the war time after time,
encourages anti-Armenian hysteria in Azerbaijan but there is no word
about this (in Atkinson’s report – ed)”.
Kazimirov reminds at the end that Armenian has full control only over
5 regions and partial over two 2 and not 8 as Atkinson claims. The
Russian diplomat notes that Azerbaijan also has occupied Armenian
territories such as Artsvashen. Kazimirov rounds off the letter with
hope that such an authoritative organization as the PACE will be able
to demonstrate a balanced approach in the Karabakh conflict.
By Tatoul Hakobian
–Boundary_(ID_ZM/PdTySqd1eTXPmiwna5Q)–

SERGE SARGSIAN: ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN MILITARY ALLIANCE HAS NO ALTERNATE
Azg/arm
18 Dec 04
Serge Sargsian, minister of defense of Armenia, stated yesterday
that the Armenia-NATO relations will develop so far as “they do not
contradict the Collective Security Treaty (CST)”.
There is no need to include the NATO membership in Armenia’s foreign
policy agenda today but this does not mean that we should not develop
our relations with the Organization, Sargsian said during a round
table organized to discuss issues of regional security.
The Yerevan-Brussels relations mark obvious progress during the
last few years. Speaking of the range of Armenia-NATO relations,
Sargsian said that Armenia has participated in 47 arrangements and
5 military exercises of the Organization in 2004 and is going to
increase these numbers.
Armenian political leaders, Russian and US representatives took part
at the round table. Serge Sargsian took time to speak of Armenia-NATO,
Armenia-Russia, Armenia-EU relations as well as the systems of regional
security separately.
“The Armenia-Russian military alliance has no alternate today”,
he said adding that the Armenian-Russian relations cannot hinder
Armenia’s integration into Europe especially in case when Russia
and Europe come closer. The minister noted that the Armenian-Russian
military cooperation is fixed on 6 dozens of pages.
Serge Sargsian highlighted Armenia-EU relations as key one. Our
country exports 40 percent of its goods to Europe. He underscored
the “brilliant military cooperation” of Armenian-Greek peacekeepers
in Kosovo.
The minister of defense noted that Armenia is the only country in the
South Caucasus that manages to implement balanced policy. He thinks
cooperation in the region will be one day possible and reminded that
such European states as England, France and Germany have history of
century-long enmity but today they are allies.
Levon Mkrtchian, representative of the Armenian Revolutionary
Party, added to more trends of cooperation to those mentioned
by the minister. He singled out relation with Iran and the Arab
world. Mkrtchian reminded two facts from the past: firstly, Iran
provided the only road to Armenia when it was blockaded from 3 sides,
secondly by taking a neutral stance in the Karabakh conflict, Tehran
prevented it to turn into a religious one, something Azerbaijan
strived for.
By Tatoul Hakobian

GEGHAM GHARIBJANIAN: “ARMENIAN COMMUNITY OF IRAN BECAME THE GREATEST
REVELATION IN MY LIFE”
TEHRAN, December 17 (Noyan Tapan). Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of Armenia to Iran Gegham Gharibjanian said goodbye
to the neighboring friendly country and its Armenian Community,
completing his 6-year diplomatic mission in Iran.
A farewell party was held upon the joint initiative of the three
Armenian Dioceses of Iran at the hall of the “Ararat” cultural
organization on December 11. Head of the Armenian Diocese of Isfahan
Archimandrite Babken Charian, Head of the Atrpatakan Diocese Nshan
Topuzian, two MPs from the Armenian community in the parliament of
Iran, employees of the RA Embassy, representatives of the “Alik”
(“Wave”) institution and other guests went to say goodbye to Gegham
Grigorian.
Doctor Anna Hovhannisian, the Head of the Armenian Diocesan Council
of Tehran, came up after the artistic part of the arrangement. She
highly estimated the diplomatic activities of Gegham Gharibjanian,
coming up on behalf of the three Dioceses.
In his speech of gratitude Ambassador Gharibjanian said: “Six years
ago, when I arrived in Iran as the RA Ambassador for the first time,
the fact that there is an admirable community with mighty potential
and mighty spirit here became, perhaps, the greatest revelation in my
life. And if I knew only some notable representatives of the community
that time, I know all of them now. I wish you every success and good
luck. Thank you.”
According to the Tehran “Alik” (“Wave”) newspaper, the honorable
guests handed the Ambassador a souvenir on behalf of the three Armenian
Dioceses after the completion of the official part of the arrangement.

ARMENIAN SPOKESMAN URGES AZERBAIJAN TO NEGOTIATE WITH KARABAKH
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
17 Dec 04
(Presenter in studio) The press secretary of the Armenian Foreign
Ministry, Gamlet Gasparyan, has said while commenting on Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev’s remarks concerning Azerbaijan’s inclination
towards a stage-by-stage settlement that Armenia’s position on
the negotiations to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict remains
unchanged.
We state again that the negotiations to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict within the framework of the Prague process are held in a
package form and we are ready to continue doing that.
Gasparyan added that if the Azerbaijani side is still hesitating
as to who to hold the negotiations with, we have to repeat – with
Stepanakert.

RUSSIANS ABROAD COULD SOLVE DEMOGRAPHIC SHORTFALL – TV
Channel One TV, Moscow
17 Dec 04
Russia needs to make use of the huge “gold reserve” of Russians
living in the states of the former Soviet Union to compensate for
its shrinking population, presenter Svetlana Sorokina said in “Basic
Instinct” on Russia’s Channel One television on 17 December. But in
order to do so, it needs to take a close look at how it regards those
Russian-speaking people and at its foreign policy towards the former
Soviet states, studio guests said.
Taking part in the studio debate on how Russia needs to interact with
Russians abroad were:
the editor-in-chief of Ekho Moskvy, Aleksey Venediktov;
the head of the Centre for Strategic Research into Religion and
Politics of the Modern World, Maksim Shevchenko;
a member of the Duma Security Committee, member of the One Russia
faction, Police Lt-Col Aleksey Rozuvan;
the head of the Russian Centre for International Scientific and
Cultural Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, Eleonora
Mitrofanova;
the leader of the Motherland action in the Duma, Dmitriy Rogozin;
a member of the Federation Council, who lived in Turkmenistan for 40
years, Galina Buslova;
the executive director of Moscow Council of Russian Compatriots,
Vitaliy Skrinnik;
the leader of the headquarters for protection of Russian schools in
Latvia, Aleksandr Kazakov;
and a young man from Volgograd, originally from Samarkand in
Uzbekistan, Andrey Zuyev.
Lessons from Ukraine
Asked what lessons in terms of defending the interests of the
Russophone population should be learned from the events occurring
in Ukraine, Shevchenko said that Russia needed to look closely at
exactly what its foreign policy aims were. “The first lesson is
that we should more clearly and precisely formulate both Russia’s
foreign political interests and the role of those people whom Russia
takes under its protection in the light of those foreign political
interests as formulated.” The area of Russophone eastern Ukraine, he
said, is “such a self-sufficient territory that Moscow should perhaps
stop taking it as an instrument for exerting influence on European
or Ukrainian affairs. It seems to me that Donetsk and Kharkov and
Lugansk are in fact entirely ready for partnership relations with
Russia, with Moscow. The problem is that Moscow is not ready to see
them as partners but only as compatriots who are an instrument of
interference or influence, or in some game.”
Venediktov questioned rhetorically whether Russia’s attempt to get
involved in the situation in Ukraine was genuinely in defence of the
interests of Russian compatriots or political manoeuvring. “Genuine
defence of the interests of our compatriots should find expression in
two ways,” Venediktov said. “Either we invite them here – and they
really do represent a gold reserve. Russia’s demographic situation
is very bad. Yet according to various estimates there are up to 22m
people now who regard themselves either as Russians or Tatars or
Chuvash, who have gone through state education here. This is the gold
reserve. Or, we must help them there, so that in the final analysis
they do not lose their links with the language and culture, with the
motherland. Neither of these things has been done.”
Rogozin said there was a need to define the terms used. “In my view,
in the Russian Federation nobody is interested in the subject of
compatriots, we have not even managed seriously to tackle the concept
of exactly who we mean by the term compatriots – what do we mean
– ethnic Russians? Or a Tatar living in Riga for whom the Russian
language is the main language by which he identifies himself? What is
he, a compatriot? Or nothing for us?” There is no official support for
Russians abroad, Rogozin pointed out. The Duma comes out with grand
statements along the lines of “hands off our compatriots in the Baltic
states”, he said, and then forgets about it the next day. Whereas the
USA and some European states regard protection of their compatriots
abroad as a matter of national security, Rogozin went on, “for us it
is PR, in the best case” or an instrument to be used. What is needed,
he said, is some sort of official body to tackle work with Russians
abroad, a point picked up by Mitrofanova, who believes the Russian
Centre for International Scientific and Cultural Cooperation at the
Russian Foreign Ministry should be turned into a federal agency.
Citizenship law
Vendiktov condemned at length what he described as Russia’s
“detestable” and “shameful” citizenship law, which he said closed off
avenues for people to get citizenship. He said the law, which speakers
pointed out had already been subject to considerable amendment,
needed to be further simplified. The case of Andrey Zuyev, a young
man originally from Samarkand in Uzbekistan, who has been living in
Volgograd for four years, was taken as an example of the difficulties
people from the former Soviet states have when they try to return to
Russia. He has been unable to get citizenship, and without documents
he cannot get a proper job. Rogozin promised to look into Zuyev’s case.
Despite the need for labour in Russia, Duma Security Committee member
Rozuvan said, “we cannot simply take in everybody who wants to come to
Russia. Just imagine what would happen!” Having sparked heated debate
on the subject, Rozuvan insisted that there had to be differentiation
between who could be given citizenship. “There has to be this sort
of gradation. Because today the Russian who has landed up outside
the confines of his country should have prior claims to return here
than, for example, an Uzbek or an Armenian who was not born in Russia
at all and never spent any time there but today suddenly wants to
become a Russian citizen.” Pressed on the subject of mixed marriages,
Rozuvan said there nevertheless had to be “a simplified procedure for
ethnic Russians. Under the present law they all have equal rights
and that is not proper.”
Buslova pointed out that details of the simplified procedure for
getting Russian citizenship had not been announced in Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which is why Russians in those countries
were in their present plight.
Turkmenistan
Rogozin took up the “outrageous situation” of Russians in
Turkmenistan. “This is a catastrophe, a complete catastrophe. Because
when we abandoned the agreement on dual citizenship with Turkmenistan –
yes, of course it was a strange agreement, we have dual citizenship
with a country governed by, I don’t know, Saddam Husayn No 2, even
worse, even crueller. Turkmenbasy, I mean, of course. There are
today 95,000 citizens of the Russian Federation there today, Russian
Turkmens, who cannot leave Turkmenistan for Russia on a Russian
passport. They cannot leave Turkmenistan until he, Turkmenbasy, puts
a stamp on their exit visa in their passport. And our people can do
nothing. The Americans take their citizens out of Turkmenistan, all
kinds of European conferences and congresses debate Turkmenistan and
condemn the despotic, fascist regime in Turkmenistan. We have 100,000
of our people there whom we are obliged under the constitution to
protect, and we do nothing,” Rogozin said.
Rogozin went on to add: “Turkmenistan is a state which not only
oppresses its own citizens and the citizens of other states, including
Russia. It is a state which uses the state machine to manufacture
narcotics on an industrial scale and transfer them to Russia in
industrial quantities. Narcotics, especially heroin from Afghanistan,
are a weapon of mass destruction.”
Presenter Sorokina asked “why 100,000 citizens of the Russian
Federation in Turkmenistan have been forgotten by the State Duma”,
adding that she has never heard of the Duma issuing a note of protest
to Turkmenistan.
“Gold reserve”
Asked what should be done now to make use in the long term of the
“gold reserve” of Russians abroad, Skrinnik proposed completing work
on setting up a federal agency for work with compatriots, which should
monitor the diverse situation in different countries. Rogozin commented
that “nobody will respect Russians outside Russia” until the Russian
government itself defines its policy on compatriots. Venediktov backed
up the point, adding that a specific state programme of support for
compatriots abroad was needed, in addition to “a tough response on
the part of the state to all infringements of the rights of Russians
abroad”. Second, he said, specific work and support is needed for
those who have returned to Russia.
Buslova pointed out that a programme of resettlement could be drawn
up to take advantage of abundance of jobs, land and housing in the
Far East, where Defence Ministry accommodation has been evacuated.
Shevchenko pointed out that whilst Russia needed to open its gates wide
to immigration in order to make use of and retain its vast territory,
“we need an internal mechanism of absorption, it seems to me, so that
Chinese, for example, who come to Russia would not be seen as enemies
like they are in America, but as citizens of the Russian Federation
who would like to live in our country”.
Venediktov added that countries which previously had empires,
such as Britain, had special ministries, such as the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, tasked with dealing with the consequences of
loss of empire. Russia should follow their example, he suggested.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress