Russia did not support anybody in outside elections – Gryzlov
By Tigran Liloyan
ITAR-TASS News Agency
December 16, 2004 Thursday 3:04 AM Eastern Time
YEREVAN, December 16 — Russia has not officially supported anybody in
the elections in Ukraine, Abkhazia and Adzharia, Russian parliament’s
lower house Speaker Boris Gryzlov said.
He is on an official visit in the Armenian capital Yerevan.
If “Russian political technologists were used there” and “if they
have not secured victory, then it was only a bad commercial project,”
Gryzlov said.
He stressed that relations of Russia and Ukraine, which are “based
on century-old friendship of our peoples, on numerous agreements
and accords that have been signed within the framework of the CIS”
would remain unchanged.
Russia will work with an elected president of Ukraine, he said,
reiterating a statement to this effect by the Russian leadership.
Gryzlov, who is finishing his three-day visit to Armenia, met National
Assembly leader Artur Bagdasaryan on Thursday.
They have discussed bilateral political cooperation, in particular
inter-parliamentary contacts and interaction of parliamentarians in
international organisations and observer groups.

Colin L. Powell Holds A Media Availability With The Minister Of Foreign Affairs Of France
The Associated Press
xfdtr STATE-POWELL-FRANCE sked
TRANSCRIPT
December 15, 2004
MEDIA AVAILABILITY
COLIN L. POWELL
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
COLIN L. POWELL HOLDS A MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH THE MINISTER OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FRANCEFDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing
House, Inc.)
322 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE
2ND FLOOR, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
Tel: 301-731-1728
Fax: 301-731-5147
COPYRIGHT 2004 BY FDCH e-Media, Inc.
NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR
RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF
FDCH e-Media, Inc.
SECRETARY POWELL HOLDS A MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH THE
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FRANCE,
AS RELEASED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 15, 2004
SPEAKERS: COLIN L. POWELL, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
MICHEL BARNIER, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER
POWELL: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Barnier, who has
made a very short trip to consult with me and with Dr. Rice, and we’re deeply
appreciative that he would come over. The Foreign Minister and I have done a
lot together in recent days. We were at the Forum for the Future in Morocco
and we had NATO meetings last week, and I think that gives you an indication
of the closeness of consultations that the United States has with France.
We are looking forward in President Bush’s second term to making sure that
we have resolved any of the difficulties and differences that we have had in
the past and remind ourselves once again of all we have been through together
as two nations. And so, I want to extend to the Minister my best wishes for
the holiday season, but especially to thank him for making this trip.
It’s a great pleasure to have you here, Michel.
BARNIER: Thank you Colin. I made this special trip to say goodbye and thank
you to Colin Powell. We have made great jobs over the last eight months
together. We became friends, and I just want to say thank you for that.
And now, let’s opt for the good work to continue.
POWELL: Thank you sir.
QUESTION: Mr. Minister, did you take up with Secretary Powell your —
France’s interest in pushing Mideast negotiations, and specifically a Mideast peace
conference? Did you float that idea, discuss that idea with the Secretary?
BARNIER: If you don’t mind, I’d prefer to answer in French.
QUESTION: Could someone translate?
POWELL: We are.
BARNIER: Yes, what we want to do, of course, is to look to the future in our
relationship between France and the United States and the relationship
between the Europeans and the United States, and that clearly is the frame of mind
that we want to develop and build on.
But of course, the test of an enhanced Euro-Atlantic relationship will be
the ability to relaunch the peace process between Israelis and the
Palestinians, and I’m convinced that that will be our priority in the coming weeks, and
indeed, in the coming days, as soon as the elections on the 9th of January
occur.
QUESTION: Yeah. Is there a peace conference…
POWELL: We had a brief discussion about the conference that the United
Kingdom is planning to hold early in the New Year with Palestinian officials, but
we did not have a discussion about a broader international conference. What
we have to do is see the election take place on the 9th of January, watch how
the Palestinians form their government, and make sure that Israel shows
flexibility and cooperation with the Palestinians during this election period, get
ready for the next series of Palestinian elections, and we talked about
that. But we did not talk about, at this meeting, but we have talked previously,
about the utility of a conference at some point in the future.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, did you discuss…
POWELL: OK.
QUESTION: Did you discuss upcoming — your decision about Turkey’s
negotiation talks? And Mr. Foreign Minister, you said a few days ago that Turkey
should recognize the Armenian dead. If there is a refusal from Turkey, do you
think that should be a reason to end the negotiations? And what do you expect is
the decision on the 17th?
POWELL: We did discuss it. There is a historic opportunity coming up later
this week and the Minister is flying back to participate in these discussions,
but I think I will yield to him for his comment on this matter.
BARNIER: I’ll be leaving immediately, I mean, this evening, back to
Brussels, where I will be tomorrow and where the decision will be taken, this very
important decision to start the negotiation talks with Turkey. And as President
Chirac himself said this evening, we want to open the talks and our
ambition, of course, is to succeed and the outcome of the talks should be accession.
But we shouldn’t be complacent, rest on our laurels, or take any shortcuts in
the negotiation.
POWELL: One last one. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Secretary, I would like to know what will be in your
memoirs about this relationship with this, let’s say, difficult French, and do
you feel relief or regrets not to see them anymore?
(Laughter.)
POWELL: Je ne regrette rien. Thank you. (Laughter.) I regret nothing.
I have given many speeches on this subject. The United States and France
have been friends and allies for well over two centuries. They were instrumental
in us achieving our independence. We came to Europe twice in the last
century to help our French friends. We will remain friends. We will remain allies.
We will have differences from time to time, and the disagreement that we had
last year, that was not the first time we have had disagreements and
differences with France or with our other European friends. And the values and the
ties that bring us together are far stronger than the disagreements that come
along from time to time. Merci.
BARNIER: And could I maybe just add a few words and say that — and recall
that I said earlier my — expressed my thanks and gratitude to Colin Powell
for the friendly relationship we’ve manage to establish over the last eight
months, but I also wanted to acknowledge his great awareness and understanding
of individuals and situations which was very valuable. But I — to complete —
to come to your point, I must say, of course, that there may be
disagreements, there may be talks, there may be differences amongst us but we should
never ever forget that France and the United States have been allies and friends
since the very beginning.
POWELL: Thank you.
END
12/16/04 11:58 EST

News and information about Kurds and Kurdistan since 4th August 1998
Kurdish PEN Centre and human rights in modern Kurdish literature
16 December 2004
KurdishMedia.com – By Dr Zorab Aloian
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear friends!
Goede Middag! Of dag, fijn dat u er bent!
I wish to thank Mildred Anna Middendorp, Stef de Niet, Shirley van
de Steen and other organizers of today’s Program “Turkish and Kurdish
Literature at Literair Theater Branoul” which is a part of the Festival
Horen Zien en Schrijven. I appreciate that Janá Beranová from the
Netherlands PEN Centre and Kurdish lady poet Beri Bihar proposed my
name as a representative of the Kurdish PEN Centre. I am happy to see
here all the guests and especially our close friend Ragip Zarakolu,
who through his Publishing House has been tirelessly promoting freedom
of speech and overcoming taboo topics for the readers in Turkey. I
greet Nisan Erdogan and Ibrahim Roglu who will guide us to the world
of modern Turkish poetry.
I should like to draw some schematic picture of the activities of
the Kurdish PEN Centre and the human rights topics in modern Kurdish
literature. No more than a tiny glimpse of these two very serious
issues can be given here. Therefore, I may elaborate certain points
afterwards, if you come up with your questions and ideas.
The Essence of Kurdish PEN Centre
Your may well know that the International PEN was founded in 1921 in
London by Mrs. Amy Dawson Scott. After the World War I, the nationalist
wave was escalating in Europe and beyond. The first activists of the
International PEN movement headed by John Galsworthy (1867-1933),
a holder of Nobel Prize in Literature, started to work for the sake
of cultural and literary freedoms. The underlying idea of the PEN
has always been “the co-operation between writers themselves” as a
counteract against fascist and totalitarian regimes worldwide. Today,
there are 135 national PEN Centres with 100 of them being state-framed,
or representing existing states, although politically independent. In
addition, there are few PEN Centres without states of their own such
as the Gypsy, Catalan, Esperanto, Basque, Palestinian, Kurdish and
other PEN Centres. What matters for the writers is not the state
boundaries or government blessing but a language in which we create.
At the International PEN Congress in Cambridge, which took place in
April 1988, all the delegates voted for the foundation of the Kurdish
PEN Centre with no vote against and no abstention. This process has
been initiated by the Kurdish author Hüseyin Erdem and several other
writers. This was the first time in history that a national Kurdish
organisation became a member of an international body having equal
rights with others. By doing so, the PEN International exercised
its right to pressure those totalitarian regimes which are sued
to silencing freedom of speech and destroying cultural diversity
in their countries. This achievement was an important step for the
Kurdish language and literature enabling them to gather respect and
strength and to gain an international acceptance.
>> From the very beginning, the Kurdish PEN Centre has been
representing the Kurdish writers living both in the four divided
parts of Kurdish homeland, known as Kurdistan, and abroad thus
refusing to play a role of an exiled Centre. Since 2003 we have a
new Board of the Kurdish PEN Centre headed by Dr. Zaradachet Hajo
and Moustafa Rechid with me being the secretary. We try our utmost
to work for all four existing Committees of the International PEN,
that is, Writers in Prison Committee, Committee of Writers for Peace,
Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee and The Women Writers’
Committee. We have more than 60 members who live in the Middle East,
Europe and the post-Soviet states. The members of the Kurdish PEN
Centre’s Extended Board live in Germany and the UK, we have a Bureau in
Istanbul and next year we are going to visit Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan
to set up a local Bureau over there, too. We are working on organising
a linguistic and literary conference, probably in Arbil, to discuss
the issue of the united Kurdish alphabet based on Latin script. lIt
must be pointed our that due to historical vicissitudes, the modern
Kurdish literature – although essentially united – evolves in three
major dialects and two alphabets. All are represented in our Centre.
With support of our friends and intellectuals from all nations the
PEN International backs the rights of Kurdish language and literature
and speaks up for release of Kurdish authors who had been detained
and imprisoned in the past. I can only refer to the PEN International
Congress in Mexico City, 2003. Out of 32 resolutions adopted there,
three were related to the Kurdish case: “Resolution on the Linguistic
Rights of the Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria”, “Resolution on Syria
concerning the detention of Marwan Osman” and “Resolution on Turkey
Concerning the Detention of Leyla Zana”.
Another important developments is the upcoming Diyarbakir Seminar
on Cultural Diversity jointly organised by Turkish and Kurdish PEN
Centres under the supervision of the International PEN and UNESCO. It
is planned for March, 2005, in the main Kurdish city of Turkey,
Diyarbakir. I am honoured to stress that recently we have developed
a very fruitful contacts with our colleagues from the Turkish PEN
Centre especially with the head of the Linguistic Rights Committee
of the Turkish Centre Mrs. Aysu Erden and our friend here Mr. Ragip
Zarakolu. Now I should rather turn to a literary part of my short
presentation, in which I exclusively deal with the writers who are
members of our PEN Centre.
Human Rights in Modern Kurdish Literature
Certainly, the men and women of literature, while creating, have no
direct goal to embody textually human rights issues. However, the
main motivation of literature lies in the premises that a person with
his or her hopes, joy, pains, spirit and talent is in a preference
to ideological and state interests. That is also exactly what human
rights movement is about. Indeed, a human being must have a certain
fascination. And this is always relevant, whether we call it human
rights or literary mastery.
Arguably the most prominent poet from South (Iraqi) Kurdistan Shêrko
Bêkes, who had been living in exile in Sweden and became a Tucholsky
Prize winner and now is back in his country, describes how inevitable
for a poet it is to be a free creator: “If you take freedom from my
poems and throw it away, I cannot survive.”
Eger le naw shîirekanim
gul derawêjine derewe
le çwar werz werzêkim emrê.
Eger yar bênine derewe
Duwanim emrin
Eger nan bênine derewe
Sêyanim emrin
Ger azadî bênine derewe
Salim emrê û
Xoyþim emrim
Amid the patriotic theme Shêrko Bêkes, while admitting that there might be
better places under the Sun, makes us feel that his native piece of land
deserve affection, too:
Wilat zor e le Kurdistan
shoxushengtir
Xwêngermtir.
Wilat zor e le Kurdistan
Chawî geshtir
Esksoktir.
Wilat zor e le Kurdistan
Qisexoþtir
Destrengîntir.
Belam ey Kurdistanekem!
Wilat niye
Hergîz le to xoþewîsttir.
(Gulbijêrek ji Helbestên Shêrko Bêkes, Stockholm: APEC, 1991, pp. 14, 69)
The famous novelist Mehmed Uzun, who lives in Sweden, dedicated his
novel “Hawara Dîcleyê” to the forgotten peoples of Mesopotamia –
“jibîrbûyî”. He claims that the Kurds and many other ethnic and
religious communities – whether alive or extinct – are natives of
Mesopotamia, share its rich heritage and need to be remembered of.
Ji bîr mekin: ji-bîr-bû-yî…
Berî ku hûn bipirsin, ez bibêjim we ka jibîrbûyî kî ne.
Jibîrbûyî, ez im,,,, Biroyê Ezdî
Jibîrbûyî, Ester e…
Jibîrbûyî êzdî ne, ku bav û kalên min in, ku hertim li serê çiya û newalên kûr
ên welatê êzdiyan, tên kuþtin, hertim ferman û talana wan radibe…
Jibîrbûyî, suryan, keldan û nastûrî ne, ku bav û kalên Stêra min a gorbehîþt
in, ku nikarin li welatê xwe yê bav û kalan… azad û serbest li tîrêjên
berbangan… binêrin…Jibîrbûyî cihû ne…
…Hûn ê niha bipirsin ka ev… çima jibîrbûyî ne. Ez bibêjim we: ev…
jibîrbûyî ne, ji ber ku bindest in, biserneketine û têk çûne…Gotina min,
gotina wan e; dengê min, dengê wan e.
“Please do not forget the forgotten peoples. I’m forgotten, Biroyê
Ezdî and my sweet Ester is also forgotten. The Yezidi Kurds, my
forefathers, are forgotten since they had to hide in the mounts to
avoid massacres. The Syrian Christians, Chaldeans and Nestorians
living amongst the Kurds are also forgotten peoples, they are unable
to look freely in the ray of the Sun. The Jews of Mesopotamia are
forgotten. If you ask, why are they forgotten, I’ll tell you: they are
oppressed and already destroyed. Therefore my voice is their voice.”
(My abridged translation from: Mehmed Uzun, Hawara Dîcleyê, Istanbul:
Avesta, 2001, part I, pp. 15-17)
Another variant of creative patriotic writing is demonstrated by Haydar
Isik, the novelist from Dêrsîm (re-named to Tunceli by the Turkish
authorities). Since the literary works become often independent of
their authors, one could use a portion of imagination to put Haydar
Isik’s short story “Raya Uþen” within the framework of the current
trend towards foreigners in Europe who are blamed to be over-attached
to their home countries. Certainly, the writer’s inspiration was
different. A young Kurd Uþen (derived from Huseyn) was born and
grew up in Germany, had a friendship circle with German youths but
one day, by a virtue of free choice, he decided to go to his native
Kurdistan. His return, terrible images sawn there and his fate are
poetically shown in Haydar Isik’s ancient dialect of Dimilî-Zazakî,
the musical sounds of which are irresistible:
Uþe Almanya de ame dina, bi pîl, þi dibistane Almanu, terbiye dinu
gurete, ita bi xort. Kare dey duzena dey, waxt sero bimayena dey
þivero Almanu. Dorme Uþen’de Kirmanç çinebi. Hevale dey Alman bi û
ey zone Almanu je dine qeseykerdene. Por cirakerdena Uþen, kaye dey,
yareniya dey je Almani bi.
A sere pero piya ci welat. Ma u pi zu çim, zu dil wasteneke dewa xo biwene, le
Uþen welate pi ye xo hona nediwi. Welate pi çutiriyo, meraxe dey her roz biyene
girs…
Uþen cenc bi, semt bi, o ke feteliyene, alvoz vatene: “Maye camerd ardo dina.”
Deyde ters çinebi, serva azadiya millete xo sond û sodir xebetiya.
Le qersuna bebextu ilam girana. Qersuna xayin tenena jedera. Qersuna Reywer.
Uþen ke bi dirvetin virare estera welat. Goniya dey harde welat kerd cenc. Koye
welat tenena sare kerd berz, nika alvoz raya Uþen ra sone, þahine gile koyune.
(Haydar Isik, Raya Uþeno, 1995, Manusrcipt).
The Kurdish language and culture in the 20th century to a big
part owes to the those mostly Yezidi Kurds who escaped the Ottoman
massacres and found refuge in Armenia. The Soviet state in general
and Armenian intelligentsia in particular promoted the preservation
and developments of Kurdish literature. The first Latin-based Kurdish
alphabet was created in 1928 in Armenia, the first Kurdish novel –
roman – was written by Arab Shamilov, an Armenian Kurd. The first
theatre, the first movie, the first section of Kurdish writers,
Kurdish schools and academic institutions in Armenia – they are a
very positive reverberation of common Armenian-Kurdish destiny. The
Kurds, on their part, highlight this memory and display their sympathy
towards the Armenian wounds.
Thus, the writer, Felat Dilgesh from Istanbul wrote a short story
called Zûra (Anosh). It is about an Armenian girl saved by a Kurdish
family during the genocide campaign after the World War 1. The
girl received a new name Zûra, remained in the Kurdish family, but
her separation from the repressed family was a heavy burden on her
soul. The author describes, how Zûra was every day looking for her
mummy, checking every room in the house.
Anosh dotira rojê bi veciniqîn ji nav nivînan rabû û cardin bi lez û
bez li hemû odeyên malê li diya xwe geriya. Belê wê ne diya xwe û ne
jî xwîshk û birayên xwe dît. Anosh wê rojê jî heta êvarê giriya. Di
serî de maliyên Shêx Muhemed, der û cîranan kirin nekirin, kesî
nikaribû pariyek nan jî bidinê. Berê êvarê tenê firek av vexwar.
(Felat Dilgeþ, Dilþa, Istanbul: Elma, 2003, p. 105).
Speaking of the memories, which are mostly a trauma on personal and
national psyche, one needs to refer to the notorious Anfal campaign
carried out by Saddam Hussein’s regime. According to Western officials,
more than 180,000 Kurds were murdered sometimes with gas on that
year. The Kurdish sources estimate not less than 300,000. The lady
writer from South (Iraqi) Kurdistan Sarfiraz Nakshabandy, who lived
in Berlin and now is back to her homeland, writes a series of novels,
one of them being “Uneasy Balance” about April 1, 1991, events in the
city of Arbil (known as Hewlêr in Kurdish). On that day, the Iraqi
troops quelled the Kurdish uprising. The Iraqi commander comes across
two brothers and gives them a demoniac chance:
“- Both of you must think it over, who is ready to die. I’ll set free
the other. I give you this choice. So that you know how democratic we
are. Even in death we give you the right to choose. We’re not those
dictators as you constantly blame us. Let God curse and punish you,
Kurds! You are nothing but the Devil’s offspring!”
Understandably every brother wants himself to die to save another
one. But as time passes, they try to justify their desire to live
on and think: maybe my brother can die, I have more important things
to do. At the end, however, the Iraqi officer, who amused himself of
that game, kills both brothers:
But they [the brothers] overcame the tremble of death and strongly
took in each other’s arms accreted as the Corinthian column. Now they
wouldn’t care of the things around them. The brothers have already
entered the world of the dead. Indeed, such a death of the two equals
one free life.
Sound of bullets again were heard under the sky of Hewlêr. Voiceless
secrecy covered fear, dignity and love of life.
(Sarfaraz Nakshabandy, Uneasy Balance, Journal Havîbûn (Berlin),
1998/No 4, pp. 167-169, my translation)
A journey follows and a Kurd from Iraq, described by a young writer
Yasîn Banîxelanî, comes to Germany to open a new page here. Currently
we are full of narrations about integration. Yasîn Banîxelanî’s hero
from a short story “Min û piyawe roboteke” (Me and the Robot-like man),
too, cannot get along the society, superficially believing that the
people in Germany live and work like robots. Yet having a necessary
impulse to understand the host society, he approaches a German worker
and hears his tragic story. Indeed, tragedy is a specificity of
every society, be it even seemingly happy. The man tells the Kurdish
immigrant of his grief, cries and the Kurd exclaims: “Oh my dear God,
I thought there is nothing from soul and human emotion to be detected
in this person!”
“Ay Xway Giyan! Min wam dezanî, hîç hestêkî mirovane le rûhî ew piyaw
da nemawe, ke çî êsta debînim, degirî, giriyan lay min le lebizwandinî
heste mirovayetiyekan ziyatir hîç watayekî niye.”
(Yasîn Banîxelanî, Min û piyawe roboteke, Manuscript, my translation)
The desperation must be so high that the people cannot utter
it. Another writer in Zazaki-Dimilî dialect Munzur Çem bases his
story entitled “The Voice of the Forest” on real events of 1994 in
the village of Mirig, Dêrsîm. Since the Turkish state forbids the
people to speak their language and their mind, the author chose to
let animals speak about the military assault presenting the story in
the form of fable.
“What happened, Brother Bear? Why did you come back?”
“What happened! Look around you. I thought I’d find a way of escape out of this
hell, but it’s no good, I couldn’t. The fire hasn’t left even the smallest
passage.”
“You mean there’s nowhere at all to get through?”
“Absolutely not: not even for an insect, let alone me.”
“And what about the others? Did any of them survive the fire?”
“I noticed only the goats. They lost their way like me and turned back,
shouting and crying. Perhaps, you’ll see them soon.”…
“The snake could not stop grieving on account of the wound he had received…
“And so I came back like many others. Just as I was about to meet with you, a
piece of fire broke off from the falling branch and caught me. Look how badly
I’m burned.”…
Seeking the answer to all these problems, our little tortoise certainly did not
know about the people far, far off in the capital city of Ankara. He did not
know, he could not know, that the administrators there talked about “the
successes achieved in the struggle against terrorism”…
“I am just a tortoise. I know I can’t do much….. Even if I do nothing else, I
shall be the voice of the forest. I’ll… try to tell everyone the story of its
suffering…”
(Munzur, Çem, The Vocie of the Forest, Stories, translated by Chris Buchanan,
Cologne: Komkar Publications, 2002, pp. 99-125).
The emancipation of the Kurdish society is stipulated by a higher
prestige of women. The lady poet from Meletî (Malatya) Nilgün Demirkaya
defies traditional descriptions of Oriental women in a patriarchal
way: the women are objects of lust, beautiful, attractive and with
red lips. Nilgün Demirkaya’s poems, erratic and impatient, merge
Kurdish theme of liberation with women’s dignity:
My mother bears
her heart
in her hand
and
rocks the empty
cradle
My shot is full of cries
gathered in the heavens.
My voice
Is the voice of mounts.
Can you comprehend what I’m saying?
(Nilgün Demirkaya, Durch unsere halbgeöffneten Türen, Manuscript, my
translation).
Another lady poet from Kurdish region of Turkey Evîn Cîcek looks for a
salvation from the exhausting fate:
“Pain makes these people writers, poets, bards, but also orphans, prisoners and
dead.”
Jan wan dike nivîskar,
Jan wan dike helbestvan,
Jan wan dike dengbêj,
Jan wan dike hunermend,
Jan wan dike hêsîr,
Jan wan dike girtî,
Jan wan dike mirî.
(Evîn Cîcek, Awaza Serpêhatiyan, Istanbul: Perî, 2004, vol. 3, p. 104).
All the mentioned writers are born in the conflict zone. They
experienced destructions of war, detentions with tortures and bans of
self-expression. Nonetheless they constantly remind us: love of native
culture and nature is a very human instinct. If I had to generalise
about the lines above and say what single quality strikes me most,
I would say that cherishing one’s own feelings without harming others
is their most memorable characteristic.
Such is an immediate identity of Kurdish literati.
Dr Zorab Aloian, Kurdish P.E.N. Center. In 1988 during the
International PEN Conference all delegates voted for the foundation of
the Kurdish PEN Center. In 1990 they were officially registered. This
was the first time in Kurdish history that a national Kurdish
organisation became a member of an international body having equal
rights with others. This achievement was an important step for the
Kurdish language and literature enabling them to gather dignity and
strength and to gain an international acceptance.
Republication and redistribution of KurdishMedia.com content is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of KurdishMedia.com.
KurdishMedia.com
Copyright © KurdishMedia.com – 1998-2003
email: [email protected] –
–Boundary_(ID_xTkOH6IChFRTEQ2gcNxHSQ)–

FIRST EVER SCHOOL OF PEACEKEEPERS TO BE OPENED IN YEREVAN
MOSCOW, DECEMBER 16. ARMINFO. The first ever international school
of peacekeepers will be opened at Yerevan’s Mkhitar Gosh University,
says Gen Karen Zadoyan.
The school will train young servicemen from Germany, Greece, the
US, Serbia. The project has been initiated by International Peace
Organization (Russia) whose office will soon be opened in Yerevan.
The school will teach its trainees what is international security,
how to effectively fight terrorism, drugs trafficking and other social
vices. The school will also cultivate tolerance to other religions
and ethnic traditions.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADDS ITS VOICE FOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RECOGNITION
Ankara Puts Preconditions to Europe
Azg/arm
17 Dec 04
On Wednesday, the European parliament joined the French
governmentâ~@~Ys call on Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide
in order to win the membership to EU. The European parliament made
84 corrections in “Turkeyâ~@~Ys Progress to Membership” report,
18 of which concern the Armenian Genocide. The suggestion made by
two members of the parliament were accepted. Reaffirming its earlier
resolutions, the EU parliament urged Turkey “to promote the process
of reconciliation with the Armenian people by recognizing the genocide
perpetrated against the Armenians” in 1915-1923. It also called on the
EUâ~@~Ys member states and executive commission to seek Turkeyâ~@~Ys
recognition of the Genocide during the anticipated accession talks
in Ankara.
In fact, the European parliament reaffirmed its resolution adopted
on June 18, 1987, by which the legislative body of the EU recognized
the Armenian Genocide in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire. Letâ~@~Ys touch
upon several of the 84 corrections, referring the statement made by
the European Armenian Congress. According to the statement, Turkey
should improve the rights of the national minorities and protect
their cultural legacy, recognize the republic of Cyprus, etc.
The EU parliamentâ~@~Ys call on Turkey to recognize the Armenian
Genocide has no obligatory force, so it is no precondition for
Turkeyâ~@~Ys entry to EU. Doubtlessly, the issue of the Armenian
Genocide can serve as a means for manipulations in the hands of the
European states. Only, three days ago, the French foreign minister
called on Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide, stating, on the
other hand that that is no precondition for the accession talks.
On December 14, RA foreign minister said in connection with the opening
of the negotiations around Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership to EU that “our
consequent efforts we made in this direction recently yield positive
results”. “Today, EU has paid attention to opening the Armenian-Turkish
borders, as well as to recognition of the Armenian Genocide. It is
hard to say how these issues will develop in the coming EU Congress,
but we are sure that after opening the negotiations on Turkeyâ~@~Ys
membership to EU, these issues will be included in their agenda,”
Vartan Oskanian said.
According to the Associated Press, in the course of the Wednesday
sitting of the EU Assembly, the suggestion made by the French and
German conservatives to elaborate “a special cooperation” program
for Turkey was rejected as an alternative to the membership. EU
parliament called on opening immediate negotiations with Turkey. Jose
Manuel Barros, chairman of EU Commission, said that EU should fix a
deadline for the negotiations around Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership to EU,
BBC informed.
On December 16 and 17 a meeting of EU member state leaders will be
held. The issue of the terms for Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership to EU will be
discussed among the other issues during this meeting. Abdullah Gul,
Turkish foreign minister, stated that his country is not ready to
become an EU member “at any price.”
Gul pointed out 4 preconditions in the interview given toMiliet. These
preconditions are the following: 1. The main issue of the negotiations
should be the issue of Turkeyâ~@~Ys full membership to EU. 2. Turkey
doesnâ~@~Yt have to recognize Cyprus. 3. The decision to open the
negotiations should not depend on the further decisions taken by EU
leaders. 4. One canâ~@~Yt force a permanent condition to Turkey on
its path to EU membership.
By Tatoul Hakobian
–Boundary_(ID_PX5Pm18m05+u+hFXlT6yBw)–

16 SLOVAK MPS TO PARTICIPATE IN VOTING AT EU ASSEMBLY
Azg/arm
17 Dec 04
Recently the Republic of Slovakia officially recognized the Armenian
Genocide. Ashot Grigorian, our compatriot, businessman, head of
the Armenian community of Bratislava, greatly contributed to the
achievement of this recognition. “A wide-raging movement is unfolded
for recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Slovakia. This movement
is well highlighted in the local press and mass media. The movement
is directed against Turkeyâ~@~Ys denial of the Armenian Genocide”,
Mr. Grigorian said in a telephone interview to Azg Daily.
16 Slovak MPs will participate in the voting at the EU Assembly in
Brussels today. Ashot Grigorian promised to keep us well informed
about the details of further events.
By Hamo Moskofian
–Boundary_(ID_M3iucBqs8UporzB+ZxGR7A)–

Darchinyan wins IBF flyweight title with TKO of Pacheco
The Associated Press
12/16/04 23:42 EST
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) – Vic Darchinyan scored an 11th-round technical
knockout of defending champion Irene Pacheco to win the IBF flyweight
title Thursday night.
Darchinyan (22-0, 17 KOs), a native of Armenia now living in
Australia, controlled the pace for most of the bout and finally
knocked down Pacheco in the 10th round with a right to the head.
Darchinyan didn’t let up in the 11th. He unloaded a series of
unanswered shots near the ropes and then dropped Pacheco a second
time with another right to the head 44 seconds into the round.
Pacheco’s cornermen had seen enough, asking referee Jorge Alonso to
stop the fight.
For Pacheco, of Colombia, it was his first career loss in 31
professional fights and seventh title defense.

THIRTY FOREIGN AGENTS UNMASKED IN 14 YEARS – ARMENIAN SECURITY CHIEF
Golos Armenii, Yerevan
16 Dec 04 p 3
Excerpt from Vladimir Darbinyan’s report by Armenian newspaper Golos
Armenii on 16 December headlined “Thirty foreign agents have been
disclosed over the last 14 years”
An interview with the director of the National Security Service,
Gorik Akopyan.
(Correspondent) The 20 December marks the anniversary of national
security bodies. What would you wish your staff?
(Gorik Akopyan) Traditionally, our system has marked the 20 December
as a professional holiday, and the decision of the Armenian government
of 2002 to mark the 20 December as a day of the Armenian national
security service was taken by most people with enthusiasm.
(Passage omitted: Akopyan continues to comments on the traditions
in the national security system, the principles of its formation and
other details; biography details)
(Golos Armenii correspondent) You used to head the secret department
of the Armenian National Security Service. What results have been
achieved in this sphere?
(Gorik Akopyan) The secret department is one of the main directions
in the work of security structures. The ensuring of state security
greatly depends on the secret department. I think the fact that
the activities of more than 30 foreign agents have been revealed and
prevented over the last 14 years testifies to the work we have carried
out. I would like to recall that as a result of the activities of
the secret department, Turkish and Azerbaijani agents Bozholyan and
Shilina’s group were recently unmasked and appeared before the court.
(Correspondent) The fight against terrorism has become the main task of
almost all the secret services of the world. What working links does
the Armenian National Security Service have with similar structures
of other countries?
(Akopyan) The main department to defend the constitutional system
and fight terrorism was set up in 2000. The fight against terrorism
requires a complex approach and close cooperation between relevant
state structures. In the issue of stepping up the fight against
terrorism, Armenia is cooperating with relevant international
structures in line with corresponding international treaties and
provisions of UN Security Council resolutions. Specifically,
we are cooperating on this sphere within the framework of the
CIS antiterrorism centre, the CIS Collective Security Treaty, the
Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization, as well as with other
interested parties.
In recent years, a new legislative base, which also covers problems
of ensuring efficiency in the fight against terrorism, has been
created in Armenia. Specifically, the new Criminal Code of Armenia
has several articles related to the fight against terrorism. The
National Assembly has drawn up a law “On the fight against terrorism”
and adopted it in its first reading, which will provide a universal
legal solution to problems in fighting terrorism.
(Correspondent) Are there specific results in this sphere?
(Akopyan) The protection of special purpose facilities against
terrorism, as well as of the most important means of supporting the
economy, is the most significant thing in the process of fighting
terrorism. The prevention of terrorist attacks while they are
being prepared is in the centre of the attention of the national
security structures. Specifically, several assassination attempts
were revealed and prevented. Over the last three years, the National
Security Service has impounded several hundreds of guns, light missile
launchers and machine guns. The National Security Service is paying
special attention to the fight against the illegal circulation of
radioactive materials. We recently arrested an Armenian citizen who
had radioactive material caesium-137 that posed a serious threat to
the population. We are also concerned about so-called “telephone
terrorism”. Unfortunately, this new phenomenon is already common
in our country. It causes panic among the population and creates
additional difficulties in the work of the law-enforcement agencies. A
telephone terrorist was recently unmasked and arrested. On 19 November,
he chose the Chekhov secondary school as a target for “terror”.
(Passage omitted: Akopyan said that the secret service did everything
possible to disarm the gunmen who seized the Armenian parliament
in 1999 and killed the prime minister and members of parliament;
Other details)

Europe must clutch the cloak of history
By ADRIAN HAMILTON
The Independent – United Kingdom
Dec 17, 2004
The vote this week of the European Parliament in favour of starting
membership talks with Turkey should presage a decision by the EU
leaders today to start the whole process rolling.
One says “should” partly because one can never be quite certain in
Europe that its leaders will do what is required of them – witness the
extraordinary about-turns over the European constitution and the rows
over keeping to the rules of the stability pact. The major players,
including President Chirac, with important caveats, and Chancellor
Schroder and Prime Minister Tony Blair, more enthusiastically, have
all said that they will give it the green light.
But there’s a lot of bad politics about the Turkish application at the
moment, especially in Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands
where the right-wing anti-immigration parties are rearing their
head. Even Chirac has had to promise a referendum to let the French
people decide when negotiations finally come to fruition.
Such hesitations are understandable, but miss the urgency and
importance of the moment. To say no at this stage, or to fob Turkey off
with a “country membership” or something less than full conjunction
would be an act of religious prejudice and historic recidivism of
the worst and most parochial sort. Europe has an opportunity to reach
out to a whole new world of a bigger, wider and more diverse Europe.
All the objections and the last-minute hurdles being put forward
against Turkey – the demands that it admit to the Armenian genocide,
the imposition of additional rules on labour movement, the proposal
for a “privileged partnership” instead of membership – are little
more than masks for a much more fundamental fear and dislike, and
that is of Turkey as a Muslim state. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, the world’s
favourite French politician, has made some deeply dispiriting remarks
about non-Catholics. If anything, Europe should be wanting Turkey in
precisely because it is a liberal, modernising country of Muslims
(officially it is still a secular state, although it is now headed
by an Islamic party).
In that sense Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minster, is quite
right to insist, as he did in The Independent earlier this week,
that Turkey will not accept second-best, special requirements, lesser
membership or anything other than the straight road to membership
that every other country has followed. Anything less would be an
insult, not least to all those in Turkey which have pushed, harried
and argued for the huge changes that have been needed to get Turkey
to this point of even beginning serious negotiations,
Of course Turkey has a long way to go. Anyone who knows Turkey also
knows how very far it is from properly integrating its Kurdish
minority, accepting even a minimum standard for its workers and
instituting the kind of law that would bring it into line with Western
Europe. We are not talking here of a neat homogenous country like
Sweden, but a largely Islamic nation developed through four centuries
of empire and then dramatically wrenched away from imperial habit to
modern national state by Ataturk after the First World War.
The benefit of that change is to produce a formally secular state
which, at least among the elite, feels its future looking westwards
and its place in Europe. The price has been a state that is fiercely
nationalistic, with an army at the centre of its constitution and an
attitude to its Kurdish minority and to human rights that has more
in common with Moscow than Brussels.
Far from that being a bar to full membership, however, it is the
very reason we should be insisting on it. Joining Europe brings
with it stringent obligations in a whole host of fields, from equal
opportunities to civil rights and financial disciplines. Lock Turkey
in those negotiations, and keep absolutely firm on their requirements,
and you help all those in Turkey wanting modernisation. Accept it as
something less than an equal European and you accept it as a basically
different country with lesser standards for its own people. Which is
why so many Kurds and even Armenians want the negotiations to go ahead.
Voting today for negotiations to start does not mean immediate
membership. Talks could last a decade and there is no reason why the
EU should compromise its own principles, at it seemed to be doing with
Romania, in order to include it. But there is equally no reason to
make Turkey a special case in negative terms, forcing on it special
obligations which are not true of everyone.
Of course politicians have to take note of their domestic opinion. At
a time when a leading Dutch documentary director has been murdered in
the Netherlands, 191 have been killed in the Madrid bombing and the
police forces of almost every European country are issuing warnings
about the dangers of attacks from Islamic extremists, now is not a good
time to talk of Turkey’s potential contribution to multiculturalism
in the Union.
But politics has to be about the promotion of causes in inconvenient
times as well as propitious ones. The Muslim aspect to Turkey’s
membership is important, not only because to turn it down would
be to send such hostile messages to Muslims within Europe as well
as its neighbours outside. Yet in some ways one can exaggerate this
aspect. Turkey has its own history and ethnic background which make it
quite separate from the Arabs and Iranians around it, or the Pakistani,
North African and Bangladeshi Muslims populations within Europe.
More profoundly, Turkey is important because it represents a whole
new leap towards regional integration in Europe. It brings with it not
just an Islamic background but a military force in Nato, a reserve of
labour and interconnections that spread out to Central Asia and beyond.
This year’s enlargement of the Union from 15 to 25 members was meant
to be the end of the story for the time being. But everywhere round
Europe – in Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey and now Romania – the older order
is collapsing and new democratic governments are coming to power who
see in the EU both a path to the future and a means of consolidating
change. Belarus and even some Arab states around the Mediterranean
could well follow in the coming years.
It’s a development most European politicians have been slow to grasp
and fearful of embracing. The EU was desperately slow to respond
to Viktor Yuschenko’s call for EU partnership, and to the change
in government in Bucharest. Even though they know that existing
enlargement has changed forever the tight, inward-looking club of
Western Europe, the instinctive response of EU governments is to look
inwards and backwards. It won’t work. The dam has broken, and leaders
have the choice of either embracing this change or turning aside and
pretending it isn’t happening for fear that they cannot control it.
In the nervy and uncertain days before the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the reunification of Germany, Chancellor Kohl liked to quote
Otto Bismark’s statement about clutching the cloak of history (God,
as he called it) as He swept by. Kohl took the chance, and he was no
Bismark. Today’s European leaders are arguably even less statesmen than
Kohl. But history is passing by, and on Friday, and over the coming
months in Central Europe, they have the chance to touch its cloak.
[email protected]

Karabakh leader accuses Azerbaijan of ignoring reality
Mediamax news agency
16 Dec 04
Yerevan, 16 December: The efforts of the political administration of
the Nagornyy Karabakh republic (NKR) are still aimed at reaching a
“lasting peaceful solution to the conflict with Azerbaijan on the
basis of the principles fully reflecting the will of the NKR people”,
a Mediamax special correspondent quoted the president of the NKR,
Arkadiy Gukasyan, as telling a meeting of representatives of all
branches of power of the republic in Stepanakert today.
The NKR president expressed his regret that “at the current stage in
the peace process, which runs under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk
Group, attempts are being made to artificially isolate the Karabakh
side”. At the same time, he expressed his confidence that “this very
circumstance impedes a new impetus to the negotiating process that
can develop the positive results achieved over the past more than
10 years thanks to the effort of the parties to the conflict and
international mediation”.
“The counter-productive position of the Baku authorities, which
are reluctant to reckon not only with the existing realities but
also with the interests of the world and regional states, including
Azerbaijan’s own allies, has actually brought the negotiating process
to an impasse the way out of which cannot be found without the equal
involvement of Nagornyy Karabakh in the negotiations,” Gukasyan said.
He said if the Azerbaijani authorities had the good will and a
genuine interest in resolving the conflict on the basis of reasonable
compromises, the way out of the crisis would be found and the efforts
of the Minsk Group co-chairmen would produce the desired positive
results.
Gukasyan confirmed the readiness of the Nagornyy Karabakh republic for
a direct dialogue with Baku and for the joint discussion of all issues
concerning the prospects for relations between Nagornyy Karabakh and
Azerbaijan, Mediamax reports.
“However, the Baku authorities do not seem to have given up their
crazy and suicidal intentions to resolve the problem by force, which
compels us to continue taking the necessary measures to strengthen
the defence capability of the NKR and raise the combat readiness of
our army, which is the most reliable guarantor of the security of
our state and the people of Nagornyy Karabakh,” Arkadiy Gukasyan said.