Turkey has no intention to change
Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004
If Turkey enters the EU the percentage share of EUâ~@~Ys Muslim
population will increase from 2% to 20%. Public opinion polls show
that 75% of EU population is against Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the
Union. Is it possible that Turkey will change after it enters the
European Union? How will Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership affect the EU? How
will it affect Armenia? We interviewed ARF Boardâ~@~Ys officer in
charge of political affairs Kiro Manoyan.
KM: The assumption that Turkey will change after EU membership is
absolutely wrong. And EU shares this position. Europe will not accept
Turkey until it changes. The opinions voiced in Armenia that Turkey
will change once it becomes E U member are absolutely ungrounded. If
Turkey does not change before EU accession and enters the Union as
it is now, I think the EU itself will change.
Once Turkey enters the EU there will be far less leverages to influence
it because then it will become an equal member, even more than equal
because in terms of the population, Turkey will be the second largest
EU member after Germany. This means that it will have the corresponding
influence at all levels of EU decision making. In other words, once
it is accepted into the Union Turkey will have no incentives and
reasons to change.
The European Commission report states that even if accession
negotiations with Turkey are launched, the final outcome will
not necessarily be membership in the EU. These negotiations can be
suspended at any time if Turkey deviates from the standards prescribed
by the EU. All this shows that Turkey will have to change before it
can be considered for membership.
Q: What has Turkey done so far in this respect? Is the EU likely
to overlook certain issues and make a political decision based on
its interests?
A: It is obvious that EU decisions do have political implications. The
European Commission report that recommended to launch accession
negotiations with Turkey stated that Turkey had fulfilled certain
requirements in terms of legal reforms but the adopted laws arenâ~@~Yt
properly implemented.
In other words, the decision to launch accession negotiations was based
on a significant reservation. As to the recent law adopted in Turkey
criminalizing any mentioning of the Armenian Genocide or withdrawal
of troops from Cyprus, the European Commission report stated that it
is necessary to amend this law.
These issues will be clarified when the European Council makes its
final decision at the EU Summit on December 17. There is another
approach that holds that irrespective of how much Turkey changes it
cannot enter the European Union because it has a completely different
culture and represents a different civilization.
Q: Viewed from this perspective, how will Turkeyâ~@~Ys accession to
the EU affect the European civilization?
A: Those who are against Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership put forward several
issues â~@~S civilizational and cultural differences, economic
problems, etc. Even if we imagine for a second that one day Turkey
will meet all the requirements in terms of its political system and
will join the EU, it will be a huge burden for the union from the
financial and economic perspectives because Turkeyâ~@~Ys economy lags
far behind the economies of other EU member states.
The EU will have to allocate money paid by its taxpayers to support
the Turkish economy and assist it to reach the economic development
level of the EU members. On the other hand, Turkish citizens will
get access to EU member states. They will flood the European labor
market and will be able to influence the policies of EU member states.
Q: Is the opinion that Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the EU is favorable
for Armenia grounded? How can Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the European
Union affect recognition of the Armenian Genocide, resolution of
Nagorno Karabagh conflict and the development of the Armenian-Turkish
relations?
A: First of all, as I already mentioned, there are no grounds for
expecting Turkey to change after it joins the EU. The opinion holds
that Turkey will change, and Armenia will be bordering the European
Union. I think itâ~@~Ys too early to speak about this.
It is possible that the EU will accept Turkey for different reasons
without further insisting on accomplishing changes in that country. In
this case I think Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership will not have any favorable
aspects for Armenia because in this case, Turkey will no longer have
any reasons for taking Armenia seriously.
Even the most optimistically minded observers believe that Turkeyâ~@~Ys
membership in the EU is a matter of at least one decade. If Turkey
persists with its current position on Armenia and the Armenians,
I think the EU will find itself in a somewhat awkward position by
accepting this country. The EU hopes that Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in
the Union will have a positive impact in terms of interaction with the
South Caucasus and establishing the EUâ~@~Ys influence in this region.
But at the same time, the EU wants Turkey to settle its problems
with Armenia, to reconcile with its history and to stop the blockade
of Armenia. In other words, EU understands that in order to have any
positive potential for the Union Turkey has to normalize its relations
with Armenia.
One thing is clear â~@~S once Turkey joins the EU it will be very
difficult to influence it. At the same time, the major factor in this
respect is USAâ~@~Ys pressure to accept Turkey into the EU in order
to show to the Muslim world that it is possible to be Muslim while
at the same time being progressive.
The Turkish president noted in response to the American presidentâ~@~Ys
remark that US views Turkey as moderate Islamic country that Turkey
is not an Islamic but a secular state. The Americans and Europeans
do not seem to understand this approach. It is possible that the
Islamic forces within Turkey will turn to the Islamic world if Europe
rejects Turkey.
Interview by Karine Mangassarian
–Boundary_(ID_coBN2kIbD27S/HxL7dKxow)–

Armenia should counter Azerbaijan’s hysteria by insisting on self-determination
Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004
The options for resolution of Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are regularly
discussed by the Armenian political circles. However, a certain
deficit of proposals exists among our political leaders and analysts.
What do our politicians think about the options of resolution of
Nagorno Karabagh conflict? We asked some of our political leaders
the following questions: 1. The status quo is preserved and the
negotiations do not seem to yield any tangible results. What should
Armenia do in this context? 2. In case the negotiations result in a
consensus and some of the liberated territories are required in return
for Karabaghâ~@~Ys self-determination, what should Armeniaâ~@~Ys
response be to this situation?
3. What if the negotiations end in a deadlock and peace is
threatened? If Azerbaijan starts a war what should Armenia do both
at the external front and in terms of its domestic policies?
We interviewed Armenian Revolutionary Federation Bureau member ,
vice-speaker of the National Assembly Vahan Hovhannissian.
1. When speaking about these issues we have to clarify certain
things at the outset. For instance, when we consider the option of
negotiations ending in a deadlock and Azerbaijan preparing for war,
we should keep in mind that even now when the negotiations are still
in progress Azerbaijan is already preparing for war.
As to the preservation of the status quo, we need to have a clear
understanding of it. There is no such thing as status quo. Some things
are constantly changing and we need to see where those changes can
take us. There is no such thing as static state of affairs. Static
assessment of the existing situation can result in the wrong outcomes
in the future.
Thus, we should try to see those tendencies that can potentially
determine the development of the existing situation in the
future. There are two major tendencies in this respect â~@~S first,
Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys attempts to increase international pressure on Armenia
and second, Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys exploitation of its oil potentials. From
this perspective, the above-mentioned two tendencies do not predict
favorable changes for Armenia especially taking into consideration
that Azerbaijan does not exclude the possibility of another war.
Moving from this starting point we can further clarify possible
scenarios of what Armenia should do. There are three main things
that we have to accomplish. Firstly, Armeniaâ~@~Ys internal social,
human and economic development must be ensured.
I am referring to the establishment and consolidation of civic
institutions and democratization of the society that will eventually
increase the populationâ~@~Y s confidence in the leadership of the
country and its defense capabilities.
This trust is a powerful resource for unifying the nation in case
of external threats. The population participates in the political
processes only if the authorities succeed in ensuring social justice.
We have to understand that if another war breaks out, for us it will
be a patriotic war. However, there are too many people in Armenia who
are disappointed with their homeland and the idea of independence
for different reasons. The government, the countryâ~@~Ys political
leadership must correct this. If we fail to do, that will be the
failure of the political leadership of the country.
Secondly, we must look for alternative transportation routes even
if we have to exert a certain degree of political flexibility for
that purpose. As to the pressure by the international organizations
agitated by Azerbaijan, this is political pressure that aims at
devaluing self-determination and human rights by stressing territorial
integrity without taking into consideration the historical injustice
that fixed the borders determining territorial integrity. We have
to concentrate our efforts on the international arena on presenting
correctly the legal grounding for Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys status in
order to counter the arguments put forward by Azerbaijan.
In other words, we have to distinguish between the concept of autonomy
and state borders. It might seem that this is a theoretical speculation
but it will eventually yield practical results. As soon as Azerbaijan
recovered from the defeat in the war it took up an aggressive position
and started speaking about territorial integrity. Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys
position on the proposals put forward by OSCE Minsk Group derives
from this approach.
We have to understand that the world is not a stage for playing
out political or religious affiliations. Such affiliations do
not affect decision making. Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys hysteria should
be countered by insisting on the concept of autonomy and national
self-determination. We can find allies that will share such an approach
if it also reflects their state and national interests.
2. When negotiations become more active the possible options for
consensus start being discussed. Armenia was correct in that it
included all the phase-by-phase options into one package. Why? Because
all the issues should be considered comprehensively.
Consensus should be reached in several issues including transportation,
territories, demilitarization, etc. As a result if such a consensus
a different status quo will emerge that will guarantee the security
of Nagorno Karabagh Republic.
Many people characterize todayâ~@~Ys situation as dangerous. However,
it has succeeded in guarantying Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys security for
ten years. What is the main factor that made it possible to maintain
the cease-fire for ten years? It is todayâ~@~Ys borderline because
this borderline was created with the purpose of ensuring Karabagh
populationâ~@~Ys security.
Karabagh armed forces had push out the Azeri army. This made
Azerbaijan sign the cease fire because it realized that the border
could move further into the country. A consensus can be made only if
commensurate security guarantees for Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys population
are ensured. What can guarantee security?
The status of Nagorno Karabagh Republic. Sometimes the possibility
of stationing peacekeeping forces is discussed. But peacekeeping
forces cannot be a sustainable solution. If the option of exchange
of territories is discussed all these details must be taken into
consideration. Thatâ~@~Ys all I wanted to say connected with this
question since ARF continues to support the document adopted by the
previous parliament.
We have to find a balance of security guarantees. And we have to
look for this balance in all spheres. By saying balance I mean the
following. For instance, Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys opening road connections
cannot be considered a commensurate concession to giving away a single
square meter of land because they can always close the roads again
but lands can be returned only at the expense of our lives.
3. I want to repeat that Azerbaijan is always preparing for war. Even
when they were pretty close to serious progress on Key West proposal,
even at that time they were speaking about war.
They are constantly preparing for war and we should not wit for their
attack. What countermeasures should we undertake? I think Armenia as
the security guarantor for Nagorno Karabagh Republic will naturally
be involved in any developments related to Karabagh. I think we need
to unify our efforts. Wars can be different.
A war conducted by large scale military forces is not efficient and
cannot solve the problem. The problem can be solved through small but
mobile military troops that will make the war so problematic for the
enemy that they will simply have to stop it.
Interview by Karine Mangasarian
–Boundary_(ID_iVcgXKdcdp05hX8Dt0cjXA)–

Third European Socialist forum over
Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004
The Third European Socialist Forum was held in London on October 15-17.
Regional socialist forums have been organized every year since the
Global Socialist Forum in Porto Allegre, Brazil in 2001.
More than 30 000 people from different countries participated in the
Third Forum. Representatives of labor unions, socialist, communist,
anti-war parties and organizations, organizations lobbying for human
rights, environmental issues, womenâ~@~Ys and refugees rights attended
the forum in London. The forum participants shared a common concern
with the current globalization processes in the world.
Alida Guevara, Ernesto Che Guevara’s daughter, British MP George
Galov, Indian writer Aronda Roy, leader of the Irish Shin Fin party
Jerry Adams, ATTAC leader Bernard Kassen and others attended the forum.
Several seminars, discussions and workshops were held on issues such as
struggle against genocide and fascism in Europe, the future of Europe,
the role of Muslims in the civilized world, the future of Palestine,
the situation in Iraq, etc.
Armenian Revolutionary Federationâ~@~Ys Youth Organization delegated
six members to participate in the forum. The delegation included
participants from Armenia, France and Great Britain. ARFâ~@~Ys
delegation participated in several debates including discussions on
Turkish troops in Cyprus, violations of the rights of Kurds in Turkey
and Turkeyâ~@~Ys membership in the European Union.
ARFâ~@~Ys delegation met the members of the Turkish delegation. The
latter stated that they recognize the Armenian Genocide and believe
that Turkey must officially recognize it.
The Armenian delegation members also met the representatives of the
European Council of Organizations of Socialist Youth and attended
the camping event organized by ECOSY.
ARFâ~@~Ys Youth Organization is a member of ECOSY. The members of
ARFâ~@~Ys delegation met representatives of other organizations
attending the forum. The Armenian delegation distributed leaflets
with information on the Armenian Genocide.
On the last day of the forum, a protest demonstration against
intervention in Iraq and discrimination and injustice in the world
was organized in London. Over 50 000 people participated in the
demonstration.
ARFâ~@~Ys Youth Organization had attended the First and Second
European Socialist Forums in 2002 and 2003 as well as the First
Socialist Forum of North and South Americas held in 2004 in Ecuador.
–Boundary_(ID_WTcBb5jNViLvj+RE0QkY+Q)–

Po-Turkish activities of Philip Morris
Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004
Recently, Philip Morris was engaged in a financial scandal and in this
connection the company was ordered to declassify its correspondence
of past few years. The following is an interesting letter revealed
due to declassification.
PHILIP MORRIS MANAGEMENT CORP. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
1341 G STREET, N.W., SUITE 900,
WASHINGTON, D.C., 20005
TO: Guy Smith
FROM: Jim Dyer
SUBJECT: Armenian Genocide
DATE: October 17, 1989
Senator Bob Dole’s recent trip to Soviet Armenia has helped rekindle
his long standing support for a resolution commemorating the purported
genocide committed against the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1911.
This is an extremely sensitive issue in U.S.-Turkish relations and,
if passed, it would severely damage those relations. At present,
all of the action is in the Senate, although Representative Bonior
(D-MI) has introduced a resolution in the House.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 8 to 6, reported an
Armenian Genocide resolution today. Senator Dole has told the
Administration that he will keep the bill off the Senate floor
until next February, at the earliest. At that time, I expect Senator
Robert Byrd (D-WV) to put a hold on the bill, thereby, delaying its
consideration further.
There are a number of things that can be done to kill tiffs
resolution, including: — getting a strong veto statement out of
the White House. — using Senator Byrd’s opposition (his son-in-law
is Turkish). getting the Members and Senators with strong defense
interests to speak out about the dangers of damaging U.S.-Turkish
relations. drafting substitute language that condemns genocide world
wide, yet takes the focus off Armenia. I shall continue to have
conversations with all interested parties. However, I am sensitive
to our need to do nothing to upset Senator Dole.
He is too valuable a friend to alienate over this issue. So is David
Bonior Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has finally come out in
opposition to the resolution. This opposition comes despite an apparent
Bush campaign pledge to somehow “recognize the Armenian genocide”. NSC
Administrator Scowcroft, Defense Secretary Cheney, and Secretary of
State Baker will strongly oppose the resolution within the White House.
Representatives of tile Turkish government have contacted Philip Morris
International asking for us to weigh in against the resolution. We
have advised them we are aware of the problem, understanding of their
concern, and confident that this resolution will not be enacted. I
shall keep you abreast of any further developments.

Manuk Adamian: Siamanto’s nephew
Interview by Hovhannes Yeranian
Culture
Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004
The 125th birthday of the great Armenian poet Siamanto, who was killed
during the Armenian Genocide, was celebrated in 2003. The celebration
was not organized on a scale appropriate for this poetâ~@~Ys talent
and his contribution to the Armenian culture. Siamanto is not very
widely known as opposed to some other Western Armenian poets.
Meanwhile, it is obvious that he was a poet of universal value whose
poetry has not been adequately appreciated. Siamantoâ~@~Ys nephew,
French-Armenian doctor Manuk Adamian visited Yerkir. Manukian is
doing his best to popularize Siamanto â~@~Ys poetry both among the
Armenians in Armenia and the Diaspora. We interviewed doctor Adamian.
MA: I was born in 1942 in Paris. My father was born in Sis. Then he
moved to Izmir, Cyprus and then to Paris. My mother was the daughter
of Siamantoâ~@~Ys sister. She had moved to France earlier. She had
three children. I started reading Siamantoâ~@~Ys poetry quite late
even though our family was saturated with memories of him.
Q: Mr. Adamian, when did you come to Armenia for the first time?
A: I visited Armenia five times during the Soviet period. After Armenia
became independent, I came here in 1993. Then I was working at an
organization called Country and Culture. Its manager, Gegham Gevorgian
is my classmate. We reconstructed the church in Gogaran village near
Spitak. Next year I came to Armenia with my children. Then in 1995
I came alone again. There is a school named after Siamanto in the
South-West district in Yerevan. I wanted to assist that school.
We organized a week of appreciation of Siamantoâ~@~Ys poetry. Students
from several schools in Yerevan participated in essay and poetry
reading competitions devoted to his poetry. Now such competitions are
organized every year. Actor Azat Gasparian chaired the evaluation
committee of the poetry reading competition. I heard him recite
Siamantoâ~@~Ys poems and had an idea of producing a CD with his poems.
So we produced a CD with 15 poems recited by Gasparian. A thirty-page
booklet was included with the CD which was prepared based on the
materials provided by the Museum of Literature and Arts.
Q: Not many people know about the CD in Armenia. How many copies of
the disc were issued?
A: 500 CDâ~@~Ys were produced and 300 were taken to the Diaspora.
Q: What events did you organize last year when Siamantoâ~@~Ys 125th
birthday anniversary was celebrated?
A: We celebrated his birthday on August 13. Later in September some
other events were organized at Siamanto School and the Writers Union
in Yerevan. I tried hard to learn and read Siamantoâ~@~Ys poem called
Revenge of Centuries. The poem ends with these words, â~@~My name
is struggle and my end is victory.â~@~]
Q: I assume you have some plans connected with your current visit
to Armenia?
A: No, this time I just came here to enjoy myself. I do not have
any specific plans. I cannot imagine myself without Armenia. I come
here at least twice a year. I felt homesick and this is why I came
to Armenia this time.
Q: I see you have a camera. Is it an amateur camera? Did you take it
to take some pictures of Armenia?
A: No, I treat photography very professionally. I respect this art
very much. I have made thousands of slides and photos that I showed in
different countries accompanied with music. My only topic is Armenia
â~@~S Echmiadzin, Salbuchinar, Oshakan, Haghartsin, Sardarapat,
Byurakan and other places. I have also shown a series of photos of
Ararat. But these photos were shown not with music but with poetry
readings of Shiraz, Isahakyan, Charents and other poets. I have a
series of photos of Yerevan at night.
Q: Mr. Manukian, donâ~@~Yt you think that itâ~@~Ys time to publish
a full collection of Siamantoâ~@~Ys poetry?
A: Yes, we are now working on publishing a full collection of his
poems.
Q: Do you know when it will be published?
A: Not yet, but I hope it will be published soon.
–Boundary_(ID_1de0LaOqQ6sThdTCV9O9ZQ)–

French Armenians challenge Turkey’s EU bid
MARSEILLE, France, Oct 29 (AFP) – France’s Armenian community
said Friday it would appeal to President Jacques Chirac to prevent
negotiations on Turkish membership of the European Union until Turkey
acknowledged responsibility for a World War One massacre of Armenians.
The group’s attorney Philippe Krikorian said it would lodge an appeal
before the nation’s highest administrative tribunal, the Council of
State, requesting Chirac to oppose the start of such talks.
The subject of the Armenian massacre has remained a controversial one
touching Turkish and Armenian sensitivities for nigh on nine decades,
with Turkey consistently refusing to acknowledge that genocide had
occurred in 1915-1917 when up to 1.5 million Armenians died.
Turkey says that between 250,000 and 500,000 Armenians and thousands
of Turks were killed in civil strife during World War One, when the
Armenians rose up against their Ottoman rulers.
The French parliament passed legislation in 2001 stating that genocide
had occurred, thereby causing hard feelings in relations with Turkey.
Organisations, which represent some 450,000 French citizens of
Armenian origin, wished to protest against Chirac’s “willingness not
to subordinate the opening of negotiations to the prior admission of
the Armenian genocide,” said Krikorian.
Last month the European Commission recommended a start to membership
negotiations with Turkey, which has been lobbying for many years to
join the European Union.
Jean-Pierre Berberian, spokesman of a Marseille-based Armenian group,
noted that an EU summit would make the final decision in December on
whether to start negotiations.
Fifty days ahead of that date, it was time to “denounce the violation
by the French government of the terms of the resolution passed on
June 18, 1987 by the European Parliament and of French legislation
of January 2001 recognising the genocide of 1915,” said Berberian,
spokesman of the Euro-Armenia group here, and a Marseille city
councillor.
Chirac has indicated his support for a start to talks, but many in
his ruling party, in the opposition and among the French public are
against Turkey’s EU membership.
“Not only is Jacques Chirac acting in violation of the law, he is
doing so against the will of a majority of French who are opposed to
Turkey’s membership,” said Berberian.
The text of the 2001 legislation passed by parliament here said France
“publicly recognises the Armenian genocide of 1915,” but did not
explicitly identify Turkey as responsible for the deed.

SAfrica says media to be given access to Equatorial Guinea “mercenaries” trial
SAPA news agency web site
28 Oct 04
Johannesburg, 28 October: The trial of the eight South Africans accused
of plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea will recommence on 16 November,
senior South African government officials have learnt.
Officials led by Presidential Security Adviser Billy Masetla met
Equatorial Guinea’s Attorney-General Jose Olo Obono and the ambassador
to South Africa Juan Nchuchuma in Pretoria on Wednesday 27 October .
Foreign Affairs spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa said on Thursday that Obono
had approved a request by the South African delegation for media
access to the trial.
“He also approved a request for further consular access to those
currently in detention in Malabo.”
Mamoepa said foreign affairs consular officers would visit the
detainees once the arrangements were finalized.
Eight South Africans, six Armenians and five Guineans, including
a former deputy minister, went on trial in Malabo on 23 August for
allegedly trying to topple President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, in power
since 1979.
The case was adjourned on 31 August at the request of Obono, to get
“further information” following the arrest of Mark Thatcher in South
Africa on 25 August.
The son of the former British prime minister is suspected by Equatorial
Guinea and South Africa of bankrolling the alleged plot.

French Armenians want to block Turkey EU bid over 1915 massacre
EU Business
29/10/2004
France’s Armenian community said Friday it would appeal to President
Jacques Chirac to prevent negotiations on Turkish membership of the
European Union until Turkey acknowledged responsibility for a World
War I massacre of Armenians.
The group’s attorney Philippe Krikorian said it would lodge an appeal
before the nation’s highest administrative tribunal, the Council of
State, requesting Chirac to oppose the start of such talks.
The subject of the Armenian massacre has remained a controversial one
touching Turkish and Armenian sensitivities for nigh on nine decades,
with Turkey consistently refusing to acknowledge that genocide had
occurred in 1915-1917 when up to 1.5 million Armenians died.
Turkey says that between 250,000 and 500,000 Armenians and thousands
of Turks were killed in civil strife during World War I, when the
Armenians rose up against their Ottoman rulers.
The French parliament passed legislation in 2001 stating that genocide
had occurred, thereby causing hard feelings in relations with Turkey.
Organisations, which represent some 450,000 French citizens of
Armenian origin, wished to protest against Chirac’s “willingness not
to subordinate the opening of negotiations to the prior admission of
the Armenian genocide,” said Krikorian.
Last month the European Commission recommended a start to membership
negotiations with Turkey, which has been lobbying for many years to
join the European Union.
Jean-Pierre Berberian, spokesman of a Marseille-based Armenian group,
noted that an EU summit would make the final decision in December on
whether to start negotiations.
Fifty days ahead of that date, it was time to “denounce the violation
by the French government of the terms of the resolution passed on
June 18, 1987 by the European Parliament and of French legislation
of January 2001 recognising the genocide of 1915,” said Berberian,
spokesman of the Euro-Armenia group here, and a Marseille city
councillor.
Chirac has indicated his support for a start to talks, but many in
his ruling party, in the opposition and among the French public are
against Turkey’s EU membership.
“Not only is Jacques Chirac acting in violation of the law, he is
doing so against the will of a majority of French who are opposed to
Turkey’s membership,” said Berberian.
The text of the 2001 legislation passed by parliament here said France
“publicly recognises the Armenian genocide of 1915,” but did not
explicitly identify Turkey as responsible for the deed.

Fifty-ninth General Assembly
General Committee
5th Meeting (AM)
October 27, 2004
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS INCLUSION OF THREE ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON
GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S CURRENT AGENDA, SPLITTING OF DEBATE ON PALESTINE,
MIDDLE EAST
The General Committee this morning decided to recommend the inclusion of
three additional items on the General Assembly’s current agenda, and
decided to split its joint debate on the situation in the Middle East
and the question of Palestine.
The Committee, by a show of hands vote of nine in favour with none
against and 14 abstentions, recommended the inclusion of an item on the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The request was
contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan
(document A/59/236), annexed to which was an explanatory memorandum
stating that the ongoing conflict in the Nagorno Karabakh region had
resulted in the occupation of a significant part of Azerbaijan’s
territory, the expulsion of a large portion of its population and severe
damage to the national economy.
The memorandum noted that the process for the peaceful settlement of the
conflict on the basis of the norms and principles of international law
was being carried out by the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE), through the Minsk Group. But as of yet, no results had
been achieved. In the meantime, according to the memorandum, illegal
activities were currently being carried out in the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan, in particular by transfer of settlers to artificially
create a new demographic situation in those territories.
Azerbaijan’s representative said his country had made the request due to
the lack of effective response to the obvious threats to its sovereignty
and territorial integrity. Azerbaijan would not tolerate colonization of
its territory. It truly regretted that numerous warnings about dangerous
new realities in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan had gone ignored
and, therefore, had been forced to come to the Assembly in an effort to
stop blatant violation of international and humanitarian law.
He stressed that the request was not an attempt to replace the OSCE
peace process but to facilitate it. The Assembly was the chief
deliberative, policy making organ of the United Nations, he said, and it
was Azerbaijan’s Charter-based right to raise the issue.
France’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairmanship of
the Minsk Group, which also includes the Russian Federation and the
United States, said the OSCE had been actively dealing with this
situation for quite some time in a professional-minded spirit, chiefly
through the Minsk Group. Part of that process had already yielded
discussions between the parties and the Group had proposed further talks
on the situation.
With that in mind, the request for the introduction of a new item could
have negative consequences, he said, such as harming efforts to bring
about a just and lasting settlement. While the Group had no doubts about
the sincerity of Azerbaijan’s request, it did not believe that the
current session of the Assembly was the proper forum to discuss the matter.
Armenia’s Ambassador said that there was no urgent situation surrounding
Nagorno Karabagh today. According to rule 15 of the Assembly’s rules of
procedure, only an item of “an important and urgent character” justified
a request to include a new item on the Assembly’s current agenda. The
reasons offered to justify Azerbaijan’s request misrepresented the
situation on the ground.
He explained that first, there was the former autonomous region of
Nagorno Karabagh, which had always and continued to be
Armenian-populated. Then, there were the territories surrounding Nagorno
Karabagh, which had come under the control of Nagorno Karabagh Armenians
as a result of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan in an attempt to stifle
the peaceful drive of the people of those territories for
self-determination.
It was obvious, he said, that there were no settlements outside of
Nagorno Karabagh proper, in territories controlled by Armenian forces.
Nor was there a policy to settle those lands. He wondered what new
demographic situation Azerbaijan had been referring to. The conflict had
created refugees on both sides. By initiating the request, Azerbaijan
relied on the sensitivities towards its country from members of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). He stressed that the
conflict had no religious connotations, but was closely related to the
security environment in the South Caucasus. He urged the Committee not
to take action on the request.
Speaking in favour of the inclusion of the item on, before the vote,
were the representatives of Gambia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Djibouti, and
Turkey (on behalf of the OIC). The representatives of Belgium and
Australia spoke against its inclusion.
The representatives of Kazakhstan and China hoped the situation could be
resolved through peaceful negotiations.
At the top of the meeting, the Committee recommended the inclusion of
two other items on its current agenda. The first, entitled “Andean Zone
of Peace,” was introduced by Peru’s representative. Speaking on behalf
of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela), he
said that the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction and anti-personnel mines constituted a concrete contribution
to the strengthening of international peace, security and trust, as well
as to the principles of the Charter and international law. It was also
recommended that the item be considered directly in the plenary meeting.
The second item, entitled “Observer status for the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation in the General Assembly”, was
introduced by Pakistan’s representative, who said the Association worked
to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their
quality of life. It also hoped to accelerate economic growth, social
progress and cultural development in the region, providing individuals
with the opportunity to live in dignity and realize their potential. The
Committee also decided to allocate that item to its Sixth Committee (Legal).
Acting on a request from the Secretary-General, the Committee also added
a new sub-item to its agenda in order to elect a member of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ). In document A/59/237, the
Secretary-General informed the Committee that a vacancy in the Court
would occur effective 11 February 2005, due to the resignation of Judge
and Former President Gilbert Guillaume.
Lastly, acting on a proposal by the representative of Syria, the
Committee decided to recommend that the Assembly split its consideration
of agenda item 36, on the Situation in the Middle East, and item 37, the
Question of Palestine, which was scheduled to be considered jointly.
The General Committee will meet again at a time to be announced.

ADL Calls On Chief Rabbis to Speak Out Against Interfaith Assaults In Old City
Anti-Defamation League
October 17, 2004
PRESS RELEASE
Israel / Middle East
Jerusalem, October 17, 2004 — The Israel Office of the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) called on Israel’s two Chief Rabbis to speak out against
the phenomenon of attacks against Christians by Jewish students
studying in yeshivas in Jerusalem’s Old City.
In letters sent to Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger and Sepharadi
Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, ADL’s Israel Office said:
We are writing to share our deep concern and revulsion at the event
that took place last week in the Old City when a yeshiva student spat
at Nourhan Manougian, the Armenian Archbishop of Jerusalem.
After the student was arrested he told the authorities that
he perpetrated this act to protest idol worship. If this was an
isolated incident perhaps it could be simply blamed on bad behavior
by a misguided and disrespectful teenager. However, such incidents
are not at all rare. This disgraceful behavior perpetuated by a
minority of yeshiva students has been occurring for years.
We are now calling upon you to use your public position to speak out
quickly and firmly against this clear violation of Jewish ethical
teaching and to make clear to rabbis and teachers who are educating
yeshiva students in Jerusalem and elsewhere that such behavior is
a terrible moral offense and a stain on the name of Jewish people
everywhere.
Particularly in this time of rising anti-Semitism we do not tolerate
such conduct toward Jews anywhere in the world and such conduct toward
non-Jews must not be tolerated in the Jewish state. Maintaining quiet
and respectful relations between faiths in Jerusalem is both a national
and spiritual value.
We believe that you can do much to help combat this phenomenon both
publicly and privately and call upon you to use your esteemed position
to do so at this time.
Read more online on our web site at
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading
organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services
that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress