Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
April 28 2004
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF EU ENLARGEMENT TO BE DISCUSSED IN WARSAW SUMMIT
[April 28, 2004, 11:11:06]
As was informed by AzerTAj correspondent, representatives from 45
countries – and thousands of anti-globalization demonstrators – are
expected in the Polish capital from Wednesday, for a 3-day summit
devoted to the economic impact of the European Union’s May 1
enlargement.
Organized by the Davos, Switzerland based World Economic Forum; the
European Economic Summit is expected to gather 20 presidents and
prime ministers, along with 600 other ministers, central bankers,
representatives from the EU and other international organizations,
and 50 companies including Boeing, Hewlett Packard and IBM.
“The meeting will give the opportunity for the representatives of
hundreds of millions of Europeans to meet with leaders from business
and from civil society to try and map out the direction of this
amazing voyage that Europe has embarked on,” World Economic Forum
Chief Executive Officer Jose Maria Figueres said in a statement.
The European Economic Summit has been held every year in Salzburg,
Austria, since 1996.
It traditionally acts as a magnet for eastern European countries
seeking to join the wealthy West, after the collapse of the communist
bloc at the end of the 1980s set them on the difficult path to
economic transformation.
This year, as an exception, the meeting is being held in Poland, the
biggest of the 10 mainly former communist bloc countries set to join
the EU on May 1, along with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia.
While most of the leaders of the incoming countries will be in
attendance, they will be outnumbered by leaders from countries which
are not joining the EU for now, with for some, like Albania, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia and Montenegro,
membership being a distant prospect.
Polish police are also braced for thousands of anti-globalization
protestors, who are expected to demonstrate and hold parallel
meetings on the sidelines of the summit meeting.
Warsaw police chief Ryszard Siewierski told a recent news conference
between 3,000 and 15,000 demonstrators were expected, and that 13,500
police officers, 550 firemen, nine hospitals, 15 medical teams, 40
ambulances, a medical helicopter, as well as prosecutors,
interpreters, negotiators and psychologists would be on hand.
The Summit has posed a particular challenge for Warsaw, as it has
never been the venue of a large anti-globalization demonstration.
The summit will involve working sessions ranging from the euro and
competitiveness to the financial services market, transatlantic
relations, relations with Russia and the Caucasus and one
cutely-named “jog, eat and be happy” session.
“The program will be built on issues that affect business and policy
making, such as the immediate impact of enlargement on current EU
states and new member countries as well as the impact the new EU will
have on world affairs,” the World Economic Forum said in a statement.
“Over the past 10 years accession countries to the EU have made
ambitious economic reforms. Their biggest challenge will be to
sustain this reform effort and narrow the income gap with respect to
current members,” it said.

Globe and Mail, Canada
April 28 2004
The peaceable kingdom isn’t immune
By JEFFREY SIMPSON

Too many Canadians still dream that our “peaceable kingdom” stands
removed from terrorism. The United States is a target, yes. So are
U.S. allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. But we morally
superior Canadians? How could anyone want to hurt us?
>From such complacencies are tragedies made. We are a Western country,
firmly anchored in the constellation of like-minded states, living
adjacent to the United States, and made increasingly multicultural
through immigration and refugees.
Just this week, the final stages are unfolding of the Air-India trial
in Vancouver. We have Canadians citizens returning from Pakistan
lauding jihad, and an Ottawa resident apprehended in a sweep that
netted alleged terrorists in England. We had an assault on the
Turkish embassy that involved hostage-taking. We’ve had firebombings
and other violent acts against religious schools, synagogues and
mosques. We were also the staging ground for a would-be terrorist
who, working with others, intended to bomb the Los Angeles airport, a
plot foiled at the Washington-British Columbia border by an alert
U.S. agent.
At home and abroad, terrorism has changed the world, and Canada has
no choice but to change with it. That means taking terrorism
seriously here and overseas, and recognizing sadly that it will be a
threat for a very long time.
Countries with the wherewithal should contribute to providing
economic and political help to areas where poverty, unemployment and
social dislocation can lead to the alienation that breeds terror. But
only the naive believe that poverty equals terror, instead of also
being fostered by warped religious beliefs, ethnic hatreds and
perverted education systems.
Just this week, The New York Times published a scary story about
young Muslims in Western Europe who are better off than in their home
countries, yet are being recruited by jihad and the sick siren songs
of martyrdom.
Canada isn’t apart from currents swirling around the world. That’s
why the Martin government deserves credit for yesterday’s publication
of an integrated national security policy. Does it answer all the
questions that need answering? No. But it’s a good start.
Before and after becoming Prime Minister, Paul Martin said that
Canada needed better co-ordination and expertise in domestic security
– both security against terrorism, and public-health threats and
emergency planning. So he created a Department of Public Safety,
appointed a minister of state for public health, selected a national
security adviser, established a cabinet committee on security, public
health and emergencies, and upped the budgets for national security.
Now, with yesterday’s announcement, more will be done, especially in
the areas of introducing biometrics on passports, heightening
maritime and port security, and monitoring the Canada-U.S. border.
Ottawa will gather all information about possible threats and sift it
through a new Integrated Threat Assessment Centre. It’s one thing to
get information; it’s another to analyze it centrally, a weakness
revealed recently in the United States. A group of outside security
experts will advise the government.
Many things remain to be done. After all, this policy was put
together in time for release before Mr. Martin’s trip to Washington
tomorrow and Friday. The government hopes this security policy, and
the recent announcement of recycled and new spending on defence, will
reassure the Americans that Canada is getting more serious about
continental security and good bilateral relations.
The policy document alluded to reforming refugee determination, but
that area is a political minefield full of multicultural groups,
Liberal voters and refugee-advocates – few of whom realize what a
joke this country’s procedures have become, especially our inability
to weed out economic migrants from genuine refugees, and to expedite
deportations.
The government recognizes that it needs to work on plans to protect
the country’s critical infrastructure and computer systems. By law,
Parliament must review the anti-terrorism legislation before the end
of the year.
The often hesitant Martin government has done well in this area of
national security. It deserves congratulations for the work done so
far, and encouragement for what must yet be accomplished.
Correction: The Conservatives did not vote as a bloc in favour of the
Armenian genocide-recognition resolution. A minority of them opposed
the motion in a free vote.

IranScope, Iran
April 28 2004
Komala and Kurdistan
Sam Ghandchi
Persian Version
m
Introduction
If Eastern Europe is any indication of how national question develops
in this day and age, we saw the same nationalities that went for
complete independence in one country, did not choose separation in
another, the main factor being the attention to democracy in the
country in question, among different nationalities who live together.
People under free conditions, live together out of choice and not by
force, and intimidations and calling them separatist, will not stop
nationalities from going their own way, and it may even impel them to
do so.
Iraq
If a democracy develops in Iraq, Kurds will be the main force in the
central government of the whole Iraq, and will not give up such a
position to become a small national state in the North. Of course if
the Shiite Islamists in the South, succeed in creating an Islamic
Republic, then they can push Iraq into partitioning.
Nonetheless, I doubt it if the Shiite Islamists can push Iraq away
from a secular state too far. They are using all their force with the
help of Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), to establish a strong
foothold in post-US Iraq, after June 30, 2004 deadline, but they are
dreaming, if they think post-June Iraq can ever become a Khomeini
state. They can try all their best intimidations, to force the world
public opinion, that Shiite Islamists are the embodiment of Iraqi
Shi’a aspirations, but it is hard to be convincing.
The Iraqi Shiites know well about the experience of Islamism in the
region, and particularly the Shi’a version of it in the Islamic
Republic in Iran, the same way the neighbors of Soviet Union knew
well what Communism is, and so the Shiite Islamist leaders cannot
deceive people, to gain more base in the future Iraqi state, and
Kurds have the best chance to fill the vacuum. Also the U.S. is
hiring back Saddam’s Sunni generals, and is in a way reviving
Saddam’s regime, without Saddam, to neutralize the Shiite Islamists.
Therefore for IRI to play a role in Iraq, similar to Syria’s role in
Lebanon, is not without serious challenges.

Turkey
As far as Turkey, the Kurds in Turkey are the most possible
candidates for a separate state, and all the aspiration for such a
solution of Great Kurdistan, has always been coming, more from the
Kurds of Turkey, since racism from *people* of a land against the
Kurds, is a real thing only in Turkey. Moreover, in both Iraq and
Iran, the issue of Kurds has been basically with the *government*,
and not with the people. True that prejudices among the people exist
too but very minimal.
For example, Iranians make as much jokes about Rashti or EsfahAnis as
they make of Kurds, and in fact less for Kurds and more for Rashtis.
And none of it is comparable to real fascist attitudes towards Kurds,
which one sees in Turkey, attitudes similar to the way racial attacks
ended in Armenian Genocide of 1914 in Turkey of the time of Ottomans.
So I hope the Kurds from Turkey not to generalize their own
experience, to those of the Kurds of Iran, to agitate anti-Persian
sentiments.
Some Kurds call non-Kurd Iranians mollah supporter. The non-Kurd
Iranians have been fighting IRI for decades now, and this is not
right for people who have the strong issue of racism in Turkey, to
presume their case to be the same as the Iranian situation, and to
create flames between non-Kurd and Kurdish parts of the Iranian
pro-democracy movement. Non-Kurd Iranians, contrary to Turkey, have
challenged the IRI mollah regime, side-by-side with the Kurdish
opposition to IRI, all these years.
Kurdistan of Iran vs Iraq and Turkey
Iranian Kurdistan has developed as part of Iran in contrast to
different parts of Kurdistan of former Ottoman Empire.
Even more important is the fact that Iran’s Kurdistan has not
developed with Kurdistan of Ottoman Empire, even before the Safavids
and Chaldran (Chaldoran) treat of 920AH (1541).
Actually at the time of Moghols, Iran’s Kurdistan was under the rule
of Ardalans, and later on, during the Safavids, Ardalan rule
continued with Sanandaj as its capital, and Kurdistan had
semi-autonomy within Iran, and its situation has been completely
different from Ottoman Kurdistan.
After World War I, the Ottoman Kurdistan, was divided and those parts
may have some aspirations to unite again, for example the Kurdistan
of Iraq and Turkey, but as noted, even Iraqi Kurds see a lot of
opportunity for themselves in a united Iraq, if a secular democracy
prevails, and may not pursue united Kurdistan with Turkey. People
like Jalal Talabani of PUK, have played an important role in the
struggle for secular democratic republic and federalism for the whole
of Iraq.
Furthermore, Iran’s Kurdistan had nothing to do with the partitioning
of Kurdistan of Ottoman empire after WW I. Also Kurds are Iranian
like the Tajiks, and the Kurdish language is an Iranian language. So
the situation of Kurdish issues in Iran is very different and is
basically oppression by the state than by the people. I wish some
Kurdish nationalists of Turkey would not generalize their situation
to that of Iranian Kurds.

Iranian Kurds and IRI
Iranian Kurds are essentially dealing with the same situation as
other Iranians. In fact, some Iranian Kurdish groups have been in
the forefront and leadership of the opposition to IRI, long before
many other Iranian parts of current Iranian opposition, and I am
sure, just as we see in Iraq, the Kurds will have a lot of say in the
post-IRI state, since all these years, they have been one of the most
important parts of anti-IRI opposition for a secular republic.
About differences of Iran and Ottoman Empire, and the role of Kurds
with regards to the history of development of central government in
Iran, I have written in details in my book on Kurdistan, where my
focus had been Iran’s Kurdistan.
The reality is that globalization has made separation of small
nations to be easy, and small nations nowadays stay together if they
want to, not because they have to, as I explained in Globalization
and Federalism.
Basically as I have written in my article Why Federalism for
Kurdistan and Rest of Iran, federalism is the best solution to avoid
risking the breakup of future post-IRI democracy in Iran. A breakup
as witnessed in former Yugoslavia.
Insulting various nationalities like Kurds, is the worst anyone in
the Iranian opposition can do, which can infuriate these
nationalities and make them lose hope in a united Iran to look for
separation. Actually I have seldom seen among the Iranian
opposition, and the Iranian pro-democracy movement has a high opinion
of the Kurdish opposition, and many non-Kurdish Iranians lost their
lives in defense of the movement of Iranian Kurdish people against
the Islamic Republic.
The attacks on Kurds have not come from Iranian people but were come
from IRI, when Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards (pAsdArs and
basijis), who insulted and raped Kurdish mothers and daughters.
Popular Movements In Kurdistan
Among Iranian Kurdish groups, I have seen a few individuals in some
groups, who may call the Fars or Persians by racist remarks, equating
all non-Kurd Iranians with mollahs, but these people are a very tiny
minority among the Kurdish groups.
The Kurdish groups like Komala are actually a very important part of
the Iranian opposition as a whole, and they do *not* address other
parts of Iranian movement by racist remarks. Komala cares for the
success of democracy and human rights in the whole of Iran, and they
see themselves as part of the pro-democracy movement of Iran, and
have contributed a lot to its development and leadership in the last
25 years.
The separatist tendencies in Iranian Kudistan, comprise a very small
part of the political spectrum, and most people in Iran’s Kurdistan
see their future closely tied with the rest of Iran. As noted, I
have explained this with a thorough historical research in my book
about the formation of central state in Iran, when focusing on the
situation of Kurdistan in Iranian history.
After the fall of Shah’s regime, Kurdistan was among the first areas
of Iran that rose against the Islamic Republic. The reason is not
hard to see. During the reign of Safavids when Iranian government
was an Islamic State, albeit a monarchy but with a strong role of
mollahs, we saw the main opposition first to form in Sunni areas of
Iran like ghochAn and Bojnurd and Kurdistan.
Even Afghans who invaded Iran and attack Isfahan, started their
commotion when a Shi’a fatwa of Iran’s mollahs, who had pronounced
anybody raping Sunni women in Afghanistan would go to heaven. And
the fatwa had outraged the Afghans to a point that they invaded Iran
during Shah Soltan Hossein’s reign and ended the Safavid Dynasty.
So the Kurds of Iran being a strong Sunni minority were the first to
oppose a Shi’a Islamist state in Iran. Actually Sheikh Ezzeddin
Hosseini who has been labeled as a leftist and the like, represents a
Shafei Sunni religious opposition to IRI. Ezzedin Hosseini and
Moftizadeh were active in Kurdistan even during the Shah, and
contrary to what IRI tries to depict, they were not with Shah’s
agents.
Actually Ezzeddin Hosseini and Moftizadeh used to struggle against
Sufism that was promoted at the time of the Shah in Kurdistan. Even
Moftizadeh who in the beginning of IRI cooperated with IRI, was later
murdered by IRI, because he did not approve of IRI Shi’a rule. So
the issue of a Shi’a religious state was always a big fear for Sunni
Kurds.
The Kurds were attacked by IRI Revolutionary Guards (pasdArs) with
the same wordings of Shiite anti-Sunni verbal curses. The IRI
Revolutionary Guards had a religious hatred for Sunni Kurds, whom
they would call Omari, etc and they raped and killed the innocent
people of Kurdistan, when the first peaceful demonstration against
Shi’a rule started in Kurdistan in 1979.
The people of Kurdistan took arms only in *self-defense* and not
because of being guerrillas, which they were not. It is important to
note that the armed struggle in Kurdistan has*never* been a guerrilla
warfare like the cheriki movements in other parts of Iran, not even
at the time of the Shah.
The jonbeshe mollA AvAreh and Sharifzadeh in 1966, at the time of
the Shah, were an armed *mass* movement, and not a guerrilla
movement, and it was the peasants who rose up against the Shah’s
regime, and some intellectual groups and individuals from abroad
joined them later, and some of them like Parviz Nikkhah betrayed the
movement in Shah’s prison, but those groups were hardly any important
part of that mass movement.
Komala
The history of Komala actually starts at the time of the Shah from
the 1966 movement led by Mollah Avareh and Sharifzadeh. Foad Mostafa
Soltani who was killed during IRI, as well as current Komala
leadership like Abdollah Mohtadi, date back to that time, when Mollah
Avareh and Sharifzadeh were killed. The leadership actually were
like many other Iranian political groups that originated from
Aryamehr University in Tehran.
Before the 60’s, many leaders of Iranian political movement
originated from Technology Faculty of Tehran University, people like
my own cousin Ahmad Ghandchi of 16-Azar, who was one of the three
students killed on Dec 7, 1953, were the 50’s generation. The
brightest students like those of Daneshkadeh Fani and Aryamehr
University were the ones who were originators of the main opposition
groups during Shah’s time.
Komala dates back to those years and to Aryamehr University, and
actually these activists did not view the issue of democracy in
Kurdistan as separate from the rest of Iran. They were *not* even
related to the hezbe demokrAte kordestAn, which dated from the
1941-53 period with views similar to hezbe toodeh. They were closer
to like-minded non-Kurdish Iranian groups, in other parts of Iran,
than to hezbe demokrate kordestan, which was in Kurdistan.
Komala just like all other Iranian intellectual groups of 60’s and
70’s, was more of a new leftist organization, with the difference
that its base was in country-side of Kurdistan. Also because of
opposing guerilla movement, Komala in those years, sided more with
Mao, and engaged in successful political mobilization of the masses,
in contrast to all other intellectual groups of other parts of Iran
that remained intellectual groups with negligible success to create a
mass base.
As time passed, and Komala saw the issue of dictatorship of socialist
countries, they rejected China and Albania, etc and started searching
beyond the existing socialism, although they still refered/refer to
themselves as socialist. I should note that even when they were
Communists, they opposed Soviet Union and even their support of
China, when they did, was not like some other groups that were
lackeys of the Chinese Communists. Komala leadership were always
independent thinkers.
In the years after 1981, they united with a very small group from
other parts of Iran by the name of Sahand, and formed a Communist
Party of Iran. But soon they saw this is not what they see as their
ideal. They had one split where basically the old group they had
united with, became the Worker-communist Party of Iran, seeking a
Leninist policy. In a short while, Komala even separated from the
Communist Party of Iran, and called itself Komala again.
A few from Komala stayed with Workers Communist Party. Also there
were a number of people from original Komala, who stayed with the
Communist Party of Iran, call themselves Komalah (with an “h” at the
end), rather than going with the revived Komala, and they are still
part of Communist Party of Iran.
Most of the original team is with Komala, who after discarding
support for China and Albania, started looking beyond Communism .
Even what they call socialism, in their interviews today, they
clearly state their ideals are not anything like what they see in
current socialist countries. In their ideals, they emphasize
democracy, human rights, and social justice within the new world
development and progress of our times and they support a secular
democratic federal republic in Iran.
After studying the relevant literature, the above is my understanding
of Komala and its development. To read heir own views on these
issues, please consult their web site.
Federalism and IRI
The issue of Kurds and federalism is one of those issues that touches
on the region, and IRI wants to broadcast a view that non-Kurd
Iranian political groups do not want federalism, and tries to depict
the proponents of federalism as separatists, whereas the majority of
Iranian opposition today is beginning to side with federalism, and
the Fars ultranationalists is a very small minority.
As I have explained on numerous times, those acting as nationalists
calling the federalist programs as separatist, are more Islamic
Republic proponents rather than being Iranian nationalists, and their
fear is that accepting federalism, would open the way for asking for
more democratic rights for the whole of Iran by all Iranians.
It is IRI misusing ultranationalist facade, just as they did during
the Iraq War, to justify the IRI despotism. Ultranationalist slogans
are a preposterous flag for Islamists, when they have had no respect
for national demands of all Iranians all these years, and when they
have been pushing Islamism on Iran trying to eliminate even Norouz
from Iran, a New Year celebration that Kurds celebrate, as much as
any other part Iranians, if not more.
Recently in Iran, the Islamic Republic agents issued a fake
communiqué, against the rights of Iranian nationalities in education,
forging the signature of Jebhe Melli leaders . The forged document
has been condemned by Jebhe Melli leadership inside Iran. Thus it is
important to know how IRI is trying to attack the Kurdish movement
with such despicable ultra-nationalist fabrications.
The reality is that the slaughter of leftists by IRI in 1981 and
1988, and the murder of leftists by the Shah’s regime, were because
the left had been the most ardent part of the opposition to monarchy
in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, and to IRI in 80’s and 90’s. This is
why they killed even the activists who only had one year jail terms,
and were inside the IRI prisons in 1988, by Khomeini’s decree.
IRI miserably accepted the peace with Saddam, on Saddam’s terms.
Khomeini committed a mass murder of the leftists and others in
September 1988 to ensure to keep the society silent after signing the
accord. And IRI did not stop at killing the leftists, and even
slaughtered Forouhars later, people who were never leftists.
Let me note that my own disagreement with the left is not because of
their struggle against IRI and Shah’s despotism. In fact, in that
regard, I support them fully, and I think they have given the most
number of sacrifices in Iran’s movement for democracy, both during
the Shah and during IRI, and this is why the intelligence agents of
Shah and IRI have the most hatred for the leftists.
My disagreement with the left is because I think their program is
obsolete at the time of post-industrial development and
globalization. I have written my views about the left in the past, in
details and do not need to repeat.
Other Groups in Kurdistan
Many groups that talk of presence in Kurdistan, may have a few
sympathizers there. However, Komala, in my opinion, is the only new
political group, not just in Kurdistan, but in the whole of Iran of
post-1953 years, that ever had and has a mass base, first in the
country-side and then in the cities.
It is true, that in the years of 1941-1953, before the CIA coup,
hezbe toodeh (Tudeh Party ), and Jebhe Melli (Iran National Front),
both had a mass base. And in Kurdistan, in the same period, hezbe
demokrAte kordestan had a mass base. But after 1953, basically I
would say all groups, including mojahedin and cherikha, which were
bigger, hardly had any mass base, and were basically intellectual
groups.
Even hezbe toodeh and JebheMelli of the 1953-1979 period, hardly had
any mass base. I believe Komala is the only exception, being a real
mass party, which I think is a good subject to study, as to why they
were so successful in organizing the ordinary people, while others
elsewhere in Iran failed.
When Komala was fighting IRI, almost 90% of the left in other parts
of Iran, not only supported Khomeini in 1979, but the left supported
hostage-taking and the overthrow of Bazargan’s government. And
unfortunately 90% of Iranian progressive movement was leftist in
those days.
It is true that some small groups viewed khordad 1360 (may 1980) as
an reactionary coup like Mohammad Ali Shah’s bombardment of majles,
and tried to reverse it by an uprising in 1981, which did not work,
and they were slaughtered with no result, because the progressive
movement, including those forces themselves, had made error after
error in appeasing Islamists, and that is how the 1981 IRI massacre
of the left in all areas of Iran, except Kurdistan, was successful.
Needless to say that, in 1981, I was even threatened to death by some
of leftist groups for questioning Marxism. Nonetheless, I condemn the
anti-Communist bigotry of Islamic Republic of Iran, and I condemn the
violations against the human rights of leftists by IRI forces, just
as I condemn the suppression of human rights of all other
pro-democracy activists of Iran.
There are so many errors in Iranian progressive movement. I have
discussed those issues in details, and have noted the major trends in
the historical turns of the last 25 years in my book Futurist Iran.
Conclusion
I do not care much for the IRI reformists including IRI president
Khatami, although I support a real peaceful change to a federal
secular republic in Iran.
Iran and Iranians are different from IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran)
and IRI officials. Iran and Iranians are very modern, and we had a
constitutional revolution calling for civil law and modern society,
with a system based on Constitutional Law, over one hundred years
ago.
In fact Islamic Theocracy has now helped the *grass root* in Iran to
resent mollahs, and to call for secularity and futurist modernity,
and a referendum for new constitution, and regime change, at the
deepest levels of society, unprecedented in any other Middle Eastern
society:
Iranian political groups should recognize a federalist solution for
Iran, before the Islamic Republic falls apart, or else Iran may turn
into another Yugoslavia. The Komala Party can be play an important
role to help the success of a democratic solution in Iran.
Hoping for a Futurist, Federal, Democratic, and Secular Republic in
Iran,
Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
IRANSCOPE
April 28, 2004
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
April 28 2004
KLO Leader Accuses Turkish Embassy Of Indifference
The Turkish embassy in Baku and some political parties display
indifference towards the plans of the Karabakh Liberation
Organization (KLO) to march to Karabakh on May 8, the date of the
occupation of Shusha, KLO leader Akif Naghi told reporters on
Tuesday, according to Trend news agency.
Naghi said his organization has received support from most of the
foreign embassies in Baku, included among them the embassies of the
OSCE’s Minsk Group member-states, permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, representatives of international
organizations, heads of political parties and rights advocates.
However, Naghi also voiced dismay with what he called indifference
from some political parties, which `blame the authorities for
avoiding to take decisive measures to settle [Nagorno-Karabakh]
conflict.”
Naghi said the KLO was going to determine the route of their planned
march. He said 7,150 people are expected to start action from the
Martyrs’ Alley on May 8. Their goal in the action is to let the world
community know about the
real truths of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, Naghi added.

Baku Today
April 28 2004
Aliyev, Kocharyan to meet today
Baku Today 28/04/2004 12:27
Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev will meet Armenian president
Robert Kocharyan today at 13.30 Baku time in Warsaw.
The two presidents will discuss Karabakh issue. Following their close
meeting Aliyev and Kocharyan will meet with OSCE’s Minsk group
chairmen.
The chairmen are expected to inform the presidents about their stance
over the issue.
Aliyev and Kocharyan are visiting Poland for a three day economic
summit of European nations.
Aliyev arrived in Warsaw yesterday. He met with the president of
Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski.
The two presidents have talked about half hour to develop relations
between Azerbaijan and Poland.
Kwasniewski said, Aliyev’s attendance at the European summit will
have positive impact on attracting big European companies to
Azerbaijan.
Aliyev will be addressing the summit today. He will speak of economic
reforms in Azerbaijan and also Azerbaijan’s participation in large
commercial projects.

Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Azerbaijan
April 28 2004
Helsinki Groups Again Ask Armenia to Investigate Attack
CASCFEN – Aaron Rhodes, the Executive Director of the International
Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Bjorn Engesland, the Secretary
General of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and Anna Hakobyan, the
Executive Director of the Armenian Helsinki Association have sent an
open joint letter to the President of the Republic of Armenia Robert
Kocharyan and Prosecutor General, Aghvan Ovsepyan regarding the
attack on prominent human rights defender Mikael Danielyan. Following
is the text of the letter:
“The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) and the
Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC) on 7 April wrote an open letter to
you, asking to ensure a prompt, thorough and transparent
investigation into the brutal physical attack on Mikael Danielyan,
Chairman of the Armenian Helsinki Association, perpetrated on 30
March 2004. We also said that there are indications that the
attackers might be connected to state structures, and that therefore
also representatives of the power structures should be questioned.
Now, more than two weeks later it appears that no investigation is
taking place. The investigating officer met Mr. Danielyan only twice
and as Mr. Danielyan could conclude from these talks, that the
investigator never questioned anyone else, not even those persons
whom Mr. Danielyan indicated as possible witnesses. We also noted in
our letter the lack of a thorough forensic examination of Mr.
Danielyan immediately after the attack. A medical forensic expert for
the first time met him only on April 14, after having been informed
about the incident on April 8.
Later on, on 13 April, the IHF also called for a full, independent
investigation of alleged broad violations of basic international
civil and political human rights norms by Armenian authorities in
their efforts to thwart protests against the government and the
president. We suggested that such an investigation should be done in
cooperation with experts from the OSCE and Council of Europe, and
independent civil society monitors. We were also presenting evidence
of violations of freedom of assembly, of freedom of movement, of the
freedom of the media, and of the persecution of political dissenters
that have occurred.
One of the particular concerns were attacks against Armenian
journalists during the demonstrations of 5 and 13 April. Despite the
existence of a lot of evidence about who the attackers were, the
investigation seems to come to nothing, and it seems as if the
Armenian authorities are reluctant to disclose the identity of the
(known) perpetrators.
The IHF, the NHC and the Armenian Helsinki Association will be
grateful for your support for processes that will promote solutions
to these problems that are consistent with Armenians obligations
under international human rights law and the principles of the OSCE.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RIA Novosti, Russia
April 28 2004
PRESIDENTS OF AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA TO DISCUSS NAGORNO-KARABAKH
CONFLICT IN WARSAW
BAKU, April 28 (RIA Novosti) – Presidents Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan
and Robert Kocharyan of Armenia will discuss ways of settling the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on Wednesday, April 28, in Warsaw.
Aliyev and Kocharyan had arrived in Warsaw on the day before to
attend a European economic summit.
The Azeri president is to have a two-hour meeting with the Armenian
president. Besides, on Wednesday evening, Aliyev will also meet with
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh from the US,
Russia and France.
(The Armenian-Azeri armed conflict over who shall own
Nagorno-Karabakh – an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan – flared up
in the last years of existence of the Soviet Union and continued for
almost five years. Nagorno-Karabakh’s armed forces (read Armenia’s)
succeeded in assuming control over up to 20 per cent of Azerbaijan’s
territory and practically dictated armistice terms to Baku, with more
than a million Azeris becoming refugees. All the subsequent years up
to the present the situation in the region could be characterised by
one word – neither peace, nor war. The self-proclaimed republic of
Nagorno-Karabakh, sensing Yerevan’s support – incidentally, the
current president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan is a native of
Nagorno-Karabakh who made his political career thanks precisely to
successful operations in the course of the conflict – in no way wants
to return to Azerbaijan’s constitutional field, although Baku is
prepared to grant it the widest autonomy. Nor have the efforts of the
OSCE Minsk group brought any tangible results.
Aliyev will make a report at the European Economic Summit and dwell
on economic reforms being carried out in Azerbaijan, the country’s
role in the implementation of large-scale projects in the region, and
regional cooperation.
In addition, the president of Azerbaijan is also scheduled to meet
with his Georgian opposite number Mikhail Saakashvili to supposedly
discuss bilateral Georgian-Azeri relations and construction of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
On Wednesday, Aliyev will leave Warsaw for Strasbourg to attend a
spring PACE session, where on Thursday, April 29, he will address it.
The session is devoted to Azerbaijan’s implementation of its
obligations to the Council of Europe.

Tehran Times
April 28 2004
Oil Money Trickles Down to Azerbaijan’s Dispossessed
SANGACHAL, Azerbaijan (AFP) — Medanet Mamedova does not know where
she stands in the fierce ethical debate raging around the world
between the oil industry and campaign groups which argue that “Big
Oil” is making its shareholders rich by exploiting the poor.
This 32-year-old mother in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan
does know, though, that she is earning desperately-needed cash for
her family by stitching together work gloves for sale to a nearby oil
terminal operated by multinational company BP.
Mamedova is one of 10 women living in the ramshackle Umid refugee
camp who have been given the equipment and training to make the
gloves, which are then sold under a contract to the contractors
working to enlarge BP’s Sangachal terminal.
Mamedova, part of a women-only co-operative, works from her shack,
sitting at an electric sewing machine.
If she makes 15 pairs of gloves a day, in between looking after her
two young children and household chores, she can earn about five
dollars (4.2 euros), or $150 a month.
That might not seem much, but Mamedova’s husband is unemployed and
the family’s only other income is the 20$ a month it receives in
state benefits.
Before now, oil industry contracters imported the gloves because no
manufacturer inside Azerbaijan could qualify for the necessary
quality certificate.
The co-operative only started work last week but it has already got
orders for 3,000 pairs of gloves.
The glove-making project was the idea of BP executive Jacobus
Nieuwenhuijze, the manager of the Sangachal terminal.
With the help of a local non-governmental group, the Small and Medium
Business Support Society, he provided the sewing machines and
training for the co-operative.
He said the project was evidence that ordinary people could feel
real, sustainable benefits from the oil company’s activities in
Azerbaijan. “(This project) is giving work to people, to families,
who did not have any income,” he said. “We are providing them with an
opportunity to start living a real life.” Azerbaijan, an impoverished
state which borders Iran and Russia, finds itself the focus of the
global debate over the ethics of “Big Oil.”
The reason is the $3b Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline being built by a
BP-led consortium which when completed will pump oil from the
Sangachal terminal, through neighbouring Georgia and Turkey, to a
tanker terminal on the Mediterranean Sea.
The debate hit the headlines earlier this month when anti-pipeline
campaigners from Azerbaijan and Georgia were barred from speaking at
BP’s annual shareholders’ meeting in London.
Supporters of the pipeline project, which include the administration
of US President George W. Bush, reject the charge that it will
exploit the region.
Construction on the pipeline and work on related offshore oil fields
is creating thousands of local jobs, while once in operation, the
countries along the route will receive huge sums from transit fees
and, in Azerbaijan’s case, from the export of its oil.
Opponents of the pipeline counter that the new jobs will disappear
once construction is completed. They also say that in Azerbaijan and
Georgia — which rank near the top in global corruption league tables
— there is no guarantee that the cash windfall will ever reach the
people who need it most.
Critics also claim that the pipeline will jeopardise the ecology of
the region, a charge that is denied by the pipeline consortium.
A women’s sewing co-operative with just 10 employees is unlikely to
silence the oil industry’s critics.
But in the refugee camp, where the residents — who fled a war in the
early 1990s between Azerbaijan and its neighbour Armenia — live in
drafty one-room shacks and where the dirt streets are ankle deep in
mud, it is a lifeline. “This will be very good for us,” Mamedova said
as she stitched a pair of gloves together. “I will sew and we will
have an income from that.”

Canadian Press
April 28 2004
Liberals vote down opposition motion calling for fixed election dates
Tue Apr 27, 8:15 PM ET
ALEXANDER PANETTA
OTTAWA (CP) – Liberals voted in a bloc Tuesday, defeating an
opposition motion calling for set American-style election dates every
four years.

The government has proposed other reforms to loosen the prime
minister’s control over Parliament, but Prime Minister Paul Martin
appears unlikely to relinquish the prerogative over election timing.
“We’re not for it – you won’t see a change in the electoral system
tomorrow,” said a spokeswoman for Government House Leader Jacques
Saada, Marie-Claude Lavigne.
“But we’re not against it either. We’d be happy to consult people . .
. and see if the value of this argument (one fixed election dates) is
proven.”
Liberal MPs heeded a call to vote with their leader and crushed the
symbolic Conservative motion 167-61. The Bloc Quebecois also voted
against, while the NDP supported the call for fixed election dates.
Elections must currently be held within five years of any new
mandate, and are generally called whenever prime ministers feel their
political party has the best chance of winning.
Martin is currently struggling with that calculation as he
criss-crosses the country in an attempt to boost his party’s stagnant
poll numbers to levels that would make him feel confident enough to
call a vote.
The prime minister has been coy about his election plans despite
speculation that he might drop the writ for June 14.
Earlier this year Martin said he wouldn’t call a vote until he got to
the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. Tuesday he said he wants to
see how negotiations go with the provinces on health-care funding
before he jumped into a campaign.
But party insiders say his election plans truly hinge on whether he
sees poll results that would indicate he has a strong chance of
winning a majority government.
Opposition MPs jumped on that uncertainty Tuesday to argue that the
system needs to be overhauled.
“The prime minister’s preference for the status quo is hardly
surprising,” said Conservative MP Paul Forseth.
“Any head of government would be reluctant to part with one of the
perks of power – and we know the Liberals will do anything for
power.”
British Columbia became the first province to have fixed election
dates under changes ushered in by the province’s Constitution
Amendment Act of 2001. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has also
expressed support for the idea.
If Canada were on a four-year election cycle, Forseth said, the prime
minister wouldn’t be dithering over whether to drop the writ this
spring.
“His government wouldn’t be marking time with no significant
legislation before the House of Commons, his ministers wouldn’t be
testing the political winds, recycling old spending announcements and
making tentative short-term plans,” he said.
Martin has promised a host of reforms to Parliament – including more
free votes for regular MPs, and a chance for them to scrutinize
federal appointments to everything from the Supreme Court to Crown
corporations.
His government lost a politically sensitive vote last week when
backbench Liberals voted overwhelmingly to recognize that genocide
was committed against Armenians in 1915.
Liberal backbenchers used their new-found voting freedom and broke
ranks with the Martin cabinet, whose members were ordered to vote
with the prime minister.
The Turkish government had warned Canada not to recognize the
genocide, and later criticized the Commons result and hinted at
possible economic sanctions.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A1 Plus | 13:53:34 | 28-04-2004 | Politics |
PACE PRELIMINARY REPORT ON ARMENIA
Here we represent PACE preliminary report on Armenia, which will be
discussed this evening.
Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia
Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States
of the Council of Europe
Rapporteurs: Mr René André, France, Group of the European People’s Party,
and Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia, Poland, Socialist Group
Summary
Since the end of March 2004, a series of protests were organised by the
opposition forces in Armenia, calling for the holding of a “referendum of
confidence” in President Kocharian. The demonstrations, while announced,
have not been authorised by the authorities who threatened their organisers
with criminal prosecution. In the early morning of 13 April, the security
forces violently dispersed some 2000-3000 protesters who were attempting to
march towards the presidential palace, calling for President Kocharian’s
resignation. The police reportedly used truncheons, water cannons and tear
gas, causing dozens of injuries.
The Parliamentary Assembly considers that the actions of the Armenian
authorities are contrary to the letter and the spirit of the recommendations
formulated in its Resolution 1361 (2004) adopted last January and it demands
Armenia to urgently comply with its obligations and commitments.
The Assembly calls upon the authorities and the opposition to refrain from
any action which may lead to further violence and to engage in a dialogue
without preconditions, with a view to resolving the present conflict in
accordance with Council of Europe standards and European democratic
practice.
I. Draft resolution
1. Since the end of March 2004, a series of protests were organised by the
opposition forces in Armenia, calling for the holding of a “referendum of
confidence” in President Kocharian. The possibility of such a referendum was
first mentioned by the Armenian Constitutional Court following the
presidential elections in February and March last year. The Constitutional
Court has since reversed its decision and the authorities qualify the
opposition demands and protests as an attempt to seize power by force.
2. The demonstrations, while announced, have not been authorised by the
authorities who threatened their organisers with criminal prosecution.
Following the demonstrations on 5 April, the prosecutor general opened
criminal investigations against several members of the opposition and many
more were arrested. On the same occasion, several journalists were beaten up
by unknown persons while the police was standing by taking no action.
3. New demonstrations took place on 9, 10 and 12 April in Yerevan. In the
early morning of 13 April, the security forces violently dispersed some
2000-3000 protesters who were attempting to march towards the presidential
palace, calling for President Kocharian’s resignation. The police reportedly
used truncheons, water cannons and tear gas, causing dozens of injuries. A
number of protesters were arrested, including members of parliament, some of
whom are members of the Assembly, and some were allegedly mistreated during
their custody by the police. The security forces also assaulted and arrested
several journalists who were covering the opposition rally.
4. The tensions in Armenia continue to run high; new protests are planned
for the week of 26 April. For the time being, there seems to be little room
for dialogue between the authorities and the opposition, even if some offers
have been made and some members of the ruling majority – and notably the
Speaker of the Armenian parliament – have begun criticising the heavy-handed
crackdown on demonstrators.
5. With regard to the conduct of the authorities, the Parliamentary Assembly
recalls that its actions are contrary to the letter and the spirit of the
recommendations formulated in its Resolution 1361 (2004) adopted last
January. It is particularly concerned with the fact that:
i. massive arrests, including on the basis of the Administrative Code,
ignored the demand to immediately end the practice of administrative
detention and change the Administrative Code used as a legal basis for this
practice;
ii. the authorities refused to authorise opposition rallies for reasons not
permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover the new
draft law on the procedure of conducting gatherings, meetings, rallies and
demonstrations, currently in the parliamentary procedure, was evaluated as
excessively restrictive by experts of the Venice Commission;
iii. persons detained during the recent events were reportedly subjected to
ill-treatment by police and security forces, in spite of Assembly’s demands
to take resolute and more active steps to remedy misconduct by law
enforcement officials; iv. freedom of expression continues to be seriously
curtailed and several acts of violence against journalists, which took place
during the recent events, were carried out or were allowed to happen by the
police and security forces.
6. With regard to the conduct of the opposition, the Assembly stresses that
they should do their utmost to avoid any future violence.
7. As to their demands for the holding of a “referendum of confidence” and
the resignation of President Kocharian, the Assembly stresses that:
i. both the presidential, and the parliamentary elections which followed in
May last year were severely criticised by the international community,
including by the Assembly delegations. The elections fell short of the
international standards in key areas and the irregularities observed notably
included biased media coverage, detention of opposition proxies and campaign
staff, falsification of results, intimidation of observers as well as
generally inadequate performance of the elections administration.
ii. although the fraud, in spite of its magnitude, did not decisively change
the outcome of the elections nor invalidate their final results, in its
report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia, adopted
in January 2004 (Resolution 1361), the Assembly expressed profound
disappointment at the conduct of the elections and called for a thorough
investigation into electoral fraud and an end to the judicial impunity for
those responsible for it.
8. Consequently, the Assembly considers that the opposition, while entitled
to fully enjoy their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, should
refrain from attempts to use street demonstrations to reverse the results of
last year’s elections, which have been, in spite of the irregularities,
validated by relevant national and international bodies.
9. The Assembly calls upon the Armenian authorities to:
i. allow peaceful demonstrations and refrain from any further action which
would legally, or in practice, lead to unjustified restrictions to the
freedom of assembly guaranteed by the European Convention on human rights;
ii. immediately investigate – in a transparent and credible manner – the
incidents and human rights abuses reported during the recent events,
including assaults of journalists and human rights activists, and inform the
Assembly of their findings and possible legal actions against persons
responsible;
iii. immediately release the persons detained for their participation in the
demonstrations and immediately end the practice of administrative detention
and amend the Administrative Code to this effect;
iv. create fair conditions for the normal functioning of the media, notably
as regards the issuing of broadcasting licences to television companies,
particularly to television channel A1+;
v. send a written report to the Assembly, before the opening of the June
2004 part-session, on the steps it has taken with regard to sub-paragraphs
9.i , ii, iii and iv.
10. The Assembly calls upon the authorities and the opposition to refrain
from any action which may lead to further violence and to engage in a
dialogue without preconditions, with a view to resolving the present
conflict in accordance with Council of Europe standards and European
democratic practice.
11. The Assembly believes that the recent events have added a measure of
urgency to its demands for Armenia’s full and unconditional compliance with
their obligations and commitments. It resolves to continue to closely
monitor the situation in Armenia and, if no progress with regard to
sub-paragraphs 9.i, ii, iii and iv is made by the opening of the June 2004
part-session, to reconsider the credentials of the Armenian delegation, in
accordance with Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure.
II. Explanatory memorandum by the co-rapporteurs
1. Introduction
Since the end of March, opposition forces in Armenia decided to jointly
organise mass protests to force a “referendum of confidence” in President
Kocharian. The possibility of such a referendum was first mentioned by the
Armenian Constitutional Court following the presidential elections in
February and March last year, which were strongly criticised by the
international community. The opposition intentions are likely to have been
inspired by last year’s events in the neighbouring Georgia, where massive
protests led to the resignation of President Shevardnadze and early
presidential and parliamentary elections.
The Armenian authorities reacted to the opposition call for protests with a
campaign of political intimidation and administrative and judicial
harassment. Once the protests started, the reaction was even more ruthless.
Demonstrations were violently dispersed, journalists were beaten up, a large
number of opposition supporters were arrested and premises of the opposition
parties were raided by the police.
The Head of the OSCE presence in Yerevan blamed both the authorities and the
opposition for violent incidents. Most media and NGO reports put the blame
squarely on the government.
New opposition rallies were announced for the week of 26 April. The tensions
continue, there seems to be little room for dialogue right now.
2. Background to the recent events
The 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections
Armenia conducted two important elections last year – President Kocharian
was reelected president in March and the new parliament was elected in the
elections which took place in May.
Both elections were severely criticised by the international community,
including by the Assembly delegations. The elections fell short of
international standards in key areas, and the irregularities observed
included notably biased media coverage, detention of opposition proxies and
campaign staff, falsification of results, intimidation of observers as well
as generally inadequate performance of the elections administration.
The Assembly’s monitoring report, adopted in January 2004 (Resolution 1361),
expressed profound disappointment with the conduct of the elections. The
Assembly also called for a thorough investigation into electoral fraud an
end to the judicial impunity for those responsible for it.
However, in their explanatory memorandum, the rapporteurs concurred with the
findings of the OSCE observation mission that the fraud, in spite of its
magnitude, did not decisively change the outcome of the elections nor
invalidate their final results.
It was in this spirit that the Assembly ratified the credentials of the
Armenian delegation after the May parliamentary elections. However, the
acceptance of the results should not be understood by Yerevan as the
readiness to condone and tolerate this kind of conduct in the future. They
were given the benefit of the doubt, but they should be very careful not to
gamble with the trust of the international community. The recent events
regrettably indicate that the authorities have not fully understood this
message. “Referendum of confidence”
After several presidential candidates from the opposition contested the
results of the Presidential elections in February and March last year, the
Armenian Constitutional Court ruled that their complaints were well-founded
but did not invalidate the results. Instead, it proposed the holding of a
“referendum of confidence” in President Kocharian.
This decision, delivered on 16 April, was severely criticised by President
Kocharian and his supporters, as a challenge to the President’s legitimacy.
The Constitutional Court has since reversed its position and stated, on 26
January 2004, that its original decision had been misunderstood and
manipulated. In spite of this decision of the Constitutional Court, the
holding of a “referendum of confidence” constitutes the main demand of the
present opposition campaign of protests.
3. Chronology of recent events[1]
– 17 March 2004
President Kocharian dismissed Aram Tamazian, Prosecutor-General for the past
three years. Mr Kocharian stated that the role and prestige of the Office of
the Prosecutor-General had declined under Mr Tamazian’s leadership,
appointed in his place was Aghvan Hovsepian, Deputy Prosecutor-General. He
had served as Prosecutor-General in 1998 and 1999. Four Yerevan procesutors
were dismissed on 22 March.
– 23 March
The European Union’s special envoy for the southern Caucasus, Heike
Talvitie, met the Minister for Foreign Affairs and two Deputy Speakers of
Parliament. Ms Talvitie referred to the controversial draft legislation
currently before Parliament which would restrict freedom of assembly. Tigran
Torosian, a “parliamentary official”, gave an assurance that this bill was
in conformity with European principles and standards, and that it was
currently under examination by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission.
– 26 March
In a joint communique to Parliament, the three political parties of the
governing coalition issued a warning about attempts to break constitutional
law, and called the responsible authorities to maintain order with
determination and firmness.
– 28 March
A major gathering organised by the Artarutiun opposition bloc in Giumri,
Armenia’s second city, degenerated into fighting between those who back
Artarutiun and supporters of President Kocharian. Four members of Artarutiun
were arrested for assaulting a police officer. The chairperson of
Artarutiun, Stepan Demirchian, had told participants (numbering around 1
000): “we are witnessing the death throes” of the Kocharian regime, and “the
Armenian people cannot tolerate the rule of such thugs”.
– 29 March
The Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, which represents the most
influential business persons, issued a statement warning that political
unrest would have negative effects on the Armenian economy and that such a
situation would jeopardise the chances of finding a solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on terms favourable to Armenia.
– 30 March
President Kocharian’s press service stated that the opposition’s threats
were baseless and aggressive, and that the organisation of unauthorised
public meetings was a “criminal offence”, and would be dealt with as such.
The chairperson of the Armenian Helsinki Association, Mikael Danielian, was
attacked and beaten up by four unknown men as he left his home. He had
constantly expressed criticism of the Armenian authorities for violations of
human rights.
The prosecutor general opened a criminal case against members of the
opposition Justice Alliance under Article 301 (public calls for seizure of
power by force) and 318/2 (publicly insulting representatives of
government).
– 31 March
The authorities warned the opposition leaders that they might well be
arrested during an investigation of their plans to “seize power by violence
and change the constitutional order of the Republic of Armenia”. The
Artarutiun opposition bloc and the National Unity Party planned to organise
demonstrations in April calling for the resignation of President Kocharian,
whose re-election in 2003 they challenged. The leader of Artarutiun, Stepan
Demirchian, emphasised that the opposition was not seeking violence, but
merely wished to restore constitutional order.
– 1 April
At a meeting with European ambassadors, President Kocharian said that the
situation was tense in Armenia. He declared that stability was his priority,
and he rejected accusations that his government had threatened to arrest
opposition leaders.
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation gave its support to the governing
coalition against the opposition, while the Republican Party and Orinats
Yerkir said that arrests among the opposition would be unjustified.
– 5 April
The National Unity Party organised a rally in Yerevan that drew an estimated
300 participants. Fights broke out and journalists trying to film the
clashes were beaten up while police was standing by taking no action. The
leaders of the two main opposition parties, Stepan Demirchian and Artashes
Geghamian, announced that they would be organising demonstrations from 9
April onwards in order to force the government to resign, despite a number
of arrests of opposition supporters made by the authorities on 4 April.
– 6 April
The police confirmed that 48 opposition activists and supporters had been
arrested following an unauthorised demonstration on 4 or 5 April. It was
reported that, during this demonstration, some journalists had been attacked
by unknown persons, without the police intervening. The police chief
declared that the law enforcement agencies had been told to intervene only
in extreme cases.
The leaders of the three main opposition parties, Artashes Geghamian, Aram
Sargsian and Stepan Demirchian, during new demonstrations in Yerevan on 9
and 10 April, decided to call for President Kocharian’s resignation, on the
grounds that his re-election had been fraudulent and therefore unlawful.
They issued an ultimatum to the authorities, giving them until midday on 12
April to organise a referendum of confidence in Mr Kocharian.
– 9, 10 and 12 April
The organisers estimate that 30,000 people (60 of whom were arrested) took
part in the 9 April demonstrations, with 10,000 taking part on 10 April and
15,000 on 12 April.
– 13 April
At 2 am on 13 April, special police equipped with truncheons, water cannons
and tear gas grenades attacked between 2,000 and 3,000 demonstrators who
were attempting to march towards the presidential palace to call for the
resignation of the President, causing dozens of injuries. Security forces
brutally attacked several journalists reporting on the opposition rally.
The police then moved on to the headquarters of the National Accord Party,
the People’s Party of Armenia and Hanrapetitiun, destroying their offices
and arresting some members of these parties, including three MPs. Artashes
Geghamian and Aram Sargsian called for new demonstrations. President
Kocharian met the three leaders of the governing coalition parties and
expressed condemnation of the previous days’ opposition demonstrations and
support for the police action. He added that the authorities would use all
lawful means of preventing any more extremist demonstrations
Vahan Hovannisian (a member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation,
Dashnaktsutiun), Deputy Speaker of Parliament, said that the opposition had
overestimated its capacities and that its demands were of an extremist
nature. He pointed out that the three coalition parties had made an offer
the previous week to begin dialogue with the opposition.
At this time, Artashes Geghamian and Aram Sargsian were in hiding, fearing
arrest.
Stepan Demirchian rejected police claims that the demonstrators had used
violence against the police.
A spokesman for the US State Department, Richard Boucher, expressed the
United States’ concern about the acts of violence in Armenia, and urged the
two sides to engage in dialogue.
– 14 April
Artashes Geghamian, at a press conference in the parliament building, said
that the police had searched the National Unity Party headquarters and his
own flat, seizing documents and even family photographs. He added, with the
support of two members of the Artarutiun alliance, Albert Bazeyan and Viktor
Dallakian, that the opposition would continue to campaign for the
resignation of the country’s leadership.
At a meeting with members of Armenia’s United Communist Party, President
Kocharian called for dialogue with the opposition. Tigran Torosian and
Samvel Balasanian, members of the governing coalition, also proposed
dialogue, during a meeting with Artashes Geghamian, who rejected the offer.
Tigran Torosian added that a referendum of confidence in the President would
be both unlawful and unconstitutional.
The President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Schieder, and the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, Mr Schwimmer, expressed serious concern
about the violent events in Armenia.
At a meeting with Natalia Voutova, Special Representative of the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, the Prosecutor General, Mr Hovsepian, said
that the police had acted lawfully on 13 April.
5 April
The three parties of the governing coalition reiterated their offer of
dialogue, but the opposition leaders, Mr Demirchian, Mr Sargsian and Mr
Geghamian, rejected this proposal and voiced their intention of organising a
demonstration in Yerevan on 16 April.
1,000 people demonstrated in Yerevan against police brutality and the
arrests of 13 April. 115 people had been arrested on 13 April, including
three MPs who had subsequently been released. The police accused the former
Minister of Defence, Mr Harutiunian, who had been arrested on 13 April, of
disturbing public order and insulting officials.
– 16 April
A demonstration organised by the Artarutiun alliance and the National Accord
Party was attended by 6,000 people. Mr Demirchian told the demonstrators
that the police brutality of 13 April was a crime that could be neither
forgiven nor forgotten. Mr Sargsian added that the opposition would continue
to organise demonstrations until President Kocharian resigned.
– 19 April
In an interview with Russian daily Izvestia, Mr Kocharian described the
repeated opposition demonstrations as based on a “misunderstanding” and as a
“temporary phenomenon”, and said that Georgia’s “Revolution of Roses” could
not be reproduced in Armenia, whatever the opposition thought. He added: “I
do not understand the purpose of these demonstrations, when the opposition
is represented in Parliament and can work and prove to society its
effectiveness and its capacity to solve problems better than the President”.
– 20 April
Speaking to journalists, Mr Kocharian denied rumours that he was planning to
divert the attention of the opposition which was campaigning for his
resignation by dismissing his Prime Minister or dissolving Parliament and
calling new elections. The Prime Minister, Andranik Markarian, said that,
were he to be dismissed, he would join the opposition.
The United States Ambassador in Yerevan had separate meetings with Mr
Demirchian and Mr Geghamian. No information about these discussions is
available.
– 21 April
An estimated 20,000 people demonstrated to call for the resignation of
President Kocharian. Mr Sargsian called on the demonstrators to meet again
on 27 April for what he called a “decisive” demonstration. Mr Dallakian
summarised the opposition’s conditions for accepting the governing
coalition’s offer of dialogue: the release of all political prisoners, the
end of government “repression” against the opposition and the resignation of
the Minister of Defence and the Prosecutor-General.
– 22 April
The Venice Commission experts concluded that the draft law on the freedom of
assembly was not in conformity with European principles and standards.
4. Resolution 1361 (2004) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by
Armenia
In January 2004 the Assembly adopted its its second monitoring report since
the accession of Armenia to the Council of Europe in January 2001.
Resolution 1361, adopted on this occasion, takes note of some encouraging
developments that took place in the last two years – notably the
ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights which
formally abolished the death penalty However, the Resolution – as already
mentioned – sharply criticised the two elections carried out in 2003.
Moreover, it listed a number of serious concerns with regard to the
democratic and human rights conduct of the Armenian authorities and
expressed its expectations that these issues will be speedily dealt with in
accordance with Council of Europe standards and principles.
Regrettably, the reaction of the Armenian authorities in the events of March
and April this year demonstrate that the Assembly’s request for further
progress was ignored and that, with regard to some of the Assembly’s key
concerns, the situation has even worsened.
Administrative detention With regard to the scandalous and continued use of
administrative detention, Resolution 1361 urged the authorities to amend the
Administrative Code to put an end to this practice which is incompatible
with the organisation’s standards. The Assembly also asked the authorities
to submit this new draft to Council of Europe expertise by April 2004.
Instead of immediately ending this practice and preparing the necessary
legislative drafts to this effect, the Armenian authorities resorted to a
wide use of administrative detentions during the recent events. While it is
difficult to verify the exact number of persons who were arrested and the
legal basis used for their detention, most reports indicate that their
number was between two and three hundred.
The Assembly repeats its demand for an immediate end to the practice of
administrative detention. The Administrative Code must be revised without
any further delay.
Freedom of assembly
Resolution 1361 asked the Armernian authorities to immediately begin
examining the question of balance between the freedom of assembly and
respect for public order, and to adopt a law on demonstrations and public
meetings in full compliance with Council of Europe standards.
Regrettably, during the March and April events the authorities have
displayed a diametrically opposite attitude. Most of opposition demands for
authorisation of their meetings were turned down, reportedly for reasons
that cannot be deemed as justified in accordance with Council of Europe
standards and practice. According to Human Rights Watch, the opposition
demands were turned down because of the “detriment to the city’s economic
well being” or “blocking traffic”.
Moreover, a draft law on rallies and demonstrations, which is currently in
the Parliamentary procedure, was evaluated by the Venice Commission which
found that the restrictions to the freedom of assembly envisaged by the
draft law were too broad and limitative, giving the state authorities the
right to restrict freedom of assembly for reasons which are not permitted by
the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Assembly insists that the comments of the Venice Commission are fully
taken into account in the last reading of the law in the Armenian
parliament, and that the freedom of assembly is no longer restricted in the
manner which we have seen during the recent events.
The opposition, for its part, shares the responsibility to prevent violence
during their rallies.
Conditions of detention
In January, the Assembly asked Armenia to make further efforts to improve
conditions of detention, on the basis of recommendations formulated by the
Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
Regrettably, according to Human Rights Watch, several persons arrested
during the recent events were subjected to abuse during their detention by
the police. These allegations must be investigated, in a speedy, transparent
and credible manner, and if their veracity is confirmed, persons responsible
should be punished in accordance with the law. The Armenian authorities
should inform the Assembly, in the shortest delays, on the steps it has
taken to comply with this request. Freedom of expression and media
This is a long standing concern, also repeated in January. The situation has
hardly improved. The authorities continue to refuse to give the broadcasting
licence to the television channel A1+. Moreover, during the recent events
several journalists were severely beaten by unknown persons while police
were standing by, while others were assaulted and arrested by the security
forces themselves. Intimidation of the press through such a conduct will not
be tolerated. The lack of media freedom which made it very difficult to
obtain accurate information on the recent events was also mentioned in the
reaction of the Council of Europe’s Secretary General.
5. Conclusion
The recent events in Armenia resulted in a worsening of the situation with
regard to key concerns expressed by the Assembly in its January report, and
notably with regard to the continuation of administrative detention and
conditions of detention, human rights violations by members of police and
security forces, freedom of assembly, and freedom of media. This situation
cannot be allowed to continue. The rapporteurs expect an immediate and
significant change in the conduct and legislative practice concerning the
respect of Armenia’s obligations and commitments. Failure to do so before
the Assembly’s June session could lead to sanctions.
The opposition should enjoy full freedom to conduct their political
activities, which include the right to peaceful demonstrations. The
authorities should immediately abstain from any interference and
administrative and judicial harassment in this regard.
The fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly must be respected and
any restrictions must be in line with the European Convention on Human
Rights.
This being said, the opposition shares the responsibility for ensuring that
protests are not marred by violence. The parliament should be the main forum
for political arguments. They should not try to circumvent the political
institutions in the country with a hope to reverse the results of last year’
s elections which were, in spite of criticism, validated both at the
domestic level and by the international community.
The Assembly should not be drawn into accepting artificial analogies between
the situations in Georgia and in Armenia.
The Assembly should focus its efforts on ensuring full compliance with
Armenia’s commitments and obligations. Its January Resolution contains all
the necessary steps to bring about a qualitative change in the democratic
and human rights situation in the country.
The Armenian authorities must speedily implement the remaining commitments.
This would not only reduce the present political tensions (through a full
respect of democratic procedures, human rights and fundamental freedoms) but
also ensure that future elections in the country are carried out in full
compliance with international standards, and thus bring an end to the
endemic political instability in Armenia.
Both the authorities and the opposition should abstain from violence and do
their utmost to prevent further incidents. They should engage in a
meaningful political dialogue aimed at resolving the tensions and the
Assembly is ready to offer its good offices to this effect.
Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and
Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Reference to Committee:
Reference No. 2944 of 26 April 2004
Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the Committee on 27 April 2004
Members of the committee:
Mrs Durrieu (Chairperson),
Mr Frunda,
Mrs Tevdoradze,
Mrs Severinsen(Vice-Chairpersons),
Mrs Aguiar, Mr Akçam,
Mr Akhvlediani,
Mr B. Aliyev,
Mr André,
Mr Arzilli,
Mr Atkinson,
Mr Baska,
Mrs Bauer,
Mr Bernik,
Mrs Bilgehan,
Mr Bindig,
Mrs Bousakla,
Mr van den Brande,
Mr Budin,
Mrs Burbiene,
Mr Cabrnoch,
Mr M. Cavusoglu,
Mr Cekuolis,
Mr Christodoulides,
Mr Cilevics,
Mr Colombier,
Mr Debono Grech,
Mrs Delvaux-Stehres,
Mr Einarsson,
Mr Elo,
Mr Eörsi,
Mr Glesener,
Mr Gross,
Mr Grusenbauer,
Mr Hancock,
Mr Hedrich,
Mr Hegyi,
Mr Herkel,
Mr Holovaty,
Mrs Jäätteenmäki,
Mr Jakic,
Mr Jaskiernia,
Mr Jurgens,
Lord Kilclooney,
Mr Kirilov,
Mrs Konglevoll,
Mr Kvakkestad,
Mrs Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger,
Mr van der Linden,
Mr Lintner,
Mr Martínez Casañ,
Mr Marty,
Mr Medeiros Ferreira,
Mr Melcák,
Mr Mikkelsen,
Mr Mollazade,
Mr O’Keeffe,
Mr Olteanu,
Mr Pangalos,
Mrs Petrova-Mitevska,
Mrs Petursdottir,
Mr Prijmireanu,
Mr Rakhansky,
Mrs Ringstad,
Mr Rivolta,
Mr Rustamyan,
Mr Sasi,
Mrs Shakhtakhtinskaya,
Mr Shybko,
Mr Slutsky,
Mr Smorawinski,
Mr Soendergaard,
Mr Spindelegger,
Mrs Stoyanova,
Mr Surjan,
Mr Tepshi,
Mr Tkác,
Mr Vis,
Mrs Wohlwend,
Mr Yáñez Barnuevo,
Mr Zacchera.