Author: Chakhmakhchian Vatche

CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: THE EU’S ROLE

Reuters Alert, UK
May 24 2006

Source: Crisis Group

Georgia, Abkhazia, S. Ossetia

Tbilisi/Brussels, 20 March 2006: To guarantee its own security,
the EU must become more engaged in resolving the conflicts in the
South Caucasus lest they ignite into full-fledged wars in Europe’s
neighbourhood.

Conflict Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU’s Role,* the latest
report from the International Crisis Group, examines the EU’s efforts
to address tensions over Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
and points out how the EU can do more.

“Greater engagement is a challenge Brussels has only just begun
to address”, says Sabine Freizer, Crisis Group’s Caucasus Project
Director. “There have been a few promising steps, but there is a long
way to go”.

Thus far, others have taken the lead in promoting conflict settlement
in the region, but over a decade of negotiations led by the UN in
Abkhazia, and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) in Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia, have not produced
comprehensive peace agreements. With its reputation as an “honest
broker”, access to a range of soft and hard power tools, and the lure
of greater integration into Europe, the EU has a greater role to play,
and offers added value to compliment the UN and the OSCE.

To avoid instability on its borders, the EU seeks a ring of
well-governed countries around it. It is further interested in the
South Caucasus to ensure access to Caspian oil and gas, develop
transport and communication corridors between Europe and Asia, and
contain such threats as smuggling, trafficking and environmental
degradation.

As the EU is unlikely to offer membership to Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan any time soon, it must identify innovative means to
impose conditionality on its aid and exercise influence. European
Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans are being finalised. These offer
a chance for the EU to enhance its role especially if the peaceful
resolution of the conflicts are defined as commitments.

The new EU Special Representative should observe ongoing negotiations
for the Abkhazian, South Ossetian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts. The
Commission has allocated significant funding to rehabilitation in
South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It should assess how it can start doing
more in and around Nagorno-Karabakh.

“The EU is trying to define its role in a new neighbourhood which is
neither at war nor at peace”, says Nicholas Whyte, Director of Crisis
Group’s Europe Program. “If the EU fails to implement its strategic
vision for a secure neighbourhood, its credibility in the region, and
generally vis-a-vis Russia and the U.S., will suffer. More troublingly,
if the South Caucasus conflicts continue to deteriorate, the EU may
find itself unprepared for responding to wars among its neighbours”.

Contacts: Andrew Stroehlein (Brussels) +32 (0) 2 541 1635 Kimberly
Abbott (Washington) +1 202 785 1601 To contact Crisis Group media
please click here *Read the full Crisis Group report on our website:

————- ————————————————– ——

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Instability in the South Caucasus is a threat to European Union (EU)
security. Geographic proximity, energy resources, pipelines and the
challenges of international crime and trafficking make stability in
the region a clear EU interest. Yet, the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh,
Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts have the potential to ignite
into full-fledged wars in Europe’s neighbourhood. To guarantee its own
security, the EU should become more engaged in efforts to resolve the
three disputes. It can do so by strengthening the conflict resolution
dimension of the instruments it applies. As the EU is unlikely to offer
membership to Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan even in the medium term,
it must identify innovative means to impose conditionality on its aid
and demonstrate influence. This is a challenge that Brussels has only
begun to address.

Since 2003 the EU has become more of a security actor in the South
Caucasus, particularly in Georgia. It has appointed a Special
Representative for the South Caucasus, launched a European Security
and Defence Policy (ESDP) mission, and employed the Commission’s Rapid
Reaction Mechanism to support post “Rose Revolution” democratisation
processes. It has included Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in
the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and started Action Plan
negotiations due to end mid-2006. The Commission has allocated some
~@32 million for economic development confidence building programs in
Georgia, and it has cooperated closely with the UN and the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Nevertheless, the EU can do more to help resolve conflict in the
region, in particular through the Action Plans currently being
negotiated with each country. For the EU, these are a chance to
enhance and reposition itself in the South Caucasus if they can be
tied to conflict resolution and include specific democratisation,
governance and human rights benchmarks. For the region they may be
an opportunity to map out the reform process concretely. But there
is a long way to go. The EU’s relations are not strong with either
Azerbaijan or, to a lesser extent, Armenia. It does not participate
directly in negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia or South
Ossetia. In and around Nagorno-Karabakh, it has done little for
conflict resolution. It has rarely raised the South Caucasus conflicts
in its high-level discussions with partners and has employed few
sanctions or incentives to advance peace.

To become more effective, the EU must increase its political
visibility. Compared with Russia, the U.S., the UN and the OSCE,
its financial and political engagement in the region has been minimal.

However, as it gives more aid through new and old instruments, its
ability to provide incentives and apply conditionality should grow.

Compared with other actors, the EU can offer added value, with its
image as an “honest broker” free from traditional US/Russia rivalries;
access to a range of soft and hard-power tools; and the lure of
greater integration into Europe.

The arrival of a new Special Representative (EUSR) is an opportune
moment for the EU to strengthen its political presence. The EUSR should
try to become an observer in the three conflict negotiation forums. In
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where the Commission has already allocated
significant funding, efficient and well-targeted assistance can give
weight and credibility to the EU’s diplomatic and political efforts.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, rather then wait for an agreement on the
principles of resolution mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, the EU
should begin contingency planning to assist peace implementation now.

Sending military and civilian assessment missions to the region could
give new impetus to a negotiation process which seems to be dangerously
running out of steam. Whether or not a peace agreement is eventually
signed, the EU should be prepared to implement confidence building
programs or – in a worst case – to consider a range of options in
case of an outbreak of fighting. Otherwise, having remained out
of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent occupied districts for over a
decade, either war or peace will find it struggling to catch up in
its own neighbourhood.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the European Union and its Member States:

To increase the EU’s visibility and effectiveness as a political actor

1. Open fully-staffed European Commission Delegations in Baku and
Yerevan.

2. Strengthen the EUSR’s regional presence by at a minimum appointing
a EUSR political analyst in each of the three South Caucasus capitals.

3. Start a public awareness campaign in the region about the EU, its
values, institutions, programs and conflict resolution capabilities.

To take full advantage of the negotiating process for European
Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans

4. Define the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
as an Action Plan priority for Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the Plan
aimed specifically at ensuring that:

(a) Azerbaijan and Armenia should commit to resolving the conflict
through peaceful negotiations without delay, defining the principles of
an agreement as renunciation of the use of force to settle disputes;
incremental withdrawal of occupied districts; return of displaced
persons; opening of transport and trade routes; and determination of
the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a referendum;

(b) Armenia should pledge to encourage the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh
authorities to agree to a peace settlement according to the principles
defined above; and

(c) both states should commit to foster reconciliation, confidence
building and mutual understanding through governmental and
non-governmental channels.

5. Action Plan elements should include clear benchmarking to measure
progress in the development of genuine democracy, good governance,
respect for human rights, the rule of law and free and fair elections;
and the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring mechanism, whose
reports are made public.

6. Increase public ownership and awareness by engaging civil society in
Action Plan preparation and monitoring (particularly in Azerbaijan),
organising conferences, seminars, and media events, and strengthening
the involvement of parliaments and local authorities.

7. Coordinate with other bilateral and multilateral players to ensure
consistency between the Action Plans and the commitments made to the
Council of Europe (CoE), the OSCE, NATO and the UN.

To increase the impact of crisis management and conflict prevention
actions

8. Strengthen the capacity of Commission staff in the region to carry
out post-conflict rehabilitation by offering training in security
sector reform, mediation and reconciliation, confidence building,
and demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR).

9. Develop more initiatives focused on confidence building across
ceasefire lines and the soft side of conflict-resolution, such as
working with civil society, media, women, youth and former combatants,
and apply community participation to project planning, implementation,
monitoring and follow-up.

10. Increase engagement with non-recognized entities (Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh) and promote democratisation,
civil society development and the rule of law, not as recognition of
status but as a means to break their isolation, build confidence and
avoid exclusion from broad EU integration processes.

11. Promote European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
funding opportunities, especially in Azerbaijan, and develop an
interim mechanism to distribute funds to local civil society groups,
possibly through a member state embassy or the Europa House, before
an EU delegation opens in Baku.

12. Support new regional programs in particular for students, teachers,
professors and other professional groups including police, judges,
lawyers and journalists.

To prepare for an eventual Nagorno-Karabakh peace settlement and
encourage the parties to compromise

13. Seek agreement for the EUSR to participate in the OSCE Minsk
Group as an observer.

14. In the case of the Commission, carry out a needs assessment study
of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent occupied territories (including
places where IDPs have settled) even before a framework agreement
on the principles of a settlement is agreed between Azerbaijan and
Armenia.

15. In the case of the Council, request the Secretariat to develop
ESDP options in support of peace implementation, send assessment
missions in close cooperation with the OSCE and begin contingency
planning so as to prepare for:

(a) deployment of peacekeepers around Nagorno-Karabakh; and

(b) deployment of a civilian crisis management advisory team to
engage in DDR, security sector reform, mediation, political affairs,
human rights and media issues in and around Nagorno-Karabakh.

To support the peaceful resolution of the Georgian-South Ossetian
and Georgian-Abkhazian conflicts

16. Expand the Commission’s role in addressing the Georgian-South
Ossetian conflict and finance another tranche of aid to support
projects identified in the OSCE needs assessment.

17. Once Georgia passes the appropriate law and designates a budget
line for its implementation, make funding available to its new property
commission and property restitution fund.

18. Agree a Joint Action to provide financial support for the Joint
Control Commission (JCC) mechanism in April 2006.

19. Request the JCC and the parties to the Geneva process to invite
the EUSR to observe their meetings and activities.

20. Raise the Georgian-South Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhazia conflicts
at EU-Russia summits and other high-level dialogue forums.

21. Continue the border management assistance mission and facilitate
communication and cooperation between Georgian and Russian border
guards.

22. Agree a Joint Action to support a Georgian-South Ossetian Special
Coordination Centre and joint policing.

Tbilisi/Brussels, 20 March 2006

Full report at amp;rss=1

EXPERT: SOUTH CAUCASUS IS THE KEY OUTLET FOR THE US TO CENTRAL ASIA

Regnum, Russia
May 24 2006

“Paradoxical as this may seem, the possible force outcome of the
US-Iran relations is good for both the opponents and the supporters
of a military action against Iran,” Karabakh political scientist
David Babayan says to REGNUM.

He notes that both inside and outside the US there are people who
support and oppose it.

“Many people understand that Iran is geo-strategically important not
only for the Middle East but also for the leading actors in the world
arena. Due to its geographical situation and economic potential that
country is a key target of the US foreign policy. Iran is an immediate
neighbor of the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Iraq, the Persian Gulf. Without Iran, the US presence in those regions
will be problematic and expensive. That’s why the US simply needs
Iran as a partner,” says Babayan. He notes that Central Asia, the
South Caucasus and some other regions of the Middle and Central East
are quite vulnerable (there we have unstable Afghanistan and Kashmir)
and that Central Asia borders on Russia, who has quite strong positions
there. One cannot but consider China too, that borders on Central Asia,
Afghanistan and has close relations with Pakistan.

“Besides, today the key outlet for the US to Central Asia is the
South Caucasus, where there is no final stability either and where
Russia is also strong, especially economically. That’s why the West
needs a more stable way to Central Asia. The most reliable way seems
to be Iran. Iran has no borders with the US potential geo-political
rivals, it is stable, it has thousand-year-old culture and statehood
history. Besides, there is a very small possibility of expansionist
foreign policy in Iran, unlike Turkey, where officials now and then
appear with pan-Turkic statements. Even more, by gaining Iran over,
the US will make senseless the Central Asian and Middle East countries’
orientation towards its potential geo-political rivals – Russia and
China,” says Babayan.

If the US takes Iran in the sphere of its interests – by force or
by any other means – it will gain advantage not only in the region
but in the whole world and will hold this strategic initiative for
decades. “Although Iran has quite a strong military arsenal, in
quantity and quality it is not enough for rebuffing a well-organized
large-scale military operation; especially as before the operation –
if it is launched – the US will try to maximally damage Iran’s military
arsenal by massive air strikes. And if Iran acts like Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan or Iraq did – that is, if it continues deluding itself
that it can beat the Americans or NATO forces on its territory,
it is very much likely to be beaten itself,” says Babayan.

If the war still begins, it may well embrace the neighboring countries
too – something that will destabilize the whole region. “It is very
much possible that the conflicting sides will wage this war in an
asymmetrical way – that is, by holding force actions in their own
territories or the territories of their allies and, possibly, by using
radioactive matters. This is quite possible, especially as this is the
only way for Iran to hold out in the war or to prevent it at all,”
says Babayan. He notes that this is exactly what the opponents of
war can hope for – if the US fails in Iran – by losing the war or by
not starting it at all for fear of some unpredictable consequences –
it will have to review its foreign political strategy and, possibly,
to give up its military plans in other regions. “This will be a kind
of success for those outside the US, while for those inside it, this
will mean stability and hundreds, if not thousands, of saved lives
of American soldiers,” says Babayan.

ANDRANIK MARGARIAN: “ISSUE OF RPA WAS TO KEEP INDEPENDENCE, TO PRESERVE COUNTRY FROM INNERPOLITICAL PROBLEMS”

Noyan Tapan
May 24 2006

YEREVAN, MAY 24, NOYAN TAPAN. “It was important for me and our
party during those years to assist securing of the innerpolitical
stability in our newly-independent state and to strengthen the
state by developing the economy, to increase fighting ability of our
army year by year and to fasten security of the country,” RA Prime
Minister, Chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia Andranik
Margarian mentioned during the internet conference of the “Azg”
(nation) newspaper.

According to him, “we have lost numerous friends on the way to
independece, among them, during the years of the Soviet dictatorship,
and protection of that independence reached at too high price,
preserving the country from different intrigues and intriguers,
innerpolitical shocks has always been an important issue for us,
and our steps were addressed to that puprose.”

According to the RA Prime Minister, the Government today has a problem
to reduce the level of poverty in the country by developing the
economy, to create possibilities for a prosperous life. The Poverty
Overcoming Strategic long-term program has been worked out on that
purpose and has been in the process of implementation for already
many years. All the spheres are analysed in the program in details,
existing problems, ways of their solution are mentioned, and a schedule
is adopted which is being implemented at a rapid pace. It was mentioned
that the RA Government put a task at present to review the program
by the means of reducing the terms or increasing the indexes. “All
our main problems, anti-corruption struggle, reforms of the state
government system, improvement of the business and investment sphere,
etc., are summed up in the IPAP,” the RA Prime Minister emphasized.

Zaman, Turkey
May 20 2006

Armenian Genocide Bill Postponed; French Companies Relieved
By Economy News Desk
Published: Saturday, May 20, 2006
zaman.com

After French lawmakers dropped the bill that would criminalize denial
of the so-called Armenian Genocide, which nearly halted Paris-Ankara
relations, French companies in Turkey are relieved.

Representatives of the companies noted that agreements worth $14
billion escaped great danger, and expressed their pleasure at the
solution of the problem, even if only a temporary one. Les Echos, a
leading economy newspaper in France, wrote that postponement of the
bill provided a short respite, and added: `The French business
environment was taking the economic sanction threats of Turkey,
especially of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, very
seriously. This decision may also affect new investments. Almstom is
among the companies vying for the tender of the Marmaray Project, a
subway project planned to cost 815 million.’ With their recognition
of the so-called Armenian Genocide, France attempted to pass another
bill criminalizing the denial of the genocide. After the harsh
reaction of Turkey, the bill was suspended despite pressure from the
Armenian lobby in France.

Les Echos, underlining the commercial intensity between the two
countries, cites a probable boycott of French products would result
in major damage, and stresses that even just the thought caused alert
among big French companies such as Alstom, Accor or Danone.

The newspaper commented `the Armenian problem poisoned Turkish-French
relationships previously, too’ and made reference to the so-called
Armenian genocide the French Parliament confirmed in 2001. Les Echos,
recalling the angered call for a boycott by Ankara, wrote `The
economic crisis Turkey went through at that time may have reduced the
effect of the boycott, but the effects are real.’ The newspaper wrote
the French company Thales was excluded from the 120-million-euro
tender regarding the maintenance of F16s in 2001, and that French
companies lost the 260 million euro agreement about the manufacturing
and launching of satellites.

LEVON KHACHATRYAN APPOINTED RA AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY TO KYRGYZSTAN

ArmRadio.am
19.05.2006 16:42

According to Presidnet Kocharyan’s decree dated May 18, Eduard
Khurshudyan was dismissed form the position of RA Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Kyrgyzstan and RA Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Kazakhstan Levon Khachatryan
was appointed to the position.

According to another Presidential decree, Gagik Ghevondyan, Vahe
Danielyanm Yurik Poghosyan, Gagik Ananyan and Vanush Davtyan were
appointed members of the RA State Statistics Council.

ASSEMBLEE NATIONALE: GENOCIDE ARMENIEN: LA PROPOSITION DE LOI PS QUI EMBARRASSE

Charente Libre
18 mai 2006

Examinee ce matin, la proposition de penalisation du negationnisme
du genocide divise les elus et provoque des tensions entre la Turquie
et la France.

Les deputes examinent ce matin une proposition de loi socialiste
rendant passible d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 45.000EUR d’amende
la negation du genocide armenien de 1915. Le texte vise a completer
par un volet penal la loi de 2001 par laquelle la France reconnaît
le genocide armenien.

La proposition de loi ne devrait pas etre adoptee, une très large
majorite des deputes UMP y etant opposee. Une incertitude demeure
cependant et tout dependra du nombre de deputes presents en seance.

Des deputes UMP sont en effet favorables a ce texte et le groupe
leur a laisse la liberte de vote. En outre, deux propositions de
loi similaires d’elus UMP, ont ete deposees juste après le texte du
Parti socialiste, l’une d’Eric Raoult (Seine-Saint-Denis) et l’autre
de Richard Mallie (Bouches-du-Rhône) et Roland Blum (Bouches-du-Rhône).

Très mobilisee, la communaute d’origine armenienne, estimee a 500.000
personnes (80.000 dans la region de Lyon et autant dans la region de
Marseille), represente un electorat non negligeable.

Le negationnisme n’est sanctionne actuellement que s’il concerne
l’Holocauste. Cette specificite prive les victimes du genocide armenien
du respect de leur memoire et de leur identite que le negationnisme
remet en cause regulièrement, argumente le rapporteur PS du texte,
Christophe Masse. Il en veut pour preuve les evenements recents de
Lyon où l’inauguration, en avril, d’un memorial du genocide armenien
a entraîne des profanations et des manifestations pro-turques, avec
des slogans negationnistes.

L’UMP, echaudee par la recente polemique sur la colonisation, est
cependant opposee au texte. Le rôle de la loi n’est pas d’ecrire
l’histoire, a souligne le president de l’Assemblee nationale,
Jean-Louis Debre. Nous avons tous participe a un debat qui a conclu
a la necessite de ne plus legiferer sur les faits historiques, sur
leur interpretation, sur la memoire, a rencheri Bernard Accoyer (UMP).

A la suite d’un tolle chez les historiens, les defenseurs des droits
de l’Homme et dans les rangs de l’opposition, le gouvernement avait
dû faire supprimer l’article 4 de la loi du 23 fevrier 2005 sur le
rôle positif de la colonisation en Afrique du Nord. A droite comme a
gauche, beaucoup avaient alors convenu qu’il ne fallait pas legiferer
sur l’histoire.

L’initiative du PS ne fait pas non plus l’unanimite parmi les
socialistes. Le chef de file du groupe, Jean-Marc Ayrault, a fait
part de ses extremes reserves. Du côte des centristes, la position
est plus claire et selon Francois Rochebloine, qui sera leur orateur,
les deputes UDF devraient voter le texte.

La proposition crispe a nouveau les relations avec Ankara deja furieuse
de la reconnaissance du genocide armenien. La Turquie a rappele son
ambassadeur a Paris pour consultation en avertissant la France que
les relations bilaterales pourraient etre gravement affectees par
cette loi.

–Boundary_(ID_+TgSpVsAAzsmUJIVV9f4xw)–

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

VIDEO SCREENING IN THE CATHOLICOSATE OF CILICIA
“THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 90 YEARS LATER”

The Armenian Church University Students’ Association (HEHOM) organized a
screening of “The Armenian Genocide 90 Year Later” in cooperation with
“Aztag” Armenian Daily in the Catholicosate of Cilicia on the evening May
13. The video screened in the hall of the “Cilicia” museum was prepared by
the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies of Minnesota University.

Saro Kendirdjian from the Students’ Association delivered the opening
remarks of the event, stressing that the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian
Cause have become unifying factors for the entire Armenian nation to fight
against injustice. Kendirdjian added that the struggle for Armenian rights
has become the nation’s principal aim and highest value.

“The pursuit of the Armenian Cause has been the source of our nation’s
survival and eternity, it has been our sanctity, our spirit, our blood, our
identity and our pride,” Kendirdjian said. He pointed out that the Armenian
Cause progressed due to the efforts of Armenian unions and organizations and
entered into the hearts of each Armenian.

Highlighting the efforts of the students’ union in this context, Kendirdjian
described its main aim as gathering the Armenian youth under one concern,
that of justice, the realization of rights and national aims. He said these
efforts might have been incomplete without the support of the media and
thanked “Aztag” Daily for securing the video to be screened during the
event.

The English language documentary “The Armenian Genocide 90 Years Later” was
then screened for the first time in the Middle East. Stating that the
survivors of the Armenian Genocide revived their cause, the video featured
Armenian, foreign and Turkish academicians and their approaches on the
Armenian Genocide.

Among others, the video included appearances from Eric Weits (professor at
Minnesota University), Stephan Feinstein (Director of the university’s
Holocaust and Genocide Studies Center), professor Taner Akcam, Lou Ann
Matossian (daughter of Genocide survivor, lecturer and administrative
officer in the Kafsedjian Institute). It also featured descendants of
Armenian Genocide survivors.

Each of the academicians and speakers presented their views and knowledge on
the reasons behind the Armenian Genocide: the Turkish policy towards
minorities, the role and importance of Armenians in the regions which were
worrying factors for Turkey. Thus, Turkey preferred the annihilation of
Armenians and the islamisation of the region.

Foreign academicians referred to evidence of more than two million Armenians
living on the region and of their disappearance in a short period of time.
They stressed the existence of great evidence about the Armenian Genocide in
American and German archives, but pointed out that these remain concealed
because of political interests.

The professors assured that news about the Armenian Genocide filled the
pages of newspapers in 1915 along with news about the First World War.
Without playing with words, everybody wrote that collective massacres are
occurring in the deserts in Der Zor, that people are dying from fatigue,
torture and starvation.

Speaking about the Armenian Genocide, Taner Akcam considered it a crime
against humanity. He assured that it is not a crime executed by a couple of
criminals, but an inhumane act carried out by the aid of the Turkish
society, something Turks deny today still because psychologically they can’t
accept that their predecessors were criminals.

The speakers then talked about the role of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey’s
EU bid and the former Turkish laws that punished people referring to the
Armenian Genocide.

##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the youth
activities of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

EVEN IF ARMENIAN BILL PASSES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ENACT
By Ali Ihsan Aydin

Zaman Online, Turkey
May 17 2006

The bill, criminalizing denial of the Armenian genocide, will come
before the French National Assembly tomorrow (on Thursday).

The fate of the bill, prepared by the main opposition Socialist Party
(PS), is bound to the attitude of members of Union for Populist
Movement (UMP).

Armenian organizations declared a mobilization for convincing UMP
members, most of who are against the bill.

The government, under the auspices of President Jacques Chirac,
can drop the bill from agenda and slow the process down.

Such a move would make it difficult for the bill to be enacted even if
it gets approval from parliament. The first step is a voting session
that will be held tomorrow prior to an examination of the bill.

If a decision to discuss the bill emerges from the vote, all eyes
will then be turned to the Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre.

Debre, who is opposed to the bill, might extend the session and drop
the bill from the agenda.

Zaman examined the process that the French Assembly will follow in
discussing the bill.

It is reported that the bill’s voting has started to transform into a
“prestige struggle” between President Chirac, who is opposed to the
bill, and UMP leader Nicholas Sarkozy who supports it.

The bill prepared by the main opposition Socialist Party (SP) needs
to pass the commission in order to reach parliament.

Last month, the SP decided to bring the bill to parliament by using its
“right to determine the agenda” given to French parties in proportion
to the number of deputies.

The law proposals, which come to the parliament’s agenda in this
way, can reach the general assembly even if they are rejected in
the commissions.

The Legal Affairs Commission had rejected the bill without examining
its articles last week.

The bill will be discussed in the morning session when the PS is
given priority and exercise their “right to determine the agenda”.

The government will also reveal its opinion about the bill.

Then, the Assembly Speaker will hold a preliminary voting session
since the bill was rejected by the Legal Affairs Commission before
passing to a discussion of the bill.

In the voting session, deputies will be asked whether to “examine
the agenda or not?”

If the essential majority cannot be achieved for a discussion of the
bill, the proposal will be dropped from the agenda.

This voting is a critical threshold for the future of the bill.

The draft will be negotiated in case of an “investigation” result in
the pre-election.

The voting is scheduled for the morning session because the “niche”
right has a time limit.

The government will again have the right to determine the agenda in
the afternoon session.

The draft would be off the agenda if the investigation or voting is
delayed to the second session.

Sources, sharing their assessments with Zaman on the process, said
the French Parliament has tapped the Speaker of the Parliament,
Jean-Louis Debre, at this point.

Citing it is rare for the speaker of parliament to lead the general
assembly, in which motions raised by the opposition are discussed;
experts regard Debre’s decision to lead the session tomorrow as
“reasonable and strategic.”

Debre, who has voiced his opposition of the draft, could in theory
drop the bill by delaying the voting to the second session.

Noting Debre’s sympathy for French President Jacques Chirac and his
supportive view Turkey, sources predict there is a high probability
of this.

The ballot of the majority of the current members of parliament is
required for the proposal to be passed from the parliament.

There were nearly 30 representatives in the general assembly when
the “genocide” law was voted in 2001. The high participation rate
of the representatives will decrease the chance of the proposal to
pass tomorrow.

Meanwhile, UMP has 364 members while PS has 150 in the 577-seat
French Parliament.

Senate is also a Powerful Obstacle

If parliament passes the draft bill, the bill needs to wait for the
senate’s approval.

Parliamentary experts say the “niche” right in parliament will not
be effective in the Senate and the bill will have to wait the same
as any regular agenda item decided by the government.

It means the bill can only be discussed in the general assembly if
the government approves it.

On the other hand, the bill must to be ratified by the Senate in the
same way the parliament did.

A bill is sent to the parliament to be examined even when a proposal
of a small amendment regarding the text is approved. This process
can take some time.

The opposition Socialist Party (PS), which passed the so-called
genocide bill using the support of the “niche” during its ruling
period in 1998, faced the same Senate obstacle.

When the Senate did not put the bill suggesting “France openly
recognizes the 1915 Armenian genocide” on the agenda, a group of
senators presented a new proposal to the Senate with the same clause
and requested an “urgent discussion.”

The bill was approved by this method and sent to parliament again,
however, it was not approved until 2001.

The president’s approval is required to implement the bill if it is
passed by the senate.

French President Jacques Chirac has the right to send the bill back
to parliament.

Parliamentary sources and experts stress that the conditions in France
now are much different than those in 2001 and the chance that the
bill will become a law is not not high because of the government’s
opposition.

SENATORS SARBANES AND BOXER QUESTION US AMBASSADOR DESIGNATE TO AZERBAIJAN

ArmRadio.am
18.05.2006 14:30

US Ambassador Designate to Azerbaijan Anne Derse responded to questions
by Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Paul Sarbanes on a series
of US policy concerns focusing on Azerbaijan’s belligerent attitude
toward Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh, as well as the Administration’s
budget request, which would break military assistance parity to Armenia
and Azerbaijan, reported the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA).

In response to a question by Senator Sarbanes expressing concern about
the Bush Administration’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget request which would
provide over 40% more military assistance to Azerbaijan than Armenia,
Ambassador Designate Derse defended the decision, stating that “we
do not believe that the slight differences in military assistance
. . . undermine prospects for peace or send the wrong message.”

In response to Senator Sarbanes’ question on efforts toward regional
economic integration in the Caucasus, Derse noted that the “opening
of the border between Turkey and Armenia would contribute to the
economies of both countries,” but made no reference to the 18-year
Azerbaijani blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. Derse did,
however, make specific mention of recent efforts to build a railway
line connecting Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, stating “because the
proposed railway would bypass Armenia, and thus not be beneficial
to regional integration, we have no plans to support such a railway
financially.

Derse noted that “the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter
of negotiations between the parties.” She stressed that both the
Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have been forewarned that “any
attempt at a military solution to the conflict would only deepen its
tragic impact.”

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:

PRESS RELEASE
May 17, 2006
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

SENATORS SARBANES AND BOXER QUESTION U.S. AMBASSADOR DESIGNATE TO
AZERBAIJAN ON DESTRUCTION OF HISTORIC DJULFA CEMETERY; MISGUIDED
EFFORT TO BREAK MILITARY AID PARITY

— Ambassador Designate Anne Derse Pledges No U.S. Financial
Support for Railway Bypassing Armenia; Defends Administration Call
to Break Military Aid Parity

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Ambassador Designate to Azerbaijan Anne Derse
responded to questions by Senate Foreign Relations Committee member
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), today, on a series of U.S. policy concerns
focusing on Azerbaijan’s belligerent attitude toward Armenia and
Nagorno Karabagh, as well as the Administration’s budget request,
which would break military assistance parity to Armenia and
Azerbaijan, reported the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA). Senators Sarbanes and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had submitted
the questions during the May 12th Senate Foreign Relations Committee
confirmation hearing, led by Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).

In response to a question by Sen. Sarbanes expressing concern about
the Bush Administration’s FY 2007 budget request which would
provide over 40% more military assistance to Azerbaijan than
Armenia, Ambassador Designate Derse defended the decision, stating
that “we do not believe that the slight differences in military
assistance . . . undermine prospects for peace or send the wrong
message.”

Derse was echoing a similar response by Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice, again to a question by Sen. Sarbanes at a Senate
hearing in February 2006. Secretary Rice had noted that “the minor
increase in FMF [Foreign Military Finance] for Azerbaijan as
proposed in the President’s budget request in January does not
signal any change in the U.S. position on Nagorno-Karabakh.”

Sen. Boxer specifically questioned Derse about the U.S. response to
the Azerbaijani destruction of the historic Armenian cemetery of
Djulfa in the Azerbaijani controlled region of Nakhichevan.
Azerbaijani soldiers decimated the cemetery, which included
thousands of cross-stone carvings, known as “khatchkars,” in
December 2005. The ANCA had urged U.S. Ambassador Reno Harnish to
visit the site and investigate the demolition. Sen. Boxer asked if
Derse would “visit the cemetery site and commit yourself to
investigating the demolition of this unique cemetery.” Derse has
yet to submit a response to Senator Boxer’s inquiries.

“We would like to thank Senators Sarbanes and Boxer for raising key
concerns about the destruction of Djulfa and military parity
agreement with Ambassador Designate Derse,” stated ANCA Executive
Director Aram Hamparian. “We remain troubled by the
Administration’s retreat from its 2001 agreement to maintain
military aid parity and are hopeful the Congressional appropriators
will honor this agreement to ensure military aid balance to the
region.” The House Foreign Operations Subcommittee is set to
discuss the issue during their mark-up of the FY 2007 foreign aid
bill scheduled for this Friday, May 19th.

In response to Sen. Sarbanes’ question on efforts toward regional
economic integration in the Caucasus, Derse noted that the “opening
of the border between Turkey and Armenia would contribute to the
economies of both countries,” but made no reference to the 18-year
Azerbaijani blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. Derse did,
however, make specific mention of recent efforts to build a railway
line connecting Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, stating “because
the proposed railway would bypass Armenia, and thus not be
beneficial to regional integration, we have no plans to support
such a railway financially.” Legislation restricting U.S. aid to
the railway project due to the exclusion of Armenia has been
introduced by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Robert Menendez (D-
NJ) and has the support of Senate Deputy Majority Whip Wayne Allard
(R-CO). Similar legislation in the House has been introduce by
Reps. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and George
Radanovich (R-CA) and currently has 82 cosponsors.

In her response, Derse reiterated the State Department’s support
for “the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan” and noted, “the
future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of negotiations
between the parties.” She stressed that both the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan have been forewarned that “any attempt at a
military solution to the conflict would only deepen its tragic
impact.”

During the hearing, Chairman Lugar, who has visited the Caucasus
and met with former Azerbaijani President Geydar Aliyev, expressed
concerns about democracy in Azerbaijan and transparency associated
with the large influx of oil-wealth into that country. Derse
responded that “promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights is
indeed a top priority in our relationship with Azerbaijan,” and
went on to express a commitment to “working to promote transparent
and accountable government, an independent judiciary and parliament
— promotion of basic freedoms, including religious freedom and
freedom of assembly.”

Anne Derse is a Foreign Service Officer with more than a quarter
century of experience. She most recently served as Director for
Biodefense Policy at the Homeland Security Council. Her prior
postings have included service as Minister Counselor for Economic
Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and at the U.S. Mission to the
European Union. Ms. Derse also has held posts in the Philippines,
South Korea, Belgium, and Singapore, among other locations.

The complete text of Sen. Sarbanes’ questions and Derse’s responses
are provided below.

#####

Questions for the Record Submitted to
Ambassador-Designate Anne Derse
By Senator Paul Sarbanes
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
May 12, 2006

Question:

What steps will you take in response to President Aliyev’s
increasingly belligerent rhetoric and actions, such as his threats
to restart the war against Nagorno-Karabakh, his call for a return
of Nagorno-Karabakh “no matter what it takes,” and his proposals
for vast increases in military spending? What impact do you
believe such actions will have on the prospects for a negotiated
settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh?

Answer:

We support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and hold that
the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation
between the parties. Despite promising indications at present,
both Armenia and Azerbaijan have much to do to prepare their
publics for the compromises any just agreement will entail. We
have told the presidents of both countries that any attempt at a
military solution to the conflict would only deepen its tragic
impact.

Although the Rambouillet meeting between the two presidents marked
a temporary stall in negotiations, the process has gained momentum
again with a series of individual visits by the Minsk Group Co-
Chairs to the region. An agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh is within
the grasp of the two presidents now. We believe that 2006 is the
best window of opportunity for Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian to
come to a mutually agreeable solution that will provide the basis
for a lasting peace between their two countries. This will require
acts of political courage by each president as they prepare their
respective publics for a peace settlement. We hope the presidents
will seize the opportunity to reach a peaceful settlement of the
conflict soon so that the important work of post-conflict
reconstruction and stabilization can begin.

If confirmed, I plan to continue to work toward a settlement, along
with my colleagues at the Department of State.

========================================== =======================
Question:

Despite U.S. and international calls for regional cooperation and
economic integration, Turkey and Azerbaijan continue their illegal
decade-long blockade of land-locked Armenia. Azerbaijan and Turkey
are now escalating this policy of isolation by planning to build a
railroad line to connect Turkey and Azerbaijan, excluding Armenia.

There is currently legislation pending that would prevent any U.S.
financing of the approximately $800 million venture. Do you intend
to raise concerns about the railway? What steps will you take to
end Azerbaijan’s blockade of Armenia?

Answer:

The U.S. Government strongly encourages regional integration in the
Caucasus. Removing trade barriers would improve regional
integration and enhance economic cooperation and development within
and beyond the region. Regional integration should, of course,
include all countries of the region. We have long believed that
opening the border between Turkey and Armenia would contribute to
the economies of both countries and to such important broader areas
as energy security for Europe and Eurasia.

Because the proposed railway would bypass Armenia, and thus not be
beneficial to regional integration, we have no plans to support
such a railway financially. If confirmed, I will strongly support
the Administration’s efforts to pursue regional integration for all
countries in the region.

========================================= ========================
Question:

In the aftermath of September 11th, Congress granted the President
limited and conditional authority to waive Section 907 of the
Freedom Support Act, with the understanding that the administration
would ensure military parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
However, in this year’s budget, the President requested over $1
million more in military aid for Azerbaijan than for Armenia. On
what basis has the administration decided to depart from its
previous commitment to provide equal amounts of military assistance
for Armenia and Azerbaijan?

Answer:

It is U.S. policy to ensure that our security assistance to Armenia
and Azerbaijan does not affect the military balance between the two
states, but it is not the Administration’s view that military
funding levels for Armenia and Azerbaijan should be identical. As
Secretary Rice said recently in testimony before the House Foreign
Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations, we believe slight
differences in military assistance can be tolerated between Armenia
and Azerbaijan. The waiver of Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support
Act every year since 2002 has allowed us to provide military
assistance that enhances Azerbaijan’s interoperability with NATO
and U.S. forces and furthers U.S. peacekeeping objectives, as well
as assistance aimed at advancing democratic and market economic
reform. Assistance to Armenia for similar purposes requires no
waiver.

As a Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, our goal is to help Armenia
and Azerbaijan achieve a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict. Military assistance to both countries in light
of that ongoing conflict is carefully considered and calibrated to
ensure that it does not hamper ongoing efforts to negotiate a
peaceful settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Progress is being made in the negotiation process and we continue
to view 2006 as the best window for the sides to reach an
agreement. At the same time, we are strongly urging the presidents
to prepare their publics for peace. We do not believe that the
slight differences in military assistance in the FY 2007 budget
request undermine prospects for peace or send the wrong message.

======================================== =========================
Question:

Do you believe that Azerbaijan deserved to be elected to the UN
Human Rights Council? How did the U.S. vote on Azerbaijan’s
candidacy? What steps will you take to improve respect for human
rights in Azerbaijan?

Answer:

The vote of the United States on these issues is always
confidential. We stand ready to work with all the new members of
the UN Human Rights Council. We will urge Azerbaijan will use this
opportunity to fulfill its commitments to make real progress on
advancing democracy and improve fundamental respect for human
rights both domestically and throughout the world. If confirmed, I
will continue to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to fulfill its
own human rights commitments, and will look for opportunities to
advance this effort through diplomacy, programs, and other
measures.