Author: Chilingarian Babken

Hard to break out of the stereotype: While some fit the mould, others try to do more
by Lowell Ullrich, The Province

The Vancouver Province (British Columbia)
July 20, 2005 Wednesday
Final Edition

Maybe it’s all the fault of Garo Yepremian.

He was the soccer-style Armenian field goal kicker with the NFL’s
Miami Dolphins, who was built like George Costanza and specialized
in making men’s ties.

If football was looking to redefine the typical kicker in the 1970s,
Yepremian didn’t do much to shape the image of his colleagues when
he awkwardly tried to throw a pass in Super Bowl VII off a blocked
field-goal attempt against the Washington Redskins.

Kickers have lived with that stereotype ever since. In the social
hierarchy of most teams, these guys have virtually no status. They are
dismissed by teammates because they are not real athletes, but flakes.

Fair or not, it’s a perception that isn’t changing quickly.

The Lions’ last game against the Toronto Argonauts featured two
kickers who take completely opposite approaches to the job.

Noel Prefontaine set out to change the image of a kicker, then allowed
it to define him. The Toronto kicker/punter is fearless when it comes
to throwing his body at a special teams defenders on kickoffs.

Duncan O’Mahony could care less how fans see him. The Lions specialist
knows his job is to win games when they are on the line, and says he
doesn’t do his team any good if he’s injured trying to make a tackle.

Which approach is best?

Off a recent incident, in which Prefontaine was punched by teammate
Robert Baker on the sidelines, O’Mahony seems to be a leg up.

Baker was incensed, in part, because it was a kicker who engaged him
when he was upset, which caused Prefontaine to alter his outlook.

“Some moulds you can’t break,” Prefontaine told a small group of
reporters. “Out of three people standing here I might change the
opinion of one of you but two are still against me. That’s life. You
don’t get everybody on your side.”

But not everyone feels every book can be judged by its cover.

“It’s lazy journalism and convenient to attach the kicker label to
every kicker,” Toronto coach Mike Clemons said.

Lions coach Wally Buono wouldn’t dream of asking his kicker to make
a tackle, even though O’Mahony made one on his own when he nudged
Bashir Levingston out of bounds last week.

Nor is O’Mahony making an effort to alter prevailing public opinion.

“I sit around in practice. I kick a few balls. I go home. I’m not
beat up. [Other players] beat their bodies up,” he said.

“But when the games are on the line it’s a whole different mental
approach. When we went to the Grey Cup last year too many guys were
like, ‘You may be a kicker but I wouldn’t want to be out there kicking
the winning field goal.’ Well, I don’t want to be out there pounding
my body all game long.”

O’Mahony accepts that any mistake, such as his two misses against
Toronto, means he’s instant fodder for talk-show radio. That said,
Buono made the unsolicited observation that his icy approach with
some media members might aid in shaping his reputation.

“I don’t know how well liked Duncan is,” Buono said.

So Prefontaine will keep trying to make a tackle, and O’Mahony will
likely keep his thoughts to himself the day he sees his colleague
injured.

“I gave up trying to change people’s opinions years ago. It’s a waste
of your energy,” O’Mahony said.

“I know only one way to play. It’s like telling a duck not to swim,”
Prefontaine said. “But regardless of what I’ve done, I’m still
a kicker.”

Blame Garo.

MEHDI SAFARI AND ARMEN MOVSESIAN HIGHLY ASSESSED IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT ENERGY PROJECTS

PanArmenian News Network
July 20 2005

20.07.2005 04:07

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Iranian Special Envoy for Caspian Affairs Mehdi
Safari met Tuesday in Yerevan with Armenian Energy Minister Armen
Movsesian. As reported by Irna news agency, the parties discussed
prospects of the energy cooperation and the development of the
Iran-Armenia multisided and mutually beneficial collaboration. They
also highly assessed implementation of joint energy projects.

TURKEY, AZERBAIJAN: COUNTRIES WITH COMMON HISTORICAL ROOTS
[July 20, 2005, 20:18:40]

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 20 2005

Defense minister of Turkey Vecdi Konul, now visiting Azerbaijan,
has come to revere memory of the great son of the Turkic world Heydar
Aliyev at the park before the Heydar Aliyev Palace on 20th July. He
laid flowers on the monument of the founder and architect of the
independent Azerbaijan state.

The Minister has visited the Alley of Martyrs and laid wreath on the
graves of the courageous sons and daughters of Azerbaijan who fell
for territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country.

On the same day, ceremony of official welcoming of the Turkish defense
minister was held at the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan.

Defense minister of Azerbaijan, colonel-general Safar Abiyev welcomed
the guests, and spoke of close relations between fraternal countries,
strategic interests of both states.

The Minister expressed confidence on closer cooperation and in the
frame of NATO arrangements.

Mr. Vecdi Konul thanked for warm greetings and extended his love to
the staff of the Azerbaijan Army and the people of Azerbaijan. “The
Turkish-Azerbaijani relations come from the ancient times. These
relations had become consecutive and irreversible after regaining by
Azerbaijan state independence”, he underscored.

The sides had wide exchange of views on the current
military-political situation in the Black Sea basin, on settlement of
the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the US-Azerbaijan
ties, admission of Turkey to the European Union and other questions.

Ambassador of Turkey Turan Morali was present at the meeting.

Richard Kalinoski’s Beast on the Moon to Close on July 24
by Broadway.com Staff

Broadway.com, NY
July 18 2005

Richard Kalinoski’s Beast on the Moon will play its final performance
on July 24. At the time it closes, the drama will have played 120
performances at the Century Center for the Performing Arts, according
to a production spokesperson.

Beast on the Moon tells the story of a young couple, survivors of
the Armenian genocide, as they embark on marriage and a new life in
America in the years following the Great War. The show stars Omar
Metwally, Lena Georgas, Frank Biancamano and Louis Anthony Dilan.

Beast on the Moon, directed by Larry Moss, opened off-Broadway on April
27 to mixed to negative reviews. In his Broadway.com Review of the
piece, Ron Lasko wrote: “The entire play is narrated by a character
identified only as Gentleman, who adds little to the overall play
beyond explaining a bit of history to the audience. In fact, every time
the narrator makes an appearance it brings the drama to a screeching
halt. It is surprising that a commercial producer would foot the bill
for a superfluous actor… There is a lot of great writing in Beast
on the Moon. Playwright Richard Kalinoski has a real gift for smooth,
natural dialogue. Unfortunately, he also telegraphs every moment of the
play. The audience is often left waiting for the characters to catch up
with what we have already figured out. The play tends to oversimplify
what could probably be a psychologically complex look at how people
deal with grief and moving forward after inexplicable violence.”

Iran to Deliver a Missile Blow to Azerbaijan
By Asim Oku, AIA Turkish and Caucasian section

Axis Information and Analysis
29.06.2005

In case of Baku’s consent to the accommodation of American military
bases in the republic, Iran plans to deliver a preventive missile
strike on the territory of Azerbaijan, Jelal Muhammedi, a confidant
of the new Iranian leader, said in his interview to the Azerbaijan
newspaper, Mirror. Muhammedi, being an ethnic Azerbaijanian, in the
past held the post of editor-in-chief of the Iranian periodical,
“Misag” (Tabriz), and is known for his close connections with
authorities. During the elections, he actively supported Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. The new president of Iran worked in the local authorities
of Iranian Azerbaijan in the 1990s. At that time he got acquainted
with one of the most outstanding journalists of this region,
Muhammedi. Jelal, at that time played and today continues to play
a rather active role in the formation of Iranian policy concerning
Azerbaijan. Especially, he has proved himself adept at secret relations
between Tehran and the representatives of the intellectual elite of
Baku, and, primarily, with journalists.

It is highly probable that after Ahmadinejad’s election, Muhammedi
may become one of the key figures in formulating Tehran’s policy
towards Azerbaijan. Muhammedi claims that a sharp deterioration of
Iran-Azerbaijan attitudes may occur in the near future for two reasons:
accommodation of the US military bases in Azerbaijan and support by
Baku of separatist moods in Iranian Azerbaijan.

Muhammedi emphasized that in both cases Tehran is capable of taking
not only adequate reciprocal measures, but also may be drawn to
actions of a preventive character.

En Route to Baku

What might be the Iranian reaction to Ilham Aliev’s consent
to place a US military contingent in the republic was mentioned
above. Speaking about the destructive consequences of a missile blow,
Muhammedi suggested imagining “how Baku will look after two missiles
strike the area”. He has no doubt that the missiles will reach their
target in case of the conflict, and such confidence is not baseless
at all. Tehran’s military is much stronger then Baku’s on each and
every parameter. An extensive missile arsenal and several hundreds
of warplanes allow Iran to deal a blazing air blow on the large cities
of Azerbaijan.

A common border, and the complete lack of any efficient system of
antimissile and antiaircraft defense of the Azerbaijan army eases
this task substantially. Moreover, judging by the equipment, staff,
and level of preparation, the Air Forces of the Azeri republic are
incapable of withstanding the Iranians. The common 611 km long border,
allows Iran to subject the southern areas of Azerbaijan to massive
artillery bombardments.

In case of escalation of the conflict up to ground forces collisions,
Baku also has no chance to resist. By the numbers, the Iranian Army
and Pasdaran (not even counting the National Guard – Basij Resistance
Forces) considerably surpass the Azerbaijanian armed forces (more
than 900 thousand Iranian soldiers against 72 thousand Azeri). Also,
Iranians are equipped much better technically then Azerbaijanians. The
supreme command structure of the Iranian Army and Pasdaran has
a rich operative experience acquired in the war with Iraq. As for
Azerbaijanian officers, they proved themselves inadequate during the
conflict with Armenia at the beginning of the nineties.

The strategic arrangement of forces in the Southern Caucasus and around
the Caspian Sea also is adverse for Baku. Aliev has no close ally with
appreciable military potential in the region. But Tehran holds close
relations with Armenia. In case the conflict breaks out, Tehran can
be expected to grip Azerbaijan in a “vise ” from the Southeastern,
Southwestern and Western directions. Yerevan does not have to conduct
any military actions; it is enough to increase the concentration of
its armies on the Azerbaijan border.

Counting upon the above listed strategic factors, experts on the
Caucasus consider that given several days, the Iranians would manage
not only to suppress the resistance of the Azerbaijan army completely,
but also reach the capital of the republic. However, any such scenarios
are purely theoretical. Baku, certainly, concedes to Tehran on every
issue and parameter, but is protected by Ankara and Washington. Even
if Iran would decide to strike Azerbaijan (which is improbable) the
Americans would instantly interfere in the course of events. Though
the leadership of the Azeri republic constantly increases its military
expenditure (by the official data from about $74 million in 1997 up to
$300 million in 2005) the true and only guarantor of Baku’s security
and safety is the United States. Accordingly, any “preventive measures”
by Tehran may only provoke the Iranian-American conflict, which in
turn is fraught with the most unpredictable consequences, not only
for its participants, but also for the countries of the Caucasus,
Central Asia and the Middle East.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
July 14, 2005, Thursday

LOOKING FOR THE ENEMY

SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, July 14, 2005, p. 4

by Nikolai Poroskov

The political demarche of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has
forced NATO to change tactics. Earlier this month, Shanghai
Cooperation Organization members and observers expressed support for
Uzbekistan in its demand for NATO to withdraw its bases from Central
Asia. Moreover, they also asked the Alliance to set a timeframe for
the withdrawal. Implementation of decisions made at the NATO summit
in Istanbul last year, when a sizeable part of Central Asia and the
Caucasus were branded as a NATO strategic interests zone, was
therefore jeopardized.

It stands to reason to expect NATO to concentrate on the Caucasus
now. Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, Vice President of the
Geopolitical Academy, maintains that as soon as the Russian military
bases are expelled from Georgia and then Armenia, NATO will
immediately move in with its tactical bases with the necessary
infrastructure and personnel ready to receive major forces airlifted
there in the matter of hours. Efforts are undertaken to have a new
alliance (Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan) formed. As far as Ivashov is
concerned, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan is being put under
pressure to make three airfields available to the Americans.

What really counts, however, is that NATO is bound to concentrate on
Ukraine whose political establishment longs for integration into
Europe. Back in 2002, the Rada passed a resolution (which amounts to
a law) making all of the territory of Ukraine available for
deployment of NATO troops with heavy military hardware. The Greater
Black Sea Zone NATO Program is quite explicit on how naval bases,
coast infrastructure, etc. should be acquainted and familiarized
with. All this worries patriotic Russian politicians and political
scientists. They believe that the new course of the Ukrainian
authorities may eventually split the country into three parts whose
borders will be defined by the West-East confrontation and
instability of the Crimea. “Even if Ukraine is ever admitted into
Europe, it will only be part by part,” Ivashov claims. In any case,
the situation in Ukraine may make presence of the Russian Black Sea
Fleet there impossible. Even though it is supposed to remain there
until 2017. Still, NATO doors will be closed for Ukraine while it has
the Russian fleet on its territory.

Now that the West is blamed for orchestration of color revolutions
and that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization pulled off the latest
demarche, Russian politicians regularly recall the episodes when the
Alliance proved itself an unreliable partner or did not keep its
promise. Russia insisted on amendment of the Russia-NATO Pact so that
it would include the provision that nuclear weapons would never be
deployed on the territories of new NATO countries. The Alliance,
however, only gave the consent to a vague provision mentioning “the
lack of intentions” and would not become more specific. It is clear
now that not even interaction with the Alliance in the war on
terrorism is effective. “Show at least one arrested criminal, why
don’t you?” Ivashov says. “There is no one to show. How can it be
anything else when 85% of interaction with the Alliance boils down to
combat readiness drills…” That is what makes interaction with NATO
a waste of time and effort that doesn’t augment anyone’s security.

The Alliance is accused of “conceptual aggressiveness.” This
assumption is reiterated by the words of NATO Secretary General Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer at the meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe on the eve of his visit to Moscow. NATO exists to
protect and advance democracy, even by military means if need be, he
said. Even the necessity of joint military exercises is questioned.
Once again, history is referred to. Back in 1998 and 1999, NATO
leaders spared neither time nor effort to persuade the Kremlin that
military exercises around the former Yugoslavia would not escalate
into hostilities. Besides, NATO forces involved in Exercise Baltops
were supposed to detect and destroy a terrorist submarine. Whose
submarines but Russia’s can ever be in the Baltic Sea?

By the way, Russia doesn’t participate in Exercise Peace Shield 2005
that began yesterday. About 750 servicemen from 22 countries are
involved. The legend of the first phase of the exercise is based on
the actual military-political situation in Iraq. On July 25, the
exercise will shift to the Crimea.

Sure, every military exercise emulates a situation that might take
shape in real life. Peace Shield exercises of the past were clearly
anti-Russian. Here is an example of the scenarios: widespread riots
begin in the Crimea, and a foreign power gives aid to the
Russian-speaking population. It isn’t hard to guess that the foreign
power could only be Russia… This time, the objectives of an
“international peacekeeping operation” will be drilled in the naval
part of the exercise. That is probably why Russia has opted not to
participate. Or perhaps the situation in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization became the guiding motive.

There are, however, people in Russia who view the “alliance with the
Alliance” from a different angle. Alexander Konovalov, head of the
Strategic Evaluations Institute, believes that the worst possible
thing happened to NATO: NATO has found itself without a mission and
without an adversary. NATO is frantically seeking some other form of
self-definition. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been effective so far in
the war on WMD proliferation, terrorism, drug trafficking, or illegal
immigration. Even the Americans admit that NATO is really a burden,
with little to show for the trouble. Article 5 of the Washington
Accord (aggression against one NATO country means aggression against
all) doesn’t work. Konovalov maintains that NATO countries are not
prepared for joint defense of the Baltic states. Flights of patrol
aircraft above the Baltic states are but a PR move, a purely
political gesture. Whatever the aircraft observe can as easily be
observed on flights from Norwegian airfields.

The eastward movement of NATO bases is attributed to purely financial
considerations. Maintaining them in Poland or Bulgaria is much
cheaper than maintaining them in Germany. Konovalov’s conclusions:
NATO doesn’t pose any threats to Russia; and we could lose our
country without any external aggression, simply by failing to improve
the nation’s health and the quality of its human resources.

Translated by A. Ignatkin

Independence, State, Society
Ruben Hovsepian
Armenian National Assembly member, writer
Dear readers,

Between June 28 and July 6, 2005, you had an opportunity to address
your questions on the Yerkir’s website to RUBEN HOVSEPIAN, Armenian
National Assembly member, writer.

Below are the answers to your questions. See the full version of the
interview in Armenian.

Thank you for your active participation: Spartak Seyranian,
editor-in-chief of “Yerkir” Weekly.

Armen – Dear Mr. Hovsepian, in my previous question I asked
politologist Mr. Alexander Iskandarian if Armenia is careful enough
not to lose its strategic asset, namely human capital. My question was
asked in a comparative context, where regional factors, such as
Azerbaijan’s oil and Georgian’s transport routes help Azerbaijan and
Georgia to arrange their security in the region. At the same time
Armenia’s human capital is not fully utilized and is being lost. Mr.
Iskandarian answered me that the oil factor in Azerbaijan and
Georgia’s transport routes are nothing but fairy tales. Also, in his
opinion Armenia’s is not losing its human resources because the
demographic decline in the republic has stopped. Do you think it is
enough for Armenia to stop the outflow of population to ensure its
comparative advantage over it two aforementioned neighbors in terms of
human capital? What should be done to fully utilize this advantage?

Ruben Hovsepian – To tell the truth, unlike Alexander Iskandarian, I
am not as sure whether these are fairly tales or not, especially in
the case of the Azerbaijani transit routes, which do exist. But that
is not what we should link our actions with. We have our own
geographical position, and we should build our interests based on
understanding it. Optimally utilizing our human resources is not the
only way; there are many other ways too. I agree to some extend that
the demographic decline has stopped, but we should think how
effectively it is used because it makes no good when our talents are
not used. Along with the economic development of the country, the
issue of using human resources should be resolved too. I would like to
say that we shouldn’t look at our brain drain from the dark side
only. Whether we like it or not, this has become a reality that
carries also positive things independent on our will. All of a sudden,
we see that an Armenian has become successful in some part of the
world while he could not succeed here. If we think not only about the
state, but also the nation and the homeland, these phenomena can be
considered as positive. We are beginning to utilize the world. I think
the losses we have had due to the emigration are being compensated,
maybe even more. Don’t get me wrong, I am not calling for emigrating
but if those people who have left have made success, it is good. This
means that this is a capable nation and is able to express its
Armenian nature on foreign soil.

Vatche – Mr. Hovsepian, I’ve noticed that most elected representatives
of the NA might be willing to “sell” our nation for their own personal
gains. Being a member of the NA, what is your perspective on this?
Shouldn’t NA members seek the overall good of the nation vs. their own
personal gains?

Ruben Hovsepian – I agree. But in case of such deputies, the democracy
offers a good solution: when you do not like the person you have
elected you should not elect him next time. Right before the
elections, such people all of a sudden lose their minds and they do
something they are going to speak against two days later. I am not
speaking of the electoral fraud — it exists — but everyone should
realize that if he or she has made a wrong choice, don’t speak, just
make the right choice next time. This problem is greatly connected
with society members; it was his or her choice to be paid and elect
someone. If you can survive the whole year without that money then
live another day without that money but elect the right person so as I
or someone else could not blame you tomorrow. People should not be
sweet-talked, they need to hear the truth.

Mikhail Astvatsaturov – What defines society in your mind? And for
Independence and State, is Armenia what our fathers and grandfathers
wished for our country? Is there any regret you have about Armenian
Society? That you would like to change? See Armenians always stand
together when we are pinned down, but when we are not under the hammer
of judgment, we fight with each other… Should Armenians “change” and
act as a body or should we continue to hurt each other until the
hammer comes around again? Its a simple answer to the question, we
should not hurt each other, but how can we come towards this goal? To
have a better society…

Ruben Hovsepian – You need to have a better society to have a better
society. This markedly goes throughout this entire interview. We are
no much better or much worse than other nations. We hurt each other,
but is there any nation which has no thieves or bribe takers? Today,
we are busy with exaggerating those shortcomings instead of correcting
them. We think others are better than us and we find ourselves
depressed when a Moscow TV channel shows an Armenian bandit; I feel so
offended, it feels like the entire nation was arrested there. When
they name 15 Russians, 7 Georgians and one Armenian, I separate that
one Armenian and feel insulted for the whole nation. But any nation
has any type of people, we should look at it more calmly. What is it
supposed to mean “We hurt each other?” hasn’t the Diaspora that now
lives in prosperity hurt each other? Does the best part of the nation
live outside Armenia and the worst part in Armenia? It is never so, a
nation’s gene is the same everywhere. Simply they obey the laws of the
government they live under, and it is not the case here. In this
country, few people obey the laws –good or bad. They do not hurt each
other; they simply do not respect laws. And if the law is bad, then
fight that law. There is no other way around.

Grigor Grigorian – What is your opinion concerning dual citizenship
What is your opinion concerning Mesropian and Abeghianakan orthography
Thanks and Regards Grigor A, GRIGORIAN NEW – YORK

Ruben Hovsepian – I think the talks around the dual citizenship in the
context of the constitutional reforms are greatly simplified. It seems
to me that the discussions are deliberately held in a manner so people
could not understand what they are talking about. And they actually
don’t. The opponents put people in a situation where they unwillingly
become opponents too. They think that 4 million Africans would come to
Armenia and occupy the country and make decisions for us. They distort
people’s psychology by those measures. In reality, the issue of dual
citizenship is to be regulated through bilateral agreements between
countries. Those agreements cover the problems connected with military
service, taxes, etc. As far as the orthographies are concerned, I see
no conflict here. If we are not ready to speak of uniting them, then
let’s not speak of contradiction. Both orthographies should be
used. At its time, a radical decision was made. I received my
education in this orthography, but I am not saying I do not accept the
other one. Armenian communities use varieties of languages and
orthographies, is anyone concerned what is going to happen to these
people? The time for uniting them will come.

See the full version of the interview in Armenian.

Euractiv, Belgium
July 14 2005

Rehn: Turkey is already a ‘privileged partner’ of the EU

In Short:

Against the growing spectre of an oft-mentioned but little explained
“privileged partnership” scenario, Turkey is about to meet the last
key condition set by the EU for opening membership talks.

Background:

On its way towards the EU, Turkey has already brought into force six
outstanding pieces of legislation, which was one of the two
conditions Ankara has had to meet in order for accession talks to
start on 3 October 2005. The other key condition is for Turkey to
sign a protocol that would extend the Ankara Agreement to the EU-10
states, including Cyprus. According to Enlargement Commissioner Olli
Rehn, he has received “reassurances that Turkey will sign the
protocol in the coming days, or at most weeks”, but clearly before
October.

However, Turkey’s eventual readiness would not necessarily signal the
start of talks on full EU membership. There is increasing talk within
the EU of a “privileged partnership” scenario – an idea that was
launched by German conservative opposition leader Angela Merkel in
February 2004.

Issues:

As Turkey is about to meet all the conditions required by the EU to
open membership talks at the scheduled date of 3 October 2005, the
option of a “privileged partnership” appears to be coming to the fore
in European political discussions.

The advocates of this option, however, have yet to come out with a
straightforward definition of what exactly such a partnership would
entail. By and large, it is generally understood to refer to a
‘light’ type of membership, which is certainly more than a customs
union but which at the same time does not allow for any state in that
category to act as a fully-fledged EU member. Such a tie would be
strong enough to fall in line with the EU’s ambitions for
co-operation but it would not amount to joining the EU.

Edmund Stoiber, who leads Germany’s Christian Social Union (CSU – the
CDU’s sister party) has said that `Europe’s basic freedoms should
also be extended to [Turkey]: free movement of goods, greater freedom
for the movement of individuals, freedom of provision of services,
free movement of capital. And Turkey should also be fully integrated
into the common foreign and security policy”. At the same time,
Stoiber has also said that he would do “everything within his legal
power” to keep Turkey out of the Union.

Germany is preparing to hold elections in September, which may bring
the CDU-CSU coalition to power. While the EU keeps insisting that
German domestic political developments will have no effect on the
fate of Turkey’s EU bid, all eyes will certainly be on Berlin during
the days between the German elections and 3 October.

Meanwhile, another candidate, Croatia, has been kept in the EU’s
waiting room since March 2005. Zagreb’s EU bid has several
supporters, especially among its immediate neighbours. The EU member
states’ leaders will have to reach unanimous decisions on Turkey’s
bid, and some countries (including Austria and Hungary) may want to
make their support for Ankara’s bid conditional on a green light to
Croatia. For now, however, the cards of these countries remain close
to their chest.

Positions:

Ankara insists on nothing less than “full membership” of the EU,
declared Turkey’s chief EU negotiator and Treasury Minister Ali
Babacan at a meeting with MEPs in Brussels on 12 July. “I emphasise
‘full membership’ as no document signed between Turkey and the EU nor
any other EU decision envisages any other option,” said Babacan. He
said that Ankara can cope with a “rigorous” negotiating framework,
but “would take issue if there were new hurdles”. Babacan also
reminded the MEPs that while the Turkish public is committed to
carrying through the reforms conducive to full EU membership, this
support can be fragile. “People [in Turkey] may be offended” if they
hear comments from the EU that are not phrased carefully.

Reacting to Ali Babacan’s first appearance before the European
Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, German MEP Renate Sommer
(CDU) said that he “consequently avoided talking about the most
obvious shortcomings of Turkey regarding the accession criteria such
as the recognition of Cyprus, the Armenian genocide, the status of
the Kurds and the adoption of the so-called law on foundations.
Moreover, he was rather hesitant and evasive in answering the
enquiries of the parliamentarians who were present”. She said that
`without a radical change in mentality, a full recognition of Cyprus
according to international law, an open discussion of the Armenian
question, an end to the war against the Kurds in the South-East of
the country, equal rights for women and unrestricted religious
freedom including the right to own property, we will continue to
refuse Turkish accession to the EU.’

According to Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn, 3 October will
witness the opening of accession talks with Turkey and the
negotiations will aim for full membership. He told a recent meeting
in Berlin that he did not understand what the opponents to Ankara’s
bid meant by “privileged partnership”. Emerging from a meeting with
German conservative opposition leader Angela Merkel, who herself is
an advocate of the “privileged partnership” scenario, Rehn said that
“whatever more that [privileged partnership] could mean I’m willing
to listen, but I have not yet heard very convincing answers”.

In Rehn’s opinion, Turkey is already a “privileged partner” of the
EU. “There is a customs union for trade and economy. The political
dialogue is deepening. Turkey is part of the EU’s crisis management
operations in the Balkans. In other words, some would say this
already represents a privileged partnership”.

Arguing that “Europe cannot enlarge indefinitely”, French Interior
Minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy has on several
occasions called on the EU to offer a “privileged partnership” option
to Ankara.

In a recent interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Romanian
President Traian Basescu argued in favour of offering Turkey
“privileged partnership”. Romania, itself a candidate scheduled to
join the EU in January 2007, believes that this would be the best way
to reconcile the differences among the parties concerned.

Meanwhile, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has reiterated his
country’s view that the ‘privileged partnership’ scenario cannot and
should not be supported. “We’ve made commitments to Turkey, we’ve
made commitments to Croatia, my view is that we have to follow those
commitments through,” he said.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer believes that “after more
than four decades of promises, it is very shortsighted to slam the
door in Turkey’s face. It would be a very high price that we would
have to pay if that happened”.

Latest & next steps:

Turkey is expected to sign a protocol extending the Ankara Agreement
“very soon”, clearly before October

At an Intergovernmental Conference in early October, the 25 member
states are expected to unanimously approve the EU’s negotiating
framework with Turkey, which was made public on 29 June

On 3 October, accession talks are scheduled to be opened
At a date as yet unspecified, Austria and France plan to hold
referenda on Turkey’s EU accession

The negotiation process with Ankara is “open-ended” by definition and
will not be concluded before 2014

Azerbaijan News Service
July 12 2005

OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS SAY PARTIES TO SHOW WILL TO REACH PEACE
2005-07-12 19:00

Upon completion of the meetings with the Azeri leadership the Minsk
Group Co-Chairs rendered a press conference. Russian Co-Chair Yuri
Merzlyakov said, `The draft agreement will hardly be ready by the
meeting of the Armenian and Azeri Presidents in Kazan. We are working
at the formulation and principles of the settlement. The process of
their coordination will probably take several months.’ `Peaceful
agreement can be prepared as within the next several months as within
the next century. The terms depend on the political will of the
leaders and people’, the US Co-Chair added. French Co-Chair Bernard
Fassier shared the opinion. In his words, the Minsk Group is a
mediator only while the Presidents are responsible for the
establishment of peace. The mediators reported that during the
negotiations with the Azerbaijani leadership the issue of opening
communications between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan via Armenia and
Qarabaq. In their opinion when the issue is urgent it will be
advisable to include the Armenian and Azeri communities of Karabakh
in the process. We do believe that if we reach the desire of people
of Azerbaijan and Armenia we can do a lot of things for the
development of region, restore communications and rebuild ruins, said
OSCE Minsk group co-chairmen. Steven Mann from US said they mainly
focused on the details of negotiations. We can reach peace agreement
in coming month or in the next hundred years. Everything will depend
on the will leaders and the nation of both countries. Governments of
both countries come closely to the process and give opportunity to
give result. Forthcoming parliamentary elections may influence
process of settlement of the Daqliq Qarabaq conflict, French
co-chairman of the Minsk of OSCE Bernard Fasier said. “Certainly, we
expect, that parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan will be fair,
transparent and fair. In this case they render positive influence on
settlement of the Daqliq Qarabaq conflict”. Co-chairmen have
positively estimated results of negotiations with the Azerbaijani
authorities. Russian envoy Yuriy Merzlyakov said they discussed with
Azerbaijani leadership basic, key elements which could become a basis
of the future settlement were discussed. Clearly, that it is those
basic requirements of the parties with which they go on negotiations.
He has supported the offer of Baku on restoration of a highway
between Azerbaijan and Armenia through territory of Daqliq Qarabaq,
however at the same time has noted necessity before to coordinate ”
more questions of principle of settlement”. Yuriy Merzlyakov has
emphasized, that lately the parties of the conflict on one of
discussed elements managed to reach full understanding, one more
element is on a threshold of the coordination. Co-chairmen left for
Armenia.

Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada)
July 12, 2005 Tuesday Final Edition

Grain of salt

by Sara Perks

Food facts and fun stuff

The cantaloupe was named after the commune Cantalupo in Sabina, near
Tivoli, Italy, a summer residence of the popes.

It was first cultivated there in about 1700, brought from Armenia.
The melon we know as cantaloupe in North America is a variety of the
muskmelon that Columbus is said to have brought on his second voyage,
in 1494.