Author: Frangulian Shushan

The Messenger, Georgia
March 11 2005

Economic Analysis
Withdrawal of Russian bases carries undeniable economic impact
By M. Alkhazashvili

Parliament on Wednesday and again on Thursday discussed a resolution
declaring Russia’s military bases on Georgian soil illegal. The
resolution calls on the government to introduce measures intended to
force Russia to withdraw its bases, should agreement on the terms of
withdrawal not be agreed as a result of bilateral negotiations within
the next two months.

Discussion of the resolution was met with strong criticism from
Moscow, two influential Duma MPs declaring that sanctions should be
imposed on Georgia in response. Possible measures that the Duma
members should be taken in response to Georgia’s efforts to speed up
the negotiation process, which has dragged on for almost six years
now without result, include either cutting off the country’s
electricity and gas supply or increasing the price of the energy
supplied, deporting Georgians working in Russia, and boycotting
Georgian products on the Russian market.

While the withdrawal of the bases is fundamentally a political issue,
the implication of these threats is that permitting the bases to
remain, or not, is also an economic issue.

Russian threats have led some Georgian analysts to call on the
government to take measures to reduce the country’s economic
dependence on its northern neighbor, saying that otherwise business
and the economy may be used to apply political pressure on the
country. This has provided new ammunition for those Georgians opposed
to the government’s policy, particularly in the privatization
process, to attract more Russian capital into the country.

“The attitude of the Georgian authorities towards Russia is
absolutely incomprehensible. How can we on the one hand say that
Russia is an aggressor and occupying force and on the other sell it
strategic state assets?” asks an incredulous Giorgi Kobakhidze of the
Forward Georgia opposition party, as quoted by Akhali Taoba.

“In return for withdrawing the military bases, we are giving Russia
crucial economic levers. Putting energy resources into Russian hands
is wholly sufficient to allow them have influence on the state,” he
declares.

Besides possible sanctions, social problems that may arise in areas
around the bases also demand consideration. Most of the inhabitants
around the base in Akhalkalaki are ethnic Armenians who are
economically dependent on the base and also view it as protection
from possible ethnic aggression.

Georgian analysts believe Russia will try to use this factor for its
own interests, some even warning that it may attempt to create a new
ethnic conflict. This could destabilize the whole South Caucasus and
cause old conflicts to flare up as well.

Batumi is less reliant thanks to a booming seaport and thru-traffic
from Turkey, but still the bases have preferred hiring locals for
services and trade thus contributing to the area’s economy.

It is therefore imperative that economic development options for the
country and especially for residents of Akhalkalaki be developed in
order to diffuse foreseeable negative reactions to the withdrawal of
the Russian base.

Cambridge Chronicle

Cambridge people

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Kamenova wins bridge award

Ljudmila Kamenova of Cambridge recently won the Mini-McKenney Award
for outstanding bridge performance in her category last year. She was named
Eastern Massachusetts Bridge’s Rookie of the Year.

EMBA’s next tournament will be Feb. 25-27 at the Armenian Cultural
Center, 47 Nichols Ave., Watertown. Players will compete at all levels, from
beginner to expert. For more information, call Ruth Barton at 781-270-1157
or visit

Karabakh conflict: ways of settlement
Vladimir Kazimirov

YERKIR

>>From 1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian
mediation mission; Russian president’s representative for Nagorno
Karabakh issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Vladimir Kazimirov’s analyses regarding the Karabakh conflict are
available on his personal web site at:
Dear readers,

Between February 22 and 28, 2005, you had an opportunity to address
your questions on the Yerkir’s website to VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV. From
1992 to 1996 Mr Kazimirov was the head of the Russian mediation
mission; Russian president’s representative for Nagorno Karabakh
issue; and the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Below are some of the asnwers in English. The full version of the
interview is available in Armenian and Russian.

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

Lori Holomquist – Dear Mr. Kazimirov, where does Russia stand on the
issue of the Armenian Genocide? It is the latest fashion in academic
and political circles to talk about “the judgment of historians”.
There is a clear tendency to move the issue of genocide from
political to purely historical context, thus eliminating all
possibilities of finding a political solution to the Armenian
genocide. How do you evaluate those efforts? What would be Russia’s
role in this case? Is Russia willing to change attitude and raise its
voice? Because no Russian can claim, that he or she is not aware of
the essence of the problem? How do you explain the silence of Russian
deputies or representatives in different international instances
whenever the Armenian Genocide issue is raised? Thank you.

V. K.- This issue is not directly connected with the settlement of
the Karabakh conflict, thought the indirect impact is undeniable. As
for Russia, its parliament has voiced its opinion long ago. That
black date will mark its 90th anniversary soon, and they do not
forget about it here. Unfortunately, the issue is more discussed in
some countries than it is in Turkey.

Lori Holomquist – Dear Mr. Kazirov, The Caucasus has been an
important strategic region for Russia. Bearing in mind the latest
political events in mind, and the American plans to draw a new map of
the region both in the Middle East and in Asia, it is hard to find
any concrete Russian counter plans. Should we translate this as
concession, has Russia given up its interest in the area? I am
talking especially about the Caucasus. Is there any chance that
Russia will herself come up with a new map of the region? If that is
the case, what could happen to Nakhichevan? Or Georgia, and Armenia?
What would the future Azerbaijan look like? Thank you in advance for
your answers.

V. K.- I think it is the peoples of the region who should suggest a
new map and not Washington or Moscow. However, it should be done
based on good will and consensus. It should not be done roughly and
unskillfully. Let me repeat myself: one of Russia’s priorities is the
ensuring of the security in the region.

Sevak – Mr. Kazimirov, Is there any final solution for Karabakh
problem? And what do you think about the liberated territories of
Karabakh should they (Armenians) return it to Azerbaijan when both
countries rich in final agreement?

V. K. – Of course there is one, there has be one. The expression “the
liberated territories of Karabakh” is somewhat vague; it is not clear
what is meant by it. My opinion is that the Azerbaijani territories
outside Karabakh should be freed stage by stage under certain
conditions (before the final settlement of the status for Karabakh,
demilitarization and so on.) I think that special conditions will be
needed in the case of the Lachin and Kelbajar regions. But before
that, the sides should absolutely and clearly commit that that all
disputes should be resolved exclusively by peaceful means (under
weighty international guarantees), and the outline of Nagorno
Karabakh should be corrected. The former borders of the Nagorno
Karabakh Autonomous Region are too artificial and hence unpractical
for the first decades of reconciliation. This is, however, my
personal view of settling the Karabakh conflict.

Mikhail Aramazdanian – What if, and lets say “if” that Artsakh army
pulls out of Karabakh and all the Armenians leave Artsakh since some
Azeri officials want this. And if so, wouldn’t that area become a
financial burden for Azerbaijan, since this is a large piece of land
we are talking about, wouldn’t it take Azerbaijan years maybe never
to build Artsakh back to where it has been in the past or what it is
today if everyone left. I mean if they don’t have money to Support
the Refugees in Azerbaijan, how could they even hope to rebuild land
and build houses for the Azeri peoples to move back or repopulate? Or
is this not what Azerbaijan wants? But my main question is, if
Azerbaijan does get Artsakh back, will it be able to support this
area of Land or will it be the same as what is happening in Georgia
with Javakhk?

V.K. – I can’t assume knowing everything, I am not used to it. I
think this question should be directed to the Azeris.

Zaven Sarkissian, Toronto, Canada – If peaceful coexistence is the
desired outcome of this conflict, why then the present status quo has
not been accepted by the international community, which has
experienced over ten years of “peaceful” coexistence regardless what
each side ideally wished to achieve? Do you think Karabakh will
always(for the foreseeable future)remain “the unresolved problem”,
such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will erupt once in a
while, coincidentally every time the Superpowers disagree with one
another and/or with one of the sides involved. What is your solution?

V. K. – The eleven years of ceasefire could hardly be called a period
of peaceful coexistence. The main issue, the fate of Nagorno Karabakh
has not been decided; the cancer of the occupied Azerbaijani
territories has not been eliminated; the sides are just training
their muscles, and some are continuously threatening to ignore “any
price.” There is no cooperation whatsoever; no clear negotiations are
even under way. The lack of military activities does not mean
“peaceful coexistence.” Such status quo is deficient for all the
sides; it requires changes but clever ones, without using force,
which should not be allowed. I have published my suggestions long ago
on my web site.

Gevork (Canada) – Mr. Kazimirov, following regularly the hostile
declarations of Azerbaijani leaders and Azerbaijani media as well as
the uncompromising stance of that country, I have the strong
impression that the main problem for the resolution of the NKR
conflict is mostly related to national pride and a great sense of
frustration, due to military failure, in the Azerbaijani society.
Perhaps, if Azerbaijan is healed from this feeling, things would
considerably improve in the negotiation process! (and perhaps you
might consider me naive!). Therefore, what measures does the Minsk
group take (or what could be done) to explain or demonstrate to the
Azeris that Armenia does not consider itself as a “victor” (in the
classical sense), that the populations of Armenia and NKR have also
immensely suffered (maybe more!) from the conflict, that this is not
about “winners” or “losers”, and that correcting a historic mistake
that happened more than 80 years ago is not intended to humiliate the
Azeri nation. In other words, letting them clearly understand that
revenge will only lead to a vicious circle that will paralyze the
region for decades and even centuries. Your thoughts on all of the
above please!

V. K. – The emotional factors, indeed, play some role. In that
respect, Armenians should not boast about their victory. Especially
that all the sides have suffered and continue to suffer from the
conflict. I would like to believe that both nations are looking ahead
to a leader who would have enough courage to openly advocate for a
historic reconciliation of Armenians and Azeris.

See the full version of the interview in Armenian and Russian.

PanArmenian News
March 5 2005

UNITED STATES DO NOT PLAN A ~SCOLOURED REVOLUTION~T IN YEREVAN

It looks like Armenian is not included in the list of states not
suitable for Washington.

In the nearest future, US Congress will consider the draft
legislation introduced by senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
The draft presupposes rendering support to democratic movements in
developing countries of Eastern Europe and Asia. The document is
called ~SAdvance democracy act~T. According to political
correspondents, approval of the legislation will promote the export
of ~Svelvet revolutions~T from Ukraine and Georgia to other CIS
countries. If approved, the initiative of McCain and Lieberman will
also instill confidence in Armenian oppositionists.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In Russia the legislation draft was viewed as a
sanction of US administration to interfere in the internal policy of
other states. The authors of the document do not conceal that their
initiative is mainly aimed at protecting the political interests of
Unites States and not the civil rights of the people of countries
that are considered undemocratic by Washington. «The promotion of
democracy and freedom is simply inseparable from the long term
security of the United States,” said Senator McCain. «When the
security of New York or Washington or California depends in part of
the degree on freedom in Riyadh or Baghdad or Cairo, we must promote
democracy building and society improvement in those countries~T, John
McCain stated. It is quite easy to guess what the senator implies by
saying ~Ssociety improvement~T because he mentions Georgia, Ukraine,
Iraq and Palestinian autonomy as countries where Americans managed to
achieve ~Simprovement~T.

The ~SAdvance democracy act~T supposes allocation of 300 million
dollars for the ~Ssupport to democracy abroad~T. It is planned to
establish in Washington a special structure aimed at coordinating
~Sdemocracy producing~T in developing countries. The ~Soffice of
Democracy Movements and Transitions at the State Department~T will be
in charge for supporting regimes that are convenient for the USA.
Separate ~SRegional Democracy Hubs~T are planned to be established at
American embassies in all those countries that Americans consider
undemocratic. Up to now the role of those structures has been carried
out locally by the departments of US National democratic institute.
Such a department is functioning also in Yerevan and actively
cooperates with more ~Sprogressive~T oppositional parties. After the
arrival of new specialists from Washington the tactics of
~Sinstruction~T of Armenian oppositionists will possibly change.

It is likely that the leader of oppositional ~SJustice~T bloc Stepan
Demirchyan took into account the initiative of Lieberman and McCain
mentioning about his readiness to cooperate with the US National
democratic institute on his Tuesday press conference. Maybe this is a
peculiar signal about the ability of ~SJustice~T bloc to justify the
expectations of Americans. After all 300 millions is not a small sum
and even the hundredth part of that sum will be enough for supporting
~Svelvet revolutions~T that are so much spoken of by Armenian
oppositionists.

However, there are no grounds to suppose that Armenia is one of those
countries ~Sdemocratization~T of which is among the priority tasks of
United States. The authors of the legislation clearly specify in what
countries they want to ~Sintroduce democracy~T. In his speech at the
Senate Joseph Lieberman only mentioned that in the world there are at
least 45 countries that really need to learn from the West what
democracy is. It is likely that the matter concerns the list made by
the international ~SFreedom House~T organization. Armenia is not
included in that list. From CIS countries there are only Russia,
Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

It seems that the answer to the question where the USA is going to
stir up ~Svelvet revolutions~T should be sought in the talk between
George Bush and the leader of Ukrainian revolutionists Vladislav
Kaskiv. At the end of the conversation the leader of all-Ukrainian
~SPora~T non-governmental organization that brought Victor Yushenko to
power said that the US President has blessed him to create an expert
center for supporting democratic movements in neighboring countries ~V
Russia, Byelorussia, Moldova and Azerbaijan. Armenia was not
mentioned. It should noticed that after the meeting of Bush and
Kaskiv ~SPora~T organization sent letters to presidents of several CIS
countries warning about upcoming ~Sorange revolutions~T. In the cabinet
of Ilham Aliev the letter spread panic and Kaskiv was immediately
announced persona non grata in Azerbaijan. Meanwhile the President of
Armenia has nothing to worry about since he has not received any
letters from Kiev…

–Boundary_(ID_fvxvTP0RTfNVKKFza03X1A)–

BBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, 3 February, 2005, 11:55 GMT

Burning body suspect due in court

One man has already been charged with murdering Mr Amirian
A man is due to appear before magistrates charged with the murder of a man
whose burning body was found on the Cambs/Northants border.
Armenian Havhannes Amirian’s remains were found at Upton in December 2002.
Misha Chatsjatrjan, from Oldenzaal in the Netherlands, was arrested by Dutch
police on 12 January.

He is due before Peterborough Magistrates’ Court. Police worked on the case
for more than a year before identifying the dead man as Mr Amirian.

‘Unknown male’

At one stage it was feared the body, which was found in a wood, might never
be identified.

It led to Peterborough coroner Gordon Ryall taking the unusual step of
allowing the man to be buried in a grave marked “Unknown Male”.

However after the police made a breakthrough in the case the inquest was
briefly resumed for Mr Amirian’s identity to be announced, more than a year
after his death.

The inquest heard that Mr Amirian was born in Armenia and had family
connections in the Ukraine. However, most recently he had lived in Belgium
and England.

Persian Journal, Iran
Feb 27 2005

Italy computerize Iranian manuscripts
Feb 26, 2005, 17:43

Italian researchers have begun study on old Iranian manuscripts and
handwitten works, according to Italian Iranologist Carloce Rati.

A professor at La Sapienza University in Rome, Carloce said
reaserchers have launched a broad investigation into the Iranian
literary works located all over the world in an attempt to
computerize the masterpieces.

Manuscripts and records dating back to old Iranian Achamanid and
Sassanid era, unearthed in India, Iraq, Armenia and Kurdestan
province have been classified and loaded into computer, since 2003.

Roti, also leading the reaearch team said Italy is interested in
collaborating with Iranian universities and scientific centers to
complete the project.

Rome University highly appreciates the unprecedented breakthrough,
Roti said.

TURKISH AND AMERICAN DIPLOMATS DISCUSS PROBLEM OF NAGORNY KARABAKH IN
WASHINGTON TO DETERMINE COMMON INTERESTS

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 25. ARMINFO. Turkish and American diplomats discuss
the problem of Nagorny Karabakh in Washington. According to the 525th
newspaper, within the framework of a dialogue on strategic issues
between the two states, Turkey and the USA have arrived at an
agreement to establish a forum on Russia, South Caucasus and Central
Asia.

According to the agreement, Head of the Department for Russia,
Caucasus and Central Asia of the Turkish Foreign Ministry Halil
Akinchi met with one of the heads of the US Department of State for
Europe and Eurasia Laura Kennedy in Washington. The sides discussed
the situation in Georgia, Russia and in the South Caucasus, settlement
of Karabakh conflict, Turkish-Armenian ties, as well as energy
corridor. The discussions aimed determination of common interests of
the USA and Turkey, assistance in settlement of conflicts, energy
problems as well as cooperation in the sphere of political and
economic reforms. Turkish and American diplomats will continue their
discussion in Ankara after a time.

ARMENIAN PARLIAMENTARY SUPERVISORY CHAMBER EXPOSE THE MOST LARGE-SCALE
FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATION IN 2004 IN USE OF FOREIGN CREDITS

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 24. ARMINFO. The Armenian Parliamentary Supervisory
Chamber exposed the most large-scale financial misappropriation in
2004 in the sphere of the use of foreign credits. Chairman of the
Supervisory Chamber Gagik Voskanyan informs journalists today summing
up the results of the chamber’s activity in 2004.

In particular, Voskanyan says that the most observed is the practice
of unreturned credits of enterpreneurs issued under various programs
from the funds of foreign capital, as well as the companies which make
more attractive proposals at tenders. The SC exposed a number of
violations in the sphere of privatization as well. Thus, in conformity
with a governmental decision dated 2002 all the unfinished
constructions in the country were to be inventoried and transferred to
the Department for Management of State Property. Voskanyan also called
inadmissible the practice of privatization of facilities of strategic
importance through their bankruptcy and liquidation. Besides, the
privatized enterprises do not fulfill their obligations. For example,
he says, 4 privatized enterprises have not fulfilled their investment
commitments for some $10.7 mln.

He also says that in the park nearing the Institution of Mathematical
Machines after Mergelyan. 1,900 sq/m were transferred to the company
“Artsakh-91” subject to preservation of the green zone. The company
has not fulfilled this condition. Besides, the SC exposed violations
in the sphere of public health, he expresses bewilderment that
“healthy people undergo treatment on the state order.” Voskanyan
expresses doubts that a patient suffered from a heart attack could
recover on the 60,000 drams provided by the state.

Voskanyan also touches upon the inspections in the sphere of state
subsidizing of communities. Thus, in 2004 11.463 bln drams were
allocated to community budgets from the state budget, 11 bln were
provided to communities to equalize their budgets, 66 bln drams
dotations for preferential property tax, 19 bln drams other dotations
and 123 mln drams target allocations. Voskanyan says that mechanism
and principles of these allocations are not regulated. On the basis of
the materials of inspections of the Supervisory Commission to the
Prosecutor General’s Office, in 2004 7 officials were brought
administratively responsible and 4 criminal cases were initiated, with
19 mln drams being returned to the state budget.-m-

ArmenPress
Feb 24 2005

ARMENIAN EDUCATION MINISTRY TO TRAIN 150 TEACHERS OF GEORGIAN
ARMENIAN SCHOOLS

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 24, ARMENPRESS: Armenian education and science
ministry will train some 150 teachers of Armenian schools in Georgia
together with its Georgian counterpart. Tamara Zalinian from the
Armenian ministry’s department handling joint projects with Diaspora
Armenian educational establishments, told Armenpress teachers from
predominantly Armenian-populated region of Samtskhe Javakhk will be
trained in Akhalkalaki and teachers from other regions in Tbilisi. In
Akhalkalaki alone there are 68 Armenian schools and 1500 teachers.
Tamara Zalinian did not confirm a statement by Georgian education
ministry official that a joint team of Armenian and Georgian experts
would work to develop a textbook book on Armenian history. The
official had earlier said teaching Armenian history in Georgian
Armenian school would become mandatory after the joint commission
approved its text.

Le Figaro, France
23 février 2005

Ne confondons pas les deux référendums !;
EUROPE Désolidariser le débat sur la Constitution de celui sur
l’entrée de la Turquie

par GEORGES FENECH

Dans le contexte politisé de la ratification référendaire de la
Constitution européenne, il serait lourd de conséquences d’entretenir
une confusion entre le débat sur la Turquie et celui sur la
Constitution européenne, au risque de conforter les partisans du non
et de mettre en péril une étape vitale pour la Constitution
européenne. Un risque qui s’est davantage renforcé depuis le sommet
européen du 17 décembre 2004, lorsque les chefs d’Etat et de
gouvernement de l’Union européenne se sont prononcés en faveur de
l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion de la Turquie.

Alors que la campagne pour le référendum sur la Constitution n’est
pas encore commencée, nombreux, en effet, sont les leaders politiques
« turcosceptiques », profitant de ce télescopage de calendrier, qui
tentent de jouer sur la réticence des Français vis-à-vis de la
candidature turque pour appeler à rejeter avec elle la Constitution,
faisant croire que les deux non seraient naturellement solidaires et
que dire non à la Constitution reviendrait à dire non à la Turquie.

Face à cet amalgame savamment entretenu, il convient de rappeler avec
force que tout d’abord un référendum sera, quoi qu’il arrive,
organisé sur le seul thème de la candidature d’Ankara avant une
éventuelle intégration effective de la Turquie. La Constitution
prévoit en effet ce type de procédure pour tout autre futur Etat
candidat. Aussi, loin d’impliquer automatiquement l’adhésion de la
Turquie à l’Union européenne, contrairement à ce que voudraient faire
croire les partisans du non, la Constitution renforce le principe de
l’unanimité et rend par conséquent bien plus aisé le blocage du
processus d’adhésion de pays candidats que ne le permettent les
institutions actuelles.

Rappelons par ailleurs que le traité constitutionnel prévoit un
statut d’Etat associé spécialement pour les Etats voisins qui
verraient leur candidature refusée. Mais une chose est sûre, la
Constitution ne donne aucun droit automatique d’adhésion à la
Turquie. En renforçant le poids du Parlement, elle conféra au
contraire une plus grande légitimité démocratique à l’Union
européenne en permettant plus de débats autour de questions
essentielles comme l’élargissement, débats jusqu’à présent
monopolisés par la seule Commission.

Au moment de se prononcer sur l’adoption de la Constitution
européenne, nos concitoyens, et en particulier les opposants de
l’adhésion à la Turquie, doivent par ailleurs se remémorer, s’il en
était besoin, que les fameuses « conditions de 1987 » posées au
moment de la candidature d’Ankara demeurent un préalable
incontournable à toutes négociations. Mieux, les derniers rapports
d’étapes de la Commission (novembre 2003 et octobre 2004) et du
Parlement européen (rapport Oosltander) n’ont jamais cessé de
mentionner les fameuses « conditions de 1987 » sans lesquelles la
Turquie n’intégrerait jamais l’Union européenne : 1) reconnaissance
du génocide des Arméniens, 2) retrait de Chypre, 3) respect des
droits de l’homme et des minorités religieuses non musulmanes
sunnites.

1) La reconnaissance du génocide arménien

Force est de constater que l’Etat turc continue de nier le terrible
génocide des Arméniens. Une rue importante d’Istanbul est toujours
dédiée à l’organisateur du génocide, Talaat Pacha. De même les
manuels scolaires nient toujours officiellement l’existence d’un
génocide. Plus récemment, début décembre 2004, Ankara a même menacé
de représailles la Slovaquie qui a fait reconnaître par son Parlement
le génocide arménien. Pire encore pour les victimes du présent,
Ankara refuse toujours de lever l’embargo azéro-turc qui pénalise
l’Arménie enclavée.

2) La question chypriote

Autre « critère de 1987 » mais aussi du sommet de décembre dernier,
non rempli, la Turquie refuse toujours, au risque de saborder son
propre processus d’adhésion, de reconnaître la République de Chypre
et persiste à justifier l’invasion de l’île en 1974 comme une
conséquence du coup d’Etat grec. Or est-il besoin de rappeler que la
République turque de Chypre du Nord n’a jamais été reconnue
internationalement et bafoue ainsi les différentes résolutions de
l’ONU enjoignant à Ankara de retirer ses troupes ? A cet égard, le
premier ministre Erdogan n’ayant pas reconnu, à ce jour, la
République de Chypre lors du sommet de Bruxelles, on ne peut que
s’étonner de l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion avec un pays qui
refuse, envers et contre tous, de reconnaître un membre légitime de
l’Union.

3) Les droits de l’homme et des minorités

Le fait qu’Ankara empêche toujours le patriarche orthodoxe
Bartholomeus de porter son titre « oecuménique », que par ailleurs
les églises assyro-chaldéenne, catholique et protestante ne soient
pas reconnues et que l’état de siège soit rétabli de facto dans le
Kurdistan montrent qu’Ankara ne partage pas encore le même esprit de
tolérance que l’Union européenne, pour lesquelles le respect des
minorités ethno-religieuses est essentiel.

Ainsi tant la reconnaissance des minorités turques que le respect de
la souveraineté de Chypre et qu’enfin la reconnaissance du génocide
des Arméniens constituent aujourd’hui de sérieux obstacles à toute
avancée de l’idée d’adhésion turque. Et il conviendra de juger Ankara
d’ici au 3 octobre 2005, date d’ouverture effective des négociations
sur sa capacité à adhérer non seulement aux réformes
institutionnelles et démocratiques, déjà fort avancées certes, mais
également aux sacro-saints principes et valeurs qui fondent
l’identité de l’Europe moderne.

On le voit, la route d’Ankara ressemble toujours au « chemin de Damas
», même si au fond les Européens sont par ailleurs convaincus que ce
grand pays ami, fort d’une civilisation ancienne, doit poursuivre ses
efforts d’ouverture démocratique et pas seulement économique. Mais,
d’ici là, ne nous trompons pas de référendum ! La France doit
approuver sans crainte ni arrière-pensée une nécessaire Constitution.
Si l’on veut que l’Europe devienne un acteur majeur et cohérent sur
l’échiquier international, avec son ministre des Affaires étrangères,
sa défense unie et une authentique démocratie institutionnelle.

* Député du Rhône, vice-président du Comité bassin
Méditerranée-Afrique au conseil d’orientation de la politique
étrangère de l’UMP.