Watertown: Armenian women to share International Day of Prayer

Belmont Citizen-Herald, MA
Feb 24 2005

Armenian women to share International Day of Prayer

Armenian women from all area Armenian churches will gather for a
special women’s service on the International Day of Prayer, March 4,
at the Armenian Memorial Church, 32 Bigelow Ave., Watertown. Held at
11 a.m., the ecumenical service will include an address in Armenian
by Nevart Khederian and one in English by the Rev. Dr. Shoushan
Salibian.

Silva Khoshafian of the First Armenian Church of Belmont,
chairman of the event, reports that women will be observing this Day
of Prayer throughout the world. Serving with her on the committee are
women from seven Armenian churches of all the Armenian faiths. The
Protestant churches are represented by Doris Markarian, Angel
Parseghian and Arpi Boynerian of the Armenian Memorial Church of
Watertown; and Silva Khoshafian and Sossi Haroutunian of the First
Armenian Church of Belmont. Committee members from Armenian Apostolic
churches are Elaine Westermark from Saint James Church of Watertown,
Nevart Khederian of Saint Stephen’s Church of Watertown, Arpi
Kouzouian of Holy Trinity Armenian Church of Cambridge, Liza
Zeytoonian of Metro-West Armenian Church of Framingham, and Margaret
Stepanian of Saint Asdvadzazin Church of Whitinsville. Armenian
Catholics are represented on the committee by Liza Zeytoonian of the
Holy Cross Church of Belmont.

Women from all the Armenian churches are invited to this
inspirational service. This year’s basic worship service was prepared
by the women of Poland and will be repeated in churches all over the
world. Following the service, there will be a lenten luncheon served
in the Arpen Abrahamian Hall of the church. Reservations for the
luncheon, which will cost $5 per person, may be made by calling Silva
Khoshafian at 781-373-3075.

German CDU to Demand Turkey Acknowledge Killings of Armenians

Bloomberg
Feb 24 2005

German CDU to Demand Turkey Acknowledge Killings of Armenians

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) — Germany’s main opposition parties, which
oppose Turkey’s bid to join the European Union, plan to submit a
motion to parliament calling on Turkey to acknowledge responsibility
for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in 1915.

The Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the
Christian Social Union, said the Turkish government arrested the
Armenian political elite in Istanbul in 1915, marking the start of
mass deportations and murders in which as many as 1.5 million
Armenians are estimated to have died.

The Turkish government’s refusal to accept responsibility for the
crimes committed 90 years ago “stands in contrast to the idea of
reconciliation that spearheads the shared values of the European
Union, which Turkey aims to join,” said the draft motion, a copy of
which was e-mailed to Bloomberg News.

CDU leader Angela Merkel and CSU head Edmund Stoiber have called for
Turkey to be allowed a “privileged partnership” with the 25-nation
bloc. EU leaders including German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder agreed
two months ago that Turkey should start membership talks in October
this year.

Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper today called the motion an attempt by
Merkel to block the country from joining the EU. The CDU leader has
said Turkey isn’t European enough in terms of its culture and history
to join the union.

“It isn’t true that we want to bar Turkey from EU entry with this
proposal, but still we think it’s important to honor the memory of
the Armenian victims,” the CDU’s Christoph Bergner, one of the
legislators who signed the motion, said in a telephone interview.

Germany has a part in the crimes because the government at the time
didn’t act to prevent the killings in spite of detailed evidence
documented by German ambassadors in Turkey, Bergner said.

Not all CDU lawmakers back the motion.

“I reject this proposal and didn’t vote for it,” said Volker Ruehe,
the chairman of the all-party parliamentary foreign- affairs
committee, in an interview. “I think it will be modified eventually.
We’ve no right to thrust this demand” on Turkey.

The Turkish government denies accusations of genocide over the
deaths. It says the Armenians were killed during civil conflicts in
which many Turks also died.

;sid=aQUvaAIvGS4w&refer=germany

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&amp

AGBU France District 2005 Calendar Of Events Not To Be Missed

AGBU Press Office
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone 212.319.6383 x.118
Fax 212.319.6507
Email [email protected]
Website

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

AGBU FRANCE DISTRICT 2005 CALENDAR OF EVENTS NOT TO BE MISSED

New York, NY – From January 15th-16th in Valence, France, AGBU
District Committee of France and AGBU representatives from Lyon,
Paris, Marseilles, St. Chamond, Valence, and Vienne gathered to
address and discuss the District’s projects for 2005 as well as its
long-term, strategic role within AGBU Europe. Also present were AGBU
President Berge Setrakian, Central Board member Sam Simonian, and
Director of AGBU European Programs Nicolas Tavitian.

At the invitation of AGBU District Committee of France, a dinner was
held at the restaurant Michel Chabran on Saturday evening attended by
the Mayor of Valence, Léna Balsan, former Mayor and current member of
the French Parliament, Patrick Labaune, as well as various
representatives of local government organizations. On Sunday,
Setrakian along with AGBU District Committee of France and Chapter
representatives toured the premises of AGBU Valence Center and were
invited by the local Committee to a luncheon.

Commensurate with the mission of AGBU, the activities of AGBU France
District concentrate on three main areas: Youth, Culture and
Education, and Armenia. On the youth front, AGBU Paris kicked off 2005
hosting a Young Professionals (YP) conference in Paris on January 17th
with 25 attendees. As a result, an AGBU YP Group has been established
in Paris with Vanessa Ketchedjian as its chairperson. Other 2005 youth
activities include a youth ski trip in February, summer camp sessions
in Ancelle, “AGBU Paris Summer Intern Program,” and the new “AGBU
Young Pioneers Program,” a summer student exchange program to Armenia
and Karabagh.

To support Armenian cultural and educational endeavors, AGBU Paris has
planned a 2005 “Young Talent of Armenia” concert series. The first of
the two scheduled performances took place on February 7th by violinist
Suzi Yeritsian, while the second will showcase violinist Saténik
Khourdoyan and pianist Varduhi Yeritzian on May 13th. A lecture
series, devoted to topics of interest, kicks off in Paris on March 3rd
with renowned scholar and member of the French Academy Jean-Pierre
Mahé.

In commemoration of the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide this
April, AGBU France District will sponsor a conference on April 14th at
the Shoah Memorial as well as a commemorative concert on April 20th
with musician Gérard Gasparian. On June 11th, together with all French
Armenians, AGBU France District will be celebrating the inauguration
of the Armenian Heritage Center of Valence.

On July 2nd, AGBU Marseilles will honor Serge Tchuruk, Chairman and
CEO of multinational corporation Alcatel and one of the world’s most
prominent business leaders of Armenian descent, on the occasion of its
95th anniversary in the presence of notable AGBU dignitaries from AGBU
France District and around the world.

As in years past, AGBU France District’s fundraising support for AGBU
Children’s Centers in Armenia will continue throughout the year.

Additional information about AGBU France District’s fall 2005 plans
will be released as they become available.

AGBU France District is dedicated to preserving and promoting the
Armenian heritage and culture through humanitarian, educational, and
cultural programs in France and Armenia. For more information, please
contact AGBU France District by visiting its newly launched website
, e-mailing [email protected], or calling (33) (1)
45-20-03-18.

For more information on AGBU and its worldwide chapters, please visit
and click on Global AGBU.

www.agbu.org
www.ugab.info
www.agbu.org

No Insurmountable Obstacles to Catholic, Orthodox Unity

Catholic World News
Feb 22 2005

No Insurmountable Obstacles to Catholic, Orthodox Unity

(CWR) — Throughout his pontificate, John Paul II has made dramatic
gestures in an effort to break down the barriers of Orthodox
hostility toward the Catholic Church. He has made pilgrimages to
traditionally Orthodox lands, apologized for the misdeeds of
Catholics, and asked Orthodox theologians to join in a discussion of
how the papacy can serve as the focus of Christian unity in the 21st
century.

In November 2003 the Pope confirmed the accuracy of a rumor that had
circulated around Rome for months: that he planned to make a new sort
of gesture toward the Eastern churches, by returning the prized icon
of Our Lady of Kazan to the Russian Orthodox Church. After several
false starts, that plan was carried out late in August 2004. By
restoring a beloved icon that had been missing for most of a century,
the Holy Father obviously sought also to restore some of the goodwill
that has been conspicuously lacking from the Moscow patriarchate’s
attitude toward Rome in recent years.

Whether the Pope’s effort will prove successful in reviving
productive ecumenical talks with the Russian Orthodox Church is not
yet clear. But the papal gesture drew one prompt reaction from
another important corner of the Orthodox world. Late in June, when he
visited Rome to join in celebrating the patronal feast of Ss. Peter
and Paul, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople asked Pope John
Paul to consider returning another set of objects prized by the
Orthodox: the relics of Ss. John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen.

Although both St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazianzen were
bishops of Constantinople, their relics have been in Rome for
centuries. The relics of St. Gregory Nazianzen were brought to the
Vatican during the 8th-century iconoclastic controversy, when the
emperors outlawed the veneration of relics. Those of St. John
Chrysostom were taken by Crusaders in the 13th century. The Orthodox
Church had complained, over the centuries, that the relics being held
by the Vatican were actually the property of the Constantinople See.

When the Pope acceded to that request, Patriarch Bartholomew I
underlined the importance of the gesture by saying that he would fly
back to Rome–making his second visit to the Vatican of the year–to
accept the relics in person. After a few weeks of preparation, plans
were set for an ecumenical ceremony in St. Peter’s basilica on
November 27, at which Pope John Paul II would turn over the relics to
the Patriarch.

HIGH EXPECTATIONS

Ss. John Chrysostom (349-407) and Gregory Nazianzen (330-390) are
both doctors of the Church, who gained fame for their defense of
Christian doctrine in the face of the Arian heresy. Each saint also
is claimed by Patriarch Bartholomew as a predecessor as Patriarch of
Constantinople.

As he announced plans for the November ceremony, Bishop Brian
Farrell, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,
observed that the Pope’s decision to return the relics was a “sign of
the deep communion that exists between the Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Church.” He pointed out that similar gestures had been made
by local churches. In 2001, the Diocese of Bari, Italy, presented
relics of St. Nicholas to the Russian Orthodox Church. And in 2000,
relics of St. Gregory the Illuminator, which had been kept in a
monastery near Naples, were presented to Catholicos Karekin II, the
leader of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The second visit of 2004 by Patriarch Bartholomew, the acknowledged
“first among equals” among Orthodox patriarchs, would in itself be a
sign of “growing rapprochement” between the Catholic and Orthodox
churches, Bishop Farrell said. While there are important
disagreements on matters of doctrine and ecclesiology that remain
unresolved, he observed, there are increasingly strong personal bonds
between the members of the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies–the
bodies that were estranged by the Great Schism of 1054.

Patriarch Bartholomew, who was elected as the 273rd Patriarch of
Constantinople in October 1991, visited the Vatican for the first
time in June 1995, when he joined in the historic inter-religious day
of prayer for peace at Assisi. In 1994, Pope John Paul had reached
out to the Orthodox leader by asking Bartholomew to write the
meditations to be read during the Stations of the Cross on Good
Friday in the Roman Coliseum. Thus began a series of visits and
exchanges between Rome and Constantinople. Each year the Vatican
sends a delegation of prelates to join in the Orthodox Patriarch’s
celebration of the feast of St. Andrew, the patron of Constantinople,
on November 30; the Orthodox respond by sending a delegation to
Rome–headed his year by the Patriarch himself–for the feast of Ss.
Peter and Paul on June 29. During his private conversations with the
Pontiff in June, Bartholomew I had invited John Paul to return the
personal visit by making a trip to Constantinople, but the Pontiff’s
health made such a trip impossible.

In a private letter sent to Patriarch Bartholomew on September 8, the
Pontiff referred to the relics as “the common patrimony of the faith
which unites us, however imperfectly.” Bartholomew responded by
confirming that he would come to Rome to receive the relics, saying
that the gesture would have “an immense significance” for his
Orthodox see.

The Orthodox delegation arrived in Rome on November 26, and was
greeted by a welcoming committee led by Cardinal Walter Kasper, the
president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. During their
stay in Rome the Orthodox clerics were lodged in the Vatican’s St.
Martha residence, and the Patriarch was the guest of honor at a
dinner hosted by Cardinal Kasper’s dicastery, with many officials of
the Roman Curia in attendance. And before his departure, the
Patriarch would again speak privately with the Roman Pontiff.

As the organizers finished the last-minute details of preparation,
television crews set up their equipment in the Vatican basilica for
live broadcasts that would bring the ecumenical ceremony to network
audiences in Italy and in Greece.

NO INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS

During the Saturday-morning ceremony, Pope John Paul II underlined
his desire for full Christian unity, while the leader of the Orthodox
world promised “to continue the dialogue of truth in love” with the
Catholic Church. As he handed over the precious relics, the Pope said
the gesture was “a blessed opportunity to purify our wounded
memories.”

The Holy Father offered a prayer that “God will hasten the hour in
which we will be able to live together, in the celebration of the
holy Eucharist, full communion.” As he received the relics–which had
been enclosed in magnificent alabaster reliquaries–Patriarch
Bartholomew I said that the Pope’s gesture “confirms that there are
not insurmountable problems in the Church of Christ.”

The ceremony included a Liturgy of the Word, in which the readings
included both Scriptural passages and selections from the two saints
whose relics were being transferred. The Pope and the Patriarch then
prayed together, and each made a short statement. (Because of the
difficulty that John Paul II now encounters in speaking aloud, the
Pope’s statement was read by Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, the deputy
Secretary of State.)

During his address, Patriarch Bartholomew gently alluded to the
historic complaints of the Orthodox Church, saying that by returning
the relics the Pope was correcting “an ecclesiastical anomaly and
injustice.” He added that the Pope’s gesture should be imitated by
others who “arbitrarily hold and still retain treasures of the
faith.” He did not identify the objects of that statement, which
could apply to governments in Eastern Europe, as well as to Catholic
dioceses.

Two days after the ceremony, Patriarch Bartholomew stunned reporters
by saying that taking possession of the relics was the “most
important event” of his 13-year tenure as the Ecumenical Patriarch.
He stressed that the Pope’s willingness to return the relics to
Constantinople was “a very important step toward full unity between
our two churches,” and that the gesture would be “very much
appreciated by the ecumenical Patriarchate and by all of the Orthodox
world.” Patriarch Bartholomew told a Vatican Radio audience that he
was “very moved and very happy” because of the “historic event,
thanks to the goodwill of the Pope.”

Cardinal Walter Kasper more modestly observed that the transfer of
the relics was “a sign of our relations, which are much improved.” He
observed that it was also a sign of the “common heritage of faith
from the first centuries of Christianity,” since the two saints are
equally venerated by the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

Just one small shadow of controversy marred the warmth of the
transfer. Provoked by the repeated charges that the relics had been
stolen from the Orthodox Church, papal spokesman Joaquin
Navarro-Valls informed reporters that the Pope was not making an “act
of reparation” or a request for “forgiveness” by turning them over to
Patriarch Bartholomew. The claims that Catholics had looted the
relics were misleading, he insisted; in particular, the notion that
the relics of St. Gregory Nazianzen had been “stolen” from the
Patriarchate of Constantinople were, he argued, “historically
inaccurate.” Navarro-Valls pointed out that the remains of St.
Gregory had been moved to Rome during the 8th century so that they
could be saved from the iconoclastic persecution of that day.

Navarro-Valls did not recount the story of how the relics of St. John
Chrysostom reached Rome, after the sack of Constantinople during the
Fourth Crusade in 1204. While acknowledging the “tragic events” that
were involved in the movement of the relics, he explained that the
Pope’s decision to return the icons was an effort to go “beyond the
controversies and difficulties of the past.” (Pope John Paul had
asked for pardon for the sacking of Constantinople on an earlier
occasion: during his trip to Greece in May 2001. In his address to
the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Christodoulos, the Pontiff said that it
was “tragic” that Crusaders who set out to liberate the Holy Land
engaged in the plunder of Constantinople.)

UNITING THE CHRISTIAN MINORITY

When the Patriarch returned home, an ecumenical assembly, including
Turkish civil authorities and many Catholic bishops, gathered in St.
George’s Orthodox cathedral in Istanbul to welcome the relics. Buoyed
by the enthusiasm generated by the Pope’s gesture, large crowds
attended the Divine Liturgy on November 30, marking the feast of St.
Andrew.

“This was an act of reconciliation among the churches which is bound
to have positive effects on ecumenical relations in the future,”
Father George Marovich, spokesman for the Catholic bishops’
conference of Turkey, told the Fides news service. National media
outlets gave ample coverage to the return of the relics, prompting a
heartily emotional reaction from the small Christian minority
community in Turkey.

The return of the relics came at a time when Turkey’s Christians were
already feeling a new sense of power and purpose, for different
reasons. Turkey’s bid for entry into the European Union has been met
by probing questions about the state of religious freedom in the
overwhelmingly Muslim country, and the government has responded by
reaching out to Christian leaders–clearly hoping to elicit their
support for the cause of entry into the European Union. During a
meeting with Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan in July, the Catholic
bishops of Turkey (representing the Latin, Armenian, Chaldean, and
Syrian Catholic communities, all of which boast a small but steadfast
following) had a rare chance to speak about the problems encountered
by Catholics in Turkey, and also to make a request for official
juridical status for the Catholic Church in Turkey–something the
government has never previously considered.

The celebration of the relics’ return, then, offered another occasion
for solidarity among the Christians who make up just 0.6 percent of
Turkey’s population.

RENEWED DIALOGUE?

The Vatican officials who visited Istanbul for that November 30
celebration reported, on their return to Rome, that the Orthodox
Patriarchate of Constantinople shared a desire that Pope John Paul
had expressed to Patriarch Bartholomew in June and again in November.
The Catholic and Orthodox officials agreed–at least in principle–to
revive a joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission that has been
dormant since a meeting in Baltimore in July 2000.

The joint commission, established as the result of talks in November
1979 between Pope John Paul and the then-Patriarch Dimitrios I, had
produced the “Balamund declaration” of 1993, in which the Orthodox
churches accepted the existence of the Eastern Catholic communities,
while the Holy See acknowledged that ecumenical progress should come
through corporate reunion with the Orthodox churches rather than the
recognition of new Eastern-rite Catholic communities. But the
commission then reached an impasse over Orthodox complaints about
“proselytism” by Catholics in traditionally Orthodox lands, and about
Vatican support for the Eastern-rite Catholic churches.

But the Pope’s latest gesture might have been enough to break that
impasse, Vatican officials reported. The delegation from Rome, led by
Cardinal Kasper, found that Orthodox officials were particularly
cordial in their greetings this year. The Pope’s gesture has been
recognized as “a sign of friendship by the Catholic Church, and of
our bond through the communion of saints,” one prelate remarked.
During their meetings in Istanbul, representatives of the Orthodox
synod assured the Vatican delegates that they plan to respond
promptly to the Pope’s plea for a resumption of formal talks by the
joint commission.

During the November 30 ceremony in the cathedral of St. George, when
Cardinal Kasper had a chance to convey greetings from the Holy See,
he emphasized the bonds between Rome and Constantinople. The German
cardinal reminded Patriarch Bartholomew “how profound and significant
were the events that we celebrated in St. Peter’s basilica, just a
few days ago, and which we continue to celebrate today.” Cardinal
Kasper added: “What unites us is much more than a human bond; it is a
communion in the faith that John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen
confessed and courageously proclaimed.” While thanking God for that
bond, the cardinal continued, “we must still reinforce our commitment
to progress on the path to full communion.” The deep spiritual bond
between the two churches, he said, calls attention to the fact that
the communion “is not complete.”

Orthodox officials responded positively to that challenge, the
Vatican envoys confirmed. The Orthodox synod confirmed a desire to
resume formal theological talks, and the only remaining problems will
be working out the details of a time, place, and agenda for the
discussions.

Russia-US relations: Neither obstacles nor impetus for development

RUSSIA-US RELATIONS: NEITHER OBSTACLES NOR IMPETUS FOR DEVELOPMENT

RIA Novosti, Russia
Feb 18 2005

Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Federation Council’s international
affairs committee, for RIA Novosti

I think Vladimir Putin and George Bush will make an inventory of
Russia-US relations in Bratislava. The two countries cooperate in the
war on terror, in efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, drug trafficking, and AIDS, as well as in the
Middle East peace process.

They apparently need each other in these spheres, but declarations
are regrettably more frequent than joint actions. The results of the
actions that are taken often engender contradictions. For example,
the US military presence in Central Asia, though it has many positive
aspects, is limiting Russia’s influence in the region. The presence
of American troops means that Moscow is no longer tackling problems
single-handed, which affects its formerly indisputable leadership in
the region. Russia does not support the war in Iraq, while the US
divides terrorists into “good” and “bad.” As a result, the level of
bilateral relations is lower than is needed for effective
anti-terrorist efforts.

Russia-US interaction in preventing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons is not impressive either. The idea of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty is to prevent the emergence of new nuclear states and the
proliferation of dual-purpose nuclear technologies. Prevention has
not worked so far, as North Korea’s statement on its nuclear weapons
recently showed. And there is a battle of Russian and US interests
with regard to the provision of nuclear technologies to Iran.

The bilateral energy dialogue is so far limited to declarations,
though the US would like to diversify its crude market. But it wants
control over global resources even more.

So, there are no visible obstacles to the development of Russia-US
relations, but there is no clear impetus either. The coincidence of
interests and partnership are two different things. Russia and the US
are facing two questions: Should they change anything in their
relations? And if the answer is yes, then are they ready to do this?

Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush are expected to answer these questions in
Bratislava, the more so that their agenda is not limited by anything.
At least, President Bush did not say in his inauguration speech that
relations with Russia were deteriorating. Moscow is also talking
about promoting partnership. In other words, the key issue on the
Bratislava agenda will probably be the development of relations,
which both parties seem to want.

The contradictions between them are mostly concerned with the CIS and
stem from the fundamental differences in their world outlook. The top
Russian leaders call for creating a multipolar world, but Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice thinks such a world would be dangerous and
vulnerable. Russia is demonstrating its resolve to strengthen its
status as the regional power in the CIS, while the US is a global
power that is maneuvering between leadership and hegemony. US troops
are deployed in 120 countries, i.e., nearly everywhere, which is why
regionalism is not what Washington wants. This is the root of
contradictions on the amorphous territory of the CIS, whose unity is
unquestionable only geographically, for many reasons.

The American leadership is concerned about Russia’s role in the
former Soviet countries, which engenders accusations of
authoritarianism, the inevitable imperial policy, and so on. But the
situation in the zones of frozen conflicts – Transdnestr, Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Karabakh – has taken a bad turn and Russia finds it
difficult to deal with it without the assistance of the global
community. On the other hand, the US and the EU cannot do anything
(other than destabilize situation) in the CIS without Russia either.
And the US administration is aware of this, despite its harsh
rhetoric.

Georgia is one of the stumbling blocks in Russia-US relations.
Knowing that some people in the Georgian administration would like to
use military force to settle the Abkhazian and South Ossetian
problems, Georgian troop training under the American Train and Equip
program is a source of concern for Moscow.

These and other contradictions will certainly be discussed in
Bratislava. The two presidents will spotlight the so-called nuclear
file of Iran and measures to stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear
weapons. Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush will undoubtedly exchange opinions on
the situation in the Middle East, including recent elections in
Palestine and Iraq, and discuss Russia’s accession to the WTO.

Since the US has advanced a doctrine of bringing democracy to the
world, the two leaders will probably speak about Yukos, media freedom
and Russia’s political reforms. The doctrine of bringing democracy to
the world is questionable, as formal democracy without liberal roots
cannot guarantee that a “democratic” but incompetent state will not
launch a war or harbor terrorists.

One more aspect can be added to Russia-US relations: cooperation in
emergency management, which is crucial in view of the recent tidal
wave in Southeast Asia.

On the whole, the US administration is continuing the policy of Mr.
Bush’s first term, with a promise that it will be more flexible than
the one pursued by the previous administration that was dominated by
neo-conservatives.

In other words, America will gradually abandon the role of a global
dominator acting without any regard for the world community, and will
try to become a leader who respects the opinion of other states and
international institutes. If this promise comes true, the Russia-US
agenda will grow considerably.

In addition, the Kremlin hopes Mr. Bush will confirm his
participation in the celebrations of 60th anniversary of victory in
WWII in Moscow. This is important for our relations.

Will NATO be on friendly terms with Org of Collective Security Treat

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
February 18, 2005, Friday

WILL NATO BE ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
COLLECTIVE SECURITY TREATY?

by WPS observer

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov’s visit to Munich attracted
the attention of military experts. Moscow continues informing the
international community about its foreign political priorities.
Sergei Ivanov made a report on this topic in the US in January. His
“Washington theses” concerned Russia’s interests in the post-Soviet
republics. This time the Russian minister focused on plans of
co-operation between Russia and NATO. Sergei Ivanov thinks that
operational compatibility and co-operation in search-and-rescue
operations are the most prospective sectors of co-operation.

He stated at the conference, “We are prepared to reach a new level of
co-operation with the alliance.” The minister noted that, “direct
contacts between the alliance and the Organization of the collective
security treaty may bring in positive results”.

Sergei Ivanov announced this thesis for the first time. To all
appearances, it is no coincidence. The Russian media stated that
Moscow winds up integration within the framework of the CIS and
proceeds have closer contacts with its strategic partners in the
Organization of the collective security treaty.

Well-informed sources in the Defense Ministry stated that Moscow
agreed to Astana’s proposal to abolish the Headquarters for
coordinating military co-operation between the CIS member nations. To
all appearances, this decision will be made at the CIS summit in
Kazan (Russia) in August 2005.

What will Russia lose? Will NATO become a partner for members of the
Organization of the collective security treaty?

As is known, Russia opposes NATO’s expansion to the CIS. Russia has
its own interests in the CIS, and it must defend its interests. In
the meantime, member nations of the Organization of the collective
security treaty have their interests too. For instance, Kyrgyzstan
permitted NATO to deploy its airbase in Manas, not far from Russia’s
airbase in Kannt. Kazakhstan, Armenia and Tajikistan would not mind
receiving military aid from NATO. However, Moscow does not like this.

For instance, Russia seeks to demilitarize the Caspian Sea, and does
not approve of NATO’s aid to Kazakhstan in creating its national
Navy. The participation of Kazakh and Armenian units in the operation
in Iraq contravenes Russia’s interests. In other words, the members
of the Organization of the collective security treaty have different
tasks and goals/ secondly, it is not clear in what form co-operation
between the Organization of the collective security treaty and NATO
can develop.

The point is that these two organizations are rivals in Central Asia.
It is hardly likely that Moscow will agree to co-operate with NATO in
settling conflicts in the Caucasus. There are no common interests in
the west of the CIS either.

Ivanov reproached the West for using double standards and approaches.

He said, “The West proposes us to ignore violations of the rights and
freedoms of Russian citizens in the Baltic States.”

Ivanov stated, “They propose us to ignore precedents when some
European nations harbor international terrorists. They call
terrorists operating in Chechnya insurgents. Foreign mercenaries of
international terrorist organizations operate in this region. At
present there are 150 to 200 foreign mercenaries in Chechnya.”

The minister said, “I consider the interview with terrorist Basaev
shown by the UK television as an unfriendly act addressed at Russia.”

In other words, the Russian defense minister uncovered many problems
of relations between Moscow and NATO in Munich. Russia again tries to
put up a bold front. This is why Sergei Ivanov recalled about the
Organization of the collective security treaty. NATO will not become
its friend. Actually, Russia does not need this. Otherwise, NATO’s
soldiers will soon come to Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia. Does Moscow
need this? No, it does not.

Translated by Alexander Dubovoi

BAKU: Christian Minority In Azerbaijan Gets Rid Of Armenian Eye Sore

Christian Minority In Azerbaijan Gets Rid Of Armenian Eye Sore
By Simon Ostrovsky

Agence France Presse
February 17, 2005

When a Christian people in this predominantly Muslim republic ground
away the Armenian inscriptions from the walls of a church and tombs
last month to erase evidence linking them to Azerbaijan’s foe, they
thought they had the interests of their small community in mind.

But now the tiny Christian church in the former Soviet republic of
Azerbaijan has become the focus of a big scandal as the Udi minority
struggles to find its identity in an ideological minefield. The church,
which has not been used since Azerbaijan became part of the Soviet
Union, has become the center of a dispute between the Norwegian backers
of the reconstruction, who consider the alterations to be vandalism,
and the Udi community.

“We have no God, our people lost their religion under communism and
this church is our only hope of reviving it,” said Georgi Kechaari,
one of the village elders who doubles as the ethnic group’s historian.

“But we live in Azerbaijan, and when people came into the church and
saw Armenian letters, they automatically associated us with Armenians,”
he said.

The Udi, who once used the Armenian alphabet, have struggled to
separate their legacy from that of their fellow Christians, the
Armenians, who fought a war with Azerbaijan and have been vilified
here.

Erupting just before the break-up of the Soviet Union, the war
cost both countries tens of thousands of lives but Azerbaijan lost
Nagorno-Karabakh – an ethnic Armenian enclave – and seven other
surrounding regions which have been under Armenian control since the
two countries signed an uneasy ceasefire agreement in 1994. Since
then nearly everything associated with Armenia in Azerbaijan has been
wiped away, although hundreds of thousands of Armenians lived here
before the war.

Armenian-sounding city names have been changed, streets named after
Armenians have been replaced with politically correct Azeri surnames,
while Soviet history glorifying Armenian communist activists has
been rewritten in school textbooks. But the white stone church in
Nij, some two centuries old, had not been tampered with until the
Udi undertook to reconstruct it with help from the state financed
Norwegian Humanitarian Enterprise (NHE).

“It was a beautiful inscription, 200 years old, it even survived the
war,” Norway’s Ambassador to Azerbaijan Steinar Gil told AFP. “This
is an act of vandalism and Norway in no way wants to be associated
with it.”

But the Udis insist they erased the inscriptions to right a historic
wrong. Kechaari alleged that the Armenian inscriptions, which stated
that the Church was built in 1823, were fakes put there by Armenians
in the 1920s so that they could make historical claims to it.

The Udis are the last surviving tribe of the Caucasus Albanians,
a group unrelated to the Mediterranean Albanians, whose Christian
kingdom ruled this region in medieval times before Turkic hordes swept
in from Central Asia in the 13th and 15th centuries. They number
under 10,000 people and Nij is the only predominantly Udi village
to survive to this day, and although they call themselves Christian,
there is little that Christians from other parts of the world would
find in common with them.

The Udis have not had a pastor for nearly a century and celebrate
Islamic holidays together with their Muslim neighbors. But while the
Udis soul search for an identity, Azerbaijan has used their legacy
to strengthen its claims to Karabakh.

Armenians argue that the multitude of churches in the occupied region
proves that they as a Christian people can lay a historic claim to it.
But Azeris, who consider themselves to be the descendants of Albanians
who were assimilated into a Turkic group, say the area is rightfully
theirs because the churches were actually built by their ancestors
the Albanians.

To the Udi, who used Armenian script when their church was built,
toeing the official Azeri line has become more of a priority
than historical accuracy. The perception that they are one with
the Armenians has meant that there has been little trust from the
authorities; Udi men for example were only allowed to start serving
in the Azeri Army two years ago.

But their use of power tools to fit the status quo took their Norwegian
sponsors by surprise. “They think they have erased a reminder of
being Armenian … instead they have taken away the chance to have a
good image when the church is inaugurated,” the director of the NHE
in Azerbaijan, Alf Henry Rasmussen said, adding that a visit to the
church by Norway’s prime minister will probably now be cancelled.

“Everyone will stare at the missing stones, I’m not quite sure if we
can continue our work there,” Rasmussen said.

Is nothing sacred?

Belfast Telegraph, UK
Feb 16 2005

Is nothing sacred?

It’s the holiest of Christian sites – the place where Jesus was
buried. But the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has become a
battleground where priests fight and monks stone each other. Victoria
Clark reports on an ungodly turf war.

16 February 2005

Father Athanasius’s Texan drawl sounds as steady as ever down the
phone from Jerusalem but the tale he’s recounting is hair-raising:
“… I refused to close the door to our chapel and then the Greeks,
priests and deacons and acolytes attacked the Israeli police standing
by the door and I was pushed away and fell down, and someone was
kicking me, and more police arrived…”

My Catholic friar friend eventually explains that this latest
explosion of Christian-on-Christian violence in the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem occurred on 27 September last year, on
the Orthodox Feast of the True Cross. Although it happened four
months ago, the authors of the crime – Greek Orthodox churchmen –
have not yet been brought to book.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre – the sanctified home to the site of
Christ’s crucifixion, as well the tomb he vacated three days later –
is no stranger to violent bloodshed. Christian denominations have
been violently contesting each others’ rights to occupy every last
inch of this holiest of holy places since shortly after the the first
church was built on the site around AD330.

Soon it will be Easter, and the vast 12th-century Crusader church
will host more services, processions and ceremonies than at any other
time of the year. That means more friction and more occasions for
violence. “From Catholic Palm Sunday on 20 March to the Orthodox Holy
Fire ceremony on 23 April is a five-week danger period for us,”
Father Athanasius says. “I’m really scared someone’s going to get
killed.”

While I was in Jerusalem investigating the contribution the world’s
Christian powers have made to the world’s most intractable conflict,
I witnessed two major fights between churchmen and many minor ones.
The first, on Holy Saturday in 2002, involved the Greek Orthodox
patriarch, Irineos I, and an Armenian priest, who were supposed to be
co-operating in the ritual surrounding the Orthodox “miracle” of the
Holy Fire. Many Orthodox Christians believe that on the Saturday
before Easter every year God descends in the shape of a flame
spontaneously ignited inside the shrine of Christ’s tomb. On this
occasion, behind the closed doors of the shrine, the two churchmen
fell out over whether tradition demanded that they both “receive” the
Holy Fire at once, or whether the Greek patriarch must take
precedence.

Impatient, the Armenian improvised his own “holy fire” with the far
from miraculous aid of a cigarette lighter. In a space no bigger than
a couple of telephone boxes, an ungodly tussle ensued. The patriarch
blew out his companion’s candle and somehow lost a shoe. The Armenian
was badly bruised when two Greek monks and then two Israeli police
stormed the shrine.

The second incident, in July that year, landed 11 monks in hospital.
The argument was over whether or not an elderly Egyptian monk should
be permitted to sit under a eucalyptus tree on the Ethiopians’ roof
terrace. “This is an invasion,” a young Ethiopian monk named Solomon
insisted a month before the battle. “Today he sits here on his chair.
Tomorrow, another Copt will come with his chair and perhaps a table.
One day the Egyptians will claim that they have the right to be in
this courtyard, and they will take our monastery!”

The affair escalated from haughty stares at the snoozing Copt to a
battle in which stones and metal railings were deployed. The Copts,
whose monastery overlooks the Ethiopians’ roof terrace, came off
best.

The Israeli authorities responded to the first incident by deploying
a thousand police in the square of the Old City on the morning of the
Holy Fire ceremony of 2003. George Hintlian, a pillar of the city’s
Armenian community, a historian and an expert in matters concerning
the Christian holy places, was expecting another dust-up. He told me
that “we Armenians don’t want a fight, but we can have people ready
to take up strategic positions around the church”.

After the battle of the chair, the Israelis installed CCTV cameras in
the Ethiopians’ roof terrace. For all the Israelis’ patient shuttling
between the two communities in search of a resolution, one had not
been found by Christmas 2003. Two Israeli police were still escorting
the old Copt to his post under the Ethiopians’ tree every morning.

Jerusalem’s rulers, whether they were the Ottoman Turks for 500 years
until 1917, the British of the mandate period until 1948, or the
Israelis thereafter, have often mocked and marvelled at the bitter
feuds of the Christians in their favourite holy place, but all have
tried to limit the causes of friction.

No fewer than six different kinds of Christian enjoy grossly unequal
shares in the use and management of the church. Lording it as
representatives of the oldest and richest church of the Holy Land and
heirs to the glories of Byzantium are the Greek Orthodox, who control
about 40 per cent of the church’s territory and contents. At the
other end of the scale is the tiny community of Ethiopians who
inhabit a cluster of little huts on their rooftop terrace, directly
above the ground that they believe King Solomon gave to their Queen
of Sheba long before Jesus was even born. They can be heard to
complain that “in Western Europe, dogs and cats have a better life
than we have here”.

The Catholic Franciscan community that Father Athanasius belongs to
only won a foothold in the 14th century, after payment of a hefty
bribe, but it is now the second-greatest power. The wealth and
influence acquired as merchants in the Ottoman Empire have elevated
the Armenian Oriental Orthodox to third position, while the Egyptian
Copts make do with one tiny chapel. The Syrian Jacobites, who boast
what Father Athanasius calls the “badly beat-up Chapel of Joseph of
Arimathea”, are almost as underprivileged as the Ethiopians.

The shared shrine of the tomb and the ambulatory encircling it are
the flashpoints. Twice, the protrusion of a Coptic doormat an extra
two inches into the ambulatory has ignited violent argument.

On the occasion of the battle described by Father Athanasius, a
procession was taking place in a shared area of the church, near the
shrine. The 140th head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem,
Patriarch Irineos I, was magnificently robed and holding aloft a
cross containing a relic of the one on which Christ was crucified.
Behind came a small army of hymn-singing churchmen, and then a larger
crowd of Orthodox pilgrims. All was going well until the open door of
the Catholic Franciscans’ side-chapel caught the patriarch’s eye. He
instructed his retinue to see to its closure.

Father Athanasius happened to be standing by the offending door.
Politely, he refused to oblige. Then, about 40 Greek clergy resorted
to force. Ten Israeli police positioned in front of the chapel (they
are on routine duty in the church to prevent precisely such
confrontations) were attacked. In the 21-minute brawl, one of them
lost three teeth. Father Athanasius was knocked to the ground and
kicked. Twenty-five Israeli police were needed to calm passions, and
at least three Greek monks were arrested.

By chance, two video recordings of the procession and its unscripted
battle-scene exist, filmed by locals hoping to sell copies of the
ceremony to Orthodox pilgrims. The Franciscans have decided to
present this evidence to a higher authority; only the Israeli
government can resolve a dispute this serious. “But we are still
waiting for their response,” Father Athanasius says. “Yes, I know
they’ve got more important things to think about right now, but time
is short. I can’t tell you how embarrassing this is for all the Holy
Land churches. In fact, we only want it publicised because Easter is
coming. Something has to be done.’

In the four years I have known him, Father Athanasius has tended to
play down hostilities in the holy places. In the spring of 2000, he
assured me that the three great powers of the church had solved 90
per cent of their disagreements, and it was only the lesser powers
who were still disgracing their faith. “Things only tend to go wrong
these days when, let’s say, the Copts behave like kids reaching for
the candy jar,” he had joked. “You slap them down, but they creep
back and try again.”

We had chuckled over minor ruckuses, like the one about the Greek
Orthodox and Armenians and Catholics competing for the privilege of
repairing a manhole cover that happened to straddle the meeting point
of their three territories. He had told me how jealously the Greeks
guarded their right to clean the church’s lavatories.

But there is no trace of his Texan humour now. A tiny sign that the
Greek Orthodox are not feeling chastened by their autumn misdemeanour
scares him: Father Athanasius strongly suspects that, without
consultation, the Greeks have filled in the cracks in the shared slab
of stone on which Jesus was anointed before burial. “They say they
didn’t do it, that pilgrims did it, but what kind of pilgrim goes
around with a supply of cement and a palette knife?”

For the other side, I telephone a friend, a Greek Orthodox bishop.
Even if he can’t account for the workings of his patriarch’s mind
last September, Bishop Theophanis is a good guide to the prevailing
mood among the city’s Greek Orthodox clergy.

Speaking from his bungalow on the roof terrace of the Greek
patriarchate, next door to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he
offers no excuse. “Frankly,” he says, “it was an act of provocation
from our side.” But he cannot resist a dig at the Franciscans. “I
have to tell you that those Catholics can sometimes behave like
Crusaders here and they’re not good at respecting us Orthodox as the
first Christian church of the Holy Land – but still, Irineos was
silly and Athanasius behaved quite correctly.”

Bishop Theophanis warns against judging any church by its personnel:
“The Orthodox Church is much bigger than that. Man is always weak and
silly. The Catholics are great ones for confusing the man and the
institution…” When I protest that lives may be at stake now, that
patriarchs are notoriously difficult to remove and that Irineos is
only 64, Bishop Theophanis heaves a sad sigh: “If he lasts another 20
years, we can forget about a Greek Orthodox patriarchate in
Jerusalem.”

That a usually phlegmatic Texan is raising the alarm about Eastertide
violence, and a proud Greek is contemplating the collapse of the
city’s fifth-century patriarchate, is some indication of the
seriousness of the situation. While the Palestinian issue has hogged
the spotlight, few have focused on the sideshow in the Church of the
Sepulchre. But it is starting to matter a great deal to anyone who
thinks Christianity should retain a stake in the land where it was
born.

There is talk now of resuming the “road map” to peace. Sooner or
later, the burning question of Jerusalem’s status will have to be
raised and attention focused on every inch of that city, as well as
the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis are already seeking ways to
secure as much as possible of the city for themselves ahead of a
final settlement. And who could blame them for asking themselves why
the Greek Orthodox patriarchate continues to own so much prime
property, including the land on which their Knesset is built, and why
the Armenian Quarter accounts for one-sixth of the Old City, and why
the Catholic Franciscan holdings make up another large fraction…

If the guardians of the Christian holy places are turning on each
other more violently than ever, that’s probably because they feel
more threatened and vulnerable today than they have for a century.

‘Holy Fire: the battle for Christ’s tomb’ by Victoria Clark is
published on Friday (Macmillan, £20)

–Boundary_(ID_QWM7VvuUI6QecoswY6YdjA)–

Armenian, Azeri, Georgian environmentalists meet in Brussels

ARMENIAN, AZERI AND GEORGIAN ENVIRONMENTALISTS MEET IN BRUSSELS

ArmenPress
Feb 14 2005

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 14, ARMENPRESS: Representatives of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and the European Union, the founders of the
Caucasian Regional Nature Protection Center, held a two-day meeting
in Brussels in February 8-9 to sum up the results of the Center’s
five year-long work and outline its future plans. The Armenian
delegation was headed by deputy nature protection minister S. Papian.
The ministry said among other issues the participants discussed
also ways for improvement of cooperation.
The Armenian minister suggested that a joint task force be set up
to prepare a package of reforms aimed at improving the Center’s
activity.

Et la Turquie, parlons-en, justement

Le Figaro, France
09 février 2005

Et la Turquie, parlons-en, justement;
EUROPE Le référendum de juin portera sur la seule approbation de la
Constitution européenne

par Axel PONIATOWSKI

Le référendum sur le traité constitutionnel européen marquera
l’agenda politique de cette année 2005, si ce n’est celle du
quinquennat. Après avoir accompli l’union économique et monétaire,
l’Europe aborde une nouvelle étape, celle de son union politique et
de défense.

Il est souhaitable pour notre pays que le référendum soit approuvé,
et si possible largement. L’Europe a apporté la paix depuis soixante
ans quand les soixante années précédentes n’avaient été qu’une
succession de guerres dévastatrices sur notre territoire. Les Balkans
sont là pour nous rappeler que la paix reste bien fragile dans un
monde instable et déstructuré. L’Europe a aussi produit plus de
richesse et engendré un meilleur niveau de vie, et la création de
l’euro a probablement évité à la France une crise monétaire
consécutive aux tribulations socialistes de 1997 à 2001. D’autre
part, le Traité constitutionnel dotera le Parlement européen de vrais
pouvoirs et renforcera le contrôle des parlements nationaux. On
assistera en fait à une meilleure répartition des rôles entre les
technocrates et les élus des nations. Un rejet de la Constitution, en
revanche, affaiblirait considérablement la position et la voix de la
France en Europe et dans le monde. La Constitution est donc
assurément pour les Français un gage de progrès, de sécurité et de
rayonnement.

En même temps, l’élargissement de l’Europe doit rester maîtrisé. Nous
sommes vingt-cinq depuis quelques mois seulement, ce qui constitue
déjà un formidable changement. Il va falloir apprendre à nous
connaître, à cohabiter, à partager nos destins et à gérer en commun
ce nouvel ensemble. Cette étape-là aurait pu être l’affaire d’une
génération. Or, au 1er janvier 2007, nous accueillerons la Roumanie
et la Bulgarie, et le principe de l’intégration de la Croatie, la
Bosnie, la Macédoine, la Serbie, l’Albanie, le Kosovo et le
Monténégro est inscrit dans les faits. Nous serons alors
trente-quatre et même trente-sept si les pays slaves de l’ex-URSS que
sont l’Ukraine, la Biélorussie et la Moldavie nous rejoignent.
Trente-sept mais tous européens.

L’adhésion de la Turquie est en revanche une tout autre affaire. Si
elle devait se faire, elle poserait d’énormes problèmes et aurait
d’immenses conséquences.

D’abord, la Turquie, c’est soixante-dix millions d’habitants, soit à
peu près autant que le total des dix pays qui viennent de nous
rejoindre. Le problème est que la Turquie n’est pas en Europe et
lorsque quatre-vingt-quinze pour cent de la superficie d’un pays se
situent dans la partie moyen-orientale de l’Asie, il ne peut s’agir
d’un détail. Sur le plan des libertés, le pays pose problème ; cet
Etat dit laïc l’est en fait de moins en moins pour devenir de plus en
plus religieux. La Turquie est en fait une démocratie musclée qui
tient par la force et l’autorité de ses militaires ; retirez les
généraux… et c’est l’inconnu !

Le statut et les droits de la femme qui évoluent dans le mauvais sens
sont préoccupants. La non-reconnaissance du génocide arménien est
caractéristique d’un pays hypernationaliste, autocratique, qui n’a
pas fait sa mue démocratique comme avaient su le faire en leur temps
l’Allemagne et le Japon. La Turquie connaît des litiges ou des
conflits avec la plupart de ses voisins : Syrie, Irak, Iran, Arménie
sans parler du Kurdistan.

Enfin, question essentielle à elle seule : où s’arrête-t-on ?
Autrement dit, quelles seront les nouvelles frontières de l’Europe ?
A quand le Liban, dont nous sommes beaucoup plus proches que nous le
sommes de la Turquie ? Israël et la Palestine frappent à la porte !
Le Maroc a déclaré qu’il présenterait sa candidature dès la
réalisation du tunnel sous le détroit de Gibraltar. Puis viendront
les pays du pourtour du bassin méditerranéen, les pays de l’Afrique
noire, ceux du Caucase, la Russie… Bienvenue au club ! Cette
auberge espagnole deviendrait une vaste zone de libre-échange et
n’aurait plus grand-chose à voir avec l’Europe voulue par les pères
fondateurs, celle qui nous a fait si longtemps espérer. Il ne s’agit
pas, bien sûr, de claquer la porte à la Turquie et aux Turcs.
L’article 57 de la future Constitution européenne permet de nouer des
partenariats privilégiés bénéfiques aux uns et aux autres. Faisons-le
avec la Turquie et avec d’autres. En effet, l’adhésion pure et simple
de la Turquie sonnerait le glas d’une unité de civilisation et
d’identité.

Heureusement, l’histoire n’est pas écrite. La Turquie est loin, très
loin d’être en conformité avec les critères de Copenhague et le
principe du référendum sur son adhésion, le moment venu, est gravé
dans le marbre. Ceux-là mêmes qui font campagne contre la
Constitution européenne au prétexte de mieux s’opposer à la Turquie
se trompent et nous trompent. La réalité est inverse. En mars
prochain, députés et sénateurs se réuniront en congrès à Versailles
pour apporter une modification significative à la Constitution
française. L’article 88-5 du titre XV disposera que « toute adhésion
d’un Etat à l’Union européenne est soumise au référendum par le
président de la République ». Cette obligation s’appliquera aux
négociations ayant débuté après le 1er juillet 2004, soit après les
adhésions de la Roumanie, de la Bulgarie et de la Croatie. Elle
concernera toutes les adhésions suivantes dont celle de la Turquie.

Ainsi, ne tombons pas dans l’amalgame. Le référendum de juin porte
sur la nécessaire approbation de la Constitution européenne et sur
elle seule. Le moment venu, nous nous prononcerons sur l’entrée de la
Turquie et la décision de la France, ce jour-là, résonnera d’autant
plus qu’elle sera toujours parmi les plus fondateurs des pays
fondateurs.

* Député UMP du Val-d’Oise, membre de la commission des affaires
étrangères de l’Assemblée nationale.

–Boundary_(ID_4/Ktt5ZiF+EdwpotUW4PgA)–