Author: Nadirian Emma

NKR Foreign Minister’s Visit To USA

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
08 Nov 04

On October 18-28 NKR foreign minister Ashot Ghulian visited the
USA. During the press conference at the NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs
on November 2 he gave a detailed account of his visit. MEETINGS
IN THE US The minister left for the USA at the invitation of the
University of Michigan to take part in the conference on the topic
“Armenia/the South Caucasus: Foreign Policy Challenges”. Ashot Ghulian
presented a report on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict and
state building in NKR. The foreign minister said the Azerbaijani
side tried to obstruct the visit of the representatives of Armenia
and Karabakh to the USA, however, the representatives for organizing
the conference disapproved of these attempts. Touching upon political
conferences, Ashot Ghulian pointed out his meetings with Stephen Mann
and the director of Catering International Foundation who organize
political seminars together with the RF Center for Strategic and
International Studies at the Russian town Snegiri in which the
Armenian, Azerbaijani and Karabakh parties take part. The foreign
minister mentioned that although the seminars aim to establish direct
cooperation, it is especially difficult for the Azerbaijani party
to depart from the official position of their governments. Pursuing
with the political topic, the foreign minister emphasized that
that certain circles in the USA have paid special attention to the
building of state in NKR. It was particularly mentioned that the
experience of state building in an extraordinary situation. According
to the minister, a number of experts pointed out the high level
of development of democracy and society in NKR which proves loyal
to the European values and pursues the way of democratic reforms
without any pressure. NEW BAKU AUTHORITIES PREVENT ANY RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE SOCIETIES OF AZERBAIJAN AND KARABAKH. Commenting on the
statements of the Azerbaijani foreign minister saying that it is
Armenia’s turn to make efforts in the negotiation process, Ashot
Ghulian said, Baku keeps to its strategy and presents everything
in the light of its interests. The minister mentioned that during
the political consultation he felt that compromises are expected
not only from Armenia. In this reference the minister emphasized
that in the last two years the new Azerbaijani government encouraged
the propagandist war and did their best to prevent any relationships
between the societies of the conflict parties. The minister explained
the undertaking of the Azerbaijani government to include the question
of the situation in the territories occupied by Nagorni Karabakh
in the agenda of the UN General Assembly in the context of Baku’s
policy. Ashot Ghulian did not say anything about the results of
the discussion. However, he mentioned that owing to the permanent
representation of Armenia in the UN many countries abstained from
voting. “We are willing to discuss all the complicated issues,
including the problem of territories, but the policy of Azerbaijan
proves that it is not interested in the settlement of the conflict,”
said Ashot Ghulian. As to the liberated territories, according to
the minister, Azerbaijan knows very well that Armenia has nothing to
do with them. Commenting on the statements of the Azerbaijani side
that Baku will negotiate with Stepanakert if Armenia withdraws its
troops from Karabakh and renounce the 1989 decision on unification,
Ashot Ghulian said when this or that decision is concerned, Azerbaijan
issues ultimatums which are absolutely unacceptable for the parties
of the talks. THE IDEA OF REFERENDUM AND INDEPENDENCE IS MORE AND
MORE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. In reference to the
ideas underlying his reports in international seminars Ashot Ghulian
stated – independence. “Armenian diplomacy relies upon the results
of the 1991 referendum,” said the foreign minister of NKR. The idea
of referendum and independence is becoming more and more acceptable
and real for the international community, especially after the
experience of East Timor and Eritrea. THERE IS NO ARRANGEMENT ON
MILITARY EXERCISES FOR THE ARMIES OF UNRECOGNIZED COUNTRIES. The
foreign minister of NKR stated that the information that at the
end of the current year joint military exercises of the armies of
unrecognized countries will be held is not true. “The Karabakh Army
has no other function but the defence of borders and security of the
population of Nagorni Karabakh, especially outside the border of the
republic.” THE TELETHON IS ORGANIZED BETTER. During his visit to the
United States the NKR foreign minister met with the representatives if
Armenian organizations which are going to take part in the telethon
on November 25. The minister mentioned that this year the telethon
is better organized. He informed that NKR prime minister Anoushavan
Danielian had a considerable contribution to the work of organizing
the telethon during his visit to the United States. NKR president
Arkady Ghukassian will leave for the USA to take part in the telethon.

NAIRA HAYRUMIAN.

08-11-2004

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Nov 8 2004

AMBASSADOR OF AZERBAIJAN PRESENTS CREDENTIALS TO PRESIDENT OF FRANCE
[November 08, 2004, 21:22:17]

On November 3, Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary of
Azerbaijan to France Tarik Aliyev presented credentials to President
of the French Republic Jacques Chirac, press-center of the Azerbaijan
Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced.

After the ceremony, President Jacques Chirac received Ambassador
Aliyev. Reportedly, the meeting was focused on development of
France-Azerbaijan relationship and Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh. Both President and Ambassador expressed desire to
expand cooperation between the two countries in various fields.

French President Jacques Chirac asked the Ambassador to pass on his
greetings to President of the Azerbaijan Republic Ilham Aliyev.

AsiaNews.it, Italy
Nov 6 2004

No end in sight to emigration from Armenia

Yerevan (AsiaNews) – The exodus of Armenians from their homeland
continues. Data show that in the first eight months of 2004, 497,000
people left the country against 450,000 who entered it for a total
loss of about 50,000. Compared to 2003, the emigration rate was up by
38 per cent which represents an extra 13,000 emigrants.

Although experts believe that the data should not be taken at face
value – departures are often temporary – , they do highlight the fact
that Armenia is experiencing a real loss in population. Men are the
most likely to leave, seeking employment in neighbouring Russia,
returning only for the Christmas holidays. Because of the skewed
migratory patterns, Armenian women now represent 56 per cent of the
population compared to 51 ten years ago.

Emigration is a sign of the tough economic times that followed the
war with Azerbaijan (1991-1994) and the serious energy crisis that
came with it.

Today, the economy is picking up – 12 per cent annual growth – but not
sufficiently to stop Armenians from going abroad.

Armenia has a population of about 3.8 million people. More than two
thirds (67 per cent) live in the country’s urban centres, more than
1.2 million in the capital Yerevan alone. Almost two Armenians in
three (64 per cent) are Orthodox; about 150,000 are Catholics.

According to the latest data (1999), the Armenian Diaspora stands at
15 million people. The largest communities are in Russia (2.8
million), the US (1.5 million) and France (400,000). (FC)

No Competition

Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
6 Nov 04

by Anna Akopyan’s

Yesterday 5 October in Yerevan NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer met President Robert Kocharyan, Defence Minister Serzh
Sarkisyan and Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan to wrap up his
three-day visit to the region. At a briefing after the meeting with
Robert Kocharyan, the secretary-general said what is normally said
after such meetings. With a slight difference he said the same things
in Georgia and Azerbaijan.

But unlike in these two countries, in Yerevan the secretary-general
specially announced several times that NATO does not intend to compete
with other structures or states in this region. It is clear, of
course, that the secretary-general did not have to dwell on this in
Georgia and Azerbaijan. Armenia, however, is different. It is known
that Georgia and Azerbaijan oriented themselves towards NATO a long
time ago, but Armenia remains oriented towards Russia, whereas NATO
announced the South Caucasus a zone of its interests with all the
consequences stemming from this.

By the way, a few words about the consequences: Yesterday 5 November
during a meeting with students of Yerevan State University, the
secretary-general said that NATO does not plan to deploy troops in
this region, be it in Georgia or Azerbaijan or Armenia. “Yesterday 4
November we had a long conversation with Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili. He has numerous problems: South Osetia, Abkhazia and
Russian bases. I arrived in Yerevan and same thing again: the Karabakh
problem, that needs to be settled. But it is not in the interests of
NATO or countries of this region to establish NATO military bases in
this region,” Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.

Nevertheless he hinted that Armenia as well as Georgia need NATO
forces. He also added that NATO does not plan to take part in the
Karabakh issue settlement process. But he certainly discussed the
Karabakh problem with Robert Kocharyan. Touching on Scheffer’s
statement “not to compete with other states” let us note that
yesterday 5 November the secretary-general was simply trying to
persuade Armenia to get rid of all the conditions in its relations
with NATO. “I know that hostility towards NATO was sowed into the
minds of people in this region for several generations. We know this
for a fact. NATO was the enemy of the USSR, but today we live at a
different time. We must make use of that. The world has changed and
there should be no anxiety about NATO any more,” Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
said at the meeting with students. “I am not here to compete. The
Republic of Armenia may develop relations with NATO without damaging
its relations with Russia,” he said. By the way, the secretary-general
also specially stressed that though the times and the world have
changed, but the values laid at the foundation of NATO have remained
the same: democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and press and the
supremacy of law.

Le Figaro
30 octobre 2004

Turquie, « oui si » ou « non jamais » ?;
ÉLARGISSEMENT La controverse sur la candidature d’Ankara

Renaud DUTREIL

Lyautey confiait à Claude Farrère en 1921 : « Ce n’est pas tant à
Mustapha Kemal pacha que la Turquie devra finalement de recouvrer son
indépendance qu’à Pierre Loti. Car Pierre Loti, écrivant son Aziyadé,
a retourné en faveur des Turcs l’opinion européenne. » Comment ce
petit officier de marine académicien aujourd’hui méconnu, mais dont
Marcel Proust connaissait par coeur certaines pages, a-t-il réussi
cet exploit ? A quelle époque vivait Pierre Loti ? Dans quel pays ?
Quel réalisateur de téléfilm faudrait-il lancer aujourd’hui en prime
time pour retourner l’opinion française en faveur de la Turquie ? Qui
donc pourrait ébranler ce « non jamais ! » qui semble vouloir écraser
dans l’oeuf le lent, prudent, technocratique, laborieux « oui si » de
la Commission européenne ?

Et si l’on admettait que la « question turque » pose enfin, de façon
extrêmement franche la question de l’Europe elle-même et, derrière,
la question de la France même ? Dis-moi si tu dis oui ou non à quinze
ans de nouvelles négociations avec la Turquie, avec à leur terme la
plus rassurante des garanties le référendum constitutionnel annoncé
par le président de la République et je te dirai qui tu es, qui tu
veux être dans le temps et dans le monde.

C’est précisément parce que la Turquie est à la fois en Europe et en
Asie, et à 95 % en Asie, que la question de son entrée doit être
posée. C’est parce qu’elle a les apparences d’une étrangère à
l’Europe, que sa population de 100 millions annoncés pour 2020 est
musulmane à une écrasante majorité, que son PIB par habitant est de
10 % du niveau moyen de l’Union à vingt-cinq, que son régime
politique s’est tout récemment extrait du pouvoir militaire, que ses
troupes ont encore un pied dans Chypre, que le génocide des Arméniens
est encore une blessure à vif, que le territoire turc confine à la
Syrie, à l’Irak, à l’Iran, qu’un grand nombre de pays européens se
sont battus pendant des siècles contre le joug ottoman, c’est parce
que la liste des motifs de rejet semble ainsi bien longue,
impressionnante, dissuasive que ce débat prend une toute autre
dimension.

A plusieurs reprises, la France a été poussée, à propos de l’Europe
toujours, à s’interroger sur sa propre identité et sur sa vocation
dans l’histoire de l’humanité. Le général de Gaulle et le chancelier
Adenauer, en scellant la réconciliation franco-allemande, qui est
devenue aujourd’hui si évidente, ont profondément changé le destin et
la nature de leurs nations respectives. La haine nationale
franco-allemande était fondatrice. Elle avait donné naissance à la
nation allemande et à la IIIe République française. Il a fallu de
Gaulle et Adenauer pour lui substituer, après bien des années de «
oui si » confrontés à des « non jamais », la paix et l’amitié comme
principes fondateurs de deux peuples autrefois ennemis. Lorsque
Georges Pompidou reçut la reine Elizabeth II à dîner au grand Trianon
le 15 mai 1972, à la veille de l’entrée de la Grande-Bretagne dans la
CEE, il lui dit ceci : « Votre pays, il n’y a pas si longtemps
encore, semblait considérer la Communauté économique comme une de ces
coalitions continentales que, durant plus de trois siècles, il
s’était avec obstination et succès acharné à détruire. La France, de
son côté, voyait dans la Grande-Bretagne un pays résolument tourné
vers l’océan, c’est-à-dire en marge de l’Europe. Or, voici que nous
nous sommes mutuellement convaincus du contraire. »

Ce qui choque dans le non à la candidature turque, c’est le « jamais
» qui semble l’accompagner. Ce non radical, instinctif, qui en
d’autres temps fut le non à l’Allemagne ou le non à la
Grande-Bretagne et qui, chaque fois, finit par plier devant le « oui
si » de la raison, de l’ouverture et du dialogue, puis devant le «
oui franc » de la communauté de destin enfin assumée. A chaque fois,
la France a puisé à deux sources bien distinctes le courage de dire
oui. Elle l’a puisée dans sa vocation universelle et républicaine,
qui l’a conduit à rechercher chez l’autre, qu’il soit personne ou
nation, la commune humanité, par-delà les différences de nation, de
religion, de territoire, d’histoire, de race. Elle l’a aussi puisée
dans son intérêt national bien compris, intérêt économique, social,
politique, stratégique. Le oui français a besoin des deux, l’idéal
républicain et le pragmatisme intéressé.

Le non turc qui monte aujourd’hui en France est inquiétant parce
qu’il refuse toute perspective. Quelles que soient les protestations
d’amitié franco-turque dont il s’entoure, il transpire la peur, le
rejet, l’incompréhension, la confiance aveugle dans la ligne Maginot
contre l’immigration et dans le blocus continental contre l’islam. La
position actuelle de la Commission européenne, qui vient après des
années de candidature contrôlée, qui est assortie de tant de
précautions et de conditions que le « oui si » est presque un « non
sauf si », a le mérite d’ouvrir une perspective positive. Du point de
vue français, elle nous laisse le temps de mûrir notre réflexion. Or,
nous avons besoin de ce temps avant de nous prononcer.

D’abord pour nous demander si nous Français, qui sommes la nation
européenne la plus ouverte sur le sud, donc la plus vulnérable à
toute crise qui pourrait prospérer sur la Méditerranée, nous n’avons
pas un intérêt puissant à élargir vers le sud le triple cercle de la
démocratie, de la laïcité et du développement économique qui nous a
toujours apporté sécurité et prospérité. Nous demander si, par
hasard, ce qui pourrait le mieux conjurer la menace islamiste, la
poussée migratoire des pays pauvres, les délocalisations
industrielles, les risques de conflits régionaux, n’était pas
précisément cet élargissement de l’Europe vers le sud qui nous fait
aujourd’hui si peur… Ensuite, nous pouvons nous demander si notre
vraie vocation, en tant que nation, n’est pas de constamment
rechercher ce qui réunit les hommes, par-delà les préventions
communautaristes nationales, raciales, religieuses, économiques. Si
ce n’est pas lorsque nous suivons cette vocation que nous atteignons
un état supérieur de prospérité, de rayonnement, de confiance en
nous.

Ces questions, et d’autres encore, ne sauraient être écrasées d’un
coup de marteau expéditif, par un « non jamais » qui nous renverrait
à nos propres faiblesses, sans nous permettre de les surmonter. Le
bon sens nous y invite : sur la Turquie, sans écarter la possibilité
du non, laissons ouvert le chemin du oui.

* Ministre de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme de l’Etat.

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Nov. 4, 2004

UN to discuss Upper Garabagh conflict

The United Nations has considered the request submitted by the
permanent representative of Azerbaijan to include a provision on the
situation with the occupied Azerbaijani lands into the agenda of its
December session. The UN General Assembly approved putting the issue on
discussion by 42 votes, 2 against (including Armenia), with 99 members
abstaining.

Azerbaijan stated that the ongoing conflict has led to the occupation
of a considerable portion of the country’s territories and ousting a
great a number of people from their homes, and inflicted serious damage
to the Azeri economy. The document submitted by Azerbaijan says that
‘the actions by the OSCE Minsk Group dealing with the Upper Garabagh
problem have not yielded any results,

as illegal activity is going on in these territories, notably,
Armenians are being settled there in order to artificially alter the
demographic situation’.
A representative of France, speaking on behalf the OSCE MG, which also
includes USA and Russia, said that due to the efforts of the Minsk
group, the parties are engaged in talks, and proposed to continue
working in this direction. Stating the OSCE MG position on Azerbaijan’s
proposal to include the mentioned issue into the meeting agenda, he
said this may negatively affect the efforts aimed at settling the
conflict.
Commenting on the issue, Russian Foreign Ministry officials stated that
consideration of the Upper Garabagh conflict at the meeting will not
positively influence peace talks.
“Russia abstained from voting, along with the other OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs. We believe that consideration of the issue at the UN General
Assembly session, along with the OSCE, is not likely to favorably
affect the process of negotiations”, the same source said and added
that the results of the vote indicate that most of international
community adhere to the same position.

Armenian opposition MP urges protest against telecom giant’s monopoly

Arminfo
2 Nov 04

YEREVAN

“I call on everyone who is concerned about the country’s fate to
gather on Republic Square outside the government building at 1100
[0700 gmt] next Thursday [4 November]. Armenian citizens have the
right to demand that a resolution of the Armenian Constitutional Court
be fulfilled, Arshak Sadoyan, MP and leader of the National Democrats
bloc, which is part of the opposition Justice bloc, has said.

By making a decision to grant the ArmenTel company a monopoly in the
field of IP-telephony on this day, the government intends ”to sell
the future of our children”, he said. “With the current extremely low
living standards and mass emigration, it is impossible to allow a hike
in the price of Internet telephone communications, which will be
caused by the handover of the monopoly on this sphere to ArmenTel. I
have repeatedly said that it is high time to deprive this company of
its monopoly in all spheres. In early 1999, the Armenian
Constitutional Court made a decision obliging the country’s leadership
to deprive ArmenTel of its monopoly within five year after the
investment. As the contract on the sale of ArmenTel to Greece’s
Telecommunications Organization (OTE) clearly says that its activity
should be only in line with the laws of our country, all talks about
possible sanctions against Armenia, if the monopoly is taken away, is
a simple bluff,” Sadoyan said.

[Passage omitted: A reminder of a statement by IP companies that
ArmenTel should not be given more rights]

Christianity Today
Nov. 3, 2004

Spitting on God’s Image
Christians complain of assaults in Old City.
By Michele Green, ENI, in Jerusalem | posted 11/03/2004

Tensions in Jerusalem’s Old City have flared following an incident
during October in which a Jewish seminary student spat at an
archbishop. It happened during a procession from the city’s Armenian
Quarter to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, a site commemorating
Jesus’ crucifixion and burial.

Israeli police arrested the seminary student, but Christian clerics
living in the walled Old City say such assaults by ultra-Orthodox Jews
are frequent.

“It happens maybe once a week,” Armenian Bishop Aris Shirvanian told
Ecumenical News International. “As soon as they notice a Christian
clergyman, they spit. Those who are ‘respectful’ turn their backs to us
or the large cross that we may carry. But the ones that are daring
either spit on the ground or on the person without any provocation.”

In the latest incident, a scuffle broke out after the Jewish seminary
student spat at the cleric, whose cross was ripped from his neck. The
seminary student later told police he saw the religious procession as
idolatry. Police said an indictment is pending.

Shirvanian said spitting against Christian clergyman had been going on
for years. He said the assailants are religious Jews – men, women, teens,
and children. “This shows that it is a phenomenon that is prevailing in
their religious education and it should be corrected,” he said.

Daniel Rossing, director of the Jerusalem Center for Jewish-Christian
Relations, said his organization plans to ask rabbis to teach their
congregants to stop such attacks.

“All people are created in the image of God and to spit on another
person is to spit on the image of God,” Rossing said.

DOES ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT INTEND TO PASS IP-TELEPHONY MONOPOLY TO ARMENTEL?

02.11.2004 15:50

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian government is going to pass the
IP-telephony monopoly to Armentel Company, representatives of the
executive committee of the companies engaged in IP communication stated
at the press conference today. The statement issued by them says, in
part, that the issue of depriving Armentel of the monopoly on
telecommunication services was discussed during the special sitting of
the Armenian government on October 25. However, the sitting participants
were submitted some items, which, in our opinion, expand the frames of
the company, the document runs. Special attention should be paid to the
item, which says that 250 companies registered in the field will have to
break off their activities while about 3,000 employees of the
organizations providing cheap, available and high-quality communication,
will join the ranks of the unemployed.

NTV MSNBC, Turkey
Nov. 1, 2004

Controversial human rights report released

The report prepared by the Prime Ministry Advisory Board was not
acknowledged by the government.

November 1 – The section of the Prime Ministry Advisory Board Human
Rights report dealing with minorities in Turkey had an eventful release
to the media Monday, with the event being disrupted by protestors,
including members of the board itself.

Professor Ibrahim Kaboglu, the Chairman of the Board, was interrupted
at the press conference called to release the report when he was
attacked by Fahrettin Yokus secretary of the KAMU-Sen, public servants
trade union, who then tore up the copy of the document before the
cameras of the media.
Although forced to halt the press conference due to Yokus’s
attack, Kaboglu said that the report on minorities and cultural rights
in Turkey had been properly voted on and had undergone changes.
Kaboglu made a press statement following the incident. He
highlighted the importance of the human rights and called on all
related parties to keep a close eye on any infringements.
`Freedom of thought is also a matter that should be dealt with
sensitively,’ he said.
In response to the government distancing itself from the report,
Kaboglu stressed that the board was an official body and that the
authorities had been informed of the contents of the report.
The report said that there should be a wider understanding of
minorities in Turkey, rather than just of the Jewish, Greek and
Armenian minorities covered by international treaty.