Author: Tumanian Talar

OPPOSITION CHOKES WITH AMBITIONS, ARSHAK SADOYAN CONSIDERS

A1+
| 20:11:24 | 11-10-2005 | Politics |

The opposition does not undertake drastic measures before the
constitutional referendum, since the alliance experiences problems over
ambitions. This is the opinion of leader of the National Democratic
Alliance Arshak Sadoyan, who accused the opposition of passiveness.

He mentioned the names of Stepan Demirchyan, Artashes Geghamyan and
Aram Z.

Sargsyan noting that the initiative of any of them will kill the idea
of forming a joint headquarters. “Unfortunately ambitions strangle
the opposition. Somebody must take radical moves.” In Arshak Sadoyan’s
opinion this “somebody” is he himself.

Despite the fact that Arshak Sadoyan is not going to quit Justice
bloc. He intends to launch a separate propaganda as regards the
upcoming referendum.

WHAT WILL SAVE THE FATHER OF ARMENIAN REVOLUTION?

Leader of NDA Arshak Sadoyan is going to call businessmen of middle
class to form a fund for spreading anti-propaganda against the adoption
of the constitutional amendments. When asked why he did not appeal to
his party fellows, whose financial state allows making some donations,
the deputy said, “Probably there are some well-off figures in the
Alliance, however since 2003 one-sided expenses exhausted their
financial possibilities.

Though financial flows are not observed yet, the NDA officially
appealed to the Central Bank with a purpose of creating an agitation
fund. According to Sadoyan, they were the first to make such a request

REFERENDUM ALREADY FAILED FOR SADOYAN

The real number of people, who will take part in the referendum on the
constitutional amendments will not exceed 300-350 thousand, NDA leader
Arshak Sadoyan considers basing upon the results of a survey conducted.

At least 80% of the citizens will be inactive, a those active will give
a “no” vote. In his opinion, the referendum has no other alternative
but failure, since 800-850 thousand votes “for” are needed for the
adoption of the constitutional amendments.

THE ADVERTISMENT IS NOT ONLY FOR LISTENING BUT FOR REWARD

Panorama
17:02 11/10/05

“Radio Van” came back from the “Sibirian Decibal” international
festival of audio advertisement with 90 % of total prizes.

An interesting fact, one of the members of jury was Gor Grigoryan,
i.e. Egor Glumov from “Radio Van”. But during the press-conference
Egor Glumov claimed that he didn’t participate in the “Radio Van’s”
advertisements’ voting.

253 works from 30 cities were presented during the festival. “Radio
Van” was the only representative from Armenia.

After so many prizes, the director of the radio station Shushanik
Arevshatyan said that they would never participate in such festivals
as according to the decision of the National Committee of Radio and
TV they cannot make advertisements in Russian. /Panorama.am/

ARMENIAN DM AWARDS MEDALS TO ARMENIAN PEACE-MAKERS

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 11 2005

YEREVAN, October 11. /ARKA/. RA Minister of Defense Serge Sargsyan
has awarded medals and diplomas to a number of Armenian servicemen
that carried out a peace-making mission in Iraq for successful
accomplishment of their task. In Iraq you upheld the honor of our
armed forces thereby contributing to our Homeland’s reputation,”
the Minister said. According to him, Armenia, which is seeking
integration into the European family, cannot be indifferent to the
problems facing it. “We cannot be indifferent to their problems just
as they cannot be indifferent to our problems. This is the reason
why we carry out peace-making missions in Kosovo and in Iraq,”
the Minister said. According to Sargsyan, Armenia carries out these
missions in the interests of its partners. It means that the partners
will act in Armenia’s interests as well. Sargsyan pointed out that
besides Armenia’s efficient army, “our partners” contribute to the
11-year-long relative peace in the region. “It is not a secret,”
the Minister said.

PRESS RELEASE
BIRTHRIGHT ARMENIA
October 11, 2005
Contact: Linda Yepoyan
Phone: 610-642-6633
[email protected]

FREE EASTERN ARMENIAN LANGUAGE PROGRAM OPENS NEW DOORS FOR BIRTHRIGHT
ARMENIA PARTICIPANTS

Riding on the coattails of last year’s successful Armenian language program,
Birthright Armenia has once again proven that learning the language can open
doors to a more meaningful experience. Ask the close to 100 participants in
2005, and they will tell you that the Depi Hayk Eastern Armenian language
program has become one of the most important and successful tools in helping
them immerse into Armenia’s daily life. With a large number of this year’s
young volunteers having no previous knowledge of the Armenian language
before making the journey to Armenia, Birthright’s supplementary in-class
language instruction helps to eliminate language as a barrier for diasporans
interested in contributing to the Homeland.

Each participant begins learning pre-departure by using the free online Depi
Hayk Armenian language tutorial at , which launched
in April 2004 as part of Birthright Armenia’s pilot program. The program
acts as a virtual “language lab,” and features a modern language tutorial,
including common vocabulary, grammar, and reading and writing tools, as well
as a phonetics tool to aid in pronunciation. All materials were developed
by the Arlex International team, led by linguist and attorney Thomas J.
Samuelian.

Then volunteers continue learning the basics of speaking, reading and
writing Armenian through in-class instruction during their eight-week long
community service period in Armenia, enough so that by the end of their
stay, they are successfully communicating with their work colleagues,
homestay family members, newfound friends and neighbors in the local
dialect.

Carla Doughty, an Armenian Volunteer Corps (AVC) volunteer and Birthright
Armenia participant from Rhode Island, who knew no Armenian prior to her
arrival in Armenia, states, “You can’t go to a country where people speak a
different language not knowing the language and expect to have the same
experience. Not only is it culturally important for me to know the language
but it’s socially respectful.”

Birthright Armenia offers these free language classes in Armenia with
teaching professionals from multiple institutions of higher education in
Yerevan. Currently, three different class levels are offered – beginner,
intermediate, and advanced – the latter specifically designed for those who
already have full conversational ability but want to improve their Armenian
reading and writing skills. Some volunteers already fluent in Western
Armenian choose to join in on the language instruction to learn Eastern
Armenian.

Anahit Avedissyan, who teaches the intermediate level language class, says
that she sees in her students an intense desire to learn the language and
that it inspires her. “I see this only here because they are Armenians.”
She further points out that because of this eagerness, students are able to
learn an incredible amount during their eight weeks in Armenia, citing one
student who, at the end of his internship, “wrote a letter to me entirely in
Armenian that made me so gratified and proud”.

Other program services offered to Birthright volunteers such as the homestay
living option, complement the Eastern Armenian language program, providing
great opportunities for participants to utilize their language skills. AVC
volunteer Edward Casabian of Massachusetts, who also knew no Armenian prior
to his arrival in Armenia, stated that his participation in the language
classes that involved everyday activities, as well as practice time with his
host family, were the most helpful elements during his stay in Armenia.
“The language was an amazing challenge for me, but learning the bits and
pieces I did was extremely rewarding.”

Fortunately a large majority of those who receive language tutoring in
Armenia pledge to continue their studies once they got back home, whether in
Eastern or Western dialect. “Birthright’s language classes helped so much
to increase my ability to communicate in Armenian that I am inspired to
continue building on what I learned in Armenia in order to be fluent one
day”, added Tamara Shahabian, a NY grad student who spent this past summer
in Armenia.

Birthright Armenia’s mission is to strengthen ties between the Homeland and
Diasporan youth by affording them an opportunity to be a part of Armenia’s
daily life and to contribute to Armenia’s development through work, study
and volunteer experiences, while developing life-long personal ties and a
renewed sense of Armenian identity. For those interested in learning more
about Birthright Armenia and the year-round opportunities available for
community service, please visit or email
[email protected].

ARMENISCH-TURKISCHER PUBLIZIST HRANT DINK BEKOMMT WEGEN VOLKSKRITISCHEN ARTIKELS BEWAHRUNGSSTRAFE
von Boris Kalnoky

DIE WELT, Deutschland
10. Oktober 2005

Verurteilung wegen Beleidigung der Turkei

Istanbul – Wegen Beleidigung der Turkei ist ein armenisch-turkischer
Journalist zu einer sechsmonatigen Bewahrungsstrafe verurteilt
worden. Hrant Dink hatte im Februar 2004 in seiner Wochenzeitung “Agos”
etwas verquer geschrieben, die Armenier sollten sich “dem neuen Blut
des unabhangigen Armeniens zuwenden”. Nur so konnten sie sich von der
“Last der Diaspora befreien”. In dem Beitrag ging es um das kollektive
Gedachtnis der Massaker an den Armeniern von 1915-17 (in der Turkei
darf man diesbezuglich nicht von Genozid sprechen oder schreiben),
und in einer anderen, etwas merkwurdigen Formulierung schrieb Dink,
die Armenier sollten den “verdorbenen Teil ihres turkischen Blutes”
symbolisch zuruckweisen. Nach Angaben von Dinks Kollegen wurden die
Zitate aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen und falsch interpretiert. In
der Turkei steht die Beleidigung der nationalen Identitat unter Strafe.

Wenige Tage nach der Aufnahme von Beitrittsverhandlungen zwischen der
EU und der Turkei hat der Schuldspruch auch deshalb eine besondere
Bedeutung, weil Dink auf der Grundlage von Gesetzen verurteilt wurde,
die nach Ansicht der EU abgeschafft werden mussen.

Die Intellektuellen und Publizisten der Turkei taten indes gut daran,
die Regierung einmal um eine erschopfende und rechtlich bindende
Definition dessen zu bitten, was sie unter “turkischer Identitat”
versteht. Das ware einerseits sicher kurzweilige Lekture, und
andererseits auch Schutz vor dem langen Arm des Gesetzes. Denn obwohl
niemand so ganz genau weiß, was diese turkische Identitat denn sein
soll, macht man sich strafbar, wenn man sie “beleidigt”. (Vielleicht
brauchte man auch eine Definition dessen, was unter “Beleidigung”
zu verstehen ist). Daß das Gericht mit seinem Urteil zugleich die
neuerdings so gern beschworene “europaische Identitat” der Turkei
beleidigte, zu deren zentralen Werten immer noch die Meinungsfreiheit
gehort, fiel vermutlich keinem der urteilsfreudigen Polit-Juristen auf.

Aus europaischer Sicht, und auch aus der Sicht turkischer
Reformpolitiker, ist jedenfalls die Sorge berechtigt, daß konservative
Kreise innerhalb des Justizapparates mit spektakular widersinnigen
Verfahren gegen prominente Intellektuelle versuchen, die europaischen
Traume der Turkei zu sabotieren.

Im Dezember steht ein Prozeß gegen den Schriftsteller Orhan Pamuk an,
der sich gegen ganz ahnliche Vorwurfe verteidigen muß. Pamuk bekommt
dieses Jahr den Friedenspreis des Deutschen Buchhandels. Er hat zwar
nicht das verbotene Wort “Genozid” gebraucht, aber doch offentlich
gesagt, in der Turkei seien 30 000 Kurden und eine Million Armenier
umgebracht worden. Letztere Zahl ist nach Meinung vieler Historiker
etwas hoch gegriffen. Aber auch wenn es “nur” beispielsweise 800
000 Tote waren, wird dadurch das Ausmaß der Tragodie nicht geringer,
und das muß frei von Angst vor staatlicher Gewalt gesagt werden durfen.

Die juristische Hetzkampagne gegen “unturkische” Intellektuelle ist um
so bedauerlicher, als der Trend eigentlich in Richtung Liberalisierung
geht. Kurzlich wurde nach langem Widerstand der Justizbehorden –
die in den genannten Fallen stets eine Rolle zu spielen pflegen –
eine Konferenz unabhangiger Historiker zur Armenierfrage in Istanbul
abgehalten.

Seither liest man in Kolumnen und Kommentaren turkischer Blatter
bemerkenswerte Meinungen und Analysen. Enver Pasha und die Jungturken,
die damals das ottomanische Reich regierten, werden da beispielsweise
als vom Volk abgehobene Abenteurertypen geschildert, Fremde eigentlich,
Turken vom Balkan, deren verantwortungslose Politik nicht nur die
Armenier, sondern auch die Turken und letztlich das ganze Land ins
Verderben sturzte.

Das konnte eine Vorstufe fur die Entwicklung einer neuen Standard-These
in der Turkei sein: Wir waren es nicht, Enver Pascha ist es gewesen.

–Boundary_(ID_AcnXmmWAEckMb0y1wjFF1Q)–

PUTTING SALT ON THE ICE
by TOL

Transitions Online, Czech Republic
Oct 10 2005

Now that the era of grand hopes for the West’s relationship with
Russia is over, it is time to turn attention on Russia’s role in
Kosovo and frozen post-Soviet conflicts.

For all the grandiloquent phrases of Britain’s Tony Blair and the
grand but wooden words of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, there was an
inescapable sense of hollowness about the Russia-EU summit on 4
October. That hollowness is understandable, because at the heart of
Russia’s relationship with the West there may now be a real void.

Many of the key issues of recent years have been put to the test
and answers found – about Putin’s commitment to democracy, Russia’s
position in the war on terror, the limits of his relationship with the
West, his foreign-policy orientation, and the Kremlin’s relationship
with Big Business. If there is a hidden democrat in Putin, it is clear
he will not appear in a Russian president’s normal two terms; Putin’s
post-9/11 embrace of the West was soon chilled by anti-Americanism
at home and, now, by the fear of “color revolutions”; Russia’s
“war on terror” ends on the borders of Iraq and Iran; Russia is now
re-exploring its potential as a Eurasian power; and the Yukos affair
and its aftermath suggest the commanding heights of the economy
are being renationalized. There seems little chance of change or
rapprochement on these fronts.

There may be more chance of the relationship worsening. Moscow’s
particular bete noire now is democracy promotion, but, like many
betes noires, its importance may be more psychological than real.

International solidarity and support is undoubtedly vitally important
symbolically to democratic groups, and any practical help goes a long
way for opposition movements with few means of fighting a regime such
as that of Belarus’ Alyaksandr Lukashenka. But the West’s capacity
to bring about change is exaggerated. For one, the West is still
struggling towards a policy on Belarus, let alone Russia. And,
more importantly, Washington, Brussels, and Moscow may test their
influence in Belarus, the answer will be the same as in Ukraine:
changes in Belarus will come about primarily thanks to Belarusians’
efforts rather than to Western advice on how to detect election fraud
or to Russian attempts to find a replacement for Lukashenka. The
same applies in Russia: the West can invest in promoting democracy in
Russia, but cannot prompt change. In such circumstances, the primary
service that such clashes over democracy promotion may perhaps serve
in the near future is to highlight the Russian elite’s own relationship
to democracy.

On other issues, many of them practical, the questions are now
largely about delivery. The map of oil and gas pipelines is filling
up; in some places (such as the Caspian and Black seas), there are
competing pipelines, and in others direct pipelines between the West
and Russia (such as the planned pipe between Germany and Russia and
Russia’s and Turkey’s trans-Black Sea gas pipeline). In other words,
the West’s relationship with Russia is, understandably, ambiguous. As
for Russia’s drive for membership of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), the United States and Europe have already indicated that they
support Russia’s bid; it is now up to Russia to complete the job.

Distraction may also account for some of the hollowness at the
summit. Domestic politics is forcing itself to the top of the
agenda for many of the key leaders of this relationship. Putin’s
administration has a plateful of reforms. The half-acknowledged death
of the European Constitution leaves the EU with its own concerns.

Bush’s second term is caught in the mud and much of Blair’s third
term may be spent in search of successes at home. Germany’s Gerhard
Schroeder seems definitively on his way out; his replacement will have
a weaker hand than once expected. And, meanwhile, France’s Jacques
Chirac seems laid out by illness, partly his own but mainly France’s.

With some of the key limits of possible relationships with Russia
now clearer and with so much to do at home, Western leaders may
let the relationship with Russia drift for a while. But drift would
be dangerous, partly because, grand hopes dashed, the relationship
may simply follow the path of least resistance to simple matters of
mutual convenience – and partly because relations with Russia affect
many smaller, but still important issues.

In a sense, the West and Russia need some new issues on which to
focus. Now that the age of grand hopes seems over, it may be time
for some nitty-gritty work to remove unnecessary grit from the
relationship. Obvious bits of grit include the “frozen conflicts”
dotted around the Black Sea – in Transdniester, South Ossetia,
Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh – but also Russia’s role in the
Contact Group that will lead discussions about the final status of
Kosovo. (Chechnya too should be on the agenda, but the challenge
there is to make sure it becomes grit in the relationship; with the
West’s leaders gradually being replaced, there just may be a chance
of making Chechnya the type of problem that it should be for the West.)

WHAT TO DO ABOUT KARABAKH?

In Transdniester and Georgia’s breakaway republics, the real issue
is, as we have argued before, to tell Russia that the miserable bit
of local leverage it gets from manipulating these frozen conflicts
is far less than the wider respect and authority that it forfeits by
doing so. There has been some movement by Russia – Moscow is pulling
out troops from Georgia’s undisputed territory – and there has been
some movement by others, with Ukraine, for instance, tightening up
its borders with Transdniester. These will tidy up some of the mess
around these conflicts, but in all instances there has been little
movement on the key issues: the final status of these regions. The
challenge remains the same – to show Russia that it gains little and
loses more by continuing to put sand in the oil.

In Kosovo, the situation is a variation on the same theme. When talks
on the province’s final status begin, the current evidence suggests
Russia may quite possibly lock itself into a pro-Serbian position,
a danger made all the greater by the historical baggage of the war
in Kosovo and the great powers’ role then as protectors of local
actors, with the United States siding with the Kosovo Albanians and
the Russians playing the role of a Serbian advocate (albeit somewhat
erratic since both Russia’s then president, Boris Yeltsin, and foreign
minister, Igor Ivanov, despised Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic). But
if Moscow re-runs old battles and complicates any emerging solution,
it will lose some of the respect it could earn by helping to broker
a deal.

Those are tractable problems; Karabakh may be less tractable, even
though a deal was almost struck in 2001. Pogroms against Armenians
in Azerbaijan, then a war over disputed territory and the occupation
of undisputed Azeri territory to link Karabakh to Armenia, and the
displacement of huge numbers of refugees, particularly Azeris: all
this makes Karabakh something like the Palestine of the South Caucasus.

Here, there is perhaps little that Russia can do to make peace. But
there may now be more opportunity for the West and Russia, already
partners in the Minsk Group that is trying to mediate an agreement
(the West represented by the United States and France), to work
together to try to turn the Karabakh debate into what it really is:
a bilateral issue.

For that to happen, Turkey needs to change its position.

Unfortunately, Turkey has hardwired itself into the problem by,
in effect, allowing Baku to dictate its foreign policy: when, for
instance, there seemed a possibility last year that Turkey might make
moves to ease, possibly even lift its blockade on Armenia, Baku put
its foot down. Ankara stepped back; the blockade remains in place.

The latest talks in August produced no significant movement. On
the ground, tensions are if anything increasing, with the number of
breaches of the ceasefire rising for several years. With elections
in Azerbaijan just a month away, the rhetoric is fiery.

It is hard to say how much Turkey’s Siamese-twin approach to Karabakh
is complicating the effort to achieve what must be the international
community’s two key goals: to prevent the frozen conflict from thawing
into open war, and to find a long-term solution. But there is certainly
no obvious way in which it is helping. Armenia (population: three
million), already instinctively hostile to Turkey because of the 1915
massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and a follower of the
“iron ladle” principle (that you can never win the respect of other
nations without fighting for freedom), is unlikely to concede much
if it feels that Azerbaijan (eight million) will make no concessions
because it can wholly rely on the support of Turkey (70 million).

As Armenia’s greatest supporter, Russia is itself not a neutral player,
of course. But its position and policies are less constrained than
Turkey’s. The West’s and Russia’s aim should not be the impossible –
to make Ankara adopt an independent position – but to try to make it
more independent.

And Russia, like the West, does have growing influence over Turkey.

With the possibility of EU accession now a real prospect, Turkey now
has more to gain from listening to the EU’s requests that it normalize
its relationship with Armenia. It also has less to lose by making its
relationship with Azerbaijan more flexible: thanks to an energy-based
relationship with Russia that has blossomed in the past few years,
Turkey now has more alternatives to the current and expected inflow
of Azeri gas and oil. It may even be willing to listen to Russia more
(in July Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told the world
after meeting Putin that “our views totally coincide with regard to
the situation in the region as well as to the issues concerning the
preservation of stability in the world”). It also seems to see the
value in a more stable Black Sea, since it is apparently interested
in a role in resolving the conflict in Abkhazia.

It would be hard for Turkey to distance itself from the Karabakh issue,
as that implies some distance from Baku. But Ankara now seems trapped
by Baku in a zero-sum game that does little, if anything to forward
Turkey’s own interests.

To argue for more flexibility is not to accept Armenia’s position
on Karabakh: the principles involved in discussions are complicated,
much more so than in discussions about the final status of Kosovo. To
argue for a change in Turkey’s position is not to expect Turkey to
make major changes: a country that will on 16 December put on trial a
potential Nobel Prize winner, Orhan Pamuk, for suggesting that Turkey
did commit genocide against Armenians in 1915 is unlikely to normalize
relations with Armenia swiftly or easily.

To argue for more flexibility is simply to say that Azerbaijan’s
and Armenia’s relationship may be frozen, but the politics of the
world around cannot be allowed to freeze. What effect any movement
by Turkey might have is unpredictable, but it seems reasonable to
predict it would not increase the danger of war, the bare-minimum
goal for the international community.

Asking Russia to exert pressure on Turkey would, in effect, be asking
Russia to tell Turkey what the West should be telling Russia about
Transdniester, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia: that it gains little and
loses significantly by keeping to its current policy. It would also
be asking Turkey to do something that Russia may itself do in talks
over Kosovo – automatically take the same line as historical friends.

That makes it less likely that Russia will use its growing influence
over Turkey. Expecting significant shifts in the ice on any of these
issues would be overly optimistic. But now is as good a time as any to
test the ice. Better, certainly, than letting a key relationship drift.

ESCALATION OF SITUATION IN JAVAKHETI ROOTED IN HARD SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Pan Armenian
08.10.2005 20:28 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Absolutely nobody’s trace – including that of Russia
– is found in situation in Samtskhe-Javakheti, President’s Advisor for
National Security Issues Garnik Isagulyan stated at a news conference
October 8 when commenting on reports that Russian special services
allegedly guide Armenians’ actions in Samtskhe-Javakheti. In his words,
the escalation of the situation in the region is an internal affair,
rooted specifically in the hard social and economic conditions of the
region. “However, Georgian authorities should be extremely careful
and attentive in their actions, as any small provocation may pour
out into large-scale collisions,” G. Isagulyan remarked.

Le Télégramme , France
7 octobre 2005

Pierre Lellouche. « Villepin n’est qu’un exécutant »

Propos recueillis par Philippe Reinhard

Député de Paris, ancien conseiller diplomatique de Jacques Chirac,
Pierre Lellouche a récemment pris du galon.

Député de Paris, ancien conseiller diplomatique de Jacques Chirac,
Pierre Lellouche a récemment pris du galon. Il fait désormais partie
du premier cercle du président de l’UMP. En bon sarkozyste, il se
montre très critique envers Dominique de Villepin, reprochant au
Premier ministre de faire la même politique que celle qui prévalait
avant le référendum du 29 mai. Mais aussi de trop penser à la
présidentielle de 2007.

Député UMP, quel jugement portez-vous sur les premiers pas du
gouvernement Villepin ?

Dans l’épure, telle qu’elle a été fixée par le président de la
République, le Premier ministre a incontestablement bien joué. Il a
donné une image de jeunesse, de mouvement et d’élégance.

En réalité, Villepin fait du Chirac en plus jeune, en plus moderne.
Mais il fait exactement la même politique. On fait la même chose
qu’avant, avec, c’est vrai, un peu plus de séduction dans la démarche
et un peu plus d’efficacité dans la communication.

Vous ne croyez pas à l’effet Villepin ?

La personne du Premier ministre n’est pas en cause. Le problème est
que sa politique est celle du président de la République.

Villepin n’est qu’un exécutant. C’est la même politique que celle qui
prévalait avant le 29 mai. Même s’il y a une différence de style et
une pratique médiatique plus efficace.

Le Premier ministre est pourtant populaire. N’est-ce pas un bon signe
pour votre majorité ?

Villepin a construit une cote d’amour. Mais maintenant, il rentre
dans la difficulté. Pour ne prendre que deux exemples, il lui faut
résoudre le problème de la SNCM qui a gravement envenimé la question
corse, et il lui faut répondre aux préoccupations exprimées avec
force par les manifestations du 4 octobre.

Quelle doit être, à vos yeux, la réponse de la droite aux inquiétudes
du pays ?

Nous sommes confrontés aujourd’hui au vieux débat entre ceux qui
prônent la réforme et ceux qui se satisfont du statu quo.
J’appartiens résolument au camp de la réforme.

Croyez-vous à une candidature Villepin en 2007 ?

Je suis convaincu que c’est chez lui une véritable obsession. Et cela
ne date pas d’hier. Il y pense depuis au moins dix ans, et
probablement davantage.

Son problème est qu’il lui faut obtenir des résultats pour
crédibiliser son éventuelle candidature. Et, avec la politique qu’il
mène, il a peu de chances de réussir.

Pour obtenir des résultats, il faut mener une politique de réformes
en profondeur et avoir du temps. Or, ce Premier ministre n’a ni
politique de réforme, ni le temps nécessaire pour la mener à bien.

Vous participez à la primaire parisienne de l’UMP. Cette primaire
préfigure-t-elle les primaires présidentielles au sein de l’UMP ?

J’ai participé aux primaires UMP à Paris parce que je suis convaincu
que je suis le mieux placé pour battre le maire sortant. Le combat
pour la mairie de Paris n’est pas seulement local. Il est vrai par
ailleurs que les primaires décidées par la direction de l’UMP
constituent une sorte de galop d’essai. A Paris, comme demain au plan
national pour la désignation de notre candidat à l’élection
présidentielle, on a donné la parole aux militants. Plus personne ne
pourra la leur retirer.

Contrairement à l’immense majorité des élus de droite, vous avez pris
position depuis longtemps en faveur de l’adhésion de la Turquie à
l’Union européenne. Pourquoi ?

Le problème posé par l’adhésion de la Turquie à l’Union est majeur.
Aussi bien pour les Turcs que pour les Européens.

Ce qui reste en question, c’est l’identité de l’Europe et celle de la
Turquie. Si le processus engagé aboutit, la Turquie deviendra
pleinement européenne et démocratique. L’enjeu est considérable : si
nous gagnons ce pari, la preuve sera apportée qu’un Islam modéré est
possible et que la réconciliation avec le modèle occidental n’est pas
un leurre.

A l’inverse, une rupture acterait, sinon une guerre des
civilisations, l’existence d’un fossé profond. La Turquie laïque et
démocratique porte l’espoir d’un Islam moderne. Si l’Europe devait la
repousser, cela accentuerait les risques d’un conflit interne au
monde musulman. Nous aurions tout à craindre d’en subir un jour les
retombées.

Vous militez pour l’entrée de la Turquie dans l’Union. Et pourtant
l’accord intervenu cette semaine à Bruxelles ne vous satisfait pas
complètement. Pourquoi ?

Je ne regrette pas d’avoir fait partie du petit nombre de
responsables politiques qui ont plaidé pour que l’Europe ne ferme pas
la porte au nez des Turcs. Mais il fallait assortir l’acceptation du
processus de négociation d’un certain nombre de conditions. Même si
les Turcs ont fait de grands pas vers la démocratisation, il importe
de vérifier que les lois adoptées par Ankara seront réellement
opérationnelles. Il aurait surtout fallu s’assurer, avant l’ouverture
des négociations, que la Turquie accepte de s’engager sur plusieurs
dossiers essentiels.

Le premier touche d’abord à la question arménienne. Aussi longtemps
qu’elle n’aura pas accepté de faire son devoir de mémoire sur le
génocide arménien, et aussi longtemps qu’elle refusera de revoir ses
positions concernant l’ouverture des frontières avec l’Etat arménien,
elle ne pourra pas adhérer à l’Union européenne.

La deuxième pierre d’achoppement concerne Chypre. Il faut que la
Turquie mette un terme à l’occupation du nord de cette île
européenne, et il est inconcevable d’accepter dans l’Union un pays
qui refuserait de reconnaître un des Etats-membres. Je regrette que
les gouvernements européens, à commencer par le nôtre, n’aient pas
posé clairement ces questions à leur interlocuteur turc. Je souhaite
– et j’ai été un des seuls à le dire – l’adhésion de la Turquie. Mais
je regrette que l’on ait décidé d’engager ces négociations sur des
bases ambiguës.

Pensez-vous que Jacques Chirac a commis une erreur sur le dossier
turc ?

Dans cette affaire, le président de la République est cohérent avec
les propositions qu’il a formulées depuis longtemps. J’aurais préféré
qu’il précise les conditions qu’il convenait de poser à la Turquie.
Mais je reconnais que son objectif, qui est également le mien, est de
démontrer qu’entre l’Islam, l’Occident et l’Europe, la rupture n’est
pas inéluctable. Si la Turquie parvient à montrer qu’il existe une
voie démocratique pour l’Islam, ce sera un signal très fort pour le
monde musulman.

GRAPHIQUE: Photo, Legende: Proche de Nicolas Sarkozy, Pierre
Lellouche n’est pas tendre avec le Premier ministre. « Villepin fait
du Chirac en plus jeune, en plus moderne. Mais il fait exactement la
même politique. (…) Il a peu de chance de réussir ». (Photo AFP)

A1+

| 20:30:02 | 07-10-2005 | Politics |

TWO FRONTS OR SEPARATE OPPOSITIONS

Agitators

Yesterday coalition parties proportionally formed a pre-election staff of
agitation of constitutional amendments.

Budget will also be formed proportionally, leader of Armenian Revolutionary
Federation Levon Lazarian stated today during Parliamentary briefings.
Until November 27th coalition staff will persuade and explain to society
privileges of constitutional amendments. It won’t be difficult to persuade
members of United Labor Party. Though principle suggestions of ULP were not
taken into account, they have no serious reasons to say `no’ to
constitutional amendments, member of the party Grigor Ghonjeyan said.

`There’s no a single serious factor that amendments make the Constitution
worse’, – Mr. Ghonjeyan noted, not considering that such position means à
disawoval of principles.

The coalition staff will be supported by People’s party, not financially as
member of the party Mkrtich Minasyan stated. The latter is going to say
«yes» to constitutional amendments.

Anti-Agitators

According to NU deputy Koryun Arakelyan constitutional amendments do not
solve the existing problems, do not make our country mor democratic, so
they’ll agitate against constitutional amendments.

Why then NU did not join the 16 parties saying «no» to constitutional
amendments. Mr. Arakelyan marks, that they wanted to form a `second front,
like during World War II». Besides those 16 parties haven’t decided yet
whether they would vote in or boycotte the referendum. NU is against
boycotte, as `those boycotting do not follow their results’. Secretary of NU
party Viktor Dallakyan says he is for voting and saying `no’ to
constitutional amendments.

By the way, it’s not clear yet who will lead both agitators and antis.

| 20:30:02 | 07-10-2005 | Politics |

TWO FRONTS OR SEPARATE OPPOSITIONS
Agitators

Yesterday coalition parties proportionally formed a pre-election staff of
agitation of constitutional amendments.

Budget will also be formed proportionally, leader of Armenian Revolutionary
Federation Levon Lazarian stated today during Parliamentary briefings.
Until November 27th coalition staff will persuade and explain to society
privileges of constitutional amendments. It won’t be difficult to persuade
members of United Labor Party. Though principle suggestions of ULP were not
taken into account, they have no serious reasons to say `no’ to
constitutional amendments, member of the party Grigor Ghonjeyan said.

`There’s no a single serious factor that amendments make the Constitution
worse’, – Mr. Ghonjeyan noted, not considering that such position means à
disawoval of principles.

The coalition staff will be supported by People’s party, not financially as
member of the party Mkrtich Minasyan stated. The latter is going to say
«yes» to constitutional amendments.

Anti-Agitators

According to NU deputy Koryun Arakelyan constitutional amendments do not
solve the existing problems, do not make our country mor democratic, so
they’ll agitate against constitutional amendments.

Why then NU did not join the 16 parties saying «no» to constitutional
amendments. Mr. Arakelyan marks, that they wanted to form a `second front,
like during World War II». Besides those 16 parties haven’t decided yet
whether they would vote in or boycotte the referendum. NU is against
boycotte, as `those boycotting do not follow their results’. Secretary of NU
party Viktor Dallakyan says he is for voting and saying `no’ to
constitutional amendments.

By the way, it’s not clear yet who will lead both agitators and antis.

RUSSIA’S NOUVEAUX RICHES SHAKE UP MONACO
Andrei Cherny

MosNews, Russia
Oct 6 2005

Russia’s newly affluent flaunt their wealth on Cote d’Azur with
oligarch Roman Abramovich setting the pace. The hot spot where Arabian
sheiks and American millionaires once came to gamble is now crowded
with Russians and Ukrainians.

Monaco is a sickle-like strip of prosperous land terracing up the
mountains and cascading down toward the sea, with a population
of 30,000, only 7,000 holding citizenship. A toy state sandwiched
between France and Italy, it is one of the most affluent countries in
Europe. Flowers, palms, and greenery on every square inch of land;
marinas packed with yachts; streets looking as though they have
just been shampooed; restaurants, boutiques, casinos, nightclubs,
and sandy beaches. Monaco is a country of legitimate luxury, one of
the most expensive and exclusive places in Europe. People from all
over the world come here to spend their money. This past summer has
seen a “Russian boom.”

“We’ve been working in Monaco for 22 years and have not until recently
seen any Russians here. They appeared three years ago, but this year
they have made our season!” Chantal Sobra, director of the Louis
Vuitton store, says. The three-level, renovated, sparkling Vuitton
is one of the most expensive boutiques on the coast.

“Russians are au courant on everything – competition, new products,
the latest trends.

“And they are tres chic,” the director says amid a flurry of activity
around three Russian women clients. The provincial looking Russians
are ordering about a sales assistant with the help of sign language
and are terribly reminiscent of Cinderella’s sisters from the prewar
Russian film.

“I was walking about Monte Carlo and I saw this shop. I had just
been given a watch from that firm. I walked in. A similar model
cost $40,000. But mine has fewer diamonds so it’s probably worth
just $20,000,” a Barbie kind of girl says plaintively to her macho
companions at Cafe de Paris.

There are legends about Russians in Monaco.

This week, a Russian sugar daddy with several female companions had
breakfast at a restaurant, shelling out 110,000 euros and then giving
a 10,000 tip.

An unfamiliar word, screamed out in a horrifying voice, attracted
everyone’s attention at Casino SUN. Three-hundred thousand euros that
an unknown Russian lost in one fell swoop enriched the Monegasques’
vocabulary with a Russian profanity. The loser walked out of the hall,
while the game continued as usual.

The beach at the Beach Hotel is the best in Monaco: It is used by the
prince himself. Yet even here everyone was stunned by the appearance
of a boy of about 10 with a wad of pink 500-euro bills, saying:
“Dad gave it to me to celebrate my birthday!”

Last year, the yacht of a minor oil tycoon called at the Port
d’Hercule. At midnight, its lights went up to the accompaniment of
disco music. Before long, however, the yacht’s owner lost moorage
rights and was told never to enter Monaco waters again. Well, you
don’t argue with the prince.

Still, the more money they spend, the better. Even the harsh traffic
police try not to fine the drunk drivers of luxury cars when they
leave casinos.

Monaco’s uncrowned king – Societe des Bains de Mer (SBM) which owns
the country’s best hotels, casinos, and banks – has for the past one
and a half centuries been managing its properties with an iron hand.

Each SBM hotel, where prices start at $1,500 for a single room, has
luxury suites at 2,000 to 7,000 euros a night during the high season.

Earlier, they were used only by Arab sheiks and U.S. millionaires.

Today, Russians seem to have crowded them out.

“The local atmosphere of permanent holiday and festivity produces
a strong psychological effect. This summer, very serious money has
been won and lost at Monte Carlo,” Alex Oppenot, the SBM marketing
director, says.

SBM sees the “Russian invasion” as renaissance – the Return: After
all, the place was a favorite with Russia’s grand dukes; there were
Diaghilev Russian seasons and Nijinsky shows, and Russian industrial
magnates played the roulette wheel here.

The new Russians’ lineage does not really matter: What counts is
their money. Today, they have loads of money. One indication of this
are the prices at Russian art auctions.

A recent match between a Russian and a Monaco soccer club, according
to Alex Oppenot, increased the Russian presence in Monte Carlo by 64
percent. The match was not simply a sporting event but an excellent
opportunity for self-promotion. Attendance at the stadium is a sign
of affiliation with the caste of wealthy, happy, and successful. The
number one name here is Roman Abramovich. His appearance at Monte
Carlo, which has seen plenty, created a stir: Roman and his party
on the coast; Roman and his yacht, the Pelarus (resembling rather
a warship); Roman and his girlfriends – according to eyewitness
accounts, not quite of age; Roman at Jimmy’z, a night club where a
glass of water costs 40 euros.

The blatant flaunting of wealth is an infectious example for dozens
of his Russian compatriots.

Real estate is the first and foremost concern for Russians on Cote
d’Azur. Villa prices range from 70 million to 200 million euros, but
at Cannes, Cap Ferra, Antibes, and especially Monaco, everything has
already been bought up. La Vigie, a three-level villa overlooking
Monte Carlo’s best beach (80,000 a month) was rented by a Russian
for the entire swimming season – April through October.

Yachts are another important prestige factor. There is a kind of
tacit competition for yacht size. Every extra meter costs about 1
million. Yacht builders meet at Port d’Hercule every year, showing
their products, striking deals, and taking orders.

Finally, the life style. There are more car showrooms than groceries
here. A Maybach or a Lamborghini here costs one-half of what it does,
e.g. in France, where the luxury tax is charged. Motor vehicles
parked outside the Grand Casino, built by the legendary Garnier and
reminiscent of the Opera de Paris building, are not to be seen anywhere
else. You cannot, however, drive to neighboring Nice in such a car,
gold coast people complain: Its body will be scratched or its tires
will be slashed there. You’ve got to live in Monaco: It has everything
– golf fields, tennis courts, sea baths, and spa salons.

Russians in Monaco are clients who must not be humiliated by low
prices, especially when comfort, heat and excitement are closely
intertwined.

The Monte-Carlo Casino overlooking the Mediterranean is the best
known casino in the world. Royal persons and upstarts, aristocratic
old ladies and golden youth, cardsharpers and spies have all played
there. These include fortune seekers from the CIS. They are referred
to indiscriminately as “Russians.” As a matter of fact, they are
Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Moldovans, Armenians, etc. A running joke here
has it that one day the Monegasques will learn to tell Kazakhs
from Belarusians as they once learned to distinguish between the
Japanese and Chinese. The naive SBM managers are going to introduce
a special seminar to teach Russians “civilized gambling” – i.e.,
how to play cards without relying on luck alone. They must not have
read Dostoyevsky’s The Gambler.

On Avenue des Beaux-Arts, a tiny street in downtown Monaco comprised of
luxury boutiques and jewelry houses, the strong smell of petrodollars
is converted into the fragrance of orchids. Fall-season collections
have been swept by a hurricane from Russia. One of the most popular
types of massage on the list offered to SBM luxury hotel clients is
“after-shopping massage.” This year, Monaco’s couture stores have
seen their profits rise 30 to 40 percent – mainly due to Russian and
Ukrainian money.

“This summer, Americans stayed at home: Because of the dollar’s low
exchange rate, it is unprofitable to travel to Europe. The Arabs have
their own problems to deal with. There are also very few Japanese:
They are afraid of terrorist attacks on airplanes. If it was not
for the Russians, we would have been left without any profit,” SBM
managers say.

The exuberant lifestyles and spending practices that Russians,
dizzy with the unlimited opportunities, demonstrated at first
by buying the most expensive things, are now giving way to the
“getting-into-the-mainstream” ambition – i.e., being like everyone
else. Today, SBM managers believe, wealthy Russians are striving to
be accepted into the fold of civilization. The Monegasques, however,
only want to see the tip of the iceberg – that is to say, profits
from the Russians’ exuberant spending practices.

Prince Albert, the patron of sports, however, objected to the
idea of selling the Monaco soccer club to a Russian businessman,
Aleksei Fedorychev, saying that the club must not be in the hands of
a foreigner. That was the first time when the issue of the provenance
of money came up. Nevertheless, that did not prevent Fedorychev from
becoming the main sponsor of the Monaco club.

Russian oligarchs, raised on oil, natural gas, and god knows what else,
seem to be living in total ignorance of their own country – vast and
impoverished, with low living standards and high mortality rates.