No agreement on liberating occupied districts reached yet – Azeri leader

ANS TV, Baku
7 May 04

[Presenter] All the occupied territories of Azerbaijan will be
returned and all refugees will return home, Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said, while commenting on the 12th anniversary of Susa’s
occupation [in Karabakh].

[Ilham Aliyev] This is our big tragedy and grief. The occupation of
Nagornyy Karabakh and the districts around it is the biggest problem
of Azerbaijan and the region. This is a danger. We are making efforts
to resolve this problem peacefully. We are faithful to the peace
talks. I have already said that if we had not believed in the results
of the talks, we would not have held these talks. We believe that the
negotiations will yield results and the problem will be resolved. We
will do our best to make sure that Azerbaijan’s right position is
highlighted in the talks.

[Journalist] Mr President, is it the [OSCE Minsk Group] co-chairmen
who have put forward the idea of releasing the seven districts [around
Karabakh] or is it the two presidents who have reached an agreement on
this?

[Aliyev] The cochairmen have no proposals at all. The two presidents
have not reached any agreement either. If we had reached an agreement,
we would have disclosed it. This is Azerbaijan’s position.

[Another journalist] Mr President, have you discussed this issue with
[Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan? What was Kocharyan’s position?

[Aliyev] We have discussed this issue with Kocharyan, but I do not
want to say anything about this because it is up to him to disclose
his stance. Our position is no secret to anybody. We discussed this
issue at our meeting.

Armenian congress meets to discuss mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire
AP Online
May 06, 2004

The Worldwide Armenian Congress began meeting here on Thursday to
discuss its efforts to receive international recognition of the mass
killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide.

Ara Abramian, head of the Worldwide Armenian Congress, said their goal
would be a full and final acknowledgment from the international
community.

“This envisions also an acknowledgment of genocide from Turkey and the
resolution of all related issues based on international law,” he said.

Armenia accuses Turkey of the genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians
between 1915 and 1919, when Armenia was under the Ottoman
Empire. Turkey rejects the claim and says Armenians were killed in
civil unrest during the collapse of the empire.

Armenia has pushed for the United States and other nations to declare
the killings a genocide based on well-documented historical
evidence. Many countries, including Russia and France, have officially
recognized the event as genocide, along with some U.S. states.

The conference organizers, which also include the Armenian Institute
of International Law and Politics in Moscow, also planned to discuss
ways to unify the Armenian position on the issue, particularly in
regard to questions of territorial or material compensation.

A unified position “is very important for Turkey and for our
supporters and opponents so that everyone can understand what would be
the consequences and the limits of Armenian demands,” said Andranik
Migranian, a well-known political expert, who acknowledged divergent
views among political parties in Armenia, the Armenian government and
the large Armenian Diaspora.

The meeting, behind held in the Armenian capital, Yerevan, also
planned to discuss issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
Turkey’s support of Azerbaijan, as well as prospects for improving
Turkey-Armenian relations.

Armenian foreign policy intentions unclear – paper

Aravot, Yerevan
6 May 04

Text of Tigran Avetisyan report by Armenian newspaper Aravot on 6 May
headlined “An unclear priority”

The foreign policy priorities of Armenia, which according to Armenian
Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan have been clarified and gained
general shape during the Yerevan consultations of the representatives
of the Armenian Diaspora organizations and Armenian ambassadors, make
us thoughtful. These priorities are euphonious and are not a subject
of argument in the sense of their content. But it is unclear, what
they were taking into account when mentioning the priority directions
of the foreign policy, when contradictory processes are developing in
the country guided by the authorities.

So, let us name the priorities: security, development, integration to
Europe and the Karabakh issue. Sometimes even the state top officials
do not make a secret of the fact that the army is not top of our
security guarantees, and in f act has only a task to hold Azerbaijan
in check. But it changes nothing either they make a secret or not, as
it is obvious truth. It is also obvious that Armenia’s security may be
guaranteed only if it is a fully-fledged member of any international
security system.

There is no need to present in detail the prospects of Armenia’s
“preferences”. Simply the security, mentioned by Oskanyan in this
context, needs no additional explanation. It is not also clear what
they mean by saying development. If they mean economic development,
in that case they probably suggest to our diplomats and influential
Diaspora Armenians to promote foreign capital import and
investments. This is a kind wish. But we cannot but notice that
creation of an attractive investment atmosphere is not a problem of
diplomats at all. And to persuade rich men to spend money in a
country, the economy of which is literally lost in corruption, means
to put our ambassadors in an awkward situation. Here is a situation
which even the recent setting-up of a department in the Armenian
prosecutor’s office to fight corruption, cannot save.

The most mysterious of all the Oskanyan’s priorities is integration
into Europe especially against the background of the recent events. We
cannot understand how our state functionaries imagine Euro-integration
, when in case of its weakest manifestation, the power propaganda
machine immediately calls them national betrayal, and direct orders of
the Council of Europe are ignored by state functionaries. In this case
the Armenian diplomatic corps seems to have a task to disseminate
disinformation about Armenia being a democratic country. And finally
the Karabakh issue. Let only say that it is directly conditioned by
the above mentioned three priorities.

Armenian opposition continues talks with authorities

Mediamax news agency
7 May 04

YEREVAN

The Armenian ruling coalition and the opposition have announced their
readiness to continue their consultations on the previously-agreed
agenda.

This was said in a joint statement issued by representatives of [the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation] Dashnaktsutyun, the Republican
Party of Armenia and Orinats Yerkir [Law-Governed Country Party] and
the Justice bloc and the National Unity Party after the five-hour-long
consultations which ended in Yerevan on 6 May.

The statement said that “the participants in the consultations
stressed the importance of creating a new political situation in the
country on the basis of a statement issued by the coalition parties
and the joint statement issued by the Justice bloc and the National
Unity Party on 4 May”.

According to preliminary information, they are expected to discuss
more than 30 issues at the talks today.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azerbaijan not ready for conflict settlement – Karabakh’s leader

Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Yerevan
7 May 04

Text of Tsovinar Nazaryan report by Armenian newspaper Hayastani
Hanrapetutyun on 7 May headlined “Azerbaijan will negotiate with
Karabakh”

This is an interview with the president of the Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic [NKR], Arkadiy Gukasyan. He says that Azerbaijan will
negotiate with Karabakh but stability in Armenia is required for that.

[Hayastani Hanrapetutyun correspondent] Do you believe that you will
really sit at a negotiating table one day?

[Arkadiy Gukasyan] You are talking about this issue as if it was a
dream. It is not a new thing for me as I have sit at a negotiating
table with the leadership of Azerbaijan many times. Participation in
the negotiations is not an end in itself. I am sure that it is
impossible to settle the Karabakh issue without the participation of
Nagornyy Karabakh, and the Azerbaijani leadership will undoubtedly
negotiate with the leadership of Karabakh. I am sure that the world
community also thinks so. The format of the negotiations was strictly
outlined in the Budapest summit: Nagornyy Karabakh-Azerbaijan-Armenia.

[Correspondent] How will the problem be settled – by means of the
stage-by-stage or package option?

[Gukasyan] I am sure that all the problems should be settled at a
negotiating table. Today it is impossible to talk about any
option. The most important thing for us is to discuss all the problems
in a constructive atmosphere. I have the following approach: not a
stage-by-stage, but a package settlement is much more fruitful,
because today there is distrust, hatred and military propaganda on the
part of Azerbaijan, and it is impossible to discuss any option in such
an atmosphere. Such a situation should be quietened down, and a more
constructive field for the negotiations should be created.

[Correspondent] What deadline do you predict?

[Gukasyan] I would like to have a concrete answer, bit you understand
that I am not Nostradamus and not everything depends on us.

[Correspondent] Does it need 10 or more years?

[Gukasyan] We have an opportunity to settle the problem in one or two
years. But does the leadership of Azerbaijan want it? In any case, we
should understand that a settlement to the problem, that is, peace is
always a risk as it is impossible to achieve everything at the
negotiating table. And the leaders of Azerbaijan also understand this,
but I think that today they are not ready for this risk, they are not
ready to take responsibility. Maybe they do not have enough political
weight, may be there are other approaches. Anyway, I have a clear
opinion that the new leadership of Azerbaijan is not ready to risk and
settle the problem.

[Correspondent] What is Karabakh’s attitude towards the domestic
political developments in Armenia?

[Gukasyan] Naturally, the domestic political developments in Armenia
are very important for Karabakh and we are interested in stability
there, which will naturally promote the Karabakh issue settlement.

[Correspondent] This is axiomatic, but does not affect the
developments.

[Gukasyan] They cause much anxiety, but I hope everything will be in
order.

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
May 7 2004

STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE NATION UNIFICATION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

For already 16 years the Armenian refugees displaced from Azerbaijan
have settled in Armenia and Artsakh. Their social and economic
problems have been mainly solved, of course, however, there are yet
many refugees who still have problems. The most important of the
problems of many refugees is, perhaps, the housing problem. There are
a number of families in Stepanakert living in bad conditions. Of them
is the family of Alexey Khachatrian who moved from Sumgait to their
homeland in 1988. The family of four members lives in a two-room
apartment of the dormitory building. 69 years-old, disabled of second
degree A. Khachatrian says, it is unbearable to live in such
conditions. The apartment needs repairs, there is no gas and
telephone. He has no possibility to buy a new apartment or repair it.
In the first years of returning to Karabakh he was the thirteenth in
the list of providing apartments, now he is the 86th. “When the
Artsakh movement began we could move to Russia but preferred to return
to the motherland. Of course, we expected that we would be provided
with a flat, we would receive attention and care, however, as a result
we have been living for 16 years in terrible conditions. And this
seems not to interest anyone. It is unbearable to feel alien in one’s
own country,” says A. Khachatrian. The family of Nazik Muradian also
moved from Sumgait. For sixteen years already they have been living in
the dormitory of Artsakh State University. N. Muradian says they have
exchanged their apartment in Baku with a house in one of the villages
of Yeghegnadzor, Armenia, but then they have handed it in expecting to
get a house in Karabakh. Presently she and her 5-year-old daughter
live in a two-room apartment and are grateful to the university for
allowing them to live in the dormitory of the university. Here
N. Muradian lost her parents; her father died at the age of 52, her
mother 56. She has been waiting for 16 years to be provided a flat but
so far nothing has changed. She does not believe that the law on
refugees brought into effect recently will anyhow favour the
settlement of the existing problems (especially the problem of
housing). The head of the agency for migration, refugees and
resettlement under NKR government Serge Amirkhanian is of the opposite
opinion. He informed that presently the number of the refugees in the
republic totals 25 thousand. A considerable part has been provided
with apartments, however, there are a lot of families who continue to
live in dormitories, temporary buildings and with their
relatives. According to the head of the agency, the law on refugees
adopted in December 2003 aims at the settlement of the housing and
social-economic problems of refugees. The law maintains the order of
giving or refusing temporary shelter to persons applying for the
status of refugees, losing the status, the order of providing
temporary shelter to persons to foreign citizens, persons without
citizenship, the authority of the corresponding state agency of the
NKR government, the rights and duties of refugees and persons applying
for status, the guarantees of their legal and social
security. According to Amirkhanian, after the registration of the
refugees and maintenance of their privileges it will be possible to
solve some of the problems. He assures that the agency tries to
possibly help the refugees. “If any refugee family living in
dormitories or temporary houses wishes to settle in the areas where
the government implements the program of resettlement, the agency is
ready to aid them. These families will be provided with a detached
house, financial aid, loan, etc. By the way, already five such
families have applied to us, and they already live in the mentioned
settlements,” said Serge Amirkhanian. The agency has plans connected
with the repairs of the houses of the refugees and solution of certain
problems, which will be implemented through benefactors. S.
Amirkhanian also informed that a block will be repaired in Shoushi and
according to their wish the families may settle there. The head of the
agency Serge Amirkhanian said that hopefully all the problems will be
solved gradually. “Once we received more than 40 thousand refugees in
Karabakh, however, unfortunately, we had no opportunity to solve all
their housing, social problems. Therefore part of them left
Karabakh. The problems of resettlement, social-economic and housing
problems of the refugees should be considered as the problem of the
entire Armenian nation. Each person should make their contribution to
this task. And the more refugees and resettlers we can accommodate,
the more the strategic plan of nation unification will become a
reality. In this way the problem of Karabakh will be solved too,”
added Serge Amirkhanian.

ANAHIT DANIELIAN

Ottawa Citizen
May 7, 2004 Friday Final Edition

Democracy is no cure-all, and can’t be imposed by force

by: Gamal Solaiman

In a recent column (“East is East,” April 25), David Warren asked for
a “well-informed imam” to buttress several points he has raised in
his premise that democracy and Islam are at loggerheads. I shall try
to do the best I can.

While I do not possess the broad and in-depth knowledge that Mr.
Warren has attained and expresses well in his columns of late about
Islam, I can only explain my narrow parochial view gained through
researching my doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence at the University
of Exeter in England.

The Islamic court system is what Mr. Warren thinks is a stumbling
block to democracy in the Muslim World. Shariah has its roots in the
Covenant Patriarch Abraham made with God. Even the word Canon is
derived from the Arabic word for law, Qanun.

Shariah, the law, is inherent principles of Islam and should not be
confused with Fiqh, the Islamic jurisprudence or the humane
application of Shariah justice — no eye for an eye in Islam. If a
starving person steals to quell pangs of hunger, he or she cannot be
punished under Fiqh.

If Shariah were that bad, why then in some Muslim countries do
minority Christians opt for it as being fairer than a civil code
available to them exclusively for relief and redress?

Contrarily, the premise that Muslims cannot accept non-Muslim civil
authority is also erroneous. There are more than 60 million Muslims
in China, and 150 million in India where some hold high positions in
politics, government and the military, unlike in the democratic West.

In Egypt, 10 seats are reserved for the Christian minority regardless
of their electoral successes, and they always hold two cabinet posts.
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former United Nations secretary
general, is a Christian and was Egypt’s Foreign Minister. The
president of Lebanon is a Christian. Much of the Palestinian
leadership is Christian.

Pakistan has 10 seats out of 217 for its minorities. Iran has five
seats out of 275 for Jews, Armenian Christians and Assyrian
Christians. The Patriarch of the Orthodox Rite, the Pope of the
Eastern Church, has for centuries resided in Istanbul (the Second
Rome). Tariq Aziz, the former lieutenant of Saddam Hussein, is a
Christian. What about the Western democratic deficit for Muslims?

The example of Turkey is well taken by Mr. Warren. Even though the
country is proclaimed as a secular republic, Turks claim themselves
to be 99 per cent Muslim and as democrats they do not consume pork,
either.

It is social inertia that is not much understood in the West. The
U.S. could not eliminate alcoholism through Prohibition in the 1930s.
Similarly, Muslims will not abjure their religious principles
regardless of the promise democracy may enticingly offer to erode
their values. Turks never abandoned Islam: today they are being ruled
by an Islamist party!

Although Christianity and Islam share a community of beliefs — One
God, Angels, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man, the
Prophets, one life, life hereafter, Resurrection, the Day of
Judgment, Heaven and Hell — the rudimentary difference is that,
while Jesus is central to Christianity, the word of the Quran is
paramount to Muslims.

Furthermore, Islam does not deny the Virgin Birth, Jesus being the
Messiah of God (Messih’Allah) or his Second Coming. However, Islam
does not share the changing dynamism of Christianity (Santa Claus and
his entourage would be considered Bida, or innovation, in Islam and
forbidden, or Haram. So is Shirk, ascribing partnership to God;
Muslims do not pray to Prophet Mohammad, but pray for his salvation.)

Granted that the West, which Mr. Warren believes has synonymy with
Christianity, has unwittingly found itself at the end of the Cold War
and the demise of Communism with Islam as a counterforce and
adversary.

Let me step backwards into time to the Dark Ages when Tariq Ben Ziad
landed at Jebel Tariq (now Gibraltar) in 711 AD and during the Muslim
era until 1492 AD when democracy flourished in Spain such that the
Jews had their Golden Age under the Islamic rule. Muslims introduced
astronomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine and philosophy
of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Al-Khwarizmi
(Algorithm) to Europe to generate such venerable scholars as St.
Aquinas and Descartes.

Long before democratic institutions were in vogue in Europe, the
Moghals in India had the Grand Trunk Road, gold coinage, a justice
system and revenue collection to enable them to build such
architectural wonders as the Taj Mahal and sundry mosques. This was
prior to the British occupation and colonization of that subcontinent
with a superimposition of a class system atop the caste one which was
prevalent there.

The West’s abrogation of Christian values such as the rescission of
the Lord’s Prayer in 1994 from the Canadian House of Commons, recited
since 1877, did not give our Parliament any democratic surplus. In
fact, Christianity has been replaced by utilitarianism’s relativistic
ethics, i.e. if God is needed, God exists; otherwise He is dismissed.
Such an attitude does not exist in Islamic countries as His
omnipresence is neither negotiable nor negated. God is an integral
part of Islamic life, not something utilized and then shelved for
later reference.

If democracy were such a cure-all, then the West would not have to
use extreme force to destroy any country’s insignia, infrastructure
and institutions to deliver such a panacea. The recent deletion of
“Allaho Akbar,” “Deo Maximo” or “God is Great” from the flag of Iraq
probably has the same significance as the Trinity — “Father, Son and
Holy Ghost” — to Christians.

And the Real World that Mr. Warren mentions raises some interesting
prospects: If 50-per-cent-plus-one of Canadians were against same-sex
marriage, would that proposition become invalidated? If these are the
remedies available through democracy, then I would rather take refuge
under “Virtual Reality” so deeply entrenched in our society.

The democratic prescription may become a bitter pill to swallow. If
it would kill rather than cure — the operation was successful, but
the patient died — then perhaps democracy is not meant for the
Muslims and they may have to live with this deficiency as they do
without alcohol.

Remember what Sir Winston Churchill said in the Mother of
Parliaments: “Indeed, it has been said that Democracy is the worst
form of Government except for all those other forms that have been
tried from time to time.”

But what about the other brand, Communism, under which democracy was
sold for decades and still prevails in some parts of the world? Lest
we forget the Democratic Republics of East Germany, North Korea,
North Vietnam, etc. What an epitaph for democracy!

Gamal Solaiman is the Imam of the Ottawa Mosque.

RIA OREANDA , Russia
Economic Press Review
May 7, 2004 Friday

Russia-Armenia Cooperation Issues Be Discussed in Samara

SAMARA

On May 14, 2004 the Federation Council of the RF Federal Assembly
and the National Assembly of Armenia will hold the international
conference Interregional Russia-Armenia Cooperation: State and
Prospects . It is expected that the following officials will
participate in the Conference: Sergey Mironov, the RF Federation
Council Chairman, Artur Baghdasaryan, Chairman of the National
Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, members of the RF Federation
Council, the RF State Duma and the National Assembly of Armenia. The
conference participants will consider process of implementation of
the long-term Program for economic cooperation between two states
till 2010 and touch upon the problems of coordination of legislation
of both countries. Notably, the choice of the Samara region for
conference holding is not random- at the present moment the Samara
region is in the lead among the Russian regions in the trade turnover
with Armenia and above all, almost 70 thousand Armenians live in
Samara and the Samara region.

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
May 7, 2004

ARTSAKH IN ARMENIAN PRESS

The publications on Artsakh in the press of Armenia of the current
week were more interesting and various than last week. Particularly,
at the beginning of the week the newspapers were full of analytical
articles and information on the Karabakh problem, and the publications
of Thursday mainly referred to the economy. The press of the week
closes with materials on the meeting of Aliev and Kocharian in Warsaw
on April 28. AGAIN WAR? The newspaper “Azg”, making a reference to the
agency “Turan” in the article headlined “No Compromises on
Azerbaijan’s Part” (27.04.04) informs that on Saturday the co-chairman
of the Minsk Group Steven Mann met in Baku with the defence minister
of Azerbaijan Safar Abiev and talked about the Karabakh problem.
Presenting the position of the USA in reference to Karabakh, Mann said
that the parties must make mutually acceptable compromises. However,
in answer Abiev said that Azerbaijan would make no concessions.
Moreover, Azerbaijan characterized Armenia as a country-aggressor and
added that it should be punished. Bringing the example of Yugoslavia
and Iraq, where the military interference was used, according to the
newspaper, Abiev asked why not to do the same with Armenia. And if add
the to this brazen question of the Azerbaijani defence minister the
statement of Aliev Jr. that he does not hurry in the question of
Karabakh, only one conclusion may be made that Azerbaijan is preparing
for a new war. A similar conclusion was made by the weekly newspaper
“Avangard” in the article “Probability of Both Positive and Negative
Turnarounds Increases” (28.04.04). Following attentively the policy of
the Azerbaijani authorities in reference to the settlement of the
problem the author of the article thinks that the situation got
complicated after the announcement of Aliev to start everything from
the zero point. “It seems more probable that the wish of Aliev to
start everything from the zero point is his own “genial” idea pursuing
one aim – to bury finally the principles of Key West unacceptable for
Azerbaijan, and on the other hand, to win time until the opening of
the Baku-Geihan pipeline allowing to improve greatly the financial and
economic situation of the country, arm and strengthen the army and
solve the Karabakh problem through war.” And as to the probability of
a positive turnaround, mentioning another announcement of Ilham Aliev
about his willingness to recognize the independence of the Turkish
Republic of North Cyprus, the author of the article mentions, “To
recognize the independence of the illegitimate state which was not
recognized by any country means directly accepting the right of the
nations for self-determination.” There is an impression that
Azerbaijan sacrifices its own interests for the interests of Turkey.
In the case of such developments “Azerbaijan will have to admit the
independence of NKR otherwise the approach of dual standards not only
will be striking but also will leave an obscure and absurd impression
on the international community,” writes the newspaper. “Anyway, in
unforeseeable, unexpected geopolitical developments the probability of
both positive and negative turnarounds increases which should oblige
the Armenian diplomacy to stay alert all the time to avoid dangerous
roundabouts in the question of settlement of the NK conflict and to
make utmost use of the favourable situations,” concludes the
author. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. The meeting of the NKR government on
April 27 discussed the implementation of the state budget of 2003 in
which reference “Addressing the meeting, prime minister Anoushavan
Danielian announced that the government had set an aim to maintain the
high rates of the economic development of the past years and provided
an abrupt growth of the economic development of the republic in 2003,”
informed the press service of the NKR government to the newspaper
“Republic of Armenia” (28.04.04). In the article headlined “Despite
Growth of Rates Difficulties are Ahead” the newspaper “Azg”
(29.04.04), touching upon the same topic, mentions, “2003 was a
turning point in the economic development of NKR. In particular, the
real growth of the GDP totaled 19.8 percent. Growth of rates was
reported also in the spheres of industry, agriculture and other. The
growth of the budget revenues was also unprecedented.” In this context
the active coefficient of the private sector was emphasized; if in
2000 the share of this sector in the industrial production was 25
percent, in three years it tripled. “With such growth rates in the
upcoming two years the minimum salary in NKR will double, and the
pensions will grow every year,” says the newspaper. “However, let no
one have the impression that we have overcome all the problems,” said
the prime minister of NKR according to the newspaper “Republic of
Armenia”, “on the contrary, I am sure that the main difficulties are
to follow. This is not a popular expression but the description of the
current economic situation of the country. And despite the high rates
of economic development in the past years the economic growth of the
country should be characterized as rehabilitative growth,” the
newspaper presents the opinion of the prime minister of
NKR. KOCHARIAN-ALIEV. As we have already mentioned, almost all the
newspapers of Armenia covered the meeting of Kocharian and
Aliev. Particularly the newspaper “Golos Armeni” (in Russian) touching
upon the dialogue that took place during the meeting of Kocharian and
Aliev in Warsaw in the article “Forgot About the 0?” (28.04.04),
mentions, “the newly elected president of Azerbaijan did not mention
about starting the negotiations from zero which Aliev insisted on in
some of his addresses.” The newspaper “Aravot” (30.04.04), presenting
the information provided by the radio station “Liberty” on the press
conference of the president of Azerbaijan after the PACE meeting on
April 29 (in which Armenian journalists also participated – C.M.),
touches upon the question asked by the reporter of the same radio
station “What do you mean when speaking about starting the
negotiations from zero?” to which Aliev answered that the presidents
of the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan did not achieve any
arrangements in reference to the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, therefore from whatever point the parties start the
negotiations, it will be a zero point. According to the newspaper,
Aliev also added that the Armenian party distorts the facts announcing
that the RA president R. Kocharian and the former president of
Azerbaijan H. Aliev reached arrangements for the peaceful regulation
of the NK conflict. According to another publication of the same
newspaper, “In Warsaw R. Kocharian stated that the only way of the
settlement of the NK question is “peaceful and willing divorce”. In
his turn I. Aliev announced that he would not cooperate with Armenia
unless the problem of NK is solved.” EVALUATION. In his turn the RA
minister Vardan Oskanian evaluated the meeting of the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan as quite effective. “We may state unambiguously
that the negotiation process is coming out of the deadlock,” mentioned
the foreign minister of RA in his interview to the newspaper “Republic
of Armenia”.

CHRISTINE MNATSAKANIAN

The International Herald Tribune
May 7, 2004 Friday

Membership could cost Turkey its soul ;Joining the EU

by Sedat Sami

CARBONDALE, Illinois

A former prime minister of Turkey, Mesut Yilmaz, declared in 1999
that “Turkey’s road to the European Union goes through Diyarbakir,” a
mostly Kurdish city in southeastern Turkey. He was alluding to
European Union demands that Turkey grant more autonomy to its Kurdish
citizens as the price of an eventual membership in the EU.

But a detour to Diyarbakir is not the only one that Turkey will be
forced to take to win EU membership. The danger is that the journey
will lead Turkey away from itself — making membership not worth the
price, which is national sovereignty.

The demands on Turkey are many. Last January, Romano Prodi, the
president of the EU Commission, intimated that the reunification of
Cyprus would enhance Turkey’s EU chances. With the Greek Cypriot
electorate rejecting a reunification plan put forward by Kofi Annan,
the UN secretary-general, it is now apparent that Turkey will
continue to be pressured to offer more concessions to the Greek
Republic of Cyprus to change its mind. In short, Turkey’s road to the
EU will have to pass through Nicosia, too.

In addition, the United States wants Turkey to open its border with
Armenia before the NATO summit meeting in Istanbul in June. Turkey
closed the border more than a decade ago, when a war erupted between
Armenia and Ankara’s ally, Azerbaijan. Given the brittle nature of
its economy and its dependence on the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank, Turkey seems to have little choice but contemplate yet
another detour to the EU, this time through Yerevan.

Finally, a failure to reach an agreement this year with Greece over
territorial rights in the Aegean would lead to the World Court, as
stipulated in the 1999 communique that officially named Turkey a
candidate country. Thus Turkey’s road to the EU may have to snake
through The Hague too.

These issues all generate strong feelings among the Turks. They want
Kurds treated as first-class citizens, for instance, but are deeply
suspicious of any suggestion of autonomy. A strong urge for a fair
and just partnership between the Greek and Turkish communities in
Cyprus is tempered by memories of the terrorism by the Greek
nationalist movement EOKA. And they fear that opening the Armenian
border would be a betrayal of the Azeris who have been driven from
their homes by Armenian troops.

With the EU planning to reconsider its status in December, Turkey is
now faced with a historic decision: What price should the nation pay
for just the promise of negotiations aimed at a future EU membership?

Unfortunately, a rational debate in Turkey about the pros and cons of
EU membership has been clouded by a fog of disinformation. Big
business conglomerates that control the news media are feverishly
pushing for membership, while only a small handful of nationalist and
leftist publications are daring to point out the problems with
accession. Meanwhile, Turkey’s Islamist regime seems to draw its
legitimacy more from the praises of EU leaders, obsessed with the
unification of Cyprus, or of the State Department, eager to assign to
Turkey a major role in its new Greater Middle East project, than from
the people.

Why are the government and business so intent on membership? The
answer lies in Turkey’s economic ills, including high unemployment
and a monumental trade deficit attributable in part to a
disadvantageous customs union with the EU. The underlying problem,
however, is an unholy alliance between a corrupt political elite that
has sought to hang on to power by hook or crook and an equally
corrupt business elite that has robbed Turkey with the connivance of
a meek, underpaid and sometimes crooked bureaucracy. To get itself
out of this economic mess, the regime is banking on the generosity of
a rather skeptical Europe.

But again, at what price? A country cannot be great without a strong
sense of itself. Taking refuge in the bosom of the EU will not save
Turkey unless it rediscovers its moral compass and refuses to
surrender abjectly on matters of national interest. Turkey’s road to
the EU may well be its road to perdition. ** Sedat Sami is a
professor emeritus of engineering at Southern Illinois University.