Forum

Siege Deepens Rift With West in Russia

U.S., Europe Said to Harbor Chechens
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 10, 2004; Page A18

MOSCOW, Sept. 9—Last week’s attack on a Russian school has driven new wedges between Russia and the West in the fight against terrorism, as Moscow continues to accuse the United States and European countries of coddling Chechen separatists.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denounced the United States and Britain on Thursday for granting asylum to Chechen opposition figures and told other countries to stay out of Russia’s fight with rebels in the breakaway republic. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov reiterated that Russia might launch strikes against terrorist bases in other countries.

The statements came in a sixth day of escalating rhetoric, reflecting long-standing resentment of criticism from the West concerning Russia’s handling of the war that has raged in Chechnya on and off for 10 years. That bitterness had largely been suppressed in recent years as Russia worked to improve relations with the West. But the terror strike in the southern town of Beslan last week appears to have unleashed frustrations.

“For some period of time it was hidden,” said Alexander Pikayev, an analyst at the Committee of Scientists for Global Security, a private group. “Neither side wanted to expose that, to proliferate it into the public domain. But now, after Beslan, it becomes clear there are quite significant nuances in approach.”

Pikayev said officials were taking their cues from President Vladimir Putin, who, during a late-night meeting with visiting scholars and journalists on Monday, expressed irritation with the West, which he accused of sympathizing with Chechen guerrillas. “Probably this overreaction by the Russian side might be explained by emotions,” he said.

But he added that the tough talk also “reflects a new vulnerability of Mr. Putin” and may be part of a more concerted “attempt to divert public attention from the failure of Russian special services and the administration” to prevent the Beslan attack.

Putin tried to reassure the public Thursday by setting up new operational command groups in the North Caucasus region around Chechnya to better coordinate law enforcement and security agencies in fighting terrorism. The Kremlin-controlled State Duma, or lower house of parliament, also began moving to consider legislation that would toughen airline security, immigration and other policies.

But criticism of the government’s fight against terrorism continued to mount. The Motherland party, a nationalist political organization created last year with behind-the-scenes support from the Kremlin, moved Thursday to have the lower house of parliament hold a vote of no-confidence in Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and the cabinet.

The Beslan attack was the latest in a series of terror strikes that have killed more than 1,000 people in Russia in the last two years.

Aware of the raw nerves in Moscow, officials in the United States and Western Europe have generally tried to avoid inflaming the situation, but even mild statements have triggered angry responses.

The rift opened last weekend after Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, whose government holds the rotating European Union presidency, was quoted as saying it was “very difficult to judge from a distance” whether Russian authorities handled the school siege correctly.

Lavrov called that “blasphemy,” and the Dutch ambassador to Moscow was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. Bot explained that he had been misunderstood. Putin, though, expanded on the complaints in the Monday night meeting, saying that the West was trying to push him to negotiate with “child killers” no better than Osama bin Laden.

Vice President Cheney has described U.S. support for the Russians following the attack, noting that President Bush offered condolences to Putin by telephone and that the governments were investigating al Qaeda links. “The Russians think there are significant ties” to al Qaeda, Cheney said in Cincinnati. “There may be some links there, but we don’t have specific details yet.”

But the Kremlin took umbrage with a statement by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Tuesday that did not rule out further U.S. talks with Chechen political figures, long a sensitive issue for Moscow. On Wednesday, Boucher reemphasized American outrage at the school seizure.

“Our basic views haven’t changed,” he said, referring to the U.S. policy of urging Russia to find a political solution to the Chechen conflict. “But we’re not dealing with that here. We’re dealing with a terrorist attack, a horrible terrorist attack on school children. And there’s no question of political aspects of this.”

That was not enough to satisfy Moscow. Lavrov said Russia would not tolerate interference in the Chechnya conflict. “I would advise them not to hinder Russia from settling its internal affairs,” Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after meeting with New York’s former mayor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was visiting the city to offer condolences.

Lavrov also criticized the United States and Britain for harboring people Russia considers to be Chechen terrorists linked to rebel commander Aslan Maskhadov, whom it blames for the Beslan strike. Maskhadov has denied responsibility. Britain has granted asylum to Akhmad Zakayev, and the United States has given the same status to Ilyas Akhmadov. Both men were top officials in Maskhadov’s government.

“Those who provide shelter to terrorists are directly responsible for the tragedy of the Chechen people,” Lavrov said.

Staff writer Lisa Rein in Washington contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9594-2004Sep9.html

News Analysis: EU sends a message to newest members

Graham Bowley/IHT IHT
Friday, September 10, 2004

Continental giants say they won’t help East take jobs away
BRUSSELS When eight poor countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined the grand European project this year, they believed it would give them a chance to overcome the crippling horrors of their communist past.

The promise of trade and a combination of the cheap wages and lower taxes they could offer foreign investors would deliver, they believed, new prosperity.

Yet this week their richer Western partners in the EU made clear that while this bright promise still holds true, the East’s success must not come at Westerners’ expense.

When EU finance ministers and central bankers gather Friday and Saturday in the Netherlands for talks about the long-term budget, some of the richer, but now slow-growing and lethargic Western nations will tell Central and Eastern European countries that they must raise their business taxes and so stop luring away companies and jobs from the West.

Germany and France, whose economies have become moribund and where unemployment is high, believe Eastern countries are indulging in harmful and unfair tax competition.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French finance minister, this week proposed cutting off the billions of euros in EU regional development aid that flows from Western coffers into the poorer East, which he says is making Easterners’ low taxes possible in the first place.

The Germans and French say it is unclear why they should subsidize Polish roads, freeing the Polish government to cut taxes and poach German businesses. Or why, as the German finance minister, Hans Eichel, said this year, Germany is “sponsoring” the loss of its own jobs.

“Sarkozy’s position does not yet carry a majority, but the issue of tax competition will not go away,” said John Palmer of the European Policy Center in Brussels.

The debate is part of a wider discussion that will take place among finance ministers Friday about the EU’s next budget for 2007-2013.

Berlin, Paris and London want to cap spending at 1 percent of the EU’s gross domestic product, less than the European Commission’s call for a 1.14 percent cap, which is backed by the Eastern members. Politicians will also consider whether to reform rules on how European governments should steward their finances, known as the Stability and Growth Pact. The commission last week proposed allowing countries to concentrate more on spurring growth and less on meeting specific deficit targets.

While both issues are politically charged, the dispute over what tax rates to charge companies doing business in EU countries may prove to have the most far-reaching consequences.

In some ways, it is a European version of the U.S. debate over the outsourcing of jobs to lower-wage countries. That revolved around fears that the United States was losing jobs to cheaper, newly developing countries in Asia and Latin America. In Europe, the contrast between the rich and poor has been made starker since trade borders fell fully on May 1. Countries such as Germany are now faced with nimbler, hungrier, and lower-cost competitors in their own backyard and within the EU.

This spring, some rich nations imposed limits on migrant workers to stop cheap labor from flooding into Western Europe. Now the focus has turned to company tax and businesses that are migrating abroad to exploit the low rates available in the East.

Fears of harmful tax competition have been around for two decades. In the 1980s, Britain cut business taxes to 35 percent from 52 percent as part of a “reinvention” of its own economy. In the 1990s, Ireland went further, lowering business taxes to 12.5 percent and triggering a boom in high-tech foreign investment on the Western fringe of the Continent.

Now, the countries of the East want to emulate Ireland’s experience, and have started to cut company taxes from already attractive rates.

The gap is startling. This year, Poland reduced its basic rate to 19 percent from 27 percent; Slovakia to 19 percent from 25 percent; and Hungary has a 16 percent rate. Estonia levies no taxes on some earnings.

By contrast, Germany charges corporations taxes of around 39 percent.

It is a tempting advantage some companies are finding hard to resist. In March, the head of the German Chambers of Commerce urged German businesses to look East, earning him the ire of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Next year, Austria, which shares a large border with the East, will cut corporate taxes to 25 percent to stop companies drifting away to the East.

“These countries have the assured international environment of the EU, labor costs are 20 percent of Germany’s costs - and they have lower taxes,” said Stefan Bach at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin.

Lithuania, where Bach just visited, has “massive foreign investment at the moment,” he said.

All this leaves West Europeans asking why EU enlargement should harm them, when they invited the poor Easterners into the club and when they foot the EU bill? Germany is the biggest contributor to the Union’s E100 billion, or $122 billion, annual budget, including the E26 billion budget for regional aid.

But the East’s response is unequivocal. Its politicians argue they need and deserve extra help to make up for the damage wrought by communism. “I am against the idea of harmonizing corporate taxes,” Danuta Hubner, the Polish minister who will be responsible for regional aid in the new European Commission, said.

The EU’s Eastern countries ask: Why would foreign investors come if they did not get tax benefits to compensate for bad telephone lines and pitted roads? Without low taxes, the East stands little chance of catching up with the West, they say, and a prosperous East is in everyone’s interests since Germany and France could sell their exports into these new booming markets.

Easterners are not isolated in this battle. The British and Irish oppose tax-rate harmonization. A country’s tax rate, they say, is its own business, and tax competition is healthy because it forces governments to be efficient with public money and also because low taxes stimulate growth.

“It’s simply about national sovereignty,” a British official said. “It’s as simple as the Boston tea party.”

The European Commission, the arbiter in this dispute, supports the tax cutters. This week it called Sarkozy’s comments “muddled thinking.”

But on Friday it is expected to put a proposal before Europe’s politicians which France and Germany do support. Importantly, it wants to harmonize corporate tax rules.

When the people of Eastern and Central Europe joined the EU in May, they thought they were embarking on a project designed for the mutual European good, but they are discovering it is a competitive world even within the EU’s sheltering borders. National political instincts burn strongly, and the rich West, their economies stumbling, fight hard to keep their longstanding privileges.

International Herald Tribune

http://www.iht.com/articles/538140.html

washingtonpost.com
EU Wary of Pre-Emptive Strikes by Russia

By CONSTANT BRAND
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 9, 2004; 3:15 AM

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union, already at odds with the Bush administration over pre-emptive military strikes, reacted warily to a warning from Moscow that it too reserved the right to neutralize terror threats anywhere in the world.

Col. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of the general staff of Russia’s armed forces, said Wednesday that “we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world.”

He was speaking at a joint news conference with NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, Gen. James Jones, after talks on military cooperation, including anti-terror cooperation. NATO did not comment on his statement.

“It’s not clear what the status of these remarks are,” EU spokeswoman Emma Udwin said in Brussels. “I would note we have not heard anything similar from President (Vladimir) Putin himself.”

The warning marked a clear show of Moscow resolve following the Beslan school siege, a car bombing and the near-simultaneous crash of two planes brought down by explosives in recent days. More than 400 people died in the attacks.

The European Union argues that a policy of pre-emptive strikes is too risky. A security strategy paper approved by EU governments last year said emphasis should be placed on diplomatic and political solutions.

Udwin said Wednesday that the 25-nation EU is against “extra-judicial killings” in the form of pre-emptive strikes.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Moscow’s reaction was “understandable” and within international law.

Straw said he believed the policy statement would have been first approved by Putin.

“I think the reaction is an understandable one by President Putin,” he said. “The United Nations charter does give the right of self-defense and the U.N. itself has accepted that an imminent or likely threat of terrorism certainly entitles any state to take appropriate action.

“I don’t think President Putin was talking about launching any immediate attack.”

In Paris, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said it was up to international bodies to take a stand against terror.

“For us, it is by its nature a question that must be debated under the European framework, in the Group of Eight and of course in the United Nations,” spokesman Herve Ladsous told reporters.

Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, added his voice to those questioning pre-emptive strikes. “If the world attempts a fight against terrorism in a unilateral way of thinking ... then it won’t succeed in solving the problem,” he said.

Russian leaders have claimed such a right to pre-emptive strikes before, threatening neighboring Georgia that it would pursue Chechen rebels allegedly sheltering on its territory.

A London-based Chechen rebel representative, Akhmed Zakayev, said Russia’s threats amounted to “a warning to other European countries that Russia may come and carry out an assassination on your soil at any moment.”

Russia is seeking Zakayev’s extradition from London, where he’s been granted political asylum. Russian authorities also offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the capture of rebel leader and former Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov and another leader, Shamil Basayev.

The threat of strikes worried Europe-based advocates of Chechen independence.
Johan Lagerfelt, a former Swedish lawmaker who heads the independent Swedish Committee for Chechnya, said even he felt like a potential target.

“By the Russians’ own definition, even I’m a terrorist, because I work for the Chechen cause. So we’re all a little worried, because we don’t know what they can do. They don’t seem to have any restraints when it comes to protecting their distorted view of the world,” he said.

Lagerfelt’s group lobbies the Swedish government to support Chechen independence.

There are believed to be around 200 Chechen refugees in Sweden.

“This statement is mostly aimed toward public opinion at home, but the effect will be that many asylum seekers in the West will feel very worried,” Lagerfelt said.

Maciej Roszak, a leader of the Polish group Free Caucasus Committee, which supports Chechen independence said it would be “hard ... to imagine” that Russian forces would strike against Chechens in other European countries. Up to 4,000 Chechens live in Poland’s refugee camps, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7632-2004Sep9.html?nav=headlines
—-
September 9, 2004
Russia’s Antiterror Tactics: Reward and a First Strike
By SETH MYDANS

MOSCOW, Sept. 8 - The Russian government offered a $10 million reward Wednesday for the killing or capture of two Chechen rebel leaders, and a top general said Moscow reserved the right to make pre-emptive strikes against terrorists abroad.
In an emerging government reaction that echoed statements in Washington after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, several lawmakers also proposed steps to tighten domestic security in response to last week’s horrific schoolhouse hostage siege in North Ossetia, in which more than 300 children, parents, teachers and attackers were killed.

In a new official account of the attack, Russia’s chief law enforcement official portrayed a band of cutthroat kidnappers who argued among themselves and whose leader enforced discipline by executing three of his crew.
In a televised meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin, the official, Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov, reported that not all the attackers realized that their mission was to seize a school and that one of them was shot when he objected to kidnapping children.

Two women in the gang were killed, as a gesture of intimidation, when the bombs strapped to their bodies were detonated by remote control, Mr. Ustinov said.
“He did it himself?” Mr. Putin asked, referring to the gang leader, who went by the nickname Colonel and who was described as a short man with a red beard and freckles.

“Yes, himself,” Mr. Ustinov replied, almost in a whisper.

Although the broad outlines of the assault are believed to be known, many details remain uncertain. Parts of Mr. Ustinov’s account on Wednesday, which apparently relied to some extent on information from the sole hostage taker captured alive, differed from the recollections of witnesses in minor ways.

Mr. Ustinov said 326 hostages were killed, although only 210 bodies have been identified because many were badly mutilated. This total was lower than the earlier official toll of 338. He said another 727 people had been wounded, leaving only a very few hostages unhurt from a total of 1,200 he said had been held.
The attack on the school in Beslan, in southern Russia, was the latest and most disturbing of a series of terror attacks that are apparently linked to the decadelong separatist war in Chechnya.

Col. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of the military’s general staff, said Russia did not feel bound by national borders in pursuing rebels.

“As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases, we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world,” he said, though he called that an “extreme measure.”

In fact, the post-Soviet military has lost much of its ability to project force beyond its borders. Its concern is with rebels from Chechnya and the North Caucasus crossing into neighboring Georgia, where Russia has two bases and has carried out military operations.

Aslanbek Aslakhanov, Mr. Putin’s chief adviser on Chechnya, said he hoped the large reward would lead to the capture of the two most prominent rebel figures, Aslan Maskhadov, a former president of Chechnya, and Shamil Basayev, a warlord. The government has blamed them for the hostage taking, although Mr. Basayev has denied involvement.

Mr. Ustinov’s deputy, Sergei Fridinsky, said the bodies of 12 attackers, out of approximately 30, had been identified. He said some had taken part in an attack in June in Ingushetia, a neighboring republic, where scores of people were killed.
Russian lawmakers and officials have raised questions about how rebels seem to be able to move freely around the country. Some officials have proposed measures to restrict living permits and travel conditions and to allow airport security officers to deny boarding to any passenger about whom they have doubts.

The mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, has suggested that Chechens should be restricted in their access to the capital.

When asked in a telephone interview why the rebel leaders had not been captured in the past, Mr. Aslakhanov told what he said was an American anecdote about a “Cowboy Joe’’ who was never captured because no one had ever really tried to catch him.

“For a long time, no one tried to catch Basayev,” he said, even though he has long had a price on his head. “We knew he was driving with a certain driver, we knew he was stopping in one place or another. He traveled to Turkey for surgery.”
Corruption among law enforcement agencies is a major problem that was cited by Mr. Putin in a speech following the hostage taking.

Mr. Aslakhanov said the most important step that could be taken would be for the United States to help close channels of financing for Chechen rebels. “America is the strongest country in the world and all countries listen to it,” he said.

These remarks came on a day when the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, objected testily to a statement by the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, that Washington reserved the right to maintain contacts with moderate Chechen leaders.

“We do have a policy that says we will meet with political officials, leaders who have different points of view,” Mr. Boucher said. “We’ve done that in the past; we may or may not do that in the future, depending on who these individuals might be.”
While emphasizing that “the United States does not meet with terrorists,” Mr. Boucher called for a political solution in Chechnya, saying, “Our view of some of these political figures has been different than the Russians’.”

Mr. Aslakhanov responded to this approach by saying, “There is no point in having talks, especially with the leaders of a nonexistent country.”

In North Ossetia, burials continued on Wednesday as mourning competed with anger.

After a number of calls for his resignation, the president of North Ossetia, Aleksandr Dzasokhov, addressed a crowd of about 1,000 people and said that rather than stepping down, he would fire all the people who work for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/international/europe/09russia.html
—-

Russia Warns of Preemptive Strikes

Military commander says the nation will attack terrorist bases in ‘any region of the world’ after three assaults killed more than 400.
By Kim Murphy
LATimes Staff Writer

September 9, 2004

MOSCOW — Russia’s top military commander threatened Wednesday to launch preemptive strikes on terrorist bases “in any region of the world,” raising questions about how far Moscow will go to hunt down suspected Chechen separatists believed responsible for killing more than 400 people in three terrorist attacks in the last two weeks.

Russia also announced a $10-million reward for the “neutralization” of Chechnya’s top two rebel leaders, Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev. Maskhadov has vigorously denied involvement in and condemned last week’s hostage-taking at a school.

Both of the Russian statements marked a stepped-up attempt by the Kremlin to counter U.S. calls for political settlement with Chechen separatists and to assuage the grief of a public still reeling from the deaths of 335 hostages at the school in southern Russia.

“Military steps are an extreme measure in the fight against terrorism,” Col. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian armed forces chief, said after meeting with North Atlantic Treaty Organization commanders. “Our position on preemptive strikes has been stated before, but I will repeat it: We will take steps to liquidate terror bases in any region.”

He added that Russia did not plan to use nuclear weapons in such strikes.

The statement caused unease in neighboring Georgia. Over the years, Russia has accused Georgia of allowing Chechen rebels to take shelter in the remote gorges along its northern border.

A spokesman for Maskhadov in London predicted that Russia would step up attempts to kill Chechens abroad.

“Mr. Baluyevsky seems to have made it perfectly clear to everybody today that Russia will now begin to hunt down and destroy separatists and terrorists wherever they are,” Akhmed Zakayev said.

In what seemed to be one such incident, former senior Chechen official Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev died in a car bombing in February in Qatar. Two Russian agents were convicted in the killing, though Moscow has denied involvement.

Russia’s announcements may have been aimed in part at countering continued U.S. statements supporting a political settlement with Chechen separatists. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington’s “view on the overall situation has not changed” in the wake of the hostage crisis. Ultimately, “there must be a political settlement” over Chechnya, he said.

Such remarks have clearly irritated Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, who has rejected the idea.

“Why don’t you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?” he asked foreign journalists Monday.

Pressed to clarify the U.S. stance Wednesday, Boucher said the U.S. did not encourage talks with “terrorists.” But he did not say which Chechens the U.S. would support talks with.

“A group of people who are clearly terrorists took over a school and murdered men, women and especially children. That’s not a political act,” he said.

Russia was critical of the U.S. when Washington in 2002 announced its policy of preemptive strikes against perceived threats. Moscow also strongly opposed the U.S. war in Iraq. But the Kremlin has since updated its military protocol to allow for preventive strikes, and Wednesday’s announcement did not represent a policy shift.

Timothy Colton, a Russian studies professor at Harvard University, said Moscow’s warning came from a sense of frustration with four years of terrorist attacks and the unsettled situation in Chechnya, where separatists have fought Russian forces off and on for a decade.

“Everything they’ve tried has not worked. They have this massive military capacity to do things kind of on the old playing field, and they’re trying to let people know they feel free to use those assets wherever they want,” he said.

“The whole point of mentioning that there won’t be nuclear weapons is to remind everybody that they have nuclear weapons,” he added, though the chances of Russia using them in such a case are “close to mathematical zero.”

Alexander Golts, military analyst with the magazine Yezhenedelny Zhurnal, said it was unlikely that Russia could carry out effective strikes against Chechen rebel bases.

“Russia has up until now had great difficulties in determining the location of terrorist bases in Chechnya, to say nothing about bases abroad,” he said. “Baluyevsky’s statement appears to be merely an attempt to pretend to be doing something … for what has happened [at the school] is not just a terrible tragedy, it is an appalling disgrace for Russia, which shows the utter impotence and helplessness of the Russian power-wielding ministries.”

Still, Wednesday’s announcement in Moscow was met with anxiety in Georgia. With U.S. help, Georgia has trained its anti-terrorism forces and largely dislodged Chechen rebels from the Pankisi Gorge, most military analysts believe.

But Russian officials in recent weeks have hinted at new concerns.

Georgian Defense Minister Giorgi Baramidze said in a telephone interview that his country had “concerns” over the Russian general’s pledge.

“Could Mr. Baluyevsky have Georgia in mind when he was making this statement? Even the possibility that he could have meant Georgia while making this statement makes us want clarifications,” Baramidze said.

“We have offered Russia cooperation in the sphere of combating terrorism and separatism in the region. However, it needs to be admitted that this cooperation has not progressed that far yet and has not been that successful,” he added.

*
Alexei V. Kuznetsov of The Times’ Moscow Bureau contributed to this report.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-377977,0.html

—-

La Russie examine le projet de lancer des frappes préventives

LEMONDE.FR | 08.09.04 | 19h18 •  MIS A JOUR LE 08.09.04 | 20h56

La Russie envisage de lancer des frappes préventives pour “liquider les bases terroristes dans toute région du monde.” Jack Straw, ministre des affaires étrangères britannique, a jugé “compréhensible” la menace russe.
Le chef de l’état-major russe, le général Iouri Balouïevski, a déclaré mercredi que la Russie était prête à lancer “des frappes préventives” afin de “liquider les bases terroristes dans toute région du monde”. Au lendemain des deux jours de deuil décrétés par la Russie meurtrie par la prise d’otages de Beslan, en Ossétie du Nord, Moscou examine le projet de frapper le terrorisme.

L’Union européenne a réagi prudemment à ces déclarations. Une porte-parole de la Commission a dit ne pas savoir si les commentaires russes émanaient du président Poutine.

La question des frappes préventives “doit être débattue dans le cadre européen, au G8 et bien entendu aux Nations unies”, a jugé pour sa part le ministère des affaires étrangères français. Mais le ministre des affaires étrangères britannique, Jack Straw, n’a pas attendu pour donner son avis et a déclaré que la menace de la Russie d’attaquer préventivement les terroristes dans toutes les régions du monde est “compréhensible” et conforme aux lois internationales. “Je pense que la réaction est compréhensible de la part du président (Vladimir) Poutine”, a dit le secrétaire au Foreign Office, à l’issue d’un entretien à Londres avec le vice-premier ministre israélien, Ehud Olmert. “La charte des Nations unies donne droit à l’autodéfense et l’ONU elle-même a accepté qu’une menace imminente ou probable de terrorisme autorise certainement tout pays à prendre les actions appropriées”, a-t-il ajouté. Il a toutefois précisé : “Je ne pense pas que le président Poutine parlait d’une attaque immédiate”.

Quelques heures après les Britanniques, ce sont les Américains qui se déclarent ne pas s’opposer au souhait de la Russie de frapper de manière préventive des bases terroristes dans n’importe quelle région du monde, selon un responsable de l’administration américaine. “Chaque pays a le droit de se défendre”, a dit ce responsable sous le couvert de l’anonymat. Washington n’a pas encore réagi officiellement aux déclarations du chef d’état-major de l’armée russe, le général Iouri Balouïevsk, selon lesquelles Moscou est prête à frapper des bases terroristes “dans n’importe quelle région” du monde.

Le pape condamne un “fanatisme cruel”. Le pape Jean Paul II a lancé un appel en faveur de tous les enfants du monde et a fermement condamné le “fanatisme cruel” qui a provoqué des centaines de morts lors de la prise d’otages de l’école de Beslan, dans le sud de la Russie. S’exprimant le jour où les catholiques fêtent la naissance de la Vierge, le pape a déclaré qu’il était atroce que des enfants aient été confrontés à la haine et à la mort dans l’enceinte d’une école.

UN RAVISSEUR PARLE
Le procureur général russe Vladimir Oustinov a présenté au président Vladimir Poutine son rapport sur la prise d’otages de Beslan, ne donnant cependant aucune explication sur l’identité des ravisseurs et ne faisant aucun lien explicite avec la Tchétchénie. “Juste avant l’attaque, la bande s’est réunie dans les bois près d’une localité”, a déclaré le procureur, sans donner d’indication sur ce lieu, selon les images de la télévision russe.

Citant la déposition du seul membre du commando à avoir été pris vivant, il a indiqué que les preneurs d’otages étaient “environ trente, dont deux femmes”, sous le commandement d’un homme surnommé le “colonel”, assisté notamment d’un autre, nommé “Abdoul Malik”. “Ils sont partis en direction de Beslan à bord de trois véhicules (dont un camion), et y sont arrivés à l’aube”, a ajouté le procureur, ne signalant sur leur route qu’un accrochage avec un policier de quartier, sans autre précision. “Ils sont entrés [en voiture] dans la cour de l’école (...), ils avaient une énorme quantité d’armes et d’explosifs”, a poursuivi M. Oustinov.

Il a affirmé que des protestations avaient alors été émises parmi des membres du commando qui refusaient de s’en prendre à des écoliers. Citant toujours la déposition du preneur d’otages arrêté, il a dit que “le ‘colonel’ avait alors abattu un de ses hommes” pour avertir les autres. “Le même jour, pour mettre en garde à la fois les rebelles et les otages, ce bandit a fait sauter deux femmes kamikazes en appuyant sur une télécommande”, a-t-il rapporté à un Vladimir Poutine impassible, l’air grave.

Les preneurs d’otages ont ensuite miné le bâtiment “avec une connaissance des questions techniques” qui témoignait de leur “bonne préparation à cet acte terroriste”, selon le procureur général. Mais “en définitive, au bout de deux jours, quand ils ont voulu changer leur système d’explosifs, il y a eu une explosion, après quoi cela a été la panique à l’intérieur [de l’école]”. “Beaucoup d’otages ont tenté de s’enfuir, et les rebelles ont ouvert le feu”, a-t-il ajouté.

“Démission!”, scande une foule en colère à Vladikavkaz en Ossétie du Nord. “Démission!”, scandent un millier de manifestants sous le balcon du président ossète Alexandre Dzassokhov, qu’ils tiennent pour responsable du bain de sang de l’école de Beslan. Le président ossète finit par promettre de limoger son gouvernement, mais il reste vague sur son propre avenir. Du haut du balcon du siège du gouvernement local à Vladikavkaz, M. Dzassokhov, en costume noir, tente de couvrir le bruit de la manifestation des Ossètes en colère. “D’ici à deux jours, un décret sur la démission du gouvernement sera signé”, annonce-t-il. Il est immédiatement sifflé par les hommes et les femmes, qui réclament de plus belle sa démission.

Avec AFP et Reuters
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-378348,0.html
—-

Vladimir Poutine annonce une réforme du système de sécurité
LE MONDE | 06.09.04 | 14h17

Le président estime que la Russie est entrée en guerre avec le “terrorisme international”.
Plus de vingt-quatre heures après le dénouement sanglant de la prise d’otages de Beslan, Vladimir Poutine a fait une apparition de onze minutes à la télévision, samedi 4 septembre, pour présenter ses condoléances aux familles des otages décédés et rappeler que la Russie était la cible d’une guerre terroriste “d’ampleur”.

“Nous sommes en présence, non pas de terroristes isolés, mais d’une manifestation du terrorisme international contre la Russie”, a-t-il affirmé après avoir décrété un deuil national de deux jours - lundi 6 et mardi 7 septembre. Cette allocution a fait suite à une période de silence. La seule intervention de Vladimir Poutine avait été d’affirmer, à la veille de l’assaut, que “l’essentiel est de sauver la vie et protéger la santé des otages”.

“LES FAIBLES SONT BATTUS”
Veste et cravate noires, le président russe a insisté sur l’adoption prochaine d’une série de mesures destinées à renforcer l’unité et la sécurité du pays. “Nous devons créer un système de sécurité beaucoup plus efficace, exiger de nos forces de l’ordre des actions qui correspondent à l’échelle des nouvelles menaces”, a-t-il déclaré, tout en appelant ses concitoyens à “ne pas céder au chantage”. L’air grave, il a martelé : “Les terroristes croient qu’ils sont plus forts que nous, qu’ils peuvent nous faire peur au moyen de leur cruauté, paralyser notre volonté et démoraliser notre société. Nous rendre serait permettre la destruction et la dislocation de la Russie.”

Puis, dans un rare aveu de faiblesse, l’ancien lieutenant-colonel du KGB a confié : “Nous n’avons pas compris la complexité et le danger des processus qui se déroulaient dans notre pays et dans le monde entier, nous n’avons pas su réagir de façon appropriée. Nous avons fait preuve de faiblesse, et les faibles sont battus.”

Sans faire allusion une seule fois à la guerre en Tchétchénie, le président russe a estimé que la crise actuelle était à mettre au compte de la désintégration de l’URSS en 1991 : “Aujourd’hui, nous nous trouvons dans une situation née de la dislocation d’un énorme Etat, qui s’est malheureusement avéré incapable de s’adapter aux conditions de vie dans un monde en plein bouleversement.”

Il a rappelé que le pays possédait autrefois sur ses frontières externes le système de défense “le plus puissant”, puis il a déploré l’absence actuelle de protection “à l’Ouest comme à l’Est”. La protection des frontières externes de la Russie et celle des frontières administratives au nord du Caucase sont devenues une “priorité”. Le président semble ainsi considérer que la menace terroriste la plus grave émane de l’extérieur, faisant écho à la déclaration, deux jours plus tôt, d’un responsable local, Valeri Andreev, chef du FSB ossète, selon lequel “dix mercenaires d’origine arabe” étaient au nombre des preneurs d’otages.

Hanté par cette idée d’une menace externe, Vladimir Poutine a insisté : “Si nous nous laissons aller à la panique, alors nous entraînerons des millions de personnes dans des conflits meurtriers et sans fin comme celui du Karabakh - conflit en sommeil mettant aux prises l’Arménie et l’Azerbaïdjan -, celui de la région du Dniestr - fief des indépendantistes russophones de Moldavie - et bien d’autres tragédies que nous connaissons trop bien.”

Marie Jégo
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L’EDITION DU 07.09.04
—-

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-377977,0.html

A Western strategy for Chechnya
Anatol Lieven IHT Thursday, September 09, 2004
After the Beslan massacre
WASHINGTON The vile massacre in the Russian town of Beslan should bring a number of points home to Western governments, and lead them to adopt a new and more useful approach to the conflict in Chechnya.

First, the strategy adopted by President Vladimir Putin has utterly failed to limit terrorism. The Chechens he has chosen to run the republic have failed to establish any real authority, and the abuses committed by Russian troops have contributed greatly to undermining Russia’s goals in Chechnya.

This recognition alone, however, is insufficient as a basis for understanding the Chechen conflict, let alone helping to ameliorate it. We must also recognize that there can be no negotiation or compromise with the terrorists who carried out this atrocity, with their commanders like Shamil Basayev, or with their allies in the world of international Islamist extremism.

Nor can the West encourage any political process which could lead to these extremists once again gaining an ascendancy in Chechnya, as they did during the period of its de facto independence from 1996 to 1999.

After the Russian withdrawal in 1996, these radical forces revolted against the democratically elected government of President Aslan Maskhadov and turned Chechnya into a base for a monstrous wave of kidnapping and murder against Russians, Westerners and fello Caucasians.

In alliance with radical Arab Islamists linked to Al Qaeda, they launched a campaign to drive Russia from the whole of the Northern Caucasus and unite it with Chechnya in one Islamic republic. President Maskhadov failed completely to suppress these groups. Indeed, senior Russian envoys were kidnapped and murdered while under his personal protection. According to Western officials, the criminal and Islamist group headed by the commander Arbi Barayev, which was responsible in 1998 for the kidnapping and beheading of four British telecom engineers, was under the protection of Maskhadov’s then vice president, Vaqa Arsanov.

In other words, when we advocate a political settlement in Chechnya, we should be quite clear that what we are advocating is not an end to the struggle against the Chechen extremists, but a way of reducing their support in the Chechen population in order to fight against them more successfully.

A new Western strategy for Chechnya should have three main components.

The first would be directed towards Moscow, and would echo our approach to Turkey, India and other countries which have fought similar conflicts against secessionist and terrorist forces. It would express unqualified support for Russia’s territorial integrity and for its struggle against the terrorists.

However, it would combine this with demands that the Russian state take much stronger action against abuses by the military, that international observers be allowed into Chechnya and that the Russian government launch a much more broadly based and democratic political initiative. This would include both the holding of democratic parliamentary elections in Chechnya and an offer of talks with Maskhadov and his followers.

The second Western approach should be to Maskhadov and his representatives in the West, like Ahmed Zakayev, who has been given political asylum in Britain. They should be reminded firmly that when they formed a Chechen government in 1996 to 99, they failed utterly to foster even minimal elements of a state in Chechnya, to protect foreign citizens there or to prevent Chechnya being used as a base by anti-Western extremists. Their credibility as would-be rulers of an independent Chechnya is zero.

Any thought of Chechen independence must therefore be deferred until a solid basis for Chechen statehood has been created. In return for Western support for Chechen democracy and their own amnesty and participation in the Chechen political process, Maskhadov and his followers must accept autonomy for Chechnya within the Russian Federation as a short-to-medium-term solution and promise to struggle for long-term independence by exclusively peaceful and political means.

They must also commit themselves not only to break absolutely with the terrorists, but to fight against them alongside Russian forces. If they fail to make this commitment, they should be treated by the West as terrorist supporters.

Finally, the West should back such a settlement with the promise of a really serious aid package for Chechnya’s reconstruction, calibrated so as to reward supporters of peace, and of Western special forces to help Russia in the fight against the terrorists.

It may be argued of course that such a commitment is utterly unrealistic, given the contemptible failure of Western countries even to meet their formal obligations to liberated Afghanistan. But then again, if Western governments and societies are not prepared to give real help to Chechnya, how much is their moralizing talk about the situation there really worth?

Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. His book, “Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power,” is published by Yale University Press.

http://www.iht.com/articles/537891.html

—-

L’invasion de l’Irak, une “bévue majeure” dans la lutte contre Al-Qaïda (expert)
AFP | 09.09.04 | 09h26

L’invasion de l’Irak a été “une bévue majeure” dans la lutte engagée par l’Occident contre Al-Qaïda, juge Paul Wilkinson, l’un des spécialistes mondiaux du terrorisme, à la veille du 3e anniversaire des attentats du 11 septembre 2001 aux Etats-Unis.La situation à Bagdad ne doit toutefois pas occulter que le réseau radical islamiste “peut être vaincu à long terme”, assure le professeur Wilkinson, président du Centre d’étude du terrorisme et de la violence politiquede l’université écossaise de St Andrews, où il a reçu l’AFP.L’invasion d’un pays “qui n’avait rien à voir avec Al-Qaïda (...) a offert une propagande gratuite à Oussama Ben Laden”, accuse le chercheur britannique. Al-Qaïda a pu ainsi “décrire l’invasion comme un acte d’impérialisme occidental contre le monde musulman” et “mobiliser de nouvelles recrues pour la guerre sainte”.Le réseau islamiste a bénéficié en outre, après la chute de Saddam Hussein, d’une “opportunité stratégique” dans un Irak en proie à l’insurrection et l’anarchie.“L’Irak, explique Paul Wilkinson, est devenu pour les terroristes ce qu’un pot de miel est pour des ours. Des milliers de cibles civiles et militaires ont soudain été disponibles dans un pays sans contrôles efficaces aux frontières et entouré de pays musulmans ayant des militants d’Al-Qaïda dans leur population”.Comme l’a souligné le Sénat américain, une attaque comparable ou pire que celles du 11 septembre reste possible en Occident. Mais aux yeux du chercheur, le principal risque lié aujourd’hui à Al-Qaïda est que la nébuleuse ne profite du “délaissement militaire et financier de l’Afghanistan”, conséquence directe de la guerre d’Irak.“La chute des talibans avait privé Al-Qaïda de sa base territoriale et logistique, rappelle-t-il. Mais le réseau, allié à des ‘seigneurs de la guerre’ et aux talibans cachés dans le sud-est et à la frontière du Pakistan, regagne aujourd’hui de l’influence”.En dépit de ces “bévues majeures”, la lutte contre le terrorisme islamiste a connu depuis 2001 “des succès incontestables” qu’énumère le Pr Wilkinson : “le renversement rapide des talibans, le blocage de millions de dollars de financements, des centaines d’arrestations de présumés militants expérimentés, le fait que le Pakistan et d’autres pays musulmans présents sur la ligne de front tiennent bon, etc.”“Surtout, explique-t-il, je suis convaincu que beaucoup plus de gens auraient été tués depuis trois ans s’il n’y avait eu une excellente coopération entre les services de renseignements”.La France d’ailleurs, malgré son désaccord avec les Etats-Unis sur l’Irak, “apporte une aide précieuse dans la lutte contre des groupes affiliés à Al-Qaïda, tels que les salafistes par exemple, et sur l’islamisme en Europe en général”, pointe Paul Wilkinson.Al-Qaïda, qui est parvenu à pallier son affaiblissement en s’agrégeant des groupes régionaux “qui donnent l’impression que le réseau peut frapper partout”, va continuer à “poser un problème très sérieux” aux pays occidentaux, mais aussi musulmans, juge l’expert. “Les guerres terroristes sont particulièrement difficiles à terminer, analyse-t-il, car les militants radicaux placent leur combat dans une perspective historique de long terme et ne sont pas découragés par les échecs”.Le réseau peut néanmoins être vaincu “à long terme”, conclut le chercheur, si ses opposants “savent se garder des réactions militaires excessives” et surtout s’ils parviennent à “diffuser le modèle démocratique dans le monde musulman”.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/dh/0,14-0@14-0@2-3208,39-23573458,0.html

EurActive.com
Verheugen on Turkey: the question is when, not if…
Addressing a policy summit entitled “Turkey’s EU end-game?” in Brussels, Commissioner Verheugen said that while Turkey’s track record is impressive, the reforms should continue in a “credible and sustainable” manner. Coinciding with the event, Friends of Europe published a working paper by Dr Kirsty Hughes, LSE, entitled Turkey and the European Union: Just another enlargement?
http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe?204&OIDN=1507888&-tt=in
——
Turkey and the European Union: Just another enlargement?
Paper by Dr Kirsty Hughes, LSE, explores the implications of Turkey’s accession and sums up the key issues related to the accession process.
http://www.friendsofeurope.org/pdfs/TurkeyandtheEuropeanUn
ion-WorkingPaperFoE.pdf

Turkey’s unrequited EU love

  By Oana Lungescu
BBC correspondent in Istanbul

Two years ago, Turkey won the Eurovision song contest with a tale of unrequited love.
In many ways, it echoed the country’s own unsuccessful bid to woo the European Union since 1963, when it signed an association agreement that promised eventual membership of the bloc.

Things began moving in 1999 when Turkey was officially recognised as an EU candidate, and especially after the election of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in 2002, which quickened political reforms to an unprecedented pace.

Earlier this month, Turkish state television began broadcasting in Kurdish, the language of a sizeable minority in this country of 67 million.

On the same day, the government released four Kurdish activists, including human rights award winner Leyla Zana, who had spent 10 years in jail after trials deemed unfair by the EU.

Over the past 18 months, the government has passed nine reform packages, including a ban on the death penalty, a zero-tolerance policy towards torture in prisons, and curtailing the interference of the military in politics, education and culture.
“I am impressed - because starting with the constitution, they’ve changed a lot of laws,” says Murat Celikan, a human rights activist who writes a regular column in the daily Radikal.

“To give one example, two years ago, a radio was banned for one year for airing a song in Kurdish and in Armenian. Now the state television has Kurdish programmes - so that’s a great change.”

The EU has also welcomed the reforms, but it wants them implemented across this vast country by local police, judges and bureaucrats. So far, implementation is uneven, especially in the provinces and the Kurdish areas in the south-east.

“It will take time because I am sure that the security forces especially are not yet well informed about those changes. If you want to make a demonstration in Istanbul or in an eastern province like Diyarbakir, the procedures are still different - not by law, but because of implementation,” says Murat Celikan.

Investor wariness

The prospect of EU membership, coupled with IMF-inspired reforms, have also brought greater stability to the crisis-prone Turkish economy.

Huge shopping centres are full of young people in search of the latest trends. The economy is growing, while inflation has fallen to single-digit figures for the first time in decades.

It will be a big, almost the biggest country, it will be pretty much the poorest country in the EU and it’s located in quite a difficult strategic security position
Kirsty Hughes
Analyst

But foreign investors remain wary of Turkey. In 2002, they invested only $300m (£164m), 10 times less than in Hungary, a country whose entire economy equals that of Istanbul.
Cem Duna, a leading member of the influential Turkish businessmen and industrialists association Tusiad, has this explanation.

“Hungary is a member of the European Union and has been a candidate for the past 10 years or so, this was the main reason why this happened. Now Turkey can easily amass up to $10-15bn (£5.5-8bn) foreign direct investment per annum once it is on the same track, with the same finality in sight.”

Meanwhile, Turkey remains poorer than the 10 countries of central and southern Europe that have just joined the EU, with living standards at about a quarter of EU levels.

Muslim giant

But in terms of population, it is as big as all of the 10 put together.

If it were to join around 2015, it would become the second biggest country in the EU after Germany.

Is the EU ready to admit such a large poor country, which also happens to border on Iraq and Syria?

Kirsty Hughes is the author of a recent study on the implications of Turkish EU membership.
“It will be a big, almost the biggest country, it will be pretty much the poorest country in the EU and it’s located in quite a difficult strategically security position,” she says.

“But when you actually look at what does that mean for joining the union, what it means for its economic policies, for its budget, for how it votes to make decisions, then all those things start to look manageable.

“For instance, it would have about 15% of the votes in the EU Council, that’s slightly less than Germany has today in the say of how to run the EU. In budget terms it would cost about as much as the ‘big bang’ enlargement that we’ve just had.

“Now again, that’s not cheap, but it’s about 10% to 15% of the EU’s budget so it’s not as shocking as if you said it’s going to be half the budget. It does have a lot of implications for EU foreign policy, but I think those will have to be taken as they come.”

Strategic

For Guenter Verheugen, the European enlargement commissioner, Turkey’s strategic position straddling Europe and the greater Middle East is an asset rather than a drawback.

EU politicians face one of the toughest decisions they have ever had to take. If they say no to Turkey, they risk alienating a key ally in the Muslim world with unpredictable consequences. If they say yes, they may upset many voters at home who are already unhappy about where the EU is going

At a recent conference in Brussels, he warned that the EU would make a tragic mistake if it stopped or reversed the process of democratisation in Turkey by denying it eventual membership.

“The eleventh of September 2001 marks a far-reaching change in our strategic thinking. Since 11 September, the question of the relationship between Western democracies and the Islamic world is one of the most important issues in the first decade of the 21st Century.

“The question - which role will Turkey play in the organisation of that relationship - can be very crucial. Personally, I am convinced it will be crucial.

“And the process of reforms in Turkey has a meaning far beyond the borders of that country. It has a meaning for the whole Islamic world, because it demonstrates that there’s no contradiction between the universal values of human rights, democracy, the state of law and a country with a Muslim population and Muslim background.”

EU decision

In October, Mr Verheugen will issue a progress report on Turkey which will form the basis for the decision of EU leaders.

While the report is widely expected to be positive, public opinion in France, Germany, Austria and elsewhere is becoming increasingly reluctant to accept a further enlargement of the EU, especially to include a large Muslim nation like Turkey.

Since the Netherlands will be holding the EU’s rotating presidency in the second half of the year, I asked Ben Bot, the Dutch foreign minister (and a former Dutch ambassador to Turkey) how worried he is about the lack of public support among Western voters?

“Perhaps there has been a lack of proper communication and now there is, I think, an unjustified fear of Islam, which is perhaps understandable in the context of terrorism and so on, but which is not justified - because I think that the situation in Turkey is completely different.

“They also forget that Turkey has been a member of Nato, of the Council of Europe, that it has helped the West during all these years, also during the Cold War, has been a staunch ally.

“And so, it’s in itself astonishing that people all of a sudden are against Turkish participation, whereas we think that Turkey would be a very valuable member of the EU. It will take a long time, that I agree, it will certainly take many, many years of negotiations before they fully comply with all the criteria.”

Indeed, in 10 years or so from now, the EU will be a very different union, and Turkey will be a very different country.

But come December, EU politicians face one of the toughest decisions they have ever had to take.

If they say no to Turkey, they risk alienating a key ally in the Muslim world. But if they say yes, they may upset many voters at home who are already unhappy about where the EU is going.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/3847373.stm

Published: 2004/06/28 16:01:25 GMT

© BBC MMIV

EU presses Turkey on Kurd rights

The EU’s Enlargement Commissioner, Guenter Verheugen, has said Turkey must do more to improve the cultural rights of its Kurdish minority.
“What we have seen so far can only be the beginning,” he said on a visit to the Diyarbakir region, in the mainly Kurdish south-east of Turkey.

Mr Verheugen is on a fact-finding tour ahead of an EU Commission report next month on Turkey’s EU membership bid.

EU leaders will decide in December whether to open EU accession talks.

Mr Verheugen, quoted by Reuters news agency, said Turkey needed to step up efforts to help displaced Kurds return home.

“I think one should strongly support the wish of people to return to their villages,” he said.

Rights abuses

The Turkish military was blamed for widespread human rights abuses carried out during a campaign against Kurdish militants in the 1980s and 1990s.

Tens of thousands of Kurds fled or were evacuated from their homes during the heaviest fighting, which largely subsided after the capture of Kurdish guerrilla leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999.
Constitutional and judicial reforms undertaken by Turkey in recent years are now under close EU scrutiny.

On a visit to a women’s centre in Diyarbakir, Mr Verheugen stressed the need for Turkey to improve women’s rights.

“Democracy cannot be realised without gender equality,” he said.

Mr Verheugen said that it was important that the reforms should continue.

After Turkey’s accession the EU will not easily be able to pursue the current farm and regional policy - Europe would implode
Frits Bolkestein
EU internal market commissioner

In June, Turkey allowed the first, very limited Kurdish-language broadcasts on state radio and television.

Kurds, who form some 12 million of Turkey’s 70 million population, are also pushing for Kurdish language education in schools.

The commission’s job is to make sure that Turkey conforms with the political criteria laid down by the EU as a precondition for membership. There is much focus now on how the reforms are being implemented.

Mistreatment of those in police custody was one concern that many held about Turkey.

Concern in Brussels

A heated debate about Turkey continues to rage in Brussels, the BBC’s Oana Lungescu reports.

EU internal market commissioner Frits Bolkestein said in a speech this week that Turkey’s accession could make the EU “implode” and would render the entry of other countries such as Ukraine and Belarus inevitable.

In a speech at Leyden University about the decline and fall of empires, the Dutch liberal politician said Turkey would have to change its identity completely before it could join the EU.

After the accession of Turkey, Mr Bolkestein said, Europe could no longer carry on with its current farming and regional subsidies.

Our correspondent says Mr Bolkestein reflects wider public unease about a poor, populous, Islamic country joining the EU.

At least two other EU commissioners - Spain’s Loyola de Palacio and Austria’s Franz Fischler - are expected to voice their opposition in a month’s time, when the EU executive is due to publish its crucial report on Turkey.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/3634024.stm

Published: 2004/09/07 15:52:27 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Dearest one

GREETINGS,

Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into business relationship with you
I prayed over it and selected your name among other names due to it’s esteeming nature and the recommendations given to me as a reputable and trust worthy person I can do business with and by their recommenddations I must not hesitate to confide in your for this simple and sincere business.
I am PAUL UTETE; the only Son of late MR and MRS KAVES UTETE My father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in ABIDJAN ,the economic capital of COTE D’IVIORE before he was poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their outing to discus on a business deal.
When my mother died on the 10th October 1987, my father took me and my younger sister special because we are motherless. Before the death of my father on 5th June 2002 in a private hospital here in ABIDJAN. He secretly called me on his bedside and told me that he has a sum of $22.500.000 (Twenty Two Million, five hundred thousand dollars) left in a suspense account in a (local Bank vote) here in ABIDJAN, that he used my name as his first Son for the next of kin in deposit of the fund.
He also explained to me that it was because of this wealth and some huge amount of money his business associates supposed to balance him from the deal they had that he was poisoned by his business associates, that I should seek for a God fearing foreign partner in a country of my choice where I will transfer this money and use it for investment purpose, (such as real estate management). Dear, we are honourably seeking your assistance in the following ways.
1) To provide a Bank account where this money would be transferred to.
2) To serve as the guardian of this since I am a boy of 22 years. Moreover,
we are willing to offer you 13% of the sum as compensation for effort input after the successful transfer of this fund to your designate account overseas.
Anticipating to hear from you soon.
Thanks and God Bless. Best regards.
PAUL UTETE

Policies unsustainable with Turkey in EU, warns Commissioner
07.09.2004 - 17:40 CET | By Andrew Beatty
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Frits Bolkestein has warned that the European Union will “implode” if farm and regional aid policies remain unchanged by the time Turkey joins the EU.

The Internal Market Commissioner on Monday (6 September) cautioned that current levels of support for farmers and poorer regions would be untenable given the size of the EU’s collective budget.

“After the entry of Turkey, the EU could simply not continue with the agricultural and regional policy it has had up until now. The EU would implode”, he told an audience at Leiden University, the Netherlands.

His comments echo those made by ex-Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari whose independent commission yesterday reported that member states’ current 1.27% of GDP ceiling for budget contributions would not be enough in a Union including Turkey.

The EU currently spends around half of its 100 billion a year budget on Agricultural aid.

In his speech Mr Bolkestein also suggested that acceptance of Turkey should also mean acceptance of other countries on the EU’s eastern flank.

“Whoever accepts Turkey must also accept Ukraine and Belarus. These countries are more European than Turkey ... In 15 to 20 years, we could have an EU with up to 40 Member States”, he said.

Budget hike, aid cut
A spokesman for Mr Bolkestein today denied the Commissioner opposes Turkey’s accession but was highlighting the need for Turkey and the EU to be well prepared for the country’s accession.

According to the Ahtasaari Commission, the challenge is not insurmountable, although many political obstacles remain.

If polices were to remain unchanged, with a relatively large and poor country inside the club the burden on richer member states could be increased considerably.

Already many member states are pushing for a cut in EU budget contributions.

And with people in net budget contributing countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, already sceptical of Turkish membership, any hike in fees would be doubly unpopular among voters.

However, there is likely to be pressure for cuts to come from other policies, as France - a major beneficiary of regional and farm aid - is also a country where Turkish membership receives a lukewarm response.

The European Commission is scheduled to report on Turkey’s fulfilment of the criteria to start accession negotiations in early October.
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=17222
—-
De heer Frits Bolkestein
Lid van de Europese Commissie verantwoordelijk voor Interne Markt en Belastingzaken
De Veelvolkeren Unie
Ter Gelegenheid van de Opening van het Academisch Jaar
Universiteit van Leiden, 6 september 2004

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/04/390&format=HTML&aged=0&language=NL&guiLanguage=en

—-

EU commissioner’s remarks on Turkey raising eyebrows
Graham Bowley IHT Wednesday, September 08, 2004
BRUSSELS Frits Bolkestein, one of the European Union’s most outspoken commissioners, stirred controversy Tuesday after he seemed to try to raise concerns that admitting Turkey to the EU would make Europe more Islamic.

In a speech at the University of Leidenlate on Monday, Bolkestein said that some predictions that Europe may be predominantly Islamic by the end of the century meant that the siege of Vienna in 1683, when troops repulsed Ottoman Turks, “will have been in vain.”

A spokesman for Bolkestein on Tuesday played down the comments, saying the remarks were hypothetical and that the commissioner did not oppose Turkey’s proposed entry to the EU.

But the timing of the remarks - as talks to consider Turkey’s potential EU membership begin - raises questions about Bolkestein’s motives during a period of intense nervousness and feverish negotiation across the Continent, with the focus on, among other things, Turkey’s record on democracy and human rights.

“The current trend warrants only one conclusion: the United States remains the sole superpower, China will become an economic giant, Europe is becoming more Islamic,” Bolkestein said in the speech, according to reports from Reuters.

Bolkestein, the eloquent and well-respected EU internal markets commissioner and an economic liberal, stirred a controversy in March when he said in a book that Turkey should remain outside the EU to be a buffer to protect Europe from Syria, Iran and Iraq. He will be among those voting when the Commission decides, in a report to be published Oct. 6, whether to open Europe’s gates to Turkey, a poor, mainly Muslim country of about 70 million people.

The issue is highly sensitive because of fears, chiefly among conservative Christian Democrat groups, that Turkey’s admission could transform the nature of the European Union.

They are worried that Turkey could alter the union’s balance of power because votes in the EU are determined largely by population, and Turkey would be one of its most populous nations. They are also worried it would drain Europe’s budget; Bolkestein said admitting Turkey could strain the EU’s farming and regional aid budgets to the limit.

Within Europe, supporters of Turkish entry include the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy, but France, Austria and Luxembourg have tried to block the process.

International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/537817.html
—-

Turkish accession could spell end of EU, says commissioner

David Gow in Brussels and Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian

A European commissioner has warned that the European Union may implode if Turkey is allowed to join.

Frits Bolkestein, the internal market commissioner, expressed concern that if Ankara was admitted to the EU, the defeat of Turks in Vienna more than 300 years ago could turn out to have been in vain.

The commission is due to report next month on Turkey’s eligibility and heads of government are scheduled to make a decision in December.

Mr Bolkestein laid bare tensions in the EU over whether to open accession talks with Ankara. The Dutch rightwing liberal said Turkey would have to undergo huge changes before being ready for entry, fundamentally altering its identity, and that the accession of a country of 68 million people, with perhaps 83 million by 2010, would transform the EU.

He added: “After Turkish entry the EU will simply be unable to sustain its current agricultural and regional policy. Europe would implode.”

Yesterday, his spokesman insisted that Mr Bolkestein did not want to prejudge the outcome of the debate within the commission.

Mr Bolkestein, quoting remarks by the US historian Bernard Lewis that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century, commented: “I don’t know if it will take this course but, if he’s right, the liberation of Vienna [from the Ottoman Turks] in 1683 would have been in vain.”

His colleague, Günter Verheugen, the European commissioner responsible for enlargement, also issued a warning to Turkey yesterday, indicating it would have to improve the lot of its Kurdish minority if it wanted to join the EU.

He was speaking during a visit to Tuzla, a Kurdish village set on fire by Turkish troops fighting Kurdish rebels in 1995.

On October 6, Mr Verheugen is to publish his verdict on whether Turkey is eligible for accession. Heads of government are to make a decision based on his assessment.
Many EU countries are hostile, partly because accession would bring 68 million Muslims into the EU. The Netherlands and Austria are among the biggest critics, with France, Germany and Belgium also resistant. Britain supports Turkish entry.

Mr Verheugen, making his final visit to Turkey before completing his report, said: “We have strongly ... advocated education in the Kurdish language and broadcasts in the Kurdish language and I am satisfied that they have started with some delay. But I must say that what we have seen so far can only be the beginning.”

Until recently, the private view among commissioners such as Mr Verheugen was that there was no possibility of Turkish entry for at least 20 years because of its abysmal human rights record.

But the US, which sees Turkey as an ally in its “war on terror”, has been pressing the EU to allow earlier entry, and the Turkish government has been pushing through reforms of its legal system, including the abolition of the death penalty.
An indication of the likely direction of Mr Verheugen’s report was offered this week with publication of an independent report by a panel headed by Martti Ahtisaari, the former Finnish president.

Mr Ahtisaari said that Turkish entry would offer “considerable benefits”, not least because “as a large Muslim country firmly embedded in the EU, Turkey could play a significant role in Europe’s relations with the Islamic world”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1299481,00.html
—-

Fears of Turkish migrant influx ‘vastly exaggerated’
06.09.2004 - 17:30 CET | By Andrew Beatty
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The head of an independent Commission investigating Turkish membership of the European Union has branded fears of an influx of immigrants to Europe as “vastly exaggerated”.

Martti Ahtisaari, former Finnish president and chair of a high-level group investigating Turkish EU membership said on Monday (6 September) that the group’s findings had shown fears of a massive influx of migrants to Europe to be unfounded.

Announcing the publication of a report produced by a nine-strong panel, Mr Ahtisaari said that forecasts indicate 2.7 million migrants arriving from Turkey in the long term, making up 0.5 percent of the EU’s population.

The panel includes academics as well as former prime ministers, European commissioners and foreign ministers.

Ready or not?
An influx of Muslim workers to Europe after Turkey becomes part of the EU’s zone of free movement is often cited by those who fear the negative effects of Turkish membership.

Mr Ahtisaari however said that immigration would be necessary to maintain the welfare systems of many European countries, which will increasingly suffer the effects of ageing populations.

According to the report, future Turkish migration is likely to include more “professional and better educated people” - in contrast to the many Turkish migrants from rural areas who arrived to Europe in the 1950’s and 60’s under guest worker schemes.

This, it is said, would make integration easier.

Around 3.8 million Turkish migrants are thought to live in Europe today.

Criteria met
The report does not touch on the issue if Turkey has met the political or economic criteria which will form the basis of the EU’s decision to start negations with Turkey later this year.

It predicts that Turkish membership would boost the EU’s interests in the Middle East, the Balkans, its internal trade as well as boosting ties with the Islamic world.

But while there are problems such as the EU’s ability to integrate such a large member state into its decision making procedures, none are insurmountable according to the group.

The report’s publication coincides with a five day visit to Turkey by Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen.

His visit comes ahead of the Commission’s report on Turkey’s progress in meeting the EU’s membership criteria, which will go some way to determining whether negotiations begin in 2005

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=17208
—-

Report of the independent Commission investigating Turkish membership of the European Union
http://www.independentcommissiononturkey.org/pdfs/english.pdf
——

Après le film de Michael Moore, c’est au tour d’un livre, à paraître aujourd’hui outre-Atlantique (Intelligence Matters), d’embarrasser la Maison-Blanche. L’auteur, Bob Graham, sénateur démocrate, accuse le FBI et la présidence américaine d’avoir ” bloqué des efforts pour enquêter sur l’étendue des liens saoudiens officiels avec deux pirates de l’air ” impliqués dans les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, déclare le quotidien américain Miami Herald, cité par l’AFP. Les collaborateurs de la commission d’enquête parlementaire sur le 11 septembre, coprésidée par Bob Graham et le républicain Porter Goss, auraient découvert des liens financiers unissant ” deux agents saoudiens ” aux pirates de l’air. Une piste que les enquêteurs n’ont pu explorer plus avant, selon l’auteur du livre, puisque le FBI les aurait alors empêchés de mener les entretiens dans le cadre de ces recherches. Une obstruction à laquelle s’ajouterait la censure de passages du rapport parlementaire. Vraie ou fausse info ? Pour sa part, l’un des responsables de la commission s’est empressé de démentir les propos de Bob Graham. John Kerry, candidat démocrate à la présidence, réclame une enquête indépendante.

Article paru dans l’édition du 7 septembre 2004 (L’Humanité).

[b]La blague du jour[/b]

Voter Kerry favoriserait de nouveaux attentats aux Etats-Unis, selon Dick Cheney

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Le vice-président américain Dick Cheney a affirmé mardi que les Etats-Unis feraient face à une nouvelle menace terroriste si les électeurs faisaient le “mauvais choix” le jour des élections, soulignant que John Kerry adopterait une politique défensive, typique de l’avant-11 septembre.

Le comité de campagne Kerry-Edwards a immédiatement réagi en qualifiant ces propos de “faibles tactiques”, dépassant les bornes.

“Il est primordial que dans huit semaines, le 2 novembre, nous fassions le bon choix, parce que si nous faisons le mauvais choix, il est probable que nous soyons une nouvelle fois attaqués, de façon dévastatrice pour les Etats-Unis”, a affirmé Cheney devant 350 supporters lors d’un meeting à l’hôtel de ville de Des Moines (Iowa).

Si John Kerry était élu, la nation retournerait à “un état d’esprit avant-11 septembre”, selon lequel les attentats terroristes sont des actes criminels qui nécessitent une approche réactive, a expliqué Cheney. Au contraire, l’approche offensive de George Bush vise à débusquer les terroristes là où ils s’organisent et s’entraînent et à faire pression sur les pays qui les abritent.

Le vice-président a pris en exemple l’effort réalisé en Afghanistan pour poursuivre les terroristes, alors que le cerveau des attentats du 11 septembre, Oussama ben Laden court toujours. En Irak, Dick Cheney a rappelé l’arrestation de Saddam Hussein, dirigeant qui utilisait les armes de destruction massive contre son propre peuple et abritait des terroristes.

Le candidat démocrate à la vice-présidence John Edwards a diffusé un communiqué affirmant que “les faibles tactiques de Dick Cheney avaient dépassé les bornes, prouvant une nouvelle fois que lui et George W. Bush feront tout ce qui est en leur pouvoir et diront n’importe quoi pour conserver leurs postes. Protéger l’Amérique des agissements de terroristes dangereux n’est pas un argument démocrate ou républicain, Dick Cheney et George Bush devraient savoir ça.” AP

M. Verheugen promet aux Turcs qu’ils seront “citoyens de la même Europe”
LE MONDE | 07.09.04 | 17h30
Le commissaire européen en charge des questions d’élargissement de l’Union a entamé une ultime visite en Turquie pour vérifier l’application des réformes demandées et finaliser son rapport. L’avis de la Commission, prévu pour le 6 octobre, divise ses membres.

Ankara, Diyarbakir de notre envoyé spécial

Défenseurs des droits de l’homme, dignitaires religieux, élus, hommes d’affaires : telle est l’ultime tournée “sur le terrain” qu’effectue Günter Verheugen, le commissaire à l’élargissement, avant que la Commission ne rende, le 6 octobre, sa recommandation à propos de l’ouverture de négociations d’adhésion avec l’Union européenne, assortie d’un rapport sur l’état d’avancement des réformes.

Lundi 6 septembre à Ankara, il a rencontré, le premier ministre, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, et son ministre des affaires étrangères, Abdullah Gul. Il s’est ensuite entretenu avec des militants associatifs. Puis s’est envolé vers Diyarbakir, dans le sud-est anatolien, où il a croisé dans la soirée l’ancienne députée kurde, Leyla Zana, libérée en juin après dix ans de détention pour liens avec le Parti séparatiste des travailleurs du Kurdistan (PKK). Mardi, M. Verheugen devait se rendre dans un village où les populations chassées par le conflit kurde tentent peu à peu de revenir.

A chaque rencontre, l’émissaire de Bruxelles fait mine de cultiver le secret, mais il laisse transparaître ses intentions : “C’est l’heure de vérité ; le Conseil nous a donné un mandat clair, il n’est pas question de fuir nos responsabilités”, a-t-il répété à plusieurs reprises. “Nous serons citoyens de la même Europe”, a-t-il répliqué au jeune maire de Diyarbakir, qui a fait placarder pour l’occasion de grandes pancartes dans cette ville à majorité kurde : “Bienvenue au citoyen Verheugen dans la Grande Europe”.

La commission s’apprêterait, selon le vœux de M. Verheugen, à formuler une recommandation “claire et ferme” aux Etats membres, lesquels doivent se prononcer à l’unanimité le 17 décembre. Les diplomates européens considèrent que la Turquie a accompli d’importants progrès sur le chemin des réformes : elle respecterait désormais pour l’essentiel les critères d’adhésion, en particulier sur le plan politique. Pour les experts, la situation a évolué dans le bon sens depuis le début des années 2000, même si de sérieuses difficultés demeurent dans l’application des nouvelles lois.

“La mise en œuvre n’est pas achevée, mais c’est normal”, a dit M. Verheugen, tout en soulignant à plusieurs reprises le lien, “qui ne doit pas être rompu”, entre “démocratisation et intégration européenne”.

La principale inconnue réside plutôt dans le calendrier. Les dirigeants turcs réclament une date précise, la plus rapprochée possible. Aux yeux du commissaire, la question demeure ouverte. La Commission ne serait, selon lui, pas tenue d’avancer une date formelle, mais elle pourrait identifier une période indicative. Deux options sont possibles : soit l’exécutif européen préconise d’ouvrir les pourparlers “sans délai”, c’est-à-dire après quatre à six mois d’ultimes préparatifs. Soit il préconise d’attendre un peu, pour ouvrir les négociations fin 2005 ou début 2006. Cette option pourrait permettre de laisser passer la ratification du traité constitutionnel européen dans un pays comme la France, afin d’éviter que la campagne ne soit polluée par la question turque.

LE SUD-EST EN RETARD
Tout dépendra également des discussions au sein d’une Commission divisée sur le sujet : M. Verheugen espère une décision consensuelle, mais plusieurs commissaires - l’Autrichien Franz Fischler, l’Espagnole Loyola de Palacio, le Néerlandais Frits Bolkestein, et la Luxembourgeoise Viviane Reding - ne cachent pas leurs réserves quant à l’ouverture de négociations. Et pourraient compliquer la rédaction de la recommandation.

M. Verheugen profite de sa tournée turque, qui doit aussi le conduire à Izmir et Istanbul, pour faire un ultime point sur les réformes. Lundi, lors de sa rencontre avec MM. Erdogan et Gul, il a salué l’adoption en cours d’un nouveau code pénal. Mais Bruxelles suggère à la Turquie de renoncer à faire de l’adultère un délit, comme le prévoit le projet. “Une telle législation n’existe pas dans les pays membres ; elle fausserait la perception que l’on se fait dans l’Union des réformes en Turquie”, dit-on dans l’entourage de M. Verheugen.

Autre souci, l’Union européenne s’inquiète du sort des communautés non musulmanes, dont les conditions d’existence - droit de propriété, statut, formation du clergé - sont précaires. Lors de ses entretiens, M. Verheugen met également l’accent sur le harcèlement judiciaire dont sont toujours victimes certains défenseurs des droits de l’homme, des journalistes et des avocats. Enfin, il considère que le sud-est du pays demeure très en retard et que le retour des populations déplacées du fait du conflit avec le PKK reste très lent. Mais ces préoccupations ne semblent pas atténuer la confiance de M. Verheugen dans la capacité des autorités turques à poursuivre le processus de démocratisation… tout en négociant l’adhésion à l’Union. Pour lui, “la Turquie qui intégrera l’Union ne sera pas le pays d’aujourd’hui”.
Philippe Ricard
Les réticences restent fortes en France
“Dans le monde de demain, l’intérêt de l’Union, comme de la Turquie, est d’emprunter un chemin commun” : devant la conférence des ambassadeurs, le 27 août, le président Chirac a réaffirmé sa position de principe en faveur d’une adhésion dès que les conditions seront remplies. Cette position va à contre-pied de celle prise par l’UMP et l’UDF lors des élections européennes. La question turque continue de diviser fortement la classe politique française, dans la majorité comme dans l’opposition.

Chez les socialistes, Laurent Fabius a confirmé fin août, dans une tribune au Monde, une opposition partagée dans la gauche du parti. Une mission de la délégation pour l’Union européenne de l’Assemblée nationale, conduite par l’UMP Pierre Lequillier, adversaire de l’adhésion, va se rendre prochainement en Turquie. Cette hésitation se retrouve dans beaucoup de pays européens, où les gouvernements affrontent des opinions réticentes. Seuls les Britanniques et les Espagnols ne connaissent pas d’états d’âme.
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L’EDITION DU 08.09.04

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-378116,0.html

—-
Neuf personnalités, dont Michel Rocard, plaident la cause d’Ankara
LE MONDE | 07.09.04 | 17h30
Bruxelles de notre bureau européen
“L’avènement d’une Europe aux religions multiples pourrait montrer avec force que le conflit des civilisations n’est pas le destin inéluctable du genre humain” : neuf personnalités politiques européennes ont avancé cet argument, lundi 6 septembre à Bruxelles, pour prôner l’entrée de la Turquie, pays musulman, dans l’Union européenne.

Ces neuf personnalités, qui souhaitent “contribuer à l’émergence d’un débat plus rationnel” sur l’identité européenne, viennent de pays et d’horizons politiques différents. Parmi elles figurent notamment trois députés européens - Michel Rocard, socialiste, ancien premier ministre français, Bronislaw Geremek, libéral, ancien dissident et ministre des affaires étrangères de Pologne, et Emma Bonino, radicale italienne, ancienne commissaire.

L’ancien président social-démocrate de la Finlande, Marti Ahtisaari, a présidé leurs travaux, qui ont obtenu le soutien financier du British Council, institution publique financée par le gouvernement britannique, partisan de l’adhésion turque, et de l’Open Society Institute, fondation privée du milliardaire George Soros.

Pour ces personnalités, l’adhésion de la Turquie démontrerait le caractère “tolérant” de l’Europe, qui n’apparaîtrait plus comme un “club chrétien fermé”. Elle prouverait que l’islam et la démocratie sont “compatibles”. “En proposant un modèle alternatif à la société intolérante, sectaire et fermée sur elle-même que prônent les islamistes radicaux, l’Europe pourrait jouer un rôle majeur dans les relations entre l’Occident et le monde islamique”, affirment-elles. La présence de la Turquie dans l’Union “augmenterait l’influence de celle-ci au Moyen-Orient, influence qui pourrait être utilisée pour pacifier et stabiliser cette région”. A contrario, l’échec du processus pourrait susciter une “grave crise d’identité en Turquie”.

SAINT-PAUL ET L’ANATOLIE
Les signataires rejettent les arguments invoqués pour dénier à la Turquie une légitimité européenne : certes, ce pays se trouve “sur la ligne qui sépare l’Asie et l’Europe”. Mais “l’Anatolie, région qui constitue aujourd’hui encore le cœur de la Turquie”, et où “saint Paul fit son premier voyage de missionnaire, portant la chrétienté au-delà des frontières du judaïsme”, a été “l’un des berceaux de la civilisation européenne”, rappellent-ils. Ils soulignent qu’“en cela, le cas de la Turquie diffère de celui des pays d’Afrique du Nord”.

Ces personnalités écartent l’argument selon lequel l’adhésion de la Turquie bloquerait l’intégration politique européenne au profit d’une vaste zone de libre-échange : “En dépit de sa taille, il est improbable que l’adhésion de la Turquie modifie de manière fondamentale le fonctionnement des institutions”, affirment-elles, en soulignant que “le processus décisionnel est fondé sur des alliances qui ne cessent de fluctuer”, que “l’influence politique des Etats membres dépend au moins autant de leur puissance économique que de leur taille ou de leur poids démographique”.

Ces personnalités estiment que les gouvernements européens devront suivre les recommandations que formulera la Commission dans le rapport qu’elle remettra le 6 octobre. Si elle juge que la Turquie remplit suffisamment les critères politiques requis, en matière de droits de l’homme et d’économie de marché, pour que des négociations d’adhésion soient ouvertes, ils devront l’accepter. “Tout nouvel ajournement affaiblirait la crédibilité de l’Union européenne et serait perçu comme une violation du principe selon lequel les accords doivent être respectés”, a insisté Michel Rocard, en présentant le titre de leur ouvrage collectif La Turquie dans l’Europe : plus qu’une promesse ?

Rafaële Rivais
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L’EDITION DU 08.09.04
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-378117,0.html
—-
Rapport d’information fait au nom de la Délégation pour l’Union européenne sur la candidature de la Turquie à l’Union européenne
Robert DEL PICCHIA, Hubert HAENEL
FRANCE. Sénat. Délégation pour l’Union européenne

Paris;Sénat;2004;88 pages;24cm
(Les Rapports du Sénat, n° 279)
En décembre 2004, le Conseil européen décidera si l’Union européenne ouvre des négociations d’adhésion avec la Turquie et déterminera si ce pays satisfait aux critères politiques définis à Copenhague (stabilité des institutions, respect des droits de l’homme, fonctionnement du système judiciaire, droits des minorités et liberté religieuse). Après un voyage en Turquie, les rapporteurs évoquent la perspective des relations entre la Turquie et l’Union européenne, les éléments à prendre en considération et avancent l’idée d’un “partenariat privilégié”.
http://www.senat.fr/rap/r03-279/r03-279.html

September 8, 2004
SCHOOL SIEGE
Russia Grieves for Children and Putin Vents His Fury
By SETH MYDANS and C. J. CHIVERS

MOSCOW, Sept. 7 - Tens of thousands of people massed near Red Square on Tuesday to mourn the slain children of Beslan, while President Vladimir V. Putin vented his anger at their killers and, in unusually strong terms, at critics who call for a moderate response.

“Hands off our children” read a banner in the huge, packed crowd, voicing what seemed to be a universal sentiment that even in the vicious world of terrorism there must be a limit to cruelty.

In remarks reported in the British press, Mr. Putin was more blunt about those who have criticized him for failing to negotiate with separatists in Chechnya.
“Why don’t you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?” he said, according to The Guardian. “You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers?”

Four days after hundreds of children, parents and teachers were killed in a schoolhouse overrun by bomb-wielding hostage-takers in the province of North Ossetia, investigators were gathering new evidence about the episode and the apparently accidental explosion that caused the siege to erupt into sudden violence.
Aslanbek Aslakhanov, the Kremlin adviser on Chechnya, said in a telephone interview that elite Russian commando units were taken by surprise by the explosion and lost valuable minutes as the shooting began. He also described three futile conversations he had with the hostage-takers in an effort to save the children.

A videotape shot by the rebels and shown in part on television also provided chilling images of the days leading up to the disaster. It showed gunmen wiring the school’s crowded gymnasium with explosives as a streak of blood spread across the floor. A boy sat in the foreground with his hands up. A woman among the terrorists, dressed in black, stood in a doorway. Bombs hung on wires from the ceiling and from the basketball nets. A man in a mask stood in the middle of the gymnasium, proudly pointing with his foot on what appeared to be a detonator.

As the images were broadcast around the country, in the fields around Beslan, where the death count is at least 338 with 100 or more still missing, families slipped and stumbled in the mud as they carried still more coffins, large and small, to rows of newly dug graves.

The police in Moscow reported the arrest of two people in another terror attack, saying they had helped two Chechen women suspected of blowing up two passenger airliners last month, killing 90 people. One of those arrested said he had helped the women evade security, although he claimed not to have known that they planned a bombing, the police said.

Together with another suicide bombing near a subway station in Moscow, more than 500 people have been killed in terrorist attacks in the space of about two weeks.
In The Guardian article, Mr. Putin was quoted as saying the 10-year war in Chechnya, which appears now to have affected neighboring North Ossetia, was a war for territorial integrity in the remnants of the Soviet Union, which broke into pieces 13 years ago.

“There are Muslims along the Volga, in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan,” he said. “Chechnya isn’t Iraq. It’s not far away. It’s a vital part of our territory. This is all about Russia’s territorial integrity.”

He added: “Just imagine that people who shoot children in the back came to power anywhere on our planet. Just ask yourself that, and you will have no more questions about our policy in Chechnya.”

The Chechen rebel leader, Aslan Maskhadov, hurried to disassociate himself from the torture and killing of the Beslan children, who were given no food or water and were not allowed to use the toilet for two days and were shot when they tried to flee.
In a statement, he sent condolences and “fraternal sympathy” to the president and people of North Ossetia and said, “There cannot be any justification for people who raise their hand against what is most sacred to us - the life of defenseless children!”
The Kremlin has blamed him and the warlord Shamil Basayev for the seizure of the school. One captured raider, identified in the Russian press as a bodyguard of Mr. Basayev named Nur-Pasha Kulayev, 24, was reported to have said he was acting on the orders of the two men.

In the telephone interview, Mr. Aslakhanov described three futile telephone conversations with the terrorists after they took over the school. “They declared that Basayev sent them,” he said. “I asked them what could stop them. They told us only God could stop them, but I am certain that they are godless.”
Nevertheless, he said he did not believe that Mr. Basayev was giving orders as the operation unfolded. “I am certain that they were not in direct contact with him,” he said.

He said it was not clear to him whom he was speaking with.
“I tried to speak Chechen” he said. “But they said, ‘We don’t understand, speak Russian,’ and those who spoke Russian, they spoke with an accent. I was sure it was a Caucasian accent, but I will not name the ethnic group, so as not to offend them.”
He spoke of desperate attempts to obtain the release of the hundreds of trapped children, who had been attending a ceremony for the first day of the school year. “I had more than 400 well-known people, public figures and athletes, champions, who were ready to take the place of the hostages,” he said. “We were ready for the sake of the lives of the children and the other hostages, by proportional means to carry this out.”

Underscoring the local nature of the conflict, a spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitri Peskov, said in a telephone interview that despite earlier assertions by security officials, no Arabs had yet been found among the dead terrorists. He did not rule out that some of them, as yet unidentified, might be from foreign countries.
The F.S.B., the successor to the K.G.B., had earlier reported that the bodies of nine Arabs had been found. Mr. Peskov said 30 bodies had been confirmed to be those of terrorists - shown on television dumped by the schoolhouse in black garbage bags. Because of the difficulty of identifying the bodies, he said, there could be one more.
Officials are checking now to see whether at least one of the terrorists had been detained by the F.S.B. three years ago and released, he said. “We are trying to check that right now,” Mr. Peskov said. “If he was arrested, why was he able to participate in this kind of terrible terrorist act.”

Some Russian newspapers printed the names of a number of people they identified as hostage-takers, dominated by hardened fighters who were well known to the Russian military from the war in Chechnya.

That war, with its roots in separatist aspirations that go back more than a century, flared a decade ago after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After a hiatus in the mid-1990’s, Mr. Putin began a new, particularly destructive, chapter that has ripped the life out of the bucolic province. Mr. Aslakhanov denied an earlier report that 20 Russian commandos had been killed in the attempt to rescue hostages, saying that nine had died at the scene and one later at a hospital. Twenty were wounded, he said. Mr. Peskov also said 10 of the elite soldiers had died.

As investigators talk to witnesses and study the scene, Mr. Peskov said, they are coming to the conclusion that the explosion that set off the violence after a two-day standoff was an accident.

Either the raiders had bungled a charge while adjusting the 20 or so bombs that witnesses said they had rigged around the school gymnasium, he surmised, or one of the bombs had simply slipped through the duct tape that was holding it in place.
“Some of the eyewitnesses said that the terrorists were trying to change something in their system of bombs, and at that same time, they made a mistake,” he said. “The explosion, it was accidental. We can say it really for sure.”

Mr. Aslakhanov said Russia’s elite special forces units had been caught off balance by the bomb blasts and had lost crucial minutes in the early, frantic moments of shooting.

“The special services turned out not to be ready for this moment,” he said. “They turned out to be 5, 7, 10 minutes late for the assault.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/international/europe/08russia.html
—-

Tous les pays condamnent, certains responsables interpellent Moscou
LE MONDE | 04.09.04 | 18h26
La communauté internationale a unanimement qualifié, vendredi, de “barbarie” la prise d’otages de Beslan, mais certains responsables se sont interrogés sur les méthodes employées par les forces russes. L’Union européenne a refusé de se prononcer sur la décision des forces russes d’intervenir, mais a réclamé dans la soirée des explications à Moscou.

“Tous les pays du monde doivent coopérer pour prévenir des tragédies comme celle-ci”, a déclaré la présidence néerlandaise de l’UE. “Mais nous aimerions aussi apprendre des autorités russes comment cette tragédie a pu arriver”, a ajouté le chef de la diplomatie de La Haye, Bernard Bot.

“Notre critique contre la guerre en Tchétchénie ne peut, en aucun cas, effacer le caractère atroce de l’utilisation des enfants”, a déclaré la ministre suédoise des affaires étrangères Laila Freivalds. Le premier ministre finlandais Matti Vanhanen a condamné la prise d’otages, et a souligné que la sécurité était de la responsabilité du gouvernement russe.

Le ministre polonais de la défense Jerzy Szmajdzinski a été plus direct, estimant que le moment pour donner l’assaut contre les ravisseurs a été mal choisi et qu’il aurait fallu négocier plus longtemps. “Il faut négocier jusqu’au bout, surtout quand il s’agit d’enfants. Négocier, pour convaincre que se servir d’enfants comme boucliers humains est un crime”, a-t-il dit. Le premier ministre polonais Marek Belka s’est dit aussi “choqué et indigné” par la manière dont l’assaut a été donné.

La France, l’Allemagne, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Italie n’ont pas eu de telles interrogations. Dans un communiqué, le ministère français des affaires étrangères déclare que “la France se tient aux côtés du peuple russe dans cette douloureuse épreuve et appelle à la mobilisation de tous dans la lutte contre le terrorisme”.

“Il est difficile d’exprimer ma révulsion face à la barbarie de terroristes prêts à faire subir à des enfants et leur famille de telles souffrances”, a écrit le premier ministre britannique Tony Blair. Le chancelier allemand Gerhard Schröder a, lui aussi, appelé à lutter contre le terrorisme : “Des terroristes dénués de conscience ont tenté, en assassinant des gens, d’atteindre des objectifs politiques qui, de fait, ont perdu ce caractère.”

“EFFROI ET DOULEUR”
Le chef du gouvernement italien Silvio Berlusconi a fait part “de son effroi et de sa douleur”à l’annonce du dénouement. “Les informations sur les victimes remplissent d’effroi et de douleur, mais aussi de soulagement pour les otages libérés grâce à l’action des forces russes”, a-t-il ajouté. L’Otan, par la voix de son secrétaire général, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, s’est engagée à “continuer à collaborer avec la Russie afin de combattre cette menace”.

Le président George W. Bush a déclaré que la prise d’otages était “un autre sombre rappel” des tactiques terroristes, tout en déplorant la perte de nombreuses vies. La prise d’otages est “un acte barbare de terrorisme et une tragédie dont la responsabilité revient clairement aux terroristes”, a indiqué le département d’Etat américain. Plusieurs dirigeants ont lancé un appel à la mobilisation de la communauté internationale contre les terroristes. Le chef de la diplomatie israélienne Sylvan Shalom a exhorté la communauté mondiale à s’unir contre le terrorisme international.
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L’EDITION DU 05.09.04

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-377858,0.html
—-

Israël et la Russie resserrent leurs liens contre le “Djihad islamique mondial”
LE MONDE | 07.09.04 | 14h25

Prévue de longue date, la visite en Israël, lundi 6 septembre, du chef de la diplomatie russe, Sergueï Lavrov, centrée à l’origine sur le processus de paix et la situation régionale, a vu son ordre du jour bouleversé par la tragédie de Beslan, que les médias israéliens ont largement rapportée, la comparant avec le double attentat qui a fait 16 morts, mardi (jour de la prise d’otages en Ossétie du Nord), à Beersheba, une localité du sud d’Israël.

“Le terrorisme qui a frappé la Russie n’est pas différent de celui qui sévit à New York, à Tel-Aviv ou à Madrid”, a déclaré Sylvan Shalom, le ministre israélien des affaires étrangères, en recevant son homologue russe lundi. La veille, le premier ministre israélien, Ariel Sharon, avait appelé Vladimir Poutine pour lui proposer de faire front face au “Djihad islamique mondial”. “Il est temps pour le monde libre de s’unir”, avait indiqué M. Sharon sur un ton qui tranchait avec les demandes d’explications formulées, dans le même temps, par l’Union européenne envers la Russie, quant au dénouement tragique de la prise d’otages.

S’estimant donc liés par une communauté de destins, les deux Etats souhaitent désormais renforcer leur coopération “dans les domaines de la sécurité, du renseignement et de l’humanitaire”.

COOPÉRATION RENFORCÉE
“Il n’est plus possible de soutenir les soi-disant mouvements de libération nationale, qui recourent au terrorisme tout en condamnant les islamistes extrémistes”, a expliqué, lundi, un proche d’Ariel Sharon à la presse, dans une allusion au soutien sans failles apporté jadis par Moscou à la cause palestinienne.
Cette page a été tournée. Avec la dislocation de l’URSS en 1991, les liens de la direction russe avec les pays arabes se sont effilochés. Les tenants de cette ligne, à l’image de l’ancien maître espion Evgueni Primakov, ne sont plus aux affaires.

Avec l’arrivée d’un nouveau locataire au Kremlin en mars 2000, tout a changé. Cette année-là, l’ancien lieutenant colonel du KGB, Vladimir Poutine invite l’ancien refuznik Nathan Chtcharanski à un déjeuner en tête à tête. Pour la petite histoire, l’ex-dissident - devenu entre temps ministre dans la coalition de droite emmenée par M. Sharon - attendait son vol de retour pour Israël lorsqu’une limousine vint le quérir, direction le Kremlin. Deux ans plus tard, le président du Sénat russe, Sergueï Mironov, proche de Vladimir Poutine, refusa, lors d’une tournée dans la région, de rencontrer le chef de l’autorité palestinienne, Yasser Arafat.

Ces dernières années, les relations entre Israël et la Russie se sont renforcées. Les deux pays coopèrent dans le domaine de l’armement notamment à la fabrication d’un hélicoptère d’assaut Ka-52 et à celle d’un Awacs A-50, un avion de reconnaissance aérienne. Il y a douze jours, au moment du double attentat commis sur deux avions de ligne en Russie, la presse moscovite, fustigeant les insuffisances de la sécurité aérienne locale, avait vanté les mérites de celui d’Israël, “le plus sûr au monde”.

Les échanges commerciaux ont crû, dynamisés par la présence en Israël d’une importante diaspora russophone (1 million de personnes soit 1/6e de la population d’Israël) arrivée en masse entre 1980 et 1990. Restée très attachée à sa culture, cette communauté russe d’Israël lit la presse russe, regarde la télévision russe et, friande de cochonnailles, possède ses propres charcuteries, ce qui n’est pas toujours bien vu.

Elle n’en est pas moins proche des ultra-orthodoxes et constitue un vivier électoral de choix pour les partis de droite. Marqués par la mentalité soviétique, les russophones d’Israël sont généralement partisans d’une ligne dure envers les Palestiniens, assimilés par eux aux “Noirs” (“Tchiornye”), le terme communément employé dans la langue de Pouchkine pour désigner les Caucasiens.

Engagés dans une lutte sans fin contre les guérillas - tchétchène et palestinienne -, les deux Etats échangent depuis longtemps informations et expériences. En 2002, des officiers des forces spéciales russes, dont le général Viatcheslav Ovtchinnikov avait exposé, au Collège israélien de défense nationale, les tactiques de l’armée russe en Tchétchénie. En 2002 également, les forces russes, imitant l’armée israélienne dans les territoires occupés, avaient fait sauter les maisons de kamikazes tchétchènes. La différence, souligne le politologue russe Andreï Riabov, c’est qu’en Israël “une très vive opposition à la politique du gouvernement s’exprime ouvertement, alors que chez nous il n’y a aucun débat”.
Marie Jégo
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L’EDITION DU 08.09.04

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-378104,0.html
——

Poutine veut faire taire les critiques
A Moscou, le président russe défend sa politique et rassemble ses partisans • A Beslan, quatre jours après le drame, des enfants sont toujours portés disparus •
Par Libération.fr
mardi 07 septembre 2004 (Liberation.fr - 13:25)

Après les centaines de morts de la prise d’otages de Beslan, Vladimir Poutine ne dévie pas d’un pouce de sa ligne politique. Pas question pour le président russe de négocier une solution politique avec les indépendantistes tchétchènes, même les plus modérés. «Pourquoi ne rencontrez-vous pas Oussama Ben Laden?», a-t-il ironisé mardi devant des journalistes occidentaux, «pourquoi ne l’invitez-vous pas à Bruxelles ou à la Maison Blanche pour engager des pourparlers, lui demander ce qu’il veut et le lui donner afin qu’il vous laisse tranquilles?» Pour le maître du Kremlin, «personne n’a le droit moral de nous dire de parler aux tueurs d’enfants». Et d’enfoncer le clou, en direction de tous ceux qui, en Occident, oseraient émettre une critique de la gestion de la plus sanglante prises d’otages jamais réalisée: «Imaginez simplement que les gens qui tirent dans le dos des enfants arrivent au pouvoir partout sur la planète. Demandez-vous simplement cela, et vous n’aurez plus de questions sur notre politique en Tchétchénie.»

Manifestants pro et anti Poutine
Dans l’après-midi, une énorme manifestation contre le terrorisme doit réunir plus de 100.000 personnes au pied du Kremlin, à Moscou. Ce soutien populaire au président russe a été soigneusement préparé. Les télévisions tenues par le pouvoir diffusent depuis deux jours des appels à s’y rendre. Lundi, plusieurs dizaines de milliers de personnes rassemblées à Saint-Pétersbourg, au pied de l’Ermitage, exigeaient entre autres la restauration de la peine de mort contre les terroristes.

D’autres rassemblements ont eu lieu mardi, deuxième jour de deuil national, notamment à Ekaterinbourg, grande ville de l’Oural, où 20.000 personnes ont rendu sous la pluie un hommage d’une heure aux victimes de l’école n°1 de Beslan, petite ville de la république caucasienne d’Ossétie du Nord.

A Vladikavkaz, la capitale d’Ossétie du Nord, quelques centaines de manifestants ont dénoncé «le pouvoir corrompu (qui) est la source du terrorisme». Selon les autorités, les ravisseurs auraient déposé armes et explosifs dans l’école de Beslan au mois de juin, lors de travaux de réfection. Préparation rendue possible par le versement de pots-de-vin, notamment à des membres de la police routière, estime la presse russe.

«Pas de plan d’action»
Poutine n’a pas pour autant jugé nécessaire l’ouverture d’une enquête publique sur les événements de Beslan. Un «spectacle» selon lui inutile. Les témoignages sur l’impréparation des forces spéciales russes lors de l’assaut se multiplient pourtant et le déclenchement du massacre n’est toujours pas éclairci. Un vétéran des unités d’élite, Igor Senine, explique par exemple dans un quotidien russe que «ni les positions de tireurs d’élite, ni les étapes d’une intervention» n’avaient été mises au point. «Il n’y avait pas de plan d’action», poursuit-il. Et le plan de l’école, qui était aux mains de la cellule de crise, n’avait pas été distribué aux troupes d’élite.

A Beslan, les familles continuent d’enterrer ou de chercher leurs morts. Officiellement, on compte 366 victimes et 500 blessés, selon le dernier bilan. Soixante-dix enterrements environ étaient prévus mardi. 107 corps n’ont pas encore été identifiés. Selon le correspondant de l’AFP sur place, certaines disparitions restent inexpliquées. Des parents assurent avoir vu leurs enfants vivants après l’assaut vendredi, et ne les ont toujours pas retrouvés. «Actuellement, mon fils n’est pas vivant, et il n’est pas mort non plus!» s’emporte Boris Tigiev, père d’un garçon de 14 ans, que sa petite sœur Alana a vu s’enfuir de l’école vendredi, et qui reste introuvable depuis.

A l’hôpital de Vladikavkaz, le FSB (Service Fédéral de Sécurité) a demandé l’autorisation d’interroger les enfants. Le directeur de l’établissement a interdit aux policiers l’accès au service de chirurgie. Il a accepté que les convalescents soient interrogés «seulement avec l’autorisation et en présence des parents».
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=236859
——

«En Tchétchénie, Poutine n’a plus de porte de sortie»
Par Judith RUEFF
mardi 07 septembre 2004 (Liberation.fr - 18:15)

Quatre questions à Lilia Chevtsova, analyste politique à la Carnegie Foundation de Moscou.
Où en est le pouvoir de Vladimir Poutine après la prise d’otages de Beslan?
La crise de Beslan laisse le président russe en position de faiblesse. Sa cote de popularité va très certainement baisser, sans doute de plus de 5%. Ensuite, comme cet homme politique intelligent s’en rend compte lui-même, il est enfermé dans un piège en Tchétchénie et dans le Caucase du Nord. Il n’a plus aucune solution en vue et sa marge de manœuvre se rétrécit. L’option militaire ne donne aucun résultat positif, il ne trouve personne avec qui négocier et il exclut toute solution politique. C’est un cercle vicieux. Objectivement, ses positions sont affaiblies, peut-être pas dans l’immédiat mais si la situation actuelle perdure en Russie, le temps joue contre lui.

Dans la presse ou à la Douma, les critiques contre le président se multiplient. Serait-il menacé?
Les langues commencent déjà à se délier. Dans la rue, dans le métro, dans les magasins, on commence à se plaindre à haute voix de l’insécurité dans le pays. Et les gens en rendent Poutine responsable. L’éviction du rédacteur en chef du quotidien «Izvestia» est d’ailleurs le signe qu’il ne veut tolérer aucune de ces critiques. Les Russes ont élu Poutine en mars 2000 pour qu’il ramène la stabilité. S’il ne le fait pas, la population ne le soutiendra plus. Après deux semaines de violence ininterrompue, les gens commencent à se dire qu’il a échoué et que c’était une erreur de voter pour lui. Mais on ne peut pas pour autant parler de crise politique profonde. Poutine tient toujours les leviers du pouvoir, il a encore beaucoup d’influence. Il reste le seul leader dans le désert politique russe et les Russes ont peur de prendre leurs distances. Personnellement, le déclin du pouvoir de Poutine ne me semble pas rassurant, car il risque d’entraîner une déstabilisation encore plus grande de la société. La situation est donc extrêmement complexe.

Les «ministères de force» (services spéciaux, police, armée) qui ont porté l’ancien officier du KGB au pouvoir approuvent-ils toujours sa politique?
Au sein des organes de sécurité, il semble qu’une majorité le soutient toujours, simplement parce qu’il est l’un des leurs. Mais le président ne dispose pas pour autant d’un soutien inconditionnel, unanime, de ses anciens collègues. Certains ne le trouvent pas assez dur et regrettent qu’il ne soit pas un dictateur. Après Beslan, Poutine affronte de très fortes pressions de la part des forces de sécurité, y compris de celles qui lui sont fidèles, pour qu’il fasse tomber les têtes dans les services spéciaux. Or le président déteste se débarrasser des gens, surtout de «ses» gens, mais il ne pourra éviter de sacrifier quelques responsables plus ou moins importants au sein des organes de sécurité. Le problème, c’est que ces évictions donneront peut-être l’impression que tout va désormais mieux alors que la racine du mal est bien plus profonde. Il ne s’agit pas seulement de défaillance des forces de maintien de l’ordre mais de chaos social et économique. A l’heure actuelle, Poutine ne peut pas quitter la Tchétchénie. S’il le faisait, aucune puissance occidentale ne viendrait le remplacer.

Que peut faire Poutine pour sortir de cette impasse?
Aujourd’hui, il n’a plus de porte de sortie. Il va très probablement continuer la stratégie menée jusqu’à présent: attaquer les rebelles tchétchènes quand il le pourra et s’appuyer sur des leaders locaux pro-russes, comme le nouveau président élu en Tchétchénie il y a dix jours. De son côté, la nouvelle génération d’indépendantistes tchétchènes va continuer sa dérive terroriste.
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=236898
—-
L’Otan et la Russie intensifient leur coopération

Dans un communiqué commun, l’Otan et la Russie se sont engagés mardi à intensifier leur coopération en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme, condamnant la récente vague de terrorisme qui a frappé ce pays, dont la prise d’otages de Beslan. «Les Etats membres du Conseil Otan-Russie restent déterminés à renforcer et intensifier leurs efforts communs contre cette menace partagée qui pèse sur la sécurité et le bien-être de leurs peuples», y compris «en élaborant un plan d’action avec des mesures concrètes de lutte contre le fléau du terrorisme», affirme le communiqué. Celui-ci a été adopté à l’issue d’une réunion extraordinaire mardi après-midi des représentants permanents de l’Otan et de la Russie au siège bruxellois de l’Alliance atlantique.  Aucune indication n’a été donnée sur le contenu de ce plan d’action qui doit être discuté ultérieurement avec les Russes.  Le Conseil Otan-Russie avait été convoqué lundi par le secrétaire général de l’Alliance, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, dans le but de témoigner la solidarité de l’organisation avec la Russie après le dénouement tragique de la prise d’otages de Beslan, en Ossétie du Nord, qui a fait selon le dernier bilan officiel 335 morts (sans compter les preneurs d’otages). «Ces atrocités - les attentats visant des avions civils, l’attentat suicide commis dans une station de métro bondée à Moscou, ainsi que la violente prise d’otages et le massacre de tant d’écoliers à Beslan - mettent en évidence le caractère barbare et perfide de la menace terroriste à laquelle nos sommes tous confrontés aujourd’hui», poursuit le communiqué commun. «Aucune cause ne peut justifier de tels actes», souligne encore le texte qui appelle à «une large et urgente mobilisation de tous les pays» dans la lutte contre le terrorisme.  L’Otan et la Russie se déclarent, en outre, «unis dans leur rejet catégorique du terrorisme sous toutes ses formes et dans leur ferme volonté de voir traduire en justice les auteurs de ces atrocités» et appellent enfin «à l’unité d’action de la communauté internationale face à cette menace».  Le Conseil Otan-Russie a été créé en mai 2002 dans le sillage des attentats du 11 septembre 2001 contre les Etats-Unis dans le but d’améliorer le dialogue et la coopération en matière de sécurité entre les deux anciens ennemis du temps de la guerre froide.  (D’après AFP) 
http://www.lesoir.be/rubriques/mond/page_5179_252218.shtml

Les Britanniques pourraient dire “oui” à l’Europe, mais sans Tony Blair…
LE MONDE | 07.09.04 | 17h30
Londres de notre correspondant

Le gouvernement de Tony Blair pourrait remporter, le jour venu, le référendum sur la Constitution européenne, pourvu que… le premier ministre ne joue pas le premier rôle dans la campagne électorale. Tel est le principal enseignement de l’étude conduite par l’institut de sondages MORI pour le compte du Centre de politique étrangère, un “think tank” placé sous le haut patronage de M. Blair lui-même. Cette enquête, réalisée fin juillet et publiée lundi 6 septembre, est la première indication sérieuse sur l’état de l’opinion depuis l’annonce d’un référendum en avril.

La bataille du référendum, lequel selon le calendrier le plus probable aurait lieu dans les premiers mois de 2006, s’annonce, selon ce sondage, beaucoup plus incertaine et sensiblement moins périlleuse pour le pouvoir qu’on ne le prévoyait généralement. Seuls 35 % des électeurs britanniques se sont fait à ce jour une religion définitive sur le traité de Bruxelles : 8 % sont fermement pour, et 27 % farouchement contre. Sur les 65 % d’indécis, 46 % se disent prêts à changer d’avis, et 19 % n’ont pas fait leur choix.

Pour l’instant, le “non” est nettement en tête : 50 % contre 31 % pour le “oui”. Mais l’énorme armée des indécis donne aux pro-européens une marge de manœuvre qu’ils n’espéraient sans doute pas. Le résultat du vote dépendra donc pour l’essentiel de la capacité des partisans de la Constitution à convaincre cette masse d’électeurs, primo de se rendre aux urnes, secundo d’épouser leur cause. L’enquête classe ces hésitants en cinq catégories : “les brebis perdues du parti tory” (7 %), plutôt enclines à voter “oui”; “les sceptiques ouverts à la persuasion” (8 %) ; “les partisans apathiques” (11 %) ; “les opposants apathiques” (9 %) et “les déconnectés de la politique”.

L’ENVIE DE “LUI INFLIGER UNE RACLÉE”

La mauvaise nouvelle de cette enquête pour M. Blair, c’est que la victoire de son gouvernement suppose qu’il se montre le plus discret possible pendant la campagne et qu’il réussisse à constituer en faveur du “oui” un front uni en ratissant large au sein des deux autres grands partis. Ni M. Blair, ni les travaillistes ne sont en mesure de remporter, seuls, cette bataille cruciale. Le plus grand danger pour les pro-européens, observe Mark Leonard, directeur du Centre de politique étrangère, serait de “laisser le vote sur la Constitution se transformer en un référendum pour ou contre Blair” car “une campagne centrée sur le premier ministre perdrait autant de suffrages qu’elle en gagnerait”. En pareille hypothèse, les nombreux électeurs qui lui tiennent rancœur pour être entré en guerre contre l’Irak seraient trop tentés de saisir l’occasion de “lui infliger une raclée”.

Les commanditaires de l’enquête conseillent à M. Blair de désigner Chris Patten, le commissaire européen sortant (conservateur), comme chef de file de la campagne, apte à rallier derrière lui des leaders proeuropéens du parti tory, aujourd’hui marginalisés, comme Kenneth Clarke et Michael Heseltine. Outre l’appui actif de l’ensemble de l’appareil gouvernemental, M. Blair aura aussi besoin du soutien actif du Parti libéral-démocrate, que dirige l’europhile Charles Kennedy.

L’ignorance étant source de confusion et de méfiance, la victoire de M. Blair, souligne l’étude, passe par une campagne d’information sur l’Europe qui doit débuter le plus tôt possible. Elle devrait, entre autres, mettre à la disposition de chaque citoyen un résumé écrit du traité. Mieux les Britanniques connaissent l’Union européenne, confirme le sondage, plus ils lui sont favorables.

Jean-Pierre Langellier
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L’EDITION DU 08.09.04

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-378118,0.html

La bataille entre néo-cons semble permettre l’émergence de voix plus critiques dans des organes qui leurs étaient jusqu’ici inféodés:

Un premier article délivre une analyse honnete de la crise des otages français en Iraq et va même jusqu’a suggerer qu’il existerait bien une autre façon que militaire de lutter contre le terrorisme!

“Eugenio Scalfari, a leading Italian columnist wrote in La Repubblica (a newspaper he helped found) Monday that by creating an Arab consensus against the terrorists France has shown “there is another way to fight terrorism without giving in to their blackmail.” A French success - and in Iraq of all places - “would amount to a defeat for Allawi.” Scalfari went on, “Allawi is not interested in showing that such an alternative could exist to (military opposition). And neither is Bush.”“

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040907-010544-6798r.htm

Le deuxieme exemple de cette libération de la parole est un article d’Arnaud de Borchgrave, faucon à ses heures, qui s’attaque à l’espionnage institutionnel des Etats Unis par le ... Likud (!).

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040907-104800-9378r.htm

Verheugen promises ‘factual and fair’ report on Turkey

31.08.2004 - 19:06 CET | By Honor Mahony
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The EU’s Commissioner for Enlargement has promised that next month’s assessment report on Turkish membership of the Union will be “thorough, factual and fair”.

Günter Verheugen told MEPs on Tuesday (31 August) that the report, which will look at whether Ankara has met the political criteria for joining the 25-nation bloc, will also contain “one or two surprises”.

The Commissioner went on to say that he was against the idea, proposed recently by the Dutch government’s advisory council, that Turkey be given the green light for EU membership but that negotiations only begin in two years.

“I think that would amount to a further two years delay”, said Mr Verheugen.

Instead, he gave a more definite timeline.

He referred to a statement made by member states in Copenhagen in 2002 which said that if a positive decision is reached on Turkey then negotiations should be opened “without delay”.

“Without delay means between four and six months”, said the Commissioner.

Mr Verheugen rejected calls by some MEPs for a partnership agreement between the EU and Turkey reminding them that Union has committed itself to Ankara’s membership and that the only issue now is whether it fulfils the EU’s political criteria.

Institutional effects
The Commission’s report - due out on 6 October - will also look at the effect of Turkish membership on the EU’s institutions.

One of the big issues is how Turkey and the rest of the member states will fare under the decision-making system foreseen in the new EU Constitution, where decisions will be taken according to a set majority of population and a set majority of member states.

By the time Turkey is likely to join the EU, it is expected that it will have the largest population of all EU member states.

However, Mr Verheugen said that he did not believe that it would have an “unbalancing effect”.
http://euobserver.com/?sid=15&aid=17170

—-

Turkish EU talks should start within two years, Dutch report recommends
26.08.2004 - 09:51 CET | By Lisbeth Kirk
EU membership negotiations with Turkey should open within the next two years, the Dutch government’s Advisory Council on International Affairs has suggested in a new report.

Published on Wednesday (25 August), the report praised Turkey for reforms in recent years but also stressed that new democratic laws were not yet implemented at the lower bureaucratic levels where human rights violations still occur.

“Admitting a Muslim country may be new to the EU, but does not principally differ from earlier expansions. One way or the other, Islam should gain a place within the EU, if only because there are 20 million Muslims” in the EU countries, the report said, according to IHT.

The Dutch advisory council did not, however, recommend setting a date for actual membership

“An accession date should not be set because it could create false expectations and risk compromising careful preparation to an artificial, politically loaded timetable”, the advisors said.

Turkey at the top of the EU agenda
Holding the presidency of the European Union for the rest of this year, the Dutch government will play a central role in running the negotiations on Turkish EU membership.

On 6 October, the European Commission is expected to publish a crucial report on Turkey’s compliance with the standard criteria for EU membership.

This report will largely influence a decision in December by member states on whether or not to start accession talks with Ankara.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling AKP has declared Turkey’s EU membership a top priority.

Mr Erdogan is personally preparing for a very busy autumn with planned visits to the European hot spots in a final effort to secure his country a place at the European Union table.

A visit to Brussels on 2 October, only days before the Commission’s report is released, has been planned for the Prime Minister to attend the opening of a Turkish exhibition.

After Brussels, Mr Erdogan continues on to Berlin and ends up in Strasbourg, where he is expected to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 4-5 October. A visit to France on 20-21 October is also scheduled.

Public opinon swings
Mr Erdogan’s party has also called for an extraordinary session of the Ankara Parliament to be held on 14 September to discuss a newly-proposed penal code - expected to come into force in January 2005.

One positive result at the Turkish score board can already be noted.

A fresh opinion poll published on Thursday (26 August) by Kristeligt Dagblad in Denmark reported for the first time that a majority (40 percent) of Danes favour Turkish entry into the EU.

This is a remarkable change in opinion which to date saw only 20-30 percent support Ankara’s membership bid - however 36 percent of those polled were opposed, while 24 percent were undecided.

http://euobserver.com/?sid=15&aid=17146
——
EU hopes are raised for Turkey
~~article_author~~ AP Thursday, August 26, 2004
Dutch advisory panel
THE HAGUE The European Commission should open EU membership talks with Turkey within 24 months, a Dutch advisory body said Wednesday, strengthening the hopes of the first predominantly Muslim country to seek membership in the 25-member union.

But the report to the Dutch government, which holds the rotating EU presidency and will oversee a decision on membership talks in December, said it would be unwise to set a target date for admitting Turkey, arguing that it could create false expectations.

The Advisory Council on International Affairs, presenting its report, praised Turkey for reforms in recent years, but said new democratic laws had not yet trickled down to lower bureaucratic levels, where human rights violations still occur.

The report cited the continued torture and mistreatment of prisoners at police stations, the widespread abuse of women and restrictions on free expression as hurdles to EU integration.

“There are major shortfalls in the area of women’s rights,” said Peter Baehr, a human rights expert and member of the advisory council. “Hundreds of thousands of women are hit, tortured and killed and even forced to commit suicide.”

“Progress has undoubtedly been made, but concerns remain over the follow through of that progress,” Baehr said.

A period of two years was recommended as a maximum time for EU membership negotiations to begin, but commission members said the talks could start sooner if Turkey pressed ahead with reforms.

Ben Knapen, the commission chairman, stressed the need to weigh Turkey’s membership carefully because of its sheer size and potential effect on the union.

Turkey’s differing “cultural history and the fact that it is predominantly Muslim should not prevent the country from joining the EU,” said a summary of the council’s report.

“Admitting a Muslim country may be new to the EU, but does not principally differ from earlier expansions. One way or the other, Islam should gain a place within the EU, if only because there are 20 million Muslims” in the EU countries, it said.

Targets for negotiations should be set, and talks could be suspended if Turkey failed to meet those targets, a council statement said.

Among those targets is whether Turkey’s democracy is judged to be stable and whether it is adequately protecting human rights, the statement said.

Turkey’s entry into the EU is one of the priorities of the Dutch presidency. A decision on when negotiations with Turkey will begin is to be announced before the Dutch presidency ends, in December.

The council recommended against setting a date for actual membership, even though it said Turkey had been waiting since 1959.

“An accession date should not be set because it could create false expectations and risk compromising careful preparation to an artificial, politically loaded timetable,” it said.

The Dutch council advises the government on foreign policy, in particular with respect to human rights, peace and security, development cooperation and European integration.

The council, which also reviewed Turkey’s preparedness to negotiate its EU membership in 1999, based its findings on information provided by the European Commission, European Council and human rights groups, including Amnesty International.

EU leaders are to decide at a December summit meeting in Brussels whether Turkey has reformed sufficiently to begin membership talks - a major policy goal of successive Turkish governments.

Turkey has passed sweeping legal reforms in recent years, including banning the death penalty, allowing greater cultural rights for minority Kurds, limiting the role of the military in politics and broadening freedom of expression. Some of the reforms, however, have yet to be fully carried out.

EU officials have praised the reforms undertaken so far.

http://www.iht.com/articles/535761.html