"Cimeira Europeia: fumo branco para o Tratado de Lisboa" in Público, 19 de Outubro de 2007

Os líderes dos Vinte e Sete chegaram a um acordo sobre o Tratado reformador da União Europeia que substitui a falhada Constituição Europeia. A luz verde ao documento, que vai chamar-se Tratado de Lisboa, só foi alcançada depois de ultrapassados os problemas levantados pela Polónia e pela Itália, entraves que a diplomacia portuguesa conseguiu transpor. O texto final vai ser assinado na capital portuguesa no dia 13 de Dezembro, às 11h00.

A decisão culmina um processo iniciado em Junho, quando os Vinte e Sete definiram os termos exactos do novo texto, mandatando a actual presidência portuguesa da UE para o traduzir juridicamente num novo Tratado.

Com estas balizas bem definidas, o processo de redacção do texto decorreu a uma velocidade inédita, deixando para a Cimeira de Lisboa os problemas de natureza política de maior dificuldade.

José Sócrates, primeiro-ministro português, avisou antes do início da cimeira que os líderes não sairiam do Pavilhão Atlântico do Parque das Nações antes de chegarem a acordo. “Estamos muito perto de ter um novo Tratado e esse Tratado vai chamar-se de Lisboa”, prognosticou.

Esta mensagem pretendeu constituir uma forma de pressão sobre a Itália e a Polónia, que chegaram a Lisboa com as suas reivindicações intactas.

Ao invés, a exigência da Áustria de limitar a livre circulação de estudantes estrangeiros candidatos às suas universidades, e a pretensão da Bulgária de poder utilizar a denominação “evro” no seu alfabeto cirílico para a moeda única, puderam ser resolvidas antes do arranque da cimeira, às 18h00.

Dois ossos duros de roer

Desta forma, os líderes puderam centrar-se inteiramente nos dois ossos mais duros de roer da Itália e Polónia.

Varsóvia obteve uma vitória sobretudo de apresentação ao conseguir a elevação do chamado compromisso de Ioannina – que permite a um pequeno grupo de países suspender uma decisão – de declaração política a protocolo anexo ao Tratado e com o mesmo valor jurídico. Este protocolo incluirá no entanto igualmente uma outra disposição do processo de decisão comunitário que permite ao presidente em exercício do conselho de ministros da UE pedir a todo o momento a passagem a uma votação.

A inclusão dos dois mecanismos no mesmo texto provoca a sua anulação mútua: os polacos – ou qualquer outro país – podem invocar Ioannina sempre que se perfile uma decisão desagradável, mas isso não impede o conselho de passar à votação sempre que achar que é tempo de encerrar a pausa para reflexão assim aberta.

Varsóvia obteve igualmente uma declaração garantindo-lhe um lugar permanente de advogado-geral no Tribunal de Justiça da UE em pé de igualdade com os restantes “grandes” estados. Esta concessão terá como contrapartida a atribuição de pelo menos mais um lugar rotativo entre os países mais pequenos.

Dos dois, o problema italiano foi o mais difícil de resolver. Romano Prodi, primeiro-ministro italiano entrou na cimeira mantendo a recusa da proposta avançada pelo Parlamento Europeu (PE) sobre a repartição dos seus futuros 750 membros.

A sua recusa resultava do facto de ter um número de deputados (72) inferior aos dos Reino Unido (73) e, sobretudo, da França (74), em resultado das diferenças de população. Esta quebra da tradicional paridade entre os três países não tem sentido, defendeu Prodi, pelo facto de os cálculos terem sido feitos com base na população, quando a referência deveria ser os cidadãos.

O problema acabou por ser resolvido com a decisão de aumentar o tecto dos deputados para 751, de modo a garantir um lugar adicional à Itália. Prodi tinha no entanto começado as discussões dos líderes afirmando que um deputado adicional não seria suficiente, deixando claro que o seu verdadeiro objectivo era a paridade com franceses e ingleses.

O risco inerente à sua reivindicação era uma reabertura das discussões sobre os lugares do PE, o que todos os líderes procuraram evitar a todo o custo, sabendo que nesse cenário, vários outros países – pelo menos a Espanha, Polónia, Irlanda e Eslováquia – exigiriam um aumento da sua quota. O chefe do governo italiano acabou por aceitar a solução proposta, depois de um encontro a sós com Sócrates e com o presidente francês, Nicolas Sarkozy.
http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1308008
JPTF 2007/10/19

"Uma esmagadora maioria da população nos cinco maiores países da UE pretende referendo ao Tratado" in Financial Times, 18 de Outubro de 2007

An overwhelming majority of people in the European Union’s five biggest member states want the bloc’s treaty on institutional reform to be submitted to national referendums, according to an opinion poll published on Thursday.

The FT/Harris poll will keep Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, on the defensive by strengthening the determination of his political opponents to secure a referendum on the treaty, which is due to be approved at an EU summit in Lisbon starting on Thursday.

The poll is likely to unsettle political leaders in other EU capitals who oppose holding referendums for fear of a repeat of the French and Dutch votes of 2005 that wrecked the EU’s ill-fated constitutional treaty.

The new document, known as the reform treaty, resembles the old in that it reshapes the EU’s institutions, changes its voting procedures, expands the role of the European parliament and national legislatures, and includes a charter of fundamental rights.

However, Mr Brown contends that Britain need not hold a referendum because it has secured enough opt-outs and brakes on EU action to render the new treaty different from the old.

According to the poll, 70 per cent of those questioned in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK want a referendum, 20 per cent do not, and 10 per cent are unsure.

Some 76 per cent of Germans want a referendum, 75 per cent of Britons, 72 per cent of Italians, 65 per cent of Spaniards and 63 per cent of French.

Only the Irish Republic is constitutionally obliged to stage a referendum to ratify the treaty.

Other countries intend to submit it to their legislatures, with the aim of securing approval by all 27 EU countries before the June 2009 European parliament elections.

José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, told reporters on Wednesday that a referendum was as valid as parliamentary ratification. “Both ways are equally legitimate. No democracy can argue against that,” he said.

Some politicians have warned that, by avoiding referendums and making the treaty a complicated document that amends earlier EU treaties, the EU “will reinforce the idea among European citizens that European construction is a mechanism organised behind their backs by jurists and diplomats”, as Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, a former French president, puts it.

The survey shows that, in spite of Britain’s opt-outs, public opinion in the UK is much more critical of the treaty than elsewhere. Overall, 38 per cent say the treaty will have a positive impact on the EU and 23 per cent a negative impact, with 14 per cent foreseeing no impact and 25 per cent unsure.

In Britain, however, 51 per cent foresee a negative impact on the EU and only 17 per cent a positive impact. The strongest support comes from Italy, where 49 per cent foresee a positive impact and 13 per cent a negative impact.

The poll reveals widespread ignorance about the treaty, with 61 per cent saying they are “not at all familiar” with it, 34 per cent claiming they are “somewhat familiar”, 3 per cent describing themselves as “very familiar” and 1 per cent “extremely familiar”.

The poll also showed that 25 per cent of respondents thought that the European parliament was the EU’s most powerful institution, with 22 per cent each for the Commission and national governments and 17 per cent for the European Court of Justice. The FT/Harris Poll was conducted online by Harris Interactive among a total of 5,604 adults in France, Germany, the UK, Spain and Italy between October 3 and 15.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1445317e-7cd3-11dc-aee2-0000779fd2ac.html
JPTF 2007/10/18

Cartaz da campanha do Partido Conservador britânico para um referendo sobre o novo Tratado

Campanha do jornal britânico "The Sun" por um referendo ao Tratado Europeu

"Vladimir Putin compromete-se a concluir reactor nuclear iraniano" in Times, 17 de Outubro de 2007

President Putin forged an alliance with Iran yesterday against any military action by the West and pledged to complete the controversial Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
A summit of Caspian Sea nations in Tehran agreed to bar foreign states from using their territory for military strikes against a member country. Mr Putin, the first Kremlin leader to visit Iran since the Second World War, insisted that the use of force was unacceptable.
“It is important . . . that we not only not use any kind of force but also do not even think about the possibility of using force,” he told the leaders of Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
The declaration of the five states did not specify a particular threat. Rumours have long circulated, however, that the US is seeking Azerbaijan’s permission to use airfields for possible military action to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Mr Putin arrived in Tehran for the summit amid tight security after warnings of a plot by suicide bombers to assassinate him. His visit is a propaganda coup for President Ahmadinejad as he faces American and European pressure for tougher United Nations sanctions to halt Iran’s nuclear programme.
Mr Putin and Mr Ahmadinejad met after the summit for private talks. State television in Tehran quoted Mr Putin as saying that Russia would continue to “assist Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme”.
Russia is building Iran’s first atomic power plant in the port city of Bushehr. A row over Iranian payments has slowed down the work, and Mr Putin emerged from yesterday’s meeting without setting a date for the $1 billion (£500 million) project.
However, Russian media later reported that Moscow had promised to complete the work on schedule. “The construction and the commission of Bushehr will be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable,” the Russian news agency Ria reported, citing the two leaders’ joint statement. Mr Putin also invited Mr Ahmadinejad to Moscow.
Mr Putin said that the Bushehr contract would have to be reviewed to clarify legal matters and the financial obligations of each party. Moscow has delayed delivery of nuclear fuel for the station as part of the dispute.
The Tehran declaration strengthened Moscow’s hostility to any attempt at a military solution. It also offered support for Iran by asserting the right of any country that had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy “without discrimination”. Tehran insists that its nuclear programme is purely for civil purposes to generate electricity.
The summit was called to try to settle the status of the Caspian among the five states that border the sea. Iran and the former Soviet Union shared it equally but there has been a 16-year dispute over mineral rights since the emergence the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The leaders failed to reach agreement on dividing the seabed, which is believed to hold the world’s third-largest reserves of oil and gas. They agreed to meet again in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, next year.
Ties that bind
— Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy company, has invested $750 million (£370 million) in projects in Iran
— Russia exports $2 billion of metal and machinery to Iran a year
— Russia has supplied nuclear technology to Iran, including the $1 billion Bushehr reactor
— Russia is a key supplier of arms to Iran, including a $700 million air-defence system, MiG29 combat aircraft and T72 tanks
— Iran’s goodwill is useful for Russia’s attempts to control fractious Muslim minorities in Central Asia and the Caucasus
— Both countries oppose the eastward expansion of Nato
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2673546.ece
JPTF 2007/10/17

"Artista sueco Lars Vilks desenha cartoons de Maomé em nome da liberdade de expressão" in CNN, 16 de Outubro de 2007

Swedish artist Lars Vilks says all he's doing is taking a stand in the name of artistic expression. But because of that stand, on this afternoon he's lying low -- on the ground, in fact -- looking for bombs under his car.
Al Qaeda has put a $100,000 price on his head and offered an extra $50,000 for anyone who murders him by slitting his throat after the eccentric artist and sculptor drew a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a dog.

"I don't think it should not be a problem to insult a religion, because it should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way, " says Vilks from his home in rural Sweden.
"If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones."
His crude, sketched caricature shows the head of Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog. Dogs are considered unclean by conservative Muslims, and any depiction of the prophet is strictly forbidden.
Vilks, who has been a controversial artist for more than three decades in Sweden, says his drawing was a calculated move, and he wanted it to elicit a reaction. Watch "I should slaughter you" »
"That's a way of expressing things. If you don't like it, don't look at it. And if you look at it, don't take it too seriously. No harm done, really," he says.
When it's suggested that might prove an arrogant -- if not insulting -- way to engage Muslims, he is unrelenting, even defiant.
"No one actually loves the truth, but someone has to say it," he says.
Vilks, a self-described atheist, points out he's an equal opportunity offender who in the past sketched a depiction of Jesus as a pedophile.
Still one could argue Vilks should have known better because of what happened in Denmark in 2005, when a cartoonist's depictions of the prophet sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against that cartoonist's life.
Vilks' cartoon, which was published in August by the Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda, hasn't reached that level of global protests, although it has stoked plenty of outrage.
Muslims in Sweden demanded an apology from the newspaper, which has stood by Vilks on his freedom of expression stand. Pakistan and Iran also lodged formal protests with Sweden.
One Swedish Muslim woman who lives just an hour-and-a-half drive from Vilks said she hopes to make good on the al Qaeda threat and slaughter Vilks like a lamb.
"I can do this in the name of Allah, and I will not fail. I could slaughter him in the name of Allah," says the woman who identified herself only as Amatullah.
She adds, "If I get the opportunity."
Dressed in a black burqa from head to toe and uttering death threat after death threat, the woman -- a wife and mother -- says she is defending her religion and her prophet if she manages to kill Vilks.
Amatullah has already been fined for issuing death threats. Still, she claims she will never stop taunting him.
Swedish police, who declined CNN's request for an interview, have advised Vilks to abandon his home.
But the artist still works there by day and travels to a safe house by night. Vilks knows his defiance could get him killed, but he says his art is worth dying for.
As he sits at his computer, his phone buzzes with a text message. Another death threat has just come in, this one from Pakistan.
"I will kill you, you son a bitch," he reads.
There are hundreds of threats just like this one on his mobile phone, on his answering machine and in his e-mail inbox.
"You get used to it," he says. "It's a bit of hide and seek. It's like living in a film."
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/artist.controversy/index.html
JPTF 2007/10/16

"Trinta islamistas que planeavam fazer explodir a Audiência Nacional de Espanha no banco dos réus" in ABC, 15 de Outubro de 2007

Treinta procesados de la «operación Nova», el primer golpe desde el 11-M al terrorismo islamista que en octubre de 2004 se saldó con medio centenar de detenciones, se sentarán desde hoy en el banquillo de los acusados de la Audiencia Nacional. Todos ellos serán juzgados, entre otros delitos, por el intento de atentado contra la Audiencia Nacional, para lo que iban a emplear un camión-bomba cargado con 500 kilos de Goma 2.
La Fiscalía pide para los acusados un total de 464 años de cárcel (penas de entre dos y medio y 46 años) por conspiración para cometer atentados terroristas, pertenencia a banda armada, falsificación de documentos oficiales y tenencia de útiles para la falsificación de tarjetas de crédito.
En sus conclusiones provisionales, el fiscal Pedro Rubira señala que el procesado Abderrahman Tahiri, alias «Mohamed Achraf», adoctrinó desde prisión a un grupo de personas en el pensamiento del «salafismo yihadista» predicado por Osama Bin Laden. El propósito, señala, era realizar ataques terroristas en territorio español, de forma que los procesados, internos de distintos centros penitenciarios, ya tenían fijados como objetivos la Audiencia Nacional -o en su defecto el Tribunal Supremo-, la estación ferroviaria de Príncipe Pío, el parque Tierno Galván o la sede del PP.
Captación de futuros suicidas
El adoctrinamiento que recibían los acusados era tanto religioso como paramilitar. El primero consistía en el estudio de la ley, historia y política islámica contemporánea; el segundo, en la instrucción para la ejecución de la acción terrorista.
Para la consecución de estos fines la red terrorista formada por «Mohamed Achraf» realizaba actividades como la falsificación de pasaportes, tarjetas de residencia, duplicación de tarjetas de crédito, reclutamiento y adoctrinamiento de personas, tanto en el ámbito penitenciario como fuera de él. La labor que se ejercía entre los internos de los centros consistía en el envío de dinero a los internos, remisión de cartas animándoles a perseverar en el pensamiento salafista para integrarse en la red terrorista cuando salieran en libertad, y reclutamiento y adoctrinamiento de futuros suicidas.
Fue en el año 2000 cuando Achraf ideó la formación de cuatro grupos perfectamente estructurados y encuadrados en la red terrorista «Mártires por Marruecos». El primero de ellos estaba formado por internos del centro penitenciario de Topas; el segundo se encontraba en A Lama (Pontevedra), el tercero en Almería y el cuarto en Levante. Los internos de los cuatro centros se comunicaban por carta y por telefonía móvil.
Vigilancias sobre el edificio
Achraf tenía practicamente ultimado el ataque terrorista contra la Audiencia Nacional. Siempre según el relato del fiscal, tras realizar varias vigilancias sobre el edificio, este procesado consideró que la mejor forma para llevar a cabo su propósito criminal era empleando un camión cargado de explosivo y lanzarlo a toda velocidad contra el edificio.
Así, en ejecución de su plan, en julio de 2004 se traladó a Almería, donde mantuvo una reunión con el también acusado Kamara Birahima para que adquiriera aproximadamente 1.000 kilos de Goma 2, de los que 500 iban a ser empleados en la Audiencia Nacional y el resto en otras acciones terroristas.
El grado de preparación del atentado había llegado hasta el extremo de que siete procesados habían manifestado su voluntad de suicidarse, junto con Achraf, en el ataque a la Audiencia Nacional. Según el fiscal, con este atentado no sólo se pretendía acabar con la vida de las cerca de mil personas que trabajan y visitan a diario el edificio (funcionarios, periodistas y público en general), sino también destruir los archivos que afectan a los procedimientos abiertos contra los terroristas islamistas.
Será la Sección Tercera de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional (presidida por Alfonso Guevara) la encargada de juzgar a los procesados de la «operación Nova». Durante los lunes, martes y miércoles de las próximas semanas desfilarán por este tribunal 65 testigos -56 de ellos policías nacionales- y 26 peritos de la Policía Científica.
http://www.abc.es/20071015/nacional-terrorismo/islamistas-intentaron-volar-audiencia_200710150246.html
JPTF 2007/10/15

Comentário: A Presidência Portuguesa da UE e a questão de Chipre

É um lugar comum, quando se fala da União Europeia (UE), qualificá-la como «gigante económico e anão político». Em causa está a sua escassa influência nas grandes questões internacionais e a dificuldade em projectar uma influência diplomática similar não só à das grandes potências mundiais, como os EUA, mas também da re-emergente Rússia e provavelmente até à das crescentemente importantes China e Índia, sobretudo da primeira. As razões apontadas são normalmente que, no domínio económico, há uma elevada integração e partilha de soberania, enquanto no domínio político funcionam mecanismos de cooperação intergovernamental ineficazes, os quais não permitem à UE «falar a uma só voz» na cena mundial. Foi aliás este um dos argumentos mais usados para justificar a necessidade de uma Constituição Europeia, surgindo agora para justificar o Tratado Europeu, actualmente em negociações sob a presidência portuguesa. Este ênfase usual no argumento institucional esconde, todavia, debilidades mais profundas da UE, que vão para além da questão da reforma Tratados. Talvez a situação mais evidenciadora essa debilidade seja a questão de Chipre que, desde 2004, é um Estado-membro da UE. No imaginário europeu parece inconcebível uma força de manutenção de paz das Nações Unidas para resolver um conflito dentro da União. Todavia, essa situação existe! Em território europeu encontra-se a mais antiga força de manutenção de paz das Nações Unidas, a UNFICYP, criada originalmente em 1964, pela Resolução nº 186 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas. Uma interrogação ocorre: como ser um actor de primeira grandeza em questões internacionais importantes como, por exemplo, o programa nuclear iraniano, o conflito no Darfur ou a repressão na Birmânia, quando, «dentro de casa», se deixam transparecer óbvias dificuldades político-diplomáticas? Mais: aceitariam os EUA, a Rússia ou a China forças de manutenção de paz das Nações Unidas no seu território? (Imagine-se a sua credibilidade internacional no dia em que o fizerem...). Aparentemente, esta questão não preocupa a presidência portuguesa – está longe das nossas áreas tradicionais de interesse e é um problema espinhoso... –, que prefere ficar com o seu nome ligado a um Tratado (não referendável, claro) e alimentar sonhos de influência pós-colonial em África. Mas, independentemente das prioridades da agenda política, a persistência da divisão e presença militar turca do Norte de Chipre mostra os limites do soft power europeu. A República Turca do Norte de Chipre (RTNC) é um Estado não reconhecido a nível internacional (excepto pela Turquia), declarado ilegal pelas resoluções nº 541 (1983) e 550 (1984) do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas. Só a República de Chipre é reconhecida a nível internacional e tem soberania legal sobre todo o território (de facto, não controla a parte Norte). A RTNC alberga entre 35.000 a 43.000 soldados da Turquia, numa área com cerca de 3.300 km2 e uma população de 200.000 a 250.000 habitantes (entre cipriotas turcos de origem e emigrantes/colonos turcos). Para o governo turco trata-se de uma «operação humanitária» e de um problema do foro das Nações Unidas. À UE convém acreditar pela sua incapacidade em lidar com o assunto. Mesmo aceitando esta qualificação inapropriada é notório que há um número desproporcionado de tropas. No caso da Bósnia-Herzegovina (com 51.129 Km2 e 4,5 milhões de habitantes), existe uma força humanitária – a SFOR – hoje com 12.000 efectivos. No caso do Afeganistão, um país com 647.500 km2 e 32 milhões de habitantes, a ISAF tem um total de 31.000 efectivos. Questão final: qual a credibilidade internacional da UE se, num território que é da República de Chipre e também europeu, um país candidato – a Turquia –, se sente «obrigada» a manter uma «força de manutenção de paz»? Será que isto se resolve com piedosas declarações de apoio à adesão da Turquia, como parece ser a panaceia da diplomacia portuguesa?
JPTF 2007/10/12

"Um reino de terror que a História escolheu esquecer" in The Independent, 12 de Outubro de 2007

por Robert Fisk

The story of the last century's first Holocaust – Winston Churchill used this very word about the Armenian genocide years before the Nazi murder of six million Jews – is well known, despite the refusal of modern-day Turkey to acknowledge the facts. Nor are the parallels with Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews idle ones.

Turkey's reign of terror against the Armenian people was an attempt to destroy the Armenian race. While the Turks spoke publicly of the need to "resettle" their Armenian population – as the Germans were to speak later of the Jews of Europe – the true intentions of Enver Pasha's Committee of Union and Progress in Constantinople were quite clear.

On 15 September 1915, for example (and a carbon of this document exists), Talaat Pasha, the Turkish Interior minister, cabled an instruction to his prefect in Aleppo about what he should do with the tens of thousands of Armenians in his city. "You have already been informed that the government... has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons living in Turkey... Their existence must be terminated, however tragic the measures taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to any scruples of conscience."

These words are almost identical to those used by Himmler to his SS killers in 1941.

Taner Akcam, a prominent – and extremely brave – Turkish scholar who has visited the Yerevan museum, has used original Ottoman Turkish documents to authenticate the act of genocide. Now under fierce attack for doing so from his own government, he discovered in Turkish archives that individual Turkish officers often wrote "doubles" of their mass death-sentence orders, telegrams sent at precisely the same time that asked their subordinates to ensure there was sufficient protection and food for the Armenians during their "resettlement". This weirdly parallels the bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, where officials were dispatching hundreds of thousands of Jews to the gas chambers while assuring International Red Cross officials in Geneva that they were being well cared for and well fed.

Ottoman Turkey's attempt to exterminate an entire Christian race in the Middle East – the Armenians, descended from the residents of ancient Urartu, became the first Christian nation when their king Drtad converted from paganism in AD301 – is a history of almost unrelieved horror at the hands of Turkish policemen and soldiers, and Kurdish tribesmen.

In 1915, Turkey claimed that its Armenian population was supporting Turkey's Christian enemies in Britain, France and Russia. Several historians – including Churchill, who was responsible for the doomed venture at Gallipoli – have asked whether the Turkish victory there did not give them the excuse to turn against the Christian Armenians of Asia Minor, a people of mixed Persian, Roman and Byzantine blood, with what Churchill called "merciless fury".

Armenian scholars have compiled a map of their people's persecution and deportation, a document that is as detailed as the maps of Europe that show the railway lines to Auschwitz and Treblinka; the Armenians of Erzerum, for example, were sent on their death march to Terjan and then to Erzinjan and on to Sivas province.

The men would be executed by firing squad or hacked to death with axes outside villages, the women and children then driven on into the desert to die of thirst or disease or exhaustion or gang-rape. In one mass grave I myself discovered on a hillside at Hurgada in present-day Syria, there were thousands of skeletons, mostly of young people – their teeth were perfect. I even found a 100-year-old Armenian woman who had escaped the slaughter there and identified the hillside for me.

There is debate in Yerevan today as to why the diaspora Armenians appear to care more about the genocide than the citizens of modern-day Armenia. Indeed, the Foreign minister of Armenia, Vardan Oskanian, actually told me that "days, weeks, even months go by" when he does not think of the genocide. One powerful argument put to me by an Armenian friend is that 70 years of Stalinism and official Soviet silence on the genocide deleted the historical memory in eastern Armenia – the present-day state of Armenia.

Another argument suggests that the survivors of western Armenia – in what is now Turkey – lost their families and lands and still seek acknowledgement and maybe even restitution, while eastern Armenians did not lose their lands.
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article3052373.ece
JPTF 2007/10/12

Resolução 398 do Comité dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Câmara dos Representantes, apelando ao reconhecimento do genocídio arménio de 1915

106th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. RES. 398

Calling upon the President to provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign Service officers, United States Department of State officials, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 18, 1999

Mr. RADANOVICH (for himself and Mr. BONIOR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Calling upon the President to provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign Service officers, United States Department of State officials, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and for other purposes.

Resolved,

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This resolution may be cited as the `United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The House of Representatives finds the following:

(1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.

(2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing `a crime against humanity'.

(3) This joint statement stated `[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres'.

(4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the `organization and execution' of the Armenian Genocide and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians'.

(5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.

(6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.

(7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.

(8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.

(9) The national archives of Turkey should also include all of the records pertaining to the indictment, trial, and conviction of the Ottoman authorities responsible for the Armenian Genocide.

(10) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests by officials of many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide.

(11) Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States Department of State the policy of the Young Turk government as `a campaign of race extermination', and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the `Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution'.

(12) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved that `the President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians', who at the time were enduring `starvation, disease, and untold suffering'.

(13) President Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to 1930 to aid the Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.

(14) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, `the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered'.

(15) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated `[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages'.

(16) Setting the stage for the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying `[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'.

(17) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term `genocide' in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the Genocide Convention, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

(18) Raphael Lemkin described the crime as `the systematic destruction of whole national, racial or religious groups. The sort of thing Hitler did to the Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians'.

(19) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at Lemkin's urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Genocide Convention itself recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent by codifying existing standards.

(20) In 1948 the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide `precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term `crimes against humanity' is intended to cover' as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

(21) The Commission stated that `[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of `crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments'.

(22) The United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted in 1985 a report entitled `Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', which stated `[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916'.

(23) This report also explained that `[a]t least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany'.

(24) The tragedy of the Armenian Genocide has been acknowledged by countries and international bodies such as Argentina, Belgium, Canada, the Council of Europe, Cyprus, the European Parliament, France, Great Britain, Greece, Lebanon, Russia, the United Nations, the United States, and Uruguay.

(25) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, an independent Federal agency, unanimously resolved on April 30, 1981, that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would include the Armenian Genocide in the Museum and has since done so.

(26) President Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, stated in part `like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it--and like too many other persecutions of too many other people--the lessons of the holocaust must never be forgotten'.

(27) President Bush, in 1988, speaking of the Armenian Genocide, stated `we must consciously and conscientiously recognize the genocides of the past--the enormous tragedies that have darkened this century and that haunt us still. We must not only commemorate the courage of the victims and of their survivors, but we must also remind ourselves that civilization cannot be taken for granted. . . . We must all be vigilant against this most heinous crime against humanity'.

(28) President Bush, in 1988, stated further `[t]he United States must acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian people in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, based on the testimony of survivors, scholars, and indeed our own representatives at the time, if we are to insure that such horrors are not repeated'.

(29) President Clinton, on August 13, 1992, stated `[t]he Genocide of 1915, years of communist dictatorship, and the devastating earthquake of 1988 have caused great suffering in Armenia during this century'.

(30) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the United States Department of State asserting that the facts of the Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents pertaining to the policy record of the United States, noted that the assertion on ambiguity in the United States record about the Armenian Genocide `contradicted longstanding United States policy and was eventually retracted'.

(31) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a proper judicial and firm response, holding the guilty accountable and requiring the prompt enforcement of verdicts would have spared humanity needless suffering.

(32) In a commendable letter on April 9, 1999, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, then Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, pledged that the administration would raise with the Republic of Turkey the issue of the recovery of Armenian assets from the genocide period held by the Imperial Ottoman Bank.

(33) It is important that all Foreign Service officers, officials of the United States Department of State, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are made familiar with the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce the judgments of the Turkish courts against the responsible officials.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

The House of Representatives--

1) calls upon the President to provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign Service officers, officials of the United States Department of State, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide by familiarizing them with the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce the judgments of the Turkish courts against the responsible officials; and

2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24 to characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.
http://www.anca.org/action_alerts/action_docs.php?docsid=15
JPTF 2007/10/11

Prgrama especial da BBC sobre os massacres e deportações dos arménios em 1915-1917, sob o Império Otomano

Mapa dos massacres e deportações dos arménios em 1915-1917, sob o Império Otomano

"Ancara indignada após un voto do Congresso americano sobre o genocídio arménio" in Le Monde, 11 de Outubro de 2007

La commission des affaires étrangères de la Chambre des représentants états-unienne a approuvé, mercredi 10 octobre, par vingt-sept voix contre vingt et une, une résolution qualifiant de "génocide" les massacres d'Arméniens par les Turcs en 1915. La résolution va désormais être présentée devant la Chambre des représentants en séance plénière, où, selon les dirigeants démocrates, un vote aura lieu d'ici à la mi-novembre. Une résolution similaire, et purement symbolique, circule au Sénat. La Maison Blanche avait averti, avant le vote, qu'une telle résolution ferait un "grand tort" aux relations avec la Turquie, important allié de Washington au sein de l'OTAN. Ankara rejette la position arménienne, soutenue par de nombreux historiens occidentaux, selon lesquels 1,5 million d'Arméniens ont été massacrés durant la première guerre mondiale.

Dès que le résultat du scrutin a été connu, le gouvernement américain a exhorté son allié turc à ne pas exercer de représailles. Le sous-secrétaire d'Etat Nicholas Burns a déclaré que l'administration Bush était "très déçue" par ce vote, qui survient à un moment délicat dans les relations turco-américaines.
"INACCEPTABLE"
Ankara a néanmoins confirmé que son gouvernement envisageait de solliciter l'autorisation du Parlement d'effectuer une incursion militaire dans le nord de l'Irak pour y attaquer des bases de la rébellion séparatiste kurde. Washington s'y oppose par crainte de voir la région – à dominante kurde – déstabilisée.

Le président turc, Abdullah Gül, a jugé le texte "inacceptable" et accusé des hommes politiques à Washington d'avoir sacrifié de graves problèmes à "leurs petites manœuvres".

"Nous espérons beaucoup que cette déception se limitera à des déclarations et ne comprendra rien de concret qui altérerait la très bonne manière que nous avons de travailler avec la Turquie depuis des années", a déclaré Nicholas Burns. "Nous devons continuer à pouvoir travailler ensemble de manière efficace", a insisté le sous-secrétaire d'Etat.

Huit anciens secrétaires d'Etat avaient écrit à la présidente de la Chambre des représentants, la démocrate Nancy Pelosi, favorable à la résolution, pour s'opposer au texte en brandissant un risque de mise en danger de la sécurité nationale américaine.

La Turquie, qui fait partie de l'OTAN, est un précieux allié des Américains. Le gros des troupes américaines en Irak transite par la base aérienne d'Incirlik. Nicholas Burns a indiqué que la secrétaire d'Etat Condoleezza Rice prévoyait de téléphoner, jeudi, à son homologue turc. "Nous insisterons manifestement auprès des dirigeants turcs sur notre profonde déception et le fait que nous nous sommes opposés à cette résolution et que l'administration a travaillé très dur pour aboutir à un autre vote", a-t-il dit.

Avant le vote, le président George Bush avait déclaré à des journalistes que cette résolution n'était pas "la bonne réponse à ces tueries massives et historiques". Selon Burns, le gouvernement américain estime qu'il y a de meilleurs moyens de traiter une question aussi délicate et relève que la Turquie a offert d'ouvrir les archives de l'Empire ottoman, ainsi que de former des commissions conjointes d'historiens avec le gouvernement arménien. "Nous sommes convaincus que c'est une manière meilleure et plus productive d'avancer", a-t-il dit.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-965530@51-963706,0.html
JPTF 2007/10/11

"Congresso americano reconhece Genocídio Arménio, rejeitando pedido de George Bush" in Guardian, 11 de Outubro de 2007

Congress today rejected a plea by the White House over a resolution officially recognising as genocide the forced deportation and massacre of Armenians in the last days of the Ottoman empire.
President George Bush warned of the negative repercussions should Congress use the word genocide to describe the persecution that killed an estimated 1.5 million Armenians and forced many into exile.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in Nato and in the global war on terror," Mr Bush said.

But the House foreign affairs committee, only hours later, voted by 27 to 21 in favour of the resolution. The measure now goes to the full House for a vote.
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had warned the resolution could set back Middle East peace prospects.

Its passage could also put US soldiers at risk in Iraq, the secretary of defence, Robert Gates, said, warning that America risked losing access to important supply routes. About 70% of air cargo for Iraq goes through Turkey.

However, the measure has strong support in the Democratic-controlled House, where more than half of members have signed on as co-sponsors, including the speaker, Nancy Pelosi. About half of the Senate has co-sponsored the measure.

The resolution calls on the president to use the word genocide during the commemoration of the killings each April.

Turkey has spent millions on lobbying to dissuade western governments from labelling the events of 1915-1917 a genocide.

The Turkish military cancelled defence contracts with France last year when its national assembly voted to make denial of the Armenian genocide a crime.

While Turkey does not deny that many Armenians were killed, it claims the deaths were the result of widespread fighting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2188109,00.html
JPTF 2007/10/11

"Comité da Câmara dos Representantes dos EUA aprova resolução sobre o Genocídio Arménio" in CNN, 11 de Outubro de 2007

A House committee Wednesday evening narrowly approved a resolution that labels the killings of Armenians in Turkey during World War I as "genocide." President Bush urges lawmakers not to pass a resolution he says would harm U.S. relations with Turkey. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the measure 27-21, even though President Bush and key figures lobbied hard against it. The president, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said passage of the resolution would hurt relations with an important U.S. ally. Bush urged lawmakers to oppose the resolution, which he said would cause "great harm" to U.S. relations with Turkey, which he called a key ally in NATO and the "global war on terror." "We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response to those historic mass killings," Bush said at the White House. But House Democratic leaders said earlier if the Foreign Affairs Committee passed the resolution, they intended to bring it to the House floor. The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, said the measure already had 226 co-sponsors, more than enough votes to pass "and the most support an Armenian genocide resolution has ever received." Earlier, Rice and Gates made their comments jointly before reporters at the White House. They said Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military officer in Iraq; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker; and Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, raised concerns about the resolution. "We recognize the feelings of those who want to express their concern and their disdain for what happened many years ago," Rice said. "But the passage of this resolution at this time would, indeed, be very problematic for everything that we're trying to do in the Middle East because we are very dependent on a good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts." Watch why Rice and Gates oppose the resolution » The nonbinding resolution refers to the "genocide" of Armenians in the early 20th century during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which preceded the creation of modern Turkey in 1923. "In the case that Armenian allegations are accepted, there will be serious problems in the relations between the two countries," Turkish President Abdullah Gul said in a letter to Bush. Nabi Sensoy, Turkey's ambassador to the United States, told CNN the resolution's passage would be a "very injurious move to the psyche of the Turkish people." He predicted a "backlash" in the country, saying there would be setbacks on several fronts: Turkish-American relations, Turkish-Armenian relations and the normalization of relations between the nations of Turkey and Armenia. Gates said good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo intended for U.S. forces in Iraq and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by those forces flies through Turkey. U.S. commanders, Gates said, "believe clearly that access to airfields and roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and the Turks react as strongly as we believe they will." "Our heavy dependence on the Turks for access is really the reason the commanders raised this and why we're so concerned about the resolution," Gates said. The resolution calls on the president "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian genocide, and for other purposes." A similar resolution passed the committee by a 40-7 vote two years ago, but it never reached the full House floor. House Republican leader John Boehner, noting the critical military and strategic alliance with Turkey, said bringing the resolution to the floor would be "totally irresponsible." "Let the historians decide what happened 90 years ago," Boehner said in a written statement. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with Turkish officials in Pelosi's office Wednesday morning. Hoyer said he and Pelosi informed the officials that they support the resolution. Hoyer said he told officials that while he considers Turkey a strong ally, "this was about another government at another time." "I believe that our government's position is clear -- that genocide was perpetrated against the Armenian people approximately 90 years ago and during the course of the First World War. And I believe that remembering that, noting that, is important so that we not paper over or allow the Ahmadinejads of the next decade or decades to deny a fact," Hoyer said. Schiff, who represents a southern California district with many Armenian-Americans, refers to "the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide." The term genocide is defined in dictionary.com as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." But the description is hotly disputed in Turkey, the predominantly Muslim, but modern and secular, pro-Western ally of the United States. Turks argue that all peoples -- Armenians and Turks -- suffered during the warfare. But Armenians maintain there was an organized genocide by the Ottoman Turkish authorities, and have been campaigning across the world for official recognition of the genocide. The resolution arrives at a particularly sensitive juncture in U.S.-Turkish relations. The United States has urged Turkey not to send its troops over the border into northern Iraq to fight Kurdish separatist rebels, who have launched some cross-border attacks against Turkish targets. Observers of U.S.-Turkish relations have argued the House resolution could make Turkey less inclined to use restraint in dealing with its longstanding problems with the Kurdistan Workers Party. "The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives," Schiff said. "But we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well. How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/us.turkey.armenians/index.html
JPTF 2007/10/11

"A França concretiza em quatro propostas a vontade de regresso pleno à NATO" in Le Monde, 9 de Outubro de 2007

llustrant la volonté exprimée par le président français, Nicolas Sarkozy, d'un retour au sein de la structure militaire intégrée de l'Alliance atlantique, Paris a transmis le 3 octobre un document au Conseil de l'Atlantique nord (NAC) de l'OTAN pour "renforcer la transparence et la coopération entre l'UE et l'OTAN", qui se décline en quatre propositions. Celles-ci doivent être présentées, le 12 octobre, au Comité politique et de sécurité (COPS) de l'Union européenne (UE).

La France propose qu'une "présentation systématique du programme et du bilan de la présidence" de l'Union européenne ait lieu au NAC et dans les différents comités de l'OTAN, avec la participation au Conseil atlantique du ministre des affaires européennes du pays exerçant la présidence de l'UE.

Paris demande ensuite "une pratique plus fréquente d'invitations croisées" du haut représentant de l'UE pour la politique étrangère et de sécurité, Javier Solana, au NAC, et du secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, au COPS, "pour présenter des domaines d'action pertinents".

La France suggère d'autre part de développer les contacts de travail entre l'Agence européenne de défense (AED) et le Commandement allié pour la transformation (ACT), qui s'occupe également de programmes d'armement.

Elle souhaite enfin la mise en place "d'une procédure prédéfinie d'échange d'informations en cas de crise" entre le Centre euro-atlantique de réponse aux crises et le Centre de suivi et d'information (MIC, mécanisme de protection civile) de la Commission européenne. Le recours aux capacités militaires pour la réponse aux catastrophes humanitaires et naturelles resterait toutefois coordonné au niveau européen.

TROC DIPLOMATIQUE

Ces propositions, d'apparence techniques, prennent, dans le contexte du rapprochement atlantiste souhaité par Paris, une portée politique significative. Elles contrastent avec les positions traditionnelles de la France, qui a longtemps freiné la coopération institutionnelle entre l'OTAN et l'UE.

Elles illustrent la démarche du président français, basée sur une sorte de troc diplomatique : la France envisage de reprendre toute sa place au sein de l'OTAN, à condition que l'Alliance atlantique prenne davantage en compte le poids et l'influence des Européens, qu'elle se recentre sur sa vocation d'organisation militaire, que la France occupe des postes de responsabilité à la mesure de sa contribution militaire à l'Alliance, et enfin que les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne cessent de freiner tout progrès de la défense européenne.

Ces dispositions ont été accueillies à l'OTAN comme de premières "mesures de confiance", destinées à prouver les bonnes intentions de Paris. "C'est la manifestation que la France a quitté le camp de ceux qui disent non , comme la Turquie; c'est un pas en avant qui montre que Sarkozy veut concrétiser son intention politique", estime un haut responsable de l'OTAN.

"L'atmosphère a nettement évolué depuis les propositions du président Sarkozy; on a le sentiment qu'il n'y a plus de tabou du côté français, plus de lignes rouges", renchérit un diplomate britannique, qui reste dubitatif quant à un éventuel succès.

La stratégie française semble en effet aléatoire, tant les concessions demandées apparaissent ambitieuses. Du côté français, la consigne est désormais de tout faire pour "ne pas bloquer la discussion" au sein de l'Alliance atlantique. Dans le passé, la France a manifesté ses réticences à un rapprochement OTAN-UE, notamment concernant la planification opérationnelle et la création de cellules de liaison militaire, et elle a résisté à la mise en œuvre des moyens militaires de l'OTAN dans les crises humanitaires, au Darfour ou après le tremblement de terre au Pakistan.

Cependant, le pays qui aujourd'hui bloque le rapprochement OTAN-UE est moins la France que la Turquie. Hostile à toute reconnaissance du gouvernement de Chypre, Ankara s'oppose aux rencontres et au partage d'informations de sécurité entre les deux organisations.

La question du retour de la France au sein de la structure militaire intégrée est devenue un sujet dominant des discussions informelles au sein de l'Alliance, chacun supputant quel sera le "prix à payer" pour les deux pays européens – la Grande-Bretagne et l'Allemagne – qui occupent d'importants postes de commandement.

On prête à Paris l'intention de revendiquer le poste d'adjoint au commandant suprême des forces alliées en Europe, mais aucune demande officielle n'a encore été faite. Les diplomates otaniens mesurent que la démarche française constitue, à ce stade, une sorte de ballon d'essai, pour tester les réactions, tant au sein de l'Alliance atlantique que sur le plan de la politique intérieure française.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3210,36-964615,0.html
JPTF 2007/10/09

"Uma União Europeia semidemocrática, semieuropeia, semiunião" in Público, 6 de Outubro de 2007

por Pacheco Pereira

Numa altura em que se perde de vez a possibilidade de os portugueses se pronunciarem sobre o novo tratado europeu, com o abandono do compromisso pela actual liderança do PSD de fazer um referendo, dá-se mais um passo num triste caminho de criar uma entidade internacional que é cada vez menos democrática e a quem entregamos cada vez mais a nossa soberania nacional. É uma decisão, por parte do PSD e do PS, inqualificável de falta de respeito pelos compromissos assumidos, tornada ainda mais grave quando é claramente manchada pelo facto de ter como principal razão o medo dos resultados do referendo. Ou seja, não se faz o referendo porque os eleitores europeus e portugueses não podem, por diktat, dizer "não". Os Governos e os grandes partidos europeus substituíram a democracia na legitimação do processo europeu por decisões iluminadas, tomadas in camera pelos Governos, sobre matérias decisivas para o futuro de todos nós.

A verdade é que esta era a última oportunidade de fazer um referendo útil, a última oportunidade de, votando sobre importantes mudanças na construção europeia, legitimar ou não o caminho recente da União. Não compreendo, aliás, por que razão os europeístas mais fervorosos a perderam, tanto quanto compreendo bem que os que olham para a UE apenas como manancial de subsídios não queiram quaisquer ondas no barco bruxelense, que já de há muito se habituaram a considerar o verdadeiro governo de todos nós.

Não é preciso ir mais longe para se perceber o que é hoje a UE do que o facto de, a semanas de se conhecer um novo tratado europeu, com as trombetas e as fanfarras que o vão acompanhar, ser espantoso que não haja qualquer discussão pública sobre o seu conteúdo e consequências. O nosso primeiro-ministro, o nosso ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, assim como o nosso Presidente da República, entendem que quanto menos se falar sobre o assunto, melhor e como deixou de haver a ténue, mas mesmo assim existente, oposição à violação do compromisso do PSD e do PS, o silêncio entre o incomodado e o arrogante são a norma.

Tudo isto numa altura em que é mais que óbvio que nem a Europa nem a UE estão bem. A Europa porque se encurralou num "modelo social" que a prazo só tem duas consequências: o empobrecimento lento, mas seguro, dos seus cidadãos e a incapacidade de sobreviver num mundo globalizado a não ser como "fortaleza Europa". É verdade que quer a leste, quer a oeste, há excepções e resistências a este modelo, com o corolário de que aí não se empobrece como no "meio" do núcleo duro do "modelo", mas a tendência defensiva e proteccionista na UE continua a verificar-se. Os franceses e as suas "excepções" são a vanguarda de uma Europa que ergue fronteiras face ao Google, à Microsoft, aos transgénicos, ao iTunes, aos filmes de Hollywood, mas também ao chá moçambicano, aos vinhos sul-africanos, ao algodão egípcio, aos produtos agrícolas africanos e... ao canalizador polaco.

Quanto à UE, propriamente dita, e às suas instituições, a crise dos últimos anos, simbolizada no devolver à procedência dos Governos que a fizeram a Constituição Europeia com o voto "não" de holandeses e franceses, está a torná-la cada vez mais governamental e burocrática, num movimento único de recusa da legitimidade de eleitores e de enfraquecimento dos Parlamentos nacionais. Normalmente, na discussão da legitimação popular só se referem as objecções ao voto referendário, odiado em Bruxelas e agora colocado debaixo do tapete, apresentado como um voto impuro, o que "mistura" tudo, o que é contra os Governos, o que é xenófobo, o que é excitado apenas pelas mesquinhas agendas nacionais, o que é antieuropeu e "soberanista".
Mas esta sanha contra os referendos esquece que Bruxelas também não gosta dos Parlamentos nacionais, cada vez mais frágeis face à burocracia da UE, que são sempre apresentados como saindo reforçados de cada novo tratado, quando na realidade quem vê sempre os seus poderes acrescidos é o Parlamento Europeu, depois o Conselho e por fim a Comissão. O caminho para uma UE semidemocrática, uma condição semelhante, na sua impossibilidade, a estar semigrávida, deu mais um passo esta semana em Portugal e vai dar muitos mais nas semanas próximas.

Sobre este impasse democrático, para não lhe chamar outra coisa, projecta-se um impasse ainda maior: o do retorno ao confronto nacional e de uma sua pouco observada consequência, a dificuldade em definir fronteiras da UE. A questão turca, apenas a face mais visível de outras questões por resolver, igualmente graves, é uma projecção de velhas diferenças europeias nas suas políticas externas, assim como de interesses diferenciados em função da situação nacional de cada país. Se somarmos a isso a inexistência de política face à Federação Russa, que se manifesta nas dificuldades face ao Kosovo, os Balcãs em geral e no tratamento da Ucrânia, compreende-se que a UE pode tentar há muito tempo ter um telefone para o sucessor do senhor Kissinger, mas este falará sempre primeiro para o número 10 de Downing Street, para o Eliseu, para a Chancelaria de Berlim, e até para o castelo em Praga e para a sede do Governo polaco, muito antes de falar para Durão Barroso e muito menos para Solana.

Claro que, daqui a uns dias, se os polacos não estragarem a festa e cederem à chantagem, como tudo indica, nada disto conta, nada disto será referido, nada disto será lembrado. Haverá champanhe e sorrisos, muitos cumprimentos, muitas fotos em família. O futuro da Europa será radiosamente apresentado, como o fim de uma longa "crise" que foi ultrapassada. Depois da festa, ninguém quererá ir perguntar ao homem da rua o que ele pensa sobre aquilo que no dia seguinte será apresentado como facto consumado, que só meia dúzia de perturbadores reclamam dever ir a votos. Claro que em muitos países da Europa o eleitorado não tem a apatia e indiferença portuguesas, e podem bem obrigar os seus Governos a fazer referendos, contrariamente a todas as recomendações, mais do que isso, ordens, que Sarkozy e Merkel têm dado. E não demorará muito tempo até se ver que nenhum papel, muito menos o que agora sub-repticiamente se quer aprovar, resolverá a "crise". Os genuínos defensores da Europa de Jean Monnet e Schumann vão arrepender-se de não ter actuado a tempo, mas, nessa altura, pode ser tarde. E já não falta muito tempo para se compreender que foi assim.
http://abrupto.blogspot.com/
JPTF 2007/10/07

"Comandante norte-americano no Iraque acusa o embaixador do Irão de pertencer a uma força millitar de elite" in BBC News, 7 de Outubro de 2007

Gen Petraeus said Hassan Kazemi-Qomi was a member of the Quds Force, which the US believes backs foreign Islamic revolutionary movements. Gen Petraeus said he had no doubt Iran was behind attacks that had led to the deaths of US soldiers. Iran has so far not commented, but regularly denies any such involvement.

Diplomatic immunity
Gen Petraeus made his comments during a briefing to journalists at a US military base near Iraq's border with Iran. Gen Petraeus said the Iranian ambassador to Iraq was a "Quds Force member", but added: "Now he has diplomatic immunity and therefore he is obviously not subject [to scrutiny]. He is acting as a diplomat." Mr Kazemi-Qomi has twice met US counterpart Ryan Crocker this year. Mr Kazemi-Qomi has twice met US counterpart Ryan Crocker this year to discuss Iraqi stability. Iran admits the existence of the Quds Force but gives few details of its activities. Analysts believe it is behind funding of such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah. Gen Petraeus said: "There should be no question about the malign, lethal involvement and activities of the Quds Force in this country."He said Iran was "responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed US soldiers". Gen Petraeus said Iran was implicated in the car-bomb assassinations of two provincial governors in southern Iraq in August. The BBC's Jon Brain in Baghdad says some analysts believe the US is deliberately ramping up the rhetoric against the Iranian authorities to prepare public opinion for possible military strikes against Revolutionary Guard facilities within Iran.

'Safer streets'
Gen Petraeus also delivered a more upbeat message on security in Baghdad in the wake of this year's "surge" by US and Iraqi forces. He said in some parts of the capital it was secure enough for him to walk down the street unprotected. "Certainly in places you could do that. You could walk right down Haifa street right now," Gen Petraeus said. But he added: "Nobody will let me do it." The security surge that started in February has added about 30,000 extra US troops. The general said he was not "naive" and knew there was an ever-present threat of bomb attacks. "If you say: 'Will there be a time when you can walk around Baghdad?', obviously I hope that will be realised in the future." Sunday also saw Iraqi security officials report that bomb attacks in Baghdad had killed at least nine people. Two of the blasts targeted security patrols, but, in both cases, the victims were civilians.A third bomb exploded near the Baghdad provincial council building, killing three bystanders.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7032557.stm
JPTF 2007/10/07