Month: September 2006

TURKEY ILLUSTRATES DEEP CULTURAL DIVIDE
by Rebeca Chapa

San Antonio Express-News
September 21, 2006 Thursday
State&Metro Edition

Today, in a Turkish courtroom, writer Elif Shafak will go on trial
for "insulting Turkishness" through the use of dialogue in her latest
novel, "The Bastard of Istanbul."

In the book, whose English version will be released next year, a
fictional character refers to the historical killings of more than
a million Armenians as "genocide."

"I am the grandchild of genocide survivors who lost all their relatives
to the hands of Turkish butchers in 1915, but I myself have been
brainwashed to deny the genocide because I was raised by some Turk
named Mustapha!" one of her characters says.

The death of 1.5 million Armenians nearly a century ago has been a
long-standing gash in Turkey’s history. Armenians portray the event
as genocide while Turkish nationalists call the deaths the unintended
casualties of war.

Shafak, a French-born Turkish citizen, is a professor of Turkish
studies at the University of Arizona. The writer, who bore a child
on Saturday, is expected to appear in the Istanbul courtroom today.

If convicted, she could face up to three years in prison for violating
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.

Keep in mind, these are fictional characters saying made-up dialogue.

Shafak’s trial comes less than a year after another highly publicized
Turkish trial, that of writer Orhan Pamuk. In an interview, Pamuk
said that Armenians and Kurds were killed "in these lands and nobody
but me dares talk about it."

For his outspoken statements, Pamuk was subjected to regular harassment
during his trial. Charges against him were dropped early this year,
but the assault on expression continues to be worrisome.

More than 60 cases have been brought against writers and artists
in Turkey, including a case against a newspaper editor for writing
articles about the Armenian diaspora.

Politically, Turkey is walking a fine line as it seeks entry to the
European Union. Cases such as Shafak’s could seriously threaten its
admission. In July, Olli Rehn, the EU’s commissioner for enlargement,
issued a statement urging Turkey to amend Article 301 in order to
guarantee freedom of expression, a criterion for admission.

Ironically, the law cuts both ways.

Supporters believe it limits dissemination of a controversial past,
thereby avoiding a negative perception as Turkey bucks for entry.

Opponents say the law’s very existence indicates oppression in Turkey,
which is equally harmful to admission.

Despite a growing aversion to respectful dialogue and a tendency toward
staunch stances in this country, freedom of expression remains a
cornerstone of our democracy. To that end, the United States should
simultaneously encourage Turkish authorities to reconsider the
restrictive 2005 law and support its conditional entry into the EU.

It may be diplomatically difficult.

The U.S.-Turkey alliance has soured since 2003, when Turkey denied the
use of its territories as a launching pad for attacks on neighboring
Iraq. Chaos is now brewing along that border, as the Kurdistan Workers’
Party, or PKK, has long invaded southeastern Turkey from bases in Iraq.

The group, classified as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the EU
and the United States, has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy for more
than 20 years. With tensions in Iraq already high, the United States
has warned the Turkish government not to overstep its boundaries in
fighting the PKK.

With the war in Iraq in its fourth year, we are increasingly reminded
of the dilemma in assuming that a Western vision of democracy —
whatever the motivation — can be stenciled onto a different country
with different people who share a different history.

Both Shafak’s trial and the ongoing Turkish conflict are reminders
of the historical and cultural elements of the broader war in the
Middle East.

ARMENIAN HERO’S FATHER DIES AT 88
by Jim Steinberg The Fresno Bee

Fresno Bee (California)
September 20, 2006 Wednesday
Final Edition

Charles Melkonian, a WWII vet, honored children’s decisions.

Charles Melkonian, a World War II veteran and father of Monte
Melkonian, who was alternatively praised as an Armenian freedom
fighter and damned as a terrorist, died Thursday.

Mr. Melkonian had suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. He was 88.

He was born on the kitchen floor of a two-room Fresno tank house,
delivered unaided by his mother.

Mr. Melkonian grew up to fight in World War II, then returned to the
San Joaquin Valley, the youngest of eight children.

He settled in Visalia and ran a successful showcase and fixture
business, first with his brother Sam and then independently. He was
an avid booster of all things Visalia, especially sports. He also
cherished his connection with his famous son Monte, an archaeologist
who became known as commander Avo. Avo Melkonian fought with the
Armenian group ASALA, which waged war to create an independent Armenia
and to avenge the Ottoman Empire’s massacres of Armenians early last
century. ASALA is an acronym for the Armenian Secret Army for the
Liberation of Armenia.

Charles Melkonian’s central teaching to his children was that they
make and honor their own decisions.

"Mom and Dad always trusted us to do what was best," said
daughter Maile Melkonian. "He knew that Monte was trying to right a
long-standing wrong, the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians. This is
still denied by Turkey."

Monte Melkonian believed conventional channels had proved inadequate
for Armenia, but Mr. Melkonian did not share his son’s revolutionary
zeal.

"Dad was a risk-taker," Maile Melkonian said, "but he was very
law-abiding."

Mr. Melkonian began his working life as a 5-year-old harvesting
grapes, figs and okra. He did well in school, entered the University
of California at Berkeley but later transferred to the University of
Utah. He was the first member of his family to attend college. He
cut short his education to enter the U.S. Navy after Pearl Harbor,
then joined the Army Air Corps, where he served as a navigator,
radio operator and 50-caliber machine gunner in a B-17.

Mr. Melkonian was shot down with his B-17 crew over what he thought
was Nazi-occupied Belgium during World War II. It turned out that
the Allies had taken that area days before.

He returned to the Valley and went into business with his brother,
eventually becoming the company’s sole owner. The company furnished
banks, insurance companies, restaurants and other businesses with
commercial kitchens.

Mr. Melkonian never fully recovered after he learned of his son’s
death.

"He admired my son so much," said Mr. Melkonian’s wife, Zabelle,
in Visalia. "We think our son’s death was the turning point that
triggered my husband’s Alzheimer’s."

Mr. Melkonian and his wife visited Armenia five times, returning to the
hill in mountainous Nagorno-Karabakh where Monte Melkonian is buried,
"with his men buried below him," Zabelle Melkonian said.

Mr. Melkonian was a volunteer timekeeper for track meets at College
of the Sequoias, Zabelle Melkonian said. "He loved COS basketball. He
was in the boosters club."

Services will be held at 11 a.m. Thursday in the Salser & Dillard
Funeral Chapel in Visalia.

The family requests that any remembrance be sent to the Monte Melkonian
Memorial Fund Inc., P.O. Box 201411, Los Angeles, CA 90027; or to
the Monte Melkonian School Fund at Mt. Whitney High School in Visalia.

The reporter can be reached at [email protected] or (559)
441-6311.

INFOBOX

Charles Melkonian Born: April 27, 1918 Died: Sept. 14 Occupation:
Showcase and fixture shop owner Survivors: Wife, Zabelle Melkonian;
son Markar Melkonian; daughters Maile Melkonian and Marcia Bedrosian

NORTHWEST NATIVE 3RD IN JAZZ CONTEST
by Paul De Barros, Seattle Times jazz critic

The Seattle Times
September 18, 2006 Monday
Fourth Edition

A pianist raised in Seattle has snagged third place in the 2006
Thelonious Monk International Jazz Piano Competition.

Aaron Parks, 22, was one of three finalists selected Saturday from a
field of 12 semifinalists. The finals were held Sunday at the Kennedy
Center’s Eisenhower Theater, in Washington, D.C. First place went to
Tigran Hamasyan, from Armenia, and second place to Gerald Clayton,
son of bassist John Clayton, artistic director of the Jazz Port
Townsend Festival.

One of the most prestigious awards in jazz, the Monk competition has
launched the careers of Joshua Redman and Jane Monheit, among others.

The annual contest is presented by the Thelonious Monk Institute of
Jazz, founded in 1986, which sponsored the first competition in 1987.

A different instrument is showcased each year.

The first-place prize is $20,000; second place is $10,000; third
place is $5,000.

Parks grew up on Whidbey Island and in Seattle and began playing
piano when he was 10 years old. A prodigy, he went directly from
middle school to the University of Washington, where he studied
with pianist Marc Seales. At 16, Parks left the UW to study at the
Manhattan School of Music, in New York, and is currently a member of
trumpeter Terence Blanchard’s group.

This year’s Monk competition judges were pianists Kenny Barron, Herbie
Hancock, Andrew Hill, Danilo Perez, Renee Rosnes, Billy Taylor and
Randy Weston.

WHY RUSSIA IS REALLY WEAK
By Rajan Menon and Alexander Motyl

Newsweek
September 25, 2006
International Edition

What happens to Russia when–not if–oil and gas prices begin to
retreat?

News stories about Russia these days follow a predictable theme. The
country is resurgent and strong, and the West must adjust to this
new reality. But that story line is wrong. Russia is weak and getting
weaker.

Take the conventional index of power–military might. Yes, Moscow is
testing advanced missiles systems and talks buoyantly about countering
a U.S. antiballistic-missile system with a new generation of warheads
that can evade interceptors. Yet note the failure earlier this month
of the highly touted Bulava submarine-launched missile.

The United States experiences such mishaps, too, of course. But
in Russia they are signs of something deeper. It’s no secret that,
for all Russia’s new oil wealth, its Army remains poorly trained,
malnourished and demoralized. Alcoholism, suicide and corruption
are rife. Weaponry is aging and newer models arrive at a trickle:
India has bought more Russian tanks since 2001 than the Russian Army.

Russia gets credit for economic growth–nearly 7 percent this year,
according to the IMF. But the boom has been propelled mainly by rising
energy prices. What happens when–not if–oil and gas prices begin
to retreat? New investment in production capacity is insufficient
to sustain current levels of exports. Meanwhile, economic reform
has stalled, state control over strategic economic industries has
increased and foreign investment remains low. Of the $648.1 billion
in foreign investment worldwide in 2004, only $11.6 billion went
to Russia. Not surprisingly, Russia rates poorly in globalization
rankings. The 2005 Foreign Policy/A.T. Kearney survey placed it 52nd
in a list of 62 countries–a drop of five places from 2004.

Russia’s human capital is being ravaged. The population is declining
by some 750,000 annually because of low birthrates and unusually high
death rates among males; it’s also aging rapidly and will therefore
become increasingly less productive. Alcoholism remains pervasive, as
does drug use. Russia has the highest rate of tuberculosis in Europe.

AIDS has yet to crest. Suicide is one the rise. According to WHO
data on 46 countries between 1998 and 2003, Russia, with 71 cases
per 100,000 of the male population, topped the list.

A nation’s power also rests on the strength of its institutions.

Here, too, Russia is growing weaker. Putin’s authoritarianism has
brought order to a once chaotic political scene. But Parliament has
been neutered. So have independent civic organizations, political
parties and media. The secret police, military and security
services–no friends of the rule of law–occupy prominent political
positions. Official corruption flourishes.

Abroad, Russia’s influence continues to ebb. Its closest
allies–Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan–are poor and
politically unstable. Energy-rich Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan
resent Russia’s grip on their exports. Armenia, loyal but penurious,
remains embroiled in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with increasingly
prosperous Azerbaijan. The Kremlin’s meddling in Georgia has deepened
Tblisi’s determination to join NATO and strengthened anti-Russian
sentiment. Belarus’s dictatorial president envisions union with Russia,
but his Soviet-style political order repels many ordinary Russians.

On the wider global stage, Putin displays seeming strength and new
confidence. Russian support is key to the negotiations over Iran’s
nuclear program. Its Security Council veto gives it an important say
on various international issues, from Kosovo’s independence to the
United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Yet Putin’s rhetoric
increasingly strikes themes of Great Russia–imperial, nostalgic,
nationalistic. However much it resonates with a particular Russian
political class, that rhetoric can itself breed weakness.

You see this in the sharp rise of race-related hate crimes in Russia,
most recently the clash between Russian xenophobes and Chechens
in the north- western town of Kondopga, when a bar brawl triggered
huge rallies of ultranationalists demanding the expulsion of ethnic
minorities. Right-wing racism and Russia-for-Russians chauvinism augur
ill for a multiethnic, multiconfessional Russia, which has near 25
million Muslims.

So, the received wisdom is wrong. What the West must live with
is a weak Russia. And history shows that states that talk loudly
while carrying a small stick often overreach, creating problems for
themselves and others.

Menon is a professor of international relations at Lehigh University
and a fellow at the New America Foundation. MOTYL teaches at Rutgers
University.

IS THE CREMATORIUM HALF-FULL OR HALF-EMPTY?
By Carlin Romano

The Chronicle of Higher Education
September 22, 2006 Friday
The Chronicle Review; Pg. 13 Vol. 53 No. 5

As fall-term courses begin in comparative literature and comparative
law, three leaders — let’s not dignify them by speaking of "world"
leaders — look poised to join the syllabi of "comparative genocide,"
a less-taught but urgently needed staple on university curricula.

Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, after nodding to civilized
opinion by releasing Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent Paul Salopek
"on humanitarian grounds," has ordered his janjaweed savages back
into action to strafe and massacre Sudanese villagers of Darfur.

"What happened in Rwanda," a refugee, Sheik Abdullah Muhammad Ali, told
New York Times reporter Lydia Polgreen recently, "it will happen here."

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad, shortly to enjoy the hospitality
of the world’s largest Jewish city during his visit to the U.N. —
try a knish while you’re there, Mr. President — continues to play
for time to acquire nuclear weapons while declining to withdraw his
judgment that Israel should "be wiped off the map."

China’s reactionary President Hu Jintao, a longtime colorless Communist
apparatchik who, like Putin in Russia, is slowly dragging his country
back to totalitarianism after brief spasms of liberalization, continues
to add missiles to the thousands already pointed at Taiwan. (If you
think that unpublicized crisis hardly simmers like the other two,
just wait till China’s shortsighted trading partners permit it to
get even richer and more powerful, and past its 2008 summer Olympics.)

Those are just so-called elected leaders. The self-anointed capos
of Islamic Jihad, to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11, promised
to extend their own brand of mass murder from Europe and the United
States to Israel and conservative Arab states.

What to do? Can we eliminate love, laughter, or any other human
impulse as enduring as the hunger to kill all one’s enemies?

The seemingly endless examples of genocide cited throughout Why Not
Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder,
by Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley (Princeton University Press,
2006), threaten to overwhelm the book’s subtitle before one reaches
the "prevention" part.

Except for Ahmadinejad and other Holocaust deniers, most people know
and think of Hitler’s murder of 6 million Jews and others as the
quintessential case. But what a trail of tears once you go comparative.

Stalin’s elimination of millions of kulaks and others in the 1930s
purges. Mao’s Great Leap Forward that led to as many as 40 million
deaths between 1956 and 1960. The Khmer Rouge’s massacre of some 2
million Cambodians from 1975 to 1979. The 1994 slaughter of Tutsis
by Hutus in Rwanda. The ethnic cleansing of Kosovo in the 1990s. The
Indonesian killings of Communists and leftists in the 1960s. The
Japanese "Rape of Nanking" in 1937-38. The Armenian genocide
perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. The German massacre of
the Herero tribe in 1904 in what is now Namibia.

And it’s not all somebody else. Under the flexible yet sensibly
explained notions of "genocide" and mass political murder that the
authors propose, Americans must also look in the mirror as they
confront some actions, among them the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, and the joint U.S. and British firebombings of Dresden and
other German cities.

To the authors’ credit, they take a broad view on how many angels need
to be machine-gunned off the head of a pin to say "genocide," and they
stretch back historically. There’s the forced 1838 expulsion of the
Cherokees from the southeastern United States that led to thousands
of deaths. The St. Bartholomew Day’s massacre of Protestants by
Catholics in 1572. Genghis Khan’s 13th-century bloodlettings. William
the Conqueror’s extermination of Yorkshire gentry in 1069. Caesar’s
vengeance against the Germanic Eburon tribe in 53 BC. They even
contemplate Yahweh’s commands to the Israelites to massacre the
Midianites and Amalekites.

Chirot, a professor of international studies and sociology at the
University of Washington, and McCauley, a psychology professor at
Bryn Mawr College who also directs the University of Pennsylvania’s
Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, believe
"mass killing is neither irrational nor in any sense ‘crazy.’"
Genocide is a largely "rational" policy decision that can, in
principle, be combated and blocked by counter measures.

"Rationality," they concede in their introduction, "is a very slippery
concept, but in general we believe that most political massacres
are quite deliberate, are directed by or at least approved by the
authorities, and that they have a goal, even if the actual murderers
can take advantage of momentary passions and a lust for killing that
appears in such events. The rationale behind such actions may be based
on false information, on essentializing prejudice, or on reasoning
that is more self-interested than logical, but this does not lessen
the fact that the perpetrators believe that mass killing is the right
thing to do."

Also fundamental to the authors’ approach is the conviction that
mass political murder, for all the examples that they produce,
"is rare in relation to the kind of power imbalance that makes such
killing possible," that we should be surprised "that there are not
more of them."

Is the crematorium half-full or half-empty? Chirot and McCauley
represent the "half-empty" optimists.

So they outline the multiple psychological and social causes of mass
political murder — convenience, revenge, general fear of defeat,
fear of pollution by an "inferior race," greed — distinguishing
those factors while acknowledging that they often mix in specific
cases. They assert, for example, that the "most intractable cause of
genocidal killings emerges when competing groups … feel that the
very presence of the other, of the enemy, so sullies the environment
that normal life is not possible as long as they exist."

The book’s novel thrust, however, is the confidence that we possess
social cures for this disease. Almost all take the form of engagement
with one’s enemies. Historically, as Chirot and McCauley point out,
marriage outside the "us" group long tempered hostilities between
"us" and "them." Commercial relations, they note (without mentioning
Thomas Friedman’s "McDonald’s thesis" about capitalist democracies
not waging war against each other) inhibit the stirring of genocide.

Spreading Enlightenment ideas and emphasizing individual rights over
communal identities help, as do "objective examinations of the past"
such as "truth and reconciliation" commissions. The famous cold war
"hotline" between Washington and Moscow is just one concrete example
of how keeping in touch can work.

"Developing exchanges with other groups," Chirot and McCauley
write, "lessens the chances that any conflict will reach genocidal
proportions. Codes of honor, moral teachings, and formal rules to
govern conflicts have the same effect."

Given such counterforces, the authors state early on, "we plan to
show that there is no reason to despair."

Maybe. Scholars will pick apart their reasoning for years. For the
general public, political activists, and officials, the lingering
question is whether leaders or followers can or do think rationally
about such an issue. Did "codes of honor" inhibit men like Hitler
and Stalin? Chirot and McCauley reply that genocidal followers
typically think less fanatically than leaders. Farsighted policies of
engagement can thus stem genocide from the bottom up rather than the
top down. "Those who want to set forest fires," the authors write in
a rare punchy image, "will always be around, but if they have less
material to work with, they are more likely to fail."

For all that, they warn, "no single method seems to us to offer a
comprehensive solution." They also state bluntly that the world has
been retribalized on a very large scale" in the 21st century, and, as
a result: "The future holds more genocidal episodes. …Today’s world
seems poised for a whole new set of massacres, perhaps religiously
based, that will combine the horrors of 20th-century, state-sponsored
killing with the faith-based ideological intolerance of the great wars
of religion that bloodied many parts of the world in earlier eras."

Few university-press books organize a topic so persuasively that, in
a just world, they should contribute to the founding of a discipline,
or at least a staple course. Why Not Kill Them All? does just that.

As the children of foreign elites attend our universities, the thought
that they might read this book, or take such a course, comforts. It
does not completely reassure.

Chirot and McCauley offer important wisdom — that is, when you
think about mass murder rationally. But such conversations outside
the academy are few. The ones we know, such as Wannsee, didn’t quite
resemble a pro-and-con Ivy League seminar.

"Can’t we all just keep talking?" Rodney King might ask. Only if
the would-be mass murderers — the Ahmadinejads and Hus and Hassan
al-Bashirs — let us.

Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle and literary critic
for The Philadelphia Inquirer, teaches philosophy and media theory
at the University of Pennsylvania.

U. ARIZONA PROFESSOR ACQUITTED OF CHARGES IN TURKEY
By Natasha Bhuyan, Arizona Daily Wildcat; SOURCE: U. Arizona

Arizona Daily Wildcat, Univ. of Arizona
September 22, 2006 Friday

In a move hailed as a victory for freedom of speech, a Turkish court
acquitted Elif Shafak, a University of Arizona assistant professor in
Near Eastern Studies, saying there was no evidence that she "insulted
Turkishness" in one of her novels, according to the Associated Press.

UA Provost George Davis said he felt tremendous relief about the
decision.

"It’s joyful that this is happening," Davis said. "I wrote letters
(to the Turkish government) to underscore the importance of extending
to her the kind of freedom of expression and living that we want
everyone to possess."

The trial ended 1 1/2 hours after it began, with Judge Irfan Adil
ruling that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Shafak
committed a crime.

Shafak, 35, gave birth to a girl, Sehrazat Zelda, on Saturday and did
not attend the trial as she was still in a hospital in Istanbul. If
convicted, Shafak could have faced three years in prison.

Armenian characters in Shafak’s novel, "The Bastard of Istanbul,"
refer to Turkish butchers who were part of the Armenian genocide in
1915. The massacre of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during World
War I is a taboo topic in Turkey.

Shafak was charged under Article 301, which makes public denigration
of Turkishness, the Turkish Republic, the Grand National Assembly,
the government, judiciary, military and security services a crime,
according to the Associated Press.

Shafak’s trial gained international attention, with more than 300
riot police surrounding yesterday’s hearing. The trial came at an
important time for the country, which is under evaluation to join
the European Union.

The EU has warned Turkey that putting writers and journalists on
trial for their speech could hamper its efforts to join the bloc,
according to the Associated Press.

Although Turkey is already a democracy, it’s a country in the process
of developing increased citizen-participation in the government,
said Amy Newhall, director of the Middle East Studies Association
and senior lecturer in Near Eastern Studies.

Whether or not the "insulting Turkishness" law will be changed is up
to the Turkish people, Newhall said.

"Like this country, Turkey has a wide range of opinions, including
extreme conservative," Newhall said. "Some people see danger in
creative expression."

Anne Betteridge, director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies,
said the trial had a "wonderful outcome" due in part to support from
the community.

Leaders from UA departments wrote several letters in support of
Shafak. The departments included English, Journalism, Middle Eastern
Studies, and even a letter from provost Davis on behalf of the entire
university.

Shafak believed the letters would make an enormous difference,
Betteridge said.

Fenton Johnson, an associate professor of English who led a
letter-writing campaign, said this is evidence that the community
can influence international situations and encourage more people to
become involved.

"At a time when there’s a lot of apathy about such things, this shows
such campaigns do have an impact," Johnson said.

Davis, who has traveled to Turkey, said although people criticize
aspects of higher education in America such as faculty tenure, it is
important to have academic freedom.

"Faculty can not be reckless, but they need to explore topics that
are sensitive politically, culturally," Davis said. "They are an
appropriate part of discourse."

Betteridge said Shafak will return to the UA in fall 2007.

Newhall, who was part of the hiring committee that selected Shafak,
said although Shafak views Turkish history in a realistic way, she
cares deeply about her country.

"Her activism is bound up in her love of her country," Newhall said.

"She is critical of her country, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t
love it."

OPINIONS: TURKEY’S CHRONIC HEADACHE
Yavuz Baydar

The New Anatolian, Turkey
22 September 2006

After all, it all comes down to free speech. When I met Chief
Negotiator Ali Babacan at an international meeting Friday, Sep 15,
it was evident: as soon as he stopped his deliberation before the
guests, the first question asked was about Elif Shafak case and what
the government would to amend or lift the infamous article 301 of
Turkish Penal Code.

Babacan, politely as he has always been, told us that the government
had no such plan to touch 301 and came up with the only possible
argument: that we should wait and see the course all the cases invoked
upon 301 would lead to.

He seemed to mean that no precedent by a verdict from High Court was
established yet. He added, to be cautious, that changes were possible
in the future if needed.

For those in the audience, those who know about how far the case of
Hrant Dink, editor of Agos – daily of the Armenian minority – these
remarks were not convincing at all.

It seemed as if the chief negotiator was unaware of the seriousness
of the matter. After all, politics and human rights are not his
real playground.

Many shook their heads in grave disbelief.

As we continued to gather in a one-day meeting – fourth Bosphorus
Conference – the overwhelming view expressed privately by the eminent
guests were that, regarding the complexities of Cyprus case as a
strong enough stumbling block for the Turkish accession, the most
clever and facile path Ankara should take to make things easier would
be to revise Article 301 urgently.

Such a move, argued those who wanted to see at least some "progress"
for Turkey before the year ended, would certainly disarm the skepticals
and give the Commission fuel for further moves in Turkey’s favor.

***

Would the government change its mind and set about to deal with 301?

It is rather evident, that, if it does not, it will yet again squeeze
itself in a corner.

High Court of Appeals (Yargýtay) issued the detailed final verdict
days ago on Dink case, which ended with Dink being sentenced to six
months in prison.

Nine judges had taken part in the voting and seven of them agreed that
"Critique may be hard, but slander or libel can not be tolerated. Hrant
Dink, in a masterful style, humiliated Turkishness."

Although two judges (one of them being the chairman) made clear in
their dissent, that the spirit of new laws in accord with the norms of
EU was not comprehended, the inevitability of the right to criticize
was not reflected (in the verdict); that the lower court did not take
into consideration ECHR precedents.

Two judges also emphasize that "There is still fear for expressing
thought of dissent in Turkey. No opinion, which has been tried
and sent to jail dies. On the contrary, such opinion finds other
supporters. One should know that dissent can not be prevented by
creating fear for punishment."

Fine conclusion, indeed, but in clear minority.

***

What, then, stops the government to deal with Article 301?

After all, the parliament is now convened under extraordinary
circumstances, only to pass further laws of reform.

What is at stake here?

As Dink case is finalized and as Elif Shafak case becomes the focus
for global attention, what you see in behaviour amongst the ranks of
AK Party deputies could be defined by certain motives:

First of all, you have the ignorance about what Free Speech
means in a democracy. For many deputies, the difficulty lies in
between distinguishing libel/slander and criticism; between fact and
fiction. (It is clear, regarding Shafak case, that, for some attorneys
fiction must also be punished!) For others, it simply does not have
a priority amongst the issues.

And for those who are now dealing with the upcoming elections, this
issue is not a "winner"; for electoral support.

The element that adds salt to the wound is the attitude of the main
opposition, CHP, which made it clear that it will not be supporting
any move to amend 301.

A deputy of CHP, Orhan Eraslan, member of the justice commission of
the parliament, said "301 is not wrong. It should not change. It is
not only a need, it is also a necessity. If we want to remain as a
nation and state, it should remain."

Depressing view for those who see a clash ahead with the EU and ECHR.

Surprising? I doubt it. Recently a colleague told me, that he had
coincidentally met lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz at a holiday resort, who
organises violent demonstrations in and around free speech cases. At
one point he asked him what party he should vote for.

"CHP," he answered, without hesitation.

***

What should or could be done, then?

If the government means still serious business with the EU Commission,
it is of great importance that it deals boldly with the matter, as
it dealt with some issues in agriculture and bureacracy, before the
Progress Report is discussed in the EU.

As a primary move, the government could, through the Ministry of
Justice, ask prosecutors to drop all cases related with articles 301
and 288. Further, the ministry should, with the participation of the
Chief Negotiator, gather representatives of the judiciary and clearly
explain them that both the prosecutors and the judges should take
all the international legal treaties, human rights agreements and
ECHR precedents into consideration, and decide accordingly.

Secondly, the Turkish Government should present a bill to the
Parliament, that at least abolishes imprisonment for those who
"breach" articles as 310 and 288, and instead puts symbolic fines;
as it is in some "sensitive" cases throughout EU.

This, to gain time in order to revise all articles that in one way
or another, relates to articles on the free speech territory.

This will mean good intentions both to the domestic scene and EU.

The AK Party government should make itself clear, that unless it
reforms such articles, it will be causing " in the long run" great
damage to democracy.

CHP, perhaps not surprisingly, thrown the towel to the ring, and
declared that "enough is enough" for EU reforms, by its leader.

Who will, then, lead Turkey into EU, other than AK Party?

Without a leadership, the project of EU membership is doomed.

Turkey’s EU path must be irreversible.

But, where is the leadership?

–Boundary_(ID_COnJlNODPBKkU+ZC5SGZnQ )–

CIA WORLD FACTBOOK: ARMENIA

CIA World Factbook
September 22, 2006

Armenia

Current as of 5/22/2006

President — Robert KOCHARIAN

Prime Minister — Andranik MARGARYAN

Min. Chief of Staff of the Cabinet — Manuk TOPUZYAN

Min. of Agriculture — Davit LOKYAN

Min. of Culture and Youth — Hasmik POGHOSIAN

Min. of Defense — Serzh SARGSYAN

Min. of Education and Science — Levon MKRTCHYAN

Min. of Energy — Armen MOVSISYAN

Min. of Environmental Protection — Vardan AYVAZYAN

Min. of Finance and Economy — Vardan KHACHATRYAN

Min. of Foreign Affairs — Vartan OSKANIAN

Min. of Health — Norayr DAVIDYAN

Min. of Justice — David HARUTYUNYAN

Min. of Labor and Social Issues — Aghvan VARDANYAN

Min. of Territorial Administration — Hovik ABRAHAMYAN

Min. of Trade and Economic Development — Karen TCHSHMARITYAN

Min. of Transport and Communication — Andranik MANUKYAN

Min. of Urban Planning — Aram HARUTYUNYAN

Chmn., National Bank — Tigran SARGSYAN

Ambassador to the US — Tatoul MARKARIAN

Permanent Representative to the UN, New York — Armen MARTIROSYAN.

TURKISH FM AT UN: "NK CONFLICT MUST BE RESOLVED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AZERBAIJAN"

Today, Azerbaijan
/Turkish Daily News/
Sept 24 2006

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul pressed for a seat on the U.N. Security
Council, saying it was "long overdue" and warranted given Turkey’s
front-line role in securing peace in Lebanon.

It was a position likely to be disputed by longtime rival Greece,
and by the Greek-Cypriot administered southern Cyprus.

Gul’s call before the U.N. General Assembly comes as Turkey has stepped
up its profile in international politics. Turkey was the first Muslim
country to commit troops to a U.N. peacekeeping force being deployed
in Lebanon as part of a cease-fire agreement that ended a monthlong
war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.

"From the very start, Turkey has followed an active diplomacy, and
took its place at the forefront of the international efforts to end
the bloodshed," Gul said. "We believe that, in the spirit of equitable
rotation, our turn to be represented is long overdue."

Echoing comments by other delegations, Gul said the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict is the center of the problems in the Middle East, and called
for a revival of the peace process in the region.

Gul indicated that Turkey supports the U.N. Security Council’s
resolution No. 1701. "Despite some ongoing problems, the resolution
is a positive step for regional peace and stability," said the Turkish
foreign minister.

"Progress toward peace in the Middle East will have a positive impact
on other global problems," noted Gul.

He stressed that the Iraq issue is very important. "There is an urgent
need to establish an Iraq where ethnic warfare is over and democracy
is erected," said Gul.

Gul stated that terrorism continues to claim the lives of innocent
people in the world. "Turkey has no tolerance for applying double
standards in the fight against terrorism," commented Gul.

Referring to the Caucasus, Gul stated that the problem of Nagorno
Karabakh must be resolved within the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan.

Gul reiterated that Turkey will continue to assist the political
process and rebuilding of Afghanistan.

Gul’s comments reflect Turkey’s desire to raise its international
profile as it strives to join the European Union — a process that
has met with resistance from a number of EU members, in large part
over Turkey’s human rights record.

Turkey opened membership talks in October 2005, but its refusal to
recognize EU-member southern Cyprus or open its ports to Greek Cypriot
ships and airplanes has also led to speculation that the European
Commission, the EU’s executive body, could recommend suspending
membership negotiations.

The main point of contention is Ankara’s unwillingness to implement
a Turkey-EU customs agreement that requires it to open Turkish ports
to southern Cyprus — which would imply recognition by Turkey of the
Greek Cypriot-led government of Cyprus. The customs requirement is
part of a deal on the free exchange of goods with all EU members.

Defending the government’s position on Cyprus, Gul said Turkey’s
January proposal for the lifting of all trade restrictions "remained
on the table."

Cyprus has been divided between a Greek Cypriot south and a
Turkish-Cypriot north since 1974, when Turkey intervened in the island
after an Athens-backed coup by supporters of union with Greece.

But Gul also protested that the isolation of Turkish Cypriots is
unfair, arguing that "in this day and age, living under unjustly
imposed restrictions defies all reason."

Gul indicated that "the Turkish Cypriots voted for the Annan Plan in
the island. Turkish Cypriots expect a solution within the framework
of the Annan plan in order to bring lasting and comprehensive solution
in the island. It is high time for the Turkish Cypriots to unite with
global economy."

Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos said Wednesday that the
tiniest EU member wants Turkey to become a European democracy, but
will insist that Ankara first deliver on its promise to the European
Union and recognize southern Cyprus.

Speaking shortly after Gul, the foreign minister of Greece expressed
regret that the Cyprus problem remained unresolved.

"Our goal remains an agreed solution between the two communities,
without arbitration and tight timetables, which will be approved
subsequently by referenda," Dora Bakoyannis said.

Pressing Turkey’s case for the Security Council seat, Gul said his
country was "emerging as a major donor country" and called it an
"anomaly" that it had not served on the council since 1961.

He mentioned initiatives such as the "Alliance of Civilizations" in
which Turkey has participated in an effort to promote intercultural
understanding and correct a "rift in cultural perceptions" surrounding
events in the Middle East. The Alliance is a U.N.-sponsored group
that promotes understanding between Western and Islamic states.

"Having consolidated our place among the largest economies of the
world, we want to enrich and improve our relations with the more
distant regions," which include Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean,
East Asia and the Pacific," Gul said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BBC News
Sept 22 2006

Writer’s trial a key moment for Turkey
By Sarah Rainsford
BBC News, Istanbul

Elif Shafak has called for a change in the law
Turkish police were on duty outside Beyoglu court from early morning.

Riot police lined up at the main gates complete with plastic shields
and gas masks.

The courtroom itself was sectioned off behind a row of tall temporary
fencing.

High security, for the trial of a novelist.

Elif Shafak stood accused of "insulting Turkishness". The charge
related to her latest novel The Bastard of Istanbul.

The novel centres on two families – one Turkish, one Armenian – and
includes discussion of the mass killing of Armenians in the dying
days of the Ottoman Empire.

Armenia insists Turkey recognise that as genocide.

Empathy

The author says her novel examines issues of memory and amnesia.

She had hoped it might promote empathy between nations.

If Article 301 will be interpreted in this way, nobody can write
novels in Turkey anymore – no-one can make movies any more

Novelist Elif Shafak

Turks welcome verdict
Instead she was charged under Article 301 of the penal code – which
holds a possible prison sentence of three years.

"In our culture no-one can brand their ancestors murderers or accuse
them of genocide," Kemal Kerincsiz insisted ahead of the trial.

He is one of the nationalist lawyers who filed the initial complaint
against the novel.

"Maybe in the West they’re more tolerant, but here we can’t accept
those comments as criticism."

In the passages singled out by the lawyers as insulting, Armenian
characters refer to the Turks as butchers and as ignorant – they talk
of massacre and deportation.

The nationalists called that dangerous propaganda.

‘Relieved’

Elif Shafak gave birth at the weekend, so she was not in court to
defend herself.

In the event, her testimony was not required.

Scuffles broke out outside the court
The trial was over in less than 40 minutes – the judge acquitted the
writer in her absence, and threw the case out of court.

"I just talked to Elif on the phone – she was so happy and relieved,"
her husband Eyup told journalists immediately after the hearing.

But the nationalist lawyers did not stay around to hear the verdict.

They stormed out of court, shouting that the judge was working under
political pressure.

"It was obvious he was going to acquit Shafak," one of the group
fumed in the car park.

"He didn’t even listen to the accused or the complainant. The judge’s
ruling is predictable – so we have pulled out."

As the nationalists emerged, they came face to face with left-wing
supporters of Elif Shafak and free speech.

"We stand shoulder to shoulder against fascism," a crowd of around 50
people shouted, amid short spontaneous busts of applause.

Riot police ran in, as a shouting match quickly descended into
scuffles.

Warning

Elif Safak is the latest in a long line of Turkish writers to go on
trial here.

The Armenian issue has been at the heart of many cases.

Others have focused on insults to the military, the judiciary or to
the founder of modern Turkey.

This is the first time an author has been accused of insult in a work
of fiction.

"If Article 301 will be interpreted in this way nobody can write
novels in Turkey anymore, no-one can make movies any more," Elif
Safak warned, shortly before her case came to court.

"Then the words of a character could be used as evidence against the
author or the film director. So I think it is extremely important to
defend the autonomy of art and of literature."

EU observers who were at the trial welcomed the acquittal as the
right decision – but called on the government to go further now, and
abolish Article 301 altogether.

EU test

Turkey faces a highly critical progress report from the EU in
November, with a crisis looming over the divided island of Cyprus in
particular.

We do not deserve this law

Elif Safak
So writers’ trials like this one have become symbolic of Turkey’s
commitment to the membership process itself.

"The Turkish government has a majority in parliament. This is an
issue where they could act," MEP Joost Lagendijk said after the trial
in Istanbul.

"If they don’t, it makes it much harder to find a compromise on
Cyprus as well.

"So this has an influence much wider than only freedom of speech.

"It can influence the negotiation process positively if something
happens, and negatively if nothing does."

Pressure for change

The case against Elif Shafak may well mark a turning point.

Perhaps prompted by the apparent absurdity of a trial for a work of
fiction, Turkey’s prime minister gave his first ever hint on Thursday
that some kind of change to the law might be possible.

Pressure for change is mounting steadily here at home now, as well as
in Brussels.

"Many people warned the government that Article 301 would cause
problems, but they turned a blind eye.

"Now it’s a major stumbling block to our EU entry," Elif Safak
explained, frustrated.

"But even more important than that – we do not deserve this law.

"This is not the law that should be applied to our own citizens and
we need to do something about it.

"The question is does the government have the will or the courage to
take that step?"

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress