Month: October 2006

Debates over Headscarf and Genocide

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006

[COMMENTARY]
by Herkul Millas

This week, I had actually wanted to write an article on the damage
inflicted upon the scientific sphere by Article 301, which restricts
the freedom of speech.

However, I thought it more appropriate to tackle that topic some
other time, and decided to write about France when the law passed
recently became a more urgent issue.

The prohibitory law of France is more important; because it involves
more than one country (France, Turkey, and Armenia) and carries the
potential danger of engulfing the whole EU. At least Article 301 is
not "expansionist" by nature.

I have not been able to digest France’s action; and still worse, I
have a hard time understanding it. This seems to be a big problem;
speaking out against injustice while being haunted by inability to
take any action doesn’t mean anything. Disliking or criticizing
something when we are also not right could both be parts of the same
picture. On the other hand, "understanding" is a totally different
concept. Opposing the other party only after understanding its aim is
far more consistent and safer. Reacting after having a full grasp of
the problem, should not be as a result of a moment of rashness
triggered only by sentiments.

What I mean by "understanding" is knowing what sort of thought system
and belief an attitude stems from. The influence of the Armenian
lobby, the base strategy of getting more votes from a small segment
of the society and its desire to prevent Turkey from getting closer
to the EU could all be explanations to a certain degree; but they are
far from being adequate. How can mighty France be too blind to see
that it has struck a sharp blow at the most basic principle of human
rights? This is the France where "The Declaration of the Human
Rights" was issued in 1789. Article 10 talks of a right that "No one
may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as
long a the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the
established Law and Order." Liberty and independence have long been
the national symbols of this country. How can those who claim to be
proud of Voltaire criminalize a different view?

——————————————- ————————————-
France Behaved Shamefully

When we look at France’s past actions and compare them with those of
other European countries, like England, we seem to find some clues
that will deepen our understanding. The French nation-state came to
existence as a result of an extremely bloody revolution, not a
compromise, and the killing of innumerous people was justified on the
bases of a "sublime" ideal and a series of "truth." This positivist
understanding and limitless self-confidence became the dominant
elements in the model of the French nation-state. The truths welcomed
by the nation acquired claims to a sort of universality. On the other
hand, the truths of Parliament were recognized as those welcomed by
the "abstract" nation. The varieties, the marginal sections and the
minorities got lost in this vicious circle. "Citizenship" was
perceived as the general truth that should be followed by everyone,
and opposing the truths was perceived as opposition to the "nation."

Recently, it has been frequently said that the headscarf ban at
schools and public domain became more widespread because of this
understanding. (We have not forgotten those who hailed France’s
prohibitive practices at that time.) Some proudly said that Turkey
emulates France and its state model within the context of secularism.

Now, we have seen and experienced the outcomes of this model. We are
watching similar practices both in France and Turkey at the same time
in a particularly interesting conjuncture. The headscarf issue is a
problem in both countries, freedom of expression too. Both of them
have resorted to a forbidden practice with the "state legitimacy"
discourse. The contradiction between the two countries is not in
understanding but in the aim. There is a consensus on the headscarf
issue at the state level now. However, there is seemingly a
difference of opinion over the genocide issue: One side says there
was no genocide while the other says the opposite. Both opinions are
the same when evaluated from the point of view of social life: They
consider different views an offense and specify punishments.

———————————— ——————————————–
What headscarf prohibiters don’t see

Punishing those who deny genocides, was first regarded as a sign of
respect for the victims. Respect, without any doubt, is a good thing
and no one is against it. But, when should a different view be
considered a crime and when shouldn’t it? The important thing is not
whether or not an event is considered genocide, but being able to
express our views explicitly and fearlessly on any issue and not
being jailed or threatened when we express them. Because, if the list
of events we should "respect" increases tomorrow, new laws may be
enacted. So, we may end up living in a fascist environment with a
long list in our pockets of only the things we can to say.

What I have at least begun to see is: In both countries, a group of
people, who know what’s "true" and "real" and constitute the
majority, either ignore or try to suppress diversity, pluralism,
small groups and the weak. The results of the debates over the
headscarf and "genocide" issues are evidence of this. Those who
oppose this approach are a small but struggling minority in both
countries. From this viewpoint, the conflict is not between France
and Turkey but between these two different approaches. Those who
silence individuals in Turkey by means of Article 301, and those who
put a gag order on people in France with a threat of sentencing them
to jail, are not in conflict in terms of human principles but only
agree to disagree on various fields. They are not against compulsion
but are only trying to impose their own truths on a similar
mentality.

If those who criticize the new bill in France dispraise it not
because it bans diversity but because "it supports a wrong
interpretation of history," they are acting in the same way as
France. This is the same for those who oppose the ban on headscarves.

Those who oppose this ban not because this practice is against human
rights but because a "right" choice is not implemented are also
acting in the same way since they will try to implement their own
"truths" at any given opportunity. In other words, defending our own
truths may differ from defending principles for all.

If we look at the issue from this perspective, we can determine who’s
friend or foe correctly. The implementers of Article 301 and those
restricting the freedom of expression in France are the same, and are
harbingers of a dangerous future. European Commission President
Jose-Manuel Barroso, European Union Enlargement Commissioner Olli
Rehn, Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission Co-chair Joost
Lagendijk and Turkey rapporteur Camile Eurlings, and thousands of
European individuals, are closest to those who oppose the bans in
Turkey. This is a human rights struggle; it is not a struggle among
nations.

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA REPRESENTATIVES AND U. S. LAWMAKERS
DISCUSS U. S. – ARMENIA RELATIONS

DeFacto, Armenia
Oct 19 2006

With Congress in recess until after the November elections, the
Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) stepped up its advocacy efforts,
meeting with several lawmakers to promote Armenian-American concerns.

According to the information DE FACTO Information-Analytics Agency
received at the AAA, Board of Trustees Executive Committee Member
Annie Totah, along with Assembly Executive Director Bryan Ardouny,
met with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) to discuss the U.S.-Armenia
relationship as well as key issues such as reaffirmation of the
Armenian Genocide. Cantwell, who is serving her first term in office,
is a cosponsor of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S. Res. 320).

Totah and Ardouny also met with Armenian Caucus Member Representative
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), an avid supporter of Armenian issues including
the South Caucasus Integration and Open Railroads Act (H.R.

3361) and the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H. Res. 316). This past
summer Maloney spearheaded a letter to the European Union expressing
concern regarding Turkey’s ongoing denial of the Armenian Genocide.

In her letter, Maloney urged the European Commission to consider
Turkey’s stance on the Armenian Genocide and the ongoing blockade,
which impairs the regional stability of the South Caucasus in
consideration of its membership into the European Union. Maloney is
a Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee as well as a member
of the Financial Services and Government Reform Committees and serves
as a co-chair of the Hellenic Caucus. Totah and Ardouny thanked the
Congresswoman for her strong support of the Armenian community.

Additionally, Totah and Ardouny met with Armenian Caucus Members
Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Edward Royce (R-CA)
and thanked the Representatives for their support of H.R. 3361, a
bill prohibiting U.S. funding for a rail link that connects Baku,
Azerbaijan; Tbilisi, Georgia; and Kars, Turkey while bypassing
Armenia. They also commended the lawmakers for sponsoring an
amendment ensuring that no Export-Import money is spent on efforts
that would isolate Armenia from economic and regional transportation
opportunities. A similar amendment was adopted by the Senate Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee with strong Assembly support.

"We thank Senator Cantwell for her receptiveness to the concerns of
the Armenian-American community, and we look forward to working with
her and her staff in promoting Armenian concerns," said Totah.

"Additionally, we thank Representatives Crowley, Maloney, Royce and
Sherman for their continued support and work on the federal level
for the Armenian community."

OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs to Hold Consultations

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Oct 19 2006

Source: Trend
Author: E.Huseynov

19.10.2006

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group for the peaceful settlement
of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict intend to hold consultations in Paris,
the Russian co-chair of Minsk Group, Yuri Merzlyakov exclusively
told Trend.

The consultations will take place on 23 October in Paris on the eve
of the next round of the negotiations between the Foreign Ministers
of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mammadyarov, and Armenia Vardan Oskanyan. In
addition, the mediators will conduct consultations regarding the
results of the meeting of the Ministers.

Commenting of the proposal of the personal envoy of OSCE
Chairman-in-Office, Andzey Kasprzyk, to organize the meeting of the
Defense Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Merzlyakov stressed that
this initiative was made as a confidence-building measure between the
two sides. The matter was discussed at the meeting of the Foreign
Ministers, but the final decision will be made by Kasprzyk, the
Diplomat underlined.

Article 301 will Prevent a Train Wreck

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006

ABDULHAMIT BILICI
10.19.2006 Thursday – ISTANBUL 20:57

On the evening of the Troika meeting in Luxembourg, I was watching
television in Le Royal Hotel where the Turkish delegation was
staying. France’s latest undertaking was being discussed in a program
joined by four journalists.

The point that caught my attention was the effort of the Le Monde
writer, who was defending the French parliament’s decision to
criminalize the denial of the alleged Armenian genocide, to mention
Turkey’s Article 301 whenever he was trapped. The words of the
journalist, whose views on this subject were contrary to those of his
own newspaper, were summed up as follows: We may be limiting thought,
but we want those who reject a crime against humanity to be punished.

Turkey, who is trying to teach us about freedom, punishes those who
talk about the genocide. There’s no difference between us in regards
to putting limits on thought. Moreover, we are doing this as a moral
obligation.

The fact that the journalists, who previously thought Turkey was
right, could not find anything to say after this attack seemed very
meaningful to me. In the discussion an Arab and Muslim journalist,
whom in some circles in Turkey can’t tolerate, defended Turkey,
but that’s another story.

The program was very educational in respect to showing how important
it is to take Article 301 away from the hands of Turkey’s opponents
in Europe. Today our strongest argument against France is the
prohibition of thought in a country that is identified with freedom of
thought. However, the existence of Article 301, with its sensational
applications, unfortunately weakens the argument.

Moreover, no matter how much we say that anything can be discussed
in Turkey and conferences on the genocide claim are even being held,
from the outside Turkey is seen as a country with prisons full of
journalists and intellectuals, as Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
has said.

Another interesting point was a claim made the next day by diplomats I
spoke with in the context of the Troyka meeting that it was necessary
for similar reasons to resolve the Article 301 issue as soon as
possible. According to them, changes to be made in Article 301 are
very significant in order to avoid a train wreck with the European
Union. The scenario in the minds of these people who are constantly
struggling on this issue with their peers is as follows: The contents
of the progress report to be announced by the Commission on Nov. 8
are vital. Under current conditions there are three alternatives,
ranging from good to bad:

The first improbable alternative is that the parties involved in the
Cyprus dispute agree within the framework of Finland’s proposal and
the Commission recommends continuation of negotiations in its report.

The second alternative is that due to Turkey’s refusal to open its
ports to the Greeks, the report will recommend the suspension of some
negotiation topics related to the free circulation of goods until
Turkey fulfills its responsibilities.

The third alternative is a recommendation by the Commission for
full suspension of negotiations in the case that Turkish ports
aren’t opened.

The first alternative is ideal. The second doesn’t look too bad with
a postponement of a solution to the Cyprus issue and a continuation
of negotiations for some time. The worst alternative, which can be
termed a train wreck, is the third. Consequently, the third alternative
must somehow be prevented. It is believed that this can be done only
if Turkey has done its part on the subject of political reforms,
with Article 301 in particular. Actually, even if the Commission
doesn’t make such a recommendation, members have the right to curtail
negotiations. However, for this to happen, at least nine countries
must say yes, and no one sees it as probable that the Greeks can
muster this number.

According to diplomatic calculations, completion of political reforms
will be beneficial in two ways: It will both increase Turkey’s
strength to resist pressure on the Cyprus issue and strengthen the
hands of countries supporting Turkey. Of course, the only barrier in
front of these results is pressure from the calendar. In other words,
if amendments are going to be made to Article 301, it is important
to do it before Nov. 8.

The problems arising from Article 301 itself, which has become a
symbol, or its implementation don’t only make the European Union
uncomfortable. Gul said, "This doesn’t become Turkey and it shows our
country as more backward than it is." For this reason, when he said
in Luxembourg that Turkey wouldn’t make the same mistake as France,
which is being perceived as a promise, it makes his audience more
comfortable. In this case, what’s left is to explain this equation
to Turkey. What do you say, is it an easy matter?

Head of Turkish Consumers’ Federation: Boycott L’Oreal this week

Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 19 2006

The head of the Turkish Consumers’ Federation, Bulent Deniz, has
announced that the French cosmetics brand "L’Oreal" is to be the
focus of this coming week’s boycott against French brands in general
by his group.

Following the French Parliament’s decision to approve a bill calling
for jail time and monetary fines for people publicly denying the
so-called Armenian genocide, the Turkish Consumer’s Federation
announced the start up of a boycott campaign which would target a
different French brand every week. This past week has seen a boycott
of all "Total" products, with a reported 30% drop in sales due to
the boycott.

Items produced under the L’Oreal label include Biotherm, Cacherel,
Garnier, Giorgio Armani, Inneov, Kerastase, Lancome, Matrix,
Maybelline, Ralph Lauren, and Vichy products.

According to a statement from Deniz, L’Oreal has been selling in Turkey
since 1989, and has increased its sales volume across the country 45%
in the past 5 years.

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Oct 19 2006

Azeri Culture Ministry to Hold "Karabakh Will not be Forgotten"
Cultural Week

Source: Trend
Author: S.Agayeva

19.10.2006

>>From 25 – 31 October, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Culture & Tourism
will hold a republic cultural-political action Cultural Week under
the slogan "Karabakh will not be forgotten", Trend reports quoting
the same Ministry.

The event is aimed at increasing the patriotism of the youths and
spreading the Karabakh issue.

The Event’s program will include theatrical performances, exhibitions
and book fairs in Baku, Ganja and other large cities and districts
of Azerbaijan. In addition, performances by the children’s musical
districts and tours of Shusha State Dramatic Theatre, State Theatre
of Young Audience and Pantomime Theatre to the military units will
also take place.

ISTANBUL – Turkish Daily News

DYP protests against France
Thursday, October 19, 2006

The opposition True Path Party’s (DYP) Istanbul branch protested
yesterday against the approval by the French National Assembly of a
bill that makes denial of the alleged Armenian genocide a crime.

Nearly 50 DYP members who gathered in Taksim Square unfurled a huge
Turkish flag and marched to the French Consulate General on Ýstiklâl
Avenue. After performing the Turkish national anthem, DYP Istanbul
Province Chairman Faik Ýcmeli made a speech and said: "This bill,
which ignores freedom of thought and expression, shows France’s
double standards. We condemn France’s attitude. If this decision is
not rectified, France will suffer from it."

The protest took place amid tight security measures and ended after the
group members laid a black wreath in front of the consulate general.

–Boundary_(ID_+nGLDMNcbd4Oustrjx99fA)–

Turkish Daily News
Oct 19 2006

>>From the columns
Thursday, October 19, 2006

Who will forgive whom?:

Bugun, Gulay Gokturk: Orhan Pamuk’s task is really difficult. So
many are dictating what he should say at the Nobel Prize ceremony.

The minute the news of the Nobel came in, many started writing draft
speeches. These mentors said, "Make a statement condemning France’s
genocide denial bill." Some said it would be appropriate for him to
go to France at once and have himself arrested. Following that, a
race to craft the best phrases to say at the ceremony began. If he
said one thing, he would make peace with the people of Turkey, or
perhaps instead he’d better say something else. He was assigned a
wide range of missions, from stating support for Turkey’s European
Union membership bid to proving how wonderful Turkish democracy
actually is. Some said that while the opportunity exists, they
expected him to say that he opposes U.S. policy in Iraq. Those who
demanded he turn down the prize are another story. What is being done
here is, in its simplest form, disrespect. It is disrespectful to
write a sentence for a great writer and try to make him read it. It
is as if we won the prize together. As if it was not given to Orhan
Pamuk. As if he will be representing Turkey on that podium and is
obligated to say what we’d like him to. We have a Nobel-winning
author and we think we can exploit his fame as we wish and make him
send the messages we want. As if the Nobel was won through the joint
efforts of a team. The reality is very different. Turkey was never on
the same team as Pamuk. Not simply without us, he earned this prize
in spite of us. Our state tried him, our intellectuals took every
opportunity to demoralize him, to find fault with and destroy him.

Our people were, in general, indifferent to this lynching attempt.

And now do we have the ability to talk about "forgiving," about
"compensating for a mistake"? Do we have the ability to tell him what
to say at the Nobel ceremony? If this honor is going to be an
instrument for a reconciliation of some sort, it is not us, but Orhan
Pamuk, who should be forgiving.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IDFA Sets ’06 Competition Slate for Annual Amsterdam Doc Festival

Indiewire.com
by Eugene Hernandez
October 19, 2006

Considered the leading international documentary festival, Amsterdam’s 19th
annual IDFA will kick off on November 23rd with Dutch filmmaker Jiska
Rickels’ first feature-length film "4 Elements." The film is one of 18
documentaries set for IDFA’s Joris Ivens Competition, which includes just
two U.S. project this year, Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s "Jesus Camp" and
Andrew Berends’ "When Adnan Comes Home." Also announced is the roster for
the First Appearance competition, which features films by emerging
directors. Three films from the United States are included in the First
Appearance linenup, including Andrew Jenks’ "Andrew Jenks, Room 335,"
Socheata Poeuv’s "New Year Baby," and Mohammed Ali Naqvi’s "Shame." (The
complete lineup for both competitions is included below.)

Opening the International Documetary Film Festival Amsterdam is the poetic
four-part film "4 Elements," described as a, "documentary about man’s
struggle with the primordial elements." In the film she looks at professions
in which the elements — earth, air, fire and water — play a crucial role.
In the words of a festival description, "In Fire, Russian firemen fight
forest fires in Siberia, while in Water, fishermen in Alaska hoist up king
crabs from the Bering Sea. Earth, a shortened version of ‘Untertage’
[Rickels’ student film], follows two German mineworkers as they go about
their business. In Air, which concludes the tetralogy, cosmonauts and
astronauts prepare their launch of the International Space Station."

Other IFDA plans include a showcase of work from China and doc director Alan
Berliner presenting ten favorites at this year’s festival, while the event
will also screen a number of his films. The festival will continue through
December 3rd in the Dutch city, while the IDFA Forum, the largest
international documentary co-financing market, will run from November 27 –
29 during the festival.

IDFA feature competition lineups follow:

Joris Ivens Competition
"4 Elements," directed by Jiska Rickels (The Netherlands)
"9 Star Hotel," directed by Ido Haar (Israel)
"Feet Unbound," directed by Khee-Jin Ng (Australia)
"The Grandmother of Revolution," directed by Petra Seliskar (Slovenia,
Macedonia, Cuba)
"Jesus Camp," directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady (USA)
"Life as a Corporate Holiday," directed by Paolo Muran (Italy)
"The Monastery – Mr. Vig & The Nun," directed by Pernille Rose Grønkjær
"My Father The Turk," directed by Ariane Riecker and Marcus Vetter (Germany)
"The Planet," directed byJohan Söderberg, Michael Stenberg, and Linus
Torell (Sweden, Norway, Denmark)
"Primo Levi’s Journey," directed by Davide Ferrario (Italy)
"The Red Card," directed by Carte Ghermez and Mahnaz Afzali (Iran)
"Satul Sosetelor (Village of Socks)," directed by Klaudia Begic and Ileana
Stanculescu (Germany, Romania)
"Souvenirs," directed by Shahar Cohen and Halil Efrat (Israel)
"A Story of People in War and Peace," directed by Vardan Hovhannisyan
(Armenia)
"Tender’s Heat. Wild Wild Beach," directed by Alexander Rastorguev (Russia)
"Tomorrow Never Knows," directed by Kirsi Nevanti (Finland, Sweden)
"The Value of Utopia," directed by Yanara Guayasamin (Belgium, Ecuador)
"When Adnan Comes Home," directed by Andrew Berends (USA)

First Appearance
"Andrew Jenks, Room 335," directed by Andrew Jenks (USA)
"Can Tunis," directed by José González Morandi and Paco Toledo (Spain)
"Carnival," directed by Alen Drljevic (Bosnia Herzegovina)
"Children Of The Prophet," directed by Sudabeh Mortezai (Iran, Austria)
"The City Of Photographers," directed by Sebastián Moreno (Chile)
"Daguanying," directed by Liu Juexin and Tang Xiaoliang (China)
"Dead Man Walking," directed by Petar Oreskovic (Croatia, Bosnia
Herzegovina, Serbia)
"Demolition Men," directed by Eldar Gross (The Netherlands)
"The End Of The Neubacher Project," directed by Marcus John Carney (Austria,
The Netherlands)
"Every Good Marriage Begins With Tears," directed by Simon Chambers (United
Kingdom)
"Let The Street Be Heard," directed by Itzel Martínez Del Cañizo
"The Lost Village," directed by Manuel Jiménez (Spain)
"New Year Baby," directed by Socheata Poeuv (USA)
"Prirechnyy," directed by Tone Grøttjord (Norway)
"Shame," directed by Mohammed Ali Naqvi (USA)
"Sugartown: The Bridegrooms," directed by Kimon Tsakiris (Greece, Germany)
"We Are Together," directed by Paul Taylor (United Kingdom)
"With Much Love And Kisses," directed by Anastasia Cherkassova (Russia)

–Boundary_(ID_MKNVlY6KYld9gKLs7gQAUw)–

Patriarch voices concern over foundations bill

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Oct 20 2006

The New Anatolian/ Ankara

The Armenian patriarch yesterday sent three letters to top Turkish
officials expressing his concerns about the recent controversial
foundations bill.

Armenian Patriarch in Turkey Mesrob II yesterday sent letters to
Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, expressing his concerns over the
foundations bill, arguing that the bill would exacerbate long-rooted
problems.

Mesrob II, in a letter, also argued that the bill is a violation of
the principle of equality in the Constitution and described it as
technically flawed.

Stating that he has met with state officials on the issue, the
patriarch said they concluded that it would be useful if their opinions
on foundations bill were examined.

In his letter, Mesrob II said that the bill was approved by the
commission and sent to the Parliament floor before they were able to
express their opinions.

Mesrob II said Armenians have no demand other than equal citizenship.

"For this reason the evaluation of our rights within the context of
reciprocity and being treated as foreigners have deeply saddened us,"
wrote Mesrob II.

"We are citizens of this country and we think there is nothing more
natural than expressing our problems to you and the Parliament,"
said Mesrob II, arguing the recent bill is a violation of principle
of equality.

In another letter to President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Mesrob II expressed
his concerns about the private education institutions bill.

The patriarch asked the president to veto a clause in Article 5 of
the bill.

Mesrob II said they welcome the recent legal reforms regarding
religious minorities on the way towards democratization.

The patriarch said the bill on private education institutions also
interests Armenians since the bill covers Armenian schools.

As in his letter to Arinc, Erdogan and Gul, Mesrob II said the
principle of reciprocity shouldn’t be applied in this bill too and
asked the president to veto a clause in Article 5 of the bill.

President Sezer previously vetoed some articles of the bill and sent
it back to Parliament for re-debate.