Month: October 2006

THE ARMENIAN ISSUE IN THE NETHERLANDS: THE REMOVAL OF THE THREE TURKISH-ORIGINATED MPS FROM THE CANDIDACY LIST

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 18 2006

The Armenian issue is nowadays quite popular in Europe. The French
brought legislation to the parliament, placing all the counter
arguments against the so-called Armenian genocide out of bounds. If it
is passed, rejecting the so-called genocide will be penalized either
by casting into prison or imposing substantial fines.

Discussions go on in the Netherlands after the three Turkish
originated MP candidates (Erdin Sacan-labour party, Ayhan Tonca and
Osman Elmaci from Christian democratic party) have been removed from
the candidate list just for not accepting the existence of so-called
Armenian genocide. A similar thing had happened to Derya Bulduk, who
was a candidate from the FDF (Democratic front of the Francophones)
in Belgium.

The two mainstream parties claim that the Netherlands accepted
the so-called Armenian genocide and base their[1][1] claims on the
recommendatory decision on 21 December 2004, recognizing the existence
of the so called genocide.

According to the General Assembly decision of the UN in 1948, genocide
is defined as; killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.

The chair of ISRO, Sedat Laciner (Laciner, 2005) defines genocide
as "the worst crime a human being can ever do", which I completely
agree with. Nevertheless, the ugliness of the case does not give the
right to accuse people without substantiating such arguments on valid
evidences. We need to post a clear difference between widely confused
themes. Being against genocide is one thing, using genocide for some
political ends is another thing. Sometimes we put critical thinking
completely aside and defend democratic values and norms so blindly
that this adherence itself becomes a deficit to democracy.

We have evidences of the Holocaust and see it as among the worst, maybe
the worst case in humanity. But do we really have such proofs regarding
the Armenian issue? What if, the Armenians were not tortured?!

Thousands of people die in Sudan right now, Israel killed thousands
of other just two months before. People died in Rwanda, former
Yugoslavia and many other places for just being a member of a
particular group. Why do we turn blind eyes to all these and are so
much insistent on punishing people denying an unproven case?

The Turkish side has opened all its archives and is very much eager to
form common committees for searching the issue. Turkish PM Erdogan
has underlined the willingness of searching this topic in many
occasions. Despite all these, keeping away from all scientific
enquiries and imposing such a heavy accusation leads to many
suspicions.

The Armenian state does not recognize the Lausanne treaty, on which the
Turkish Republic is grounded. In other words, Armenia does not accept
the current borders of Turkey. The country names the North East part
of Turkey as the West Armenia and makes claims on these territories
in its constitution. Robert Kocaryan, the PM of Armenia, states that
these territorial gains can be done in peaceful manners (Ibid).

Are all these done for the sake of democracy or is the democratic
sensitiveness used for further aims?! It is highly confusing; why
do not we talk about what the Dutch did in Indonesia and Surinam,
French did in Algeria, Spain did in South America if we are so eager
to account for our faults in past ?

Apart from these, the migration policy of the Ottoman Empire is very
irrelevant to the genocide claims. Ottomans failed in providing healthy
conditions during this depart but why should a send all the members
of an ethnicity away if it really aims a genocide? The Nazi rule did
not send the Jews away, but brought the Jewish to its concentration
camps from all around the world.

The Netherlands

A very critical approach is on rise in the Netherlands in particular
and Europe in general. Although it is not very acceptable to
discriminate openly, discrimination becomes legalized when it is
made by reference to "democratic values". For instance, if someone
criticizes Moroccans in some way under the general classification of
Moroccans, s/he will probably be strictly criticized. Nevertheless,
when Fortuyn said that gays were under threat due to the Moroccan gangs
he was very much backed. Similarly, opposing Islam itself will be not
so much welcomed. But people get credit if they manage to hinder such
points of view under the democratic doctrine.

Specifically, the argument of the repression of women under the
Islamic doctrine is in many times welcomed without a slightest
degree of critical thinking. The same thing is valid for the expel
of the Turkish originated candidates. The party leaders are really
appreciated as the guardians of democratic principles!!!

With regard to the decisions of the CDA and the PvdA; has a party
have the right to ask its members to share a common vision on this
topic? Party members have more or less similar positions and it is
quite natural to demand from these people to share a common vision.

For instance, there is no point in defending capitalism in a
highly communist party. Or members of a highly natioanlistic party
will probably not be welcomed if they act against the nationalism
doctrine. The so-called Armenian genocide is just a very slight
issue in those two parties and it is quite natural that their members
can have different opinions on that. All in all, we need different
opinions in democratic systems, also within the party.

The party position can not legitimize removing candidates from a party
list just because they have a point of view on a particular topic;
which is not a central in the party doctrine, open to debate, and
apparently not against the party doctrine. In the EP report, Turkey
is criticized due to the 301th article, which limits the freedom of
expression. It is true, Turkey has to improve its conditions in such
aspects just as the other European states have to.

However, people can be sent to jail or removed from candidacy lists
in the founding member states. This is a shame indeed.

The Armenian lobby is certainly quite effective in the international
field. But I personally do not believe the high influence of an
Armenian lobby in the Dutch society. The so-called Armenian genocide
has become quite trendy (!) in European politics.

Nevertheless some interior political aspects take place, as well.

People still talk the rise of Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Even the most
liberal parties have shifted to an anti immigration perspective
afterwards.

The Dutch Christian Appeal and labour party make some miscalculations
at this point. According to the official givens, 300 thousand Turkish
people live in this country, and many have the Dutch citizenship. A
substantial number of Turkish originated people has the right to vote
in this country. Expelling Turkish candidates will evidently not give
way to support by the Turkish society in this country. It is not a
very well advised stance to annoy such a big proportion just before
the elections.

No doubt however, the Turkish minority in Europe is very less
interested in politics and away from defending their interests in
discussions. The Turkish MPs carry great importance for both their
ethnicities and their residual countries at this point. These people
need to be represented on the parliamentary level as well as many
other aspects of life. Integration of these people and a peaceful
co-existence in this country cannot only be provided by sociological
researches, no matter how successful they are. We need successful
Dutch-Turkish people in politics, academic field, business, sport,
arts, etc.

At this point, it is worth bringing into attention that while cars
were put into fire in France and several other neighbor countries,
the Netherlands was quite still. This was not a coincidence. All
in all, the minority groups in the Dutch society are much better
integrated to the major society in many aspects. However, we do not
have a guarantee that this will be the case forever. The removed MP
candidates do not only carry significance for the Turkish minority,
but are also very much important to the Netherlands. The Dutch
government has gold in its hands indeed. We cannot continue living
within boundaries. Countries need bilinguals in the contemporary world.

Concluding Remarks:

The Dutch society made important progression after the uneasy days
regarding the tension between minority and majority. The Dutch
establishment and society are among the most tolerable people with
their multicultural doctrine. Therefore, it is highly disappointing
that all these occur in this country. The decision of those parties
is rather ill-given in the stressful atmosphere of elections
than representing the Dutch opinion in general. The Netherlands is
geographically little, but there are many other indexes of measuring
how big a country is. A country, sending its soldiers to Uruzgan,
one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan, apparently has some
significant ambitions in the international arena. The Netherlands can
take many initiatives in line with its worldwide positive reputation
rather than just copying what the trends without searching the reality.

References:

Albayrak Nebahat and Timmermans Frans, Zie de Fouten uit het Verleden
onder Ogen, Trouw, 4 October 2006.

De Armenisch-Turksche Kwestie, Algemeen Handelsblad, 25.05.1920. (The
name of the reporter is not given)

Laciner, Sedat. (2004) Turkler ve Ermeniler, ISRO Publciations, 2004.

BILL WILL NOT AFFECT RELATIONS
By Brian Adeba

Embassy Magazine, Canada
Canada’s Foreign Policy Newsweekly
Oct 18 2006

French envoy says a bill making it illegal to deny the Armenian
genocide won’t harm either Turkey’s EU bid, or relations with France.

A new French bill outlawing the denial of mass killings of Armenians
in Turkey in 1915 should not have an impact on Ankara’s efforts to
join the European Union and its relations with France because it is
not an initiative of the French government, says French Ambassador
to Canada Daniel Jouanneau.

Last week, a low turnout of French legislators voted on a bill that
makes it illegal to deny that genocide was committed against Armenians
by the Ottoman Turks in the dying days of the First World War. Though
President Jacques Chirac’s government opposed the legislation, it
did not use its majority in the lower house to vote against it.

The bill was approved by a vote of 106 to 19. Most of the 557
legislators of the lower house boycotted the voting process. The bill
still has to be approved by the Senate and signed by Mr. Chirac before
it becomes law.

"We don’t know what the Senate will decide," says Mr. Jouanneau.

"The question about the possibility of this bill to become law remains
totally open."

Calling the bill "unnecessary and counterproductive," Mr. Jouanneau
says France already has laws against holocaust deniers and intolerance
towards minorities.

Turkey, which contests the notion that it committed genocide against
its Armenian subjects during the last days of the Ottoman empire,
has warned of serious repercussions on relations with France because
of the vote. Mr. Jouanneau says the French government hopes it will
not lead to deterioration in bilateral ties.

"We don’t think it is wise to create political difficulties with
Turkey at a time when Turks themselves are having an introspective
look at their own history," he says.

This month marks the first anniversary of the opening of negotiations
on Turkey’s bid to join the European Union (EU). The passing of the
bill raises fears that it will be used as an excuse to block Turkey
from joining the EU, an idea Mr. Jouanneau dismisses.

"Recognizing the genocide is not an additional condition which we
ask from the Turkish government," he says.

There are an estimated 500,000 French citizens of Armenian descent.

Mr. Jouanneau says they hold considerable political clout in the
country and have contributed immensely to French society. But he adds
that France considers Turkey an important partner in international
affairs, noting that Turkey was one of the first countries France
established diplomatic ties with in the 16th century.

Lavinia Stan, a political scientist who closely follows EU membership
issues, says the question of the Armenian genocide is not likely to
affect talks on Turkey’s bid to join the EU. Matters more likely
to crop up in the talks are concerns over the country’s treatment
of its minorities, especially the Kurds, says Ms. Stan, who is the
director of the Centre for Post Communist Studies at St. Francis
Xavier University in Nova Scotia.

"Other countries like Romania and Slovakia had similar problems with
ethnic minorities, but entered talks with the EU," she says. Slovakia
joined the EU in 2004 and Romania is expected to become a member
early next year.

Aris Babikian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee
of Canada, says the timing of the bill is important because it comes
at a time of growing "intransigence" towards the Armenian genocide
in Turkey.

"Article 301 of the Turkish penal code drags everyone to court who
questions the genocide," he says, adding that many intellectuals
have fallen foul of the penal code for suggesting that genocide was
committed against Armenians.

Last month, a judge in Ankara dropped charges against a writer
accused of insulting "Turkishness." Elif Shafak had written a novel
in which her fictional characters had made unfavourable comments
about the massacre of Armenians. Last a year, a court also dropped
charges against Orhan Pamuk-winner of this year’s Nobel Prize for
literature-for similar charges.

Ms. Stan says it is a sign Turkey is trying to comply with the
requirements of EU membership.

Mr. Babikian says the French bill is inspirational, but for the same
move to be adopted by Canadian parliamentarians, steps should be
taken to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
the constitution.

"We will see how far the French version will go, what will happen in
France, then after that we will think about it," he says.

NDP foreign affairs critic Alexa McDonough says there’s no need to
introduce more laws on genocide in Canada since current legislation
is enough.

"We need to be reinforcing it through dialogue," says Ms. McDonough,
who in 2004 seconded a House of Commons motion recognizing that
genocide was committed against the Armenians.

[email protected]

ymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path =/2006/october/18/turkey/

ARMENIAN BILL NO EXCUSE FOR ARTICLE 301
By Zaman, Istanbul

Sabah, Turkey
Oct 18 2006

Hansjorg Kretschmer, head of European Commission Delegation to
Turkey, said that a bill recently passed by the French parliament
criminalizing the denial of the purported Armenian genocide should not
be used as an excuse to keep Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code,
which restricts the freedom of expression.

Kretschmer made his last speech on Tuesday as the head of European
Commission Delegation to Turkey.

Kretschmer said the Turkish government must make more progress in
the areas of human rights and basic freedoms, religious freedoms,
women’s rights, relations between civilians and military officials,
and an independent justice system.

Kretschemer said the likelihood of Turkey becoming an EU member
depended on Turkey itself rather than the European Union

He said that as with all other military officials, the Turkish military
officials had also come to the realization that the battle with
terrorism was not done only with guns, because there were cultural,
political, as well as economic dimensions to the problems at hand.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ERDOGAN: THE UNIFIL MANDATE DOES NOT STIPULATE DISARMING HIZBOLLAH
BY Ghassan Charbel Al-Hayat

Dar Al-Hayat, Lebanon
Oct 18 2006

Here is the full text of the interview:

Al-Hayat: Why has Turkey decided to contribute troops to the UNIFIL-II
deployed South Lebanon? What guarantees have you got to ensure your
soldiers’ safety?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: We cannot draw a line between the developments
ongoing in Lebanon and Palestine. It all started when an Israeli
soldier was first captured in Palestine then two others in Lebanon.

Consequently, Israel retaliated with excessive force, which in turn
compounded the situation even further. At this, we initiated intense
diplomatic contacts with President Mahmoud Abbas, PM Ismail Haniya,
and Ehud Olmert in order to settle the first problem in Palestine.

With respect to Lebanon, we contacted the Lebanese Premier Fouad
Siniora, Olmert, Jack Chirac, as well as the leaders of Germany,
Russia, and Britain in attempt to establish peace in the region. By
the same token, the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, visited
the region, mainly Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, which gave us a clear
picture of the realities there.

In the same vein, we supported the UNSC Resolution both verbally and
practically. Our government has even braved the domestically hostile
media campaigns in Turkey and decided to dispatch troops to Lebanon.

For this reason, we called the Lebanese government, with all its
components, including "Hizbollah," as well as Syria and they all
welcomed this step. Thus, we decided to help our Lebanese brethren.

Besides, the majority of Turkish parliament endorsed this step as means
to offer Lebanon humanitarian assistance and establish peace there.

After having sent a naval force to Lebanon, the time has come now
for the ground troops and engineers to help their brothers in Lebanon
and to promote peace and security in the Middle East.

Al-Hayat: What message would you like to convey to the Lebanese?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: I urge the Lebanese people to view the Turkish
soldiers as their brothers. During my talks with PM Fouad Siniora,
he told me that our soldiers are guests. So, we are sending you our
brothers to help you rebuild your country and safeguard peace. As your
guests, the Turkish soldiers will be an example to follow thanks to
their good conduct and commendable morals.

We felicitate you on the occasion of Ramadan and Eid Al-Fitr. We
ask God Almighty to have mercy on all the war martyrs and offer our
sincere condolences to the victims families.

Reinforcing Stability

Al-Hayat: You are a part of the UNIFIL force, established by virtue
of the UN Resolution 1701 following the last Israeli aggression
against Lebanon. Do you think that this resolution disengages the
Lebanese-Israeli border from military conflict?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: We welcome the UNSC Resolution 1701, which,
if fully implemented, will consecrate a permanent cease fire and
a long-term solution to this conflict. In other words, there is
no room for complacence. The international community, the parties
to the conflict, and the regional actors must all reinforce the
confidence-building measures and forge a viable political framework
for a long-term solution, as enshrined in the Resolution 1701.

The Security Council unanimous adoption of the said resolution equally
endorsed by the conflicting parties and the regional states, along
with the recent developments, such as the deployment of UNIFIL-II in
Lebanon are all positive signs proving that peace can be maintained
in this region.

I would like to seize this opportunity in order to underline once
again that our decision to participate in these troops stem from our
active endeavors to reinforce regional stability. Our initiative was
welcomed and encouraged by all parties, including Lebanon and Israel.

In truth, we will not send combat troops, but units to offer
humanitarian assistance, help in the reconstruction process and
conduct naval patrols.

Al-Hayat: Various international requests urge Hizbollah to disarm
and abandon its weapons. What is your stance? How do you perceive
the solution?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: First and foremost, the UNSC Resolution 1701
does not mandate the UNIFIL to disarm Hizbollah. This issue is simply
about political integration in Lebanon.

Al-Hayat: How do you foresee the future of Lebanon after the last
war and following the assassination of the former Prime Minister
Rafic Hariri?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Turkey strongly supports Lebanon’s sovereignty,
independence, and political unity. We hope that the winds of change
that blew across Lebanon after the withdrawal of all foreign troops
will bring about a strong political, economic, and social structure.

A plural and democratic Lebanon will be a stabilizing factor in the
region and Turkey’s important partner.

At this critical stage, the Lebanese government needs to be
strengthened so that it can extend its effective control over all the
Lebanese territory. We cannot in this regard but hail the Lebanese
government for its remarkable performance during the crisis despite
all the obstacles it bumped across. For this reason, the Lebanese
government needs to preserve this consensus and unity if it really
wants to normalize the situation in Lebanon gradually.

Al-Hayat: Rafic Hariri was your friend. Do you expect the probe into
his assassination to yield tangible results?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: We hope that the International Investigation
Commission will unveil the truth as soon as possible for the
investigation cannot be wrapped up with no one accused. It cannot be
said that this crime was committed by an unknown! We also hope that
this investigation will not turn Lebanon and Syria into enemies,
but will, in contrast, open a new page of mutual peace, friendship
and cooperation. As we all know, Turkey has crucially helped the
investigation when it offered to host the investigation with Syrian
officials in the Turkish city of Gaziantep before Geneva was chosen.

With no doubt, our proposal has safeguarded the investigation.

Al-Hayat: Does Turkey fear that a potential Iranian-American row
would negatively affect the situation in the South? Does the UNIFIl’s
mandate include disarming Hizbollah?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: We cannot claim that this process is not fraught
with risks. Life itself is bristled with dangers. We have already
taken the decision and we are fully aware of the ensuing risks. But
we have discussed this issue with the US and Iran. We hope that the
currently prevailing peace will last, that we won’t be embroiled
again in violence and death. So far, things appear calm.

Turkey will spare no efforts to ensure regional stability. The
countries that sent troops to Lebanon, like Germany, Italy, and
France all assert that things are back to normal there. In addition,
the situation will improve further with the participation of some
Islamic and Arab countries, even with small contingents.

Most importantly, the political and religious leaders must, in my
opinion, avoid any provocative declarations because the sole victim
in this case will be the people.

In addition, the UNIFIL mandate does not include disarming any
faction. Our Parliament’s authorization in this regard is clear
and limited to humanitarian and social services. From the start,
we have asserted that the Turkish army will not take part in any
disarmament process. No one can oblige to behave differently. Even
more, Kofi Annan and Siniora have both confirmed that this mission
does not fall under UNIFIL’s mandate.

Al-Hayat: Do you anticipate a potential US-Iranian showdown over the
nuclear file? What do you recommend?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: The six countries that offered an incentive
package to Iran in June, including the US, are now threatening of
imposing potential sanctions. Still, they will be open to dialogue
with Iran. The essence of the problem is whether Iran will prove
to the international community that it pursues its nuclear program
for peaceful goals – which is indeed its legitimate right. I still
hope this problem will be diplomatically settled. We stand ready to
contribute to every effort to this end.

Al-Hayat: Does Turkey fear Iran’s mounting role in the region?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: We harbor no concerns in this regard. Every
State has the right to strengthen its interests and clout. Turkey too
is striving to protect its clout and interests in the region. The
point is, Turkey tries to harness its regional weight and power to
establish peace and win friends. In other words, Turkey’s foreign
policy basically intends to win more friends not enemies.

The Confessional War

Al-Hayat: Does Turkey fear the Sunnite-Shiite struggle in the region?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: It is so dangerous, in our opinion, to highlight
a potential confessional or even racist war in the region, or even
to foment one. Alas, the Iraqi people alone will pay the price of
this confessional and racist conflict. In truth, two Muslim brothers
cannot fight each other on the basis of confessional differences. As
a result, this war will breed no winners but losers.

Al-Hayat: How will Turkey react if we woke up one day to an
Iranian-conducted nuclear test?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: (smiling) This is a military question.

Al-Hayat: How do you assess the situation in Iraq? Do you expect it
to trigger a civil war?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Honestly, I believe that the unrelenting security
problem, sectarian polarization, corruption, and the failure of the
national government to provide basic services dangerously threaten
Iraq’s political transition and unity. I don’t underestimate the
current risks unfolding in Iraq. I am quite sure that the consequences
of a divided Iraq could be even worse than the currently prevailing
situation.

A Launch pad for Terrorism

Al-Hayat: Are you concerned about a potential federal regime in Iraq,
especially in Iraqi Kurdistan? Where do you draw your own red line?

What would be your response in case Iraqi Kurdistan proceeds toward
a full autonomy?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: In my opinion, the Iraqis need to strike
a balance between protecting their cultural diversity and Iraq’s
democratic national unity. Iraq is our sovereign and independent
neighbor. The currently enforced Iraqi constitution provides for
a federal, united, plural, and democratic Iraq. I see no reason
that prevents us from coping with any of these four elements. Most
importantly, Iraq must not become a rear base for terrorists to
launch their trans-border attacks against the neighboring countries
and beyond. That would certainly destabilize the region.

No Intervention in Iraq

Al-Hayat: When can the Turkish army intervene in Iraq? To protect
the Turkmen or prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: This issue is not put on our agenda. End 2003,
the parliament authorized us to send troops to Iraq – a step that
wasn’t accomplished since the Iraqis refused our presence in their
country and we cannot be present in a country to which we aren’t
invited. So, we dispatched our troops to Lebanon based on the Lebanese
invitation. What worries us the most is the prevailing conditions in
Kirkuk. In other words, we are afraid for Iraq and its future and
not from it! If Kirkuk’s demographic structure was changed, for it
to be handed in subsequently to the Kurds, this might open wounds
that will not heal easily.

Al-Hayat: Will your ties with Paris be affected by the French
Parliament’s decision to criminalize any denial of the "Armenian
genocide"?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: We have expressed our deep concern for this
French step and for the declarations the French President made during
his visit to Armenia. In fact, I have received today a phone call
from Chirac who voiced his regret. I have told him that he is one of
Europe’s most experienced and influential leaders. We were annoyed
because his MPs, who form the majority in the Parliament, have not
attended the vote session. Most importantly, we expect you, as I told
him, to use your powers appropriately with respect to that law.

Al-Hayat: How do you asses the outcome of the "war on terror" in
light of the US invasion of Iraq?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Turkey has struggled since 1970s against
terrorism requiring a combined effort from all countries.

Unfortunately, the international community has only embraced the
concept of combating terrorism wherever and by whomsoever committed
with a combined international effort after 9/11 and following terrorist
attacks. No country is immune to the threat of global terrorism. Thus,
all countries must disrupt the financing of terrorism, cooperate fully
with other countries in combating terrorism, bring the terrorists
before heavy penalty courts without giving them refugee status,
prevent active or passive assistance to terrorism-related individuals
and groups and finally extradite terrorists if they fail to try
then. However, it is true that some countries misuse root-causes issue
for condoning terrorism. On the one hand, they condemn terrorism yet
they cannot prevent individuals and groups on their territories from
supporting terrorism.

On the other hand, it is also true that terrorist activities continue
unabated in Iraq despite the intervention of the US and Coalition
Forces. For instance, the PKK terrorist organization takes shelter
in Northern Iraq and infiltrates into our country to conduct terror
acts. For this reason, it is difficult to say that combating terrorism
in Iraq is successful.

Failure in Iraq is not an option

Al-Hayat: Do you think that the stances of some neighboring countries
aggravated the situation in Iraq?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: To preserve our primary national interests,
we need to build a stable and prosperous environment in our immediate
geographical proximity. Hence, failure in Iraq is not an option for the
international community. Therefore, we actively encourage all Iraq’s
neighboring countries to play a positive role in these transitional
times. To this end, Turkey has spearheaded the meetings the Foreign
and Interior ministers from the Iraq’s neighboring countries have held.

Al-Hayat: How do you describe the current Syrian-Turkish relations?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Turkey’s relations with Syria have been unstable
in the past. Nonetheless, we managed to mend fences over time and
to develop a mutually beneficial, long-term, and multi-faceted
relationship.

We have a constant dialogue with Syria on the bilateral and regional
issues. During the last crisis, for instance, we exchanged views on how
to ease the tension. To this end, I visited Syria on August 22, 2006
and tackled this issue along with our growing bilateral relations. In
our opinion, engagement rather than isolation is the key word in
dealing with Syria. Our experience so far has proved it to be true.

Al-Hayat: How does Turkey make use of its relations with Israel and
the Palestinian Authority (PA)?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Turkey has maintained close relations with Israel
and the Palestinian Authority since their foundation. Indeed, Turkey
was among the first countries to recognize the State of Israel and the
first in Europe to recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization
in 1975 and the state of Palestine in 1988. Based on this historical
background, our relations have flourished since then.

Thanks to these fruitful relations and to our confidence in both sides,
we have actively contributed to the efforts to find a peaceful solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As a matter of fact, the need to strengthen our ties with the
Arab-Islamic world, as cited in the D-8 initiative we launched,
the incrementally growing trade relations with Arab countries, our
increased cooperation with the Arab League, and our active presence
in the OIC, do refute these criticisms.

Even more, Turkey’s foreign policy towards the Middle East rests on
a balanced, impartial, and equal pillar. Consequently, our bilateral
relations with a particular country do not impinge on our ties with
another state. On the contrary, these relations complement each other,
thus contributing to regional cooperation, peace and stability in
the Middle East.

The Alliance of Civilizations

Al-Hayat: Have the 9/11 attacks triggered a crisis in the relation
between Islam and West?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: It is true that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and
the subsequent developments have blurred perceptions on both sides.

The rise of "Islamophobia" in the Western societies is one of the major
threats and challenges that global peace order faces now. Based on
the provocative misperceptions reflected in the irresponsible words
the political and religious leaders use, anti-Islamic tendencies
have apparently gained momentum in the West after 9/11, which has
unfortunately hindered efforts to fend off theories, like clash of
civilizations.

Indeed, there are certainly many issues on which the major cultures
and belief systems of our day disagree. This is certainly not new.

Some of these issues are real and some misperceived. Thus, we must
first eliminate the extremists on both sides, extremists who want to
create a lasting rift between the West and the Islamic World. For this
reason, Turkey is cosponsoring the momentous Alliance of Civilizations
initiative in an attempt to forge a comprehensive coalition by
establishing a paradigm of mutual respect between civilizations and
cultures, one likely to prevent the relations between societies and
nations from deteriorating.

Al-Hayat: Are these sensitivities responsible for the intricate
hurdles hampering Turkey’s EU membership?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: The question is whether Turkey will culturally
match the EU. We prefer to look at this issue from another
perspective. With a predominantly Muslim population, Turkey is also
a secular democratic republic, i.e. the antidote to the clash of
civilizations. This is one of the reasons why Turkey’s membership
to the EU will have global repercussions. Again, we need to forge a
Alliance of Civilizations. How can we transcend cultural boundaries to
create harmony and tolerance on the one hand then deny on the other
Turkey’s membership because of its cultural identity? This question
needs to be addressed first and foremost to the EU not to Turkey. For
our part, we will endeavor to meet Copenhagen criteria.

We do not want preferential treatment and we will never accept
discrimination.

Moderation and Extremism

Al-Hayat: Do you believe that the Moderate Islam represented by
the Turkish model is the solution or do you fear the emergence of a
radical Islam following the clashes with the army and the supporters
and advocates of a secular state?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Turkey is a democracy where all citizens enjoy
fundamental freedoms. Such freedoms ensure a lively debate on many
issues still viewed as taboos elsewhere in the world. Why? It is
because Turkey is the only predominantly Muslim country that has a
real democracy with all its institutions and checks and balances. In
a democracy, issues close to the hearts and minds of voters will
be discussed at length so popular consensus can be reached on the
way forward.

In the same vein, it is important to note that in the secular Turkish
Republic, religion and politics do not mix. There is no ongoing clash
within Turkey.

Al-Hayat: How does Turkey reconcile its close relation with the US
and its NATO affiliation and its Arab and Muslim policy?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Turkey faces no problems in this regard. Our
close relations with the US, the EU and our membership in NATO are
the fundamental pillars of our foreign policy. We also have close
relations with the Middle East countries. These are not competing
or conflicting relations in any way. On the contrary, they are
mutually reinforcing. Turkey’s foreign policy has always rested on
a multidimensional approach. Strategically located at the epicenter
of Eurasia, Turkey will continue to develop and deepen its relations
with both the West and the East.

Al-Hayat: How do you assess the current US-Turkish relations?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: In June, the Foreign Ministers announced from
Washington, D.C. the "Strategic vision document" serving as a framework
to advance the longstanding, strong, and strategic Turkish American
partnership. This document came as the outcome of our nearly 60 years
of relations and our solidarity.

The United States is our ally, and one of our main partners regarding
regional and global policy issues. We also share a unique strategic
cooperation. In short, we value this bilateral relation that entails
a shared vision and common long-term interests.

Turkey and the United States share the same ideals in their regional
and global objectives. Commitment to freedom, democracy, rule of law
and market economy all shape our vision of the upcoming world order.

In this unique situation, we have to diversify our means to take
up our common challenges and to mutually reinforce each other in
various tracks, thereby launching a successful result-oriented
structured fruitful dialogue, one that will enable Turkey to convey
its sensitivities regarding our region.

Al-Hayat: How do you describe the Turkish-Saudi relations?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: Saudi Arabia is one of the most influential
actors in the region. Our mutual interests converge in our active
attempts to establish lasting peace and prosperity in the region. As
a result, the visit of King Abdullah in August has bolstered the
relations.

Al-Hayat: Much has been said about the Turkish role in the aftermath of
the Soviet Union collapse. How do you perceive Turkey’s regional role?

Recep Tayyib Erdogan: First of all, Turkey plays a pivotal country
in the Eurasian area thanks to its geography, history, and modern
progressive mentality. Its strategic importance is not due only to
its geographical location but comprises other valuable factors like
its development level, alliances, as well as political, economic,
military, and cultural relations.

Following the end of cold war and the USSR demise, Turkey stood at the
center of Eurasia, which gained in the new millennium an increasing
geopolitical significance

We are proud of our remarkable relations with the European Asian
countries based on sovereignty and mutual benefit. Thanks to our common
ethnic, historical and cultural ties with the Eurasian countries,
we have cultivated a strong sense of solidarity.

In addition, the region enjoys valuable natural resources. So,
benefiting from its geographical location, Turkey mapped out and
implemented plans with a view of establishing an energy corridor
between the hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian countries and the
energy-consuming markets in Europe. The East-West Energy Corridor will
not benefit Turkey alone but will contribute through interdependence
to the stability and economic welfare of the neighboring countries too.

Turkey plays a pivotal role in facing the threats of 21st century.

The repercussions of international terrorism, fed by drug-trafficking,
organized crime and all other sorts of illicit wealth spill across
the world. Given the vital link between security and stability in
Eurasia and the West, the challenges we face today necessitate a
multi-dimensional approach, whereby democratic, economic and social
reforms must be promoted along with defense and security-related
issues. In this vein, Turkey is assisting these countries to become
more stable and economically self-sufficient, so that they can
eventually fully integrate the international order.

Turkey strives to bring the East and the West closer in every respect
– a step we need now more than ever in order to face the growing
misperceptions between the East and the West.

* Al-Hayat Translation Unit

rticle-20061018-5bea1702-c0a8-10ed-0055-76e2c6b37a 05/story.html

TAKE THAT BACK
John Hanratty

Georgian (St. George Bay), Canada
Oct 18 2006

We live in strange times.

The National Assembly of France has just passed a controversial
new law. They’re making it illegal to say that the Turkish
expulsion/massacre of Armenians in the early 1900s was not genocide.

Let’s repeat that: the new law says you can’t deny that the Armenian
deaths constituted genocide.

It’s always weird when a government tries to tell you what to believe
or what you can say. With a few exceptions, democratic societies
allow their citizens to believe or say whatever they want to.

In Canada, even when people want to deny that the Holocaust happened,
they’re allowed to. But Canadians are not allowed to incite hatred
against identifiable groups.

Perhaps the French politicians would argue that any denial of the
Turkish genocide against the Armenians is automatically inciting
hatred against Armenians, but that’s a stretch.

The Turks did execute or starve over a million Armenians around the
time of World War I. The Turkish government makes a counter-claim
that the Armenians killed over 500,000 Turks around the same time.

But it will soon be illegal in France to debate or discuss this
question, or use the wrong terminology to do so.

The point is: where will this stop? What statement or belief will
they outlaw next?

A somewhat similar kind of controversy erupted in Canada last week.

Federal Liberal leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff set off a
firestorm when he accused Israel of war crimes in its recent attacks
in Lebanon.

After a couple of clumsy efforts to clarify his remarks, Mr.

Ignatieff finally made the point that there were crimes on both sides
of the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

What’s striking about both the French and Canadian controversies
is the degree of passion that has been aroused. Large protests and
threats in Turkey against the French law, versus strong lobbying
by Armenians.A huge uproar in Europe outside of France, because of
Turkey’s application to enter the European Union.

By the way, the new Canadian government says that it was indeed
genocide against the Armenians, but they won’t jail any of us who
choose to deny or doubt it.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ignatieff has lost some key supporters from his
front-running campaign for the Liberal leadership because of his
poorly-chosen remarks about Israel. (He had previously gotten himself
into trouble over other opinions about Ukraine, I believe it was.)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper quickly jumped in and tried to label
all of the Liberal leadership candidates as anti-Israeli.

Who says politics is boring these days, anyway?

943&sid=14816

OPINION: CYPRUS ISSUE SHOULDN’T SPIKE TURKEY EU ACCESSION

Deutsche Welle, Germany
Oct 18 2006

Unless both Turkey and Cyprus jump over their shadows, Ankara can
forget any further accession talks with the EU, says DW’s Berndt
Riegert.

In the stand-off over Ankara’s recognition of the Greek-Cypriot
government in Nicosia, the EU has appealed to both sides to
compromise. On Monday, Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn warned
they may be facing what he called "the last window of opportunity
for several years" to make progress on the Cyprus issue.

Cyprus has threatened to block further negotiations if Turkey
refuses to open its ports to Cypriot ships as it does for traffic
from other EU countries. For its part, Turkey is pushing for an end
to the direct trade embargo on the Turkish part of Cyprus, a move
which Cyprus opposes.

Ultimately, its attitude is leading to an ever-widening gulf between
Brussels and the Ankara, and both parties will have to beware it
doesn’t become insurmountable by the end of the year.

If the accession talks with Turkey really do break down, it would mark
a considerable defeat for European foreign policy. The EU’s reputation
in Turkey would be badly shaken for the foreseeable future, and the
pressure on Ankara to introduce further democratic reforms would
be instantly off — and above all, the strategically sound goal of
bringing Turkey closer into the European fold would be put on the
back burner. Meanwhile, within the EU, the latent dispute between
Turkey’s supporters such as Britain and its critics such as France
would inevitably rise to the surface and even boil over.

The unresolved Cyprus question, which could precipitate a premature
end to Turkey’s accession talks, needs to be solved within the next
few weeks, before the Commission issues its next progress report on
Turkey’s candidacy in early November. But the failure of the talks
in Luxembourg Monday to make any headway suggests there’s more reason
than ever to doubt that a solution is in reach.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul insisted that Ankara will
only recognize Cyprus when the EU agrees to recognize the Turkish
Cypriot northern Cyprus. But the EU pointed out that Turkey has
already contractually agreed to opening itself up to Cypriot ships and
airplanes, thereby indirectly recognizing the Greek Cypriot government
which represents the divided island in the EU.

The Cypriot government is also digging its heels in by using its EU
veto to block the opening of any new "chapter" or policy area in
talks with Turkey. The EU inherited this problem when it admitted
Cyprus in 2004 even though the Greek Cypriot government in Nicosia
had rejected the UN’s reunification plan in April that year.

Hopefully, Olli Rehn’s plea that both sides start to compromise will
have resulted in more flexibility by December. Finland, which currently
holds the six-month EU presidency, has already fleshed out new ways
to postpone resolution until the elections in Turkey next year.

But Turkey is going to have to accept that the only way forward is
to recognize EU member Cyprus if it too wants to join the club.

There’s no point in the EU harping on about the Armenian question and
Turkey’s outrage at French lawmakers’ adoption of a bill which makes it
a crime to deny the Armenian genocide — the country’s failure to come
to terms with its past is no reason for the accession talks to break
down. Nor is it helpful to say Turkey is being given the run-around
by the EU, by constantly coming up with new entry conditions — which
is simply wrong. Admitting the Armenian genocide has never been a
condition of Turkey’s accession, but freedom of opinion and freedom
of the press have. And solving the Cyprus question most certainly has.

Equally undeniable is the fact that these trying, long-winded
negotiations are doing nothing to boost Turkey’s standing in
Brussels. It’s in everyone’s interests that Ankara and Nicosia jump
over their shadows if the 32-year-old Cyprus conflict is ever going
to end.

OSCE REACTS TO FRANCE’S ARMENIAN BILL
By Selcuk Gultasli, Brussels

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 18 2006

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has
reacted to France, whose parliament adopted a bill on Thursday that
makes it a crime to deny that an Armenian genocide occurred in Turkey
during World War I.

In a warning to France, the OSCE explained that if the Armenian
bill became law, Paris would set a dangerous example for other OSCE
member countries.

In a written statement, the OSCE called on the French Senate to reject
the draft if it came before them.

OSCE Media Freedom representative Miklos Haraszti sent a letter to
the president of the French Senate, Christian Poncelet, and expressed
his concerns.

Haraszti asked French senators to reject the Armenian bill on the
grounds that adopting this law would cause serious concerns for
international standards of freedom of expression.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FRENCH COMPANIES CONCERNED
By Economy News Desk

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 18 2006

Boycotts launched after the passage of the French bill criminalizing
the denial of an Armenian genocide has unsettled French businessmen.

Laurence Parisot, the president of MEDEF (the French Business
Confederation) – described as France’s TUSIAD (Turkish Industrialists’
and Businessmen’s Association) – said that the reactions to the bill
had unsettled French companies investing in Turkey.

Parisot remarked that the French Assembly moved to vote without having
a full understanding of the gravity of the issue and without trying
to appreciate the possible consequences beforehand.

In a statement to the French news agency AFP, he said: "It is not
for companies to write history, nor is it for lawmakers to write it.

Everyone must appreciate their limits and must stay within their
boundaries. Our evaluation of the bill voted in the French Parliament
is that the French parliamentarians overstepped their boundaries on
such a serious and important matter. We must not make such decisions
without considering their consequences. There are many French companies
either operating in or exporting to Turkey. It is not difficult to
foresee that any rash and impulsive reaction given by the Turkish
government and decision-makers in the economic sector would cause
negative consequences for the French companies in question."

Parisot met with Omer Sabanci, the chairman of the board of directors
of TUSIAD at a meeting organized in Brussels by the Confederation of
European Business (UNICE).

During the meeting, Parisot’s statement came up. Sabanci pointed out
that the parliament’s decision completely baffled the business world
in Turkey and the public.

Sabanci invited Laurence Parisot, president of MEDEF for a year, to
Turkey so he can get to know Turkey better and develop the present
economic ties with the Turkish business world.

"Turkey’s process for full membership to the European Union has got
the full and persistent support of TUSIAD. The French private sector
must also demonstrate its full support to our membership in a much
clearer manner," said Sabanci.

In order for the bill to become law, the endorsement of the senate
and the president is needed. The bill envisages a one year term
in prison and a fine of ~@45 thousand euros for those who deny the
Armenian genocide.

————————————— —————————————–
No Use of Boycott In the Long Run While reactions against France’s
genocide bill are growing, calls for moderation on the boycott issue
are also on the increase.

Chairman of the Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ISO) Tanil Kucuk said:
"I’m of the opinion that it should not be incumbent on the ISO to
bolster attempts to put an embargo on present investments in Turkey
while making great efforts to attract more of them. If we wrongfully
do so, this will place a question mark in the minds of those willing
to invest in Turkey and considering the present need of Turkey for
more foreign investments, we should adopt a different approach to
the problem."

Kucuk said that reactions such as boycotting French products would
not bear any fruit in the long run but rather the Turkish private
sector should consolidate ties between the two countries instead of
freezing them.

——————————————- ————————————-
Let’s not Dismiss Commonsense Chairman of the Kayseri Chamber of
Industry Mustafa Boydak accentuated the importance of keeping the
boycott within tolerable limits and emphasized that "when our reactions
are more judicial and rational, they will be more effective."

We should never dismiss commonsense.

"We are altogether very sensitive about national issues. We should
not respond to France’s mistake with a mistake. That is to say, our
reactions shouldn’t be based on emotions, but rather on intelligence,
we should make great efforts to observe the limits and be imperturbable
all the time. Let’s not forget the proverb, ‘Haste will bring
repentance’. I especially ask you not to get me wrong; I don’t mean
that we should call it quits and leave everything altogether, however
if we react rationally, our reactions will be more fruitful.

Let us be patient and do whatever befits us as a nation."

TURKISH PARLIAMENT CRITICIZES FRANCE

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 18 2006

The Turkish parliament issued an indirect condemnation of the French
parliament’s acceptance of a bill criminalizing the denial of the
so-called Armenian genocide Tuesday. The common declaration of
the parliament emphasized that acceptance of the bill would cause
irreversible damages to political, economic and military relations
between Turkey and France.

The declaration called France to retreat from its "historical mistake,"
stating that the bill harmed Turkey’s struggle to normalize its
relations with Armenia. The declaration also said that France caused
more than one million deaths in its own past, primarily in Algeria,
and read, "The burden of policies harming Turkey and Turkish people
will be very large."

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Turkey might apply to
international courts in opposition to the bill that French parliament
accepted.

Gul informed the deputies during a special parliamentary session
that as the government they did their best to prevent the bill
from being accepted, adding: "We have another alternative and our
government will not abstain from applying this method. We will use
all of the means that international law allows, including applying
to an international court."

Gul emphasized that Turkey was never intolerant to other nations
throughout its long history and added France was trying to provoke
Armenia and the Armenian people just as it did during World War I.

Gul said Turkish culture was based on tolerance, and added: "If
our ancestors had applied assimilation toward the other nations in
the past, behaving in the same way that some countries, which are
giving us ‘civilization’ lessons at the moment, behaved previously,
many religions, languages and religion sects would not have survived
to the present day."

Gul said if the bill became operant in France, despite all their
warnings, it would be a great shame for France and irreversibly harm
political, economic and military relations between the two countries.

After the special meeting, the parliament accepted the declaration
prepared commonly by the members of all parties in the parliament.

The declaration read the genocide bill was accepted with the votes
of only one out of five French MPs, and many deputies could not
use their votes as they were against the acceptance of the bill and
further emphasized the bill was accepted under strong influence of
the Armenian minority in France.

The declaration also emphasized that although French politicians
thought it was the job of historians to discuss past events when their
own history was concerned, interestingly enough, they thought it was
the right of politicians to decide in Turkey’s case.

The declaration emphasized that in the history of Turkey, no shameful
events have occurred, and as such the Turkish people had nothing to
hide from.

The Turkish parliament declaration also named many distinguished
international historians, including French ones, who did not
describe the events of 1915 as a "massacre," contrary to the claims
of Armenians.

INTELLECTUALS AND ‘PATRIOTS’
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat

Dar Al-Hayat, Lebanon
Oct 18 2006

When Naguib Mahfouz won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1988,
many Egyptian and Arab voices contested and cast doubt on the
announcement. For them, the prize was for Mahfouz’s positive position
toward peace with Israel. It is, therefore, not a reward for Egypt and
the Arabs, but rather for their surrender. It was also offered as an
encouragement for more Arab surrender. A few years later, some were
affected by those critics and, consequently, the respected novelist
was stabbed with a knife.

Recently, Nobel Prize winner novelist Orhan Pamuk was subjected to
a similar defamation campaign in Turkey . The aim, in the eyes of
critics, was to humiliate Turkey through the prize, and depict its
identity as a mixture of confusion and juxtapositions. The irrefutable
evidence was Pamuk’s outspoken objection to the history of his country
toward the Armenians and its policy toward the Kurds.

Also, taking into account the difference between the two situations,
Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi is one of the critics
of Iranian under the Ayatollahs, whose latest victim was Ramin
Jahanbegloo, the intellectual who was coerced to apologize in court for
the kindness of his heart and for falling for ‘Great Satan’s’ tricks.

Between the killing of journalists and intellectuals in Algeria during
the civil war, and the arrest and gagging of their colleagues in Syria,
the fundamentalist terrorism and the Baathist-military ‘modernity’
converged on a position toward these accursed professions, which
deals with knowledge, creativity and criticism.

The hostility toward culture and intellectuals, and the press and
journalists is almost equivalent to the hostility toward the West.

Both complete each other. So long as the cultural and freedom of press
is Western by origin and practice, and so long as the Nobel Foundation
‘implements’ a US colonial agenda, the resistance to culture and
intellectuals, and the press and journalists has become part of
‘patriotism’.

This also occurs in a country such as Russia, where journalist
Anna Politkovskaya was assassinated a few days ago. She was famous
for exposing her country’s brutal policies in Chechnya. As known,
the problem of Russia with the West, before, during and after the
Bolshevik Revolution, strongly related to the Russian Slavic Patriotism
of which Putin has become its latest hero.

Indeed, the tendency to liken these accursed professions to the
Western ‘enemy’ is not something new. Every instance of the tensed-up
nationalistic awakenings in the 20th century has been expressed
in the form of silencing the press and arresting or exiling the
intellectuals. When nationalism was coupled with statist tendencies,
through extensive nationalization; education (not only the culture
and the press) paid dearly.

However, with Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah and Hamas (and Kim Jong Il),
we reach an unprecedented degree of estrangement between what is
‘patriotic’ and cultural. The current political and ideological mood
derives rightness and knowledge from demography and numbers. As it
attempts to widen the gap with the West, it detaches itself from
anything related to it in order to maintain its own original and
‘pure’ identity. Equivalent to this inclination is the growing desire
of the intellectuals and journalists, including those who were once
‘patriotics’, to abandon these populist movements.

Ultimately, it is a perpetual impoverishment in which the sheer
number, the rise in oil prices, or heroism on the battleground
cannot compensate for the mind. That being the case, victory, when
achieved, becomes much worse than a defeat like the Republican one
in the Spanish civil war, which was coupled with ideas, creativity
and cultural mobility.

Such defeat is ultimately turned into an actual victory when Spain
was democratized after the death of Franco. On the contrary, ignorant
victories can, at any moment, turn into defeat.

It may be said, and quite rightly, that George Bush suffers from the
same flaws that we found in these ‘patriotic’ leaders. However, he,
unlike them, is forced to tolerate people like Bob Woodward, while
the Iranian and Syrian Bob Woodwards spend their days and nights in
their prisons.