Month: October 2006

A1+

PARTIAL MONITORING OF BORDER LINE
[06:49 pm] 13 October, 2006

According to preliminary agreement, the OSCE mission carried out
monitoring of the border line between Karabakh and Azerbaijan near
village Gyulistan, region of Martakert.

The OSCE observing mission was led by personal representative of the
OSCE CiO, Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, as well as assistants Peter Key
from Great Britain and Gunter Folk from Germany.

Foreign Ministry of Nagorno Karabakh Republic informs that the
monitoring was carried out in compliance with the plan. But in
contrast to the Karabakhian side, the Azeris did not take the
monitoring group to the front of the border. No cases of violation of
cease-fire were recorded.

A1+

HAKOBYAN DEPRIVED OF IMMUNITY
[08:45 pm] 13 October, 2006

The Parliament agreed to the mediation of the RA Public Prosecutor
`to involve NA deputy Hakob Hakobyan in the case as accused’. 56
deputies voted for and 22 voted against. 84 deputies participated in
the secret vote. Six ballots were invalid.

Member of the calculating committee Aghasi Arshakyan announced that
there were violations during the voting as different deputies marked
the ballots differently. But head of the committee Gagik Meliqyan
announced that the information does not correspond to reality and the
voting took place according to the regulations.

By the way, Hakob Hakobyan himself voted for his being involved in the
case as accused.

Before voting the factions represented their positions about the
issue.

National Unity announced that they will not participate in the
voting. Leader of the United Labor party faction Gourgen Arsenyan and
secretary of «Justice» faction Grigor Haroutyunyan announced that
their deputies are free to vote as they want to. The Orinats Yerkir
and People’s Party were of the same opinion. The ARF Dashnaktsutyun
was for restricting the immunity of deputies, and the Republican party
was for realization of justice and «not patriotic speeches».

Leader of the Republican faction Galoust Sahakyan blamed the
opposition and reminded that Hakobyan is their friend and even if he
has committed a crime, he is still their friend; in the end he noted
that the Parliament does not have the right to hinder realization of
justice.

NA Speaker Tigran Torosyan added that the Parliament has no right to
deprive the deputy of his right to prove his innocence.

After the speeches the floor was given to Hakob Hakobyan. He informed
that he has really participated in the quarrel. «Yes, I did it and I
prevented bloodshed», he said and informed that thanks to him the
quarrel did not end with shooting and victims. Hakobyan informed that
he is not against investigation, but if they try to violate his
rights, he will defend himself. «I warn you, I’m not afraid of death».

The deputy also announced that he was elected in 1999 and in 1991-1999
he was a common citizen and asked why his affairs weren’t checked
then. He also showed the case against his friend where his name was
involved two, `Three courts have justified him’, he underlined.

Hakobyan claimed that 90% of the case is fabricated against him. He
claimed that the representatives of the Karate federation stopped the
supply of gas to his gas station and demanded money in order to
restart it. According to him, this was the reason why the quarrel
started. He informed the Public Prosecutor that 165 houses have been
searched illegally, 35 people have been arrested and there has been no
news about them for the last four days, but the criminal case has been
initiated only against four people. `Where are the others?’ the deputy
asked.

At the end of his speech Hakob Hakobyan informed that his rights have
been violated in the isolation cell: he had no telephone and no
advocate.

Le Devoir

L’histoire kidnappée
Serge Truffaut
Édition du vendredi 13 octobre 2006
Mots clés : Québec (province), Violence, Gouvernement, turquie,
union européenne, génocide arménien
Malgré l’opposition du gouvernement et surtout d’un nombre imposant
d’historiens renommés, les députés français, de gauche comme de
droite, ont adopté une loi punissant toute négation du génocide
arménien. Que des politiciens brident ainsi le travail
d’universitaires est affligeant à bien des égards.

Depuis que la Turquie a exprimé le souhait de rejoindre l’Union
européenne, ses dirigeants savent qu’ils ont une obligation : mener
à son terme le devoir de mémoire en ce qui concerne le génocide
perpétré contre les Arméniens. Pendant des mois et des mois, les
Turcs ont retardé toute analyse à la loupe des horreurs commises en
1915, allant jusqu’à voter une loi interdisant toute évocation
publique du drame. C’est d’ailleurs dans le cadre de cette loi que le
Prix Nobel de littérature 2006, Orhan Pamuk, a été constamment
ennuyé par les censeurs du régime.

Toujours est-il que la perspective de voir la porte de l’Europe rester
fermée en raison du refus de s’atteler à la reconnaissance du
génocide, refus considéré par beaucoup d’élus européens comme
un rejet des «valeurs communes» que partagent tous les membres de
l’UE, avait fini par convaincre le gouvernement turc d’agir autrement.
Ainsi, lorsque le premier ministre Stephen Harper a épinglé son
homologue turc sur cette question en mai dernier, ce dernier a
souligné qu’une initiative avait été prise consistant à
rassembler des historiens arméniens et turcs chargés de se pencher
sur le sujet. Bref, Ankara a convenu, péniblement il est vrai,
d’amorcer le travail de mémoire.

Antérieurement à cette friction canado-turque, des universitaires
français de renom, très agacés par la colonisation de l’espace
dévolu à l’histoire par les bien-pensants de l’Assemblée nationale
mais surtout par la foule des effets pervers qu’une avalanche de textes
législatifs avait entraînés, étaient montés aux barricades —
à juste titre — pour freiner ce que certains d’entre eux appellent la
tyrannie de la repentance.
Regroupés au sein d’une organisation au nom qui en dit long —
Liberté pour l’Histoire –, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Michel Winock,
Jean-Pierre Azéma, Marc Ferro et plusieurs autres avaient composé un
texte exigeant des législateurs qu’ils mettent un terme à une
entreprise qui sape les bases mêmes du métier d’historien et qu’ils
abrogent pas moins de quatre lois.
Dans leur pétition, ces intellectuels rappelaient que «l’histoire
n’est pas une religion […], l’histoire n’est pas la morale […],
l’histoire n’est pas l’esclave de l’actualité […], l’histoire n’est
pas la mémoire […], l’histoire n’est pas un objet juridique. Dans un
État libre, même animé des meilleures intentions, il n’appartient
ni au Parlement ni à l’autorité judiciaire de définir la
vérité historique. La politique de l’État, même animée des
meilleures intentions, n’est pas la politique de l’histoire». Il va de
soi qu’on ne saurait mieux dire.
Ce combat lancé par des personnes aussi respectées qu’admirées,
qui avait d’ailleurs convaincu aussi bien le président Jacques Chirac
que le socialiste Jack Lang que cette loi ajouterait aux restrictions
à la liberté d’expression que les lois précédentes avaient
provoquées, a donc été rejeté tant par les formations de droite
que celles de gauche.

À ce propos, il faut retenir qu’un important contingent de députés
de l’UMP, le parti de Chirac, a emprunté une position inverse à
celle défendue par ce dernier pour mieux obéir aux mots d’ordre de
l’agité de la politique française, soit Nicolas Sarkozy. On peut
parier qu’en agissant de la sorte, le candidat à l’Élysée tenait
à afficher une fois de plus sa distance avec Chirac mais également
avec le premier ministre Villepin tout en espérant récolter les
votes des gens qui ne veulent pas que la Turquie se lie à l’UE.
L’utilisation de l’histoire comme d’un procureur du temps présent a
toujours été un exercice périlleux.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Le Devoir
Orhan Pamuk, Prix Nobel de littérature et embarras pour la Turquie
Jean-François Nadeau
Édition du vendredi 13 octobre 2006
Mots clés : Turquie (pays), Livre, orhan pamuk, prix nobel,
littérature
L’écrivain Orhan Pamuk, 54 ans, est le lauréat du prix Nobel de
littérature 2006. Cible politique du régime turc pour sa défense
des causes arménienne et kurde, il est plus que jamais source de
fierté littéraire mais aussi d’embarras pour son pays. Un procès
pour ses affirmations au sujet du génocide arménien lui a été
intenté cette année dans son propre pays, ce qui lui a valu l’appui
de la communauté intellectuelle internationale, comme l’expliquaient
Georges Leroux et Christian Nadeau dans les pages littéraires du
Devoir en janvier dernier.

L’écrivain Orhan Pamuk, Prix Nobel de littérature 2006

Pamuk a été qualifié de renégat par ses détracteurs en
Turquie pour ses déclarations sur des sujets longtemps restés
tabous. «Un million d’Arméniens et 30 000 Kurdes ont été
tués sur ces terres, mais personne d’autre que moi n’ose le dire»,
avait-il affirmé en février 2005 dans un hebdomadaire suisse.

La justice turque le tient à l’oeil depuis un moment sous prétexte
d’«insulte ouverte à la nation turque», un crime passible de six
mois à trois ans de prison. Mais les poursuites formelles ont été
abandonnées début 2006.

Pamuk a reçu plusieurs menaces de mort. Dans une province de l’ouest
de la Turquie, le préfet d’Isparta a même donné l’ordre de
brûler ses livres. L’injonction a ensuite été retirée sous la
pression du gouvernement, plus que jamais désireux de ne pas ternir
son image avant le lancement de négociations d’adhésion à l’Union
européenne.

«Je soutiens la candidature de la Turquie à l’adhésion à l’Union
européenne […] mais je ne peux pas dire à ces adversaires de la
Turquie : "Ce n’est pas vos affaires s’ils me jugent ou pas." Du coup,
je me sens coincé au milieu. C’est un fardeau», a déclaré Pamuk,
qui se considère d’abord comme écrivain sans intentions politiques,
bien que ses livres ne manquent pas de secouer certaines conceptions
établies de sa société.
À l’extérieur de son pays, Orhan Pamuk accumule les prix
littéraires. En octobre 2005, il a reçu le prestigieux prix de la
Paix des libraires allemands et le prix Médicis français du roman
étranger. En 2004, le New York Times lui avait accordé son attention
pour «le meilleur livre étranger de l’année». Dans son oeuvre,
traduite en une vingtaine de langues à ce jour, il traite des conflits
d’une société écartelée entre Orient et Occident.

L’oeuvre elle-même ?
Le caractère tout à fait sulfureux de cette vie d’écrivain
suffit-il à en faire un Prix Nobel ? Plusieurs attendaient plutôt
cette année le couronnement par l’Académie Nobel de l’Américain
Philip Roth ou du Mexicain Carlos Fuentes, voire de l’Israélien Amos
Oz. D’autres noms ont aussi circulé, y compris celui de Pamuk, qui
n’était pourtant pas donné favori de prime abord.

Le lauréat de cette année, dont la valeur est indéniable, semble
néanmoins avoir beaucoup profité des conditions sociopolitiques qui
entourent les discussions sur l’avenir de son pays au sein de l’Union
européenne. En dépit des controverses qu’il suscite, Pamuk, cheveux
grisonnants et portant des lunettes, souvent habillé d’un simple
t-shirt et d’une veste, n’intervient que rarement sur la scène
publique, préférant le désordre enfumé de son bureau aux
projecteurs des plateaux de télévision. À Istanbul, l’appartement
où il écrit ses livres lui offre une vue sur un pont enjambant le
Bosphore, lien entre l’Europe et l’Asie.

Né le 7 juin 1952 dans une famille francophile aisée d’Istanbul,
Orhan Pamuk a abandonné des études en architecture à l’ge de 23
ans pour s’enfermer dans son appartement et se consacrer à la
littérature. Sept ans plus tard était publié son premier roman,
Cevdet Bey et ses fils.

L’irritation de ses détracteurs est montée d’un cran après son
refus, en 1998, d’accepter le titre d’«artiste d’État». Il était
alors déjà devenu l’écrivain le plus prisé en Turquie avec des
ventes records. Son sixième roman, Mon nom est Rouge, une réflexion
sur la confrontation entre l’Orient et l’Occident à travers l’Empire
ottoman de la fin du XVIe siècle, allait lui assurer une
célébrité internationale.

Publié en 1990, Le Livre noir, un des romans les plus lus en Turquie,
décrit la recherche effrénée d’une femme par un homme pendant une
semaine dans un Istanbul enneigé, boueux et ambigu.

Neige (2002), publié en français l’année dernière chez
Gallimard, constitue un plaidoyer pour la laïcité tout autant qu’une
réflexion sur l’identité de la société turque et la nature du
fanatisme religieux. Orhan Pamuk a aussi publié La Maison du silence
(1983), Le Chteau blanc (1985), La Vie nouvelle (1994) et Istanbul
(2003).

Grand, dégingandé, nerveux, parlant vite et fort, Orhan Pamuk fut le
premier écrivain dans le monde musulman à condamner ouvertement la
fatwa de 1989 contre Salman Rushdie et prit position pour son collègue
turc Yasar Kemal quand celui-ci fut appelé en justice en 1995.

L’Académie suédoise a indiqué dans ses attendus avoir décerné
le prix à un auteur «qui, à la recherche de l’me mélancolique
de sa ville natale, a trouvé de nouvelles images spirituelles pour le
combat et l’entrelacement des cultures». L’Académie suédoise
affirme en outre que l’écrivain «est connu dans son pays comme un
auteur contestataire, bien qu’il se considère comme écrivain
littéraire sans intentions politiques».

Le lauréat a déclaré à un quotidien suédois être «très
heureux et honoré», ajoutant qu’il allait pour le moment tenter de
se «remettre de ce choc» qui lui vaut dix millions de couronnes
suédoises, soit l’équivalent d’environ 1,5 million $CAN.

Le Devoir et l’Agence France-Presse

Le Devoir

Interdiction de nier le drame de 1915 – La France adopte une
sur le génocide arménien
Les parlementaires suscitent la colère de la Turquie et les critiques
de l’Union européenne
AFP
Édition du vendredi 13 octobre 2006
Mots clés : Québec (province), Violence, loi, génocide arménien,
ue
Malgré l’hostilité du gouvernement, les députés français ont
adopté hier une proposition de loi socialiste qui sanctionne la
négation du génocide arménien, provoquant la colère de la
Turquie et les critiques des institutions de l’Union européenne.

Un membre de l’opposition turque est allé hier mettre une couronne
mortuaire sur le consulat de France à Istanbul
Agence Reuters
Grace à la non-participation au vote de la majeure partie des
députés UMP, le texte a été validé par 106 voix contre 19.
Compte tenu du calendrier parlementaire, il semble toutefois peu
probable qu’il soit discuté au Sénat avant la fin de l’actuelle
législature, en février 2007.

Ce vote porte un «coup dur» aux relations franco-turques, a
déclaré le ministère turc des Affaires étrangères dans un
communiqué, selon lequel la France «perd malheureusement sa position
privilégiée au sein du peuple turc». Avant le vote, la Turquie
avait brandi la menace de représailles économiques.

Il a aussi été critiqué par la Commission européenne, selon
laquelle ce texte peut «empêcher le dialogue pour la
réconciliation» entre la Turquie et l’Arménie. Bruxelles y voit en
outre un obstacle au dialogue avec la Turquie au moment où celle-ci
frappe à la porte de l’Europe.

Le gouvernement français s’est aussi distancé du texte, qu’il ne
soutenait pas. Le premier ministre Dominique de Villepin a estimé que
ce n’était «pas une bonne chose que de légiférer sur les
questions d’histoire et de mémoire». Et le ministère des Affaires
étrangères a rappelé que la France restait «très attachée au
dialogue avec la Turquie».

Mais les députés font passé outre les mises en garde sur une crise
avec la Turquie pour adopter ce texte prévoyant que toute personne
niant la réalité du génocide arménien de 1915 sera punie d’un an
de prison et d’une forte amende.
Déposée par l’opposition socialiste, la proposition a été
adoptée à une large majorité : 106 voix pour et 19 contre.
Quarante-neuf députés du parti UMP au pouvoir (droite) ont voté
oui, ainsi que 40 élus du Parti socialiste (PS). La majorité des 577
députés étaient cependant absents au moment du vote, salué par
des applaudissements. Ce texte complète une loi de 2001 qui avait
déjà marqué la reconnaissance du génocide arménien.

Le vote d’hier ne signifie cependant pas que la loi va forcément
entrer en vigueur : le texte doit encore être adopté par le
Sénat (Chambre haute du Parlement) avant une deuxième lecture. Les
groupes politiques pourraient alors décider de ne pas l’inscrire à
l’ordre du jour afin de ne pas envenimer les relations avec Ankara.
À l’Assemblée, le texte a divisé les partis au-delà du clivage
gauche-droite.

«J’espère que la France, patrie de la liberté où chacun peut
librement exprimer ses opinions, ne deviendra pas un pays où des gens
sont emprisonnés pour avoir exprimé leurs opinions et publié des
documents», avait déclaré mercredi le ministre turc des Affaires
étrangères, Abdullah Gül.

Lors des débats, le député du parti au pouvoir (UMP) Patrick
Devedjian, d’origine arménienne, a accusé la Turquie «d’exporter
le négationnisme dans notre pays» en organisant des manifestations
en France.

Le débat a eu lieu en présence de sept députés turcs invités
par le président de l’Assemblée nationale Jean-Louis Debré —
opposé à l’adoption du texte — et installés dans la tribune
présidentielle. Ils se sont éclipsés en silence après le vote.

Hasard du calendrier, ce vote est survenu le jour de l’attribution du
prix Nobel de littérature au romancier Orhan Pamuk, critiqué en
Turquie pour avoir pris la défense de la cause arménienne.

Les Arméniens estiment que jusqu’à 1,5 million des leurs ont péri
dans un génocide perpétré par les Turcs entre 1915 et 1917, ce
qu’Ankara récuse.

Agence France-Presse
et Reuters

EurasiaNet, NY
Oct 13 2006

NOBEL PRIZE FOR TURKISH WRITER FOCUSES ATTENTION ON CIVIL SOCIETY
ISSUES
Mevlut Katik 10/13/06

Print this article Email this article

In awarding the 2006 Nobel Prize for Literature to Orhan Pamuk, the
Swedish Academy stressed the Turkish author’s literary skill.
However, analysts and critics see unmistakeable evidence of political
motives in the decision. Pamuk has a relatively small body of work
for a Nobel laureate, but he has been a literary pioneer in trying to
fuse Western and Islamic cultures, and has emerged as an outspoken
proponent of free speech inside Turkey.

After the October 12 announcement, Pamuk said in broadcast interview
with CNN International that he considered the Nobel Prize as "a sort
of recognition of the Turkish language, Turkish culture, and Turkey."
He is the first Turk to win a Nobel Prize, and in selecting him, the
Swedish Academy appeared to offer a ringing endorsement for both
Turkey’s integration into Europe, and for the expansion of civil
society in Turkey. The academy’s statement noted that Pamuk, "in the
quest for the melancholic soul of his native city [Istanbul], has
discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures."

In Turkey, the news of Pamuk’s award was both a source of pride, and
a cause for soul searching. Pamuk has been a central figure in an
on-going free speech controversy, in which several authors have faced
criminal prosecution under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code,
which calls for up to three years imprisonment for "public
denigration of Turkishness." In late 2005, Pamuk went on trial for
comments made earlier that year in which he stated that 1 million
Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turkish forces starting in 1915,
amid the chaos of World War 1. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive]. In early 2006, the case was dropped after the
Justice Ministry declined to press the charges.

Today, Armenia wants that the killings be recognized as genocide,
while the Turkish government rejects that the mass killings
constituted genocide. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive].

"This is a great achievement that no one should try to cast a shadow
over," commentator Ilnur Cevik wrote of Pamuk’s prize in an October
13 editorial published by the New Anatolian English-language daily.
"Pamuk deserved what he got and has given us deep national pride and
jubilation." Referring to Pamuk’s earlier prosecution, Cevik added
that the author "showed that our people should be bold and raise
issues and have them debated in a free atmosphere."

It is precisely this point that appears to trouble Turkish
traditionalists, many of whom have misgivings about Turkey’s ongoing,
but troubled effort to join the European Union. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive]. From the traditionalists’ viewpoint, EU
membership will produce unwanted side-effects, namely the permanent
alteration of the Turkish Republic’s secular Islamic character. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Pamuk, by winning the Nobel Prize, becomes an instant symbol of the
new Turkey, one that embodies both Western and Islamic cultural and
political values. His laureate status also makes criticizing his
views all the more difficult. Thus, the award could fan domestic
debate on a variety of volatile issues, including free speech, the
role of Islam in Turkish society and the tragic events of 1915.

Hints of traditionalist concerns could be seen in commentaries
appearing in Turkey’s two most popular newspapers. An October 13
editorial by the editor-in-chief of the Sabah mass-circulation daily,
Fatih Altayli, stated simply: "Shall we be happy or sad?" His
counterpart at Hurriyet, Ertugrul Ozkok, wrote: "I am very happy that
Turkey — which has preoccupied the world agenda with Kurdish,
Armenian and Cyprus issues — has produced a Nobel-winning writer.
But at the same time I wish he [Pamuk] had not presented his views
about his country as if they were concrete historical facts." [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Dogan Hizlan, Hurriyet’s literary critic, wrote that a review of
Nobel laureates reveals that many recipients have been "opponents of
the establishments of their countries. However, I still tend to see
the prize from a literary point of view, and therefore am happy that
Orhan Pamuk as a Turkish writer won it."

Perihan Magden, another writer/journalist who was tried under Article
301, said "this prize won by Pamuk will increase interest in other
Turkish writers, Turkish language, and Turkey. It is Pamuk’s most
natural right to state his opinions about Turkey’s issues and
history."

Leaders of the Turkish government, which is led by the moderately
Islamist Justice and Development Party, cheered the announcement.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul telephoned Pamuk, who is in New York
serving as a visiting professor this semester at Columbia University,
to offer his congratulations.

The Nobel announcement occurred the same day that the French
parliament adopted a bill that would make it a crime to deny that
Armenians experienced a genocide in 1915. The bill, which still
requires French Senate approval and a presidential signature to
become law, provoked outrage in Turkey. The French action contrasts
sharply with Pamuk’s views: while the author seeks ways to reconcile
Western and Islamic values, France appears intent on trying to build
a wall between the two cultures. Regardless of whether the bill
becomes law, the parliamentary vote strikes a considerable blow
against Turkey’s EU bid by signaling Paris’ unwillingness to accept a
Moslem nation as a union member. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive].

Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, told journalists on October 13
that the parliamentary vote will go down as "an unforgettable shame
on France." Meanwhile, Mehmet Barlas, Sabah’s chief editorial writer,
blamed the vote on "irresponsible French politicians racing to try to
gain ground against one another and hunt for 400,000 French Armenian
votes."

Some international commentators stressed the irony of the two
developments occurring on the same day. An editorial published in the
British daily The Guardian described Pamuk’s selection as "an
inspired choice." It went on to note that Pamuk was prosecuted under
Article 301 "the use of which is encouraged by rightwing nationalists
[in Turkey] who complain that Europe is undermining the country’s
identity, and which must go if Turkey is to join the EU.

"But it is hypocritical of Europe to demand that Turkey modernize its
laws when France is moving in precisely the opposite — illiberal —
direction," the commentary continued. "Pamuk’s world-class
achievement should be a source of pride — a compliment, not an
insult — to a sometimes oversensitive nation. Turks would do well to
ponder its significance and try to look back at their history with a
more open mind."

The editorial additionally asserted that "some in France are quite
clearly exploiting the issue to prevent Turkey getting into the EU."

Celebrated writer Margaret Atwood, also writing in the Guardian on
October 13, said: "It will be difficult to conceive of a more perfect
winner for our catastrophic times. Just as Turkey stands at the
crossroads of the Muslim East/Middle East and the European and North
American West, so Pamuk’s work inhabits the shifting ground of an
increasingly dangerous cultural and religious overlap, where
ideologies as well as personalities collide."

The Times literary editor Erica Wagner wrote on October 13 that "no
award is apolitical; this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature is a firm
reminder of that. … The Nobel [for Pamuk] will help to ensure that
this strong voice is still heard above those cries … for an East-West
war."

Editor’s Note: Mevlut Katik is a London-based journalist and analyst.
He is a former BBC correspondent and also worked for The Economist
group.

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Oct 13 2006

Dutch Schools Pressure Turkish Students to Recognize Armenian Claims

Friday , 13 October 2006

After three Turkish candidates were expelled from their political
parties in the Netherlands for refusing to accept the Armenian
genocide allegations, the Dutch universities are pressuring Turkish
students to accept the Armenian genocide claims. The Turkis societies
consider the pressures as anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim campaign.

Arman Sag, a student at the Utrecht University department of
Turcology and a spokesman for Turkish students in the Netherlands,
said they were facing obstacles for rejecting the genocide.

Sag said they had been called neo-Nazis by their teachers, noting:

`Our education is being hindered here. There is freedom of thought. I
did my research and found that Armenians had not been subject to
genocide. This is my opinion and nobody can accuse me of this. We
will always support freedom of thought. We condemn anti-Turkish
prejudice. Such incidences attempt to invoke enmity against Turks.’

Law student Gamze Arikan called the move an attack on human rights,
while Tilburg University student Fatih Kulaksizoglu said: `We condemn
antidemocratic policies imposed on us. We will never recognize the
Armenian genocide.’

Another Turkish student, Guven Alkilic, expressed that the Turkish
community had been deeply disappointed by the dismissal of Turkish
candidates from their parties.

`By expelling Turkish candidates, Dutch political parties have not
only attacked Turkish society’s freedom of thought and expression but
also democracy. This move implies that they favor puppet MPs that
will approve whatever they say.’

More than 450.000 Turkish people live in the Netherlands and they
have almost no representative in the Dutch political system. The
decision to remove the Turkish names from the party lists increased
the mistrust among the Turkish people in Netherlands towards the
State and Duch institutions.

Reuters, UK
Oct 13 2006

Nobel winner Pamuk attacks France on genocide law
Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:26 PM IST

By Paul de Bendern

ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkish Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, tried at home
for commenting on the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks, said on
Friday a French law banning the denial of the Armenian genocide went
against free speech.

"Freedom of expression is a French discovery and this law is contrary
to the culture of freedom of expression. We must not pass a law
forbidding freedom," Pamuk told Turkish broadcaster Kanal D in an
interview from New York.

Turkey’s powerful speaker of parliament earlier challenged Pamuk to
declare his stand on the controversial bill approved by France’s
lower house of parliament on Thursday, which came the day he was
awarded the literary world’s most coveted prize.

Turkey denies that Armenians suffered genocide in Turkey during World
War One, arguing that large numbers of both Muslim Turks and
Christian Armenians died in a partisan conflict that accompanied the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The French bill shocked many Turks who are sensitive about their
history and reluctant to discuss it, while the Nobel committee’s
decision puts the centre-right government in an awkward spot as it
has been a regular critic of Pamuk.

Nationalist prosecutors took Pamuk to trial in January on charges he
insulted Turkey’s identity by telling a Swiss newspaper 1 million
Armenians had died in Turkey during World War One and 30,000 Kurds
had perished in recent decades.

The trial, under article 301 of the penal code, was later dismissed
on a technicality but not before it brought a sharp rebuke from the
European Union.

ABOLISH LAW

"Article 301 must be abolished… We (journalists, authors and
publishers) are all facing difficult days but democracy will be
secured in Turkey, we’ll all spend our effort on this," Pamuk said.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer have
not yet publicly commented on the award, a signal of how deep the
Armenian issue runs and how divisive a figure Pamuk is in Muslim but
secular Turkey.

But a spokesman for Erdogan said he had spoke to Pamuk,
congratulating him and saying it was good a Turk had won.

Many Turks are critical of Pamuk — whose prose mixes East and West,
past and present — for bringing the Armenian issue into the public
forum and especially to foreigners’ attention.

At the height of the nationalist hysteria over his comments, one
provincial official called for Pamuk’s books to be burnt.

Most of Turkey’s newspapers on Friday praised Pamuk for winning the
country’s first Nobel but many dailies questioned whether the move by
the Swedish academy was political.

"Is the Nobel prize given to a Turk or to his claims about his
country? This would be pity for Turkey and for Orhan Pamuk as well
… because he really deserved this prize," said Ertugrul Ozkok,
editor-in-chief of leading newspaper Hurriyet.

Pamuk responded: "It’s not the day to make deep criticism but a day
to celebrate. I won’t say anything to those who think I won this
prize for political reasons."

Radio Liberty. Czech Rep.
Oct 13 2006

Armenian Studens Salute France Over Genocide Bill

By Irina Hovannisian

Hundreds of students rallied outside the French embassy in Yerevan
Friday to thank France’s parliament for passing a bill that would
make it an offence punishable by jail to deny that Armenians suffered
a genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks.

Chanting `Long live France!’ and waving French and Armenian flags,
they marched through the city center in two separate demonstrations
organized by the student organizations of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) and another youth organizations.

`We express our sincere gratitude to our French friends and welcome
this historic step,’ an organizer of the first rally representing the
Social Democratic Hnchakian Party said, reading out a petition
outside the embassy building in central Yerevan.

`We are here to express our joy at the adoption of this law and hope
that sooner or later such a bill will be adopted in Turkey,’ said one
of the participants.

`That horrible crime must be accepted by all means,’ agreed another,
referring to the 1915-1918 mass killings and deportations of
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

France is one of about two dozen countries that have officially
recognized the slaughter of an estimated 1.5 Armenians as genocide.
Ignoring vehement protests from the Turkey, the lower of house of its
parliament went farther and adopted legislation on Thursday that
establishes a one-year prison term and 45,000 euro ($56,570) fine for
anyone denying the genocide. Armenia promptly welcomed the move as a
`natural reaction to the intensive, aggressive and official denial of
the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish state.’

`France recognized the fact of the Armenian genocide long ago,’ Henry
Cuny, the French ambassador to Armenia, said, addressing the jubilant
students outside his mission.

Cuny made no direct mention of the bill, which his government did not
support, urging young Armenians instead to strive to improve `your
relations with your neighbor Turkey.’ `I think that for any country
having good relations with a good neighbor is very important,’ he
said, adding that Turkey should reopen its border with Armenia and
`embrace values’ espoused by the European Union.

Visiting Yerevan earlier this month, French President Jacques Chirac
indicated that Turkey has to recognize the Armenian genocide if it
wants to join the EU. The statement was echoed by other top French
politicians. EU officials insist, however, that genocide recognition
is not a precondition for Ankara’s entry to the bloc.

Al-Jazeera, Qatar
Oct 13 2006

Turkey considers action against France
Friday 13 October 2006, 18:52 Makka Time, 15:52 GMT

Erdogan said Turkey would take the necessary steps
The Turkish prime minister has said Ankara is studying retaliatory
measures against France following the approval of a law making it a
crime to deny the Armenian genocide.

Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday that the government would take measures
within Turkey and abroad.

"Turkey’s foreign trade volume with France is $10 billion and this is
equal to 1.5 per cent of France’s whole foreign trade volume.

"We’re going to make the proper calculations and then take necessary
steps," Erdogan said.

Turkey denies claims that Armenians suffered genocide in Turkey
during World War One, arguing that large numbers of both Muslim Turks
and Christian Armenians died in a partisan conflict that accompanied
the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The EU also reiterated its criticism of the French move.

Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, said: "We
don’t think that this decision at this moment is helpful in the
context of the European Union’s relations with Turkey."

The Armenian government welcomed the French vote, saying that Turkey
had carried out a "intensive, aggressive and official" campaign to
stop the killings being recognised as genocide.

France’s lower house of parliament voted for the bill on Thursday,
despite warnings from French firms that it would create repercussions
for their business in Turkey, a fast-growing market which imported
4.7 billion euros’ worth of French goods in 2005.

"There are no real threats in current trade, though perhaps [there
could be] with some big contracts," a French Foreign Ministry
spokesman said.

The bill still needs approval from the upper house, the Senate, and
Jacques Chirac, the president, to take effect.

Hundreds of French firms such as Renault and Carrefour have large
investments in Turkey, employing thousands of Turkish workers.

This week Turkish consumer groups and some trade unions called for
boycotts of French products.