ANKARA: Turkish PM Erdogan Slams FM Sarkozy’s Armenian Conditions

TURKISH PM ERDOGAN SLAMS FM SARKOZY’S ARMENIAN CONDITIONS
By Mihriban Kibar (JTW)

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 11 2006

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan blasted conditions French
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy laid down in return for voting down
a controversial bill penalizing any denial of the Armenian claims.

Presidential hopeful Sarkozy said on France-Inter radio that he had
spoken with Turkish PM Erdogan on the telephone twice with regard
to the French Armenian bill, which will be debated at the National
Assembly tomorrow, and told him that they could oppose the bill if
Turkey opens its border gate with neighboring Armenia, scrap Article
301, which the European Union says is restrictive of freedom of
expression, from its penal code, and establish a joint commission
between Turkey and Armenia to study the claims allegations.

In response to Sarkozy’s conditions, Turkish PM Erdogan said it
was the Turkish side which proposed the establishment of a joint
commission for academic debates on genocide allegations and made
clear that Turkey’s good intentions were not welcomed by Armenia,
which rejected the proposal. Erdogan called last year to establish
a commission between two sides, yet Yerevan strongly rejected the
offer claiming "there is nothing to be discussed".

On Article 301, Erdogan said the French suggestion on that issue
had nothing to do with the issue, stressing that France was not in a
position to demand something from Turkey. "First of all France should
take a look at itself," Erdogan said.

On opening the border gate, Erdoðan said Armenia should first act
with good will toward Turkey’s approach. The territorial border gate
between Turkey and Armenia has been closed for more than a decade.

Turkey closed the gate and severed its diplomatic relations with
Armenia after Armenian troops occupied about 20 percent of Azeri
territories, including Nagorno-Karabakh region and several other Azeri
towns. Armenia also does not recognize Turkey’s national borders and
name Turkey’s Eastern provinces ‘Western Armenia’.

Ankara now says normalization of ties depends on Armenian withdrawal
from Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as on progress in resolution of a
series of bilateral disagreements, including Armenia stopping to
support Armenian diaspora efforts to get international recognition
for the alleged genocide.

* "FRANCE IS NOT SINCERE"

JTW asked Sarkozy’s 3 conditions to the Turkish academicians. Dr.
Sedat laciner from USAK said "Sarkozy is not sincere in Armenian
issue. If he believes in the Armenian so-called genocide, how can he
trade it with any condition? If Turkey opens the territorial borders
with Armenia, how can it affect the ‘genocide’ claims. If it is
genocide, you can not make any bargain on it. What is the connection
between the 301 article and 1915 events. There are 301-like articles
in many EU states, like Italy. And this article I think does not
prevent any free discussion on Armenian issue. Turkey is not the most
free country on Armenian issue. There are many pro-Armenian Turkish
academicians and authors in Turkey and they can freely challenge the
official position. Also there are more than 100,000 Turkish Armenians
in Istanbul.".

* "GENOCIDE IS GENOCIDE, LIES ARE LIES"

Similarly Dr. Mehmet Ozcan, another Turkish EU expert, said "Sarkozy
is not the best Turkey expert. He is actually ignorant on Turkey and
Armenian issue". Ozcan explained why he thinks "Sarkozy is ignorant":

"In one his speech he said that Turkey is a 100 million people country,
which not true. Turkey’s population is about 70 million. In another
speech, Mr. Sarkozy implied that Turkey is an Arab country, which is of
course not true. Now he is speaking about Armenia and he calls Turkey’s
Anatolia territories Armenia. If someone calls Turkey as Armenia,
I question his Turkey knowledge. And 3 conditions, if it is genocide,
you cannot put any condition. Genocide is genocide, and lies are lies."

–Boundary_(ID_78qOGSBBrFkvQRsPJYq4LA )–

ANKARA: EU’s Lagendijk: Netherlands’ And France’s Armenian Moves Wou

EU’S LAGENDIJK: NETHERLANDS’ AND FRANCE’S ARMENIAN MOVES WOULD TARNISH THE EU’S CREDIBILITY TOWARDS TURKEY
By Meryem Tuzcu

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 11 2006

* EU Commissioner Rehn : French Armenian Bill Will Serious Impact on
Turkish-EU Relations

By Meryem TUZCU (JTW) – European Union Enlargement Commissioner Olli
Rehn expressed concerns over possible adoption of a French bill that
criminalizes any denial of the claimed genocide of Armenians under
the Ottoman Empire and warned France of the repercussions if the bill
is voted for at the National Assembly tomorrow.

Rehn called on French parliamentarians to "take responsibility" and to
"take into account the possible outcome of the bill."

"Our goal is the assessment of the problem through serious
discussions. I believe French parliamentarians will act responsibly,"
he added.

The EU commissioner said the bill in question was a problem of France
and French lawmakers but stressed that it would have a serious impact
on Turkish-EU relations, instead of reviving dialogue between the
two sides.

Rehn warned that the adoption of the bill would block debates over
the Armenian allegations in Turkey, a move which would harm Turkish
steps in the area of freedom of expression.

Faced with increasing warnings from the EU criticizing Ankara for
restricting freedom of expression under an infamous article in its
penal code (301) that has landed a string of intellectuals into court,
Turkey has accused the bloc of applying double standards, arguing
that France itself was blocking free debate on a historical subject
by criminalizing denial of the alleged genocide. Dr. Nilgun Gulcan
told the JTW that "it becomes impossible to discuss the Armenian
historical claims in France. You have to accept what the Armenians
impose on you. The only place you can freely discuss the Turkish and
Armenian claims is Turkey now".

Turkish officials questioned Rehn, who was in Turkey last week on
the occasion of the first anniversary of EU accession talks, over the
French attempt, complaining that the EU attitude was hurting Turkey’s
aspirations to join the 25-nation bloc.

Joost Lagendijk, head of the Turkish-EU joint parliamentary commission,
also criticized recent developments in both France and the Netherlands,
which removed the names of Dutch candidates of Turkish origin from
its electoral list due to their denial of the Armenian allegations.

Lagendijk warned such moves would tarnish the EU’s credibility
towards Turkey.

Armenians claim that the 1915 events was genocide while Turkey rejects
the Armenians claims. According to Turkey, the Armenians wanted to be
independent and they failed. Turkey accepts that many Armenians died
in 1915 as a result of communal clashes, war circumstances, epidemic
diseases and famine. Turks also add that more than 520,000 Turkish
people were massacred by the armed Armenian groups. After the First
World War, the Armenians argued that they fought against the Ottoman
Empire, and they should be on the negotiations table against the Turks.

ANKARA: Elekdag: Turkey Should Decrease Direct Flights From Armenia

ELEKDAG: TURKEY SHOULD DECREASE DIRECT FLIGHTS FROM ARMENIA
Mucahit Taskiran (JTW)

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Oct 11 2006

ANKARA – Yasar Yakis, former foreign minister and MP from right-wing
AK Party, argued that Turkey should expel 70,000 illegal Armenian
workers in Turkey in apparent retaliation for the probable adoption
by the French National Assembly. However many Turks oppose this idea.

Sukru Elekdag, former diplomat and MP from left-wing cHP party, also
a former senior diplomat and deputy of the main opposition Republican
People’s Party (CHP), at a press conference at Parliament on Monday,
said that France has been exploiting Turkey’s EU membership process
and was trying to get Turkey to eventually cave in.

Over 70,000 Armenian citizens have been illegally working in Turkey
but have been tolerated, Elekdað said. However, Turkey should now
implement the related laws and gradually send these illegal workers
back, he added.

In addition to this measure, Turkey should also decrease the number
of flights between Istanbul and Yerevan, which is seven flights per
week at the moment, Elekdað also added.

The idea was originally voiced by former Foreign Minister Yaþar Yakis,
head of Parliament’s European Union Harmonization Commission, during
a meeting in the northwestern province of Duzce province in a show of
reaction against the French bill penalizing any denial of the claimed
genocide of Armenians.

"Seventy-thousand illegal Armenian workers in Turkey should be sent
back to Armenia in response to the bill", Yakis offered.

"You may say that the mistake was made by France, but the ones
punished are Armenian. However, Armenia should as well be aware of its
responsibilities," he was quoted as saying by the Dogan News Agency.

However some of the Turkish parliamenterians say that "if they are
illegal, they should expel immediately without making any connection
with the French draft".

Yakis based his argument on the fact that the Armenian lobby in France
played a key role in bringing the controversial bill to the agenda
of the French National Assembly.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Ozcan, Turkish EU expert, however argues
that "Turkey should not expel anyone as a measure against France’s
Armenian attempts: "France makes mistakes. Turkey should not do the
similar mistakes. Armenians came here, because they are not happy in
Armenia. They found jobs and stable life here. We should not disturb
these people. They continue to make contribution to Turkey’s and
Armenia’s economies" Prof. Ozcan added.

–Boundary_(ID_bbPp/zNP7kIls6E6rIQ4uw)–

ANKARA: French Goods Will Face Boycott If Armenian Bill Adopted

FRENCH GOODS WILL FACE BOYCOTT IF ARMENIAN BILL ADOPTED
By Cihan News Agency

Zaman, Turkey
Oct 11 2006

Turkish business chambers and consumer associations have called for
a boycott of French products if the controversial Armenian draft bill
is passed in the French Parliament.

Turkish consumer associations declared that if the bill is passed,
they will put one French product on their boycott list every week.

Zafer Caglayan, chairman of Ankara Chamber of Industry, announced that
that he will say "There is no Armenian genocide" in his scheduled
speech to the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry on Oct. 12,
when the controversial bill is debated in the French National Assembly.

Caglayan said he would be the first penalized by the bill, adding that
obtaining a visa from Turkey should be as hard for French nationals
to get as much it is for Turks traveling to France.

The Turkish military has also joined the growing protests against
France. Chief of General Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit said that Turkey
would cut military ties with France if the bill was adopted.

The Turkish Parliament will discuss a "counter" bill on Wednesday
calling for penalties for those who deny the killings of Algerians
under French colonial rule , a day before the French Parliament’s
deliberation on the much-debated Armenian draft bill, which would
make denying the so-called Armenian genocide punishable by up to five
years in prison and a fine of 45,000 Euros.

For further information please visit

http://www.cihannews.com.

U.S. Policy And The Georgian-Russian Crisis

U.S. POLICY AND THE GEORGIAN-RUSSIAN CRISIS
by Dr. Ariel Cohen

Heritage.org, DC
The Heritage Foundation
Oct 11 2006

Amid great power fretting over North Korea’s nuclear test and
continuing Iranian truculence against the West, Russia escalated
its confrontation with the neighboring Georgia. Moscow is now using
Georgia’s arrest of four alleged Russian intelligence officers two
weeks ago as a pretext to escalate its conflicts with Tbilisi. This
is a dangerous development for the West, and specifically the
United States, which could see its influence in the Caucasus region
crumble if Russia is successful in forcing Georgia into its sphere
of influence. U.S. policy must walk a fine line of encouraging
settlement of the current dispute without becoming a liability through
over-involvement.

Georgia may have overplayed its hand in arresting the Russian military
intelligence officers, whom it accused of sabotage, and not just
expelling them quietly-the normal modus operandi in such cases.

In response to the arrests, Moscow recalled its ambassador from
Tbilisi, evacuated diplomats and their families, and halted issuing
visas to Georgian citizens. The Russian military forces stationed
in Georgia are on high alert. Russia cut air and railroad links to
Georgia, and blocked money transfers from Georgians working in Russia,
an important source of income for many Georgian families.

Bearing the brunt of this invigorated conflict is one-million-strong
Georgian Diaspora in Russia. Ethnic Georgians, including children,
were loaded onto cargo planes and expelled from Russia. Russia cites
their illegal immigration status. Prominent Georgian intellectuals
who are Russian citizens are being harassed by the tax police.

Georgian businesses in Moscow are being singled out by law enforcement
authorities. The handling of this crisis is further damaging Russia’s
international standing as a dependable member of the G-8.

Georgian Overkill?

Since Mikheil Saakashvili rose to power in the Rose Revolution of
2003, Russia has warily witnessed anti-Russian statements by Georgian
leaders, a relentless push to evacuate Russian military bases (to which
Russia had agreed previously), an attempt to join NATO, and opposition
to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. In response,
the Putin administration has embargoed Georgia’s key exports into
Russia: Borjomi mineral water and wine.

Russia has made little secret of its desire to spark a war
in the Caucasus to force regime change in Tbilisi. (See Ariel
Cohen, "Preventing a Russian-Georgian Military Confrontation,"
Heritage Foundation Webmemo No. 1024, March 31, 2006, at
ia/ wm1024.cfm.) It may
get its wish. In September, South Ossetian separatists, who receive
Russian military support, fired on a Georgian helicopter carrying the
Georgian Minister of Defense. This provocation, if successful, could
have led to renewed hostilities in the small secessionist territory
that is a part of Georgia.

Geopolitical Roots

Russia’s regional and global strategic aims explain why Moscow is
escalating its conflict with Georgia. First, Russia has attempted
before to block NATO enlargement into former Soviet territory. In 1999,
Russia fulminated against the Baltic States’ NATO membership.

But at that time, Russia was extricating itself from the 1998 economic
crisis while a power struggle was afoot in Moscow to succeed President
Boris Yeltsin. In part because energy prices were much lower in 1999,
Western European countries supported the Baltic States’ NATO bid
despite Russian protests. Today, with the West increasingly dependent
on Russia’s Gazprom, they are taking Russia’s foreign policy positions
much more seriously.

Second, the Kremlin is now buoyed by $250 billion in petro-dollar
reserves. These funds can buy a lot of hardware for the Trans-Caucasus
Military District and pro-Russian separatists in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia.

Third, Russia is uneasy over the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan main export
pipeline (MEP), which takes Azeri oil to Mediterranean markets and
crosses Georgia but bypasses Russia. Soon the Absheron-Erzurum gas
pipeline will come online, bringing Azeri gas to Turkey and Europe,
again bypassing Russia. Gazprom fears that this gas pipeline may
eventually allow Turkmeni and Kazakhstani gas to circumvent its
pipeline network on its way to Europe.

A Balance of Power Shift

If Georgia comes under the Russian sway, neighboring Azerbaijan and
Armenia will feel the full weight of the Russian presence. Foreign
policy experts in Moscow believe that the Russian government is angry
that Azerbaijan has not allocated enough oil patches to Russian
companies and has facilitated its oil exports via Turkey instead
of Russia. With increased power in the region, Russia will act on
these concerns.

Armenian opposition openly seeks a more pro-Western and less
pro-Russian policy, pointing out that close ties with Moscow did
not improve Armenia’s abysmal living standards and did not bring
international recognition of the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh,
a breakaway province of Azerbaijan, populated mostly by Armenians.

A pro-Russian Georgia in the Collective Security Treaty Organization
of the Commonwealth of Independent States would permit Russia and
Iran to dominate Azerbaijan and Armenia, severely limiting U.S.

policy options there. Furthermore, such a development would put to
rest American ambitions in Central Asia and could cut off strategically
important Kazakhstan from western energy markets.

The Kosovo Ripple Effect

Russia has warned repeatedly that it will retaliate severely if Kosovo
is granted independence against the will of Serbia, a historic ally,
and Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for the imposition of
the Kosovo criteria on separatist enclaves in the former Soviet Union,
including Transnistria (a part of Moldova), Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
and Nagorno-Karabakh. Under this policy, Russia would enforce referenda
in these territories and recognize their independence, opening the
door to their eventual incorporation in the Russian Federation. This
approach would create a dangerous precedent for the Crimea, where
the majority of the Russian-speaking population is pro-Russian;
Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine; and the predominantly Slavic
Northern Kazakhstan.

Violations and alternations of the current borders of the former
Soviet Union could generate severe tensions in Europe and open a
Pandora’s box of territorial claims and ethnically based border
challenges there and elsewhere, such as in Iraq and Kurdistan.

Conclusion

The United States today is preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran,
and North Korea. Russia is a key player in all of these, and its
increased cooperation in these disputes would be welcome. The future of
U.S.-Russian relations and global security requires that Moscow behave
responsibly and constructively. Quickly defusing the Georgian crisis
through diplomacy would be a good place to start. Washington should
encourage the European powers, the European Union, and Turkey to become
more engaged in defusing the Georgian-Russian confrontation. Finally,
the U.S. should advise Georgia not to escalate its rhetoric on Russia
unnecessarily or needlessly antagonize its large neighbor. After
all, a peaceful and prosperous Caucasus is in Russian, Georgian,
and American interests.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian
Studies and International Energy Security at the Douglas and Sarah
Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn
and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The
Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEuras

No Retreat – Pope More Determined In ‘Reciprocity’ Challenge To Isla

NO RETREAT – POPE MORE DETERMINED IN ‘RECIPROCITY’ CHALLENGE TO ISLAM
By John L. Allen Jr.

Catholic Online, CA
Oct 11 2006

National Catholic Reporter ()

VATICAN CITY (National Catholic Reporter) – If anyone wondered whether
the heartache of the last few weeks would persuade Benedict XVI to
dial down his challenge to Islam on "reciprocity," Vatican argot for
the religious freedom of Christians and other minorities in Muslim
nations, Sept. 25 showed the pope instead more determined than ever.

On that day, Benedict met with ambassadors from Muslim nations, along
with representatives of Italy’s tiny but growing Muslim community,
at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo. It was a carefully
choreographed damage control exercise, designed to turn a corner
following his controversial Sept. 12 remarks on Islam. Even in this
atmosphere of made-for-TV harmony, however, the pope could not resist
laying down a marker on reciprocity, the one issue above all that has
driven a more assertive line toward Islam within the Catholic Church.

In his brief talk, the pope hit all the anticipated notes: dialogue,
peace, mutual respect. He also, however, pointedly quoted John Paul
II’s 1985 address to Muslim youth in Casablanca: "Respect and dialogue
require reciprocity in all spheres, especially in that which concerns
basic freedoms, more particularly religious freedom."

Benedict did not elaborate. But the fact that he singled out this
lone quotation from John Paul’s vast body of speeches and messages
on Islam, in a session carried live on Al Jazeera and widely seen as
his best chance to quell anger in the Muslim street, indicates there
were will be no retreat from the reciprocity challenge.

In reality, at least on reciprocity, almost no one disputes that the
pope has a point. The imbalance between the basic freedom of Muslims
in the West to worship as they choose versus a range of de jure and
de facto restrictions on Christians and other groups in many Muslim
nations is abundantly documented.

Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Fla., who has testified about
reciprocity issues before the U.S. Congress as chair of the bishops’
International Policy Committee, said that the recent crisis offered
a wake-up call to both Muslims and Christians regarding the urgency
of talking about such matters.

"It’s put the need for dialogue on the radar screen," he told National
Catholic Reporter.

The real question, experts on both sides of the Muslim/Catholic divide
said in interviews, is not whether there’s a problem to discuss, but
whether Benedict – or the Catholic church generally – is equipped to
be part of the solution.

Clear challenges

Even a cursory review illustrates the challenges in the Islamic world.

In its annual report on religious freedom, the U.S. State Department
flagged eight "Countries of Particular Concern," four of which are
majority Muslim states: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Eritrea. (The
others are Burma, China, North Korea and Vietnam.) The nonpartisan
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom cited another
three countries, all Muslim states: Pakistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan. The commission’s "watch list" adds an additional seven
nations as problem areas, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt,
Indonesia and majority Muslim areas of Nigeria.

Likewise, the Washington-based Center for Religious Freedom lists seven
countries as "completely un-free," four of them Muslim: Turkmenistan,
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. (The others are Burma, North Korea
and China.)

No Western government, and no majority Christian nation other than
Cuba, makes either list. Of the 46 predominantly Muslim nations on
earth, not one ranks in the top tier of religiously free states.

When the Italian branch of Aid to the Church in Need, an international
Catholic charitable group, began producing an annual report on
religious freedom in 1998, its first edition was focused on countries
with a Muslim majority.

Experts caution that such findings, taken in the abstract, can be
misleading. In many Muslim nations, they note, the most repressed
groups are not Christians but other Muslims, such as non-Wahabbi forms
of Islam in Saudi Arabia, or the Ahmadiyya movement in Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Indonesia. Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s reasons for
repressing religious expression (adherence to a strict form of Islamic
doctrine) are different from Turkey’s (commitment to Western-style
secularization), even if in practice they can translate into similar
policies.

Further, experts note, while there may be little de jure discrimination
against Muslims in majority Christian states, de facto life can be
just as hard. In the overwhelmingly Catholic Philippines, for example,
Muslims worship legally, but in some parts of the country they live
in fear of death squads.

Even in Europe, Muslims face difficulties.

"In France, it’s hard to get a permit to build something that looks
like a mosque, with minarets and the rest," said Mohammad Fadel,
an Egyptian scholar at the University of Toronto. "It’s OK for
Muslims to worship in warehouses, but not in identifiably Islamic
structures." Recent explosions of rage in both France and England
testify to the second-class citizenship young Muslims often feel in
the West.

Finally, experts say, Islam has no monopoly on repressive behavior.

Anti-conversion laws in majority Hindu India or in majority Buddhist
Sri Lanka are just as appalling by Western standards, to say nothing of
totalitarian states such as China or North Korea. In fact, Muslims in
the Western China region of Xuar often bear the brunt of antireligious
crackdowns by communist authorities.

A dismal record Even so, the situation facing religious minorities
in many Islamic countries, based on data collected from the U.S.

Commission on International Religious Freedom, Aid to the Church in
Need, and other sources, still makes for dismal reading:

~U Saudi Arabia: The Quran is officially the country’s constitution,
with public religious expression other than the Hanbali school of
Sunni Islam prohibited. This ban is backed up by the mutawaa, or
religious police. In 2005, the mutawaa conducted at least four raids
of Christian "house churches," according to the Center for Religious
Freedom. Christians cannot import Bibles or wear religious symbols,
and clergy cannot wear religious dress. Capuchin priests charged with
pastoral care of several hundred thousand Catholics, mostly Filipino,
Vietnamese and Korean guest workers, cannot minister openly.

~U Iran: The constitution proclaims Shiah Islam the official religion.

It recognizes Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians as protected
minorities, but all face discrimination in education, government and
the armed services. Common law applies the death sentence for trying
to convert Muslims. Over the past 13 years, at least eight evangelical
Christians have been killed by government authorities, and more than
20 are reported "disappeared." Last year, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati,
secretary general of the powerful Council of Guardians, stated that
"non-Muslims cannot be described as human beings, but as sinning
animals come to earth to disseminate corruption."

~U Sudan: Everyone in the north of the country, Muslim or not,
is subject to Islamic law. Although permits are regularly granted
to build mosques, permission to build churches is denied. The death
penalty for apostasy from Islam remains the law, even if it’s rarely
enforced. Converts typically cannot remain in Sudan. Since President
Omar El Bashir came to power in 1989, alcohol has been forbidden,
which makes use of wine illegal even in the Catholic Mass.

~U Egypt: The constitution guarantees freedom of worship, but Islam
is the official religion and Shariah the main source of legislation.

Coptic Christians, who represent 15 percent of the population, are
limited to roughly 1 percent of positions in parliament, military
and police academies, the judiciary and diplomatic corps, and teaching.

Family law is also an issue. If a Christian father converts to Islam,
his minor children must follow. The mother’s custody rights, which
otherwise take precedence, are ignored. Recently, a civil court
ruled that the Coptic church must remarry a divorced person, despite
church teaching to the contrary. Another court ruled that polygamy
is permissible in Christianity.

~U Nigeria: Since October 1999, 12 northern Nigerian states have
extended Shariah into the state’s criminal courts. Some states have
sanctioned quasi-official Hisbah, or religious police, to enforce it.

Christians suffer discrimination in building or repairing churches,
access to education and media, representation in government, and
employment. In August 2005, the Hisbah forced 15 Christian churches
to close in one state alone.

~U Turkey: Although officially tolerance is the law of the land,
religious services without authorization are illegal, and religious
communities cannot own property. The government often deposes religious
leaders not to its liking. Seminaries of the Armenian Apostolic and the
Greek Orthodox churches were closed in the 1970s, and the government
has resisted attempts to reopen them. Foreign religious workers face
harassment, and religious communities are under state surveillance.

Muslims often say that such examples are selective, pointing to other
Islamic nations with allegedly better track records such as Jordan,
Indonesia or Malaysia.

Even in traditionally tolerant Malaysia, however, trends are
disturbing. Recently a woman named Lina Joy, who converted to
Christianity from Islam in 1998, petitioned to officially change her
religious status so that she could marry a Christian. She was refused
by Malaysian courts on the grounds that "the plaintiff exists under
the tenets of Islam until her death." Other Malay Muslims who have
attempted to convert have been imprisoned and sent to "rehabilitation
camps." Joy is currently awaiting a ruling from the country’s Federal
Court.

Pluralism and Islam

Facing this record, the towering question is whether there’s something
inherent within Islam at odds with religious liberty.

Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, recently said that
"considered on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion,"
though he clarified in a June interview with National Catholic
Reporter that he meant to raise a question rather than propose a
definitive conclusion.

In response to claims that there are different strains in Islam just
as in Christianity, Cardinal Pell issued this challenge: "Show me
where they’re tolerant."

Muslims say that challenge can be met.

Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Washington-based
Muslim Public Affairs Council, said religious liberty "is an
Islamic principle." Al-Marayati said that where imbalances exist,
they are generally the result of dictatorial regimes or social and
political rivalries that have little to do with Islamic theology. He
dismissed claims that the concept of the dhimmi, meaning a non-Muslim
under Islamic law, condemns non-Muslims to subjugation. In principle,
al-Marayati said, dhimmi denotes respect (in Arabic, it means "honor"),
and its requirements are open to interpretation.

Reza Aslan, an Iranian-born journalist and scholar and author of No
god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam, argues that
religious freedom is part of Islam’s genetic code.

"There are few scriptures that can match the reverence with which the
Quran speaks of other religious traditions," Aslan said, asserting
that "democratic ideals such as … pluralism and human rights are
widely accepted throughout the Muslim world," though not the Western
notion that church and state must be separate.

Perhaps the most often-cited reference supporting an Islamic version of
pluralism is sura 2, verse 256, of the Quran: "There is no compulsion
in religion."

In this regard, Aslan and other Muslim commentators contend that
Benedict XVI made a critical error in his Sept. 12 address in
Regensburg, Germany. The pope attributed this sura to the early
Mecca period of Muhammad’s life, when Islam was a tiny minority – the
suggestion being that Muhammad abandoned tolerance once Islam attained
political power. In fact, Aslan said, the sura comes from the later
Medina period, when Islam was already a majority. That indicates, Aslan
said, that religious pluralism is possible in majority Muslim states.

Some Christian activists think so too.

Nina Shea of the Center for Religious Freedom, the lobbyist widely
credited with making anti-Christian persecution a "hot topic" on
Capitol Hill, attributed the repressive climate within Islamic cultures
largely to "social and political" factors, not the religion itself.

"When I talk to Christians in these places, they usually say that
they’ve lived in peace with Muslims for generations," she said.

"Something has changed."

That something, Shea argued, is the emergence of a global
"politicization" of Islam, which seeks to expand the reach of Islamic
law to the entire planet – an effort, she argued, that reached an
apogee with reaction to Benedict’s comments on Muhammad, with even
the pope seemingly expected to obey Muslim laws on blasphemy.

Yet because politics rather than doctrine seem to be driving this
trend, Shea said, perhaps it can be reversed.

Jesuit Father Tom Michel, who served as the Vatican’s expert on Islam
from 1981 to 1994, agreed that there are worrying developments in
some countries, but said that most Muslims regard Shariah as a code
for Muslims, not anyone else. Such a distinction, Father Michel said,
"can create the basis for a pluralistic society."

Six-point program

How can Benedict make the case for reciprocity in a way that doesn’t
feed extremism? Muslim and Christian experts recommended a six-point
program:

~U Humbly acknowledge that Christians have had, and in some places
continue to have, their own struggles with religious freedom;

~U Don’t make reciprocity seem like special pleading for Christians,
but rather a principled stand in favor of freedom for all religions;

~U Make it clear that this is not a crusade against Islam;

~U Recall areas where Catholics and Muslims are natural allies,
such as resistance to secularization;

~U Speak directly to Muslim governments that are responsible
for repressive policies, not just to clerics and theologians in
theological language;

~U Make religious freedom part of a broader message about civil and
political liberties across the board.

Bishop Wenski said it’s important to cite cases where the church
has stood up for other religions. Father Michel agreed, offering the
example of former Cardinal Salvatore Pappalardo of Palermo, Italy.

When Muslims in Palermo needed a place to worship, Father Michel said,
Cardinal Papallardo gave them an unused church.

"This is not a Muslim/Christian thing," Father Michel said. "The
situation is just as bad, or worse, in places like India." He warned
that an exclusive focus on Islam feeds suspicion that "reciprocity"
is a smokescreen for Western interests.

Shea said the pope should direct his appeals not just to religious
leaders, but to governments.

"What needs to be recognized in the West is that most of Islam is
controlled by Muslim governments," she said. "The muftis [Muslim
scholars who interpret the Shariah] are selected and paid for by the
governments, the mosques are underwritten and registered, and the
schools are controlled."

Bishop Wenski said the church must remind Muslims of common interests,
pointing to the U.N.-sponsored Cairo Conference on population in
1994, when the Holy See and Muslim nations resisted liberal proposals
on abortion.

Fadel said that as Benedict presses the reciprocity issue, he should
avoid awakening "old paradigms" in the Muslim world, one of which
involves "outside powers using minority religious communities as a
pretext for interfering in internal affairs," such as the British
did with the Copts in Egypt.

Instead, Fadel recommended that Benedict present a "universalist
human rights agenda, stressing democratic and civil rights issues,
such as free speech, freedom of the press, and voting rights."

As a Muslim, Fadel said he would welcome such a contribution from
the pope. "Anything that raises serious issues is always welcome, and
the Catholic church still has a reservoir of goodwill," he said. But
in reference to the recent controversy, Fadel added: "Last time he
didn’t do a very good job. The performance has got to get better."

John L. Allen Jr. is National Catholic Reporter senior correspondent.

www.ncronline.org

Lebanese Army Confiscated Arms In South Lebanon

LEBANESE ARMY CONFISCATED ARMS IN SOUTH LEBANON

United Press International
Oct 11 2006

Beirut – The Lebanese army has confiscated weapons in south Lebanon
where it is being assisted by international troops to extend exclusive
government control.

Defense Minister Elias Murr said Tuesday the confiscation of
illegitimate arms south of the Litani River was in line with Security
Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 34-day war between Lebanon’s
Hezbollah and Israel on Aug. 14.

The area south of the Litani River is an 18-mile-deep area stretching
between the Blue Line, which divides Lebanon and Israel, and the river.

"Arms have been confiscated by Lebanese troops in the south," Murr said
without elaborating or identifying the party whose weapons were seized.

He stressed, however, that the Hezbollah organization was responding
well to the army’s mission and refraining from any armed manifestation.

The Iranian-backed Shiite group has said it supports the government’s
decision to arrest any of its gunmen and confiscate his weapons if
they are displayed.

Murr said the United States and several European countries will supply
the Lebanese army with equipment and arms.

In a related development, seven Turkish army officers arrived in
Lebanon ahead of the Turkish battalion taking part in the U.N.

peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, UNIFIL, whose number was increased
to 15,000 in line with resolution 1701.

Turkey decided to contribute troops to UNIFIL despite protests by
Lebanon’s Armenian community, which objects to Turkey’s military
participation due the Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915.

Picture: Lebanese army checkpoint . A hezbollah flag is shown in
the background.

Abkhazia: Land In Limbo

ABKHAZIA: LAND IN LIMBO
George Hewitt

Open Democracy, UK
Oct 10 2006

The unrecognised republic of Abkhazia lies at the heart of the
Georgia-Russia dispute. George Hewitt, leading scholar of Abkhazian
language and identity, considers how the Abkhaz today view their
own future.

Georgia’s president Mikheil Saakashvili introduced John McCain,
leader of a senatorial delegation to Tbilisi in September 2006, as
"the next president of the United States," a compliment repaid by
McCain’s styling the Georgian people America’s "best friends." As the
senators bade Georgia farewell some days later, they expressed the
hope that the peoples of the two territories which have maintained a
precarious immunity from Tbilisi’s grasp since the conflicts of the
early 1990s would "soon learn what it means to live in freedom."

In offering this view of Abkhazia (which the senators did not visit)
and South Ossetia (which they did), leading figures in Washington
demonstrate (once again) an abiding ignorance of the cause they
proclaim. A month later, the Abkhazians in particular are left to muse
on the political calculations behind such visits: and on how far the
current crisis threatening their small republic might owe something
to stage-management by a US administration working closely with the
tyro politicians who head the government of the Georgia from which
the Abkhazians broke away in the 1992-93 war.

George Hewitt is professor of Caucasian languages at London’s
School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS). Among his many works
are "Peoples of the Caucasus" (in Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, ed.,
Guide to the Peoples of Europe (Times Books, 1994) and (as editor)
The Abkhazians, a handbook (Routledge, 1998)

Also by George Hewitt in openDemocracy:

"Sakartvelo, roots of turmoil" (27 November 2003)

To explain why Abkhazians may think in this way, and to understand
how they see their present situation and future, a return to this
earlier period is essential. At the end of September 1993, as the
Georgian-Abkhazian war ended with the flight of the Georgian fighters
and many of the largely Mingrelian population who sympathised with
Tbilisi’s claim to the territory, the Abkhazians never re-established
control over a part of their homeland. This was the upper Kodor
(Kodori) valley, repopulated in the latter half of the 19th century
(after the migration to Ottoman areas of the native population)
by another Georgian-related people called Svans, who expanded from
their own valleys in Georgia.

Some informed observers believe that the Russians then planned
(under a proposal of then defence minister Pavel Grachev, which in
the event was rejected by then leader of the Georgian state council,
Eduard Shevardnadze) to make permanent the de facto partition of
Abkhazia at the Gumista river, just north of the capital Sukhum
(Sukhumi). To further this aim, it is alleged that the Russians
threatened to bomb the Abkhazians if they continued up the Kodor
towards the Klukhor pass, in case this might spread unrest among the
residents of Russia’s north Caucasian republic of Karachay-Cherkessia
(Russians had already reportedly bombed the village of Eshera,
behind the Abkhazians’ frontline, as the latter began their final
push against the Georgians). The valley, thus, remained notionally
under Tbilisi’s control – though, like Georgia’s own Svanetia region,
it mostly remained a law unto itself.

The Abkhaz-Georgia war was officially terminated by the Moscow
accords of 1994, which provided for a demilitarised zone along the
Ingur river to be supervised by Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) – essentially Russian – peacekeeping troops; with the United
Nations, through its observer mission (Unomig), exercising effective
oversight. The zone was frequently breached by violent groups (the
Forest Brethren and the White Legion) operating out of Mingrelia and
financed by the Georgian government, which infiltrated Abkhazia’s Gal
(Gali) district to commit murder and sabotage.

In May 1998, renewed conflagration was narrowly avoided as the
Abkhazians destroyed the bridgehead being built in some border
villages. In 2001, a group of Chechen marauders mysteriously made
their way into the valley from eastern Georgia (plainly with the
connivance of then-president Eduard Shevardnadze’s government) to
create brief mayhem in some Armenian villages before their expulsion.

In July 2006, cross-border militarism was reactivated and hundreds
of regular Georgian troops were installed in the valley on the
pretext of executing a "policing operation" to rid the area of the
corruption practised by local leader Emzar Kvitsiani. In addition,
Saakashvili is relocating there the members of the so-called
"Abkhazian government-in-exile" from the relative luxury of their
sinecure existence in Tbilisi.

This whole operation was condemned by the Georgian NGO, the Human
Rights Information and Documentation Centre. From a hideout, Kvitsiani
produced a video declaring guerrilla war against the interlopers,
the Svans not at all fancying the idea of Mingrelians being imported
to govern them.

A murky affair

Three questions immediately occur with reference to events in the
Kodor:

if Russia is, as Tbilisi repeatedly asserts, fully behind Abkhazia’s
secession, why did the CIS/Russian peacekeepers neither act to
block the Georgian troops’ entry nor, at the very least, inform
the Abkhazians of it? (Unomig provided this crucial information)
why has no western government or politician condemned this manifest
infringement of the 1994 accords?

what is the true purpose of the Georgian military presence just fifty
kilometers from Sukhum? (After all, the idea that the most corrupt of
the Soviet Union’s former republics is now, after the three local wars
and years of lawlessness in the 1990s, so law-abiding that the only
pocket riddled with corruption is the upper Kodor valley is risible).

The Abkhazians, irritated by the proximity of foreign troops, initially
viewed the matter with alarm, writing much about the possible imminence
of war, but they have restrained themselves from responding to blatant
provocation, aware that any such move would immediately bring down
on their heads the international condemnation that the Georgians have
largely escaped.

They also know that tanks are no use under the two metres of snow
that blanket Svanetia for much of the year; they have not controlled
this valley for fourteen years, and so in reality little has changed.

A frontal assault into Gal, as unleashed by Shevardnadze on 14
August 1992, would be entirely different, but they calculate that
the puppeteers in Washington are not so reckless as to dance their
marionettes onto this dangerous stage.

A state in suspension

Abkhazia, present problems notwithstanding, is making slow progress
towards building a future for its population – consisting of roughly
equal numbers of Abkhazians, Mingrelians, Armenians and Russians.

Each year more enterprises open, more buildings appear or are renovated
(though ugly ruins still scar the main battlegrounds of Sukhum and the
Ochamchira district), transport-links improve (though again the needs
of Ochamchira town continue to be ignored), and virtually anything
can be bought in Sukhum’s shops and thriving market, as long as the
customer has cash. But there’s the rub.

Levels of (Russian) tourism to Abkhazia in 2005 were said to be
virtually back to Soviet levels, but one sensed this summer that
numbers were down, especially in Sukhum, probably through fear of
hostilities. The Georgian military presence has, thus, perhaps achieved
one goal in damaging Abkhazia’s fragile economy. For the first time in
ten years westerners can again cross freely from Russia into Abkhazia –
all that is needed is a permit from Abkhazia’s foreign ministry and,
if return to Russia is desired, a double/multiple-entry Russian visa.

Will this encourage investors to visit and assess for themselves
(free from Georgian pressure) the huge potential of this small
Caucasian paradise? Apart from coastal pearls like Gagra and Pitsunda
or mountain-jewels like Lake Ritsa, the airport at Dranda has the
longest runway in Transcaucasia, and surveys indicate that Ochamchira
could provide the best deep-water port in the whole western Caucasus.

But the detritus of war remains: climbing the path to the small church
of Basil the Martyr in the neighbourhood of the working Monastery
of St John Chrysostom at Kaman, we were reminded by a Halo Trust
operative not to stray over the white ribbon demarcating a minefield.

Once Turkey ceased to accept Abkhazian passports and the ferry service
linking Sukhum with Trabzon was suspended in 1996, Abkhazians found
themselves unable to travel abroad – most for emotional reasons
refused to obtain Georgian passports. Russia stepped into the breach,
and 80% reportedly already possess Russian documents, with which they
travel freely.

Georgians complain that, with Russians using their disposable income to
buy property in Abkhazia, this territory is gradually being absorbed
into Russia. And there is much excitement (vs worry in Tbilisi) over
what precedent will be set by the likely recognition of Kosovo. If
Abkhazia’s initial Soviet status as a union-republic had not been
downgraded by Stalin (February 1931) to that of an "autonomous
republic" within Georgia, Abkhazia would have joined the community
of independent nations upon the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991.

All Georgia has offered Abkhazia after losing its attempt at aggressive
territorial integrationism in 1992-93 is a return to the status quo
ante. Not a single Abkhazian endorses this option, which would be
universally seen – if it were within the pale of rational discussion –
as capitulation.

Meanwhile, many of the most vocal advocates of the Georgian national
cause are still wont to portray Georgians as history’s victims. It
is true that the conflict’s end was painful for many thousands of
residents of Abkhazia who fled to Georgia in the moment of defeat
at the end of the 1992-93 war. It was also the jingoistic rhetoric
emanating from Tbilisi (voiced by political leaders, media outlets,
and scholars, questioning the Abkhazians’ historical rights to their
homeland and threatening their expulsion) which had precipitated the
conflict. A full accounting of the war and its aftermath must take
this origin into account.

Moreover, a number of trends in the years since the conflict settled
into a cold (and frequently interrupted) peace – intermittent
demonstrations by Georgia of military muscle, a tendency to
demagogic outburst (not least from Mikheil Saakashvili himself),
and the promulgation in school textbooks of the imaginative theory
that the Abkhazians are relatively recent settlers on historical,
"Georgian" soil – suggest to the Abkhazians (and many others) that
little if anything has changed.

Whilst no Abkhazian would risk again placing the nation’s survival
in Georgian hands, many have reservations about growing association
with Russia. But what alternative has the international community’s
insistence on restoration of (Soviet) Georgia’s territorial integrity
left them? It is time to realise that universal recognition of
Abkhazia’s independence is the best guarantee for Transcaucasian
prosperity in toto, greater readiness to accommodate more refugees,
and a reduction in Russian influence in the region – all western
aspirations that western policies themselves currently frustrate.

Just as Vladimir Putin quipped at George W Bush that Russia has
no interest in mimicking the "democracy" being built in Iraq,
so the Abkhazians could legitimately remind John McCain and his
fellow senators that they understand too well what his best friends’
"freedom" truly means even to consider re-embracing it.

First Turkish Troops Arrive In Lebanon

FIRST TURKISH TROOPS ARRIVE IN LEBANON

Al-Jazeera, Qatar
Oct 10 2006

The vanguard of Turkey’s ground forces have arrived to take part
in peacekeeping in south Lebanon, becoming the first troops from a
Muslim country to deploy in the UN operation.

The seven officers are the first of 237 Turkish soldiers who will be
part of an engineering company that will deploy near Tyre to help
rebuild bridges and roads damaged during the 34-day war between
Hezbollah and Israel.

Cemil Cicek, the Turkish government spokesman, said on Tuesday that
the total number of Turkish personnel would ultimately reach 681,
including sailors as well as the members of the engineer company.

Turkey has already sent a frigate to help an international naval
force monitor the Lebanese coast, and plans to send other ships.

Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country with close ties with Israel
and Arab states.

Its contribution to the peacekeeping force was met with opposition
in the Turkish parliament for fear of Turkish troops being drawn into
fighting with fellow Muslims to protect Israel.

Lebanon’s ethnic Armenians community also has protested the dispatching
of Turkish troops, invoking memories of Ottoman rule of Arab countries
and the 1915 mass deaths that Armenians contend was genocide by Turkey.

http://english.aljazeera.net

Turkey’s Armenians Blast French Bill

TURKEY’S ARMENIANS BLAST FRENCH BILL

Islam Online, Qatar
Oct 10 2006

"This is idiocy," Dink said.

ISTANBUL – Turkey’s Armenians have raised their voice against a French
bill that makes it a jailable offense to deny their ancestors were
the victim of genocide under Ottoman rule, wary it will antagonize
fellow Turks and further strain an already tense debate on the issue.

"Initiatives like the one in the French parliament are awkward,"
Armenian journalist Etyen Mahcupyan told Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Tuesday, October 10.

He said Turks see the proposed law as an imposition on them to accept
the genocide and feared the French move could scupper a fledgling,
timid debate in Turkey to question its past.

The draft law, to be debated and voted in the French parliament
Thursday, October 12, calls for one year in prison and a hefty
45,000-euro (57,000 dollar) fine for anyone who denies that the World
War I massacres constituted genocide.

Ara Kocunyan, editor of the small Armenian-language daily Jamanak,
criticized what he called the feeling of "self-victimization" with
which the Armenian diaspora in the West is pursuing its campaign to
have the massacres internationally recognized as genocide.

"If we stick to the current priorities, I fear those weeping today
for a father killed 90 years ago will find themselves weeping for
little Armenia in 50 years’ time," Kocunyan said.

Armenians claim up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered in
orchestrated killings between 1915 and 1917.

Turkey categorically rejects the genocide label, saying 300,000
Armenians and at least as many Turks died in civil strife when
Armenians took up arms for independence in eastern Anatolia and sided
with invading Russian troops as the Ottoman Empire fell apart.

Idiocy

"The EU must absolutely take a stand against this eclipse of reason
in France," said Erdogan.

Among the first to condemn the bill was journalist Hrant Dink, who is
among a handful of taboo-breaking intellectuals in Turkey who have
openly argued that the massacres were genocide, drawing nationalist
ire and landing himself in court.

"This is idiocy," the Turkish-Armenian Dink said in remarks to the
liberal daily Radikal.

"It only shows that those who restrict freedom of expression in Turkey
and those who try to restrict it in France are of the same mentality."

Dink said he was ready to defend freedom of expression even if it
means running the risk of imprisonment in France.

"I am standing trial in Turkey for saying it was genocide. If this
bill is adopted, I will go to France and, in spite of my conviction,
I will say it was not genocide," he said in a television interview.

Dink, editor of the Turkish-Armenian bilingual weekly Agos, received
a six-month suspended sentence last year for "insulting Turkishness"
in an article about the 1915-1917 alleged massacres.

"The two countries can then compete to see who throws me in jail
first."

The Armenian Patriarchate had said the same thing in May, when the
bill was first submitted but ran out of parliamentary time before a
vote could be held.

"All initiatives creating obstacles to freedom of expression will
jeopardize the process of dialogue between Turks and Armenians and
will reinforce nationalist tendencies on both sides," it said.

"Eclipse of Reason"

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan fired a broadside at France
Tuesday in a mounting row over the draft law, calling the bill the
product of "an eclipse of reason" and urging Paris to rethink its
own colonial past.

"We expect Paris to avoid this blunder, this political accident that
will harm Turkish-French relations," Erdogan told the parliamentary
group of his Justice and Development Party in a speech interrupted
by applause.

"The EU must absolutely take a stand against this eclipse of reason
in France," he said.

Erdogan rejected suggestions by some Turkish lawmakers for Ankara
to retaliate, if the bill is voted, with a similar law making it a
crime to deny that the killings of tens of thousands of Algerians
under French colonial rule amounted to genocide.

"No, we will not retaliate in kind — we do not clean filth with
filth," he said, but he urged the bill’s backers to closely examine
their own past.

"Those vehicles of slander and lies should look at their own past…

Let them look at what happened in Algeria between 1954 and 1962,"
he said.

Erdogan said the bill will prevent free debate on a historical subject
and violate freedom of expression, a basic EU norm that Turkey itself
is under pressure to respect.

But he said the bill would not discourage Turkey from pursuing its
bid to join the European Union.

"Minor snags will not deter us from pursuing our major goals… Work
on our EU (membership) process continues unabated," he said.

Ankara has warned France that it will be barred from potentially
lucrative economic projects in Turkey, including a planned nuclear
power plant, if the bill is adopted.

In a 2001 resolution, France recognized the Armenian massacres as
genocide, prompting Ankara to sideline French companies from public
tenders and cancel several projects awarded to French firms.

006-10/10/08.shtml

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2