Month: November 2006

ARMENIANS FIGHT GLENDALE OVER GRILL CHILL
Monterey County Herald, CA
San Jose Mercury News, USA
Nov 5 2006
GLENDALE (AP) – Armenians here are skewering the city’s ban on outdoor
restaurant grilling as an offense to the kebab culture, but efforts
to overturn it have stalled in the City Council.
This city is 40 percent Armenian and Armenian-American. The 85,000
Armenian residents comprise the largest such population in the
United States.
Last year, voters elected three Armenians to the five-member City
Council, partly on an agenda to remove the outdoor grilling ban. But
they have been unable to win the four votes needed for passage.
That annoys Armenians who say indoor gas grills simply can’t do
justice to their traditional cuisine.
Vrej Sarkissian says it takes more than salt, pepper, onions and olive
oil to make a decent kabob. He cooks the skewered meat on charcoal
outside his restaurant.
“People can always tell the difference,” said Sarkissian, owner of
Anoush Banquets & Catering. “They want the original flavor of home.”
“It’s what our culture is about,” said his brother, Sacco
Sarkissian. “It’s great, because they’re able to hold onto their
heritage. They haven’t been forced to Americanize.”
The ban may have a chilling effect on the city’s dining, City
Councilman Ara Najarian argued.
“Most Armenians are highly sophisticated, and they demand the best,”
he said. “It’s developed into a gourmet war between these folks. I
once saw a place serve a flaming rack of lamb.”
“I think we all know that burgers on the grill taste better than on
the frying pan,” Najarian said.
Mayor Dave Weaver, who opposes lifting the ban, accused his colleagues
of playing “the race card.”
“We’re portrayed as anti-Armenian, and that’s so far off the mark,”
he said. “We got a lot of complaints saying, ‘Why are you allowing
them to grill outdoors?”‘
“I’m philosophically opposed to commercial grilling outside,” he
said. “If we open the door, then anybody from Bob’s Big Boy to a
barbecue place can do it.”
“Would you like to smell other peoples’ food all day long?”
resident Nancy Campbell asked. “We were all OK stopping smoking in
a lot of public places.”
Vrej Sarkissian said he is considering moving his steel grill indoors
to comply with the law, although he estimates it will cost him about
$80,000.
“We’re going to do whatever we can to keep the flavor going,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY TURKEY’S CONSTITUTION
By Dana Swartz
Kurdish Media, UK
Nov 5 2006
It is important to remember that although Turkey is considered a
democratic nation, its government is still controlled by the military
regime. The Turkish Constitution, while an attempt to show democracy,
allows for the violation of Human Rights towards the minorities that
live in Turkey. This is proven everyday, when the Turkish government
still attempts to deny the Armenian Genocide, and allows its military
to continue to harass and murder innocent Kurds. Turkey claims that
if Kurds, Armenians, or other minorities are allowed to have their
identity it will destroy the republic. Well the United States, as
you can read from its name, is the unity of 50 states, territories,
and home to thousands of immigrants that are still arriving every year.
Other Western nations also have immigrants who are recognized for
their individuality, ethnic traditions, cultures, and languages,
yet these nations are not destroyed.
So, how can allowing the minorities in Turkey to be seen as distinct
ethnic groups weaken Turkey? One has only to look at history to see
that trying to change or assimilate a group of people, only leads to
civil wars, deep hatred, and horrible atrocities to life. In addition,
the laws that are made using the Turkish Constitution should apply
to every citizen residing within Turkey’s boarders, not just certain
groups of people.
Even though little changes have been made to the Constitution, these
changes have not occurred in real life. Human Rights abuses are still
occurring everyday, in direct violation, of the two greatest democratic
organizations in the world, the United Nations and the European Union.
Hitler was forcibly removed from power for his atrocities towards the
Jews. The Khmer Rouge was tried over the ethnic cleansing in Cambodia.
Saddam Hussein and his Ba’th regime were removed from power by
democratic forces for his government’s policy of genocide towards
Kurds. When will Turkey be punished for its attempts to annihilate
its own minority populations by hiding behind a Constitution that is
legally and morally wrong?
Who are the Kurds?
Today, approximately 40 million Kurds make up the largest ethnic
group of people without a recognized country. The Kurds live in the
mountainous areas in southeast and east of Turkey, northwest of Iran,
north of Iraq, and northeast of Syria. The Kurdish people can claim
their heritage back to Ancient Mesopotamia. The mountainous regions
they live in are harsh areas, which few people could live in and
prosper; however the Kurds made it their home and have lived there for
thousands of years. The major mountain regions they live in are the
Taurus, Zagros, and Elburz Mountains. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers
are the major source of water, not only for the mountains, but also for
much of the Middle East. The Kurds are agricultural: raising sheep,
goats, and cereals, such as wheat, barley, and oats. Another major
crop of the Kurds is tobacco. Some of the finest “Turkish tobacco”
is grown in the land of the Kurds. Kurds belong to clans, which are
part of a tribe. The clans make up the immediate family groups, while
the tribe makes up the extended family. Kurdish people are fiercely
loyal to their family, clan, and tribe. (About the Kurds, History &
Hemin Shekhani).
Another important aspect of Kurdish life is the language that they
speak.
Kurdish language is in the Indo-European family of languages. Kurdish
is broken up into four main dialects, Kurmanci (60%), Sorani (25%),
Zazaki (10%), and Gorani (5%), with many smaller sub-dialects.
According to Kemal Burkay, “Kurdish is a lively and rich language
that has managed to survive despite all the oppression and bans to
which is has been exposed.” (Kurdistan’s Homepage, Para 3). Kurdish
is considered one of the few surviving original languages of the
Mesopotamian people. Because the Kurdish language is so rich and
vibrant, it has created beautiful traditions using songs and poetry.
Before 1991, Kurds were not even allowed to speak their language in
the privacy of their homes without fear of being arrested, or worse,
killed. Since 1991, Kurds are now allowed to speak the Kurdish language
inside their homes, but it is still illegal to write, read or teach the
language. Today more than half of all Kurds living in Turkey cannot
read or write Kurdish because of Turkey’s brutal Constitutional laws
concerning the language. In Turkey if minorities speak their “mother
language” they are branded as traitors, terrorist, and enemies of
the state.
The country known as Kurdistan by the Kurds includes land from Turkey,
Iran, Iraq, Syria, and small parts of Russia. According to census
reports, approximately 50% of all Kurds live in Turkey, with smaller
percentages living in the other areas of Kurdistan. After World War I,
Kurds were promised a separate and independent country-state, in the
Treaty of Servres, but then England and France, decide to divvy up
the land and not give the Kurds their independence. “The Treaty of
Lausanne formalized this division.”
(About the Kurds, History, Para 15). Since this time, Kurds all
over the world have clamored for their rights of culture, language,
traditions, and autonomy. But most importantly, the Kurds have asked
to be recognized as a distinct people.
Quoting directly from Hemin Shekhani’s website, “the Turkish government
also passed various laws forbidding the use of the Kurdish language and
imposing other restrictions on manifestations of Kurdish nationalism.
Although all Turkish Kurds possess full Turkish citizenship and
millions of Kurds have assimilated into Turkish society, relations
between Kurds and the Turkish government continue to be strained.”
(Hemin Shekhani, History of Kurdistan). Kurds in Turkey, for the
last 80 years, were forced to be assimilated into Turks. By this,
the Republic of Turkey has denied the existence of Kurds, their
language, culture, ethnicity, and traditions. Since the 1980’s Kurds
“have waged a war of national liberation” against Turkeys governmental
and military attempts to suppress all signs of Kurdish identity. (The
Kurds & the Future of Turkey, Page 21). The Turkish government has
been exceptionally harsh and repressive to its Kurdish population.
The Washington Post stated in an article, “Turkish government, which
tried to deprive them [the Kurds] of Kurdish identity by designating
them “Mountain Turks, outlawing their language and forbidding them
to wear traditional Kurdish costumes in the cities. The government
also encouraged the migration of Kurds to the cities to dilute
the population in the uplands. Turkey continues its policy of not
recognizing the Kurds as a minority group.” (Washington Post. Para 4).
“The Kurds have been subjugated by neighboring peoples for most of
their history. In modern times, Kurds have tried to set up independent
states in Iran, Iraq and Turkey, but their efforts have been crushed
every time.” (Washington Post, Background: The Kurds Inset). While
many Kurds want a separate and recognized state called Kurdistan, much
could be settle peaceable if Kurds were allowed their identity. Forcing
a people to abandon their culture, traditions, language, music, and
other ideals that make them unique, is cultural genocide. Basic Human
rights are what each of us, as individuals require, so why deny the
Kurds these same rights?
Why should the Kurds be treated separately from any other ethnic
group in the world? Kurds deserve to be recognized, allowed the
freedom of identity, and the right to be the unique people that they
are. Turkey’s Constitution grants the right that all individuals should
be allowed their identity so why are they killing Kurds for saying
“I am a Kurd!” This is not freedom this is murder, this is genocide!
The physical, linguistic, and cultural genocide committed by
Turkey against the Kurds is treated with silence and/or considered
controversial.
The status of the Turkish government in denying their actions has
created pressure on the United States and other Western Nations
governments, universities, and media organizations to treat this
holocaust as delusions of the Kurdish people. The Turkish government
is in full control of media, and many attempts to let the outside
world know what is really happening in Southeastern Turkey [Northern
Kurdistan] are met with beatings, destroyed camera equipment, and
imprisonment for reporters from all western nations. It is even worse
for the Kurds who have tried to document the atrocities occurring,
as they usually just disappear, never to be seen again. The denial
of the Turks and their government in regards to this horrible time
in their recent history suggests that any government that commits
crimes against humanity will go unpunished and suffering of the people
involved will continue.
Turkish Constitutions Articles and Human Rights:
The Turkish Constitution states that it is the law of the Republic
of Turkey. The Constitution is a large document with many articles,
polices, and rules. Only the articles, policies, and laws pertaining
to Human Rights will be discussed in this paper. In this section
of the paper you will see how the Constitution seems to allows for
human rights, but examples will show how those same rights are being
violated were Kurds are concerned.
To begin, here is a quote from the Preamble of the Turkish
Constitution, “they [the people of the Turkish Republic] have the
right to demand a peaceful life based on absolute respect for one
another’s rights and freedoms, mutual love and fellowship, and the
desire for, and belief in, ‘Peace at home, peace in the world.'”
(Constitution of the Republic of Turkey Page 2, Para 1). This
sentence signifies that every citizen in Turkey has the right to
live a peaceful and just life. If this is the case, then why has
the Turkish government forcibly removed Kurds from the homes they
have lived in for centuries? Do you think that having your house,
business, and/or village destroyed and burned to the ground, allows
for a peaceful life? Turkey’s own human rights minister admitted
that the military has been destroying Kurdish villages for years. He
stated, “Some two million Kurds have been displaced, a dozen towns
depopulated and five to six million Kurds forced into western Turkey
by state terror and economic collapse.” (A Test for Turkey, Page 1,
Para 3). Yet when questioned by the United Nations, Turkey’s government
denies they are burning villages or forcibly removing minorities from
their ancestral lands.
Article 10, Section 10 of the Turkish Constitution states, “All
individuals are equal without and discrimination before the law,
irrespective of language, race, color, sex, political opinion,
philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such considerations.”
(Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Page 3, Para. 3). This
statement is a true democratic statement shared by all the democratic
nations of the world. However, while this article gives equal rights
to all citizens, it is not enforced where Kurds are concerned. The
language of the Kurds is forcibly denied to the Kurdish people. The
beginning of the Constitution says that Turkish is the national
language, but Turkey has several languages that are unique to the
individual groups that live within Turkey’s boarders. What threat
is it to the nation as a whole to allow these native languages to be
used, taught, and spoken? How come military personal are allowed to
shoot you in the street for speaking Kurdish or whistling a Kurdish
tune. Outlawing a language because it belongs to a minority group is
ludicrous. Forcing Kurds to give up their mother tongue is cultural
genocide and Turkey’s government has been doing this for over 80
years. Kurds are till not allowed to speak Kurdish in their own homes.
In addition, the Turkish Constitution says everyone born in Turkey
is Turkish, not a Turkish citizen, but Turkish. Well if both your
parents are Kurdish and you are born in Turkey that makes you a
Turkish citizen of Kurdish heritage, not a Turk. For the Turkish
government there is no such thing and they prove this by making
elementary children stand up and recite that they are Turks everyday.
Kurds are not allowed to call themselves Kurds. Kurds are not allowed
to recognize their identity without fear of dreadful repercussions.
Why is it against the law, punishable by torture and death, to call
oneself a Kurd? Does this sound like equality? Kurds are distinct race,
with culture and traditions, which have a right to be recognized,
respected, and treated without discrimination. While Turkey’s
constitution says all people are born equal, clearly, equal only
applies to those who are willing to forget who they are and become
Turks.
Secondly, no one is allowed to speak out or mention the atrocities that
are occurring everyday to the Kurds. While the Turkish Constitution
guarantees the right to speak freely, that only applies as long as you
talk about what the government wants you to speak about. To speak out
against the government or the military actions taken against Kurds
is tantamount to suicide and murder for your family. Leyla Zana,
a member of the Turkish Parliament and a Kurd, was sentenced to
fifteen years in prison for “bearing witness to the Kurdish people’s
immense tragedy in Turkey.” (A Test for Turkey, Page 1, Para 1). Nor
is Leyla Zana the only one, even today many journalists, newspaper
printers/writers, radio stations producers, and academics are being
arrested, imprisoned, or disappearing because they have talked about
the Kurdish Problem, even citizens of other countries. Turkey’s
government refuses to admit there is a problem, one created by their
own hatreds, so instead of trying to compromise and peacefully fix
these issues, the government allows the Turkish military and state
police to commit genocide. This is Turkey’s idea of democracy; make
a constitution then let the military interpret the way they want,
even if it means killings thousands of innocent Kurds.
Freedom of Religion and conscience is defined in Section IV, Article
24 of the Turkish Constitution as: “Everyone has the right to freedom
of conscience, religious beliefs and conviction. Acts of worship,
religious services, and ceremonies may be conducted freely -No one
may be compelled to worship, or be blamed or accused because of
his religious beliefs and convictions. Education and instruction in
religion and ethics shall be conducted under State supervision and
control.” (Turkish Constitution, Page 5, Para. 4). This article shows,
without a doubt, how double standard the government is when it comes
to human rights. In one sentence it defines freedom of religion, and
in another sentence it states the government has control over what
you can believe. In Turkey, the religion is Islamic; the state runs
strict educational programs that only cover the Islamic religion. The
government therefore does not allow for the freedom of religion for
those who follow the Yezidi religion, Christian religion, or any other
religion. Those citizens who chose to follow a different religion
will soon find themselves criminals of the Republic or Turkey and
branded a terrorist.
Article 28, Section 10 of the Turkish Constitution allows for the
Freedom of Press and Publication. It states, “The Press is free, and
may not be censored. The State shall take the necessary measures to
ensure the freedom of the Press and freedom of information.” (Turkish
Constitution, Page 6, Para 4&5). Well, this sounds like a great
Constitutional amendment, it has never been allowed when the newspapers
or magazines are written in Kurdish. It is against the military law
to publish any newspapers, magazines, radio programs, or other such
informative materials in any language other than Turkish.
All types of Press that have opened up and tried to publish in Kurdish
have been forcibly put out of business, and the owners/writers
imprisoned or killed. What kind of Freedom of Press is this? This
is state censorship, and attempt by the government with military
backing to ruin a minorities chance to read and be educated in their
own language. Again, this stresses how Turkey is committing cultural
genocide towards the Kurds while hiding behind a Constitution that is
not worth the paper it is written on. Another thing to remember is
that even the Turkish newspapers can only print what the government
wishes it to print; all articles must coincide with what the government
wants the public to know.
United Nations
Before there was a United Nations, there was the League of Nations.
The League of Nations was founded during World War I under the Treaty
of Versailles. Its mission was “to promote international cooperation
and to achieve peace and security” (History of the United Nations,
Par 4).
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States President came up with the
name United Nations during World War II. This name was officially used
in 1942 when the Declaration by the United Nations was convened by
26 nations committed to continue fighting the hostile Axis Powers of
the Second World War. The United Nations was not officially organized
until 1945 when 50 countries met in San Francisco to work out the
details on how this organization would function. The charter of the
United Nations was signed on June 26, 1945 and the United Nations
was officially open for business on October 24 1945.
According to the United Nations website, the following words are the
reason for it’s [the United Nation] existence.
“The only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of
free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression,
all may enjoy economic and social security. It is our intention to
work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace,
to this end.” (History of the UN Charter, Par 4).
The United Nations was the first organization to introduce human
rights laws for all membership countries to follow. It is believed
that the United Nations greatest achievement was the creation of
Human Rights Laws and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Charter. This Charter defines human rights and what is included
within those rights. The United Nations expects all its members to
commit to this charter and not violate its decrees; the charter is
“one to which all nations can subscribe and to which all people can
aspire.” (United Nations, Human Rights, Par 1). The United Nations has
defined a wide range of rights that include, but are not limited to,
economic, social, cultural, political, and civil rights.
According to the UN the most important individual fundamental rights
are as follows:
1) Dignity 2) Freedoms 3) Equality 4) Solidarity 5) Citizens’ Rights
6) Justice
Guidelines have been drawn to help all the membership nations to
protect and assist their governments in being responsible towards
its citizen’s human rights.
Human Rights law receives its foundation from the United Nations
Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These laws
are important internationally, as they are used to determine if a
country is in violation of human rights. Individuals and nations can
be tried and punished according to the human rights laws enacted by
the United Nations.
Over the years the United Nations has made amendments and adjustments
to the Charter and Universal Declaration to allow more+
Specific standards for women, children, disabled persons, minorities,
migrant workers and other vulnerable groups, who now possess rights
that protect them from discriminatory practices that had long
been common in many societies. Rights have been extended through
groundbreaking General Assembly decisions that have gradually
established their universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness
with development and democracy (United Nations, Human Rights, Par 3).
The United Nations has spent many man-hours and dollars on educational
campaigns to make sure that every citizen or every country knows what
their inalienable rights are. Also, the educational campaigns are
designed to inform the general populations that a national judicial
and penal system is available for grievances to be discussed. This
branch of the United Nations has gained considered power among member
and non-member countries as a champion of human rights issues. In
addition, “the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights works
to strengthen and coordinate United Nations work for the protection and
promotion of all human rights of all persons around the world” (United
Nations, Human Rights, Par 5). According to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations the ideals surrounding peace and security,
humanitarian assistance, and social affairs is the most important
duty of the Organization’s work.
(United Nations, Human Rights, Par 5).
These fundamental rights can be found and describe in detail on the
United Nations website. Every individual should know what these rights
are, there definitions, and every country should apply them to their
populations. Basic Human Rights are guaranteed by the United Nations.
Furthermore, any country that is a member of this great organization
must also guarantee its citizens these fundamental rights. As a member
of the United Nations, Turkey must demonstrate adherence to the laws
provided by this multi-national group. However, Turkey still engages
in cultural and physical genocide towards its minorities while the
United Nations basically turns its head in the other direction.
How can a country, like Turkey, who has proven it-self to be unreliable
in allowing its minority citizens to have basic Human Rights, be
allowed into the United Nations? Since Turkey is a member of the
United Nations why does its Constitution allow for violations of
Basic Human Rights?
According to the United Nations own Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, Turkey is not a country of democracy, but a military
dictatorship that abuses its own citizens. Yet, the United Nations
still allow the atrocities of human rights abuses to continue,
without any kind of repercussions to Turkey. While the rest of
the western world continues to look away from Turkey’s excesses of
military use against its own citizens, the horrors continue. Will we,
the democratic nations, silently look the other way, while innocent
people are abused, murdered, and annihilated?
Will Turkey be allowed to continue its ideals of democracy, using its
constitution as a weapon, and legal document to commit genocide to the
Kurds? How can we live with ourselves, as a nation, as individuals,
if we do not fight against this type of false democracy that Turkey
is projecting to the world with its Constitution and violations of
Basic Human Rights?
Democratic nations cannot condemn Hitler and his Nazis, Saddam
Hussein and his regime and give other governments like Turkey the
right to continue committing genocide towards its minorities. We
can’t undo the past or raise the dead, but we can remember and learn
from history, and stop the abuses that are occurring today. It is our
[The United States] responsibility to show true democratic leadership
and recognize genocide for what it is the annihilation of a people:
their identity, cultures, language; and talk about it truthfully. In
addition, we must hold each nation equally accountable for their sins
and crimes against Human Rights.
Turkey’s constitution on paper sounds democratic, but its government
and military follow a different set of rules and laws, bending
the Constitution to support its atrocities towards the Kurds. When
minorities, like the Kurds, are not allowed Basic Human Rights, which
are guaranteed by the Constitution, how can Turkey be considered
a democratic country, which is a member of the United Nations. The
physical, cultural, and linguistic genocide of the Kurds in Turkey
must be stopped!
Bibliography
About the Kurds. 4 October 2006. Retrived from < ml >
“Articles of the International Press on Human Rights Violations
in Turkey”.
2006.
< l >
Barkey, H and Fuller, G. Turkey’s Kurdish Question. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: 1998.
Fernandes, Desmond & Sarafian, Ara. “Kurdish and Armenian Genocides
Focus of London Seminar.” Armenian Forum. (1999). Page 1-5.
< >
Gunter, Michael M. The Kurds and the Future of Turkey. St. Martin’s
Press: 1997.
Hr-Net Hellenic Resources Network. Copyright 1995-2006.
< >
Kurdistan’s Homepage. 1999. The Kurdish Question – Its History
and Present Situation. 13 October 2006. Retrieved from < >
Rugman, Jonathan. Ataturk’s Children: Turkey and the Kurds. Cassell,
London: 1996.
Shekhani, H. 2001-2007. “Welcome to Hemin Shekhani’s Website.”
History of Kurdistan. Retrieved 16 October 2006.
< >
United Nations. About the United Nations. Human Rights. More
Information.
10 October 2006. < >
United Nations. About the United Nations. History of the UN Charter.
History of the Charter. 10 October 2006 < >
United Nations. About the United Nations. UN History. History of the
United Nations.
10 October 2006. < >
United Nations. Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
10 October 2006.
< >
WashingtonPost.com. 1999. Who are the Kurds? The
Washington Post on the web. Retrived from < ily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm >
Zana, Leyla. “A Test for Turkey: Liberty or Oppression for Kurds
in Parliament?” International Herald Tribune. (7 December 1994). < >

A DECISIVE BATTLE FOR THE CAUCASUS
Daily Georgian Times, Georgia
Nov 5 2006
After the rejection of the EU constitution, the expectation was that
European countries would develop a common foreign policy. Had Europe’s
Constitution been endorsed, the interests of traditional European
countries would have been balanced by the new member countries which
are under the strong US influence, and Europe’s foreign policy would be
subordinated to US foreign interests. This outcome would be absolutely
unacceptable to influential countries Germany, France and Italy.
Apparently, this European triumvirate has independently developed a
foreign policy track which would serve the interests of Europe. It
has to decide two strategic objectives today:
1. Not to allow hostilities near the borders of Europe;
2. to provide energy supplies to Europe via independent stable routes.
The Middle East and the Caucasus are near Europe’s borders but
remain potentially explosive regions. Germany gave a tactical and
polite refusal to strike an energy alliance with Russia despite
Russia’s offer to provide gas from the Shtokman deposit exclusively
to Germany. Instead, Germany and France created a French-German
energy consortium.
Thus, “the job assignments” among European states took place. Italy
was assigned to establish and maintain peace in the Middle East while
France and Germany are taking responsibility for peace in the Caucasus
and will protect a Caucasian energy corridor which will deliver energy
supplies to Europe.
European forces are now concentrating on the Caucasus because Europe
can no longer inhabit the role of “independent observer” in the
US-Russia tug of war. Europe has to take action, or it will miss out.
If the US “wins,” the energy resources of the Caucasus will be taken
over by Turkey and the US, and will then serve as an important lever
in the hands of the US to pressure Europe. If Russia “wins,” it will
acquire total control of Europe’s energy supplies.
The sentiments of Germany, France and Italy are well reflected in
the interview of EU Representative to the South Caucasus, Mari An
Izler Bogen, who said: “Many think today that Georgia has become an
arena of confrontation of the interests of Moscow and Washington, and
that the US tries to acquire control on the Caspian energy resources
and Baku oil deposits. If it is so, than it is really regrettable as
the US is putting its interests above those of all others. Now the
time has come whenever everyone should show their cards and gage the
interests of all parties. I think the EU should condemn such policies
as the whole Caucasus, especially Georgia, is falling victim to this
energy interest.”
Apparently Europe is more concerned about US interests rather than
about Russia’s traditional interests in the Caucasus, where it
itself wants to cooperate with Russia and increase its influence in
the region.
France’s decision to punish those who will not admit the genocide
of Armenians (something which Germany could not afford to do because
of its traditional friendship with Turkey) gives evidence that roles
are now being assigned because of the Caucasus. France has suddenly
acquired dominance in Armenia where Russia (a traditional ally)
and the US (with its Armenian lobby in the Congress) have strong
influences. Add to this France’s historically good relations with Iran
and it seems clear that France is building an Armenian-Iranian vector.
Meanwhile, given its relationship with Turkey, Germany has much
at stake with the Georgia-Azerbaijanian vector. If we imagine that
both vectors are directed by the European center it will not be a
difficult to guess how much influence Europe wants to obtain in the
South Caucasus.
Along with these developments, Russia is putting pressure on Georgia
and on the Georgian population in Russia, bringing the domestic
political situation to a boiling point. The domestic political pressure
in the country will explode somewhere.
The solution is certainly in Europe. In a telephone conversation
between Bush and Putin, Putin forbade the US from mediating
Russian-Georgian relations. However, when asked by Germany, Russia
agreed to soften its resolution about Georgia. We can conclude
that mediation by Germany in the South Caucasus would be acceptable
to Russia.
Thus, pressured by Russia, Georgia should look not to the US but to
Germany (and Europe) for assistance.
The impression is that the Russian-German (European) game has been
agreed.
Russia too has two strategic objectives in the region. First,
to ensure the security of Russia by maintaining peace in the North
Caucasus. Second, to control on the Caspian energy resources transited
via Georgia. The key to both of these objectives lies in Georgia.
Russia’s relationship to the breakaway republics in Georgia have much
to do with ethnicity and history, and less to do with security. If
Georgia joins NATO, the breakaway republics cannot create a buffer
zone to protect Georgia from the provocations of Russia, as Georgia
has quite a big border with Russia. All pipelines are run from
Tbilisi. Therefore, control of the breakaway republics is not enough
to help Russia. Russia wants to have a stronger lever in order to
acquire control of the Caucasian pipelines.
An ideal form which would be acceptable both for Europe and Russia
would be Georgia’s neutrality. That would bring security to Russia,
and joint control of the energy routes without the involvement of a
third party such as the US.
And why not? If Germany and Russia cooperate closely on the North
gas pipeline, why not to do the same on the Southern one?
Besides, why not to implement a scheme similar to the one proposed
by Speaker of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Moroz to Vladimer
Putin about creation a Russian-Ukrainian-German gas consortium? In
this event the strategic interests of both Russia and Europe would
have been upheld in the Caucasus and in Georgia.
The big European triumvirate will not compromise its relations with
Russia for lobbying Georgia’s entry into NATO, as they do not expect
threat from this region. Georgia’s accession into NATO would be in
the interest only of the US who would like to see Georgia in NATO not
because of security considerations but to implement its aggressive
policy. With that in mind Russia and the three European states would
like to squeeze the US out of the Caucasus. The UK which has a big
interest in the region has apparently saw the game, jumped off from
the Iraqi train and is now trying to get on the European one.
It things go as Europeans want to see in the Caucasus, Georgia
will distance itself from all it existing problems by integrating
into Europe and by providing security at the Southern border of its
Northern neighbor.
But the question is will the incumbent government of Georgia pursue
this political tack? Certainly, it will not. The incumbent government
of Georgia has exhausted the limit of trust and confidence in relation
with Russia and represents the only weapon of the US in the Caucasus.
It could only serve the national interests of the US, not those of
Georgia let alone the interests of Russia or Europe. The US which has
the highest level of democracy in the world assesses democracy of other
states according to the level of loyalty of their governments to the
US while resorts to force to ensure its security. In contrast, Europe
sees the security of its interests in the development of democratic
values in these countries.
The incumbent regime with its domestic and foreign relations does
not fit the above-described sceme. The security of Georgia and the
whole region would depend on how fast the US dominance will retreat
in the Caucasus and how soon the undemocratic governance of Georgia
will be changed by democratic one in a true democratic way.

PROPOSAL TO BAN FRENCH MOVIES AND BROADCASTS ON TRT
Turkish Daily News, Turkey
The Corridor
Nov 5 2006
We heard of many proposals to hurt France after its parliament passed
a bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian genocide. Some called for
a boycott of French goods, while some singers canceled their shows
in France. Some more interesting proposals have come in the past
few weeks. CHP deputy from Yozgat Emin Koc noted that Radio France
International (RFI) had stopped its broadcasts in Turkish and asked
the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) to counter this
by suspending its French broadcasts. In a parliamentary question he
submitted, Koc asked State Minister Beºir Atalay whether RFI could
be told that the broadcasts would be suspended until they reinstated
the Turkish broadcasts. He didn’t stop there.
“Which French movies has TRT purchased for this year? Is it considering
broadcasting them on its channels? What are you considering doing
about countering the genocide allegations?”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Council of Radio and Television (RTUK)
recommended that TRT should boycott media products coming from France.
No one objects to protest actions that are within sensible limits.
However, limitations imposed on the arts, literature, cinema and
culture are defined as censorship, and that is a bit beyond what we
should deem acceptable. Tomorrow, someone may come up with an idea to
ban Edith Piaf, Victor Hugo, Francoise Sagan, Montaigne, Pierre Loti,
Montesquieu, Stendhal, Jean Paul Sartre, Moliere or Emil Zola. What
if we are called to prevent our children from reading Jules Verne?
Will we accept that too?
–Boundary_(ID_tCsbeBULo+czmjiEqN50Ag)–

MORIS FARHI’S YOUNG TURK
by Peter Byrne
Swans, CA
Nov 5 2006
Farhi, Moris: Young Turk, Arcade Publishing, 2005, ISBN 155970764 X,
392 pages.
In UK, Saqui Books, 2004, ISBN 0-86356-861-0 (hb), ISBN 0-86356-351-1
(pb), 392 pages.
(Swans – November 6, 2006) Rifat is on the innocent side of puberty
in Istanbul at the end of the 1930s. Ataturk has been consecrated as
savior of the nation. The idea of Turkey as an ethnic monolith has
been planted but its foliage has not yet obscured the evidence of
the senses. Rifat’s neighborhood is a crazy quilt of various peoples
getting along together. The New Turkey exists not too uncomfortably
with the old, myth and magic making room for official Westernizing
Puritanism. A Turkmen, the local fount of traditional wisdom, tells
the boy, who is preparing for his Moslem circumcision ceremony,
that the penis is “the key to heaven (p. 13).” All the same, women
seem to keep the neighborhood going. Rifat’s mentor is Gul, an older
girl with powers of clairvoyance. She’s Jewish, with brothers, and
knowing in circumcision lore. Rifat’s miffed when she calls him a
Donme. He assures her that his distant forebears may have been these
17th century insincere converts, but that his parents chose the Moslem
faith freely. In a letter to Gul he outlines the not so small virtues
of the Moslem circumcision: A boy’s a man as soon as the knife draws
blood, and he doesn’t have to wait around for any bar mitzvah.
So begins Moris Farhi’s Young Turk, a novel told by a baker’s dozen
of friends and acquaintances in the Turkey of the first decades of the
republic. Each voice bears witness to the complexities and richness of
a mixed population as Turkish nationalism and world events impinge
upon it. The freshness of this historical fresco comes from its
being built on the perplexity of children awakening to the sensual
delights of life. The intertwining of death and desire, defeat and
joy lifts the story above the run-of-the mill European or American
novel. Farhi, a Turk of Jewish provenance, lives in London and writes
in English. Born in 1935, he has published four other books and is a
vice president of International PEN. His distance from Turkey seems
only to have intensified his feeling for its life.
Musa grew up in Ankara. His childhood was illuminated by trips
with his Armenian nanny to the women’s baths. He and his friend
Selim acquire fundamental knowledge of the female sphere before the
experienced mistress of the “hamas” bars the boys because their keys
to heaven have grown enough to open locks. Robbie, son of a British
official, steals passports to help his Turkish friends save members
of their Jewish family trapped in Salonica. The Greek city, thanks
to Bulgarian occupation, German pressure, and local collaboration,
began sending its huge Jewish population to Auschwitz in 1943. The
adolescents’ plan fails tragically. This is a novel about children,
not a children’s book.
Selma, a Jewish schoolgirl in Istanbul, feels the racism engendered
by WWII. She’s called a half-Turk by her nationalist teacher.
Turkey’s neutrality doesn’t exclude factions gambling on a
German victory. The Varlik law has been enacted against non-Muslim
minorities. Ataturk is dead. The concept of Turkishness as constituted
by a shared language and culture falls by the wayside.
Jews, Armenians and Greeks are forced out of business by extreme
taxation. Labor camps are set up for those who can’t pay. In March
1944, under foreign pressure and intimations that Germany may not be
a sure bet, the Varlik law was rescinded.
Bilal will perish in the quixotic attempt to bring the passports to
Salonica. He leaves some written musings about the Sephardi and their
long involvement with the Ottoman reign. He accepts an opinion that
might surprise Westerners: “Most Jews who have lived under Islam will
admit, if they are honest, that, over the centuries, Elohim and Allah
have become interchangeable — a solid journeyman who dresses now in
a turban, now in a skull cap (p. 136).” Bilal’s doom seems foretold
in the stormy marriage of his incompatible parents. He glories in his
father’s tale of personal service to a mythic Ataturk in the War of
Independence. We learn that minorities, including Armenians, served in
the army, being especially useful because more likely to be literate.
In 1947, two years after the war, Yusef, at thirteen, travels alone to
Marseilles by ship. A troubled woman takes him in charge, and he soon
covets her as a second mother, his own — a typical Farhi touch —
being uncomfortable in her maternal role. During the trip, the boy
begins to be a man while seeing the woman through the difficult task
of retrieving her husband from an insane asylum. Yusef’s sentiments
have been thoroughly selfish, while the woman hasn’t scrupled to make
use of him as a substitute for her dead son. Intense feelings have
been exchanged, but as between two sleepwalkers.
Hava, a girl of sixteen, is an apprentice juggler. A foundling adopted
by a circus wrestler and his wife, she becomes obsessed with saving
a Caucasian trapeze artist. He has taken to drink out of guilt after
the death in a fall of his male circus partner. The wrestler guru,
whose sport has spiritual overtones in Turkey, will extract the
guilty secret that the survivor had objected to his dead partner’s
“dishonest” touch. Employing do-or-die means, the gentle-giant wrestler
gets the traumatized artist back on the trapeze. Hava will marry him,
aware that their intimacy will be shared with her bridegroom’s new
aerial collaborator.
Mustafa, fourteen, is part of his overbearing but endearing teacher’s
experiment to embody Turkey’s diversity in a college dormitory:
In effect, we twenty-four boys represented almost the full spectrum
of Turkey’s demographic cocktail: Abkhaz, Albanian, Alevi, Armenian,
Azeri, Bosnian, Circassian, Donme, Georgian, Greek Catholic, Greek
Orthodox, Jewish, Karait, Kurd, Laz, Levantine, Nusairi Arab, Pomak,
Pontos, Russian (White Russian, to give their preferred appellation),
Suryani (also known as Assyrians), Tatar, Turk and Yezidi (p. 234).
While the teacher extols the poems of the great Nazim Hikmet, a
mysterious visitor to the college neighborhood extends the teaching
of the Communist poet. This “houri” with a Studebaker, who draws on
a cigarette “like Rita Hayworth” and dresses in black “like Juliette
Greco,” dispenses sex with egalitarian impartiality to the dormitory
boys, but forbids un-socialist jealousy and possessiveness. The
dormitory harmony cracks with the strain as the thirteenth boy has
his turn. Local bigots drive the visitor away despite the teacher’s
defense of her. When the dormitory is disbanded, Mustafa misses it
less than his departed initiatrix, but becomes aware that he has “…
attained the wisdom of experience and developed a heart where every
visitor could sign his or her name (p. 261).”
Atilla spends his adolescence in that peculiar dimension of
Istanbul that is melancholy. His family decimated, he finds another
in a Romanian restaurateur and his “Kabadayt,” a legendary Turkish
Mafioso of the solitary drifter and Robin Hood variety. But yet another
disaster chases Atilla from the sad city. Another boy, Zeki, decides at
twelve to be a writer and becomes devoted to Nazim Hikmet. When Nazim
is released from prison in 1950, and persecution of him continues,
Zeki plays a role in his escape from Turkey. Then, not unlike Farhi,
he goes into exile himself.
Aslan mourns his friend who finally died of cancer after various
misfortunes, including service in the Korean War. The authorities
had imprisoned him for his promotion of Kurdish rights and world
government. His lover, a matchmaker, had been rendered unfit by her
profession to marry and make him happy. She passes, rather brusquely,
from daily life into legend. The two realms are never far apart for
the author.
Davut, writing a thesis in England, returns to Istanbul where he’s
harried by the authorities. Now broken by torture and prison, His
former teacher, the organizer of the multiethnic dormitory, now broken
by torture and prison, urges Davut to flee into exile. The young man’s
lover can’t bring herself to follow. The subject of his thesis is
apropos: “… how the Turks’ innate nobility tempered with the best of
Islamic teaching made them the most tolerant people in the world, while
the plethora of complexes instilled by the worst of Islamic teaching
could — and sometimes did — turn them into ogres (p. 367).” The novel
closes with a letter from the teacher to all his students. He’s dying,
but as always in Young Turk death wears the raiment of physical love
and leaves time for the teacher to utter his pluralist testament:
“True Turkishness means rejoicing in the infinite plurality of people
as we rejoice in the infinite multiplicity of nature (p. 386).”
Disjointed for a novel, Young Turk most effectively portrays
adolescence in a tumultuous epoch. The eternal drives of youth are
colored with the idealism that Ataturk brought. But the regime that
sprang from him proves narrowing and ungenerous, too often brutal.
Moris Farhi misses what he thinks of as the rough tolerance of Ottoman
Turkey and signals underlying realities that haven’t changed despite
the simplistic vision imposed by an insecure nationalism. The insistent
presence of sex among these weighty themes initially disconcerts. But
we soon understand that the surprise comes from our own limitations. If
their bodies weren’t firmly anchored physically, these children of
the storm couldn’t keep up their hopes under the assault of history
and loss.

THE FOLLY OF JAILING GENOCIDE DENIERS
By Garin K. Hovannisian
Christian Science Monitor, MA
Nov 6 2006
Democracy’s test: Do we tolerate a view that it is thoroughly
repulsive?
LOS ANGELES – Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can
incarcerate you. Thus spake the National Assembly of France last month,
when it voted to fine deniers of Turkey’s 1915 genocide of Armenians up
to 45,000 euros or send them on a maximum yearlong holiday to prison.
The measure would join a series of European laws that have criminalized
denial of the Jewish Holocaust.
Although it has dim hope of clearing the Senate and President Jacques
Chirac, the bill reminds us that France’s Socialist Party – and many
European elites – believe truth is decreed, not discovered.
The news drove Armenian communities into raptures. In Armenia’s
capital, Yerevan, college students besieged the French Embassy in
ecstasy. In Los Angeles, their counterparts hurried to chat rooms
and blogs to register Hollywood’s admiration of Francois Hollande,
the bill’s chief advocate.
Hilda Tchoboian, president of the European Armenian Federation,
welcomed this “historic step,” noting that “the hydra of denial is
a tumor on freedom of expression,” which proved that you can mix
metaphors and talk nonsense in the span of five nouns.
A government that punishes lies…
Genocide denial might be a tumor on truth, memory, or even human
dignity, but it’s not even a pimple on the freedom of expression.
It’s an exercise – however false or disgusting – of that freedom,
which Ms. Tchoboian wants to ration.
A government that has the power to punish lies also has the power to
punish truth (consider Turkey’s law that punishes those who denigrate
“Turkishness”) and, really, to punish anything it pleases.
This was the terrible lesson of the 20th century, fleshed out in
millions upon millions of carcasses across Joseph Stalin’s gulags,
Adolf Hitler’s concentration camps, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and
Mao Zedong’s torture chambers.
Indeed, this was the lesson of the Armenian genocide, which was
perpetrated by a regime that tried to build one people, one religion,
and – most important – one idea, “Ottomanization,” on the rubble of
human rights.
That lesson, sadly, is lost on some French parliamentarians and the
Armenian diaspora, whose notion of politics ends where the genocide
begins. “If we have to muscle their view to death then that’s just
what we’ll do!” the Armenians seem to say, not realizing that this
is precisely what the Young Turks said about them.
Facing charges of insulting Turkishness for acknowledging the Armenian
genocide, Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish writer and 2006 Nobel Laureate,
declared at his trial this year, “What I said is not an insult. It
is the truth. But what if it is wrong? Right or wrong, do people not
have the right to express their ideas peacefully?”
That’s the key clause: right or wrong. Genocide deniers insult us.
Yet in any decent society, their rights are the most vital, precisely
because they are the most difficult to respect. Here’s the test of
true democracy: Do we tolerate another’s view when it is thoroughly
repulsive? France has failed the test.
It is easier to shut deniers up than to make them stop believing. In
a perilous reversal of its intended effect, this law would give to
deniers two advantages they crave: exemption from the debate and the
position of the oppressed. The deniers will gain not only immunity
from our persistent challenges, but an underdog’s advantage in
“speaking truth to power” when power is against them. Denial isn’t
just a river in Egypt; it’s soon to be an underground fashion in Paris.
Censorship has long been the tool of people who are threatened by
the facts – who can’t win a debate on equal terms.
Censors have sought to gain through power what they lack in argument:
the truth. France has just exerted its power in Armenia’s name. And
Armenians rejoiced. But it will not strengthen our people and it
will not redeem the reality of the 1.5 million who were massacred
beginning in 1915.
Don’t silence deniers, expose them
Like that of the Holocaust, the cause of bringing greater recognition
to the Armenian genocide is best served through total freedom of
speech, in which historians can argue the deniers into silence. We
should long for a society where those who deny documented crimes
against humanity will not be fined or jailed, but worse, be exposed,
humiliated, and condemned to oblivion.
Winston Churchill said, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to
write it.” History is less kind to people who try to rewrite it.
In its most recent move, the French National Assembly has deprived
history of its final redemption. It has revealed to the world that
Armenians would rather stifle debate than win it once and for all.
~U Garin K. Hovannisian is the editor of UCLA’s journal of opinion
and culture, .
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TURKEY OFFERS TO AMEND LAW TO AVOID EU CRISIS
Gulf Times, Qatar
Nov 6 2006
ISTANBUL: Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said yesterday that
he is ready to amend a law used to prosecute writers, including Nobel
prize winner Orhan Pamuk, apparently aiming to head off a crisis with
the EU.
The European Commission is expected to sharply rebuke Ankara over
judicial action against journalists, scholars and writers for
expressing peaceful opinions in a progress report on November 8 on
Turkey’s European Union accession process.
The EU says article 301, which makes it a crime to insult Turkish
national identity, unfairly restricts freedom of expression and must
be changed.
It has recently been used to bring charges against Pamuk, later
dropped, and to convict journalist Hrant Dink for articles about the
mass killing of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey.
“We are ready for proposals to make article 301 more concrete if
there are problems stemming from it being vague,” Erdogan was quoted
by state-run Anatolian news agency as saying.
“In order to prevent a violation of freedoms … we are studying
several options for how we can handle article 301 in harmony with
the spirit of the (EU-oriented) reforms,” he said, without elaborating.
Only last week, Erdogan indicated there would be no movement on
301 after earlier this year promising to look into amending it. The
article has raised questions in Europe about the predominantly Muslim
country’s commitment to freedom of speech.
The government has been split, some fearing an amendment would
lessen the centre-right government’s chances of harnessing the rising
nationalist vote in general elections next year.
The Commission, the EU executive body, is about to issue a list of
criticisms of Turkey for failing to carry out reforms as promised,
particularly over Cyprus.
“Turkish-EU relations are based on such common values as democracy,
freedoms and supremacy of law and mutual interests of our peoples. I
therefore believe that our EU process has a depth that will not be
disrupted…” Erdogan said.
The EU has warned that membership talks could be badly damaged if
Ankara continues to refuse to open its ports and airports to traffic
from EU member Cyprus.
The government says the EU must first lift trade restrictions against
the breakaway Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus, who are backed
by Ankara.
Efforts to break the deadlock failed last week when EU president
Finland called off talks.
With elections in November 2007, Erdogan’s scope for more reforms has
narrowed, especially given rising euroscepticism among Turks weary
of EU demands and suspicious that the bloc does not really want ever
to take in their large Muslim nation.
One in four Turks is now opposed to EU membership and only 7% trust
the EU, one recent opinion poll indicated.

WANT A MOLDOVAN WINE? SARKISOV DELIVERS SPIRITS
By Kathy Carlson, News Correspondent
Nashville City Paper, TN
Nov 6 2006
Care for a glass of wine? It’s light, crisp and clean, with good
body and a hint of peach, similar to a pinot grigio. By the way,
it’s from Moldova.
Nashville accountant turned entrepreneur Simon Sarkisov wants to
introduce Nashville – and the rest of the country – to Moldovan wines
plus others he says are well-known in Europe but not here, yet.
“I want to be basically some kind of ambassador of good quality wines
to United States,” he said.
His South Nashville-based business, World Vintage LLC, currently
imports wines from Spain and Moldova, a landlocked country about the
size of Maryland in southeastern Europe, between Rumania and Ukraine.
Moldova, formerly part of the Soviet Union, is now independent.
Moldova’s economic future may hinge on its wines – and people like
Sarkisov.
Wines from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have gained much
interest recently, especially as land, labor and grapes become pricier
in other wine-growing regions, said Elise Loehr Solima, proprietor/
wine director at the Green Hills restaurant F. Scott’s.
Moldovans have produced wine for thousands of years, Sarkisov said,
and its climate and soil are well suited for grapes. Moldovan wineries
– including the one Sarkisov imports from – also have won honors in
recent international competitions. Nevertheless, the United States
imported less than $1 million in Moldovan wine last year, according
to U.S. Census Bureau trade data.
Sarkisov’s company imports wines from Moldova’s Dionysos-Mereni
winery, along with Man Quixot and Lopez Panach wines from Spain. The
businessman is planning trips to Spain and Italy this year to seek
additional wines.
Sarkisov is an American citizen of Armenian descent. He grew up in
Azerbaijan, another former Soviet republic, and came to Nashville in
1991 at age 24. After graduating from Belmont University in 2000 with
an accounting degree, he worked in the corporate world.
Oddly enough, breaking his leg in a racquetball game in 2003 was
a turning point for him. With time to think about his career, he
focused on a long-time passion for wines. He decided to invest in a
wine-importing venture and specialize in unusual vintages and products.
In 2004, Sarkisov started World Vintages, importing his first wines
in 2005. Sarkisov now has one employee and, while he declined to give
revenues, said business has grown by about 35 percent over last year.
He sells in six states besides Tennessee, his main state for sales.
World Vintages imports wines under annual agreements with producers.
Tennessee law allows him to sell only to distributors who sell to
restaurants and liquor stores, which in turn educate consumers by
suggesting wines for specific meals or occasions. One distributor
that handles Sarkisov’s products is Nashville-based Aleksey’s Imports,
which distributes several Russian brands.
Moldovan wines compete with “inexpensive wines that are easy to drink,
versatile and friendly,” said Eric Nichols, director of sales with
Aleksey’s. “It’s not special occasion [wine] but it’s very good
quality. It’s still kind of a secret, too.”
Perhaps the secret will not be kept long as the Moldovan wines World
Vintages imports are very reasonably priced. For example, a bottle
of Vino Vista Pinot Noir is currently selling for about $10 at one
local retailer.
Nashville’s Tin Angel restaurant is one of Aleksey’s Imports’
accounts. From time to time, Tin Angel owner Rick Bolsom has featured
wines – including a Moldovan variety from Alexsky’s – that aren’t on
the regular wine list so that patrons can sample something different.
“I love to be able to offer quality wines at a reasonable price that
[offer] something interesting,” Bolsom said. Moldova is “way off the
beaten track,” he added, but has a long history of winemaking.
Currently, Russia forbids the sale of Moldovan and Georgian wines,
claiming they don’t meet its sanitation standards, which the two
countries contest. Others see retaliation because Moldova and Georgia
oppose Russia’s bid to join them in the World Trade Organization. The
loss of the huge Russian market has forced layoffs at some Moldovan
wineries, but one European press report says Dionysos-Mereni still
is doing well because of the quality of its wines.
Sarkisov and his distributors are betting that the Moldovan wines’
mix of value and quality will win customers.
“Once people try them,” Nichols said, “they’ll come back.”

ERDOGAN REBUKES ARMENIAN JOURNALIST’S ‘GENOCIDE’ CLAIMS
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Nov 6 2006
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rapped an Armenian
journalist who said that Turkey should recognize the so-called Armenian
genocide, challenging the Armenian president to open its archives.
Erdogan attended the fifth NewsXchange conference on Friday, in which
hundreds of delegates representing TV channels and news agencies
participated.
The two-day gathering was held at the Conrad Hotel Istanbul.
Following a speech he delivered at the conference, Erdogan responded
questions from reporters.
Erdogan reacted to Gegham Manukian from Yorki Media of Armenia,
who said that Turkey should recognize the so-called Armenian genocide.
Recalling that Turkey had opened its archives on history, the Turkish
premier called on the Armenian president to do so.
“Tell your president to open your archives, if he could,” he responded.
Manukian later tried to wave a poster; however, security guards
prevented him by seizing his poster.

P.M. ERDOGAN ATTENDS “NEWS XCHANGE” MEETING IN ISTANBUL
Turkish Press
Nov 5 2006
ISTANBUL – “Despite several negative developments, Turkey achieved
important successes thanks to democratic reforms fulfilled in the
country,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said during
“News Xchange” meeting in Istanbul which brought together executives
of news TV channels and news agencies as well as correspondents from
all over the world.
Stating that Turkey was located in the center of a large geography
extending from Europe to Asia and from Caucasus to Africa, Erdogan
noted that Turkey was affected by developments that took place in
Caucasus, Balkans, southern and Central Asia.
“Turkey has been exerting great efforts for peace and stability in
the region and the world,” he underlined.
Erdogan noted, “AKP (Justice & Development Party) government fulfilled
significant reforms during the last four years. We also achieved
important successes in Turkish economy and foreign policy.
Turkey has become one of the biggest 20 economies of the world.”
“There has been a sound and dynamic structure in Turkish economy.
Direct foreign investments in the country amounted to 9.7 billion
USD at the end of 2005,” he stressed.
Noting that Turkey has met necessary criterion to start full membership
talks with the EU, Erdogan stated, “Turkey showed that it has quality
and capacity to join the EU.”
Erdogan said, “one third of the constitution has been amended,
adjustment packages have been approved and several legal and
administrative arrangements have been made in regard to Turkey`s
EU process.”
Replying to a question of a correspondent from Yorki Media operating in
Armenia, Erdogan said that the incidents in 1915 were a displacement.
“We have opened our archives. Armenian President (Robert Kocharian)
should also open Armenia`s archives. Jurists and historians should work
on the matter and then politicians make a decision on it,” he stated.
Stating that when AKP came to the political power in the country,
the government started air transportation between Turkey and Yerevan,
Erdogan said that they also restored Armenian Orthodox Church on
Akdamar Island in Van Lake.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress