Month: November 2006

GENOCIDE ARMENIEN: LONDRES CRITIQUE LA PROPOSITION DE LOI FRANCAISE
Agence France Presse
2 novembre 2006 jeudi 5:38 PM GMT
Un ministre britannique a juge jeudi que la proposition de loi
francaise penalisant la negation du genocide armenien n’etait “pas
la meilleure facon de progresser” sur ce thème.
“En creant des lois sur ces evenements historiques, aussi epouvantables
soient-ils, il y a un risque de les transformer en questions politiques
d’actualite, et franchement, c’est ce qui se passe en France”,
a estime le ministre aux Affaires europeennes Geoff Hoon.
Les deputes francais ont adopte le 12 octobre un texte rendant passible
de prison la negation du genocide armenien de 1915-1917.
Cette proposition de loi doit maintenant etre debattue par le Senat
(la chambre haute du parlement francais).
“Personnellement, je ne crois pas que cette proposition soit
necessairement utile”, a insiste M. Hoon.
–Boundary_(ID_+J07W48iVoZ6DLiL3Rj82Q)–

GENOCIDE ET LOI
M. Robert Jallerat, De Châtellerault (Vienne).
La Nouvelle Republique du Centre Ouest
02 novembre 2006 jeudi
Edition Informations Generales
” A l’annonce d’une proposition de loi interdisant la negation
du genocide des Armeniens en 1915, la Turquie s’est enflammee,
menacant la France de represailles ! Pourtant, ce crime fut commis
sous l’autorite et l’egide du sultan de l’Empire ottoman. On peut
d’ailleurs se demander si ce genocide, dont on a pu penser qu’il fut
ordonne dans la crainte d’un soulèvement du peuple armenien en pleine
guerre, ne fut, en fait, l’achèvement d’un projet ancien qui avait
deja cause, sous l’autorite du sultan Abdul Hamid II, l’extermination
de 300.000 Armeniens en 1894.” Or, l’Empire ottoman a disparu et le
sultanat a ete aboli en 1923. Pourquoi donc la Republique de Turquie,
fondee par Mustapha Kemal, se croit-elle obligee de nier l’existence
d’un crime contre l’humanite par un regime defunt et peu estimable ?”
Au demeurant, on reste perplexe devant cette attitude de notre
legislateur, qui croit indispensable d’interdire l’expression d’un
avis, d’une opinion. Les arguments, les preuves, ne seraient-ils plus
suffisants pour combattre et effacer les opinions contraires a la
verite et a la morale ? Ne faudrait-il pas mediter cette reflexion de
Spinoza : ” Ce serait s’exposer a un desastre certain que de vouloir
obliger les membres d’une collectivite publique a conformer toutes
leurs paroles aux decrets de l’autorite souveraine. ”
” En outre, de telles interdictions ” legales “, marque d’une societe
qui a a ce point perdu ses valeurs qu’elle se contraint a leur donner
une forme reglementaire, sont-elles en conformite avec l’article 19
de la Declaration universelle des droits de l’homme ? ”
–Boundary_(ID_PuLmU03N/AAlIIFjZf4t+g)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

COUCHES, LES DAMNES DE LA TERRE !;
PENALISER LE NEGATIONNISME DU GENOCIDE ARMENIEN N’EST PAS UN EXCèS COMMUNAUTARISTE MAIS UN DEVOIR DEMOCRATIQUE.
par TORANIAN Ara; Ara Toranian directeur des Nouvelles d’Armenie Magazine.
Liberation , France
2 novembre 2006
Il ne se passe pas un jour, depuis le vote par l’Assemblee
nationale, le 12 octobre, de la penalisation du negationnisme du
genocide armenien, sans que la presse ne tire a boulets rouges sur le
“communautarisme” qui presiderait a la mise en place de cette loi. Il
ne s’agit que d’agiter des peurs, de pratiquer des amalgames, de dire
leur fait a toutes ces minorites armeniennes, juives, noires qui ont
le mauvais goût de demander au Parlement, a travers les lois Gayssot
ou Taubira, de prendre en consideration leur dignite, de veiller au
respect de leur souffrance, de proteger leur memoire.
Des revendications “particularistes”, qui viendraient fragmenter
l’unite nationale, voir saper les fondements memes de la republique.
Car, dans la belle tradition que nous opposent ces neo-jacobins,
il ne peut y avoir de place pour l’alterite. Et surtout, cessez de
nous polluer avec vos oppressions depassees, vos morts, vos histoires
d’extermination et d’esclavagisme qui se sont deroulees ailleurs et
il y a longtemps. Et tant pis si le negationnisme et les injures ont,
eux, bel et bien lieu ici et maintenant…
Rappelons en effet que le vote de cette loi controversee a ete motive
par la combinaison de deux facteurs : le negationnisme d’Etat de
la Turquie, qui continue a se faire complice de ce crime, et sa
candidature a l’Union europeenne. La Commission europeenne a voulu
fermer les yeux sur cette contradiction en evacuant, contrairement aux
voeux du Parlement europeen, la reconnaissance du genocide armenien
par Ankara du nombre des critères d’adhesion. Renoncement politique
qui donne a la Turquie, 20e puissance mondiale, toute latitude pour
developper jusqu’en France sa propagande negationniste, sans qu’il
soit possible de lui opposer ni d’obligation de retenue ni de frein
autre que la resistance des refugies et de leurs enfants.
Cette loi visait donc a proteger, effectivement, la memoire des
victimes du premier genocide du XXe siècle, un crime contre l’humanite
cense, en principe, concerner tout le monde. Elle apparaissait
egalement comme une possibilite de recours, legal et pacifique, a la
disposition des heritiers des sacrifies de cette barbarie, qui n’ont
nullement l’intention de laisser les voyous a la solde de l’Etat turc
venir cracher sur la tombe de leurs parents.
Fussent-ils deguises en soi-disant historiens, pour donner plus de
credit a leurs agissements, de meme que d’autres s’abritaient naguère
derrière la science ou la biologie pour justifier le racisme.
Ce debat, qui a ete compris par les deputes, en particulier ceux qui
connaissent bien le problème pour avoir dans leur circonscription
des rescapes du “pays de l’epouvante”, aurait merite d’etre
traite serieusement. Ces elus de tous bords qui ont eu le courage
de voter cette loi et d’affronter cette tempete ont en realite
defendu l’honneur et la noblesse du Parlement, au nom des valeurs
democratiques et de la defense des plus faibles contre les pressions
du lobby militaro-industriel et des laquais de la Realpolitik.
Au lieu d’applaudir, certaines elites, decalees par rapport aux
enjeux et dont on ne sait ce qui l’emporte chez elles, de leur
interet corporatiste ou de leur conception monolithique de l’unite
republicaine, s’erigent en promoteurs d’un liberalisme sauvage de
la connaissance historique, qui aura notamment pour consequence de
permettre a ceux qui ont le plus de moyens, en particulier financiers,
d’imposer leur vision du passe… pour mieux contrôler l’avenir. Ainsi,
l’Etat turc pourra repandre son venin negationniste en achetant – c’est
dans sa tradition – des journalistes, des historiens ou des hommes
politiques (pour memoire, l’affaire Sibel Edmonds aux Etats-Unis et
le docu diffuse recemment sur Canal + sur la corruption de decideurs
americains par Ankara).
Les Armeniens, pas plus que les Juifs ou les Noirs, ne sont les
mauvais elèves de la Republique. Il n’y a pas d’unite qui puisse
faire l’economie du respect dû aux diverses composantes de la nation,
par la nation elle-meme. La modernite, la liberte et la democratie
se construiront autour de la prise en charge de ces questions par les
instances democratiques du pays, et certainement pas par le cynisme a
l’egard des pages sombres de l’histoire et le refoulement des douleurs
qu’elles ont generees.
–Boundary_(ID_Yji5COjk7J15poMi9m+Rig)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“MEMOIRES ARMENIENNES”, MUR D’EMOTION
Par Launet Edouard
Liberation , France
2 novembre 2006
A Paris, une installation video fait entendre les voix des temoins
du genocide.
Il y a eu fin septembre le grand raout a Erevan, capitale de
l’Armenie, avec concert d’Aznavour, discours et visite du president
Chirac. Aujourd’hui, a la Villette, a Paris, est erige sur un parquet
de bal un mur d’emotion : l’installation “Memoires armeniennes”
deploie video et geographie pour evoquer le genocide de 1915. C’est
d’ailleurs l’une des rares manifestations prevues dans le cadre
de l’Annee de l’Armenie en France (jusqu’au 14 juillet 2007) a se
colleter directement le sujet.
Le visiteur de l’installation concue par Jacques Kebadian et
Jean-Claude Kebabdjian est accueilli par un brouhaha. Ce sont des
voix surgies d’un mur d’images, quinze ecrans debitant en boucle et
simultanement les paroles de temoins du genocide. Ces mots et images
ont ete captes en 1982 par le cineaste Jacques Kebadian, qui, dix ans
après, en a fait le film Memoire armenienne. Dans les annees 70-80,
se souvient Kebadian, la cause armenienne s’etait reveillee avec
les actions terroristes de l’Asala (Armee secrète de liberation de
l’Armenie). Le cineaste partit alors avec sa camera et la volonte de
“montrer qu’il y a d’autres facons de temoigner, d’agir”.
Aujourd’hui, ces temoignages, tries parmi quinze heures d’archives,
sont reunis sur des ecrans-fenetres inseres dans une grande carte
figurant toute l’etendue des implantations armeniennes avant 1915,
du Caucase a la Turquie. Les ecrans sont repartis de telle facon que
chaque temoin parle depuis sa ville d’origine. De toutes ces personnes
mortes aujourd’hui, il ne reste que leurs paroles. Les reunir ainsi
sur un grand panneau relève evidemment moins d’une entreprise de
pedagogie que de la volonte de former un concert. Ces voix qui se
chevauchent et se repètent composent un choeur bouleversant.
L’installation est completee par des tableaux et quelques photos.
Elle devrait etre presentee l’an prochain a Marseille et a Lyon,
deux villes où la diaspora armenienne est fortement implantee.
Memoires armeniennes
Parquet de bal du parc de la Villette
(près de la maison de la Villette), dans le cadre de l’annee de
l’Armenie en France. Du mer au dim de 14h a 19h, jusqu’au 23 novembre.
–Boundary_(I D_9j+KIkxjo4B/V3OmRPK7gg)–

THEY PASSED A LAW FOR ARMENIANS TO BREAK IT
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 2 2006
The social and economic problems of Javakheti are the consequence of a
political problem, the solution of which may lead to the settlement of
the social economic problem, stated Vahagn Chakhalyan in an intervew
with the Lragir.
Lragir: There are different opinions whether the problem of Javakheti
is political or social and economic. What do you think the problem is?
“We have been stating since 2004 that the problem of Javakheti is
a political problem, and now it is becoming clear that the problem
of Javakheti is political, the social and economic problem is
secondary, in other words, the social and economic problem stemmed
from the political problem. For instance, the stone working factories
in Javakheti employing 3000-5000 people were closed down. These
factories were closed down artificially, though the stones are
demanded in Russia, but the stone working factories were closed down
in 1996-1997. The same is with timber. They bar transporting timber
via Javakheti, allowing only via Marneuli, which is also a political
problem. Or now they are making a new law on transporting the goods
imported from Armenia to Javakheti via Sadakhlo, which is another
political problem. Or the closed-down shops. On October 5, 2005 10
big shops were closed down in Javakheti and the events followed that
we know.”
Lragir: Is it possible to solve the political problem by solving the
social and economic problem? Or should the problem be political by
all means?
“Political solution.”
Lragir: And in your opinion, what political solution is required?
“The Georgian government should admit at last that Javakheti is the
historical homeland of the Armenians, the Armenians have always lived
there and they must remain there with their culture, language and
their rights. Until they admit… They must admit.”
Lragir: If your alliance, as you say, with its real 70 percent votes
appeared in the regional sakrebulo of Javakheti, would you raise the
question of sovereignty of Javakheti?
“We did not think about it but about cultural sovereignty… This would
be our first problem. In fact, now their law bars work. According
to the law on the local election, if you don’t speak Georgian, you
cannot work in these bodies. In fact, they adopted a controversial
law. On the one hand, Armenians were elected, but these Armenians
do not speak Georgian, how they are going to work. They are going to
violate the law. They passed a law for the Armenians to break the law.”
Lragir: You are against stationing a Georgian military base in
Javakheti. What is your attitude towards the Russian military base?
“The withdrawal of the Russian military base, frankly speaking, this
problem is beyond us. We said our word during the protest meeting
on March 13, 2005 but we saw that the decision was made. But we are
against replacing the Russian military base by any other force. We
are against it.”
Lragir: In other words, either the Russian base or nothing?
“No, it’s not a matter of either or, and now we can see that it
is being withdrawn. Today, however, we think no military presense
or presence of other forces is needed in Javakheti. It is clear,
however, that they will use the Kars-Akhalkalaki project to try to
station joint Turkish and Azerbaijani forces here.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DO NOT INTERFERE WITH EACH OTHERS’ BUSINESS
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 2 2006
It is up to the political forces of Armenia what problems will be
raised in the pre-election period in 2007, stated Vahagn Chakhalyan
November 2 at the Pakagits Club, one of the leaders of the United
Javakheti Alliance, who was released from the remand prison of the
National Security Service, where he was kept on charges of illegal
crossing of the border. In answer to the question what he thinks
about the prospect that the question of Javakheti can become one of
the manipulated topics of the Armenian election in 2007 and maybe enen
the central topic, Vahagn Chakhalyan said this is the business of the
participants of the election. However, Vahagn Chakhalyan personally
thinks that it would be better if the political forces present their
standpoint of Javakheti beside other questions.
There is a political party in Armenia, which often appears as
an advocate of the interests of Javakheti independent from the
pre-election period. This political party is the Hzor Hayrenik Party,
which was condemned by the members of United Javakheti for its efforts
to interfere with the home affairs of Javakheti from Armenia.
Unlike his allies, Vahagn Chakhalyan was reserved in speaking about
the Hzor Hayrenik Party and only announced that it is a political
party operating in Armenia and he would not like to interfere with
the home political developments. Of course, this evaluation hints
that the Hzor Hayrenik Party should not try to interfere with the
internal problems of Javakheti.

GROWN-UP AND MATURE BUSINESSMEN BUT STILL COMPLAINING
James Hakobyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 2 2006
Several Armenian businessmen showed up at the November 1 hearings
held by the Union of Producers and Entrepreneurs, and expressed
their dissatisfaction concerning the unpredictable fluctuations of
the exchange rate of the dollar and the hypertensive revaluation of
the dram. Besides, the businessmen complained of the policy, the
insifficient anti-black economy efforts. It is notable to mention
the names of those few businessmen who were present in the ceremony
of this “group complaint”. Areg Ghukasyan, the brother of the NKR
president Arkady Ghukasyan, Republican, the owner of the salt mine.
Ashot Baghdasaryan, Republican, the owner of Kilikia Beer Factory, the
government has recently promoted his business considerably by cutting
the excise tax on the local beer. Both Ghukasyan and Baghdasaryan
are members of parliament. Another complainer was Gagik Abrahamyan,
Ara Abrahamyan’s brother, who is in diamond business. The “tribune”
of protest was Arsen Ghazaryan, the chair of the Union of Producers
and Entrepreneurs. It is notable that every time on listening to
his complains a smile appeared on Tigran Sargsyan’s face, which
could not compete with that of the Cheshire cat but was equally
expressive. Either Tigran Sargsyan was daydreaming and was not even
listening to the complaints or he was listening and smiling at their
words. And their words at least arouse a smile. And the reason is
not that they are also operating in the black economy.
Everything is much more simple. Even if we suppose that these
businessmen do everything legally and hate the black economy,
as they assured, it is simply illogical that they are members of
the ruling political party, which is supposed to battle the black
economy. In other words, instead of complaining to the president of
the Central Bank Tigran Sargsyan Areg Ghukasyan and Ashot Baghdasaryan
should complain to the leader of their own political party Andranik
Margaryan, who works as the prime minister of Armenia. Tigran
Sargsyan is an appointed person, who does whatever they tell him
to do. And perhaps he smiled and wondered that these grown-up and
mature businessmen do not know yet that he does not work out policies,
he implements policies. The National Assembly works out the policy,
and the parliament majority is the Republican Party, and therefore
the leader of this political party is the prime minister.
The same businessmen who complain of the unpredictable revaluation of
the dram, the black economy and many other things, during the universal
elections they stood beside Robert Kocharyan. We have to be grateful
that they did not blow a kiss to their relatives and make clear to
them who they should vote for. The same businessmen have never tried
to establish an organization, which would sustain the legal and fair
competition they confess. And though we admit that their complaints
are fair, we nevertheless have to emphasize that their complaints
are not righteous because they are complaining of their cherished
government with whom they signed the unwritten laws of the game. And
when the government breaks the written laws, they do not have the
moral right to protest. In order to gain this right they first need
to build their relations with the government on the written laws.

“BLUE DREAMS”
A1+
[07:01 pm] 02 November, 2006
Today the exhibition titled “Boundless Blue” opened in Gevorgyan
exhibition hall within the framework of the days of France in Armenia.
Over 15 art representatives from Gyumri, Yerevan, Paris and Leon
presented their “blue dreams”.
Suzy Sahakyan, coordinator of the exhibition claims that it is a
kind of a dialogue, a bridge between the Armenian and French art
representatives.
The style is comparatively free. The themes of the photos are the sea,
dreams, swimming people and mermaids.
One of the participants, Arpineh Tokmajyan simply took a snail and
“turned it into a radio” by passing a radio wire inside the snail.
The exhibition will be taken to Paris in March of 2007 and later
to Leon.

ONE NATION, ONE WATER PIPELINE, ONE MINISTRY
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 2 2006
It is quite natural that the Supreme Commander-In-Chief of the
Armed Forces should be interested in the quality, effectiveness of
the army, its armament and equipment. Therefore, the society did
not pay special attention to the fact that on October 23 and 24,
while the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the OSCE
Minsk Group co-chairs were preparing for their meeting in Paris,
President Robert Kocharyan visited the border installations. Even
if the foreign ministers are not going to meet, the head of state,
who is the Supreme Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces (though
the reporter of Haylur consistently omitted the word “supreme” and
mentioned “commander-in-chief”) in accordance with the Constitution,
has to keep the army in the focus of attention if the country is in
a neither war, no peace situation.
Besides, the Supreme Commander-In-Chief has another reason to focus
attention on the army. The point is that the government official,
who is supposed to attend to the problems of the army directly,
i.e. the minister of defense, has enlarged considerably the range
of his activities, and as we learned from Haylur, he already takes
part in the cerermonies of opening of rural water pipelines. And
in order not to appear nonsensical, an explanation is provided: the
defense minister participated because this drinking water pipeline
is his promise. We should confess that the participation is not as
nonsensical as its explanation. The defense minister can promise that
the army is always ready to counteract to any attack, and it should
be noted that Serge Sargsyan always does. The defense minister can
promise that the equipment and armament will always be on an adequate
level, and Serge Sargsyan always does. Meanwhile, it appears that
Serge Sargsyan considers himself is an outsider in the army.
Otherwise, it is impossible to understand what relation the defense
minister has to rural water pipelines, if these villages are located
far from the border. It is very good that several villages of the
region of Aragatsotn already have drinking water supply. But what were
the president and the government busy doing if the defense minister
has think about the supply of drinking water to these villages, let
alone a great deal of other things he has to think about in this crazy
world that is called the Caucasus? After all, Serge Sargsyan personally
stated that he has much more important things to do in this country. In
that case, what are the committee of water resourses, the ministry of
territorial governance, the municipality of Aragatsotn, and finally
the president of the Republic busy doing? Is it possible that Robert
Kocharyan has exchanged places with Serge Sargsyan and now attends
to the problems of the army (after all, was it accidental that Haylur
consistently referred to Robert Kocharyan as the Commander-in-Chief,
omitting “supreme”?), but in this case the public should have been
informed. It is possible, for instance, that in his recent meeting
with Safar Abiyev Serge Sargsyan informed him about this replacement
so that they know in Azerbaijan who to address when the necessity
for an army relation occurs.
For during their meeting in Sadarak many years ago Serge Sargsyan
and the Azerbaijani foreign minister exchanged telephone numbers to
contact when necessary. It is possible that in their recent meeting
Serge Sargsyan gave him Robert Kocharyan’s telephone number.
If this is not true, the president of the Republic should demand
explanation from the minister of defense why he attends to water
pipelines, gas, roads and other communication problems, and listens
and makes promises in the villages, which is televised and broadcast
on the Public Television. In this case, perhaps, it would be correct to
save the salaries of the ministers and other officials supposed to deal
with these matters and direct these funds at military expenditure. It
is also possible that Robert Kocharyan is aware why Serge Sargsyan
attends to these matters. In that case, it would be more honest if
the president resigned allowing the defense minister to occupy the
post of the president in order to formalize his actions and fit into
the logic of the system of government.
However, there is another way of formalizing and logicalizing these
actions: the defense minister is displaced, a structural reform is
carried out in the government, namely the ministries of territorial
management and agriculture are joined and Serge Sargsyan is appointed
head of the new government agency. How about the army? God save
the army.

FACING UP TO THE PAST
Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt
Nov 1-7, 2006
Gamil Mattar* seeks an end to the morally corrosive guilt that infects
international relations
“There have been plenty of words of condemnation of suicide bombers
but few on the Israeli attacks on Gaza, in particular the attacks
on civilian installations,” MP Andrew Turner told a panel on the
Palestinian question and the war against Lebanon.
“Indeed, they [UK parliamentarians] blamed Hizbullah and the seizing
of two soldiers for the conflict in Lebanon and for Israel’s reaction
to the seizing of those soldiers.” In contrast, “Human Rights Watch
condemns both sides pretty unequivocally for breaches of international
law and of internationally recognised human rights. It condemns
Hizbullah for taking hostages and using the soldiers as pawns to
negotiate the release of prisoners held in Israel… and it condemns
Israel over the lawlessness of its attacks on South Lebanon, for the
extraordinarily high level of civilian casualties that followed.”
“Those were the tactics of the Nazis in 1939 and 1940 — attacking
fleeing civilians from the air,” he added.
Jews in the House of Commons and throughout Britain were deeply
offended and demanded an apology from the MP for comparing Israel
defending itself with the Nazi Holocaust. The head of the Conservative
Party asked Turner to apologise, which he did. Israeli leaders, and
Zionist leaders in Britain, went away satisfied; they had benefited
considerably.
The whole incident provided an opportunity to remind the British
public, and the wider world, of the holocaust, which is a permanent
feature of the agenda of Israeli leaders and Zionist lobbyists
abroad. The incident also proved a gift to Israel and British Jews
since, in asking a member of his party to apologise, the Conservative
leader landed exactly where Israel and British Jews want him.
Henceforth, whenever his party so much as thinks of criticising
Israel they will be able to remind him that it has anti-Semites in
its ranks. Finally, the attack against Turner worked to re- instill
in European leaders the fear of the axe of being labeled anti-Semitic
which hovers over the heads of anyone who dares criticise Israel or
ignore the facts of German history as it is currently being related.
In East and Southeast Asia, people are discussing the future of
their relations with Japan under a new, strongly nationalistic prime
minister who has shown no inclination to express regrets over his
country’s imperialist policies towards its neighbours. China is not
alone in insisting that Japan apologise unequivocally for the crimes
it committed in Manchuria and Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese war
and World War II. Both Koreas, too, have demanded an apology for
the Japanese occupation of the Korean Peninsula and the inhuman and
degrading treatment meted out against its inhabitants by the occupation
authorities. The Philippines has similarly demanded an apology from
Japan for forcing Filipino women into sexually servicing Japanese
soldiers during World War II.
Japan has so far resisted offering an apology these countries find
acceptable. Simultaneously, it remains aware that the issue could
flare up whenever an Asian government finds it convenient to exploit
it politically. A notable instance occurred last year when student
demonstrations erupted — or, more appropriately, were staged —
against Japan, in the course of which demonstrators trashed and burned
Japanese commercial establishments in several Chinese cities.
Given China’s current circumstances the phenomenon is likely to
resurface with every new domestic crisis, particularly those fed by the
growing income gap, the lack of freedom and growing popular demands.
More recently France and Turkey came to loggerheads over a law passed
by the French National Assembly criminalising denials of the Armenian
Holocaust that took place in the final years of the Ottoman Empire.
Ankara denies the genocide, insisting that Armenians died
in the Russo-Turkish War after siding with the Russians. The
Armenians, however, insist that hundreds of thousands of them were
indiscriminately slaughtered at the hands of Turkish forces.
As in eastern Asia contemporary politics have been instrumental in
igniting this almost century-old fuse. In some Western nations, there
are vested interests strongly opposed to Turkey’s admission into the
EU, and willing to go to great lengths to forestall this prospect. In
addition in France, as in Germany, Netherlands, and elsewhere, there
is growing xenophobia targeting Muslims in particular, and manifested,
in part, in increasingly strident demands to restrict immigration
and in overt hostility to immigrant communities.
On the other side of the equation Turkey remains bent on
Westernisation; a fundamental part of the secularism upon which the
modern Turkish state is founded. Simultaneously, Islamist forces,
as well as the increasingly active Kurdish Labour Party, have the
Ataturkists bristling.
It is difficult to imagine that Ankara will back down from its position
or even offer a gesture that would make it seem as if it were backing
down. Far more likely is that Turkey will respond in kind, accusing
France of never having apologised for the atrocities it perpetrated
in Algeria. The ploy is interesting in that it may well work. France
is not in an enviable position on this issue, for while there is no
hard documented and incontrovertible proof of an Armenian genocide
for which the Turks should apologise, there is abundant evidence of
French crimes in Algeria.
In fact, if Turkey, Algeria or other countries of Africa and Asia felt
like it, they could raise any number of problems over the humanitarian
crimes committed by colonial powers, many of which are still within
living memory of the peoples of colonised nations.
Neither Chirac, nor any other leader of Belgium, Netherlands, Italy,
the US or other western powers, is about to let his country be the
first, or only, nation to apologise to peoples that until not so long
ago — sometimes well into the second half of the 20th century —
were regarded as second class human beings.
Islamist leaders have demanded an apology from the Catholic Pope for
a notorious paragraph in a speech he delivered in Germany and they
are still demanding apology after apology from Denmark. And were it
not for the fear that infected Arab and Muslim political leaders in
the wake of 11 September, they would probably also demand an apology
from Berlusconi for the remarks he made while prime minister of Italy.
In Central and South America indigenous peoples, and those of mixed
descent, are demanding compensation for centuries of deprivation
and displacement, and for the acts of genocide perpetrated against
them since the Spanish conquest. Only recently has the voice of this
large segment of the populace of the Americas had the opportunity
to make itself heard. Leading minority figures affirm that their
campaign is developing in the direction of an “organised uprising”,
the primary aim of which is to secure an apology from the governments
of Spain and Portugal for the crimes and cruelties inflicted upon
them by colonial authorities and, later, by the ethnically Spanish
dominated governments that followed independence. I suspect the world
will soon be hearing much more from the increasingly active movements
representing more than 50 million indigenous Americans whose cultures
and civilizations were shattered and, in some cases, wiped off the map.
For more than two centuries, the non- Russian peoples of Central Asia
and the Caucasus have resisted the attempts of Tsarist, Soviet and
Putinist Russia to alter their identities and cultures by overwhelming
their countries with large influxes of white Orthodox Christian
Russians. Today these peoples, especially those of the northern
Caucusus and of the recently independent nations of Ukraine, Georgia
and the three Baltic states, have the right to demand an apology
from Moscow, at the very least for the practices of the Stalinist
period which ushered in nightmarish oppression, genocide and the mass
transfer of peoples.
Other peoples of whom we have never heard but who probably lived
on the islands of the South Pacific and South Atlantic — now
populated primarily by people of European descent — will have no
such recourse. Having been vacated from their islands, for military
purposes, as was the case with Diego Garcia, or having died out or
been killed off, they have no progeny to press for an apology for
the destruction of their cultures and identities.
Our world will remain a dismal place in which people die in the
thousands because of the refusal of wealthy nations, which formerly
colonised these peoples’ countries, to come forward with sufficient
aid to rescue them from starvation. Congo, Sudan, Somalia and the
countries of West Africa spring immediately to mind. At the same
time other peoples — in Palestine, Iraq and countries targeted by
the project to create a New Middle East — are dying culturally and
spiritually because of blockades and foreign occupations forced on
them by more powerful nations in the interest of their self-serving
economic and political plans.
Civilization must begin afresh. Perhaps what is needed to set it
off on the right track is an international charter drawn up and
signed by the representatives of the member nations of the UN, of the
nations that have yet to attain independence and of the minorities in
existing nations. Under this charter all signatories would submit a
written declaration, to be appended to the charter and regarded as an
integral part of it, in which they confess to and apologise for the
injustices they perpetrated against other peoples and which, in turn,
are officially accepted by the peoples in question.
I doubt that those who are laying the groundwork for ever more
horrendous tragedies, in the name of the clash of civilizations,
the fight against terrorism, the war against the axis of evil and
other such headings targeting Arab and Muslim peoples, will like this
suggestion. But then neither will many others who are growing angrier
and more embittered by the day under the pressures of oppression,
economic strangleholds and flagrant injustices.
The world is plummeting towards an appalling precipice and is being
pushed ever more rapidly in that direction by extremists of all
political and religious hues, by racists and bigots from all races
and faiths. These are the type of people neither inclined to give
apologies nor accept them. Would Israel and the Zionist movement accept
an apology by Europeans and others for crimes perpetrated against the
Jews? Would Israel apologise for the crimes it perpetrated against
the Palestinians and the Arabs, who are still a party in this conflict?
I believe that an official exchange of apologies and acceptances
of apologies between Israel and other countries, and between other
countries and other peoples would usher in a new era in international
relations, in which rights are restored to the dispossessed, feelings
of guilt fade and even the thirst for vengeance subsides.
* The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and
Futuristic Research.
11.htm